See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/40618365

The Ecotourium Concept and Tourism-Conservation Symbiosis

Article  in  Journal of Sustainable Tourism · December 2008

DOI: 10.1080/09669580508668563 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

108 2,529

2 authors:

David Fennell David Bruce Weaver

Brock University Griffith University
89 PUBLICATIONS   2,975 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   5,118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Fennell on 07 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 541

The Ecotourium Concept and

Tourism-Conservation Symbiosis

David Fennell
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St
Catharines, Ontario, Canada

David Weaver
School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
The credibility of contemporary ecotourism is threatened by the global dominance of a
model that minimally fulfils the three core criteria – nature-based attractions, learning
opportunities, ecological and sociocultural sustainability – that characterise this sector.
A more rigorous ‘comprehensive’ model is better capable of fulfilling ecotourism’s
potential to achieve sustainable outcomes, but only if this model embraces both the
hard and soft dimensions of the sector. Based on the latter premise and informed by the
principles of complexity, knowledge sharing and interdisciplinarity, we propose the
development of an international network of protected areas ‘ecotouriums’ that is
designed to stimulate positive socioeconomic change within local communities and
maintain and improve the ecological health of protected areas. Cornerstone themes that
enable the ecotourium concept are research and education, ecological health, commu-
nity participation and development, and partnerships.

Keywords: ecotourism, ecotourium, protected areas, sustainable tourism,

conservation
Ecotourium Mission Statement

This protected area is a special place. It has been recognised as an accredited

Ecotourium under the auspices of the ________. Here your participation
and financial contributions will be channelled into a number of essential
programmes that will have a direct, positive impact on the protected area
and its physical, ecological, and social environments. This area is one of a
growing number of such entities situated around the world, and forms an
international network of special places where ecotourism, research and
education, conservation and biodiversity, community development, and
partnerships are making a difference.

Introduction
Contemporary ecotourism is facing a crisis of credibility as a result of two
factors. First, numerous tourism products that do not fulfil the widely recognised
core criteria of ecotourism are deliberately or inadvertently marketed as such,
thereby discrediting those products that do more or less follow the core criteria.
Second, it can be argued that most of these legitimate ecotourism products

0966-9582/05/04 373-18 $20.00/0 © 2005 D.A. Fennell & D. Weaver

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 13, No. 4, 2005

373

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Ecotourium Concept
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]

JOST 532
Changing Conceptions of Protected Areas and Conservation
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

374 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

adhere to a weak or minimalist model that impedes or possibly even works

against the potential of this sector to serve as a vehicle for environmental,
sociocultural and economic sustainability. We argue that this potential can be
achieved, and the crisis averted, through the establishment of a network of
ecotouriums, or public and private protected areas that foster a holistic and inte-
grated model of ecotourism that enables biodiversity conservation, education
and research, partnerships, and community development. Initially, this paper
establishes a framework for appropriate ecotourism by outlining the three core
criteria of ecotourism and contrasting the prevalent minimalist model with a
more effective comprehensive ecotourism model predicated on this holistic and
integrated approach. Taken into account in this discussion is the role of ‘hard’
and ‘soft’ ecotourism within this comprehensive model. Subsequent sections
focus on the concept and principles of the ecotourium as a mechanism for accom-
modating and fostering comprehensive ecotourism.

Ecotourism Core Criteria

The ecotourism sector, along with allied concepts such as sustainable tourism
and alternative tourism, has emerged and matured since the mid-1980s as part of
a broader response to the perceived environmental, economic and sociocultural
costs of conventional laissez-faire mass tourism (Jafari, 2001). Following some 15
years of theoretical and practical development, it is now widely acknowledged
that ecotourism, a purportedly more benign alternative to laissez-faire mass
tourism, entails three core criteria, namely, an emphasis on nature-based attrac-
tions, learning opportunities, and management practices that adhere to the
principles of ecological, sociocultural and economic sustainability (Blamey,
2001; Fennell, 1999; Weaver, 2001a,b). These are described below, with a focus on
the variability in interpretation that accompanies each criterion. This variability,
in turn, establishes the basis for the distinction between minimalist and compre-
hensive ecotourism.

Nature-based attractions
First, ecotourism is primarily nature-based in terms of its attractions and
products, with associated cultural influences – contemporary, historic and
archaeological – constituting a significant ancillary component. Ecotourism
products can range in scope from a ‘holistic’ emphasis on an entire ecosystem
(with its associated cultural influences) to an ‘elemental’ focus on specific charis-
matic megafauna (e.g. giant pandas, quetzals, orangutans, koalas, sandhill
cranes), megaflora (e.g. redwoods, rafflesia) or megaliths (e.g. caves, volcanoes,
mountains) that is largely driven by popular consumer image and demand.

Learning opportunities
Ecotourism fosters learning opportunities, partly through the provision of
formal product interpretation, but also through the maintenance of conditions
(e.g. tranquillity, trails designed to minimise visual contact with other walkers,
etc.) that facilitate informal personal interactions with, and appreciation of, the
natural environment and associated cultural influences. Principles of effective
interpretation, such as those proposed by Weiler and Ham (2001), should at a

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 375

minimum foster visitor satisfaction and a basic understanding of target natural

and cultural attractions. At a more profound level, effective interpretation may
have a ‘transformative’ effect – that is, it may induce deeper understanding of the
attraction and adherence to a more ethical and environmentalist ethos in the atti-
tude and/or lifestyle of participants (Fennell, 1999, 2002a; Orams, 1997). James
Butler (cited in Scace, 1993) represents this perspective in advocating a definition
of ecotourism that fosters ‘preferred behaviour’ in its participants (p. 65).

Ecological, sociocultural and economic sustainability

Third and most contentiously, ecotourism should be managed so that it is
conducive to sustainability. The contentious aspect does not refer to the laudable
principle of sustainability per se (as defined in Brundtland Commission terms, i.e.
development that meets the needs of the present generation without compro-
mising the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987)),
but rather to the idea that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to know
whether this goal of ‘sustainability’ has been attained. Attendant difficulties for
any given destination or business include indicator selection and weighting, the
identification of appropriate indicator thresholds and benchmarks, and the
implementation of effective monitoring procedures.
Other problems involve spatial and temporal discontinuities between cause
and effect that confound prediction and extrapolation, wherein a measure that
fosters sustainability in place A at time x may lead to unsustainable conse-
quences in place B at time y. This is illustrated by the ski resort of Aspen,
Colorado (USA), where the implementation of slow-growth regulations in the
early 1990s resulted in the diversion of tourism-related growth to smaller nearby
communities less prepared to cope with the attendant pressures. Another
problem is the ‘avalanche effect’, whereby an apparently sustainable trajectory
of action, such as the discharge of a given volume of effluent into the sea,
suddenly gives rise to a massive red tide (Weaver & Lawton, 1999). It is also
possible for sustainable tourism products to be undermined by external forces
over which the tourism sector has little or no control. Examples in ecotourism
include the devastating eruption of Montserrat’s ‘extinct’ Soufriere volcano in
the mid-1990s, the disruption of mountain gorilla-based ecotourism in Rwanda
by Hutu insurgents (Shackley, 1995), and the deforestation of rainforest in the
vicinity of ecolodges in the Peruvian Amazon (Yu et al., 1997). These and other
factors attest to the nature of ecotourism and tourism more generally as complex
systems that cannot be divorced or isolated from a host of external influences
(Milne & Ateljevic, 2001). To address these difficulties, Weaver (2001b) argues
that the litmus test for a bona fide ecotourism product is not the absence of any
resulting negative impacts (which cannot be shown definitively), but rather the
ongoing intent by managers to pursue sustainability outcomes in concert with
best practice precedents, preferably through a recognised accreditation protocol,
and to quickly and effectively address any negative impacts that inadvertently
arise from core activities such as wildlife observation or facilities operation.
Related aspects of sustainability include the degree to which ecotourism helps
to improve or enhance the environmental milieu within which it occurs. Many
definitions implicitly endorse a basic perspective in which ecotourism activity
merely attempts to not worsen the situation in a given time and place. This ‘status

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

376 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

quo’ sustainability, which is implied in the Brundtland definition of sustainable

development provided above, may be appropriate in wilderness situations
where disruption is already minimal. However, in most other settings, this
‘weak’ sustainability approach (Hunter, 1997) may serve merely to perpetuate
situations that are already unsustainable. A more proactive alternative is
‘enhancement’ sustainability that advocates improvements on the status quo
through active intervention in rehabilitation, habitat acquisition and other prac-
tices. This ‘strong’ sustainability approach is apparent in Fennell (1999), who
supports ecotourism that ‘should contribute to the conservation or preservation
of [natural] areas’ (p. 43). James Butler (cited in Scace, 1993), similarly, states that
‘the environment must experience a net benefit from the activity’ (p. 65).
It is also necessary for managers to determine whether the scope of sustainability
outcomes is local, regional or global. Most definitions appear to implicitly
support a local approach in which ecotourism is confined to achieving internal
sustainability. However, this omits the external consequences of actions associ-
ated with product operation, such as clients’ contributions to greenhouse gas
emissions during transit. A global approach, in contrast, would compel the
operator of an ecolodge, canopy walkway or other product to plant an offset-
ting number of trees or otherwise compensate for these emissions. Finally,
there is the issue of the extent to which sustainability should apply just to the
natural environment or additionally to relevant human populations. Early
definitions of ecotourism tended to focus exclusively on the former, while more
recent definitions explicitly endorse social, cultural and economic sustainability
as concomitant objectives. Such endorsements reflect the widespread adoption
of the ‘community’ approach first articulated in the 1980s as a reaction to the
perceived negative sociocultural impacts of mass tourism (Krippendorf, 1987;
Murphy, 1985). This approach basically assumes that sociocultural sustainability
can be facilitated if local residents have a significant level of control over tourism
development, and are the main recipients of its economic and other benefits. The
latter reference to economic benefits reminds us that ecotourism and other forms
of tourism must in addition be financially sustainable in order to exist in the long
term as an environmentally and socioculturally sustainable activity.

Minimalist and Comprehensive Ecotourism

The above discussion of criteria gives rise to both a ‘minimalist’ and ‘compre-
hensive’ ecotourism ‘ideal type’ (i.e. a non-distorted model against which
real-life situations can be measured and compared) (Figure 1). The former
model maintains an elemental focus on specific charismatic megafauna/flora
while fostering a superficial understanding of the latter within the context of a
‘weak’ sustainability approach that is site-specific and status quo oriented, and
focused on the natural environment (Weaver, in press). Comprehensive
ecotourism, in contrast, emphasises a holistic perspective on the product that
encompasses the ecosystem and associated human influences. It fosters deep
understanding and strives to transform participant attitudes and behaviour
(Fennell, 2004). The objectives of sustainability are global in scope and enhance-
ment-oriented within a combined environmental, sociocultural and economic
context that extensively involves local communities. Both models, notwith-

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 377

Criteria Comprehensive Minimalist

Attractions: Holistic (nature-based, cultural) Elemental (nature-based)
Learning: Deep understanding Superficial understanding
Transformational Non-transformational
Sustainability: Enhancement Status quo
Global Site-specific
Environmental, sociocultural Environmental

Financial sustainability
High visitor satisfaction

Figure 1 Comprehensive and minimalist ecotourism ideal types

Source: Weaver (in press)

standing their substantial differences, aspire to a high level of visitor satisfaction

and financial sustainability.
Given ecotourism’s presumption of being a more appropriate alternative to
laissez-faire conventional mass tourism, the authors argue that the comprehen-
sive model of ecotourism is normally preferable to the minimalist model. This
owes in part to the environmental advantages of the global and enhance-
ment-based sustainability approach, but also because such a model is less likely
than the minimalist approach to generate certain inadvertent negative impacts
that have been associated with ecotourism. These include stress on flora and
fauna caused by inappropriate observation techniques (Buckley, 2001, 2004), the
introduction of pathogens and other exotic species (Buckley et al., 1998; Lonsdale
& Lane, 1994; Silberglied, 1978), and an increased likelihood that a more
marginal ecotourism product will develop or dilute into a less benign form of
tourism, as per the destination life cycle model of Butler (1980). Potential prob-
lems can also result from the hierarchical commodification of ecosystem
elements, wherein charismatic megafauna/flora such as giant pandas or moun-
tain gorillas are assigned a higher value than less attractive or more obscure
components of the ecosystem, and hence given management priority (Weaver,
2001b). In contrast, the deeper level of understanding and visitor consciousness
associated with comprehensive ecotourism fosters greater vigilance among
operators and ecotourists, and a tendency to place equal value on all parts of the
ecosystem. The comprehensive approach also engenders a greater awareness of,
and responsiveness to, the potentially deleterious effects of natural and cultural
external systems.

Hard and soft ecotourism

Unlike the comprehensive/minimalist dichotomy described above, a distinc-
tion between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ ecotourism ideal types is already widely
recognised in the literature (Weaver, 2001a, b). This dichotomy is relevant to the

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

378 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Figure 2 Characteristics of hard and soft ecotourism as ideal types

Source: Weaver (2001b)

discussion of appropriate ecotourism due to a widespread tendency within the

ecotourism and tourism field to regard small-scale ‘alternative tourism’ activity
as a preferred model of tourism development. As outlined in Figure 2, hard
ecotourism resembles alternative tourism in its affiliation with small groups of
dedicated environmentalist FITs (free and independent travellers) who seek
mentally and physically challenging experiences within non-serviced wilder-
ness settings. Soft ecotourism, in contrast, involves larger numbers of visitors
congregating in sites that provide extensive services and facilities, but only a
superficial encounter with nature (see also Fennell, 2002b). The high level of reli-
ance on the formal travel industry (e.g. tour operators, travel agents) indicates a
strong connection to a conventional mass tourism industry that may not always
place a high priority on environmentally sustainable management or client
awareness.
The consequent logic of equating soft ecotourism with minimalist ecotourism,
and hard ecotourism with comprehensive ecotourism, is compelling but
misleading. Such alignments may often occur and may even be normative in
contemporary ecotourism, but they are not inherent or inevitable (Weaver, in
press). Hard ecotourists, for example, may display minimalist tendencies by
fixating on the pursuit of a particular plant or animal and have little interest in the
global consequences of their actions. In terms of inadvertent negative impacts,
they are far more likely than soft ecotourists to introduce exotic pathogens into
remote locations (e.g. a poultry virus to Antarctic penguins from tourism (Globe
& Mail, 1997); the transmission of bacteria on the soles of tourists’ feet in Mexico
which has killed numerous palm trees (Miriam Sahagun Arcila, personal
communication, 7 April 7 1997); and the spread of human diseases to mountain
gorilla populations in Africa (Nowak, 2001)), or to otherwise disturb relatively
pristine and sensitive environments that have not been site-hardened to accom-
modate even minimal levels of visitation.
Conversely, (and ironically), soft ecotourism in some ways may potentially be
more conducive to comprehensive sustainable outcomes. This is especially true
for the role of ecotourism in providing a significant financial incentive for the

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 379

preservation of habitat that would otherwise be modified or destroyed for

logging or farming purposes. The generation of funds sufficient to enable this
incentive effect, and to better ensure that operations are financially sustainable, is
usually dependent upon a large volume of visitors (although high entry fees can
produce a similar effect in areas of relatively low visitation, such as the mountain
gorilla National Parks of Rwanda and Uganda). Moreover, soft ecotourism tends
to involve the concentration of visitors within a small area, which (1) minimises
the space directly affected by their presence, (2) provides a critical mass of usage
conducive to the implementation of environmentally friendly site-hardening
measures, and (3) provides opportunities for effective focused visitor manage-
ment (Weaver, 2002).
A major implication of this discussion is the desirability of a comprehensive
ecotourism model that accommodates elements of the entire soft–hard spectrum,
maximising the positive and minimising the negative potential impacts of each,
and being applicable to all types of destinations (Weaver, in press). As depicted
in Figure 3, the modified comprehensive ecotourism ideal type fosters the
holistic approach, striving for deep understanding, transformational outcomes
in attitude and behaviour, and sustainability that is enhancement based, global,
and ecologically, socioculturally and economically sound. Simultaneously, this
model accommodates specialised or multi-purpose trips, long or short trips,
small or large groups, physically challenging or passive activities, few or exten-
sive services, personal experience with the product or interpretation, and FIT
visitors or those accommodated by the formal travel industry. Other reasons for
emphasising an accommodation of soft ecotourists include the importance of
being inclusive (thus avoiding an elitist image), the possibilities for transforming

Figure 3 Modified comprehensive ecotourism model

Source: Weaver (in press)

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

380 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

the attitudes and behavior of a large consumer segment (hard ecotourists are
already more likely to display strong environmentalist views and associated
behavior), and possibilities for generating synergy between the ecotourism and
conventional tourism industries.

Enabling Comprehensive Ecotourism through the Ecotourium

Concept
Although difficult to quantify, there are strong indications both from the liter-
ature and the field that the bulk of ecotourism at present follows the minimalist
model, where there are less than optimal effects on high order protected area
venues such as national parks that accommodate most ecotourism activity. The
reasoning behind what may be viewed as a less than optimal or symbiotic
connection between ecotourism and protected areas is the sheer diversity of
different operators, policies, definitional interpretation, and practices that may
or may not be consistent with the more ecocentric ‘comprehensive’ approach to
tourism and conservation. Simply stated, there are many who understand the
foundational aspects of ecotourism associated with the cautionary and adaptancy
platforms, but there are many more who do not (Lew, 1998). And while the
tourism–conservation nexus was reported as early as the 1970s to be moving
from one based on conflict to one based on symbiosis (with coexistence as a
mid-point). Budowski (1976) and Dowling (1993) had reported little change by
the 1990s, despite ecotourism’s promise to be an agent for harmony between
people and places and its lofty position, at least in theory, as perhaps our most
ecocentric form of tourism. This has led us to believe that there is missing: (1)
international leadership which would be instrumental in the development of a
more universal and more ecocentric lingua franca for ecotourism, and (2) a
unifying framework to more effectively articulate and operationalise the founda-
tions and relationships which need to be shared across space and between
stakeholder groups.
In an effort to address these two major issues, the authors introduce here the
concept of the ecotourium, which we define as a protected area where hard and
soft ecotourists, and the tourism industry more broadly, are mobilised in concert
with relevant local communities, government and NGOs to become more effec-
tive guardians and enhancers of these entities through activities that are
consistent with comprehensive ecotourism principles, thereby enabling symbi-
osis between tourism and conservation. Fundamental to the concept is the
creation of a global network of accredited areas, wherein scientific research,
education, rehabilitation and other efforts to enhance conservation, biodiversity,
community development and visitor satisfaction are shared for the benefit of
each unit as well as for the system as a whole and all stakeholders.
This philosophy of ecotourism husbandry or stewardship acknowledges that
ecotourism, in the way it is envisioned here, would be better able to succeed in
conforming to the principles inherent in this form of tourism through initiatives
which better channel ecotourist time, money, and other resources into a broad
range of activities designed to improve the lives of people living in or around
protected areas, park management techniques and resources, biodiversity
conservation, and so on. We would thus prefer to focus on the types of science,

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 381

programmes and leadership that might turn ecotourists and the ecotourism
industry into an asset (producing the benefits inherent in this approach), rather
than focus on what appears to be a propensity to investigate the negative implica-
tions of tourism. While these negative aspects must never be neglected, the focus
here is on what is viewed as a tremendous untapped potential to stimulate trust,
integration, interdisciplinarity, and social and natural science harmony towards the
attainment of shared goals. Because of the disparities that exist between and within
regions as regards resources for protected areas management, ecotourism must be
seen as a key catalysing aspect of any formula designed to effect positive social and
ecological change in these areas. Central to the development of the ecotourium
concept is the realisation that human–environment relationships are complex and that
we may better achieve an understanding of these relationships through a shared,
interdisciplinary approach both in theory and practice (Fennell, 2004).

Complexity, knowledge and interdisciplinarity

Perhaps one of the most progressive steps taken by science in the last 20 years
is the realisation that systems are not linear and deterministic, but rather
complex with many emerging properties that are both difficult to detect and
control. Scientists who have been investigating phenomena strictly from a
reductionist standpoint might also look laterally in discovering how other disci-
plinary standpoints, and their associated methodologies and theories, address
broad problems. Complexity has thus set the foundation for the development of
an epistemological bridge between social and natural sciences (see Reed and
Harvey, 1992 for an excellent overview of the relevance of complexity theory to
social science). Protected areas, because of the intertwining of social and natural
science issues, provide an excellent example of phenomena that generate
complex problems. For example, addressing the over-prescription of pesticides
for farming (which can have adverse effects on the ecology in and outside a
protected area) would necessitate critical discourses between the farming
community, ecologists, policy makers, park staff, and other interested/effected
stakeholders who may provide necessary knowledge in better understanding
the human and ecological aspects of this problem.
The sharing of knowledge between stakeholder groups provides the founda-
tion from which to appreciate the relationships between what people know and
do, and thus better understand complex phenomena (shared knowledge is one of
perhaps many ways of addressing complex problems). As Saul (2001) notes,
because our actions are based on very narrow bands of specialised information,
we fail to see the broader picture. Shared knowledge provides for a manifestation
of a collective consciousness that might be activated at any number of scales in
allowing us to act as intelligently as possible.
Interdisciplinarity, or the coordination of research by a higher-level concept
(Jantsch, 1972), has been cited as perhaps the most advantageous way of bridging
the gap between distinct sciences and their various approaches. Traditional
harvesting of animals in a protected area, for example, may be a higher-level
concept that might be addressed by a number of different disciplines including
ecologists, policy makers, economists, park staff, and sociologists. Individuals
working in the interdisciplinary framework need to have a fundamental under-
standing of the core concepts of the area and problem, as well as an appreciation

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

382 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

of the research traditions or themes, and the basic questions under consider-
ation (Mitchell, 1995). Although interdisciplinarity can and has worked in a
broad range of different types of research in principle (e.g. the atomic bomb, the
human genome, climate change), researchers need to work hard at overcoming
disciplinary jealousies, interpersonal conflicts, credit for teamwork, institu-
tional structures, and other logistical dilemmas, all which may act as constraints
to innovation and the development of effective interdisciplinary research
approaches. Yet, the persistence of issues and dilemmas in protected areas, in
both lesser developed and developed country contexts, suggests that researchers
and policy makers need to continue to search for different ways in which to
address these complex problems. And because of population growth, scarcity of
resources, conflict over land, and habitat loss, for example, these pressures will
most likely intensify both in their persistence and magnitude.

Ecotourium Themes
To enable the comprehensive model of ecotourism that reflects this complexity,
four main themes and objectives are proposed as cornerstones of the ecotourium
concept. These are research and education , ecological health, community partic-
ipation and development, and partnerships. A concept based on these distinct
but interrelated themes will provide decision makers with the ability to generate
and use information that is central to the planning and management of the
protected area as well as the ecotourium network more generally.

Research and education

As representations of major ecosystems, incomplete as they may be, protected
areas can play an integral part as in situ laboratories which may be used to theo-
rise, study, monitor, and evaluate the gamut of human activities which have
impacts on both park and non-park regions. The ecotourium then becomes the
focal point from which to address many of society’s most pressing issues,
including greenhouse gas emissions, habitat loss, agricultural encroachment,
poaching, and slash- and burn-practices. Research (benchmarking and moni-
toring) and education are thus essential aspects of a fully established ecotourium
project, along with the involvement of several key players that may range from
community individuals to international non-governmental agencies, the latter of
which is deemed essential for administrative, promotional, and lobbying-based
assistance. Ecotourists and stakeholders within the ecotourism as well as the
conventional tourism industry, are counted as key players in this equation,
rather than agents of negative impacts that hinder the goals of conservation.
As suggested earlier, a significant step forward in research on complex
systems is that problems in environments, such as protected areas, often require
more than one disciplinary perspective or approach in reaching optimal solu-
tions for discrete points of time (Berkes & Folke, 2000). Interdisciplinarity, as
discussed earlier, is one way in which to address such problems, because of the
possibility for the development of innovative research designs that address a
broad range of park–people relationships. Important in this context is the sharing
of knowledge between social and natural sciences, as well as the sharing and
application of this knowledge within and between ecotouriums through semi-

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 383

nars, conferences, the web, etc. In this way the development of measurement
instruments and methodologies may be used and replicated worldwide for the
purpose of generating large integrated databases. The idea is to provide a means
by which to inform tourism and protected area managers more broadly, which
would be shared among interested shareholders (Eagles & McCool, 2002). This
could engender additional tacit and tangible support from those potentially
benefiting from the research, such as tourism industry service providers and
other natural resource land users.
In concert with the emphasis in comprehensive ecotourism on deep and direct
learning as well as behavioural transformations, it is argued that research within
ecotouriums should be facilitated by and through ecotourists on financial and
participatory levels. That is, ecotourists could (1) vicariously support ongoing
research in the protected area through donations and other financial support, (2)
be involved directly as research subjects within the ecotourium, (3) help collect
data for scientists in the manner presently adopted by organisations such as
Earthwatch, and (4) participate in a variety of ‘hands-on’ activities such as trail
maintenance, tree planting, etc. In order to capitalise on the financial and human
resource potential of both hard and soft ecotourists, ecotouriums could offer
different environmental programs in any given time frame (as ‘ongoing’, ‘peri-
odic’, and ‘special’ events, with varying lengths of involvement), as noted above,
with websites and webcams providing up-to-the-minute reports on the progress
of these projects. The growth and accessibility of sophisticated technology has
been recognised as an emerging trend in parks and protected areas management
(Eagles & McCool, 2002). This has increased the amount and type of information
available to park visitors, which was formally the domain of scientists and
experts. This would also allow participants to maintain involvement with
projects both prior to and following their actual field experience, thereby signifi-
cantly enhancing the temporal and spatial boundaries of the learning experience
and fostering a high level of ongoing commitment. A broader benefit of this deep
participation is the effective linking of ecotourists with park personnel and local
people also involved in these ecotourium projects.

Ecological health
Amongst the foci to be considered under ecological health that aim to address
many of the most important ecological issues within protected areas are
biodiversity conservation, and its various components, as well as rehabilitation
of land and water. These foci may be park-specific (i.e. small-scale) or indicative
of broader regional or global trends.

Biodiversity conservation
Biodiversity is organised on three levels, including genes, species and ecosys-
tems. Between 1.5 and 1.8 million species have been named, although estimates
of the planet’s overall biodiversity range from about 3 million to over 100 million
species, with 10 million as a rough estimate. The Global Biodiversity Strategy
(World Resources Institute, 1992) estimates that of all the species that live on
earth, 50%–90% live in tropical rain forests, which have an especially strong asso-
ciation with ecotourism. Alarmingly, about 17 million ha of this land is cleared
annually, with 5%–10% of species within these regions facing extinction by 2020.

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

384 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Beyond the individual contributions that each species provides, they contribute
to a totality of biosphere services (e.g. purification of water, regulation of climate
and other systems, formation and enrichment of soil, and so on) for humanity,
free of charge, which is valued at about $33 trillion per year, and more than
double the combined GNP of all countries in the world in 1997 (Wilson, 2002).
The main factors that have contributed to the extinction of species can be
summarised under the acronym of HIPPO. The constituent elements of this
acronym, using Hawaii as an example, are as follows (Wilson, 2002: 50):
(1) Habitat destruction. Seventy-five per cent of Hawaii’s forests, for example,
have been cleared, with the unavoidable decline and extinction of many
species.
(2) Invasive species. Ants, pigs and other aliens displace the native Hawaiian
species.
(3) Pollution. Fresh water, marine coastal water, and the soil of the islands are
contaminated, weakening and erasing more species.
(4) Population. More people mean more of all the other HIPPO effects.
(5) Overharvesting. Some species, especially birds, were hunted to rarity and
extinction during the early Polynesian and European occupations.
Rehabilitation of land and water
The arrest of the HIPPO factors, and habitat destruction in particular, is clearly
essential for achieving ecological health throughout the world. However, as
recognised by rapid growth in the field of restoration ecology (Young, 2000),
parallel efforts are required to fully or partially rehabilitate the extensive areas of
habitat that have already been severely modified. Rehabilitation typically
involves efforts to remove exotic plants and animals as well as other inappro-
priate anthropogenic human imprints, while concurrently or sequentially
encouraging the reintroduction of native species. Rehabilitation is an essential
component of the ecotourium concept, and one that tangibly represents the
philosophy of enhancement (as opposed to status quo) sustainability. Moreover,
ecotourist participation in rehabilitation-related activities is likely to achieve an
especially high degree of participant learning and satisfaction, as well as ongoing
engagement through the monitoring of personally planted memorial trees and
other activities that personally link the participant with the relevant ecotourium.

Community participation and development

Protected areas, and hence ecotouriums cannot exist in isolation from the
human systems that share the same space, and this has led to the belief that
protected areas must, in some cases, engender a culture of balanced profitability.
In this regard, the oft-quoted notion that ‘wildlife stays because wildlife pays’ is
important because it suggests, in a more broadly based context, that resources
must continue to be made available for those who make their livelihood in and
around protected areas – spaces which remain as living, working landscapes for
the support of populations in a sustainable fashion (Munro & Willison, 1998).
This tactic has been recognised by international NGOs such as the WWF that
have broadened their mandate beyond a focus on the establishment of reserves
and the protection of plants and animals contained within those reserves, to push
for the necessity of local communities to become partners in the protection and

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 385

viability of the area. By promoting economic incentives through jobs in and

around the park, local communities are more likely to develop a stronger and
vested interest in the long-term viability of the protected area (Nepal, 2000),
which may be further enhanced through collective interests in building capacity
via shared knowledge, training, and technology transfer.
The ecotourium concept supports the related belief that protected areas in the
less developed world are not established primarily for the welfare of interna-
tional tourists, but foremost for those who stand to be displaced from traditional
economic enterprises because of tourism. And while ecotourism has been
acknowledged as one of the key mechanisms to make this happen (through
guiding, service provision, wildlife experts, and a host of support services for the
tourism industry), there are other industries which can naturally dovetail with
the sustainable tenets of ecotourism and which should be encouraged. One of
these is bio-prospecting, or the extraction of products for commerce, which can
provide a much-needed income for people in or adjacent to protected areas. Over
6000 families in Guatemala, for example, have developed a small-scale industry
based on the sustainable extraction of rainforest products, generating between $4
million and $6 million annually (Tangley, 1998). Although self-sufficient, this
industry may be balanced by the inclusion of ecotourism that could be supported
by home-grown products. From an ecotourism perspective, exposure to local
communities and their sustainable tourism and non-tourism related livelihoods,
adds immeasurably to ecotourists’ holistic learning experience.
The involvement of local residents in industries other than tourism might also
be viewed as a resource for the purpose of helping in the stewardship, research
and decision making within the park. In this regard, the ecotourium becomes a
symbol of the important social functions that take place within a broader
socio-ecological community. This culture of husbandry might naturally spill
over into other peripheral actors such as schoolchildren, local chambers of
commerce, and so on, who might then view the park as an asset rather than a
constraint to development and social organisation. This psychology of care for
the protected area might also bring to the fore a number of individuals who,
through their special assets (which may be administrative, leadership oriented,
physical or financial), may help to accomplish the social and ecological goals set
forth in the ecotourium strategy (a strategy which goes beyond the park manage-
ment plan to include the social and economic characteristics of the region in a
balanced socio-ecological design). A better understanding of the social capital of
a community (the ability of people to work together for common purposes
within groups and organisations, as defined by Coleman, 1988) may catalyse
individuals and communities to take a more proactive role in the development of
their enterprises alongside the goals of the ecotourium.

Partnerships
The success of the ecotourium concept is contingent on the development of a
range of partnerships at many different scales. As stated previously, cooperation
with local communities is imperative (Goodwin, 2000), but this must also include
cooperation between park agencies, NGOs and other interested parties, where
increasing international collaboration for the benefit of enhanced park planning
and management appears to be a major trend (Eagles & McCool, 2002). At the

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

386 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

broader level, support needs to be attained from relevant international agencies

such as the WWF, IUCN, UNEP, WTO, Conservation International, The Nature
Conservancy, the Pan Parks initiative in Europe, UNESCO, Green Globe 21 and
the World Bank, which can provide much needed promotional, administrative,
and financial assistance. Other sources of support will be required through
universities (e.g. researcher fees from national granting agencies or the infusion
of monies from grants for different purposes), national and sub-national govern-
ments, and the private sector. The latter may contribute on the basis of its own
personal gains from participation in park-related endeavours – a motive that
could result in privately owned areas such as the Haliburton Sustainable Forest
and Wildlife Reserve in Ontario, Canada (Sandberg & Midgley, 2000) becoming
designated as ecotouriums. In addition, it is important to accommodate the
conventional tourism industry, given its connections with the soft ecotourism
sector. Important in this mindset is the need for the ecotourium to become
self-sufficient through a balance of these initiatives, and that a formula be devel-
oped where fees or donations are allocated into a broad range of supporting
programmes.
Although there are many potential benefits from collaboration and partner-
ships, there can be just as many drawbacks. Benefits can include the diffusion of
power and control, an increase in the social acceptance of policies, the unfolding
of more constructive attitudes, enhanced innovation and effectiveness through
creative synergies, the promotion of learning and skill development, higher levels
of commitment, greater acceptance of diverse issues, pooling of resources,
increased levels of mutual trust among stakeholders, and increased awareness of
the importance of non-economic issues. With regard to the drawbacks, consensus
may be extremely difficult to achieve, partnerships may be constrained by
attempts which are merely window dressing, healthy conflict may be stifled, some
stakeholders may be unwilling to concede power to other stakeholders, and costs
and benefits may be inequitably distributed. In addition, some parties may
remove themselves from partnerships if they perceive that their interests are
being threatened, accountability can be blurred as institutional complexity
increases, innovation can be blocked as a result of the vested interests of indi-
vidual parties, and extensive costs in time and resources may be incurred when
involving a multitude of stakeholders. Bramwell and Lane (2000) provide a
detailed discussion of these pros and cons.
In reference to those parties who maintain interests in the ecotourium, and in
relation to the discussion above, stakeholder theory has been used as a normative
planning premise for the purpose of illustrating that all stakeholders have
intrinsic value and, therefore, have the right to be treated as an end in (and of)
themselves. This means that one stakeholder’s rights must not be overwhelmed
by the rights of others. It therefore becomes the role of management to identify
and select activities which provide optimal benefits for all involved (Sautter &
Leisen, 1999). Other theorists, however, have not been so receptive to stake-
holder theory. For example, Robson and Robson (1996) argue that it fails because
of the sheer number of stakeholders who might wish or need to be part of the
planning process, and who will also have vastly different objectives and values
than their counterparts. What constitutes success, therefore, is open to debate

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 387

because of an extensive communication network which is unmanageable and

seen to be more of a constraint than a catalyst.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper contends that the pursuit of comprehensive ecotourism, across the
hard to soft spectrum, is necessary in order for this sector to realise its potential to
act as a credible and effective agent of ecological, economic and sociocultural
sustainability. It is further argued that the establishment of a global network of
ecotouriums, informed by principles of shared knowledge, complexity and
interdisciplinarity, is a means through which comprehensive ecotourism can be
enabled. The focus of this paper has been on the rationale for and basic dimensions
of the ecotourium concept, rather than on issues of implementation. However, a
few observations in this regard are appropriate by way of conclusion. First, consid-
eration needs to be given as to which protected areas should be designated as
ecotouriums. A number of test sites would need to be organised in the short term
to pilot the concept, towards the ultimate long-term goal of a comprehensive inter-
national network that represents as many countries and bio-geographical provinces
as possible, including transboundary entities (Goodale et al., 2003). A good place to
start would be through some of the 25 global ‘hotspots’ (Myers et al., 2000) that are
characterised by a high level of species endemism and account for a dispropor-
tionate share of global biodiversity. It is critical to include relatively pristine high
order (e.g. IUCN I and II) protected areas, but also highly modified and utilised
spaces (e.g. IUCN VI) that would focus more on rehabilitation and sustainable
yield harvesting than preservation. The growing role of private protected areas
(Langholz & Brandon, 2001) must also be recognised through their inclusion in
the network.
A second issue is how the ecotourium network would be managed. The
success of this concept rests in the recognition that protected areas management
worldwide takes place along a vast spectrum of different parks management
philosophies and styles. If the ecotourium concept is to be truly universal the
system must be adaptable and inclusive. Furthermore, planning and manage-
ment will need to be supervised by a council, advisory board, association, or
programme, which would be a not-for-profit NGO. The roles of the various
stakeholders involved in the project, as well as the hierarchy of the people
involved, will need to be clearly articulated, since the success of the ecotourium
network will depend on appropriate levels of leadership, cooperation and
coordination amongst the involved parties. This body would need to establish
a protocol that covers the standards that prospective ecotouriums would have
to adhere to in order to achieve accreditation as such, as well as appropriate
monitoring procedures and criteria. Existing international programmes such
as the UNESCO World Heritage system and the RAMSAR sites (some of which
could also become ecotouriums) are prototypes that could help to guide the
formation of the ecotourium system, which is differentiated from the former
programmes by the centrality of the ecotourism component as a vehicle for
achieving sustainability outcomes. In applying the accreditation concept to the
ecotouriums, it would be wise to interface with existing schemes such as Blue
Flag and the NEAP (Australia). However, while adhering to core accreditation

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

388 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

standards and undercurrents that link all ecotouriums, it is acknowledged that

the unique set of social, economic, and political forces that influence decision
making in and around any given ecotourium must be taken into account without
compromising those core principles.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr David A. Fennell, Department
of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario,
Canada ([Link]@[Link]).

References
Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds) (2000) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Prac-
tices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Blamey, R. (2001) Principles of ecotourism. In D. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of
Ecotourism (pp. 5–22). Wallingford: CABI.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning. In
B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice
and Sustainability (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Buckley, R. (2001) The environmental impacts of ecotourism. In D. Weaver (ed.) The Ency-
clopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 379–94). Wallingford: CABI.
Buckley, R. (ed.) (2004) Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Buckley, R., Clough, E. and Warnken, W. (1998) Plesiomonas shigelloides in Australia. Ambio
27, 253.
Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexistence, or
symbiosis. Environmental Conservation 3, 27–31.
Butler, R. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for manage-
ment of resources. Canadian Geographer 24, 5–12.
Cater, E. (2002) Ecotourism: The wheel keeps turning. Paper presented at the Tourism and
the Natural Environment Symposium. Eastbourne, 23–25 October.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Soci-
ology 84 (supplement), S95–S119.
Dowling, R. (1993) An environmentally based planning model for regional tourism devel-
opment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 17–37.
Eagles, P.F.J. and McCool, S.F. (2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas:
Planning and Management. Wallingford: CABI.
Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Fennell, D. (2002a) Ecotourism Programme Planning. Wallingford: CABI.
Fennell, D. (2002b) The Canadian ecotourist in Costa Rica: Ten years down the road. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainable Development 5, 282–99.
Fennell, D. (2004) Towards interdisciplinarity in tourism: Making a case through
complexity and shared knowledge. Recent Advances and Research Updates 5, 95–110.
Fennell, D. (2004) Deep ecotourism: Seeking reverence in theory and practice. In T.V.
Singh (ed.) Novelty Tourism: Strange Experiences and Stranger Practices (pp. 101–120).
Wallingford: CABI.
Gill, A. and Williams, P. (1994) Managing growth in mountain tourism communities.
Tourism Management 15, 212–20.
Globe & Mail (1997) Poultry virus infects Antarctica’s penguins. Globe & Mail (16 May).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Goodale, U., Lanfer, A., Stern, M., Margoluis, C. and Fladeland, M. (eds) (2003)
Transboundary Protected Areas: The Viability of Regional Conservation Strategies. New
York: Haworth.
Goodwin, H. (2000) Tourism, national parks and partnerships. In R.W. Butler and S.W.
Boyd (eds) Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications (pp. 245–62). New York:
Wiley.

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 [Link]
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

Ecotourium Concept 389

Hunter, C. (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research

24, 850–67.
Jafari, J. (2001) The scientification of tourism. In V.L. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and
Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 28–41). New York: Cognizant.
Jantsch, E. (1972) Technological Planning and Social Futures. New York: Halsted.
Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel.
Oxford: Heinemann Professional.
Langholz, J. and Brandon, K. (2001) Privately owned protected areas. In D. Weaver (ed.)
The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 303–14). Wallingford: CABI.
Lew, A. (1998) Ecotourism trends. Annals of Tourism Research 25, 742–6.
Lonsdale, W. and Lane, A. (1994) Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu
National Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69, 277–83.
Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. (2001) Tourism, economic development and the global-local
nexus: Theory embracing complexity. Tourism Geographies 3, 369–93.
Mitchell, B. (1995) Geography and Resource Analysis (2nd edn). Essex: Longman.
Munro, N.W.P. and Willison, J.H.M. (eds) (1998) Linking protected areas with working
landscapes conserving biodiversity. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Science and Management of protected Areas, SAMPA, Wolfville, Canada, 12–16 May 1997.
Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.
Myers, N. (1990) The biodiversity challenge: Expanded hot-spots analysis. Environmen-
talist 10 (4), 243–56.
Nepal, S. (2000) Tourism, national parks and local communities. In R.W. Butler and S.W.
Boyd (eds) Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications (pp. 73–94). New York:
Wiley.
Nowak, R. (2001) Tourists in the mist endanger gorillas. New Scientist 169, 18.
Orams, M. (1997) The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into
‘greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, 295–306.
Reed, M. and Harvey, D.L. (1992) The new science and the old: Complexity and realism in
the social sciences. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 22, 353–80.
Robson, J. and Robson, I. (1996) From shareholders to stakeholders: Critical issues for
tourism marketers. Tourism Management 17, 533–40.
Sandberg, L. and Midgley, C. (2000) Recreation, forestry and environmental manage-
ment: The Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve, Ontario, Canada. In X. Font, J. Tribe
(eds) Forest Tourism and Recreation: Case Studies in Environmental Management (pp.
201–15). Wallingford: CABI.
Saul, J.R. (2001) On Equilibrium. Toronto: Penguin.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999) Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model.
Annals of Tourism Research 26, 312–28.
Scace, R. (1993) An ecotourism perspective. In J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall (eds)
Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp. 59–82).
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Shackley, M. (1995) The future of gorilla tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
3, 61–72.
Silberglied, R. (1978) Inter-island transport of insects aboard ships in the Galapagos
Islands. Biological Conservation 13, 273–8.
Tangley, L. (1998) The sustainable extraction of rainforest products in Guatemala. US
NEWS and World Report 124 (15), 40–41, 44.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, D. (ed.) (2001a) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Weaver, D. (2001b) Ecotourism. Brisbane: Wiley.
Weaver, D. (2002) The evolving concept of ecotourism and its potential impacts. Interna-
tional Journal of Sustainable Development 5, 251–64.
Weaver, D. (in press) Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of
Tourism Research.
Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (1999) Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Analysis. CRC for Sustain-
able Tourism, Gold Coast, Australia.

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 [Link]
 Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen JOST 532

390 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Weiler, B. and Ham, S. (2001) Tour guides and interpretation. In D. Weaver (ed.) The Ency-
clopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 549–63). Wallingford: CABI.
Wilson, E.O. (2002) The Future of Life. New York: Vintage.
World Resources Institute (1992) Global Biodiversity Strategy. WRI, IUCN, UNEP.
Young, T. (2000) Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological Conservation 92,
73–83.
Yu, D., Hendrickson, T. and Castillo, A. (1997) Ecotourism and conservation in Amazo-
nian Peru: Short-term and long-term challenges. Environmental Conservation 24, 130–8.

C:\edrive\jost\2005c\[Link]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 [Link]

View publication stats