Republic of the Philippines
Mindanao State University at Naawan
College of Agriculture, Forestry and Environmental Sciences
9023 Naawan, Misamis Oriental
Lesson 2: Ecotourism
Ecotourism - Form of sustainable tourism within a natural and cultural heritage area where
community participation, protection, and management of natural resources, culture and
indigenous knowledge and practices, environmental education, and ethics as well as economics.
Most common definition of Eco-Tourism is nature-based tourism (visitors are mainly interested
in observing and appreciating nature and traditional cultures in natural areas) that has following
attributes:
• Contributes to Biodiversity Conservation;
• Supports the well-being of local people;
• Involves responsible action by both tourists and local people to minimize negative
environmental and socio-cultural impacts;
• Involves responsible action by both tourists and local people to minimize negative
environmental and socio-cultural impacts;
• Stresses local ownership, as well as business opportunities for local (especially
rural) people.
Principles of Ecotourism
a) Ecotourism is Nature Based
b) Ecologically Sustainable
c) Environmentally Educative
d) Locally Beneficial and;
e) Generates Tourist Satisfaction
A) Nature Based
Ecotourism is based on the natural environment with a focus on its biological, physical and
cultural features. Ecotourism occurs in, and depends on, a natural setting and may include
cultural elements where they occur in a natural setting. The conservation of the natural resource
is essential to the planning, development and management of ecotourism.
B) Ecologically sustainable
All tourism should be sustainable – ecologically, socially, and environmentally. Ecotourism is
ecologically sustainable tourism undertaken in a natural setting. The challenge to ecotourism in
any country or region is to develop its tourism capacity and the quality of its products without
adversely affecting the environment that maintains and nurtures it. This involves ensuring that
the type, location, and level of ecotourism use does not cause harm to natural areas.
C) Environmentally Educative
The educative characteristic of ecotourism is a key element, which distinguishes it
from other forms of nature-based tourism. Environmental education and interpretation are
important tools in creating an enjoyable and meaningful ecotourism experience.
Ecotourism attracts people who wish to interact with the environment in order to develop
their knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of it. By exte11sion, ecotourism should
ideally lead to positive action for the environment by fostering enhanced conservation
awareness.
Ecotourism education can influence tourist, community, and industry behavior
and assist in the longer-term sustainability of tourist activity in natural areas. Education
can also be useful as a management tool for natural areas. Interpretation helps tourists see
the big picture regarding the environment. It acknowledges the natural and cultural values
of the areas visited as well as other issues such as resource management.
D) Locally Beneficial
The involvement of local communities not only benefits the community and the
environment but also improves the quality of the tourist experience. Local communities
can become involved in ecotourism operations, and in the provision of knowledge,
services, facilities, and products. These benefits should outweigh the cost of ecotourism to
the host community and environment.
Ecotourism can also. generate income for resource conservation management in
addition to social and cultural benefits. The contribution may be financial with a part of
the cost of the tour helping to subsidies a conservation project. Alternatively, it could
consist of practical help in the field with the tourists being involves in envirmm1ental data
collection and/ or analysis.
E) Tourist satisfaction
Satisfaction of visitors with the ecotourism experience 1s essential to long-term
viability of the ecotourism industry. Included in this concept is the importance of visitors'
safety regarding political stability. Information provided about ecotourism opportunities
should accurately represent the opportunities offered at particular ecotourism destinations.
The ecotourism experience should match or exceed the realistic expectations of the
visitor. Client services and satisfaction should be second only to the conservation and
protection of what they visit.
Ecotourism and its Emerging Forms
In planning and management of ecotourism it' is also important to be aware of a
number of different styles of ecotourism. They may vary considerably regarding a range
of factors including:
➢ The types of natural settings they require
➢ The extent of direct contact and involvement with the natural environment
➢ The group sizes involved
➢ The use and extent of personal interaction with tour guides
➢ The reliance on mechanized means of transport and supporting infrastructure, and
➢ The type of visitor satisfaction and experience realized.
Tourism experts have so far identified three broad styles of ecotourism.
(McCotter, 1995). They include Frontier Ecotourism, Small Group Ecotourism and
Popular Ecotourism.
Appearance of Ecotourism
Eco-tourism is not widely discussed term. In some parts of the world eco-tourism is described as
a wide variety of activities involving travel and the environment where,
for some people, eco-tourism is broadly defined as ecological - sensitive tourism or
tourism that is friendly to the environment. Eco-tourism is more narrowly defined and
relates to a particular kind of nature tourism. For them, eco-tourism is a form of tourism
that contributes to the conservation of natural resources. Here, Eco-tourism itself becomes
a strategy for protecting parks and promoting economic development in rural areas (Boo
1990). At present several regions commonly use the term eco-tourism for Agrotourism, Rural
tourism, Green Tourism and even adventure tourism. But the basic
concepts of the foregoing types of tourism as enunciated by the European Center for
Professional Training in Environment and Tourism (ECPTET) is sustainable development.
implying the pursuit of the optimum, but not maximum use of resources. Sometime people co-
relate ecotourism with the concepts of green tourism. But the difference is more historical than
conceptual in the sense that that green tourism is a term which has implying the pursuit of the
optimum, but not maximum use of resources. Sometime people co-relate ecotourism with the
concepts of green tourism. But the difference is more historical than conceptual in the sense that
that green tourism is a term which has
➢ Distance traveled
➢ Length of stay
➢ Desired level of physical effort and comfort
➢ Importance of nature in trip motivation
➢ Level of learning desired
➢ Amount of spending
➢ Desired activities
➢ Personal demographics
Though the. term eco-tourism appears to be recent, the concept of balancing tourists' use with
resource protection was put forward many years ago. The original National Park Act of the
United States in 1916 mandated a dual policy of resource protection and public. Samardon
(1991) pointed out that Dickert and Sorensen (1974) and Gunn (1978) called for application· of
ecological principles for tourism planning several years ago. Eco-tourism originated in the
developing countries during the second half of the 1960's in conjunction with the rise with of
modem conservation movement (Celballos- Lascurain 1996). In the late 1980's eco-tourism was
an unknown entity that was just beginning to emerge in the popular lexicon. Its growth was
spurred by the ongoing debate over tourism and the environment and as direct result of the
enthusiasm
for ecological sustainable development (Ecological Sustainable Development Working Groups
1991). But the first example of eco-tourism business operation was in the process of adopting
Kenya's Tree Tops hotel design to open up rain forests to tourists. Once the visitors discovered
the delights of the rain forests by becoming as observant and sensitive as their nature guides, the
concept of eco-tourism was born. In recent years it has been the most rapidly growing sector of
the tourism industry (Giannecchini 1993). In the 1990's numerous indigenous groups in the
wilderness peripheries of the less developed countries have adopted eco-tourism as part of their
development strategy. Examples include groups of Amazonian Indians. Myans of Belize of Post-
Apartheid South Africa, Sherpas of Nepal, Aboriginals of Papua New Guinea and Soloman
Islanders (Frank 1995).
Ecotourism as a Concept
Ecotourism is a sub-component of the field of sustainable tourism. Figure 1 offers a reflection of
where ecotourism can be placed within the process of developing more sustainable forms of
tourism. This figure also provides a demonstration of how ecotourism is primarily a sustainable
version of nature tourism, while including rural and cultural tourism elements. Ecotourism
aspires in all cases to achieve sustainable development results. However, it is important to clarify
that all tourism activities – be they geared to holidays, business, conferences, congresses or fairs,
health, adventure, or ecotourism – should aim to be sustainable. This means that the planning and
development of tourism infrastructure, its subsequent operation and also its marketing should
focus on environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability criteria.
Ecotourism’s Roots
Until recently, there has been some confusion surrounding the etymology or origin of the
term ‘ecotourism’, as evident in the tremendous volume of literature on the topic. For
example, Orams (1995) and Hvenegaard (1994) write that the term can be traced back only
to the late 1980s, while others (Higgins 1996) suggest that it can be traced to the late 1970s
through the work of Miller (see Miller 1989) on ecodevelopment. One of the consistent
themes emergent in the literature supports the fact that Ceballos-Lascuráin was the first
to coin the phrase in the early 1980s (see Thompson 1995). He defined it as, ‘traveling to
relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of
studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any
existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas’ (Boo 1990: xiv).
Ceballos-Lascuráin himself states that his initial reference to the phrase occurred in 1983,
while he was in the process of developing PRONATURA, an NGO in Mexico (van der
Merwe 1996).
Apparently, however, the term has been traced further back to the work of
Hetzer (1965), who used it to explain the intricate relationship between tourists and the
environments and cultures in which they interact. Hetzer identified four fundamental pillars
that need to be followed for a more responsible form of tourism. These include:
1. minimum environmental impact;
2. minimum impact on – and maximum respect for – host cultures;
3. maximum economic benefits to the host country’s grassroots; and
4. maximum ‘recreational’ satisfaction to participating tourists.
The development of the concept of ecotourism grew, according to Hetzer (personal
communication, October 1997), as a culmination of dissatisfaction with negative approaches to
development, especially from an ecological point of view. Nelson (1994) also adopts this
particular stand in illustrating that the idea of ecotourism is in fact an old one, which manifested
itself during the late 1960s and early 1970s when researchers became concerned over
inappropriate use of natural resources. Nelson suggests that the term ‘eco-development’ was
introduced as a means by which to reduce improper use of resources in development.
In other related research, Fennell (1998) found evidence of Canadian government ‘ecotours’
which were operational during the mid-1970s. These ecotours centred around the Trans-Canada
Highway and were developed on the basis of different ecological zones found along the course
of the highway – the first of which was developed in 1976. This Canadian version of ecotourism
is felt to be rather progressive for the time despite the lack of an explicit look at low impact,
sustainability, community development and the moral philosophy labels that are attached to
ecotourism in the present day. The ecotours were developed at a time when the Canadian
government felt it important to allow Canadian and foreign travelers to appreciate the human–
land relationship in Canada, through the interpretation of the natural environment. Although a set
definition of ecotourism was not provided, each of the ecotour guides contains the following
foreword:
Ecotours are prepared by the Canadian Forestry Service to help you, as a traveler, understand the
features of the landscape you see as you cross the country. Both natural and human history are
described and interpreted. The route covered by the Ecotours is divided into major landscape
types, or Ecozones, and a map of each Ecozone shows the location of interesting features
(identified by code numbers). While most features can be seen from your car, stops are suggested
for some of them. Distances between points of interest are given in kilometers. Where side trips
are described, distances are given to the turnoff from the highway. You will derive the maximum
value from this Ecotour if you keep a record of the distance travelled and read the information on
each point of interest before reaching it.
Other Related Forms to Ecotourism
1. Wildlife tourism
2. Adventure tourism
3. ACE tourism
4. Ecotourism as mass tourism
Wildlife tourism
Wildlife tourism (WT) is a relatively new addition to the literature on ecotourism and naturebased tourism. It is
defined by Higginbottom (2004: 2) as, ‘tourism based on encounters with non-domesticated (non-human) animals.
This includes wildlife-watching tourism (free-ranging animals); captive-wildlife tourism in man-made confinements,
like zoos; and hunting and fishing tourism. The general definition posed above means that encounters with animals
for tourism purposes can be both non-consumptive as well as consumptive, suggesting that wildlife tourism can be
ecotourism in the first case (non-consumptive), but fall outside the bounds of ecotourism in the latter case
(consumptive forms of outdoor recreation). It is therefore a mistake to treat ecotourism and wildlife tourism as being
synonymous on the basis of the consumptiveness variable, because wildlife tourism does not involve other aspects in
the natural world like plants, and because of the conflict that goes along with categorizing activities that are not
based on the same value sets. Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001) have developed a framework which illustrates the
relationship between these two forms of tourism, among many others (Figure 2.2; see Novelli et al. 2006, for a
useful modification of the Reynolds and Braithwaite 2001, nature-based tourism conceptualization in reference to
wildlife tourism). Based on their examination of a series of wildlife tourism brochures, Reynolds and Braithwaite
place the WT product into one of seven categories:
1. Nature-based tourism and wildlife component, where wildlife is an incidental part of the overall NBT
product.
2. Locations with good wildlife viewing opportunities, includes accommodation units that are in wildlife-rich
habitat and may attract wildlife through the provision of food.
3. Artificial attractions based on wildlife, which include, for example, human-made attractions where animals
are kept in captivity.
4. Animal watching, for special-interest groups like birders.
5. Habitat specific tours, which focus on areas or regions rich in animal life.
6. Thrill-offering tours, where dangerous animals are enticed to engage in spectacular behavior for the
viewing pleasure of tourists.
7. Hunting/fishing tours, in natural, semi-captive or farmed environments where animals
are killed or released back into the wild.
Not unlike ecotourism, wildlife tourism is often described in the context of its economic contribution to conservation
initiatives as well as to communities/regions. For example, Tisdell and Wilson (2004) argue that the commercial
development of wildlife tourism has at times threatened biodiversity conservation, attempts to develop sustainably,
as well as to favour use values over non-use values arising from wildlife tourism. Hunting tourism in Stewart Island,
New Zealand, is said to have broader economic benefits for the Southland region than Stewart Island itself, because
the focus of economic activity takes place in the generating region rather than the destination (Lovelock and
Robinson 2005).
Adventure Tourism
Another closely related form of tourism to ecotourism is adventure travel, which in some circles
is felt to subsume ecotourism. For example, in suggesting that ecotourism is a branch of
adventure tourism, Dyess (1997: 2) admits that he did not have a full appreciation of the heated
disagreement that, ‘exists over the semantics of the two terms, as proponents of ecotourism and
adventure travel strive to define and sanctify their own approach to travel’. In a general sense,
differentiation between the two forms of travel can simply be based on the type of activity
pursued (again, with respect to the primary motivation in participating in the activity). However,
in cases where activities are broadly categorized as either ecotourism or adventure tourism, there
may be problems, as evident in the following example.
Tourism Canada has defined adventure tourism as, ‘an outdoor leisure activity that takes place in
an unusual, exotic, remote or wilderness destination, involves some form of unconventional
means of transportation, and tends to be associated with low or high levels of activity’ (Canadian
Tourism Commission 1995: 5)
The following is a list of adventure travel activities developed by the Canadian Tourism
Commission (CTC) under this definition:
(1) Nature Observation;
(2) Wildlife Viewing (e.g., birding, whale watching);
(3) Water Adventure Products (e.g., canoeing, kayaking);
(4) Land Adventure Products (e.g., hiking, climbing);
(5) Winter Adventure Products (e.g., dog sledding, cross-country skiing); and
(6) Air Adventure Products, including hot-air ballooning, hang-gliding, air safaris, bungee
jumping, and parachuting.
ACE Tourism
Figure below illustrate the evolving relationship between three distinct, but related, nature-based
tourism products, namely ecotourism, adventure tourism and cultural tourism. The overlap
between these three appears to have become stronger over the past few years, to the point where
policy and practice have considered them as almost completely synonymous (this phenomenon is
represented by the acronym ACE in the figure). Depending on the setting and situation, ACE
either expands or contracts to represent different concentrations of adventure, culture and
ecotourism in product content. The illustration is heuristic in two main ways. First, it suggests
that ACE tourism is different than these other forms of tourism, the latter of which may be
seeking some form of homogeneity based on adventure, culture, or natural history offerings. For
example, those programs that are classed solely as ecotourism avoid the inclusion of conditions
that relate to culture tourism or adventure tourism (or both). In this regard, ecotourism should be
considered as unique according to its function and role within the tourism marketplace,
a stance which is based on the fact that:
(1) there is not enough empirical evidence to demonstrate homogeneity between
adventure tourism, culture tourism and ecotourism; and
(2) there may be an associated dilution factor or effect on ecotourism if these three types
of tourism merge into a combined form.
Second, the figure illustrates that there is a form of tourism, which we may refer to as ACE
tourism, that contains aspects of adventure, ecotourism, and cultural tourism in its programming.
The degree or percentage of culture, adventure and ecotourism in the ACE program offering is
subject to the service provider, and the resources and setting at hand, which means that a number
of adventure, ecotourism, culture and ACE service providers can operate in the same setting but
with different concentrations of these various components. This would allow each to occupy a
niche in the same general setting by virtue of their differential loadings on these components
(i.e., all operators would not be able to compete with each other in this setting if they all
attempted to offer ecotourism alone, when they could have specialized their offerings on the
basis of different concentrations of culture, adventure and nature). Weaver (2002a) has used the
ACE framework to discuss mountain trekking in Asia. This activity is characterized by an
amalgamation of adventure, cultural and ecotourism in a hybridized form, where the
diversity of, ‘motivations and impulses increases the challenge of maintaining any focus on the
core ecotourism criteria’ (Weaver 2002a: 167).
Ecotourism as Mass Tourism
An intriguing argument in the literature is that if ecotourism in philosophy and practice is indeed the best
form of travel, how can it spill over into other forms of travel, like mass tourism, in making these other
types better too? As the chief proponent of this line of thought, Weaver (2002b) argues that because scale
doesn’t matter in our efforts to be sustainable (i.e. small- and large-scale can either be good or bad) there
is no reason to believe that ecotourism could not occur at a grander scale. Weaver conceptualizes this
perspective as two ideal types along an ecotourism spectrum, with hard (active, deep) ecotourism at one
end, and soft (passive, shallow) at the other.
Quite naturally one thinks of larger numbers of soft path ecotourists creating a greater range and intensity
of impacts from their activities. Weaver, however, argues that softer path ecotourists are more likely to
restrict their activities to a small percentage of area in parks, typically hardened sites that can absorb the
impacts of numbers, while the hard path ecotourists are more likely to penetrate deeper into the back
regions of protected areas.
