Science and Technology Issues in Coastal

Ecotourism

October 1992

OTA-BP-F-86

NTIS order #PB93-116218

GPO stock #052-003-01312-6
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Science and Technology Issues in Coastal

Ecotourism-Background Paper, OTA-BP-F-86 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1992).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16 -038152-5
Foreword

Nature-based tourism, increasingly called “ecotourism’’-one of the fastest growing

sectors of tourism worldwide, is fast gaining the attention of developed and developing

countries as a potential means to conserve natural resources and support sustainable economic

progress. Particularly in areas with stagnant or recessionary economies, ecotourism is being

looked to as a promising means to protect wildlife and ecosystems, to maintain rural aesthetic

character, to provide economic alternatives to resource extraction activities, and to gain

income for local communities.

Ecotourism was identified by the Office of Technology Assessment as a potential

resource management option in three reports: Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest

Resources (1984), Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity (1987), and Integrated

Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas (1987). Because of the apparent

surge of interest in this form of economic development, primarily within developing countries,

OTA conducted a small exploratory investigation into experiences with ecotourism and its

relationship with renewable resource management technologies.

Development of ecotourism in coastal areas, where resident populations accumulate and

tourists congregate, also is receiving heightened attention by all levels of government in the

United States. As expressed by the Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine

and Fisheries, “an informed and farsighted ecotourism strategy could be pivotal in

maintaining fragile coastal and island habitats which are under intense development pressure,

while at the same time supporting a sustainable economic development effort.”

The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries subsequently requested the

Office of Technology Assessment to summarize information it had gathered relevant to

ecotourism development and coastal resource management and, where possible, to identify

issues of special concern to U.S. Atlantic and Caribbean coastal and island areas that might

be addressed by the Coremittee. This paper presents information on the ecotourism trends;

ldentifies issues related to resource conservation, ecotourism development and management,

and planning; and presents questions for possible further consideration.

u JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
OTA Project Staff-Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA

Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager

Alison L. Hess, Project Director

Susan J. Wunder, Contractor

Administrative and Support Staff

N. Ellis Lewis, Office Administrator

Nellie Hammond, Administrative Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, PC Specialist

iv
Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DEFINITIONS OF ECOTOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ISSUES IN ECOTOURISM AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ISSUES IN ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLANNING TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impact

Impact

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A-Summary of Benefits and Costs of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boxes

‘1

2

5

7

10

13

14

15

17

21

Box Page

A. Tourism, Ecotourism, and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. Potential Benefits and Costs of Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

v
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has recently emerged as the world’s

biggest industryl and export earner, surpassing even

arms and oil in contributing to global economic

development [25,67]. Worldwide, tourism is increasing at 4 percent annually, with certain segments

of the industry and some destinations growing in

popularity faster than others. Data for U.S. tourism

are equally impressive:

Preliminary estimates for 1989 reveal travel and

tourism spending to be $350 billion. International

travel to the U.S.A. and U.S. domestic travel

combined generate 5.8 million jobs, pay $73.5

billion in wages and salaries, and produce $40.9

billion in Federal ($21.1 billion), State ($15 billion)

and local ($4.8 billion) tax revenues [35].

Tourism also is the “first, second or third largest

industry in more than 40 States” [30]. The U.S.

Department of Labor estimated that 7 out of every 10

new jobs generated in the 1990s will be in tourism.

U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration data show

that 90 percent of tourism-related enterprises are

small businesses “offering greater entrepreneurial

opportunities when big-industry jobs are dwindling.” Finally, tourism generates entry-level employment for unskilled labor, and opportunities for

skilled employment “such as computer programmers for reservations systems and construction

workers” [9].

Tourism has been a strong State and local activity

in the United States. For example, tourism programs

“benefit from State governments which 1) pass

enabling legislation generating taxes to support local

promotional activities, 2) assist development with

matching funds, and 3) undertake promotional and

other activities jointly with cities’ [35]. However,

tourism has not been considered a high national

priority.

Tourism historically has been viewed as a renewable resource-based industry, in which tourists come

to admire-not to consume-the attractions of an

area. In fact, tourism has been compared to other

resource-based industries, such as agriculture and

mining, in that its existence requires the continued

availability of the resources on which it is based.2 As

tourism grew in size and reach, however, it became

apparent that “this industry, like others, competed

for scarce resources and capital, and that its nonconsumptive attributes did not necessarily prevent the

erosion or alteration of attractions” [39]. Today,

tourism planners and decisionmakers are faced with

multiple sources of competition:

[T]ourism, like any other economic activity,

competes for resources. Government agencies needed

to accommodate tourism’s growing needs with the

demands of more traditional resource sectors like

fishing, forestry, and agriculture. Furthermore, such

concerns over resource allocation had to be accommodated in an era of environmental preservation,

brought about by a growing awareness of the world’s

resource limitations and interrelated ecosystems. . . .

[M]ultiple-use and self-sustaining management strategies. . are needed if the recreation and tourist

demands of a growing urban population. . can be

balanced with increased demands for power (hydroelectric, coal, oil sands), the needs of traditional

users (forestry, fisheries), and their responsibilities

to future generations (land reserves, including national and State/provincial parks) [39].

Coastal areas historically have served as major

tourist attractions. Coastal tourism has been “most

intensively experienced on the Mediterranean shoreline, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the U.S.A.,

and famous tropical retreats such as Hawaii. . ● nd

the Caribbean” [35]. Not only do many people

choose to visit coastal destinations, many people

live in the coastal zone. In the United States, for

example, ‘‘. . the number of persons living in

counties entirely or substantially within 50 miles of

the shoreline in 1990 [is estimated] to be 52.9

percent of the national population” [35]. Many of

these people use the coastal and marine environment

for commercial and leisure pursuits. Moreover,

although coastal waters account for only 10 percent

of the Earth’s surface, they produce at least 30

1 USing tie U.S. SeMte defiition of ‘can interrehted amalgamation of those businesses and agencies which totally or in part provide tie mew of

transportation, goods, serviees, accommo&tions and other facilities for travel out of the home community for any purpose not related to day-to-day

activities. ’

2L~e ~ese ~dustries, however, the infrwtruc~e associated with tourism development k diredy reSOurCe WnSWPtive.

– l-
2 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

percent of the ocean’s productivity. However, tourism is predominantly driven by private-sector interests in the land of the coastal zone [35]. Tourism,

until recently, has been relatively little influenced by

government regulatory policies regarding the wetland fringe and waters of the coastal zone.

Tourism data are sparse, and commonly cannot

distinguish between different forms of tourism.

However, according to one 1982 U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Survey, 29 million U.S. citizens took some

310 million trips in 1980 based on nonconsumptive3

enjoyment of nature and wildlife. At least 1 million

of these tourists traveled to foreign lands primarily

to experience the ecologies of remote destinations

[7].

In recent years, increasing numbers of travelers

have sought nature-based experiences that the traditional, leisure-oriented beach vacation or “old cities

and cathedrals” tours generally fail to offer. Such

tourists find these experiences primarily in two types

of locales-in less developed countries that are still

relatively resource rich, and in certain protected or

remote regions of developed countries. Ecotourism

in the United States is primarily oriented to the larger

national parks, forests, marine sanctuaries, and other

such protected areas. Lesser developed countries

such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda have set aside

large areas for wildlife preserves that allow tourist

safaris. Today, countries such as Costa Rica and

Belize are aggressively promoting tourism to their

undeveloped forest and coastal areas.

A new integration of environmental concerns and

tourism is widely evident, not only in the efforts of

many governments to promote ecotourism, but also

in the many institutional structures that now focus on

ecotourism. In the United States, for example, the

Ecotourism Society was founded in 1990 as a

“center for research, information and policies on

developing ecologically sound tourism in natural

areas around the world” [65]. The newly formed

Environment Committee of the American Society of

Travel Agents is encouraging travel agents and

mainstream tourists to participate in nature tourism.

And the Society of American Travel Writers has

organized a Tourism/Environment Watch Committee “to generate concern for the world’s environments among professionals in travel journalism’

[62]. Internationally, the World Tourism Organization, an intergovernmental organization established

in 1975 to promote and develop tourism (particularly with developing countries) cooperates with the

mission of the United Nations Environment Programme as described in the Joint Declaration on

Tourism and the Environment, adopted in 1982.

Ecotourism also has become a common theme for

conferences and workshops organized by academic

and other nongovernment organizations.

As the request for this background paper illustrates, it is also an emerging concern of Congress.

The following sections summarize information and

identify issues related to ecotourism development

and management, focusing where possible on issues

of special concern to U.S. Atlantic and Caribbean

coastal and island areas.

DEFINITIONS OF ECOTOURISM

The variety of terms used synonymously with or

that fall under the umbrella of “ecotourism” provides an idea of what it potentially encompasses.

These terms include, but are not limited to: nature

tourism, adventure tourism, ethnic tourism, responsible or wilderness-sensitive tourism, soft-path or

small-scale tourism, low-impact tourism, and sustainable tourism. Scientific, educational, or academic tourism (more specifically, biotourism, archeotourism, geotourism, etc.) are considered forms of

ecotourism with a specialized clientele of students

and scholars.

One widely quoted definition of ecotourism,

introduced by Hector Ceballos-Lascurian in 1987,

stresses the destinations and objectives of ecotourism from the traveler’s point of view. Ecotourism, he

suggests, is “traveling to relatively undisturbed or

uncontaminated natural areas with the specific

objective of admiring, studying, and enjoying the

scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as

any existing cultural features (both past and present)

found in these areas” [10]. This definition “implies

a scientific, aesthetic or philosophical approach to

travel” [7].

Many authors consider ecotourism a form of

“alternative tourism,” and define it in part by

contrasting its attributes and clientele with those of

mass or resort tourism. The ecotourist as Ceballos3 Nonconsumptive uses of natural resouces are those uses with no specific intent to remove resources from the environment as does hunting and

fishing, but they may have unintended adverse impacts that result in loss of the resources.
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 3

Box A—Tourism, Ecotourism, and Recreation

In addition to the commonly made contrast between mass/resort tourism and ecotourism, many authors also

distinguish between ecotourism and outdoor recreation [10;39]. Most commonly, the ecotourist is envisioned to be

attracted to a destination because of an interest in its natural characteristics (e.g., observing wetland biodiversity),

not simply in a setting for carrying out certain recreational activities (e.g., fishing). Many definitions also assume

that ecotourism destinations commonly are parks or other protected areas; an assumption not as commonly applied

to mass/resort tourism or outdoor recreation. Finally, tourism commonly is defined as entailing travel to a

destination requiring at least one overnight stay, whereas outdoor recreation may take place in a neighboring park.

Outdoor recreation grew explosively from the end of World War II until the 1970s, when it slowed to

approximately the rate of population growth. Rapid expansion of demand has been linked with a general shift from

a rural society to a more centralized, urban society. Workweeks declined to 40 hours, personal incomes rose rapidly,

and improved transportation systems and cheap fuels permitted access to outdoor recreation for middle and lower

income groups [54]. In addition, migration to the South and West put more people in closer proximity to Federal

lands.

National recreational programs have evolved over the last several decades to serve different objectives, and

are based on resource management for different user densities and activities. For example, National Forests are

managed for resource extraction and recreation (“multiple use”) and National Recreation Areas are planned for

high user carrying capacity, whereas National Wild and Scenic Rivers allow only nonmotorized boating, and access

to the National Wilderness Preservation System is restricted to foot or horseback.

Although contrasting tourism, ecotourism, and outdoor recreation may be useful for initial planning purposes,

in terms of resource management such a distinction likely becomes less useful. The same coastal destination may

simultaneously or sequentially attract a bird-watching ecotourist, a recreational sailor, and a beach resort tourist.

The type and level of impact potentially may vary with each type of use, but concerns such as resource conservation,

access, congestion, and conflict management among resource users will affect all.

Relationships Between Recreation and Tourism

I

Recreation

NOTE: Ecotourlsm, as most commonly defined, would be a subset of nonlocal recreation In this depiction.

SOURCE: P.E. Murphy, Tourism-A CommunityApproach (New York, NY: Methuen, 1985).

Lascurian envisions him/her is attracted to a natural oped area, commonly a park or preserve [51].

area per se, not for other purposes. (See box A.) Ecotourism also differs from mass/resort tourism in

Cities and towns are primarily arrival and departure terms of (smaller) group size, (lower) expectations

points-the real destination tends to be an undevel- for amenities, (more diverse and participatory) types
4 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

of experiences, (greater) amount of interaction with

local residents, and (larger) contributions toward

conserving local resources [13].4

The ecotourist, in contrast to the mainstream mass

tourist, thus is viewed as more willing to adapt to and

appreciate local conditions, customs, and foods, and

as less demanding in terms of lodging [7]. Ecotourists, suggests one analyst, ‘‘are expected to have less

overall impact, consume less, demand less, and

behave better than the upscale mainstream tourist,

who has no particular environmental background”

[33]. Another echoes this idea, defining ecotourism

as ‘travel planned and performed in art environmentally and socially aware manner” [2].

While ecotourists may require less sophisticated

services and infrastructure, they require a much

higher level of biodiversity and wildlife experience

than other tourists [2]. They are not after international glamour, but intact wilderness [7] and/or

intimate contact with natives in other lands [61].

Thus, some analysts define ecotourism by the form

of development it takes and the impacts it incurs: the

U.S.-based Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism

as “responsible travel that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people”

[64].

In fact, ecotourism has most often been defined in

terms of its perceived environmental and sociocultural benefits. Ceballos-Lascurain holds a particularly

positive view of ecotourism, calling it a “powerful

instrument for sustained conservation of the natural

and cultural heritage of the planet’ [10]. Ecotourism

has also been called a sustainable development

strategy [7] because it may offer a new growth

opportunity to depressed economies without threatening the continued functioning of natural ecosystems and human cultural systems [21].

Distinctions also have been attempted between

types of ecotourists. One analysis identified three

types: 1) the do-it-yourselfer, 2) the participant in

organized tours, and 3) members of school and

scientific groups [27]. Each may require different

levels of tourist amenities. Nature tourism sites also

attract traditional or mainstream tourists either

visiting such destinations mainly to take an unusual

trip or as an incidental part of a more conventional

vacation [31]. The “dedicated ecotourist” and

scientists, on the other hand, travel specifically to

see protected areas and to understand better the

natural and cultural history of these areas.

The lack of consensus as to what does constitute

a true ecotour or ecotourist injects a certain element

of confusion into the literature of ecotourism;

however, this may be a healthy stimulant to discussions of ecotourism as a growing sociological and

economic force worldwide, and to analyses of its

impacts. “What is the stereotype ecotourist? Whatever it is let’s get rid of it. We should not get lost

discussing definitions. . [but] concentrate on the

concepts which embrace the kind of activity we are

seeking to develop” [19].

No firm definition of ecotourism has emerged,

suggests Ziffer [68] “because it is a complex notion

that ambitiously attempts to describe an activity, set

forth a philosophy and espouse a model of developmerit. ’ Those governments seeking to promote

ecotourism in their countries see it as an activity

compatible with conservationist philosophy and

with sanely paced, culturally sensitive, sustainable

development.

However, ecotourism is also a notion that lends

itself readily to commercial exploitation. Today,

anything with “eco’ in the front will boost sales,

one observer warns [3]. In some parts of the world,

ecotourism may be little more than a new word to

describe the same kind of tourist activities and

developments that have degraded natural resources

in the past [62]. Elsewhere (e.g., Nepal), an influx of

tourists-even if ecotourists-may cause considerable ecological harm.

It would be elitist to define “good tourism” too

narrowly. So called “adventure tourists” or “ecotourists" may be inspired by a desire for more

authentic travel experience, but they may take an

even costlier toll on the environment, particularly

coastal and mountain ecology, than more sedentary

travelers content to be moved about like registered

parcels [45].

Certainly, ecotourism represents different things

to conservationists, development assistance organizations, and travel agents. From the conservationist’s point of view, it is a tool to conserve resources,

4 Not ~1 so-~ed “mm tours” would qualify as ecotourism by these definitions: watching shore birds with binoculars from the deck Chair Of

a luxury liner, for example, bears more similarity to amenity-rich enclave/resort tourism. Beaches may be mtural resources, but beach resorts may be

too heavily used and highly developed to attract ecotourists [31].
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 5

not an end in itself. For development planners, it is

a means to inject income into remote rural economies. To many in the travel industry, on the other

hand, it represents ‘‘an opportunity for diversification in an overly competitive tourist market” [6].

Whatever else the ecotourist is, he/she is also a

“paying customer who must be pleased and appeased” [61].

Is ecotourism merely a novel ‘saleable’ label for

what travelers and their agents have been doing all

along? Or is it “a new alternative for sharing

cultures and ecosystems based on. . noble objectives” [18]? As an arena in which “corporate tenets

and conservationist ideals are interwoven’ [47],

ecotourism may continue to elude concrete definition. However, analysis of the benefits and costs of

tourism in general and of ecotourism in particular

may provide some perspective on whether a more

environmentally and socially benign type of travel

has emerged and can offer communities a unique

opportunity for sustainable development.

ISSUES IN ECOTOURISM AND

RESOURCE CONSERVATION

OTA’s exploratory definition of ecotourism (“leisure activities, requiring travel to an area restricted

from development by policy, by virtue of a difficult

environment, or by difficult access, centering on a

visitor’s interaction with nature”) focuses on the

kinds of destinations its clientele prefer. Crowded

beach resorts hold little appeal for those seeking a

true nature-based experience. On the other hand,

difficult to reach areas, protected areas such as

public parks and private reserves, offer ecotourists a

good chance of encountering wilderness and wildlife. Since these areas will feel most of the impacts

of the ecotourist industry, the following discussion

focuses largely on them.

Globally, protected lands doubled in size between

1972 and 1982 [28] and now amount to some 175

million hectares [34].5 The designation of marine

protected areas has lagged somewhat behind terrestrial park development, but this situation is changing

rapidly. Many tropical island countries have begun

to include development of marine packs in their

national strategies for tourism, and for sustainable

development generally [20]. Most nations and territories of the wider Caribbean Basin have established

coastal or marine parks or reserves, though nearly 80

percent are only 20 years old [37]. Canada’s

Department of Fisheries and Oceans considers

marine protected areas integral to its strategy for

sustainable development of the Canadian arctic. The

United States established what was then the world’s

largest marine sanctuary in the Florida Keys in 1990,

in response to already high levels of tourism and

other development pressures believed to be degrading delicate reef ecologies [57]. The eleventh

National Marine Sanctuary, larger than the State of

Connecticut and larger than any national park in the

lower 48 States, was established off Monterey,

California in 1992 [16].

Even though protected area designation is often

just such a response to damage already done, in other

cases protected areas may owe their existence to

ecotourism [7]. Insufficient data exist to confirm a

real cause/effect relationship between tourism and

this form of nature protection, but a link is widely

presumed to exist, and is cited as one of the major

benefits of the nature tour industry. This rationale

may be the only means of countering efforts to

develop these resources for near-term profits—that

.

‘‘economic value must be assigned to ecological

resources if these are to be conserved” [10].

Conservationists and economic planners are finding that ecotourism, and the revenues it is expected

to generate, can provide an economic rationale for

even debt-ridden governments to promote natural

resource conservation and wildlife protection policies [51]. The Kenyan “visitor attraction value” of

a single lion has been estimated at $27,000 per year;

that of a herd of elephants at $610,000 per year [31].

Throughout the Caribbean, ecotourism is being

considered as a strategy and incentive for preserving

forest resources. Just as nature tourism highlights the

‘‘continued economic value of a live animal as

opposed to the one time economic value of a dead

one” [53], it also seems to confirm that “the trees

are not as valuable as the forest” [23].

But what is to protect such areas and their wildlife

from tourists? What are the costs of establishing and

managing protected areas, and of opening them to

visitation?

5 Be~use of he ~isten~ of “pa~r parks” that are shown on development plans but receive little actual plOteCtiO% these &ta my OvCmCpIWCnt

the true extent of resources receiving protection from development pressure.
6 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Besides the initial costs of land acquisition, which

can be very high for large-scale parks, social costs

may be involved in the establishment of publicly

owned protected areas. There may be strong opposition from landowners that must be relocated [28], or

from individuals whose traditional rights to resource

use are infringed on. Long-term costs are also

involved in sustaining parks and other protected

areas, particularly if public support for protected

status is lacking. If hotels and other infrastructure are

located within parks, the costs of maintenance

constitute a further public expense. (See app. A for

a summary of costs and benefits of establishing

protected areas.)

Even ecotourism requires basic services and

infrastructure, and even ecologically minded tourists

consume resources and generate waste. In great

enough numbers they can destroy the very environments they so highly value and traverse the globe to

see. Yellowstone National Park provides an example

of what could happen to increasingly popular

ecotourism destinations in developing countries. At

Yellowstone, crowds have increased so dramatically

that the nature experience many seek is no longer

readily available and natural ecologies are threatened [7].

Even nonconsumptive activities like whale- and

bird-watching can take a toll on wildlife. Nests have

been trampled, eggs destroyed, and brooding birds

harried from their roosts by tourists hoping for a

closer glimpse or more intimate photo of rare birds;

whales have been disturbed both by the numbers and

excessively close approaches of tourist boats tracking and following them. While some animals (e.g.,

certain bird species) benefit from increased human

presence, most do not, and overall species diversity

can decline as visitor numbers increase in a wildlife

area.

The potential benefits of conserving unspoiled

ecosystems and of developing an ecotourism industry based on these and other wild areas in many cases

may outweigh the environmental and social costs

entailed-particularly if effective efforts are made to

plan for and manage visitors and if tourism is

responsive to the cultural traditions and economic

needs of local populations. The benefits of linking

conservation to tourism have not yet been fully

realized [7], in part because so many national parks

are fairly new and many parks have been designed

for species protection without considering tourism

access or accommodation [4]. Finally, many benefits

associated with ecotourism are also difficult to

measure in that they are not market-exchanged

commodities. The value of conserving rather than

developing an area can easily be underestimated as

a result [14].

Nonetheless, conserving the ‘enviromnental amenities’ of a region and ‘‘advancing regional development through tourism’ are increasingly considered

interdependent aims [12]. From a purely commercial

perspective, a system of legally protected areas has

been called an “essential prerequisite for ecotourism. ’ A business person ‘‘will not invest in land or

promotion. . .if there is no guarantee a site will be

there in 10, 15 or 20 years” [68].

Regardless of whether they were created specifi

cally to attract and accommodate ecotourists, parks

and protected areas commonly yield multiple qualitative benefits, including watershed protection and

wildlife preservation, as well as appeal to ecotourists

[12]. Ecotourist revenues, in turn, may be vital to

park upkeep, hence sustainability.

Ecotourists may contribute more than money to

park systems they visit. They often volunteer time

and labor as well, either formally or as informal

‘‘rangers’ who can report on poaching, fries, or

other problems they witness [7]. The potential to

engage ecotourists in formal work programs and

projects probably has not been tapped to a significant degree. “The only thing holding back vast

numbers of ecotourism volunteers is that most

organizations are unprepared to handle temporary

short-term assistants who are willing to pay their

own way” [61].

Ecotourism can also contribute to the economic

development of regions surrounding parks, often to

a greater degree than mass tourism. Like other forms

of tourism, ecotourism generates employment. The

birding tourism industry in particular is apt to use

local guides and accommodations [52], and may

provide a model for maximizing ecotourism benefits

to local economies.6

6 For ~05e tit def~e ecoto~sm to include consumptive activities, hunting and fishing may be models of tourism that requires few ~efitieS ~d

uses local guides and accommodations.
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 7

The opportunity to educate tourists and populations local to the ecotourism destination is of special

relevance to parks and other protected areas [8]. By

their very presence, tourists help make local populations aware and appreciative of the uniqueness and

importance of their environment [22;51]. Formal,

park-sponsored educational programs and publications can inform park visitors-whether from overseas or a bordering town or village-about an area’s

landforms and biota and the importance of preserving them. Protected areas thus can play a vital role

in the growth of a conservation ethic [20].

The paying customers on whom the tourism

industry is founded and thriving are also potential

voters, taxpayers, and leaders [61]. Once these

individuals are exposed to pristine natural areas, and

educated about their importance and vulnerability,

they may help build constituencies to lobby for

resource conservation [63].

At its best, ecotourism is hoped to be “a way of

integrating natural resource preservation with the

needs of rural populations surrounding protected

areas’ [7]. Thus, with ecotourism becoming a major

travel phenomenon, ‘‘now is the time to build on its

strong points and work to defray its destructive

elements” [58]. However, this is no easy task, in part

because the costs and benefits associated with

ecotourism may not be directly comparable. ‘ ‘Analyzing and quantifying the tradeoffs between development and conservation is difficult because ecological costs are less visible, accrue more gradually,

and are harder to quantify than economic benefits’

[55].

Issue:

CebaUos-Lascurain warns that too strong an

emphasis on the economic benefits of park tourism

“can lead decisionmakers to believe that parks are

created for economic gain” [10]. If expected gains

are not realized, they may try to maximize economic

returns with improper means ‘‘or even begin to look

at other uses for the land. ” Should parks and other

protected areas be managed to maximize economic

benefits? If so, how should this be done (e.g., by

soliciting higher visitor rates and/or entrance fees;

voluntary or automatic conservation project support

built into certain tour packages; a tax on ecotour

operators who bring clients to the park)?

Issue:

Even if entrance fees, local accommodation taxes,

and other tourism revenue-generating means are

implemented, few funds are funneled back into

protected area maintenance. Through what system

can revenues be devoted to protected areas to cover

operating needs such as management salaries, infrastructure development and maintenance, resource

monitoring and management, and disaster recovery

reserves?

Issue:

Emphasizing revenue generation from parks and

protected areas commonly is seen as conflicting with

local access to part of a nation’s heritage or public

resources [7], even to the extent that charging

entrance fees to such areas has been called elitist.

Some destinations now charge “tiered” entrance

fees, in which local residents may be charged

substantially less than foreign visitors. Should local

residents be required to pay tourist prices for entry

into publicly owned protected areas? If not, how

should differential rates be determined? Alternately,

should recreational areas be set aside for local use

and prohibited from or not advertised to tourists? If

so, should these be publicly owned or should

incentives be provided to private resource holders?

ISSUES IN ECOTOURISM

DEVELOPMENT AND

MANAGEMENT

Whether tourism is beneficial or destructive to a

locale’s natural resources, aesthetics, social fabric,

or economy; whether it fulfills the goals and

expectations of the traveler; and whether it can be

sustained, depends on many factors, including the

ecological and cultural attributes of the locale itself,

how many tourists visit, and for what activities/

purpose(s). “There can be no a priori assumptions

about the goodness of tourism” [36].

It is widely recognized that tourism entails both

benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages.

(See box B.) On the plus side, tourism earns foreign

exchange, generates employment, and attracts capital for infrastructure development. Through these

and other “multiplier effects” it can contribute to

economic diversification as well as growth [7;17].

On the negative side, tourism is often considered

an unstable source of income, subject to widely

331-057 0 - 92 - 2
8 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Box B—Potential Benefits and Costs of Tourism

Benefits costs

Economic/financial

. Foreign revenue for country . Increased local cost-of-living

● Funds for region (e.g., taxes) ● Seasonality of income or employment

● Attraction of outside investment for local . Unstable market

infrastructure/services ● Cost of enforcement/administration

* Diversification of local income ● cost of training (guides, managers, etc.)

* Service employment opportunities ● Liability of service providers

* Support employment opportunities (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, handicrafts, cottage indusV )

. Development of export markets for local

products/foods, etc.

● “Development pole” or “honeypot” multiplier effects

Political

* Maintenance of populations in political bound- . Exposure of global public to antihumanitarian

ary areas activities

. Maintenance of future development options

Cultural/social

● Exposure to new lifestyles ● Disruption of culture

 Maintenance of traditional knowledge/ ● Loss of traditional knowledge

products . Degradation of local products

● Enhanced Iocal expectations due to exposure

to affluent visitors

 Increased out-migration

Environmental/conservation

● Incentives/funds for park/resource management

● Incentives/funds for resource management research

. Incentives/funds for natural history research

* Improved environmental education

 Accelerated development of an environmental

ethic

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1992.

● Resource degradation due to numbers or

activities of tourists

. Resource degradation due to increased local

demands

● Resource degradation due to unsuitable facility/

infrastructure development

. Resource degradation due to improper waste

management

fluctuating demand scenarios; local economies that tourism deprives local people access to the very

rely heavily on tourist dollars can be severely beaches and other resource areas they traditionally

disrupted by a sudden decline in tourist arrivals. A have used for economic or leisure activities [17].

healthy tourist industry can divert labor from other Mass tourism can actually compromise the ecoeconomic activities, sometimes to their detriment. nomic well-being of local peoples by elevating the

Tourists may consume disproportionate quantities cost of living and price of land.

of local resources; for example, the average tourist

in Barbados consumes eight times the amount of Tourism’s impacts on the natural environment

water as the average resident [48]. In some cases, may be even more severe than its economic and
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 9

cultural impacts. Because water has traditionally

attracted tourists, water resources and nearshore

habitats are often the most severely affected. Much

of the toxic waste discharged into recreational

waters represents (motorboat) engine crankcase

drainage [29]. Construction of roads, airports, hotels, and other tourist infrastructure has led to

increased siltation and degradation of nearshore

habitats (mangroves, reefs) in many parts of the

world. Wastes generated by tourists often overwhelm local sanitation systems, and place further

burdens on these ecosystems.7 Anchor scars and

shallow sea bottoms denuded by propeller wash

have added widespread and long-lasting adverse

impacts to the marine environment of the Virgin

Islands National Park [46].8 Heavy tourism in the

Outer Banks of North Carolina has adversely altered

the ecology of the barrier islands in a dramatic

fashion [11].

Small islands and very poor countries, in general,

may face greater costs and enjoy fewer benefits from

tourism. These areas tend to have less infrastructure

than most destinations and are more dependent on

imported goods, foreign labor, and capital to support

tourists [17;60]. Such areas also may be unable to

devote sufficient resources and skilled personnel to

planning and monitoring tourism development. Further, small tropical islands may be particularly at risk

from poorly planned tourism development, because

the environment is easily degraded and “even

moderate tourism development can have a proportionately large impact” [56].

The most sensitive ecosystems are often the most

intensively developed for tourism because of their

innate attractiveness and limited suitability for other

economic uses. Examples include early successionalstage coastal ecosystems characterized by unstable

substrata (e.g., dunes, marshes); alpine and other

montane habitats where climate retards selfrecovery and growth of disturbed vegetation; and

landscapes with shallow, nutrient-deficient, or very

wet soils [63].

Some analysts argue that coastal and marine

tourism requires a stronger governmental involvement than other forms of tourism, citing four

primary reasons:

1.

2.

3.

4.

reliance on public common property resources

such as the ocean and coastal environment,

direct competition between tourists and local

populations for use of the resources,

high degree of risk to people and property from

natural hazards, and

complex and dynamic nature of coastal and

ocean environments that make impacts difficult to predict.

Preferably, well in advance of specific

coastal developments, the policy body of

government should adopt a full set of understandable, clearly written, coastal policies and

supporting environmental regulations which

then need to be uniformly and firmly enforced

as part of a comprehensive environmental

management program. Decisionmaking on specific projects should be done as part of an open,

fully accessible public process involving discussion, debate, decisionmaking, and an appeals

process. . .Second, a document should be prepared by the government to accompany major

decisions on such projects outlining in clear

and understandable language the expected

costs (direct and indirect), adverse effects, and

dislocations, as well as the promised benefits.

This document, in effect, would be a combined

environmental and socioeconomic impact statement, and would represent the expectations

upon which this project was approved. Government should have the responsibility to use the

document in its monitoring program and to

compare the results with what has been predicted [26].

Issue:

Management of the coastal zone commonly is

conducted by a multiplicity of government organizations at local, State or provincial, national, and even

international levels. How best should responsibili7 Howevm, creative handlfig of problems such as excess qmtities of h~waste may produce new educational and revenueproducing resources.

For example, a tertiiuy sewage treatment plan~ designed to return cleaned wastewater to the Everglades National Parlq relies on an “eco-pond.” The

high nutrient levels in the shallow wastewater receiving pond attracts a high density and wide diversity of wildlife that visitors may observe from an

observation deck. Thus, the “eco-pond” has “transformed ‘pollution’ into a valuable ‘resource’ which benefits wildlife” [48].

S protective measures suggested to prevent such impacts include: 1) placing mooring buoys for anchorage of large boats, 2) d=iw~g “no

anchoring” or “anchoring’ areas confined to mud and sand bottoms, 3) disseminating educational materials (e.g., maps) on where and how to anchor,

and 4) penalizing people for damagingmarine resources [46].
10 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

ties be apportioned and coordinated? How can

commercial interests and nongovernmental organizations be incorporated into decisionmaking processes?

Where tourists lodge, and in what kinds of

accommodations, can determine visitor impact on

local environments and economies to a significant

degree. Ecotours are presumed to avoid high-rise

hotels or resort enclaves that cater to mass tourism.

The ideal, according to a World Wildlife Fund

report, is “simple accommodations built of traditional materials by local people” [7]. Not only do

such accommodations tend to have low environmental impacts, but tourism contributes most to

regional development “through the use of as many

local materials, products and people as possible”

[7]. However, concentrated facilities may be more

suitable to manage higher densities of visitors near

sensitive areas.

Tourist lodging may be sited within or outside of

protected areas. While tourists can enjoy a more

intimate nature experience if they are accommodated within protected areas, this may be detrimental

to the goal of conserving wilderness. By banning any

development in certain core regions of parks (e.g.,

the most ecologically sensitive, or critical areas for

wildlife), and concentrating infrastructure and visitor presence in ‘‘outer shells,” or less sensitive park

zones, adverse environmental impacts might be

reduced [3].

An alternative approach, requiring public/private

cooperation, is to site privately owned and run

visitor infrastructure outside of and peripheral to

protected areas. In some cases, private reserves

located adjacent to national parks provide visitor

infrastructure as well as extend the effective protected area. The potential role of private reserves and

other holdings in nature tourism, education, and

conservation has not been adequately evaluated, but

may be considerable: the number of visitors to

private reserves in developing countries increased

steadily throughout the 1980s (from 60,000 in 1980

to 230,000 in 1989) [1].

Issue:

The World Resources Institute suggests that

nature tourism is a promising arena for the kind of

public/private partnership needed to promote sustainable natural resource use [66]. Such a partnership can take many forms, with varying degrees of

government involvement; these may range from

park-based tourist facilities managed by private

groups to public park management by private sector

companies [31]. What forms might work best in

what countries or resource areas? What is the

government’s role in tourism, which historically has

been a private sector concern [35]? How might the

private sector be incorporated in a strategy of

sustainable development and conservation, normally the concern of governments?

Issue:

How can local involvement in conservation and

ecotourism promotion/management be fostered and

sustained? What level of local participation is

appropriate, for example, what balance should be

sought between ensuring a labor force for traditional

occupations and providing employment for local

peoples in tourism? How can local fishing, agriculture, and construction industies be used more fully

in ecotourism? Can markets for local products be

expanded beyond onsite consumption (e.g., airfrieighting perishable goods to tourism-generating

markets on tourist flights)?

PLANNING TO MINIMIZE

ADVERSE IMPACTS

Many issues and concerns surrounding ecotourism can be addressed through effective planning.

Planning, in its broadest sense, is organizing the

future in order to reach certain objectives [24]. The

planned approach to tourism development emerged

as tourism itself grew to become a significant

socioeconomic activity in the 1950s, and plans for

tourism development now figure in the overall

development strategies of many regions and countries. The meaning and concerns of tourism planning, however, differ today from those of the past,

when efforts generally focused on ensuring adequate

accommodation and transportation infrastructure,

and on tourism promotion. By the 1980s, tourism

planning began to address other objectives as well,

including the prevention and control of tourism’s

negative environmental and sociocultural impacts

[24].

Governments today generally use planning to

guide the growth and direction of tourism in order to

derive its benefits and to avoid serious environmental or social consequences of the kind that befell

certain parts of the Caribbean and Mediterranean
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 11

regions in the post World War II period of rapid

tourism growth. Unplanned mass tourism damaged

natural environments and communities in both

regions [24]. In part because of such lessons learned

from the past, planning now focuses much more than

it used to on the concept of the sustainable development of tourism.

This concept, which is increasingly recognized as

a needed feature of development planning in general, is considered essential to ecotourism planning.

It calls for careful resource analyses and development controls to prevent degradation of natural or

cultural environments. It contrasts with the ‘marketed’ approach to planning—that of providing whatever facilities and services tourists may demand-in

giving first priority to preserving the ecological and

social integrity of tourism areas. Visitor facilities are

designed and visitor use organized to fit into the

environment as unobtrusively as possible [24].

Planning for ecotourism differs from planning for

either tourism or conservation alone, in that it

requires “active planning for the preservation of

(natural) areas and planning to meet the needs of the

ecotourist and. . local landowners. ” Planners also

must account for the fact that ‘‘resource conservation efforts for and in combination with ecotourism

are somewhat different from other more ‘purist’

resource conservation efforts. . .in that they must

accommodate a substantial ‘use’ component” [28].

Further, planners must bring to planning a knowledge of economics, marketing, the needs of particular types of tourists [2], and of “best practices” that

have been implemented around the world [68].

Such a planning approach clearly requires a

different philosophy about protected areas than has

prevailed in the past. These areas traditionally have

been managed ‘as if they were islands of ecological

righteousness (in) a vast sea of human corruption. ”

Replacing this management style is a more integrated approach, ‘‘whereby protected areas are seen

as an integral part of the socioeconomic fabric of the

region where they are located” [38].

Unfortunately, few parks have well-defined planning processes focused on ecotourism development

and management [41]. Integrated planning for tourism and conservation may be particularly difficult

for small countries, which often have limited planning capacity and expertise of any kind. Currently

available planning techniques, moreover, are not

particularly well adapted to the problems of small

countries, where social and physical constraints to

development possibilities may be more severe than

in larger countries [cf:60].

Nonetheless, communities can potentially benefit

from several broad guidelines for ecotourism planning. Inskeep, for example, iterates several successive steps essential to the process [24]. These

include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

study preparation (the decision to proceed with

a tourism planning project and initial organization of that project);

determination of development goals and strategies; surveys and inventories to characterize

the natural and sociocultural features of a

potential tourism area, as well as any tourism

development already present;

integrated analysis and synthesis of the information gained;

formulation of the development policy and

physical plan;

recommendations on project elements;

implementation of the plan and recommendations; and

monitoring/feedback followed by any needed

adjustments.

Planning for ecologically and socially responsible

tourism probably has the greatest potential for

success if it is based on recognition that different

development sectors are interrelated (i.e., if a

systems approach is taken), and if it is done

incrementally, from general (international/national)

to more specific (community/resort) levels, with

continuous monitoring and feedback on the effects

of previous decisions and development, as well as

analysis of new trends [24]. The recently revised

Parks Canada policy, which “provides an integrated

and comprehensive statement of broad principles to

serve as a guide for future initiatives and for more

detailed policy statements on specific areas” [24],

exemplifies such an approach.9

s PWICS Canada divides protected areas into five use zones, following a continuum of objectives frOm primarily preservation to intensive public use.

hwel I are Special Preservation Areas containing unique, rare, or endangered species. Level II comprises zueas with specific mtural history themes and

allows access for widely dispersed hiking and primitive camping. Level III are Natural Environment areas with limited motorized access in the periphery

and well-maintained trails and simple campsites. Level IV Recreation Areas are easily accessible developments with such facilities as boat ramps and

ski hills. Level V are the most densely developed areas, commonly containing park administration and centralized visitor support [39].
12 ● Science and Technology issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Many authors have called for coodinating ecotourism/

conservation planning with overall regional development strategies. In this way tourism sector objectives can be developed more effectively [24] in

accord with these broader strategies [38]. For

countries sharing a common water basin (e.g.,

Caribbean, Mediterranean), coordinating regulations may be particularly important to sustaining a

tourism industry.

Nations are naturally loath to put themselves at a

comparative disadvantage by tightening regulations

on coastal water use of the seas generally. International standards are desperately needed. This is

particularly apparent in the Caribbean where 17

nations dependent on tourism as one of their chief

industries have widely varying standards on water

use for tourism and sewage disposal. . .Until nations

and individuals really recognize that “we all live

downstream” from someone or some other nation,

political will may be absent [45].

Conversely, pressures for increased market share

among areas sharing like resources make it difficult

to coordinate environmental standards or tourism

development. This may be particularly difficult in

coastal and marine tourism ‘where political boundaries do not demarcate lakes or seas” [45].

At the local level, tourism planning should be

based on an integrated analysis of many factors,

including the area’s infrastructure and transportation

capacities, climate, physical and ecological features;

local economic activities and employment patterns;

and sociocultural milieu and attitudes. Account

should be taken of the need for added infrastructure

(housing, roads, and other transportation networks)

and expanded local services, including health care

and education for those attracted to an area by new

tourist-related employment. Major opportunities and

constraints for tourism development are derived

from the integrated analysis of these factors, combined with market studies and carrying capacity

determinations [24].

Carrying capacity analysis, one of the most

widely used tools in tourism planning, is a basic

technique for determining upper limits of visitor use,

beyond which critical thresholds are crossed and

environmental damage is highly likely to occur

[24;49]. A more comprehensive approach to carrying capacity analysis in planning would consider not

just physical/biological limits to growth but also

management-based and socioeconomic and psychological constraints [24;63]. Thus, an area’s carrying

capacity for tourism may be exceeded when environmental damage occurs, when tourist arrivals can no

longer be accommodated by existing or planned

housing and transportation infrastructure, when

visitors are no longer welcomed by indigenous

populations, or when tourists themselves feel overcrowded by other tourists.

Although the concept of carrying capacity may

provide a useful way of thinking about planning by

focusing attention on an environment’s finite capacity to absorb development [49], no standard methods

of determining carrying capacity exist—approaches

range from subjective interpretations to complex

computer modeling techniques. Moreover, managerial actions such as engineering, design, rules, and

regulations that may avert unacceptable impacts

mean that an area can have many carrying capacities,

depending on which ones are implemented and to

what extent they are maintained [50].

Many planners have abandoned planning approaches based on maximum allowable use estimates to ones that consider “tolerable” levels of

visitation that can be sustained over time [7]. One

such technique, termed the Limits of Acceptable

Change (LAC), is designed for iterative analysis of

conditions and reconsideration of objectives, and

has been recommended for application in marine

settings [50]. Briefly, the 10 steps of LAC are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Clearly define management objectives.

Define issues and concerns (nationally, regionally, locally).

Define and describe “Opportunity Classes”

(or potential use zones).

Select indicators of resource and social conditions.

Inventory existing resource and social conditions (baseline status).

Specify standards for each Opportunity Class.

Identify alternative Opportunity Class allocations.

Identify management actions and costs for

each allocation.

Evaluate (e.g., for responsiveness to concerns

and relationship to regional considerations),

and select alternative.

10. Implement and monitor (and change management actions if necessary).

The fisheries concept of Optimal Sustainable

Yield (OSY) may be a useful model for Optimal
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism . 13

Sustainable Use (OSU) of marine protected areas. A

comprehensive approach to planning might allow

for mariculture activities to take place on a sustainable basis in such areas. Indeed, multiple use is a

management and planning concept of special interest to ecotourism, although, in some cases, planners

may conclude that multiple use is not appropriate for

certain areas [20].

A variety of techniques can be used to plan and

manage visitor presence in a given area so that

tourism remains environmentally and socially sustainable. Strict controls over visitor presence and

behavior in tourism areas is one approach. Conservation zoning is a more flexible planning approach

that distributes visitor uses over abroad area and, in

some cases, prohibits any use of certain sectors. For

example, parks may be planned such that certain

core areas-those that provide ecologically critical

wildlife habitat, that contribute significantly to

watershed protection, or that otherwise carry special

environmental significance-are sequestered from

any use or development. Surrounding buffer zones

may be designated for extensive uses only (e.g.,

wilderness hiking, primitive camping), with intensive uses such as tourist infrastructure development

concentrated in well-designed complexes located in

the outer shell of a protected area [4;5;24]. Planning

to distribute visitor use more widely to relieve

tourism hot spots has been done at the regional and

national as well as the local (e.g., park) levels [39].

Two relatively recent developments have significant repercussions for tourism planning. One is

recognition that local involvement is essential to

successful planning related to resource use and

conservation. “However well intentioned, plans

imposed from above are liable to generate social

conflicts or to contain technical errors” [15]. Local

involvement can aid planning in several ways. For

land-use planning, the “contingency valuation method,” a means of documenting the value (actual and

perceived) of protected areas to local communities

has been used [44]. A relatively new approach to

planning-the participatory action research methodology—is being tested in some areas, including

Madagascar’s Ranomafana National Park. This

methodology invokes local participation in ‘‘studying, discussing and devising strategies’ for ecotourism development [42].

The second development—information technology—is revolutionizing modern planning [24].

Computer-based techniques are applicable to tourism planning at all stages, from initial evaluation of

alternative development scenarios to final impact

analyses. Computer-based Geographical Information Systems (GIS), for example, integrate various

types of information about the environment and

resources, and can aid planners in identifying areas

suitable for specific uses. Integrated surveys of

natural resources can help identify potential national

park areas in the first place [12]. Use of information

technologies extends beyond planning as well-as

projects get underway, their environmental results

and impacts must be monitored, and critical databases updated. GIS can assist in these efforts [43].

Impact Monitoring

Environmental impact assessments analyze what

the environmental effects of a given activity (e.g.,

tourism) are or will be against some base level. Such

analysis is difficult for a number of reasons. First,

baseline data on resource attributes and status are

lacking or inadequate in many cases. Second, other

land uses may predate tourism and their environmental effects may be difficult to isolate from those

of tourism. Third, spatial and temporal discontinuities complicate impact analyses. For example, the

impact of tourism on species diversity of a coral reef

may be evident only after years of study and

monitoring [63].

Ecological monitoring studies include three basic

research components: 1) baseline/inventory studies,

2) specialized management impact studies, and 3)

ongoing systems studies. (In some cases, very

informal monitoring based on the observations of

long-time residents of an area can supplement these

[8]). Long-term environmental monitoring is a kind

of “systems study” whereby insights are gained on

how ecosystem components interact and how the

entire system functions over time [20].

In the case of marine areas, several water-quality,

biological, and oceanographic parameters can be

monitored to assess tourist impacts; for example,

filter-feeding shellfish accumulate pollutants in their

tissues that can be regularly tested, allowing their

use as “indicator species” of water pollution.

Similarly, indicator species are monitored in U.S.

National Forests in an attempt to identify levels of

adverse impacts on ecosystems [59]. While expensive and time-consuming, such monitoring programs can be of great value to impact studies as well
14 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

as short-term investigations for specific management needs. Over time they will yield a database

useful for determining causal relationships. Experiences at different protected areas can be compared if

standard regional protocols for research and monitoring are developed and disseminated [20].

Along with environmental parameters, visitor use

patterns should be monitored to determine how and

where tourism is taking place in a park. Monitoring

tour operators, tourists, and changes in activities can

provide significant information; merely tabulating

arrivals is not sufficient-where people go, how

long they stay, what they do, and how many others

they travel with are all factors relevant to management [41]. The economic activities of tour operators

can also provide insights into tourism impacts at

specific protected area sites [8].

Issue:

Continually collecting information on environmental conditions can be costly and timeconsuming, potentially preventing adequate monitoring of impacts. Indicators, whether natural parameters or species’ characteristics, commonly are

used as an index of conditions too difficult, inconvenient or expensive to measure directly [59].

However, relying on a select few indicators may lead

to ignorance of the breadth and extent of impacts.

Poor selection of indicators, insufficient knowledge

of species’ biology, or of their response to different

forms of stress, can mislead investigators into

believing that an ecosystem is healthy when nonindicator species are stressed. What guidelines are

required for selection of indicators and training of

investigators to monitor and analyze changes in their

status for different ecosystems? How often should

analyses be conducted for different ecosystems?

How can results be incorporated into management

decisionmaking? How can management changes be

incorporated into the indicator status analyses?

Issue:

One suggestion to reduce the cost of ecological

monitoring and provide information for research on

species behavior is to gather information directly

from visitors to protected areas. For example,

visitors to Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park are

asked to log in sightings of specific species, such as

the increasingly rare wild dog, including their

number, location, time of day, and behavior. Log

books are prominently displayed at each tourist

accommodation, and information is provided to

researchers who work to gain a better understanding

of the needs of that species. By what other means can

monitoring information be provided by visitors or

their guides? Should guides be required to keep

logbooks on species sighted? On behavioral or

ecological changes noted? How should such information be aggregated and verified for accuracy?

Impact Mitigation

Options that have been used or suggested for

mitigating the negative impacts of ecotourism and

for maximizing its contributions to rural development and environmental protection include regulatory (and voluntary) controls on the numbers,

activities, and movements of visitors within protected areas; consumer education and awareness;

environmentally and socially sensitive siting of

tourist infrastructure (within or bordering on parks);

reliance, whenever possible, on local labor and

materials for visitor lodging, and on use of other

local products (food, crafts) to serve visitor needs;

accommodation, to the extent possible, of traditional

rights and resource use in protected areas; increased

local involvement in decisionmaking at all levels;

and private-sector participation in nature tourism

and conservation.

Often it is the sheer number of visitors, rather than

their activities per se, that threatens an area’s

ecology. Many parks have placed limits on the

number of tourists annually permitted entry based on

analysis of visitor carrying capacity. This has been

defined as the ‘maximum level of visitor use an area

can accommodate with high levels of satisfaction for

visitors and few negative impacts on resources’ [7].

Difficulties arise, however, because carrying capacity is a probabilistic concept, not a directly measurable attribute. It cannot be determined in a precise

way and ultimately depends on value judgments.

Often the best guide is a “common sense analysis of

relevant factors, for example, a scenic rock outcrop

can tolerate a higher level of visitation than the

nesting site of a rare bird species. It is probably wise

frost to monitor impacts associated with modest

projections of carrying capacity [27].

Limiting visitors does not necessarily prevent

adverse impacts, which are often affected by more

complex parameters, for example, distribution of

use, type of user group, individual party sizes, and

the environmental durability of the area [41]. Im-
Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism ● 15

pacts from a few visitors have been as severe as those

from larger numbers in some areas. For example,

significant trampling damage is done to some soils

and vegetation by even low levels of hiking [29].

Reducing per capita adverse impacts can thus be

as important as controlling visitor numbers. In some

cases, this can be done by controlling visitor

movements within a park. Canada has used a

“Visitor Activity Management Plan” (VAMP) to

channel and direct visitors to various points within

its national parks [32].

Users cause unnecessary damage to an environment in many cases out of ignorance. One way of

preventing such damage is education: codes of

ethics, films, or other orientations to a site are initial

ways of “opening eyes. ’ Increasingly, tour operators and conservation societies that sponsor ecotours

are formulating or adopting codes of ethics designed

to provide guidance to visitors on proper and

improper behaviors and activities at ecologically

sensitive sites. For example, the Antarctica Visitor

Guidelines, developed by the National Audubon

Society, have been adopted by all U.S. ship tour

operators. Guidelines range from reminders never to

step between a parent animal and its young, to

admonitions against trampling fragile mosses and

lichens [40].

Issue:

Regulatory and voluntary approaches can be used

to control visitor numbers, activities, and behaviors

in protected areas. Under what circumstances might

the ‘‘carrot” or ‘stick” approach be more appropriate or effective?

Issue:

While some ecotour operators are out simply to

make a profit with little consideration of environmental and social issues, others are sensitive to these

issues and may actively contribute to conservation

projects/goals [68]. For example, licensed charterboat operators carrying tourists to the U.S. Virgin

Islands’ Buck Island National Monument give 3.5

percent of their gross income to the National Park

Service (Thorsell and Wells, 1991]. However, the

potential role of ecotour operators in conservation

efforts still is largely unexplored [7]. How can

ecotour operators be encouraged to act responsibly

and actively to contribute to conservation? Should

there be a code of conduct for this group as well as

for ecotourists? Should a portion of their profits be

earmarked for support of the parks they utilize

(beyond entrance fees)? How should these be

collected (e.g., taxation)?

CONCLUSIONS

A wealth of literature has emerged that addresses

the nature and growth of ecotourism, its potential

environmental and sociological impacts, and planning and management issues related to this travel

phenomenon. Although no definition of ecotourism

has been universally accepted, data commonly are

questionable, and much more information and study

is needed to assess the impact of nature travel in

various parts of the world, on balance, most of the

literature on ecotourism is positive.
Appendix A

Summary of Benefits and Costs of Protected Areas

Categories of Protected Areas Identified by the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Scientific reserve/strict nature reserve. Objectives: To protect nature and maintain natural processes in an undisturbed

state in order to have ecologically representative examples of the natural environment available for scientific study,

environmental monitoring, and education and for the maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary

state.

National park. Objectives: To protect large natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific,

educational, and recreational use under management by the highest competent authority of a nation.

Natural monument/natural landmark. Objectives: To protect and preserve nationally significant natural features because

of their special interest or unique characteristics.

Managed nature reserve/wildlife sanctuary. Objectives: To ensure the natural conditions necessary to protect nationally

significant species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment requiring human

intervention for their perpetuation.

Protected landscape. Objectives: To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes characteristic of the harmonious

interaction of people and land while providing opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism within

the normal lifestyle and economic activity of these areas.

Resource reserve. Objectives: To protect the natural resources of the area for future use and curb development that could

affect the resource pending the establishment of objectives.

Natural biotic area/anthropological reserve. Objectives: To allow societies living in harmony with the environment to

continue their way of life undisturbed by modem technology.

Multiple-use management area/managed resource area. Objectives: To provide for the sustained production of water,

timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation; the conservation of nature is primarily oriented to the support of

economic activities (although specific zones can also be designed within these areas to achieve specific conservation

objectives).

International Designations (may also be designated one of the above):

Biosphere reserves are sites of exceptional richness with respect to the diversity and integrity of biotic communities of

plants and animals within natural systems. Commonly used for research, education, and training.

World heritage sites are unique natural and cultural sites considered to be of outstanding universal significance.

SOURCE: Adapted from John A. Dixon and Paul B. Sheman Economics of Protected Areas-A New Look at Benefits and Costs (Washington, DC:

Island Press, 1990).

–17–
18 ● Science and Technology Issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Benefits of Protected Areas

Accrual of Benefits Depends on Protected Area Conservation Objectives:

1. maintenance and conservation of environmental resources, services, and ecological processes

2. production of natural resources such as timber and wildlife

3. production of recreation and tourism services

4. protection of cultural and historical sites and objects

5. provision of educational and research opportunities

Benefit Categories:

1. Recreation/tourism

2. Watershed protection

. Erosion control

. Local flood reduction

. Regulation of stream flows

● Soil formation

. Circulation and cleansing of air and water

. Global life support

4. Biodiversity

. Genetic resources

● Species protection

. Ecosystem diversity

. Evolutionary processes

5. Education and research

6. Consumptive benefits

7. Nonconsumptive benefits

. Aesthetic

● Spiritual

● Cultural/historical

. Existence value

8. Future values

● Option value

● Quasi-option value

SOURCE: Adapted from John A. Dixon and Paul B. Sherman, Economics of Protected Areas-A New Look at Benefits and Costs (Washington, DC:

Island Press, 1990).
Appendix A-Summary of Benefits and Costs of Protected Areas ● 19

Costs of Protected Areas

Direct Costs—related to the establishment and management of protected areas that appear as budgetary outlays

Establishment of Protected Area:

● Land acquisition

● Relocation of residents

. Road and facility development

. Development of management plan

Management of Protected Area:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Administration and staff

Maintenance of roads and facilities

Monitoring and research

Enforcement

Visitor educational program

Local rural development program

Indirect Costs—impacts of protected area establishment resulting in damage to property or injury to people or wildlife

. Damage caused by wildlife straying from the protected area

Opportunity Costs—the loss of potential benefits associated with alternate uses of the area

. Foregone resource output from the site

● Foregone resource output from intensive management/exploitation of the site

. Foregone benefits from nonresource uses of the site

SOURCE: Adapted from John A. Dixon and Paul B. Sherman Economics of Protected Areas-A New Look at Benefits and Costs (Washington, DC:

Island Press, 1990).
References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

0.

1.

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Aide- C. L., “Privately Owned Lands: Their Role in

Nature Tourism Education and Conservation,” JA.

Kusler(ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol.

1, (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 289-323.

Ashton R-E., “Fundamentals of Ecotourism A Workbook

for Nonprofit and Travel programs,” Ecotourism Management Workshop, George Washington University and the

Ecotourism Society, Washington, DC, June 18-22, 1991a,

pp. 156-166.

Ashton, R.E., “Land Use Planning and Ecotourism,” J.A.

Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol.

1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991b), pp. 45-53.

Ashton, R.E., “The Financing ofConservation-The Concept of w-supporting Ecopreserves,” JA. Kusler (ed.),

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 2 (Madison,

WI:Omnipress, 1991c), pp. 547-556.

Ashton, R.E, ‘The Development of “ECOnZOnes:” A

Method of Protecting Natural Resources from Overuse by

Tourism," M.L. Miller and J. Auyong (eds.) Proceedings

of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism-A

Symposium and Workshop on Balancing Conservation and

Economic Development, Honolulu , May 25-31,1990,2

vols.,NCRI-T-91 -0101991 (Newport,OR: National Coastal

Resources Research & Development Institute, 1991), pp.

521-530.

Bezaury-Creel, J.E., “Channelin g Tourists from a Mass

Market: The Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve Experiment”

JA. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation,

vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 109-114.

Boo, E., Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, vol. 1

(Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1990a).

Boo, E.,Ecotouriim: The Potentials and Pitfalls, vol. 2

(Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1990b).

Book, E.R., “Recession Fighter,” State GovernmentNews,

vol. 35, April 1992, pp. 28-31.

Ceballos-Lascurian, H., “Tourism Ecotourism and Protected Areas,” J,A. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp.

24-30.

Cole, C.A., “Live and Let Die: ‘The Outer Banks of North

Carolina," J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation , vol. 2 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp.

643-661.

Dasman,R.F., Milton, J.P.,and Freeman, P.H., Ecological

Principles for Economic Development (New York, NY:

John Wiley and sons, Ltd., 1974).

DeWall, B., “Ecotourism:● Taking the ‘ism’ out of Tourism,” Ecotourism Management Workshop, George Washington University/Ecomrh society,Washington, DC,

June 18-22,1991, pp. 19-25.

Dixon, J.A., and Sherman, P.B., Economics of Protected

Areas- New Look at Benefits and Costs (Washington

DC: Island Press, 1990).

Drake, S., “Dcvelopment of a Local Participation Plan for

Ecotourism Projects,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and

Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress,

1991), pp. 252-268.

Ecology USA “Slants & Trends,” vol. 21, N0. 13,June 29,

1992, p. 121.

English, E.P., The Great Escape?-An Examination of

North-South Tourism (Ottawa, Canada:● The North-South

Institute, 1986).

Escobedo,A., “TrainingPrograms for LocalGuides: A Key

Factor to Assure Grassroots Participation and Broader

. Distribution of Economic Benefits,” J.A. Kusler (ed.),

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison,

WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 335-344.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Feder, H., “Selling the Ecotourism Concept,” J.A. Kusler

@d.), Ecotourism and Resource Consevation, vol. 2

(Madison,WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 787-801.

Foster, N., and Lemay, M.H. (eds.) Managing Marine

Protected Areas- An Action Plan (Washington, DC: U.S.

Man and the Biosphere Program, 1989).

Goering, P.G., “The Response to Tourism in Ledakh“

Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 14, No. 1, 1990, pp.

20-25.

Hill, C., ‘ ‘The Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica” Cultural

Survival Quarterly, vol. 14, No. 1, 1990, pp. 14-19

Hoessle, K., “Ecotourism and Alaska's Wild Lands:

Introduction, Impacts and J.A., Kusler (ed.),

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison,

WI:Omnipress , 1991), pp. 383-400.

Inskeep, E.,Tourism Planning (New York, NY: Van

Nostrand Rienhold, 1991.

Johnston, B.R, "Introduction Breaking Out of the Tourist

Trap,” Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 14, No. 1, 1990,

pp. 2-5.

Knecht, R.W., and Cicin-Sain, B., “The Role of Governmcnt in Marine Tourism,“ M.L. Miller and J. Auyong (eds.)

Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine

Tourism-A Symposium and Workshop on Balancing

Conservation and Economic Development, Honolulu, HI,

May 25-31,1990,2 vol., NCRI-T-91-0101991 (Newport,

OR: National Coastal Resources Research & Development

Institute, 1991), pp. 46-48.

Kusler, J.A., “Ecotourism and Resource Conservation

Introduction to Issues,” J.A. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and

Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress,

1991a), pp. 2-8.

Kusler, J.A., “Protected Area Approaches and Ecotourism” J.A. Kusler (ccL), Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation,vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991b),pp.

14-23.

Kuss, F., Graefe, A., and Vaske, J., Visitor Impact

Management-A Review of Research (Washington, DC:

National Parks and Conscrvation Association, 1990).

Liming, R.G., Selling the U.S.A.” State Government

News, vol. 35, April 1992, pp. 22-24.

Lindberg, K., Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s

Ecological and Economic Benefits (Washington DC:

World Resources Institute, 1991).

Linton, J.D., “Protected Area Planning and Management

Alternative Approaches in Canada," J.A. Kusler (ed.)

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 2 (Madison,

WI:Onmipress , 1991), pp. 557-562

Lubeck, L, “East African Safari Tourism: The Environmental Role of Tour Operators, Travel Agents and Tourists,” JA. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp.

115-133.

McNeely, J.A, and Thorsell,J.W., Guidelines for Development of Terrestrial and Marine National Parks for Tourism

and Travel (Gland, Switzerland International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1987).

Miller, M., and Auyong, J., “Coastal Zone Tourism”

Marine Policy, vol. 15, March 1991, pp. 75-90.

Miller, M., and Ditton, R., “Travel, Tourism and Marine

Affairs,” Coastal Zone Management Journal, vol. 14, No.

1/2, 1986, pp. 1-19.

Mitchell, B.A., and Barbonak, J.R., “A New System of

Marine Parks and Protected Areas in the Turks and Caicos

Islands, BWI,” M.L. Miller and J. Auyong (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine

-21 -
22 . Science and Technology issues in Coastal Ecotourism

Tourism- Symposium and Workshop on Balancing Conservation and Economic Development, Honolulu HI, May

25-31, 1990,2 vols., NCRI-T-91-0101991 (Newport, OR:

National Coastal Resources Research & Development

Institute, 1991), pp. 225-235.

38. Moore, A.W., “Planning for Ecotourism in Protected

Areas,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation, vol. 2 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp.

563-574.

39. Murphy, P.E., Tourism- A Community Approach (New

York, NY: Methuen, 1985).

40. National Audubon Society, “Travel Ethic for Environmentally

Responsible Travel,” Ecotourism Management Workshop?

George Washington University and the Ecotourism Society,

Washington, DC, June 18-22, 1991, pp. 3-4.

41. Pederson, A., “Issues, Problems and Lesssons Learned from

Three Ecotourism Planning Projects,” J.A. Kusler (cd.),

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison

WI:Omnipress , 1991), pp. 61-74.

42. Peters, J., “A Participatory Action Research Approach for

Ecotourism Development in the Ranomagana National

Park, Madagascar,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and

Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress,

1991), pp. 425440.

43. Pheng, K.S., and Kamm W.P., “Geographical Information

systems in Resource Assessment and Planning,” Tropical

Coastal Area Management Newsletter, vol. 4,N0. 2, August

1989, pp. 1-5.

44. Pro@ M., and Canham., H., “A Community’s Valuation of

the Culebra Wildlife Refuge,” J.A. Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI:

Omnipress, 1991), pp. 269-288.

45. Richter, L.K., “The potitics of Tourism: Implications Of

Coastal and Marine Tourism," M.L. Miller and J. Auyong

(ed.) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and

Marine Tourism-A Symposium and Workshop on Balancing Conservation and Economic Development, Honolulu

HI, May 25-31,1990,2 vols., NCRI-T-91-0101991 (Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources Research & Development Institute, 1991), pp. 40-45.

46. Rogers, C.S., McLain, I.N., and Tobias, C.R., “Damage to

Marine Resources m Virgin Islands National Park Often

Out of Sight But No Longer Out of Mind” M.L Miller and

J. Auyong (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990W Congress on

Coastal and Marine Tourism-A Symposium and Workshop

on Balancing Conservation and Economic Development,

Honolulu HI, May 25-31, 1990, 2 vol., NCRT-91-

0101991 (Ncwport, OR: National Coastal Resources Research & Development Institute, 1991), pp. 132-136.

47. Ryel, R., ‘Ecotourism An Economic Alternative for

Natural Resource Destruction,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol. 1, (Madison, WI:

. Omnipress, 1991), pp. 31-44.

48. Rymer,T.M., “The Growth of the U.S. Ecotourism Market

1980-1989 and its Future in the 1990's,” Master’s Thesis,

College of Hospitality Managment, Florida International

University, May 1991.

49. Schneider, D.M., Godschalk, D.R., and Axler, N., ‘The

Carrying Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool,” Report

No. 338 (Chicago, IL: American Manning Association,

December 1978).

50. Stankey, G.H., “Conservation, Recreation and Tourism in

Marine settings: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?,” M.L.

Miller and J. Auyong (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990

Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism Symposium

and Workshop on Balancing Conservation and Economic

Development, Honolulu HI, May 25-31, 1990, 2 vols.,

NCRI-T-91-11991 (Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources Research & Development Institute, 1991), pp.

51. Sutton, D.B., “From the Taj to the Tiger,” Cultural

Survival Quarterly, vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, pp. 15-19.

52. Takahashi, L., “Birding Tourism in the Third World: A

Look at the Industry, the Destinations and the Impacts,”

masters thesis, School of Forestry and Environmental

Studies, Duke University, 1987.

53. Tambiah, CR., “Integrating Tourists, Local Communities

and Sea Turtles: Facilitating Sustainable Programs,” J.A.

Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol.

1 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 345-356.

54. Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Resources and Opportunities, Outdoor Recreation in a Nation Communites

Action Plan for Americans Outdoors, Report of the Task

Force to the Domestic Policy Council, Washington DC,

July 1988.

55. Telesis USA, Inc., “Sustainable Economic Development

Options for the Dzanga-Sangha Reserve, Central African

Republic-Executive Summary,” Ecotourism Management Workshop, George Washington University/

Ecotourism Society, Washington, DC, June 18-22, 1991,

pp. 135-149.

56. Thomas, p., “Coastal and Marine Tourism A Conservation

Perspective,” M.L Miller and J. Auyong (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine

Tourism-A Symposium and Workshop on Balancing

Conservation and Economic Development, Honolulu HI,

May 25-31,1990,2 vols., NCRI-T-91-0101991 (Newport,

OR: National Coastal Resources Research & Development

Institute, 1991), pp.18-22.

57. Torrance, D.C., ’’Deep Ecology: Rescuing Florida’s Reefs,”

Nature Conservancy Magazine, vol. 41, No. 4, July/August

1991, pp. 8-17.

58. Trent , D.B., “Case Studies of Two Ecotourism Destinations

m Brazil,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation, vol. 1 WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp.

441-452.

59. Us. congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Forest

Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems OTA-F-505 (Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992).

60. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular

Areas OTA-F-325 (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, June 1987).

61. Weiner- S., “The Ecotourist as Ambassador,” J.A.

Kusler (cd.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, vol.

1 (Madison WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 99-108.

62. Wenkam, R., “TheTravel Industry and the Environment,"

J.A. Kusler (cd.) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation,

vol. 2 (Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1991), pp. 816-819.

63. Williams, P.W., “Evaluating_ Environmental Impact and

Physical Carrying Capacity in Tourism,” ].R.B. Ritchie and

CR. Goeldner, Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research

(New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons, 1987), pp. 385-397.

64. Wood, M.E., Executive Director, The Ecotourism Society,

North Bennington, VT, personal communication, Aug. 6, 1992. 

 65. Wood, M.E., “Formulating the Ecotoursm Society’s

Regional Action Plan,” J.A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and

Resource Conservation, vol. 1 (Madison, WI: Omnpress,

1991), pp. 80-89.

66. World Resources Institute (WRI), Natural Endowment:

Financing Resource Conservation for Development (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1989).

67. World Travel and Tourism Council, “Travel and Tourism

m the World Economy’ (photocopy), Report sponsored by

the American Express Travel Related Sevices Co., Inc.,

1991.

68. Ziffer, K.A., “Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance” (Washington, DC: Conservation Institute, 1989).