United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-506

January 2001

Tourism and Natural Resource

Management: A General Overview

of Research and Issues

Jeffrey D. Kline
Jeffrey D. Kline is a research forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Author
Kline, Jeffrey D. 2001. Tourism and natural resource management: a general

overview of research and issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-506. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

19 p.

In recent years, growing awareness among tourism researchers of the relations

between tourism and natural resource management has resulted in a substantial body

of academic literature examining tourism issues under a relatively new set of tourism

concepts. Seemingly new forms of tourism, such as nature-based tourism, ecotourism,

and sustainable tourism, now are advocated as an environmentally safe basis for economic development in many rural locations worldwide. The USDA Forest Service has

become interested in these new forms of tourism because of decreasing timber harvests and increasing recreation on national forest lands, and the resulting impacts of

these changes on local economies. New forms of tourism are closely related to outdoor

recreation, which has been a management objective of National Forests since their

inception. This paper discusses the concepts of nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and

sustainable tourism; provides a general overview of research and issues; and suggests

potential areas for future research. The intent is to provide a general overview of existing literature to serve as a primer for researchers and policymakers initiating more

thorough investigations of tourism and natural resource management.

Keywords: Nature-based tourism, ecotourism, sustainable development, outdoor

recreation.

Abstract
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
1

Tourism development commonly has been advocated as an alternative to traditional

natural resource-based economic development, such as timber production, agriculture,

and mining. Recently, many advocates of tourism have promoted seemingly new tourism concepts, such as nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and sustainable tourism,

among others. These new forms of tourism are promoted as an environmentally safe

way for rural communities to generate income from natural resources. They are advocated particularly in developing countries because many developing countries possess

a comparative advantage over developed countries in their ability to provide relatively

pristine natural settings (Cater 1993). Affluence, education, and environmentalism all

contribute to increasing visitation to wild lands and generate income for local communities through the expenditures of tourists such as lodging, transportation, food, guides,

and souvenirs (Laarman and Sedjo 1992). Demand for these new forms of tourism, it is

argued, arises from increased concern or interest in unique and fragile ecosystems and

a growing desire to travel to new and exotic places, and an increasing number of people who have the financial means to do so (Seidl 1994).

Research interest in these new forms of tourism has surfaced in the United States

partly because of decreasing timber harvests and increasing recreation on national forest lands and the resulting impacts of these changes on local economies. Supply and

demand projections for outdoor recreation into the next century suggest that quantities

demanded will exceed supply for many activities including wildlife observation, primitive

camping, backpacking, and nature study (English and others 1993). Although tourism

and local economic development are not explicitly included in the mission of the USDA

Forest Service, national forest management plans often include tourism development

among stated goals. For example, one goal of the Tongass National Forest management plan is to maintain recreation resource opportunities throughout national forests

while cooperatively participating with local communities and user groups when implementing recreation development projects (USDA Forest Service 1997, p. 4-36). The

plan seeks to coordinate information and marketing efforts with tourism providers and

promoters to complement efforts, to target markets for new and existing opportunities

(USDA Forest Service 1997, p. 4-37). New forms of tourism also are closely related to

outdoor recreation, which has been a management objective of national forests since

their inception.

This paper presents a general overview of relatively recent tourism research and

issues relevant to natural resources management on public lands. It discusses the

concepts of nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and sustainable tourism; provides a

general overview of research and issues; and suggests potential areas for future research. The paper provides basic information about new and different tourism concepts, approaches to measuring their economic impacts and values, and issues related

to successful tourism development. Published literature about tourism is extensive and

international. Although this overview draws on much of the existing recent literature, it

is not an exhaustive review of that literature. Rather, it includes a significant body of

literature sufficient to serve as a primer for researchers and policymakers initiating

more thorough investigations of the relations between tourism and natural resource

management.

Increasingly, terms such as nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and sustainable tourism, among others, have been used by tourism researchers to characterize specific

types of tourism and to qualify specific ranges of tourism-related issues. Several

studies devote significant attention to defining these different tourism concepts and

their implications in relation to tourism (a few examples include Backman and others

Introduction

Nature-Based

Tourism,

Ecotourism,

Sustainable Tourism
2

1994, Buckley 1994, Garrod and Fyall 1998, Higgins 1996, Orams 1995, Tisdell 1996,

Wall 1994, Wight 1993a). This paper is less concerned with debating the nuances of

the different concepts than it is with suggesting what different tourism concepts imply

about relations between tourism and natural resource management. At times, the terms

nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and sustainable tourism seem to be used almost

interchangeably. Other less commonly used terms include green tourism and alternative tourism. Among many researchers, however, each term implies a specific concept

motivated by concern about the environmental, social, and cultural impacts of tourism.

Most of the literature on tourism describes nature-based tourism (or nature tourism) as

tourism activity generated by the existence of nature preserves, parks, and refuges. It

is travel that primarily involves direct enjoyment of undisturbed natural environments

(Valentine 1992, Weiler and Davis 1993). Absent additional qualifiers, nature-based

tourism seemingly could include what many would view as fairly mainstream tourism

development ranging from large hotel and restaurant franchises intended to serve

the needs of nature tourists for such activities as whale watching from cruise ships

and visiting popular sites such as Yellowstone National Park. Most of the literature,

however, qualifies nature-based tourism as being specifically concerned with the

conservation or preservation of the “nature” on which the tourism is based. For many

reseachers, it is this qualification that distinguishes ecotourism from nature-based

tourism.

The term ecotourism has been used as far back as 1965 (Fennell 1998). Gossling

(1999) suggests that nature-based tourism is derived from the existence of natural

areas with no specific concern for their protection, whereas ecotourism is concerned

with the protection of natural areas. Gossling advocates ecotourism as a means to

achieve rural economic development by enabling people who live in rural areas to capture the economic nonuse values derived from natural areas. Typical services offered

at ecotourism destinations might include local arts and crafts, guided hikes and wildlife

viewing, publications, natural history lectures, photography, and local food. Revenues

are generated from fees for these services, as well as natural area user fees and local

expenditures for hotels, restaurants and bars, and transportation services (Seidl 1994).

Some writers qualify ecotourism even more specifically, suggesting that it also must

provide direct revenue toward the conservation or protection of natural areas and

educate tourists about related environmental issues. The Ecotourism Society defines

ecotourism as “travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of

the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem, while producing

opportunities that make the conservation of the natural resources beneficial to local

citizens” (Wood 1993). Orams (1995) argues that ecotourism must provide more than

mere enjoyment; it must foster changes in the attitudes and behavior of tourists about

the protection of natural resources.

The qualification that ecotourism not harm the natural environment raises the issue of

sustainability and the additional concept of sustainable tourism. Many writers devote

much attention to defining ecotourism and sustainable tourism (for example, Garrod

and Fyall 1998, Hughes 1995, Hunter 1995, 1997). Definitions of sustainable tourism,

however, vary according to differing views of sustainability. Sustainability in tourism

literature can be considered within political, social, economic, ecological, and cultural

contexts (Henry and Jackson 1996) with sustainability of natural resources being the

predominant view. Whelan (1991a), for example, describes ecotourism as sustainable

economic development providing employment and income to local communities while
3

allowing for the continued existence of the natural resource base. A different view of

sustainable tourism focuses on social and cultural stability. For example, Pearce (1995)

warns that focusing on ecological sustainability too often ignores sociocultural sustainability. Tourists can intrude on locals, and locals can intrude on tourists (Weaver 1995).

Many researchers define ecotourism as the type of sustainable tourism development advocated in the Bruntland Report (World Commission on Environment and

Development 1987). Ecotourism precludes more intensive exploitation of natural

resources in rural areas or developing countries by providing economic returns that

exist as positive incentives to local residents who are enlisted in natural resource protection. In this view, nontourism industries generally are portrayed as exploitative and

degrading to natural resources, whereas tourism generally, and ecotourism specifically,

are advocated as ways to capture natural resource use and nonuse values. According

to this view, nontourism industries must be controlled and ecotourism promoted.

Some researchers view the tourism industry itself as exploitative and degrading to natural resources as well as indigenous people and cultures. According to this view, the

development of tourism is what must be controlled to sustain natural resources and cultural attributes on which tourism depends. This view of sustainable tourism, as Hughes

(1995) notes, arises from dissatisfaction with present principles and practices of the

tourism industry as a whole.

To some extent, sustainability concerns arising from unconstrained tourism development are related to the concept of recreation carrying capacity,a term that has been

used to define appropriate social, cultural, and ecological limits to tourism development

(for example, Brown and others 1997, Johnson and Snepenger 1993, Stankey and

McCool 1984), although debate continues as to its usefulness (see for example, Brown

and others 1998, Buckley 1999, Lindberg and McCool 1998, Lindberg and others

1997). Researchers also have discussed ecotourism in the context of the tourism life

cycle (Butler 1980). The general idea is that a relatively undeveloped location initially

may attract a few adventurous tourists seeking pristine nature and in-digenous

cultures. As tour operators and related service businesses recognize the market

potential of a location, the local tourism industry expands, and the location becomes

more developed. The expanded local tourism industry may continue at the location, but

the initial tourists, originally attracted by the undeveloped features of the location, move

on to other locations that remain undeveloped and pristine.

Wall (1994) suggests that ecotourism is characteristic of the early stages of the tourism life cycle. Ecotourism relies on a place to look and feel pristine, but once a place

is “spoiled,” the ecotourism industry must search for the next undiscovered and pristine

landscape or culture. In effect, ecotourism acts against the goals of ecotourism (Haenn

1994). The life cycle implies that carrying capacity is exceeded when visitation increases to the extent that a shift from ecotourists to general tourists occurs (Duffus

and Dearden 1990, Thomlinson and Getz 1996). For some ecotourism advocates,

sustainability issues arise from concern that destinations will evolve into these later

stages. More cynical observers suggest that economic incentives to develop are too

great for any tourist destination to remain undeveloped for long. As destinations become crowded or degraded because of increased visitation and human encroachment,

supply is reduced until new destinations become available (Seidl 1994).

The concept of sustainable tourism also at times focuses less on tourism as sustainable development than on sustaining the tourism industry itself. For example, Cohen

and Richardson (1995) and McKercher (1993b) suggest that nature-based tourism is
4

vulnerable to incompatible industries operating too near tourism sites. Cohen and

Richardson (1995) in particular argue that the nature-based tourism industry must

gain sufficient power to enlist the support of public officials to exclude incompatible

industries. Hunter (1995) criticizes some of these emerging notions of sustainable

tourism as tourism centric. Sustainable tourism, Hunter (1995) argues, may not be

consistent with sustainable development because it focuses more on specific tourism

sites and their protection than on the surrounding geographic area. With such a narrow geographic focus, the potential exists for environmental problems associated

with tourism in one location to be passed on to surrounding areas (Hunter 1995).

Whichever term we use, nature-based tourism, ecotourism, sustainable tourism, or

some other conceptual permutation of tourism, any one can be somewhat value-based

and reveal personal biases of the individual researchers who advocate them. The concepts commonly are used as labels in tourism marketing without necessarily meeting

specific sustainability criteria (Wight 1993a) and without actually addressing any of the

potentially negative impacts of tourism (Wheeler 1993). The concepts can be viewed

more broadly as innovation within the tourism industry as it responds to changing market conditions and consumer demand for environmentally friendly products (Hjalager

1996, 1997). The concepts themselves are not new but rather are new ways of categorizing the pleasure travel market or tourism (Backman and others 1994).

Other researchers suggest that although new concepts such as ecotourism may not

represent an abrupt shift from traditional recreation and tourism, they do represent a

change in the level of visitation to natural areas and a change in the goals that various

stakeholders attach to visitation. In particular, tourists increasingly demand vacations

that are challenging and educational. Community planners and other local officials

increasingly view natural areas as potential sources of tourism revenue that can offset

economic declines in other natural resource sectors and contribute to the protection of

natural areas themselves (Lindberg and McKercher 1997). Because the precise meanings of new tourism concepts can be somewhat ambiguous, analysts conducting applied tourism research must adapt new tourism concepts to the specific environmental,

social, and cultural constraints that characterize tourism issues under study.

Much academic literature has been published in recent years about various issues

implied by new tourism concepts, many of which have implications for natural resource

management. This section provides a brief overview of that literature. Much of this work

can be loosely classified as ecotourism literature, although the label means somewhat

different things to different researchers. Many of the studies discussed in this literature

are conducted in developing countries. The issues raised and the methods used, however, have distinct parallels with tourism development issues in the United States, particularly those relevant to rural areas of the United States where national forests and

other public lands already attract (or have the potential to attract) tourism and inspire

tourism development in surrounding communities.

An important factor in ecotourism development is the amount of revenue that remains

within local economies (Seidl 1994). For example, economic benefits derived from ecotourism can contribute to residents having positive attitudes toward local natural areas

(Lindberg and others 1996) and serve as economic incentives for natural resource

conservation (Wunder 2000). Alternatively, if local residents bear the costs of tourism

without receiving any benefits, they may be unsupportive of not only tourism but also

the conservation of natural areas on which tourism is based. Sustainable tourism

development must meet the needs of the host population in terms of improved living

Research and Issues

Economic Impacts,

Economic Values, and

Market Segmentation
5

standards while satisfying the demands of tourism and protecting the natural environment (Seidl 1994). The costs and benefits of protection may not be distributed equally

among tourism providers and local residents (Dixon and Sherman 1990).

Measuring the economic impacts of tourism and outdoor recreation has received considerable attention in academic literature (see reviews by Eadington and Redman

1991, Frederick 1992). Economic impacts generally are examined within a costbenefit framework (Dixon and Sherman 1990, Walsh 1986) with the benefits measured by using expenditure surveys combined with input-output analysis (for example,

Briassoulis 1991, Propst 1985). Travel cost or contingent valuation methods also are

commonly used to place dollar values on natural areas or marginal changes in their

characteristics (Bostedt and Mattsson 1995, Durojaiye and Ikpi 1988, Echeverria and

others 1995, Forster 1989, Lee 1997, Lee and others 1998, Loomis 1989, Moran

1994). The trend toward greater reliance on user fees in the financial management of

public lands (Laarman and Gregersen 1996, Van Sickle and Eagles 1998) also has led

to many studies examining fees and pricing policies (for example, Chase and others

1998, Leuschner and others 1987, Lindberg and Huber 1993, Rosenthal and others

1984, Ross Risher and Christensen 1999, Wilman 1988).

Measuring economic impacts or values derived from tourism necessitates differentiating between the economic benefits derived from the various forms of tourism. One

of the problems in determining the economic impact of ecotourism, for example, is

knowing what is meant by the term (Tisdell 1996). Differentiating between economic

benefits derived from ecotourism and those derived from general tourism can depend

on how each is defined.

When ecotourism is defined less restrictively, as simply tourism derived from nature

preserves, parks, or refuges, researchers tend to assume that all economic impacts

derived from those natural areas are ecotourism-derived impacts (for example, Boo

1990). Economic impacts are measured by using expenditure surveys of tourists

visiting those areas. Tourism expenditures assumed to be generated by a particular

natural area may be reported for a well-defined geographic area (English 1992, English

and Bergstrom 1994, English and Thill 1996, Yuan and Christensen 1994) or combined

with input-output analysis to describe secondary impacts (Cordell and others 1992,

Donnelly and others 1998 Kanters and Botkin 1992). An alternative to surveying

tourists is surveying local businesses (Kangas and others 1995) and residents

(Lindberg and others 1996).

When ecotourism is defined more restrictively and confined to particular types of tourism activity or particular types of tourists, researchers attempt to segment tourists into

the categories of ecotourist and general tourist. One approach identifies ecotourists as

those individuals pursuing recreational activities that are assumed to characterize

ecotourism. Economic impacts might then be based on the economic value of specific

outdoor recreation activities. For example, studies have estimated the economic value

of wildlife viewing (Navrud and Mungatana 1994), birdwatching (Eubanks and others

1993, Hvenegaard and others 1989, Kerlinger 1995), and whitewater recreation

(Johnson and Moore 1993), among other activities (for example, Bhat and others

1998).

Another approach confines ecotourism to tourists possessing certain attitudes or

motives. Attitude or motive-based segmentation combines surveys of tourists with

factor and cluster analysis to segment tourists according to their trip motives or

socioeconomic characteristics (Andereck and Caldwell 1994, Backman 1994, Beard
6

and Ragheb 1983, Loker-Murphy 1996, McCool and Reilly 1993, Ryan and Glendon

1998, Stemerding and others 1996, Thrane 1997). This method has been used to segment ecotourists from general tourists (Eagles 1992, Hvenegaard and Dearden 1998,

Saleh and Karwacki 1996, Wight 1997) and ecotour operators from nonecotour operators (Bottrill and Pearce 1995). Segmentation can be used to disaggregate expenditure,

travel cost, or contingent valuation survey results into ecotourism and general tourism

economic impacts. Segmentation also can be used to evaluate how preferences for

site management differ among ecotourists and general tourists (for example, Betz

and Perdue 1993, Holden 1998, Holmes 1996, Jurowski and others 1995).

Selecting an appropriate method for segmenting different types of tourism and tourists

depends on the location and situation of interest. Focusing on specific natural areas

may be appropriate in some cases, whereas focusing on different types of tourists may

be appropriate in others. Some tourists may visit one location to escape commercial

development, whereas others may expect typical tourist services offered by national

franchises. Different tourists may differ in their spending and rates of visitation. Individual trips might take on characteristics of ecotourism at some times and characteristics of general tourism at others (Lindberg 1991). Recognition of different types of

tourism and tourists, the economic impacts different tourists generate, and the use and

nonuse values they hold with respect to their tourism experience can have important

implications for how tourism economics research is conducted.

Perhaps the greatest proportion of published ecotourism literature presents case

studies examining political, social, economic, and environmental issues related to tourism development in specific locations (for example, Akama 1996, Campbell 1999, Carr

and Wilson 1994, Cooper 1995, Hall 1998, Hall and McArthur 1993, Hampton 1998,

Herath 1997, Hughes 1995, Klemm 1992, Lindberg and others 1996, Moore and Carter

1993, Muir and Chester 1993, Owen and others 1993, Unwin 1996, Wall 1993, Weaver

1995). Additional case studies examine perceptions of tourism and ecotourism among

local residents (Campbell 1999, Fitton 1996, Lindberg and Johnson 1997, Walker

1997), businesses (Berry and Ladkin 1997, Forsyth 1995, Hvenegaard and others

1989, Langholz 1996, Lew 1998, Thomlinson and Getz 1996, Weaver and others

1996), and local government officials (Godfrey 1998). Case studies also describe ecotourism businesses development (Herremans and Welsh 1999) and examine naturebased tourism promotion strategies (Durst and Ingram 1988).

Some studies focus more directly on difficulties associated with ecotourism planning

and development. For example, ecotourism development can be adversely impacted

by inadequate protection of natural areas on which ecotourism is based (Wells 1993).

National political and economic priorities can dominate regional or local priorities,

thereby leading to national policies that are incompatible with sustainable tourism development (Tosun 1998). In other locations, prodevelopment and proprotection roles

might be reversed. Disagreement may exist between national protection interests and

the economic development aspirations of local communities (Prunier and others 1993).

Sustainable tourism advocates may not always agree with local residents. What sustainable tourism advocates may see as potential conflicts between tourism development and natural resource protection, local residents may see as desirable economic

development. Failure to involve communities in tourism development decisions along

with an inability of policymakers to form an integrated regional vision can be obstacles

to sustainable development (Ioannides 1995). Progress toward sustainability most

likely occurs in communities that recognize the potential costs and benefits of tourism

and are willing to take a proactive approach in its planning and management (Godfrey

1998).

Planning and

Development Case

Studies
7

Collaboration is a common theme advocated for successful ecotourism development.

Cooperation and coordination between public and private sectors are important (Berry

and Ladkin 1997, Klemm 1992). Several case studies describe integrated roles of natural resources management agencies, tourism service industries, government agencies, and local communities as important factors leading to successful ecotourism

development (Boo 1990, Bramwell and Sharman 1999, Burns and Holden 1995,

Darrow 1995, Dixon and Sherman 1990, Fennell and Eagles 1990, Masberg 1996,

Moore and Carter 1993, Selin 1994). Many studies advocate the need for community

involvement and outline community-based tourism development strategies (Anderson

1991, Haywood 1988, Murphy 1988, Simmons 1994, Taylor 1995).

Community involvement can be impeded by disagreement over the level or type of

tourism development desired (Wyllie 1998). It can be difficult to discern whether tourism development is an appropriate alternative to other types of economic development

in different locations (Joppe 1996). A potential problem of basing a local economy on

tourism is that tourism injects money into the economy without producing more goods

for people to consume. This can result in local price inflation, which is worsened by the

presence of tourists who increase demand (Seidl 1994). For many communities, tourism will have a limited growth potential. Economic activity based on tourism and recreation can suffer significant seasonal variability (Keith and others 1996). Ecotourism is

subject to fluctuations owing to ups and downs in the trendiness of given destinations

and modes of travel (Seidl 1994). Local residents also may face significant opportunity

costs associated with restrictions on local resource use, whereas the benefits of protection may not be readily apparent. Tourism should be viewed as part of an overall

economic and environmental plan that includes other industries (Anderson 1994).

Researchers argue that overdeveloped or unsustainable tourism results from the openaccess nature of natural resources on which tourism is based (Lindberg 1991, Steele

1995). Overdevelopment can result in damage to natural resources and reduced enjoyment by tourists because of congestion and site degradation. Steele (1995) argues that

problems derived from open access can be remedied if control over the resource is assigned to governments, local communities, or private entities who can restrict access.

Assigning control to one entity, however, can lead to other problems. For example,

governments may feel compelled to maintain open access as a service to the public

(Lindberg 1991). Development of seemingly sustainable tourism also can lead to unsustainable tourism development if tourism businesses are unable to resist the temptation to increase visitors (Weaver 1995). Economic incentives often run counter to preservation and favor development (Backman and others 1994). Tourism development

also potentially can spark desired or undesired growth in nontourism sectors.

Several studies propose specific principles, criteria, or guidelines by which to judge

ecotourism development success (D’Amore 1992, Driml and Common 1996, Ecotourism Society 1993, Lane 1994, Moscardo and others 1996, Todd and Williams 1996,

Valentine 1993, Wallace and Pierce 1996, Wight 1993b). Some attempts at sustainable

tourism development also have relied on the implementation of charters or codes of

ethics designed to guide the activities of tourists and the tourism industry (Blangy and

Wood 1993, D’Amore 1992, Mason 1994, Millman 1989). Dowling (1993) proposes an

environmentally based tourism development planning model as one way to implement

environmentally compatible sustainable tourism. The usefulness of such prescriptions

for ecotourism likely are dependent on specific circumstances of specific locations.

Establishing Criteria for

Success
8

National forests and other public lands undoubtedly have played a role in attracting

tourism in many communities located near them, by providing significant outdoor recreation opportunities in relatively undeveloped settings. Much of this tourism fits within

new nature-based tourism, ecotourism, and sustainable tourism concepts. Many of the

issues and concerns that motivate interest in new forms of tourism are consistent with

the traditional conservation-oriented multiple-use objectives that have characterized

national forest management. Although outdoor recreation historically has been an important component of research conducted by the USDA Forest Service, tourism research has not. Although recreation and tourism research address many similar concepts and issues, little integration exists between the two. Increasing recognition of the

role of national forests as tourism destinations may imply a need to expand traditional

outdoor recreation planning to include inquiry into the economic, social, and ecological

impacts of tourism.

An important factor in tourism development is whether natural or cultural resources

exist on which to base a tourism industry. New tourism concepts, such as ecotourism,

may require natural areas or cultures that are relatively unique or pristine. Economic

feasibility depends on a site having a marketable product (Seidl 1994). Not all locations are sufficiently unique to draw tourists. If a location is a less popular or highly specialized destination, there can be risks involved in developing a reliance on tourism

(Anderson 1991). Poor accessibility owing to remoteness or inadequate transportation

systems can constrain tourism growth. Some communities may be unable to provide

or develop necessary complementary tourist services. Different scales and types of

tourism development may be appropriate in different locations. Some communities

located near national forests or other public lands likely possess comparative advantages in offering relatively undeveloped natural areas potentially of interest to tourists

seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. Whether their comparative advantages in

tourism exceed those in other natural resource-based industries is not always clear.

Evaluating the existing and potential role national forests can play in attracting local and

regional tourism likely would aid national forest managers in natural resource planning.

In addition to the natural resource endowments provided by national forests, how those

endowments are managed will significantly impact the numbers and types of tourists

that will be attracted. Traditional multiple-use objectives of national forests may be incompatible with certain types of tourism. For example, it is plausible that certain types

of tourists may be unwilling to accept any signs of intensive forest management for

commercial timber production. Locations that can enhance or maintain their relative

environmental quality will improve their comparative advantage over other destinations

(Farrell and Runyan 1991). Also, certain recreational activities may be incompatible

with others, thereby resulting in conflicts between different tourists seeking different

forms of recreation. Hikers may be at odds with off-road vehicle users, hunters may be

at odds with birdwatchers, and motorized boaters may be at odds with nonmotorized

boaters. Accommodating every type of tourist may be infeasible in every location. Tourism planning may require aligning forest management with the preferences of tourists

in specific locations. User surveys could assist in identifying specific outdoor amenities

and forest management activities that attract or repell different types of tourists (for example, Betz and Perdue 1993, Holmes and others 1996) and aid in developing appropriate forest management prescriptions in specific locations.

Tourism Research

and the USDA Forest

Service

Evaluating National

Forests as Tourism

Resources

Forest Management

Impacts on Tourism
9

Recent literature on tourism tends to differentiate between mass tourism, which is

viewed as environmentally and culturally destructive, and alternative forms of tourism

developed on a smaller scale so as to minimize adverse impacts to local environments

and cultures. These alternative forms of tourism, it is argued, provide local residents

greater employment opportunities, maintain a greater share of economic benefits within the local area, and result in less negative impacts (Hampton 1998). In contrast,

mass tourism is associated with large-scale, high-density accommodations, contrived

attractions, seasonal markets, and limited benefits to the local economy with minimal

concern for carrying capacity and a lack of local involvement (Weaver 1995). One

advantage of tourism development on a larger scale, however, is the ability for local

government agencies to control accommodation standards and recoup tax revenues

through licensing, which is more difficult with more fragmented and small-scale tourism

development (Carey and others 1997). Different types and scales of tourism development imply economic, social, and ecological tradeoffs.

Virtually any kind of tourism activity will result in some impact to natural resources

somewhere (Cater 1993, Hunter 1997). Despite strong ethical and environmental

motives, ecotourists still are seeking primarily pleasure and entertainment (McKercher

1993a). As Prunier and others (1993, p. 141) suggest, a person who wishes to be a

“green” holidaymaker should remain at home. Wildlife biologists are concerned that

even ecotourism can adversely affect wildlife (Jacobson and Lopez 1994). Moscardo

and others (1996) suggest that rather than embracing a simplified dichotomy between

“good” and “bad” tourism, a more useful analytical framework may be to examine the

dimensions underlying the different manifestations of tourism. A successful tourism

industry in one area may not fit in another.

In their discussion of recreation carrying capacity, Stankey and McCool (1984) suggest

that the question of “how much is too much?” may focus on the wrong issue. Rather,

the focus should be on identifying what kinds of resource and social conditions are

appropriate and acceptable in different settings. In considering if tourism development

is appropriate in a given location, the comparative advantages of different types and

scales of tourism development need to be evaluated. Social, economic, and ecological

constraints need to be identified. Successful tourism development will depend less on

how tourism is labeled than on the natural endowments in given locations and the existing infrastructure, local expertise, and community support necessary to complement

those endowments. Studies could address what types and scales of tourism development are appropriate in certain locations from economic, social, and ecological

perspectives.

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in charging user fees for access to

public lands. Revenue can be made both by entrance fees charged to tourists and by

use permits charged to businesses offering tourist services such as guided tours on

public lands. Fees can help public agencies recoup the costs of natural resource management and reduce congestion at certain sites by creating economic disincentives to

visit. Entrance fees to parks and natural areas frequently are set below amounts visitors are willing to pay and below amounts required to finance park budgets (Laarman

and Gregersen 1996). Low fees often persist because of a lack of information regarding site demand, and potential impacts of charging higher fees often are unknown

(Lindberg and Johnson 1994). Pricing potentially can lead to greater efficiency, fairness, and environmentally sustainable nature-based tourism (Laarman and Gregersen

1996). For national forests, this may imply setting user fees that are sufficient to capture positive unpriced benefits derived from forest resources.

Evaluating Economic,

Social, and Ecological

Tradeoffs

National Forest Fees and

Local Economic Impacts
10

For local communities, however, a significant socioeconomic factor in tourism development is the proportion of tourism income that can be captured by the local economy.

Such income is generated through employment in tourism-related services such as

food and lodging, gasoline, local tour guiding, and sale of souvenir and outdoor recreation equipment. Charging access fees to public lands potentially reduces visitation and

can result in adverse economic impacts to local communities where access to public

lands is a primary attraction. User surveys incorporating contingent valuation, travel

cost, or other methods could be used to provide information about the impact of fees on

rates of visitation. Such studies could be combined with economic impact assessments

within local communities to describe different fee levels in terms of potential local economic impacts. The fiscal benefits of access fees on public lands could be evaluated

within a broader context to include the tourism industry in which public lands are a part.

National forests likely will have an increasingly significant impact on tourism in communities located near them. As the U.S. population continues to grow and become more

urban, so do ever-increasing demands for outdoor recreation opportunities. Such

increased demands will place growing pressure on National Forests and other public

lands to provide the types of nontimber amenities desired by many recreationists.

These changes will lead to increasingly difficult decisions about national forest management as managers try to balance traditional multiple-use objectives. The role the

USDA Forest Service intends to play in tourism development in local communities is

not clearly defined. Should the agency be more actively involved in local tourism development planning? Are there types of tourism the agency should encourage or discourage? How would the role of the agency differ depending on local economic, social,

and ecological conditions, and in relation to economic diversification, community resiliency, and economic dependence on public lands? These likely will be some of the

questions confronting researchers and policymakers in the future.

I thank Ralph Alig, David Brooks, Kreg Lindberg, Stephen McCool, and Guy Robertson

for their helpful comments.

Akama, John S. 1996. Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in

Kenya. Tourism Management. 17: 567-574.

Andereck, Kathleen A.; Caldwell, Linda L. 1994. Motive-based segmentation of

a public zoological park market. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

12: 19-31.

Anderson, David L. 1994. Developing ecotourism destinations: conservation from the

beginning. Trends. 31: 31-38.

Anderson, Malcolm J. 1991. Problems with tourism development in Canada’s eastern

arctic. Tourism Management. 12: 209-219.

Backman, Kenneth F.; Wright, Brett A.; Backman, Sheila J. 1994. Ecotourism: a

short descriptive exploration. Trends. 31: 23-27.

Backman, Sheila J. 1994. Using a person-situation approach to market segmentation.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 12: 1-16.

Beard, Jacob G.; Ragheb, Mounir G. 1983. Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of

Leisure Research. 15: 219-228.

Berry, Sue; Ladkin, Adele. 1997. Sustainable tourism: a regional perspective.

Tourism Management. 18: 433-440.

Defining the Role of

the Forest Service in

Tourism

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited
11

Betz, Carter J.; Perdue, Richard R. 1993. The role of amenity resources in rural

recreation and tourism development. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

11: 15-44.

Bhat, Gajanan; Bergstrom, John; Teasley, R. Jeff [and others]. 1998. An ecoregional approach to the economic valuation of land- and water-based recreation

in the United States. Environmental Management. 22: 69-77.

Blangy, Sylvie; Wood, Megan Epler. 1993. Developing and implementing ecotourism

guidelines for wildlands and neighboring communities. In: Lindberg, Kreg; Hawkins,

Donald E., eds. Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers. North Bennington,

VT: Ecotourism Society: 32-54.

Boo, Elizabeth. 1990. Ecotourism: the potential pitfalls: Volume 2. Country case

studies. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund. 173 p.

Bostedt, Goran; Mattsson, Leif. 1995. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden.

Annals of Tourism Research. 22: 671-680.

Bottrill, Christopher G.; Pearce, Douglas G. 1995. Ecotourism: towards a key elements approach to operationalising the concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

3: 45-54.

Bramwell, Bill; Sharman, Angela. 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking.

Annals of Tourism Research. 26: 392-415.

Briassoulis, Helen. 1991. Methodological issues: tourism input-output analysis.

Annals of Tourism Research. 18: 485-495.

Brown, K.; Turner, R.K.; Hameed, H.; Bateman, I. 1997. Environmental carrying

capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental

Conservation. 24: 316-325.

Brown, Katrina, R.; Turner, Kery; Hameed, Hala; Bateman, Ian. 1998. Reply to

Lindberg and McCool: a critique of environmental carrying capacity as a means

of managing the effects of tourism development. Environmental Conservation.

25: 293-294.

Buckley, Ralf. 1994. A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research.

21: 661-665.

Buckley, Ralf. 1999. An ecological perspective on carrying capacity. Annals of

Tourism Research. 26: 705-708.

Burns, Peter M.; Holden, Andrew. 1995. Tourism: a new perspective. New York:

Prentice Hall. 239 p.

Butler, R.W. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for

management of resources. Canadian Geographer. 24: 5-12.

Campbell, Lisa M. 1999. Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of

Tourism Research. 26: 392-415.

Carey, Sandra; Gountas, Y.; Gilbert, D. 1997. Tour operators and destination

sustainability. Tourism Management. 18: 425-431.

Carr, Margaret Hammond; Wilson, Karen Herrington. 1994. Ecotourism in Florida:

a local look at a global approach. Trends. 31: 16-18.
12

Cater, Erlet. 1993. Ecotourism in the third world: problems for sustainable tourism

development. Tourism Management. 14: 85-90.

Chase, Lisa C.; Lee, David R.; Schulze, William D.; Anderson, Deborah J. 1998.

Ecotourism demand and differential pricing of national park access in Costa Rica.

Land Economics. 74: 466-482.

Cohen, Judy; Richardson, John. 1995. Nature tourism vs. incompatible industries:

megamarketing the ecological environment to ensure the economic future of nature

tourism. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 4: 107-116.

Cooper, Chris. 1995. Strategic planning for sustainable tourism: the case of the

offshore islands of the UK. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3: 191-209.

Cordell, H. Ken; Bergstrom, John C.; Watson, Alan E. 1992. Economic growth and

interdependence effects of state park visitation in local and state economies. Journal

of Leisure Research. 24: 253-268.

D’Amore, Louis J. 1992. Promoting sustainable tourism—the Canadian approach.

Tourism Management. 13: 258-262.

Darrow, Kit. 1995. A partnership model for nature tourism in the eastern Caribbean

islands. Journal of Travel Research. 33: 48-51.

Dixon, John A.; Sherman, Paul B. 1990. Economics of protected areas: a new look

at benefits and costs. Washington, DC: Island Press. 234 p.

Donnelly, Maureen; Vaske, Jerry J.; DeRuiter, Darla S.; Loomis, John B. 1998.

Economic impacts of park visitation, park facilities, and county economic diversification. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 16: 57-72.

Dowling, Ross. 1993. An environmentally based planning model for regional tourism

development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 1: 17-37.

Driml, Sally; Common, Mick. 1996. Ecological economics criteria for sustainable

tourism: application to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage

Areas, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 3-16.

Duffus, D.; Dearden, P. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife oriented recreation: a

conceptual framework. Biological Conservation. 53: 212-231.

Durojaiye, Bamidele O.; Ikpi, Anthony E. 1988. The monetary value of recreational

facilities in a developing economy: a case study of three centers in Nigeria. Natural

Resources Journal. 28: 315-328.

Durst, Patrick B.; Ingram, C. Denise. 1988. Nature-oriented tourism promotion by

developing countries. Tourism Management. 9: 39-43.

Eadington, William R.; Redman, Milton. 1991. Economics and tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research. 18: 41-56.

Eagles, Paul F. J. 1992. The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of

Travel Research. 31: 3-7.

Echeverria, Jaime; Hanrahan, Michael; Solorzano, Raul. 1995. Valuation of nonpriced amenities provided by the biological resources within the Monteverde Cloud

Forest Preserve, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 13: 43-52.
13

English, D.B.K. 1992. Theory and techniques for estimating regional economic

impacts from outdoor recreation visitor expenditures. Atthens, GA: University of

Georgia. 173 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

English, Donald B.K.; Bergstrom, John C. 1994. The conceptual links between

recreation site development and regional economic impacts. Journal of Regional

Science. 34: 599-611.

English, Donald B.K.; Betz, Carter J.; Young, J. Mark; Bergstrom, John C.;

Cordell, H. Ken. 1993. Regional demand and supply projections for outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-230. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p.

English, Donald B.K.; Thill, Jean-Claude. 1996. Assessing regional economic

impacts of recreation travel from limited survey data. Res. Note SRS-2. Athens, GA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.

Eubanks, Ted; Kerlinger, Paul; Payne, R.H. 1993. High Island, Texas: case study in

avitourism. Birding. 25: 415-420.

Farrell, Bryan H.; Runyan, Dean. 1991. Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research. 18: 26-40.

Fennell, D.A. 1998. Ecotourism in Canada. Annals of Tourism Research. 25: 231-235.

Fennell, David A.; Eagles, Paul F.J. 1990. Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a conceptual

framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 8: 23-34.

Fitton, Martin. 1996. Does our community want tourism? Examples from South Wales.

In: Price, Martin, ed. People and tourism in fragile environments. Chichester,

England: John Wiley and Sons: 159-174.

Forster, Bruce A. 1989. Valuing outdoor recreational activity: a methodological survey.

Journal of Leisure Research. 21: 181-201.

Forsyth, Timothy. 1995. Business attitudes to sustainable tourism: self-regulated in

the UK outgoing tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3: 210-231.

Frederick, Martha. 1992. Tourism as a rural development tool: an exploration of the

literature. Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture No. 122. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture and Rural

Economy Division. 33 p.

Garrod, Brian; Fyall, Alan. 1998. Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism. Tourism

Management. 19: 199-212.

Godfrey, Kerry B. 1998. Attitudes towards sustainable tourism in the UK: a view from

local government. Tourism Management. 19: 213-224.

Gossling, Stefan. 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Ecological Economics. 29: 303-320.

Haenn, Nora. 1994. A new tourist, a new environment: can ecotourism deliver?

Trends. 31: 28-30.

Hall, C.M.; McArthur, S. 1993. Ecotourism in Antarctica and adjacent sub-Antarctic

islands: development, impacts, management and prospects for the future. Tourism

Management. 14: 117-122.
14

Hall, Derek R. 1998. Tourism development and sustainability issues in central and

southeastern Europe. Tourism Management. 19: 423-431.

Hampton, Mark P. 1998. Backpacker tourism and economic development. Annals of

Tourism Research. 25: 639-660.

Haywood, K. Michael. 1988. Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management. 9: 105-118.

Henry, I.P.; Jackson, G.A.M. 1996. Sustainability of management processes and

tourism products and contexts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 17-28.

Herath, Gamini. 1997. Ecotourism development in Australia. Annals of Tourism

Research. 24: 442-446.

Herremans, Irene M.; Welsh, Cameron. 1999. Developing and implementing a

company’s ecotourism mission statement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 7: 48-76.

Higgins, Bryan R. 1996. The global structure of the nature tourism industry:

ecotourists, tour operators, and local businesses. Journal of Travel Research.

34: 11-18.

Hjalager, Anne-Mette. 1996. Tourism and the environment: the innovation connection.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 201-218.

Hjalager, Anne-Mette. 1997. Innovation patterns in sustainable tourism: an analytical

typology. Tourism Management. 18: 35-41.

Holden, Andrew. 1998. The use of visitor understanding in skiing management and

development decisions at the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland. Tourism Management. 19: 145-152.

Holmes, Thomas; Zinkhan, Chris; Alger, Keith; Mercer, Evan. 1996. Conjoint

analysis of nature tourism values in Bahia, Brazil. Forestry Private Enterprise Initiative Working Paper No. 57. Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern Center for Forest

Economics Research. 19 p.

Hughes, George. 1995. The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism

Management. 16: 49-59.

Hunter, Colin J. 1995. On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3: 155-165.

Hunter, Colin. 1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism

Research. 24: 850-867.

Hvenegaard, Glen T.; Butler, James R.; Krystofiak, Doug K. 1989. Economic values

of bird watching at Point Pelee National Park, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17:

526-531.

Hvenegaard, Glen T.; Dearden, Philip. 1998. Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai

National Park. Annals of Tourism Research. 25: 700-720.

Ioannides, Dimitri. 1995. A flawed implementation of sustainable tourism: the experience of Akamas, Cyprus. Tourism Management. 16: 583-592.

Jacobson, Susan K.; Lopez, Alfredo Figueroa. 1994. Biological impacts of ecotourism: tourists and nesting turtles in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. 22: 414-419.
15

Johnson, Jerry D.; Snepenger, David J. 1993. Application of the tourism life

cycle concept in the greater Yellowstone region. Society and Natural Resources.

6: 127-148.

Johnson, Rebecca L.; Moore, Eric. 1993. Tourism impact estimation. Annals of

Tourism Research. 20: 279-288.

Joppe, Marion. 1996. Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism

Management. 17: 475-479.

Jurowski, Claudia; Uysal, Muzaffer; Williams, Daniel R.; Noe, Francis P. 1995. An

examination of preferences and evaluations of visitors based on environmental

attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3: 73-86.

Kangas, Patrick; Save, Mary; Shave, Paul. 1995. Economics of an ecotourism operation in Belize. Environmental Management. 19: 669-673.

Kanters, Michael A.; Botkin, M. Randy. 1992. The economic impact of public leisure

services in Illinois. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 10: 1-15.

Keith, John; Fawson, Christopher; Chang, Tsangyao. 1996. Recreation as an

economic development strategy: some evidence from Utah. Journal of Leisure

Research. 28: 96-107.

Kerlinger, Paul. 1995. Birding economics and birder demographics studies as conservation tools. In: Finch, D.; Stangel, P., eds. Proceedings of states and management of Neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO:

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 32-38.

Klemm, Mary. 1992. Sustainable tourism development: Languedoc-Roussillon thirty

years on. Tourism Management. 13: 169-180.

Laarman, Jan G.; Gregersen, Hans M. 1996. Pricing policy in nature-based tourism.

Tourism Management. 17: 247-254.

Laarman, Jan G.; Sedjo, Roger A. 1992. Global forests: issues for six billion people.

New York: McGraw-Hill. 337 p.

Lane, Bernard. 1994. Sustainable rural tourism strategies: a tool for development and

conservation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2: 102-111.

Langholz, Jeff. 1996. Economics, objectives, and success of private nature reserves

in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Conservation Biology. 10: 271-280.

Lee, Choong-Ki. 1997. Valuation of nature-based tourism resources using

dichotomous choice contingent valuation method. Tourism Management.

18: 587-591.

Lee, Choong-Ki; Lee, Ju-Hee; Han, Sang-Yoel. 1998. Measuring the economic

value of ecotourism resources: the case of South Korea. Journal of Travel Research. 36: 40-47.

Leuschner, William A.; Cook, Philip S.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Oderwald,

Richard G. 1987. A comparative analysis for wilderness user fee policy. Journal

of Leisure Research. 19: 101-114.

Lew, Alan. 1998. Ecotourism trends. Annals of Tourism Research. 25: 742-746.
16

Lindberg, Kreg. 1991. Policies for maximizing nature tourism’s ecological and economic benefits. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 37 p.

Lindberg, Kreg; Enriquez, Jeremy; Sproule, Keith. 1996. Ecotourism questioned:

case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research. 23: 543-562.

Lindberg, Kreg; Huber, Richard M. 1993. Economic issues in ecotourism management. In: Lindberg, Kreg; Hawkins, Donald E., eds. Ecotourism: a guide for planners

and managers. North Bennington, VT: Ecotourism Society: 82-115.

Lindberg, Kreg; Johnson, Rebecca L. 1994. Estimating demand for ecotourism sites

in developing nations. Trends. 31: 10-15.

Lindberg, Kreg; Johnson, Rebecca L. 1997. Modeling resident attitudes toward

tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 24: 402-424.

Lindberg, Kreg; McCool, Stephen. 1998. A critique of environmental carrying

capacity as a means of managing the effects of tourism development. Environmental

Conservation. 25: 291-292.

Lindberg, Kreg; McCool, Stephen; Stankey, George. 1997. Rethinking carrying

capacity. Annals of Tourism Research. 24: 461-465.

Lindberg, Kreg; McKercher, Bob. 1997. Ecotourism: a critical overview. Pacific

Tourism Review. 1: 65-79.

Loker-Murphy, Laurie. 1996. Backpackers in Australia: a motivation-based segmentation study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 5: 23-45.

Loomis, John B. 1989. Estimating the economic activity and value from public parks

and outdoor recreation areas in California. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 7: 56-65.

Masberg, Barbara A. 1996. Using ecotourists to assist in determining the content for

interpretation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 14: 37-52.

Mason, Peter. 1994. A visitor code for the Arctic. Tourism Management. 15: 93-97.

McCool, Stephen F.; Reilly, Michael. 1993. Benefit segmentation analysis of state

park visitor setting preferences and behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 11: 1-14.

McKercher, Bob. 1993a. Some fundamental truths about tourism: understanding

tourism’s social and environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

1: 6-16.

McKercher, Bob. 1993b. The unrecognized threat to tourism: can tourism survive

sustainability. Tourism Management. 14: 131-136.

Millman, Roger. 1989. Pleasure seeking vs the greening of world tourism. Tourism

Management. 10: 275-278.

Moore, Stewart; Carter, Bill. 1993. Ecotourism in the 21st century. Tourism

Management. 14: 123-130.

Moran, Dominic. 1994. Contingent valuation and biodiversity: measuring the user

surplus of Kenyan protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation. 3: 663-684.
17

Moscardo, Glanna; Morrison, Alastair M.; Pearce, Philip L. 1996. Specialist

accommodation and ecologically sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism. 4: 29-52.

Muir, Frazer; Chester, Guy. 1993. Managing tourism to a seabird nesting island.

Tourism Management. 14: 99-105.

Murphy, Peter E. 1988. Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management.

9: 96-104.

Navrud, Stale; Mungatana, E.D. 1994. Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economics. 11: 135-151.

Orams, Mark B. 1995. Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism

Management. 16: 3-8.

Owen, R. Elwyn; Witt, Stephen F.; Gammon, Susan. 1993. Sustainable tourism

development in Wales. Tourism Management. 14: 463-474.

Pearce, Phillip L. 1995. From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism. 3: 143-155.

Propst, Dennis B., comp. 1985. Assessing the economic impacts of recreation and

tourism. In: Proceedings of a conference. Ashville, NC: Michigan State University,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 64 p.

Prunier, E.K.; Sweeney, A.E.; Geen, A.G. 1993. Tourism and the environment: the

case of Zakynthos. Tourism Management. 14: 137-141.

Rosenthal, Donald H.; Loomis, John B.; Peterson, George L. 1984. Pricing for

efficiency and revenue in public recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research.

16: 195-208.

Ross Richer, Jerrell; Christensen, Neal A. 1999. Approrpiate fees for wilderness

day use: pricing decisions for recreation on public land. Journal of Leisure Research.

31: 269-280.

Ryan, Chris; Glendon, Ian. 1998. Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research. 25: 169-184.

Saleh, Farouk; Karwacki, Judy. 1996. Revisiting the ecotourist: the case of Grasslands National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 61-80.

Seidl, Andrew. 1994. Ecotourism: reworking the concepts of supply and demand.

Trends. 31: 39-45.

Selin, Steve. 1994. Marketing protected areas for ecotourism: an oxymoron? Trends.

31: 19-22.

Simmons, David G. 1994. Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism

Management. 15: 98-108.

Stankey, George H.; McCool, Stephen F. 1984. Carrying capacity in recreational

settings: evolution, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences. 6: 453-473.

Steele, Paul. 1995. Ecotourism: an economic analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

3: 29-44.
18

Stemerding, Marcus P.; Oppewal, Harmen; Beckers, Theo, A.M.; Timmermans,

Harry J.P. 1996. Leisure market segmentation: an integrated preferences/

constraints-based approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 5: 161-185.

Taylor, George. 1995. The community approach: does it really work? Tourism

Management. 16: 487-489.

Thomlinson, Eugene; Getz, Donald. 1996. The question of scale in ecotourism: case

study of two small ecotour operators in the Mundo Maya Region of Central America.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 183-200.

Thrane, Christer. 1997. Values as segmentation criteria in tourism research: the

Norwegian monitor approach. Tourism Management. 18: 111-113.

Tisdell, Clem. 1996. Ecotourism, economics, and the environment: observations from

China. Journal of Travel Research. 34: 11-19.

Todd, Susan E.; Williams, Peter W. 1996. From white to green: a proposed environmental management system framework for ski areas. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism. 4: 147-173.

Tosum, Cevat. 1998. Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level:

the case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management. 19: 595-610.

Unwin, Tim. 1996. Tourist development in estonia: images, sustainability, and integrated rural development. Tourism Management. 17: 265-276.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Land and resource management plan: Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-338dd. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Valentine, Peter S. 1992. Review: nature-based tourism. In: Weiler, B.; Hall, C.M.,

eds. Special interest tourism. London, England: Belhaven: 105-127.

Valentine, Peter S. 1993. Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some

recent developments in Micronesia. Tourism Management. 14: 107-115.

Van Sickle, Kerry; Eagles, Paul F.J. 1998. Budgets, pricing policies and user fees in

Canadian parks’ tourism. Tourism Management. 19: 225-235.

Walker, Scott L. 1997. Perceived impacts of ecotourism development. Annals of

Tourism Research. 24: 743-745.

Wall, Geoffrey. 1993. International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism

in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 1: 38-47.

Wall, Geoffrey. 1994. Ecotourism: old wine in new bottles? Trends. 31: 4-9.

Wallace, George N.; Pierce, Susan M. 1996. An evaluation of ecotourism in

Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research. 23: 843-873.

Walsh, Richard G. 1986. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and

costs. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 637 p.

Weaver, David B. 1995. Alternative tourism in Montserrat. Tourism Management. 16:

593-604.

Weaver, David; Glenn, Cliff; Rounds, Richard. 1996. Private ecotourism operations

in Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 4: 135-146.
19

Weiler, Betty; Davis, Derrin. 1993. An exploratory investigation into the roles of the

nature-based tour leader. Tourism Management. 14: 91-98.

Wells, Michael P. 1993. Neglect of biological riches: the economics of nature tourism

in Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2: 445-464.

Wheeler, Brian. 1993. Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 1: 121-129.

Whelan, Tensie. 1991a. Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In:

Whelan, Tensie, ed. Nature tourism: managing for the environment. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 3-22.

Wight, Pamela. 1993a. Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research.

31: 3-9.

Wight, Pamela. 1993b. Sustainable ecotourism: balancing economic, environmental

and social goals within an ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies. 4: 54-66.

Wight, Pamela A. 1997. Ecotourism accommodation spectrum: does supply match the

demand. Tourism Management. 18: 209-220.

Wilman, Elizabeth A. 1988. Pricing policies for outdoor recreation. Land Economics.

64: 234-241.

Wood, Megan Epler. 1993. Ecotourism guidelines for nature tour operators. North

Bennington, VT: Ecotourism Society.16 p.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 383 p.

Wunder, Sven. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives—an empirical approach.

Ecological Economics. 32: 465-479.

Wyllie, Robert W. 1998. Hana revisited: development and controversy in a Hawaiian

tourism community. Tourism Management. 19: 171-178.

Yuan, Michael S.; Christensen, Neal A. 1994 Wildland-influenced economic impacts

on portal communities: the case of Missoula, Montana. Journal of Travel Research.

32: 26-31.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and

National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail desmith@fs.fed.us

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300