University of Aarhus ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT ...

University of Aarhus 

Environmental Studies, Spring 2002 

ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT NATURE 

(© 2002, World Ecotourism Summit — Québec 2002) 

Stine Bruun Sørensen (Biology student, Denmark) 

Anna Isabel Baraza (Geography student, Spain) 

Ondrej Mirovsky (Environmental protection student, Czech Republic) 

Cong Nguyen Van (Environmental Science, Vietnam) 

Supervisor: Svend Erik Jeppesen

Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature 

University of Aarhus 

Environmental Studies, Spring 2002 

ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT NATURE 

Stine Bruun Sørensen (Biology student, Denmark) 

Anna Isabel Baraza (Geography student, Spain) 

Ondrej Mirovsky (Environmental protection student, Czech Republic) 

Cong Nguyen Van (Environmental Science, Vietnam) 

Supervisor: Svend Erik Jeppesen 

1


AFDELING FOR 

MILJØSTUDIER 

AARHUS UNIVERSITET 

Finlandsgade 12-14 

8200 Århus N 

Phone: +45 8942 4424 

Fax: +45 8942 4426 

CENTER FOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS 

FINLANDSGADE 12-14 

DK-8200 AARHUS N 

DENMARK 

E-mail: miljolare@au.dk 

Web site: www.miljolare.au.dk 

Publisher: Environmental Studies 2002-06-06 

Printed by Fysisk institut 

ISBN 87-7785-137-4 

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 5 

1.2. Structure and limitation ............................................................................... 7 

2. ECOTOURISM ............................................................................................... 9 

2.1. Definition of Ecotourism............................................................................. 9 

2.1.1. Branches of tourism............................................................................... 9 

2.1.2. Different kinds of tourism ................................................................... 10 

2.2. Ecotourism definition................................................................................ 11 

2.2.1. Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept ............................. 12 

2.2.2. Ecotourism as a market segment ......................................................... 14 

2.2.3. Other definitions.................................................................................. 14 

2.2.4. Ecotourism - is there a final concept……………………………… 16 

2.3. Is Ecotourism really sustainable.............................................................. 16 

2.3.1. Conditions for successful ecotourism................................................. 16 

2.3.2. How many tourists are ecotourists.................................................... 16 

2.4. Economic aspects of ecotourism ............................................................... 17 

2.5. Certification of ecotourism........................................................................ 21 

2.5.1 Green Globe 21..................................................................................... 23 

2.5.2. National Ecotourism Accreditation Program of Australia .................. 24 

2.5.3. Other Tourism Ecolabels..................................................................... 25 

2.5.4. Structural framework of ecolabel schemes ......................................... 27 

2.5.5. Ecolabels as a future for ecotourism regulation .................................. 27 

2.6. Different roles of ecotourism .................................................................... 28 

2.6.1. Generating economic benefits for different stakeholders……………30 

2.6.2. Ecotourism benefit to local education……………………………… 31 

2.6.3. Ecotourism benefit to promote conservation ...................................... 33 

2.7. Monitoring ecotourism activities and mitigating negative impacts……...36 

2.7.1. Negative impacts from ecotourism...................................................... 36 

2.7.2. Indicators for monitoring and mitigating negative impacts of 

ecotourism...................................................................................................... 37 

3. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................ 39 

3.1. Ecotourism in Galapagos Islands .............................................................. 39 

3.1.1. Introduction to Galapagos Islands....................................................... 39 

3.1.2. Nature .................................................................................................. 40 

3.1.3. History ................................................................................................. 43 

3.1.4. The National Park................................................................................ 45 

3.1.5. The effect of ecotourism...................................................................... 49 

3.1.6 The New Special Law .......................................................................... 54 

3.1.7. Conclusion........................................................................................... 55


3.2. Ecotourism and wildlife in Kruger National Park..................................... 57 

3.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 57 

3.2.2. South African National Parks Management........................................ 60 

3.2.3. Tourists and their expectations............................................................ 63 

3.2.4. Wildlife in Kruger National Park ....................................................... 64 

3.2.5. Human influence on the wildlife ......................................................... 64 

3.2.6. Tourism/Mining: An African economic dilemma............................... 66 

3.2.7. Conservation/tourism .......................................................................... 67 

3.2.8. Social problems ................................................................................... 68 

3.2.9. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 69 

4. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 71 

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………81 

REFERENCE .................................................................................................... 82 

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 88 

4


1. INTRODUCTION 

Over time, huge areas of forest and other nature territories have been 

cleared for a number of purposes such as resource exploitation, settlement, 

industry and agriculture. Once 62,203,000 square kilometres of the planet was 

covered by forest, now 54% of the original forest has been cleared (World 

Resources Institute, 2002). Every year at least 16 million additional hectares fall 

to axe, torch, bulldozer or chain saw. This is a serious problem, particularly in 

the tropics (World Resources Institute, 2002). Many species of plants and 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 1: Formerly (a) and current (b) forest cover. ww.globalforestwatch.org 

animals are now endangered or even extinct. It is important to protect and 

conserve biodiversity. 

5


With global growth in the tourist industry, ecotourism could be an 

important tool to protect biodiversity. Ecotourism has existed for 30 years, and 

the concept is frequently used to refer to “responsible”, “sustainable”, 

“conservation” or “low-impact” tourism. The idea of ecotourism has been 

widely used recently all around the world. This is the case because tourism 

forms important part of the world's economy. In the twentieth century, world 

trade steadily gave way to a system increasingly dominated by services, 

telecommunications and financial transactions. Travelling and tourism are now 

the most important parts of the service industry (Mercer, 1996). At the same 

time tourism is a major source of foreign exchange earnings for many 

developing countries (UNEP, 2002). The number of travellers increases year by 

year, and within the tourism industry ecotourism is the fastest growing segment. 

Because of the increasing importance of ecotourism worldwide, the 

United Nations has declared the year 2002 the INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF 

ECOTOURISM. One of today's major environmental challenges is the 

protection of the biodiversity, and ecotourism could well play a very important 

role in the protection of biodiversity. Moreover, ecotourism could fulfil needs of 

people living in the places which attract tourists. In this report we will discuss 

the above statements. 

May 2002, the World Ecotourism Summit took place in the city of 

Quebec. The major objective of this summit was to review the potential 

contribution of ecotourism to sustainable development (World Ecotourism 

Summit - Québec, 2002). The summit was expected to be the largest ever 

meeting between all stakeholders involved in or affected by ecotourism (UNEP, 

2002). One of the aims of the Quebec summit was to deliver the Québec City 

Declaration on Ecotourism and to elaborate a set of conclusions. Recently, the 

first results from the summit have been published, where 1,100 delegates, from 

6


133 different countries participated. The document will be officially tabled at 

the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002, in 

Johannesburg. 

This report is being carried out at a time when ecotourism is at a 

crossroads. After years of confusion and uncertainties, this year is supposed to 

bring more rules, regulations and recommendations on planning, development, 

management, marketing and monitoring of ecotourism activities, with a view to 

ensuring long-term sustainability. 

In this report will call ecotourism in question. Is ecotourism 

environmentally, culturally/socially, and economically sustainable How to 

manage and control ecotourism correctly And prevent that the word is not 

being abused. These are the questions we would like to put in focus. 

1.2. Structure and limitation 

Chapter one introduces the project and gives some information on 

ecotourism, and it outlines the issues to be discussed in the report. 

Chapter two will give an overall introduction to ecotourism. Below, 

different aspect of chapter two is outlined. 

• Ecotourism is a wide-ranging word, and there are a lot of different 

definitions of ecotourism. This chapter will describe definitions of 

different branches in the tourist industry, and different definitions 

of ecotourism. But with the main focus on the UNEP definition. 

• It will look at ecotourism as a sustainable development concept and 

present some guidelines of basics element in ecotourism. 

Furthermore, ecotourism will be contemplated as a part of the 

tourism industry. 

7


• Introduce which conditions are important for successful 

ecotourism. 

• It will deal with ecotourism within the world tourism market and 

consider economical aspects. 

• It will deal with ecolabeling (environmental certification in 

tourism), and present different kinds of ecolabels around the world. 

• It will look at the roles of ecotourism in conserving biodiversity in 

protected areas and the role of local participation in ecotourism. 

The chapter also looks at how the proceeds are generated and who 

benefits from tourism. 

• It deals with the negative impacts of ecotourism and how to 

minimise these impacts. 

Chapter three is made up of two case studies. We will look at how tourism 

is promoted in these two places. We have chosen two countries from distinct 

places in the world, and we will look at how they are managing the National 

Park. They are both developing countries. It would have been interesting to 

compare these two countries with tourism in an industrialised country, but it 

would not be possible within the scope of this project. We chose the Galapagos 

Islands and the Kruger National Park in South Africa because they have a very 

similarly economic situation, but they differ when it comes to the actual 

management of tourism. Learning from two case studies, we will figure out what 

should be followed and what should be avoided. 

Chapter four opens a discussion on the notion “ecotourism”, and how to 

implement it in practice. 

Chapter five contains the final conclusion and suggestions. 

8


2. ECOTOURISM 

2.1. Definition of Ecotourism 

Until recently, there has been some confusion concerning the etymology 

or origin of the term ecotourism, as is evident in the tremendous volume of 

literature on the topic (Fennell, 1999). It is quite obvious that ecotourism is a 

special part of tourism, as the "Eco" (1) label means that there is some "natural" 

concern within this branch of tourism. 

On the following pages we will give an introduction to this extremely 

complicated and diversified field. We will also present the major approaches of 

tourism recently used, and in the end of the theoretical part we will carry out 

some final definition of "ecotourism" including all the important aspects. 

2.1.1. Branches of tourism 

The most narrow definition of tourism has been presented by the World 

Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2) . According to this definition tourism is any 

form of travel that involves a stay of least one night but less than one year away 

from home. But generally tourism is simply defined as domestic or 

international travel for leisure and recreation (Roe, 1997). 

Within the huge group of different types of tourist activities we can 

distinguish some major segments. Basically, tourism consists of two major 

parts: mass tourism and alternative tourism (Mieczkowski, 1995). The 

alternative "branch" may be divided into many other parts like: agro-tourism, 

wildlife tourism, adventure tourism, nature and ecotourism (see figure 2). 

1 oikos - from Greek words, means - house or dwelling, (Odum, 1971). 

2 The World Tourism Organisation is the leading international organisation in the field of travel and 

tourism 

9


Figure 2: Branches of tourism (Mieczkowski, 1995) 

2.1.2. Different kinds of tourism 

• Mass tourism 

This part of tourism is a leisure-oriented type offering the highest comfort 

and convenience level regardless of any environmental effects. A typical 

example of this type is the classic "3S" vacation focussing on sea, sun and sand 

(Weaver, 2001). The high popularity of this type leads to high concentrations of 

people in relatively small spaces, that is why it is called mass tourism. 

• Alternative tourism 

The alternative types of tourism are facing mass tourism from the opposite 

point of view. Small groups of "interested" people enjoy the close contact with 

nature. But many subdivisions are possible within this group. 

+ Wildlife tourism: "involves travel to observe animals like birds, fish and 

mammals in their native habitat" (Honey, 1999). This includes the consumptive 

and non-consumptive use of wild animals. “It may be high volume mass tourism 

or low volume/low impact tourism, generate high economic returns or low 

economic returns, be sustainable or unsustainable, domestic or international, and 

based on day visits or longer stays” (Roe, 1997). 

10


+ Nature tourism: "involves travel to unspoiled places to experience and 

enjoy, usually like hiking, biking, sailing and camping” (Honey, 1999). 

+ Adventure tourism: "is nature tourism with a kick" requires physical 

skill and endurance and involves a degree of risk taking (Honey, 1999). 

+ Agricultural tourism: this type of tourism is specific especially for the 

European cultural landscape where the farmers can offer many opportunities for 

tourists to find the experiences closely connected with the agricultural practices 

(horseback riding, to some extent volunteers on organic farms could also be 

considered a kind of agro-tourism). In the Ecotourism Guide released by The 

Geographical in June 2000, they present many volunteering jobs as ecotourism. 

+ Ecotourism: all the previous definitions within the group of alternative 

tourism could be included in the definition of ecotourism. But in addition to the 

recreational activities, ecotourism is also defined by its benefits to both 

conservation and to people in the host country (Honey, 1999) with a strong 

emphasis on the sustainability of nature and people's livelihood. 

2.2. Ecotourism definition 

As mentioned above, there is still certain confusion with regards to the 

definition of the term "ecotourism". To consolidate the ideas and manage 

"ecotourism" from a global point of view The Ecotourism Society (TES) found 

out like a small, influential NGO organisation. TES with the co-operation of The 

United Nation Environmental Program (UNEP) (3) and the World Conservation 

Union (former IUCN) (4) are the major players in the field of ecotourism recently. 

3 UNEP -works to encourage sustainable development through sound environmental 

practices everywhere (UNEP, 2002). 

4 IUCN -was established to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world 

to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural 

resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable (IUCN, 2002). 

11


The Ecotourism Society produced the earliest and still commonly used 

definition of ecotourism in 1991: "responsible travel to natural areas that 

conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people". 

Ten years after the introduction of this first definition, lots of things have 

changed and the term ecotourism is getting a more precise meaning. 

According to the UNEP definition, the term ecotourism has two 

dimensions: 

• Ecotourism is a sustainable development tool. 

• Ecotourism is a form of alternative (nature based) tourism. 

(UNEP, 2002) 

2.2.1. Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept 

It is generally supposed that well planned and managed ecotourism could 

be an effective tool for ensuring long-term conservation of biodiversity. As a 

development tool, ecotourism can serve to advance three of the basic goals of 

the Convention on Biological Diversity: 

• To conserve biological and cultural diversity 

• To promote the sustainable use of biodiversity, by generating income, 

job and business opportunities… 

• To share the benefits of ecotourism developments with local 

communities and indigenous people (UNEP and Convention on 

Biological Diversity, 2002). 

The recent development towards clear guidelines, principles and finally 

ecotourism certification (see the following chapter) has created a general 

consensus on the basic elements of ecotourism: 

• Contributes to the conservation of biodiversity. 

12


• Sustains the well being of local people. 

• Includes an interpretation/learning experience. 

• Involves responsible action on the part of tourists and the tourism 

industry. 

• Is delivered primarily to small groups by small-scale businesses. 

• Requires the lowest possible consumption of non-renewable resources. 

• Stresses local participation, ownership and business opportunities, 

particularly for rural people (UNEP, 2002). 

The figure 3 shows the role played by ecotourism in the field of 

sustainable tourism 5 . 

Figure 3: Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept 

5 

Sustainable tourism - this term means the broader theoretical view on the sustainability of 

tourism, includes all aspects of development (UNEP, 2002). In our opinion, ecotourism is the 

form of tourism that could fulfil those aims in reality. Ecotourism is mostly focused on "local" 

(host) areas not on the tourism as whole. 

13


2.2.2. Ecotourism as a market segment 

When viewing ecotourism as part of the tourism industry it is important to 

mention, that ecotourism is a small but now rapidly growing industry. 

Ecotourism operates with a very valuable resource - biodiversity (Mercer, 1996) 

and offers not only passive enjoyment and experiencing but offers a possibility 

to participate in nature conservation. 

Figure 4 presents how ecotourism fits into the large tourism market place. 

From this point of view it is important, that ecotourism has a stronger 

connection to cultural and rural than to adventure tourism (UNEP, 2002). (6) 

Figure 4: Ecotourism as a Market Segment 

6 

In ecotourism the prime motivation is generally the observation and appreciation, in 

adventure tourism it is physical exercise and challenging situations in natural environments 

(UNEP, 2002). From the marketing point of view 

14


2.2.3. Other definitions 

To complete the overview of the main ideas and definitions of the term 

ecotourism, there are some other definitions, which were found in the literature: 

• WWF (The Worldwide Fund for Nature): 

"Any travel to or through wilderness areas that has minimal impact on the 

natural environment and its wildlife while providing some economic benefits to 

local communities and the area's indigenous stewards" 

• Kutay, in Honey 1999: 

"Ecotourism is more than travel to enjoy or appreciate nature, it also 

includes minimisation of environmental and cultural consequences, contribution 

to conservation and community projects in developing countries, and 

environmental education and political consciousness raising, such as the 

establishment of codes of conduct for travellers as well as the various 

components of the travel industry". 

• Moulin, 1991 : 

"Tourism that is environmentally sensitive". 

• Burton, 1997: 

"Ecotourism is when the environment benefits from the activity" 

(Source: Roe, 1997) 

However, the definition from TES and more recently presented concepts 

from UNEP and WTO are the most commonly used. We suppose that the 

ecotourism concept made by UNEP is the most comprehensive and we follow it 

in our project. Despite the next short chapter brings our opinion about the 

concept of ecotourism. 

15


2.2.4. Ecotourism - is there a final concept 

It is important to understand ecotourism not separately from other tourism 

branches. There will be always connection to all aspects of tourism with the 

common guideline. There is no border-line which separates different branches 

from each-other. We can regard the ecotourism as the continual shift from mass 

tourism to more sustainable kinds of tourism. Even in the ecotourism concept, 

we can find some kind of continuum (spectrum) from active(hard) to 

passive(soft) ecotourism (Weaver, 2001). Due to this continuity it is problematic 

to set up final concept without doubt. Therefore we thing that the ecotourism 

concept is still open issue with lots of challenges. 

2.3. Is Ecotourism really sustainable 

2.3.1. Conditions for successful ecotourism 

Apparently ecotourism is not inherently sustainable. Three important 

segments must be included in the ecotourism planning for the result to be 

sustainable. It must be economically viable, environmentally appropriate and 

socio-culturally acceptable. Economy, environment and culture are all involved, 

one is not more important than the other (Wall, 1997). But it will probably take 

a long time before we fully understand how to apply all the aspects of 

sustainability on the concrete problems, including ecotourism. 

2.3.2. How many tourists are ecotourists 

Another issue closely connected to the sustainability of the visited areas, 

is the number of (eco)tourists present at any given time. According to the UNEP 

guidelines about ecotourism which define the appropriate number of tourists in a 

group, it is evident that ecotourism is mainly an individual small-scale activity. 

The UNEP guidelines recommend groups of up to 25 persons and hotels with 

fever than 100 beds in one structure (UNEP, 2002). 

16


But there are some voices claiming that small-scale tourism may actually 

be inappropriate and unsustainable under certain circumstances, while large 

scale or mass tourism may be sustainable under other conditions (Weaver, 

2001). 

This is one of the ideas of Weaver's study. He tries to bridge the gap 

between mass tourism and ecotourism. He claims that only large numbers of 

(eco)tourists would result in a high revenue flow. Secondly, he argues that only 

large tourist corporations are able to implement sustainable practices, because 

they can fund e.g. the wastewater treatment facilities, while small local 

ecotourism agencies would not be able to do so. One of the principles of recent 

ecotourism policy is the emphasis on small-scale tourism provided by locals, 

independent of the large corporations. It is necessary to mention that Weaver is 

not very sure about the carrying capacity; he claims that carrying capacity is not 

necessarily fixed (Weaver, 2001). 

There lies a major challenge in promoting small-scale tourism in the 

future. But not only within this sector, all the other parts of the global economy 

are now fighting with the problem of low cost mass production which compete 

with the locally-based and much more expensive production. 

Therefore, this problem must be included in all planning and discussions 

concerning sustainability of ecotourism and the role of locally owned 

agencies/large corporations. More about the economical aspect is going to be 

mentioned in the next part. 

2.4. Economic aspects of ecotourism 

Some of the aspects of tourism (ecotourism) economy were already 

shortly mentioned above. This part is going to introduce ecotourism from the 

global economy point of view. 

17


Tourism is the world’s largest growth industry with no signs of slowing 

down in the 21st century (UNEP, 2002). (The peak was in the year 2000 - In the 

year 2001 there was a significant decline because of the terrorist attack on 

September 11). 

Proceeds from international tourism have increased by an average of 9 per 

cent annually for the past 16 years to reach US$476 billion in 2000. During the 

same period, international arrivals rose by a yearly average of 4.6 per cent to 

reach 698 million in 2000. WTO forecasts that international arrivals will top one 

billion by 2010. The WTO figures indicate that all the tourism activities account 

for over 4% of the Global GDP and that their combined direct or indirect 

contribution to global GDP are over 11%. Tourism-related activities provide 

200 million jobs (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2000). 

The WTO has estimated that "alternative" (nature based) (7) travels - of 

which ecotourism is one of the forms - generated about 7% of all international 

travel expenditures in 1997. At the beginning of the 1990s the "alternative" 

(nature based) travel was growing at the rate of 10-30% per year (World 

Resources Institute/WRI, 1997). Others authors are approximately at the same 

level as Frangalli (1997), who proposes a rate of 20% per year. In 1995, the 

global value of ecotourism was estimated between US$ 17,5 millions (Fennell, 

1999) and US$ 25 millions and they expected the value to reach US$ 50 

millions by the year 2000 (Fennell, 1999). 

This increase in alternative tourism has been promoted by a broadening of 

the clientele for ecotours and by an increase in independent non-group travel. 

These new clients are also more aware of the environmental and socio- 

7 

Alternative/nature-based tourism: in some literature the name "nature-based" tourism is used 

for tourism branches such as adventure, wildlife, ecotourism and so on. We prefer instead to 

use the name "alternative". This is because "nature-based" includes almost all kinds of 

tourism, despite its mass, unsustainable, etc. 

18


developmental issues of the destination they are visiting (Lew, 1997). This 

aspect should be a driving force for the next stages of development in 

ecotourism. 

When focusing on ecotourism as a sustainable development tool, which 

mainly concerns the biodiversity conservation, it is necessary to mention the 

global market share of tourism (see table 1). 

It is evident that the major part of tourists are now concentrated in Europe 

or in the Americas, but the major benefits from ecotourism are expected through 

biodiversity protection in "hot spots of biodiversity" (8) (Primack, 2001). 

Recently, the market share of the areas concentrating the major part of 

biodiversity is quite low. Therefore, from the marketing point of view, there is a 

great challenge for the travel industry to extent the focus more into these areas 

where market possibilities are abundant. And as mentioned before the 

biodiversity is a high value resource and could be included in a marketing 

strategy (Mercer, 1997). But this shift is already taking place. As the studies 

show, the East Asia and the Pacific have experienced the highest growth (World 

Almanac & Book of Facts, 2002). 

8 Hot spots of biodiversity – “key places of the world, concentrating high biodiversity, they 

have high level of endemism and are endangered by extinction and degradation”. There are 25 

areas named “hot spots”. For example – South-East Asia, Central America, Caribbic, Central 

Africa, Madagascar, Brazilian forests etc. This areas maintain 44% of worlds flora, 30% of 

worlds mammals and 54% of amphibias (Primack, 2001) 

19


Table 1: The global market share of tourism 

(first two collums are numbers of tourists in 1999,2000) 

In many countries tourism has become the major source of foreign 

exchange earnings. For 38% of the countries in the world (especially developing 

countries), tourism is the main source of foreign currency. A sensitive 

introduction of alternative (nature based) tourism could contribute to develop 

their economies without all the negative environmental impacts that all the 

developed countries have already experienced. In the view of ecotourism there 

is a fair possibility that ecotourism, if properly introduced, would be a way to 

follow up on the economical development of already "developed" countries on 

the one hand - while avoiding the mistakes that "developed" countries have 

already made (the high pressure on resources and the environment) on the other 

hand. 

20


2.5. Certification of ecotourism 

Summarising the conclusions from the previous parts, there is a strong 

need for some kind of regulation within the ecotourism industry to achieve the 

aims properly. The ecolabeling (Buckley, 2001) or environmental certification 

in tourism (Font, 2002) would be a one way to regulate ecotourism from the 

international level to the national or the regional levels. 

At first sight, the easiest and most commonly used level, at which 

regulations may be set up (e.g. in the form of economic instruments), is the 

national level. But there are several reasons why this scheme is not always 

applicable for ecotourism purposes: 

• The definition of ecotourism is still not clear for governmental 

negotiation 

• And even in the case they are taking an active attitude towards 

regulation, this is limited to national boundaries, which makes it 

inefficient due to the international nature of the tourism industry 

(Font, 2001). 

Consequently, some kind of volunteer agreements at the international 

level – such as ecolabels - are the most appropriate. The voluntary approaches 

are certainly the best way to ensure long-term commitments and improvements, 

and putting the tourism industry on the path of sustainability. And the 

international volunteer agreements are generally a very good way to motivate 

the national governments to take action (Töpfer, 1998). 

The purpose of the ecolabels is to certify that specific efforts have been 

made to reduce environmental impact (UNEP, 1998), more specifically that the 

ecotourism provider (travel agency) is actually behaving according to the rules, 

which were set by ecolabel certification schemes. 

21


Up to now there has been an undefined field where ecotourism businesses 

declared themselves as being sustainable, green, environmental friendly and so 

on (Font, 2001). 

Since introducing certain ecolabeling schemes this field has become more 

transparent. Currently, there are over 100 ecolabels for tourism, hospitality and 

ecotourism, with many of them overlapping in sector and geographical scope 

(Font, 2001). 

In 1998 UNEP made a big survey among the 28 international, national 

and regional, "ecolabeling schemes". They decided on some general rules, which 

they expect the "ecolabeling" organisations to live up to: 

• Local environmental issues: criteria are realistic only if they relate to 

the local environment. 

• The sector's environmental impact: all impacts need to be addressed, it 

is important to recognise diversities within the sector (hotels, hostels, 

alpine refuges must be assessed separately etc.). 

• Technical and management know-how: the technical possibilities are 

also important; setting criteria which can not be attained (because the 

technology is not available) is not effective, even though the criteria 

may be relevant (UNEP, 1998). 

The UNEP general rules for ecolabeling stress the importance of 

compromises for a successful implementation of ecotourism regulation. 

In the following sections, we will list some of the most important 

"ecolabel "schemes which have had major impact recently and look into the 

reality of ecolabeling etc. 

22


2.5.1 Green Globe 21 

The "Green globe 21"ecolabel was the first and still is the only 

attempt at a single ecolabel scheme applicable to all forms of 

tourism worldwide (Buckley 2001). This ecolabel was initiated 

by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (9) in 1998. In the early 

stages, the Green Globe has taken decisions that have put them in the firing line 

of environmental NGOs for reasons such as becoming a profit organisation, no 

improvement in certifying, and allowing companies to use the logo without the 

certification (Font, 2002). But this scheme was well accepted by the travel 

industry. 

Because of the criticism the Green Globe is now attempting to advance to 

the next evolutionary step and gain the acceptance from the consumers, 

governments, and environmental groups without loosing its existing acceptance 

by the industry (Buckley, 2001). 

Currently three major approaches are followed in the Green Globe 21: 

1. Recently they launched new approach towards reduction in green 

house gas emissions and introducing this into ecotourism labelling. 

2. And also they stated its intention to use local legal and cultural 

framework for implementation (Buckley, 2001). (It is much more 

difficult for schemes with wide coverage to achieve this than for the 

national and sub-national schemes /UNEP, 2002/.) 

9 WTTC -The World Travel & Tourism Council is the global business leaders' forum for Travel & 

Tourism, http://www.wttc.org 

23


3. Since the year 2000 they require from affiliates that their operations 

comply with Agenda 21 10 standards. 

The Green Globe 21 uses the following "Green global path" through the 

ecolabeling process. When applying, a company passes three levels of 

certification: 

1. Affiliation: it is registered by Green Globe, receives information on 

how to improve sustainability etc. they are also promoted on the Green 

Globe Website 

2. Benchmarking: the companies submit measurements to Green Globe, 

they are supposed to make annual improvements of performance. 

3. Certification: they develop environmental a management system, they 

pass a confidential sustainability audit report, and are allowed to use 

the logo with a "tick" 

(Green Globe 21 Path, 2001) 

It seems that the Green Globe 21 is now turning on the right way to be the 

global ecolabeling certification scheme respected by all authorities, the tourism 

industry and consumers. 

2.5.2. National Ecotourism Accreditation Program of Australia 

Another ecolabeling scheme is the National Ecotourism Accreditation 

Program of Australia (NEAP) which is an example of a regionally oriented 

ecolabeling program. This program has been initiated by the tourism portfolio in 

the Australian government as a part of ecotourism-related initiatives (Buckley, 

10 Agenda 21: is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by 

organisations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in 

which human impacts on the environment (United Nations Division for Sustainable 

Development, 2001) 

24


2001). (The conditions in Australia are completely different from other areas 

due to the high level of environmental interest - the initiative came just from the 

government). 

NEAP´s principal difficulty in its early stages was a relatively low 

industry sign up. Perhaps because of low publicity only rather few providers 

were able to qualify for this accreditation, which is based on well-defined 

substantive criteria. Currently, this system is still fighting with limited reach 

within the Australian ecotourism sector. They developed a three tiered 

accreditation system - nature tourism, ecotourism and advanced ecotourism. 

As NEAP stated in their presentation on the www.eco-tor.org guide their 

major concern is: "accepting applications to provide ecotourism operators and 

protected area agencies with the opportunity to meet minimum standards for 

providing or conducting genuine ecotourism operations". 

They also assist affiliated companies with the development of ecotourism 

products and recognise the best sustainable practise. 

There are differing opinions about the future of NEAP, some say that 

NEAP, appropriately customized to different environments and countries, could 

become the basis for the Green Globe 21 within the specialist ecotourism sector 

world-wide (Buckley, 2001). Green Globe 21 continued its expansion plans by 

associating with other schemes like Green Leaf, Green Key and Caribbean 

Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (Font, 2002). 

2.5.3. Other Tourism Ecolabels 

As mentioned above there are more than 100 ecolabels, but only few of 

them are really important and relevant for ecotourism purposes. 

As an example of another scheme within the group of international 

attempts is: 

25


Ecotel - launched in the year 1994 by the private promoter concerned mostly 

about accommodation (water use etc.). 

On the regional level the Blue Flag promoted by NGO since 1985 is the 

most visible scheme. They focus on sustainable use of marinas (localities) and 

beaches. Currently, over 1,800 beaches and over 600 marinas are accredited. 

Accreditation must be re-earned every year (Buckley, 2001). (See the criteria on 

the Blue flag web sites - http://www.blueflag.org). 

In the Asian/pacific region Green Leaf is another regional example, 

which was started by the Pacific Asia Travel Association in 1997. Buckley 

wrote in 2001 that they are now to be integrated with the Green Globe 21. But 

according to their web site they are apparently still independent 

(www.greenleafthai.org). 

On the national level there are many schemes which are mostly concerned 

with accommodation. For example Green Key in Denmark - They are checking 

for water use in washing and bathing. 

In Germany there is Environmental Squirrel concerned about the 

catering and accommodation. 

In France the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected 

Areas was found out by the NGO to regulate the tourism in the protected areas 

within France. 

On the sub-national level there are some schemes which only work in part 

of the country, for example - Ecotour (Balearic Islands) or Green Tourism 

Business Scheme (Scotland) (UNEP, 1998). 

In the appendix 1 there is a calendar of events relevant to ecolabels in 

ecotourism. 

26


2.5.4. Structural framework of ecolabel schemes 

In the following parts, we will mention some organisational aspects of 

ecolabel schemes. 

Human resources: some of them run by volunteers (NGO), private 

associations, or they are part of a bigger association with broader interests. For 

example the Green Leaf recently now. 

Financial resources: financing of the ecolabel schemes are provided mostly by 

the membership fees. 

The fees are related to: 

• annual turnover of the applicants 

• physical size of the applicant's operation 

• type of accommodation (hotels, hostels etc.) 

• geographical origin -hotels in developed countries pay double price 

comparing to developing countries (UNEP, 1998). 

For example the fees of the Green Globe 21 members are based on an 

annual turnover with a fee of US$ 5,000 for a turnover more than US$ 30 

millions per operating unit (UNEP, 1998). 

The National Ecotourism Accreditation Program follows the same system, 

where the members pay Aus$ 1,325 for turnover over Aus$ 3 millions (UNEP, 

1998). 

2.5.5. Ecolabels as a future for ecotourism regulation 

The field of tourism ecolabels is still a bit confusing because of the 

different approaches (wide or very narrow), different promoters (NGOs, private 

and industry associations and public authorities) and different levels 

27


(international, national, regional). This diversity results from different national, 

cultural, geographical and historical backgrounds. 

As a result of the need for some global ecotourism regulation the Green 

Globe 21 with co-operation of the NEAP and other schemes seems to be the best 

for the future, setting of the global rules of ecotourism through certification. The 

best would probably be, when the rules of the Green Globe 21 are sensitively 

applied to the local conditions (environmental and cultural background etc.) by 

the local authorities, NGO or private companies (using the strong support by the 

Green Globe 21). 

In the tourism market it is important to mention that the major motivation 

for the providers when applying for "ecolabel" is that they gain some 

competitive advantage resulting in an increased revenue flow. So the 

environmental performances are often instruments to how they increase their 

profits. As an instrument for the consumer’s choice, ecolabels are a valuable 

environmental management tool in tourism (Buckley, 2001). And it is a great 

challenge for all environmental issues, because this approach is not very 

common up to now. 

But the ecolabeling is still now in the early stages and only few tourists 

routinely search for ecolabels in product purchasing (Buckley, 2001). So the 

future emphasis should be aimed to enhance the transparency of the ecolabels 

and effectively hand in hand with emphasis on public promotion of tourism 

ecolabels as a way to travel more "environmentally". 

2.6. Different roles of ecotourism 

As mentioned in the section of the economic aspects of ecotourism, 

tourism has rapidly developed all over the world. It significantly becomes a 

contributor to the local, regional, national, and global economy. 

28


Generating benefits from ecotourism have been discussed in different 

dimensions. It could be a means of generating economic benefits for different 

stakeholders, increasing awareness for both local communities and tourists, 

promoting biodiversity conservation and mitigating negative impacts. 

2.6.1. Generating economic benefits for different stakeholders 

Ecotourism not only generates economic benefits for government 

agencies, non-government agencies but also for local people. 

First of all, all forms of tourism have greatly contributed to the national 

and international economy. This point of view has been mentioned before. 

Especially, this economic source is very important for developing countries. 

Thailand earned approximately US$1.5 million a year for set of parks (FAO, 

1997). Nepal has received total revenue of US$4.5 million in 1994 just from the 

hotel industry in the Royal Chitwan National Park (Marnie et al., 1998). 

Globally, all tourism in the developing countries earned about US$ 118,518 

million in 1995 (Stefan, 1999). 

Secondly, entrance fees can significantly contribute to the cost of 

managing the national parks. The fees account for 0.01 to 1% of the total travel 

costs (Stefan, 1999). Here, we would like to illustrate just how large the entrance 

fees are. The Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve earned US$ 35,750 in 1987, 

Costa Rica got approximately US$ 168,000 in 1988 while Ecuador received 

US$ 2.6 million in 1993 (Stefan, 1999) and US$ 4.3 million in 1998 (UNEP, 

2002). The New Special laws of Tourism in Galapagos Island requires to put 

40% entrance fees for the protected area (Honey, 1999). These incomes are 

expected to cover a range of conservation-related expenditures (Stefan, 1999). In 

contrast, the case of tourism in Indonesia (Sheryl & Wall, 1999), all entrance 

fees were sent to the central government without filtering back to the protected 

areas. 

29


Encouraging tourists and tour operators to give donations is another way 

to increase income for national parks. Tourists and tour operators may very 

voluntarily pay if they recognise that their money can contribute to the 

conservation of parks (Stefan, 1999, UNEP, 2002). The Costa Rica tour 

operators have donated US$ 25,000 to the Costa Rica Park Service in the early 

1990s, US-based tour operators help to establish 100,000 ha rain forest for 

biodiversity research in the Peruvian Amazon (UNEP, 2002). 

Furthermore, income from local people who participated in ecotourism 

activities sometimes also contributes to protect national parks. In Brazil, 

community-based ecotourism has provided 20% of net profits needed for the 

management of the reserve (WWF, 2001). 

Finally, ecotourism aims to hire locally staff businesses (Megan, 1993) 

including local office, field staff, transport - vehicle & boat rental services, 

accommodations - hotels, lodges, camps and restaurants; it also consume local 

supplies from food and craft vendors but avoid all products made from rare 

species. While conventional tourism doesn’t consider much to benefit for local 

people, economic business is largely in hand of city-tour operators. In general, 

ecotourism employs local people in many activities and has created wide range 

of jobs. From these activities and jobs, local communities can improve their 

income. Sven (2000) show that ecotourism in Amazon has brought much 

benefits for local people, especially from food, handicraft selling and cultural 

services. In Nepal, the local communities have participated in different 

ecotourism activities, 1,100 villagers have been employed by hotel industrial 

and of 104 local people (74%) were trained as a nature guides with their salary 

to be increased by 36% afterwards (Marnie, et. al., 1998). Up to now, tourism 

activities have globally created about 200 million jobs (World Travel and 

Tourism Council, 2000). 

30


In short, economic benefits have been generated from different 

stakeholders in ecotourism activities. This may contribute significantly to 

maintenance costs of protected areas and would help to reduce the need for 

economic investment for conserving biodiversity from governments. 

Furthermore, the benefits generated from ecotourism particularly improve the 

livelihood of people. Specifically, it has raised the local living standard and 

made local people become more involved in conservation. Conservationists also 

believe that ecotourism may help protect nature and generate economic benefits 

for local residents (Honey, 1999, Amanda, 2001). David (2001) stated that 

“Without income flows, it may be more difficult to justify to some politicians 

and legislators the continued existence of protected natural areas strictly on less 

tangible grounds such as protecting watersheds, preventing climate change, 

preserving biodiversity or saving such areas for future generations”. 

2.6.2. Ecotourism as a benefit to local education 

In empirical activities of ecotourism, it is suggested that educating both 

local residents and visitors are necessary to get success in the ecotourism 

industry. Ecotourism has to become an integral part of sustainable ecotourism 

and a major secondary goal of management protected areas (Stefan, 1999). At 

the Conference on Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in Desert Areas, 

about 200 people from 21 different countries agreed that information and 

awareness raising in ecotourism should be concerned, particularly local 

populations, guides, foreign tour operators, accompanying staff, and tourists 

(Bouchdjira, 2002). 

Public involvement or public participation in the planning stage of 

ecotourism projects is one of several ways to educate local residents. It is 

strongly recommended in tourism development projects (Diduck, 1999; Stephan, 

31


1999). Local communities must be involved from the very beginning in planning 

a reserve, and be able to give their opinions and to be heard (Gail). 

In addition, “capacity building” can fulfil what should be educated for 

local communities participating in ecotourism activities, including natural and 

cultural history, and skills in ecotourism operation in a sustainable way. Various 

papers have emphasised that the local communities need to be trained if they 

wish to become involved in ecotourism activities, this is especially important if 

they are to work as ecotourist guides (Bouchdjira, 2002; Oliver, 2001; Eugenio, 

2002; Megan, 1993; Honey, 1999). They are the key people who help to make 

the ecotourists satisfied during the tour and minimise the negative impacts that 

may occur from visitors (Honey, 1999). A project in Sabah, Malaysia has 

improved community skills considerably, including hospitality, finance, 

marketing, computer skill, and English language. Local communities also raised 

their interest and awareness of the richness of the biodiversity (WWF, 2001). 

In short, local people are very important in ecotourism development 

projects. They play an important role in the success of ecotourism activities. 

They should be educated to learn the basic knowledge of how to run ecotourism 

in a sustainable way. In addition, local communities also need to be empowered 

to decide what forms of tourism facilities and wildlife conservation programs 

they want to have developed in their respective communities, and how the 

tourism cost and benefits are to be shared among different stakeholders (Akama, 

1996). 

Ecotourism not only provides knowledge to local communities but also to 

visitors. The right kinds of tourist experiences can results in increasing 

environmental awareness and cultural sensitivity among tourists (Amanda, 

2001). The Conference on Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in Desert 

Areas has figured out the importance of ecotourism guides in educating for 

32


ecotourists. It helps to ensure that the latter do not have negative impacts on 

natural environment and local culture (Bouchdjira, 2002). In addition, it is 

necessary to prepare detailed and specialised information for ecotourists, both 

before and during the trip (Megan, 1993). The information can be designed in 

various forms, such as brochures, guidebooks, leaflets, maps, eco-museums, 

signpost nature trails etc. They should contain details on flora, fauna, geology, 

and in general on the ecosystem to be visited and provide guidelines for what the 

tourists may and may not do during transport and on site (Eugenio, 2002). All 

information will help ecotourists to understand of the areas they are going to 

visit. In other words, tourists should already be educated before starting the tour. 

With regards to the educational aspects of visitors, many businesses and 

organisations have promoted a less damaging brand of tourism and recreation. It 

can be a designed as signs, pamphlets, posters, and T-shirts. All these measures 

are meant to warn visitors against disturbance and destruction of wild species 

and their habitat (Ruth et al., 1998). In addition, through the tours, ecotourists 

will learn from nature, understand processes and developments and get involved 

in looking after endangered species or ecological activities (Oliver, 2001). 

Furthermore, public relations also contribute to raising environmental 

awareness for both local communities and visitors (Oliver, 2001). It educates 

through the newspapers, broadcast media such as radio, television, etc. This type 

of activity should be supported by government agencies. 

2.6.3. Ecotourism benefit to promote conservation 

Ecotourism as a support for biodiversity conservation has been mentioned 

by a number of scientists. It is often viewed as an effective means for promoting 

the conservation of endangered species and habitats in developing countries. 

33


Community-based ecotourism (CBE) has been widely introduced and 

implemented around the world. It promotes both the quality of human life and 

conservation of resources (Ruth et al., 1998; Scheyvens, 1999; WWF, 2001). 

This is a form of tourism that meets some criteria of ecotourism. The local 

community has substantial control over, and involvement in its developed and 

management, and the major proportion of the benefits remain within the 

community (WWF, 2001). Local communities join in partnerships with 

government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and private tour 

companies to plan tourism strategies and develop new attraction for tourists. 

Local hosts gain much more control over how tourism affects their communities 

(Amanda, 2001). Communities are generally aware of the fact that ecotourism 

will not replace their traditional economic activities. But they often feel that it 

has the potential to generate additional incomes for them (Ruth et al., 1998). 

Therefore, these pressures which threaten to destroy natural resources, 

especially the natural habitats, in the local communities would be reduced. In 

other words, it would play a role in conservation. 

In Nepal, CBE made changes in local attitudes toward wildlife 

conservation, including endangered species and habitat conservation and 

increase benefits for the local people (Marnie, et. al., 1998). In New Zealand, 

Maori communities are using ecotourism as a means of sustainable utilising 

physical resources at their disposal in a way, which can provide employment 

options (Scheyvens, 1999). In the Amazon, income flows from ecotourism made 

local communities raise their environmental awareness and gave incentives for a 

“new” use of traditional resources (Sven, 2000). 

However, many small scale CBEs have failed because of lack of market 

assessment, organisation, quality and promotion (WWF, 2001). CBE therefore 

should be linked with other segments of tourism. It can be integrated with other 

34


sectors in order to get to know the market better, upgrade knowledge in tourist 

operation and management. 

In Namibia, CBE provides a linkage between communities with outside 

agencies and operators. Local communities are assistance through training, 

business advice, marketing, advocacy and funding. In addition, a central 

booking and information system has also been established. Finally, the 

ecotourism project in Namibia shows that wildlife numbers, including black 

rhino and elephant, have increased significantly since the community approach 

have been adopted (WWF, 2001). 

In participatory democracy theory, it has also been mentioned that: "the 

more individuals participate the better able they become to do so" (Diduck 

1999). Amanda (2001) has also argued that if ecotourism industry were to 

provide the right inputs, such as “a participatory approach” then the negative 

impacts of tourism on the local hosts could be reduced. Anthropologists have 

discussed the role of local participation in the planning and management of 

protected areas. They strongly claim that without the consent of the local 

communities, protected areas could not be managed effectively (Benjamin & 

Brush, 1996). Again, Scheyvens (1999) has emphasised the empowerment of 

local communities in decision-making in ecotourism projects. It includes 

economic empowerment, psychological empowerment, social empowerment, 

and political empowerment. 

In addition, through tourism activities, visitors learn not only much from 

nature, human culture etc. but they also contribute in conserving protected areas 

(Megan). It includes helping protected areas generate revenue, direct corporate 

donations and researches, mount-advertisement etc. and sometimes gives very 

good comments on how to improve the ecotourism in detail. 

35


Thus, ecotourism has been thought to increase the involvement of both 

local communities and visitors in conservation. Specifically, it has encouraged 

local people to conserve resources, including natural resources, local culture and 

language. It has also encouraged participation in community groups, created 

opportunities for training and technical assistance, develop the abilities needed 

for communities to manage financial resources, and lead to the establishment of 

well-managed reserves, educational facilities (such as museums or botanical 

gardens), and other attractions (WWF, 2001). 

2.7. Monitoring ecotourism activities and mitigating negative impacts 

2.7.1. Negative impacts from ecotourism 

Ecotourism activities also generate vast negative impacts on the 

environment due to poor tourism management, unmonitored and unregulated 

(Amanda, 2001). 

Generally, economic benefits from tourism in protected areas often result 

in degradation of environments (Joseph, 1997). It includes garbage dumping 

(Mark, 1995; Sapna & Rawat, 2000), increasing soil erosion and a decreasing 

plant cover (Whinam and Comfort, 1996; Cole and Spildie, 1998; Joseph, 1997; 

Traycy & Merion, 2001), plant species composition changing (Joseph, 1997), 

wood and animal species threatening (Sven, 2000). 

Social problems can be created from rapid and large local income growth. 

It includes alcohol problems, loss of cultural identity (Sven, 2000; Gail). Gender 

problems have also been generated from ecotourism (Sven, 2000; Marnie, et. al., 

1998). In the Amazon, most of the workers employed in ecotourism activities 

while women have to work in domestic domains. In Nepal, approximately 70% 

of the employees in the hotel industry were local people but less than 2% were 

women. 

36


Above negative impacts from tourism generally may cause by lack of 

environmental considerations. Particularly if tourism or ecotourism is 

unmonitored and unregulated, it may disturb both wildlife and people (Amanda, 

2001). 

2.7.2. Indicators for monitoring and mitigating negative impacts of 

ecotourism 

Monitoring ecotourism activities is one of the key successes in ecotourism 

industry. Monitoring can be based on site visits, visitors feedback, third-party 

monitoring and self-monitoring (UNEP, 1998). It will help to recognise negative 

impacts as early as possible before serious problems occur. Amanda (2001) has 

emphasised that if ecotourism activities are unmonitored and unregulated, it may 

spoil natural areas and disturb both wildlife and people. It should be conducted 

with the participation of all stakeholders involved (Bouchdjira, 2002; Oliver, 

2001). 

Carrying capacity was strongly recommended in ecotourism development 

(Stefan, 1999). It was a means to indicate essential parts in ecotourism 

development, not only in the parks and protected areas but also in rural areas 

(Bouchdjira, 2002). It includes physical, perceptual, social, and economical 

aspects (Stefan, 1999). 

• Physical carrying capacity is characterised by the limits beyond which 

environmental problems arise. 

• Perceptual carrying capacity is the subjective view that travellers have on the 

conditions of an area (environmental quality or socio-cultural conditions), 

which limits their willingness to travel to that area. 

• Social limits arise from the host population's willingness to tolerate visitors, 

and the acceptance of social change. 

37


• Economic carrying capacity is the ability to absorb tourist activities without 

displacing or disturbing traditional local activities. 

Mark (1995) recommended using indicator measurements such as 

satisfaction-enjoyment, education learning, attitude-belief change and 

behaviour-lifestyle change of visitors to minimise negative impacts from 

ecotourism. Oliver (2001) has suggested other parameters in ecoturism 

monitoring. These include: 

• Amount of budget per capita allocated by government for conservation and 

environmental management purposes 

• Percentage of the protected areas’ surface in the country 

• Ratio of number of tourists to the number of local residents 

• Evolution of the number of tourism enterprises 

• Number of tourism enterprises that posses an eco-label 

• Number of tourists per surface of protected areas 

• Number of rare species in ecosystems that are ecotourism destinations. 

However, implementing these above mentioned-indicators is not easy. It 

is really difficult to fix the guidelines for the 4 aspects of carrying capacity. It 

depends on the efficiency of tourism planning and management. For example, 

higher number of tourism can be accepted if tourism is well managed. It also 

depends on the kind of tourists. It can be said that the higher conservation 

awareness of tourists, the less impacts to environment or the more carrying 

capacity. Therefore, ecotourism operator needs to concern much on capacity 

building. 

Some papers have made guidelines based on empirical studies for tourism 

activities (Megan, 1993; UNEP & TIES, 2002). These include how to educate 

38


visitors before and during the tour in order to prevent environmental and cultural 

impacts; how to provide local communities with the knowledge they need to 

carry out their own business and prevent negative impacts from accumulating. 

3. CASE STUDIES 

3.1. Ecotourism in Galapagos Islands 

3.1.1. Introduction to the Galapagos Islands 

The Galapagos Islands are a cluster of volcanic islands located in the 

Pacific Ocean about 1000 km off Ecuador’s coast. There are 13 large islands, 6 

Figure 5: Map of Galapagos 

(www.ecoudorexplorer.com/html/galapagos_map.html) 

smaller ones and 

107 islets and 

rocks. The total 

land area is about 

8000 square 

kilometres. 

islands 

The 

are 

volcanic in origin 

and 

several 

volcanoes are still 

very active. The 

Galapagos is a 

province of the 

republic 

of 

Ecuador, and the 

capital is Puerto 

39


Baquerizo Moreno on San Christobal Island, although the largest town is Puerto 

Ayora on Santa Cruz. Five of the islands are inhabited, with a total population of 

around 15.000 people. 

The Galapagos Islands is a very unique place, because it has been deserted 

for many years. Species of plants and animals have evolved differently on 

approximately 14 islands. That means the islands contain many endemic species. 

The nature is still in a pristine state, (though it is endangered by tourists and 

immigrants), and because of that it is an ideal place to study evolution and other 

ecological issues. 

3.1.2. Nature 

Three to five million years ago volcanic eruption gave birth to a new 

archipelago. This new group of islands had flat shorelines and mountain 

interiors, but despite of equatorial location, the habitat of several of the islands 

was desert like. But plant and animals migrated to Galapagos and nowadays it is 

home to many unique, endemic species. 

Though Galapagos sites equator it also lies in the path of a cool nutrientrich 

current, so corals, manta rays and other plants and animals of tropical seas, 

share islands with penguins, fur seal lion and other cool-water species. 

Galapagos have many different habitats, such as forests, beaches, volcanic 

craters, mangrove forests etc. The mangrove has rich concentrations of nutrients 

and plankton flow in and out with the tides, making the forest an important 

breeding and nursery ground for fishes and invertebrates. The mangrove is also 

used as nesting sites by many birds. 

a. Flora 

Plants entering the islands tend to be pioneer species, hardy plants which 

successfully cross oceans and manage to establish themselves in the often 

40


hostile environment of the islands. Relatively few plants succeed in doing this, 

so Galapagos Islands have far fewer species than in similar environments on the 

South American mainland. 

The plants have few specialised fleshy fruits and showy flowers, because 

they have adapted to very few insects and other pollinators to pollinate their 

flowers and disperse their fruits. 

The Galapagos Islands have 560 native species and one third of these are 

endemic, species such as cotton, tomato, pepper, guava and passionflower. 

Introduced species is a big problem on the Galapagos. They arrived with 

the people for the purposes of either agriculture or gardening. Now they have 

become pests and invade the native vegetation. In 1999, 475 introduced species 

where known, and 10 new species arrive each year. In 2007, it is estimated that 

the introduced species will outnumber the native ones (Galapagos Conservation 

Trust, 2002). 

Introduced animals are also a big problem. Goats, donkeys and cattle have 

decimated the vegetation, and introduced insects and other invertebrates have 

infected and killed many native species (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002). 

b. Fauna 

Galapagos has many unique and endemic animals, most of which are 

fearless due to the lack of natural predators. One of the best known is the giant 

tortoise. Scientist believes the tortoises have drifted from the mainland with the 

ocean current, their shells keeping them afloat, and that the giant tortoise has 

grown to an immense size (250 kg), because of abundant food and absence of 

predators (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002). 

There have been 14 races of tortoises, evolved on 14 different islands, but 

as a result of hunting, 3 races are extinct and 1 left of the fourth race. It is 

41


estimated that more than 100.000 in total were hunted over the centuries. 

(Charles Darwin foundation, 2001). Today 15.000 tortoises have been counted. 

Other reptiles on the Galapagos include the marine- and land-iguanas. The 

land iguanas are endangered because of wild dogs. The only native mammals on 

the islands are rice rats and two species of bats. 

The Galapagos have an amazing birdlife. Among the endemic seabirds are 

penguins, albatrosses, cormorants and gulls. There are 29 resident land birds, of 

which 22 are endemic. They are largely dull in colour and extremely tame, 

because of the absence of predators. 

c. Marine life 

The cool and warm current system, coupled with a great variety of 

underwater landscapes, that include underwater volcanoes that rise hundreds of 

metres to near the sea surface, promote a great diversity of species, including 

sponges, corals, anemones, gorgonians, shrimp, conchs and starfish. The small 

animals provide food for larger species of fish, seabirds, dolphins, sea lions and 

whales. The open ocean in the tropics typically has little productivity, however 

deep nutrient-rich currents moving east across the Pacific Ocean strike the 

Galapagos Islands and the underwater volcanoes and rise to the sea surface 

creating an important feeding zone for marine mammals (Charles Darwin 

foundation, 2001). 

All living species in and around Galapagos depend on the sea. Even 

highly placed communities of plant and animals utilise nutrients released as 

droppings by marine petrels returning to the nests (Charles Darwin foundation, 

2001). The highly productive coastal waters thus support the food chain that 

extends not only from plankton to shark but also to land plants, insects and 

birds. Three hundred species of fishes have been found. Sea lions and fur seals 

42


are found around the coast, where dolphins, whales and sea turtles are also 

common. 

3.1.3. History 

Galapagos had no aboriginal inhabitants before the 1900s, probably 

because of the extreme scarcity of water. The tenth of March 1535 the Spanish 

Bishop Tomás de Berlanga arrived to Galapagos as the first known arrival of 

humans. He recorded the island and described the nature scene. The discovery 

made no impact on the Spanish conqueror or on the English and Dutch 

navigators, because no great minerals were found (Galapagos Conservation 

Trust, 2002). 

During 1600 buccaneers and pirates used the islands as a staging post, for 

restocking on water and repairing their boats before carrying out raids on the 

mainland. They caught the giant tortoises, which they brought with them alive 

on board their ships for fresh meat (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002). 

In the 1800 whaling ships and fur-sealers used Galapagos as a resting 

spot. They collected tortoises for food and fine “turtle oil” (Galapagos 

Conservation Trust, 2002). The whalers nearly decimated not only the whales 

but also the tortoise population before 1860. Fortunately the bottom fell out of 

the whaling industry (Honey, 1999). 

In 1835 a young British aristocrat, Charles Darwin stopped at Galapagos 

while sailing around the world during a five years expedition. He spent five 

weeks observing the nature. His observation changed the western scientific 

thought. Darwin noted two important phenomena “that wildlife, with no natural 

predators, was unusually tame, and that many of the islands had developed their 

own unique species of animals, birds and plants”. These observations gave rise 

to his book about evolution by natural selection (Honey, 1999). 

43


The passing ships and the tiny permanent settlement on several islands, 

was the beginning of the introduction of alien species as rats, cats, pigs, goats 

and other animals highly destructive to the local flora and fauna (Honey, 1999). 

Gradually small colonies were established in several islands. Many of the 

present-day inhabitants moved to the islands from the Ecuador mainland. During 

the last 40 years the population is currently increasing at more than 8% per 

annum (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002). 

a. Charles Darwin Foundation 

In 1960 the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) was set up, as an 

international non-profit organization, with the main office in Quito Ecuador and 

a research station on Santa Cruz Galapagos. It was set up under auspices of 

UNESCO and IUCN (World Conservation Union). The research station acts as a 

scientific advisor for the National Park Service. The international CDF and the 

Ecuadorian government cooperate with matters such as scientific research, 

protection, educational programs at local and national level and breeding of 

captive endangered species. 

b. Ecotourism 

In 1970 the only public transportation to the islands was aboard an 

uncomfortable cargo ship coming every three months from the mainland. The 

numbers grew after an old US military base on the island Baltra was refurbished 

and a commercial air link were established. Gradually a tourism infrastructure 

began to be built. 

Organized ecotourism began in the late 1960s, when an Ecuadorian and a 

New York-based company (Metropolitan tourism and Lindblad Travel) 

established two cruise boats (a 12 passengers sailing vessel and a 60 passenger 

luxury-liner). Tourism was done in close conjunction with Darwin Research 

44


station and the new national Park. During the early 1970 tourism facilities grew. 

Small boats occasionally carrying tourist on day trips, one luxury hotel, 

bungalows, floating hotels and restaurants, which were owned by long-term 

island residents (except from the two boats owned by Metropolitan and Lindblad 

Travel). Most of the locals lacked the capital, the foreign-language and 

marketing skills to do business on international scale. After the industry 

expanded the ownership shifted to international owned companies (Honey, 

1999). 

There has been a tendency, that the tourism has been split in two. The low 

budget, land-based tourism via on-land hotels and day boats, dominated by 

Galapagueños and Ecuadorians. They serve primary Ecuadorian tourists. On the 

other hand is the upmarket luxury tourism via luxury tour boats and floating 

hotels, which is controlled primary by foreigners and wealthy Ecuadorians. They 

serve mainly foreigners (Honey, 1999). 

Since 1979 the number of tourist has increased more than fivefold, and 

there have been tendencies toward poorly done ecotourism and conventional 

tourism, as well as uncontrolled immigration and commercial fishing (Honey, 

1999). 

3.1.4. The National Park 

The Galapagos National Park (GNP) administration began to function in 

1968. It has full legal support of the government. The governmental agency 

(GNP) is responsible for the management and protection of the national park, 

which include protection of endangered populations of native animal and plants, 

eradication and control of introduced species, and management of recreation and 

tourism by establishing and maintaining nature trails. 

45


The Park manager has set some rules and regulation which the tourists 

have to obey. 

• No animals, plants or rocks may be disturbed, touched or removed. 

• No foreign material is to be transported to the islands or from one island 

to another island. 

• No food to uninhabited islands. Smoking is prohibited. 

• Don’t touch, feed, pet or approach the animals too closely. 

• It is forbidden chasing or frightening living creature from its nest or 

resting place. 

• While diving or snorkelling don’t hurt any marine creature. 

• Waste products must be taking away from the islands. 

• Don’t buy souvenirs made from plants or animals of the islands. 

• Don’t paint names or graffiti on rocks. 

• All groups visiting the national park must be accompanied by a licensed 

guide. 

• Follow the marked trails at all times. 

(Ecuador & Galapagos, 1999). 

a. Ecotourism industry 

Ecotourism is dominated by two mainland-based tour operators offering 

high-quality ecotourism (Metropolitan Touring and another company). They 

own several floating hotels and part of the Ecuadorian airlines that fly to the 

islands. Since 1980 their dominance has been challenged by the growth of 

ecotourism operators. They have responded to the growing international market 

by offering comfort and safety. The high-quality and well-managed floating 

46


hotels do not offer much direct benefit to the local community. The tourists 

sleep and eat on the boats, and they are usually discharged for only a few hours 

on land to visit the Darwin Research Station and the National park, maybe they 

will buy some souvenirs at the station rather than in the town (Honey, 1999). 

The less luxury and locally-owned floating hotels are being marginalized 

by better-financed companies, who are buying up operating permits, and are 

bringing in larger and more luxurious vessels. This has some negative 

consequences, as decrease in local employment opportunities, and it contributed 

to population growth, because of imported staff for larger vessels which demand 

more experienced personnel, and a tendency for more pressure on the most 

popular visitor sites, because the larger ships want those (MacFarland, 1998). 

Since 1980s the Ecuadorians began receiving discounts on flight-tickets, 

park entrance and cruise boats. In average foreigners were spending 3.5 times 

more than Ecuadorians, yet a much higher proportion of the money spent by 

Ecuadorians went into the local economy, because they spent their money on 

low-quality, local-owned boats and on-land hotels (Honey, 1999). 

Tourism has grown gradually and has now reached a total of over 60.000 

visitors per year and almost 90 vessels. The growth has been driven by 

economic interests; it is neither planned technically in relation to natural 

resources, nor to market studies. The supply is already exceeding the demand 

(MacFarland, 1998). This means that too many accommodations and tourist 

activities are being established with no tourists to make use of them. 

Tourists provide an income for an estimated 80% of the people living on 

the Galapagos Islands, and 60% of all tourism revenues in Ecuador comes from 

Galapagos. Only 15% of the tourism income enters the islands economy, the rest 

goes to the mainland economy. The income from local farmers, cattle ranchers, 

47


fishermen and floating hotels (most not owned by Galapagueños) are virtually 

non-existent, most food and other suppliers are imported (Honey, 1999). 

b. Legislation/Regulation 

Gradually steps were taken towards conservation. In 1935 the Ecuadorian 

government passed legislation to protect the islands wildlife. But the legislation 

was not enforced; it was not until 1959 that the Ecuadorian government declared 

97% of the islands a national park. The remaining 3% of settlement were already 

established (Honey, 1999). 

In 1986 the Ecuadorian government declared 50.000 square kilometres of 

water reserved. Under a new special Galapagos law enacted in 1998, the 

reserved area has been enlarged to over 130.000 square kilometres in size. It is 

now the second largest marine reserve in the world, after the Great Barrier Reef 

in Australia. 

To visit the National park you have to be accompanied by a licensed 

guide. Naturalist guides are licensed by the National park, after required training 

courses given by the park and Charles Darwin Research Station, and finally 

passing an examination. The park’s regulations require a maximum of 16 

visitors per guide in a single group. 

One way to collect money for protection and conservation is through park 

entrance fees. In the early 1990s park entrance fees, paid at the airport, covered 

the entire stay at the islands. The tax were 40$ for foreigners and 0.16$ for 

nationals. Only 10-20% of the revenues went to support the national park 

(Honey, 1999). Through the 1990s the entrance fees raise from 40$ to 100$, and 

in 1994 the government set aside 40% for protection of the National park. In the 

mid-1990s tourism was the fourth largest foreign currency earner in Ecuador, 

after petroleum, bananas and shrimps (Honey, 1999). 

48


In 1998 the Ecuadorian government made some strategies both through 

legislation and planning for protection and conservation of Galapagos. The 

result was the New Special Law. 

3.1.5. The effect of tourism 

It is difficult to distinguish between ecotourism and mass-tourism, but in 

general tourism have produced some related trends in Galapagos, which are 

threatening the island’s biodiversity and ecosystems. These trends are described 

below. 

a. Decline in quality of tourism 

Tourists, scientists and even boat owners have complained that the most 

visited places are becoming overcrowded. The government is supposed to set 

limits on the number of tourist and tour boats admitted each year, but these 

limits keep being raised (Honey, 1999). 

In 1992, the government announced that it was not issuing any new boat 

permits, but boat owners found ways to get around the restriction, by adding 

more berths to the boats or by buying permits from owners of smaller boats 

(Honey, 1999). 

As tourist numbers have grown and competition among the companies 

have increased, the companies have taken cost-saving shortcuts that negatively 

affect the marine reserve. For instance tour boats dumping organic and inorganic 

waste within the marine reserve instead of bringing for disposals and most 

common practices is for floating boats to discharge their sewage and organic 

kitchen wastes into the ocean (Honey, 1999). 

In 1997 another threat loomed over the marine reserve. Sports fishing and 

special type of spear fishing as part of the ecotourism market. With over-fishing 

already, sports fishing could not be policed and would only lead to further 

49


exploitation, and it could provide cover for commercial fishing activities. It 

would also attract a new type of clientele. 

As the tourist number has increased, the number of guides has been forced 

to expand rapidly; this has meant certification of a new classification of guides. 

These guides are mostly native Galapagueños who know a lot about the island, 

but lack the scientific knowledge, and frequently only speak Spanish (Honey, 

1999). 

The guides do not always exert adequate control over their group, either 

because of a lack of conservation understanding or commitment or because they 

don’t want to upset their passengers and jeopardize their end-of-cruise tip 

(Honey, 1999). 

Many substandard day boats and on-land hotels are marketing a more 

conventional type of “sun-and-sand” tourism, which has a negative impact on 

ecotourism, and attracting another clientele (Honey, 1999). 

b. Rapidly growing human population 

Historically, the tiny population, were farmers and fishermen and since 

1960s people who worked for the Charles Darwin Research Station or the Park 

Service, but since the late 1980s, as word spread on mainland that tourism were 

a “gold mine”, there have been a rapid acceleration in arrivals. The arrivals 

include colonist, fishermen, poachers, and job and fortune seekers (Honey, 

1999). 

The new arrivals are lured by stories of plentiful jobs and high salaries. 

The cost of living on the islands is several times higher than on the mainland, 

but salaries are also as much as seventy-five times higher (Honey, 1999). 

50


The Galapagos Islands are now the fastest growing area in Ecuador concerning 

population, with an average increase of 8%. The islands permanent population 

leaped from a few hundred to 15.000 by the late 1990s (Honey, 1999). 

The new arrivals are straining limited resources, such as freshwater, 

electricity, telephone service and schools. This also raises problems with 

garbage and sewage disposal, and, more timber and parkland for houses and 

farms is needed. 

c. Rapidly increasing rates of introduction of alien species 

Introduction of non-native species has accelerated with the tourism boom, 

and they are endangering the survival of fragile and endemic species. On some 

islands, species of tortoise have become extinct because goats have eaten the 

vegetation they feed on, and rats have eaten their eggs. Goat and donkeys have 

also caused massive erosion, threatened the tortoises’ habitat and trampled their 

nests (Honey, 1999). The park service and the research station have made 

campaigns to kill the goats and donkeys and they have relocated some of the 

tortoises to a breeding centre, and restored the island’s ecosystem through 

fencing, seed banks and by reintroduction of native species to help boost the 

wild population. 

The government have - through the New Special Law - made some effort 

to track and eliminate alien species –plants, animals, insects, fungi, bacteria – 

that are brought by boat or plane by tourist, new immigrants and illegal fishing 

operations. They have made a quarantine plan, inspection of cargo and people 

arriving by boat or plane, and the research station activities have been 

concentrated on eradication, and breeding of endangered species. 

51


d. Massive extraction of marine resources (marine fisheries) 

There are indications that artisanal fishing is affecting exploited marine 

communities. They are not only affecting the target species, they also have a 

cascading effect on non-commercial species and the ecosystem in general 

(Ruttenberg, 2001) 

Management and control of the marine resources have been very poor 

before 1986, and after 1986 it has been run by “everyone and no one”, the navy, 

the ministry of Industry and fishery, and INEFAN (the national service that falls 

under the ministry of Agriculture and livestock). But lack of management and 

control has allowed the overexploitation of the marine resources. 

In recent years local fishermen (many of them new arrivals), commercial 

fishing, and trawlers (many foreign) have been doing illegal and highly 

destructive commercial fishing within the marine park for lobsters, tuna, sharks, 

grouper and sea cucumber. Japanese ships are frequently spotted just outside the 

reserves, where they sell their illegal catches. Divers also report findings of dead 

sharks, sea lions and turtles attached in nets. There are also reports that boats 

from mainland comes to exchange sea cucumbers with prostitutes and drugs 

(Honey, 1999). 

For two decades a battle has been going on between the national park 

service and fishermen and industrial fishing groups, about how the marine 

reserve should be used. 

In 1994 Ecuadorian television showed shocking footage of large 

clandestine encampments of sea cucumber fishermen, who were diving into 

shallow waters and collecting an estimated 150.000 cucumbers per day. The sea 

cucumbers were clandestinely exported to Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, 

where they were eaten or used in medicines. Shortly after the illegal camps were 

shown in television, park guards and tour guides discovered 86 butchered giant 

52


tortoises on Isabela Island. The fishermen were widely suspected to have been 

behind the slaughter. Then in 1995 an enormous fire started on Isabela and 

burned for month destroying big areas. Sabotage was suspected (Honey, 1999). 

There was disagreement in the government on how to solve the problem, 

with congress member Eduardo Veliz favouring fishery, and the national park 

service and ministry of Agriculture (together with the tourism industry, scientist, 

and research station) opposing collection of sea cucumber in the marine reserve. 

The final solution was a three-month period where fishermen could harvest no 

more than 550.000 sea cucumbers. The experiment was disastrous. No effective 

controls or enforcement were put in place, and before the period was over, 6 to 

10 million sea cucumbers were harvested (Honey, 1999). 

After the three months when the government announced that it was 

closing the fishing season, the conflict escalated. Groups of masked sea 

cucumber fishermen with clubs blockaded the national park headquarters and 

research station, forcing the staff members to stay inside the building and 

threatening to kill the tortoises. The blockade lasted in four days, until the 

government flew in military troops and representatives of the fisheries authority 

to negotiate. 

Congressman Veliz managed to push through a law, which had something 

to offer to everyone, but nothing for conservation. In 1995, Ecuador’s president 

vetoed the legislation, which lead to a three-week strike (a very militant action) 

leaded by Veliz. Protestors blockaded and closed down the airport on San 

Christobal and Baltra, and again the park service and research station. Veliz 

even threatened to kidnap tourist and burn area of the national park. After this 

tour operators reported a drop in reservation of 15%. When the strike was finally 

called off, the president set up a commission to draft a New Special Law for the 

conservation of the Galapagos (Honey, 1999). Though the law provides an 

53


excellent framework for conservation there still is negotiation on how to define 

“artisanal” fishery. 

3.1.6 The New Special Law 

In 1997 the government set up a process of consultation and negotiation, 

which included representatives from conservations groups, the tourism industry, 

industrialist, environmental authorities and representatives from national and 

international organizations. The Charles Darwin Research Station participated as 

an advisor. After a series of meetings they reached an agreement on how to 

promote conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development in the 

Province of Galapagos. The laws contain the following regulations. 

1) Control of introduced species, by regulating transport of introduced 

species, eradication in agricultural lands, a quarantine inspection system, 

environmental impact assessment (EIA) and audit. 

2) Local participation and appreciation. This should among other things be 

promoted by environmental education. Institutions and individuals have 

duty to participate in controlling of introduced species. To incentive the 

locals, they have to be some local economic benefits, in terms of 

improved social service, exclusive rights to future tourism and fishing 

opportunities. Local responsibility is also enhanced through participation 

in the Marine Reserves authority and the INGALA council (National 

Institution for the Galapagos, which arise with the new law. It is 

responsible for coordinating policies and planning throughout the 

Galapagos). 

3) Tax incentives for organizations that train local residents and the law also 

oblige employers to hire permanent residents rather than employ 

outsiders. 

54


4) Redistribution of the revenues from Park entrance fees. 40% will go to the 

National Park service, 40% to the town councils and other local 

authorities. The quarantine system, Marine Reserve, the navy and 

Ecuador’s other national parks will split the last 20%. 

5) Stabilization of the Island population. Only those who have lived on the 

island for more than five years will be eligible for legal residency. 

6) Setting aside of another 2% of the islands territory for human settlement. 

7) Extending the zone of protected water from 50.000 to 130.000 square 

kilometres. The Marine Reserve is to be managed by INEFAN (Ecuador’s 

national park service) under the overall authority of an interinstitutional 

committee composed of four ministries and three stakeholder group 

(tourism, fisheries and scientific and an educational group). 

8) Banding of industrial fishing for sharks and sea cucumbers, but permitting 

local fishermen to fish seasonally for lobsters and specified types of fish 

(Charles Darwin Foundation, 1998 and Honey, 1999) 

3.1.7. Conclusion 

The Galapagos Islands are a little paradise in the middle of the Pacific 

Ocean, with a well-run national park and a biological research station. There are 

scientists, natural guides, low-impact floating hotels and environmental aware 

tourists, and a well working cooperation between tour operators and the national 

park service. Ecotourism on the Galapagos is a roll-model for sustainable 

tourism management. However in the latter half of 1990s there has been fire, 

slaughter of tortoises, illegal fishing, demonstration and other troubles. The 

tourism has expanded too rapidly without any planning or governmental control. 

With the New Special Law, the government does after all try to stand up to 

tourism. 

55


The tourists do not have a direct effect on the ecosystem. Studies prove 

that there are only minor impacts on soils and geological features at very 

restricted locations and on certain trails. Birds breeding colonies have shown no 

detectable impact on the reproductive success (MacFarland, 2001). However 

tourisms have an indirect impact on the ecosystem. They are the cause of 

growing population, increased consumption of resources and partly responsible 

for the introduction of alien species. 

Concerning the growing population, the government have made some 

improvements concerned the influx of new immigrants, with no long-term 

commitments to the island, who are seeking for quick money. The government 

also promotes environmental education of new immigrants, and they have 

prohibited further immigration. 

The Galapagos Islands have a close and positive cooperation between tour 

operators and the national park service and research station, but the increased 

tourism means among other things a decline in the guide quality and a more 

careless attitude to the environment, (for instance dumping of garbage and 

sewage). The growth in tourism has also meant a decline in environmental 

“education” of visitors, because of the increasing demand for guides. The result 

is education of locals, who lacks the needed qualifications. On the other hand it 

has given job opportunities for the locals. 

There is also a tendency that tourism takes a small twist to conventional 

tourism. If the national park service does not control the planning and the 

control of activities in the national park area, the tourist industry will go ahead 

of the management authorities, with new modalities and activities, as jet skiing, 

sport harpooning, helicopter over-flights and sports fishing. Management 

capacity must be in place before tourism growth is allowed (including new 

56


modalities and activities). The tourist industry should also be brought into the 

process of planning of the nature system in Galapagos. 

The conflict between the national park and the fishermen is not a story of 

poor locals whose need for economic development is being fought by affluent 

outside conservationists. It is rather a struggle between new immigrants with 

international fishing interests. The national park, research station, tourism 

operators and even Galapaguaños, believe that they will get more benefits by 

preserving the ecosystem and promoting tourism than by exports of extracted 

natural resources. 

Concerning cultural respect (which is a part of the ecotourism protocol), 

the local communities of the Galapagos are virtually imported. The population 

consists mainly of sailors, prisoners, adventures and settlers, so this is not a 

significant issue on the Galapagos Islands. 

The Galapagos Islands is not a good roll-model for local ecotourism, 

which intensely involves local communities as the primary service provider and 

beneficiaries and which attempts to provide for minimizing impacts to their 

cultural and social life. Ecotourism on the Galapagos is on the other hand a good 

roll-model for conservation and protection of biodiversity. 

3.2. Ecotourism and wildlife in the Kruger National Park 

3.2.1. Introduction 

a. History 

Kruger National Park (KNP) lies in the Northeast of South Africa (figure 

5 and 6) and is one of the largest and oldest protected areas in Africa. It was 

declared in 1926 and now has an area of 19.458 square kilometres. 

57


(a) 

(b) 

Figure 6: Map of Africa (a) and South Africa (b) 

(a)www.amergeorg.org/history.htm (b)www.park-sa.co.za/trames.aspmainurf=park/national_parks.html 

The Kruger National Park’ history started when it was declared a game 

reserve in the last part of 1890’s by a group of English gentlemen, who after 

killing a great number of animals and exporting a big quantity of ivory just for 

pleasure and luxury, decided to protect the area to preserve its wildlife. This was 

done by removing the native African population from its lands to marginal lands 

in the south of the reserve - and it would not be the last time they did that. 

On the 28 th of October 1902 a new game legislation was promulgated, its 

most important novelty was that “…like its nineteenth-century predecessors, 

generally remained based on class and race distinctions. However in terms of 

58


hunting privileges, it treated all landowners equally, whether white or African” 

(Carruthers, 1995). 

The Transvaal Game Protection Association (a group of Englishmen who 

worked to protect wildlife in the name of a class sport as hunting) became an 

important pressure group. They tried to convince the authorities about the basic 

idea that wildlife was in danger because of the native Africans, in saying so, 

they could maintain the elitism of their sport. Since the very first moment, this 

has been shown not to be true and on the contrary “…the over protection of 

game in some parts….have resulted in the most disastrous consequences to the 

Natives who had in many cases lost their whole crops” (Carruthers, 1995). 

The situation in Kruger National Park (KNP) was as follows: a white 

colonialist minority who took the KNP under control to protect wildlife for 

game hunting was against a majority of black natives who had lost their land 

(and therefore the only opportunity to survive) simply to protect the white’s way 

of living. 

To create this National Park, thousands of Africans were evicted from 

their lands and “…not only were (they) forcibly moved to overcrowded and 

marginal agricultural lands on the periphery of these new reserves; colonial laws 

also denied them hunting and fishing licences and the right to use firearms or 

hunting dogs. They were also forbidden to kill wildlife that wandered outside 

the reserves and destroy their crops and domestic animals, and they were banned 

from collecting any wood or grasses within the reserves. Invariably, the colonial 

state chose to protect wildlife instead of the local Africans. In times of drought 

or when water was scarce, Africans were forced to move out” (Honey, 1999). 

But “Preventing Africans from hunting was not merely an economic strategy; it 

was embedded in white cultural perceptions. Whites generally regarded Africans 

59


as ‘savages’ or barbarians, and thus unable to ‘appreciate’ European refinements 

such as notions of ‘cruelty’ or ‘pleasure hunting’” (Carruthers, 1995). 

The situation was kept as explained until 1980 when African parks were 

opened to all races although these parks were divided into black and white areas. 

In 1990, the real change came with two milestones in Africa’s history: the 

legalization of the African National Congress and the liberalization of Nelson 

Mandela. 

Even thought the African Natives have felt a very deep hate to the ‘white 

idea’ of national parks because of all they meant to the blacks, Nelson Mandela 

saw in them an opportunity for development of the nation. However, he believed 

that some changes had to occur, as for example a revision of the management of 

these national parks (which were at that point carried out by landowners), 

employment of local people, and equal division of revenues between locals and 

others. 

3.2.2. Management of South African National Parks 

South African National Parks (SANParks) is the organisation which 

manages all the twenty parks in South Africa taking into account: flora, fauna, 

landscape and culture. 

Its main goal is: “National parks should be the pride and joy of all South 

Africans” (SANParks, 2002). To achieve that, the organisation has to follow a 

mission: “To acquire and mange a system of national parks that represents the 

indigenous wildlife, vegetation, landscape and associated cultural assets of 

South Africa for the pride and benefit of the nation”. 

The main legislation was proclaimed in 1995 and in the Land Restitution 

Act whose outcome is “the restitution of land rights to people or communities 

who were dispossessed by racist laws of the past” (SANParks, 2002). Under this 

60


Act several agreements have been achieved as for example between Makuleke 

community and the organisation. The 1995 law obligates institutions to restore 

their possessions to the different communities. The Makuleke has agreed to 

giving up exploitation of their areas for the next 50 years in favour of 

ecotourism. 

The conservation program includes management of biodiversity and 

social ecology: 

“The SANParks will continue to fulfil the reason for its 

existence…namely the conservation and management of biodiversity and the 

protection of the beautiful scenery that South Africa is blessed with. But we 

want to do more then that by introducing the vital element of people into 

conservation- for without people, conservation could not be said to be taking 

place. By doing this, we shall bring our parks to life, rejuvenate them. We call 

this approach social ecology” 

(Mavuso Msimang, Chief Executive SANParks) 

Three main points in ecotourism are implemented in the management of 

African national parks: 

• The conservation of representative sample of the biodiversity of the country. 

• To maintain a relationship of community upliftment and capacity building 

amongst people living in and around the park areas. 

• To provide a recreational outlet to the public to experience and enjoy the 

wonders of the parks. 

61


• The third of these responsibilities is achieved through tourism, and it is 

necessary to provide the financial resources required by the organisation in 

order to sustain the first and second responsibility. 

Kruger National Park (one of the most important national parks in South 

Africa as exposed before) has a further – more concrete - number of obligations 

in order to maintain sustainability and environmental protection: 

• There is a maximum threshold of vehicles that can enter the park daily. 

• Firearms must be declared and sealed at the entrance gates. The seals will be 

broken at the gate on departure. 

• No pets are permitted in national parks. 

• There are no television sets or radios in the Kruger Park to ensure maximum 

enjoyment of the wilderness sounds. Tourists who bring their own may not 

disturb other visitors. 

• Feeding of animals is strictly prohibited for the visitors as well as animals 

safety and well being. 

• Latecomers at entrance gates will be refused entry, whilst offenders at rest 

camps could be fined. 

• Open vehicles, motorcycles and vehicles with an axle load exceeding 8,000 

kilos are not permitted. 

Kruger National Park not only offers the opportunity to enjoy 

wildlife but also culture heritage. In its installations one can enjoy different 

cultural ages as Stone Age, Bushman Folk, Iron Age, etc. The main attractions 

at this national park are: 

• The big five: buffalo, elephant, leopard, lion and rhino. 

62


• The little five: buffalo weaver, elephant shrew, leopard tortoise, ant lion and 

rhino beetle. 

• Birding big six: ground hornbill, kori bustard, lappet- faced vulture, martial 

eagle, pel’s fishing owl and saddle- bill stork. 

• Five trees: baobab, fever tree, knob thorn, marula, mopane. 

• Five natural/cultural features: letaba elephant museum, jock of the bushveld 

route, masereni ruins, Stevenson Hamilton Memorial Library, thulamela. 

3.2.3. Tourists and their expectations 

In Obua J. and D. M. Harding´s research (1996), an investigation was 

carried out to find out what tourists expect from a visit in the Uganda National 

Park. Tourists were asked why they chose this destination. Their answers were 

as follows in order of importance: “About three-quarters said they mainly visited 

the place to view the wildlife. Over one-half gave the forest and its diversity as 

the second major reason. Nearly 50 % gave the tropical setting as the third 

reason, and the similar proportion named the culture and the people as the fourth 

reason. The peace and quite were of less significance and were given as the fifth 

reason by more than half of the visitors”. 

In this same research they tried to figure out what kind of people these 

tourists where to be able to improve the management of the parks in the future. 

The better you understand tourists, the better you can manage a national park to 

offer services. The results were that tourists did not belong to one specific 

profile, tourists were found from every social class, education, etc. But it was 

exposed that a great quantity of them were mature people with a university 

degree and at considerable knowledge about the environment. 

63


3.2.4. Wildlife in Kruger National Park 

KNP is the only national park in Africa that does not have a deficit. Due 

to this it helps financing other national parks in Africa. But why is the park so 

economically strong 

The National Park offers: “The drawing car, the game which includes, 

according to Kruger’s official list, 29,142 zebras, 2,314 hippos, 250-300 

cheetahs, 4,600 giraffes, 3,150 kudu, 1,425 waterbuck, 350-plus wild dogs, more 

than 500 species of birds, and all the “big five”: elephants (7,834), rhinos (220 

black and 1,871 white), leopards (600-900), Cape buffalo (15, 253), and lions 

(1500-plus) “ (Honey, 1999). In relation to tourists services “There are eight 

entrance gates, a network of some 2600 km of tarred and gravel roads, 24 rests 

camps offering a variety of accommodation and camping facilities. The Kruger 

has 4200 beds, and with day visitors, can accommodate around 5000 visitors at 

any time. The management has imposed a limit of 1 vehicle per km of road at 

peak periods. 

The Kruger National Park takes an unashamedly populist approach, 

offering people comfort and easy access to wildlife. There is little of the classic 

African safari left in the Kruger. Despite the massive tourist presence, the rest 

camps, roads and viewing bands that run alongside them, occupy only some 4 

per cent of the total area of the park. The remaining area is unspoilt and left to 

nature.” (Roe, et al, 1997). 

3.2.5. Human influence on the wildlife 

Human disturbs the animals directly and indirectly. Although tourists 

behave respectfully to wildlife, there are some kinds of animals, which need an 

quiet environment or who are just shy as cheetahs. Human presence can cause 

very important problems in cheetahs due to the fact that they are used to hunt at 

day in contrast to lions, who are nocturnal hunters. It has been shown that during 

64


the more active cheetahs hours, the tourists are more active too, and since cars 

are allowed in some national parks, these animals have developed a stressrelated 

disease similar to HIV “…which causes their immune systems to 

collapse “(Kock, 1994). However, it has been shown that sometimes the 

presence of tourists can be positive for hunters due to the prey can be confused 

which; the tourists actually help the predator to in their hunting efforts. 

However, this is just a positive and marginal point of view if we consider that 

the cheetahs population has decreased 30 per cent since cars were allowed in 

national parks. 

A very important problem of the tourists presence is not only that animals 

get shy, on the contrary some of them get too used to humans (and their 

machines). They are used to be feed by them and some gets aggressive in order 

to get more food. A curious case is that of the Antarctic whales where “….calves 

normally maintain constant body contact with their mothers but, when separated, 

can transfer their attachment to the side of a boat” (Roe, 1997). 

In parks with species similar to human beings such as gorillas, human can 

contribute to infection of human diseases which are in some cases mortal. This 

has resulted in a minimum distance of 5 meters between gorillas and humans, 

although these rules sometimes are not fulfilled. (Roe, 1997). 

The basic indirect problem caused by the protection of National Parks is 

the change in habitats from trampling and littering. Managers in several National 

Parks worldwide consider forbidding cars in the parks because they (as for 

example, in the Kakadu National Park, Nothern Australia) “…contribute to 

weed infestation by transporting seeds into the park” (Roe, 1997). Littering is 

also a very important problem in National Parks nowadays. To avoid habitat 

changes, KNP “has a management policy that aims to retain the habitat in a state 

that is neither too closed for tourist viewing, nor too utilised by elephants” (Roe, 

65


1997). This shows that Environmental Impact Assessment is priority before 

carrying out any kind of activity in the wild. 

3.2.6. Tourism/Mining: An African economic dilemma 

The economical problems are of a very different nature. The main thing is 

that the incomes are not divided equally between the natives and the whites. 

This makes them think that this is just a “white project” which does not involve 

them and worse, not leave them to live as they used to. This is the reason why 

Masai warriors killed a large number of wild animals to get their land again. 

Furthermore, Africa has a very important problem with mining. This 

consumptive activity is the main obstacle to conservation because this is the 

most powerful industry in Africa. Its interests are the opposites of conservation 

and ecotourism. The UNEP recognises “The copper mining industry in 

Phalaborwa has, in fact, long been a source of irritation to the management of 

the Kruger Park, as well as to a number of private game reserves in the vicinity. 

Airborne pollution and effluent from the industry have contaminated soil as 

rivers that feed the reserves” (Kock, 1994). But not only contamination is the 

problem - human lives are at risk too. 300 workers die each year due to mining. 

Furthermore, there is a contradiction between law, government and protection. 

The new minerals act of 1991 gives the minister the right “…to grant 

consent to an application for permission to mine where the state holds the state 

to any minerals…and gives priority to mineral rights over private ownership” 

(Kock, 1994). In 1995 a dispute emerged between mining, military and 

environmental interests by Madimbo Corridor. At the beginning of that period 

environmental interests seemed losing the battle against mining. National Park’s 

fault when thousands of people were removed from their land and their houses 

were burned in the name of conservation. It never involved them. Right now, 

conservation promise to create 33 jobs speaking about a “long-term” activity as 

66


ecotourism. Mining companies were promising 2,000 jobs and it has always 

been there. The situation was very difficult because environmental organisations 

had to convince natives that the traditional “white conservationist power” 

wanted to help them. This means that natives can work in a short-term activity 

as mining, which is the African government favourite or in a long-term activity 

as conservation/ecotourism, etc. But at the time they solved the problem, not 

promising the panacea, but giving the exact information, they got a win-win 

situation. 

Sadly, not all examples are successful. In St. Lucia Game Reserve (in 

South Africa too) the battle against titanium and heavy metals mining was long 

and with no happy end. Convincing natives was not possible prevailing the 

“Black” idea about conservationist as exposed in Honey M., 1999. “Why all of a 

sudden is there all this activity and protest to save animals when there was no 

reaction at the time when people faced removal Is it because this time, there is 

a treat to the survival of a favourite holiday resort for whites” 

Another economical problem is that not all national parks in Africa give 

benefits although this is not the case with KNP. This park not only has benefits 

but it helps to finance other parks. 

3.2.7. Conservation/tourism 

Conservation has caused several problems, maybe because of 

inexperience. Attracting people is not always an easy job, but it is known that 

tourists travel to see the animals, which now are called “the big five”: elephants, 

rhinos, leopards, buffaloes and lions. Sometimes, the population of these 

animals moves to other sites looking for food. Now they have been removed 

back into the National Parks to attract tourists. It is known that one of the 

reasons for tourists' unhappiness in visiting the national park (as commented) is 

that they were not able to see the animal they wanted. Then special places to 

67


sight these animals were provided. They then had to move some of the 

vegetation, which was essential to some species. For example, an Environmental 

Impact Assessment (EIA) was done to prevent problems in Thornybush Game 

Reserve. They wanted an open space to view wildlife and for that, they had to 

remove scrub. The EIA concluded that this clearance would be good to that kind 

of animals which are natural predators or big enough to find refuge in scrub such 

as lions, zebras, etc. But other kinds of animals such as kudu survive thanks to 

these scrubs, so they would be in danger. However, this has been done for a long 

time in national parks. 

3.2.8. Social problems 

The social problems caused by national parks have been commented 

along this project too but it is necessary to name them again. Firstly, for natives 

these have been one of the apartheid forms. They have not been allowed to get 

in to the national parks for a number of reasons. Firstly, because it was the 

natives “fault” that wildlife was disappearing. Secondly, because the natives 

couldn't understand a very refined sport due to the barbarian race they belong to. 

Thirdly, because they were damaging the ecosystem in general, etc. Natives 

realised that the only way to fight against this imposition was by killing wildlife. 

Not allowing the natives to enter the national parks will not only 

influence their survival possibilities but also their customs. Most tribes in Africa 

venerate their dead, by going to the burial sites. Many of these sites are in the 

national parks, but because of the national park regulations they cannot follow 

this tradition. 

Violence is recognised as one of the most important handicaps in national 

parks nowadays. And it can threaten the marketing of any national park, such as 

commented in the news: On September 15, 2000 a honeymoon couple went to 

KNP from New York but they were robbed. “They filed a complaint with the 

68


police, the American Embassy replaced their clothes and they flew back to New 

York on Tuesday. They will not recommend South Africa as an ecotourist 

destination to their friends” (Yahoo news, 2000). 

As commented before, a programme of formation/information would 

solve part of these problems. During a long time, National Parks managers have 

not informed the population about what was happening because they never 

considered it necessary (it is different nowadays as Ronnic McKilvey - 

Londolozi’s managing director - explains “We created Londolozi as a model not 

because we’re good guys. We know if we want to stay in tourism, we have to 

have friendly neighbours” (Honey, 1999). Now they continue not giving 

information but for a different reason. They are scared of what happened in later 

years, as explained by Ndumo’s manager, Ian Derrick, “The community as a 

whole and the tribal authorities up in the mountains have not been well informed 

about what’s happening here. It’s hard for us to go out and tell them. They’ve 

been lied to before by whites, so why would they believe us” (Honey, 1999). 

This is a very understandable feeling but anyway, information cannot be denied 

in advance because of problems, which were encountered a long time ago. 

Although, there still is a problem. 

3.2.9. Conclusions 

This chapter has shown that the problems in managing wildlife and local 

people are numerous and very different. This is, however, not an excuse for not 

working with the problems. 

When protecting animals, local people should not be forgotten because 

they are not an integral part of the solution; the animals may suffer, so both 

factors (locals and animals) are keys to protecting nature. Education is the key to 

the problem. As explained before, visitors of national parks want to have more 

information before coming to the parks. If visitors are well educated with 

69


respect to the environment and wildlife in general, it will be easier to protect and 

manage the national parks. It would not be necessary to clear any areas to satisfy 

the tourists, if they knew the consequences of the clearing. Because the greater 

awareness among tourists would make them understand why the animals are not 

always close by. 

Sighting animals is the main attraction in South Africa for researchers as 

well as for tourists and interested people in general. Binoculars could be a 

solution to sight birds and other animals from a distance without disturbing 

them. 

With respect to local community involvement, education and information 

are important. No matter how many mistakes were made in the past, there is no 

excuse for not giving the necessary information today. Anyway, it has been 

shown that educational programmes carried out in South Africa are really 

successful because native people are the first interested in preserving the wild. 

Information campaigns about mining and short-long-term activities should be 

carried out to show that tradition has not always been a very good solution. In 

this matter, African governments should be involved in international 

programmes. This will teach them how to manage the problems and what the 

solutions can be. Although, this measure will not be successful due to the most 

part of the world is getting energy from South African coal, but it is hopped that 

with the improvement of clean energies in the world, activities such as mining 

will disappear. In the future, African authorities should develop other sectors to 

protect the environment and to avoid future economical crisis as Europe has 

spent. 

About violence in Africa, democracy will be a step in the right direction. 

Improvement of the welfare state could contribute to solve this problem, 

although that is a long and hard work in Africa. The existence of democratic 

70


space at the national level and freedom of association for all groups are crucial 

to the success of a locally based strategy of resource conservation. 

Revenues should be divided between different stakeholders, and the 

different stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate in the 

management and planning process of the National Park. 

The differences between a national park and other kinds of protected areas 

is on the social or human plan, where local people are supposed to be involved 

in the practical work, by receiving formation etc. This consideration is really 

important at the moment of understanding the problems that national parks have 

generated and generate nowadays. It is important to keep in mind that the 

definition of a national park, (eco)tourism can be a good way to collaborate with 

this kind of projects in economical and social terms. The concept of eco-tourism 

should be exposed to understand the very different levels that a national park 

and eco-tourism can be related to. 

4. DISCUSSION 

Ecotourism as a way to protect nature… That is the headline of this 

project. But is ecotourism sustainable and what does sustainability mean 

Following the UNEP definition “Responsible travel to natural areas that 

conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”, 

ecotourism has to be environmentally/ecologically sustainable, indicating that 

tourists should have no or very low impact on the ecosystem. The ecosystem 

should be unchanged. Following the definition it also attaches importance to 

cultural/social sustainability, which indicates that locals have to benefit 

economically from tourism to prevent conflict between locals and 

conservationists. 

71


One of the ecotourism milestones is to protect pristine and fragile 

ecosystems. But how can ecotourism contribute to protect the nature This could 

be done by funding and by managing and promoting ecotourism correctly. 

One thing is regulation of the number of tourists. This is every individual 

aspect from one national park to another, and it is very difficult to put a general 

ceiling on the visitor number. This should be done on local, regional or national 

levels, and not on an international level. Still there should be some control by 

the government or else there is a possibility that the number of tourists will 

increase, because tourism is often a very capitalistic industry which often tries to 

evade the rules where possible. This was, for instance, the situation on the 

Galapagos. The government had made some limitation on the number of boats, 

but boat owners got around this limitation by adding more berths to the boats 

and some bought permits from owners of smaller boats. In that way they 

increased the number of tourist without adding more boats. 

A way to decrease the number of tourists is to increase the cots, for 

instance by increasing the entrance fees. Most people will pay more money if 

they get a special and unique experience, and if they know they are participating 

in conserving the National Park. 

Tourists should leave no footprint when they visit national parks. This is 

very difficult to practise in reality, because the tourist will always have a direct 

or indirect impact on the nature. 

Directly, tourists can affect the environment simply by their presence, as 

the example with the cheetah shows. And they can have an influence on the 

animals’ behaviour, if animals get used to being fed by humans. They can also 

affect the vegetation on the most visited places. The cost will be soil erosion and 

loss of vegetation (Roe, 1997). 

72


Indirectly, tourists can infect animals, as the example with the gorilla 

shows, and they can introduce alien species. Alien species can be regulated by a 

quarantine system, eradication and inspection of ships, vehicles and tourists, as 

they do on the Galapagos Islands. These regulations demand a good capital and 

a well managed national park, and this is often not the situation in developing 

countries. 

The footprint also depends on the number of tourists and how the tourists 

are distributed in an area. It is important to distribute the tourist to minimise the 

impact on nature or else the most visited places will get depleted. It is also 

important that the tourists get “educated” by guides. They will then get an 

ecological background, and they will be told how to behave and the 

consequences and impact on nature by avoiding certain behaviours, such as 

throwing garbage, feeding, touching or disturbing animals or plants. 

It can be difficult to educate tourists if the guides or working staff 

themselves do not respect the rules, as for instance on Galapagos Islands where 

tour boats dump organic and inorganic waste in the marine reserve, and floating 

hotels discharge their sewage and organic kitchen wastes in the ocean. 

There is a tendency that accommodations become more and more 

luxurious. Is that the idea of ecotourism If accommodations become more 

luxurious it will mean a higher consumption of resources such as food, water 

and energy. This is not environmental friendly. It will also attract another kind 

of clientele, which may search for other adventure, such as “sea, sun and sand”. 

From this point of view, ecotourism should focus on environmentally 

sustainable ways to build the accommodations. 

You can call ecotourism in question if you look at how tourists are 

transported from destination to destination. Tourists travel overseas more than 

ever and huge amounts of fuel are consumed. This contributes to an increasing 

73


amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The Galapagos Islands are 

located 1000 km off Ecuador’s coast, and most tourists will prefer to fly to the 

island rather than passing 30 hours or more to get there by boat. It is possible to 

promote “polluted payment” on travel cost. Travel agencies should spend a 

reasonable percentage of the travel costs on forest maintenance or reforestation. 

This could be the way to reduce the greenhouse gasses. 

Tourists are transported by car on safaris and other cultural trips to show 

and satisfy the tourists as much as possible, instead of showing one place more 

intensely by foot or on horseback etc. Ecotourism should consider and react on 

these trends. 

Social and cultural aspects are also important in ecotourism development. 

It is very necessary to make sure whether social and cultural aspects are 

sustainable or not. Social society and cultural attraction are easily affected when 

protected areas are established. They may also be affected by the outside culture 

that is brought by tourists. Conflicts between black people and white people in 

KNP have occurred because white people have moved back people out of the 

protected areas. Their cultural and social structures were changed in the new 

place. 

It is not only a case of establishing of protected areas but many large-scale 

developing projects also generate social and cultural conflicts. You can imagine 

how difficult it is for local people to get new jobs, and the huge changes of 

social and cultural structures in the new place are. There is no doubt that 

conflicts will happen if we carelessly plan in project development strategies. 

Public involvement at the early stage of project planning is one of the best 

ways to reduce conflicts. Most large-scale development projects in the world are 

now required to have environmental impact assessment (EIA) in place. In this 

process, public involvement is one very important step. Local leaders, local 

74


organisations and local people are invited to contribute to project planning. 

Project holders play an important role to present project proposals and listen to 

ideas from contributors. 

In this case, local people are given a chance to understand the goal of the 

project and its purposes in detail. They also have opportunities to contribute to 

project proposals by giving contributing with their own ideas. Communities, 

therefore, will know what projects are going to be done. This also means 

conflicts from local communities are weeded out at an early stage of the 

planning process. So the planer can go further in the discussion, explanation, 

and compromise with local communities in order to get agreements. Hence, the 

conflicts will be limited or eliminated before projects are carried out. 

Ecotourism development should learn from this point of view. The CBE 

as mentioned before is a form of local participation. It is successful in some 

cases from Namibia CBE, Langtang Ecotourism project-Nepal (UNEP, 2002). 

Supporting our ideas, various authors also emphasised the role of a participatory 

approach (Benjamin & Brush, 1996; Diduck, 1999; Amanda, 2001). Benjamin 

& Brush (1996) strongly stressed that “without the consent of local 

communities, protected areas couldn’t be managed effectively”. 

The above arguments show that local participation in ecotourism projects 

is very important. It helps to reduce or eliminate the social problems at the 

beginning of the project establishment. Therefore, it should be promoted for 

future ecotourism development elsewhere. The base steps were summarised by 

UNEP in the appendix 3. 

In addition, local communities need to be empowered in order to control 

ecotourism occurring in their place. Regina (1999) has emphasised the role of 

local empowerment in tourism management. It includes economic 

empowerment, psychological empowerment, social empowerment, and political 

75


empowerment. Communities will perhaps try to preserve their traditional culture 

because of outside visitor’s interest. Traditional culture demonstration is one of 

several income sources, tied to the local community in ecotourism (Sven, 2000). 

It is one of several reasons that tourists plan to travelling to protected areas 

(Joseph, 1997). 

The sustainability of ecotourism is very dependent on tourism 

management strategies. The “carrying capacity” concept may be very useful and 

should be implemented in the tourism management strategy. It is really needed 

to define the limit levels that the whole ecosystems can tolerate. In order to do 

that, we need to focus our attention on the whole ecotourism system, including 

local capacity building, susceptibility of the natural ecosystem, sensitivity of the 

local culture, etc. But it is very difficult to define different kinds of tourism. 

Therefore, the “carrying capacity” needs to be very flexible and adaptable to 

different tourism situations. Weaver (2001) has also agreed with our ideas and 

emphasised that the carrying capacity could not be fixed. 

Carrying capacity alone may not be enough to ensure success in the 

control of ecotourism impacts. The flexible and dependable actions sometimes 

succeed ant other times they do not. It depends very much on the whole capacity 

building and also on the individual participant. Every participant has their own 

skill to carry out ecotourism activities. Some can do well and some cannot. The 

emergent local guides at The Galapagos Islands could not control well the 

visitors because of lacking education (Honey, 1999). This evidence indicates 

that how importance of capacity building is. If capacity building is ignored, 

long-term negative impacts will be accumulated and lead to expose to the 

ecotourism environment later. This is called “accumulated impacts” from 

ecotourism. 

76


In order to minimise the accumulated impacts, monitoring programs may 

play an important role. Such programs should be planned as part of the 

ecotourism operation strategy. The right monitoring program could figure out 

good indicators and frequency checking. It will help the ecotourism manager to 

reflect on experiences from past ecotourism activities. It also means that any 

problems will be recognised as early as possible, before the serious problems 

occur. Therefore, the existing management plans can be improved and help 

create a better tourism situation. 

Indicators and frequency checking for ecotourism monitoring depend on 

each ecotourism operation (see more in appendix 2). It should be focused on 

activities in ecotourism, the site activities, the sensitivity of the ecosystem 

(threatened species, rare species, endangered species, etc). Appropriate 

indicators should indicate environmental changes when negative impacts occur. 

The frequency checking should implement to recognise every environmental 

change. The UNEP (1998) has pointed out some ways of monitoring an 

ecotourism operation. It includes site visit monitoring, visitor feedback 

monitoring, third-party monitoring, and self monitoring. 

Monitoring program is globally promoted in environmental impact 

assessment (EIA) procedure, particularly in the developing projects. Ecotourism 

should involve EIA in the future. It will help to predict what will happen And 

what should be done to solve negative impacts Also what should be maximised 

during ecotourism activities without causing harm to the whole ecosystem. 

Monitoring programs also help the ecotourism manager to adjust the 

ecotourism activity plans when they find negative tendencies in ecotourism 

development. For example, from the monitoring program, we may recognise the 

excessive visiting numbers. This recognition will alarm when it is needed to 

control the number of visitor or other things to improve the capacity building, 

77


laws/regulation etc. In contrast, decreasing numbers of visitors may be caused 

by bad ecotourism services or boring tourism attractions. It may wake up the 

manager to look back and check the whole tourism conditions. 

The case study in Galapagos Islands is evidence showing how useful a 

monitoring program can be. Recognising the problem which were created from 

inadequate local guides is a good example for others ecotourism elsewhere. 

Establishment of the new special laws may also be the consequence of a well 

implemented monitoring program and The Charles Darwin Research Station 

likewise. 

Up to now, the word “ecotourism” has been abused. The term ecotourism 

should be meaningfully implemented. However, who will judge whether it is 

abused or not It is very difficult to answer right now. 

The existing ecolabels such as “Green globe 21” and others are being 

promoted and implemented elsewhere as the certification for tourism operation. 

It is necessary to have a linkage between the local, regional, national and 

international organisations to control and qualify ecotourism operations. UNEP 

may play an important role in this aspect. They should co-operate with other 

ecolabels to plan strategies for certifying the ecotourism operation. Local 

organisations play a role in implementing and monitoring the tourism 

management strategies. National and international organisations are important in 

consultant duties. 

It is possibly necessary to link ecolabel with carrying capacity and 

monitoring programs. This would help to ensure successful ecotourism 

operation. The carrying capacity and ecolabel play a role as guidelines and 

certification for tourism operation. Whereas monitoring programs play a role as 

the controller. Monitoring programs will check whether ecotourism operators 

have a certification or not. Monitoring program also checks whether ecotourism 

78


operations exceed the carrying capacity or not. These checked result in feedback 

to tourism management plans. 

Running ecotourism cannot be carried out by single ecotourism segment 

such as local communities, tourist companies, and government agencies. Local 

communities do not have much experience with establishing ecotourism 

themselves, but they play an important role in conserving the wildlife 

surrounding them. They need to learn from other tourism segments. 

The tourist companies may have more experiences with tourist operation 

than other organisations. They may play an important role in training and 

advising the local people in ecotourism operation. They are also a bridge 

between the local, regional, national, and international levels. They can help to 

advertise and offer advises for tourism activities. 

In order to set political guidelines for tourism operation, the government 

organisations may play more important role. Establishing regulations is, of 

course, contributed from many different disciplinary, including social sciences, 

political sciences, natural sciences etc. Government agencies may need to be 

given a high power for controlling over other tourism segments. 

Scientific research institutes and universities may play an important role 

in assessing natural attraction, including species components, abundance, 

distribution and their situation in term of conservation and potential visibility for 

ecotourism attraction. Later, they also help to monitor impacts and give 

suggestions to environmental and wildlife management. The Charles Darwin 

Research Station in Galapagos has acted as advisers for park management in 

general and ecotourism operation in particular. 

Why should we prefer ecotourism rather than conventional tourism 

Tourism is a good source of income and because of that, mass tourism often 

79


brings over development and uneven development, because of the sudden 

increase in income. Often the money does not stay in the host country, because 

the tourist companies and accommodations are international owned; the only 

benefits to local communities are from low-payment service jobs. Mass tourism 

also brings environmental pollution and spoils cultural attractions. Tourist 

attractions that earlier on were a beautiful spot becomes degraded as a result of 

mass tourism. Following the UNEP definition this is what ecotourism tries to 

avoid. 

The local people should benefit from ecotourism. They should be given 

job opportunities and a higher income than the income resulting form extraction 

of natural resources, such as mining, agriculture and fishery. The local future 

economy could improve by preserving the ecosystem and promoting tourism. It 

can be difficult to convince the local people to promote long-term tourism rather 

than short-term extraction of resources. This is the situation in South Africa, 

where conservation of the National Park will create 33 jobs and mining will 

create 2000 jobs and they will get their income immediately. It is not easy for 

local people in developing countries to invest in long-term, future projects, when 

they need the money here and now. And 2000 jobs are more attractive than 33 

jobs. 

The different stakeholders should also benefit from tourism, as on the 

Galapagos Islands, where the revenue from the entrance fees is distributed on 

different stakeholders. The theory that the different stakeholders will protect 

what they receive money from is not enough. They need to be educated and 

participate in the planning process. 

It is also important to satisfy tourists up to a point, so there will keep 

being a stabile influx of tourists and therefore income. It is then necessary to 

inform the tourists of what to expect, so they avoid getting disappointed. As the 

80


example in Kibale National Park shows, where people expected to see specific 

animals. 

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The term “ecotourism” is going to be clearly understood in the future. It is 

globally supported by various organisations and conservationists. The 

meaningfully implemented ecotourism can contribute to both conservation and 

local economic rising. 

Ecotourism can protect nature by preserving biodiversity, promoting 

conservation education and providing economic incentives for sustainable use. 

A range of species and ecosystems would no longer persist without tourism 

(Stefan, 1999). 

Working with local communities is necessary to encourage their support 

and co-operation. The CBE is a model of local participation in sustainable 

ecotourism. 

Ecotourism, in contrast, also generates negative impacts. Carefully 

planning, monitoring of ecotourism activities are good ways to minimise 

negative impacts. These measures are being supported by various organisations 

such as UNEP, TIES. 

Establishing a linkage between local, regional, national and international 

organisations may be a good way for future tourism management and 

certification. 

Polluted payment is recommended to apply in the future order to reduce 

mass tourism and negative effects of ecotourism. 

81


REFERENCES 

• Akama J. (1996) Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in 

Kenya. Tourism Management, 17 (8), 567-574. 

• Amanda S. (2001) Anthropology of Tourism: Forging new ground for 

Ecotourism and Other Alternatives. Annual Review Anthropology, 30, 261- 

283 

• Benjamin S. O., and S. B. Brush (1996) Anthropology and the Conservation 

of Biodiversity. Annual review Anthropology, 25, 329-352. 

• Bouchjira A. (2002) Sustainable development of ecotourism in desert areas: 

Preparatory seminar for the International Year of Ecotourism in 2002 (Final 

report). www.world-tourism.org 

• Buckley R. (2001) Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), 

183-208. 

• Carruthers, J. (1995) The Kruger National Park. A social and political 

history. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press. 

• Carter, E. and Lowman, G. (edit) (1994) Ecotourism. A sustainable option 

Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. McCool, F. (1995) Linking tourism, the 

environment, and concepts of sustainability: setting the stage. Minneapolis: 

Gen. Tech. Rep. 

• Charles Darwin foundation (1998) Development. 

http://serv1.law.emory.edu/sites/GALAPAGOS/1998DEV.htm 

• Charles Darwin foundation (2001). www.darwinfoundation.org 

• Cole D. N. and D. R. Spildie (1998) Hiker, horse and llama trampling effects 

on native vegetation in Montana, USD. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 53, 61-71. 

82


• David A. F. (1999) Ecotourism: an introduction. Published by Loutledge, 

London, 163. 

• David B. W. (2001) Ecotourism as Mass tourism: contradiction or reality 

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 104-112. 

• Diduck A. (1999) Critical education in resource and environmental 

management: learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. Journal of 

Environmental Management, 57, 85-97. 

• Ecuador & Galapagos (1999) Tourism and recommendations. 

http://Library.thinkquest.org 

• Eugenio Y. (2002) Sustainable development of ecotourism web-conference: 

The framework of the International Year of Ecotourism and Conditions for 

the sustainable development and management of ecotourism. www.worldtourism.org 

• FAO (1997) Ecotourism for Forest Conservation and Community 

Development. Proceeding of International Seminar 28-31 January 1997, 72- 

81. 

• Fennell D. A. (1999). Ecotourism - An introduction. Routlege, 30. 

• Font X. (2001) Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: 

progress, process and prospects. Tourism management, 23, 197-205. 

• Gail Lash (no year) What is Community-Based Ecotourism 

www.recoftc.org/download/International_Report_Series/Ecotourism/. 

• Galapagos Conservation (2002) Conservation/Education. 

www.gct.org.history 

• Green Globe 21 path (2001), http://www.greenglobe21.com/ 

83


• Honey M. (1999) Ecotourism as sustainable development, Who owns the 

paradise Island Press. Washington, D.C 

• Joseph Obua (1997) The potential, development and ecological impact of 

ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 50, 27-37 

• Kock, E. (1994) Reality or rhetoric Ecotourism and rural reconstruction in 

South Africa. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social 

Depvelopment. 

• Lew A. (1997) The Asia Pacific Ecotourism Industry: Putting Sustainable 

Tourism Into Practice. 

• MacFarland Graig (1998) An analysis of nature tourism in the Galapagos 

Islands. www.darwinfoundation.org/articles 

• Mark B. O. (1995) Current issues towards a more desirable form of 

ecotourism. Tourism management, 16 (1), 3-8. 

• Marnie P. B., E. Dinerstein, A. Rijal, H. Cauley and A. Rajoura (1998) 

Ecoutourism's support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 

12 (6), 1399-1404. 

• Megan E.W. (1993) Ecotourism guidelines for nature tour operators. 

International Ecotourism Society, North Bennington Vermont, USA, 

www.ecotourism.org/guid.html 

• Mercer D. (1996) Ecotourism. Geodate, 9 (1), 1-6 

• Mieczkowski Z. (1995). Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation - 

University press of America, New York, 1995) p. 1. 

in Muller F.G. (2000) Ecotourism; an economical concept for ecological 

sustainable tourism - International J. Environmental Studies. 57, 241-251 

• Odum E. (1971) Fundaments of ecology, 3 issue, W.B. Sander Company, p 9 

84


• Obua, J. and Harding, D.M. (1996) ‘Visitors characteristics and attitudes 

towards Kibale National Park, Uganda’, Tourism Management, 17 (7), 495- 

505. 

• Oliver H. (2001) Conference on Sustainable development of ecotourism in 

small islands developing states (SIDS) and other small islands: Preparatory 

seminar for the International Year of Ecotourism Mahe, Seychelles, 8-10 

December 2001 (Final report). www.world-tourism.org 

• Primack R. B. (2001). Biological principles of nature conservation. Portal 

ltd, Czech translation of the American original - A primer of Conservation 

Biology, 209. 

• Roe, D. et al. (1997) Take only photographs, leave only footprints: the 

environmental impacts of wildlife tourism, London: IIED Wildlife and 

Development Series. 

• Ruth N., J. S. Wilber, and L. O. M. Marín (1998) Community-Based 

Ecotourism in the Maya Forest: Problems and Potentials. 

www.planeta.com/planeta/98/0598mayaforest.html. 

• Ruttenberg, Benjamin I (2001) Effects of Artisanal Fishing on Marine 

Communities in the Galapagos Islands. www.blackwell-synergy.com 

• Scheyvens R. (1999) Ecotourism and empowerment of local communities. 

Tourism management, 20, 245-249 

• Sapna M. & L. Rawat (2000) The impacts of tourism on the environment of 

Mussoorie Garhwat Himalaya, India. The environmentalist, 20, 249-255. 

• Stefan G. (1999) Analysis Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and 

ecosystem functions Ecological economics, 29, 303-320. 

• Sven W. (2000) Analysis ecotourism and economic incentives-an empirical 

approach. Ecological economics, 32, 465-479. 

85


• The Ecotourism Society (TES). www.ecotourism.org 

• Töpfer K. (1998) Ecolables in the tourism industry, p.1 

• Tracy A. F. & J. L. Marion (2001) Identifying and assessing ecotourism 

visitor impacts at eight protected areas in Costa Rica and Belize. 

Environmental Conservation, 28 (3), 215-225. 

• UNEP & the TIES (2002) Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for 

Sustainability. Magan Elper Wood (Ed). UNEP 

• UNEP (1998) Ecolables in the tourism industry. United Nations 

Environment Programme - Industry and Environment. 

• UNEP (2002) United Nations Environmental Program, data downloaded 

from the web pages http://www.unep.org 

• UNEP and Convention on Biological Diversity (2002). 

http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/ecotourism/home.htm 

• Wall G. (1997) Is ecotourism really sustainable Environmental management 

21 (4): 483-491. 

• Weaver D. B. (2001) Ecotourism as Mass tourism: Contradiction or Reality 

Coronell-Hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, April 2001, 104- 

112. 

• Whinam J. and M. Comfort (1996) The impacts of commercial horse riding 

on sub-alpine environments at Cradle Mountain, Tasmania, Australia. 

Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 61-70. 

• World Ecotourism Summit - Québec (2002). www.ecotourism2002.org 

• World ressource institute (2002) Wasington, D.C. www.wri.org 

86


• World Travel and Tourism Council (2000). Industry and environment. July - 

December 2001.www.amegeorg.org/history.htm 

• WWF (2001) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. 

• www.blueflag.org 

• www.ecuadorexplore.com/html/galapagos_map.html 

• www.globalforestwatch.org 

• www.greenthai.org 

• www.parks-sa.co.za/tranes.aspmainort=parks/national-parks.htm 

• Yahoo wildlife news (2000). 

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_08/sp/dossier/txt23.htm 

87


APPENDIX 

Appendix (1): Various ecolabels in the world 

Adopted from: X.Font, Tourism management 23 (2002) 197 - 205 

88


Appendix 2: Proposed guidelines for successful Ecotourism Certification 

• Indicators for sustainability must be arrived at by research of appropriate parameters 

based on current best practice 

• Indicators for sustainability must be reviewed and approved via a stakeholder process 

• Indicators for sustainability must be arrived at for each segment of the industry, e.g. 

hotels, tour operators, transportation systems, etc. 

• Indicators for sustainability must will vary according to region and must be arrived at via 

local stakeholder participation and research 

• Certification programs require independent verification procedures that are not directly 

associated with the entity being paid to certify. University involvement is ideal for this 

process. 

• Certification programs, particularly for the small ecotourism business sector, are unlikely 

to pay for themselves through fees, and will need national, regional and international 

subsidization. 

• Certification programs can be given to the operating entity, but should specify the 

products or locations that fulfil relevant criteria as certified. 

• Certification should be ground tested before full-fledged implementation to ensure all 

systems are properly in line, due to the difficult of verifying appropriate performance 

standards without advance testing. 

UNEP & TIES (2002) modified from Epler Wood and Halpenny, Ecolabels in Tourism (2001) 

89


Appendix 3: Basic steps to encourage community participation 

Understand community’s role: community should exercise to control over their growth and 

development. They will in many cases need technical assistance to make appropriate 

decisions and should be given adequate information and training in advance. Allocate time, 

funds and experienced personnel to work with community well in advance. Avoid allowing 

communities to feel they are powerless to influence patterns of development. 

Empower communities: Participation is a process that is more than just making communities 

the beneficiaries of an ecotourism project. Jobs are an important benefit, but they do not 

replace empowerment. Communities must genuinely participate in decision-making process. 

This involves more than just consultation. Processes must be initiated to ensure that 

communities can manage their own growth and resources wisely. 

Urge local project participation: Project manager must identify local leaders, local 

organisations, key priorities of the community, and ideas, expectations and concerns local 

people already have. Information can be gathered for and by the community. The opinions 

gathered should be disseminated and discussed with the community along with other relevant 

information such as government market statistics or regional development plans. Training 

opportunities must be formulated at this phase to help community members gain planning 

skills, and also the entrepreneurial skills required to run small businesses. 

Create stakeholders: Participation can be encouraged at 2 levels – for individuals and local 

organisations. Investment in project development areas should be encouraged, either in cash, 

labours or in-kind resources. Developing logging by local entrepreneurs, and setting standards 

for local services by local organisations are 2 good examples. 

Link benefits to conservation: The link between ecotourism benefits and conservation 

objectives need to be direct and significant. Income, employment and other benefits must 

promote conservation. 

Distribute benefits: Ensure that both the local community and individuals benefit from 

projects. 

Identify community leaders: Identify opinion leaders and involve them in the planning and 

execution of projects. Identify leaders that represent different constituents to ensure that a 

cross-section of society is involved (including both men and women). Be sure that the project 

has good information on the local social structure. Strategize on the effects of the projects on 

90


different social groups and never assume that all parts of society will cooperate or agree. Be 

strategic and gain appropriate allies early. 

Bring about change: Use existing organisations already working in the community to 

improve its social well-being through economic development. Development associations or 

local cooperatives are good prospects. Groups involve in organizing reaction can also be good 

allies. Community participation through institutions is more likely to bring about effective 

and sustained change. 

Understand site-specific conditions: Be aware that authority structures vary greatly in each 

region. Consensus is not always possible, nor is the full participation of all sectors of society 

(women are often excluded). 

Monitor and evaluate progress: Establish indicators in advance to track tourism’s impactsboth 

positive and negative. Goals such as employment and income levels are only one type of 

indicator. The project should tract negative impacts such as evidence of rapidly escalating 

prices for local goods, inflation and land prices, antagonism towards visitors, frequency of 

arrests, change in youth activities, and evidence of drug, prostitution and other illicit 

activities. Ideally, the more local community is fully involved in ecotourism development, the 

less these problems should develop. Another important indicator of local involvement is 

evidence of initiatives within the community to respond to the negative influences of tourism. 

UNEP and TIES, 2002 modified from Brandon, Ecotourism: A guide for Planners & 

Managers-Volume 1, 1993. 

91

University of Aarhus ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?