İçinde: ECOTOURISM IN FOREST ECOSYSTEMS WORKSHOP
AND TODEG IN ITS TENTH YEAR, 2010, s.65-81
A Critical Evaluation of Ecotourism
İrfan Erdoğan
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
During
these developments, numerous theoretical and promotional explanations and also
discussions about the nature and
benefits of ecotourism flourished and proliferated.
Need for Myth Making: Images over the
Essence
Throughout the history of human society, the
art of mind management and management of the economical, political and cultural marketplace have
always required the creation of myths via conceptual frameworks and ritual practices. The need for myth making
dramatically gained momentum when people started demanding democratic rights by mass demonstrations,
rallies and strikes since the second half of the 19th century. In order to save the democracy from the
democratic demand and participation of common people, the planned and organized practices of the creation of
public opinion and manufacturing the consent gained utmost importance. Since then, for the sake of
saving democracy against democratic demands, people have been pulled into the values and interests of
ruling forces in such a way that they willingly participate in the daily production of their own material and mental
poverty. These prevailing practices are reinforced by the fear of unemployment and oppressive state
apparatuses.
Beside the mass movements, two interrelated
developments shaped and fueled the need for mind management. The first one was (and still is) the
expansion of mass production and, consequently, mass production of demand (consumers). The second half of the 19th
century and beginning of the 20th century taught the capitalist system that the demand can not be left free:
Mass production requires mass consumption and sustained and expanded consumer (or voter, tourist) demand.
Thus, those who produce the supply in masses also started the business of creating the demand in masses.
The mind management business quickly proliferated and became a lucrative business. The propaganda with
long history in organized human history gained utmost importance. Propaganda ministries, public and private
institutions and agencies were established for marketing the system, planning and selling the domestic and
international policies of psychological warfare, oppression, terror and
local and regional wars. Public relation
and advertising industries emerged and became multibillion-dollar
businesses. Formal in schools and
informal education via communications media started working as the most
effective mind and behavior management
tools for the dominant interests.
The second one was (and still is) the need of
marketing and advertising the mass-produced goods to the domestic and international markets. This need
rapidly expanded the business of demand creation and consent management to the international arena. After
the Second World War, the US academicians, businesspersons and politicians engaged in massive activity
of creating, sustaining and expanding the demand for the modern way of life that is controlled by the
logic of capitalist production, distribution and consumption of the mass produced goods and services. A complete
package for creating and sustaining the development of underdevelopment was prepared and named as
“modernization and development.” This package contained the political and economic structure grossly
mimicking “western democracy and free market.” The East and South imported the western political and economical
institutional structures, bought a lot of weapons, television sets, radios, cinema films, musical equipments,
music tapes and household goods. However, they are not industrialized yet. Contrary to the generally accepted idea,
the modernization and development projects were not failed, because the objective was never “to develop a
country,” but to create and sustain the conditions of dependency (the development of underdevelopment) and to
use the natural and human resources all over the world. In fact, the modernization era of 1950s, 1960s
and 1970s was very trying, but very lucrative era for the capitalist world market: They successfully created the
basic economical, political and ideological infrastructure during this initial preparation phase. Then came the
neo-liberal era: The Keynesian policies of welfare state policy was collapsed by bold initiatives of the
capitalists in the mid 1980s and massive activities of expansion started. As Bourdieu states, along with the
neo-economic policies, the political and economical power holders deify the power of markets in the name of economic
efficiency, demand the lifting of the administrative or political barriers that could hinder the owners of
capital in their purely individual pursuit of maximum profit instituted as a model of rationality, want independent
central banks, preach the subordination of the national states to the demands of economic freedom for the masters
of the economy, want the suppression of all regulations on all markets starting with the labor market,
privatize the public services, and reduce the public and welfare spending (Bourdieu, 1998: 101). The new mythmaking and
mind management processes included many new redefinitions and introductions of new concepts strictly
defined by their creators: Post-modernism, post-positivism, post fordism,
post-colonialism, globalization, glocalisation, flexible production,
deregulation, privatization, small state,
decentralization, information society, knowledge society (Erdogan and
Alemdar, 2005). New concepts like
ecotourism, sustainable tourism, nature tourism, ethical tourism, green
tourism, geotourism, heritage tourism,
culture tourism, archeological tourism, ethnic tourism, pro-poor tourism
and the like were formulated and
disseminated. All kind of tourism is tied with the increased income for
the destination and, thus, development of
the country.
Myths,
in order to survive, should be buttressed by some other myths that include
business principles and ethics,
certificates and awards, dinner parties, symposiums and ceremonies, and some
factual examples like poor becoming rich,
success stories about environmental protection and financial gains in some
places, and also few bad ecotourists,
tour operators and managers.
The Economy Meets the Environment
The reinterpretation of the economy through
environmental rhetoric and “sustainable development” slowly emerged in the 1970s and gained
momentum in the 1980s and 1990s. The intellectual bias and mythological character of sustainable
development existed at the beginning of its official formation and declaration by the World Commission of
Environment and Development (WCED, 1987: 43). It was declared that sustainable development is development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. This catchy phrase gives the impression that sustainable development is sustainability of
every body’s needs and interests. The declaration acknowledges that there is a serious problem in sustaining
the needs at present and danger on sustainability in the future. When we closely look at the solutions
presented then and afterwards in every world summits and other international or regional meetings, we do not
see any demand for structural change in industrial practices. İnstead, we see the same old policy disguised
in different clothing: Control of global economical and political marketplace by owning, controlling and
exploiting the natural and human resources, and marketing the goods and services.
At the 1992 Rio Conference on the
environment, the mythical notion of sustainability was accepted by governments, NGOs and many
environmentalists. Finally, it turned to be the part of global politics of domination as green geopolitics supported
by the U.S. and the EU in the 2000s. Idea of sustainable development became the major part of the
rationalized popular global control in the 21st century. The main organizing principle of sustainable
development is the economic growth: Creating it, managing it, distributing its costs and benefits on a national scale in
particular territorialized states. “There is now broad consensus that tourism development should be
sustainable; however, the question of how to achieve this remains an object of debate” (Gössling et al., 2005:417)
All, it is claimed, want more material goods and social services; so global elites compete to control the
markets that allow them to implement various policies to serve these ends (Hardt and Negri, 2000).
Tourism and Ecotourism for Development
The dominant rationale behind the inclusion
of tourism in the national and local development can be summarized by the OECD statement: “Tourism
helps to speed up development in poor countries. It is easier to attract tourists than to sell high-tech
products on the world market” (Kertsen, 1997). Similarly, in 1989, the Hague Declaration on Tourism focused on
the place of tourism in economic and social development. It emphasized the importance of formulating
and applying policies to promote harmonious development of domestic and international tourism and
leisure activities for the benefit of all those who participate them. However,
this explicit acknowledgement of the socio-economic issues appears to have been
lost in the subsequent discourse on
sustainable tourism (Roe et al., 2003). Later, ecotourism is introduced as
a form of sustainable tourism:
“Ecotourism is a sector of tourism, based on nature travel, but including the principle of sustainability (TIES, 2003: 5).
It is regarded as a viable tool for economic development that takes into account conservation (Khan, 2003:
109). In fact, ecotourism with the framework of ecological sustainability is the parcel and part of this
market policy that expands its sphere of influence and activity in rural and natural areas, enhancing the
tourism industry, mass-market consumerism, dependency, destroying indigenous life forms and
ecological integrity. During the implementation of this policy, new “environment friendly” products are produced
and clean production processes, environmental monitoring and rehabilitation systems are developed,
initiatives for preventing pollution, reducing waste and maximizing the energy savings are taken by the same
system that pollute the environment. These policies based on the instrumental rationality enhanced the
corporate image, profits, productivity, resource management, labor utilization, energy savings, and the power of
the corporate and state control at the same time.
Mainstream Explanations of Ecotourism
Definitions of ecotourism presented by the
proponents of dominant paradigm focus on the concepts like responsible travel, natural areas, wildlife,
nature-based, small scale, benign, non-damaging, non-degrading, environmental effect, minimum or no impact,
bird watching, wildlife watching, nature walk, conscientious use, sustainability, conservation, balance,
awareness, education, admiring, knowing, appreciation, respecting, participation, local life, culture, history,
welfare, economic benefit for local communities, local ownership, the relevance of cultural resources, and host
community participation.
Place of Activity
In ecotourism, locus of activity is the
natural environment. Ecotourism is a form of nature-based tourism, an enlightening nature travel experience
(Wight, 1993). Almost all definitions state that ecotourism takes place in relatively undisturbed natural (Björk
2000; Blamey 1997; Valentine, 1991, 1993) or pristine areas (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991). It involves
traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural places (Wallace and Pierce, 1996). It is
natural history-based and/or wildlife-related recreation activity (Hvenegaard, 1994). These explanations
describe the place of activity and prescribe the activity location. These descriptions create the myth that any
activity done in the natural areas is ecotourism.
There is a serious problem in defining
ecotourism by the place of activity, because ecotourism is an activity determined by nature of activity,
not by the place of activity. It is not the location or the quantity, but the nature of the use, organization,
activity and outcome that characterizes ecotourism. When defined this way, fencing a large area of land on top
of mountains, building bungalows, restaurants and providing entertainments, organizing tours and daily
excursions to remote and natural areas are not sufficient condition for an activity to be called
ecotourism.
A notion and feeling of normalcy is
constructed by the mainstream explanations: Ecotourism is inspired primarily by the natural history of an area,
including its indigenous cultures (Ziffer, 1989). Then, driving force of the ecotourism is the historical and
cultural inspiration (pull) of the place. If there is no pull, there can
be no reason to go there. This normalcy
is true only if there is no promotional activity for demand creation and no reorganization of the natural environment
by the tourism industry. The normal is manipulated and reality is transformed by landscape designers and
developers in order to fabricate attractive “natural environment”.
Objectives of Activity
In the process of forging and mythmaking,
objectives of ecotourism are presented in terms of the honorable intention of ecotourists and tourism
industry, and theoretical objective of conservation and sustainability.
Honorable intentions: Beside a few factual ones, explanations
related with the intensions of ecotourists
are mostly mystified exaggerations: Ecotourism is “responsible travel to
natural areas that conserves the environment
and improves the welfare of local people” (TIES, 2003: 5). The ecotourists
visit relatively undeveloped areas in
the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity (Ziffer, 1989) with
the specific objective of admiring,
studying, relaxation, sightseeing, adventure and enjoying the scenery and its
wild plants and animals, as well as any
cultural features (both past and present) found in the areas
(Cabellos-Lascurain, 1991). It is a
travel to a particular natural site entirely because of the amenity and
recreational value derived from having
contact with some aspect of the natural world (Steele, 1995). It is to admire,
to study and enjoy the existing nature,
wild plants, animals and any cultural features (both past and present) found in
the areas. It is travel for study,
enjoyment, or volunteer assistance. It concerns itself with the flora, fauna,
geology, and ecosystem of an area, as
well as the people who live nearby, their needs, their culture, and their
relationship to the land (Cabellos-Lascurain,
1991; Björk, 2000). All this theoretical constructs are presented as if
ecotourism is the type of tourism that
the organizers and tourists appreciate and conserve the nature, culture, local
life, while using it, and ecotourism
activities are organized for various objectives such as interaction with nature
and rural life, knowing and exploration,
training and education (Wight, 1993; Scace et al., 1993; Weaver, 1999).
Theoretical objective of conservation
and sustainability: According to
the mainstream theoretical narration,
ecotourism establishes a sustaining balance between the natural
environment and use of environment for
ecotourism: The development of ecotourism can help saving the natural
environment by encouraging a nonconsumptive
use of wildlife, while generating valuable foreign income. This prescriptive
narrative assumes that the protective
use of natural areas is inevitable and necessary for generating source of
income. Thus, ecotourism is presented as
a tool for both conservation and sustainable development, especially in
areas where local people are asked to
forgo the consumptive use of resources for others (Wallace and Pierce, 1996). This focus on the notion of balance
between economic interests and environmental conservation is one of the main tenets of ecotourism. This
notion is nourished by the ideology of development and sustainable tourism. Some researchers like Hunter (1995,
1997) think that sustainable tourism development is not always in line with sustainable development.
According to the theoretical framework of this study, the idea of the sustainable tourism is mostly a disguise for
either image making or orientation gimmick for an activity, or the both. In dominant theory, the balance
between economy and ecology is established primarily by setting a carrying capacity. It is also cleverly put
forward that “the importance of the customers, i.e. tourists, must not be forgotten, but included in a balanced
approach; the ecotourists must be offered genuine areas and possibilities to take part, be active and learn; all actors
should benefit from an ecotourism development (Björk, 2000:194).
Types of Activity
Defining the ecotourism, the literature
indicates number of nature-based tourism and ecotourism activity types, such as wildlife viewing/observation,
walking, hiking, trekking, visiting parks and protected areas, highland tourism, bird watching, photo
safari, fishing, bicycle tourism, balloon tourism, scuba diving, agricultural tourism, natural horse riding
tourism, camping and caravanning tourism, cave tourism, mountaineering, rafting, canoeing, hillside
parachuting. Included in this category are also adventure tourism (white-water rafting, bungee jumping, rock
climbing, mountain biking, hang-gliding in natural areas), culture tourism among indigenous peoples (to witness
and experience other cultures, for instance, by trekking villages throughout Nepal and other places
where traditional values and products have been replaced by Pepsi and pizza culture), science tourism
(including opening the protected areas for tourism), visiting and camping in the national parks and heritage
tourism (Erdogan, 2003; Pomfret, 2006).
The myths and false images are created while
describing and promoting the activities by attaching them some extraordinary traits and gratifications
they provide.
Actors of Activity: Tourists as Special
Clients and Conscientious Users
Tourists are depicted in some instrumentally
functional ways: The related literature
positions ecotourists at the center of the activity and treats them as active
agents. They are the ones that take the
trip with certain objectives, go to destination, stay certain time there
and return home. These kind of
explanation supports the myth that ecotourists (people) are self-deciding
free agents on their choices and actions.
They exclude the role of the industrial practices on the course of decisions, choices and actions.
Tourists are also portrayed as conscientious
users of the nature with good intentions such as admiring, studying, relaxation, sightseeing, enjoying the
existing nature, wild plants, animals and any cultural features (both past and present) found in the areas
(Björk 2000). The literature suggests that ecotourists tend to be much better educated than general tourists
are. They are environmentally aware, sensitive, dedicated, knowing and contributing actors. We can
logically deduct at least two conclusions from these statements: (1) If these are the discriminating and
distinguishing factors, then mainstream tourists are not aware, sensitive, knowing and contributing. (2)
Ecotourists are potential culprits if anything happens to the nature. Despite the theoretically stated superior
objectives, not all tourists can be expected environmentally aware and sensitive ones. Additionally, tourist
behaviors cannot always be congruent with awareness and knowing, since there are strong intervening variables
that eliminate the causal relationship between the awareness, knowledge, attitude and the behavior.
Describing tourists as environmentally aware,
literature also indicates that they should be informed, enlightened and educated by the ecotourism
industry. Education is presented as solution to many problems by the dominant paradigms in the social
sciences. Actually, most of the time education is neither the cause nor the solution. Finding statistical
significant relations between the education and material and mental poverty does not mean that there is a causal
relationship. It only means they exist together. We should look for causes elsewhere.
We know there are environmental problems (and
material and mental poverty). Roots of environmental deterioration and damage are not lack of
education or culture or behavior of uneducated people. The damage uneducated/illiterate people have
caused to environment in 10.000 years is most likely incomparably less than the extent of damage
highly educated people working for the industrial and organizational interests created on earth in
the last 100 years. Namely, the cause is not the lack of education: It is the highly educated people
with well-planned goals create undesirable conditions on earth.
In the
mainstream literature, the relations of the industry to ecotourists are reduced
to service providing: The tourism
industry only caters the objectives and needs of ecotourists. “In order for any
ecotourism business to position itself
favorably in the global marketplace, it has to deliver high quality service
that fulfills the needs and expectations
of ecotourists. Understanding customer expectations are a prerequisite for
delivering superior service” ( Khan,
2003:109, 110).
It is claimed that the ecotourists are new
types of tourists are highly selective, educated, demanding and eager to seek information, and sensitive to
the environment, thus, they are one of the driving forces urging the industry to become more responsive to the
environmental issues (Chi and Luzar, 1998; Wearing and Neil, 1999; Krugger, 2005). Indeed, mass
producers of goods and services have always being under the pressure of capturing the attention of people
as consumers in order to convince them for using their goods and services. However, it is not clearly
known if there is such pressure coming from tourists. Studies show conflicting results on the quality, behavior
and environmentally sound and forceful demands of tourists. For instance, Duffy describes ecotourists as
behaving badly due to their pursuit of hedonistic pleasures.
Selfsatisfaction is still the
over-riding concern of ecotourists. They are not interested in the idea of
community development, environmental
protection and aboriginal justice. Some of them want to have sex with
other people. They do not display
“features of self reflexivity that might produce environmentally
development” (Duffy 2002:40,157).
‘‘Ecotourists in Belize do not reflect on their own position in the ecotourist
economy or their impact on their
environment” (Duffy, 2002:45). Similarly, Ryan, Hughes, and Chirgwin
(1999:148) indicate that ecotourism may
be culturally determined, with the culture being that of consumerism; it is a hedonistic experience rather than concerned
with learning. On the other hand, some studies found that attitudes and behavior of some tourists are
consistent with the principles of ecotourism (Galley and Clifton, 2004).
According to the mainstream literature, the
quality of service and environment are the function of the tourist demands. Industry provides services according
to the demand of the ecotourists: People get what they want. Thus, no one can blame the industry for the
quality of service and environment. The
practices of mind management in this sense include the use of people as
vehicles of attaining and sustaining
power that demands creation of norms and habits of consumption and conspicuous
consumption.
In the
literature, ecotourists are depicted as money spenders at the destination,
thus, they are the chief contributing
agents to the local development. In any case, a large proportion of the money
spent by ecotourists is spent at the
place of origin for buying the tickets and vacation packages. As Wall
indicates (1997:489) “the most companies
involved in ecotourism have their headquarters in the North, and a large proportion of profits are repatriated.”
Furthermore, ecotourists cannot spend money at the destination even if they want to, because theoretically you
can not spend money in natural areas, national parks, historical places and wildernesses, except paying for
entrance fees and buying some local souvenirs.
Actors of Activity: Tourism and Travel
Industry as Service Providers
The dominant paradigm readily accepts that
the industry provides goods and services in a proper way, except few travel agents and tour operators
who do not pay due attention to the principles and ethics of ecotourism. The dominant paradigm discusses
the role of the industry in terms of principles, ethics, social responsibility, sustainable business,
organizational effectiveness and the like.
The major myth on the good nature of industry
is reproduced by attaching the tourism and travel industry certain roles compatible with high principles
of conduct: They provide services without intentionally causing ecological, social, cultural and
economical damages. However, it is generally accepted that there are some problems (mostly because of some
“bad guys” in the business). Problem are spelled out as business ethics and practicing the principles
of ecotourism. According the Executive Director of The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)
Honey, the central challenge is “how to set standards to measure the environmental and social impacts of
tourism businesses, and how to recognize those that are adhering to sustainable practices”. Presenting the
“genuine ecotourism” as savior, Honey indicates the existence of ample evidence that, “in many places,
ecotourism’s principles and core practices are being corrupted and watered down, hijacked and perverted. Indeed,
ecotourism includes a mixed grill with three rather distinct varieties”: “Ecotourism-lite” businesses that
adopted a few environmental practices; “Green-wash scams” which use green rhetoric in their marketing
but follow none of the principles and practices; and Genuine ecotourism, or those businesses that are
striving to implement environmentally and socially responsible practices (Honey, 2004). Some studies
indicate that some travel agencies organize travels and tours paying no proper attention to actual ecotourism
principles and goals. Some engage in misleading advertisements and marketing activities using names and
symbols that provide false images such as “nature with its best, eco adventure, sole ecofeeling, adventure
experience”. For instance, The web page of Gordon Guide (2005) promotes ecotourism and cultural tours in
Turkey as follows: “GAP Adventures offers travelers a grassroots, small group adventure vacation, with a focus
on culture, nature and active travel; small international groups, excellent guides, delicious local cuisine,
special destinations and charming local accommodations, all come together to create an authentic adventure
experience”.
Promoters and marketers add ecolabel to
everything: Eco-Rent-A-Car in Costa Rica, Eco Taxis in Mexico, Eco Cines and Eco Parking Lot. In Latin
America, “Proyectos ecoturisticos” sell everything from community development projects to jet skis (Mader, 2002:272).
Such ads and marketing have dangerous potentials for everyone. Similarly, in Turkey, business
of travel agencies ranges from selling tickets to constructing residential buildings. Various attractive
tourism developments are marketed as ecodevelopments all over the world. Many ecotourism developments are
unchecked, unaccredited and only hint that they are based on policies that are environmentally friendly
(Ananthaswany, 2004). In South Africa, a developer plans to build “an $800 million dollar ecotourism paradise”
equipped with “a floating casino, hippos in the water hazards, Club Med-style hotels, and imported wild
game” (Honey, 1999:28). In Nepal, you can take helicopter treks to the summits of various mountains instead
of climbing the mountainous landscape. As Twidale and Bourne (2003:483) point out “some
administrators and tour operators not only have a relaxed and sanguine attitude to false claims, inaccurate data and
misleading language, but actively and vigorously oppose its being corrected”. The expanding domination of
neo-liberal idea that shuns the government intervention and upholds the self-regulation or
auto-control unfortunately buttresses the practices of fakery and show off. As Font indicates (2002: 203), even if
governments take active attitude towards regulating claims, this is limited to governmental boundaries, which
make it inefficient because of the international nature of the tourism industry.
It is
almost impossible to find a study emphasizing the massive effort of the tourism
industry to manipulate as many
customers/tourist as possible. Instead, the relations of the industry to
ecotourists are reduced to providing
best possible service: The tourism industry only caters the objectives and
needs of ecotourists. Mass producers of goods and services have always being
under the pressure of capturing the attention of people as consumers in order to convince them
for using their goods and services. The practices of mind management in this sense include the use of
people as vehicles of attaining and sustaining power that demands creation of cultural norms and habits
of consumption and conspicuous consumption.
Material interest of the industry either
presented as universal fact in explanations of ecotourism or does not mentioned al all. The dominant explanations
set the agenda by discussing the role of the industry in terms of principles, ethics, social responsibility,
sustainable business, organizational effectiveness, culture etc. These ethics, principles and ideas are mostly part
of the image making, marketing, mind and behavior management practices supporting the organized material
relations of daily life.
Actors of Activity: Role of the State
According to the mainstream ideological
framework, state institutions and governments play the role of regulator in order to make things run smooth,
but generally fail to provide necessary legal provisions, establish monitoring and control mechanisms.
Local governments lack guidelines, regulations, monitoring and implementation systems that protect
natural resources from negative effects.
The expanding domination of neo-liberal idea that shuns the government
intervention and upholds the selfregulation
or auto-control buttresses the practices of fakery and ostentation. Principles, ethics, forged social
responsibility, legal restrictions and regulations cannot make business
people act accordingly, unless a
business culture and awareness supporting such actions exist.
Outcomes of Activity
Use without effect and contribution to
environment: According to
the literature, ecotourism is benign and
does not have any undesirable environmental effect on destination,
because ecotourism is a non-consumptive
use of wildlife and natural resources (Hvenegaard, 1994; Ziffer 1989).
It is non-damaging, non-exploitative and
non-degrading, and provides ecological sustainability and direct contribution
to the continued protection and
management of areas used (Björk, 2000; Valentine 1991, 1993). Contrary to these
claims, there will be some environmental
impact and ecological disturbance even in the most meticulously prepared and
run ecotourism activity. There cannot be
any use without some undesirable outcomes. For instance, the growth of ecotourism in Belize and Costa Rica has
been responsible for damaging natural areas and habitats due to overdevelopment (Kersten, 1997). As Wall
indicates (1997:488), “there are good reasons for suggesting that ecotourism has the potential to be
environmentally disruptive.
Social, cultural and economic benefit
to host community: It was
indicated in the literature that ecotourism
contributes to the community through employment and other financial
means, provides the economic well-being
to the local residents, brings welfare to the local communities and recognizes
the needs and rights of local
populations (Pederson, 1998; Twynam and Johnston 2002). It maintains and
enhances the integrity of the natural
and social-cultural elements and sustains the culture (Scace et al., 1993).
These are mostly exaggerated social, economic
and cultural outcomes of the ecotourism. It may be the case for some communities; but you can hardly find a
community prospering from ecotourism in Asia, Africa or Latin America. No one can show that tourism and ecotourism
have regularly contributed to the economic well-being of local people and provided alternative employment
except entrepreneurial opportunities for few investors, seasonal low paid wages for some local people, and the
unemployment, poverty, loss of life style and migration for the most natives. “Often, a greater
proportion of tourism revenue becomes profit for only a few individuals or
families because well-connected persons monopolize the opportunities for
guiding, transporting or hosting
visitors, while others have to bear the costs, like rising prices for
goods and services” (Gössling, 1999).
Some
researchers indicate that even though sums of money may not be large, it should
be acknowledged that their consequences
might be substantial when they are injected into small economies (Wall,
1997: 489). It is true, while some local
people get minimum wage, tour operators, chain hotels, one or two local investors, top administrators,
politicians, some local shops, drug pushers, pimps, prostitutes and sex merchants share the substantial benefit.
Ecotourism, like mass tourism, fosters local political and administrative corruption, money laundering,
sex trafficking, the international drug trading, extensive foreign influence on the local community and society.
There are increasing examples that traditional mode of production and resource uses are influenced
by allocation of resources for the tourism and the ecotourism activities. As tourism expands, local people
increasingly lose their lands; they are deprived of their way of life like farming, forestry, grazing, mining and
hunting. Except one or two families and very few special places in the world, relatively few jobs are created
for local residents, and local people often receive little or no benefit from any kind of tourism (Che, 2005; Duffy
2002; Honey, 1999; Lindberg et al., 1996; Mansperger 1995; Place 1991; Stem et al., 2003; Stone and
Wall, 2004). As Loon and Polakow (2001: 893) indicate financial viability of a hotel or lodge does not
invariably mean that, it will result in optimal socio-economic benefits. Studying a local community in Turkey, Gücü
and Gücü (2003) found that the economic gain from tourism is low, and except a few market owners and
restaurants, the community does not benefit significantly. In fact, ecotourism provides high profits to travel
agencies, tour operators, airlines and investors who also own hotel chains. Leakage to outside from the local
community reaches over 90% in many countries. In addition, the most of it leaks outside of the country. It
brings low regard to environmental protection and local life style that is marketed as part of the commodified
cultural, enjoyment and experience package (Brandon, 1996; Campbell 1999; Colvin, 1996; Jones 2005; Loon
and Polakow, 2001; Stem et al., 2003:325; Welford and Ytterhus 1998). Ecotourism activities are
initiated, managed and comanaged by ‘‘outsiders” (Belsky 1999; Jones 2005; Wearing and McDonald 2002). No
one can provide a reliable developmental data beyond a few marginal local examples such as in Kenya,
Costa Rica and Ecuador, and the claim of yearly or seasonal increase in the national tourism income
without detailed distribution statistics.
It is
argued that ecotourism can provide many benefits, but tangibility depends on
the structural factors. Besides, local
people do not have marketing skills, foreign language and capital to establish
an income generating business from
tourism. We should also keep in mind that tourism is a seasonal activity: it
creates a seasonal parasitic commercial
culture at its best, while destroying the traditional local way of life
and indigenous development. It is
externally induced economic activity in the interest of the external powers and their national, regional and local
cooperators.
Balanced sustainability and
development: Ecotourism is
presented as sustainable tourism based on a positive overall balance in environmental, communal
and economic interrelations. The development of ecotourism can help saving the natural environment by
encouraging a non-consumptive use of wildlife, while generating valuable foreign income (Farrell and Marion,
2001; Stem et al. 2003). There are series of false images are created by this prescriptive evaluation: The
use and the nature of ecology are not mutually exclusive. There is a use called non-consumptive use. The use of
natural areas is inevitable and/or necessary and it is the source of income. The conservation requires finance and
the ecotourism brings finance for conservation. These myths present ecotourism as a tool for both
conservation and sustainable development. The notion of balance between tourism and environmental
conservation is nourished by the ideology of sustainable tourism.
Ecotourism is touted as providing better
sectoral linkages, reducing leakage of benefits out of the country, creating local employment, and fostering
sustainable development (Jones, 2005). The sustainability means ecological, economical and cultural
sustainability. However, the tourism activities can mean only the economical sustainability of the organizing
industry with some costly financial benefits to the local areas, while ecological and cultural sustainability
remain mostly discourse at the rhetorical and ostentatious levels. The economical sustainability of the
capital/business is the aim and the rest are mostly strategies and tactics for market expansion. The
sustainability notion is “at once exciting and terrifying. While it
ostensibly represents endeavors to
protect and manage the sustainability of our biosphere, it arguably serves as
a more efficient means for rapacious and
predatory social forces to retain cultural dominance and productive security” (Bandy, 1996:539). Duffy (2000:551)
indicates that Belize, for example, markets itself based on its pristine natural environments; this
exotic image is packaged and commodified by external consumption; it has little to do with the harsh reality of
people live in the area. Similarly, as Weaver (2001) rightly points out the whole issue of sustainability has
proven to be murky and contentious.” It is “unlikely that anything can be described as being ecologically or
socio-culturally sustainable beyond the shadow of a doubt” (Duffy, 2002:104). Similarly, “not all tourism
products that are positioned as ecotourism are truly sustainable” (Chang-Hung et al., 2004:151)
Theoretical potential or probable benefits
should not be confused with the actual happenings and facts of organized practices. The notion of
ecotourism with the idea of promoting the local economic initiatives supports (and supported by) other myths like
free market, free trade and free entrepreneurship. ‘‘Ecotourism and organized crime are two different sides
of the same process: the global resurgence of the idea that neoliberal economics will provide
development” (Duffy, 2002:160).
The negative outcomes: problems and
solutions: The negative
outcomes are usually stated as probability:
The development of ecotourism can create socio-economic problems, affect
wildlife and indigenous people and
conflict with conservation efforts. The potential negative outcomes are
attributed mostly to the ecotourists’
use behavior, some irresponsible tour operators and travel agents, and
to the shortcomings of legal structure.
They are divided as direct and indirect effects, or on-side and off-side
impacts. Some of the on-side impacts
include disturbance of ecology and damage to natural resources (Deng et
al., 2003:530; Erdogan 2003), waste
generation, habitat disturbance and destruction, forest degradation (Stem et
al., 2003:322, 324), removal of
vegetation (e.g., collection of plants or firewood), air pollution, noise
pollution, tourist traffic, soil erosion
and compacting, trail proliferation, trail widening, tread incision, muddiness
on trails, vegetation cover loss,
excessive soil and root exposure, tree damage, permanent restructuring of the
environment through infrastructure,
development and construction (e.g., clearing of forests for hotels, bungalows,
cabin, golf courses), vandalism, changes
in population dynamics, the transmission of diseases to wildlife (Cosgrove
et al., 2005; Farrell and Marion, 2001;;
Roe et al., 1999; Wenjun, 2004: 561), accidental introduction of exotic species, disturbance of feeding, breeding,
and behavioral patterns.
Generally accepting that ecotourism can
generate some negative environmental impacts, the mainstream academicians and policy makers, in order to
provide solutions, turn their attention to the determination of acceptable level of impact and carrying capacity,
monitoring and controlling the tourists’ behavior, maximizing the local support and minimizing the
possibility of local population’s active reaction against the ecotourism.
Disappointed with the negative outcomes, some
researchers recommend prescriptive, ethical and normative solutions that are nothing more than
restatement of the basic theoretical notion of the ecotourism in different way: “Club-med style hotels should
not be able to peddle their mega-structures under the façade that they are offering an environmentally
friendly adventure. Tougher restrictions should be placed on all kinds of ‘alternative tourism’ to ensure that
the objectives of tourism are fulfilled. The benefits should go to the local people, not foreign investors, and
a major priority should be on the conservation of the environment (seeing as it is the generator of the new
revenue). There should be mandated prerequisites for successful local participation in ecotourism projects
and initiative” (Cosgrove et al. 2005).
CONCLUSIONS
The study concludes that dominant ideological discourse
on ecotourism scientifically fails in explaining the nature of a host of
interrelated activities called ecotourism, because the majority of the dominant
explanations that put forward by mainstream academicians and people who are in
public administration, public relations, advertising, propaganda and tourism
present the theoretical descriptions as facts, make the functional exceptions
rule, offer strategically prescriptive and normative ethics and principles that
are unattainable, but functional in mind management. Normative and prescriptive
evaluations can only play the role of diversion, deliberate agenda setting, and
neutralization of the negative feelings. Some explanations are explicitly after
creating false images about the relations and business of ecotourism. Others
knowingly or unknowingly confuse the fact with fiction, fact with forged
normative/prescriptive principles. They all intentionally or unintentionally
ignore or hide the fact that the widely propagated notion of ecotourism is deeply
embedded in the logics of ideological, discursive and relational normalization
of corporate activities, commodity circulation, technological end-product
diffusion and global governance of the economic, political and cultural market
conditions. The ultimate objective in creating and employing the functional
myths about industrial practices is sustainability in production of goods,
services and people. As one of the nicely knitted industrial activities with
forged claims, “eco-tourism, which is basically practiced in the orthodox
tourism mould often masquerades as alternative tourism” (Sreekumar and Parayıl,
2002: 531).
The mainstream idea of ecotourism nicely fits in the
sustainable development notion: There are poor, conventional and economically
inactive local communities. These communities need jobs and products of modern
life. Ecotourism is one of their saviors: Ecotourism brings the opportunities
of welfare to the Local communities. What they have to do is simply to
participate in the action for development. This classical rhetoric, which is
supported by the other rhetorical discourses about globalization,
privatization, free market, individual freedom, entrepreneurship, sustainability
and development, serves the systemic requirements of politics of the
globalizing industrial structures. State institutions and governments,
international finance and lending institutions and corporations all over the
world promote ecotourism as one of the ways of local wealth, safety, security,
longevity and welfare. Once ecotourism (or any other activity) is conceived and
accepted this way in popular mind, then any intervention, like opening the
protected areas for the use of tourism industries and land developers, can be
easily sold as the necessary initiative for the national development,
maintaining growth, advancement, creating jobs and raising the standards of
living in local/ rural communities. This forged reality is vehemently supported
thorough daily discourses by governments, politicians, academicians,
corporations and mass media. Thus, the global practices of economic
exploitation and the exploiters are metamorphosed into the providers of goods
and services for the benefit of people on earth.
Continuously expanding international arrivals and
domestic tourists, combined with increasing use of resources and mounting
production of environmental degraders and polluters are being accepted as the
part of the “reality of life” by many people in the world. Mass media and
academicians mostly bless the tourism and talk about the contribution of
tourism to national economy. Environmental effects and human conditions are
hardly ever mentioned by the mass media. It seems that some researchers are
more interested in public image and income of the tourism industry and mounting
costs than human condition and ecology. The sustainability and development of
tourism industry is positioned at the center and the world turns around it. Some
disenchanted researchers further indicate that environmental/ecological
research is rarely used in the developmental processes because of the
“ignorance” of researchers about the fact that developmental decisions are made
by global market and of “inability” of researchers to admit that, “certain
ecological tourisms are not applicable to economic development” (Di Casti,
2000). study concludes that dominant ideological discourse on ecotourism
scientifically fails in explaining the
nature of a host of interrelated activities called ecotourism, because the
majority of the dominant explanations
that put forward by mainstream academicians and people who are in public
administration, public relations,
advertising, propaganda and tourism present the theoretical descriptions as
facts, make the functional exceptions
rule, offer strategically prescriptive and normative ethics and principles that
are unattainable, but functional in mind
management. Normative and prescriptive evaluations can only play the role of diversion, deliberate agenda setting,
and neutralization of the negative feelings. Some explanations are explicitly after creating false images
about the relations and business of ecotourism. Others knowingly or unknowingly confuse the fact with fiction,
fact with forged normative/prescriptive principles. They all intentionally or unintentionally ignore or
hide the fact that the widely propagated notion of ecotourism is deeply embedded in the logics of ideological,
discursive and relational normalization of corporate activities, commodity circulation, technological
end-product diffusion and global governance of the economic, political and cultural market conditions. The ultimate
objective in creating and employing the functional myths about industrial practices is sustainability in
production of goods, services and people. As one of the nicely knitted industrial activities with forged claims,
“eco-tourism, which is basically practiced in the orthodox tourism mould often masquerades as alternative
tourism” (Sreekumar and Parayıl, 2002: 531).
The mainstream idea of ecotourism nicely fits in the sustainable
development notion: There are poor,
conventional and economically inactive local communities. These
communities need jobs and products of
modern life. Ecotourism is one of their saviors: Ecotourism brings the
opportunities of welfare to the Local
communities. What they have to do is simply to participate in the action
for development. This classical
rhetoric, which is supported by the other rhetorical discourses about
globalization, privatization, free market,
individual freedom, entrepreneurship, sustainability and development,
serves the systemic requirements of
politics of the globalizing industrial structures. State institutions and
governments, international finance and
lending institutions and corporations all over the world promote ecotourism as
one of the ways of local wealth, safety,
security, longevity and welfare. Once ecotourism (or any other activity) is
conceived and accepted this way in
popular mind, then any intervention, like opening the protected areas for the
use of tourism industries and land
developers, can be easily sold as the necessary initiative for the
national development, maintaining
growth, advancement, creating jobs and raising the standards of living in
local/ rural communities. This forged
reality is vehemently supported thorough daily discourses by governments, politicians, academicians, corporations and
mass media. Thus, the global practices of economic exploitation and the exploiters are metamorphosed into the
providers of goods and services for the benefit of people on earth.
Continuously expanding international arrivals and domestic tourists,
combined with increasing use of
resources and mounting production of environmental degraders and
polluters are being accepted as the part
of the “reality of life” by many people in the world. Mass media and
academicians mostly bless the tourism
and talk about the contribution of tourism to national economy.
Environmental effects and human conditions
are hardly ever mentioned by the mass media. It seems that some
researchers are more interested in public
image and income of the tourism industry and mounting costs than human
condition and ecology. The
sustainability and development of tourism industry is positioned at the
center and the world turns around it.
Some disenchanted researchers further indicate that
environmental/ecological research is rarely used in the developmental processes because of the “ignorance” of researchers about the fact that
developmental decisions are made by
global market and of “inability” of researchers to admit that, “certain
ecological tourisms are not applicable
to economic development” (Di Casti, 2000REFERENCES
• Bandy, J., (1996). Managing the other of nature: sustainability,
spectacle, and global regimes of capital in ecotourism. Public Culture 8
(3):539-566.
• Belsky, J., 1999. Misrepresenting communities: the politics of
community-based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural
Sociology 64:641–666.
• Björk, P., 2000. Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended
definition of a unique tourism form. International Journal of Tourism Research
2: 189-202.
• Blamey, R., 1997. Ecotourism: the search for an operational definition.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (2): 109-130.
• Brandon, K., 1996. Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues.
World Bank
• Environment Department Paper No. 033. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Campbell, L., 1999. Ecotourism in rural developing countries. Annals of
Tourism Research 26: 534–553.
• Ceballos-Lascurain, H., 1991. Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas.
Parks 2, 31-35.
• Chang-Haung, T., P. F. J. Eagles, and S. L. J. Smith,. 2004. Profiling
Taiwanese Ecotourists using a selfdefinition Approach. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 12 (2): 149-169.
• Che, D., 2005. Developing Ecotourism in First World, Resource-Dependent
Areas. Geoforum (in press).
• Chi Y. and E.J.,Luzar, 1998. An economic analysis of non-consumptive
wildlife recreation expenditures. Louisiana Rural Economist 60: 8–11.
• Colvin, J., 1996. Indigenous ecotourism: the capirona programme in Napo
Province, Equador. Unasylva 187 (47): 32–37.
• Cosgrove, C., C. Prelle and J. Weinstein, 2005. The Road Less Traveled:
Ecotourism, the Environment and Sustainable Development. http://www.arenal.net/
or http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2005/cmp8/index.html.
• Deng, J., S., Qiang, Walker, G. J. and Zhang, Y., 2003. Assessment on and
perception of visitors’ environmental impacts of nature tourism: a case study
of Zhangjiiajie National Forest Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(6):
529-548.
• Di Castri, F., 2000. Ecology in a Context of Economic Globalization.
Bioscience 50 (4): 321-332.
• Duffy, R., 2000. Shadow players: ecotourism development, corruption and
state politics in Belize. Third World Quarterly 21 (3): 549–565.
• Duffy, R., 2002. A trip too far: ecotourism, politics and exploitation,
London: Earthscan Publications.
• Erdogan, N., 2003. Çevre ve (Eko)turizm. Ankara: Erk Yayınevi.
• Erdogan, I. and Alemdar, K., 2005. Oteki Kuram (Other Theory). (2nd ed.)
Ankara: Erk.
• Farrell, T.A., 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.
• Font, X., 2002. Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality:
progress, process and prospects.
Tourism Management 23: 197–205
• Galley, G. and J. Clifton, 2004. The motivational and demographic
characteristics of research ecotourists: Operation Wallacea Volunteers in
Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism 3 (1): 69-83.
• Gordon Guide 2005. Gordon guide to ecotourism & cultural tours. http://www.ecotourism-vacations.com/
turkey.cfm
• Gössling, S., 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and
ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, 29 (2): 303-320
• Gössling, S., P. Peeters,. J-P Ceron,.G. Dubois, T. Patterson and R.
B.Richardson, 2005. The ecoefficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics, 54 (4):
2005, 417-434.
• Gücü, G. and A. C.Gücü, 2003. Is ecotoruism an appropriate tool to ensure
sustainable Mediterranean monk seal conservation in th Cilician Basin, Turkey?
Evaluation report of the experimental ecotourism application in Bozyazi,
Mersin. gucu@ims.metu.edu.tr.
• Hardt M. and A. Negri, 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
• Honey, M., 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns
paradise? Washington: Island Press.
• Honey, M., 2004. Ecotourism and certification. International Ecotourism
Society, Washington D.C. http:// www.ecotourism.org & http://www.ips-dc.org/
• Hunter, C., 1995, On the need to
re-conceptualize sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 3 (3): 155-165.
• Hunter, C., 1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24 (4): 850- 867.
• Hvenegaard, G.T., 1994. Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual
framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 5 (2): 24-35.
• Jones, S., 2005. Community-based ecotourism: the significance of social
capital. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (2): 303–324.
• Kersten, A., 1997. Tourism and regional development in Mexico and Chiapas
after NAFTA. http://www. planeta.com/planeta/97/0597lacandon2.html
• Khan, M., 2003. Ecoserv: Ecotourists’ quality expectations. Annals of
Tourism Research 30 (1): 109-124.
• Latham, M. E., 2006. Redirecting the Revolution? The USA and the Failure
of Nation-Building in South Vietnam, Third World Quarterly, 27(1): 27- 41.
• Krugger, O., 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or
Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 579–600.
• Lindberg, K., J. Enriquez and K. Sproule, 1996. Ecotourizm questioned:
Case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (3): 543–562.
• Loon, R., and D. Polakow, 2001. Ecotourism ventures: rags or riches?
Annals of Tourism Research 28:892–907.
• Mader, R., 2002. Latin American Ecotourism: What is it? Current Issues in
Tourism 5 (3&4), 272-278.
• Mansperger, M. C., 1995. Tourism and cultural change in small-scale
societies. Human Organization, 54 (1): 87-94.
• Place, S.E., 1991. Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero.
Annals of Tourism Research 18(2): 186-201.
• Pomfret, G., 2006. Mountaineering adventure tourists: a conceptual
framework for research. Tourism Management 27 (1): 113-123.
• Roe, D., C. Harris and J.de Andrade, 2003. Addressing poverty issues in
tourism standards. PPT Working Paper No. 14. London: ODI, IIED and ICRT.
• Ross, S. and G. Wall, 1999. Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory
and Practice. Tourism Management 20: 123-132.
• Ryan, C., K.Hughes and S. Chirgwin, 1999. The gaze, spectacle and
ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1): 148-163.
• Scace, R. C., E. Grifone and R.Usher, 1993. Ecotourism in Canada.
Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, Environment Canada, Quebec.
• Sreekumar, T. T. and G. Parayıl, , 2002. Contentions and contradictions
of tourism as development option: the case of Kerala, India. Third World
Quarterly, 23: (3): 529-548.
• Steele, P., 1995. Ecotourism: an economic analysis. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 3 (1): 29-43.
• Stem, C.J., J.P Lassoie,. D.R. Lee and D.J. Deshler, 2003. How ‘eco’ is
ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 11 (4): 322-347.
• Stone, M. and G.Wall, 2004. Ecotourism and community development: case
studies from Hainan, China. Environmental Management 33 (1): 12-24.
• TIES, 2003. A simple user’s guide to certification for sustainable
tourism and ecotourism. The International Ecotourism Society,
www.ecotourism.org.
• Twynam, G. D. and M. E Johnston,. 2002. The use of sustainable tourism
practices. Annals of Tourism Research. 29 (4): 1165-1168.
• Twidale, C. R. and J. A. Bourne, 2003. Commentary: Practices, problems
and principles for ecotourism – a case study. Tourism Geographies, 5 (4):
482–492.
• Valentine, P., 1991. Nature-based tourism: a review of prospects and
problems, in Miller, M. L. and Auyong,
J. (Editors), Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine
Tourism. Newport, Oregon: National Coastal Resourses Research & Development
Institute, 475-485.
• Valentine, P., 1993, Ecotourism and nature conservation. A definition
with some recent developments in Micronesia. Tourism Management 142, 107-115.
• Wallace, G., and M. S. Pierce, 1996. An Evaluation of ecotourism In
Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (4): 843-873.
• Wall, G., 1997. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management 21
(4): 483–491.
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weaver, D., 2001. Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (2): 104-113.
80 A Critical Evaluation of Ecotourism • Weaver, D., 1999. Magnitude of
ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4): 792-816.
• Wearing S. and J. Neil, 1999. Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and
possibilities. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
• Wearing, S. and M. McDonald, 2002. The development of community-based
tourism: the relationship between tour operators and development agents as
Intermediaries in Rural and Isolated Area Communities. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 10:191-206.
• Welford, R and B. Ytterhus, 1998. Conditions for the Transformation of
Eco-Tourism Into Sustainable Tourism. European Environment 8 (6): 193-195.
• Wenjun, L., 2004. Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in
China’s Nature Reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Tourism
Management 25 (5): 559-564.
• Wight, P., 1993. Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell? Journal of Travel
Research 31(3): 3-9.
• Ziffer, K., 1989. Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. Washington, DC:
Conservation International.
