(Re)Defining Ecotourism

Breaking with current academic discourse on ecotourism

In his seminal literature review on ecotourism definitions, David Fennell states, “One of the most habitual practices in the sub-field of ecotourism, from both academic and industry perspectives, is the development of definitions.” [1] Ecotourism definitions run the gamut from short one-sentence descriptions [2] to long, delineated academic theorizations [3] and often contradict other definitions in their field. [4] In a mildly hypocritical fashion, I will problematize both the existing definitions of ecotourism and the practice of perpetually creating definitions, while also proposing a new overarching definition of ecotourism.

Stabilizing the definition of ecotourism would benefit a diverse range of fields. From an economic perspective, defining ecotourism may affect investment and industry growth. In 2010, the ecotourism industry was estimated at 6% of the world’s total gross domestic product (GDP); [5] however, depending on the definition of ecotourism, this percent could greatly fluctuate and confound the economic analysis of ecotourism.  Stabilizing the term "ecotourism" may also aid the formulation of future legislation and impact judicial proceedings. Hopefully, agreeing upon one ecotourism definition will increase the quality and quantity of regulations on ecotourism and encourage the creation of new environmental conservation laws and government committees. Lastly, stably defining ecotourism may incite tourists to more carefully monitor the environmental impacts of their actions when they are engaging in an activity designated as ecotourism relative to other forms of tourism. 

In 1983, Hector Ceballos-Lascurain popularized, and arguably also coined, the term ecotourismo while working for the Mexican Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology. [6] Translated from Spanish, he defined ecotourism as:

That form of environmentally responsible tourism that involves travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas with the object of enjoying, admiring, and studying the nature (the scenery, wild plants and animals), as well as any cultural aspect (both past and present) found in these areas, through a process which promotes conservation, has a low impact on the environment and on culture and favors the active and socioeconomically beneficial involvement of local communities. [7]

Since its initial theorization, the definitions of ecotourism have continually evolved and have further subdivided ecotourism activities into categories including but not limited too agrotourism, nature-based tourism, responsible tourism, and jungle tourism. [8]

In 2001, less than twenty years after the first use of the term ecotourism, David Fennell noted the unusually high number of ecotourism definitions in academia and attempted to analyze the 85 most frequently cited definitions of ecotourism. [9] Fennell found five common parameters within many of these definitions:

1. location of ecotourism activity (natural areas, wilderness, parks, etc.)
2. emphasis on conservation
3. interaction with culture
4. benefits to local peoples
5. education [10]

Since 2001, a couple more parameters have become common to ecotourism definitions including (6.) the intent of the tourist to engage in or support environmental conservation and (7.) sustainability, while others such as (3.) culture have decreased in use. [11]

Outside of academia, the definition from The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) appears to be the most widely used definition of ecotourism. [12] Every several years, the Society updates their definition of ecotourism to reflect current opinions and popular discussions. In 1990, TIES defined ecotourism as, “Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.” [13] In comparison with Fennell’s ecotourism parameters, this definition includes reference to (1.) location (i.e. "natural areas"), (2.) conservation, and (4.) benefits to local peoples. By 2015, TIES modified their definition to read, “Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education.” [14] This new definition now includes reference to all of Fennell’s parameters of (1.) location, (2.) conservation, (3.) culture (i.e. "interpretation"), (4.) benefits to local peoples, (5.) education and adds the two new considerations of (6.) intent of tourist to engage in conservation [15] and (7.) sustainability. This transition from the 1990 definition to the 2015 definition demonstrates not only the field’s interest in perpetually writing definitions, but also shows the evolution of the definitions’ content over time as ecotourism discussion changes and develops.

The present definitions of ecotourism, including the ones cited above, are problematic for three main reasons. First, the specificity of the current definitions makes them applicable to only some types of tourism with environmental impact. [16] Second, the current definitions include quality implications (i.e. conservation minimums) without providing metrics to measure such standards. [17] Last, many definitions conflate indigenous people and cultures with the environment in potentially irresponsible ways. [18]

The specificity of current ecotourism definitions and their vague irregular quality standards work together to exclude possible forms of tourism with environmental impact.  For example, Higham (2003) argues that some metrics for defining ecotourism are more applicable when analyzing ecotourism in New Zealand than other metrics or definitions. [19] His analysis implies that the common academic definitions of ecotourism are too narrow to encapsulate and describe all forms of ecotourism. A more accurate definition of ecotourism should equally apply to all forms of ecotourism. In particular, for the purpose of this website, my definition must be equally applicable to Kiwi and Australian ecotourism industries and all ecotourism activities occurring within New Zealand and Australia.

Ralf Buckley (2013) further problematizes the specificity of ecotourism definitions. He implies that the specificity is often added to ecotourism definitions in order to surreptitiously aid underlying agendas.  Buckley argues that each stakeholder defines ecotourism differently to fit his or her individual or organizational mission. [20] For example, a company that focuses on environmental education may include (5.) education as a prerequisite for receiving ecotourism designation. In contrast, a company that focuses on conservation may place a strong emphasis on (7.) sustainability and omit (5.) education. If this process continues for every company involved in the ecotourism industry, it is easy to image how a surplus of definitions has formed. A less specific and more standardized ecotourism definition, could eliminate strategic and competitive definition practices.   

Implicit quality standards also aid in excluding tourism businesses with environmental impact. As previously stated, TIES (2015) uses the terms “responsible” and “well-being” in their definition without providing corresponding metrics. As another example, Fennell argues that all zoos should not be considered ecotourism because some of them may not adhere to high enough standards of care for the animals. [21] In this article, Fennel uses implicit, but often unquantifiable, environmental quality standards as part of his definition of ecotourism.

Other definitions also attempt to quantify the intent of tourist to engage in environmental conservation or environmentally conscious forms of tourism. Going back to Fennel’s list of common parameters, Beaumont further problematizes the use of (6.) individual intent to engage in conservation as a quality for defining ecotourism. In her study, Beaumont surveyed ecotourists and asked why they elected to participate in ecotourism. She found that ecotourists had no significant difference in pro-environmental sentiments over regular tourists. [22] This study, while mildly disheartening, further demonstrates that using implicit quality standards is an irresponsible practice that may inaccurately include or exclude tourism activities.  

In addition to being vague or difficult to quantify at any given moment, environmental impact and individual morality also evolve over time. As previously stated, many definitions of ecotourism include components of ecological sustainability, conservation advocacy, and environmental restoration. [23] However, these factors are not constants. David Fennell noted, as the demand for ecotourism grows, the “ecocentricity” (emphasis on protecting the environment via conservation and sustainability) of the industry begins to deteriorate. [24] This deterioration occurs for both new and existing ecotourism activities. Under current definitions of ecotourism,  one would have to perpetually reassess the “ecocentricity” of an ecotourism activity at any given time then determine when an activity falls below the ecocentric threshold and loses ecotourism designation. This task is unreasonable, if not impossible, and alone, is enough to warrant a new ecotourism definition devoid of quality judgements.

As a brief aside, one may wonder, as the ecotourism industry grows, how can we protect against a decrease in ecocentricity? As I will discuss in other sections, the most effective way to prevent a decline in ecocentricity is to create new legislation that either limits the growth of the industry (which is unlikely to be popular) or creates new regulations to promote continued conservation and sustainability. 

Lastly, ecotourism definitions commonly conflate ecotourism with indigenous tourism. This practice is problematic for a variety of reasons and may be driven by latent ethnocentric tendencies in Western academia. Cater states that, in general, concepts of ecotourism come from Western definitions of nature and Western concepts of man’s relationship with nature. [25] Academia needs a broader definition of ecotourism that is more inclusive of non-Western concepts.

Cater's discussion on the Western bias in ecotourism definitions also relates to the prior discussion on stakeholders. Buultjens (2010), unintentionally, is a perfect example of how a well-meaning stakeholder may inappropriately manipulate the definition of ecotourism to fit an individual or organizational mission. Buultjens argues in favor of incorporating indigenous tourism into Australian ecotourism in order to increase the money going to indigenous people. [26] Increasing revenue for indigenous people is a great goal but the proposed methodology is ultimately problematic. Buultjens says changing the way ecotourism business are accredited and making it easier for indigenous people to gain accreditation via this new system will fix the divide between indigenous tourism and ecotourism and increase indigenous revenue. Within this same article, Buultjens challenges his assertion and notes that the indigenous people working in the indigenous tourism industry often do not consider themselves part of the ecotourism industry. Combining ecotourism and indigenous tourism would violate the self-concepts of the indigenous people and would disrespectfully conflate non-Western humans with natural resources. This is a great example of how latent Western opinions influence our concepts of the environment and its relationship to indigenous people.

In contrast to the existing definitions of ecotourism, I would like to propose a more general definition of ecotourism. By increasing the generality of the definition, one can avoid the problems caused by amorphous quality standards, while also avoiding many problematic implications about indigenous people. Ecotourism should be broadly defined as, any activity involving the interaction between the environment and the economy for the purpose of tourism.  Under this definition all activities within the tourism industry that involve both the environment and the economy would be considered ecotourism regardless of the owner's or individual's desire to engage in conservation, education, sustainability, etc.

For example, imagine two scuba diving companies. One is a nonprofit that donates revenue to conservation efforts and one is a for-profit business. They both conduct identical trips to a vulnerable marine ecosystem and operate sustainably in order to maintain their business. Based on most traditional academic definitions, the for-profit business is not considered ecotourism because it does not explicitly include (2.) an emphasis on conservation. In contrast, from the perspective of colloquial use, both companies are likely classified as ecotourism within the industry and a tourist seeking out ecotourism would likely consider both companies as viable options for their trip. My definition of ecotourism aligns more closely with colloquial usage and also classifies both companies as ecotourism without undefined metrics or assumptions about indigenous people.

By broadening the definition of ecotourism, more activities will fall into the category of ecotourism. Hopefully, this will in turn will increase the size and authority of agencies focused on regulating ecotourism and further discussions on mitigating environmental impacts of tourism. 

As an additional aside, it is important to note that my entire education is built upon Western knowledge and will inevitably contain some bias also built upon Western constructs of nature and ecotourism. [27] Hopefully my more broad definition proposed here will decrease the effect of ethnocentrism and be more moldable to non-Western concepts. But as always, if any assumption in my argument seem ethnocentric, please visit the Contact section and let me know so I can correct it. 

Resources (noted throughout by [#] )

1. Fennell, David A. "A Content Analysis of Ecotourism Definitions." Current Issues in Tourism 4.5 (2001): 403. Web.
2. "What Is Ecotourism?" The International Ecotourism Society (TIES). N.p., 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
3. James Higham & Anna Carr (2003) Defining Ecotourism in New Zealand: Differentiating Between the Defining Parameters within a National/Regional Context, Journal of Ecotourism 2:1, 17-32
4. Ibid., Higham, 2003, 17
5. "Eco Tourism Industry." World, US, China, India Economy, Investment, Finance, Credit Cards. Economy Watch, 29 June 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
6. "Ecotourism." New World Encyclopedia. N.p., 14 July 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
7. Ibid., New World Encyclopedia
8. Ibid., New World Encyclopedia
9. Fennell, 2001, page 403
10. Fennell, 2001, page 403
11. Higham, 2003, 22
12. The New World Encyclopedia, 2016
13. "Ecotourism Definition." The International Ecotourism Society. N.p., 1990. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
14. The International Ecotourism Society, 2015
15. TIES loosely incorporates intent under “interpretation” when further elaborating upon the principles of ecotourism. The International Tourism Society, 2015
16. Higham, 2003, 17
17. David A. Fennell (2013) Contesting the zoo as a setting for ecotourism, and the design of a first principle, Journal of Ecotourism 12:1, 1-14
18. Buultjens, Jeremy, Deborah Gale, and Nadine Elizabeth White. "Synergies between Australian Indigenous Tourism and Ecotourism: Possibilities and Problems for Future Development." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18.4 (2010): 497-513. Web.
19. Higham, 2003, 22
20. Buckley, Ralf. "Defining Ecotourism: Consensus on Core, Disagreement on Detail." International Handbook on Ecotourism. By Roy Ballantyne and Jan Packer. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub., 2013. 9-14. Print.
21. David A. Fennell (2013) Contesting the zoo as a setting for ecotourism, and the design of a first principle, Journal of Ecotourism 12:1, 1-14
22. Narelle Beaumont (2011) The third criterion of ecotourism: are ecotourists more concerned about sustainability than other tourists?, Journal of Ecotourism 10:2, 135-148
23. James Higham & Anna Carr (2003) Defining Ecotourism in New Zealand: Differentiating Between the Defining Parameters within a National/Regional Context, Journal of Ecotourism, 2:1, 17-32
24. David Fennell & Agnes Nowaczek (2010) Moral and empirical dimensions of human–animal interactions in ecotourism: deepening an otherwise shallow pool of debate, Journal of Ecotourism 9:3, 239-255
25. Erlet Cater (2006) Ecotourism as a Western Construct, Journal of Ecotourism 5:1-2, 23-39
26. Buultjens, Jeremy, Deborah Gale, and Nadine Elizabeth White. "Synergies between Australian Indigenous Tourism and Ecotourism: Possibilities and Problems for Future Development." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18.4 (2010): 497-513. Web.
27. Cater, 2006, 23-39