Ecotourism development

E c o t o u r i s m D e v e l o p m e n tA Manua l f o r Conse r va t ion P lanne r s and Manager s

Volume l

An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning

Volume l

Andy Drumm and Alan Moore

ALEX C. WALKEREDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLEFOUNDATION

Ecotourism Development – A Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers

Volume 1

Copyright © 2002 by The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

All rights reserved.

Editing: Alex Singer

Design/Layout: Jonathan Kerr

Cover Photography: Ecotourists at Yaxchilan Mayan site, Chiapas, Mexico © Andy Drumm; Jaragua National

Park, Dominican Republic © Andy Drumm; owl-eye monkeys, Panama © Marie Read

Production: Publications for Capacity Building, The Nature Conservancy, Worldwide Office, 4245 North

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, USA. Fax: 703-841-4880; email: [email protected].

This publication was made possible, in part, through support provided by the Office LAC/RSD/, Bureau for Latin

America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development, under terms of Grant No. LAG-0782-A-

00-5026-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the

U.S. Agency for International Development. This publication was also made possible, in part, thanks to the vision,

trust, and support of the Alex C. Walker Charitable and Educational Trust.

For further information on Ecotourism projects or to provide feedback, please contact:

Andy Drumm

Director, Ecotourism

The Nature Conservancy

Worldwide Office

4245 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203 USA

Phone: 703-841-8177

Fax: 703-841-4880

Email: [email protected]

printed on recycled paper

3Volume One: An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning

Ecotourism has become an important economicactivity in natural areas around the world. It pro-

vides opportunities for visitors to experience powerfulmanifestations of nature and culture and to learn aboutthe importance of biodiversity conservation and localcultures. At the same time, ecotourism generatesincome for conservation and economic benefits forcommunities living in rural and remote areas.

The attributes of ecotourism make it a valuable toolfor conservation. Its implementation can:

❖ give economic value to ecosystem services that pro-tected areas provide;

❖ generate direct income for the conservation of pro-tected areas;

❖ generate direct and indirect income for local stake-holders, creating incentives for conservation in localcommunities;

❖ build constituencies for conservation, locally, nation-ally and internationally;

❖ promote sustainable use of natural resources; and

❖ reduce threats to biodiversity.

Some areas have greater potential for realizing thebenefits of ecotourism than others. In areas with lowvisitation, the potential is not usually clear. In others,tourism may already be an important factor. In bothcases, the ecotourism planning process is critical toachieving ecotourism’s potential as a powerful conser-vation strategy.

Of course, not all tourism to natural areas is eco-tourism. Nature tourism, as opposed to ecotourism,may lack mechanisms for mitigating impacts on theenvironment and fail to demonstrate respect for localculture. Economically, nature tourism is also booming.Consequently, we are witnessing an onslaught of visita-

tion to natural areas which, in many cases, is under-mining the values that make these areas attractive.

Because of their ecological value, protected areas,especially those found in the tropics and in less-devel-oped countries, contain many of the world’s greatestecotourism attractions. These attractions may consist ofone or a combination of rare or endemic species of floraor fauna, abundant wildlife, high indices of speciesdiversity, unusual or spectacular geomorphological for-mations, or unique historic or contemporary culturalmanifestations in a natural context.

Protected area managers, then, are faced with the chal-lenge of controlling and limiting the impacts of unfetterednature tourism while at the same time deciding whereand how to plan adequately for the development of eco-tourism as a compatible economic development option.

By integrating ecotourism development into a sys-tematic approach to conservation using The NatureConservancy’s Conservation By Design1 framework wecan ensure that ecotourism is only initiated when it is themost effective strategy to achieve tangible, lasting resultsat scale. These distinct but intimately interrelated aspectsof ecotourism — conservation management and businessdevelopment — must be fully understood by ecotourismplanners and protected area managers before movingahead with plans to implement ecotourism activities.Conservationists have typically approached ecotourismwith a limited understanding of business issues and anincomplete understanding of the management mecha-nisms that are available and necessary to ensure the sus-tainability of tourism in protected areas. Typically, startingpoints for an ecotourism initiative have been guide train-ing programs or lodge construction. This approach isalmost guaranteed to end in failure. It has led to:

❖ the creation of high expectations in communitieswhich are seldom fulfilled;

Preface to the Ecotourism Development Manual

1 Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success. 2001. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.

Ecotourism Development: A Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers4

❖ ecotourism activities becoming a drain on scarceNGO and protected area resources as projects struggleto reach break-even point;

❖ NGOs and protected areas being pulled away fromtheir central conservation mission; and

❖ tourism destroying the natural attractions thatoriginally drew visitors.

On the other hand, nature tourism operators havetypically carried out their initiatives with an incompleteunderstanding of conservation issues and consequentlyoperate in an unsustainable fashion.

We now recognize that in order for ecotourism tobe successful, conservationists need a greater under-standing of business considerations; likewise, developersneed a greater awareness of the management mechanismsthat are necessary to ensure the sustainability of theactivity. Combining both perspectives is essential for asuccessful ecotourism program.

Protected areas may be state, private or communityowned or administered, or any combination thereof.Funds for protected area management of all types areusually scarce in developing countries. As a result,these areas often lack the capacity to ensure thattourism generates the full range of benefits it should.Hence, in many areas opportunities for income genera-tion for site conservation and local communities areunder exploited and tourism may in fact pose a threatto conservation.

For ecotourism to fulfill its potential and generatesustainable benefits, protected areas must implement aplanning framework to guide and manage the activity.

This manual focuses primarily on providing a set ofcriteria to ecotourism planners and managers at conserva-tion NGOs to facilitate decisions with respect to eco-tourism management and development. However, itshould also be helpful to protected area specialists andmanagers of state-owned and community-owned reserves,as well as to other actors in ecotourism including touroperators and hotel developers who seek greater orienta-tion in understanding the conservation implications ofproposed activities. Additionally, it will be of use toinvestors considering ecotourism development proposals.

The manual consists of two distinct but related stand-alone volumes. Conservationists who are intrigued byecotourism and want a greater understanding of it, orwho are considering ecotourism as a conservation strat-egy for a protected area, may elect to consult Volume I:

An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning, Part I initiallyfor a brief overview.

For those who seek fuller understanding of the eco-tourism management planning process or decided thatecotourism may be right for their site, Volume I, Part IIshould be consulted. Part II: “Ecotourism Planning andManagement” explains the process for ecotourism develop-ment and management planning from Site ConservationPlanning and Preliminary Site Evaluation to Full SiteDiagnostic, participatory ecotourism management plan-ning and implementation of a plan.

Volume II, The Business of Ecotourism Developmentand Management provides orientation and guidence onboth key conservation management and key businessdevelopment strategies. Part I: “Key Strategies ofEcotourism Management,” is an introduction to thecritical elements of ecotourism management planningincluding zoning, visitor impact monitoring, visitor sitedesign and management, income generation mechanisms,infrastructure and visitor guide-lines, and naturalistguide systems. This volume may be usefully consultedto review options for mitigating tourism threats thatmay already exist at a site.

Volume II, Part II: “Business Planning for ConservationManagers,” outlines the business planning process. Itwill allow conservation managers and planners to devel-op an understanding of business planning and be ableto promote viable business partnerships with communi-ties or private tourism operators, and to contribute tothe preparation of business plans.

Most chapters end with a References and Resourcessection that includes publications, organizations, insti-tutions and useful web sites for investigating thesethemes further.

AcknowledgementsThe authors are extremely gratefull for the enourmouslyvaluable input provided by collegues on earlier manu-scripts. Jim Rieger and Connie Campbell’s contributionswere notable. Jeffrey Parrish provided excellent feed-back, especially in the chapters on Site ConservationPlanning. Special thanks to Liz Boo who provided anoriginal manuscript the authors drew from. Great appre-ciation also to: Marie Uehling, Bill Ulfelder, AndrewSoles, Eva Vilarrubi, Brad Northrup, Jill Bernier, JohnFinisdore, Patricia León, Benson Venegas, Bruce Boggs,Jonathan Kerr, Michelle Libby. Any errors are of courseexclusively the responsibility of the authors.


Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: An Introduction to EcotourismIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Chapter 1: What is Ecotourism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ecotourism Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Evolution of Ecotourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Related Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Working with Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 2: Ecotourism Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Core Decision Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Supporting Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 3: Ecotourism and Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29The Role of Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Opportunities and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Potential Opportunities of Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Potential Tourism Threats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 4: Ecotourism and Local Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Definition of Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39The Role of the Community in Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Protected Areas and Ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Potential Positive Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Potential Negative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Key Considerations for Ecotourism Development at the Community Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter 5: Ecotourism and NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47The Role of NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 6: Ecotourism and the Tourism Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51The Links in the Tourism Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Including Private Tour Operators in the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53The Demand for Nature Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Contents

6 Ecotourism Development: A Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers

Part II: Ecotourism Planning and Management Chapter 1 Ecotourism Management Planning: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Ecotourism Planning and Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57What is an Ecotourism Management Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58Prerequisites for an Ecotourism Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Financing the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Who Prepares an Ecotourism Management Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61What Comes Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Chapter 2 Step 1: Site Conservation Planning and Preliminary Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Site Conservation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Evaluating Potential Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Preliminary Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Chapter 3 Step 2: Full Site Diagnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69An Overview of the Contents of an Ecotourism Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Full Site Diagnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

What You Need to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Question to Guide the Diagnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70How to Obtain the Diagnostic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Organizing the Diagnostic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Formalizing the Content of the Diagnostic Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Chapter 4 Step 3: Data Analysis and Preparing the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Data Analysis Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Preparing the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80EMP Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81EMP Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81Publicizing and Distributing the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Chapter 5 Step 4: Implementation of the Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Personnel-related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Programmatic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87Site Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88Stakeholder Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88Adaptive Management Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89Chapter 6 Step 5: Measures of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Completion of Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92Limits of Acceptable Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93The Process of Measuring Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95


Lists of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Table 1.1 Top Tourism Destinations in the Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Table 4.1 Potential Impacts of Tourism in Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table 6.1 Most popular destinations in Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Figure 2.1 Ecotourism Partnerships Needed for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 3.1 Ecotourism as an Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 3.2 Potential Tourism Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Figure 4.1 Essential Elements for Ecotourism in a Community Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Figure 6.1 Tourism Industry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Box 2.1 The Community of Capirona in the Amazon Region of Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Box 2.2 Who is an Ecotourist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Box 3.1 Lessons from the Galapagos National Park, Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Box 3.2 The Point-A-Pierre Wild Fowl Trust in Trinidad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Box 3.3 National Plan for Ecotourism Development in Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Box 3.4 Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Kibale Forest Reserve, Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Box 3.5 Ecotourism’s Instability — Central Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Box 4.1 The Case of the Toledo Ecotourism Association, Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Box 5.1 Tourism Planning and Development with Programme for Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Box 5.2 Asociación ANAI, the Talamanca Biological Corridor, Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Part 1


Part 11

Table 2.1 Exemplary Ecotourism Strategies for Dealing with Hypothetical Stresses and Sources to the

Lowland Pine Savanna Conservation Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Figure 1.1 Planning Context for Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Figure 1.2 Who Participates in the Planning Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Figure 1.3 Planning Process Phases for an Ecotourism Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Figure 1.4 Major Factors Involved in the Decision to Prepare a Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Figure 1.5 Sources for Support for Funding an EMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 1.6 An Overview of the Ecotourism Management and Development Planning Process . . . . . . . . . .62

Figure 3.1 An Overview of the Management and Development Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Figure 4.1 The Structure of an Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Figure 5.1 EMP Implementation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Box 2.1 Site Conservation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Box 2.2 Preliminary Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Box 3.1 Visitor Survey: Sierra del Lacandón National Park, Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

Box 3.2 Full Site Diagnostic at Sierra del Lacandón National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Box 3.3 Stakeholder Consultation at Sierra del Lacandón National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Box 3.4 Ecotourism Justification and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Box 4.1 Vision for Ecotourism in Sierra del Lacandón National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Box 4.2 Goals of Sierra del Lacandón National Park EMP, Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Box 4.3 Ecotourism Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Box 4.4 Structure of Subprograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Box 4.5 Criteria for Defining Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Box 4.6 Criteria for Activity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Box 4.7 Checklist for Strategic Planning and Recommendations Section of the EMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Part l

An Introduction to Ecotourism


The first volume of this manual series introducesthe concept of ecotourism, presents the key play-

ers and gives an overview of their roles in ecotourismplanning and development. Most chapters containillustrative examples in shaded boxes. These describehow the concepts discussed in the chapter are mani-fested in real cases.

Chapter 1 provides a brief description of how andwhy ecotourism has evolved and what it means. Thebroadly accepted definition of ecotourism is presentedalong with definitions of other terms related to eco-

tourism. Chapter 2 is a description of the various playersinvolved in ecotourism management and development.

Chapter 3 describes the roles of protected areas andtheir managers in ecotourism management and devel-opment. An overview of the role that communities playin ecotourism management and development is foundin Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 describes the role thatNGOs play in ecotourism management and develop-ment related to protected areas. Chapter 6 is a briefintroduction to the tourism industry, its structure andits role in ecotourism development.

Introduction

Ecotourists exploring the Amazon © Andy Drumm


Ecotourism DefinedEcotourism is a relatively new concept, and it is stilloften misunderstood or misused. Some people haveabused the term to attract conservation conscioustravelers to what, in reality, are simply nature tourismprograms which may cause negative environmentaland social impacts. While the term was first heard inthe 1980s, the first broadly accepted definition, andone which continues to be a valid “nutshell” definitionwas established by The (International) EcotourismSociety in 1990:

Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves thewell-being of local people.

As awareness and experience of the activity has grown,so has our need for a more comprehensive and detaileddefinition. Most recently (1999), Martha Honey hasproposed an excellent, more detailed version:

Ecotourism is travel to fragile, pristine andusually protected areas that strives to be lowimpact and (usually) small scale. It helpseducate the traveler; provides funds for conservation; directly benefits the economicdevelopment and political empowerment oflocal communities; and fosters respect for different cultures and for human rights.

However, consensus exists among organizationsinvolved with ecotourism (including The NatureConservancy) around the definition adopted in 1996by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) whichdescribes ecotourism as:

Environmentally responsible travel and visitation tonatural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciatenature (and any accompanying cultural features,both past and present) that promote conserva-tion, have a low visitor impact and provide forbeneficially active socio-economic involvement oflocal peoples.

The Nature Conservancy has adopted the concept ofecotourism as the type of tourism that it recommendsits partners use in most protected area management,especially for national parks and other areas with fairlystrict conservation objectives. For The NatureConservancy, ecotourism represents an excellent meansfor benefiting both local people and the protected areain question. It is an ideal component of a sustainabledevelopment strategy where natural resources can beutilized as tourism attractions without causing harm tothe natural area. An important tool for protected areamanagement and development, ecotourism must beimplemented in a flexible manner. However, the follow-ing elements are crucial to the ultimate success of anecotourism initiative. Ecotourism must:

❖ have a low impact upon a protected area’s naturalresources;

❖ involve stakeholders (individuals, communities, eco-tourists, tour operators and government institutions) inthe planning, development, implementation and moni-toring phases;

❖ respect local cultures and traditions;

❖ generate sustainable and equitable income for localcommunities and for as many other stakeholders aspossible, including private tour operators;

❖ generate income for protected area conservation; and

❖ educate all stakeholders about their role in conservation.

Evolution of EcotourismEcotourism is a concept that evolved over the last 20years as the conservation community, people living inand around protected areas, and the travel industrywitnessed a boom in nature tourism and realized theirmutual interests in directing its growth. Ecotourismhas brought the promise of achieving conservationgoals, improving the well-being of local communitiesand generating new business — promising a rare win-win-win situation.

Chapter 1

What is Ecotourism?


Relations among conservationists, communities andtourism practitioners have not always been smooth andcollaborative. However, the concept and practice of eco-tourism brings these different actors together. Ecotourismhas emerged as a platform to establish partnerships andto jointly guide the path of tourists seeking to experi-ence and learn about natural areas and diverse cultures.

Conservationists and EcotourismSpecific circumstances on all sides motivated this newinterest in ecotourism. On the conservation side, pro-tected area managers were in the midst of redefiningconservation strategies. For practical reasons, they werelearning to combine conservation activities with eco-nomic development as it became obvious that tradition-al conservation approaches of strict protectionism wereno longer adequate and new ways of accomplishinggoals were needed (Brandon et al., 1998).

For years, conservationists established and managedprotected areas1 through minimal collaboration with thepeople living in or near these areas. Circumstances inmany countries, particularly in developing regions, havechanged dramatically in recent years and have affectedapproaches to conservation.

Local Stakeholders and Ecotourism Over the past two decades, many developing countrieshave experienced large population increases withdeclining or stagnant economic conditions. Thesecountries have frequently been pressured into exploit-ing their natural resource base in an unsustainablefashion in order to meet immediate economic needsand to pay interest on foreign debt. This combinationleads more people to compete for fewer naturalresources. Outside protected areas, the naturalresources that many people have depended upon forsustenance and many businesses have relied upon forprofit making have disappeared.

For most countries, protected areas have becomethe last significant pieces of land that still retainimportant reserves of plant and animal diversity,water, clean air and other ecological services.Meanwhile, protected areas have become increasinglyattractive to farmers, miners, loggers and others tryingto make a living. The economic development pres-sures on these areas have intensified on local, nationaland global scales. Thus, ecotourism has become very

important for potentially reconciling conservation andeconomic considerations.

Because of this competition for resources, conser-vationists realized that local people and economic cir-cumstances must be incorporated into conservationstrategies (Redford and Mansour, 1996). In mostcases, local people need financial incentives to useand manage natural resources sustainably. Existingeconomic and political conditions often limit theiroptions and increase their reliance on natural areas.Conservation work often means creating alternativesto current economic practices so that multiple-usezones around protected areas can be maintained andthreats to protected areas minimized.

In looking for alternative economic activities, conser-vationists have become more creative and are exploringmany options. Ecotourism is one such alternative. Therationale behind ecotourism is that local tourism busi-nesses would not destroy natural resources but wouldinstead support their protection. Ecotourism wouldoffer a viable strategy to simultaneously make moneyand conserve resources. Ecotourism could be consid-ered a “sustainable” activity, one that does not diminishnatural resources being used while at the same timegenerating income.

Travel Industry and EcotourismThe explosion in nature tourism has lead to the need toaddress the impacts of the industry. The growing

Table 1.1 Top Tourism Destinations in the Americas

Country Arrivals in 2000 % change

1. United States 52,690,000 +8.7

2. Canada 20,423,000 +4.9

3. Mexico 20,000,000 +5.0

4. Brazil 5,190,000 +1.6

5. Puerto Rico 3,094,000 +2.3

6. Dominican Republic 2,977,000 +12.4

7. Chile 1,719,000 +6.0

8. Cuba 1,700,000 +8.9

source: World Tourism Organization, 2001

1 In this document, the terms “protected area” and “site” or “ecotourism site” are used interchangeably. However, a protected area usually refersto a fairly large, legally protected expanse of territory, usually administered by a government entity or whose management has been delegatedto the private sector or a coalition of government and private interests. Site and ecotourism site are more generic terms applied to any expanseof land or water where ecotourism occurs and is being managed by either the private or public sector. The term “visitor site” refers to a rela-tively small location where intensive use and management occurs within a larger ecotourism/conservation context.


demand for nature-based tourism sparked interestamong protected area managers to place tourism withina conservation context. Travelers have been the drivingforces in the evolution of ecotourism. What broughtabout this nature tourism boom? First, let us examinethe status of the tourism industry in general.

According to the World Tourism Organization(2001), world tourism grew by an estimated 7.4 percent in 2000 — its highest growth rate in nearly adecade and almost double the increase of 1999. Over698 million people traveled to a foreign country in2000 spending more than US$476 billion, an increaseof 4.5 per cent over the previous year.

The travel and tourism industry supports 200 mil-lion jobs worldwide — 1 in every 12.4 jobs. By 2010,this is estimated to grow to 250 million, or 1 in every11 jobs (WTTC and WEFA, 2000).

The fastest developing area is East Asia and thePacific with a growth rate of 14.5%. In the Americas thefastest growth is in Central America (+8.8%).

There is currently no global initiative for the gather-ing of ecotourism data. However, certain indicatorsshow us how the larger nature tourism market, of whichecotourism is a segment, is growing at a rate faster thanthat for tourism as a whole, particularly in the tropics.

Ceballos-Lascuráin (1993) reports a WTO estimatethat nature tourism generates 7% of all internationaltravel expenditure. The World Resources Institutefound that while tourism overall has been growing at anannual rate of 4%, nature travel is increasing at anannual rate of between 10% and 30% (Reingold, 1993).Data which supports this growth rate is found in Lew’ssurvey of tour operators in the Asia-Pacific region whohave experienced annual growth rates of 10% to 25%in recent years (Lew, 1997). Some other indicators ofthis growth are:

❖ Visitation to Hol Chan Marine Reserve in Belizeincreased by two-thirds over a five year period, from33,669 tourists in 1991 to 50,411 in 1996 (BelizeTourism Board, 1997).

❖ More than two-thirds of tourists in Costa Rica visitprotected areas and reserves.

❖ A survey of U.S.-based outbound ecotourism opera-tors shows that the number of operators grew by

820% between 1970 and 1994, or an average of 34%a year (Higgins, 1996).

❖ The global destinations of U.S.-based outbound eco-tourism operators’ clients were: Central America39%, South America 25%, North America 18%,Mexico and the Caribbean 5% and other regions 13%(Higgins, 1996).

❖ Ecotourism is growing at a rate of 10-15% annually,as estimated by the World Travel and TourismCouncil.2

❖ Many countries whose primary attractions are naturalareas are experiencing dramatic increases in touristarrivals. For example, arrivals in Costa Rica morethan quadrupled from 246,737 in 1986 to 1,031,585in 1999 (ICT, 2001). Belize has seen more than a600% visitor increase, from 51,740 in 1986 to334,699 ten years later (WTO, 1997).

❖ In Honduras, experts estimate that the number ofnature-loving visitors grew nearly 15% (for a total of200,000 tourists) in 1995; a 13-15% increase in visi-tors was anticipated for 1996 (Dempsey, 1996).

Why are people so attracted to nature destinations?Most likely this trend has followed the global increasein interest in the environment. As people hear about thefragility of the environment, they become more awareof conservation issues around the world. At home, theyare willing to pay more for “green” products and servic-es and are taking specific conservation actions such asrecycling. For their own pleasure, they want to learnfirst hand about endangered species and threatenedhabitats. They want to understand the complex chal-lenges of rainforest conservation and want to experiencethem first hand.

Travelers are seeking more remote destinations. Theywant to go off the beaten path, go to the heart of thejungle. Many travelers are becoming activists. As theyexperience a threatened wilderness area and learn aboutits plight, they want to help. On the demand side, wehave seen a burst of nature tourists seeking new oppor-tunities. International and national travelers are lookingfor environmental education, are willing to pay entrancefees and are eager to buy local products and servicesthat strengthen the local economy. In sum, they are anideal audience for addressing the conservation chal-lenges of these areas.

2 The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) is the Global Business Leaders’ Forum for Travel & Tourism. Its members are chief executivesfrom all sectors of the travel and tourism industry, including accommodation, catering, cruises, entertainment, recreation, transportation andtravel-related services. Its central role is to lobby governments on the industry’s behalf.


As their interests have changed, consumers haveplaced new demands on the tourism industry; this, inturn, has encouraged the greening of the tourism indus-try in addition to encouraging ecotourism. Consumersare requesting new destinations, new ways of doingbusiness and, for some, the opportunity to contributeto natural resource management. Many travel compa-nies are responding to these changing market condi-tions. Some companies are offering fewer beach vaca-tions and more wilderness treks. New companies devot-ed solely to nature travel are emerging.

This demand-side trend was destined to coincidewith the conservation trend toward effective integrationwith economic development. When they intersected,people from conservation areas, local communities andthe travel sector started talking about ecotourism as ameans to meet their common interests. Ecotourism con-nects travelers seeking to help protected areas with pro-tected areas needing help.

But while the match between conservationists andthe tourism industry initially seemed ideal, establishingpartnerships has been rocky. Each side continues in thelong process of understanding how the other functionsand all are learning to incorporate new activities intotheir work. Ecotravellers — conscious and sensitivenature tourists — constitute a growing segment of thenature tourism market that seeks sensitive interactionwith host communities in a way that contributes to sus-tainable local development. Local communities mean-while increasingly expect to play a role in the manage-ment of tourism.

Related TermsAs a popular word, ecotourism has been used loosely. Butif implemented fully, it is a critically important conserva-tion strategy for achieving sustainable development.3

There are a variety of related terms that are frequentlylinked, and sometimes confused with ecotourism, includ-ing the following:

Nature tourism is simply tourism based on visitationto natural areas. Nature tourism is closely related toecotourism but does not necessarily involve conserva-tion or sustainability. This is the type of tourism thatcurrently exists in most natural areas before a plan isestablished and conservation measures are in place. Asdifferent elements of ecotourism are integrated into anature tourism program, its effect on the environmentmay change.

Sustainable nature tourism is very close to eco-tourism but does not meet all the criteria of true eco-tourism. For example, a cable car carrying visitorsthrough the rainforest canopy may generate benefits forconservation and educate visitors, but because it repre-sents a high degree of mechanization and consequentlycreates a barrier between the visitor and the naturalenvironment, it would be inappropriate to describe asan ecotourism initiative. In altered and heavily-visitedareas, sustainable nature tourism may be an appropri-ate activity. For example, larger “eco” resort develop-ment would not be considered low impact if itrequired significant clearing of native vegetation butmay contribute to conservation financially and provideconservation education.

The line between sustainable nature tourism andecotourism is subtle but very important. A project mustmeet all of the necessary criteria listed above before itcan accurately be defined as ecotourism. Projects thatfall short on any of the criteria do not truly benefit con-servation or the people involved over the long term.

Scientific or research tourism is tourism with partic-ular investigative objectives. These types of projects arecommon in natural areas and often contribute to conserv-ing them. An example of scientific or research tourismwould be the trips coordinated by the EarthwatchInstitute. Some of these trips might qualify as ecotourismbecause they provide information about the ecology of thearea while meeting all the other criteria of ecotourism.

Cultural, ethno or cultural heritage tourismconcentrates on local traditions and people as the mainattractions. This kind of tourism can be divided intotwo types: The first and conventional type is wheretourists experience culture through museums and for-malized presentations of music and dance in theatres,hotels or occasionally in communities themselves. Inmany instances, this has lead to the “commodification”of culture as it becomes adapted for tourist consump-tion, often resulting in degradation of the hosts’ culturaltraditions. The second type is more anthropological andcontains a strong visitor motivation for learning fromindigenous culture rather than simply viewing an isolat-ed manifestation of it. For example, there is growinginterest in learning how indigenous people use naturalresources. The Cofan of Ecuador have specialized inteaching visitors about their traditional uses of medici-nal plants (Borman, 1995). This type of tourism is oftena companion to, or an element of, ecotourism.

3 Sustainable development is defined in the “Brundtland Report,” Our Common Future, as “development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).

It is important that cultural tourism be managed onterms defined by host communities and that indicatorsof the cultural impact of tourism be monitored toensure visitation does not erode the cultural resource.

Green/Sustainable tourism refers to travel opera-tions that use natural resources judiciously. Green orsustainable tourism can be considered the “greening” ofthe tourism industry. Examples include the airlineindustry becoming more energy efficient, the cruise lineindustry recycling its waste or large hotel chains adopt-ing environmental regulations. Large hotels have dis-covered that by advising guests to reduce water con-sumption or recommending that they not expect theirtowels to be washed every day, the hotels not only gaina “greener” image (which is increasingly important toconsumers), but they also reduce operating costs. Thus,green tourism is clearly an attractive proposition to theconventional tourism industry.

In reality, reducing the hotel’s water consumption by15%, although desirable and relatively easy to achieve atmost large hotels, is not enough to convert the hotel intoa sustainable operation. Sweeting et al. (1999) reviewthis issue comprehensively and make recommendationsfor reducing conventional tourism’s impact on the envi-ronment. While greening the existing conventional masstourism industry will produce some benefits, new devel-opments in natural areas, including beaches, need toaddress energy consumption, waste management andenvironmental interpretation in the design phase andnot as an afterthought if they are to be truly sustainable.Large hotels washing towels only every other day maynot be enough to protect the water table in an arid area.Not building the hotel in the first place in an area wherewater resources are scarce may be the best option.

Developing a sustainable or green tourism industryin all its dimensions is as worthy a cause as working tomaintain protected areas through tourism. In fact, somewould argue that promoting sustainability of the broad-er tourism would be a better conservation mission thanfocusing on protected areas alone. However, for thepresent purposes the focus will be on ecotourism devel-opment, and the greening of conventional tourism willbe addressed in future publications and by others.

It may be easiest to think of ecotourism (whichworks to protect natural areas through tourism) andsustainable tourism (which works to make the wholetourism industry more environmentally friendly) as twovaluable, but distinct, missions.

Working with EcotourismA comprehensive view of conservation is implicit in thedefinition of ecotourism. It incorporates elements ofcommunity participation and economic developmentincluding the many activities and participants that fulfillthis mission.

There are many possible ways that ecotourism con-tributes to conservation. First, ecotourism can generatefunds for protected areas. Second, it can create employ-ment for surrounding communities, thus providing eco-nomic incentives to support protected areas. Third, itcan advance environmental education for visitors.Fourth, it can provide justification for declaring areas asprotected or increasing support for these areas. Finally,ecotourism programs aim to limit the negative impactsof nature tourists.

These are the criteria for ecotourism. They provideuseful guidelines for judging at what point naturetourism becomes ecotourism. But this judgement is notsimple. Nor is it an academic or semantic exercise. Onlyin striving to implement ecotourism and meet all of itscriteria in appropriate places will conservation plannersand managers meet their long-term goals. We face manychallenges in applying these criteria to practical situa-tions in the field.

Actually, implementing ecotourism guidelines is adifficult and complex task. The rewards for a job welldone, however, are tremendous. Judgements about eco-tourism for a particular site must be done within thecontext of the area’s conservation objectives. As man-agers and planners investigate actual and potentialtourism impacts, both positive and negative, they needto remember the protected area’s goals and functions. Insome cases, negative impacts from tourism need to beaccepted in order to gain conservation benefits. Forexample, tourism may result in trampled vegetationalong trails but also allows for more protected areaguards to be hired. Hiring additional protected areaguards may be more important to the overall conserva-tion of the protected area than intact vegetation neartrails. Whatever the mix of costs and benefits, the keyquestion should be, “Is tourism advancing the long-term conservation agenda of the area?” If so, it is likelyecotourism.

As a final note on the definition of ecotourism, wetypically discuss it in the context of protected areas.Protected areas, private reserves and international bios-phere reserves are already slated as conservation unitsand offer the best arenas for pursuing ecotourism.


Although sometimes weak, the legal and managementstructures of these areas facilitate their ability to capturethe benefits and minimize the costs of ecotourism. Butecotourism can take place in areas with less formal con-servation status as well. In fact, there may be caseswhere ecotourism helps establish the protective statusof areas currently not formally protected.

The rest of this volume and accompanying volumesof this manual are designed to help protected area plan-ners and managers acquire the expertise to navigatesuccessfully among what may appear to be conflictinggoals of ecotourism.

ReferencesBelize Tourist Board. 1998. Belize travel and tourism statistics1997. Belize City, Belize: Belize Tourist Board.

Borman, R. 1995. La Comunidad Cofán de Zábalo. ToristaSemam’ba — Una experiencia indígena con el ecoturismo. InEcoturismo en el Ecuador. Trayectorias y desafíos, X. Izko (ed.),89-99. Colección Sistematización de Experiencias No. 1. Berne,Switzerland: DDA; Berne and Quito, Ecuador: INTERCOOPERA-TION; Quito: IUCN.

Brandon, K., K. Redford, and S. Sanderson (eds.). 1998. Parks inperil. People, politics and protected areas. Washington D.C.:Island Press.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1993. Ecotourism as a worldwide phenom-enon. In Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers,Volume 1, K. Lindberg and B. Hawkins (eds.), 12-14. N.Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Higgins, B.R. 1996. The global structure of the nature tourismindustry: Ecotourists, tour operators and local businesses. Journalof Travel Research, 35(2): 11-18.

ICT (Departamento de Recursos Naturales). 2001. TourismStatistical Polls. www.tourism-costarica.com

IUCN-The World Conservation Union. 1997. Resolutions andRecommendations. World Conservation Congress, Montreal,Canada, 13-23 October 1996. p. 60.

Izko, X. (ed.). Ecoturismo en el Ecuador. Trayectorias y desafíos.Colección Sistematización de Experiencias No. 1. Berne,Switzerland: DDA; Berne and Quito, Ecuador: INTERCOOPERA-TION; Quito: IUCN.

Lew, A. 1997. The ecotourism market in the Asia Pacific region:A survey of Asia Pacific and North American tour operators.www.for.nau.edu/~alew/ecotsvy.html

Redford, K. and J. Mansour. 1996. Traditional peoples and biodi-versity conservation in large tropical landscapes. Arlington,Virginia: América Verde Publications, The Nature Conservancy.

Reingold, L. 1993. Identifying the elusive tourist. Going Green: Asupplement in Tour and Travel News, October, 25:36-37.

Sweeting, J., G. Bruner, and A. Rosenfeld. 1999. The green hosteffect, an integrated approach to sustainable tourism and resortdevelopment. Washington D.C.: Conservation International.

World Conference on the Environment and Development (WCED).1987. Our Common Future, 43.

World Tourism Organization (WTO). 1997. Tourism market trends.Americas, 1997 Edition, Madrid, Spain.

World Tourism Organization (WTO). 2001. Millennium tourismboom in 2000. www.worldtourism.org/main/newsroom/Releases/more_releases/R0102001.html

WTTC and WEFA. 2000. Tourism satellite accounting confirmstravel and tourism as worlds foremost economic activity.www.wttc.org/press_centre/media_releases/new/000511tsafore-casts.htm

ResourcesBoo, L. 1998. Ecotourism: A conservation strategy. Unpublisheddocument submitted to the Ecotourism Program of The NatureConservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Borja N.R., J. Pérez B., J. Bremner, and P. Ospina. 2000. ParqueNacional Galápagos. Dinámicas migratorias y sus efectos enel uso de los recursos naturales. Fundación Natura, The NatureConservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Quito, Ecuador.

Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and conservation: A review ofkey issues. World Bank Environment Department Paper No. 033,Washington D.C.: World Bank

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protect-ed areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the worldand guidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland: TheWorld Conservation Union (IUCN); N. Bennington, Vermont: TheEcotourism Society.

Honey, M. 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development:Who owns paradise? Washington D.C.: Island Press.

The International Ecotourism Society. 1998. Ecotourism statisticalfact sheet. N. Bennington, Vermont: The International EcotourismSociety.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)[email protected] www.ecotourism.org TIES is an international membership organization dedicated to dis-seminating information about ecotourism. Its 1,700 members comefrom more than 55 different professions and live in more than 70different countries. Most of their members work in the tourism sec-tor, study tourism, or use tourism to support the conservation of nat-ural settings and sustain the well-being of local communities.


The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The five-S framework for site con-servation: A practitioner’s handbook for site conservation plan-ning and measuring conservation success. Available at www.con-serveonline.org.

The Nature Conservancy’s Ecotourism Program —www.nature.org/ecotourism

Planeta.com — EcoTravels in Latin Americawww2.planeta.com/mader/ecotravel/ecotravel.htmlPlaneta.com is a clearinghouse for practical ecotourism. It pro-vides more than 10,000 pages of practical features and in-depth scholarly reports and hosts a variety of online forums andconferences.

Sources of Tourism StatisticsThe ARA Consulting Group The Marine Building 355 Burrand, Suite 350 Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 2G8 CANADA Tel: 604-681-7577 Fax: 604-669-7390

Journal of Travel Research University of Colorado Campus 420 Boulder, Colorado 80309-0420 USA Tel: 303-492-8227 Fax: 303-492-3620

Tourism Works for America Council 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 450 Washington, D.C. 20005-3934 USA Tel: 202-408-8422 Fax: 202-408-1255

U.S. Travel Data Center at the Travel Industry Association of America1100 New York Avenue NW #450 West Washington D.C. 20005-3934 USA Tel: 202-408-1832 Fax: 202-293-3155

World Tourism Organization (WTO)Capitán Haya, 42 28020 Madrid, SPAIN Tel: 34-1-567-8100 Fax: 34-1-571-3733 www.world-tourism.org

The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC)1-2 Queen Victoria TerraceSovereign CourtLondon E1W 3HA UKTel: 44-870-727-9882 Fax: [email protected]



Ahuge range of players with varying interests andgoals participates in ecotourism. Some play more

prominent roles than others, but almost all are repre-sented in the development and management of eco-tourism sites. A key to the success of ecotourism is theformation of strong partnerships so that the multiplegoals of conservation and equitable development can bemet (see Figure 2.1). Partnerships may be difficultbecause of the number of players involved and their dif-ferent needs, but forging relationships is essential. Thekey players can be classified as: protected area person-nel, community organizations and individuals, privatesector tourism industry members and a variety of gov-ernment officials and nongovernmental organizations.Their effective interaction creates effective ecotourism.

Core Decision MakersProtected area managers. Ecotourism involvingprotected areas places those in charge of the areas in achallenging position. Protected area personnel areoften biologists, botanists or wildlife specialists whosejob is to protect significant marine and terrestrial sites.Their key duties usually involve conducting invento-ries, managing wildlife populations and maintainingvisitor facilities. Effective ecotourism, however,requires that protected area personnel be able to workclosely and knowledgeably with local people and com-munity leaders as well as with a wide variety oftourism industry representatives including tourismoperators, travel agents, tour guides, governmenttourism agencies and others. Protected area personnelmust be able to guide the sometimes conflicting inter-

Chapter 2

Ecotourism Participants

Figure 2.1 Ecotourism Partnerships Needed for Success

Protected Area/Site Managersplay a facilitation role in:

Successful Ecotourism

Local Communities

Tourism Industry

NGOs

GovernmentAgencies

Other Supporting

PlayersFunders

Education Sector

Ecotourists


ests of all of the ecotourism participants so that theycome together for the benefit of the protected area andits conservation goals. This task is a difficult one butcannot be left to anyone else. In some cases, however,it may be useful for NGOs to assume this role, usuallyat the request of the protected area administration.

Protected area managers and staff play crucial rolesin ecotourism. As the main authorities on their pro-tected area’s plants and animals, they provide valuableinput to create environmental education programs andimpact monitoring systems. On the frontlines of man-agement, protected area personnel are the first to

notice natural resource changes such as environmentaldamage from tourism.

Local communities. People who live in or near pro-tected areas are not a homogeneous group. Indeed,even within one small community there will be a diver-sity of people with a range of views and experiences.But we can make a few generalizations about local resi-dents and their relationship to ecotourism. First, somerural communities that once featured quiet living arefinding themselves in the middle of an internationaltrend. Nature tourists are invading their homelands, but

This program was established in 1990 to discourage the intru-sion of oil development. Since then, the ecotourism operationhas expanded into not only a more effective means of ensuringthe autonomy of indigenous territory but also a template forother ecotourism initiatives. Known around the world as one ofthe first community-based ecotourism programs anywhere(Colvin, 1994; Wesche, 1993, 1995), Capirona offers simplelodgings set in secondary tropical rainforest mixed with oppor-tunities for intercultural exchange. Capirona’s territory covers2,000 hectares of land, three-quarters of which is intact pri-mary forest and the remainder reserved by the community’s 70families for agricultural purposes.

There are three sleeping cabañas in the central area of thecommunity. The cabañas have a mix of dormitory-style anddouble rooms with a total of 30 beds. Guests share two batter-ies of showers and flush toilets. The main tourism complex alsoincludes a store (where soft drinks and handicrafts can be pur-chased), a kitchen/dining cabaña, a theater, a volleyball court,a beach, a two-way radio, a well, latrines, two large motorcanoes, two dugout paddle canoes and several well-main-tained walking trails. Those who wish to experience a moreadventurous night in the jungle can use a much more rusticcabaña located 45 minutes away by foot. The community plansto renovate this building into a fully-equipped cabaña in thenear future.

Every stay in the Capirona community includes a culturalpresentation of song, dance and the making of Quichua handi-crafts performed in a theater built solely for that purpose. In thisintercultural exchange visitors are also asked to present theirown culture in song, dance or story. The ecotourism programincludes easy jungle walks to giant ceibo and colorful capironatrees, a birders’ lookout spot and a salt lick cavern for viewingnocturnal creatures. Intermixed with these activities are hours of

free time during which tourists can swim in the river, play vol-leyball, tan on the beach, explore the surrounding paths or readup on Quichua history. Guests are often encouraged to partici-pate in a community work project. Every visit to Capironaincludes a tour of the community including the schoolhouses, thechapel and the soccer field. Samples of chicha, a traditionalstaple in the Quichua diet, can be tasted here too. These pro-gram components take place over a three to six night stay.

Capirona is a community-owned ecotourism program thatrotates the project’s workers and administrators on a regularbasis. The four trained guides manage visitor activities, interac-tions with the community and special requests. Capirona willcontinue to invest in its human resources by arranging for addi-tional guiding courses and supplementary training for thosealready involved in ecotourism.

The local conservation NGO Fundación Jatun Sacha, whichhas a field station nearby, works with the community to helptrain guides and also sends Ecuadorian and foreign students tolearn about the Capirona example and appreciate how tourismcan be used to protect nature and indigenous culture.

The community receives around 1,000 visitors per year andhas generated significant revenues that have boosted individualand family subsistence incomes and created a community fundfor health and education. In order to offset potential negativeimpacts and to share the benefits of tourism with the broaderQuichua community in the region of the Upper Napo, commu-nity leaders created a network of communities called RICANCIE(Red Indígena Comunitaria del Alto Napo de ConvivenciaIntercultural y Ecoturismo) based on the Capirona model. Thisnetwork now receives clients through a centralized office in theprovincial capital of Tena.

adapted from Wesche and Drumm, 1999

Box 2.1 The Community of Capirona in the Amazon Region of Ecuador


they are generally just passing through the neighbor-hood, not coming to meet residents.

Residents have mixed reactions to this intrusion.Some want nothing to do with tourists; they want pri-vacy and do not welcome the changes that tourismbrings. Others are intrigued by tourism and are takingsteps to develop it. Tourism may be particularly alluringif other employment options are limited or if residentsfeel tourism may help protect their precious resources.

Many communities in developing countries are hostingvisitors and creating ecotourism programs. Sometimestheir motivation is to protect their surrounding naturalresources. For others, they may see ecotourism in a moreeconomic perspective, as a means to gain income. Manycommunities have organized their own ecotourism pro-grams. Box 2.1 describes one such community.

Whatever their initial reaction to tourism, local resi-dents are often unprepared for its demands. Those whodo not want tourism have no means to stop it. They oftencannot compete with the powerful tourism industry orthe fiercely independent travelers who want to discovernew areas. Those who are interested in pursuing tourismmay not be familiar with its costs and benefits. Many havelittle experience in tourism business enterprises and arenot connected to international tourism markets.

The interests and concerns of local residents regard-ing tourism development need special attention.Tourism touches all the other groups involved profes-

sionally, in a mostly economic sense. For members ofcommunities, it also touches their personal lives byaffecting their lifestyles, traditions and cultures, as wellas their livelihood and their long standing ways oforganizing themselves socially and politically. In addi-tion, most of the other players enter into tourism vol-untarily, whereas in many cases communities must dealwith tourism impacts whether or not they choose to.

Local residents play an important role in ecotourismfor two main reasons. First, it is their homelands and

workplaces that are attractingnature travelers. Equity and prac-ticality require that they be activedecision-makers in ecotourismplanning and management.Second, local residents are keyplayers in conserving naturalresources both within and outsideof neighboring protected areas.Their relationship to and uses ofnatural resources will determinethe success of conservation strate-gies for protected areas. In addi-tion, local or traditional knowl-edge is often a key component ofvisitors’ experience and educa-tion.

Tourism industry. The tourismindustry is massive. It involves ahuge variety of people including:tour operators and travel agents

who assemble trips; airline and cruise ship employees;minivan drivers; staff of big hotels and small familylodges; handicraft makers; restaurant owners; tourguides; and all the other people who independently offergoods and services to tourists. The complexity of thissector indicates how challenging it can be for protectedarea staff and local communities to learn about and formpartnerships with the tourism industry.

Consumers are in contact with many members of thetourism industry throughout their journeys. For an inter-national trip, the traveler often first contacts a travel agent,tour operator or airline. The agent will generally contactan outbound tour operator based in the tourist’s countryof origin, who in turn will contact an inbound tour opera-tor based in the destination country. The inbound touroperator is best placed to make local travel arrangementssuch as transportation, accommodations, and guide serv-ices. Once the traveler is at the destination, many localentrepreneurs will also become part of this scenario.

Indigenous Cofan guides explain traditional medicinal plant use toEuropean ecotourists © Andy Drumm

One element that binds all businesses within thetourism industry is the pursuit of financial profit. Theremay be additional motivations for some businesses, par-ticularly those involved in ecotourism, but tourismcompanies exist only when they are profitable.

Members of the tourism industry are valuable to eco-tourism for many reasons. First, they understand traveltrends. They know how consumers act and what theywant. Second, the tourism industry can influence trav-elers by encouraging good behavior and limiting nega-tive impacts in protected areas. Third, the tourismindustry plays a key role in promoting ecotourism. Itsmembers know how to reach travelers through publica-tions, the Internet, the media and other means of pro-motion, thus providing a link between ecotourism des-tinations and consumers. See Eagles and Higgins (1998)for a more detailed analysis of the structure of the eco-tourism industry.

Government officials. Officials from many govern-ment departments participate in ecotourism planning,development and management. These departmentsinclude tourism, natural resources, wildlife and protect-ed areas, education, community development, financesand transportation. Ecotourism involves officials prima-rily from the national level, although regional and locallevels also contribute to the process.

Government officials have several significant func-tions in ecotourism. They provide leadership. Theycoordinate and articulate national goals for ecotourism.As part of their overall tourism plans, they providevision for this industry. They may even propose anational ecotourism plan; in Australia, the governmentcreated a National Ecotourism Strategy and then com-mitted AUS$10 million for its development and imple-mentation (Preece et al., 1995).

Government officials at the national level may alsoestablish specific policies for protected areas. For example,government officials decide about visitor use fee systemsat protected areas, and their policies outline what systemsare established and how revenues will be distributed.They may also delineate private sector practices, e.g., touroperators may be required to use local tour guides in cer-tain areas or developers’ property ownership rights maybe regulated. Government policies direct ecotourismactivities and may easily advance or hinder their growth.

Additionally, government officials are responsible formost basic infrastructure outside protected areas rang-ing from airline facilities in big cities to secondary roads

leading to remote sites. The government generally takesthe lead in all major transportation systems and issues.It may also provide other services important to eco-tourism such as health clinics in rural areas.

Finally, government officials promote ecotourism.Sometimes the promotion is part of a national tourismcampaign. At other times, advertisements for specificnature sites are created or perhaps a flagship species isidentified and promoted. National government partici-pation gives prominence to ecotourism destinations.

Nongovernmental organizations. Nongovernmentalorganizations are valuable players because they pro-vide a forum for discussion and influence regardingecotourism. They offer a means of communicationwith great numbers of interested individuals. Theseorganizations can serve as vehicles for bringingtogether all the elements of ecotourism. NGOs canplay many different roles in ecotourism implementa-tion: directly, as program managers or site administra-tors; and indirectly, as trainers, advisors, businesspartners with ecotourism companies or communitiesand, in exceptional circumstances, as providers ofecotourism services.

There are several different types of nongovernmentalorganizations. Among them are for-profit tourism asso-ciations consisting of private tour operators, airlinesand hoteliers; ecotourism associations such as those inBelize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, etc., that bring togethergroups from all the sectors involved; and other tradeorganizations that handle travel issues. These NGOsoften have members who meet regularly and communi-cate industry concerns through publications such asnewsletters. Members are often asked to subscribe tocertain principles or “codes of ethics.” These associa-tions and organizations are effective at keeping theindustry informed about current trends and events.

Another set of nongovernmental organizationsinvolved with ecotourism includes the private, nonprof-it groups that focus on conservation and developmentor may be dedicated specifically to ecotourism. Theirfocus may be local, national or international.Frequently, these organizations serve as facilitatorsbetween protected areas, communities and all the otherplayers in ecotourism, sometimes providing financialand technical assistance or directly managing eco-tourism sites. Some of these NGOs have constituenciesthat enjoy nature and would be interested in eco-tourism education and promotion.



Supporting PlayersFunders. Many different groups can fund the develop-ment of ecotourism through loans or grants: financialinstitutions, including investment corporations; bilateraland multilateral donor agencies such as the World Bankand the Interamerican Development Bank; privateinvestors; venture capital funds such as theEcoEnterprise Investment Fund; NGOs; and privatebanks. These contributions are often critical for protect-ed areas that pursue ecotourism. Typically there arestudies to carry out, facilities to build, infrastructure tocreate and people to train. With protected area budgetsso limited, outside funding is necessary.

Several international NGOs based in the UnitedStates and Europe provide funding and/or technicalassistance to ecotourism projects in developing coun-tries. Many of them use funding provided by govern-ment agencies such as USAID, GTZ and DFID, thegovernmental foreign aid departments of the UnitedStates, Germany and the United Kingdom, respectively.The Nature Conservancy, through its USAID-fundedParks in Peril program, has helped many local NGOs

develop ecotourism projects connected with protectedareas. The recently created EcoEnterprise Fund alsoprovides funding on favorable terms for sound eco-tourism project proposals (see Volume II, Part II).

Financial institutions do not generally participate inplanning for ecotourism or in decisions about what isappropriate for a particular protected area. In thisregard, they may be considered a second-tier player inecotourism, but they are important nonetheless. Foranyone that wants to develop ecotourism, access tofunds is often the biggest obstacle confronted (seeVolume II, Part II).

Academics. Academics at universities is another groupthat plays a secondary, though valuable, role in theplanning and daily functions of ecotourism. It is agroup that helps to frame the issues of ecotourism andraise questions to ensure that ecotourism meets its stat-ed goals. Researchers and academics facilitate learningby asking such questions as: Who exactly is benefitingfrom ecotourism? How do we measure benefits? Howdoes ecotourism contribute to our existing knowledge

Box 2.2 Who is an Ecotourist?

The International Ecotourism Society constructed the following ecotourist market profile in 1998 based on a survey of North American travelers.

Age: Ranged from 35-54 years old, although age varied with activity and other factors such as cost.

Gender: 50% were female and 50% male, although clear differences by activity were found.

Education: 82% were college graduates. A shift in interest in ecotourism was found from those who have high

levels of education to those with less education, indicating ecotourism’s expansion into mainstream

markets.

Household composition: No major differences were found between general tourists and experienced ecotourists.**

Party composition: A majority (60%) of experienced ecotourism respondents stated they prefer to travel as a couple;

only 15% preferred to travel with their families and 13% preferred to travel alone.

Trip duration: The largest group of experienced ecotourists (50%) preferred trips lasting 8-14 days.

Expenditure: Experienced ecotourists were willing to spend more than general tourists; the largest group (26%)

was prepared to spend $1,001- $1,500 per trip.

Important elements of trip: Experienced ecotourists’ top three responses were: (1) wilderness setting, (2) wildlife viewing, and

(3) hiking/trekking. Experienced ecotourists’ top two motivations for taking their next trip were:

(1) enjoy scenery/nature and (2) new experiences/places.

** Experienced ecotourists = Tourists who had been on at least one “ecotourism” trip. Ecotourism was defined in this study asnature/adventure/culture oriented travel.

from Ecotourist Market Profile completed by HLA and ARA consulting firms; The International Ecotourism Society, 1998


about conservation? What are the links between eco-tourism and tourism? Academics can focus on the bigpicture and help us understand how ecotourism inter-acts with other concepts and global trends.

In addition to helping shape the hypotheses, aca-demics conduct research. In coordination with NGOs,governments and local communities, they may:

❖ develop and execute surveys, e.g., of visitor prefer-ences, willingness to pay, etc.;

❖ produce data about tourism patterns;

❖ inventory flora and fauna;

❖ document tourism impacts and share results to devel-op a good base of information;

❖ provide material to guide us in our discussions andconclusions about ecotourism; and

❖ facilitate the sharing of this information and concep-tual thinking through conferences, publications, theInternet, etc.

Travelers. Travelers have a unique position as playersin ecotourism. Box 2.2 provides a profile of ecotourists.They are the most vital participants in the industry andprovide motivation for everyone else’s activities, but fewparticipate in formal meetings about ecotourism.Nevertheless, the choices they make when they select atourism destination, choose a tour operator or travelagent and, ultimately, the kind of tour in which theywish to participate, have a tremendous impact upon theeventual success or failure of ecotourism projects.

Ecotourism, then, is a multifaceted, multi-discipli-nary, multi-actor activity requiring communication andcollaboration among a diverse range of actors with dif-ferent needs and interests. Consequently, achieving eco-tourism is a challenging process though ultimatelyenormously rewarding for all involved.

ReferencesColvin, J. 1994. Capirona: A model of indigenous ecotourism.Second Global Conference: Building a Sustainable World throughTourism. Montreal, Canada.

Eagles, P. and B. Higgins. 1998. Ecotourism market and industrystructure. In Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers,Volume 2, K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood, and D. Engeldrum (eds.),11-43. N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

The International Ecotourism Society. 1998. Ecotourism statisti-cal fact sheet. N. Bennington, Vermont: The InternationalEcotourism Society.

Preece, N., P. van Oosterzee, and D. James. 1995. Two waytrack: Biodiversity conservation and ecotourism. Australia:Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.

Wesche, R. 1993. Ecotourism and indigenous peoples in theresource frontier of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Yearbook,Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 19:35-45.

Wesche, R. 1995. The ecotourist’s guide to the EcuadorianAmazon: Napo Province. Quito: CEPEIGE.

Wesche, R. and A.F. Drumm. 1999. Defending our rainforest: Aguide to community-based ecotourism in the EcuadorianAmazon. Quito, Ecuador: Acción Amazonia.

ResourcesDFID. 1999. Changing the nature of tourism. Developing anagenda for action. London: DFID.


Lindberg, K. 1991. Policies for maximizing nature tourism’secological and economic benefits. Washington D.C.: WorldResources Institute.

Lindberg, K. and J. Enriquez. 1994. An analysis of ecotourism’seconomic contribution to conservation and development inBelize. Washington D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Lindberg, K., M. Epler Wood, and D. Engeldrum (eds.). 1998.Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers, Volume 2.N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Asociación Ecuatoriana de Ecoturismo (ASEC)Calle Víctor Hugo E10-111 y Isla PinzónCiudadela JipijapaQuito, ECUADORTel: 245-055 and 466-295 [email protected] www.planeta.com/ecotravel/south/ecuador/asec.htmlThe Ecuadorian Ecotourism Association brings together privatetourism companies with NGOs, universities and community-based organizations to promote ecotourism development.

Asociación Mexicana de Turismo de Aventura y Ecoturismo(Mexican Association of Adventure Travel and Ecotourism-Amtave)Mexico City, MEXICO Tel: 52-5-663-5381 [email protected] www.amtave.comA group of about 50 travel providers with various interpreta-tions of ecotourism. The group was formed in 1994 to assistmembers in promoting alternative tourism services.

Conservation International - EcoTravel Centerwww.ecotour.org/ecotour.htmWashington DC-based environmental group which has devel-oped a number of ecotourism projects in Latin America andsponsors a global Ecotourism Excellence Award.

Department for International Development (DFID)DFID is the government department responsible for managingBritain’s program of development assistance and for ensuringthat government policies which affect developing countries,including the environment, trade, investment and agriculturalpolicies, take account of developing country issues.

Departamento de Recursos Naturales/ICT (Costa Rican Tourism Institute)San Jose, COSTA RICA Tel: 506-223-1733, ext. [email protected] www.turismo-sostenible.co.crA Costa Rican government office which is developing certifi-cation standards for green hotels.

The EcoEnterprises Fund www.ecoenterprisesfund.com www.fondoecoempresas.comThe fund — a joint initiative of The Nature Conservancy andthe Inter-American Development Bank — uses the tools andprinciples of venture capital to protect natural areas in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. It is an adventure fund fornature, uniting business and conservation.

KiskeyaP.O. Box 109-ZZona ColonialSanto Domingo, REP. DOMINICANATel: 1-809-537 89 77 [email protected] www.kiskeya-alternative.org/cangonet/Enterprising organization focusing on ecotourism as well asindigenous dance. Works mostly in the Caribbean.

Organization of American States — Tourism Unitwww.oas.org/tourismMultinational group charged with promoting both tourism anddevelopment in the region.

USAIDwww.usaid.gov/The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)is the US government agency responsible for foreign assistance.The Nature Conservancy, USAID and other partners in theCaribbean and Latin America have developed the Parks in Perilprogram — an emergency effort to safeguard the most importantand imperiled natural areas in the tropical world, such as cloudforests, tropical forests and savannas. By bringing on-site man-agement to 37 critical areas since 1990, Parks in Peril has pro-tected more than 28 million acres in 15 countries.www.parksinperil.org



IntroductionBy definition, ecotourism is about traveling to and visit-ing natural areas, places where nature still exists in a rela-tively unaltered state. In a world where population pres-sure and increased resource consumption are placinghuge demands upon our natural resource base, naturalareas are increasingly hard to find. At the same time, ourglobal cultural heritage is under attack, making it increas-ingly difficult to learn from other cultures and to remainin touch with cultural roots throughout the world. Today,the remaining natural areas are mostly protected in someway. Ecotourism attractions, whether they are wildlifeviewing possibilities or dramatic natural landscapes, tendto be found in these protected natural areas.

Protected areas began evolving in the 19th centurylargely as a response to these pressures. By “protectedarea” we mean a piece of land (or body of water)which is characterized by the following:

1. The area has defined borders.

2. The area is managed and protected by an identifiableentity or individual, usually a government agency.Increasingly, though, governments are delegatingresponsibility for protected areas to other entities thatare private, public or a combination thereof.

3. The area has established conservation objectives thatits management pursues.

The rapid increase in the numbers and territorialcoverage of protected areas since the 1960s coincideswith more rapid increases in the aforementioned pres-sures. Traditionally, protected areas are set aside andmanaged by government authorities in order to protectendangered species or examples of outstanding scenicbeauty. In much of the southern hemisphere, financialpressures on government budgets, global trendstowards decentralization and a society which increas-ingly values the role of nongovernmental participationhave caused some profound changes in the way protect-ed areas are being administered and managed.

These changes are manifested in two major ways:

1. Protected areas are increasingly expected to generatesome portion of the funding necessary for their ownmanagement.

2. Many other organizations, both private and public, arebecoming involved in the management and conserva-tion of protected areas, either in partnership with thetraditional government agencies in charge of protectedareas or by managing their own protected areas.

An additional responsibility of park managers is tobring conservation to the people. Without a constituencyfor conservation, we will ultimately fail. This constituen-cy can be local, national and international. Ecotourism iscrucial for achieving this goal and not just as a source ofconservation finance. The link between ecotourism andprotected areas is therefore inevitable and profound.

The Role of EcotourismTourism and ecotourism are usually a part of the man-agement strategy for a protected area. The degree towhich tourism activities are pursued depends upon thepriority assigned to them by the area managers, who inturn should be guided by a planning document pre-pared for that purpose. The planning document (ormanagement plan) should be the result of a comprehen-sive evaluation of the area’s natural and cultural resourcebase. It determines the stresses, their sources and thereal threats to the area’s natural and cultural integrity, aswell as the strategies to reduce these threats. The planshould define the area’s long-term management objec-tives and a zoning scheme that identifies where certainactivities may take place (see Part II, Chapter 4).

What we have is a coming together of two differentforces to create a symbiotic relationship: ecotourism needsprotected areas, and protected areas need ecotourism.

Ecotourism is increasingly being considered as amanagement strategy for protected areas that, if imple-

Chapter 3

Ecotourism and Protected Areas


The Galapagos National Park is located in the Galapagos

Islands and lies on the equator about 1,000 kilometers off the

coast of Ecuador. Both the terrestrial national park and the

Galapagos Marine Reserve are internationally recognized for

their extraordinary ecosystems, their remarkable state of conser-

vation, their easily observable evolutionary processes, their rich

biodiversity and the high level of endemism of their plant and

animal species.

Although the national park was created in 1959, active park

administration and organized tourism did not begin until 1968.

Both park administrators and tourism industry representatives

quickly realized that if they did not work together to ensure that

tourism was carried out responsibly, the unique characteristics

of the Galapagos ecosystem could be greatly deteriorated. A

comprehensive management plan for the park was prepared in

1974 which included a list of approved visitor sites and a zon-

ing system that determined where tourism (and other activities)

would occur.

The park service, together with the Charles Darwin Research

Station (CDRS), instituted a naturalist guide system in 1975. All

tour groups are required to travel with a guide, and all guides

are required to pass a training course in order to receive a

license to work in the park. This requirement has encouraged

many local residents to become involved with tourism and, via

the training course and their experiences in the park, to

increasingly value conservation of the resources of the park

and the reserve. The guide system has also helped to enforce

park regulations and to increase the park management’s pres-

ence throughout its 7,000 sq. km. of territory. Guides have

also been instrumental in ensuring that visitors become educat-

ed about the incredible conservation value that the Galapagos

Islands represent.

The first management plan established a maximum capacity

of 12,000 visitors per year for the park, a figure which was

rapidly surpassed as tourism mushroomed to its present level of

approximately 66,000 visitors annually (Benitez, 2001). While

several efforts have been made over the years to establish a

carrying capacity for the park, it has been difficult to enforce

the limits due to the complexity and number of factors that con-

tribute to tourism in the Galapagos National Park. It has gradu-

ally become evident that managing the individual visitor sites for

their individual capacities as well as aggressively monitoring

visitor impacts are more effective ways to manage tourism num-

bers. The park authorities adjust boat itineraries to ensure that

visitor numbers are kept within established site visitation limits.

The original entrance fee of US$6 has now reached US$100.

This has not reduced the flow of visitors to the islands, but it has

allowed the Ecuadorian government to capture a greater share

of tourist expenditure there. For many years, all of the income

generated by the Galapagos National Park returned to the

national treasury. With the creation of the Marine Reserve and

the consequent greater responsibility of protecting the marine

portions of the Galapagos Islands, which could not be achieved

without the support and participation of several government

entities, the entrance fee receipts are currently divided between

the national park, local municipalities, the CDRS and other gov-

ernment agencies. It is expected that this funding distribution

will generate a more holistic approach to environmental protec-

tion in the Galapagos Islands.

Recent illegal fishing in the marine reserve has created a

great deal of conflict between conservationists and resource

exploitation interests. The various stakeholders, led by the park

and the CDRS, have established a process of conflict resolution

and participatory planning for the marine ecosystem called

Participatory Management (Benitez, 2001). The principal stake-

holders sit down at the same table and reach conclusions about

catch size, locations for fishing and other related matters. Their

first efforts led to a Special Law for the Galapagos in 1998

which has helped settle many issues related to the marine

reserve as well as tourism in the islands. Many conflicts could

have been avoided if Participatory Management had been in

place when tourism was beginning.

Tourism in the Galapagos Islands began when “ecotourism”

did not exist. Yet, through trial and error, park managers and

tourism industry representatives have gradually created a situa-

tion which closely approximates what ecotourism represents:

benefits to the community, the private sector and resource con-

servation; visitor education; economic sustainability for the

national park; and visitor impact management. It has not been

easy nor is the present situation perfect. Yet an important

group of diverse interests has been created which will ensure

that the unique qualities of the Galapagos Islands will continue

to be protected.

Box 3.1 Lessons from the Galapagos National Park, Ecuador


mented appropriately, constitutes an ideal sustainableactivity. It is designed to:

❖ have minimum impact upon the ecosystem;

❖ contribute economically to local communities;

❖ be respectful of local cultures;

❖ be developed using participatory processes whichinvolve all stakeholders; and

❖ be monitored in order to detect negative and positiveimpacts.

There are many compelling reasons why conserva-tionists and protected area managers are consideringecotourism as a protected area management tool (seethe Galapagos Islands case in Box 3.1). These includethe following:

1. Conventional tourism sometimes appears as a sourceof stress on the biodiversity of a protected area. Inother cases, ecotourism can be regarded as an appro-priate strategy for addressing threats to conservationtargets. Nature tourists are presently going to protectedareas in growing numbers. At a minimum, managersmust control tourism’s negative impacts. Even if elabo-rate visitor centers and extensive tourism businessesare not created, measures must be taken to ensure thatthese growing numbers of visitors do not negativelyimpact the biodiversity values of a protected area.These measures include increasing staff, developingmonitoring systems and refining environmental educa-tion efforts. Managing visitors and minimizing impactsis a primary responsibility of protected area managers.

2. Ecotourism can capture economic benefits for pro-tected areas. Visitors with no place to spend moneyare missed opportunities. Hundreds of thousands ofdollars of potential revenue currently are being lostboth to protected area managers and local communi-ties because tourists do not have adequate opportuni-ties to pay fees and buy goods and services.

3. Properly implemented, ecotourism can become animportant force for improving relations between localcommunities and protected area administrations. Thisrelationship is perhaps the most difficult aspect ofecotourism since it involves levels of communicationand trust between different cultures and perspectivesthat have traditionally been difficult to achieve.

4. Ecotourism can provide a better option than othercompeting economic activities for natural areas. Manynatural areas are threatened and need to be fortified inorder to survive; ecotourism may help guard againstsome of these threats and competing land uses. Forexample, a successful ecotourism program can forestall

implementation of logging in an area by generatinggreater revenues, especially over the long term.

5. By implementing ecotourism in protected areas, weare demonstrating that tourism need not be massiveand destructive. We are demonstrating that, evenwithin the fragile environment of protected areas,sustainable development can work.

Opportunities and ThreatsTourism presents a mix of opportunities and threats forprotected areas. Ecotourism seeks to increase opportu-nities and to reduce threats. If an opportunity is realized,then it becomes a benefit. If a threat is not avoided,then it becomes a cost. There are no automatic benefitsassociated with ecotourism; success depends on goodplanning and management. Carelessly planned or poor-ly implemented ecotourism projects can easily becomeconventional tourism projects with all of the associatednegative impacts.

Opportunities and threats, and consequently benefitsand costs, will vary from situation to situation, fromgroup to group and from individual to individual with-in groups. Benefits to one group may be costs to anoth-er. Determining which opportunities to pursue andwhich threats to abate is a subjective decision that canbest be made by involving all stakeholders. Ranking theimportance of each benefit is part of the compromisinginvolved in the ecotourism planning process.

The entire spectrum of ecotourism’s opportunities andthreats does not apply to every protected area. For exam-ple, in a protected area that attracts primarily domesticvisitors, opportunities to generate foreign exchange arelimited, but good opportunities may exist to raise conser-vation awareness locally. Environmental degradation willvary depending on the fragility of natural resources andthe types of activities that are permitted. The circum-

EnvironmentalEducation

Ecotourism

CulturalExchange

VisitorAppreciation/

Awareness BiodiversityMaintenance/Improvement

Employment

Protected AreaJustification

RevenueGeneration

Figure 3.1 Ecotourism as an Opportunity

stances of each protected area create a particular set ofopportunities and threats.

The remainder of this chapter identifies anddescribes the opportunities and threats that tourismdevelopment represents for a protected area.

Potential Opportunities of Ecotourism

Revenue GenerationBringing money into protected areas is a major concernof conservationists. Governmental funds available forprotected areas have been decreasing globally, and manyimportant natural areas will not survive without newsources of revenue. Tourism offers opportunities to gen-erate revenue in diverse ways, such as entrance fees, userfees, concessions to the private sector and donations.New funds allow protected area managers to handletourists better and to hold the line against other threats.

Entrance or visitor use fees are charged directlyto visitors to see and experience an area. Collected atthe gate, entrance fees have various structures. In somecases, a flat fee is charged. In other cases, multi-fee sys-tems are established with various rates for differenttypes of users. Typically, foreign tourists are chargedmore than local visitors are. User fees are charged forspecific activities or for using special equipment in aprotected area, such as electrical hook-ups when camp-ing or various rental fees.

Private sector concessions include snack bars,restaurants, lodges, gift shops, canoe rentals and tourguides. All of these can be privately owned or managedwith a portion of the profits returned to the protectedarea. This arrangement is favorable because it reducesbusiness responsibilities assigned to untrained or unin-terested protected area personnel. Concessions allowprotected areas to benefit from the energy and profits ofprivate sector enterprises. However, concessions mustbe negotiated for the protected area’s long-term benefitand must be monitored closely. This monitoringensures, for example, that the concessionaire is comply-ing with contracted services such as trash removal, trailmaintenance, etc.

Donations may be solicited through a simple box atthe door or perhaps via a more sophisticated campaignsuch as an “adopt-an-endangered-species” program.Protected areas with threatened or unique plants and ani-mals can request financial assistance for them. Visitorswho have just completed a fascinating nature experienceare a perfect audience for this type of appeal. Many pro-tected areas report a high rate of success with setting up

donation programs for specific campaigns. For example,Fundación Natura in Colombia and ANCON in Panamahave successful “adopt-a-hectare” programs. TheGalapagos Islands National Park has a successful “Friendsof Galapagos” program. Such programs and funds shouldbe established parts of any ecotourism program to a pro-tected area. Ecotourists want to contribute to conserva-tion — let’s not deny them the opportunity!

There may be other ways tourism can bring revenueto protected areas. For example, visitors may also be“virtual,” which entails visiting a web site that has beenestablished for a protected area. Donations may also besolicited from a much larger audience of such virtualvisitors. For some protected areas, tourism can becomethe primary revenue generator. For others, it will beonly one of many sources of financial contributions. Butfor almost all protected areas, visitors should be consid-ered a readily available and accessible income sourcethat should be exploited equitably for long-term sus-tainability and to promote return visits.

A key issue is to ensure that money generatedthrough tourism stays within the protected area and isused for conservation purposes. Refer to Volume II,Part I, Chapter 5, “Revenue Generating Mechanisms,”for more information on this topic.

Employment CreationNew jobs are often cited as the biggest gain fromtourism. Protected areas may hire new guides, guards,researchers or managers to meet increased ecotourismdemands. In surrounding communities, residents maybecome employed as taxi drivers, tour guides, lodgeowners or handicraft makers, or they may participate inother tourism enterprises.

In addition, other types of employment may be aug-mented indirectly through tourism. More bricklayersmay be needed for construction. More vegetables maybe needed at new restaurants. More cloth may be need-ed to make souvenirs. Many employment sources areenhanced as tourism grows.

In some cases, community residents are good candi-dates for tourism jobs because they know the localenvironment well. Residents are ideal sources of infor-mation; for example, they can tell visitors why certainplants flower at particular times and what animals areattracted to them. As indigenous residents of the area,community members have much to offer in ecotourismjobs. However, care must be taken to protect the rights(sometimes referred to as intellectual property rights) of


local peoples so that their knowledge is not exploited orappropriated unfairly by visitors or a tourism program.

The Kimana Group Ranch, outside of AmboseliNational Park in Kenya, gained international attentionfor establishing the first community wildlife sanctuaryin Africa. Managed by the Masai ranchers, Kimana hasits own warden, guides, entry gate and lodge conces-sions (Western, 1997).

We should not overstate the value of ecotourismemployment in rural areas. There are a few importantcaveats to consider. First, while there is often talk of bigtourism dollars, ecotourism will generally not be an eco-nomic bonanza for an entire community. More realistical-ly, it will generate some jobs, depending on how popularthe protected area is, but will not automatically becomean income provider for hundreds of people.Furthermore, many ecotourism jobs will be part timeand seasonal and should be considered only supplemen-tal to other sources of income. Overall, ecotourismemployment will likely be limited for most communities.

A second concern about ecotourism employment isthe nature of jobs for communities. Typically, few man-agement and ownership positions are available. Tourismwill always have many service positions, because it is alabor-intensive industry. But communities may resentecotourism if their members are not represented in thehigher levels of employment. The profitability oftourism for local residents is minimized if they areoffered only menial jobs and not given opportunities foradvancement. Additionally, gender inequities may begenerated while the higher paying guiding and manage-ment jobs all go to men and women are restricted tolower paying laundry, cleaning and cooking positions.

Another hurdle to ecotourism employment is theissue of training. For many residents, new employmentis a major personal and professional transition. It soundsgood on paper that former loggers may become tourguides, thereby conserving the trees they used to cut.But redirecting careers is a big undertaking. New jobcandidates need information on all facets of ecotourismmanagement. They need training in business develop-ment as well as such basics as languages, food prepara-tion, first aid, motorboat maintenance, interpretation,group management, etc. They need access to interna-tional markets. New tourism jobs require new skills andtherefore training. Ecotourism project plans need tobudget for these training costs over the long term.

In addition, there are many social and cultural consid-erations in switching jobs; it involves lifestyle changes.

Diversifying into nature tourism jobs may change theway communities look and operate. Conflicts among res-idents may develop. For example, tourism jobs are likelyhigher paying than traditional sources of income. Withina community, a farmer may earn the equivalent of US$50a month. A neighbor working as a tour guide may earnthe same amount with one tip from a wealthy tourist.Will these inequalities create jealousies? How are theseresolved? Who gets the coveted tourism jobs if there aremore candidates than opportunities? Does a communitywant to become a tourist destination if it means losingtraditional economic foundations, such as agriculture?

One important issue to keep in mind when evaluat-ing the effectiveness of ecotourism jobs is what employ-ment alternatives the local populations have. In manycases, ecotourism may be the best option if the otherpotential land uses are more threatening to the survivalof the area’s natural resources, even if these ecotourismjobs are few and flawed. In analyzing ecotourism jobs,it is essential to keep in mind their relationship tothreats to the biodiversity of an area. For more discus-sion of ecotourism and communities, please refer to thechapter in Volume II, Part II, “Developing Ecotourismwith Local Communities.”

Justification for Protected AreasVisitors, or the potential to attract visitors, are amongthe reasons that government officials and residents sup-port protected areas. For government officials, declaringareas protected and providing the financial assistance tomaintain them is often a difficult process. These officialsface many competing interests in making decisionsabout how to use land and marine resources. Conservingprotected areas requires long-term vision; this is often achallenge for government officials, especially when con-fronted with the prospect of short-term financial gainsfor logging, mining and agriculture activities.

But as government officials review land and water-useoptions, nature tourism may sway them to provide pro-tected status to an area or strengthen the protective sta-tus of an existing protected area or reserve, particularlyif it can generate income and provide other nationalbenefits. International tourism motivates governmentofficials to think more about the importance of manag-ing natural areas. Visitors are more likely to visit andsupport a natural area if it is protected, which in turnadds justification to the existence of protected areas.

Visitation to the area may be the impetus for resi-dents near protected areas, or potential protected areas,to support the continued protection of these areas.


A Stronger EconomyTourists visiting nature sites boost economies at thelocal, regional and national levels. If tourism brings jobsto residents at the local level, they then have moremoney to spend locally, and economic activity withinthe area increases.

The same pattern may occur at the regional andnational levels. Nature tourists arrive in the capitalcity of a country. They may stay for a few days ortravel to the countryside. Along the way they usehotels, restaurants, shops, guide services and trans-portation systems. Typically, a multitude of businessesbenefit directly from nature tourists. Although thesebusinesses usually are set up to accommodate thebroader groups of international and national tourists,nature tourists are an added market. Also, some oper-ations whisk visitors directly from the airport to a fullitinerary in a private protected area, thus leaving thevisitor no opportunity to spend money in local com-munities. In such cases, it is important to ensure thatthere are mechanisms such as airport taxes to obtainat least some tourist revenue. Industries that supporttourism, such as manufacturing and farming, are alsoaffected by numbers of tourists. Growing ecotourismcreates a stronger economy throughout the country.

National governments can also generate tourism dol-lars through import duties andtaxes. For example,researchers determined thatthe Belizean governmentearned BZ$7 million fromtaxes on fuel used in thetourism industry (Lindbergand Enriquez, 1994). Othertaxes include occupancy taxes(directly to hotels) or depar-ture taxes (directly to tourists).These taxes are generally agood way to target visitorsdirectly while avoiding infla-tionary problems with localpopulations. Also, thesecharges need not adverselyaffect demand. For example,nature tourists do not stayaway from Belize because theyhave to pay a US$22.50departure tax. This income is abig help to the national econo-my, with portions supportingthe protected area system.

Environmental EducationNature tourists provide an ideal audience for environ-mental education. During an exciting nature hike, visi-tors are eager to learn about the local habitats. Theywant to hear about animal behavior and plant uses aswell as the challenges of conserving these resources.Many want to know the economic, political and socialissues that surround conservation.

Nature guides are one critical source of environmen-tal education. Visitor surveys show that good guides area key factor in a trip’s success. For example, in 1996 theRARE Center for Tropical Conservation asked 60 con-servation groups in Latin America to identify their mosturgent obstacle to developing ecotourism; the lack ofwell-trained nature guides ranked second in their con-cerns (Jenks, 1997). See Volume II, Part I, Chapter 7for more information about naturalist guides.

Visitor centers with displays, printed materials andvideos are also an excellent means of environmentaleducation. Additionally, interpretation in the form oftrail signage can give important biological informationand conservation messages. Interpretation for visitors isbecoming increasingly creative and interactive.

Environmental education is an equally importantopportunity to reach national visitors. Whether they arelocal school children learning about the resources that

are valuable in theirdaily lives, or travel-ers from neighbor-ing regions learningabout the signifi-cance of theirnational protectedareas, citizens are akey audience.Conservation mes-sages have a specialurgency for them.

Environmentaleducation is mosteffective when preand post-trip infor-mation is madeavailable.Preparation encour-ages visitors to thinkabout appropriatebehavior, therebyminimizing negativeimpacts, and the use


Box 3.2 The Point-A-Pierre Wild Fowl Trust inTrinidad

The Point-A-Pierre Wild Fowl Trust is an environmentalNGO in Trinidad that has expanded to be a majorenvironmental education facility in the country. Locatedin the center of the island’s largest petro-chemical andoil refinery complex, the Trust was established 30 yearsago and now comprises 23 hectares (60 acres) of natu-ral wilderness area and two large lakes.

With an original mandate to establish a breedingarea for water birds, the Trust recognized the importantrole of educating people about this mission. Now morethan 16,000 visitors come to the environmental educa-tion center annually. In addition to a successful captive-breeding program, the Trust has helped thousands ofresidents and foreigners, from school children to oilworkers, become more informed about conservationchallenges in Trinidad.

adapted from Shephard, 1994

of follow-up materials con-tinues the environmentaleducation process.

Appreciation and PrideAppreciation and pride areless tangible benefits thanthe others listed here, butthey can lead to tangibleactions. It is common forpeople not to fully appreciatetheir surroundings and totake what they have forgranted. Often, it is outsiderswho take a fresh look andadd value to our resources.This phenomenon happensboth in big cities and inremote natural areas.Although rural residents whohave grown up among spec-tacular wilderness areas gen-erally understand the intrica-cies of nature and value itsrole in their lives, many havelittle idea of the globalimportance of their natural resources. Many rural peopledo not realize the magnitude of the global attention,study and concern that their homelands receive.

On the other hand, adventurous nature tourists areoften wildly enthusiastic about exploring new wilder-ness sites. They pour into small communities withvideo cameras and document all they see. Journalistsfrom National Geographic and other magazines writeinspiring stories with glossy photos. Natural sites thatwere once secret, especially in tropical countries, arebeing promoted with unprecedented fervor.

Native peoples are often surprised at the level of out-side interest in their natural resources and in their cul-ture. In most cases, however, they see their surround-ings in a new light after international exposure. Theygain a new appreciation for the nearby natural areasand wildlife that attract tourists. If the tourism experi-ence is managed with proper community participationand control, it can also lead to greater appreciation by acommunity of its own culture, the same culture whichvisitors increasingly seek to learn about and admire.

Improved Conservation EffortsAs a result of growing appreciation and pride, conserva-tion efforts often increase. Many residents are motivated

to protect their areasand may change theirpatterns of resourceuse. Cultivation prac-tices may be altered.Litter on roads may becleaned up. Water maybe better managed.Local populationsoften learn more aboutconservation andmodify their dailyhabits because oftourism.

Awareness oftenincreases at the nation-al level also, resultingin such improved con-servation efforts asmandating and sup-porting protectedareas. Even at theinternational level,ecotourism mayengender an interna-

tional constituency for improved conservation effortsand support for particular protected areas. Internationaland local visitors to a protected area are likely to rallyto its defense if a valuable area is being threatened. Forexample, when illegal oil exploration was taking placein the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in Ecuador in 1993,indigenous Quichua and Cofan communities whichwere very involved in ecotourism turned to environ-mentalists and tour operators in the region for support.The tour operators encouraged their guests to partici-pate in what became a decisive campaign of interna-tional letter writing to stop the threat to the reserve andto the livelihoods of the local communities.

Potential Tourism Threats

Environmental DegradationThis is the problem most commonly associated withtourism in protected areas. Visitors may destroy thevery resources they come to see. Degradation happensin many ways and in varying degrees. Much oftourism’s damage to natural resources is visible: tram-pled vegetation, trail erosion and litter.

Tourists pose other kinds of threats to protectedareas. In addition to surface damage, they affect theintricate workings of nature, causing subtle changes andproblems including the alteration of such animal behav-


Box 3.3 National Plan for EcotourismDevelopment in Guyana

The country of Guyana provides an example of howtourism can promote conservation efforts. With pristinerainforest, rugged mountains, expansive savannas androaring rivers, it has many tropical birds, giant riverotters, black caiman and the rare harpy eagle. Guyanais relatively pristine. In order to keep resources intact,Guyana is creating a system of protected areas andreserves and creating a National Plan for EcotourismDevelopment.

As part of this planning process, Guyana’s onlynational park, Kaieteur, has been chosen to demonstratehow developing tourism can augment conservationefforts. The entire national park system is then expectedto serve as a foundation for ecotourism development.The national government, with the assistance of outsideadvisors, is taking a lead role in establishing a plan anddetermining policies so that ecotourism will support itsnewly created protected areas.

adapted from Andersen, 1996

ior as eating habits, migration and reproduction. Manychanges are difficult to detect, but all are importantindicators of the health of natural resources.

Protected area managers are starting to track thesechanges as equipment and methods become moresophisticated. Managers need strong baseline data aboutprotected areas’ flora and fauna. They also need goodmonitoring programs to document and analyze changes,allowing us to determine best practices of minimizingenvironmental degradation. Ecotourism planning shouldinvolve an analysis of the expected volume of visitor traf-fic and its potential impact on the protected area.

Visitors can alsocause negative environ-mental impacts to sur-rounding lands. Insome cases, attention isfocused on tourism’simpacts to residentialwater supply. Recentresearch examinedwater quantity andwastewater treatmentissues related to tourismgrowth in the towns ofBanff and Canmore inCanada. These townssurround a majortourist destination,Banff National Park,and received more thanfive million visitors in1995 (Draper, 1997).For more informationon mitigation of envi-ronmental impacts, referto Volume II, Part I,

Chapter 3, “Visitor Site Planning and Design” andChapter 6, “Visitor Impact Management.”

Economic InstabilityEcotourism, like other forms of tourism, can be anunstable source of income. Many external factors influ-ence tourism demand. These factors are completely out-side the control of tourist destinations yet affect levels ofvisitation. For example, political conflict or rumors ofunsafe conditions within a region or country can dis-courage international visitors for years. Natural disasters,such as hurricanes, can easily destroy tourism infrastruc-ture at marine sites. In addition, fluctuations in interna-tional currency can lead visitors to some countries andaway from others.

These factors all play major roles in the decision totravel. No matter how much protected area managersand communities prepare, build and promote, much oftourism demand is determined by outside circum-stances. Visitor numbers can shift dramatically with littlewarning and greatly affect the financial status of smalltourism businesses. Owners and managers of microen-terprises in remote areas do not typically have a diversityof employment options at their disposal should theirbusinesses fail. A decline in tourism can mean disasternot only for individuals but for whole communities iftheir economies are dependent on the volatile naturetourism industry.

CrowdingA sense of crowding can bea problem within both com-munities and nature sites.Tourists may start to com-pete with residents forspace. In some bigger com-munities with commercialcenters, lines may get longerat grocery stores. Residentsmay have to wait for dinnerat the local restaurants.Crowds can also be a nui-sance for visitors, many ofwhom are seeking a quietnature trip. Internationaltourists may be disappoint-ed to have traveled long dis-tances only to be over-whelmed by other tourists.

Residents may also bedisturbed by too many visi-


Box 3.4 Environmental Impacts of Tourism inKibale Forest Reserve, Uganda

In 1992, Kibale Forest Reserve in Uganda was con-verted into a national park. Visitor trails and a visi-tor center were established, and visitation increasedfrom 1,300 in 1992 to 5,000 in 1996. Althoughvisitor numbers were still relatively low in this 560sq. km. park, the Uganda Wildlife Authority and themanagers of Kibale National Park were concernedabout tourism’s environmental impacts.

Having conducted impact assessments,researchers concluded that more than three-quartersof the camping sites within the area had experi-enced some degradation and that 10-30% of thetrails were eroding, even after such a short expo-sure to visitors. Researchers are promoting a long-term impact management strategy.

adapted from Obua and Harding, 1997

EnvironmentalDegradation

TourismEconomicDistortions

Increased Control by Outsiders

IndustryInstability

Diminished Visitor

Experience

CulturalDistortions

Figure 3.2 Potential Tourism Threats

tors at their local sites. These are the places they knewwhile growing up before they became internationalattractions. If access to these treasured spots becomesdifficult, tensions often grow.

Excessive DevelopmentWhen a location becomes a popular tourism destina-tion, local entrepreneurs will create lodging, restaurantand other services to cater to visitors’ needs. In somecases where tourism demand is strong, people fromother parts of the country will move to a community totake advantage of the increased economic opportunity.With the increased need for tourism services comesincreased infrastructure demands: hotels, restaurantsand homes for recently-arrived employees or entrepre-neurs. These demands place pressure on basic servicessuch as water supplies, wastewater treatment, electricity,etc. In addition to the burden put upon municipal serv-ices, increased development typically occurs with mini-mal planning and can become an aesthetic as well as anecological problem for both the community and theprotected area.

ConclusionIn conclusion, in order to flourish, ecotourism requiresthat natural and cultural resources be protected.

Governments increasingly partner with conservationNGOs to administer and protect natural areas. Whilelocal communities protect their territories and holdingsin order to attract ecotourism development, NGOs, pri-vate companies and individuals create private reservesthat often have a combined conservation and eco-tourism business mission. Tourism brings a range ofthreats and opportunities that must be evaluated beforedeciding to proceed with a conventional tourism orecotourism development project. Threats can include:environmental degradation, cultural distortions, eco-nomic distortions, increased control by outsiders andindustry instability. Any or all of these could result indiminished visitor experience, and congestion mayoccur at popular visitor sites.

Ecotourism has the potential to reduce the threatsposed by conventional tourism to natural areas and tothe people who live in and around them via incomegeneration for: conservation, local enterprise andemployment, cultural exchange, environmental educa-tion, protected area justification and visitor apprecia-tion. Ecotourism requires rigorous planning and man-agement, however, to realize this potential.


Political conflict can contribute to ecotourism’s instability.In the Parc des Volcans in Rwanda, the mountain gorillawas subjected to intense pressure from poaching andloss of habitat during the 1960s and 1970s resulting ina major decline in the gorilla population. There werefewer than 400 individuals in the wild. In response, theMountain Gorilla Project was established in 1979 toassist the Rwanda National Park Service and theNational Tourism Bureau in protecting the Parc desVolcans, where more than a third of the gorillas lived.

Tourism took off and started bringing substantial eco-nomic benefits to local communities and the nationaleconomy. Led by local guides, tourists paid US$180 pervisit, and the park became the third most importantsource of foreign exchange for the country. The conser-vation benefits were also significant — the gorilla popu-lation stabilized and began to increase.

In the early 1990s, a civil war intensified in Rwanda.Reports of human devastation were horrific, and tourismstopped. Interestingly, both sides of the conflict made great

efforts to protect the gorillas and their habitat because thecombatants understood their economic value. But interna-tional tourism will not be the same for this country formany years, if ever. In addition to having to reconstruct itshuman communities, Rwanda faced enormous economiclosses. Local residents and the national government expe-rienced dramatic changes in incomes when nature tourismdemand shifted.

As a consequence of the loss of access to the Parc desVolcans, visitation greatly increased at Bwindi NationalPark in neighboring Uganda, also home to a populationof gorillas. Several lodges were constructed near the parkto house the growing number of tourists. But in 1999 theconflict in Rwanda tragically overflowed into Bwindi, andarmed fighters killed several tourists and park guards.Tourism to the region stopped immediately, and it will be along time before Bwindi National Park reaches the previ-ous levels of visitation.

adapted from Boo, 1998

Box 3.5 Ecotourism’s Instability — Central Africa

ReferencesAndersen, D.L. 1996. Kaieteur National Park: A springboard fornature tourism plan in Guyana. The ECTA Communicator 1(2).

Boo, L. 1998. Ecotourism: A conservation strategy. Unpublisheddocument submitted to the Ecotourism Program of The NatureConservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Benitez, S. 2001. Visitor use fees and concession systems in pro-tected areas: Galapagos National Park case study. Unpublishedreport prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Draper, D. 1997. Touristic development and water sustainability inBanff and Canmore, Alberta, Canada. Journal of SustainableTourism 5(3).

Jenks, B. 1997. The question of local guides in Latin America. TheEcotourism Society Newsletter, Second Quarter 1997, p.1.

Lindberg, K. and J. Enriquez. 1994. An analysis of ecotourism’seconomic contribution to conservation and development inBelize. Washington D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Obua, J. and D. M. Harding. 1997. Environmental impact of eco-tourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of SustainableTourism, 5(3).

Shephard, K. 1994. “The Pointe-A-Pierre Wild Fowl Trust-Trinidad.” A Focus on Participation. Barbados: InterAmericanDevelopment Bank, Environment Committee.

Western, D. 1997. Ecotourism at the crossroads in Kenya. TheEcotourism Society Newsletter, Third Quarter, pp. 1-2, 4.

ResourcesBoo, L. 1993. Ecotourism planning for protected areas. InEcotourism: A guide for planners and managers, Volume 1,K. Lindberg and D. E. Hawkins (eds.), 15-31. N. Bennington,Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Borja N.R., J. Pérez B., J. Bremner, and P. Ospina. 2000. ParqueNacional Galápagos. Dinámicas migratorias y sus efectos en eluso de los recursos naturales. Quito, Ecuador: Fundación Natura,The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protectedareas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world andguidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland: The WorldConservation Union (IUCN); N. Bennington, Vermont: TheEcotourism Society.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H., G. Reck, and R. Troya. 1995. Propuestasde políticas de turismo en las áreas naturales protegidas. Quito,Ecuador: Proyecto INEFAN/GEF.

Honey, M. 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development: Whoowns paradise? Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Izko, X. (ed.). Ecoturismo en el Ecuador. Trayectorias y desafíos.Colección Sistematización de Experiencias No. 1. Berne,Switzerland: DDA; Berne and Quito, Ecuador: INTERCOOPERA-TION; Quito: IUCN.

Kelleher, G. (ed.). 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas.Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 3. Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, World Commission onProtected Areas.

Lindberg, K. 1991. Policies for maximizing nature tourism’s eco-logical and economic benefits. Washington D.C.: WorldResources Institute.

Lindberg, K. and D. Hawkins (eds.). 1993. Ecotourism: A guidefor planners and managers, Volume 1. N. Bennington, Vermont:The Ecotourism Society.

Lindberg, K., M. Epler Wood, and D. Engeldrum (eds.). 1998.Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers, Volume 2. N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Wallace, G. 1993. Visitor management: Lessons from GalapagosNational Park. In Ecotourism: A guide for planners and man-agers, Volume 1, K. Lindberg and B. Hawkins (eds.), 55-81. N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza(ANCON), Panama — www.ancon.org/

The Charles Darwin Foundation — www.galapagos.org Information and news about the Galapagos National Park andthe Charles Darwin Research Station.

Fundación Natura, Colombia — www.natura.org.co/

PARKS MagazinePublished three times a year by IUCN, the World ConservationUnion. Information about subscriptions can be obtained by writingto: 36 Kingfisher Court, Hambridge Rd, Newbury, RG14 5SJ, UK.

RARE Center for Tropical Conservation — www.rarecenter.orgRARE Center’s mission is to protect wildlands of globally signifi-cant biological diversity by empowering local people to benefitfrom their preservation.

World Commission on Protected Areas, associated with IUCN, theWorld Conservation Union — www.wcpa.iucn.org The WCPA website includes news about the commission, its taskforces, meetings and publications. Publications may be down-loaded free of charge.



IntroductionCommunities are the traditional stewards of many ofthe world’s natural areas, but since the great waves ofcolonization of tropical countries by Europeans theyhave largely been excluded from management deci-sions with respect to their development and even theirself determination. In recent decades, this exclusionhas been manifest in economic development, not leastin the tourism sector. Tourism tends to be managed byprivate companies located in distant cities and evenforeign countries. Traditionally, the state has sought todeny local people access to and participation in activi-ties in protected natural areas. Consequently, commu-nity members have not been recognized as stakehold-ers and have been marginalized from nature tourismopportunities around the world.

Definition of CommunityCommunity refers to a heterogeneous group of peoplewho share residence in the same geographic area andaccess a set of local natural resources. The degree of socialcohesion and differentiation, strength of common beliefsand institutions, cultural diversity and other factors varywidely within and among communities (Schmink, 1999).

The Role of the Community in EcotourismIn recent years, conservationists have come to recognizethe crucial role rural and coastal communities play inconserving biodiversity; many protected area managershave developed mechanisms to incorporate these com-munities as stakeholders into the planning and manage-ment process. At the same time, the growing interest bytourists in learning from and experiencing different cul-tures has led the tourism industry to incorporate com-munities into its activities. This has led to a growingawareness by communities of the opportunities tourismpresents. Where communities are well organized andhave title to traditional lands they have been more suc-cessful in capturing a greater share of tourism spendingin natural areas. In the 1990s, numerous indigenousand other local groups adopted ecotourism as part oftheir development strategy (Wesche, 1996).

One of ecotourism’s greatest contributions to conser-vation is the degree to which it can shift communityactivities from the “threats” category to that of “oppor-tunities,” i.e., those activities which contribute to sus-tainable development and the achievement of an area’sconservation goals.

In order to maximize the conservation benefits ofan ecotourism activity, it is necessary to define howlocal stakeholders can participate in its planning andmanagement (see Volume II, Part II for a moredetailed treatment).

Not all communities or community members willwish to be involved in tourism activities, and plannersand developers should respect this. For those that doseek involvement, they may choose from a range ofdegrees of participation, including:

❖ renting land to an operator to develop while simplymonitoring impacts;

❖ working as occasional, part-time or full-time staff forprivate tour operators;

❖ providing services to private operators such as foodpreparation, guiding, transport or accommodation,or a combination of the above;

❖ forming joint ventures with private tour operatorswhere the community provides most services whilethe private sector partner manages marketing, logis-tics and possibly bilingual guides; and

❖ operating as independent community-based programs.

The role chosen by a community should be based,among other things, on its interest, organizational capac-ity, experience, cultural sensitivity, presence of strongleadership, quality of natural and cultural resources,tourism demand, training opportunities, availability ofpartners and private sector interest.

It may be that a community has a great deal of interestin developing ecotourism, but it may not be a viable

Chapter 4

Ecotourism and Local Communities


option because of one of the abovefactors. It is extremely importantthat the financial feasibility of anecotourism project be evaluatedbefore proceeding with infrastruc-ture development (see Volume II,Part II). Conservation NGOs havefrequently looked to communityecotourism as a solution to com-patible economic development,but community expectations haveoften been raised only to bedashed when the project fails togenerate the anticipated benefits.

It is crucial that the enthusi-asm of conservationists and com-munities be tempered with pre-liminary site evaluations (see PartII, Chapter 2), good participatoryplanning and feasibility analysis.

Figure 4.1 illustrates themultiple and diverse elements essential for ensuringthat communities fulfil their role in ecotourismdevelopment.

Protected Areas and EcotourismFor ecotourism to thrive, the attractions must be pro-tected. These attractions may be within a national parkor within a community reserve. The buffer zones ofnational parks can be ideal places for communities toestablish reserves to facilitate ecotourism activities.National park managers should seek to collaborate with

such communities and integrate them into the manage-ment planning. They may also wish to dedicate a per-centage of income generated from visitor use fees toneighboring community compatible economic develop-ment projects, as is the case with the GalapagosNational Park (Government of Ecuador, 1998).

Potential Positive ImpactsSustainable IncomeWhen communities engage in ecotourism, new sourcesof income can be generated for the community as awhole as well as through individual employment

Table 4.1 Potential Impacts of Tourism in Communities

P O S I T I V E N E G A T I V E (with community participation) (without community participation)

For communities For protected areas For communities For protected areas

1. Sustainable income Reduced threats and Erosion of natural Incompatible economic compatible economic resource base developmentdevelopment (CED)

2. Improved services Reduced threats and CED Growing economic inequity Poaching, overuse of natural resources

3. Cultural empowerment Reduced threats and CED Cultural erosion Alienation from traditional sustainable use

CommunityEcotourism

Other SustainableActivities

Partnerships

Planning

FinancingEducation

and Training

ProtectedNatural Areas

SustainableDevelopment

Figure 4.1 Essential Elements for Ecotourism in aCommunity Setting


opportunities. This income could be generated throughcollecting fees for access to trails, providing accommo-dation or guiding services, preparing and selling foodand handicrafts and so on.

This income will likely reduce dependency onunsustainable activities such as logging. However, it isimportant that the planning process avoid creating anoverdependence on tourism which could lead to ero-sion of the quality of the communities’ natural and cul-tural attractions as well as to increased economic vul-nerability to economic fluctuations in the marketplacewhich are beyond their control.

Improved ServicesTo the degree that the community as a whole receivesnew income from, for example, fees paid to a commu-nity fund, there is the potential for improving healthand education services. These fees can have the long-term effect of improving conservation consciousnesswithin the community and reducing threats. Betterhealth services can improve the overall attractiveness ofa community and give it the upper hand in attractingtourism.

Cultural Empowerment and Cultural ExchangeVisits with traditional and indigenous communities areoften the highlights of a trip to a natural area. Natural

attractions take on an added level of interest for touristsif they can relate to them through the eyes and words ofpeople who live with them. The opportunity to learnfrom a traditional culture is increasingly valued by trav-elers, and community participation adds considerablevalue to an ecotourism program. At the same time, tra-ditional communities can feel greater self-esteem as aresult of the respectful interest shown by visitors, espe-cially if outside attitudes have tended to belittle them.

However, the success of such a visit depends uponlocal residents being empowered by, and in control of,the process and situation. Tourists should also be pre-pared to share in a two-way cultural exchange, thoughit is important to remember that some communities arenot interested in cultural exchanges with outsiders.These exchanges usually sensitize visitors, broaden theirthinking about the world and help them understandmore clearly the context of conservation.

Potential Negative Impacts

Price IncreasesPrice increases may become a problem when visitorsand local residents want the same goods and services,including groceries, gasoline and restaurants. Prices arelikely to escalate because outsiders are willing to paymuch more for goods and services than the local mar-ket dictates.

There are a few possible solu-tions for this inflation. One is tohave two-tiered price systems —one for residents, one for visitors.Vendors and entrepreneurs can thentake advantage of visitors’ relativeaffluence while respecting local resi-dents’ ability to pay. Different pricesystems may be hard to set up andexecute, but they allow for an equi-table balance between the incomelevels of both groups.

A similar solution that commu-nities often enact is to create goodsand services exclusively for tourists.Certain foods or handicrafts areproduced for the tourist marketalone, and prices are establishedaccordingly. These alternatives fortourists often help local peoplemaintain access to their traditionalproducts.

Huaorani guide and community ecotourism coordinator MoiEnomenga in the Ecuadorian Amazon © Andy Drumm


Another solution to rising prices is to increase thesupply of goods and services. Some communities areunable to do this, but others may realize a means forgrowth and economic development. Tourists are notjust competitors, they are new markets to serve.

Tourism may also spark increases in land and realestate prices that can be devastating for local residents.When visitors experience new and exciting places,some want to buy the land they visit, especially sinceprices are often low compared with costs at home.Hotel developers and other tourism businesses alsocome in search of land. Outside individuals and com-panies often price residents out of the local market.This situation leads to housing shortages for local resi-dents and inadequate land for their economic activities.

Outside ControlA threat related to price increases is that of outsiderstaking “too much” control of tourist areas. This is oftena subjective call but can be a source of concern for resi-dents and others who care about these areas. Outsidedevelopers and investors have plentiful financialresources and years of experience in tourism develop-ment. Local residents may be squeezed out of businessopportunities if they cannot match the outside expertiseand funding.

Ecotourism should be used as a tool for increasing acommunity’s ability to manage its own affairs, forempowering itself, but this is not what usually occurs.Outside tourism interests frequently take over potential-ly successful ecotourism projects, leaving local peoplein supporting positions only. The consequence is a lackof ownership of, or responsibility for, the results.Communities may start to resent tourism if they feelthey have no control over it.

Economic LeakageAn economic concept often equated with outside con-trol is “leakage.” Leakage happens primarily whenlocal tourism businesses are not available or adequatefor the demand. Seeing a gap, international business-es import products and services rather than developlocal markets. In other cases, tourists purchase inter-national goods rather than local products becausethey feel these goods are superior. In either case,money that potentially could strengthen the localeconomy leaves the area.

Some economic leakage is normal in nature tourism,but it must be limited in ecotourism. Fortunately, astourists learn about the cultural and physical environ-

ment, they usually become interested in purchasing goodsand services that support indigenous groups and localeconomies because they understand how these purchaseshelp develop and conserve the area. Tourism businessesrespond to this demand and start building local enterpris-es. In addition to market forces, local and national poli-cies and regulations can help manage leakage.

Cultural ChangeCultural changes caused by tourism can be positive ornegative. Many outsiders do not want indigenous pop-ulations to change because they want their cultures tobe preserved. Other outsiders see indigenous groups asnew markets to influence and want them to changeand diversify. Indigenous peoples themselves havemixed feelings. Some want to modernize their culturesand so actively solicit changes. Others are looking fornew means of economic development and simplyaccept the cultural changes that accompany this pur-suit. Still others see no reason to change and do notwant to modify their traditions and customs.

Tourism-induced cultural change usually occurswithout the opportunity for communities to decidewhether they actually want change. There is often animbalance of power in the relationship between touristsand residents. Tourists can provoke changes, oftenunintentional and subtle, without consent from resi-dents. Conflicts may brew within communities andbetween communities and visitors as a result.Unprepared communities, with no means to stoptourism, are ideal settings for negative cultural impacts.Ecotourism programs allow for communities to be ade-quately informed of the benefits and costs of eco-tourism and to decide for themselves the degree ofchange to which they wish to subject themselves.

Key Considerations for Ecotourism Development at the Community LevelThese days, most conservationists recognize thatworking with communities is fundamental to achievingprotected area goals and conservation strategies, includ-ing ecotourism. There are a number of basic principlesthat should be considered in planning for communityinvolvement in ecotourism activities. Some of thesetopics are covered in greater depth in Volume II, Part II.

Create PartnershipsEcotourism organized at the local community level canrarely be successful without assistance or cooperationfrom tourism operators. Links to the market, languageskills and poor communications are three majoraspects which limit communities’ ability to “go it alone”


in ecotourism. Ecotourism operators can make idealpartners to provide the missing links for communitiesin exchange for (sometimes exclusive) access to com-munity resources.

Protected area managers must play a role in guidingecotourism implementation outside of the protectedarea, but in many cases that role may have to be a “sec-ondhand” one. Because of his/her many responsibilities,as well as possible resistance on the part of local resi-dents, the protected area manager may need to pursueother means for fulfilling this function. NGOs are gen-

erally perceived as neutral parties and thus moreacceptable as providers of technical assistance to localcommunities. In some cases, the NGOs may be the pro-tected area managers. Training, for example in basicaccounting and guiding, is a key need for communitiesto effectively participate in ecotourism. This is a rolethat NGOs are best placed to provide.

Avoid Putting All Eggs in the Ecotourism BasketAn ideal community setting should consist of interest-ing, accessible attractions, local people with the interestand initiative to take advantage of opportunities, and

Three distinct communities of people live in the southernToledo District of Belize: Creoles, Garifunas andMayans. The District is considered one of the poorest inthe country, and the residents’ primary economic activi-ties are farming and fishing. Due to its tropical rain-forests and rich cultural heritage, tourism is also a sourceof income in Toledo, albeit a limited one. Access to thearea is difficult, and there has been minimal investmentin tourism development.

However, as Belize has become an international naturetourism destination in recent years, residents in the ToledoDistrict decided to try developing this industry locally. In1990, they formed the Toledo Ecotourism Association(TEA) as a vehicle to consolidate their efforts. They creat-ed a program called the “Village Guesthouse and Eco-trail Experience” to help residents plan, develop andmanage a series of guesthouses. One of the key featuresof this program is a rotation system that shares tourists tothe District among participating villages. As touristsarrive, villages take turns hosting them. The TEA officeacts as the central coordinating body, assigning visitors tothe next village on the list. Within each village, severalfamilies take responsibility for preparing meals, attendingto the guesthouse, providing guiding services and offer-ing other entertainment.

The goals of this rotation system are to distribute theeconomic benefits of tourism as equitably and widely aspossible and to minimize the negative impacts of tourismwithin any one village.

Of the roughly 30 villages in this area, about 12 areactively participating in the visitor program. Each villageis in a different stage of participation; some have several

years of experience hosting tourists, and others are justconstructing guesthouses. Of the money generatedthrough tourism, 80% stays in the community and 20%goes to TEA. The vast majority of the money that stays inthe community goes directly to the service provider, witha small portion allocated for group maintenance andtaxes. The money that TEA collects is used primarily forhealth, education and conservation projects in the areaas well as for administrative costs and marketing(Beavers, 1995).

Visitation to the area remains somewhat limited atroughly 500 visitor nights a year, but it is slowly increas-ing. While the visitor program overall is considered asuccess, it has brought challenges to the community. Oneissue that has caused conflict among some original TEAmembers is bringing in new members. Each of the origi-nal members invested time and materials into the launch-ing of this project and, now that it is taking off, they feelnew members should be required to pay the same dues.Also, tourism income is still minimal, and original mem-bers are resistant to it being divided further among morevillages. Although tourism income is intended only to sup-plement other sources, members do not want to have somany participants that it is not profitable.

One way to increase income is to increase visitor num-bers, so TEA is expanding marketing efforts. As this hap-pens, residents realize that the administrative capacity ofTEA must be strengthened. The Association has alreadyprovided an important forum for visitor development inthe area. As tourism grows, so will TEA’s responsibilitiesto monitor the impacts on residents and the area’s natu-ral resources.

adapted from Boo, 1998

Box 4.1 The Case of the Toledo Ecotourism Association, Belize


leaders who will interact, learn and work with the pro-tected area managers, NGOs and tourism operators.

Ecotourism must be seen as one of several activitiesin a community’s development portfolio. To rely solelyon ecotourism as an alternative source of income is notusually a wise development strategy. Tourism and eco-tourism are subject to periods of instability due to fluc-tuating national and international economic trends,political events and public perception generated by themass media. In addition, ecotourism rarely involves asignificant portion of a community as relevant jobs areusually limited to the service industry and a few others.In those communities that have achieved measures ofsuccess in evolving a more sustainable lifestyle, eco-tourism has been only one component of that change.Other important elements are: improved education,improved access to information, improvements in pro-tected area management and increased economicopportunities other than ecotourism (Brandon, 1996).

The things that come with tourism, including theintroduction of strangers, new values and customs, andnew ways of doing business, may not be what the resi-dent population wants. Local residents should be wellinformed about the likely impacts of ecotourism devel-opment before they agree to accept it.

Link Ecotourism Benefits to Conservation GoalsFor ecotourism to promote conservation, local peoplemust clearly benefit and understand that the benefitsthey receive are linked to the continued existence ofthe protected area (Brandon, 1996). There must be aclose working relationship between the protected areaadministration and the surrounding communities.Unfortunately, the limited benefits provided by manytourism projects frequently are not recognized by localresidents as connected to the protected area.

The example from Belize in Box 4.1 demonstratesseveral of the above principles in action.

ConclusionIn conclusion, ecotourism can be seen as one way bywhich communities can resume or strengthen theirtraditional stewardship role in natural areas, a role thathas largely been compromised by unfavorable eco-nomic conditions imposed upon rural communities intropical countries.

Recognizing the crucial role rural and coastal com-munities play in conserving biodiversity, they must beincorporated as stakeholders into protected area plan-

ning and management processes. At the same time,given the added value that community participationbrings to ecotourism products and the benefits of par-ticipation for sustainable community development,active community participation in ecotourism is goodfor business and good for conservation.

ReferencesBeavers, J. 1995. Ecoturismo comunitario en La Selva Maya:Estudio de seis casos en comunidades de Mexico, Guatemala yBelize. The Nature Conservancy, Proyecto MAYAFOR/USAID.


Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and conservation: A review ofkey issues. World Bank Environment Department Paper No. 033,Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Government of Ecuador. 1998. Ley de régimen especial para laconservación y desarrollo sustentable de Galápagos. Quito,Ecuador: Corporación de estudios y publicaciones.

Schmink, M. 1999. Conceptual framework for gender andcommunity-based conservation. Case Study No. 1. MERGE(Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis),Gainesville, Florida: Tropical Conservation and DevelopmentProgram, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida.

Wesche, R. 1996. Developed country environmentalism andindigenous community controlled ecotourism in the EcuadorianAmazon. Geographische Zeitschrift 3&4:157-168.

ResourcesAsociacion Ecuatoriana de Ecoturismo. 1998. Políticas y estrate-gias para la participación comunitaria en el ecoturismo. Quito,Ecuador: Asociación Ecuatoriana de Ecoturismo.

Beltran, J. (ed.). 2000. Indigenous and traditional peoples and pro-tected areas: Principles, guidelines and case studies. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN and WWF International.

Borman, R. 1995. La Comunidad Cofán de Zábalo. ToristaSemam’ba — Una experiencia indígena con el ecoturismo. InEcoturismo en el Ecuador. Trayectorias y desafíos, X. Izko (ed.),89-99. Colección Sistematización de Experiencias No. 1. Berne,Switzerland: DDA; Berne and Quito, Ecuador: INTERCOOPERA-TION; Quito: IUCN.

Bruner, G. 1993. Evaluating a model of private-ownership con-servation: Ecotourism in the Community Baboon Sanctuary inBelize. Georgia Institute of Technology.

Drumm, A.F. 1998. New approaches to community-based eco-tourism management. Learning from Ecuador. In Ecotourism: Aguide for planners and managers, Volume 2, K. Lindberg, M.

Epler Wood, and D. Engeldrum (eds.), 197-213. N. Bennington,Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Epler Wood, M. 1998. Meeting the global challenge of communityparticipation in ecotourism: Case studies and lessons fromEcuador. América Verde Working Papers No. 2. Arlington,Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.

Epler Wood, M. 1998. Respuesta al desafío global de la participación comunitaria en el ecoturismo: Estudios y lecciones del Ecuador. América Verde Working Papers No. 2b.Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.


Lindberg, K., M. Epler Wood, and D. Engeldrum (eds.). 1998.Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers, Volume 2.N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

McLaren, D. 1998. Rethinking tourism and ecotravel. WestHartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The five-S framework for siteconservation: A practitioner’s handbook for site conservationplanning and measuring conservation success. Available atwww.conserveonline.org.

Wesche, R. and A. F. Drumm. 1999. Defending our rainforest: Aguide to community-based ecotourism in the EcuadorianAmazon. Quito, Ecuador: Acción Amazonia.

MERGE (Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis)Tropical Conservation and Development ProgramCenter for Latin American StudiesUniversity of Florida304 Grinter HallPO Box 115531Gainesville, FL 32611 USATel: 352- 392-6548 Fax: [email protected] www.latam.ufl.edu/merge/

Toledo Ecotourism Association (TEA), Belize Formed by residents in the Toledo District of Belize in 1990 asa vehicle to consolidate their ecotourism efforts.



IntroductionNongovernmental conservation organizations (NGOs)play an ever-increasing role in ecotourism managementand development in both the developed and developingworld. NGOs concerned with conservation issues havediscovered that ecotourism embodies many of the posi-tive elements that characterize conservation activities:

❖ Mitigation of negative impacts upon the natural envi-ronment.

❖ Increase in visitors’ awareness of natural and culturalresources and of the issues that affect their conserva-tion.

❖ Generation of significant income for conservationactivities.

The Role of NGOsAs a result of the direct links between ecotourism andconservation, many conservation NGOs embrace eco-

tourism as part of their organizational activity. However,the roles they play can differ:

1. Some NGOs act as facilitators between other playersin the ecotourism context, e.g., communities and thetourism industry, and protected area managers andcommunities. This role is a particularly valuable onesince NGOs are frequently seen as neutral playersamong competing interests that have had difficultycollaborating before (see Box 5.1).

2. NGOs may extend their reach and achieve greaterconservation impact when they partner with or pro-vide services to a community-based ecotourismenterprise or private ecotourism company.

3. NGOs frequently serve as trainers and sources ofrelevant technical information and expertise thatother institutions involved with ecotourism may nothave access to or time to develop. The information

Chapter 5

Ecotourism and NGOs

Guest cabins at La Milpa, Rio Bravo Conservation Area, Belize © Andy Drumm


may be in the form of a publication which the NGOdevelops (such as this one) or a workshop in whichecotourism participants receive training.

4. NGOs partner with protected area administrationsto implement an aspect of an ecotourism program,e.g., an environmental education or interpretationprogram. Usually the NGO obtains funding fromoutside sources and carries out the activity accordingto a mutually agreeable plan of action. In some cases,the NGO will take charge of implementing the entireecotourism program.

5. Increasingly, NGOs manage their own private pro-tected areas or are asked to take charge of govern-ment-administered protected areas. In these situa-tions, the NGO is responsible for implementing all ofthe area’s management activities including the publicuse program, which is where ecotourism is usually

housed. Sometimes, the NGO administrates the pro-tected area in conjunction with a government agency.Such is the case with Fundación Defensores de laNaturaleza, The Nature Conservancy’s partner inGuatemala, which manages Sierra del LacandónNational Park with CONAP (Consejo Nacional deAreas Protegidas).

6. In exceptional circumstances, NGOs provide eco-tourism services such as tour promotion and organi-zation or lodging, transportation and food services.While this may sometimes seem like a logical step totake, it can easily distract an NGO from its primaryrole as a conservation agent and may take awayopportunities from community-based enterprises orthe tourism private sector.

NGOs play an important role in advancing eco-tourism implementation through their positive interac-

Tourism planning: Design and Implementation ofthe Ecotourism Development Plan

The plan was developed at a cost of approximately $40,000by private consultants. An important aspect of the planningprocess was the involvement of Programme for Belize’s (PfB)board of directors and staff members throughout the process.The vision developed was, therefore, PfB’s and not the consult-ing firm’s. Importantly, the process not only produced the planbut also several other products including a site plan for a sec-ond site, the design of a 30 bed state-of-the-art student dormi-tory featuring green technologies and the provision of contactsand technical advice needed for procuring and maintaininggreen technologies at our ecotourism sites.

By linking environmental education with non-destructivehuman-nature interaction, PfB’s two ecotourism sites offer aunique tourism experience which caters to a range of targetgroup: serious ecotourists, researchers, high school and univer-sity-level student groups as well as casual nature lovers.

Our tourism experience commenced in 1992 hosting studentgroups through our partnership with Save the Rainforest, Inc.— a US–based non profit organization. In 1993 a tourismdevelopment unit was established to market our ecotourismprograms and in 1997 we inaugurated facilities at a secondsite in the reserve.

PfB’s Partnership with Save the Rainforest, Inc.

Through the combined marketing efforts of Save TheRainforests, Inc., and PfB, PfB offers a two-week Tropical Forestand Marine Ecology educational program geared to US high

schoolers. One week is spent at Rio Bravo and the other isspent on an offshore island.

Between 1997 and 2000 this program has generated onaverage an annual net income of $50,000. About ten groupsper year visit the program with an average group size of 15-20 students. Seven staff members including guides and cookswork full time with these groups between June and August.

PfB enjoys many benefits from hosting STR groups in addi-tion to the tourism income. Visitors, particularly educationalgroups, very often make financial contributions to PfB. Also,over time, PfB has developed a pool of contacts from ourtourism activities.

Key Management Issues

• Selection of service personnel: cooks, guides, lodge manager• Keeping employees who are working at remotes sites content

— work schedule, recreational activities• Incorporating feedback from visitors into our yearly planning• Capacity building of service personnel – both in the field and

at our main office• Investment in planning• Continuous infrastructure maintenance and development• Ensuring that our tourism development unit maintains high

service delivery standards

Box 5.1 Tourism Planning and Development with Programme for Belize

tion with local communities, the private sectortourism industry, government-administered protectedareas and others.

The particular role adopted by an NGO dependsupon the set of circumstances within which it operates,e.g., its mission and purpose, the degree of openness toNGO collaboration and the interest of the tourismindustry. Opportunistic situations also arise whichaffect an NGO’s role, such as donation of a tract of landfor ecotourism purposes or development of a friendlyrelationship with a community leader.

ResourcesMoore, A., A. Drumm, and J. Beavers. 2000. Plan de manejopara el desarrollo del ecoturismo en el Parque Nacional Sierradel Lacandón. Serie de Coediciones Técnicas No. 15. ConsejoNacional de Areas Protegidas (CONAP), Fundación Defensoresde la Naturaleza, The Nature Conservancy.

Asociación San Migueleña de Conservación y Desarrollo(ASACODE), Costa Rica — www.asacode.or.cr/


Box 5.2 Asociación ANAI, the TalamancaBiological Corridor, Costa Rica

Asociación ANAI has worked with a number of community-based groups in the Talamanca rainforest region along theAtlantic coast of Costa Rica to establish a network of eco-tourism programs owned and managed by local small-scalefarmers and community members.

These small-scale projects are mechanisms through whichcommunity-level groups such as ASACODE are able to sup-plement their income with occasional ecotourist and studentgroups. This additional income works as an incentive for themembers of ASACODE to conserve the rainforest on theirland and to incorporate sustainable agricultural practices intheir production of cacao. The area of forest this farmercooperative protects is key habitat for the over one millionraptors that migrate between North and South Americaevery spring and autumn. The simple guesthouse they built inthe rainforest has shared showers and toilets and six doublerooms, and it was highly rated by a group of members ofThe Nature Conservancy in 2000.

ANAI achieved its conservation targets by providingASACODE with training and technical assistance and facili-tating linkages between the ecotourism program and privatetour operators in Costa Rica and abroad.


IntroductionOf all the participants in the ecotourism activity, thetourism industry is perhaps the most important and theleast appreciated by conservationists. Many conserva-tionists dislike having to deal with the corporate, profit-motivated entrepreneurs that they characterize as com-prising the tourism industry. Nevertheless, these entre-preneurs are essential to achieving conservation goalsvia ecotourism. They can, and indeed some of themmust, become allies and partners with NGOs, protectedarea managers and communities if ecotourism is tobecome more than an abstract concept.

Increasingly, the tourism industry becomes the mostpowerful advocate for supporting protected areas, andthis dynamic should be encouraged by establishing ade-quate mechanisms for communication and collaborationbetween protected area managers and tour operators.

The mechanics of international, and even national,level tourism require that a complex set of arrange-ments (transportation, lodging, guides, etc.) exists tofacilitate the movement of tourists from their home tothe tourism destination (see Figure 6.1). Each arrange-ment necessitates a specific set of activities and corre-sponding set of employees, infrastructure and costs.

Few tour operators specialize in ecotourism. Thereare, however, many adventure and nature tour opera-tors, most of whom do not fully comply with eco-tourism standards. Conventional tourism practices stillpredominate in the tourism industry, just as conven-tional practices still dominate in every other aspect ofour lives, in spite of initiatives for them to becomemore sustainable. Nevertheless, the tourism industry is“greening” at an ever-accelerating pace as tourists

Chapter 6

Ecotourism and the Tourism Industry

Birdwatchers at Noel Kempff Mercado National Park, Bolivia © Andy Drumm


demand more environmentally-sound services. Forexample, many hotels now recycle cans and bottles andencourage guests to reuse towels in order to save onwater use.

The number of ecotourism businesses is also grow-ing as new companies are established. Many of thesehave developed from the outset with an understandingof and commitment to the principles of sustainability,whereas many of the older, more established naturetourism companies have been slow to integrate all theprinciples of ecotourism into their activities.

Conservation NGOs working in partnership withprivate tour operators are ideally placed to provide thetechnical guidelines which upgrade a nature tourismoperation into an ecotourism operation.

The Links in the Tourism ChainFigure 6.1 describes the links in the tourism chainwhich connects the ecotourist to the protected area.

1. The Travel Agent — Typically a generalist “shop”or chain of retail outlets that offers a broad range ofdomestic and international travel services to con-sumers who can drop in for a face to face discussionwith a sales person in their own towns or neighbour-hoods. They will normally sell the programs of anoutbound operator. Eco travellers rarely purchasetrips through these generalists who focus more onmass tourism destinations, cruises, etc.

2. The Outbound Operator — Typically an operatorwhich specialises in a particular geographic regionsuch as the Amazon or South America, or on a spe-cific activity such as birdwatching or mountain

Figure 6.1 Tourism Industry Structure

Ecotourist

Travel Agent

“Tours R Us”

Outbound Tour Operator

“Tropical Expeditions Inc.”


climbing. They will be located in the eco travellerscountry of origin. They produce brochures annuallywith a series of fixed departures for each tour pro-gram, and they often have a loyal clientele whoreturn to purchase trips on a regular basis. They willput together a complete package for the touristincluding air tickets, and may provide a tour leaderto accompany their client groups but will typicallycontract with an inbound operator to provide servic-es in the destination country.

3. The Inbound Operator — Located in the destina-tion country, they provide complete packages ofservices from arrival in the country to departure.They may have their own facilities (vehicles, lodges)or they may subcontract others in the cities andregions the tourists will visit. Outbound operatorscontract with them to provide all “on-the-ground”services. With the advent of the internet, they areincreasingly competing directly with the outboundoperators for clients.

4. Local Service Providers — Outside the big cities,near the natural attractions, these may be local lodgeand hotel owners, local transport providers, commu-nity-based ecotourism enterprises and local guides.These are where local communities typically join thetourism chain. More adventurous travellers often con-nect directly with these, especially if they feature intravel guides such as Rough Guides, Lonely Planet, etc.

Including Private Tour Operators in the Planning ProcessImplementing ecotourism can be a very challenging andcostly venture. If the tourism industry is part of thisprocess from the beginning, costs can be greatlyreduced and success made more likely. Including theexperience of a private tour operator in the ecotourismplanning and design process would be invaluable andcould not be duplicated by a conservation NGO.Essential inputs by various segments of the tourismindustry could include:

Protected Area

Inbound Tour Operator

“Maya Ecotours”

Local Service Providers

Cabañas “Mi Pana”


1. Providing information about the potential market forecotourism activities.

2. Providing advice concerning visitor preferences interms of attractions, accommodations, food andtransportation services.

3. Marketing an ecotourism activity or program.

4. Providing one or more of the services needed tofacilitate visitor access to and appreciation of theecotourism site.

5. Providing training of local guides and entrepreneurs.

6. Investing in an ecotourism operation. The invest-ment will likely be contingent upon an expectationof a certain level of financial return.

7. Operating an ecotourism operation such as anecolodge. Within a protected area situation, theseoperators would be considered concessionaires. Assuch, they would be subject to strict guidelines cov-ering everything from the energy sources used to thenumber of guests they may handle at one time to theutilization of local supplies and labor. They wouldalso be required to pay a concession fee to the pro-tected area administration.

The Demand for Nature Tourism Table 6.1 shows the results of a survey of 66 US-basedoutbound nature tourism operators. They offer 271 des-tinations between them in South America. Fifty-six per-cent (37 of the 66 operators) offer Costa Rica as one ofits principal destinations.

It should be pointed out that most of the respondentsalso offer destinations in Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europeand within North America, with Alaska and Canadabeing especially popular nature tourism destinations.

ReferenceOden, W., A. Mavrogiannis, and E. Horvath. 1997. 1997 U.S.ecotour operator survey. Standards and practices of NorthAmerican ecotour operators serving the Latin America andCaribbean regions. Unpublished document. The NatureConservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

ResourcesBlake, B. and A. Becher. 1999. The new key to Costa Rica.Berkeley, California: Ulysses Press.

Box, B. 1998. South American handbook. Bath, UK: FootprintHandbooks; Chicago, Illinois: Passport Books.

The Ecotourism Society. 1993. Directrices para el ecoturismo.Una guía para los operadores de turismo naturalista. N.Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

The Ecotourism Society. 1993. Ecotourism guidelines for naturetour operators. N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Franke, J. 1993. Costa Rica’s national parks and preserves. Avisitor’s guide. Seattle, Washington: The Mountaineers.

Perrottet, T. 1997. Insight guide: Belize. London, UK: APAPublications Ltd.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)www.ecotourism.org [email protected] is an international membership organization dedicated to dis-seminating information about ecotourism. Its 1,700 members comefrom more than 55 different professions and live in more than 70different countries. Most of its members work in the tourism sector,study tourism or use tourism to support the conservation of naturalsettings and sustain the well being of local communities.

Table 6.1 Most Popular Destinations in LatinAmerica

Number of US outbound operators who identified this as

Country one of their primary destinations Percentage

Costa Rica 37 56%

Galapagos Islands 32 48%

Peru 29 44%

Mexico 27 41%

Belize 26 39%

Chile 18 27%

Argentina 16 24%

Ecuador 16 24%

Brazil 14 21%

Bolivia 11 17%

Caribbean 11 17%

Guatemala 10 15%

Venezuela 10 15%

Panama 9 14%

Others 5 8%

Total # of respondents 66 100%

source: Oden et al., 1997

Part II

Ecotourism Planning and Management

57Volume One: An Introduction to Ecotourism and Conservation Planning

This chapter presents some basic planning conceptsrelated to the preparation of ecotourism manage-

ment plans. It will focus especially on the processinvolved in preparing an ecotourism management plan.

Ecotourism Planning and Protected AreasWhen most of us think about planning for protectedareas, we think about management plans for a specificnational park or other type of protected area.Nevertheless, it is important to understand that plan-ning for individual protected areas takes place within amore general planning context with several differentlevels and components. Each level impacts upon theothers. The reason for this derives from the role thatprotected areas play in achieving national and localdevelopment goals, which should be based on the con-cept of sustainable development (see Part I, Chapter 1for more information). Figure 1.1 provides a graphicdescription of this planning context.

General Management Plans are usually prepared foreach individual protected area. These plans take theoverall goals and objectives established for the protect-ed area system and apply them to the natural and cul-tural situation of the specific protected area. Themanagement plan will define the protected area’s specif-ic management objectives and a zoning scheme as wellas establish strategies, programs and activities forachieving those objectives. The management plan isdesigned to provide protected area managers with theguidelines to manage their area for a period of five yearsor longer. More detailed plans will then be derived fromthe management plan.

Site Conservation Plans (SCP) may be developed astightly focused complements to general managementplans or, in some cases, as alternatives. An SCP mayidentify ecotourism as a strategy to reduce threats at asite or as a source of conservation finance. In eithercase, an Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP) is calledfor. Figure 1.1 shows how thematic or programmatic

plans such as an EMP will be based upon the generalmanagement plan and its recommendations. In somecountries, management plans carry the force of law orministerial sanction. In others, they are less strictlyapproved, and protected area managers have moreliberty to apply them.

Chapter 1

Ecotourism Management Planning: An Overview

National ConservationPlan/Strategy

Protected Area SystemPlan

Individual Protected AreaGeneral Management Plans

Specific Thematic/Programmatic Plans

Annual Work Plans

Figure 1.1 Planning Context for Protected Areas

EcotourismManagement

Plans

OtherPlans

SiteConservation

Planning (SCP)Process

EcoregionalPlanning

Note: The SCP process can be used to directly replace orenhance site-based management plans at all scales.


Many management plans have been prepared overthe years, and much has been learned about how todevelop them. Some of the major lessons learned are:

❖ Protected areas must be planned as an integral part ofthe development of the region and country wherethey are located.

❖ Management objectives should orient planning at alllevels.

❖ The best planning is carried out by a team of peoplethat has representatives from different disciplines,institutions and points of view. Local communityorganizations, tourism operations and governmentsshould be represented in the planning process team.Some of these representatives may also be in a goodposition to provide lodging, transportation or evensome funding for the planning team.

❖ The effective interaction of these individuals creates asynergistic situation in which the whole becomesgreater than the sum of its parts.

❖ Good planning depends upon the effective partici-pation of all relevant stakeholders. With regard to anEMP, these stakeholders include all persons and insti-tutions that will be involved in carrying out the eco-tourism program within the protected area or othernatural area.

Protected areas will need commitment and supportfrom all of these people and organizations, as well asfrom their own personnel, if they are to fulfill the highexpectations that are established for them. The planning

process must involve all of them in meaningful ways inorder to obtain that commitment and support.

What is an Ecotourism Management Plan?An ecotourism management plan is a tool to guide thedevelopment of tourism in a protected area by synthe-sizing and representing the vision of all the stakeholderswhile fulfilling the conservation objectives for the site.It should result in a document expressing the stake-holders’ recommendations for how ecotourism is to becarried out in a particular protected area. Typically, anEMP will be a detailed continuation of general guide-lines established in a general management plan or SCP.

The general management plan usually determinesthat ecotourism is the kind of tourism that is desired fora particular protected area and that ecotourism, or per-haps public use, will be a specific program to be carriedout by protected area managers. The general manage-ment plan will also define the zoning configuration forthe area, which in turn will designate those sectors thatwill be available for tourism purposes.

There is a step-by-step process to guide you inpreparing an EMP. While these steps are presented in alinear sequence in Figure 1.3, the actual process is notnearly so straightforward. Planners will often need toreturn to one or more of the steps at various timesthroughout the process. For example, it is typical thatwhen the planning team arrives at the Data Analysisstep, the lack of essential information requires a returnto the Diagnostic/Information gathering step.

Conversely, during the Diagnostic stage planningteam members will think analytically about the datathey are gathering in a preliminary manner. In reality, itis not uncommon for planners to be working on severaldifferent steps simultaneously.

How long will it take to accomplish these steps fromstart to finish? The length of the planning processdepends on several factors, principally:

❖ The availability and amount of funding. If fundingis fully available at the beginning of the planningprocess, then this facilitates the EMP planningprocess.

❖ The complexity of the tourism/public use situa-tion of the protected area. If there are already alarge number of visitors, tourism operators and/orvisitor sites, the plan may require a lot of data collec-tion and analysis. On the other hand, when a protect-ed area has little tourism but a lot of perceived

Figure 1.2 Who Participates in the PlanningProcess?

Protected AreaStaff

Specialists/Scientists

NonprofitOrg/(NGOs)

GovernmentAgencies

G R E ATR E S U L T S !

Commitmentand Support

Tour Operators

CommunityParticipants

PlanningProcess

potential, more evaluation of potential and resourcesneeds to be done. The sheer size and number of actu-al and potential visitor attractions is also a factor.

❖ The amount of time that the planning team dedi-cates to the process. When planning team membershave other responsibilities, the EMP process tends tobe prolonged.

❖ The amount of support that the planning teamreceives from stakeholders. Active, positive par-ticipation by local communities, tourism operatorsand others makes the process more effective andproductive.

❖ The amount of detail that is required in the plan.This is related to the amount of knowledge presentlyavailable or that can be obtained without hugeamounts of effort or cost. There is so much that needsto be done to adequately plan for ecotourism that afirst EMP may only deal with what is required to startan ecotourism management program. Some aspectsmay be left to later, or even more specific, plans, e.g.,site development plans and architectural drawings.More about this can be found in Chapter 4, “Step 3:Data Analysis and Preparing the Plan.” In any case, itis very important that the planning team and the pro-tected area administration agree about the level ofdetail required in the plan before the process begins.

It is common to hear planners state that “theprocess is more important than the final document.”While the process is designed to obtain the results

needed to prepare the final document or plan, it isalso a tool for involving all of the various stakehold-ers. If the stakeholders feel that they are a part of theprocess, they will then be committed to its implemen-tation. An inclusive, participatory planning processprovides extremely valuable, long-term support forthe protected area’s management.

Prerequisites for an Ecotourism Management PlanIt may seem to make a lot of sense to prepare an EMPfor your protected area, especially if it is a national parkor other area whose management objectives emphasizerecreation or tourism as well as resource protection.Before embarking on a full-scale EMP, however, a care-ful assessment of the protected area’s resources, humancapacity and tourism potential is essential. Certain fun-damental issues must be considered:

1. The protected area should have a general manage-ment plan that sets out the broad guidelines onwhich to base an EMP: overall protected area man-agement objectives and zoning structure and recom-mendations for public use/tourism managementprograms. The general management plan shouldmention the need to use ecotourism as a guidingconcept or at least make the argument for low-impact, revenue-generating tourism activities.

2. There must be acceptance of and commitment tothe principles of ecotourism by the protected area’sstaff. This means accepting that mass tourism is notan option and that the protected area administrationmust diligently manage tourism impacts. It meansfully accepting the involvement of communities,


FindFunding

FormPlanning

Team

Diagnostic/InformationGathering

Data Analysis

Prepare Plan

Publicize and Distribute Plan

Implement and Evaluate Plan

Decision to Prepare anEcotourism

Management Plan

Overall Management Plan Commitment to

Ecotourism

Appropriatenessof Area forEcotourism

Funding andLogistical Support

Decision to Prepare an Ecotourism

Management Plan

Figure 1.3 Planning Process Phases for anEcotourism Management Plan

Figure 1.4 Major Factors Involved in the Decisionto Prepare a Management Plan


tourism industry representatives and others in theplanning and implementation of ecotourism activitiesand committing to working closely with them tomake decisions about tourism and public use withinthe protected area. In many cases, the decision tomove ahead with ecotourism means that the protect-ed area administration must undergo a change in itsrelationship with and expectations of the generalpublic in all aspects of the protected area’s manage-ment, not just in ecotourism. Meaningful involve-ment and participation of the protected areastakeholders in the area’s management is essentialand often challenging.

3. There must be a reasonable expectation that therequired funding and the technical and logisticalsupport will be available when needed. Carrying outan EMP can be costly. Involving stakeholders early inthe process enables one to see what they can bring tothe table to help with the planning process.

4. The appropriateness of applying ecotourism to theprotected area must be seriously considered. Willexisting legislation allow or facilitate ecotourism?What have been the results of the Site ConservationPlanning process? Have threats been identified thatecotourism can respond to? Will current/traditionaltourism patterns within the protected area and/or theregion make it difficult to implement the ecotourismconcept? Do the circumstances of the protected areamake it appropriate for visitor use?

Protected area managers must analyze these factorsand determine whether or not an EMP is needed.Perhaps tourism is not going to be a significant factor inthe protected area’s future, or perhaps traditionaltourism practices will be too hard to modify for thetime being. But if the decision is made to move ahead,the EMP planning process requires commitment anddedication or else the plan will not meet expectations.

Financing the PlanAny planning process costs money, and an EMP is noexception. Money will be needed to pay for:

❖ technical assistance (consultants);

❖ logistical support (transportation, food/equipment inthe field);

❖ meeting expenses (room rental, food, services, materials);

❖ communications expenses (mail, fax, telephone, etc.);

❖ publicizing and distributing the final document.

The total expense for an EMP can be significant,usually beyond the capacity of a protected area’s budgetto absorb. There are basically four different sources offunding for an EMP:

a) International AssistanceInternational assistance can be found in a number of dif-ferent ways, and each country and protected area willhave a different situation. Through its local partners, TheNature Conservancy provides technical assistance andfunding to selected protected areas, with priority going toecotourism development. International environmentalNGOs such as Conservation International and WorldWildlife Fund are other possible sources of assistance.

Multilateral assistance projects implemented by,among others, the World Bank (especially through theGEF Program), the Interamerican Development Bank(IDB) and the Central American Development Bank(CADB) are potential sources of funding. Due to thescope and bureaucratic procedures associated with mul-tilateral projects, it is advisable to be involved in theirinitial planning to ensure that one’s particular prioritiesare addressed. Many standard development projectssuch as road building have environmental componentsthat could fund protected area projects.

Bilateral assistance agencies, usually government togovernment, such as USAID (USA), GTZ (Germany),CIDA (Canada), and JICA (Japan), may have projectswhich involve protected areas, environmental protectionor tourism development and be able to help fund an EMP.

b) National SourcesThere are more and more funding sources available at thenational level in developing countries. Most of thesesources are foundations or trust funds that have beendeveloped using international as well as national sources.Requests to these organizations usually have to be madeabout a year in advance to allow them to plan budgets.

Private companies and businesses are becomingaware that supporting environmental programs is goodbusiness and provides them with some positive publici-ty. Some of these potential donors, especially the morehigh profile ones, may be willing to provide funding foryour EMP. They will probably require that their contri-butions be mentioned in public presentations and inthe related documents that are produced.

c) Local Communities/GovernmentsProtected areas are not isolated, although it may seemthat way at times. The land they occupy is adjacent to,

in some cases claimed by, local communities and gov-ernments. Increasingly, these entities are becominginterested in protected areas not only for their potentialto produce revenue for local people and governments,but also for the prestige of association with a protectedarea.

d) Tourism IndustryIn most cases, there will be tourism operators alreadyworking in the protected area and others who may beinterested in doing so. Some of them should be repre-sented on the planning team. They should all be askedto help support the planning process with either trans-portation, lodging or funding, especially those who havebeen using the protected area without paying for theprivilege through a concession or other user fee. Travelagencies and tour guides may also be interested in par-ticipating by providing logistical or financial assistance.

While it may seem easier to seek a lump sum sourceof support for the EMP, it may be more productive inthe long term to look for different sorts of supportamong a wide range of sources. In this way, the protect-ed area develops relationships with companies, organi-zations and individuals who may become importantfuture contacts in terms of logistical support, informa-tion and even direct monetary contributions.

Who Prepares an Ecotourism Management Plan?Ecotourism, by definition, is about inclusion andinvolvement of all concerned. The planning processshould represent the point at which all relevant stake-holders become involved in the decision makingabout ecotourism.

An EMP should be based on the consensus of:

❖ tourism professionals (operators and guides) interest-ed in and/or involved with the protected area;

❖ representatives from communities who will beimpacted by ecotourism;

❖ representatives from local governments, governmentagencies, NGOs and others who have an interest inecotourism development in the region; as well as

❖ protected area staff who know the area well and whowill be responsible for the plan’s implementation.

In order to achieve consensus, a participatoryapproach to planning must be applied. It is not suffi-cient for a consultant or the tourism program directorto develop the plan alone and then present it to theothers for their approval. The democratic approach toplanning may take more time and more energy, but itproduces better results. It should be designed so that allparticipants feel ownership of the plan and thus have avested interest in its successful implementation.

Democracy does, however, require leadership. Theplanning process should be considered as having twolevels of participation: permanent participants andeventual participants. The permanent participants willcomprise a small planning team of perhaps two orthree people who can dedicate most of their time tothe process for several weeks or months. They will dothe bulk of the administrative and other office workand will organize events and opportunities for the otherstakeholders to participate in. They may also beresponsible for collecting the information needed tocarry out the Diagnostic Phase of the planning process(see Part II, Chapter 2).

The eventual participants will be all of the otherstakeholders who will participate in workshops, semi-nars and other events where information is gathered,options are discussed and decisions are made. It is inthese events where the important work of the planningprocess will be carried out. The planning team isresponsible for these events being well organized anddesigned to maximize the stakeholders’ input and par-ticipation. It is important to recognize that a teamapproach to planning means that the members of theteam interact frequently and that they exchange ideasand opinions in both structured and informal situa-tions. When team members interact in this way, theentire planning process is enriched. This synergisticprocess results in a product that is much better than ifeach participant contributed ideas independently.


NationalSupport/Foundations,

Private Sector

InternationalAssistance/NGO,

Bilateral, Multilateral

TourismIndustry

Community andGovernment

Support

EcotourismManagement Plan

PLANNING PROCESS

Figure 1.5 Sources of Support for Funding an EMP


Figure 1.6 An Overview of the Ecotourism Management andDevelopment Planning Process

Site Conservation Plan (SCP)

General Management

Plan Preliminary Site Evaluation (PSE)

Full Site Diagnostic (FSD)

EcotourismManagement Planning

Reduce threats from incompatible activities including uncontrolled tourism.Generate income for community, NGO or protected areas.

Ecotourism BusinessDevelopment

ECOTOURISM BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation:Measures of Success

Financial andEnvironmental

Feasibility

BusinessPlan

Protected AreaManagement

ECOTOURISM

MANAGEMENT PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

If “no”answered

Stop

If not financially feasible

Stop


The planning team may be composed of protectedarea officials, a tourism operator or guide and one otherstakeholder who can dedicate the necessary time to thistask. Funding may be needed to pay for these individu-als if their normal work is interrupted or if they cannotfreely donate their time. One of the planning teammembers should be considered the Director of theprocess; this member should have overall responsibilityfor making sure that all participants carry out theirresponsibilities and that the process moves forward inan orderly and efficient manner. This person would alsomanage any planning team budget.

What Comes Next?The rest of this volume describes how to prepare anEMP. Figure 1.6 is a graphic representation of this plan-ning and management process.

Chapter 2 of this volume deals with the DiagnosticPhase of the EMP process, including how to carry outFull Site Evaluations. Chapter 3 describes the actualpreparation of the EMP document — important proce-dural aspects as well as the format and contents.Chapter 4 presents more detailed information concern-ing some aspects of the Plan’s content. Chapter 5 dis-cusses the various mechanisms for measuring whetheror not the EMP is accomplishing its goals.

Resources


Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success:Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and devel-opment projects. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen, and S.S.Frissell. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system forwilderness planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden,Utah: USDA Forest Service.


IntroductionNow that you know what ecotourism is, who thepotential actors are and what threats and opportunitiesecotourism can present, you may feel that you want togo straight ahead and build an ecolodge or develop atrail network at your site. That, however, would be abig mistake! Ideally, you have turned to this manualseries as a result of having identified ecotourism as astrategy in your Site Conservation Planning process(The Nature Conservancy, 2000). If this is not the case,

then you should proceed with the development of yourSite Conservation Plan (SCP) before going any further(see Box 2.1 for an introduction to the SCP process).

Site Conservation PlanningThe SCP process will identify a series of threats to theintegrity of defined conservation targets and then pro-ceed to identify strategies to address these threats.Ecotourism or an ecotourism-related activity might beone of the strategies selected to deal with one or more

Chapter 2

Step I: Site Conservation Planning andPreliminary Site Evaluation

Site Conservation Planningprovides conservationists apragmatic framework forclear determination of whatthey are trying to protect("conservation targets/sys-tems"), how conservation isbest achieved, with whomto work and necessaryactions to achieve theseconservation goals. Themethodology organizes,focuses and prioritizes whathas traditionally been anopportunistic, less coher-ent set of conservationactivities on the ground.

In Site Conservation Planning, conservation strategies arelinked to focal biodiversity “targets” and abatement of the mostcritical threats — not the most easily diminished, most attractiveor most understood problems alone. Strategies such as ecotourismare chosen because they directly abate these high priority threatsto the conservation targets at the site or because they improve theviability, or ecological health, of the conservation targets throughmanagement or restoration. Site ecologists periodically evaluatethe success of strategies not by indirect measures such as numberof workshops held or number of park guards hired but by meas-uring actual improvement of biodiversity health in the landscapeswe strive to protect.

As is shown in the figure,Site Conservation Planning(also termed the “5-S”Framework for biodiversityconservation) conservationtargets (Systems) are firstidentified such that a focallist of ecological systemsand communities can cap-ture the diversity of life inthe planning area.Immediately thereafter, thebest available science isused to identify what is thevision of ecological integri-ty (biodiversity health) forthese systems, assess thecurrent status of biodiversi-

ty health and set conservation goals at the site that will bringthose conservation targets to a viable state. Next, the stressesto the biodiversity are identified, as are their causes (Stresses &Sources — for example, sedimentation to a first-order headwa-ter stream as caused by annual crop agriculture). Most impor-tantly, these ecological and threat analyses lead to thedevelopment of focused Strategies to improve biodiversityhealth (viability) and abate threats and to the production ofmeasures of conservation impact of those actions (Success).Throughout the process, the perceptions, actions (positive andnegative) and involvement of “Stakeholders” are recognizedand considered.

adapted from The Nature Conservancy, 2000

Systems • ID Conservation Targets• Assess Viability

(Biodiversity Health)• Establish Conservation

Goals

Biodiversity HealthThreat Abatement

Conservation Capacity

SourcesStresses

StrategiesSuccess

ThreatAbatement

Stakeholder Involvement

Box 2.1 Site Conservation Planning

Managementand Restoration


threats. An SCP may be complementary or an alterna-tive to the general management planning process for aprotected area. A general management plan (GMP) mayidentify ecotourism as the main concept to guide a pro-tected area’s public use program. If so, you can assumethat some degree of ecotourism implementation isappropriate. In both cases, the key elements of eco-tourism management planning and development aredescribed in detail in this manual series. See Figure 1.6in Part II, Chapter 1 for a graphic representation of thesteps in developing an ecotourism program.

In order to ensure that conservation goals estab-lished in the Site Conservation Planning process arebeing efficiently and effectively addressed, ecotourismmanagement and program development should be con-sidered only as a strategy to achieve the long-termabatement of priority, critical threats and the improve-ment of biodiversity health.

The SCP process provides the methodological frame-work for ensuring that ecotourism strategies are linkedto these overarching site conservation goals. Ecotourismshould not be a priority strategy for conservation invest-

ment at your site unless it is likely to improve targethealth and abates the most pervasive and damagingsources of stress to the biodiversity.

Ecotourism can be an appropriate priority strategyfor addressing a critical threat especially when tourismpractices are sources of stress to a conservation target.Table 2.1 below shows exemplary strategies for dealingwith hypothetical stresses and sources to a particularconservation target.

The example in Table 2.1 shows that tourism can beboth a source of stress as well as of new innovativestrategies, via ecotourism, to abate sources of stress.Ecotourism strategies may be grouped into two typesaccording to the stress and source they address:

Stresses 1 to 3 call for selection of ecotourism man-agement strategies that would normally best be devel-oped through an ecotourism management plan for a site.

Stresses 4 and 5 call for ecotourism developmentstrategies to be considered. Ecotourism developmentbegins with a Preliminary Site Evaluation (PSE) (see

Stresses

1. Altered faunal species com-position (reduced populationof a key parrot species thatnests in the pine savanna andis key to its regeneration)

2. Altered vegetation structure

3. Contamination (organicpollution and solid waste)

4. Altered floral species com-position (reduction in popula-tions of endemic species oforchid)

5. Altered faunal species com-position (decreasing numbersof large mammals)

Sources

Incompatible Tourism Practices(uncontrolled tourism at salt lickand nesting sites of the parrotspecies, resulting in destruction ofnesting tress and disturbance dur-ing nesting periods)

Incompatible Tourism Practices(crowding by tourists at panoramicviewpoint resulting in vegetationtrampling)

Incompatible Wastewater Treatment (poor sewagemanagement at nature lodge)

Commercial Collecting (destructive harvesting of wild flora by local community X)

Commercial Collecting/Poaching (poaching for skins and meat bylocal communities)

Strategies

1. Improve management of visitors to the pine savanna through:· Ecotourism zoning· Visitor impact monitoring· Visitor management guidelines and education.

2. Work with certain tour groups through a volunteer program toestablish parrot nesting boxes to restore the parrot population to itsminimum viable size.

Improve management of visitors to the pine savanna through:· Diversification of visitor sites· Visitor impact monitoring.

Improve management of visitors to the pine savanna through:· Ecotourism infrastructure guidelines· Visitor impact monitoring.

1. Develop compatible economic development opportunities for com-munity orchid harvesters through ecotourism.

2. Enhance park investment in protection and enforcement throughmore and better-trained park guards (funds acquired through establish-ment of a visitor use fee and ecotourism concession systems).

1. Develop compatible economic development opportunities for com-munity orchid harvesters through ecotourism.

2. Enhance park investment in protection and enforcement throughmore and better-trained park guards (funds acquired through establish-ment of a visitor use fee and ecotourism concession systems).

Table 2.1 Exemplary Ecotourism Strategies for Dealing with Hypothetical Stressesand Sources to the Lowland Pine Savanna Conservation Target

Box 2.2) and integrates ecotourism management plan-ning with ecotourism business planning.

Evaluating Potential StrategiesOnce potential strategies have been identified, they areevaluated and ranked according to three criteria:

❖ Benefits (in abating critical threats to conservation tar-gets and in improving the viability of those targets);

❖ Feasibility/probability of success; and

❖ Costs of implementation.

a) BenefitsAssess the benefits that result from addressing threats,for example:

i) Reduction of threat status- How likely is it that ecotourism zoning will check

the decline of populations of key parrot species?- Is ecotourism zoning central to the abatement of

uncontrolled tourism at the salt lick?- How likely is it that the diversification of visitor

sites will reduce crowding by tourists at thepanoramic viewpoint?

ii) Enhancement of biodiversity health- How likely is it that visitor impact monitoring will

enhance the viability of the parrot species? - Will our strategy to increase parrot nesting site

availability using tourism income increase thepopulation size of this keystone species and there-fore improve the health of the pine savanna?

iii) Leverage- Will ecotourism infrastructure guidelines be cat-

alytic and encourage conservation actions at othersites important to biodiversity conservation?

b) Feasibility/Probability of SuccessTwo key factors are critical to successful implementation:

❖ Lead person and institution — Perhaps the mostimportant factor for success is finding the right per-son to take the lead for a site and the responsibilityfor implementing the strategy. An ecotourism projectcoordinator who combines tourism business experi-ence with an understanding of conservation is key tothe successful implementation of an ecotourism man-agement plan.

❖ Complexity and influence of outside forces —Ecotourism development depends on outside factorsbeyond the control of site administrators such as theeconomic health of distant tourism markets or com-petition from other destinations. These outside influ-

ences are factors in the decision to adopt ecotourismdevelopment as a strategy. Ecotourism managementactivities, on the other hand, are typically non-com-plex strategies necessarily designed to reducetourism-related threats.

c) Costs of Implementation

❖ Consider the funding required for ecotourism man-agement planning and the probability of securing newor ongoing funds for this strategy (a successful visitoruse fee or concession mechanism may cover at leastthe cost of the program).

❖ Consider the cost of failure to other conservationstrategies that may be threatened.

❖ Ecotourism development planning will include finan-cial feasibility assessments as part of the businessplanning process.

Preliminary Site EvaluationEcotourism is sometimes viewed as the solution toall of a protected area’s problems. However, for eco-tourism to work as a viable management strategy ina given situation, certain conditions need to exist.This section is designed to help you determinewhether or not ecotourism management and devel-opment are the right strategies for your particularcircumstance.

Whether the decision to evaluate ecotourism’spotential for a site comes from the SCP or the GMPprocess, a PSE is the next step. The PSE, a brief andsimple process, consists of answering a few basic ques-tions about the protected area to ascertain if indeedecotourism has potential. The PSE should be used inconjunction with the SCP process when ecotourism isidentified as a strategy for situations/threats that arenot related to already existing visitor use. Using infor-mation from Table 2.1, for example, if “destructiveharvesting of wild flora by local community X” isidentified as a source of threat, and “develop compati-ble economic development opportunities for commu-nity orchid harvesters through ecotourismdevelopment” is identified as a potential strategy todeal with that threat, then PSE should definitely beused as a first-level test to evaluate that potential.

On the other hand, if “Incompatible TourismPractices” is identified as a source of stress, then ele-ments of ecotourism management planning such as“visitor impact monitoring” or the implementation of“visitor management guidelines” could be reasonablestrategies to select. If management capacity is a prob-



lem, ecotourism may need to be evaluated in terms ofwhether or not its development can provide funding,equipment and other types of support to a strugglingprotected area administration, through visitor use feeand concession mechanisms, for example.

To come up with an objective assessment of theanswers to the questions in the PSE, it may be useful toorganize a group of people who know the area and itssituation, including some with tourism industry experi-ence. The collective judgment of the group should pro-vide an excellent guide to whether or not to proceedwith the planning process.

If you answer “no” to any of these questions in Box2.2, then you should seriously evaluate whether or notto continue planning for ecotourism. It is difficult to beobjective about the areas we are involved with, especial-ly if we might not be able to continue planning for cer-tain activities for which we have high expectations. Butit is better to be realistic about the chances for successearly on than to confront failure down the road afterspending a lot of time, energy and money.

You may find that some answers are prefaced by an“if.” In that case, you must then assess whether there isa realistic expectation that the situation characterized by“if” can be achieved.

Even though the PSE may indicate that ecotourism isnot currently an appropriate strategy, circumstances maychange that allow it to be a viable option in the future.

Reference

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The five-s framework for siteconservation: A practitioner’s handbook for site conservationplanning and measuring conservation success. Available onwww.conserveonline.org

Box 2.2 Preliminary Site Evaluation

1. Are there significant potential natural or cultural attractions in the area?Examples might be:

- Endemic or rare species, e.g., flightless cormorant, Komodo dragon;

- Charismatic species, e.g., Toco toucan, scarlet macaw, whale shark;

- Healthy charismatic habitats, e.g., coral reef, primary rain forest;

- High indices of bird or mammal diversity, e.g., 300+ bird species, or 100+ mammal species;

- Spectacular geomorphological formations, e.g., high or voluminous waterfalls, caverns;

- Nationally or internationally important historic or contemporary cultural events, e.g., Mayan pyramids, Inti Raymi festival.

2. Can visitor access to the attractions be easily established?

3. Can the attractions be protected at an acceptable level from the impacts of visitation?

4. Is the area free of security problems that cannot be effectively controlled by the management of the area or local authorities?

5. Does the protected area have sufficient management and administrative authority to effectively manage implementationand monitoring of an ecotourism program at site level?

6. Is there a reasonable expectation that initial funding needed to develop ecotourism will be available?

7. Are the protected area managers, tour operators and communities willing to conform to ecotourism guidelines, i.e., lowimpact, small groups, impact monitoring, working with and actively involving communities?

8. Will visitation improve biodiversity health or reduce threats to conservation targets?


An Overview of the Contents of an Ecotourism Management PlanAn Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP) is a documentthat spells out the details of what needs to be done inorder to implement an ecotourism-based public useprogram in a protected area or other potential eco-tourism site. As a general rule, it will follow up on therecommendations made by the site’s general manage-ment plan or the conclusions of the Site ConservationPlan (see Chapter 1 for more on this). The general man-agement plan should broadly define the parameterswithin which all management and administrative actionsmust take place. It is up to subsequent planning effortssuch as the EMP and annual work plans to put the gen-eral management plan recommendations into action.

An EMP consists of:❖ a background section or diagnostic which describes

and analyzes the present situation of the protectedarea and the variables which affect the implementa-tion of an ecotourism program in that area; and,

❖ a section of recommendations that describes in anorganized, systematic manner how to implement anecotourism program given the situation described inthe previous section. This is the section which mostpeople would call the actual Plan, or strategic plan.

If the SCP and PSE processes of Step 1 indicated a“green light,” then you should proceed to Step 2 — theFull Site Diagnostic, described in this chapter. Thischapter focuses on what information to collect and howto collect it.

Figure 3.1 shows the different steps involved in theecotourism management and development planningprocess. At the close of each step, planners must decidewhether or not the circumstances warrant continuingwith the Ecotourism Management and DevelopmentPlanning process.

Chapter 3

Step 2: Full Site Diagnostic (FSD)

Figure 3.1 An Overview of the Management andDevelopment Planning Process

Site Conservation Plan (SCP)

General Management

Plan

Preliminary Site Evaluation (PSE)

Full Site Diagnostic (FSD)

Ecotourism ManagementPlanning

Reduce threats from incompatible activities including uncontrolledtourism. Generate income for community, NGO or protected areas.

Ecotourism BusinessDevelopment

ECOTOURISMBUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation:

Measures of Success

Financial andEnvironmental

Feasibility

Business Plan

Protected AreaManagement

ECOTOURISMMANAGEMENT

PLANIMPLEMENTATION

If “no”answered

Stop

If not financiallyfeasible

Stop


Full Site DiagnosticIf the Preliminary Site Evaluation (PSE) (see Part II,Chapter 2) was positive, then the next step is to pro-ceed with a Full Site Diagnostic (FSD). This is whatmost planners would consider as the main DiagnosticPhase of the EMP. At this point, the planning team hasdefinitely decided that ecotourism is what it wants toplan for, which means that it needs to gather a certainkind of information. Before it does that, the teamshould consider how it would gather information.

What You Need to Know At the end of this data gathering process, the team willbe in a position to provide informed answers to the fol-lowing questions:

❖ What are the major threats to the site/protected areaand what strategies might be used in the EMP toaddress them?

❖ Where is ecotourism going to take place?

❖ What kinds of activities will be carried out to imple-ment ecotourism?

❖ Who will be in charge of implementing these activi-ties and what precautions need to be taken?

❖ By who and how will this be monitored and funded?

At first, the information gathering process mayseem overwhelming. In order to organize and struc-ture the large and diverse amounts of informationneeded to formulate an ecotourism plan, it is useful toclassify the data into separate categories. These cate-gories will not vary much from one situation to anoth-er. It is important to make good use of secondarysources of information (e.g., existing reports, etc.) andlocal experts. At least some of this information shouldhave been gathered in Step 1, the SCP. In some cases,existing information will preclude the need to carryout some gathering of information and thus save timeand money.

❖ Information about the natural resources and featuresthat both limit and facilitate a successful ecotourismoperation: important ecosystems that require signifi-cant levels of protection, endangered species, charis-matic species, scenic values, natural attractions, etc.

❖ Cultural variables which will affect the ecotourismoperation: local communities involved or potentiallyinvolved with ecotourism, local traditions and cus-toms, resistance or acceptance of outside visitors,poverty and educational levels of local peoples, his-torical or archaeological sites, etc.

❖ Protected area status. The specific actual and pro-jected situation of the area is important to analyze. Aprotected area administration must be able to adequatelyprotect the area’s boundaries and provide the adminis-trative and economic support for a quality ecotourismoperation. Management capacity must, therefore, beevaluated during the diagnostic process.

❖ Tourism industry interest and participation in theprojected ecotourism operation. Without the activesupport of local and national tour operators and otherrepresentatives of the economic sector, an ecotourismoperation in a protected area cannot be successful.

❖ Visitor patterns, interests, and infrastructure areimportant to recognize and evaluate in order to deter-mine if there is sufficient basis to recommend eco-tourism activities in a given situation. The followingquestions need to be answered about potential visitors(adapted from Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996):

1. What types of people would be (are) interested in theattractions we have to offer? Who can we attract?

2. Who do we want to come here?

3. Where do they live?

4. What are their main interests?

5. What is their income level and how much are theywilling to spend on their vacation?

6. What do they presently do as tourists? Where dothey go?

7. What do they want to do?

8. How easily can they travel to this area?

9. How do they decide where they will travel and whatthey will do while at and en route to a vacation desti-nation?

❖ Marketing and promotion of the ecotourism opera-tion must be considered by evaluating similar tourismactivities as well as by obtaining the opinions of inter-ested tourism operators. How much marketing willneed to be done in order for the operation to be suc-cessful? Who will be responsible for marketing?

Questions to Guide the DiagnosticEach protected area will have different specific informationrequirements. Planners will need to prioritize what infor-mation they should emphasize and how they will obtain it.The following questions will help in that process.

A. Natural ResourcesThis section should focus on those natural resources(species, communities, ecosystems, physical features[mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.]) that are currently or


may be potential visitor attractions or that might beseriously affected by visitor use.

❖ What are the primary natural resources of the area?Are there species of plants and animals that attractvisitors? Are there “flagship” or “charismatic” speciesin the area? Have inventories of species been conduct-ed? If so, describe their contents.

❖ What are the endangered or threatened species or com-munities of plants/animals? Where are they located?

❖ What are the scenic attractions of the protected area?

❖ Where are the most pristine sectors of the protectedarea?

B. Cultural ResourcesThis section should define the historical, archaeologicalor current cultural sites and events that could act asattractions or in some way affect how ecotourism wouldbe carried out.

❖ Are there any significant historical sites within oradjacent to the protected area which could be utilizedas tourism attractions? Do these same sites presentsignificant difficulties for their protection?

❖ Are there any significant archaeological sites within oradjacent to the protected area which could be utilizedas tourism attractions? Do these same sites presentsignificant difficulties for their protection?

❖ Do other institutions need to be involved in order toexcavate, restore, protect and interpret these sites?

❖ Are there local indigenous or traditional cultures thatneed to be considered and respected in the develop-ment of an EMP? To what extent do the aspirationsand culture of local people permit their involvementwith ecotourism?

C. Protected Area Management Status❖ Is the area protected? If so, what is its history? When

was the area declared protected? What is its protectivestatus? Why is it considered important to protect? Isthe area effectively protected? If not, what elementsare missing in order to effectively protect the area?

❖ Who manages the area? Is it part of a protected sys-tem? If so, describe the system and its management.Is the management system effective?

❖ How many staff members does the protected areaemploy? Describe their functions. Do they work fullor part-time? Are protected area personnel local resi-dents, or do they live outside the area? Do volunteerswork in the protected area? If so, what do they do? Is

the current level of employees adequate to cover cur-rent and projected management responsibilities?

❖ Has a Site Conservation Planning process been carriedout? What are the primary threats to the protected area?These may be economic development pressures suchas tourism or others. Which resources are affected bythese threats? How urgent and severe are these threats?What strategies are used to deal with the identifiedthreats? Are the strategies effective? If not, why not?

❖ Describe the current impacts of tourists. For example,is soil compacted because of tourists? Is there more lit-ter? Have any attempts been made to quantify impacts?Are there formal impact studies? If so, describe them.What are the projections for potential impacts?

❖ Is there a monitoring system in the protected area? Ifso, describe it. Is it effective? If not, why not?

D. Visitor Patterns, Activities and InfrastructureSince visitor interest and demand will drive any futureecotourism program, it is essential to fully understandthe nature of current and potential visitor use. It isunlikely that much information will be available; in thiscase, some effort should be put into carrying out a visi-tor profile survey with either current visitors or visitorsto nearby tourist attractions.

❖ What are the major visitor attractions in your protect-ed area? Why do people visit? In addition to the natu-ral resources, are there cultural resources or otherattractions that bring them?

❖ How accessible is your site? What are the principaltypes of transportation: bus, canoe, car, airplane orother? What are the road conditions leading to yoursite? Is lack of accessibility an obstacle to tourismgrowth?

❖ What do visitors do in the protected area? How longdo they stay? Do they come for specific activities? Dothey come to relax or be active? What food and drinksare available in the area? Do they buy things such assouvenirs? If so, what? Describe the day of a tourist.

❖ Are there visitor statistics for the protected area? If so,describe the system of collection. How many peoplevisit the protected area each month? Annually? Whatis the percentage of foreigners and nationals? For for-eigners, what are their nationalities? What languagesdo they speak and read? What are the growth trends?What are the estimates for future visitor trends?

❖ Do most visitors arrive in groups or as individuals? Ifvisitors arrive with groups, how big are these? Dothey make reservations in advance? Once in the pro-tected area, do people travel independently or with

guides? If guides are used, are they protected areaemployees or outside guides?

❖ Have any visitor surveys been conducted? If so, whenwere they done and what was the method? What didyou learn about visitors? Why do they come to theprotected area? What do they want to do? What aretheir likes and dislikes about the protected area andits facilities? Do they feel the services offered are ade-quate? Do they have any advice for improvements?

❖ What are the economic impacts of visitors to the pro-tected area? Do they pay entrance or user fees? Dothey purchase goods and services in the protectedarea? Are there private sector businesses in the protect-ed area? Does the protected area have concessionarrangements? If so, describe them. Do the visitors goto local communities in conjunction with their visit tothe protected area? If so, which communities and whattypes of activities/infrastructure are offered to them?What are the communities’ assessments of such visits?

❖ What type of tourism infrastructure does the protect-ed area have? Is there a trail system? Are there touristfacilities? Are there research facilities? Describe each.How are these maintained? Are they in good condi-tion or need repair? Are the facilities adequate fortheir demand?

❖ Describe the protected area’s environmental educationprograms. Is there written interpretation on trails? Dovisitors take a self-guided tour? Is there a visitor cen-ter? What materials are available? Are there guides?Do visitors take advantage of these programs? Is envi-ronmental education a high priority for the protectedarea? For visitors? How would you rate the effective-ness of your environmental education programs?

❖ In addition to nature, are there other visitor attrac-tions in the area: cultural, heritage or other? Describethese attractions.

E. Tourism Plans and Policies ❖ Does the protected area have a management plan? If

so, does it include a section on tourism activities? Ifso, describe its contents. What are the existingtourism plans for the area? Is there a zoning system?Is the management plan effective? If not, why not?

❖ At the national level, is there a tourism plan thatincludes nature tourism or ecotourism? If so, describethis section. Are there other national plans that includenature tourism or ecotourism, perhaps national con-servation or economic development plans?

❖ Are there any other government statements, laws orpolicies that affect tourism in your area? These may

be at the national, regional or local levels. If so,describe them and their relationship to tourism.

❖ Do you try to influence government plans and poli-cies related to your protected area? If so, how? Dogovernment officials seek opinions from protectedarea personnel for decisions about protected areas andtourism? Are there other opportunities for you to playa role in planning and policymaking at local, regionalor national levels?

❖ Are you satisfied with existing plans and policiesrelated to nature tourism/ecotourism? Is there anentrance fee system? Is it effective? What happens tothe money collected from entrance fees and otherfees? Are there policies concerning private sectoractivities in the protected area? If so, describe them.If not, should there be? How would you change cur-rent plans and policies? Would you add new ones?

❖ Is there pending or upcoming legislation related toyour protected area? If so, describe it. Is there achance for you to get involved in this process? Wouldthis be a good opportunity to help shape the directionof ecotourism in the area?

F. CommunitiesLocal people can have a huge influence upon any pro-tected area management activity; this is especially trueof ecotourism. Ideally, there should be a mutualisticrelationship between the protected area and the com-munities adjoining it, each benefiting from the other.Local communities should be integrated into any eco-tourism activity in the protected area and vice versa.But making this relationship function optimally is diffi-cult and tedious. It is almost as important to have detailedinformation about the communities around the protectedarea as it is to understand the natural and culturalresources located within the protected area. Whereverpossible, this information should be expressed on a maptogether with population density, growth and location.

❖ Are there communities surrounding or inside the pro-tected area? What is their distance from the protectedarea? What is the size of each community? Describethe economic activities of each community. How aremembers organized? What is the leadership? Arethere other significant characteristics of each group?

❖ What is the history of relations between communitiesand the protected area? Have there been many inter-actions? Have there been tensions between residentsand protected area officials? Is there a history of com-petition for natural resources between the two? If so,describe them.


❖ Do local residents visit your protected area? If so,what attracts them? What do they do? Have theyencountered difficulties gaining access to the site dueto increased visitation?

❖ Are residents involved in nature tourism activities? Ifso, describe their involvement in general. Is thisinvolvement recent or do they have a long history?How did they get involved? Was it a planned activityor did it just happen?

❖ Describe the types of tourism businesses in surround-ing communities: lodges, restaurants, guide services,handicraft shops, taxi companies and others. Do theseoffer employment opportunities for local residents?How many residents own or manage businesses? Aretourism businesses in the area profitable? Are theproducts they use local or imported? How are thesebusinesses promoted to the public?

❖ In addition to economic impacts, what other impactsdo residents encounter in nature tourism? Have therebeen social changes? If so, describe them. Have therebeen any negative environmental changes, such asmore water pollution? Have there been any positivechanges, such as better conservation efforts throughclean-up campaigns? In what other ways has tourismaffected surrounding areas?

❖ What are the residents’ plans for nature tourism? Arethere efforts to organize, discuss and handle tourismissues? Are there any tourism associations or coopera-tives to address this topic? Is there a formal planningprocess within communities? Do you know whetherresidents wish to pursue or discourage tourism intheir communities?

❖ What is your current means for communicating withresidents about tourism issues? Is there an establishedforum? If not, can you create a system for communi-cation? How will you stay informed about how com-munities are managing tourism?

G. Partnerships❖ Do you have any active partnerships with local resi-

dents? For example, you may recommend a certainlodge to protected area visitors because you know theowner will provide an environmental education pro-gram for guests. Partnerships may be formal or infor-mal. If you have partnerships, describe them. Whoinitiated these relationships? Are they successful?

❖ Do you have active partnerships with government offi-cials? Do you have partnerships with tourism officials?For example, do you exchange information with eachother? Have you agreed to accept more tourists if more

environmental impact studies are conducted? Who ini-tiated these relationships? Are they successful?

❖ Do you have active partnerships with academics?Can they conduct research in exchange for a freeplace to stay? Do they study the flora and faunaunder your guidance? Do academics approach you ordo you seek them out? Describe these relationships.Are they successful?

❖ Do you have active partnerships with the tourismindustry? For example, do tour operators help pro-mote your protected area if you give them specialtreatment? What is your relationship with local andinternational tour operators? Do you have partner-ships with tourism developers? Do you have partner-ships with anyone in the transportation services?Describe your relationships with members of thetourism industry.

❖ Do you have active partnerships with nongovernmen-tal organizations (NGOs)? These may be local orinternational, and specialize in conservation, commu-nity development, tourism or other topics related tonature tourism. Do you have formal contracts orinformal agreements? Why and how were these part-nerships formed?

❖ Of all your partnerships, are there any that are partic-ularly successful? Why? Are there any that have notworked? Why not?

H. Marketing and Promotion❖ What are your current marketing efforts? Have you

studied why visitors come to your site? Why do visi-tors go to nearby sites? Are you targeting specialgroups for travel to your area? What groups are par-ticipating in marketing activities for your site?

❖ Is your protected area well known or obscure? Domany nationals already know about your area? Dopeople outside your country know about it?

❖ How is your area promoted? Is your protected areapromoted as part of a national or regional tourismcampaign? Do international NGOs promote your site?Does the tourism industry? What are your formalmeans of promotion, such as brochures or videos? Isthere also informal promotion, such as word ofmouth from past visitors? Are there other ways topromote your protected area?

I. Opportunities and Obstacles❖ What new opportunities will affect your tourism

numbers? Think broadly and creatively. What willchange tourism demand? Consider transportation


issues. For example, is there a new airline service intothe country that may provide more visitors? Was adirt road leading to your site recently paved? Whatother transportation issues affect tourism?

❖ Have changes occurred in the status of your naturalresources? Are the threats greater? Has the govern-ment recently upgraded the protective status of thearea? Have you received new funds for protectedarea management?

❖ What about publicity? Was there an article recentlypublished about your pro-tected area in a popular mag-azine? Did a tour operatorstart running new tours toyour site?

❖ Are there any new attractionsin your area that might bringadditional visitors to thecountry? How will this affectyour site? Are there alreadytourists in the region visitingother sites who might beattracted to your site?

❖ Are there upcoming confer-ences in your country relatedto nature tourism? Will theseincrease exposure to yourarea?

❖ What else has happened, oris likely to happen, that willaffect tourism numbers?

❖ Are there any obstacles totourism growth to consider?For example, was thererecent political conflict inyour area, or is there poten-tial for conflict? Is your areaconsidered stable? Is politicalviolence a possibility?

❖ Have you experienced a natural disaster, such as ahurricane, in your area? What was damaged?

❖ What about your country’s currency? Is it consideredstable on the international market? Has your nationalcurrency experienced changes that discourage visitorsfrom coming to your country? These obstacles totourism growth may be temporary or permanent.Depending on whether you want to increase ordecrease tourism numbers, you may feel these obsta-cles are positive or negative.

How to Obtain the Diagnostic InformationThere are several different types of activities that need tobe carried out in order to obtain the needed information.

A. Review of Existing Written Materials One of the first steps of the planning team should be tocollect and review all of the written materials about theprotected area that are pertinent to planning for eco-tourism: the general management plan, relevant legisla-tion and policy documents, scientific studies, wildlifeinventories, visitor surveys and profiles, tourism statis-

tics for the protected areaand to sites in the region,and analyses of nationaltourism trends (figures areusually available from theMinistry of Tourism).

B. Fieldwork Thoroughly knowingand understanding thearea is fundamental todeveloping an EMP,which cannot be donewithout spending a lot oftime visiting the protect-ed area. As a first step,the team should studyexisting maps andbecome familiar with thegeneral layout of theprotected area and thelocation of the majornatural and cultural fea-tures, as well as theactual and potential visi-tor sites and infrastruc-ture. Aerial photographsand satellite images arevery useful if available.Use of computerizedmaps with different lay-

ers of information is an ideal way to map the area,and GIS is an excellent tool to facilitate this process.The team should also become familiar with areasadjacent to the protected area where tourism activi-ties are currently carried out or might be in thefuture. In particular, geographic and resource utiliza-tion links between adjacent communities and theprotected area must be detected and evaluated.Information from previously conducted HumanContext Analyses (HCA) should be utilized.


Box 3.1 Visitor Survey: Sierra del LacandónNational Park, Guatemala

Sierra del Lacandón National Park, created in 1990, islocated in the Peten region of Guatemala. During1999, The Nature Conservancy and the park’s admin-istration developed an ecotourism management plan. Alocal graduate of a university ecotourism program washired to prepare a diagnostic of the tourism situation ofthe park. While the park has many natural and culturalattractions, few tourists visit it. As part of the diagnosticprocess, the tourism specialist identified each of thetourism attractions and located them on a map. Shealso interviewed representative samples of visitors atother visitor sites in the Peten region to develop a basicvisitor profile, as well as to determine if there would beany interest in visiting the park attractions shouldaccess be improved and information made available.

Tourism operators and owners of travel agencieswere also interviewed to find out if they would be inter-ested in sending clients to the park under certain condi-tions. All of the information was used to help define themain recommendations of the Ecotourism ManagementPlan for the park.

adapted from Moore et al., 2000

Several trips to the protected area should beplanned, if possible organizing them as if you were atypical tourist. In this way, the team will get a visitor’sperspective. But the team should also make sure it isable to visit every site in the area that has any potentialwhatsoever for ecotourism, remembering that an eco-tourist can be a backpacker who wants to hike andcamp or a senior citizen who wants to stay in a com-fortable lodge or cabin.

In order to gather this information, the planningteam may designate a research assistant to carry outinitial site exploration. The data generated from thisexploration would include photos and logistics; thisdata will identify key areas for further in-depth inves-tigation and may rule out areas initially thought tohave potential.

In order to do effective fieldwork, it is useful to sub-divide the protected area into sectors according to prob-lems, uses, ecosystems and any other particularsituations that might exist. If there is a zoning structureset up by the general management plan, this should bea useful guideline. Particular attention should be paidto: present and potential visitor sites, other protectedarea infrastructure such as guardposts, shoreline areas, hills andmountain tops, trails of all sorts,camp sites, access points, lakes,streams, springs, etc.

The planning team mustobtain a comprehensive view ofthe protected area and everythingthat could affect ecotourismdevelopment (which is just abouteverything). It must begin tounderstand how tourism willfunction in the protected area byasking such questions as:

❖ How long does it take to getfrom one place to another?

❖ Is the protected area accessible?

❖ Where are the potential lodgingsites?

❖ What are the major attractions?

❖ What are the activities that visi-tors might engage in?

❖ What are the obstacles?

❖ Is it safe?

Ultimately, the planning team must put itself in theplace of the visitor and visualize what he/she would likeand not like. This should involve staying in the samelocal hotels, hiking area trails and using existing trans-portation.

The team must decide what information is mostneeded. Information gathering should be strategicallyorganized so that only the most relevant data is obtained,otherwise the task is never ending. A complete invento-ry of everything is not needed. Box 3.4 includes someideas of the information that might be gathered.

C. InterviewsFormal and informal interviews with people who knowthe area are essential to gaining an informed opinion ofwhat the protected area is like. Different people willhave different perspectives. All of these perspectives areuseful, although not always acceptable. For example, ahunter may be able to provide useful information aboutwhere certain species of interest to visitors are mostlikely to be found. Scientists will be able to inform theteam about where special or endangered vegetation orwildlife is located. Local people who may use the area

for subsistence reasons canbe useful informants abouttrails, potential attractionsand a host of other informa-tion. Protected area person-nel, especially the rangers orguards who spend most oftheir time in the area, are anessential source of informa-tion about the resources, vis-itor behavior and localcommunity relationships.

The perspective of tourismoperators is also important.What they see as the chal-lenges and opportunities fortourism in an area is valuableinformation. They also knowthe tourists and their prefer-ences and expectations betterthan any other actor. An EMPmust be a plan that thetourism industry can findacceptable. The team mustknow what operators aredoing in the protected area

and what they are planning to do. If little or no tourism isoccurring at present, then interviews with those operators


Box 3.2 Full Site Diagnostic at Sierradel Lacandón National Park

Before other field trips were carried out, the EMPplanning team for Sierra del Lacandón NationalPark in Guatemala hired a recent graduate ofan Ecotourism Program at a national universityto collect a large part of the data that wasrequired. This involved preparing a SiteInventory of Ecotourism Attractions as well asdeveloping a visitor profile. The student neededto review relevant written materials, interviewpark rangers and visit key sites throughout thepark. This student then became a valuable mem-ber of the planning team.

Formal relationships with such programs canbe a useful way to develop future professionalsfor protected areas. Students may do theses orspecial projects in the protected areas and findproductive employment with those areas later on.



who are interested or whomay be potentially interest-ed will still be useful. Theirinterest in conforming toand promoting the eco-tourism guidelines of lownumbers, low impact andeconomic benefit to theprotected area and localcommunities is important.

D. Questionnaires andSurveysWritten questionnaires orsurveys may be a usefultool for systematizing anddocumenting the informa-tion obtained from interviews. They will be essential ifsample sizes are so large that face-to-face interviews areimpracticable. The planning team should be careful toensure that surveys are used to obtain specific informa-tion of benefit to the EMP and that they are short, well-designed documents (including a field testing of thesurvey instrument). Professional help in designing asurvey is recommended; if not used, survey results maynot be as useful as planners had hoped for. It is impor-tant to recognize that gathering and analyzing thisinformation requires time and money; this should beclearly factored into work plans and budgets.

E. ConsultativeMeetings andWorkshopsWhile field work mayconstitute the mostimportant method forobtaining information,events such as work-shops and other typesof meetings that bringstakeholders togetherfor constructive pur-poses are alsoextremely importantfor several reasons:

❖ They are a valuable means for obtaining information/opinions from informed individuals and organizationsabout the protected area and those aspects related tothe EMP, e.g., what the attractions are, the difficultiesin doing tourism there, who the visitors are, who theother stakeholders are that the team may not haveconsidered, etc.

❖ If well designed, they are important means of involv-ing stakeholders in the planning process and, hope-fully, in the later implementation stages. Participantsshould be made to feel that their opinions are impor-

Box 3.3 Stakeholder Consultation at Sierra delLacandón National Park

In order to prepare the EMP for Sierra del Lacandón NationalPark in Guatemala, two workshops were held initially, one fortour operators and the other for local NGOs and other commu-nity groups. Another joint workshop was held later to report tothem on the preliminary observations to obtain stakeholderinput on specific issues. A final workshop was held to presentthe final document. In the meantime, several of the workshopparticipants participated with the planning team either in field-work or other activities in which their contribution was useful.


Preface

I. Introduction

A. Purpose and Objectives of the Plan

B. The Concepts and Principles which Provide the Ecotourism

Framework

C. Methodology

II. Ecotourism Development Context for the Park

A. National and Cultural Characteristics of the Park

B. Socio-economic Situation of the Park

C. Tourism Policy and Legal Context

1. Legislation

2. Policies of the Comisión Nacional de Areas Protegidas

3. Present role of Tourism within the Park

D. Present Management and Administration

III. Regional and Park Level Evaluation of Tourism Situation

A. Profile of National and Regional Tourism Indicators

1. Regional Tourism

2. Profile of Visitors to the Peten

B. Present Situation of Tourism

1. Tourism to the National Park

2. Tourism attractions and infrastructure

C. Present Initiatives

1. Infrastructure and attractions

D. Factors which Limit Ecotourism Development

1. Visitor Safety

2. Impact of the New Highway Tabasco-Flores

3. Impact of the Establishment of La Técnica as a Frontier

CommunityMoore et al., 2000

EMP for Sierra del Lancandón National Park, Guatemala

Box 3.4 Ecotourism Justification and Background


tant and will be reflected in the EMP. There shouldalways be follow up to a workshop or other meeting.

❖ They are an educational device. While meetingsshould not be designed exclusively for this purpose,they should be used to inform people about the pro-tected area, its objectives and, in particular, the EMP.

Organizing the Diagnostic Information Good decisions require good information. In this phaseof EMP development, planners must include all of theinformation they can obtain that is relevant to establish-ing an ecotourism program in the protected area. Thepurpose of this section is threefold:

❖ The effort of organizing and presenting this informa-tion frequently helps planners to better understandand analyze the data that they have.

❖ The information presented here should provide a logi-cal support for the recommendations included in thestrategic plan section; there should be a natural flowfrom the data to conclusions to recommendations.

❖ The background information constitutes a valuableresource for protected area managers and may not beeasily available from other sources. As such, this sec-tion should be considered an important reference forfuture planning and other administrative actions.

Formalizing the Content of the Diagnostic SectionAfter you have gathered your information, the task ofputting it down on paper in an organized, systematicmanner awaits. The outline in Box 3.4 provides aguideline for how this might be done. Remember thatthe strategies and recommendations section comes later.

References

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protectedareas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world andguidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland: The WorldConservation Union (IUCN); N. Bennington, Vermont: TheEcotourism Society.

Moore, A., A. Drumm, and J. Beavers. 2000. Plan de manejopara el desarrollo del ecoturismo en el Parque Nacional Sierradel Lacandón. Serie de Coediciones Técnicas No. 15. ConsejoNacional de Areas Protegidas (CONAP), Fundación Defensoresde la Naturaleza, The Nature Conservancy.


This is the time when all those great ideas must beput on paper in a way that those responsible for

implementation will be able to understand them anduse them. This is a real challenge and one of the mainreasons why many plans do not get implemented. Thedata collected in the Diagnostic Phase needs to be ana-lyzed and structured in a way that will make it useful inthe recommendation.

Data Analysis PhaseOnce the data has been collected, the team needs toanalyze it and begin to make decisions about what theEMP will recommend. A lot of data will have beenaccumulated, and planners need to be able to use thisinformation. A useful beginning point is to look at theopportunities that have presented themselves, as well asthe obstacles. Is there a lot of potential interest in estab-lishing an ecotourism program in the protected area?Are local communities already involved in ecotourism?What are they doing? Are they doing it well? What dothey want to do in the future? Is there an internationaldonor interested in providing funding? Are there poten-tial development projects that may impact (positively ornegatively) ecotourism implementation?

Another useful analytical tool is to think in terms ofcritical sites, or critical activities. What sites need tobe tourist oriented? At what sites has tourism had anegative impact? What are the activities that must becarried out if ecotourism is to be successful?

The Site Conservation Planning process used by TheNature Conservancy provides a very useful structure foranalytical work. It focuses on identifying the stresses onkey biological systems in the protected area and thenidentifying the actual source of the stress. Planners thenidentify the critical threats and the strategies that miti-gate or eliminate these threats (see Part II, Chapter 2).In the data analysis phase, critical threat identificationshould be a priority. If key biological systems have not

yet been identified via the general management plan orother scientific studies, then EMP planners will need toassess this issue so that ecotourism activities can beplanned accordingly. High impact or unmanagedtourism may already constitute a threat to some impor-tant environments. Ecotourism may constitute a strate-gy for alleviating that stress. Strategy development takesplace in the next phase.

A key result of the analytical phase must be someconclusions about:

❖ what the major threats are to the site/protected areaand how the EMP might address them;

❖ where ecotourism is going to take place;

❖ what kinds of activities will be carried out to imple-ment ecotourism;

❖ who will be in charge of implementing these activitiesand what precautions need to be taken; and

❖ by who and how this will be monitored and funded.

In order to reach these important conclusions, theplanning team will need to work together. Perhaps eachperson could be responsible for reaching tentative con-clusions regarding one aspect of the EMP. These wouldthen be presented in a group setting and discussed byall. At some point after the initial analysis, it may beuseful to have a workshop involving the stakeholders toask their opinions about various scenarios, e.g., if visi-tor site X would work better as an ecotourism site if itwere restricted to groups of six people or less, or if anecolodge run by a concessionaire would be an accept-able means of providing lodging in a distant, but touris-tically-important, part of the protected area.

Preparing and presenting information to a group ofstakeholders on a situation, including viable alterna-tives, can be very productive and educational.

Chapter 4

Step 3: Data Analysis and Preparing the Plan


Preparing the PlanBefore beginning the task of deciding exactly how eco-tourism will be implemented, the planning team shouldagree upon the organization and format of the plan andthen each person should be assigned sections to writeaccording to their interests and expertise. A plan reportcoordinator should also be designated. Drafts of eachsection should be reviewed by other team members toensure that all points have been covered and that extra-neous ones are not. The content should be kept basicand written so that one section flows into another. Afinal editing job by a professional is essential.

Planners should remember that the informationneeds to be obtained via a well-planned process(described in the previous chapter). The level of detailincluded in the recommendations will depend in largepart upon the amount and quality of information avail-able, the degree of participation by concerned stake-holders and the amount of time and funding available.If the circumstances warrant, it is justifiable to postponesome decisions to a later date when more informationor funding is available, i.e., planning to plan. In suchcases, planners need to concentrate on defining the firststeps so that implementation can begin.

A plan is only a reflection ofwhat planners believe the bestcourse of action should be at agiven point in time under agiven set of circumstances.While the general course ofaction should remain fairly con-sistent over time, the detailsinvolved in carrying it out maychange significantly over timeand as conditions change.Therefore, an EMP should beregarded as a dynamic docu-ment that is followed as long asits recommendations can be log-ically implemented within thesurrounding management andtourism environment and aslong as they fulfill the objectivesestablished for the program.

This is the section where everything comes together,where all the hard work done by the EMP planners andother participants in the planning process results in aplan for actually carrying out an ecotourism program inthe protected area. It is important that this sectiondescribes and explains everything that needs to be done

for ecotourism to become a part of the protected area’smanagement strategy. To do this, planners need to beable to present the plan in an orderly, systematic andclear way.

Presentation of the plan should consider the intend-ed audience and its level of understanding. If most ofthe people who will be implementing the plan haveparticipated in the planning process, this will facilitatetheir understanding of the plan’s contents. If they didnot participate, then the plan will need to consider thisin both the level of content detail as well as the struc-ture of its presentation. The plan must also considerthat potential funders, politicians and tourism officialswill also be reviewing this document, which under-scores the need to make it a document easily under-stood by people who may not be intimately familiarwith the protected area. In general, the plan’s recom-mendations should:

❖ build upon what the protected area already has interms of previous planning efforts (e.g., a generalmanagement plan), infrastructure, personnel andadministration, recognizing that certain changeswill need to take place;

❖ be consistent and integrated with the protected area’sother management programs such as Protection,Environmental Education and Resource Management;

❖ be structured and written in a way that protected areapersonnel will be able to take the plan and implementit with minimum effort and maximum understanding;

The Río Usumacinta is the boundary of Sierra del Lacandón National Park and also theborder between Guatemala and Chiapas, Mexico © Andy Drumm


❖ contain a level of detail consistent with the types ofrecommendations that are made and with the techni-cal expertise of protected area personnel and otherswho will be carrying out the plan.

EMP SizeThe size of a finished plan will vary according to itsthoroughness, which might also be a function of timeand budget availability. But a typical EMP will consist ofa total of between 50 and 100 pages, including maps

and tables. This will probably be divided equallybetween the Diagnostic results gathered in the Full SiteEvaluation and the Plan of action described below.

EMP StructureA. Vision, Goals and StrategiesVision. Planners need to present their overall vision ofwhat ecotourism will mean to the protected area. Thiswill usually consist of a few well-crafted paragraphs thatpresent a concise, comprehensive projection of what theprotected area will be like after several years of successfulecotourism. Particular topics that should be addressedare community involvement, levels and types of tourismactivity, income generation and changes that will bemade in protected area management. For example, seeBox 4.2.

Box 4.1 Vision for Ecotourism in Sierra delLacandón National Park

Ecotourism in SLNP will be characterized by a relatively con-stant flow of low volumes of a diversity of visitor types largelyfalling into two general categories:

1) general interest in natural and cultural history fromEurope and the US requiring relatively easy access andcomfortable accommodation in an ecolodge; and

2) generally younger, more adventurous with similar generalinterests who will camp at designated sites within the parkand stay in local communities.

All will pay an entrance fee to the park administration andwill be accompanied by a trained guide from a local com-munity. Visits will generally be split between day visitors andone and two-night stays.

Visitation will eventually rise to between 10 and 15 thousandper year. The park will generate revenues sufficient to financeecotourism management activities and generate a surplus foradditional conservation activities.


Box 4.2 Goals of Sierra del Lacandón NationalPark EMP, Guatemala

1. Encourage a diversified tourism program that offersopportunities and activities to different segments of thetourism market.

2. Serve as a model for the development of ecotourism activ-ities for other Guatemalan protected areas.

3. Generate income for the conservation of Sierra delLacandón National Park.

4. Improve the knowledge of local people, the public in generaland park visitors about the area’s natural and culturalresources by means of educational and interpretive activities.

5. Involve communities and local peoples both within andadjacent to the national park in order that they will benefitfrom ecotourism activities.


Activities

Goal 1 Goal 2

Objective1

Objective2

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 1 Strategy 2

Activities Activities

Objective1

Objective2


Objective1

Objective2


Objective1

Objective2

Activities

Figure 4.1 The Structure of an Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP)


Goals. It is also important to specify the goals for eco-tourism development in the protected area. Usuallythese goals are derived from the basic tenets espousedby the concept of ecotourism: low impact tourism, localcommunity benefits, conservation finance and environ-mental education. These goals will probably remain con-stant over time, though some of the activities designedto carry them out may change with circumstances.

Strategies. Strategy development is an essential stepafter defining the plan’s overall Goals. It is an interme-diate step between establishing Goals and defining spe-cific Activities to carry them out (see Figure 4.1). Itbrings the abstract Goals to a more realistic level. TheObjectives and Activities, in turn, take the Strategies toa very practical level.

Strategy development should be directed to resolv-ing the major threats and critical situations you havedefined in the analysis section, and/or in the SiteConservation Planning process, as well as to ensuringthat tourism activity is really ecotourism. Strategies canbe Direct or Indirect in their approach. An example ofa Direct type of strategy would be: “Decrease negativetourism impact upon the Red River by implementinglow impact technology.” An Indirect approach wouldbe: “Encourage capacity building in the communitiesadjacent to the protected area.” A few examples of pos-sible Strategies follow:

There are different approaches to presenting strate-gies in an EMP. The approach that you choose needs toconsider the people who will be using this plan as wellas the administrative setup of the protected area. Theultimate consideration is that the people in charge of theEcotourism Program be able to take this Plan andimplement it with a minimum of difficulty.

Strategies for an Ecotourism Program can also begrouped into Subprograms (see Box 4.4) such asInfrastructure Development, Tour Guide System,Environmental Education, Community Relations,Environmental Interpretation, Fee System (or IncomeGeneration), Concession Management and Administra-tion. For each Strategy within a Subprogram, specificObjectives should be prepared and then Activitiesorganized to implement these Strategies and Objectives.

The main objective should be to present all of theneeded information in a manner which site/protectedarea managers will find accessible and usable. Generallyspeaking, the questions of What, Who, Where andHow must be answered here. It is also important todefine objectives that can be used later to measure yourprogress in implementing the plan.

Box 4.3 Ecotourism Management Strategies

1. Implementation StrategyTo allow for advancement in other areas of parkmanagement, implement ecotourism in flexible stages.

2. Coordination/cooperationWork intensively with local communities and other localgroups and authorities, as well as with tourism operators,guides, NGOs, national organizations, Mexican authori-ties and many others, to ensure that the appropriate levelsof coordination and cooperation are achieved.

3. FundingFinance implementation of this Plan from fourdifferent sources:

- ecotourism activities,

- private sector investment in tourism infrastructure,

- government budget assigned to the national park, and

- donations and loans originating from bilateral and

multilateral assistance programs.


Box 4.4 Structure of Subprograms

Subprogram Name

A. Subprogram Description (what are we trying toaccomplish via this subprogram?)

B. Strategy

C. Specific Objectives (a few of which should be quantifi-able and measurable, e.g., entrance fees being collectedat two entry points within 18 months)

D. Major activities; for each activity:1. Title2. Activity Description (brief description of what will be

done)3. Implementation Responsibility (who will do this and

with whose help, including organizations, communi-ties, etc.?)

4. Prerequisites for Implementation (what needs to bedone before we can do this? what are other activitiesare needed, what materials, or what personnel? whatmeetings, etc.?)

5. Where will this activity take place?

6. Cost (an estimate of the project’s cost, aside frompersonnel already contracted)


B. ObjectivesFor each strategy you should develop a series of specific,programmatic objectives that must be met if your effortsare to be considered successful. Objectives are specificstatements detailing the desired accomplishments oroutcomes of a project or program. If the project is wellconceptualized and designed, realization of a project’sobjectives should lead to the fulfillment of the project’sgoals. A good objective meets the criteria in Box 4.5.

Defining an objective that meets all of these criteriais not as difficult as it may seem.

Some examples of good objectives are the following:

❖ After three years, two interpretive trails will bedesigned, constructed and in use.

❖ By the end of year five, incomes of those householdsparticipating in the handicraft production project willhave increased by at least 25%.

❖ After two years, the amount of trash collected on theGreen Mountain interpretive trail will have decreasedby 75%.

❖ By the end of year one, two tourism operators will beactive participants in the Ecotourism AdvisoryCommittee.

❖ During the first six months, the park should form anEcotourism Program Advisory Committee for the pur-pose of assisting the program director to implementprogram activities, evaluate the program’s progress,and provide advice concerning how best to deal withthe private sector and other institutions.

❖ The interpretive trail at Blue Mountain should bebuilt and fully implemented by the end of year two;the interpretive trail at Rapid River will be built andfully implemented by the end of year three.

❖ Local entrepreneur income will have increased by50% at the end of year three.

❖ Five tour guides from local communities will betrained and working by the end of year one.

C. ActivitiesNow that you have some objectives, you must developactivities to implement the objectives. Activities shouldmeet the criteria in Box 4.6

Some examples of activities:Objective 1. After three years, two interpretive trailswill be designed, constructed and in use.

Activity 1. Work with local community and spe-cialist to select specific site and develop a site planfor the trails, including interpretive signs and texts,to be implemented at Green River and Rocky Cliffs.A budget for each trail must be prepared as well.

Activity 2. Contract local community laborers toclear the trail routes and prepare the trail surfaces.

Activity 3. Contract the construction of trail sig-nage and interpretive pamphlets.

Box 4.5 Criteria for Defining Objectives

❖ Impact oriented. Represents desired changes incritical threat factors that affect project goals.

❖ Measurable. Definable in relation to some standardscale (numbers, percentages, fractions, or all/nothingstates).

❖ Time limited. Achievable within a specific period oftime.

❖ Specific. Clearly defined so that all people in the projecthave the same understanding of what the terms in theobjective mean.

❖ Practical. Achievable and appropriate within thecontext of the project site and the managementauthority’s possibilities.

adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998

Box 4.6 Criteria for Activity Development

1. Linked. Activities should always be linked to a specificobjective or objectives. There should be several for eachobjective.

2. Focused. Unlike objectives, which need to be impact ori-ented, activities need to be clearly process oriented.Activities should be written as focused statements of actionsthat the project/program is going to undertake. They mustinclude information about how you are going to do theactivity (which tasks need to be undertaken), who isresponsible for carrying out these tasks, when they will becompleted and where they will be undertaken.

3. Feasible. As you start to develop activities, you mightnotice that for any given objective there is practically aninfinite combination of activities that could be undertakento achieve the objective. You need to select the activitiesthat are the most feasible. In particular, you need to selectthe ones that make the most sense given the program’savailable and projected resources and constraints.

4. Appropriate. Are the activities appropriate consideringthe local context? Is it appropriate to organize a guidecooperative if there are only two guides or if there is nointerest at present?

Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998


D. ZoningZoning is a system for properly allocating different usesof a protected area in different parts of its territory.Tourism activities will be carried out in varying ways andintensity, and zoning should reflect this. See Volume II,Part I, Chapter 2 for detailed information about zoning.

E. Facilitating Implementation In the previous sections, a large number of activitieswill have been described, but typically managers willhave a hard time deciding where to begin and what todo first. Below are outlined three methods for facilitat-ing implementation of the EMP.

1. TimelinePlanners should place the Activities into an organized,systematic framework which will make it easy for man-agers to determine what needs to be done and when. Atypical way to do this is to decide the time period dur-ing which the EMP should be implemented and thendivide that period into several stages. These stagescould be one-year periods. However, due to the usualdelays that occur in implementation, it is perhaps morerealistic to use three or four implementation stageswithout a specific timeframe associated with them. Allplanned activities must be assigned to one of thesestages. This will provide managers with some basic ref-erence about the sequence in which activities need tobe carried out.

Typically, protected area managers will be anxious tobegin implementation but will be unsure about whatexactly they need to do first. It is useful for planners toprepare a brief section that describes in great detailwhat needs to be done during the first six months to ayear of the Program. This is particularly valuable whenthe person hired to direct the Ecotourism Program doesnot have the experience to carry out the Program frominception. With some initial detailed instructions, thetask becomes much easier.

2. Site specific plansAnother important method for facilitating the EMP’simplementation is the preparation of individual siteplans for the major visitor sites. These site plans shouldcontain details of all the actions needed to developthese sites and their order of implementation. If possi-ble, detailed maps should be prepared to indicate wherethe proposed infrastructure should be located.

3. Ecotourism advisory committeeAnother option for facilitating the EMP’s implementa-tion is to create an Ecotourism Advisory Committee

that will meet frequently to advise the EcotourismProgram coordinator. Ideally, the members of thisCommittee will be individuals who are familiar withecotourism and protected areas and who may have par-ticipated in the planning process. They can be invalu-able allies in achieving Program objectives.

4. Monitoring and evaluationThe EMP should recommend procedures and mecha-nisms for evaluating progress towards achieving theplan’s goals and objectives. It should also suggest waysto monitor the impact that tourism is having on thearea’s physical and cultural resources, as well as eco-nomic factors and visitor expectation levels. SeeVolume II, Part I, Chapter 6 for more information.

F. AnnexesA lot of data will be accumulated in the process of gath-ering information for the planning process and develop-ment of the EMP. Though only the most pertinent,synthesized information should be presented in thebody of the EMP, planners may wish to preserve muchof the data that they have gathered in the Annexes ofthe EMP. This way, the information is still available butdoes not interrupt the flow of the EMP with unneces-sary detail. Examples of what might belong here are:

❖ results of surveys carried out in the diagnostic phase;

❖ visitation statistics;

❖ lists of animal/plant species found in the protectedarea;

❖ lists of ecotourism projects encountered in communi-ties related to the protected area; and

❖ marketing studies.

G. Maps and Other GraphicsMaps and other graphics including charts and tables arean important part of the EMP since visual representa-tions are more readily understood by most readers.Maps should be used to indicate:

❖ location of the protected area, both in the region andthe country;

❖ natural and cultural attractions within and adjacent tothe protected area;

❖ zoning system;

❖ location and details of individual visitor sites;

❖ human populations; and

❖ infrastructure (roads, trails, guard stations, hotels, etc.).


Other graphics should demonstrate:

❖ visitation statistics;

❖ development schedules for individual visitor sites;

❖ visitor preferences; and

❖ transportation and accommodation capacities of exist-ing infrastructure.

Publicizing and Distributing the PlanBefore publication, the final draft should be submittedto those stakeholders who have shown the most interestin order to obtain their opinions and to detect any

errors that may have crept into the document. This willalso help achieve their buy-in to the EMP, which isessential if it is to be implemented.

After finishing the EMP, it must be publicized anddistributed to those who need to know about it:tourism operators, tour guides, tourism agencies, inter-national donors, national planning ministry, nationaltourism ministry or agency, universities, local govern-ments and communities, etc.

There is a lot of competition in the provision ofessentially similar ecotourism experiences. Ecotourismin protected areas usually needs to be promoted andmarketed if it is to be successful. A well-made anddesigned EMP is a good first step in that direction. It isnot only a management tool for protected area adminis-trators, it is also a publicity/fundraising tool.

References

Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success:Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and devel-opment projects. Washington D.C.: Island Press.


Resource

PROARCA/CAPAS www.capas.org/guide.htmThis excellent web site makes available many examples of pro-tected area management plans including ones relating to tourism.This project is part of the Regional Environmental Program forCentral America and operates regionally in Belize, Guatemala,El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. Theobjective of PROARCA/CAPAS is to provide financial, technicaland policy assistance for the management of protected areas andthe conservation of biodiversity in Central America.

Box 4.7 Checklist for Strategic Planning andRecommendations Section of the EMP

Have you:

Defined a vision for your Ecotourism ManagementPlan?

Determined a few major goals that you wish toguide your plan?

Allocated ecotourism activities within your siteaccording to a zoning scheme and/or adjusted aprevious scheme to coincide with the ecotourismactivity you are proposing?

Created a series of ecotourism subprograms thatreflect the different types of activities that will needmanagerial/administrative supervision?

Within each subprogram, developed a series ofstrategies that will be followed to guideimplementation?

For each strategy, developed a series of detailedactivities to implement the objectives?

Developed a timeline that places Activities to becarried out on a sequential list placed according toa Yearly or Phase format?

Developed detailed site plans for those sites to beused extensively by ecotourists?

Recommended the creation of an EcotourismAdvisory Committee to assist the site’s adminis-tration with the implementation and evaluationof the EMP?

Recommended how the EMP will be monitored andevaluated?


Now that you have an Ecotourism Management Plan(EMP), it is time to begin implementation. Starting

off on the right foot is frequently the most difficult partof the entire process. Several factors are key to programsuccess, and they can be divided into two categories:personnel-related factors and programmatic factors.

Personnel-related FactorsA. Head of Ecotourism Program. The EcotourismProgram should have a qualified person whose onlyresponsibility is to implement the EMP. This person, whoin this document will be called the “Head,” is the key to asuccessful ecotourism program. The Head should haveexperience with both the tourism industry as well as inconservation of natural areas. It would be even better ifthe Head has personnel management and business expe-rience. The Head is responsible for ensuring that all eco-tourism activities are carried out according to the EMPand that they all conform to the ecotourism concept. TheHead is also responsible for ensuring that the Program isappropriately integrated with the rest of the protectedarea’s management structure, e.g., the ResourceManagement and Protection programs. The Head willalso need to ensure that all of the personnel assigned tothe Ecotourism Program receives appropriate training.

B. Ecotourism Program Personnel. In addition tothe Head of the Program, there should be a number ofother staff members who work either part time or fulltime implementing the EMP recommendations. Thesestaff members will range from rangers or wardens whowork collecting entrance fees and supervising visitorbehavior, to specialists in environmental interpretationand education. There may also be a need for staff tosupervise concessions and other private sector involve-ment at the site. If ecotourism is bringing in significantsums of money, the area’s administration may need anaccountant to properly manage this money.

C. Training. Ecotourism is a relatively new manage-ment strategy and one that requires intensive and well-

focused management to be successful. In most cases, thestaff members available for implementing an EMP willnot have the appropriate background required to do agood job. Most of the staff, however, can be trained todo the job correctly, which should be arranged by thesite/protected area administration. Training needs willvary from a general course on ecotourism to more spe-cific training on concession management. Other trainingneeds may include: environmental interpretation andeducation; trail design and maintenance; impact moni-toring techniques, including Limits of AcceptableChange; visitor management techniques; communicationand human relations skills; accounting; fundraising andpublic relations; and extension techniques.

D. Ecotourism Advisory Committee. The EMPshould have been prepared using a participatoryprocess, and its implementation should also involve theparticipation of the various stakeholders. ThisCommittee has three main roles: (1) advising the Headof the Ecotourism Program concerning implementationof the EMP, especially with regard to technical andtourism industry concerns, (2) providing actual sup-port, both in the field and in the office when it is need-ed, and (3) providing a communication link to therespective spheres of influence, e.g., tourism industry orcommunities. For example, members of the Committeeshould be involved in providing logistical support andtraining assistance when needed. They should beenthusiastic supporters of ecotourism and of the partic-ular site/protected area. These individuals should beselected based upon their participation in the EMPplanning process. They should represent a cross-sectionof the tourism industry, especially locally, as well as ofgovernment agencies and local communities involvedwith tourism activities and the ecotourism site.

Programmatic FactorsE. Monitoring. It is impossible to overemphasize theimportance of frequent monitoring of program impacts.Monitoring usually refers to the measurement of the

Chapter 5

Step 4: Implementation of the Ecotourism Management Plan


economic, socio-cultural or ecological impact of a pro-gram or an activity upon the ecotourism site’s natural orhuman environment. Measurement usually consists ofsetting indicators and standards for various parameterswhich are representative of the potential impacts. Thesemust then be monitored on a regular basis to determinewhether or not these standards are being met. If theyare not, then management must change its approach torectify the situation. These indicators and standardsshould be defined at least partially in the EMP. If theyare not, then technical assistance may be required inorder to set up a monitoring plan. There is more infor-mation about monitoring in Volume II, Part I.

F. Evaluation refers to the regular review of theProgram’s progress towards accomplishing the goals andobjectives set out in the EMP and annual work plan. Thisshould be a formal process, usually conducted annually,in which all staff and stakeholders meet to discuss howthe project is going and to evaluate each of the Program’sactivities. Sometimes it is useful to contract an external,objective evaluator to manage this process. Results of theProgram’s evaluation should be used to mold the follow-ing year’s work plan, as well as to update the EMP whenthe time comes. There is more information about evalua-tion in Chapter 6, “Step 5: Measures of Success.”

G. Annual Work Plans for implementing the eco-tourism program should be prepared every year basedupon the EMP. Work plans are important to keep theprogram on course. They should be detailed withregard to who will do what, where, when and withwhat resources. Depending upon the administrative sys-tem in place, the annual work plan will also need to betranslated into a monthly or quarterly work plan.

H. Reporting Systems are also an important elementof any administrative system, especially one as impor-tant as an ecotourism program. Those staff memberswith supervisory or other important responsibilitiesshould report periodically in writing, to the Head of theProgram with regard to their activities and achievementof program goals and objectives. While many will chafeat this requirement, it is fundamental to the responsi-ble and professional management of an important pro-gram. Without a written record of what has happened,the Head cannot make important decisions for thefuture nor justify changes that may need to be made.Some especially important reports concern financialmatters, such as entrance fee collection, and/or activityimplementation, such as trail maintenance or monitor-ing of critical indicators.

Site PlansSite plans are essential for any ecotourism program thatinvolves a concentration of tourism activity, such as sig-nificant infrastructures (e.g., an ecolodge and associatedtrails, a visitor center or a campground). If the planswere not done for the EMP, they will need to be devel-oped during the implementation phase. Site plans aredetailed, large-scale maps of the specific site where eco-tourism activities will occur. They are importantbecause they allow planners to:

❖ precisely locate infrastructure in a way that will mini-mize impact upon the site’s natural resources, and

❖ visualize the best design for optimizing the relation-ship between the different infrastructure elements atthe site.

They also permit ecotourism program managers tosupervise and plan for the construction of the neededinfrastructure.

Site plans need to be prepared by professionals andtechnicians specialized in site mapping, GPS and eco-tourism infrastructure design. There is more informa-tion on site planning in Volume II, Part I.

Stakeholder AnalysisIn most ecotourism sites, working effectively with localcommunities is essential for program success. This isgenerally considered the most difficult task that theEcotourism Program needs to accomplish. The EMPwill have described what needs to be done to involvelocal people and communities. What may be lacking isthe type of strategic information needed to actuallycarry out the EMP’s recommendations which requiresone to:

❖ identify and describe existing community organiza-tion mechanisms;

❖ identify formal and informal community leaders;

❖ identify existing and potential abilities and skills in thelocal population related to ecotourism activities; and

❖ identify attitudes, values and beliefs that might favoror inhibit development of ecotourism activities inlocal communities.

This Community Stakeholder Analysis study shouldbe carried out by a sociologist or anthropologist whocan obtain the required information in an impartial,neutral manner. It is important that they not raiseexpectations among local people regarding tourismpotential.


Adaptive Management Implementation1

In most conservation projects, and EMP implementa-tion is no exception, the work is never really done. Nomatter how well you plan the project or program, itnever goes exactly as you intend it to. This uncertaintyis not necessarily a bad thing. In many ways, the mostinteresting results, the findings that lead to trueadvances in understanding, are the ones you neverexpected to get. You will only benefit from these unex-pected results, however, if you are ready to look forthem and act on them. To borrow a phrase from AlbertEinstein, “Chance favors the prepared mind.”

Changing conditions at your site/protected area andunexpected outcomes of project activities mean thatyou must always be prepared to respond to new situa-tions to keep your project on track. Adaptation is aconstant process. In order to reach your project goalsand objectives, you must continually change and modi-fy your EMP according to available information.However, important changes should never be madeunilaterally; relevant stakeholders should always beconsulted. You should take advantage of the EcotourismAdvisory Committee to help you in this process.

If something in your EMP is not working, change it!If you do not, chances are the project will suffer. Successis usually a moving target. You will find that the onlyway to attain it is by being flexible and open to change.

Reference

Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success:Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and develop-ment projects. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Resources


PROARCA/CAPAS www.capas.org/guide.htmThis excellent web site makes available many examples of pro-tected area management plans including ones relating to tourism.This project is part of the Regional Environmental Program forCentral America and operates regionally in Belize, Guatemala,El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. Theobjective of PROARCA/CAPAS is to provide financial, technicaland policy assistance for the management of protected areas andthe conservation of biodiversity in Central America.

A. Is there a Head of the Ecotourism Program?

B. Is there sufficient personnel to carry out the EMP?

C. Does the personnel have the training needed tocarry out the EMP?

D. Is there an Ecotourism Advisory Committee in placeand functioning?

E. Is there a Monitoring Program in place to monitorindicators representing the most likely and importanttourism impacts?

F. Does the Ecotourism Program administration annu-ally evaluate progress towards accomplishing pro-gram objectives?

G. Does the Ecotourism Program prepare AnnualWork Plans based upon the EMP?

H. Is there a Reporting System in place that adequatelyrepresents what staff members are doing?

I. Are there detailed Site Plans available for the siteswhere ecotourism activities occur?

J. Has a Community Stakeholder Analysis been carriedout of the important local communities?

EMP Implementation Factor yes/no

Figure 5.1 EMP Implementation Checklist

1 This section adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998.


IntroductionAs we move slowly from “works-in-progress” toward“demonstration sites” of ecotourism, it is important toidentify indicators of success. We need to keep track ofwhere we are and whether or not we are on track inimplementing the Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP)and accomplishing our goals and objectives. Programevaluation should be a part of a site’s routine manage-ment. Unfortunately, many managers do not systemati-cally evaluate how they are doing with regard tocarrying out planning recommendations and in makingthe decisions necessary to keep them on track. In orderto do this, they need guidance, or indicators, to helpthem make these decisions.

There are three primary goals that should beachieved if ecotourism is to be successful:

1. Threats to conservation targets are reduced.

2. Income is generated for conservation.

3. Local communities are benefited.

Ecotourism is more than an economic activity. It mustalso aid in reducing the threats to conservation of the sitewhether they are caused by uncontrolled tourism or fromother activities that impact negatively upon the site’s nat-ural resources. Are programs in place to mitigate prob-lems with flora and fauna? Are cultural impacts withcommunities monitored? Have residents maintainedaccess to their local protected areas? Are tourism facilitiesfollowing low-impact principles? Are natural resourcesbetter protected through having visitors? Is conservationmoving forward? Conversely, we should be asking if thecritical threats identified in the planning process arebeing abated in some way by implementing the EMP.

Additionally, ecotourism should be generating signif-icant income for both the ecotourism site as well aslocal communities. Is revenue coming in to the protect-ed area or ecotourism site administration? Is thatincome being used for conservation purposes? Are localcommunities receiving economic benefits? How much?

Are jobs being created in communities? What kind?Are these jobs helping to diversify and strengthen thelocal economy or making it vulnerable as ecotourismbecomes the dominant industry? What is the long-termeconomic picture for this area? It is critical to track eco-tourism’s economic strengths and weaknesses over time.

In order to measure the success of an EMP, indica-tors should be established for periodical evaluationwhich reflect the above-mentioned priorities. A primaryindicator is progress towards completion of establishedgoals and objectives. Additionally, monitoring programimpacts using the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)methodology is a powerful tool to ensure that pre-established goals are being achieved.

Both of these methods provide guidelines for adjust-ing management decisions but look at project imple-mentation results in different ways. The LACmethodology involves predicting certain types of impactresulting from ecotourism and monitoring thoseimpacts to ensure that they do not surpass standardsestablished by the respective stakeholders.

Typically, both methods involve collecting informa-tion from two different environments: the socio-culturalenvironment and the ecological environment.Ecotourism development has impacts on both of these.Both methods also involve both quantitative and quali-tative information.

Quantitative methods produce data that are easilyrepresented as numbers, such as answers to formal sur-veys, visitor entrance fee records and enterprise finan-cial records.

Qualitative methods produce data that are not easilysummarized in numerical form, such as minutes fromcommunity meetings and general notes from observa-tions. Qualitative data normally describe people’sknowledge, attitudes and behaviors.

Chapter 6

Step 5: Measures of Success

Combining quantitative and qualitative approachesin monitoring will help ensure that the data that youare collecting will give you as complete a picture aspossible of your site. There is also a crossover effectbetween quantitative and qualitative techniques.Carefully conducted qualitative methods can producequantifiable results, and well-designed quantitativestudies can provide insight into typically qualitativetopics such as attitudes and opinions.

Completion of Goals and ObjectivesThe primary goals of threat reduction, income genera-tion and community benefits established in the EMPprocess (see Part II, Chapter 4) have specific strategiesand objectives. These objectives should be measurableand capable of being accomplished within a given,stated period of time. They should provide the basisfor evaluating the success of the EMP’s implementa-tion. The following are some further examples of spe-cific objectives that have been used to evaluate EMPprogress:

❖ Within two years, a visitor center will be constructedat Aguas Calientes.

❖ Within three months, a Director of Ecotourism shouldbe hired.

❖ During year two of the plan’s implementation, threepark guards should be trained in ecotourism and visi-tor management.

❖ The LAC methodology should be fully implementedby year four, with indicators and standards estab-lished for monitoring visitor impacts in the threemajor visitor sites, as well as for evaluating visitor sat-isfaction with their experience in the park.

❖ During the first six months, the park should form anEcotourism Program Advisory Committee for the pur-pose of assisting the program director to implementprogram activities, evaluate the program’s progress

and provide advice concerning how best to deal withthe private sector and other institutions.

❖ The interpretive trail at Blue Mountain should bebuilt and fully implemented by the end of year two;the interpretive trail at Rapid River will be built andfully implemented by the end of year three.

❖ Local entrepreneur income will have increased by50% at the end of year three.

❖ Five tour guides obtained from local communitieswill be trained and working by the end of year one.

❖ Illegal hunting will be decreased by 90 percent aftertwo years.

Designing good objectives is only the first step howev-er. Managers must also systematically collect data thatdocument progress toward accomplishing these goals. Itis not sufficient to sit down at the end of a year and esti-


Piedras Negras archeological site, Sierra del Lacandón National Park, Guatemala © Andy Drumm

mate how much of an objective has been achieved.Specific data should indicate exactly how much has beenaccomplished. A methodology for documenting progresstoward objective accomplishment should be a part ofyour EMP. For example, to determine whether or notlocal entrepreneur income is increasing at the desiredrate may require periodic questionnaires. These question-naires may be administered by the site’s managers or del-egated to a local business association or a university.

To determine whether or not illegal hunting isdecreasing at the desired rate will require constantmonitoring of key sites and excellent record keepingby site/protected area personnel.

Margoluis and Salafsky’s Measures of Success:Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation andDevelopment Projects (1998) presents an excellent dis-cussion of how to prepare measurable objectives andhow to monitor their implementation.

Limits of Acceptable ChangeIf EMP planners have used the LAC methodology forestablishing a system for monitoring tourism impacts,there should be several indicators and standards thatmay be used to evaluate progress of the EMP’s imple-mentation. LAC is a specific system for measuringtourism impacts and should be applied to assesswhether or not objectives for reducing or mitigatingtourism impacts are effective.

LAC responds to the fact that change is inevitableand sets limits on how much change is acceptable. Itfocuses on desired conditions in a given site. These con-ditions must be determined by site users, both currentand potential, together with managers. Once desiredconditions are established, indicators and correspondingstandards must be defined which describe detailedaspects of those conditions. This allows site personneland others to monitor these indicators to ensure that thedesired conditions are being met (see Volume II, Part I,Chapter 6 for more on the LAC process).

Most of the indicators derived from the LAC processwill provide managers with indirect data concerningtheir progress with implementing more direct interven-tions such as visitor management, infrastructure devel-opment and environmental education programs. Someof the more common indicators that might be used forthis purpose are:

❖ levels of visitor satisfaction with their visit to the pro-tected area, to a particular visitor site or facility, or withstaff members that they have been in contact with;

❖ number of E. coli bacteria found in the water near anarea of visitor concentration;

❖ numbers of a specific species of wildlife in a givensite;

❖ incidence of poaching or other such illegal activity;

❖ number of complaints about a tour operator or con-cessionaire in a given period of time;

❖ number of encounters that visitors have had withother visitors in a wilderness setting.

Standards are created when indicators are given aspecific quantitative value, e.g., visitors in the wilder-ness zone should not encounter more than one othergroup during a two-day stay.

When monitoring determines that standards are notbeing met and that thresholds have been surpassed,managers must make adjustments to their EMP andtheir corresponding management activities to bring visi-tor impact back to the desired levels.

The Process of Measuring SuccessAs you may have noticed, public participation in theprocess of preparing your EMP has been singled out asfundamental to its success; it is also important for eval-uating achievement of project objectives and in estab-lishing the indicators and standards for the Limits toAcceptable Change process. It should not be surprisingthen to discover that evaluating where you are in termsof implementing the EMP should also involve the perti-nent stakeholders: protected area personnel, communityentrepreneurs and leaders, tourism industry representa-tives (especially those working in and around the pro-tected area) and other relevant governmentrepresentatives.

It is a relatively simple process to look at an EMP thathas established easily quantifiable objectives to beachieved in a given time frame and determine what hasbeen accomplished and what has not. What is not sosimple is determining why a particular objective has notbeen met and what can be done to overcome whateverobstacles may have hindered carrying out appropriateactivities. The answers to these questions are bestanswered by a group of involved stakeholders, the evalu-ation team, not by one or two protected area staff mem-bers who may lack the perspective that a more diversegroup would have. Many of these stakeholders may haveparticipated in the planning process and/or be a part ofan advisory committee for the ecotourism program.



The evaluation team will need to review all of theobjectives and activities in the EMP’s Strategic Plan anddetermine what has and what has not been done. Majorquestions to be answered are:

❖ Are the major players fulfilling the roles that havebeen assigned to them?

❖ Has the proper legal context needed to achieve eco-tourism goals been established?

❖ Has the funding for ecotourism projects been forth-coming?

❖ Is the EMP too ambitious given available human andeconomic resources?

❖ Have stakeholders done all they can to find sufficientresources?

❖ Is the technical support needed to implement eco-tourism projects available?

❖ What can be done to improve logistical arrangementsthat might facilitate project implementation?

❖ Are other protected area management actions coordi-nated with the ecotourism program?

❖ Do we need to change program objectives and/oractivities in the face of changing conditions, or do weneed to do a better job doing what is already planned?

With regard to LAC and public participation, the rel-evant stakeholders must be a part of all of the steps inthe decision-making process, including establishment ofthe indicators and standards that will be used to moni-tor tourism impact. For example, assume that we havedecided that the presence of a species of bird found in aparticular visitor site is an important indicator oftourism impact. A standard then must be set which rep-resents a consensus regarding the number of these birdsto expect in an appropriate number, given a well-man-aged visitor site. In making this determination, it is onlyreasonable to involve tour guides, site personnel, biolo-gists and probably others who will have a huge stake inmaking sure this standard is met.

Resources

The Ecotourism Society. 1993. Directrices para el ecoturismo.Una guía para los operadores de turismo naturalista.N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

The Ecotourism Society. 1993. Ecotourism guidelines for naturetour operators. N. Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success:Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and develop-ment projects. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Parks in Peril Program, The Nature Conservancywww.parksinperil.org

Community: Community refers to a heterogeneous groupof people who share residence in the same geographicarea and access a set of local natural resources. Thedegree of social cohesion and differentiation, strength ofcommon beliefs and institutions, cultural diversity and otherfactors vary widely within and among communities(Schmink, 1999).

Concession: A service provided by the private sector tovisitors within a protected area/ecotourism site. It is onecornerstone of a revenue generation program at an eco-tourism site.

Concessionaire: Holder of the permit or license to sellgoods or services provided by the protected area.

Ecotourism Advisory Committee: A group of privateand public stakeholders who have an interest, economic orotherwise, in the efficient and effective functioning of theecotourism program at the ecotourism site. They will provideadvice and support to the Head of the Ecotourism Program.

Ecotourism Management Plan: An ecotourism man-agement plan (EMP) is a tool to guide the development oftourism in a protected area in a way that seeks to synthe-size and represent the vision of all the stakeholders whilstfulfilling the conservation objectives for the site. Typically,an EMP will be a detailed continuation of general guide-lines established in a general management plan or SCP.

Ecotourism Site: A location, large or small, where eco-tourism activity or activities occur. In this document, may beused interchangeably with "protected area" or "site".However site usually refers to a location where the activityis focused and is small in extent.

Ecotourism Management Plan (EMP): A specific plandirected at guiding the development of ecotourism in a spe-cific site/protected area. It should follow from larger scaleplans such as a general management plan or SiteConservation Plan.

Full Site Diagnostic: A phase of the planning processduring which planners gather the information needed tomake good decisions regarding, in this case, ecotourismdevelopment in the protected area. This constitutes a pre-feasibility study for ecotourism development at a site.

General Management Plan: A planning documentwhich evaluates all the information available for a givenprotected area or ecotourism site, and defines overall man-agement objectives, goals and strategies. Ecotourism maybe identified as a management strategy for appropriatemanagement. If so, then an Ecotourism Management Planmay be recommended.

Human Context Assessment/Analysis (HCA): Ananalysis of the static relationships and dynamic interactionsof humans at a site. The HCA emphasizes the dynamicrelationship between the biological (ecological) systemsand the social systems. Gathering social and economicinformation for SCP includes compiling and synthesizinginformation on the relationships between people and theconservation of the site within the economic, socioculturaland political context.

Inbound Operator: A tourism operator who organizesthe services provided to a visitor within the country that isbeing visited.

Limits of Acceptable Change: A methodology formeasuring specific visitor impacts by establishing indicatorsand standards applicable to specific situations. A standardindicates a specific level beyond which stakeholders havedetermined that an impact is unacceptable and manage-ment action must be taken.

Nature Tourism: Tourism directed primarily at naturalfeatures but does not necessarily embrace the concepts ofecotourism: low impact, economic benefits for conservationand local people, and education.


Glossary

Outbound Operator: A tourism operator who organizestours and transportation for visitors who are going toanother country. Will usually partner with an inboundoperator in the destination country.

Preliminary Site Evaluation: A process, consisting of afew basic questions, by which planners can determinewhether a particular site is appropriate for ecotourismdevelopment. A first filter for determining the viability ofecotourism.

Protected Area: A large, legally protected expanse ofterritory, usually administered by a government entity withspecific conservation objectives, but whose day to daymanagement may be delegated to the nongovernmental orprivate sector or a coalition of government and privateinterests.

Site Conservation Planning (SCP): A process devel-oped by The Nature Conservancy which is used to identifyprimary conservation targets for a particular conservationsite, then determines the major threats, sources of threatsand strategies for mitigating those threats.

Site Plan: A very detailed drawing which locates allsignificant natural and cultural features of a site whereintensive ecotourism activity will take place, and thendetermines where infrastructure will be located.

Stakeholders: Social actors who have a direct or indirectinvolvement in an activity that affects the biodiversity sys-tems of a site. This involvement may arise from geographi-cal proximity, historical association, economic activity,institutional mandate, social interest, cultural traditions ora variety of other reasons.

Stakeholder Analysis or Human Context Analysis:This is a study which identifies key information about com-munities near an ecotourism site pertinent to ecotourismdevelopment within the community and in the adjacent eco-tourism site. It is essential for a full implementation of anEcotourism Management Plan.

Stakeholder Analysis: The TNC stakeholder analysis pri-oritizes stakeholders linked to critical threats, and profiles anumber of key characteristics about the activities in whichstakeholders are engaged.

Sustainable Development: Defined by the UnitedNations Brundtland Report "Our Common Future" as"Development that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs".

Visitor Site: A relatively small location where intensiveuse and management occurs within a largerecotourism/conservation context.

Zoning: Zoning is a mechanism for assigning overallmanagement objectives and priorities to different geo-graphic areas (zones) within a protected area or other eco-tourism site. By assigning objectives and priorities to thesezones, planners are also defining what uses will beallowed, and which ones will not be allowed. Theseparameters are usually based upon the characteristics ofthe natural and cultural resource base, protected areaobjectives (determined previously), and other factors.


Ecotourism development

Education

Transcript of Ecotourism development