Content uploaded by Ercan Sirakaya-Turk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ercan Sirakaya-Turk on Apr 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Redefining Ecotourism: The Need for a Supply-Side View
By: Ercan Sirakaya, Vinod Sasidharan, and Sevil Sönmez
Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan V., and S. Sönmez (1999). Redefining Ecotourism: The Need for a Supply Side View.
Journal of Travel Research, 38(2):168-172.
Made available courtesy of Sage Publications: http://www.sagepub.com/
*** Note: Figures may be missing from this format of the document
Abstract:
This article reviews the existing literature on ecotourism definitions and provides a supply-side view of
ecotourism based on the findings of a nationwide survey of 282 U.S.- based ecotour operators. A content
analysis of ecotourism definitions revealed that ecotourism is a new form of nonconsumptive, educational, and
romantic tourism to relatively undisturbed and undervisited areas of immense natural beauty, and cultural and
historical importance for the purposes of understanding and appreciating the natural and sociocultural history of
the host destination. The current view of ecotourism by the sample of tour operators reflects and confirms
definitions of ecotourism found in existing literature. If the definitions provided by this sample of ecotour
operators are to be considered representative of their business vision or mission statement, it is plausible to
expect their business objectives and operational behavior to be congruent with their description of ecotourism.
Whether or not their actual behavior will reflect their visions remains to be determined.
Article:
Since the late 1980s, there has been a proliferation of ecotourism-related articles in professional journals.
Although ecotourism research is now moving away from descriptive type of studies toward more rigorous and
theory-based research (Malloy and Fennell 1998; Sirakaya and Uysal 1998; Sirakaya and McLellan 1998;
Sirakaya 1997), there is still considerable debate about the normative (what it should be) and positive (what it
is) definitions of ecotourism (Orams 1995, p. 3). The primary goal of this research note is to review and
enhance the existing literature on ecotourism definitions by providing a supply-side view of ecotourism based
on the findings of a nationwide survey of ecotour operators.
There is a plethora of ecotourism definitions or explanations of the same in the current literature. While not
exhaustive in its domain, Table 1 illustrates the diversity of existing definitions and the concept of ecotourism.
Although useful in enhancing the current understanding of ecotourism, many of these definitions are normative
in nature and were formulated by conservationists, professional organizations, or by academicians on the basis
of their observation (study) of tourist behavior. Accordingly, in defining ecotourism, conservationists and
environmentalists may be expected to put heavy emphasis on preservation and conservation of the ecological
assets of tourism and less weight on profit motivation of the private enterprise as well as the realities of the
business environment (e.g., labor market, degree of linkages among economic sectors, global competition,
bargaining power of major suppliers at tourist origins). In defining ecotourism, a professional organization such
as the Ecotourism Society, the World Wildlife Fund, or the Audobon Society, on the other hand, may reflect the
opinions of its members of whom many are conservationists or conservationists-turned tourism providers (e.g.,
the board of directors of the Ecotourism Society). According to the traditional utility maximization theory, the
primary goal of a business is to maximize profits— even if they are to be gained through ecologically
incompatible business practices. Hence, the profit goal may or may not be consistent with the context of current
definitions of ecotourism. Indeed, there is growing evidence of negative impacts of ecotourism around the globe
that seems to indicate business as usual, confirming the concerns raised by some tourism scholars (see Wight
1993; Butler 1991; Wheeller 1991). Ecotourism may be viewed as just another “buzzword” that serves as a
marketing tool and allows tourism providers to take advantage of the new generation of mass travelers in search
of unexplored natural and cultural beauty in unusual and remote destinations such as the Antarctic. Thus, what
is really lacking is an understanding of the “supply-side” view including but not limited to the perspectives of
ordinary tour operators. Their view of ecotourism is likely to influence their day-to-day business operations at
ecologically sensitive destinations and, consequently, the future of host communities as well as natural
resources. Thus, the primary goal of this article is to enhance the body of existing literature on ecotourism
definitions by providing a supply-side view that incorporates the perspectives of ecotour operators based on a
nationwide research of ecotour operators.
The methodology of this study was extensively described elsewhere (see Sirakaya 1997). Briefly, a survey was
undertaken to solicit the opinions of 282 U.S.-based ecotour operators (45% response rate without nonresponse
bias). Executive managers and owners of these tour operations were asked to provide definitions of ecotourism
and, subsequently, evaluate the fit of their company within their definition on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (not an ecotour operator) to 5 (very much of an ecotour operator). The majority of tour
operators (69.3%) indicated that their company fit well within their definition of ecotourism. Only 4.7% of
respondent tour operators indicated that they were not ecotour operators or had little ecotourism business.
A content analysis of the ecotourism definitions revealed specific references to nearly 14 underlying themes
(see Table 2). Ecotourism was most often associated with environmentally friendly, responsible travel,
educational travel, low-impact travel, ecocultural tourism, sustainable/nonconsumptive tourism, and community
involvement. One comprehensive definition by one of the tour operators sums up these perspectives.
Ecotourism is ... carefully planned tourist activity (whether natural, historical, botanical, ornithological, or
archaeological tours) that it is compatible with sound ecological principles. Ecotourism results in no ecological
damage from group impact on national parks and/or natural history resources. It is the philosophy of travel
companies to support/use the destination’s local resources, operators, lodging, guides, and other tourist facilities
or services and of showing evidence of continued support for the destination’s conservation/preservation
program and long-term planning.
The plethora of perspectives converge to make a distinct point: ecotourism is a new form of nonconsumptive,
educational, and romantic tourism to relatively undisturbed and undervisited areas of immense natural beauty,
and cultural and historical importance for the purposes of understanding and appreciating the natural and
sociocultural history of the host destination. It is a form of tourism that is expected to result in (1) minimal
negative impacts on the host environment; (2) an increased contribution to environmental protection and
dynamic conservation of resources; (3) the creation of necessary funds to promote sustained protection of eco-
logical and sociocultural resources; (4) the enhancement of interaction, understanding, and coexistence between
the visitors and locals; and (5) a contribution to the economic (monetary profits and job opportunities) and
social wellbeing of the local people. Thus, ecotourism is based on the sustained conservation of resources in a
nonconsumptive manner involving nonintrusive exploitation of natural resources through the controlled use and
management of cultural and environmental resources for the future. Ecotourism incorporates the coexistence
and interaction of the natural environment and people (tourists and local inhabitants) and encourages the active
involvement of tourists and the local population in preservation efforts.
Ecotourism has also been described as a small-group “appropriate travel,” “socially responsible tourism”
involving soft-adventure travel that advises tourists to “tread lightly, take only photographs and leave only
footprints.” Companies genuinely focusing on ecotourists plan and conduct natural, historical, botanical,
ornithological, or archaeological tours that are compatible with sound ecological principles to avoid disturbance
or damage to the social and physical environment. Ideally, these companies will demonstrate sensitivity to
environmental concerns and issues, try to operate within the framework of ecological guidelines, promote an
ecologically correct awareness, and support/use local tourism services (i.e., lodging, guides), practice long-term
planning, and continue to support destination communities’ conservation/preservation programs. According to
tour operators, ecotourism also includes involvement after travel to inspire personal responsibility. Only a small
fraction of tour operators considered ecotourism as a buzzword used as a marketing ploy or a political tool.
In sum, the current view of ecotourism by the sample of tour operators reflects and confirms definitions of
ecotourism found in existing literature. From a management perspective, if the definitions provided by this
sample of ecotour operators are to be considered representative of their business vision or mission statement, it
is plausible to expect their business objectives and operational behavior to be congruent with their description of
ecotourism. Whether or not their actual behavior will reflect their visions remains to be determined.
Nevertheless, further research in the area of monitoring, compliance, and enforcement is needed if ecotourism is
to remain a profitable and sustainable business.
REFERENCES
Agardy, M. T. (1993). “Accommodating Ecotourism in Multiple Use Planning of Coastal and Marine Protected
Areas.” Ocean and Coastal Management, 20 (3): 219-39.
Andersen, D. L. (1994). “Developing Ecotourism Destinations: Conservation from the Beginning.” Trends, 31
(2): 31-38.
Backman, K. F., B. A. Wright, and S. J. Backman (1994). “Ecotourism: A Short Descriptive Exploration.”
Trends, 31 (2): 23-27.
Boo, E. (1991). “Planning for Ecotourism.” Parks, 2 (3): 4-8.
Brause, D. (1992). “The Challenge of Ecotourism: Balancing Resources, Indigenous People, and Tourists.”
Transitions Abroad, November-December: 29-31.
Buckley, R. (1994). “A framework for Ecotourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3): 661-69.
Butler, R. (1989). “Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?” World Leisure and Recreation, 31 (4):
9-17.
------(1991). “Tourism, Environment and Sustainable Tourism Development.” Tourism Management, 18: 201-9.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987). “The Future of Ecotourism.” Mexico Journal, January: 13-14.
Farrell, B. H., and D. Runyan (1991). “Ecology and Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (1): 26-40.
Fennell, D., and P.F.J. Eagles (1989). “Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Parks
and Recreation Administration, 8 (1): 23-34.
Hunt, J. D. (1992). “Rural Tourism: New Focus on a Traditional Industry.” Western Wildlands, 18 (3): 2-3.
Kinnaird, M. F., and T. G. O’Brien (1996). “Ecotourism in Tangkoko Duasudara Nature Reserve: Opening
Pandora’s Box.” Oryx, 30 (1): 65-73.
Kutay, K. (1989). “The New Ethic in Adventure Travel.” Buzzworm: The Environmental Journal, 1 (4):30-36.
Lindberg, K., and R. L. Johnson (1994). “Estimating Demand for Ecotourism Sites in Developing Nations.”
Trends, 31 (2): 10-15.
Malloy, D. C., and D. A. Fennell (1998). “Ecotourism and Ethics: Moral Development and Organizational
Culture.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (4): 47-56.
Miller, M. (1993). “The Rise of Coastal and Marine Tourism.” Ocean & Coastal Management, 20 (3): 181-99.
Orams, M. B. (1995). “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism.” Tourism Management, 16 (1): 3-8.
Place, S. (1991). “Nature Tourism and Rural Development in Tortugero.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (2):
186-201.
------(1995). “Ecotourism for Sustainable Development: Oxymoron or Plausible Strategy?” Geojournal, 35(2):
161.
Sirakaya, E. (1997). “Attitudinal Compliance with Ecotourism Guidelines.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24
(4): 919-50.
Sirakaya, E., and R. W. McLellan (1998). “Modeling Tour Operations Voluntary Compliance with Ecotourism
Principles: A Behavioral Approach.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (3): 42-55.
Sirakaya, E., and M. Uysal (1998). “Can Sanctions and Rewards Explain Conformance Behavior of Tour
Operators with Ecotourism Guidelines?” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (4): 322-32.
Valentine, P. S. (1993). “Ecotourism and Nature Conservation: A Definition with Some Recent Developments
in Micronesia.” Tourism Management, 14 (2): 107-15.
Wall, G. (1994). “Ecotourism: Old Wine in New Bottles?” Trends, 31 (2): 4-9.
Wallace, G. N. (1993). “Wildlands and Ecotourism in Latin America.”Journal of Forestry, 91 (February): 37-
40.
Western, D. (1993). “Defining Ecotourism.” In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, edited by K.
Lindberg and D. E. Hawkins. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society, pp. 7-11.
Wheeller, B. (1991). “Tourism’s Troubled Times: Responsible Tourism is Not the Answer.” Tourism
Management, 12 (2): 91-96.
Wight, P. (1993). “Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell?” Journal of Travel Research, 31 (3): 3-9.
Williams, P. W. (1992). “A Local Framework for Ecotourism Development.” Western Wildlands, 18 (3): 14-19.
Ziffer, K. (1989). “Ecotourism: The Uneasy alliance.” In Conservational International. Washington, DC: Ernst
& Young, Working Papers on Ecotourism, pp. 1-36.
Ziolkowski, H. (1990). “Ecotourism: Loving Nature on Its Own Terms.” Calypso Log, 17 (3): 16-19.
