![The ecotourism paradigm (adapted from [10]). With appropriate management, ecotourism can help to achieve a balance between conservation and development through the promotion of synergistic relationships between natural areas, local populations, and tourism](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rafael-Loyola/publication/319523768/figure/fig1/AS:578364872577024@1514904339005/The-ecotourism-paradigm-adapted-from-10-With-appropriate-management-ecotourism-can_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Rafael Loyola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rafael Loyola on Jan 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
133
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
D.T. Blumstein et al. (eds.), Ecotourism’s Promise and Peril,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58331-0_9
D. Zacarias
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Evolução and Conservation Biogeography Lab,
Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil
9
How Ecotourism Affects Human
Communities
Daniel Zacarias and Rafael Loyola
Fig. 9.0 Dining in the street, Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos. About 80% of
Galápagos residents are involved in the ecotourism industry that caters to tourists from around the
world. Photo: Daniel T. Blumstein
134
9.1 Introduction
Tourism has been flagged the new economic force for development [1, 2], especially
for areas that are still struggling with poverty but are rich in natural resources that
can be used for non-extractive uses. Under this paradigm, emerging and developing
countries are willing to promote their wilderness and attract as many tourists as pos-
sible [3]. As a result, tourism has exponentially increased with ca. 1.184 billion
people crossing international borders for leisure in 2015, 50 million more tourists
than in the previous year [4]. Among several segments of tourism, ecotourism is
becoming one of the most developed with estimates indicating a share of 10–15%
of global tourism growth and more recently 30–40% [5, 6], equivalent to nearly 474
million travelers.
Since its inception in the 1970s, ecotourism has gained extensive interest among
the scientific community (see Fig. 9.1), with research being directed toward most
dimensions of the activity, such as environmental/ecological, economic, sociocul-
tural, experiential, and policy/planning. Despite this extensive knowledge, little
effort has been directed to summarize the potential implications of ecotourism to
local communities and either the process or mechanisms of instigating local people
to participate in natural resources management for visitation [7].
In this chapter, we aim to summarize existing knowledge on these issues by
showing how local communities can benefit from ecotourism activities. However,
we view these benefits from different perspectives and describe the different role of
incentives as mechanisms to stimulate local people’s participation. Apart from this
general introduction, the chapter presents a broad literature review on the associa-
tion between ecotourism and economic development at the community level and
discusses the mechanisms of community engagement in conservation activities,
with focus on incentives. Ultimately, this background knowledge is essential if we
are to properly evaluate the relative costs of different ecotourist activities on the
animals and plants that people seek to enjoy.
Programa de Graduação Ciência para Desenvolvimento (PGCD), Instituto Gulbenkian de
Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane/Escola Superior de Hotelaria e Turismo de Inhambane,
Maputo, Mozambique
e-mail: daniel.zacarias15@gmail.com
R. Loyola (*)
Conservation Biogeography Lab, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal de Goiás,
Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil
Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora, Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
e-mail: rdiasloyola@gmail.com
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
135
9.2 Tourism, Ecotourism, and Community Development
Tourism has been extensively criticized due to the negative effects of its develop-
ment on the environmental and societal spheres. Most research indicated that despite
generating revenue for the destination, tourism development is associated to habitat
degradation, increased water and energy use, increased littering, disruption of local
social values, social imbalances, and child labor and/or prostitution, among other
negative impacts [8].
The idea that local human communities are not profiting from tourism, as a result
of low economic gains and very high environmental and sociocultural costs, raised
concerns over the usefulness of visitation. In addition, most tourism enterprises are
developed as small islands in which local people are excluded or integrated as low-
pay employees. In remote areas, tourism development also raises concerns over its
impacts on protected areas and biodiversity conservation, mainly through road kills
and wildlife habituation [9].
Since its inception, ecotourism has become a contradictory concept [10–12], and
several definitions have derived from two broad schools of thought, namely, the
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Number of publications
Fig. 9.1 Temporal trend in the number of publications about ecotourism, based on a search at the
ISI/Web of Science Core Collection (https://webofknowledge.com) and Scopus (www.scopus.
com) using the keyword ecotourism for the period 1945–2015. Only publications from 1990 on are
shown
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
136
school concerned with case studies on the impact of ecotourism and the school
concerned with thematic studies illustrating issues regarding planning and develop-
ment [13–15]. Nevertheless, ecotourism has gained enough power to survive in aca-
demia and policy-making to the point of being acknowledged as the green or modern
version of tourism [11, 16] and a market tool for conservation [17, 18].
When introduced under the scope of pro-poor tourism [19], ecotourism can be
understood as a strategy that focuses on increased economic benefits, noneconomic
impacts, and policy processes [20] that, to a certain extent, should benefit local com-
munities [11] (Fig. 9.2). Economic benefits of ecotourism include the expansion of
business and employment opportunities. The noneconomic benefits include build-
ing capacity and the empowerment of poor people, as well as the mitigation of the
environmental and sociocultural impacts of tourism on the local community. Finally,
policy processes include building more supportive and planned frameworks that
enhance participation of the local community in the decision-making process.
Ecotourism
L
o
c
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
P
o
l
i
c
y
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fig. 9.2 The ecotourism paradigm (adapted from [10]). With appropriate management, ecotour-
ism can help to achieve a balance between conservation and development through the promotion
of synergistic relationships between natural areas, local populations, and tourism
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
137
The early history of protected areas and landscape management indicates that, in
most cases, the government had to bear the costs of implementation, maintenance,
and management of protected areas. This approach, based on the philosophy of
conservation without people [21, 22], resulted in high social and economic costs
and low conservation outcomes [23–25], calling for a new and more integrative
approach that could incorporate local people into nature conservation. Despite the
attempt to implement this strategy, people living in and around protected areas were
still seen as contributors to environmental degradation [26]. In addition, local peo-
ple’s willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation and landscape protec-
tion depends, to some extent, on whether their basic needs are satisfied since they
rely on natural resources for their survival [6, 10, 12, 16].
To cope with this problem, ecotourism has been suggested as an alternative to
accommodate resource needs and resource protection. Many such ecotourism proj-
ects have been implemented worldwide, but the willingness of local people to par-
ticipate in ecotourism is not straightforward because they already have their own
practices and, in most cases, do not understand the benefits that may arise from
ecotourism. In this regard, incentives are necessary to enhance community partici-
pation in conservation [27] and ensure biodiversity preservation in rural and remote
areas where the government lacks resources to safeguard biodiversity conservation
[28]. A vast array of mechanisms to ensure the success of ecotourism projects exists.
Examples include the establishment and enforcement of laws and policies that pro-
tect biodiversity and discourage destruction, degradation, and fragmentation; inte-
grated planning and decision-making for tourism development; establishment of
incentives for conservation; prevention of loss of biodiversity through management,
education, and awareness of local communities; and establishment of protected
areas with mixed land-use areas [28].
The purpose of incentives is to change institutional and individual attitudes
toward the environment, aiming to achieve conservation and sustainable use of bio-
diversity. Conservation incentives should aim to address the fundamental underly-
ing causes of biodiversity loss and to encourage and enhance biodiversity
conservation [28]. In the context of ecotourism, incentives are of three types: (1)
direct payments to natural resource users to conserve natural resources; (2) certifi-
cation of “eco-friendly products,” in which production protects species and habitats
and participates to improve the livelihoods of people in the same time; and (3)
community-based or benefit-sharing ecotourism that gives local communities
responsibility in conserving critical habitats and species [29].
9.3 Impacts of Ecotourism on Community Development
There are several ways to understand and describe the impact of ecotourism on local
communities. Here, we describe the contribution of ecotourism to (1) the empower-
ment of local people, (2) the decision-making process, (3) the direct economic
impacts on the local community, and (4) the role of ecotourism on educating people
about biodiversity conservation.
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
138
9.3.1 The Role of Community-Based Ecotourism
As previously described, ecotourism does not simply imply the establishment of
activities to attract visitors but also seeks to establish a productive base that allows
local people to enjoy acceptable living standards. In many cases, the simple process
of setting aside areas for visitation has created conflicts over resource ownership
because local people were evicted from their land or had limited access to the
resources that enabled their survival. In addition, there are many examples of com-
munities that, with full access to natural resources, exploited these resources in an
unsustainable fashion [30].
A mechanism to mitigate conflicts over the use of natural resources and biodiver-
sity conservation, with the integration of local people, is the so-called community-
based ecotourism (CBET), a “practice of tourism where the local community has a
significant control over, and participation in its development and management, and
a major percentage of the benefits stay within the community” [31]. As indicated by
Kiss [32], CBET is “a form of community-based natural resource management …
and a common element in integrated conservation and development projects.”
CBET empowers local people and improves resources stewardship [33, 34]. It was
introduced under the premise that local people needed greater interest in the sustain-
able use of natural resources, have greater knowledge about the local ecological
processes, and needed to participate more effectively in the management of local
resources [35].
Successful examples of CBET projects that impact local communities’ liveli-
hoods exist all over the world. For example, a survey of CBET projects in
Thailand indicated that local communities were involved in the process by being
allowed to run businesses under the auspices of local institutions, serving as
guides, porters, providing food and accommodation, and replacing private oper-
ators [36]. The Amadiba Horse and Hiking Trail on the South Africa’s Wild
Coast is another example of the effectiveness of CBET project. This South
African project involved the Amadiba people in all aspects of the project includ-
ing its planning, implementation, management, and decision-making while
extensively contributed to biodiversity conservation and supported local liveli-
hoods [20]. In Mozambique, a misguided allocation of a hunting concession to
a foreign company restricted access to wildlife and natural resources for the
people of Bawa (central province of Tete), creating a hostile and volatile rela-
tionship between local people and the tour operator [37, 38]. Through a CBET
and natural resources management named the Tchuma-Tchato project, trans-
lated as Our Wealth, stakeholders shared the benefits from the use of natural
resources. This was achieved by directly sharing the 33% of tax revenues
between all stakeholders that was directed to local communities [37]. This expe-
rience was successful and resulted in behavioral change and turned local com-
munities from resource users to resource protectors that directly benefited from
their protection [37–39].
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
139
9.3.2 Ecotourism and Its Influence on Environmental Policy
and Decision-Making
If adequately planned and implemented, ecotourism can shape policy and decision-
making directly supporting conservation and environmental management and, indi-
rectly, enhancing community livelihoods. Conservation of natural resources is a
crucial step in securing long-term sustainability and safeguarding benefits for local
people. But conservation is a multidisciplinary science that includes ecological aspects
and also the sociopolitical, economic, legal, cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual dimen-
sions [40–43]. As such, a balance between all these dimensions is necessary when
planning for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources through ecotourism
[44]. Another dimension that also needs to be addressed is that ecotourism can be
developed in privately owned areas or community land, in which the costs of its devel-
opment are usually distributed among those stakeholders. Under these circumstances,
ensuring mutual benefits to those involved can be the most viable strategy.
The role of ecotourism in shaping policy and decision-making is widely doc-
umented. Sofield and Li [45] described the process of formulating an ecotour-
ism policy for nature reserves in Yunnan, China, and revealed that the process
was largely influenced by the need to accommodate competing interests and
local cultural values, which negated imported social values [46] brought by
foreigners. As a result, there was a need to integrate Western paradigms with
native values and integrate the access to natural resources for the locals, incor-
porating ethnic cultural systems and conservation imperatives [45]. In Fiji, the
development of a national ecotourism policy was mostly influenced by the need
to increase revenue and share these benefits with the rural sector, allowing local
people and communities to develop according to their own wishes. National
ecotourism policy in Fiji also promoted conservation and environmental aware-
ness by working with rural communities, nongovernmental organizations, and
tourism associations [47].
9.3.3 Economic Benefits and Diversification Economies
Through Ecotourism
The economic impact of ecotourism can be evaluated in several ways, but it is usu-
ally attained through user fees, concession fees, royalties, taxations, and donations.
Apart from the direct payment for ecosystem management, other forms of the con-
tribution of ecotourism to local communities are associated with the implementa-
tion of development interventions in the peripheral areas of endangered ecosystems.
This redirects labor and capital away from activities that have potential for ecosys-
tem degradation or encourages commercial activities that supply ecosystem ser-
vices as joint products [48]—the Serengeti and Masai Mara ecotourism projects, in
Africa, are some examples [49] (Fig. 9.3).
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
140
As indicated by the Zimbabwe Trust [50], the optimistic point of view considers
that ecotourism presents an opportunity to stimulate local economies as an alterna-
tive to extractive industries and environmental degradation, meaning that increased
tourism can increase local incomes and, in turn, create incentives for conservation.
This framework results in complex economic linkages that transmit impacts from
the directly affected agents to others in the local economy, in ways that may be
nonlinear and shaped by resource constraints [50] (Fig. 9.4).
The understanding of the contribution of ecotourism to the improvement of local
communities’ livelihoods is not a straightforward process since most investments are
directly felt at the country or ecosystem level and indirectly at the local people’ level.
Existing studies suggest that, despite the fact that conservation payment initiatives
are neither a magic bullet nor an appropriate intervention for every site [48], its con-
tribution in several places of the world should be acknowledged. For example, an
analysis of cash flows for the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe generated, yearly, revenues of ca. US$ 4000
per household [51], but most of these gains were distributed at the national level [52].
With growing trends toward sustainable or green products all over the world,
suggesting that people are increasingly interested in the integration of social and
environmental impacts of current patterns of production and consumption [17],
another option of ecotourism is the certification of local products. Certification of
bio-cultural products ensures that they are produced in a sustainable manner, which
Fig. 9.3 The Serengeti/Masai Mara ecotourism landscape, describing the wealth of the ecosystem
and the adoption of local people as tour guides. Direct payments to view wildlife are an important
source of income for local people. All figures flagged as publicly available from Google Images
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
141
raises their quality and price [53, 54]. As a result, local communities with certified
bio-cultural products can have greater profits and engage with much power in natu-
ral resources conservation [55, 56]. For example, in Southeastern Tanzania, mis-
management and inequitable harvesting of valuable timber stocks penalized local
communities. This fact has led to the implementation of a group certificate scheme
that yielded more than US$ 100,000 per year and extensive community manage-
ment against illegal and private loggers [57]. The result was an increase in wildlife
sightings and an increase in ecotourism activities. In Indonesia, the certification of
forest products has resulted in extensive conservation and protection of forests, at
the same time maximizing land use, reducing social conflicts, and creating employ-
ment opportunities [58].
Certification is a segment that is growing substantially [59, 60], with over 60
programs already being implemented worldwide [61], the majority of them focused
on environmental issues [62, 63] and very few incorporating sociocultural issues
[17, 64]. Although certified forms of ecotourism and the income derived from these
are minor in comparison to other forms of tourism, it is important to consider that
this revenue is often available in peripheral areas with structural problems and can
make greater contribution to livelihoods [17]. In addition, certification can enable
ecotourism entrepreneurs to capture additional income from value-added products
sold directly to consumers [63, 65, 66], at the same time indirectly contributing to
the reduction of the CO2 footprint associated with tourism [67–69].
Wilderness
(Nature)
Direct
payment
Tourism
Services
Accomodation
Tour Guiding
Local Cuisine
Local
Communities
Local
Production
Systems
(Eco)Tourists
Visitor
experience
Improved
quality of
life
Demand for communities’ lifestyles
Demand
Provision of
Demand for
Certification
Direct
demand
for
Improved
added value
Fig. 9.4 Linkages between ecotourism activities and local economies (adapted from [50]). With
a growing consciousness and desire for sustainability, ecotourists are increasingly interested in
natural settings with adequate services. In the case of ecotourism, this demand needs to be supplied
by local people, and those operations that are properly certified can have increased value, contrib-
uting both to visitor’s satisfaction and the improvement of local communities’ quality of life
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
142
9.3.4 Ecotourism as a Form of Education and Environmental
Awareness
Ecotourism can raise awareness about the environment and educate the public about
conservation. Early attempts have institutionalized ecotourism as a panacea for the
conservation of natural resources, a view predominantly supported by the aspiration
that ecotourism would provide financial gains that could be applied in natural area
management. But this argument is difficult to translate into measurable outcomes,
and, therefore, new alternatives have been established to understand the benefits of
ecotourism.
As suggested by [70, 71], one easy way to elucidate the potential contribution of
ecotourism is to understand how it improves awareness and attitudes toward biodi-
versity conservation, not only on local people but also on visitors. This approach
argues that increasing participation in outdoor settings, when associated with ade-
quate interpretation programs, can change behaviors and secure greater support for
natural resource conservation. In the context of ecotourism, changing behavior is
extremely important because it is often implemented in marginal rural land, in
which local communities rely heavily on natural resources for their daily activities
and there is a need to convert locals into resource conservationists.
From the visitors’ side, several studies have demonstrated that educational pro-
grams in outdoor settings have positive impacts in shaping their attitudes and
perception of conservation needs and goals [71]. Other authors [72, 73] showed that
ecotourism shapes visitors’ opinions toward conservation by enabling them to stand
eye to eye with species, directly experience natural environments, and witness spe-
cies engaging in their natural behavior, increasing their support toward wildlife con-
servation. A study conducted in Tangalooma, Australia, demonstrated that interaction
with dolphins invoked in tourists a desire to change their behavior and become more
environmentally responsible [72]. This indicated that the association of educational
programs and the experience of interacting with species could be instrumental in
changing visitors’ behavior and enhance support to conservation programs (Fig. 9.5).
From the local community perspective, engagement in ecotourism has also been
associated with an improvement of local people’s attitudes and behavior toward
environmental conservation. However, this was different from the visitors’ perspec-
tive; behavior changes in local people are mostly a result of direct monetary gains
that can compensate the reduction of free access to natural resources [74–77].
In addition, participation in ecotourism can strengthen community bonds [78–80].
This is of particular importance in the sense that social bonding can allow group
members to overcome collective action dilemmas and promote cooperation toward
common goals [78, 81–83]. Several experiences exist in the world regarding the
role of social bonds in supporting collective actions. In Amazonian Brazil, for
example, the Puxirum ecotourism project was implemented based on the need to
build community integration, with the community members sharing opinions;
having the same customs, culture, and identity; and making decisions jointly over
small or major themes on a daily basis [78, 82]. Community collaboration in eco-
tourism occurs when the community is actively involved in the design and
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
143
development of an ecotourism project, resulting in an increased environmental
awareness [84]. By doing so, community leaders develop and support programs
for families and children to learn more about environmental conservation and
preservation.
9.4 Discussion and Final Remarks
The planet is amidst one of its most worrying environmental crisis, with continuous
human population growth, increasing demand for natural resources, and an increas-
ing number of species at risk of extinction. Under these circumstances, the need to
save natural areas and species is a must, and many efforts are being undertaken
around the world. But, these conservation efforts are still not effective because they
are impaired by several factors, including the need to ensure the survival of poor
local communities in rural areas (whom rely heavily on natural resources for their
survival [16, 18, 27]), because most pristine areas are remote and difficult to main-
tain through governmentally established protected areas [16], and because most
rural lands needing protection are privately owned and often susceptible to be uti-
lized for other purposes rather than conservation [85, 86].
That said, ecotourism has been considered a good alternative, especially when
considering the need to balance controversial land uses [44, 87–89]. However, the
Fig. 9.5 The Tangalooma ecotourism community project in Australia, an example of how eco-
tourism can be an important tool for promoting environmental and cultural awareness of their visi-
tors. All figures are publicly available from Google Images
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
144
ecotourism concept has not yet granted consensus in academia or among practitio-
ners, with several views considering this activity ineffective in meeting conserva-
tion goals and improving communities’ quality of life [7]. Nonetheless, several
examples exist around the world illustrating that, with appropriate planning and
management, ecotourism can be a multifaceted, beneficial alternative.
The concept of ecotourism has different meanings, and its implementation strate-
gies vary from region to region where it is applied. This is most notable when
viewed from the perspective of the North-South debate associated with natural
resources management [90, 91]. This debate focuses on the equalities and inequali-
ties associated with power management in natural resources conservation, in which
poor countries (Southern) with valuable species of flora and fauna are regarded as
the main ones responsible for their conservation. They act as trustees on behalf of
their communities [92], while most of the planning, control, and economic benefits
are held by actors from developed (Northern) countries [93, 94].
Under this paradigm, ecotourism is constructed as a transnational link between
tourism in developed countries and nature in developing countries [93], in most
cases connecting networks of private businesses while promoting Western environ-
mentalism that legitimates these businesses. As a result, some authors argue that
ecotourism in the South can be seen as a sort of neocolonial system that extirpates
local resources in favor of transnational international business [95, 96]. In addition,
despite the fact that ecotourism has been created as a strategy to empower local
communities [3, 8, 32], its rise, in most cases, creates conditions for the persistence
of unequal powers, where small and external groups of stakeholders might margin-
alize local communities [94].
Throughout this chapter, we have demonstrated that ecotourism can promote
conservation, raise environmental awareness, empower local people, and provide
economic benefits to local communities. These facts, however, do not mean that
ecotourism is completely beneficial. Indeed, not all communities involved in eco-
tourism benefit from the activity. Several aspects impair this understanding, ranging
from misinterpretations of the concept, opposing views and interests across regions,
and the inequalities in benefit sharing among people at the community level. As
indicated by [97, 98]:
the North and South have very different views, need and priorities in respect of the process
of globalization, and especially with regard to natural resource use. The close relationship
between natural resources use and economic growth makes debates about environmental
protection or natural resource use a complex task of reconciling largely opposing positions.
Usually rich in natural resources, with growing populations and lagging behind on the road
to development and industrialization, the South’s priorities lie in eliminating poverty and
reducing a taxing international debt. The South zealously guards the principle of sover-
eignty over its natural resources and is wary of engaging in environmental debates specifies
by the North which, in the South’s view, seeks to continue its affluent lifestyle while blocking
the South’s right to develop [97].
These different views give rise to different interpretations of ecotourism in
which developed countries create a belief that “by importing natural resources
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
145
and exporting sink capacity demand and environmental costs, are more sustain-
able, as their consumption rates are not tightly linked to domestic environmental
conditions” .
Though ecotourism does provide economic benefits to local communities, as we
indicated earlier (see Sects. 9.3.1 and 9.3.3), there are concerns associated with this
(see Table 9.1). For example, it has been considered that ecotourism might lead to
local disempowerment [99] because tourism dollars can create wealth stratifica-
tion, in which local leaders might receive more benefits than the remaining mem-
bers of the community in the form of privileges [87, 94]. The alternative is the
incorporation of tourism as a community-based enterprise in which all community
members are involved in the decision-making process, advised on the structure of
the project, and are aware of any possible concerns that might arise [18, 89]. Under
the North- South debate, and the different perspectives between rich and poor coun-
tries, it is important to acknowledge that ecotourism is still viewed in most poor
countries as a policy of eco-imperialism that restrains their sovereignty over natu-
ral resources [43, 44, 92]. This view is still dominant in the context of natural
resources use and management, and in ecotourism projects, it is maintained by the
fact that most tourism enterprises are a result of Western investments that flow their
profits back to these countries, but export their impacts on developing countries
[18, 94, 100].
From the range of opportunities created by ecotourism, direct payments have
been identified as one of the most important. Under this perspective, local residents
can be employed by ecotourism projects in the building, maintenance, and opera-
tion of hotels and the supply of goods and services [94]. The latter has been advo-
cated in the last years, and several certification programs are already being
implemented. Unfortunately, differing perspectives on natural resources use and
legislative impairment dictate that ecotourism projects situated in developing and
developed countries be of different certification standards [17, 62, 63]. Certified
local products are considered to have better value added and can be a source of
income directly paid to local producers and have greater conservation value.
However, certification programs, especially in developing countries, are value
dominated, where the economic- conservation paradigm often overrides the socio-
cultural paradigm [18]. This is certainly due to the fact that social standards are
ambiguous and assessment methods are inconsistent and open to interpretation
[61–63].
In conclusion, when properly designed, implemented, and managed, ecotourism
can help balance biodiversity conservation and community needs, enabling sustain-
able utilization of the community resource base, and can empower local communi-
ties by improving their sense of ownership over the use of natural resources. And,
ecotourism can support funding for conservation and scientific research and pro-
mote cooperation between countries. Finally, ecotourism can be a mechanism to
improve environmental awareness of visitors and local people, educating the public
and contributing to improved social well-being.
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
146
Table 9.1 Framework for determining the impacts of ecotourism initiatives on local
communities
Typology Signs of empowerment Signs of disempowerment
Economic
empowerment
Ecotourism brings lasting economic
gains to a local community. Cash
earned is shared between many
households in the community. There
are visible signs of improvements
from the cash that is earned (e.g.,
improved water systems and houses
made of more permanent materials)
Ecotourism merely results in small,
spasmodic cash gains for a local
community. Most profits go to local
elites, outside operators, government
agencies, etc. Only a few individuals
or families gain direct financial
benefits from ecotourism, while others
cannot find a way to share in these
economic benefits because they lack
capital and/or appropriate skills
Psychological
empowerment
Self-esteem of many community
members is enhanced because of
outside recognition of the uniqueness
and value of their culture, their natural
resources, and their traditional
knowledge. Increasing confidence of
community members leads them to seek
out further education and training
opportunities. Access to employment
and cash leads to an increase in status
for traditionally low-status sectors of
society (e.g., women and youths)
Many people have not shared in the
benefits of ecotourism, yet they may
face hardships because of reduced
access to the resources of a protected
area. They are thus confused,
frustrated, disinterested, or
disillusioned with the initiative
Social
empowerment
Ecotourism maintains or enhances the
local community’s equilibrium.
Community cohesion is improved as
individuals and families work together
to build a successful ecotourism
venture. Some funds raised are used
for community development purposes
(e.g., to build schools or improve
roads)
Disharmony and social decay. Many in
the community take on outside values
and lose respect for traditional culture
and for elders. Disadvantaged groups
(e.g., women) bear the brunt of
problems associated with the ecotourism
initiative and fail to share equitably in its
benefits. Rather than cooperating,
individuals, families, and ethnic or
socioeconomic groups compete with
each other for the perceived benefits of
ecotourism. Resentment and jealousy
are commonplace
Political
empowerment
The community’s political structure,
which fairly represents the needs and
interests of all community groups,
provides a forum through which people
can raise questions relating to the
ecotourism venture and have their
concerns dealt with. Agencies initiating
or implementing the ecotourism
venture to seek out the opinions of
community groups (including special
interest groups of women, youths, and
other socially disadvantaged groups)
and provide opportunities for them to
be represented on decision-making
bodies (e.g., the Wildlife Park Board)
The community has an autocratic and/
or self-interested leadership. Agencies
initiating or implementing the
ecotourism venture treat communities
as passive beneficiaries, failing to
involve them in decision-making.
Thus, the majority of community
members feel they have little or no say
over whether the ecotourism initiative
operates or the way in which it
operates
Source: Adapted from [101]
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
147
References
1. Athanasopoulou A (2013) Tourism as a driver of economic growth and development in the
EU-27 and ASEAN regions. European Union Centre in Singapore. http://www.eucentre.sg/
wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EUCResearchBrief_TourismEU27ASEAN.pdf
2. Jucan CN, Jucan MS (2013) Travel and tourism as a driver of economic recovery. Proc Econ
Financ 6:81–88
3. Baromey N (2008) Ecotourism as a tool for sustainable rural community development and
natural resources management in the Tonle sap biosphere reserve. Kassel University Press,
Kassel
4. UNWTO (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights: tourism market trends. Madrid
5. Fritsch A, Johansen K (2004) Ecotourism in Appalachia: marketing the mountains. The
University Press of Kentucky, Kentucky
6. Singh J (2010) Ecotourism. I.K. International Publishing House, New Delhi
7. Phanthavong A (2009) The potential of ecotourism to contribute to local sustainable devel-
opment: a case study in Kiet Ngong village in Xe Pian National Protected Area, Lao
PDR. Dissertation, Massey University
8. Mugisha AR, Ajarova LB (2006) Ecotourism: benefits and challenges – Uganda’s experience.
In: Lavigne DM (ed) Gaining Gr Purs Ecol Sustain. International Fund for Animal Welfare,
London, pp 156–160
9. Shelton EJ, Higham J (2007) Ecotourism and wildlife habituation. In: Higham J (ed) Critical
issues in ecotourism: understanding a complex tourism phenomenon. Butterworth- Heinemann,
Oxford, pp 270–286
10. Ross S, Wall G (1999) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tour
Manag 20:123–132
11. Ross S, Wall G (1999) Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tour
Manag 20:673–682
12. Wearing S, Neil J (2009) Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possibilities, 2nd edn.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
13. Jaakson R (1997) Exploring the epistemology of ecotourism. J Appl Recreat Res 22:33–47
14. Diamantis D (1998) Consumer behavior and ecotourism products. Ann Tour Res 25:515–518
15. Diamantis D, Ladkin A (1999) The links between sustainable tourism and ecotourism: a defi-
nitional and operational perspective. J Tour Stud 10:99–35
16. Fennell DA (2015) Ecotourism, 4th edn. Routledge, London
17. Gossling S (2006) Tourism certification in Scandivania. In: Higham J (ed) Ecotourism in
Scandinavia: lessons in theory and practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 386–405
18. Jamal T, Borges M, Stronza A (2008) The institutionalisation of ecotourism: certification, cul-
tural equity and praxis. J Ecotour 5:145–175
19. Ashley C, Boyd C, Goodwin H (2000) Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of the
tourism agenda. ODI 51:1–6
20. Ntshona Z, Lahiff E (2003) Community-based eco-tourism on the wild coast, South Africa:
the case of the Amadiba Trail, vol. 7. University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies,
Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme
21. Barrett CB, Brandon K, Gibson C, Gjertsen H (2001) Conserving tropical biodiversity amid
weak institutions. Bioscience 51:497
22. Barreto-Filho HT (2002) Populações tradicionais: introdução à crítica da ecologia política
de uma noção. In: Adams C, Murrieta R, Neves WA (eds) Sociedades caboclas amazônicas:
modernidade e invisibilidade Annablume, pp 109–143
23. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas.
Annu Rev Anthropol 35:251–277
24. Hutton J, Adams WM, Murombedzi JC (2011) Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in
biodiversity conservation. Forum develop. Studies 323:341–370
25. Ladle RJ, Jepson P, Gillson L (2011) Social values and conservation biogeography. In: Ladle
RJ, Whittaker RJ (eds) Conservation Biogeography. Wiley, Chichester, pp 13–30
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
148
26. Peralta N (2012) Ecotourism as an incentive to biodiversity conservation: the case of Uakari
lodge, Amazonas, Brazil. Uakari 8:75–94
27. Kipkeu ML, Mwangi SW, Njogu J (2014) Incentives for enhanced community participation in
wildlife conservation in Amboseli, Kenya. IMPACT Int J Res Appl Nat Soc Sci 2:75–86
28. Berrisfold K, Patrickson S (2010) Biodiversity conservation mechanisms and management.
In: Lagos MT, Jones FE (eds) Local action for biodiversity guidebook: biodiversity man-
agement for local governments. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, Cape Town,
pp 86–123
29. IIED (2003) The evolution of ecotourism in East Africa: from an idea to an industry, vol 15.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London
30. Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. The Penguin Group,
New York
31. Denman R (2001) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. WWF
International, Gland
32. Kiss A (2004) Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?
Trends Ecol Evol 19:232–237
33. Mohd A, Jusoff K, Sheikh AH, Yaman AR (2009) The management of Bhawal National Park,
Bangladesh by the local community for resource protection and ecotourism. Asian Soc Sci
4:101–107
34. Manu I, Kuuder C-JW (2012) Community-based ecotourism and livelihood enhancement in
Sirigu, Ghana. Int J Humanit Soc Sci 2:97–108
35. Tsing AL, Brosius JP, Zerner C (2005) Introduction: raising questions about communities and
conservation. In: Brosius JP, Tsing AL, Zerner C (eds) Communities and conservation: his-
tories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Oxford, pp 1–36
36. Leksakundilok A (2004) Community participation in ecotourism development in Thailand.
PhD Thesis, University of Sydney
37. Filimão E, Mansur E, Namanha L (1999) Tchuma Tchato: an evolving experience of commu-
nity-based natural resource management in Mozambique. In: Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa Participatory forest management: a strategy
for sustainable forest management in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization, Banjul,
pp 145–152
38. Johnson S (2004) The Tchuma-Tchato project in Mozambique: community-based natu-
ral resource management in transition. In: Fabricius C, Koch E, Magome H, Turner S (eds)
Rights, resources and rural development: community-based natural resource management in
Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, pp 210–222
39. Suich H (2013) Evaluating the household level outcomes of community based natural resource
management: the Tchuma Tchato project and Kwandu conservancy. Ecol Soc 18:art25
40. Mcneely JA (2006) Systems or species? Approaches to conservation for the 21st century.
Integr Zool (2):86–95
41. Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Weber B et al (2008) The ecological future of the north American
bison: conceiving long-term, large-scale conservation of wildlife. Conserv Biol 22:252–266
42. Daily GC, Kareiva PM, Polasky S et al (2011) Mainstreaming natural capital into decisions.
In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ticketts TH et al (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping
ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–14
43. Cheung H (2015) El ecoturismo multidisciplinario como un enfoque para la conservación en
África Ecotourism as a multidisciplinary conservation approach in Africa. Therya 6:31–34
44. Alexander SE, Whitehouse JL (2004) Challenges for balancing conservation and development
through ecotourism: insights and implications from two Belizean case studies. In: Pineda FD,
Brebbia CA, Mugica M (eds) Sustainable tourism. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 129–142
45. Sofield THB, Li FMS (2003) Processes in formulating ecotourism policy for nature reserves in
Yunnan Province, China. In: Fennel DA, Dowling RK (eds) Ecotourism policy and planning.
CABI Publishing, Cambridge, pp 141–168
46. Sofield THB, Li FMS (1998) Tourism development and cultural policies in China. Ann Tour
Res 25:362–392
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
149
47. Bricker KS (2003) Ecotourism development in Fiji: policy, practice and political instabil-
ity. In: Fennell DA, Dowling RK (eds) Ecotourism policy and planning. CABI Publishing,
Cambridge, pp 187–204
48. Ferraro PJ, Simpson RD (2002) The economics of conservation investments. Society for
Conservation Biology Meetings, Canterbury. July 2002
49. Honey M (2008) Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise? 2nd edn.
Island Press, Washington, DC
50. Taylor JE, Yunez-Naude A, Dyer GA et al (2002) The economics of “eco-tourism:” a Galapagos
Island economy-wide perspective. Econ Dev Cult Change 51:977–997
51. The Zimbabwe Trust (1994) Zimbabwe: tourism, people and wildlife. The Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Management, The Campfire Association
52. Frost PGH, Bond I (2006) CAMPFIRE and payments for environmental services. International
Institute for Environment and Development, London
53. Lempert D (2013) Protecting endangered cultures from harms of globalization: a new product
certification approach using business incentives. Pract Anthropol 35:28–32
54. Petrevska B, Deleva S (2014) Funding ecotourism certification programs. J Appl Econ Bus
2:92–104
55. Hamden M, Low KCP (2015) Ecotourism development in Brunei Darussalam. Transnatl Corp
Rev 6:248–272
56. Poyyamoli G (2015) Eco-cultural tourism for biodiversity conservation and sustainable devel-
opment of remote ecosystems in the third world. In: Kumar S, Dhiman MC, Dahiya A (eds)
International tourism and hospitality in the digital age. Business Science Reference, Hershey,
pp 34–55
57. Ball J (2010) Sustainable forest management. In: Commonwealth Forestry Association (eds)
Commonwealth Forests 2010: an overview of the forests and forestry sectors of the countries
of the Commonwealth, Shropshire, pp 32–53
58. Sheil D, Putz FE, Zagt RJ (2010) Certified jungles? Wageningen, Tropenbos International
59. Weaver DB (1998) Ecotourism in the less developed world. CABI Publishing, Oxford
60. Weaver DB (2005) Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Ann Tour Res
32:439–455
61. Skinner E, Font X, Sanabria R (2004) Does stewardship travel well? Benchmarking accredita-
tion and certification. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 11:121–132
62. Honey M, Rome A (2001) Protecting paradise: certification programs for sustainable tourism
and ecotourism. Institute for Policy Studies, Wahington, DC
63. Font X (2007) Ecotourism certification: potential and challenges. In: Higham J (ed) Critical
issues in ecotourism. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 386–405
64. Black R, Crabtree A (2007) Stakeholders’ perspectives on quality in ecotourism. In: Black
R, Crabtree A (eds) Quality assurance and certification in ecotourism. CABI Publishing,
Cambridge, pp 136–146
65. Zeppel H (1998) Land and culture: sustainable tourism and indigenous peoples. In: Hall CM,
Lew AA (eds) Sustainable tourism: a geographical perspective. CABI Publishing, Oxford,
pp 60–74
66. Zeppel H (2006) Indigenous ecotourism: sustainable development and management. CABI
Publishing, Oxford
67. Gössling S, Garrod B, Aall C et al (2011) Food management in tourism: reducing tourism’s
carbon “foodprint”. Tour Manag 32:534–543
68. Munday M, Turner K, Jones C (2013) Accounting for the carbon associated with regional tour-
ism consumption. Tour Manag 36:35–44
69. Sun Y-Y (2014) A framework to account for the tourism carbon footprint at island destinations.
Tour Manag 45:16–27
70. Waylen KA, McGowan PJK, Milner-Gulland EJ (2009) Ecotourism positively affects aware-
ness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: a case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad.
Oryx 43:343–351
71. Rattan JK, Eagles PFJ, Mair HL (2012) Volunteer tourism: its role in creating conservation
awareness. J Ecotourism 11:1–15
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
150
72. Orams MB (1997) The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into
“greenies”. Int J Tour Res 3:295–306
73. Schänzel HA, McIntosh AJ (2010) An insight into the personal and emotive context of wildlife
viewing at the penguin place, Otago peninsula, New Zealand. J Sustain Tour 8:36–52
74. de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1999) Exploring changes in Ecuadorian land use for
food production and their effects on natural resources. J Environ Manag 57:221–237
75. Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions
in community-based natural resource management. World Dev 27:218–233
76. den BJCJM v, Stagl S (2003) Coevolution of economic behaviour and institutions: towards a
theory of institutional change. J Evol Econ 13:289–317
77. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and
research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317
78. de Lima IB, d’Hauteserre A-M (2011) Ecotourism, social and human capitals, and identity
valorization: the communities of Tapajós (PA), Brazil. Rev Bras Ecotur 4:250–273
79. Rachmawati E (2014) Host community’s social and cultural capital for ecotourism develop-
ment in Indonesia. In: SHS Web of conference, pp 1–8
80. Musavengane R, Matikiti R (2015) Does social capital really enhance community based eco-
tourism? A review of the literature. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 4:1–18
81. Jones S (2005) Community-based ecotourism the significance of social capital. Ann Tour Res
32:303–324
82. de Lima IB, D’Hauteserre A-M (2011) Community capitals and ecotourism for enhancing
Amazonian forest livelihoods. Anatolia 22:184–203
83. García-Amado LR, Pérez MR, Iniesta-Arandia I et al (2012) Building ties: social capital net-
work analysis of a forest community in a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol Soc
17:art3
84. Vincent VC, Thompson W (2002) Assessing community support and sustainability for eco-
tourism development. J Travel Res 41:153–160
85. Rodríguez-Piñeros S, Mayett-Moreno Y (2015) Forest owners’ perceptions of ecotourism:
integrating community values and forest conservation. Ambio 44:99–109
86. Brancalion PHS, Garcia LC, Loyola R et al (2016) A critical analysis of the native vegetation
protection law of Brazil (2012): updates and ongoing initiatives. Nat Conserv 14:1–15
87. Kirkby CA, Giudice-Granados R, Day B et al (2010) The market triumph of ecotourism:
an economic investigation of the private and social benefits of competing land uses in the
Peruvian Amazon. PLoS One 5:e13015
88. Lin L-Z, C-F L (2013) Fuzzy group decision-making in the measurement of ecotourism sus-
tainability potential. Gr Decis Negot 22:1051–1079
89. Buckley R (2004) Partnerships in ecotourism: Australian political frameworks. Int J Tour Res
6:75–83
90. Giljum S, Eisenmenger N (2004) North-south trade and the distribution of environmental
goods and burdens: a biophysical perspective. J Environ Dev 13:73–100
91. Rist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C et al (2007) Moving from sustainable management to
sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India,
Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23:23–37
92. Beyerlin U (2006) Bridging the north-south divide in international environmental law. ZaöRV
66:259–296
93. Higgins BR (2000) Tour operators. In: Weaver DB (ed) The encyclopedia of ecotourism. CABI
Publishing, Oxford, pp 535–548
94. Mathis A, Rose J (2016) Balancing tourism, conservation, and development: a political ecol-
ogy of ecotourism on the Galapagos Islands. J Ecotour 15:64–77
95. Stonich SC (2000) The other side of paradise: tourism, conservation, and development in the
Bay Islands. Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York
96. Mowforth M, Munt I (2016) Tourism and sustainability: development, globalisation and new
tourism in the third world, 4th edn. Rutledge, New York
D. Zacarias and R. Loyola
151
97. Rice J (2007) Ecological unequal exchange: consumption, equity, and unsustainable struc-
tural relationships within the global economy. Int J Comp Sociol 48:43–72
98. Blanco EM, Razzaque J (2011) Globalisation and natural resources law: challenges, key
issues and perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
99. Vaccaro I, Beltran O, Paquet PA (2013) Political ecology and conservation policies: some
theoretical genealogies. J Polit Ecol 20:256–272
100. Stone LS, Nyaupane GP (2016) Africans and protected areas: north–south perspectives. Ann
Tour Res 58:140–155
101. Scheyvens R (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tour Manag
20:245–249
9 How Ecotourism Affects Human Communities
