A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism …sallen/kathy/Masberg and...A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism development B.A. Masberg*, N. Morales Department of Recreation

A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism development

B.A. Masberg* , N. Morales

Department of Recreation and Park Administration, School of Physical Education, Health and Recreation, Indiana University 133,Bloomington, IN 47405-4801, USA

Abstract

Ecotourism is a form of tourism which focuses on contributing to the preservation of natural and cultural resources whilepromoting economic contribution to local communities. Certain factors have been identified in the literature to optimize bothpreservation and economic contribution, but the strategies to accomplish these factors have not been defined. The purpose ofthis research was to identify through case analysis how each of the success factors in ecotourism development (i.e. an integratedapproach, planning and a slow start, education and training, maximize local benefits, and evaluation and feedback) have beenimplemented in ecotourism cases. A series of ecotourism cases were analyzed. The success factors were identified and thestrategies described under each factor were recorded. The data collected for all cases were pooled for each of the success factorsand a matrix of five success factors with the corresponding strategies was created. Strategies that appeared as ‘recommended’ inthe cases were not included in the analysis. The results indicated that factors and strategies differed. Within each factor there isno predominant strategy. Success factors should be re-evaluated and factors identified using an ecosystem managementapproach which puts the health of the environment as the foundation of tourism development. Standards need to be set andthen strategies assigned to maintain standards for preservation and economic well-being.q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd andAEHMS. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Tourism; Comparative research

1. Introduction

Based on economic contribution, tourism is consid-ered to be the largest industry in the world (Naisbitt,1994). The tourism industry is made up of hotels,restaurants, attractions, retail operations, transporta-tion, travel agents, marketing organizations, touroperators and a host of other businesses, organizationsand components. Tourism has not been credited withattending to the well-being of natural and culturalenvironments; negative impacts to these environ-ments have been the norm. Effects have arisen from

tourism development, tourists and tourism activity(OECD, 1980; Smith, 1989; Inskeep, 1991; Gartner,1996). In response to these negative impacts, aphenomenon called ecotourism has evolved whichprovides a mechanism to advocate for the naturaland cultural environment while encouragingeconomic development (Kusler, 1991a,b; Sisman,1994).

Ecotourism has been described as travel to naturalareas which conserves the environment and improvesthe welfare of local people (Boo, 1991; Cater, 1994;Wight, 1994). Ecotourism focuses on the naturalbeauty, geology, flora and fauna of a particular areaalong with its indigenous cultures. Locales around theworld with pristine, unique or grand natural andcultural attributes are spotlighted in a ‘sustainable’

Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 2 (1999) 289–300

1463-4988/99/$20.00q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd and AEHMS. All rights reserved.PII: S1463-4988(99)00045-7

www.elsevier.com/locate/aquech

* Corresponding author. Tel.:1 1-812-855-4711; fax:1 1-812-855-3998.

E-mail address:[email protected] (B.A. Masberg)

manner in order to preserve these attributes and at thesame time generate revenue for the destination area.When choosing to take an ‘ecotrip’ or ‘ecotour’, themotivation of the tourist is to appreciate natural andcultural features, and to preserve these features whilegaining knowledge and understanding (Wight,1996a,b). The tourist not only contributes to preserva-tion directly, but also provides an incentive topreserve the resources by their presence and economiccontribution. Tourism management and governmentagencies contribute to preservation by promoting poli-cies and providing expertise in order to balanceconservation with support of local enterprises(Inskeep, 1991; Lindberg, 1991; Sisman, 1994).

Since the term and concept of ecotourism firstemerged, it has been seen as a savior of the environ-ment, but it has also been used as a marketing ploy. Insome cases, ecotourism means sustainable develop-ment of tourism. In other situations the term is usedas a method of increasing tourism traffic andeconomic impact (Kutay, 1989; Ceballas-Lascurian,1991; Ceballas-Lascurian, 1996; Cater, 1994;Dimanche and Smith, 1996). Whatever the definitionof ecotourism, it is the fastest growing segment of thetourism industry (Kusler, 1991a,b; Higgins, 1996).Many tourism operations which have exploited theenvironment in the past are now supporting effortsto provide a ‘green’ or ‘alternative’ experience fortraditional mass tourists (Cater, 1994).

The scientific community uses ecotourism as ajustification for the preservation of resources. Theimportance of the scientific arena in this concept is

the need to balance economic interests with the needsof the natural environment. The environment has beena foundation for tourism development, but has notalways been the recipient of top priority status.Reports and descriptions have been published fromall over the world which illustrate certain aspects ofthe development of ecotourism. Many identify theresults and impacts of ecotourism (Boo, 1990;Glick, 1991; Post, 1994), but the manner of develop-ment has not been well documented. Another discus-sion focuses on what should happen or what should bedone at a given site (Wight, 1994; Wallace and Pierce,1996). Basic ‘how tos’ are enumerated by someprofessionals (Boo, 1990; Lindberg and Hawkins,1993). Other researchers have identified specificsuccess factors for ecotourism development (Ziffer,1989; Kusler, 1991a,b), but how these indicatorshave manifested has not been investigated.

Ziffer (1989) advocated that five factors be incor-porated into ecotourism development: (1) an inte-grated approach; (2) planning and a slow start; (3)education and training; (4) maximization of localbenefits and (5) evaluation and feedback. The goalwas for successful ecotourism development andoperation and these five factors ensured that the goalwas achieved (Fig. 1).

The integrated approach required that input shouldbe sought from all concerned groups includinggovernment agencies, international aid organizations,beneficiaries, tourism operations and residents. Plan-ning and a ‘slow start’ required that a business planwithin land management should be developed where

B.A. Masberg, N. Morales / Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 2 (1999) 289–300290

Fig. 1. Location of ecotourism success factors within the framework of ecosystem management.

carrying capacity was documented, implemented andenforced with gradual growth and adjustment indevelopment. Education and training involved tour-ists, tour operators, and local guides in training withan orientation toward conservation. Maximizing localbenefits required that an equitable distribution systemof economic benefits especially to local residentsshould be in place. Finally, evaluation and feedbackrequired that actual and projected figures should becompared and management customized to addressidentified concerns and issues.

The actual strategies to fulfill the objectives of eachsuccess factor were not identified by Ziffer (1989).The purpose of this research was to investigate howeach of the success factors have been implemented inecotourism cases by identifying the underlying strate-gies implemented in different countries for successfulecotourism.

2. Methodology

This study was designed to identify how each of thesuccess factors listed by Ziffer (1989) has been imple-mented in ecotourism cases. This study used caseanalysis in the fashion of Yin (1994) and also

comparative research tenets from sociology (Warwickand Osherson, 1973; Pearce, 1993; Berg-Schlosserand De Meur, 1997; Goldstone, 1997; Goldthorpe,1997). The results of comparative studies replaceproper names of social systems (i.e. a city) by therelevant variables (i.e. health issues, crime rate andso on) and strive to identify factors and issues to bediscussed. Comparative methods are used for problemselection and provide a basis for further research. Theresearch process used the following steps.

2.1. Identification of ecotourism case studies

The database search criteria included:

1. Published descriptions in academic oriented jour-nals, monographs, reports, book chapters, andconference proceedings.

2. ‘Ecotourism’ as determined by the authors them-selves and also by the definition of ecotourism.

3. Cases which offered a comprehensive descriptionof the ecotourism development.

Twenty cases were identified which satisfied theabove criteria (Table 1). No procedures were appliedto ensure geographic balance. Descriptions publishedin popular periodicals and nonacademic journals

B.A. Masberg, N. Morales / Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 2 (1999) 289–300 291

Table 1List of cases selected for the present study

Case # Region Location Author(s)

1 North America: America west Bryan (1991)2 Caribbean: Windward Islands Christian et al. (1996)3 Caribbean Basin Weaver (1994)4 Central America: Costa Rica Jacobson and Robles (1992)5 Rovinski (1991)6 Place (1991)7 Belize Kangas et al. (1995)8 Woods et al. (1994)9 South America: Argentina Schluter (1993)10 Europe: Eastern Hall and Kinnaird (1994)11 Alpine area Khan (1994)12 Africa: South Africa Holt-Biddle (1996)13 Kenya Olinda (1991)14 Zimbabwe Koch (1994)15 Asia: Annapurna Garung and De Coursey (1994)16 Nepal Wells (1994)17 China Tisdell (1996)18 Australia/New Zealand: Hall (1994)19 Craik (1994)20 Antarctic: Stonehouse (1994)

literature were not selected for the analysis. Twoconcerns when using comparative research are (1)the absence of multitudes of cases for comparisonand (2) the presence of a large number of variables.

2.2. Cross case analysis

Cross case analysis was conducted by examininghow each of the success factors were manifested ineach case. This examination was necessary in order toprovide a structure as required by case analysis. Thesuccess factors identified by Ziffer (1989) were usedto locate different strategies and possible interactionsin order to manage the potential for an overwhelmingnumber of variables better. The success factors wereused to identify rather than implying distinct causalrelationships (Berg-Schlosser and De Meur, 1997).

Each strategy identified was given a code name inorder to synthesize the information.

2.3. Culling the data

‘Cases’ were read and reread to eliminate additionsto the data which had not been implemented. Suchitems that were ‘recommended’, ‘advised’, and/oridentified as ‘should be implemented’ were excludedfrom the analysis, but were recorded for discussion.

2.4. Use of qualitative and comparative researchmethods

An analysis based on qualitative and comparativeresearch methods was completed. The cases werepooled and the strategies identified for the successfactors were extracted by categorizing the imple-mented strategies firstly according to the five success


Fig. 2. Categorization of ecotourism strategies identified for each success factor in the studied cases.

factors and then by the emergent categories withineach factor (Fig. 2).

2.5. Data analysis

The qualitative data were quantified and dataanalysis was conducted in order to identify variabledominance. The following questions were used toshape the quantitative analysis: (1) What successfactor was implemented most? (2) Within eachsuccess factor, what strategy was implemented mostoften? (3) What was the number of cases imple-menting five/four/three/two/one success factors? Achi square statistic was used to address these ques-tions.

3. Results

The results section contains emergent strategiesdisplayed by each success factor followed by theresults of the quantitative analysis.

3.1. Integrated approach

The participants involved in the process ofecotourism development were identified (i.e. initiator,interest groups, and stakeholders). The following stra-tegies were identified:

1a. Self development [SELFDEVO] involvesgradual building and growth. Capital investmentis not needed because facilities present are utilized(Bryan, 1991; Garung and De Coursey, 1994;Weaver, 1994).1b. Capital infusion [CAPINFUSE] from multi-national businesses, nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs), the government, private organiza-tions, or other entities is needed when beginningan ecotourism enterprise. The goal is to institutio-nalize the development within the local economicenvironment (Olinda, 1991; Garung and DeCoursey, 1994; Hall 1994; Hall and Kinnaird,1994).1c. Consolidation of basic development[CONBASIC] (i.e. health, education, sanitation)with tourism. The infrastructure to promotehuman health and welfare as well as tourismfacilities and services are supplied to the local

community (Schluter, 1993; Garung and DeCoursey, 1994; Koch, 1994).1d. Agriculture, forestry and biodiversity [INC/AG/FOREST] needs and concerns of other majorindustry sectors are incorporated with tourismdevelopment and operation (Garung and DeCoursey, 1994; Hall and Kinnaird, 1994; Khan,1994; Weaver, 1994).1e. Organizations are set up virtually independent[INDEPENDENT] of the area’s local government.They are given wide ranging powers to protect andenhance the ecological quality of the area andprovide mechanisms to facilitate economic devel-opment of the area (Place, 1991; Hall and Kinnaird,1994; Khan, 1994; Koch, 1994; Weaver, 1994;Kangas et al., 1995; Tisdell, 1996).

The emergent strategies for the strategy ‘IntegratedApproach’ illustrate both a top–down and bottom–up approach to ecotourism development. There is adependency on capital investment from individualsand organizations outside the immediate local area,and a fused effort in which more basic needs areconnected with tourism. Although a critical consid-eration is the inclusion of the local residents in theprocess and final development, one case pointed outthat local landowners were unaware of tourism devel-opment proposals (Hall, 1994).

3.2. Planning and a slow start

In order to identify strategies as part of this factor,an indication of a planning process was sought in theanalysis. Creation of a ‘plan’ and the setting of bound-aries or limits were recorded.

2a. A strategy is developed for zoning [ZONING]for the local residents and for tourists. Buffer zones,grazing areas, transition areas and tourist zones aredesignated in various sections of a site. (Olinda,1991; Robles, 1992; Craik, 1994; Garung and DeCoursey, 1994; Hall and Kinnaird, 1994; Christianet al., 1996; Tisdell, 1996).2b. Fee collection [FEES] and distribution methodsare institutionalized. Local management commit-tees control prices and are responsible for safety,security of visitors (Place, 1991; Garung and DeCoursey 1994; Koch, 1994). In one case VillageDevelopment Committees were instituted and


grew in number as their effectiveness was demon-strated (Garung and De Coursey, 1994).2c. ‘Outside’ entities [$SUPPORT] are allowed tosupport preservation efforts (i.e. planting trees,historic preservation) (Khan, 1994; Holt-Biddle,1996). For example, in the Alpine region of Europe,a multinational cosmetics firm purchased land forbutterfly sanctuaries.2d. Regulations and codes [CODES] of conduct forboth tourists and local residents are declared(Jacobson and Robles, 1992; Craik, 1994; Hall,1994; Stonehouse, 1994; Weaver, 1994; Christianet al., 1996). In one case the local residents areallowed once per year to gather thatching forroofs within a national park area.2e. Parks [PARKS] and reserve systems are devel-oped (Rovinski, 1991; Weaver, 1994).2f. Formal documentation [DOCUMENTATION]and established policies and procedures are setupand in some cases each organization or area isrequired to complete a formal development planand enforcement plan (Craik, 1994; Hall andKinnaird, 1994; Weaver, 1994; Holt-Biddle,1996; Tisdell, 1996).

Although some indication of planning and display of aslow start was demonstrated, it was fragmented anddifficult to ascertain. The need for restriction of usesand a proactive stance were seen as necessary in orderto effectively integrate groups into the process.

3.3. Education and training

Following are training and education efforts beingconducted in ecotour areas. The constituencyreceiving the training along with the training focusare noted.

3a. Employment [LLABOR] as protected areas aredeveloped, training is conducted in order to employlocal residents for various personnel positions suchas tour guide, gate keeper or fee collector (Olinda,1991; Holt-Biddle, 1996).3b. Private enterprise [LENTREPRENEUR] isnecessary to support the demand for touristservices. Management and entrepreneurial trainingoccurs so that local residents may own and operatetrekking and guiding services or lodging establish-ments (Garung and De Coursey, 1994).

3c. Leadership [LLEADERSHIP] training to facil-itate self-governance and self-management of localcommunity programs is provided so thatecotourism becomes a community organized andcontrolled industry (Garung and De Coursey,1994).3d. General conservation [LCONSERVATION]and environmental education programs are insti-tuted into school curricula or as part of communityorganizations. Programs include recycling or parksponsored conservation lessons (Jacobson andRobles, 1992; Koch, 1994; Christian et al., 1996).3e. Basic tourism theory [LTRSMTHEORY] isprovided so that there is an understanding of theimpacts of tourism, positive aspects of tourismand sustainable development doctrines (Jacobsonand Robles, 1992; Koch, 1994; Christian et al.,1996; Tisdell, 1996).

Ecotourism as a concept focuses on travel for educa-tion of the tourists and also on the indigenous cultureas an attraction. There is a lack of effective interpreta-tion and educational programming at sites whichshould be a primary focus of ecotourism development.Local residents are the target for the training andeducation programs. The change that would occur tothe indigenous culture because of such training andeducation is at cross purposes to preservation ofculture.

3.4. Maximize local benefits

4a. The federal or central government [GOVERN-MENT] provides financial incentives and assis-tance to develop small businesses (i.e. travelagents, tour operators) so that local residents andenterprises provide tourism services. (Olinda, 1991;Place, 1991; Hall, 1994; Weaver, 1994; Woods etal., 1994).4b. The local labor force [LABOR] is offeredpreferential employment. Labor contracts, orga-nized salary negotiation, and compensation benefit-ting the entire community were seen (Koch, 1994;Wells, 1994; Holt-Biddle, 1996; Tisdell, 1996).4c. Local goods [GOODS] such as crafts, foodstuffs, and building materials are utilized in thetourism development and operation. Routineswere instituted which provide local residents access



Tab

le2

Str

ateg

ies

(S)id

entifi

edfo

rea

chsu

cces

sfa

ctor

(F

)by

regi

onan

dlo

catio

n

Reg

ion

Loca

tion

Tot

alF/S

Fac

tors

(F)

and

stra

tegi

es(S)

Inte

grat

ed

appr

oach

Pla

nnin

g,sl

owst

art

Edu

catio

n,tr

aini

ngr

styl

e�

"s"

.Lo

calb

enefi

tsE

valu

atio

nfe

edba

ck

1a1b

1c1d

1e2a

2b2c

2d2e

2f3a

3b3c

3d3e

4a4b

4c4d

4e5a

5b5c

Nor

thA

mer

ica

Am

eric

aW

est

1/1

×C

arib

bean

Win

dwar

dIs

land

s3/

4×

××

×C

arib

bean

Bas

in3/

8×

××

××

××

×C

entr

alA

mer

ica

Cos

taR

ica

12/

4×

××

×C

osta

Ric

a2

1/1

×C

osta

Ric

a3

3/3

××

×B

eliz

e1

2/2

××

Bel

ize

21/

1×

Sou

thA

mer

ica

Arg

entin

a1/

1×

Eur

ope

Eas

tern

2/5

××

××

×A

lpin

eR

egio

n3/

4×

××

×A

fric

aS

outh

Afr

ica

3/4

××

××

Ken

ya5/

6×

××

××

×Z

imba

bwe

4/9

××

××

××

××

×A

sia

Ann

apur

nare

gion

5/10

××

××

××

××

××

Nep

al1/

1×

Chi

na4/

6×

××

××

×A

ustr

alia

Aus

tral

ia1

3/4

××

××

Aus

tral

ia2

1/3

××

×P

olar

Ant

arct

ic2/

3×

××

Tot

als,

stra

tegi

es3

43

47

73

26

25

21

13

45

42

34

21

2S

trat

egie

sus

ed,

allf

acto

rs21

2511

185

to markets for their goods (i.e. the parks, tourists,lodges and other businesses) (Khan, 1994; Koch,1994).4d. Money [MONEY] is funneled from touristsalmost directly to local residents. For example,tour operators pay the community for each visitingtourist (Koch, 1994); five dollars per day fee isallocated to the community (Olinda, 1991).Twenty-five percent of park gate revenue goes tothe community and donations are solicited fromtourists for scholarships (Kangas et al., 1995).4e. Expertise [EXPERTISE] present in the commu-nity is tapped in order to operate. Managementcontracts with local residents, direct partnerships,permit systems, and organized enterprises such ascommunal gardens, and craft cooperatives aredeveloped (Garung and De Coursey, 1994; Hall,1994; Koch, 1994; Tisdell, 1996).

The local community is part of the success ofecotourism. The ‘Integrated Approach’ assumes thatlocal residents are included in the process, and as seenpreviously ‘Training and Education’ focuses on localresidents. The additional efforts centered upon thelocal residents and their community seem to be themost affirmed factor. In one case it was pointed outthat if offered idealism without cash, the resourceowners decided to stick with the logging companies,that is, cash (Hall, 1994). This illustrates the necessityto provide economic incentives to local residents inorder to ensure positive impacts of the ecotourismdevelopment. Formal agreements seem necessarybetween the tourism industry and local communitiesand a structure is needed to ensure proper handling offunds and individuals in the community.

3.5. Evaluation and feedback

All planning processes need an evaluation phase inwhich the development compares its goals and objec-tives to the actual outcomes of the development. Anindication of some type of research or evaluationefforts was sought and the following topic areasemerged from the cases.

5a. Tourist impacts [IMPACTS] on wildlife and theenvironment whether or not by tourism developmentitself (i.e. road construction, lodges) (Olinda, 1991;Stonehouse, 1994).

5b. An inventory [INVENTORY] is conducted sothat the topography, flora, fauna and other aspectsof the natural environment are cataloged (Stone-house, 1994).5c. General ecological [ECOLOGICAL], speciesspecific and biodiversity research (Garung and DeCoursey, 1994; Christian et al., 1996) is conducted.

Very little evidence of any type of research or evalua-tion was seen.

3.6. Quantitative analysis

An analysis of strategies implemented inecotourism development was conducted. The numberof strategies implemented within each success factorranged from three to six (Table 2). Six strategiesemerged for ‘planning’ compared to five for ‘inte-grated approach’, ‘education and training’, ‘maxi-mizing local benefits’, and three for ‘evaluation andfeedback’. Strategies were implemented 80 times inthe 20 case studies (Table 2). The pooled number ofstrategies implemented within each factor rangedfrom 5 (Evaluation) to 25 (Planning). Planning strate-gies accounted for 31% of the strategies implementedwhile Evaluation and Feedback strategies accountedfor only 6% of implemented strategies. Differences inthe pooled number of strategies implemented weresignificantly different among success factors�x2 �16:2; p , 0:002�:

In the five factors, differences in the number ofstrategies implemented among the 20 case studieswere not significantly different (Factor 1:x2 � 2:57;p , :05; Factor 2:x2 � 5:47; p , :05; Factor 3:x2 �3:07; p , 0:05; Factor 4:x2 � 1:78; p , 0:05; Factor5: x2 � 0:40; p , 0:05).

Nevertheless, there may be a tendency towardsorganizations being setup independently of the area’slocal government (INDEPENDENT, 1e; Table 2). Inthe planning factor a tendency to zone areas for localresidents and for tourists as part of the planningprocess was observed. On the contrary, there was ageneral lack of outside entities allowed to supportpreservation efforts, and a lack of development ofparks and reserve systems. With respect to Educationand Training, a slight tendency towards providingbasic tourism theory in terms of the impacts oftourism and the positive aspects of tourism wasobserved. However, private enterprise support and


leadership training were neglected. A slight tendencytowards having federal or central governmentproviding financial incentives or assistance locallywas observed. A concomitant disregard for localgoods utilization was also observed in the studiedcases.

Two of the studied cases (10%) implemented allfive success factors in development of the ecotourismproject. The Annapurna project established 10 strate-gies out of the 24 strategies identified. Effort wasfocused on the ‘Integrated Approach’, with lessemphasis on ‘Maximizing Local Benefits’ and‘Evaluation and Feedback’. The Kenya project alsoimplemented all five factors, but did not emphasizeany one of them. This project implemented six of thestrategies, at least one in each of the success factors.

In the China and Zimbabwe projects, four of thesuccess factors were implemented. Even though thenumber of strategies varied for each country, six andnine, respectively, neither implemented strategies for‘Evaluation and Feedback’.

Six of the studied cases implemented three of thesuccess factors (Table 2). The number of strategieswithin each of these case studies ranged from threeto seven. Of the number of cases that only imple-mented three success factors, only one implementeda strategy for ‘Evaluation and Feedback’ and only34% implemented strategies for ‘Education andTraining’. These lacks present potential problemsfor ecotourism development in these countries(Costa Rica, Alpine region of Europe, South Africa,Australia, Windward Islands, and the CaribbeanBasin). All of these cases implemented strategies for‘Planning and a Slow Start’, 83% implemented stra-tegies to maximize local benefits, while 66% devel-oped strategies for the ‘Integrated Approach’.

Four of the studied cases implemented two of thesuccess factors (Belize, Antarctic, Costa Rica, andEastern Europe). When only two success factorswere implemented the number of strategies rangedfrom two to five strategies. Seventy-five percent ofthese cases implemented strategies for Planning anda Slow Start where most of the effort was on estab-lishing ZONING and CODES. Little effort was placedon Education and Training or Maximizing LocalBenefits and none on Evaluation and Feedback.

Finally, six of the studied cases implemented onlyone of the success factors in their ecotourism

development project (America West, Costa Rica,Belize, Argentina, Nepal, and Australia). The numberof strategies implemented when only one successfactor was developed ranged from one to three.None of these cases focused on Evaluation and Feed-back nor on Education and Training. If only onestrategy is developed, it will be targeted towards the‘Integrated Approach’, ‘Planning and a Slow Start’ or‘Maximizing Local Benefits’. The specific strategyused varied from case to case.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this research was to identify howeach of the success factors identified by Ziffer (1989)have been implemented in specific ecotourismprojects. Planning and a Slow Start have been imple-mented most in the studied cases. Within this successfactor, ZONING and CODES were the most frequentstrategies implemented. Evaluation and Feedback wasleast implemented which raises the question ‘how issuccess being measured?’. If evaluation is not a factor,then when is a site considered to be a successfulecotourism development? When implementingfactors and strategies, a successful ecotourism projectmust consider the intrinsic characteristics of the site.For example, in some cases, the success of the projectwas directly attributed to extreme natural beauty or aunique wildlife resource (Olinda, 1991; Rovinski,1991), to stable political conditions (Christian et al.,1996), or to proximity to major tourism markets(Rovinski, 1991; Christian et al., 1996).

The study revealed that problems threatening thesuccess of projects related to lack of implementationof most of the success factors or sufficient strategieswithin each factor. For example, some of the authors(Koch, 1994; Weaver, 1994; Tisdell 1996) attributedproblems establishing strategies to poor communica-tion, transport problems, energy shortages, a lack oftraining and no marketing budget.

No one strategy may provide what is needed for asite to be sustainable or as a tourism development. Forexample, the integrated approach may be defined by acapital infusion to an area, but the capital and opera-tion may be governed by an independent autonomousentity. Along with ecotourism development mustcome local self-development as the area develops


gradually. Other industries such as agriculture andforestry must be allied with the organization andtourism development. Finally when developmentoccurs, such basic needs as education, health servicesand sanitation must be a part of the agenda for the site.

Within the factor ‘Planning and a Slow Start’,authoritative and clear-cut programs need to be insti-tuted. The site should be administered by an indepen-dent entity autonomous of other organizations. Thisindependent entity’s goal and purpose should focus ondevelopment and maintenance of a viable ecotourismdevelopment. The cases we studied suggested thatrules and restrictions of various kinds be institutedfor tourists and local residents, that zoning and feepayment schedules be implemented, park systemssetup with appropriate qualifications for use, andthat all rules, restrictions, schedules and systemsetup be formally documented. An infusion of outsidemoney should be provided to preserve sites.

Education and Training is generally an item whichis deemed necessary for the ecotourist, but the targetfor education and training in all the cases we studiedwas the local resident. Intensive training in the area of‘tourism theory’ will provide the local populationwith knowledge and understanding about the tourismindustry and its local impacts. As well, education andtraining should include general labor, entrepreneurialleadership for self management and self governanceand conservation and environmental education.

By definition, ecotourism projects must insure thatlocal residents benefit from the development. Thelocal labor force, goods and services and expertiseshould be tapped and the government should providefinancial incentives to assist in the development ofbusinesses to provide such if they are not present.Also, revenue generated from fees and other itemsshould be funneled directly to the local population.

Most of the cases did not show evidence of evalua-tion and feedback is the most significant result of thisstudy. Only four of the twenty cases evaluated theimpacts of tourism and/or executed ecologicalresearch. This factor is a necessary part of planningand development and should be implemented andprovided as part of the formal documentation. Italone provides the measure of a successful ecotourismdevelopment. Only one case carried out an inventorycataloging the flora and fauna of the area. Asecotourism projects around the world strive to protect

and conserve the natural characteristics of a site,evaluation of the success of the ecotourism projectshould consider the health of the ecosystem. Bioas-sessment as well as habitat assessment should be partof the ecotourism project evaluation. In addition tothese environmental indicators, cultural and economicindicators should be evaluated.

Ecotourism projects should be integrated into amore comprehensive ecosystem management planfor the area where quality of life, production and land-scape (Savory, 1988) are the goals of the ecosystemmanagement plan. Quality of life refers to the humandimension of the ecosystem and the inclusion of thehuman population in management of the ecosystem.Production goals refer to the uses humans have for theenvironment and ecotourism could be part of theproduction goal for an area. Landscape goals referto how the land is partitioned in order to supportquality of life and production goals. The objectivesany valid ecotourism project will take into considera-tion ecosystem processes: succession, nutrient, waterand energy cycling. Finally, the success factors andstrategies discussed in this study should be part of theguidelines of the ecosystem management plan.

This study has provided a basis for further researchby highlighting a gap in information about the devel-opment and management of ecotourism development.Future research may focus on those factors necessaryfor successful ecotourism development which werenot identified in the studied cases.

5. Conclusions

Twenty-four strategies for successful developmentof ecotourism projects were identified. Strategies forthe factor ‘Evaluation and Feedback’ were leastimplemented. Lack of implementation of this factorposes a threat to the health of the ecosystem. Ifecotourism is not viewed as part of the wholeecosystem, its success could be threatened bydamages to the ecosystem it is trying to protect.

References

Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., 1997. Reduction of complexityfor a small-n analysis: a stepwise multi-methodologicalapproach. Comp. Soc. Res. 16, 133–162.


Boo, E., 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, 1–2, WorldWildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Boo, E., 1991. Ecotourism a tool for conservation. In: Kusler, J.A.,(Ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation. Second Interna-tional Symposium: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation II.Miami Beach, Florida. November 27th to December 2nd 1990,pp. 517–519.

Bryan, B., 1991. Ecotourism on family farms and ranches in theAmerican West. In: Whelan, T. (Ed.). Nature Tourism Mana-ging for the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp.75–85.

Cater, E., 1994. Introduction. In: Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.).Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, Wiley, New York, pp. 3–17.

Ceballas-Lascurian, H., 1991. Tourism, ecotourism and protectedareas. In: Kusler, J.A., (Ed.) Ecotourism and Resource Conser-vation. Second International Symposium: Ecotourism andResource Conservation. II. Miami Beach, Florida. November27th to December 2nd 1990, pp. 24–30.

Ceballas-Lascurian, H., 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and ProtectedAreas. The World Conservation Union. Caracas, Venezuela.

Christian, C.S., Potts, T.D., Burnett, G.W., Lacher Jr, T.E., 1996.Parrot conservation and ecotourism in the windward islands. J.Biogeography 23, 387–393.

Craik, W., 1994. The economics of managing fisheries andtourism in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In: Muni-singhe, M., McNeely, J., (Eds.), Protected Area Economicsand Policy. World Conservation Union, Washington, DC, pp.319–327.

Dimanche, F., Smith, G., 1996. Is ecotourism an appropriate answerto tourism environmental concerns? J. Hosp. Leisure Market. 3,67–76.

Gartner, W.C., 1996. Tourism Development: Principles, Processes,and Policies, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.

Garung, C.P., De Coursey, M., 1994. The Annapurna conservationareas project: a pioneering example of sustainable tourism? In:Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A SustainableOption?, Wiley, New York, pp. 177–195.

Glick, D., 1991. Tourism in greater Yellowstone maximizing thegood, minimizing the bad, eliminating the ugly. In: Whelan, T.(Ed.). Nature Tourism Managing for the Environment, IslandPress, Washington, DC, pp. 58–74.

Goldstone, J.A., 1997. Methodological issues in comparativemacrosociology. Comp. Soc. Res. 16, 107–120.

Goldthorpe, J.H., 1997. Current issues in comparative macroso-ciology: a debate on methodological issues. Comp. Soc. Res.16, 1–26.

Hall, D., Kinnaird, V., 1994. Ecotourism in eastern Europe. In:Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A SustainableOption?, Wiley, New York, pp. 111–136.

Hall, C.M., 1994. Ecotourism in Australia, New Zealand and theSouth Pacific: appropriate tourism or a new form of ecologicalimperialism. In: Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: ASustainable Option? Wiley, New York, pp. 137–157.

Higgins, B.R., 1996. The global structure of the nature tourismindustry: ecotourists, tour operators, and local businesses. J.Travel Res., 11–18.

Holt-Biddle, D., 1996. The New South Africa: Ecotourism flavor ofthe year? Ecotour. Soc. Newslett. 6, 1–3.

Inskeep, E., 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and SustainableDevelopment, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.

Jacobson, S.K., Robles, R., 1992. Ecotourism, sustainable develop-ment, and conservation education: development of a tour guidetraining program in Tortuguero Costa Rica. Environ. Mgmt 16(6), 701–713.

Kangas, P., Shave, M., Shave, P., 1995. Economics of anecotourism operation in Belize. Environ. Mgmt 19 (5), 669–673.

Khan, S.A., 1994. Tourism and a European strategy for the alpineenvironment. In: Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: ASustainable Option?, Wiley, New York, pp. 103–110.

Koch, E., 1994. Reality or Rhetoric? Ecotourism and Rural Recon-struction in South Africa. United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kusler, J., 1991. Strengthening resource conservation throughecotourism. In: Kusler, J.A., (Ed.), Ecotourism and ResourceConservation. First International Symposium: Ecotourism andResource Conservation. Merida, Mexico. April 17–19, 1989,pp. 8–15.other-ref.

Kusler, J. 1991. Ecotourism and resource conservation: Introductionto issues. In: Kusler, J.A., (Ed.), Ecotourism and ResourceConservation. First International Symposium: Ecotourism andResource Conservation. Merida, Mexico. April 17–19, 1989,pp. 2–8.

Kutay, K., 1989. The new ethic in adventure travel. Buzzworm 4,31–36.

Lindberg, K., 1991. Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’sEcological and Economic Benefits, World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K., Hawkins, D.E. (Eds.), 1993. Ecotourism: A Guide forPlanners and Managers The Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, VT.

Naisbitt, J., 1994. Global Paradox, Avon Books, New York.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), 1980. The Impact of Tourism on the Environment.OECD, Paris.

Olinda, P., 1991. The old man of nature tourism: Kenya. In:Whelan, T. (Ed.). Nature Tourism Managing for the Environ-ment, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23–38.

Pearce, D.G., 1993. Comparative studies in tourism research. In:Pearce, D.G., Butler, R.W. (Eds.). Tourism Research,Routledge, New York, pp. 20–35.

Place, S.E., 1991. Nature tourism and rural development in Tortu-guero. Ann. Tourism Res. 18, 186–201.

Post, J., 1994. The economic feasibility and ecological sustain-ability of the Bonaire Marine Park, Dutch Antilles. In: Muna-singhe, M., McNeely, J. (Eds.). Protected Area Economics andPolicy, World Bank and World Conservation Union,Washington, DC, pp. 333–338.

Rovinski, Y., 1991. Private reserves, parks, and ecotourism in CostaRica. In: Whelan, T. (Ed.). Nature Tourism Managing for theEnvironment, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 39–57.

Savory, A., 1988. Holistic Resource Management, Island Press,Washington, DC.


Schluter, R.G., 1993. Ecotourism: a blessing or a curse? The case ofSan Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina. World’s View 3, 8–11.

Sisman, R., 1994. Tourism: environmental relevance. In: Cater, E.,Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Wiley,New York, pp. 57–68.

Smith, V., 1989. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism,Univ. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Stonehouse, B., 1994. Ecotourism in Antarctica. In: Cater, E.,Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?Wiley, New York, pp. 195–212.

Tisdell, C., 1996. Ecotourism, economics, and the environment:Observations from China. J. Travel Res. 1, 11–19.

Wallace, G.N., Pierce, S.M., 1996. An evaluation of ecotourism inAmazonas, Brazil. Ann. Tourism Res. 23, 843–873.

Warwick, D.P., Osherson, S., 1973. In: Osherson, S. (Ed.).Comparative Research Methods, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Weaver, D., 1994. Ecotourism in the Caribbean basin. In: Cater, E.,Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Wiley,New York, pp. 159–176.

Wells, M.P., 1994. Parks tourism in Nepal: reconciling the socialand economic opportunities with the ecological and culturalthreats. In: Munasinghe, M., McNeely, J. (Eds.). ProtectedArea Economics and Policy, World Bank and World Conserva-tion Union, Washington, DC, pp. 319–327.

Wight, P., 1994. Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism.In: Cater, E., Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A SustainableOption? Wiley, New York, pp. 39–56.

Wight, P., 1996. North American ecotourists: market profile and tripcharacteristics. J. Travel Res. 1, 1–10.

Wight, P., 1996. North American ecotourism markets: motivations,preferences and destinations. J. Travel Res. 3, 3–10.

Woods, L.A., Perry, J.M., Steagall, J.W., 1994. Tourism as a devel-opment tool: the case of Belize. Caribbean Geographer 5, 1–18.

Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ziffer, K.A., 1989. Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance, Ernst &Young, Washington, DC Conservation International.


Documents

A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism …sallen/kathy/Masberg and...A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism development B.A. Masberg*, N. Morales Department of Recreation