Current Issue in Nature,Eco and Adventure Tourism

Current Issue:Editor: Peter Mason

Neat Trends: Current Issues in Nature,Eco- and Adventure TourismRalf Buckley*CRC Tourism and International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Grif®th University, Parklands Drive, GoldCoast 9726, Queensland, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Trying to identify trends as they are happeningis a dif®cult task, but one that is fundamentalto business planning and public policy alike.Both of these are routinely subject to academicanalysis, and searching for trends is animportant component. This analysis examinesone sector of the tourism industry, namely thatwhich depends on outdoor natural environ-ments as a principal attraction or setting fortourist activities.Few human social trends are suf®ciently

powerful and all-encompassing to entrainentire economies and societies; and even thelargest trends start small. Large-scale trendsare clearly identi®able only in retrospect, asdescriptive history; and even then, onlythrough the cultural perceptive screens ofindividual historians and their societies. Per-haps indeed, `the whole world is an enigma, aharmless enigma that is made terrible by ourown mad attempts to interpret it as though ithad an underlying truth' (Eco, 1989).From an analytical perspective, therefore,

the critical issues are scale and priority. Trendsare only recognisable when they become largeenough to be important; but what is importantdepends on individual priorities and percep-tions. At any time, in any industry sector,many small-scale independent patterns andtrends can be identi®ed. Some will expand,others fade; but by recognising them early wecan at least identify some possible futures asmore likely than others. Attempting to identifythese trends, therefore, is akin to postulatinghistorical hypotheses: open to debate now, andtestable retrospectively in future.Trends can differ greatly in reliability. In

nature-based tourism, trends driven fromwithin the industry may be differentiated fromthose driven by larger scale social change;those driven by basic human behaviours andpopulation dynamics; and those driven by thebasic biophysical characteristics of the planet(Buckley, 1998a). Trends within the industrychange more quickly, and reverse more read-ily, than those driven from outside it.This analysis attempts to address trends that

are suf®ciently new to be interesting; suf®-ciently established to be identi®able; anddriven largely from within the industry, itsclients, and public agencies directly associatedwith it.For convenience these trends are grouped

under four major headings, as follows.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 2, 437±444 (2000)

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

* Correspondence to: Ralf Buckley, CRC Tourism andInternational Centre for Ecotourism Research, Grif®thUniversity, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast 9726, Queens-land, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

(1) Emergence of a recognisable industrysubsector incorporating nature, eco- andadventure tourism (NEAT).

(2) Belated recognition of its economic sig-ni®cance, and initial attempts to quantifyits economic scale.

(3) Growth of commercial tourism andprivate recreation in many protectedareas to a scale where it jeopardisesconservation objectives, producing neweconomic opportunities for tourism inother public and private lands.

(4) Increasing interest by both the NEATindustry and land management agenciesin various forms of environmental per-formance accreditation, as a marketingtool for the operators and a managementtool for the agencies.

Clearly, there are links between these. Untilthe boundaries of the sector are de®ned, itseconomic scale is not quanti®able and itseconomic signi®cance not apparent. Once itsscale is recognised, land management agenciessee it as a potential source of revenue and amajor management issue. Once those aspectsare recognised, they turn to accreditation andassociated fees and permit systems, as a meansto transfer some of their visitor managementrequirements and costs to the private sector,which relies on their public lands as a basis forbusiness.

RECOGNISABLE `NEAT' SECTOR

There has been endless debate over the precisemeaning of terms such as ecotourism, nature-based tourism and sustainable tourism (Lind-berg and McKercher, 1997; Stabler, 1997; Halland Lew, 1998; Lindberg et al., 1998; QTTC,1998; UNESCO, 1998). To date, however, thisdebate has not de®ned a recognisable marketsector analogous to sectors such as MICE(meetings, incentives, conventions andevents), or VFR (visiting friends and relatives).The reasons seem to be as follows. Firstly,

these terms confound criteria relating toproduct, as in nature-based tourism, withcriteria relating to environmental manage-ment, as in sustainable tourism. Secondly,environmental management may indeed bean important component of the product, for

some clients; so the distinction is not entirelystraightforward. Thirdly, many stakeholdersconsider two additional criteria in de®ningecotourism, namely education about the en-vironment, and a contribution to conservation(Buckley, 1994, 1998b); and different stake-holders use these criteria in different combina-tions.Thus for tourism marketers, almost any

form of nature-based tourism is advertised asecotourism, irrespective of environmentalmanagement, education or conservation. Somecommunity based environmental groupswould not classify tourism as ecotourismunless it incorporates all four of these compo-nents. Indeed, some such groups have coinedterms such as `eco-terrorism' to describe thegrowth of high-impact tourism in natural areas(Hanneberg, 1994; McLaren, 1998). Govern-ment agencies in developing nations or de-pressed rural and regional economies use theterm to mean tourism growth that is based onlocal natural and cultural features and pro-vides both local employment and a boost to theregional economy.I suggest that there is now substantial

coalescence, in markets, operators and con-cepts, between nature-based tourism, eco-tourism, adventure travel and outdoor recrea-tion; and that this coalescence is suf®cient torecognise a distinct nature, eco- and adventuretourism (NEAT) sector, as least as well de®nedas MICE or VFR.Note that the NEAT sector does not include

so-called 3S or 4S tourism (sun, sand, surfand/or sex), because the latter is largely urban.In particular, the ®nal S is commonly linked tobuilt beachside attractions, whether cafes orcasinos, surf clubs or nightclubs. Of course,there are overlaps. There are NEAT operatorswho offer tours to wilderness beaches; and anygroup activity may potentially offer new socialopportunities. There are also tourists who buyproducts in both NEAT and 3S sectors; just asthere are MICE travellers who buy a 3S orNEAT add-on. The NEAT sector, where natureand adventure are the product's primaryattraction, however, is quite well differentiatedfrom 3S packages.Nature, eco- and adventure tourism is a

product sector. The products of NEAT do notnecessarily incorporate best-practice environ-

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 2, 437±444 (2000)

438 R. Buckley

mental management, nor an educational com-ponent or a contribution to conservation. Somedo, some do not. Those that do, may or maynot be considered as ecotourism, dependingon de®nitions; but by any de®nition, eco-tourism is part of the NEAT sector.

ECONOMIC SIZE AND SIGNIFICANCE

There has been considerable debate in manycountries over the economic size and signi®-cance of the ecotourism subsector. On the onehand, some countries consider their entiretourism industry to be nature-based. On theother, academic analysts have suggested thatonly one or two per cent of Canada orAustralia's tourism products qualify as eco-tourism in the strict sense of the word(McKercher, 1998).The dif®culty is that the more complex and

stringent de®nitions of ecotourism are noteasily translated into forms suitable for collect-ing economic statistics. From an environmen-tal perspective it may be useful to consider anecotourism continuum, based on the aggregatedegree to which a tour operator or activitycomplies with the various criteria for eco-tourism. From a marketing perspective it maybe useful to ask how signi®cant each of thecomponents of ecotourism are in in¯uencingtourism product purchasing decisions byindividual tourists.From an economic perspective, however, it

is more meaningful if the tourism sector canbe partitioned into mutually exclusive andmeasurable subsectors with no gaps or over-laps. The NEAT concept makes this feasible.The total value of the NEAT subsector in the

USA, including equipment, has been estimatedat $220 billion per annum, or about half thesize of the tourism industry as a whole. Abouthalf of this represents equipment, about one-seventh represents tours, and most of theremainder is ®xed-site adventure attractions(Mallett, 1998). Preliminary estimates for Aus-tralia, assuming a similar structure to the USA,indicate that the NEAT sector is worth $7±15billion per annum, or about one-quarter to one-third of the total tourism industry (Buckley,unpublished; cited in QTTC, 1998). This is a1998 supply-side estimate. A 1995 demand-side estimate, calculated by questioning in-

dividual tourists, was slightly lower at $6.6billion (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). This, how-ever, was only for international visitors andonly for the nature tourism sector, i.e. exclud-ing adventure tourism, equipment, etc. A 1998demand-side estimate (Tourism Queensland,1999) indicated that about 27% of tourists inAustralia are `de®nite ecotourists' distin-guished by multiple criteria such as takingvacations in natural locations, undertakingnature-based activities, and appreciatingnature and wanting to learn about it. Theseestimates, derived from quite different ap-proaches, are in surprisingly good agreement.The economic signi®cance of the NEAT

sector to the tourism industry, regional andnational economies, and public land manage-ment has only recently begun to be recognised.This is due to a combination of factors, ofwhich the growth of the sector is only one.From the tourism industry perspective, themost important factor is the increasing com-mercialisation of outdoor recreation. Most ofthe activities concerned have a long history inprivate recreation, but because this did notinvolve commercial tour operators and agentsit was not counted as part of the tourismindustry. Although it involved considerableexpenditure per person per day, people usedprivately owned vehicles and equipment andtheir expenditure was not distinguished fromdomestic and household activities.The growth of outdoor recreation hence

became apparent principally through boomingsales of recreational equipment. As well asgrowing rapidly in sales volume, this equip-ment has become very much more high-tech,specialised and expensive. Outdoor recreationin the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was carried outlargely with inexpensive army surplus equip-ment (Mallett, 1998). Now, however, even themanufacture of water ®lters and campingstoves is a multibillion dollar business world-wide; let alone skiing equipment, recreationalboats and clothing. Because this equipmentexpenditure has not been counted as part ofthe tourism industry, the tourism industry hasnot recognised the economic signi®cance of theNEAT sector.Currently, a combination of social factors is

leading to sudden and rapid growth inrecognition of NEAT's importance. The con-


NEAT Trends 439

tinuing and increasing urbanisation of westernsocieties has created a growing class ofrelatively well-off people who have someappreciation of the environment from TVprogrammes and magazine articles, but littleor no contact with natural or even rurallandscapes in their everyday lives; and havenever acquired the basic skills to live andtravel safely in such environments. They haverelatively little leisure time in which to learnthose skills and often do not possess theequipment with which to apply them. Increas-ingly, therefore, they rely on commercialguides and out®tters to provide packagedadventure and nature tours. The economicgrowth in NEAT is thus due at least in part to ashift from private outdoor recreation to com-mercial tourism.

MANAGING TOURISM IN PARKS ANDFORESTS

As with private recreation, commercial NEAToccurs principally on public lands, especiallynational parks. The continuing and increasinggrowth in the number of visitors to nationalparks (Worboys 1998) is forcing park manage-ment agencies to spend more and more onvisitor infrastructure, management and educa-tion, so that they have less and less to spend onmanagement of their natural resources forconservation. Hence, they are in desperateneed of increased funding, either by anincreased government budget allocation, orby direct charges and levies on visitors andtour operators (Buckley 1998b, 1999b).To lobby for government funding, they need

to demonstrate the economic signi®cance ofthe nature tourism industry, which is basedlargely on parks. To charge visitors and touroperators, they need to treat them as commer-cial clients; and themselves, at least for thispurpose, as part of the commercial tourismindustry. Hence they need information on thesize and the geographical, competitive andprice structures of the NEAT sector. Of course,they also need better information on manage-ment tools and indicators to ensure that theenvironmental impacts of private recreationalvisitors and commercial tours do not causeirretrievable damage to the primary conserva-tion values of the parks concerned, as that is

the reason for their existence. Either way,however, the economic scale and activities ofthe NEAT sector have become a key issue fornational parks and heritage managementagencies.In many countries, large areas of public

lands, including areas of high value for naturetourism, are controlled by state and nationalforestry agencies, and the NEAT sector isbecoming increasingly important for theseagencies also. Controversies over the impactsof logging and woodchipping on forest bio-diversity, and the relatively low economicreturns to the public from commercial loggingand chipping, have focused attention on thepotential value of tourism as a major land usein public forests (Driml, 1997; Gallon, 1999;Ward, 1999).In countries such as the USA, the Forest

Service has long since set aside major areas ofthe lands under its control as wilderness areas,managed for recreation; and for many decadesit has operated a programme of trails, signs,rangers, maps, minimal-impact training, per-mitting systems, etc. In addition, many of themajor ski resorts in the USA are on ForestService land. According to the Chief Executiveof the US Forest Service, the value of the ForestService estate for tourism is currently about 25times greater than it is for logging, and thisdifferential is likely to increase (Dombeck,1998; Johanssen, 1998; USDA, 1999).In Australia, tourism in State forests is still in

its infancy. Although some States, notablyWestern Australia, Tasmania and more re-cently New South Wales, have encouragedcommercial tour operators in State forests,others are only now beginning to contemplatethis possibility. Although increasing tourismin State forests would improve the economicreturn to the forest management agencies andincrease economic inputs to regional econo-mies, there are sectors of the forest industriesthat reap considerable economic bene®ts fromcurrent arrangements, and might well bereluctant to have these arrangements chal-lenged by the growth of forest tourism. Therewas initial opposition to tourism from private-sector forestry employees, both in Australia asfor example in the Wet Tropics of QueenslandWorld Heritage Area, and in the USA (Forbes,1998). In many areas, however, it would be


440 R. Buckley

possible for tourism and logging to coexist,over a long time-scale, as long as suf®cientareas of old-growth forests are left unlogged ascore tourist attractions.Nature tourism in public forests is clearly

part of the NEAT sector. Whether it wouldconstitute ecotourism depends on de®nitionand implementation. Evidently it is nature-based. It may or may not be managed forminimal impact, but in any event its impactswill be less than those associated with logging;hence the argument to concentrate higher-impact nature tourism activities in state forestsrather than national parks. There is no reasonwhy it should not have an educational compo-nent, and this can address forest history andmanagement practices as well as ¯ora andfauna sighting and similar conventional inter-pretive materials.Whether it contributes to conservation will

depend on how it is done. It has the potential,however, to make a very large contribution,perhaps larger than any other form of tourism(Buckley, 1998c). One mechanism for this is toreduce the impacts on national parks, bysyphoning off some of the visitor pressure.Whether this happens in practice will dependon park management policies and marketconditions in the NEAT industry. The secondand potentially more signi®cant mechanism isthat in the long run, forest tourism may assistin reducing impacts, including clearance, inforest areas of high conservation value. Even iftourism is initially introduced purely as anadjunct to current logging practices, if itsgreater economic signi®cance becomes clearbefore a particular area is next due to be cut,tourism could catalyse a change in landmanagement practices. Of course, this will beof little value for either conservation ortourism, if all remaining old-growth areas arelogged before being made available for tour-ism.The growth of forest tourism in areas

managed by forestry agencies could poten-tially avoid a major conservation problem thathas been prevalent recently in countries suchas Australia, to the detriment of the tourismindustry: as soon as there is the slightestsuggestion that the uses of any area of landmight be restricted for conservation purposes,the landholders or land management agencies

often move as quickly as possible to destroy itsconservation value, so as to not lose anymeasure of control over its use. The fore-shadowing of controls on clearing of nativevegetation in South Australia in the early1980s, for example, led to widespread clear-ance by farmers not only in South Australia butalso in neighbouring Victoria. In New SouthWales, any inkling that an area of State forestmight be converted to national park hasprecipitated immediate and complete loggingof the area concerned. This is demonstratedvery clearly by the timing of peaks in theannual volume of timber sold (Ward, 2000).

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ANDACCREDITATION

Along with the growing interest in the eco-nomics of ecotourism and the NEAT sector as awhole, there is increasing interest on the partof land managers, on ways to screen andimprove the environmental management per-formance of tour companies operating in theareas concerned. Approaches include: screen-ing processes during the issue of permits;accreditation of operators; compulsory train-ing courses for guides; cooperative environ-mental monitoring programmes that focus theattention of both guides and clients on envir-onmental issues; and guidelines for best-practice environmental management that pro-vide detailed instructions for guides, andcriteria for clients to judge whether guidesmeet industry standards. All of these ap-proaches are in use in different parts of theworld.For example, in Australia there is an

industry association, the Ecotourism Associa-tion of Australia, that has established agovernment-endorsed National EcotourismAccreditation Programme at the operatorlevel. This is a voluntary programme, withthree levels of accreditation from 2000. Thescheme lists a range of relatively detailedenvironmental performance criteria for var-ious types of eco-tourism activities, and appli-cants must submit a dossier demonstratingwhich of these they meet, and to what degree.As advertised, the scheme also includes anaudit programme to spot-check the accuracy ofsuch claims. This is due to become operational


NEAT Trends 441

in 2000. As of January 2000, the scheme had137 accredited products from 101 membercompanies (EAA pers.comm.14.02.2000).The use of best-practice environmental

management guidelines is most advanced inthe USA, through the Leave-No-Trace1 (LNT)programme established by the National Out-door Leadership School (NOLS) for the USForest Service (USFS) and other agencies. Thebasic LNT principles have for several yearsbeen printed on all new USFS wildernessmaps. There are LNT master classes for USFStrainers, who in turn train forest rangers inLNT principles and ways to improve theiradoption by visitors and guides. There is alsoan expanding set of detailed LNT booklets forparticular environments and activities, com-piled by the staff of LNT Inc, a subsidiary ofNOLS.In Australia, there are four States with alpine

areas, and their national parks agencies havejointly compiled a series of minimal-impactbrochures and posters. These are less detailedthan the LNT equivalents in the USA. Mini-mal-impact materials for off-road vehicles areavailable through the Tread Lightly1 organi-sation, and on the website of the WesternAustralia Department of Conservation andLand Management (1999). A series of moredetailed environmental management guide-lines is under production by the CooperativeResearch Centre for Sustainable Tourism, aconsortium of universities, industry and gov-ernment, in conjunction with Tourism CouncilAustralia, a peak tourism industry association.Also in Australia, a number of national

parks, notably Kakadu and Uluru, run com-pulsory environmental training courses forcommercial guides operating in those parks.These are brief and practical, and have beenwell received and commended by commercialoperators (Weeks, 1996). Various countriesalso have cooperative monitoring programmeswhere commercial tour operators routinelyreport to park management on the condition ofthe natural environment along their regularroutes.Accreditation of individual guides is furth-

est advanced in African nations, notably SouthAfrica and Zimbabwe, where competence witha large-calibre ®rearm has long been a require-ment for safari guides. An accreditation

scheme based on African bushcraft skills hashence been in operation for many years, andthis has been extended recently to includeenvironmental skills. In Australia, the Of®cefor National Tourism (ONT) has funded theEcotourism Association of Australia to con-struct a National Nature and Ecotour GuideCerti®cation Program, in parallel to NEAPwhich accredits individual tour products. Thisis an important step. A recent study ofenvironmental performance in commercialwhitewater raft and kayak operators world-wide (Buckley, in review) has shown that best-practice environmental management isachieved only if the retail arm of the company,the operating arm of the company, andindividual guides are all committed to bestpractice.

CONCLUSION

Ecotourism still means different things todifferent people. Use of the term ecotourismin tourism industry advertising, governmentorganisations andmass media reporting seemsto be increasing. As there is no standard torestrict its use in advertising, the size of theecotourism sector is unknown.There is a well-differentiated sector of the

tourism industry that relies on outdoor naturalenvironments. It maybe referred to as NEAT;nature, eco- and adventure tourism. It alsoincludes commercial outdoor recreation, edu-cation and sports. It is a large sector, at least aquarter of the total tourism industry in devel-oped countries such as the USA and Australia,and more in developing nations. Nature, eco-and adventure tourism is a product sector; eco-tourism is a subsidiary segment de®ned bymanagement criteria.The NEAT sector has considerable economic

signi®cance world-wide. Industry associationsand governments have been slow to appreciatethis, but recognition is increasing. Part of theeconomic growth of the NEAT sector is due tocommercialisation of private outdoor recrea-tion, and part to the increasing sophisticationand expense of equipment, as well as theincreasing popularity of NEAT activities.Most of the growth in NEAT is occurring in

and around national parks. This is generatingincreasing interest in the economics and


442 R. Buckley

management of protected areas, the role ofNEAT in contributing to operating costs forparks, and the role of NEAT as an alternativeor adjunct to logging in public forests.The growth of NEAT in national parks and

protected areas is increasing pressure for landmanagement agencies to adopt operator per-mitting systems that encourage best-practiceenvironmental management by the operators,and which raise funds for park operating costs.As the number of commercial tour operators inprotected areas continues to grow, there isincreasing interest in screening, audit andaccreditation to ensure that their environmen-tal management is adequate.As NEAT is increasing and remaining wild-

erness areas are shrinking, best-practice envir-onmental management (BPEM) in NEAT isbecoming increasingly signi®cant. This in-cludes minimal-impact education and inter-pretation.The pro®tability of NEAT, and its ability to

provide income for rural communities isproviding incentives for private farmlandsand public forests to turn to NEAT as analternative or additional land use.In conclusion, therefore, it seems that

although ecotourism, with its emphasis onminimal-impact management, environmentaleducation, and a contribution to conservationcurrently makes up only a small proportion ofthe large and economically signi®cant NEATsector, these characteristics are becomingincreasingly signi®cant for the NEAT sectoras a whole. Ecotourism may yet catalysechange.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the Editor and two anonymousreferees for forcing me to confront and clarifyprecisely what this contribution is intended toachieve, and why I should have the temerity toattempt it.

REFERENCES

Blamey R, Hatch D. 1998. Pro®les andMotivation ofNature-Based Tourists Visiting Australia. BTROccasional Paper 25, Australian Bureau of Tour-ism Research: Canberra.

Buckley RC. 1994. A framework for ecotourism.Annals of Tourism Research 21: 661±669.

Buckley RC. 1998a. Ecotourism megatrends. Aus-tralian International Business Review Decembers: 52±54.

Buckley RC. 1998b. Tourism in wilderness: M&Mtoolkit. In Sixth World Wilderness CongressProceedings, Watson AE, et al. (eds). USFS ReportRMRS-P-4, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Sta-tion: Ogden, Utah; 115±116.

Buckley RC. 1998c. Can tourism yield a net gobalconservation bene®t? In Ecotourism Associationof Australia 1998 Conference, Margaret River,Western Australia.

Buckley RC. 1999a. Tourism in the most fragileenvironments. Tourism Recreation Research 25: 31±40.

Buckley RC. 1999b. Tools and indicators for mana-ging tourism in parks. Annals of Tourism Research26: 207±210.

Dombeck J. 1998. Speech. www.fs.fed.au/intro/speech

Driml SM. 1997. Bringing ecological economics outof the wilderness. Ecological Economics 23: 145±153.

Eco U. 1999. Foucault's Pendulum. Harcourt BraceJovanovich: London; p. 95.

Forbes W. 1998. Tourism in Curry County, Oregon.In Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspec-tive, Hall M, Lew A. (eds). Longman: London;119±131.

Gallon G. 1999. British Columbia forestry andenvironment. The Gallon Environment Letter 3(20). www.gallon.elogik.com

Hall M, Lew A (eds). 1999. Sustainable Tourism: aGeographical Perspective. Longman: London.

Hanneberg P. 1994. Ecotourism or ecoterrorism.Environment 17: 26.

Johansson JT. 1998. King of the hill. Ski, January: 21±22.

Lindberg K, McKercher R. 1997. Ecotourism: acritical overview. Paci®c Tourism Review 1: 65±79.

Lindberg K, Epler Wood M, Engeldrum D. 1998.Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers,Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society: Vermont.

Mallett J. 1998. Plenary address. Seventh WorldCongress of Adventure Travel and Ecotourism,Quito, Ecuador.

McKercher R. 1997. The Business of Nature-basedTourism. Hospitality Press: Melbourne.

McLaren D. 1998. Rethinking Tourism and Travel.Kumarian Press: Connecticut; p. 105.

Pigram JJ, Sundell RC (eds). 1997. National Parksand Protected Areas: Selection, Delimitation andManagement. University of New England: Armi-dale.


NEAT Trends 443

QTTC. 1998. Ecotrends, September 1998. Queens-land Travel & Tourism Corporation (now Tour-ism Queensland): Brisbane.

Stabler MJ (ed.). 1997. Tourism and Sustainability:Principles to Practice. CAB International: Wall-ingford.

Tourism Queensland. 1999. Ecotrends, March 1999.Tourism Queensland: Brisbane.

UNESCO. 1998. Resolution 1998/40. UNESCO:Paris.

USDA. 1999. Identi®cation and Valuation of Wild-land Resource Bene®ts. US Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service. www.fed.us/rm/value

Ward J. 2000. The relative net economic bene®ts oflogging and tourism in selected native forests in

NSW. PhD thesis, Grif®th University: Gold Coast,Australia.

Weeks B. 1996. Quality assurance and improvementin environmental training for tour operators andguides. PhD thesis, Grif®th University: GoldCoast, Australia.

Western Australia Department of Conservation andLand Management. 1999. www.wa.gov.au/

Wheeler B. 1997. Here we go, here we go, here wego eco. In Tourism and Sustainability: Principlesto Practice, Stabler MJ (ed.). CAB International:Wallingford; 39±50.

Worboys G. 1998. Draft Nature Tourism andRecreation Strategy. NSW National Parks andWildlife Service: Sydney.


444 R. Buckley

Documents

Current Issue in Nature,Eco and Adventure Tourism