An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 13:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of SustainableTourismPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

An Evaluation of DeepEcotourism and ShallowEcotourismT.G. Acott , H.L. La Trobe & S.H. HowardPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: T.G. Acott , H.L. La Trobe & S.H. Howard (1998)An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism, Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 6:3, 238-253, DOI: 10.1080/09669589808667314

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667314

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09669589808667314

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667314

arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism andShallow Ecotourism

T.G. Acott, and H.L. La Trobe School of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Greenwich, MedwayTowns Campus, Pembroke, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK

S.H. HowardEnvironment and Development Group, 11 King Edwards Street, Oxford, OX14HT, UK

The term ecotourism has many meanings. It can refer to a genuine attempt at environ-mentally sustainable tourism or be used in a cynical way to try and attract greaternumbers of visitors to an area. There is a need to place environmentally benign andenvironmentally detrimental aspects of ecotourism into a typological framework. Thispaper uses fundamental principles from the environmentalism and sustainable devel-opment debate to present a classification in which deep ecotourism can be differenti-ated from shallow ecotourism. This approach allows a clear distinction to be madebetween positive and negative aspects of ecotourism.

IntroductionEcotourism is defined in numerous ways in the environmental and tourism

literature. Any paper that tries to add to the plethora of definitions that alreadyexist needs to have a strong argument for doing so. Rather than offering a newdefinition of ecotourism it is the purpose of this paper to offer a discussion ofecotourism based around concepts presented in the environmentalism andsustainable development debates. This approach allows a distinction to be madebetween different types of tourists engaged in specific activities and providesfocus for the debate concerning ecotourism products and sustainable develop-ment.

The term ecotourism is used in so many different ways that it need notnecessarily refer to an activity that is environmentally benign. For instance, it canbe used as a marketing term to sell products that verge on mass tourism or causeenvironmental and cultural degradation. People may be encouraged to visitspectacular remote mountain regions but be provided with western standards ofcomfort and accommodation resulting in associated environmental problems.For example, the term ecotourism does not differentiate between:

(1) a large group of people on a bird watching holiday, arriving at theirdestination by aircraft, staying in luxury hotel accommodation, expecting awesternised holiday experience;

(2) A low impact eco-traveller, back-packing, pursuing a minimal impactexperience.

These hypothetical examples illustrate that ecotourism can refer to a widerange of activities which might have different environmental impacts and attract

0966-9582/98/03 0238-16 $10.00/0 ©1998 T.G. Acott et al.JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 6, No. 3 1998

238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

people with different sets of values and motivations. The terms ‘deep ecotourism’and ‘shallow ecotourism’ can be used to differentiate between ecotourism thatverges on a form of mass tourism and genuine attempts at environmentaltourism. An important aspect of this approach is the recognition that differencesexist between the values held by potential ecotourists and the activities atecotourism sites. People are not necessarily ecotourists just because they visit anecotourism location. A consideration of the values, attitudes and behaviour ofpeople is fundamental when discussing genuine forms of environmental tourismor trying to identify potential ecotourists.

This paper begins by considering what is meant by tourism and ecotourism.A brief discussion of environmental and sustainable development typologies isthen presented. The following section considers the meaning of deep ecotourismand shallow ecotourism. The final section develops these concepts with referenceto specific case examples and suggests opportunities for future research todevelop methods for assessing shallow and deep ecotourism.

Definition of Tourism and EcotourismIt could be argued that the very nature of tourism excludes it from any

philosophically deep consideration. This might be the case if tourism is definedin a narrow sense and refers purely to a leisure activity. However, Przeclawski(1997) defines tourism in a much broader way:

Tourism, in its broadest sense, is the sum of the phenomena pertaining tospatial mobility, connected with a voluntary, temporary change of place,the rhythm of life and its environment, and involving personal contact withthe visited environment (natural, and/or cultural and/or social). (p. 105)

This definition does not refer to any specific motivation but describes tourismwith reference to the spatial mobility of people. This broad treatment of tourismallows the flexibility to develop a classification of ecotourism where the travelexperience is motivated or modified by a deep ecological sensibility.

There are many definitions of ecotourism in the literature. There is a tendencyfor ecotourism to be defined with reference to the activity that the tourist isengaged in (Mowforth, 1993; Ruschmann, 1992; Budowski, 1992). However thisapproach does not take any account of the environmental impacts of the touristactivity or the values and motivations of the participating tourists. Thesuggestion to incorporate philosophy and ethics into a consideration of tourismis not new. Przeclawski (1997) calls for a ‘Deontology of Tourism’ and Nelson(1994) lists a number of characteristics and principles that should be inherent inthe term ecotourism (Table 1).

There are many problems in trying to define ecotourism without properattention being paid to underlying philosophical and ethical principles. Al-though there is a wider debate concerning the effects that the environment hason attitudes and behaviour, there is no reason why the geographic location of anindividual should be the absolute determinant of their environmental values. Itis quite possible for individuals to be ecotourists in non-ecotourist locations andconversely to be a non-ecotourist in an ecotourist location.

There are many people who, during the course of their everyday lives, try to

Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism 239D

ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

live environmentally sustainable lifestyles. For this group of people, travel canmean a lot more than simply a leisure activity. It might form part of a broaderphilosophical reflection relating to the self and nature. It might involve trying tofind answers to many of the problems experienced when living in a westernised,industrialised country. Although any travel experience is likely to modify thisgroup’s attitudes in some way, it is likely that they will still hold and continue todevelop their own environmental awareness while travelling. They are unlikelyto become some form of eco-hooligans just because they are away from theirnormal lifestyle. A person who travels according to a deeper environmentalconsciousness will continue to pursue a sustainable lifestyle regardless of theirlocation (although this will be easier to achieve in some places than others). Forexample, a person might be in the centre of a polluted, congested city but decideto avoid motorised transport and walk rather than contribute to the problem.This person is displaying the actions of an ecotourist without being in adesignated ecotourist location.

Conversely, groups of people might want to visit ecotourist locations, forinstance the Annapurna circuit in Nepal, but do not behave in an environmen-tally aware manner. For example, many people still buy water in plastic bottlesdespite the efforts of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) toreverse this trend. These bottles are not biodegradable and therefore create awaste problem. Another example is the burgeoning trade in high-altitudetourism. Areas like Everest and the Matterhorn are suffering because of the influxof highly paid but inexperienced climbers who want to reach the top of thesesacred places (Venables, 1998). Although some of these tourists might have agenuine environmental concern, this does seem more like a form of ego-tourismrather than ecotourism.

· It must be consistent with a positive environmental ethic, fostering pre-ferred behaviour.

· It does not denigrate the resource. There is no erosion of resource integrity.· It concentrates on intrinsic rather than extrinsic values.· It is biocentric rather than homocentric in philosophy, in that an ecotourist

accepts nature largely on its terms, rather than significantly transformingthe environment for personal convenience.

· Ecotourism must benefit the resource. The environment must experiencea net benefit from the activity, although there are often spin-offs of social,economic, political or scientific benefits.

· It is a first-hand experience with the natural environment.· There is, in ecotourism, an expectation of gratification measured in

appreciation and education, not in thrill-seeking or physical achievement.These latter elements are consistent with adventure tourism, the otherdivision of natural environment (wildland) tourism.

· There are high cognitive (informational) and effective (emotional) dimen-sions to the experience, requiring a high level of preparation from bothleaders and participants.

Table 1 Principles and characteristics of ecotourism (after Butler, 1992, in Nelson,

240 Journal of Sustainable TourismD

ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A classification of ecotourism along a deep and shallow axis offers a way ofincorporating the attitude domains of ecotourists with an environmentalassessment of the tourist activity. This approach could have policy implicationsin terms of providing information for potential ecotourists, segmenting theecotourist market and, more importantly, stimulating discourse on the develop-ment of a genuinely deep form of environmental ecotourism that is consistentwith concepts of sustainable development and sustainable living.

In order to develop a framework in which to base ideas of deep ecotourismand shallow ecotourism it is first necessary to examine some fundamentalconcepts in environmental philosophy and sustainable development. This isfollowed by a discussion of deep and shallow ecological positions with specificreference to deep and shallow ecotourism.

Environmentalism and Sustainable DevelopmentWithin the environmental literature there are a number of fundamental ideas

that can be used to differentiate ideological positions (Table 2). These conceptsform a basis for understanding different philosophical positions regarding therelationship of humans to the environment. Numerous typologies of environ-mentalism have been developed including:

· Ecocentric/Technocentric (O’Riordan, 1981; Pepper, 1996)· NEP/DSP (Milbrath, 1985; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978)· Shallow ecology/Deep ecology (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Fox, 1995; Naess

& Rothenburg, 1989)· Shallow ecology/Intermediate ecology/Deep ecology (Sylvan & Bennett,

1994).

The terms ‘deep ecology’ and ‘shallow ecology’ were coined by Arne Naess in1972, and later published in his essay ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-RangeEcology Movements’ in 1973 (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Fox, 1995; Naess, 1995).Shallow ecology, according to Naess (1995) is concerned with reducing pollution

Ecocentrism TechnocentrismIntrinsic value: nature has value in itselfregardless of the use to humans

Extrinsic value: nature’s value ismeasured against its usefulness to humans

Cartesian dualism: the separation of mindand matter, subject and object is rejectedin favour of a unifying holistic worldview

Cartesian dualism: the separation of mindand matter, subject and object, is centralto a metaphysical worldview

Holism: the environment is greater thanthe sum of its parts, humans are part ofnature

Reductionism: the environment is bestunderstood by reducing to its individualcomponents, humans are separate fromnature

Bioethics: all creatures are part of thesame unified whole and therefore deserveequal consideration

Anthropocentric: humans are separateand different from other living creaturesand therefore deserve greater moralconsideration

Organic: mechanistic analogies arerejected in favour of an organicmetaphysics

Mechanistic: a mechanistic analogy isused to describe how nature operates

Table 2 Summary of fundamental ideas in environmentalism


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and resource depletion. Central to these concerns is the health and welfare ofhumans, in particular in more developed countries (Johnson, 1991; Naess, 1995).Furthermore, shallow ecology views humans as separate from the rest of nature.Humans are recognised as the only source of value so that only instrumentalvalues are ascribed to the non-human world (Fox, 1984). Johnson (1991)distinguishes a less shallow position which contains those philosophies thatbroaden the scope of concern to include non-human organisms. These philoso-phies are still not said to be deep because they are not holistic — they focus ondiscrete entities instead of the whole.

Sylvan (1985) defines the depth of the philosophy on the basis of the level ofconstraint with respect to the natural environment. Although he does not employthe terms deep ecology and shallow ecology, Sylvan refines and extends Naess’sclassification into three groups: shallow, intermediate and deep. The shallowposition in Sylvan’s (1985) typology takes a long term view and involvesconserving resources for the welfare of both present and future humans. It is stillhighly anthropocentric, valuing nature instrumentally as a means to human ends(Callicott, 1984; Sylvan, 1985; Sylvan & Bennett, 1994). In the intermediateposition other beings such as higher animals have value in their own right, butserious human concerns are still more important: humans hold the greater value(Sylvan, 1985).

Deep ecology, in contrast, rejects the human-in-environment image for a moreholistic ‘total field image’ (Naess, 1995). The ‘total field image’ thus dissolves theidea that humans are separate from nature, replacing the notion that the worldis made up of discrete separate entities with a holistic view of the environment(Fox, 1984). Organisms are viewed as ‘knots’ in a field of intrinsic relations (Naess,1995). Possibly the most important element of deep ecology is that it keeps askingdeeper and more searching questions about nature, human life and society. ‘Deepecology goes beyond the so-called factual scientific level to the level of self andEarth wisdom’ (Devall & Session, 1985: 65).

Sessions and Naess summarised the ideas within deep ecology into eight basicprinciples (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Naess & Rothenburg, 1989; Naess, 1990;Naess & Sessions, 1995). The key concepts clarified within this deep ecologyplatform include the idea that the welfare, richness, diversity and flourishing ofboth non-human and human life forms have intrinsic value. Furthermore, onlywhen satisfying vital needs can humans reduce the richness and diversity of life.A decrease in human population numbers is necessary for non-human life toflourish and is also compatible with the flourishing of human life and cultures.The present scale of interference by humans with the non-human world is toogreat and this situation is rapidly getting worse. The deep ecology platform alsocalls for a change in the basic economic, technological and ideological structuresto embrace an appreciation of life quality over an increased standard of living(Devall & Sessions, 1985; Naess & Rothenburg, 1989; Naess, 1990; Naess &Sessions, 1995).

To summarise, the shallow environmental positions are concerned with thewelfare of humans alone. Conservation of any parts of nature arises from concernfor human health and well-being. Humans are recognised as separate from thenatural environment that surrounds them. The rest of nature has only instrumen-


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tal values, intrinsic values being reserved for humans alone. In contrast to thisanthropocentric attitude theory, deep ecology extends biotic rights andbiospherical egalitarianism to all parts of the biosphere so that all parts of naturehave equal rights to flourish. Intrinsic values are recognised in nature, as well asin all people. All human cultures are respected and have the right to flourish.Furthermore, humans are an integral part of nature.

In addition to typologies of environmentalism there are numerous typologiesof sustainable development. A particularly influential scheme is that presentedin Pearce (1993) and Turner et al. (1994), and uses the concepts of:

· Very Strong Sustainability/Strong Sustainability/Weak Sustainability/Very Weak Sustainability

Although there are criticisms of this scheme (Dobson, 1996) it does relate easilyto both ecocentric and technocentric positions (Table 3). Very strong sustainabil-ity relates to the strongest form of ecocentrism while very weak sustainabilityrelates to the most extreme form of technocentrism. Different positions along theshallow/deep continuum relate to distinct ontological, epistemological andeconomic viewpoints concerning the management of natural resources and therelationship between humans and the environment. Reference to the sustainabil-ity debate allows the inclusion of economic perspectives which are not presentedas succinctly in the environmental typologies. Important issues include theconception, treatment and substitutability of ‘capital’, the importance of humansvs. non-humans, the importance of present vs. future generations and thedistinction between catering for ‘needs’ rather than ‘wants’. The particularviewpoints along this spectrum of sustainability are discussed in the next section.

Deep and Shallow EcotourismThe term ecotourism can apply to many different types of projects; some of

these are environmentally benign, others are more detrimental. In order to beable to differentiate between different aspects of ecotourism it is necessary to

Main reference Deep ecotourism Shallow ecotourism Mass tourismO’Riordan (1981),Pepper (1984)

Ecocentrism Technocentrism

Pepper (1996),O’Riordan (1989)

Gianism Communalism Accommodation Intervention

Pepper (1984) DeepEcologists

Self-reliance,soft

technologists

Environmentalmanagers

Cornucopians

Dunlap and VanLiere (1978),Milbrath (1985)

New environmentalparadigm

Dominant social paradigm

Naess andRothenburg (1989)

Deep ecology Shallow ecology

Pearce (1993),Turner et al. (1994)

Very strongsustainability

Strongsustainability

Weaksustainability

Very weak sustainability

Table 3 The relationship between typologies of environmentalism and sustainabledevelopment with deep/shallow ecotourism


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

examine the concept within a broader analytical framework. Table 3 places deepecotourism and shallow ecotourism in the context of environmentalism andsustainable development typologies.

The placement of some of the boundaries in Table 3 require some clarification.First, the deep ecology distinction suggested by Naess and Rothenburg (1989)does not precisely equate with Pepper’s (1984) label of ‘deep ecologist’1. In Table3 deep ecology equates with the broader term of ecocentrism and includes bothPepper’s deep ecologists and self-reliance, soft technologists categories. Thereason for this placement is the belief that many people tend to misinterpret deepecology and try to narrow the meaning into an argument concerned with animaland species rights (Naess & Rothenburg, 1989):

¼ the separation of deep ecology from self-reliance technologies illustratesa common misreading — narrowing deep ecology away from practicalconcerns with people and the community, as if it were merely a discussionof animal or species rights. The points listed under O’Riordan’s deepecology column should be seen as the basis of a conception of the worldwhich is meant to underlie the specific work of developing more appropri-ate technology and management, not as something more radical or extreme.(Naess & Rothenburg, 1989: 15).

The categories of technocentrism, dominant social paradigm (DSP) and veryweak sustainability have been allowed to overlap with the concept of masstourism (Table 3). This is because certain elements within these ideologies do notseem to apply to an environmental sensibility. Dobson (1996) made a similarcomment when comparing his typology with that of Pearce (1993):

In truth, this column (cornucopian technocentrism) only represents aconception of sustainability if we stretch the remit of the word beyond therange of notions of environmental sustainability. What is being sustainedhere is ‘economic growth’ ¼ and this is not a conception of environmentalsustainability at all ¼’ (Dobson, 1996: 419)

The extreme end of the technocentric, DSP and very weak sustainabilityviewpoints seem consistent with forms of mass tourism rather than a type ofecotourism that verges on mass tourism.

Shallow EcotourismShallow ecotourism represents a range of viewpoints that lie between deep

ecotourism on the one hand and mass tourism on the other (Table 3). Within theenvironmental paradigm shallow ecotourism represents a business-as-usualattitude to the environment. Nature is valued according to its usefulness tohumans. The environment is seen as a resource which can be exploited tomaximise the benefits to humans. There is no consideration of intrinsic valuealthough the importance of future (human) generations is recognised. Manage-ment decisions are made from a utilitarian, anthropocentric viewpoint.Knowledge of the environment is based on a scientific, Newtonian epistemology.This epistemology is not questioned and no serious consideration is given toother ways of knowing the environment, e.g. spirituality. The underlying


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

epistemology reinforces the belief that humans can solve environmental prob-lems by using science and technology. The dominant metaphor for theenvironment, out of which grows an exploitative attitude, is that of a machine.An understanding of nature is achieved by reducing it to its component parts.There is a general suspicion of a wider participatory democracy, a belief thatdecision making should be left in the hands of the experts persists.

Within this shallow ecotourism perspective sustainable development isusually viewed from the weak or very weak sustainability perspective (Turneret al., 1994). This encapsulates resource exploitative, growth orientated andresource conservationist perspectives. Management strategies range from theprimary economic policy objective to maximise economic growth, to a modifiedeconomic growth using adjusted green accounting to measure GNP (Turner etal., 1994). Attitudes to resource management range from perfect substitutabilityto conservation of resources for future (human) generations. The weaker versionsof sustainability allow declining levels of environmental quality as long as otherforms of capital are substituted (Turner, 1993).

In some instances shallow ecotourism represents a form of ecotourism thatverges on mass tourism. The main difference between an extreme form of shallowecotourism and mass tourism would be in the way the experience is promoted.The shallow ecotourism activity would make an ecotourism claim in itsadvertising, e.g. access to pristine natural areas, view wildlife, bird watching etc.The resource, environmental and cultural implications of the activity would takesecond place to the economic considerations of making a profit. Issues ofcommodification, loss of cultural identity and westernisation would not beseriously tackled. The actual tourist experience would be modified through acultural window where western standards of safety, comfort and hygiene aremaintained wherever possible. Although the shallow ecotourist might beinterested in learning about the local culture it would be from a distance, whilemaintaining familiar, immediate situations and circumstances. There would beno attempt at a deeper identification with landscapes or culture.

Within this designation of shallow ecotourism nature would be valuedbecause of its utilitarian value to humans. This might be as a source of aestheticpleasure to the tourist (primarily highly paid westerners) or as a direct methodfor obtaining revenue. The needs of local cultures will be second in importanceto profit maximisation. Animals and landscapes will only be protected wherethere is a positive economic reason for doing so.

Deep EcotourismDeep ecotourism is based on the ideas expressed in ecocentrism and deep

ecology. It incorporates the sub-categories deep ecologists, self-reliance and softtechnologists. As already explained, Pepper’s broad classification of ecocentrismequates with Naess’s conception of deep ecology. Deep ecotourism thereforeencapsulates a range of ideas which include the importance of intrinsic value innature, emphasis on small-scale and community identity, the importance ofcommunity participation, a lack of faith in modern large scale technology and anunderlying assumption that materialism for its own sake is wrong.

The development of a bioethic is an important element of a deep ecological


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

perspective. Within the concept of deep ecotourism, management decisions haveto be made from within an ontological perspective that is different from thetechnocentric/shallow ecology worldview. The ecocentric worldview gives us aperspective where the world

‘is an intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations in which thereare absolutely no dividing lines between the living and the non living, theanimate and the inanimate, or the human and the non human.’ (Eckersley,1992: 49)

This perspective refutes the idea that management decisions should be madefrom an anthropocentric perspective. Instead a biocentric position needs to beadopted (biocentrism is used in a broad way to include both living and non-livingaspects of the environment, e.g. the living river).

There is a common misinterpretation that biocentrism is used to place therights of species or ecosystems above that of humans. This is incorrect,biocentrism should be seen as a philosophical position which underlies thedevelopment of appropriate management techniques and strategies. Humanshave as much right to live and blossom as any other species, this will necessarilyinvolve interaction with other species and habitats (Eckersley, 1992). Howeveran ecocentric person will minimise the harm and suffering that is caused. In thecontext of deep ecotourism, people living in pristine natural areas have an equalright to exist alongside other elements of the landscape as long as they try tominimise the harm and suffering that they cause. The notion of removing groupsof people to allow the ‘preservation of natural areas’ would not be easily acceptedfrom a deep ecotourism perspective. The roles of people are fundamentallyimportant in deep ecology. Deep ecology should not be thought of as amarginalised or radical philosophy that has no practical relevance to thedevelopment of sound environmental practice. Naess and Rothenburg (1989)comment:

One should be able to see a range of possible optimisms in deep ecology if it isto have any use as a constructive concept — it cannot be considered merely aparticular extreme or pessimistic position along a linear scale. (p. 15)

The strong sustainability position recognises that not all elements of theenvironment are equally suited to economic valuation. The precautionaryprinciple is an important component of policy formulation. The very strongsustainability perspective calls for a steady-state economic system and theabandonment, or severely constrained use, of cost benefit analysis (Turner, 1993).In both of these positions there is an extension of ethical reasoning and increasingacceptance of bioethics. The management of a deep ecotourism project wouldreflect these sensibilities. There would be a recognition that the impact of theproject would have to be calculated and conventional economic accountingwould not provide adequate assessments. The precautionary principle should beimplemented wherever uncertainty exists, and management decisions wouldhave to be made with the recognition of nature’s intrinsic value.


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Examples of Shallow Ecotourism and Deep EcotourismThe preceding sections have laid down the basis for a classification of deep

and shallow ecotourism. Different philosophical and economic positions havebeen identified within each of these categories. The following section developsthese ideas and presents some case examples.

A part of the essence of deep ecology is that individuals keep asking moresearching questions about human life and society (Devall & Sessions, 1985).Shallow ecotourists would only grasp a very surface understanding of a culture.For instance, they may wish to watch the elaborate, private initiation rituals ofyoung men in the traditional villages of Vanuatu (Theophile, 1993). However,the deep ecotourist would respect that culture and understand that this was aprivate ceremony. They would gain a more meaningful understanding of thatculture by, perhaps, searching out literature concerning that particular group ofindigenous peoples. The deep ecotourist would try and become immersed in thesurrounding culture and attempt to understand it in a deeper sense withoutdisturbing or undermining the local people. This might result in a persondeciding not to visit a particular area if the local culture was threatened.

The deep ecotourist would not require western comforts if this put a strain onthe resources of the host population. One of the points of the deep ecologyplatform stresses that an appreciation of a high quality of life should be moreimportant than a high material standard of living (Devall and Sessions, 1985;Naess & Rothenburg, 1989; Naess, 1990; Naess & Sessions, 1995). Theophile(1993) believes that it is necessary to balance luxury with adventure in order toattract ecotourists. In Nepal, one architect has tried to balance luxury andadventure in the design of his mountain top resort for trekkers. The guestquarters are made up of traditional huts clustered around a communal well. Onan adjacent hill he has built a sky-lit bath house where trekkers can indulge in aluxurious bath at the end of the day (Theophile, 1993). Although many shallowecotourists may enjoy this experience, the deep ecotourist would recognise thepressure that this may place on the resources of the host community. Indulgencein a bath in a country such as Nepal is likely to take water supplies away fromthe local community who require it to satisfy more vital needs. Water resourcesin many ecotourist destinations are in short supply so that individuals should beprepared to conserve resources in the way that host populations do.

Demands for certain kinds of foods may also differ between shallow and deepecotourists. While shallow ecotourists may want to consume western foods anddrinks, a deep ecotourist would wish to eat local dishes wherever this did notplace undue strain on local resources. This would in part stem from a wish toexperience the host culture, and partly in recognition of the fact that thetraditional dishes require locally grown foodstuffs. The use of local produce helpsto minimise the distance between production and consumption. For instance, themost common meal in Nepal is dal bhat which is rice with a lentil soup over thetop (Armington, 1994). However, as Cater (1994) points out, trekking lodges onthe Annapurna circuit offer almost impossibly extensive menus, such as pizzasand rosti, in order to cater for western tastes. This puts pressure on scarce woodfuel as well as the cook’s time. Eating the traditional dishes shows more respect


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

for the host population as well as putting less pressure on their resources. It istherefore the more sustainable option.

The shallow ecotourist would want to visit pristine enclaves of nature wherehumans have had little impact on the environment. This might result inpreservationist policies whereby humans are excluded from ‘natural’ areas. Insome geographic contexts this might be an inappropriate management strategy.The idea of wilderness preservation stems from the people/nature dichotomythat is present in western culture and reinforces the perception that nature is acollection of resources for humans to use (Grumbine, 1994). The relationship ofindigenous people to their environment is often ignored or not fully understood.Ecotourism has sometimes focused on wildlife preservation at the expense ofindigenous peoples (Hall, 1995). The deep ecotourist, in contrast, recognises thathumans are a part of nature and therefore rejects the human-in-environmentimage. They would respect and fully understand the intimate relationship thatindigenous people have with their environment, and would respect the need forthat culture to flourish. Many non-industrialised cultures have no concept ofwilderness (Grumbine, 1994). For them nature is an everyday lived-in experience(Hall, 1995). In this sense, then, deep ecotourists will not need their touristdestination to be preserved and protected from the influence of humans. Ratherpriority should be given to the integration of appropriate human activity,ensuring a sustainable lifestyle while maintaining biodiversity and the ecologicalintegrity of the landscape.

The particular management strategy adopted is clearly going to reflect theparticular circumstances in any geographic area. For instance, in a developedworld context it might be necessary to exclude some forms of human activity infavour of others. A shallow ecotourist might want to watch, experience and helpmaintain wildlife and landscapes but may indulge in activities that do not strictlyconcur with those attitudes. For instance, ecotourist boats have been noted toinflict disturbance on marine mammals, such as the Beluga Whales of the StLawrence. Numerous adverse effects caused by ecotourism boats have beennoted (Blane & Jaakson, 1994). One of the formulations of the deep ecologyplatform urges that levels of human interference with nature are excessive andthat the situation is rapidly worsening (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Naess &Rothenburg, 1989; Naess, 1990; Naess & Sessions, 1995). A deep ecotourismperspective, in this context, would ensure that any activities undertaken wouldincur a minimum impact on the wildlife and environment of the area visited.

The underlying reason for an ecotourist visiting a region, together with theirdepth of moral thinking constitutes another difference between a shallowecotourist and a deep ecotourist. A shallow ecotourist will visit a region for theaesthetic values that the locality may hold. This is an instrumental valuation ofnature. They might feel that by visiting an area they are adding to theconservation potential of the area, since ecotourism generates income which canbe used for the conservation and management of a region (Furze et al., 1996). Ashallow ecotourist will recognise the conservation of nature as essential in orderto sustain resources for both present and future humans. One of the mainconcerns of shallow ecologists is the depletion of resources (Naess, 1995).

The deep ecotourist may have similar reasons for visiting the area, instrumen-


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tal reasons arising from the aesthetic value of that area, as well as adding to theconservation of the area. However, where the shallow ecotourist and the deepecotourist will be fundamentally different is in the reasons for wanting topromote conservation. The shallow ecotourist will want to preserve small parcelsof land, or specific species for the benefit of future humans. The deep ecotouristwill take a holistic view of conservation — the ‘total field image’ (Naess, 1995)emphasising the need for all species and all areas to be conserved rather thanonly those parts necessary to human survival. Furthermore, the deep ecotouristwill recognise intrinsic values in all nature so that conservation will be promotedthrough respect for nature itself, and for the survival of nature in its own right.The deep ecotourist would respect nature’s own value and the rights of natureby extending moral duties and obligations to nature for its own sake. These viewsof the deep ecotourist would be compatible with the deep ecology platform whichstipulates that non-human beings have value in themselves, independent of anyvalues that humans may place on them (Devall & Sessions, 1985; Naess &Rothenburg, 1989; Naess, 1990; Naess & Sessions, 1995).

In Search of Deep EcotourismGiven the context of the previous discussion an important question to address

is, does, or can, a genuine form of deep ecotourism ever exist? The answer to thisis an unambiguous ‘yes’. A broad definition of tourism was established at thebeginning of this paper. This allowed tourism to refer to travel activities ingeneral without specifying a particular motivation. Cast in this context, deepecotourism can refer to an activity where the participant is travelling accordingto a deeper philosophical worldview. Conversely it could refer to an activity thatis maintained along the lines of deep ecological principles.

We suggest that a case example of deep ecotourism is the Ladakh project runby the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC). By instigatingprogrammes targeted at environmental and social activists, ISEC aims to raisethe awareness of the detrimental impact of conventional development on localeconomies, environments and cultures in the North and South. ISEC’s objectivesinclude the conservation of cultural and biological diversity, encouragingreinvestment in local economies and countering the process of economicglobalisation.

One particular aspect of their work is the Ladakh farm project. In Ladakh thereare problems with rural depopulation as young people leave their family farmsand go in search of urban employment. Increasingly, rural farm work is seen asinferior to the jobs that are provided in the urban environment. This has resultedin growing poverty and serious unemployment problems. The Ladakh farmproject places westerners into the homes of Ladakh farmers. As well as providingvoluntary help in running the farm this placement also helps to raise the statusof agriculture in the eyes of the local population. In addition it gives foreignersa deep appreciation of Ladakh culture.

Many people who have spent time in this ancient culture have found it alife changing experience. They have come away with a recognition that alife closer to nature is not necessarily one of back breaking toil. They have


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

been inspired by a new faith in human nature and have often left Ladakhwith renewed optimism about the possibility for change in western society.(pers. comm., Janey Francis, 1998)

In addition to providing labour and raising the status of farming, visitors areexpected to talk to locals and explain the problems that face western consumerculture. Visitors have an important role in de-mystifying the image of the luxuryand leisure filled lives that people experience in so-called ‘developed’ countries.Before going to stay, visitors are expected to familiarise themselves with theissues by studying Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh by Helena Norberg-Hodge (1991).

The developments of tourist programmes such as this one, which directlyaddress environmental and sustainable development issues, play an importantrole in offering a deep ecotourist experience. Whether or not this experience isrealised will depend on the sensibilities of the participating tourists.

Measuring Deep and Shallow EcotourismThis paper has presented a conceptual framework for deep and shallow

ecotourism. However no mention has been made on how to operationalise thisconcept. For instance, what are the criteria needed to identify deep ecotourism?While it is beyond the scope of this paper to tackle this subject in any great detail(this is a topic for further research) some preliminary thoughts are as follows.

It is necessary to differentiate between ‘ecotourist’ and ‘ecotourism’. Ecotour-ist refers to an individual who may be travelling according to deep or shallowprinciples. The type of ecotourist could be analysed according to a set of attributeswhich include attitudes, values and behaviour. Questions could be constructedthat reflect the ecotourist’s underlying environmental sensibilities. Studies havealready been completed that have adopted this approach. Most are built onmodifications of the NEP/DSP environmental attitude scale developed byDunlap and Van Leire (1978). Recent studies include Palacio and McCool (1997),Blamey and Braithwaite (1997), Luzar et al. (1995) and Ballantine and Eagles(1994). There seems to be a lot of potential in using modifications of the NEP/DSPscale (for instance La Trobe, 1997) to construct profiles whereby different typesof ecotourists can be identified.

The methods used to differentiate between deep and shallow ecotourism sitesand activities seem to be more problematic, but nonetheless would make a usefulresearch agenda. Many variables have been used to identify different forms oftourism, for instance measures of accommodation, attractions, economic impact,tourists etc. (Pearce, 1994; Pearce & Butler, 1993). The multifaceted nature oftourism clearly makes it difficult to develop overarching methods for themeasurement and comparison of tourist activities that are applicable to allgeographical locations. Nevertheless the use of environmental auditing tech-niques (Goodall, 1995), indicators of sustainable tourism (Dymond, 1997),ecological footprints (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996) and ecological labelling(Mihalic, 1998) may offer some possibilities in this area.


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ConclusionThis paper presents a framework for the division of ecotourism into categories

based upon the philosophical and economic arguments that underlie differentenvironmental and sustainability positions. It is suggested that two forms ofecotourism can be recognised, deep ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Thesepositions lie along a continuum with extremes of thought lying at either end.Ecotourism can be assessed with reference to both the participating tourist andthe nature of the activity at the destination site. It is possible to be an ecotouristin a non-ecotourist location and, conversely, to be a non-ecotourist in anecotourism destination.

The concepts that are presented in this paper rely on the fact that the impactsof tourism are seen in a wider developmental and environmental context. It isimportant to remember that the problems besetting tourism destinations are notjust caused by tourism. Tourism is often only one activity that forms part of amuch larger development picture. This means that in order to understand theimpact that tourism is having it will be necessary to examine other developmentagents that are operating in a particular area (Wall, 1997).

This paper links the concepts of deep and shallow ecotourism to the widerenvironmental and sustainability debate. This has practical relevance fordeveloping methods to assess the characteristics of both ecotourists andecotourism, and provides a framework for discussing genuinely environmentalforms of tourism. The piggybacking of mass tourism on the back of ecotourismneeds to be identified and criteria established for recognising genuine attemptsto promote an environmentally sensitive form of tourism.

AcknowledgementsOur thanks to the Nuffield Foundation for providing a grant to carry out

research in Nepal from where the original inspiration for this paper was derived.Also thanks to the anonymous referees for their insightful and illuminatingcomments. Needless to say, any remaining shortcomings are solely the authors’responsibility.

Note1. Pepper uses O’Riordan’s 1981 work as a source although he has changed the

classification labels used by O’Riordan. The column labelled ‘deep ecologist’ wascalled ‘deep environmentalist’ and the column labelled ‘environmental managers’ wascalled ‘accommodaters’. As there is very little change in the meaning, this paperprimarily refers to Pepper’s terminology in the hope of avoiding confusion.

ReferencesArmington, S. (1994) Trekking in the Nepal Himalaya. Hawthorn, Australia: Lonely Planet

Publications.Ballantine, J.L. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1994) Defining Canadian ecotourists. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism 2 (4), 210–214.Blamey, R.K. and Braithwaite, B.A. (1997) A social value segmentation of the potential

ecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (1), 29–45.Blane, J.M. and Jaakson, R. (1994) The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence

Beluga Whales. Environmental Conservation 21 (3), 267–269.Budowski, T. (1992) Ecotourism Costa Rican style. In V. Barzetti and Y. Rovinski (eds)


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Toward a Green Central America: Integrating Conservation and Development. PanosInstitute.

Butler, J.R. (1992) Ecotourism: Its changing face and evolving philosophy. Paper presentedto the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracus,Venezuela.

Callicott, J.B. (1984) Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics.American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (4), 299–309.

Cater, E. (1994) Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems and prospects for sustainability.In E. Cater and G. Lowman (eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (pp. 69–86).Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Devall, B. and Sessions, G. (1985) Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Layton, Utah:Gibbs M. Smith Inc.

Dobson, A. (1996) Environmental sustainabilities: An analysis and a typology.Environmental Values 5 (3), 401–428.

Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K. (1978) The new environmental paradigm: A proposedmeasuring instrument. Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10–19.

Dymond, S.J. (1997) Indicators of sustainable tourism in New Zealand: A localgovernment perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (4), 279–293.

Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach.London: UCL Press.

Fox, W. (1984) Deep ecology: A new philosphy of our time? The Ecologist 14 (5/6), 194–200.Fox, W. (1995) Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for

Environmentalism. Totnes, Devon: Green Books Ltd.Furze, B., de Lacy, T. and Birckhead, J. (1996) Culture, Conservaiton and Biodiversity: The

Social Dimension of Linking Local Level Development and Conservation Through ProtectedAreas. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Goodall, B. (1995) Environmental auditing: A tool for assessing the environmentalperformance of tourism firms. The Geographic Journal 161 (1), 29–37.

Grumbine, R.E. (1994) Wildness, wise use and sustainable development. EnvironmentalEthics 16 (3), 227–249.

Hall, M. (1995) Ecotourism or ecological imperialism? Geographical Magazine 67 (2), 19.Johnson, L.E. (1991) A Morally Deep World: An Essay on Moral Significance and Environmental

Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.La Trobe, H.L. (1997) An investigation into the measurement of environmental attitudes.

Unpublished undergraduate BSc dissertation, School of Earth and EnvironmentalScience, University of Greenwich.

Luzar, E.J., Diagne, A., Gan, C. and Henning, B.R. (1995) Evaluating nature-based tourismusing the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics27 (2), 544–555.

Mihalic, T. (1998) Ecological labelling in tourism. UK CEED Bulletin 53, 33–35.Milbrath, L.W. (1985) Culture and the environment in the United States. Environmental

Management 9 (2), 161–172.Mowforth, M. (1993) Ecotourism: Terminology and definitions. University of Plymouth

Research Reports.Naess, A. (1990) Sustainable development and deep ecology. In J.G. Engel and J.G. Engel

(eds) Ethics of Environment and Development: Global Challenge and International Response(pp. 87–96). London: Belhaven Press.

Naess, A. (1995) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movements: A summary.In G. Sessions (ed.) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy andPractice of the New Environmentalism (pp. 151–155). Boston & London: ShambhalaPublications.

Naess, A. and Rothenburg, D. (1989) Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Naess, A. and Sessions, G. (1995) Platform principles of the deep ecology movement. InA. Drengson and Y. Inoue (eds) The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology(pp. 49–53). California: North Atlantic Books.


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Nelson, J.G. (1994) The spread of ecotourism: Some planning implications. EnvironmentalConservation 21 (3), 248–255.

Norberg-Hodge, H. (1991) Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. London: Rider.O’Riordan, T. (1981) Environmentalism. London: Prion Ltd.O’Riordan, T. (1989) The challenge for environmentalism. In R. Peet and N. Thrift (eds)

New Models in Geography (pp. 77–102). London: Unwin Hyman.Palacio, V. and McCool, S.F. (1997) Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit

segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (3), 234–243.Pearce, D. (1993) Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.Pearce, D.G. (1994) Alternative tourism: Concepts, classifications and questions. In V.L.

Smith and W.R. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in theDevelopment of Tourism (pp. 15–30). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. London:Routledge.

Pepper, D. (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Routledge.Pepper, D. (1996) Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Przeclawski, K. (1997) Deontology of tourism. In C. Cooper and S. Wanhill (eds) Tourism

Development: Environmental and Community Issues (pp. 105–111). Chichester: John Wileyand Sons.

Ruschmann, D. (1992) Ecological tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13 (1), 125–128.Sylvan, R. (1985) A critique of deep ecology. Radical Philosophy 40, 2–12.Sylvan, R. and Bennett, D. (1994) The Greening of Ethics. Cambridge: The White Horse Press.Theophile, K. (1993) The forest as a business: Is ecotourism the answer? Journal of Forestry

93 (3), 25–27.Turner, K. (1993) Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and

Practice. London: Belhaven.Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. and Bateman, I. (1994) Environmental Economics: An Elementary

Introduction. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Venables, S. (1998) Balancing act. Geographical, July, 6–11.Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing the Human Impact

on the Earth. Canada: New Society Publishers.Wall, G. (1997) Rethinking impacts of tourism. In C. Cooper and S. Wanhill (eds) Tourism

Development: Environmental and Community Issues (pp. 1–9). Chichester: John Wiley andSons.


ownl

oade

d by

[T

ufts

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:06

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism