International Ecotourism Management: Using Australia and Africa as Case StudiesPaul F. J. Eagles

ProfessorDepartment of Recreation and Leisure StudiesUniversity of WaterlooWaterloo, Ontario, Canada. N2L 3G1.

Nature-based tourism is a rapidly expanding portion of the world’s travel market. Many of the destinations are national parks, game reserves and other types of protected areas. Nature tourism is a very important export industry throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa. The size of the industry causes impacts that require sophisticated management approaches. This paper discusses key management issues apparent world-wide: management of environmental quality, limits of acceptable change, management of tourist use, allocation of access, market specialization, management of recreation conflict, enforcement and monitoring, consumer assurance of quality, facility design, park financial viability and community development. North American, Australian and African experiences in these areas are emphasised.

Introduction

In western society, travel to experience wild nature is an old and well-accepted phenomenon. Starting in 1872 in the United States with Yellowstone Park, in 1879 in Australia with Royal Park and in 1885 in Canada with Banff Park and Niagara Falls, governments set aside natural areas for protection and recreation in the form of national parks. Many African national parks originated as game reserves. The first national parks were Albert National Park, created in the Belgian Congo in 1925, and Kruger National Park, created by South Africa in 1926 (Luard, 1985). Parts of Kruger had been a game reserve since 1898. In Tanganyika, now Tanzania, the Selous Game Reserve was assembled, in 1922, from several smaller reserves (Luard, 1985). Later the Ngorongoro Highlands were made into a game reserve in 1928, soon followed by the Serengeti in 1930. In 1940 the 2 areas were combined into the Serengeti National Park (Turner, 1988). Kenya’s first national park, Nairobi, was created in 1946 (Luard, 1985).

These initial attempts started a trend. There is now a world-wide system of thousands

of protected areas in all parts of the globe. Globally since 1970, the number of protected areas increased by 185%, to 9,932. The area in parks at 926,349,646 square kilometres (IUCN, 1994; WRI, 1992), is an increase of 515% since 1970. Several African countries with savanna ecosystems have assigned substantial amounts of their territory to protected areas. Examples are Tanzania with 11.5%, Botswana with 18.2%, Zimbabwe with 11.3%, Senegal with 10.8% (Matowanyika, 1989) and Zambia with 29.1% (Teye, 1987).

Since the last century, tourism use of parkland changed from a few hundred hardy travellers to tens of millions. The numbers of travellers increased due to expanding affluence, cheaper travel costs and increasing interest in the environment.

Higher levels of environmental consciousness in western society are a primary factor in the higher demand for nature-based tourism. At the same time, the scarcity of pristine environments in densely populated areas, means that travel is necessary to reach high quality sites. The world’s major media, and most specifically film and television, present quality nature programs about these areas to a world-wide audience. All of these factors push ecotravel growth.

Nature-based tourism is based upon the desire of people to experience nature in their leisure time. The growing levels of participation have led to the recognition of submarkets. Eagles (1995a) proposed that nature-based tourism has at least four submarkets, differentiated according to the travel motives of the travellers.

Ecotourism involves travel for the discovery of and learning about wild natural environments. Wilderness travel involves personal re-creation through primitive travel in natural environments that are devoid of human disturbance. Adventure travel is personal accomplishment through the thrills of dominating dangerous environments. Car camping is safe family travel in the interface between the wild and the civilised (Eagles, 1995a).

Ecotourism may be the fastest growing tourism sub-market. The growth primarily involves travel by Europeans and North Americans to all parts of the world. For example, Eagles and Wind (1994) found that Canadian ecotour companies visited 50 different countries in 1992. Recently, with rapidly developing economies in Asia, ecotourists from these countries are entering the market as consumers. The number of eco-destinations expands with the increases in park numbers. There is now a world-

wide nature travel market, with tourists from many countries travelling to destinations in many other countries.

Since people travel domestically before travelling to foreign areas, the domestic park infrastructure is better developed and more experienced in Canada, the United States, parts of Europe and Australia, than in most of the newer destinations. In most destinations the experience is generally positive, but problems occur and are handled with varying levels of success.

Australia is a good example of nature-based tourism, due to its recognized leadership and rapidly developing industry. Tourism is Australia’s largest export industry (Shea and Sharp, 1993). Between 1983 and 1993, the number of international visitors increased from 944,000 to 3,000,000, an average annual growth rate of 12%. The inbound tourism industry generated $10.6 billion in export earnings and employed 130,000 people in 1994. By 2000 international visitation is expected to double to 6.3 million (TFC, 1995). The domestic tourism market is three times larger than the inbound market (Moore and Carter, 1993). Much of this tourism is based on the superb natural features of the country, with ecotourism a major component (Shea and Sharp, 1993). The national parks and protected areas, and especially those designated as World Heritage Sites, are important destinations for national and international ecotourists (Dowling, 1991; Driml and Common, 1995).

Australia is an important area for the study of tourism and parks. It is the first country in the world to develop and approve a national ecotourism strategy (Allcock et. al., 1994). The implementation of the strategy is well under way, with $10,000,000 of federal funding approved in priority areas such as accreditation, market research, energy and waste minimisation, infrastructure, education, monitoring, regional planning, business development and conferences (Lee, 1994). Individual states are responding with state level plans (Burns, 1995). There are high levels of industry, government and environmentalist attention paid to the long-term implications of increasing tourism use in sensitive parks, reserves and world heritage sites. The concepts inherent in nature-based tourism are actively studied and debated (Harris and Leiper, 1995). Australian government efforts are aggressively trying to fill the gap between policy endorsement and policy implementation so often seen in tourism (Pigram, 1990).

Kenya and Tanzania are well-documented examples of nature-based tourism in Africa. Starting with only a few thousand tourists in the early 1950s, Tanzania’s tourism

increased to 350,000 in 1995 (Friesen, 1995) and Kenya to 865,300 in 1994 (Anon, 1996). In both countries the tourism industry is closely tied to world-class system of national parks and game reserves. The foreign exchange earnings from tourism rival and sometimes exceed those of agriculture, the other important export. Throughout eastern and southern Africa park-based tourism is a very important economic activity.

It is important to recognize that nature-based tourism is only a small part of the overall tourism industry, possibly 7%. In Africa, the majority of foreign tourist arrivals to the continent come to four countries, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Kenya (Teye, 1987). Only Kenya has its tourism predominately nature-based.

The link between environmental protection, international tourism and economic development became widely recognised in eastern Africa in the early 1970s (Thresher, 1972; Thresher, 1981). Filani (1975) and Western and Henry (1979) proposed the development of national tourism policy, closely linked to national development strategies. Kenya and South Africa have been successful leaders in the development of ecotourism industries based upon a comprehensive structure of national legislation, policy planning and site management. However, not all tourism development efforts in sub-Saharan Africa have been successful. Ankomah and Crompton (1990) identified the five factors inhibiting these development efforts as being: negative market image, lack of foreign exchange for capital development, lack of trained personnel for tourism, weak institutional frameworks for planning and management and political instability.

To better understand nature-based tourism, scholars propose dimensions of nature-based tourism. These dimensions vary from those of other forms of tourism, such as cultural, sports or religious tourism. Table 1 reveals the dimensions and the type of variation (modified from Valentine, 1992).

Table 1: Dimensions of Nature-based Tourism

Dimension and Variation ExperienceLevel of nature-dependency is high

Intensity of interaction varies, often dedicated.

Social sensitivity is encouraged.

Duration of experience is long. Trip StyleInfrastructure support is necessary. Basic is acceptable.

Group size of usually small.

Cultural interactions are frequent given location of sites near local peoples.

Willingness to pay is high

Length of stay is long LocationRemote locals

Local villages and towns provide some support

Ownership is an interaction of private and public

Sites often fragile with low use capacity Both the mainstream tourism industry and the park management establishment have had a blind spot for the emerging nature-based tourism phenomenon. For example, in the landmark book on park management (MacKinnon, et. al., 1986) produced by the IUCN, only four pages are devoted to tourism and a few more to tourism economics. This is now changing, with a much stronger emphasis on ecotourism management at all levels in many countries.

Rapid tourism growth reveals both strengths and deficiencies in the existing management structure of nature-based tourism in parks. This paper discusses the most important of these issues, based upon literature reviews and discussions with tourism officials and scholars.

For organisational purposes the discussion is categorised into the subject areas

outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Key Management Issues in Ecotourism

Issue 1. Tourist Travel Motives and Marketing2. Management of Environmental Quality3. Limits of Acceptable Change4. Management of Tourist Use5. Allocation of Access6. Market Specialisation7. Management of Recreation Conflict8. Enforcement and Monitoring9. Consumer Assurance of Quality10. Facility Design11. Community Development12. Financial Viability13. Public and Private Sector Co-operation

1. Tourist Travel Motives, Marketing and Management

What are tourists seeking in their travel? Useful answers come from Canadian studies. Tourism Canada (Burak Jacobson, 1985) found the travel motives of the average Canadian traveller to be socially oriented (Table 3). Friends, family, entertainment, safety, predictability, and fun are important. Warm, predictable weather is highly ranked, as are locales near lakes and streams. The social orientations are more important than the environmental features of destinations.

Table 3: Travel Motives of Canadian Tourists

Travel MotiveRank 1. Being together as a family2. Feel at home away from home

3. Visit friends and relatives warm climate4. Have fun and be entertained5. See maximum in time available6. Lakes and streams7. Meet people with similar interests8. Go to places where one feels safe9. Predictable weather In comparison, research by Eagles (1992) shows that the travel motives of the Canadian ecotourists are attraction-oriented (Table 4), with tropical forests, wilderness, and wildlife highly ranked. Ecotourists are most interested in experiencing, learning and photographing wild nature within natural settings. Filion et. al. (1993) found that 18.7% of Canadians took a trip in 1991 to view or photograph wildlife. These people devoted 84,300,000 days to this activity and spent $2.4 billion during the trips. This attitude base and activity profile represents the underpinnings of the ecotourism industry in Canada. The travel motives of other North Americans, Australians and Europeans may be similar to the Canadians, but further research is needed.

Ecotourists’ motives are fundamentally different from the typical traveller’s motives. As a result, the ecotourism travel industry must be designed differently from the standard

Table 4: Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists

Travel MotiveRank 1. Tropical forests2. Wilderness and undisturbed nature3. Learn about nature4. Birds5. Lakes and streams6.Trees and wildflowers7. Photography of landscape and wildlife8. Mammals9. National and provincial parks10. Be physically active travel approach.

Research suggests that the key concepts underlying ecotourist travel motivations are wilderness, wildlife, parks, learning, nature and physical activity. In order to satisfy ecotourists, these ideas should underlie the management of natural resources and the provision of tourist services.

The travel experience has five discrete periods (Figure 2). Park-based tourism is unusual in that so much of the travel experience is beyond the scope of the park agency. Much of the recognition of the product, all of the travel to and from the site, and most of the post-trip recollections are influenced by sectors of the economy out of the control of the park agency. Only during the in-park experience does the management agency have some control. This circumstance has considerable impact on the trip experience satisfaction of the tourist. For example, the site manager has little control over the development of appropriate anticipation within the consumers. Since satisfaction with a product is the result of the difference between anticipated benefits and actual benefits, visit satisfaction can be impacted by anticipation that is accurate.

Figure 2: Travel Experience Continuum

Parks and recreation marketing is different from the marketing of manufactured goods (Table 5). Understanding the unique nature of the outdoor recreation product is essential

Table 5: Parks and Recreation Marketing

Unique Aspects of Park Experience Marketing 1. Outdoor recreation experiences are consumed on a site well away from home.2. Travel costs to the site often far exceed costs at the site.3. It is a package of facilities and programs that attracts people to a site or area.4. Recreation experiences are ephemeral and experiential which cannot be possessed, except as memories.5.The production, delivery and consumption of the recreation product occur simultaneously.6. Consumers are actively involved in the production of their experience, both their own and that of others.7. Poor recreational experiences cannot be returned for a refund.

8. Recreational sites and experiences are very difficult to evaluate before purchase, therefore word-of-mouth from friends and family are very important choice determinants.9. Recreational products cannot be stockpiled during periods of low demand and sold during times of excessive demand.10. Important aspects of the recreation experience occur before and after the on-site participation for planning and management.

With recreation products the consumer is actively involved in the creation of the product. This fact requires sophisticated personal-service features within the recreation product. The ephemeral nature of recreation requires the creation of memory reinforcements, such as souvenirs, to help the consumer remember and communicate their travel experience. The difficulty in test driving the product before purchase makes the travel consumer look widely for quality indicators and accurate information. Recreational products can not be stockpiled for periods of high demand and can not be returned if defective, leading to unique problems in supply. These, and other factors, require sophisticated business analysis and managerial training if the business is to be successful.

However, many park agencies are reluctant participants in the tourism business. Most managers trained in resource management. Few have professional education in tourism, finance or marketing. As a result, the development of tourism policy has often been reactive, with a weak conceptual and policy basis.

The complexity of tourism management in parks is often underestimated. Managers must balance environmental protection and visitor use of the resource. Park managers must deal with the demands of visitors, local residents, regional interests, the national government and the private tourism industry. Usually the park is managed as a public good, owned by government, and financed from tax revenues with all tourism products sold at an operating loss. It is critical to recognise that tourism management in protected areas requires a sophisticated management structure.

2. Management of Environmental Quality

Ecotourists seek high levels of environmental quality (Eagles, 1992). Most ecotourism is concentrated in national parks, wildlife reserves and similar types of protected areas. Each of these protected area systems has environmental integrity goals. Therefore, the inherent thrust of the ecotourist travel motives and the management

philosophy of the park agencies’ are similar. However, tourist use has the potential to degrade environmental quality through overuse, damaging behaviours, unplanned access to sensitive sites, and inappropriate use levels. Buckley and Pannell (1990) found that recreation in Australian parks sometimes leads to soil erosion and compaction, vegetation damage, water pollution, increased fire, vandalism and noise. However, Pigram (1980) recognised, in a landmark paper, that:

Whereas tourism can lead to environmental degradation and therefore be self destructive, it can also contribute to substantial enhancement of the environment.

Orams (1997) discussed the sophisticated and complicated relationships between dolphins and tourists in Australasia. There is tremendous demand by people for close contact with wild dolphins, a demand being increasingly fulfilled in Australia and New Zealand. Whereas people occasionally harm dolphin, dolphins sometimes harm people. However, in the vast majority of cases the dolphin-human interactions are carried out in a positive and acceptable fashion. In a few cases the interactions have been carried out for decades, involving generations of dolphins and people. To ensure sustainable tourism the key issue is the careful development and application of management policy, typically by a competent government agency with a long-term view and public support.

Much of the park development in North America has been a combination of environmental protection and tourism. Considerable experience gained in methods of tourism development help produce socially acceptable levels of impact. However, in Australia the environmental focus dominates, with an historically low level of tourist use and infrastructure (McIntyre, pers. comm.). As tourism numbers continue to increase, Australian needs for site-specific management plans and policy increase. Buckley and Pannell (1990) suggest that Australian parks require zoning plans, more regulation of access, site hardening and visitor education.

Throughout Africa, protection of the globally significant wildlife and ecological resources is a major goal of the protected areas. In the case of most national parks, resource extraction is not allowed. In game reserves, hunting is allowed. Matzke (1977) documented the negative impact of rural villages on wildlife populations in the Selous area of Tanzania. He concluded that human settlement causes large mammals populations to abandon part of their habitat, due to hunting and other human disturbances. He therefore concluded that wildlife parks should not have human settlements.

Langholz (1996) reports on the growing number of private nature reserves. He finds the average African reserve is 11,436 hectares in size, very small compared to national parks and game reserves, but significant never the less. Private owners report that the two most important goals of the reserves are to protect nature in general, and to preserve a specific species or habitat.

Management of natural resources and visitor use ideally aims to maintain ecological integrity. The allied concepts of ecological sustainability and preservation of biodiversity are a policy focus.

3. Limits of Acceptable Change

All human actions in natural areas cause some impact. This can be positive or negative and can vary in scale. How much impact is acceptable? The determination of impact, the assessment of the acceptability of the impact, the management of the impact and the monitoring of the impact must be done (Stankey, et. al., 1985; Prosser, 1986). The amount of environmental and social impact allowed is a management decision. The decision involves the legal and policy environment of the protected areas, the existing use levels, the desires of the tourists and the larger political environment. Given the complexity of these decisions, an open decision structure that allows for input from all interested publics is essential. No one group, such as entrenched tourist operators or environmental groups, can be allowed to dominate other, equally legitimate, interests.

A useful tool for management is zoning within a park. Sensitive sites are zoned for low levels of use, while hardy areas are zoned for intensive uses. A similar approach can be used to separate incompatible activities. Park zoning is becoming widespread as management plans become more common.

Gakahu (1992) provides a thorough review of the interrelationships between wildlife tourists, reserve management and policy for the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. This analysis provides a solid base upon which to build an efficient management structure in this famous game park. Muthee (1992) concludes that the most negative environmental impact in the Maasai Mara Reserve is from tourist vehicles. He therefore proposes a developed set of viewing roads, a strict policy against off-road driving and a policy to distribute use more widely across the reserve.

There is often a weak management response to visitor impacts on the natural or social environments. Environmental degradation caused by visitor activities is common and apparently accepted. However, there is increasing concern in the environmental movement with tourism-based environmental degradation. Increased levels of public policy discussion, with concerned action by environmental groups, is necessary if the park managers are to withstand the strong pressure from self-serving tourism interests who wish to maximise their financial return through minimal investment in environmental management.

Davis et. al. (1997) reports on the careful design and operation of the developing ecotourism industry with Whale Shark observation in Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia. The observation of the animals is closely controlled and monitored by the state’s land management agency. Research is used to develop guidelines governing the degree and type of contact with sharks that ecotourists are allowed. Use fees on both the ecotour operators and the ecotourists cover the costs of management. The visibility of these fees to the operators and the tourists makes an important connection between use and the need for management of environmental quality.

4. Management of Tourist Use

Many different activities take place on parkland. Most of these are nature-based, recreational activities requiring natural landscapes.

Canada, the United States and Australia have more than a century of experience in developing approaches for the management of tourists in natural areas. The use is often high. It is not uncommon to have high quality natural environments in national parks visited by millions of visitors each year, with generally acceptable levels of impact. For example, the United States has 10 national parks each with visitation of over 2 million people per year. The most visited of all, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, had 8,600,000 visitors in 1994. The National Park Service of the United States greeted 270,000,000 visitors in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service handled 34,800,000 and state parks 700,000,000 (Reynolds, 1995). Canadian national and provincial parks catered to 115,000,000 visits in 1994 (Wilkie and Eagles, 1997). In 1989 Australian national parks had 17,100,000 visitors (Wescott, 1993), but this is probably an underestimate.

Visitors can be classified into several activity classes, each of which can be

considered to be a submarket. Ecotourism is one of these submarkets, with adventure tourism, wilderness use and car camping also important (Eagles, 1995a).

Research shows that park visitors’ satisfaction with their visit is not directly correlated with use density or gross numbers. Satisfaction is more closely correlated with environmental quality, the adequacy of facilities and programs and the accuracy of expectations (Graefe et. al., 1984; Beaumont, 1993). Therefore, to maintain visitor satisfaction in crowded locales, protection of natural features must be assured, facilities must be capable of handling the numbers, services must be high quality, and visit expectations must be appropriate. McIntyre and Boag (1995) suggest, after a study of crowding at Uluru National Park, that managerial responses to crowding consider three factors. First is measurement of visitor numbers at a site. Second is a measurement of visitor satisfaction with the observed user density. Third is the development of a managerial criterion of a certain level of dissatisfaction, say 50% of visitors dissatisfied or 50 visitors dissatisfied. These three criterion assist management in developing a response to visitor experience quality issues. Additional approaches to the management of large numbers of visitors include: abundant pre-trip information, quality transportation networks, scheduling of access, use limits, hardening of facilities in sensitive areas, visitor education, and law enforcement.

In countries with a history of park use, repeat consumers become familiar with the expected behaviours during park visitation. This provides for visitor management that operates relatively smoothly. A major challenge in the future is the education of international tourists who come from cultures where significant natural sites are not present or are given low value. Higher levels of pre-trip information, visit monitoring and enforcement may be required than with domestic visitors.

Not all areas can handle large numbers of visitors. Most park systems have developed a range of visitor density zoning, both within each park and within the park system. For example, the Province of Ontario in Canada has a six-class park system, varying from recreation parks with high visitor use levels to wilderness parks with low visitor use levels. Visitor quotas are in place in many areas, both as a means to limit negative environmental impacts and to provide for acceptable levels of social density.

Within a park system and within an individual park, it is valuable to maintain a range of density and experience opportunities for the visitors. It is equally important to have information and allocation procedures in place, so that the visitors can be made aware of the range of opportunities available and the means of access.

Given recent increases in foreign visitation to parks and reserves, New Zealand developed its first national visitor management policy for crown land (DOC, 1994). New Zealand has one, integrated resource and recreation management agency, the Department of Conservation. Such an administrative structure can assist in the speedy implementation of this policy.

Filani (1975) called for the development of national tourism and parks policy in each country in Africa. Table 6 outlines the objectives for national tourism and parks policy. Filani maintains that the relative success of East African tourism is due to the development of such policy in a co-ordinated fashion. Twenty years later, Sournia (1996) reports that West Africa tourism is still less successful than East African tourism due to the lack of co-ordinated tourism and parks policy

Table 6: Objectives of National Tourism Policy in Africa

Objective 1. Planning and management of parks and reserves2. Development and implementation of national tourism policy3. Setting rules and regulations for park use4. Tourism promotion5. Educating local populations about parks and reserves6. Planning tourism facilities and programs7. Encouraging public and private investment in tourism facilities8. Providing tourist information9. Co-ordinating activities of all sectors of the tourism industry10. National tourism data collection11. Serving as a liaison between countries

Moore and Carter (1993) maintain that in Australia the tourism industry often markets natural resources without acknowledging the impacts that visitation can create. The typical Australian national park is designed for the experienced local resident who owns a four-wheel drive vehicle and is self-sufficient. The international visitor, inexperienced in Australian environments, may not have appropriate equipment and may have trouble finding suitable information. As international visitation increases, higher levels of information and interpretation provision will be necessary for both pre-trip planning and site visitation.

Visitor satisfaction surveys are becoming a more important part of park and ecotourism management. They are common in developed countries, but rare in Africa. Friesen (1995) provides data on tourist opinions about their visit to Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania. He found high levels of visitor satisfaction with the park and with the visit experience. However, increased use has led to rising concerns about too many safari vehicles, off road driving and poor picnic facilities.

Sournia (1996) contrasts the management of park tourism in western Africa to that of eastern Africa. He points out that even with significant natural resources in western Africa, the tourism levels are well below those of eastern Africa. The reasons for the lower levels of use include: less visible wildlife concentrations, weak national transportation networks, inefficient hotel facilities, poorly trained tourism staff, weak marketing and a lack of tourism infrastructure in the parks. Following the success displayed in eastern Africa, Sournia (1996) proposes basic needs for ecotourism development (Table 7). Sournia’s suggestions are fundamentally sound. Kenya Utalii College in Nairobi has a tourism program aimed a training people specifically to handle such needs.

Table 7: Basic Needs for Tourism Development

Need 1. Good basic information within and outside the country.2. Good technical information available for trip planning and during the trip.3. Good tourist reception achieved through training of hotel, park, and guiding staff.4. Good accommodation and transportation facilities to ensure adequate levels of safety, comfort and medical attention.5. Good facilities adapted to local conditions and to the types of visitors targeted.

5. Allocation of Access

Sensitive environments are easily damaged by open tourism access. Increasing use levels in Australian parks are prompting calls for reconsideration of existing allocation policies (Muir and Chester, 1993; ACF, 1994; Figgis, 1994). Buckley and Pannell (1990) argue that parks and reserves are only suitable for low-impact recreation, such as wilderness travel or natural history tours. One important

management option for sensitive area protection is allocation of access. There are alternatives available for the allocation of use (Table 8).

Table 8: Use Allocation Alternatives

Alternative

1. Onsite First-Come, First-Served2. Market Demand and Price3. Qualifications4. Political Influence5. Lottery6. Offsite Registration First-Come, First-Served

A typical approach is first-come, first-served. The rationale is that this gives equal access to all, an important fairness issue on public land. In high demand areas, registration times occur months, or even years, ahead of the visit. For example, regulation of white-water raft trips on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon National Park in the United States results in registration up to 18 months in advance. Such an approach is unfair for international tourists who may be unfamiliar with the timing and means of registration.

The private sector uses market demand and price to allocate access. Higher demand translates into higher prices. This approach is acceptable on private land, but has severe implications for publicly-owned resources. It is difficult to allocate access by the public to public land simply based upon the ability to pay. Such an approach discriminates against lower income people.

Lotteries are sometimes used where demand is much higher than supply. High demand trekking trails are an example. This provides equal access to all, but is difficult to manage for international visitation.

The use of qualifications to allocate access occurs infrequently. Some sensitive environments are only accessible to people who undertake scientific research and have the associated qualifications. Some dangerous environments are restricted to those with specialised training. Scuba diving and mountain climbing are examples. Many nature reserves encourage scientific study visitors only.

Visit registration well before the time of the visit, once foreign to park use, is widespread. This allows the potential visitor to be assured of a campsite, a place on a tour or access to a sensitive environment. The availability of inexpensive computer systems allows most parks to utilise registration systems. An important management issue is letting potential users know about the need for advance booking and providing efficient procedures for the booking.

Individuals and groups often use political power to gain preferential access. Bribery of bureaucrats or politicians occurs. The use of political power to gain access is an issue, especially if open, public decision-making is not used. Private sector tour operators, environmental groups and influential individuals have gained preferential access in the past using various aspects of political influence.

Most sites use a combination of approaches. Many parks have a proportion of their recreation facilities allocated to advance registration systems and a portion to first-come first-served access on site.

As use levels increase, it is necessary to continue to develop fair and open allocation procedures. Such policies should be fair to all potential users, balance individual and group access, recognise the special needs of international visitors, and be cost efficient.

6. Market Specialisation

The large size and the increasing sophistication of the tourism market lead to specialisation in the product. For product development, marketing and management, specialised products provide competitive advantages. Consumers with specific interests are best served by products that relate well to those interests. Eagles (1995a) suggests that in North America there are four identifiable tourist products associated with park use: ecotourism, adventure tourism, car camping and wilderness travel. Each product has specialised equipment, information needs, environmental impacts, and consumer demands. Figure 3 shows a typical tourism product life cycle (Butler, 1980), with the park products’ life cycle stage illustrated. Different product specialisations are at different levels of maturity of within the product life cycle. Eagles (1995a) suggests that ecotourism is in the early growth stage of the product cycle, with low numbers of consumers but rapid growth. Car camping has larger numbers of participants, but is declining in popularity. This pattern occurs in the North American domestic markets, and may not apply elsewhere. However, the

concept of tourism market specialisation occurring at different levels of market maturity needs wider consideration.

There is a need for more precise definitions of tourism submarkets for the purposes of marketing and market research. Blamey (1995) tackles ecotourism and decides that a minimalist definition is desirable. His definition centres on travel distance (more than 40 km from home) and travel intention (to study, admire, or appreciate the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations) as the key factors that define ecotour travel. More work is necessary to define and operationalise the developing nature-based tourism submarkets. Eagles (1995a) suggests that the majority of park visitors are ecotourists. Further research is necessary to confirm this point.

Many park managers do not discriminate amongst tourist products. To better understand and manage park tourism, Parks Canada developed the Visitor Activity Management Program. This program develops a profile of each outdoor recreation user group for management planning (Tayler, 1989). Nilsen (1995) reports on the large number of outdoor recreation activity profiles under development. Examples include boating, climbing, surfing and heritage appreciation. Each activity is assessed under 10 criteria, such as setting, market expectations, risk management and natural resource impact. The Parks Canada visitor activity management program is one of the most advanced and innovative visitor management systems available for park managers. It is of tremendous assistance in raising the profile of visitor management within agencies and then providing a structure for management.

Within each niche market, there are identifiable needs for various levels of involvement and expertise. Increasingly, market niches develop based upon the level of information provided. For example, bird watching tours for advanced birders become more frequent. Specialisations evolve wherever the ecotourist numbers and experience qualities are high enough to attract advanced consumers.

World-wide, the private sector is moving quickly to develop ecotourism ecolodges in areas near important natural sites, typically parks (Alderman, 1992). These develop at the rate of dozens per year. Typically, they involve low-scale accommodation designed with minimal environmental impact. Staff familiar with the natural resources and with guide training are available for the tourists. Specialised information facilities, wildlife programs and site access are provided. Frequently, a nearby park is the destination for short trips and programs. Many excellent Australian examples are

provided by Weiler and Hall (1992) and more recently by Harris and Leiper (1995).

The private sector is also developing innovative products for niche market demands. An example is the outfitting companies around the large parks. These companies provide information, specialised equipment, clothing, food and guides to the international market. Increasingly guides fluent in European and Asian languages are being hired.

Increased market specialisation will continue. The most important factors defining ecotourism specialisation include quality and availability of information, environmental quality, program and facility design, and uniqueness of the local environment.

7. Management of Recreation Conflict

High levels of use, varying recreation goals and finite resources lead to conflict amongst recreational groups. Competition for access to resources, dispute over activities at a site, and use densities are pivotal issues. It is essential that such conflict be kept to a minimum, so as to avoid tourist dissatisfaction and physical interactions. Managers typically use temporal and spatial separation to eliminate conflict. However, some uses are ruled to be totally unacceptable, with access denied. Other activities are allowed within a narrow range of behaviours. The critical management issue is the process used to decide who gets access and when access occurs.

Conflict in outdoor recreation is defined as goal interference attributed to another’s behaviour. Recreation managers need to understand the diversity of visitors’ motives, the outcomes necessary to attain the tourists’ goals and the consequences of people interacting with others with different agendas (Schreyer, 1990).

Recreation conflict becomes more of a factor in decision-making as diverse cultural groups compete, as use density increases and as conflicting opinions on behaviours mount. When conflict becomes a management issue, a resolution system becomes necessary. McIntyre (1993) discusses the range of regional planning models available for recreation planning in Australia. The management plan for the Great Sandy Region of Queensland uses the recreation opportunity spectrum to assist with reducing group conflict and to minimise environmental damage on Fraser Island (Queensland Government, 1994). A range of options to handle recreational group

conflict needs to be explored when management agencies have increasing visitor use and group conflicts.

Given the existing levels of tourism use in most African parks and reserves, the level of recreational group conflict appears to be low. If use levels and conflict increase, a feasible solution is the redistribution of use across a wider area. In many countries the tourism use is concentrated in a minority of the available reserves. Other reserves can be utilised in order to spread out the environmental and economic impact of tourism. However, if use levels continue to increase and the finite capacity of ecosystems to sustain use, it must be recognised that other allocation procedures will be necessary.

8. Enforcement and Monitoring

Tourism is very sensitive to social issues. Tourists do not have to travel and will quickly avoid an area if there are safety, behavioural or deprecative concerns. Proper regulation development and enforcement are essential to sustain tourism.

Policies and programs come to naught if an effective enforcement and monitoring system is not in place. It is possible for a small percentage of the visitor population to have a large and negative impact on the natural and social environment. Specially-trained wardens with police powers are needed to enforce the rules. In some countries the naive assumption that rule enforcement decreases visitor use levels results in low levels of enforcement. The opposite is the case. The lack of enforcement of environmental rules results in environmental degradation, thereby removing the key travel motive factor for the ecotourist. Since the single largest source of ecotour destination and program information is word of mouth (Eagles et. al., 1992), a low level of visitor satisfaction is quickly transmitted to potential tourists. This stifles future travel.

Some countries in South America, Central America and Africa have difficulty in enforcing resource and visitor management regulations. This is due to underfunded park agencies, political corruption and bribery. As a result, their park systems and ecotourism industries do not reach market potential.

9. Consumer Assurance of Quality

Eagles and Wind (1994) analysed Canadian ecotour operators' programs for the key

features used to advertise their products (Table 9). They found that national parks, striking natural features, wildlife, interesting flora, specialised outdoor recreation service facilities, knowledgeable guides and service facilities are all used to sell the product. Clearly, these are the features seen by the tour companies as being the most important selling points. It is, therefore, necessary that these features be carefully considered in the planning of uses in ecotour destinations and in ecotour market development. It is worth noting that there is extensive overlap between the features expressed in ecotour company advertising and the travel motives of ecotourists discussed earlier in this paper.

Table 9: Key Ecotour Advertising Attributes

Attribute 1. National park or equivalent reserve with high profile2. Striking geographical and physiographic features3. Visible wildlife populations, with large mammals, predators and birds4. Interesting and varied flora5. Service facilities for hiking, water use, backpacking and exploring6. Highly knowledgeable guides7. Service facilities for accommodation, food and transportation The last 20 years have seen a dramatic rise in consumer awareness of the concept of product quality. The private sector has found that high-quality products are demanded by consumers and are an important component of market advantage. The public sector has lagged behind in this area. Most park managers give scant attention to visitor use quality, the prevailing attitude being that the consumers take, or leave, what is provided. This approach is faltering as sophisticated international ecotourists differentially utilise those locales providing higher levels of visitation quality (Eagles, 1995b).

A widespread problem in ecotourism is the assurance of information accuracy, of quality interpretation, of levels of safety, of operational integrity and of adherence to impact rules. Consumers look for such assurance, and any deficiency in these areas can seriously inhibit use. For example, the international tour companies to many countries in Central and South America bring their own guides because they are not assured of sufficient levels of quality in the local operators. In many parts of the

world, ecotour operators use national parks exclusively due to perceived higher levels of quality (Eagles and Wind, 1994).

The tourist is often the passive consumer of the tour packages, the accommodations and the experiences provided. However, consumers with advanced environmental preservation attitudes demand certain levels of environmental impact and service quality related to their travel experience. Lubeck (1991) outlines environmental behaviour rules for tour operators, travel agents and tourists in regards to safari tourism. The idea that ecotourism must practice what it preaches, environmental sensitivity, is powerful and persuasive. This has led to powerful guidelines to govern all aspects of the ecotourism experience. The Ecotourism Society (1993) and the ecotourism industry in Ecuador are working on a country-wide evaluation effort. The goal is to create a quality product that further develops this country’s market advantage in South America. Key to the program is a set of operational standards. The degree of implementation of these standards is being monitored by ongoing surveys of ecotourists.

In Europe, the major cultural tourism sites require locally trained guides to be used by international tour operators. These guides are university trained in disciplines such as architectural history (Paris), art history (Florence) or Roman culture (Rome). Typically they are multilingual. The number and qualifications of the guides are developed in association with labour guilds. The regulations are stipulated in either national or municipal law.

Forestry Tasmania (1994) studied guided tours in the state forests to better understand the concepts underlying service quality in the provision of visitor experiences. Nationally, Australia is leading the world in the development of an ecotourism accreditation scheme for tour operators, accommodations and attractions (DOT, 1994). Such a program will help structure the industry and will give Australia a competitive advantage in the ecotourism field.

An ecotourist faced with a choice of destinations and tour companies has limited ability to check on product quality. With most consumer products, one can view the product directly. However, the tourism product is often purchased without the usual direct sources of information available for other products. Research shows that ecotourists distrust the typical advertising and consumer information provided by the industry (Eagles, et. al., 1992). They, therefore, search for other signs of value, such as word-of-mouth reputation or environmental group accreditation. Ecotourism

accreditation schemes provide a higher level of consumer assurance of quality and, therefore, a higher level of consumer satisfaction than elsewhere.

Unfortunately the mass media does not report events in a systematic or even-handed manner. It is common for the media to provide coverage of isolated events, thereby suggesting a more widespread problem than exists. This can damage regional or national tourism markets. It is important that national tourism agencies be prepared for such breakouts of media hyperbole. Carefully documented statistics on actual risk levels should be readily available and be distributed quickly when such a problem occurs.

10. Facility Design

Ecotourist use involves the development of a very wide range of equipment and facilities. Recently, the National Park Service of the United States published comprehensive guidelines for the design of sustainable facilities and programs (NPS, 1994), soon followed by a similar document from Australia (DOT, 1995). A first priority is facilities with minimum environmental impact. Buildings that demonstrate the use of recycled materials are becoming more common. The use of low quantities of water and electricity is desirable. Where possible, internal electrical generation, from water, wind and sun should take place. The international ecotourism market is expecting sensitive and sustainable facility design.

Sensitive facility design has become widespread in Central American destinations serving the North American and European markets. Within Canada and the United States such design is common within parks, but is rare in the private sector developments. With the publication of the Best Practice Guidelines, Australia moved aggressively into this field.

Environmentally sensitive consumers expect their purchases to have low levels of negative environmental impact. However, given the short-term relationship between tourists and their destinations, it is difficult for the consumers to check for sustainability. It is therefore important that sustainably designed and operated facilities advertise this fact, and that regulation is in place to ensure that the claims are accurate.11. Community Development

Most natural areas are located in rural locales. The development of tourism in such areas can have considerable impact on the local people (Lindberg and Enriquez, 1994). Sensitive use policies that cause minimum negative social impacts, but allow high levels of local involvement are required. Jobs for local people are a high priority, but are often difficult to provide in a sophisticated knowledge industry, such as ecotourism or adventure tourism. The development of tourism policy sensitive to local concerns is essential for obtaining community support. Lindberg and Enriquez (1994) found in Belize that local economic and social benefits cause an increase in support for ecological conservation.

The Great Sandy Region Plan (Queensland Government, 1994) addresses community infrastructure and development within the context of:

fostering a secure community setting for people living in the Great Sandy Region, and consistent with the protection of values, to allow for the provision of essential and desired public utilities, services and structures for the residents and visitors to the Region.

Wescott (1995) documents that community attitudes towards Grampians National Park in Victoria changed from negative in the early 1980s to positive in the mid-1990s due to the positive economic impacts for the local community that developed in that period. The community development implications of tourist expenditures associated with park creation are important public policy issues everywhere.

Often the special concerns of indigenous people need to be taken into account. This can involve the assurance of positive economic impact to local communities, the closure of culturally sensitive sites to tourism, and involvement in management. The issue of co-management, between indigenous people and government agencies, is hotly debated in many countries.

Throughout Africa the development of game parks and national parks has meant the restriction of access to resources for some groups of locals. Correspondingly the tourist industry has benefited other groups, often urban dwellers and international businesses. The complexity of the situation is illustrated by Luangwa National Park in Zambia. Abel and Blaikie, as quoted by Matowanyika (1989), identify the political groups with interest in the park (Table 10). Similar groupings occur with most African parks. Those with the least political influence, usually the local peasants, are able to gain the least from the natural or economic resources of the park (Matowanyika,

1989).

Table 10: Political Interests in Zambian National Park

Groups 1. Subsistence hunters and cultivators2. Safari hunters3. International conservation groups4. Politicians and administrators5. International scientists6. Commercial poachers

Friesen (1995) documents the interrelationships between the Maasai people and the tourism industry in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania. He concludes that the policy to encourage local involvement and co-operation has not been as effective as it should be in this multiple use area. Parkipuny (1991) demands a much more holistic, integrated approach to regional planning in the whole Serengeti and Ngorongoro area. He feels that local Maasai people need much more access to decision-making, including determination of grazing levels in the reserves.

Community development must be an important component of planning for all nature-based tourism. Both public sector land owners and private sector service providers have responsibility to guide community development in positive directions.

12. Financial Viability

Tourism is considered to be an export industry because of its ability to earn foreign currency. It is this feature that makes the industry so attractive. Nature-based tourism is the most important foreign currency earner for some countries that lack industrial, financial or resource-extraction industries.

The rapid expansion of facilities, programs and operators illustrates that the nature-based tourist industry is viable financially. Thresher (1981) found that a lion in Amboseli National Park in Kenya is worth much more as an object for viewing, than as an object for hunting. This logic is now accepted throughout eastern Africa. Only in southern Africa, most specifically Zimbabwe, is safari hunting still a major tourism

activity.

The ecotourism industry is based on governments providing sufficient funds for the establishment, protection and management of important natural sites. In 1972 Thresher concluded:

the cost of establishing and running an African National Park is very small when set against the overall economic benefits which can be derived directly from it for the national good.

However, the flow of economic benefits from tourism does not necessarily benefit the ecosystems on which the tourism depends. In wealthy countries the tax payers provide the majority of the management funds, with the users obtaining subsidised programs. The World Conservation Union states that the majority of park programs in the world is underfunded. Typically, sufficient funds are only available for a minimum of resource protection. In these cases, tourism can be destructive because of the inability to provide sufficient visitor management structure. Trail erosion, road damage, wildlife harassment, sewage runoff, and poaching occur when management is insufficient. In some locales the ecotourist industry is limited because of the financial nonviability of the park agencies.

Eagles (1995b) documents, for Canada, the erosion of money from government for park management over the last decade. Budget allocations did not keep up with inflation, when they should have doubled or tripled because of the establishment of many new parks. The financial reductions forced management institutions into critically low levels of management capability. Van Sickle and Eagles (1997) report on the national shift in Canada from tax based funding to tourism fees in park management. Many park agencies are moving from a government agency role into a business mode of operation.

Reynolds (1995) points out that the National Park Service of the United States, the largest government tourism provider in the world, faced large budget reductions in 1996.

Figgis (1993) and Wescott (1995) maintain that Australian park agencies are starved for funds. An internal Department of Environment and Heritage report for north Queensland national parks showed that the recent expansion in the number and area of parks was not matched by funds for management (Dickie, 1995). The report found

little infrastructure in established parks, much infrastructure in poor repair, some facilities closed due to safety risk and insufficient resources for enforcement. Personal observations of Australian parks found weak gate control, inefficient information systems, and low levels of visitor services. At the same time, visitor numbers climb. Fraser Island, a well-known World Heritage Site in Australia, had visitor numbers climb from 49,000 in 1985 to 260,000 in 1994 (Fullerton, pers. comm.). The park budgets for management in this site have not come close to keeping up with the visitor use increases. Wescott (1995) documents that in the State of Victoria, Australia the creation of many new national parks was not followed by funding for management.

Eagles (1995b) argues that resource protection in parks should be paid from government taxes because all people benefit. However, recreation primarily benefits the users and, therefore, should be paid from use fees. Increasing reliance on user fees is a trend in many countries, both rich and poor. Tanzania, Kenya, Costa Rica and Canada are all experimenting with innovative fee and management structures in order to raise management funds. Uluru National Park, in Australia, collects over 50% of its management costs from use fees (Driml and Common, 1995). Differential use fees between domestic and foreign tourists occur, especially in Africa and Central America.

Australia’s nature-based tourism boom is based upon a weak financial base for parkland management, one increasingly strained by rising visitor numbers. The lack of entrance fees, low agency income from consumer products and a limited history of accepting donations provide an inexperienced base for the construction of a user-pay system.

However, other jurisdictions are developing responses to this problem. Kenya turned the Kenya Wildlife Service into a parastatal, a self-funding crown corporation with the ability to set fees, provide services and operate with the flexibility of a private sector operator. The Province of Ontario in Canada established a new park management agency, Parks Ontario. It operates as a crown corporation, with the responsibility of earning from its visitors and the larger community at least 50% of its budget.

Driml and Common (1995) showed that the economic benefits of nature-based tourism in selected Australian locales far exceed the government expenditures. This research estimates the financial value of tourism in five Australian World Heritage

Areas (Great Barrier Reef, Wet Tropics, Uluru National Park, Kakadu National Park, and Tasmanian Wilderness). The five areas studied experienced tourism expenditures in 1991/92 of $1,372,000,000. The total management budgets were $48,700,000, and the user fee income to the management agencies was $4,160,000. Therefor, the management budgets were only 3.5% of the tourist expenditure that occurred in the World Heritage Areas. The revenue raised by government through user fees represented only 8.5% of the government expenditures. This study shows the very high financial value of tourism in the five World Heritage Areas. It also reveals the low level of government expenditure for management and the very low level of government cost recovery. Driml and Common (1995) question the ability of the existing management structure to maintain environmental quality in the face of large increases in tourism use. They point out that tourism research expenditures in Australia are very low compared to other economic generators such as agriculture and mining, both of which have a smaller economic impact than tourism.

Tourism is critically important in many African countries because of its relative importance as an export industry. It is often the first or second most important earner of foreign currency. However leakage is quite severe, as many tourist products ranging from safari vehicles to guide books are produced externally. In addition, many more people want access to the tourism financial benefits than currently have it (Teye, 1987).

The ecotourist industry is critically dependent upon the long-term viability of the management of the natural environment by government agencies. The inadequate financial resources for management results in overuse, environmental damage and ultimately the dwarfing of ecotourism’s potential. It is important that government recognise that tax-based budgets should fund resource management. It is important that the private sector recognise its role in providing some of the needed management funds, especially for tourism management.

Tourism is quite sensitive to political and economic upheaval. Political turmoil and civil wars in some African countries have frightened away tourists, damaged tourism and park management structures and degraded the natural resource base. A classic example is the negative impact on gorilla tourism from the Rwandan civil wars of the early 1990s. Both Uganda and Zaire developed competing gorilla watching industries, and captured Rwanda’s former market (Shackley, 1995). Therefore the tourist expenditures moved from Rwanda to its neighbouring countries.

Private nature reserves and ecotourist destinations are developing quickly (Langholz, 1996). Langholz (1996) reports that these reserves, generally established for conservation purposes, are becoming economically viable due to tourism income. The average African private reserve reports creating 457 months of employment per year, an important source of income in a local community.

13. Public and Private Sector Co-operation

The long-term success of park tourism requires co-operation between the public and private sectors. An ecotourism industry can not survive if the quality of the natural environment is degraded. Protected sites best survive when a mobilised constituency, including the tourism industry, argues for their existence.

The public sector has the unique role, based on a societal mandate, of resource protection (Table 11). This involves determination of acceptable uses and use levels. Security of the environment and the public is a government responsibility. In most cases basic tourism infrastructure is paid by the public purse. In wealthier countries, information is provided by both the public and private sectors. Extensive travels in 1995 revealed New Zealand as a world leader in the development of a sophisticated, community-based visitor information system. This is especially evident on the South Island. Most towns and national parks have visitor centres. These serve as clearing houses for all types of visitor information. The public and private co-operation in New Zealand produces an advanced and appreciated information source for all travellers. Many countries could benefit by studying the New Zealand system.

Table 11: Public Sector Role in Park Tourism

Role 1. Environmental Protection2. Infrastructure (Roads, Airports, Rail Lines, Electricity, Sanitation)3. Security and Enforcement4. Monitoring of Impacts, Evaluation of Quality5. Allocation of Access6. Limits of Acceptable Change7. Information (Interpretation, Visitor Centres)8. Conflict Resolution

Typically, the private sector provides most of the services and consumer products (Table 12). Private operators provide accommodation, food, transport, media, and advertising. The private sector has the ability to respond quickly to consumer demands and to develop specialised products. In poorer countries, such as in Africa, information is largely provided by private operators. The private sector relies heavily on the public sector for resource protection, infrastructure and security services. The public sector relies heavily on the private sector for handling the day-by-day activities of the visitors to the country .

Table 12: Private Sector Role in Park Tourism

Role 1. Accommodation and Food2. Transportation (Buses, Automobiles, Airplanes)3. Information (Guides, Advertising)4. Media (Films, Books, Videos)5. Site Promotion and Advertising6. Consumer Products (Clothes, Souvenirs, Equipment)7. Personal Services (Entertainment)

Public and private co-operation is becoming evident in the provision of information data bases on the internet. Information becoming available in this fashion includes that typically available in visitor centres, in park publications and in guide books. It is expected that all major ecotourist destinations will provide this type of information in the future. The ecotourist industry is well positioned to take advantage of this new technology as the sociodemographic profiles of ecotourists suggest that they are well educated and therefore, likely to be computer literate (Eagles and Cascagnette, 1993).

Hockings (1994) studied the relative roles of the public and private sectors in the training and provision of interpretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. He found that most tour operators provided information as part of the trip experience, but the vast majority of tour operators did not use professionally trained interpreters. Only one third used the staff training services provided by the Marine Park Authority.

Lanholz (1996) found that private nature reserves in Africa and Latin America reported that lack of co-operation with government was a major problem. Clearly ongoing discussions and monitoring of the interrelationships between the private and public sectors is necessary.

Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area (Dowling, 1991) and Kingfisher Resort in the Fraser Island World Heritage Area are leaders in Australia. The Monkey Mia Resort is particularly impressive for the assistance given to dolphin researchers, the good relationship with the local resource management agency, and its funding contributions to the Project Eden concept for reintroduction of endangered species into the Peron Peninsula. The co-operative relationship between the private and public sectors is a worthwhile goal of ecotourism development but, unfortunately does not always develop to its fullest potential. Langholz (1996) reports that Costa Rica is planning to offer private reserves special status, in the form of conservation easements and official recognition. This is a gesture to recognise the growing conservation and tourist roles of private reserves in that country.

The operation of an ecotourism industry requires the co-operation of both the public and private sector. Neither can do the job alone. Each is fundamentally dependent upon the other. This situation is not always appreciated. Much time and effort is wasted in conflict situations, where none fundamentally exists. The long-term health of the natural environment and the financial condition of all sectors of ecotourism depend upon co-operation.

Conclusion

The park-related tourism industry is a world-wide phenomenon that is expanding quickly. Park ecotourists are reaching all parts of the world in their attempt to find wildness and to experience undisturbed nature. They seek wilderness, wildlife, parks, learning, nature and physical activity.

Dingwall and Cessford (1996) and Eagles (1996) provide principles of ecotourism management. Table 13 summarises these principles.

Table 13: Principles of Ecotourism

Principle 1. Ecotourism should lead to nature conservation and local economic benefit.2. Both public and private ecotour businesses should have an environmental strategy and an environmental officer. Well-educated staff are essential.3. Tour operators and tourists should demand high environmental standards from their associates, hotels, transportation providers and destinations.4. Culturally and economically sensitive community development is necessary.5. Ecotourism should be designed to benefit local communities, socially, economically and ecologically.6. High-quality information and service delivery are essential. Well educated guides are essential.7. Planning and management capabilities are essential for long-term success.8. Environmental protection is based upon fiscal viability of management, both public and private.9. Ecotourism and environmental protection require the development of management structures to handle use of sensitive environments.

Park management in many countries is well developed in the resource management sector. However, the visitor management sector is often weakly developed. For example, the Australian parks traditionally cater to local clientele who are hardy, independent and knowledgeable. The urbanisation of the country, the rapid growth in international visitation, and the increased social emphasis on environmental quality brings in large numbers of visitors who do not have those characteristics. As a result, the management structures are sometimes severely challenged. Environmental damage, visitor satisfaction problems, group conflicts and funding problems are symptomatic.

The North American domestic nature tourism industry is mature in both resource and visitor management. Over time a balance between use and preservation has been struck. Relatively open decision structures allow for input from disaffected groups and as attitudes change. However, in North America the management of visitors is still a second class emphasis compared to resource management. With increasing emphasis being placed on the visitors as a source of funds, compared to tax sources, the visitors are becoming more important to managers.

Africa has the potential to continue as a major focus for nature-based tourism growth.

Unfortunately, tourism holds the seeds of its own destruction through overuse and environmental degradation of the sensitive natural environments on which it depends. However, the germination of these seeds need not occur. Management and fiscal approaches are available to ensure tourism use indefinitely. This paper has outlined a range of roles and responsibilities for both the private and public sectors in this emerging industry. Tourism in parks can be sustained indefinitely as long as management structures ensure the protection of natural environments and provide high-quality travel experiences.

References

Alderman, C. L. 1992. The Economics and the Role of Privately Owned Lands Used for Nature Tourism, Education and Conservation. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela.

Allcock, A., B. Jones, S. Lane and J. Grant. 1994. National Ecotourism Strategy. Commonwealth Department of Tourism, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Ankomah, Paul Kwame and John L. Crompton. 1990. Unrealised tourism potential: The case of sub-Saharan Africa. Tourism Management 11(3):11-27.

Anonymous. 1996. Kenya Tourism Declines. Toronto Globe and Mail, June 5.

Australian Conservation Foundation. 1994. Tourism Policy.

Ballantine, Jennifer L. and Paul F. J. Eagles. 1994. Defining Canadian Ecotourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(1):1-6.

Beaumont, Narelle K. 1993. Social Carrying Capacity of Green Island and Implications for Tourism/Recreation Planning and Management. Unpublished B. A. thesis, Department of Geography, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Blamey, Russell K. 1995. The Elusive Market Profile: Operationalising Ecotourism. Bureau of Tourism Research paper presented at Geography of Sustainable Tourism Conference, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Buckley, Ralf and John Pannell. 1990. Environmental Impacts of Tourism and Recreation in National Parks and Conservation Reserves. The Journal of Tourism

Studies 1(1):24-32.

Burak Jacobson Inc. 1985. Segmentation Analysis for the Canadian Tourism Attitude and Motivation Study. Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, Tourism Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 25 pp + appendices.

Burns, Tom. 1995. Draft Queensland Ecotourism Plan. Queensland Department of Tourism, Sport and Youth, Brisbane, Australia.

Butler, R. W. 1980. The Concept of a Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1):5-12.

Davis, Derrin, Simon Banks, Alastair Birtles, Peter Valentine and Michael Cuthill. 1997. Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area. Tourism Management 18(5):259-271.

Department of Conservation. 1994. Visitor Strategy Discussion Document. Wellington, New Zealand.

Department of Tourism. 1994. An Investigation into a National Ecotourism Accreditation Scheme. Manidis Roberts Consultants, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Department of Tourism. 1995. Best Practice Ecotourism: A Guide to Energy and Waste Minimisation. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Dickie, Phil. 1995. Money squeeze on parks. Brisbane Sunday Mail, May 7.

Dingwall, Paul and Gordon Cessford. 1996. Pole Positions. Ecodecision 20:65-69

Dowling, R. K. 1991. Tourism and the Natural Environment: Shark Bay, Western Australia. Tourism Recreation Research 16(2):44-48.

Driml, S. and M. Common. 1995. Economic and Financial Benefits of Tourism in Major Protected Areas. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2(2):19-39.

Eagles, Paul F. J. 1992. The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research XI(2):3-7.

Eagles, Paul F. J. 1995a. Understanding the Market for Sustainable Tourism. Pages 25-33 in Stephen F. McCool and Alan E. Watson, compilers, Linking tourism, the environment and sustainability. Proceedings of a special session of the annual meeting of the National Recreation and Parks Association; 1994 October 12-14; Minneapolis, MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-323. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p.

Eagles, P. F. J. 1995b. Tourism and Canadian Parks: fiscal relationships. Managing Leisure 1(1):16-27.

Eagles, Paul F. J. 1996. Fragile Landscapes: Seeking Eco-Benefits. Ecodecision 20:17-20.

Eagles, Paul F. J., Jennifer L. Ballantine and David A. Fennell. 1992. Marketing to the Ecotourist: Case Studies from Kenya and Costa Rica. Paper presented to the IVth World Congress on Parks and Protected Areas, World Conservation Union, Caracas, Venezuela.

Eagles, Paul F. J. and Joseph W. Cascagnette. 1993. Canadian Ecotourists: Who are They? Tourism Recreation Research XX (1):22-28.

Eagles, Paul F. J. and Elke Wind. 1994. Canadian Ecotours in 1992: A Content Analysis of Advertising. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 19(1):67-87.

Figgis, Penny. 1993. Eco-Tourism. Habitat Australia 21(1):8-11.

Filani, M. O. 1975. The Role of National Tourist Associations in the Preserving of the Environment in Africa. Journal of Travel Research 13(4):7-12.

Filion, Fern L., Elaine DuWors, Peter Boxall, Pierre Bouchard, Roger Reid, Paul Gray, Alistair Bath, Andre Jacquemot and Gregg Legare. 1993. The importance of wildlife to Canadians: Highlights of the 1991 survey. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Forestry Tasmania. 1994. Guided nature-based tourism in Tasmania’s forests: trends, constraints and implications. Forestry Tasmania; Hobart, Australia.

Friesen, Bram. 1995. Safari Tourism to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.

Unpublished Masters Thesis, Catholic University of Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Fullerton, Lockerton. Personal Communication. Regional Manager for Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Maryborough, Queensland.

Gakahu, C. G. 1992. Tourist Attitudes and Use Impacts in Maasai Mara National Reserve. Wildlife Conservation International, Nairobi, Kenya.

Graefe, Alan R., J. J. Vaske and F. R. Kuss. 1984. Social carrying capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences 6(4):395-431.

Harris, R. and N. Leiper. 1995. Sustainable Tourism: An Australian Perspective. Butterworth, Heineman, Chatsworth, Australia.

Hockings, Marc. 1994. A Survey of the Tour Operator’s Role in Marine Park Interpretation. The Journal of Tourism Studies 5(1):16-28.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1994. 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN Publications Unit, Cambridge, UK.

Langholz, Jeff. 1996. Economics, Objectives, and Success of Private Nature Reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Conservation Biology 10(1):271-280.

Lee, Michael. 1994. Ecotourism Strategy - A Natural Plan. Press Release from the Minister for Communications and Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Lindberg, Kreg and Jeremy Enriquez. 1994. An Analysis of Ecotourism's Economic Contribution to Conservation and Development in Belize. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., United States, 2 volumes.

Luard, Nicholas. 1985. The Wildlife Parks of Africa. Michael Joseph, London, U. K.

Lubeck, Laurie. 1991. East African Safari Tourism: The Environmental Role of Tour Operators, Travel Agents, and Tourists. Pages 115-133 in Jon A. Kusler, Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.

Mahoney, Edward M. undated. Marketing Parks and Recreation: The Need for a New Approach. Michigan State University. 23 pp. Unpublished paper.

MacKinnon, John, Kathy MacKinnon, Graham Child and Jim Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. IUCN, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Matowanyika, Joseph Z. Z. 1989. Cast Out of Eden: Peasants Versus Wildlife Policy in Savanna Africa. Alternatives 16(1): 30-39.

Matzke, Gordon. 1977. Wildlife In Tanzanian Settlement Policy: The Case of the Selous. Foreign and Comparative Studies/Africa Series XXVIII, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, United States.

McIntyre, Norman. 1993. Recreation Planning for Sustainable Use. Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation 3(2):31-37.

McIntyre, Norman and Alistair Boag. 1995. The Measurement of Crowding in Nature-based Tourism Venues: Uluru National Park. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1):37-42.

Moore, Stewart and Bill Carter. 1993. Ecotourism in the 21st century. Tourism Management (April):123-130.

Muir, F and G. Chester. 1993. Managing tourism to a seabird nesting island. Tourism Management 4(2):99-105.

Muthee, L. W. 1992. Ecological impacts of tourist use on the habitats and pressure-point animal species. Pages 18-38 in C. G. Gakahu. Tourist Attitudes and Use Impacts in Maasai Mara National Reserve. Wildlife Conservation International, Nairobi, Kenya.

National Park Service. 1993. Guiding Principles for Sustainable Design. United States National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

Nilsen, P. 1995. Managing New Forms of Recreation in Heritage Areas. Pages 27-44 in Occasional Paper #26, Innovations and Challenges in the Management of Visitor Opportunities in Parks and Protected Areas, Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Orams, Mark B. 1997. Historical accounts of human-dolphin interaction and recent developments in wild dolphin based tourism in Australasia. Tourism Management 18(5):317-326

Parkipuny, M. S. 1991. Pastoralism, Conservation and Development in the Greater Serengeti Region. Paper No. 26, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, England.

Pigram, John J. 1980. Environmental Implications of Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research VII(4):554-583.

Pigram, John J. 1990. Sustainable Tourism - Policy Considerations. The Journal of Tourism Studies 1(2):2-9.

Prosser, G. 1986. The Limits of Acceptable Change: An Introduction to a Framework for Natural Area Planning. Australian Parks & Recreation 22(2):5-10.

Queensland Government. 1993. Great Sandy Region Management Plan. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Reynolds, John. 1995. National Parks and Protected Areas in the United States. Paper given to the North American Regional Meeting of the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.

Schreyer, R. 1990. Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: The Scope of the Challenge to Resource Planning and Management. Chapter 2 in J. Vining, Social Science and Natural Resource Management, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Shackley, Myra. 1995. The Future of Gorilla Tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(2): 61-72.

Shea, Syd and Jim Sharp. 1993. Western Australia’s Natural Advantage - Capitalising on the Nature-based Tourism Potential of the North. Paper presented to the Northern Australia Development Council Conference, Exmouth, Western Australia.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Peterson and S. S. Frisell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176, Ogden, Utah.

Sournia, Gerard. 1996. Wildlife Tourism in West and Central Africa. Ecodecision 52-54.

Tayler, G. E. 1989. The Visitor Management Process. Pages 235-247 in R. Graham and R. Lawrence, Towards Serving Visitors and Managing Our Resources, Tourism Research and Education Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Teye, Victory B. 1987. Developing Africa’s Tourism Potential Prospects and Issues. Tourism Recreation Research XII(1):9-14.

The Ecotourism Society. 1993. Ecotourism Guidelines for Nature Tour Operators. North Bennington, Vermont, United States.

Thresher, P. 1972. African National Parks and Tourism - an Interlinked Future. Biological Conservation 4(4):279-284.

Thresher, P. 1981. The Present Value of an Amboseli Lion. World Animal Review 40:30-33.

Tourism Forecasting Council. 1995. Forecast. Vol. 1, No. 2., Canberra, ACT.

Turner, Miles. 1988. My Serengeti Years: The Memoirs of an African Game Warden. W. W. Norton and Co., London, United Kingdom.

Valentine, Peter S. 1992. Nature-based Tourism. Pages 105-127 in B. Weiler and C. M. Hall. Special Interest Tourism. Bellhaven Press, London, UK.

Van Sickle, Kerry and Paul F. J. Eagles. 1997. Budgets, Pricing Policies and User Fees in Canadian Parks’ Tourism. Unpublished paper submitted to Tourism Management.

Weiler, B. and C. M. Hall. 1992. Special Interest Tourism. Bellhaven Press, London, UK.

Wescott, Geoff. 1993. Loving our parks to death? Habitat Australia 21(1):14-19.

Wescott, Geoff. 1995. Victoria’s National Park System: Can the Transition from

Quantity of Parks to Quality of Management be Successful? Australian Journal of Environmental Management 4(2):210-223.

Western, David and Wesley Henry. 1979. Economics and Conservation in Third World National Parks. BioScience 29(7): 414-418.

Wilkie, Karen and Paul F. J. Eagles. 1997. A National Survey of Tourism Use in Canadian National and Provincial Parks Unpublished data, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada .

World Resources Institute, World Conservation Union and United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy. Gland, Switzerland.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks is given to the School of Leisure Studies at Griffith University in Brisbane Australia for their kindness in providing office facilities for the preparation of parts of this paper during a 1995 academic visit. Lachland Fullerton and Keith Twyford of the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage provided excellent background on the Fraser Island World Heritage area. Terry Brown and Norm McIntyre of Griffith University, Jim Sharp of Western Australia Parks, Graham Parkes of Grampians National Park, Rod Hillman at the Kingfisher Resort, Warren Pateman at the Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort, Jill Grant of the Department of Tourism, John Watson of CALM in Albany, Neil McCarthy of Victoria Parks, Brett Cheatly of Melbourne Parks and Waters, Ross Dowling of Notre Dame University and Elery Hamilton-Smith of Melbourne provided valuable advice. Beate Ratter of the University of Hamburg gave insightful comments on the paper. Adrian Phillips, the Chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas, and Patricia Garffer, an intern at the WCPA, provided helpful comments. Thanks to the Director of the Tanzania National Parks Service, Mr. Lota Melamari, for advice during a 1997 visit to national parks of Tanzania.