G1 5 5A l253 /1 9 8 9

l ***t****t***t*****t*****************

ECOTOURISM:

THE UNEASY ALLIANCE

Conservation I"ter"atio"a1

Ernst L Young

Fall 1989

First in conservation Inter"atio"al*8 Serias ot

working Papers om ecotourisr

This report is the outcome of a one mcnth study sponsored byConservation International through its Mexico Program and Ernst 6Young to begin a synthesis of available infonoation on ecotourism.This research lays the grcundwcrk for evaluating whether ecotourism isa viable method fcr.promoting and financing conservation and economicdevelopment in less developed countries (LDc's). This study focuseson the marketplace for nature-based travel in the U.S. and thevariables which determine the impact of travel c" the destinationcommunity.

The cutput of this study includes this written report andaccompanying exhibits, a final presentation to the staff ofConservation International and Ernst 6 Young, a summary c.f interviewsconducted, the beginrings of a database of ccntacts in the field, anda file collection of research including articles from academicjournals and the popular press, reports from other organizations, andliterature from tour operators and tourism offices.

The goal of "ecotourism I0 is to capture a portion of the enormousglobal tourism market by attracting visitors to natural areas andusing the L-eve"ues to fund local conservation and fuel economicdevelopment. One journalist explains, ecotcurism is a "brash,pragmatic "ew concept that mires modern conservation theories withgood old-fashioned money-making...it is the point at which capitalismand conservation join together to fight for the same cause: wildlifepreservation, at a profit." (Mexico Journal, 1989) ""fortunately,this alliance between business and conservation is not alwaysharmonious or easy to achieve. While there are often economicincentives tc entice business people to invest in tourism, there alenot always the incentives tc make them invest in ecologically-soundprojects that benefit local people.

Ecotourism is currently a "hot" topic. The fury is predictable.It is a mcvement that potentially involves billions of dollars. high-level politics, the survival of threatened cultures, and thepreservation of rapidly disappearing wildlands. Advocates support th<concept as a forceful method for achieving the elusive goal of"sustainable development." Critics argue that it is an experimentthat has been tried and failed. They Warn that conservationistsintoxicated by the promises of ecctourism will open the gates todestruction on the very lands they are trying tc protect. "The bigproblem with tourists," the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, "is theyoften defile the very thing they have core tc revere. Even the mostrespectful by dint of their numbers and commercial potential, vind UPdestroying the authenticity and the environment of the places they

1

isit." (PI, 1989) "any in the debate SrS gravitating to the middleround, recognizing both the potential and the pitfalls.

The relevance of ecotourism rSSts on three propositions:

. ecotourism can promote and finance conservation;

. ecotaurism can promote Snd finance economic development; and

. ecotourism gone amok can destroy the rSsourcSS it seeks. to protect.

!onsenration is enhanced when host governments are convinced that.here is an economic rationale for establishing protected areas. Arell-known Study conducted in Kenya's Amboselli National Park valued!ach lion at $27,000 per year and each elephant herd at $610,000 perear in terms af visitor revSn"SS. Another study showed that the parkrielded net earnings (mostly from tourism) of $40/hectare per yearrhich was fifty times greater than the net profits expected fromoptimistic agricultural projections. (Both of theSe studies are cited." McNeely, 1988) These studies explain the Slogan that in Eastifrica "wildlife pays so wildlife Stays." (Kutay, 1989) The WorldleSo"rcSS Institute pinpoints the importance of tourism by concluding,'although Sow 7,000 protected areas exist throughout the world,comparatively few enjoy de facto protection, and most of those thatlo, can attribute their survival to the revenue they earn from:o"riSm." (as cited in Warner, 1989)

Tourism ha5 made a dramatic economic impact on many lessdeveloped countries. According to U.N. statistics tourism generatedj55 billion for developing countries in 1988, making it the second1SrgSS.t earner after oil. (South Magazine, 1989) In Kenya tourismShould be the top earner cf foreign exchange in 1989, surpassing teaand coffee: in Egypt tourism takes the number two Slot; and in Mexicothe tourist trade accounts for 4% of its gross domestic product.totalling $2.5 billion in 1988. (South Magazine, 1989) In addition tobringing in badly needed foreign exchange, to"Fism is lauded for itsrole in diversifying the economy, bolstering employment, Spreadingbenefits to rural areas, encouraging the rational "Se of marginallands, and promoting infrastructure projects which serve other Sectorsof the economy.

Yet, tourism has a darker side, and critics claim its costs faroutweigh its benefits. Travel to natural areaS in some countriescontributed to the Serious destruction of the environment includingtrail SroSiOn and pollution from litter, disruption of wildlifemigrations. buildup of algal growth in water supplies due to improperwaste disposal, and depletion of natural rSSo"rcSS from hunting andplant collection. Tourism hae also trampled over several cultures -its intrusion most dramatically portrayed by whole villages decidingto move to escape the onslaught.

Tourism is not Solely responsible for what some consider economicDL- neo-colonialism. One comnrentator concludes, "the influence offoreigners is less intrusive today than it Was 20 or even 10 yearsago. Now, TV and advertising will have a more pervasive effect onSocial morSS than will tourism." (South, 1989) often tines It is nottourism, but poorly planned tourism, that can be blamed fordeleterious effects. Ecotourism, in contrast, is by definition aplanned approach which must carefully assess the~impacts and benefitsbefore development begins. Ecotourism can even enhance local culturalintegrity because *Ucaref"lly designed interpretive programs can makethe park a focus for fostering local knowledge, Skills and lifestylesto perpetuate traditional values among indigenous people and toeducate outsiders about their culture." (Kutay, 1989)

The economic rewards from either conventional or nature tourismare also under debate. Commenting on the situation in Per", theBartolome de las CaSaS Andean Studies Center Says 'ltourism has notbeen the answer to the region's development problems... much of themoney coming in SS a result of tourism returns to privately-ownedcompanies, many of which are not based in Peru." (Cunningham, 1989)The Center does not believe tourism ha translated into a tourist boomfor the area (Cuzco) and a resident addS that those that do work a5craftspeople, for example, '...receive very little and work Stxploitative rates." (Cunningham, 1989) Again, the goal of ecotourism

is to rely an country rSSourceS and businesses to maximize theeconomic benefits for the local area.

Tourism's direct assaults can be compounded by indirect damages.Wealthy tourists often drive up the cost of living in the visited areaand demand Scarce reso"rceS, Such as firewood, causing S localscramble to meet these needs even if it means cutting down the lastremaining trees. Moreover, as tourism accounts for an increasinglyhigher percentage of the economy, the region becomes dependent onthese revenues and vulnerable to fluctuations in demand. This.undermines the original goal of "sing tourism to diversify theeconomy. The UN reports that whereas tourism receipts account for 3%of GNP in western countries, they maka up between 25 and 52% of GNP inthe Caribbean and the Seychelles. In reviewing the overall impact Oftourism JeSus Delgada, a professor of preservation management at theUniversity of sao Paula, summarizes the tourism threat by remarking,"tourism can no longer be Separatad from other man-made disruptions ofthe ecology, such as mining and deforcStation.n (Harrington, 1989)

Thus the tourism dilemma is Set. Nature tourism promotion offershuge reSo"rceS, and promise, for the conservation of these areas andthe economic benefit of surrounding communities. These reSo"rcSS maybe Sought, however, at the risk of jumping out of the proverbial potinto the fire. What should be done? HOW can ConservationInternational and Ernst & Young harness the power of tourism whileSteering clear of the mistakes of the past? one possibility is thepromotion and implementation of "ecotourism" policies and programs-,Properly planned and administered ecotarism m.ay make it possible, In

certain natural areas, to manage the tourism flow in order to maxipizethe benefits and limit the negative impacts. The complete resolutionof the ecotourism debate is beyond the scope of this paper. hut byfocusing on e few key areas Of the debate there is hopefu+ly InsIghtinto where the leverage points are for cultivating effectiveecotourism policies end programs. This paper examines the nature-based travel marketplace in the U.S. It also discusses come of thevariables which determine what effect tourism will have on the hostcountry. This overview is intended to analyze current conditions andexpose e~ees where improvements can be made.

Conservation International, Ernst and Young, and otherconservation-minded groups should escalate their involvement now.. Theopportunity is ripe. The need is great, the awarenese is growing,initiatives are being launched, and major funding sources areseriously considering sizable projects in this area. The time hascome to make ecotourism a workable concept. However, unless we gobelow the eurfece of the debate end detenoine the real viability ofthe activity, we could he opening up a "Pandora's Box" and destroy thenatural resource on Which the proposed developnent is based! or byfalsely assuming that funds will be available for conservation,discover too late that the activity is not profitable.

After defining what ecotourism "Ought to be" (part I), this paperexamines the U.S. marketplace to determine the extent andcharacteristics of nature-based tourism demand, the distributionchannel for nature-based trips, and the cast of major suppliers (PartII). Part III looks at host country variables which decide if thepromised benefits of ecotourism are realized.

4

Kurt Kutay, thePromotes responsible

owner of en adventure travel company thattravel, takes a different tack in his definition,

Which focuses on the vital role of the host country. He writes,"Ecatourism is now seen es a model of development in which naturalareae are planned as part of the tourisln base and biological reeOurce~are clearly linked t0 social economic s,ectOrs.n (Kutay, 1989)

5

PART I: SETTING THE S T A G E

Ecotourism is a concept still-in its infancy. Consequently,there is considerable confusion over what ecotourism "is" es well asdebate regarding its value. The term has eluded firm definitionbecause it is a complex notion which ambitiously attempts to describean activity, set forth a philosophy, end espouse a model ofdevelopment.

There are at least ten terixs, and many more variants, which areoften wed interchangeably with ecotourism. To distinguish betweenthese terw is more than a semantic debate. The terns aresubstantively different and should he kept separate. The marketinglanguage of the travel brochures needs to he disentangled from theconsecration end development concepts.

One category of terms is merely descriptive. The expressionsnature-travel, adventure-travel, and cultural-travel, seglnent tourist!based on what activities they participate in during their visit.Another category of terns are value-based. The phrases, responsibletourism, alternative tourism, and ethical travel, highlight the needfor considering the approach end ii-apact of travel regardless Of theactivities pursued. Hector Ceballos-Lascurain eloquently combinesthese tw0 aspects, the activity and the approach, in his definition 01ecotourism:

Vouris<that involves travelling to relatively undisturbedor uncontaminated natural areae with the specific object ofstudying, admiring, end enjoying the scenery and its wildpla?ts and animals, as well as any existing cultural aspects(both pest and present) found in these weas. Ecological'tourism implies a scientific, aesthetic or philosophicalapproach, although the ecological tourist is not required tobe a professional scientist, artist or philosopher. Themain point is that the person who practices ecotourism hasthe opportunity of immersing him or herself in nature in away most people cannot enjoy in their routine, urbanexistences. This person will eventually acquire aconsciousness... that will convert him into somebody keenlyinvolved in conservation issues..." (Ceballos-Lascurain,1988,

These concepts clarify the differences between the commonnomenclature. "Nature-tourism", for example, is grounded in thebehavior and motivation of the individual whereas "ecotourism" is amore comprehensive concept which is based on a planned approach by ahost country or region designed to achieve societal objectives heyon<(but including) those of the tourist. Nature-tourism is notnecessarily ecologically sound, as numerous examples around the globsillustrate. In an attempt to unite the above definitions, thefollowing hybrid is offered (see Exhibit 1):

Ecotourisn: A form of tourism inspired primarily by thenatural history of an area. including its indigenouscultures. The ecotourist visits relatively undevelopedareas in the spirit of appreciation, participation andsensitivity. The ecotourist practices a non-consumptive useof wildlife and natural resources and contributes to thevisited area through labor or financial means aimed atdirectly benefiting the conservation of the site and theeconomic well-being of the local residents. The visitshould strengthen the ecotourist's appreciation anddedication to conservation issues in general, and to thespecific needs of the locale. Ecotourism a150 implies amanaged approach by the host country or region which commitsitself to establishing and maintaining the sites with theparticipation of local residents marketing themappropriately. enforcing regulations, and using the proceedsof the enterprise to fund the area's land management as wellas community development.

This definition establ,isbes tough standards for a program ordestination to qualify as ecotourism. It may seem overly complex.The needs of conservation and development, however, are inherentlycomplex, and successful approaches will need to be multi-faceted.

In this paper "nature-tourism" will often be used to describecurrent practices, which may not meet the above criteria. Tnis termshould be simply understood as "leisure travel to participate inoutdoor activities utilizing the natural resources of an area."(Ingram and Durst, 1987) Much of the research in this area uses thisterm to describe aspects of what is currently happening. l~EcotourismvWill always refer to the goal of well-managed and constructive nature-tourism as described above.

Exhibit 2 maps out a simple segmentation of the overall tourismmarket. At the first level tourism can be broken down into three main:categories depending on the primary purpose of the trip: 1) business,government affairs or study, Z),visit friends or relatives, and 3)vacation and leisure. Vacation and leisure travel can be split Ibetween traditional and specialty travel. Traditional travelrepresents mainstream tourism to developed areas to pursue

6

L

conventional activities. The main goals of traditional travel axerelaxation and entertainment. Specialty travel, in contrast, is basedon travel to undeveloped areas or the pursuit of unique activities.The principal motivation for specialty travel is personal developmentand growth (see customer motivation section for a more in-depthdiscussion).

Both traditional and specialty travel can be further broken downinto nature-based and non-nature-based segments. Exhibit 2 displaysthe various categories of nature-based specialty travel. Each ofthese categories can be defined along a number of intensity dimensionssuch as the degree of physical rigor or the depth of scientific study.within the industry there is a common distinction between "hard" and"soft" travel. Hard travel may refer to a very physically deinM$gtrip or to a sophisticated and dedicated research endeavor.other end of the spectrum, soft travel entails less demanding physicalactivity or refers to hobbyists dabbling in scientific activities.

The primary market for ecotourism is nature-based specialtytravel. This segment represents people who are drawn by the naturalendowment of an area and want to enjoy the destination in a uniquellla"IleT. This goes part way to the full definition of ecotourism. Itshould be emphasized again that nature-based specialty travel is notequivalent to ecotourism, but these are the chief customers. Giventhe proper context, nature tourists could be acatourists.

Ecotourism does not have to be limited to the current customersfor nature-based tourism. The arrows in Exhibit 2 demarcate thepotential markets for ecotourism customers. starting from the bottom,non-nature-ba&sd specialty travelers could be enticed to take anature-based trip. similarly, non-nature-based traditional travelerscould begin by trying a traditional nature-based trip and ultimatelyexperiment with specialty nature-based travel. At the highest level,non-vacation travelers could be encouraged to spend a portion bf theirvisits for vacation and leisure and trickle down the maze toecotourism. Jeanne Beekhuis, a private travel and tourism consultant,has questioned the value of segmenting the travel market because sheclaim "everyone crosses over" the lines. (beekhuis, 1989) Sheexplains that the total travellinq market could be interested inthings ecologically oriented and therefore they should not be rigidlyseparated into exclusive groups. Her point is well taken and hercomments support the nation of segments flowing into one anotheg. Thesegmentation, though necessarily somewhat artificial, can help toclarify the thinking about major market groups and how to package andsell ecotourism destinations. In addition, conventional tourists whomay be attracted to developed natural areas (e.g. Niagara Falls) needto be educated about the value and beauty of natural areas in theiroriginal state.

7

further complicated by the record keeping of host countries which maynot accurately track visitors and their spending Patterns. There isscattered data on the number of nature tourists and expenditures toindividual destinations, and some countries have gatheredsignificantly more data than others.

one preliminary estimate suggests that nature-based tourismdollars to ~~c's.from visitors of industrialized~ countries amounts toapproximately $2 billion. This number is arrived at in the followingcrude fashion: United Nations figures indicate that $25 billion intourism dollars flow from North to South each year (Kutay, 1989). 'AXAmerican Express study found that overall, personal travel represents66% of total tourism spending. Experts estimate that nature-travelrepresents about 10% of Personal and leisure travel for Americans andEuropeans. Thus:

$25 billion x 66% x 10% = $1.7 billion Per year spent on nature travejin less developed countries by tourists from industrialized countries.

Working in the other direction, some tour operators report that 4-6million Americans travel overseas for nature travel each year. Areview of available trips suggest that the average cost (not includin!airfare) is $3,000. Thus:

4 million X $3,000 = $12 billion spent per year by U.S. citizenstravelling to overseas for nature-travel. LDc's would then receive aPortion of this pie.

Clearly these are not scientifically derived statistics. They dohowever indicate the general magnitude of the nature-travel market,-egardless of how ill-defined it is. "be,, these n"mbers were Passed'2~ tour operators some felt the range was conservative, others favorer:he lower end. perhaps this is verification that the range is atieast reasonable. However, under the strict definition of ecotourismproposed above, these numbers diminish considerably. There are fewsites in the world today that can qualify as pure ecotourism based onthose stringent criteria.

There is consensus among experts in the field that nature travelis on the rise. A few excerpts from their comments confirm this view

"Studies of U.S. tour operators and international tourists show thatspecial interest travel is booming and the most popular specialinterest tours are nature-oriented outdoor activities." (Ingram andD"rst, 1987,

"Most experts agree that ecotourism is substantial and growing."(Hawkins, 1989)

9

"compared to business and conventional pleasure travel, nature-oriented trips are a small but increasingly significant part oftourism to developing countries." (Kutay, 1989)

There is some evidence to suggest that the number of nature-tourists is growing in the neighborhood of 20% per year. The basisfor this estimate is interviews with several tour operators who areexperiencing this level of growth, expert estimates, and the entryrate of tour operators into the industry. One measure of this entryrate is the number of tour operators advertising in The specialtyTravel Index. The number of tour operators advertising nature-toursin this index increased approximately 229 between the 1986 Fall/Winterissue and the 1987 Spring/summer issue. (Ingram and Dust, 1987)

The continued growth of the nature-travel market is substantiatedby analyzing the underlying elements of demand. The underlying forcesfeeding this demand are fundamental and long-term.

There are three primary factors influencing the level ofecotourism demand: overall tourism growth, the growth in specialtytravel, and increasing awareness and concern for the environnent.::ach of these primary factors are in turn influenced by a number ofelements (see Exhibit 4). Overall tourism, for example, is expectedto grow by about 4% per year for the next ten years because of macrofactors such as population growth, rising world incomes andemployment, shorter work weeks in many parts of the world, and theincreasing globalization of the world's economies and societies.Industry and technology advances have effected change through easingcommunications and transportation and lowering airfares (thoughairfares may be on the rise again). Finally, cultural dynamics alsoleave their mark as evidenced by the change in attitudes aboutvacation time amongst professional Japanese.considered reluctant vacationers,

The Japanese, oncewere the second largest spenders on

personal travel in 1987. (c. Starr Atwood, 1989; South, 1989)

The rapid growth of specialty travel is fueled by some of thesame factors as overall tourism, but there are a number of additionalexplanations. The boom in outdoor recreation and the increasingawareness of health and fitness have revised people's attitudes abouthow they should spend their vacations. One adventure travel aqentexplains that many of her clients mention that their doctor insiststhey go on a walking vacation or that they do not disrupt theirfitness routine during their trip. (Halty, 1989)

On the supply side of travel, many traditional destinations havereached a saturation point and tour operators have packaged exoticlocales to peddle to consumers looking for an escape from the throngs.In their review of the travel industry, Coopers & Lybrand, a" industryconsultant, points out that "...the grawth,in travel volume maystrain...same tourist destinations during peak seasons... this

STI

XS

3D

”D

W-I

3lV

Yd

OH

dd

V H

UM

s3a

m a

3N

ww

iim

~33.

IFB

lrM

sm

ND

llOK

kld

ON

VW

lEJh

W4

tlOd

1N

Vltl

Od

Wl

,.T,

Vl3

3d

S3--

Fisl

trD

l3A

u~

3d

d3

do

w3b

l*N

OIlV

NllS

3a

IV

s3

llrll3

vd

ONV

3s~

w~

-103

cw

,w

rms

3tm

l3n

UlS

\M

dN

I d

o x

x-l

-S3

US

3lV

lIJd

O8d

dV

JO

M N

OLl

dW

d3d

013A

uIS

FRS

*A

”3V

dW

PW

.WW

, ,v

it0.%

MO

1N

0113

310!

dd

IM

DY

dn

SN

I *

fINI’J

MO

t(3

013h

lllSN

3S

*

SlN

lVtl

lSN

03

Ald

drl

SS

lNlV

US

N03

ON

VW

30

Ald

dllS

llW

l1

ON

V (

INV

WO

N3d

WV

’a H

3lH

M S

kiO

13V

d A

S E

lNlV

tllS

N03

OS

lVS

I II

1nC

l ‘S

aN

3H

l W

EU

-DN

Ol

O

NV

lV

lN3W

VO

Nn

zl A

S E

llX

k!

SI

WS

ltK

l01

03

3 d

0 H

lMO

tlD

3H

l

MO

TIV

AT

ION

S

FO

R

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ING

IN

S

PE

CIA

LT

Y

TR

AV

EL

CH

AN

GE

Sy/

SH

OR

TER

WO

RK

IN;

b0U

RS

CO

MP

OS

ITIO

NW

OR

K.

RE

LA

X

EN

TE

RT

AIN

DE

LES

S P

HY

SIC

ALL

Y D

EM

AN

DIN

G W

OR

K,

bB

ETT

ER

ED

UC

ATI

ON

/

l

EX

CIT

EM

EN

T/M

YS

TIO

UE

SO

CIA

L

AS

PE

CT

S

. WE

ST

FO

R A

NE

W E

XP

ER

IEN

CE

. H

AV

E S

EE

N O

THE

R P

LAC

ES

. N

EW

S

CE

NE

RY

/AR

TS/C

ULT

UR

E.

CO

MP

ET

ITIO

N.

RIS

K A

ND

DA

NG

ER

. S

ING

LE B

UT

DO

NO

T W

AN

T TO

TR

AV

EL

ALO

NE

OR

TO

DE

STI

NA

TIO

NS

TH

AT

AR

E C

OU

PLE

OR

FA

MIL

Y-O

RIE

NTE

D.

ME

ET

INTE

RE

STI

NG

PE

OP

LE W

ITH

CO

MM

ON

IN

TER

ES

TS.

SE

EK

PE

RS

ON

AL

BO

ND

ING

WIT

H S

MA

LL G

RO

UP

S(F

AM

ILY

, FR

IEN

DS

. C

OLL

EA

GU

ES

O

R

STR

AN

GE

RS

).

CO

CK

TA

IL C

ON

VE

RS

AT

ION

. FU

N A

ND

RE

LAX

ATI

ON

PE

RS

ON

AL

GR

OW

TH

PH

YS

ICA

L

FIT

NE

SS

. IN

TE

LLE

CT

UA

L.

WA

NT

VA

CA

TIO

N T

O F

IT I

NT

O A

CT

IVE

LIF

E S

TY

LEE

DU

CA

TIO

N-‘L

IVIN

G

TR

OP

ICA

L. H

EALT

H

CO

NC

ERN

SLA

BO

RA

TOR

IES

. N

EW A

ND

GR

EATE

R C

HAL

LEN

GES

. E

MO

TIO

NA

L*

RED

UC

E ST

RES

S-

BE

A

LO

NE

. S

PIR

ITU

AL

‘AD

APTE

D F

RO

MF

IALT

REND

S A

ND

TO

UR

ISM

FU

TUR

ES

: MA

RTI

N A

ND

MA

SO

N ,

987

S3J

FC

E:N

AN

RE

F

l4V

ELW

TH

ET

-IA

AF

MA

NA

ND

WR

ST

.I~

VIE

WS

Wl~

TW

RO

PE

R4T

OR

SA

ND

CU

ST

WE

RS

.

Ogilvy, director of research for the Values and Lifestyles Program atSRI International, reaches a similar conclusion. He writes, "thegrowth of our economy is no longer driven by the desires of cons"mersto accumulate goods. It is driven by the consmer's quest for vividexperience." (American Demographics, December 198.5) ogilvy points tothe rapid rise in overseas travelers and the increasing market foradventuresome experiences to justify his point.

The combination of a search for activities involving'*development" and "experience 'I illuminates the motivations forspecialty travel in general, and nature travel in particular.Interviews with several advent"fe travel and nat"re travel touroperators confirm that while clients for their trips come in allshapes and sizes, one generalization can be made: people Want toexperience something new and meaningful.

InterviewS with to"= operators reveal that nature-travelc"StomerS are varied and from all walks of life. Alan Camera", fromWilderness Travel, ncteS that the one common characteristic of hisclients is their desire to have "an active learning vacation... off-the-beaten track... they want to enter the reality of the situation."His clients vary from 20-70 years old (median age of SO).(Cameron,1989) Jon Wood, a luxury tour operator, caterG to professional peoplenear retirement age, b"t he mentione that in the last five years hisclientele has gotten younger, with many in their 40's. He attributesthis change to the "turnoff with popular destinations and artificialexperiences." His clients are well-educated and ~~Sophisticated~~ andthey are searching for an authentic experience. (Wood, 1989) SteYeColon, from Above the Clo"ds trekking, comments that he works for the"discernin~traveller"foreign cultures.

who wan& to both explore and share withHis clients are concentrated between the ages of

30-50. and 60-659 are women. (Colon, 1989) Finally, Pat Halty, of ~11Adventure Travel, points to two clear groups of customers: "dualincome no children couples" (dints) and the "empty nesters" (oldercouple whose children have left home). These two groups have highlevels of disposable income to spend on specialty travel. (Halty,1989)

There have been a few surveys of U.S. adults which Study theirmotivation for participating in outdoor recreation or their reasonsfor joining adventure travel trips. The President's Commission on theOutdoors sponsored research which included a survey of 2000 Americanadults regarding their attit"deS toward outdoor recreation. Theresearch uncovered five major reasons why Americans participate inoutdoor recreation: fitness, social interaction, excitement,experience self and nat"re, escape a feeling of being in crampedSpSCeS. This list was very similar to a list developed from theresearch on c"stomer motivations for adventure and nat"re travel. Thetwo lists tiere merged under four categories: excitement/mystique,Social aspects, personal growth, and physical fitness. Thesecategories are shown in detail in Exhibit 5.

The Market opinion Research Group, who conducted the study forthe President's Commission, divided the S"rvey respondents into fivepsychographic classifications. A psychographic description is basedon the needs and motivations of consumers rather than where they liveor how much they make. A description of these groups, their primarymotivation for participating in outdoor activities, and their overallcharacteristics, is summarized in Exhibit 6. This segmentation issignificant beca"se.the groups vary greatly by the level of theirparticipation in certain outdoor activities. Exhibit 7 shows that the"Get Away Active" (WA) group more frequently participates in the typeof activity that is common to nature-based travel. Thus, the profileof the "Get Away Active" pereon provides insight into the typicaltraveler for this kind of a trip. This information is useful becauSethe primary motivation for a G&A is to "experience nature*, and thissuggests they are excellent candidates for ecotourisn, who may bewilling to forego fancy developments for more rustic facilities.

This analysis is also useful for predicting demand trends. Since48% of GM'S SIX “baby boomers” and will be soon entering their primeincome earning years, they should fuel nature travel groeth.Moreover, members from the more rigorous categories are expected toconvert to GAA'S as they get older, swelling the ranks of this group.This is good news for the nat"re travel business, as "this(demographic shift) will boost the demand for parks, marinas, bicyclepaths, nature preserves, and other recreational facilities for decadesto come." (Furyant, 1987)

Specifically regarding travel, many experts in the industrydiscuss a change in attitudes which sbo"ld support an increase indemand for ecotourism. Arthur Frommer's recent book, The New World ofw, "reflects a massive dissatisfaction by large numbers ofAmericans with simplistic travels offered by established travel firmsand facilities." (Philadelphia Inquirer) Kutay adds "we find there isa growing interest among adventure travellers to be more than j."st apassing taurist...many Seek opportunities to make an activecontribution to conservation or community development by their visit."(Kutay, 1989) It is the responsibility of the host country, assistedby the international conservation community, to define and encouragethis contribution.

Demoaraohics

The previous section, based on general outdoor recreation trendsand tour operator interviews, concluded that en understanding ofcustomer motivations was more important than other types of consumerclassifications. Once the motivations are clearly understood, itwould be helpful to See if there are Soy general demographic trends.One of the few available studies on the adventure travel market per seis a two part survey in 1987 of Adventure Travel nagazine Readers.

13 14

6t *

x9

9Y

XOI

6P

XEE

SE

%EE

2s

X9L

3DV NVl(13W

slinav xx7d0 30VlN33U3d

- mwum3ak-tlN3wmx3msnmvl-nSM 1ONssmlld-rmmSN3tRhM-mccs?wxs-iwxs

3ss3tu.1d 3mv3ao13mm mwva wsrd1U SNld33MhHL-,VZlH ONld33X 3tmlVN33MM3dX3 3CM-l-MGSM

s3iaw3os3Al1113dW03a31VAllOWNnSnODSN033Al13VDNlY33S

3 a3sS3tllSNnNZ’AltlO-SS3NlId-HllV3HAVMV LID-1NBW3213X3

S3dAl MOOOUlO 3lHdVKJOH3hSd Wild

NOIlVAIlORhtwaN033S

NOllVAllORAklVWlUd

htlODUV3

NOllV’3t133tl tlOO(31nO NI NOllVdlC)llWd t1Od NOllVAllOk’..W3Hl NO G’3SVS SdtlOtlD 3lHdV’t100H3hSd tiOPVW E!hld OlNl ‘33(1lAlCl 38 NV’3 SNtQlt13W’i

a32vAllOwNn3 a3SS3l4lSNllN3AItla-SS3NlI

.

I S3dAl lAOOtlllIO 3lHdW9OH3hSd 3hld

oNIH3lviAaw3/3~lllVN

DNlUVti/DNI)IVhVXIDNl30NV3

E)NldWV’3 LElHlO

DNldWV3 IN31

996L MI N3UO3N00 S3lllAl13V

The surveys found that the typical adventure traveller is an affluentman approaching middle age. (This may reflect some survey biasbecause tour cperators report that now ~Cmen make up "early half Oftheir customers.) Other majcr findings included:

Age: majority between 35-54: rm2dian age of 35;

Income: median income of $38,800-, but represents both endsof the inCome scale, 259 earn less than $25,000and 10% earn greater than $100,000:

HOme state: 33% frcm Mountain and Pacific States;

*verage amountspent cn each trip: $4,623, spending begins before the trip with

accessories, equipment, etc.;

Average 'experiencetrips" per year: 3;

MCst popularadventures: involve backpacking, hiking CT camping;

Plans *orthe future: for nearly every adventure in the survey, mCre

people planned to go in 1988 than in 1987, leadingtc a prediction that 16 million people will takeadventwe travel trips ever the next 20 years if"scft" trips included.

Decision Hakina Criteria

Scme consumers seem to chocse theiractivities first (e.g.hiking) arid then ChcCse a destinatiCn that is well-known for thisactivity. Others select the destination and then choose activitiesfrCm those available. TOW operators are chosen cn the basis of theirqualifications, their knowledge of the area, the types cf trips theyplan and the convenience and flexibility of their itineraries.clients do not seem tc be overly concerned with the price of the trip(for moderate to expensive trips) nor do they seem to dwell deeplyinto the philosophy of the tour operator. I" a survey Cf tcuroperators, Customers were seen tc be mcst concerned with the touroperators qualifications and the health and sanitation of thefacilities. These operators felt that cnly 2% of their Clients were"very concerned" With host country attitudes and only 22% were "veryconcerned" with ~Csts. (PPEI US)

Interviews with tcur operators confirmed these results. Theymentioned that Customers were generally happy when they discoveredthat the tour operator was making special effcrts tc support localprojects, but that it was not generally a key decision factor forchoosing that operator. One tour operator remarked that his clients

15

appreciate their automatic membership to the African wildlife Fund,but he does not believe they would choose his operation beCause of it.Fcr now, he explains, they are not marketing to the segment thatreally Cares about conservation. Other operators who have madesignificant commitments to local groups, often do not use theirinvolvement as a marketing tool.changing.

This may be a trend that isMany operators have given "lip service" to the notion of

environmental and cultural sensitivity,to turn into tangible actions.

but this verbiage is starting

major U.S. tour operators,Overseas Adventure Travel, one of the

recently issued a press release thatprcmctes ecotourism and explains how OAT is doing its part. OATproudly claims, "OAT is a conservation-oriented company with manyprograms world-wide that contribute directly to the preservation ofscme of the finest and most delicate wildlife refuges in the world."(Overseas Adventure Tra"e1 press Release October, 1989) Other groupsare also becoming increasingly involved in directly addressing localneeds and Ccn~erns (see Supplier section).

The demand for nature-based travel is based an many fundamentaland long-term trends. The aging of the baby bocmer population, forexample, suggests that those involved in these activities will becentering their peak earning years and that those who have been mere+arts-oriented may switch to activities that are less rigorous butinvolve the observation of nature.

Custcmers pursue specialty travel primarily for one underlyingreason: to pursue a new experience that leads to personal growth orenrichment. For those attracted to nature, these desires may take theform of natural history tours tc exotic or undisturbed areas. Thereare numerous additional motivations that drive the demand for naturetEwe1. CUstCmer groups can be identified based on the importance ofthe different motivations. These groups have unique characteristicswhich can be useful to marketers trying to target particular segmentsand to host country policy makers trying tc package destinations whichwill attract a particular segment.

The "Get Away Active" group is a prime market for nature travel.It represents one-third of American adults, and their primarymotivation for outdoor recreation is to experience nature. The needsof this group should be specifically addressed when sites aredeveloped and marketed. This group may seek "softer" CT supportedtou-s because they are not the risk takers. In additicn, they seeksolitude which means the "enjoyment capacity" of a site may belimited.

Perhaps the mcst important conclusion abcut customers is theunderstanding that they are inner-directed in their motives anddecision making process. They are concerned with the uniqueness and¶u$ity of the experience, the safety and hygiene of the trip, and theability to schedule the trip Where they yant, when they want. They

16

rtl

3lV

S3lO

HM

I

-

s3

aw

-tl3

hO

~N

lltilV

9%

09’-

oc

mtl

vw

7la

av

3d

ow

ws

n

lN3t

.W 1

3A

VU

lkl

OlV

’t13d

O(a

Nn

oeln

0)

tln

ol

L

dllX

tlV

W%

OF

OE

tiO

lVt1

3dO

aN

no

w

S33l

htJ3

S 3

0V

MV

d-

S33l

At1

3SS

KIV

lN03

lV301-

301t

tOtId

*

All3

.

~O

rvW

nvl

ldv’

331

lS-N

O

HO

lVti

3dO

SH

n3N

3tld

3tU

N3

(aN

no

l3N

I) (I

NV

llV

’301

3m

xm

ls m

lsn

aN

1

local providers. In Britain and the U.S., tour operators account formost Vhird world holiday bookings.' (South Magazine, 1989)

The travel agent is the ultimate retail outlet. Travel agentshave not been a popular distribution channel for adventure travel andnat"re +_ourS because many tour 0peratorS do not believe that SgS"tSare sufficiently informed about the destination or the style of travelto'sell the trip properly and manage client expectations. Someindustry experts say. however, that there is an increasing trend oftravel agents booking these types of tourS and there are now seminarsavailable for agents to learn more about the industry. (ASTA Brochure,1989, A survey of tour operators in 1987 disclosed that travel agentsreferred 25% of respondent's clients.

Tour operators based in the U.S. function mainly Ss marketing andSSlSS entities. (Ashton, 1989) They produce Slick brochures andhandle all customer relations before the trip begins. TO"= operatorslink up with inbound operators who are responsible for putting theactual vacation package together. The lines between the outbound andinbound operators are often blurred. Several outbound operators mayalso function partially aS inbound operators and become very involvedwith the details and the arrangements in the country. This dualfunction is especially true of tour operators who have special ties toa country (e.g. .S firm run by ex-Peace Corps volunteers) or one thathas been operating in a country for a long time with a volume tojustify making errangenents: independently. wilderness Travel, forexamole. u*eS inbound operators,in Costa Rica but SrranaSS their owntour; in PSN. (Cameron; 1989,

The travel business, nature travel included, is reportedly verycompetitive with slim margins (see economics section). It is also anindustry of privately-owned businesses where agencies and firms arerun by the founders who are generally intimately involved wit\ thechoice of destinations and how business is conducted.

In many ways the specialty travel industry, which SncompassSsnature travel, Sear6 extremely fragmented. Indeed, the publisher ofspecialty Travel Index commented that he has a file of 9,000-10,000potential advertisers. (Alpine, 1989) others estimate that there are5,000 or ncre tour operators involved with adventure and/or naturetravel. This fragmentation is mainly limited to the retail side Ofthe business. In the U.S. there are only a handful of to"= OperatorSwho sell the majority of business for general adventure and nSturStravel. Mountain travel is the recognized leader (sending Out 3,000people per year) followed by a second tier group including OverSSaSAdventure Travel, Wilderness Travel, and Journeys. There arethousands of boutique shops that sell pieces of these larger tours, 0Iconstruct their own trips for a specialized market niche.

The industry is also less fragmented when the inbound operatorsare considered. In many countries there Seem to be a few largeoperators (such as Horizontes or Costa Rica Expeditions, in Costa

Rica) which many of the wholesalers use, though again there are amyriad of %om and pop shops" that spring up around the populartourist stops.

Given that many in the U.S. uSS to"= operators and that there area few large operators at both the outbound and the inbound levels, andthat the% firms SrS run by the founders, there is a focal point forreform. There are.key individuals who could spearhead ~nw efforts.The way these tour operators function, their choice of destination,the way they package and Sell trips, the type of support services theyprovide, and their cost structure, are all important factors tounderstand how to make changes in the way nature tourism impacts hostcountries. *our operators are an extremely important component Ofsuccessful ecotourism. Many operators are very knowledgeable aboutcountry conditions and are eager to cooperate on constructiveprojects. The goal is for host countries to enlist their support -not exclude them from conducting business.

sesmentation bv Level of Involvement

Tour operators advertising in the U.S. are generally U.S.-ownedoperations, averaging seven years in business, and serving anywherefrom 20 to 3000 clients per year. (Based on a survey of nature touroperators advertising in the specialty Travel Index, WE1 #ZS) NatureTour operators can be segmented along numerous dimensions: size,geography, and area of specialization, among others. '+,r the purposesof this study they have been divided into for-profit and not-for-profit groups and segmented,according to their level of involvementwith host country concernS and issues (see Exhibit 9).

For-Profit Sector

Within the for-profit group, some tour operators are simply"selling nature." They are principally concerned with making a profitand they have identified a lucrative market. The "sensitive group"are aware of the concerns and irsues of the host country and they tryto design their trips to be low impact and culturally sensitive. The"donors" make the next step and donate a portion of their revSnuS.5 tolocal environmental or community development groups. Finally, the"do'ers" have taken an active role in conserving and improving theareas they visit. One example of a "do'er" is the Journeys companywhich donates a portion of the land costs of their trips to a non-profit affiliate "The Earth Preservation Fund." 1x1 addition, Journeysoffers a number of specialized trips one of which is a cleanup Of theMacho Pichu trail. Exhibit 10 shows examples of other formS ofcreative cooperation by U.S. tow operators running nature tours inLDC'S.

It is difficult to determine what percentage of tour operatorsfall into each of these categories because it is difficult to SSPSrStS

I

19

[HOKUS lldOtld-tiOd-104

HOIH +}lN3W3AlOANI JO 13A3-i }b MO1n*w,

1 tlO133S lidOtld-t10d (NOIlVlN3LW3S StlOlW3dO WI01

‘SKGPOtld AtilNn03 1SOH HllM lN3PElAlOANI JO 13A31 t113Hl AS(INV Sdltll lElHl32t’kl3d0 QNV NE)IS3(1 EIHL AVM 3Hl NI AtlVA SMOlVtt3dO lKlO+

3HlvNNolls3nodr-rMOTlOd NI OdNIEXXVlV3 NI ltl3SNI

dMVO1 dlHStl3EW3W SZ$

3EX33ld Otll9 lNXl3(SVdVlH3) NHI 01 OOOSO

dltll NOliVAti3S3Hd lIVHlV3NICiN(U NOUVAtl3S3tld H&IV3

bMV) CINM 3dllalIM NV3ltldV01 SlSocl aNvl JO NoUtod

S3lllAlJ.3V 10 S3ldWVX3

SNOUVNo(73AltKl dlHStEIBW3W

SNOuVNOalV\mCllAlCiNI CINV ANVdW03

Sdltll lVl33dS3lVlllddV IIdOtld-NON

lN3W3hlOhNI d0 3dAl

68/22/01 :zvn

13AVIl.l SS3Ntl3CfllM

swl0131ssvl3

sw-~Jl ~~T-LLVN -QflNVWW3 k90131A

HOlVkl3dO tin01

S133POtid lN3Wd013A3a 3lWON033 HO NOUVAH3SN03NI NOllVdl3l1klVd S.LlOlVkl3dO tlnO1 lldOtld-tIO;I cl0 S3ldWVX3

marketing hype from real actions. Based on this research it appearsthat the majority of operatars fall within the "sensitive" group with.a growing "umber entering the ranks of the "donors." There are Only ahandful of firms, that have bee" identified. that have earned the"do'ers" label. The middle two groups are probably the largestbecause many of the founders of these firms have worked and lived inthe countries they sell Ss destinations and they often have a personalcommitment to their progress. I" co"trast, tour operators do notoften become doQers because travel is a very competitive industry andthey do not feel they can spare the rSSoufcSS far extra projects.Bill weber of .Tour"eys, one of the most progressive and innovativeoperators explains, Vfe would welcome more specific charges andregulations which would benefit local people and environments, andwhich would apply uniformly to all operators and individualtravellers." (Kutay, 1989) Practices need to be established thatprevent the "do~ers~~ from being placed at a competitive disadvantage.

The Not-for-Profit Sector

The not-far-profit sector offers nature trips f&a variety ofrSaso"s: member service, donor trips, as a Source of funding, and foreducation and research support. Some of these trips are veryprofitable. Ray Ashto", the former director for Natural History Toursfor HSSSaChusStts Audubon, explained that his trip* are primarily amembership service, a service to other "on-profits, and a way toprovide educational institutes. He claims that there are other non-profits that make a "ton of money " from their trips and that they mayuse their trips SS a fundraising mechanism in the future. (personalinterview with Ray Ashto", 1989)

The Nature Conservancy also offers trips aS a service to theirmembership. Each trip includes a $300 voluntary donation (which allPartiCipa"ts pay) to the Nature ~anservancy to fund programs in thearea visited. During the trips, clients are encouraged to join ormake donations to the local ~~0's involved in the areas they visit.Moreover, all trips are accompanied by a" experienced naturalist.(Personal interview with Bridget Bean of the Nature Co"serva"cy, 1989)

The non-profit sector of this market is a small but growingsegment. It may also provide very effective models for how ecotourismshould be developed in the future.

Economics

Costs a"d Profits

Due to the lack of industry definition and organization, there is"0 publicly available information regarding the cost structure for anature travel tour operator or recognized average industry margins.Anecdotal information suggests that it is a competitive industry with

tight margins. The rapid entry of new firms into the field, however,hints that there SrS profits to be made.

In a recent New York Times article, nountai" Travelu"characteriStically gave a cost breakdovn for one of their AfricanSafaris. Mountain Travel's costs, for this trip, consisted of 55% in

field expenses, 23% in administration and overhead, 18% in hotels andthe trip leader, and a modest 4% for profit. This would imply tight

margins, but this does not account for the full story. Discussions

with travel agents reveal that many of the large operatorS make Ssignificant amount of money on airline overrides (conmissions forselling large blocks of tickets) possibly as much as $600 for each$2000 ticket sold. Whether this is a" important aspect depends o" the"umber of tickets that muSt be sold to receive overrides and whetherthere are additional administrative costs incurred. This issue should

be investigated along with other scale issues. (personal interviewswith All Adventure Travel and Bridget Bean at the Nature conservancy,1989).

Mr. bay AShto" offered a rough cost breakdown for the CDstS forone of A"dubo"'s 13-day programs. On this trip, field expensesaccounted for 759 of land coStS. Overhead reportedly represented a"additional 20% of coStS, and 5% of the fees were set aeide forsantributions to conservation programs. or. Asbto" confessed that

this waS not a money-making venture, and that it was often difficult

to preserve the 5% "profit" margin. (personal interview with Ray

Ashto", 1989)

The SxpensSs for a nature travel trip vary SubstantialtYdepending on the destination, the Style of travel, the SSTVVZSSprovided, and the volume of business a tour operator conduCtS.Mountain travel justifies its Szoo-a-day trek by explaining that their"off the beaten track routing" incurs greater CoStS for Porters,additional equipment, and expensive transportation. Hareover, importduties are exorbitant and bribes are often requested, the staffexplains. (New York Times 12/4/88)

Ashton explains that his trips may be somewhat more expensivethan the competition becauSe of the services he provides. Each

MassacbuSSttS Audubon trip includes a staff guide, well versed i" thenatural history of the area, in addition to a local guide. Other to"r

operStorS mention the costs of pre-departure info?nation. anddonations to local groups as factore which drive up costs.

tight margins. The rapid entryhints that there are profits to

of new firms into the field, however,be made.

In a recent New York Times article, Mountain Travel;;;;;fcteristically gave a cost breakdown for one of their A f r i c a n

. Mountain Tra"e18s coStS, for this trip, consisted of 55% infield SxpenSes, 23% in administration and overhead, 18% in hotels Sndthe trip leader, and a modest 4% for profit. This would imply fightmargins, but this does not account for the full story. DiscuSslonswith tra"e1 agentS re"ea1 that many of the large operators make asignificant amount of money on airline overrides (commissions forselling large blocks of tickets) posSibly as much aS $600 for each$2000 ticket Sold. Whether this is an important aspect depends on thenumber of tickets that must be sold to receive overrides and Whetherthere are additional administrative costs incurred. This issue shouldbe investigated along with other scale issues. (personal interviewswith All Adventure travel and Bridget man at the Nature Conservancy,1989,.

Mr. Ray Ashton offered a rough cost breakdown for the c0StS forone of Audubon's X3-day programs. on this trip, field expensesaccounted for 75% of land costs. Overhead reportedly represented anadditional 20% of costs, and 5% of the fees were Set aside forcontributions to conservation programs. DT. Ashton confessed thatthis waS not a money-making venture, and that it was often difficultto preserve the 5% 44profitnn margin. (personal interview vith RayAshto", 1989,

The expenses for a nature travel trip vary substantiallydepending on the destination, the Style of travel, the servicesprovided, and the volume of business a tour operator conducts.Mountain Tra"e1 justifies its Szoo-a-day trek by explaining that their"off the beaten track routing" incurs greater co*tS for porters,additional equipment, and expensive transportation. Ma-aver, importduties are exorbitant and bribes are often requested, the staffexplains. (New York Times 12/4/88)

Ashton explains that his trips may be somewhat more expensivethan the competition because of the services he provides. EachMassachuSetts Audubon trip includes a Staff guide, well versed in thenatural history of the area, in addition to a local guide. Other tourOPerStorS mention the costs of pre-departure information, anddonations to local groups as factors which drive up CoStS.

5

Table 1. Most popular nature-oriented activitiesa and destlnationr forU.S.-based tour operators visfting developing countries.

ACTIVITY

lrckklng/Hiking

PERCENTb DESTINATIONSC7

721 Nep'al (15)Kenya (9)Tanzania (9)China (9)

gird Uatching 66 Kenya (11)Mexico (11)Costa Rica (11)Taozanfa (11)

Nature Photography 66 Kenya (15)Tanzania (12)

Uildlife Safaris 63 Kenya (16)T a n z a n i a (lfl)Nepal (16)

canping 60. Kenya (Ii)Tanzrnia (12)

nwntal" Clinbing 41 Hepal (211Kenya (171Tanzania (II)

Flshlng 38

River Raftingnanoeing/Kayaking 34

Costa RI.3 (21)

Nepal (26~)Puerto Rico (21)

Botanical Study 31 nexico (18)Puerto Rico (lE,

4 Other nature-oriented activities promted are horseback rfding. cultural andarcheological study. deep sea actlrities. spelunking. boat trips tounlnhabltcd islands. orthid study, butterfly watching. and 4-wheel drivel rc"rrlonr.

bPercent of operators engaging in each activity.

r

Countries are "at ranked. The numbers In parentheses are percentagesrepresenting the proportion of tour operators listfng each countryamong the top three destinations for a particular activity.

P*Mou"tai" Travel... has bee" creating advent.u=e* to exoticdestinations fca= 22 years.."

"Imagine sitting am""g the gentle mountain gorillas of Rwanda...experiencing the qwticism of exotic Java and Bali..."

Vauntain treks, wildlife safaris, sailing trips... Africa,Amazon, Andes..."

---------(Specialty Travel Index Fall/winter 1989)

The largest proportion of Nature tour operators use magazines andh=ochu=es as thei= primary s"u=ce for advertising in the U.S., asshow" in Table 1 below.

Magazines 94%B=OchLl=es 91%Direct Mail 69%Tourism Trade Shows o=

Travel Markets 66%Newspaper 56%

sou=ce: FPEI #aa

The high percentage of t"u= operators that use magazines andbrochures demonstrates that. operators are carefully targeting theircustome=s and also relying heavily 0" requests for information. Thisis not .3 business that appeals to the mass market, and thusspecialized adve='cisi"g is appropriate.

23

The first two sections of this report explore the concept ofecotourism and the dynamics and characteristics of the nature-basedtravel marketplace in the United States. The question still remains,though, whether all of this activity is translated into real benefitsfor the host community. ~The promise of ecotourism, after all, is thatit can promote and finance conservation and local economicdevelopment. If conservation and development a=e not enhanced,ecotourism becamee nothing more than a haughty phrase for the businessof selling nature.

I" reviewing case studies from around the world it is difficultto find one complete model to emulate. There is no recognizedblueprint for successful ecotourism development in all of its facets.Rather, there are examples from different projects in which particularcomponents are innovative o= well-implemented. PO= example, COstaRica is Often cited as having a" exemplary national system of parksand reserves. This is certainly true, but some experts lament thesmall amount of money that seems to be channelled back to local peoplesurrounding these protected areas. This section discusses thevariables which determine whether o= not nature-based tourism isweting its dual objectives of conservation and local economicdevelopment from the perspective of the host country, and draws uponcase examples when possible. I" addition, this section identifies themajor ways in which nature tourism can be transformed into ecotourismfo= the benefit of the protected areas, the surrounding communities,and the host country as a "hale.

P="moti"a and Financing. Conservation

Protected area.6 can generate revenues from nature tourism throughentrance fees, donations, ancillary services 01 products, and privateinvestment (examples of each of these forms are show? in Exhibit 12).Whethef conservation benefits from these four mechanisms depends 0"how much money is raised and who receives it (see Exhibit 13). Boththe costs and benefits of nature tourism must be carefully evaluatedto determine whether o= not protected areas can generate excessrevenues of eve" be self-sustaining. Experts warn that some externalfunding will always be needed for conservation programs because notall ecologically important a=eas will be able to generate sufficienttourist revenues to support themselves. PO= example, some fragilenatural areas may not be able to admit any tou=ists at all. I" manycases tourism should not be considered as a path towards self-sufficiency but as a means to defsay the costs of operations.

Entrance fees have produced significant revenues for someprotected areas around the world. In Rwanda, one of the mostcelebrated cases, entrance fees into the ~a=c National Des Volcanstotals m"=e than $1 million per year. (World Res"u=ces InstituteReport (WI) 1990) 'I" the Galapagos, direct revenues total $560,000

74

CINlWOl XtlVd WOW ‘ld3aSWdVd klOd IHVS WW zi’ 1

SllVd tlVE)1VdVtllYtlVd 1VNOIlVN WA OVHYV31NIWOa *aNVlIVH1 *

)I ozssHO3 S3H3V 00s

WEX-03 tlOlW3dOmol rwm3wv

V’3lti VlSO3 ’

s33l3- NVHJ. bl3luo

S3tmlaN3dX3WOtld ww E$-Z$

VaNVMtl *

(C)

n oh a3swStlOllSln 01

W3ddV t)NISlVti QNfldNOUVlS H3W3S3H

NIMtlVa S3ltlVHR13t1oavn33 -

SNoUvNcaHD-KWll S3tlVlD3H0009 AE 03(7NVdX3

3llOtETl NOUVAtl3SN033amh 3wow

v’31u VlSO3 *

(Y)

tlv3ml 09S$s3mm33tI 133tlla

SOWdVlV’E) *

tlV3A mw LBsNv3loA

S3a lVNOl3VN 3tWd: VaNVMti -

(E)

WSlUnO1033 HE)nOtlHl NOllVht13SN03 9NKINVNIzl 90 SWSINVH33W

E)Nlkk’HS-1ldOktdJN3w3Tv?ttQI

dlHSMUM0

E)Nlk%‘HS- IIdOkldSNOISS33NOO 3HJ. SNMO OHM

lN3ldEIkl JO AON&ldd3SNOllVNW S3Al333tl OHM

SONM (33kiVWW~OAklVl3lkldOkld -lW3MEl

66RZIOL :zvn

lN3’UElhNI 30 MI-UVNlN3WlS3ANi

3lt’Alkld

S3SS3NISnfl clOtl38WrlN~ a;;;;:;; a3aav3nivA HE)IH.3AllEltl3

AHVlll3NV

-0 MoH aNv H3nw M~HS3SS3NISnS

sivnalAlaNI

SNOIlVNOa

3~fuOntlis t13k-tunw uoivnaDNlOltld

3dN.

L II 5130 OHM ‘2L A3NOW H3nW MOH ‘1

i NOllVAkl3SN03 t1OzI SLkElN38 3Hl3klVlW'3kl9 MOH

per year. (WRI, 1990) Notwithstanding these examples, many parks arecharging nominal fees and revenues are consequently limited.

Profits cculd be multiplied by increasing fees substantially.The profit-maximizing point depends in part on the demand elementsSuch Ss the uniqueness of the Site, and in pa* on the Supply whichmay be limited by Snviranmental and social carrying capacities. WRI,1990) Different countries are experimenting with fees by raising themand *orming multi-tier St~ct"rSS to charge foreigners higher rate5than nationals or local residents. In CcStS Rica, the McnteverdeCloud FcreSt Reserve will raise its entrance fee from $2.75 tc $10after a one-year period tc allcw tour operators to incorporate the newcosts into the price of their packages. (WM. 1990) A multi-tierStructure is based on the rationale that locals support the parkthrc"gh tSxSS and by foregoing alternative "SSS, and that foreignersshould contribute their fair Share. Wulti-tier Systems are employed inRwanda and Ecuadcr and several ether countries are consideringinstituting them.

The Wcrld Resources Institute report highlights the need forSarm+iing park fees to fund park management. Currently many parkfees are collected for the central qc"er"mSnt coffers and the WRIrepcrt advocates a portion of the funds continue tc flow to thecentral government So that neticnal support for the parks will bemaintained. Howaver, this system makes protected areas vulnerable tocentral government budget c"tS during Sccncmic downturns. It is alsoimportant for a dedicated portion of the funds tc be controlled bypark lnanaqement to SnS"rS the park's self-sufficiency and provide anincentive for efficient administration. CcStS Rica, Eauadcr andThailand cfOer examples of ccuntries earmarking funds. In Ccsta Rica,ScmS proprietary f"nds for the parks ccmplement the general governmenta11ctnlent. USSr fees in the Galapagos help to finance itself andother less pop"lSr sites in the Ecuador park System, and in Thailand,the entrance fees to the parks remain within the National ParksDivision. Dave Blantcn, director of Voyages: ESst African safariscomments, "the big challenge is to get local people involved in thepark and in tourism manaqement rather than siphoning off money to thecentral qc"SrnmSnt. Once local people have a Stake in the park andits wildlife, they act as vigilantes and poaching diminishes." (Kutay,1989)

Donations can be a rich sc"rcS cf rSven"Ss for parks managementand local environmental txzo*s. D-an&ions can be solicited in n"mSrc"sways ranging from individual on-site contributions! tc tcur operatorrevenue-sharing schemes, to fundraising avents during tours. I" CcStSRica. the Hcnteverde Conservation teaguS was able to expand theirTeSSrvS by 8000 hectares through donations. ,wRI, 1990) SeVeral tourOPS=Stcrs have donated generous s"mS to the areas "here they leadtheir trips. Victcr Emanuel Nat"re TOUTS, for one, dcnated $5000 fromcnS trip to the Institute for Natural History in Chiapas, Mexico forthe management of the El Triunfo Reserve. The Charles Darwin ResearchStation in the Galapaqcs took an active approach and mailed a

25

fundraising appeal to the visitors who had signed their ~lcq bock,raising $150,000. (personal interview with Bridget Bean of The Hat"rScc"Servancy, 1990, Lccal NGO'S can also tap into this financingScheme by selling organizational memberships to travellers.Bean, the coordinatcr for international trips for The Nature

Bridget

Conservancy, explained that local NGO'S give talks during her tripsand offer memberships afterwards. (personal interview with BridgetBean St The Nature Conservancy, 1990)

Ancillary goads and Services could also potentially be big mcney-makers. Visitors would most likely Spend mere if there wSrSattractive gccds and services to purchase. Visitors already spend asignificant amc"nt of money on food and lodging in parks, and thereare opportunities for visitor centers and other enterprises tc offer arange of products from t-shirts and notecards tc handicrafts andSrtwcl-k. PSrk managers need to team up with creative business pecplewho understand the ccnsumpticn patterns of their visitors and supplythem with appealing products. Many areas Seem tc make the miSta& cfonly offering cheap trinketa instead cf higher-priced items which maybe mere appealing to wealthier, experienced travellers.

Finally, if private investors can be convinced that they willreceive a competitive ret"n~,maintenance and facilities.

they nay be willing to invest in parkRecently an American woman in CcstS Rica

purchased 500 acres cf rain forest for $520,000, and is in the prccessof setting up nature-based tcvrist facilities. The project Slscincludes community development actiCitiSS. (WRI 1990)

PromotrnaandFinancinq

The second promise of ecctourism is that it can prcmcte andfinance economic develcpment, bath St national and local levels. D"Sof the major challenges for Scctcurism planners (and tourism plSnnSrSin general) is tc design a program which shares the benefits oftourism with local people. In reference to one of the studies whichproved the economic value of wildlife in Kenya, Jeffrey HcNeelywrites, "the challenge comes in bringing the accncmic benefits oftourism to the local community which is paying the opportunity ccSt ofnot harvesting Slapbants." or other natural rSSc"rcSS that "culddetract from a site's tourism appaal. (ncNeSly, 1988)

AS with the benefits for conservation, the influence that anyform of tourism has on the local economy depends on a number ofStr"ct"ra1 factors. no major factors determine the nSt"re cf theeconomic impact on the local economy: the type of tourism cultivated,and the level of development and diversification of the local eccncmy.

Exhibits 14 and 15 a-e simplified Schematic depictions of thisinteraction. ~Tcurists are mcst valuable to S hcst country economywhen they consume local, high value-added goods and services and whenthe economy is highly diversified and developed. In other wcrds, aperson travelling to a locale and Staying in lodges owned, managed,

26

AWONammwda

aNv aSdoiSA3a AlHE)IH

AWON AUNn03 1iOH 3HlOl lSltlnOl \I d0 3llWh 3HlH3

AWON AtllNn03 1SOH 3Hl JO N011V3ldlSH3Ala aNV lN3WdOl3A3a 30 131231 3Hl aNV’13AVHl d0 TLUS 3Hl NO AlltlWWltld SaN3d3a AtllNn03 1SOH 3Hl 01 lSltmO1 V JO 3nlVA 3Hl

*, XlBIHY3

a3tlifxwtl0EV-i

JO 3dUdlHStBNMO*

SWHld do 3ZIS.

68/P 110 1 :zvn

13aOW 3lWON033 3ldWlS V

s3aln

O aN

v slv

1~

3~

vw

‘3

ktn133uH

Oki

v 1~

301

ON

IWV

W-N

OIS

l33a

lV

’30

1133P

OH

d

NO

IlVO

IlS3A

NI

SaN

Vla

llM

S,N

Vla

NI

VN

n)l

V

WV

NV

d

tlV3A

fd

3d

X

09

lCa

Nn

d D

NlA

loA

3tl

HO

nO

tlHl

NIN

nW

W03

01)1

3V

S a

3-l3N

NV

H3

S3

3d

ON

ILN

nH133P

OtId

lN

3W

d013A

30

33th

lOS

3U

03lV

tlD

31N

l V

MO

NV

nl

S.V

lS~

VZ

S3lV

S

1V

nN

NV

)I

0%

3A

iivt1

3dooO

s.N

~W

~M

Honotr

Hi

alo

s suw

1aN

vH

a3

3n

ao

ud

~11~

307

3AkE

lS3H

lS

3tIO

d

an

01

3

3at1

3A31

NO

W V

Olt(

VlS

O3

S133~

Otld

lN3W

d013A

30

3

lWO

NO

33

lVO

Ol

d0

S3ld

WV

X3

33tlH

l

lN3W

33V

NV

W

L-

lV30

1BeR

zlol

:zw

l

1 1

s1

3n

ao

ud

I.lV

301

organized a cooperative to sell locally produced handicrafts and arenow achieving sales of $50,000 per year which are said to reapsignificant profits. In 7,a*ia*s Luangva Integrated ResourceDevelopment Project, hunting fees totalling $150,000 per year arechanneled back to the community through a revolving loan fund, and inPanama, the tuna Indians have been involved with the decision-makingfor the Wildlands Investigation Project. (WRI, 1990)

Nature tourism is praised because its customers presumably preferlocal goads. It can be based on indigenously-owned lodges that arebuilt from local materials and serve native foods. Thus naturetourism can he promoted without excessive capital requirements andinfrastructure developments. AS was pointed out in the customermotivation section, part of the attraction of nature travel is theability to experience an undeveloped area which is in stark contrastto the urban existence of many travelers from the industrializedworld.

The primary and secondary income flows from tourism benefitdifferent sectors and economic actors in various ways. Thus even ifthe leakage is stemmed, planners need to be aware of which sectors andwhich groups of people within a country are affected by tourismpromotion. New revenues may cause desirable development, such aslocal production of foodstuffs, or undesirable demand, such asincreasing oil requirements in a fuel importing country. (Healy, 1988)In terms of which local people benefit, this depends an what type offirms are promoted, their size, ownership, and labor requirements.Healy warns, "local economic arrangements can be very important indetermining whether new income streams benefit the poor or merelyreinforce lqngstanding inequalities.8q (Healy, 1988)

Externalities, the positive or negative impacts from the resultsof an economic actor which does not enter into his utility function,must also be considered. (Healy, 1988) The costs of trail erasionfrom a trekking operation are borne by the whole community, but thetrekkers may not be forced to pay for the damage. Trail erosion is anexample of a physical externality. Tourism can also create "pecuniaryexternalities," that is a change in prices that affects someone notdirectly involved in the transaction. Thus a local villager may beforced to pay inflationary prices for local goods because of theinfluence on demand from wealthy tourists. Externalities often needto be controlled by government regulations or other methods by Whichindividuals are forced to bear the full costs of their activities.For example, tour operators may be taxed to pay for site cleanup, orvisitors may donate to comolunity projects to offset their inflationaryimpact.

The results from Healy's four case studies of forest-basedtourism found that multipliers could not be calculated based on hisfirst study. He did conclude that forest tourism was necessarilypromoted in remote areas and that facilities were often small scaleand scattered, Many goods and services had to be brought in from

outside, resulting in high leakage and low multipliers. I" COntraS

nature tourists are often satisfied with consumption of simple 10~2goods which favors a high multiplier. The areas studied seemed to

profit from small business development, a?d,increased jobopportunities that provided some possibilltles for professional~~.rancement. In addition the areas contributed to government

I"llPS and could Dot&ally develop secondary industries in the

;t.11

__.______ _..~~ ~~ _future, such as tent and egui&nt production.

The central point of this section is that ecatourism developmentcannot be promoted in isolation from overall economic development.Tourism growth, after all, is just one component of broaderadvancements in several industries. Issues such as the distribution

of income generated from the ecotourism sector, is,no different thanconcerns for an overall equitable sharing of a nation's wealth.

HlM

OtlD

9N

lAdl

(lOW

tiO

d

SW

SIN

VH

33P

kdo01

KIV

9a33d

aN

V N

OllV

nlV

A3 l

e

lN3W

d013lU

Cl

31W

ON

033

lIO

zL---

NO

llVA

kl3S

N03

t1

0&--

-S

lkE

lN38

lv

’3O

-l

3ZlW

lXV

W

.*

s3aim

w

’301--

Skl

OlV

kl3d

O

w70l--

s~

3w

ols

n3--

9N

INlV

U a

Nv

Nouw

na3

.

.

NV

ld

lN3b

ElC

3VN

VW

aN

v’1-

-N

Vld

S

S3N

ISnS

-‘l.U

VlS

M

O-I

S

aNV

‘9N

INN

Vld

.*

SkE

lAV

ld

HO

I-VW

3H

l 1lV

W

OkI

In

dN

I--

H3V

Okl

ddV

C

EllV

’tlD

3lN

I .I

NO

IS 1

33ro

tld

.31vN

IaH

CK

l3/lln

SN

0~

S13

3rO

Hd

aN

&b

:SaO

HU

W

Slt

i3d

X3.

NO

IlV

Zlllltl

3d

AH

lNn

03-S

SO

Kb

lN3w

3%N

vw’.l

.N3w

do

13N

a31

15 ‘5

1Nbk

’W h

3llO

d N

IS

3311

3Vki

d IS

38

3lO

WO

t!d

*

:slv

oD

E)O

QH

cIlV

M-

oav

’3t1

3w i3-

sA3r

\trn

s A

tlls

naN

l-3S

nO

HD

Nlt

lV31

3 M

NI-

No

uv1

30ss

v ~

~ls

naN

~3l0

~0tl

~s

t10

lvu

3d

o t

u7o

livn

aiA

laN

IH

li~

sd

itis

No

il\f

l3tl

aiin

e.

:sao

Hu

w

SK

IN H

llM N

OllV

tl3d

003-

DN

lklV

HS

-lId

Ob

’d*

0dN

i 0000

3lv

Ntw

3ssi

a.lt

naN

3c)

do5

30

03

au

va

Nv

ls ,u

sn

aN

k

:s1

vo

t)

dn

-MO

llO

+o

d~

13tl

rutl

vdva

3tid

/S3N

ii3au

79.

WV

tBO

tJd

N0l1

V3ld

llkl3

~S

NO

IlVN

IlS3a

tlV

ln3lltl

Vd

NO

s313u

lv 3

tmlv

3+

:sa

oiu

3w

Slt

13h

NO

PS.

OE)

N 1

V/3

0101

31n

8ltl

1N03

*tlO

lAVH

3El

tl3d

Otl

d 3

Wtl

nO

KN

3-S

t10l

W3d

OW

-l01

3lV

ltld

OkJ

ddV

3S

OO

H>

aNvw

3a 3

ivm

wu

s’:s

1voE

l

NO

llVZ

INV

’Otl

O

Atu

sn

aN

iaN

V N

Oll

Vt1

3d00

3(a

Nn

ou

n a

Nv

aN

no

aN

0ki

OlV

ki3d

O t

lnO

1

SS

3N3t

lVM

V C

INV

H3V

OH

dd

V a

39N

Otl

d-3

3tl

Hl

\I

:lN

3W

3A

lOA

NI

tl

O4

S

V’3

UV

A consumer education and awareness program would aim atstimulating demand for ecotourism and affecting the behavior ofvisitors who travel to nature destinations. Education of the consumerwould begin at home. consumers sho"ld be aware of the issues involvedwith ecotourism and shown how their travel can make a positivedifference. First, travellers should be aware of the differencesbetween variovs tour ~operators and the types of trips they offer.once on the trip, c"stomer.5 should be encouraged to contribute tolocal projects. The education should continue when clients returnhome to keep them "p-to-date with issues regarding the locale theyhave visited as well more general conservation priorities.

These objectives can be achieved by reaching the nature travelcons"mer thr""gh the popular media, conservation organizationmembership, and specialized groups (such as COOP America or the Centerfor Responsible Tourism). This campaign would initially be aimed atthose groups of people likely to engage in nat"re travel, b"t thistarget audience could be broadened over time. The delivery methodscould include feat"re articles on particular destinations, casest"dies, a certification program for approved nature to"= operators,and specific pre-departure and post-trip information booklets ornewsletters that would advise travelers of proper behavior, ways tocontribute, and suggestions for ways to be involved in theconservation movement once back at home.

The second major are.3 for involvement is the formation of strongalliances with inbound end 0"tbo"nd tour operators. TO date, effortsto organize adventure or nature travel tour operators have failed.Conse*ently;some individual tour operators have made isolatedefforts to play a constructive role in the countries they visit.These efforts are led by a few innovative firms, but they do notrepresent industry standards. Even firms which are sensitive to localcountries' needs have often not made contributions to sustain theresources on which their business is based. Moreover, those firmsthat do contribute must limit their help because of the competitivenature of the industry.

The tour operators could improve nature travel by adoptingindustry standard codes of cond"ct, disseminating appropriateinformation to their clients, cooperating with local NGO's, and to theextent possible, sharing profits for the protection and management ofthe nature destination. These goals could be achieved by promoting anindustry association or by building relationships with individual to"rCXp.2rMXXs. Certainly, individual to"= operators should be encouragedto participate now, while the foundation for a more comprehensiveinitiative is laid. These leaders will be instrumental for getting amore comprehensive project on the ground. Ultimately, industryorganization and cooperation will be essential for broad-range andlong-lasting effects. M industry association could provide thefollowing outputs and services: information clearinghouse, industry

32

surveys, travel market for nature toll= operators, codes Of cOndUCt,watchdog for misconduct. and promotion of profit-sharing schemes.

The final and most important need for action is assistance forhost country ecotourism planning and development.these countries need to be aware of the

Planners within

been implemented from around the world."best practices" that haveThese practices include

policy making, site development, packaging and marketing, localparticipation programs, and management control systems. This requiresa greater cross-fertilization of ideas between countries and acentralized base of knowledge of experts in the field. Neighboringcountries could also possibly benefit by cooperating over joint"products" s"Ch as the newly touted-Ruta Maya, or joint advertisingand promotlo".

Technical assistance in the area of ecotaurism is available fromconservation groups within the host countries and internationally andfrom a ,growing industry of consultants. This technical assistance canbe applied at a national, regional, park, or project site level.

Each of these three areas for involvement co"ld be developed inmuch greater detail, but they are presented briefly here to illustratethe need to concentrate on each aspect of the multi-faceted ecotourisnI"Cept. To move the substantial and growing nat"re travel marketuyond a business that benefits a few to an economic and conservation

model of development will require the appropriate participation ofc"stomers, to"r operators,which serve these groups.

in-country planners, and the organizations

(includes dire& citations as well as background material)

Alderman, Claudia L. 1990. "A study of the Role of Privatelyowned Lands used for Nature Tourism, Education, andConservation." Conservation International, Washington.

Ambron, Andre. 1486. "confidential Travel Agent survey onCaribbean Leisure Travel." OAS analysis of results.

Ashton, Ray E., Jr. ""dated. "Ecotourism and the Yucatan and MayaRegion: Developing cooperative International Relationships."unpublished working paper.

1989. "Defining the Ecotourist Based on site Needs."-&published paper prepared for the 1989 International

workshop on Ecotourism and the Yucatan and Maya Region.

Boo, Elizabeth et al. 1989. "Ecotourism: The Potentials andPitfalls." Unpublished paper, World Wildlife Fund,Washington.

Branigin, William. 1989. "Belize's New Leader Keeps an OpenDoor." *he Washinaton Post. October 9, 1989.

1989. vungles vs. fobs in Belize." The Washinston Post.-October 9, 1989.

myant, Barbara E. 1987. "Built for Excitement." Americanpemoarmhics. Warch, 1987.

ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1988. vhe future of Ecotourism", MexicoSImuMI. January 17, 1988.

cutler, mayne. 1988. "Anything for a Thrill." AmericanDemoaraohics. A"g"st, 1988.

Domestic Technology International, Inc. 1989. "Lo" ImpactTourism: Coupling Third World Natural Reso"nx conservationand Economic Development." Prospectus.

Farnsworth, Clyde H. 1988. "Micro-loans to the World's Poorest."me New York Th. Febluary 21, 1988, sec. 3, p. 1.

Gutkin, Steven. 1989. *'Tourists with Reservations." South.A"g"st, 1989, p. 47.

Harrington, T. 1989. "Tourism Damages Amazon Region". TheChristian science Monitor. June 6, 1989.

"e&y, Robert G. 1988. "Economic Consideration in Nature-orientedTourism: The Case of Tropical forest Tourism." southeasterncenter for Forest Economics Research, Research Triangle mrk,N.C.: FPEI Working Paper No. 39.

Hunt, Carla. 1989. "Latin Magic: The 'Other Americas' cast Theirspell on a Rising Number of visitors." Travel weekly.

mgram, C. Denise and Patrick 8. DUrst. 1987. "Nature orientedTravel to Developing countries." Southeastern center forForest Economics Research, Research Triangle Park, N.c.:FPEI working Paper No. 28.

Irwin, Bill and Ma1 Bernstein. 1988. "Ta"ck: &d"ent"re gravelmaws Crowds of All Ages: Expo seminar Addresses CommonMarketing strategies." Travel weekly. February 18, 1988,p. 13.

Keena", Joe. 1989. Vcotourism.~~ pIexico Journal. Hay 22, 1989.

Kutay, K"rt. 1989. "The New Ethic in Adventure Travel."~"zzwom: The Environmental Journal. summer 1989.

Laaman, Jan G. and Manuel J. Baldares. 1990. "Denand for anAnnual Pass to Costa Rica's National Parks." working paper.

~aarmn, fan G. and Patrick B. D"rst. 1987. "Nature Travel in theTropics." Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research,Research Triangle Park. N.C.: FPEI working Paper No, 23.

Lindberg, Kreg. 1991. "Economic Policies for Maximizing NatureTourism's Contribution to sustainable Development." Worldraso"rces Institute.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. Undated. wow to my for conservingBiological diversity." Unpublished working paper.

McNeely, J. and J. Thorsell. 1988. "~"ngles, Mountains, andIslands. How Tourism can Help conserve the Natural Heritage."In I.. D'Amore and J. Jafari 'Tourism a Vital Force for Peace".First Global Conference, Montreal P.P. Canada.

Martin, W. H. and S. Mason. 1987. "Social Trends and To"riSmF"t"re~.~ Tourism &Ianacrement. June, 1987.

nays, Barbara J. 1989. Wexico's Sunny Skies: Increased Airservice and Solid Value Offer Hope for a Bright Future."Travel Weekly. February 20, 1989, p. 44.

Herlino, Diane. Undated. "Kenya Tourism: A New vision." X,Quzand Travel News.

Noland. David. 1988. Why this &k cost $3,890." The New YorkQme_S. December 4. 1988.

3435