Definitions: nature tourism,
rain forest tourism and ecotourism
|
The analysis of numerous definitions indicates that it is useful for the purpose of this study, to especially differentiate between the terms “nature tourism” and “ecotourism”. As VALENTINE (1993) and WESTERN (1993) have pointed out that to most people both terms have the same meaning but this study draws a clear distinction between them.
Nature tourism is already a real phenomenon with certain demand structures. It denotes all tourism directly dependent on the use of natural resources, even if the use is not a wise or sustainable one.
It is characterised by the demand for natureoriented activities in attractive, natural and preferably pristine areas. The activity spectrum ranges from trekking, wildlife watching and nature photography through consumptive resource uses (e.g., fishing and hunting) to sport and adventure tourism (e.g., mountaineering, river rafting, mountain biking, vehicle safaris). |
Specifically regarding the last group of activities, nature is often used only as a scenic backdrop by both suppliers and consumers without showing an actual interest in the ecology and culture of the area visited (VALENTINE and CASSELLS 1992; HANNEBERG 1994).
If such nature-oriented activities are carried out in tropical forest areas, then often the term rain forest tourism is applied as a more specific description of a nature tourism destination (e.g., HEALY 1988; WEARING and PARSONSON 1991). However, rain forest tourism should not be regarded as a proper tourism segment. It is a virtually congruent subset of nature tourism with essentially identical demand structures which refer partly to destinations in protected and partly to destinations in unprotected tropical forest areas.
Ecotourism, on the other hand, as defined by CEBALLOS-LASCURAIN (1993) and adopted by IUCN, is “environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features, both past and present), that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socioeconomic involvement of local populations”.
As with IUCN most authors (e.g., ZIFFER 1989; BOO 1990; FENNEL and SMALE 1992; GIANNECCHINI 1993; GRENIER et al. 1993; VALENTINE 1993; WALLACE 1993; WESTERN 1993; DURST 1994; THEOPHILE 1995) regard ecotourism as a very specific tourism segment, representing a set of idealised development objectives. Although there is a definite overlap with certain characteristics of nature tourism regarding some destinations and activities, the term “ecotourism” should only be applied if additional aspects are equally taken into account. Thus, ecotourism should
· minimise and/or avoid negative environmental impacts as well as undesirable socio-cultural changes;
· increase income and employment opportunities for the local population living in or adjacent to the target area;
· contribute to dispersed rural development;
· provide funds for natural resource conservation on a national and local scale; and thus
· build and increase political support for nature conservation; as well as
· create awareness of nature and environmental issues among the parties involved.
Studies dealing only with certain elements of these requirements have already been carried out in the past (see e.g., BOO 1990; DIXON and SHERMAN 1990; WEARING and PARSONSON 1991; HENNING 1993). However, it is necessary to integrate the economic, social and environmental objectives in order to understand better the interactions between these different requirements of ecotourism. Bearing this in mind, the objective of this study can also be seen as an analysis of the circumstances under which nature tourism can become ecotourism.
 |
 |
Reference :
Ecotourism: Potential for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Tropical Forests
Bernd Stecker,Eschborn 1996
|
