Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
definitions and classifications. It is only too clear in the year 2004 that we have been over- whelmed by too many definitions of eco- tourism, and thus the inability to correctly categorize and understand ecotourists. For example, the author has noted in past research (Fennell, 2000a) that definitions have provided grounds for a great deal of misinterpretation regarding what is and what is not ecotourism, as outlined below:
• Responsible travel that conserves the envi- ronment and sustains the well-being of local people (The Ecotourism Society, cited in Western, 1993).
• Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people (South Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association).
The first of these is an ecotourism definition, while the second is a definition of nature-based tourism (which we know to encompass activities such as ecotourism, hunting, fishing, cycling, boat tours, and so on). Let us, for example, use fishing to demonstrate why definitions of eco- tourism that are relatively weak or middle-of- the-road are at times incapable of separating ecotourism from other forms of tourism that are a lot more consumptive in orientation. Using the definitions stated above, which, in general, are almost identical, we can suggest that:
1. Fishing can be responsible (e.g. regula- tions/catch limits).
2. It can conserve the environment (e.g. as certain hunting organizations conserve habitat for duck hunting).
3. It can contribute to or improve the welfare of local people (e.g. soliciting the use of an abo- riginal guide).
As such, the misinterpretation on the part of ecotourists and service providers alike, as well as the inherent mismanagement of the industry that follows, is not difficult to imagine. Given the foregoing approach to definition, it is also not surprising that ecotourists themselves have come in all shapes and sizes – perhaps demon- strating why there have been such inflated fig- ures given in the past on the magnitude of the ecotourism industry. As such, the question
regarding who is an ecotourist and who is not has become an important one, and one that research has yet to fully embrace. The same applies from the intra-group perspective, where research has only just begun to examine the socio-psychological, setting and activity dif- ferences that exist between various types of ecotourists, despite the early work of Laarman and Durst (1987) and Lindberg (1991). The link between definition and tourist type is demonstrated in the work of Page and Dowling (2002) who observe that the smaller percent- ages adhere to a strict definition of ecotourism, while those which are larger include activities which encompass the entire hard–soft path spectrum of ecotourism, and perhaps those which border on mass tourism (see Weaver, 2001, for a good discussion of these linkages).
Ecotourism in partnership with mass tourism is an intriguing proposition. Indeed this relationship has already begun to evolve. It is based on the belief that the tenets of eco- tourism might go a long way towards better informing the mass tourist, and that we might bring more advocates into the realm of eco- tourism. There is not much of an argument against attempts to educate tourists as much as possible about environmental issues, flora and fauna, and so on. But there is an argument against how we might effectively cater to these sizeable groups without disrupting delicate eco- logical and social systems. I am reminded of the old adage that if ecotourism is to become suc- cessful in an economic sense, it will have under- mined and destroyed everything it had initially set out to achieve: namely, low numbers, responsible development and virtuous behav- iour. Unfortunately, in places like Mekong, the concept of ecotourism has been used by devel- opers, in association with willing government officials, as a catalyst for the development of mass tourism facilities in regions which are not necessarily able to absorb the social and eco- logical effects of these enterprises (Cater, 2002). In such cases the magnitude of the mass tourism engine puts it at direct odds with the principles of ecotourism. Ecotourism develop- ment should remain scale-dependent, and therefore any changes which might be appro- priate in mass tourism might best be accom- plished through the philosophies of sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism and ecotourism
110 D.A. Fennell
are not one and the same. Unfortunately this is not universally understood.
A further constraint to the development of a responsible ecotourism industry is that we still have not been able to distil common approaches to ecotourism, across sectors. This point is made abundantly clear at tourism con- ferences and workshops where fundamental differences between what operators, govern- ment, local people, and tourists want are obvi- ous. Operators, for example, are often wary of government officials (regulators), as well as aca- demics, the latter of which are dismissed as having no practical value to add to the industry.
Issues of territory, cross-over, understanding, shared knowledge and intent have been mired down in a stew of confusion, with an unwilling- ness to adapt, and to find and use the appro- priate expertise. This is especially troublesome for ecotourism, which must balance the com- peting aspects of conservation and profit, with the latter often taking precedence. This appears to be the case in South Africa, where ecotourism is tempered by a primary focus on community economic development (i.e. eco- tourism is designed almost solely as a vehicle for economic development). In a recent visit to the country, it was explained that ‘ecotourism begins and ends with economic development’.
Such a perspective is not difficult to appreciate given the degree of poverty in the region and the ease with which communities succumb to the promise of prosperity. The consequence of this stance, however, is that just about any form of outdoor activity (e.g. fishing and rural-based farm stays) bringing money to such communi- ties is viewed as ecotourism. The danger of the economic hinge here is described by Saul (2001), who notes that the well-being of a soci- ety should never be decided solely on the basis of economics. Although important, it is dan- gerous.
Unfortunately an overarching focus on the economics of tourism from the industry side has tended to spill over into the realm of tourism research. The main side-effect of this is that it has tempered the values and methods – the worldview – that tourism researchers bring to their work. The same can be said for eco- tourism research, which has elected to go down the same path. If this is true, such an approach to research suggests that we are almost afraid
to view ecotourism in any other context (e.g.
from a human ecology standpoint), when in fact its nature begs for us to view it differently.
The Road Less Travelled
Upon being asked where he was from, the Greek philosopher Diogenes referred to him- self as a ‘citizen of the world’. That is, his thoughts and concerns were not solely con- fined to his current position, but transcended this to include the entire world. His perspec- tives on this topic led to the term kosmopolites (meaning world citizen), suggesting that each of us dwells in two realms: the place of our birth and the global community. In more contempo- rary times, one’s sense of space, place, and scale have been considered in detail by the geo- grapher J.K. Wright (1966), in one of his many geo-isms, as they have come to be known.
Among these, Wright described the concepts of geopiety and georeligion. Geopiety refers to the emotional bond or awareness (piety) that people have towards space (geo), the latter of which is so central to the discipline of geogra- phy. In referencing the work of Tuan (1976), Singh et al. (2003) note that geopiety is a reli- gious concept that combines ecology and terri- toriality through attitude, beliefs and values.
Indeed, Tuan notes that feelings of belonging transcend both culture and religion. And, as Singh et al. (2003) observe, ‘it is the ‘rooted- ness’ of values arising from such soulful attach- ments to place that creates communities’
(2003: 8). From the spatial context, geopiety appears to be more closely linked with one’s local environment, and the territorial aspects which go along with this association. In a wider context, geopiety is a microcosm of georeli- gion, which refers to one’s emotions about the earth in general. Typically, emotions associated with the concepts of geopiety and georeligion include love, reverence, affection, pity and compassion.
From Diogenes and Wright we have come to understand some of the basic spiritual and philosophical principles which are so vital to the stewardship of the planet today. The local–cosmopolitan perspective of Diogenes accentuates the importance of acting locally, but thinking globally, which is an underlying
Deep Ecotourism 111
theme in environmentalism. And from Wright, the love and compassion for place, at multiple scales, underscores the importance of valuing the places where we live, work and play. For tourism, the interplay between place and emo- tion is critical if tourists are to be able to trans- fer their love of place beyond the scope of generating revenue in those destinations which receive tourists. This means that the same love that we supposedly have for our own houses, streets and communities can and perhaps should be transferable to the places we visit as tourists.
Perhaps in a less spatially oriented fashion, the same ‘geopietic’ argument has held true in our regard for plants, animals and natural areas for years. In the English-speaking world this
‘nature–piety’ has its roots in England where the worship of nature corresponded with the collapse of Christianity during the 1720s (Clark, 1969). As Clark suggests, however, faith was not completely eliminated at this time, but was to enter Western Europe through nature. In the beginning it would come from the minor poets, provincial painters, and garden- ers, but later would take hold in the writings and art of some of the most famous minds of the time. Foremost in this regard was Rousseau, who was successful in inspiring people to look at the landscape in a romantic and existential fashion. For example, mountains were valued spiritually and recreationally as more than just a nuisance to communication and develop- ment. Perhaps even more significant, though, was his perspectives on what was to become existential philosophy, about the same time that David Hume had written on the topic. As described by Clark, Rousseau, when immersed in the natural world,
lost all consciousness of an independent self, all painful memories of the past or anxieties about the future, everything accept the sense of being.
(1969: 274–275)
Existence was thus a function of a series of events that were perceived through the senses;
events which were tied to the natural world first and later to people. The idea that virtue was intricately tied to the natural world (‘natural man’) stood in stark contrast to the rest of
industrialized Europe. Rousseau’s philosophy could not have been more unconventional.
Rousseau was followed by others, includ- ing Coleridge and Wordsworth, the latter of which wrote that the new religion was one that was anti-hierarchical, values-based, instinctual and moral (Clark, 1969). It included the English painters Turner and Constable, and it prompted others to seek these out in attempt- ing to discover different truths from religion.
These perspectives gained a larger following in the early 1830s when the American, Ralph Waldo Emerson, visited Western Europe, in an effort to shed his dissatisfaction with conven- tional religion and to overcome personal loss.
During his stay Emerson met Wordsworth, Coleridge and Carlyle, all of whom influenced his views on perception and nature, leading Emerson to establish the American transcen- dentalist paradigm. This doctrine gave forceful expression to older ideas about the presence of divinity in the natural world. As outlined by Nash:
The core of Transcendentalism was the belief that a correspondence or parallelism existed between the higher realm of spiritual truth and the lower one of material objects . . .
Transcendentalists had a definite conception of man’s place in a universe divided between object and essence. His physical existence rooted him to the material portion, like all natural objects, but his soul gave him the potential to transcend this condition. Using intuition or imagination (as distinct from rational understanding), man might penetrate to spiritual truths.
(1982: 85)
Transcendentalists sought to reveal the direct relationship between the natural world and the good within humanity; a common theme that paralleled Rousseau’s ‘virtuous man’. However, while Emerson was content to write about his love of nature, Thoreau, and more particularly Muir (both of whom sub- scribed to the transcendentalist philosophy), were bound to live it. The evolution from sedentary scholar to scholarly activist can be seen quite clearly in these individuals at a time when American corporate development had intensified, and when there was a great need to pressure government for the establishment of
112 D.A. Fennell
parks and protected areas. The messages quite apparent in the preservationist movement were that as society continues to move towards the mechanistic and materialistic, there will always be those who will push hard in the opposite direction.
During the 1960s the push was champi- oned by Rachel Carson. In her book Silent Spring (1962), Carson noted that the post- World War II era had created the market and need for a whole host of materials that were designed to keep pace with unprecedented levels of growth. Until Silent Spring, the effects of these materials (e.g. pesticides) were largely unknown. Carson thus provided solid evidence that human actions can have irre- versible implications, the likes of which were inconceivable at the time. From World War II we learned that technology and science could alter the course of history. Carson demon- strated that the same could hold true at the smallest of scales. This knowledge – the under- standing of what we were allowed to do to each other in the name of science and corporate advancement – provided a foundation for the development of quite extreme ecocentric frameworks designed to provide an expanded view of human consciousness. One of the most prevailing of these is the ‘deep ecology’ move- ment, first described by Naess (1973), which in turn was based on attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the work of Carson and Aldo Leopold. The essence of deep ecology (Devall and Sessions, 1985), is to probe beyond the limited information afforded to us through sci-
ence, into the realm of the religious and philo- sophical. These authors note that deep ecology is a representation of basic intuitions and expe- riences of the individual in the context of a broader holistic ecological consciousness. In this regard, deep ecology is the antithesis of the dominant worldview of today (Table 9.1).
What resonates through the deep ecology philosophy is the importance of ethics, har- mony and equity. As such, it is intricately tied to the basic assumptions surrounding human behaviour (i.e. good versus bad), the reasons for these behaviours, their effects, and how we may institute change. A book that had a simi- lar message during the same time, and of par- ticular importance to our discussion here, was Taylor’s (1986) Respect for Nature: a Theory of Environmental Ethics. Taylor’s work pro- vided a theoretical argument for the impor- tance of respecting the natural world, at a time when environmental ethics began to emerge.
He defined environmental ethics as that which is ‘concerned with the moral relations that hold between humans and the natural world’
(1986: 3). Our duties, obligations and respon- sibilities, regarding the natural world, Taylor observes, must be governed by ethical princi- ples. Taylor noted, as other ethicists have, the importance of following an ethical ideal or eth- ical spirit. That is, in order to realize the vision of a ‘best possible world’; stakeholder groups must be motivated to provide the needed will- power to implement shared measures for the benefit of all. This is particularly relevant to tourism studies where there are virtually no
Deep Ecotourism 113
Table 9.1.Contrasting paradigms.
Dominant worldview Deep ecology
Dominance over nature Harmony with Nature
Natural environment as a resource for humans All Nature has intrinsic worth/biospecies equality Material/economic growth for growing human Elegantly simple material needs (material goals
population serving the larger goal of self-realization)
Belief in ample resource reserves Earth ‘supplies’ limited
High technological progress and solutions Appropriate technology; non-dominating science
Consumerism Doing with enough/recycling
National/centralized community Minority tradition/bioregion Source: Devall and Sessions (1985).
underlying ethical principles – in a theoretical context – which might act in guiding a com- prehensive vision for the importance of human values in tourism decision making. The same can be said for ecotourism.
Converging Roads
The foregoing discussion on lack of vision, human values, and the ethical spirit in eco- tourism is especially troubling, given eco- tourism’s responsible status. Although there is mounting consensus regarding what eco- tourism is (i.e. tourism that includes environ- mental education, a nature base, conservation, and which is sustainably managed) the sheer number of definitions detracts from our ability to find clarity for all stakeholders in time and space. In an attempt to link the foregoing dis- cussion into a ‘way forward’, it is suggested that these shallow descriptors that we use to define ecotourism, but which mask its underlying essence, need to stem from a foundation of core values or qualities which could be used as fundamental, underlying ‘essentials’ for the cre- ation of an ethical, efficient and future-focused ecotourism industry (Figs 9.1 and 9.2). The
suggestion is that unless we have these funda- mental values in place, it is unlikely that the concepts that we have historically used to define ecotourism will be helpful. The premise driving this framework is the notion that eco- tourism has grown without a basic ontological foundation that might be helpful in putting all stakeholder groups on equal footing. Each of the proposed core values has some connection to social and ecological reverence.
Figure 9.1 illustrates that ecotourism will be unsuccessful if there is a relatively strict adherence to the fundamental defining aspects of ecotourism alone. Although these shallow descriptors, as noted above and in the figure, tell us how we may differentiate ecotourism from other types of tourism, they are not rooted in any philosophical domain. Conse- quently, the barrier between shallow eco- tourism and deep ecotourism perspectives is created because of self-interest and unhealthy competition (Saul, 2001), and because of the political and economic forces in place which have prevented ecotourism from realizing its potential to, for example, protect habitats, con- serve biodiversity and prevent poverty. These disparities and dysfunctions, it is argued, will continue unless we provide meaning at a
114 D.A. Fennell
Unsuccessful ecotourism
Environmental education
Sustainably managed
Support for conservation
Nature based
Shared knowledge
The
‘other’ Kosmopolites Will The shallow
perspective
Barriers
The deep perspective
Self interest competition, structural inequalities, commodification of nature, etc. Conflicting values and priorities eliminate the
possibility of a deep ecotourism foundation
Fig. 9.1.Unsuccessful ecotourism.