Tourism as Tool for Sustainable Rural Development Research Paper

Introduction

Before the advent of the ecotourism concept, the attention of tour operators were fastened on nothing more than the short-term gains to be obtained from taking city-based tourists to the hinterlands for guided nature and leisure trips, cruises and boat rides, hunt for wildlife, etc. These activities are conducted with total disregard for the social, economic and environmental impact of letting hordes of tourists enjoy the wonders of nature in a haphazard manner.

In the jungles of Africa, for example, tourists are allowed to hunt wildlife indiscriminately without the consent of and accruing benefit for village people whose livelihood and well-being depend on a delicate balance in this natural resource. Most of the proceeds from the conventional practice of tourism thus go to the tour operators who, together with the visitors, only derive the positive experiences offered by the tourism industry.

This paper discusses the reasons for the shift in emphasis of tourism development from the consumptive and short-term perspective to one that gives considerations to social responsibility, environmental concerns and sustainability issues. The first part of the research is a comprehensive review of the literature, underlining the history of tourism and the development of natural resources for tourism purposes, tourism demand and opportunities, and the costs and benefits involved in a sustainable tourism undertaking.

The second part analyzes tourism projects in eight countries, based on a study by Horner & Swarbrooke (2004) of tourism management in which government takes the lead role in showcasing tourism as an effective tool for sustainable rural development. Based on ideas gleaned from the literature review together with recent experience, we then look for possible inefficiencies in the tourism products of those eight countries and suggest ways to improve these programs for the benefit of more stakeholders and other policymakers.

Literature Review

The term “ecotourism” was first used by Hector Ceballos-Lascurain in 1983 to describe travel to rarely visited natural spectacles outside population centers simply to broaden one’s outlook or education (Harrison & Husbands, 1996). The concept has since evolved to mean a holistic and scientific approach to the planning, development, and management of products and services for serving up tourists (Page & Dowling, 2002).

According to Merg (1999), tourism becomes ecotourism when it creates tourism facilities and products that are socially and psychologically acceptable, economically feasible, and ecologically sustainable. This represents a radical departure from the traditional concept of tourism in which visitors use the gifts of nature for their pleasure without ensuring that travelers in the future enjoy the same thrill and experience (Merg, 1999).

An example of consumptive tourism is the hunting of rare polar animals in Alaska or wildlife specimens in African jungles, which is ecologically destructive even if quotas and hunting seasons are prescribed for such activity. Allowing visitors into the natural habitat of wildlife is ecologically disruptive in itself. One of the reasons is that hunting and the presence of so many tourists disturb the mating patterns of wild animals, which is likely to discourage procreation. The result of this mindless intrusion into nature is that there will be fewer species of animals in the future (MERC, undated).

In effect, the traditional concept of tourism fails to preserve resources for future generations and demonstrates an absence of care for the environment even as it ignores the local people and economies, which represent the driving force behind ecotourism.

Ecotourism

Ecotourism is equated with responsible tourism and sustainable development, which have served as alternative concepts to consumptive tourism since the late 1980s. Considered the fastest growing sub-sector of the tourism industry, with an annual global expansion of 10-15 percent, ecotourism represents a change in tourist perceptions in terms of sharper awareness of the ecological implications of the popular desire to explore natural environments (Page & Dowling, 2002). Some definitions of ecotourism:

1. “The practice of low-impact, educational, ecologically and culturally sensitive travel that benefits local communities and host countries.” – Wearing (2001, p. 397).
2. “Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.” – International Ecotourism Society, (2007, p. 1).

Under the principles and criteria set by the International Ecotourism Society in 1990, tourism-oriented activities fulfill the requirements of ecotourism if they minimize environmental impact; build environmental and cultural awareness and respect, provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts; empowers and economically benefits local people; and raise awareness of the social, political and environmental climate of the host countries.

Specifically, ecotourism should provide for the conservation not only of the biodiversity but also of the cultural heritage of tourism sites and local people through sustainable use, meaningful job creation, local consent and NGO-community participation and minimization of waste and pollutants (Barkin & Pailles, 2007). The social and economic benefits can be shared meaningfully with local communities and indigenous people if they are allowed to participate in the development and management of ecotourism enterprises because then the long-term effects will become a major consideration (Cawley & Gillmor, 2007).

These principles and criteria are emphasized here because of the different perspectives on what constitutes ecotourism. According to Brown (1998), ecotourism continues to mean different things to different environmentalists, special interest groups and governments. Environmental NGOs maintain that apart from consistently supporting conservation measures, ecotourism is also managed in a sustainable manner such that it is forward-looking ((Harrison & Husbands, 1996). However, to governments and the tourism industry it is enough that a tourism project is nature-based or it sells to visitors a product of nature (Kotler, et al., 2003).

Adding to the confusion is the use of a variety of terms to describe ecotourism in the literature and tourism marketing activities. Among the terms being frequently used are nature tourism, low-impact tourism, green tourism, bio-tourism, responsible tourism, sustainable tourism and rural development tourism (Acott, et al., 1998), which are not synonymous with ecotourism in the strictest sense of the word if measured by the criteria set by the IETS.

In that set of general criteria, ecotourism must include the conservation of biological and cultural diversities through ecosystem protection, promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, share of socio-economic benefits with local communities through informed consent and participation, increase in environmental and cultural knowledge, affordability and reduced waste, and minimization of its own environmental impact (International Ecotourism Society, 2007). What is important is that it contributes to the long-term benefits of both the environment and local communities instead of the short-term gains derived from the conventional conduct of tourism (Page & Dowling, 2002).

The tourism industry is a big money earner and such disagreement over the proper definition of ecotourism is a cause for concern among policy makers intent on making tourism the driver of economic development because of the phenomenon called “green-washing.” This is a strategy that uses the environment as a ploy to commercialize a tourism product. In this method, tourism schemes are falsely promoted as sustainable, nature-based, and eco-friendly undertakings although the motivation is crass commercialism.

According to MERC (undated), these schemes are not only harmful to the environment, economy, and local culture but also morally offensive. Nonetheless, green-washing in the tourism industry continues to gain popularity because it entails fewer development costs for tour operators. An example of such a scheme is the theme park called Nature’s Sacred Paradise in Quintana Roo, Mexico, which has been responsible for displacing local Mayan communities and illegally keeping endangered species in cages to attract visitors.

The development and success of such large-scale, energy-intensive, and ecologically unsustainable schemes attest to the profitability of stamping the ecotourism label on tourism projects that do not fulfill the criteria. This emphasizes the need for controlling such activities, with funding appropriated for field studies designed in such a way that it aims to find alternative solutions.

Even as pure ecotourism, tourism activities are also known to engender conflict over control of land, resources, and tourism profits at the local level (MERC, undated). Travel in the hinterlands always creates social and environmental impact and the imperative is to pass laws that regulate the activities of investors in tourism. These regulations should be implemented to prohibit the establishment of unsustainable ecotourism projects and the distribution of promotional materials that misrepresent destinations and ignore local and indigenous cultures (McLaren, 1998).

Aside from environmental degradation caused by tourism infrastructure, visitors to a tourist attraction always leave garbage and pollution in their wake (Barkin & Pailles, 2007). This happens although tourists may claim to be educated and aware of the dangers of environmental pollution.

Ecotourism itself exerts pressure on the environment because it damages flora and fauna, destroys marked trails, contributes to soil erosion and impaction, scares animals away, or disrupts their feeding and nesting patterns (MERC, 1999). In Kenya, for example, wildlife visitors drive cheetahs off their reserves, thus increasing the risk of inbreeding and further endangering the species.

Consumptive Tourism

An example of a tourism activity that is short-term and consumptive in the objective is the unabated hunting expeditions in Africa, particularly the protected areas and rich forest reserves in Kenya and Tanzania. The tour operators and hunting firms have been accused of indiscriminate hunting of wildlife that disregards the rights of local people and the well-being of the environment (MERC, undated online). To mitigate the situation, the Tanzanian government has led the way by launching a program called Wildlife Management Areas, which are areas set aside for natural resource conservation with the consent and participation of village people.

The program will be overseen by Tanzania’s Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources to ensure that the communities benefit from the conservation and management of wildlife in their lands. African countries contend with what is called jungle tourism, a malpractice that occurs when the concept of ecotourism is used as a marketing tool to promote nature-based tourism.

Tourism targeted for short-term gains is the exact opposite of ecotourism, which according to Merg (1999), has the following:

“It is developed with little attention to the negative social, economic and environmental impact; it does not yield greater economic benefits for local people nor enhances the well-being of host communities; it does not improve working conditions and access to the industry; it neglects to involve local people in decisions that affect their lives and life chances; it does not make a positive contribution to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage and the maintenance of biodiversity, and it does not provide more enjoyable experiences for tourists through more meaningful connections with local people, and a greater understanding of local cultural, social and environmental issues”. (Merg, 1999, p. 2 online)

According to Doxey (1975), consumptive tourism is doomed from the start because of its lack of long-term provisions. When tourists are brought to an area of interest, the locals may welcome the intrusion because of the promise of tourist income. However, this attitude becomes negative upon reaching a threshold. The index model set by Doxey (1975) says that the attitude of residents that is positive at first turns to apathy, then to irritation, and eventually to antagonism as the perceived costs exceed the expected benefits.

Responsible Tourism

Based on the definitions of Harrison & Husbands (1996), responsible tourism includes programs that minimize the negative aspects of conventional tourism on the environment and enhance the cultural integrity of local people. Apart from giving careful consideration to such environmental and cultural factors, responsible tourism also makes allowances for water conservation and the creation of economic opportunities for local communities. This view holds that responsible tourism is a movement as it represents an approach to engaging the full cooperation of all tourism stakeholders. It emphasizes that all tourism stakeholders are responsible for the kind of tourism that they develop or engage in (McLaren, 1998). Thus, tourism establishments, government, and residents must recognize the need to balance the conflicting interests inherent in a tourism project.

According to Harrison & Husbands (1996), responsible tourism is an aspiration that can be realized in different ways in different markets and the diverse destinations of the world. In that sense, sustainable tourism is a sub-sector of the tourism industry committed to creating a minimal impact on the natural environment and local culture while helping generate income and employment for locals (Barkin & Pailles, 2002).

Economists forecast continuing growth in international tourism at an estimated 3 to 6 percent annually, depending on the attractiveness of a location (Wearing & McNeil, 2000). As one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing governments, tourism will then exert increasing pressure on the remaining natural habits and indigenous cultures, which serve as a support system for mass tourism. Tourists that promote sustainable tourism are sensitive to these dangers and seek to protect tourist destinations and the tourism industry as a whole (Acott, et al., 1998). Barkin & Pailles (2007) propose the following measures to promote sustainable tourism:

1. Educate tourists on the culture, economy, and politics of the communities in the tourist areas.
2. Anticipate and respect local cultures’ expectations and assumptions.
3. Contribute to intercultural understanding and tolerance.
4. Support the integrity of local cultures by favoring businesses that conserve cultural heritage and traditional values.
5. Support local economies by purchasing local goods and participating with small, local businesses.
6. Conserve resources by seeking out environmentally conscious businesses, and by using the least possible amount of non-renewable resources (Barkin &Pailles, 2007, pp. 71-79).

Interestingly, tourism destinations and operations are endorsing and following responsible tourism as the road leading to sustainable tourism. Responsible tourism and sustainable tourism are identical because they work for the same goals and operate by the same principles, which are social equity, environmental integrity, and economic development. The only difference is that in responsible tourism, individuals, organizations, and businesses are asked to assume responsibility for their actions and the impact of these actions (Harrison & Husbands, 1996).

This shift in emphasis has taken place because some stakeholders feel that insufficient progress towards realizing sustainable tourism has been made since the international Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The emphasis on responsibility in responsible tourism means that everyone involved in tourism should be held accountable if the goals of ecotourism are not achieved, which is to help maintain and preserve the natural environment for future use.

Rural Tourism

Tourism provides an alternative source of income for rural areas around the world that are facing unprecedented challenges because of the increasing demand for agricultural goods (Cater, 1995). In both developed and developing countries, rural areas are suffering from depopulation and diminishing agricultural incomes. The migration from rural to urban areas leave many farms fallow while the increasing unpredictability of the climate reduces agricultural productivity.

In Western Europe, the threats come from reduced European Union subsidies for agriculture, while in other parts of the world the problems are coming from health problems such as HIV-AIDS and natural calamities such as droughts and floods. There is also a growing feeling that globalization is going to put increasing pressure on rural food producers. Interestingly much of the opposition to globalization has come from rural interest groups, most notably the peasant movement in France (Horner & Swarbrooke, 2004).

As a result of all these threats, there is a great interest today in sustainable rural development, among governments and rural communities (Harrison & Husbands, 1996). The consensus is that this requires a holistic view that integrates all elements of the rural economy towards a common purpose and tourism presents itself as one of these elements. This does not mean that tourism is a panacea for rural poverty since tourism is only one part of the rural system, which must be in balance with the other parts of the system, from agriculture to education and manufacturing industry to housing.

Nevertheless, tourism does have many advantages in terms of rural development if used under the heading rural tourism. These advantages are listed by Horner & Swarbrooke (2004) as:

• Rural tourism can be developed relatively quickly.
• The capital costs are often less than those involved in developing new businesses in other industries.
• Tourism is less polluting than most of the other industries.
• Tourism can bring benefits to a wide cross-section of the local community if properly developed.
• Tourism can help maintain the viability of farms.
• Rural tourism can provide jobs for groups that may otherwise struggle to find employment in rural areas, such as women and young people.

Notwithstanding its promise of development, rural tourism is like other industries that involve a mass of people and so it can also bring problems to rural areas such as overcrowding, traffic, and rapid social change. When the culture of host communities is the closed and conservative type, the local people may resist the visit of tourists.

On this concern, the index model of Doxey (1975) might prove useful in crafting a development program for rural tourism. According to this theory, the attitude of residents toward tourism may be positive at first but this gradually turns to apathy, then irritation, and finally antagonism when the perceived costs of the tourism project exceed the expected benefits. In effect, proponents of a rural tourism endeavor must demonstrate to the host communities that the benefits they would derive from the project are greater than the sacrifices they will have to make.

Sustainable Tourism

Sustainability also relates to successful product development and marketing of tourism destinations so that tourist arrival continues. According to Kotler, et al. (2003), no effort to promote tourism can succeed if the government does not lead the way. By all rights, tourism is an economic activity that should be left to the private sector but planning, regulation, and infrastructure development should be the tasks of the government. The reason is that successful tourism marketing redounds to the benefits of government, the private sector, and the local population. Tourism development and marketing are focused on four factors:

1. Natural Endowments – these refer to a country’s history, resources, climate, and culture.
2. Acquired Endowments, Public Goods and Externalities – these have to do with the level of education, knowledge of foreign languages, quality of infrastructure, public health conditions, legal and banking systems, all of which are capable of making the stay of tourists comfortable.
3. Risk Mitigation – this refers to the elements of risk in the visit of tourists, concerning political and economic disturbances. For example, is there any possibility that a military coup will erupt in places where tourists are visiting? Can the insurance system in this place cover a tourist that may be killed in an accident?
4. Economic Prowess – this refers to a country’s economic policies that can induce the growth of tourism (Kotler, et al., 2003).

Plog (2001) identifies three types of tourists in a modeling concept that can prove useful in tourism development and marketing because it helps determine which tourist destinations should be promoted to which group of tourists. There are the allocentric tourists who enjoy making contact with local people and need little tourism infrastructure, and the psychometric who prefer to visit foreign places that have the comforts of home and thus need a great deal of tourist infrastructure. In between is the mid centric type of tourists, who display the characteristics of both the allocentric and psychometric models and essentially dislike contact with locals.

Costs & Benefits

A tourism project or product is a costly undertaking in terms of social, economic,mid-centric, and environmental repercussions. The objective of ecotourism is to balance these costs with the expected social, economic, and environmental benefits. If possible, the benefits should be greater than the costs, for the tourism product to avoid the index theory of Doxey (1975), in which the initially receptive locals begin to resist if the costs exceed the benefits.

According to the Barcelona Field Studies Center (2008), there is always the possibility that visitors bring with their lifestyle and ideas that will run into conflict with those of community residents. For example, tourists are known to bring and use alcohol or drugs in their travels, which habit is capable of corrupting if not antagonizing the locals. According to Brown (1998) and Page & Dowling (2002), the influx of tourists may also result in the following:

1. Change in individual behavior and family relationships in host communities.
2. This contributes to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
3. Lead to loss of traditional values and culture through imitation of visitor behavior or cultural diffusion resulting from normal, everyday interaction.
4. Create crowding and congestion.
5. Compete with residents for available services, facilities, and existing recreation opportunities.
6. Encourage harassment of visitors perceived to be wealthy, thus abetting crime.
7. Lead to violation of human rights, with people deprived of their use of their land and beaches to give way to paying guests.

As for social benefits, the primary gains in this sphere include the entry of dollars that could be used to build community facilities and services that the local government could not develop otherwise. The other social benefits listed in the Barcelona Field Studies Center (2008) are the encouragement of civic involvement and pride; the cultural exchange between guests and hosts; preservation and celebration of local festivals and cultural events; the use of facilities and infrastructure developed for tourism by residents; the learning of new languages and skills; and use of tourism-related funds for building schools and related structures in the host communities.

On the environment, the possible costs are the threat of degradation posed on such natural resources such as beaches, coral reefs, and historical sites; the unavoidable increase in littering, noise, and pollution; increased competition for limited resources such as water and land; increased sewage and solid waste pollution and vehicle emissions. Tourism also benefits the environment by fostering conservation and preservation of natural, cultural, and historical resources; and encouraging community beautification and revitalization.

In terms of economic benefits, tourism helps diversify and stabilize the local economy; provides governments with extra tax revenues each year through accommodation and restaurant taxes, airport taxes, sales taxes, park entrance fees, employee income tax; and creates local jobs and business opportunities, such as those directly related to tourism (hotel and tour services) and those that indirectly support tourism, such as food production and housing construction. If developed and implemented properly, tourism can boost the local economy because of its multiplier effect, such that the new money brought by tourists is returned to the local economy as it is spent over and over again.

While it earns valuable foreign exchange, it also employs big numbers of people because of its labor-intensive characteristics. There is an economic price to be paid for these benefits, which is led by the costs the local government has to appropriate for the development of airports, roads, and other infrastructure. The coming of tourists may also inflate property values as well as prices of goods and services, with most of the economic benefits going to the tourist developer from outside the community.

While tourism means local employment, this comes in spurts though since the tourism industry is seasonal and the services of workers become unnecessary during the winter or rainy seasons. On top of this irregular work, the pattern is the generally low wage rate in the tourism industry, which does not require skilled workers except those serving as tour guides or those in management positions. Moreover, the number of tourist arrivals can be skewed by events beyond the control of the tour operator or destination, such as economic recession or terrorist attacks to which less developed countries are especially susceptible.

Finally, there is the tendency of tourism to follow the product life cycle theory in marketing, which suggests that no matter how successful a product is patronage will decline sooner or later. The product life cycle consists of the market introduction, growth, maturity, and decline stages. In tourism, it is believed that the popularity of a destination diminishes when the sense of novelty is gone and competitors also begin to saturate that particular market (Jacobson & Robles, 1998).

Case Study

Horner & Swarbrooke (2004) studied 40 different tourism-oriented organizations, attractions, establishments, and facilities in various parts of the world to see how rural-based tourism development programs promote sustainable rural development. The most prominent part of the study focuses on the development of rural tourism in France, the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, New Zealand, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia.

Rural-based tourism products and services in these eight countries were evaluated on how they manage resources in such a way that they fulfill the social, economic, and aesthetic imperatives of modern tourism and at the same time preserve the ecological and biological diversity in the project areas.

In the case study, distinctions were made between tourism projects that were initiated and funded by the private sector and those undertaken by the government, between farm-based and village-based projects, and between “active participatory” and “passive relaxation” types of tourism. In an active-participatory project, development is led by the local people, while the passive-relaxation types were driven by people from outside the community.

In France, which is acknowledged as having pioneered the concept of tourism as a tool for rural development, the showpieces of rural tourism are the Gites, Fermes-Auberges, Bienvenue a la Ferme, Marcus du Pays, Loisirs Accueil, and the themed trails. The Gites have abandoned farm buildings converted by the government into low-cost tourist facilities through public sector grants. As a measure of its success, there are over 45,000 Gites across France as of 2004 from the handful that was created in 1950, with a Gite for children and nature trippers, for horseback riding, fishing, and skiing.

Every Gite provides extra income to farmers and villagers, who maintain the facility and serve as its staff. The development concept for Gite also animates the Fermes-Auberges farms, in which rural families are encouraged to host and feed guests in their farms with meals cooked the native way. In essence, the other tourism attractions developed in France merely function as support systems for the Gites and Fermes-Auberges.

The Bienvenue a la Ferme is an information campaign that encourages people to visit rural areas, learn about the food chain process, and buy their food requirements direct from the farmers, which are available at the Marches du Pays. Information about these tourism-related market operations in the rural areas is provided through the government-supported agencies called Loisirs Accureil, which handles the themed parks that promote the endeavor on rural tourism and the local farm products.

Like France, Ireland has been a major player in rural tourism development in Europe, using the strategy mainly as a response to the rural-to-urban migration problem. The government has financed dozens of projects to develop rural tourism infrastructure in West Cork. These include garden attractions, diving centers and equipment, self-catering accommodation development, caravan sites, a tourist information center, restoration of an old watermill, boats for river cruising, a tourist hostel, a walking festival, cycling routes, and a rural music festival.

The funds lent to these projects were relatively small since the purpose is to encourage private investors to join. Unlike France, however, Honer& Swarbrooke (2004) note that Ireland’s rural tourism does not focus on farm life and products and uses rural areas only as a setting for tourism activities. Thus, the rural tourism activities encouraged in Ireland are those related to golfing, angling, Irish music, and dance, and natural history.

Another European country at the forefront of rural tourism development in New Zealand, where Agritour was established in 1984. Agritour projects New Zealand as one of the world’s leading agricultural producers by establishing relationships between local agriculturists and farmers and major agricultural producers in the world. Learning tours are periodically arranged for New Zealand farmers to study the farming systems in other countries.

In the UK, there are no organized rural tourism projects as yet, since the country only promotes visits to rural areas for such activities as horseback riding, walking and cycling, and experiencing farm-based accommodations and picturesque villages. In the drawing, boards are many projects calculated to stimulate the growth of the rural areas through rural tourism. These include the Rural Tourism Improvement Fund for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the EU-supported Interreg II-B, and a research project under the Rural Recovery Program in the West Midlands.

Under the RTIF for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, financing will be granted to residents who have at least 5 acres of land for development as rural-based tourism facilities that will showcase local products. The same objective is set for the Interreg II-B project, which aims to establish rural tourism sites that would link the UK’s agricultural, food processing, culture, and tourism activities with those of neighboring Germany, Norway, and Sweden.

As for this third undertaking, the University of Staffordshire will look at the needs and potentials of small and medium tourism-related enterprises in the area to see how they can be developed under the existing Rural Recovery Program in the West Midlands. The same conditions obtain in Cyprus, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Kenya where the potentials of rural tourism have been recognized but where efforts are still largely on the planning stage. For the moment, their governments are preoccupied with producing brochures and websites encouraging rural tourism.

Analysis

If the Gites and Fermes-Auberges were any indications, the rural tourism policy in France is the most superior among the undertakings mentioned in the case study. It looks at rural tourism development with sustainability in mind. In terms of economic benefits, for example, the Gites provide extra income to farmers who can return to their farms during the tourism off-season even as it helps diversify and stabilize the local economy. The same economic benefit radiates from the Fermes-Auberges project, which also serves to enrich the social life of locals by admitting tourists into their farms. The scheme also does not harm the environment because there are no natural resources involved that can be degraded by stampeding visitors.

This cannot be said of the rural tourism policy in Ireland, which is more village-based than farm-based. As noted in the case study, the tourism activities encouraged in Ireland are golfing, native dance and music, angling, natural history, and the like, with rural areas serving only as a backdrop. When you exclude farming and food production in rural tourism, this is not sustainable rural tourism development because agriculture is the backbone of local economies. In sum, the best strategy for rural tourism is one that considers the social, economic, and environmental implications of allowing tourists into rural areas.

Conclusion

As part of ecotourism, rural and sustainable tourism often fails to live up to standards when policymakers forget that tourism is a highly consumer-centered activity and that economic growth is closely related to environmental preservation. To be sustainable, the environmental benefits must outweigh the economic gains. In Africa, for example, many of the countries derive economic benefits from tourism but the rush of visitors caused the displacement of persons and environmental hazards. This damage is irreversible and could not be ameliorated by all the incoming dollars from tourism.

When tourists are allowed into a place, this means an increase in population that, though temporary, exerts pressure on the environment and requires the development of new infrastructure and accommodation facilities. The need is to determine that the economic benefits accruing from tourism justify this increase in development costs.

Bibliography

Acott, T.G., La Trobe, H.L. & Howard, S.H. (1998). “An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism.” Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 6, No. 3.

Barcelona Field Studies Center (2008). “Tourism Costs and Benefits.”

Barkin, D. & Pailles, C. (2002). “NGO-Community Participation for Ecotourism: A Strategy for Sustainable Regional Development.” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 6 (3).

Brown, F. (1998). “Tourism Reassessed: Blight or Blessing?” Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Doxey, G. (1975). “The Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants, Methodology and Research Inferences and Doxey’s Irridex Model of Host Irritation.” Paper presented at

The 6^th Annual Conference of the Travel Research Association, September 1975, San Diego CA

Cater, E. (1995). “Environmental Contradictions in Sustainable Tourism.” Geographical Journal 161 (1).

Cawley, M. & Gillmor, D.A. (2007). “Integrated Rural Tourism: Concepts and Practices.” Ireland: Elsevier.

Harrison, L.C. & Husbands, W. (eds) (1996). “Practicing Responsible Tourism.” John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

Horner, S. & Swarbrooke, J. (2004). “International Cases in Tourism Management.”

Kotler, P., Hamlin, M.A. Rein, I. & Haider, D.H. (2003). “Marketing Asia Places: Attracting

Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations.” John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., Singapore.

McLaren, D. (1998). “Rethinking Tourism and Ecotourism: The Paving of Paradise and What You can do to Stop it.” West Hartford CT: Kamarian Press.

Merg, M. (1999). “What is Ecotourism?”

MERC (undated). “Consumptive Tourism” Web.

Page, S.J. & Dowling, R. (2002). “Ecotourism.” Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Plog, S. (2001). “Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity.”

The International Ecotourism Society (2007). “Definitions and Principles.”

Wearing, S. & McNeil, J. (2000). “Ecotourism – Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities.” 2d ed. Reed Educational and Professional Publishing: Oxford.

Wearing, S. (2001). “The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism.” Cab International.