Ecotourism has the potential to contribute financially to conservation efforts through tourism revenue generation and by increasing environmental awareness, but its impacts depend on how it is implemented. A meta-analysis of 188 ecotourism case studies found that 62.8% were considered ecologically sustainable. Factors correlated with sustainability included local community involvement, habitat type (tropical forests and savannahs more suitable), and study methodological rigor. Sustainability was negatively correlated with projects in Africa, Asia, and Central America. For ecotourism to effectively support conservation, local communities must be involved in planning, visitor numbers must be limited, and national legal support is needed.

1. So, in practice, can ecotourism contribute to conservation?Or is it simply a marketing ploy, a case of environmental opportunism, a buzzword?

2. Eco-Tourism defined as:“Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations. “–World Conservation Union’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Area—

3. Ecotourism Paradigm

4. Generation of RevenuePotential Direct Value:Tourism earned approx. $188, 518 million for developed countries , 4-22% brought in by nature tourism (1995)Potential Indirect Value:Soil conservation of tree cover in India $100-240/haCarbon Sequestration: $2000-4000/haCosts to manage w/o eco-tourism$1-3/ha/year recurrently, up to $18.5/ha/yearEnvironmental Damage costs w/eco-tourism$0.1-1.9/ha/year (in Costa Rica and Ecuador)

5. Environmental EducationSome eco-tourism definitions require the philosophy of preservation, (intrinsic vs. extrinsic values) and a biocentricrather than homocentric philosophy.Eco-tourism functions as a means to make people more aware of the natural world with or without such ethics.Eco-tourism promotes the adoption of an environmental ethic through passive and active learning

6. Local InvolvementIncreased employment opportunitiesLocal distribution of tourism revenuesImproved local infrastructureProximity to marketsTransportationHealth careCommunicationsLocal capacity building, local empowermentImproved intercultural relations and appreciation

7. Biodiversity loss and Eco-tourism

8. Protection: How Much and Where?At least 12% of terrestrial surface representing all kinds of biomes needs to be conserved according to the World Commission on Environment and Development.Currently 5.2% of the earths surface is protectedEco/nature-tourism accounts for 15% of all tourism60-70 % of the world’s biodiversity is located in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Congo, Madagascar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Austraila

9. Negative Impacts of ProtectionHigh opportunity costs due to lost development alternatives and loss of traditional activitiesLocal activities in protected areas are often illegalConserving extensive tracts of habitat politically difficult in the absence of sustainable revenue generation.Boundaries, alone, may suggest that surrounding areas are free for exploitation

10. GrowthEcotourism is outpacing conventional tourism by 15% per year.Developing Countries are become more popular destinationsDemand for undegraded nature will increase(will either pressure ecosystems or increase value)Costa Rica parks raised admission fees by a factor 0f 10Visitor numbers plummeted by 44%Total revenues increased substantially

11. The Role of Ecotourism in ConservationPanacea or Pandora’s BoxOliver Kruger

12. Meta Analysis of 188 Case StudiesHow are ecotourism case studies distributed over continents and habitats?What variables are correlated with a study being classified as sustainable by the author? What is the relative importance of these in a multi factor analysis?What are the main (+) and (–) effects reported in case studies? Can these be linked to the main reasons for sustainability?

13. Criteria for CasesCases had to be specific to an area and focus on the natural resources of the areaReport original observations or dataPublished in natural or social science journalsPurely theoretical studies omittedCases from 1981 to 2001Evaluated on ecological criteria alone*

14. To sustain or not sustain…Ecological sustainability: the current practice does not pose a risk to the area or species in foreseeable futureEssentially, does the project meet the minimum requirements to be ecological sustainable?

15. Variables ConsideredYear, Author Type (social or natural scientist) Author Affiliation with Institution of Country (yes or no)Continent/Region and Habitat Type (dummy variables = 1 or 0)Type of flagship species (7 categories)None

16. Fish

17. Reptile

18. Bird

19. Charismatic Bird

20. Mammal

21. Char. Mammal

22. Worldwide FlagshipVariables ContinuedLocal Community Involved (yes or no) based on:Revenue Sharing OccursDecision PowerLocal EmploymentursInvestigation method (Purely observational or repeatable method , 0 or 1)All of these into Multivariate Regression Analysis to evaluate relative importance

23. Distribution of Cases by Country, Type

24. Distribution by Flagship Species

26. ResultsOf 188 studies, 118 (62.8%) classified as sustainableSignificantly higher than % expected by chance, R2 = .65Dichotomous Dependent Variable (Sustainable or not)Best model had 4 significant predictor variables4 Variables: Flagship Species Type, Local Community Involvement, Habitat Type, Type of StudyTo check for model robustness, multiple discriminate analysis done, same variables as predictors, 85% of cases classified correctly