Ecotourism is an oxymoron.Sustainable tourism as alternative?

The case of Costa Rica.

May 10, 2006

Suzanne Nievaart

Introduction

I first learned about the concept of sustainable development and all its

facets about two years ago, during one of my university courses. The

concept of ecotourism was only briefly mentioned at that time.

Searching on the internet, I soon discovered that ecotourism was

abound in Costa Rica. Enticed by the promises of the adventurous and

environmentally friendly exploration of ancient rainforests, I decided

my next trip to Latin America would have to include Costa Rica. I

realized tourism will most likely only increase worldwide and I thought

promoting it in a sustainable way must be the most desired path to

take. Becoming more acquainted with the pillars of sustainable

development and its tools such as ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’

during my studies, I began to doubt if all the ‘ecotours’ in Costa Rica

were all they pretended to be. Although an in-depth analysis may

require onsite research, the literature review I have made now has

already confirmed by previous doubts of ecotourism in Costa Rica.

The starting point for this paper is van der Duim and Philipsen’s

article ‘How eco is Costa Rica’s ecotourism?’ (2002). One of the issues

mentioned by the authors that are at stake in answering the title’s

question is the statement that tourism development which is geared

towards ‘ecotourism’ excursions has negative impacts on the

immediate natural vicinity. In this paper I will focus on the impacts of

tourism on nature and the environment in order to illustrate the

paradox of ecotourism in Costa Rica. I will argue that this implies that

the ‘eco’ of ‘ecotourism’ no longer represents the ecological dimension

that environmentalists initially intended with this prefix. This is

illustrated by the definitions given in the Collins English dictionary:

Eco-: combines with nouns and adjectives to form other nouns and adjectives which describe something as being related to ecology.

Eco-tourism: the business of providing holidays and related services which are not harmful to the environment of the area.

In this paper, I will demonstrate that there are two ways in which

ecotourism is an oxymoron. First of all, and most pertinently, the ‘eco’

of ecotourism generally implies that it is an environmentally friendly

form of tourism. Not only is this often not the case, tourism itself

inevitably has negative impacts on the environment. In this paper I will

discuss the case of Costa Rica, where ecotourism is a national project,

but proving to be not so ‘eco’ in practice. In Costa Rica, negative

impacts occur on four levels: 1) Outside the ‘protected’ areas,

conservation is not practiced, and therefore the rest of Costa Rica’s

nature is slowly deteriorating by the hordes of tourists that come to

visit the national parks and reserves. 2) The small-scale and low key

nature of ecotourism ventures leave it highly unregulated, individuals

can set up their ‘eco’ outfit anywhere and anyhow they please, there

are very few consequential guidelines. 3) The popularity of ecotourism

in Costa Rica has resulted in mass ‘eco’ tourism, whereby minimalizing

impacts in its practice defeats its own purpose once it becomes large

scale. 4) Tourism itself is environmentally destructive: the rainforests

of Costa Rica would have been best left untouched altogether.

Secondly, ecotourism is seen as a tool for sustainable

development, wherefore the economic and social aspects should be

balanced with the ecological aspect, yet ‘eco’ implies a lop-sided

balance. Therefore, I will conclude this paper by discussing

‘sustainable’ tourism as an alternative approach for sustainable

development.

Part 1: Ecotourism is an oxymoron.

Costa Rica, Ecotourism Paradise

Costa Rica is well known as an ecotourism destination, and is perhaps

even the most popular destination in Central America (Tepelus et al.

2005: 136, and Weaver 1994: 170). Its popularity is often attributed to

the fact that it contains 6% of the world’s biodiversity in mountains,

volcanoes, beaches, rainforests, cloud forests, coral reefs, mangroves,

diverse fauna and flora, all within an oversee-able small size and a

relatively secure environment due to its political stability and high

standard of living (Boo 1990, vol. 2: 27, Dasendrock 2002, Menkhaus

and Lober 1996, Tepelus et al. 2005, Inman et al. 1998 van der Duim

and Philipsen 2002: 62, and Krüger 2005).

‘The first ecotourists in Costa Rica were scientific researchers

and those who were not very different from the scientists themselves

in terms of their interests’ (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 62).

These scientists ‘discovered the country’s natural beauty’ and spurred

the government onto developing nature conservation programs in the

1960’s, when national parks were first created (Groen 2002: 54-55).

Since this time tourism to these ‘protected’ areas has increased, along

with Costa Rica’s reputation as a promoter of natural resource

preservation and sustainable development (Tepelus et al. 2005: 136,

Stem et al. 2003: 322 and Groen 2002: 43).

The state saw the promotion of ecotourism as a solution to

international criticism of Costa Rica’s environmental problems such as

deforestation, which leads to land degradation, soil erosion, fuelwood

scarcity, declining land fertility; pesticide poisonings; and waste and

sewage disposal deficiencies which lead to land and water

contamination; as well as a solution to the previously accumulated

foreign debt (Thrupp 1990, Carriere 1991, and Dasenbrock 2002).

Presently, tourism has become Costa Rica’s dominant source of

foreign income (Groen 2002: 54-55, Menkhaus and Lober 1996).

Currently, 21% of Costa Rica is protected in 24 national parks

(Dasenbrock 2002), one of which is the Manuel Antonio National Park,

‘one of the main ecotourism destinations in Costa Rica’ (Baez 1996;

113). It offers outdoor sports such as climbing in the tropical rainforest

as well as deep-scuba diving off the “sun-sea-sand’’ beaches (Ibid.).

Due to its various attractions and its proximity to the international

airport, Manuel Antonio is very popular among ecotourists, and has

been ‘compared to very popular and overcrowded tourist destinations

in Europe’ (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 66).

Another development that has led to Costa Rica’s green image is

the creation of private nature reserves, such as the pioneer

Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve. In the 1950’s, American Quaker

settlers bought a large portion of land and started a dairy farm (Groen

2002: 54, see also Mowforth and Munt 1998, Whelan 1991, van Wijk

2000, Fennell 1999 and Boo 1990, Vol. 2). Its prosperity attracted

many Costa Ricans to the area. Since then it has expanded and

evolved into a privately-owned and operated ‘protected area’, and has

pioneered in exploiting its natural base for ecotourism, with tourist fees

that contribute for almost 100% to nature conservation, so that the

reserve can expand and be maintained (van der Duim and Philipsen

2002: 67).

The Monteverde and the Manuel Antonio are the most popular

(eco)tourism destinations in Costa Rica, and the most discussed in the

literature. I will therefore use these two parks as examples to argue

that ecotourism is an oxymoron. In the following section I will discuss

that the (scientific) ideal of ecotourism is unfortunately not lived in

practice.

Theory versus Practice

Each (scientific) author that writes about ecotourism which I have

encountered signals the problem that ecotourism is a vague concept

which is defined differently by all parties that choose to use it. These

definitions are appropriated according to the needs of the definer. The

definitions are then interpreted widely, in line with the interests of the

interpreters. These definers and interpreters are the actors involved in

ecotourism: the tourists, the host populations, scientists, governmental

and non-governmental organizations, financial or development

institutions, tour operators etc.

In theory, ‘eco originates from the word ecology, an ecological

tourism, and is the prefix that distinguishes tourism from ecotourism’

(Björk 2000: 196). In practice, the term ecotourism is often used

interchangeably with nature tourism, alternative tourism, sustainable

tourism, adventure tourism, indigenous and integrated tourism, green

tourism, ecologically sustainable tourism, environmentally appropriate

tourism, environmentally responsible travel and so on (Groen 2002: 44,

Buckley 1994: 661, Inman et al 1998.: 11, Fennell 1999: 56-57, and

Stem et al. 2003: 323). Fennell, however, makes a distinction between

nature tourism and ecotourism: ecotourism is a form of nature tourism,

but with an educational and sustainability aspect; it is low-impact, it

makes a contribution to conservation and raises environmental

awareness, whereas nature tourism can also be mass tourism in nature

or adventure tourism (Fennell 1999: 35-36, see also Buckley 1994:

661-662, and Inman et al. 1998: 11). Nevertheless, Fennell also uses

the two terms interchangeably, for example in reference to typologies

of ‘ecotourists’ (Fennell 1999: 56-57). Koeman presents ecotourism as

a distinct niche or segment of general nature tourism, and proposes it

has the potential to be a form of sustainable tourism, however, this is

not always necessarily the case (Koeman 1998). Quite often, nature-

based activities such as hiking, river rafting, canoeing or other “off the

beaten track” excursions are advertised under the name of

‘ecotourism’ (Whelan 1991: 46, and Groen 2002: 56). ‘Sustainability is

also an ambiguous term which is very difficult to measure objectively

… sometimes ideology alters the perception of facts … Given this

confusion over terminology, it is hardly surprising that the debate often

focuses on semantic details rather than the effects of ecotourism on

natural resources’ (Krüger 2005: 580). Much like sustainability,

ecotourism has lost its original sense and has become a ‘buzzword’

(Koeman 1998).

Greenwashing

This buzzword and its promotion as a national conservation and

development project, has enabled a lot of ‘Greenwashing’ in Costa

Rica. Already in 1990, ‘of the approximately 30 travel agencies in

Costa Rica, one-third are called “ecotourism agencies”’ (Boo 1990 vol.

2: 28). Greenwashing occurs when explicitly ‘environmentally

destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive’ travel

is advertised as ‘eco’, whereby the prefix loses its original sense and

the value of ecotourism is diminished as tourists are deceived

(Dasenbrock 2002). ‘There are many critics of ecotourism, who see it

as a form of environmental opportunism that allows continued

exploitation of natural environments by mass tourism. Mass tourism

cloaked in a green name’ (Koeman 1998).

Much greenwashing occurs at the marketing level. Most tourists

base their travel decisions on information they receive from travel

agents, brochures, or the internet. Almost all forms of travel in Costa

Rica are given the political correct label ‘ecotourism’ while it is far from

‘eco’ or coming close to any other goals of sustainability in the socio-

economic dimension (Groen 2002: 58, Wall 1997: 487, and Björk

2000).

Using nice-sounding alternative or ecological terms, and by including “soft tourism elements”, tour operators try to ensnare all those individuals and groups, who are seeking a new lifestyle and a travel experience different from conventional tourism’ (Pleumaron 1990: 14).

This is a result of the shuffling of the terms ecotourism, adventure

tourism and nature tourism, but belies the negative environmental

impacts of all forms of tourism (Pleumaron 1990).

Environmental impacts

Most definitions of ecotourism place nature and conservation at the

root of ecotourism initiatives (Björk 2000: 192). It is, however,

concluded by most authors that in practice, ecotourism is not actually

contributing to conservation, and it is frequently suggested that it is in

fact contributing to environmental destruction (Boo 1990, van der

Duim 1993, Stem et al. 2003, Björk 2000, Krüger 2005).

As Weinburg (2003) sadly already mentioned, I am certainly not

the first one to comment that ‘ecotourism leaves footprints in the host

community’ (See also Wall 1997: 487). Yet, ecotourism is marketed as

‘eco-friendly’ or environmentally sound. This is indeed the ideal of

ecotourism: low-impact, low-consumptive, and environmentally

sensitive (Lumsdon and Swift 1998). The ideal is, however, far from the

reality. Examples of negative environmental impacts of tourism to

protected natural areas: overcrowding, environmental stress, changes

in animal behaviour, trail erosion, deterioration of vegetation, noise

pollution, contamination of air, water, and land, forest fires, wildlife

mortality, health hazard, habitat destruction, deforestation, erosion,

ecological changes, behavioural changes of animals, change in water

acidity, groundwater pollution, habitat loss, scarring of landscape and

mangrove destruction (Boo 1990, Vol. 1).

Based on conclusions in the literature, I can summarize four

levels of environmental impacts by ecotourism: 1) outside the

protected areas hotels and other facilities are built, as well as the

travel to get there; 2) small-scale tourism is developed in an

uncontrolled and uncoordinated manner; 3) when ecotourism becomes

large scale, it exceeds all possible ecological limits, and 4) all tourism

is inherently destructive.

1) The Hypocrite State

‘…the ‘eco’ more appropriately refers to the economic wealth it will generate for its investors rather than to the local ecology it will save’ (Mowforth and Munt 1998: 311).

On the first level of environmental impacts, I shall refer to the

ecotourism policy of Costa Rican government as the state seems to

say one thing and do another (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 62),

and often authors signal a lack of regulation, implementation and

control of its policies, despite their aim for ‘sustainable development’

(Groen 2002: 54-55). Many authors criticize Costa Rica’s hegemonic

reputation for its ‘green’ policies; it even received the “Green Devil

Award” in 1993 (Ibid.). It is suggested that economic gains for the

wealthy elite are of a higher priority for the state than ecological

conservation (Groen 2002: 43, Mowforth and Munt 1998: 310-311,

Marshall 1996: 25, Koeman 1998, van der Duim and Philipsen 2002,

Hill 1990, Dasenbrock 2002 and Stem et al. 2003: 322). The Costa

Rican Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is part of the state’s

strive for sustainable development. Yet environmentally destructive

golf courses have been approved by the EIA, despite much criticism

from green activists. They claim the golf courses consume enormous

amounts of water, and contaminate residential waters with fertilisers

and pesticides, not to mention the hundreds of hectares of tropical

forests that were destroyed to create the golf courses (van Wijk 2000:

5 and 19). Another example is the Papagayo Project:

…will turn Costa Rica's Bay of Papagayo on the Pacific Coast into a mega-resort area with high-rise hotels, golf courses, and malls. This development project deviates from the nation's typical encouragement of small scale construction by locals over resort development by foreign investors, and critics argue that it signals the end of truly

sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica’ (Dasenbrock 2002, see also Marshall 1996: 25-26).

This is a current example of Costa Rica’s contradictory policies, as well

as the greenwashing in which also the state partakes: ‘The use of the

title “Ecodesarollo Papagayo” [Papagayo Ecodevelopment] is a sad

attempt to disguise this huge construction project under the all-too

abused umbrella of eco-tourism’ (Marshall 1996: 25, [my addition,

SN]). Not to mention the environmental impacts such abuse brings

with it, such as air, water and sound pollution, a visual disruption of the

landscape, disruption and destruction of flora and fauna in the area

and so on (van der Duim 1993: 24). Furthermore, in the rest of Costa

Rica, deforestation and contamination continues as it did before the

new ‘green’ policies, which puts more pressure on the remaining

reserves (Weaver 1994: 173, Groen 2002: 55, and Tepelus et al. 2005:

136):

Those areas that are not explicitly labelled “national park”, “refuge”, or “reserve” are seriously threatened by ongoing deforestation for agriculture and industrial use (Groen 2002: 54, see also Mowforth and Munt 1998, Whelan 1991, van Wijk 2000, Fennell 1999 and Boo 1990).

To return to the example of Monteverde and Manuel Antonio, tourism

is developed just outside the parks and reserves, where there is no

environmental regulation or control (Weaver 1994: 173). ‘Many

additional attractions have been installed varying form short nature

trails to technical equipment that makes it possible to travel through

the roof of the rain forest’ (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 64). The

negative impacts include solid waste generation, habitat disturbance,

and trail erosion (Stem et al. 2003), despite the fact that these

facilities may be small-scale in their initiation.

2) Small and Local

Most ecotourism projects are small-scale, exclusive tours in natural

areas where limited amounts of visitors are allowed at a time, driven

by the concept of ‘carrying capacity’. Each study which refers to

‘carrying capacity’ as a means to minimize tourism impacts on the

environment, also admit that this limit is difficult to establish until it

has been exceeded, or in any case, has not been established for any of

the parks in Costa Rica (Boo 1990:41, van der Duim 1993: 28, Koeman

1998:3, and Fennell 1999). Other authors propose to leave this

concept behind altogether and come with new models, such as ‘limits

of acceptable change’ and ‘recreation opportunity spectrum’ that will

determine a limit to tourism in protected areas (Koeman 1998: 3, Wall

1997: 488).

A lack of long-term planning is generally attributed to the

problems associate with the scattered and uncoordinated development

of small-scale ecotourism initiatives (Groen 2002: 54-55): There is

‘significant environmental damage caused by the excess of poorly-

planned small-scale tourist operations scattered around this country’

(Marshall 1996: 25). This shortsightedness is often due to the fact that

the government focuses on large-scale projects that create short-term

and large profits, such as the Papagayo Project mentioned above: the

‘tug between preservation and profit’ (Hill 1990, Dasenbrock 2002 and

Marshall 1996). Profit tends to win, as ecotourism in Costa Rica has

moved from small-scale to mass tourism.

3) The demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica

‘...it is very difficult to have ‘little tourism’. It is like being a little pregnant; it has a habit of growing and changing’ (Butler 1991 in van der Duim 1993: 27).

The popularity of ‘ecotours’ and its effects outside the ‘protected

areas’ have had negative ecological impacts over a long period of

time. Popularity implies that more people will partake in a cetain

activity. It is precisely this scale enlargement that belies the purpose of

ecotourism.

It has been suggested that ecotourism in Costa Rica is now at a

‘crossroads’ (Lumsdon and Swift 1998, Inman et al. 1998, Van der

Duim 2002), in the sense that the protected areas have not been

protected by promoting (eco)tourism, they have, in fact, been

deteriorated by ecotourism, which has will inevitably lead to a

decrease in ecotourists (Stem et al. 2003: 324, Boo 1990 vol. 2: 48).

There are currently tour operators offering alternatives to what was in

the early 1990’s called ‘alternative’ tourism:

Each year, over 200,000 people visit Monteverde, Costa Rica, despite the fact that it's four hours from San Jose, with the last hour and a half on steep, unpaved roads. Monteverde's Cloud Forest Reserve was one of Costa Rica's first principled ecotourism destinations, but now it is in danger of being loved to death. Monteverde has been an inspiration to many other areas in Costa Rica which now provide less crowded alternatives, and can take some of the pressure off Monteverde's still beautiful forests (http://www.keytocostarica.com/ecotour-monteverde.htm).

This demonstrates Weinberg et al.’s conclusion that due to the nature

of the ‘ecological footprint’ of tourism in any form, ecotourism

eventually becomes mass tourism, if it is given the opportunity to

expand and multiply uncontrollably as it did in Costa Rica. Sadly, this

was already signaled in 1991:

Monteverde, which has received the most international press, is virtually overwhelmed with visitors at the peak season (Whelan 1991: 52).

‘By allowing unlimited numbers of tourists into protected areas and

encouraging the construction of high-rise hotels and resorts’

(Dasenbrock 2002), ecotourism in Costa Rica has evolved into mass

tourism, which has negative environmental impacts such as

‘overcrowding, water pollution, trail erosion and changes in wildlife

behaviour have been noted in Manuel Antonio National Park’ (Weaver

1994: 173, Whelan 1991: 52, Wall 1997: 489, and Cater 1994: 77). Also

Monteverde has seen a demise in biodiversity, as the chance of

encountering the famed quetzal or the golden toad featured in the

National Geographic documentary is practically none, leaving tourists

disillusioned (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 63). This

disillusionment is partially due to the assumption that ecotourism

implies conservation, and certainly not species extinction.

4) The paradox of ecotourism

‘…potential visitors are encouraged to go before it is too late. Cynically, it can be suggested that they are being recruited to put the last nails in the coffin!’ (Wall 1997: 488).

Ecotourism may be seen as a ‘conservation tool’ (Krüger 2005: 594),

yet tourism itself is inherently destructive, as most of the literature on

tourism discusses (for example, Mowforth and Munt 1998), and current

research on ecotourism demonstrates (Weinberg et al. 2003,

Dasenbrock 2002, Stem et al. 2003, van Wijk 2000, and Krüger 2005).

It has, however contributed to conservation financially (Lumsdon and

Swift 1998, Weinberg 2003, Dasenbrock 2002, Koeman 1998, Inman et

al. 1998, Fennell 1999, Boo 1990, Van Gulik 2000, Stem et al. 2003,

and Tepelus et al. 2005), which provides blinders for the fact that

tourism itself is ecologically harmful, starting from the moment a

tourist steps into an airplane, which is run on fossil fuels:

the weakness of any form of tourism that pretends to be “eco” and requires traveling of considerable numbers of people to other places is energy waste and pollution. The type and amount of energy used spilled by airplanes cannot be compensated by a “green” vacation (Groen 2002: 59).

This illustrates the paradox of ecotourism: the more funds for

conservation are gathered through tourism, the more damage is being

made to the area that is meant to be conserved (van der Duim 1993:

27 and Whelan 1991: 11).

This damage would not only make ecotourism defeat its own

purpose, but it will destroy the very resources on which it is based, and

‘erode’ the concept of ecotourism itself, as was mentioned earlier in

the use of ecotourism as a buzzword to greenwash mass tourism (Baez

1996; 112, Cater 1995: 22, Stem et al. 2003: 324, and Wall 1997: 490).

At this point, however, the tourists can always go somewhere else. On

to enjoy ‘undisturbed nature’ (Björk 2000: 191) elsewhere, until the

‘ecotourist’ gets there, in which case it automatically becomes

‘disturbed’.

Since tourism is inherently destructive, it has been suggested in

the ‘ecototalitarian’ (Dietz 1996) approach, that the only true form of

ecotourism, when tourists are best protecting the environment, is

when they stay at home, where they can engage in ‘virtual tourism’ in

the comfort of their own homes, behind the computer (Mowforth and

Munt 1998: 28). Whereas this means of tourism stimulates the audio

and visual senses, the tourist will not be able to have the ‘authentic’

experience of ‘being one with nature’, an experience that is normally

desired by those promoting sustainable development.

Sustainability versus Development

As demonstrated above, tourism is seen as an imposition on the host

population and environment; it inevitably brings about change (Wall

1997). Furthermore, there is ‘usually considerable disagreement

concerning which changes are desirable’, according to the definitions

and interpretations of the actors involved (Wall 1997: 483).

Just as tourism is an ‘agent of change’ (Wall 1997: 490),

development is a force of change. Varying forms of ‘new tourism’

(Mowforth and Munt 1998), with which the term ecotourism is often

interchangeable, are part of the larger concept of sustainable

development. Therein ecotourism is not only seen as a tool for

conservation, but also for community development (Stem et al. 2003:

322).

However, seeing ecotourism as a tool of conservation and

sustainable development is insufficient: ‘conservation through

development should not be a stand-alone protection strategy’ (Stem et

al. 2003: 341). The three pillars of sustainable development that I have

referred to earlier are the ecological, social and economic dimensions

of the world. Sustainable development’s goal is to find a balance

between these three dimensions in order to relieve poverty and to

create intra-generational and intergenerational equity (Oceans Atlas

2006). The conservation goals of ecotourism, therefore, do not

explicitly include the other two dimensions. Many authors have

referred to the economic ‘leakages’ which occur when foreign investors

and entrepreneurs set up ‘eco’ shop in countries such as Costa Rica

(Inman et al. 1998, Krüger 2005, Place 1995, Mowforth and Munt 1998,

Dahles and Keune 2002, van der Duim en Philipsen 2002, and Cater

1995). The local population, therefore, does not benefit economically

from ecotourism, with the exception of the local elite, which magnifies

social inequality and power structures instead of diffusing them. This

diffusion is ideally one of the goals of ecotourism according to many

authors; however, it is not often fulfilled in its execution.

For ecotourism to imply development is in itself a paradox. There

is ‘considerable debate over the nature of development’, it is ‘a

contested context’ (Wall 1997: 484). Much like the inherent

characteristics of tourism, development is not ecologically or

environmentally friendly, and according to Sachs (1999), we should

leave the development model behind us in order to achieve

sustainability. The development model is based on a 1960’s idea of

progress and modernization, wherein economic development is the

ultimate achievement. ‘Ecotourism, to some, is merely an extension of

this philosophy of ‘working within the system’ and one that, at least

conceptually, attempts to knit the elements of economy and ecology

together (via parks) through the tenets of environmentalism and

sustainable development’ (Fennell 1999: 77). Fennell suggests that

finding a balance between economy and ecology is therefore not

possible within the current system. In the next section I will propose

that sustainable tourism can be an element of an alternative system.

Part 2: Sustainable tourism as alternative?

Sustainable Tourism

‘It is important to note that ecotourism CAN be, but is NOT automatically, a form of sustainable tourism. To achieve sustainable ecotourism involves balancing economic, environmental and social goals within an ethical framework of values and principles (Koeman 1998:9, see also Wall 1997: 490).

Most definitions of ecotourism are based on the assumption that it

contributes to sustainable development (Björk 2000: 194). Björk

devises a strict definition of ecotourism to distinguish it from nature

and adventure tourism, as well as promoting the ideal of sustainability,

a harmony between ecological, economical and social aspects, among

all parties involved, in a ‘win-win-win’ strategy (Björk 2000: 197).

However, ecotourism often gets away with being labelled ‘eco’,

although it may have nothing to do with sustainability. I prefer the

term sustainable tourism, although just as vague and open to

interpretation as ecotourism, it implies the social and economical

dimensions of sustainability as well as the ecological dimension.

Another suggestion is that the ‘greening’ of mass tourism instead of

multiplying small-scale ecotourist projects is more sustainable (Groen

2002).

Ecotourism is not ‘eco’, and lacks an emphasis on social or

economical aspects. The newly derived ‘pro-poor tourism’ does

emphasize the social and economical aspects, but not so much the

ecological aspect (Mowforth and Munt 2003: 273). My ideal is therefore

sustainable tourism, yet according to the literature I have encountered,

has not yet been achieved to date.

Many authors propose ‘scenarios’ (Brouwer 2002 and Cater

1995) or create management plans (Inman et al. 1998), define

principles and ‘key factors’ (Koeman 1998) of successful sustainable

development and analyse these initiatives thereafter (Thrupp 1990),

yet it appears that to date it remains on paper and does not exist in

practice.

To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars of

sustainable development would require a compromise. A compromise

in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other.

Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on

the basis of equality with the other parties involved. For ecotourism to

contribute to sustainable development, there needs to be more explicit

positive links between tourism, the environment and host populations

than there are presently, as demonstrated in the case of Costa Rica

(Cater 1995).

Conclusion

My starting point for this essay was the study of the pillars of

sustainable development and its tools, specifically magnifying the

concept of ecotourism. I zoomed in on Costa Rica, considered an

ecotourism destination extraordinair in its promotion of adventurous

and environmentally friendly exploration of ancient rainforests and its

sustainable development policies. The two most popular ecotourism

destinations in Costa Rica, the Monteverde and the Manuel Antonio

parks, provided the empirical setting for this literature review.

I have examined the negative impacts of tourism on the

environment and host populations evident in the literature in order to

illustrate the paradox of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Hereby my doubts

are confirmed: in Costa Rica the ‘eco’ of ‘ecotourism’ no longer

represents the ecological dimension that environmentalists initially

intended with this prefix. Thereby, I have presented two ways in which

ecotourism is an oxymoron. Firstly, ecotourism in Costa Rica has

generated negative impacts which occur on four levels: 1) Outside the

‘protected’ areas, conservation is not practiced; 2) The small-scale and

low key nature of ecotourism leaves it unregulated and unmanaged; 3)

The popularity of ecotourism in Costa Rica has resulted in mass ‘eco’

tourism, and 4) Tourism itself is inherently environmentally

destructive. Secondly, ecotourism is seen as a tool for sustainable

development, wherefore the economic and social aspects should be

balanced with the ecological aspect, yet ‘eco’ implies a lop-sided

balance, which is attested by the development of ecotourism as a

buzzword and its usage in greenwashing unsound practices.

The instability of ecotourism as a concept allows for this

greenwashing and confusion with adventure tourism and nature

tourism. Most authors, however, presented ecotourism as a form of

nature tourism, but with an educational and sustainability aspect, and

it is low-impact, and it makes a contribution to conservation and raises

environmental awareness. However, research on ecotourism suggests

that it does not actually contribute to conservation, as it is frequently

suggested that it is in fact contributing to countless forms

environmental destruction.

This destruction is often attributed to what I have called the

hypocrisy of the state, due to its contradictory policies and practices,

whereby tourism is developed just outside the parks and reserves,

where there is no environmental regulation or control, and small and

locally-based initiatives are ignored and left uncoordinated as they do

not bring a substantial amount of foreign investment to alleviate the

nation’s foreign debt, which attests to a lack of long-term planning.

This destruction has contributed to what is now perhaps considered to

be the demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica. The popularity of ‘ecotours’

have created colossal negative ecological impacts in the long term,

mostly due to scale enlargement: ecotourism in Costa Rica has now

successfully become mass tourism, with all the negative impacts that

this brings with it.

The demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica is representative of the

paradox of ecotourism: ecotourism is presented as a conservation tool,

yet all forms of tourism are inherently destructive. Hereby I can only

conclude that virtual tourism is the ultimate ecotourism.

In line with Sachs (1999), the present development model itself

is unsustainable, and I therefore pose that sustainability is not possible

in the current system, sustainability must represent an alternative

approach altogether. Ideally, ‘sustainable tourism’ can be an

alternative, in the understanding that ‘sustainability’ includes a

balance of ecological, economical and socio-cultural aspects, in order

to relieve poverty worldwide and achieve intergenerational and intra-

generational equity. In light of all the evidence I presented above,

however, I must question: Is this just a pipe-dream?

References

Björk, P. 2000 Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended

definition of a unique tourism form. In: International Journal of Tourism Research. Volume 2, Issue 3. Pp. 189-202.

Baez, A.L.1996 Learning from the experience in the Monteverde Cloud

Forest, Costa Rica. In: M.F. Price (ed.). People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John New York: Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Boo, E. 1990 Ecotourism: The potentials and Pitfalls. Volume 1 and 2.

Washington: WWF.

Brouwer, M.

2002 The Feasibility of Sustainable Development: A Case Study in El Salvador. In: Dahles, H. and L. Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 86-100.

Buckley, R.1994 A Framework for ecotourism. In: Annals of Tourism

Research. Vol. 21 No. 3. Pp 661-669.

Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds.)

1994 Ecotourism: A sustainable option? Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

1995 Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. In: The Geographic Journal. Vol. 161. No.1. Pp. 21-28.

Carriere, J.1991 The Crisis in Costa Rica. An Ecological Perspective. In: D.

Goodman and M. Redclift (Eds.). Environment and Development in Latin America. The Politics of Sustainability. New York: University of Manchester Press.

Collins English Dictionary2003 Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners English Dictionary. CD-

ROM. HarperCollins Publishers

Dahles, H. and L. Keune (Eds.). 2002 Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin

America. New York: Cognizant Communication.

Dasenbrock, J.2002 The Pros and Cons of Ecotourism in Costa Rica. TED Case

Studies Number 648. http://www.american.edu/TED/costa-rica-tourism.htm (8-5-06).

Dietz, Ton1996 Entitlements to Natural Resources. Contours of Political

Environmental Geography. Utrecht: International Books.

Fennell, D. A.1999 Ecotourism: an introduction. London and New York:

Routledge.

Groen, B.2002 Tourists and Other People: Governments, Institutions, and

Entrepreneurs in Jamaica, Cuba and Costa Rica. In: H. Dahles and L. Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 43-59.

Hill, C.1990 The Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica. In: Cultural Survival

Quarterly. Vol. 14 No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival , Inc.

Inman, C. et al. 1998 Impacts on Developing Countries of Changing Production

and Consumption Patterns in Developed Countries: The case of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Prepared for the UNEP in conjunction with Institute for Environmental Studies,Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Costa Rica: INCAE

Koeman,

1998 Sustainable Development-Based Eco-tourism. Hanoi: http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/696047C635E5CBD4802566F0005245BC/$FILE/Acticle2.htm. 3-5-2006.

Krüger, O.2005 The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or

Pandora’s box? In: Environmental Management. Issue:  Volume 14, Number 3 Amsterdam: Springer Pp. 579 – 600.

Lumsdon, L.M. and Swift, J.S.

1998 Ecotourism at a Crossroads: The Case of Costa Rica. In: Journal of sustainable tourism Vol.6. No.2 Cleveland: Channel View Publications. Pp.155-173.

Marshall, J.S.

1996 Papagayo Project Is Not “Eco-Tourism”. In: Contours. Vol. 7. No. 8.

Menkhaus, S. and D.J. Lober

1996 International Ecotourism and the Valuation of Tropical

Rainforest in Costa Rica. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 47(1), 1-10.

Mowforth, M. and I. Munt2003 (1998) Tourism and Sustainability. New Tourism in the

Third World. London and New York: Routledge.

Oceans Atlas2006 http://www.oceansatlas.com

/unatlas/uses/uneptextsph/infoph/gsglossary. html. 10-5-2006.

Place, S.1995 Ecotourism for sustainable development: Oxymoron or

plausible strategy? In: GeoJournal. Amsterdam: Springer. Pp. 161-173.

Pleumarom, A.1990 Alternative tourism: a viable solution? In: Contours. Vol. 4.

No. 8. Pp. 12-15.

Sachs, W. 1999 Planet Dialectics. Explorations in Environment and

development. London: Zed Books.

Stem, C.J. et al. 2003 ‘Eco’ is Ecotourism? A Comparative Case Study of

Ecotourism in Costa Rica. In: Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 11, Issue 4. Pp. 322-348.

Tepelus, C.M 2005 Recognition schemes in tourism--from 'eco' to

'sustainability'? In: Journal of cleaner production. vol:13 iss:2 pg:135

Thrupp, L.1990 Environmental initiatives in Costa Rica: a political ecology

perspective. Society and Natural Resources. 3: 243-56.

Van der Duim, R.1993 Ecotoerisme: een nieuwe natuurbeschermer? In: Oostdijk,

M. (Ed.). Paperboek Nederlands-Vlaamse

vrijetijdsstudiedagen. Den Haag: Vereniging voor de Vrijetijdssector. Pp. 24-33.

Van der Duim, R. and J. Philipsen2002 How Eco Is Costa Rica’s Ecotourism? In: H. Dahles and L.

Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 60-71.

Van Gulik, I.1999 Green or Gold? Sustainable tourism in Costa Rica and the

actors involved, case-studies of Tamarindo and Monteverde. Thesis Development Studies. Nijmegen: Third World Centre. Catholic University of Nijmegen.

Wall, G.1997 FORUM: Is Ecotourism Sustainable? In: Environmental

Management. New York: Springer. Pp. 483 - 491

Weaver, D. 1994 Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In: Cater, E. and

Lowman, G. Ecotourism. A Sustainable Option? New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Weinberg, A.2002 Sustaining Ecotourism: Insights and Implications from Two

Successful Case Studies. In: Society & natural resources. vol:15 iss:4. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis. Pp. 371-381.

Whelan, T. (ed.). 1991 Nature Tourism. Managing for the Environment. Island

Press: Washington, D.C.

Wijk, J. van2000 Costa Rica: Going for the Green? The use of

Environmanetal Impast Assessment with special attention to golf course development. Wageningen University: Socio-Spatial Analysis & Recreation and Tourism, report 3, Wageningen.