Editing Ecotourism (section)

==Criticism==

===Definition===
In the continuum of tourism activities that stretch from conventional tourism to ecotourism, there has been a lot of contention to the limit at which biodiversity preservation, local social-economic benefits, and [[environmental impact]] can be considered "ecotourism". For this reason, environmentalists, special interest groups, and governments define ecotourism differently. Environmental organizations have generally insisted that ecotourism is nature-based, sustainably managed, conservation supporting, and environmentally educated.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/><ref name="Buckley">{{cite journal |last=Buckley |first=Ralf |title=A Framework for Ecotourism |year=1994 |journal=[[Annals of Tourism Research]] |doi=10.1016/0160-7383(94)90126-0 |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=661–665}}</ref> The [[tourist industry]] and governments, however, focus more on the product aspect, treating ecotourism as equivalent to any sort of tourism based in nature.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> As a further complication, many terms are used under the rubric of ecotourism.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> Nature tourism, low impact tourism, green tourism, bio-tourism, ecologically responsible tourism, and others have been used in literature and [[marketing]], although they are not necessarily synonymous with ecotourism.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/>

The problems associated with defining ecotourism have often led to confusion among tourists and academics. Many problems are also subject of considerable public controversy and concern because of [[green wash]]ing, a trend towards the commercialization of tourism schemes disguised as sustainable, nature based, and [[environmentally friendly]] ecotourism.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> According to McLaren,<ref name="McLaren">{{cite book |last=McLaren |first=D. |title=Rethinking tourism and ecotravel: the paving of paradise and what you can do to stop it |year=1998 |publisher=Kamarian Press |location=West Hartford, Connecticut, USA |url=https://archive.org/details/rethinkingtouris0000mcla |url-access= registration}}</ref> these schemes are environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive at its worst. They are also morally disconcerting because they mislead tourists and manipulate their concerns for the environment.<ref name="Barkin">{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/13683500208667921 |title=NGO–Community Collaboration for Ecotourism: A Strategy for Sustainable Regional Development |year=2002 |last1=Barkin |first1=David |last2=Bouchez |first2=Carlos Paillés |journal=[[Current Issues in Tourism]] |volume=5 |issue=3–4 |pages=245–253 |hdl=11362/33030 |s2cid=133558848 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> The development and success of such large scale, energy intensive, and ecologically unsustainable schemes are a testament to the tremendous profits associated with being labeled as ecotourism.

=== Negative impact ===
Ecotourism has become one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry.<ref name="Miller">{{Cite web |title=UNDERSTANDING THE RISE OF ECOTOURISM 2023 |url=https://www.meadowmere.com/2023/05/31/understanding-the-rise-of-ecotourism-2023/ |website=meadowmere}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=May 2016}} One definition of ecotourism is "the practice of low-impact, educational, ecologically and [[culturally sensitive]] travel that benefits local communities and host countries".<ref name="Honey EandSD"/>{{rp|71}} Many of the ecotourism projects are not meeting these standards. Even if some of the guidelines are being executed, the local communities are still facing many of the negative impacts.The other negative side of ecotourism is that it transforms nature and the environment into commodities people are interested in paying and visiting. When the environment becomes a product with economic value, people try to advertise and sell it. Some of the ecotourism sites are turning to private sectors, and the government cut off their funding. Hence, they are obligated to make money on their own. Private natural parks and sites are looking for their own advantage by advertising the soundness of natural parks or coastal marines in the Caribbean. They try to show they are protecting nature and attract people interested in ecotourism. However, they will focus on the phenomenon that might be more interesting for tourists and neglect other aspects of nature when they prioritize their profits. Consequently, this policy will result in abandoning rich ecological sites or destroying those valuable sites. For example, in Montego Bay, hotel staff cut the seagrass that appeared to drive back tourists; conversely, they are crucial for local nutrient cycles.

The other problem is that the companies try to hide the truth behind the ecotourism to maintain their profit. They do not cover the fact that traveling from other countries to the natural sites burns extensive amounts of aircraft fuel. In Montego Bay and Negril, a considerable amount of run-off is released to the coastal water produced directly or indirectly by ecotourists. Hotels in Jamaica release much more wastewater than a city. The tourists generate a lot of waste that ends up in the coastal water. The indirect effect of ecotourism in Jamaica is that many people migrated to the town near the natural site because of the more job opportunities due to construction increase, resulting in destroying the environment.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carrier |first=James G. |date=June 2010 |title=Protecting the Environment the Natural Way: Ethical Consumption and Commodity Fetishism |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00768.x |journal=[[Antipode (journal)|Antipode]] |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=672–689 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00768.x |bibcode=2010Antip..42..672C |issn=0066-4812}}</ref> [[South Africa]] is one of the countries that is reaping significant economic benefits from ecotourism, but the negative effects far outweigh the positive—including forcing people to leave their homes, gross violations of fundamental rights, and [[environmental hazard]]s—far outweigh the medium-term economic benefits.<ref name="Miller" />{{full citation needed|date=September 2018}} A tremendous amount of money and human resources continue to be used for ecotourism despite unsuccessful outcomes, and even more, money is put into public relation campaigns to dilute the effects of criticism. Ecotourism channels resources away from other projects that could contribute more sustainable and realistic solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. "The money tourism can generate often ties parks and managements to ecotourism".<ref>Walpole et al. 2001{{full citation needed|date=May 2016}}</ref> But there is a tension in this relationship because ecotourism often causes conflict and changes in [[land-use]] rights, fails to deliver promises of community-level benefits, damages environments, and has many other social impacts. Indeed, many argue repeatedly that ecotourism is neither ecologically nor socially beneficial, yet it persists as a strategy for conservation and development<ref name="West2006" /> due to the large profits. While several studies are being done on ways to improve the ecotourism structure, some argue that these examples provide a rationale for stopping it altogether. However, there are some positive examples, among them the [[Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area]] (KAZA) and the [[Virunga National Park]], as judged by WWF.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Reichelt-Zolho |first1=Brit |last2=Kirchgatter |first2=Johannes |date=27 March 2015 |title=Live elephants have to be worth more |url=http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/ecotourism-africa-promotes-sustainable-development-and-nature-conservation |url-status=live |access-date=12 July 2021 |work=Development and Cooperation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150331023242/http://www.dandc.eu:80/en/article/ecotourism-africa-promotes-sustainable-development-and-nature-conservation |archive-date=2015-03-31}}</ref>

The ecotourism system exercises tremendous financial and political influence. The evidence above shows that a strong case exists for restraining such activities in certain locations. Funding could be used for field studies aimed at finding alternative solutions to tourism and the diverse problems Africa faces in result of [[urbanization]], [[industrialization]], and the [[overexploitation]] of agriculture.<ref name="Kamuaro2007"/>

At the local level, ecotourism has become a source of conflict over [[control of land]], resources, and tourism profits. In this case, ecotourism has harmed the environment and local people and has led to conflicts over profit distribution. Very few regulations or laws stand in place as boundaries for the investors in ecotourism. Calls have been made for more efforts toward educating tourists of the environmental and social effects of their travels, and for laws to prohibit the promotion of unsustainable ecotourism projects and materials which project false images of destinations and demean local and Indigenous cultures.<ref name="Kamuaro2007"/>

Though conservation efforts in East Africa are indisputably serving the interests of tourism in the region it is important to make the distinction between conservation acts and the tourism industry.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ndaskoi |first=N. |title=The Maasai Predicament |journal=New African |year=2003 |volume=419 |issue=44}}</ref> Eastern African communities are not the only of developing regions to experience economic and social harms from conservation efforts. Conservation in the Southwest [[Yunnan]] Region of China has similarly brought drastic changes to traditional land use in the region. Prior to logging restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government the industry made up 80 percent of the regions revenue. Following a complete ban on commercial logging the Indigenous people of the Yunnan region now see little opportunity for economic development.<ref name="Yunnan expedition">{{cite video |url=http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_yunnan_great_rivers_expedition |title=The Yunnan Great Rivers Expedition |work=Snag Films |access-date=November 29, 2012 |people=Director: Jim Norton; Writers: [[Les Guthman]], Jim Norton |archive-date=July 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190702053425/https://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_yunnan_great_rivers_expedition |url-status=usurped }}</ref> Ecotourism may provide solutions to the economic hardships suffered from the loss of industry to conservation in the Yunnan in the same way that it may serve to remedy the difficulties faced by the Maasai. As stated, the ecotourism structure must be improved to direct more money into host communities by reducing leakages for the industry to be successful in alleviating poverty in developing regions, but it provides a promising opportunity.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Saayman |first1=Melville |last2=Rossouw |first2=Krugel |title=The impact of tourism on poverty in South Africa |journal=[[Development Southern Africa]] |date=September 2012 |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=462–487 |doi=10.1080/0376835x.2012.706041 |s2cid=153660005}}</ref>

Drumm and Moore (2002) discuss the price increase and economic leakage in their paper; saying that prices might augment since the visitors are more capable to pay higher rates for goods and services in opposition to the locals.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Drumm |first1=Andy |title=An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning |last2=Moore |first2=Alan |publisher=The Nature Conservancy |year=2002 |isbn= |location=Arlington, Virginia, USA |pages=}}</ref> Also, they have mentioned two solutions regarding the previous issue: (1) either a two pricing system represented as two separate price lists (the first for the locals and the second for the tourists with respect to the local's purchase power ability); (2) design unique goods and services subject only or the tourists' consumption.<ref name=":0" /> Leakage appears when international investors import foreign products instead of using local resources; thus, the tourists will be using international products and in-turn contributing to the outside economy rather than the local one (Drumm & Moore, 2002).<ref name=":0" />

=== Direct environmental impacts ===
Ecotourism operations occasionally fail to live up to conservation ideals. It is sometimes overlooked that ecotourism is a highly consumer-centered activity, and that [[Nature conservation|environmental conservation]] is a means to further [[economic growth]].<ref name="Kamauro">{{cite book |last=Kamauro |first=O. |title=Ecotourism: Suicide or Development? Voices from Africa #6: Sustainable Development, UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service |year=1996 |publisher=[[United Nations News Service]]}}</ref>

Although ecotourism is intended for small groups, even a modest increase in population, however temporary, puts extra pressure on the local environment and necessitates the development of additional infrastructure and amenities. The construction of [[water treatment plant]]s, [[sanitation]] facilities, and lodges come with the exploitation of [[non-renewable energy]] sources and the use of already [[scarcity|limited]] local resources.<ref name="Vivanco">{{cite journal |last=Vivanco |first=L. |title=Ecotourism, Paradise lost—A Thai case study |year=2002 |journal=The Ecologist |volume=32 |number=2 |pages=28–30}}</ref> The conversion of natural land to such tourist infrastructure is implicated in deforestation and [[habitat deterioration]] of butterflies in [[Mexico]] and [[squirrel monkeys]] in [[Costa Rica]].<ref name="Isaacs">{{cite journal |last=Isaacs |first=J.C. |title=The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation |year=2000 |publisher=The Ecologist |volume=28 |number=1 |pages=61–69}}</ref> In other cases, the environment suffers because local communities are unable to meet the infrastructure demands of ecotourism. The lack of adequate sanitation facilities in many East African parks results in the disposal of campsite sewage in rivers, contaminating the wildlife, livestock, and people who draw drinking water from it.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/>

Aside from [[environmental degradation]] with tourist infrastructure, population pressures from ecotourism also leaves behind garbage and pollution associated with the Western lifestyle.<ref name="McLaren"/> An example of this is seen with [[Tourism in Antarctica|ecotourism in Antarctica]]. Since it is such a remote location, it takes a lot of fuel to get there; resulting in ships producing large pollution through waste disposal and green house gas emissions. Additionally, there is a potential for oil spills from damaged ships traversing through aggressive waters filled with natural obstacles such as icebergs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hall |first1=C. M. |last2=McArthur |first2=S. |date=1993-04-01 |title=Ecotourism in Antarctica and adjacent sub-Antarctic islands: development, impacts, management and prospects for the future |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177%2893%2990044-L |journal=Tourism Management |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=117–122 |doi=10.1016/0261-5177(93)90044-L |issn=0261-5177}}</ref> Although ecotourists claim to be educationally sophisticated and environmentally concerned, they rarely understand the ecological consequences of their visits and how their day-to-day activities append physical impacts on the environment. As one scientist observes, they "rarely acknowledge how the meals they eat, the toilets they flush, the water they drink, and so on, are all part of broader regional economic and ecological systems they are helping to reconfigure with their very activities."<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> Nor do ecotourists recognize the great consumption of non-renewable energy required to arrive at their destination, which is typically more remote than conventional tourism destinations. For instance, an exotic journey to a place 10,000 kilometers away consumes about 700 liters of fuel per person.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12778 |title=Travel Experts See Worrisome Downside to Ecotourism |last=Mellgren |first=Doug |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=2007-05-16 |access-date=2007-05-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070520154849/http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12778 |archive-date=2007-05-20 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Ecotourism activities are, in and of themselves, issues in environmental impact because they may disturb fauna and flora. Ecotourists believe that because they are only taking pictures and leaving footprints, they keep ecotourism sites pristine, but even harmless-sounding activities such as nature hikes can be ecologically destructive. In the [[Annapurna]] Circuit in Nepal, ecotourists have worn down the marked trails and created alternate routes, contributing to [[soil impaction]], erosion, and plant damage.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> Where the ecotourism activity involves wildlife viewing, it can scare away animals, disrupt their feeding and nesting sites,<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> or acclimate them to the presence of people.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> In Kenya, wildlife-observer disruption drives [[cheetah]]s off their reserves, increasing the risk of inbreeding and further endangering the species.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> In a study done from 1995 to 1997 off the Northwestern coast of Australia, scientists found that whale sharks' tolerance for divers and swimmers decreased. The whale sharks showed an increase in behaviors over the course of the study, such as diving, porpoising, banking, and eye rolling that are associated with distress and attempt to avoid the diver. The average time the whale sharks spent with the divers in 1995 was 19.3 minutes, but in 1997 the average time the whale sharks spent with the divers was 9.5 minutes. There was also an increase in recorded behaviors from 56% of the sharks showing any sort of diving, porpoising, eye rolling or banking in 1995 to 70.7% in 1997. Some whale sharks were also observed to have scars that were consistent with being struck by a boat.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Norman |first=B. |date=1999 |title=Aspects of the biology and ecotourism industry of the whale shark Rhincodon typus in North-Western Australia |publisher=[[Murdoch University]] Research Repository |pages=1–282 |url=https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/231/ |type=MRes}}</ref>

=== Environmental hazards ===
The [[industrialization]], [[urbanization]] and [[agriculture|agricultural]] practices of human society are having a serious impact on the environment. Ecotourism is now also considered to be playing a role in environmental depletion including [[deforestation]], disruption of ecological life systems and various forms of [[pollution]], all of which contribute to [[environmental degradation]]. For example, the number of motor vehicles crossing a park increases as tour drivers search for rare species. The number of roads disrupts the grass cover, which has serious consequences on plant and animal species. These areas also have a higher rate of [[ecological disturbance|disturbances]] and [[invasive species]] due to increasing [[environmental impact of transport|traffic]] off of the beaten path into new, undiscovered areas.<ref name="Kamuaro2007">{{cite web |last1=Kamuaro |first1=Ole |title=Ecotourism: suicide or development? |url=https://www.un-ngls.org/orf/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.12.htm |website=Voices from Africa |publisher=[[United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service]] |access-date=17 November 2017 |date=2007 |archive-date=1 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201044628/https://www.un-ngls.org/orf/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.12.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> Ecotourism also has an effect on species through the value placed on them. "Certain species have gone from being little known or valued by local people to being highly valued commodities. The [[commodification of nature|commodification of plants]] may erase their social value and lead to [[overproduction]] within protected areas. Local people and their images can also be turned into commodities".<ref name="West2006">{{cite book |last1=West |first1=Paige |title=Conservation is our government now : the politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea |date=2006 |publisher=[[Duke University Press]] |location=Durham |isbn=978-0822337492 |edition=2nd}}</ref> Kamuaro points out the relatively obvious contradiction that any commercial venture into unspoiled, pristine land inevitably means a higher pressure on the environment.<ref name="Kamuaro2007" /> The people who live in the areas now becoming ecotourism spots have very different lifestyles than those who come to visit. Ecotourism has created many debates based on if the economic benefits are worth the possible environmental sacrifices.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wall |first=Geoffrey |date=1997-07-01 |title=FORUM: Is Ecotourism Sustainable? |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900044 |journal=[[Environmental Management (journal)|Environmental Management]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=483–491 |doi=10.1007/s002679900044 |pmid=9175538 |bibcode=1997EnMan..21..483W |s2cid=35966965 |issn=0364-152X}}</ref>

=== Who benefits? ===
Most forms of ecotourism are owned by foreign investors and corporations that provide few benefits to the local people. An overwhelming majority of profits are put into the pockets of investors instead of reinvestment into the local economy or environmental protection leading to further environmental degradation. The limited numbers of local people who are employed in the economy enter at its lowest level and are unable to live in tourist areas because of meager wages and a two-market system.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/>

In some cases, the resentment by local people results in environmental degradation. As a highly publicized case, the [[Maasai people|Maasai]] nomads in Kenya killed wildlife in national parks but are now helping the national park to save the wildlife to show aversion to unfair compensation terms and displacement from traditional lands.<ref name="Cater"/> The lack of economic opportunities for local people also constrains them to degrade the environment as a means of sustenance.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> The presence of affluent ecotourists encourage the development of destructive markets in wildlife souvenirs, such as the sale of coral trinkets on tropical islands and animal products in Asia, contributing to illegal harvesting and [[poaching]] from the environment. In [[Suriname]], sea turtle reserves use a very large portion of their budget to guard against these destructive activities.

=== Eviction of Indigenous peoples ===
{{Main|Fortress conservation}}
[[Fortress conservation]] is a conservation model based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://sesmad.dartmouth.edu/theories/85 |title=Critique of fortress conservation |publisher=SESMAD |access-date=26 May 2022}}</ref> It is argued that money generated from ecotourism is the motivating factor to drive Indigenous inhabitants off the land.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsLyqBUZvDY |title=Who is ordering continuous attacks against Batwa people in DRC?|publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |access-date=26 May 2022 |date=9 April 2022}}</ref> Up to 250,000 people worldwide have been forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for conservation projects since 1990, according to the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples.<ref name=Guardian1120>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/you-have-stolen-our-forest-rights-of-baka-people-in-the-congo-ignored |title='Large-scale human rights violations' taint Congo national park project |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=26 November 2020 |access-date=27 May 2022}}</ref>

=== Mismanagement by government ===
While governments are typically entrusted with the administration and enforcement of environmental protection, they often lack the commitment or capability to manage ecotourism sites. The regulations for environmental protection may be vaguely defined, costly to implement, hard to enforce, and uncertain in effectiveness.<ref name="Baumol and Oates">{{cite book |last1=Baumol |first1=W.J. |first2=W.E. |last2=Oates |title=Economics, environmental policy, and quality of life |year=1977 |publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |location=Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA}}</ref> Government regulatory agencies, are susceptible to making decisions that spend on politically beneficial but environmentally unproductive projects. Because of prestige and conspicuousness, the construction of an attractive visitor center at an ecotourism site may take precedence over more pressing environmental concerns like acquiring habitat, protecting endemic species, and removing invasive ones.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/> Finally, influential groups can [[lobbying|pressure, and sway]] the interests of the government to their favor. The government and its regulators can become vested in the benefits of the ecotourism industry which they are supposed to regulate, causing restrictive environmental regulations and enforcement to become more lenient.

Management of ecotourism sites by private ecotourism companies offers an alternative to the cost of regulation and deficiency of government agencies. It is believed that these companies have a self-interest in limited environmental degradation because tourists will pay more for pristine environments, which translates to higher profit. However, theory indicates that this practice is not economically feasible and will fail to manage the environment.

The model of [[monopolistic competition]] states that distinctiveness will entail profits, but profits will promote imitation. A company that protects its ecotourism sites is able to charge a premium for the novel experience and pristine environment. But when other companies view the success of this approach, they also enter the market with similar practices, increasing competition and reducing demand. Eventually, the demand will be reduced until the economic profit is zero. A cost-benefit analysis shows that the company bears the cost of environmental protection without receiving the gains. Without economic incentive, the whole premise of self-interest through environmental protection is quashed; instead, ecotourism companies will minimize environment related expenses and maximize tourism demand.<ref name="Tuohino and Hynonen"/>

The [[tragedy of the commons]] offers another model for economic unsustainability from environmental protection, in ecotourism sites used by many companies.<ref name="Hardin">{{cite journal |last=Hardin |first=Garrett |title=The Tragedy of the Commons |year=1968 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |doi=10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 |pmid=17756331 |volume=162 |issue=3859 |pages=1243–1248 |bibcode=1968Sci...162.1243H |doi-access=free}}</ref> Although there is a communal incentive to protect the environment, maximizing the benefits in the long run, a company will conclude that it is in their best interest to use the ecotourism site beyond its sustainable level. By increasing the number of ecotourists, for instance, a company gains all the economic benefit while paying only a part of the environmental cost. In the same way, a company recognizes that there is no incentive to actively protect the environment; they bear all the costs, while the benefits are shared by all other companies. The result, again, is mismanagement.

Taken together, the mobility of foreign investment and lack of economic incentive for environmental protection means that ecotourism companies are disposed to establishing themselves in new sites once their existing one is sufficiently degraded.

In addition, the systematic literature review conducted by Cabral and Dhar (2019) have identified several challenges due to slow progression of ecotourism initiatives such as (a) economic leakages, (b) lack of government involvement, (c) skill deficiency among the local communities, (d) absence of disseminating environmental education, (e) sporadic increase in pollution, (f) conflict between tourism management personnel and local communities and (g) inadequate infrastructure development.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cabral |first1=Clement |last2=Dhar |first2=Rajib Lochan |date=2019-06-10 |title=Ecotourism research in India: from an integrative literature review to a future research framework |journal=[[Journal of Ecotourism]] |volume=19 |pages=23–49 |doi=10.1080/14724049.2019.1625359 |s2cid=197805541 |issn=1472-4049}}</ref>

=== Case studies ===
The purpose of ecotourism is to engage tourists in low impact, non-consumptive and locally oriented environments to maintain species and habitats – especially in underdeveloped regions. While some ecotourism projects, including some found in the United States, can support such claims, many projects have failed to address some of the fundamental issues that nations face in the first place. Consequently, ecotourism may not generate the very benefits it is intended to provide to these regions and their people, and in some cases leaving economies in a state worse than before.<ref name="Fennell, David A.">{{cite book |last=Fennell |first=David A. |title=Ecotourism: An Introduction. |year=1999 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=London, England |isbn=9780203457481 |oclc=51036894 |pages=30}}</ref>

The following case studies illustrate the rising complexity of ecotourism and its impacts, both positive and negative, on the environment and economies of various regions in the world.

* [[Ecotourism in Costa Rica]]
* [[Ecotourism in Jordan]]
* [[Ecotourism in South Africa]]
* [[Ecotourism in the United States]]