Planeta Forum

[planeta]

We have had a number of participants in the Urban Ecotourism Conference requesting a defintion of what constitutes 'urban ecotourism' -- with questions raised about what is "urban" and what is "ecotourism" and what it all means. So we launched this topic:
http://forum.planeta.com/viewtopic.php?t=246

ONLINE REFERENCES

Planeta.com Definitions
http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/definitions.html

Cambridge
http://www.csa.com/hottopics/ecotour1/overview.html

Canadian Tourism Definitions
http://www.tiac-aitc.ca/english/glossary.asp

Challenge of Ecotourism
http://www.planeta.com/planeta/95/0295shores.html

Dealing with Definitions
http://www.geocities.com/shores_system/ecot/definitions.html

Google searches
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&edition=us&q=tourism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&edition=us&q=ecotourism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&edition=us&q=urban+ecotourism

American Heritage Dictionary

ecotourism - NOUN: Tourism involving travel to areas of natural or ecological interest, typically under the guidance of a naturalist, for the purpose of observing wildlife and learning about the environment.
OTHER FORMS: eco?tourist óADJECTIVE & NOUN
http://www.bartleby.com/61/26/E0032650.html

Pronunciation
http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/26/E0032650.wav

Wikiuniverse
http://ecotourism.wikiverse.org

Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecotourism

[planeta]

This introduction synthesizes the discussion from the Urban Ecotourism Conference specific to definitions. Suggestions are welcome.

EXISTING DEFINTIONS

From the World Tourism Organization and the United Nations Environment Program

Sustainable tourism is "envisaged as leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems."

From the Quebec Ecotourism Summit -
Recognize that ecotourism embraces the principles of sustainable tourism, concerning the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism. It also embraces the following specific principles which distinguish it from the wider concept of sustainable tourism:
ï Contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage,
ï Includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development and operation, and contributing to their well-being,
ï Interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors,
ï Lends itself better to independent travellers, as well as to organized tours for small size groups.

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE
A definition of Natural green spaces by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is ' land, water and geological feature which have been naturally colonised by plants and animals and which are accessible on foot to large number of residents: these include

-sites awaiting redevelopment which have been colonised by spontaneous assemblages of plants and animals
-land alongside waterways, transport and service corridors which although once deliberately landscaped or planted are now mixtures of planted and spontaneous assemblages
-tracts of encapsulated countryside such as woodlands, scrub, heathlands, meadows and marshes which through appropriate management continue to support essentially wild plant and animal assemblages.Often these natural areas exist within the framework of formally designated open areas
-ponds, ditches,lakes,reservoirs'

World Tourism Organization
Tourism itself has been defined by the World Tourism Organization as "the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business or other purposes." Residents in a city are not tourists in their own city, they are recreationists.


DEFINING URBAN ECOTOURISM

Antonis B. Petropoulos kicked off the discussion with his question asking why official definitions of Ecotourism start with 'travel to natural areas.'

"This could not be more irrelevant. Ecotourism, is ecological tourism, period. And thus, it covers urban areas just as well. Urban areas are not unnatural in any sense. Urban centres go back 10,000 years and are an integral part of what we call human civilisation. Urban areas can be far more efficient in terms of consumption of raw materials and production of raw ideas. Urban areas are where all new trends originate and where most revolutions start. Most Ecotourists live in urban areas. They say charity begins at home, and so does Ecotourism.

"Isn't it far more ecological to take a 6 km walk in the urban jungle of your city on a Sunday morning and meet friends rather than to drive alone your suv through a national park some 200 km away to be isolated in the 'wilderness'?"

Antonis added that we may need to draw a line between green living and green tourism. "Example: A green roof is very interesting but it is not relevant to urban ecotourism. A folk show can be watched by locals and tourists alike, but we need only be concerned here with the tourists."

As a defintion he proposes: "Urban Ecotourism is Ecological Tourism that takes place within a city (as opposed to in nearby natural areas). As a phenomenon, it includes those visiting, (as opposed to living in), a city for tourism, and those people, organisations, processes and facilities that serve them, as long as the same basic ecotourism criteria that apply for rural areas are met."

Gerhard Buttner wrote that while he thought of ecotourism in terms of remote natural locations (visiting remote areas is a personal hobby) he also believes "it is in fact more 'ecological' - rather than venturing into the 'last frontiers' to travel to closer nature destinations. "Exactly because of visitor interest we can create an incentive to conserve them."

"Upon considering the topic of urban ecotourism, I realized that my city of origin, Cape Town, is in fact a prime example of ecotourism potential with a mountain ñ declared a national park - right in the center of the city with an internationally acclaimed Botanical Garden on its slopes and generally stunning coastal scenery as part of the city landscape (including a unique penguin colony mere metres from the first houses of a Cape Town suburb)."

Mary Finn agreed with John Shores that "urban ecotourism makes urban spaces more livable while ensuring protection of the natural resources and ecosystems that sustain us."

"I think it¥s true that many consider 'ecotourism' to be by definition, travel to somewhere 'exotic' and far away, but as environmentalists we also know the importance of knowing ñ really knowing ñ the places (the land, the people, the wild things) where we live."

Barbara Kastelein asked if ecotourism is based on an area's natural resources that attempts to minimize the ecological impact of the tourism, then what is urban ecotourism? "We tend to expect an urban area?s natural resources are under strain just from sustaining the city. So with urban ecotourism, should we be asking if tourism adds to the strain on natural resources, and if so how the strain could be lessened?"

Mike Robbins said that there are cases of ecotourism in an urban area but most of what may be decribed as ecotourism in urban areas is not truly ecotourism but rather some form of sustainable tourism, a much broader term. If ecotourism is considered the most sustainable form of tourism, as was defined at the ecotourism summit in Quebec then we should confine its use to refer to the most sustainable forms of tourism.

His definition of "urban ecotourism"
Those tourism businesses and activities in an urban environment that fully support and promote the principles of ecotourism including:
ï Contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage (including protection of natural landscapes, biodiversity and preservation of cultural traditions),
ï Includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development and operation, and contributing to their well-being,
ï Interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors,
ï Lends itself better to independent travellers, as well as to organized tours for small size groups, and
ï Presents an example of the most sustainable form of tourism in an urban environment

Ana Garcia Pando found the concept of "Urban Ecotourism" both ironic and wonderful. "I find it is a way of 'dignifying' which is many times neglected in many of our urban environments.

Rodrigo Esponda found that ecotourism embraces the principles of sustainable tourism and should not be exclusive to rural areas.

Mike Robbins identified what he believes should be achieved with urban ecotourism
1) Convincing tourism businesses to adopt ecotourism prinicples (and become more sustainable in all aspects of their business)
2) Enabling tourists to make informed decisions to select tourism operators that have adopted ecotourism principles (for example selecting an ecolodge over a standard resort hotel)

John Shores cautions us that listing urban green space and outdoor recreation facilities as if these were synonymous with urban ecotourism is not sufficient. "I would like to suggest that we need to employ a much more restricted focus for urban ecotourism. True ecotourism (whether urban, rural, or remote) must be evaluated on the basis of impacts. When a tourism activity or facility is good for the environment, it passes into the realm of ecotourism. When it is detrimental for the environment, it is certainly not ecotourism. My bottom line, as explained in The Challenge of Ecotourism (http://www.geocities.com/shores_system/ecot/challenge.html) is the impact that the activity or facility has on biodiversity."

We should be attempting with urban ecotourism the same things we are attempting with rural and remote ecotourism: long-term conservation of natural resources (and the single best indicator of that is the status of biodiversity over time). Urban ecotourism offers us some unique opportunities: we have the chance to introduce many more people to the appreciation and love of wildlife and local ecosystems. And we can do this effectively and efficiently, without the heavy transportation burden of the air travel, RV's, SUV's, and jet boats so often involved in travel to non-urban places. Mass transit can get you to many urban ecotourism locales. I walk and hike on-site and use my bicycle for transport.

The mechanism by which an urban outdoor recreation activity (for example: bird watching) can be translated into ecotourism (positive impact on the environment) may not always be obvious and may not be immediate. When I engage my neighbors in bird watching by pointing out the activities of a local Cooper's hawk in our neighborhood, we are simply bird watching. But if I can convert my neighbors' interest into support for urban green space and city natural areas, we are stepping into the realm of ecotourism.

Urban ecotourism in my view can have more beneficial effects than ecotourism in natural settings. First of all urban ecotourism is more accessible for most than ecotourism. This means that its educational effects can be amplified from a potential large participation whether from tourist or locals. Jshores mentioned the phrase nature and wildlife appreciation something i do to when talking about urban ecotourism. I would add to that education. So we have 'nature and wildlife appreciation and education '. To me this sounds very promising and its content should be the most important thing of the definition/s (ecotourism has taught me never to trust something if its not defined in at least a dozen different ways). As you might have guessed i am really interested in the prospect of urban ecotourism becoming a nature appreciation and education tool. Talking about tools urban ecotourism should also be THE tool for conservation.

Ana Garcia Pando:
Ten years ago I did a lot of research about rural/urban opposition for my thesis. (it was on rural tourism, but it ended up in being "tourism in non urban areas") It was not simple because of the changing concept of rural, which was more difficult to delimit than "natural" and " urban". But economic and human geography give us many working definitions as to what can be considered "urban" in terms of a human settlement, definitions which may differ from one continent to another, but mostly have to do with population density and concentration and , to lesser degree, the types of economic activities which are predominant in the area considered.

For "urban tourism" we can have a look at what urban tourism means in the marketplace: culture, events, sports, and so on.

So, what can be urban ecotourism? for me it would be a double side definition:

Supply side: type of tourism in urban environments which involves the visit and interpretation of the natural and ecological ( waste treatment plants, for instance) assets of that city with the aim of educating and involving the visitor with the environmental protection and enhancement, not only in the destination but at home too. So every place with natural or ecological interest could be used to build up a(n?) "urban ecotourism" product

Demand side: Urban ecotourism would be the segment of demand interested in visiting and learning about the ecological and natural tourist resources of the city they are visiting, both as first motivation or just part of a more complex visit.

Rachel Dodds:
Since 50% of the worldsí population lives in cities and cities are also the major gateways to rural and natural areas, I wonder why sustainable notions regarding tourism arenít more important. For example, I just attended the World Urban Forum in Barcelona last week where discussions of slum upgrading, poverty alleviation, sustainable management, good governance ...were all talked about. Although tourism was the main GDP contributor to many of the countries represented, tourism was mentioned only in passing and rarely acknowledged for the force it provides.

Mary Finn:
First, I love the term 'Urban Ecotourism' precisely because of what Ana Pando termed the "apparent contradiction® it contains. I think this term represents a wonderful paradox which makes it a potentially powerful way to make people stop and think about what it reallyl means to try to find or cultivate the natural (and more humanistic) aspects of an urban setting. So I say we should ¥embrace¥ this apparent contradiction and use its power, not reject or change it.

Also, I wouldn't limit thinking to just 'tourists' from far-away places. I think urban residents could be considered also as potential 'ecotourists' in their own cities (as many don't even know what they have close at hand).

Ana Garcia Pando:
If we take into account international definitions (WTO) then "tourism" means 24 hours stay or spending a night at destination, other than usual place of residence.. so citizens involved in eco activities within their own cities would be excluded. This does not mean that they do not engage in eco activities, but for the sake of the agreed definitions, they would engage in "recreational" activities.

With this I mean that activities, programmes, infrastructures developed to improve the citizen¥s quality of life do not always become urban ecotourism activities just because they "lack" tourists. An effort has to be undertaken by those responsible of this potential urban ecotourism resources to make them known to the tourism channels and the tourists¥sources of information.

I would also like to help make a distinction between " sustainable" tourism, which I understand as an "attitude" on the Supply side, whatever the product or destination, and "eco" tourism which for me would be more in the demand side, what the tourist as visitor is interested in seeing or doing: I mean, I as a tourist, might rather go to the theatre than to Madrid Botanic garden but , if there would be one, I would choose a hotel with a green label because I am concerned with environmental protection. Promoting green labelling in Madrid hotels would not make it a urban ecotourism city, but a sutainable tourism concerned city in my conception, of course.

Then, a tourist route showing me around Madrid green areas on bike , for instance, would, for me, make a good urban eoctourism product which I might or might not buy depending on my interests. But then again, this is my humble point of view.

I started working on this reply yestereve (I¥m currently GMT+2) though I had not finished it, and now I am relieved to see I¥m not the only one wondering about these sides of the concept.

I would also like to point out that my defining urban ecotourism as contradiction in terms is an ironic comment, not a definition, but, again if we take international definitions ( IUCN, WTO, ) on ecotourism and academic definitions on urban, in strict sense, it is a contradiction .

Am I the only one with the slight feeling that it can be a kind of potmodernist approach too?

Might it not be that "ecotourism" -be it urban or natural - is " in the eye of the beholder?

As an example, when speaking of "community tourism" as tourism linked with established communities that shared a link with the territory, in Ecuador, a problem arose when settlers in Galapagos islands decided to start up a "community tourism project". They had to face the oppossitino of other established community tourism projects who understood that "communities" only referred to "indigenous" ones. ( Ooooops!!! the definition loophole again!!)

So, to Ana Pimentel's understandable puzzlement I would suggest you ask your guests if they see you as an ecotourism lodgment and if they choose you for that. Maybe how your clients see you is helpful to know in which part of the definition arena you are placed, in relation with your self conception.. Tourists perception on the kind of trip they are indulging in is almost always very instructive ... and surprising.

Rodrigo Esponda:
Ecotourism embraces the principles of sustainable tourism and I believe could be extended to natural, sub-urban and urban areas. As stated ecotourism has been a key element in conservation and sustainability of natural and cultural assets, and that could be applied to all areas. However, I agree that, unfortunately, not all natural spaces within an urban or sub-urban context can have the same importance for ecotourism.

As mentioned by Rachel, today, fifty percent of the world population lives in urban settlements, but it varies completely from region to region. Even the way urbanization is measured changes from country to country. When considering urban ecotourism these differences also count.

Finally, now, probably not all forms of tourism are sustainable, but I think we all agree ecotourism is a crucial player to achieve it. Ecotourism has given direction for the tourism industry. Urban ecotourism boosts that scope.

[Miker]

I would like to add another definition worth considering in this discussion as follows:

GEOTOURISM is defined as tourism that supports the geographical character of a placeóits environment, culture, heritage, aesthetics, and the well-being of its citizens.

This term was coined by National Geographic and is supported by their Geotourist market research. The Executive Summary of this research can be downloaded
>> http://www.tia.org/survey.pdf

[planeta]

Geotourism is referenced online
>> http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/definitions.html#geotourism

Question -- outside of National Geographic ... is this a frequently used term?

Mind you, I am not a fan of this particular word ... though it may grow on me. However, I am a big fan of the concepts being introduced by National Geographic, particular in its rating of sustainable tourism 'destinations' (what on Planeta.com are called 'places')
>> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/scorecard

[Miker]

I do not think Geotourism is being widely used in the industry yet. However the research was conducted by the Research Department at the Travel Industry Association of America (a very credible research organization) and the tourism research community/sector is starting to use the geotourism research.

I see geotourism as being part and parcel of sustainable tourism

[Antonis]

Coin a new, easy to pronounce term, soon a little industry springs around it. If the industry pre-exists and is affluent and influential, so much the better, the establishment can suddenly become hip.

Not unlike new fashion, new software or new religions for that matter.

Free idea for aspiring marketeers:
"Just Tourism": it has a double connotation (just as in justice, and just as in "only")

[planeta]

Ecotourism

Wikiuniverse
http://ecotourism.wikiverse.org

Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecotourism

Also, I like the term "Just Tourism" ... beautiful!

[Paul Radchenko]

Hello! This is Nicole Dancey again from Paul Radchenko's ecotourism class in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada.

Ok, so we all agree that ecotourism concerns travel to natural areas, which conserves the environment and supports the local people.

If all local people are truly to benefit from ecotourism... then there must be ACCESSIBILITY for all. In order for all people to have access to interact with their natural surroundings... Urban Ecotourism is a MUST!

There are numerous people who are 'less-able' or who have 'less opportunity' (for lack of proper terms) to get away from cities and find more 'wild' or 'remote' areas.

While I was in Scotland this summer, the Scottish Outdoor Access Code was a really hot topic... and it seems to me, that they try to ensure that everyone has accessibility to connect with nature... whatever their perseption of nature might be.

So, to add to the definition of Urban Ecotourism... I feel that it must include an element of accessibility.

What do you think?

Take care, Nicole Dancey

[Gerhard]

I wish to add a few questions and comments to the varied definition attempts.

Most posts have focused on what is "tourism", "eco" and "ecotourism". What about ìurbanî? In this respect Rodrigo Esponda¥s comment ì the way urbanization is measured changes from country to countryî is relevant. Most of the posts have been referring only to large cities. In Geography the term is often used to include even small communities with a center for distinctly ìurban functionsî such as commerce and services, and certainly includes at least mid-size towns, including for example gateway towns to national parks or mountain areas etc.

I remember a comment from a bird-watching guide in Celestun, Yucatan, who said: ìWe shouldn¥t forget the URBAN AREA, after all there are trees in the back-gardens where certain migrant species gather that you don¥t easily find in the normal nature trails.î
Celestun has only 7000 inhabitants, but it can certainly be called ìurbanî to make the distinction with the surrounding biosphere reserve, or when compared to real outlying rural hamlets or ranches.
For some Celestun background:
http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/yucatan/celestun.html
http://tinyurl.com/4jggl

I don¥t wish to necessarily include this example as ìurban ecotourismî, but surely we need to consider the first word of ìURBAN ecotourismî as well, when trying to define the whole term?

The fact that geographers use ìurbanî somewhat differently than much of the public, in fact brings me to my second point. Many terms are not understood in the same way by the general public because they are overly technical or with arbitrary limits: how useful is any definition for Urban Ecotourism - even if used by the tourist trade or the WTO - if we wish to exclude the local population from the term, simply because they did not sleep in a hotel (or for that matter an "urban eco-lodge" - a concept I quite like and would like to hear more opinions or examples) or travel 42km (a standard marathon??), where those that live there and visitors often enjoy the same ìgreenî attractions and are effectively doing the same thing?

I also wish to refer to a question Ron mentioned in an earlier post: "At what point does the ecotour begin?... Did we need to be in pristine wilderness, or should we as eco-minded travelers respect the urban environment as well?î

Maybe a definition of urban ecotourism could include some reference to the importance of cities as places where ìeco-mindedî travelers stop over en route to remoter places, even the base for many rural eco-operators and in the case of developing countries (like Mexico and South Africa) a potential new market for rural ecotourists that can start by being ìurban ecotouristsî and in their nearby nature without less negative transportation effects.

Gerhard

[Muskii]

Usually refers to areas with populations of 5,000 or more.
http://www.oahutrans2k.com/info/glossary/U.htm


A term used to describe a propertyís location. Urban properties have paved access roads and streets, they are close to neighboring properties and have support services less than 10 miles away.
http://mortgage-calculators.org/dictionary/dictionary.php3

Adding some of the amenity elements to the urban part of the definition follows normal practice of realtors and such like.

[vtsipidis]

I would like to add something on the accessibility issue raised by Nicole Dancey and febo. There a lot of differences in terms of accessibility between urban woodlands and greenspaces to the rural ones, but a vital one is fear of crime. Urban woodlands for example are desired by visitors because of their natural, intimate and manipulable qualities and yet are also feared in many instances because of this element of freedom and wilderness which imply lack of control ( fear of crime is the biggest reason). There are certain social groups which feel more uncomfortable than other (women, elderly) if a place has the above mentioned characteristics. From a study i made a couple of years ago the presence of an authority (eg rangers) or vivid social activities (friends of the park, interpretive tours etc) can reduce the fear of crime and crime numbers on these locations. So socially inclusive activities, mostly organized, like those mentioned in the UE context, can indeed increase visitation by increasing accessibility just because they take place, just because things are happening and urban woodland is not feared for these features that in rural locations we regard them as qualities.

So to get back to the urban ecotourism definition issue.
Below are some features already mentioned during the conference

-community involvement
-protection of natural heritage, cultural heritage
-nature/cultural interpretation/education
-increasing awareness and understanding of the local way of life
-increasing awareness, understanding and personal commitment to the natural heritage (from Scottish Natural Heritage)
-promoting local culture
-promoting a sustainable way of life
-accessible and equitable to all
-benefits local(?) economy

Thats some of the things i managed to gather. Please feel free to comment on the above. I believe we are working steadily on our way to a definition.

For statistical reasons i suggest we agree on the geographical criteria set for tourism by the WTO, the rest being recreation. As for the term 'urban' and its clarification, well,we probably need to talk a bit more about that though Muskii's post was very useful

[Paul Radchenko]

Hello! Nicole Dancey here again.

Vtsipidis.. I totally agree with your comment about fear of crime and that having planned activities and such will help to reduce this perceived fear.

I think another way to reduce this fear, would be to have urban parks and trails areas form a larger network of partners. In particular, with local authorities, who could perhaps tour these areas on bicycles or by foot.

I have never lived in an extremely large city, or in a city where I would not feel safe to walk around at night, so perhaps this is already done in most large urban areas already. I'm not sure. Any thoughts?

Take care, Nicole

[jshores]

Defining Colleagues:

We've had many interesting posts regarding the definitions of terms we are using. I think it would benefit us all to remember to examine any proposed definitions in the context of the individuals or organizations proposing them. When the WTO proposes a definition for "tourist" it can usually be traced back to something in the agenda of the transport and lodging mafia that comprises the WTO (and some revenue-hungry governments, too). It almost seems as if you can't be a tourist unless you are spending money in one of their members' establishments. So if you don't pay for transport or pay for lodging, you're not a tourist.

For me, a tourist is one who goes out on some kind of a quest (e.g., recreation, enjoyment, knowledge, education, experience, thrills, etc.), regardless of the distance traveled or whether overnight lodging is involved. Those are concepts of the commercial interests -- not mine. It's true that requiring an overnight stay makes some of the data collection much easier. But I don't plan my life just to make the job easier for the statisticians. I go out touring all over my county by bicycle and probably never appear in anyone's "tourist" data.

Survey data are important as tools to guide planning and as arguments to justify expenditures. But they are just indicators of the real world, not a "true" or complete representation. So I view them with considerable skepticism (although I design survey tools, collect, and analyze data all the time).

Getting back to the question: What is ecotourism? I mentioned in my initial post that my bottom line is the effect the particular activities have on biological diversity. We can think of a continuum of tourism-related activities arranged along a scale that measures their impacts. When the effects are actually good for biodiversity, we have true ecotourism. When the effects are neutral or better, we have green or sustainable tourism (this addresses some of the questions Mary Finn raised about getting mainstream tourism facilities to improve -- as they green-up their acts, they get credit for moving into the realm of sustainable tourism). Negative impacts means unsustainable tourism, somewhere on the negative end of this scale I have fashioned in mid air.

A hotel in the middle of an urban area can do a lot of things to green its activities and improve its "score" so to speak. Most of these green actions will be good for the environment, and would qualify as moving toward "sustainable tourism" -- but *probably* wouldn't have a detectable effect on biodiversity and therefore wouldn't qualify as urban ecotourism.

[One post that intrigued me involved a former facility for environmental education was being converted into an urban lodge. As an environmental education center, it probably did more for biodiversity. As a lodge, all it does is create the expectation of providing some revenues (something the EE center probably could never do!). My first thought was that this sounded like a step backwards.]

So I include many more of the local population in my tourist class, and I also assess the environmental impacts of the whole tourism system, including all of the cars, trucks, ships, trains, buses, planes, bicycles, and other transport we use to move tourists and their paraphenalia around, not just the lodging, restaurants, entertainment, and tour operators at some destination. Put it all together and we can judge whether we have sustainable or unsustainable tourism. If we're really fortunate, we might even have some ecotourism. And some of it might even be in urban areas!

// John Shores //

[vtsipidis]

I would like to reply to some of the issues raised by John Shores in its previous post.

Though I agree with your scepticism on organizations and definitions, i do believe that we have to reach a consensus on basic ideas like what is 'tourism'. Individually we all have different views of the matter being defined be it urban ecotourism, ecotourism or even tourism, but to make communication easy and interprete activities and data then its of vital importance to define what we are talking about. Though statistics like you mention is just an indication, its a very usefull tool to get various information about the market. Just take a look at the lack of ecotourism market data and how many times this has been mentioned in this forum. In the business world one thing i've learned is that non accountability equals to non existence.

Environmental impacts, benefits to biodiversity and conservation are of prime importance for ecotourism, and for sure we can rate how environmentaly sane an ecotourism activity is based on the above but i wouldnt go that far and rate different types of tourism just on its effects on biodiversity. It seems to me the social benefits of ecotourism are excluded this way.

[planeta]

Excellent points, Vasilis

You're asking John Shores to put more stock in the social impact of ecotourism ... and it's not going to happen. John's prime interest is in defending biodiversity. Sure, other factors are important but not as important in his eyes.

That's why I've always said that 'ecotourism lies in the eye of the beholder.'
>> http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/definitions.html

Allow John and other biologists to measure by the environmental impact and allow the sociologists and anthropologists to review the social concerns. Now do me a favor and go outside the door and ask ten people (friends and out of town visitors) what they think is 'ecotourism' and you're going to get even more answers ... answers and looks of puzzlement. "Eco, what?"

One of the interesting threads in this discussion is that we do not have a common understanding of what constitutes tourism. Does it require out-of-city visitation? Some say yes, others argue that is simply a tool to give value to hotels and transportation systems. If we call our activities in our own towns tourism, then we begin to value our locales differently.

It's a long-shot that we will come up with any definition -- tourism, ecotourism, urban, rural -- that everyone will agree to. That said, we should speak clearly about what we believe and back it up with references. We can agree to disagree on certain points, but in this conference we should also be able to focus on the big picture -- how do we make our cities more liveable for humans and other species?

On a side note, accountability is all the rage these days. But the lack of accountability does not seem to equal non existence, it just seems to better qualify a candidate for political office. But I digress ...

This week I have been re-reading the classic book "The Tourist" and I'll compile a few of the quotes and share that with you all tomorrow.

Ron Mader