Ecotourism as a Core of Sustainability in Tourism
229
of Ecotourism at the World Ecotourism Summit, hosted in Québec City, Canada,
by Tourisme Québec and the Canadian Tourism Commission. This document also
acknowledged ecotourism as a form of sustainable tourism (The Ecotourism Declaration 2002). In this document, once again the basic features of ecotourism were
edited:
• contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage
• includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development and
operation, and contributing to their well-being
• interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors
• lends itself better to independent travellers, as well as to organized tours for small
size groups.
It is also worthy to mention that the year 2017 was declared by the UN as a Year
of Sustainable Tourism for Development in order to promote tourism’s role in the
following five key areas, which are very close to the basic ecotourism principles
(www.tourism4development2017.org/about/):
• inclusive and sustainable economic growth
• social inclusiveness, employment and poverty reduction
• resource efficiency, environmental protection and climate change
• cultural values, diversity and heritage
• mutual understanding, peace and security.
3 Different Dimensions of Ecotourism
As claims Kelly Bricker (2017), ecotourism does not have to be achieved at a specific
service level and in exotic or unspoiled locations—if only the basic idea and main
principles are followed, there could be many acceptable forms of ecotourism. Mary
Eppler Wood emphasises that the intention that the organizer has is the most important—to enhance, preserve, and conserve the environment, as opposed to simply
mitigating the impacts of its own business development (Toon 1993). From the very
beginning, it was obvious that this is a demanding form of tourism for both the
participant and the organiser, which is not for everyone. Therefore, the possibility
of separating soft and hard versions (based on the physical rigour of the experience
and also the level of interest in natural history) was indicated by Laarman and Durst
(1987), suggesting that soft ecotourism could often paradoxically convert into something more likely to be mass tourism. Following this line, Acott et al. (1998) proposed
a division of deep and shallow ecotourism on the basis of the visitors’ commitment.
Deep ecotourism is more demanding and refers to fundamental value, small-scale
development, community identity, community participation, and a non-materialist
attitude. On the contrary, shallow ecotourism is an approach from a weak and very
weak perspective of sustainability, putting human needs in the centre. In 2017, after
analysing several ecotourism definitions, Sangpikul (2017) identified less-structured
ecotourism (with the minimum of 3 elements) and full structured ecotourism (with
229
of Ecotourism at the World Ecotourism Summit, hosted in Québec City, Canada,
by Tourisme Québec and the Canadian Tourism Commission. This document also
acknowledged ecotourism as a form of sustainable tourism (The Ecotourism Declaration 2002). In this document, once again the basic features of ecotourism were
edited:
• contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage
• includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development and
operation, and contributing to their well-being
• interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors
• lends itself better to independent travellers, as well as to organized tours for small
size groups.
It is also worthy to mention that the year 2017 was declared by the UN as a Year
of Sustainable Tourism for Development in order to promote tourism’s role in the
following five key areas, which are very close to the basic ecotourism principles
(www.tourism4development2017.org/about/):
• inclusive and sustainable economic growth
• social inclusiveness, employment and poverty reduction
• resource efficiency, environmental protection and climate change
• cultural values, diversity and heritage
• mutual understanding, peace and security.
3 Different Dimensions of Ecotourism
As claims Kelly Bricker (2017), ecotourism does not have to be achieved at a specific
service level and in exotic or unspoiled locations—if only the basic idea and main
principles are followed, there could be many acceptable forms of ecotourism. Mary
Eppler Wood emphasises that the intention that the organizer has is the most important—to enhance, preserve, and conserve the environment, as opposed to simply
mitigating the impacts of its own business development (Toon 1993). From the very
beginning, it was obvious that this is a demanding form of tourism for both the
participant and the organiser, which is not for everyone. Therefore, the possibility
of separating soft and hard versions (based on the physical rigour of the experience
and also the level of interest in natural history) was indicated by Laarman and Durst
(1987), suggesting that soft ecotourism could often paradoxically convert into something more likely to be mass tourism. Following this line, Acott et al. (1998) proposed
a division of deep and shallow ecotourism on the basis of the visitors’ commitment.
Deep ecotourism is more demanding and refers to fundamental value, small-scale
development, community identity, community participation, and a non-materialist
attitude. On the contrary, shallow ecotourism is an approach from a weak and very
weak perspective of sustainability, putting human needs in the centre. In 2017, after
analysing several ecotourism definitions, Sangpikul (2017) identified less-structured
ecotourism (with the minimum of 3 elements) and full structured ecotourism (with