I)mrisrn Management, Vol. 17, No.

8, pp 557-566, 1996
Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
~ Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0261-5177/96 $15.11(I ~ I).(l~)
S0261-5177(%100076-3

Managing ecotourism: an
opportunity spectrum approach

Stephen W Boyd
Geography Division, Staffordshire University, Stoke on Trent ST4 2DF. UK

Riehard W Butler
Department of Geography. University of Western Ontario, London. Ontario, Canada N6A 5('2

Over the past decade and a half, visitor management frameworks and procedures have been
developed to address issues resulting from tourism and recreation use of areas. These have
included the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the Tourism Opportunity Spectrum
(TOS), Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), Visitor Activities Management Planning (VAMP),
and the Visitor Impact Monitoring Process (VIMP). This paper outlines a new framework,
based on existing approaches, within which opportunity for ecotourism may be set. It
incorporates and modifies ideas from the ROS and TOS to address ecotourism specifically, is
termed the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) and contains eight components. The
paper concludes with a discussion of the difficulties of assigning relative priorities to ecotourism
activities in a region, and assessing the significance of the resulting environmental impacts.
Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Kcywords: ccotourism, management, planning, framework, opportunity spectrum

Within the overall context of tourism, ecotourism
has experienced rapid growth over the past decade.
Although ecotourism has come to imply a form of
tourism which fosters environmentally responsible
principles, it appears that the economic benefits that
can accrue from this activity have been the primary
motivation for some nations to deliberately p r o m o t e
ecotourism within their borders. In other cases
nations a p p e a r to have been willing to accept the
development of ecotourism as a result of exogenous
market pressures. The magnitude of the ecotourism
industry is well illustrated by the fact that over
US$25 billion are transferred from the northern to
the southern hemisphere annually. 1 Established eco-
tourism destination areas are located predominantly
in the developing nations 2-5 but recent growth in
ccotourism has included new destination areas in
Australasia, (' and the remote landscapes of the polar
regions. 7 Expansion has also resulted in opportuni-
ties being sought in the less exotic t e m p e r a t e land-
scapes of the developed world, such as Northern
Ontario, Canada. ~ This last trend has emerged in
response to the potential that ecotourism may offer
the economies of marginal areas, and also the
realization that there may be a declining n u m b e r of
new exotic and rare environments available that can
be m a r k e t e d as ecotourism destination areas in the
more established regions. Early ecotourism destina-
tions such as Kenya, '~ the Galapagos Islands m and
Thailand ~1 have already suffered extensive impacts
as a result of increased numbers of tourists.
In light of the above, it is imperative that only
those areas which are suitable for ecotourism be
developed and that ecotourism criteria are matched
with the resource base characteristics of the region,
Once begun, ecotourism, like any other form of
tourism, requires m a n a g e m e n t . The impression is
often given that a form of tourism which fosters
environmental principles will have limited impact in
the areas in which it is promoted. Unfortunately,
just like other forms of tourism, ecotourism gener-
ates impacts that require management:. As tourism
has developed beyond an undifferentiated pheno-
menon, it' can be segmented into numerous forms,
and m a n a g e m e n t frameworks are needed that focus
on specific types of tourism, rather than tourism in
general.
This paper proposes a framework to manage the

557
Managing ecotourism: S W Boyd and R W Butler
ecotourism experience which will cover both the
hard and soft range of the experience being sought.
The overall concept proposed is not new but is one
which is based on existing approaches used in the
field of resource management. It incorporates ideas
from the R e c r e a t i o n a l O p p o r t u n i t y S p e c t r u m
(ROS) 12 and the Tourism Opportunity Spectrum
(TOS). 13 The framework proposed here modifies
the ideas presented in TOS to specifically address
ecotourism, and is termed the Ecotourism Oppor-
tunity Spectrum (ECOS).
There is a large and ever growing literature
on ecotourism that has addressed a plethora of
issues including how it can be defined, 2j4 the
dimensions involved, 15-~7 and the linkages with
other types of tourism and environmental manage-
ment concepts, is-20 In light of this, the authors have
purposefully used a broad definition of ecotourism,
namely, a form of tourism which fosters environ-
mental principles, with an emphasis on visiting and
observing natural areas. The emphasis on tourism,
as much as this can be separated from recreation, is
deliberate. It is acknowledged that, in reality, there
is often very little difference in many respects be-
tween such day recreation activities as birdwatching
and month-long ecotourism trips to observe birds,
except the location where these activities take place,
the length of time and the amount of expenditure
involved. By definition, however, ecotourism in this
paper does not include most of the short-term visits
to natural and semi-natural areas, especially those in
developed countries where the emphasis is on parti-
cipation in an activity rather than experiencing na-
ture. Thus a weekend or day visit to a national park
in the United Kingdom or even in the United States
is not the focus of this paper. Rather, it is on that
form of tourism labelled and probably marketed as
ecotourism. Implicit in the above definition are the
concepts of sustainability and appropriateness to
ensure the maintenance of the resource base of the
destination area, which may also provide the liveli-
hood for local inhabitants of the area. The emphasis
in the model is on the relationship of ecotourism to
the physical environment more than to the social/
cultural environment. The focus and purpose of the
paper is to outline a framework for the management
of ecotourism in destination areas. The model and
framework suggested here may have applicability in
other situations also, albeit after some modification.
In developing this framework, the authors drew
from the existing literature to determine what should
be its various elements, beginning with a review of
concepts and definitions.
Key concepts and related terms
It should be readily apparent from an examination of
ecotourism that the relationship between that activ-
ity and the environment in which it takes place is of
558
critical importance. Ecotourism, more than any
other form of tourism, is dependent upon the quality
of the environment, and extra care needs to be taken
by managers and developers of ecotourism destina-
tions to ensure that the impacts from the activity are
controlled and minimized. It is important to appreci-
ate that ecotourism, however benign it may be, will
still have some impacts on the environment, and
therefore requires management and control just as
any other form of tourism or other resource activity.
As well, the amount of use is a critical parameter for
ecotourism, as for any form of tourism.
Two key issues interrelate here. One is the prob-
lem of maintaining the quality and ecological integri-
ty of the resource base in which ecotourism is being
undertaken, to ensure the maintenance of the re-
source for its own sake and to ensure that it remains
attractive to tourists and to other users also (includ-
ing, of course, local residents). The second is the
problem of maintaining the quality of the recreation
experience for the ecotourists themselves, which is
based not only on the quality of the natural environ-
ment but also on the levels and nature of the
interaction between groups of users. Research over
the last three decades, beginning with Lucas, 2a has
shown clearly that key factors which affect the
quality of the experience for the user include the
number and type of other users encountered, as well
as the expectations and experience of the users
themselves.
Initially the solution to these problems was sought
in the concept of 'carrying capacity', that is, placing
a limit on the number of users who would be allowed
access to a resource, at or below the level at which
they would create irreparable damage to the re-
source. It became accepted quickly, however, that
the concept of carrying capacity in recreational and
tourist contexts was not as simple as initially
thought, and that the mix of users was as important
as, or more so, the actual numbers of users in some
situations} 2 Stemming from this came the logical
conclusion that the way in which the resource was
managed was of at least equal significance to the
above factors. Thus by the mid-1980s the concept of
carrying capacity had moved from one of finding
optimal numbers of users to one involving the man-
agement of resources, user expectations and prefer-
ences, and physical parameters of the resource. 23
Some key elements can be identified from the
carrying capacity literature. First, that limits on
numbers of users are of little value unless they are
placed in the context of management objectives.
Second, that it is generally accepted that there are a
number of measures of user satisfaction for any area,
rather than only one and, related to this, that user
dissatisfaction may not be simply a mirror image of
satisfaction. Third, that compatibility or tolerance of
different user groups to one another varies with the
nature of the resource and other elements, including

frequency, place, type and time of encounters.
Fourth, that ecological effects of use in an area var~
widely, and indicators of change may be numerous. ~
Irrespective of the numbers and varieties of capa-
city, the fact remains that the concept still has
applicability to tourism and recreation areas, parti-
cularly so in the context of ecotourism. Central to all
of the issues is agreement over management of the
resource and the user, and general acceptance that
in the absence of such control (on levels, type and
time of use in particular) overuse, misuse and abuse
of the resource are likely to occur over time. If such
problems continue, then the resource is likely to
suffer irreparable damage to the point at which
ecological integrity will be threatened.
'Control', therefore, becomes a key issue. In the
context of parks and declared reserves, this remains
an issue with regard to level of intervention, plan-
ning procedures, monitoring and enforcement, but
the idea of control is normally accepted and estab-
lished. In the case of many tourist resources and
destinations, control is a major problem as there
may be no specific agency which has control of the
resources in question, or has a mandate for activities
such as ecotourism. If numbers of tourists become
excessive at a destination and the tourist experience
declines, visitor numbers may decline because of the
unattractive nature of the setting, but by this time it
may be too late to restore the area to an attractive
state.
Management procedures and frameworks
Over the last two decades a number of management
procedures have been developed with particular
reference to wilderness and natural areas to resolve
the problems identified above. In general these
frameworks have placed a focus upon recreation
opportunities rather than identifying specific capa-
city limitations, although the issue of numbers of
users, quality of experience and quality of environ-
ment underlie all of them. One of the first, and the
most widely adopted framework was the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ~2 which attempts to
incorporate relationships between setting, activities,
user expectations and the role of management. This
framework takes a behaviourai approach, defining
the recreational setting as the combination of physi-
cal, biological, social and managerial attributes. It
establishes a spectrum of recreational settings which
vary from pristine wilderness to high-density urban
recreation. It utilizes six specific attributes to define
the nature of the opportunities for recreation which
are deemed possible within each setting: access,
management, social interaction with other users,
non-recreational resource uses, acceptability of im-
pacts from visitor use, and acceptable levels of
control of users.
The ROS has proved attractive to managers of
Managing ecotourism: S W Bovd and R W Butler
recreational resources because it has a high degree
of flexibility in ways in which recreational opportuni-
ties can be supplied by integrating the setting with
visitor priorities and preferences. By incorporating
the spectrum concept into management plans, speci-
fic sensitive areas can be identified and protected,
and other settings more capable of withstanding
heavier levels of use can be earmarked for more
intensive forms of recreation.
A variation of the ROS concept, the Tourism
Opportunity Spectrum (TOS) was developed by
Butler and Waldbrook. L3 This was created to adapt
the ROS approach to a tourism context (tourism in
the Canadian Arctic), and to provide a background
and setting against which tourism development and
change could occur. The purpose of the TOS and
similar c o n c e p t s is to provide a context and
framework within which information and data can
be examined prior to decision making in respect of
the activities which should be allowed or prohibited,
and the kind of facilities which should be, developed.
The availability of accurate and up-to-date data is of
crucial importance to the successful application of
such concepts and frameworks.
In the above spectrums, the emphasis is upon
opportunities for recreation and tourism. It is also
important to consider the effects of visitor use on the
resources base, and approaches to managing both
the resource base and the visitor. One attempt to
solve some of the problems of identifying maximum
use levels was the Limits of Acceptable Change
(LAC) approach, proposed by Stankey et al. '-~ This
concept accepted that, as the solutions to the issues
of carrying capacity were likely to have to be found
and instituted by resource managers, a process to
assist them t~ identify acceptable use levels was
required. The LAC concept places an emphasis on
positive planning and management pre-empting in-
appropriate or over-use, thus avoiding the need for
remedial or after-the-fact management actions.
However, it places a considerable responsibility on
managers, with no guarantee that managerial values
and decision will be in line with user preferences,
particularly as both of these elements are dynamic. 2~
Two other management concepts which have
some relevance to ecotourism areas are the Visitor
Activity Management Process (VAMP) 27 and the
Visitor Impact Management Process (VIMP). ~'~ The
VAMP process was developed by the Canadian
Parks Service (CPS) for use in National Parks, and is
incorporated into the CPS Natural Resources Man-
agement Planning Process. It is aimed at producing
management decisions which are based on both
ecological data and social information, and is, in
reality, a generic planning model, incorporating
objectives, terms of reference, analysis of data,
options, recommendations and implementation.
Its counterpart, VIMP, was developed for use
within the LIS National Parks, with the aim of
559
 Managing ecotourism." S W Boyd and R W Butler
reducing or controlling negative effects of use of
Ecotourisra Spectrum
parks areas. It focuses on identifying problems and
--Eco-specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . lntat-mediate ............. Eco-geneaalist
unsuitable conditions, on identifying likely causal
factors resulting in undesired impacts, and on identi-
ACCESS
(i) Difficulty arduous & hard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fication of management strategies for mitigating or
..... difficult & vigorous.., preventing unacceptable effects of use. It has proved
moderate & easy.
(ii) Access System reasonably effective as a management strategy
Transpo~ation wate~vays, trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... aircraft (.float planes) ......................................
where a system of control, data collection and
toads (loose surface) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
roads (logging} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
analysis and management is in place.
. . . . roads (paved) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mm,ketplace personal experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

friends
local tourism
operators (camps & outposts)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Development of the Ecotourism Opportunity
Information Channels
travel companies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
word of mouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spectrum (ECOS)
Channels advertisements (local tourism brochures}.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . travel company tours . . . . .
The ECOS model was developed to provide a con-
(iii) Means of Conveyance
Transportation foot, canoes, horses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ceptual management approach for ecotourism des-
motorised vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tinations, but it is acknowledged that the approach is
evolutionary rather than revolutionary, that is, it
OTHER RESOURCE-RELATED
ACTIVITIES builds on models already present within the litera-
(i) Relationship incompatible . . . . . . . . . . .
...... depends on nature and e x t e n t . . . . . ture. Figure 1 illustrates eight factors viewed as
. . . . . . . . . . compatible on a larger scale
important to ecotourism: (1) accessibility, (2) rela-
AT/'RACTIONS OFFERED more oriented to natural environment . . . . . . .
tionship between ecotourism and other resource
focus on cultural & urban aspects... uses, (3) attractions in a region, (4) presence of
existing tourism infrastructure, (5) level of user skill
EXISTING INFRASTRU(TI'LSLE
(i) Extent no development and knowledge required, (6) level of social interac-
development only in . . . . . .
isolated a/e~s tion, (7) degree of acceptance of impacts and control
moderate development
(ti) Visibility none . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
over level of use, and (8) type of management
.... primalily natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
obvious changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
needed to ensure the viability of areas on a long-
term basis. The first seven factors are set against a
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE (continued) spectrum of ecotourism opportunities which ranges
(iii) Complexity not complex .............
level of complexity increasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from eco-specialists to eco-generalists. The spectrum
(iv) Facilities none .............
search & rescue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
suggested by Fernie 2'~ which has been adopted for
rustic acocmmodimon
(camps & outposts)
the ECOS framework is very similar to other classi-
some comforts . . . . . . . . . . . .
(lodges)
fications of ecotourism 3 including the 'hard' and
.... many comforts 'soft' categorization by Wilson and Laarman, ~5 Laar-
(hotels& cottages)
man and Perdue-31 and Fennell and Eagles,- whichS

SOCIAL INTERACTION
was based on the interests of the tourist and the
(i) Oth~ ecotourists avoid or little contact . . . . . . . . . . .
some contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
physical rigour of the experience itself. The eighth
(travel in small groups)
f~equent contact. . . . . . . . . .
factor links decision makers and stakeholder groups
(travel in largegroups) that may be involved in managing a region for
(ii Hosts(localpepulation) little contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
some interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . ecotourism.
& use of basic services
frequent contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . According to Fernie 29 (p 4), 'eco-specialists' may
set'~ces & soume for
handicrafts be perceived as those ecotourists who participate as
individuals or in small groups, immersing themselves
LEVEL OF SKILL & KNOWLEDGE professional . . . . . . . . . .
and extensive
in the local natural and cultural environment, requir-
extensive to limited . . . . . . . ing minimal infrastructure and generally having
minimal to . . . . . . . . .
no knowledge minimal environmental impact. They may, however,
desire and obtain close and lengthy contact with
ACCEPTANCE
IMPACTS
OF VISITOR
local inhabitants, and individually have considerable
(i) Degtcc of Impact none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . low to moderate . . . . . . . . . . .
social and cultural impacts on such populations by
(ii) Prevalence of hnpact minintal or uncommon . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . high degree . . . . . . . . . . . . entering the 'backstage' of the cultures visited. They
pnevalent in sinai/areas... often have specialized knowledge and obtain a high
prevalent . . . . . . . . . . . .
(iii) Level of Control no control . . . . . . . . . skill level to participate in activities. In comparison,
minimum control . . . . . . . .
moderate to strict control. 'eco-generalists' are usually involved in larger
groups, often organized in ecotourism tour pack-
ages, prefer a certain level of comfort which requires
a tourism infrastructure and, as a result, tend to
make greater demands on the host culture and
Figure 1 Components of the Ecotourism Opportunity environment. The intermediate forms of ecotourism
Spectrum (ECOS) are similar, to the 'mainstream nature' type suggested

560

by Ziffer ~' in her typology of ecotourism, which
ranged from 'hard-core' to casual-nature' types of
experience. This intermediate form of ecotourism is
seen developing as visitor patterns are established,
numbers increase, expectations change, and aware-
ness of the destination area and the attractions it
offers develops. 29'3L32 I n t e r m e d i a t e ecotourists
generally travel in small groups rather than indi-
vidually, use basic forms of transportation and local
infrastructure and services, and rely on prearranged
facilities and touring services.
A ccess
Access within the ECOS framework includes the
level of difficulty in travelling to an area, the nature
of the access system in place in the area, the type of
transportation used to travel to and within areas,
and the channels of information available to pro-
mote ecotourism within the region. In terms of
difficulty, this may range across the ecotourism
spectrum from left to right, with access classed as
being arduous and hard for eco-specialists, difficult
and vigorous for the intermediate type and moderate
and easy for eco-generalists. It is expected that most
ecotourists would use some form of mechanized
transportation (e,g. car, train, float plane) to reach
an access point to the ecotourism region. Some
specialists may prefer to use non-motorized means
to reach access points, travelling along waterways or
trails from communities located close to access and
egress points. Within an ecotourism area, it would
be expected that the specialist would prefer to use
natural routeways, such as rivers or pathways crea-
ted by wildlife. Generalists, on the other hand, may
be viewed as preferring an access system comprising
both paved and gravel roads. The intermediate type,
while accepting the existing road network, would be
more willing to use trails created for other purposes
such as resource-related activities which may be
present in an area.
T h e m a r k e t - p l a c e w o u l d d i f f e r e n t i a t e eco-
tourists. ~3 The eco-specialist is perceived as prefer-
ring to travel alone, often gaining knowledge about
the opportunities an area affords for ecotourism
based on personal experience of travelling through
an area previously or based on information obtained
from contacts who have visited the region. In con-
trast, the eco-generalist prefers to travel as part of an
organized tour, set up by companies that specialize
in catering to ecotourism. This market is therefore
diverse but not as general as that perceived for mass
tourism. The intermediate form of ecotourist may be
identified and catered for by local tourism operators
who own camps and outposts within an ecotourism
area and provide guides who accompany tours. The
information channel used may include word of
mouth of previous users, or advertisements that
describe the facilities and operations available within
the ecotourism destination area.
Managing ecotourisrn: S W Boyd and R W Butler
The last aspect of access involves the means of
conveyance used. It is expected that the eco-
specialist would select non-mechanized forms of
transportation to limit the impact on the environ-
ment. Motorized forms of transportation would be
more acceptable for the other types of ecotourism,
with the use of motorized forms of transportation
being reduced as one moves closer to the left of the
ecotourism spectrum.
Other resource-related activities
Butler z'~ (p 224) stated that in the context of the
integration of resource uses, complementarity was
the highest goal, implying that 'each use or activity is
not only not in conflict or competition with the
others, but by their presence and interaction add
something to each other'. A position of compromise
may be viewed as where compatibility exists be-
tween users in terms of neither use nor activity
detracting from or harming the other. The problem
of ensuring compatibility between uses is compound-
ed by the fact that 'the relationships between differ-
ent uses may be extremely dynamic and subject to
sudden and significant changes' (v~ p 226). At the
opposite end of a spectrum of integration is the
condition of competitiveness, where incompatibility
exists (the situation in which two or more uses or
activities cannot exist in the same area at the same
time using the same resource). ~'~
The degree to which ecotourism should be com-
patible with other resources users and other tourism
users is an important part of the definition for
ecotourism within any area. The presence of other
resource users and their relationship with ecotour-
ism is treated as an important factor within the
ECOS framework, and it is unlikely that a position
of complementarity can be reached in many cases
where there is a range of uses. Often, compatibility
is a possible goal but one which would be dependent
on the nature and extent of ecotourism promoted
within a region and the nature of the other uses. The
level of compatibility would be less for eco-
specialists as they are perceived to avoid and to be
less accepting of other activities in an area, particu-
larly when those activities may detract from the
experience they are seeking. The presence of log-
ging, trapping or mining activities, for example,
would impact negatively on an eco-specialist's ex-
p e r i e n c e , and w o u l d be a v o i d e d . T h e eco-
generalist's perception of ecotourism may be such
that the level of compatibility between uses is high-
er, but there may still be conflicts between specific
resource-,related uses and ecotourism activities and
experiences within areas. Where a cultural experi-
ence is an anticipated part of the ecotourism experi-
ence in a particular area, for example trekking in the
Himalayas, all participants may view landscape ele-
ments, such as those created by traditional agricultu-
561
Managing ecotourism: S W Boyd and R W Butler
ral practices, as enhancing rather than detracting
from their overall experience.
A ttractions offered
This element represents the first departure from the
f a c t o r s d e v e l o p e d in the R O S ~2 and T O S j3
frameworks. Attractions are taken to mean the types
of experience an area may offer given the character-
istics of the setting. The inclusion of attractions
within the ECOS framework was considered to be
important as it is the nature of the experiences which
characterizes this form of tourism.
Fernie 29 explored how the type of previous eco-
tourism experiences influenced the perception of
ecotourism. She concluded that an ecotourist more
orientated to the natural environment may not per-
ceive cultural-urban settings as being important or
appropriate for ecotourism, and that the type of past
ecotourism experiences may also influence percep-
tions of specific settings as acceptable destinations
for ecotourism. 29 In terms of the ecotourism spec-
trum, the eco-specialist can be perceived to be most
orientated to the natural environment, focusing
more on exploring, viewing and admiring vegetation
and diversity of wildlife, paying less attention to the
cultural aspects found within the region.
In contrast, the eco-generalist is more likely to
enjoy attractions of the cultural environment equally
with those of the natural environment. It should be
noted, however, that the attraction of viewing ele-
ments of the natural environment is still of major
importance to eco-generalists, and a major part of
the experience may often be the chance to view
wildlife seldom seen elsewhere.
Existing infrastructure
This refers to what is labelled 'tourism plant' in
TOS. Within the context of ecotourism, the infra-
structure differs markedly from that found in other
tourism areas, which often includes the provision of
shopping and entertainment facilities. Existing in-
frastructure is used in place of tourism plant as the
emphasis is primarily on provision of suitable accom-
modation for ecotourists along with minor modifica-
tion of existing infrastructure to conform to meet
other essential needs of the ecotourists themselves.
Modifications of existing infrastructure for elements
such as water, power and sewage will vary in terms
of extent, scale, visibility, complexity and the num-
ber as well as the type of facilities involved, but for
eco-specialists would be minimal and not irreversi-
ble.
Eco-generalists may accept more extensive de-
velopment that suits their wider preferences, while
those in an intermediate position may accept limited
developments in isolated areas. As for visibility, a
range from none to obvious changes would result as
one moves from left to right across the ecotourism
spectrum. The aspect of complexity anticipates eco-
562
specialists preferring simple development with the
level of complexity increasing for both the in-
termediate type and eco-generalists. With respect to
the last factor, facilities, eco-specialists do not desire
formal facilities, while the intermediate type may
accept rustic accommodations (e.g. camp cabins,
outpost huts) along with services such as search and
rescue operations and the modification and creation
of new trails. In contrast, eco-generalists may desire
a minimum level of comfort and convenience, such
as a hotel or cottage with modern conveniences.
Social interaction
Over the past few decades a substantial amount of
research has focused on tourist interaction, including
that with the host (local population) and with other
guests (other tourists). 34 The extent to which such
interaction occurs has important implications for the
opportunities an area may offer as it brings into play
the variable of experiential or social carrying capa-
city and how this influences the level of satisfaction
of tourists. In recent years the level of satisfaction
(which may represent a measure of the acceptable
level of interaction), has been expressed in terms of
norms. Social interaction beyond norms or expected
encounter levels may result in changes in the experi-
ence obtained within a region, and, in turn, impact
on the opportunities that a region may present to
tourists.
Much of the research undertaken on norms has
been focused either on water-based recreation or on
recreational activities undertaken within backcoun-
try wilderness-type settings. 35-37 While recreation
rather than tourism has been the focus of such
research, the types of activities which have been
considered are common to ecotourism destinations,
and the use of norms may be an appropriate
approach to indicate the level of social interaction
acceptable.
In terms of interacting with other ecotourists, the
level of contact would increase as one moves from
left to right across the ecotourism spectrum. Eco-
specialists would tend to avoid contact with other
tourists, focusing on their desire to explore the
natural environment and view wildlife present in a
state of relative isolation. In contrast, the intermedi-
ate type of ecotourist would be in contact with others
as they would be travelling in a group which may
include the use of a guide. The size of such groups
would normally be small as too many people would
detract from the level of satisfaction desired from
the trip. In contrast, eco-generalists would normally
traverse a region as part of a larger organized party
using a guide, and accept the presence of other
tourists and even other organized groups. Their
overall ecotourist experience, even though it often
may represent only a small part of their overall
vacation, might still be negatively affected if they
visited locations at which the level of use was

impacting visibly on the natural environment and
reducing the quality of the experience.
The extent to which ecotourists use the services
and facilities present in a region influences how
much interaction occurs between guest and host.
The type of experience itself, whether the interest is
solely in the natural environment or includes the
cultural heritage of the area, also influences the
extent to which such interaction will occur and the
level which will be acceptable. Eco-specialists, be-
cause their greater knowledge of an area and skill of
coping within a setting may negate the need for local
people as guides, may have little direct contact with
residents, and use the local community only as a base
from which their trip originates, unless it had signifi-
cant cultural appeal. In contrast, eco-generalists,
because of the services used by providers of the trip,
will tend to find themselves in greater, if less person-
al, contact with locals, especially if local communi-
ties are used for accommodation.
Level of skill and knowledge
Ecotourists' levels of skill and their prior knowledge
have implications for the opportunities that an area
may offer and the type of experiences that may be
obtained. Eco-specialists" skill and knowledge level
may be viewed as extensive, reflected in the fact that
they may engage in trips of considerable duration.
These skills and knowledge allow them to survive
with a low level of interaction and limited contact
with others. The knowledge and skill level of the
intermediate group will range from limited to exten-
sive, and their trip duration and prior knowledge
about the region may determine whether or not they
will use a guide. Eco-generalists will probably have
minimal skills and knowledge about an area and its
ecology or culture, the visit will generally be of a
short duration (weekend to day trips), in an orga-
nized party, following a specific itinerary, with
accommodation provided and a guide present to
offer interpretation.
Acceptance of visitor impacts
This factor involves the degree and prevalence of
impact and the need for control to be exercised over
impacts that occur. As numbers of users increase
across the ecotourism spectrum from left to right,
the range and severity of impact they cause will also
increase. It should be noted that eco-specialists may
have greater impacts than is often suggested, as they
frequently enter less accessible areas which may be
highly sensitive to human intrusion. In terms of
p r e v a l e n c e , impacts by eco-specialists may be
minimal or uncommon. In contrast, the incremental
impacts of larger numbers of eco-generalists will
probably be confined to specific trails and viewing
areas that are heavily used, but not be evident away
from these areas, as the majority of this group will
keep to trails and pathways.
Managing ecotourism: S W Bovd and R W Butler
When level of control over use is considered, for
the most part, the eco-specialist normally leaves only
a limited impact on the environment and little direct
control may be needed. Such users often find un-
acceptable the impacts generated by other users, and
seek out new experiences and opportunities in areas
not yet considered ecotourism destinations. Eco-
generalists may be aware of the impacts occurring
from ecotourism in a region, and be willing to accept
moderate to strict control over the number of groups
permitted, their size and the types of activities they
are permitted to undertake. However, impacts may
still be considerable and prevalent.
Acceptance of a management regime
In developing the TOS framework Butler and
Waldbrook 13" alluded to the problems of attempting
to control tourism development and identifying re-
sponsibility for this control, problems which apply
equally in the case of ecotourism. Successful or
sustainable ccotourism development may be re-
garded as where the product (opportunity and ex-
perience) can be maintained over the long term
ensuring the viability of the resource base on which
it is based. It is equally important that ecotourism in
an area be compatible with established local activi-
ties. To attempt to introduce or impose ecotourism
into an area or a community with which it is incom-
patible or in which it is unwanted should clearly be
unacceptable, Part or all of the purpose of estab-
lishing ecotourism in an area is normally to improve
the economic and social viability of the local commu-
nities. If ecotourism is not appropriate to or com-
patible with established local activities and cultural
beliefs, then it will not achieve goals established for
it, will not be accepted locally or be sustainable, and
may even be actively opposed or undermined.
Many of the factors within the ECOS framework
need to be controlled through management. Figure 2
shows the components of a management regime in
which it is recognized that decision making is ulti-
mately a political process. However, as the model
shows, the decisions on how ecotourism should be
m a n a g e d in a region, especially where o t h e r
resource-based uses exist, have to involve all of the
various stakeholders present in the area. This will
include the tourism industry, resource-based indus-
tries, local communities and other public and private
agencies. It has to be recognized that in most
communities lhere is rarely complete agreement on
any issue, and that within the groups noted above
there also will almost certainly be divergence of
opinion abou! development.
Conclusion
This paper has proposed a framework by which
opportunities for ecotourism may be identified and
located. An obvious next step is the application of
563
Managing ecotourism: S W Boyd and R W Butler

POLITICAL AUTHORITY
OF NATORAL
SOURCES/FORESTRY~
INISTRYOFCULTURE
CREATIONANDT O U R ~

TOURISM INDUSTRY... "~'k JAreareprese"natvitesPCitlam

l anagersaUhtytri )"ql PRIVATE AGENCIES

S "~ Localcommunities ENVIRONMENTAL"~'~

LODGEOPERATORS Hostpopulation GROUPS
OUTFITTERS

NONGOVERNMENTAL
~, NATURETOUR GROUPS
%,,OPERATORS 4 Working

t
relationship
Working
relationship
J

ECOTOURISM CRITERIA

Consultation SOCIAL Consultation

INFRASTRUCTURE
/COMMUNITY / CULTURAL/
/ / HERITAGE/
,I ,/ ,/ J
/WILDLIFE A'~,~/LANDSCAPE/
NATURALNESS BASE I r

I
RESOURCE-BASED COMMUNITIES
INDUSTRY orking Working
relationship relationship
/.FORESTRY " ~ "~r/~URBAN(DEVELOPED)
~
/ MINING t~ ! RURAL
[ PULPANDPAPER

VILLAGES /
J
AGRICULTURE Consultation
~NDIGENOUSRESER,~

Figure 2 Stakeholders and decision-making framework

the framework within a destination area seeking to
promote ecotourism. Of the eight elements that
comprise the ECOS framework, the first four can be
determined from on-site study. The remaining fac-
tors, excluding the last one concerning an appropri-
ate management regime, require input from eco-
tourists themselves, preferably from those visitors
who have experience in the region under considera-
tion. The eighth element requires dialogue with all
the groups and interests involved, both on an indi-
vidual basis and collectively in order to reach areas
of consensus over how ecotourism could be prom-
oted and who should be responsible for overseeing
the management of ecotourism within the region. To
assist with these tasks, a number of conceptual
frameworks have appeared in the ecotourism litera-
ture in the past few years 5"~2 which have the poten-
tial to be applied to the development of ecotourism.

564

They have addressed non-consumptive wildlife-
orientated recreation as well as the function of the
resource tour (group led by a competent guide), and
its relationship with and impact on the visitors and
the service industry.
Other researchers have commented on how tour-
ism within an area may change over time, noting
p o s s i b l e s t a g e s in t h e p r o c e s s o f t o u r i s m
development. 3~ Understanding that the type of eco-
tourist, and hence ecotourism itself, may shift in the
early stages of an area's development away from
catering for eco-specialists to serving an eco-
generalist population has a bearing on the type of
opportunities for ecotourism which an area may
create. 3~ As a result, marketing may come to play a
more significant role in shaping ecotourism opportu-
nities in regions. If marketing is successful in attract-
ing and maintaining the desired and appropriate
type of ecotourist to a destination, then it could
reduce the pressure on the area which a set of
undifferentiated users would exert. 33 The need for
strict management and control over the types of
ecotourism activities that could be undertaken could
therefore be reduced. If ecotourism regions are to be
developed, then the specific developments should be
based on guidelines which evaluate the relative
priority of ecotourism activities and opportunities
compared with other resource uses and community
needs, and assess the significance of their environ-
mental and social impacts, and marketing efforts
should be in line with such guidelines.
It is important, however, to be able to apply a
management framework and management principles
to the development of ecotourism destinations. Eco-
tourism development is often different from many
other forms of tourism development in that it is
frequently small scale, environmentally responsible
and selectively marketed, at least in its early stages.
It also occurs mostly in remoter areas. The potential
for public sector intervention, control and manage-
ment is much higher than in the case of a multina-
tional large-scale mass tourism development in an
established urban area, for example. Unlike many
forms of tourism which take place in urban or
developed areas on private land with no public
sector management role possible, much of the eco-
tourism development occurs on public lands and the
potential for the establishment of a management
regime normally exists. As noted earlier in the
paper, ecotourism is often 'sold' as beneficial and
harmless to destination areas 4 for a variety of
motives ranging from ignorance to uncaring ex-
ploitation. It is up to decision makers in these areas
to ensure an appropriate management framework is
in place before development occurs. The framework
proposed in this paper is a model, and it is recog-
nized that any model, by nature, includes a consider-
able degree of generality. Divergent views can be
expected to change ovel: time in many directions,
Managing ecotourism: S W Bovd and R W Butler
just as the type of tourism will also change. Reality is
always more complex than any model can portray.
That, however, should not prevent the introduction
of management controls, particularly where vulner-
able physical and social communities may be placed
at risk. The fact that ecotourism development tends
to occur in the more remote and marginal areas of
the world, often in fragile and endangered ecological
and human communities, makes the need for such
appropriate management all the more critical.
References
IWhelan. T (cd) Nature Tourism: Managing/~r the Environment
Island Press. Washington, DC (1991)
-'Boo, E Ecotourism: The Potentials and f'itJalls Vols 1 and 2.
World Wildlife Fund, Washington. DC 1199111
~Dearden. P "Tourism in developing societies: some observations
on trekking in the highlands of North Thailand" World Leisure
and Recreation 1989 31 (4) 40-47
4de Groot. R S 'Tourism and conservation in the Galapagos
Islands' Biological Conservation 1983 26 291-3(J11
SFennel[. D A and Eagles, P F J 'Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a
conceptual framework" J Park and Recreation Administration
1990 8 (1) 23-34
~Valentine. P S ~Review: nature-based tourism' in Weiler, B and
Hall, C M Special Interest Tourism Bclhaven Press, London, i l k
(1992) 105-127
VMarsh. J 'Tourism in Antarctica and its implications tor con-
servation" paper presented at the lVth Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas. Venezuela ( 19921
~Boyd. S W, Butler, R W. Haider. W and Perera. A 'Identifying
areas for ecotourism in Northern Ontario: application of a
Geographic Information Systems methodology' J Applied Recrea-
tion Research 1994 19 (1) 41-66
'~Olinda, P ~The old man of nature tourism: Kenya' in Whclan, T
Nature Tourism Managing ./br the Envir~mtnent, Island Press.
Washington, DC ( 1991 ) 23-38
I(~Kenchington. I,'. A 'Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: the
dilemma of consc rwttion' Environmental ('onserv,:~tion 1989 16 (3)
227-232
~lDearden. P and Harron. S 'Tourism and the hilltribes ot
Thailand" in Weiler. B and Hall, C M Special Interest Tourism
Belhaven Press, London. UK (19921 96--1I,q
~2Clark. R N and Stankey, G H Fire Recreamm Opportunity
Spectrum: A Frarnework ]~)r Planning, Management, attd Re-
search US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Tech-
nical Report PNW-98 (1979)
J~Butler, R W and Waldbrook. 1. A "A new planning tool: the
Tourism Opportunity Spectrum' J Tourism Studies 1991 2 ( I ) 1-14
14Wood, M E, (;atz. F and Eindbcrg, K q'he ecotourism society:
an action agenda" in Ecolourism attd Resource ('onservation. A
collection of papers Vols I and II, Ecotourism and Resource
Conservation Project. compiled by J A Kusler 119911 75-79
~sWilson. M A and l.aarman. J G "Nature tourism and enterprise
development in Ecuador" World Leisure and Rerreatiott 1988
29/30 ( 1) 22-27
~'Ziffer. K Ecotourism: The UneaO' Alliance C~)nscrvation Inter-
national and Ernst and Young, Washington. DC (1989)
iTScace, R C. Grifone. E and Usher, R (SENTAR Consultants
Ltd) Ecotourism in Canada Report produced for the Canadian
Environmental Advisory Council, Onawa (19921
~Lanc, B ;Sustainable tourism: a new concept for the interpreter"
Interpretation 1991 49 2
mButler. R W "Integrating tourism and resource management:
problems of complementarity' in Johnston. M ff and Hairier, W
Communities, Resources, and Tourism itt the North Lakchead
University. Centre for Northern Studies 11993) 221 236
565
Managing ecotourism: S W Boyd and R W Butler
2Cater, E 'Ecotourism in the Third World: problems for sustain-
able tourism development' Tourism Management 1993 14 (2)
85-90
2~Lucas, R C 'Wilderness perception and use: the example of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area' Natural Resources 1964 3 (3)
394--411
a2Butler, R W, Fennell, D and Boyd, S Canadian Heritage Rivers
Recreational Carrying Capacity Study Heritage Rivers Board,
Environment Canada, Ottawa (1992)
23Stankey, G H and McCool, S F 'Carrying capacity in re-
creational settings: evolution, appraisal and application' Leisure
Science 1986 6 (4) 453-473
Z4Shelby, B and Herberlein, T A 'A conceptual framework for
carrying capacity determination" Leisure Sciences 1986 6 (4)
43.3-451
25Stankey, G H, Cole, D N, Lucas, R C, Peterson. M E and
Frissell, S S The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for
Wilderness Planning USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report INT-176, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Odgen, Utah (1985)
2~McCool, S F and Stankey, G H 'Managing for the sustainable
use of protected wildlands: the limits of acceptable change
framework' paper presented at the IVth World Congress on Parks
and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela (1992)
27Graham, R, Nilsen, P and Payne, R J "Visitor management in
Canadian National Parks' Tourism Management 1988 9 (1) 44--62
2SLoomis, L and Graefe, A R 'Overview of NPCA's visitor
impact management process' paper presented at the IVth World
Congress on Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela
(1992)
2'~Fernie, K J 'Ecotourism: a conceptual framework from the
ecotourist perspective' unpublished MSc thesis, Department of
566
Forestry, University of Toronto, Toronto (1993)
3Twynam, D G and Robinson, D W A Market Segmentation
Analysis of Desired Ecotourism Northern Ontario Developmcnt
Agreement Project 4052, Final Report, Thunder Bay, Ontario,
Lakehead University (1996)
3JLaarman, J G and Perdue, R R 'Science tourism in Costa Rica'
Annals of Tourism Research 1989 16 2(15-215
3:Duffus, D A and Dearden, P "Nonconsumptive wildlife-
oriented recreation: a conceptual framework' Biological Con-
servation 1990 53 213--231
33Eagles, P F J, Ballantine, J L and Fennell, D A "Marketing to
the ecotourist: case studies from Kenya and Costa Rica" paper
presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela (19921
34Smith, V Hosts and Guests University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia (1987)
35Manning, R "Crowding norms in backcountry settings: a review
and synthesis' J Leisure Research 1985 17 (2) 75-89
3~'Vaske, J J, Grafe. A R, Shelby, B and Heberlein, T A "Back-
country encounter norms: theory, method and empirical evi-
dence' J Leisure Research 1986 18 (3) 137-153
37Vaske, J J, Donnelly, M P and Shelby. J 'Establishing manage-
ment standards: selected examples of the normative approach'
unpublished manuscript supplied by the principal author (1992)
3SButler, R W 'The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution
and implications for management of resources' Canadian Geo-
grapher 1980 XXIV (I) 5-12
3~Dixon, J A, Scura, L F and Hof, T van't 'Meeting ecological
and economic goals: marine parks in the Caribbean' Ambio 1993
XXII (2-3) 117--125
4Wheeller, B 'Sustaining the ego' J Sustainable Tourism 1993 1
(2) 121-129