The Global Structure of the Nature Tourism Industry: Ecotourists, Tour Operators, and Local Businesses* By Bryan R. Higgins ** Nature tourism and ecotourism are rapidly growing components of the international tourism industry. Although a substantial research literature has developed on this topic, few works have systematically examined the increasing number of nature tour operators or the global business structure of the nature tourism industry. In response, this article reviews the literature regarding the global dimensions of the nature tourism industry, outlines a more comprehensive framework for understanding the global business organization of this sector, and sketches a geography of nature tour operators based within the United States.
Nature tourism and ecotourism have recently become high growth areas within the travel industry (Blum 1991; Geffen and Berglie 1993; Ingram and Durst 1989; Merlino 1993; Moore and Carter 1993; Rymer 1992; Ziffer 1989). Although the number of nature tourists and ecotourists remain a small percentage of total international visitors, the high rate of growth and affluent character of this particular sector has attracted substantial commercial attention. In addition to this commercial expansion, a booming academic literature currently offers hundreds of reports, articles, and books on the associated topics of nature tourism and ecotourism (Eagles et al. 1995; Whelan 1991; Whitlock, Van Romer, and Beckler 1991). Despite this increasing commercialization and the international scope of research on ecotourism, few studies have systematically investigated either the global or business organization of the nature tourism industry. This hiatus includes a lack of research about the operation of ecotourism businesses and limited study of the global structure of the nature tourism industry. As one approach to address this research gap, this article reviews the literature on the global business organization of the nature tourism industry and presents the results of an exploratory survey of U.S. nature tourism operators. A question that frequently arises in research on ecotourism and nature tourism is What do these different terms mean? While most observers perceive these notions as interrelated, few studies have explicitly examined the development of these distinct terms within the tourism literature (Ballantine and Eagles 1994; Valentine 1992). According to Ashton and Ashton (1993), the term ecotourism was first mentioned in the literature by Miller (1978) and subsequently found its way into the sustainable development movement. From this perspective ecotourism is
environmentally sound and sustain able tourism, which may secondarily include viewing nature. A study that explicitly considers the development of both of these notions is Wilson's (1992) investigation of the social construction of nature. The first chapter of his book explicates a mid-nineteenth-century origin for nature tourism, due to the shift from a pastoral to a consumer approach to nature. In this same chapter, he identifies ecotourism as a more recent offshoot of nature tourism, along with adventure tourism, without defining either of these notions in detail. In this context ecotourism is a newer and more refined version of nature tourism, with less emphasis on conserving resources or reducing environmental impacts (Weiler 1993; Wight 1993). These two distinct visions of ecotourism, as well as many other combinations, appear in the literature. Tourism researchers have dealt with the question of defining ecotourism in a variety of ways. One option has been to posit a concise definition for the purposes of a particular study, such as the Ecotourism Society's definition that stipulates ''responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people'' (Western 1993, pp. 7-11). Another approach has been to present several distinct definitions without explicitly comparing or contrasting their character (Fennel and Eagles 1990; Lindberg 1991). Yet another alternative has been to describe ecotourism and nature tourism as part of a continuum of tourism experience, such as Ashton and Ashton's (1993) spectrum of pure ecotourism, specialty nature tourism, and mass nature-based tourism. In other cases, more elaborate schemes with intricate criteria have been offered to classify ecotourism (Crossley and Lee 1994; Scace, Girone, and Usher 1992; Blamey 1995). Although this study does not intend to review the definitions of ecotourism or nature tourism found within the literature, it notes the wide variety of these definitions and that few academic studies have examined the philo sophical issues. This article will use the term ecotourism as a refined version of nature tourism and as specified above by the Ecotourism Society (Western 1993). A related question that also has not been examined is What is the meaning of ecotourism and nature tourism within different world regions and countries? Preliminary work has identified substantial differences between the meaning of ecotourism among North American and European tour operators and among European countries (Blangy and Hanneberg 1995). In addition, Bonner's (1993) very detailed and insightful analysis of wildlife conservation and nature tourism in Africa
highlighted the contrast between African and nonAfrican views of nature. Given this possible cultural divergence, it should also be noted that all of the 258 works in the most recent ecotourism bibliography are in English (Eagles et al. 1995). Whether and/or how such cultural selectivity is significant remain open questions. Furthermore, since ecotourism usually involves tourists from industrialized countries visiting nonindustrialized countries, it should be noted that contemporary travel research has also raised questions about the different images of nature (Hull and Revell 1989; Pratt 1992), the social and geographical context of recent tourism phenomenon (Zurick 1995; Squire 1994), and the political economy of such emerging tourism products (Honey 1994; Munt 1994; Pleumarom 1994). Since the global dimensions of nature tourism and ecotourism are just beginning to be considered, questions about the social and economic structure of the nature tourism industry appear worthy of future investigation. GLOBAL BUSINESS STRUCTURE OF THE NATURE TOURISM INDUSTRY A first step in understanding the global business structure of the nature tourism industry is to identify the key actors within this domain of the tourism industry. One of the first studies to explicitly examine the structure of this segment of the travel industry was Ziffer's (1989) unpublished overview of the ecotourism marketplace. This working article iden tified customers, travel agents, outbound tour operators, inbound land operators, and local entrepreneurs as five key actors in the nature and adventure travel market industry. An abbreviated conceptual framework that distinguished between three distinct components -- visitors, the resource tour, and the service industry -- was offered by Fennel and Eagles (1990). Finally, the most detailed framework for this private sector was Ashton and Ashton's (1993) unpublished examination of nature travel in Central America, which also distinguished between customers, outbound tour operators, inbound land operators, and local tourism entrepreneurs. To provide a more informed framework for understanding this global phenomenon, this study will focus on four major components in the economic structure of nature tourism (see Exhibit 1). It should also be noted that very few empirical studies have investigated the number of operators, their character, or the global organization of these discrete nature tourism components. Thus, a brief review of each component will identify the current status of research and some of the unresolved questions. It is also crucial to note that these distinct components are simultaneously geographic and busi ness enterprise notions.
That is, ecotourists and outbound nature tour operators are based within industrialized countries, while inbound operators and local tourism businesses are based in nonindustrialized areas. Finally, the intent of explicating this global framework is not to simply improve the empirical description of each component, but also to examine the interrelations between the different segments and the way in which the global structure influences development within each area. Ecotourists At the outset, a distinction should be made between independent ecotourists who arrange their own itineraries as well as accommodations and ecotourists who rely on tour operators for their travel arrangements (Zurick 1995). Currently, no studies have systematically investigated the character of these two distinct market segments or the composite market for ecotourists (Higgins 1995). In a few cases, however, studies have examined the profile of ecotourists at a specific site (Dowling 1991), from a particular country (Eagles 1992), from select urban areas (ARA Consulting Group 1995), or within a popular ecotour region (Ruschmann 1992). It should also be mentioned that most of the literature on nature tour ism implicitly deals with prearranged tours of one kind or another. A special challenge of research about ecotourist clients is the proprietary character of information about this market. Although many of the large outbound nature tour operators periodically conduct research, the results are usually not available in the academic literature. To identify the different kinds of customers who rely on ecotours, Ashton and Ashton (1993) distinguished between individual travelers, individuals in organized tours, nonprofit group's organized tours, and travel agent clients. While these distinct types of clients are all significant, very little has been published about the character of any of them. For example, a survey of international travel by U.S. conservation groups and professional societies termed this market small and immature. It observed that 31 organizations, with a total of 248,940 members, sponsored international travel for only 6,200 travelers in 1987 (Laarman, Stewart, and Prestemon 1989). It is also interesting to speculate whether this low level of international travel has influenced the lack of attention to the global dimensions of ecotourism. Given the very sporadic geographical and thematic coverage, many basic questions remain about the global character of ecotourists.
A practical limitation in the global study of ecotourism is the lack of accurate information about ecotourists in conventional tourism databases. For example, the most common source of global tourist statistics is the data obtained from various immigration documents required by national governments. Unfortunately, these data do not allow for the identification of either nature tourists or ecotourists. Thus, it is not possible to analyze international flows with standard tourist information sources. As a result, some researchers have designed and administered their own data collection regarding nature tourists. However, the methods used to gather such statistics are rarely described (Ashton and Ashton 1993), frequently suspect (Richter 1990), and usually limited to particular ecotourism sites. Even well-funded research projects have found it difficult to achieve success in this regard. For example, an early attempt to measure the overall interest in nature tourism in Latin America was developed with a series of airport surveys administered as part of Boo's (1990) classic ecotourism investigation, which is arguably the most frequently cited reference on ecotourism. This report indicated that 48% of the respondents in Latin American airports stated that parks and protected areas were either the main reason or a very important reason for the selection of the country as a destination. Unfortunately, no description of the survey methodology was given in this report and very limited evaluation of either the sample or protocol was offered. Paradoxically, even though this study acknowledged that its sample of 436 respondents was too small to provide statistically significant results, the airport survey results were a major source of evidence it used to demonstrate the importance of ecotourism as well as the need to plan for projected impacts. In summary, the global character, preferences, and significance of ecotourists remain wide open topics for future research. Outbound Nature Tour Operators Another key component of the nature tourism industry is outbound nature tour operators, who are located in key cities within industrialized countries. These nature tour busi nesses arrange travel schedules, make contracts with airlines, coordinate marketing and sales, organize groups, work with individual clients, and perform other assorted activities (Ashton and Ashton 1993). As a group these nature tour busi nesses provide a crucial global link between ecotourist clients in industrialized countries and the nature tour businesses and destinations in nonindustrialized areas. In select cases outbound nature tour operators own and operate inbound land operations as well as local ecotour businesses. As with other components of nature
tourism, very few empirical studies have probed either the management of individual nature tour businesses or the broader global organization of this sector. A rare examination of a particular ecotour business is that of Overseas Adventure Travel (Sorenson 1991). This detailed case study offers information specific to the U.S. adventure travel market, competition, marketing approach, control and accounting, and management strategy of this particular ecotravel business (Sorenson 1991). It also provides an uncommon glimpse of the actual business indicators and balance sheet analysis for an ecotourism business. An examination of the wider scope of outbound nature tour businesses is found in a survey (Ingram and Durst 1989) of U.S.-based operators. This study found a total of 78 firms listed in the Specialty Travel Index. A telephone survey of 32 of these firms determined that firm size ranged from 20 to 3,000 clients, only 3 firms served more than 1,000 clients each, and the companies had been in operation an average of seven years. The most frequent country destinations promoted by these U.S.-based nature tour operators, in descending order, were Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Costa Rica, India, Brazil, Paraguay, and Ecuador. A survey of Australian-based nature tour operations identified 59 operators within this world region and queried them on a variety of promotional and management questions (Weiler 1993). The number of clients, ecotour destination preferences, and length of operation were not covered in this survey. Overall, very few studies have investigated either the characteristics of these outbound operators or their global organization. Inbound Nature Tour Operators These nature tourism enterprises are legally incorporated within nonindustrialized countries and based in key urban areas. They usually specialize in services within one country, but in select cases may operate in more than one. This busi ness component markets its services to outbound operators and directly to clients, prepares itineraries, selects the local businesses, hires staff, plans the program, and pays the fees. Almost no research has explicitly dealt with this level of the nature tourism industry. One exception is an unpublished assessment of the industry structure and development needs of nature tourism within Ecuador (Wilson 1987). This empiri cal study included a brief survey of five Ecuadorian tour agencies that specialized in nature travel. It sketched the destinations of their tours, guide
services, technical information, promotion, and competition among inbound travel agencies. With such limited coverage, most questions remain unanswered in regard to this level of the nature tourism industry. In addition, a number of significant theoretical questions about inbound land operators have not been addressed within the literature. A key issue is how the type of ownership, with its predetermined relationship to the global structure of ecotourism, influences the management of the business and character of nature tourism. Exhibit 2 identifies alternate types of ownership for inbound operators. In addition to these important upstream connections to industrialized countries, another geographical issue concerns the downstream economic ties to ''local'' businesses within a particular country. For example, are the local businesses selected to be part of an inbound operator's package transnational operations, subsidiary corporations of national elites, independent national companies, or small family enterprises? Obviously, the impacts of these alternative external and internal connections between nature tourism businesses are clearly open to debate (Ascher 1985; de Kadt 1979; MacCannell 1992). Local Nature Tour Businesses This level of the nature tourism industry includes a wide variety of businesses that provide services to ecotourists, including ecolodges, private nature reserves, hotels, restaurants, bars, and suppliers of entertainment, transportation, souvenirs, supplies, and guides. While these businesses are usually located in rural areas near ecotour destinations, they may be owned and operated by international, national, or local economic interests. As with the other components of nature tourism, little systematic research has explicitly examined this segment and the global coverage is very scattered. One of the few case studies was a detailed assessment of tourism and local development after the formation of a national park in Tortuguero, Costa Rica (Place 1988, 1991). Place concluded that park-based tourism had become important to the local economy, although few of the villagers were aware of the economic value of the park. A more problematic assessment of the local economic impacts of ecotourism was offered by Honey (1994). Her analysis of nature tourism in the Galapagos and Monteverde indicated that relatively little of the profit ended up in local hands. Instead, she noted that larger private interests from urban areas tended to control and reap the ''local'' benefits of nature tourism. Finally, a budding research topic within this realm is ecolodges. The Ecotourism Society organized a popular
field seminar on this topic in 1994 and published a comprehensive resource book (Hawkins, Wood, and Bittman 1995). Two studies with broader global scope have also addressed local economic development. In one, a survey of the characteristics of 93 privately owned nature reserves within Latin America and Africa was completed (Alderman 1990). Another major study of people and parks described and critically evaluated a new approach called integrated conservation-development projects (Wells and Brandon 1992). This new strategy seeks to link protected area management with local communities. This method and early experiences from 23 projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are discussed herein. With respect to the local economic benefits of nature tourism the report's conclusions were not encouraging. It observed that in general all spending by visitors -- on transportation, food, lodging, or even park entry fees -went directly to the central treasury or to private corporate interests that had been granted concessions. Furthermore, it claimed that it was ''extremely rare for a revenue share to go to local people'' (Wells and Brandon 1992, p. 34). In overview, the global business structure of the nature tourism industry plays a crucial role in shaping images of nature, ecotour itineraries, nature tourist landscapes, and economic benefits of this specialty travel. Despite the global scope and intensity of this tourism development, the distinct components of this industry have seldom been investigated. In response, this article will now focus on the characteristics of outbound nature tour operators and begin to outline a geography of these nature tour operators. TOWARD A GEOGRAPHY OF NATURE TOUR OPERATORS A small group of studies have surveyed the number, size, or character of outbound nature tour operators. This article will briefly review these previous surveys and then compare them to the results of a more recent U.S. survey. At the outset it should be noted that all of the previous surveys had divergent goals and methods. Two of them polled the U.S. market, one the Canadian domain, and another Australia. As a comparative review, this investigation will assess the different survey methodologies and analyze the basic character of the tourism operators. The substantive focus will be on the number of outbound operators, the size and global focus of their operations, and the number of years they have been in business.
The earliest survey of outbound tour operators in the lit erature probed a sample of advertisers in a 1987 issue of the Specialty Travel Index (Ingram and Durst 1989). Since this publication primarily serves the U.S. market, it provided a pro file of this particular country. This study identified 78 operators who advertised nature-oriented activities in Africa, Asia, Latin America, or the Pacific Islands. A total of 32 businesses (41%) participated in a follow-up telephone survey. The popu larity of nature tour destinations promoted in this survey was described above, in the outbound operators section. The size of firms ranged from 20 to 3,000 clients, and only three firms served over 1,000 ecotourists. The total number of nature tour ist clients was not given. These outbound tour companies had been in operation for an average of seven years. A second survey of outbound nature tour operators used a list of businesses from the Specialty Travel Index, Sierra, Backpacker, and Ecologue magazines, and 12 participants of the Second International Ecotourism Symposium and Workshop for its sampling frame (Rymer 1992). Of the 150 surveys mailed in this study 53 were returned, for a response rate of 35%. A total of 75,727 ecotours were reported, a 125% increase from the estimated figures given by respondents in this survey for 1980. Another survey probed the advertising in Canadian ecotours during 1992 (Eagles and Wind 1995). This survey analyzed the content of advertising brochures from 15 Canadian nature tour companies in regard to trip destinations, maximum number of people per trip, cost per individual, length of the trip in days, the number of trips per tour, and the descriptors explaining the features of the trip. It calculated a total of 347 tours and estimated that if all the trips filled a total of 17,026 clients would have been served. The countries with the most advertised trips were Canada with 53%; United States 8%; Nepal 4%; and Ecuador, Mexico and Tanzania, which each had 3%. Finally, a survey of 59 nature-based operators in Australia was completed in 1990 (Weiler 1993). In addition to the many interesting environmental questions probed in this study, the survey identified 402 tour descriptions, of which 16% were nonprofit. The total number of clients was not presented and the global distribution of destinations was not mentioned in this study. Based on these diverse topical and
geographical studies, an exploratory survey of nature tour operators based in the United States was developed. Survey Methodology In order to address the quality of information obtained about nature tour operators, substantial attention was given to survey design and administration (Higgins and Drollete 1994). The methodology for this survey was based on the total design method of Dillman (1978). Although it was designed and administered before the findings of Lankford et al. (1995) and Rylander, Propst, and McMurtry (1995) were published, it should be noted that the protocol included three attempts to reach each operator and cross-checking of wave analysis. To prepare a reasonably comprehensive and current list of U.S.-based nature tour operators, a variety of 1994 travel publications were reviewed, including the monthly publications Travel World News and Recommend, a biannual listing of tour operators titled the Official Tour Directory, a quarterly publication called the Specialty Travel Index (STI), and a recent book titled Ecotours and Nature Getaways (Geffen and Berglie 1993). From these publications a com posite list of U.S. tour operators that offered at least one nature tour within Latin America was compiled. Collecting listings from both specialty and general tourism publications extended the thematic scope of this study beyond previous studies, which focused more exclusively on specialty market publications. Although defining the sampling frame as operators that offered at least one nature tour in Latin America allowed for more detailed attention within the Western Hemisphere, it also means that questions about tour operators that focus exclusively in the Eastern Hemisphere must await future study. A total of 155 nature tour operators were identified. A brief survey instrument was mailed to each of the firms in June 1994. A follow-up telephone call was made and a second copy of the survey was administered to those who had not responded within one month. Of the 155 questionnaires, 6 were returned as undeliverable, 2 responses were classified as not applicable, 2 respondents stated they no longer offered tours, and 82 firms returned usable forms. The subsequent response rate of 57% was higher than most of the previous surveys of nature tour operators. SURVEY RESULTS Growth in the Number of Outbound Nature Tour Operators The number of nature tour operators has grown from 1 in 1900 (the Sierra Club) to 82 in 1994, as shown in Figure 1. Although it is possible that a tour operator did not
originally provide nature tours, the promotional materials of these respondents suggest that most of them have been offering nature tours since their inception. The responses indicate that a dramatic increase occurred from only 9 operators in 1970 to 83 in 1994, for an 820% overall increase, or 34% per year during the period. It should also be noted that since this survey does not include nature tour businesses that operated during this period but are no longer in business, it is likely that the actual number of nature tour operators in each year was higher than these figures. Also, while this is a very high business growth rate, the rate for nature tour operators should also be compared to the trend for all tour operators. In a study of U.S. tour operators as a whole, Sheldon (1989) indicated that the total number of tour operators within the United States increased from 588 in 1978 to 1,001 in 1985, which works out to an increase of 10% per year. Comparing the number of nature tour operators from this survey for these same years indicates an increase from 31 in 1978 to 54 in 1985, or an average increase of 11% per year. Thus, during this particular period the rate of growth was roughly the same for both nature and general tour operators. Overall, these responses demonstrate the youthful status of outbound nature tour operator industry, since 45% of the operators had been in busi ness less than 10 years and 84% had been operating less than 20 years. The average number of years in operation for these businesses was 15. The significant expansion in the number of commercial operations during the 1970s is also interesting, since nature tourism and ecotourism did not become popular research topics until the following decade. Size and Market Share of Nature Tour Operators A total of 73 of the 82 firms specified the total number of nature tour clients they served during the previous year, as shown in Figure 2. The client size for these operations ranged from 25 to 15,000, with the average being 1,674. Whereas Ingram and Durst (1989) found that only 3 nature tour firms served more than 1,000 clients in 1986, 35 served 1,000 or more in 1994. This difference is likely due to the expanded scope of this sampling frame and the increasing popularity of such travel. The small number of large nature tour operators is also significant. In fact, the five largest operations served a total of 49,012 clients, or 40% of the total market, and the top 35 firms each had 1,000 or more clients and captured 90%. This increasing size and concentration of economic power among nature tourism operators within industrialized countries has impacts on all levels of nature tourism (Ascher 1985).
The Global Focus of Outbound Operators A total of 119,810 ecotourists were served during 1993-94 by the 82 firms in this survey. The world-regional distribution of total client visits to nature destinations was reported as shown in Figure 3. This chart indicates that Central America is the most popular nature tour destination in Latin America. In addition, although the data were not compiled for individual countries, it is noted that Costa Rica constituted a major portion of the Central America total. A few supple mentary observations can be made about the global focus of nature tour operators. First, only 9 of the operators sent more than 25% of their clients outside the Western Hemisphere. This, in conjunction with the fact that only 13% of all the nature tours were taken outside the Western Hemisphere, suggests that nature tour operators tend to specialize in particular world regions, as opposed to building a global repertoire. Yet only 13 of these operators offered all of their tours within just one of the subregions. Thus, while relatively few operators are global in their focus, most are organized beyond the scale of individual countries and their contiguous neighbors. Finally, this regional distribution of nature tours is very different from the global flows of general tourism, where visits to North America, Europe, Mexico, and the Caribbean constitute much higher percentages of the total. The Nonprofit Sector Eleven of the tour operators, serving 20,215 clients, or 17% of the total, were nonprofit organizations. The largest of these businesses served a total of 9,000 clients. The global focus of these tours was substantially different from the com posite, since 42% of all the nonprofits' client trips were within North America, versus 7% for the rest of the sample. These nonprofit operators do not merely feed clients to private outbound operators, but instead directly provide nature tours in the marketplace. Finally, these nonprofit tour operators are actively pursuing their market position as they use sophis ticated marketing campaigns, including direct mail, advertising in tourism publications, and the development of glossy nature-tour brochures. The Specialty Travel Index Since both of the previous U.S. nature tour surveys in the literature were primarily based on listings of tour operators in the STI, a comparison of this portion of the sample to the balance is relevant. First, only one-third of all these respondents were listed in STI. While most of the responses from these two groups were similar, an
important exception was that operators who advertised in STI served nearly twice as many total customers per year as the rest of the sample, an average of 2,165 per year versus 1,177. Consequently, given that most nature tour operators were not listed in STI and the size of the operations within these two groups was substantially different, more attention should be given to the sources used to define the sampling frame in future nature tour operator surveys. FUTURE ECOTOURISM RESEARCH Given the paucity of studies about the global or business organization of nature tourism, it should not be surprising that important research dimensions have yet to be explored. A fundamental global feature of ecotourism is that inter national ecotourists come primarily from industrialized countries to visit less industrialized nations. To date, much more ecotourism research has been directed toward the destination countries, especially in regard to their biological character, than toward either ecotourists or the businesses making their travel arrangements. If ecotourism research is to provide a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of this global phenomenon, more attention should be given to the key global components of ecotourists, outbound nature travel businesses, and inbound ecotour operations. Since very few studies have systematically examined ecotourists, social science surveys offer a promising method to identify baseline information. Prime candidates for ecotourist survey research are Europe, North America, and Australia-New Zealand. Given the previously mentioned issue of geocultural differences, adequate attention should also be given to research that compares and contrasts discrete ecotourist market areas -- for instance, Australia, Canada, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain. Another important research issue is the need to explore both package tour clients and free and independent travelers. Because no ecotourism studies have examined the size or character of either of these market segments, their makeup and impact can only be surmised. Finally, attention should be given to identifying basic characteristics of ecotourists, such as their social attributes, travel experiences, environmental values, and future travel preferences. Using such baseline information, more theoretical investigations can later be pursued. Another research priority should be studies of outbound and inbound nature tour operators in different countries and world regions. Such studies could begin to
identify the role of travel businesses in guiding the international flow of ecotourists to particular properties and destinations. First, a number of practical business issues should be examined, including client supply, ownership patterns, business partnerships, financing, cash flow analysis, marketing strategies, and profit share. Such utilitarian research would provide insight for both outbound and inbound operations and for tourism consultants developing ecotourism plans for nonindustrialized countries. Second, using a value-based framework, such as the one developed by the Ecotourism Society (1993), would address complementary questions about the objectives, techniques, and implementation of ecotourism operations. As one example of such value-based study, a collaborative research project between the Ecotourism Society and inbound nature tour operators assessed ecotravel operations in Ecuador during 1995. Finally, examining the inter relations between the results of ecotourist surveys, utilitarian business analysis, and valuebased studies will offer a more complete and balanced view of nature tourism. CONCLUSION Despite the growing number of ecotourists and their worldwide impacts, research on the business and global dimensions of nature tourism has been very limited. As a result, many basic research questions remain unanswered. In response, this article has offered a more comprehensive conceptual framework to understand the development of nature tourism. Acknowledging this global business framework clarifies the roles of the major actors and makes it possible to study their discrete impacts. A more comprehensive research paradigm should include more systematic national studies, comparative studies, and comprehensive world-regional analyses. In addition to describing the empirical character of the distinct components, this refined inquiry should also probe the interrelations among the different levels. From this new perspective, the nature tourism industry should no longer be viewed as a simple composite of global and local actors. Instead, it presents a tangled web of social and economic relations that connect a diversity of geographical scales involving nature tourists, tourism businesses, and socially constructed wild landscapes. The global business structure of this system clearly has an important impact on the marketing strategies, content of advertising, specific itineraries, management philosophies, and distribution of benefits of nature tourism. Finally, although this growing network of nature tour operators is barely visible within the literature, these are clearly not invisible hands that are constructing these nature tourism landscapes.
REFERENCES Alderman, C. (1990). A Study of the Role of Privately Owned Lands Used for Nature Tourism, Education, and Conservation. Washington, DC: Conservation International. ARA Consulting Group (1995). Ecotourism -- Nature/Adventure/Culture: Alberta and British Columbia Market Demand Assessment. Vancouver, BC. Ascher, F. (1985). Tourism: Transnational Corporations and Cultural Identities. Paris: UNESCO. Ashton, R., and P. Ashton (1993). An Introduction to Sustainable Tourism (Ecotourism) in Central America: Paseo Pantera Ecotourism Program. Gainesville, FL: Wildlife Conservation International. Ballantine, J. L., and P. F. J. Eagles (1994). ''Defining Canadian Ecotourists.'' Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2 (4): 210-14. Blamey, Russell (1995). ''The Elusive Market Profile: Operationalizing Ecotourism.'' Paper presented at the Geography of Sustainable Tour ism Conference, September 2-4, Canberra, Australia. Blangy, S., and P. Hanneberg (1995). ''Ecotourism in Europe: Two Views.'' The Ecotourism Society Newsletter, 5 (2): 1-3. Blum, E. (1991). ''Ecotourism Skyrockets as Major Market for Affluent Travelers.'' Travel Weekly, January 14. Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund. Bonner, R. (1993). At the Hand of Man -- Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife. New York: Vintage Books. Crossley, J., and B. Lee (1994). ''Ecotourists and Mass Tourists: A Difference in `Benefits Sought.''' Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Annual Conference, Bal Harbour, FL. Lexington, KY: Travel and Tourism Research Association. de Kadt, E. (1979). ''Social Planning for Tourism in the Developing Countries.'' Annals of Tourism Research, 6 (1): 36-48. Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dowling, R. (1991). ''Tourism and the Natural Environment: Shark Bay, Western Australia.'' Tourism Recreation Research, 16 (2): 44-48. Eagles, P. (1992). ''The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists.'' Journal of Travel Research, 31 (Fall): 3-7. Eagles, P., and E. Wind (1995). ''Canadian Ecotours in 1992: A Content Analysis of Advertising.'' Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 19 (1). Eagles, P., P. Nilsen, N. Kachi, and S. Buse, eds. (1995). Ecotourism: An Annotated Bibliography for Planners and Managers. 3rd ed. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society. The Ecotourism Society (1993). Ecotourism Guidelines for Nature Tour Operators. North Bennington, VT. Fennel, D., and P. Eagles (1990). ''Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework.'' Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8 (1): 23-34. Geffen, A., and C. Berglie (1993). Eco Tours and Nature Getaways. New York: Clarkson Potter Publishers. Hawkins, D., M. Wood, and S. Bittman (1995). The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners and Developers. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society. Higgins, B., and J. Drollete (1994). ''A Survey of U.S. Based Nature Tour Operators Offering Trips to Latin America.'' Plattsburgh, NY: State University of New York, Department of Geography and Planning. Higgins, B. (1995). ''Investigating Global Ecotour Market Demand.'' The Ecotourism Society Newsletter, 5 (4): 3. Honey, M. (1994). ''Paying the Price of Ecotourism.'' Am*ericas, 46 (6): 40-47. Hull, R., and G. Revell (1989). ''Cross-Cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A Case Study in Bali.'' Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 177-91. Ingram, C. Denise, and P. Durst (1989). ''Nature-Oriented Tour Operators: Travel to Developing Countries.'' Journal of Travel Research, 28 (Fall): 11-15 Laarman, J., T. Stewart, and J. Prestemon (1989). ''International Travel by U.S. Conservation Groups and Professional Societies.'' Journal of Travel Research, 28 (Summer): 12-17.
Lankford, S., B. Buxton, R. Hetzler, and J. Little (1995). ''Response Bias and Wave Analysis of Mailed Questionnaires in Tourism Impact Assessments.'' Journal of Travel Research, 33 (Spring): 8-13. Lindberg, K. (1991). ''Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism's Ecological and Economic Benefits.'' Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. MacCannell, D. (1992). Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. London: Routledge. Merlino, D., ed. (1993). ''The Ecotourism Resource for Travel Agents.'' October 25, supplement to Tour & Travel News. Miller, K. (1978). Planning National Parks for Ecodevelopment: Cases and Methods from Latin America. Volume I and II. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, Center for Strategic Wildland Management Studies. Moore, S., and B. Carter (1993). ''Ecotourism in the 21st Century.'' Tourism Management, 14 (2): 123-30. Munt, I. (1994). ''Eco-tourism or Ego-tourism? Race and Class, 36 (1): 49-60. Place, S. (1988). ''The Impact of National Park Development on Tortuguero, Costa Rica.'' Journal of Cultural Geography, 9 (1): 37-52. ___ (1991). ''Nature Tourism and Rural Development in Tortuguero.'' Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (2): 186-201. Pleumarom, A. (1994). ''The Political Economy of Tourism.'' The Ecologist, 24 (4): 142-48. Pratt, M. (1992). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge. Richter, K. L. (1990). ''The Politics of Tourism: Implications for Coastal Marine Tourism.'' Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, vol. 1. Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources and Development Institute, pp. 40-45. Ruschmann, D. (1992). ''Ecological Tourism in Brazil.'' Tourism Management, 13 (1): 125-28. Rylander, R., D. Propst, and T. McMurtry (1995). ''Nonresponse and Recall Biases in a Survey of Traveler Spending.'' Journal of Travel Research, 33 (Spring): 39-45. Rymer, T. (1992). ''Growth of U.S. Ecotourism and Its Future in the 1990s.'' Florida International University Hospitality Review, 10 (1): 1-10.
Scace, R. C., E. Girone, and R. Usher (1992). Ecotourism in Canada. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. Sheldon, P. (1989). ''Tour Operators.'' In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, 2d ed., edited by S. Witt and L. Moutinho. London: Prentice Hall. Sorenson, R. (1991). ''Overseas Adventure Travel, Inc.,'' Case Study 9-391-068. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Squire, S. (1994). ''Accounting for Cultural Meanings: The Interface between Geography and Tourism Studies Re-examined.'' Progress in Human Geography, 18 (1): 1-16. Valentine, P. (1992). ''Nature-Based Tourism.'' In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B. Weiler and C. Hall. New York: Halsted Press, pp. 105-27. Weiler, B. (1993). ''Nature-Based Tour Operators: Are They Environmentally Friendly or Are They Faking It?'' Tourism Recreation Research, 18 (1): 55-60. Wells, Michael, and Katrina Brandon (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Western, D. (1993). ''Defining Ecotourism.'' In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, edited by Kreg Lindberg and Donald Hawkins. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society. Whelan, T., ed. (1991). Nature Tourism. Washington, DC: Island Press. Whitlock, W., K. Van Romer, and R. Becker (1991). Nature-Based Tourism: An Annotated Bibliography. Clemson, SC: Clemson University, Strom Thurmond Institute, Regional Resources Development Group. Wight, P. (1993). ''Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell?'' Journal of Travel Research, 31 (Winter): 3-9. Wilson, A. (1992). The Culture of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Wilson, M. (1987). Nature-Oriented Tourism in Ecuador: Assessment of Industry Structure and Development Needs. FPEI Working Paper No. 20. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research. Wilson, M., and J. Laarman (1987). Nature Tourism and Enterprise Development in Ecuador. FPEI Working Paper No. 27. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research.
Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society. Zurick, D. (1995). Errant Journeys: Adventure Travel in a Modern Age. Austin: University of Texas Press.
*Copyright of this document is held by the Business Research Division of the University of Colorado which publishes the Journal of Tourism Research. To obtain copies of this article contact Cindy DiPersio, Business Research Division, University of Colorado, Campus Box 420, Boulder, CO 80309-0420, email:
[email protected]. **Bryan R. Higgins is a Professor of Geography and Coordinator of the Planning Program at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. Field research for this project was supported in part by the Southern Cone program of the State University of New York and a Cross Borders research grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Special thanks to Judy Drollette, Angela Basset, and Oscar Flores for their survey research assistance. Thanks to Megan Epler Wood and Kathleen Murphy of the Ecotourism Society for providing professional contacts and access to unpublished nature tourism documents. ###
