Mass ecotourism vs.

Eco mass tourism by Stanislav Ivanova and Maya Ivanovab

a

International University College, 3 Bulgaria Str., 9300 Dobrich, Bulgaria, tel: +359 58 PhD student, University of Economics Varna, 77 Kniaz Boris Blvd., 9002 Varna,

655612, fax: +359 58 605760, e-mail: stanislav.ivanov@vumk.eu

b

Bulgaria; CEO, Zangador Ltd., Bulgaria, e-mails: office@zangador.eu, maya.g.ivanova@gmail.com

Abstract: The paper conceptualises mass ecotourism and eco mass tourism as two intermediate forms of tourism in the ecotourism-mass tourism dichotomy. An analytical framework is proposed (SDEF grid), based on two dimensions: scale of tourism development and ecological footprint of the respective type of tourism. Both the extreme (eco- and mass tourism) and the intermediate (mass eco- and eco mass tourism) types of tourism are evaluated in the context of the three dimensions of sustainable development (environmental, social and economic). The paper stipulates that mass ecotourism and the eco mass tourism might be better development options for the destinations than pure eco- and mass tourism.

Key words: ecotourism, mass ecotourism, eco mass tourism, mass tourism, Bulgaria, sustainability

Citation: Ivanov, S., & Ivanova, M. (2013). Mass ecotourism vs. Eco mass tourism. Proceedings of the Sixth Black Sea Tourism Forum, 02nd-04th October, 2013, Varna, Bulgaria, pp. 78-90.

1|P a g e

Mass ecotourism vs. Eco mass tourism

Introduction Ecotourism and mass tourism are often considered as the two extremes of tourism development. The main difference between them is seen in the number of tourists involved, as well as their environmental impact on destination area. While ecotourism (Buckley, 1994) is usually defined as a form of nature-based tourism that strives to be ecologically, socioculturally, and economically sustainable while providing opportunities for appreciating and learning about the natural environment or specific elements thereof (Weaver, 2001:105), its opposite, the so called mass tourism (Gonzalez Tiradoz, 2011), is associated with traditional sea, sun, sand and winter ski tourism, deriving a number of negatives upon tourist destinations, due to the high volume of tourists flows. In this dichotomy ecotourism is almost always perceived as the more acceptable and desirable option for development of any tourist destination. Yet, there are voices, identifying some disadvantages of ecotourism and its preexploitation as another sort of marketing effort to attract new tourists (Sirakaya et al., 1999). Therefore, it is probably time to revisit the traditional perceptions of the eco- and mass tourism. Both extremes ecotourism and mass tourism have received a lot of attention in academics but only a few of the researchers presume that there may some hybrid versions exist in between. The idea of combining advantages of mass tourism and ecotourism has been discussed in several papers, although not with the same terms. Weaver (2001) is one of the first to identify the common features of both extremes he argues that in fact they are not so far away, but rather, two sides of a coin. For example, even in the mass tourism can be found sustainable elements, and if these elements are increased/multiplied, the mass tourism could be converted into a hybrid of ecotourism (Weaver, 2001) (considered as mass ecotourism in this paper). In his further research Weaver reconfirms his ideas that the only sustainable future for tourism lies in sustainable mass tourism (Weaver, 2012, 2013). Other researchers support the idea of transforming mass tourism into ecotourism by presenting examples of classical 3S destinations that took the sustainable way of development. Vera Rebollo & Ivars Baldal (2003), for example, present case study of Torrevieja, Spain a mature destination that needs a qualitative change in order to reconcile the urge for economic growth and sustainable development. In the same vein, Aguilo et al. (2005) show how the Balearic Islands restructure their product in sustainable direction, so that to avoid the final decline stage of the destination
2|P a g e

life cycle. Both case studies emphasise on the natural way the municipalities and local communities came to this fundamental change.

At the other end of the axis, Hitchner et al. (2009) summarise several challenges, faced by ecotourism development in Borneo. Most important of them include: lack of communication and connections among all ecotourism participants; infrastructure limitations; lack or unfair legal and regulation issues, concerning local indigenous communities; non-equitable distribution of benefits; need for education and motivation of local people, etc. all of these challenges deriving mainly from the individualistic and small scale approach of ecotourism. Similar problems are faced by other indigenous communities, practicing ecotourism, where social and economic disadvantages surpass environmental benefits (Coria & Calfucura, 2012). The latter appear as a major motive for local tourist businesspeople to reject application of sustainable practices, simply because they are not economically efficient (Frey & George, 2010).

In the context of the above discussion, current paper aims to: i) present a theoretical framework of ecotourism and mass tourism in the context of sustainable development; ii) analyse the ecotourism-mass tourism continuum through lens of the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economic); and iii) on this basis to conceptualise two intermediate forms of tourism mass ecotourism and eco mass tourism. The SDEF grid We analyse the various types of tourism in a destination on the basis of two dimensions scale of development and ecological footprint of the respective type of tourism. They form a two-dimensional grid, which we name SDEF grid (Scale of Tourism Development / Ecological Footprint) see Figure 1.

3|P a g e

High

Mass tourism

Ecological footprint

Eco mass tourism

Mass ecotourism

Low

Ecotourism Low Scale of tourism development High

Figure 1. Scale of tourism development / ecological footprint grid

The scale of tourism development shows the number of tourists that can be served within the destination simultaneously and within specific period of type (e.g. one calendar year) for this type of tourism. Low scale of tourism development would mean that the number of tourists which could be served within the destination by this type of tourism is low due to different reasons: limited bed capacity, short tourist seasons, inaccessibility of the destination and so on. On the other hand, high scale of tourism development would mean that large number of tourists could be served during the year, by either extending the seasons, and/or increasing the bed capacity and the accessibility of the destination. The ecological footprint is the measure of the human impact on the environment associated with the particular type of tourism.

Obviously, ecotourism and mass tourism form the two extreme cases of the grid. Ecotourism has low scale of tourism development and, naturally, low ecological footprint. Mass tourism is associated with high scale of development, but also high level of ecological footprint. Often tourism policies consider only this dichotomy as options for tourism development in the destination. However, we state that there are many intermediate types of tourism between the two extremes. Mass tourism can become more environmentally friendly and be transformed into eco mass tourism. This would require some limitations on the number of tourists within the destination (e.g. undertaking various macro- and micro-techniques for managing visitor flows to the destination as suggested by Ryan (2003)) and improvement of the environmental performance of tourist companies (e.g. the use of renewable energies, water reuse, waste separation etc., as discussed in details by Ivanov, Ivanova, Iankova (2012)). On the other hand, ecotourism might involve more people in order to create more jobs, which would
4|P a g e

transform it into mass ecotourism. Of course, the price for this transformation is the higher ecological footprint.

Sustainability vectors The choice among the various types of tourism in the SDEF grid is not easy. It requires a preliminary analysis of their sustainability. Usually sustainability is associated with 3 dimensions environmental, social and economic (Swarbrooke, 1999). Sustainability is a state of tourism, not a type of tourism. In fact, every type of tourism could be developed in a sustainable or unsustainable way, including mass and ecotourism. We can present the sustainability of each type of tourism into a 3-dimentional space with three axes level of environmental, social and economic sustainability of the specific type of tourism see Table 1.

We say that a type of tourism performs high in terms of environmental sustainability if its ecological footprint is very low, i.e. the pressure of the territory is low, consumption of nonrenewable resources is low, renewable energy is used, waste is separated, tourists value the nature of the destination and follow the principle Leave nothing from you, take nothing with you. Put in other words, high environmental sustainability implies very low or negligible negative impacts on the environment by tourism.

Social sustainability is usually associated with the corporate social responsibility of the tourist companies and the opportunities and benefits they create for their employees and the local community. In practice, it includes activities related to the fair treatment of employees by employers, provision of services and proper attitude towards people with various disabilities, regardless whether they are part of the hotels employees or its guests, donations (provision of such by the tourist companies and stimulating the donations by the tourists).

The economic dimension of tourism sustainability is connected with the economic impacts of tourism to the destination how well tourist companies are integrated into the local economy, the use of local labour, food and materials, own production of food products by accommodation establishment and F&B outlets, etc. When tourist companies use local labour and buy from local producers their expenditures generate sales, jobs, incomes and other economic impacts for the local community (for a detailed discussion of local economic impacts of tourism see Ivanov, 2005).
5|P a g e

Usually the literature emphasises the environmental dimension of sustainability and neglects the other two. However, a more balanced approach should be considered as all three dimensions are important, although different stakeholders could put different weights on each of them. For simplicity and illustrative purposes we consider all three dimensions of sustainability to be of equal importance.

Table 1 presents the conceptual sustainability vectors of the four types of tourism individually, while Figure 2 combines them together.

Table 1. Individual tourism sustainability vectors

Ecotourism: Economic: 1 Social: 1 Environmental: 5 Economic sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

6|P a g e

Mass ecotourism: Economic: 2 Social: 2 Environmental: 4

Economic sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability Eco mass tourism: Economic: 4 Social: 4 Environmental: 3 Economic sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

7|P a g e

Mass tourism: Economic: 5 Social: 4 Environmental: 2

Economic sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

Economic sustainability

Mass tourism

Eco mass tourism

Mass ecotourism Social sustainability

Ecotourism Environmental sustainability Tourism sustainability vector Tourism sustainability change path Figure 2. Tourism sustainability vectors combined

Obviously, ecotourism performs quite high in terms of environmental sustainability. Companies involved in ecotourism are usually small, many times family owned, but the very
8|P a g e

small scale of development eliminates any opportunities for significant economic and social impacts (either positive or negative). The local destination could not benefit properly from this type of tourism low number of employees, low amount of investments going into the economy, low absolute value of the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. Similarly, the small scale could not make some activities (like crafts) economically viable. The low revenues of the companies do not allow them to be highly involved in corporate social responsibility activities. There is also the danger that the development of ecotourism creates purposive limits on the tourism development of the local destination (the small is beautiful concept), which directly hinders the increase of the economic welfare of local population. A sense of elitism (and why not eco-imperialism!) is generated, by charging higher prices for assumingly bio-/eco- and ecotourism products which further decreases the social sustainability of ecotourism.

Mass tourism is the opposite case. It provides enormous economic and social benefits as a result of the economies of scale: Low prices leading to democratisation of travel Enormous savings from/for infrastructure construction, usage and maintenance Large number of jobs created Diverse knowledge and skills of tourism employees High tax revenues in the government and municipal budgets Inclusion in tourism supply of tourist resources that would otherwise not be profitable for use/visitation Possibilities to influence tour operators via increased bargaining power of hoteliers Increased possibilities for innovations Transforming the concept of sustainable development into economic benefits

Of course, there are threats of mass tourism development, like disregarding the interests of local population, acculturation, creation of cultural cocoon around the resorts, crimes, etc. Nevertheless, some of these economic and social costs (e.g. crimes) are inevitable for the development of any type of tourism or any economic activity. Therefore, we evaluate highly the economic and social sustainability of mass tourism in general.

From an environmental perspective, mass tourism leads to high consumption of resources, gradual conquest of new territories through the expansion of resorts, pollution, etc.
9|P a g e

However, the spatial concentration of visitor flows through mass tourism helps in their diversion from sensitive destination areas, which would otherwise be visited. In ecotourism, the human ecological footprint on the destination is decreased by limiting the scale of development and the special dispersion of tourists. Mass tourisms environmental sustainability follows the opposite philosophy deliberately sacrificing a small share (1-5%) of the territory for massive tourism development and high concentration of tourist flows and activities, in order to keep the other 95-99% away from the tourists visitation, thus decreasing the ecological footprint there. Furthermore, Weaver (2001) points out that large tourist companies are in many ways inherently better positioned to implement sustainable practices because of their internal economies of scale. Therefore, mass tourism although in general has low environmental sustainability, it does in some ways contribute positively to it.

The two extremes (eco- and mass tourism) clearly show that there is a trade-off between the environmental dimension of sustainability, on one hand, and the economic and social dimensions, on the other. One could increase the positive contribution of tourism to the economy and society, but this might be at the expense of the environment, and vice versa the increase of the environmental sustainability would require some loss of economic and social sustainability, due to limitations imposed on tourist companies or tourists, higher operation costs, etc. Achieving highest scores on all three sustainability dimensions is very difficult, if not impossible in practice.

Mass tourism could increase its environmental sustainability and be transformed into eco mass tourism, by deliberate limit on the number of tourists that the destination can serve (i.e. destinations carrying capacity), and by adoption of various activities that increase the environmental sustainability of tourist companies waste separation, use of renewable resources/energies, development of corporate policies for reduced consumption of resources by both tourists and employees, hydro- and thermo-insulation of the buildings, greening of surrounding areas, etc. While some of these activities do not require additional financial resources and would decrease the operational expenses (e.g. policies for saving resources), others would increase the investment costs but decrease the operational expenses (e.g. hydroand thermo-insulation of the buildings, energy-saving bulbs and appliances, water tap aerators, photocells in bathrooms and common areas, etc.), and third would increase costs (e.g. natural bath cosmetics). Considering the predominant price competition in mass tourism, companies would not be always able to transfer these expenses to the customers through
10 | P a g e

higher prices, and would be forced to cover them by lower profit margins. In general, we assume that the increase of the environmental sustainability of the mass tourism would not influence its social dimension but would decrease the economic benefits. Therefore, eco mass tourism scores higher on the environmental sustainability than mass tourism, but slightly lower on the economic dimension.

Ecotourism could increase its contribution to the economy and the social sphere by expanding its scale of development and transforming into mass ecotourism, thus benefiting from potential economies of scale. This could happen by various means increased capacity of the guest houses; construction of more guest houses within the destination; improved transport accessibility of the destination allowing for more tourists to visit it; inclusion of ecotourism guesthouses in hotel reservation systems to increase their market visibility; inclusion of ecotourism routes into the product portfolios of tour operators. By increasing the number of tourists that visit the ecotourism destination, local tourist companies would generate higher revenues and would be able to hire more people, buy more from local producers and, therefore, be better integrated into the local economy and generate higher economic benefits. Furthermore, by increasing the bed capacity of the destination, ecotourism helps people from more social strata to visit it, thus contributing to the democratisation of travel. Of course, the negative environmental impacts of (mass) tourism start to appear. Therefore, the expansion of ecotourism into mass ecotourism would decrease its environmental sustainability but improve the economic and social ones.

Figure 2 combines the sustainability vectors of the four types of tourism discussed in this paper into one diagram. It shows the path of sustainability change when ecotourism expands into mass ecotourism and mass tourism undertakes more environmentally friendly activities. From theoretical perspective, while mass ecotourism is less sustainable in environmental terms, it could be regarded as more sustainable than ecotourism when all three dimensions of sustainability are taken into consideration. Similarly, eco mass tourism might be perceived as at least as sustainable as mass tourism, if not more sustainable than it, when all three dimensions of sustainability are evaluated. Therefore, one could argue whether destinations have to choose between eco- and mass tourism, but between mass ecotourism and eco mass tourism.

Conclusion
11 | P a g e

The paper conceptualised the hybrid versions of eco- and mass tourism in a sustainability context, and presented them as additional worthy alternatives to the extremes. In the era of accelerated technology development and change of environmental perceptions, tourist destinations are forced to reconsider their attitude towards traditional and new values. Most of the destinations have reached their peak of life cycle and need urgently a way to rejuvenate or would be doomed to decline. In the process of tourism development and destination positioning the choice ecotourism or mass tourism is no longer a dichotomic trade-off destinations could choose intermediary forms like mass ecotourism or eco mass tourism. Although it is impossible to directly convert traditional mass tourism product into an environmentally friendly ecoproduct, there are still opportunities to utilise most of the advantages of both extremes. Furthermore, the ecotourism itself suffers some negatives in social and economic aspects that could be overthrown by including some elements of mass tourism in it. Of course, the choice of type of tourism is specific for each destination and would depend on its level of development.

References: Aguilo, E., Alegre, J. & Sard, M. (2005). The persistence of the sun and sand tourism model. Tourism Management, 26(2), 219-231. Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 661669 Coria, J. & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73, 47-55 Frey, N. & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between business owners attitude and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism Management, 31, 621-628 Gonzalez Tiradoz, R.M. (2011). Half a century of mass tourism: evolution and expectations. The Services Industries Journal, 31 (10), 1589-1601. Hitchner, S., Lapu Apu, F., Tarawe, L., Galih, S., Aran, S. & Yesaya, E. (2009). Communitybased transboundary ecotourism in the heart of Borneo: a case study of the Kelabit Highlands of Malaysia and the Kerayan Highlands of Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism, 8(2), 193-213

12 | P a g e

Ivanov, S. (2005). Measurement of the macroeconomic impacts of tourism. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Economics Varna, Bulgaria.Available in SSRN at URL:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1539443 Ivanov, S., Ivanova, M. & Iankova, K. (2012). Sustainable tourism practices mountain vs. non-mountain accommodation establishments in Bulgaria. Paper presented at the International Conference Changing Paradigms in Sustainable Mountain Tourism Research: Problems and Perspectives, Forum Brixen/Bressanone, Ital y, 25th28th October 2012. Available in SSRN at URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2161586 Ryan, C. (2003). Recreational tourism. Demand and Impacts. Cleverdon: Channel View. Sirakaya, E., Sasidharhan, V. & Sonmez, S. (1999). Redefining ecotourism: The need for a supply-side view. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 168-172 Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. London: CABI Publishing. Vera Rebollo, J.F. & Ivars Baldal, J.A. (2003) Measuring sustainability in a mass tourism destination: pressures, perceptions and policy responses in Torrevieja, Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2-3), 181-203. Weaver, D. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 104-112. Weaver, D. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management, 33, 1030-1037. Weaver, D. (2013). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward enlightened mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research (forthcoming), DOI: 10.1177/0047287513491335

13 | P a g e