Talk:Ecotourism

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Travel and Tourism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Zoo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabaan.

Above undated message substituted from

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from

why the heck are there dashes all over the place on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.204.77 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Alex 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely needs an NPOV tag. It sounds like someone from the NRDC wrote this tripe. I am too new a user to do it. Arg10f (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotourism can and may hurt the environment. People should be more careful about going to other countries and littering carlessly. —The preceding

 Eco tourism is a travel activity that ensures direct financial support to local people where tourism activity are being generated and enjoyed.it teaches travelers to respect local cultures of distinations where travelers are visiting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.14.248 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

All the same this article contains an enormous amount of criticism for ecotourism while the actual tourism contains no criticism at all! Its true that travel is pretty inefficient and can be pretty destructive toward the environment (especially when traveling by jet plane), but do you honestly want people to do nothing but sit around at home content in their clusterphobic cultural bubbles? Surely ALL of eco-tourism can't be bad, surely there are ways of learning and enjoying other cultures and peoples without personally raping half of the amazon (the sense you get from about two thirds of this article). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate criticism sections, but why not offer some positives to offset the negatives, just some examples of what people are doing right alongside what there doing wrong.

I think many people have the preconceived notion that ecotourism is the answer to all the problems of tourism. There is a lot to improve. --Eikenhein 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the criticism page seem to violate the NPOV, or at least present criticisms in an unneccessarily hostile manner. Particularly, "What about pushing people onto marginal lands with harsh climates, poor soils, lack of water, and infested with livestock and disease is “enhancing”? The establishment of parks does nothing but create harsh survival realities and deprives the people of their traditional use of land and natural resources." This reads much more like a lecture than an encylopedic phrasing of valid criticism, and if it is a direct quote from one of the references, it should be in question marks, shouldn't it? 142.166.23.42 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can whomever put Kamuaro, 2007 throughout the text please cite this reference in full in the References section and link to mentions in the text please. Much of this article is supported with this citation and this author is only listed as having written a much earlier piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.219.38.1 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is years later, but I want to at least point out that there seems to be a lack of context here. People aren't going to stop going to other countries or using airplanes if they stop going to ecotourist sites (they'll just take their holiday elsewhere). Ecotourism as an industry does have a lot of problems that need to be worked on, but if carefully managed it's shown a lot of success as a sustainable way to conserve areas and reserves that otherwise wouldn't survive. Working with the community is a slow-progressing issue, but a lot of the complaints in the article are either based on illegal or abusive behaviour by people involved in ecotourism (indicating greater regulation to prevent mismanagement is required) or investors buying land from people and then using that land for ecotourism. Ideally, ecotourism should support the community and be careful in buying land (it's a serious concern that needs attention), but people buying the land isn't going to stop if ecotourism goes away, and in today's definition buying land like that doesn't count as "gross violation of fundamental rights." So much of this article involves sensationalist condemnation, inflating any small issue in a crusade to say "ecotourism is not only useless but harmful for conservation and everyone involved." Yet despite the real problems with ecotourism (and the lack of logic and reason in so much of this article), there are increasing examples of successful conservation, and the studies and opinions of most environmentalists say that it has real value (there is a lot of available information if someone wants to look for it). The author of so much of this article actually proposed conflict over ecotourism profits, and taking away funds and interest from other avenues of conservation, as legitimate criticisms of ecotourism (in which case, all industries must be condemned). Seriously. This article needs a serious rewrite, not to support ecotourism but so it is objective and reasonable. Can someone please attempt a re-write? (SoMuchForSubtlety (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

People that use the term "Greenwash" are pure political operatives with little constructive to add to the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand both terms can be used, but I prefer the former because: 1. It is the form found in Webster's and American Heritage dictionaries 2. It is already used throughout the article 3. It is based on the political term "whitewash"

Comments? --Eikenhein 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many citations in this section (ie. from Miller, Walpole et al, Kamuaro - 2007, West) do not appear in the references section of this article. Was this section copied from a previous work/report/essay that had actually used these references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.99 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section reads like a school paper on why ecotourism is bad. The citations lack a certain degree of notability. Instead of a written diatribe against ecotourism supported by other diatribe, statistics should be presented. --Anthropos65 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many words, but so few ideas. The author almost sounds like a proponent of ecotourism who is forced to write a critique of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snefreely (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes up the majority of the article, which is definitely undue weight. We need more information on the negative effects of tourism (the articles tourism and sustainable tourism have remarkably little on this as I write), but this is too much. Richard001 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is part of the history of ecotourism, which is to me incorrect. I moved the criticism to the bottom, and look to chip away some of the criticism which is not cited, atleast throw in some "citation needed" tags. It also helps to show how unduly big the criticism section is compared to the rest of the article. I also think its unfair, since the criticism is mostly about problems with tourism in general, not ecotourism. Actually, the article on tourism don't have ANY of this criticism in it... Gnurkel (talk)

The main idea in the top segments is basically “negative impacts (on people and the environment) occur where ecotourism has been badly implemented and this is why all ecotourism is bad.” The author also seems to think that “many” ecotourism projects not meeting necessary standards translates to “nearly all,” and that problems in the industry count as fatal flaws in ecotourism itself…evidence, reasoning and logic not included. Somehow, ignoring what ecotourism funding actually supports is okay, too. Yes, all those areas conserving wildlife in their natural environments are failing at conservation...? So much of the “criticism” is juvenile, poorly argued rhetoric that fixing it is a huge job. And yeah, the sensationalism and unrealistic claims really don’t help. By blaming every conceivable environmental and humanitarian concern on ecotourism, the writer is obscuring the valid problems that do exist while unfairly maligning ecotourism’s potential and its success so far. Where do you even start with all this? (SoMuchForSubtlety (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I also noticed how a lot of discussion in this article doesn't feel very neutral. The overall tone feels more like an essay rather than an unbiased source of information. The author is trying to persuade the reader against ecotourism when this should just be a completely fact based article. Amjones02 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article seems to be overly focussed on how ecotourists are better than everyone else, and all the reasons why. A more encyclopedic introduction would be appreciated. There are also various grammatical and punctuation mistakes in the introduction. 74.92.147.125 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean up the grammar in the intro a bit and plan on revising wording from a less biased perspective. (Steadydoesit (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It seems that the introduction is speaking highly of ecotourism, and neglecting to mention some of the negative impacts of the action of being an eco tourist. This would make the introduction a less biased and more realistic explanation of what ecotourism is. Boboshic (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article with the most prominent List of ecohotels and ecoresorts can be made ? Info could be obtained from

• Books as The Eco Travel Handbook (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eco-Travel-Handbook-Complete-Sourcebook-Business/dp/0500287619/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249633795&sr=1-4 )
• Condé Nast Green Traveler (http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/articles/10419) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.185.211 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings as Green Star Rating; see http://www.oceanhotels.com.au/news/green-star-rated/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.185.211 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some ecotourist destination succeed in protecting huge forests; see the Gibbon Experience (136 000 ha protected with treehouses with a combined capacity to house only 48 people (6 treehouses X 8 people)

mention in article 91.182.63.164 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica cannot have a GDP. Antarctica is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward1969 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does Antarctica have a GDP? Not possible. 74.237.129.238 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questa pagina fa cagare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.16.220.80 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eco tourism is NOT just about visiting rfagile places. It is about visiting ANY place for the purpose of enjoying the environment. This article reads like it has been written by a biased bigot with very little real knowledge. I feel like removing huge sections of this page due to the expressed bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.138.135 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most important things haven't been mentioned:

• In some regions (i.e. Île du Nord (West North)) ecotourism has been instrumental in returning a region to its natural state (removal of all non-native fauna/flora )
• In some regions ecotourism has been instrumental in protecting areas from hunting, fishing, ... For example, in some eco dive-resorts, protected areas have been created to allow to serve as a breeding place for fish/marine animals

Should http://sustainabletravel.org/ be mentioned ?

Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention IBAT, see https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/faq Appearantly, before ecotourist constructions are set up in fragile environments, IBAT's are best written up. Xovady (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecotourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307044639/http://www.untamedpath.com/Ecotourism/defining.html to http://www.untamedpath.com/Ecotourism/defining.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfelmgart (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Angelica.gnlz.

There are a few red links on this page that don't take you to a wikipedia article. Either add a citation to an outside source or delete the link entirely to avoid confusion. Amjones02 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the references for this article, many of them seem to lack the notability required for both an article on wikipedia and the topic discussed. This is further shown in how some of the references in the article itself can't be found in the references section.Amjones02 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Amjones02.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mmagana0212.

— Assignment last updated by Mmagana0212 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just took an initial run at this after noticing an IP adding a commercial site. We can't use wikivoice to support claims of tourism businesses; especially when we have sourced criticism about the greenwashing and negative effects. It's not too hard to NPOV it, but needs doing. -