Ecotourism is an oxymoron. Sustainable tourism as alternative?

The case of Costa Rica.

May 10, 2006 Suzanne Nievaart

Introduction
I first learned about the concept of sustainable development and all its facets about two years ago, during one of my university courses. The concept of ecotourism was only briefly mentioned at that time. Searching on the internet, I soon discovered that ecotourism was abound in Costa Rica. Enticed by the promises of the adventurous and environmentally friendly exploration of ancient rainforests, I decided my next trip to Latin America would have to include Costa Rica. I realized tourism will most likely only increase worldwide and I thought promoting it in a sustainable way must be the most desired path to take. Becoming more acquainted with the pillars of sustainable development and its tools such as Corporate Social Responsibility during my studies, I began to doubt if all the ecotours in Costa Rica were all they pretended to be. Although an in-depth analysis may require onsite research, the literature review I have made now has already confirmed by previous doubts of ecotourism in Costa Rica. The starting point for this paper is van der Duim and Philipsens article How eco is Costa Ricas ecotourism? (2002). One of the issues mentioned by the authors that are at stake in answering the titles question is the statement that tourism development which is geared towards ecotourism excursions has negative impacts on the immediate natural vicinity. In this paper I will focus on the impacts of tourism on nature and the environment in order to illustrate the paradox of ecotourism in Costa Rica. I will argue that this implies that the eco of ecotourism no longer represents the ecological dimension that environmentalists initially intended with this prefix. This is illustrated by the definitions given in the Collins English dictionary:
Eco-: combines with nouns and adjectives to form other nouns and adjectives which describe something as being related to ecology. Eco-tourism: the business of providing holidays and related services which are not harmful to the environment of the area.

In this paper, I will demonstrate that there are two ways in which ecotourism is an oxymoron. First of all, and most pertinently, the eco of ecotourism generally implies that it is an environmentally friendly form of tourism. Not only is this often not the case, tourism itself inevitably has negative impacts on the environment. In this paper I will discuss the case of Costa Rica, where ecotourism is a national project, but proving to be not so eco in practice. In Costa Rica, negative impacts occur on four levels: 1) Outside the protected areas, conservation is not practiced, and therefore the rest of Costa Ricas nature is slowly deteriorating by the hordes of tourists that come to visit the national parks and reserves. 2) The small-scale and low key nature of ecotourism ventures leave it highly unregulated, individuals can set up their eco outfit anywhere and anyhow they please, there are very few consequential guidelines. 3) The popularity of ecotourism in Costa Rica has resulted in mass eco tourism, whereby minimalizing impacts in its practice defeats its own purpose once it becomes large scale. 4) Tourism itself is environmentally destructive: the rainforests of Costa Rica would have been best left untouched altogether. Secondly, ecotourism is seen as a tool for sustainable development, wherefore the economic and social aspects should be balanced with the ecological aspect, yet eco implies a lop-sided balance. Therefore, I will conclude this paper by discussing sustainable tourism as an alternative approach for sustainable development.

Part 1: Ecotourism is an oxymoron. Costa Rica, Ecotourism Paradise

Costa Rica is well known as an ecotourism destination, and is perhaps even the most popular destination in Central America (Tepelus et al. 2005: 136, and Weaver 1994: 170). Its popularity is often attributed to

the fact that it contains 6% of the worlds biodiversity in mountains, volcanoes, beaches, rainforests, cloud forests, coral reefs, mangroves, diverse fauna and flora, all within an oversee-able small size and a relatively secure environment due to its political stability and high standard of living (Boo 1990, vol. 2: 27, Dasendrock 2002, Menkhaus and Lober 1996, Tepelus et al. 2005, Inman et al. 1998 van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 62, and Krger 2005). The first ecotourists in Costa Rica were scientific researchers and those who were not very different from the scientists themselves in terms of their interests (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 62). These scientists discovered the countrys natural beauty and spurred the government onto developing nature conservation programs in the 1960s, when national parks were first created (Groen 2002: 54-55). Since this time tourism to these protected areas has increased, along with Costa Ricas reputation as a promoter of natural resource preservation and sustainable development (Tepelus et al. 2005: 136, Stem et al. 2003: 322 and Groen 2002: 43). The state saw the promotion of ecotourism as a solution to international criticism of Costa Ricas environmental problems such as deforestation, which leads to land degradation, soil erosion, fuelwood scarcity, declining land fertility; pesticide poisonings; and waste and sewage disposal deficiencies which lead to land and water contamination; as well as a solution to the previously accumulated foreign debt (Thrupp 1990, Carriere 1991, and Dasenbrock 2002). Presently, tourism has become Costa Ricas dominant source of foreign income (Groen 2002: 54-55, Menkhaus and Lober 1996). Currently, 21% of Costa Rica is protected in 24 national parks (Dasenbrock 2002), one of which is the Manuel Antonio National Park, one of the main ecotourism destinations in Costa Rica (Baez 1996; 113). It offers outdoor sports such as climbing in the tropical rainforest as well as deep-scuba diving off the sun-sea-sand beaches (Ibid.).

Due to its various attractions and its proximity to the international airport, Manuel Antonio is very popular among ecotourists, and has been compared to very popular and overcrowded tourist destinations in Europe (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 66). Another development that has led to Costa Ricas green image is the creation of private nature reserves, such as the pioneer Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve. In the 1950s, American Quaker settlers bought a large portion of land and started a dairy farm (Groen 2002: 54, see also Mowforth and Munt 1998, Whelan 1991, van Wijk 2000, Fennell 1999 and Boo 1990, Vol. 2). Its prosperity attracted many Costa Ricans to the area. Since then it has expanded and evolved into a privately-owned and operated protected area, and has pioneered in exploiting its natural base for ecotourism, with tourist fees that contribute for almost 100% to nature conservation, so that the reserve can expand and be maintained (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 67). The Monteverde and the Manuel Antonio are the most popular (eco)tourism destinations in Costa Rica, and the most discussed in the literature. I will therefore use these two parks as examples to argue that ecotourism is an oxymoron. In the following section I will discuss that the (scientific) ideal of ecotourism is unfortunately not lived in practice.

Theory versus Practice

Each (scientific) author that writes about ecotourism which I have encountered signals the problem that ecotourism is a vague concept which is defined differently by all parties that choose to use it. These definitions are appropriated according to the needs of the definer. The definitions are then interpreted widely, in line with the interests of the interpreters. These definers and interpreters are the actors involved in

ecotourism: the tourists, the host populations, scientists, governmental and non-governmental organizations, financial or development institutions, tour operators etc. In theory, eco originates from the word ecology, an ecological tourism, and is the prefix that distinguishes tourism from ecotourism (Bjrk 2000: 196). In practice, the term ecotourism is often used interchangeably with nature tourism, alternative tourism, sustainable tourism, adventure tourism, indigenous and integrated tourism, green tourism, ecologically sustainable tourism, environmentally appropriate tourism, environmentally responsible travel and so on (Groen 2002: 44, Buckley 1994: 661, Inman et al 1998.: 11, Fennell 1999: 56-57, and Stem et al. 2003: 323). Fennell, however, makes a distinction between nature tourism and ecotourism: ecotourism is a form of nature tourism, but with an educational and sustainability aspect; it is low-impact, it makes a contribution to conservation and raises environmental awareness, whereas nature tourism can also be mass tourism in nature or adventure tourism (Fennell 1999: 35-36, see also Buckley 1994: 661-662, and Inman et al. 1998: 11). Nevertheless, Fennell also uses the two terms interchangeably, for example in reference to typologies of ecotourists (Fennell 1999: 56-57). Koeman presents ecotourism as a distinct niche or segment of general nature tourism, and proposes it has the potential to be a form of sustainable tourism, however, this is not always necessarily the case (Koeman 1998). Quite often, naturebased activities such as hiking, river rafting, canoeing or other off the beaten track excursions are advertised under the name of ecotourism (Whelan 1991: 46, and Groen 2002: 56). Sustainability is also an ambiguous term which is very difficult to measure objectively sometimes ideology alters the perception of facts Given this confusion over terminology, it is hardly surprising that the debate often focuses on semantic details rather than the effects of ecotourism on natural resources (Krger 2005: 580). Much like sustainability,

ecotourism has lost its original sense and has become a buzzword (Koeman 1998). Greenwashing This buzzword and its promotion as a national conservation and development project, has enabled a lot of Greenwashing in Costa Rica. Already in 1990, of the approximately 30 travel agencies in Costa Rica, one-third are called ecotourism agencies (Boo 1990 vol. 2: 28). Greenwashing occurs when explicitly environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive travel is advertised as eco, whereby the prefix loses its original sense and the value of ecotourism is diminished as tourists are deceived (Dasenbrock 2002). There are many critics of ecotourism, who see it as a form of environmental opportunism that allows continued exploitation of natural environments by mass tourism. Mass tourism cloaked in a green name (Koeman 1998). Much greenwashing occurs at the marketing level. Most tourists base their travel decisions on information they receive from travel agents, brochures, or the internet. Almost all forms of travel in Costa Rica are given the political correct label ecotourism while it is far from eco or coming close to any other goals of sustainability in the socioeconomic dimension (Groen 2002: 58, Wall 1997: 487, and Bjrk 2000).
Using nice-sounding alternative or ecological terms, and by including soft tourism elements, tour operators try to ensnare all those individuals and groups, who are seeking a new lifestyle and a travel experience different from conventional tourism (Pleumaron 1990: 14).

This is a result of the shuffling of the terms ecotourism, adventure tourism and nature tourism, but belies the negative environmental impacts of all forms of tourism (Pleumaron 1990).

Environmental impacts

Most definitions of ecotourism place nature and conservation at the root of ecotourism initiatives (Bjrk 2000: 192). It is, however, concluded by most authors that in practice, ecotourism is not actually contributing to conservation, and it is frequently suggested that it is in fact contributing to environmental destruction (Boo 1990, van der Duim 1993, Stem et al. 2003, Bjrk 2000, Krger 2005). As Weinburg (2003) sadly already mentioned, I am certainly not the first one to comment that ecotourism leaves footprints in the host community (See also Wall 1997: 487). Yet, ecotourism is marketed as eco-friendly or environmentally sound. This is indeed the ideal of ecotourism: low-impact, low-consumptive, and environmentally sensitive (Lumsdon and Swift 1998). The ideal is, however, far from the reality. Examples of negative environmental impacts of tourism to protected natural areas: overcrowding, environmental stress, changes in animal behaviour, trail erosion, deterioration of vegetation, noise pollution, contamination of air, water, and land, forest fires, wildlife mortality, health hazard, habitat destruction, deforestation, erosion, ecological changes, behavioural changes of animals, change in water acidity, groundwater pollution, habitat loss, scarring of landscape and mangrove destruction (Boo 1990, Vol. 1). Based on conclusions in the literature, I can summarize four levels of environmental impacts by ecotourism: 1) outside the protected areas hotels and other facilities are built, as well as the travel to get there; 2) small-scale tourism is developed in an uncontrolled and uncoordinated manner; 3) when ecotourism becomes large scale, it exceeds all possible ecological limits, and 4) all tourism is inherently destructive. 1) The Hypocrite State

the eco more appropriately refers to the economic wealth it will generate for its investors rather than to the local ecology it will save (Mowforth and Munt 1998: 311).

On the first level of environmental impacts, I shall refer to the ecotourism policy of Costa Rican government as the state seems to say one thing and do another (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 62), and often authors signal a lack of regulation, implementation and control of its policies, despite their aim for sustainable development (Groen 2002: 54-55). Many authors criticize Costa Ricas hegemonic reputation for its green policies; it even received the Green Devil Award in 1993 (Ibid.). It is suggested that economic gains for the wealthy elite are of a higher priority for the state than ecological conservation (Groen 2002: 43, Mowforth and Munt 1998: 310-311, Marshall 1996: 25, Koeman 1998, van der Duim and Philipsen 2002, Hill 1990, Dasenbrock 2002 and Stem et al. 2003: 322). The Costa Rican Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is part of the states strive for sustainable development. Yet environmentally destructive golf courses have been approved by the EIA, despite much criticism from green activists. They claim the golf courses consume enormous amounts of water, and contaminate residential waters with fertilisers and pesticides, not to mention the hundreds of hectares of tropical forests that were destroyed to create the golf courses (van Wijk 2000: 5 and 19). Another example is the Papagayo Project:
will turn Costa Rica's Bay of Papagayo on the Pacific Coast into a mega-resort area with high-rise hotels, golf courses, and malls. This development project deviates from the nation's typical encouragement of small scale construction by locals over resort development by foreign investors, and critics argue that it signals the end of truly sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica (Dasenbrock 2002, see also Marshall 1996: 25-26).

This is a current example of Costa Ricas contradictory policies, as well as the greenwashing in which also the state partakes: The use of the title Ecodesarollo Papagayo [Papagayo Ecodevelopment] is a sad

attempt to disguise this huge construction project under the all-too abused umbrella of eco-tourism (Marshall 1996: 25, [my addition, SN]). Not to mention the environmental impacts such abuse brings with it, such as air, water and sound pollution, a visual disruption of the landscape, disruption and destruction of flora and fauna in the area and so on (van der Duim 1993: 24). Furthermore, in the rest of Costa Rica, deforestation and contamination continues as it did before the new green policies, which puts more pressure on the remaining reserves (Weaver 1994: 173, Groen 2002: 55, and Tepelus et al. 2005: 136):
Those areas that are not explicitly labelled national park, refuge, or reserve are seriously threatened by ongoing deforestation for agriculture and industrial use (Groen 2002: 54, see also Mowforth and Munt 1998, Whelan 1991, van Wijk 2000, Fennell 1999 and Boo 1990).

To return to the example of Monteverde and Manuel Antonio, tourism is developed just outside the parks and reserves, where there is no environmental regulation or control (Weaver 1994: 173). Many additional attractions have been installed varying form short nature trails to technical equipment that makes it possible to travel through the roof of the rain forest (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 64). The negative impacts include solid waste generation, habitat disturbance, and trail erosion (Stem et al. 2003), despite the fact that these facilities may be small-scale in their initiation. 2) Small and Local Most ecotourism projects are small-scale, exclusive tours in natural areas where limited amounts of visitors are allowed at a time, driven by the concept of carrying capacity. Each study which refers to carrying capacity as a means to minimize tourism impacts on the environment, also admit that this limit is difficult to establish until it has been exceeded, or in any case, has not been established for any of

the parks in Costa Rica (Boo 1990:41, van der Duim 1993: 28, Koeman 1998:3, and Fennell 1999). Other authors propose to leave this concept behind altogether and come with new models, such as limits of acceptable change and recreation opportunity spectrum that will determine a limit to tourism in protected areas (Koeman 1998: 3, Wall 1997: 488). A lack of long-term planning is generally attributed to the problems associate with the scattered and uncoordinated development of small-scale ecotourism initiatives (Groen 2002: 54-55): There is significant environmental damage caused by the excess of poorlyplanned small-scale tourist operations scattered around this country (Marshall 1996: 25). This shortsightedness is often due to the fact that the government focuses on large-scale projects that create short-term and large profits, such as the Papagayo Project mentioned above: the tug between preservation and profit (Hill 1990, Dasenbrock 2002 and Marshall 1996). Profit tends to win, as ecotourism in Costa Rica has moved from small-scale to mass tourism. 3) The demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica
...it is very difficult to have little tourism. It is like being a little pregnant; it has a habit of growing and changing (Butler 1991 in van der Duim 1993: 27).

The popularity of ecotours and its effects outside the protected areas have had negative ecological impacts over a long period of time. Popularity implies that more people will partake in a cetain activity. It is precisely this scale enlargement that belies the purpose of ecotourism. It has been suggested that ecotourism in Costa Rica is now at a crossroads (Lumsdon and Swift 1998, Inman et al. 1998, Van der Duim 2002), in the sense that the protected areas have not been protected by promoting (eco)tourism, they have, in fact, been

deteriorated by ecotourism, which has will inevitably lead to a decrease in ecotourists (Stem et al. 2003: 324, Boo 1990 vol. 2: 48). There are currently tour operators offering alternatives to what was in the early 1990s called alternative tourism:
Each year, over 200,000 people visit Monteverde, Costa Rica, despite the fact that it's four hours from San Jose, with the last hour and a half on steep, unpaved roads. Monteverde's Cloud Forest Reserve was one of Costa Rica's first principled ecotourism destinations, but now it is in danger of being loved to death. Monteverde has been an inspiration to many other areas in Costa Rica which now provide less crowded alternatives, and can take some of the pressure off Monteverde's still beautiful forests (http://www.keytocostarica.com/ecotourmonteverde.htm).

This demonstrates Weinberg et al.s conclusion that due to the nature of the ecological footprint of tourism in any form, ecotourism eventually becomes mass tourism, if it is given the opportunity to expand and multiply uncontrollably as it did in Costa Rica. Sadly, this was already signaled in 1991:
Monteverde, which has received the most international press, is virtually overwhelmed with visitors at the peak season (Whelan 1991: 52).

By allowing unlimited numbers of tourists into protected areas and encouraging tourism, the construction has negative of high-rise hotels and resorts such as (Dasenbrock 2002), ecotourism in Costa Rica has evolved into mass which environmental impacts overcrowding, water pollution, trail erosion and changes in wildlife behaviour have been noted in Manuel Antonio National Park (Weaver 1994: 173, Whelan 1991: 52, Wall 1997: 489, and Cater 1994: 77). Also Monteverde has seen a demise in biodiversity, as the chance of encountering the famed quetzal or the golden toad featured in the National Geographic documentary is practically none, leaving tourists disillusioned (van der Duim and Philipsen 2002: 63). This disillusionment is partially due to the assumption that ecotourism implies conservation, and certainly not species extinction.

4) The paradox of ecotourism

potential visitors are encouraged to go before it is too late. Cynically, it can be suggested that they are being recruited to put the last nails in the coffin! (Wall 1997: 488).

Ecotourism may be seen as a conservation tool (Krger 2005: 594), yet tourism itself is inherently destructive, as most of the literature on tourism discusses (for example, Mowforth and Munt 1998), and current research on ecotourism demonstrates (Weinberg et al. 2003, Dasenbrock 2002, Stem et al. 2003, van Wijk 2000, and Krger 2005). It has, however contributed to conservation financially (Lumsdon and Swift 1998, Weinberg 2003, Dasenbrock 2002, Koeman 1998, Inman et al. 1998, Fennell 1999, Boo 1990, Van Gulik 2000, Stem et al. 2003, and Tepelus et al. 2005), which provides blinders for the fact that tourism itself is ecologically harmful, starting from the moment a tourist steps into an airplane, which is run on fossil fuels:
the weakness of any form of tourism that pretends to be eco and requires traveling of considerable numbers of people to other places is energy waste and pollution. The type and amount of energy used spilled by airplanes cannot be compensated by a green vacation (Groen 2002: 59).

This illustrates the paradox of ecotourism: the more funds for conservation are gathered through tourism, the more damage is being made to the area that is meant to be conserved (van der Duim 1993: 27 and Whelan 1991: 11). This damage would not only make ecotourism defeat its own purpose, but it will destroy the very resources on which it is based, and erode the concept of ecotourism itself, as was mentioned earlier in the use of ecotourism as a buzzword to greenwash mass tourism (Baez
1996; 112, Cater 1995: 22, Stem et al. 2003: 324, and Wall 1997: 490).

At this point, however, the tourists can always go somewhere else. On to enjoy undisturbed nature (Bjrk 2000: 191) elsewhere, until the

ecotourist gets there, in which case it automatically becomes disturbed. Since tourism is inherently destructive, it has been suggested in the ecototalitarian (Dietz 1996) approach, that the only true form of ecotourism, when tourists are best protecting the environment, is when they stay at home, where they can engage in virtual tourism in the comfort of their own homes, behind the computer (Mowforth and Munt 1998: 28). Whereas this means of tourism stimulates the audio and visual senses, the tourist will not be able to have the authentic experience of being one with nature, an experience that is normally desired by those promoting sustainable development.

Sustainability versus Development

As demonstrated above, tourism is seen as an imposition on the host population and environment; it inevitably brings about change (Wall 1997). Furthermore, there is usually considerable disagreement concerning which changes are desirable, according to the definitions and interpretations of the actors involved (Wall 1997: 483). Just as tourism is an agent of change (Wall 1997: 490), development is a force of change. Varying forms of new tourism (Mowforth and Munt 1998), with which the term ecotourism is often interchangeable, are part of the larger concept of sustainable development. Therein ecotourism is not only seen as a tool for conservation, but also for community development (Stem et al. 2003: 322). However, seeing ecotourism as a tool of conservation and sustainable development is insufficient: conservation through development should not be a stand-alone protection strategy (Stem et al. 2003: 341). The three pillars of sustainable development that I have referred to earlier are the ecological, social and economic dimensions

of the world. Sustainable developments goal is to find a balance between these three dimensions in order to relieve poverty and to create intra-generational and intergenerational equity (Oceans Atlas 2006). The conservation goals of ecotourism, therefore, do not explicitly include the other two dimensions. Many authors have referred to the economic leakages which occur when foreign investors and entrepreneurs set up eco shop in countries such as Costa Rica (Inman et al. 1998, Krger 2005, Place 1995, Mowforth and Munt 1998, Dahles and Keune 2002, van der Duim en Philipsen 2002, and Cater 1995). The local population, therefore, does not benefit economically from ecotourism, with the exception of the local elite, which magnifies social inequality and power structures instead of diffusing them. This diffusion is ideally one of the goals of ecotourism according to many authors; however, it is not often fulfilled in its execution. For ecotourism to imply development is in itself a paradox. There is considerable debate over the nature of development, it is a contested context of (Wall tourism, 1997: 484). Much is like not the inherent or characteristics development ecologically

environmentally friendly, and according to Sachs (1999), we should leave the development model behind us in order to achieve sustainability. The development model is based on a 1960s idea of progress and modernization, wherein economic development is the ultimate achievement. Ecotourism, to some, is merely an extension of this philosophy of working within the system and one that, at least conceptually, attempts to knit the elements of economy and ecology together (via parks) through the tenets of environmentalism and sustainable development (Fennell 1999: 77). Fennell suggests that finding a balance between economy and ecology is therefore not possible within the current system. In the next section I will propose that sustainable tourism can be an element of an alternative system.

Part 2: Sustainable tourism as alternative? Sustainable Tourism

It is important to note that ecotourism CAN be, but is NOT automatically, a form of sustainable tourism. To achieve sustainable ecotourism involves balancing economic, environmental and social goals within an ethical framework of values and principles (Koeman 1998:9, see also Wall 1997: 490).

Most definitions of ecotourism are based on the assumption that it contributes to sustainable development (Bjrk 2000: 194). Bjrk devises a strict definition of ecotourism to distinguish it from nature and adventure tourism, as well as promoting the ideal of sustainability, a harmony between ecological, economical and social aspects, among all parties involved, in a win-win-win strategy (Bjrk 2000: 197). However, ecotourism often gets away with being labelled eco, although it may have nothing to do with sustainability. I prefer the term sustainable tourism, although just as vague and open to interpretation as ecotourism, it implies the social and economical dimensions of sustainability as well as the ecological dimension. Another suggestion is that the greening of mass tourism instead of multiplying small-scale ecotourist projects is more sustainable (Groen 2002). Ecotourism is not eco, and lacks an emphasis on social or economical aspects. The newly derived pro-poor tourism does emphasize the social and economical aspects, but not so much the ecological aspect (Mowforth and Munt 2003: 273). My ideal is therefore sustainable tourism, yet according to the literature I have encountered, has not yet been achieved to date. Many authors propose scenarios (Brouwer 2002 and Cater 1995) or create management plans (Inman et al. 1998), define principles and key factors (Koeman 1998) of successful sustainable development and analyse these initiatives thereafter (Thrupp 1990),

yet it appears that to date it remains on paper and does not exist in practice. To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars of sustainable development would require a compromise. A compromise in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other. Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on the basis of equality with the other parties involved. For ecotourism to contribute to sustainable development, there needs to be more explicit positive links between tourism, the environment and host populations than there are presently, as demonstrated in the case of Costa Rica (Cater 1995).

Conclusion
My starting point for this essay was the study of the pillars of sustainable development and its tools, specifically magnifying the concept of ecotourism. I zoomed in on Costa Rica, considered an ecotourism destination extraordinair in its promotion of adventurous and environmentally friendly exploration of ancient rainforests and its sustainable development policies. The two most popular ecotourism destinations in Costa Rica, the Monteverde and the Manuel Antonio parks, provided the empirical setting for this literature review. I have examined the negative impacts of tourism on the environment and host populations evident in the literature in order to illustrate the paradox of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Hereby my doubts are confirmed: in Costa Rica the eco of ecotourism no longer represents the ecological dimension that environmentalists initially intended with this prefix. Thereby, I have presented two ways in which ecotourism is an oxymoron. Firstly, ecotourism in Costa Rica has generated negative impacts which occur on four levels: 1) Outside the protected areas, conservation is not practiced; 2) The small-scale and

low key nature of ecotourism leaves it unregulated and unmanaged; 3) The popularity of ecotourism in Costa Rica has resulted in mass eco tourism, and 4) Tourism itself is inherently environmentally destructive. Secondly, ecotourism is seen as a tool for sustainable development, wherefore the economic and social aspects should be balanced with the ecological aspect, yet eco implies a lop-sided balance, which is attested by the development of ecotourism as a buzzword and its usage in greenwashing unsound practices. The instability of ecotourism as a concept allows for this greenwashing and confusion with adventure tourism and nature tourism. Most authors, however, presented ecotourism as a form of nature tourism, but with an educational and sustainability aspect, and it is low-impact, and it makes a contribution to conservation and raises environmental awareness. However, research on ecotourism suggests that it does not actually contribute to conservation, as it is frequently suggested that it is in fact contributing to countless forms environmental destruction. This destruction is often attributed to what I have called the hypocrisy of the state, due to its contradictory policies and practices, whereby tourism is developed just outside the parks and reserves, where there is no environmental regulation or control, and small and locally-based initiatives are ignored and left uncoordinated as they do not bring a substantial amount of foreign investment to alleviate the nations foreign debt, which attests to a lack of long-term planning. This destruction has contributed to what is now perhaps considered to be the demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica. The popularity of ecotours have created colossal negative ecological impacts in the long term, mostly due to scale enlargement: ecotourism in Costa Rica has now successfully become mass tourism, with all the negative impacts that this brings with it.

The demise of ecotourism in Costa Rica is representative of the paradox of ecotourism: ecotourism is presented as a conservation tool, yet all forms of tourism are inherently destructive. Hereby I can only conclude that virtual tourism is the ultimate ecotourism. In line with Sachs (1999), the present development model itself is unsustainable, and I therefore pose that sustainability is not possible in the current system, sustainability must represent an alternative approach altogether. Ideally, sustainable tourism can be an alternative, in the understanding that sustainability includes a balance of ecological, economical and socio-cultural aspects, in order to relieve poverty worldwide and achieve intergenerational and intragenerational equity. In light of all the evidence I presented above, however, I must question: Is this just a pipe-dream?

References
Bjrk, P. 2000 Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourism form. In: International Journal of Tourism Research. Volume 2, Issue 3. Pp. 189-202. Learning from the experience in the Monteverde Cloud Forest, Costa Rica. In: M.F. Price (ed.). People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John New York: Wiley & Sons Ltd. Ecotourism: The potentials and Pitfalls. Volume 1 and 2. Washington: WWF.

Baez, A.L. 1996

Boo, E. 1990

Brouwer, M. 2002 The Feasibility of Sustainable Development: A Case Study in El Salvador. In: Dahles, H. and L. Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 86-100. Buckley, R. 1994 A Framework for ecotourism. In: Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 21 No. 3. Pp 661-669.

Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds.) 1994 Ecotourism: A sustainable option? Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 1995 Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. In: The Geographic Journal. Vol. 161. No.1. Pp. 21-28. Carriere, J. 1991 The Crisis in Costa Rica. An Ecological Perspective. In: D. Goodman and M. Redclift (Eds.). Environment and Development in Latin America. The Politics of Sustainability. New York: University of Manchester Press. Collins English Dictionary 2003 Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners English Dictionary. CDROM. HarperCollins Publishers Dahles, H. and L. Keune (Eds.). 2002 Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Dasenbrock, J. 2002 The Pros and Cons of Ecotourism in Costa Rica. TED Case Studies Number 648. http://www.american.edu/TED/costarica-tourism.htm (8-5-06). Dietz, Ton 1996 Entitlements to Natural Resources. Contours of Political Environmental Geography. Utrecht: International Books. Fennell, D. A. 1999 Ecotourism: an introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Groen, B. 2002 Tourists and Other People: Governments, Institutions, and Entrepreneurs in Jamaica, Cuba and Costa Rica. In: H. Dahles and L. Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 43-59. Hill, C.

1990

The Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica. In: Cultural Survival Quarterly. Vol. 14 No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival , Inc.

Inman, C. et al. 1998 Impacts on Developing Countries of Changing Production and Consumption Patterns in Developed Countries: The case of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Prepared for the UNEP in conjunction with Institute for Environmental Studies,Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Costa Rica: INCAE Koeman, 1998 Sustainable Development-Based Eco-tourism. Hanoi: http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/696047C6 35E5CBD4802566F0005245BC/$FILE/Acticle2.htm. 3-52006.

Krger, O. 2005 The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandoras box? In: Environmental Management. Issue: Volume 14, Number 3 Amsterdam: Springer Pp. 579 600. Lumsdon, L.M. and Swift, J.S. 1998 Ecotourism at a Crossroads: The Case of Costa Rica. In: Journal of sustainable tourism Vol.6. No.2 Cleveland: Channel View Publications. Pp.155-173. Marshall, J.S. 1996 Papagayo Project Is Not Eco-Tourism. In: Contours. Vol. 7. No. 8. Menkhaus, S. and D.J. Lober 1996 International Ecotourism and the Valuation of Tropical Rainforest in Costa Rica. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 47(1), 1-10. Mowforth, M. and I. Munt 2003 (1998) Tourism and Sustainability. New Tourism in the Third World. London and New York: Routledge. Oceans Atlas

2006 http://www.oceansatlas.com /unatlas/uses/uneptextsph/infoph/gsglossary. html. 10-52006. Place, S. 1995 Ecotourism for sustainable development: Oxymoron or plausible strategy? In: GeoJournal. Amsterdam: Springer. Pp. 161-173. Pleumarom, A. 1990 Alternative tourism: a viable solution? In: Contours. Vol. 4. No. 8. Pp. 12-15. Sachs, W. 1999 Planet Dialectics. Explorations development. London: Zed Books. in Environment and

Stem, C.J. et al. 2003 Eco is Ecotourism? A Comparative Case Study of Ecotourism in Costa Rica. In: Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 11, Issue 4. Pp. 322-348. Tepelus, C.M 2005 Recognition schemes in tourism--from 'eco' to 'sustainability'? In: Journal of cleaner production. vol:13 iss:2 pg:135 Thrupp, L. 1990 Environmental initiatives in Costa Rica: a political ecology perspective. Society and Natural Resources. 3: 243-56. Van der Duim, R. 1993 Ecotoerisme: een nieuwe natuurbeschermer? In: Oostdijk, M. (Ed.). Paperboek Nederlands-Vlaamse vrijetijdsstudiedagen. Den Haag: Vereniging voor de Vrijetijdssector. Pp. 24-33. Van der Duim, R. and J. Philipsen 2002 How Eco Is Costa Ricas Ecotourism? In: H. Dahles and L. Keune (Eds.). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Pp. 60-71.

Van Gulik, I. 1999 Green or Gold? Sustainable tourism in Costa Rica and the actors involved, case-studies of Tamarindo and Monteverde. Thesis Development Studies. Nijmegen: Third World Centre. Catholic University of Nijmegen. Wall, G. 1997 FORUM: Is Ecotourism Sustainable? In: Environmental Management. New York: Springer. Pp. 483 - 491 Weaver, D. 1994 Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. Ecotourism. A Sustainable Option? New York: John Wiley & Sons. Weinberg, A. 2002 Sustaining Ecotourism: Insights and Implications from Two Successful Case Studies. In: Society & natural resources. vol:15 iss:4. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis. Pp. 371-381. Whelan, T. (ed.). 1991 Nature Tourism. Managing for the Environment. Island Press: Washington, D.C. Wijk, J. van 2000 Costa Rica: Going for the Green? The use of Environmanetal Impast Assessment with special attention to golf course development. Wageningen University: Socio-Spatial Analysis & Recreation and Tourism, report 3, Wageningen.