P~a~~~~g, 25 ( I993 ) I- 16 shers B. V. s Amsterdam

l

cotourisrn, landscape architecture and urban planning

Dale GrenieP’, Berit C. Kaae’, Marc L. MiIleP, Roger W. Mobleyd ~Departme~t of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, WSA

“Section for Town and Country Planning, The Royat Veterinary and Agricultural University, DK Frederiksberg C., Copetzhagen, Denmark

‘School of Marine Aflairs, University of tthshington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA dThe Keith Companies, Cotta Mesa, CA 92626, USA

(Accepted 10 March 1993 j

Abstract

Two intersecting trends of the time s-the growth of the $2.75 trillion world tourism industry and the growth of environ- mentalism as reflected in the high level of international participation at t:re 1992 Earth Summit-focus attention on the ideals of sustainable development and ecotourism and create a new niche for landscape architecture and urban planning. These overlapping fields have long attended to problems of conflicting values. aesthetics, recreation, and leisure. Many of the activities and products traditionally associated with design and planning are appropriate to tourism projects. Guide- lines for enhancing this framework to treat directly the special problems cf ecotourism include early investigation of soci- ological and ecological features, involvement of broker and local populations in the planning process, and extrasensitivity to issues of site selection, design, scale, and monitoring. In responding to the ecotourism challenge, landscape architects and urban planners will need to hone their abilities to work with multidisciplinary teams and to converse productively about preservation and development ethics.

Introduction

To a large degree, successes in landscape ar- chitecture and urban piahning hinge on under- standings of the classical questions of what peop!c ;XS: about and what people do. One combination of ethical and behavioral answers with co.rtemporary global significance. is of in- terest here. Consider the following two gener- alized observations and selected supporting statistics.

Observqticn 1: People the world round are re- fir.:ng a profound concern for the protecticn of the natural biosphere and its life forms.

The 1992 United Nations Conference on

* Corresponding author. ’ Authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Environment and Development ( WNCED,

also known as the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, between 3 June and 14 June qualifies as the largest international policy- making gathering in history. The Earth Sum- mit (the third such UN environmental meet- ing, following those in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 and in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1982) was de- signed to generate a consensus on preservation and industriaiization principles and agendas, implementing the concept of sustainable de- velopment so powerfully introduced in The Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 ).

One hundred seventy-eight nations were represented at the Earth Summit with 118 heads of state personally in attendance (Brooke, 1992r*; Stevens, 1992 ). While the UN registered roughly 7000 delegates and 8000 journalists, the total number of participants

@ 1993 Elssvier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved 0169-2046/93/$06.00

was estimated at 35 000 gefsons (Brooke, WC ). A variety of related meetings con-

vened simultaneously in Rio with the Earth Summit. The most elaborate of these, the ‘92

obal Forum-an open-air fair involving 00 non-governmental organizations (i.e.

non-government and non-profit entities, or NGOs in UN terminology) and 650 exhibits- was expected to attract 15 000 environmen- tally oriented visitors daily over the 2-week pe- riod (Brooke, 1992a).

The results of the Earth Summit may appear modest as measured by documents and time- tables (products included legally binding bio- diversity and global warming conventions, a non-binding declaration on environment and development specifying 27 policy principles, a non-binding 800-page blueprint-Agenda 2 i - for cleaning up the global environment, and a non-binding statement on forest principles ) . However, and the reservations of the Bush Administration notwithstanding (Brooke, 1992b; Bush, 1992; Reilly, 1992; Rosenthal, 1992; Wines, 1992 ), the event clearly signaled that the human development-environmental protection trade-off will be a prominent topic of international and domestic policies well into rhe future (Brooke, 1992c), As Maurice F. Strong, Secretary-General of UNCED and LJn-

axe; this is a test of our ability to become ad- justed to a new political environment’ (quoted in Staples and Stanfield, 1992, p. 15 ).

Observation 2: People the world over are at- tending to travel and tourism-in the pursuit and delivery of recrealional, educational, and instrumental conwaFts (Miller, 1986)-more than ever before.

Preliminary estimates reveal that intema- tional tourism arrivals for 1990 numbered 425 000 thousand (an increase of 5.6% over that of 1985 ); international tourist receipts, excluding international fare receipts, for 1990

totalled US$230 000 million (an increase of 14.6% over the 1985 figure) (World Tourism Organization figures cited in Waters, 1991, p. 5). Worldwide tourism spending (interna- tional travel combined with the much la category of domestic travel) reached an

trillion in 1990, a 0 billion allocate

tourism receipts j f 0.

(.Wate:. Z 99 ? , y 3 ) Rzmy f ! 992, p. 77 I re- posts thzlt gf?n rism ha5 be< r! ifisichsing at roughly 4% lly, and that travel lab&d as ecotourism is expanding at a raie of 30 year.

As the dawn of the twenty-first century ap- proaches, there is every indication that envi- ronmental values and tourism actionc of the kinds mentioned above will increasingly come to intersect. As is well known, many clashes between environmentalism and tourism can have no happy resolution. Yet, in other cases, ecotourism can represent a responsible solu- tion. The challenge for landscape architecture and urban plann professionals, then, is to directly address t viability of such promises

Background

Tourism is ost comprehensively diag- nosed in a small literature of its own, espe- cially encompassing the Annals ofTourism Re- search, Tourism Management, and the Journal of Travel Research, but also environmental, leisure, parks and outdoor recreation, and se- lected applied geography publications. Urban planning and landscape architecture, however, share a long history of dealing with travel and tourism topics, and the idea of professional

3

specialization in tourism planning seems to be acceptance ( Inskeep, 1988; Mobley

scape architecture and ur- n planning journals reveals that tourism has n examined-both directly and obliquely-

the international, national, regional, local, odels, methodolo-

s, and reflections on o be found in a wide

erstandably, the literature is bifurcated on the basis of whether land use is primarily driven by a preservation or development ethic. Where the preservation framework is opera- tive. studies have frequently focused on recre- ational planning, national park and protected area management, and resource assessment (e.g. Palmer, 1967; Skinner, 1965; Dower, 1970; Stewart, 1974; Madsen, 1982; Sloan, 1982: Zube, ! 986; Helsted, 1988; Nellemann, 1988; Wafer, 1988; Kozlowski et al., 1988; Merivuori, 1989; Brower, 1990; Collin, 1930; Fletcher, 1990; Zube, 1990; Burnett and Rowntree, 1990; Orland and Bellafiore, 1990; Zube and Busch, 1990; Cocklin et al., 1990; -Nelson, 199 1; Strutin, 199 1 a; Bull, 1992 ) .

Where the development framework has dominated, studies have concentrated on mountain, desert, and seaside resorts and ho- tel enclaves, on theme parks, and on cities (e.g. Brown, 1980; Have azzd Andersen, 1982; FIar= risen et al., 1984; Phillips, 1986; Delforce et al., 1986; Rademan, 1987; Sowman, 1987; De- lude, 1989; Goldstein, 1989; Shaw, 1989; Bob, 1990; Ellis, 1990; Heywood, 1990; Simons, 1990; Babcock, 199 1; Bee’khuis, 199 1; Rif- kind, 199 1; Rovelstad, 199 1; Strutin, 199 1 b; Smith, 199 1; Wrenn, 199 1; Chapman, 1992).

Ecotourism has only been lightly considered in this literature (e.g. Maupin, 1988; Jukofsky, 1990; Ingram, 199 1)) although there are signs this may be about to change. Recently, Land- smpehchitecture devoted its entire issue to the topic (Jukofsky, 1992; Kahn, 1992; Leccese,

1 292; McWilliams, 1992; Oelrichs, 1992a, b; Simpson, 1992; Sutro, 1992: Wallace, 1992 ).

What is ecotourism?

Ecotourism dates at least to 1965 when Hetzer called for a rethinking of culture, edu- cation, and tourism, and promoted ‘an ecolog- ical tourism (“eco-tourism” )‘. Today, eco- tourism has international currency as a concept grounded in preservation-conservation and sustainable development ideals. As the term has come to be employed, it overlaps a host of related tourism forms. Valentine ( 1991, p, 476 ) notes that ecotourism appears in the lit- erature as adventure tourism, nature-oriented tourism, alternative tourism, appropriate tourism, soft tourism (tourisme doux), re- sponsible tourism, ethical tourism, environ- ment-friendly travel, green tourism, sustaina- ble tourism, and nature tourism. One could extend this list with other special cases-qual- ity tourism, ethnic tourism, cultural tourism, socioecological tourism, photo safari tourism, dive tourism, and surfing tourism come to mind.

Ecotourism has been formally defined in many essentially compatible ways, as an activ- ity of tourists, as a private enterprise or gov- ernment service, and as a guide for ethical ccn- duct. For Hetzer ( 1965 ), responsible ‘eco- tourism’ is measured against four standards: “ ( 1) nii&num environmental impact, (2 ) minimum impact on-and maximum respect for-host cultures, ( 3 ) maximum economic benefits to host country’s ‘grassroots’, (4) maximum ‘recreational’ satisfaction to partic- ipating tourists”.

In the organization of two international symposia on ecotourism, Kusler ( 199 1 b, p. 2 ) defines the term:

‘-to mean tourism based principally upon natural and archaeological resources such as birds and other wildlife, sce- nic areas, reefs, caves, fossil sites, archaeological sites, wet- lands, and areas of rare or endangered species“.

Ceballos-Lascurian ( 1991, p. 25) expands

the concept to include contemporary peoples: ecotourism:

“tnvolvcs travcl~ng to rclatlvcly undlsturbcd of uncontarni- nitted natural areas with the specific object of admiring. studying. .md enjoying the sccncr) and its wild plants and an- tmals. as well as any existing cultural features (both past and present ) found in these areas”.

The Ecotourism Society-a NGO founded in 1990 to serve tour operators, ct?nservation professionals, protected area management spe- cialists, researchers, ard guides. among oth- er$-defines ecotourism in its brochure as ‘re- sponsible travel that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of lo- cal people’. This fits with its Central European equivalent, ‘soft tourism’ (Sanfter Touris- mus), as an alternative to tourism guided nar- rowly by economic and technological consid- erations. Krippendorf ( 1975, p. 86; cited in 1987, p. 107; see also, Jungk, t 980) has pro- posed that soft tourism be constructed to:

“guarantee the optimum satisfaction of the manifold tourist needs for people of all classes within the frame\vork of &IL cient structures and in an undamaged environment. kvhile taking into consideration the interests of the local population”.

Following a major 1984 international con- ference on ecological problems caused by heavy tourism dcvslopment, the International Com- mission for the Protection of the Alpine Re- gion endorsed a similar definition of soft tour- ism (CIPRA, 1985). w (1985) and Strasdas ( 1988 ) have developed definitions of soft tollrism which resemble that of Hetzer ( 1965 ). ) Throughout Central Europe, devel- opment strategy and management plan appli- cations of soft tourism are widely discussed in scientific and policy-making arenas. As with ecotourism in the US, the term has also be- come a part of the corporate identity of a new species of tour operators and other providers of tourism services.

For the purposes of this paper, ecotourism is viewed sociologically as a special case of a tourism system (Fig. 1). It is an arrangement of tourists, locals, and private and public sector brokers in which the behaviors (choices), af-

fects (feelings), and cognition (thoughts) of these participants are influenced by the desi- derata above (Miller and Ditton, 1986 ). This is compatible both with Valentine’s ( 199 I, p. 476) skeleton constraint that nature tourism (i.e. ecotourism ) ‘is primarily concerned with the enjoyment of nature’, and also the various elaborations on this canon by I300 ( 199 others

Ecotourism is fundamentali~ untrod&& as is all tourism ( Miller, 199 1, 1993; Miller and Kaae, 1993 ). Like sustainable development, ecotourism appears promising, but risks being an oxymoron. Some are suspicious of the Griorit;cs implied even by the construction of the lexeme, wondering why ‘touristic ecology’ (or ‘sustainable preservation’ ) did not evolve instead.

Unquestionably, ecotourism hss symbolic power. Depending on what those using the term intend it to mean Ior, on what those listening choose to hear ), it is positillely &wed as a hedge against development, a tool of preser- vation, an educational or spiritual experience, or negatively perceived as an industry hype, or as a covert government commitment to growth and neocolonialism.

Of course, the merits or deficiencies of eco- tourism (or any of its surrogates) are not to be

4 Constraints d

L x3/s TOURISM

V

7iiu&t.s

. Traditicnal . Domestic commuhiGes . International

- New residents

khkefs

. Private sector services

. Public sector services

!/ Impacts

Social environment Natural environment

Fig. 1. A socioiogical model of tourism ( Miller and Auyong, 1991, p. 77).

found in the label per se, but in the quality and intensity of specific environmental social impacts of human activity itr an eco al sys- tem (Fig. 1).

Again, different values lead to different con- clusions. For some, any essentiahy passive or unobtrusive appreciation of nature (as, for ex-

that practised by outdoor enthusiasts e ages and natiorlal park visitors since

the Progressive Era) is de facto ecotourism, hence good. For others, ecotourism must ( pro)actively entail conservation (as, for ex- ample, through volunteer scientific work or visitation fees to underwrite resource manage- ment or otherwise divert local populations from antiecological practices).

At the extremes-and falling well beyond the po!es of th is passive-active continuum-are two minorities. The first of these holds that humankind has moral rights ~4 obhgations no different than any other species or entity, and therefore is literally incapable of unnatural (unecotouristic) behavior. With this orienta- tion, alI tourism is jsUk3.

The opposite minority holds the converse yiew equating all examples of ecotourism (or tourism) as violations of the natural world. With this orientation, ecotourism is only legi- timated when is not practised (as, for exam- ple, -vhen a wilderness or ecosystem is zoned off-limits and deemed important for its ‘exis- tence value’).

Planners and landscape architects are par- ticularly well suited to contend with the dy- namics of tourism. As professionals who work at the interface of nature and humankind, they specialize in manipulations of the character of space and the quality of life. Within the con- straints of a chosen mixture of preservation and development objectives, the basic job is to as- sess the existing conditions of parts of society and environment, design alternatives (rear- rangements of the physical and ecological set-

ting, structures, rules shaping human activi- ties, and processes for achieving these ), consider likely consequences, and, in the after- math of a decision, evaluate the project.

The line separating urban planners from landscape architects is not a sharp one. From a quick purview of the structure of academic de- y7artments and curricula, one might expect ur-

ban planners to deal with a wider range of land use possibilities (extending to transportation, housing, public services, etc. i than do their landscape counterparts who concentrate more on projects invo1ving green, outdoor spaces and facilities (for example, the design and plan- ning of parks, trails, playgrounds, resorts, and wetlands restoration plans).

A rook at the real world, however, shatters such a simple scheme and shows the distino tion to be substantially more fuzzy. Indeed, comparisons of the work histories of individ- ual landscape architects and urban planners are better based on the nature of projects under- taken, rather than disciplinary background.

Table 1 displays some of the standard activ- ities and products of practitioners which have touristic significance and ecotouristic poten- tial. The table underscores the overlap be- tween landscape architecture and urban plan- ning. Both fields have public and private sector applications, and design and planning aspects; both address preservation and development goals; both contend with physical and social objectives, and both generate conceptual and tangible products.

The examples in Table 1 are a partial listing of landscape architecture and urban planning activities and products relating to tourism Some of the activities and products are con- ventionally associated with tourism, such as resort development and park planning. Oth- ers, such as circulation and impact assessment activities, are only more distantly related. While tourism is everywhere in the table, ?he amount it is emphasized in actual applications will vary.

To illustrate, tourism is novv 5rmly es+&!?-

the garden including trails, parking. entrance. es, propagation areas and oth\tr service func-

tions. Detailed design of the plant exhibits such as desert habitat, scent garden, night flowring plants, native spc- ties, etc. Planting plans, construction plans and grading.

of the garden including trials, parking, and various sewice functions, Detailed design of the animal exhibits with plantings imitatmg the origmal habitats and as screens between exhibits. Planting plans, construction ptdns alld grading. lnrerpw;ivc- num-e mil and \ ictii~~ C‘CX:C: Design of visitor center and traiis iti 2~1 ‘.\istinb ilatura! area (Lt. state or national park ). locstlon and canxnt of intcrprctivc signagt and \ icwpoints. Construc:lon plans &&llC park Design of park (neighborhood. community or regional 1. including trails, playgrounds, sports fields, scaling arcas. Planting plans, construction plans and grading.

&33zss facilities PtrMc wnf4+?nt 4t~Ci?ss Development of public road end into public water front access. Design of trails, staircases. picnic facilities. plant- ings. fishing piers. and boat ramps. Planting plans. con- struction plans and grading. ciM.Vtal ilKz.~ Design of trail. staircases, parkir,g areas and other non-\ c- hlcular access modes to public beach and coastal literal Area. s?rectsc~~c.~ Design of landscape and hardscape lmpro\~ements within public right-of-way including plac,iing plans. pavement treatments, lightmg and signage.

McaI points C ‘rhx &xxs&ziar Enharicement of public areas through landscape and hardscape treatments including active and passive design elements, seating, water features, etc.

LANDSCAPE ARC!-IITECTURE: PLANNING Management gz!ans

Establish objectives and guidelines for conserving open space in a city. county, region or state. Evaluation ofexisr- ing landscape typtx, areas of special scenic, environmen- t& historic. or cultural value, analysis of the landscapes ability to absorb land use changes. designation of certain areas based on established criteria. evaluation of potential fr;r;ding oi;;isiz.

Site plan and design of outdoor spaces, sports facilities, parking areas. Detailed design of terraces. s ’ s, play- grounds, picnic shelters, boat ramps, ponds er water features. Planting plans for the new vegetation and construction plans including grading. ~;o~l’c’cW.W Site plan and dcstgn of rough, fainvays 2nd greens, water features. terracts. parkmg r;rcas. entrance ways and se~icc ftinctions. Planting plans and construction plans ~nc~~d~~g terrain modeling and sprinkler systems. SI;-r rcsori Location of ski runs. lifts. !odges and supporting uses. re- mcdlal planting and parkrng areas. I!O!cTl.T Site design and landscape design f:~r hotel cornplix\ often usmg natural landscape mater& and features to set the design theme for the development.

Recreational areas .wlriwa Lwd c3astad WC zows Site design of the outdoor spaces, docks. boat ramps, piers. sidewaIks. trails and stairwqs to lagoon and beach areas, parking areas and various service Iunctions. ?-lXW1r pa& Desi~ of park including trails. theme-related activities, displays, play aTeas. seating areas. parking and other visi- tor facilities. Plan;ing plans. construction plans and grading.

Environmental ai@ses Ftmsibilit~ stud!- Feasibility study of the aporo?riate location of proposed rescr;. Study of environrrental impact, visual assessment and conceptual options.

7

action (cemstruceron. power lines, timber cutting) on the

- --- -__ - URBAN PLANNiNC: t.xubN Circulation facilities

Circuhfion and ~ccc3.s pkms Design circulation tblt accommodates ongabing or seasonal tourist travel (along with resident travel). indude% rubric transportation linkages and special travel lanes, such as ex- press lanes for public transit and HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes for cavoolers Such a project may be con- ducted due to existing jams, dangerous intersections, or to accommodate a change in land use that produces in- creased foot or auto traffsc. Traiis Design trails (i.e. pedestrian, bicycle. historic, interpre- tive) connecting the user to significant historic and cul- tura! buildings and places. An example is the Freedom Trail in Boston connecting historic Black business sites, churches. social clubs, homes of prominent Black families, etc.

IJrban design studies Historic/m!tura! districts Rehabilitation/revitalization studies for both individual sites and districts to include design guidelines, land use controls. and implementation strategies. Urban space conceptual design studies Develop design guidelines to establish design themes for new development and for rehabiiiratiun of existing uses and structures. Elements addressed can include architec- ture, landscaping, ha&cape. arress. linkages. etc. Main street revitakation Design and/or revitalize streetscapes to attract and inform tourists. May include improving Building facades, pedes- trian ways, walking malls, signage, and information facilities.

E’mironmental impact statemenf Potential impact of proposed development project. Ukt/and mitigatwn plan Plan for relocation of wetlands as compensation for ap- proved development. Analysis of the existing hdbitat and of potential sites for relocations.

Community structure plans Master planned community character plan Development of design theme elements for mixed-use plans to create a sense of identity and continuity. Elements will include entry statement landscsying, themed streets- cape landscaping, fence and wall materials, and themed lighting and signage. L’rban plazas and courtyard.: Design of spaces in private commercial development as lo- cal points for gathering and passive use. These may in- clude seating, water features. landscaping and hardscape treatments.

Master planning Mixed-iise iiiuHer planning Master planning for commercial. office, and residential use projects which usually focus on one primary use with related and supporting uses. These could include tourism uses such as hotel% with related housing for employees. Recreational amenity cowmmty pkuzz Design of residentizi communities oriented to major rec- reational amenities puch as golf courses, lakes, or signifi- cant natural open space featLlcs.

Site design Site design (mbdi:iawons, rnr&ijcarn~ly. resorts, retail/ commercial) Done within the boundaries of existing zoning. Design street and house orientation, building set backs, open space design and protection, infrastructure placement. and parking to accommodate locals’ and tourists’ comfort and pleasure. Circufation and site design for high intensity uses A circulation design would include the logical route of least impact (noise, safety, emissions} for a company that sends trucks through tourist, residential or environmen- tally sensitive areas. Examples are solid waste collection, restaurant and food delivery, retail/commercial delivery. Building or site desigr? mitigatiotr strategy This does not involve the actual architectura! design of the building. it involves design advice to decrease impacts to the tourist. residential and business community due to uses that cause aesthetic, noise. debris and dust impacts (i.e. solid waste r ~!!Cchn. road constructiiri;, and sirens from ;Inbulance. fire. and pohc: statiuns.

Cbmpre#ww ve plan jtir towisi fl MAY be done on a local and even state and regional level. A document that ideally presents the goals of an area along with recommendations for achieving these goals. The goals often revolve around growth/no growth decisions. Plan ele- ments to consider regard1 ‘~g ;xrism include tourism im- pact upon local population and culture, existing land use. natural resources, open space, water quality and quantity. economic development, fiscal planning, etc. A land use map is an important part of a comprehensive plan. Most often the map illustrates current or proposed land use by catc- gories of residential, commcrciai. industv, recreation. m- stitutional. etc. .4 tourism land use map would contain much of this information, aiong with areas of major tourist concentration. Growth mana,,nmcvu pia, &or towxw1 May be done on a local, state or regional Ic\~cI. Xn attempt to forecast population increases of ye;;-rOund r&dents and seasonal tourists, and protect the environment by designat- ing areas of development densities and land use. Plan for a phased implementation of tourism development and tour- ism support systems to meet projected demand and the availability of necessary resources. Community dwelopmcnt poky piau Plan done on the local level that presents recommendations for achieving local goals. Regarding tourism, goals may en- compass any variety of things that affect community devel- opment (a.~. tourism development. business development, housing and temporary lodgmg ).

Functional plans S~c(fic plan *for tounsm arc-u or district This would primarily bc a physical development plan of land uses. circulation, design guidelines. and environmental mitigation as opposed to the po!icy-oriented plan discussed above. Historic preservatiori plan Plan designed to preserve and rehabilitate a historic/cul- tural building or district. The plan would designate the af- fected area and present development criteria intended to protect the historic/cultural amenity. If htc$mt rchaMitati0n plaan A vitalization and rehabilitation plan for a waterfront area to develop a multiuse approach to the area as both working area. tourism, and recreation area.

implementation ln frastructure master phi PIan for the provision of service systems lo support various levels of development. These usually include sewer, wsicr. drainage. and utilities.

_p

Private sector

Master plans De~elopnrent~~~i611rt)1 anaiysrs (Applicable to the development of any facility: multifamily residential, hospital, retail, museum... ) Plan that details the feasibiiity of develcpment based upon zoning, adjacent land use, soil conditicns, wetlands, slope. May be bc~~fu! in communities that are undergoing buiiding and infrastruc- ture construction due to increased tourism demands. &sort master plan .4 master plan for development of a qsccific resort project which could cover the primary uses, support uses including infrastructure, environmental management and mltiga- Cons, and deveiopmcnt design guidelines.

Environmental anal! sis US, EIR, E.-l (cm triv~vwmd rnrpact stutcmcnt. cwvtrorr- Illen tal I r?lpL.&-r wport. cw~rrctn~?wm2~ LLKsi’ss?m7?~t, rccnc’ctl rr!,;l Thtxc reports illustrate potcntra! impacts in natural sys- tems and sociocultura! enviroiimefits due to hiimaii -use. building and facilities construction, and/or any other sig- nificant aiteration of existing conditions.

Implementation plants Ir$kstrustuw impJiV%WUtiot: p/at8 A speclfk infrastructure development plan designed for a resort project. including phasing and costs. Swags management plan These plans inckde recommendations for treating and managing sewage. In a tourist community this may include plans for upgrading sewage transport and treatment be- cause of tbc increase in population due to tourism.

lished as both a major industry and a cause of environmental and social carrying capacity

wide. While it is technically correct that tour-

problems in a great number of areas world- ism is routinely taken into account in circuia- tion and other components of comprehensive

9

plans and strategies at the local, regional, and state levels, tourism policies are commonly not made explicit. Given the magnitude and influ- ence of tourism, it would be more responsible to adjust and squarely face tourism diiemmas by making tourism a major anti ia’beled ele- ment of comprehensive plants and strategies.

hether a particular strategy encourages or ourages tourism is not the point. What is ortant is that a critical topic receives pub-

d focused analysis. te that ecotourism projects and

ighlighted in the larger tour- ism category in Table 1. There are two reasons for this. First, the tourism-ecotourism differ- cue is very much subjectively determined. One persons ecotouristic dream may be an- other’s touristic nightmare. Second, there are not yet as many cleanly ecotouristic examples as we would like there to be. This, of course, is to be expected from a young field. Accord- ingly, we now turn to a consideration of guide- lines to remedy the situation.

Ecotourism guidelines

The practical problems of t(2urism are grad- ually receiving more academic attention. In addition to chapters which present industry profiles, descriptions of legal mandates and tourism components of government, the basic tourism textbooks (e.g. Gee et al., 1984; Ritchie and Goeldner, 1987; McIntosh and Goeldner, 1990) introduce the issues of devel- opment and planning. These topics are also covered in texts which are more narrowly ori- ented to case studies and considerations of tourism impacts (e.g. Bosselman, 1978; De Kadt, 1979; Rosenow and Pulsipher, 1979; Mathieson and Wall, 1982). Finally, some very good texts which specifically focus on tourism planning (and to a lesser degree, design ) are now available (e.g. Gunn, 1979, 1988; Mur- phy, 1985; Rrippendorf, 1987; Pearce, 1989; Inskeep, 199 1). Guidelines for tourism plan- ning and design are to be encountered

throughout this literature, but these are only

occasionally explicitly connected to ecotourism.

Ecotourism guidelines suggest co\;rBe of ac- tion for tourists and the two kinds of brokers in Fig. 1. (To date, no-one has prtiposed guide- lines for the locals who make their living out- side tourism; analysts usually presume that the interests of locals are represented by govem- ments. ) Insofar as the behavior of tourists is at issue, Krippendorf (1987, pp. 129~137), for example, enjoins all tourists to observe some formulation of ‘the ten commandments for so- cially and environmentally compatible travel’. Thus, he encourages tourists to be culturally sensitive and generally unobtrusive (for ex- ample, in the taking of photographs of local peopies ) , to not always travel so far, and even to ‘stay at home from time to time’. Then too, Kusler ( 199 1 a, p. xiii ) has compiled a list of ‘questions ecotourists should be asking if they wish to help resource conservation’; these cover planning trips to best support local conserva- tion, selection of tour operators who utilize lo- cal help and provide ecological education, ways to avoid ethnocentrism, ways to support local businesses and craft industries, and post-trip environmental action.

Private and public sector brokers (Fig. 1) are the entrepreneurs, public servants, and others who are professionally interested in organizing the life-cycle of tourism. In ecotourism sys- tems, these certainly include outbound and in- bound tour operators; developers; park, pro- tected area, and natural resource agencies; economic development and tourism agencies, domestic NGOs; and international %ancial institutions (Kusler, 199 1 a, p. xiv). TO this list, we add landscape architects and urban planners.

Brokers have obligations to protect the en- vironment and the interests of locals, and to cho: graph the behavior of tourists (and the tourism iosdustry ) to make sustainable devel- opment a reality. A number of sets of guide- lines address the problems faced by the differ-

arly on, Krippendorf 13$- 148) asked all suppliers of

rvices to acknowledge their respon- sibilities to travelers, local populations, and the environment, to redesign professional train-

, and to develop ethical standards. Further, ncouraged brokers to hone their inierper-

sonal skills as ‘arlimateurs’ in order to best COL

l&orate with tourists in examining the pro- cesses of adventure, movement, education, discovery, and experience.

Recently, there has been a flurry of activity directed at specifications of ecotourism advice (see, for example, D’ Amore, 1993 ). Whelan ( 1991), who equates ecotourism with nature tourism, has edited a valuable collection of pa- pers in this area. With the objective of assist- ing protected area managers and tour opera- tors to help tourists plan trips, choose tours, minimize undesirable impacts, and behave as responsible travelers, Blangy and Wood ( 1992 ) have reviewed over 50 sets of guidelines pro- duced by the tourism industry. environmental NGGs, retail outdoor equipment vendors, consumer associations, land management agencies, and religious groups (e.g. Travel Ethic for Responsible Travel, (The National Audobon Society), Ecotravel Principles and Practices, (Wildland Adventure, Inc. ), Leave No Trace Land Ethi number of these gui The Ecotourism Society). Stressing that eco- tourism standards for industry should be tai- lored to particular ecosystems, Blangy and Wood pro pide recommendations so that local land managers and resident peoples, state agencies, NGOs, and c%ers might work to- gether in the preparation of guidelines.

Additional new sources of ecotourism guidelines are valuable. Boo ( 1992 ) has devel- oped a very useful phase framework for help- ing protected area managers to produce eco- tourism strategies. Leccese ( 1992) presents the candid views of a small number of experts on how landscape architects can respond to eco-

tourism. Wight ( 1993 ) cautions exp loitation of ‘green’ consumers.

To reiterate, landscape architects and urban planners (along with a broad array of entre- preneurs, resource stewards, and enforcers of the social order) are embedded within the eco- tourism system. They play the role of brokers of the interactions linking tourists and their destination. It is within this context that land- scape architects and uroan tle with the paradox of h people want while providing what is best.

We advocate that landscape architects and urban planners meet the challenges of ecotour- ism head on. Practitioners often come into the planning process at a late stage when project goals have been defined and site selection has been completed. Too frequently. planning is viewed as a bureaucratic exercise to abide by regulatory procedures, and landscape architec- ture is regarded as a late and cosmetic greening of a project TV . I liiS i~S.~:iS in a cPIiicai iac’h_ Or”

consideration of environmental and social dynamics.

To be more effective, we encourage practi- tioners to formally and forcefully refine a tour- ism planning process. Fig. 2 is one such exam- ple which emphasizes early involvement, cultural and environn:cntal research, and con- tinual monitoring. Table 2 displays our con- ceptual, process, and product guidelines for landscape and urban planning professionals.

Discussion

The underlying thesis of this article is that landscape architects and urban planners have an important role to play in the achievement of ecotourism goals and the management and resolution of ecotourism problems. We nave argued that tourism is too potent a phenome- non in its influence on nature and society to be ignored. Moreover, the modern ideal of sus- tainable development is worthy of the com- mitment of landscape and planning professionals.

E I Y

II

cr > .-

t 0 L

13

While it is certainly true that practitioners are equally respectful of the natural side of the ecotourism equation, it is members of society with whom they conduct discourse. Thus, we

arks about the human as- . First, social configura-

tions, like ecological arrangements, are natu- rally in a sta In particular, the forces of politics, d its, economics, and phi- losophy affect people’s motivations. In the ecotourism context, this means that planners and designers can count on some tourists stay- ing on the scene and transforming themselves into locals (but, also into brokers), and on

e locals gravitating to new opportunities to become brokers (and, perhaps, ultimately to become tourists elsewhere). Second, advances in technology and information transfer wiii undoubtedly make it easier for people to travel in the twenty-first century. This, together with the greying of many of the world’s most afflu- ent tourists, will lead to new demands for in- frastructure and special services, and is bound to exacerbate the problems of congestion and access.

For their experience in de,rling with the im- plications of human actions on the environ- ment, landscape architects and urban planners are especially suited to work alongside col- leagues in other fields in tackling ecotourism issues. Opportunities for cross-disciplinary ecotourism interactions scheduled in 1992 in- clude: ( 1) the World Congress on Tourism and the Environment (27 April-2 May, Belize), (2) the Second International Symposium on Ecology, Tourism and County Governments [ 4-8 May, San Jose, Costa Rica), ( 3 ) the Sec- ond Caribbean Conference on Ecotourism (20-24 May, St. John, US Virgin Islands), (4) the National Watchable Wildlife Conference ( lo- 12 September, Missoula, Montana), ( 5 ) the World Congress on Adventure Travel and Ecotourism (20-23 September, Whistler, B.C., Canada), ( 6 ) the Ecotourism Conference; Ecotourism Business in the Pacific-Promot- ing a Sustainable Experience ( 12- 14 October,

Auckland, New Zealand), ( ? ) the Ecotourism Conference/Symposium (8-I 3 November, Sali, Senegal, Africa), and ( 8 ) the First Inter- national Conference: Envirotour Vienna 1992-Strategies for Reducing the Environ- mental Impact of Tourism ( IO- 12 November, Vienna, Austria).

Without the landscape and planning contri- bution, we all risk a future with more victims of ecotourism than beneficiaries.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to Wolf- gang Strasdas of the Buro fur Tourismus und Erholungsplanung, Hannover, Germany, for extremely constructive comments on an eaf- lier draft of this article, and for information on the evolution of soft tourism in Central Eu- rope. We also thank Carla M. Garrison and Megan Epler Wood of The Ecotourism Society and Elizabeth Boo of the World Wildlife Fund for providing materials about the ecotourism activities of their respective organizations.

References

Babcock, R-F., 199 1. Mickey a la mode. Planning, April: 18- 21.

Bangs, R., 1992. Clean. green, and meant to be seen: the ethos of ecotourism. Trilogy, 4( 4): 36-42.

Beekhuis, J.V., 199 1. Tourism as a tool for economic devel- opment. Environ. Comment, January: 8-l 0.

Blangy. S. and Wood, M.E., 1992, Developing and imple- menting ecotourism guidelines for wild lands and neigh- boring communities. The Ecotourism Society Document, April. The Ecotourism Society, Vermont.

Bob, M.L., 1990. Viewpoint. Planning, May: 50. p. i. Boo, E., 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol.

1. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. Boo, E., 1992. The ecotourism boom: planning for develop-

ment and management/ecotourism diagnostic and plan- ning guidelines for protected area managers. Wildlands and Human Needs Technical Paper No. 2 (July). World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Bosselman, F.P., 1978. In the Wake of the Tourist: Managing Special Places in Eight Countries. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.

Brooke, J., 1992a. Rio’s new day in sun leaves Laplander limp. The New York Times, 1 June: A7.

Brooke, J., 1992b. President, in Rio, defends his stand on en-

vironmcnt. The New York Times, I3 June: A I. A5. Bmke, J., 1992~. LJN chicfcioscs summit with an appeal for

action. The New York Times, I S June: A5. Bro~cr, D.R.. 1090. Maintaining the Yosemite experience.

Places. 6( 3 ): 76-77. Brown, D.L., 1980. Thinking of a theme park’? Urban Land.

February: 5-i I. Bull, C., 1992. Tourism in Australia. Landscape Aust., 14( 1):

16-20. Burnett, G.W. and Rowntree, KM., 1990. Agriculture, re-

search and tourism in the landscape of Lake Baringo. Kenya. Landscape Urban Piann., I9( 2 ): I 59- I 72.

Bush, G., 1992. Excerpts from speech by Bush on ‘action plan’. The New York 1 tmes. I3 June: AS.

Cebaiios-Lascurian, H., I99 I. Tourism, ecotourism. and pro- tecte ’ areas. In: J.A. Kusier (Compiler ). Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: A Collection of Papers. 2 Vois. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium: Eco- tourism, 17- 19 April 1989, Merida. Yucatan. Mexico, and the 2nd International Symposium: Ecotourism and Re- source Conservation, 27 November-2 December 1990. Miami Beach, Florida. Association of State Wetland Managers, Bemc, Nl’, pp. 24-30.

Chapman, W.R., 1992. A iittle more gingerbread: tourism, design and preservation in the Caribbean, Places, S( 1 ): 58-67.

CIPRA (Commission Intemationaie pour la Protection des Regions Alpines). 1985. Sanfter Tourismus-Schiagwort oder Chance fuer den Aipenraum?, Schiussebericht der CIPRA, Jahresfachtagung vom j/6/ (Oktober) 1984 in Chur. Vaduz.

Cockiin, C., Hartc. M. and Hay, J., 1990. Resource assess- ment for recreation and tourism; a New Zealand example. Landscape Urban Piann.. 19( 3 ): 29 l-303.

Coliin. G., 1990. Rural society and protected area: which dia- logue? The case study of Cevennes National Park and Biosphere Reserve (France). Landscape l!rban Piann., 19(2): li3-180.

D’Amore. L.J.. 1993. A code of ethics and guidelines for so- cially and cnvironmcntallv respensihie tourism. J. Travel Res.. 3 1 ( 3 ): 64-66.

De Kadt. E.. 1979. Tourism, Passport to Development?: Per- spectives on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Deiforce. R.J., Sinden. J.A. and Young, M.D., 1986. Policy preferences and social economic values to resolve pastor- aiism-tourism conflicts. Landscape Piann.. 12 ( 4 ): 387- 401.

Delude. C.M.. 1989. New England ski villages. Landscape Archit.. 79( 2): 70-72.

Dower. M.. 1970. Recreation in the countryside: the chal- lenge to planning and management. Plan. Outlook, 9(Autumn): 9-18.

Ellis. C.. 1990. Disney goes to Paris. Landscape Archit., SO( 6): 3S-41.

Retcher. S.A.. 1990. Parks, protected areah and local popu-

hkm: new international issues and imperatives. Land- scape Urban Plann.. 19(2): 197-201.

Gee, C-Y.. Choy, D.J.L. and Makens. J.C., 1984. The Travel

Industry. AVI Pubirshing Company, Westport, CT. Goldstein. B., 1989. Desert fantasies. Landscape Archit.,

79( 2 ): 66-69. Gunn, C.A., 1979. Tourism Planning. Crane Russak. New

York. Gunn, C.A., 1988. Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Re-

gions, 2nd edn. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Harrison, J., Catty, C. and Been, C., 1984. Tourism and de-

velopment: the problems of small islands in the Carib- bean. Environments, I6( 3 ): 125-i 30.

Have, I.P.J. and Andersen, F., 1982. Nogie af Dansk Foike- Feries centre set fra iandskabsarkitektens side. Landskab, 63(7/S): 157-161.

Heisted, C.. 1988. Regionaie udfiugtscentre. Landskab, 69( 5 ): 106-107.

Hctzer. N.D., 1965. Environment, tourism. culture. Links ( renamed Ecosphere ), I ( 3 ).

Heywood, P., 1990. Truth and beauty in landscape-trends in landscape and leisure. Landscape Aust.. 12( 1 ): 43-45.

Ingram, G.B.. 1991. Habitat, visual and recreational values and the planning of extractive development and protected areas: a tale of three islands. Landscape l_Jrban Piann.. 21 (l-2): 109-129.

Inskeep. E., 1988. Tourism planning: an emerging speciah- zation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 54( 3 ): 360-372.

Inskeep, E., 199 1. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sus- tainable Development Approach. Van Nostrand Rein- hoid, New York.

Jukofsky, D.. 1992. Of tombs and tourists. Landscape Ar- chit., 82 ( 8 ): 42-44.

Jukofsky. D.. 1990. A spider in the jungle: ‘ecotourism’ dic- tates a new type of tourist lodge. Landscape Archit., SO( 8 ): 46-48.

Jungk, R.. 1980. Wieviei Touristen pro Hektar Stand? Geo. f0.

Kahn, E.. 1992. Learning from the West’s mistakes. Land- scape Archit., 82 ( 8 ): 45-47.

Koziowski, J.. Rosier. J. and Hill. G., 1988. Ultimate envi- ronmental threshold (UET) method in a marine environ- ment (Great Barrier Reef Marince Park in Australia). Landscape Urban F!ann.. 15(3-4): 327-336.

Krippendorf, J., 1975. Die Landschaftsfresser (The Land- scape Eaters). Hallway, Bern.

Krippendorf, J., 1987. The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel (translated by V. An- drassy). He -emann Professional Publishing, London.

Kusler, J.A., I99 la. Conclusions and recommendations: strengthing resource conservation through ecotourism. In: J.A. Kusier (Compiler ). Ecotourism and Resource Con- servation: A Collection of Papers. 2 Vois; Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium: Ecotourism, 17-l 9 April, 1989, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, and the 2nd Inter- national Symposium: Ecotourism and Resource Conser- vation, 27 November-2 December 1990, Miami Beach, Florida. Association of State Wetland Managers, Beme, NY, pp. viii-xv.

Kusler, J.A., 199 1 b. Ecotourism and resource conservation: introduction to issues. In: J.A. Kusier (Compiler), Eco- tourism and Resource Conservation: A Collection of Pa- per, 2 Vois: Proceedings of the 1st International Sympo-

n Plamrng 25 (I994 I- 16 I5

sium: Ecotourism. 17-l 9 April 1989. Mcrida, Yucatan, Mexico, and the 2nd International Symposium: Ecotour- ism and Resource Conservation, 27 November-2 Decem- ber 1990, Miami Beach. Florida. Association of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY. pp. 2-8.

Lcccese. M.. 1992. LA forum. Landscape .4rchit., 82( 8 ): 53- 56.

Mausen. O.K., 1982. Landskabsplan for Holmsland KIit: af- ve i landskabsplanlaegning. Landskab, 63 ( 7/8 ):

5. Sanfter Tourismus-Alibi oder Chance? Zurich.

Math&on, ‘4. and Wall, G.. $2. Tol:rism: Economic, Phys- ical and Social Impacts.

Maupin. F.M.. 1988. C ership forum. Place. Arch- April: 25-28.

McIntosh. R.W. and Goeldner, C.R., 1990. Tourism: Princi- ples. Practices, Philosophies. 6th edn. Wiley. New York.

McWilliams. R.. 1992. Cultural motherlode. Landscape Ar- chit.. 82[8): 40-41.

Merivuori. -t 1 -hi., 1989. Landskap for fritid-tillgang och ef- terfragan. Landskab. 70( 7 ): 14% 155.

Miller. M-L., 1989. Coastal tourism planning. Oceans l 89. ( Proceedings of ! 989 annual meetings). !ns!i!ute of EEec- trical and Electronic Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, pp. I 12- 116.

Miller. ML.. 1991. Tourism in the coastal zone: portents. problems. and possibilities. In: M.L. Miller and J. Anyong (Editors). Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. Vols. i and IL National Coastal Re- s3GT;ri Kesearch and Development Institute, Newport, OR. pp. l-8.

Miller. M .L., 1993. The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean Coastal Manage., 20( 3 ).

Miller, M.L. and Auyong. J.. 1991. Coastal zone tourism: a potent force affecting environment and society. Mar. Pol- icy. I5 ( 2 ): 75-99.

Miller. M.L. and Ditron, R.B., 1986. Travel, tourism and ma- rine affairs. Coastal Zone Manage. J., 14( l-2): 1-I 9.

Miller, M.C. and Kaae, B.C., 1993. Coastal and marine eco- tourism: a formula for sustainable development? Trends, (30)2.

Mobley, R.W. and Miller, M-L., 1990. Managing growth by tourism planning: the example of Lake Elsinore. Califor- nia. Urban Land, May: 17-20.

Murphy, P.E., 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. Me- thuen. New York.

Nellemann. V., ! 988. Naturforvaltning i et udflugtsomrade. Landskab, 64(5): 104-105.

Nelson, J.G.. 199 1. Beyond parks and protected areas: from public and private stewardship to landscape planning and management. Environments, 2 1( 1): 23-34.

Oelrichs, I., 1991a. Hindu holiday. Landscape Archit., 82( 8 1: 37-39.

Oelrichs, I., 1992b. Prospect. Landscape Archit., 82( 8 1: 120. Orland, B. and Bellafiore, V.J., 1990. Development direc-

tions for a sacred site in India. Landscape Urban Plann., 19(2): 181-196.

Palmer, J.E., 1967. Ret-reational planning-a bibliographical review. Plan. Outlnok, 2 ( Spring): 19-69.

Pearce, D., 1989. Tourist Development, 2nd cd 1. Wiley, NSW York.

Phitiips, P., 1986. Fitting in: a desert resort resi lects iis cnvi-

ronmtnt. Urban Land, June: 36-37. Rademan, M.C., 1987. Ski town prediction: ob! a&s ahead.

Planning, February: 17-2 1. Rcllly, W.K.. 1992. Excerpts from Rio memo: a plea for the

environment. The New York Times, 5 June: -06. Ritchie, J.R.B. and Goetdner, C.R. (Editors), I@b87. Travel,

Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers. Wiley, New York.

Rifkind, C., 1991. Cultural tourism: a new opportunity for the industrial city? Environ. Comment, January: 4-7.

Rosenow. J.E. and Pulsipher, G.L., 1979. Tourism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Media Productions & Marketing. Lincoln, NE.

Rosenthal, A., 1992. Bush say% he want; to dismiss leaker of memo on the Rio treaty. The New York T’imes 8 June: A6.

Rovelstad, J., 1991. Implementing tourism: the rot: of the community. Environ. Comment, January: 11-l 5.

Shaw, D.. 1989. Hawaii’s Hemmeter resorts. Landsc..pe Ar- chit., 79( 2): 73-75.

Simons, C., 1990. Busrness and ieisure. Landscape A-chit., 80( 6): 42-45.

Simpson, h!.B., 1992. Paradise protected? Landscape Ar Thit., 82(8): 50-51.

Skinner, D.N., 1968. Landscape survey with special reference to recreation and tourism in Scotland. Plan. Outlc>k, 4( Spring): 37-43.

Sioan, J.R., 1982. Provincial parks and tourism: boon or ban&-? Environments, 14( 1): 41-43.

Smith, R.A., 1991. Beach resons: a model of developmem evolution. Landscape Urban Plann., 2 I ( 3): 189-2 10.

Sowman, M.R., 1987. A procedure for assessing recreational carying capacity of coastal resort areas. Landscape Urban Plann., 14(4): 331-344.

Staples, B. and Stanfield, B., 1992. The rocky road to Rio. Edges: New Planet. Patterns, 4( 4 ): 14- 17, 19-23.

Stevens, W.K., 1992. 12 sign the climate treaty as political clouds gather. The New York Times, 5 June: A6.

Stewart, J., 1974. Conservation-a plea for a rational ap- proach. Plan. Outlook, I5 (Autumn): 35-48.

Strasdas, W., 1988. Der sanfte tourismus-‘heorie und praxis. Arbeitsmaterialien 8. Schriftenreihe des Institutes fuer Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, Universitaet Hannover.

Strutin, M., 1991a. Somebody’s got to try this stuff’. Land- scape Archit., 8 1 ( 3): 50-59.

Strutin, M., 1991 b. Desert fantasies. Landscape Archit., 81(5): 68-69.

Sutro, D., 1992. Ecocomfort. Landscape Archit., 82 (8 ): 48- 49.

Valentine, P.S., 199 1. Nature-based tourism: a review of prospects and problems. in: M.L. Miller and J. Auyong (Editors), Proceedings of the I990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, Vols. I and II. National Coastal Re- sources Research & Development Institute, Newport, OR, pp. 475-485.

Wi\lli\CC, IJ,K., 1992. is ‘cco’ tourism for real’? Landscape .Ar- chit,, K?( 8): 34-M.

b’;rtcn, S.H.. 1991. Yril\d Industp I4’orld I’carbook: The Big I~1ctur+-l991. Vol. 35. Child and Waters. Ncu l’ork.

I~‘hclnn. T . I99 I. Naturlt rourlsm: Managing for the En\,l- mnmcnt. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Wight. P.. 1993, Ecotourism: ethics or cco-sell? J. Tra\~l Res.. 31(J): 3-9.

Wines. M., 1992. Rush and Rio. The New York Times, I I June: A I, AA.

World (‘ommisslon on Em ironmcnt and Dc~4opmc‘nt. 1987.

Our Common Future (also known as The port 1. Okford Univcrsit! Press. Ncu I’ork.

%‘r=cnn. D.. 1991. Cultural tourism and industrial cities. En- viron. Comment. Januaq: 3.

Zubc. E.H., 1986. Local and extra-local pcrccpt~ons of na- tional parks and protccrcd arcas. Landw;\** 1Jrban Plama., 13( 1). I I-17.

Zubc, E.H.. 1990. Gwst editor’s introducemn. Lambcape Urban PIann.. IS(Z): 115-l 16.

Zubc. E.H. and Busch. M.L., 1990. Park-people rclation- ships: an international rcvictv. Landscape II&an PDann,, l9( 2): 117-131.