This paper considers the status of ecotourism within Costa Rica and Kenya, two less developed countries (LDCs) which have acquired a high profile in this respect. Both case studies are examined in relation to ecotourism profile, magnitude, spatial patterns, and impacts, and this is followed by a discussion of the outlined patterns and their implications. Initially, this paper provides a more general context of definitional issues, a critique, and the place of ecotourism within the broader tourism setting.

At present, there is no consensus on the definition of the term ecotourism (Buckley and Orams), and both its meaning and usage remain associated with a great deal of confusion and disagreement (Blamey and Nelson). To a large extent, this reflects its recent origins as a focus of discussion, and thus indicates a phenomenon whose parameters and terms of reference are still evolving. However, there is widespread agreement that ecotourism consists of three core criteria, and these constitute the basic definition employed in this paper: the primary attraction is nature-based (such as flora and fauna, geological features), with cultural features constituting a secondary component; the emphasis is on the study and/or appreciation of the resource in its own right, as opposed to the use of the resource as a venue for other activities (as in white-water rafting or sunbathing on the beach); and the activities of the tourists and other participants are benign with respect to their impact upon the physical and cultural environment of the destination. Ecotourism, in other words, should be coherent with the notion of sustainable tourism by adhering to the carrying capacities of the destination and being acceptable to, and supportive of, host communities.

Among numerous definitions and formulations proffered to date, a distinction can be made beyond these core elements between active and passive variations of ecotourism (Orams 1995). The former argue for a more restrictive ecotourism that involves actions conducive to the improvement of the environment. As such, these represent a sustainable form which emphasizes enhancement of the resource base. Active ecotourism is frequently associated with primary-purpose trips of relatively long duration, specialized “ecolodge”-type accommodations, venues closer to the wilderness end of the spectrum, the provision of minimal facilities and services within these venues, and a high degree of commitment and involvement among the participants. In contrast, the passive definitions require only that the activity does not result in negative impacts on the physical or cultural environment. As opposed to active ecotourism, this suggests a mode of sustainable tourism which tolerates the maintenance of the resource status quo. Relatively brief visits (often as just one component of a longer multi-purpose trip) and a greater array of services and facilities, usually of a more conventional (non-specialized) nature, are associated with this more anthropocentric variant.

The often-quoted seminal definition of Ceballos-Lascuraín (cited in Boo 1990) falls on the passive side of the ecotourism spectrum; so does Rymer who defines ecotourism as “centered on tourists’ desire for immersion in a relatively natural environment in which they and their support facilities have low impact upon the environment” ( Rymer 1992:1). Active definitions are provided by Kutay who suggests that “ecotourism is nature tourism which directly or indirectly promotes conservation and supports sustainable economic development” ( Kutay 1989:4); Boo who sees it as “nature travel that advances conservation and sustainable development efforts” (1992:iii), and the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council which perceives ecotourism as “an enlightening nature travel experience that contributes to conservation of the ecosystem while respecting the integrity of host communities” (in Scace, Grifone and Usher 1993:3). Perhaps the most restrictive definition is put forth by James Butler (cited in Scace 1993) who insists that ecotourism must simultaneously satisfy eight descriptive criteria, including consistency with a positive environmental ethos, biocentrism, enhancement of the resource base, attainment of education benefits, and conveyance of high informational and emotional dimensions.

For the purposes of this article, a liberal definition of ecotourism is adopted which incorporates the active-to-passive spectrum. While the active variation might constitute a desirable ideal, the restriction of a working definition to this interpretation alone results in an exclusive and elitist activity whose economic benefits to a destination are limited by the small pool of qualifying participants; it is clear, for example, that very little activity would qualify as ecotourism within the rigorous parameters set by Butler. Most nature appreciation participants, in contrast, cluster within the passive end of the spectrum. According to Kearsley, Hall and Jenkins:

At present, the bulk of demand is less likely to be for the “back country” of wilderness and remote places than it is to be for the “front” country of relatively easily accessible natural settings with a good but unobtrusive infrastructure of basic facilities (Kearsley, Hall and Jenkins 1997:71).

The legitimacy of an ecotourism definition that incorporates a spectrum of options is recognized by a growing number of researchers. Lindberg (1991), for example, differentiates between “hard-core” and “dedicated” nature tourists on one hand, and “mainstream” or “casual” nature tourists on the other. The Queensland (Australia) Draft Ecotourism Strategy (Queensland 1995) distinguishes between self-reliant ecotourism (involving groups of less than ten participants, using non-motorized transportation during visits to relatively remote areas) and popular ecotourism (involving larger numbers of tourists using mechanized transport to access readily accessible natural attractions where a significant level of services is available); small group ecotourism is an intermediate category which comprises transitional activity.