Back to Contents
|
Criterion |
The TEA |
TIDE |
Are negative environmental impacts minimized? |
2 - no, some guides are environmentally destructive. |
4 - yes, impacts are minimized. |
Does ecotourism provide economic benefits for the host community? |
4 - yes, the entire community benefits from the community fund and TEA members obtain an important additional economic benefit (except San Miguel). |
2 - no, only twenty guides benefit from ecotourism, many of the guides are not immediately local. |
Are negative socio-cultural impacts on the host community minimized? |
4 - yes, cultural change is not caused by tourism. Tourism reinforces traditional culture and is widely popular (except San Miguel where social tensions have resulted). |
2 - no, cultural exchange is minimal and the organisation is not widely supported. |
Does ecotourism involve education amongst both the local community and tourists? |
3 - yes, although not all guides are trained and tourists are taught little about conservation in specific. |
2 - no, although guides are trained extensively they do not always share their knowledge with tourists. |
Does ecotourism maximize the early and long-term participation of local people? |
4 - yes, participation levels are presently at a maximum (except San Miguel). |
1 - no, participation levels are minimal, local committees are for consultation and wield no power. |
Given these criteria, how sustainable is ecotourism? |
3 - environmental degradation and the possibility of declining levels of local participation need to be addressed if the program is to be sustainable. The lack of governmental support and low visitor numbers pose further problems for the TEA. |
2 - the organisation does not give enough benefit to the local population and lacks their support; the sustainability is compromised as a result. |
The table demonstrates two very different attitudes towards ecotourism. It can be seen from the table that the TEA does admirably well in adhering to the numerous principles advocated for ecotourism. By contrast, there is very little to distinguish TIDE’s “ecotours” from other forms of tourism. TIDE’s main drawback, which threatens the sustainability of all their operations (not only ecotourism), concerns the local community. A useful comparison can be made with Scheyvens’ [1999, p.247] “framework for determining the impacts of ecotourism initiatives on local communities”. This is reproduced in full in Appendix E, using colour-coding to demonstrate that the TEA program exhibits most of Schevyens’ “signs of empowerment” while TIDE exhibits almost all of the “signs of disempowerment” of local communities.
The TEA encourages long-term, though limited, sustainable development that has widespread support amongst the indigenous population. TIDE on the other hand fosters dependency on the foreign organisations that provide funding for projects and provides little benefit to the local population. TIDE’s popularity has suffered as a result and their aim of encouraging sustainable development is threatened. The conflict between the First and Third World over the global environmental debate [Mowforth & Munt, 1998, p.22] can be clearly seen when comparing the TEA and TIDE. “Sustainability” and “Ecotourism” are both contested concepts and are relative to how individuals and organisations interpret them. Hence the differing ideologies and practices of the TEA and TIDE – the TEA, which is organized by members of the indigenous community for their own benefit, and TIDE, whose practices are determined by Western NGO’s and their interests.
Adventure Travel and Ecotourism in Ecuador at Piedra Blanca