**1. Introduction**

"Image is everything", informed us in 1989 then rising sport personality Andre Agassi, during a sun-glasses commercial. The motto, created by the marketing industry to increase consumption through the valorisation of the self-image, applies to much more than clothes and accessories. Beyond the general arguments for rest and escape, tourism, a luxurious form of leisure, involves the consumption experiences in the form of activities in selected environments, atmospheres, and cultures (see [1]). It allows the travelers to acquire social and cultural capital, so important for identity building and assertiveness. As such, tourism leads to recognition by the peers and distinction, through the display of that newly acquire capital, otherwise referred to as "distinction" [2]. Referring to Bourdieu's analysis of the concept, Boyer [3] has argued that tourism was built – and is still rests – on the concept of distinction. Hence, when tourism becomes the target of vast criticism, following the emergence of its negative impacts on environment and host communities, [some] operators and tourists are quick to adjust. So would the visibility of sustainable claims in tourism promotion would lead to believe. But are they?

The many failures of the tourism industry to manage its negative impacts are well documented. The complexity of the management issues has surfaced with the advent of mass tourism in the mid-1970s. Beginning with the 1980s, this criticism toward mass tourism was met with the development of so-called alternative forms of travel: "ecotourism", "community-based", "ethical", "fair" and, more recently "slow" tourism, to name but only a few, all aimed at reducing their negative impacts on the environments, host communities and cultures visited. Pushed by the disenchantment for mass tourism and its negative image, the much-valorised alternative tourisms have diverted the attention of the visitors away from locations capable to host large numbers of visitors, to bring them to often much more sensitive areas, especially in nature-dominated environments. With the number of visitors seeking nature-based tourism increasing constantly, alternative tourisms – with few exceptions if any – often repeat similar mistakes mass tourism does but on a much more subtle scale.

The juxtaposition of the concepts of ecotourism and sustainable tourism, two of the perspectives that have been referred to since the 1990s, only adds to the confusion of genres. Used both as a product of merchandising and management mode, both have become the perfect tools for greenwashing: I ecotourism or I speak sustainability, therefore I am! Yet, the problem lies not only in the choice of one's consumption activities at the destination, but also in how to access them. "The underlying reason for the ecological unsustainability of mainstream tourism lies in the intensive impacts generated by transport, i.e. the transfer of tourists from their homes to their destination and back", underlines Carić [4]. The continuing debate over the sustainability of the flying industry (see [5]) for summary) can very well be extended to cruising.

Thus, in the name of his love for an endangered nature, the tourist is still able to travel to the smallest corners of his planet without remorse, as long as he can qualify his experiences with fashionable labels. Fletcher [6] refers to this as "Anthropocene tourism" – "capitalism's astonishing capacity for self-renewal through creative destruction, sustaining itself in a "post-nature" world by continuing to market social and environmental awareness and action even while shifting from pursuit of nonhuman "nature" previously grounding these aims". And so, the Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems see thousands of wealthy tourists traveling each summer by planes, ships and inflatables, using fossil fuel, in order to admire the polar environment threatened by climate change caused by human activities and… fossil fuel (**Figure 1**).

The years 2000 saw the rise of yet another approach, sustainable tourism, aimed this time at a challenging quest for balance between economic development

**21**

more topical than ever.

**Figure 1.**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

and environmental and cultural conservation. Yet, facing an unstoppable thirst for [cash] income, communities have been overflowing with visitors, leading to overtourism – the saturation of the sites where tourists visit and reside when their umber exceeds the natural or human ecosystem's capacity of charge, leading to deteriorations or even depletion of the resources, and the quality of the experience for both visitors and residents. That was before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic interfered with the tourism flow and growth, leading to the industry's first collapse since the disturbance that followed the terrorists' attack of 9/11 in the US. Yet, with the medical response to the pandemic, tourism will eventually resume. And while social distancing may infringe of mass tourism, nature-based tourism will continue to offer ideal opportunities for travelers seeking wide-open landscapes to venture in (with the challenges associated with indoor infrastructures and services, namely ticket offices, accommodation, restoration, and hygiene rooms0. Hence, in the light of the post-COVID-19 recovery, the sustainability challenges facing tourism are

*So-called sustainable tourism bring thousands of visitors to the Arctic and Antarctic by cruiseships and inflatables using fossil fuel to admire the polar environments threatened by climate change, ironically caused by* 

*human activities and carbon emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

More than addressing the sole ecological issues – as is the case in ecological or "ecotourism", sustainable tourism involves equity and ethics consideration toward the labour providing the required services in the travel experience, as well as the social, cultural and economic well-being of the host communities. This implies a fair contribution to local economies – all aims easier stated than done. The challenges of sustainable tourism are even more difficult to apply in natural environment – remote and/or wilderness, due to the challenges of fair-distant transportation, but also the cultural differences between local residents, traditional indigenous populations, and more westernized visitors in regard with food consumption – the killing of local wildlife to sustain life, while being attraction at the same time. Yet, with the constant need for cultural capital and distinction, tourists driven by a variety of agendas, are not solely interested in sustainability. Hence, to please a growing demand from nature and pro-environment goers, operators who are trying to response to criticism by implementing sustainable policies. Yet because demand also comes from from *ego*-tourists looking for another line to add to their travel résumé, the same operators may tend at the same time to offer news products

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

#### **Figure 1.**

*Tourism*

**1. Introduction**

"Image is everything", informed us in 1989 then rising sport personality Andre Agassi, during a sun-glasses commercial. The motto, created by the marketing industry to increase consumption through the valorisation of the self-image, applies to much more than clothes and accessories. Beyond the general arguments for rest and escape, tourism, a luxurious form of leisure, involves the consumption experiences in the form of activities in selected environments, atmospheres, and cultures (see [1]). It allows the travelers to acquire social and cultural capital, so important for identity building and assertiveness. As such, tourism leads to recognition by the peers and distinction, through the display of that newly acquire capital, otherwise referred to as "distinction" [2]. Referring to Bourdieu's analysis of the concept, Boyer [3] has argued that tourism was built – and is still rests – on the concept of distinction. Hence, when tourism becomes the target of vast criticism, following the emergence of its negative impacts on environment and host communities, [some] operators and tourists are quick to adjust. So would the visibility of sustain-

The many failures of the tourism industry to manage its negative impacts are well documented. The complexity of the management issues has surfaced with the advent of mass tourism in the mid-1970s. Beginning with the 1980s, this criticism toward mass tourism was met with the development of so-called alternative forms of travel: "ecotourism", "community-based", "ethical", "fair" and, more recently "slow" tourism, to name but only a few, all aimed at reducing their negative impacts on the environments, host communities and cultures visited. Pushed by the disenchantment for mass tourism and its negative image, the much-valorised alternative tourisms have diverted the attention of the visitors away from locations capable to host large numbers of visitors, to bring them to often much more sensitive areas, especially in nature-dominated environments. With the number of visitors seeking nature-based tourism increasing constantly, alternative tourisms – with few exceptions if any – often repeat similar mistakes mass tourism does but on a much more subtle scale. The juxtaposition of the concepts of ecotourism and sustainable tourism, two of the perspectives that have been referred to since the 1990s, only adds to the confusion of genres. Used both as a product of merchandising and management mode, both have become the perfect tools for greenwashing: I ecotourism or I speak sustainability, therefore I am! Yet, the problem lies not only in the choice of one's consumption activities at the destination, but also in how to access them. "The underlying reason for the ecological unsustainability of mainstream tourism lies in the intensive impacts generated by transport, i.e. the transfer of tourists from their homes to their destination and back", underlines Carić [4]. The continuing debate over the sustainability of the flying industry (see [5]) for summary) can very well

Thus, in the name of his love for an endangered nature, the tourist is still able to travel to the smallest corners of his planet without remorse, as long as he can qualify his experiences with fashionable labels. Fletcher [6] refers to this as "Anthropocene tourism" – "capitalism's astonishing capacity for self-renewal through creative destruction, sustaining itself in a "post-nature" world by continuing to market social and environmental awareness and action even while shifting from pursuit of nonhuman "nature" previously grounding these aims". And so, the Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems see thousands of wealthy tourists traveling each summer by planes, ships and inflatables, using fossil fuel, in order to admire the polar environment threatened by climate change caused by human activities and… fossil fuel (**Figure 1**). The years 2000 saw the rise of yet another approach, sustainable tourism, aimed this time at a challenging quest for balance between economic development

able claims in tourism promotion would lead to believe. But are they?

**20**

be extended to cruising.

*So-called sustainable tourism bring thousands of visitors to the Arctic and Antarctic by cruiseships and inflatables using fossil fuel to admire the polar environments threatened by climate change, ironically caused by human activities and carbon emissions from fossil fuel vehicles. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

and environmental and cultural conservation. Yet, facing an unstoppable thirst for [cash] income, communities have been overflowing with visitors, leading to overtourism – the saturation of the sites where tourists visit and reside when their umber exceeds the natural or human ecosystem's capacity of charge, leading to deteriorations or even depletion of the resources, and the quality of the experience for both visitors and residents. That was before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic interfered with the tourism flow and growth, leading to the industry's first collapse since the disturbance that followed the terrorists' attack of 9/11 in the US. Yet, with the medical response to the pandemic, tourism will eventually resume. And while social distancing may infringe of mass tourism, nature-based tourism will continue to offer ideal opportunities for travelers seeking wide-open landscapes to venture in (with the challenges associated with indoor infrastructures and services, namely ticket offices, accommodation, restoration, and hygiene rooms0. Hence, in the light of the post-COVID-19 recovery, the sustainability challenges facing tourism are more topical than ever.

More than addressing the sole ecological issues – as is the case in ecological or "ecotourism", sustainable tourism involves equity and ethics consideration toward the labour providing the required services in the travel experience, as well as the social, cultural and economic well-being of the host communities. This implies a fair contribution to local economies – all aims easier stated than done. The challenges of sustainable tourism are even more difficult to apply in natural environment – remote and/or wilderness, due to the challenges of fair-distant transportation, but also the cultural differences between local residents, traditional indigenous populations, and more westernized visitors in regard with food consumption – the killing of local wildlife to sustain life, while being attraction at the same time. Yet, with the constant need for cultural capital and distinction, tourists driven by a variety of agendas, are not solely interested in sustainability. Hence, to please a growing demand from nature and pro-environment goers, operators who are trying to response to criticism by implementing sustainable policies. Yet because demand also comes from from *ego*-tourists looking for another line to add to their travel résumé, the same operators may tend at the same time to offer news products

that are in contradiction with the principles of sustainability, leading to a potential risk of green washing, where image is everything. Such is the case of polar tourism.

Polar tourism includes all leisure travel products set in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, which include both land and air travel in Europe, North America and northern Russia, with a specific cruise branch dominating the most extreme and far difficult to reach latitudes. Since its emergence, as an industry some 40 years ago, the polar cruise industry has followed trends in environmental and social management, referring in their marketing and travel policies to both eco (1990s) and sustainable tourism (years 2000s+). As long as their customers were the elderly (often over their 70s and 80s), the activities offrered were limitied to enflatible tours in bays to observe scenery and icebergs, and the occasional walk ashore, close to the landing point or bird rockeries. But with younger (mid-40s and higher) passengers, more active and demanding, operators have begun to enlarge the spectrum of activities offered, including more fuel-based activities (helicopter, Zodiac sightseeing, deeper into the landscape), and therefore a more invasive approach to the geographical exploration of the polar spaces. In addition, the aging of the current fleet of polar vessels requires new one to be build. The industry, at the cross roads between the former non-ecological vessels and those they can design for the near future, are facing the challenges of applying to their activities the principles of sustainable tourism, while yet facing a demand for more aggressive ways to interact with the pristine ecosystems that brings them visitors in the first place. In this context, can this ship-based polar industry really claim to be sustainable?

Based on the travel policy set by some of the leading operators, and travel organizations representing them at both ends of the world, and on the empirical travel experience of the researcher onboard polar cruises, this article aims at underlining the orientation the ship-based industry has taken over the last 40 years, from ecoto sustainable tourism, confronting their sustainable policies to actions to discuss how much the willingness to adapt to current management trends may or may not equate with green washing.

## **2. Nature tourism as a response to mass tourism and the environmental crisis**

Tourism, as leisure, involves the consumption experiences in the form of activities in selected environments, atmospheres, and cultures (see [1]). Visiting natural environments is one of the primary motivations for out-of-town excursions in the context of leisure and tourism.

If goes back to the Industrial Revolution when the restorative qualities of nature for the urbanized soul, tormented by the side effects of time and labour, led to a demand for nature-based travel, pushed forward by the Romantic Movement. It remains the case today. Nature occupies an important place at the heart of recreational tourism experiences. But for those who spent their year living and working in congested cities, the wide-open natural spaces can become salutary. "In a world where standardized spaces are multiplying, wild spaces constitute a singular potential for experiences despite, and because of, their marginal character in the face of a daily life where artifice and machines play the beautiful role"1 , observes Christin [7].

**23**

alike take account of their impacts.

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

consumer, as a sophisticated traveler, being there, where things happen.

Pushed forward by the environmental crisis in the 1970s, then up-dated into the climate change crisis and the consequent loss of biodiversity, tourists developed a thirst for destinations in crisis and opportunity to see them while they last, a tourism drive also referred to as "last-chance tourism" (see [13]) – namely the selfdetermined need to visit and experience destinations before their most important characteristic vanish. Nature-based tourism has been especially aggressive toward the "opening" of new destinations for grazing. Key words such as "unspoiled", "pristine", "unique" or "majestic" (used by John Muir†, 1838–1914, an influential outdoor man, co-founder of the Sierra Club and advocate for the protection of nature in the form of park) have been used all over the travel literature to sell the qualities of these natural sites. Since the beginning of the environmental crisis in the 1970s, far-distant and sparsely populated natural areas have been presented in the travel literature as the antithesis of mass tourism – although not in written word, nothing less than paradises due in large part to their remoteness from human beings and their infrastructures, hence part of the secret of their "unspoiled" features. Ecotourism was so successful – and distinctive – in emerging economies such as Costa Rica, Equator and Kenya, that it lead operators to seeks even more remote nature locations to bring visitors to, including both polar regions: the Antarctic and soon after, the High Arctic. At an average of around 10 000 \$US a cruise, accessing and experiencing those "last wildernesses" of the planet qualifies as rather exclusive. It has not prevented cruise-based tourism at both end of the planet to flourish (**Figure 2**). The prestige of wildlife, promoted indirectly through television documentaries (docutainement), stimulates the tourism demand which in return makes wildlife sanctuaries economic magnets both for operators and countries. Because many species are more easily observable during the breeding and feeding seasons, they become more easily accessible for tourists, who increase their vulnerability.

Tourism – and more particularly when in natural environments – represents a risk for ecosystems, which are sensitive to the importation of external organisms via

"Concerns over the environmental impact of cruise tourism are based on indications that some companies and host destinations are failing to adequately protect the environment", underlines Carić [4]. Critics are often more concerned with cruiseship than other forms of tourism since "[…] the hosting destination environment, landscape, and social fabric, when degraded, do not affect the cruise business as they simply transfer their activities elsewhere" ([4]: 497). All operators, however, do claim to care for the ecosystems they bring visitors to. Throughout the 1990s and two first decades of the 2020s, different paradigms – namely ecotourism and sustainable tourism – have been brought forward to help managers and tourists

the visitors themselves (**Figure 3**), their equipment or their pets.

Recreational activities – of which tourism is one of the luxury components – also help define social classes. Tourism is "an important component of the process of identity-building", stresses Light [8]. It allows the travelers to acquire social and cultural capital, so important for identity building and assertiveness. As such, tourism leads to recognition by the peers and distinction, through the display of that newly acquire capital, otherwise referred to as "distinction" [2]. Referring to Bourdieu's analysis of the concept, Boyer [3] has argued that tourism builds itself on distinction, through the valorisation of the self-image, stressed nowadays by the selfie culture, which brings tourists to engage with attractions for the need to collect and broadcast (through social medias) their facial or bodily incrustation over the sleeked attraction – see [9–11]. Through their sacralisation as tourism resources (see [12]), geographical locations referred to as destinations have made themselves available for a distinctive form of consumption – one that stresses the distinctiveness of the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

<sup>1</sup> "Dans un monde où les espaces standardisés se multiplient, les espaces sauvages constituent un singulier potentiel d'expériences malgré, et à cause de, leur caractère marginal face à une vie quotidienne où artifices et machines tiennent le beau rôle" ([7]: 93).

#### *From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

Recreational activities – of which tourism is one of the luxury components – also help define social classes. Tourism is "an important component of the process of identity-building", stresses Light [8]. It allows the travelers to acquire social and cultural capital, so important for identity building and assertiveness. As such, tourism leads to recognition by the peers and distinction, through the display of that newly acquire capital, otherwise referred to as "distinction" [2]. Referring to Bourdieu's analysis of the concept, Boyer [3] has argued that tourism builds itself on distinction, through the valorisation of the self-image, stressed nowadays by the selfie culture, which brings tourists to engage with attractions for the need to collect and broadcast (through social medias) their facial or bodily incrustation over the sleeked attraction – see [9–11]. Through their sacralisation as tourism resources (see [12]), geographical locations referred to as destinations have made themselves available for a distinctive form of consumption – one that stresses the distinctiveness of the consumer, as a sophisticated traveler, being there, where things happen.

Pushed forward by the environmental crisis in the 1970s, then up-dated into the climate change crisis and the consequent loss of biodiversity, tourists developed a thirst for destinations in crisis and opportunity to see them while they last, a tourism drive also referred to as "last-chance tourism" (see [13]) – namely the selfdetermined need to visit and experience destinations before their most important characteristic vanish. Nature-based tourism has been especially aggressive toward the "opening" of new destinations for grazing. Key words such as "unspoiled", "pristine", "unique" or "majestic" (used by John Muir†, 1838–1914, an influential outdoor man, co-founder of the Sierra Club and advocate for the protection of nature in the form of park) have been used all over the travel literature to sell the qualities of these natural sites. Since the beginning of the environmental crisis in the 1970s, far-distant and sparsely populated natural areas have been presented in the travel literature as the antithesis of mass tourism – although not in written word, nothing less than paradises due in large part to their remoteness from human beings and their infrastructures, hence part of the secret of their "unspoiled" features.

Ecotourism was so successful – and distinctive – in emerging economies such as Costa Rica, Equator and Kenya, that it lead operators to seeks even more remote nature locations to bring visitors to, including both polar regions: the Antarctic and soon after, the High Arctic. At an average of around 10 000 \$US a cruise, accessing and experiencing those "last wildernesses" of the planet qualifies as rather exclusive. It has not prevented cruise-based tourism at both end of the planet to flourish (**Figure 2**).

The prestige of wildlife, promoted indirectly through television documentaries (docutainement), stimulates the tourism demand which in return makes wildlife sanctuaries economic magnets both for operators and countries. Because many species are more easily observable during the breeding and feeding seasons, they become more easily accessible for tourists, who increase their vulnerability.

Tourism – and more particularly when in natural environments – represents a risk for ecosystems, which are sensitive to the importation of external organisms via the visitors themselves (**Figure 3**), their equipment or their pets.

"Concerns over the environmental impact of cruise tourism are based on indications that some companies and host destinations are failing to adequately protect the environment", underlines Carić [4]. Critics are often more concerned with cruiseship than other forms of tourism since "[…] the hosting destination environment, landscape, and social fabric, when degraded, do not affect the cruise business as they simply transfer their activities elsewhere" ([4]: 497). All operators, however, do claim to care for the ecosystems they bring visitors to. Throughout the 1990s and two first decades of the 2020s, different paradigms – namely ecotourism and sustainable tourism – have been brought forward to help managers and tourists alike take account of their impacts.

*Tourism*

claim to be sustainable?

equate with green washing.

context of leisure and tourism.

où artifices et machines tiennent le beau rôle" ([7]: 93).

**crisis**

that are in contradiction with the principles of sustainability, leading to a potential risk of green washing, where image is everything. Such is the case of polar tourism. Polar tourism includes all leisure travel products set in the Arctic and Antarctic

Based on the travel policy set by some of the leading operators, and travel organizations representing them at both ends of the world, and on the empirical travel experience of the researcher onboard polar cruises, this article aims at underlining the orientation the ship-based industry has taken over the last 40 years, from ecoto sustainable tourism, confronting their sustainable policies to actions to discuss how much the willingness to adapt to current management trends may or may not

**2. Nature tourism as a response to mass tourism and the environmental** 

Tourism, as leisure, involves the consumption experiences in the form of activities in selected environments, atmospheres, and cultures (see [1]). Visiting natural environments is one of the primary motivations for out-of-town excursions in the

If goes back to the Industrial Revolution when the restorative qualities of nature for the urbanized soul, tormented by the side effects of time and labour, led to a demand for nature-based travel, pushed forward by the Romantic Movement. It remains the case today. Nature occupies an important place at the heart of recreational tourism experiences. But for those who spent their year living and working in congested cities, the wide-open natural spaces can become salutary. "In a world where standardized spaces are multiplying, wild spaces constitute a singular potential for experiences despite, and because of, their marginal character in the

, observes

face of a daily life where artifice and machines play the beautiful role"1

<sup>1</sup> "Dans un monde où les espaces standardisés se multiplient, les espaces sauvages constituent un singulier potentiel d'expériences malgré, et à cause de, leur caractère marginal face à une vie quotidienne

regions, which include both land and air travel in Europe, North America and northern Russia, with a specific cruise branch dominating the most extreme and far difficult to reach latitudes. Since its emergence, as an industry some 40 years ago, the polar cruise industry has followed trends in environmental and social management, referring in their marketing and travel policies to both eco (1990s) and sustainable tourism (years 2000s+). As long as their customers were the elderly (often over their 70s and 80s), the activities offrered were limitied to enflatible tours in bays to observe scenery and icebergs, and the occasional walk ashore, close to the landing point or bird rockeries. But with younger (mid-40s and higher) passengers, more active and demanding, operators have begun to enlarge the spectrum of activities offered, including more fuel-based activities (helicopter, Zodiac sightseeing, deeper into the landscape), and therefore a more invasive approach to the geographical exploration of the polar spaces. In addition, the aging of the current fleet of polar vessels requires new one to be build. The industry, at the cross roads between the former non-ecological vessels and those they can design for the near future, are facing the challenges of applying to their activities the principles of sustainable tourism, while yet facing a demand for more aggressive ways to interact with the pristine ecosystems that brings them visitors in the first place. In this context, can this ship-based polar industry really

**22**

Christin [7].

#### **Figure 2.**

*About 100 cruise tourists transferred by inflatable from their ship to an uninhabited location in northern Greenland for a few-hour-excursion. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*The constant importation of non-native living organisms by tourists, including seeds and mud from boots and other equipment, food, viruses, etc., may present a risk for indigenous species. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

#### **3. From eco- to sustainable tourism**

Marketing plays a major role in the promotion of consumption, including tourism. Using a concept to sell is however no guarantee that the label use is appropriate for the product. In the case of the environment, ecological pretention often leads to green washing – the pretention that a product or service has ecological virtues that are not there. Hence, nature-based became known as ecotourism before eventually being equated with sustainable tourism, all wrongfully.

**25**

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

"Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present), that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic

When Mexican researcher Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin [14, 15] formulated his concept of ecotourism, natural ecosystems were still mysterious to the general public. For the majority, the exploration of nature was taking place in nearby green spaces – municipal parks, mountain resorts or national parks. Little had changed since the Romantic Movement: apart from a few adventure-seekers who got on expeditions to unfamiliar terrain, the majority of citizens were content to approach nature on the surface, without really penetrating into it. Through television reports and magazines, the environmental crisis of the 1970s brought these ecosystems, often as remote as the Amazon rainforest, to the forefront of discussions. *Docutainment* was entertaining while raising awareness to something out of the viewers' world. And soon, they were ready to see all of it from their own eyes. Deploying nature tourism had the advantage of requiring little infrastructures – apart from trail development. Accommodation did not have to be on site, as long as transportation could be organized. Because reaching these out-of-this-world-nature spots was difficult and expensive, tours required proper interpretation and guiding– hence the visitor awareness programs that ecotourism became associated with – to bring out the value of the privilege these fortunate tourists were paying for. This lead to the birth of the concept of ecotourism, so named by Ceballos-Lascuráin

The higher prices for these trips, so exclusive – so distinctive, did not hinder the growth of the ecotourism as a product. On the contrary, it spread all over the planet, from the Galapagos Islands to the polar regions – no ecosystem was immune to it. Ecotourism became one of the most important tourism development sectors of the

Ecological tourism was supposed above all the reduction of one's ecological footprint on fauna and flora. This implied a capacity for awareness of one's impacts, not only as an individual visitor but in terms of cumulative impacts of all thousand of visitors that proceeded and those who would follow. In addition, ecotourism promoted royalties to host or neighboring communities. This is where the concept flied off the handle. The creation of economic benefits encouraged any operator

Ecology and economic benefits do not always go hand in hand when it comes to employment, growth and development in an economic system based on enrichment. "One of the main processes through which nature can be reconfigured through tourism is via commodification", underlines Duffy [16]. "This involves the creation of economic value from landscapes, animals and experiences. One of the core justifications for nature-based tourism is that nature can be conserved or saved because of its 'market value'" ([16]: 533). As pointed out by Fletcher and Nevers ([17], in [16]: 534), nature-based tourism – an even more when labeled as " good " or " ecotourism ", "has the capacity to transform bodies into sites of virtually limitless capital accumulation by promoting a satisfying experience yet usually delivering instead a mere 'pseudocatharsis' that paradoxically stimulates a desire for further experience in pursuit of the fulfilment continually deferred". Hence, while claiming to protect nature, ecotourism produced nature lovers who become conquerors [18, 19]. They no longer see nature as a place of exploration and discovery, but rather as a theater where they can practice activities of domination of nature – activities where humans can tame and overcome nature and its obstacles (mountaineering and other climb-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

– and soon to become a travel product.

1990s. The flaws of ecotourism then gradually appeared.

ing sports, use of motorized vehicles, speed activities, etc.).

and beneficiary to want to derive more benefits.

involvement of local populations" ([14, 15], r. 1996).

Ecotourism was initially defined as:

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

"Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present), that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations" ([14, 15], r. 1996).

When Mexican researcher Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin [14, 15] formulated his concept of ecotourism, natural ecosystems were still mysterious to the general public. For the majority, the exploration of nature was taking place in nearby green spaces – municipal parks, mountain resorts or national parks. Little had changed since the Romantic Movement: apart from a few adventure-seekers who got on expeditions to unfamiliar terrain, the majority of citizens were content to approach nature on the surface, without really penetrating into it. Through television reports and magazines, the environmental crisis of the 1970s brought these ecosystems, often as remote as the Amazon rainforest, to the forefront of discussions. *Docutainment* was entertaining while raising awareness to something out of the viewers' world. And soon, they were ready to see all of it from their own eyes. Deploying nature tourism had the advantage of requiring little infrastructures – apart from trail development. Accommodation did not have to be on site, as long as transportation could be organized. Because reaching these out-of-this-world-nature spots was difficult and expensive, tours required proper interpretation and guiding– hence the visitor awareness programs that ecotourism became associated with – to bring out the value of the privilege these fortunate tourists were paying for. This lead to the birth of the concept of ecotourism, so named by Ceballos-Lascuráin – and soon to become a travel product.

The higher prices for these trips, so exclusive – so distinctive, did not hinder the growth of the ecotourism as a product. On the contrary, it spread all over the planet, from the Galapagos Islands to the polar regions – no ecosystem was immune to it. Ecotourism became one of the most important tourism development sectors of the 1990s. The flaws of ecotourism then gradually appeared.

Ecological tourism was supposed above all the reduction of one's ecological footprint on fauna and flora. This implied a capacity for awareness of one's impacts, not only as an individual visitor but in terms of cumulative impacts of all thousand of visitors that proceeded and those who would follow. In addition, ecotourism promoted royalties to host or neighboring communities. This is where the concept flied off the handle. The creation of economic benefits encouraged any operator and beneficiary to want to derive more benefits.

Ecology and economic benefits do not always go hand in hand when it comes to employment, growth and development in an economic system based on enrichment. "One of the main processes through which nature can be reconfigured through tourism is via commodification", underlines Duffy [16]. "This involves the creation of economic value from landscapes, animals and experiences. One of the core justifications for nature-based tourism is that nature can be conserved or saved because of its 'market value'" ([16]: 533). As pointed out by Fletcher and Nevers ([17], in [16]: 534), nature-based tourism – an even more when labeled as " good " or " ecotourism ", "has the capacity to transform bodies into sites of virtually limitless capital accumulation by promoting a satisfying experience yet usually delivering instead a mere 'pseudocatharsis' that paradoxically stimulates a desire for further experience in pursuit of the fulfilment continually deferred". Hence, while claiming to protect nature, ecotourism produced nature lovers who become conquerors [18, 19]. They no longer see nature as a place of exploration and discovery, but rather as a theater where they can practice activities of domination of nature – activities where humans can tame and overcome nature and its obstacles (mountaineering and other climbing sports, use of motorized vehicles, speed activities, etc.).

*Tourism*

**Figure 2.**

**24**

**Figure 3.**

**3. From eco- to sustainable tourism**

Ecotourism was initially defined as:

being equated with sustainable tourism, all wrongfully.

Marketing plays a major role in the promotion of consumption, including tourism. Using a concept to sell is however no guarantee that the label use is appropriate for the product. In the case of the environment, ecological pretention often leads to green washing – the pretention that a product or service has ecological virtues that are not there. Hence, nature-based became known as ecotourism before eventually

*The constant importation of non-native living organisms by tourists, including seeds and mud from boots and other equipment, food, viruses, etc., may present a risk for indigenous species. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

*About 100 cruise tourists transferred by inflatable from their ship to an uninhabited location in northern* 

*Greenland for a few-hour-excursion. Source: Alain A. Grenier.*

This has lead several destination managers and tour operators to increase the number of visitors allowed, to the detriment of conservation. Product renewal dictated by markets led to the inclusion of fossil-fueled vehicles (snowmobiles, inflatables, helicopters, small planes, etc.) to get deeper into wilderness for closer access to wildlife, often at the cost of harassment, trampling on flora and defiling of natural spaces, etc. New activities were added, diverting the attention of the tourists from nature and refocusing the visit on performances, often taking the appearance of a conquest of nature during which the visitor can test his or her skills and celebrate his or her accomplishments: ecotourism then mutated into adventure tourism.

In short, while it claimed to promote the study of nature by visitors, ecotourism was more of a way to access spectacular ecosystems because they are still relatively undisturbed, to admire species that are otherwise very difficult to access By highlighting ecosystems that were previously spared from visitors, ecotourism gradually led to the over-visitation of natural sites that were prized because of their rarity, sensitive fauna and esthetic characteristics.

At the end of the 1990s, the over-visitation of certain sites led observers to question the true nature of the motivations of "eco" or "ego" tourists, as they were then nicknamed. To meet the management challenges, the concept was gradually reworked a full decade. The concept, pursuing too many avenues away from its central ecology-centric core – ecological protection – led to its dismissal. It would soon be replaced by yet another concept that would blossom with the turn of the century: sustainable development.

#### **3.1 Sustainable tourism**

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) led by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland promoted a new approach to development – one "that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [20]. The paradigm focused on raising public awareness about the limits of resources promoting recognition of the value of intangible resources as its humanism (ethics) and empathy (equity). Although the validity of the concept is still debated, it has the merit of taking the discourse on development out of the economic sphere alone to include the people's social and cultural well-being, as well as that of the ecosystems. Brundtland's report failed, however, to transfer those principles into a more specific approach of actions to be implemented. Hence the confusion that often misguides the use of the term "sustainability" directed only toward the conservation of the environment.

Building on the popularity of the concept of sustainable development, the World Tourism Organization [21] transposed it to its field, to make it "sustainable tourism", that is "tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities" [22]. The definition is accompanied by principles, defined in 1995 and updated in 2004 [22].

While the principles are appropriate, the definition presents a major contradiction: how can the tourism take into account its negative impacts (and therefore respond to the principles of sustainability) if operators are simultaneously expected to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries of tourism, whose desires, without limit, have caused the damage leading to the need to rethink tourism? The issue led several observers to propose their definition of the concept, in order to "shift the focus from a group of actors (tourists, entrepreneurs or guests) to the relationships between these groups in the context of respect for a given ecosystem" [23]. In a previous publication, I have proposed to define sustainable tourism as:

**27**

and lifestyles.

see suggests the opposite.

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism…*

A management approach for tourism projects and services that promotes and achieves a balanced stewardship between the development objectives of the destination and its stakeholders and the benefits (social, cultural and economic) for the local community without compromising the integrity of natural ecosystems and the

The discussion around the concepts of eco- and sustainable tourism points out to the fact that they are meant to be used as management approach, not consumption products. A sustainable approach allows compromise on nature defense and protection, to find a balance with humans' needs in the area of economic development on three fronts: society, environment and economy. Compromise, however, should not be understood as an invitation to contradictive actions. Indeed, the implementation of sustainable development/tourism principles i usually cut short by the fact that "economic growth stimulates

CO2 emissions – the main cause of global warming – result in large part from human activity, including tourism [25]. Of its components (accommodation, restoration, entertainment, etc.), transport is the most polluting. It includes both that of supplies as well as the mobility of staff and customers. Yet, the fuel spent to reach the destination cancels by far any effort made at the destination and for that matter at home for months or years ahead, unless other actions are taken. When transport becomes the mode of travel itself, as in cruising, the 24/h/day emissions of fossil-fuel pollution to maintain the craft in operation is enough to raise a red flag. It is even more questionable when this "mobile tourism" in the form of cruises

Between 2009 and 2013, the tourism sector contributed to 8% of the CO2 emissions produced by human activity, which is four times more than estimated at the time with transport, shopping and the food sector being the main contributors ([26]: 522). For tourism to contribute to the reduction of its footprint, it must adopt different strategies, including the reduction of distance traveled [27] as well as the design and development of low carbon tourism products ([25]:8). This is possible through technological and behavior changes. Technological changes include everything from developing more efficient engines and the use of alternative energies – efforts to develop alternative energies for transport that would be low or even "zero-emission are showing that changes may be near by [28] – to the reduction of packaging – demonstrated as beneficial for cruise tourism [29]. Behavioral changes involve choices made by consumers in their daily activities,

Achieving a truly "sustainable tourism necessitates a clear-eyed engagement with notions of limits that the current culture of consumerism and pro-growth ideology precludes" ([30]: 125). This requires operators to set limit on consumption of spaces but also in the tools to achieve the visits – especially those that are fossilfuel dependent. While one would expect nature-based tourism to take the lead, especially in over-sensitive environment (such as the polar ecosystems), what we

<sup>2</sup> Le tourisme durable est. un mode de gestion des projets et des services touristiques qui favorise et obtient une intendance équilibrée entre les objectifs de développement de la destination et de ses acteurs et les retombées (sociales, culturelles et économiques) pour la communauté locale sans pour autant compromettre l'intégrité des écosystèmes naturels et des communautés qui y vivent ou en dépendent " [23].

).

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

environmental degradation" ([24]: 1).

takes sensitive environments for a target.

**3.2 Transportation and the fossil-fuel issue**

communities that live in or depend on them." ([23]2

*From Eco to Sustainable Tourism, the Contradictions and Challenges of Nature-Based Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96914*

A management approach for tourism projects and services that promotes and achieves a balanced stewardship between the development objectives of the destination and its stakeholders and the benefits (social, cultural and economic) for the local community without compromising the integrity of natural ecosystems and the communities that live in or depend on them." ([23]2 ).

The discussion around the concepts of eco- and sustainable tourism points out to the fact that they are meant to be used as management approach, not consumption products. A sustainable approach allows compromise on nature defense and protection, to find a balance with humans' needs in the area of economic development on three fronts: society, environment and economy. Compromise, however, should not be understood as an invitation to contradictive actions. Indeed, the implementation of sustainable development/tourism principles i usually cut short by the fact that "economic growth stimulates environmental degradation" ([24]: 1).

#### **3.2 Transportation and the fossil-fuel issue**

*Tourism*

This has lead several destination managers and tour operators to increase the number of visitors allowed, to the detriment of conservation. Product renewal dictated by markets led to the inclusion of fossil-fueled vehicles (snowmobiles, inflatables, helicopters, small planes, etc.) to get deeper into wilderness for closer access to wildlife, often at the cost of harassment, trampling on flora and defiling of natural spaces, etc. New activities were added, diverting the attention of the tourists from nature and refocusing the visit on performances, often taking the appearance of a conquest of nature during which the visitor can test his or her skills and celebrate

his or her accomplishments: ecotourism then mutated into adventure tourism.

sensitive fauna and esthetic characteristics.

century: sustainable development.

**3.1 Sustainable tourism**

environment.

In short, while it claimed to promote the study of nature by visitors, ecotourism was more of a way to access spectacular ecosystems because they are still relatively undisturbed, to admire species that are otherwise very difficult to access By highlighting ecosystems that were previously spared from visitors, ecotourism gradually led to the over-visitation of natural sites that were prized because of their rarity,

At the end of the 1990s, the over-visitation of certain sites led observers to question the true nature of the motivations of "eco" or "ego" tourists, as they were then nicknamed. To meet the management challenges, the concept was gradually reworked a full decade. The concept, pursuing too many avenues away from its central ecology-centric core – ecological protection – led to its dismissal. It would soon be replaced by yet another concept that would blossom with the turn of the

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) led by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland promoted a new approach to development – one "that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [20]. The paradigm focused on raising public awareness about the limits of resources promoting recognition of the value of intangible resources as its humanism (ethics) and empathy (equity). Although the validity of the concept is still debated, it has the merit of taking the discourse on development out of the economic sphere alone to include the people's social and cultural well-being, as well as that of the ecosystems. Brundtland's report failed, however, to transfer those principles into a more specific approach of actions to be implemented. Hence the confusion that often misguides the use of the term "sustainability" directed only toward the conservation of the

Building on the popularity of the concept of sustainable development, the World

While the principles are appropriate, the definition presents a major contradiction: how can the tourism take into account its negative impacts (and therefore respond to the principles of sustainability) if operators are simultaneously expected to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries of tourism, whose desires, without limit, have caused the damage leading to the need to rethink tourism? The issue led several observers to propose their definition of the concept, in order to "shift the focus from a group of actors (tourists, entrepreneurs or guests) to the relationships between these groups in the context of respect for a given ecosystem" [23]. In a

previous publication, I have proposed to define sustainable tourism as:

Tourism Organization [21] transposed it to its field, to make it "sustainable tourism", that is "tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities" [22]. The definition is accompanied by

principles, defined in 1995 and updated in 2004 [22].

**26**

CO2 emissions – the main cause of global warming – result in large part from human activity, including tourism [25]. Of its components (accommodation, restoration, entertainment, etc.), transport is the most polluting. It includes both that of supplies as well as the mobility of staff and customers. Yet, the fuel spent to reach the destination cancels by far any effort made at the destination and for that matter at home for months or years ahead, unless other actions are taken. When transport becomes the mode of travel itself, as in cruising, the 24/h/day emissions of fossil-fuel pollution to maintain the craft in operation is enough to raise a red flag. It is even more questionable when this "mobile tourism" in the form of cruises takes sensitive environments for a target.

Between 2009 and 2013, the tourism sector contributed to 8% of the CO2 emissions produced by human activity, which is four times more than estimated at the time with transport, shopping and the food sector being the main contributors ([26]: 522). For tourism to contribute to the reduction of its footprint, it must adopt different strategies, including the reduction of distance traveled [27] as well as the design and development of low carbon tourism products ([25]:8). This is possible through technological and behavior changes. Technological changes include everything from developing more efficient engines and the use of alternative energies – efforts to develop alternative energies for transport that would be low or even "zero-emission are showing that changes may be near by [28] – to the reduction of packaging – demonstrated as beneficial for cruise tourism [29]. Behavioral changes involve choices made by consumers in their daily activities, and lifestyles.

Achieving a truly "sustainable tourism necessitates a clear-eyed engagement with notions of limits that the current culture of consumerism and pro-growth ideology precludes" ([30]: 125). This requires operators to set limit on consumption of spaces but also in the tools to achieve the visits – especially those that are fossilfuel dependent. While one would expect nature-based tourism to take the lead, especially in over-sensitive environment (such as the polar ecosystems), what we see suggests the opposite.

<sup>2</sup> Le tourisme durable est. un mode de gestion des projets et des services touristiques qui favorise et obtient une intendance équilibrée entre les objectifs de développement de la destination et de ses acteurs et les retombées (sociales, culturelles et économiques) pour la communauté locale sans pour autant compromettre l'intégrité des écosystèmes naturels et des communautés qui y vivent ou en dépendent " [23].
