From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


why the heck are there dashes all over the place on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

--Alex 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


This article definitely needs an NPOV tag. It sounds like someone from the NRDC wrote this tripe. I am too new a user to do it. Arg10f (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ecotourism can and may hurt the environment. People should be more careful about going to other countries and littering carlessly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

All the same this article contains an enormous amount of criticism for ecotourism while the actual tourism contains no criticism at all! Its true that travel is pretty inefficient and can be pretty destructive toward the environment (especially when traveling by jet plane), but do you honestly want people to do nothing but sit around at home content in their clusterphobic cultural bubbles? Surely ALL of eco-tourism can't be bad, surely there are ways of learning and enjoying other cultures and peoples without personally raping half of the amazon (the sense you get from about two thirds of this article). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate criticism sections, but why not offer some positives to offset the negatives, just some examples of what people are doing right alongside what there doing wrong.

I think many people have the preconceived notion that ecotourism is the answer to all the problems of tourism. There is a lot to improve. --Eikenhein 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the criticism page seem to violate the NPOV, or at least present criticisms in an unneccessarily hostile manner. Particularly, "What about pushing people onto marginal lands with harsh climates, poor soils, lack of water, and infested with livestock and disease is “enhancing”? The establishment of parks does nothing but create harsh survival realities and deprives the people of their traditional use of land and natural resources." This reads much more like a lecture than an encylopedic phrasing of valid criticism, and if it is a direct quote from one of the references, it should be in question marks, shouldn't it? 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can whomever put Kamuaro, 2007 throughout the text please cite this reference in full in the References section and link to mentions in the text please. Much of this article is supported with this citation and this author is only listed as having written a much earlier piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Greenwashing" vs. "Green washing"[edit]

People that use the term "Greenwash" are pure political operatives with little constructive to add to the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand both terms can be used, but I prefer the former because: 1. It is the form found in Webster's and American Heritage dictionaries 2. It is already used throughout the article 3. It is based on the political term "whitewash"

Comments? --Eikenhein 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section[edit]

Many citations in this section (ie. from Miller, Walpole et al, Kamuaro - 2007, West) do not appear in the references section of this article. Was this section copied from a previous work/report/essay that had actually used these references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This section reads like a school paper on why ecotourism is bad. The citations lack a certain degree of notability. Instead of a written diatribe against ecotourism supported by other diatribe, statistics should be presented. --Anthropos65 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many words, but so few ideas. The author almost sounds like a proponent of ecotourism who is forced to write a critique of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snefreely (talkcontribs) 06:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It takes up the majority of the article, which is definitely undue weight. We need more information on the negative effects of tourism (the articles tourism and sustainable tourism have remarkably little on this as I write), but this is too much. Richard001 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The criticism is part of the history of ecotourism, which is to me incorrect. I moved the criticism to the bottom, and look to chip away some of the criticism which is not cited, atleast throw in some "citation needed" tags. It also helps to show how unduly big the criticism section is compared to the rest of the article. I also think its unfair, since the criticism is mostly about problems with tourism in general, not ecotourism. Actually, the article on tourism don't have ANY of this criticism in it... Gnurkel (talk)


The introduction to this article seems to be overly focussed on how ecotourists are better than everyone else, and all the reasons why. A more encyclopedic introduction would be appreciated. There are also various grammatical and punctuation mistakes in the introduction. (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the grammar in the intro a bit and plan on revising wording from a less biased perspective. (Steadydoesit (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

It seems that the introduction is speaking highly of ecotourism, and neglecting to mention some of the negative impacts of the action of being an eco tourist. This would make the introduction a less biased and more realistic explanation of what ecotourism is. Boboshic (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps an article with the most prominent List of ecohotels and ecoresorts can be made ? Info could be obtained from

Ratings as Green Star Rating; see —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Forest conservation[edit]

Some ecotourist destination succeed in protecting huge forests; see the Gibbon Experience (136 000 ha protected with treehouses with a combined capacity to house only 48 people (6 treehouses X 8 people)

mention in article (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction error[edit]

Antarctica cannot have a GDP. Antarctica is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward1969 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How does Antarctica have a GDP? Not possible. (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Questa pagina fa cagare —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Eco tourism is NOT just about visiting rfagile places. It is about visiting ANY place for the purpose of enjoying the environment. This article reads like it has been written by a biased bigot with very little real knowledge. I feel like removing huge sections of this page due to the expressed bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Improving sustainability[edit]

Some of the most important things haven't been mentioned:

  • In some regions (i.e. Île du Nord (West North)) ecotourism has been instrumental in returning a region to its natural state (removal of all non-native fauna/flora )
  • In some regions ecotourism has been instrumental in protecting areas from hunting, fishing, ... For example, in some eco dive-resorts, protected areas have been created to allow to serve as a breeding place for fish/marine animals

KVDP (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Regulation and accreditation[edit]

Should be mentioned ? KVDP (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Resource help needed[edit]

This article supposedly first used ecotourism, but I can't find it. Does anyone have access?

  • Hutzer, N. D. "Environment, tourism, culture", Links (1965), July, 1-3, reprinted in Ecosphere (1970), 1(2), 1-3.

Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Shouldn't we mention IBAT, see Appearantly, before ecotourist constructions are set up in fragile environments, IBAT's are best written up. Xovady (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)