Ecotourism for ‘Empowerment’?

Bethany N. Bella
Jan 2, 2018 · 24 min read

An Ecofeminist Examination of Women’s Roles in Conservation-Based Sustainable Development

updated 4/2/2018 at 3:59 p.m.

INTRODUCTION

Our Earth’s finite resources are increasingly exploited as commodities for globalized networks at a time when around-the-world travel has blossomed into a feverish passion among many in the middle class. Emerging trends in what’s now referred to as ‘ecotourism’ excite both conservationists and sustainable development practitioners: A tourism (economic) model that’s attending to nature (conservation) and providing livelihoods for thousands of impoverished peoples (development)? Seems like a solution too good to be true. In some ways, ecotourism is just that: too good to be true. Case studies from pilot ecotourism models in the last half-century are split on the costs and benefits. Ecotourism does offer communities in natural resource-rich areas an alternative to resource extraction, the push for ‘sustainable development,’ and the opportunity for diversifying gender roles. But as with other development initiatives, “ecotourism runs the risk of disadvantaging and marginalising [sic] local women,” having done so in numerous instances already.[1]

While the infusion of gender analysis in other pro-development models has been documented, there remains a noted gap in the ecotourism literature, specifically.[2] Several ecotourism ‘success studies’ tout economic and personal empowerment as positive impacts from ecotourism development, yet fail to offer gender as a critical lens of analysis,[3] or neglect to include women’s perspectives of community-based ecotourism development strategies.[4] On the flip side, feminist analyses have largely failed to keep up with women’s economic roles in restructured tourism markets, which as an industry is the biggest export earner in the world.[5] Without explicitly addressing each community’s unique set of gender norms, development practitioners and well-meaning non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may exacerbate tensions between men’s and women’s traditional roles — or inadvertently burden women with additional unpaid household labor — while attempting to establish an ecotourism market.

In this paper, I survey the available ecotourism literature that reference women’s roles, including studies that offer first-person perspectives from various development contexts around the world. I ask these guiding questions in the subsequent sections: Where do women of these ecotourism destinations fit into this largely Western, male-constructed narrative? Are women benefiting from this ‘win-win’ conservation model as much as (or more than? less than?) their husbands, fathers, and brothers? In ignoring women while developing an ecotourism strategy, practitioners and ecotourism operators exclude the part of the population whose livelihoods depend upon the natural resource base for their daily activities. Recognizing that ecotourism is not a panacea for all environs and peoples is an important cautionary framework, as international tourism continues to penetrate every corner of the Earth, and more resources are banked for monetary value. I contend that despite its present lacking of feminist analysis overall, ecotourism has the potential to increase gender equity in natural resource-based development models and empower women in the global economy, while meeting sustainable development targets and promoting environmental awareness.

ECOTOURISM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: GOOD INTENTIONS?

The concept of ecotourism has its roots in the late 1980s, when subscribers of nature-based tourism decided to differentiate themselves from conventional mass tourism and invest in ‘responsible,’ ‘sustainable’ and ‘conservation-based’ tourism.[6] A subset of long-standing nature tourism models like the National Park System in the United States, ecotourism has three generally agreed-upon tenets: a primary nature-based element; an educational component; and a commitment to sustainability.[7] While the enthusiasm for ecotourism remains relatively strong in the 21st century,[8] a clear consensus on the definition of ecotourism has yet to be reached. Some call it “enlightening travel” to “appreciate nature.”[9] Some call it “[t]ourism in fragile or pristine areas of the world where ecosystems are protected.”[10] Others simply refer to ecotourism as a catchphrase to brand business products.[11] This decentralized approach to classifying ecotourism — and determining appropriate regulations for activities considered ‘ecotourism’ — creates challenges for conservation-based development organizations and ecotourists alike; when every ‘eco-friendly’ development project can be self-labelled ecotourism (‘greenwashing’), weak metrics of accountability fail to fully address ethical dilemmas that may arise with the project.

Birdwatching, a popular nature-based form of tourism | https://flic.kr/p/mbyKqi

Tourism is made up of and for people, even tourism centered around natural phenomena like volcanoes, rainforests, and geysers. Its promises for economic prosperity have been embraced by those implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s),[12] even though most ecotourism destinations are chosen more for their environmental worth than their potential for development.[13] These SDG’s, the descendent of the popular Millennium Development Goals, encourage the UN-supported idea of ‘sustainable development,’ or: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[14] Widely publicized by the UN Brundtland Commission of 1987, sustainable development challenges the long-held notion that environmental protections and economic activity cannot co-exist; under the current sustainable development paradigm, the environmental and economic drivers do, in fact, complement each other.[15]

While the labelling of nature-based excursions as ‘ecotourism’ is still considered an emerging trend in the worldwide tourism market, the concept of commodifying nature is not. Ecotourism can be considered under an umbrella of ‘payment for ecosystem services’ (PES), a concept that has circulated the global environmental politics literature since the late 1990s.[16] Essentially, it’s a Global North ‘solution’ to address a “near lack of appreciation of societal dependence upon natural ecosystems.”[17] By providing economic incentives (cash or non-cash benefits) for the predetermined ‘value’ of natural resources, PES schemes aim to protect “rapidly degrading ecosystems, while maintaining economic growth.”[18] Ecotourism operators in resource-rich developing countries, like Indonesia and Costa Rica, can make protecting nature a profit-sharing motivation for local populations in otherwise disadvantaged communities. Consequently, tourism centered around natural landscapes has become one of the primary economic drivers for several small island nation states, like Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean, whose limited alternatives for growth include agricultural exports and natural resource extraction.[19]

In keeping with the Global North’s colonial roots, the concept has largely been a scheme carried out in Global South countries wealthy in this so-called natural ‘capital.’ While this strategy curtails unrestricted access to natural capital resources from demonized industries like logging and mining, the collection of medicinal and other food resources from inside the designated PES domain by the surrounding populations can also be severely restricted. So far, PES models have largely neglected to consider important feedback roles humans (i.e. indigenous peoples) serve in these complex ecosystems, and do not “do justice to the reality of human-ecosystem interactions.”[20]

Our current year is the United Nations’ International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development[21] — the same year that “global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today.”[22] Even more alarming, flying in an airplane — often the only method of travel to these ‘remote’ and ‘exotic’ ecotourism locales — is “on average 50 times worse than driving in terms of a five-year warming impact.”[23] These same tourism-dependent small island nations could be flooded out by rising sea levels by the end of the century. By ‘greening’ the tourism economy, globalization systems of power are encouraging the monetization of nature, monopolizing the natural world “as a property of globalized capital,”[24] encouraging more disproportionate impacts from global warming, and furthering this very neoliberal agenda.

WHY WOMEN? AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Feminists from all over the world have critiqued the neoliberal agenda, the so-called ‘market economy,’ for its undercutting of gender equity and purporting classist, racist, and sexist societies. This market economy ideology has historically segregated work-related activities as either ‘economic’ or ‘non-economic,’ with economic activities typically classified as what men value and what men do, thereby denigrating and undervaluing the supposed non-economic work that women do.[25] Ecofeminists are feminists who draw connections between the oppression of women and nature, surmising that “the treatment of both women and the natural environment results from an overarching, patriarchal, and hegemonic value system.”[26] Ecofeminists also “maintain that the market economy is a small island surrounded by an ocean of unpaid, caring, domestic work, and free environmental services.”[27]

Many ecofeminist scholars, like world-renowned speaker and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, have been criticized for their ‘essentialist’ arguments, in suggesting that women are ‘closer to’ the environment (think the personification of ‘Mother Nature’) — and therefore women should be the primary stewards of the environment, more so men.[28] The reality is that women “generally have greater interaction with the natural environment” and thus are critical persons for driving cooperation in resource conservation development schemes.[29] Women in societies with socially prescribed roles are often expected to collect water, fodder (fuel), and food for their families and communities — largely without pay — thus inextricably linking their livelihoods with the natural resource base upon which the rest of society depends.[30] The direct loss of access to water, firewood, and medicinal plants through the ‘protection’ granted by these nature-based development projects has a disproportionate effect on women’s rights to basic resources and their ability to maintain their own health.[31] Although this ecofeminist ‘Mother Nature’ rhetoric may not be palatable to the more serious scholar, feminist or otherwise, understanding the symbiotic relationship between women outside the Western world and the natural environment is fundamental for the sustainability of natural resource-based development.

An artist’s rendition of ‘Mother Nature’ | https://flic.kr/p/pYvSQe

The ‘gender and development’ paradigm gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, when policy frameworks transitioned from WID (Women in Development) to WAD (Women and Development) and then finally to GAD (Gender and Development), in order to fulfill the ‘missing’ gender lens on development.[32] What began as a belated, isolating development focus exclusively targeting women has yielded, in theory, a more encompassing ‘gender-based’ framework of assessment today. Yet often when ‘gender equality’ is the stated aim, “women’s economic empowerment [is] constructed not as a goal in its own right, but as means for achieving other development outcomes.”[33] In many ways, ecotourism is another model of the same old mold. Nearly 30 years after the concept of ecotourism had worked its way through development circles, it was criticized as “largely behind the times: the field appears to be somewhat of a (male) dinosaur amidst the larger world of gender-aware environmental conservation and sustainable development.”[34]

If ecotourism markets continue to be embraced by both development practitioners and those in development-seeking communities, attention to gender and labor equity, as well as the potential for ecotourism to ‘empower’ women, must be considered. In the next section, I explore case studies that include specific attention to gender roles in developing-country communities who have embraced an ecotourism economic model. I typically refer to the case study in question by referencing the country name in which the community study has been conducted. In doing so, I recognize that statements in the following two sub-sections could be misconstrued out-of-context as generalizations for the whole country (i.e. all of Costa Rican ecotourism operates in the ways presented). This shorthand methodology for synthesizing has its limitations, but has been pursued nonetheless for its clarity in general referencing throughout the remainder of this paper.

WOMEN’S ROLES IN ECOTOURISM: A SURVEY OF CURRENT TRENDS

‘[B]ecause tourism is the new source of money in this area. Everybody knows it.’[35]

Ecotourism development doesn’t always create new gender roles for women, and often exacerbates traditional gendered divisions of labor.[36] Economic analyses show a clear segmentation of men’s and women’s work, wherein women typically occupy the low-paid, part-time and seasonal areas of hospitality, cleaning and retail work.[37] In Costa Rica, women ‘perform’ the majority of the labor that creates daily ecotourism ‘experiences,’ such as food and lodging preparations.[38] In Uganda and Botswana, both nations with a history of patriarchy,[39] ecotourism case studies reveal that women generally occupied the low-ranking, low-paying and insecure jobs like housekeeping and gardening.[40]

Women who pursue leadership roles in ecotourism ventures may be mocked, shamed, or even labelled as prostitutes.[41] Ugandan women, who have to gain their husband’s permission in order to enter paid ecotourism work, risk being called ‘rebels’ by some community members when they work as guides.[42] Similarly in northern Vietnam, where Confucian gender norms expect women to be subordinate to their husbands, [43] women interested in accessing new opportunities in ecotourism’s paid labor market still had to negotiate with their husbands.[44] In Botswana, women’s leadership abilities are reportedly subjected to more scrutiny than their male counterparts, thus cultural and social norms restrict women’s ability to leverage ecotourism’s purported leadership opportunities for women.[45] In Indonesia, it is considered culturally inappropriate for women to be trekkers on overnight trips, thus limiting women’s employment opportunities in the local ecotourism sector.[46] In the Philippines, despite women being seen as “major players” in two ecotourism sites,[47] the majority of respondents for both sites were married, not independent, single women.[48]

Home-stays, a common housing accommodation for ecotourists in off-the-grid locations, often creates a ‘double burden’ for women in charge of maintaining the household. By washing, cleaning, and preparing food for ecotourists and their own families, women’s overall workload in the home is inherently increased.[49] In northern Vietnam, hosting ecotourists meant extra reproductive labor for the women in the communities surveyed. However, the accommodations did give an opportunity for the men in the households to ‘do more.’[50] One woman commented that “In hosting tourists, there are certain things that I have had … to teach my husband how to do. For example, before the CBET [community-based ecotourism] project started, my husband never paid attention to making a bed, so I had to teach him … He now knows how to arrange blankets, get matching cloth and pillows and such to accommodate tourists — he never had to do this before.”[51]

In countries where decision-making is dominated by men, women may not see the effects of ecotourism trickle down to ‘their’ domains.[52] In Indonesia, women are less active in public spaces, per cultural norms, and thus miss opportunities for involvement in community-based development projects like ecotourism.[53] It is not uncommon in ecotourism-development communities to exclude women from the seemingly participatory processes of community-based ecotourism.[54] Development practitioners often seek the consultation of head chiefs, local elites, and entrepreneurs for their ecotourism project ideas — “the vast majority of whom are men.”[55] In Mexico’s Yucatán region, the majority of sponsored economic programs are aimed at managing men’s roles in sustainable fishing and ecotourism projects — missing the role of women in these and related natural resource-dependent activities entirely.[56]

Issues of access also bar women from competing in ecotourism markets. In many patriarchal societies, women are barricaded from accessing the necessary land and loans to operate their own private ecotourism venture, resulting in dependence on traditional men’s roles for earnings in ecotourism.[57] In Costa Rica, where payment for ecosystem services (PES) including ecotourism are commonplace, patriarchal property ownership is a determinant for women’s involvement. One woman, speaking on the prevalence of PES schemes, reported: ‘Property is power…and men own almost all of the land here. If you own the land, you have power.’[58] Yet in these PES-supporting households, researchers found a clear trend of relative gender inequality, perhaps the result for ­– not the cause from — involvement in PES frameworks like ecotourism.[59] Understanding gender and labor equity, then, is crucial to the motivation of involvement in PES programs. Access to natural resources may also be barred for women if ecotourism developers ban resource extraction and subsistence farming in newly ‘protected’ environments. In Indonesia, activities like gathering firewood, hunting, and fishing are excluded in park designations, blindsiding women’s traditional subsistence gathering without providing them alternatives.[60]

Gender roles can be positively renegotiated in areas of ecotourism growth, as evidenced in the following case studies. In Guyana, ecotourism is more desirable than logging or mining because it has normalized social relations for the indigenous Makushi people of the Guyanese rain forest.[61] In a Chilean community bordering the Fray Jorge National Park, men retained traditional livelihoods while women embraced new, tourism-focused activities,[62] such as leadership roles in the community[63] and training to support small-scale ecotourism ventures.[64] In northern Vietnam, women were able to gain access to education through ecotourism development projects,[65] while also earning a new source of income with less labor input[66] — yet men were still preferred over women for ecotourism jobs.[67]

In Nepal, a world-renowned destination for trekking, women-owned tea houses have become a popular place of rest for trekkers — and an avenue for economic ‘empowerment’ for Nepali women.[68] Women are dependent upon this hospitality business because of their relative remoteness from other readily available economic opportunities; many of these women have started using their tea-house funds to send their children away for a better education.[69] Unlike the Costa Rican women involved in PES households predominantly by marriage, unmarried Nepali women had the most control over their economic situation in the ecotourism-hospitality industry.[70] Additionally, a training and leadership program called Empowering Women in Nepal (EWN) has trained over 400 women trekking guides, many of whom have successfully started their own ecotourism business, notable in this highly male-dominated industry.[71] These examples of ecotourism-influenced gender roles is laudable, considering Nepal is a nation with deep hierarchal structures and limited options for women’s employment.[72]

These examples in the literature illustrate the complex costs and benefits associated with ecotourism for women in development today. Understanding and appreciating women as an integral part of any ‘community’-based ecotourism is essential, for: “if women are deprived of access to resources because of the development of ecotourism, and yet they do not receive any benefits from ecotourism, it is unlikely that they will have support for conservation of the natural resources upon which ecotourism is based.”[73]

WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT OR DISEMPOWERMENT? AN ECOTOURISM OPPORTUNITY

Empowerment, as a metric for success, has become a popular concept across various fields of study, particularly those related to development and politics.[74] In the realm of ecotourism, it attempts to emphasize the importance of local communities having some control over, and sharing the benefits of, ecotourism initiatives.[75] But commonly held ‘empowerment’ theories tend to be from western liberal and/or radical feminist thought, and are criticized as Eurocentric. Essentially, the purported notion of ‘empowerment’ essentializes an approach to gender and women’s empowerment.[76] Not unsurprisingly, women in developing nations are “suspicious of Western feminism agendas that focus on the oppression of women by men but do not address racism and class barriers” — or feminists who lack an intersectional approach.[77] Development policies have historically focused more on nation-building agendas than on feminist issues, and are now increasingly pressured to slap a ‘gender’ label on their work for increased salience or international funding.[78] Whether ‘gender’ as a concept is intentionally assessed, monitored, and valued in development schemes is thus subject to debate. What development analyses often still miss with this approach: “It is not development agencies that empower women; women empower themselves, and often, each other.”[79]

Understanding the construction of power relations in concepts like ecotourism is important but complex.[80] An analysis of countries’ hegemonic values, environmental exploitation, and gender (in)equality found that “the more women were empowered in a country, the less the nation exploited the environment in terms of both human health and ecological systems.”[81] Yet in some ecotourism practitioners’ quest to ‘do good,’ the reality of overlooked women’s roles may result in disempowerment.[82] Consider the women from the Indonesian and Botswanan case studies who were either criticized for embracing new leadership roles or restricted from entering ecotourism markets via pervasive cultural and social norms. Because women and children often have no other economic opportunities outside the community, constructing ecotourism that supports inclusive community growth is vital for achieving gender and labor equity.[83]

As Scheyvens (2000), in one of her seminal works on ecotourism and development, points out, “women are not simply victims of inappropriate ecotourism development.”[84] In one Posada Amazonas (Peru) community, women felt like they could assume new roles and engage in more activities because of ecotourism. “Working in tourism has given me strength in knowing that women can get ahead alone,” one local respondent said. “We don’t have to depend on men.”[85] Workshops and trainings on gender equity sponsored by some ecotourism-development donors have increased women’s perceptions on their right to equal opportunity. In northern Vietnam, women say that “now things have changed”[86] in terms of gender labor roles expected around the house. “[H]aving opportunities to learn about gender equality, we have now recognized that it is our right to raise our voices about this status,” one woman said. “The more we try to endure, the more we keep doing it. We should not keep silent and endure the violence anymore.”[87] Similarly, gender sensitivity workshops provided in two ecotourism sites in the Philippines improved communication skills, confidence, and community pride in the majority of women participants.[88][89] One woman noted that even though she doesn’t “gain much income from ecotourism, …the knowledge that I gained from the seminars were priceless [sic].”[90] “If it weren’t for ecotourism projects,” another Filipina respondent said, “I would just stay at home and take care of the kids.”[91]

Agency is another important metric for assessing the roots of empowerment.[92] For the Mayan women of Guatemala, tourism is an act of public performance, not culturally appropriated enslavement or resignation in a global economy that’s ‘forgotten’ women.[93] These Mayan women have learned over time what dialogue and dress sells the most for profit — even if their street-vending is illegal under Guatemalan law. In Mexico’s Yucatán, women concerned about garbage overflow from increasing tourism activities in the region have started their own recycling co-op.[94] By becoming active producers of new and ‘emerging’ socio-natures, these women challenge the need for men — and development aid — to find meaningful work.[95] In Costa Rica’s deeply embedded machismo culture, where strict gender roles are still rooted in cultural norms,[96] women in one village are using recycled materials from hotels for craft-making and selling.[97] These two examples of entrepreneurial endeavors — byproducts of ecotourism development in both Mexico and Costa Rica — exemplify ecotourism ‘success stories’ of confidence and resilience for women.[98] For the Nepali tea-house owners, women reported increased confidence, happiness, and respect in the community over time;[99] however this ‘respect’ finding “is essentially an outcome of the income generated by the women through their businesses, pointing towards the crucial importance of economic empowerment in the overall empowerment process.”[100] The role of women in this tea-house- business model remains largely unchanged (still caring for dependents),[101] but its tourism and income-generation ‘successes’ may be creating a more equitable future for Nepali women by diversifying means of employment.[102]

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: A FEMINIST FUTURE FOR ECOTOURISM

Ignoring women in the politics of conservation, as in other sectors of civil society, is “a classic case of missed opportunity.”[103] Despite the various stories of women’s achieved ‘empowerment’ and employment from ecotourism operations around the world, “it is unclear whether international or national programs to promote environmentally and socially sound ecotourism can resist or reverse the deterioration of egalitarian gender relations in the globalization of subsistence economies.”[104] Tourism, some scholars say, is not inherently sexist (or racist, or classist) in its design: the results we see from ecotourism development are often reflective of the norms, relations, and politics of our larger, gendered societies — and the people that make up those societies.[105] In short: “Tourism has never been an isolated phenomenon.”[106] Still, there is a tendency in environment-development analyses “to frame discussions of women around their vulnerabilities” instead of focusing “on women’s agency and the ways in which women’s knowledge is critical to understanding environmental degradation and creating innovative adaptation strategies to global environmental change.”[107]

The concept of community-based ecotourism has been heavily marketed as the ‘solution’ to all of ecotourism’s prior failures. Turismo comunitario, as a model for community-based ecotourism in Ecuador, has shown to be successful for both the people and the planet.[108] But this study, like many other ecotourism ‘success’ stories, lacks a critical investigation of gendered relations, and qualifies ‘community’ support without differentiating men’s and women’s responses to the project. Simply inserting ‘women’ in an analysis is not the goal here, for there’s always a danger inherent in presenting women as a homogenous collective.[109] Using ‘community’ as a unit of analysis has already been shown to be problematic, particularly in regards to the status of women in relation to extractive industries.[110] What’s more, “community-based tourism [ecotourism or otherwise] could be a clearly neocolonial strategy, which focuses more on the environmental concerns of the West than the communities’ needs for social and economic improvement.”[111]

An ecofeminist take on this emerging ecotourism model for conservation and development defies its hegemonic, masculine roots and aims to instill gender and labor equity into its practice. Applying an ecofeminist lens, moreover, implores a discussion of the ethics behind the ecotourism. Ecofeminist ethical considerations beyond the intrinsic value of nature include: the commodification of nature in travel; carrying capacities and the idea of ‘sustainable’ travel; and issues of gender, race, and class in both host and visitor contexts.[112] Engaging with these ethical considerations, and adopting an intersectional feminist standpoint of ‘empowerment,’ can accelerate “activities that help women mobilize, build their self-esteem, and make more strategic decisions within their homes and communities” — the ‘reach, benefit, and empower’ strategy development organizations are moving towards.[113]

Feminist ecological economics is another framework to move economies towards ‘sustainability’ and requiring less resource inputs.[114] Offered as an alternative to current capitalist market economies, feminist ecological economics’ key tenets include: lowering material throughput by de-linking economic growth from resource throughput; recognizing unpaid services as crucial to the economy; and starting growth from local places.[115] In some ways, ecotourism as an archetype complements the feminist ecological economics model: it focuses on the selling of resource-based experiences, as opposed to resource extraction for revenue generation; the central importance of home-stays in ecotourism models puts more value on traditionally unpaid housework; and its ‘selling point’ varies by location (i.e. mountains for trekking, oceans for scuba diving, etc.).

Achieving an economy based on sustainability would require “a new way of thinking about the factors that mediate human embeddedness in the natural environment, and how people can affect this relationship.”[116]According to one feminist economic scholar: “A sustainable socio-economy is one which, while democratically creating the possibility of meaningful, equitable, and pleasant lives for all people in the present, does not destroy either its ecological foundations or its capacity for social and physical reproduction into the future.”[117] If ecotourism institutions address its present lack of gender sensitivity and inclusivity in its analyses, finds a way to support women’s collective acts of agency and empower women on their own terms, ecotourism could serve as a feminist model for sustainable development.

Community-based ecotourism in praxis | https://flic.kr/p/UJiuYF

Sources Consulted

1 Bloodhart, B. and Swim, J. K. (2010). Equality, harmony, and the environment: An ecofeminist approach to understanding the role of cultural values on the treatment of women and nature. Ecopsychology, 2(3), 187–194.

2 Clark, D. (2010, September 9). The surprisingly complex truth about planes and climate change. The Guardian. Retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping

3 Comberti, C., Patterson T., Thornton T.F., and Wylliede Echeverria V. (2015). Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247–262.

4 Dilly, B. (2003). Gender, culture, and ecotourism: Development policies and practices in the Guyanese rain forest. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 31(3–4), 58.

5 Garrett, S. (2004). Poppies and mangoes: Women’s empowerment, environmental conservation, and ecotourism in Costa Rica. Women & Environments International Magazine, 64–65, 23–25.

6 Hanson, A. M. S. (2016). Women’s ecological oral histories of recycling and development in coastal Yucatán. Gender, Place & Culture, 23(4), 467–483.

7 Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington D.C.: Island Press.

8 Isla, A. (2014). The ‘Greening’ of the UN Framework on climate change and environmental racism: What payment for ecosystem services means for peasants and indigenous peoples, women and men. Canadian Woman Studies, 31(1–2), 34–43.

9 Jones, A. (2012). Human geography: The basics. New York, NY: Routledge.

10 Juárez, A. M. (2002). Ecological degradation, global tourism, and inequality: Maya interpretations of the changing environment in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Human Organization, 61(2), 113.

11 Lai, P.H. and Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1117–1129.

12 Lenao, M. and Basupi, B. (2016). Ecotourism development and female empowerment in Botswana: A review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18(1), 51–58.

13 Little, W. E. (2004). Performing tourism: Maya women’s strategies. Signs: Journal Of Women In Culture & Society, 29(2), 528–533.

14 McMillan, C. L., O’Gorman, K. D., and MacLaren, A. C. (2011). Commercial hospitality: A vehicle for the sustainable empowerment of Nepali women. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(2), 189–208.

15 Perkins, P. E. (2007). Feminist ecological economics and sustainability. Journal of Bioeconomics, 9(3), 227–244.

16 Pleno, M. J. L. (2006). Ecotourism projects and women’s empowerment: A case study in the province of Bohol, Philippines. Forum of International Development Studies, 32, 137–155.

17 Qashu, S. (2012). The effects of ecotourism on women’s traditional activities in gateway communities bordering Fray Jorge National Park, Chile. The George Wright Forum, 29(3), 371–378.

18 Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. & Hernandez-Ramirez, M. (2010). Tourism that empowers? Commodification and appropriation in Ecuador’s Turismo Comunitario. Critique Of Anthropology, 30(2), 201–229.

19 Schellhorn, M. (2010). Development for whom? Social justice and the business of ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 115–135.

20 Scheyvens, R. (2000). Promoting women’s empowerment through involvement in ecotourism: Experiences from the Third World. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(3), 232–249.

21 Scheyvens, R. (2007). Chapter 10: Ecotourism and gender issues. In Higham, J. (Ed.), Critical Issues in Ecotourism. U.K.: Routledge.

22 Schwartz, G. J. (2017). The role of women in payment for environmental services programs in Osa, Costa Rica. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(6), 890–910.

23 Stark, J. C. (2002). Ethics and ecotourism: Connections and conflicts. Philosophy & Geography, 5(1), 101–113.

24 Stronza, A. and Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 448–468.

25 Swain, M. B. and Swain, M. T. B. (2004). An ecofeminist approach to ecotourism development. Tourism Recreation Research, 29(3), 1–6.

26 The International Ecotourism Society [TIES]. (2013). Tourism and gender: How can tourism help empower women and promote gender equality? Retrieved at: http://www.ecotourism.org/news/tourism-and-gender-how-can-tourism-help-empower-women-and-promote-gender-equality

27 The International Ecotourism Society [TIES]. (2018). What is ecotourism? (2015). Retrieved at: http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism

28 Tran, L. and Walter P. (2014). Ecotourism, gender and development in northern Vietnam. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 116–130.

29 Tucker, H. and Boonabaana, B. (2012). A critical analysis of tourism, gender and poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 437–455.

30 United Nations. (2018). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

31 United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2018). Gender and tourism. Retrieved at http://www2.unwto.org/category/related/ethics-social-responsibility-programme/gender-and-tourism

32 United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2017). International Year of Sustainable Tourism For Development. Retrieved at http://www.tourism4development2017.org/

33 Vandegrift, D. (2008). “This isn’t paradise — I work here”: Global restructuring, the tourism industry, and women workers in Caribbean Costa Rica. Gender & Society, 22(6), 778–798.

34 Weaver, D. B. (2001). Ecotourism 2nd edition. Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

35 Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, B. DeAngelo, S. Doherty, K. Hayhoe, R. Horton, J.P. Kossin, P.C. Taylor, A.M. Waple, and C.P. Weaver. (2017). Executive summary. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 12–34, doi: 10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.

Endnotes

[1] Scheyvens (2000) page 232

[2] Scheyvens (2000) page 234

[3] Tran & Walter (2014) page 117

[4] see examples: Lai & Nepal (2006) and Juárez (2002) and Ruiz-Ballesteros & Hernández-Ramírez (2010)

[5] Vandegrift (2008) page 778–779

[6] Honey (1999) page 11

[7] Weaver (2008) page 8

[8] Weaver (2008)

[9] Ceballos-Lascurain (1996) in Scheyvens (2000) page 233

[10] Jones (2012) page 185

[11] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 52

[12] Relevant Sustainable Development Goals to ecotourism: Goal 8 = Decent work and economic growth; Goal 12 = Responsible consumption and production; Goals 14/15 = Life below water/on land | United Nations (2017)

[13] Scheyvens (2007) page 187

[14] Jones (2012) page 57–58

[15] Jones (2012) page 58

[16] Comberti et al. (2015)

[17] Comberti et al. (2015) page 248

[18] Wilkinson (2014) page 3

[19] Weaver (2008) page 253

[20] Comberti et al. (2015) page 248

[21] United Nations World Tourism Organization (2017)

[22] Wuebbles et al. (2017)

[23] Clark (2010)

[24] Isla (2014) page 35

[25] Wilkinson (2014) page 7

[26] Bloodhart & Swim (2010) page 187

[27] Isla (2014) page 36 ; emphasis added

[28] Swain & Swain (2004) page 3

[29] Scheyvens (2000) page 235; emphasis added

[30] Scheyvens (2007) page 189

[31] Wilkinson (2014) page 10

[32] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 438

[33] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 439

[34] Walter (2011) page 159

[35] A housewife in the Osa peninsula, Costa Rica, quoted in Schwartz (2017) page 897

[36] Tran & Walter (2014) page 118

[37] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 441

[38] Vandegrift (2008) page 783

[39] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 52

[40] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 446

[41] Walter (2011) page 164

[42] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 447–448

[43] Tran & Walter (2014) page 121

[44] Tran & Walter (2014) page 126

[45] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 52

[46] Schellhorn (2010) page 121

[47] Pleno (2006) page 142

[48] Pleno (2006) page 142

[49] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 450

[50] Tran & Walter (2014) page 124

[51] Tran & Walter (2014) page 124

[52] Scheyvens (2000) page 236

[53] Schellhorn (2010) page 129

[54] Agarwal (2001) in Hanson (2016) page 468

[55] Scheyvens (2007) page 189

[56] Hanson (2016) page 467

[57] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 439

[58] Schwartz (2017) page 896 ; emphasis added

[59] Schwartz (2017) page 901

[60] Beterams (1996) in Schellhorn (2010) page 118

[61] Dilly (2003) page 67

[62] Qashu (2012) page 374

[63] Qashu (2012) page 376

[64] Qashu (2012) page 377

[65] Tran & Walter (2014) page 123

[66] Tran & Walter (2014) page 122

[67] Tran & Walter (2014) page 127

[68] McMillan et al. (2011) page 193

[69] McMillan et al. (2011) page 196

[70] McMillan et al. (2011) page 198

[71] Tran & Walter (2014) page 118

[72] McMillan et al. (2011) page 191

[73] Scheyvens (2007) page 189 ; emphasis added

[74] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 54

[75] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 54

[76] Tucker & Boonabaana (2012) page 438

[77] Ward (2003) in Dilly (2003) page 63

[78] Scott (1995) in Dilly (2003) page 62

[79] Quisumbing (2017)

[80] Scheyvens (2000) page 243

[81] Bloodhart & Swim (2010) page 191

[82] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 51

[83] Dilly (2003) page 62

[84] Scheyvens (2000) page 244

[85] Stronza (2008) page 457 ; emphasis added

[86] Tran & Walter (2014) page 125

[87] Tran & Walter (2014) page 125

[88] Pleno (2006) page 152

[89] Pleno (2006) page 145

[90] Pleno (2006) page 147

[91] Pleno (2006) page 149

[92] Swain & Swain (2004)

[93] Little (2003)

[94] Hanson (2016) page 472

[95] Hanson (2016) page 478

[96] Garrett (2004) page 23

[97] Garrett (2004) page 24

[98] Garrett (2004) page 25

[99] McMillan et al. (2011) page 201

[100] McMillan et al. (2011) page 200

[101] McMillan et al. (2011) page 201

[102] McMillan et al. (2011) page 202

[103] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 55

[104] Dilly (2003) page 69

[105] Kinnaird & Hall (1994) in Tran & Walter (2014) page 128

[106] Mowforth & Munt (2003) in Schellhorn (2010) page 117

[107] Hanson (2016) page 468

[108] Ruiz-Ballesteros & Hernández-Ramírez (2010)

[109] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 55

[110] Lenao & Basupi (2016) page 56

[111] Manyara et al (2006) in Ruiz-Ballesteros & Hernández-Ramírez (2010) page 202

[112] Stark (2002) page 104–105

[113] Quisumbing (2017)

[114] Perkins (2007) page 227

[115] Perkins (2007)

[116] Perkins (2007) page 229

[117] Perkins (2007) page 227