Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum
Developing ecotourism in First World, resource-dependent areas
Deborah Che
Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, 3236 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA
Received 17 June 2003; received in revised form 25 December 2004
Abstract
Ecotourism, an economic diversification tool most commonly applied in the Third World as a means to protect ecosystems, pre- serve local cultures, and spur economic development, has recently been applied in First World resource-dependent areas. While eco- tourism has traditionally focused on Third World ÔundisturbedÕ protected lands, it has also been developed in their First World equivalents (i.e., old-growth forests) as well as in First World sites of past resource extraction and in places where current agricul- tural practices maintain cherished cultural landscapes. Forest County, Pennsylvania, a timber-dependent area, sought to diversify its economy by developing ecotourism based on its unique Allegheny hardwood forests, which are produced by timber harvesting. This ecotourism would encourage amenity-based, locally-driven economic development and maintain timber harvesting. While govern- ment and foundation supported ecotourism development efforts in areas dependent on resource extraction have incorporated some of ecotourismÕs ideals, these operations have had mixed success. Such isolated areas, which have traditionally drawn visitors inde- pendently engaging in traditional outdoor recreation activities, have not been able to draw enough customers willing to pay for nat- ural and cultural history tours. If ecotourism is to be successful, such areas may need further government support and destination branding to increase name recognition in order to counter the global orientation of the nature tour industry. For true community development, local collaborative efforts including resource and environmental interests are also required in which primary produc- tion is connected to processing and consumers through value-added and service sector activities such as tourism. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ecotourism; Resource dependency; Destination marketing; First World; Rural development
1. Introduction In its publication, Pennsylvania ecotourism: Untapped potential, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania reported Ecotourism conjures up images of yuppies don- that ecotourism could be an economic development tool ning pith helmets and traveling to Antarctica to for the stateÕs rural areas given PennsylvaniaÕs many pose with penguins. The reality is that over 40% unique ecosystems and cultural attractions. Individuals of the U.S. population participates in some form involved in economic development in Northwestern of ecotourism. It is the fastest growing segment PennsylvaniaÕs Forest County, which had two feder- in the travel industry. The challenge to rural Penn- ally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and Allegheny sylvanians is how to tap this market while main- National Forest (ANF) lands making up 42% of its land taining their quality of life and preserving the base, were intrigued by ecotourismÕs possibilities for the environment (Center for Rural Pennsylvania, struggling economy. Following the 1980 and 1992 clos- 1995, p. 5). ing of its two large manufacturing facilities, the county consistently had the highest unemployment rate in the Commonwealth, an average household income far be- low the state average, and an aging, declining popula- E-mail address: [email protected] tion due to the outmigration of youth. While Forest
0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.010 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 213
County received $13.9 million in ANF revenues from settings’’ as a means of using natural resources to sup- 1987 to 1997, derived mainly from timber sales on port economic activity without compromising economic ANF lands within the county (USDA Forest Service, growth, the environmental carrying capacity, or social Allegheny National Forest, 1998), primary production equity. Specifically, ecotourism has been promoted for generated limited real community development as it Third World areas with comparative advantages in was not linked to processing or consumers. Its valuable abundant natural, scenic and cultural resources as a second- and third-growth hardwoods were often ex- consumptive alternative to productivist resource extrac- ported raw out of state or overseas. It was believed that tion and agriculture. Hector Ceballos-Lascurain coined ecotourism could supplement traditional hunting and the term in 1983 as ‘‘...traveling to relatively undis- fishing recreation associated with post-World War II turbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific seasonal home development for residents of western objective of studying, admiring and enjoying the scenery Pennsylvania and eastern OhioÕs industrial centers such and its wild plants and animals as well as any existing as Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Youngstown, Ohio (For- cultural manifestations’’ (Ziffer, 1989) While Ziffer asso- est County Assessment Office, 1978). Although the ciated ecotourism with visitation to relatively undevel- county had limited old-growth, the county had exten- oped areas to appreciate natural and cultural history, sive, successional Allegheny hardwood forests, a cul- she also incorporated conservation and local economic tural landscape produced by clear-cutting at the turn benefits derived through a managed approach where of the 20th century and a valuable timber resource the host country and region work to establish and main- requiring harvesting to regenerate its shade-intolerant tain sites with the participation of local residents (Ziffer, species. Focusing on the Allegheny hardwoods would 1989). also allow Forest County to counteract the Allegheny While varying definitions of ecotourism have been Defense Project (ADP), a so-called ÔradicalÕ group of developed that range from any tourism based on nature ÔoutsiderÕ environmentalists, which advocated the cessa- to a non-invasive, non-consumptive, sustainable, educa- tion of timber harvesting on the ANF, and replacing tional and low-impact form of tourism that may be dif- timber with a tourism-based economy. Ecotours, which ficult to achieve (Orams, 1995), broadly ecotourism focused on the unique, Allegheny hardwood forest type consists of the following components: conservation ben- produced by human uses, could both bring in tourism efits, the nature-based experience/activity, the setting, revenue and support multiple-use management, includ- and economic and social benefits. Ecotourism should ing timber harvesting. benefit conservation through improved management of This paper will investigate the development of eco- visited natural areas/ecosystems (Furze et al., 1995) tourism in areas dependent on resource extraction like and strengthen tourist and local appreciation and dedi- Forest County. It will first examine the literature on eco- cation to conservation issues both in general and to tourism, which derives mainly from Third World experi- the specific needs of the locale (Ziffer, 1989). The eco- ences in seemingly ‘‘pristine’’ settings with diverse and tourism activity should have a strong focus on learning charismatic flora and fauna. Then this paper will look through interpretation of local ecology and cultural her- at alternative settings for ecotourism in the First World itage (Furze et al., 1995). Educational programming on such as sites of former and current productivist uses. the siteÕs ecological functions and biodiversity as well as Following a brief history of forest and landholding its cultural heritage distinguishes ecotourism from other changes in northwestern Pennsylvania which resulted forms of nature-based tourism (Diamantis, 1999). Sec- in the Allegheny hardwoods and increased public forest ondly, to aid in the educational/interpretive process, ownership, it will focus on the case of ecotourism devel- the ecotourism activity should be guided (Romund opment in Forest County, Pennsylvania. Then this and Miller, 1996) and provide high cognitive (informa- paper will assess the experience with ecotourism devel- tional) and effective (emotional) dimensions to the oped in such First World areas dependent on resource experience (Nelson, 1994). Lastly, it should provide a extraction. Finally, the paper will end with discussion first-hand, participatory experience (Wight, 1993) that and conclusions on why ecotourism may not be able does not degrade the resource. The ecotourism activity to supplant productivist activities in these areas. Local should be small-scale and hands-on. Working with small collaborative efforts there may further ecotourism and groups of ecotourists (10–15 as a norm per tour) (Ro- tourism to better supplement, not replace, primary mund and Miller, 1996) facilitates both the educational production. process and may mitigate touristsÕ environmental impact. Guiding small groups of ecotourists can contribute to 2. Ecotourism: In definition and practice local economic and social benefits that are critical to the success of ecotourism ventures, as wildlife conservation Ecotourism has been portrayed as a form of sustain- set-asides through national park establishment and able development, primarily in Third World ‘‘pristine associated tourism in the Third World can negatively 214 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 impact host communities. Local communities have been which might result in preservationist policies where lo- restricted from former productivist uses such as farming, cals are excluded from visited pristine natural areas. forestry, grazing, mining, and hunting in visited pro- Deep ecotourism would be more sustainable than shal- tected areas as well as surrounding buffer areas. Concur- low ecotourism in the long-run. rently, local peoples often receive little or no benefit Finally, ecotourism should be set in natural areas from the parks or tourism, which frequently flow out- and/or places with special biological, ecological, or cul- side the destination area to foreign investors. This ex- tural interest (Furze et al., 1995). The ecotourism setting clusionary preservationist approach has resulted in should encompass ecotourismÕs biocentric rather than poaching, resource degradation, and hostile actions to- homocentric philosophy of accepting Nature largely ward the parks (i.e., arson, threatening guards) and on its terms rather than significantly transforming the tourists (Honey, 1999; Neumann, 1995; Place, 1995). environment for humansÕ personal convenience (Nelson, Given such problems and limited resources to police 1994). Third World nature tourism and ecotourism set- parks from surrounding communities, some wildlife tings have traditionally been legally Ôprotected areasÕ or conservation projects have built in local benefits and relatively undisturbed natural areas where local people management of reserves through controlled harvesting/ have been excluded from historically used lands. Such use of resources, receipt of some tourism revenues, and ecotourism is not necessarily environmentally or eco- park employment (Grainger, 2003; Hamilton et al., nomically sustainable. As tourism can convey status 2000; Western, 1997). via particular overseas (fashionable) destinations, level Because the definition of ecotourism combines visita- of service (accommodation, mode of travel, etc), and tion, conservation, and the local participation that have recreation activities (Britton, 1991), ecotourism opera- been missing in many Third World conservation pro- tions that are supposed to be biocentric are actually jects, it should generate local cultural, social, and expensive and exclusive. As an example, Cater (2004) economic benefits. Such local benefits are critical to notes that NepalÕs Tiger Mountain Lodge which has ecotourismÕs long-term sustainability. The ÔecoÕ in eco- won Conde Nast TravelerÕs Ecotourism Award 2000 tourism can stand for economics, as tourism is essen- and Highly Commended Status for the Conservation tially a commercial activity (Furze et al., 1995). International Ecotourism Excellence Awards 2000, has Ecotourism has the potential to contribute to the eco- a swimming pool from which one can view the Pokhara nomic well-being of a locality or region and diversify lo- Valley below. Not only has the landscape been substan- cal economies by providing alternative employment and tially transformed for human uses, but such highly cap- entrepreneurial opportunities. Involvement in the devel- italized ventures involve significant leakage from the opment process allows a community to decide what type ecotourism host communities. of growth it needs, assist in managing the impacts, and Even in its more small-scale settings, ecotourism may to have a sense of ownership in ecotourism which can in- not lead to the promised economic benefits. Unlike mass clude economic diversification through new forms of tourism which creates one out of 15 jobs worldwide, ecological enterprises, such as the farming of exotic small-scale ecotourism projects may only create one in plants and animals. Business and job creation based 10,000 jobs (Wheeller, 1994). Even in Costa Rica, con- on local craft and specialty goods production outside servation through ecotourism may not be sustainable. visited areas often are more justifiable to local people The Costa Rican national parks charge only $2 per head than government subsidies for conservation which can for admission and generate only half a million dollars be removed. Such activities can distribute benefits to income, which is insufficient to maintain the park sys- the local community through employment. tem. Even the privately-run Monteverde Cloud Forest Differential economic and social benefits to locals and Preserve, which draws more than 15,000 visitors a year visitors can be viewed through the lens of shallow and at $8 per head, depends on donations from individuals deep ecotourism. While utilizing some of the terminol- and bodies such as the World Wide Fund for Nature ogy of deep ecology, deep ecotourism holds an intrinsic (Burnie, 1994). As a result of potentially limited eco- value of small-scale, community participation as well as nomic benefits, tourism may thus not provide the eco- that of nature. Deep ecotourists attempt to understand nomic justification for preserving hundreds of square the culture in a deeper sense without disturbing or miles of rainforests, especially since tourists find walking undermining local people, who they recognize are a part around a few acres of forest adequate (Brooke, 1991). of nature. Acott et al. (1998) propose that the Ladakh First World ecotourism development may also not farm project, which places Westerners as volunteer help fit the ecotourism ÔidealÕ. Following the protected area in homes as part of a larger project focusing on appro- stipulation, less than a quarter of the 22 nature-based priate human activities, sustainable lifestyles, biodiver- tourism operators in British Columbia would be subse- sity and the ecological integrity of the landscape, is an quently classified as ecotourism operators (Bottrill and example of deep ecotourism. In contrast, shallow eco- Pearce, 1995). In places like Forest County, focusing tourism prioritizes profit and touristsÕ aesthetic pleasure, on undisturbed natural areas could both constrain D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 215 ecotourism development and timber harvesting on pub- require current and on-going productivist activities by lic lands. But broadened definitions of ecotourism may the majority/non-indigenous culture. Such ecotourism allow for its extended application and benefits to local landscapes may fit what Ayala (1996) calls ‘‘place prod- communities. ucts’’. In contrast to vacation products, which offer the ‘‘theme of a sunshine break, a generic tropical paradise, and sightseeing’’, place products have clear ‘‘ecological, 3. First World ecotourism settings: Incorporating cultural, and geographical identities’’ whose ‘‘quality de- former, present, and future human uses rive from the destinationsÕ heritage resources and the experience of those resources’’ (Ayala, 1996, p. 51). Aya- As many idealistic definitions of ecotourism are gen- la argues that GermanyÕs Rhoen Biosphere Reserve, a erally inoperable (i.e., that it take place in the limited historical agricultural area characterized by interspersed number of unmodified or pristine areas), more recent small settlements, rolling hills, woodlands, pastures, ecotourism development has focused on cultural eco- meadows, fruit orchards, and hedgerows that have given tourism settings which are not so-called ÔpristineÕ or Ôun- it ecological stability and diversity, should be considered touchedÕ places. First World ecotourism has allowed such an ecotourism place product. While not Ôpristine,Õ including marginalized, indigenous cultures and derived the Rhoen represents an old central European cultural landscapes such as AustraliaÕs Ayers Rock. For Aborig- landscape whose biodiversity (wild species and agricul- inal Australians, tourism has generated jobs, investment tural strains) depends on traditional low-intensity opportunities, supported small-scale, family-based oper- land-uses such as pasture and meadow management. ations, and provided outlets for selling arts and crafts The open landscape requires on-going production and (Altman and Finlayson, 1993). is threatened by the decline of agriculture, increased fal- Broadened reformulations of ecotourism also can low land, and afforestation (UNESCO Man and Bio- allow for operations on sites of former and current pro- sphere Programme, 2002). While not pristine, like ductivist activities of the dominant culture. Boyd and other UN Biosphere Reserves, the Rhoen integrates bio- Butler (1999) suggest that less exotic, temperate First diversity conservation, socio-culturally and ecologically World landscapes such as the remote, northern Cana- sustainable development, and open, evolving and adap- dian forests known for sport hunting and fishing, can tive management between the local community and soci- offer new, different ecotourism destinations. Despite a ety as a whole that seems to fit the idealized conception long history of resource extraction, to urban Canadians of ecotourism (UNESCO Man and Biosphere Pro- the area is seemingly a vast wilderness of forests, rivers, gramme, n.d.). Importantly for ecotourism develop- and lakes. However, problems of seasonality and access ment, this adaptive human management has produced exist given the limited infrastructure and large distance a unique place product with a clear ecological, cultural, between features and attractions. Additionally, northern and geographical identity which makes the Rhoen a dis- Ontario has relatively limited landscape variety and tinctive, aesthetic pleasing place to visit. Ecotourism diversity compared to Third World tropical destina- may provide the economic benefits necessary to main- tions. In addition to rural productivist sites, Higham tain the cherished agrarian landscape. and Luck (2002) detail how natural-based settings in Elsewhere in Europe, IUCN (the World Conserva- New ZealandÕs urban areas can be ecotourist venues. tion Union) designated protected landscapes also have These former industrial lands historically used for quar- been managed for conservation and recreation (Zupan- rying, reservoir water control, fisheries and transporta- cic-Vicar, 1997). In the Eifel-Hohes Venn region of Bel- tion industries have received high visitor satisfaction. gium and Germany, tourism has been based on the The researchers found that such modified areas could following landscapes which were shaped by centuries be acceptable as ecotourist venues if they were well of human use and which conserve both nature and re- presented and managed, aesthetically pleasing and if gional identity: (1) the Eifelvorland (fields, farms built they provided the opportunity to observe wildlife. They from limestone, hedges and limestone quarries); (2) the could also yield greater environmental benefits than Hohe Venn (moorland, beech hedges); (3) the Hocheifel ecotourism in ÔpristineÕ areas as they could generate (narrow, deep valleys, elongated forested hilltops, environmental benefits through reclamation, provide hedges); (4) the Rureifel (meandering, deeply carving conservation education to a wider, generalist audience, rivers, storage lakes used by old wool factories, tim- and have less environmental impact given their accessi- ber-framed buildings in the town of Monschau); and bility and the existence of infrastructure in urban areas. (5) the Kalkeifel (intensive agriculture, Roman remains, Given their wider audience, they might also be more cloth weaving, the town of Bad Munstereifel) (Kreisel, financially sustainable operations and thus generate 2004, pp. 175–176). Tour operators developed environ- greater economic benefits to host communities. mental-friendly tour packages which included farm- In other areas of the First World, ecotourism devel- to-farm hikes, meals, overnight stays, which increase opment has been proposed for cherished landscapes that tourist spending, manage tourist interaction with hosts 216 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 and nature, and minimize their environmental impacts associated with the Allegheny hardwoods was proposed (Nature oriented tourism offers, n.d.). In managing such as part of a broader strategy to secure continued access protected landscapes, the question has been raised on to the forestÕs resources. how to do this without fossilizing societies and their land uses (Phillips, 1997). One would not want to per- petuate underdevelopment and unequal status as the 4. Production and property relations in the Allegheny Anglo romanticization of American Indian and His- hardwood forest panic cultures did in selling Taos for art and tourism in the early 20th century (Rodriguez, 1989). AmericaÕs forests have long been shaped by human While the aforementioned New Zealand and Euro- land uses. Prior to European settlement, Native Ameri- pean cases looked respectively at areas of past extraction cans used fire to manipulate tree species (Denevan, that have been reclaimed, and at areas of on-going agri- 1992). Especially in the northeastern US, Euro-Ameri- cultural activity tied to the local culture, First World cans have intentionally or unintentionally shaped forests ecotourism may also take place in areas such as north- through patterns of clearing, reforestation, afforestation ern Ontario and northwestern PennsylvaniaÕs Forest and agricultural, residential/recreational, and industrial County (Fig. 1) that are the products of historic, cur- development (Irland, 1999; Whitney, 1990; Williams, rent, (and future) industrial extraction linked to the 1989). The Allegheny hardwood forest type, which was local, non-indigenous culture. In the next section, I will created by human action, is unique to the northern tier detail how northwestern PennsylvaniaÕs forests and of Pennsylvania (including Forest County and the ANF property relations were shaped by human extraction. region), parts of New York, and down the Allegheny Then I will outline the parameters for economic and eco- Front into Maryland and northern West Virginia. Like tourism development in resource-dependent Forest the wider ranging Northern hardwood type, the Alle- County, which include on-going resource extraction, as gheny hardwood type has sugar maples, red maples well specific thematic tours that have been developed and beech, but it distinctively contains at least 25% around the shade-intolerant Allegheny hardwoods. black cherry by basal area (Horsley, 2003). This forest Given that this forest type requires continued overstory type differs greatly from the ÔoriginalÕ or pre-European removal for reproduction, ecotourism development settlement forest. The pre-European forest found in
Fig. 1. Allegheny National Forest region. D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 217
Forest County and the ANF region was dominated by remaining pine, hemlock, and hardwoods (Marquis, shade-tolerant hemlock and beech. The now-abundant, 1975). The heavily capitalized, large-scale big band saw- commercially valuable shade-intolerant black cherry mills, tanneries, and wood chemical plants that pro- made up only 0.09% of the original forest prior to duced charcoal, acetic acid, wood alcohol and other 1820 (Marquis, 1975). Oak types, which are associated wood distillation products necessitated the financing of with Native American settlements and use of fire (Ruff- logging railroads into the remote, heavily forested up- ner et al., 1997), made up 5.7% of the pre-European set- lands. To feed the sawmills, tanneries, and wood chem- tlement forest. Finally, white pine, whose wood initiated ical plants at this large scale of operations, the virgin the areaÕs land acquisition and timber harvesting, made and partially cut forests of the Allegheny Plateau were up 3% of the pre-European forest cover (Marquis, almost completely clearcut in what Marquis (1975) 1975). called ‘‘the highest degree of forest utilization that the The Allegheny hardwoods were produced by succes- world has ever seen in any commercial lumbering area’’. sive harvesting phases in Forest County and the ANF The Allegheny hardwoods, which were adapted to the region. The initial harvesting phase (1800–1830) open conditions, regenerated after the massive clearcuts consisted of early pioneer clearings and the selective of the logging railroad era. This type increased in abun- harvesting and processing of white pine by water- dance from 11.6% to 64% of the forest. The formerly powered, family-operated sawmills. The water transpor- dominant shade-tolerant, and presently commercially tation harvesting phase (1830–1890) was marked by undesirable, hemlock and beech now make up approxi- harvesting white pine from this resource hinterland to mately 16% of the second-growth forest, down from feed building construction in downstream Pittsburgh, 63% of the pre-settlement forest (1995 overstory data Cincinnati and New Orleans (Wilhelm, 1953). Following in Table 1)(USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National cutting of most of the old-growth white pine stands, oil Forest, 1995). Complete clearcuts which occurred adja- drilling, which required large quantities of lumber for rig cent to the logging railroads now yield the mature, construction, and the leather industry, which utilized exceptionally high quality black cherry on the ANF. tannins in hemlock bark to cure cattle and buffalo hides, Western Pennsylvania produces some of the highest furthered timber harvesting (Casler, 1973). In the third quality black cherry as it grows straighter and more timber harvesting phase, the capital-intensive, steam- valuable than in other parts of its range where lack of powered, ‘‘logging railroad’’ era (1890–1920), both facil- competition from other fast-growing species led to its itated and required year-round clearcutting of the greater forking (Horsley, 2003). The ANF now holds
Table 1 Allegheny National Forest composition Species Composition (%) Common name Scientific name 1793–1819a 1973a 1995b Overstory 1995b Understory Ash Fraxinus spp. 0.8 2.1 2 – Aspen Populus spp. 0.1 4.9 –c – American beech Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. 43.4 6.0 9 9 Birch Betula spp. 6.3 8.5 5 4 Black cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. 0.8 22.6 28 47 Chestnut Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. 2.8 Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr 19.9 5.8 7 – Hickory Carya spp. 0.9 0.1 Linn Tilia americana L. 0.4 0.7 Red maple Acer rubrum L. 4.7 27.3 25 16 Black and Scarlet oak Quercus velutina Lam. and Q. coccinea Muenchh. 0.6 0.7 – Chestnut oak Quercus primus L. 0.4 0.2 – – Red oak Quercus rubra L. 0.6 2.3 3 2 White oak Quercus alba L. 4.1 2.0 1 – Poplar Liriodendron tulipfera L. 0.2 0.3 1 Sugar maple Acer saccharum Marsh. 5.3 13.3 11 1 White pine Pinus strobus L. 3.1 0.4 1 Total number of stems 1244 9.64E+07 68,825 193,872 a Source: Whitney (1990, 445). b Source: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest (1995, Appendix L-8, L-9). c Notation means that the species, while indicated in the survey, represents less than 1% of the total number of stems. In the 1995 analysis of timber harvest capability, composition data was only given for the more commonly found species. For species where no composition data was given, this does not indicate the species was not present. Rather, its presence in the sample of 6000 plots may be negligible. 218 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226
80% of the worldÕs black cherry sawtimber and veneer. est, (2) had low populations (<10,000 for local govern- Its commercial values which are now peaking produced ments or <22,500 for counties), and (3) had at least the highest revenues of any national forest in 1997. Tim- 15% of their payroll and proprietor income derived from ber harvesting generated 99% of ANF gross receipts forestry, wood products, and forest-related industries- (Logging losses, 1998). would be eligible for 80:20 matching ER funds (USDA Following industrial forest clearing, the predominant Forest Service, Economic Action Program, 1995). private cutover lands in the Allegheny River watershed Nationwide, the ER program supported heritage tour- became part of the national forest system. Under the ism, special forest products harvesting (i.e., gourmet Weeks Act of 1911, which authorized the Forest Service mushrooms, seed cones), handcrafted furniture produc- to purchase, reforest, and manage watersheds of naviga- tion, etc. (USDA Forest Service, 1996). Forest County ble waters like the Allegheny River in order to address was eligible for ER funds as it had national forest lands, concerns about national timber famines, local timber a low population, and 51% of its payroll and proprietor provision and employment, and downstream flooding income derived from forest industries. The Forest (Douglass, 1990; Sarvis, 1993), the Forest Service ac- County Action Team (FCAT), a group of local citizens quired cut-over land in the Allegheny watershed for a who organized to access ER funds, felt ecotourism had few dollars an acre to form the ANF (Frank, 1998). the potential to diversify the countyÕs economy. The ANF provided custodial management to reforest For ecotourism development, the Center for Rural the land and sell the timber produced to small, local Pennsylvania held up Ozark Ecotours of Newton operators1 (400,000 acre preserve in Allegheny County, Arkansas as the model for areas without tour- watershed, 1921; Proclaims Allegheny National Forest, ism infrastructure. With financial support from the 1923). USDA Forest Service, Winthrop Rockefeller Founda- To produce and reproduce the valuable Allegheny tion, and the US Department of CommerceÕs Economic hardwood forest, the ANF utilized even-aged manage- Development Administration, the non-profit Newton ment techniques such as clearcutting, final shelterwood County Resource Council (NCRC) developed Ozark cutting, intermediate harvesting, seed cutting, and thin- Ecotours, a job creation program/nature tour company ning. Even-aged management which opened up the to help Newton County residents put together small- canopy best satisfied the reproduction and growth scale ecotours based on the natural resources and requirements of the high-value, shade-intolerant, short- cultural (pioneer, Native American, outlaw) heritage er-lived Allegheny hardwood species, especially as of the OzarksÕ Buffalo River region. In addition to the regeneration under uneven-aged management through $40 cost of the day tours, customers spent an average selective cutting often failed given above carrying capac- of $80+ per day/per person for gifts, gas, food, and lod- ity deer populations (USDA Forest Service, Allegheny ging (Knox, 1997), thus benefiting the wider community. National Forest, 1986). These management techniques Ozark Ecotours embodied ecotourismÕs ideals, as its halted the transition to a maturing forest increasingly maximum of 12 visitors per tour group learned about dominated by shade-tolerant species like hemlock. the areaÕs natural and cultural resources and became ‘‘part of an ecological ethic which promotes an increased sense of stewardship and conservation instead of short 5. Timber harvesting and ecotourism in forest county term profits reaped through depletion and pollution of the environment’’ (Newton County Resource Council, While such timber harvesting provided funding for n.d.). Ecotourism would supplement timber and tradi- schools and roads, it did not fully address problems with tional recreational activities such as river floats in order unemployment and poverty in Forest County. Follow- to address the isolated countyÕs endemic poverty. ing the Center for Rural PennsylvaniaÕs 1995 publica- For ecotourism development, the Center for Rural tion of Pennsylvania ecotourism: Untapped potential, Pennsylvania also emphasized two resources the state Forest County sought support for ecotourism develop- had comparative advantages relative to other eastern ment from the USDA Forest ServiceÕs Economic Recov- states: old-growth forests and migratory forest song- ery (ER) program. The ER program, which was birds. Except for the Great Smoky Mountains National authorized by the National Forest-Dependent Rural Park, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and portions of Communities Diversification Act of 1990 (1990 Farm New England and New York, Pennsylvania contained Bill, Title 23, Subtitle G, Chapter 2) supported economic both the largest total land area (over 10,000 acres) and diversification and entrepreneurship based on localized largest single contiguous tracts of unlogged, virgin old- resources. Non-metropolitan local governments or growth forest in the entire eastern US. The report found counties that were (1) within 100 miles of a national for- that old-growth in particular held the potential to accommodate an ecotourism industry, as such forests were of tremendous aesthetic importance to individuals 1 While local, these operations are now capital-intensive operations. and were rated highly by the public for scenic viewing, D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 219 hiking, and camping. The old-growth forest also pro- omy, diversification of that timber-dependent vided habitat for migratory songbird species that were economy must occur. One way to diversify the similarly a unique attraction. Unlike in the US West, economy is to introduce value-added processing extractive industries such as timber did not appear to of raw timber materials, current conditions are have an adverse effect on old-growth areas of the Com- on primary processing only. Another way to diver- monwealth given state park (and national monument) sify the local economy is to diversify in other areas restrictions on harvesting remaining stands (Center for of resource utilization, such as with the enhance- Rural Pennsylvania, 1995). This eastern old-growth also ment of the tourism industry (Carlson, 1997a). had limited commercial timber value. Enhancement of the tourism industry involved inves- In touting the potential for old-growth ecotourism, tigating markets such as ecotourism that went beyond the Center for Rural Pennsylvania highlighted places traditional hunting and fishing activities. that were similar to the so-called pristine, untouched vis- ER support for assessing the feasibility of ecotourism ited areas where ecotourism had been developed in the was sought because the county had comparative advan- Third World rather than the aforementioned urban rec- tages in ecotourism resources. It had two federally- lamation sites in New Zealand and the European cul- designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and extensive, tural landscapes. While touting ecotourism for rural publicly-owned forests. In contrast, the county had no Pennsylvania, the report posed a challenge for Forest interstate highway connection and limited infrastruc- County, as it had very limited old-growth tracts,2 but ture, two conditions which made industrial recruitment did have extensive, second-growth hardwoods and his- unlikely.3 The ecotourism feasibility study, for which toric small towns associated with the logging era. the author of this paper was the consultant, would Ecotourism as conceived by the FCAT was meant to provide information on the activities, resources, demo- be compatible with traditional productivist activities graphics, and marketing of Forest County ecotourism. and to be an additional component in a diversified econ- The next section will focus on ecotourism activities omy. The FCATÕs proposal for ER funding for a Forest based around the culturally-produced Allegheny hard- County ecotourism feasibility study noted this, stating: woods. An economically stable Forest County is the goal of this project and of all the efforts of the Forest County Action Team. A preservation of the eco- logic treasures of the county is as important as well 6. Ecotours in the Allegheny hardwoods as a balance of natural resource extraction activi- of forest county ties... A balanced, diversified economic picture within Forest County will assure the survival of Given the lack of old-growth, the ecotours of Forest the unique citizens of the county. That balanced County centered on its greatest culturally-derived re- and diversified economy will have to include tour- source, the Allegheny hardwoods and related historic ism, it always has. Ecotourism may be an impor- settlements. This forested cultural landscape could be tant portion of the whole tourism picture of the considered a ‘‘unique place product’’ for ecotourism county (Forest County Action Team, 1994). development. The Allegheny hardwoods had a clear ecological, cultural, and geographical identity linked to The compatibility of tourism with the economically timber harvesting which fortuitously resulted in a com- important timber industry was further reinforced by mercially valuable forest. the FCAT Chairman, who stated: Prior to the ecotourism feasibility study, preliminary Our main objective on the Forest County Action ecotour packages had been drawn up in response to Team is the exploration of alternative ways to inquiries on ecotourism possibilities to sell the unique diversifying the local economy. There is a direct place product tied to local culture. A proposed business, link and interdependence between the raw materi- Forest Adventures Ecotours, Ltd. would offer tours als harvested from the Allegheny National Forest, that the local timber industry and the economy of For- provide a window of life in our area, yesterday and est County. As environmental pressures mount, today. The perspective and view being provided the harvest of timber off National Forest lands by those persons familiar with our area, persons becomes more tenuous. To sustain the local econ- who live here by choice because of their love for the hills in the Allegheny hardwood forests of
2 While the county had limited old-growth tracts, there were well- known sites in neighboring Warren (HeartsÕ Content in the ANF), Jefferson (Cook Forest State Park), and McKean (Tionesta Scenic 3 Arguably this lack of infrastructure could also hamper tourism Area in the ANF) counties. visitation and development. 220 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226
Pennsylvania. Forests, rivers, and streams, timber, tions. In addition to touring pre- and post-industrial coal, and oil shaped our history. Prehistoric and logging areas, a tour could also point out the effect of historic perspectives are offered in the packages Native Americans (Ôprehistoric silviculturalistsÕ) and of to give the visitor a unique experience on a unique settler agriculture. One could show how species distribu- people and land (Forest Adventures Ecotours, tion was correlated with that of prehistoric sites as Na- Ltd., n.d.). tive Americans used fire to manipulate the landscape for oak, which requires disturbances, and for hickory (for The offered packages specifically centered on the nuts and food for hunted animals like deer). This tour Allegheny hardwood resource. One package, ‘‘The Alle- could also visit remnants of historical resource extrac- gheny Hardwood Forests of Pennsylvania. Yesterday, tion settlements (i.e., Ôghost townsÕ) and abandoned Today & Tomorrow’’, provided an introduction to the farms with agricultural tree species. Telling the vegeta- unique Allegheny hardwood ecology, explaining the link tion history informed the present on-going production to past human extraction and compatibility with current and reproduction of the Allegheny hardwoods. As and future timbering: mature hardwoods were harvested, the resulting open A brief look at the forest history will allow the vis- conditions favored reproduction of black cherry, the itor to understand the what and why of the current Allegheny hardwoodsÕ most commercially valuable forests in a temporal context. Objective of the lec- species. Black cherry now makes up 47% of the under- ture is to provide basic information on the forest story (Table 1). trees, animals, and wildflowers within the frame- It was hoped that Allegheny hardwoods ecotourism work and perspective of the local forests being could generate some of ecotourismÕs vaunted benefits. providers of raw materials as well as recreational For tourists who were not familiar with ecosystems in playgrounds (Forest Adventures Ecotours, Ltd., this area, the FCAT hoped ecotours could lead to great- n.d.). er appreciation of the Allegheny hardwood forest (i.e., how it was produced by past human uses and how its fu- Likewise, another proposed tour to the Hickory Wil- ture is being shaped by human and other animal uses). derness area in the ANF examined Allegheny hardwood Increased awareness of the Allegheny hardwoodsÕ forest ecology and dynamics in an Eastern wildernessÕ uniqueness could shape visitorsÕ perceptions on its man- mountain streams, upland forested wetlands, reverting agement (i.e., timber harvesting as a key management fields and deep forests (Forest Adventures Ecotours, tool). Locally some residents felt ecotourism could be Ltd., n.d.). While this tour visited an Eastern wilderness the vehicle to raise appreciation of the forest by locals area with few roads relative to the rest of the forest, it who did not recognize the areaÕs valuable ecotourism consisted of forests that regenerated following industrial resources. If ecotourism provided employment and clearcutting around a century ago, rather than the entrepreneurial opportunities, the local constituency untrammeled areas lyrically described in the Wilderness for conservation and forest management could be Act. strengthened. A more encompassing tour, developed with input These economic benefits were most desired in Forest from ANF archaeologists for the Forest County eco- County. The FCAT director hoped ecotourism would tourism feasibility study, focused on the areaÕs vegeta- spur local entrepreneurial activities and job creation. tive history, in which the Allegheny hardwoods While an ecotourism business (either new or a linkage featured prominently. The vegetative history told an of current tourism providers) would, like traditional interesting story of how the ecosystem changed with outdoor recreation development, primarily benefit the manÕs use of the land. This tour could inform individu- business owners, the FCAT director hoped ecotourism als that the current hardwood forest is the product of could potentially help reverse the exodus of young, intel- past human uses, rather than the Ôforest primevalÕ. Such ligent kids. Ideally ecotourism could provide a few of a thematic tour could start with a short slide show of the the Ôbest and brightestÕ with a way to stay (Carlson, changes in the Allegheny forests over time (slides of the 1997b). old-growth pine/hemlock; changes due to successive In addition to ecotourism ideally generating eco- selective harvests of white pine and hemlock; clearcut- nomic benefits, its proponents hoped it would also help ting; and then the current hardwood-dominated forest). maintain the local culture based on working in the The tour could then visit remnants of old-growth at woods and continued multiple-use management and Cook Forest State Park and/or Hearts Content, fol- access to the forests. During the period when the Forest lowed by visits to areas of the forest to show (1) areas County ecotourism feasibility study was being con- that were clearcut that are now dominated by valuable ducted, the ADP filed the first lawsuit against the forest hardwood species; (2) areas that were selectively cut and successfully halted the Mortality II timber harvest and now contain a mix of hemlock, beech, pine, black and reforestation project (English, 1997). Following this cherry and maple; and (3) circa 1930s CCC pine planta- first successful lawsuit, the FCAT chairman wearing his D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 221 hat as Forest County Conservation and Planning Dis- Ecotourism associated with the culturally-produced trict director4 wrote of a nightmare outcome involving hardwoods could help stave off the nightmare scenario the destruction of the unique Allegheny hardwoods for- and contribute to local planning activities designed to est type and the human communities dependent on its maintain access to the multiple-use forest. As Allegheny production and reproduction should the ADP prevail hardwoods ecotourism could sell the countyÕs assets, its in permanently halting timber harvests: quality of life and forests produced by the countyÕs tim- ber heritage as well as help diversify the countyÕs econ- LetÕs say the preservationists win and create the omy, the Forest County ecotourism feasibility study wilderness they envision, through non-manage- was recommended as an addendum to the Forest ment of these forests. Our citizen would see vast County Comprehensive Plan (Forest County Conserva- areas where the forest has no trees, just ferns and tion District and Planning Department, 1997). Thus the brush. Why? Well, many of the oak had died off development of Allegheny hardwood ecotourism was through repeated cycles of drought and insect pre- linked to economic diversification as well as to the strug- dation. The black cherry and maple fared a little gle over access to public lands and resources. Advancing better and now dominate most of the remaining ecotourism under these aims would be a political, as intact forest tracts. Deer are almost extinct locally; much as an economic exercise. they left when the food source died. The contigu- While the resource extraction in Forest County is ous and unbroken forest canopy has not allowed industrialized and highly-capitalized and its seemingly any regeneration of tree seedlings. The deer that worthless cutover land was sold, not seized by the cen- stayed are thin and diseased, too weak to move tral government, the struggle to maintain customary for food. land use and access to the now valuable timber resources One astounding thing the citizen would notice resembles those in the Third World. Pastoral groups in would be how few people remain living in Forest Tanzania have similarly utilized the language of sustain- County; most of those who remain did not have able development to challenge the linkage of nature roots in the County but work for the Federal protection with economic development and prohibiting and State government as caretakers of the vast locals from managing and profiting from wildlife governmental holdings. By 2097, less than 10% (Neumann, 1995). Allegheny hardwoods ecotourism of the County remains in private holdings. challenges exclusion from resources by focusing on Something that the citizens in 1997 didnÕt know preserving land rights and local customs and culture tied a lot about - the Wildlands Project5 - has turned to human-produced nature, rather than on preserving Forest County into a wilderness corridor where so-called pristine nature. Maintaining access to and con- human entry is prohibited. No longer are people trol over resources, emphasizing livelihoods based on allowed to visit the Tionesta Creek Valley for fear traditional land uses, and stressing the importance of of disturbing the so-called ‘‘recovering species of local histories and culture tied to resource use are wildlife’’. Of course, a species census reveals that common to First and Third World political ecology fewer species of wildlife now make Forest County struggles (McCarthy, 2002). their home than 100 years prior in 1997. A 90-year old history of Forest County states that a radical group of preservationists had gained influence 7. The ecotourism experience in isolated, with a federal judge through lies, misinformation, resource-dependent areas of the US and by misdirection. The group had struck in the so-called night while the local citizens and the tim- Cultural tourism and ecotourism supported by gov- ber industry were asleep (Carlson, 1997c, p. 6). ernment and foundation funding could help isolated resource-dependent areas such as Forest County, Pennsylvania capitalize on their comparative advantages relative to urban areas and supplement productivist activities. Yet the ecotourism experience in such US des- 4 The Forest County Conservation and Planning District director tinations has been mixed at best due to their inability to was also involved with the Allegheny Forest Alliance, a self-described ‘‘non-profit coalition of school districts, townships, recreation groups, attract enough paying visitors. While Ozark Ecotours businesses and others’’. Its mission included ‘‘supporting and promot- was cited as a model ecotourism operation by both the ing sustainable forestry, environmental stewardship and multiple-use Ecotourism Society and the Center for Rural Pennsylva- management of the Allegheny National Forest and other public forest nia, its high-quality natural and cultural history tours lands on the Allegheny Plateau in the commonwealth of Pennsylva- never attracted enough customers to break even. As nia.’’ (Allegheny Forest Alliance, 2004) 5 According to the Forest County Conservation and Planning Ozark Ecotours found the day tour price could not be District director, the Wildlands Project aimed to turn 50% of the US increased above $50 without participation dropping into wilderness. off, to cover costs it needed 2252 tour participants per 222 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 year, or nearly eight times the number of people who (canoe rentals) or retail (bicycling, equipment) opera- participated in its 1995 season. Most customers who tions as this would require hiring additional staff. In were passing through from Branson, Missouri, which the end, only a few cultural and natural history tours was 75 miles away, wanted lower-priced half-day tours. focusing on the second-growth forests were offered, While limited transportation (i.e., winding, narrow two- but they did not stimulate repeat or additional visitors. lane state highways, no convenient regional airports) to Perhaps as certain Forest Service employees who had the isolated area helped keep the area ÔnaturalÕ and the worked in more rugged, isolated areas in which regional culture intact, this underdevelopment also ham- they thought guides were needed, felt the ANFÕs accessi- pered its success at increasing visitors from nearby ma- bility, smallness (1/2 million acres); intensive use for jor metropolitan areas and their affluent suburbs timber, oil, gas, recreation; and its ‘‘ordinariness where (Romund and Miller, 1996). Finally Ozark EcotoursÕ one could view the same animals in most Pennsylvania limited resources for marketing restricted the number state parks’’ negated the need for guiding and tours of potential visitors. Thus, it largely relied on positive (Che, 1997). While the ANF provided a rural get- press reports and word-of-mouth promotion by its away for regional urban and suburban visitors, its Alle- ‘‘small but faithful group of returns’’ (Knox, 1997). gheny hardwood forests were less distinctive for tourism While grants covered the initial shortfalls, NCRC has than for timber and were not so ÔwildÕ as to require a since discontinued the tours. guide. The experience of the model Ozark Ecotours, which While the externally-funded Newton and Forest was struggling to break even during the time of the For- County ecotourism development involved landscapes est County ecotourism study, affected ecotourism devel- where human impact has been evident, a more tradi- opment in the county. There was concern about the tional ecotourism based on old-growth to diversify tim- economic sustainability of ecotourism given the Ozark ber-based economies of the Pacific Northwest also has experience and because a survey of potential Forest not been entirely successful. The Siskiyou National For- County ecotourists showed a limited willingness to pay est acted in partnership with southwestern OregonÕs for half-day and day tours. Over 60% of survey respon- Curry County to develop sustainable, nature-based dents were not willing to pay more than $50 per person tourism in order to diversify an economy based on lum- for the latter. Additionally, a large percentage of survey ber, commercial and sport fishing, drive through tour- respondents owned camps and were not interested in ism, and retirement income. With $381,000 from the tour packages including accommodations and meals state of Oregon and the federal government, this nature which were key to generating additionally revenue tourism project involved sustainability planning, prod- (Che, 1997). Demographic questions in the survey rein- uct development, business training, and marketing. forced state statistics showing that visitors to Pennsylva- The latter funding resulted from the Northwest Eco- niaÕs Northern tier, which Forest County was part of, nomic Adjustment Initiative, which assisted communi- tended to be older, less affluent overnight leisure who ties affected by the halt in old-growth timber harvests came for hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, and camping following the listing of the spotted owl as a threatened who stayed in non-paid accommodations (i.e., with species. With its consultant, local entrepreneurs devel- family or at camps) (D.K. Shifflet. & Associates, oped package tourism products such as half-day moun- 1996). Given the limited willingness to pay, one individ- tain bike, river kayak, lighthouse, and offshore/marine ual involved with the Forest County Action Team, con- tours; stream restoration work projects; and photogra- sidered recruiting and training residents of Abraxas, a pher/artist workshops. Most of these tours were priced residential, therapeutic, and educational community that around US$70 per person, including lunch (Forbes, served as an alternative to incarceration for youthful 1998). As in the case of Newton and Forest counties, offenders, as potential ecotour guides in order to reduce customers did not materialize for the guided tours since labor costs. This idea was nixed since use of this ÔfreeÕ visitors felt they could do activities such as hikes, scenic labor not originally from the area would both not offer lookouts, and recreation rentals on their own without specialized local knowledge and could appear threaten- guided interpretation. Additionally the expenses for ing to the upper middle-class, education-focused ecot- businesses, which ended up folding after several years, ourists. It would also not generate guiding jobs needed also turned out higher than expected. People did not to prevent local youth from leaving the area (Che, come to the area for a specific purpose but were passing 2000). While the area has long attracted hunters, fisher- through on Highway 101 as part of a visit to the region men, and campers, existing Forest County tourism pro- which included the redwoods, Rogue River, and the viders felt that residents of an urban ring of cities southwest Oregon Coast. In the end, the area was not surrounding the ANF, including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, able to convert from a drive through tourism destination Akron, Buffalo, and Toronto, were interested in bird- where people did things on their own and in actuality watching, hiking, wildflowers, and wildlife. Yet none spent very little, to a place where $70 ecotours were sold of those providers added ecotours to existing outfitter (Derbyshire, 2004). D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 223
Other experiments in Pacific Northwest old-growth for specialty tours unless they had unique identities to forest ecotourism have had similarly mixed success. In differentiate themselves from competing destinations the early 1990s at the height of the spotted owl/timber (Morgan and Pritchard, 2002). While Pacific Northwest wars, three tour companies offered 5–15-day guided eco- old-growth and Allegheny hardwoods yield internation- tourism trips to the ancient forests which explained the ally-recognized wood for the timber industry, these science and diversity of the old-growth ecosystem. One forests are not differentiated tourism products. Differen- company, Nature Expeditions International, had incor- tiated, branded tourism destinations are less price elas- porated an eight-day or a 15-day field seminar program tic, have stable visitor flows, and increased economic led by a forest expert with an advanced degree in natural rents (Britton, 1991). Capturing resource rents is critical science (Foehr, 1993), but it was discontinued due to to regional development in resource-dependent areas limited demand. According to Dan Egan (1994), tour- (Gunton, 2003). Unlike previously isolated areas such ism director of the Convention and Visitor Association as Patagonia and Madagascar which have an element of Lane County, Oregon, the limited demand and of prestige associated with being at the vanguard of economic benefits resulted from the forests being an tourist visitation until newer areas open up, visiting unclearly defined tourist product. Unlike the sequoia isolated, forest-dependent areas of Arkansas, Pennsylva- which were the largest trees in the world, old-growth nia, and Oregon does not impart status. Ecotourism forests were a difficult ecosystem to sell, especially to thus may be a technocratic solution for underdevelop- those visitors who could not distinguish between old ment that never addresses the structural inequalities that and second growth. Lane CountyÕs actual experience foster economic dependency and instability and conse- with old-growth tourism differed from the Center for quently threaten ecosystems (when it comes to flows of Rural PennsylvaniaÕs perspective on the marketability capital, tourists, etc.). of old-growth. The structure of the nature tour industry also con- Day trips which visit old-growth are still offered, but strains such resource-dependent places from attracting they impart few economic benefits to timber-dependent paying visitors. The industry is highly concentrated, communities. Eco Tours of OregonÕs Northern Oregon with the five and 35 largest operations respectively Coast Tour includes an optional Ancient Forest Walk accounting for 40% and 90% of the total market. Many option in which one can learn about Pacific Northwest for-profit outbound nature tour operators work primar- forest ecology (Eco Tours of Oregon Day Tours, n.d.). ily with international destinations, with Central Ameri- However Portland, not the logging communities around can ones being among the most popular. As a result, the national forests, benefit from Eco ToursÕ $47.50 per ecotourist flows differ from those of general tourism, person day trips, since tourists are picked up at city ho- where visits to North America, Europe, Mexico, and tels and provided with lunches that are taken into the the Caribbean constitute much higher percentages of forest. Success for the tour operator, if not the commu- the total (Higgins, 1996). Smaller tour operators which nities whose high-value extraction declined, shows the focused on North American destinations indicated that weak link of First World ecotourism to economic devel- the areaÕs name recognition or mystique was the top opment. All of the aforementioned examples of First consideration when deciding whether to add new desti- World ecotourism indicate that it might be wishful nations as one operator noted, ‘‘an area may be gor- thinking to believe that ecotourism could be the geous, but if people have not heard of it, they will not consumptive solution to economic restructuring in sign up for a tour’’ (Che, 1997). Unfortunately, the distressed, isolated, resource-dependent communities. aforementioned places where First World ecotourism was developed do not have widespread name recogni- tion. As such they, like most US ecotourism destina- 8. Conclusions and implications tions, will be mainly serviced by local outfitters and lodges (Romund and Miller, 1996), which have varying As tourism production and consumption is capitalis- levels of marketing and promotion. tic and tourism is part of territorial competition and Birding may be one subset of First World ecotourism economic restructuring (Britton, 1991), without contin- that draws visitors to particular places (i.e., those along ual government subsidies, ecotourism operations will migration routes and/or with habitats for rare species). only survive where profitable. Ecotourism destinations Southeastern Arizona is famed for its habitats for more are not necessarily the isolated, resource-dependent types of birds than anywhere else in the US. As it offers areas where economic diversification programs have the opportunity for birders to add multiple species to been implemented. While popular for traditional out- their life lists, visiting can help them raise their status door recreation activities, the place products/cultural within the birding world. Bird-watching also brings landscapes of the OzarksÕ Buffalo River region and higher revenues per visitor than other forms of rural northwestern Pennsylvania and the old-growth of the tourism because birding is popular with older, affluent Pacific Northwest will not necessarily attract visitors people. Since the optimal time for bird-watching is in 224 D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 the early morning and late afternoon hours, this activity World, capital flows from ecotourism would more fre- necessitates paying for accommodations near birding quently go to nearby urban areas rather than to the re- sites (Leones et al., 1998). While Northwestern Pennsyl- source-dependent areas which seek ecotourism as a way vania and the ANF are not specifically sold to birders, to bolster their economies. tours could focus on riverine, upland forest, open wood- Ecotourism developed in these First World peripheral land and old-growth areas. A tour in one of the ANFÕs areas may need additional external support beyond the old-growth areas could offer a wide diversity of rare initial tour development and business marketing advice. woodland warblers such as the SwainsonÕs thrush, Hiller (1994) noted that in the United States ecotourism black-bellied warbler, and the yellow-bellied flycatcher destinations must survive largely on their own strategies, that would be attractive to bird enthusiasts. To brand whereas in some countries of Africa and Latin America, the area for birding, the tour could be sold on seeing a ecotourism is part of the national strategy for natural combination of birds that occur separately only in a resource management. Likewise, cultural landscapes few other places (the Adirondacks, Smokies) than the such as Hohes Venn receive continued European Union old-growth Tionesta Scenic Area (Che, 1997). Depend- funding. To overcome the dominance of the tourism ing on what species and habitats are offered, birding establishment over US tourism policy making, small tourism may be an alternative tourism strategy for re- ecotourism businesses need to cultivate local, regional, source-dependent areas. and state officials in order for ecotourism to be truly in- Beyond birding, big game hunting, and sport fishing, cluded on state tourism and environment agendas. many North Americans may not be willing to pay much As ecotourism seems unlikely to replace productivist for nature-based tourism in First World settings. First activities as the basis for First World resource-depen- World ecotourists are primarily urban nationals who dent areasÕ economies, collaborative community devel- independently visit national and state parks, recreation opment is required to further economic diversification. areas, forests and wilderness areas as opposed to for- Local, collaborative citizens groups including environ- eigners on multinational corporation (MNC)-run pack- mental, resource, and other interests, can better connect age tours. First World ecotourists may only be willing to primary production to processing and consumers pay for package tours to see only Third World ÔexoticÕ through value-added and service sector activities includ- nature. As such, small-scale ecotourism operations in ing tourism (Burch, 2003). They can help work out dif- First World resource-dependent areas, which find it dif- ferences and work towards environmentally sound ficult to increase visitation of paying visitors or tour futures. For instance in Catron County, New Mexico, prices, may not financially survive. Ecotourism in these such a group is helping to helping to build a sustainable areas may in fact be secondary to traditional outdoor economy based on forest restoration (Burns, 2003). In recreation activities such as hunting and fishing. Small Forest CountyÕs case, collaborative efforts are needed operators may need to offer ecotourism and non- since both consumptive and productive forest uses are ecotourism activities to ecogeneralists (Wight, 1996)to important. Tourism generated $24.26 million in traveler achieve profitability. In Manitoba, ecotourism opera- expenditures, $4.74 million in payroll expenditures, $3.2 tors, which are mostly small-scale businesses located in million in state and local tax revenues, and 280 jobs in isolated forested areas, offer a wide variety of activities 1996 (Gingrich, 1997), but timber harvesting on the such as wildlife viewing of species like black bear, wolf, ANF generated 99% of the ANFÕs payments for schools deer, moose, waterfowl, birds of prey and shore birds, as and roads (Logging losses, 1998). well as photography, fishing, canoeing, boating, camp- In the ANF region, collaborative efforts have been ing, hunting, hiking, and cross-country skiing. The di- underway to increase the amount of wilderness for both verse offerings may be necessary as the ecotourism existence and recreational values and to guarantee offerings in Manitoba, other than in Churchill which future timber harvesting. Last year, a working group has name/product recognition for its polar bears, may including both local representatives of environmental be indistinct from adjacent Canadian and American des- organizations such as the Wilderness Society, Sierra tinations (Weaver et al., 1996). Like Manitoba, Newton Club, Friends of the Allegheny Wilderness and represen- County, Arkansas; Forest County, Pennsylvania; and tatives of resource industry organizations such as the Curry and Lane Counties, Oregon, may be indistinct Pennsylvania Oil and Gas producers, Allegheny Hard- from other tourism destinations. Given the limited will- woods Utilization Group, and Pennsylvania Forest Pro- ingness to pay for First World ecotourism, ecotourism ducers, was organized in order to end the litigious may in fact be more successful in areas accessible to conflict in the woods. This group, which enabled each major metropolitan center populations, such as in side to hear the otherÕs perspective, would work towards Portland, Oregon and urban New Zealand. Only these designating additional wilderness in the ANF as desired urban operations may be able to get enough customers by the environmentalists, if they in turn would sign off at the relatively low half-day and day tour prices to sur- on multiple use on national forests and cease litiga- vive financially. But as a result of its pattern in the First tion against timber sales. The resolution would bolster D. Che / Geoforum 37 (2006) 212–226 225
‘‘legitimate management’’ and be especially significant Altman, J., Finlayson, J., 1993. Aborigines, tourism and sustainable as the national Sierra Club has advocated a zero-cut development. Journal of Tourism Studies 4 (1), 38–50. platform on the national forests. If an urban judge per- Allegheny Forest Alliance, 2004. Web page.
Foehr, S., 1993. World Guide to Ecologically Aware Travel Adven- Orams, M.B., 1995. Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. ture. Noble Press Inc., Chicago. Tourism Management 16 (1), 3–8. Forbes, B., 1998. Curry County sustainable nature-based tourism Phillips, A., 1997. Landscape approaches to national parks and project. In: Hall, C.M., Lew, A.A. (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A protected areas. In: Nelson, J.G., Serafin, R. (Eds.), National Parks Geographical Perspective. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable Essex, UK. Development. Springer, Berlin. Forest Adventures Ecotours, Ltd., n.d. Proposed ecotours. Place, S., 1995. Ecotourism for sustainable development: oxymoron or Forest County Action Team, 1994. Forest County Action Plan. plausible strategy? GeoJournal 35 (2), 161–173. Forest County Assessment Office, 1978. Alphabetic Listing of Camp Rodriguez, S., 1989. Art, tourism, and race relations in Taos: toward a Names in Forest County 1978. Forest County Assessment Office, sociology of the art colony. Journal of Anthropological Research Tionesta, PA. 45 (1), 77–99. Forest County Conservation District and Planning Department, 1997. Romund, C.M., Miller, W., 1996. Newton County, Arkansas Eco- Board Meeting, 12/11/97. tourism Feasibility Study. Newton County Resource Council, Frank, K., 1998. History of the Allegheny National Forest—Before Jasper, AR. 1923. Allegheny Brambles. Ruffner, C.M., Sluyter, A., Abrams, M.D., Crothers, C., McLaughlin, Furze, B., deLacy, T., Birckhead, J., 1995. Culture, Conservation, and J., Kandare, R., 1997. Assessing Native American disturbances in Biodiversity: The Social Dimension of Linking Local Level mixed oak forests of the Allegheny Plateau. In: National Silvicul- Development and Conservation Through Protected Areas. John ture Workshop Proceedings. USFS NE Forest Experiment Station, Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Radnor, PA. Gingrich, K., 1997. Personal communication. Sarvis, W., 1993. An Appalachian forest: creation of the Jefferson Grainger, J., 2003. ÔPeople are living in the parkÕ. Linking biodiversity National Forest and its effects on the local community. Forest and conservation to community development in the Middle East region: Conservation History 37 (4), 169–178. a case study from the Saint Katherine Protectorate, Southern Sinai. USDA Forest Service, 1996. Working Together: Rural Communities Journal of Arid Environments 54, 29–38. and the Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Gunton, T., 2003. Natural resources and regional development: an USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, 1986. Land and assessment of dependency and comparative advantage paradigms. Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Economic Geography 79 (1), 67–94. PA. Hamilton, A., Cunningham, A., Byarugaba, D., Kayanja, F., 2000. USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, 1995. Analysis of Conservation in a region of political instability: Bwindi Impene- Timber Harvest Program Capability, 1995 Through 2005. Alle- trable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14 (6), 1722–1725. gheny National Forest, Warren, PA. Higgins, B.R., 1996. The global structure of the nature tourism USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, 1998. ANF Fact industry: ecotourists, tour operators, and local businesses. Journal Sheet. Allegheny National Forest, Warren, PA. of Travel Research 35 (2), 11–18. USDA Forest Service, Economic Action Program, 1995. Economic Higham, J., Luck, M., 2002. Urban ecotourism: a contradiction in Recovery Program Participation and Eligibility Guidelines. terms? Journal of Ecotourism 1 (1), 36–51. UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme, 2002. Rhon Biosphere Hiller, H., 1994. Niche marketing boost needed for US ecotours. Web Reserve—Germany. Web page.