How Ecotourism Can Go Wrong: the Cases of Seacanoe and Siam Safari, Thailand

Home , Ecotourism, Safari

Discussion Web Site :http://www.commerce.otago.ac.nz/tourism/current-issues/homepage.htm How Ecotourism can go Wrong: The Cases of SeaCanoe and Siam Safari, Thailand

Noah Shepherd Environmental Tourism Consultants, PO Box 1, Phuket, Thailand

In 1989,two ecotourismoperators started business in South Thailand– SeaCanoe, running kayaking tripsin Phang Nga Bay, and SiamSafari, running naturetours in Phuket and South Thailand.Both companieshave received international awards and recognitionfor their work in promoting environmentallysensitive tours yet their effortsseem to havebeen thwarted by thegrowth in masstourism within South Thai- land.Throughout the1990s, Phuket receiveda three-foldincrease in arrivals,and with itthe establishment of many imitatorsof theoriginal pioneers. This paper looks atthe relationshipbetween mass tourism and ecotourismand questionswhether the two are compatible or mutually exclusive.

Background In 1989,two ecotourism operators started business in South Thailand. SeaCanoe,running kayaking tripsin Phang NgaBay, and Siam Safari, running naturetours in Phuket andSouth Thailand.Both companies have received inter- nationalawards and recognition for their workin promotingenvironmentally sensitivetours yet their effortsseem tohavebeen thwartedby the growthin mass tourismwithin South Thailand.This chapter looks at the relationshipbetween masstourism and ecotourism and questions whether the twoare compatible or mutually exclusive.

Phuket – a Growing Tourism Destination Phuket, Thailand’s largestisland, is promoted by the touristindustry as the ‘Pearl ofthe South’. Throughoutthe 1980sand 1990s, Phuket hasdeveloped into Asia’s toptourist resort. Phuket lies 7degrees northof the equatorand has a variedterrain with sandy beaches andlimestone cliffs. Inland arefound forested hillsand rubber plantationsplus ahuge varietyof tropicalvegetation. The island isone ofSouth EastAsia’ s mainyachting destinations with full marinafacilities and a deep sea port that is used by cruise ships. Phuket wasa destinationfor Thai tourists and backpackers until the startof mainstreamtourism in the mid-1980swith the development ofmajor hotels including HolidayInn, Le Meridien andClub Med. Phuket InternationalAirport receives hourly flights fromthe capitalBangkok, and daily scheduled interna- tionalflights fromaround the region.With the adventof charterflights in the mid-1990s,the airportnow handles 20,000 arrivals and departures a year.The islandis connected to the mainlandby twobridges, withbus servicesfrom Bang- kok andSouthern Thailand.There are20,600 licensed hotelrooms on the island ranging fromfive starinternational resorts to small bungalows plus alarge number ofunlicensed guesthouses.Tourism has achieved ameteoricgrowth in the 1990s.Official arrivalfigures havedoubled overa 10year period to

How Ecotourism can go Wrong 310 Current Issues in Tourism

2.6million in 1998(Tourism Authority of Thailand, undated). More recently, Thailand’s tourismarrival figures havebeen boostedby three factors– the Tour- ismAuthority of Thailand’s (TAT) AmazingThailand 1998– 1999 campaign,the Asianfinancial crisis and political instability in Indonesia(Bangkok Post,1998; Bailey, 1998). The areasurrounding Phuket isa naturelover’ s paradise.The dramaticPhang NgaBay, a proposedUNESCO WorldHeritage site, is situated to the northeast ofthe islandand contains over 150 limestoneislands, with stunning cliffs, pock- markedwith caves that are home to swiftlets, bats and other tropical wildlife. Mazesof mangrove forest line the estuarinebay. Once in the bay,whilst only an houror so from the mainland,the experience islike being in the wilderness. Caveslink the outsideof limestonesea stacks to internalrooms, open tothe sky known in Thai as ‘hongs’. Within the cavesand caverns, swiftlets make nests that are harvested by the BirdsNests Monopoly. The nestsare sold for prices up to$US1000 a kilogram andused in suchdelicacies as bird’ s nestsoup. Traditional methods are used whereby bambooscaffolding is erected in the cavesand workers scale the poles precariouslyto hand pick the nestsfrom the wallsof the caverns.The rightsto harvestthe birds’nests lie withthe BirdsNests Monopoly.Until commercialtour operatorsstarted operating in Phang NgaBay, the monopolyhad no interest in the caves other than harvesting nests.

Kayaking – the Perfect Ecotourism Product? John Grayfounded SeaCanoe,initially as anextensionof hiskayaking opera- tionbased in Hawaii.Gray had specialised in multiday kayaking toursin the South PacificIslands with a customerbase almost exclusively of UStourists. Grayhad planned toexpand hisoperating territory to the South EastAsian region and in 1988 ran his first survey trip to South Thailand. In exploring Phang NgaBay, Gray found thatit was possible totake inflatable kayaksthrough the cavesto the inner roomsor ‘hongs’within the islands.Whilst these caveswere knownby localfishermen, their exploitationfor commercial tourism had never been considered. The touristmarket at that time whilst growing, was at a transitionstage. Wealthytourists, staying at luxury resorts,were beginning toforce out the backpackermarket that had moved on tootherdestinations such as Ko Samui in the Gulf ofThailand. Phuket wasgrowing as an up-market destination,with somerooms in luxury resortsrented outfor several hundred dollarsa night. There wascertainly no real charter or packagetourism market at thattime, most ofthe touristsin hotelsbeing FITtravellers,purchasing mix and matchpackages from specialist Asian destination travel brochures. Grayfound severallocal partners and the fledgling companystarted day trips tovisitPhang NgaBay. Gray’ s plan wasto establishThailand as adestinationfor multiday tripssold abroad, but cashflowwas essential and he decided torun day trips into the bay to build up the business. Initially,SeaCanoe sold tours from the Diethelm Travelhotel tour desk atLe Meridien Hotel,near the resorttown of PatongBeach. The tourwas in stark contrastto others offered totouristsin Phuket. Phang NgaBay’ s ‘JamesBond How Ecotourism can go Wrong 311

Island’made famousby the film ‘The Manwiththe GoldenGun’ was visited by manyother tour operators. These tourssold for less than 1000 Thai baht (then $US40)and included aboattrip to the island,with a stopfor lunch atthe stilted Muslim village ofKoPanyii in the northof the bay.The tripGray offered was initiallyviewed by manyas bizarreand expensive. Startingwith a local‘ long tail’ boat,the vesseltraditionally used by localfishermen, Grayand his colleagues tookfour people ata timeinto the bay.The boatwas loaded with inflatable kayaksand a cookwho would prepare lunch forthe guests.In the bay,the guests wouldboard the kayaks,and be taken,when the tide wasjustright, through the caves,to the hongsin the middle ofthe islandswhere wildlife couldbe staredin the eye. The hongswere like stepping backin timeand remain to this day a marvelto tourists.The tourwas very popular withguests, and sold for double that of any other tour offered around Phuket.

Quality, safety and environmental issues One ofthe key pointsto SeaCanoe’ s daytrip tours was that the cavesand hongscould only takea limitednumber ofkayaks at anyone time.Furthermore, the timefactor was crucial,because the cavescould only be entered atcertaintide levels. Toomany kayaks would mean congestion with subsequent burdens being put onthe environmentitself (something thatSeaCanoe felt very strongly about).Safety wasalso a majorissue –toomany kayaks with untrained guides could(and would) resultin dangeroussituations. For these reasons,SeaCanoe decided tolimit the number oftourists that it would handle in one day– enforc- ing anodrinking, smoking,eating, talking or takingof souvenirs policy forits customers.Guide staffamazed customers by paddling off tocollect floating garbageand taking it back to the escortboat for proper disposal.The company had developed a statement of purpose, which claims that: SeaCanoedevelops sustainablebusiness opportunitieswith local people thatpromote environmental conservation by providing high qualityrecre- ationaladventures specialising in naturalhistory and cross-cultural educa- tion. (SeaCanoe, 1997/98, 1998) SeaCanoe’s business ethics,training and approach to the environmentare not in question;on the contrary,there arevery few businesses withinthe tourism industryin Thailandthat are as passionateabout environmental protection and ruraldevelopment asSeaCanoe. Moreover the companyhad involved locals in itsshare structure, thus embodying the principles thatwere widely becoming accepted by the fledgling ecotourism movement. In 1992,SeaCanoe experienced itsfirst taste of competition, started by anex partner.The toursoffered the samedestinations as SeaCanoeand used anetwork ofthe nowextensive tourcounters on the resortbeaches ofPhuket tosell their trips.At the time,it was widely recognisedby the travelbusiness thatSeaCanoe wasby farthe better operatorin termsof tripquality, staff training, equipment used andresponsibility tothe environment.However, bigger commissionsto tourcounters and a cheaper selling price helped topromotethe growthof the fledgling competitor. In manyways, SeaCanoe has been moresuccessful in itsoverseas marketing thanlocally. By 1998,the companyhad received five tourismaccolades, the first, 312 Current Issues in Tourism in 1995was a regionalwinner in the BritishAirways Tourism for Tomorrow Awards.This was followed by acommendationby Green Globe (1996);a Gold Awardfor ecotourism by the PacificAsia Travel Association (1996); an environmental/ecotourismaward from the AmericanSociety ofTravel Agents/ Smith- sonianMagazine (1997) and Best Inbound Tourby the TourismAuthority of Thailand(1998). The SeaCanoemanagement was experienced in marketingand promotionof its activities and over the yearshas been writtenabout in dozensof newspapersand travel magazines as well asreceiving extensive televisioncover- age.

Competitive threats By 1996,the term SeaCanoe hadmore or lesscome to mean‘ seakayaking tours in Phang NgaBay’ . The number ofcompetitorshad grown, and tour counters, respectable travelagents, tour operators and representatives were selling anyof the nowthree othercompanies’ products as ‘ SeaCanoe’. In manycases, a SeaCanoelogo and sales brochure wasshown on display,but the actualproduct soldwas a cheaper imitator.Over the years,SeaCanoe hosted overseas tourism studentsfor internships. The studentswere routinely sentto PatongBeach, the mainresort town in Phuket topose aspotential customers. In nearly every case, when contactingtour desks to buy anoriginal SeaCanoe trip, they were presented withother operators as better options,or indeed as‘ the original’ company.Names like ‘Sea CaveCanoe’ and ‘ Sea Safari’confused tourists,many ofwhomthought they were takinga tripwith the companythat they hadseen on television (Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, 1998). Nick Kontogeorgeopolous’unpublished PhD thesis(Kontogeorgeopolous, 1998)is probably the mostthorough documented study of SeaCanoe’ s business activities.In 1996,Nick madea survey ofotherkayaking operatorsand his field noteswere published onthe SeaCanoeweb siteto the annoyanceof the other companies.In thisreport, Nick referred toother companies’ unappealing and sometimes disgustingfood , decrepitescort boats ,andnoted that some companies ignoredsafety and natural historyinformation .Healsoreported that some companies had minimal English language skills (Kontogeorgeopolous, 1996). Perhaps the mostpoignant statement made in Nick’s unedited field notesis: Itbasically seems to me thatthe passengersare all the exactsame thing on all4 companies.They allthink the Thaiguides arewonderful, friendly, etc., they allbelieve the foodis good (whether itactually is or not),they allsay howwonderful andfun andadventurous the tripis, etc. etc. The only difference where the touristsare concerned isthatsome are FITsand some arenot. The actualdifferences come100% from the actualcompanies (supply side). (Kontogeorgeopolous, 1996) Thisfinal comment,in referring tothe type ofcustomer was key tothe major problems that SeaCanoe were to experience in the late 1990s.

Commercial Pressure on Locally Owned Operations There areseveral sales channels that can be, andwere exploited thatled tothe increasein SeaCanoe’s problemsin the latterpart of the 1990s.Within the tour- How Ecotourism can go Wrong 313 ismindustry, at aresortlevel, the overseasholiday company representative is a key figure. Many ofthe largeroperators employ their ownstaff, smaller opera- torsoften use the servicesof ground handlers.The travellingcustomer’ s pointof contactwith the overseasoperator is the representativewho can be amine of informationfor their clientsas well asa salespoint for tours. In mostcases, the operatorsuch as SeaCanoe will makea contractwith the holidayoperator or their wholesalerand will pay acommissionfor all sales made. In manycases, the representativewill be salaried,and their companywill pay acommissionto them forall sales that they make.However, quite often,the representativewill contract directlywith a toursupplier, whowill pay afull commissiondirectly to him ‘under the table’. Thatrepresentative is then free tosell whateverhe pleasesto his customers, much like a tour counter, with his own captive market. Asthe number ofcharterand package tours increased in the late1990s, so did the number ofsea kayaking companies.Holiday companies, under continual pressure toincreasebottom line profits,found themselvesin apositionwhere they couldcontract with other companies for higher ratesof commission.The chartercompanies’ customers were generally lessselective aboutthe qualityof the tourchosen – price became the deciding factor,rather than quality of experience.

Travel industry margins threaten quality operations Atabout the sametime, the Asianmarket started to take an interest in sea kayaking.In 1997,the contractprice toagents for a SeaCanoeday tour was 2,000baht plus salestax. Some contractorsdemanded anet rateof 1,000baht (or less) per customerwhich was something that SeaCanoe could not, and did not wantto offer despite the promisednumber oftourists.The Asiantravel business, withtourists especially fromKorea and Taiwan, moves people aroundin cara- vansof 54 seatcoaches, from tours, to restaurants,to commission paying souve- nir shops.The smallerkayaking companies,with their lowerstandards, were happy totake up the offer oflargenumbers oflowpaying customers.Shuttle servicesinto the cavesbecame the norm,with escort boats that were licensed for 20people (including crew) being loadedwith sometimes double thatnumber of people onboard. In 1997,the firstdeath at seaoccurred, when aboatcaptain of a ‘Sea Safari’vessel outside a cavereversed overone oftheir ownguides whowas sitting in a kayak and he was mashed by the boat’s propellers. During the high seasons(December– March) of 1997/8/9the situationin the bay,in andaround the cavesand hongs became nothing shortof adisgrace. Quite literally,dozens of kayaks form traffic jams and queues whichgive the impressionof Bangkok’s ‘floatingmarket’ rather than a backto nature experience. Many ofthe kayakoperators with no conservationpolicy andguests and guides were often seen getting outof their kayaksin the hongs,climbing mangrovetrees, collecting coral, playing waterfights andscaring off the wildlife suchas monkeyswhich arerarely seen in the hongsnowadays. Despite much lobbying tothe TATandthe ForestryDepartment, nothing was done by the authoritiesto improve the situationin the bay.What was once an exclusive natureexperience hadbecome anightmare.The onusof responsibility was thrownback to the kayaking companiesthemselves by the authoritiesto sortout their own problems. 314 Current Issues in Tourism

Pressures from outside the tourism industry By 1998,there were some11 seakayaking companiesoperating in Phang Nga Bay,who formed a cartelknown as the ‘The Paddle Club forthe Protectionof the Environment’. Within Thailand,trade associations are quite powerful andare lookedto by the authoritiesto provide the leadin manyaspects of business. Several yearsearlier, at the suggestionof SeaCanoeand the TAT,anattempt was madeto form a club totry and regulate the number ofkayaksin the bay,but this wasunsuccessful. SeaCanoehad advocated a systemwhereby timeslots would be allocatedto operators to reduce the number ofkayaks in the cavesat anyone time.The agreement fell apart,and the fledgling associationnever gotoff the ground.The roleof the new Paddle Club howeverwas farmore sinister. A part- nership wasmade with the BirdsNest Monopoly who, under anoldThai law, hadthe rightto harvestthe swiflets’nests found in the caves.The agreement was simple –kayakoperators had to pay the club 100baht per guest forthe rightto enter the caves,this money wouldbe passedto the Monopolywho would restrict the overallnumbers ofkayaksin the caves.This position was, andis still in ques- tionlegally andthe rightof the Monopolyto imposea chargehas gone ashigh as the Prime Minister’s office. SeaCanoerefused topay the charge,arguing thatthe bay wasa NationalPark and that the Monopolyonly hadthe rightto collect nests,not to derive incomefrom tourism. In notpaying, they were denied access tothe cavesby the Monopoly.SeaCanoe attempted to enter the caves,to the displeasure ofthe Monopoly’s armedguards and the dispute allegedly led toone ofSeaCanoe’s managersbeing shotand injured outsidethe company’s office in Phuket Town in October 1998 (Rome, 1999). Asa resultof SeaCanoenot being able toenter the caves,bookings dropped off dramaticallyand the companysuffered considerablyby alackof sales in the 1998/99 high season.

Financial implications Ithas been argued by someoperators that farang (western) managedcompa- nies arenot beneficial toThailand.These argumentsare usually basedon xeno- phobia ratherthan economics. Much ofthe actualrevenues, especially where Asiantourists are involved, end up overseas,not in Thailand.SeaCanoe retains 90%of revenues withinThailand (Lindberg, 1998),but asurvey comparisonof triprevenues by cheaper operatorsshows a fardifferent picture. In 1998, SeaCanoecharged 2970 baht for a one daytour. Almost all of their saleswere madeto localagents, which meantthat effectively, allof the revenue remained in the country.One oftheir competitors,however, sold its trip for 500 bahtnet rate. Thistrip was then resoldto a Taiwaneseoperator for 1000 baht which wasthen offered asanoptional tour for 4000 baht equivalent –only 25%of the actualtrip selling price found its way into Thailand (Shepherd, 1998).

Elephants, Jeeps and Ecotourism RobertGreifenberg movedto Thailand in 1989after an agricultural background in Britainand Saudi Arabia.Greifenberg’ s approachto startingthe busi- nesswas different toGray’ s. WhilstGray had experience ofthe travelmarket fromhis time in Honolulu,Greifenberg hadnone. Startingwith a smallplot of How Ecotourism can go Wrong 315 land,together with his wife Srivilai,he rana smallbungalow complex catering to backpackersand FIT clients.Greifenberg offered his Siam Safari naturetours to hisguests in the formof trekking andjeep safarisaround Phuket aswell asoff the islandto placessuch as KhaoSok NationalPark. Greifenberg alsotook interest in showingtourists southern Thai lifestyle, by visitingrubber andother plantations andshowing tourists a sliceof village life. Atthat time, Phuket’ s infrastructure wasnot as developed asitistoday and Greifenberg used hisfour-wheel drive jeep totaketourists to hidden partsof the island.It was not,however, until 1992 thattour agents began totakeinterest in hisproducts and Siam Safari took off (Siam Safari, 1999a, b).

Local infrastructure and development Itis often suggested thattourism is responsible forover-development, andin manycases this is true. However in Thailand,whilst tourism development is nowa majorcontributor to the country’s GDP,much of Thailand’s post-war growthhas mainly been fuelled byagriculturalexports. As aresultof Thailand’s increasedwealth as adeveloping nationan infrastructurehas been put intoplace thataccommodates tourism well (Phongpaichit &Baker,1996). One ofthe bene- fitsto farming and rural development, in Phuket especially, hasbeen the road infrastructureon the island.Previous dirt tracks and paths have given wayto paved roadsas partof Thailand’ s acceleratedrural development project,which meantthat safari tours became lessexciting asthe islandbecame scarredwith asphalt trails. In 1989,commercial logging wasbanned in Thailand.Elephants, previously used forlogging purposes hadin effect destroyedtheir ownnatural habitats as Thailand’s forestshad reduced from95% of the landarea 150 years ago to about 15–20% today. Their mahouts,now out of work,took the elephants intocities suchas Bangkokwhere they were used forbegging. Baby elephants were also found in majorhotels where they were shownoff astourist attractions (Greifenberg et al., 1998). Atthe end of1994,Siam Safari was the firstcompany to introduce elephants in Phuket providing trekking toursfor tourists. Elephants are expensive tokeep, eating250 kg offoodand drinking 200litres of watera day.As with the caseof SeaCanoe,imitators sprung up allover the island.Many elephant campswere set up alongthe picturesque mountainroads in Phuket, whichrelied onpassing tradeas well aspaying commissionsto tour guides. Attimes of drought,it was been reportedthat many of the elephants were notgiven enough waterto drink orbathe andmany incidents of abuse havebeen reported.In 1998,Siam Safari, togetherwith the DusitLaguna Resort Hotel, founded Elephant Help –the Thai Elephant Welfare andConservation Project. Despite the effortsof Greifenberg andElephant Help tosupport elephant welfare inPhuket, the introductionof treks brought many problems. SiamSafari set up acampon Phuket fromwhich they run elephant treksand multiexperience one dayand half daytrips. Trip optionsare numerous with opportunitiesto alsosee workingmonkeys picking coconuts,visit rubber plantations,see traditionalThai food being prepared inthe jungle, shortkayak trips in mangrove estuaries and trekking in the jungle. 316 Current Issues in Tourism

More imitation and unfair competition Aswith SeaCanoe, imitators, using similarlogos, itineraries and generally passingoff asSiamSafari have set up in business.Mass tourism has driven prices downand Siam Safari have experienced similarproblems toSeaCanoe with unscrupulous touroperators and competitors. By 1999,there were 17elephant trekking companiesin Phuket witha totalof 170elephants ofwhich SiamSafari had 23. Adifferent problem in the field ofJeep Safaristook place in Phuket withthe adventof illegal operators.One company– andthere arenodoubt more – oper- atesexclusively during the high seasonusing allforeign guides (which isforbid- den under Thailaw) using rented Suzuki Jeeps. Packagetour representatives sell the toursdirectly to German tourists. Such activity,apart from being completely clandestineand illegal, doesincredible damageto potential tourism income. All ofthe revenues aretaken without paying anytax, no locals are employed and much of the money leaves the country. SiamSafari was honoured by the TATasthe BestTour Programme in 1996;in 1997,the companyreceived the BritishAirways Regional Tourism for Tomorrow Awardand in 1999,PATA awardedSiam Safari a GrandAward for Ecotourism and Thai Elephant Conservation. Greifenberg triesnot to use the word‘ ecotourism’in hismarketing, not because he doesnot apply thoseprinciples tohisbusiness, but because he feels thatthe wordis far too abused. Recently, he hasbeen atpains to ensure thathis jeep safaris,treks and other activities have no impact whatsoever on the environment by completely avoiding sensitive areas.

Mass tourism versus ecotourism The problems thatSiam Safari has experienced in Phuket areless complicated thanthose experienced by SeaCanoe,but nevertheless the problems arereal. Witha fleet of25 Land Rovers, over 20 elephants andthe capacityto handle 150people onaone-day trip,Greifenberg isnot happy withthe wayhis company hasgrown. He feels thathe hasbeen forcedinto catering to masstourism as the only meansto survive. He claimsthat competition has forced the productinto the massmarketfrom its humble beginnings, whichwas never hisintention. He sells atprices thatare similarto those charged 10 yearsago, despite considerableinfla- tion, especially as a result of the Asian currency collapse in 1997.

Conclusion Whatthen isthe future forecotourism operators faced witha marketof mass tourism?It is clear that the principles ofecotourismembodied in the twocompa- nies discussedare diametrically opposed to largenumbers oftourists,bottom line profitsof international tour operators and unscrupulous business practices. Butwhat are the options?In bothcases, the authoritiesare rather powerless to help. The Thaigovernment has a somewhat laissez-faire attitudeto business and the government’s agencies anddepartments are also powerless to help. The TourismAuthority of Thailandhas a roleof promoting tourism in the Kingdom, regulationis more a matterof registration of abusiness asatouroperator and there arenoreal laws to control what could be seen asesotericprinciples oftour- How Ecotourism can go Wrong 317 ismactivity. Whilst the overallcontrol of the NationalParks falls under the ForestryDepartment, the rules andregulations do not relate to overcrowding. Aslong astreesare not being felled, andwildlife isnotbeing damaged,there is little that the authorities can do. Itis easy in the Westto talkabout rules andregulations within the tourism industry.Despite centralgovernment rhetoric, in developing nations,under- standingand principles ofenvironmentallysensitive tourism at alocallevel is very hardto get across,especially in the light ofpotential business opportunities. Industrialdevelopment, particularlyin the Gulf ofThailandand dam construc- tionfor the country’s electricitydemand, imposes far more environmental damagethan dozens of kayaks,jeep safarisor elephants in adiscretearea. The new Thaiconstitution of 1997includes suchprovisions, as ‘aperson’s ultimate rightto work to provide supportfor the family’. Ultimately,Thailand is a sover- eign nation,and the authoritieshave the rightto govern the Kingdom inwhat- ever waythey think isright, as long asinternationallaws and human rights are notabused. Taking thisinto consideration, whilst ecotourism professionals and environmentalistsmay lament at such a tragicsituation, maybe ourefforts shouldbe directedmore to the mainstreamtourism industry itself. The Westis beginning totakethe problems ofchild prostitutionin Asiaon board in aninter- esting way–offending nationalsinvolved in sexwith minors overseas can now be prosecutedback home in somecountries. European Union lawsmake tourism operatorsresponsible forthe welfare oftheir customerswhilst overseas. Maybe the Westshould be doing moreto influence itsown tour operators to be more responsible with what they offer to tourists.

Correspondence Any correspondenceshould be directedto Noah Shepherd, Environmental Tourism Consultants, PO Box 1, Phuket, Thailand ([email protected]).

References Bangkok Post (1998) Economic Review. Bangkok Post (31 December). Bailey, M.(1998) Asia’s TourismMarket – TheUps and Downs, Issues and Trends . Bangkok: Pacific Asia Travel Association. Facultyof Hotel and Tourism Management (1998)Survey ofPhuket tourists. Unpublished research, Prince of Songkla University, Phuket, Thailand. Greifenberg, R. et al. (1998) Nature Guide – Thai Elephants. Phuket, Thailand: Siam Safari. Kontogeorgopoulos, N.(1998)Roughing it inPhuket, butthe Jones’haven’ t been there (yet).Reconceptualizing tourism and community development in southern Thailand. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department ofGeography, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (1996) Unedited field notes. Lindberg, K,(1998) EconomicAspects of Ecotourism.Ecotourism – AGuidefor Planners and Managers, (vol. 2). Bennington, VT: Ecotourism Society. Phongpaichit, P.and Baker, C.(1996) Thailand’s Boom. Chiang Mai,Thailand: Silkworm Books. Rome, M. (1999) Shooting to kill. Action Asia (February/March). Hong Kong. SeaCanoe (1997/98) SeaCanoe Brochure . Phuket, Thailand: SeaCanoe Thailand. SeaCanoe (1998) Website at http://seacanoe.com. Shepherd, N.(1998)Ecotourism in Thailand –where does the money go?Tourism revenues in the light ofthe SoutheastAsian economic crisis. ThirdInternational Conference – 318 Current Issues in Tourism

‘Community BasedEcotourism’ . Bangkok: Institute ofEcotourism, Srinakarinwiroj University. Siam Safari (1999a) Sales Brochures . Thailand: Siam Safari. Siam Safari (1999b) Website at http://www.siamsafari.com Tourism Authority ofThailand (undated) VisitorStatistics .Bangkok: StatisticsDepartment.