Ecotourism is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a lowimpact and often small scale alternative to standard commercial (mass) tourism. Its purpose may be to educate the traveller, to provide funds forecological conservation, to directly benefit the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, or to foster respect for different cultures and for human rights. Since the 1980s ecotourism has been considered a critical endeavour by environmentalists, so that future generations may experience destinations relatively untouched by human intervention.
Several university programs use this description as the working definition of ecotourism. Generally, ecotourism focuses on socially responsible travel, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. Ecotourism typically involves travel to destinations where flora, fauna, and cultural heritage are the primary attractions. Ecotourism is intended to offer tourists insight into the impact of human beings on the environment, and to foster a greater appreciation of our natural habitats. Responsible ecotourism includes programs that minimize the negative aspects of conventional tourism on the environment and enhance the cultural integrity of local people. Therefore, in addition to evaluating environmental and cultural factors, an integral part of ecotourism is the promotion of recycling, energy efficiency, water conservation, and creation of economic opportunities for local communities. For these reasons, ecotourism often appeals to advocates of environmental and social responsibility.
Ecotourism is a form of tourism that involves visiting natural areas—in the remote wilderness or rural environments. According to the definition and principles of ecotourism established by The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) in 1990, ecotourism is “Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the wellbeing of local people.” (TIES, 1990). Martha Honey, expands on the TIES definition by describing the seven characteristics of ecotourism, which are: * Involves travel to natural destinations
* Minimizes impact
* Builds environmental awareness
* Provides direct financial benefits for conservation
* Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people
* Respects local culture
* Supports human rights and democratic movements such as:
* conservation of biological diversity and cultural diversity through ecosystem protection * promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local populations * sharing of socioeconomic benefits with local communities and indigenous peoples by having their informed consent and participation in the management of ecotourism enterprises * tourism to unspoiled natural resources, with minimal impact on the environment being a primary concern. * minimization of tourism’s own environmental impact
* affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury
* local culture, flora and fauna being the main attractions * local people benefit from this form of tourism economically, often more than mass tourism Ecotourism Society Pakistan (ESP) explains “Ecotourism is a travel activity that ensures direct financial support to local people where tourism activities are being generated and enjoyed. It teaches travellers to respect local cultures of destinations where travellers are visiting. It supports small stakeholders to ensure that money must not go out from the local economies. It discourage mass tourism, mass constructions of hotels, tourism resorts and mass activities in fragile areas”. For many countries, ecotourism is not simply a marginal activity to finance protection of the environment, but is a major industry of the national economy. For example, in Costa Rica,Ecuador, Nepal, Kenya, Madagascar and territories such as Antarctica, ecotourism represents a significant portion of the gross domestic product and economic activity.
Ecotourism is often misinterpreted as any form of tourism that involves nature (see Jungle tourism). In reality, the latter activities often consist of placing a hotel in a splendid landscape, to the detriment of the ecosystem. According to them[who?] ecotourism must above all sensitize people to the beauty and the fragility of nature. They[who?] condemn some operators as greenwashing their operations: using the labels of “green” and “ecofriendly”, while behaving in environmentally irresponsible ways. Although academics disagree about who can be classified as an ecotourist and there is little statistical data, some estimate that more than five million ecotourists—the majority of the ecotourist population—come from the United States, with many others from Western Europe, Canada and Australia. Currently, there are various moves to create national and international ecotourism accreditation programs, although the process is also controversial. National ecotourism certification programs have been put in place in countries such as Costa Rica, Australia, Kenya and Sweden.
An elephant safari through the Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary in West Bengal, India Hector CeballosLascurain popularized (and he would say coined) the term ‘ecotourism’ in July 1983, when he was performing the dual role of Director General of Standards and Technology of SEDUE (the Mexican Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology) and founding president of PRONATURA (an influential Mexican conservationist NGO). PRONATURA was lobbying for the conservation of the wetlands in northern Yucatán as breeding and feeding habitats of the American Flamingo. Others claim the term was in use earlier: ClausDieter (Nick) Hetzer, an academic and adventurer from Forum International in Berkeley, CA, coined the term in 1965 and ran the first ecotours in the Yucatán during the early 1970s. Ecotourism, responsible tourism, jungle tourism, and sustainable development have become prevalent concepts since the mid 1980s, and ecotourism has experienced arguably the fastest growth of all subsectors in the tourism industry. The popularity represents a change in tourist perceptions, increased environmental awareness, and a desire to explore natural environments. At times, such changes become as much a statement affirming one’s social identity, educational sophistication, and disposable income as it has about preserving the Amazon rainforest or the Caribbean reef for posterity.
However, in the continuum of tourism activities that stretch from conventional tourism to ecotourism proper, there has been a lot of contention to the limit at which biodiversity preservation, local socialeconomic benefits, and environmental impact can be considered “ecotourism”. For this reason, environmentalists, special interest groups, and governments define ecotourism differently. Environmental organizations have generally insisted that ecotourism is naturebased, sustainably managed, conservation supporting, and environmentally educated. The tourist industry and governments, however, focus more on the product aspect, treating ecotourism as equivalent to any sort of tourism based in nature. As a further complication, many terms are used under the rubric of ecotourism. Nature tourism, low impact tourism, green tourism, biotourism, ecologically responsible tourism, and others have been used in literature and marketing, although they are not necessary synonymous with ecotourism. The problems associated with defining ecotourism have led to confusion among tourists and academics.
Definitional problems are also subject of considerable public controversy and concern because of green washing, a trend towards the commercialization of tourism schemes disguised as sustainable, nature based, and environmentally friendly ecotourism. According to McLaren, these schemes are environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive at its worst. They are also morally disconcerting because they mislead tourists and manipulate their concerns for the environment. The development and success of such large scale, energy intensive, and ecologically unsustainable schemes are a testament to the tremendous profits associated with being labeled as ecotourism.
Regulation and accreditation
Because the regulation of ecotourism may be poorly implemented or nonexistent, ecologically destructive greenwashed operations like underwater hotels, helicopter tours, and wildlife theme parks can be categorized as ecotourism along with canoeing, camping, photography, and wildlife observation. The failure to acknowledge responsible, lowimpact ecotourism puts legitimate ecotourism companies at a competitive disadvantage. Many environmentalists have argued for a global standard of accreditation, differentiating ecotourism companies based on their level of environmental commitment. A national or international regulatory board would enforce accreditation procedures, with representation from various groups including governments, hotels, tour operators, travel agents, guides, airlines, local authorities, conservation organizations, and nongovernmental organizations.
The decisions of the board would be sanctioned by governments, so that noncompliant companies would be legally required to disassociate themselves from the use of the ecotourism brand. Crinion suggests a Green Stars System, based on criteria including a management plan, benefit for the local community, small group interaction, education value and staff training. Ecotourists who consider their choices would be confident of a genuine ecotourism experience when they see the higher star rating. In addition, environmental impact assessments could be used as a form of accreditation. Feasibility is evaluated from a scientific basis, and recommendations could be made to optimally plan infrastructure, set tourist capacity, and manage the ecology. This form of accreditation is more sensitive to site specific conditions.
Airboating has become a popular ecotourism attraction in the FloridaEverglades in the USA Guidelines and education
An environmental protection strategy must address the issue of ecotourists removed from the causeandeffect of their actions on the environment. More initiatives should be carried out to improve their awareness, sensitize them to environmental issues, and care about the places they visit. Tour guides are an obvious and direct medium to communicate awareness. With the confidence of ecotourists and intimate knowledge of the environment, they can actively discuss conservation issues. A tour guide training program in Costa Rica’s Tortuguero National Parkhas helped mitigate negative environmental impacts by providing information and regulating tourists on the parks’ beaches used by nesting endangered sea turtles.  ===Small scale, slow growth and local control
The underdevelopment theory of tourism describes a new form of imperialism by multinational corporations that control ecotourism resources. These corporations finance and profit from the development of large scale ecotourism that causes excessive environmental degradation, loss of traditional culture and way of life, and exploitation of local labor. In Zimbabwe and Nepal’s Annapurna region, where underdevelopment is taking place, more than 90 percent of ecotourism revenues are expatriated to the parent countries, and less than 5 percent go into local communities. The lack of sustainability highlights the need for small scale, slow growth, and locally based ecotourism. Local peoples have a vested interest in the well being of their community, and are therefore more accountable to environmental protection than multinational corporations. The lack of control, westernization, adverse impacts to the environment, loss of culture and traditions outweigh the benefits of establishing large scale ecotourism. The increased contributions of communities to locally managed ecotourism create viable economic opportunities, including high level management positions, and reduce environmental issues associated with poverty and unemployment. Because the ecotourism experience is marketed to a different lifestyle from large scale ecotourism, the development of facilities and infrastructure does not need to conform to corporate Western tourism standards, and can be much simpler and less expensive. There is a greatermultiplier effect on the economy, because local products, materials, and labor are used. Profits accrue locally and import leakages are reduced.
The Great Barrier Reef Park in Australia reported over half of a billion dollars of indirect income in the area and added thousands of indirect jobs between 2004 and 2005. However, even this form of tourism may require foreign investment for promotion or start up. When such investments are required, it is crucial for communities for find a company or nongovernmental organization that reflects the philosophy of ecotourism; sensitive to their concerns and willing to cooperate at the expense of profit. The basic assumption of the multiplier effect is that the economy starts off with unused resources, for example, that many workers are cyclically unemployed and much of industrial capacity is sitting idle or incompletely utilized. By increasing demand in the economy it is then possible to boost production. If the economy was already at full employment, with only structural, frictional, or other supplyside types of unemployment, any attempt to boost demand would only lead to inflation. For various laissezfaire schools of economics which embrace Say’s Law and deny the possibility of Keynesian inefficiency and underemployment of resources, therefore, the multiplier concept is irrelevant or wrongheaded. As an example, consider the government increasing its expenditure on roads by $1 million, without a corresponding increase in taxation. This sum would go to the road builders, who would hire more workers and distribute the money as wages and profits.
The households receiving these incomes will save part of the money and spend the rest on consumer goods. These expenditures in turn will generate more jobs, wages, and profits, and so on with the income and spending circulating around the economy. The multiplier effect arises because of the induced increases in consumer spending which occur due to the increased incomes — and because of the feedback into increasing business revenues, jobs, and income again. This process does not lead to an economic explosion not only because of the supplyside barriers at potential output (full employment) but because at each “round”, the increase in consumer spending is less than the increase in consumer incomes. That is, the marginal propensity to consume (mpc) is less than one, so that each round some extra income goes into saving, leaking out of the cumulative process. Each increase in spending is thus smaller than that of the previous round, preventing an explosion.Ecotourism has to be implemented with care.
Natural resource management
Natural resource management can be utilized as a specialized tool for the development of ecotourism. There are several places throughout the world where the amount of natural resources are abundant. But, with human encroachment and habitats these resources are depleting. Without knowing the proper utilization of certain resources they are destroyed and floral and faunal species are becoming extinct. Ecotourism programmes can be introduced for the conservation of these resources. Several plans and proper management programmes can be introduced so that these resources remain untouched. Several organizations, NGO’s, scientists are working on this field.
Natural resources of hill areas like Kurseong in West Bengal are plenty in number with various flora and fauna, but tourism for business purpose poised the situation. Researcher from Jadavpur University presently working in this area for the develeopment of ecotourism which can be utilized as a tool for natural resource management. In Southeast Asia government and nongovernmental organisations are working together with academics and industry operators to spread the economic benefits of tourism into the kampungs and villages of the region. A recently formed alliance, the SouthEast Asian Tourism Organisation (SEATO), is bringing together these diverse players to allay resource management concerns. A 2002 summit held in Quebec led to the 2008 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, a collaborative effort between the UN Foundation and other advocacy groups. The criteria, which are voluntary, involve the following standards: “effective sustainability planning, maximum social and economic benefits for local communities, minimum negative impacts on cultural heritage, and minimum negative impacts on the environment.” (Clarkin and Kähler, p. 423)
Negative impact of tourism
Ecotourism has become one of the fastestgrowing sectors of the tourism industry, growing annually by 10–15% worldwide (Miller, 2007). One definition of ecotourism is “the practice of lowimpact, educational, ecologically and culturally sensitive travel that benefits local communities and host countries” (Honey, 1999). Many of the ecotourism projects are not meeting these standards. Even if some of the guidelines are being executed, the local communities are still facing other negative impacts. South Africa is one of the countries that are reaping significant economic benefits from ecotourism, but negative effects—including forcing people to leave their homes, gross violations of fundamental rights, and environmental hazards—far outweigh the mediumterm economic benefits (Miller, 2007). A tremendous amount of money is being spent and human resources continue to be used for ecotourism despite unsuccessful outcomes, and even more money is put into public relation campaigns to dilute the effects of criticism. Ecotourism channels resources away from other projects that could contribute more sustainable and realistic solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. “The money tourism can generate often ties parks and managements to ecotourism” (Walpole et al. 2001).
But there is a tension in this relationship because ecotourism often causes conflict and changes in landuse rights, fails to deliver promises of communitylevel benefits, damages environments, and has plenty of other social impacts. Indeed many argue repeatedly that ecotourism is neither ecologically nor socially beneficial, yet it persists as a strategy for conservation and development (West, 2006). While several studies are being done on ways to improve the ecotourism structure, some argue that these examples provide rationale for stopping it altogether. The ecotourism system exercises tremendous financial and political influence. The evidence above shows that a strong case exists for restraining such activities in certain locations. Funding could be used for field studies aimed at finding alternative solutions to tourism and the diverse problems Africa faces in result of urbanization, industrialization, and the over exploitation of agriculture (Kamuaro, 2007). At the local level, ecotourism has become a source of conflict over control of land, resources, and tourism profits. In this case, ecotourism has harmed the environment and local people, and has led to conflicts over profit distribution. In a perfect world more efforts would be made towards educating tourists of the environmental and social effects of their travels. Very few regulations or laws stand in place as boundaries for the investors in ecotourism.
These should be implemented to prohibit the promotion of unsustainable ecotourism projects and materials which project false images of destinations, demeaning local and indigenous cultures. Though conservation efforts in East Africa are indisputably serving the interests of tourism in the region it is important to make the distinction between conservation acts and the tourism industry. Eastern African communities are not the only of developing regions to experience economic and social harms from conservation efforts. Conservation in the Northwest Yunnan Region of China has similarly brought drastic changes to traditional land use in the region. Prior to logging restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government the industry made up 80 percent of the regions revenue. Following a complete ban on commercial logging the indigenous people of the Yunnan region now see little opportunity for economic development. Ecotourism may provide solutions to the economic hardships suffered from the loss of industry to conservation in the Yunnan in the same way that it may serve to remedy the difficulties faced by the Maasai. As stated, the ecotourism structure must be improved to direct more money into host communities by reducing leakages for the industry to be successful in alleviating poverty in developing regions, but it provides a promising opportunity.  Direct environmental impacts
Ecotourism operations occasionally fail to live up to conservation ideals. It is sometimes overlooked that ecotourism is a highly consumercentered activity, and that environmental conservation is a means to further economic growth. Although ecotourism is intended for small groups, even a modest increase in population, however temporary, puts extra pressure on the local environment and necessitates the development of additional infrastructure and amenities. The construction of water treatment plants, sanitation facilities, and lodges come with the exploitation of nonrenewable energy sources and the utilization of already limited local resources. The conversion of natural land to such tourist infrastructure is implicated in deforestation and habitat deterioration of butterflies in Mexico and squirrel monkeys in Costa Rica. In other cases, the environment suffers because local communities are unable to meet the infrastructure demands of ecotourism. The lack of adequate sanitation facilities in many East African parks results in the disposal of campsite sewage in rivers, contaminating the wildlife, livestock, and people who draw drinking water from it. Aside from environmental degradation with tourist infrastructure, population pressures from ecotourism also leaves behind garbage and pollution associated with the Western lifestyle. Although ecotourists claim to be educationally sophisticated and environmentally concerned, they rarely understand the ecological consequences of their visits and how their daytoday activities append physical impacts on the environment.
As one scientist observes, they “rarely acknowledge how the meals they eat, the toilets they flush, the water they drink, and so on, are all part of broader regional economic and ecological systems they are helping to reconfigure with their very activities.” Nor do ecotourists recognize the great consumption of nonrenewable energy required to arrive at their destination, which is typically more remote than conventional tourism destinations. For instance, an exotic journey to a place 10,000 kilometers away consumes about 700 liters of fuel per person. Ecotourism activities are, in and of themselves, issues in environmental impact because they may disturb fauna and flora. Ecotourists believe that because they are only taking pictures and leaving footprints, they keep ecotourism sites pristine, but even harmlesssounding activities such as nature hikes can be ecologically destructive. In the AnnapurnaCircuit in Nepal, ecotourists have worn down the marked trails and created alternate routes, contributing to soil impaction, erosion, and plant damage. Where the ecotourism activity involves wildlife viewing, it can scare away animals, disrupt their feeding and nesting sites, or acclimate them to the presence of people. In Kenya, wildlifeobserver disruption drives cheetahs off their reserves, increasing the risk of inbreeding and further endangering the species. Environmental hazards
| This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2007)| The industrialization, urbanization, and unsustainable agriculture practices of human society are considered to be having a serious effect on the environment. Ecotourism is now also considered to be playing a role in this depletion. While the term ecotourism may sound relatively benign, one of its most serious impacts is its consumption of virgin territories (Kamuaro, 2007). These invasions often include deforestation, disruption of ecological life systems and various forms of pollution, all of which contribute to environmental degradation. The number of motor vehicles crossing the park increases as tour drivers search for rare species. The number of roads has disrupted the grass cover which has serious effects on plant and animal species.
These areas also have a higher rate of disturbances and invasive species because of all the traffic moving off the beaten path into new undiscovered areas (Kamuaro, 2007). Ecotourism also has an effect on species through the value placed on them. “Certain species have gone from being little known or valued by local people to being highly valued commodities. The commodification of plants may erase their social value and lead to overproduction within protected areas. Local people and their images can also be turned into commodities” (West, 2006). Kamuaro brings up a relatively obvious contradiction, any commercial venture into unspoiled, pristine land with or without the “eco” prefix as a contradiction in terms. To generate revenue you have to have a high number of traffic, tourists, which inevitably means a higher pressure on the environment. Local people
Most forms of ecotourism are owned by foreign investors and corporations that provide few benefits to local communities. An overwhelming majority of profits are put into the pockets of investors instead of reinvestment into the local economy or environmental protection. The limited numbers of local people who are employed in the economy enter at its lowest level, and are unable to live in tourist areas because of meager wages and a two market system. In some cases, the resentment by local people results in environmental degradation. As a highly publicized case, the Maasai nomads in Kenya killed wildlife in national parks to show aversion to unfair compensation terms and displacement from traditional lands. The lack of economic opportunities for local people also constrains them to degrade the environment as a means of sustenance. The presence of affluent ecotourists encourage the development of destructive markets in wildlife souvenirs, such as the sale of coral trinkets on tropical islands and animal products in Asia, contributing to illegal harvesting and poaching from the environment. In Suriname, sea turtle reserves use a very large portion of their budget to guard against these destructive activities. Displacement of people
One of the most powerful examples of communities being moved in order to create a park is the story of the Maasai. About 70% of national parks and game reserves in East Africa are on Maasai land (Kamuaro, 2007). The first undesirable impact of tourism was that of the extent of land lost from the Maasai culture. Local and national governments took advantage of the Maasai’s ignorance on the situation and robbed them of huge chunks of grazing land, putting to risk their only socioeconomic livelihood. In Kenya the Maasai also have not gained any economic benefits. Despite the loss of their land, employment favours better educated workers. Furthermore the investors in this area are not local and have not put profits back into local economy. In some cases game reserves can be created without informing or consulting local people, who come to find out about the situation when an eviction notice is delivered (Kamuaro, 2007). Another source of resentment is the manipulation of the local people by their government. “Ecotourism works to create simplistic images of local people and their uses and understandings of their surroundings. Through the lens of these simplified images, officials direct policies and projects towards the local people and the local people are blamed if the projects fail” (West, 2006). Clearly tourism as a trade is not empowering the local people who make it rich and satisfying. Instead ecotourism exploits and depletes, particularly in African Maasai tribes. It has to be reoriented if it is to be useful to local communities and to become sustainable (Kamuaro, 2007). Threats to indigenous cultures
Ecotourism often claims that it preserves and “enhances” local cultures. However, evidence shows that with the establishment of protected areas local people have illegally lost their homes, and most often with no compensation (Kamuaro, 2007). Pushing people onto marginal lands with harsh climates, poor soils, lack of water, and infested with livestock and disease does little to enhance livelihoods even when a proportion of ecotourism profits are directed back into the community. The establishment of parks can create harsh survival realities and deprive the people of their traditional use of land and natural resources. Ethnic groups are increasingly being seen as a “backdrop” to the scenery and wildlife. The local people struggle for cultural survival and freedom of cultural expression while being “observed” by tourists. Local indigenous people also have strong resentment towards the change, “Tourism has been allowed to develop with virtually no controls. Too many lodges have been built, too much firewood is being used and no limits are being placed on tourism vehicles. They regularly drive offtrack and harass the wildlife. Their vehicle tracks criscross the entire Masai Mara. Inevitably the bush is becoming eroded and degraded” (Kamuaro, 2007). Mismanagement
While governments are typically entrusted with the administration and enforcement of environmental protection, they often lack the commitment or capability to manage ecotourism sites effectively. The regulations for environmental protection may be vaguely defined, costly to implement, hard to enforce, and uncertain in effectiveness. Government regulatory agencies, as political bodies, are susceptible to making decisions that spend budget on politically beneficial but environmentally unproductive projects. Because of prestige and conspicuousness, the construction of an attractive visitor’s center at an ecotourism site may take precedence over more pressing environmental concerns like acquiring habitat, protecting endemic species, and removing invasive ones. Finally, influential groups can pressure and sway the interests of the government to their favor. The government and its regulators can become vested in the benefits of the ecotourism industry which they are supposed to regulate, causing restrictive environmental regulations and enforcement to become more lenient. Management of ecotourism sites by private ecotourism companies offers an alternative to the cost of regulation and deficiency of government agencies. It is believed that these companies have a selfinterest in limited environmental degradation, because tourists will pay more for pristine environments, which translates to higher profit.
However, theory indicates that this practice is not economically feasible and will fail to manage the environment. The model of monopolistic competition states that distinctiveness will entail profits, but profits will promote imitation. A company that protects its ecotourism sites is able to charge a premium for the novel experience and pristine environment. But when other companies view the success of this approach, they also enter the market with similar practices, increasing competition and reducing demand. Eventually, the demand will be reduced until the economic profit is zero. A costbenefit analysis shows that the company bears the cost of environmental protection without receiving the gains. Without economic incentive, the whole premise of selfinterest through environmental protection is quashed; instead, ecotourism companies will minimize environment related expenses and maximize tourism demand.
The tragedy of the commons offers another model for economic unsustainability from environmental protection, in ecotourism sites utilized by many companies. Although there is a communal incentive to protect the environment, maximizing the benefits in the long run, a company will conclude that it is in their best interest to utilize the ecotourism site beyond its sustainable level. By increasing the number of ecotourists, for instance, a company gains all the economic benefit while paying only a part of the environmental cost. In the same way, a company recognizes that there is no incentive to actively protect the environment; they bear all the costs, while the benefits are shared by all other companies. The result, again, is mismanagement. Taken together, the mobility of foreign investment and lack of economic incentive for environmental protection means that ecotourism companies are disposed to establishing themselves in new sites once their existing one is sufficiently degraded.
Llano del Muerto waterfall in El Salvador
The Cedars in Lebanon
Lacandon Jungle in Mexico
Fernando de Noronha in Brazil
Gnus and zebras in the Masai Mara park reserve in Kenya.
Wolin National Park, Poland
Ecotourism is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a lowimpact and * Palau
The Republic of Palau is one of the only few places in the world where the natural environment hasn’t been effected by the global environmental degradation. Located in the Pacific Ocean, the island country features some of the best diving locations, with crystal clear sea featuring more than 500 species of coral among a rich marine ecosystem. The most populous islands here are Angaur, Babeldaob, Koror and Peleliu. * The Amazonia, Brazil
If you’re interested in witnessing the vastness of life forms and biodiversity, the Amazonian Rainforest is the place to be. With over 1.4 billion acres of land covered by dense rainforest, the Amazon represents over half of our planet’s remaining rainforests and is the largest and the
most speciesrich tropical rainforest in the entire world. With a store of natural resources, the rainforest produces about 20 percent of the world’s oxygen. The naturally dense area features hundreds of species of animals, plants, reptiles, making it one of the most interesting locations in the world for green travelers. * Norwegian Fjords
The famous fjords of Norway provide an exceptional example of eco tourism to attract green travelers from around the world. The fjords have the best of everything, ranging from snowladen peaks to cascading waterfalls among a rich diversity of wildlife. The area’s natural environment is protected by several government regulations, to ensure visitors get a taste of nature in its pristine form. As a visitor you can go for hiking or biking on the rugged terrain, while enjoying clean air and lush green valleys. * Kerala, India
Often referred to as “God’s own country” by the Indian government, Kerala is one of the smallest states of India, but one of the most beautiful when considering its dense forests and crystal clear beaches. The area is house to 25 percent of the plant species found in India among hundreds of unique animal species. The state also houses the Rajamala National park, which serves as a safe house for a variety of endangered animals. Spending a few days in Kerala won’t only bring you closer to nature, but also encourage you to take care of the environment. * Costa Rica
For many in the world, eco tourism is synonymous with Costa Rica and rightly so as the region is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world with 20 natural parks, eight biological reserves and a lot of protected areas to safeguard natural life. If you’re interested in witnessing sea turtle nestling and check out protected species such as crocodiles, manatees, pack your bags right now and head over to Costa Rica.