Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 2007. Sectio Scientarium Economicarum et Socialium. (Acta Academiae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 34)

Chambliss Karen-Slotkin Michael H.-Vámosi Alexander R.: A 'javító' fenntarthatóság a'steady-state' fenntarthatóság és a strukturált ökoturizmus

A 'javító' fenntarthatóság.. 23 In contrast, soft ecotourists take shorter multi-purpose trips, are physically passive, and desire a service-intensive, mediated experience. And unlike their counterparts, soft ecotourists are steady-state sustainers.

7 In the WL study the ecotourism continuum was supported through cluster analysis; soft and hard clusters revealed significantly different intensities for all characteristics detailed save the asterisked rows. But perhaps their most intriguing insight concerns the uncovering "of a large and distinctive cluster of structured (our emphasis) ecotourists" [WL, p. 278]. This third cluster, with respect to their commitment to the environment and enhancive sustainability, as well as their physical activeness, is much like the hard ideal type (see the left-hand side bold items in Figure 1). However, with respect to their desire for service and mediation as well as their preference for short, large group, multi-purpose trips, structured ecotourists are similar to soft ecotourists (see the right-hand side bold items in Figure I). In essence, the structured ecotourist cluster reveals a non-intermediate hybridized population that may express a soft ecotourism phenotype while carrying strong sustainability genotypes. Another way of stating this, which is central to the overall theme of this paper, is the following: A large number of nature tourists engaged in what appears to be soft ecotourism activities are much more committed to environmental preservation than is commonly believed. This reality has profound implications for marketing, advocacy, and ultimately, sustainability [Singh et al. {forthcoming

)]. And this point is perfectly consistent with what Weaver (2001) articulates when he opines that properly seen, ecotourism and mass tourism are not contradictory, but rather, offer mutually beneficial linkages. His underlying argument was that the impact of individuals engaged in ecotourism activity in either its soft form or as an offshoot of a mass tourism both numerically and financially dominates hard ecotourism activity.

8 But unlike others who view anything other than hard ecotourism in its purest form as a corrupting influence, Weaver views the large clientele of marginal ecotourists as a revenue generator, lobbying force, and facilitator of scale economies [(2001), p.109].

9 All promote 7 Doubts exist as to whether ecotourism can achieve any sort of sustainability. After all, the introduction of even the mildest impacts is likely to leave residual damage. By definition, however, ecotourism induces mitigating effects through educational legacies and redirected eco-dollars. See Lowman (2004) for interesting case studies on ecotourism's impact on forest conservation. Wight (1996b) supports this outlook with her emerging ecotourism market trends that project an increase in soft adventure as well as educational travel. Additionally, Meric and Hunt (1998), utilizing a typology due Lindberg (1991), studied 245 ecotourists with recent travel experiences in North Carolina. Less than half self-identified themselves as hard-core nature tourists (1.3%) or dedicated nature tourists (45%) while about 54 percent selfidentified as mainstream nature tourists (6.1%) or casual nature tourists (47.6%). 9 Interestingly, Hvenegaard (2002) found a marginal relationship between birder specialization level and conservation involvement. Using cluster analysis, birders were segmented into advanced-experienced, advanced-active, and novice groups, which entailed decreasing