Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Ecotourism is often hailed as a sustainable alternative to traditional travel—an opportunity to explore unique environments while supporting local communities and conservation efforts. Yet beneath its green image lies a more complex and often troubling reality. When poorly managed, ecotourism can inflict more harm than good, undermining the very ideals it seeks to uphold.

The ecotourism industry has emerged as one of the fastest-expanding sectors within global travel. According to the Global Ecotourism Network, in 2023, eco-travel accounted for an estimated 20 percent of the international tourism market, with projections indicating continued double-digit annual growth. In 2023 alone, the global ecotourism market was valued at over $200 billion. Economic predictions estimate that the market could reach between $759 billion by 2032 and $945 billion by 2034.

Despite this rapid growth and economic promise, ecotourism enterprises have faced significant criticism from conservationists and researchers. In a 2020 Architectural Review article titled “Outrage: The Ecotourism Hoax,” Smith Mordak, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), asserted that “As long as the underlying principle behind tourism is to bring growth-stimulating inward investment, tourism cannot be made ‘eco.’”

The Ecotourism Paradox

Mordak’s remarks expose the deeper contradictions within many so-called “sustainable” initiatives, drawing attention to the pervasive issues of greenwashing and bluewashing. Just as corporations may falsely brand themselves as environmentally friendly or socially responsible to appeal to conscious consumers, ecotourism companies often mask exploitative or unsustainable practices behind the veneer of conservation. Ultimately, without a fundamental shift in the economic principles that underpin ecotourism, efforts to make the industry sustainable risk becoming performative, focusing on marketing rather than achieving meaningful impact.

According to UKGBC’s Mordak, “Like everything else nurtured in the agar jelly of capitalism, noble intentions soon become corrupted, and the ‘eco’ prefix amounts to little more than a greenwashing rebrand.”

Ecotourism is built on a dual promise—to protect natural environments and to share them with visitors—yet fulfilling one often puts the other at risk. In April 2025, I interviewed Dave Blanton, founder of Friends of the Serengeti. He started the organization in response to a proposed commercial highway through Serengeti National Park, a development that would have fragmented the ecosystem and destroyed critical migratory routes. He explained the paradox: “On one hand, the growth of tourism in the Serengeti-Mara region will generate government revenue and create jobs. On the other hand, it will increase environmental pressure and diminish the traveler experience.”

Blanton, whose connection to the Serengeti spans over four decades, said, “It is difficult to ensure high standards and best practices in the face of increased demand, competition, and overly ambitious goals for growth.

Grassroots Origins, Global Ideals

Rooted in principles of sustainability and community engagement, grassroots ecotourism, which emerged in the early 1980s, was developed as a response to growing global concerns about environmental degradation and the negative impacts of mass tourism. It emphasizes low-cost, purpose-driven travel experiences that foster direct contributions to conservation and local development.

The current grassroots volunteer travel industry—often referred to as “voluntourism”—continues to attract socially conscious travelers seeking meaningful, hands-on experiences that contribute to local communities and conservation efforts. Programs typically involve small-scale, community-led initiatives that prioritize local needs, such as wildlife monitoring, habitat restoration, education, or sustainable agriculture, and take the form of educational exchanges or participation in field research.

Volunteer travelers opting for low-cost expeditions may pay between $20 and $50 per day, which usually covers necessities such as meals, local transportation, and accommodation. Lodging in these programs is typically modest, ranging from rural homestays and shared guesthouses to dormitory-style lodgings or even tents, depending on the location and nature of the work.

Some who have participated in volunteer travel expeditions have reported a lack of resources and infrastructure, which leaves both volunteers and host communities struggling to meet basic needs. Poorly managed programs are another common complaint, with some volunteers arriving to find disorganized projects, minimal supervision, and unclear objectives. Especially troubling is that some wildlife conservation programs have been accused of neglecting animals by housing them in inadequate enclosures—small, unsanitary, or unsafe spaces that can cause stress, injury, or behavioral problems.

Conservation or Commercial Growth?

Increasingly, however, the voluntourism model is being supplanted by the proliferation of large-scale, high-end commercial ventures, where travelers are observers rather than helpers. The modern ecotourism landscape is increasingly dominated by luxury enterprises, some of which feature elegant eco-lodges, boutique resorts, and nature-based retreats offering the comforts of premium hospitality.

Accommodations are often situated in remote, pristine environments, such as nature reserves, rainforests, or coastal regions. Amenities may include private villas or bungalows, gourmet organic cuisine, private wildlife excursions, and wellness offerings like yoga and spa treatments. Prices for these luxury experiences can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars per night.

With the expansion of major hotel chains and multinational businesses in conservation areas, critics argue that the scale and........

© CounterPunch