生態(tài)旅游內(nèi)涵的若干思考英文翻譯

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設計(論文)英文翻譯</p><p>　　Reflections on the Connotations of Ecotourism</p><p>　　Abstract: As the most desirable option for sustainable develop-ment of tourism industry, ecotourism still

2、suffers from lack of a clear-cut and widely accepted definition, posing many risks and threats in its practices. Based on collection and collation of various concepts and explanations of ecotourism both at home and abroa

3、d, this paper reflects on the current connotations of ecotourism in terms of four aspects, namely, objects of ecotour-ism, ecotourists, nature of ecotourism as well as the re</p><p>　　Key words: ecotourism,

4、connotations, externality</p><p>　　1? Concepts and connotations of ecotourism</p><p>　　Controversy has always existed over the definition and essence of ecotourism since the formal introduction

5、of the term by Ceballos-Lascurain around two decades ago. Chinese experts Lu and Wang (2001) listed altogether 73 expressions of this term in their publication The Study of Ecotourism, some estimates that there have alre

6、ady been at least 100 definitions of ecotourism. Here are several defini-tions of considerable influence. As the first person to use the term of ecotourism, Ceballos-Lascura</p><p>　　It can be found that, fr

7、om the aforementioned definitions, as time went on, the concepts of ecotourism have continu-ously been broadened and the connotations enriched. To sum up, the present connotations of ecotourism mainly include the followi

8、ng contents: (1) objects of ecotourism: natural areas, as well as ecosystem featuring co-existence between man and nature; (2) subjects of ecotourism: those who travel in a responsible form and shoulder obligations for e

9、nvironmental protection and social a</p><p>　　2 Doubts over connotations of ecotourism</p><p>　　Owing to the lack of a clea r-cut and generally accepted definition and the subjective extension

10、of the concept, the term of ecotourism has long been abused, misleading the decision making, planning and management in ecotourism initiatives. As a result, the accuracy of the connotations of ecotourism should be examin

11、ed and analyzed to address the complexity of eco-tourism and the problems in ecotourism development in China.</p><p>　　2.1? Doubts over objects of ecotourism</p><p>　　Among almost all the defini

12、tions of ecotourism, the objects of ecotourism are generally confined to natural tour-ism resources, especially natural areas with sound ecologic environment which have only slightly or never been dis-turbed or polluted,

13、 such as protected areas, forest parks, etc. However, controversy has emerged on this point.</p><p>　　The original motivation for tourists to participate in ecotourism is to go back to nature and nature comp

14、rises different types of ecosystems, including forest ecosystem, grassland ecosystem, sand ecosystem, fresh water eco-system and ocean ecosystem, etc. At present, on the one hand, ecotourism is mainly conducted in the en

15、vironment of forests, grasslands, fresh waters and oceans, which have sound ecosystem and quality surroundings. While desolate sands, marshes, etc, on the other hand, with the</p><p>　　A large number of scho

16、lars argue that only natural tour-ism resources can be the objects of ecotourism. However, since human beings are the most important component of earth ecosystem and human activities are the most important contributing f

17、actors in ecosystems, it will be one-sided not to incorporate cultural tourism resources into objects of eco-tourism. Such ethnic and folk cultural tourism resources, ac-tually, as Dongba Culture of Naxi ethnic minority

18、group, Li-jiang and the marriage and f</p><p>　　Obviously, the attempt to confine objects of ecotourism to natural tourism resources, especially well preserved natural areas, will contribute to confusion in

19、concepts of various con-ventional tours and mislead ecotourism practice. Two nega-tive implications will emerge under such concepts: (1) Entic-ing large numbers of tourists to rush to ecologically sound areas, which will

20、 definitely lead to severe damage or pollu-tion to these areas. Research findings suggest that, in China, among the natur</p><p>　　2.2? Doubts over ecotourists</p><p>　　According to related lite

21、rature, ecotourists can be divided in terms of broad and narrow senses. Ecotourists of the broad sense refer to all visitors to ecotourism destinations. Despite statistical practicality, it fails to describe the holistic

22、 profile of ecotourists and reveal the essential difference between them and conventional tourists; ecotourists of the narrow sense refer to those who shoulder responsibilities for environmental pro-tection and economic

23、development of the ecotourism desti</p><p>　　First, from a view of the demand of the tourists themselves, they travel to destinations for fun, relaxation and leisure, rather than obligate learning. Ecotouris

24、m can only achieve the goal of improving the experience quality for visitors, but has no way to require tourists to bear so much duty and obligation.</p><p>　　Second, the dramatic imbalance in information be

25、tween tourists and operators/agents also defies the purpose to impose any obligation on tourists. (1) The fact that tourism products are supplied and consumed at the same time just determines that tourists have no chance

26、 to collect and study the information on local ecotourism prior to visiting and experiencing. (2) Tourists are neither able to evaluate the impact of their behavior on the area nor obtain the information on other tourist

27、s of their k</p><p>　　Third, from a statistical point, it is impossible to divide conventional tourists and ecotourists or to define and mea-sure the responsibilities of the tourists.</p><p>　　A

28、s a result, supply side must be taken into consideration since no practicality can be seen by only emphasizing the duty of tourists from demand side. In ecotourism, suppliers bear the primary responsibilities; in contras

29、t, tourists only bear secondary ones. Suppliers of ecotourism products have every means to rationalize the mechanism to guide the behavior of the tourists, in an attempt to achieve the goals of ecotourism to reinforce en

30、vironmental protection and boost local economy.</p><p>　　2.3? Doubts over nature of ecotourism</p><p>　　A tendency has existed to define ecotourism as a new spe-cial type of tourism products or

31、tourist activities, designed for the interests and demand of a small group of people, drawing a line of distinction between ecotourism and mass tourism, which has aroused a great deal of controversy.</p><p>

32、　　In the first place, there is every indication that, according to domestic experiences, the term of ecotourism has been abused as a fashionable label to attract the attention from the source market. It should be argued

33、that ecotourism should represent a kind of principles or approaches for tourism development, rather than a specific product. From the outset, ecotourism has been intended for the conservation and sustainable develop-ment

34、 of resource and environment. Such a principle should work as </p><p>　　In the second place, if ecotourism is indeed a special kind of tourism products or a special form of tourist activi-ties, designed for

35、a small group of people, it could definitely not have drawn so much concern and attention from tour-ism industry and academy. Hence, ecotourism is not the op-posite of mass tourism; instead, it should function to reform

36、and upgrade the latter. Only when ecotourism is widely popularized and accepted to replace the conventional pat-tern of tourism, can it fulfill i</p><p>　　2.4? Doubts over the relationship between ecotourism

37、 and communities</p><p>　　Despite the argument by scholars linking ecotourism and community participation, no clear description of the relation-ship between them has emerged owing to lack of theoretic basis.

38、 In this article, the theory of environmental economics, rather than ethic, is applied to illustrate their relationship.</p><p>　　From an economic point of view, tourism resources are utilized optimally, whe

39、re marginal social cost (MSC) equals to marginal social benefit, or, the state of Pareto optimality is actualized. While speaking for tourism products, their MSC comprises not only the cost for developing, producing, del

40、iv-ering and maintaining, but also the potential cost caused by the ensuing environmental pollution and resource overuse; hence, the marginal social cost is often larger than marginal private cost (Li, 2</p><p

41、>　　It can be concluded from above economic analysis: ex-ternality→overuse of tourism resources→unsustainability of tourism, so in order for tourism industry to develop in a sustainable manner, externality must be elim

42、inated to even marginal social cost and marginal private cost, which is also a key point of ecotourism.</p><p>　　Internationally, the essential way to address externality is to internalize it, to be specific

43、, including three viewpoints, namely, Pigovian tax, Coase theorem and merger of corpora-tions.</p><p>　　(1)Pigovian tax is implemented through taxation of and compensation to victims by government. While in

44、the real world, this does not work especially in tourism, owing to the impossibility of defining the social cost for tourism and the difficulty from the frequent transaction between tourism operators and communities. (2)

45、 Coase theorem is to address externality through defining property right,which does not work in tourism either, due to the involvement of tourists. What is more, Coase theorem o</p><p>　　It can be concluded

46、from the prior discussion: community participation→elimination of tourism externality→sustainable use of tourism resources→ecotourism, so the connotation of ecotourism contains the pattern of community participation.For

47、ecotourism, community participation is not a ‘should’thing, but a ‘must’ one. Here community does not mean the wide areas around the scenic spot, but interest groups, or stakeholders, related to externality. Additionally

48、, the involvement of communities in tour</p><p>　　3 .Conclusions</p><p>　　Both domestically and internationally, ecotourism practices are well under way. Unfortunately, however, ecotourism lacks

49、 a theoretic system concerning from basic theoretic study to practice study, inevitably contributing to severe damage to ecologic environment, abuse of the term as a label, dissatisfaction and complaints from the tourist

50、s as well as insufficient involvement of local residents, etc. This article has no intention to recreate a brand new concept of ecotourism; instead, it aims at </p><p>　　The main conclusions of this article

51、are as follows.</p><p>　　(1) The objects of ecotourism include, but in no way confined to pristine and well preserved natural tourism resources .Cultural tourism resources and all areas that have typical cha

52、racteristics and the potential to deliver environmental education to tourists should also be included.</p><p>　　(2) There is no point emphasizing the obligation of ecotourists, instead, the role of supply si

53、de must be hailed. Appropriate systems should be adopted to influence the pattern of tourists’ behavior for the purpose of achieving the goals to promote environment protection and boost local economy.</p><p&g

54、t;　　(3) Rather than a special kind of tourism products, ecotourism is, in essence, a principle and an approach for tourism development. It should be implemented in development of all different tourism resources, and repr

55、esent the brand new stage of tourism industry development.</p><p>　　(4) Ecotourism cannot live up to its connotation and objectives without community participation. The involvement of local residents will gu

56、arantee the maximization of economic, ecologic and social benefits of tourism.</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游內(nèi)涵的若干思考</p><p>　　摘要：生態(tài)旅游作為可持續(xù)發(fā)展的旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)的最理想選擇，目前仍然缺乏一個明確而又被廣泛接受的定義，在這個定義的界定過程中面臨很多風險和各種威脅。通過收集和整理國內(nèi)外對生態(tài)旅游

57、的各種概念和解釋，本文反映了當前生態(tài)旅游內(nèi)涵的四個方面，即生態(tài)旅游的對象、生態(tài)旅游、生態(tài)的性質(zhì)以及生態(tài)旅游與社會之間的關(guān)系。力圖在努力修正人們對生態(tài)旅游的錯誤理解的同時，根據(jù)深入的分析提出發(fā)展生態(tài)旅游的可行建議。本文的主要結(jié)論和成果包括以下4個方面：1）生態(tài)旅游的對象應該不僅僅只局限于自然和原始，甚至只有原始的自然區(qū)域及其自然背景下的文化資源部分；2）相對于游客，旅游經(jīng)營者對旅游區(qū)擁有更大的影響力，因此應該承擔更多的責任，保護旅游區(qū)；3

58、）生態(tài)旅游應該以可持續(xù)發(fā)展為指導原則，而不僅僅是一個特殊的包價旅游；4）理論為社區(qū)參與生態(tài)旅游奠定了基礎。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：生態(tài)旅游、內(nèi)涵、外部性</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的概念和內(nèi)涵</p><p>　　大約二十年前，拉斯喀瑞正式介紹了生態(tài)旅游的定義及其性質(zhì)，自那時起爭議就一直存在著。2001年，中國專家陸和王在他們針對生態(tài)旅游研究的刊物中用73個

59、字解釋這個術(shù)語。據(jù)不完全統(tǒng)計，目前關(guān)于生態(tài)旅游至少已經(jīng)有100種定義。這里面有幾個定義影響相當大。作為第一個使用“生態(tài)旅游”的人，拉斯喀瑞最初把它定義為“以學習為具體目標，前往相對不受干擾、與外界聯(lián)系少的地區(qū)旅游，享受風景，欣賞野生動植物長期生長形態(tài)，并在該地區(qū)發(fā)現(xiàn)任何文化表達方式（過去或者現(xiàn)在）?！泵绹鷳B(tài)旅游協(xié)會（用Blangy和Wood定義生態(tài)旅游，1992）針對生態(tài)旅游給出的定義在短期來看有可能是最全面的，“負責保護自然地區(qū)的環(huán)

60、境和維系好的當?shù)厝嗣竦母ｌ怼?。布蘭克（1996）將生態(tài)旅游定義為，這是一個根據(jù)生態(tài)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的經(jīng)驗，注重自然和文化環(huán)境的活動，活動主要包括教育與解釋，并且有助于當?shù)厣鐓^(qū)把焦點放在對周圍環(huán)境的保護，并圍繞其開展項目活動。國際自然保護聯(lián)盟的國家公園委員會（拉斯喀瑞，1996）從他們的宗旨出發(fā)，將生態(tài)旅游定義為“生態(tài)旅游是本著對環(huán)境負責的態(tài)度，探訪相對未受到外界打擾的自然區(qū)域，享受和欣賞大自然，發(fā)掘其中所蘊含的文化特</p>&

61、lt;p>　　從上述定義，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)隨著時間的推移，生態(tài)旅游的概念已經(jīng)被不斷擴大，內(nèi)涵豐富?？偟膩碚f，目前生態(tài)旅游的內(nèi)涵主要包括以下內(nèi)容：</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的對象：自然景觀，以及生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中人與自然共同影響的部分；</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的主題：旅游目的地區(qū)域的人們在環(huán)境保護和社會進步中所承擔的種責任和義務；</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的本質(zhì)：

62、一種新型的特殊的旅游產(chǎn)品；</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的功能：對旅游者進行環(huán)境教育，提高他們的環(huán)境觀，從而改善他們的生活方式；帶動經(jīng)濟發(fā)展，提高當?shù)鼐用竦纳钏健?lt;/p><p>　　對生態(tài)旅游內(nèi)涵的質(zhì)疑</p><p>　　由于長期缺少一個明確而又被普遍接受的定義和概念上的延伸，生態(tài)旅游的術(shù)語一直被濫用，導致決策失誤、規(guī)劃偏離、管理不善和生態(tài)旅游計劃脫離實際。

63、因此，深入檢查和分析生態(tài)旅游的內(nèi)涵是十分必要的，可用來解決復雜的生態(tài)旅游問題以及生態(tài)旅游在中國的發(fā)展問題。</p><p>　　2.1對生態(tài)旅游對象的質(zhì)疑</p><p>　　幾乎所有關(guān)于生態(tài)旅游的定義都把其對象局限在自然旅游資源，特別是自然區(qū)的生態(tài)環(huán)境上，后期學者對它的完善也只有輕微的，并沒有擊中要害，如增加保護區(qū)、森林公園等。然而，爭議正是出現(xiàn)在這一點上。</p><

64、;p>　　旅游者參加生態(tài)旅游的原始動機是回到大自然以及它包括的不同類型的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中，包括森林生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，草地生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，沙地生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，淡水生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)等。目前，生態(tài)旅游一方面主要需要在健全的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和完善的質(zhì)量環(huán)境中進行，如森林、草原、淡水和海洋；另一方面，盡管荒灘、沼澤等這些在異端條件下產(chǎn)生的特殊環(huán)境在旅游業(yè)發(fā)展中困難重重，但是它們的野性和神秘感給旅游者帶來的吸引力絕對不亞于其他生態(tài)旅游對象。這些地區(qū)的生態(tài)環(huán)境惡劣且富有極

65、強的獨特性，為游客提供更多的環(huán)保機會也由此產(chǎn)生更多教育啟示。旅游者通過這些能更深的理解人與自然的關(guān)系，從而反思和約束自己的應為（殷和燕，2003）。因此這些生態(tài)環(huán)境惡劣的地區(qū)不應該被排除在生態(tài)旅游的對象之外。</p><p>　　大部分的學者認為，只有自然旅游資源可以作為生態(tài)旅游的對象。然而，由于人類是地球生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的最重要組成部分，人類活動也是引起整個生態(tài)系統(tǒng)動態(tài)的最重要因素，將文化旅游資源排除在生態(tài)旅游對象之外

66、的做法是不可取的。類似于納西族東巴文化的這樣的民族民俗旅游資源，無論是在麗江還是有著悠久而極具民族特色的摩梭族人，甚至是在整個云南，這種文化旅游資源較自然旅游資源更需要嚴格的保護體系和措施（田和李，2004）。在某種意義上，生態(tài)旅游應該作為一個原則或者是旅游運行實踐的模式，而不是一種特殊的產(chǎn)品；只要經(jīng)營者按照這樣的原則或者模式規(guī)劃、開發(fā)和運營旅游產(chǎn)品，傳統(tǒng)的觀光旅游，商務旅游，民俗旅游，度假旅游都可以被納入生態(tài)旅游的范疇之內(nèi)。</

67、p><p>　　顯然，試圖從生態(tài)旅游的對象的角度限制自然旅游資源，特別是對資源區(qū)域的完好保存有著深刻的意義，容易導致各種傳統(tǒng)旅游和生態(tài)旅游實踐之間在概念上的混淆。在兩個負面的影響下會出現(xiàn)這樣的概念：1）大量的游客基于進入生態(tài)良好區(qū)域，這勢必會給這些地區(qū)帶來嚴重的破壞和污染。研究結(jié)果表明，在中國的省級以上的自然保護區(qū)中，由于發(fā)展生態(tài)旅游活動，其中22%因為遭受到損害而成為保護目標，另11%的區(qū)域生態(tài)系統(tǒng)退化；2）開發(fā)商

68、和運營商向旅游者發(fā)送錯誤信號，導致常規(guī)旅游環(huán)境免疫系統(tǒng)受到限制，這將放過來，讓游客忽視傳統(tǒng)的旅游資源，這將最終致使新發(fā)現(xiàn)的領(lǐng)域和生態(tài)旅游目的地在發(fā)展的同時，生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的免疫功能下降。</p><p>　　2.2對生態(tài)旅游者的質(zhì)疑</p><p>　　根據(jù)相關(guān)文獻，生態(tài)旅游者有廣義和狹義之分。廣義的生態(tài)旅游者指的是所有在生態(tài)旅游目的地的游客，盡管根據(jù)統(tǒng)計的使用性能，它并不能說明生態(tài)旅游者的整體

69、形象，而且也不能揭示生態(tài)旅游者與傳統(tǒng)旅游者之間的本質(zhì)區(qū)別；狹義的生態(tài)旅游者指的是那些自愿承擔環(huán)境保護責任和生態(tài)旅游經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的人們（鐘和趙，2003）。針對生態(tài)旅游者的定義更傾向于后者，它看起來高度概括了生態(tài)旅游這的本質(zhì)特征，也更為準確得感概了生態(tài)旅游者所承擔的責任與義務。然而，這個定義也缺乏真正的實踐價值。</p><p>　　第一，從旅游者自身需要的角度出發(fā)，他們前往目的地是為了樂趣、放松和休閑，而不是專門為了

70、學習。生態(tài)旅游只能根據(jù)經(jīng)驗協(xié)助旅游者實現(xiàn)他們旅游的目的，但是沒有辦法要求他們承擔與之相對應甚至是更多的責任與義務。</p><p>　　第二，游客和經(jīng)營者/代理人之間的信息出現(xiàn)戲劇性的失衡，使經(jīng)營者/代理人顛覆了游客出游目的，將任何義務都強加給游客。1）事實上，旅游產(chǎn)品的供應和消費的同時就決定了游客沒有機會去收集和研究當?shù)厣鷳B(tài)旅游的相關(guān)資料；2）游客既對該地區(qū)的評價既不能影響到他們的行為，也沒法獲取其他游客所得到

71、的同等的信息；3）旅游企業(yè)不能適當?shù)奶岣哂慰偷呢熑魏鸵庾R，也不能有效地約束他們的行為。</p><p>　　第三，從統(tǒng)計研究上看，我們是無法通過劃分傳統(tǒng)游客和生態(tài)游客的定義和性質(zhì)來確保游客知曉他們的責任，并落實到實際中。</p><p>　　所以，旅游經(jīng)營者和代理人必需從實用性的角度考慮到游客的需求，以及自己在其中所承擔的責任。在生態(tài)旅游中，旅游經(jīng)營者和代理人應承擔著主要責任，相反，游客則

72、只需承擔次要部分。生態(tài)旅游產(chǎn)品的供應商必需優(yōu)化經(jīng)營管理機制，正確引導游客行為，從而實現(xiàn)保護生態(tài)環(huán)境的目標，促進當?shù)亟?jīng)濟發(fā)展。</p><p>　　2.3對自然生態(tài)旅游的懷疑</p><p>　　當前，人們多偏向于把生態(tài)旅游定義為一種新的特殊類型的旅游產(chǎn)品或旅游活動，區(qū)別于傳統(tǒng)旅游，生態(tài)旅游為實現(xiàn)小部分人群的利益和需求而設計。這已經(jīng)引起了很大的輿論爭議。</p><p&g

73、t;　　首先，根據(jù)國內(nèi)的旅游的發(fā)展經(jīng)驗，長期以來，生態(tài)旅游為了吸引客源市場的關(guān)注，被誤貼上時尚的標簽。但是，在旅游業(yè)的發(fā)展中，生態(tài)旅游代表的應該是一種原則和方法，而不是一個特定的產(chǎn)品。生態(tài)旅游最初始的定義就是致力于對資源環(huán)境的保護，走可持續(xù)發(fā)展，這不僅僅是一個原則，并且應該作為生態(tài)旅游乃至全類型旅游的指南。</p><p>　　其次，如果生態(tài)旅游確實是一種特殊的旅游產(chǎn)品或旅游活動當中的一種特殊形式，專門滿足為一小

74、部分人的利益和需求而設定，那么它的確是一種特殊的類型，但肯定不會引起旅游企業(yè)、旅游組織和科學院的關(guān)注和重視。因此，生態(tài)旅游不是通常所謂的大眾旅游，相反，它應該通過改革、升級充分發(fā)揮其作用。也只有當生態(tài)旅游企業(yè)被廣泛推廣以達到取代傳統(tǒng)的旅游模式，它才能切實履行其最初的承諾，推進旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。</p><p>　　2.4對生態(tài)旅游與社區(qū)參與之間關(guān)系的質(zhì)疑</p><p>　　盡管這場爭

75、論被認為涉及到生態(tài)旅游與社區(qū)參與之間的關(guān)系，但是由于缺乏實際的理論依據(jù)，社會學者們并未能詳盡的描述這兩者之間的關(guān)系。本文將一反常態(tài)，從環(huán)境經(jīng)濟學理論的角度說明生態(tài)旅游和社區(qū)參與之間的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　從經(jīng)濟學的角度來看，當社會邊際成本（MSC）等會社會邊際收益或者達到帕累托最佳狀態(tài)時，旅游資源將得到最優(yōu)利用。然而對于旅游產(chǎn)品,他們的邊際社會成本不僅包含了產(chǎn)品的開發(fā)、形成、推廣和維護,同時也包含了由環(huán)境污

76、染和資源過度利用導致的潛在成本；因此,邊際社會成本通常大于邊際私人成本。(李,2002)。旅游運營商只能承受第一部分的總體成本,第二部分則強加于造成外部問題的周圍的社區(qū)。在現(xiàn)實生活中,這樣的外部問題是通過環(huán)境污染、交通擁堵、經(jīng)濟秩序的擾亂、當?shù)貍鹘y(tǒng)文化的遺失,以及不同程度擾亂當?shù)鼐用竦恼Ｉ罘从车摹Ｂ糜芜\營商應該承擔,但又無力承擔這些費用,并且還傾向于通過過度使用旅游資源去尋求最大利潤。</p><p>　　綜

77、上所述，旅游地聚集大量游客→旅游資源的過度使用→不可持續(xù)性的旅游，所以為了旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)能以可持續(xù)發(fā)展的方式前行，必須消除其外部性，甚至是邊際社會成本和邊際私人成本，這也是發(fā)展生態(tài)旅游的一個關(guān)鍵點。</p><p>　　在國際上，解決外部性的重要方式在與內(nèi)化它，具體而言，包括三個觀點：庇古稅、科斯定理和企業(yè)并購。（1）庇古稅是通過實施稅收和補償受害者的政府。然而在現(xiàn)實世界中，這項措施并不起作用，尤其是在旅游業(yè)，我們無法

78、確定旅游業(yè)的社會成本，更無法明確旅游經(jīng)營者和社區(qū)之間由頻繁交易而帶來的困難。（2）科斯定理是為了通過產(chǎn)權(quán)界定解決外部性問題，由于游客的參與，該項定理同樣不適合旅游工作。更重要的是科斯定理只是用于涉及參與者少，交易成本低的事件中，顯然不能用作解決旅游業(yè)外部性。（3）企業(yè)并購建議生產(chǎn)企業(yè)與深陷困境的企業(yè)相結(jié)合，這將有效消除或內(nèi)化外部影響。單一的公司在合并后將在沒有外部現(xiàn)有的條件下，決定生產(chǎn)規(guī)模在水平的邊際成本等于邊際收益，所以該公司的成本和

79、效益都是與社會平等的。在這種情況下，資源的分布和利用將實現(xiàn)帕累托最優(yōu)狀態(tài)。因此，努力消除旅游業(yè)的外部化，完成企業(yè)并購，換言之，社會參與必須實現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　從以上的討論，我們可以得到：社區(qū)參與旅游→消除外部性→旅游資源可持續(xù)利用→生態(tài)旅游，所以生態(tài)旅游的內(nèi)涵包括社區(qū)參。而對于生態(tài)旅游，社區(qū)參與不是我們應該怎么樣，而是我們必須怎樣做。在這里，社會并不意味著景區(qū)周圍的廣大地區(qū)，但是利益集團或者利益相關(guān)者會涉

80、及到這些地方。此外，社區(qū)參與生態(tài)旅游能最大限度的挖掘經(jīng)濟、生態(tài)和社會效益的潛力。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　在國內(nèi)外，生態(tài)旅游正朝著健康的發(fā)展方向有效推進。然而，不幸的是，從基礎理論研究到實踐探索，生態(tài)旅游都缺乏一套完整的指導理論體系，嚴重的生態(tài)破壞、不斷抱怨的游客和旅游地居民冷淡等問題不斷滋生。本文無意建立一個全新的生態(tài)旅游概念，

81、相反，它旨在通過一些列分析和探討了解地球上的生態(tài)旅游活動，試圖能影響到未來生態(tài)旅游的發(fā)展。</p><p><b>　　本文主要結(jié)論如下：</b></p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游的對象不僅僅局限于現(xiàn)存的那些保存完整的自然旅游資源，也包括它在各個時期的文化表現(xiàn)形式，即文化旅游資源。它具備生態(tài)旅游的典型特征，能夠豐富游客的認知范圍。</p><p>

82、　　在整個生態(tài)旅游發(fā)展過程中，旅游經(jīng)營者的作用是應該得到充分肯定的。今后，他們應當采取有效的運營系統(tǒng)以達到影響游客行為的目的，從而實現(xiàn)促進環(huán)境的可持續(xù)發(fā)展和當?shù)亟?jīng)濟的提升。</p><p>　　生態(tài)旅游不是一種特殊的旅游產(chǎn)品，在本質(zhì)上它更是是一種原則，是今后旅游業(yè)發(fā)展應該走的正確方向。生態(tài)旅游區(qū)別于目前所發(fā)展的其它旅游，并代表著旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的新階段。</p><p>　　只有當社區(qū)參與包含