Ecotourism supporters operate with the philosophy that the global environment is precious to human beings, animals and plants in every location. Damage to this sensitive environment can, in some cases, be reversed, though this is not possible in some places. Emissions from the huge number of automobiles worldwide have probably caused irreversible damage to the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere, for example.



While much of the information coming out of the ecotourism field is very positive, some have had the presence of mind to investigate the smaller amount of negative impact that "bad" ecotourism has had such as the weather in specific areas like Torrevieja, Spain and others. Though the impact of this less effective ecotourism most likely does not rival the damages from mass/recreational tourism, there are some less-than-stellar results to report.

From the beginning, different groups of environmentally conscious activists have been educating others about the environment. The primary vehicles for these educational efforts have been ecotourism events. But many of the activities do not report the problems that result if ecotourism isn't done properly.

In almost every case, ecotourism proponents have the best intentions. But when an idea is new and projects are put in motion that have never been tried before, some less-positive results are inevitable. This does not mean that future ecotourism work will have the same level of negative impact, but in the past some ideas that use travel packages to put people close to nature and indigenous populations did not benefit all concerned.

With hindsight, those studying the impact of ecotourism sometimes find such examples as camping that does not really protect and preserve natural resources. One report cites tent camping in particular areas of United States parks. While the idea is to get people close to nature, in rather primitive camp settings, this does not always have the expected result. Some people simply do not respect the natural surroundings and leave more than just footprints. Litter continues to be a serious problem in these natural areas. The long-term impact on wildlife may not be measurable.

This may not be the best example, but it does show that the best ecotourism may yet be ahead. It also shows that not all outdoor activity is ecotourism as envisioned by its strongest supporters. Simply put, planning visits in the outdoors, whether it involves mixing with wildlife or with people in remote locations, is not necessarily ecotourism. Putting people in the outdoors without education and guidance can result in such damage as carving on trees. Those who do this do not think past the act, and give no thought to the impact on the tree. In addition, future visitors may not be able to enjoy the setting because of the damage.

Similar negative impact has been seen at numerous beaches around the world, as people exploit the setting without thought to the real impact they have on the natural habitat. Litter is also a major problem at most public beaches, not just because it is unsightly, but also because it can be harmful to wildlife. Many people also feel it is their "right" to bring home a natural souvenir from their holiday excursion. But taking natural objects such as stones, coral and so on alters the environment beyond repair.