Despite the steady rise in the popularity of environmentally-oriented tourism and the evidence suggesting that protecting the environment is not only ethically responsible, but makes business sense as well, many segments of the tourism industry either ignore or flagrantly violate principles of environmental protection. The reasons why tourism industry professionals choose to forego environmentally responsible travel practices are complex; however, industry and academic literature suggests that three variables have converged to encourage tourism development to focus on short-term profits rather than long-term benefits. These three variables include the increasing demand for tourist accommodations, the increase in the number and types of stakeholder groups influencing tourism development decisions, and poor regulatory oversight. Although responsible “green” tourism is gaining a great deal of press, in practice, environmental protection is not a high priority in the green tourism industry (Smith & Eadington, 1992).

One must conclude, at least based on the evidence of these preliminary suggestions about the current state of the tourism industry and the environment, that there are far more benefits than drawbacks for the business of tourism to continue unabated in violation of many principles of conducting a sustainable business. Furthermore, one has to consider the ways the natural resources of the local communities are being affected. It is necessary then to not only identify and explore the reasons behind such a movement away from the “green” field where most business are beginning to see their futures, but to determine a suitable course of action that the tourism industry should follow. Being global in nature and, even touting itself as offering “green” services such as ecotourism, the tourism industry is uniquely accountable for their undervaluing of this important aspect in both the business and environmental spheres.

Environmentally responsible tourism, also referred to as green tourism, is defined as tourism that recognizes humans’ impact upon the environment and which attempts to minimize physical damage, especially in fragile and unique habitats (Smith & Eadington, 1992). Many of the world’s most popular tourist destinations are places that are ecologically vulnerable, and excessive numbers of tourists or poorly managed tourism practices can result in permanent, irreversible damage to natural features such as coral reefs, beaches, mountains, and waterways (Buckley, Pickering, & Weaver, 2003). Ironically, it is for the appreciation of the beauty and uniqueness of such locations throughout the world that make tourism flock to such destinations and thus, it is also this what is leading to the demise of such locales. Not only does the irresponsibility of the tourism industry extend then to physical damage of the local environment by offering economically profitable but harmful tours, it also is irresponsible to the local communities that host such tourist destinations as such mismanaged practices in the tourism industry lead to the rapid destruction of local places that hold specific economic and culture significance.

Environmentalists recognize that the protection of the places tourists often go to appreciate natural beauty not only ensures the survival of the species that inhabit them, but also ensures the longevity of the tourism industry, which depends upon unique and beautiful places to attract people willing to pay to enjoy them (Buckley et al., 2003). The tourism industry also began to recognize the importance of protecting the environment, and began developing criteria for environmentally responsible development in the early 1990s (Smith & Eadington, 1992). The criteria included assessing the physical and social “carrying capacities” of areas, which refers to the critical mass of people an area can sustain at any given time (Smith & Eadington, 1992, p. 9). Once carrying capacities were determined, developers then needed to plan and construct tourism infrastructures that would respect those limits and not exceed them.

The problem, however, is that carrying capacities suggest a ceiling that can not be surpassed, a cap on the number of tourists an area can receive without damaging the environment. The number of tourists has increased, though, stretching the carrying capacity past its established limits. Since the middle of the twentieth century, more people have had access to travel than at any other time in human history, thanks to an increase in discretionary income in developed countries and the concurrent evolution in means of travel and technology (Apostolopoulos & Gayle, 2002). As a result of the dramatic increase in the number of people traveling, the burden on the environment has also increased, straining resources that are available to locals and tourists alike, but also creating permanent environmental damage. In no place is the challenge felt more acutely than in island nations (Apostolopoulos & Gayle, 2002). Islands, such as the Galapagos Islands in particular, which are perennially popular tourist destinations, are generally constrained by limited geographical space; they have little space to accommodate the burgeoning demands of tourists who are eager to visit (Apostolopoulos & Gayle, 2002). Developers, however, see the opportunity to make money by providing infrastructure that will support tourists’ demands, thereby trading long-term environmental protection and business profits over short-term gains.