Abstract
Studies of indigenous involvement in Third World ecotourism have focused on tourism impact and highlighted negative effects. This paper examines the implications of the resource frontier context for indigenous participation in Third World ecotourism using a case study of Napo Province in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The transformation of indigenous societies under the impact of resource frontier expansion, insertion into the ecotourism industry and the beginnings of indigenous-controlled ecotourism are traced. The advantages of indigenous-controlled ecotourism as an appropriate adaptive strategy under resource frontier conditions are demonstrated.
Key words: Ecotourism, resource frontier, indigenous peoples, Ecuador, Amazon.

Increased environmental awareness in the industrial countries combined with the search for alternative, more progressive travel experiences has produced rapid growth of ecotourism to Third World destinations. A growing number of Third World countries, including Ecuador, has seized upon ecotourism as a sustainable development option (Durst and Ingram 1988) in which tourism and environmental conservation may be linked in a symbiotic relationship (Budowski 1976; Myers 1975).

According to Drumm (1991,54) recent defiinitions agree that ecotourism is progressive, educational travel which conserves the environment and benefits local communities. The practice of ecotourism, however, often falls short of this ideal, as several recent studies illustrate (Boo 1990; Johnston 1990; Singh, Theuns and Go 1989; Ziffer 1989). Some authors go further and suggest that alternative types of tourism, such as ecotourism, contain seeds of their own destruction, eventually leading to mass tourism and decline of the ecological resource they were designed to protect (Butler 1990; Wheeller 1991, 1992).

Many of the pristine "natural" environments targeted by ecotourism include settlements and traditional habitats of indigenous peoples; these experience the effects of tourism, either directly or indirectly. As ecotourism spreads inexorably to ever more remote regions, less acculturated indigenous communities are affected. Expansion is promoted by the ecotourism industry, which uses the image of "primitive and remote" peoples living in harmony with the environment as a marketing device (Cohen 1989).

The literature which has examined indigenous involvement in Third World ecotourism has focused primarily on the relationship between tourism, indigenous society and the environment with emphasis on tourism impacts (Dearden 1991; Jefferies 1982; Place 1991; Zurick 1992). With few exceptions (Chapin 1990; Saglio 1985) indigenous societies are found to be subjected to, rather than in control of ecotourism. Nevertheless, most studies detect net economic benefits for communities involved in ecotourism (Dearden 1988; Gonsalves 1987) although the result may be ambiguous where indigenous people lost access to resources as a result of the creation of parks (Brockelman and Dearden 1990; Lehmkuhl, Upreti and Sharma 1988; Place 1988, 1991).

By contrast, the widely documented finding that the sociocultural effects of Third World tourism are predominantly negative (de Kadt 1979; Din 1988; Dogan 1989), applies particularly to the comparatively traditional societies impacted by ecotourism (Adams 1990; Cohen 1979; Coppock 1978; Fisher 1990; Mirante 1990). As areas exposed to ecotourism develop they are found to undergo a sequential process of sociocultural change which encourages further expansion of ecotourism to even more remote areas in search of cultural and environmental authenticity (Dearden 1988; Jarviluoma 1992; Zurick 1992).

With regard to environmental impact, it is [end p.35] recognized that even where environmental management is attempted some deterioration tends to occur as a result of rising visitor numbers (Cohen 1978; de Groot 1983; Farrell and Runnyan 1991; Kenchington 1989). This impact varies depending on the characteristics of the physical environment. Also, even though ecotourism is generally assumed to provide an incentive for local populations to conserve the environment, this is not necessarily the case, as illustrated in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) Park where ecotourism opportunities induced deforestation and herd size expansion by indigenous people (Jefferies 1982; Stevens 1988).

The larger historical and contemporary contexts in which cases of indigenous involvement in ecotourism occur have received little attention except for studies of parks and nature reserves (Brockelman and Dearden 1990; Lehmkuhl, Upreti and Sharma 1988; Place 1988, 1991; Stevens 1986). Thus, such facctors as the role of ecotourism among other forces transforming indigenous society, the potential of ecotourism among indigenous controlled development options, and the competition of ecotourism with other types of resource use require greater emphasis. These issues are particularly relevant in the dynamic and conflictive resource frontiers, where indigenous groups that are or may be impacted by ecotourism live.

This study examines indigenous involvement in ecotourism in the Amazon resource frontier where a major expansion of ecotourism is taking shape (Drumm 1991; Ruschmann 1992). The study focuses on Napo Province in the Ecuadorian Amazon (Figure 1). Napo is Ecuador's second ecotourism region following the Galapagos Islands, and is one of the principal ecotourism regions of the Amazon. Furthermore, it is the site of the most important attempt at controlled ecotourism in this area.

This study seeks to illustrate the importance of the general frontier context to understanding the indigenous role in ecotourism and examines the prospect for indigenous controlled ecotourrism in this setting. It is based on field research [end p.36] from February to July 1992 involving 60 interviews with tourism entrepreneurs and guides, indigenous leaders, researchers, government employees, and NGO representatives, as well as a survey of 75 foreign ecotourists. Five earlier visits to Napo, starting in 1964, provide historical perspective.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE NAPO RESOURCE FRONTIER CONTEXT
Napo Province stretches some 350 km from the Eastern Andean crest to the Peruvian boundary. The province straddles the Napo River, its main fluvial artery. Except in the Andean fringe the province's natural vegetation is lowland rainforest, generally on poor soils except for pockets where they are of alluvial and volcanic origin. The area is traversed by an extensive network of rivers, navigable only by outboard-powered dugout canoe, except for the Napo below Coca (Figure 1), which permits shallow draft barges during high water.

The lowland Quichua, who are the principal concern of this study, and the Huaorani make up the indigenous population of the province. The former account for approximately one quarter of the 1990 census population of 103,387, while the latter are estimated to number 1,580 (Kimerling 1990, 34). The areas currently occupied by these groups under government recognized tenure are depicted in Figure 2 The Quichua, traditionally mainly subsistence agriculturists, are concentrated in the western half of the province and along the Napo river to the East. They practice communal land tenure, with a minor fraction of commmunity lands allocated as household lots for farming purposes. The Huaorani, who depend on hunting, fishing and shifting cultivation, are dispersed over the less accessible southeastern part in widely spaced communities.

Before being impacted by ecotourism in the 1970s the Quichua, "oppressed by church and hacienda serfdom within the last 200 years" (Whitten 1976, 5) and, since the 1960s the Huaorani (Yost 1985), had already undergone profound changes. Since the end of the 19th [end p.37] century both groups had contacts with rubber and quinine gatherers, traditional landholders, and the military, which maintained a strong presence in the Amazon after the war with Peru in 1941. The most important change agents during this period, however, were Josephine and Capuchin missionaries (Garda 1985) and the protestant Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), which was based in Limoncocha from 1953 to 1981 (Barriga López 1992). These religious institutions effectively controlled the education and development of the indigenous population and fostered dependency. Furtherrmore, the SIL modified the spatial distribution of the Huaorani by concentrating them along the Curaray River during the 1960s (Fundación Natura 1987, 116), thus helping to reduce their presence between the Curaray and Napo.

In 1968, the Texaco oil company started oil development which has fundamentally transformed the area, as documented in a four vollume OEA-sponsored study (1988). Oil concessions of foreign companies and Petroecuador now cover the greater part of Napo Province (Figure 3). For those holding surface tenure, oil exploration and development is difficult to restrain since the government depends on oil revenue, controls subsurface rights, and allocates these as it sees fit.

Most of the concessions have already passed through the seismic exploration phase. During this phase mobile teams cover extensive areas by canoe, helicopter and on foot, reaching even the most remote indigenous settlements, and employing large numbers of indigenous males who have proved best suited as guides, canoe [end p. 38] ists and hunters. Fundación Natura (1987, 123) estimates that 60 percent of Huaorani men had worked for oil companies by 1979. The infrastructure installation of the subsequent oil development phase is spatially selective, relies on labor from the highlands and coast, and leads to redundancy of indigenous labor.

During their oil industry employment many natives acquired Western consumer habits, dependency on company handouts, and unsustainable hunting and fishing practices, including use of dynamite for fishing (Yost 1985). Oil companies continue to foster dependency and deculturation by providing gifts and services to indigenous communities in order to coopt them and reduce resource conflicts. On the positive side, oil company contracts permittted numerous Quichuas to acquire outboard powered dugouts. This facilitated creation of the Quichua controlled Association of Indigenous Motorists of Napo (AMIN) which now dominates commercial dugout transport in Napo.

The impact of seismic exploration on fauna and flora, though widespread, is temporary. Far more destructive has been the infrastructure of the subsequent oil development and production phase. Careless clearing, dumping of drillsite effluents, and oil spills into local waterrways were the norm, as shown by Kimerling (1990), until the Reglamento Ambiental para las Actividades Hidrocarburíferas of March 6, 1992, along with public opinion, started to impose some control.

Oil industry-related road construction and employment opportunities triggered a massive inflow of family farmer colonists from the highlands and coastal lowlands. This inflow was further encouraged by the production-oriented agrarian reform law of 1973 which considered lands without agricultural use as tierras baldias, irrespective of traditional indigenous resource use, and allocated them to setttlers in 50 ha ( 124 acre) lots with the requirement that they be cleared and put into producction (Hiraoka and Yamamoto 1980). In the process settlers and two large oil palm plantations appropriated the better agricultural soils and most areas with road access (Figure 2), thus confining indigenous hunting and expansion space and increasing pressure on the game animal population.

While the Huaorani responded to settler encroachment with threats, by moving settlements to strategic choke points or through retreat, the Quichua adapted in more complex ways. Some left their communities to become independent farmers or laborers in the colonization areas. Many groups reorganized themselves into cooperatives, cleared land, took credit and adopted commercial cropping and pasture development to meet land titling requirements (MacDonald 1984; Fundación Natura 1987). Others adopted a strategy of colonization of outlying areas, in order to accomodate their current and future population growth and forestall settler expansion. Along the road linking Archidona and Coca, Quichua communities even invited lumber extraction by a logging company to demonstrate their land occupation in the face of settler pressure.

The increasingly effective organization of the indigenous population around the land issue, assisted by the Catholic Church and NOOs such as Fundación Natura and Cultural Surrvival (e.g.FOIN and Cultural Survival 1988), has succeeded in consolidating legalized indiggenous land tenure within the threefold division of the province's territory which emerged by the end of the Borja government in 1992 (Figure 2). In this division the settlers control the best and most accessible land. The indigenous population holds title to larger, less accessible areas, which generally have lower agricultural potential. National parks and reserves mainly cover the most remote areas and those with the poorest soils. Officially sanctioned space for further colonization has virtually disappeared. To what extent future governments may be able and willing to respect and enforce the current division is a matter of speculation.

ORGANIZATION AND IMPACT OF THE ECOTOURISM INDUSTRY
The ecotourism industry of Napo, which has been described by Lemky (1992), Drumm (1992), and Healy (1988) started with a single "jungle" lodge in 1969, shortly after the beginning of oil exploration and colonization. By 1992 it included eleven lodges, all located in attractive rainforest settings on the Napo River or adjacent lagoons (Figure 1), and over 40 independent guides based in Puerto Misahuallí and secondarily Coca. Furthermore, a 50 passenger floating hotel, the Flotel Orellana, operated on the Napo between Coca and Limoncocha until 1990, when it shifted to the more pristine environment of the lower Aguarico River in the newly extended Cuyabeno Reserve (Fig. 2). [end p. 39]

In spite of this growth, the potential of ecotourism remains insufficiently appreciated, as illustrated by a recent World Bank Review (Hicks 1990) which failed even to mention it among development options.

According to river port captaincy and lodge records, approximately 18,000 ecotourists, almost exclusively foreigners, visited Napo in 1991. Further growth seems assured for several reasons. The national government is commmitted to tourism development in general, as indicated by the creation of a Ministry of Communications and Tourism in 1992. A further commitment to ecotourism development in particular (Economist Intelligence Unit 1992,27), builds on the fact that the Galapagos Islands have established Ecuador as a widely recognized ecotourism destination. Amazon ecotourism is further enhanced by Ecuador's political stability in contrast to its neighbors, and by the fact that no major rainforest area in South America is as accessible to a national capital. Misahuallí, the main tourist staging center of Napo, can be reached from Quito in a spectacular six hour bus ride.

The ecotourism industry of Napo falls into two major types, lodge and backpacker ecootourism, or "resort" and "budget" ecotourism according to the terminology of Lemky (1992). Lodge ecotourism is organized around the eleven lodges which charge U.S. $60 to $100 per day and which are generally owned by extraregional or foreign entrepreneurs. They cater primarily to tour groups assembled abroad or in Quito, and normally offer three or four day packages that involve daily canoe excurrsions and rainforest hikes in the hinterland of the lodge. In view of their large fixed investment, lodge owners are highly interested in ennvironmental conservation and maintaining good relations with neighboring indigenous groups.

Backpacker ecotourism is operated by independent guides, who are generally poorly educated and of settler or oil worker origin. Guides assemble their tour groups primarily among backpackers who are drawn to the budget hotels of Misahuallí and Coca by guide books and word of mouth. They offer a variety of tours, averaging two to three days but occasionally exceeding a week, that combine canoe travel and trekking with overnights in tents or primitive huts at rates of $20 to $35 per day. Some of these tours penetrate remote areas. Guides vary widely in the extent of their environmental consciousness and perceptiveness in dealing with indigenous groups.

The relationship between tourism operators and indigenous communities is both symbiotic and antagonistic. Because of declining emmployment in the oil industry, problems with disease, and poor market prices and difficult market access in the agricultural sector, indigenous labor depends on unskilled jobs and auxiliary guide positions in the lodges, or work as canoe contractors for independent guides. Tourism operators in turn depend on the use of indigenous lands for trekking, and some offer visits to indigenous communities as part of their program. They obtain the cooperation of indigenous individuals or communities by paying user fees, providing occasional gifts, renting indigenous-built huts for overnight stays, and preferential hiring and gifts to oblige surrounding indigenous communities to refrain from unsightly land clearing and from decimating the animal populations which lodge clients come to see. With the rapidly increasing indigenous organization and militancy since the turn of the 1980s, there is a growing indigenous perception that their relationship with tourism operators is exploitive.

Furthermore, ecotourism has added a new element to frontier resource conflicts. While tourism operators and indigenous populations have a common interest in controlling settler and oil industry expansion, they compete among themselves for resource access. Thus several tourism operators have purchased or occupied sites which indigenous communities consider their traditional territory. Some argue that their investment in removing navigation obstacles on creeks entitles them to deny passsage to others. Several indigenous groups, in turn, have used barricades, strategic clearing, maintenance of natural navigation obstacles and threats to deny unauthorized passage on their territories.

On a larger scale, the country's main tourism company secured preferential access from the government to the eastern part of the Cuyabeno Reserve (Figure 2). It lobbied for a massive extension of the reserve, then moved its Flotel to the new addition and placed lodges on the largest lagoons, Zancudo Cocha and Imuya. In 1992 it formed a joint venture company with the military for its Cuyabeno operation, ostensibly in order to protect the national interest in the boundary zone. Furthermore, the company [end p. 40] financed a draft management plan for the Cuyabeno Reserve which establishes its tourism carrrying capacity at the existing overnight capacity and recommends against the admission of additional operators (MAO-FECODES 1992). Similar attempts to secure privileged access are rumored to be under discussion with regard to Yasuní Park.

THE BEGINNINGS OF INDIGENOUS OPERATED ECOTOURISM
The main organizations representing the indigenous population of Napo have been slow to develop a coherent position on ecotourism. These associations are members of the Confederació de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (CONFENIAE). They include the Federación de Organizaciones Indígenas del Napo (FOIN), based in Tena and representing the Quichua of the western Napo, the Federación Comunas Unión Nativos de la Amazonia (FCUNAE), based in Coca and reppresenting the Quichua of the central and eastern Napo, and the recently founded Organización de Nacionalidades de Pueblos Huaoranis de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana which represents the Huaoranis.

Until the latter half of the 1980s these organizations rejected ecotourism as a general threat, albeit minor, to their lands and culture. By the latter 1980s, however, they had come to reecognize the inevitability of ecotourism expansion and were aware of its possible benefits. The CONFENIAE leadership started to advocate a policy of official indigenous approval and control of ecotourism on native lands withhout, however, establishing a means of enforcement. By 1992 all organizations had adopted positions favoring indigenous community-operated ecotourism. FOIN had started negootiations with the Corporación Ecuatoriana de Turismo (CETUR) for a training program for indigenous guides and requested assistance in establishing a FOIN-irected network of community operated ecotourism projects.

Meanwhile several independent indigenous initiatives to break into the ecotourism business have been made since the turn of the 1980s. Two former officers of CONFENIAE and FOIN respectively, work as independent backkpacker guides, while two other indigenous guides have partnerships with settler guides. The Quichua community of Limoncocha took over a rustic lodge, formerly serving as the land base of the Flotel, but failed to establish an effective organization to attract a clientele. Several indigenous families in the Tena hinterland host ecotourists in partnership with a foreign entrepreneur.

The most promising indigenous controlled and managed ecotourism project was started in 1989 by the Quichua community of Capirona. Located on the Puni River southwest of Puerto Misahuallí (Silver 1992), Capirona was accustomed to receiving regular visits from Misahuallí based guided tours. The project, a product of that experience, was initiated by community leaders active in FOIN. It is community run, and involves the villagers in a rotation system to spread benefits and minimize impact on other household activities.

Tourists are housed in a specially built hut and are offered a program of "ecotourism and intercultural exchange" which attempts to integrate them selectively into community activities on the basis of an equal relationship between hosts and guests. Before entering the community, prospective visitors are presented a series of guidelines regarding their role and expected behavior. The project offers a low cost stay (US $30 per person per day) of three to seven days in simple facilities and with simple services, based on community capabilities and local resources.

Capirona purposefully started with small numbers, receiving less than 150 tourists in its first two years of operation, to minimize initial risk and avoid excessive dependence on seasonal tourist income. Initially visitors were attracted by word of mouth and through the indigenous and NGO network of Ecuador. In 1992, a first promotional flier appeared and Capirona signed an agreement with the nearby Jatún Sacha research station that will supply North American student visitors on a regular basis.

Because of the limited time which has elapsed, the small visitor numbers, and the continuuing visits by guides from Misahuallí, it is too early to evaluate the Capirona experience. It appears, however, that the community has managed to maintain its approach with little conflict or visible social stratification that can be attributed to community operated tourism.

FOIN has concluded that the Capirona model is suitable and is now encouraging the formation of a network of up to 30 community designed and operated ecotourism projects. Its [end p.41] Tena headquarters expects to channel tourists to the network via a reception center to be built in the vicinity of Capirona. Simultaneously the USAID financed Sustainable Use for Biological Resources (SUBIR) project has adopted the concept of community operated ecotourism and is targeting pilot project communities in the buffer zones of Yasuní and Cayambe-Coca Parks (USAID n.d.).

PROSPECTS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OPERATED ECOTOURISM
Community operated ecotourism appears to be a pragmatic response to the situation in which the indigenous populations of Napo find themmselves at the beginning of the 1990s. In ecoonomic terms their choice is between dependent and indigenous controlled involvement in the growing ecotourism industry. Even the most remote indigenous communities now depend on modern goods and services and participation in the money economy. Outside the communities income opportunities are limited, and indigenous workers do not compete successfully except in specializations such as guiding and canoe transport. Within indigenous controlled areas poor soils and market distance, as well as rough topography in the Western Napo and flooding in the Eastern Napo limit agricultural possibilities. Commercial timber volume is low compared to the country's coastal rainnforest (Lemaitre 1987). Thus the resource endowment of indigenous held areas permits only limited economic gains at great environmental cost through conventional agriculture and logging.

By contrast, indigenous communities have distinct competitive advantages in ecotourism, an activity which can be effectively combined with small scale indigenous agro-forestry and extractive practices. Survey results among tourists in Napo indicate that 60 percent would--all other things being equal--rather experience the rainforest through indigenous eyes and would rather see their tourist dollar support indigenous economic development. Naturally indigenous ecotourism cannot meet the standards of comfort, efficiency, sanitation, and intercultural communication which typical lodge tourists require. Much of the backpacker clientele, however, is attuned to, and even thrives on Capirona style conditions. Also, backpackers are prepared to spend a longer period in an interesting jungle setting than are lodge tourists. The backpacker market has the advantage of growing mainly by word of mouth and guidebooks, obviating sophisticated marketing techniques beyond the capabilities of the indigenous network.

Indigenous communities control most of the remaining natural forest outside the parks and are thus well-placed compared to non-indigenous tourism entrepreneurs. Difficulty of access to indigenous controlled areas can be marketed to ecotourists--particularly to backkpackers--as a positive attribute, rather than being a definite obstacle as in other types of resource development.

In sociocultural terms, it can be argued that community operated ecotourism can serve as an instrument of community consolidation and self reliance to confront the increasing dependency and disorderly acculturation and individualizaation which accompanied the onslaught of resource frontier expansion. Since ecotourism focuses on the communal forest domain, it lends itself to the reinforcement of community resource management and benefits, in contrast to the progressive differentiation which has been favored by household participation in the labor market and commercial agriculture. Ecotourism also provides a rationale for the rehabilitation of environmental values and know how which have been declining, and of the older generation which is their repository. At the same time the younger generation, which must play the main role in dealing with foreign tourists, maintains a stake in the community.

While the impact of foreign tourists is difficult to control, even under the management approach adopted by Capirona, the impact of the backpacker clientele is relatively benign. Compared to the more prosperous lodge tourists, backpackers tend to be more perceptive, speak better Spanish, and are most likely to attempt communication with their indigenous hosts on an equal level. They are also less conspicuous consumers and less prone to become yet another patrón handing out favors to a population habituated to dependency relationships. Furthermore they are more apt to enhance community self-respect by communicating the desire to learn about an alternate model rather than seeing their hosts solely as a curiosity. Finally, backpacker ecotourists often have a stronger environmental consciousness than their partly acculturated hosts. Thus they [end p. 42] can contribute to the reinforcement of the indigenous environmental ethic, as they have done with regard to many non-indigenous guides who have evolved from slash and burn farmers and oil workers to somewhat credible environmentalists.

The adoption of ecotourism as an indigenous sustainable development strategy can only strengthen the indigenous position in the frontier competition for resources and their exploiitation. Although the indigenous people have been awarded major land grants, these are not immune to settler and oil company encroachhment, nor to government manipulation. These territories can only be defended in the long term if they are productively used. Furthermore, the indigenous community would strengthen its land tenure position in the long term if it improved its environmental image and practice in a way compatible with ecotourism. At present, actors wishing to constrain indigenous resource control argue with some justification that the indigenous population is a major cause of wildlife depletion.

Indigenous controlled ecotourism also seems suited as a strategy of dispersal of productive activities permitting constant monitoring of settler encroachment and oil company practices throughout the interior of the extensive indigenous territories. Ecotourists are useful allies in putting pressure on parties such as the oil companies and the military which still have an imperfect environmental record. Furthermore, ecotourism can serve the Quichua strategy of establishing a presence to forestall settler expansion into yet unoccupied public lands and within the poorly monitored Yasuní Park which CONFENIAE considers a Quichua "ethnological reserve" (CONFENIAE n.d.).

Expansion of indigenous ecotourism necesssarily impinges on the interests of non-indigenous ecotourism entrepreneurs. In spite of recently increasing friction it would appear that cooperation can most easily be established with the lodge owners. A natural division of the market exists, since indigenous communities are presently neither able nor interested in providing luxury service. Following the example of the Flotel, most lodge owners recognize that mutually beneficial contractual arrangements, in which indigenous communities complement the lodge managed programs, are preferable to indigenous antagonism and obstructionism. Also, the lodges depend on indigenous employees while indigenous communities conntinue to depend on lodge tourism income and can benefit from the training of their members in the lodges. Confrontation is more likely with independent guides who compete for the same market. Much remains to be done to harmonize the interests and actions of lodges, independent guides and indigenous commuunities in order to develop the attractiveness of Napo as an ecotourism destination and to establish a coordinated front against destructive resource users who undermine the province's ecotourism potential.

CONCLUSION
This case study of Third World indigenous involvement in ecotourism has examined the phenomenon within the context of the dynamically changing resource frontier where much of Third WorId ecotourism expansion is situated. Within this context the case study suggests that the principal threats to the culture and ecosystems of indigenous people come from influences and resource exploitation forces other than ecotourism. In fact, ecotourism is a natural ally to counter such forces.

The selective study of the impact of ecotourism on indigenous people and their environment, which has dominated the literature, tends to highlight the negative effects of ecotourism and is excessively inclined to attribute cultural deterioration to tourism impact. Its policy conclusions generally advise caution, and defensive control. By contrast, the contextual approach adopted here highlights the limited options available to indigenous people and the potential of ecotourism as a proactive indigenous development strategy in which potential gains for sociocultural survival and environmental conservation far outweigh risks.

REFERENCES CITED
Adams, K. M. 1990. Cultural commoditization in Tana Tonya, Indonesia. Cultural Survival Quarterly 14(1):31-33.

Barriga López, F. 1992. Las culturas indígenas ecuatorianas y el lnstituto Linguístico de Verano. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Amata.

Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pittfalls. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund (2 vols.).

Brockelman, W. Y. and P. Dearden. 1990. The role of nature trekking in conservation: A case-study in Thailand. Environmental Conservation 17(2):141-48.

Budowski, G. 1976. Tourism and environmental con [end p.43] servation: Conflict, coexistence or symbiosis. Environmental Conservation 3(1):27-31.

Butler, R. W. 1990. Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28:4045.

Chapin, M. 1990. The silent jungle: Ecotourism among the Kuna Indians of Panama. Cultural Survival Quarterly 14(1):42-45.

Cohen, E. 1978. The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5(2):215-37.

___ .. 1979. Impact of tourism on the hill tribes of Northern Thailand. Internationales Asienforum 10(1-2):5-38.

___ . 1989. "Primitive and remote": Hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 16(1):30-61.

Confederación Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (CONFENIAE) n.d. Plano Mosaico F. FCUNAE Y N. HUORANI, Quito: CONFENIAE.

Coppock, R. 1978. The influence of Himalayan tourism on Sherpa culture and habitat. Zeitschrift Für Kulturaustausch 3:61-68.

Dearden, P. 1988. Tourism in developing societies: Some observations on trekking in the highlands of north Thailand. In Tourism: A Vital Force for Peace , eds. L. J. D'Amore and J. Jafari, 207-16. Vancouver: University of Victoria Press.

___ . 1991. Tourism and sustainable development in Northern Thailand. Geographical Review 81(4): 400-13.

de Groot, R. S. 1983. Tourism and conservation in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation 26 (4):291-300.

de Kadt, E., ed. 1979. Tourism: Passport to Development? New York: Oxford University Press.

Din, K. H. 1988. Social and cultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15(4):563-66.

Dogan, H. Z. 1989. Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16(2):216-36.

Drumm, A. 1991. Integrated Impact Assessment of Nature Tourism in Ecuador's Amazon Region. Quito: Feprotur.

Durst, P. B. and C.D. Ingram. 1988. Nature oriented tourism promotion by developing countries. Tourism Management 9(1):39-43.

Economist Intelligence Unit. 1992. Ecuador. Interrnational Tourism Report 2:27-42.

Farrell, B. H. and D. Runyan. 1991. Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1):26-40.

Federación de Organizaciones Indígenas del Napo (FOIN) and Cultural Survival. 1988. La legalización de tierras indigenas y manejo de recursos naturales en la zona de influencia de la carretera Hollin-Loreto. Quito: FOIN and Cultural Survival.

Fundación Natura. 1987. Estudio para el establecimiento de una Fundación para la Conservación de Recursos Bióticos de la Amazonia. Quito: Fundación Natura.

Garda, L. 1985. Historia de las misiones en la Amazonia ecuatoriana. Quito: Ediciones Abya- Y ala.

Gonsalves, P. S. 1987. Alternative tourism-the evolution of a concept and establishment of a network.Tourism Recreation Research 12(2):9-12.

Healy, R. 1988. Economic Consideration in Nature Oriented Tourism: The Case of Tropical Forest Tourrism. Research Triangle, N.C.: Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research. FPEI Working Paper 39.

Hicks, J. F. 1990. Ecuador's Amazon Region: Development Issues and Options. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Hiraoka, M. and S. Yamamoto. 1980. Agricultural development in the Upper Amazon of Ecuador. Geographical Review 70(4):423-445.

Jlirviluoma, J. 1992. Alternative tourism and the evolution of tourism areas. Tourism Management 13(1): 118-20.

Jefferies, B. E. 1982. Sagarmatha National Park: The impact of tourism in the Himalayas. Ambio 11(5): 274-81.

Johnston, B. R. 1990. Breaking out of the tourist trap. Cultural Survival Quarterly 14(1):2-5.

Kenchington, R. A. 1989. Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: The dilemma of conservation. Environmental Conservation 16(3):227-36.

Kimerling, J. 1990. Amazon Crude. Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., R. K. Upreti, and U. R. Sharma. 1988. National parks and local development: Grasses and people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 15(2): 143-48.

Lemaitre, F. 1987. L'exploitation forestière par les colons dans une zone pionniere d'Amazonie equatorienne. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Ottawa.

Lemky, K. M. K. 1992. The Amazon Ecotourism Industry of Napo, Ecuador. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Ottawa.

Macdonald, Jr., T. 1984. De cazadores a ganaderos: Cambios en la cultura y economía de los Quijos Quichuas. Quito: Ediciones Abya- Yala.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (MAG) and FECODES. 1992. Borrador del plan de manejo de la Reserva Ecológica Cuyabeno. Quito: MAGGFECODES.

Mirante, E. T. 1990. Hostages to tourism. Cultural Survival Quarterly 14(1):35-38.

Myers, N. 1975. The tourist as an agent for developpment and wildlife conservation: The case of Kenya. International Journal of Social Economics 2(1):2642.

Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA). 1988. Diagnóstico de la Provincia del Napo. 4 vols. Quito: Ediciones Abya- Yala.

Place, S. E. 1988. The impact of national park development on Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Journal of Cul [end p. 44]tural Geography 9(1):37-52.

___ . 1991. Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 18(2):186-201.

Ruschmann, D. v. d. M. 1992. Ecological tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13(1):125-28.

Saglio, C. 1985. Sénégal: tourisme rural integré en Basse-Casamance. Espaces 76:29-32.

Silver, I. 1992. Truth and travel: Alternative tourism isn't always responsible tourism. Cultural Survival Quarterly. 16(2):54-58.

Singh, T.V., H. L. Theuns, and F. M. Go, eds. 1989. Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Stevens, S. 1986. Inhabited National Parks: Indigenous Peoples in Protected Landscapes. East Kimberley Working Paper No. 10. Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies.

___ . 1988. Sacred and profane Himalayas. Natural History 97(1):26-35.

USAID. n.d. Ecuador Project Paper: Sustainable Use for Biological Resources. Quito: USAID.

Wheeller, B. 1991. Tourism's troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism Management 12(1):91-96.

____. 1992. Is progressive tourism appropriate? Tourism Management 13(1):104-5.

Whitten, Jr., N. E. 1976. Sacha Runa: Ethnicity and Adaptation of Ecuadorian Jungle Quichua. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Yost. J. 1985. Veinte atlos de contacto: Los mecanismos de cambio en la cultura Huao. In Amazonía ecuatoriana: la otra cara del progreso, eds. N. E. Whitten, Jr., D. Whitten, W. Belzner, E. Salazar, C Taylor, P. Descola & T. Macdonald, 255-84. Quito: Ediciones Abya- Y ala.

Ziffer, K. 1989. Ecotourism: An Uneasy Alliance. Washington, D.C.: Conservation International.

Zurick, D. N. 1992. Adventure travel and sustainable tourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(4): 608-28.

Resumen
Estudios de participación en ecoturismo par pueblos indígenas del Tercer Mundo se han concentrado hasta el momento en los impactos ambientales de turismo y enfatizaron los aspectos negativos. El presente estudio de caso de la Provincia del Napo en Ecuador examina las implicaciones de participación de poblaciones indígenas en ecoturismo en el contexto de una frontera de explotación de recursos naturales. Se trazan la transformación de sociedades indígenas bajo el impaccto de la expansión de fronteras de explotación de recurrsos naturales, la inserción en el ecoturismo, y la génesis de un ecoturismo controlado por los indígenas mismos. Finalmente, el estudio demuestra los beneficios de ecoturismo controlado par los pueblos indígenas como una estrategia apropiada para las condiciones de una frontera de explotación de recursos naturales.
Palabras clave. Ecoturismo, frontera de explotación de recursos naturales, pueblos indígenas, Ecuador, Amazonas. [end p.45]