ply does not adequately understand the matter at hand. Ecotourism researchers have not been derelict in this regard, as the literature review earlier showed. All the researchers who have looked at Capirona's project, however, have been impressed by its grassroots nature and are optimistic about its potential as eco-development (Colvin 1994; Wesche 1993; Silver 1992).

All of these researchers, however, visited the community in its early years of operation. As mentioned previously, recent, non-scholarly reports are less positive. Thus there remains some doubt as to the long-term viability of even such a model of indigenous ecotourism development as Capirona. This study originally proposed to study Capimna's project, but that community was weary of such research visits and refused a request to carry out the study there. Palo Blanco, though completing only its first year of ecotourism developmemt was chosen as an alternate site. Perhaps it should not be surprising that the prospects for ecotourism in Rio Blanco appear, as they did in Capirona quite bright.

Ecotourism development efforts differ from mainstream development efforts in that, aside from start-up loans, much or all of the continuing financial support comes from tourists rather than from governments or development agencies. As a result, the two main players many ecotourism endeavor—the hosts and the guests—are driven by differing motivations. The local population hopes to improve its own lot by taking advantage of the curiosity, disposable income, and in some cases, perhaps, good intentions of ecotourists. The tourists want to "explore the natural wonders of the world," whether that be a wildebeest migration across the Serengeti or the march of leaf-cutter ants across the jungle floor (Ryan and Grasse 1991: 166).

In contrast to mass tourism, ecotourism permits tourists to seek educational self-fulfillment in the form. of travel, and tries to transform. that activity into something that benefits the greater good—specifically, to fund environmental preservation, rural development, and even cultural survival. However, in order to satisfy everyone—tourists, environmentalists, tour operators and the local hosts—ecotourism must bring into aliganment a variety of contradictory purposes. Ecotourism promotes feelings among tourists that they are part of the solution when, in fact, the very act of flying a thousand miles or more to their destination consumes resources and pollutes the enviroment (cf. Somerville 1994). The beauty of ecotourism is that it can exploit this egotistic motivation; the flaw is that it is forever limited by it.

Even a brief foray into development literature, however, shows that flawed conceptualizations are the rule, not the exception. As development, ecotourism may be no more inchoate than any other approach, and in some ways it is as progressive as any theory. For example, ecotourism twin development goals—conserving the environment and benefiting local peoples—are increasingly seen, both within and outside of tourism circles, as interdependent. Without economic development, many argue that environmental conservation is neither ethical nor sustainable (Boo 1990: 1; West and Brechin 1992: 14; Brandon and Wells 1992). Such conservation can be achieved only by providing local people with alternative income sources which do not threaten to deplete the plants and amamis within the protected zone (Brandon and Wells 1992: 557). Most research on this issue, however, assumes that the protective regulations have been established by the government or another external ageacy. In Rio Blanco, however, the people themselves are already acting to protect their land.

According to the author, scholars

A．see life through rose-colored glasses.

B．should never give favorable reports.

C．are expected to give only favorable response following their research and analysis.

D．seem to believe a favorable result to research missed the point.