Page 11 - Small_islands_2019

Island Studies Journal, 14(2), November 2019, pages 115-136

the overall satisfaction rating. Yet this deserves further attention as the data obtained is
insufficient from which to make inferences, even if consultation has identified the off season and
mild weather conditions as ideal for ecotourism.

Discussion

The natural environment and protected areas are crucial for ecotourism development
The presence of numerous protected areas in the study area confirms the availability of
ecotourism venues. The fact that the presence of such sites influences the choice of the
destination and that immersion in nature was among the most frequent expectations among
respondents participating in the four ecotours confirms that these visitors were ecotourists,
especially those participating in the ecotour held in the Maltese islands, owing to the strong
expressions of expectations (Beaumont, 2011; Perkins & Grace, 2009; Rogerson, 2006). In fact,
on the basis of other data obtained, it was concluded that participants on the Maltese islands
ecotour were ‘hard ecotourists’.
The possibility of immersion in different habitats and environments on different islands is
a major opportunity offered by the central Mediterranean region. Even if it is currently
overlooked, this opportunity is further strengthened by the rich biodiversity found in the study
area and the presence of numerous endemic species, making ecotourism activities such as
observation of wildlife on such islands unique. Furthermore, one can practice various ecotourism
activities both in coastal and marine environments at sites that are relatively close to one another,
increasing the competitiveness of the ecotourism product and the satisfaction of ecotourists.

Habitat fragmentation necessitates site selectivity
All things considered, most participants in the ecotours claimed to have spent most of their time
during the tour in contact with nature, and this can be taken as a confirmation that the
ecotourism venues across the study area were generally adequate for ecotourists’ needs and
desires. However, anomalous results were obtained for the Maltese archipelago, with all data
sources flagging a general concern regarding Malta’s ecotourism venues and a sense that little
time had been spent in contact with nature. The main reasons mentioned were visual and
anthropogenic impacts and the high level of urbanisation, which rendered the level of
‘wilderness’ different from that found in the other ecodestinations. This reflects concerns raised
by the local population on the state of protected areas (Caruana Dingli & Galea, 2016). This has
also been explained by Cassar et al (2008, p.318):

In view of the significant human impact, there is hardly a location within the
Maltese Islands that does not bear evidence of human presence over the last
seven millennia. The Maltese landscape can best be described as cultural
rather than natural.

Most tour activities in Malta were held at ecotourism sites, including protected areas such
as Natura 2000 sites. Whereas there is room for improvement in the package, as expressed by
ecotourists, the programme was based on principles associated with ecotourism and not with
the general nature-based tours. It is therefore the intense and landscape-altering human impact,

125