Page 15 - Small_islands_2019

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

ecotourist expectations. For the largest islands (Malta and Pantelleria), a level of dissatisfaction
was expressed, lower satisfaction was reported, and ecotourists were less willing to visit another
central Mediterranean island following the ecotours on these islands. These patterns have been
associated with aforementioned problems arising from island size and habitat fragmentation. The
unwillingness of some ecotourists to recommend a visit to the Maltese archipelago and
Pantelleria indicates the experience failed to meet their expectations (Murphy et al, 2000). The
problem seems to be the destination itself rather than the concept, as nearly an absolute majority
of respondents expressed a willingness to visit other ecodestinations on holiday, and only a small
percentage of respondents visiting the Maltese archipelago and Pantelleria did not express an
interest in visiting another ecotourism destination, such as a central Mediterranean island, in the
future. All these results confirm that such islands are less ideal as ecotourism destinations.
These trends become more visible when considering the ‘true specialists’, such as the
participants on the ecotour held in the Maltese archipelago, also known as ‘hard ecotourists’.
The anomalous results obtained for the Maltese archipelago when it comes to the overall rating
of the experience reflect warnings made by academics interviewed to the point that Malta is not
ideal as an ecotourism destination for hard ecotourists. This resonates with the remarks of the
ecotourists themselves. However, the results do not support remarks made in the literature that
argue that Malta can never serve as an ecodestination (Lockhart, 2002). Some stakeholders,
including ecotourists, regarded larger islands as vital for supporting the ecotourism experience
by serving as gateway islands. If anything, the results indicate that ‘soft ecotourists’ might be the
ideal target in the case of such islands.

Conclusions

Owing to their remoteness, limited or lower tourism activity, small population, and limited
human impact, smaller islands are generally still in a pristine state. They are thus regarded as
better suited to serve as an ecotourism venue in their entirety than are larger (gateway) islands
of the same archipelago. This accords with the fact that small islands have been associated with
a narrative of great potential as ‘small is beautiful’, rather than with negative conceptualisations
(Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008).
In contrast, larger islands that have experienced anthropogenic impacts and intense activity
due to their popularity with mass tourists and bigger populations have undergone habitat
fragmentation. As a result, specific sites have been earmarked as ecotourism venues. Whereas
islands per se are considered to be peripheral, most stakeholders (including ecotourists) visiting
densely populated islands or islands with high levels of anthropogenic impact have identified
peripheral areas on these islands as the ideal sites for ecotourism. Such sites include cliffs, beaches,
and valleys ending in the sea—land for which there is less demand from local communities,
given their relative inaccessibility and with a relatively lower level of anthropogenic impact. On
Malta and Gozo (which have experienced more negative anthropogenic impacts than the other
islands studies here), most protected areas that can serve as ecotourism venues are found in
peripheral areas. This implies that such larger islands are more ideal for marine ecotourism,
which involves ecotourism activities held in coastal and marine settings. Furthermore, such
islands tend to have relatively small terrestrial protected areas and much larger marine protected
areas when compared to other islands.

129