The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

The Effectiveness of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool: Exploring Function, Proximity and Feasibility in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng The Effectiveness of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool: Exploring Function, Proximity and Feasibility in The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Date (dcterms:date)

2010

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Hoatson, Stephanie

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

The Effectiveness of Ecotourism
as an Ecological Restoration Tool:
Exploring Function, Proximity and Feasibility in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

By
Stephanie Hoatson

Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2010

© 2010 by Stephanie Hoatson. All rights reserved.

This Thesis: Essay of Distinction for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Stephanie Hoatson

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

_________________________________________
Ralph Murphy, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty

_________________________
Date

 

ABSTRACT
The Effectiveness of Ecotourism
as an Ecological Restoration Tool:
Exploring Function, Proximity and Feasibility in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Stephanie Hoatson
The study of ecotourism as an ecological restoration tool provides an interdisciplinary
approach to analyzing the relationship between the environment and public demand for a
good or service. Through the literary synthesis of definitions of the terms ecotourism and
ecological restoration, a framework is developed which highlights the opportunity for
ecotourism operations to enhance ecological restoration efforts at a given local. Using
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a case study for this understanding, GIS distance
buffer methodology is applied to determine the number and identities of Chesapeake Bay
Gateways Network (CBGN) ecotourism sites found within close proximity to mapped
NOAA ecological restoration sites in the lower Bay Watershed. Of the mapped CBGN
ecotourism sites, 47%, 63%, and 77% are located within 5-, 10-, and 15 miles of NOAAsupported restoration locations, respectively. The further analysis of the ecotourismecological restoration relationship cluster areas of four Bay area cities – Baltimore, MD;
Annapolis, MD; Solomons, MD; and Norfolk, VA – identifies a potential network bridge
of educators, volunteers and field scientists between the ecotourism operations and
restoration activity in the Bay. Ultimately, the GIS proximity model can be expanded
upon within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, as well as applied to other geographic
ecosystems experiencing a gap between tourism and ecotourism operations and
ecological restoration activity.

 

Contents
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………… vi
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………... vi
List of Maps ………………………………………………………………………….. vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………..
1.1 Significance of Study …………………………………………………….
1.1.1 Exploring Ecological Restoration …………………………………
1.1.2 Exploring Ecotourism ……………………………………………..
1.1.3 Understanding Economic Development and Benefits …………….
1.2 Research Strategy ………………………………………………………..
1.3 Overview of Thesis ………………………………………………………

1
1
1
2
3
4
5

Chapter 2: Methods …………………………………………………………………
2.1 Synthesizing Definitions of Ecological Restoration and Ecotourism ……
2.2 Case Study: The Chesapeake Bay Watershed …………………………...
2.2.1 Researching the Study Area ………………………………………
2.2.2 GIS Mapping and Spatial Analysis ……………………………….
2.3 Understanding the Thesis ………………………………………………..

6
6
6
6
7
9

Chapter 3:
Defining the Function of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool ………... 10
3.1 An Overview …………………………………………………………….. 10
3.2 Defining Ecological Restoration ………………………………………… 11
3.2.1 Working with the Past ……………………………………………. 11
3.2.2 Understanding Ecological Restoration:
A Synthesized Definition …………………………………………. 16
3.3 Defining Ecotourism …………………………………………………….. 21
3.3.1 Working with the Past ……………………………………………. 21
3.3.2 Understanding Ecotourism: A Synthesized Definition …………… 31
3.4 Understanding Local Economic Benefits of Ecotourism ………………... 37
3.5 The Function of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool ……….... 41
Chapter 4: Choosing the Chesapeake ………………………………………………
4.1 Bay Resources in Brief …………………………………………………..
4.2 Restoration in the Bay ……………………………………………………
4.3 Local Economic Benefit from Bay Restoration Efforts ………………….
4.4 Combining Ecotourism Activity and Restoration Efforts in the Bay ……

46
50
51
55
57

Chapter 5: Exploring Proximity in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed –
A Case Study ……………………………………………………………
5.1 Mapping Ecological Restoration Activity ………………………………
5.1.1 Bay Restoration Organizations and Projects ……………………...
5.1.2 Mapping Locations ……………………………………………….

58
58
58
59

iv  

Contents
Chapter 5: Exploring Proximity in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed –
A Case Study (Continued) ……………………………………………... 62
5.2 Mapping Ecotourism Activity …………………………………………… 62
5.2.1 Determining “Ecotourism” Operations …………………………… 62
5.2.2 Mapping Locations ……………………………………………….. 63
5.3 A Spatial Analysis: Measuring Proximity in the Chesapeake Bay ……… 65
5.3.1 Finding a Sense of Proximity:
Mapping Ecological Restoration Sites with Ecotourism Sites ……. 65
5.3.2 Spatial Methods and Results ……………………………………… 66
5.4 Discussing Feasibility …………………………………………………… 68
5.4.1 Using Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed ……………………………….. 68
5.5 Examining Specific Ecotourism-Restoration Relationships ……………. 70
5.5.1 Baltimore, Maryland ……………………………………………… 70
5.5.2 Annapolis, Maryland ……………………………………………… 72
5.5.3 Solomons, Maryland ……………………………………………… 73
5.5.4 Norfolk, Virginia …………………………………………………. 75
Chapter 6: Conclusions ……………………………………………………………... 76
6.1 Connecting Concepts ……………………………………………………. 76
6.2 Case Study Expansion …………………………………………………… 77
6.2.1 Alternative GIS Methodology …………………………………….. 77
6.2.2 Measuring Public Response ………………………………………. 79
6.3 Future Application ………………………………………………………. 81
References …………………………………………………………………………… 82
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………
Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using
ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis …………………………………
Appendix 2: CBGN ecotourism locations plotted using Arc GIS v9.3 for
spatial analysis ……………………………………………………
Appendix 3: CBGN ecotourism locations within 5 miles of mapped
restoration sites within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed …………
Appendix 4: CBGN ecotourism locations within 10 miles of mapped
restoration sites within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed …………
Appendix 5: CBGN ecotourism locations within 15 miles of mapped
restoration sites within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed …………

 

87
88
105
117
123
131

v

Tables
Table 3.1: Varying definitions of restoration and notable characteristics ………….. 16
Table 3.2: Principles and characteristics of ecotourism (Butler 1992) ……………… 25
Table 3.3: Varying definitions of ecotourism and notable characteristics ………….. 32
Table 6.1: Alternative GIS network analysis methodology including analysis type,
application and criteria ………………………………………………………... 78

Figures
Figure 3.1: Overlap visualization of explored restoration definitions broken down
in Table 3.1 ……………………………………………………………………
Figure 3.2: Continuum of ecotourism paradigms as derived from Miller and
Kaae (1993) …………………………………………………………………...
Figure 3.3: The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour
(Hines et al. 1986-1987) ………………………………………………………
Figure 3.4: A simple framework for understanding environmental behavior
derived from the Model of Responsible Behaviour (Hines et al. 1986-1987)
and Azjen and Driver’s (1992) Theory of Planned Behaviour ……………….
Figure 3.5: Overlap visualization of explored ecotourism definitions broken down
in Table 3.3 ……………………………………………………………………

19
23
28

30
36

Maps
Map 4.1: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed classifications (main) spanning
six states (inset) ………………………………………………………………. 48
Map 4.2: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed vulnerability due to varying
Levels of development pressures ……………………………………………... 49
Map 5.1: Map of Watershed Restoration Projects presented by Chesapeake Bay
Foundation and Partners ……………………………………………………… 60
Map 5.2: NOAA ecological restoration sites sorted by project stage ………………. 61
Map 5.3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites sorted by
gateway type …………………………………………………………………. 64
Map 5.4: NOAA ecological restoration and Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
partnership ecotourism sites ………………………………………………….. 65
Map 5.5: 5-, 10-, and 15-mile distance buffers from NOAA ecological restoration
sites mapped with CBGN ecotourism sites …………………………………… 67

vi  

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank Ralph Murphy, Ph.D. (The Evergreen State College, MES) for
his ongoing support and time dedicated to helping me complete my thesis and degree
requirements for the Master of Environmental Studies program. I would also like to
thank staff from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN) for their provided data for mapping areas.
In addition, I would like to acknowledge staff at the Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Center, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Trust,
Ducks Unlimited, and Maryland Office of Tourism Development for aid in information
sources. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their immense support
and encouragement throughout my graduate career.

“… you are not truly engaged with a place, especially a wild place,
without being there on its terms, not yours.” –Eric Higgs, 2003.
 

 

Chapter 1
Introduction
Understanding the ideas of ecological restoration and ecotourism has resulted in a
number of evolving discussions of each individual term. As a result, definitions in
relation to the terms in general, project goals, and participants remain unclear and
variable. This variation is ultimately due to the span of each study over a number of
disciplines as each term and its accompanying subject matter consists of both
environmental and societal interactions. Although both terms involve reference to the
natural environment, societal functions such as physical interaction and derived economic
benefit also serve as factors in understanding the terms. As a result, analysis of each term
requires attention to this interdisciplinary interaction between natural science and social
science subject matter. Thus, through the literary synthesis of previously published
definitions of the terms ecological restoration and ecotourism, a progressive step can be
made in the understanding of how these separate environment-based operations can work
in conjunction with one another with the end goal of maintaining the environmental
integrity of a natural area while still holding a societal benefit to the communities
surrounding that area, through both natural resource restoration and generated economic
revenue.

1.1

Significance of Study

1.1.1

Exploring Ecological Restoration
The idea of ecological restoration and its respective definition is not a simple

entity. Instead, a variety of opinions exist in regard to at what state an area can be
considered restored, based not only on species presence or absence but also on ecosystem
functionality.

As a result, a firm universal definition of restoration is seemingly

unattainable. Higgs states, “The paradigm in ecology has shifted in the last twenty years
from one in which equilibrium defined the end point of ecological change to one in which
ecosystems are disequilibrium systems with complicated multiple trajectories and

 

1

multiple steady states.” 1

This outlook raises the question of whether authorities in the

field should accept the lack of uniformity in opinion and definition, or if they should
instead strive to determine a generalized understanding of the concept of ecological
restoration in order to enhance knowledge regarding endpoint and goals of the activity.
Ultimately, the process of setting an endpoint to restoration activity will vary based on an
individual research area and the history of its ecological function.
However, even with this variation, the resulting social implications which
accompany any restoration project are likely to be standard over a majority of project
sites as the nature of restoration ecology is interdisciplinary in itself. Many ecological
restoration efforts are located in development-disturbed areas, thus connecting social
actions with the natural world. Higgs states:
…[to] restore successfully in the long run, people need to be strongly
committed to restoration 2 [since] animals and plants do not typically
require management. Rather, most of the emphasis must be on designing
experience for the visitors and dwellers that emphasize long-term
responsibility, respectful action, and contribution, material or otherwise, to
the flourishing of ecosystems. 3
The result of these actions will lead to a natural world which is able to not only coexist
with human society, but to also thrive in its overlap.
A complete understanding of what ecological restoration is, and how to determine
whether or not a project can be considered complete, will help to serve as a baseline for
determining how restoration projects can interact with other operations. For the purpose
of this study, the formulation of a synthesized definition of ecological restoration, derived
from the examination of past definitions and research, aids in the analysis of the
opportunity for ecotourism to aid in ecological restoration efforts.
1.1.2

Exploring Ecotourism
Similar to the discussion of ecological restoration, the concept of ecotourism

bridges a gap between two distinct disciplines. The natural science aspect of ecosystem
environments comprises one discipline, while the social science aspect of the economic
                                                            
1

 E. Higgs, Nature by Design: People, Natural Processes, and Ecological Restoration (Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 2003), 141. 
2
Higgs, Nature by Design, 4. 
3
Higgs, Nature by Design, 264. 

2

 

implications which come along with general tourist practices comprises the second. This
span of disciplines results in a variety of understandings of the term as definitions or
research are biased in the direction of one discipline over the other.
In order to formulate a concrete understanding of ecotourism impacts, in terms of
both nature and society, a definition of the term must first be understood. In a 2003
publication, Edwards et al. performed a census of North American government entities
including USA and Canada, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Key
findings resulting from the census note that a variety of definitions exist, many of which
have been developed by the local—state, province, territory—governments in order to
“meet its needs or understanding of ecotourism as opposed to a ‘standard’ definition
taken from another source, such as the tourism research literature or a professional
tourism organization.” 4 These findings exemplify a key issue in the study of ecotourism.
Without a standard definition, the term and its associated activities can be loosely
interpreted resulting in a misrepresentation of advertised ecotourism practices. While this
is less likely to result in a negative impact to the visitors or local populations taking part
in such activity, the misrepresentation has the potential to result in negative effects on the
natural environment of that area.
Similar in terms of the exploration of ecological restoration, the formulation of a
definition of ecotourism derived from previously published definitions and research will
help to more completely understand of what ecotourism is, and what constitutes an
ecotourist. This defined understanding will help to serve as a baseline for determining
how ecotourism operations can interact with ecological restoration project efforts,
including implementation and monitoring.
1.1.3

Understanding Economic Development and Benefits
As previously discussed, the study of ecotourism spans both the natural and social

science disciplines. Provided the root of ecotourism in general economic-based tourism
practices, the economic development and benefit, or harm, of ecotourism practices to
both the surrounding environment and the society involved must also be discussed.
                                                            
4

S.N. Edwards, W.J. McLaughlin and S.H. Ham, “A Regional Look at Ecotourism Policy in the
Americas,” in Ecotourism Policy and Planning, edited by D.A. Fennell and R.K. Dowling, 293-307,
Cambridge, MA: CAB International (2003), 296.

 

3

According to Sinclair and Stabler (1997), the social science study of environmental
economics involves:
… the analysis of the use of exhaustible energy and productive resources
(conservation economics) but also amenity use of natural resources
(leisure economics – embracing sport, recreation and tourism), as well as
the accepted sense of investigating the economic role of the environment
and the associated caused and impact of its degradation through over-use
or pollution… 5
Ultimately, understanding ecological economics, specifically ecotourism functions,
serves as a critical factor in the discussion of the potential of ecotourism locations to
serve as hubs for ecological restoration aid.

1.2

Research Strategy
This study focuses on three primary ideas. First, the function of ecological

restoration, ecotourism, and how the two entities are able to work with one another are
explored through a synthesis and analysis of each term’s past definitions and associated
research. As a result, an updated, synthesized definition of each term is presented. These
definitions in turn provide a framework for assessing the function of ecotourism
operations to serve as a tool for local ecological restoration efforts, applied to a case
study of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW).
The second focus of this study, proximity, is measured through geographical
information systems (GIS) mapping methodology. The resulting maps provide a spatial
reference for the analysis of distance between ecological restoration sites and ecotourism
locations in the CBW.
Finally, an idea of feasibility, or coordination possibility, between ecotourism
operations and ecological restoration projects is explored and discussed. Provided a clear
sense of proximity between the various operating sites, potential coordination initiative
can be taken into consideration and implemented, dependent on funding and personnel
availability.

                                                            
5

M.T. Sinclair and M. Stabler, The Economics of Tourism (London: Routledge, 1997), 155. 

4

 

1.3

Overview of Thesis
This thesis aims to create a framework outlining the opportunity for ecotourism

activity to enhance ecological restoration efforts at any study location using the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a preliminary case study.

Chapter 2 outlines the

methodology used in order to create this framework. Chapter 3 explores past definitions
of the terms ecotourism and ecological restoration resulting in updated derivative
definitions of each term as they will be able to work in conjunction with one another.
Additionally, the importance of local economic development as a function of ecotourism
is also discussed. Chapter 4 focuses on the importance of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
as a case study site, examining Bay resources, restoration, and the associated local
economic benefits.

Chapter 5 applies the derived definitions and understandings

discussed in Chapter 3 to a case study analysis of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. First,
an overview and analysis of the study area is presented before mapping both ecotourism
and ecological restoration locations for spatial analysis using GIS software. The latter
half of the chapter discusses the mapped finding, including analyses of specific
ecotourism-restoration cluster groups within the mapped Watershed area.

Finally,

Chapter 6 summarizes the presented findings, concluding with an outline of future
application possibilities.

 

5

Chapter 2
Methods
2.1

Synthesizing Definitions of Ecological Restoration and Ecotourism
In order to understand the significance of the use of ecotourism as an ecological

restoration tool, the evolution of past definitions of each term was evaluated through a
formal literature review. Using refereed book and journal publications, an analysis of the
evolution and variation of published definitions of the terms ecological restoration and
ecotourism were individually explored. The synthesized findings were then presented in
corresponding tables 6 summarizing the definitions and notable characteristics for each
source researched.
These summarizations were further presented through overlap visualization
graphics prepared using Microsoft Office Word 2007 SmartArt tools. 7 Ven-diagram-like
graphics were generated in order to depict overlapping similarities between notable
characteristics of each definition and the definitions which incorporate those
characteristics.
As a result of the literary syntheses and visual representations of the summarized
findings, individual synthesized definitions of the terms ecological restoration and
ecotourism were derived and presented, highlighting the notable characteristics
represented in each definition. Additionally, a literary synthesis methodology using
refereed books and journals was applied to the discussion of local economic development
as an important function of ecotourism activity.

2.2

Case Study: The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

2.2.1

Researching the Study Area
Analysis of the opportunity for ecotourism to enhance ecological restoration in

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is based on the presence of both ecotourism and
ecological restoration activity throughout the Watershed. Various Chesapeake Bay Area
organizations were contacted in regard to data availability for either ecotourism
                                                            
6

Table 3.1 and Table 3.3 present synthesized findings for the terms ecological restoration and ecotourism,
respectively.
7
Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.5 present overlap visualizations of the literary synthesis of the terms ecological
restoration and ecotourism, respectively.

6

 

operations or ecological restoration activity in the area. As a result, Chesapeake Bay
Gateways Network and NOAA provided ecotourism and ecological restoration site
locations, respectively.
2.2.2

GIS Mapping and Spatial Analysis
For the purpose of this study, geographic information systems (GIS) analysis

allows for a visual understanding of the opportunity for ecological restoration project and
ecotourism operation sites to work with one another to reach common goals throughout
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A base map was prepared using ESRI’s ArcGIS v9.3
and the associated GIS server available through The Evergreen State College campus.
An ESRI-provided Imagery World 2D layer creates the spatial base map of the
Chesapeake Bay region for the study purposes. All information layers are presented in
the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) geographic coordinate system (GCS), in order
to assure accurate presentation of all data points plotted.
NOAA ecological restoration site information was made available through an
ArcIMS GIS data server provided by the NOAA Restoration Center. Although NOAA
data provided does not depict all restoration sites throughout the Watershed, the data does
provide a base level on which to work from. For the purpose of this part of the study,
only NOAA restoration sites have been mapped.
Given that NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay data included sites throughout the
Watershed, the data was clipped using ArcGIS selection tools to only show sites in the
Maryland-Virginia portion of the Watershed for this study. Sites were then categorically
sorted according to project status: planning stage, implementation stage, implementation
complete, and project terminated.

Symbology levels were associated with the

corresponding project status category types for mapping. Major cities were also mapped
to provide a spatial reference on the land map.
Ecotourism locations were derived from a list of Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Network (CBGN) partnership members, provided via a promotional pamphlet from
CBGN.

The pamphlet listed 151 of the 158 sites publicized on the organization’s

website.

For the purpose of this primary case study, only the sites listed in the

promotional pamphlet are presented through GIS mapping.

 

7

Gateway sites were manually entered into an Excel database limited by name,
address, city, state, zip code, and gateway type as presented by CBGN. The completed
database was imported into ArcGIS v9.3 and geocoded using the ESRI Street Map USA
address locator available through The Evergreen State College GIS server. Addresses
unmatched through the ESRI geocoding tool were input and mapped manually using
“find” and “editing” tools in ArcGIS v9.3. The resulting data points were added to the
same data layer as the successful geocoded points. All points within the ecotourism
dataset were categorically sorted according to type of gateway: Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub, Gateway Site, Gateway Land Trail, or Gateway Water Trail. Symbology
levels 8 were associated with corresponding Gateway category types for mapping. Major
cities were also mapped to provide a spatial reference on the land map.
With ecotourism and ecological restoration locations mapped independently,
overlaying the data sets provides a basis for further spatial analysis.

Using near

methodology functions in a GIS setting allows for identification of an area based on what
features are within a set distance of a particular location. This analysis can be measured
according to distance, time, or cost. 9

For the purpose of this study, analysis was

performed using distance as a function of measurement. As a result, distance buffers
have been chosen in order to simplify distance measurements from ecological restoration
sites. Distances of 5, 10 and 15 miles have been chosen in order to account for the
nearest ecotourism operation locations to restoration project locations, assuming 15 miles
as the maximum willingness to travel from a tour location.
Each distance buffer was saved as a new layer file. Each layer of buffers was
dissolved in order to remove overlapping edges between buffers, allowing for observation
of local area spatial patterns. All layers were overlayed to create a single map featuring
all distance buffers.
After mapping the chosen distance buffers, sites located within buffer spans could
be selected by location using the respective “select by location” tool available in ArcGIS
                                                            
8

Symbology levels in ArcGIS v9.3 allow for the user to change the symbol, color, and size representations
of each plotted point. Each category within a single dataset can be differentiated with varying symbology
settings to be presented in a legend for publishing purposes.
9
A. Mitchell, “The ESRI Guide to GIS Analysis, Volume 1: Geographic Patterns and Relationships,”
(Redlands, CA: ESRI Inc., 1999), 116. 

8

 

v9.3. By selecting sites in the ecotourism location layer limited to those that fall within
each restoration area buffer layer, the attributes of the selected features (ecotourism sites),
including number of features which fall within that buffer, were examined for further
analysis and discussion of potential opportunity of ecotourism sites to work with
restoration sites within each buffer proximity.

2.3

Understanding the Thesis
The review of past literature and the derivation of synthesized definitions for both

ecological restoration and ecotourism yield an understanding of the opportunity for
ecotourism to be applied as an aid to ecological restoration efforts can be formulated.
Through a spatial analysis of the Chesapeake Bay as a case study of this research,
proximity between ecological restoration sites and ecotourism activity within the Bay
Watershed is presented for further analysis.

With this spatial reference, specific

restoration site areas and the corresponding surrounding ecotourism operations are
explored and presented in order to understand the specific cooperative opportunities
available in the Chesapeake Bay.

 

9

Chapter 3
Defining the Function of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool
3.1

An Overview
Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world, with over 940 million

travelers and generating one out of every 11.9 jobs in the world in 2008. 10

These

numbers are expected to grow, potentially resulting in increased strains on the world’s
natural environment. An increase in general tourist impacts on the environment is a
subject of on-going interest as researchers attempt to generate a viable way through
which environmental impact can be minimized or even eliminated. In order to account
for this new perception regarding human impact while participating in tourist activities,
an alternative form of tourism has been developed. Although a number of other terms
have been used to describe this same understanding, including nature travel, natureoriented tourism, nature tourism, nature-based tourism, sustainable tourism, alternative
tourism and special interest tourism, 11 for the purpose of this study, this type of tourism
will be analyzed using the term ecotourism. The development of ecotourism operations
has provided general tourism with the opportunity to participate in the continued effort to
conserve and restore natural habitat. 12
However, conservation and restoration efforts that make use of ecotourism as a
tool may be limited, as universal definitions for the terms restoration and ecotourism
have not been determined or generally accepted in reviewed literature. Three basic
concepts will be explored in this section. First, the idea of restoration and its goals in
relation to its definition is examined using a compilation of previously proposed
definitions and root meanings. Through a review of published studies, a synthesized
definition of ecological restoration is reached, providing a baseline for future projects.
The concept of rehabilitation, its relation to restoration, and restoration techniques will
also be explored. Second, the differences between standard tourism and ecotourism will
                                                            
10

World Travel and Tourism Council, “Tourism Impact Data and Forecasts,” 2007,
http://www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_Research/Tourism_Economic_Research/. 
11
Dimitrios Diamantis, “The Concept of Ecotourism: Evolution and Trends,” Current Issues in Tourism 2,
no. 2&3 (1999): 94.
12
Eileen Gutiérrez, “Case Study 16.1: Ecotourism and Biodiversity Conservation,” in Principles of
Conservation Biology, Third Edition, ed. M.J. Groom, G.K. Meffe, C.R. Carroll and Contributers (Sinaur
Associates, Inc., 2006), 599. 

10  

be explored, primarily focusing on the historical overview of the term, before leading to a
proposed definition of ecotourism. Finally, ecotourism as a concept will be discussed as
both a type of restoration technique as well as a separate, potentially negative, practice in
itself.

3.2

Defining Ecological Restoration

3.2.1

Working with the Past
The concept of ecological restoration has been widely explored in attempts to

determine what is or should be considered restoration. This includes defining the term as
well as determining goals for projects based on the accepted definition. Overtime, the
concept of what constitutes a restoration project often has been limited due to the goals of
a particular restoration project; therefore, definitions have varied slightly between each
presented definition. For instance, if a restoration project only seeks a minimal change
from the present state, project goals will only reflect a minimalist definition of
restoration. This discrepancy between context-based definitions and a more complete or
universal definition has resulted in an inability to compare restoration projects as each
project’s ‘completed state’ has been individually defined. Understanding a synthesized
definition will ultimately aid in the differentiation between various restoration projects
and their goals, as a standard understanding will be presented.
Understanding the concept of restoration first requires examination of the root of
the term as well as its related concepts. Bradshaw explores the definition of the term
restoration in relation to terms including restore, rehabilitation, and mitigation. 13 Using
the Oxford English Dictionary as a base for determining a definition in relation to proper
restoration practices, these terms need to be further discussed.
The verb restore is defined as “to bring back to the original state or to a healthy or
vigorous state” while the act of restoration is “the act of restoring to a former state or
position or to an unimpaired or perfect condition.” 14 While both definitions mention an
aim for an original or perfect condition, the definition of restoration only gives the option
                                                            
13

A.D. Bradshaw, “Underlying Principles of Restoration,” Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science
53, no. 1 (1996): 3-9. 
14
Bradshaw, “Underlying Principles of Restoration,” 3. 

 

11

to reach a “former state” whereas the definition of restore specifies that the state should
be “healthy or vigorous.”

As the definition for restoration seems to be almost

contradicted by the definition for its root, the need to determine a consensus definition
and baseline goals for restoration projects becomes necessary.
Before determining a working definition and project framework for restoration, it
is important to explore the idea of restoration in terms of ecology in order to be able to
discuss its implications within environmental restoration project frameworks specifically.
The idea of ecological restoration has been defined and explored using varying levels of
specification. For instance, with the already environmentally conscious person in mind,
Higgs (2003) presents his view of ecological restoration as interdisciplinary in nature. He
argues that researchers must take into consideration both the environmental processes and
human processes when projecting restoration goals. It is not enough to restore an area to
its former environmental process. Without examining the human and natural history
which has caused the changes in the ecosystem, a total restoration is unattainable. Higgs
(2003) states:
Ecological restoration is about making damaged ecosystems whole again
by arresting invasive and weedy species, reintroducing missing plants and
animals to create an intact web of life, understanding the changing
historical conditions that led to present conditions, creating or rebuilding
soils, eliminating hazardous substances, ripping up roads, and returning
natural processes such as fire and flooding to places that thrive on these
regular pulses. 15
With this interpretation, changes in historical conditions are noted yet there is little
indication of examining future implications of any completed restoration project. As a
result, a particular restoration project may initially restore an ecosystem with it only to
return to the non-restored state due to excessive change that has already taken place in
that area.
A number of other variations of ecological restoration continue to create
discrepancies regarding restoration characteristics, end goals and desired results. Kairo et
al. notes the concept of restoration according to Morrison (1990) in which he restates:
Restoration is the reintroduction and reestablishment of community-like
groupings of native species to sites which can reasonably be expected to
                                                            
15

Higgs, Nature by Design, 1. 

12  

sustain them, with the resultant vegetation demonstrating aesthetic and
dynamic characteristics of the natural communities on which they are
based. 16
Morrison’s understanding of ecological restoration encompasses both aesthetic and
dynamic characteristics of the restoration area, yet fails to examine the reason for the
restoration process. Alternatively, Higgs notes that ecologists should understand “the
changing historical conditions that led to present conditions,” yet fails to mention
Morrison’s aesthetic component.
Similar to Higgs’ understanding of historical conditions, Jackson, Lopukhine and
Hillyard suggest that ecological restoration is “the process of repairing damage caused
by humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems.” 17 In comparison to
Morrison’s argument, Jackson, Lopukhine and Hillyard explore the idea that humans are
the damaging factor to an area which would need to be restored without discussing any
implication of the desired characteristics resulting from the restoration process.
In a 1997 Ecological Engineering publication, Pastorok et al. discuss the terms
restoration, rehabilitation, and management in regard to each as a general restoration
goal distinguished by the 1992 National Research Council:
Restoration returns as ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition
before it was disturbed. Rehabilitation improves a system to a ‘good
working order’. Management manipulates a system to ensure maintenance
of one or a few functions. 18
Pastorok et al. suggest the overlap of these three concepts to be a “continuum” and uses
the term restoration throughout their project-framework study as a collective
encompassment of all goals without necessarily fully distinguishing between the three.
The lack of separation between terms and the decision to combine the three into one of
the initial concepts only creates further misunderstanding of what restoration is or should
be.

By defining restoration as a continuum of restoration, rehabilitation, and

                                                            
16

J.G. Kairo, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, J. Bosire and N. Koedam, “Restoration and Management of Mangrove
Systems—A Lesson and from the East African Region,” South African Journal of Botany 67 (2001): 383. 
17
L.L. Jackson, N. Lopoukhine and D. Hillyard, “Ecological Restoration: A Definition and Comments,”
Restoration Ecology 3, no. 2 (1995): 71. 
18
R.A. Pastorok, A. MacDonald, J.R. Sampson, P. Wilber, D.J. Yozzo and J.P. Titre, “An Ecological
Decision Framework for Environmental Restoration Projects,” Ecological Engineering 9, no. 1-2 (1997):
91. 

 

13

management, Pastorok et al. add to the proposed need for a centralized definition of the
term.
In a 1998 study, as mentioned in Kairo et al., Field defines restoration as “the act
of bringing an ecosystem back to its original condition.” 19 Again, an emphasis is placed
on restoration to an original state yet there is no suggestion as to what has caused the
degradation or to what characteristics should be observes at the project completion.
Similarly, van Diggelen, Grootjans and Harris define restoration as the “reconstruction of
a prior ecosystem.” 20 However, this definition is only representative of “true” restoration
and is noted as the “third and most ambitious level” of discussed restoration goals.
According to van Diggelen, Grootjans and Harris:
The first level is sometimes called reclamation and consists of attempt to
increase biodiversity per se, often in highly disturbed sites… The
landscape as a whole would benefit from implementing such measures but
reclamation does not necessarily contribute to the protection of red list
species. The second goal is often called rehabilitation and consists of the
reintroduction of certain ecosystem functions… Rehabilitation would
make the landscape as a whole more “natural,” but it would not
necessarily result in a significant increase in biodiversity. 21
It seems as though that only after the first two levels of restoration goals are attempted
that “true” restoration would be considered and option.

This review develops the

understanding that a hierarchy of restoration goals, such as the one mentioned by van
Diggelen, Grootjans and Harris, becomes a necessary component to proposing a more
centralized definition of restoration in relation to project efforts.
The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) helps to bridge the gap of points
missing in a comprehensive definition of restoration. The 2002, and updated 2004,
publication of the SER Primer of Ecological Restoration states the goal of restoration as
“the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged,
or destroyed.” 22 According to the SER Primer, a restored ecosystem is defined as:

                                                            
19

Kairo et al., “Restoration and Management of Mangrove Systems,” 383. 
R. van Diggelen, A.P. Grootjans and J.A. Harris, “Ecological Restoration: State of the Art or State of the
Science?” Restoration Ecology 9, no. 2 (2001): 116. 
21
van Diggelen, Grootjans and Harris, “Ecological Restoration,” 115-116. 
22
M.A. Davis and L.B. Slobodkin, “The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology,” Restoration Ecology
12, no. 1 (2004): 1. and D.M. Campbell-Hunt, “Ecotourism and Sustainability in Community-Driven
20

14  

[One] that contains sufficient biotic and abiotic resources to continue its
development without further assistance or subsidy. It will sustain itself
structurally and functionally. It will demonstrate resilience to normal
ranges of environmental stress and disturbance. It will interact with
contiguous ecosystems in terms of biotic and abiotic flows and cultural
intentions. 23
The desirable implication of the SER restoration goal lies in the idea that restoration
should be attempted given that an ecosystem has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed
with no specification as to whether humans had a hand in the process or if it was a result
of natural succession or disaster. However, the Primer discusses how to determine
whether or not an ecosystem has reached a restored state.

Yet, in comparison to

Morrison the SER definition still lacks an aesthetic component and, in relation to Higgs,
makes no reference to the concept of the “changing historical conditions” which may
have left an environment in a potentially non-restorable state.
After discussion of the 2002 SER restoration goals, Davis and Slobodkin suggest
that “ecological restoration is the process of restoring one or more valued processes or
attributes of a landscape.” 24 Similarly, Higgs presents the understanding that ecological
restoration ultimately involves a “process of recovery” through which “restorationists
work to accelerate natural processes, creating conditions in an instant which might take
years, decades, or centuries to occur without intervention” while directing “recovery
processes… toward specific ends determined by the restorationist.” 25 While these views
help to provide a simplistic understanding of restoration projects and applicable goal,
they also risk the argument of oversimplification as they fail to mention which
characteristics should be expected at the outcome of the project. The simplification of
Davis and Slobodkin’s definition leaves room for further interpretation as “valued
processes” can include the aesthetic as well as purely natural value of a restored
landscape. Alternatively, Higgs understanding leaves the end state of restoration to the
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Ecological Restoration: Case Studies from New Zealand,” in Sustainable Tourism III: Ecology and the
Environment vol. 115, ed. C.A. Brebbia and F.D. Pineda (WIT Press, 2008), 232. 
23
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group, The SER
International Primer on Ecological Restoration (www.ser.org & Tuscon: Society for Ecological
Restoration International, 2004), 3. 
24
Davis and Slobodkin, “The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology,” 2. 
25
Higgs, Nature by Design, 112. 

 

15

project leader. While this act is not in itself an unsuitable view, it again leaves little room
for project status comparison between restoration sites.
The definitions presented and discussed reveal a number of discrepancies between
published definitions.

While some definitions of the term ecological restoration

incorporate ideas of aesthetic and dynamic functions of the habitat being restored, other
definitions fail to differentiate between humans or natural environmental fluctuations as
the root cause of destruction leading to the need for the project. The simplification of
many of these published definitions creates the need for a specified definition to be
synthesized in order to maximize the potential success of an ecological restoration
project.
3.2.2

Understanding Ecological Restoration: A Synthesized Definition
The definitions and views discussed above vary in both depth and specificity

creating the need for a synthesized definition of what restoration is and at what point an
ecosystem can characteristically be considered restored.

This variety of views is

delineated through a listing of each explored source, its accompanying definition, and
notable characteristics derived from the presented definition (Table 3.1). The sources and
definitions listed are presented based on the order in which they have previously been
discussed. This overall analysis of each source and its definition process provides a
baseline approach to the derivation of a collective definition and discussion of the term
restoration.
Table 3.1: Varying definitions of restoration and notable characteristics.  
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
– to bring back to the 
 
 
original state or to a 
 
Bradshaw (1996)  
healthy or vigorous state 
‐ reach former state 
Using Oxford English 
 
‐ healthy or vigorous 
Dictionary 
–the act of restoring to a 
state 
former state or position or 
to an unimpaired or perfect 
condition 
Table 3.1: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term restoration. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.

16  

Table 3.1: Varying definitions of restoration and notable characteristics.  
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
 
‐ invasive arrest/ 
 
– making damaged 
removal, 
 
ecosystems whole again 
plant/animal 
 
through various methods 
reintroduction, 
Higgs (2003) 
 
rebuild soils, 
– process of recovery 
eliminate hazards, 
which accelerates natural 
road removal, 
processes, creating 
natural process 
conditions in an instant 
returns 
which might take years, 
 
decades, or centuries to 
‐ understanding 
occur without intervention 
changing historical 
conditions which led 
to present 
conditions 
 
 
 
 
– reintroduction and 
 
 
reestablishment of 
 
 
community‐like groupings 
‐ native species 
 
of native species to sites 
reintroduction and 
Morrison (1990)  
which can reasonably be 
establishment 
expected to sustain them 
‐ aesthetic and 
 
dynamic 
– resultant vegetation 
demonstrating aesthetic 
and dynamic 
characteristics of the 
natural communities on 
which they are based 
 
 
Jackson, Loupine and 
Hillyard (1995) 

 
– ecological restoration: 
process of repairing 
damage caused by humans 
to the diversity and 
dynamics of indigenous 
ecosystems 

‐
‐

 
humans as 
damaging factor 
no discussion of 
desired 
characteristics post‐
restoration 

Table 3.1: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term restoration. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.
(Continued)

 

 

17

Table 3.1: Varying definitions of restoration and notable characteristics.  
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
– restoration: returns 
 
 
ecosystem to a close 
 
 
approximation of its 
 
 
condition before it was 
‐ overlap of concepts 
 
disturbed 
as continuum 
National Research 
 
‐ collectively termed 
restoration 
Council (1992) 
– rehabilitation: improves a 
‐ lack of separation 
in Pastorok et al. (1997) 
system to a ‘good working 
order’ 
 
– management: 
manipulates a system to 
ensure maintenance of one 
or a few functions 
 
 
‐ restore to original 
 
 
state 
 
– act of bringing an 
‐ no indication of 
Field (1998) 
ecosystem back to its 
source of 
original condition 
degradation 
‐ no discussion of 
desired 
characteristics post‐
restoration 
 
 
‐ representative of 
 
 
“true” restoration 
van Digglen, Grootjans 
– reconstruction of a prior 
only 
and Harris (2001) 
ecosystem 
‐ option not viable 
without first 
attempting 
reclamation and/or 
rehabilitation 
 
Society for Ecological 
Restoration (SER) Primer 
(2004) 

– process of assisting the 
recovery of an ecosystem 
that has been degraded, 
damaged or destroyed 

‐

‐
‐

no indication of 
source of 
degradation 
characterizes post‐
restoration state 
lack of aesthetics 

Table 3.1: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term restoration. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.
(Continued)

18  

Table 3.1: Varying definitions of restoration and notable characteristics.  
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
– process of restoring one 
‐ too simplified 
Davis and Slobdokin 
or more valued processes 
‐ valued 
(2004) 
or attributes of a landscape 
characteristics not 
specifically defined 
Table 3.1: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term restoration. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.

 
As a result of the literary synthesis regarding ecological restoration, a variety of
definitions and notable characteristics presented within those definitions has created a
web of understanding about the term. While some notable characteristics are repeated
between definitions, others are separate views completely. In order to understand the
connections between the presented definitions, a visual overlap representing similar
notable characteristics the definitions is depicted in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Overlap visualization of explored restoration definitions

    Figure 3.1: Overlap visualization of explored restoration definitions derived from synthesis of
information presented in Table 3.1.

Figure 3.1 depicts the overlapping notable characteristics of each of the
restoration definitions reviewed.

As previously mentioned, Bradshaw (1996), Field

(1998), and van Diggelen, Grootjans and Harris’s (2001) definitions are similar yet
distinctly different, resulting in their concepts not truly overlapping. Jackson, Loupine

 

19

and Hillyard (1995) define ecological restoration as a process of repairing humaninflicted damage to indigenous ecosystems—a concept which overlaps with Higgs in
relation to understanding historical processes which have led to the current state, as well
as with Field in the lack of discussion surrounding the desired characteristics of postrestoration. However, Field still fails to mention the source of degradation that Jackson,
Loupine and Hillyard suggest is caused by humans.

Higgs leaves the historical

implications open to further interpretation. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER)
also fails to mention the source of degradation, thus the overlap between the SER Primer
and Field.
The remaining three definitions are more outliers than the rest. Morrison (1990)
suggests the resulting vegetation should demonstrate aesthetic and dynamic
characteristics of the natural communities on which they are based. Higgs notes the
importance of restoring certain environmental processes similar to those mentioned by
Morrison yet no other explored definition requires aesthetics as a goal. The National
Research Council (1992), as noted in Pastorok et al. (1997), and Davis and Slobdokin
(2004) are similar in that both definitions are too simplified. The National Research
Counsil provides definitions for the terms restoration, rehabilitation, and management in
relation to ecological restoration, yet Pastorok et al. collectively refers to the continuum
of all three terms as restoration. While valued processes are lightly discussed, seemingly
similar to Higgs, Davis and Slodbokin’s definition is remains too simplified as they
suggest that restoration is the process of restoring one or more valued processes or
attributes of a landscape without specifying what the valued characteristics might
encompass, leaving room for interpretation.
As depicted, none of the discussed definitions clearly encompass all notable
characteristics. Thus, a synthesized definition of ecological restoration should include a
majority of these characteristics in order to prevent manipulation of the overall project
goals. As a result, ecological restoration should be defined as:
The act of restoring an ecosystem, striving to reach the original state
of that natural area or a healthy, sustainably viable state, given that
total retraction to the original is unattainable based on the level of
human or natural degradation already observed, while also upholding
an aesthetic and dynamic value based on the historical natural
community structure of the area.

20  

This definition acknowledges (1) the desired end state of the ecosystem, (2) the cause of
degradation as either human or natural, as well as (3) noting the magnitude of
degradation as variable, and the desire to experience (4) an aesthetic and (5) dynamic
value of the natural area.

3.3

Defining Ecotourism

3.3.1

Working with the Past

Since the first introduction of ecotourism as stem of general tourism practice, a
variety of definitions have been formed in attempt to understand the relationship between
general tourism ideologies and the natural environment, and the visitor’s role in that
relationship. As a result, the definition of ecotourism has evolved with each subsequent
definition as researchers try to encompass the true understanding of what the practice is
and its corresponding goals. In order to develop a derived definition which incorporates
updated activity goals, past definitions must first be examined and discussed.
Similar to the discussion surrounding defining ecological restoration, the literature
discusses many different definitions and understandings of the term ecotourism.
Consequently, there is a lack of clarity regarding the difference between ecotourism and
the practices of the general tourism industry.

Tourism in itself is defined as “the

temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal home and workplace,
the activities undertaken during the stay and the facilities created to cater for their
needs.” 26 As an extension of general tourism practices, Harrison (1997) argues:
…ecotourism has become something of a buzzword in the tourism industry.
To put the matter crudely, but not unfairly, promoters of tourism have tended
to label any nature-oriented tourism product an example of ‘ecotourism’ while
academics have so busied themselves in trying to define it that they have
produced dozens of definitions and nothing else. 27
The term ecotourism has generally been observed as the relationship between “tourism
development and environmental conservation.” 28

However, given “[international]

                                                            
26

D. Newsome, S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling, Natural Area Tourism: Ecology Impacts and Management
(Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications, 2001), 6. 
27
Harrison (1997) in Newsome, Moore and Dowling, Natural Area Tourism, 14. 
28
J. Higham and M. Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Ecotourism 1, no. 1
(2002): 36. 

 

21

examples of rapid development, proliferation and diversification of ecotourism
operations,” there is speculation that “ecotourism may be the leading edge of mass
tourism rather than an alternative to it. 29 It is this speculation which leads to the need for
formulating a synthesized definition of ecotourism. The definition can in turn be used to
determine current and future practices as being in compliance, or non-compliance, with a
distinguished set of project guidelines.
Ceballos-Lascurian presents one of the first definitions of ecotourism stating:
[Ecotourism is] tourism that involves travelling to relatively undisturbed
or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific object of studying,
admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well
as any existing cultural aspects (both past and present) found in these
areas. 30
This 1987 definition focuses on the visitation of undisturbed natural areas with the intent
to study or admire the natural surroundings in that area. The ideas presented in this early
definition seem to err on the broad spectrum as technology and tourist attitudes regarding
the environment to which they travel are in constant flux.
The International Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as “travel to natural
areas the conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people.” 31
Similarly, Lindberg and Hawkins (1993) define ecotourism as “travel to natural areas that
conserves the welfare of local peoples.” 32 Newsome, Moore and Dowling build upon
these broad definitions suggesting five key principles fundamental to ecotourism:
“…ecotourism is nature based, ecologically sustainable, environmentally educative,
locally beneficial and generates tourist satisfaction.” 33 However, the extent to which
each key principle is to be observed is still in question. Furthermore, Newsome, Moore
and Dowling note that “Cater (1994) argues that ecotourism, with its connotations of
sound environmental management and consequent maintenance of environmental capital,
should, in theory, provide a viable economic alternative to exploitation of the
                                                            
29

Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 36. 
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 37. and M.B. Orams, “Toward a
More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” Tourism Management 16, no. 1 (1995): 4. 
31
A. Kiss, “Is Community-Based Ecotourism a Good Use of Biodiversity Conservation Funds?” Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 19, no. 5 (2004): 232. 
32
Gutiérrez, “Case Study 16.1,” 601. 
33
Newsome, Moore and Dowling, Natural Areas Tourism, 15. 
30

22  

environment.” 34 Ecotourism must comply with at least two aspects of its root terms.
First, ecotourism must serve as an economically viable practice. Second, ecotourism
must benefit the environment to the same, if not higher degree as its economic goals.
Higham and Lück explore two extremes of this definition process: 1. all tourism
can be ‘ecotourism’ and 2. no tourism can be considered ecotourism. 35 The diversity of
these extremes are portrayed as a continuum as derived from Miller and Kaae (1993)
(Figure 3.2). 36 On one side of the debate, all tourism can be considered ecotourism as
“humans are viewed as living organisms whose behavior is natural and who have no
obligation or responsibilities to consider other living things, [thus creating] no difference
between the ‘natural environment’ and the ‘human made environment’.”

37

In contrast,

the opposing debate considers the idea that ecotourism is impossible as any kind of
tourism will inevitably have a negative impact on the natural environment.
Figure 3.2: Continuum of Ecotourism Paradigms
Low Human 
Responsibility 
Pole 
 
 
 
  
All Tourism 
 
is 
Ecotourism 

   
 
   
 
     
 
Passive, 
Seek to 
Minimize 
Damage 

 
 
  
 

 
 
  

 
 
  
Active, 
Contribution 
 
to Protect 
Resources 

High Human 
Responsibility 
 
Pole 
   
 
    
 
Ecotourism 
Impossible 

Figure 3.2: Continuum of ecotourism paradigms mapping human responsibility
levels associated with conceptual ecotourism levels. Presented by Orams (1995)
as derived from Miller and Kaae (1993). 38

The first extreme in this continuum, all tourism can be ‘ecotourism,’ denotes a
passive approach in conceptualizing human responsibility to the natural environment.
This viewpoint can be explored in relation to Ballantine and Eagles (2004) survey of
                                                            
34

Newsome, Moore and Dowling, Natural Areas Tourism, 17. 
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38-39. 
36
Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 4. 
37
Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism.” 4.  
38
Orams, “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 4.
35

 

23

Canadian tourists choosing a trip to Kenya. In answering survey questions, tourists are
able to convey their own intentions during vacation planning. The survey questions
presented to the tourists consisted of the following:
1. The respondent must answer ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’
to ‘learning about nature’ as a motivation when planning a trip to
Kenya.
2. The respondent must answer ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’
to ‘wilderness/undisturbed areas’ as an attraction when choosing a trip
to Kenya.
3. The respondent must spend at least one-third of their Kenyan vacation
days on safari. 39
Tourist answers, in turn, correlate with Ballantine and Eagles’ understanding of
ecotourist dimensions including “the social motive (educational component); the desire to
visit ‘wilderness/undisturbed areas’; and a temporal commitment.” 40 According to these
questions, Higham and Lück suggest the guidelines for what might constitute an ecotourist are too broad. The survey results suggest 84% of visitors would be considered
ecotourists. 41

A restrictive definition of ecotourism must be established in order to

ultimately preserve the visited areas while still catering to the public desire to visit, study
or explore those areas.
Butler (1992) presented the opposite extreme of the defining process, no tourism
can be considered ecotourism, to the IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas highlighting the principles and characteristics of ecotourism (Table
3.2). 42 These principles and characteristics are highly critical in comparison to the survey
administered by Ballantine and Eagles, creating a structuralized view of what constitutes
a tourist as an ecotourist. However, such an extreme view can potentially lead to a
disruption in ‘ecotourist activities’ all together, as Higham and Lück suggest, “such
definitions [require] ecotourism operations to remain faithful to the ideals of
ecotourism.” 43 While a complete halt in ecotourist activities is a less than desirable
                                                            
39

Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38. 
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38. 
41
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38. 
42
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38-39. 
43
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 38. 
40

24  

outcome, it is important to note that “since ecotourism impacts are often concentrated in
ecologically sensitive areas… they must be controlled.” 44
Table 3.2: Principles and Characteristics of Ecotourism
1. It must be consistent with a positive environmental ethic, fostering preferred  
behavior.  
2. It does not denigrate the resource. There is no erosion of resource integrity.  
3. It concentrates on intrinsic rather than extrinsic values. 
4. It is biocentric rather than homocentric in philosophy, in that an ecotourist 
accepts nature largely on its terms, rather than significantly transforming the  
environment for personal convenience. 
5. Ecotourism must benefit the resource.  The environment must experience a net 
benefit from the activity, although there are often spin‐offs of social, economic,  
political or social benefits. 
6. It is first‐hand experience with the natural environment. 
7. There is, in ecotourism, an expectation of gratification measured in appreciation 
and education, not in thrill‐seeking or physical achievement.  These latter 
elements are consistent with adventure tourism, the other division of natural  
environment (wildland) tourism. 
8. There are high cognitive (informational) and effective (emotional) dimensions to 
the experience, requiring a high level of preparation from both leaders and 
participants. 
Table 3.2: Principles and characteristics of ecotourism as presented in Butler (1992). 45

In order for a working model to be accepted, a definition of ecotourism which
strays from extremes must be formulated. Ultimately, if the definition represents too
simplistic of a model any claim to ecotourism will be accepted, potentially creating an
over-supply of ecotourism operations thus negating the differentiation between general
tourism and the specialized practices in natural areas. Alternatively, if the definition
becomes too rigid, demand for ecotourism operations will decrease as fewer tourists will
be willing to participate in such activities.

The proposed definition must take into

account “robust and widely recognized industry standards (supply side) while also

                                                            
44
45

Hvenegaard (1994) in Newsome, Moore and Dowling, Natural Area Tourism, 19. 
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 39. 

 

25

serving visitor interest in achieving the ecotourism experiences that they seek (demand
side).” 46 Higham and Lück note:
The viability of ecotourism operations clearly hinges on two fundamental
requirements: (1) a resource base that demonstrates some degree of
naturalness; and (2) the infrastructures that are fundamental to commercial
tourism operations. [However], one cannot comfortably exist in the
company of the other, yet both are required to facilitate a viable
ecotourism operation. 47
The idea that the two concepts are almost contradictory aids in the understanding that a
unified definition is necessary in order to successfully implement and sustain an
ecotourism operation. Both the tourist, participating in their own vacation activities, and
the industry, catering to the tourists, have a responsibility to follow the attributes
presented in the ecotourism definition if the activities are to be described as such. It is
not enough for one side of the equation to conform their own actions if the other will
simply counter that activity.
Orams suggests many proposed definitions of the term ecotourism will likely fall
between the two extreme outlooks of the practice. Noting the fact that some definitions
are rooted towards one spectrum or the other, Orams discusses a variety of proposed
definitions. The Ceballos-Lascurian (1987) definition previously discussed is classified
as a passive definition as the responsibility of the tourist to the natural environment is
lacking. 48 Similar passive ideas of ecotourism include those suggested by:
Zell (1992), who views ecotourism as tourism which is ‘ecologically
responsible’, Muloin (1992), who sees ecotourism as ‘tourism which is
environmentally sensitive’ and Figgis (1993), who states that ecotourism
should avoid ‘damage or deterioration of the environment’. 49
The passive definitions of ecotourism do not account for a large amount of human
responsibility.

This approach leads to the question of whether people considered

ecotourists by simply visiting an area or if they are obligated to take part in the on-going
protection and preservation of the visited area.

                                                            
46

Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 37. 
Higham and Lück, “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” 40. 
48
Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 4. 
49
Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 4. 
47

26  

Active definitions of ecotourism build on the passive models, incorporating
tourist responsibility into a typical holiday vacation. Ziffer (1989) suggests:
The ecotourist practices a non-consumptive use of wildlife and natural
resources and contributes to the visited area through labour or financial
means aimed at directly benefiting the conservation of the site. 50
While Ziffer mentions the contributive responsibility of the ecotourist, perhaps it is
notable to mention the option given with this stated definition.

Yes, an increased

responsibility falls on the visiting tourist, yet Ziffer provides flexibility by giving the
option to contribute via financial means.
On a similar level, Valentine (1992) broadens Ziffer’s perspective, proposing the
following criteria to define ecotourism:
[a] based upon relatively undisturbed natural areas,
[b] non-damaging, non-degrading,
[c] a direct contributor to the continued protection and management of the
protected area used,
[d] subject to an adequate and appropriate management regime. 51
Valentine takes the passive definitions to the next step in the addition of part (c) as the
tourists involved have a responsibility to uphold while vacationing. This addition gives
participation in activities a new connotation as visitors must consciously become aware
of their natural surroundings, rather than just passively partaking in typical holiday
opportunities; however, it also strays from specifying a method of contribution, such as
Ziffer’s monetary suggestion. Thus, the differentiation must be made between whether
an ecotourist can simply contribute financially and still be considered ecotourists, or if
direct participation a more desirable outcome of the visits to natural areas.
As ecotourists, visitors should not only participate in acts which might potentially
result in experiencing “nature in ways that lead to greater understanding, appreciation,
and enjoyment.” 52

Lee and Moscardo (1995) explore the changes in tourists’

environmental awareness, attitudes and behavioral intentions between pre- and postecotourist based visits. A focus of study is based in the accommodation sector of the
                                                            
50

Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 5. 
Orams, “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 5. 
52
W.H. Lee and G. Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences on Tourists’
Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13, no. 6 (2005): 546. 
51

 

27

tourist visits, noting that accommodations which take part in environmentally friendly or
sustainable practices are likely to reinforce the visitors’ environmental attitudes and
overall experience. In order to determine the “effects of experiences in ecotourism
accommodation on visitors’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions,” 53 Lee
and Moscardo used The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour (Figure 3;
Hines et al. 1986-1987) in combination with The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen
and Driver 1992) to derive “a simple framework for understanding responsible
environmental behaviour” (Figure 3.3). 54
Figure 3.3: The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour
Situational 
Factors 

Action Skills

Knowledge of 
Action 
Knowledge of 
Issues

Intention to 
Act

Responsible 
Environmental 
Behaviour 

Attitudes 

Locus of 
Control 

Personality 
Factors

Personal 
Responsibility 

Figure 3.3: The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour as originally presented
by Hines et al. (1986-1987). 55 Directionality is implied to move from all factors toward
“Responsible Environmental Behaviour.”

                                                            
53

Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 550. 
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 549-550. 
55
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 549. 
54

28  

The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour (Figure 3.3) breaks down
the factors which are likely to aid in an individual’s intention to take environmental
action.

Personality factors—including personal attitudes, locus of control or “an

individual’s perception of whether or not he or she has the ability to bring about change
through his or her own behaviour,” 56 and personal responsibility—alone will not
necessarily lead to the intention to act. Personality factors must be combined with action
skills and knowledge of both action strategies and issues in order to progress to an
intention to act. Only then will tourists have the opportunity to engage in responsible
environmental behavior.
The model also suggests “situational factors, such as economic constraints, social
pressures and opportunities to choose different actions, may either counteract or
strengthen the variables of the model.” 57 Given these constraints, the intention to act in
combination with variable situational factors will potentially determine the magnitude of
responsible environmental behavior observed.
Alternatively, Lee and Moscardo have derived a simple framework for
understanding responsible environmental behavior (Figure 3.4) suggesting a different
approach to assessing variables leading to the final behavior goals. In contrast to Hines et
al. (1986-1987), Lee and Moscardo’s simple framework suggests that it is specifically
attitude traits which will have a profound influence on developing an intention to act in
terms of responsible environmental behavior as “attitudes are seen as a precursor to
intention rather than as personality characteristics.” 58 The locus of control and personal
responsibility factors do not weigh heavily in this behavioral analysis.
With the simplified model as a baseline approach to the study of ecotourist
intentions, Lee and Moscardo developed pre- and post-visit questionnaires incorporating
ideas similar to those in the previously discussed Ballantine and Eagles (2004) survey.
Lee and Moscardo surveyed tourists’:
[1] interest levels in participating in conservation initiatives,
[2] awareness levels of the conservation value of the island visited,
                                                            
56

Hines et al. in Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 548. 
Hines et al. 1986-1987 in Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort
Experiences,” 549. 
58
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 550. 
57

 

29

[3] beliefs regarding negative environmental impacts of different behaviors, and
[4] preference levels for more eco-friendly tour and accommodation options for
future travel. 59
Figure 3.4: Simple Framework for Understanding Environmental Behaviour

Figure 3.4: A simple framework for understanding responsible environmental
behaviour derived from Hines et al. (1986-1987) The Model of Responsible
Environmental Behaviour and Azjen and Driver’s (1992) Theory of Planned
Behaviour. 60 Similar to the Hines et al. model presented in Figure 3.3, directionality is
implied to move from all factors toward “Responsible Environmental Behavior.”

According to the Lee and Moscardo survey results, despite high levels of concern,
“respondents in both the pre-visit and post-visit samples believed that their holiday
behavior had very little impact on the environment.” 61 However, further analysis suggests
a preference to do business with environmentally responsible tour operators and
accommodation, as well as a willingness to pay for more environmentally sensitive
accommodation. 62 This disconnect between tourists’ current personal impact assessments
and future holiday intentions indicates a passive stance in ecotourist action, signifying
such a simplified framework of responsible environmental behavior is not viable as an
analysis of ecotourism.
Instead, it is more plausible to account for a locus of control and personal
responsibility in combination with attitudes as personality factors, which in turn influence
intention to act, as Hines et al. (1986-1987) proposes in the Model of Responsible
                                                            
59

Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 552. 
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 550. 
61
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 553-554. 
62
Lee and Moscardo, “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences,” 554. 
60

30  

Environmental Behaviour (Figure 3.3). By simplifying the model, Lee and Moscardo
leave out the possibility of future ecotourist intention as current attitudes may not account
for a personal perception of the ability to bring about change (locus of control), or even
the desire to do so (personal responsibility).
Alternatively, Gutiérrez (2006) makes note of four principles of ecotourism which
distinguish the term from the more generalized notion of sustainable tourism. While
sustainable tourism may originate from any general tourism practices by simply
participating in small practices such as reuse of towels or linens at a chosen
accommodation spot, Gutiérrez indicates that ecotourism:
[1] contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage,
[2] includes local and indigenous communities in its planning,
development, and operation, contributing to their well-being,
[3] interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to
visitor(s), [and]
[4] lends itself better to independent travelers, as well as organized tours
for small groups. 63
In the establishment of these principles, Gutiérrez notes the importance of an active
approach to ecotourist participation, suggesting that a more passive approach would be
more characteristic of sustainable tourism.
3.3.2

Understanding Ecotourism: A Synthesized Definition
In order to stray from characteristics general to other tourism operations,

discussed definitions of ecotourism and ecotourist practices are presented in conjunction
with notable characteristics of each definition (Table 3.3).

Definitions have been

presented in the order in which each had been previously discussed. These definitions
represent a compilation of both passive and active approaches to participation in
ecotourism, as each variation requires consideration within this discussion. The notable
characteristics listed in coordination with each definition have been derived directly from
the definition presented or from discussion related to that definition. While some notable
characteristics of the definitions overlap with one another, a definition incorporating all
notable characteristics is lacking.
                                                            
63

Gutiérrez, “Case Study 16.1,” 601. 

 

31

Table 3.3:  Varying definitions of ecotourism and notable characteristics. 
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
– tourism that involves 
 
 
travelling to relatively 
 
 
undisturbed natural areas  
‐ relatively undisturbed 
Ceballos‐Lascurian 
– specific object of studying, 
natural areas 
(1987)  
admiring and enjoying the 
‐ study, admire nature 
scenery and its wild plants 
and culture of area 
and animals, as well as any 
existing cultural aspects 
(both past and present) 
found in these areas 
 
 
 
International 
– travel to natural areas that 
‐ environmental 
Ecotourism Society in 
conserves the environment 
conservation 
Kiss (2004) 
and sustains the well‐being 
‐ locally sustainable 
of local people 
 
 
Newsome, Moore and 
Dowling (2001) 

 
 
– five key principles 
fundamental to ecotourism 

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

 
Cater (1994) 

– provide a viable economic 
alternative to exploitation of 
the environment 
 
 – continuum of ecotourism 
Orams (1995) as derived  paradigms 
from Miller and Kaae 
  
(1993) 
– human responsibility pole 
 
Ballantine and Eagles 
(2004) 

– ecotourist dimensions: 
social motive, desire to visit 
‘wilderness/undisturbed 
areas’, temporal 
commitment 

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

nature based 
ecologically 
sustainable 
environmentally 
educative 
locally beneficial 
tourist satisfaction 
 
viably economic 
all tourism is 
ecotourism  
no tourism is 
ecotourism 
active vs. passive 
educational 
component 
nature based 
active time 
commitment 

Table 3.3: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term ecotourism. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.

32  

Table 3.3:  Varying definitions of ecotourism and notable characteristics. 
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
 
‐ positive 
 
 
environmental ethic 
 
 
‐ no resource 
 
– presentation of principles 
degradation 
Butler (1992) 
and characteristics of 
‐ intrinsic, biocentric 
ecotourism (Table 3.2) 
‐ beneficial to 
resource, nature 
based 
‐ appreciation, 
education factors: 
emotional and 
informational 
 
– two fundamental 
 
requirements of ecotourism 
 
operations: 
 
‐ resource base that 
Higham and Lück (2002) 
demonstrates some 
degree of 
naturalness 
‐ infrastructures that 
are fundamental to 
commercial tourism 
– requirements cannot 
comfortably exit 
simultaneously 
Zell ( 1992) 
Muloin (1992) 
Figgis (1993) 

 
 
 
‐
‐

nature based 
viably economic 

– tourism which is 
ecologically responsible 
– tourism which is 
environmentally sensitive 

‐
‐
‐
‐

nature based 
responsibility factor 
nature based 
sensitive to area 

– should avoid damage to or 
deterioration of the 
environment 

‐
‐

nature based 
avoidance of 
degradation 

Table 3.3: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term ecotourism. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.
(Continued)

 

33

Table 3.3:  Varying definitions of ecotourism and notable characteristics. 
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
 
– ecotourist practices a non‐
 
 
consumptive use of wildlife 
‐ non‐consumptive 
 
and natural resources and 
‐ time/active 
Ziffer (1989) 
contributes  to the visited 
contribution 
area through labour or 
‐ monetary 
financial means aimed at 
contribution 
directly benefitting the 
‐ directly beneficial  
conservation of the site 
 
 
 
 
 
Valentine (1992) 

 
EAA & ATON Nature and 
Ecotourism 
Accreditation Program 
(2000) 

 
 
 
Lee and Moscardo 
(2005) 
 

 – based upon relatively 
 
undisturbed natural areas 
 
 – non‐damaging, non‐
 
degrading 
 – a direct contributor to the 
continued protection and 
management of the 
protected area  
– subject to an adequate 
and appropriate 
management regime 
– ecologically sustainable 
tourism with a primary focus 
on experiencing natural 
areas that foster 
environmental and cultural 
understanding , appreciation 
and conservation 
 – simple framework for 
 
understanding responsible 
environmental behaviour 
(Figure 2) as derived from 
Hines et al. (1986‐1987) The 
Model of Responsible 
Environmental Behaviour 
(Figure 1) and Azjen and 
Driver’s (1992) Theory of 
Planned Behaviour. 

‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐

‐

nature based 
no resource 
degradation 
directly beneficial 
subject to 
management 

ecologically 
sustainable 
nature based 
environmentally 
educative 
appreciate nature, 
culture of area 
attitude traits have 
influence on 
development of 
intention to act with 
responsible 
environmental 
behavior  

Table 3.3: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term ecotourism. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.
(Continued)

 

34  

Table 3.3:  Varying definitions of ecotourism and notable characteristics. 
Source 
Definition 
Notable Characteristics 
  
‐ natural and cultural 
 
 
heritage conservation
 
 
‐
local and indigenous 
 
– four principles 
community 
Gutiérrez (2006) 
distinguishing ecotourism 
involvement, locally 
from sustainable tourism 
beneficial 
‐ natural and cultural 
heritage education 
‐ caters to individual 
and small group 
travelers 
Table 3.3: Various source and definitions explored through a literary synthesis of definitions of
the term ecotourism. Notable characteristics have been derived from the presented definitions.  

Similar to the discussion of restoration, a number of notable characteristics of
each ecotourism definition overlap with those of other definitions discussed, however,
none of the discussed definitions clearly encompasses all notable characteristics. In order
to understand the connections between the presented definitions, a visual overlap
representing similar notable characteristics the definitions is presented in Figure 3.5.
As depicted, the most prominent overlapping characteristics in defining
ecotourism include:
1) the idea that activity must be nature based,
2) viably economic and locally beneficial, as well as
3) educational, and
4) culturally conservative.
Many of the explored definitions incorporated some but not all of the characteristics
while others overlapped considerably in one area as opposed to others. The colors
presented in the figure correspond between each individual characteristic representation.
Matching circles represent the same researchers. Dark blue circles are definitions not
repeated when exploring the characteristics.

 

35

Figure 3.5: Overlap visualization of explored ecotourism definitions

Figure 3.5: Overlap visualization of explored ecotourism definitions derived from synthesis of
information presented in Table 3.3.  
 

Given this breakdown, Gutiérrez (2006) represents the only explored definition
which attempts to encompass all of the notable characteristics through discussion of four
principles which serve to distinguish ecotourism from sustainable tourism. Still, a standalone definition of ecotourism is not presented as Gutiérrez states what ecotourism is
only relative to what it is not (sustainable tourism). Alternatively, Ceballos-Lascurian
(1987), Butler (1992), and EAA & ATON (2002) overlap on three of the four noted
characteristics, yet all fail to denote the importance of the practice as viably economic
and locally beneficial. Similarly, Newsome, Moore and Dowling (2001) also overlap on
three of the four noted characteristics, yet, while including the importance of being viably

36  

economic and locally beneficial, fail to incorporate cultural conservation into the
definition.
Thus, a synthesized definition of ecotoursim should include a majority of these
characteristics in order to prevent manipulation of the overall project goals. As a result,
ecotourism should be defined as:
Ecologically sustainable tourism that involves an active effort to
increase the environmental responsibility and education levels of
visitors through physical commitment to natural area conservation
and restoration efforts, while still maintaining an economically viable
situation for the local culture and peoples in that area.
This definition acknowledges (1) the tourism involved must be ecologically sustainable,
(2) tourists must actively participate in conservation efforts, with (3) the potential to
increase personal environmental responsibility and education levels, and (4) the operation
must also be an economically viable situation for the local culture and population.

3.4

Understanding Local Economic Benefits of Ecotourism
Since the concept of ecotourism still holds root in general tourism practices,

generated income and profit from the activity are still expected. However, as stated in
the derived definition, the income and profit generated from ecotourism operations must
aid the local culture and population. In order to realize the full potential for ecotourism
to serve as an ecological restoration tool, the importance of these local economic benefits
need to be examined and understood.
Ecotourism in relation to the local population has been widely questioned in terms
of economic benefit. Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule (1996) developed a case study
from Belize in which they focused on three ecotourism objectives: “generation of
financial support for protected area management, generation of local economic benefits
and generation of local support for conservation.” 64 Through a quantitative analysis of
the financial impact on protected areas, the economic impact on local communities and
the effect on local resident conservation attitudes, Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule
suggest that while they found that tourism at the studied sites in Belize did not result in a
                                                            
64

K. Lindberg, J. Enriquez, and K. Sproule, “Ecotourism Questioned: Case Studies from Belize,” Annals of
Tourism Research 23, no. 3 (1996): 543.

 

37

positive net financial impact at the time of study, “the implementation of even modest
fees would result in tourism achieving this objective.” Alternatively, the sites were able
to generate some economic benefit as well as increase local support for continued
conservation practice. 65
While the specific practices mentioned in Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule (1996)
were mentioned to have been questioned 66 of being true ecotourism practices, the overall
findings of the case study provide evidence that the operations hold constant to all the
goals presented in the derived ecotourism definition, even if only to a small degree.
Ultimately, evidence of increased economic benefit leading to heightened environmental
awareness lends further support for the importance of local economic benefit resulting
from ecotourism practices. In a 2000 published Ecological Economics study, Wunder
conducts a different case study with similar findings regarding the link between local
economic benefit and conservation efforts.
Wunder analyzes the importance of Cater’s (1994) final ecotourism criteria
requiring “notable economic participation [in ecotourism] by local residents [which] aims
both at an equal distribution of tourism incomes and at a maximization of local
development potentials by reducing import leakages.” 67 Wunder expands on this criteria
suggesting:
…high local income should also increase conservation incentives, inter
alia, because local resource managers have the most direct bearing on the
environment, whereas tourism agencies are geographically more mobile:
they may more easily ‘move-on’ from a degraded site to a pristine area.
Local tourism income is thus both a goal in itself, and an instrument for
conservation. 68
This expansion is explored through examining activity in five remote villages within the
Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve located in Ecuador’s Northern Amazon region. The study
focused on two hypotheses “regarding the link between tourism participation models and

                                                            
65

Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule, “Ecotourism Questioned,” 559.
Authors note two studies, Cater (1992) and Wheat (1994), which “question whether tourism in Belize
meets the standards of either ecotourism or sustainable tourism.” p559
67
S. Wunder, “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives—an Empirical Approach,” Ecological Economics 32
(2000): 466.
68
Wunder, “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives,” 466.
66

38  

local income (hypothesis 1) and between income incentives and conservation (hypothesis
2).” 69
As a result, Wunder concluded that in the Cuyabeno region, ecotourism provided
local residents with benefits which could supplement or replace alternative sources of
income. 70

This result holds consistent with the last goal presented in the derived

definition of ecotourism as the operation must be economically viable to the local culture
and population. However, Wunder further concludes that this increase income provides a
supplementary environmental benefit. Wunder concludes:
(1) in villages specialised in tourism, income flows raised environmental
awareness and gave incentive for a new rationality in traditional resource use;
(2) tourism income is less likely to reversenon-traditional, degrading development
patterns in advanced stages; [and]
(3) tourism income can help to unite actors and strengthen the raison d’être of a
protected area threatened by competing land uses. 71
In the case of Cuyabeno, economic income did not only provide monetary benefit to the
local area, it also increased the derived environmental benefit to the local area. The local
population has become more apt to preserve their natural surroundings as future use will
only further benefit the population in the long run.
He et al. focus on a variable approach in examining the result of economic
benefits derived from ecotourism activity. Examining the Wolong Nature Reserve for
Giant Pandas in China, He et al. notes the important presence of stakeholders in
connection with a number of ecotourism operations as not all operations are solely started
and managed locally.

While local residents make up a portion of the ecotourism

stakeholders, the more prominent and influential stakeholders may be other local or nonlocal entities which “bear different levels of costs of conservation and likely expect
relevant levels of benefits from ecotourism development.” 72

As a result, He et al.

examined economic benefit distribution among stakeholders of the Wolong Nature
Reserve.
                                                            
69

Wunder, “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives,” 476.
 Wunder, “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives,” 476. 
71
Wunder, “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives,” 477.
72
G. He, X. Chen, W. Liu, S. Bearer, S. Zhou, L.Y. Cheng, H. Zhang, Z. Ouyang, and J. Liu, “Distribution
of Economic Benefits from Ecotourism: A Case Study of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas in
China,” Environmental Management 42 (2008): 1018.
70

 

39

Overall, He et al. found an inequality of economic benefits distributed between
stakeholders. Since a number of hotel and souvenir shops surround the Reserve area,
much of the economic benefit is directly absorbed by those operations without being
filtered back into the local community. Additionally, much of the construction of new
infrastructure was contracted to non-local sources despite local residents having the skills
necessary to take part in the available job opportunities. 73 Similarly, the local residents, a
majority of which were farmers, who were willing to participate in converting to a new
employment sector often did not have the education or extra funds to do so. He et al.
suggests, “The reserve government could also provide vocational training programs in
hospitality, entertainment, tourism, and other relevant businesses, resulting in a trained
labor force that could be more competitive for ecotourism jobs.” 74 Provided adequate
training, local residents have the potential to increase personal and collective economic
benefit derived from local ecotourism operation.
However, in addition He et al. further suggests that rural households be relocated
closer to main roads, and consequently ecotourism facilities, which will provide two main
incentives.

First, better access to ecotourism facilities will result in access to

economically beneficial activities, including the opportunity to convert houses into hotels
or restaurants, starting souvenir shops, and easier access to transport goods and services
making it more convenient to sell agricultural products. Second, the relocation from rural
areas will benefit conservation efforts in local area. He et al. state:
…households far from the main road and closer to the panda habitat
receive less benefit from ecotourism and must subsist by using forest
products, possibly harming the habitat… By relocating closer to the main
road, usually where elevation is lower and temperature is higher,
households might need less fuelwood for heating in winters. With more
income from ecotourism, those households might consumer more
electricity and extract less fuelwood. Collectively, relocated households
could greatly reduce their impact on panda habitat. 75
In regard to this portion of the case study, an economic benefit of ecotourism is proposed
as an incentive to alter local living arrangements through relocation. While relocation to
                                                            
73

He et al. “Distribution of Economic Benefits from Ecotourism,” 1022-1023.
He et al. “Distribution of Economic Benefits from Ecotourism,” 1023-1024.
75
He et al. ““Distribution of Economic Benefits from Ecotourism,” 1024.
74

40  

lower land areas is not required, the economic incentives can ultimately aid in
conservation efforts providing less strain on the surrounding natural habitat.
These studies provide examples of how ecotourism can benefit the local economy
of the area.

Although the particular study sites discussed represent economically

developing areas, application of local economic benefit to developed areas should not be
dismissed. Regardless of initial economic standing, ecotourism operations provide an
opportunity for local economic benefit which can, in turn, result in a tangible incentive
for increased conservation and restoration efforts.

3.5

The Function of Ecotourism as an Ecological Restoration Tool
Through synthesizing clear definitions of the terms ecological restoration and

ecotourism, decisions regarding utilization of the concepts can now be explored.
Ecological restoration aims to restore an environment to a non-disturbed condition yet,
when that area has been disturbed to the point that it can no longer be restored to an
original state, a healthy and sustainably viable dynamic will need to be accepted as a
restored state.

With this, ecological restoration takes historical processes into

consideration when implementing a proposed project. Similarly, ecotourism aims to
maintain an ecologically sustainable state in conjunction with visitor commitment to and
education of the natural area. Although ecotourism does also maintain that the operation
result in an economically beneficial component, the benefit should be to the local people
and culture of that area. Given this mindset, and assuming the local people and culture
strive to work to embrace the natural area which surrounds them, ecotourism has the
potential to operate as an ecological restoration tool.
In a 2002 community-based ecotourism study, Hunter explores ecotourismconservation coordination opportunities stating:
Ecotourism is a potential source for the financing of conservation.
Mechanisms to capture revenue include: user fees, concessions, sales and
royalties, taxation, and donations. Ecotourism can support conservation
by building a constituency from the visitor and local populations to

 

41

maintain and protect an area. It can also be impetus for private
conservation efforts. 76
Although Hunter focuses on ecotourism in conjunction with conservation efforts, the
same financing incentives can be applied to restoration efforts.

Restoration goals

proposed in areas with low financial means will be able to viably sustain their own
livelihoods, culture, and natural surroundings with the understanding that ecotourism can
be used as a restoration tool rather than a purely economic operation. However, the use
of ecotourism should not be confined to low income areas. As a way to increase visitor
education and responsibility levels, ecotourism has the potential to reach a wide variety
of travelers if consistently monitored and priority levels of the operation remain intact.
Orams (1995) notes the importance of the progress measurement of ecotourist
activity and its objectives.

Since ecotourism relies on the cooperation between

maximizing tourist satisfaction and maximizing environmental benefit, Orams suggests
the use of outcome indicators to assess the success of an ecotourism operation. The first
objective of the outcome indicators focuses on the tourist, measuring levels of [1]
satisfaction and enjoyment, [2] education—learning, [3] attitude—belief change, and [4]
behavior—lifestyle change.

77

With methodology involving information-gathering

questionnaires and interviews during- and post-visit, Orams makes use of these indicator
levels to determine whether or not a transition is occurring between tourist enjoyment and
their behaviors, suggesting an active attitude is necessary when taking part in ecotourist
operations.
The second objective of Orams’ outcome indicators focuses on the “direct and
indirect, short- and long-term effects of tourist use on the natural environment,” 78
measuring levels of [1] minimal disturbance, [2] improvement – habitat protection, and
[3] long term health and viability. Orams proposes an adaptable framework in order to
determine the levels in which environmental indicators have changed:
[First,] for each setting, decisions should be made on what types and levels
of change in the natural ecosystem are acceptable. Second, what critical
                                                            
76

J.O. Hunter, “Bolivia Community-Based Ecotourism Development” (MES Thesis, The Evergreen State
College, 2002), 22. 
77
Orams, “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 7. 
78
Orams, “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 6. 

42  

indicators should be used to monitor this change should be determined and,
third, what human actions are appropriate and inappropriate for that setting
need to be decided. 79
This simplified framework can be seen as a common sense factor, yet it is important to
note that each step is important in setting up a measurement strategy for a project as each
project will be measurably different than the next, regardless of any proposed similarity.
However, in order to minimize the variation of baseline decision-making in regard to
restoration projects, a more complete or precise framework is essential.
Pastorok et al. (1997) notes that “restoration planning starts with the definitions of
existing problems, a clear statement of project objectives, and an understanding of
uncertainty.” 80 With this base-line mentality, Pastorok et al. proposes a series of primary
steps in the ecological planning process:
1. Define habitat of concern and existing problem(s) with quantitative statements
about physical, chemical, and biological conditions.
2. Develop goals and objectives for restoration, including the time period over
which these should be met.
3. Develop a conceptual model of the ecosystem to be restored.
4. Develop restoration hypothesis regarding responses to specific habitat
manipulations or transplant efforts.
5. Use the conceptual model to identify key ecological parameters to be
manipulated or monitored and to refine performance criteria.
6. Evaluate and refine restoration hypotheses using ecological models or
reference site information. Use prior experience to evaluate whether the
proposed manipulations will support desired functions at sufficient levels or
over the desired time period.
7. Develop restoration design.
8. Perform feasibility, cost, and impact analysis.
9. Develop final restoration design and implementation plan.
10. Implement project.
11. Perform monitoring and adaptive management including, but not limited to,
maintenance. 81
                                                            
79

Orams, “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism,” 7. 
Pastorok et al. “An Ecological Decision Framework,” 92. 
81
Pastorok et al. “An Ecological Decision Framework,” 92. 
80

 

43

While Pastorok et al. does not specifically discuss ecotourism as one of the tools
potentially useful in the restoration process, the framework proposed leaves enough room
for the adaptation of restoration methods to include viable ecotourist operations as a tool.
Similarly, Cuevas and van Leersum (2001) put forth a project framework to
include research in the areas of socioeconomic matters, natural resource management,
and research and conservation. Their project focuses on the connection between humans
and their surrounding environment on the Juan Fernandez Islands, Chile, where the local
population is highly dependent on island resources. The interdisciplinary approach to
restoration and conservation of the islands is aided by a variety of technical processes,
including the use of ecotourism as a tool. As a starting point for their project, Cuevas and
Van Leersum note the efforts associated with implementing a viable ecotourism program.
Guided ecotourism is a hopeful launch point for the Islands as it is likely to “generate
income among the islanders and safeguard the existing flora.” 82 In order to successfully
implement a working program, island residents who desired to obtain jobs as park guides
took part in relevant educational courses including those relating to history of the islands
and natural resources, English and communication, risk prevention, first aid and
mountain climbing. Similarly, the project provided an Environmental Information and
Education Centre for residents and island visitors while also training restaurant and
guesthouse owners in useful hospitality techniques. 83 While the processes taken into
consideration regarding ecotourist activity are consistent with those presented in the
collective definition of ecotourism, the project discussion of restoration does not provide
a clear determination as to what state the natural areas will be “restored,” or to what
extent the project success is to be monitored or maintained.
Focusing on coral reefs and their management in Tanzania, Wagner (2004)
recognizes the obstacles facing viable ongoing management in a resource-limited
population. Human degradation of reefs surrounding the islands of Tanzania has led to
the examination of a number of management strategies in the region. The Mafia Island
Marine Park (MIMP) located in Mafia Island and the Menai Bay Conservation Area
                                                            
82

J.G. Cuevas and G. van Leersum, “Project ‘Conservation, Restoration, and Development of the Juan
Fernandez Islands, Chile,’” Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 74, no. 4 (2001), SciElo, Sociedad de
Biología de Chile (14 Jan 2009). 
83
Cuevas and van Leersum, “Project ‘Conservation, Restoration and Development…’” (2001). 

44  

located in Zanzibar have both implemented ecotourism involvement on site in order to
mitigate, or ultimately reverse, the effects of environmental degradation on the fragile
ecosystem. 84

However, these efforts face irregular monitoring and assessment, 85

potentially creating a disconnection between restoration efforts and the desired outcome.
Without regular management, the use of ecotourism as a restoration tool may become a
secondary objective relative to increasing the financial benefits of tourism to the region.
Alternatively, Hamad (1998) explores the Misali Island Conservation Area, at
Misali Island, Pemba, which is “aimed at establishing a financially self sustaining marine
and terrestrial protected area…based on fishing and ecotourism (with community
involvement) as the main activities.” 86 The major management strategies and activities
of the Misali Island Conservation Area share a basic approach with those explored at
MIMP and the Menai Bay Conservation Area, yet the Misali monitoring and assessment
efforts have been scheduled at two year intervals, increasing the potential for viable
restoration to occur.
These examples provide a basis for how ecotourism can potentially aid in
restoration and conservation efforts in various ecological settings.

Through the

implementation of consensus definitions for both restoration and ecotourism, the
ecological understanding of project goals can be better accepted.

While the discussed

definitions of each term were derived from previously published portrayals of those
terms, the lack of overall continuity between any proposed definitions resulted in project
goals becoming easily manipulated or misinterpreted. With the root definitions of goals
defined in advance, the ultimate project goals and maintenance requirements of a project
can be readily determined with little room for interpretation. Thus, the use of ecotourism
as a restoration tool will be able to continue to help formulate and foster ecologically and
economically responsible operating practices.

                                                            
84

G.M. Wagner, “Coral Reefs and Their Management in Tanzania,” Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 3,
no. 2 (2004): 236-237. 
85
Wagner, “Coral Reefs and Their Management in Tanzania,” 237. 
86
Hamad (1998) as cited in Wagner, “Coral Reefs and Their Management in Tanzania,” 238. 

 

45

Chapter 4
Choosing the Chesapeake
 

Initially, social interactions with the environment serve as the catalyst for

ecological restoration work to be established. How humans view and make use of the
natural environment plays a monumental role in the amount of damage which must be
restored. Higgs notes:
To restore a run of salmon means changing the structure and ecological
characteristics of a stream, but it also entails reconfiguring the economic
conditions and land-use practices that determine the amount of silt ending
up on the spawning beds as well as the social relationships that make up
the economy. 87
Ecologically, restoration has obvious effects and results, given that when a restoration
project is undertaken, the expected or anticipated outcome is that of a better functioning
local ecosystem, often times emulating the past. However, the ecological implications of
a restoration project are not self-standing and social interactions with the environment
must also be analyzed as society is inevitably expanding into the natural environment
causing that environment to change and adapt accordingly. Yet, due to the rate of human
societal expansion, nature has not been able to adapt accordingly resulting in strains on
ecosystem functions as well as natural resource availability. For instance, Hasset et al.
note some important qualities of the nature-society relationship within a watershed
ecosystem:
… rivers and streams are critical to the health of estuaries and coastal
areas because they integrate the effects of human activities throughout
entire watersheds, serve as spawning areas for anadromous species, and
provide water for drinking, irrigation and recreation. 88
Similarly, since restoration success is heavily dependent on the area in question, society
has a responsibility to understand its impact on the natural environment and work to
minimize that impact. As a result of protection and restoration, society will in turn be
able to continually benefit from the natural resources associated with the surrounding
ecosystem.
                                                            
87

Higgs, Nature by Design, 2. 
B. Hassett, M. Palmer, E. Bernhardt, S. Smith, J. Carr, and D. Hart, “Restoring Watersheds Project by
Project: Trends in Chesapeake Bay Tributary Restoration,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3,
no. 5 (2005): 260.
88

46  

This concept of expansion versus restoration can be explored using the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a case study given the high density of populations residing
on the shore of the Bay itself or near Bay resource areas. As one of the largest estuaries
in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Map 4.1) provides habitat and
resources to a variety of organisms and human developments surrounding its vast
network of rivers and streams. As a result, human development serves as one of the most
destructive factors of the working watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation notes
historical changes in Watershed status:
In the four centuries since the explorations of Captain John Smith, the
Chesapeake Bay has lost half of its forested shoreline, more than half its
wetlands, nearly 90 percent of its underwater grasses, and more than 98
percent of its oysters. Across the watershed, approximately 1.7 million
acres of once-untouched land were developed by 1950. Development has
accelerated dramatically since then, with an additional 2.7 million acres
built on or paved over between 1950 and 1980. 89
With surrounding areas at risk of future development (Map 4.2), the Chesapeake Bay
consequently faces increased depletion and deterioration of available natural resources
and ecosystem functions. Boesch notes the “increasing attention to the connections
between the health of ecosystems and human health and, in another dimension, between
ecosystem and economic ‘health.’” 90 Thus, in order to understand the magnitude of these
relationships, the variety of available Bay resources; Bay restoration efforts, including an
assessment of Bay health scores; and the local economic benefits of Bay restoration
should be examined.

In turn, this understanding will provide insight as to why the

opportunity for ecotourism to work in conjunction with ecological restoration efforts
within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed should be embraced as a tool for restoration
project managers.

                                                            
89

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Restore,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2010,
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=452 (1 March 2010). 
90
D.F. Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay: Toward Integration and Prediction,”
Environmental Research Section A 82 (2000), 134. 

 

47

Map 4.1: Chesapeake Bay Watershed classifications by category

Map 4.1: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed classifications (main) spanning six states
(inset). 91
                                                            
91

Chesapeake Bay Program, “Maps- Bay Watershed,” 28 Jan 2010
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=16825 (27 April 2010).

48  

Map 4.2: Chesapeake Bay Watershed vulnerability due to development
pressures by category

Map 4.2: Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed vulnerability due to varying levels of
development pressures. “The vulnerability layer evaluates the relative potential risk of
future land conversion to urban uses. Vulnerability is defined as a function of suitability
for development and proximity to growth ‘hot spots’” (inset text). 92
                                                            
92

 Chesapeake Bay Program, “Maps- Bay Watershed,” (27 April 2010). 

 

49

4.1

Bay Resources in Brief
The discussion of natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay yields two distinct

resource types. First, the Bay provides a number of “biological components ranging from
phytoplankton densities, aquatic vegetation habitat, and trophic structures topped by
diverse fisheries… [including] 32 species of year-round residents, as well as some 260
migrants, mostly anadromous shad, herring and perch.” 93 The combination of tidal
movement and the salinity gradient present in the change from salt to fresh water
throughout the Bay system results in some calculations of plant and animal life within the
Bay measured at upwards of 3600 species. 94
Of these species, native oyster (Crassostrea virginica), blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus), the striped bass (Morone saxatilis), or rockfish, are a few of the most notable
products of the Bay. 95 Powledge states:
Several of these, notably the blue crab, spend parts of their life cycles in
different salinities; others, such as the river shad, used the bay and its
tributaries as part of their migratory journeys until they were depleted by
overfishing, pollution, destruction of habitat, and dam construction…
Waterfowl make extensive use of the bay in their migrations along the
Atlantic Flyaway. An estimated 70 to 90 percent of the Atlantic striped
bass…spawn in the bay. 96
Without the preservation and restoration of Bay habitat, these species will not be
able to sustain future populations within the Watershed.
The Bay also provides ecosystem services, the second resource type. These
services include biological services such as water filtration by shellfish; habitat and
sustenance for surrounding human and wildlife populations; and production of oxygen. 97
Given the extent of development surrounding the Bay, these ecosystem services provide
residents and visitors with local health necessities. However, if not properly managed

                                                            
93

Goetz and Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change,” 264.
F. Powledge, “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?” BioScience 55, no. 12 (2005): 1033. 
95
Goetz and Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change,” 264; D. Lipton
and R. Hicks, “The Cost of Stress: Low Dissolved Oxygen and Economic Benefits of Recreational Striped
Bass (Morone saxatilis) Fishing in the Patuxent River,” Estuaries 26, no. 2, Part A (2003): 310; and
Powledge, “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?” 1033.
96
 Powledge, “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?” 1034. 
97
Goetz and Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change,” 264. 
94

50  

and restored, depletion of Bay health dynamics will subsequently impact human health
levels. Boesch notes:
…it has been suggested that deterioration in ecosystem health of coastal
waters such as the Chesapeake Bay increases risks to human health…
[such as] (1) exposure to toxic chemicals; (2) risks of infection by
pathogens, including those of human origin, under eutrophic conditions;
and (3) frequency and intensity of production of biotoxins by harmful
algae. 98
In order to maintain the function of Bay ecosystem services, restoration efforts must
continue to further reduce these risks “through more intensive and more sophisticated
monitoring for pathogens and toxic substances.” 99 A number of specific Bay restoration
efforts are discussed in section 4.2.

4.2

Restoration in the Bay
With the Chesapeake Bay Watershed spanning 64,000 square miles, six states and

Washington, D.C., 100 restoration efforts to maintain a functioning ecosystem are variable,
including riparian zone management, water quality improvement, and stream bank
stabilization, 101 given differences in land development practices in each portion of the
watershed. Since “[restoration] of degraded streams and riparian buffers leads to species
recovery, improved inland and coastal water quality, and the creation of habitat for
wildlife and recreational activities,” 102 it is only plausible that Bay restoration efforts
will continue. Through the construction of a database, Hassett et al. note that although
only 126 restoration projects were completed in the watershed before 1995, the number
increased to more than 4700 projects completed by July 2004. 103 With this information it
is likely that restoration project numbers have continued to increase since 2004. This
increase in the number of restoration projects implemented is most likely attributed to the

                                                            
98

Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 136.
Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 137.
100
S.J. Goetz and C.A. Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change: The
Chesapeake Bay Watershed,” Ecosystems and Land Use Change: Geophysical Monograph Series 153
(2004), 263. and Powledge, “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?” 1033.
101
 Hassett et al., “Restoring Watershed Project by Project,” 262. 
102
Hassett et al., “Restoring Watershed Project by Project,” 260. 
103
Hassett et al., “Restoring Watershed Project by Project,” 260. 
99

 

51

national attention to and government funding of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed projects,
in comparison to comparable basins in the United States. 104
However, even with an increase in planned and implemented restoration projects
relating to the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has published that the
Chesapeake Bay is in less than desirable health. Boesch notes, “A healthy ecosystem…
is one that is active, maintains its biological organization over time and is resilient to
stress.” 105 In a 2004 publication, Goetz and Jantz reveal:
On a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 indicates a pre-colonial Chesapeake, the
Bay currently has a score of just 28. This has changed little since it was
initiated [in 1998], fluctuating just a point or two. [Chesapeake Bay
Foundation]’s near-term goal is to reach a score of 40 by 2010. 106
Despite this goal and the goal of reaching a healthy ecosystem via restoration efforts, the
Bay’s indicated health score has remained unchanged since Goetz and Jantz’s
publication, still standing at a score of 28 out of 100, 107 an overall score which has been
derived through the scoring of pollution, habitat and fisheries criteria within the Bay.
CBF pollution criteria measured include nitrogen and phosphorous loads; water
quality as a factor of sediment suspension and algal blooms, caused by excess nitrogen
and phosphorous; dissolved oxygen levels; and toxics levels.

All pollution scores

reported in the 2008 report no change from 2007 levels, except for a two point decrease
scored for dissolved oxygen. Ideally, the average total nitrogen and phosphorous loads in
the Bay must be reduced to no more than 175 million pounds and 12.8 million pounds
respectively in order to maintain healthy Bay waters.

The published nitrogen and

phosphorous scores indicate that these reductions are still far from being reached.
Dissolved oxygen and toxics levels have also received poor grades, indicating overall
poor water quality levels in which aquatic life cannot be sustained. 108 This state leads to
ecosystem deterioration due to nutrient over enrichment, the associated reduction in light
availability, and loss of habitat—resulting in a habitat “that is a less vigorous producer of
valuable fish and shellfish, less diverse and well organized, and more susceptible to and
                                                            
104

Hassett et al., “Restoring Watershed Project by Project,” 264. 
Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 135.
106
Goetz and Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change,” 264. 
107
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, State of the Bay Report 2008, 1. 
108
 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, State of the Bay Report 2008, 6-7. 
105

52  

slower to recover from disturbances.” 109 These effects can be observed in a number of
marine species throughout the Bay including the monitored fisheries species—rockfish,
blue crabs, oysters and shad—scored by CBF in annual reports.
CBF recognizes the effects of ecosystem deterioration on specific species habitats
in the 2008 report noting:
One alarming consequence of this continued degradation is the status of
the Bay’s icons—rockfish and blue crabs. Indicator scores for both these
species dropped this year, due in part, to stress from poor water quality. 110
While rockfish scores are still presented as high, the score is down from the reported
2007 level due to over 50 percent of surveyed specimen testing positive for
mycobacteriosis, circumstantially thought to be caused by stresses from poor water
quality and decreased food availability. Similarly, blue crab habitat has been lost and
dissolved oxygen levels have “reduced the number of crabs that can be produced and
maintained by the Bay.” 111
Restoration activity in the Bay aims to reduce these habitat stressors in order to
minimize further levels of habit loss, while subsequently working to restore already
degraded habitat through the implementation of forested buffers and the recreation of
wetlands.

CBF incorporates the evaluation of these processes, in addition to the

measurement of underwater grasses and resource lands, as part of their overall Bay health
score. The 2008 CBF report indicates no change from 2007 in the measurement of
forested buffers and wetland areas. However, underwater grasses and resource land
measurements, while still presented as low-scoring, have increased from 2007 levels.
In order to derive this annual health assessment of the Bay, the 1984-established
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program works to obtain the measurements of “nutrients,
suspended sediments, toxicants in water and sediments, water temperature and salinity,
water circulation, fresh water inflows, dissolved oxygen, submersed aquatic vegetation,
plankton, benthos, and fish and shellfish” at more than 165 monitoring stations
throughout the Bay Watershed.112 Yet even as a stable monitoring effort, Boesch argues:
                                                            
109

Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 134. 
 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, State of the Bay Report 2008, 7. 
111
 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, State of the Bay Report 2008, 14. 
112
Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 138.
110

 

53

“All of these [measurements] provide rich, but seldom connected, information streams
that serve to inform us regarding the health of the Bay ecosystem.” 113 However, any
indication of Bay health or progress will serve to outweigh an absence of information as
future restoration efforts are planned and implemented.
Despite the established monitoring of current restoration efforts, restoration
project monitoring post-completion must also be managed to ensure restoration project
goals have been or are in the process of being achieved. In many cases, post-project
monitoring has been observed to be minimal. Roni et al. states, “Despite the large
financial investment in aquatic restoration in recent decades, monitoring and research to
evaluate project effectiveness occurs infrequently and often is inadequate to quantify
biological response.” 114 Similarly, data from Hassett et al.’s (2005) restoration database
analysis indicates that only 5.4% of the database projects show any form of monitoring
post project completion. 115 Furthermore, in a subsequent study, Hassett et al. (2007)
notes:
When we went back and looked at the written records for projects that
interviewees told us were monitored, there was typically no indication of
monitoring and certainly no statement on project outcome. 116
According to Roni et al., designing adequate monitoring and evaluation programs is
necessary in order to decrease the potential for mistaking the status of restoration success
indicators, such as the population dynamics of target species.117 Additionally, Hassett et
al. (2005) notes the relatively minimal funding needed for monitoring purposes in
relation to initial implementation costs. 118 Thus, in order to justify the proportionally
higher expenditure on the implementation of a restoration project, post-project
monitoring plans should be taken into consideration during planning stages.
While it is likely that some monitoring efforts are limited by funding availability,
full restoration success may remain un- or even over-accounted for without continued
                                                            
113

 Boesch, “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay,” 138. 
P.Roni, M.C. Liermann, C. Jordan, and E.A. Steel, “Steps for Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation
Program for Aquatic Restoration,” in Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration, ed. P. Roni
(Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, 2005), 13.
115
Hassett et al., “Restoring Watershed Project by Project,” 263. 
116
B.A. Hassett, M.A. Palmer, and E.S. Bernhardt, “Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed through Practitioner Interviews,” Restoration Ecology 15, no. 3 (2007): 568.
117
Roni et al., “Steps for Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program,” 14.
118
Hassett et al., “Restoring Watersheds Project by Project,” 265.
114

54  

monitoring. Without indicating the incorporation of proper management into restoration
project plans, restoration success may be miscounted. For instance, Hassett et al. (2007)
reports a skewed view of restoration project outcomes as those who are invested in the
project may have more of “a tendency to report an optimistic picture of project
outcome.” 119 According to Hassett et al. (2007), without implemented monitoring postcompletion, true success rates of restoration projects are susceptible to interpretation.
Ultimately, Bay restoration project plans must strive to incorporate post-project
monitoring in order to maintain project goals in the long run.

4.3

Local Economic Benefit from Bay Restoration Efforts
Loss of habitat, and consequently decrease in species population levels, does not

only strain the Watershed ecosystem but also strains the economy dependent on those
resources. The Watershed serves as a resource to more than 15 million people residing in
the area through income derived from recreation, tourism, real estate and commercial
fisheries. Goetz and Jantz further report:
The latter alone averages 227 thousand metric tons annually, worth up to
$200 million in some years…[The blue crab] is of particular concern
because crabs are currently, by far, the single most valuable commercial
resource of the Bay, comprising over 70% of the total harvest value. 120
Declines in blue crab population due to habitat loss and increased dissolved oxygen
levels have continued to hurt dependent fisheries stakeholders. In an effort to aid in the
reestablishment of the blue crab population, “Maryland and Virginia enacted new harvest
rules that cut the catch of female crabs by one third … [as the] crab population cannot
sustain the same amount of harvest by crabbers.” 121 Future blue crab populations will
only thrive through increased habitat restoration and pollution reduction efforts.
Similarly, a number of studies have been conducted in attempt to value the
economic benefit of improved Bay health. For example, through the use of contingent
valuation methodology as well as indirect market methodology in a 1989 study,
Bockstael, McConnell and Strand aimed to measure the economic benefits of improved
                                                            
119

Hassett et al., “Evaluating Stream Restoration,” 568-569.
Goetz and Jantz, “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change,” 264. 
121
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “State of the Bay 2008,” 14.
120

 

55

water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Calculated benefits of improved water quality
resulted in a range of benefit estimates between slightly less than $10 million to more
than $100 million in 1984 dollars.

Bocksteal, McConnell and Strand justify these

findings in stating:
Society has undertaken an investment program. The nature of the program
is the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. The costs of the program include
construction of sewage treatment plants, funding of government programs
to regulate and monitor agricultural effluents, subsidy of best management
practice, installation of industrial waste disposal systems, and restrictions
on housing development. The annual returns on the investment program
are measured by what people are willing to pay for the improved services.
This is the dividend yielded by the public’s investment program. Our
estimate of this divided is in the range of $10-100 million, in 1984
dollars. 122
These values indicate the variance expected from measuring public willingness to pay for
an ecosystem service as each respondent will inevitably have an individual preference for
one service in relation to an available substitute.
In measuring the effects of dissolved oxygen (DO) levels on recreational fishing
in the Chesapeake Bay, Lipton and Hicks found that reduction in water quality due to a
negative change in DO levels “would lead to an annual economic loss to all Chesapeake
Bay anglers of $51,866, with a net present value of $1.04 million,” incorporating both
valuation from expected catch as well as the value of bass fishing to the surveyed
anglers. 123

Similarly, Lipton also conducted a study of Maryland registered boat

owners’ willingness to pay for a general improvement in water quality in the Bay.
Overall, Lipton found “the total annual willingness to pay for a one step improvement in
water quality was approximately $7.3 million… [and the net present value], assuming a
5% discount rate is approximately $146 million.” 124
While the findings presented in these studies are variable in calculated willingness
to pay for improvements in water quality, they are not to be dismissed. Ultimately, water
quality improvement through restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay will inevitably
                                                            
122

N.E. Bockstael, K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand, “Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water
Quality: The Chesapeake Bay,” Marine Resource Economics 6 (1989): 17.
123
Lipton and Hicks, “The Cost of Stress,” 311-314.
124
D. Lipton, “The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters,” Working Paper,
Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park (2003): 11.

56  

provide positive net benefits to the recreational participants in the Bay.

Thus, the

economic benefit of water quality improvement in combination with the economic
benefit of increased resource species population levels, rely heavily on the continuation
of current, monitoring of completed, and implementation of future restoration projects
throughout the Bay.

4.4

Combining Ecotourism Activity and Restoration Efforts in the Bay
Understanding ecological restoration and ecotourism activity in the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed—what it is, where it takes place, how it works—will help to provide a
sense of interaction between the two operations. The provided synthesized definitions of
each term serve as categorical indicators of what does, or does not, constitute as a
restoration or ecotourism activity. This knowledge can then be used to further understand
the connection between the two. Provided that the ecotourism sites are located in close
proximity to the restoration sites, ecotourism operations in the Watershed have the
potential to provide valuable resources to planned and implemented restoration projects
in the surrounding areas. Ecotourism sites can not only help to educate the public about
local restoration initiatives, but also have the potential ability to organize volunteer
groups to leave from the site to aid in nearby restoration implementation or monitoring
efforts. Using the Chesapeake Bay as a case study, Chapter 5 will provide a baseline
understanding of how ecotourism-restoration interactions can be mutually beneficial to
the respective operations. This baseline will also yield the potential to use the described
mapping methods to create a local proximity analysis.

 

57

Chapter 5
Exploring Proximity in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
A Case Study
5.1

Mapping Ecological Restoration Activity

5.1.1

Bay Restoration Organizations and Projects
Given that the Chesapeake Bay Watershed provides a variety of natural habitat as

well as human-oriented land use opportunities, ecological restoration of the Bay becomes
a crucial focal point to the local communities and its visitors as the Bay’s health is
directly correlated with the economic benefits which can be derived from Bay resources.
With this in mind, a number of organizations have implemented restoration projects
throughout the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), founded in the 1970s, is an independent
501(c)(3) organization working to improve bay health through pollution reduction efforts
and increasing of natural filter abundance in the watershed. 125

With the help of

government, businesses, and citizen partners, CBF “fights for strong and effective laws
and regulations” 126 which ultimately aim to uphold their motto to “Save the Bay”.
Another restoration-oriented organization focused on the Bay is the Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP). Since its implementation in 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has
worked with its partners to reduce pollutants being discharged into the Bay in order to
restore the Bay’s living resources. 127 CBP partners range from federal and state agencies
and local governments to non-profits and academic institutions working together to
implement, fund, complete, and educate the public about Bay projects related to restoring
water quality, habitat restoration, managing fisheries and protecting watersheds. 128

                                                            
125

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “About Us,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2010,
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=259 (1 March 2010). 
126
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Mission and Vision,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2010,
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=387 (1 March 2010). 
127
Chesapeake Bay Program, “History of the Chesapeake Bay Program,” Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
23 Nov 2009, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx?menuitem=14904 (1 March 2010). 
128
Chesapeake Bay Program, “About the Bay Program,” Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/aboutus.aspx?menuitem=14001 (1 March 2010). and Chesapeake Bay
Program, “Bay Restoration,” Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bayrestoration.aspx?menuitem=13989 (1 March 2010). 

58  

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also serves as a
primary source of a large span of Chesapeake Bay restoration projects. Collectively, a
number of NOAA offices work to oversee the health and restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay through the monitoring of fisheries, removal of invasive species and dams,
modification of culverts, increasing natural filtration systems, and rebuilding native
oyster populations. 129
These organizations are the primary entities in control of restoration projects in
the Chesapeake Bay area, although they do not work alone. Each organization works
with the others as well as with multiple partners ranging from government to non-profit,
to private organizations. The network built through these connections helps to maintain a
sustainable restoration effort throughout the Bay.
5.1.2

Mapping Locations
Mapping ecological restoration projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is

limited by two main factors: multiple organizations are involved in a variety of
restoration projects, therefore resulting in a large magnitude of possible locations for
mapping.

Although many organizations work together through partnerships, many

restoration projects are managed individually by the primary organization. As a result,
each organization might limit access to public information. For instance, Chesapeake
Bay Foundation and Partners published a map of watershed restoration projects in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Map 5.1).

However, despite multiple correspondence

attempts, access to restoration site coordinates or addresses have not been made available
for all sites mapped.
Alternatively, restoration sites from NOAA were made available through an
ArcIMS GIS data server provided by the NOAA Restoration Center. As previously
noted, although the provided NOAA data does not depict all restoration sites throughout
the Watershed, the data does provide a base level on which to work from. Thus, for the
purpose of this part of the study only NOAA restoration sites have been mapped and
sorted

according

to

project

statuses:

planning

stage,

implementation

stage,

                                                            
129

NOAA’s Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, “NOAA in Your State: Maryland,”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, 2010,
http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/NIYS/ (1 March 2010). 

 

59

implementation complete, and project terminated (Map 5.2). While only mapping these
selected sites for this project is less than ideal, the base line will provide a good direction
as to what additional information may be necessary to create and manage a successful
ecotourism operation-restoration project working partnership.
Map 5.1: Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Partners’
Watershed Restoration Projects in the Chesapeake Bay

Map 5.1: Map of
Watershed
Restoration
Projects presented
by Chesapeake
Bay Foundation
and Partners. As
depicted,
restoration
projects have been
sorted by type:
oyster reef
(orange),
underwater grass
bed (red), wetland
(green), and
riparian buffer
(blue). 130

NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay data included sites throughout the Watershed, yet for
the purpose of this study only sites in the Maryland-Virginia portion of the Watershed
were used for mapping as a majority of the mapped ecotourism sites fall within the
Lower Watershed with minimal outliers extending into the Upper Watershed. The site
                                                            
130

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Maps: Watershed Restoration Projects,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
2010, http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=944 (1 March 2010).

 

60  

information was clipped from the complete dataset through ArcGIS software tools. 131
Sites were then sorted and labeled according to project status: planning stage,
implementation stage, implementation complete, and project terminated sites. The
resulting map is presented in Map 5.2.  
 

Map 5.2: NOAA Chesapeake Bay ecological restoration sites 

Map 5.2:
NOAA
ecological
restoration sites
sorted by project
stage: planning
(pink),
implementation
(green),
implementation
complete (blue),
and project
terminated
(orange), in the
MarylandVirginia portion
of the
Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.

                                                            
131

A list of mapped NOAA ecological restoration sites is presented in Appendix 1.

 

61

5.2

Mapping Ecotourism Activity

5.2.1

Determining “Ecotourism” Operations
Since tourism, and in this case ecotourism, is dependent on the natural

environment interacting with the human environment of that area, any degradation of the
natural area would likely result in an ultimate decline in tourist activity. This degradation
and decline is not only detrimental to the immediately affected natural ecosystem but is
just as detrimental to the human economy which relies on the resulting revenue from the
related tourist activity. 132 However, as environmental awareness becomes more popular,
in the sense that an increasing number of companies have started to “green” their
products and accordingly advertise them as such, many tourist operations might aim to
target new audience members by also advertising their operation as “eco-friendly” or
general area tours as “eco-tours.” With these new labels, general tourism operations have
the potential to capitalize on the growing interest in environmentally friendly products.
However, many “ecotourism” operations may not necessarily be supplying the exact
product advertised or demanded by ecologically minded consumers. For example, a
hypothetical kayak rental company may advertise its business as an ecotourism operation
while the practice does not participate in the defined ecotourism goals. Alternatively,
only operations which meet standardized criteria, such as those suggested by the
discussed synthesized definition of “ecotourism,” should be allowed to be advertised as
such.
The synthesized definition of ecotourism breaks down the concept into four
distinct parts. First, the tourism must be ecologically sustainable. Second, tourists must
actively participate in conservation and restoration efforts in the surrounding natural area.
Third, the active participation should have the potential to increase the visitor’s personal
environmental responsibility and education level. Finally, the operation must result in an
economically viable situation for the local culture and population. While the criteria as a
whole create an ideal ecotourism operation, a main component of the operation should
result in education of and physical contribution to conservation and restoration activity in
the area—a key concept separating this idea of ecotourism from general tourism activity.
                                                            
132

Sinclair and Stabler, The Economics of Tourism, 156. 

62  

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (CBGN), a National Park Service, has
worked to connect residents and visitors to a variety of parks, refuges, museums, historic
sites, land and water trails throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed since 2000. 133
Ultimately, CBGN goals include:
…[helping] the American public access, enjoy, understand and appreciate
the natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources and values of the
Chesapeake and its rivers and engage in their stewardship [through
educating] people about the Bay and [helping] them learn its stories
through place-based interpretive education, [facilitating] access to the
Chesapeake and Chesapeake-related resources, and [fostering]
conservation & restoration of the Chesapeake and its rivers, stimulating
public understanding of and involvement in stewardship. 134
As a resource, CBGN can potentially work with its partnership members to increase
educational and field work opportunities available to the visiting public. Ultimately, this
interaction will inevitably result in an increased coordination effort on the parts of both
CBGN and its partnership members, which may be subject to personnel and/or economic
limitations. Staff at participating ecotourism centers may not be familiar with local
restoration efforts and would thus be subject to further training in regard to the projects
with which they will be associated. Further training increases the time and resources
required for an adequate coordination effort to exist, which may be limited by economic
funding constraints on one or both sides of the ecotourism-restoration coordination effort.
However, for the purpose of this study, CBGN partnership members
will be presented as possible ecotourism-restoration coordination centers.
5.2.2

Mapping Locations
A list of Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network partnership members was provided

via a promotional pamphlet from CBGN, listing 151 of the 158 sites publicized on the
organization’s website. For the purpose of this primary case study, only the sites listed in
the promotional pamphlet are presented through GIS mapping. 135 Ecotourism sites were
                                                            
133

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, “Gateways Network Mission and Vision,”
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, 2009, http://baygateways.net/vision.cfm (1 Feb 2010). 
134
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, “Chesapeake Bay Gateways Strategic Plan 20062008,” Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, October 2005, http://baygateways.net/pubs/CBGN_Strategic
Plan.pdf (1 Feb 2010). 
135
See Appendix 2 for a complete list of Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network sites plotted.

 

63

labeled according to Gateway type: Gateway Regional Info Center or Hub, Gateway Site,
Gateway Land Trail, or Gateway Water Trail. Major cities were also mapped to provide
a spatial reference on the land map. The resulting map is presented in Map 5.3.
Map 5.3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network partners ecotourism sites

Map 5.3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, sorted by gateway type: regional info center or hub
(orange), site (purple), land trail (green), or water trail (blue).

64  

 

5.3

A Spatial Analysis: Measuring Proximity in the Chesapeake Bay

5.3.1

Mapping Ecological Restoration Sites with Ecotourism Sites
With both ecological restoration and ecotourism sites individually mapped, a

spatial analysis of how they could potentially work together can be conducted by first
mapping the locations together. Each layer has been added to the base ArcMap file in
order to see each set of sites in the same mapping plane. With this new base map, a
spatial analysis of the sites can be conducted.
Map5.4: Base map of restoration and ecotourism sites in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Map 5.4:
NOAA
ecological
restoration sites
(orange, square)
and Chesapeake
Bay Gateways
Network
partnership
ecotourism sites
(blue-green,
circle) overlayed
to form a spatial
basemap. Major
cities (yellow,
star) have been
added to provide
further spatial
reference.

 

65

5.3.2

Spatial Methods and Results
Using distance as a function of measurement, distance buffers have been chosen

in order to simplify proximity measurements between ecotourism and ecological
restoration sites. Distances of 5, 10 and 15 miles have been chosen in order to account
for the nearest ecotourism operation locations to restoration project locations. Buffer
distances have been chosen assuming 15 miles as a relative estimate of the maximum
distance an ecotourism participant would be willing to travel for restoration aid work.
Each layer of buffers has been dissolved, removing overlapping edges, in order to
observe the clustering effects around the plotted restoration locations. Mapped buffer
results are depicted in Map 5.5.
Since buffers have been drawn outward from ecological restoration sites, any
ecotourism sites mapped within buffer distances can be considered in close proximity to
the restoration sites. After mapping the chosen distance buffers, sites located within
buffer spans have been separated out through selecting sites in the ecotourism location
layer limited to those that fall within each buffer layer. The attributes of the selected
features (ecotourism sites), including number of features which fall within that buffer,
could then be examined. When examining the number of ecotourism sites within each
buffer, out of the 151 CBGN ecotourism sites mapped, 71 are located within five miles
from the mapped restoration sites, 95 are located within ten miles, and 116 are within
fifteen miles.
According to the mapped locations and buffer distances, a majority of the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism operations fall within close proximity to
the NOAA-supported ecological restoration project locations. Of the mapped CBGN
ecotourism sites, 47%, 63%, and 77% are located within 5, 10 and 15 miles of NOAAsupported ecological restoration locations, respectively. These values, however, are
likely to increase with the availability of additional ecological restoration site
information. As a result, the ecotourism locations which fall in close proximity to the
ecological restoration locations would theoretically be able to aid restoration project
implementation and monitoring. The next part of this chapter will discuss specific
clusters of ecotourism-ecological restoration relationships present in the Bay Watershed.
However, the specific level of aid provided by the ecotourism sites will depend heavily

66  

on the restoration type and project needs. Similarly, public access to certain project sites
may be limited, eliminating the potential ecotourism-restoration coordination
opportunity.
Map 5.5: Distance buffers derived from mapped ecological restoration sites

Map 5.5: 5, 10 and 15 mile distance buffers from NOAA ecological restoration sites
mapped with CBGN ecotourism sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
 

67

5.4 Discussing Feasibility
5.4.1

Using Ecotourism as an Aid to Ecological Restoration
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
In order to provide a suitable understanding of how tourism practices, in

particular ecotourism practices, should be handled in order to maintain a working
dynamic between the environment and societal requirements, tourism management
practices should be examined and taken into consideration. The idea of a community
approach to tourism planning suggests that the planning should be “reconstructed so that
environmental and social factors may be placed alongside economic considerations.” 136
Alternatively, general tourism planning takes on a theoretical tourism planning model
which isolates the planning process from the environmental, social, and economic factors
taken into consideration when adopting a community approach to planning. 137 In the
case of theoretical tourism planning, each factor is measured independently of one
another rather than as a connective whole. This process has the potential to result in
some benefits, or costs, of the tourism operation to be lost in analysis. Thus, for the
purpose of ecotourism management practices, the community approach to planning will
help to provide a more complete understanding of the efforts necessary to create a
successful operation which works to follow the defined ecotourism criteria.
Although general tourism and ecotourism exemplify different operations, some
aspects of general tourism practices are still incorporated into the environmentally
conscious alternative. As a result, general tourism planning processes can still be applied
to ecotourism planning, provided some modification. In relation to the Chesapeake Bay,
a theoretical approach seems implausible as many outside factors play a role in the
success of an ecotourism operation. Alternatively, the local community approach to
ecotourism planning can beneficially aid both the local ecotourism operations as well as
the surrounding ecological restoration project areas. According to Nowaczek, MoranCahusac, and Fennell (2007):

                                                            
136

R.K. Dowling and D.A. Fennell, “The Context of Ecotourism Policy and Planning,” in Ecotourism
Policy and Planning, edited by D.A. Fennell and R.K. Dowling, 1-20, Cambridge, MA: CAB International
(2003), 7. 
137
R.K. Dowling and D.A. Fennell, “The Context of Ecotourism Policy and Planning,” 7. 

68  

The major challenge is to develop a plan for community involvement and
empowerment, both in terms of resident participation in and ownership of
the project, and fair distribution of the benefits (defined beforehand) and
costs (accounted for at the planning stage) from the ecotourism project.
Initially this can be achieved by providing practical and accessible
ecotourism education and training in various fields. More meaningfully,
having established a position of dialogue for the local populations, visitors
can be readily informed of local needs and projects for their
contribution. 138
Thus, an interdisciplinary approach to ecotourism management must be applied, taking
into consideration the environmental, social, and economic factors which work together
to drive the operation as a whole.
Through the mapping and spatial analysis of ecological restoration and
ecotourism sites located throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, in particular the
lower portion of the watershed incorporating areas directly around the Bay, proximity of
site locations is visually presented. A complete listing of sites within buffer levels from
the mapped restoration sites are presented as appendices. With approximately 77% of the
total number of ecotourism operations mapped falling within fifteen miles of Bay
restoration project locations, the potential for ecotourism operations to aid in, or harm,
ecological restoration efforts seems relatively simple to comprehend. The number of
ecotourism sites in close proximity to restoration sites is proportionately high, leading to
the potential for ecotourist aid at nearby restoration project areas. However, proximity is
not the only factor relating to feasibility measurements in the Chesapeake Bay. A
number of stakeholders, including restoration project managers, ecotourism location
owners and operators, and associated funding suppliers, have the potential to limit
coordination efforts between ecotourism and ecological restoration work in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Ecotourism-restoration coordination efforts in the Chesapeake Bay will need to be
explored in terms of available staff and resources, as well as public interest in the
restoration effort. In order to ensure a successful coordination program and analysis of

                                                            
138

A.M. Nowaczek, C.M. Moran-Cahusac and D.A. Fennell, “Against the Current: Striving for Ethical
Ecotourism,” in Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourism Phenomenon, edited by
J. Higham, 136-157, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd. (2007), 148.

 

69

public response should be taken into consideration. Potential methodology for collecting
and analyzing this public response will be further discussed in Chapter 6.
Provided public interest in a local ecotourism-restoration coordination program,
education outreach regarding the local restoration sites will begin with teaching activity
at the ecotourism site. As previously noted, this will result in the ecotourism staff
needing an adequate knowledge base of the local area and restoration projects in order to
be able to provide visitors with an educational experience. If necessary, staff will
potentially need to be trained in regard to relevant information and teaching techniques.
Unfortunately, training time and resources may be limited due to unavailable funding or
personnel resources. However, given access to adequate funding and staff, an
ecotourism-restoration cooperative becomes feasible.

5.5

Examining Specific Ecotourism-Restoration Relationships
Visual examination of the resulting spatial analysis buffers surrounding the

mapped NOAA ecological restoration sites within the Maryland-Virginia portion of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed indicates a number of ecotourism-restoration relationship
clusters. Through comparing the buffer map (Map 5.5) to the spatial reference base map
of ecotourism and ecological restoration sites in the Chesapeake Bay (Map 5.4), these
clusters appear to coincide with certain city-areas. While buffer distances of 5, 10 and 15
miles were generated for this study, relationships within visible cluster areas showed a
density even within the 5 mile buffer area. Thus, for simplification purposes only
ecotourism and restoration sites within the 5 mile buffer area will be presented. Four of
these ecotourism-restoration cluster relationships will be examined in further detail:
Baltimore, MD; Annapolis, MD; Solomons, MD; and Norfolk, VA.
5.5.1

Baltimore, Maryland
As Maryland’s largest city and economic hub, 139 Baltimore serves a diverse

population of residents and visitors. In 2008, Baltimore hosted 11.39 million domestic
visitors in addition to 5.31 million day-trip visitors from within 50 miles of the city
region. General tourism in Baltimore accounts for over 78,000 jobs in the region, over
                                                            
139

Visit Baltimore, “About Us: Baltimore, a bustling city built on tradition and civic pride, is an American
success story,” Visit Baltimore, 2010, http://baltimore.org/about-baltimore (22 April 2010).

70  

70% of which are a direct result of tourism, yielding $2.49 billion in employee wages. 140
Given these figures, it is logical to examine Baltimore as one of the ecotourismrestoration cluster cities resulting from the spatial analysis of ecological restoration buffer
areas in the Bay.
Upon closer analysis of the Baltimore cluster area, three NOAA restoration sites
are presented:
 Community-Based Marine Debris Prevention and Removal in Baltimore, MD
 Fort McHenry Wetlands Restoration
 Patapsco River Living Shoreline Project.
“Community-Based Marine Debris Prevention and Removal in Baltimore, MD” is listed
as a marine debris restoration project. “Fort McHenry Wetlands Restoration” is listed as
a community-based restoration project. Both the “Community-Based Marine Debris
Prevention and Removal in Baltimore, MD” and the “Fort McHenry Wetlands
Restoration” projects have completed implementation. Alternatively the communitybased restoration “Patapsco River Living Shoreline Project” has been terminated.
In addition, a number of Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network partners are located
within the five mile buffer areas surrounding the three restoration sites listed:
 Baltimore Visitor Center
 Fells Point Historic District
 Fells Point Maritime Museum
 Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
 Frederick Douglas-Isaac Myers Maritime Park
 Lightship Chesapeake & 7 Foot Knoll Lighthouse
 Jones Fall Trail
 National Aquarium in Baltimore
 Pride of Baltimore II
 USS Constitution Museum.

                                                            
140

Visit Baltimore, “About Us,” Visit Baltimore, 2010,
http://baltimore.org/misc/uploads/mediapdfs/about%20us.pdf (22 April 2010).

 

71

These ecotourism sites range from information centers to city areas, leisure parks to land
trails, and historical or nature-based sites.
As presented, Baltimore hosts the highest number of ecotourism operations in
relation to restoration efforts of the four local areas explored. Given this proportion, it is
likely that the ecotourism locations listed will collectively be able to aid in the wetland
restoration and marine debris prevention and removal projects located in the Baltimore
area.
5.5.2

Annapolis, Maryland
Annapolis, Maryland’s capital city, is comprised of 7.2 square miles of land area

in addition to 17 miles of Chesapeake Bay waterfront. 141 Access to this coast-line
provides Annapolis with the opportunity to utilize a number of Bay resources through
resident and visitor consumption and recreation. However, this consumption and
recreation is likely to have resulted in a number of the ecological restoration project sites
present in the observed Annapolis ecotourism-restoration cluster area.
Upon closer analysis of the Annapolis cluster area, a number of communitybased, restoration projects have been identified:
 Almshouse Creek Living Shoreline Project
 Almshouse Creek Living Shorelines – Beach 5 Site
 Amos Garrett Park Shoreline Restoration Project
 Back Creek Nature Park Living Shorelines Project
 Chesapeake Bay Foundation Citizen Oyster Gardening Program
 Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration:
Baywide Coordination and Technology Transfer
 Hidden Pond Restoration Project
 Mill Creek Tributary at Dull’s Corner
 Oyster Recovery Partnership Restoration-Severn River
 Severn River Oyster Restoration
 South River Oyster and SAV Restoration
                                                            
141

Government of the City of Annapolis, “General Demographic Information,” City of Annapolis, 2002,
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/info.asp?page=7266 (22 April 2010).

72  

 St. Johns College Living Shoreline Restoration Project
 Truxtun Park Restoration.
With the exception of the “Almshouse Creek Living Shoreline-Beach 5 Site” and “Mill
Creek Tributary at Dull’s Corner” projects, all projects have completed implementation.
“Almshouse Creek Living Shorelines – Beach 5 Site” is currently in the implementation
stage and “Mill Creek Tributary at Dull’s Corner” has been terminated.
In addition, four Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites fall within
the five mile buffer area of the Annapolis-area restoration sites:
 Annapolis and Anne Arundel Co. Information Center
 Historic Annapolis Gateway-City Dock
 Historic London Town and Garden
 Sandy Point State Park.
Similar to the city of Baltimore, the ecotourism locations mapped in close proximity to
Annapolis restoration sites represent a variety of CBGN gateway types including an
information center, city area, and park.
However, the relationship between ecological restoration efforts and ecotourism
operation in Annapolis is proportionately different from the relationship explored in
Baltimore. Restoration efforts in the Annapolis area outweigh mapped ecotourism
operations by more than three to one. In comparison to a more even, or even inversely,
distributed proportion between these efforts, the opportunity for ecotourism operations to
aid in local restoration initiatives decreases. With fewer ecotourism sites to work as
coordination centers, it is likely that fewer ecotourist volunteers will be generated
through advertisement and outreach efforts.
5.5.3

Solomons, Maryland
The town of Solomons is a coastal community built at the intersection of the

Patuxant River and the Chesapeake Bay in Southern Maryland. Similar to other coastal
communities along the Bay, including Annapolis, the location of the city provides almost
immediate access to Bay resources and activities. However, as previously explored, this
interaction between human development and its natural surroundings has created a strain
on the environment resulting in the need for the establishment of local restoration
activity.
 

73

Upon closer analysis of the Solomons cluster area, six community-based projects
are presented:
 Jefferson Patterson Park Living Shorelines Outreach Project
 Maryland/Virginia Oyster Reef Restoration Projects – Patuxant River
 Patuxant River SAV Restoration
 Patuxant River Bay Grass and Oyster Restoration – Neale Addition Oyster Bar
 Patuxant River Bay Grass and Oyster Restoration – Jug Bay SAV
 Sandy Point Ecosystem Restoration Project.
All projects are specified as restoration efforts, with the exception of “Jefferson Patterson
Park Living Shorelines Outreach Project” which is specified as an educational project.
Additionally, all projects have completed implementation, with the exception of the
terminated “Sandy Point Ecosystem Restoration Project.”
In addition, CBGN ecotourism locations presented include a variety of site types
ranging from information centers to museums, and parks to educational facilities:
 Calvert Cliffs State Park
 Calvert Marine Museum
 Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, UMES
 Flags Pond Nature Park
 Greenwell State Park
 Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum
 Myrtle Point Park
 Scotterly Plantation
 Solomons Visitor Information Center.
Similar to the proportion of ecological restoration sites to ecotourism locations
found in Baltimore, the coordination opportunity in Solomons is evidently present.
However, almost half of the ecotourism sites presented represent park areas absent of
formal staff. This factor has the potential to hinder the ability to utilize those sites as
coordination centers.

74  

5.5.4

Norfolk, Virginia
Housing over 237,000 residents and serving as “one of the busiest international

ports on the East Coast of the United States,” Norfolk, Virginia is situated on 7 miles of
Bay beachfront with a total of 144 miles for shoreline including those along lakes and
rivers, much of which runs through residential areas. 142 Given shoreline access to Bay
resources, ecotourism-restoration activity in the Norfolk area defines the fourth cluster
relationship to be explored in this study.
Upon closer analysis of the Norfolk cluster area, six community-based,
implementation complete, restoration projects have been identified:
 Elizabeth River Oyster Reef Restoration
 Hermitage Foundation Living Shorelines Project
 Lafayette River Oyster Reef Restoration
 Maryland/Virginia Oyster Reef Restoration Projects-Elizabeth River
 Paradise Creek Oyster Reef Restoration
 Return to Paradise Creek.
Examining CBGN ecotourism locations in the Norfolk cluster yielded only three
sites within the five mile buffers of the restoration areas:
 Elizabeth River Trail – Atlantic City Spur
 Hoffer Creek Wildlife Preserve
 Nauticus, National Maritime Center.
Although this discussion has been limited to ecotourism-restoration relationships within
the dense 5- mile buffer areas, exploring the Norfolk cluster yielded a single outlying
ecotourism location bordering the 5 and 10 mile buffer boundary:

 Great Bridge Lock Park.
Given this border effect, this site should also be considered while examining the
ecotourism-restoration coordination possibility in the Norfolk area. However, similar to
park areas identified in Solomons, MD, the absence of formal staff at this site can hinder
the use of the site as a coordination center for ecotourism-restoration aid efforts.
                                                            
142

City of Norfolk, “Fast Facts About Norfolk, Virginia,” The City of Norfolk, 2010,
http://www.norfolk.gov/about/FastFacts.asp (27 April 2010).

 

75

Chapter 6 
Conclusions
6.1

Connecting Concepts
Through synthesizing a variety of definitions for the terms ecological restoration

and ecotourism, what each term means and how they differ from similar operations
becomes better understood. Without a synthesized understanding of the terms,
uncertainty of how to distinguish a genuinely successful operation, restoration- or
ecotourism- based, from those that may be deemed successful based on a definition
which has been derived to fit the relative project goals. This process allows for clearer
awareness of restoration and ecotourism activity in a local area, thus leading to an
understanding of their roles in that area through studying the effectiveness of ecotourism
as an ecological restoration tool.
The exploration of ecotourism as an ecological restoration tool results in three
primary understandings:


First, although rooted in the economic-based general tourism practices,
ecotourism activity helps to support the local environment and culture as an
additional operational goal. This allows for a mutually beneficial relationship
between the tourism practice and the natural world it has the potential to affect.



Second, while restoration efforts should continue for the benefit of the natural
world, it is rather unfair to assume its role as a continual solution to future human
disturbance. Rather, restoration should be considered a solution only to the past
and a teaching tool for the future.



Finally, ecotourism has the potential to work with restoration efforts as a source
of local area and environmental education, leading to the benefit of all
stakeholders involved.
By using the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a case study, the potential working

relationship between ecotourism and ecological restoration activity becomes more
evident. Spatial analysis of ecotourism and ecological restoration sites within the Bay
indicates a majority of the ecotourism locations occurring in close proximity to the area’s

76  

restoration projects. 143 Thus, the feasibility of using ecotourism as an aid to restoration
within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed increases. While these findings are specific to the
Chesapeake, the methodology employed can be transferred and applied to any geographic
area. Future expansion of this study to another geographic area will only increase the
overall understanding of this subject matter. New study areas will be able to understand
the spatial relationship between the restoration and ecotourism activity in that area while
also understanding the feasibility for ecotourism-restoration coordination efforts, if any
should exist.

6.2

Case Study Expansion

6.2.1

Alternative GIS Methodology
In order to simplify spatial analysis, in addition to limited GIS-compatible data

file access, distance buffers have been used to analyze ecotourism-ecological restoration
cooperative opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In relation to this study,
suitable road map layers were not available for mapping thus limiting the analysis
methods available. However, given access to sufficient data necessary to the analysis,
such as a road layout or locations of objects which might limit travel, a least cost measure
of distance can be used to enhance this and future analyses.
Alternative to distance measure using buffers, near methodology can be applied
through a measurement according to cost by performing a network analysis. Network
analysis methodology accounts for cost in a variety of increments including time,
operating cost per mile, or effort expended. 144 Three common network analysis issues
include route selection, resource and territory allocation, and traffic modeling. 145 These
three analysis types are presented in Table 6.1, indicating analysis type, application, and
criteria. Individually or collectively, these network analyses can aid in the spatial
reference understanding of ecotourism-ecological restoration cooperative opportunities in
future study areas, as well as in the expansion of the Chesapeake Bay case study.
                                                            
143

Of the mapped CBGN ecotourism sites, 47%, 63%, and 77% are located within 5, 10 and 15 miles of
NOAA-supported ecological restoration locations, respectively. 
144
Mitchell, “The ESRI Guide to GIS Analysis,” 118. 
145
P. Bolstad, GIS Fundamentals: A First Text on Geographic Information Systems, 3rd edition,. White
Bear Lake, MN: Eider Press, 2008. 363.

 

77

Table 6.1: Alternative GIS network analysis methodology.  
Analysis Type 
Common Application 

Route Selection 

to find the least costly route 
that visits a number of 
connected features 

Analysis Criteria 

 shortest route  
 quickest route 
 least‐costly route 
 order in which features are 
visited 

 
assigning a network area to one 
 
certain feature (allocation 
 resource limit of territory 
Resource and  center) 
 
Territory 
 
 maximum distance to allocation 
Allocation 
links all other features (non‐
center 
allocation centers) to the 
 
nearest allocation center 
 
 
 attributes defining travel speed 
assessment of traffic patterns, 
and direction 
and the associated cost, 
 
Traffic Modeling 
throughout a network travel 
 attributes identifying turns and 
area 
time or cost required for each 
turn 
 
Table 6.1:  Alternative GIS network analysis methodology including analysis type, application and 
criteria available for use in future ecotourism‐ ecological restoration cooperative analyses. 146   

Route selection analysis will allow for the selection of a “best” route to a feature
location, accounting for distance, time and cost. Each portion of the route is assessed by
cost, cumulatively adding the cost associated with each route portion selected. In this
case, the least cost route will be selected. Additionally, if multiple locations are to be
visited on a selected route, the order in which those locations are visited can also be taken
into consideration in determining the best route in this analysis. 147

                                                            
146
147

Information derived from Bolstad, GIS Fundamentals, 363-367.
Bolstad, GIS Fundamentals, 363-365.

78  

The second type of network analysis, resource and territory allocation analysis,
assesses the “network area” in relation to one feature, or allocation center. 148 In terms of
ecotourism-restoration site analysis, the restoration site can serve as the allocation center
in question, linking all ecotourism locations within a defined maximum distance to that
center location. In addition, a resource limit, or capacity can be associated with the
allocation center. For instance, an ecological restoration site can determine a maximum
capacity of ecotourism participants thus limiting the network, or number of ecotourism
sites, which will be able to provide ecotourists to those restoration sites.
A third method of network analysis which can be applied to ecotourismecological restoration relationship analyses involves traffic modeling. Traffic modeling
defines attributes associated with certain route areas, including travel speed and direction,
turns and the time or cost of each turn. 149 As a compliment to route selection and
resource or territory allocation methods, traffic modeling can aid in the selection of a true
best route selection accounting for routes which will minimize travel time between
ecotourism locations and restoration sites, in turn potentially maximizing participation
time at the restoration site.
6.2.2

Measuring Public Response
While the discussed GIS analyses can provide a measure of ecotourism-ecological

restoration cooperation opportunity through determining travel cost due to distance,
territory or traffic measurements, they are unable to account for visitor response to or
desire for such cooperation. Ultimately, the opportunity for ecotourism locations to aid
in local ecological restoration efforts relies on public interest, or demand, of the
cooperation. Thus, survey administration and economic demand estimate methodology
must be adopted in order to measure public response and determine demand for
ecotourism-ecological restoration cooperative efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, and in
future study areas.
Short surveys in relation to visitors’ purposes for visiting and potential goals of
the visit can be administered to visitors at the ecotourism locations. Administration and
                                                            
148
149

Bolstad, GIS Fundamentals, 365-366.
Bolstad, GIS Fundamentals, 366-367.

 

79

analyses of these surveys can provide a general idea of visitor demand for and
participation in ecotourism activity. Survey length should be kept short to keep the
interest of visitors and maximize number of responses. Additionally, a multiple choice of
qualitative answers might be provided to ensure answer consistency between visitor
groups, eliminating the potential for over variation of open-ended questions when
analyzing survey results.
Additionally, economic demand estimates can be generated to account for the
ecotourist, or consumer, demand for participation in ecological restoration efforts. Two
common demand estimates include the Clawson-Hotelling estimate of the demand for
and value of a recreation resource, and the Rosen estimate of hedonic demand. The
Clawson-Hotelling approach to estimating the demand for and value of a recreation
resource requires “first estimating statistical demand functions for the total outdoor
recreation experience and then deriving the implied demand for and value of the resource
itself.” 150 This is done by analyzing the relationship between travel costs and consumer
participation in the activity. 151 Furthermore, assuming homogenous consumer groups
surveyed, demand can be derived from this relationship. 152 Alternatively, Rosen’s
estimate of hedonic demand measures consumers’ marginal willingness to pay for the
good in question, also assuming homogenous consumer groups surveyed, allowing for a
demand curve to be derived. 153
The derivation of economic demand curves can be utilized in conjunction with the
short survey analysis in order to understand public response of and demand for the
cooperation effort between ecotourism activity and local ecological restoration effort.
This response can then be used to facilitate an optimal ecotourism-ecological restoration
cooperation opportunity at a specific area of interest.
                                                            
150

R.L. Gum and W.E. Martin, “Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural
Outdoor Recreation,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, no. 4 (1975): 558.
151
 W.G. Brown and F. Nawas, “Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor Recreation Demand
Functions,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 55, no. 2 (1973): 246. and
R.F. Zeimer, W.N. Musser, and R.C. Hill, “Recreation Demand Equations: Functional Form and Consumer
Surplus,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, no. 1 (1980): 136.
152
Brown and Nawas, “Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor Recreation Demand
Functions,” 246.
153
P.Bajari and C.L. Benkard, “Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and Unobserved
Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy 113, no. 6 (2005): 1240.

80  

6.3

Future Application
The synthesized definitions of the terms ecological restoration and ecotourism

have been formulated in order to be used in the assessment of the respective activities in
any study area selected. Similarly, a simple spatial analysis of distance can be applied to
any area for which restoration and ecotourism operation locations are provided. Study
area should not be limited to coastal areas such as the Chesapeake Bay. Instead, a greater
understanding of ecotourism-restoration coordination possibilities can be gained from
studying a variety of geographical areas.
Ultimately, future studies remain highly dependent on the study area chosen and
available resources from that area. However, future study should not be discouraged and
even simple analyses can yield almost immediate correlations between ecological
restoration efforts and surrounding ecotourism operations. As natural science restoration
work interacts with the social science aspect of a tourism economy, the interdisciplinary
nature of this study and its future implications will only help to further understand the
link between humans and nature as they continue to interact and change in connection
with one another.

 

81

References
Bajari, P. and C.L. Benkard. “Demand Estimation with Heterogeneous Consumers and
Unobserved Product Characteristics: A Hedonic Approach.” Journal of Political
Economy 113, no. 6 (2005): 1239-1276.
Bradshaw, A.D. “Underlying Principles of Restoration.” Canadian Journal of Fish and
Aquatic Science 53, no. 1 (1996): 3-9.
Bockstael,N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. “Measuring the Benefits of
Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Resource
Economics 6 (1989): 1-18.
Boesch, D.F. “Measuring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay: Toward Integration and
Prediction.” Environmental Research Section A 82 (2000): 134-142.
Bolstad, Paul. GIS Fundamentals: A First Text on Geographic Information Systems, 3rd
edition. White Bear Lake, MN: Eider Press, 2008.
Brown, W.G. and F. Nawas. “Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor
Recreation Demand Functions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 55,
no. 2 (1973): 246-249.
Campbell-Hunt, D.M. “Ecotourism and Sustainability in Community-Driven Ecological
Restoration: Case Studies from New Zealand.” in Sustainable Tourism III: Ecology
and the Environment vol. 115, ed. C.A. Brebbia and F.D. Pineda, 231-240. South
Hampton, UK: WIT Press, 2008.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “About Us.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2010.
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=259 (3 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. State of the Bay Report 2008. April 2009.
http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=170 (5 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Maps: Watershed Restoration Projects.” Chesapeake Bay
Foundation. 2010. http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=944 (1 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Mission and Vision.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2010.
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=387 (1 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “Restore.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2010.
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=452 (1 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. “Chesapeake Bay Gateways
Strategic Plan 2006-2008.” Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. October 2005.
http://baygateways.net/pubs/CBGN_StrategicPlan.pdf (1 Feb 2010).

82  

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. “Gateways Network Mission and
Vision.” Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. 2009.
http://baygateways.net/vision.cfm (1 Feb 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Program. “About the Bay Program.” Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/aboutus.aspx?menuitem=14001 (1 March 2010).
Chesapeake Bay Program. “Bay Restoration.” Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bayrestoration.aspx?menuitem=13989 (1 March
2010).
Chesapeake Bay Program. “History of the Chesapeake Bay Program.” Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. 23 Nov 2009.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx?menuitem=14904 (1 March
2010).
Chesapeake Bay Program. “Maps- Bay Watershed: Classification of Watersheds.” 28 Jan
2010. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=16825 (27 April
2010).
City of Norfolk. “Fast Facts About Norfolk, Virginia.” The City of Norfolk. 2010.
http://www.norfolk.gov/about/FastFacts.asp (27 April 2010).
Cuevas, J.G. and G. van Leersum. “Project ‘Conservation, Restoration, and Development
of the Juan Fernandez Islands, Chile.’” Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 74, no.
4 (2001). SciElo, Sociedad de Biología de Chile (14 Jan 2009).
Davis, M.A. and L.B. Slobodkin. “The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology.”
Restoration Ecology 12, no. 1 (2004): 1-3.
Diamantis, D. “The Concept of Ecotourism: Evolution and Trends.” Current Issues in
Tourism 2, no. 2&3 (1999): 93-122.
Dowling, R.K and D.A. Fennell. “The Context of Ecotourism Policy and Planning.” In
Ecotourism Policy and Planning, edited by D.A. Fennell and R.K. Dowling, 1-20.
Cambridge, MA: CAB International, 2003.
Edwards, S.N., W.J. McLaughlin and S.H. Ham. “A Regional Look at Ecotourism Policy
in the Americas.” In Ecotourism Policy and Planning, edited by D.A. Fennell and
R.K. Dowling, 293-307. Cambridge, MA: CAB International, 2003.
Goetz, S.J. and C.A. Jantz. “Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land
Use Change: The Chesapeake Bay Watershed.” Ecosystems and Land Use Change:
Geophysical Monograph Series 153 (2004), 263-275.

 

83

Government of the City of Annapolis. “General Demographic Informatio.” City of
Annapolis. 2002. http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/info.asp?page=7266 (22 April
2010).
Gum, R.L. and W.E. Martin. “Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and
Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics
57, no. 4 (1975): 558-566.
Gutiérrez, Eileen. “Case Study 16.1: Ecotourism and Biodiversity Conservation.” In
Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition, edited by M.J. Groom, G.K.
Meffe, C.R. Carroll and Contributers, 599-604. Sunderland, MA: Sinaur
Associates, Inc., 2006.
Hassett, B., M. Palmer, E. Bernhardt, S. Smith, J. Carr, and D. Hart. “Restoring
Watershed Project by Project: Trends in the Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Restoration.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3, no 5 (June 2005). 259267.
Hassett, B.A., M.A. Palmer, and E.S. Bernhardt, “Evaluating Stream Restoration in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews,” Restoration Ecology
15, no. 3 (2007): 563-572.
He, G., X. Chen, W. Liu, S. Bearer, S. Zhou, L.Y. Cheng, H. Zhang, Z. Ouyang, and J.
Liu. “Distribution of Economic Benefits from Ecotourism: A Case Study of
Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas in China.” Environmental Management
42 (2008): 1017-1025.
Higgs, Eric. “Nature by Design: People, Natural Processes, and Ecological Restoration.”
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.
Higham, J. and M. Lück. “Urban Economics: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of
Ecotourism 1, no. 1 (2002): 36-51.
Hunter, J.O. “Bolivia Community-Based Ecotourism Development.” MES Thesis, The
Evergreen State College, 2002.
Jackson, L.L. , N. Lopoukhine and D. Hillyard. “Ecological Restoration: A Definition
and Comments.” Restoration Ecology 3, no. 2 (1995): 71-75.
Kairo, J.G., F. Dahdouh-Guebas, J. Bosire and N. Koedam. “Restoration and
Management of Mangrove Systems—A Lesson and from the East African Region.”
South African Journal of Botany 67 (2001): 383-389.
Kiss, A. “Is Community-Based Ecotourism a Good Use of Biodiversity Conservation
Funds?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, no. 5 (2004): 232-237.

84  

Lee, W.H. and G. Moscardo. “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort
Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13, no. 6 (2005): 546-565.
Lindberg, K., J. Enriquez, and K. Sproule. “Ecotourism Questioned: Case Studies from
Belize.” Annals of Tourism Research 23, no. 3 (1996): 543-562.
Lipton, D. “The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters.” Working
Paper, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics. University of
Maryland, College Park (2003).
Lipton, D. and R. Hicks. “The Cost of Stress: Low Dissolved Oxygen and Economic
Benefits of Recreational Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) Fishing in the Patuxent
River.” Estuaries 26, no. 2, Part A (2003): 310-315.
Newsome, D., S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology Impacts
and Management. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications, 2001.
NOAA’s Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. “NOAA in Your State:
Maryland.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce. 2010. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/NIYS/ (1
March 2010).
Nowaczek, A.M., C.M. Moran-Cahusac and D.A. Fennell. “Against the Current: Striving
for Ethical Ecotourism.” In Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a
Complex Tourism Phenomenon, edited by J. Higham, 136-157. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier Ltd., 2007.
Orams, M.B. “Toward a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism.” Tourism Management
16, no. 1 (1995): 3-8.
Pastorok, R.A., A. MacDonald, J.R. Sampson, P. Wilber, D.J. Yozzo and J.P. Titre. “An
Ecological Decision Framework for Environmental Restoration Projects.”
Ecological Engineering 9, no. 1-2 (1997): 89-107.
Powledge, F. “Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A Model of What?” BioScience 55, no. 12
(2005): 1032-1038.
Roni, P., M.C. Liermann, C. Jordan, and E.A. Steel. “Steps for Designing a Monitoring
and Evaluation Program for Aquatic Restoration.” in Monitoring Stream and
Watershed Restoration, ed. P. Roni, 13-34. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries
Society, 2005.
Sinclair, M.T. and M. Stabler. The Economics of Tourism. London: Routledge, 1997.

 

85

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. “The
SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration.” 2004. Tucson: Society for
Ecological Restoration International. http://www.ser.org (13 Feb 2010).
van Diggelen, R., A.P. Grootjans and J.A. Harris. “Ecological Restoration: State of the
Art or State of the Science?” Restoration Ecology 9, no. 2 (2001): 115-118.
Visit Baltimore. “About Us.” Visit Baltimore. 2010.
http://baltimore.org/misc/uploads/mediapdfs/about%20us.pdf (22 April 2010).
Visit Baltimore. “About Us: Baltimore, a bustling city built on tradition and civic pride,
is an American success story.” Visit Baltimore. 2010. http://baltimore.org/aboutbaltimore (22 April 2010).
Wagner, G.M. “Coral Reefs and Their Management in Tanzania.” Western Indian Ocean
J. Mar. Sci. 3, no. 2 (2004): 227-243.
World Travel and Tourism Council. “Tourism Impact Data and Forecasts.” 2007.
http://www.wttc/org/eng/Tourism_Research/Tourism_Economic_Research/ (2 Feb
2009).
Wunder, Sven. “Ecotourism and Economic Incentives—an Empirical Approach.”
Ecological Economics 32 (2000): 465-477.
Zeimer, R.F.. W.N. Musser, and R.C. Hill. “Recreation Demand Equations: Functional
Form and Consumer Surplus.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62,
no. 1 (1980): 136-141.

86  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPENDICES

 

87

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name

City

State

Fort McHenry
Wetlands
Restoration

Baltimore

MD

Patuxent River
SAV Restoration

California

MD

Portsmouth

VA

Norfolk

VA

St. Mary's
City

MD

Baltimore

MD

Rockhall

MD

Elizabeth River
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Lafayette River
Oyster Reef
Restoration
St. Mary's River
SAV Restoration,
2 sites
Fort Carroll
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Eastern Neck
Saltmarsh
Restoration &
Monitoring

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

12/1/1998

5/1/2000

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/23/1997

9/30/1998

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/1998

7/15/1998

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/1999

7/1/2000

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/1996

12/1/1997

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/1995

12/31/1999

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2000

7/1/2000

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.

 

88

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name

City

State

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Educational

Implementation
Complete

2/1/2000

3/5/2001

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2000

7/30/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/14/2000

10/18/2000

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2000

9/30/2001

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/2000

8/30/2001

Bay Grasses in
Classes Maryland 2000
Delmarva Coastal
Bay Oyster
Sanctuary
Back Creek
Eelgrass
Restoration

Denton

MD

near Ocean
City

MD

Hampton

VA

Ocean City Reef
Restoration

Ocean City

MD

Langley Oyster
Restoration

Hampton

VA

Maryland/Virginia
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Projects Patuxent River

Solomons

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/1999

6/30/2000

Nanticoke River
Oyster Project

Nanticoke

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

2/1/2001

9/30/2001

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

89

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Barren Island
Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Maryland/Virginia
Oyster Reef
Restoration
Projects Elizabeth River
Anacostia
Floodplain
Habitat
Restoration
Chino Farms Fish
Passage
Restoration
Hidden Pond
Restoration
Project
Horsehead
Wetlands Center
Habitat
Restoration

City

State

Barren Island

MD

Portsmouth

VA

College Park

MD

Chestertown

MD

Annapolis

MD

Grasonville

MD

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/4/2001

9/30/2005

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/1999

7/30/2000

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/7/2001

7/3/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2000

7/31/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

8/1/2001

10/31/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2000

9/1/2002

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

90

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Lynnhaven River
Oyster
Restoration
Oyster Recovery
Partnership
Restoration Severn River
Patuxent River
Bay Grass and
Oyster
Restoration Neale Addition
Oyster Bar
Shirley Plantation
SAV Restoration
Virginia Bay
Oyster Reef and
SAV Restoration
Bellevue Marsh
Creation and
Shoreline
Restoration

City

State

Virginia
Beach

VA

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration

Annapolis

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Hollywood

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Charles City

VA

VA

Bellevue

MD

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2001

9/30/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2001

11/30/2001

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2001

6/30/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/2002

3/1/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2001

9/30/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2001

6/30/2002

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

91

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name

City

State

Chincoteague

VA

Pocomoke

MD

St. Inigoes

MD

Heathsville

VA

Kinsale

VA

Rock Hall

MD

Eastern Neck
Wetland
Restoration

Queenstown

MD

Truxtun Park
Restoration

Annapolis

MD

Assateague
Channel Oyster
Reef Restoration
Chincoteague Bay
Shellfish
Restoration
US Navy Webster
Field Restoration
Northumberland
Marshgrass
Planting Project
Westmoreland
Oyster Heritage
Program
Upper Bay Reef
Sanctuary

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2002

10/1/2002

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2002

3/31/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2003

9/1/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2002

9/30/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/15/2003

6/15/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2002

12/31/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/15/2002

4/14/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2002

6/30/2003

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

92

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project
Type

Project Status

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2002

4/1/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/2/2002

4/22/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2003

2/29/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2002

9/30/2005

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Planning
and
Assessment

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2002

1/20/2005

College Park

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/20/2002

5/19/2003

Saint
Michaels

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/30/2002

11/6/2004

Project Name

City

State

Smith Island
Center Education

Ewell

MD

Lower Nanticoke
SAV Restoration

Cambridge

MD

Return to Paradise
Creek

Chesapeake

VA

Octoraro Fish
Passage

Rising Sun

MD

Woolen Mills
Dam (VA)
Removal Analysis
Anacostia
Floodplain
Habitat
Restoration Phase II
Chesapeake Bay
Mini Oyster Reef
Project - Miles
River

Charlottesville

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

93

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Cobb Island Bay
SAV Restoration
South River
Oyster and SAV
Restoration
Restoration of
Mesohaline SAV
Through
Community-based
Projects in the
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
SAV Restoration:
Baywide
Coordination and
Technology
Transfer
Chesapeake Bay
Foundation
Citizen Oyster
Gardening
Program

City

State

Virginia
Beach

VA

Annapolis

MD

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

1/1/2003

10/30/2003

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2002

9/30/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2003

10/31/2005

Centreville

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Annapolis

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Planning
and
Assessment

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2004

9/30/2004

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2003

6/30/2004

Annapolis

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

94

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Central
Rappahannock
Spawning Habitat
Restoration
Project
Foxwells Wetland
Restoration

City

Stafford

State

Project
Program

Project
Type

Project Status

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2003

9/30/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/15/2003

6/30/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2006

11/30/2006

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2003

10/31/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

8/1/2003

5/31/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2003

9/16/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/22/2004

10/15/2004

Foxwells

VA

Delmarva Coastal
Wetland
Restoration
VIrginia Eastern
Shore SAV
Restoration
Turner Station
Turning Points
Project

Vienna

MD

Wachapreague

VA

Baltimore

MD

Chester River
Wetlands Project

Chester

MD

Chesapeake

VA

Paradise Creek
Oyster Reef
Restoration

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

95

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Chalk Point Oil
Spill - Kitts Marsh
Oyster Sanctuary
Chalk Point Oil
Spill Marsh/Beach
Project
Salisbury
Shoreline
Restoration
Project
Chesapeake Bay
Mini Oyster Reef
Project - Magothy
River
Chesapeake Bay
Mini Oyster Reefs
Project - 5 sites
Oyster Recovery
Partnership
Restoration Patuxent River

City

State

Project
Program

Project
Type

Project Status

Adelina

MD

DARRP

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

8/15/2003

8/31/2007

Trent Hall

MD

DARRP

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2005

9/30/2005

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2006

5/31/2007

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2002

8/20/2003

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2002

10/12/2004

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2001

11/30/2001

Salisbury

Cape St.
Claire

Eastport

Benedict

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

96

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Oyster Recovery
Partnership
Restoration Choptank River
Patuxent River
Bay Grass and
Oyster
Restoration - Jug
Bay SAV
Restoration
Harrisonburg
Dam Removal
Horsehead
Wetland
Restoration Phase
II
Chesapeake Bay
Mini Oyster Reef
Project - Kent
Island
Oyster Recovery
Partnership
Restoration Magothy River

City

State

Project
Program

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Cambridge

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2001

11/30/2001

Hollywood

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2001

6/30/2002

Harrisonburg

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2004

10/31/2004

Grasonville

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2004

6/15/2004

Kent Island

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2002

9/25/2003

Lake Shore

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/1/2001

11/30/2001

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

97

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
South River
Living Shoreline
Project
Amos Garrett
Park Shoreline
Restoration
Project
Northumberland
Marshgrass
Planting Project
2004
Sandy Point
Ecosystem
Restoration
Project
Patapsco River
Living Shoreline
Project
Hollicutt's Noose
Reefball/Oyster
Reef Restoration
Chesapeake Bay
Underwater
Grasses Research
Study

Project
Type

Project Status

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/2004

3/31/2007

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2004

8/31/2004

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2003

7/26/2004

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Project
Terminated

Restoration

Project
Terminated

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2006

10/31/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

8/1/2004

City

State

Annapolis

MD

Annapolis

Lewisetta

Solomons

Baltimore

MD

Grasonville

MD

Grasonville

MD

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

98

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name

City

State

Pocomoke City
Restoration

Pocomoke
City

MD

Havre de Grace
Restoration

Havre de
Grace

MD

Easton

MD

Mayo

MD

Galesville

MD

St. Mary's
City

MD

Norfolk

VA

Pickering Creek
Buffer Restoration
Rhode River
Oyster
Restoration
West and Rhode
River Oyster
Restoration
St. Mary's River
Living Shorelines
Project
Hermitage
Foundation Living
Shorelines Project
Barren Island
Tidal Wetland
Restoration Phase
2

Barren Island

MD

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Project
Terminated

6/1/2004

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/2004

8/30/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2004

7/31/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

11/1/2004

4/30/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2006

8/31/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2005

9/25/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

12/1/2005

5/31/2006

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2005

10/1/2005

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

99

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Back Creek
Nature Park
Living Shorelines
Project
Living Shoreline
Wave Attenuation
Study
Jefferson
Patterson Park
Living Shorelines
Outreach Project
US Navy Webster
Field Restoration
Phase II
Pittsburgh Plate &
Glass (PPG) Dam
Removal
Chesapeake Bay
Foundation Oyster
Restoration
Activities - MD
Mill Creek
Tributary at Dull's
Corner

City

State

Project
Program

Project
Type

Project Status

Annapolis

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2005

Cambridge

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Research

Implementation
Stage

7/1/2005

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Educational

Implementation
Complete

6/1/2005

12/30/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/14/2005

6/14/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/1/2006

11/1/2007

9/30/2005

St. Leonard

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

St. Inigoes

MD

Cumberland

MD

Shady Side

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

5/1/2004

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Project
Terminated

7/15/2005

Annapolis

9/30/2005

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

100

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name

City

State

West River Center
Living Shorelines
Project

West River

MD

Sharptown Living
Shorelines Project

Sharptown

MD

Annapolis

MD

Saint
Michaels

MD

Accokeek

MD

Cape Charles

VA

Chester

MD

St. John's College
Living Shoreline
Restoration
Project
San Domingo
Creek Living
Shoreline Project
Piscataway Park
Living Shorelines
Project
Cape Charles
Town Beach
Living Shoreline
Project
Queen's Landing
Living Shoreline
Project

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Project
Type

Project Status

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/15/2005

7/31/2007

Engineering
and Design

Implementation
Complete

1/1/2006

6/29/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2005

8/15/2006

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

10/1/2005

7/31/2007

Engineering
and Design

Implementation
Complete

2/1/2006

5/31/2007

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/22/2006

3/22/2007

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

2/1/2006

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

101

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project
Type

Project Status

Research

Implementation
Stage

1/1/2006

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

9/26/2005

4/30/2006

Marine
Debris

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

7/1/2006

12/31/2007

MD

Marine
Debris

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

10/1/2006

Benedict

MD

DARRP

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

6/13/2006

6/13/2006

Cambridge

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2006

2/28/2007

Project Name

City

State

Living Shorelines
Research Project

Cambridge

MD

Annapolis

MD

Baltimore

MD

Severn River
Oyster
Restoration
CommunityBased Marine
Debris Prevention
and Removal in
Baltimore,
Maryland
Trash Free
Potomac
Watershed
Initiative
Chalk Point
Marsh and Beach
Restoration NOAA
Restoration Day
Activities
Blackwater River
Stewart's Canal
Project

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

102

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Almshouse Creek
Living Shoreline
Project
Spaniards Point
Living Shoreline
Project
Northeast Branch
Anacostia Fish
Passage
Almshouse Creek
Living Shorelines
- Beach 5 Site
Eastern Neck
Wetland Creation
and Monitoring
Hull Springs Farm
Living Shoreline
Project
Marine Debris
Prevention and
Removal in the
Chesapeake and
Maryland Coastal
Bays

City

State

Edgewater

MD

Centreville

MD

Beltsville

MD

Edgewater

MD

Queenstown

MD

Kinsale

VA

Baltimore

MD

Project
Program
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Marine
Debris

Project
Type

Project Status

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

3/16/2006

Engineering
and Design

Implementation
Stage

1/22/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

12/1/2005

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

8/9/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

6/1/2007

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

8/1/2008

Restoration

Planning Stage

6/6/2007

6/3/2007

4/30/2007

8/31/2009

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis. (Continued)

 

103

Appendix 1: NOAA ecological restoration project locations plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.
Project Name
Turners Creek
(Sassafras River)
Living Shoreline
Project
Trinity Church
Living Shoreline
Project
Simkins Dam
Removal Project
Adaptive
Approach to
Enhance Eastern
Oyster in the
Piankatank River
of Chesapeake
Bay, VA
Lynnhaven River
Oyster Reef
Restoration

City

State

Project
Program

Project
Type

Project Status

MD

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Stage

12/1/2006

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

12/1/2006

Engineering
and Design

Implementation
Stage

4/1/2008

Communitybased
Restoration
Communitybased
Restoration

Implementation Implementation
Start Date
End Date

Church Creek

MD

Woodlawn

MD

Deltaville

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

4/1/2006

12/31/2007

VA

Communitybased
Restoration

Restoration

Implementation
Complete

8/1/2006

5/31/2008

Virginia
Beach

6/21/2008

Appendix 1: Maryland-Virginia NOAA ecological restoration project locations clipped from complete Chesapeake Bay NOAA restoration
project locations and plotted using ArcGIS v9.3 for spatial analysis.

 

104

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Adkins Arboretum
Anacostia Community
Park
Anacostia Park
Annapolis and Anne
Arundel Co.
Information Center
Annapolis Maritime
Museum
Balitmore Visitor
Center
Baltimore and
Annapolis Trail
Battle Creek Cypress
Swamp
Belle Isle State Park
Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge
Bladensburg Waterfront
Park
C&O Canal National
Historic Park (HQ)
Caledon Natural Area

12610 Eveland Road

Ridgely

MD

GATEWAY
TYPE
21660 Gateway Site

First Street and Potomac Ave SE

Washington

DC

20003 Gateway Site

1900 Anacostia Drive SE

Washington

DC

20020 Gateway Site

26 West Street

Annapolis

MD

21403

133 Bay Shore Drive

Annapolis

MD

21403 Gateway Site

401 Light Street

Baltimore

MD

21201

51 West Earleigh Heights Road

Severna Park

MD

2880 Gray Road

Prince Frederick

MD

20678 Gateway Site

1632 Belle Isle Road

Lancaster

VA

22503 Gateway Site

2431 Key Wallace Drive

Cambridge

MD

21613 Gateway Site

4601 Annapolis Road

Bladensburg

MD

20710 Gateway Site

1850 Duel Hwy

Hagerstown

MD

21740 Gateway Site

11617 Caledon Road

King George

VA

22485 Gateway Site

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub
Gateway Land
21146
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

 

105

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Calvert Cliffs State
Park
Calvert Marine
Museum
Cape Charles Historic
District
Captain Salem Avery
House Museum
Chemung Basin River
Trail
Chesapeake Bay Center
(at First Landing State
Park)
Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Center

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

9500 H.G. Truman Hwy

Lusby

MD

20657 Gateway Site

14200 Solomons Island Road

Solomons

MD

20688 Gateway Site

Cape Charles

VA

23310 Gateway Site

1418 EW Shady Side Road

Shady Side

MD

20764 Gateway Site

5 W Market Street

Corning

NY

14830

Gateway Water
Trail

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia Beach

VA

23451

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub

600 Discovery Lane

Grasonville

MD

21638 Gateway Site

Chesapeake Bay
Maritime Museum

Navy Point

St. Michaels

MD

21663

Chesapeake Bay
Railway Museum

4155 Mears Ave

Chesapeake Beach

MD

20732 Gateway Site

Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, UMCES

1 Williams Street

Solomons

MD

20688 Gateway Site

Chester

MD

21619

Chesapeake Exploration
425 Piney Narrows Road
Center

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

106

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Chickahominy
Riverfront Park
Chippokes Plantation
State Park
Choptank & Tuckahoe
Rivers Water Trail
Concord Point
Lighthouse

ADDRESS

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

1350 John Tyler Hwy

Williamsburg

VA

23185 Gateway Site

695 Chippokes Park Road

Surry

VA

23883 Gateway Site

10215 River Landing Road

Denton

MD

21629

Concord and Lafayette Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078 Gateway Site

Centreville

MD

21617

Tilghman Island

MD

21671 Gateway Site

Chesterfield

VA

23832 Gateway Site

Virginia Beach

VA

23450

1730 Eastern Neck Road

Rock Hall

MD

Gateway Water
Trail
21661 Gateway Site

5003 Hallett Circle

Cape Charles

VA

23310 Gateway Site

508 City Hall Building

Norfolk

VA

23510

4395 Turkey Point Road

North East

MD

Cross Island Trail
Dogwood Harbor, At
Tilghman Island
Dutch Gap
Conservation Area
Eastern Branch
Elizabeth Water Trail
Eastern Neck State Park
Eastern Shore of
Virgina National
Wildlife Refuge
Elizabeth River Trail Atlantic City Spur
Elk Neck State Park

CITY

411 Coxendale Road

Gateway Water
Trail

Gateway Land
Trail

Gateway Land
Trail
21901 Gateway Site

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

107

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Fells Point Historic
District
Fells Point Maritime
Museum
First Landing State Park
Flag Ponds Nature Park
Fort McHenry National
Monument and Historic
Shrine
Fort Washington Park
Frederick DouglasIsaac Myers Maritime
Park
Galesville Heritage
Society Museum
Geddes-Piper House
George Washington
Birthplace NM
Gloucester Point Park
Great Bridge Lock Park
Great Falls Park
Greenwell State Park

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

812 S. Ann Street

Baltimore

MD

21231 Gateway Site

1724 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231 Gateway Site

2500 Shore Drive
1525 Flags Pond Parkway

Virginia Beach
Lusby

VA
MD

23451 Gateway Site
20675 Gateway Site

E. Fort Avenue

Baltimore

MD

21230 Gateway Site

13551 Fort Washington Road

Fort Washington

MD

20744 Gateway Site

1417 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231 Gateway Site

988 Main Street

Galesville

MD

20765 Gateway Site

101 Church Alley

Chestertown

MD

21620 Gateway Site

1732 Popes Creek Road

Washington Birthplace

VA

22333 Gateway Site

1255 Greate Road
112 Mann Drive
9200 Old Dominion Drive
25420 Rosedale Manor Lane

Gloucester Point
Chesapeake
McLean
Hollywood

VA
VA
VA
MD

23062
23322
22101
20636

Gateway Site
Gateway Site
Gateway Site
Gateway Site

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

108

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Gunpowder Falls State
Park
Gwynns Falls Trail and
Greenway
Havre de Grace Decoy
Museum

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

2813 Jerusalem Road

Kingsville

MD

21087 Gateway Site

1920 Eagle Drive

Baltimore

MD

21207

215 Giles Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078 Gateway Site

Headwaters River Trail

78 Front Street

Owego

NY

13827

Historic Annapolis
Gateway-City Dock

Dock Street

Annapolis

MD

21401 Gateway Site

839 Londontown Road

Edgewater

MD

21037 Gateway Site

Off Route 5

St. Mary's City

MD

20686 Gateway Site

5410 Twin Pines Road

Portsmouth

VA

23703 Gateway Site

3701 Lockheed Blvd

Alexandria

VA

22306 Gateway Site

3 ninth Street

Crisfield

MD

21817 Gateway Site

Virgina Street

Urbanna

VA

23175 Gateway Site

W Terminus of the Colonial Pkwy
26280 Alfred Lawson Dr.

Jamestown
Crisfield

VA
MD

23081 Gateway Site
21817 Gateway Site

Historic London Town
and Garden
Historic St. Mary's City
Hoffler Creek Wildlife
Preserve
Huntley Meadows Park
J. Millard Tawes
Museum & Ward Bros.
Workshop
James Mills Scottish
Factor Store
Jamestown Island
Janes Island State Park

Gateway Land
Trail

Gateway Water
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

109

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

Jefferson Patterson Park
10515 Mackall Road
and Museum

St. Leonard

MD

Jones Falls Trail

Baltimore

MD

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

20685 Gateway Site

Juniata Water Trail

702 W Pitt Street, Suite 8

Bedford

PA

Kings Landing Park
Kiptopeke State Park
Lawrence Lewis, Jr.
Park
Leesylvania State Park
Lightship Chesapeake
& 7 Foot Knoll
Lighthouse
Lower James River
Water Trail
Mariners' Museum
Marshy Point Park
Martinak State Park
Mason Neck State Park
Mason Neck Wildlife
Refuge
Matthews Blueways
Water Trail

3255 Kings Landing Road
3540 Kiptopeke Drive

Huntingtown
Cape Charles

MD
VA

Gateway Land
Trail
Gateway Water
15522
Trail
20639 Gateway Site
23310 Gateway Site

12400/12508 Willcox Wharf Road

Charles City

VA

23020 Gateway Site

2001 Daniel K. Ludwig Drive

Woodbridge

VA

22191 Gateway Site

Pier 3&5 Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202 Gateway Site

Mechanicsville

VA

23111

100 Museum Drive
7130 Marshy Point Road
137 Deep Shore Road
7301 High Point Road

Newport News
Baltimore
Denton
Lorton

VA
MD
MD
VA

23606
21220
21629
22079

High Point Road

Lorton

VA

22079 Gateway Site

Matthews

VA

23109

21201

Gateway Water
Trail
Gateway Site
Gateway Site
Gateway Site
Gateway Site

Gateway Water
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

110

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Matthews Co. Visitors
and Information Center
Mattoponi &
Pamaunkey Water Trail
Maury River Water
Trail
Merkle Wildlife
Sanctuary
Monocacy River Water
Trail
Mount Harmon
Plantation
Myrtle Point Park
Nassawango Creek
Preserve-Furnace Town
Nathan of Dorchester
National Aquarium in
Baltimore
Nauticus, National
Maritime Center
North Point State Park
Occoquan Bay National
Wildlife Refuge

ADDRESS
12 Chursch Street

CITY

STATE

GATEWAY
TYPE
Gateway Regional
23109
Info Center or Hub
ZIP

Matthews

VA

Walkerton

VA

150 South Main Street

Lexington

VA

11704 Fenno Road

Upper Marlboro

MD

20772 Gateway Site

47 South Carroll Street

Frederick

MD

21705

600 Mount Harmon Road

Earleville

MD

21919 Gateway Site

24032-24069 N. Patuxent Beach Road

California City

MD

20619 Gateway Site

3816 Old Furnace Road

Snow Hill

MD

21863 Gateway Site

Long Wharf and High Street

Cambridge

MD

21613 Gateway Site

Pier 3, 501 East Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202 Gateway Site

1 Waterside Drive

Norfolk

VA

23510 Gateway Site

9000 Bay Shore Road

Edgemere

MD

21219 Gateway Site

14050 Dawson Beach Road

Woodbridge

VA

22191 Gateway Site

Gateway Water
Trail
Gateway Water
24450
Trail
23177

Gateway Water
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

111

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Occoquan Water Trail
Pamunkey Indian
Reservation
Parkers Creek
(American Chestnut
Land Trust)
Patapsco Valley State
Park
Patuxent Research
Refuge, Visitor Center
Patuxent River Park,
Jug Bay Natural Area
Pemberton Historical
Park
Pickering Creek
Audubon Center
Piney Point Lighthouse
Museum and Park
Piscataway Park
Pocomoke River State
Forest&Park
Point Lookout State
Park

ADDRESS
5400 Ox Road

CITY

STATE

GATEWAY
TYPE
Gateway Water
22039
Trail
ZIP

Fairfax Station

VA

King William

VA

23086 Gateway Site

Scientist Cliffs Road

Port Republic

MD

20676 Gateway Site

8020 Baltimore National Pike

Ellicott City

MD

21043 Gateway Site

10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop

Laurel

MD

20708 Gateway Site

16000 Croom Airport Road

Upper Marlboro

MD

20772 Gateway Site

Pemberton Drive and Naticoke Road

Salisbury

MD

21801 Gateway Site

11450 Audubon Lane

Easton

MD

21601 Gateway Site

44720 Lighthouse Road

Piney Point

MD

20674 Gateway Site

3400 Bryan Point Road

Accokeek

MD

20607 Gateway Site

3461 Worcester Hwy

Snow Hill

MD

21863 Gateway Site

1175 Point Lookout Road

Scotland

MD

20687 Gateway Site

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

112

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Potomac Gateways
Welcome Center
Potomac River Water
Trail (end)
Powhatan Creek
Blueway
Pride of Baltimore II
Rappahannock River
Valley Nat. Wildlife
Refuge
Rappahannock River
Water Trail
Reedville Fishermen's
Museum
Richardson Maritime
Museum
Riverbend Park
Riviannna River Water
Trail
Rock Creek Park
Sailwinds Visitor
Center
Sandy Point State Park

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE
Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub
Gateway Water
Trail
Gateway Water
Trail
Gateway Site

3540 James Madison Pkwy, Hwy 301

King George

VA

22485

1175 Point Lookout Road

Scotland

MD

20687

1831 Jamestown Road

Williamsburg

VA

23185

401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 222

Baltimore

MD

21202

336 Wilna Road

Warsaw

VA

22572 Gateway Site

Fredericksburg

VA

22404

504 Main Street

Reedville

VA

22539 Gateway Site

401 High Street

Cambridge

MD

21613 Gateway Site

8700 Potomac Hills Street

Great Falls

VA

Palmyra

VA

5200 Glover Road NW

Washington

DC

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

1100 East College Parkway

Annapolis

MD

22066 Gateway Site
Gateway Water
22963
Trail
20015 Gateway Site
Gateway Regional
21613
Info Center or Hub
21409 Gateway Site

Gateway Water
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

113

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Sassafrass NRMA &
Turner's Creek Park
Schooner Sultana
Scotterly Plantation
Sesquehanna Museum
at Havre de Grace

ADDRESS

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

Turner's Creek Road

Kennedyville

MD

21645 Gateway Site

Cannon Street Dock
44300 Scotterly Lane

Chestertown
Hollywood

MD
MD

21620 Gateway Site
20636 Gateway Site

817 Conesteo Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078 Gateway Site

Harrisburg

PA

17101

651 Montmorenci Road

Ridgeway

PA

3318 Rocks Chrome Hill Road

Jarrettsville

MD

Gateway Water
Trail
21084 Gateway Site

350 Daughter of Stars Drive

Bentonville

VA

22610 Gateway Site

2750 Sweeden Point Road
12806 Caleb Jones Road

Marbury
Ewell

MD
MD

20658 Gateway Site
21824 Gateway Site

647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater

MD

21037 Gateway Site

14175 Solomons Island Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Hwy 28 and Hwy 33

Seneca Rocks

WV

26884 Gateway Site

Sesquehanna River
Water Trail (mid)
Sesquehanna River
Water Trail (west)
Sesquehanna State Park
Shenandoah River State
Park
Smallwood State Park
Smith Island Center
Smithsonian
Environmental
Research Center
Solomons Visitor
Information Center
Spruce Knob-Seneca
Rocks National
Recreation Area

CITY

Gateway Water
Trail

15853

Gateway Regional
Info Center or Hub

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

114

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
St. Clement's Island
Potomac River Museum
Steamboat Era Museum
Stratford Hall
Plantation
Sturgis Memorial
Gateway
Swatara Creek Water
Trail
Terrapin Park
Underground Railroad
Scenic Byway (Driving
Route)
USS Constitution
Museum
Virginia Eastern Shore
Water Trails
Virginia Living
Museum
Ward Museum of
Wildfowl Art
Washington Ferry Farm
Watermen's Museum

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

38370 Point Breeze Road

Colton's Point

MD

20626 Gateway Site

156 King Carter Drive

Irvington

VA

22480 Gateway Site

483 Great House Road

Stratford

VA

22558 Gateway Site

River and Washington Street

Snow Hill

MD

21863 Gateway Site

2501 Cumberland Street

Lebanon

PA

17402

191 Log Canoe Circle

Stevensville

MD

Gateway Water
Trail
21666 Gateway Site

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

301 E. Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202 Gateway Site

22545 Center Parkway

Accomac

VA

23301

524 J. Clyde Morris Blvd

Newport News

VA

23601 Gateway Site

909 S. Schumaker Drive

Salisbury

MD

21804 Gateway Site

268 Kings Hwy
309 Water Street

Fredericksburg
Yorktown

VA
VA

22405 Gateway Site
23690 Gateway Site

Gateway Land
Trail

Gateway Water
Trail

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Continued)

 

115

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted for spatial analysis.
NAME
Westmoreland State
Park
Wharves at Choptank
Crossing
Wye Grist Mill
Wye Island Natural
Resource Management
Area
York River State Park
Yorktown Visitor
Center and Battlefield

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP

GATEWAY
TYPE

1650 State Park Road

Montross

VA

22520 Gateway Site

12019 Riverlanding Road

Denton

MD

21629 Gateway Site

14296 Old Wye Mills Road

Wye Mills

MD

21679 Gateway Site

632 Wye Island Road

Queenstown

MD

21658 Gateway Site

5526 Riverview Road

Williamsburg

VA

23188 Gateway Site

Eastern Terminus, Colonial Pkwy

Yorktown

VA

23690 Gateway Site

Appendix 2: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism sites plotted using ArgGIS v9.3 for the spatial analysis of ecotourism-ecological
restoration collaboration opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

 

116

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Annapolis and Anne Arundel Co.
Information Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

26 West Street

Annapolis

MD

21403

Balitmore Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

401 Light Street

Baltimore

MD

21201

Chesapeake Bay Center (at First
Landing State Park)

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia
Beach

VA

23451

Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

Navy Point

St. Michaels

MD

216630

Chesapeake Exploration Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

425 Piney Narrows Road

Chester

MD

21619

Sailwinds Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

Solomons Visitor Information
Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

14175 Solomons Island Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Anacostia Community Park

Gateway Site

First Street and Potomac Ave
S.E.

Washington

DC

20003

Anacostia Park

Gateway Site

1900 Anacostia Drive S.E.

Washington

DC

20020

Annapolis Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

133 Bay Shore Drive

Annapolis

MD

21403

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.

 

117

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Prince
Battle Creek Cypress Swamp
Gateway Site
2880 Gray Road
MD
20678
Frederick
Bladensburg Waterfront Park

Gateway Site

4601 Annapolis Road

Bladensburg

MD

20710

Calvert Cliffs State Park

Gateway Site

9500 H.G. Truman Hwy

Lusby

MD

20657

Calvert Marine Museum

Gateway Site

14200 Solomons Island Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Cape Charles Historic District
Captain Salem Avery House
Museum
Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Center
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
UMCES

Gateway Site

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Gateway Site

1418 EW Shady Side Road

Shady Side

MD

20764

Gateway Site

600 Discovery Lane

Grasonville

MD

21638

Gateway Site

1 Williams Street

Solomons

MD

206880

Concord Point Lighthouse

Gateway Site

Concord and Lafayette Street

Havre de
Grace

MD

210780

Eastern Neck State Park

Gateway Site

1730 Eastern Neck Road

Rock Hall

MD

21661

Fells Point Historic District

Gateway Site

812 S. Ann Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

Fells Point Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

1724 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

First Landing State Park

Gateway Site

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia
Beach

VA

23451

Flag Ponds Nature Park

Gateway Site

1525 Flags Pond Parkway

Lusby

MD

206750

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

118

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Fort McHenry National Monument
Gateway Site
E. Fort Avenue
Baltimore
MD
21230
and Historic Shrine
13551 Fort Washington
Fort
Fort Washington Park
Gateway Site
MD
20744
Road
Washington
Frederick Douglas-Isaac Myers
Gateway Site
1417 Thames Street
Baltimore
MD
21231
Maritime Park
Galesville Heritage Society
Gateway Site
988 Main Street
Galesville
MD
20765
Museum
Greenwell State Park

Gateway Site

25420 Rosedale Manor Lane

Hollywood

MD

20636

Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

Gateway Site

215 Giles Street

Havre de
Grace

MD

21078

Historic Annapolis Gateway-City
Dock

Gateway Site

Dock Street

Annapolis

MD

21401

Historic London Town and Garden

Gateway Site

839 Londontown Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Historic St. Mary's City

Gateway Site

Off Route 5

St. Mary's
City

MD

206860

Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve

Gateway Site

5410 Twin Pines Road

Portsmouth

VA

23703

Huntley Meadows Park

Gateway Site

3701 Lockheed Blvd

Alexandria

VA

22306

Jefferson Patterson Park and
Museum

Gateway Site

10515 Mackall Road

St. Leonard

MD

20685

Kings Landing Park

Gateway Site

3255 Kings Landing Road

Huntingtown

MD

20639

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

119

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Lightship Chesapeake & 7 Foot
Gateway Site
Pier 3&5 Pratt Street
Baltimore
MD
21202
Knoll Lighthouse
Martinak State Park

Gateway Site

137 Deep Shore Road

Denton

MD

21629

Mount Harmon Plantation

Gateway Site

600 Mount Harmon Road

Earleville

MD

21919

Myrtle Point Park

Gateway Site

24032-24069 N. Patuxent
Beach Road

California
City

MD

20619

Nathan of Dorchester

Gateway Site

Long Wharf and High Street

Cambridge

MD

21613

National Aquarium in Baltimore

Gateway Site

Pier 3, 501 East Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202

Nauticus, National Maritime Center

Gateway Site

1 Waterside Drive

Norfolk

VA

23510

North Point State Park

Gateway Site

9000 Bay Shore Road

Edgemere

MD

21219

Patapsco Valley State Park

Gateway Site

8020 Baltimore National
Pike

Ellicott City

MD

21043

Patuxent Research Refuge, Visitor
Center

Gateway Site

10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop

Laurel

MD

20708

Pemberton Historical Park

Gateway Site

Pemberton Drive and
Naticoke Road

Salisbury

MD

21801

Pickering Creek Audubon Center

Gateway Site

11450 Audubon Lane

Easton

MD

21601

Piney Point Lighthouse Museum
and Park

Gateway Site

44720 Lighthouse Road

Piney Point

MD

20674

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

120

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Piscataway Park

Gateway Site

3400 Bryan Point Road

Accokeek

MD

20607

Pride of Baltimore II

Gateway Site

401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 222

Baltimore

MD

21202

Richardson Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

401 High Street

Cambridge

MD

21613

Sandy Point State Park

Gateway Site

1100 East College Parkway

Annapolis

MD

21409

Sassafrass NRMA & Turner's
Creek Park

Gateway Site

Turner's Creek Road

Kennedyville

MD

21645

Scotterly Plantation

Gateway Site

44300 Scotterly Lane

Hollywood

MD

20636

Sesquehanna Museum at Havre de
Grace

Gateway Site

817 Conesteo Street

Havre de
Grace

MD

21078

Smith Island Center

Gateway Site

12806 Caleb Jones Road

Ewell

MD

21824

Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center

Gateway Site

647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Terrapin Park

Gateway Site

191 Log Canoe Circle

Stevensville

MD

21666

USS Constitution Museum

Gateway Site

301 E. Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202

Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art

Gateway Site

909 S. Schumaker Drive

Salisbury

MD

21804

Wharves at Choptank Crossing

Gateway Site

12019 Riverlanding Road

Denton

MD

21629

Wye Grist Mill

Gateway Site

14296 Old Wye Mills Road

Wye Mills

MD

21679

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

121

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 5 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Wye Island Natural Resource
Gateway Site
632 Wye Island Road
Queenstown
MD
21658
Management Area
51 West Earleigh Heights
Baltimore and Annapolis Trail
Gateway Land Trail
Severna Park
MD
21146
Road
Cross Island Trail

Gateway Land Trail

Elizabeth River Trail - Atlantic City
Spur

Gateway Land Trail

Jones Falls Trail

Gateway Land Trail

Underground Railroad Scenic
Byway (Driving Route)
Choptank & Tuckahoe Rivers
Water Trail

508 City Hall Building

Centreville

MD

216170

Norfolk

VA

23510

Baltimore

MD

21201

Gateway Land Trail

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

Gateway Water Trail

10215 River Landing Road

Denton

MD

21629

Appendix 3: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 5 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.

 

122

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Annapolis and Anne Arundel Co.
Information Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

26 West Street

Annapolis

MD

21403

Balitmore Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

401 Light Street

Baltimore

MD

21201

Chesapeake Bay Center (at First
Landing State Park)

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia Beach

VA

23451

Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

Navy Point

St. Michaels

MD

216630

Chesapeake Exploration Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

425 Piney Narrows Road

Chester

MD

21619

Matthews Co. Visitors and
Information Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

12 Church Street

Matthews

VA

23109

Sailwinds Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

Solomons Visitor Information
Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

14175 Solomons Island
Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Gateway Site

12610 Eveland Road

Ridgely

MD

21660

Adkins Arboretum

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.

 

123

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
First Street and Potomac
Anacostia Community Park
Gateway Site
Washington
DC
20003
Ave S.E.
Anacostia Park

Gateway Site

1900 Anacostia Drive S.E.

Washington

DC

20020

Annapolis Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

133 Bay Shore Drive

Annapolis

MD

21403

Battle Creek Cypress Swamp

Gateway Site

2880 Gray Road

Prince Frederick

MD

20678

Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge

Gateway Site

2431 Key Wallace Drive

Cambridge

MD

21613

Bladensburg Waterfront Park

Gateway Site

4601 Annapolis Road

Bladensburg

MD

20710

Calvert Cliffs State Park

Gateway Site

9500 H.G. Truman Hwy

Lusby

MD

20657

Calvert Marine Museum

Gateway Site

14200 Solomons Island
Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Cape Charles Historic District
Captain Salem Avery House
Museum
Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Center
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
UMCES

Gateway Site

Concord Point Lighthouse

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Gateway Site

1418 EW Shady Side
Road

Shady Side

MD

20764

Gateway Site

600 Discovery Lane

Grasonville

MD

21638

Gateway Site

1 Williams Street

Solomons

MD

206880

Gateway Site

Concord and Lafayette
Street

Havre de Grace

MD

210780

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

124

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Dogwood Harbor, At Tilghman
Gateway Site
Tilghman Island
MD
216710
Island
Eastern Neck State Park

Gateway Site

1730 Eastern Neck Road

Rock Hall

MD

21661

Elk Neck State Park

Gateway Site

4395 Turkey Point Road

North East

MD

21901

Fells Point Historic District

Gateway Site

812 S. Ann Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

Fells Point Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

1724 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

First Landing State Park

Gateway Site

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia Beach

VA

23451

Flag Ponds Nature Park

Gateway Site

1525 Flags Pond Parkway

Lusby

MD

206750

Fort McHenry National Monument
and Historic Shrine

Gateway Site

E. Fort Avenue

Baltimore

MD

21230

Fort Washington Park

Gateway Site

13551 Fort Washington
Road

Fort Washington

MD

20744

Gateway Site

1417 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

Gateway Site

988 Main Street

Galesville

MD

20765

Gateway Site
Gateway Site

101 Church Alley
112 Mann Drive
25420 Rosedale Manor
Lane

Chestertown
Chesapeake

MD
VA

21620
23322

Hollywood

MD

20636

215 Giles Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078

Frederick Douglas-Isaac Myers
Maritime Park
Galesville Heritage Society
Museum
Geddes-Piper House
Great Bridge Lock Park
Greenwell State Park

Gateway Site

Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

Gateway Site

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

125

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Historic Annapolis Gateway-City
Gateway Site
Dock Street
Annapolis
MD
21401
Dock
Historic London Town and Garden

Gateway Site

839 Londontown Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Historic St. Mary's City

Gateway Site

Off Route 5

St. Mary's City

MD

206860

Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve

Gateway Site

5410 Twin Pines Road

Portsmouth

VA

23703

Huntley Meadows Park

Gateway Site

3701 Lockheed Blvd

Alexandria

VA

22306

Gateway Site

3 9th Street

Crisfield

MD

21817

Gateway Site

10515 Mackall Road

St. Leonard

MD

20685

Kings Landing Park

Gateway Site

3255 Kings Landing Road

Huntingtown

MD

20639

Kiptopeke State Park

Gateway Site

3540 Kiptopeke Drive

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Lawrence Lewis, Jr. Park

Gateway Site

12400/12508 Willcox
Wharf Road

Charles City

VA

23020

Lightship Chesapeake & 7 Foot
Knoll Lighthouse

Gateway Site

Pier 3&5 Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202

Martinak State Park

Gateway Site

137 Deep Shore Road

Denton

MD

21629

Mason Neck State Park

Gateway Site

7301 High Point Road

Lorton

VA

22079

Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge

Gateway Site

High Point Road

Lorton

VA

22079

J. Millard Tawes Museum & Ward
Bros. Workshop
Jefferson Patterson Park and
Museum

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)
 

126

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Mount Harmon Plantation

Gateway Site

600 Mount Harmon Road

Earleville

MD

21919

Myrtle Point Park

Gateway Site

24032-24069 N. Patuxent
Beach Road

California City

MD

20619

Nathan of Dorchester

Gateway Site

Cambridge

MD

21613

National Aquarium in Baltimore

Gateway Site

Baltimore

MD

21202

Nauticus, National Maritime Center

Gateway Site

Long Wharf and High
Street
Pier 3, 501 East Pratt
Street
1 Waterside Drive

Norfolk

VA

23510

North Point State Park

Gateway Site

9000 Bay Shore Road

Edgemere

MD

21219

Parkers Creek (American Chestnut
Land Trust)

Gateway Site

Scientist Cliffs Road

Port Republic

MD

20676

Patapsco Valley State Park

Gateway Site

Ellicott City

MD

21043

Patuxent Research Refuge, Visitor
Center

Gateway Site

Laurel

MD

20708

Pemberton Historical Park

Gateway Site

Salisbury

MD

21801

Pickering Creek Audubon Center

Gateway Site

11450 Audubon Lane

Easton

MD

21601

Piney Point Lighthouse Museum
and Park

Gateway Site

44720 Lighthouse Road

Piney Point

MD

20674

Piscataway Park

Gateway Site

3400 Bryan Point Road

Accokeek

MD

20607

8020 Baltimore National
Pike
10901 Scarlet Tanager
Loop
Pemberton Drive and
Naticoke Road

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

127

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Pocomoke River State Forest&Park

Gateway Site

3461 Worcester Hwy

Snow Hill

MD

21863

Point Lookout State Park

Gateway Site

1175 Point Lookout Road

Scotland

MD

20687

Pride of Baltimore II

Gateway Site

Richardson Maritime Museum

Baltimore

MD

21202

Gateway Site

401 E. Pratt Street, Suite
222
401 High Street

Cambridge

MD

21613

Rock Creek Park

Gateway Site

5200 Glover Road NW

Washington

DC

20015

Sandy Point State Park

Gateway Site

1100 East College
Parkway

Annapolis

MD

21409

Sassafrass NRMA & Turner's Creek
Park

Gateway Site

Turner's Creek Road

Kennedyville

MD

21645

Schooner Sultana

Gateway Site

Cannon Street Dock

Chestertown

MD

21620

Scotterly Plantation

Gateway Site

44300 Scotterly Lane

Hollywood

MD

20636

Sesquehanna Museum at Havre de
Grace

Gateway Site

817 Conesteo Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078

Smith Island Center

Gateway Site

12806 Caleb Jones Road

Ewell

MD

21824

Gateway Site

647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Gateway Site

38370 Point Breeze Road

Colton's Point

MD

20626

Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center
St. Clement's Island Potomac River
Museum

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

128

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Steamboat Era Museum

Gateway Site

156 King Carter Drive

Irvington

VA

22480

Terrapin Park

Gateway Site

191 Log Canoe Circle

Stevensville

MD

21666

USS Constitution Museum

Gateway Site

301 E. Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202

Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art

Gateway Site

909 S. Schumaker Drive

Salisbury

MD

21804

Wharves at Choptank Crossing

Gateway Site

12019 Riverlanding Road

Denton

MD

21629

Wye Grist Mill

Gateway Site

14296 Old Wye Mills
Road

Wye Mills

MD

21679

Wye Island Natural Resource
Management Area

Gateway Site

632 Wye Island Road

Queenstown

MD

21658

Baltimore and Annapolis Trail

Gateway Land Trail

51 West Earleigh Heights
Road

Severna Park

MD

21146

Cross Island Trail

Gateway Land Trail

Centreville

MD

216170

Elizabeth River Trail - Atlantic City
Spur

Gateway Land Trail

508 City Hall Building

Norfolk

VA

23510

Gwynns Falls Trail and Greenway

Gateway Land Trail

1920 Eagle Drive

Baltimore

MD

21207

Jones Falls Trail

Gateway Land Trail

Baltimore

MD

21201

Underground Railroad Scenic
Byway (Driving Route)

Gateway Land Trail

Cambridge

MD

21613

2 Rose Hill Place

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

129

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Choptank & Tuckahoe Rivers
10215 River Landing
Gateway Water Trail
Denton
MD
21629
Water Trail
Road
Eastern Branch Elizabeth Water
Gateway Water Trail
Virginia Beach
VA
234500
Trail
Matthews Blueways Water Trail

Gateway Water Trail

Potomac River Water Trail (end)

Gateway Water Trail

Rappahannock River Water Trail

Gateway Water Trail

1175 Point Lookout Road

Matthews

VA

23109

Scotland

MD

20687

Fredericksburg

VA

22404

Appendix 4: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 10 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.

 

130

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Annapolis and Anne Arundel Co.
Information Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

26 West Street

Annapolis

MD

21403

Balitmore Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

401 Light Street

Baltimore

MD

21201

Chesapeake Bay Center (at First
Landing State Park)

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia Beach

VA

23451

Chesapeake Bay Maritime
Museum

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

Navy Point

St. Michaels

MD

216630

Chesapeake Exploration Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

425 Piney Narrows Road

Chester

MD

21619

Matthews Co. Visitors and
Information Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

12 Church Street

Matthews

VA

23109

Sailwinds Visitor Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

Solomons Visitor Information
Center

Gateway Regional Info
Center or Hub

14175 Solomons Island
Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Adkins Arboretum

Gateway Site

12610 Eveland Road

Ridgely

MD

21660

Anacostia Community Park

Gateway Site

First Street and Potomac
Ave S.E.

Washington

DC

20003

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.

 

131

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
1900 Anacostia Drive
Anacostia Park
Gateway Site
Washington
DC
20020
S.E.
Annapolis Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

133 Bay Shore Drive

Annapolis

MD

21403

Battle Creek Cypress Swamp

Gateway Site

2880 Gray Road

Prince Frederick

MD

20678

Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge

Gateway Site

2431 Key Wallace Drive

Cambridge

MD

21613

Bladensburg Waterfront Park

Gateway Site

4601 Annapolis Road

Bladensburg

MD

20710

Calvert Cliffs State Park

Gateway Site

9500 H.G. Truman Hwy

Lusby

MD

20657

Calvert Marine Museum

Gateway Site

14200 Solomons Island
Road

Solomons

MD

20688

Cape Charles Historic District
Captain Salem Avery House
Museum
Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Center
Chesapeake Bay Railway Museum
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
UMCES

Gateway Site

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Gateway Site

1418 EW Shady Side
Road

Shady Side

MD

20764

Gateway Site

600 Discovery Lane

Grasonville

MD

21638

Gateway Site

4155 Mears Ave

Chesapeake Beach

MD

207320

Gateway Site

1 Williams Street

Solomons

MD

206880

Concord Point Lighthouse

Gateway Site

Concord and Lafayette
Street

Havre de Grace

MD

210780

Dogwood Harbor, At Tilghman
Island

Gateway Site

Tilghman Island

MD

216710

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

132

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Dutch Gap Conservation Area

Gateway Site

411 Coxendale Road

Chesterfield

VA

238320

Eastern Neck State Park

Gateway Site

1730 Eastern Neck Road

Rock Hall

MD

21661

Eastern Shore of Virgina National
Wildlife Refuge

Gateway Site

5003 Hallett Circle

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Elk Neck State Park

Gateway Site

4395 Turkey Point Road

North East

MD

21901

Fells Point Historic District

Gateway Site

812 S. Ann Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

Fells Point Maritime Museum

Gateway Site

1724 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

First Landing State Park

Gateway Site

2500 Shore Drive

Virginia Beach

VA

23451

Flag Ponds Nature Park

Gateway Site

1525 Flags Pond Parkway

Lusby

MD

206750

Fort McHenry National Monument
and Historic Shrine

Gateway Site

E. Fort Avenue

Baltimore

MD

21230

Fort Washington Park

Gateway Site

13551 Fort Washington
Road

Fort Washington

MD

20744

Gateway Site

1417 Thames Street

Baltimore

MD

21231

Gateway Site

988 Main Street

Galesville

MD

20765

Gateway Site

101 Church Alley

MD

21620

Gateway Site

1732 Popes Creek Road

VA

223330

Gateway Site

112 Mann Drive

Chestertown
Washingtons
Birthplace
Chesapeake

VA

23322

Frederick Douglas-Isaac Myers
Maritime Park
Galesville Heritage Society
Museum
Geddes-Piper House
George Washington Birthplace
NM
Great Bridge Lock Park

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

133

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
9200 Old Dominion
Great Falls Park
Gateway Site
McLean
VA
221010
Drive
25420 Rosedale Manor
Greenwell State Park
Gateway Site
Hollywood
MD
20636
Lane
Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

Gateway Site

215 Giles Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078

Historic Annapolis Gateway-City
Dock

Gateway Site

Dock Street

Annapolis

MD

21401

Historic London Town and Garden

Gateway Site

839 Londontown Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Historic St. Mary's City

Gateway Site

Off Route 5

St. Mary's City

MD

206860

Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve

Gateway Site

5410 Twin Pines Road

Portsmouth

VA

23703

Huntley Meadows Park

Gateway Site

3701 Lockheed Blvd

Alexandria

VA

22306

J. Millard Tawes Museum & Ward
Bros. Workshop
James Mills Scottish Factor Store

Gateway Site

3 9th Street

Crisfield

MD

21817

Gateway Site

Virginia Street

Urbanna

VA

23175

Janes Island State Park

Gateway Site

26280 Alfred Lawson Dr.

Crisfield

MD

21817

Jefferson Patterson Park and
Museum

Gateway Site

10515 Mackall Road

St. Leonard

MD

20685

Kings Landing Park

Gateway Site

3255 Kings Landing
Road

Huntingtown

MD

20639

Kiptopeke State Park

Gateway Site

3540 Kiptopeke Drive

Cape Charles

VA

23310

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

134

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
12400/12508 Willcox
Lawrence Lewis, Jr. Park
Gateway Site
Charles City
VA
23020
Wharf Road
2001 Daniel K. Ludwig
Leesylvania State Park
Gateway Site
Woodbridge
VA
221910
Drive
Lightship Chesapeake & 7 Foot
Gateway Site
Pier 3&5 Pratt Street
Baltimore
MD
21202
Knoll Lighthouse
Mariners' Museum

Gateway Site

100 Museum Drive

Newport News

VA

23606

Marshy Point Park

Gateway Site

7130 Marshy Point Road

Baltimore

MD

21220

Martinak State Park

Gateway Site

137 Deep Shore Road

Denton

MD

21629

Mason Neck State Park

Gateway Site

7301 High Point Road

Lorton

VA

22079

Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge

Gateway Site

High Point Road

Lorton

VA

22079

Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary

Gateway Site

11704 Fenno Road

Upper Marlboro

MD

20772

Mount Harmon Plantation

Gateway Site

600 Mount Harmon Road

Earleville

MD

21919

Myrtle Point Park

Gateway Site

24032-24069 N. Patuxent
Beach Road

California City

MD

20619

Nassawango Creek PreserveFurnace Town

Gateway Site

3816 Old Furnace Road

Snow Hill

MD

21863

Nathan of Dorchester

Gateway Site

Cambridge

MD

21613

National Aquarium in Baltimore

Gateway Site

Baltimore

MD

21202

Long Wharf and High
Street
Pier 3, 501 East Pratt
Street

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

135

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Nauticus, National Maritime
Gateway Site
1 Waterside Drive
Norfolk
VA
23510
Center
North Point State Park
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife
Refuge
Parkers Creek (American Chestnut
Land Trust)
Patapsco Valley State Park
Patuxent Research Refuge, Visitor
Center
Patuxent River Park, Jug Bay
Natural Area

Gateway Site

9000 Bay Shore Road

Edgemere

MD

21219

Gateway Site

14050 Dawson Beach
Road

Woodbridge

VA

22191

Gateway Site

Scientist Cliffs Road

Port Republic

MD

20676

Ellicott City

MD

21043

Laurel

MD

20708

Upper Marlboro

MD

20772

Salisbury

MD

21801

Gateway Site
Gateway Site
Gateway Site

8020 Baltimore National
Pike
10901 Scarlet Tanager
Loop
16000 Croom Airport
Road
Pemberton Drive and
Naticoke Road

Pemberton Historical Park

Gateway Site

Pickering Creek Audubon Center

Gateway Site

11450 Audubon Lane

Easton

MD

21601

Piney Point Lighthouse Museum
and Park

Gateway Site

44720 Lighthouse Road

Piney Point

MD

20674

Piscataway Park

Gateway Site

3400 Bryan Point Road

Accokeek

MD

20607

Pocomoke River State
Forest&Park

Gateway Site

3461 Worcester Hwy

Snow Hill

MD

21863

Point Lookout State Park

Gateway Site

1175 Point Lookout Road

Scotland

MD

20687

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

136

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
401 E. Pratt Street, Suite
Pride of Baltimore II
Gateway Site
Baltimore
MD
21202
222
Rappahannock River Valley Nat.
Gateway Site
336 Wilna Road
Warsaw
VA
22572
Wildlife Refuge
Richardson Maritime Museum
Gateway Site
401 High Street
Cambridge
MD
21613
Rock Creek Park

Gateway Site

5200 Glover Road NW

Washington

DC

20015

Sandy Point State Park

Gateway Site

1100 East College
Parkway

Annapolis

MD

21409

Sassafrass NRMA & Turner's
Creek Park

Gateway Site

Turner's Creek Road

Kennedyville

MD

21645

Schooner Sultana

Gateway Site

Cannon Street Dock

Chestertown

MD

21620

Scotterly Plantation

Gateway Site

44300 Scotterly Lane

Hollywood

MD

20636

Sesquehanna Museum at Havre de
Grace

Gateway Site

817 Conesteo Street

Havre de Grace

MD

21078

Smallwood State Park

Gateway Site

2750 Sweeden Point
Road

Marbury

MD

20658

Smith Island Center

Gateway Site

12806 Caleb Jones Road

Ewell

MD

21824

Gateway Site

647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater

MD

21037

Gateway Site

38370 Point Breeze Road

Colton's Point

MD

20626

Gateway Site

156 King Carter Drive

Irvington

VA

22480

Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center
St. Clement's Island Potomac
River Museum
Steamboat Era Museum

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

137

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Stratford Hall Plantation

Gateway Site

483 Great House Road

Stratford

VA

22558

Sturgis Memorial Gateway

Gateway Site

River and Washington
Street

Snow Hill

MD

21863

Terrapin Park

Gateway Site

191 Log Canoe Circle

Stevensville

MD

21666

USS Constitution Museum

Gateway Site

301 E. Pratt Street

Baltimore

MD

21202

Virginia Living Museum

Gateway Site

524 J. Clyde Morris Blvd

Newport News

VA

23601

Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art

Gateway Site

909 S. Schumaker Drive

Salisbury

MD

21804

Washington Ferry Farm

Gateway Site

268 Kings Hwy

Fredericksburg

VA

22405

Westmoreland State Park

Gateway Site

1650 State Park Road

Montross

VA

22520

Wharves at Choptank Crossing

Gateway Site

12019 Riverlanding Road

Denton

MD

21629

Wye Grist Mill

Gateway Site

14296 Old Wye Mills
Road

Wye Mills

MD

21679

Wye Island Natural Resource
Management Area

Gateway Site

632 Wye Island Road

Queenstown

MD

21658

Baltimore and Annapolis Trail

Gateway Land Trail

51 West Earleigh Heights
Road

Severna Park

MD

21146

Cross Island Trail

Gateway Land Trail

Centreville

MD

216170

Elizabeth River Trail - Atlantic
City Spur

Gateway Land Trail

Norfolk

VA

23510

508 City Hall Building

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3. (Continued)

 

138

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within 10 miles of mapped restoration sites within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
NAME
TYPE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Gwynns Falls Trail and Greenway

Gateway Land Trail

Jones Falls Trail

Gateway Land Trail

1920 Eagle Drive

Baltimore

MD

21207

Baltimore

MD

21201

Underground Railroad Scenic
Byway (Driving Route)
Choptank & Tuckahoe Rivers
Water Trail
Eastern Branch Elizabeth Water
Trail

Gateway Land Trail

2 Rose Hill Place

Cambridge

MD

21613

Gateway Water Trail

10215 River Landing
Road

Denton

MD

21629

Gateway Water Trail

Virginia Beach

VA

234500

Matthews Blueways Water Trail

Gateway Water Trail

Matthews

VA

23109

Potomac River Water Trail (end)

Gateway Water Trail

Scotland

MD

20687

Rappahannock River Water Trail

Gateway Water Trail

Fredericksburg

VA

22404

1175 Point Lookout Road

Appendix 5: Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network ecotourism site locations within the 15 mile buffer applied to mapped NOAA restoration sites
within the lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed, using ArcGIS v9.3.
 

 

139