台灣的生態旅遊發展，約略從1980年代即由少數地方社會自發性的發展起來。1990年代學界也發展出不少生態旅遊相關論述，而政府部門將其納入政策議程已是在2000年之後。歷經交通部觀光局及內政部國家公園當局兩個公部門，先後擬訂生態旅遊白皮書並據以推動，惟其結果卻大異其趣。本文從學理觀點進行政策及行動的檢視。藉由兩版生態旅遊白皮書的內容分析、相關利害關係者的訪談，以及參與觀察等研究方法，研究發現：兩個公部門的白皮書，前者除了較少關照到社會文化構面、未明確以永續發展為長遠目標之外，其餘幾乎與後者大同小異。然而在實際操作上，由於涉及兩者對生態旅遊定義、範疇等認知的不同，再加上組織目標、政策目標也不盡相同，以及許多操作方式、配套措施的不同，使得政策結果相去甚遠。前者甚至造成國土加速破壞，而後者亦有不少值得檢討的地方。因此本文在文末建議國家必須要能調整介入方式及行動順序：首先，必須先能深刻認同生態旅遊對於當代環境的重要意涵，且有明確的主政部門、必須制定政策及立法；其次，對於生態旅遊所涵蓋的各種構面，不能有所偏頗；再者，對於「生態旅遊地」的認定標準，雖可從寬，但務必予以分級及執行監測，讓原本「寬鬆型」的生態旅遊地轉型，提升保育成效，而對於「嚴格型」則應繼續嚴格把關；最後，在行動順序上應優先辦理意願較高社區的培力，讓該社區更具知識、技能以及自主性。至於其餘社區則儘量被動的協助即可。

Ecotourism developed independently in a few locales in Taiwan begin-ning in the 1980s. In the following decade, ecotourism became a popular subject of re-search and discussion among academics, but the interest did not have an influence on government policies until after 2000. Two white papers on the subject drafted respec-tively by the Tourism Bureau and the National Park Service had a significant effect on ecotourism promotion both in terms of theoretical development and actual implementa-tion. In the papers, the substance of ecotourism was analyzed through stakeholder interviews, participant observation and other research techniques. The two papers were simi-lar in content, although the one by Tourism Bureau focused comparatively less on social and cultural dimensions and proposed no clear long-term goal for sustainable develop-ment. The only obvious difference between the two papers was found in the part con-cerning implementation, in which they had different definitions of ecotourism, cognitive fields, organizational and policy goals, implementation approaches and supporting measures, resulting in adoption of different policy outcomes. However, the Tourism Bu-reau white paper led to accelerated land degradation, while the National Park Service paper had issues that need to be re-evaluated. Thus in this article it is proposed that the government reconsider the priorities of intervention and action. First is strong awareness of the important implications of ecotourism in contemporary natural environments, along with clearly defined public agencies roles, policy and legislation. Second, deci-sions regarding types of ecotourism to pursue should be bias-free. Finally, actions should give priority to community empowerment, providing the community with greater knowledge skills and autonomy, thereby maximizing the community’s passive involve-ment.