Another negative impact is that of cultural change (cultural dilution), this can be seen from two angles, firstly by western visitors visiting the poor areas with ancient histories we unknowingly adapt there views and aims within society towards more western styles of living instead of standards that are unrealistic at the current time. The second view is that by showing them are way of life we both learn ways in which are cultures are different and both parties can adapt and learn from mistakes made one and another. The question is should we try to halt progress in these areas for are own enjoyment of there culture or should we embrace there will to develop into a more westernised society. This question is only brought about through the tourist themselves visiting the different cultures and introducing new perspectives to the local people and therefore changing there views and beliefs.
An alternative type of tourism is now becoming more popular and aids fair regional development within Kenya. Ecotourism is now a booming trading environment, ecotourism aims to support cultural growth but at the same time minimizing the effects of leakage. This is possible by basing smaller developments across the whole country; this allows equal development and therefore inherently forces the government to provide more adequate services for tourists which in theory the general public can use as well for example modern hospitals and a good communication structure. These services are paid for through taxes paid by ecotourists; causing less leakage and a large proportion of funds to go back into the Kenyans economy (government revenue).
Ecotourists aim to support the constant preservation of the natural environment, saving the wildlife, especially the top 5 (protected species) from hunters. This is done by using appropriate technology and conservational management in game reserves as well as on the coral reefs. Practices outside of ecotourism have no limit to the number of people allowed to visit such sites and do not patrol what tourists do to the environment. An example is a single area of coral reef has been known to support 18 boats of tourists per hour, these boats also all use anchors that rip up the coral. Areas managed by ecotourists developments have a limit on the number of people that can visit the areas per day, if this number is exceeded the tours are cancelled. Mooring poles are also placed meaning anchors are not used minimizing the damage to the reef. Wardens are employed to stop the use of dynamite for fishing and to stop people walking on the coral and removing it as souvenirs.
Similar activities take place in the nature reserves where massive quantities of 4x4’s disturb the animals and cause massive soil erosion on tracks aiding desertification. Management strategies have now been emplaced to stop the vast numbers of 4x4’s in favour of smaller groups and perhaps for the more adventurous hot air balloons and trekking. This sort of management allows the damaged primary resources to recover while still supporting a wide growing Kenyan economy.
Although these ecotourism holidays are beneficial they tend to cost a lot more and do not provide the same sort of accommodation as large westernised hotels. For them to become more popular prices will have to fall. Although prospects look good as tourists are becoming more persuadable and society is swinging into a new wave views that supports ecotourism and is reducing mass tourism.
Zimbabwe is another country in with the exact same problems as Kenya, environmental devastation, westernised views forced upon locals, over development, leakage and a rise in crime. Though Zimbabwe has another very different sort of problem, political unrest has been taking place since 1997 on a large scale due to the president of Zimbabwe Mr Mugabe. Under his rule Zimbabwe has become very hostile due to a near civil war that ahs been on and off for the last 20 years. His racists views especially against all white people who own property in Zimbabwe has caused a large withdrawal of investment and industry within Zimbabwe therefore furthering the hostility of the situation.
In an attempt to calm the situation the UN has removed various sanctions from Zimbabwe and has removed a large proportion of debts owed to the developed world. This has reassured determined tourists that they will be safe. As such visitor numbers are rising but there are fears that visitor numbers will not return to previous numbers for decades due to bad press around the political situation. One sure fact is that Zimbabwe’s once growing economy crashed and is in tatters. Intriguingly though the government does not wish to deal with mass tourism, instead they wish to focus on ecotourism and sustainable tourism, with this approach they wish to earn a reputation that matches with the beautiful natural scenery that Zimbabwe has to offer for example the unspoilt Niagara Falls. On one hand this approach will definitely support a more environmentally sustainable source of funds and will keep the determined tourist coming but on the other hand tourism will only rejuvenate its self when Mr Mugabe is removed from power and when social unrest is minimized, another factor is that will this ecotourists approach be able to hold such a great source of income for the economy as mass tourism and will Zimbabwe suffer as a result.
I feel that Zimbabwe will recover from The negative impacts due to its outstanding natural beauty and till relatively untouched scenery compared with rival tourist hot spots such as Kenya. Zimbabwe’s natural benefits far outweigh the negative political unrest, and this is shown by a constant growth in ecotourists that will risk the civil unrest due to the desire to see the local culture and the nature/game reserves.
Thailand has a massive thriving tourist economy. Over 7 million visitors a year bringing in billions of dollars. But are the costs it has had to endure worthwhile considering the gains. Thailand is a great success story for less economically developed countries, its tourist economy has spawned a vast communications structure, railroads, motorways ,modern hospitals and a better selection of public facilities. These have grown from money invested by tourists over the last 15 years. Amongst these benefits there also a menagerie of problems that have grown out of control. Prostitution is now Thailand’s biggest employer, 1 in 3 women have had sex before the age of 13 in Thailand, 70% of those women had sex with foreign visitors. This is a massive number, much larger than any other country in the world; hence Thailand has earnt its name as the sex capital of the world. With this title has come a vast epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases such as aids. To maintain such a large tourist economy Thailand has had to invest in larger police forces and large medical establishments. With these management strategies they hope t deter tourists from coming to Thailand for the sex tourism and they also wish to help women who have caught sexually transmitted diseases through that industry.
Thailand suffers from pollution on a massive scale. All four main cities, Chang Mai, Bangkok, Phuket and Pattaya have problems with pollution; I will now explain the individual problems. Chang Mai is Thailand’s cultural honey pot, but it suffers from inadequate waste disposal and water management as well as heavy traffic due to recent heavy industrialisation. As such the Mau Kah canal is black and has destroyed ten locals fishing economy there main source of food. Although $billions are provided through heavy industry at the same time the fumes destroy natural habitats and therefore the tourist economy. Phuket’s Pa Tong beach once known as the best in Asia has been deemed unsanitary and unsafe; over 200 litres of pollutants per person each day are washed into the sea near pa tong. This has all but destroyed the tourism there. Pattaya has had the same problems but the pollution there has also caused the biggest industry in Thailand to become almost on existent due to new rulings that say that the water is unsafe for bathing or drinking. Finally Bangkok the capital of Thailand faces mass congestion due to recent industrial growth making the city forced into constant gridlock. This has deterred hotels from setting up due to the fear that tourists would prefer t stay outside of the city if it means that they can spend there time in relaxation rather than in traffic jams. Although in most cases for Thailand including Bangkok its cultural centres still provide a larger pull than the negative factors caused by the growing heavy industries.
Although Sex tourism is officially Thailand’s biggest attraction the jungle and the natural scenery is definitely its second biggest attraction. Until recently tours to visit the scenery where common though they did not delve deeply into local culture to visit tribes and did not take tourists into the complete unknown. With western social changes this appears what tourists now want, culture mixed with activities. A breed of ecotourism that is both caring to the environment as well as respective of the people and the tourists are willing to pay significantly more for this experience. Instead of western firms building large apartment complexes, the government supports local families who wish to set up high quality chalet style lodges in the wilderness to accommodate for this sort of tourist. By using traditional long boats and long houses made from managed woodland this style of tourism has minimal impact on the environment in comparison with the 4x4 style of tourism present in Africa. As money is brought straight to the local people they are able to invest in sanitary goods and medication as well as appropriate technology that can be used without spoiling there traditional way of life and without destroying the environment.
In conclusion I feel that less economically developed countries will always have as many costs as benefits when developing though such westernised intensive industries such as tourism. It would be inappropriate to think that the western world would not have a negative effect on the countries and people in question. But it is up to the countries to decide if tourism will work in there favour. If not they can limit tourist input like many Asian countries have for example Korea. As tourist needs change I feel a more positive view on tourism will be taken and more will be done by both tourists and the local people to preserve cultures and environments. This will be aided by the new social need for ecotourism which will aid this steady recovery. The only threats I can see for tourism in less economically developed countries that will be a problem in the futer are low cost flights that are set t entice tourists back to old honey pots such as America and southern Europe. Though my personal view is that with social adaptation and the quest to improve cultural respect from the western world, we will see a great increase in measurements and management used to protect and aid recovery of less economically developed countries and there tourist economy.