- The generation of money which can be used to protect the environment
- The local people can gain from it economically
- There is raised awareness of the problems that face the environment
This does not always involve the protection of these areas. Ecotourists are trying to get closer to the environment and are starting to cause damage. Backpackers are the greatest threat by not putting much into the local economy and destroying the natural environment by walking in undiscovered areas. Mass tourists often stay on a particular route so that only a small part of the environment is damaged. This problem is almost unavoidable, as more people want to become allocentric tourists. Even though the tourists will have an economic advantage they will eventually bring about an environmental disadvantage. The area will go from development to stagnation and eventually decline, as shown by Butler’s tourist lifecycle model.
Consensus is that ecotourism is an oxymoron: tourism and ecology cannot compliment each other. Tourism by definition will have an impact no matter how small and organised, but some destinations work hard to ensure minimum impact. As ecotourism is so popular many countries have adopted methods of promoting this. An example of this is in Budapest at the Hilton Hotel. Huge blue and white rubbish dumpsters have been installed outside of the hotel. They are part of a project that could change the way Hungarian hotels do business. Every few weeks the dumpsters are emptied of their contents of paper and glass. This will help the hotel save USD 10,000 a year from reduced waste output. Although the dumpsters look a bit out of place it shows that environmental efforts can go hand in hand with business needs.
Another example of how ecotourism can benefit an area is in Ecuador in a small traditional village in the rainforests called San Miguel. The village, which is 50km inland from the Pacific, has only 100 inhabitants. The 100 people are indigenous Cayapas Indians of only 5,000 left surviving. They live in traditional open-sided, thatched houses, built on stilts near the rivers. Fishing and subsistence agriculture are the main source of food. 80% of the people also suffer from river blindness. There is only access by a small open boat with an outboard motor. The journey to San Miguel starts 40km downriver at Borbon; it takes about 5 hours upstream. The area has been developed as an ecotourist and research base with money from the US charity CARE and Ecuadorian agency SUBIR. In 1994 a wooden building was provided with 20 beds, two showers (cold), two toilets and a washbasin. Electricity was supplied for 4 hours every evening by a diesel generator. There is also a gas cooker and sewage disposal by septic tank. Water comes from collected rainwater in roof tanks. The village now has a shop selling soft drinks, tins of sardines, dry biscuits and oatmeal. There is also a primary school with electric lights, and a daily boat service to Borbon. This is a true ecotourist site, therefore no tourist entertainment facilities. Visitors can sit and read, sunbathe, admire the surroundings, or swim in the river. Away from the village, visitors are able to visit the Cotacachi-Cayapas ecological reserve. It costs one person for a day £6.50 to stay full board in San Miguel. This is distributed to SUBIR in Borbon and the president of San Miguel. This means that there is not a problem with tourist revenue. Some of the money is spent of diesel, food and gas, but the majority is left for the visitors. Villagers are employed to cook, wait, wash and clean. There are minor effects brought by this project such as a small amount of air and noise pollution from the generator, sewage disposal and new buildings. These are small-scale problems that benefit the villagers. As long as the ecotourism at San Miguel stays at this level there hopefully will be no problems of outside intrusion.
Fraser Island in Queensland, Australia is situated 250km north of Brisbane and 15km offshore from the town of Hervey Bay. The island is 250km long and 25km wide and composed entirely of sands. There are three landscape and ecosystem types:
- Coastal environments – beaches, dunes, rocky headlands and estuaries
- Inland environments – eucalyptus forests and heath land
- Water bodies – 40 inland lakes and freshwater swamps
Tourists have been visiting Fraser Island since the 1930’s for fishing, wildlife viewing and camping. In 1975 the annual tale was only 20,000. By 1990 this figure had risen to 200,000. The causes were because of the visitor ferries being introduced in 1968, the development of four-wheeled recreational vehicles and an increase in the islands fashionableness. There was no management plan even though the National Park Service and the Forest Service managed the island. Damage was being caused to the beaches, forests and lakes. In 1988 and management plan was drawn up, based on zoning for different carrying capacities. Fragile areas were only to have low density use, while less sensitive areas would relieve the pressure and take a higher carrying capacity. Popular lakes and forests are zoned for primitive use: no vehicles, no developments and no marked trails. Visitor totals have also been restricted to 250,000 per year.
In Mallorca the tourism industry has been steadily growing since the 1950’s. Unfortunately it met the stagnation stage as shown in Butler’s model. However, the 1990’s have been a time for the rejuvenation of Mallorca, taking the emphasis away from ‘sun, sand, sex and sangria.’ Instead, the island now wants to promote natural as well as human attractions. One resort’s campaign in 1996 was ‘Alcudia: sun, beach…and environment.’ Ecotourism is now a large part of the industry in Mallorca, promoting hiking, cycling, golf and water sports. For ecotourism to be successful in Mallorca The International Federation of Tour Operators stated that three things were required:
- A local population that remained prosperous and kept its cultural identity
- A place that remained attractive to tourists
- No ecological damage
This proposal is highly unrealistic and is an example of how ecotourism is not always as ‘green’ as it sounds. Golf is promoted as an ecotourism activity. However, the quality of the grass for the courses is hard to maintain in Mallorca without application of fertilisers and irrigation. A golf course needs a lot of water, which is not in a large supply in Mallorca. Money is spent on importing tankers of water, from the mainland, to supply the island. In 1991 some politicians decided to increase the 9 golf courses of Mallorca to 40. The reason was because it would ‘increase the quality of tourist.’ By 1995 only 10 golf courses were on the island as a result environmentalist campaigns. Hiking and cycling are less problematic and are a huge success with the tourists.
To conclude, the future of ecotourism is an uncertain one. Negative environmental impacts have definitely been observed, although in other areas where effective policies have been implemented the environment has apparently not suffered and the sustainability of the industry is assured. There is evidence that supports the theory that ecotourism in spite of the progress made in the creation and selling of ‘eco-friendly’ holidays, the majority of tourism earning leads to mass tourism and it’s associated problems. Yet, I would observe that the commonality amongst all these issues is that geographical location causes the differing variables associated with ecotourism development and is the deciding factor as to whether ecotourism can be implemented successfully to protect the environment. This is where further research should be directed enabling future ecotourism planners to have a reference point according to their global location.
Many critics regard ecotourism as an ‘eco-façade’, a tactic concealing the mainstream tourism industry’s consumptive and exploitative practices by ‘greening’ it. Ecotourism is consumer-centred, catering mostly to urbanised societies and the new middle-class ‘alternative lifestyles.’ Tourists searching for ‘untouched’ places ‘off the beaten track’ are opening up new destinations for mass tourism to take a hold of. Mega-resorts are often established in the middle of nature reserves in the name of ecotourism. The major limitations of this kind of tourism are carrying capacity and the number of visitors. The type of tourist who seeks an authentic allocentric experience tends to be crowd-sensitive and expect small numbers. Furthermore the attractive resources themselves are often fragile and sensitive to impacts (e.g. coral reefs), and have a low carrying capacity. Similar characteristics apply to many of the traditional cultures and their environments. The most obvious way to control visitor numbers and impacts and so sustain the quality of both the resource and the experience is through remoteness and inaccessibility. Although this leads to criticism of the industry, implying that it is only for the rich or the privileged and it also means that the industry is very small and doesn’t produce a huge income unlike mass tourism. Another problem with eco-tourism is that international companies use the ‘eco’ label as a marketing ploy rather than as an indication of a genuine policy of ‘responsible tourism’ and sustainability. Ecotourism is also very difficult to set up, as it requires a great deal of planning to ensure that it will maintain its sustainability throughout its lifespan. It is very difficult and costly to maintain on ecotourism facility as it is so very fragile and so requires a great deal more effort than mass tourism. It is also very important that the locals are involved in the ecotourism as without them it is very hard to maintain the facility and the locals also help to improve conservation in the area.
