The environment is an important constraint in the study of tourism today. Environmental impacts are sometimes referred to as physical impacts. There are two types of environment, natural and man made. In the 1970’s for tourism planners the main focus was on economic growth this has changed over time to consider the environment. But since the 1980’s, a time of immense political correctness governments and planner have become increasingly concerned with the environment. Many “new” supposed politically viable forms of tourism or so have sprung up in recent years they are, ethical, eco, green, alternative, and probably most discussed in tourism sustainable. Constraints are put in place to stop negative physical impacts. Some of these may be obvious others not so noticeable. Examples of obvious environmental impacts may comprise of sewerage washing up on beaches due to hotels and resorts letting their waste into the ocean, or erosion of paths and walkways caused in mountain areas by large volumes of tourists. The less visible effects are damage to ecosystems and such like. In saying this tourists are drawn to nice places as put in Mathieson and Wall (1981) “Tourist behaviour patterns, although not necessarily motivated solely by environmental conditions, are still clearly influenced by them through choice of destination and length of stay”.
In the case of the Nepal ecological and sustainable tourism has been used as a form of impact management. Tourism is apparent in mountain environments worldwide, including places such as the Alps in Europe. Many mountain areas have been criticised for over development. Tourists and travellers trekking can have terrible effects on ecosystems “Impacts of trekking become especially damaging in high-altitude regions where the recovery rate of the environment is slow, making them especially susceptible to impact. Furthermore, littering and pollution area also associated with trekking tourism in high mountain areas” Walder (2000). Other effects in Nepal include deforestation. My recommendations to planners is that tourism must be community based as the locals no how to look after there natural life and land better as they have been farming and conserving the mountains for centuries. Also, community based tourism when planning sustainable eco-tourism in Nepal allows it to be kept a smaller scale where locals keep the profits made.
Looking at the social and cultural impacts and what planners do to constrain and manage them. This was once a neglected area of study. There are three main concerns when researching social impacts, the tourist, the host and the interrelationship between the host and tourist. Tourists influence the host nation with the example they set. There are different ways this can be done acculturation, the forming of “world culture”, and the growing effect of globalisation. Tourism brings about a lot of positive and negative social change. But as a whole most conclusions are that social effects are negative. Negative impacts are often discussed, especially crime, gambling and prostitution. On the positive side tourism has rehabilitated cultures and taught them to the rest of the world.
Nepal is a traditional Buddhist country where with great social and cultural differences from western countries where most of the tourists come from. The people there are simplistic and have little education and technology.
The final impact to be talked about is that of an economic nature. Economic constraints are inevitable as there is a fixed amount of money in the world. What is wanted by planners is to maximise economic benefits, and as I talked about earlier minimise social and environmental issues which are not beneficial to development. “Most studies have emphasized the economic benefits which accrue to destination areas. The development of tourist facilities and recreational opportunities has frequently been viewed as a major positive contribution to the national balance of payments, and as a means of redressing regional disparities in incomes and employment.” Mathieson and Wall (1981). Tourism tends to be part of broader economic development. Positive economic impacts include foreign exchange, cuts in quotas (limits imposed in quantities of goods), the industry tends to be less polluting than others i.e. heavy industry. Also, tourism growth can provide loans to areas needing services not already provided examples could be hotels or an airport. Finally because tourism is a growth industry and significant growth is forecasted. Negative impacts include world recession in tourism, caused by terrorism amongst other things.
Tourism in Nepal is generally seen as a great benefit as it has created wealth and jobs. “With around 363,000 international tourists visiting Nepal in 2001 alone, the industry is an essential part of the country’s economy, contributing approximately 11.2 billion Nepali Rupees to the national GDP (1998/1999).” Cited from UNESCAP (2004). On the other hand figures have shown that just under 50% of Nepal lives in poverty. Things are being done to combat poverty levels though.
Overall looking at the extent of constraint by impact management, I have to say it depends on individual cases. Although Nepal is a mountain region same as the Alps it has very different social, economic and environmental constraints. The best suited tourism for the Upper Mustang region is community based.
