This week we will be discussing the social and environmental impacts of eco-tourism. In class we watched the film Life and Debt by Stephanie Black, which chronicles tourism in and contrasts it against the economic woes of Jamaica. We learned that many rich tourists have little interest in the social and environmental impacts of their visits to nations in the global South.
We will be sharing our thoughts on eco-tourism. For example, should the environmental harms associated with flying be included in the costs of a trip? Our own experiences traveling may be included as well.
For reference, here is the first "webisode" in a six part series on eco-tourism being developed by some of our peers at American University. Like usual, click "comments" to see the discussion!
Quote of the week:
"Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea."
- George Carlin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eco-tourism:
ReplyDeleteI love to travel but I loathe tourists. They come into a country with their cameras, revealing western clothing, and rudeness. They don’t hurt me directly but I am embarrassed by them and can’t stand to be associated with them. I lived in a small village in Nepal for 3 months, the village had just been created as a rafting base for tourists to stop for the night on a two day rafting trip. They’d coming in a special tourist bus or van, buy soda and candy bars and demand things in very loud slow voices, speaking to my friends as if they were simple. The hippie traveler is no better. They exploit the places just as much as the fanny-packer. I could go on and on about the ills of tourists but my grievances center around a cultural erosion point of view.
In regards to the environment the average tourist does far more harm then good, in fact what am I talking about?…They do not do anything positive for the host country’s environment that I can think of. Think about it: They have to fly to the country, once there they rent rooms at hotels that use electricity, water, and cleaning services. Hotels are one-time use types of places, so stuff is thrown out or washed sooner than may be necessary let alone good for the environment. Tourists have to eat out or eat prepackaged foods. They are in and then out. They don’t have to stay through the rainy or dry season and they have enough money to buy water. It’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation when it comes to tourists. Their percentage of the spoils is far larger than the costs.
Now after all this griping I must confess that I would not be willing to give up my flying privileges. I’d be willing to give up my in-country privileges no problem, but how much better is it to bus from DC to Vermont than fly? –I actually don’t know the answer.
I also want to add that my conflict with tourists does not apply to all travelers. I believe that some types of travels can be positive cross-cultural liaisons. Volunteers, students (who are culturally sensitive), and foreign professionals (once again provided they are culturally sensitive), are all capable of giving back to their host countries and respecting the environment. In fact many NGO’s and volunteers work within the host country to improve environmental standards and education. I’m sure it’s possible for a straight up see–the-sights tourist to travel with grace and sensitivity for the culture and environment but I have yet to encounter such a person.
Tourism. Is it really that bad? One on side I would have to agree with Mary and say that tourists, all those people walking around in a daze or in awe, are annoying! I mean coming from NY I know I hate the way tourists walk, I just want to be like pick it up a little or step of to the side to look up at the backdrop of blue sky for all that gray. And even when I went to Sicily to visit my family there was this bus of about 40 Asian people, following us around or so it seemed, just getting of the bus taking pictures and hopping back on.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there are the environmental impacts, which again I must admit do not come into mind. For me when I am traveling I think what is most convenient or cheaper, kind of like how we said we shop for food in America. It is the way I want all aspects of my life to be, but I definitely see the issues we have. I would not be willing to give up my flying rights per say, but I would not oppose so limit to which I am allowed to travel in a year by plane. Which is conceding a lot for a person who loves to travel like myself.
But also, I do not believe we should put all of this on individuals. Structures need to change and although we can educate people when they do book through a travel agency the options of eco tourism have to be available first. Some things hotels can do for energy conservation is limit it. I know that when I went to London and Italy my lights and AC would not go on unless my card was in a slot inside the room, if I wanted to get back in I would take the key and it would all shut off. Also, for certain areas I know people want to go on holidays, but they can vary in style. Some people just want to sit on there butt all day, so let them. But others might actually enjoy some activities, and maybe they can set up home stays, which will be cheaper for the tourist, but still bring in a profit for local families and really immerse both parties in cultural exchanges.
I know that in the video from class the narrator discussed how tourists just take for granted the food and water and beauty, but how about making them see the real side. Don't make it so comfortable for us, if every country decided to have the same set of standards for hotels or accommodations then people would travel places because they want to not because the facilities are better or the environment. So maybe some international agreement can be decided upon to facilitate that or even if we started this at a national level and then expanded.
I am frankly not surprised about the results of the survey that said people were not really willing to give up their flying privileges. I think that people fly more because they have to and not just because – they are obviously going somewhere. I guess there could be initiatives that encourage people to vacation in places that are closer to where they live, but I’m not sure they would even be that successful. I do, however, think the idea of private jets is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI do, however see the merits of tourism – while tourists may be really annoying and they have negative impacts on the places that they visit, but some places are heavily dependent on the revenue that they receive through tourism.
I do think it would be kind of cool to use tourism and travel as a way to educate travelers about the places that they are visiting. For some reason, when I think of eco-tourism, I think of people with fanny backs and safari hats in the rainforests, walking around on little boardwalks as to not disturb the plant life, learning about the ecosystem that they are visiting. I don’t really know where I got this conception, but this is what I think of. I think that this is obviously very stereotypical and a cartoony image, but I think that there is some validity to educating people about their new surroundings and the impacts that they have on it because I think that some people just don’t realize what they are doing.
I mean I must say that I'm definitely biased against tourists just because of their inherent annoying nature. But, now that I think about it, tourists are definitely awful for the environment. Even if they're not directly detrimental to the destination's local environment, their consumption habits alone have a substantial impact. Think about the way you act on a vacation. Well, I know that my vacations at least involve a great deal of overconsumption. I eat much larger meals. And I buy much more unneeded crap to clutter my room.
ReplyDeleteI know a rebuttal to the criticisms against eco-tourism is that the industry is good for these poor nations' "economies." They argue that without this sector of business, the countries would be much poorer and thus a lot worse off.
However, I find these justifications to be embedded with selfish motives from rich countries. It is very shortsighted to deplete one's natural environment of its valuable resources for a little bit of income today. Unfortunately, a lot of ecotourism is targeted at nations who are deeply impovershed. An emaciated mother trying to feed her 6 starving children isn't too concerned with the state of the environment 100 years from now. And she's certainly not willing to forgo feeding her children for it either. Eco-tourism is like dangling a treat infront of a kid to get him to do something. He's definitely happy to consume the treat, but after that he realizes that his parents have screwed him.
Like many of my classmates, I feel that ecotourism in its current form is an inherently destructive practice. First, as stated in the video created by an AU student, many times the term "ecotourism" is applied merely as a marketing tool. This form of greenwashing is both misleading and needs to be better regulated by international bodies.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I believe that the focus of ecotourism must change. Like Alyssa stated, most ecotourism is based in exotic, foreign locales and meant to boost struggling economies. Unfortunately in these poor, struggling economies it is the hardest to regulate behavior and ensure sustainable practices. There are better ways to stimulate the economies of these countries than introducing wealthy tourists. Even more destructive is that the methods these tourists use to reach these exotic locales is destructive.
The article on the British public's lack of will to decrease their flying is very telling of an international attitude for developed nations. Traveling long distances to experience faraway environments and ecosystems inevitably means flight. Airplanes are one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. According to the article, in Britain alone 500 million people could be flying annually. This circumvention of the normal carbon cycle is something that should be taxed.
British secretary of energy and climate, Ed Milliband, stated, "I don't want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly." I don't think this would be such a bad thing, should there be viable alternatives for other people. Currently, this would only serve to widen socioeconomic gaps, but if there were low-emission alternatives such as readily available and efficient high-speed rail systems worldwide, then another message would be sent. If rail was better utilized, it would send the message that flying is unnecessary, and it would join the pantheon of wasteful activities that the rich partake in that the general population has no desire to emulate.
With all of this said, there are benefits to ecotourism as well. When done properly, it can lead to better preservation for environments and lead to better public perception and appreciation that can lead to political pressure to enact positive climate change and conservation policies. However this sort of appreciation can be fostered much closer to home. Here in the United States, there are wonderfully preserved national parks easily reachable from almost any location - without flying. Right near DC I recently took a trip to Great Falls National Park. Only twenty minutes outside the city, it is one of the largest waterfalls on the east coast and was an amazing sight to see.
Personally, I rarely fly, and although my permanent residence is eight hours away from DC by train, and less than two by plane, I always use Amtrak. For one it is cheaper, but I also do not feel the need to fly and contribute to my carbon footprint merely for convenience. I know that this is not the way that most of the population thinks, and it will never be. However when it comes to an industry with such potential as ecotourism, it really should be something the industry strives for.