Dialogues Home

Acknowledgements

Editor's Introduction

Student Essays

Dialogues@RU Links

Dialogues@RU is published
annually by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey

Volume Three
Spring 2004

PDF Version

A new type of tourism, coined “ecotourism,” has recently emerged and is quickly gaining in popularity as a leisure activity. Ecotourism, a type of “getting-back-to-nature” excursion, brings people into environmentally sensitive areas to view exotic and, more often, endangered plants and animals. Proponents of this type of travel such as John Whiteman, a partner in a tourism and community-development consulting firm, and Stefan Gossling from the Human Ecology Division of Lund University, view ecotourism as not only beneficial but essential to both the environment and economies of these often-depressed regions. Through such an ecological experience the traveler is supposedly changed or “spiritually renewed,” and gains a new-found respect and sensitivity for nature. This, in turn, is expected to promote more environmentally responsible decisions in daily life. Whiteman states, “While there, [tourists] enjoy a sense of spiritual renewal. And they leave behind an intact ecosystem and increased wealth for the local community” (96). Furthermore, the governments and citizens of the areas in question are, presumably, encouraged to take steps to preserve these tourist sights in order to continue to reap the benefits of the tourist dollar (Gossling 1; Whiteman 96).

Unfortunately, when popular sites of ecotourism such as Uganda and the Galapagos Islands are carefully examined, it becomes apparent that ecotourism does not provide the benefits so readily claimed by its proponents. The economies of these regions see little benefit. The local people remain impoverished, and offer no protection to the environment: in fact, they are often angered enough to lash out against these fragile ecosystems. The environment is harmed directly by the physical presence of tourists; it is simply not possible to bring people into an area where few humans would otherwise exist without altering or harming the very environment which we seek to preserve. It seems self-evident that groups of people walking through environmentally sensitive areas will not have an impact. From ostensibly small effects such as crushing plant-life underfoot and soil erosion, to larger effects such as altered animal behavior, it is highly probable that the ecological footprint left by tourists will not go unnoticed. As Heather Lindsay observes in “Ecotourism: The Promise and Perils of Environmentally-Oriented Travel,” “even harmless-sounding activity like a nature hike can be destructive, as hikers can contribute to soil erosion and damage plant roots” (5). Upon examination, the ecological dangers of ecotourism are readily apparent.

In both Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) and the Galapagos Islands, altered animal behavior is a significant concern. Studies have shown that, when in the presence of tourists, animals abandon their nesting and feeding sites. Perhaps worse, when animals become accustomed to the presence of tourists, they lose the instinct to flee thus leaving them vulnerable to poachers. In BINP, habituation of the gorillas is fundamental to ecotourism so that they may be safely observed by tourists (Adams 5). Unfortunately, this purposeful habituation may have lead to the gorillas losing the instinct to flee from poachers or soldiers. In looking at this problem, Hamilton tells us that “initial indications are not encouraging” (2). What then, will become of these animals if they lose the instinct to flee from danger in their environment? Surely the outlook is not promising. Losing their survival skills places these animals at risk for extinction.

In the Galapagos, habituation of the wildlife is not intended; however, it has been noted that, “scientists began noticing behavioral changes in the animals-such as iguanas waiting for tourists to give them bananas” (Honey 111). It has also been observed that the normally docile male sea lions of the Galapagos have recently become more aggressive. In her work, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Martha Honey states that, at present, it is unclear if this aggression can be attributed to an increase in tourism or an increase in sea lion population (111). Some scientists believe that the impact of tourism on other mammals and birds is minimal but that the system is becoming weak in particular areas (Honey 112). It is important to note that a particular area of the Galapagos is now closed because turtle nests and vegetation were so badly trampled by tourists that these species were threatened with imminent extinction.

Beyond the issues of altered animal behavior and trampled vegetation is the problem of newly introduced organisms to these visited ecosystems. When tourists arrive, they present the threat that they carry with them, on their person or in their mode of transportation, bacteria, disease, animals and insects foreign to the environment. This is one of the biggest issues the Galapagos Islands are currently facing. Honey states, “At the top of the agenda of many scientists and park officials is tracking and eliminating the introduced species-plants, animals, insects, fungi, bacteria-that are brought in by boat or plane by tourists, new immigrants, and illegal fishing operations” (114). The problem with this is that many of these foreign organisms are capable of “out-competing” the unique indigenous species of the Galapagos (Honey 114). Since the native species of the Galapagos evolved without the threat of such organisms, they may be driven to extinction, leaving the ecosystem irreparably changed. For example, black rats introduced to Pinzon Island kill tortoises as they hatch. Pigs on Santiago Island eat the eggs of sea turtles, thereby reducing their survival rate from eighty percent to a mere three percent while introduced aphids are killing native plants (Thurston 3). In a related article by Martha Honey and Ann Littlejohn, “Paying the Price of Ecotourism,” Tom Fritts, a biologist with the National Biological Survey, calls this “a critical time” for the ecosystems of the Galapagos Islands, and speaks of its current state as being pushed “towards the brink of disaster” (5). The stakes are high. Ecosystems are forever changed by the consequences of tourism. Fritts tells us that we are dangerously near the “precipice of irretrievable damage” (5). Simply, certain damages cannot be undone. There is no remedy for extinction.

Page One - Page Two - Page Three - Page Four