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

Similarly, in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, disease transmission between humans and gorillas has become a significant concern. William M. Adams of the University of Cambridge states that “the loss of animals to human diseases” is a great risk posed by this type of tourism (5). Diseases that may be rather inconsequential to humans present the possibility of killing gorillas. In response to this dilemma, the International Gorilla Conservation Programme is now instituting an education program for guides and tourists. It is their hope that once people are educated, close contact between humans and gorillas will be reduced (Hamilton et al. 2). However, even if human contact is reduced, it will not be eliminated, and diseases transmission will remain a significant threat.

Indeed, even on the base level of examining the physical impact of tourists on the environment, we see the complexity of the issues surrounding ecotourism. It is without doubt that even in the best situations, where tourists and guides are educated and environmentally sensitive, the ecosystems in question will be altered. Even if the issues of carelessness and lack of education are somehow successfully eliminated and fool-proofed, our presence will not go unnoticed; animal behavior will inevitably be altered, plants and nests trampled, and foreign organisms introduced. Major flaws of ecotourism reside in the impact of the exterior influence of human beings on these ecologically fragile ecosystems. Even the most responsible, environmentally sensitive tourist would not be aware that they were carrying a bacteria or virus capable of driving a species to extinction.

It is important to note that these “tours” are vacations for people, and they have paid for them with their hard earned money. They, like anybody else who takes a vacation, are entitled to enjoy their experience, within reason, as they see fit. Perhaps this includes feeding an iguana or coming face to face with a gorilla or sea lion. Yet, one must wonder if these tourists are truly concerned about the effects of their presence on these foreign places, since they eventually leave and return to their normal lives. The locations affected by ecotourism are so far removed from what most tourists know to be everyday life that it is improbable that only a few days in these sensitive environments translate into a long lasting sense of “spiritual renewal” which ecotourism supporters speak of. The sense of belonging to a greater ecological consciousness and the urgency to preserve the environment is likely to fade into the background as the tourists resume the reality of their daily lives. After all, that fragile ecosystem is there, not in the tourist’s backyard. To believe that some sort of ideal, symbiotic relationship between fragile ecosystems and tourism can be generated in a few days is to defy logic. Moreover, even when the supposed economic advantages of ecotourism is examined, it does not live up to all that supporters claim it to be.

One claim by proponents of ecotourism is that tourism creates job opportunities. Some locals will set up stands selling crafts, while others find employment with hotels, restaurants and tour companies. Employment is often proclaimed to be one of the foremost benefits of ecotourism; in fact, Gossling proposes that increased revenues are essential to the continued existence of these environmentally sensitive areas. Ecotourism’s “sustainable uses may outweigh the costs of conservation,” he proclaims, and even asserts that many “species and ecosystems would no longer persist without tourism” (13). While this offers us a pleasing picture of the relation between environment and economics, this overly idealistic view leaves out some very important realities: locals tend to remain poor, natural resources are strained, and the environment is altered and polluted by the establishment of infrastructure, transportation and other such accommodations necessary to support tourism. The only ones who truly benefit economically are the foreign investors and tourist companies.

In Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel: The Paving of Paradise and What You Can Do to Stop It, Deborah McLaren offers us a view of some of these realities when she refers to the “economic myths” of ecotourism (72). She argues that while supporters of ecotourism claim economic benefits for the environment and disadvantaged locals alike, a closer examination of what is actually occurring reveals contrary evidence to the proponents’ fundamental beliefs. McLaren also brings to light the fact that the majority of workers in these countries are “semiskilled,” or “unskilled,” and that, consequently, better paying positions are usually filled by foreigners. Furthermore, the “majority of locals are left with low wage jobs” and because tourism is largely seasonal, the low paying jobs given to locals are seasonal and offer no benefits (McLaren 73). Lindsay illuminates the situation further when she informs us that the monies generated by ecotours are “siphoned off to foreign investors” (5). The revenues are not reinvested in the local communities, but “natural resources are degraded and the needs of the local population are marginalized” (Lindsay 5). Although ecotourism creates job opportunities, the locals do not reap the economical benefits which occur within their own communities. In the end, the indigenous population is left economically disadvantaged with the added environmental woes of pollution and strained natural resources.

Page One - Page Two - Page Three - Page Four