Research On Whether Ecotourism Is Beneficial To Countries
Ecotourism is nature-based tourism designed to help endangered areas with conservation and economic development. It was officially recognized in the 1980s when people wanted to raise awareness, protect the environment, travel to nature locations and learn about the cultures and the environment in other countries. Ecotourism is established all around the world in places such as, India, Central South America, Madagascar, even in countries that are not less economically developed like, the United States and Australia. Ecotourism is said to bring many economic and environmental benefits, however there are arguments against ecotourism that believe positive economic outcomes are limited, and it can negatively impact the environment. The economic and environmental lens will be addressed separately, although the arguments are related because both factors impact one another. With these arguments it raises the question, is ecotourism beneficial for countries?
A common argument in favor of ecotourism comes from an economic lens which argues that ecotourism is beneficial to the economy of countries. Vishwanatha S. , a research scholar who has a DOS in Geography, and Dr. Chandrashekara B. , an associate professor with a DOS in Geography as well, did a perceptual study on the economic impacts of ecotourism in the district of Kodagu in Karnataka, India. They state that producing economic benefits for less developed countries is the main goal of ecotourism because it provides them with many opportunities. To support this statement, they used questionnaires on government officials, Non-government organization leaders and employers in the local community to get the economic impacts of ecotourism.
Various ecotourism sites such as bird watching centers, spa centers, fishing camps etc. were interviewed as well with a total of 300 samples collected. Vishwanatha and Dr. Chandrashekara found that with the adoption of ecotourism into Kodagu the impacts on their economy did increase positively and brought many economic benefits like stimulating their economy, allowing development in regional and local areas, providing jobs for locals, producing profits and revenues for the government and companies, improving the livelihood of locals, increasing funds for conservation and increasing marketing for local businesses. A corroborating source also states that ecotourism can give direct financial support to communities and for conservation by increasing employment and jobs for locals, creating different economic activities, and giving economic opportunities for local businesses.
Another source found that in Botswana, Africa they are using ecotourism successfully by establishing strict regulations on ecotourism to produce economic benefits, but in the meantime protecting the environment with inclusive safaris and controlling the amount of tourism as well. These sources further support what was stated in the study by providing more evidence that ecotourism benefits the economy and stating the same information. That is why ecotourism is beneficial. In reference to the perceptual study, authors Vishwanatha and Chandrashekara are very credible sources since they both are professors at universities and have a DOS in geography. In the study they had neutral viewpoints since they addressed both sides which strengthens the argument as they do not show bias. Another strength to their study was the establishment of inter-rater reliability and corroborating sources that stated similar evidence and information. This increases reliability and credibility of the information found. In the study, a large sample size of 300 was collected. This provides enough evidence to conclude a precise and supported conclusion which is a strength. However, some factors that weaken the study are that it is not generalizable to other countries because success varies upon certain conditions and the use of questionnaires with locals who could have gave inaccurate responses.
An economic stance against ecotourism argues that ecotourism does not always bring effective economic benefits. According to Clem Tisdell, an Australian economist and Emeritus Professor at the University of Queensland, there are many possible economic drawbacks and limitations to ecotourism. It is stated that ecotourism could lead to negative impacts on the locals by excluding them from receiving income, employment, and resources that are normally available to them. For example, when a new declaration of a protected area is in place, locals cannot use the land anymore and may not be offered employment in those protected areas and often leave their homes to find jobs elsewhere. This shows that locals, sometimes, do not benefit from the economic opportunities that ecotourism brings. Tisdell also includes that economic success varies based on how the government uses the revenues that the ecotourism sites raised and if the cites are even successful or capable of supporting ecotourism sites in general. Accessibility of the country, prospect of viewing wildlife, availability of attractions, and the cost of visiting the country can all impact whether ecotourism can provide effective economic benefits. A study that supports what Tisdell stated, found that in the district of Kodagu in Karnataka, India the economic success does vary based on the quality and successfulness of the sites and does negatively impact locals by increasing the cost of living there. Another source found that in Dominica ecotourism is not very successful because of its geography that does not attract many people and in Suriname ecotourism is not very successful because of its lack of infrastructure and economic development that prevents it from fully supporting and establishing ecotourism. This is why ecotourism is not always economically beneficial.
Referring to the study by Tisdell, there is high credibility. Tisdell is well known for environment and ecological economics. He has published many books which are used worldwide and contain global information. He has made substantial contributions to many types of economics and his impacts rated 68th out of 35,653 scholars. Tisdell is a very credible source and has a lot of knowledge on the topic to provide quality information. The study was published in Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics which is a national professional organization in Sri Lanka, South Asia. This is a global source which strengthens the argument. Another strength is that Tisdell referenced to many reliable sources that were related to the topic and many corroborating sources supported and provided evidence to back up what Tisdell stated. However, a lot of the negative effects of ecotourism were based on predictions, which weakened his argument and not having evidence to back up the predictions weakened his argument as well.
Another argument against ecotourism comes from an environmental perspective. People often argue that ecotourism comes with many possible environmental harms. According to Vishwanatha’s and Chandrashekara’s study on the Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism in Kodagu District, Karnataka, ecotourism can bring negative impacts on Kodagu’s resources, wildlife, and the local environment. To support this, they conducted a study using questionnaires on local and government authorities and collected 500 samples to collect enough information on the impacts. They discovered that traveling to ecotourist countries can cause air pollution because many of the countries are not nearby which results in an increase in air, boat, and vehicle travel, causing a release of harmful emmitions into the atmosphere and an increase of carbon footprints. It was found that overcrowding people, car travel, attraction development, all impact the surrounding environment by damaging vegetation, causing soil erosion, and clearing areas to make space. Vishwanatha and Chandrashekara also found that it negatively impacts animals. An increase of humans in the area can cause animals’ behaviors to change to avoid humans which can affect their eating and mating habits. Wildlife populations may decrease as well by becoming road kill or being killed by humans for protection. A corroborating source addressed many ecotourist sites that have been damaged because of the establishment of ecotourism. In Antarctica, waters are polluted with waste water and oily water from cruise ships and penguins are becoming infected with diseases that tourists bring from other countries. In New Zealand, sea lions are competing with fisheries for food and the survival of sea lion pups is threatened by human disturbance. In the Shenandoah National park in the United States, vegetation is destroyed from visitors who go off trail and walk in the meadows. As addressed earlier, Vishwanatha and Chandrashekara, are very reliable sources and their study on the environment impacts has many strengths. It was unbiased, had a large sample size, evidence supported the conclusion, and many sources agreed and stated similar information. Another strength is that the authors are not reductionists. They provided information on two different types of impacts of ecotourism and didn’t focus on just one. The fact that the information still is not generalizable to other countries because every countries geography and economic stance is different weakens the argument.
On the other hand, those who believe ecotourism is beneficial argue that it brings many environmental benefits. According to Jenny Green, a Leeds University graduate who has been writing about travel and science, ecotourism helps to protect natural, weak or endangered habitats. She also states that ecotourism is an alternative source to building the economy without causing harm to the environment, so instead of undeveloped countries relying heavily on agriculture, which destroys the land, countries can protect the land and earn money while doing it. Ecotourism also benefits the environment by raising awareness for it. When people travel to these ecotourist destinations, they learn about the environment, wildlife and cultures which causes them to want to help conserve and protect the area. This increases the amount of people who know about the countries and increases the amount of economic support the country will get to help conserve and protect the environment and wildlife. Another source also states that ecotourism can raise awareness for these environments and endangered animals to increase support.
Jenny Green is not an entirely credible source. She does get her information from reliable sources and her statements are logical; this is a strength, however evidence is not used to support what she states which weakens the argument, and she has a low level of expertise, since she is only a graduate from Leeds University. However, she goes clearly state perspectives and has logical arguments. This strengthens her arguments.
Overall, arguments made by both perspectives provided insights into both the economic and environmental benefits and disadvantages of ecotourism. Within the economic lens, many valid points were made on each side from expert sources: Vishwanatha and Chandrashekara, and Tisdell. Both sides showed unbiased viewpoints and provided logical arguments that directly supported their claims. However, the economic argument against ecotourism was merely based on probability and possibilities. The economic argument against ecotourism did have some evidence from Dominica to support the claims, however economic failures are not always the result from ecotourism. The economic argument in favor of is a stronger argument as it provides significant evidence and the amount of benefits outweighs the number of possible drawbacks that ecotourism could bring. Within the environmental lens, the argument against is evidently stronger than the for argument since there are many studies which address the negative environmental impacts, however the benefits still outweigh the number of negatives. Overall, the perspective in favor of ecotourism is stronger than the perspective against it.
Before I started my research, I was very neutral to whether ecotourism is beneficial or not. I had some knowledge on the issue, but a stance was never established. After thorough research, I took the stance that ecotourism is beneficial. The study provided by Vishwanatha and Dr. Chandrashekara that I presented altered my viewpoint because they showed a variety of economic benefits, such as conservation, jobs, revenues, economic stability, and development and proved, even though there are economic and environmental disadvantages of ecotourism, they are outweighed by the amount of benefits that this nature-based tourism brings. What also impacted my viewpoint was that ecotourism amount of aspects that ecotourism benefitted; not only the environment and species, but also the lives of locals, the governments of countries, and political and economic develop of them.
For further research, I would like to go more specific and do research on the impacts of ecotourism on marine life to see how humans affect marine animals and the ocean. This information may be relevant to the question “Is ecotourism beneficial to countries?” and go more in depth on the topic, but the research would not fit into the arguments because I am researching ecotourism as a whole and not the specific effects of it on certain areas.
