Can Wilderness Really Support Ecotourism?
Defining
Wilderness
Wilderness has been classified by Mittermeier et al. (2003) as an area ≥ 1 million
hectares with the environment characteristics ≥70% of those 500 years ago and a
human density ≤ 5 people per km². A wilderness should present a challenge to
those who venture into its depths, creating feelings of isolation, where survival
is in part self reliant, with rewards gained from the exposure to the
environment (Henderson and Vikander, 2007; Johnson, 2008; Willderness.net,
2012).
What is
Ecotourism?
Ecotourism presents an interesting relationship with
wilderness; it proposes a possible solution for the generation of funding to
support the management and protection of a wilderness area, though it brings
about an element of risk (Buckley, 2000). Ecotourism is a type of tourism that
can be defined as a project that aims to protect and preserve areas of beauty,
whether they are for natural heritage or a unique biological habitat (Partin, Robinson and
Meade 2006; Fredickson, 2003). Ecotourism is also designed, like
all types of tourism, to generate an income though with successful ecotourism
the profit should be returning to the local community (WWF, 2012). The International Ecotourism Society
(TEIS) would define ecotourism as "responsible travel to natural areas
that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local
people." (TIES, 1990). Ecotourism should also provide a platform to
develop environmental education to help with the preservation of the
environment for future generations (UNESCO, 2004).
Ecotourism should establish the long term ecological
integrity of the environment (Fredickson, 2003). Within these destinations the traditional culture and ties
to the environment require plenty of thought (De La Barre, 2005). However ecotourism itself should
provide jobs for the local community (Schlesinger,
2008), the combination of these aims proposes several contradictions.
A term that usually arrives with ecotourism is sustainable
development, the term itself is perhaps contradictory, as we should question
any development within an ecotourism site. Therefore the more accurate term is
balanced development, whereby any development is balanced with gains for the
environment (Garnett, Sayer and Du Toit, 2007). Both these terms should value
the perseveration of biodiversity and conservation over development
(Oelschlaeger, 2005).
Case study: The
Galapagos Islands.
The Galapagos Islands will be
used as a case study through out this work. The islands are known by many as a key
area for the development of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Sixteen islands make up the Galapagos,
of which 97% is designated a national park (Taylor, Yunez-Naude, Dyer, Stewart
and Ardila, 2002). The Islands contain a vast range of beautiful and
interesting flora and fauna, including Galapagos Penguins, Blue-Footed Boobies,
Giant Tortoises and Iguanas, figure 1.
The development of this environment for tourism has slowly placed more
and more pressure on the islands.
The impacts have included disease, fire and theft, all altering the
natural balance of the islands. (Lowman, 2004;
Galapagos Island Wildlife, 2012).
Figure
1: A Collection Of The Flora
And Fauna On The Islands.
Types of
Ecotourism
Essentially there are two types of ecotourism hard and soft
(Orams, 2001), this refers to the level of accommodation provided. Soft ecotourism allows the majority of
modern comforts to the individual usually within a high end lodge. Hard ecotourism refers to a more
natural relationship with the environment where the tourist would have little
in the way of developed accommodation or facilities. Within the Galapagos
Islands the majority of the accommodation is soft, provided in the form of
hotels or a cruise ships (Galapagos Island wildlife, 2012).
Top down or
Bottom up?
Another aspect of ecotourism is how a resort is developed,
whether it is top down, with the government determining an ideal locations or
bottom up, when the local landowners push to develop an ecotourism industry.
Within certain countries a top down approach is sometimes the only way
development occurs, due to the lack of democracy, meaning locals struggle to
hold an opinion yet alone develop ecotourism (Pleumarom, 2002). Governments can take advantage of the
ecotourism branding when their aims are not to protect the environment, one of
the best examples is found in Thailand. The government proposed a new golf
course in the Mekong drainage basin with the idea that while playing golf the
tourists could observe the environment around them. However the project required vast infrastructure
developments, which is clearly only using ecotourism as a marketing label, as
the development was incompatible with values of ecotourism, not to mention the
logging required to clear the course (Pleumarom, 2002). Although, a top down
approach is not always negative, in the case of the Galapagos Islands the
Ecuadorian government passed the Ley Especial de Galapagos, Special Law
of the Galapagos, to protect further ecological harm (Taylor, Hardner and
Stewart, 2006).
What are the
impacts of developing Ecotourism?
With developing ecotourism publicity and advertising are required
to make money from the industry.
This can attract large volumes of people to fragile ecosystems that the
project was aiming to protect (Schlesinger,
2008). With the movement of
people ecosystems can become damaged through the transportation of alien
species, which can potential destroy a wilderness area, for example Japanese
knot weed (Asher and Harmon, 1995). Within the Galapagos Islands the increasing
number of visitors, 108,600 in 2005 from 17,500 in 1980, has caused a large
amount of pressure on this fragile ecosystem.
One problem that arises from a
top down approach is the potential lack of reinvestment into the protection and
preservation, rather the economic gain is retained for those in higher areas
(Patterson, 1999). De Miras (1995)
suggests only 7% of income generated in the Galapagos Islands is returned into
the islands economy; while Zador (1994) argued 90% of the income generated went
to the airlines that support the island (Taylor et al., 2002).
Furthermore, much of the income is sourced out of the country due to the
reliance of imported goods from mainland Ecuador to support the tourism
industry (Taylor et al., 2002).
Buckley (2000) described tourism
as dancing with a messy monster, ecotourism has sufficient political support
and provides an economic boost that can support wilderness conservation.
However, using tourism to provide economic support and wilderness conservation is
a risky choice, which requires careful planning otherwise it is likely to
destroy the area it set out to protect. The Galapagos Islands have seen huge
population growth, 15,311 in 1998 to 24,000 in 2005, from Ecuadorian immigration
(Taylor et al., 2006). This has challenged the fragile environment
through the increased expansion of the fishing industry to supply food for an
increasing number of residents (Taylor et al., 2006).
With the increasing number of tourist visiting the Galapagos
Islands a careful management structure was implemented, boat licenses and
access to the island are only allowed with official guides, to sustain the
quality of the natural environment (Egret Communications, 2001). Managing wilderness in this aspect
requires the avoidance of impact that are avoidable and to minimize those that
are not (Leung and Marion, 2000).
Is it all bad?
For the Galapagos Islands 30 years of ecotourism, through careful
management, has caused an economy to boom and the continual protection of the
unique environment (Sitnik, 1999; Egret
Communications, 2001; Taylor et al., 2003,
2006).
Ecotourism has also shown success in; Shilin Stone Forest, China;
Mt Lushan, China; Yosemite, North America; Central Highlands of Iceland. Linking these success stories are their
own strict management policies, heavily controlling both visitor numbers and
where those visitors may go. In
the Galapagos this is done through the boat permits and affiliated tour guides,
without a guide then groups may not access any of the islands and guides may
only take groups to certain location and under strict guidelines (Sitnik, 1999).
All these management processes are focused around the theory of a carrying
capacity, which is a mathematical model to predict the number of visitors an
area may support before damage occurs (Honey, 2008).
Successful
Ecotourism requires management
The case study of the Galapagos Islands highlights that a
wilderness environment may be protected through the use of ecotourism. Though
this requires a level of management to be implemented, for the islands this was
focused around carrying capacity theory. If this is done successfully then an
economic growth may also be supported, generating a thriving economy for the
local people, as is the case for the Galapagos (Sitnik, 1999). There is an
abundance of literature available on the management of wilderness and it is
certainly possible to create a solution that allows ecotourism to work alongside
the protection of a wilderness area (Farrell and Marion, 2002).
Do the three
criteria of wilderness allow for ecotourism?
Human density.
As previously stated three criteria must be met in order to
classify an area as wilderness, therefore ecotourism must comply with these
criteria. The most challenging of
these criteria is a human density of less or equal to 5 people per km². With an
increase in tourism to an area the number of people in the environment also
increases. If the area is already
heavily populated then it possible for ecotourism to remove these areas out of
the wilderness threshold, meaning the co-existence would not be possible.
However with careful management, focused around strict carrying capacity then
it may be possible to gain the benefits of ecotourism without going over the
threshold. Therefore, if the accommodation level, number of beds available,
does not exceed the wilderness threshold of 5 people per km² then it is
possible for the two ideals to exist.
Intactness
Tourism has been shown to improve economy and therefore the
infrastructure is likely improved, in the case of the Galapagos two airports
have been built. This combined with the development of so call ecotourism
resorts may begin to reduce the percentage of intact wilderness to below the
threshold. However once again with
carefully planned and managed ecotourism, utilising a balanced development, it
is still possible for the two to co-exist.
Area
Finally Mittermeier et
al. (2003) suggested the area a wilderness covers must still be greater
than a million hectares, though this was to ease his own research rather than a
strict criterion. Though an ecotourism destination must not impede on the vast
area of wilderness it should be trying to protect. In the Galapagos Islands
this has been rather easy as there are only populations on three of the islands
leaving the rest of the islands in their natural state. With this in mind where
there are not so many natural barriers, those responsible for the management of
these areas must consider the distribution of any development.
Broadening the
picture.
With the future increase in population then it is fair to
challenge the Mittermeier et al.
(2003) model, particularly the size aspect. Lets suggest that wilderness is an
environment of 70% intactness and with a human density of less than 5 per km²
with a size of ≥500,000 hectares. With the size of our wilderness minimized lets
suggest that the value comes from the protection and preservation of these
environment over their size. In order
to protect this land the government or locals have chosen to provide some forms
of ecotourism, they have carefully plan walks and trails through the wilderness
from their accommodation provided on the outer realm of the wilderness.. The trails where carefully marked in
order to maintain minimal damage, while the accommodation was built focusing on
a balance development and with a suitable carrying capacity. If camping is
provided then it should be limited, to keep the human density below the
carrying capacity, developing specific campsites may minimise further
degradation of the wilderness. The
wilderness itself should be heavily managed and controlled with a strict leave
no trace policy (Fredrickson, 2003).
Can wilderness
really support ecotourism?
Potentially YES, the Galapagos Islands have been living off
the benefits of ecotourism for the past 30 years, while maintaining the islands
as a wilderness area. Though to create this success ecotourism requires very
strict management, with the tourists kept to strict thresholds, not exceeding
carrying capacities, in order to avoid ecological harm and to meet wilderness
guidelines. Tourism is a wild and unpredictable beast, the messy monster, which
with the wrong guidance will destroy everything around it until no one wishes
to return (Buckley, 2000; Koeman, 1997). It is a deadly balancing act where the protection and
preservation requires funding, tourism is not an ideal partner but one that
holds enough weight in both political and economic circles to protect the
wilderness for future generations. Furthermore, the tourism industry is ever
changing and those who manage these areas must be aware of this.
References
Asher, J.E. and Harmon, D.W. (1995) Invasive Exotic
Plants Are Destroying the Naturalness of U.S. Wilderness Areas. International Journal of wilderness, 1(2),
35-37.
Buckley,
R. (2000) Tourism and Wilderness:
Dancing With the Messy Monster. USDA
Forest Service Proceedings RMRS 15(2), 186- 189.
De Miras, C. (1995). Las Islas Galápagos, Un Reto
Económico: Tres Contradicciones Básicas. Fundación Charles Darwin para la
Islas Galápagos. Cited In Taylor, J.E., Yunez-Naude, A., Dyer, G.A., Stewart,
M. and Ardila, S. (2002). The Economics of “Eco-Tourism”: A Galapagos Island
Econmy-wide Perspective. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 51(4),
977-97
De la
Barre, S. (2005) Not "Ecotourism"?: Wilderness Tourism in Canada's
Yukon Territory. Journal of Ecotourism,
4(2), 92-107.
Egret
Communications (2001). Galapagos
Islands, Ecuador Tourism Growth Case Study. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.juneau.org/tourism2/cbjtourism/galapagos.pdf.
[Accessed 15 May 2012].
Farrell,
T.A. and Marion, J.L. (2002) The Protected Area Visitor Impact Management
(PAVIM) Framework: A Simplified Process for Making Management Decisions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(1), 31-51.
Fredrickson,
L.M. (2003) Wilderness Ecotourism and
Education as a Means of Promoting an International Environmental Ethic. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS, 27,
188-193.
Galapagos
Islands Wildlife. 2012. Galapagos Islands Wildlife. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.galapagostourist.org/information/wildlife4.php. [Accessed 03 March 2012].
Garnett, S.T., Sayer, J. and Du Toit, J. (2007).
Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and
development: a conceptual framework. Ecology
and Society, 12(1).
Gunnarsson, B. and Gunnarsson, M.V. (2002) Iceland’s
Central Highlands: Nature Conservation, Ecotourism, and Energy Resource
Utilization. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS, 26, 54-63.
Honey, M (2008) Ecotourism
and Sustainable Development 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Koeman, A. (1997) Sustainable tourism and
Eco-tourism. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001574-environment-sustainable-tourism-and-eco-tourism.pdf.
[Accessed 15 May 2012].
Leung, Y. and Marion J.L. (2000) Recreation Impacts
and Management in Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS 15(2), 23-48
Lowman, M.D. (2004) Ecotourism and the treetops. In Forest Canopies (edited by M.D. Lowman
and H.B. Rinker), pp 475-485. Burlington MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Mittermeier,
R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Brooks, T.M., Pilgrim, J.D., Konstant, W.R., da
Fonseca, G.A.B and Kormos, C. (2003) Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. PNAS, 100(18), 10309-10313
Oelschilaeger, M. (1995) Soul of the Wilderness: The
Wild, the Tame, and the Folly of Sustainable Development. International Journal of wilderness, 1(2), 5-7
Orams, M.B. (2001) Types Of Ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourim (edited
by D.B. Weaver). Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Partin, C., Robinson, S. and Meade, B. (2006) Geological Heritage in Chinese Parks: Balancing
Protection and Development. Focus on Geography, 49(3), 10-16.
Patterson, C. (1999) Are You Part of The Problem?
Ecotourism's Struggle to Do It All.
The Ecotourism Observer.
Pleumarom, A. (2002). Destruction in Disguise: International tourism projects in
the Mekong River Basin are a model of unsustainable development. Alternatives Journal, 28(4),
32-35.
Prosser,
R. (2000) Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Second Edition. Fulham, Harper
Collins publishers.
Schlesinger, V. (2008) Eco-tourism: Hurting more
than helping? Plenty.
Sitnik, M. (1999). Sustainable
Ecotourism: The Galapagos Balance. Yale
F&ES Bulletin, 89-94.
Taylor, J.E., Hardner, J. and Stewart, M. (2006).
Ecotourism and Economic Growth in the Galapagos: An Island Economy-wide
Analysis. Environmental
and Development
Economic, 14,
139-162.
Taylor, J.E., Yunez-Naude, A., Dyer, G.A., Stewart,
M. and Ardila, S. (2002). The Economics of “Eco-Tourism”: A
Galapagos Island Econmy-wide Perspective. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 51(4), 977-97.
The International Ecotoursim Society (TIES) (1990)
cited in TEIS (2012) What is Ecotoursim [Online] available at http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism
[Accessed 11. 05.2012].
UNESCO, (2004). Operational
Guidelines For National Geoparks Seeking UNESCO's Assistance Global UNESCO
Network of Geoparks. UNESCO, Paris, 12 January 2004. Available
[ONLINE] at http://www.worldgeopark.org:/docu ments.htm [Accessed 11. 05.2012].
Zador, M. (1994) Galápagos Marine
Resources Reserve: A Pre-Investment Analysis for the Parks in Peril Program.
Unpublished Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy.
