I listen to NPR kind of obsessively during my days at home. It’s nice to have an adult voice speaking in complete sentences over Mara gesticulating in half-words and Robbie just kind of smiling toothlessly and waving his chubby arms around.
So a couple of days ago (as it turns out, it was more like a month ago, which just tells you a lot about my grasp on time) I heard a piece about eco-tourism, which has become a huge part of the tourism industry.
Eco-tourism is a broad sector, roughly divided into two categories. The first category is a trip taken anywhere with an independent, environmentally friendly, go-local attitude. The Eco-Tourism blog says this type of travel includes “staying in cheaper, locally-owned accommodation, eating at small food outlets and using local transport” as well as cleaning up after yourself, visiting off-the-beaten-track places, and interacting with the people who actually live there rather than staying in the standard tourist bubble.
The second category of eco-tourism is a trip to an endangered place, such as a rain forest or coral reef. Traveling to such sites in an environmentally conscious way allows you to appreciate threatened locations without causing further damage.
Right?
Not so fast, says Dan Neil on that Talk of the Nation piece I heard: “Travel conscientiously wherever — Paris, Bangkok, Banff — but when it comes to the most delicate and imperiled places, resist the urge to see them before they, or you, are gone. The fact is, most places in the world cannot withstand retail tourism.”
Neil’s premise is that people in large groups going to places that are already ecologically damaged will only cause more damage, no matter how eco-friendly the tour proposes to be. This premise, and its corresponding arguments, has been around for a while. It’s also been ignored for a while. Try doing a little web search for eco-tourism. The results haven’t diminished.
Of course, the first category of eco-tourism is good. If you’re going to travel, travel as a good steward of the earth, whether it’s down the street or across the ocean. Makes sense. If all the gaggles of tourists threw away their trash in the proper places, took nothing but pictures, left nothing but footprints…
Most of the callers didn’t like Neil’s point. The main counter-argument presented (a rough generalization) was that eco-tourism helps the local economies of struggling countries, so to shut it down would create an economic impact that would “de-fund” the environmental efforts. And also, come on Mr. Neil, I really, really, really want to go see Machu Picchu. It’s not for me; it’s for the environment. Really.
What do you think?
Image Credits: rainforest_harley.
