the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...

the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ... the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...

pfeiffer.nele60
from pfeiffer.nele60 More from this publisher
16.08.2013 Views

Given the greater diversity of tourist and tourism types, tour company operations and destination area characteristics, it is of little surprise that opinion in the tourism literature on the specific and net effects of tourism on environmental quality can appear confusing and, not infrequently, clearly contradictory. As with any industry, the site-specific, activity-specific and dynamic nature of impacts makes generalisation virtually impossible and, arguably, a redundant exercise (Hunter and Green, 1995). 2.11.3 Impact Amelioration Measures Butler (1991) provides a review and critique of measures which can be used to lessen the pressure tourism places on the environment. According to Butler (1991), there are four principal approaches to impact mitigation, namely, changing the tourist type, changing the resource for resistance, education, and curbing tourist numbers. Changing the tourist type, involves moving away from mass tourism to some form of 'alternative tourism', involving a different type of 'responsible' tourist who is willing to pay for basic food and accommodation, on a small-scale, without the services and facilities demanded by the traditional mass tourist. According to Butler (1991), this amelioration measure is, however, ineffective for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is argued that there are insufficient alternative tourists to supply all the tourist destinations. Secondly, a significant proportion of the expenditure of such tourists is made outside of the destination area. Thirdly, even the most environmentally conscious tourist can bring about environmental degradation. Finally, there is also the potential that small-scale alternative tourism operations may well grow and change through time into potentially more destructive forms. An alternative possibility is to try and change the resource base so that it is better able to withstand the pressures from tourism. This could involve the laying of reinforced and marked trails through a wildlife park, for example, to discourage tourist exploration and reduce footpath erosion. Making the resource more resilient may also be particularly appropriate in and around fragile heritage resources, such as ancient monuments. Although not changing the resource base directly, the provision of new infrastructure, such as sewage treatment works, can reduce environmental degradation while the number of tourists remains constant (OECD, 60

1981). Butler (1991) recognises that maximising the resistance of the resource base has been successful in some cases, but questions its acceptability to tourists and others in situations where any change to the resource might reduce its attractiveness, or where tourists are doubtful of the need for protection. Butler (1991) is also sceptical of a management approach founded on curbing tourist numbers, whether this is used to reduce numbers where they are already too high, or to limit numbers before they reach some 'carrying capacity' level. Butler (1991) notes that attempts to reduce tourist numbers are rare, due to the risk of jobs and the standard of living amongst the host population which a reduction in tourist revenue might bring. Butler's (1991) scepticism is supported by the experience of some mountain regions, for example, where proposals to reduce tourist numbers have met with resistance from local populations in response to a potential loss of income (May, 1991). For Butler (1991) the foremost, and possibly only, prospect of reducing tourism pressures in existing centres over the long term lies with education. There is a need for developers and others in the industry, governments and other public sector agencies, local populations, and tourists themselves to better understand the environmental impacts of tourism, and concepts of sustainable tourism growth and natural resource and environmental management. The primary impediments to the implementation and success of education strategies include: • An unwillingness by developers to consider factors other than profit margins, especially where controls over development are weak; • A failure by central and local governments to appreciate that it is not necessarily in their own best interests to facilitate the development of every resource for tourism; 61

1981). Butler (1991) recognises that maximis<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> resistance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>resource</strong> base<br />

has been successful <strong>in</strong> some cases, but questions its acceptability to tourists and<br />

o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> situations where any change to <strong>the</strong> <strong>resource</strong> might reduce its<br />

attractiveness, or where tourists are doubtful <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need for protection.<br />

Butler (1991) is also sceptical <strong>of</strong> a <strong>management</strong> approach founded on curb<strong>in</strong>g tourist<br />

numbers, whe<strong>the</strong>r this is used to reduce numbers where <strong>the</strong>y are already too high,<br />

or to limit numbers before <strong>the</strong>y reach some 'carry<strong>in</strong>g capacity' level. Butler (1991)<br />

notes that attempts to reduce tourist numbers are rare, due to <strong>the</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> jobs and<br />

<strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g amongst <strong>the</strong> host population which a reduction <strong>in</strong> tourist<br />

revenue might br<strong>in</strong>g. Butler's (1991) scepticism is supported by <strong>the</strong> experience <strong>of</strong><br />

some mounta<strong>in</strong> regions, for example, where proposals to reduce tourist numbers<br />

have met with resistance from local populations <strong>in</strong> response to a potential loss <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>come (May, 1991).<br />

For Butler (1991) <strong>the</strong> foremost, and possibly only, prospect <strong>of</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>tourism</strong><br />

pressures <strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g centres over <strong>the</strong> long term lies with education. There is a need<br />

for developers and o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustry, governments and o<strong>the</strong>r public sector<br />

agencies, local populations, and tourists <strong>the</strong>mselves to better understand <strong>the</strong><br />

environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>tourism</strong>, and concepts <strong>of</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>able <strong>tourism</strong> growth and<br />

<strong>natural</strong> <strong>resource</strong> and environmental <strong>management</strong>. The primary impediments to <strong>the</strong><br />

implementation and success <strong>of</strong> education strategies <strong>in</strong>clude:<br />

• An unwill<strong>in</strong>gness by developers to consider factors o<strong>the</strong>r than pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />

marg<strong>in</strong>s, especially where controls over development are weak;<br />

• A failure by central and local governments to appreciate that it is not<br />

necessarily <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own best <strong>in</strong>terests to facilitate <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> every<br />

<strong>resource</strong> for <strong>tourism</strong>;<br />

61

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!