Ecotourism or Egotourism

• Share

In the wide world of socially responsible travel, one of the cardinal rules has long been "Take only pictures, leave only footprints." After reading academic Rosaleen Duffy's critical analysis of the impacts of "ethical," nature-based tourism, A Trip Too Far — Ecotourism, Politics & Exploitation (Earthscan; 210 pages), altruistic souls may feel they have little choice but to do their exploring the old-fashioned way — in a comfortable chair with a stack of books.

Duffy, a lecturer at Britain's Lancaster University, pulls no punches in her critique of the political nature of "green" tourism. It is, she argues, a fundamentally capitalistic, neoliberal concept that fails to deliver on claims that it significantly benefits development and conservation while bolstering host countries' revenues. At the heart of the debate is ecotourism's place at the "blue-green" end of the environmentalist spectrum, where even nature has an intrinsic economic value. "Ecotourism," says Duffy, becomes a "buzzword that assists businesses in marketing their products." In the global tourism industry, "cultures and societies become commodities to be consumed by an external audience."

Ecotourists create "a huge economic, environmental and social impact merely by arriving in a developing country," Duffy points out. In their "self-indulgence," she adds, they are little different from conventional tourists; they too are "powerless to minimize the impact they have" on a country and "given the chance, they would not anyway." It is in these arguments that Duffy blossoms. Paradigms and impact spirals and political color charts give way to emotional venting against ecotourists who, "at an individual level, cannot be relied on to minimize the social and economic impact of their own vacationing."

Duffy assails these novelty-seeking visitors for their "hedonistic pursuits" and, quite often, snobbery as they pretend to rough it. "[T]heir travel acts as a marker of social position, which separates them from conventional tourists," she fumes. "Their self-denial of the luxuries of conventional travel is motivated by a need to demonstrate to themselves that they can cope with the hardships that they do not have to face in their comfortable lives at home. They want to believe that their vacationing does not have the same impact as that of the mass tourists from whom they like to distinguish themselves." This is self-denial as self-indulgence and, to Duffy, quite politically incorrect.

From the former British colony of Belize — now a popular ecotourist destination in Central America — Duffy relates stories of scuba-diving and snorkeling visitors who have grabbed onto, or stepped on, fragile corals and otherwise harassed marine wildlife. Despite being urged to "leave only bubbles" in their wake, they have fomented occasional political controversy. In their pursuit of reefs, rainforests and ruins, writes Duffy, they "did not reflect on the environmental impact of the construction of hotels, the use of airlines, the manufacture of diving equipment, the consumption of imported goods or even something as visible as taking a motorboat out to the reef, which polluted the water." To Duffy, it seems, the only good tourist is the one who stays home.

One point on which she and the travel industry might agree is that tourism — particularly the more exclusive "eco" variety — needs national boundaries and distinct cultural identities to delineate the "otherness" that attracts outsiders. Like lions, rhinos and elephants, for example, Kenya's Masai and South Africa's Zulu people are valuable components in "selling" their countries. So both the tourism industry and the locals have an incentive to preserve tradition and authenticity. Ecotourism may be intrusive, eroding societies and ecologies. But giving these assets an economic value may actually enhance their chances of survival.

As the "green greed" debate continues, it seems clear that — for all the problems — a strategy based on ecotourism encourages governments to ensure that conservation is financially sustainable. But what should be protected, how and for whose benefit? Despite Duffy's sharp criticisms, her lack of practical proposals pointing the way forward makes a journey through these pages seem like a guilt trip too far.