Consumptive Tourism and Sustainability - Essay Example

? Consumptive Tourism and Sustainability Contents Introduction 3 Wildlife tourism 3 Moral standpoint 4 Economic viability 4 Legislation and organization stance 5 Social impacts 6 Environmental impact 6 Game ranching 7 Conservancies 8 Case studies 8 Southern Africa 8 Trophy hunting 9 Consumptive versus non-consumptive tourism 10 Conclusion 12 References 13 Introduction Ecotourism is a complex issue that attempts to balance the economic and environmental needs of a region (Tisdell, 2011). Because of this, it is an extremely contentious field, drawing heated debate from all sides. Advocates of ecotourism state that it has the potential to substantially develop a region economically, while at the same time protecting its important tangible and intangible heritages. However, others argue that the definitions of ecotourism are too broad, and little research has been done concerning how ecotourism policies are implemented and whether they are effective (Highham, 2007). Environmental sustainability is often criticised as it limits the ability of populations to generate income from their environment. However, many people argue that caring for the environment is crucial for ensuring the future use of the environment for both loving and tourism (Gossling et al., 2009). In general, ecotourism is considered to be non-consumptive use of the environment (Campbell, 2003). However, many researchers and people within the industry consider some forms of consumptive tourism to also be ecologically sound, and to aid in the protection of the environment. Wildlife tourism Wildlife tourism is becoming increasingly popular as society becomes more highly urbanised and less natural habitat is available, particularly for those from the western world. Tourists exhibit a growing desire to directly interact with the natural environment, particularly environment that is relatively untouched by humans. Wildlife is a relatively recent term, and has only been included in dictionaries since 1961. The exact use of the term depends on the context, and it is often used with strong emphasis on game animals. However, a more general definition considers wildlife to included non-domesticated vertebrates, and can also include some invertebrates and plants if they are considered to be important (Newsome et al., 2005). Humans have shown an increasing interest in being near, and interacting with the natural environment, particularly wildlife. This has cumulated in a high interest in wildlife tourism. Wildlife tourism exists in both consumptive and non-consumptive forms. For example, non-consumptive wildlife tourism includes activities such as animal watching, habitat and nature-based tours (Novelli et al., 2006). Consumptive forms of ecotourism include activities such as sport and trophy hunting, and actively remove animals from the environment. However, despite that fact that this form of tourism is often viewed as being detrimental to the environment, supporters argue that this is actually more beneficial for the environment than non-consumptive forms of tourism (Novelli et al., 2006). Moral standpoint One of the strong arguments against consumptive tourism is that animals should never be killed for personal pleasure or satisfaction. People in developed society tend to reject consumptive tourism as a potential means of sustainability as the result of moral objections. The perception is that there should be no forms of wildlife use that involve killing. Because of this perception, animal rights organisations place strong pressure on the governments of developing countries to prevent all forms of tourism that involve killing (Novelli et al., 2006). Economic viability Consumptive tourism requires a large area of the environment to be successful. Wildlife viewing and other forms of non-consumptive tourism requires only a small geographical area to be effective, and consequently the return per unit of land is much higher than that of consumptive tourism. However, another significant difference between the two forms of tourism is that non-consumptive tourism involves the presence of a very high quality environment. For example, most tourists that use non-consumptive tourism are interested in viewing a beautiful and pristine environment. This is not the case for consumptive tourism, and this can take place in many different environments as long as there is a sufficient level of diversity (Novelli et al., 2006). However, both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism results in similar returns in capital (Novelli et al., 2006). Thus, both methods of tourism are equally effective in areas where both can be used. However, non-consumptive tourism relies on the presence of high quality land, and consequently the areas where this can occur are more limited than consumptive tourism. In many areas the environment is not of high enough quality for non-consumptive tourism, and thus businesses must turn to consumptive tourism if they hope to make a profit. Tourism involves a significant injection of cash into local communities, which has the potential to displace traditional methods of earning money, but mostly acts to complement methods that are traditionally used (Novelli et al., 2006). This is true both for consumptive and non-consumptive forms of tourism. Legislation and organization stance Many governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) vehemently oppose the practice of hunting in all forms, including trophy hunting. This perception is often strongly based on unethical or illegal practices of hunting, rather than potentially sustainable use (Novelli et al., 2006). Legalisation for consumptive use of the environment has varied throughout history. For a significant time in Africa there were significant restrictions placed on all forms of game use, in an attempt to manage the environment and prevent damage to the wildlife population. However, restrictions such as these have an additional effect, as they prevent subsistence harvesting that occurs by indigenous people, which is an important component of their culture (Mbaiwa, 2008). Social impacts Conservation is promoted strongly in developing countries, as these tend to have much more of an environment left to preserve than developed countries do. Tourism has the potential to be both damaging and beneficial to native populations. Many developing countries rely on the revenue earned from tourism to develop economically(Zeng and Ryan, 2011). Both consumptive and non-consumptive forms of tourism aim to involve local indigenous populations. For example, there has been a movement towards involving these communities directly in roles such as guides, trackers, skinners and cooks (Novelli et al., 2006). There is a significant risk that placing restrictions on consumptive tourism will have a significant detrimental effect on communities that are unable to be involved in non-consumptive tourism. Environmental impact For non-consumptive forms of tourism to be successful, the environment must be maintained in its natural condition and remain mostly undisturbed. Thus, conservation of the area becomes an important goal of businesses and landowners that are involved in non-consumptive tourism (Novelli et al., 2006). It is generally argued that consumptive tourism has a much stronger effect on the environment, as hunting by definition involves the killing of animals which necessitates the disturbance of the environment. However, landowners and businesses that are involved in consumptive tourism also have an interest in taking care of the environment, as significant degradation of the environment would damage their business and reduce their potential for income. Although though many people argue that consumptive tourism has a negative effect on the environment, this is not necessarily the case. Scientific analysis of animal populations in South Africa has shown that consumptive tourism is not having a negative effect on the regeneration of natural populations as the industry maintains low quotas, which ensure that populations remain healthy (Novelli et al., 2006). Although many forms of consumptive tourism do use the environment ineffectively and unsustainably (Campbell, 2003), this research shows that consumptive tourism can be used in a way that is positive and does not harm the environment. Game ranching Through changes in legislation, landowners in southern Africa have gained substantial rights to use the wildlife which occurs on their land, including for hunting, and capture and trade. This right has dramatically shifted the land use within southern Africa, and land is being increasingly used for the production or hunting of wildlife. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in natural populations, as well as the recovery of endangered species through reintroduction by ranchers. Ranching is generally seen as beneficial for conservation, as it results in the preservation of native vegetation (Lindsey et al., 2009). However, it has been argued that ranching also has negative effects on conservation. One example of this is the translocation of animals and population. The trading of animals has resulted in their presence being substantially changed, altering historical distributions of animals, as well as having genetic implications. Another negative effect that ranching has had on the environment is that some landowners selectively breed wildlife to produce unusual varieties of colour. Selective breeding has been taken even further, with some ranchers cross breeding animals of different species to produce unusual hunting trophies (Lindsey et al., 2009). Manipulations like this have a significant effect on the natural environment and populations, and are detrimental to conservation efforts. Conservancies One approach to the conservation of areas where animals are used consumptively is the creation of conservancies. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, conservancies consist of an area where multiple ranches are present, but there is no internal fencing for game. This approach permits the use of large ranging species, which generally require more land area than is present on a traditional ranch. This can also result in a shift in land use towards trophy hunting, which is considered to be more profitable and less damaging to the environment. Another benefit of the creation of conservancies is that it allows for collaboration among landowners, and limits the random actions that one owner can do, which can have a significant effect on the environment. Instead, decisions that affect the wildlife within a conservancy must involve all landowners (Lindsey et al., 2009). Case studies Southern Africa Consumptive tourism is commonly used in southern Africa, and plays an important role in the development of countries in this region. Although many regions are suitable for both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism, there are substantial areas where the land is not high enough quality for non-consumptive tourism to be profitable. Research shows that both methods of tourism generate similar capital in this area, and do not have a significant effect on the native wildlife populations (Novelli et al., 2006). This suggests that for the areas where non-consumptive tourism is not possible, non-consumptive tourism is an effective method of stimulating local economies and providing environmental protection for the area. Trophy hunting One specific form of consumptive tourism is trophy hunting. It has been argued that trophy hunting is a low-impact sustainable use of the environment, which makes the natural environment more valuable. Here, members of large charismatic species are hunted by tourists. This requires a large area, and may involve several landowners collaborating with one another in order to produce a large enough area (Lindsey et al., 2009). However, land owners are motivated to be involved in conservation, as they must ensure that the species remains prevalent and that their habit is suitable. Polar bear hunting in the Canada is an interesting example of where trophy hunting causes significant benefits for the native population, and has limited negative effects on the environment. Here, guides and helpers make significant amounts of income from the sport, and hunting is prevalent in areas where unemployment is traditionally high. In addition, the local community generally receives the meat from the hunt, which is a significant amount. If trophy hunting did not occur, it is likely that a similar amount of bears would be killed in order food (Foote and Wenzel, 2008). Consequently, the community benefits substantially from the sport of trophy hunting, while the impact on the environment is minimal. It has been argued that trophy hunting can also play a significant role in conserving the presence of charismatic species in the wild. Charismatic species are those that draw the attention and interest of people, including tourists, and include species such as the lion (Panthera leo), black rhino (Diceros bicornis), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), leopard (Panthera pardus) and elephant (Loxodonta africana). Charistmatic species act as a drawcard to encourage tourist visitation, and this occurs both for non-consumptive tourism (such as safaris) and consumptive tourism (such as hunting) (Sims-Castley et al., 2005). For trophy hunting to be successful, the animals that are being hunted must be present in the environment in sufficient quantities. This means that the land owner has significant incentive to maintain these within his land, and consequently is unlikely to allow them to be hunted to unrecoverable levels. However, other authors consider trophy hunting to represent a significant threat to the populations that are hunted. This is thought to occur because humans place a high value on rarity, and thus are more likely to hunt species that are already rare. This effect would potentially lead to quotas being circumvented, and suggests the need for a better quota system to prevent over exploitation (Palazy et al., 2011). With strong regulation trophy hunting can become an effective method of ensuring the conservation of charismatic species (Loveridge et al., 2006). Consumptive versus non-consumptive tourism Sustainable tourism in general is a field that is filled with significant debate, but this is particularly true when the issue of consumptive versus non-consumptive tourism is considered. Consumptive tourism can be positive for the environment where resources, including animal populations, are used sustainably. Sustainable use refers to the use of resources being managed in a way that ensures their long term existence (Campbell, 2003). In terms of consumptive tourism, this involves only killing a certain proportion of the animals that are present. It is important to leave enough individuals so that the population does not suffer genetically, and is able to effectively reproduce and replace the members that were killed. Many authors consider that sustainable tourism only consists of non-consumptive forms of tourism. Such authors feel that any form of tourism that involves the intentional removal of animals is directly at odds with the aims of sustainable tourism, and thus cannot be considered as part of this category. However, this consideration does not take into account the many types of ecotourism which are classified as non-consumptive, but may involve tourists eating a meal containing locally killed meat, or being involved in a fishing expedition. (Meletis and Campbell, 2007). Such activities are still consumptive to some degree. Consequently, it can be argued that all forms of tourism, even sustainable tourism, are consumptive in some manner. The characterization of consumptive and non-consumptive forms of tourism is flawed and can be misleading. For example, viewing tours are considered to be entirely non-consumptive, yet some of these can consume significantly more in terms of environmental resources than forms of tourism that are considered consumptive, such as hunting. This can be seen in the non-consumptive tourism area of polar bear observation. Some tour operators modify the behaviour of bears by baiting them in order to bring them into the view of tourists. In addition, most tourists desire a luxury environment and to be safe from any risk or discomfort from the outside. Creating such environments can come at significant environmental cost (Foote and Wenzel, 2008). Conclusion Consumptive tourism is an method of tourism that provides economically for the society in which it is present, as well as motivating landowners and businesses to protect the species and environment. The use of consumptive tourism is heavily debated, with many feeling that it is contrary to the principles of sustainable tourism, or that killing for pleasure is unethical regardless of the potential benefits. Although consumptive tourism has the potential to have a significant detrimental effect on the environment, if managed correctly, it can provide an economically viable way to preserve the environment and charismatic species in the wild. References Campbell, L. M. (2003). Conteporary Culture, Use, and Conservation of Sea Turtles. In: Lutz, P., Musick, J. A. & Wyneken, J. (eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 307-338. Foote, L. & Wenzel, G. (2008). Conservation Hunting Concepts, Canada's Inuit, and Polar Bear Hunting. In: Lovelock, B. (ed.) Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. Routledge, 115-129. Gossling, S., Hall, C. M. & Weaver, D. B. (2009). Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations, New York, Routledge, 1-5. Highham, J. (ed.) (2007). Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourism Phenomenon: Elsevier. Lindsey, P. A., Romanach, S. S. & Davies-Mostert, H. T. (2009). The Importance of Conservancies for Enhancing the Value of Game Ranch Land for Large Mammal Conservation in Southern Africa. Journal of Zoology, 277, 99-105. Loveridge, A. J., Reynolds, J. C. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2006). Does Sport Hunting Benefit Conservation. In: Macdonald, D. & Service, K. (eds.) Key Topics in Conservation Biology. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Mbaiwa, J. E. (2008). The Success and Sustainability of Consumptive Wildlife Tourism in Africa. In: Lovelock, B. (ed.) Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Huting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. Routledge, 141-155. Meletis, Z. A. & Campbell, L. M. (2007). Call It Consumption! Re?Conceptualizing Ecotourism as Consumption and Consumptive. Geography Compass, 1, 850-870. Newsome, D., Dowling, R. & Moore, S. (2005). Wildlife Tourism, Channel View, 1-15. Novelli, M., Barnes, J. I. & Humavindu, M. (2006). The other side of the ecotourism coin: Consumptive tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5, 62-79. Palazy, L., Bonenfant, C., Gaillard, J. & Courchamp, F. (2011). Cat Dilemma: Too Protected To Escape Trophy Hunting. PloS one, 6, e22424. Sims-Castley, R., Kerley, G. I. H., Geach, B. & Langholz, J. (2005). Socio-Economic Significance of Ecotourism-Based Private Game Reserves in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province. Private Protected Areas: Parks, 15, 6-18. Tisdell, C. (2011). Economic Aspects of Ecotourism: Wildlife-based Tourism and Its Contribution to Nature. Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5, 83-95. Zeng, B. & Ryan, C. (2011). Assisting the Poor in China through Tourism Development: A Review of Research. Tourism Management, 33, 239-248. Read More