Hey urban nomads! In the previous post, my blog mate, Kai Jun highlighted a successful story of ecotourism and I really hope that more countries/ tourist destinations can learn from it and make tourism a more sustainable industry! However, being a skeptic (which is the very main reason why I chose to blog on environmental pollution of the tourism industry), I hope to bring another perspective – ecotourism is not that ‘eco’ afterall.

Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints

The above quote is what ecotourists aim to live by. However, the reality is that the very presence of the visitors may pose an indirect threat to that ecosystem by leaving a deep-rooted effects on the animals.

Wildlife disturbance

One prominent example is in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, where the elk were observed to have taken “refuge” in areas of high-human activity e.g. near the park lodge or along busy roads. This means that the elk spent less time in alert postures and increase the possibility of attack by prey. By providing such a “safe haven” for these animals, this increases the docility of the animals (Putois, 2015). This disrupts the natural instinct of the animals and might make them more vulnerable to external harm since they constantly let their guards down.

Tourists spotted a distance away from the elk

Protected wildlife areas attract around 8 billion visitors every year. This leads to a phenomenon called ‘habituation’ – animals are used to the presence of humans due to interactions with tourists (Putois, 2015). This makes them vulnerable to poachers. Habituated Grauer gorillas are an example – more likely to be killed by poachers as they are easier to be lured compared to the non-habituated ones (Putois, 2015).

Spread of disease

Many tourists would still touch animals if they could even when they know of the potential of infecting a primate with disease

A cold to human is mild but it could be life threatening to an ape as we are genetically related and we have many pathogens in common. Hence, apes are immunologically naïve to our diseases (Holmes, 2018). Given that apes are mainly social animals, diseases can spread easily and might even destroy part of the population (Holmes, 2018). Many individual cases are not picked up and not studied extensively, therefore we should not assume that we do not have any impact on wildlife. As seen from the figure above, many tourists prioritise their experience and would still be inclined to be in contact with a primate (or wild animal for that matter) even though they are aware of the consequences. The greed to break the rules due to the cost of travelling and tourist experience brings about an ethical question on how much we are willing to compromise our vacation for the sake of the animals’ health.

To conclude, should you participate in ecotourism or not? The simple answer is it depends on where you are intending to travel. Not all ecotourism are bad so long as there are strict regulations and enforcement which calls for a physical separation between humans and animals (no touching). Do up some research on the place of interest beforehand to see if there are any safety briefings conducted and if penalties are put in place or is it just simply green-washing. Most importantly, it should be up to personal responsibility to ensure that there is no impact to the environment or at least the impact is kept to a minimal.

References:

Holmes, B. (2018). Dangers of ecotourism: Up close and infectious. Retrieved September 07, 2020, from https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2018/dangers-ecotourism-close-and-infectious

Putois, A. (2015, November 14). The Downside of Ecotourism: What Happens When Humans Interact With Animals. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/the-downside-of-ecotourism-what-happens-when-humans-interact-with-animals/