Environment

The Chad-Cameroon and Pipeline project was a four point two billion project that caused a lot of controversy with nearly eighty environmental and human rights activists. The project was essentially a 1,070-kilometer pipeline, to transport oil to a floating storage vessel off the coast of Cameroon. The board of directors still took a unanimous vote approving the project, expressing that the oil would benefit Chad and give them the best chance of getting out of poverty. With the World Bank participation secured, the project had began. The project operator, ExxonMobil and partners, Chevron and Petronas started to drill. The pipeline has affected the environment in Chad but mostly in Cameroon. The largest affected area is a small town named Kribi which consists of much coastline in Cameroon.

The oil from the pipeline is starting to degrade the coral reef and the underwater habitat. Not only is the coral reef being affected but all the fish that live near it, this hurts local fisherman that depend on fish for their main source of food. The involvement of international non-governmental institutions was the main source of aid employed here. Many non-governmental organizations have been involved with Chad and Cameroon before the pipeline project. These organizations have expressed concerns about the pipeline project before it had even began. Many local non-governmental organizations were meeting with different representatives from the World Bank and the other oil companies. After the project was completed, these non-governmental organizations played a large role with the documentation of the problems that occurred during the process of the project.

A few of these non-governmental organizations are Friends of the Earth and Cathlotic Relief Services. Friends of the Earth is a transnational grassroots environmental network that focuses on environmental advocacy for groups all over the world. Friends of the Earth has been involved in the pipeline project by monitoring it since construction began. The network along with other advocacy groups reported that the World Bank had engaged in projects that are harmful to the environment such as the pipeline project. Another non-governmental organization that has had a big impact to Chad and Cameroon is the Cathlotic Relief Service.

This service is a nonprofit humanitarian organization dedicated to providing relief to the pipeline project taking place in Chad and Cameroon. During the project, the biggest concern of the Cathlotic Relief Service was the mismanagement of the funds by Chad and Cameroon as well as the inadequate polices the World Bank is putting into place. The Cathlotic Relief Service has created a project to help monitor the pipeline project to make sure the funds are being put to sufficient use and for the communities surrounding the pipe. This initiative is called the Cameroon Chad Pipeline Monitoring Project.

The involvement of these few non-governmental organizations helping out the countries of Chad and Cameroon has been very beneficial for both the organizations and for the well being of the countries given the past pipeline project. These organizations are nonprofit and dedicated to helping the people of the community instead of focusing on wealth. The crisis that the pipeline project has caused in these countries is disturbing but lucky that there were types of organizations with their best interest in mind. The type of aid that The Cathlotic Relief Service and Friends of the Earth was very promising and more beneficial than the others.

The pipeline that was supposed to be helping better the community making things easier is now under scrutiny for potentially damaging the life of the people it was supposed to help. There have been two reports that the people who live in Chad and Cameroon have made to show the negative affects the pipeline is doing so far. The water supplies have been damaged, hunters have lost their hunting lands, farmers have lost land and crops so they no longer have an income. After the pipeline was constructed in 2003, two reported oil spills have occurred at the transit site 18 km (11 mi) off Cameroon’s coast. The first one took place on 15 January 2007. COTCO representatives reported that the leak was detected within a few hours and that the volume of spill was not adequate to cause any damage, while local fishermen reported to have seen signs of oil ashore.

Air pollution causes over 5 million premature deaths each year. According to research con- ducted by the Global Burden of Disease project. The negative health consequences of breathing in high levels of fine particles in the air has been well-documented. Air pollution has been linked due increased risk of heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and cancer. In addition to health risks, new research is finding links between air pollution and non-health sectors like the stock market. The link between air pollution and negative health outcomes is well known. But the connection between those health effects and performance on non-health sectors is not as clear.

Air pollution can come in various forms including fine particles that are the byproducts of the burning of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum, off-gassing from building materials, tobacco smoke, and common allergens like pollen and mold. No matter where you live, you are likely ex- posed to a number of air pollutants, but a number of large cities have far worse levels of air pol- lution than other areas. Highly polluted cities can have levels of air pollution that surpass 300 micrograms per cubic meter. 25 micrograms per cubic meter is considered a relatively safe level of fine particles in the air. Breathing in high levels of fine particles in the air is linked to lung cancer, heart diseases, and various respiratory diseases. This link is quite clear with solid data showing higher levels of disease and mortality rates in areas with high air pollution.

While the health effects of air pollution are well-documented, the effect on non-health sec- tors has not been as well-studied. A recent study, published in the journal Energy Policy, con- cluded that air pollution from energy production in the United States caused approximately $131 billion in damages in 2011. Most of the costs relate to health care costs associated with diseases linked to air pollution. The World Bank estimated that air pollution costs the global economy $225 billion in lost labor income in 2013. Reduced agricultural output has wide-ranging effects on the food supply that goes beyond the health effects of individuals. Air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, ozone, and ammonia can cause injury to plants, resulting in smaller yields. This not only damages the incomes of farmers, but it also lowers the supply of food and in turn makes food more expensive for consumers.

Most studies of air pollution are related to health and agricultural economics, but rarely go beyond those areas. Economics professor Anthony Heyes and other researchers from the Univer- sity of Ottawa studied the effects of air pollution on Wall Street. Using EPA air pollution data collected by a sensor near Wall Street, Heyes and his team found a correlation between high air pollution and a reduction in stock returns. Looking at the performance of the S&P 500, for every one standard deviation decrease in air quality, there was a 12 percent reduction in stock returns. It isn’t entirely clear why this is happening, but is speculated by the authors of the study that lower air quality can dampen your emotional and cognitive state, resulting in lower on the job performance. Lower cognitive function is also linked to risk aversion, which is associated with lower returns in the stock market.

Air pollution is almost exclusively discussed in the context of negative health conse- quences and the loss in economic output due to those health effects. As the health effects are be- ginning to be well-established, we may begin to see more research into the effects of air pollution on non-health related fields like the study on the stock market by researchers from the University of Ottawa. The researchers found that higher air pollution resulted in lower returns from the stock market. If we can observe a correlation between air pollution and job performance not di- rectly related to major health effects, this could create more urgency among people, businesses, and policy makers to combat air pollution.

Political

The deregulation of the commercial airline industry in the US was initiated by the Carter Administration in 1978. The momentum was building for deregulation of the air line industry in the face of resistance by most of the minor and some of the major American airline companies. The reason for the negative response on the part of smaller airlines to deregulation was that the bigger airlines would:

•  go in the medium haul markets which industry regulation denied them,
•  under price the smaller airlines operations,
•  compel minor airlines out of the industry, and
• raise prices in the medium haul markets.

Economic

One of the conventional methods used in the American airline conflict resolution is the mediation process/strategy. Mediation theory rests upon a neutral party able to diminish conflict by helping opposing parties define issues, examine solutions, and work towards an agreement. One of the biggest uses of mediation is that the parties can define the issues that result in conflict without the normal tension and stress because of the ameliorating effect of a neutral and impartial third party.

Social

In view of the recent American Airlines labour clash on collective bargaining. There were traditional three primary forms of negotiation used between management and labour. The first one was the collective bargaining, and the other one was the mediation. The third option was the legal action or justice system involvement. As a tool to attain a victorious compromise for labour from management, collective bargaining has been used for so long by unions.

Strikes, sit-downs, and other types of work stoppage are basically applied as a tool of threatening employers to concede to the demands of labourers. (Source: management & Union Negotiation Methods).

Yet, despite which methods are used, it is often the dynamics of conflict resolution that most impact the individual worker or most influence management decision-making. In an era where increasing “perceived competition” (Russel & Russel 1992:431 ), cost-cutting, free markets, and globalization continue to see support for unions erode in many democracies, the rights and freedoms of workers continue to be threatened.

Technological. The application of Information Technology to the airline reservations function information technology, which refers to the electronic processing and management of data. This creativity and innovation (Elsbach et al. 2005: 432) in the airlines industry led American Airlines to launch the largest airline computerized reservations systems, the Semi Automated Business Research Environment (SABRE), which is a subsidiary operation of American Airlines.

All the above answers our main research question and evidently recognized what attributes of organizational structure that sustain the development of organizational design, mostly in companies where these organizational structures form part of their strategy. Some agree to a very simple and flexible organizational design increasingly flat structure with fewer hierarchical levels in order to allow dialogue and team work among staff members and promote easy communication between all firm members, so that a combined learning can be produce from the knowledge owned by individuals.

This will permit the employees to take enhanced benefit of their individual potentialities, to build organization practices, boost the value of their contributions, and finally create industrial peace in the (airline) industry.

They are found around the equator between the tropic of Cancer and the tropic of Capricorn. They run in a belt from west – east. The landmass of tropical forest is very extensive, it covers 7% of all the worlds land. It is trans continental; it covers 4 continents South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

The Rainforest Environment:

The Amazon rejoins of South America (Amozonia)

Population density is number of people by area of land

Population density = number of people/ are of land

Brazil population = 150500000

Land area = 8361111 km2 population density =18 people per km2

U.K population = 56000000

Land area = 244602 km2 population density = 229 people per km2

Amazonian population = 6000000

Land area = 2000000 population density = 3 people per km2

A Comparative Analysis of population for the 3 areas?

Brazil is a much bigger population and a massive amount of land so there are a lot of people living in a large amount of land that is why the population density is so low. The U.K has a large population but a small amount of lad it is very densely populated that is why the population density is so high. Amazonian has a small population and a large amount of land it is very sparsely population that is why the population density is so very low.

You can read also

The Tropical Rainforest climate compared to our own (London and England)

The range of temperature is the amount of degrees between the lowest temperature and the highest.

(1) The annual rainfall for Manus is 1811mm this is about three times as much rain as London receives 600mm London has a very fixed amount of rainfall over the year and Manus has an extremly varied amount of rainfall over the year.

(2) Manus has a very high average temperature at about 28oc this is about three times the temperature of londons at 11oc.

(3) Manus has a very small range of temperature 2oc this shows no fixed seasons with temperature because there is very little change London’s is seven times bigger a 11oc this shows that the temperature is not fixed this is show by the four seasons winter spring autumn and summer, in June, July and August the temperasture is at its highest showing summer.

(4) Manus has only 2 distinct seasons the wet and the dry season because the temperature is the same all year round from November to May it rains very hevily about 200 mm from june to april it is relitivly dry about 50mm.

(5) The rainfall in Manus is very heavy most of the year except of 3 months it is not fixed; in London the rain is a similar amount all year round.

Vegetation and Daily Weather Conditions

Read this

In the rain forest the water is evaporated during the day and by 3 o’clock it starts to rain this is covectional rainfall. This make the forest vegitation very dense and not much light reaches the forest floor, becase it is some warm and wet if anything fall to the floor it starts to decompose quickly, There are 4 layers in a rain forest the top layer is the Emergents these are 45 meters high they are close together and stop some light passing through the there is the main canopy at 30 meters this stops more light and then at 25 meters there is the under canopy this stops more light then there are the shrubs at 5 meters this stops more light, so there is not very much light at the floor.

The trees in the tropical rainforest are deciduous but the forest remains evergreen. Why?

There are constant high temperatures, this means that there are no seasons like winter when the tress lose there leaves, the tress lose their leaves at different times in the year so it looks like the forest is evergreen.

In June last year, the football world cup finals were held in Japan and Korea. What did this mean for Japan? Well the arrival of so many people from outside Japan presented many opportunities and also caused problems. Hosting the World Cup Finals gave Japan and Korea a superb opportunity to boost their tourism figures. At that moment, Japan was 36th on the global tourist list (based on the number of tourists who visit each year).

The Japan National Tourist Organization felt that this didn’t match the country’s economy and population. Pictures of the two host countries were going to be on TV screens around the world for the duration of the tournament and both Japan and Korea hoped that this would boost their numbers for annual visitors. It was anticipated that around 365,000 spectators (Japan Times, July 26 2001) were going to travel to Japan from overseas to attend the tournament. Most of them were going to travel by air. An idea to ease congestion was that Tokyo’s main international airport Narita was to have a new runway built, so that two planes would be able to take off simultaneously.

Because the finals were going to be held in Japan and Korea, the number of flights between the two countries was going to increase. Spectators may have needed to get from one country to another as their team progressed through the tournament. The matches were being played in ten different cities all over Japan. So rail, road and air links between these cities had to be able to cope with an increase in traffic.

The areas surrounding the stadiums also had to be able to cope with the huge number of people attending the games – over 40 000 for each. This meant that road access had to be improved, and in some cases, as in Shizuoka, a new railway station had to be built near the stadium. The more direct impact for so many people was litter, and waste disposal, with such a large increase in visitors into the two countries the amount of litter and waste disposal was also going to increase by a large amount. And what about hooliganism? One company, Yokohama Nisshin Fire & Marine Insurance Co. in Japan offered to sell insurance against hooliganism. This also was a major issue that the two countries faced.

Japan and Korea world cup organizers had to prepare for hooliganism. The World Cup Safety Countermeasure Headquarters had compiled a database on known foreign hooligans to prevent them from entering Korea. It deployed squads of riot police at every stadium to promptly quell possible disturbances. At the same time, they had to seriously consider prohibiting sales of alcohol at the matches. What will be the economic effects of hosting the World Cup? Well it was also possible to turn a profit on the event? The far-reaching economic effects of hosting the World Cup can be largely divided into two – a direct and an indirect effect.

Far Reaching Economic Effects of the World Cup

Unit: US$ 100 million won, 1,000 persons

Classification

Details

Expenditure volume

Economic effects

Value added

Job creation

Investment expenditures

Construction of stadiums, surrounding roads

23,882

36,023

220

Consumption expenditure

Ordinary expenditure by the organizing committee

Tourism spending by foreigners

4,000

6, 825

17,334

130

Total

34,707

53,357

350

The direct effect covered the boosts to the economy created by the construction of infrastructure such as stadiums and the access roads, expenditures by the organizing committee to run the event and spending by foreign tourists. In a report, the Korea Development Institute (KDI) predicted that the event would create 350,000 jobs and raise industrial production by 11.48 trillion won ($8.82 billion). The income derived from spending by the 400,000 foreign visitors was estimated to reach 682.5 billion won ($525 million). In particular, it forecasted that it would create 5.34 trillion won ($4.10 billion) in value added, amounting to more than 1 percent of GDP in 2000 (517 trillion won, $397 billion). The report concludes that the overall value added created would surpass the total expenditure of 3.47 trillion won ($2.67 billion), resulting in a “surplus” of 1.87 trillion won ($1.44 billion).

The indirect effect covered the benefits that became apparent in the post-event period. They were associated with improvements in the external images of the host country and its corporations and were measured through increases in exports and the volume of inbound foreign investment. It was no exaggeration to say that prime attraction of any government in hosting the World Cup is to maximize such intangible publicity effects.

The contrasting leisure activity that I had chosen is skiing in the French Alps. Ski tourism has prospered and grew since the 1060’s in the French Alps, and as a result, a large number of resorts have been developed to cope with the high demand. There has been a lot of heavy investment, which has been put into the expensive infrastructure, such as the creation and construction of new ski lifts, the creation of new ski runs, and the maintenance of the resort. But this continued growth of ski tourism in the Alps is having its turn of serious negative effects on the physical environment. The main negative effect on the mountain environment, caused by ski tourism and the resort, such as “Serre Chevalier” is that its starting to scar the landscape, and with deforestation occurring where ski runs are and have been created on the wooded mountain sides, it’s resulting in the increase of run-off, erosion and the potential for environmental hazards, such as flooding to occur.

The effects of the skiing industry on Mont Lozere can also be investigated. Heavy ski-traffic after good winter snow conditions leaves its mark on the landscape for many years. The ski tows on Mont Lozere operated for 85 days during the 1998/1999-ski season. The 1999/2000 Season was poor, with the ski tows only open for 5 days. Skiing on Mont Lozere is at best of times unpredictable! Since the 1960’s, local and regional authorities have encouraged the development of downhill skiing in the Massif Central in an attempt to bring some of the economic benefits associated with this huge growth industry, to the area. Unfortunately, due to the rather unreliable snow conditions in the southern part of the Massif Central, not all the ski developments have become commercially successful.

There are also many environmental issues associated with alpine skiing, such as gulling, deforestation and the positioning of unsightly ski tows in the core zone of the Cevennes National Park. Another case study would be “Ski Chalet du Mont Loz�re”. The on-piste and off-piste transects are used to assess the damage caused by skiing to the physical environment. The visual impact of the ski chalet and the resort infrastructure are assessed, and the attitudes of a cross section of people are included, for example those employed in the industry, tourists, and local people, to assess the impact of the skiing industry on the local economy.

The Creation of Ski Resorts-The creation of such ski resorts, in scenic and un-spoilt environments, has placed great pressures on the physical landscape with large numbers of tourists using the mountain ski slopes each year, not always in ideal snow conditions, creating stresses on these unique alpine environments, due to tourism.

Problems Created by Ski Tourism-Ski tourism creates many problems, such as increased traffic, problems with access, congestion and pollution. Increased numbers of people result in the need for more houses, hotels, and facilities to be constructed, causing problems with water demand, waste disposal and visual intrusion. Ski tourism has ecological impacts on the environment and physical landscape, with erosion of soils, depopulation of plant species and deforestation, leading to increased erosion and probability of hazards occurring.

The Environmental Impacts-The environmental impacts of ski tourism in the ski resort of “Serre Chevalier” can be clearly seen. The scars that are created by ski runs are visible in all seasons. It does not just affect the aesthetic quality of the area, but more important are the resulting consequences. Such devastation of forest, in large paths and swoops, across the mountainsides, causes soil degradation, erosion, landslides and increased run-off leading to flooding.

Deforestation and Erosion-Deforestation due to ski run development can cause an increase in erosion due to increased run-off. Deforestation in effect, removes the protection of the canopy and as a result, the soil underneath that was previously protected, is then susceptible to the effects of raindrop impact and increased amounts of run-off, which would have been previously stopped or delayed by the trees. As a result erosion takes hold and more importantly the rate and amount of run-off increases, causing potential hazards to occur such as flooding, especially in these high mountain areas, where sudden downpours of rain, with snow melt can cause surges of water to be sent down the tributaries over a very short period of time.

The world has seen the growth of tourism increase dramatically in the past fifty years and with this growth comes a concern for the cultural and environmental impacts associated with it. Ecotourism is the new breed of tourism based around the concept of nature and cultural appreciation, espoused by many to bring significant economic benefits to the host countries as well as being a sustainable alternative to mass tourism. The aim of this paper is to review the literature that focuses on the environmental impacts of ecotourism. This will be achieved through the discussion of five key areas.

First, the multitude of definitions surrounding ecotourism will be examined with a view to identifying the core concepts. Second, the key players involved in the ecotourism industry will be identified. Third, the positive and negative impacts associated with ecotourism will be discussed. Fourth, the contributing factors that determine the level of environmental impact. Fifth, the future of ecotourism and how it can be managed. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for future research.

World tourism is growing in terms of number of travellers as well as in economic expansion (World Tourism Organisation (W. T. O), 1997) and as the worlds largest industry (Nelson, 1993) it earns approximately $US 2. 5 trillion annually (Dearden, 1993). Tourism takes on many different guises and nature-tourism is one of these, which, in it’s most sustainable form has been labelled ecotourism. Within the worldwide tourism industry ecotourism is one of the fastest growing sectors (Eagles, 1995) and according to a 2001 W. T. O and United Nations Environment Programme study ecotourism may represent between two and four percent of global tourism (W. T. O, 1997).

Although this is a relatively small percentage share it is not the volume that is significant but the fact that it is a type of tourism that attempts to minimise the negative effects of traditional mass tourism, be these economic, social or environmental (Doan, 2000). There has been a proliferation of ecotourism-related articles in professional journals since the late 1980s (Sirakaya, 1999) and due to the expansive nature of ecotourism the literature covers a multitude of topics. It is for this reason that for the purpose of this paper I have focused on the journals that are concerned particularly with the environmental impacts of ecotourism.

These journals take the form of definition articles (Edwards, 1998; Sirakaya, 1999; Fennel, 2000), articles on particular case studies (Burton, 1998; Doan, 2000; Thomlinson, 1996; Obua, 1997; Nianyong, 2001; Chin, 2000), and articles on impact related aspects from more of a resource point of view (Beaumont, 2001; Tyler, 1999; Acott, 1998). Section 1: Defining the Concept of Ecotourism Before even beginning to identify what environmental impacts ecotourism is having on the environment it is important to clarify the concept of what it is.

The problems of defining ecotourism have been debated at length (Blamey, 1997), and there is a tremendous amount of literature exploring the definitions of ecotourism. It can be observed that Ceballos-Lascurain (1983) was one of the first people to provide a working definition (Sirakaya, 1999; Thomlinson, 1996; Edwards, 1998; Fennel, 2001). His definition was normative and he suggested that ecotourism incorporates the notions of travelling to relatively untouched natural areas with the objective of enjoying and admiring the area’s natural and cultural manifestations.

From that period on the definitions came to include the notion of ecological sustainability and that ecotourism should provide economic benefits for local people, as well as provide funds for conservation of the visited areas (Boo, 1990; Lindberg and Hawkins, 1993; Tyler, 1996). Researchers from the field of biological research tend to focus mainly on the environmental aspects of the definition (Tyler, 1999; Nianyong, 2001; Acott et al. , 1998) when using the term ecotourism in their research papers.

While others have not included a definition of what they consider ecotourism to stand for (Obua, 1997; Burton, 1998), suggesting that people reading articles in the tourism journals are assumed to have a comprehensive understanding of what the term ecotourism means. In the recent years research focusing on the definitions of ecotourism have been performed through content analysis of pre-existing definitions, one such being by Sirakaya (1999) who looked at it from a supply side view and identified whether tour-operators in the America’s viewed themselves in fit with their own ecotourism definitions and policies.

These definitions took a normative and positive viewpoint that can also be seen in Fennels (2001) article. He also used a content analysis method and incorporated the concept of definition alterations over time as well as differentiating between definitions provided by government and individuals (researchers) mainly in the Americas. Perhaps the most exhaustive study of definitions was undertaken by Edwards et al (1998), who conducted a content analysis of the ecotourism policies employed by the government agencies of all the countries in the America’s.

All these content analyses provide a fresh insight into the definition of ecotourism although they are biased due to the fact that they use very few definitions provided by researchers and governments outside of the America’s. A commonly cited definition that I think encapsulates the main findings of the three content analysis studies previously described (Sirakaya, 1999; Fennels, 2001; Edwards et al. , 1998) is one that originated from the Ecotourism Society (1993), and for the purpose of this review is the definition I shall be using. It is:-

Purposeful travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem, while producing opportunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local citizens. Section 2: Identification of the Key Players in the Ecotourism Industry In this section I will identify four different groups who have key roles to play in the ecotourism industry; the communities residing in the host ecotourism country/area, the tourists, the tour operators, and the government agencies.

All of the above groups are interconnected and affect each other and in turn effect the environmental impact on ecotourism destinations, this will be discussed further in section four. The literature only provides very fleeting references into the nature of the communities that are affected by ecotourism. The main way that local communities would appear to get involved in the ecotourism industry is through being employed in the local tourist activities.

Be it through building accommodation (Obua, 1997), guiding (Chin et al. , 2000), or by being involved in local conservation projects (Nianyong, 2001). Yet even descriptions of these activities are very minimal and so will not be addressed further in this review. On a general level of description about the tourist group the authors tend to refer to them as eco-tourists (Beumont, 2001; Acott, 1998), and they are observed to be mainly westerners (Chin et al. , 2000).

It is agreed that all eco-tourists have the underlying wish to travel to natural areas with a view to appreciating the unspoilt environment (Tyler, 1999; Beumont, 2001; Acott, 1998) and within this concept is the discussion in the literature concerning the ‘spectrum’ of nature based tourists (Burton, 1998). Beumont (2001) identified a range of different types of nature based travellers by suggesting that each eco-tourist is unique in terms of their knowledge of the nature and attitude towards it.

This idea can be seen in a slightly different guise in Acott’s (1998) research which takes a much more phenomenological approach and segments eco-tourists into ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ groups. Shallow eco-tourists are of an anthropocentric frame of mind in that they view humans as separate from nature and that nature is an instrument that serves human ends. ‘Deep’ eco-tourists adopt a much more holistic view of the world and view humans to be intrinsically linked with the environment.

Burton (1998) identifies these differing types as ‘casual’ and ‘dedicated’ eco-tourists with ‘dedicated’ ones having higher expectations in terms of the quality of the ecotourism experience. Eco-tourism as a product is delivered by the ecotour operators and companies (Thomlinson, 1996). They characteristically have the parent business located in the base country (predominantly western) who prepare nature tour packages and then co-ordinate with the other half of their business in the destination country (Higgins, 1996). The majority are small-scale operations (Blamey, 1995; McArthur, 1994).

This enables the operators to practice environmentally responsible practices and to ensure high quality experiences for the tourists (Burton 1998; Thomlinson, 1996). In compliance with the definition of ecotourism ecotour operators ideally should act in an environmentally responsible manner yet many researchers suggest that they are masquerading as ecotour companies and use the term ecotourism as a marketing tool (Nianyong, 2001; Thomlinson, 1996; Beaumont, 2001; Burton, 1998).

With respect to government agencies involvement and attitudes towards ecotourism the content analysis study conducted by Edwards et al. 1998) provides the most comprehensive insight into their agenda’s. As well as this empirical study the literature identifies them as playing an important role in the management of the ecotourism industry with them being the creators of the policies which control the exploitation of natural areas (Nianyong, 2001; Chin et al. , 2000; Beaumont, 2001; Burton, 1998). This is especially true when the ecotourism activities take place in national parks as designated by governments (Obua, 1997; Nianyong, 2001; Woodward, 1996).

The influence they have on environmental impact management will be discussed further in section 4. Section 3: The Positive and Negative Environmental Impacts. The positive environmental impacts are essentially indirect benefits that are derived from educating tourists on environmental issues, and providing economic benefits for the destination country/area to aid in conservation of their natural resources. With respect to issue of education Beumont (1998) cites the writings of Boo (1991) and Goudberg et al. 1991) who argue that ecotourism provides environmental education or interpretation for participants which in turn creates awareness and understanding of the natural environment therefore creating support for conservation.

This idea is supported by Chin et al. (2000: 31) whose qualitative study based around a questionnaire completed by 210 eco-tourists who visited Bako national park in Borneo. It showed that “90% of respondents indicated the importance of learning about nature as part of their experience, suggesting that visitors to Bako would be highly receptive to educational strategies. It is the ecotour operators who are essentially the main providers of the environmental education and Blamey (1995) notes that ecotour operators in Australia primarily set up their businesses because of their personal interest in the environment. Economic benefits derived from ecotourism and that positively impact the environment take a number of forms. Boo (1990) argues that ecotourism can stimulate the economy and in turn generate direct funding for conservation.

An example of this is where Doan (2000) cites Wells (1993) who talks about mountaineering fees that are being used for the cleanup of Sagmarth National Park in Nepal, and has led to increased ecological quality. An indirect environmental benefit derived from ecotourism is that it provides an alternative to more damaging types of industry (Thomlinson, 1996). This can be seen in a case study (Obua, 1997) where forest ecotourism was introduced in the Kibale National Park as a sustainable industry instead of ruining the environment through logging.

The definition provided by the Ecotourism Society suggests that ecotourism should not alter the integrity of the ecosystem, yet as Tyler and Dangerfield (1999) argue almost any level of human exploitation has impacts on an ecosystem. His qualitative research took the viewpoint of resource management, the resource being the ecosystems that are exploited by ecotourism, and points out that most of the ecosytems that are visited have developed independently of human interaction and have to adapt rapidly to deal with the human incursion, depending on the level of human disturbance.

Tyler (1999) does point out that marine environments are particularly susceptible to the development of ecotourism, a topic researched at length by Mason (1998) who, through the use of a qualitative research tool assessed the potential effects on two marine environments and found that predominantly negative biophysical effects occurred due to development of ecotourism. A study on forest degradation due to ecotourism (Obua, 1997) was the only quantitative research on the subject of environmental impact that was found in the literature.

Perhaps an area for future research? Other environmental impacts of ecotourism outlined in the literature take the form of general comments about how animal behaviour is disrupted with particular reference to altered eating habits (Burger, 1998; Tyler, 1999; Thomlinson, 1996). Pollution created in the forms of rubbish as well as water and vehicle pollution which is also mentioned in the literature (Mason, 1998; Chin et al. , 2000; Nianyong, 2001) as well as damage done to vegetation due to trampling.

An indirect environmental impact that is discussed in some depth by Burton (1998) and to a lesser extent Beaumont (2001) is the fact that most eco-tourists have the expectation of appreciating the natural environment without the presence of large numbers of people. This has led to the exploitation of previously untouched area in an attempt to provide ecotourists with quality experiences. Section 4: Determining the level of Environmental Impact In the literature one of the biggest debates is whether eco-tourism leads to mass-tourism and it’s associated environmental problems (Beaumont, 2001; Doan, 2000; Mason, 1998; Obua, 1997).

Even if it does not lead to fully-fledged mass-tourism it agreed throughout the literature that an increase in visitors to sensitive natural environments causes an increase in associated environmental impacts. Discussion on at what point the number of tourists is too much for a destination focuses on the concept of carrying capacity (Doan, 2000; Thomlinson, 1996). This is the theoretical limit to the number of tourists that an area can sustain without deleterious effects (Boo, 1990).

They also refer to Butler’s life cycle model and Burton (1998) cites Thomlinson’s (1996) empirical evidence, and argues that once the number of tourists reach a certain level then ecotourism turns into mass-tourism. So as described, the number of tourists converging on a destination is a key factor on the level of environmental impact, yet what factors contribute to the differing numbers of ecotourists? A common idea in the literature is the attitudes of the governing bodies towards the development of ecotourism sites (Thomlinson, 1996; Obua, 1997; Chin et al. 2000; Nianyong, 2001). A common theme is that governments have been tempted by the prospect of making a ‘quick buck’, and therefore do not put in place policies limiting exploitation of their countries natural resources, and policies limiting numbers of tourists. Although one country that has minimised environmental impacts through limiting the number of western tourists is Bhutan (Brunet, 2001), yet not totally as they still allow an unlimited number of Indians to cross their borders, a policy controlled by the government!

Nianyong (2001) also illustrates that governments should be instrumental in helping to develop environmentally responsible policies within their country as well as providing funds for research. Yet in the case of Nianyongs’ research which was a survey conducted in China, he points out that a lot of ecotourism destinations are in the third world, this is can be seen in the way that most of the case studies on ecotourism are based in the third world. These host countries can’t afford to provide funds for appropriate ecotourism development, a point corroborated by Chin et al. 2000) whose study was based in Malaysia. Yet paradoxically authorities were responsible for increasing the number of eco-tourists to the Bako national park in 1988 through tourism promotion. Chin et al. (2000) suggests that this was driven by economic interests. The next area of discussion focuses on how eco-tour operators affect the level of environmental impact that ecotourism destinations experience. As previously mentioned it is suggested that eco-tour operators are simply exploiting the concept of ecotourism by using it as a marketing tool.

Burton (1998) cites a number of researchers who suggest that surveys indicate that a large number of eco-tour operators cannot be considered to act in an environmentally responsible manner (Botrill and Pearce, 1995; Weiler, 1992; Holden & Kealy, 1996; Jones, 1993). This obviously has serious implications for the level of environmental impact and in Belize supposedly ecotourism companies have destroyed large swaths of mangrove swamps in order to develop luxury bungalows (Thomlinson, 1996).

Also although most eco-tour operators are small businesses there are so many of them they can negatively impact the environment through a cumulative effect (Thomlinson, 1996; Beaumont, 2001). As illustrated the number of ecotourists descending upon an area is one of the main factors determining the level of environmental impact Yet there are references in the literature that point out that it is the innate attitude of the actual eco-tourist towards pro-environmental causes that plays an important part in the level of environmental impact that ecotourism destinations experience (Acott, 1998; Chin et al. 2000; Beaumont, 2001). Acott (1998) who discusses ecotourism in terms of ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ differentiates different types of eco-tourists in terms of the level to what extent they pursue environmentally sustainable lifestyles. He uses the example of a low impact eco-traveller who stays in very basic accommodation and pursues a minimal impact experience compared to a large group of bird watchers staying in a luxury hotel with the expectation of a westernised ecotourism experience.

Section 5: The Future of Ecotourism The focus of this section is to identify the numerous variables correlated with the success of ecotourism as a sustainable option for the future, and the recommendations documented in the literature to ensure the long-term success of ecotourism. As it is recognised that large numbers of tourists have detrimental affects on the environment, many of the researchers talk about limiting visitor numbers (Burton, 1998; Thomlinson, 1996; Nianyong, 2001; Chin et al. 2000). Yet how many is too many? Tyler (1999) and to a lesser extent Doan (2000) suggest that the resource base (the ecotourism destination) as an ecosystem needs to be considered primarily, and to define saleable products that will have an absorbable impact. In relation to actually controlling the number of visitors it is generally agreed that government tourism agencies are ones who have the power to implement these controls.

Thomlinson (1996) suggests that infrastructure should be limited thus discouraging large scale tours, this was actually achieved in Bako National Park Malaysia, whereby the authorities decided not to build a main road into the park and only allow tourists access to the park via river boats. Nianyong (2001) also suggests that operators wishing to establish ecotourism businesses in national parks should have to obtain licenses thereby maintaining the integrity of the industry.

There are also suggestions that as ecotourism is after all a business, causing smaller eco-tour operators (who have less of an impact on the evironment) being forced out of the market by larger operators. These larger operators are seen to be the leading edge of mass tourism and achieve greater profits through economies of scale (Burton, 1998, Thomlinson, 1996). Therefore they argue that government agencies need to promote and perhaps subsidise the smaller operatives and restrict the growth of larger operators.

Yet the tension that exists with governments, especially in third world countries, is that they lack funds and by limiting the number tourists they are limiting the economic benefits provided by the ecotourism industry. These government agencies have to realise that although increase in visitor numbers means greater profits, eco-tourists want to experience nature without being crowded by other humans (Burton, 1998). Boo (1990: 96) noted in reference to the environmental effects of ecotourism ‘that tourism, if not managed properly, can destroy tourism’.

The issue of educating eco-tourists is the other fundamental tool that can be used in maintaining the sustainability of ecotourism. By creating positive attitudes towards environmental preservation amongst tourists it fosters awareness about the future implications of ecotourism amongst the very people who are the consumers of the product, and who directly impact the environment they are visiting. Fortunately according to Sirakaya’s (1999) research ‘according to tour operators, ecotourism also includes involvement in after travel to inspire personal responsibility’.

The raises the point addressed at length by Beaumont (2001) that it is the responsibility of the eco-tour operators to provide quality education to the tourists. Nianyong (2001) also points out that local communities in the host destination need to be educated and involved and encouraged to participate in environmental conservation. A point only briefly touched upon in other articles. Section 6: Conlusion Five lines of enquiry were discussed, each focusing on different aspects. However, these aspects are highly interconnected.

The first section outlined how research into the definitions of ecotourism had mainly been qualitative. Recently however the research has tended to be functionalist in nature with quantitative studies employing content analysis techniques as a means to attempt to settle the definition debate. I observed definite core themes in the research yet felt as did the most recent researchers did that pinpointing an exact definition was act of futility, due to the global nature of ecotourism.

Yet the definition I used at the bottom of section 1 provided the basis of reference for the duration of the review. In the second and third section the research findings illustrated the interconnectedness of the key players in the ecotourism industry and the effects they are having as a whole on the environment. The articles that were found to provide the best insight into the detailed effects of what environmental impacts ecotourism has on host countries were found in Case Study articles, where various regions were examined in depth.

Although a problem with these case studies was that they were slightly limited in that they all examined ecotourism activities in national parks. I would suggest future research that focuses on areas that are not national parks, but which do accommodate ecotourism, one such place being Kodaikanal in southern India, a place where as an ecotourist myself, inspired this review. There was also a distinct lack of detailed quantitative research of a geographical nature into environmental impacts, yet research of this nature is inherently difficult due to the complex nature of ecosystems.

Section four and five viewed ecotourism and it’s capacity to minimise environmental damage in the context of ‘the bigger picture’ by pulling together the previous sections. The literature acknowledged that ecotourism is a business after all and that market forces as with nearly everything in this world are driving factors behind whether ecotourism is a success or not in the future. Yet it can be seen just through observing the recent initiation of new journals such as the Journal of Sustainable Tourism that there is concern for the well-being the environment, especially with the dramatic annual growth of tourism.

Therefore research into the ecotourism industry will almost certainly continue apace. This is fortunate as Tyler (1999) points out there are a multitude of dimensions and paradigms associated with ecotourism research, ranging from philosophy to ecological economics. To conclude, the future of ecotourism is an uncertain one. Negative environmental impacts have definitely been observed, although in other areas where effective policies have been implemented the environment has apparently not suffered and the sustainability of the industry is assured.

There is evidence that supports the theory that ecotourism leads to mass tourism and it’s associated problems. Yet, I would observe that the commonality amongst all these issues is that geographical location causes the differing variables associated with ecotourism development and is the deciding factor as to whether ecotourism can be implemented successfully to protect the environment. This is where further research should be directed enabling future ecotourism planners to have a reference point according to their global location.

As demands for tourism and recreation increases for example due to an aging but active population , new interest in nations heritage and people seeking quiet environments so too will their impact on other socio economic structures in society, tourist environments and wildlife habitats. In Bali, Kenya and the lake District much of the early development was uncontrolled and badly planned. Development was driven by the momentum for growth and the developers desires for fast profits, without any thought being given to the future.

These areas which are shaped by the forces of nature are now under threat, if not in the process of being physically damaged and destroyed. In Kenya tourism is mainly Safari and Beach orientated. The wildlife related tourism brought an increased amount of visitors into Kenya through the 1990s, boosting the LEDCs economy. However many of the areas that are most valuable to the tourist trade are the wildlife filled parks that have been inhabited by people like the Masai for hundreds of years.

Tourism has been environmentally harmful here where the sheer number of visitors and amount of Safari traffic is seriously damaging the vegetation cover and the vehicles are causing soil erosion. Also the increase in tourism has meant an increase in the long haul travel which is now seriously contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Problems created are going to be more severe in the ELDW than in the EMDW . Many of the tourist souvenirs are made by the locals are made of ebony and the trees are cut down faster than replaced.

However tourism has not always been harmful to the environment and can benefit an area where the marine life has been re appraised and is beginning to be viewed as valuable. Like the marine park at Watamu off the coast of Milindi which was set up to preserve the coral reefs and to provide an additional visitor attraction. Not only has tourism brought environmental impacts that are harmful to Kenya, it has brought economic impacts that are harmful. At least 40% of tourist revenue is leaked outside to airlines and travel companies.

You can read also Waves

The result of beach tourism has caused a rapid increase of land prices along the coast, well beyond the purchasing power of local African farmers. The improvements in infrastructure has also contributed to land price inflation and encouraged further speculative hotel buildings on what was good agricultural land. I don’t agree though that the impact is always harmful as the locals have benefited from these improvements in infrastructure. Furthermore tourism had overtaken coffee on Kenya’s major export earner: it equalled 43% of export earning in 1990.

Additionally tourism was an employer in both the formal and informal sector. In Bali the environmental impact of tourism has nearly always been harmful. The number of tourists visiting Bali was fairly low until the late sixties when the numbers dramatically increased. This was due to the governments five year plan to encourage tourism to the area. The growth in tourism caused harmful environmental impacts . Raw sewage was dumped into the sea as the infrastructure cannot cope with tourists.

This damages the reefs. The wake from motor boats also destroys the coral as does the actions of those trying to collect it to sell to tourists. Once damaged there is nothing stop the waves hitting the beach directly, resulting in beach erosion that threatens coconut plantations, farmland and land on which hotels are built. Tourism in Bali has led to threat of extinction of numerous breeds of turtle whose eggs are now collected as a delicacy from tourists and the bodies of which as stuffed or made into trinkets.

On the other hand this led to the environmental benefit of the convention on international trade in endangered species forcing the Indonesian government to tighten their controls on the treatment of animals. As the number of tourists increases so does infrastructure of roads , electricity mains, water, airports and car parks being created. Though its association with pollution has been a problem. The main beach in Bali Kuta has been spoiled. There is severe beach erosion of up to 2cm a year and the combat the litter problem people are employed to bury the rubbish each morning.

Tourism also brought violent crime which was unknown to Bali before 1979, drug dealing , prostitution and theft increased. However in Bali a marine park of Bunaken off N Sula west was set up because of tourism. As the potential impact of tourism on the natural environment was recognised, suitable conservation projects were set up. Even though the environmental impact of tourism was harmful, I brought many economic benefits. Many new jobs were created especially in hotels, travel agencies and the craft and entertainment industries e. g. 7000 applicants for 400 jobs at the new Bali-Hyat hotel.

There is a revival of some traditional arts and crafts aimed at the tourist market wood carvers, jewellery making, weaving, Batik. Also Balinese dancers now come to the larger hotels to perform for guests when originally the tourists would have had to go into the villages to see them. Again there have been economic costs where many of the economic benefits have not been evenly spread. Resorts in the South have benefited whilst those in the North east have not. This has lead to conflict between the two areas over the distribution of tourist receipts.

At village level much of the money from tourism in being spent on schools, cultural improvements, temple maintenance. However increasingly the money is being spent on imported goods, which don’t benefit the island economy. Land prices have increased between 1969 and 1970 by 40% in tourist areas this was 120%. In resort areas previously agricultural land use was for growing food for the islanders was sold off to resorts offering to pay hundreds of times the price it would fetch on agricultural land. To prevent the impact of tourism from being harmful again measures were taken by locals.

Boards were put up on gates and walls warning tourists that certain ceremonies were private. Trees were planted and flowers. A restaurant association was established and elected its own leader. This was followed by the art shop, guest houses and bus drivers and dancer troupes. A map of the village was published by the organisation with full explanation of how to behave in the village an example of greater control by indigenous population. In the Lake District which is an MEDW, I don’t agree the environmental impact is almost always harmful.

The lake district is one of the UKs national parks which has two purposes to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the lake district, was well to promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of special qualities of the national park and a duty to foster the economic and social well being of local communities within the park. These aims inevitably create conflicts of interest either between local people and visitors because users and uses cannot easily be easily restricted to certain areas of zoning. Footpath erosion is a widespread environmental impact and clear sign of visitor pressure.

It is caused by people not sticking to the footpath because they don’t want to or it is flooded or poor management. The other causes of footpath erosion climate due to heavy rain, strong winds and frost. The type of vegetation as mat grass, bents and fesules resist trampling best, the aspect, erosion is more likely to happen on slopes less than 18 and the pressure of use. However it is not always harmful as management strategies have been introduced which direct visitors along alternative routes: repair and maintain through drainage by placing small drainage channels along the path side so that rainwater is channelled away more quickly.

They can construct the path using techniques such as pitching which is sinking stones into the path so that only the tops show to give a hard surface. Also matting can be used stabilizing the path over boggy ground. Furthermore the path can be repaired using methods such as levelling off the scar and the banks on its sides. Re seeding the grass with mat grass and fescues which better resist the effects of trampling. In the lake district the environmental impact is not always harmful as LDNPA ensures tourism is sustained and managed. To prevent congestion on the roads and air pollution.

Roads are closed to traffic in tourist season and weekends. Tourists encouraged to ‘walk in and walk out’ i. e. not using cars. Also to preserve the environment and to make the environmental impact less harmful they have a concentration of high visitor densities with a small number of honey pots with high carrying capacity such as Windermere. At the other extreme there are natural lakes on which no use of the water surface is allowed e. g. wast water. These are managed at low carrying capacities to give low density, quiet, leisure experiences.

In such areas negative planning controls are used to restrict accessibility and hence control numbers of visitors. E. g. not upgrading the narrow winding roads over the passes from honey pots and not providing more parking spacing. The make the environmental impact less harmful. On top of this again to make the impact of tourism less harmful the LSNPA is the Development control or planning authority for the whole lake district. It must approve all new buildings/ changes to buildings or land use. Tries to protects the area from development out of character with the landscape .

It does not stop all developments and must allow change to develop in response to peoples needs as long as the doesn’t damage the qualities and character of the national park. Overall it would seem that in that tourism in the LEDW has had an adverse impact on the environment, degrading the resources on which it depends. The damage was from the overuse and misuse of resources together with poor management and planning. However in the MEDW in the lake district they have been able to sustain the environment and tourism by balancing the economic growth with conservation of the environment.