The article titled “Ecotourism is the most Valuable use of Rainforest” found on the online science website, Lab Spaces, reveals numerous claims about the benefits brought about through ecotourism.
The most fundamental claim the author asserts is that ecotourism is a more profitable industry than popular businesses that exploit the rainforest, such as logging, cattle ranching, and farming. When stating this, the author briefly refers to a study conducted by researchers from the University of East Anglia, explaining that the profits from twelve eco-lodges in the Tambopata region of Peru were compared against the “likely profits” from previously mentioned businesses, and the revenue from ecotourism triumphed. I believe this to be a huge weakness in the strength and dependency of the article’s message because the original study seems to lack relevance to rainforests as a collective. The study was only conducted in a small region of Peru, and only twelve eco-lodges were assessed. In order to make a convincing argument that ecotourism is exceedingly profitable, it would have been beneficial to reference other similar research in different locations around the world. It must be acknowledge that ecotourism may only have been found to be surpassingly lucrative in the area because of reasons such as the location may simply be a desirable travel destination. In other areas around the world, the natural landscape may not be as appealing to tourists, hence other industries would profit more than ecotourism in those locations. If the author had referred to similar studies on a more global range and found similar trends throughout, his argument would be much more convincing.
In addition, it is stated that the profits of the twelve eco-lodges were compared against the “likely” profits of other such industries in the region. By using the vague word “likely”, the author discredits the study, and in turn his own argument, because it makes it seem as if the researchers simply made a guess as to how much money the compared industries were earning. It is unlikely that the researchers estimated these numbers without substantial evidence, but we are really not provided any information on how the numbers were derived. In order for the reader to have more faith in the article, I think it would have been beneficial if the author had bestowed on us the ways in which the profits were estimated. By not providing any of this information, it makes one doubtful as to whether the methods were in fact dependable.
Adding to the claim that ecotourism is the most profitable industry in rainforest regions, it is then noted that local people will have much more incentive to build up the ecotourism industry and simultaneously protect the rainforests. Though locals may be more motivated to create their own ecotourism companies, the author does not acknowledge that it is mainly transnational corporations who have power over the treatment of rainforests. It is extremely unlikely that TNC’s will halt the progress of their companies to embark on a new endeavor in the ecotourism industry. Ecotourism still involves a degree of development and destruction exerted on the rainforest, and if locals are driven to start these businesses while large-scale logging or farming is still taking place, the damage done to the rainforest would be amplified.
Another claim that the author makes within the article is that ecotourism is a sustainable industry. He notes that the profits from timber farming have shown to exceed those from ecotourism, but timber farming is an unsustainable practice, hence it will make less money over time and ecotourism will prevail again. I feel that this claim is very unjustified because the author simply states that ecotourism is sustainable without providing any evidence. When I initially read this statement, I instinctively disagreed with it because I feel ecotourism may just be another fad brought about through the recent movement to “go green”. Once the green movement fades, ecotourism will no longer be a prevalent industry. I can understand that it would be difficult to find data on the sustainability of ecotourism because it is such a recent business, however in that case the author should not assert that ecotourism is sustainable with such authority. This being said, I do acknowledge where the author is coming from because ecotourism does have the potential to be a lasting business in comparison to timber farming where the product will eventually run out. However, it would have been useful and more accurate if this potential for sustainability was noted as opposed to definite sustainability.
One of the most imperative shortcomings I found in the article surrounds the notion that ecotourism is truly an environmentally friendly practice which will act to save the rainforest. Ecotourism is never given a definition in the article, but when one thinks of ecotourism, a number of things come to mind. For example, ecotourism would likely include staying in smaller, more modest accommodations compared to an elaborate resort, and is also frequently popular in remote locations distanced from typical tourist hotspots. It also tends to include a large outdoors component where individuals are exposed to and educated on the surrounding environment they are situated in. However, there has been much backlash against ecotourism which insists that it is not as eco-friendly as its name implies. Firstly, in order for someone to get to their desired location, they will almost always utilize an airplane as a mode of transportation, and it is known that airplanes have a huge carbon footprint. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, ecotourism is most common in pristine and ecologically diverse or unique locations. Because these locations are biologically important to preserve, it makes one question whether individuals should be present in them at all. Though ecotourism may not directly destroy as large of a portion of the rainforest as farming or logging, the presence of humans can still be felt. Habitat loss will still occur through the construction of lodging, and roads and trails will undoubtedly be paved to make the locations accessible. The whole concept of ecotourism can be said to be a contradiction in itself because it claims to be environmentally friendly, but in reality it can still has a huge impact on the planet. I found it was odd that the author simply took ecotourism for its face-value without acknowledging the increasingly well-known deficiencies. This seemed to show that the author was not adequately educated or aware of the reality of ecotourism, and because of this the credibility of the article greatly decreases.
Overall, I feel that the article was sparsely researched and thus quite undependable. The author took one small study and elaborated the results to make the argument appear more significant. He put ultimate faith in ecotourism’s ability to save rainforests without critically thinking about the industry as a whole.
Jill Korsiak
No comments:
Post a Comment