Even when air pollution is not the direct result of tourism, it can have a negative impact on destinations. Air pollution adversely affects the health and quality of life of local residents. Similarly, tourists, particularly those with preexisting respiratory conditions such as allergies, asthma, or emphysema, can be affected by short-term exposure to environments with poor air quality. In addition, air pollution can adversely affect the quality of tourism resources. For example, air pollution has been cited as one of the greatest threats to ancient archaeological sites, such as the Parthenon in Athens, Greece. Related to air pollution, acid rain has the potential to damage forest resources, as has occurred in Germany’s well-known Black Forest region.
Box 10.3. In-Depth: Climate Change Mitigation in Tourism
The relationship between global climate change and tourism has been gaining attention in recent years. This has become a key issue because the tourism industry is considered to be highly sensitive to the effects of climate change, as was discussed in chapter 6. Yet, it is recognized among researchers and stakeholders that a two-way relationship exists. According to the secretary general of the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), “Tourism has become both the victim and the vector of climate change. Our sector has to reduce its emissions; it also has to adapt.”1 In other words, the tourism industry both affects and is affected by climate change.
A joint report produced by the UNWTO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that, as of 2005, the tourism industry was responsible for approximately 5 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, tourism is a smaller contributor to the problem than heavy industry, but it is a contributor nonetheless. Approximately three-fourths of these emissions come from transportation to, from, and at the destination. Although the proportion of emissions is divided relatively evenly between air transport and auto transport (40 percent and 32 percent, respectively), air transport accounts for a much smaller proportion of tourist trips (approximately 17 percent). The next largest source of emissions is accommodations, with approximately 21 percent (figure 10.3). Considering the phenomenal growth in the global tourism industry, tourism-related greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase 152 percent between 2005 and 2035 if no mitigation measures are taken.2
Figure 10.3. Transport, and air transport in particular, accounts for the largest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions from tourism. Thus, this sector of the tourism industry is often the primary target of climate change mitigation policies. However, as the industry encourages longer tourist stays at a destination to reduce the carbon footprint per tourist day, the accommodation sector’s share of emissions could potentially increase.
Climate change mitigation is defined as the technological, economic, and sociocultural changes that can lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Although one solution to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce travel, this is clearly unrealistic in the modern world. Thus, four mitigation strategies have been proposed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from tourism: reducing energy consumption (e.g., increasing the use of mass transport over private cars; installing hotel key-card systems to ensure that lights, appliances, and in-room air conditioning units are not running when the guests are not in the room), improving energy efficiency (e.g., using hybrid or electric vehicles, relying less on air conditioning in buildings that utilize natural ventilation patterns), increasing the use of renewable energy (e.g., using biofuels in vehicles, using solar water-heating systems), and offsetting carbon emissions through the development of renewable energy projects or the planting of trees to act as carbon sinks (e.g., fees paid by tourists based on the amount of emissions incurred during travel, or investment made by tourism businesses to offset the emissions incurred by their operations). This last strategy—offsetting emissions—is the most controversial, and critics have argued that it provides wealthy tourists with a means of easing their guilt without actually having to change their behavior.
Because the tourism industry is international in nature, includes both public and private sector interests, and encompasses a range of different types of businesses and services, efforts to coordinate and regulate mitigation efforts are and will continue to be difficult. Moreover, the implementation of these mitigation strategies requires a financial investment that may be beyond the means of local tourism stakeholders. Yet, because the tourism industry is perhaps more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than other industries, many feel that it is vital to take a leading role in making changes. As such, there has been a precedent set by some tourism industry associations and entrepreneurs who have voluntarily adopted mitigation strategies and attempted to educate tourists about climate change.
Discussion topic: Find an example of a tourism venture that has implemented one or more of the climate change mitigation strategies. Identify what actions have been taken and discuss the potential benefits of these actions.
Notes
1. United Nations World Tourism Organization, “Tourism Will Contribute to Solutions for Global Climate Change and Poverty Challenges,” March 8, 2007, accessed February 22, 2011, http://www.unwto.org/newsroom/Releases/2007/march/globa_climate.htm.
2. Scott, Daniel, Bas Amelung, Suzanne Becken, Jean-Paul Ceron, Ghislan Dubois, Stefan Gössling, Paul Peeters, and Murray C. Simpson, Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges, Summary (Madrid: World Tourism Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, 2007), accessed February 22, 2011, http://www.unwto.org/climate/support/en/pdf/summary_davos_e.pdf, 14 and 18.
Noise pollution takes place in areas with a dense concentration of tourism facilities and infrastructure, such as airports, roads, or entertainment districts. This type of pollution can generate annoyance and dissatisfaction among tourists. Tourists who are looking for relaxation, peace, and quiet will be frustrated with their experience if the destination is populated by large numbers of families with loud and boisterous children or young adults having loud parties late into the night. Of course, this issue may be avoided by thorough research resulting in an appropriate choice of destination and/or resort in the pre-trip stage. Likewise, tourists visiting natural and/or sacred sites where a reverence for the environment is expected will be unhappy with the levels of noise from excessive numbers of tourists, air or road traffic, and others. As with air pollution, this has been a growing problem in some of the popular U.S. National Parks. For example, noise levels have risen as a result of the increase in air traffic for scenic flights over the Grand Canyon. Noise pollution from tourism can also adversely affect local residents. For these people, the noise generated from tourism may be more than an annoyance; it may contribute to a general decline in their quality of life or contribute to serious physiological and psychological health concerns.
Visual pollution results in a decline in the aesthetic quality of an environment. This may occur when landscapes are changed by tourism development. The construction of tourism infrastructure may be considered visual pollution if it seems out of place in that particular environment. This can refer to the location of a hotel on an otherwise undeveloped beach or a ski lift or ski slope on an otherwise forested mountainside. Visual pollution may also occur as landscapes are degraded by tourist activities. One of the most commonly cited examples is the trash generated on mountain treks in remote destinations such as the Andes or the Himalayas. Early tourists and tour guides in these areas were not always careful about the waste that was produced during the course of the trip. As it was left behind, it became an unexpected source of visual pollution for future generations of tourists expecting a more pristine environment. Awareness of this issue has led to cleanup efforts and stricter regulations of how waste is disposed of on such excursions. Finally, visual pollution can also result from tourism facilities that have been constructed without consideration for local environments, materials, and architectural styles (figure 10.4).
Figure 10.4. For many, this hotel in Port
El Kantaoui, Tunisia, constitutes a form of visual pollution. In contrast with the simple blue-and-white color scheme that characterizes classic Tunisian architecture, this hotel has accessorized its property with garish plastic neon palm trees and cacti. (Source: Velvet Nelson)
Landscape Destruction
The various costs of tourism development and tourist activities can ultimately contribute to, or result in, the destruction of landscapes. In addition to changing the fundamental nature and appearance of the landscape, this can contribute to further environmental problems such as disruption of habitats, fragmentation of ecosystems, and reductions in biodiversity.
Much of the world’s tourism development has taken place in coastal areas. There are several unique and specialized ecosystems in these areas—including sand dunes, coastal wetlands and mangroves, and coral reefs—all of which have been threatened by tourism development. Each of these ecosystems has a high level of biodiversity and helps protect the coastal land area from erosion and the potentially damaging effects of storm waves and tidal surges. However, sand dunes have been leveled and wetlands drained for beachfront hotel/resort development. This can lead to problems with erosion and beach loss, as well as an increased amount of silt in coastal waters, which will smother coral reefs. At the same time, tourists themselves may trample dunes and damage coral by touching it, standing on it, or taking pieces as souvenirs. Similarly, the nature of the land may be lost to the construction of tourism infrastructure and facilities. In a forested environment, this contributes to local and global problems associated with deforestation, ranging from increased erosion to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Finally, these environmental impacts can destroy habitat and disrupt the species that inhabit them. The destruction of an ecosystem can contribute to a loss of biodiversity, while the destruction of parts of the landscape may fragment the wider habitat and affect species’ migration patterns. At the same time, the encroachment of tourism activities into these ecosystems may bring species into closer contact with people, both tourists and tourism industry workers. This can affect eating and/or breeding patterns.
Factors in Environmental Effects
As with the other effects, there are some clear examples of how tourism directly affects the environment. This is particularly applicable when tourism activities are developed in environments where few or only small-scale human activities otherwise occur. For example, the development of a ski resort in an undeveloped area involves considerable changes to the landscape: the removal of trees and boulders, the recontouring of the landscape to create runs, and the construction of roads, lifts, accommodation facilities, and more. This development alone—without considering the potential effects of operation—may contribute to or result in deforestation, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, destabilization of the slope, erosion, an increased risk of landslides and avalanches, and visual pollution. Yet, in many cases, it may be difficult to separate what effects directly result from tourism and what would have occurred as a result of residential and industrial activities undertaken by the local population. This is particularly the case when tourism activities occur in already densely populated, highly urbanized, and/or industrialized areas. These destinations may experience problems with water or air pollution, yet tourism’s contribution may be indistinguishable from that of other local industries.
The specific environmental effects of tourism at a destination, and the extent of these effects, will likely vary widely. The factors that may determine these effects can include the quantity of tourists that visit the destination, the carrying capacity of the destination, the seasonality of tourism, the type of destination, the level of infrastructure, local environmental policies and regulations, and the nature of the environment at the destination.
For example, as with social effects, it is often assumed that the larger the quantity of tourists, the greater the environmental effects. This can be true when the number of tourists visiting that destination within a relatively short period of time exceeds its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is a widely used concept in environmental geography, as well as related fields such as biology, to indicate the size of a species or population that an environment can support and sustain. Adapted and applied in studies of tourism, carrying capacity refers to the number of tourists a destination or attraction can support and sustain. This helps the destination/attraction to understand its ability to withstand tourist use. Likewise, the destination must recognize that if the carrying capacity is exceeded, it is likely to result in varying degrees of damage which can lead to diminished tourist satisfaction.
For the purposes of tourism, the carrying capacity concept has been used in different ways. Physical, environmental, and perceptual carrying capacity are three forms of the concept that are particularly useful in the geography of tourism. Physical carrying capacity is a somewhat literal interpretation of the concept in that it refers to the limits of a particular space. This may include things like the number of cars that a tourist site’s parking area will hold or the actual number of people that the site can reasonably contain. As such, it is fairly straightforward and allows explicit restrictions to be put in place. Environmental carrying capacity refers to the extent of tourism that can take place at a site before its environment experiences negative effects. This can be more difficult to understand because it may not be based simply on the number of tourists but also on the type and accumulation of tourism activities. Perceptual carrying capacity refers to the extent of tourism that can take place at a site before tourist dissatisfaction occurs. This carrying capacity will be reached when tourists decide that a site is too crowded and choose to go elsewhere. Perceptual carrying capacity can also be difficult to determine because the perceived level of crowding is primarily based on individual preferences but also cultural conventions (figure 10.5).
Clearly the relationship between the number of tourists and environmental effects is not always simple. The tourism season can also be a factor in the nature and extent of effects. Large quantities of tourists during the high season may put extreme amounts of pressure on local resources. If the environmental carrying capacity is greatly exceeded during this time, it may cause irreversible damage from which the environment of the destination will not be able to recover. Provided the damage is not irreversible, however, most destinations have a low or off season during which the site will receive few visitors. This may provide enough time for the environment to recover.
Similarly, the type of destination and the level of infrastructure will also play a role in what environmental effects may occur. For example, mass tourism is associated with higher quantities of tourists; thus, the potential for negative environmental effects may be multiplied in comparison with small-scale niche tourism. Indeed, some of the long-standing, popular Mediterranean mass tourism destinations have experienced some of the worst environmental effects of tourism. Rimini, Italy, has experienced severe problems with water pollution from the discharge of untreated wastewater and air pollution from traffic congestion, both of which are particularly bad during the high tourist season. Yet, other well-planned and developed mass tourism destinations may have the infrastructure in place to handle such quantities of tourists and strict regulations to control negative impacts.
In contrast, when a new and/or developing destination starts to receive more than just a few drifters, the infrastructure simply may not be in place yet to handle these numbers, even though they are still small compared to large-scale mass destinations. Moreover, even small numbers of tourists can have a negative impact on the destination’s environment. For example, hikers in backcountry areas can cause considerable damage when they stray from prescribed paths, leave ruts or scars, disturb wildlife, pick plants, fell trees for firewood, light campfires carelessly, or improperly dispose of their waste.
Figure 10.5. Visitors to Wannian Monastery looking for a serene experience at a Buddhist temple surrounded by nature on this sacred mountain in China may be dissa
tisfied due to the level of noise and crowds at the site. (Source: Velvet Nelson)
The nature of the environment at the destination can also determine the extent of effects from tourism. Fragile ecosystems, such as mountains, rain forests, or coral reefs, may be more vulnerable than others in that they are less able to withstand human use and recover from overuse. Likewise, historic and prehistoric sites are also vulnerable and need to be highly regulated to ensure that they are not adversely affected by increased exhaust from car traffic, wear and tear from foot traffic, dust and debris deposits, and careless or malicious behavior (e.g., vandalism and theft). Each of these environments has lower tourism carrying capacities. In some cases, the benefits of tourism may be negated when more of the visitor entrance fees must go toward combating the problems generated by tourism rather than restoring and/or preserving additional sites.
Knowledge and Education
Education—of tourists, tourism industry workers, and local residents at a tourism destination—is often one of the simplest and easiest-to-implement means of preventing the negative environmental effects of tourism. In the case of tourists, ignorant and careless behavior can have a direct impact on the environment of the places they visit. Yet, tourists have little connection to these environments, and given the short-term nature of their experiences in these environments, they may not see the consequences of their behavior. For example, some tourists feel that they are paying for the services that a hotel or resort provides. Thus, they will use the facilities as they see fit—whether it is having their linens laundered on a daily basis or leaving the room’s lights, air conditioning, and/or appliances on when they are not in the room—without considering the implications of their wasteful resource consumption. Tourists may give little attention to how they dispose of their waste without considering that it may alter the eating habits of local wildlife, cause some species to fall ill or die, or attract predators. While only a small subset of tourists travel specifically for educational purposes, the potential nonetheless exists for tourists to learn about the places they visit and to understand the consequences of their actions at that place.
An Introduction to the Geography of Tourism Page 31
