Ecotourism is often touted as a solution to almost every environmental problem. It’s an easy way to monetize environmental preservation, and it seems like a good idea most of the time. Need money to protect an area where endangered species live? Ecotourists will pay to see those endangered species. Need to give government a reason to protect a fragile reef? Ecotourism can be a revenue stream. Is poaching a problem? Ecotourism can shift the economics to make conservation make sense.
There’s also a dark side to ecotourism, however. In addition to the things listed above, it can also harm the very places it seeks to protect. Roads must be built to access the areas people want to visit, scuba diving requires boats that need to anchor, tourists need places to stay in remote areas. On a global level, the planes, buses, and cars needed to move people from country to country or place to place emit absurd levels of carbon.
So when does ecotourism help? It’s tough to say. It can certainly be helpful in protecting local regions and providing local livelihoods when done well. I think it can do the most for developing countries, as it spurs investment in infrastructure and gives local communities a reason to conserve local flora and fauna. But these countries also often lack the ability to adequately oversee projects to ensure that corners aren’t cut. Developed countries are often in the exact opposite situation: they often build unnecessary infrastructure, but are able to ensure that boats don’t run aground willy-nilly or that natural resources like shells, rocks, or plants aren’t taken home by souvenir-hungry tourists. I’m not sure there is a right answer, but this is something to keep in mind the next time the Nature Conservancy or government agency says all of an area’s problems can be solved by developing an ecotourism program.