Saturday 7 November 2015

Tourism's Environmental Impacts Part II: An Update

Greetings and salutations to all the curious minds out there!

Following the responses to last week’s blog, I thought it would be a great idea to look into how research on the impacts of tourism on the environment has developed since the 1970s and 80s when it was just beginning, and the new ways of thinking about these impacts. Last week we delved into some of the basic system models used to conceptualise the tourism life-cycle and categorise the environmental impacts of tourism. This week we’re fast-forwarding to the 21st century and looking into the relationship between mass tourism/travel and globalisation, how this is linked with the rise of cheap flights and internet communication technologies, and some of the modern global environmental changes this is linked to.

Globalisation and the Tourist Industry


Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of the world through a global network of transportation, trade and communication (IMF, 2000; Dwyer, 2015). It is increasingly recognised that tourism is a globalised industry with an extended supply chain (Hall and Page, 2014).

Central to this understanding of tourism as a globalised industry is the rise of cheap air travel. Aviation comprises the primary mode of travel to numerous tourism locations, and for some can constitute 100% of international tourist arrivals (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Tourism is a driving force in the evolution of air travel, for example in the formation of new aviation business models like charter airlines. Similarly, developments in air transport have made available novel destinations as well as forms of tourism such as long-haul trips. Since the deregulation of the European aviation industry in the late 1980s, the subsequent increase in competition meant new business models emerged, including low cost carriers (LCC) (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). LCCs offer increasingly cheap prices for flights, thus gaining significant air traffic volumes as well as new modes of tourism including short-stay city breaks (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Thus the increasing accessibility to cheap air transport is a major driving force in international tourism growth; this can be seen through the remarkably similar growth curves of air passengers and the international tourist arrivals (Figure 1).




Furthermore, the Internet and social media has been a key development in this expansion of the tourism industry, as consumers can use it to collect information on potential destinations and quickly compare prices across service providers before booking online (Dwyer,2015). Thus the Internet has been important in the growth of international flights and package holidays.

In more recent years, strong economic growth in countries such as the BRICs (Brazil-Russia-India-China) can be expected to promote further increases in international tourism as their rising middle classes have more disposable income for travel. Tourism is projected to grow by 3.3% annual at least till 2030 (UNWTO, 2012), driven mainly by this economic growth. Furthermore, increasing globalisation has supported growth in the tourism industry as consumers become increasingly aware of different cultures and lifestyles, and thus more ‘international’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ in their lifestyle choices (Dwyer, 2015).

Environmental impacts associated with the modern tourist industry


During the 20th century much research undertaken on tourism’s environmental impacts focused on impacts at the destination or on the local scale, omitting other elements of the geographical tourism system, such as the transit region and the origin area (Hall and Page, 2014). This fails to recognise the globalised nature of the tourism industry. Activity in one location can affect the entire system, particularly due to the cross-boundary nature of several environmental problems associated with the tourist industry, such as water and air pollution (Bridge, 2002). Furthermore, tourism activities can add up globally. For example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at one location contribute to the global balance of GHGs and therefore have more than a localised effect.

In this following section I shall discuss some of these global environmental challenges associated with the rise of mass tourism and travel.

Air Pollution


Tourism related transport, particularly air travel, is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and thus contributor to global warming (Dwyer, 2015). Overall, transport is the primary factor adding to tourism-related emissions of GHGs: in fact, it can been estimated that transport accounts for a whopping 94% of the tourism sector's role in global warming (Gössling, 2002).

Emissions from aircraft need particular consideration because they’re released directly into the troposphere and bottom stratosphere, where they have a much greater effect on radiative forcing and ozone levels (IPCC, 1999). Aircraft emissions modify the Earth’s climate and radiation budget via direct emissions of radiatively active substances (e.g. CO, H2O) that trap terrestrial radiation resulting in global warming and chemical substances that alter natural greenhouse gases (NOxand SO2); and release of other substances (e.g. H2O and soot) which cause cloud formation (e.g. contrails) (IPCC, 1999).

So there we have it! The tourist industry of today - huge, globalised and linked to many global environmental issues. In future blog posts, we'll look in further detail at some of these global environmental issues being exacerbated through the tourist industry. Stay tuned folks!

8 comments:

  1. Hi Shruti! I think tourism is one of the most important topics when talking about environmental issues because it's very close & related to many of individual life. We choose to ignore it for our sake, or can do something about it as something relevant to us.

    I think there's a paradox in its effect sometimes - travelling somewhere unique can also raise awareness of ecological importance within the traveller's mind, and potentially across the globe through technology.

    Also, I'm very interested in how air industry will develop in the future since I've seen some technological advancement. For example, solar-powered planes was already invented (as long as I remember in the US) and has currently been frequently tested and under further development. I really look forward to reading your upcoming posts! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Satomi!

      Thank you for the comment - those are some really interesting points! I totally agree with the paradox effect you mention - in fact it's actually pretty common in the literature for authors to point out how tourism, especially nature-based forms, can actually raise appreciation for sustainability in the tourism industry, and awareness of it's negative environmental impacts. Furthermore, revenue from schemes such as national parks and conservation areas can be invested back into environmental protection - so there are actually many ways for the tourist industry to promote environmental protection. Watch out for further discussion of this in my future posts - I'm going to discuss sustainable and ecotourism soon!

      As to your second point - wow I didn't know that! Considering the huge numbers of flights conducted for tourism purposes, I agree that it's really important to consider new technologies and how they may help reduce the environmental impacts of them. The possibility of reductions in emissions would really have the potential to reduce the environmental impacts of tourism, especially considering it's development as a globalised industry. Have you also noticed how some airline companies now offer the possibility of 'offsetting' the carbon emissions from your flight if you pay a bit extra? An intriguing concept - I might have to look a bit further into it to see how effective it really is though - especially considering that there are numerous emissions from aircraft, such as nitrates which deplete ozone levels, that they may be ignoring in this scheme!

      You've given me some excellent ideas for future blog posts!

      Delete
  2. Great post Shruti! You mention the role of tourists as vectors of dispersal for unwanted and invasive species - something which has had devastating impacts for many countries. Some nations, notably the Australians and the Kiwis, take fairly extreme measures to prevent any unwanted species crossing the border, and it makes for pretty good viewing on various "Border Control" style TV shows due to the conflict it creates with many travelers. I was wondering your opinion on this, what do you think the best approach is to stop tourists from doing this, or is it impossible? If hefty fines, court cases and confiscations can't stop them I don't know what will!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Shruti! Nice blog post! I have to agree with Ben here - what do you think is the best way to stop invasive species from colonising areas through tourism? It sounds like a pretty big issue so would be good to have your opinion on it :)

      Delete
    2. Hi Ben and Celia!

      Thank you for your comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the post!

      The role of tourism in spreading invasive species has been getting more attention recently, particularly in light of the growing popularity of nature-based forms of tourism. This is increasing the volume of tourists from geographically-diverse places to very delicate ecosystems, such as oceanic islands, polar regions, and biodiversity hotspots especially in developing countries. It's a particular problem because much of the flora and fauna in these places has evolved endemically and in isolation - meaning that they may be much less resilient to non-native species and any associated pathogens.

      I think the key to preventing the spread of unwanted and invasive species via tourists is recognising the international pathways through which these species spread. Although border control can be a very effective way of preventing the entering of unwanted species, I think improvements can be made through international-scale laws. For example, currently there is a pan-European code of conduct for recreational boating being drafted, but I feel this should be reinforced by strict legislation in order to be effective.

      Having said that, despite the importance of international law, I believe popular tourist sites and hotspots should be considered individually, and the particular pathways of species entering these places considered as such. I think it should also be recognised that the income from the tourist industry, particular in eco-conscious establishments such as national parks and marine reserves, should be used to fund initiatives to prevent the spread of invasive species. For example, tourism currently funds up to 64% of global conservation measures for some bird species, and in a similar way money could also be redirected towards management of invasive species. In this light, I think one of the key management initiatives should involve education of the public and raising their awareness of the pathways of spread for unwanted species. Simple measures such as encouraging practice of checking the hulls of recreational boats for zebra mussels before use in marine reserves, and informing the public of the impacts of invasive species, could be highly effective ways of reducing spread.

      A last point would be that research of the spread of invasive species via tourists is still pretty young - especially in the context of marine and aquatic environments as currently most research focuses on spread of invasive species in the terrestrial environment. Increasing research on the pathways of spread and related case studies for tourist hotspots and delicate tourist environments such as pristine islands and polar regions could help inform the best management strategies for these places.

      I think it's difficult to tell right now whether controlling the spread of invasive species via tourists is impossible - new forms of adventure- and nature-based tourism and travel to pristine habitats "off the beaten track" are increasing in popularity. These pose the threat of invasive species to ever-more habitats worldwide, and only time will tell if these places will prioritise the issue of invasive species and adopt effective legislation to prevent spread as I currently believe they should.

      What are your thoughts on the matter?

      Delete
    3. Wow what a beast of a reply ;) I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with what you said there. I agree that certain international laws need to be stricter, particularly within the EU. If you're coming into the UK from and EU country, they don't even bother to staff the customs area half the time, let alone check your belongings for any hitchhikers.

      Even the postal system within the EU is lax, my girlfriend's friend recently moved from Spain to the UK and was sending us his belongings in advance through the post. A lot of these parcels contained seeds in unlabeled, definitely not professionally sealed plastic bags (as the guy is into horticulture). Despite that, there were never any customs queries or extra fees incurred for their time - it just seemed ridiculous to me in comparison to what I have seen the Australians do on TV!

      I agree that more research is needed as well, but I hope it is not too little, too late after some sort of particularly scandalous incident has happened. Tourism has the potential, and in some cases is (as you mentioned) a good source for conservation funds and it would be good to make sure those kind of policies are implemented globally at sites "off the beaten track" as well as popular nature-based tourist sites. The Australians (again) have got those kind of charges at the Great Barrier Reef to help fund the conservation of it and the marine species that live there!

      Delete
  3. Hi Shruti, what a brilliant blog. This reminds me of the many TV shows where dealing with non-native species in customs. It is truly a problem, and can be undetectable if custom control is not of high quality. I wanted to ask do you believe that aviation is one of the main ways of non-native species entering an area? Or do you believe it would be harder to recognise any non-native species on ships?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Maria!

      Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the post!

      An excellent question! I think the answer is a complex one - in many ways because it's difficult to disentangle the non-native species entering an area via ship/plane solely for the purpose of tourism, and those for any other purpose, e.g. trade, agriculture etc. In an attempt to find some inspiration for an answer, I looked at this paper: Hulme, 2009* "Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization". It told me that the number of ports of entry via airports for all regions of the world are unanimously higher (in some cases 20x higher!) than the number of ports of entry for seaports; furthermore, aviation has overtaken shipping as the major form of international passenger transport, and geographically, airports tend to be further inland and therefore have greater penetration into regions than marine ports. To me, this would suggest that there's more opportunities for non-native species to enter an area via aviation, rather than ships.

      Having said that, I think that airports can potentially offer a much higher level of regulation of non-native species. With aviation, the non-native species are generally being actively brought into the area by countries, so you can always attempt to regulate this. However with ships, the non-native species are likely being brought into the marine environment by fouling hulls or in ballast water, often arriving in marine environments like ports which are perfect for establishment - something that in my opinion, as you say, is much harder to recognise and in turn actively regulate.

      Therefore I think that both forms of passenger transport offer risks - although a higher volume of travel may occur via aviation, I think it's much harder to regulate transfer of non-native species on ships... As to which one offers the highest risk - in my opinion, it would be aviation without regulation. However, if the entrance of non-native species via airports is being regulated - then perhaps ships pose a greater risk. Hope this has help answer your query!

      * Hulme, P. E. (2009) 'Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization', Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 1, 10-18.

      Delete