The challenge to tourism that is presented by the sustainable development agenda will become clearer if we move to consider in more detail how tourism relates to environmental change. It has already been intimated that the basic complexities of tourism–environment relationships are compounded by the diverse nature of those impacts and the inconsistencies through time and space in their causes and effects. But it is also important to note that the
effects of tourism upon the physical environment are often partial, and one of the practical difficulties in studying those impacts is to disentangle tourist influences from other agencies of change that may be working on the same environment. So, for example, the beach and inshore water pollution that developed as a serious environmental problem along parts of the Italian Adriatic coast in the late 1980s was partly attributable to the presence of tourists but was also a consequence of the discharge of considerable volumes of urban, agricultural and industrial waste into the primary rivers that drain to this sea (Becheri, 1991).
The diversity of environmental impacts of tourism and the seriousness of the problem vary geographically for a number of reasons. First, we need to take account of the nature of tourism and its associated scales of effect. Impact studies often make the erroneous assumption that tourism is a homogeneous activity exerting consistent effects, but, as we have seen in Chapter 1, there are many different forms of tourism and types of tourist. The mass tourists who flock in their millions to the Spanish Mediterranean will probably create a much broader and potentially more serious range of impacts than will small groups of explorers trekking in Nepal, although paradoxically, where mass forms of tourism are well planned and properly resourced, the environmental consequences may actually be less than those created by small numbers of people visiting locations that are quite unprepared for the tourist. For example, depletion of local supplies of fuel wood and major problems of littering have been widely reported along the main tourist trails through the Himalayan zone in Nepal (Hunter and Green, 1995).
Second, it is important to take account of the temporal dimensions. In many parts of the world, tourism is a seasonal activity that exerts pressures on the environment for part of the year but allows fallow periods in which recovery is possible. So, there may be short-term/temporary impacts upon the environment that may be largely coincident with the tourist season (such as air pollution from visitor traffic) or, more serious, long-term/permanent effects where environmental capacities have been breached and irreversible changes set in motion (e.g., reductions in the level of biodiversity through visitor trampling of vegetation).
Third, diversity of impacts stems from the nature of the destination. Some environments (e.g., urban resorts) can sustain very high levels of visiting because their built infrastructure makes them relatively resilient or because they possess organisational structures (such as planning frameworks) that allow for effective provision for visitors. In contrast, other places are much less robust, and it is perhaps unfortunate that a great deal of tourist activity is drawn (by tastes, preferences and habits) to fragile places. Coasts and mountain environments are popular tourist destinations that are often ecologically vulnerable, and even non-natural resources can suffer. Historic sites, in particular, may be adversely affected by tourist presence and in recent years attractions such as Stonehenge in England, the Parthenon in Greece and the tomb of Tutankhamen in Egypt have all been subjected to partial or total closure to visitors because of negative environmental effects.
In exploring the environmental impacts of tourism, it is helpful to adopt a holistic approach to the subject. Environments, whether defined as physical, economic or social entities, are usually complex systems in which there are interrelationships that extend the final effects of change well beyond the initial cause. Impact often has a cumulative dimension in which secondary processes reinforce and develop the consequences of change, so treating individual problems in isolation ignores the likelihood that there is a composite impact that may be greater than the sum of the individual parts. As an illustration of this idea, Figure 5.1 shows how the initial effects of trampling of vegetation by tourists become compounded through related processes of environmental change that may, in extreme circumstances, culminate in the collapse of local ecosystems.
A second advantage of a holistic approach is that it encourages us to work towards a balanced view of tourism–environment relationships. The temptation is to focus upon the many obvious examples of negative and detrimental impacts that tourism may exert, but,
as the concept of a symbiotic relationship makes clear, there are positive effects too. These might be represented in the fostering of positive attitudes towards environmental protection/
enhancement or be reflected more practically in actual investment in environmental improvement that restores localities for resident populations as well as providing support for tourism.
The third advantage of a holistic approach is that it recognises the breadth (some might say the imprecision) of the term ‘environment’ and the fact that different types of impact are likely to be present. As is perhaps implicit in the preceding discussion, the term can embrace a diversity of contexts – physical ecosystems; built environments; or economic, social, cultural and political environments – and tourism has the potential to influence all of these, in varying degrees. The economic and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability are discussed elsewhere in the book, so the discussion that now follows focuses upon the influences that tourism may have upon physical environments, ecosystems and the built environment, together with a consideration of ways in which symbiotic relationships between tourism and the environment may be sustained through managed approaches.
Table 5.1 summarises a representative cross-section of pathways through which tourism may promote environmental change in the physical environment (both natural and non-natural). This classification is informed by several key works on this subject (Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Hunter and Green, 1995; Wall and Mathieson, 2006) and, it may be noted, retains – purely as a convenient frame for the structuring of ideas – the characterisation of change as being essentially positive or negative. It is perhaps appropriate, therefore, to remind readers of earlier cautionary comments about the risks of simple categorisations and the need to recognise that impacts are seldom consistent in their nature across all contexts
TRAMPLING
SOIL COMPACTED SURFACE
VEGETATION REMOVED
INCREASED RUN-OFF
SOIL STRUCTURE DAMAGED
REDUCED SPECIES DIVERSITY
SOIL ERODED
GULLYING AND LARGE-SCALE DESTRUCTION OF
SURFACE
COLLAPSE OF LOCAL ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGICAL
BALANCE SERIOUSLY
AFFECTED NEW COLONISATION
BY HARDIER SPECIES
Figure 5.1 Effects of trampling at tourism sites
Table5.1A‘balancesheet’ofenvironmentalimpactsintourism AreaofeffectNegativeimpactsPositiveimpacts BiodiversityDisruptionofbreeding/feedingpatternsEncouragementtoconserveanimalsasattractions Killingofanimalsasleisure(hunting)ortosupplysouvenirtradeEstablishmentofprotectedareastomeettouristdemand Lossofhabitatsandchangeinspeciescomposition Destructionofvegetation ErosionandSoilerosionTourismrevenuetofinancegroundrepairandsiterestoration physicaldamageDamagetositesthroughtramplingImprovementtoinfrastructurepromptedbytouristdemand Overloadingofkeyinfrastructure(e.g.,watersupplynetworks) PollutionWaterpollutionthroughsewageorfuelspillageandrubbishfrompleasureboatsCleaningprogrammestoprotecttheattractionoflocationsto Airpollution(e.g.,vehicleemissions) Noisepollution(e.g.,fromvehiclesortouristattractionssuchasbars Littering ResourcebaseDepletionofgroundandsurfacewaterDevelopmentofnew/improvedsourcesofsupply Diversionofwatersupplytomeettouristneeds(e.g.,swimmingpools) Depletionoflocalfuelsources Depletionoflocalbuildingmaterialsources Visual/structuralLandtransferstotourism(e.g.,fromagriculture)Newusesformarginalorunproductiveland changeDetrimentalvisualimpactonnaturalandnon-naturallandscapesthroughLandscapeimprovement(e.g.,toclearurbandereliction) tourismdevelopmentRegenerationormodernisationofbuiltenvironmentandreuse Introductionofnewarchitecturalstylesdisusedbuildings Changesinurbanfunctions Physicalexpansionofurbanareas Sources:MathiesonandWall(1982);HunterandGreen(1995);WallandMathieson(2006)
of development. Five key headings under which tourism effects may be grouped are proposed.