2.8 Social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts
2.8.2 Environmental impacts
increase exports. Thus nature tourism may offer an attractive means to earn foreign exchange (Holden, 2005). The poor and the disadvantaged bear the burden of negative environmental impacts, for instance, pollution and natural resource depletion (Barrett et al., 2005; Zarsky, 2002).
De la Harpe et al. (2004) and Spenceley (2007a) state that tourism should not be perceived as a conservation panacea for all areas of increasing biodiversity, since tourism does not always generate adequate revenue to pay for conservation management. Thus the government has to step in with subsidies and public donations are also needed. Diamantis (2004) emphasises that the responsibility for conserving the natural environment in an area should not be the responsibility of the locals working on their own. All stakeholders must be involved. A key determinant of how tourism interacts with the environment is the issue of environmental ethics held by its stakeholders, inclusive of tourists, tourism businesses (private sector), local communities and the government (Gurung and De Coursey, 1994; Holden, 2005). It is also important to consider the symbiotic relationship that exists between visitors, local communities and destination areas since these three elements interact with each other creating negative and positive economic, socio- cultural and environmental impacts (Youell, 1998).
Holden (2005: 181) further emphasises that there is evidence:
... that an ethical emphasis is increasingly influencing the action of tourism stakeholders on the basis that some existing patterns of behaviour can harm the environment. For example, codes of conduct have been developed by various organisations in the private and public sectors to help guide appropriate tourist behaviour. The private sector seems to be replacing an increased emphasis upon demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR), and what is commonly referred to as the ‘triple bottom line’ to assess a company’s performance, incorporating the social, environment and economic impacts of a business’s operations besides purely the financial.
Drumm (2007) suggests that to avoid the loss of precious biodiversity through tourism-related pressures and to access the benefits that tourism can produce for protected areas it is imperative that they have sufficient capacity in respect of infrastructure, personnel and management systems in place. In many developing countries, Park systems have not been able to finance the investments required to establish this capacity at the areas facing pressure from visitation
(Drumm, 2007). Most ecotourism operators have acknowledged the value of sustainability and conservation and are changing their business practices to preserve their natural resources and rehabilitate the environment (Diamantis, 2004). Drumm (2007) declares that given the rising tourist demand for access to protected natural areas, it is more and more important that adequate pricing mechanisms be applied to ensure that tourism and recreation contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Loon et al. (2007) provide a case study of a community-run project, the Lillydale Environmental Education Centre which is supported by Sabi Sabi. This centre serves as a multifunctional environmental education centre promoting Shangaan knowledge and rural development tourism to the area and encouraging local environmental conservation practices through training workshops. The Lillydale Environmental Education Centre has demonstrated successful involvement of the local community nonetheless. Youell (1998) discusses practical measures that can be taken to involve host communities in their local tourism systems such as the establishment of local tourism forums where ideas can be exchanged and issues aired, concessionary admission schemes for local people to tourist attractions and facilities as well as public awareness programmes stressing the benefits of tourism to communities.
Youell (1998) suggests that there is an increase in awareness and concern for the environment which has meant that tourism organisations are becoming more involved in determining the effects they have on their environment. Oelofse and Scott (2002) discuss the principles of sustainable development as incorporated in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), Act 107 of 1998. Keyser (2002) and Shaw and Williams (2002) emphasises that environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a means for evaluating the possible consequences of tourism and other forms of development. The IEM is designed to ensure that the environmental consequences of development proposals are understood and adequately considered in the planning process (Preston et al., 1992). Keyser (2002) discusses that an EIA is a very useful technique used to make certain that environmental impacts of proposed projects have been evaluated and providing the foundation for making any necessary adjustments to the project.
Hugo (2004) discusses that the EIA is a tool used in many developing countries as well as in South Africa to assist development, mitigate negative impact of developments and enhances positive impacts. Youell (1998: 159) refers to the EIA as a structured process which intends to:
• identify the cost and benefits of a particular development;
• establish who will lose and who will gain if the development goes ahead;
• examine alternative courses of action and their likely impacts; and
• consider ways of reducing impacts if the project is given the green light.
Fennell (2003) affirms that researchers and practitioners identify the dangers innate in accommodating an increasing number and diversity of experiences for an increasing consumer- based society. Keyser (2002) argues that overdevelopment and overuse by tourists is a major cause of environmental degradation. If carrying capacities are determined as part of the planning analysis and utilised in the formation of a plan, then environmental problems can be reduced (Keyser, 2002). Wearing and Neil (1999: 48) state that there are three main elements of tourist carrying capacity:
• Biophysical (ecological) which relates to the natural environment.
• Socio-cultural which relates primarily to the impact on the host population and its culture.
• Facility which relates to the tourist experience.
Youell (1998) contends that imposing limits on tourist use through the formation of maximum thresholds may cause resentment, both with tourists who may be denied access to facilities, and with commercial tourism operators who may object to what they see as intervention in the market. Mowforth and Munt (1998) argue that carrying capacity calculations can be influenced by tour operators, officers of conservation organisations or government officials who promote either a destinations exclusivity (a low carrying capacity) or its capability and potential to absorb more visitors (a high carrying capacity).
Fennell (2003) deals with carrying capacity from a sociological perspective and suggests that it is difficult to quantify. Diamantis (2004) considers carrying capacity from an environmental setting, community viewpoint and an economic concern. In an environmental situation the concept applies to the maximum number of people who can utilise a location without an unacceptable decline in the quality of the experience gained by tourists. From a community standpoint, carrying capacity relates to a destination’s ability to absorb tourism before the
community feels the negative effects. From an economic concern, carrying capacity deals with employment and revenue earned and as long as these are positive and the host community benefits from tourism, the predetermined level is correct.