Ecotourism gives impetus to tourism

[webfact]

Ecotourism gives impetus to tourism
By SUCHAT SRITAMA
THE NATION

 

BANGKOK: -- SOME 800,000 foreign tourists last year came to Thailand with the specific purpose of visiting villages, natural sites, communities, and hilltribes across the Kingdom, while more than 2 million Thai tourists also pursued these interests.

 

They mingled well with like-minded travellers who cherished the “ecotourism” theme. These destinations appealed mainly to visitors from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

 

The number of foreign ecotourism visitors is expected to reach 1 million within the next year or two.

 

While Thailand enjoys being one of the top 10 tourist destinations in the world, with nearly 30 million foreign visitors per year, the country now is attempting to embark on a new era in the adventure and ecotourism segment.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/business/EconomyAndTourism/30305731

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-02-06

[canuckamuck]

They are clearly confused about the term eco-tourism. Here is a definition from Google 

"tourism directed toward exotic, often threatened, natural environments, especially to support conservation efforts and observe wildlife."

Having a guided tour of 8 hill tribe villages will provide none of that. You will instead find the opposite and the reason why conservation efforts are needed.

 

[allane]

The real meaning of eco-tourism is to limit the number of visitors to environmentally sensitive natural areas. This is normally accomplished by increasing the price until the number of visitors has been reduced to the target level. The tourism operators can make almost as much money as previously, if it is done correctly. Think "quality tourist" !

[grumbleweed]

Eco-tourism my back end. there's no such thing, it's a contradiction in terms and used purely for marketing purposes. They should invoke the trades description act and ban the use of this feel good buzzword

 

it's like having flavour enhancing cyanide

 

The name suggests that it benefits the environment and conveniently forgets the fact that they're enticing people to jump on a plane, fly halfway around the world and then use some other form of gas guzzling air polluting means to transport them to remote areas where they can trample over and destroy ecosystems barely touched by humans

 

They should go the whole hog and provide nice healthy cigarettes, instant hangover cures, as much fast food as you can eat and unprotected sex with the village bikes - Hmmm, on second thoughts, where's that brochure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tpaul1]

In theory, and in practice, in some locations, eco tourism makes sense because it provides an income and incentive to protect the environment by local people. The reality is that, you can't really justify keeping large tracts of pristine habitats intact for the income that a few, even well paid and well meaning tourists provide. At best, it will only be localised or pertaining to one or two high profile species such as mountain gorillas. It is hard to get people to visit important but frankly unexceptional degraded secondary forests. When I visited Pangsila NP last year, we were the only visitors and the area is vast but actually only of interest to the most hard core enthusiasts (no waterfalls etc). In my view, tourism is therefore not the best approach to managing an ecosystem. You need to protect a much larger area than people will visit. Most tourists only want to walk a km or so from a waterfall and are mostly oblivious to any degradation outside the attraction area. Even where tourists are keen to explore and willing to spend several days in the wild, they are often disappointed with what they witness so this is another issue that needs addressing. Having got back from N Laos on one such trip recently, it is all too evident that the bio diversity area we were visiting is devoid of animals and birds and is surrounded by huge mono culture banana and rubber plantations. I can't really see how the villagers who are still living within the bio diversity area are going to change their behaviour radically and protect wildlife instead of eat it, for the sake of a few hundred tourists. It will take generations and the forest doesn't have that long.  The destruction in Laos in this century alone is massive. Many areas of Thailand are in a similar or worse state, the one major difference and potentially positive thing being the large tracts of national parks in Thailand where people are not allowed to live. To Thailand's credit, there is a huge area of the country given over to NPs, the issue is how to regenerate them. However, when you look at the areas involved, it is way more than even a huge increase in ecotourists could sustain. Obviously, 1M eco tourists is wildly optimistic and also would be very hard to manage in sensitive and fragile environments in such large numbers . If the environmental argument is only made in $$ terms in the short term, I don't think it is an argument that can be won. The stronger argument for me is the fact that it is the nations heritage and belongs to everyone (actually no one in my opinion) and should be protected for future generations for its own sake. Education and experiencing nature (which this article hints at) are key to this, but again, how long does it take to change people's behavior and view of the wild?

 

In the UK, in East Anglia, massive destruction of habitats was conducting in the name of progress and modernization of agriculture. I grew up as a kid witnessing this and knew morally it was wrong. Many of my favourite playgrounds were turned into a sea of chemically sprayed wheat. At the time it was totally legal and the protesters or anyone who objected in the village were considered meddling outsiders. Of course now, it would never be allowed to happen but the hedgerows and ponds were never reinstated etc and the animals, plants, birds and insects have never recovered. People there forget or don't know how it used to be and although there has been a massive change in mindset, the ecosystem has never been allowed to recover. In Thailand, we are still at the destruction stage but here in Thailand where nature has a much longer growing season there is hope but it does require investment in protection and restoration. I just don't see that coming from eco tourism.

[waldroj]

"...I will maintain and continue all of the long-term policies that the association has laid out for years..." - TEATA's new president.

 

 

Triple "Bottom" Line - Thai style !!!

[connda]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

They are clearly confused about the term eco-tourism. Here is a definition from Google 

"tourism directed toward exotic, often threatened, natural environments, especially to support conservation efforts and observe wildlife."

Having a guided tour of 8 hill tribe villages will provide none of that. You will instead find the opposite and the reason why conservation efforts are needed.

 

And I though Eco-tourism was when a rich celebrity drives their zero-carbon-emission electric car to the airport to get on their private Gulfstream jet with their entourage to globe-hop and give speeches about threatened natural environments and lowering carbon emissions.  

Edited February 6, 2017 by connda

[connda]

1 hour ago, tpaul1 said:

In the UK, in East Anglia, massive destruction of habitats was conducting in the name of progress and modernization of agriculture. I grew up as a kid witnessing this and knew morally it was wrong. Many of my favourite playgrounds were turned into a sea of chemically sprayed wheat. At the time it was totally legal and the protesters or anyone who objected in the village were considered meddling outsiders. Of course now, it would never be allowed to happen but the hedgerows and ponds were never reinstated etc and the animals, plants, birds and insects have never recovered. People there forget or don't know how it used to be and although there has been a massive change in mindset, the ecosystem has never been allowed to recover. In Thailand, we are still at the destruction stage but here in Thailand where nature has a much longer growing season there is hope but it does require investment in protection and restoration. I just don't see that coming from eco tourism.

...and let's not forget fracking.  The ecological damage being done to our country's aquifers is criminal.  But with that said, it's a great time to buy stock in companies selling fresh bottled watered.  The long-term outlook is excellent.

Edited February 6, 2017 by connda

[Ace of Pop]

My friends that come here do an Eco Trip just to have a a day off the Beer just like the other 80000 Tourists [emoji1434][emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Lupatria]

Eco tourism in Thailand? I'm 100% convinced

 

[madusa]

On 2017/2/5 at 3:57 PM, allane said:

The real meaning of eco-tourism is to limit the number of visitors to environmentally sensitive natural areas. This is normally accomplished by increasing the price until the number of visitors has been reduced to the target level. The tourism operators can make almost as much money as previously, if it is done correctly. Think "quality tourist" !

If what you said is true then it is ideal, really good for the enivronment. I need to read up on this subject. Any recommendation on books on this subject?

[Thian]

This is what ecotourism is all about:

 

http://tropicalfruitfarm.com.my/index.aspx

 

or this one:

http://www.penang.ws/penang-attractions/sim-leisure-excape.htm

 

Thailand mai mee....

Edited February 6, 2017 by Thian