Lessons from Ecotourism in New Zealand and Australia

Ecotourism can be an effective way to protect the environment. The examples of Zealandia and Elm Wildlife Tours clearly demonstrate how ecotourism can provide an economic incentive and generate additional funding for conservation efforts by operating in conjunction with the government or as a neoliberal conservation strategy, respectively. Both of these ecotourism companies are quantifiably improving the environment by reintroducing species and enabling population growth while also fighting invasive species. 

However, ecotourism is far from infallible. External factors heavily influence the effectiveness of ecotourism as a conservation strategy. The most notable limitation is global warming. As described in Environment at Risk: New Zealand and Environment at Risk: Australia, both the New Zealand and Australian governments acknowledge that the greatest challenge facing their environments is climate change and the increase in greenhouse gases. Ecotourism as a conservation strategy is simply not broad enough or powerful enough to fight climate change. The best any individual ecotourism company can do is to advocate for changes in environmental policy and work to be at least carbon neutral. The limit of global warming on ecotourism is most acutely shown in Scuba Diving in AU and NZ. 

Ecotourism is also limited by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and external policies and funding. Second only to global warming, habitat fragmentation is a huge limit on the effectiveness of ecotourism as a conservation strategy. Whether financially, legally, or physically, ecotourism companies are always restricted on how much land they can acquire and manage. This means that when a company protects an area from degradation it is often not continuous with other healthy environments. Zealandia and Elm Wildlife Tours both demonstrate the limitation of habitat fragmentation. Zealandia cannot create a more continuous habitat because it is located physically within one of the largest cities in New Zealand and Elm Wildlife Tours cannot expand due to the private ownership of the surrounding farmland and coastline.

Zealandia shows that there are some extreme strategies ecotourism companies can use to mitigate the effects of invasive species. However, theses efforts may require a prohibitive amount of money or resources and are likely infeasible in most circumstances.  

There are also some internal factors that may limit ecotourism's ability to protect the environment. Most notably is the issue of use. By using an environment more and increasing the number of visitors to a fragile ecosystem, there is always a risk of inadvertent harm. The difficulties of balancing use and conservation are discussed more fully in Scuba Diving in AU and NZ. There is no one-size fits all solution for mitigating the effect of human use. In many situations, it is up to the business to develop creative strategies and set sustainable maximums. 

Another considerable internal limit of ecotourism is the engagement of the business in conservation efforts. As I discuss in (Re)Defining Ecotourism, the stated intentions of the business should not dictate whether or not their activities are considered ecotourism. For example, imagine two scuba diving companies. One is a nonprofit that donates revenue to conservation efforts and one is a for-profit business. They both conduct identical trips to a vulnerable marine ecosystem and operate sustainably in order to maintain their business. In contrast to traditional academic definitions that depend on intentionality, under the definition I use throughout the website, both of these companies are considered ecotourism. While the intentions of the business does not dictate whether or not it is called ecotourism, the business's engagement in conservation efforts may dictate how effective the business is at protecting the environment. Continuing this example, the nonprofit scuba business that donates to conservation strategies is more effective at conserving the environment because it is actively engaged in conservation by donating its income. The for-profit company is less effective as a conservation strategy because it is not actively engaged in conservation and is only acting in the best interest of the business. Despite this difference in engagement and effectiveness, both companies produce some level of indirect environmental conservation because they both operate to ensure sustainability in order to keep their business viable longterm. Yes, not all ecotourism is created equal, but as a business with profits and costs, there will always be at least an economic incentive to operate sustainably and, at minimum, protect the environment for future use by the business. 

Coming full circle: Ecotourism is... complicated.

There is no simple metric to measure the effectiveness of ecotourism as a conservation strategy. It is impossible to quantify the endless series of externalities connecting the business, the tourist, the economy, and the environment. However, through this analysis of New Zealand and Australia, one can begin to see some general, international room for improvement. 

In order to mitigate the external limits on conservation, such as global warming, international treaties must be established and government regulations must be strictly enforced. It is no longer sufficient to vaguely talk of climate change maximums and theoretical greenhouse gas reduction. Tangible action and definitive plans must be set into motion on a global level. There are some countries, such as Germany, that are making great strides in energy usage. Australia, as a developed country with one of the highest per person carbon emission rates in the world, must begin to follow suit and produce positive change. 

In order to mitigate the internal limits on conservation, such as the effect of human use, governments must begin to actively monitor and regulate their ecotourism industry and provide additional funding for conservation efforts. Though admittedly more controversial, governments with vulnerable ecosystems should also create policies to completely prohibit human use of some areas and protect any remaining undisturbed wilderness. 

In general, more ecological research needs to be done on threatened ecosystems and species. A Tuatara's Story and A Marsupial's Story both describe ongoing ecological research in New Zealand and Australia and some potential benefits to our understanding of science, nature, and conservation. Increasing funding for scientific research is crucial to ensuring the longterm viability of vulnerable ecosystems and preventing extinction. 

I hope that by visiting this website and exploring the complexities of ecotourism you have begun to reassess your own tourism practices and, in the future, will advocate for more responsible forms of ecotourism. As a consumer, choosing responsible ecotourism can help incentivize the industry towards positive change and conservation. I implore you, do your research, learn about the vulnerable environments you are entering, and work towards carbon neutrality. Regardless of whether or not you intend to be an ecotourist, if you are interacting with the environment, then it is your responsibility to get informed. This site is only the beginning of your journey. 

Now, Opp and Away!