ارتباط میان محیط زیست - گردشگری : تاثیر اخلاق بازار

Society is at a critical juncture in its relationship with the natural environment, a relationship in which tourism has growing significance. Yet, twenty years after the Brundtland Report, environmental policy has to date had little influence upon the workings of the tourism market, the supply and demand elements of which determine the ‘use’ or ‘non-use’ of nature. Inherent to the market is its environmental ethic, that is, the extent of our recognition of nature’s rights to existence. The thesis of this article is that whilst environmental policy may possibly have a greater influence in the future, it is the environmental ethics of the market that will be deterministic to the balance of the tourism-environment relationship.

The literature on tourism’s impacts upon the natural environment is well-established (e.g., Mishan, 1969, Mathieson and Wall, 1982, Hunter and Green, 1995, Mieczkowski, 1995 and Holden, 2008) and it is not the intention to reiterate its negative and positive consequences. The rapid growth in demand for international tourism during the second half of the last century has lent a global spatial dimension to these impacts. For example, impacts of tourism on the natural environment of Antarctica have been observed (Hall and Wouters, 1994 and Hall and Johnston, 1995), whilst the contribution of aviation to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions has become an issue of economic and environmental debate. In the context of the society-environment relationship, which is at a critical juncture for deciding the extent that human activity is permitted to alter patterns of nature, our behavior and attitudes towards the natural environment will subsequently also influence the tourism-environment nexus. A lexicon of terms depicting environmental problems, including global warming, ozone depletion, bio-diversity loss, species extinction, and ecosystem degradation are now interwoven into the discourse of global society. Scientific evidence suggests that these changes are a consequence of human activity rather than natural processes (Stern Report, 2006 and IPCC, 2007). Significantly, these changes in the natural environment also present a threat to the “ecosystem services” upon which our well-being depends (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). These ecosystem services include: “provisioning services” for example, food and water; “regulating services” for example, climate and flood control; “cultural services” that offer recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits; and “supporting services”, for example, photosynthesis and nutrient recycling (ibid.). Evidently the raison d’être of tourism is closely linked with cultural services but it is ultimately dependent upon the other ecosystem services, that is, recreational benefit is less likely to be obtained if there is a reduction in the quality of provisioning, regulating and supporting services. Subsequently, the tourism-environment relationship can be understood as being reciprocal, tourism influencing environmental well-being which in turn impacts upon the characteristics and quality of tourism. The predicted numerical and spatial growth of tourism, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 2007) forecast an increase in international tourism arrivals from a current level of approximately 800 million per annum to 1.6 billion per annum by 2020, implies that tourism will have an increasing global significance as a user of natural resources in the future. Tourism’s relationship with the natural environment is made complex through the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders, the variance of the spatial dimension of its activities, a lack of clear definition of key conceptual themes, and the subsequent difficulties of the systematic planning of its development. For example, whilst most stakeholders in tourism would probably agree that “sustainable tourism development” is a desirable goal, the variety of interpretations of what it actually is, typically lends it a reductionist approach, limited to isolated examples of environmental initiatives and improvements undertaken by tour operators, hotel groups or destinations. This shared observation of the limitations of sustainable tourism leads Saarinen (2006:1133) to ask: “Are the present local solutions to global challenges enough, and do they represent all that tourism can do?” Thus, twenty years after the publication of the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), the subsequent advocating of sustainable tourism by international agencies including the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the European Union (EU), and the World Development Bank, the extent to which tourism’s relationship with the natural environment has “improved”, however we choose to conceptualize and measure it, is debatable and contentious. With reference to a list of rhetorical questions concerning the success of the mitigation of the negative environmental impacts of mass tourism, including; whether the majority of hotels and other tourism companies had now adopted environmental management systems; natural resource usage had been minimized and the treatment of effluent is common practice; the hundreds of millions of tourists traveling around the world had an awareness of the impacts of their consumption patterns and behavior, a senior representative of the UNWTO comments: “It would certainly be naive to pretend to give a purely positive answer to all these questions… Progress towards sustainable development of tourism is hardly satisfactory while sustainable practices are restricted to a few niche markets, with the rest of the tourism industry keeping its priorities clearly on profit rather than sustainability” (Younis 2003:13). It is subsequently argued that environmental and sustainable tourism policy has had relatively little influence on the workings of the tourism market, the main mechanism for deciding how the natural environment and resources will be used for tourism. Subsequently, when considering the future of the tourism-environment relationship, it is necessary to observe the dynamics of the market, the workings of which will be critical in determining the balance of a symbiotic or destructive tourism-environment relationship.

Given the expanding spatial boundaries of tourism and its environmental impacts, it represents a significant agent for change in the context of society’s relationship with nature. Its impacts which have traditionally been focused upon at a destination and regional level, are now understood to have consequence on a global scale, notably as an outcome of aviation’s contribution to GHG emissions. The negative externalities of the effects of resultant global warming not only threatens the livelihoods of many people, particularly the poor of developing countries, but also the well-being of eco-systems and the continued existence of many species of flora and fauna. It is argued that there is a strong propensity for tourism and aviation to be a focus of ethical debate as society seeks to re-evaluate its position relative to nature. Accepting capitalism as the dominant economic ideology; the market system will have a central role in the representation of the ethical and economic values of nature. The market is given higher advocacy through the forces of neo-liberalism, which favor the minimization of government interference in it. For example, the strong opposition from the tourism industry to the Balearic government’s attempt to impose an eco-tax, illustrates the challenges governments may face to action that is perceived to reduce market competitiveness for the benefit of the natural environment. Subsequently, it is suggested that the interaction between the industry and the consumer will be the defining relationship in deciding the outcomes of the interaction between tourism and the natural environment. The strength of the market’s environmental ethic; the willingness of stakeholders to trade-off individual benefit for the greater environmental good, will be instrumental in deciding the extent of tourism’s impacts upon nature. In a system that encourages individuality, consumption and freedom of choice, symbolized by the right to travel for recreational purposes, a move towards what may be regarded as a more ascetic lifestyle will pose a major challenge. Tensions over the loss of personal benefit or utility as a consequence of a stronger environmental ethic are evident in the demand for flying. Whilst there is research (Becken, 2007 and Energy Saving Trust, 2007) that suggests a reluctance to voluntarily reduce participation in flying, there is also evidence (Asthana and McKie 2007) of the beginning of a shift away from its use for recreational purposes. If aviation becomes a major source of GHG emissions, and the level of public debate over the ethics of flying increases, it is not inconceivable that the increase of demand for flying experienced over the last 50 years may begin to reverse. Unlikely as this may seem at present, using the analogy of the tobacco industry, the knowledge of the harmful effects of a particular activity can lead to behavioral changes. Whilst, the tourist who is willing to fly less presently represents a minority, changes in market behavior are likely to be incremental and progressive rather than sudden. However, the ability of technological innovation to mitigate negative impacts in the face of increasing consumer demand is debatable. For example in the case of the aviation industry, even if a non-carbon jet fuel became commercially viable, there can be no assurance that it would not have unforeseen long-term negative environmental or economic consequences. For instance, the cultivation of maize for ethanol production to use as a bio-fuel is a contributory factor to increasing grain prices, having implications for the future of world food consumption(Vidal 2007). Nor would the use of non-carbon aviation fuel address problems of noise and local air pollution, or land-use and ecosystem changes, which characterize airport development. It is optimistic to expect that an approach reliant upon technological innovation and improved management will provide the solutions to environmental problems resulting from tourism. Whilst technological advancement has a key role to play in the creation of a more balanced society-environment relationship, critically important is the behavior of individuals and governments in combination with science. For example, it was through a partnership of government action to limit chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use, chemical companies’ innovation to find an environmentally benign alternative to CFCs, and a consumer boycott of CFC emitting products for example, aerosols, that the growth of the hole in the ozone layer has been arrested. However, this partnership of government policy, industrial innovation, and change in consumer behavior has not yet been witnessed in the tourism market. Rather, the relationship between the tourism industry, tourists and governments is at cross-roads of confusing signals that may or may not imply change. Nevertheless, whilst the principle of carpe diem may remain attractive to some, tourism cannot exist in a void of connectivity with the changing dynamics of the wider society-environment relationship. The effects of changes in this relationship are beginning to filter into the tourism market. Notably, it would seem that the days of tourism being free from constraints of global environmental policy are limited. Aviation will be affected by its inclusion in the follow-up agreement to Kyoto, as it will by its inclusion in the next stage of the EU’s ETS agreement. Tourism businesses will also eventually be subject to carbon trading schemes and have to look to reduce GHG emissions in line with agreed quota systems. At an individual level, it is not inconceivable that in the future we will have personal carbon allowances, limiting our opportunities to travel without the incursion of extra cost. Nevertheless, environmental policy takes time to be implemented, whilst in the meantime market forces will continue to determine patterns of tourism development. It is suggested that the conservation ethic has established itself in the market and that there is an embryonic progression towards a stronger sense of duty to nature. If an environmental ethic founded upon the intrinsic right of nature “to be”, should become established in the consumer market in the future, then tourism is likely to be different. The desire to travel long distances will be constrained by our duty to nature, our behavior in natural environments will be more orientated to reducing negative impacts than at present, and sentient and non-sentient beings will have legal rights to representation and redress when their interests are threatened by tourism development. As unlikely as perhaps this seems at present, the thoughts of John Stuart Mill quoted by Nash (1989:8) are apposite: “every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption”. ■