Editing Ecotourism (section)

=== Negative impact ===
Ecotourism has become one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry.<ref name="Miller">{{Cite web |title=UNDERSTANDING THE RISE OF ECOTOURISM 2023 |url=https://www.meadowmere.com/2023/05/31/understanding-the-rise-of-ecotourism-2023/ |website=meadowmere}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=May 2016}} One definition of ecotourism is "the practice of low-impact, educational, ecologically and [[culturally sensitive]] travel that benefits local communities and host countries".<ref name="Honey EandSD"/>{{rp|71}} Many of the ecotourism projects are not meeting these standards. Even if some of the guidelines are being executed, the local communities are still facing many of the negative impacts.The other negative side of ecotourism is that it transforms nature and the environment into commodities people are interested in paying and visiting. When the environment becomes a product with economic value, people try to advertise and sell it. Some of the ecotourism sites are turning to private sectors, and the government cut off their funding. Hence, they are obligated to make money on their own. Private natural parks and sites are looking for their own advantage by advertising the soundness of natural parks or coastal marines in the Caribbean. They try to show they are protecting nature and attract people interested in ecotourism. However, they will focus on the phenomenon that might be more interesting for tourists and neglect other aspects of nature when they prioritize their profits. Consequently, this policy will result in abandoning rich ecological sites or destroying those valuable sites. For example, in Montego Bay, hotel staff cut the seagrass that appeared to drive back tourists; conversely, they are crucial for local nutrient cycles.

The other problem is that the companies try to hide the truth behind the ecotourism to maintain their profit. They do not cover the fact that traveling from other countries to the natural sites burns extensive amounts of aircraft fuel. In Montego Bay and Negril, a considerable amount of run-off is released to the coastal water produced directly or indirectly by ecotourists. Hotels in Jamaica release much more wastewater than a city. The tourists generate a lot of waste that ends up in the coastal water. The indirect effect of ecotourism in Jamaica is that many people migrated to the town near the natural site because of the more job opportunities due to construction increase, resulting in destroying the environment.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carrier |first=James G. |date=June 2010 |title=Protecting the Environment the Natural Way: Ethical Consumption and Commodity Fetishism |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00768.x |journal=[[Antipode (journal)|Antipode]] |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=672–689 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00768.x |bibcode=2010Antip..42..672C |issn=0066-4812}}</ref> [[South Africa]] is one of the countries that is reaping significant economic benefits from ecotourism, but the negative effects far outweigh the positive—including forcing people to leave their homes, gross violations of fundamental rights, and [[environmental hazard]]s—far outweigh the medium-term economic benefits.<ref name="Miller" />{{full citation needed|date=September 2018}} A tremendous amount of money and human resources continue to be used for ecotourism despite unsuccessful outcomes, and even more, money is put into public relation campaigns to dilute the effects of criticism. Ecotourism channels resources away from other projects that could contribute more sustainable and realistic solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. "The money tourism can generate often ties parks and managements to ecotourism".<ref>Walpole et al. 2001{{full citation needed|date=May 2016}}</ref> But there is a tension in this relationship because ecotourism often causes conflict and changes in [[land-use]] rights, fails to deliver promises of community-level benefits, damages environments, and has many other social impacts. Indeed, many argue repeatedly that ecotourism is neither ecologically nor socially beneficial, yet it persists as a strategy for conservation and development<ref name="West2006" /> due to the large profits. While several studies are being done on ways to improve the ecotourism structure, some argue that these examples provide a rationale for stopping it altogether. However, there are some positive examples, among them the [[Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area]] (KAZA) and the [[Virunga National Park]], as judged by WWF.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Reichelt-Zolho |first1=Brit |last2=Kirchgatter |first2=Johannes |date=27 March 2015 |title=Live elephants have to be worth more |url=http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/ecotourism-africa-promotes-sustainable-development-and-nature-conservation |url-status=live |access-date=12 July 2021 |work=Development and Cooperation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150331023242/http://www.dandc.eu:80/en/article/ecotourism-africa-promotes-sustainable-development-and-nature-conservation |archive-date=2015-03-31}}</ref>

The ecotourism system exercises tremendous financial and political influence. The evidence above shows that a strong case exists for restraining such activities in certain locations. Funding could be used for field studies aimed at finding alternative solutions to tourism and the diverse problems Africa faces in result of [[urbanization]], [[industrialization]], and the [[overexploitation]] of agriculture.<ref name="Kamuaro2007"/>

At the local level, ecotourism has become a source of conflict over [[control of land]], resources, and tourism profits. In this case, ecotourism has harmed the environment and local people and has led to conflicts over profit distribution. Very few regulations or laws stand in place as boundaries for the investors in ecotourism. Calls have been made for more efforts toward educating tourists of the environmental and social effects of their travels, and for laws to prohibit the promotion of unsustainable ecotourism projects and materials which project false images of destinations and demean local and Indigenous cultures.<ref name="Kamuaro2007"/>

Though conservation efforts in East Africa are indisputably serving the interests of tourism in the region it is important to make the distinction between conservation acts and the tourism industry.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ndaskoi |first=N. |title=The Maasai Predicament |journal=New African |year=2003 |volume=419 |issue=44}}</ref> Eastern African communities are not the only of developing regions to experience economic and social harms from conservation efforts. Conservation in the Southwest [[Yunnan]] Region of China has similarly brought drastic changes to traditional land use in the region. Prior to logging restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government the industry made up 80 percent of the regions revenue. Following a complete ban on commercial logging the Indigenous people of the Yunnan region now see little opportunity for economic development.<ref name="Yunnan expedition">{{cite video |url=http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_yunnan_great_rivers_expedition |title=The Yunnan Great Rivers Expedition |work=Snag Films |access-date=November 29, 2012 |people=Director: Jim Norton; Writers: [[Les Guthman]], Jim Norton |archive-date=July 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190702053425/https://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_yunnan_great_rivers_expedition |url-status=usurped }}</ref> Ecotourism may provide solutions to the economic hardships suffered from the loss of industry to conservation in the Yunnan in the same way that it may serve to remedy the difficulties faced by the Maasai. As stated, the ecotourism structure must be improved to direct more money into host communities by reducing leakages for the industry to be successful in alleviating poverty in developing regions, but it provides a promising opportunity.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Saayman |first1=Melville |last2=Rossouw |first2=Krugel |title=The impact of tourism on poverty in South Africa |journal=[[Development Southern Africa]] |date=September 2012 |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=462–487 |doi=10.1080/0376835x.2012.706041 |s2cid=153660005}}</ref>

Drumm and Moore (2002) discuss the price increase and economic leakage in their paper; saying that prices might augment since the visitors are more capable to pay higher rates for goods and services in opposition to the locals.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Drumm |first1=Andy |title=An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning |last2=Moore |first2=Alan |publisher=The Nature Conservancy |year=2002 |isbn= |location=Arlington, Virginia, USA |pages=}}</ref> Also, they have mentioned two solutions regarding the previous issue: (1) either a two pricing system represented as two separate price lists (the first for the locals and the second for the tourists with respect to the local's purchase power ability); (2) design unique goods and services subject only or the tourists' consumption.<ref name=":0" /> Leakage appears when international investors import foreign products instead of using local resources; thus, the tourists will be using international products and in-turn contributing to the outside economy rather than the local one (Drumm & Moore, 2002).<ref name=":0" />