Problems of Ecotourism
and Ecoresort Developments, Associated with the Restriction of Access of the Indigenous
Communities to the Vital Resources of Rural Regions in Developing Countries
Itam, Ekpenyong Bassey
Volgograd State
University of Architecture and Civil Engineering,
Ita, Ekpe Esien,
Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, CRUTECH, Calabar, Nigeria.
Abstract
In the
earlier phases of ecotourism in the 1980-s, considerable emphasis was placed on
two major factors: tourists and pristine natural environments. This emphasis
can be discerned from the definition of ecotourism attributed to
Ceballos-Lascurain. Following deliberations of international conventions on
ecotourism, cultural and biological diversities (Berlin Declaration on
Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism of 1997; the Quebec Declaration on
Ecotourism of 2002; the Oslo Statement on Ecotourism of 2007 etc), another
significant factor has become recognized today – the indigenous communities, within
whose traditional domains ecotourism is expected to flourish. Research has
shown that the benefits that should accrue from ecotourism to indigenous
communities do not very often accrue, especially in the developing countries;
and this has resulted in conflicts between international tourists and
indigenous communities. In this paper, the possibilities of preventing such
conflicts, through the formulation of appropriate architectural conceptions for
ecoresort developments, have been explored.
Introduction – Ecotourism and the Developing Countries
According to G. Wall [20], the “term
‘ecotourism’ is usually attributed to Ceballos-Lascurain, who defined it
as ‘tourism that consists in travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated
natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying
the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural
manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas.’” In this early
definition of ecotourism, the emphasis on the pleasure of the tourists is
evident. This emphasis is still being played out by investors in ecotourism projects,
in circumstances in which appropriate national regulations are not strictly
enforced (the developing countries). This contradicts the present worldview of
ecotourism (Berlin Declaration on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism
of 1997 [3]; the Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism of 2002 [19]; the Oslo
Statement on Ecotourism
According
to H. Ayala [1, 2], natural and cultural heritages that were previously considered
as peripheral or background issues in mass tourism, have now been “re-labeled”
as the foremost attractions in ecotourism; and this has drawn the rural regions
of the developing countries into the center stage of the orbit of world tourism.
L Mastny [12] has described these trends in the following manner: “Rushing to
capitalize on their rich natural and cultural attractions, many developing
countries welcome tourism as a way to stimulate investments, generate foreign
exchange earnings, and diversify economies. Tourism can be more lucrative and
less resource-intensive than growing a single cash crop or pursuing traditional
industries like mining, oil development and manufacturing”. According to Mbaiwa
and Stronza [13], sustainable tourism has great potential “to bring social,
economic and environmental benefits” to developing countries [1, 2, 12, 13].
The
significant shift in international tourism that has accompanied the rise of
ecotourism has been noted. The percentage of international tourists that traveled
to the developing countries rose from about 7.7 percent (in the 1970-s) to
slightly above 20 percent (by the end of the 20th century) [12].
This trend has continued to intensify within the first decade of the 21st
century. According to the 2008 report of WTTC (World Travel and Tourism
Council) [23] the growth rate of international tourism in Africa (5.9%),
Pacific region of Asia (5.7%) and Middle East (5.2%) have superseded the value
4%, the global average annual growth rate since 2004; while the growth rates in
America (2.1%) and Europe (2.3%) fell below the average. The contribution of
travel and tourism to economies and employment worldwide is expected to rise
from 8.4% (in 2008) to 9.2% (by 2018). Thus the influx of international
tourists into the rural regions of the developing countries will continue to
increase; and the developing countries will continue to welcome these trends towards
the improvement of their national economies [12, 23].
Ecotourism
is associated with some levels of responsibility. The expectation is that the
social and economic benefits that accrue to developing countries from
ecotourism must result in the improvement of the livelihoods of the indigenous
communities and also foster the cause of conservation; and this position has
been emphasized in the work of P. Wight [22]: “Ecotourism: Ethics or
Eco-Sell?”. Thus, resort developments for ecotourism (ecoresort developments)
must be based on this fundamental criterion of ecotourism – the recognition of
the rights of indigenous communities to resources located within their
traditional domains. However, recent studies have revealed that the planning of
ecotourism and ecoresort developments in developing countries has not often been
sufficiently comprehensive; very often, neglecting the interests of indigenous
communities. Some of the trends and consequences of this negligence are
discussed in this paper [22].
Ecotourism and the Vital Interests of the Indigenous
Communities
According
to H. Ayala [1, 2], the incorporation of the indigenous communities in ecotourism
and ecoresort development programmes is of critical importance to the success
of the ecotourism programme itself. The indigenous people possess very adept
knowledge of the natural and cultural heritages located within their traditional
domains. This adept knowledge gives them immense capacities to contribute to
the prosperity of an ecotourism programme that offers them very tangible
benefits; and also to destroy one that is not directly beneficial to them. According
to J. Butcher [5], the indigenous communities must constitute a very distinct
and fundamental factor in the planning, operation and regulation of ecotourism
and ecoresort development programmes [1, 2, 5].
The Final
Report of the World Ecotourism Summit, 2002 [18] posited that ecotourism should
be the means by which indigenous communities “conserve and derive benefits from
natural and cultural resources” located within their traditional domains [18]; and
that, as a “principle”, ecotourism and ecoresort development programmes should
“allow indigenous communities, in a transparent way, to define and regulate the
use of their areas at the local level” [18]. Furthermore, they should provide
“a source of livelihood for local people which encourages and empowers them to preserve
the biodiversity in their area” [18]. The Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism [19]
argues for the promotion of “the cultural integrity of the host community”; and
furthermore:
Recognize
the cultural diversity associated with many natural areas, particularly because
of the historical presence of local and indigenous communities, of which some
have maintained their traditional knowledge, uses and practices, many of which
have proven sustainable over centuries.
UNEP and
UNWTO, 2002b
The alienation
of indigenous communities from the social and economic benefits of ecotourism (by
curtailing their access to the vital resources located on their traditional and
historical domains) is thus an aberration of the cardinal principles of ecotourism
and ecoresort developments; but it has often been observed in the processes of
development of tourism facilities that are undertaken with off-shore capital (most
especially in the developing world) [18, 19].
P. Pattullo [14] and A. Holden [10]
have cited the example of Antigua, where long stretches of local beaches have
been destroyed by companies engaged in the construction of tourism projects
locally, and also in the Virgin Islands. A. Holden [10] has discussed the case
of Goa (in India), where the development of tourism hotels has excluded the
local population from the use of their beaches; at ‘Cidade de Goa Hotel’, a
tourist hotel in Goa, a 2.4 meter wall fence was constructed, demarcating the
beach and thereby curtailing the access of the local peoples to it [10, 14].
Restriction
of access of the local peoples to water and electricity has also caused discontent
in Goa. At the ‘Taj Holiday Village’ and ‘Fort Aguada Beach Resort Hotels (in
Goa), tourists have unlimited access to water, while the nearby villages are
denied access to water (from the pipeline) even for up to one or two hours in a
day [10]. In Goa also, the local peoples lack dependable access to electric
power; yet one guest (in a 5-star tourist hotel in the area) consumes 28 times
the electric power used by one local resident [10]. These restrictions have
resulted in protests against tourism (and sometimes open aggression against
tourists) in this region [10].
N. Salem [15]
has estimated that the quantity of water consumed by 100 guests in a luxury
tourist hotel in 55 days is sufficient to sustain the households of 100 rural
farmers for three years, and 100 urban families for two years. A. Holden [10]
has cited the case of Tepotzian (in Mexico), where the local people protested
against the development of 800 tourist villas along with a golf course. It was
estimated that the water requirements for daily sustenance of the project,
would result in drastic water shortages in the town. Other problems (of tourism
and resort developments) associated with the curtailment of the access of
indigenous people to water resources have also been documented. One instance
involves the diversion of water upstream for the development of resorts and
other tourist facilities; resulting in the lack of sufficient water for the
irrigation of the farmlands in the indigenous communities. Another instance
involves the over-extraction of sub-soil waters through the deep wells located
in resorts, leading to the lowering of sub-soil water levels; and, in
consequence, the shallow wells located in the indigenous communities become dry
(see Fig. 2) [10, 15].
Another
key issue is access of the indigenous communities to land for their livelihood
activities; agriculture and grazing lands, in particular. Large expanses of
farmlands are used up for the development of tourism facilities (airports, golf
courses, resorts etc). The use of agricultural lands for the development of
tourism facilities (seaports and airports) has resulted in heavy dependence on
imported foods in the Maltese Islands [4, 10]. In Kenya, the establishment of
the Masai-Mara Game Park has resulted in the displacement of the Masai people
form their traditional grazing fields and lands. L. Mastny [12] has discussed
the specific problems of golf in resort developments. Golf demands land; and
every year “up to 5,000 hectares of the Earth’s land surface – an area half the
size of Paris – are cleared for golf courses” [12]. It also demands water; “one
18-hole course can consume 2.3 million liters of water daily” [12]. The
specific case of an island in Malaysia has been cited, where a popular golf
course consumes “as much water annually as a local village of 20,000” [12].
Thus, it is not advisable to associate golf with ecoresort developments in the
rural regions of the developing countries [4, 5, 12].
In
general, tourist demands for specific locations change very rapidly. In the
events of such changes, the use of prime agricultural and grazing lands for
tourism development may result in serious ecological and economic consequences
for the indigenous peoples; and this would be a contradiction of the cardinal
principles of ecotourism and ecoresort developments, as articulated by the UN [18,
19].
Ecoresort Developments for Developing Countries
The ecoresort
is the principal factor that places international tourists directly within the traditional
domains of the indigenous peoples; and creates demands for resources that are
often in very short supply in the rural regions of the developing countries:
water, electricity and appropriate sewage disposal systems. In the process of
its development, care must be taken to avoid the use of prime agricultural and
grazing lands, upon which the livelihoods of indigenous peoples have depended
for several generations. C. W. Shanklin [16] has recommended that comprehensive
studies and researches on the vital resources of the region should constitute
the prerequisites for ecotourism and ecoresort developments in ecologically
sensitive territories. The objective is to ensure that indigenous peoples have
equitable access to the same resources upon which they depend for their
livelihood activities; and upon which tourism development also depends. In
order to reduce the ecological impacts of ecotourism on indigenous communities,
ecoresort development programmes should be based on detailed studies,
pertaining to the following issues:
·
the physical structures and peculiarities of the territory, and
also traditional landuse patterns of the indigenous communities;
·
the locations of the indigenous communities in the territory, and the
peculiarities of their settlement patterns;
·
the hydrographic and hydrological peculiarities of the territory;
·
the general characteristics of the vital resources of the
territory, which will be placed in the common usage of the tourists and the
indigenous communities;
·
the long-term relationships of the ecoresort establishments and
the indigenous communities.
This study
has revealed that, lured by the high revenues that accrue from tourism, national
governments (in developing countries) have often granted inappropriate
concessions to foreign tourism development organizations; to the detriment of
the socio-economic interests of the indigenous communities. Thus, driven by
poverty and desperation, the indigenous communities could resort to destroying
the natural and cultural resources upon which tourism development relies; and
the inevitable decline of tourism itself would set in [1, 2, 16, 18].
Discussion – The Ecoresort Establishment and the Indigenous
Peoples
In
specific case of Cross River State of Nigeria, the Cross River National Park
complex and the large expanses of tropical rainforests that surround it
constitute the principal resources for ecotourism and ecoresort developments. A
very large portion of the forest estates outside the national park complex is
constituted as community forest estates. The only condition for ecotourism and
ecoresort development programmes to be successful here is if they would be
beneficial to the indigenous communities. There are already existing interest
groups that are poised at luring the local peoples into poaching and illegal trade
in good quality timber; and NGO’s have been combating these activities (by
local court actions and international campaigns) for about two decades now. The
indigenous peoples would thus have the incentives to apply their in-depth
knowledge of these natural resources towards the destruction of an ecotourism
that would not grant them very tangible benefits.
Architecture of the Ecoresort Establishment. In the architecture of
ecoresorts, the fundamental aspiration is to create an ecoresort environment
that is both ecologically and culturally compatible with its location (the concepts
of ecological sensitivity, and also of ecological and cultural affinity).
According to R. K. Dowling [9], an ecoresort should be
“environmentally sensitive” in design; the design, development and management
of an ecoresort should be based on the principle of minimization of “its
adverse impact on the environment, particularly in the areas
of energy and waste management, water conservation
and purchasing”. Waste management deserves
appropriate attention in the architecture of ecoresorts developments in rural
regions; according to L. Mastny[12], the “UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
estimates that the average tourist produces one kilogram of solid waste and
litter each day” [1, 2, 9, 12].
The
ecoresort has a symbolic presence in the rural region in which the business of
ecotourism is conducted; within the consciousness of the indigenous peoples it
is the physical embodiment and reflection of ecotourism. It is essential to use
the architecture of ecoresorts as a means of invoking positive impressions of
ecotourism on the part of the indigenous peoples. The impression created by the
physical manifestation of the ecoresort could be a feeling of deprivation and
oppression; if the presence of the ecoresort results in the deprivation of the
access of the indigenous peoples to the vital resources, on which their lives
have depended for several generations. On the other hand, the indigenous
peoples would be positively disposed towards ecotourism if, through it, their
youths have meaningful employment and also if the state of environmental
services in the region are improved; for example, introduction of: 1) new
methods of electric power supply (by solar energy); 2) new water schemes that
are also made available to the indigenous communities. The long-term benefits
that the ecotourism venture would derive from such gestures far out-weigh the
initial cost outlays.
The application
of the principle of cultural affinity or contextualism in the architecture of
ecoresorts is very essential in rural regions. According to H. Ayala [1, 2],
cultural affinity means much deeper than the cosmetic application of local
traditional motifs and artworks within an ecoresort complex; it means
association with the local cultures by the incorporation of elements of the
traditional architecture and arts of the local peoples in ecoresort developments.
An ecoresort that is culturally associative with the region is most likely to
invoke the required positive attitudes on the parts of the indigenous
communities. In order to achieve this, it is essential to apply local
architectural styles, crafts, technologies and building materials. In the
planning of the ecoresort settlement, it is also essential to create special
spaces for social and cultural interactions between the indigenous communities
and the tourists. In the contrary circumstance, an ecoresort that is based on
foreign architectural styles manifests as a foreign imposition on the
traditional domains of the indigenous peoples; and the attitudes of the local
peoples would be shaped by their perceptions of such foreign intrusion. From
the perspective of the international tourists, it would be more rewarding and desirable
to study a culture by living within its characteristic spatial configurations,
than by viewing it in films, picture galleries and museums [1, 2].
Road Engineering Infrastructures. It would ordinarily
be presumed that construction of road infrastructures for ecoresort
developments in the rural regions of the developing countries would only result
in direct benefits to the indigenous peoples. Within this general conception, in
opening up the rural regions to international tourism, such road transportation
infrastructures are expected to grant the indigenous people improved
transportation networks for the conduct of their livelihood activities. This is
unarguably true; however recent studies have also shown that unless such road
engineering infrastructures conform to specific environmental standards, they
could also become the direct sources of some ecological problems in the rural
communities. The principal problems that could be associated with road
infrastructures are distortion of natural hydrological processes and pollution
of water resources, by reason of the use of impervious pavements. The
probabilities are that many roads would be constructed with impervious pavements;
because, in comparison, permeable pavers are fairly scarce in developing countries,
and they are also two or three times more expensive [6, 7, 8].
Ecoresort
buildings and complexes are usually small; and empirical studies have indicated
that the cumulative surface areas of the roads that lead tourists to the
national parks and to the ecoresort establishments as well as the walkways
within the ecoresort could account for above 65-70 percent of imperviousness of
the territory. Thus it is expedient to address the subject of ecological
impacts of imperviousness from the point of view of design of road engineering
infrastructures.
Recent
studies have shown that the use of impervious pavements in the construction of
roads has serious environmental impacts on the water resources and aquatic
ecosystems. In the specific context of ecotourism developments in the rural
regions of sub-Saharan Africa, depletion or pollution of water resources
amounts to the curtailment of the access of the indigenous peoples to the vital
resources upon which their lives had depended for generations. The principal
ecological impacts of impervious pavements on the water resources of the
indigenous communities are: 1) increases in the volumes of runoff; 2) increases
in peak discharge rates; 3) increases in bankfull flow; and 4) decreases in
baseflow [8].
The use of
impervious pavers and concrete drains in road construction results in decreases
in infiltration and increases in stormwater runoffs (see fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Reduction in infiltration by reason of increases in
imperviousness results in the depletion of underground waters and pollution of
surface waters; and thereby could lead to the curtailment of the access of indigenous
communities to fresh water in ecotourism development. Credit for
diagramme is ascribed to: Wikimedia Commons.
Runoff
coefficient is the numerical factor (ranging from 0 to 1) that expresses the
volume of runoff in relationship with a given volume of rainfall. Studies on
the relationship between imperviousness (measured in percentages) and runoff
coefficient have shown that there is a direct relationship between these two
parameters; runoff coefficient approaches 1 as imperviousness approaches 100
percent [7]. Increases in runoffs lead to the discharge of large volumes of
water into surface waters at periods of peak rainfalls; this is the phenomenon
that is described in this work as “increases in peak discharge rates”. Stormwater
runoffs contain pollutants that could render surface waters unsuitable for
domestic use. Increases in runoffs thus result in increased pollution of water
resources; and also in higher risks of floods in communities located on the
sides of streams, lakes or rivers. Bankfull flow is the condition in which the
channel of a stream (or other surface waters) is filled to the brim; the point
at which further addition of water from stormwater runoffs results in the
overflow of surface waters on to the flood plains in the communities. The
frequency of the occurrence of this overflow is related to the volumes of
stormwater runoffs that reach the stream [6, 7, 8].
Increases
in stormwater runoffs are indicative of reduction in infiltration (see Fig. 1).
Reduction of infiltration affects the water resources of indigenous communities
in two ways. Firstly, it results in decreases in baseflow. Baseflow is the
discharge from underground waters that supports the flow of streams during the
dry seasons. Reduction of infiltration reduces the capacities of underground
waters to support the flow of streams in dry seasons and this could result in
dry streams during such seasons. Secondly, the depletion of underground waters
could result in the problem of dry wells in the communities; because the
communities depend on shallow wells for their supply of drinking water. In
ecoresort developments, the problem of dry wells could also occur in accompaniment
with the circumstances of over extraction of underground waters for use in
tourist establishments. In such instances, the shallow wells of the communities
run dry, while the deep wells in the tourist establishments continue to
function (see Fig. 2) [6, 7, 8].
Fig. 2. Problems of imperviousness, increased runoffs and the water
resources of indigenous communities in ecoresort developments. (Illustration is done by the authors by the adaptation and
modification of the original base drawings obtained from Wikimedia Commons). Credit for base drawing is ascribed to:
Wikimedia Commons.
In the circumstances
in which it is inevitable to use impervious pavements, it becomes desirable to
apply ecological methods towards the reduction of the total volumes of runoffs
that are discharged into surface waters. This requires the application of the
modern technique of “source control”, an approach radically different from the
20th century approach, which consisted in the collection of
stormwaters from the sources and the transportation by concrete drain channels
into nearby surface waters. Source control involves the collection of
stormwaters from impervious pavements into systems that facilitate their
infiltration, in such manners that no volume of stormwaters reaches the surface
waters. In the construction of roads and walkways, the use of concrete drain
channels should, therefore, be completely avoided. Roads and walkways should be
constructed in the form of an integrated system in which the runoffs are
directed into vegetated drains that are constructed alongside the roads and
walkways. Vegetated drains facilitate the infiltration of stormwaters into the
subsoil. At the points at which the capacities of the vegetated drains (for
total infiltration of the runoffs) have been exceeded, then the stormwaters in
the vegetated drains should be directed into retention basins and/or
constructed wetlands. The objective is to ensure the complete collection and
infiltration of the total volumes of stormwaters generated by impervious
pavements [6, 7, 8].
Conclusion
In the specific
instance of ecotourism and ecoresort developments in
·
The
ecoresort development programme should begin with comprehensive studies of the
natural and cultural resources of the territory, to reveal the intrinsic values
of these resources to the indigenous communities.
·
Comprehensive
studies should also be conducted on the spatial structures of traditional
settlements of the indigenous communities, their traditional land-use patterns
and livelihood activities; and also their access to the vital resources of the
territory (such as water and electric power).
·
Incorporation
of the members of the indigenous communities into the decision-making processes
in the ecoresort development programmes would be desirable and consistent with
the demands of the UN.
·
The
architecture of ecoresort buildings should incorporate traditional
architectural styles; and also, local materials and technologies should be
applied in the construction and maintenance of buildings and complexes.
·
It
is essential to provide cultural parks and other places for social and cultural
interactions, in order to enable international tourists to properly appreciate
the cultural peculiarities of the region.
·
Pervious
pavements are recommended for roads and walkways. In the events that the use of
impervious pavements should be inevitable, then the runoffs from roads and walkways
should be directed into vegetated drains and infiltration trenches or basins,
in order to eliminate the possibilities of discharge of stormwater runoffs into
surface waters.
References
1. Ayala, H. (1996).
Resort Ecotourism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 1996; Vol. 37: pp 46-53.
2. Ayala, H. (1998).
3.
4. Briguglio, L.
and Briguglio, M. (1996). Sustainable Tourism in the Maltese Isles. In
Briguglio, L.,
5. Butcher, J. (2006). The United
Nations International Year of Ecotourism: a critical analysis of development
implications. Progress in Development Studies 2006; Vol. 6: pp 146-156.
6. Cahill, T. (2000).
A Second Look at Porous Pavement/Underground Recharge. Technical Note #21 from
Watershed Protection Techniques. In Schueler, T. and
7. CWP (2000). The
Importance of Imperviousness. Article 1; Watershed Protection Techniques. In
Schueler, T. and
8. CWP (2003). Impacts
of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. © Center for Watershed Protection.
9. Dowling,
R. K (2000). In Jafari,
J. (editor). Encyclopedia of tourism. Routledge,
10. Holden,
A. (2003). Environment and Tourism.
11. Honey, M
(2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns
12. Mastny, L. (2001). Traveling
Light: New Paths for International Tourism. Worldwatch Paper 159; © Worldwatch
Institute 2001.
13. Mbaiwa, J. E. and Stronza, A. L.
(2009). The Challenges and Prospects of Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism in
Developing Countries. The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. SAGE Publications,
2009. Accessed: 1 May. 2010. http://www.sage-ereference.com/hdbk_tourism/Article_n19.html.
14. Pattullo,
P. (1996). Last Resorts: the Cost of Tourism in the
15.
16. Shanklin,
C. W. (1993). Ecological Age: Implications for the Hospitality and Tourism
Industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 17: pp 219-229.
17. TIES (2007).
18. UNEP and UNWTO (2002a). The World
Ecotourism Summit – Final Report. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) 2002.
19. UNEP and UNWTO (2002b). The
20. Wall, G. (2000). In Jafari, J. (editor). Encyclopedia
of tourism. Routledge,
21. Weaver, D. (2001). Ecotourism.
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., Sydney and
22. Wight, P. (1993).
Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell? Journal of Travel Research 1993; Vol. 31
(Winter): pp 3-9.
23. WTTC (2008).
Progress and Priorities 2008/09. © 2008 World Travel and Tourism Council, www.wttc.org.
Ïîñòóïèëà â ðåäàêöèþ 23.08.2010 ã.