Tread Lightly: Ecotourism may not be as innocent as it seems

Despite our efforts to enjoy our planet’s ecosystems without having a negative impact, it’s become clear that ecotourism has the potential to be very harmful.  Although ecotourism is being advertised as being zero impact, it’s clear that the masses of people touring these ecosystems are taking their toll.  In light of this reality, it’s important that we address these problems before too much damage is caused by our seemingly innocent interest in our planet.

Ecotourism is unique in two main ways.  First, ecotourism concentrates on enjoying the natural splendor of our planet and largely avoids city centers and human accomplishments, and somewhat ironically as we will learn, it’s designed to be impact free, meaning that the visiting people do not damage or influence the environment during their visit.  Due to the massive popularity ecotourism has enjoyed over the last couple of decades and its subsequent expansion, the definition of the term “ecotourism” has evolved.  ”Ecotourism” now commonly refers to any tourism that centers itself around enjoying nature, and away from its original impact free designation.  It’s this new definition of term “ecotourism”, which will be the basis for our examination of the problem.

Many good things have come from the popularity of ecotourism.  Thanks to ecotourism, many of our planet’s environments are now well understood and in turn protected (at least in spirit) by a large portion of the world’s population.  Without this exposure, many of these places would have gone ignored or forgotten, leaving them exposed to industrial harm without any sort of politically organized opposition.  In addition, a lot of the revenue being produced by this brand of tourism is contributing to conservation efforts in host countries as they continue to recognize the benefits of their unique natural resources. Additionally, a lot of promotional material is being produced which highlights that ecotourism helps these environments by educating the public, generating funds for conservation and an increasing public interest in environmentalism.

Ironically, ecotourism is also causing harm to the ecosystems we travel to see.  During the First International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism held in Tunisia in 2003, it was noted that the various means of transportation these tourists are using to travel, are having a negative impact on the local environments.  The increased use of roads, airplanes, and ships has become a major contributor in the accumulation of greenhouse gasses, as well as noise pollution.  They also noted that while visiting these remote locations, people are consuming large amounts of water, food and other consumables.  This in turn increases the need for the importation of consumable products, as well as an increase in the need for drinking water and sewage treatment; all of which have a negative impact on these delicate environments.   The world’s coral reefs, grasslands, and rainforests are suffering from physical damage due to the increase of human traffic through these environments, which prior to the boom in ecotourism’s popularity, would have remained relatively untouched (at least by these masses of tourists).  It’s become clear that too much of a good thing, is causing ecotourism to become a foe instead of a friend of nature.

To better understand the issue at hand, it’s important to look at a specific case where ecotourism has become an issue.  Costa Rica was an early pioneer in the formation and popularization of ecotourism.    Ecotourism first arrived in Costa Rica in the 1960s and quickly grew into a multi-million dollar business, and by the mid-nineties a vast majority of visitors were arriving in Costa Rica for nature related activities.  But despite the economic growth and social awareness that the Costa Rican government has managed to provide, many of the country’s fragile ecosystems are being threatened by over-visitation.  There has been a steady decline in numbers of rainforest birds as well as the quality of Costa Rica’s rivers and inland waters.  Many of these problems stem from the fact that there is little or no enforcement of any established standards of ecotourism.  Almost any travel company can provide “ecotourism” to their clientele, however very little of this “ecotravel” actually operates in an ecologically sustainable manner.  In order to provide tourism for the masses of travelers now wanting to spend their hard earned travel dollars to see nature, impact free travel have been replaced with methods that suit higher volume business.

This damage is not limited to land, it’s also occurring in the oceans.  Coral is a very delicate type of marine animal with a soft tissue that grows around a hard inner skeleton.  Over hundreds of years, this growth accumulates into the reefs so admired by tourists.  However it only takes a very slight touch to damage years of coral growth.  Unskilled divers and snorkelers alike will touch and kill portions of the reef because of their close proximity to the delicate coral.  Skillful divers can avoid contacting and damaging coral reefs through the use of good buoyancy control.   However with the increase of participants in such activities (due in large part to increasingly less stringent certification standards), also comes an increase in damage.   To that one must also consider the impact of the boats carrying these people to the reefs.  Anchors and anchor chains are claiming huge pieces of coral growth when used carelessly.  With an increase in number of tourists, comes an increase in the need for accommodations and services.  Costal habitat destruction has grown out of control in many of the world’s top reef destinations.  The mangrove forest, a vital part of the life cycle of reef animals is being removed to make room for hotels to accommodate reef-seeking tourists.  Not unlike other areas of the world, the use of fresh water and the production of wastewater in these destinations have also been on the rise.

A coral reef is naturally a very nutrient poor environment.  Subsequently corals have adapted exotic means of nutrition in order to survive in such nutrient poor water.  They carry symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae which lives within the coral’s tissues and provides it with its beautiful colors.  However with the massive influx of nitrates and phosphates (two major bi-products of treating waste water), the ocean’s water chemistry is changing.  Corals are suffering from bleaching and are being choked off by invasive algae species competing for the same space on the reef.  This invasive algae, unlike corals, can utilize this chemical waste directly, thus allowing it overtake the coral reef in a race for survival.  In addition to these physical and biological threats, there are social threats to the reef environment as well.  With an increase of tourists comes an increase in the demand for shells, dried corals for souvenirs, as well as local cuisine such as fish and lobster.  When all of these factors are taken into consideration we get a clear picture on how badly coral reefs are being damaged by “nature friendly” tourists.

The heart of the problem is that the term “ecotourism” has lost its original meaning.  This misnomer gives tourists a false sense of environmental transparency.  If a tourist thinks its “ecotourism” it must be safe for the environment, right?   Well, not really.

Over time people have taken the term ecotourism as a synonym for sustainable tourism.  In reality sustainable tourism is much more than just caring about the environments we visit.  Sustainable tourism must also take into consideration all factors that affect a specific ecosystem.  This is a level of awareness that few nations have achieved in there promotion of so-called ecotourism.   However with a better awareness of the problems associated with ecotourism and an increase in efforts being made by the hosting nations, it’s possible to return ecotourism to its environmentally friendly origins.  As of now, there are few worldwide bodies governing the promotion of ecotourism.  However recently the idea of an ecotourism oversight organization has become a popular concept with concerned activists.  Others suggest alternatives to a governing body, such as the promotion of eco-aware propaganda, educating people on the issues associated with ecotourism.  Either way, it’s clear that people are becoming aware of the need to control the growth of ecotourism.

Opponents to these changes will argue that enforcing standards to what can be sold as “ecotourism” will decrease travel volume, thus decrease the money that is coming into these nations.  This argument has a certain amount of merit, because it’s inevitable that fewer travelers will choose a truly sustainable tour, with its associated compromises in price, comfort and convenience.  However, if environmental stewardship is the true goal, fewer travelers are exactly what the doctor ordered.  With a decrease in the number of travelers, there will be inevitable rise in the cost of ecotourism.  In turn, this rise in cost will cause ecotourism to be somewhat self-limiting and ultimately that is a good thing.   What is agreed upon however is that ecotourism is not currently being practiced in a sustainable way and changes must be made, or all of our gains in awareness will be for nothing.  We will simple become acutely aware of the damage we are causing.

While ecotourism is considered by many people as being ecologically harmless, its popularity has turned it into one of the planet’s most devastating problems.   While these ecotourists travel to enjoy and preserve our planet’s most beautiful ecosystems, the sheer volume of people and the poor management of this booming industry have caused ecotourism to become a threat.  With a stronger set of ecologically sustainable standards as well as in increase in the education and awareness of tourists, it will be possible to turn ecotourism back into an environmentally friendly way to see the world.   I for one will continue to participate in ecotourism, but I also fully intend on adapting to the real world requirements, to keep my travel environmentally sustainable.  Even if that means higher prices and less air conditioning!
www.scottshenton.com
info@scottshenton.com
Facebook

An Argument for Dive Tables

Although dive computers are now considered an indispensable piece of equipment, they simply do not, and should not, replace the roll of tables in diver education.  Dive tables illustrate the physics behind decompression theory in a way that computers simply cannot.  Only with an adequate knowledge of the rules of safe diving, and more importantly why these rules exist, can any diver be expected to be self-sufficient underwater.

One of the first things that every student diver should learn is a law of physics called known as Boyle’s Law. Boyles Law states that the volume of a gas is directly relative to the  pressure applied to it.  In other words, if you increase pressure exerted on a gas, the volume of the gas decreases.  This is expressed as the gas’s partial pressure. Inversely, if you decrease the pressure exerted on a gas, the volume of the gas will increase, thus lowering its partial pressure.  Boyles Law affects gases in a free gaseous state, as well as gases dissolved within another substance.  When gases at a higher partial pressure come in contact with a substance at a lower partial pressure, they have a tendency to equalize.  That is to say  the higher-pressure gases will migrate to areas of lower partial pressure, until the partial pressures in each substance are equal.  When a diver enters the water, their body is put under pressure by the surrounding water. This pressure compresses the molecules in a diver’s breathing air, (primarily oxygen and nitrogen), allowing a greater amount (in mass) of these gases to dissolve into the body then possible at the surface, due to the gas’s reduced volume relative to its mass. However our body tissues can only hold a certain volume of these gases in a dissolved state.  This is not unlike a glass of water that can only hold a certain amount dissolved salt.  So it’s important for a diver to monitor “decompression status” to prevent exceeding this limit and causing a life threatening condition referred to as decompression sickness.

Unlike oxygen,  which is metabolized by the body, the nitrogen in our breathing air is inertand can’t be used by our body, so once absorbed it must leave the body the way it was introduced; by way of our respiration. If you decrease the pressure on a diver (ascending from a dive) you will increase the volume of the nitrogen dissolved in your tissues.  If the volume of that dissolved nitrogen exceeds the carrying capacity of your body, it will return to its gaseous state while still in your body, causing decompression sickness.

To better illustrate this point, consider a can of soda. Carbon dioxide is dissolved into the soda at a high pressure.  When sealed in a can, that pressure remains  constant and the carbon dioxide remains dissolved.  However when you open the can, you are releasing that pressure.  The carbon dioxide expands, exceeds the carrying capacity of the soda and returns to its gaseous state, causing bubbles to form.   The same happens to a diver when they stay too long at depth.  Once they ascend and lower the pressure exerted on their bodies, the dissolved nitrogen in their tissues expands and can potentially exceed their body’s carrying capacity.  Therefore it’s important to monitor the time spent at certain depth/pressure by way of a dive table or dive computer to prevent too much nitrogen from dissolving into the body.

The first dive  tables were organized in 1906, by conducting simple decompression experiments on lab animals, and charting the results. Later, the United States Navy revised the tables and printed them for use by Navy and commercial divers.  Over the years the dive tables have evolved into increasingly more conservative models to accommodate recreational divers, however the principals behind them remain the same.

A basic dive table displays a list of depths on one axis, and a list of times on the other.  Additionally each depth is noted with a maximum time, known as the bottom time. This is the time (in theory) it takes to absorb the maximum amount of nitrogen that once returned to the surface, would not exceed the body’s capacity.  The deeper the depth on the table, the shorter the time allowed.  On the flip side of a dive table, is another chart allowing a diver to calculate needed information to perform multiple dives in succession.  The key benefit of these tables is that the diver must stop, think and take the time to work out their no decompression status in order to dive safely.

A dive computer is an electronic device that tracks depth, time and decompression status automatically.  It uses the same mathematical models as found on a dive table, but does these calculations for the diver and presents them with a simple descending timer to guide them on their dive.  A diver simply activates the computer and follows the guidelines offered on the computers display.   Although convenient and accurate, it does not require the diver to actually understand the information given, it only requires them to obey it.  In recent years, dive computers have become so popular, that many training organizations now consider dive tables to be obsolete and are pushing to have tables eliminated from diver education altogether.  This would be a great loss to the industry.

In all fairness, dive computers are popular for a good reason.  They eliminate human error; allow for a more detailed dive profile, and they are easier to use than dive tables.  I use a computer on every dive I make.  Because of these benefits and their seeming universal popularity, some believe that teaching dive tables is now unnecessary.  However, I reject this philosophy and believe that the dive tables must remain a required part of diver training.   The fundamental knowledge of why a dive computer is telling a diver something is just as important to that diver’s safety as what the computer is telling them.

As an example, if someone learns to drive a car and is simply told to “stop at red lights”, but is never explained why, it is likely that the first time they come up to a red light, they will ignore the rule and cause an accident.  However if that person was told to stop at the light, because there is cross traffic, that driver will likely stop, because they understand the reasoning behind the red light.  When diving, it’s important for your safety, as well as your enjoyment of the sport, to understand decompression theory, what a computer is for, why you should use it, and how it works.

Divers recreate in a hostile environment, and eliminating decompression theory from basic training, would be inviting disaster. For our sport to survive, grow, and remain relatively unregulated, we must insist that our fellow divers are conducting themselves in a safe, responsible manner, and the only way to insure that is to insist upon an adequate education.  Otherwise we are encouraging divers to blindly follow the advice of a digital display, taking no responsibility for their own safety and in the end, this can only damage our beloved sport.
Scott Shenton

www.scottshenton.com
info@scottshenton.com
Facebook

Here we go!!!

Hello everyone!

Please feel free to email me at info@scottshenton.com with any topic requests, or any specific questions that may not have been addressed in an article.

Your feedback is instrumental in determining the direction future articles will take!

www.scottshenton.com

info@scottshenton.com

Facebook