Honduras Tourism

This week in class we talked a lot about political ecology. What exactly is political ecology? Pretty much everything that isn’t apolitical ecology. Seems like a silly answer, but in a way it is the best way to define it. Political ecology is hard to define, and looking up a definitive definition is nearly impossible (believe me, I tried), but in a nutshell it is the study of the relationships between political, economic, and social factors within the realm of environmental issues. After talking in class about some of the ways political ecology has effected some areas of islands I wondered how it effects the ocean in relation to what goes happens on the land.

Tourism is recommended for Honduras as a means of economic growth, and in the 80s the government of Honduras began promoting tourism as a national development strategy. The focus was on the archeological site of Copan, the beaches, the history of the North Coast, and the coral reefs of the Bay Islands. The government put in place a series of laws that specified “tourism zones”, the government also provided tax and import incentives to attract foreign capital investment. In addition to the economic policy changes, there was also a new emphasis on “non-traditional” exports; this gave investors in the tourism industry the same fiscal benefits as the private export processing zones. The emphasis on tourism comes with major concern in respect to the oceans and waterways. The water is apart of the locals’ livelihoods and way of life, but it is also important to the tourists. The water is necessary for tourist activities such as diving, snorkeling, and fishing. The development of tourism could potentially have an effect on the water quantitatively as well as qualitatively. And both would have negative effects on the ecosystem. In addition, tourism also puts a strain on the world’s water resources, especially in areas where water is already scares, like small islands and subtropical areas. Many studies have shown that the demand of tourism surpasses domestic and municipal demands. As I mentioned before in addition to water quantity tourism may also have a negative effect on the water quality. Unregulated tourism can cause water pollution at the local level, risking a critical resource whose high quality is essential for the tourism industry. One of the biggest treats to water purity is pathogen contamination because of the improper disposal of human waste (yuck!). There have been studies that link tourism, the water quality, and human health. What the studies point out are the common practice of dumping human sewage into fresh and marine water, creating the vehicle for infectious diseases (caused by bacteria) to spread there way to islands near these dumping sites. The improper disposal of waste isn’t the only way water quality can be effect though, it can also be effected in many other ways including: the destruction of habitats from tourist-related infrastructure, deforestation, and erosion which leads to sediment loads, the use of fertilizers, and tourist modes of transportation.

With all of these things in consideration is tourism a good solution to the economic problem? Increased tourism is solving one problem, but creating lots of other problems, that may be worse than the initial problem of economic development. Is economic stability worth the quality of life for not only the locals, but also the eventual quality of the world’s water supply? This kind of concept was discussed in class when the topic of environmental degradation was discussed. Most people defined it as the environment being worse off. But defining ‘worse’ was the trick. If it does a lot of good now, but eventually causes changes for the worse down the road is it environmental degradation? These are the kind of things that need to be considered when putting new policies in place. Is one solution creating another problem, and what are the long-term effects of the solution? In this case it would be tourism. In this case I think that tourism isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s the lack of care in regards to tourism that are the problem. If handled correctly tourism could simply be a means of solving an economic problem, without creating environmental problems. But with a lack of respect to the environment becomes a problem. But those with that mindset should consider one thing. It the quality and quantity of the water declines so does the tourism. No one wasn’t to vacation to a place with inhabitable water conditions. If stricter laws were in place I think tourism were in place tourism would be a great thing, but without that I think it does more harm than good, and will eventually have a negative effect on everyone.

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Mac2/tourism%20political%20ecology.pdf