Can tourism be good for the environment?

Question

Why or why not?

Answer 1

Tourism is suppose to be a money maker, that is why they call it tourism in the first place.

places like Alaska fascinate people, and yes it is fast becoming a tourist place all over Alaska...

and many parts of the world, and yes it is good for the environment and economy, why you ask.

the money these tourists spend provide for money for that country or state and the money is used to make improvements........tourism is necessary to keep the economy everywhere alive and kicking.

Answer 2

Depends.  I recently read something by a guy who lives up in Alaska saying that, from his own experience and by using his own two eyes, he knows that tourism is really just a money maker.  I wish I had the link to the article, but I read it a few months ago.  Anyways, so all this Gore-hype about polar bears dying off is a load of bull (check NCPA source below!), because they're actually thriving more than ever before, and the guy I mentioned before said his ghost town of a home has become tourist central as people come to ride on gas-guzzling Hummers and beat up tour busses to see the "last of the polar bears."  The bears are carnivores and are known to hunt humans, so when more are there, they're more likely to get into trouble, shot, whatnot.  On the other hand, I think if you go to Hawaii and hear the humpback whales while swimming in the water and go whale watching, you might appreciate the gentle giants a little better than you have before.  It really depends on what the tourism is pushing.  If the tourism hype is pushing "a last glimpse" at a "dying species" or something similar like they're doing in Alaska, it could be bad because then the balance is screwed up.  If the tourism is simple just because the place is beautiful, like in Hawaii, then it's not quite as invasive because people naturally flock there and the area is used to the attention and how to handle the foreigners.

Answer 3

It depends on the area.

Eco-tourism vs. clear cutting a forest for ranch land?  Tourism wins hands down.  In this case, tourism promotes the retention of the native flora and the associated biodiversity, while providing the local populace with income (and an incentive *not* to cut down the forest)

Increased tourism into a protected area?  Not so good.  In this case, tourism just promotes heavier use of a natural area that would otherwise be undisturbed, and provide income only if a guide is used - and the guide normally lives elsewhere.