In the scholarly journal article Bursting the Bubble: The Socio-Cultural Context of Ecotourism, researcher James G. Carrier and University of Glasgow lecturer Donald V.L. Macleod utilize two case studies about ecotourism in the village of Bayahibe in the Dominican Republic and the city of Montego Bay in Jamaica in order to argue that the main objectives of ecotourism do not align with the socio-cultural and environmental effects of ecotourism. While Carrier and Macleod maintain that the definition of ecotourism is altered in order to conform to the goals of a party involved in ecotourism, such as a hotel, both scholars agree that the aims of ecotourism include promoting conservation and respecting and supporting local communities (Carrier and
…show more content…
The pair then transitions to analyzing the various ways that ecotourism impacts the interactions between local people and their surrounding environment. Carrier and Macleod illustrate how the growth of tourism, alongside the building of beachfront hotels and the further development of port facilities in Montego Bay, impacted the lives of locals not merely by restricting their access to beaches now dominated by tourists and by reducing water quality, but by creating an aura of tension between fishers who rely on the water to produce an income and the tourist industry which the fishers view as invasive. This is contrasted with exploitation on part of the tourist industry in Bayahibe, where the entire village was physically uprooted from a beautiful beachside area to a rocky harbor unfit for the “small-scale subsistence” practices the locals once employed to make a living (Carrier and Macleod 321). Carrier and Macleod continue to examine environmental exploitation in a socio-cultural context through providing examples of their interactions with independent tourists who are not catered to by the parks. Carrier and Macleod proclaim that the type of tourist, the level of concern a tourist has with the environment, and the activities a tourist participates in does not matter, as the environmental impacts of one’s travels around the world and …show more content…
In Bayahibe, Del Este Park serves as a protection system. However, as Carrier and Macleod suggest, this system caused locals to leave their homes, changed the occupational focus of locals from agriculture and fishing to tourism services and fishing, and left locals feeling as if they were pawns in a political game masked by corruption on part of park management (325). Meanwhile, in Montego Bay, the activities of fishers were hindered by management, who displaced fishers from the waters on the quest to increase tourism. Furthermore, the personal connections locals established with the waters were replaced by a push to view the marine environment as a good on part of international donors. Carrier and Macleod contest that managers shifted their focus from activism to working to spice up areas of the park that ecotourists are interested in giving their money to. The pair provides these examples to support their arguments that tourists live in an ecotourist bubble where they do not consider previous effects ecotourism had on the lives of locals and that the socio-cultural goals of ecotourism are repeatedly not met, as locals are restricted from interacting with their surroundings (Carrier and Macleod
The pair then transitions to analyzing the various ways that ecotourism impacts the interactions between local people and their surrounding environment. Carrier and Macleod illustrate how the growth of tourism, alongside the building of beachfront hotels and the further development of port facilities in Montego Bay, impacted the lives of locals not merely by restricting their access to beaches now dominated by tourists and by reducing water quality, but by creating an aura of tension between fishers who rely on the water to produce an income and the tourist industry which the fishers view as invasive. This is contrasted with exploitation on part of the tourist industry in Bayahibe, where the entire village was physically uprooted from a beautiful beachside area to a rocky harbor unfit for the “small-scale subsistence” practices the locals once employed to make a living (Carrier and Macleod 321). Carrier and Macleod continue to examine environmental exploitation in a socio-cultural context through providing examples of their interactions with independent tourists who are not catered to by the parks. Carrier and Macleod proclaim that the type of tourist, the level of concern a tourist has with the environment, and the activities a tourist participates in does not matter, as the environmental impacts of one’s travels around the world and …show more content…
In Bayahibe, Del Este Park serves as a protection system. However, as Carrier and Macleod suggest, this system caused locals to leave their homes, changed the occupational focus of locals from agriculture and fishing to tourism services and fishing, and left locals feeling as if they were pawns in a political game masked by corruption on part of park management (325). Meanwhile, in Montego Bay, the activities of fishers were hindered by management, who displaced fishers from the waters on the quest to increase tourism. Furthermore, the personal connections locals established with the waters were replaced by a push to view the marine environment as a good on part of international donors. Carrier and Macleod contest that managers shifted their focus from activism to working to spice up areas of the park that ecotourists are interested in giving their money to. The pair provides these examples to support their arguments that tourists live in an ecotourist bubble where they do not consider previous effects ecotourism had on the lives of locals and that the socio-cultural goals of ecotourism are repeatedly not met, as locals are restricted from interacting with their surroundings (Carrier and Macleod