生态旅游的追求[外文翻译]

生态旅游的追求[外文翻译] 本科毕业论文外文翻译 外文题目: In pursuit of ecotourism 出 处: Biodiversity and Conservation, 1996, Volume 5, Number 3, Pages 277-291 作 者: Harold Goodwin 原文: In pursuit of ecotourism Harold Goodwin Competing definitions of ecotourism The word 'ecotourism' has been coined relatively recently and there remains no consensus about its meaning. 'Ecotourism' has spread rapidly first because it has a number of different meanings and second because it has been extensively used opportunistically in marketing, 3 where the tag 'eco-' has come to be synonymous with responsible consumerism. The tourism industry has been quick to exploit the marketing value of ecotourism, the more so since its meaning is unclear and there is no requirement for the operator to do more than alter the packaging. The ecotourist has been variously defined in terms of visitor behaviour and philosophy. The advertising appeals to and promotes these approaches. Ecotourism is 'a niche market for environmentally aware tourists who are interested in observing nature' (Wheat, 1994), described by Steele (1993) as 'an economic process where rare and beautiful ecosystems are marketed internationally to attract visitors'. Kelman put it bluntly 'a tour advertised as environmentally friendly can be just as suspect as many of the products tarted up with green packaging at your grocery store' (Wight, 1994). The World Travel and Tourism Environment Research Centre in its 1993 World Travel and Environment Review defined ecotourism as tourism 'with the specific motive of enjoying wildlife or undeveloped natural areas' (WTI'ERC, 1993), making no distinction between nature tourism and ecotourism. Others have also used ecotourism and nature tourism synonymously (Lindberg, 1991; Aylward and Freedman, 1992). Ceballos-Lascurain's, 1987 definition has been used by others (Boo, 1990: Stewart and Sekartjakrarini, 1994): 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 these terms, nature-oriented tourism implies a scientific, aesthetic or philosophical approach to travel although the ecological tourist need not be a professional scientist, artist or philosopher. The main point is that the person who practices ecotourism has the opportunity of immersing himself/herself in nature in a manner generally not available in the urban environment.' (quoted in Boo, 1990). Ziffer (1989) offered a definition which combined motivation, philosophy, conduct and economic benefit to conservation: 'Ecotourism: a form of tourism inspired primarily by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous cultures. The ecotourist visits relatively undeveloped areas in the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity. The ecotourist practices a non-consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources and contributes to the visited area through labor or financial means aimed at directly benefiting the conservation of the site and the economic well-being of the local residents..'. The American based Ecotourism Society was founded in 1990 'as a center for research,information and policies on developing ecologically sound tourism in natural areas around the world.' The Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as: "purposeful travel to natural areas to understand the culture and natural history of theenvironment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem, while producing economicopportunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people"( Wood,1991 ). These definitions are broadly drawn, seeking to combine ecological and cultural tourism activities, often within frameworks which address philosophy and motivation. The US Office of Technology Assessment of the American Congress concluded that: 'While some ecotour operators are out simply to make a profit with little consideration of environmental and social issues, others are sensitive to these issues and may actively contribute to conservation projects/goals' (U S OTA, 1993). They pointed out that there is a: 'wealth of literature . .[which].. addresses the nature and growth of ecotourism, its potential environmental and sociological impacts and planning and management issues ... no definition of ecotourism has been universally accepted, data are commonly questionable, and much information and study is needed to assess the impact of nature travel" (US OTA, 1993). Ecotourism is often defined prescriptively. Consider for example the National Eco-tourism Strategy published in 1994 by the Mexican Secretariat of Tourism in cooperation with the World Conservation Union (Table 2). It has developed a long list of characteristics of ecotourism which constitute a highly prescriptive definition, ~ one which has been taken-up by the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1995). It is interesting to note that there is only one reference to protected areas and that where ecotourism is identified as a suitable mechanism for improving links between local communities and protected area managers. Definitions of this nature are difficult to use analytically. The World Tourism Organization (WTO) definition of ecotourism will be the one which is used to determine the volume of ecotourism and to measure its value world-wide. The emerging definition of ecotourism within the WTO and the one which will therefore prevail is derived from Australia. Australia's National Ecotourism Strategy defined ecotourism as 'Nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural environment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable" (Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994). The report recognizes that the natural cnvironment includes cultural components and that to be "ecologically sustainable" there must be an appropriate return to the local community and a contribution to the hmg-term conservation of the resource (WTO, 1995). Ecotourism rediscovered Ecotourism is no panacea. A critical approach to ecotourism is essential if it is to be harnessed for the conservation of habitats and species. Ecotourism will not be significantly different from conventional tourism unless it is carefully managed and controlled (Cater,1993). Protected area managers and conservationists need to take more control over thedefinition and use of the concept and over the supervision of its practise. There is an urgent need to 'put the ecology back into ecotourism' (Valentine, 1993) in order to establish a symbiotic relationship between nature based tourism and conservation. For governments and development agencies ecotourism has much to offer in diversifying rural economies in LDCs in urgent need of foreign exchange. Tour operators will continue to use ecotourism as a marketing tool. It is difficult for consumers to get accurate information about the tours which they are offered and about the operators who claim the mantle of ecotourism. If ecotourism is to become a means of harnessing part of the tourism industry for conservation of habitats and species, it is essential to focus on the activity rather than the motivation of the ecotourists. It is what they do, rather than what they say (or think) they do that impacts on conservation and ecosystems. It is easier to determine whether individual activities and tours meet ecotourism criteria, by contributing directly or indirectly to conservation, than it is to determine whether or not individuals are ecotourists or not. Only conservationists and protected area managers are in a position, or have the expertise, to credibly assert a more useful definition of ecotourism. Ecologists and conservationists need to 'take control of the language being used in the name of ecotourism' (Valentine, 1993) and to use it to benefit conservation and the maintenance of protected areas. It is protected area managers and conservationists, working with local people, who are best placed to manage nature tourism to ensure that its environmental impact does not jeopardise the integrity of the ecosystem and that both local people and the park gain significantly from ecotourism. Nature tourism and ecotourism need to be distinguished. Nature tourism is concernedwith the enjoyment of nature, ecotourism additionally requires a contribution to conservation. Hence the following definition ~ of ecotourism is offered: low impact nature tourism which contributes to the maintenance of species and habitats eitherdirectly through a contribution to conservation and/or indirectly by providing revenue to thelocal community sufficient for local people to value, and therefore protect, their wildlife heritagearea as a source of income. According to this definition ecotourism makes a direct or indirect measurable contribution to the continued protection and management of natural habitats and their species.Generally this contribution is likely to be financial but the work of commercial and "not-for-profit' organizations which enable tourists to make a practical contribution should not be ignored. However, their claims too need to be carefully and openly assessed by conservationists. Ecotourism is too powerful a force, driven by producers and consumers in the world's largest industry, for conservationists and protected area managers to allow it to bc controlled and developed by that industry. It is the form and impact of the nature tourism which must be managed to fulfil ecotourism criteria, it is essential that ecotourism is low impact and that this is ensured through careful extensive and intensive visitor management. Protected area managers and conservationists have an opportunity to manage nature tourism and turn it into ecotourism at the point of consumption, whatever the motivation of the tourist. It is the activity which needs to be controlled and used for conservation. If control is inadequate, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and a host of other negative impacts will result. Carrying capacity analysis and limits of acceptable change (LAC) management tools will need to be applied if tourism is to be harnessed for conservation. Ecotourism can demonstrate that good conservation is good economics, to local people and to governments. Re-investment in the maintenance of ecosystems and the species which inhabit them is at the core of ecotourism. Ecotourism can bring money and jobs to local people and increased revenues to national treasuries to enable them to fund park management. Ecotourism serves conservation objectives only if it demonstrates to local people and to governments that they should stop poaching, logging, slash-and-burn agriculture and other forms of encroachment and habitat disturbance to maintain the protected area for tourism. 译 文: 生态旅游的追求 生态旅游定义的竞争 “生态旅游”这个词，关于它的定义相对于已经创造的含义，近期仍没有达成共识。生态旅游的迅速蔓延，首先是因为它有大量不同的含义，第二是因为它已经被广泛应用于市场投机，其中“生态”的标记已经成了消费与责任的代名词。旅游业已经迅速开拓了市场价值，更何况生态旅游因为其含义不明确，也没有任何规定的，因此运营商可以随意的做多改变的包装。 生态旅游的各种不同的定义主要从游客的行为和哲学家的思考几个方面来诉说。从广告来诉求和推广这些方法。生态旅游是“对环保有兴趣并且知道观察自然环境的游客的一个小的市场。” (Wheat, 1994)。根据Steele(1993)的描述“生态旅游是以其中稀有和美丽的生态系统来吸引游客，并在国际上被销售的经济过程。”Kelman说“作为一个旅游广告，环保可以为你的购物商店里的许多可疑的产品提供绿色包装(Wight, 1994)。” 世界旅行和旅游环境研究中心在1993年世界旅游和环境审查中定义生态旅游为“生态旅游的具体动机是享受自然的野生动物或者帮助欠发达地区。”(WTIERC, 1993)，不在生态旅游与自然之间作区别。其他人也用生态旅游与自然旅游业的同义词(Lindberg, 1991; Aylward and Freedman, 1992)。Ceballos - Lascurain1987年下的定义已被他人使用(Boo, 1990: Stewart and Sekartjakrarini, 1994): “....前往特定的和相对未受干扰或未受污染的自然区域客观的研究和欣赏，并享受风景和野生动植物，以及在这些地区发现任何现有的文化表现形式(包括过去和现在)。在这些条件中，自然为导向的旅游意味着科学，以美学和哲学的方法去旅行的生态旅游不必是一个专业的科学家，艺术家或哲学家。主要的一点是，这些人对生态旅游的想法是，在城市环境中有浸泡他/她自己和展示自己的机会，而在自然环境中一般不会有。”(quoted in Boo, 1990)。 Ziffer(1989)提供了一个定义，合并了动机，理念，行为和经济利益的保护: “生态旅游:主要由一个地区的自然历史，包括由它的土著文化来启发的旅游形式。相对欠发达地区生态旅游参观的具有欣赏，参与和灵敏度的精神。生态 旅游实行对野生动物和自然资源的非消费性使用，并有助于参观区通过劳动或直接受益于该地区旨在保护金融经济和当地居民的经济福祉…”。 美国的生态旅游学会成立于1990年。“作为一个研究，信息和生态健全的发展在世界各地的自然区域的旅游政策的中心。”生态旅游协会的生态旅游定义 为: “有目的的前往自然地区了解当地的文化和自然历史环境，而且注意不改变生态系统的完整性，同时产生使自然资源的保护有利于当地人民的经济机遇。”( Wood,1991 )。 从这些定义大致可以得出，生态旅游是往往寻求结合框架内解决理念和动机的生态和文化旅游活动。 美国国会技术评估办公室的结论是: “虽然一些生态旅游经营者简单地进行一个对环境和社会问题几乎没有利润的活动，然而其他人却对这些问题很敏感，并可能作出积极保护项目/目标的贡献。”(U S OTA, 1993)。 他们(美国国会技术评估办公室)指出: “财富文学… 地域的性质和生态旅游的增长，其潜在的环境和社会影响，以及规划和管理问题…没有任何一个生态旅游的定义已被普遍接受，数据通常是值得怀疑的，以及大量自然旅游的影响的信息和学习是需要评估的。”(US OTA, 1993)。 可是生态旅游的定义通常又是被规定了的。例如，《国家考虑生态旅游战略》在1994年由墨西哥旅游与世界自然保护联盟秘书处出版。它已经开发出了一长串的生态旅游特色，构成一个高度 规范 编程规范下载gsp规范下载钢格栅规范下载警徽规范下载建设厅规范下载 ，已被世界旅游组织采取的定义(WTO, 1995)。有趣的是，如何让保护区和生态旅游作为改善地方社区与保护区管理人员的联系机制是确定合适的，世界上却只有一个参考。这种性质的定义是很难用以解析的。 世贸组织认为生态旅游的定义之一将是用它来确定生态旅游容量，并衡量其在世界各地价值。在世贸组织内一个将因此获得胜利的是来自澳大利亚的新兴生态旅游的定义。澳大利亚的国家生态旅游战略的生态旅游定义为“自然旅游，涉及教育和自然环境的解释，并设法将生态可持续。” (Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994)。 报告 软件系统测试报告下载sgs报告如何下载关于路面塌陷情况报告535n,sgs报告怎么下载竣工报告下载 指出，自然环境包括文化成分，同时又有“生态可持续”，并且对当地社区必须有一个适当的回报和对资源长期保存的贡献(WTO, 1995)。 生态旅游的重新发现 生态旅游是包治百病的灵丹妙药。生态旅游的一个必不可少的重要方面是必须保护栖息地和物种。生态旅游将无法从传统的旅游中显示出不同，除非它是经过精心管理和控制(Cater,1993)。保护区管理人员和保育需要采取更多控制定义和概念的实施，并监督它的实践。 目前迫切需要“把生态旅游返回生态” (Valentine, 1993)，以便建立和保护与自然共生的旅游的关系。对各国政府和发展机构来说生态旅游提供给外汇最不发达国家的农村经济多样化迫切需要有很大的关系。旅游经营者将继续利用生态旅游作为一种营销手段。对消费者来说获取有关他们所提供的旅行和有关经营者声称生态旅游的准确信息是困难的。 如果生态旅游是成为旅游业利用的一部分保护生态环境和物种的一种手段 ，那么必须把重点放在活动上而不是在生态旅游者的动机上。这就是他们做什么，而不是他们说(或认为)他们做这些对保护和生态系统的影响。这是比较容易确定个人是否符合生态旅游活动和旅游活动的准则，通过对促进生态旅游保护标准直接或间接的贡献，确定是否是生态旅游者个人。 只有自然保护主义者和保护区管理人员站在一个位置上，或者有专业的技术，才能可靠地断言生态旅游更有用的定义。生态学家和自然保护主义者“需要利用被控制的语言用在生态旅游命名上” (Valentine, 1993) 并用它来造福养护和维护保护区。这是保护区管理人员和环保主义者，与当地人民，谁是来管理自然旅游的最佳人选，以确保其对环境的影响不损害生态系统的完整性，并且使本地居民和公园因生态旅游的收益显著。 自然旅游和生态旅游需要加以区别。自然旅游是对自然的享受而言，生态旅游则需要额外的对环境保护作出贡献。因此，生态旅游提供了以下定义: 低冲击自然旅游有助于维护当地物种和栖息地，要么直接通过对环境保护的贡献或着间接提供给当地社会能让当地居民足够重视的税收，他们的野生动物遗产领域作为收入来源。 根据这个定义生态旅游通过直接或间接来对继续保护和管理他们的自然栖息地和物种作出贡献。通常来说，这个贡献很可能是对金融的，但商业工作和不以营利为目的组织使游客作出切实的贡献的也是不容忽视的。但是他们的要求也需要自然保护主义者认真和公开的评估。生态旅游是很强大的力量，由世界上最大的行业的生产者和消费者驱动，自然保护主义者及保护区管理人员允许这些行业 控制和发展生态旅游。必须设法满足生态旅游的标准这是自然旅游的形式和影响，至关重要的是生态旅游低的影响，是通过认真广泛和深入的游客管理的保证。保护区的管理者和自然主义保护者有机会来管理自然旅游和把生态旅游变为消费点，无论旅游动机是什么。这是一种需要加以控制和保护使用的活动。如果控制是不够的，影那么污染，栖息地的破坏，野生动物的干扰和其他将造成负面的响。承载能力分析和可接受的变化(LAC)的管理工具将被应用如果旅游业需要保护利用。 生态旅游对当地人民和政府可以显示出良好的保护效应的就是是好的经济学。再投资于生态系统和栖息在生态旅游核心区域的物种的维修。生态旅游可以带来金钱和当地人民的就业机会，增加国库收入使他们的资金运用于公园的管理。生态旅游提供保护目标只有当它表明当地人民和政府他们应该停止偷猎，伐木，砍烧农业，或者其他形式的侵占和干扰栖息地，以维持保护区的旅游。