Hard and Soft Ecotourism

On one of my very first backpacking trips, I was up in the Uinta mountain range. We were reading the posters at the trailhead to see if there was any important information that we needed to know for the trip. We came across a poster that banned campfires around Dollar lake, which is where we had planned in advance to spend the night. Obviously we were disappointed. We continued hiking and still camped near Dollar lake like we had planned. While I was around the lake, I realized why there was a ban on fires. A large majority of dead wood was cleared. Almost all of the trees had broken branches until about seven feet from the base. Many smaller trees had been chopped down. I was very sad to see the depletion of the forest and how little respect people had for the natural resources. It was also frustrating that I had to give up something because of the carelessness of others. So what can be done to balance between those who unnecessarily disrespect the resources as compared to those who do respect nature's resources.

As I was researching a paper today I stumbled across two definitions. Hard ecotourism is defined as, "tourists that have a strong connection to the environment and believe their activities should “enhance the resource base”." So basically someone who is very aware of his impact. On the reverse side, soft ecotourism is defined as, "tourists without a deep understanding of environmental issues and who are more focused on their needs and wants than those of the environment." This side is based upon the tourist's needs and not the needs of the environment.

How can we reduce the effects of that soft tourism has, and how can we increase the amount of hard tourism, all in all benefitting the tourist and nature. Here is my opinion:

In order to reduce the soft tourism influence, it would be good to have more training programs for people who want to go backpack or do any other sport. That way, they would not be ignorant to the effects that they have on the environment. If at that point they still choose to be destructive to the environment, there is nothing anyone can do. If they can see the destructive force that they put on the environment, then they have incentive to change.

In order to increase the amount of hard tourism, it would be good to also have training on how to left no trace. On top of that though, it would be beneficial to reward those who have shown they take the necessary steps to reduce their footprint. For example, people who knew about the damage the forest takes without the dead wood, they could have a fire in that area, as long as they do not abuse that power. If there is a reward for those hard tourists, then that gives motivation to those on the outside, looking in.

Once we can emphasize the need and the benefit of hard tourism, then both the tourist and the environment can start to change.