Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The FEW NEXUS Episode 1






The FEW NEXUS
Script for Module 1
By T.H. Culhane, Ph.D.
Greetings and welcome to Episode 1 in our new Sustainability Series, “Navigating the Food/Water/Energy Nexus; Synergizing for Sustainability”.
In this course we will take you on a journey into the complex interrelationships between 3 essential sectors in our environmental solutions portfolio  that dominate our lives and yet continue to be poorly understood and whose mismanagement now arguably threatens the very existence of billions of people.
According to the United Nations World Water Development Report from 2014, “Recognizing the synergies [between food, energy and water], and balancing the trade-offs engendered by dealing with any one of them in isolation, is “central to jointly ensuring water, energy and food security.“
Security.

Water security. Energy security. Food Security.  Homeland security.
It’s a hot topic.  For millions of people around the globe it is literally a matter of life and death.

Approached  in isolation, each problem’s solution has historically created still more problems for the other sectors.  As the United Nations World Water Development Report from 2014 reminds us:

” The global community is well aware of food, energy and water challenges, but has so far addressed them in isolation, within sectoral boundaries. At the country level, fragmented sectoral responsibilities, lack of coordination, and inconsistencies between laws and regulatory frameworks may lead to misaligned incentives” .

When trying to solve issues related to how and what and when people can eat and drink healthy food and water, and where they will get the energy to keep from heat or cold exposure, or to move away from trouble and toward opportunity, misalignment creates debilitating chaos. And yet, we’ve been well aware of the problem the sectoral approach creates.

This course seeks to address that by giving you a synergistic, holistic approach to problem solving.  We need leaders in systems thinking, in sectoral integration. We need leaders who will bring insights from each domain where dysfunction is being dealt with and combine them into a broad suite of interleaving overlapping, combinatorially dynamic best practices.   We need leaders who cross the boundaries and create industrial and natural ecologies that work together for the betterment of all.
You have just entered… the Food Energy Water NEXUS.

The UN report states, “If water, energy and food security are to be simultaneously achieved, decision-makers, including those responsible for only a single sector, need to consider broader influences and cross-sectoral impacts. A nexus approach to sectoral management, through enhanced dialogue, collaboration and coordination, is needed to ensure that co-benefits and trade-offs are considered and that appropriate safeguards are put in place”.
Safeguards from what, you may ask?

The UN report stresses that there are hidden costs to every benefit. That each forward step we take along a given path can simultaneously move us backward along another axis in our journey.  It can be frustrating, and it is anything but obvious.
This graphic animation illustrates the point – you can try it yourself.  The graph shows a sphere in a 3 dimensional Cartesian space, the kind 3D animators at Pixar use to create movies like Toy Story. We can let the x axis represent food, the y axis water.  The z-axis would be energy.  The zero point would be stagnation and anything below the 0 in negative number space would be, well, negative. Dysfunctional. Any  points away from Zero  in the positive direction would be a good thing.  Think of it like a game. Can you keep the ball moving in positive direction in all three axes simultaneously?

When all you can see is one or two axes it is easy to be fooled.  With only one dimension you have no idea where the ball is in the other dimensions. You wave your hand and move the mouse and drag the ball forward in, say the food dimension, only to find that you catastrophically decreased the amount of water available.  In two dimensions, your typical X-Y space graph from economics, the kind we use with supply and demand curves, you can check out how movement in the food axis affects the water axis but still have no idea what is happening along the energy axis.

  Anybody who has struggled to learn a 3D mesh modelling or animation or architectural program knows this effect two well. The mental ability to visualize in 3D space is also something scuba divers, submarine drivers, airline pilots and astronauts train for.   We can learn to think this way on a computer through visualization programs like the one I am using here, “Blender 3D” a free open source physics engine used in the gaming industry.  Despite the fact that we live in a 3 dimensional world, it is hard for most people to visualize motion in three dimensions at once. Computer simulations can help if we can look at different perspectives simultaneously with more than one 2 dimensional representation of space..  What most of us do when we want to manipulate an object in three D on a computer is open 4 windows with different viewpoints, as I illustrate here.

Three of them are two dimensional two axis views, one a flat plane looking down the Z axis so that we can see the X and Y just like in your high school geometry class, the other two looking down the X and Y axes respectively.  The third view, the user view or camera view, is the nexus.

It shows how any move on one axes affects the position of the object on each of the other two axes.

It is a powerful conceptual tool, and once your mind has embraced the concept and skill of thinking along three axes simultaneously, you can make moves with confidence. And then you can apply this way of seeing the world to complex problem solving that involves many overlapping and interconnected parameters.

Of course, in real life, even if you appreciate the complexities in moving along different axes, there are tradeoffs and antagonisms as well as synergies, many interventions require value judgements and our ability to model reality is filled with uncertainties even if we could agree on what is “good” and what is “bad”.  The law of unintended consequences always rears its ugly head,  Murphy’s Law, stating that whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible moment, usually applies, and nature can behave in a capricious manner at times. And then there are competing visions of the world and competing political forces to factor in.

The UN report  tells us,
““There are many synergies and trade-offs between water and energy use and food production.  For example, Using water to irrigate crops might promote food production but it can also reduce river flows and hydropower potential. Growing bioenergy crops under irrigated agriculture can increase overall water withdrawals and jeopardize food security. Converting surface irrigation into high efficiency pressurized irrigation may save water but may also result in higher energy use. Recognizing these synergies and balancing these trade-offs is central to jointly ensuring water, energy and food security.
Ay, and there’s the rub.  We want to JOINTLY ensure the elements necessary for our survival and well being are always available, sustainably used, creating health and welfare benefits and justice for all.  But it is quite a challenge to figure out how.
All we can console ourselves with is the notion that more information is often better than less – although economist Daniel Kahneman’s work on Fast and Frugal Heuristics, based on ideas from Gigerenzer and Todd’s ecological rationality research,  calls even that assumption into question.  But at least we can say that having a bird’s eye view of a landscape, having a fish-eye lens to take it all in, having a multi-dimensional perspective, is arguably better than being stuck on a single axis, like the square in Edward Abbey’s classic math parable “Flatland” who has to learn how limited his perspectives and world view were when suddenly visited by a sphere and taken above his world to see how much more there is to reality.

The Food-Energy-Water Nexus provides that all-encompassing view from outside the flatland of single subject assumptions.  We call it the FEW Nexus as a convenient acronym, but might also be thought of as the MORE Nexus – the place where more and more things are brought together and their interconnections made manifest.

FEW stands for Food Energy and Water.  MORE could stand for “Multidimensional Omniperspectival Relationship Ecology”, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well, does it?

But while we are on the topic of the acronym we use for this course, let’s address the obvious “sin of omission”.  

Where did all the waste go?

We all know that the process of growing, delivering and consuming food, and capturing, storing, delivering and using water, and producing, transforming, transmitting and consuming energy generate WASTE.  And we know that these wastes – in the form of disease causing, foul smelling, water eutrophying and water and air polluting substances, are the primary reason that humanity is in such trouble these days, and that waste is the source of environmental injustices, habitat and species loss, illness  and climate change.

So why isn’t WASTE in the title? Why don’t we call our course the “FEWW Nexus : Food Energy, Water and WASTE?”.

It is a good question, but we think we have an equally good answer.

The fact is, we want to eliminate WASTE.
We don’t waste in our title as a reflection of our commitment to see waste disappear from both our world and our worldview.

In the food-energy-water nexus, there is no room for waste. Waste is simply “the right thing in the wrong place at the wrong time or in the wrong concentration.” Waste is often a form of food for another process that has simply been denied a role as an input to that process.
The FEW Nexus takes an Industrial Ecology perspective.

Industrial Ecology, made popular by the architect William McDonough in his book Cradle to Cradle, remaking the way we make things, is an applied philosophical framework in which the output of every process should be  the input of another process.

For example, in Reykjavic in Iceland I visited a thermal spa called the Blue Lagoon. It’s healing sulfur hot springs where merely the wastewater from the adjacent geothermal power plant. Nothing wasted there.  In coal country, fly ash from the burning of the coal is reprocessed into concrete blocks.  In Cairo Egypt I visited a factory in the desert that took plastic bags from the city garbage collectors, heated and melted and crushed them into forms to make everything from park benches and palettes to manhole covers.  Sometimes they mixed them when sand for weight and rigidity, and there are now companies making building block materials out of recycled plastic. In fact the entire world of recycling is moving toward a form of industrial ecology.  At Mercy College we have the BLEST Japanese Plastic—to-oil machine that takes Styrofoam, polypropylene, polyethylene and other waste plastics and uses computer controlled pyrolysis/gasification to transform them back into oil and then into fractional products like kerosene, diesel fuel, gasoline and paraffin.  After all, plastic was made from oil, and it is a simple procedure to turn it back into the substance from which it came.

But while all of  this seems straightforward, the NEXUS teaches us both the limitations and the opportunities.

For example, we can talk about recycling all day, but most recycling takes prodigious amounts of water and energy, and these determine the economic limits to what almost all of us agree is an otherwise obvious solution to our waste problems.  Because of the energy involved, for example, much would-be recycling is actually better classified as “Down-cycling”. Down cycling means that we may not immediately being throwing things “away” but the secondary or third hand use may be severely downgraded from the first.  In this way, for example, clothing may make it to a second-hand or thrift shop when it is a bit threadbare, and then, when it is no longer acceptable to wear it, it can be downcycled into cloth strips which are then woven into ornamental quilts or carpets.  Further down in the life cycle, these items may end up being torn into strips and used as rags to clean up spills or mop up oil.  At some point they make their way to a waste disposal site to be put in a  landfill or incinerated.  In these cases downcycling is preferred to simply throwing the clothes away, but it is part of an inevitable linear progression from “Cradle to Grave”.

What Mcdonough and Braungart took up the flag for industrial ecology  in their book “From Cradle to Cradle”. Cradle to Cradle processes  are  TRUE recycling, where there is no grave, not landfill, no carbon sink.  A worn out carpet is shredded, processed and turned back into a carpet.  A plastic water bottle is turned back into a water bottle, and aluminum can into an aluminum can… or they are transformed into other goods of high value in such a way that the molecules in them never end up in the air or water or landfill.

But this process only works economically and environmentally and socially – the three axes of the sustainability paradigm – if the energy costs and water costs and labor costs (driven by the consumption of food, don’t forget) are taken into account and managed in a win-win-win way.

The FEW nexus lets us do that.  It asks at every step of the life cycle – “how is this impacting the water? How is this impacting energy? How is this impacting food?” And it assumes a goal of ZERO WASTE.

The Nexus assumes an explicit understanding of systems integration, and draws its strength from the holistic approach successfully employed by NASA engineers working together in interdisciplinary teams to keep human beings alive in the forbidding environments of outer space.  As the movie pitch slogan goes “In space, no one can hear you scream” – and in addition, nobody can make home deliveries of food or water while energy has to be very carefully managed.

The reductionist approach to problem solving that was the bedrock of the early scientific revolution, approaching systems in isolation, was fine for drilling down to basic principles and developing early theories and models of the universe. But when it comes to surviving in that universe its limitations can become debilitating.  The Nexus, with its theory-meets-practice approach, which we call PRAXIS, demands multiple disciplines working in synergy and harmony, demands mutual respect and understanding for multiple perspectives.  It is a application of the ancient “blind men around the elephant” metaphor, where one touches the trunk and thinks it’s a hose, another touches the tusk and thinks it’s a spear, another thinks the tail is a rope and another the leg is a tree trunk.  Only when they integrate their limited observations can they begin to reconstruct the whole elephant.

The NEXUS is the coming together of observations, theories, disciplines and sectors. It disciplines us to always pay attention to what the other blind man is seeing and to follow the threads as we tug on each strand of our understanding to see what impact it is having on another part of the system.

The food water energy nexus is also iterative and self-correcting.  In its DNA is a kind of genetic algorithm that says “if a gain in parameter A causes a loss in B or C such that the entire system starts collapsing, correct A for maximum sustainable yield, even if it means bringing A down now in order to help it increase later. Then learn from that experience to make better finer adjustments in the future.”

The musician activist Pete Seeger, famous for his song “This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land” and for his work on the ClearWater Sloop sailing ship studying water pollution issues on the Hudson River, told me the following when I was in his activist club when I was in high school studying sustainability.

He said, “You have to think like Sailors… when we want to go forward we don’t simply set a course for our target.  We are working in a complex environment with many forces – the current, the waves, the tides, the winds, eddies and swirls and backwash and turbulence, heat and cold, all these things affect the speed and direction of the boat.  But when the wind is blowing against us, we don’t give up or go where it wants to push us. We learn to “tack against the wind” and use the energy in that gust or gale to push us in another direction, to nudge us upstream even though it may be blowing downstream. That is how we succeed, by understanding the flows of energy and water and harnessing them to a positive goal.”

This had a lot of influence on me as a kid because it too is an  endorsement of the nexus concept that helps us operate in multi-dimensional space.  The Nexus can be very subtle. Sometimes it is like a mixing board in a recording studio. There is a whole bank of sliders and knobs and buttons for every aspect of food production and transport and consumption and waste, another one for the myriad parts of the energy mix, yet another for all the things associated with water, from the hydrologic cycle to irrigation and sewer systems. Each affects the other. As a good producer understanding the nexus, you begin to feel how a given action will affect the entire mix.  It is much more complex than merely blending bass, midrange and treble; as any good studio engineer or musician knows, sounds, like the parameters of sustainability,  have their own special properties that go beyond tone and volume, beyond frequency and wavelength, and they blend differently, blend in unique ways, depending on the particular song or symphony.  

A FEW Nexus expert is somewhat like a symphony conductor, calling in different instruments with a deep awareness of the intended structure and dynamism of the whole song which the individual player may not be able to grasp from inside the orchestra pit.

So those are some of the more colorful metaphors for the FEW Nexus.  We need to play our understandings of food and energy and water like a conductor so that we conduct ourselves sustainably and with justice in this world.
One of the easiest places to start down this road to mastery, as far as I am concerned, is to explore the simple process of “Biodigestion” which is an area of research we are exploring here at the Patel College and which  arguably forces integration of our knowledge of food, energy and water.

Biodigesters take food waste – whether the food has been discarded uneaten or passed through the body of an animal – and transforms it in an anaerobic tank of water through microbial action, into liquid fertilizer for further food production and into useful clean renewable energy in the form of biomethane gas.  Since biodigesters involve food energy and water and integrate them into a recycling system that turns food consumption back into a system for food production and preparation the digester acts as an ipso facto and tangible nexus.  So I will be using the biodigester as a potent and real symbol of the FEW Nexus which we can return to in our studies again and again as we explore other examples of the Nexus approach and how it applies to other parts of the three sectors.
As a perfect case study for the FEW NEXUS, WE can look at the most recent one from the General Electric Foundation titled “flower-power-energy-from-plant-waste-helps-farmers-grow-weapons-against-pests”.
The story here is that Kenyan farmers in the cut flower industry, which is one of the largest agricultural export markets in the world,  particularly those who grow roses, are plagued by a spider mite known as Tetranychus urticae.  This pest, which causes millions of dollars in damages and is one of the reasons that the flower industry uses so many pesticides, which contaminate water and cause cancers and birth defects and wildlife loss, has a natural enemy , Amblyseius californicus, a predatory mite used as a biological control against the red red spider mite. Ambylseius is also affected by pesticides, so to do sustainable pest management no pesticides can be used.
The predatory mite could make organic growing of flowers with no water contamination possible, but the flower growing region in Kenya is in the highlands where it is cold, and Amblyseius needs lots of heat to breed. Once it is an adult it is pretty hardy and can feed on Tetranychus, but it needs help getting established.

The solution funded by General Electric, an energy company, was to use “an anaerobic digester to  convert plant matter into biomethane for generating electricity and high quality natural liquid and solid fertilizers, which help displace synthetic options.
The Austrian Jenbecher gas engines they installed also recover waste heat generated by the burning of the biogas. The heat produces a stream of hot water, a valuable commodity in the farm’s location some 2,000 feet above sea level, some of which is used to heat greenhouses where the Amblyseius predatory mites are incubated, hatched and grown for release in the flower fields.”
And best of all for our purposes, the website for GE actually uses the word NEXUS to describe what they are doing.
“The good bugs will breed inside a nearby greenhouse that will be kept cozy with excess heat from a unique new power plant serving the farm. “We’re rethinking the whole agriculture-energy nexus,” says Mike Mason, chairman of Tropical Power, the company that built the plant. “Gorge Farm’s system is the first step in that process.”
This explicit mention of the Nexus on a corporate website in an interview with a company building power plants shows how deeply the concept is penetrating our society and this is a very hopeful thing.  The isolation of sectors that the UN Report was concerned about is increasingly being challenged and the challenge being met.  There is deep awareness now of how systems integrate for maximum efficiency and economic benefit.
Mason continues with specifics saying,“This power system brings a new dimension to agriculture because it doesn’t just produce food,” “It also produces electricity, heat, fertilizer, compost and, indirectly, pest control for the crops growing in the field. All of these benefits are coming off the land in a closed loop.”

Closing the loop is industrial ecology in a nutshell.  And NEXUS THINKING is the arguably the best way to approach industrial ecology and natural ecology and human ecology, the best way to eliminate waste and tackle the challenges of providing security in food, energy and water.

So, as they say in the Marines, we invite you to be part of the few and  the proud, students at the Patel College of Global Solutions studying and applying the FEW Nexus.  We hope you will carry this knowledge out into the world so that the FEW will become many, and the world will shift its economy from one based on scarcity to one based on plenty. The FEW Nexus can help us do this, and soldier, we are counting on YOU!


Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Sustainable Tourism Chapter 11 Relational Summary




Sustainable Tourism Chapter 11 Relational Summary
Voice over image from textbook:
Upon completion of this chapter, the reader should be able to:
_ explain the three criteria that constitute an ecotourism product and show how the
variance within these criteria gives rise to comprehensive and minimalist interpretations
of ecotourism
_ differentiate the concepts of hard and soft ecotourism and demonstrate how this
typology relates to the comprehensive/minimalist distinction and affects estimates
of the magnitude of the ecotourism sector
_ assess the strengths and weaknesses of specialized components within the ecotourism
industry
_ describe the spatial distribution of ecotourism both globally and within protected
areas as well as modified spaces
_ assess the potential environmental costs and benefits of ecotourism and discuss
how these vary within hard and soft ecotourism
_ explain the extent to which quality control and credibility within ecotourism are being
positively and negatively affected by certification initiatives such as Australia’s
EcoCertification Programme and
_ critically assess the importance of a comprehensive ecotourism model that incorporates
soft as well as hard ecotourism dimensions.

And now, the host of our show, Everest B. Green:

Host:
Hello, I’m your host Everest B. Green, and welcome to today’s edition of Sustainable Tourism – what does it mean … to YOU.  We have as our guest online  today, Professor T.H. Culhane from the Patel College of Sustainability and co-founding director of the NGO “Solar CITIES” which is introducing food-waste-to-fuel-and-fertilizer biodigesters to the ecotourism industry.  Welcome Dr. Culhane.
T.H.:
Thankyou, its great to be here.
Host: 
I understand that this week’s chapter topic, “Ecotourism: the conscience of sustainable tourism” is something you’ve been grappling with that has been weighing on your conscience for quite some time…”
T.H.
Yes, well I got my start in eco-tourism activities as a 13 year old attending clown college in Venice Florida when I fell in love with the coastal environment and become a passionate snorkeler.  This turned into a lifelong passion for scuba diving when I got my PADI certification at the age of 15 and made my first of several  trips to Bermuda for my checkout dives.  By  17 I was working as a voluntourist at the Forfar Field Station in a remote backstage part of Andros Island in the Bahamas, spending a month exploring tropical marine ecosystems and their association with tropical rainforest and mangrove communities, doing underwater photography, interacting with local Bahamian sponge fishing communities and assisting scientists in doing biodiversity surveys.   The net effect on me was that I became hooked on what Weaver describes as the 3 core areas of ecotourism:
1) ”nature-based attractions”, like the spectacular coral reefs at the tongue of the ocean in the Bahamas and the rainforest fringed blue hole ecosystems where salt water and freshwater meet in the center of the island
2) “educational interactions with these attractions” which were achieved  through the local experts in botany and marine ecosystems and the professors from Florida Insitute of Technology who awarded the three credits I earned for the experience
 And
3)  “management practices that make every reasonable effort to achieve environmentally and socioculturally sustainable outcomes”, which, in our case, involved constant interaction with the local fishing population who were learning with us how to sustainably harvest the sponges that were part of their income, as well as local reef fish and land crabs and conch which they sold to us and cooked for us.

As a kid who had just finished his junior year in high school, I spent a lot of my time with the teenage boys from the community who taught me a lot about their culture and really enjoyed learning with me what the course I was on was teaching.
That summer I became what Weaver talks about on page 205 when he says,” Ecotourists, then,
are regarded in this model as active agents of positive environmental and social change.”

Host:
Yes, and you’ve talked in previous lectures about  the long term impact that had on you and how you went on to make Ecotourism activities an essential part of your education and your career. We’ve spoken of your tree planting activities and permaculture and renewable energy teaching  and social and environmental justice activities around the world, from your time at the  Eco-Escuela in Guatemala and in the favelas of Brazil, of your living in Eco-Villages in LA and Europe to your treks in Nepal and activities in Africa and Indonesia and Egypt and Iraq and Palestine, participating in both comprehensive and minimalist ideal types of tourism, each with its different expectations and outcomes, and the parallel typologies of hard and soft ecotourism activities based  more on market and experience characteristics, … seems you have a very broad approach to Ecotourism…

T.H.
Yes, well, I tend to take a bird’s eye view of these things and my lifetime of participation in these activities, having the privilege – and it really is a privilege, to have seen so much of the world, at  so many levels, from 5 star hotels and exclusive ecolodges like the Great Plains conservation lodges in Kenya and Botswana to pup tents in snowy mountain passes and goat herders huts and Bedouin tents in deserts is that we need the post-modern lens of both-and approaches to get away from the binary modernist impasses  of the “either-or” , black and white, you’re either for us or against us binary mentality that creates such conflicts.  As we talked about in the last chapter summary, we are much more nuanced today, replacing the blunt instrument of carrying capacity, for example, with the concept of “Limits to Acceptable Change”.  So I seek ways to understand, evaluate and promote both the hard and the soft side  of the Ecotourism Spectrum shown in Figure 11.1 of Weaver’s book, and everything in-between, believing that even though I am certainly a die-hard hard ecotourist who goes active and deep spending much of my career focusing mainly on broad sector outcomes and embracing philosophies that are holistic and taking the  elemental approach, working on enhancement or status quo sustainability, exploring global or local spatial scopes, etc.),  we can have sustainable Mass  Tourism that takes has a specialized or diversionary focus, accommodates large groups, multi-purpose trips, shorter trips etc., leveraging its economies of scale to bring about positive change.  What I eschew are what Weaver calls on page 193 “nature-based tourism products such as beach resorts, where the natural environment provides a convenient setting for the fulfilment of hedonistic or similar impulses”.  You rarely catch me doing anything like that unless I’m trying to accommodate family or friends and they all know I rather disdain such tourist activities as not just a waste of time, but ultimately destructive.  My whole world basically revolves around what Weaver calls the “Ecotourium”.

Host:
Yes,,let’s take a look at what Weaver says about the “Ecotourium” concept he has set forth on page 204, which he says is an improvement even on the Comprehensive model. Weaver says the industry and sector is seeking to
“operationalize the modified comprehensive ecotourism model through the concept of the ecotourium, which they define as a protected area where all types of ecotourist are mobilized in conjunction with the tourism industry, local communities, government and NGOs to participate in activities consistent with the
principles of comprehensive ecotourism that protect and enhance these places, thereby generating symbiosis between tourism and conservation. Ecotourists, then, are regarded in this model as active agents of positive environmental and social change. Relevant activities can include tree-planting (suitable in modified and degraded areas), removal of invasive exotic species, trail maintenance, assistance
with scientific research (e.g. plant identification surveys), participation in community based projects and donations. Crucial to the concept is the formation of an accredited global network of such areas in which all types of environments and ecosystems are represented and results from the activities are shared.”
This does seem to describe what you have been doing throughout your life.  Can you comment on this?

TH:
Well sure, a good example will be the trip I made to Swaziland two summers ago, in 2014, to visit Sakhiwe and Bonkhe, two high school students who we had given a science in action prize at the Google Science Fair for their work on low cost hydroponics. We also had a finalist in the Science Fair, Rohit, who had designed a more efficient toilet, and his brother Amit, who travelled from India to Africa to join me. We spent the week staying in tents at a youth hostel and integrated the Indian boys toilet, my biodigester and the Swazi boys hydroponics growing system, building at both the hostel for ecotourists and at Sahkhiwe’s grandfather’s farm.  So we got to live social sustainability, experience and contribute to green lodging and work in rural Africa on a farm.  The last day we then were taken by the locals to the national park on safari, so we got to see crocodiles and zebra and giraffes and hippos.  So a project like this proved the ecotourium model is really robust… we not only had the high school and college students, a professor like me, and the kids grandparents and relatives involved in putting best practice into action, but one of the cooks in the youth hostel asked if her 11 year old son could stay with us and be an apprentice, so we had younger kids too.  And on top of it, the lodge owner and his staff, who was looking for a way up the ante in terms of their sustainability practices, became so enthusiastic that they not only adopted the technologies we brought to them, but provided their vehicles and staff to help us implement them in the local community. Having built these bonds, and even gotten press for it in Scientific American, the next step is that we actually are forming this accredited global network Weaver talks about.  The key is forming these social networks of active agents. I believe in Weavers model because I am part of the process. This January I am going to the Zaatari Refugee camp in Jordan with students and volunteers to provide sanitation relief. We will also help create a permanent permaculture training ground by the Israeli border. And of course we will contextualize it with special side trips to the Dead Sea and the hot springs and the ancient ruins of Petra, but the touristic cultural and natural activities will then have more meaning, contextualized within the framework of “ how do we keep our seas from dying, how might we harness the hot springs for clean renewable energy, and most importantly how do we keep our own civilization from collapsing and being devoured by the desert sands…?”

Host:
Pretty heady stuff.  Do we have any evidence that this sort of experience has more general appeal? And what makes you think these goals are even achievable?

TH: Well, none of us can say if we won’t end up doing too little too late, but I stay in the game because whether or not we “save the world” or not, it really is a whole lot more fun than hedonistic tourism, and I’m not the only person to feel that way.  Perhaps it is because I work with students, from middle school through college and graduate school, but I think what we are seeing is a new more engaged form of both education and activism.  Weaver lays out the agenda on page 193 in section  11.2.2 where he says,

Motivations of education and learning about the natural environment distinguish ecotourism from other nature-based tourism products such as beach resorts, where the natural environment provides a convenient setting for the fulfilment of hedonistic or similar impulses (Weaver, 2001b).” 
We covered that earlier, and you know how I feel about that. I’m reminded of Francis Bacon’s 1627 Eutopian novel “A New Atlantis” in which he insisted that it was our educational systems that were making a mess of society by divorcing learning from civic duty and applied theory.  In his utopia he has a resident of the New Atlantis explain to a tourist visiting the eutopia from England that  the mere experience of touring the city or going out in the countryside was in itself a meaningful education. Just by going about sightseeing you were guaranteed to learn philosophy, the arts and science and math. Weaver paints such a picture of the emerging Ecotourium.  He continues by saying,
“ As with nature-based attractions, educational opportunities and experiences can be ranged along a continuum. At one pole, these attempt to foster deep understanding through interpretation that conveys
complex messages and seeks to transform the attitudes and behaviour of the audience along a more environmentalist-oriented trajectory (see Section 10.4.2). This model, which is evident in the whale watching tours at Kaikoura, New Zealand (Curtin, 2003), aligns with the holistic approach to nature-based attractions described above.
At the other pole, shallow understanding is conveyed through relatively simple and basic messages that focus on charismatic megafauna. In either case, ecotourism product managers should provide appropriate interpretation, or at least maintain conditions (e.g. peacefulness, non-interference) that allow ecotourists to pursue a more self-directed or contemplative path of learning.” 

So what we are seeing emerging is this world in which the mere creation of that Baconian New Atlantis in the tourist destination may be enough to ignite in both the tourist, the tour operator and the local backstage community what Bacon thought of as a natural human tendency toward good citizenship. Think of it – a touristic environment of peacefulness and non-interference bringing out the best in human nature, allowing contemplation to take place that many of us belief can lead to SELF directed good outcomes. That’s the key, which we explored last chapter about not being heavy handed about it.  The act of going into the world can be the first act in the theater of healing.”

Host:
Well, that is fairly utopian, isn’t it?  It requires a deep belief in the Biophilia hypothesis of Harvard Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson and the principles of Environmental Psychology doesn’t it? It flies in the face of Judeo-Christian notions of “original sin” and the Hobbesian view of human life being “Nasty Brutish and Short” and takes us right back to the debate between Hobbes and Lock and Jean Jacques Rousseaus Social Contract and ideas about Noble Savages and all that doesn’t it?  Do you really think Ecotourism offers insights into all this?

T.H.
Well, we do have an opportunity for some controlled experiments here, which we didn’t have in the preceding centuries. All we have to do is control for a random sample of tourists, some engaging in normal hedonistic tourist activities and some in ecotourism, and see what the outcomes are and subject them to statistical analysis.  I mean look, the idea that meaningful activity makes a difference in people’s lives is now enshrined in the Holocaust survivor psychologist  Victor Frankel’s classic  “Man’s Search for Meaning” and  the idea that tourist destinations can have curative effects is what motivated Frederick Law Olmsted to create the completely artificial urban wilderness we now call Central Park.
Evaluating the impact of the growing Ecotourism sector shouldn’t be so difficult, as we can use not just stated preference surveys but Revealed Preference surveys to see what impact it is having. And remember how Weaver defines Ecotourism. He says on page 193,

“Ecotourism is the only high profile tourism sector where environmentally and socioeconomically
sustainable practices, or at least the credible attempt to engage in such
practices, are widely regarded as a prerequisite. It is because of this explicit accountability
and the issues of credibility it raises, that ecotourism is referred to in the title
of this chapter as the conscience of sustainable tourism. The reference to credible
attempts is from Weaver (2001b), who regards as unrealistic any definition that requires
the ecotourism product to be sustainable, given the challenges and issues of sustainability
discussed in Chapter 2. These render it effectively impossible to say that any
particular ecotourism product or destination is, without doubt, sustainable, especially
if these products and destinations involve high order protected areas or similar
venues that merit a strong approach to sustainability. Rather, the litmus test of ecotourism
according to Weaver (2001b) is the application of best practice strategies to
attain optimal sustainability outcomes and the timely remediation of any inadvertent
negative impacts that become apparent to management (see Section 11.6).”As with other sectors, the engagement with sustainability within ecotourism can
range from a ‘basic’ model that focuses on sustaining the on-site direct impact status
quo, to a deeper approach that focuses on the enhancement of the site and its surroundings
(potentially at a global level), while also taking into account the amelioration
of indirect impacts and the effects of external forces and systems (see Figure 2.1).”

Host:
Yes, and you seem to be a big believer in the remediation and enhancement ideas that Weaver talks about aren’t you?
T.H.
Of course, and after all, this is what places like Central Park teach us.  Many people assume that Central park was the orginal Manhattan wilderness that the Dutch encountered when they created New Amsterdam which then became New York, and that the city was somehow built around this untouched piece of real estate. In fact the park was created out of an old munitions dump. The rocks were trucked in, the trees planted, the ponds and streams sculpted.  It is a work of art.
Having worked for 4 years in the horticulture department of the Los Angeles Zoo and participated in educational and interpretative ethnobotanical projects in ecotourism areas of Guatemala and Belize and Costa Rica, I know the kind of rehabilitation and enhancement and restorative magic we humans can participate in with nature once we understand the regenerative processes. I agree with Weaver when he says on pare 201, “environmental benefits derive from the capacity of ecotourism to
foster the rehabilitation of modified spaces and to mobilize ecotourists as volunteers (e.g. to plant trees, maintain trails and serve as informal auxiliary police) and a potent source of on-site and ongoing donations.”  When I was in Sumatera and Borneo with the Indonesian Forest Service we helped find and arrest poachers who were illegally logging the area.  What was best is that we had a chance to speak to them and find out why they were poaching. Most said they felt the tourism areas were socially unjust; that the government and tour operators were protecting the forests only for the benefit of the high paying ecotourists and they felt it was better to get some money from exploiting the forest in the short term than see it turned into a playground for the rich. I think if we hadn’t been there as a kind of informal auxiliary police we helped the real police do a better job. They might have simply beat the poachers for breaking the law… who knows… and that would have just made the conflict worse. By having us there as international observers who understood the issues we were able to get the different perspectives aired out, and that helps create better policy that meets all stakeholder needs. And knowing which trees had been removed and what the damage was we could take steps to reforest in responsible ways that attract the right wildlife rather than just planting any old fast growing tree which might not fit the ecology.
And when it comes to completely modified spaces, like cities, it gets even more exciting, especially for most of us who have to return to cities, given that over 60% of humanity now lives in urban environments.
Weaver says,
“Urban areas are an extreme version of modified space and therefore seem at first to be especially unsuited to ecotourism. However, the apparently oxymoronic concept of
urban ecotourism is now receiving considerable attention in the literature. Weaver (2005b) argues that within the urban area proper, ecotourism settings can range from remnant natural habitats in river valleys and hills, through to derelict and reclaimed sites, manicured green spaces such as municipal parks and golf courses, and built sites. The preserved forests in the centre of densely urbanized Singapore are a good illustration of the first scenario (Henderson et al., 2001), while the latter scenario is represented by the above-mentioned storks of Europe as well as the peregrine falcons reintroduced into high-rise buildings in some North
American central business districts. The city of Austin, Texas, is noted for a colony of 1.5 million Mexican free-tailed bats that roosts beneath the Congress Avenue Bridge*. Perhaps the best articulated example of urban ecotourism centred on abuilt structure, the bridge attracts an estimated 100 000 visitors per year and approximately $8 million in revenue (Moreno, 2004).”
As an urban planner, this particularly excites me because I can’t for the life of me see why, if we finally accept that human beings are animals that evolved with our environments and start seeing ourselves as completely “natural”, why we can’t focus on making our built environments as healthy and sustainable as that of any other organism that has achieved a balance with the ecosystem. After all, we don’t consider beehives, anthills, beaver dams or deer hollows “unnatural” or unsustainable.

Weaver excites the imagination when he says on page 200 “In addition to being conducive to an elemental approach to ecotourism attractions, modified spaces offer excellent opportunities for deep learning and sophisticated interpretation because of the complex landscape influences and effects that
they feature. The juxtaposition of remnant natural habitat with intensive arable land, for example, can be used to illustrate concepts such as edge and oasis effect, while succession can be featured in areas where rehabilitation is being undertaken.”
This is the sort of embedded learning that would have pleased Francis Bacon in the New Atlantis very much.
Weaver continues, “With regard to the third core criterion of sustainability, modified spaces have the advantage of having a high carrying capacity compared to relatively undisturbed natural venues, thereby meriting a weaker approach to sustainability. Ecotourism is therefore not only less likely to generate serious negative environmental impacts, but may serve as an effective agent of enhancement sustainability because of the opportunities for rehabilitation. From the perspective of sociocultural sustainability, modified spaces are more accessible to the ‘masses’ and hence avoid the problem of elitism that characterizes the visitation of hard ecotourists to remote wilderness locations.” So that addresses some of the issues we saw in Sumatera.
And when it comes to the truly threatened areas that simply can’t maintain their balance with too much human occupation of the wrong type, ecotourism provides some answers.  Yes, as Weaver reminds us, ecotourism creates a “a dilemma by concentrating ecotourism, and its potentially negative impacts, in
a shrinking amount of vulnerable space with the highest conservation value that is least capable of withstanding these impacts” But the comprehensive model seems to take that into account, with Weaver concluding,
the  comprehensive approach must be applied to both hard and soft ecotourism (see Figure 11.2), since it is allegedly the latter – soft ecotourism --  that produces the economies of scale necessary to operationalize the incentive and funding effects described in Section 11.6.1.” where he talks about ecotourism’s greatest environmental benefit, which is “providing a direct financial incentive for the preservation of relatively undisturbed natural habitats that would otherwise be exposed to more exploitative and profitable (at least in the short term) activities. This effect can also be indirect, as demonstrated by efforts to protect terrestrial watersheds in parts of the Philippines from logging in order to protect the clarity and quality of water in an area used for marine ecotourism (Sherman and Dixon, 1991). Ecotourism revenues, additionally, are a critical source of the funding required to undertake basic protected area management as well as park system expansion and enhancement”.
He reminds us that “ Through such accommodation, the model embraces all the opportunity classes of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, as well as both weak and strong approaches to sustainability, depending on the setting. In this way, the model in theory has a universal application that embraces ecotourism both as locally focused alternative tourism as well as corporation focused mass tourism.”

Host:
So essentially you are not opposed to corporate mass tourism? For ecotourism to be the ‘conscience of sustainable tourism” can we really allow corporations, which have been described as “negative externality machines” to be involved? What’s your final statement about that?

T.H.;
I think if we have learned anything from our journey into the topic of Sustainable Tourism it is that what we are all trying to do is figure out how to live on the planet without hurting ourselves or others, and we have all the tools we need. We are now in the implementation phase and the awareness building phase. Not everybody is aware that there are win wins out there, and the wealth and power amassed by corporations as they create and control mass markets has been devastating. But those same powers can be harnessed for great good once best practices are put in place and yes, Ecotourism has to be the conscience that guides this transition.  As Weaver states, and I’ll end with this in defense of Ecotourism as the most important tool we have to make things work,
All tourism entails costs as well as benefits and ecotourism is no exception. What
distinguishes ecotourism from other forms of tourism in this respect, however, is
that to qualify as such, every effort must be made to ensure that environmentally
and socioculturally sustainable practices are undertaken. Hence, most of the negative
impacts that do arise from ecotourism are inadvertent, while the positive
impacts are generally deliberate”.

If our conscience says to do DELIBERATE GOOD, and we face inadvertent harm, then fine, we can use our consilience and our science  and policy to correct those harms and try again. And that is why I believe that ALL tourism should apply the core principles and evolve into a form of Ecotourism, but an ecotourism that includes human ecology and does so by considering us and our industrial ecologies part of natural ecology. It’s a way of looking at the world.  We have the 8 core principles of the EcoCertification Programme which are 1) The need to focus on a personal experience with nature that leads to increased understanding and appreciation. We can’t forget that nature is at the core of our ability to survive, whether in the city or out in the countryside where the city’s ecological footprint is today so huge. 2) the integration of opportunities to understand the natural environment into each experience – that would include our experiences in the built environment and, 3) the pursuit of best practices – ones we know can turn our problems into solutions, our wastes and liabilities into fertilities and assets, 4) Positive contributions to conservation, -- every action we take should conserve and preserve or recycle or enhance 5) emphasize the rights and needs of local communities 6) be  sensitive to local cultures in product interpretation – this is just common decency  7) accurate marketing – that just means telling the truth and  8) meeting client expectations on a consistent basis – that means not just not lying or misrepresenting but talking  to people and listening  to people – to all stakeholders – that’s simple democracy in action --  and make sure you never turn a deaf ear to what people need. Most people don’t really need a vacation,you’ll find.  they need experiences that are meaningful and life affirming and joy enhancing and edifying. And we can create those anywhere and everywhere.
Apply the array of core and advanced indicators and require the Ecotourism Certification in which a product must meet 100 percent of the core criteria, scaling up to Advanced Certification and its critieria, and you shift society away from a destructive model to something far more productive. 
I see a time coming where, whether you are in the city or the countryside or in a wilderness, you will ask yourself three simple questions: Is the ecosystem here healthy and life affirming? Will what is happening here work economically so that it isn’t a net drain on the flows of income and will remain affordable both in a resource and financial sense? Is it socially just?
If the answer is yes to those three pillars, it will be sustainable, and visiting the location will be itself an economically viable, life affirming and dignified form of sustainable ecotourism. “

Host: Let’s hope your dreams of this Eutopia come true.
That’s all we have time for folks, so we hope you enjoyed our show and look forward to seeing you next season… or out in the field somewhere, putting these ideas into practice.  As they say, “Goodnight, and goodluck!”