生态旅游对环境的影响【外文翻译】

外文翻译译文标题：生态旅游对环境的影响资料来源：澳大利亚格里菲斯大学作者：拉尔夫.巴利可生态旅游由于其实际或潜在的积极影响受到社会和保护区以及公司和消费者广泛吹捧。

例如，在讨论进入保护区方面，旅游说客和生态旅游经营者宣称他们不仅将会采取措施师环境影响减到最小而且生态旅游还会产生利益。

然而保护区也为旅游业提供了非常重要的好处。

每年被人类消耗或污染的自然资源有很多。

人类生存需要饮用水，可呼吸的空气和可用的生物多样性。

自然生态系统是每个这些领域的主要的蓄水池。

生态系统由于人类活动已被不同程度地广泛地修改了。

近原始的荒野地区和其他小改造的地区的环境正在不断减少，像城市中心，垃圾堆放场，矿场和单一种植区几乎完全修改的环境在继续扩大。

有很多没有完全修改而又很重要的地方，如农村住宅，布罗德埃克牧区和被采伐的原始森林在最少修改的地区也继续扩大。

为制止和扭转这些趋势，只在人类的社会结构和人类行为发生大规模和深远的变化时才能成为可能。

然而，如果在短期内没有这种变化，规模更大的混乱将逼近人类。

关于可持续能力和关乎人类生存的任何长期策略唯一最重要的组分，能够使世界各种各样的生态系统的代表性区域保持在一个合理的原封不动的和功能的状态。

当然，这是保护区全局系统的主要目标，包括世界遗产地区、生物圈储备、国家公园和其他保护区域。

然而，这些公园还不能独自地防止生物多样性持续损失：首先，因为他们是太小和不充分地代表性的；第二，因为他们不充分地被保护。

目前，有公开和私有土地其他地区在被保护区系统之外的，它们对保护生物多样性和空气和水的质量有很大贡献。

它们包括：像极地，高山，沙漠和海洋生态系一样很少人的地方；那些为木材和家畜产品使用的但其中很少使用牧场保留其原有的性质功能和生物多样性的森林地和牧场；人类的生活方式没有介入对自然环境的密集的修改的部族和社区土地。

然后，随着人口和资源消耗量的继续增长，所有这些未保护的区域却受到越来越多的开发和修改，例如采伐，农业清除和类似的冲击加速。

特别是，其中一些区域涉及保护和储备，而且逐渐增长的人口压力正在导致土地清除和移民直到储备界限，有时会在保护的过程中出现侵犯。

在被保护区界限不是明确界定或没有发现的地区，这样侵犯也许一般包括偷猎，非法收获，小规模移民和时而的军事演习。

然而，甚而在国家公园界限已建立和强制执行的区域，侵犯可能仍然发生。

有时，相关的立法也许允许发展某些类在公园界限之外的可能在保护区的周长附近增加杂草、病原生物、野生动物、水污染和火来源的压力，并且这些能不再人类进一步的干涉下在保护区里得到传播。

因此，代表性的生态系统的保护不仅能够通过增加保护区财产，改进现存储备的有效保护率，而且通过减少对储备区以外土地的修改得到改进，以便改进它的保护价值。

用纯粹财政术语来说，以现在的市场价购买高保护价值所有剩余的区域，在更加富有的政府和公司看来是在世界范围内的，并且宣称他们作为保护区。

然而，由于许多政治原因，这是不太可能发生得。

许多保护区管理代办处没有足够的金钱来管理他们现有的财产，更不用说发展它。

全世界国家公园和相似的储备总面积继续慢慢地增长，并且在最近几年里给保护区的管理代办处的一些资助增加显著。

然而，在全球范围内，公共的保护区越来越资金短缺。

同时，他们不断地受到人类的压力，这种压力同时来自于从在它们的边界之外的压力和游客的人数和期望增长的压力。

结果，只有最大和最远的保护区能够独自地生存。

大多需要持续的管理行动来控制持续的威胁；而这些管理行动要求活动资金。

注意，然而这笔资助的一个重大组成部分是要求管理游客，多数公园代办处不可能为基本的保护管理，包括火灾控制、野生动物和杂草而通过关门和赶走游客来解决资助赤字。

大多数公园都没有门：如果没有管理者来阻止他们，人们将能够继续地合法或非法地进入和利用保护区。

另外，除了在非常异常的情况下，少量公园代办处有一个对公众完全地关闭公园的法律命令；虽然他们通常有权力强加各种各样的具体制约。

即使像限制数目或取缔特殊历史用途，例如骑马术或雪上电车的法律命令存在，公园代办处在实践上强加这样制约是很困难的，除非他们首先召集从支持保护和低影响休闲的人群的强大政治支持。

另外，虽然支持公园和他们的管理代办处的法律和财政系统可能产生短期的政治反对，但是法律和预算是人类自己的社会结构并且需要持续的政治支持才能在较长时期内生存。

因此公园代办处需要赡养的政治顾客他们面对的压力越大，需要获得的支持就越多。

这样政治支持可能来自四个方面，即那些为存在价值，环境保护盒全球性生态服务系统而支持保护区的人；那些为了像饮用水供应的地方生态系服务而支持保护区的人；那些为了个人的消遣机会而支持保护区的人；还有那些为了商业机会，例如旅游业而支持保护区的人。

第一二这些小组有对特定的保护区具有很少或没有消极冲击。

然而，前者提供了相当广泛和广义支持，却很少涉及偏远选民或实际操作者。

外文文献原文Title: Environmentai Impacts of EcotourismMaterial Source: Griffith University.Author: Ralf Buckley Ecotourism is widely touted for its positive impacts actual or potential for communities and conservation as well as for companies and consumers. In arguing for access to protected areas for example tourism lobbyists and ecotourism operators commonly argue not only that they will take steps to minimize their environmental impacts but that ecotourism also generates benefits. However protected areas also provide very significant benefits for the tourism industry.Every year more of the planets natural resources are consumed or contaminated by its human population. Human survival needs drinkable water breathable air and usable biological diversity. Natural ecosystems are the worlds primary reservoirs for each of these. Ecosystems worldwide have been modified by human activities to various degrees. Areas of near-pristine wilderness and other little-modified environments are continually reduced. Areas of nearly completely modified environments such as city centres, garbage dumps, mines and monocultures, continue to expand. The much larger areas with significant but not total modification such as rural residential, broadacre pastoral and logged native forests are also continuing to expand and to encroach on the least-modified areas. To arrest and reverse these trends will only be possible with large-scale and far-reaching changes in human social structures and human behaviour. However, without such changes in the short term, far larger disruptions will be forced upon us.The single most critical component of any long-term strategy for sustainability and indeed human survival, it hence to maintain representative areas of the world’s various ecosystems in a reasonably intact and functional state. This of course is the principal aim of the global system of protected areas including World Heritage Areas Biosphere Reserves national parks and other conservation areas. However on their own parks are not enough to prevent continued loss of biological diversity: first because they are too small and not fully representative and secondly because they are not fully protected. Currently there are other areas of public and private lands outside the protected areasystem which contribute significantly to conservation of biodiversity and air and water quality. There include: polar high montane, desert and marine ecosystems where there are few people; forests, woodlands and rangelands which are used for timber and livestock production but which none the less retain much of their original character function and biological diversity and tribal and community lands where human lifestyles do not involve intensive modification to the natural environment.As human population and resource consumption continue to grow however all these unprotected areas are subject to increasing exploitation and modification as logging agricultural clearance and similar impacts accelerate. In particular some of these areas are contiguous with conservation reserves, and increasing population pressures are leading to land clearance and settlement right up to reserve boundaries and sometimes encroachment within reserves themselves. In areas where protected area boundaries are not well defined or patrolled on the ground such encroachment may commonly include poaching, illegal harvesting, small-scale settlement and sometimes military manoeuvres. However, even in areas where national park boundaries are well established and enforced encroachments can still occur. Insome cases relevant legislation may allow certain classes of development outside park boundaries can increase the pressure of weeds pathogens feral animals water pollution and fire sources around the perimeter of the the protected area and these can the spread inside the protected area without further human intervention.Conservation of representative ecosystems can therefore be improved either by adding to the protected area estate by improving the effectiveness of protection in existing reserves or by reducing modification to land outside reserves so as to improve its conservation value.In purely financial terms, it would be within the scope of the world economy for richer governments and corporations simply to buy all the remaining areas of high conservation value worldwide at current market prices and declare them as protected areas. However for many political reasons this is very unlikely to happen. Many protected area management agencies don’t have enough money to manage their existing estate, let alone add to it.The total area of national parks and similar reserves worldwidehas continued to grow slowly, and funding for some protected are management agencies has increased significantly over recent years.However, on a global scale public protected areas are increasingly short of funds. At the same time they are subject to increasing human pressures both from around outside their borders and from increasing visitor numbers and expectations. As a result only the largest and most remote protected areas can simply be set aside to survive on their own. Most require continued management action to control ongoing conservation threats and these management actions require operational funding.Note that whereas a significant component of this funding is required for managing visitors most parks agencies cannot solve funding shortfalls simply by closing their gates and keeping visitors out for basic conservation management including control of fire feral animals and weeds. Most parks don’t have gates: and if there are no rangers to stop them people will continue to enter and exploit protected areas, legally or not.In addition few parks agencies have a legal mandate to close parks to the public completely except in very unusual circumstances; though they generally do have the power to impose a wide variety of specific restrictions. Even where the legal mandate exists e.g. to limit numbers or ban particular historical uses such as horse-riding or snow mobile sit can be difficult for parks agencies to impose such restrictions in practice unless they first muster strong political support from groups who favour conservation and low-impact recreation only .In addition although the legal and financial systems that support parks and their management agencies can survive short-term political opposition laws and budgets are themselves human social constructs and need continued political support to survive in the longer term. Parks agencies therefore need to maintain political constituencies who the greater the external pressures they face the more such support is needed.Such political support may derive from four major groups, namely those who support protected areas for: existence values, conservation and global ecosystem services; local ecosystem services such as drinking water suppliesindividual recreational opportunities and commercial opportunities such as tourism. The first two of these groups have little or no negative impact on specific protected areas. However the formerprovide rather diffuse and generalized support ,rarely linked to marginal electorates or practical powerbrokers. The second is relevant only for a limited number of protected areas such as those associated with municipal water catchments.。