HOW IS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL?

​

Endless acres of jungle, countless species of plants, and an innumerable amount of animals; these are the wonders which the Amazon rainforest holds. This ecosystem is  “the largest and most biologically diverse… in the world” (“Amazon Rainforest”). Even with its worldwide reputation and well founded respect that the Amazon is given, it cannot escape the clutch of environmental destruction. Every day it is harvested illegally to obtain the rare resources that it holds, destroying animals and endangering species that cannot be found anywhere else. The solution to this environmental destruction is conservation: which is the mission to “preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive” (Sawhill).

While conservation sounds like a great option, many assume that it is expensive and therefore it would be more costly to preserve the environment than harvest and destroy it. In reality, instead of exploiting the environment to make money, it is actually more profitable to use the environment to improve the economy. By not destroying the environment, there is always an opportunity to profit from ecotourism and services that the environment provide for the earth; for example: clean air and fresh water. The economy and the environment are intertwined; destroying the environment for a economic gain eventually catches up when the resources run out. Instead, it is more profitable to conserve the environment and its services through ecotourism; this is opposed to economic decline as a result of environmental destruction.

A healthy economy is linked to a healthy environment. When the environment is destroyed to support the economy, decline is inevitable. Destroying the environment for economic gain is an unprofitable and irresponsible use of resources. In places where the environment has been purposely destroyed, there is economic strife and pain for people living there. Once the environment is destroyed, there is nothing left. One example of a country that deliberately practiced ecocide, “a new word coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era” (Sawhill), was Soviet Russia. They believed that the environment was of little use to them and that it would absorb any harm they did to it. As a result, almost every single ecosystem in modern Russia is damaged; the northern tundra is damaged by oil drilling, the marshes are damaged by natural gas leakage, the reindeer that lived there are endangered, and the taiga has been deforested past a point of recovery (Sawhill). As a result of all of this environmental degradation “as much as 20 percent of the entire gross domestic product of the former Soviet Union is spent dealing with the public health and environmental consequences wrought by 70 years of neglect” (Sawhill). This onslaught of ecocide by Soviet Russia is one of the factors that led to eventual economic collapse. The idea of the environment influencing the economy is also apparent in our own country, in a study conducted by John Sawhill he came to the conclusion that “economic growth in states with strong environmental policies was double that of states with weak environmental controls.” Some of the greenest states include Vermont, Oregon, and Massachusetts (Kiernan). All of which have extremely effective economies with Massachusetts (9) and Oregon (3) being in the top 10 of state economies in 2018 (“These States Have the Best Economies in the U.S”).

However, the most simple reason for not destroying the environment is the future. In countries where the environment is destroyed, they do not have the means to support themselves anymore. When all natural resources are destroyed, there is nothing left for the people to live on. In contrast, when the economy and the environment work in unison, there may be profit. This cannot be a one sided partnership where the economy drains the environment, cooperation is a necessity.

The environment is self-sustaining and produces many services for the organisms that coexist within it. This includes plants creating the oxygen that we breath,  producing fruit that we eat, and the rain watering these plants. All of these services are virtually irreplaceable and all of these are impacted by environmental destruction. According to Michael Marshall, a conservation focused article writer for the B.B.C., when discussing these natural services that are in danger  “the benefits would outweigh the costs by a factor of 100…  conserving nature is a staggeringly good investment” (Marshall). In other words, conservation is a good investment because it protects the services that the environment produces. These services are exponentially important to us and even greater in areas with high biodiversity. These ecosystems are supported from the ground up, starting with the smallest and seemingly insignificant organisms to the apex predators. When listing an example of this hierarchy, Michael Marshall writes “A tiny, obscure worm may not be doing anything that's obviously useful to humans, but it is probably supporting the ecosystem it lives in – and that ecosystem will be providing services.” This idea that even the most miniscule of organisms can disrupt the most important of services that the environment provides is the reason why conservation is necessary.

Owing to the constant need of these services that the environment provides for us, it is logical that the environment needs to be preserved. Hurting the environment may seem beneficial every now and then, but in the long run, it is a bad investment. This idea is “a new way of thinking about conservation. It's not ‘nature for itself,’ because it's explicitly about helping people. It's also not quite ‘nature for people,’ because it's not just a matter of the direct goods that ecosystems offer us” (Marshall). These irreplaceable and irreplicable services such as, photosynthesis, balance in the food chains, and weather, are essential to life on this planet. None can be exactly copied in a lab by humans; therefore, we need to stop impeding these services as we are harming our ecosystem, our economy, and ourselves.

In developing countries such as Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda, there is a seemingly limitless amount of pristine ecosystem. Some countries in development choose to ravage the lands that they have available; however, these countries choose not to. Instead, they choose to conserve their unique ecosystems and use them to attract tourists from across the globe. They choose to use ecotourism as a way to make money. Ecotourism is “responsible travel to natural areas that safeguards the integrity of the ecosystem and produces economic benefits for local communities that can encourage conservation” (Nash). These countries realize that instead of harvesting their ecosystems for instant money, they could use it to attract tourists and make money that helps fund future conservation efforts and supports the economy. For example, in Rwanda’s Parc Des Volcans, a national park known for its gorillas and golden monkeys, “tourists pay $170 to spend one hour with lowland gorillas, generating $1 million annually for the Rwandan government. This money is used to support the management and operation of all of Rwanda’s protected areas.” (Nash). This is the perfect example of what can happen when land is conserved and used in the right way. The money made from ecotourism goes right back into the land, which will help fund conservation efforts in Rwanda for years to come.

In another developing country that boasts vast rainforests and impressive biodiversity, ecotourism has been a success. According to Jonathan Nash, “In Costa Rica, the number of foreign tourists visiting national parks rose 330 percent in the six years between 1985 and 1994.” Instead of gorillas and golden monkeys, Costa Rica uses its volcanoes, beaches, and sprawling rainforests to attract visitors from around the world. The success of Costa Rica and Rwanda is also happening in other developing countries. According to Jonathan Nash, “Direct economic contributions from park entrance fees in developing countries have been conservatively estimated to be between US$2 billion and US$12 billion annually. When indirect expenditures on such items as hotel rooms, rental cars, and food are included, eco-tourists spend between $93 billion and $233 billion annually in developing countries.” These monetary statistics show that conserving the environment instead of exploiting it is a good investment and that ecotourism is a profitable business. As seen in these developing countries, using the environment without exploitation is possible, profitable, and helps to fund future conservation effort.

    Another country that is benefitting immensely from an increased global support for ecotourism: The United States. Boasting the Appalachian mountains in the East, the Great Lakes in the midwest, the Cascade mountains in the northwest, and Big Sur along the western coastline, the United States has some of the greatest ecological diversity of any country. Through national and state parks that help to protect the environment and regulate visitors, ecotourism in the United States is one of the nation’s main attractions. In 2015 alone, national parks generated about thirty two billion dollars for the US Economy. This meant that for every dollar that the U.S. Congress invested into the parks, ten dollars were made and put back into the parks (Gonzales). At Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s oldest and most well known park, 680 million dollars were accrued in 2017. This revenue came from the 4.2 million visitors to the park and their spending within and around the park (Warthin). While it is obvious that the United states is not a developing country that relies on ecotourism revenue to support its economy, these statistics do show that any country that uses its environment to its advantage can profit. Through ecotourism, the United States is able to regulate and protect its National Parks for years to come, allowing generations to witness their natural wonders and contribute to the conservation efforts.

    The economy and the environment are in a symbiotic relationship, each is dependent on the other. It is essential that the economy and the environment coexist through conservation.  Each is reliant on the other, therefore it is the most beneficial when both are prosperous. Instead of destroying the environment to benefit the economy, the environment should be preserved and used to help support the economy. When the environment declines, so does the economy. The earth provides for us many irreplaceable services that are virtually impossible to replicate in a lab. For instance: the water cycle, or the purification of air, or the tidal waves of the ocean, are impacted by environmental destruction. The way to achieve global protection of these necessary services is ecotourism. The earth is covered with countless ecotourism destinations: towering mountains, bubbling volcanoes, glistening oceans, and sprawling rainforests. All of these unique ecosystems must be conserved and the most ecologically and economically way to achieve this goal is ecotourism. This form of conservation not only helps to protect the environment, but also funnels money back into the location and may even help the economy.

In the words of Michael Marshall, “You don't have to care about mountain gorillas to appreciate the value of a strong ecotourism industry.”

Annotated Bibliography

“Amazon Rainforest.” Greenpeace. 11 Nov. 2018. Web.

Provided me facts about the Amazon’s destruction and will help me give examples of deforestation and how it affects the rainforest. This will be used to prove a point about deforestation and how it runs rampant with no restrictions.

“Facts & Figures: The Cold Hard Facts about Overfishing.” Fish Forward (WWF),

11 Nov. 2018.

This source gave me facts about overfishing and introduced me to the idea of bycatch. This is important because it shows what happens in places with no regulations.

Gonzales, Angela.

"National Park Visitation Generated $32 Billion for National Economy in 2015." National Parks Conservation Association. N.p., 21 Apr. 2016. Web. 13 Jan. 2019.

This source describes how much money national parks generated for the economy in 2015 and where all of the money comes from. This helps to describe how ecotourism works in the United States and how it helps to benefit the economy and conservation.

Kiernan, John. “2018's Greenest States.” WalletHub, Evolution Finance, 17 Apr. 2018

This source ranks the “greenness” of all 50 states. This ranking is calculated from ecolaws, amount of waste gathered, electricity usage, etc. This source helps to provide facts about the green states.

Marshall, Michael. “Earth - What Is the Point of Saving Endangered Species?”

BBC News, BBC, 14 July 2015.

This source gives reasons behind keeping species from going extinct. It talks about supporting services and how all species work together to support the earth. I will use its points about the amount of money it would cost to produce what organisms do naturally.  

Monbiot, George. “Pricing the Priceless.” Pricing the Priceless, 18 Sept. 2013.

This source discusses how industries and the economy views the environment and how it exploits the environment. This gives a very one sided argument of why conserving the environment is more profitable than harvesting it for quick cash.

Nash, Jonathan. “Eco-Tourism: Encouraging Conservation or Adding to Exploitation?”

Eco-Tourism:Encouraging Conservation or Adding to Exploitation.

Population Reference Bureau, 1 Apr. 2001, Web.

This source talks about ecotourism and uses developing countries as examples of ecotourism. It discusses ecotourism as a highly profitable business that also encourages conservation.

Sawhill, John. "Why Conservation Matters and What We Can Do About It."

Maine Policy Review 4.1 (1995): 43-48. PDF.

This source discusses John Sawhill’s efforts in conservation and talks about how the economy and the environment are intertwined. This helps to prove the point that conservation is necessary to have a lasting economy.  

“These States Have the Best Economies in the U.S.”

U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report.

This source ranked the states economies in 2018. This ranking was done by revenue and spending. This source helped me compare the greenest states to the most economically sound states.

Warthin, Morgan.

"Tourism to Yellowstone National Park Creates $680.3 Million in Economic Benefits."

National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 21 Apr. 2016.

Web. 13 Jan. 2019.

This source described the revenue made by Yellowstone National Park in 2015. It also identifies that most of this is made from park visitors and that there was upwards of 4 million visitors in 2015.