Group items tagged

The author, who grew up in Kibera, a large slum in Nairobi we feature in our treatment of the East Africa research site, argues that "Slum tourism turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from."  I did this myself in a quick tour of Kibera in 2007.  The author concludes, "Slums will not go away because a few dozen Americans or Europeans spent a morning walking around them. There are solutions to our problems - but they won't come about through tours."  I'm curious what those of you who have visited slums as part of an LC overseas program or on your own think about the author's position?

This article, from WPRI.com (the website affiliated with the Rhode Island news channel), discusses the plans to build a wind turbine in the town of Narragansett. As someone familiar with the area--I grew up in Massachusetts--I am aware of the intense debate revolving around wind power on the New England coast. The case of the Narragansett turbine is notable due to the town's status as a tourist destination. The argument is centered around the fact that, although new forms of energy are universally considered to be important, the region's primary economic facet is tourism. Those opposed to the turbines argue that their presence negatively impacts the aesthetics of the coast, while proponents of the turbines take the position that sacrifices must be made to ensure a bright future. The building of the Narragansett turbine could perhaps be a step towards acceptance of the turbines' presence.

This LA Times article talks about a newly released study from the economics department at San Francisco State. The study discusses the effect of sea-level rise on tourism in California. While sea-level has been rising globally for the last few decades, the west coast has largely been spared, however, as the study shows, this grace period may not last much longer.

This article highlights the efforts to make Asian Carp, the next big threat to the Great Lakes (and the multi-million dollar fishing and tourism industries there) the next big food hit (or at least big enough to get people to fish them out). After all, as one expert says, "there's a worldwide need for cheap protein, and I think it's one of those things that fit the bill." But I have to say, I'm a little concerned. One, I know this is not a new strategy - people tried to turn garlic mustard into the next major salad ingredient, without much luck. But I think it could end up creating even greater threats in the long run. For example, if the idea is to get rid of the fish, it isn't a sustainable model for a business to follow. Why build a plant for a fish we're trying to get rid of? When the plants are built, the question changes: why get rid of the fish? In Darwin's Nightmare we saw how an invasive fish became a boon and blessing to the local economy. The Midwest is different, but some of the same forces are at play. Second, in my eyes the most legitimate argument against invasive, non-native species is that they don't provide ecosystem function. The ecosystem concept is rooted in relationships that help carry out nutrient/energy flow, etc... and these species don't really relate to others. By giving them a functional role as a food source, we give them a little more function to a species we really care about - us. Again, the plan to actually get rid of them may backfire as their benefits appear to outweigh their costs. The question does remain, is that a bad thing?