Tourism

In my previous entry, I have shown how emotions contribute to global clashes with regard to cetaceans. These emotions have manifested in a lucrative global tourism industry.

Whale Watching – the Iceland Experience

The whale watching industry in Iceland is booming thanks to increasing transport connectivity. This converts local natural spaces in Iceland into sites of economic activity – reflecting Harvey’s proposition that nature gets “appropriated [for] the purposes and paths of capital accumulation” (2006). This commodifies cetaceans into economic units to generate income and development for locals.

Arguably, whales occupy a high status in the spatial ordering of animals and hence, humans relax their boundaries slightly allowing for more intimate relations. The positive reactions (and money) extracted from tourism highlights the utilitarian value whales have to Icelanders. The intimacy with whales reinforces wild imaginings of Iceland, increasing its global popularity for living and non-living nature (as seen below).

Image 1: Whale watching tours that are combined with non-living nature, promoting a uniquely Icelandic experience (Top: Grayline.is, Bottom: Elding.is). Priced at SGD 225 and SGD 120 respectively.

However, raw untamed Iceland Experience also brings the booming whale watching industry in conflict with “traditional” whaling industries. The border between Reykjavik’s whale watching sanctuary in Faxafloi Bay and whaling zones are far too close with little buffer, sometimes resulting in an even more authentic “Nordic” experience for tourists.

Image 2: Excerpt from an article detailing conflicts and reactions from tourists of the, unfortunate, incident. (Adapted from Iceland Review, 2015)

The transformation of whale spaces into sites of competition between the global (tourists) and the local (whalers) presents competing narratives between different cultural knowledges of nature. Popular ideas and emotions puts Icelandic whaling under pressure from global communities with arguments regarding proper treatment of whales.

Paradoxically, tourist misconception of Iceland’s Nordic wildness and “cultural tradition” of eating whale meat drives demand and lends legitimacy to Hvalur, Iceland’s only whaling company, as seen in 1:27 (Actman, 2016). In a political economic setting, it makes commercial, and increasingly nationalistic (seen at 1:42), sense to supply for tourist demand. Despite efforts from Icewhale.is and Whale and Dolphin Conservation, confused global visitors still economically contribute to whaling.

Global whales in a global system – don’t forget, they actually move!

Concerning the global political economy, the advantageous location of hotspots helps local societies capture mobile global capital allowing for livelihoods and growth. Worryingly, the general perception that whale watching is completely safe is a myth. Considerations must be given to pollution from transporting people to whales, and also, human pressure exerted on whales.

Visual consumption of cetaceans (Neo and Ngiam, 2014) brings increased pressure to global ecosystems that whales navigate in. Increased flights, tours and waste from higher volume of tourists contribute to larger carbon footprints. Despite Iceland’s ability to run on 100% renewable energy, it does not offset the carbon generated from cetacean tourism elsewhere. This shifts pollution from local hotspots to other global environs. Consequently, whale watching companies and tourists touting it as “green” and “educational” fails to acknowledge potential damage inflicted to the global system whales inhabit.

Whales do not exist exclusively in situ. Being highly mobile, they traverse vast volumetric spaces, interacting with other marine organisms and hotspots all year-round. This exposes them to constant human activity infiltrating their ecosystems.

Image 3: Biological and psychological changes in whale behaviour observed at whale watching hotspots (Adapted from Parsons, 2012).

Above, Parsons (2012) describe the ways whale behaviours change from whale watching, and as Neo and Ngiam (2014) argue, this alters the nature of cetaceans, causing deviations from their supposed natural state. When humanity modifies the very “nature” (for lack of better word) of what they strive to keep pristine, is it still nature?

Conclusion

To sum up, whale watching as a global tourism industry is, perhaps, a slightly more sustainable way of appreciating cetaceans. However, its effect in manipulating social behaviour of whales and ocean ecology raise serious questions. Is whale watching any different from whaling? We are altering whales to fit our needs and expectations. These actions driven by capitalistic goals will serve to harm generations of cetaceans in the long run. 

[561 words]

References

Actman, J. (2016). Icelanders Don’t Like Whale Meat—So Why the Hunts?. [online] News.nationalgeographic.com. Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160127-Iceland-commercial-whaling-minke-fin-whales/ [Accessed 26 Sep. 2016].

Elding.is. (2016). Whale Watching tour operator in Reykjavik Iceland. [online] Available at: http://elding.is/ [Accessed 29 Sep. 2016].

Gray Line Iceland. (2016) Gray Line Iceland - Award winning and best selling tours. [online] Available at: http://grayline.is/ [Accessed 29 Sep. 2016].

Iceland Review. (2015). Whale Watching Tourists Observe Whalers at Work. [online] Available at: http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/08/24/whale-watching-tourists-observe-whalers-work%20?language=en [Accessed 27 Sep. 2016].

Neo, H. and Ngiam, J.Z. (2014). Contesting captive cetaceans: (il)legal spaces and the nature of dolphins in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(3), pp.235-254.

Parsons, E. (2012). The Negative Impacts of Whale Watching. Journal of Marine Biology, 2012, pp.1-9.