Read the passage and decide whether the statements are True or False.
It is easy to criticize ecotourism as little more than an opportunity to encourage a kind of voyeurism among the rich. There are also valid concerns that it can still do a level of harm that should be avoided. However, more studies indicate that the benefits are far outweighing potential, or real, drawbacks. Where ecotourism has a stronghold, development is kept at bay, and development is what can kill an ecosystem and drive local or indigenous people into poverty. In fact, studies are showing that ecotourism is reducing poverty and doing more to protect local environments and even improve their conditions. Because people who travel to such far-reaching places want to see something as pristine as possible, the drive is on to reclaim any land that had started to degrade. The more there is to see, the more ecotourists will come. But with a tight hand kept on the management of the tourists, the impact on the system is still negligible.
One concrete example of the improvement possible was seen in Fiji, where ecotourism encouraged the protection of a fishery. The fish population had collapsed, but when ecotourism created jobs, such as diving guides, and the protected area gave the populations a chance to recover, local incomes doubled over five years. When the local community can be active in determining its best course and is given proper assistance from the government - in this case, policing of the fishing zones to prevent sea poaching by outsiders - everyone can benefit.
1. It has been indicated that benefits of ecotourism are very promising. 2. The development supports ecosystem and drives indigenous people into wealth. 3. Land that had started to degrade can be reclaimed thanks to ecotourism. 4. The fish population in the protected area in Fiju has recovered. 5. Only the government can benefit when policing the fishing zones to prevent sea poaching. | q q q q q |
