There are numerous strengths associated with a distributed economic framework as well as some weaknesses. How one sees the relative benefit or detriment is largely dependent upon perspective and interests [7]. A large corpora-tion or owner of a multinacorpora-tional organisacorpora-tion is likely to see DE in a less than perfect light, whereas an individual with smaller economic stakes is likely to see enormous potential bene-fit.
Distributed economies are complex systems and are therefore difficult to track, understand and influence. There are, by nature, multiple moving parts in a DE system which provide the benefits of participation, cooperation, in-clusion and the localised distribution of divi-dends. The complexity is necessary for the functionality of the system [6]. Critics dislike this aspect and prefer instead to utilise econo-mies of scale with source globally and con-glomerate non-locally the both the manage-ment and the financial gains. Distributed economies pose a trade-off for the communi-ties looking to utilise them but the benefits to many (employment, participation, reduced waste, added value, environmental integrity,
etc.) far outweigh the costs (administrative, loss of profit) to a few.
A perceived failure of the distributed econo-mies approach to growth is that they promote nationalistic policies and protectionism by pri-oritising local inputs and local solutions rather than allowing for market and trade liberalisa-tion [7]. If DE were promoted on a naliberalisa-tional scale rather than my community initiatives which were facilitated and supported but not mandated by the municipalities where they were put in place, this would be a problem.
However, the decision to distribute an eco-nomic system is largely citizen-oriented and community-based [1].
Conclusion
The value of a DE system lies in its benefits to individuals, societies and to the natural envi-ronment. Resilience allows municipalities to adapt to a world which is changing in popula-tion, demographics, resource availability, cli-mate, connection and countless other factors.
Adding value to local resources contributes to a more appropriate system of valuation for previously non-monetised natural resources upon which all of life is reliant. Human popula-tions are growing, so getting more benefit from fewer resources is essential – this is precisely what DE facilitate. Connection to a respect for the constraints of one’s local environment leads to stewardship and environmental preser-vation. Connection to one another leads to mutual respect, cooperation and enhanced quality of life.
References
[1] Johansson, A., Kirsch, P., & Mirata, M. (2005).
Distributed Economies - A New Engine for Inno-vation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 971-979.
[2] Mirata, M. (2010, September 28). Distributed Economies. Strategic Environmental Development. Lec-ture conducted from Lund University, Lund.
[3] Bauwens, K. (2008, August 7). Slow approach to distributed economy and sustainable sensoriality.
P2P Foundation.
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/slow-approach-to-
distributed-economy-and-sustainable-sensoriality/2008/08/07
[4] Mirata, M., Nilsson, H., & Kuisma, J. (2005). Pro-duction Systems Alligned with Distributed Economies: Examples from Energy and Biomass Sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 981-991.
[5] Leadbeater, C. (2008, March 18). The Completely Creative City. British Council Cities Seminar. Lecture conducted from British Council, Warsaw.
[6] Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Circulations and Metabo-lism: Hybrid natures and cyborg cities. In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism (Questioning Cities) (1 ed., pp. 89-112).
New York: Routledge.
[7] Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. New York:
Verso.
[8] Hornburg, A. (2009). Zero-Sum World Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displace-ment and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-System. International Journal of Comparative So-ciology, 50, 3-4, 237-262.
http://cos.sagepub.com/content/50/3-4/237 [9] Bogliotti, C. (2006, October 6). Slow + DEign |
Manifesto + Abstracts: Slow approach to distrib-uted economy and sustainable sensoriality. Food networks. Lecture conducted from Università di Scienze Gastronomiche, Milan.
Ecotourism and
Distributed Economies
By Yunwen Bai & Xiao Li Photo by Xiao Li
ased on the case study of the develop-ment of ecotourism in Green Island, Taiwan, it is discovered that the concepts of ecotourism and distributed economies share some elements in common. Thus distributed economies, as an innovative solution to re-gional sustainability, shed important insights on the development of ecotourism. In this sense, it would be necessary to explore the connec-tion between these two concepts in the hope of adding new perspectives to both fields.
The concept of ecotourism was formulated in 1990. It was defined by the International Ecot-ourism Society (TIES) as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”
[1]. Ecotourism has been a fast growing niche market within the larger tourism industry since then, and its definition has been under discus-sion and development as well [2]. Although there remains criticism on the looseness of the concept, there has been some consensus on the basic components and principles for ecotour-ism. For instance, UNEP and TIES together provide some general principles of ecotourism to guide implementation. They can be primarily summarised as to [2]:
• Promote conservation of biodiversity;
• Create local economic opportunities and benefit well-being of local people;
• Enhance cultural integrity by including learning experience;
• Involve responsible action on the part of tourists and the tourism industry;
• Be intended for small groups and delivered by small-scale business;
• Minimise consumption of non-renewable resources and negative impacts on the en-vironment; and
• Emphasise local participation by providing ownership and business opportunities, es-pecially for rural people.
It can be viewed from the above description that the ideas of distributed economies and ecotourism share the same principles in terms of low environmental impact, small-scale busi-ness, empowerment of locals, creating eco-nomic benefits and welfare improvement for locals.
In light of these key principles shared by the two concepts, it can be suggested that distrib-uted economies be referred to as a clue for the development of ecotourism. As what has been shown in the case of Green Island, the locals can be activated and engaged as a main con-tributor to tourism, and the supporting facili-ties, such as accommodation, catering, trans-portation and energy system should be adapted to local conditions and use of local resources.
References
[1] International Ecotourism Society. (n.d.) What is ecotourism? Retrieved from
http://www.ecotourism.org/site/c.orLQKXPCL mF/b.4835303/k.BEB9/What_is_Ecotourism__T he_International_Ecotourism_Society.htm
[2] Wood, M. E. (2002). Ecotourism: principles, practices &
policies for sustainability. Paris: United Nations Publi-cation.
B
Relationships formed within different types of economic systems esides the concept of Distributed
Economies, which has been broadly dis-cussed within this publication, a literature re-search could lead us to another, similar, concept:
the concept of Islands of Sustainability. It is the aim of this paper to try to give a comparison between these two concepts, noting the simi-larities and differences between them. It needs to be stressed that the literature on the two concepts is not extensive and both are so far based mostly on the ideas of a few authors and a number of case studies.