I usually come across nature reserves financed by government or some educational institution, such as how Stanford owns the Dish. Therefore, I was curious to find out that Inala Reserve is privately owned. The website explains that the team is staffed by people with PhDs in zoology as well as members with backgrounds in tourism management. Inala also offers numerous tours throughout Australia. Compared to the the ecotourism infrastructure I've seen in the United States, Inala Reserve is quite an interesting setup, and I'm intrigued to learn about the circumstances that brought private organizations to the forefront of environmental preservation in Tasmania. What do others think about the advantages and disadvantages of this setup?
I'm so excited to be going to Inala! I love birds, whenever I'm at a zoo or aquiarium, I usually go straight to the aviary. It really cool to see that the zoo is privately owned because I feel like it will allow for more personalized care. I also like that fact that academics are running it.
ReplyDelete-Alicia
It's interesting to see that in many cases, privatizing land does not result in the land being protected - because people try and extract all the value they can from the land to suit private interests. But what if taking out value from the land and suiting one's interest = the above. In the debate of privatization vs public land, there must be a critical discussion of the incentives of the party at hand.
ReplyDeleteRehan
I wonder why the people who own it would rather privately own it than have the government run it. Do they think they can do a better job than the government? Then why don't they buy more land? Because of money? Then where did the money originally come from?
ReplyDeleteBrittany Hallawell