On face value it seems like a simple enough question, and our first thoughts generally turn toward the virtues of spending some our hard-earned (or hard-borrowed) cash in developing countries. At this point most of us give ourselves a good old pat on the back, satisfied we're responsible travellers and head off into the sunset without giving the matter too much further thought.

So can it really be as simple as that? Will a high-end Safari to Kenya really have the same impact pound for pound as a fortnight in an exclusive Carribean resort, or overlanding through India, backpacking in South America, or what about visiting the nomadic herdsmen of Mongolia? Of course not. The more I thought about it I realised it couldn't possibly. The one thing they all have in common is that they are all developing countries that could really use our tourist dollars, but each of these trips will have a genuinely unique and complex combination of positive and negative impacts. I believe the job of the responsible traveller is to try and make informed choices that ensure the positives outweigh the negatives.

So what sort of things do we need to think about? It would be impossible to create a completely comprehensive list (and really dull too - I should know, I started trying to do it) in a 1-size-fits-all-destinations approach, but I reckon if we pause for just a moment to think about just 3 simple questions, we should all be able to improve our positive impact when we travel.

Where's my money going?

This is the number one question we should be asking ourselves when we travel, and getting it right will surely offer one of the biggest benefits of all - a boost to the local economy. When we book a package in the UK , it's the tour operators job to retain as much of your money as possible - what the industry calls 'leakage', put simply, money that ends up elsewhere. At one extreme, an all-inclusive resort holiday, the tour operator may own the hotel - so any positive impact would be limited to creation of local jobs. While by no means undesirable this is likely to represent a very small percentage of your overall spend, so the benefit is limited.

Better package options are guided tours, the more responsible ones will make a point of using locally owned accommodation and guides. Not only does this ensure more of our money gets into the local economy, but it supports development of the industry locally - usually giving the traveller a richer experience as part of the bargain.

Perhaps the most responsible option is to travel independently. By booking your accommodation and tours with local operators you can cut out the middleman and ensure every penny of your money goes into the local economy. For sure it won't be corporate, and it might even be frustrating at times, but with the right attitude and a smile it can be one of the most interesting parts of the trip. It's also usually the cheapest way to travel - so you should get far more Penang for your Pound too.

How is tourism affecting the local environment and resources?

Is rainforest being cut down to make way for new development? Can local water resources cope with the demands of tourist resorts with pools? Are wildlife habitats being destroyed? Is tourism contributing to conservation projects? What is the effect of increased road traffic to remote areas? Are rivers being overfished to meet tourist demand? And what about the things we buy? after all it's not too long ago that ivory goods were the local craft of choice when visiting Africa .

The questions here will be unique for every destination, and aren't always easily answered - but in short it's about sustainability and how today's actions will affect the local population and their ability to support themselves in 5, 10 even 25 years time. Is tourism encouraging the destruction of local resources for short-term gain?

We really can make a difference by thinking about what we buy and by being prepared to change our habits. Just ask yourself, do you really need that pool at your safari lodge in Africa while the villagers down the road have to look increasingly further afield for their water?

Page 1 | 2