Monday, December 3, 2007

Luxury Ecolodges - A Misnomer?

Commander Thomas Mundakkal who runs the Thattekad eco camp feels that lodges which flaunt the label luxury ecolodges consume non renewable resources in profligate ways and does not exactly practice the precept ecolodge in its pure pristine form. He feels that many of them should be classified as green hotels or resorts instead of using the term ecolodge. I fully subscribe to his views. Cambridge dictionary defines lodge as “small house in the country used especially by people on holiday or taking part in sports, or one on the land owned by a large house”

Britannica defines it thus Originally an insubstantial dwelling, or one erected for a temporary occupational purpose (e.g., woodcutting or masonry) or for use during the hunting season.The lodge became a more permanent type of house as the lands around European mansions were developed as parks. The lodge was often the cottage of the gamekeeper, caretaker, gatekeeper, or gardener, or it could be a larger building for occupation by a higher-ranking person. Today the word suggests a rustic dwelling or inn in a natural setting, often one used seasonally (e.g., a ski lodge).

Yes, it should be an inn like structure in a natural surrounding where profligacy is taboo. But very few qualify for this description. The term ecolodge is being bandied about by every Tom, Dick and Harry.

3 comments:

Sajan said...

You hit the nail on the head,Mohan. The unscrupulous elements are using the prefix eco at will, taking people on a ride

Terrence Balamy said...

Luxury in its wake brings profligacy.Keep it slim and trim should be the way.

TV Gopalakeishnan said...

Com Thomas is right. Eco should be suffixed very carefully