It may technically be true initially but ecotourism is generally needed to preserve it economically and from a game theory perspective essentially. * If it is

It may technically be true initially but ecotourism is generally needed to preserve it economically and from a game theory perspective essentially. * If it isn't human inhabited why not take it? * If it is human inhabited why not try to raise their standard of living by development and exploitation of natural resources? If there was some sort of payment for holding unspoiled environments it would have compliance and inspection issues not to mention funding and distribution. * However if it is an asset with tourism then "poaching" harms future income and they have incentive to keep it beautiful and clean for real. It may lead to some "manicuring" like removing pests and making trails but biodiversity would be far more preserved. * Those who are already developed may also have the local ecosystems as an effective "service" or amenity from quality of life. Needless to say that is a "late game" option only. Environmentalism is always a game of trade offs period.