This can work for smaller areas. Tourists get to see the result of preservation because can experience almost the full extent of the territory. However, for a larger area of which most parts are boring, unsafe and hard to reach, it's hard to cover preservation with such funds.

Bolsonaro is unhappy with one such arrangement, covering a much smaller area: visitors pay a $50 fee, collected by the federal government, to enter the archipelago of Fernando de Noronha for a 10 day stay. He wants to the abolish the fee.

Given his general outlook on taxes, I don't see how tourism could fund preservation, except for increasing its scale to a predatory level.

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2019/07/taxa-de-fern... (in Portuguese)

But doesn't air travel generate a lot of carbon?

I heard a quote a couple days ago that was along the libes of: A flight from NY to LA generates as much emissions as a person does all year.

But it wasn't clear to me if that the entire jet or one travel's slice of the jet; vs what they expend otherwise.