That title doesn't do this article any favors. The article explicitly says If anything I see this as somewhat good news, beautiful areas are now able to be maximally appreciated. We just need to...
That title doesn't do this article any favors. The article explicitly says
I'm reluctant to put the onus on the traveller when it comes to solving a problem as complex as over-tourism.
If anything I see this as somewhat good news, beautiful areas are now able to be maximally appreciated. We just need to work out how to properly manage these areas so they aren't ruined. To me over-tourism seems like the next step in globalization. If we're already sharing goods its now moving on to sharing locations. It will just take time and work to adjust from locations only being available to the locals to being available to nearly everyone.
The thing is, you can't just "manage" areas to make them not ruined. Some things are intractable problems, that boil down to the simple fact that we have too many people on this planet. Gone are...
The thing is, you can't just "manage" areas to make them not ruined. Some things are intractable problems, that boil down to the simple fact that we have too many people on this planet. Gone are the days where you could hike in Yosemite National Park and not see another living soul, even despite the extensive permitting system in place.
I see this first hand: I live in one of the most over-touristed areas in New Zealand, and it's destroying the region completely.
Many things have no reasonable management options that are solvable: forest fires caused by humans, people littering, soil & water erosion, people who want to get "the shot" and will break any rules they see fit to accomplish their goals, traffic caused to local communities by tourists. All of these are mostly unsolvable, or cause significant pain during the solution design process that they're inescapable issues in their own right.
This was another good article recently about some of the issues that a National Geographic photographer has been seeing with over-tourism for photography:...
That title doesn't do this article any favors. The article explicitly says
If anything I see this as somewhat good news, beautiful areas are now able to be maximally appreciated. We just need to work out how to properly manage these areas so they aren't ruined. To me over-tourism seems like the next step in globalization. If we're already sharing goods its now moving on to sharing locations. It will just take time and work to adjust from locations only being available to the locals to being available to nearly everyone.
Thanks, tried editing the title to something more representative, since I agree it's really weird to title it like that while the text contradicts it.
The thing is, you can't just "manage" areas to make them not ruined. Some things are intractable problems, that boil down to the simple fact that we have too many people on this planet. Gone are the days where you could hike in Yosemite National Park and not see another living soul, even despite the extensive permitting system in place.
I see this first hand: I live in one of the most over-touristed areas in New Zealand, and it's destroying the region completely.
Many things have no reasonable management options that are solvable: forest fires caused by humans, people littering, soil & water erosion, people who want to get "the shot" and will break any rules they see fit to accomplish their goals, traffic caused to local communities by tourists. All of these are mostly unsolvable, or cause significant pain during the solution design process that they're inescapable issues in their own right.
This was another good article recently about some of the issues that a National Geographic photographer has been seeing with over-tourism for photography: https://petapixel.com/2019/07/22/photographers-instagrammers-stop-being-so-dmn-selfish-and-disrespectful/ (Tildes post: https://tild.es/fxh)