What’s the answer when our travels hurt the places we visit?
When you hear that travelers are threatening World Heritage Sites, just by visiting these extraordinary places, what do you think? It’s gotten so bad that locals are trying to turn travelers away.
It’s not entirely a new phenomenon, but it’s come to my attention again because of a recent write-up in The Guardian. There are already protective measure in place in Nepal (they have a mandatory deposit that’s refunded with the removal of disposable waste) and the Galapagos Islands (they limit the number of visitors), but these landmarks are still feeling the strain. The article focuses on the plight of Easter Island—it was there that last month protesters moved tents and trucks onto the runway to demand that the island’s 65,000 visitors per year be capped.
I can feel their pain. Ordinary people are living in each of these locations. And just by the special nature of the World Heritage Sites, more travelers are attracted there than other places. Sure, tourism dollars help. But there’s a certain point when you have to wonder whether the effect is more negative than positive.
Like the article mentions, some relief might come from eco-holidays and sustainable travel operators. But probably not enough.
I’d be in support of more regulation to limit the number of people allowed in a certain destination, as much as it might pain me. What else can we do as travelers? We can do our part to support the mom and pop shops and buy directly from the locals. We can be conscious about where and how we travel. If we’re not already traveling off the beaten path, we can do that. If we see these places for ourselves, we can use the bond that we’ve created with them to educate others about the issues around them and fight for their preservation.
Nobody wants to stop traveling—so knowing that, what’s the answer?
September 9th, 2009 at 4:28 am
I am sorry , but I simply can’t understand what tourist have to do with shitty ecological situations in places like Nepal and the Galapagos. To begin with it’s “eco-friendly” people who travel to those places in the first place (not all of them, but majority). Second tourists pay a shit load of money to travel to places like Nepal, Peru,South Africa. And those “ordinary people” who live there can’t organize the removal of trash (for example)?
Let’s be honest here, we all understand that it’s most income generated by tourism goes outside the country to big companies and operators. And if those “eco- concerned” companies don’t do their part, well don’t blame tourists. Closing towns to tourists ? WOW! I am a citizen of the world, and I can go anywhere I want.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Interesting article and points. They could “cap” the amount of tourists, but I doubt that will happen. Who wants to give up tourist dollars? It’s true that the carbon footprint is taking a toll on the planet, but it’s taking a toll on places right in our backyard. Look at the amount of trash in our landfills and on the streets. There’s no reason that we can’t have mandatory recycling in the States. It would create jobs for people and clean up the planet.
How big is the garbage dump in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Unfortunately, people cause their own problems, they just don’t want to admit it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or bio engineer to figure out that the planet deserves respect; it’s not a dumping ground. If travel prices increase to World Heritage Sites so be it. People have no one to blame but themselves. Oh Wait! That’s taking responsibility…my bad!
September 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What good is a world heritage site if people aren’t allowed to see it.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:25 am
What good is being allowed to see a world heritage site if it has been destroyed?
September 10th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
What at first is off the beaten path, with time, only eventually creates a well worn one. For nine years I’ve been an adventure/historic tour guide. Living, working, and being a part of those types of areas. After spending last year in Southeast Alaska, watching a town population rise and reseed violently with a tide of cruise ship tourists (upwards of 13,000 people a day) it left me bittersweet about the industry. It is hard because there is that double edged sword with a scale swaying drastically between money and integrity. A little of my heart stays in each place after I leave, along with the romantic thought that it will remain as I last pictured it. But like any romance, blinding, blossoming, withering and eventually rippling across the surface. It lays in the hands of each individual person caring about their soundings. As travelers, tour guides, or tourists we need to encompass, as a whole, the simple appreciation and awareness for not only our own backyard but everyone else’s across the world. People won’t stop traveling but the attitude at which we traverse the distance and relate to our immediate area needs to be what’s most important. At the end of a day, people all want the same thing, food, water, shelter and a sense of belonging.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Limiting access is reasonable as long as it doesn’t rob people of the experience. It is only a heritage site becasue HUMAN culture values it. I oppose any attempt to limit access to the elite only. Maybe there may be slight damage to these sites by our presence, but then our presence is the only thing that gives them value. I also think that while caps are reasonable theree should also be a once in a lifetime limit per person, unless the cap is not reached in a given year.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
How do we get our tourist dollars to help conserve these places?