Tourism is a subset of "travel".

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
Google icon
LinkedIn icon

The article in the Wall Street Journal is gated but primarily deals with New Zealand -

QUEENSTOWN, New Zealand—Towering mountain ranges, forests and glacier-fed rivers made New Zealand the perfect stand-in for Middle Earth in “The Lord of the Rings” movie series and a cinematic billboard for the country’s natural beauty.

Today, jet boats rip down rivers seeking the mythical Isengard, where the wizard Gandalf was imprisoned. “Freedom campers” in rented vans leave trails of waste. Tens of thousands of helicopter trips annually deposit visitors, some in flip-flops, on New Zealand glaciers that were once the realm of expert climbers.

One tour group had to be rescued after trying to walk barefoot to Mount Ngauruhoe, in apparent homage to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Mount Doom.

Elected officials are weighing measures from new tourist taxes to tighter camper-van restrictions. One town is considering shutting Wi-Fi at night to deter campers. Queenstown, whose mayor says it has 120 visitors a year for every taxpayer, is weighing whether to restrict Airbnb rentals.

On Waiheke Island off Auckland, protests broke out last year after double-decker tour buses appeared, clogging two-lane roads. One man in shorts stood down a bus until the tourists disembarked. A resident elsewhere became so annoyed with jet boats in a river near his property he hired a digger to divert the water; officials threatened legal action if he persisted.

Tourism, which many countries once considered a business niche that could yield easy revenue, has become a mega-industry. And those millions of tourists who descend each year on small towns, once-lonely beaches and historic sites are generating a global backlash.

International tourist arrivals globally grew to 1.3 billion in 2017, the United Nations’ World Tourism Organization says. That is up from 674 million in 2000 and 278 million in 1980, propelled by the rise of budget air travel, social media, an emerging Chinese middle class and technologies that make distant places easy to navigate.

A wave of antitourism demonstrations took place in popular European destinations last summer, including Venice, Mallorca and San Sebastián, Spain. In Barcelona, youth groups were filmed slashing rental-bicycle tires, and officials banned tour groups from parts of the city.

Fodor’s in 2016 began publishing a “No Go” list reflecting concerns that tourism was destroying the world’s best places. Featured this year: the Galápagos Islands and parts of Thailand, and a designation for “Places That Don’t Want You to Visit” because their governments are trying to combat overcrowding.

Economic driver Tourism remains a crucial and welcome economic driver in many places, especially developing countries such as Cambodia and parts of Africa where visitors’ spending has lifted many out of poverty. A number of countries with well-established attractions, such as Egypt, have been hurt in some recent years as tourism fell off during periods of unrest.

In New Zealand, “we’re hoping for a good debate about this and no knee-jerk reaction,” says Chris Roberts, chief executive of Tourism Industry Aotearoa, an association representing hoteliers and tourist operators. “Tourists are a massive economic benefit.”

Many top tourist destinations, including U.S. national parks, have long worked to strike a balance between luring tourist money and controlling crowds.

The latest surge is different, say experts such as Simon Milne, who has researched tourism around the world, and says frustrations have been boiling at an unprecedented level, especially the past 18 months. “We can’t ignore the fact that tourists don’t have a good rap in many places,” said Mr. Milne, director of the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute at Auckland University of Technology.

Since last summer’s Europe protests, the industry has made “overtourism” a focus. More than 60 tourism ministers and private-sector leaders gathered in November to discuss the issue at a summit on the topic co-organized by the U.N. Overtourism was also a theme in March at ITB Berlin, a major industry convention.

Thailand said in March it would close Maya Bay on Koh Phi Phi Leh, an island where Leonardo DiCaprio’s “The Beach” was filmed, from June to September because overtouristing was damaging the marine environment. The Philippines in April announced that Boracay, an island once known for crystal-clear waters, would close to tourists for six months over concerns about pollution.

China’s emergence as a tourist source is adding to crowds. Outbound Chinese tourists rose to more than 60 million last year from fewer than 20 million a decade earlier, according to Chinese data.

The Chinese spent $261 billion vacationing abroad in 2016, more than travelers from any other country, and China has accounted for roughly 80% of the growth in global tourism in dollar terms since 2008, according to the U.N. New Zealand’s former prime minister, Bill English, last year declared during a visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that 2019 would be the “China-New Zealand Year of Tourism.”

Yet the boom in Chinese visitors has added to traffic at some tourist hot spots, such as the white-sand tropical beaches and coral reefs of Southeast Asia, that were already under strain from throngs of visitors.

Kiwi crisis New Zealanders once thought of tourism as a green alternative to industries such as mining or timber. Advances in aviation in the 1990s helped make the country more accessible, and government officials moved to capitalize, developing a global-tourism campaign.

In ads after the first “Lord of the Rings” film in 2001, the slogan “100% Pure New Zealand” began morphing into “100% Middle-earth.” The Department of Conservation formed a commercial-business unit to find more ways to generate income from protected areas, providing GPS coordinates of “Rings” locations.

Tourism became a top New Zealand export, along with dairy. “The landscape is so beautiful it looks fake,” says Amy Blitzer, a 34-year-old project manager from New York who took a helicopter flight to a glacier recently.

Places such as Queenstown, gateway to numerous “Rings” sites, boomed. International visitors passing through the local airport hit 567,000 last year, from 39,000 in 2005. Property prices soared. Unemployment averaged 1.9% in 2017, versus 4.7% nationally.

“I’ve lived here for 36 years and the place is a whole lot better than when I came here,” says Jim Boult, the town’s mayor. “Some New Zealanders have the idea that because it isn’t like it was in 1965, it’s not good anymore.”

Locals complain traffic has become a problem, and residents who can’t afford homes feel squeezed out. Jason Medina, an events manager, says he moved to Queenstown in 2004 and found a sleepy mountain town where houses rented for about $1,000 a month. Now, he says people are lucky to get single rooms for that.

A tourism-industry survey last fall found 40% of the country worried tourism was putting too much pressure on New Zealand, up from 18% two years earlier.

Much backlash revolves around Fiordland, a wilderness area near Queenstown. One of its 14 fiords, Milford Sound, is accessible by a narrow, winding road including a one-lane tunnel. Nearly 800,000 tourists visit it each year, many on buses running such tight schedules that some drivers have only a 30-minute buffer to complete the return journey while complying with official limits that let them drive again the next day. Accidents involving overseas drivers are common.

Dozens of tour boats circled the fiord on a recent day, taking turns idling by pods of dolphins and nosing up to waterfalls.

The 87-year-old Federated Mountain Clubs, one of New Zealand’s leading conservation groups, has filed dozens of complaints to the country’s conservation department over the past five years, many related to Fiordland. A petition it circulated against a proposed monorail line and new tunnel into the park received nearly 10,000 signatures. Both proposals were ultimately blocked.

Another battle was over Routeburn trail, one of New Zealand’s “Great Walks,” winding through ancient forests connecting the Fiordland and Mount Aspiring national parks. The conservation department had granted a guiding company the right to nearly double the number of guided walkers it took on the route, overriding limits set out in a recently agreed park plan. The walk was already so popular that hikers complained of congestion.

The department justified its decision under “exceptional circumstances,” a clause in conservation law. After an investigation, an independent ombudsman, whose rulings aren’t binding, called the claim of exceptional circumstances “nonsense on stilts.” The department publicly apologized to the climber who made the complaint but didn’t reverse its loosening of trail rules.

In 2016, at the urging of helicopter companies wanting to offer more flights for Lunar New Year, the conservation department granted a trial eightfold increase in aircraft landings on a remote Fiordland glacier.

The alpine club started a crowdfunding campaign to pay for the department to make its reasoning public. An ombudsman investigation in April ruled the department “acted unreasonably” and that “aspects of its decision appear to be contrary to law.”

Marie Long, the conservation department’s director of planning permissions and land, says it now agrees it made a wrong decision. She says her advice to staff is to stick to existing limits in national-park management plans.

The chief pilot for Glacier Southern Lakes Helicopters, Andy Clayton, says he worries a few rogue tourism operators are spoiling things for ones that try to protect New Zealand’s green image. With helicopters, he says, “it’s all about flying neighborly.”

Some industry leaders say it is contradictory that there are New Zealanders who have turned against tourism, given its economic benefits.

“People forget that 10 years ago…the industry and New Zealand communities were screaming out for growth,” says Simon England-Hall, chief executive of Tourism New Zealand, an industry marketing agency. He says operators are aware of the changing mood and that “most of New Zealand is not yet benefiting from increased tourism.”

Last year, the government’s conservation department asked New Zealanders to nominate new areas for development to take pressure off popular hiking trails. They received around 30 responses from a population of 4.8 million, a response rate that Kevin Hackwell, chief conservation adviser for conservation group Forest & Bird, says isn’t surprising.

“Why would anyone want to volunteer their favorite local walk,” he says, “to be commercialized in the way the ‘Great Walks’ have, and overrun?”

Last September’s national election divided the nation between those who benefited from the conservative administration’s nine-year stewardship of the economy and those who felt left behind. The winning center-left Labour Party pledged to tax tourists to help fund new infrastructure.

The new conservation minister, Eugenie Sage, a conservationist who fought the Fiordland monorail, says increasing aircraft landings and expanding commercial activities on conservation land can’t go on forever.

“There is a limit,” she says. “If you’re going to a concert and the venue is sold out, you can’t go.”

To give a contrarian view, what do people have against other people? If the goal is exclusivity, Then this is faux experience. The places are now, temples to humanity and humanity is what they contain.
I have touristed in places packed with locals, the physical effects are no different. It just cultural supremacy to believe because they are "local" somehow your experience is distinct from having a hoarde of little old ladies with rainshields on around you. (Nara for instance, which is jam packed with Japanese of all ages and religions, but few westerners when I was there. The queue to get local food at lunchtime was unbelievable.)

The article is talking about remote areas (NZ - Lord of the Rings), beaches, camping trails etc. These areas didn't get a lot of traffic. Now they do which is leading to the undesired outcomes. It's not talking about locals vs tourists. It's mainly talking about sudden influx of people coming into an area.

I'm a kiwi, I don't think people are against visitors per-se - it's the enormous amount of poo they leave behind that they ought to be packing out - it's particularly a problem because we have a culture of 'freedom camping' - stopping on the side of the road for the night, but now we have tens of 1000s of camper vans without builtin facilities piling on the roadside poo
PS: Lord of the Rings was a movie it's not actually what we're about

We've had the same problem here in Iceland over the past 3 years, and it's only getting worse. We (the locals) call them "toilet paper tourists". It's a classic example of what economists call ´externalities´; i.e. great for the camper van companies (they make "shitloads" of money, pun not intended), great for the toilet paper tourists, who have a vacation on the cheap, but the cost is dumped (again, not intended) onto innocent 3rd parties in the form of degraded environment and diminished experiences. Oh, and good for importers of pot noodles and cat food.

I visited Reykjavik last winter and was astonished at the number of tourists visiting in mid-January. I had wrongly assumed it would be a down-time because of poor weather and short days. Nope, tour agencies just cut prices enough to entice people to travel "off-season".

We had a long weekend, so stuck to the main tourist sites within a few hours of the city. They were all crowded with buses and vans full of tourists.

Not only were the crowds themselves an eyesore, a huge number of the tourists were poorly behaved. Not just inconsiderate in the face of large crowds, but actively damaging to the area. Littering, hopping "do not cross" safety lines, wandering too close to the water's edge (Iceland has rough seas and it's easy to get swept into the ocean).

I don't know if there's an easy answer. All the tourists do bring money. But, I did get the impression that Iceland was being ruined.

I also recently returned from a trip to Peru, where we hiked part of the Inca Trail and visited Machu Picchu. While the crowds were large, I was pleased to learn Peru has limited visitors both to the ruins and the trail to try and ensure both are maintained for generations to come. The Inca Trail limit used to be 2000 people/day and is now 500 (that includes guides and support staff, so ~200 tourists)

The southwestern section of Iceland is the most touristy. If you get outside of it, things are a lot better.
I did a drive around the island and it was quite pleasant until I got around the the southwestern side again. The roads filled with cars and buses, there were crowds at most roadside stops, and I started seeing poorly-behaved tourists.I understood then why some of the Icelanders felt annoyed at all the tourists.

The rest of the Iceland did have tourists, but they were in much smaller numbers and the experience was much more pleasant. The tourist buses also disappeared. This was in late September.

In talking to Icelanders at some of the small municipal swimming pools (those were the best), there were a lot of complaints about how tourist money flowing into the economy was driving up prices for everyone who lived there.

Iceland was really nice to visit. It's unfortunate that they are being overwhelmed.

Congestion pricing. Cities like Venice and Barcelona are beautiful and should absolutely have the right to control tourism, why not do it with a (steep) tax? A double benefit: fewer tourists and more public funds. The tax could be dynamically adjusted to control visitors
Im generally an advocate for low taxes, but why shouldn’t cities benefit from being desirable rather than suffer for it

Isn't it ironic that tourists themselves are complaining about other tourists. It's like somebody concerned about climate change saying "I used to drive my overpowered car without any worries because there weren't enough car owners to cause a problem but now the world is full of cars and they're polluting it! Let's do something about those other car owners!"
It sounds a bit entitled to want the scarce things for yourself any not have to share them with poor people who can now afford them more than they used to. Wanting those poor people to stay in their slums where they belong, and perhaps be subjects of tourism themselves but not rise to the level of tourist themselves.

Maybe it's just a sign of greater global economic equality, which is widely seen as a good thing. Let's have more of it!

This resonates. I was recently in Seville, Spain, and felt myself on the verge of a claustrophobic panic attack while touring the cathedral because of the thundering herds of tourists pressing in from every side. Big organized tour groups where 20, 30, or more people are led around by a single guide speaking to them through mic and bluetooth headsets are the worst because they distort and concentrate the tourist density. One minute it might be fine to go up in the giralda and a few minutes later an hour+ wait if a couple of these giant groups decide to queue up at one time.

And it is only going to be a bigger and bigger problem in the future.
Great that people are talking about how much free time people are going to get in the future. But where are they going to spend it?

I was always, how bad can in be living in tourist hotspots like Venice or Barcalona. But having lived in Copenhagen, and seen the number of tourist in the inner city increase by 10% every year for the last 5-6 years at least. I have changed by mind, and there are a lot places worse then here.

At some point it is just not going to be sustainable anymore. And I don't see alternative but to put some kind of limit on the tourist horde.

Add new comment

More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.