251–260 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then only the wealthy may have holidays.
Norway is already very expensive to visit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living Iceland, the increased amount of tourists means that everything can no longer be written in the local language so that the tourists can understand, and that when you go to a restaurant, you often can't even order food using icelandic as the staff won't understand you, walking down the street, everyone is speaking English to each other, things that used to be free and offered to the public, now have to come at…
...you often can't even order food using icelandic as the staff won't understand you... One doubts that the restaurant staff are tourists? You seem to be saying that they aren't Icelandic, however.
I don't see this as a wholly bad thing, but the negative impact is that the people you interact with in the service industry, are not able to converse with you easily.
Imagine living in mexico, walking into a mexican restaraunt, and having to order in english because the wait staff and kitchen can't understand spanish.
It's not the worst thing that's ever happened, but I do miss being able to speak my native language outside of close circles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a useless comment because it takes a wealth issue and tries to turn it into a racial issue. There are poor white people who couldn't go and rich black people who could go, so it's not even apt to say. Not everything needs to be a matter of race, especially outside the US.
I don't think it is wrong though. I have seen plenty of "too many tourists" complaints that were blatant xenophobia like complaining about hearing too many foreign languages or "feeling like a foreigner in their own country".
I guess it depends on how it was said, but this isn't a "white people" issue, mainly because this isn't white-people-specific. I'm sure Nairobi would feel the same way about being overrun by tourists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should travel be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?
Travel involves real costs: flights, hotels, transport. How would you arrange a system where travel is allocated to everyone regardless of wealth?
There are, of course, alternatives to top tourism destinations. But allocating access to the top destinations on price alone, and where that price does not relate to underlying costs, strikes me as the essence of unfairness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I lived in BCN there was a certain reputation a type for British and German tourists who used the streets as a toilet. It struck me as odd that so many people seemed to view Barcelona as an "anything goes" type of city while the Catalan people are not that wild for the most part and drink socially but not to get drunk.
My theory on british tourists is that people from uptight, repressed places are looking for somewhere to let loose. Granted the US is uptight too but we don’t have as much drunk hooliganism because we’re strict on alcohol too.
Welcome to the world of, by some measures, "too many" people having too much disposable wealth. There are obviously worse problems to have. But overtourism is a problem that's only going to get worse. This even affects Mount Everest where people are literally dying just to say they stood at the top of the world. And Everest simply can't support the number of climbers now. You see this in US national parks where the o…
I was in Rome with my wife for less than two days for other reasons, and we decided we'd pass by Trevi Fountain. Let me tell you, that place was packed . Maybe 400-500 people packed just to say they were there, or maybe wait in hopes of getting a clear shot. All of this just to brag in social media. I think the problem would be better if people didn't brag on social media about every single place they go to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "democratic access to their country" even mean? The tourists visiting their country don't vote, so you don't mean literally. And any random rationing system you put in place will be inherently unfair in some dimension.
The work "democratic" does not always directly relate to governing a country, but also making something accessible to all without unnecessary limitations - similar to the right to vote.
Do I as non-citizen have a right to vote in whatever country I want, just because I have an opinion on the matter being voted? Access to citizenship is also limited by descent, wealth, or your conscientiousness. It is also ‘unfair’ if you interpret this word as ‘not instantly accessible to anyone who expresses interest’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because Australia has incredibly easily accessible tourist working visas. It's what makes it attractive for a broke college kid to bum around in for a few months, in a way that would never happen in Canada, or the United States...
Wages are also far higher than the US or Canada: the legal minimum wage is $19.49/hour, and many industry unions have negotiated higher rates. This means a backpacker can do menial labor and still save meaningful amounts of money to use for travel, even when accounting for the higher cost of living.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not answering the question.
The other options besides increasing price would be: - lottery (example: powerball) - waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella) - application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?) or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
These are at least fair relative to wealth / income.
And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists).
Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
If they want to reduce over tourism in Norway , they could publish a list of "secret gems" in Finland. Sort of how Japanese banks would park money in competing banks because it cost money to hold it.