Could secret access help to combat overtourism?
I recently read this article about geotagging (https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2022/jul/07/instagram-hiking-tags-geotags-great-outdoors), which raises some really interesting questions.
The article itself asks “if nature isn’t for everyone, who decides who it’s for?”, and it’s a really good question. The simplest and most appealingly democratic answer is “for everyone”. But on the flip side of that answer is the question “If *everyone* turns up at geotagged locations, who pays for the damage caused by such large numbers of visitors?” ….and the current answer is “some people pay more than others, but the cost is not evenly distributed”.
Loved to death
If this sounds somewhat familiar, it is basically the over tourism issue writ small. Venice, Barcelona, and Kyoto are just three locations around the world struggling to deal with the crowds, the effect on prices, the noise, environmental damage, and the effect on overall quality of life for residents. A variety of approaches are being taken, including fines for bad behaviour[1], promotion of lesser-known areas (to try to spread the crowds out a little more[2]) and cracking down on illegal hotels[3].
But here’s the rub; after coronavirus, many of these cities have discovered how dependent their economies are on tourism; and while the evidence is mixed[4], it is possible that tourism-dependent locales suffer from a kind of "Dutch disease". In this context, it means that the tourism industry’s demand for both property and labour crowds out other industries, leaving local residents with fewer choices and higher costs. When the bubble bursts, they can find that their local economies are hollowed out, with consequences for both unemployment and local taxation revenues.
If this is the case for cities, how much more difficult, then, is it for isolated locations being geotagged? These are usually locations that are hard to staff at the best of times, so keeping such sites clean and safe is challenging. Most people are not deliberately disrespectful, but all of us are susceptible to change if we feel stressed – the very thing we go on holidays to try to avoid! If it’s hot, or rainy, and we are not enjoying feeling crowded in by people we don’t know, then some of us are likely to cross over the line (literally or otherwise) – and then to justify it to ourselves and others. If this happens on a daily basis, then the cumulative damage adds up over time.
Some reasons why we travel relate to how we wish to be perceived, and how we wish to perceive ourselves. Being able to say that we have visited certain locations is a way to show others that we have economic and social capital. It can also give us something to reminisce over and talk about with other people who have been to the same places.
Is it healthy for everything to be shareable?
In the pre-digital era, we could send postcards, and maybe show photos to friends when we got home. But now we can share and geotag any location on social media in real time. If said location is near a major city, and our friends have free time, then maybe they’ll make the spontaneous decision to come and join us. That’s fine as far as it goes, but when thousands of people have the same idea more or less simultaneously, the very things we enjoy about the location in question can be literally “loved to death”. Mass tourism is not going to help out with the geotagging issue, because the business model it is based upon depends upon the volume of tourists.
If these assumptions are true, are we doomed to despoil every beautiful location on Earth once the travel industry gets over its post-COVID teething problems? No, we’re not, but those of us who recognize the problem are going to have to lead by example, as is in fact is being done by the hiking influencers in the article mentioned.
Is this approach elitist? On the balance of probabilities, I would argue that it’s not, and in fact, it could lead us all to a more fulfilling social experience. Instead of following directions to what an acquaintance (or even a complete stranger) says is a great location, what if we made direct contact with the nearest hiking club, and asked for their advice, or to join in one of their walks? In doing so, we’d be dealing with actual people, not their digital shadows. It is possible we could make real friends, and could learn more about the location than we would be simply reading a travel blog or an Instagram account. For the more introverted, or just those who are sick of the general public, there are two more aspects to this issue. If you discover somewhere magical, keep quiet about it. Likewise, support the local businesses that fly under the radar without a social media presence.
The secret advantage
On the business side of things, I wonder if this issue actually represents an opportunity? In the past decade, hidden bars have become very popular…and in line with my recommendation above, I’m not going to share any links. But the idea of a website, or a phone number, accessible only to those who are in the know, could be a fantastic way of getting business without huge crowds. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a high-end offering, either – maybe just that your initial guests have to show the snail mail letter or the (randomly generated) code that they have sent to your next guest, in order to be able to visit again, or to gain access to the next experience. If it’s all kept off social media, so much the better.
In following this approach, the host can limit visitor numbers to ensure that the experience remains uncrowded. The visitors will get to enjoy the location or experience in a slow, calm, contemplative manner, and the knowledge that their next visit will be similarly calm and relaxing. The host can decide when to open or close, and can plan ahead for maintenance etc., as well as being able to tailor the experience for different visitors.
On a broader scale, local governments can develop policies that funnel the crowds towards the locations where there is sufficient infrastructure in place, and charge for it. It may be possible to find a balance between the jobs and wealth that mass tourism creates without killing the very ambience that people want to experience.
What do you think?
[1] https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Add-Kyoto-to-World-Cities-Trying-to-Manage-
[2] https://www.heremagazine.com/articles/kyoto-future-of-tourism
[3]https://www.responsibletravel.com/copy/overtourism-in-barcelona
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7573673/
