There's a lot of debate and discussion on " over-tourism" these days, on the Internet, print and social media.
Its a complex subject. On one hand, tourism brings in much needed funds into local economies, helping for services and maintenance, allowing governments to subsidize citizens costs. Clearly, London's museums couldn't be free if the city didn't get so many visitors ( Or may be called "spenders'). Likewise, the big gems of tourism- Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam or Venice, Athens in Europe amongst others. But for every city overrun in Europe, there are tons of others in Asia, the USA and Africa who would love to have (even if temporarily!) the tourism dollars.
Tourism injects life, vigour, a virtuous investment cycle, jobs, general good feeling, and yes, often times, is a strategic tool in the political or economic arsenal.
But there are definitely downsides. Too much of a good thing can be a problem.
Over tourism I believe generally kicks in when local culture, life patterns and services begin to change or bend to the needs and demands of a transient population which attains critical mass to actually cause these changes, and infrastructure ominously breaches the limits it was designed for faster than can be replaced or enhanced. When the local citizen finds no seat on his own city's trams or buses ( as we saw several times across Europe). Or when the local restaurants change menus to accommodate global tastes rather than offer local cuisine, when standardization rather than uniqueness becomes rampant.
I don't come from a city or nation which suffers from any sort of over tourism, but we actually suffer from "over- population" which , if you think of it, is the same issue as over tourism- and you cant even ban airlines or cruise ships- its there, permanently, every time, every day. In fact, Indians I believe generally visit the "first world" to experience less crowding, clean air, weather, superb infrastructure and cleanliness!
While over tourism and over crowding are two sides of the same coin, the approaches and solutions have to be very different.
Discussing over tourism solutions this time :
1. Marketing can be used to phase out visits. Not always possible because of weather and vacations.
2. Entry barriers - visa issuances can be controlled. Easiest method, but could have political and economic repercussions.
3. Cost barriers- simply make it more expensive, which would filter out the marginal, low and budget categories, but that could be seen as unfriendly, and discriminatory (which it could well be). Cost barriers could be higher taxes, expensive room rates, differential public transport and entrance fees (which does create resentment). It could well be the entrance fees like Venice tried ( But travelers simply adjust mentally to a higher cost plane and kept coming).
4. Open new areas : could spread the numbers across the land, but presumably, could get overwhelmed as well - necessitating newer areas every few years. Not easy.
5. Other destinations develop- this could well cause diversion of tourism permanently and cause economic damage. This has started in Vietnam and Cambodia, which have started taking in more Indians diverting from Thailand and Singapore. (When destinations within India develop, that will also divert some tourism- but the sheer numbers of Indians means this is not a worry for Europe, USA , Singapore or UAE and others anytime soon!)
Just some ideas but no quick solutions. As the massive middle classes of India , China and Asia in general prosper, they will travel. Its a human need. But the numbers can, and will, overwhelm. Destinations need to deal with it.
I intend to analyze interconnected, historical and economic issues related to tourism and travel going ahead- watch this space.