When I was in Burma a couple of weeks ago, my guide said, “Please, tell your friends to come visit. Before it gets spoiled.”
My heart skipped a beat because I know what spoils a destination.
More people.
It’s a conundrum. Travel can help the people of a region by providing exposure to the rest of the world (in the case of Burma this is incredibly important) and income to the locals who have no other means of making money other than through the tourism industry.
But where does this progress cross the line into “spoiling” a destination?
For people who have been traveling to Burma for 10+ years, they might say it is already spoiled. With the exception of one site that I visited, I can confidently say I saw no signs of spoilage. But with the government loosening its control over the people (and tourists), this is sure to change quickly.
As a tour operator, frankly, I struggle with this issue. I believe that travel could very well be the most important thing one can do in one’s life. It opens up your world and makes you more tolerant to differences in cultures. And while tourist dollars can bring a lot of positive to a destination (puleez, will people go to Greece?), it inevitably changes the local culture – and it’s not always a positive change.
I’ve always said that we have a responsibility to be ambassadors of our own country, to be good travelers, treat the locals with respect and do as little damage as possible. But as I wrote in my post about travelers behaving badly, we’re not on our best behavior all of the time – and this reflects poorly on all of us.
So, what are the options?
a) We can stop traveling and leave destinations as they are. Imagine Angkor Wat without hundreds of baseball-capped tourists scrambling up the uneven stairs. Or Machu Pichu without trekkers making their way to the top, leaving their trash along the path.
b) Countries can impose inordinately high costs upon tourists – thereby limiting the number of people who visit. Bhutan does this. And in an unplanned way so does Papua New Guinea. Ultimately it helps keep the culture intact and the growth of infrastructure and damage at a manageable rate.
c) We can continue to travel but become better travelers. We’ll never be perfect. And every interaction with locals will leave some imprint. But we can limit our impact by making thoughtful choices.
Yes, I am putting together a group tour to Burma for late 2012. Yes, I want to get back there quickly before it’s spoiled. And, yes, I will do everything I can to ensure that I and my group are not ugly Americans (or Canadians, or Europeans, etc.) and make as little impact on this quickly changing culture.
You enjoy travel… What are your thoughts/suggestions on how to address this issue?
Travel Well!
Beth
Related posts:
Travelers Behaving Badly
What’s Wrong with Me?
Why We Travel
When will you have the details for Burma 2012? Burma’s been on my list for years.
It’s a really tricky balance. in some ways, the tourists coming in are great for bringing in the money that is needed and building a global awareness. But we all need to tread carefully. There’s no easy answer, is there?
Rene – I’m working on the Burma details now. I’ll be sure to let you know when they’re up on the WanderTours site!
Thanks Beth for writing on this topic. It is an issue that we tend to not talk about, the dilemma of tourism. As someone who has a background in microfinance and development, I tend to think, bring those tourist dollars in! Yes, tourism can have negative aspects and crowd beautiful, off the beaten path locals. Tourism increases local economy, having widespread effects on access to water, education, and health care. I know for me, when I am the tour leader for WanderTours, I specifically search out restaurants and small businesses that are contributing to their community in remarkable ways, such as KOTO (http://www.koto.com.au/en/about-us/koto-vietnam) and Shashi’s cooking class in Udaipur, India. There is no easy answer, that’s for sure, but it’s certainly worth talking about and important to consider when you travel.
Chicken and egg situation though: If we don’t go there, places like Angkor Wat or Tulum won’t have the money to do archaeological research or maintain the attraction. When we go, there will inevitable be wear and tear, as well as trash and cultural impacts.
Overall, it’s probably better that we do visit: To see, to learn, to share, and build connections.
Beth, I struggle with these issues too. It’s a difficult conundrum, but ultimately I believe that your option C is the only real viable option. A and B are both unthinkable in my opinion – as a world wanderer like yourself, I can’t imagine not going places. And travel has SO many incredible benefits for bringing people and cultures together in a way that little else does. It helps promote peace.
Option B is almost as unthinkable, in my opinion. Yes raises the costs to visit these places would limit tourists and accomplish the goal of protecting these places. However, then only the wealthy would get to experience them. In effect, it would discriminate in travel, something that is already expensive and harder to do for people with less money. The world should be open to all.
I believe that it’s up to both us as tourists to be responsible and sensitive, and help educate others to this. And it’s also important that the destinations, and the historical sites, be careful to protect their places by policing behavior and making sure strict policies are in place regarding trash, what can be touched, where tourists can go, etc.
thanks for the post!
Joslin – you bring up a great point about supporting programs that really help communities. KOTO is a great example of that but if we dig a little, we’ll find that these programs exist around the world – sometimes we just have to look a little harder for them.
Shelley – I totally hear ya with regards to making travel more accessible to people BUT Bhutan is trying to avoid what has happened in Nepal. Namely that backpackers have overrun the country and, as such, cheap cafes serving banana pancakes and bang lassi’s and $3/night hostels have cropped up everywhere. Have you BEEN to Kathmandu recently? The pollution is terrible.
Bhutan is a fragile country trying to remain independent despite its neighbors (China and India) who have a not so pretty track record of consuming nearby countries. They will be in a better position if they play well with others (i.e. they are now members of the UN and have an elected parliament making them no longer officially a Kingdom) and they keep their strong cultural heritage – which might only be done by limiting their exposure to the outside world.
I respectfully disagree that the world should be open to all. After all, why are our rights, as tourists, more important than their rights as a culture/country?
BTW – Bhutan cannot physically handle hordes of tourists. And the infrastructure may never be able to handle it given that there’s one road that cuts through the country and portions are often closed due to landslides. Though this is changing rapidly, in some villages there are only a handful of hotels and no restaurants outside of the hotel. A slow, measured approach to increasing tourism is literally the only option for them.
Definitely a difficult challenge. I think at the end of the day it is about trying to be responsible about the footprint, but really accepting that it’s an evolving/rolling process. There are always new spots that are being discovered/becoming accessible or emerging, while others become too popular, too touristy, or pass into a state that doesn’t synch up with where you are in your travel process.
I wrote about the dilemma of destroying the authentic by going in search of it at Your Life Is a Trip.http://www.yourlifeisatrip.com/home/keeping-it-real-the-myth-of-authentic-travel.html Amish country in Ohio is endangered in a different way than Bhutan and Burma, but the principle is the same.
And on a lighter note, who was it that said, “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.”?