If it causes environmental or economic damage then yes it is bad.
This is why I avoid summer travel as much as possible.
Mass tourism does both of those things usually
Thank goodness Houston isn’t like LA, Vegas, NYC, Orlando, Miami etc
Well that’s why it’s considered affordable, because it’s not a tourist city
Problem is people from those cities are starting to move here
I can understand why every time I board a flight back home to Houston from vacation, there isn’t much enthusiasm lol.
Rather be in Houston than any other non tourist city lol
If they don’t want me there, I’ll be happy to spend my money right here.
Interesting the responses so far have seemed to look at it from the tourists coming to the USA. The article and the controversy so far is really from tourists visiting Europe.
The residents don’t want it but everyone else wants the revenue. And that’s especially true of American cities. Why else do i see so many ads for State travel
Goodbye to mass tourism at the Pyramids of Giza - Egypt launches an ambitious plan to save its most iconic archaeological treasure Goodbye to mass tourism at the Pyramids of Giza - Egypt launches an ambitious plan to save its most iconic archaeological treasure
If the local governments would have done most of these below, then there wouldn’t be any problems with locals or tourists.
Stopped the Air BNBs,
Stop people trashing the nature or historical sites
Limit environmental impacts of planes/ships
Stop destroying houses for shopping/restaurants
Limit the number of retirees or expats moving in
Pay article but I did see the same report in another publication and news report.
Activists can bark all they want tourist towns survive because of …tourism/tourists.
This reminds me of the $Billionaire complaining because someone is building a house next to them or in front of them. During covid there was no tourism. The economical impact was devastating to many living in these towns.
You mess up with the environment? You belong in jail and you do not collect 200.
I can imagine one day IAH airport announces that they will expand and then the locals living in Humble, Spring, Atascocita, will throw a fit having to deal with more noise pollution.
What about when it isn’t necessarily “activists” but the actual residents of the tourist towns who ar complaining?
There certainly needs to be a balance with tourism and historical sites or natural resources. Because too much can certainly damage both for the long term future or use. I don’t know the right answer to finding that balance and it likely varies place to place but we do want these sites to be visited for generations to come.
Depend on the context of “environment”.
Tourism, even if “eco-tourism” still requires infrastructure that depends on fossil fuels. Eco-tourism itself also relies on the infrastructure that’s essentially funded by mass tourism (in other words, if mass tourism were to end, then airliners would go out of business. Thus only the insanely wealthy private jet class can travel → which would then destroy tourist destinations).
The activist in this case, yes, are protesting because tourism is making cost of living unaffordable in these places.
The majority of profits from tourist destinations aren’t going back into the locals. It goes into the corporations’ balance sheets who support the tourism (which essentially gets sent back to the US). That’s why many tourist destinations are poor countries despite “tourism GDP”
I guess what I’m saying is - tourism is not really a good thing in the grand scheme overall
I think it is wrong to use the term activist here, because while certainly they are activist in the simplest definition, they are also people who live in those communities. I think that’s an important distinction from general activists that might be from outside the community.
Even our own city is complaining
Not tourism but fits