The overtourism problem in Europe (1 Viewer)

How much of that 43% helps the local economy, though?

Nothing against US tourists or tourism - I've no doubt the exact same is true for cruise travel generally from anywhere. I can easily spend £2500 on a Mediterranean cruise. But how much of that is benefiting the areas I'm visiting?
I’m not sure how to even google the answer to that, but I am interested in knowing
 
pretty expensive lunch and free healthcare, seeing as that Americans spend over $100 billion a year on international travel, 43% of which is in Europe
but what are you actually arguing against here? nobody doubts that this much money is spent on travel. most destinations in Europe need fewer tourists travelling more consciously. mass tourism of the kind that's worth $43bn a year is precisely the problem.
 
but what are you actually arguing against here? nobody doubts that this much money is spent on travel. most destinations in Europe need fewer tourists travelling more consciously. mass tourism of the kind that's worth $43bn a year is precisely the problem.
I have more thoughts I'll try to aticulate, but this was in response to this point, which is based on what exactly?
Europe is dirt cheap for American tourists, they can afford a lot. they don't contribute to the economy because cruise ships drop them off for 4 hours and at most they buy lunch and a fridge magnet.
 
Google AI gave me this.

1000011028.jpg
 
I have more thoughts I'll try to aticulate, but this was in response to this point, which is based on what exactly?
the well known fact that cruise ships have a schedule which involves stopping in a city, kicking guests off for half a day and then picking them up again?
 
the well known fact that cruise ships have a schedule which involves stopping in a city, kicking guests off for half a day and then picking them up again?
yes I understand cruises as well thank you, but what makes you say they’re buying lunch and a magnet, and not, as many do, luxury clothes and bags
 
additionally, if all these tens or hundreds of billions are so good for local economies... why are the restaurant workers in Rome, in Barcelona, in Athens working on minimum wage? why do the bar staff who serve the tourists generally live out of town? I was talking to a waitress in Bologna who told me that to have her own studio she had to move out of the city. that's as the city has become more popular as a tourist destination and that's likely the case for a majority of service workers who work crazy hours to keep the tourism industry rolling. Rome has a massive tourism industry and still faces as big a wealth disparity and extreme poverty/crime problem as you'll find anywhere in Europe.

a small and concentrated number of people benefit financially: private property owners, airlines, cruise ship companies, hotel chains. but it's not like the quality of life has sharply risen for locals in these destinations. quite the opposite.
 
additionally, if all these tens or hundreds of billions are so good for local economies... why are the restaurant workers in Rome, in Barcelona, in Athens working on minimum wage? why do the bar staff who serve the tourists generally live out of town? I was talking to a waitress in Bologna who told me that to have her own studio she had to move out of the city. that's as the city has become more popular as a tourist destination and that's likely the case for a majority of service workers who work crazy hours to keep the tourism industry rolling.

a small and concentrated number of people benefit financially: private property owners, airlines, cruise ship companies, hotel chains. but it's not like the quality of life has sharply risen for locals in these destinations. quite the opposite.
So...capitalism?
 
so next time I'm in Amsterdam, how can I be a perfect tourist? should I buy cheap things or expensive things? go to tourist traps or ruin local neighborhoods? I'm counting on real Dutch people like @Jark for some advice
 
On the other side of the coin, travel needs to be accessible for all and not just the preserve of people with a shit ton of money.

I'm probably on a different page to a lot of people on Moopy but I do kind of think 'just suck it up' when people are going on about tourists. It's not just something that happens in other countries; sleepy little Bourton on the Water is basically impassable in peak season, but what's the alternative? They're making an absolute wad and without tourists the Cotswolds would just be a bunch of cunts living in drafty houses. I work two days a week in Stratford and it's CRAWLING with tourists, to the point any actually useful shops for residents are being shunted to out of town shopping areas so they can fill the centre with tea shops, fudge pantries and gift shops selling - insanely - I heart London t-shirts. Despite that, nobody there begrudges tourism because the town is raking it in and they have the highest employment rate in the country.

How often is it the case that the town or city really benefits? With Edinburgh for example, the council ran an uncontrolled policy of quantity over quality, packing in as many tourists as possible and telling the locals to shut up and like it. It's completely overwhelmed the city to the point they're now trying everything to scale it back.

Hotel construction and short term holiday lets have often been prioritised over housing. Airbnb was allowed to run amok for years which has irreparably damaged neighbourhoods in the centre of the city. The city sees little of the profits from tourism despite of millions of pounds of public investment to cater to tourists. There's huge appetite for a tourist tax to recoup the costs of the services and crumbling infrastructure they use.

Most of the hotels are owned by multi-national corporations and even most of the tourist trap shops are owned by one family monopoly, so it's not as if the revenue is being spread across different business owners. Most of the jobs they create are low-paid and temporary/insecure which helps no one in a city with one of the highest costs of living in the UK.
 
so next time I'm in Amsterdam, how can I be a perfect tourist? should I buy cheap things or expensive things? go to tourist traps or ruin local neighborhoods? I'm counting on real Dutch people like @Jark for some advice
omg
 
so next time I'm in Amsterdam, how can I be a perfect tourist? should I buy cheap things or expensive things? go to tourist traps or ruin local neighborhoods? I'm counting on real Dutch people like @Jark for some advice
of course tourists will always do broadly the same things. and just for the record I'm not fucking ANTI TOURIST (or anti-american). my main concern with what's happening in Europe (and other places) is environmental - the tourism industry is an insane polluter. the best thing you can do as an individual is simply travel less, and get around as sustainably as possible when you do. my second concern is cultural and communities moving out of these places as the tourists come in ever greater numbers.

but the fix isn't rooted in individual behaviour. overall tourist numbers have to be controlled and reduced significantly. so then it's about taxation, incentivising people to travel more domestically, or just to travel less, plus any other number of other solutions neither I nor the governments of the world have yet FOUND!
 
that also isn't the read you think it is. I pay my taxes in the country I live in now, I contribute to the economy, I live as sustainably as I can, and I came here in the first place partly because of a financial incentive from the government explicitly designed to recruit more workers from other European countries. I don't claim to be "real Dutch" and it's not even slightly relevant to the argument of OVER TOURISM! but good try.
 
of course tourists will always do broadly the same things. and just for the record I'm not fucking ANTI TOURIST (or anti-american). my main concern with what's happening in Europe (and other places) is environmental - the tourism industry is an insane polluter. the best thing you can do as an individual is simply travel less, and get around as sustainably as possible when you do. my second concern is cultural and communities moving out of these places as the tourists come in ever greater numbers.
The environmental point is fair and so is the cultural one, but I have yet to see any actual non-anecdotal evidence that tourism isn’t benefitting the economy.
 
Because there's no such thing as "tourism doesn't help the economy". Revenue is revenue. How the nation decides to allocate that revenue is the problem.

The Airbnb thing however is fair because it distorts the market. But that's a very specific problem and easily addressed with local policy.
 
The environmental point is fair and so is the cultural one, but I have yet to see any actual non-anecdotal evidence that tourism isn’t benefitting the economy.
It does both, no? AirBnbs drive up rental housing prices for locals because dwellings that would have been long-term rental units before, landlords can now charge $150 per night for as an AirBnb. Sure this results in higher taxes for the government but it makes an individual's economic situation worse and brings down their disposable income.
 
Nope! Start controlling tourist numbers to Spain and the economy collapses. The only thing that needs control is where tourists stay and how.
You've yet to give compelling evidence to support this

- planes and ships have a massive carbon footprint and travel for tourism represents 5% of all manmade carbon emissions
- tourists on beaches, in nature and in urban areas consume and leave behind a fucking ton of plastic and other pollutants
- in hot, dry places like Sicily, Greece or South Africa, water supply is already at a premium and expected to decline - so more people coming in and using more of it can never be a good thing. in Sicily this summer the authorities had to decide between water for tourist resorts or for livestock - in the end many livestock were put down because tourists need water and lots of it.
- in ten years much more of Europe will be hot and dry so this problem will be considerably exacerbated
- heavily overcrowded cities, metros etc. can make life difficult or even miserable for locals (as evidenced by the many protests currently) and many cities on this continent simply were not designed to handle such a large influx of people
- global tourist numbers (~1.5bn in 2019) are on track (National Geographic) to rise 20% to 1.8bn within 5 years - with obvious knock-on environmental effects

the idea that only the housing/accommodation situation is a problem is madness
 
How exactly will Roman and Athenian workers get richer by curbing tourism?

A focus by local and national governments in creating more secure, better paid employment opportunities would be a start. Curbing one of the most of the exploitative sectors of the capitalist economy can only be a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJN
They won't get richer, they'll be able to rent a flat to live in, in a price that will be in proportion to their wages, as it was before airbnb for example.
Then policies should target Airbnb, which governments do. And they work. They keep the housing market reflective of the country's population and its demands/supplies.
 
It does both, no? AirBnbs drive up rental housing prices for locals because dwellings that would have been long-term rental units before, landlords can now charge $150 per night for as an AirBnb. Sure this results in higher taxes for the government but it makes an individual's economic situation worse and brings down their disposable income.
This is what I was trying to type up but couldn't express.

I think we need a fuller and more multifaceted view on what we consider economically beneficial and detrimental.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom