Before COVID-19, the tourist industry was the largest employer by sector on the planet, giving work to one in every 11 people, and when the emergency ends, it will surely be resurgent — but should it return in the way it was before?
Maybe now, finally, is a good time to rethink what tourism should be.
Before the pandemic, the number of global tourists was predicted to balloon to 1.8 billion international arrivals a year by 2030. In 1950, that number was 25 million.
That huge increase cuts two ways.
Tourism supports jobs, often bringing vital economic sustenance to historic or remote places, but too much tourism has a clear downside for the frailest destinations, such as Machu Picchu in Peru, for many historic city centers, such as New Orleans and Dubrovnik, and for the location I know best, Venice.
There, 30 million annual visitors exert enormous demands on the residents, the heritage and the environment, changing tourism into a corrosive force.
In the years just before the pandemic I spent months in the city of canals and culture interviewing Venetians about their lives.
Invariably, the first thing they wanted to tell me about was the effects of mass tourism; how, since the 1990s, it has pushed out residents; how streets and squares can become dangerously overcrowded; how it has pushed up housing costs and destroyed local shops that now all cater to sandwich-eating, souvenir-buying tourists and little else; how it allows overweening sightseers to invade weddings, baptisms and funerals at its religious places.
The social ties Venice once enjoyed, its rhythm of life, even the vibrant artisanal trades, are now almost a thing of the past.
On top of all that, the millions of tourists visiting Venice put pressure on the environment by generating mountains of refuse, through the heavy use of the vaporetti water ferries and taxis, by putting too much stress on ancient buildings, and with the moisture in their collective breath on artworks.
The hundreds of visits from floating resorts — massive cruise ships each with up to 4,000 passengers — add to air pollution and cause erosion of the area’s sensitive lagoon environment.
The population of Venice, more than 170,000 after World War II, has dropped steadily to about 52,000. Remaining residents still feel fortunate to live in a city of such beauty, many believing their culture survives, despite the onslaught, but they also grieve at the losses, lose heart and move away at a rate of 1,000 a year to homes on mainland Italy.
A Venice without Venetians — without significant numbers of permanent residents — is predicted for as early as 2030.
It is no exaggeration to say that mass tourism — adding to Venice’s existing issues with mismanagement of the environment, corruption, political stasis and now the climate emergency — is bringing the community, the lagoon and a fabulous heritage to within a hair’s breadth of collapse.
Tourism was a fairly benign source of livelihood for Venice until the world itself took a step-change about 30 years ago, when a new economics helped bring on cheap air travel, faster communications and accelerated globalization.
When management of the city was handed over to the market with few controls, Venice was turned into an asset for stripping. Regional changes to Italian laws in the 1990s unleashed rampant property trading that deepened the effects of mass tourism.
Yet Venetians believe that they can still save Venice, and many are fighting for it and demanding that politicians do more. They want them to manage tourist numbers, and pass new laws to govern property sales and rentals, putting an end to the Airbnb-led free-for-all that is pushing residents out.
They call for a focus on long-term accommodation at sustainable costs and more jobs through economic diversification. They want more environmental measures, especially a ban on outsized cruise ships, and improved treatment of the lagoon that is vital to Venice’s life.
This has come into sharp focus in the months-long COVID-19 breathing space, when the sudden emptying of the city restored a lost tranquility, along with fish, swans and cormorants to canals no longer churned by excessive traffic. Most of all, it ignited the hope that this difficult moment for the world could eventually offer a turning point.
The need in Venice, and in so many other destinations, is for a new tourism, one that also benefits residents — not one organized around speculators’, landlords’ and travelers’ demands.
We visitors must see tourism less as an unquestionable entitlement and more as a part of our responsibility to sustain life on Earth. This must ultimately include limiting tourist numbers.
Tourism after the pandemic requires a new mindset. Maybe we cannot visit places so casually; maybe we will need to sacrifice the freedom to drop in at any time and go anywhere as fast as we can or by whatever means suits us. We need to accept life — and visiting — at a slower pace.
Beyond that, we need to end our passivity as tourists and see destinations as people’s homes, not just attractions. We should acquaint ourselves with local conditions and be ready to refrain from traveling if authorities listen only to monied interests, and fail to foster local livelihoods and protect the local environment.
Greener attitudes will help fragile destinations to live on — and allow masterpieces such as Venice to survive for generations to come.
Neal Robbins is an independent journalist and author.
With each passing day, the threat of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) assault on Taiwan grows. Whatever one’s view about the history, there is essentially no question that a PRC conquest of Taiwan would mark the end of the autonomy and freedom enjoyed by the island’s 23 million people. Simply put, the PRC threat to Taiwan is genuinely existential for a free, democratic and autonomous Taiwan. Yet one might not know it from looking at Taiwan. For an island facing a threat so acute, lethal and imminent, Taiwan is showing an alarming lack of urgency in dramatically strengthening its defenses.
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
The people of Taiwan recently received confirmation of the strength of American support for their security. Of four foreign aid bills that Congress passed and President Biden signed in April, the bill legislating additional support for Taiwan garnered the most votes. Three hundred eighty-five members of the House of Representatives voted to provide foreign military financing to Taiwan versus only 34 against. More members of Congress voted to support Taiwan than Ukraine, Israel, or banning TikTok. There was scant debate over whether the United States should provide greater support for Taiwan. It was understood and broadly accepted that doing so
I still remember the first time I heard about the possibility of an invasion by China. I was six years old. I thought war was coming and hid in my bed, scared. After 18 years, the invasion news tastes like a sandwich I eat every morning. As a Gen Z Taiwanese student who has witnessed China’s harassment for more than 20 years, I want to share my opinion on China. Every generation goes through different events. I have seen not only the norms of China’s constant presence, but also the Sunflower movement, wars and people fighting over peace or equality,