Please do not do #2.

Rather, unknown destinations need to remain unknown. (by this, I mean secret trails, waterfalls, beaches, etc). I think locals should take steps to protect them, including removing trail markers and trash, and refusing to talk about them. Erase trip reports from the internet, and actively fight to keep them secret and protected. Problem is, any possible "cool thing" is economically exploitable--and the economy absolutely will exploit it in the end.

For #1, you realize that the same problem applies right? Economic incentives are all completely against this.

> Problem is, any possible "cool thing" is economically exploitable--and the economy absolutely will exploit it in the end.

"Economic exploitation" and "people enjoying the place" are the same thing. A beach with one person rather than 300 is great if you're that one person, but it sucks for the other 299.

> For #1, you realize that the same problem applies right? Economic incentives are all completely against this.

Not convinced. People are willing to pay a premium for a site in good condition, with enough space to explore, and exclusivity is a bonus in some circles. If you jack the price up by a factor of 10 (which may sound ridiculous, but look at the price of Everest climbing permits) and only 1/5th as many people come, that's a profit for you and fewer people coming.

For #2, you realize that the same problem applies, right?

Locals in poor areas will always prefer a few years of selling out to tourists to long term sustainability: kids need education now, you want to rainproof your house now or in essence: you want to better your life now.

For them, there is not a single incentive to follow your advice.

I agree, there are more than enough people to just make the less well known places overcrowded.

Security through obscurity, feels like it has been tried before...

In this very case that might be enough to delay damage a bit

I've joked to people more than once that it is fortunate that Scotland has such awful weather - we have some utterly gorgeous beaches but the opportunity to visit them when the weather is actually nice and warm (which does happen occasionally) is an an experience to be treasured.

As someone who visits Scotland more often than would be reasonable, I can only agree. Beaches there are gorgeous, and you can't see any tourist around, even on sunny days, as there are not so many. Such a great country.

Norfolk is often similar, some insanely beautiful beaches but very few tourists there.

Port Ban on Iona is my favourite - a small pure white shell beach near the wonderfully named "Bay at the back of the Ocean" on a tiny remote island that is both stunningly pretty and absolutely loaded with history ("its cargo of mouldering kings").

But even then you still need a dry suit to swim in the water!

I have some very good memories from Broughty ferry beach back when I was at university.

... and midges.

Wear a midge jacket and a dry suit and you are good to go!

http://www.midgejacket.co.uk/

;-)

NB I seem to me relatively immune to midges, but I do seem to be popular with clegs and ticks :-(

The Yosemite system is a lottery now. It was first-come-first-serve but tour companies (read: scalpers) would buy them all up. There were a couple of years where it was incredibly difficult to get a permit. The lottery system is pretty great and we've been able to consistently get Half Dome permits (yearly trip) since.

Really? How long ago was this implemented? Last time I was at Yosemite I just bought a pass on the way in and drove all the way in to see things. Is this not the case anymore?

The parent commenter is referring to the Half Dome permitting system. There's no limit on people entering the park daily (which is why it's so incredibly crowded). They do cap the number of people allowed to ascend Half Dome each day.

There's a lottery system, then a small number of tickets are given out on a first come first serve basis from the ranger stations on the day of.

Instead of jacking up the prices, you can also just not make it easy to reach.

That won't work for venice, but for beaches you could just make sure the only way to reach them is a 5km foot path, and don't allow guided tours.

I'm pretty sure that would make visitor numbers drop to sustainable levels automatically, and people who really want to can still go.

Here in the alps we also have lots of tourism, but as soon as you are an hour walk away from a parking lot, the masses are gone.

Is this beach easy to reach? You mention beaches, but wouldn't that just be a matter of taking a boat?

Yes, you'd need to stop boats (like they do for this beach).

What I'm trying to say: Don't forbid visiting the beach; just make sure it's a bit inconvenient.

Venice is actually perfect for making it hard to reach. Give inhabitants of the island a special permit that allows them to use the only bridge freely. Everyone else has to obtain the permit (which is a highly bureaucratic procedure) or literally swim there (boats also have to obtain the permit to use the piers).

Which is, essentially, the scheme being currently implemented. Expecting jet-ski chases of illegally entering tourists - the city was built by sea merchants, water is still the main mode of transport, with streets secondary.

Not at all sure about 2.

I'm sure there are indeed tons of gems in the middle of nowhere. A few will find them by themselves, and they'll stay gems. Anywhere and everywhere that gets popularised gets ruined, or well on the way to it. The very reason to go is eroded out of existence.

A few will popularise naturally, which is probably the only sustainable way to go.

I recall an article that discussed the impact Instagram and the like were having on previously little-known, lightly trafficked sites. People post selfies and geotag themselves, sites get more popular, more trafficked, risk of damage goes up, etc.

Hadn;t realised it was having that extensive an impact beyond the few that go viral. Has implications that maintaining some wilderness and limiting the damage is going to become challenging, if it's that widespread.

Yeah, there is an irony, posting about some "secret hidden location" on FB or Instagram.

Quite. If I found somewhere pristine and gorgeous, I'd keep damn quiet, in the hope it was still that hidden gem if I went back.

It does sound elitist, why not allocate by random ballot? I don't see an obvious benefit allocating access to areas of natural beauty to the rich. I suppose they may bring more money to an area.

Number 2 is a lot more possible now than just a decade ago due to the rise of smaller, more efficient aircraft (A350, 787) over jumbos and the popularity of point-to-point (rather than hub and spoke) airline networks. This decreases the cost of establishing a new route and popularising a new destination - Europe is leading the way here.

Croatia, Georgia, Estonia and others have all been opened up substantially by cheaper airfares.

There is an island in Malaysia I like to visit. It’s definitely not easy to get to. You’ll have to take a coach bus with the locals, then hop in a taxi, then take a ferry boat with the locals.

Also, there is no power at night (generator and solar powered) the reactions I get are telling; European friends are really keen, American friends are aghast at the lack of air conditioning. Like how will they charge up their electronics.

Tackling over-tourism is very similar to Brexit: you want to stop those ugly, stinking foreigners from coming and soiling your place. If only they just kept sending you the money...

Only if you treat "tourist/local" as binary (and in your specific case, also conflating "foreigner+tourist"); the problem exists mostly at the extreme end of the continuum - "check it off the bucket list, immediately move on." Wrote a few more words on this earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17875576

Am currently living in the European Stag Party Capital :-/ Unlike Venice, it is landlocked, and also a normal city. 1. wouldn't work, unless you can strictly and correctly separate people into tourist/local bins. This might be possible for Venice, as it has natural barriers. Not here - the only way this would work is to kill the old city and make it into a disneyified taxidermist exhibit of itself (which is also happening, "naturally"). 2. is perhaps the only way out, but it takes time.

There are oddly strong parallels here to the H-1B visa debates: raise the price and/or broaden the geography.

I can't believe they don't charge to enter Venice. 10 EUR minimum would be a start

I feel like you only need to do the first of these, and the second will happen naturally.