Tourism - offensive and destructive 

The expanding global tourism damages the environment and the tourist sites, which causes the expansion of the attitude supporting the need to protect the sites by limiting the number of visitors to them, before it is too late

As someone who was and is practically engaged in preserving the environment and nature on the one hand and on the other hand as someone who made a living and makes a living guiding trips in Israel and around the world, I have seen how paths are cut and turn into wadis, water bodies turn into mud, rivers become polluted, virgin areas are filled with filth, I have seen how roads go wrong and vegetation is covered in dust because of caravans. Jeeps.' Nature sites that are supposed to be peaceful become crowded and shrill because of "nice" visitors. That is why I have always argued that travelers and visitors should be limited and this should be done after a carrying capacity survey in which the carrying capacity of each and every site will be checked and the number of authorized visits will be determined accordingly. I was not a lone voice but almost nothing was done to implement the method. As someone whose main concern is the natural environment, I have seen the damage to natural sites, but it turns out that a lot of damage has been caused to cultural, archeological and historical sites, which causes the expansion of the attitude that supports the need to protect tourist sites by limiting the number of visitors to the sites before it is too late.

There are those who understood the need to limit the number of visitors some time ago: in Kenya, the construction or expansion of lodges within reserves is not permitted, the same is true in neighboring Tanzania and in some of the reserves in the DRAP, in the Okongo Reserve in Botswana there are isolated lodges that are built simply and mostly have room for a few ( less than twenty) guests. You can only get to them by light aircraft and staying there is horribly expensive, as is the case in the Amazon jungles. These also fit into the environment and the number of visitors is also limited by the high price. Of course, the question arises, is this the right way?

Three million tourists travel the world every day, when the only consideration that dictates the behavior of most tourists is - money! This despite the expansion of initiatives and awareness of environmental tourism / "ecotourism". To prevent serious damage, social, cultural and environmental considerations are necessary. On the TripHobo tourism website published Sameer Kapoor the vulnerabilities caused by more and more tourists who visit and travel to places that are well-known and famous tourist sites:

• Antarctica Polluted with alarming amounts of garbage
• The Taj Mahal whose original color was white became yellowish
• Mount Everest Flooded with trash left by visitors
• The Great Wall of China crumbles in places where there is an "invasion" of tourists
• The great beaches of I feel like Dirty
• The number of visitors flooding the Machu Picchu causes harm to the site
• The Great Barrier Reef Australia has lost about a third of its corals
• Galapagos Islands Flooded with tears many visitors that UNESCO declared them as a site in danger
• Visitors to Parthenon They "collect" stones and leave graffiti
• So also inAngkor Wat in Cambodia andColosseum in Rome
• בוVenice About fifty thousand residents live there today, compared to one hundred thousand who lived there in 1970 - residents leave because of the cost of living that rises due to the "herds" of tourists that flood the city and make their lives unbearable
• So does in Barcelona where the residents protest against the tourists
• Mount Saint-Michel became a ghost village for the same reason
• Florence It was a place for culture and art. Tourism has turned it into a noisy and simplistic mass place
• So is a street Via Corso in Rome which is full of shops for jeans and cheap souvenirs

In 1950, about 25 million people traveled the world, while today about 1.2 billion people travel and it is estimated that by 2030 the number will double. Already today, the tourism industry is considered the largest employer, with one person involved in tourism for every 11 residents. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), by 2025 the majority of tourists will be Chinese, when already today Chinese tourists spend more money than tourists from the USA. All this when, once again, the only consideration that drives the industry is - money! Many of the workers in tourism are temporary / seasonal workers who earn "pennies", when a large part of the money does not stay in the visiting areas but goes into the pockets of the tourism companies. For example, a calculation showed that 70% of the tourism expenses in the Karabakh return to the USA and Canada.

Cultures and traditions are affected and damaged when the local culture becomes part of the show for the tourist. Hotels that are built in the most beautiful sites and harm nature and the environment only serve tourists. Since the tourists are richer, the prices in local stores are higher than Amirim. Tourist restaurants have become synonymous with bad food at high prices and so have tourist spots that lose their identity for pretend convenience. The wave of tourism causes the prosperity of fast food "brands" such as McDonald's and Pizza Hut in the most beautiful areas of the city. This prosperity has led to a situation where there is a fashion of looking for "unspoiled sites", such as tourist spots and traditional businesses and restaurants that brand themselves as local or "slow food".

There is a difference between an "educated" tourist and another tourist, since the more you learn about the visited site, the greater the chance of improved and less offensive behavior and more enjoyment. Those tourists who travel with a nature, history or archeology book as their guide, can get more out of the trip, but today there are few educational trips and more trips where you have to "get enough". The feeling and value of tourists from the West who visit temples in Tibet without studying the history and culture can be compared to that of Chinese visiting churches in Europe, they also do not know and understand the cultural and historical value, they also visit to mark a wei ("take a selfie") - "me too" I was here.' Does this mean that only "educated" tourists enjoy the visit? Is it possible to separate and differentiate the visitors based on this?

It is clear that when two billion tourists travel the world without guidance and without regulation, the chances of damages and injuries are high. That is why there is a need for international regulations that will limit the hazards and damages caused by tourists, regulations that will refer to culture, education, environment and society and not to money!

In tourist contact between different cultures, food, habits, etc. must allow an opportunity to understand the other, not through the media or shows for tourists but through direct contact. But such contact exists only for those who have invested and studied the other. For example: the movement against the immigration of Africans to Europe fades away when those "immigrants" come to visit as tourists. On the other hand, when western tourists come to poor countries and stay in luxury hotels in front of beautiful beaches, while in the hinterland there are villages where there is no water or electricity.

There are those who have suggested that every tourist who purchases a travel package should purchase (along with the visa) a brochure from which one can learn and understand the travel sites, culture, nature, history, traditions, etc. In the future, those who wish will be able to be tested and in exchange for correct answers will receive entry vouchers to museums, reserves, archaeological sites, etc., even at times when some are closed to the general public, a situation in which there will be two types of tourists who will be divided not because of who paid more, not because of money, but a separation between those who want "Mark and" for those who want to understand and learn. One of the directors of UNESCO said that "it's a great idea", but in order to implement it, international agreements are needed.

I claim that there is no need for "international agreements" for authorized (local) bodies to carry out a carrying survey regarding any site, cultural, archaeological, environmental, etc. There is no need for agreements so that after a carrying survey the number of visitors per day, per season, per year is determined, a number to be determined in consultation with experts for each site and for each subject, when it is clear that there are sites where every visit involves damage. Therefore, the number of visitors will always be a compromise between the need to maintain the site and the need to allow visitors to give a broad justification for preservation.

The things are true regarding world tourist sites and more so regarding sites in our small country, where the density of the population burdens sites to the point of danger of destruction. For years I have been calling on the authorities to conduct carrier surveys and accordingly initiate development programs or alternately limit visits to sensitive sites. Despite the difficulty of standing in front of an audience, despite the fear of financial loss, if we want to leave something for future generations, if we want to prevent damage and destruction of sites, we must implement carryover surveys and limit visits according to the results of the surveys.

After all this, it is even more clear that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.