The arguments for and against telling tourists about non tourist destinations

Introduction: If you know a lot about the place that you live. Maybe you know some great restaurants, really good places where there is live music or great hikes. Should you let everyone else know about these places? What was your favourite natural swimming place could suddenly be converted into a tourist destination fully of pedalos, ice cream vendors, rubbish, litter and obnoxious people. Will this really happen?  This article is an exploration of the arguments for and against. 

 

What is the definition of a tourist?

A **tourist** is generally defined as a person who travels and visits places for pleasure and interest, usually while on holiday. They travel outside of their usual environment for a temporary period (typically at least one night but it could be for some months) and for purposes other than to be employed by a resident entity in the place visited.

Key characteristics of a tourist often include:

• Pleasure and interest: The primary motivation for travel is leisure, sightseeing, recreation, or cultural exploration.
• Temporary stay: They are not permanently relocating to the destination.
• No remunerated activity: They are not traveling for work in the place they visit.

---

If someone in a travel forum asks for information about places not for tourists, what do they mean?

When someone in a travel forum asks for "places not for tourists," they are typically seeking experiences that are **authentic, local, and less crowded** than mainstream tourist attractions. They want to avoid what is often perceived as "touristy," which can imply:

• Overcrowded areas: Places swarming with other tourists, detracting from the experience.
• Lack of authenticity: Locations or activities that feel fabricated or solely designed to extract money from visitors, rather than reflecting the genuine culture or daily life of the place.
• "Tourist traps": Businesses or attractions that are overpriced, offer low-quality goods or experiences, and exist solely to cater to tourists.
• Commercialization: Areas where local culture has been diluted or replaced by souvenir shops, chain restaurants, and generic attractions.
• Limited local interaction: A desire to engage with locals and experience their way of life, rather than just being surrounded by other visitors.

They are often looking for "hidden gems," local hangouts, traditional eateries, or experiences that offer a deeper immersion into the culture of the destination, even if it means venturing off the well-trodden path.

---

If a place that was not known by tourists would it become touristy if it became known?

Yes, absolutely. If a place that was previously unknown to tourists suddenly gains popularity, it very likely would become "touristy." This is a common phenomenon driven by several factors:

• Increased visitor numbers: More people discovering a place leads to larger crowds, especially at peak times.
• Commercialization: As visitor numbers grow, businesses emerge to cater to them. This can lead to the proliferation of souvenir shops, generic restaurants, and hotels, often replacing local establishments.
• Infrastructure changes: To accommodate more tourists, infrastructure (roads, transportation, amenities) might be developed, which can alter the original character of the place.
• Loss of authenticity: The influx of tourists and the resulting commercial development can dilute the unique local culture and atmosphere that initially attracted visitors. Locals might feel displaced or that their home is no longer "theirs."
• "Influencer effect": Social media and travel bloggers often play a significant role in making previously unknown places famous. Once a "hidden gem" is widely shared online, its obscurity quickly vanishes.

The desire to find "non-touristy" places is often a response to this cycle, as travelers seek to experience places before they are transformed by mass tourism. However, the very act of seeking and promoting these places can inadvertently contribute to them becoming "touristy" themselves.

 

Should someone giving travel advice not give information about undiscovered places because they may become over run with tourists?

This is a really insightful and ethically complex question that many travelers, travel writers, and even locals grapple with. There's no single "right" answer, as it involves balancing several competing values.

---

Arguments for NOT giving information about undiscovered places (to protect them):

• Preservation of Authenticity: Sharing "undiscovered" places widely can lead to them becoming overrun, losing their unique character, local charm, and authenticity. The very qualities that made them appealing in the first place can be eroded by mass tourism.
• Environmental Impact: Increased tourism often brings with it increased waste, pollution, strain on natural resources, and damage to fragile ecosystems. Undiscovered places might lack the infrastructure to handle large numbers of visitors sustainably.
• Cultural Dilution/Harm to Locals: An influx of tourists can disrupt the daily lives of residents, drive up prices, lead to gentrification, and even create resentment towards visitors. Local traditions and customs might be commercialized or replaced by tourist-centric businesses.
• Maintaining the "Undiscovered" Experience: Part of the appeal of these places is their quietness, solitude, and the feeling of having found something special. Sharing them widely destroys this very experience for future visitors seeking the same.
• The "Tragedy of the Commons": If everyone acts on their individual desire to visit a unique place, without considering the collective impact, the resource (the "undiscovered" nature of the place) is degraded for all.

---

Arguments FOR giving information about undiscovered places (with caveats):

• Empowerment of Travelers: People seeking "authentic" experiences genuinely want to connect with a destination beyond the tourist traps. Denying them information might limit their ability to have these meaningful interactions.
• Economic Benefit (if managed well): Thoughtfully introduced tourism, especially in smaller, local communities, can bring much-needed income, create jobs, and help preserve cultural heritage if done responsibly. This can be a lifeline for areas that might otherwise struggle economically.
• Knowledge Sharing and Inspiration: Sharing discoveries is a fundamental aspect of many online communities and human nature. It can inspire others to explore responsibly and appreciate diverse cultures.
• Inevitability of Discovery: In the age of social media and easy travel, truly "undiscovered" places are becoming rarer. If not shared by responsible travelers, they might eventually be discovered and exploited by larger commercial interests without regard for sustainability.
• Personal Freedom and Choice: Everyone has the right to decide where they travel. Restricting information might be seen as gatekeeping.

---

A Balanced Approach / Nuance:

Given these complexities, many travel advice-givers adopt a nuanced approach:

1. Responsible Sharing: Instead of broadcasting exact locations to the masses, they might:
   • Focus on the "why": Share the type of experience and the values it represents, rather than just the pinpoint location.
   • Emphasize responsible tourism: Educate their audience on leaving no trace, respecting local customs, supporting local businesses, and minimizing their impact.
   • Encourage personal discovery: Give general areas or advice on how to find such places themselves, rather than spoon-feeding exact coordinates.
   • Consider the scale of their platform: A small forum might have less impact than a massive influencer with millions of followers.
2. Gatekeeping vs. Stewardship: It's a fine line between "gatekeeping" (preventing others from experiencing something) and "stewardship" (protecting a place for future generations). The intent matters.
3. Local Context is Key: What might be sustainable for a small, robust local community might be devastating for a fragile ecosystem or a tiny, isolated village. Understanding the local context is crucial.

---

Conclusion:

Ultimately, there's a strong ethical case to be made for **exercising caution and restraint** when sharing information about truly "undiscovered" or highly sensitive places, especially on large public platforms. The potential for negative impacts often outweighs the desire for immediate sharing.

Instead of a blanket "never share," a more constructive approach is to advocate for **responsible and mindful travel**, empowering others to seek out authentic experiences while simultaneously educating them on how to minimize their footprint and respect the places they visit. The goal should be to protect these special places so they can continue to offer unique experiences for generations to come, rather than being loved to death.

467 views of this article.
Last Modified on July 4th, 2025
Created on July 4th, 2025
2,543,261 Total Views


This article is part of the following category. Click on the link to see a list of similar articles:
Go to homepage