Talk:Responsible travel

Will this become a real article?

The topic is important, but I am not certain this article really addresses it. So far, all I see are external links and a few platitudes.

I am tempted to nominate it for deletion, but holding off until I can see where it is going. It certainly has the potential to be very worthwhile indeed. Pashley (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

At first glance this topic looks to me like a plug for a conference. I'd suggest a merge to Ecotourism unless there is a reason for a separate article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

From Ron Mader: Thank you for your feedback. While this version does mention next week's conference, it also talks of the UN Day for Responsible Tourism in November. There are other celebrations throughout the year and the plan is to collect and add this info to Wikivoyage. Please note that 'Responsible Travel' is distinct from 'Ecotourism' and 'Sustainable Tourism' for reasons I've begun to elucidate in the topic. If the topic continues on Wikivoyage, we would like to add details about other RT conferences and declarations and begin to work on practical tips for travelers and locals.

Thanks for your input. I think, though, that whatever is in this article has to be practical and not mainly details about conferences. Wikivoyage is not an academic site, in general. All the best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The page is definitely a valid topic and it is different from ecotourism (although there is some overlap). Ecotourism generally focuses on environmentally-friendly travel, where nature reserves & facilities are doing their absolute best to provide access for tourism, but in the most environmentally-friendly way. Responsible tourism goes hand-in-hand with ecotourism, focusing not just on being conscious of the environment, but also of locals. Responsible travel means not just being mindful of the impact that the lodge you stay at does not harm the environment, but that the businesses you interact with (tourism providers, shops, hotels, etc) care about the local people and cultures as much as their bottom line. When you shop, you're putting your money in the hands of locals in a sustainable way, not staying at chain hotels, where revenue isn't spread around. See Wikipedia: w:Ecotourism & w:Sustainable tourism.

This page has potential, but needs a good outline to guide its growth. As noted, ecotourism & responsible travel aren't the same, I suggest that Sustainable travel become a disambiguation pages with the choice of Ecotourism or Responsible travel. Ecotourism can also be merged with this topic and become a redirect here (since responsible travel incorporates ecotourism, but v.v. isn't true), but I think the two should remain separate, since a lot of people look for ecotourism and that page already has a good outline/content. AHeneen (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sustainable tourism, Sustainability, Sustainable, Green travel, & Green tourism are redirects to Sustainable travel, which is a disambiguation page to Ecotourism & Responsible travel. Eco tourism & Eco-tourism are redirects to Ecotourism. Responsible tourism & Justice tourism are redirects to Responsible travel. Any other names for similar topics that need to be redirect pages?

I like the direction this article is going in now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to also cover ethical travel so perhaps that would also be a worthwhile redirect? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done...Ethical travel & Ethical tourism now redirects to Responsible travel

Opening paragraph

The text that is now the opening paragraph was originally a quote inserted by User:Ronmader, apparently quoting himself since it was attributed to Ron Mader and had a link to a website that looks like his. In this edit [1] I removed the quote marks, attribution and link, then moved it to the opening paragraph because I think it is a reasonable summary.

Just to check, I have some questions. Ron: is that OK with you? Others: do you see any problem here? Pashley (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fine quote. The only issue is whether Ron is willing to have it be outside of quotes and not specifically credited (other than in the article history). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Air travel

"The benefits of travel in increasing an individual's cultural awareness and knowledge are immeasurable. Despite its effects, air travel is essential to the modern world and traveling."

Well, no, this is a real cheap justification for flying, flying flying. You can usually get to most places in the world without flying, and, while doing so, you will have quite a few opportunities to expand your cultural awareness and knowledge you would very probably have missed by just flying from A to B, ignoring everything in between. This, of course, doesn't apply if you live in one of the really remote places where the only connection to the rest of the world is by plane or, in some cases, by helicopter. If this is the case - fly to get out of there, and then proceed by train, bus, or ship. ---Markobr (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It could be stated with some caveat, but if you're in Australia, for all practical purposes, when you go abroad, you almost have to fly. Similarly, if you're in North America and want to go to Europe, Africa or especially Asia, for the most part, you are not going to take a long boat ride. Of course, things were different as recently as the 1960s, but that was then and this is now. And if flights were ended today, it would probably be very good for the environment, but it certainly would drastically alter the modern world and traveling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible links

(Seen via a Matador Network post on Facebook). A site called Ethical Traveler has been publishing "ethical denstinations" recommendations for about 10 years. Here's their 2016 top ten. Pashley (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Natural Habitat Adventures launches world’s first zero-waste vacations Pashley (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI: How to be an ethical traveler

Swept in from the pub

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-be-an-ethical-traveller-and-benefit-the-places-you-visit —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The author suggests choosing:

• less popular destinations (at all scales: "avoid Venice" and "avoid the tourist district in your town")
• less popular times (winter in Europe; the day when the cruise ship isn't in port)
• individual locally owned businesses instead of all-inclusive resorts/cruises or huge chains/multinational businesses
• an ecolodge or business certified by a reputable environmental group
• buses and trains over airplanes and single-occupancy cars
• one long trip over many short trips

Responsible travel and Sustainable travel could probably be expanded with some of these ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Most of those tips are mentioned somewhere in the articles, but one should check that they are given clearly enough (in both articles where relevant). Does the last bullet refer to time (two weeks in one place instead of five weekend trips to equally distant destinations)? Unless you are flying, there is no problem in jumping off halfway and continuing later (which might partly fulfil the first point).

One should probably check also that the tips are told in Travel basics and the like – it's a responsibility of us all, not only those especially environmentally conscious.

–LPfi (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: The world’s most perfect places are being turned into backdrops for our tourist selfies

Swept in from the pub

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/22/as-la-dolce-vita-turns-sour-thanks-to-overtourism-hotspots-are-turning-away-their-visitors —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this can be included sustainable travel and ethical travel? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have seen something on this, with an image of the exact situation (with selfie-taking people obscuring the sight). Travel photography is one more article where the issue should be stated. (Ethical travel is at Responsible travel.) –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar coverage on this YouTube video: Are Amazing Cities Being Overrun By Tourism? Porto As Cautionary Tale. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wendover Productions: Too Many People are Going Outside

Swept in from the pub

Wendover Productions released a video on the dilemmas of overtourism in American national parks. The documentary briefly mentions the Internet's effects of informing and inspiring more people to seek out new destinations; in the best case increasing diversity of visitors, in the worst case concentrating them to a few over-advertised tourist traps. Articles such as responsible travel and leave-no-trace camping attempt to reduce the risks of overtourism. How does Wikivoyage in general handle the issue of high-volume tourism? /Yvwv (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've watched that documentary; Italy also has a similar problem, but that's why we have responsible travel, sustainable travel, etc. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't watched the video, but I'll say that one thing we can do is focus on improving articles about off-the-beaten-path destinations. That at least might help encourage readers away from the over-advertised tourist traps. And in articles about overtouristed destinations, we should warn readers about the problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the over-touristed locations should have some suggestions about alternatives. For example, if Yellowstone is over-touristed, then try Valles Caldera National Preserve or Lassen Volcanic National Park instead. If you want geysers, try the Valley of Geysers in Kamchatka or the ones in New Zealand. And so forth. While each over-touristed location is unique in some way, it would not be unreasonable to mention that people who think Venice will be too hot and crowded could at least consider looking into a place like Bruges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Me too, but I would prefer places closer by. Having Kamchatka and New Zealand as alternative to Yellowstone suggests than people are flying across half the globe to visit a national park. I hope few are. An European "doing America" or an American "doing Europe" will perhaps try to cover most of the continent, and thus destinations a thousand kilometres away (such as Venice/Bruges) makes sense, but for a person visiting north Italy, there should be more nearby alternatives. Of course, a good alternative destination can be saved for a future journey (Kamchatka could wait until doing the Trans-Siberian when the situation in Russia hopefully has improved), but that doesn't remove the need for alternatives for the current voyage. –LPfi (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

To some extent, big cities have the infrastructure to handle a larger number of tourists, than a small town or a national park could receive. New York City and London get millions of visitors, but they still rarely outnumber the residents anywhere. Cities such as Amsterdam, Barcelona and Riga have issues with attracting high-risk visitors (groups of rowdy young men). Old towns can get overrun of tourists to a larger extent than business districts and suburbs. One part of the solution would be to recommend venues near an overcrowded destination; for instance many places in metropolitan Venice which are calmer than Venice itself. /Yvwv (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you want to consider a variety of places: something nearby, something similar, something with a particular attraction... If you are interested in unusual geology, then Wyoming's Hot Springs State Park might make a good nearby alternative. But if you want to see geysers, it won't.

(I would not be surprised if most of Yellowstone's visitors traveled 1,000 miles or more to get there. The nearest metropolitan area with a million residents is 300 miles/500 km away, and the second nearest is about 500 miles away.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Some cites are starting to take action on actively "cleaning" out things which attract problematic groups. Amsterdam for example at one point was going to shut down the 'red-light' area and relocate it to a suburban facility. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I had a question in the Torist Office years ago, about Stonehenge, that went to a discussion about 'other' sites as well, and I've started to here that some natural sites in the UK are considering if they keep the 'pre-booking' system they had during COVID as way to keep numbers manageable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: What is responsible travel?

Swept in from the pub

https://www.vox.com/even-better/23683282/responsible-respectful-tourist-tourism-vacation-sustainable —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting article, though I guess we already cover some of what was mentioned in responsible travel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What happens when you throw food scraps away outdoors

Have a look at this article: Once You Know What Happens to Food You Leave Outdoors, You’ll Stop Doing It: It’s better to toss scraps into a proper trash can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguity of "ecotourism"

The word ecotourism has two different meanings: first, it is any kind of tourism that reduces environmental impact; second, it is tourism to natural attractions, in particular well-preserved ecosystems. The article on sustainable travel describes the first kind, and avoids the word ecotourism. There is a bit of a difference; for instance, when Londoners take the Eurostar to Paris and get around by metro and bike, it is ecotourism in the first sense but not the second; a multi-leg flight to the Galapagos Islands could be ecotourism in the second sense but not the first. Is the word meaningful in this article? /Yvwv (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"Ecotourism" is such a common buzzword related to responsible travel that I think it must be mentioned, but the double-meaning should be clarified. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Selfies taken in desirable locations makes people less likely to go there, study finds

Swept in from the pub

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/04/nx-s1-5090013/selfies-taken-in-desirable-locations-makes-people-less-like-to-go-there-study-finds

Just another good reason to not use social media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This feels a little like the home-selling advice about hiding all the family photos. You don't want people to think this is your house. You want them to be able to imagine themselves in it. Perhaps a photo of "me at the beach" similarly keeps people from being able to imagine themselves in that location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to read the study itself, or a real report on it. Most key info is missing from the NPR article. Was it an academic study or just a bit of asking around?

If you are going to propose to somebody, you don't want to do that like a friend of yours, whose proposal they probably have heard or will hear about. That's quite obvious – and very different from your wondering where to go for your holiday and seeing an influencer posing in Shangri-la.

–LPfi (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the actual "study" (which the article frames around one woman asking her friends and family if they'd propose at the same spot in the same location as she did) definitely doesn't conclude that selfies or seeing people in photos makes people less likely to visit. If her friends had not seen the photos but just heard about her proposal, I don't think they'd be any more eager to "steal" her proposal. I think most people would not want to steal their friend's proposal.

The article, and perhaps the study itself, doesn't acknowledge that selfies and pictures can be taken and seen by people you don't know or any of the obvious reasons someone might not "steal" a friend's trip other than the fact that their eyes saw a photo with a person in it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The study is at https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad059

I think this thing about wanting a unique proposal is not universal. For some people/cultures, doing it like everyone else means doing it "correctly". If everyone else goes to a fancy restaurant, or overlooking a waterfall, or in Lover's Lane, or whatever, then you want to do that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Yes. I suppose the point here is that "everybody" in Western cultures does it in a "special" way, which means you cannot just copy what somebody else did. Doing it in Paris or in the yard of Juliet works, but only if somebody close didn't do so recently.

(Most, of course, would not splurge on that journey, and then need to frame it more or less without such clichés – if they even want live up to the "special" expectation.)

–LPfi (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see this being the case, especially if certain social media sites like IG/TT are fueling overtourism in certain locations. At least that's often a deterrent for me. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes me think that there will be differential effects. One person will feel deterred, and another might think "It looks like they had such a nice time, and they look like me/we seem to like similar things/I identify with them in some way, so maybe I'll go there someday, too". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)