4 ms·

I think the answer is clear, if not a bit brutal: raise prices for tourists. Tourism is a luxury, not a right, and if there is a perceived negative externality

I think the answer is clear, if not a bit brutal: raise prices for tourists. Tourism is a luxury, not a right, and if there is a perceived negative externality to Norway from overtourism, it should be mitigated in the market. There will be fewer people who are willing to go to Trolltunga if they are not a Norwegian resident and the price of entry is $200. Sidenote: I lived in Norway for a few years, gorgeous place but it does need to be preserved to keep its integrity.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Why should travel be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so be it. They can travel closer to home.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    And again: why should those privileges be reserved to the wealthy?
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      There are much more basic rights not being met across the globe before we can afford worrying about everybody having a yacht, a personal jet and close up time with Mona Lisa.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        That's not answering the question.
        mogadsheu 7y ago
        The other options besides increasing price would be: - lottery (example: powerball) - waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella) - application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?) or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Right. These are at least fair relative to wealth / income. And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists). Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
        UnFleshedOne 7y ago
        That is more of an indication that this unfairness exist in areas significantly more critical than ability to travel to popular spots than an answer, yes. I think we should be looking for answers in those areas (closer to being "rights") instead. This is not a whataboutism either, unless you can put that label on trying to focus on major showstoppers that bring whole system down before light cosmetic defects.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        The specific proposal, price-gating of access to notable tourist landmarks, directly and out of no fundamental necessity simply creates yet another wealth-based inequality. There's a difference between addressing greater wrongs, and questioning the creation of yet another instance.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  Travel involves real costs: flights, hotels, transport. How would you arrange a system where travel is allocated to everyone regardless of wealth?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Setting the price of a limited, nonfungible, price-inelastic good according to demand is the very definition of rent-seeking. There are, of course, alternatives to top tourism destinations. But allocating access to the top destinations on price alone, and where that price does not relate to underlying costs, strikes me as the essence of unfairness.
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
But an American travelling from the other side of the world emits a ton more CO2 than someone coming from Sweden, so just raising local prices don’t take into account the externalities.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Why should travel be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?

purple_ducks 7y ago
Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so be it. They can travel closer to home.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  And again: why should those privileges be reserved to the wealthy?
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    There are much more basic rights not being met across the globe before we can afford worrying about everybody having a yacht, a personal jet and close up time with Mona Lisa.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      That's not answering the question.
      - mogadsheu 7y ago
        The other options besides increasing price would be: - lottery (example: powerball) - waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella) - application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?) or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Right. These are at least fair relative to wealth / income. And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists). Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
      - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
        That is more of an indication that this unfairness exist in areas significantly more critical than ability to travel to popular spots than an answer, yes. I think we should be looking for answers in those areas (closer to being "rights") instead. This is not a whataboutism either, unless you can put that label on trying to focus on major showstoppers that bring whole system down before light cosmetic defects.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        The specific proposal, price-gating of access to notable tourist landmarks, directly and out of no fundamental necessity simply creates yet another wealth-based inequality. There's a difference between addressing greater wrongs, and questioning the creation of yet another instance.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Travel involves real costs: flights, hotels, transport. How would you arrange a system where travel is allocated to everyone regardless of wealth?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Setting the price of a limited, nonfungible, price-inelastic good according to demand is the very definition of rent-seeking. There are, of course, alternatives to top tourism destinations. But allocating access to the top destinations on price alone, and where that price does not relate to underlying costs, strikes me as the essence of unfairness.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago

But an American travelling from the other side of the world emits a ton more CO2 than someone coming from Sweden, so just raising local prices don’t take into account the externalities.