NatGeo Destination Scorecard

Page 1

Destination Scorecard 115 Places Rated

Development, pollution, globalization, mass tourism—are the world’s great places still...great? TRAVELER introduces a new way to see how well your destination is coping with the 21st century. By Jonathan B. Tourtellot

PETER GUTTMAN/CORBIS

orway’s fjords, Tasmania, Vermont, and Tuscany look to be in relatively good shape. Not so for the Costa del Sol, Phuket, and Key West. In cases like Cape Cod, opinion is divided. That’s all according to an unusual new survey, whose results yield what TRAVELER believes to be the world’s first Index of Destination Stewardship. Ever since travel began booming after World War II, development pressures, environmental problems, civil strife, cultural erosion, and, yes, mass tourism have increasingly challenged the integrity of destinations worldwide. “Unspoiled” is a description you hear less and less. Which great places have remained great by protecting themselves against these trends? Which have failed? To find out, TRAVELER worked with the National Geographic’s Sustainable Tourism Initiative and a graduate team from Leeds Metropolitan University in England to conduct a

N Authenticity 21st century style: An outboard outrigger ferries tourists across a Tahitian lagoon. Despite a name once synonymous with paradise, Tahiti made a poor score on the stewardship index due to overdevelopment. 60

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER

complex global survey of over 200 specialists in sustainable tourism and destination quality. We asked these experts to evaluate 115 of the world’s best known places based on six criteria that pertain to cultural, environmental, and aesthetic integrity (“About the Survey,” page 67). The scores that follow, based on a 1-to-100 scale, reflect their opinions. For each destination, symbols show which factors most influenced their judgments. No destination rated 90 or above (“unspoiled and likely to remain so”), but none fell into the “catastrophic” under-20 range either. Destinations in the best shape face relatively few threats or, significantly, have learned how to handle them. Those at the low end have lost much, but could perhaps recover. We expect that this index will generate a lot of discussion, even a few arguments. That’s fine, if it gets everyone, especially policymakers, to think more about wise stewardship of the places 61 we love. The future of travel depends on it.


Norwegian Fjords

Tight land-use codes protect Tuscan landscapes that seem to come from an artist’s brush. “A genuine, cultured atmosphere,” adds one panelist, Prof. A.P. Grima, University of Toronto.

fa ct or s

TWOIPL D SCORES

THE GOOD

t’s no surprise that Norway’s fjords, rated at 82, lead the top-scoring destinations, thanks to a combination of luck and wise stewardship. Geography dealt the Norwegian coastline a good hand when it comes to remaining unspoiled. Rugged terrain, cool, wet climate, difficult access, and a short tourist season keep development pressures comparatively low. (Note how other “cool-fjord coasts” in Chile and New Zealand also scored well.) It helps, too, to be in a sparsely populated country with one of the world’s best environmental track records (although even here some experts took points off for excessive cruise-ship traffic and threats to native salmon). More instructive perhaps is ever popular Tuscany, which managed a respectable 71 (“minor difficulties”) despite its attractive climate, fabulous cultural attractions, and easy access—often a formula for dismaying overdevelopment. What’s Tuscany’s secret? History helped: The Industrial Revolution chanced to skip over this Italian region, leaving intact its trademark landscape of handtended fields, vineyards, and olive groves, all draped over a softly

I

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER

muscled topography. Even so, subdivisions might have long ago ruined the painterly scenery had Tuscans not adopted some of the world’s toughest land-use and building codes: In scenic zones, local regulations limit buildings to two stories, inhibit subdivision, and govern aesthetics, including which colors you can paint your house. Locals chafe under the rules, but let them stand. Shouldn’t people be allowed to build what they want on their own property, even if it’s ugly? Answers Alessandro Marangoni, in the region’s economic development office, “Then it hurts the value of my house.” Sensitivity to preserving sense of place extends even to such unobtrusive forms of tourism as farm stays. The government encourages agriturismo to help small farms stay in business, but wants authenticity: The farmer’s tax breaks and low-interest loans disappear if the family lets its tourism business exceed its farm revenue. The current minister of tourism, Susanna Cenni, even frets about Chianti villages that have become too cutesy. She’s seeking ways to revive authentic rural businesses in the area. If only other destinations had such problems . . . .

SANDRO SANTIOLI; DALLAS AND JOHN HEATON/CORBIS (OPPOSITE, UPPER) , KATHLEEN BROWN/CORBIS (LOWER)

Remote geography helps some high-scoring destinations stay unspoiled. Other places have learned how to cope with popularity.

62

“This place is wonderful: living traditional culture, wonderful landscape, not crowded. I am very happy with how this destination is managed. Excellent environmental quality, local people involved in a very smooth way.” —Panelist Eduardo

ke y

Stewardship Index

sc or e ra nk

Destination Scorecard Norwegian fjords

82

1

Cape Breton Island, Canada

78

2

; ; ?

South Island, New Zealand

78

2

Torres del Paine, Chile

78

2

Tasmania, Australia

77

3

?

Rocky Mountain parks, Canada

76

4

?

Scottish Highlands, United Kingdom

75

5

Kruger National Park, South Africa

74

6

; ;

Kyoto historic district, Japan

74

6

?

Quebec City historic center, Canada

74

6

; ; ?

Vermont, USA

74

6

?

Bay of Islands, New Zealand

73

7

Heidelberg, Germany

73

7

Laurentian Highlands, Quebec-Canada

73

7

; ;

Salzburg historic center, Austria

72

8

; ;

Alpine regions, Switzerland

71

9

Charleston, SC, historic center, USA

71

9

?

Colorado Rockies, USA

71

9

?

Dubrovnik, Croatia

71

9

Easter Island, Chile

71

9

; ;

Fez historic center, Morocco

71

9

; ;

Inside Passage, Alaska/Canada

71

9

Maine coast, USA

71

9

Northern California coast (Marin-Eureka)

71

9

?

Ring of Kerry, Ireland

71

9

; ;

Tuscany, Italy

71

9

Vermont

Uluru (Ayer’s Rock) area, Australia

71

9

; ; ?

Yellowstone, USA

71

9

?

Baden Baden, Germany

70

10

“One of the few places where a large percentage of the populace is committed to conservation/ preservation over injudicious development.” —Panelist Tom Clynes,

Bavarian Alps, Germany

70

10

Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles

70

10

; ;

Krakow historic center, Poland

70

10

; ;

Brittany, France

69

11

; ;

Four Corners (Colorado Plateau), USA

69

11

?

Loire Valley, France

69

11

; ;

MIDDLE SCORES

St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

69

11

?

Guanajuato, Gto., Mexico

68

12

Cotswolds, United Kingdom

67

13

Key for symbols

environmental conditions

; ;

?

GREEN = good rating

social/cultural integrity

YELLOW = warning

condition of historic structures

RED = bad rating

aesthetics tourism management outlook

Nycander, Rainforest Expeditions

travel author


Mont-St.-Michel, France, rates well for historic preservation, poorly for overcrowding and environmental neglect that filled its bay with silt, and moderately well for outlook, as plans move ahead to restore the bay.

fa ct or s

WIIDLDDL E S C O R E S ( C O N T I N U E D ) M

NOT SO BAD

Mid-scoring destinations remain attractive, but with worrisome degradation. Some places are doing something about it. Some aren’t.

T

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER

problems in the surrounding bay are finally being addressed. If that effort succeeds, this score should go up in years to come. The Maya ruin of Tikal and its associated tourist town of Flores in Guatemala also present two faces, but the area as a whole received many comments in the not-yet-disastrous vein. While acknowledging the beauty of Tikal, experts zeroed in on numerous problems: underappreciated ecological wonders, poor information for visitors, growing danger from deliberate forest burn-off, lack of tourism benefit for locals, pollution in Flores, inadequate destination management, and hotels without environmental controls. “It’s not too late to save,” summed up one travel writer. Some destinations were judged against their reputations. Costa Rica’’s surprisingly mediocre score, for instance, reflected a widely held feeling that poor tourism management and widespread deforestation does not match the image of an ecotourism leader that the country likes to project. “Not too late to save.” It’s a good summary for all these middlezone destinations.

PHILIP GOULD/CORBIS, SERGIO PESSOLANO (OPPOSITE UPPER) , GERALD FRENCH/CORBIS (LOWER)

he many destinations receiving mid-range scores, 55 to 69, fall into two camps: those with strong positives canceled out by equally strong negatives, and those with lots of notable, but not yet disastrous, negatives. Some of those in the first group are destinations with two faces. At Yosemite, for instance, experts noted the park’s divided personality: Its gorgeous scenery and backcountry versus traffic and crowding in Yosemite Valley. The park’s new methods for coping with high visitation there, such as expanded shuttle service and fewer parking lots, did receive cautious praise. On Cape Cod, similarly, a national seashore protects the outer beaches and much of the peninsula’s forearm, but development, including hundreds of vacation homes, has ballooned to occupy virtually every unprotected stretch of shoreline and much of an interior that was semiwilderness just 50 years ago. For France’s Mont-St.-Michel, raves for historic preservation contrasted with numerous complaints about high-season hordes, tacky souvenir shops, and the like. Many experts noted that environmental 64

ke y

Stewardship Index

sc or e ra nk

Destination Scorecard Galápagos, Ecuador

67

13

?

San Juan Islands, WA, USA

67

13

Great Barrier Reef, Australia

66

14

?

Machu Picchu, Peru

66

14

Rhine Valley, Germany

66

14

?

Yosemite Valley, USA.

66

14

?

Amsterdam historic center, Netherlands

65

15

; ;

British Virgin Islands

65

15

?

Cuzco historic center, Peru

65

15

; ; ?

Grand Canyon, USA

65

15

Isle of Wight, United Kingdom

65

15

?

Salvador (Bahia) historic center, Brazil

65

15

; ;

Cuzco, Peru

Costa Rica

64

16

?

Lake District, United Kingdom

64

16

?

Petra, Jordan

64

16

?

Prague historic center, Czech Republic

64

16

; ;

“Great Inca and colonial town, but in serious trouble . . . . Without real protection and lack of local involvement. Numbers of tourists seem more highly valued than delivery of quality experiences.”—Panelist Lieve Coppin, consultant

Bahamian Out Islands

63

17

California wine country, USA

63

17

Cape Cod, U.S.A.

63

17

?

Iguaçu Falls, Argentina/Brazil

63

17

Mid-coast CA (Santa Barbara–Monterey)

63

17

?

Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

63

17

; ; ?

Capri, Italy

62

18

Fiji

62

18

?

Hawaii

62

18

; ; ?

Pompeii, Italy

62

18

Amalfi Coast, Italy

61

19

Borobudur, Indonesia

61

19

?

Mont-St.-Michel, France

61

19

?

Porto historic center, Portugal

61

19

St. Lucia

61

19

?

Sea of Cortez and its coast, Mexico

61

19

?

Tikal/Flores, Guatemala

61

19

Dead Sea, Israel/Jordan

60

20

?

Lake Tahoe, USA

60

20

Great Wall, China

59

21

Lake Titicaca, Bolivia/Peru

59

21

; ;

Azure Coast, Turkey

58

22

Bali, Indonesia

58

22

; ;

Key for symbols

environmental conditions

; ;

?

GREEN = good rating

social/cultural integrity

YELLOW = warning

condition of historic structures

RED = bad rating

aesthetics tourism management outlook

Yosemite Valley, California “Fantastic natural area, plagued by overuse and crowding during summer season.”—Panelist Kelly Bricker, University of West Virginia and former tour operator


St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. fa ct or s

“Massive overvisitation by massive cruise ships.” —Andrew Drumm, The

ke y

Stewardship Index Benidorm exemplifies the heavy footprint of package tourism on Spanish islands and coasts. Cheap hotel sprawl prompted low scores for the Canaries, Balearics, Costa Brava, and Costa del Sol.

sc or e ra nk

Destination Scorecard

Nature Conservancy

“Hard to differentiate St. Thomas from an overcrowded Florida shopping mall.” —Cary Wolinsky, photographer

WIIDLDDL E S C O R E S ( C O N T I N U E D ) M Reef and islands of Belize

58

22

?

Corfu (Kerkira), Greece

57

23

Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt

57

23

Annapurna Circuit, Nepal

56

24

; ; ?

Masai Mara, Kenya

56

24

; ; ?

Rajasthan, India

56

24

; ;

St. Petersburg historic center, Russia

56

24

?

Barbados

55

25

Crete, Greece

55

25

?

Havana historic center, Cuba

55

25

Ngorongoro crater, Tanzania

55

25

; ;

Amboseli, Kenya

54

26

?

Aruba

54

26

; ;

Everglades, USA

54

26

?

Hue, Vietnam

53

27

LOW E R S C O R E S

GETTING UGLY

Loved to death? Or exploited to death? Both could apply to low-scoring victims of crowding, poor planning, and greed. Still, there’s hope.

L

66

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER

and each other than in the country they happen to be visiting. Different threats place other low-scoring destinations at risk: excess popularity (the Acropolis and the Great Smokies), political or civil strife (Bethlehem), poorly planned mass sightseeing (Angkor), encroaching urban development (the Pyramids), inappropriate tourism development (Great Smokies again—i.e., Gatlinburg), even sea-level rise from global warming (Venice). This Stewardship Index is intended to be a wake-up call. Low scoring places can learn from high-scorers, and many of the destinations on the facing page have begun to take countermeasures. Often, though, it’s very, very late in the game. Jamaica’s resort town of Negril, for instance, has a vigorous reef-restoration program—now that as much as 90 percent of its reef has died, due to both local and global factors. Negril may be working on reform, but in many travel paradises greed and shortsightedness still rule. Unless that attitude changes, countless destinations remain golden-egg-laying geese, filing down the path to the chopping block.

GLENN CAMPBELL/GETTY IMAGES, JOEL W. ROGERS/CORBIS (OPPOSITE)

ook at the bottom 11 entries on the index: Every one of these low-scorers are sun-and-sand shorelines and islands. Behind that lurks an arithmetic reality: The population of beach-lovers is ever growing, and there’s only so much seacoast to go around. A rising demand for a finite resource calls for wise stewardship. Unfortunately, bulldozers often come before brains when quick profits beckon. One textbook example is Spain’s Costa del Sol—the overbuilt “Costa del Concrete,” which caters to package tours from northern Europe, and where you can hear more English or German than Spanish. As with many uncontrolled seashores, a nonstop line of characterless hotels blocks off the coastline. Proving such a tide can be turned, one Majorcan town has now razed a few hotels. On any attractive shore, if no policies exist to cluster masstourism hotels, or preserve traditional towns and open space, resort sprawl tends to take over. Community leaders in a few such destinations have begun to recognize the problem, asking how best to handle hordes of tourists who are more interested in sun, rum,

Tahiti

53

27

Angkor, Cambodia

52

28

Canary Islands

52

28

; ;

Outer Banks, NC, USA

52

28

Victoria Falls, Zambia/Zimbabwe

52

28

; ;

Acropolis, Greece

51

29

Chang Mai, Thailand

51

29

; ;

Pyramids, Giza, Egypt

51

29

About the Survey valuating an entire destination requires weighing such subtle issues as aesthetic appeal and cultural integrity, as well as balancing good points against bad. No simplistic numerical measures could do justice to the task. The best solution was to turn to informed human judgment. We convened a global panel of over 200 experts in a variety of fields—ecology, sustainable tourism, geography, urban and regional planning, travel writing and photography, historic preservation, cultural anthropology, archaeology—all well traveled enough to have a good basis for comparing destinations against each other. We asked experts to evaluate only those places with which they were familiar, using six criteria weighed as appropriate to each destination: environmental and ecological quality; social and cultural integrity; condition of any historic buildings and archaeological sites; aesthetic appeal; quality of tourism management; and the outlook for the future. For places where experts disagreed widely, a second round of scoring used a version of a

Balearic Islands, Spain

50

30

; ; ?

Great Smoky Mountains, USA

49

31

Venice, Italy

49

31

; ;

Bethlehem, Israel/Palestine

48

32

; ; ?

French Riviera

48

32

Algarve, Portugal

46

33

Caribbean Coast, Q.R., Mexico

46

33

; ;

Costa Brava, Spain

46

33

?

Negril, Jamaica

46

33

North coast, Dominican Republic

46

33

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

45

34

?

Key West, FL, USA

43

35

?

Phuket area, Thailand

43

35

; ;

North coast, Jamaica

42

36

?

Costa del Sol, Spain

41

37

?

Key for symbols

environmental conditions

; ;

?

GREEN = good rating

social/cultural integrity

YELLOW = warning

condition of historic structures

RED = bad rating

aesthetics tourism management outlook

E

research tool called the Delphi technique, whereby panelists anonymously exchange further comments about the place and then re-score accordingly. The index, then, is a compilation of informed judgments and perceptions about places that may themselves have many faces. It should be taken as such. In low-scoring Key West, for example, you can still find an eco-friendly conch farm and plenty of back-street charm; high-scoring Tuscany still must cope with a badly polluted Arno River and summer overcrowding in Florence and Siena. Like the cards that Olympic judges hold up, our experts’ scores take into account both measurable accomplishment and the intangibles of style, aesthetics, and culture. And like Olympic athletes, each destination has a chance to improve its performance.

Daniel Chang, Elizabeth Parisian, Leeds Metropolitan University, and many others helped with this study. For a list of panelists and more of their observations, see nationalgeographic.com/traveler.

67


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.