Overtourism: National Parks in crisis

[cattledogkisses]

H and I have talked about this a lot, as we live near a very popular national park where the impact of so much tourism is starting to damage the natural environment of the park.  How do you strike a balance?

Across America, national parks and public lands are facing a crisis of popularity. Technology, successful marketing, and international tourism have brought a surge in visitation unlike anything seen before. In 2016 and 2017, the national parks saw an unprecedented 330.9 million visitors, the highest ever recorded. That’s not far off the US population itself.

Backcountry trails are clogging up, mountain roads are thickening with traffic, picturesque vistas are morphing into selfie-taking scrums. And in the process, what is most loved about them risks being lost.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/national-parks-america-overcrowding-crisis-tourism-visitation-solutions

[mcsangel2]

Not just national parks, although those are the sites that are suffering ecological damage. I think all popular tourist destinations around the world (like major cities in Europe) are developing problems from overtourism as well. Venice in particular comes to mind.

[cattledogkisses]

Nov 20, 2018 11:49:42 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

Not just national parks, although those are the sites that are suffering ecological damage. I think all popular tourist destinations around the world (like major cities in Europe) are developing problems from overtourism as well. Venice in particular comes to mind.

Oh absolutely.  We saw it in the area where we lived overseas where they would dock 4 cruise ships a day into this tiny little medieval city that didn't have the infrastructure or capacity to deal with that many people.  It was insane. 

[GilliC]

In the past few years, Norway has seen a huge spike in tourists at a few certain locations, due to social media. There are beautiful spots all over the country, but once somewhere shows up enough times on Instagram and Facebook, suddenly everyone wants to go to that specific spot.

Not only is the environment suffering, but it's also a safety risk as some of the places can be very difficult to reach (my SO has attempted the hike to Kjeragbolten twice and has had to turn back both times). The number of emergency mountain rescues has gone way up as ill-prepared tourists attempt long treks in dangerous weather.

[Vespasia]

Nov 20, 2018 12:35:43 GMT -5 GilliC said:

In the past few years, Norway has seen a huge spike in tourists at a few certain locations, due to social media. There are beautiful spots all over the country, but once somewhere shows up enough times on Instagram and Facebook, suddenly everyone wants to go to that specific spot.

Not only is the environment suffering, but it's also a safety risk as some of the places can be very difficult to reach (my SO has attempted the hike to Kjeragbolten twice and has had to turn back both times). The number of emergency mountain rescues has gone way up as ill-prepared tourists attempt long treks in dangerous weather.

I saw a picture like this of Trolltunga recently and it definitely turned me off visiting!

[cville]

The whole concept of parks as wild lands/preserve AND place of recreation has always been hard to balance, but it's getting so much worse. I worry that we will (as a globe) soon not have any wilds. Then what will our ecosystems do?

[bronxgirl]

This makes me feel even better about not going with DH to Yosemite before we go to Disneyland.

[dorothyinAus]

Tourist-caused damage is a real problem and it's getting worse in most places.

[MrsAxilla]

This is the NPS mission statement, which reflects its enabling legislation :

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

So yeah, that’s hard to balance.  Generally they’re looking at ways to expand services in already developed areas, like adding bathrooms in existing parking lots.  More parks will use shuttle buses to alleviate traffic or even close access to private vehicles on certain roads altogether.  And they’re going to require reservations for more things.  You already need them for certain campgrounds or tours, but they’re looking at trails and maybe even entry to the park, at some point.  

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 21:56:32 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

This is the NPS mission statement, which reflects its enabling legislation :

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

So yeah, that’s hard to balance.  Generally they’re looking at ways to expand services in already developed areas, like adding bathrooms in existing parking lots.  More parks will use shuttle buses to alleviate traffic or even close access to private vehicles on certain roads altogether.  And they’re going to require reservations for more things.  You already need them for certain campgrounds or tours, but they’re looking at trails and maybe even entry to the park, at some point.  

When we went to Muir Woods National Monument a few years ago, the parking lot was already full when we got there so we had to park in a remote lot and take a shuttle bus. We had to pay per person for the shuttle bus, but if we’d gotten there early enough to get into the parking lot, parking was free. That struck me as totally backwards.

[rupertpenny]

This is a huge problem in Iceland as well. The differences in tourism from when I was a kid to the last time I was there in 2015 were astounding. And I know it has only gotten worse, my dad was there in the spring and he sad it is already so much different that 2015.

I don't know how it will shake out because they have basically rebuilt their whole economy around tourism, but if they don't rein it in soon the environment will be destroyed.

[imojoebunny]

I feel like there are still a lot of areas in many National Parks that are undeveloped and not easily accessible to most tourist, which preserves a great deal of the wilderness aspect. Yes, the popular parts, the easily accessible, drive in places, are over run, but you still have lots of wilderness that isn't for animals to live in, and the more intrepid back country hikers to explore. We have a house near the Cohutta Wilderness and Chattahoochee National Forest. There are plenty of areas in those places where you won't see another person all day, but if you go to the popular attractions within those areas, you will see dozens, maybe hundreds, depending on which site you go to. Those tend to be the more developed, easier to get to, with the most services (good roads, bathrooms, easy trails, close drive in to pretty vistas).

Dig deeper, and there is a ton of wilderness, with trails that take more work, and have far fewer people. I have no problem with "drive by" opportunities for getting out in nature, they are great for young, old, and otherwise, not hikers, and they allow for people who would otherwise not experience the outdoors to dip their foot in the pool, while, also, supporting thousands of acres that they will never see. This is true in many National Parks, wilderness areas, ect. The drive by opportunities are mobbed, but the back country, is still the back country. I have no issue with tour buses/ Disney tram style vehicles only in parks that are crowded with cars (looking at you, Cade's Cove). I think that enhances the experience, cuts down on the danger to animals, and increases the ability to educate people when they get off the tram about leave no trace, and how to avoid interfering with wildlife.

[RoxMonster]

I love the national parks. This is definitely a huge problem, especially in the most-visited ones. It's a balancing act between wanting people to love and visit and experience our parks but also not ruining them and the wildlife. I have definitely had experiences in a national park where I felt more like I was at an amusement park, like visiting Zion and waiting in huge ass lines to get on the shuttles and basically hiking in a line of people on the popular trails. Plus then you have a lot of people not practicing LNT and being stupid about wildlife, taking photos where they shouldn't, etc.

Then on the other hand, we went to Theodore Roosevelt last summer, and it was amazingly peaceful and we had most of the trails and lookouts to ourselves. Seeing the buffalo in the road photo from the article in Yellowstone--we had the exact same experience in TRNP except there were only two other cars of people near us! We are actually planning a Yellowstone and Teton trip for this summer, and the amount of people does make me nervous, but I so badly want to see these beautiful parks. Just from an aesthetic and experience standpoint, it helps that if we go during high season, we try and stay in the park so we can visit popular trails in the early AM and evening when they are more peaceful. But obviously that doesn't help the overall situation. I think the reservation system mentioned in the article will have to be put into place at the most popular parks.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 20, 2018 22:10:12 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Nov 20, 2018 21:56:32 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

This is the NPS mission statement, which reflects its enabling legislation :

So yeah, that’s hard to balance.  Generally they’re looking at ways to expand services in already developed areas, like adding bathrooms in existing parking lots.  More parks will use shuttle buses to alleviate traffic or even close access to private vehicles on certain roads altogether.  And they’re going to require reservations for more things.  You already need them for certain campgrounds or tours, but they’re looking at trails and maybe even entry to the park, at some point.  

When we went to Muir Woods National Monument a few years ago, the parking lot was already full when we got there so we had to park in a remote lot and take a shuttle bus. We had to pay per person for the shuttle bus, but if we’d gotten there early enough to get into the parking lot, parking was free. That struck me as totally backwards.

As an individual, sure.  But from a park management perspective it makes sense.  It encourages people to plan ahead, get there early, enjoy, then clear out and make room for more visitors.  The impact of excess visitors is mitigated by the fees, which are not so exorbitant that most people can’t afford them.  Some people might be discouraged, but most people will either pay the fees or come back another day.  

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 22:56:28 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Nov 20, 2018 22:10:12 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

When we went to Muir Woods National Monument a few years ago, the parking lot was already full when we got there so we had to park in a remote lot and take a shuttle bus. We had to pay per person for the shuttle bus, but if we’d gotten there early enough to get into the parking lot, parking was free. That struck me as totally backwards.

As an individual, sure.  But from a park management perspective it makes sense.  It encourages people to plan ahead, get there early, enjoy, then clear out and make room for more visitors.  The impact of excess visitors is mitigated by the fees, which are not so exorbitant that most people can’t afford them.  Some people might be discouraged, but most people will either pay the fees or come back another day.  

But it seems to me that the shuttle bus should be free and parking should cost money to discourage people from driving their personal vehicles there.

[pixy0stix]

Nov 20, 2018 13:38:32 GMT -5 cville said:

The whole concept of parks as wild lands/preserve AND place of recreation has always been hard to balance, but it's getting so much worse. I worry that we will (as a globe) soon not have any wilds. Then what will our ecosystems do?

Our ecosystems are already rebelling. Look up habitat fragmentation. This study tells the story of just how bad it is - advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/2/e1500052

"Ultimately, they found that 70 percent of global forests lie within just half a mile of their edges, exposing woodland species to human developments and agriculture. Even worse, almost 20 percent of forested land has just 100 meters (the equivalent length of a football field) to buffer it from the outside world. “That means almost no forest can really be considered wilderness,” said study leader Dr. Nick Haddad from North Carolina State University...."


The flipside of the argument is, if you start charging more for entry, making it harder to visit the parks, charging for shuttles, etc. then the "unspoiled spaces" become just another habitat only accessible to the rich. That being said, I refuse visiting Rocky Mountain National Park anymore because it's so annoying seeing people trample all the fuck over the tundra et al. (For those that don't know, the tundra is a delicate ecosystem found above the tree line in the park. There are signs literally all over telling people to stay on the trail, because stepping off them can severely damage the ecosystem. Yet people let their kids run all the fuck over, or they have a picnic, or trample off the trail to play in the snow. It's super hard to watch when you know what all those assholes are doing to the environment.)

[LoveTrains]

I went to Acadia in Maine in summer 2017 and it was SO busy and full. There was no where for us to park at the top of Cadillac mountain.

[goldengirlz]

Nov 20, 2018 17:04:17 GMT -5 bronxgirl said:

This makes me feel even better about not going with DH to Yosemite before we go to Disneyland.

I did not enjoy my Yosemite experience. During high season, you might wait in a car line for literally hours before you get in unless you arrive super early (before 8am).

And then when we were inside it felt more crowded than Disney.

However, I absolutely love California’s state parks and we have some great ones. They’re like a third of the reason we moved. (The other two being job opportunities and, of course, weather.)

[pantsparty]

I get that there are cool and unique reasons to visit the national parks, but I think many people don't pay attention to what is within driving distance. There are lots of amazing, lesser known parks and trails where you can have more of an isolated experience. I would so much rather do that than shuffle along with a crowd of tourists. I also know we're spoiled here in California, but being that crowded in nature just feels wrong to me.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 20, 2018 23:07:06 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Nov 20, 2018 22:56:28 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

As an individual, sure.  But from a park management perspective it makes sense.  It encourages people to plan ahead, get there early, enjoy, then clear out and make room for more visitors.  The impact of excess visitors is mitigated by the fees, which are not so exorbitant that most people can’t afford them.  Some people might be discouraged, but most people will either pay the fees or come back another day.  

But it seems to me that the shuttle bus should be free and parking should cost money to discourage people from driving their personal vehicles there.

Yes, that does make total sense.  But I think you underestimate the user groups, and how that connects to the mission.  “Unimpaired” is a key attribute, and those who spend the night camped out or show up before dawn to photograph the sunrise, or watch the birds wake up, or listen to the wolves howl at the moon at midnight, or summit the peak before the storms roll in, or whatever...those user groups have successfully lobbied for their unimpaired access before the tourists show up at noon with their inappropriate footwear and selfie sticks.  It’s a difficult balance, you know?

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 20, 2018 23:25:29 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Nov 20, 2018 17:04:17 GMT -5 bronxgirl said:

This makes me feel even better about not going with DH to Yosemite before we go to Disneyland.

I did not enjoy my Yosemite experience. During high season, you might wait in a car line for literally hours before you get in unless you arrive super early (before 8am).

And then when we were inside it felt more crowded than Disney.

However, I absolutely love California’s state parks and we have some great ones. They’re like a third of the reason we moved. (The other two being job opportunities and, of course, weather.)

We did a backcountry camping trip when I was fourteen and I’m glad to have had that experience, but sad I can’t do it with my kids.

[wise_rita]

On the bright side (ecologically speaking) more dumb ass tourists are killing themselves by attempting risky selfies.

Life...uhh, finds a way.

[frlcb]

Nov 20, 2018 23:07:06 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Nov 20, 2018 22:56:28 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

As an individual, sure.  But from a park management perspective it makes sense.  It encourages people to plan ahead, get there early, enjoy, then clear out and make room for more visitors.  The impact of excess visitors is mitigated by the fees, which are not so exorbitant that most people can’t afford them.  Some people might be discouraged, but most people will either pay the fees or come back another day.  

But it seems to me that the shuttle bus should be free and parking should cost money to discourage people from driving their personal vehicles there.

Zion is like this from end of March I think through sometime in early Fall. Shuttle bus only in the park unless you are staying in the lodge.

[Deleted]

Yep. We live 50 minutes from RMNP and we hardly ever go there. It’s such a gorgeous park it’s just way too busy and no one listens to anything to help preserve the environment.