Heritage and tourism come together. Some nations attract tourists by exposing them to their ancient sites, arts, and traditions. Tourism can generate income and provide employment, which benefit enterprises and the economy. Over-tourism, however, will ruin cultural places, and their conservation for posterity will become uncertain. Governments are thus confronted with a paradox: must they promote tourism or conserve heritage through the closure of cultural sites from tourists?
There are numerous advantages of tourism. It generates employment, promotes local business, and earn revenue for the nation. When tourists visit cultural centers, they get to know about new places and cultures, and it assists in disseminating knowledge and awareness among various cultures. The funds gained from tourism can also be used for the maintenance and preservation of historical places.
However, mass tourism is bad for cultural heritage. Large groups of individuals can destroy old buildings, produce pollution, and even be disrespectful at times. Machu Picchu and Venice are two of the places that have been affected by such problems. In response to this, governments have placed restrictions on tourists in order to protect these places.
Closing or restricting entry to cultural destinations, nonetheless, can also save them. The fewer the visitors, the fewer the likelihood of their damage. But it can also cause in less revenue for their preservation and less exposure for people to learn about such cultures.
The best solution is to find a balance. Governments can promote sustainable tourism by controlling the number of tourists, encouraging visits during off-peak seasons, and offering virtual tours. Increasing the awareness of tourists on respecting cultural sites can also help.
In brief: though cultural heritage needs to be saved, hiding it from the world is not the solution. As a balance between preservation and tourism is achieved by governments, they can ensure that cultural gems are appreciated today and preserved for tomorrow.