Follow up on my previous post on the new seven wonders (linked because I haven’t been able to get the related posts widget to work)
Newest Wonders of the World Prompt More Than Wonder from today’s New York Times is an interesting article.
“We believe there is a risk that these sites will become tourist attractions like Disneyland,” said Sue Williams, a Unesco spokeswoman, adding, “The campaign seemed quite commercially driven and another way to lure in more tourist dollars.”
While I understand the risk that over-development and over-touristing can damage a destination, it’s not as if any of these wonders are new destinations. That’s not to say precautions shouldn’t be taken to ensure their continued viability, but I think there’s a huge difference between tourists choosing to visit a destination due to this designation and them turning into Disneyland.
Holland America’s cruises will provide increased access but some such as Petra Jordan and Maachu Pichu are still more of a challenge to access. Significant time and money is required to visit all of the sites, with the possible exception of The Colosseum, and I’m not sure this new designation has/will receive enough attention in order to dramatically increase tourism in the manner in which UNESCO is worried.
Overall, I think this contest has created more controversy than I bet the creators imagined. Seems as if everyone has had something to say about the results, and it isn’t likely to end any time soon. Personally, I’m not that excited about the results – but I’m not as worried either. This summer’s class taught be more about the issues related to culture and heritage tourism, but I still am not convinced that increased visitors is necessarily always a bad thing.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially as they move forward with the nominations for the Natural Wonders. At the very least, I’m getting lots of fodder for my C&HT paper.
