SURVEY: Should Thailand limit the number of Tourists?

[Scott]

There was a recent thread indicating that Thailand could face environmental degradation unless there were limits put on the number of tourists allowed at certain sites.   Which of these best describes your thoughts on the subject.

 

Please feel free to leave a comment and explain how best to accomplish any limitation you think should happen.  

 

Thread on the issue running here:

 

 

[Samui Bodoh]

Yes, there should be limits on the number of people permitted to visit certain special areas/sights. However, there is not a practical method of limiting overall tourism, nor should they even try.

 

In areas such as National Parks, it is reasonable to set limits on the numbers of visitors a day (many countries do this) and have a system whereby foreigners and Thais alike can share in the site.

 

In sites such as temples or palaces and the like, there could be a system of XX number of visitors an hour, and sell tickets for that particular hour. This would allow everyone to enjoy the sites and have an opportunity to see the place(s) on more than a superficial level. The difficulty is that we all know that Thai officials would use the limitations to enrich themselves, thus negating the benefit of such a system. Arghhhh!!!

 

In terms of overall tourism, I suspect that the free market will decide what the limit is, and thus the government and/or other authorities should stay out of it. In my particular case, I avoid tourist areas that I feel have been oversold or overused or over-visited; I just don't like the crowds and thus don't go. And I doubt that I am alone in that thought...

 

For special sites, impose limits and monitor strenuously for the (inevitable) corruption. In general tourism, the market will dictate what is do-able and what is too much; leave it alone to find the appropriate levels. 

 

[Ossy]

Talk about a cleft stick situation, this tourism dilemma that Thailand finds itself in is a cracker and it's all the fault of the country's lethargic approach to pretty well everything. As much as the economy needs the massive income that tourism generates, very little has been done at central or local government levels to properly cater for large tourist numbers, be it by way of support amenities and accommodation at the popular resorts and a transport infrastructure that can cope with large numbers, beyond a 20km radius of the capital.

Nothing other than the typical Thai lethargic lust for lolly has caused this mess and, now that the horse has all but bolted, it will take more than a little fixing, even by the sort of 'happy' government that growing numbers of Thais are starting to make repressive noises about.

Between a rock and a hard place or the devil and the deep sea, the TAT and Interior Ministries are going to find Thailand needs more than just soft, white sandy beaches and scantily clad drinks-fetchers . . . a tough nut to crack, indeed, if you'll pardon yet another indulgence of this cliche-rich topic.

[mok199]

living ground zero inpattaya,i can tell you the problem is not the tourists , it is much more than that...its the method of transporting tourists ,it is all the chaos from locals that create the noise and traffic issues...go to soi1 and beach rd on any given day and see for yourselves,,the tour groups just follow the flag.,and stand in a group.the noise is from the locals screaming to be noticed,the speed boats reving their engines in shallow water to create a noise like a formual 1 car,again to be noticed..the wall of tour buses parked 3 a breast, belching out smoke and heat,the bullies selling sunglasses that block the  tour bus doors so people detraining the buses must walk around them,the parasail gang that eat and yell and throw their garbage on the street,but this ''in your face'' method is the norm for most asians....even if you reduce the number of tourists ,the locals will still remain.and the chaos they create will only get worse as now they compete for a smaller pie...Thailand opened the door to this,,do not blame the chinses for all the problems associated with the BOOM..soon the casinos will be here ..then what..DEAL WITH IT PATTAYA..

Edited February 4, 2018 by mok199
speliing

[yellowboat]

Attractions Yes, country No

[moonseeker]

Mostly a problem of incompetence dealing with the basic infrastructure. Just have a look around Pattaya, rubbish, stench, pollution, chaos pur. Why would any quality tourist go to that town? Amazing they are doing So well as they do... MS>

[hansnl]

Tourism can be beneficial to the lives of the poor.

The governmental push for mass tourism from certain countries is only beneficial for the rich, and will ultimately destroy the fabric of the country.

[PhonThong]

The best approach would be to keep the locals out of the tourist areas. It would be much more pleasant. Cleaner and quieter. 

[Peterw42]

The survey is at odds with all the "Phuket is dead", Pattaya is empty" "what happend to high season" posts. There are threads every week about the decline of tourism, empty bars, empty restaurants, empty Condo blocks etc.

 

I wish people would make up their minds, lol.

[worgeordie]

Thailand will not restrict numbers,when there is so

much money involved,it's as simple as that.

regards worgeordie

[Pib]

Tourists are not the problem; effective policies in managing tourism at the local and national levels is the problem.   

 

Thailand doesn't do effective policies and management very well.

 

Limiting the number of tourists would be like cutting off your nose to spite you face.

 

 

[champers]

The market will set the limits on numbers. The increasing growth of visitors; from mainly China and India; will be met with more hotel rooms built for them. My concern is whether local infrastructures can keep up.

[gamini]

28 minutes ago, moonseeker said:

Mostly a problem of incompetence dealing with the basic infrastructure. Just have a look around Pattaya, rubbish, stench, pollution, chaos pur. Why would any quality tourist go to that town? Amazing they are doing So well as they do... MS>

Let's face it. They go there to see the world largest sex supermarket, the utter decadence, the ugly old sexpats, the ladyboys, the sex shows and perhaps the excitement of mingling with the riffraff of pimps, criminals and other undesirable people who live there. It certainly is not the beach or the polluted water. There is no place in the world like it.

[Enoon]

 

 

16 minutes ago, gamini said:

Let's face it. They go there to see the world largest sex supermarket, the utter decadence, the ugly old sexpats, the ladyboys, the sex shows and perhaps the excitement of mingling with the riffraff of pimps, criminals and other undesirable people who live there. It certainly is not the beach or the polluted water. There is no place in the world like it.

 

It's called "Slumming".

 

"To visit impoverished areas or squalid locales, especially out of curiosity or for amusement."

 

"Slumming crossed not only ethnic and class lines, but sexual lines as well. “That is, a spectatorship of sexualized groups,” Professor Heap said. He noted that people would go and gawk at prostitutes, gays, lesbians and cross-dressers. It allowed many in the upper middle class to explore sexual identities without the constraints of their own neighborhoods."

 

6 days of it commencing tomorrow for me.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Enoon

[connda]

Yeah, ecologically sensitive areas need to be protected.  However, if limits were put on tourism, as a tourist, it would effect my decision where to vacation.  Although I live in Thailand, if I wanted a real beach and scuba vacation, I'd travel out of Thailand to have it.  I've seen the reefs around Thailand and they are pretty bad, at least where I've gone. Then, the surf sucks. 

[Oziex1]

Many restrictions are necessary to avoid the now almost irreversible damage to the countries Eco systems.

 

I fear any restrictions will simply be bypassed in the usual ways.

[Antonymous]

While restrictions and better management in sensitive ecological areas and areas of natural beauty seem sensible, were they to be imposed, it would be the tour groups only who would get the limited access. That sucks.

[mok199]

37 minutes ago, gamini said:

Let's face it. They go there to see the world largest sex supermarket, the utter decadence, the ugly old sexpats, the ladyboys, the sex shows and perhaps the excitement of mingling with the riffraff of pimps, criminals and other undesirable people who live there. It certainly is not the beach or the polluted water. There is no place in the world like it.

rubbish..you are clueless..

[abrahamzvi]

Having voted no, I would add that Thailand should use more vetting on the nature of tourists entering the Kingdom. When walking in some streets or beaches of Pattaya, Koh Samui and others like Kausan Rd in Bangkok, one sometimes can get the wrong impression of this beautiful country. I really don't know how they do it but, even in this part of the world in places like Bali or Singapore, or even Penang, Malaysia, one sees some more civilises tourists.

[Aviatorhi]

3 hours ago, mok199 said:

soon the casinos will be here ..then what..DEAL WITH IT PATTAYA..

Deal with what?

[mikebell]

Yes they should set limits on tourism.  It is patently obvious that some Immigration offices are patently overwhelmed by tourists; driving licence centres take Thais first then some farangs must return the following day; Thailand's roads are overwhelmed by traffic; Thai cops are spoilt for choice.

[Aviatorhi]

2 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

The survey is at odds with all the "Phuket is dead", Pattaya is empty" "what happend to high season" posts. There are threads every week about the decline of tourism, empty bars, empty restaurants, empty Condo blocks etc.

 

I wish people would make up their minds, lol.

"Independent" tourism is definitely on the way out. Package tours and cruise ships are the future because someone started giving money to the peasants and they don't know what else to do with it.

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

Tourists are not the problem; effective policies in managing tourism at the local and national levels is the problem.   

 

Thailand doesn't do effective policies and management very well.

 

Limiting the number of tourists would be like cutting off your nose to spite you face.

 

 

Pib, Thailand is cutting of it's nose to spite it's face by making under fifties long stay tourists jump through unnecessary hoops. According to Thai immigration, the main reason is they want to stop illegal workers, which I think they are right to do, but they won't get off their asses and check up on factories and schools etc,etc, and punish the people who hire them. Again, brown envelopes spring to mind.

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

The survey is at odds with all the "Phuket is dead", Pattaya is empty" "what happend to high season" posts. There are threads every week about the decline of tourism, empty bars, empty restaurants, empty Condo blocks etc.

 

I wish people would make up their minds, lol.

Ever heard of zero baht tours ?

[thaibeachlovers]

It's too late to limit the tourists, unless it's something stupid like have to have a big bank balance.

At the moment just a few places host most of the tourists, but they really need to sort the infrastructure for the numbers. Chiang Mai just can't cope with all the tour groups, as the infrastructure is entirely inadequate. Hasn't been improved since I first came over 40 years ago.

They don't even have a proper bus service. Ridiculous.

Edited February 4, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

Having voted no, I would add that Thailand should use more vetting on the nature of tourists entering the Kingdom. When walking in some streets or beaches of Pattaya, Koh Samui and others like Kausan Rd in Bangkok, one sometimes can get the wrong impression of this beautiful country. I really don't know how they do it but, even in this part of the world in places like Bali or Singapore, or even Penang, Malaysia, one sees some more civilises tourists.

Good grief, how are you going to vet visa exempt arrivals, or people that come over the border by land? Loads of Malaysians on short stays in Hat Yai for some fun.

 

I have to laugh when you identify Pattaya, Koh Samui and others like Kausan ( Khao San ) Rd as problems, when they are where the worst tourists gather ( you missed Patong, Phi Phi and Had Rin ). Try getting away from tourist traps and see Thailand beyond the crowds.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[doodle]

It would be a good idea to get rid of the comma in the last poll question.........

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Oziex1 said:

Many restrictions are necessary to avoid the now almost irreversible damage to the countries Eco systems.

 

I fear any restrictions will simply be bypassed in the usual ways.

the now almost irreversible damage to the countries Eco systems

caused by the THAIS. Yes tourists do damage but only because the Thais take them places that can't cope. Coral reefs are destroyed because THAIS throw anchors on the coral. No tourists are crewing the speedboats. Maya Bay is destroyed because too many boats driven by Thais go there.

I've been to scenic areas that tourists never go that have been destroyed by locals throwing their garbage everywhere. Samet is a rubbish tip because the locals throw their rubbish everywhere.

[ToddinChonburi]

How do most countries seem to regulate this stuff ?  Only so many hotel rooms.  Regulate speed boats and ferries.  

[Brunolem]

It's too late, and it's probably gonna get worse.

The Chinese are actively building a high speed rail across Laos, and soon much larger numbers of "high quality" tourists will flood Thailand, while the few remaining Westerners will probably go somewhere else.

 

Thailand has been beating its chest for years...10 million, 12 million, 20 million...tourists, giving priority to quantity over quality, and here are the results.

This can't be reversed...except maybe if things go nuclear in Northeast Asia...

 

All this talking is very similar to what we have heard for years regarding Pattaya: too many bars, too many prostitutes, how can we reduce that, should we close Walking Street and rebuild the beach?

 

Well, if after twenty years, they have not been able to deal with a few thousand prostitutes, how could they keep in check millions of tourists?

Edited February 4, 2018 by Brunolem