Skip to main content

Vacationers spoil (ruin?) a country........like in Bali

It is that time of the year when many people around the world have taken off to foreign parts to enjoy a break from work.   For those living in cold climates the lure of warmth in far away places, like Bali, is not only enticing but the opportunity to experience the exotic.  But what about the locals?  

In the op-piece in The Guardian the writer poses the question of who invited us to Bali - and details the cost to the local community arising from an invasion of tourists.

"This summer, many of us are heading overseas. Australians are the world’s largest spenders on international travel on a per capita basis. In 2012, one in three of us headed overseas.

After New Zealand, the most popular destination is Indonesia, or rather Bali. Close to a million Australians will visit Indonesia this year, many in the summer holiday peak. They form the largest single group of overseas tourists to Bali, accounting for around 25% of foreign arrivals.

Is tourism creating a problem?

Bali is a relatively small island, but it is densely populated – especially as domestic migrants come from across Indonesia to work in the booming tourist economy. Yet the domestic population is dwarfed by the influx of tourists. It is expected that 2013 will be a record year for tourist arrivals, with roughly 4m foreign arrivals and over 3m domestic tourists.

Although Balinese society and culture has proven resilient in the face of the tourist onslaught, signs of tension are increasing. As hosts, locals don’t want to offend their guests; nor do they want to risk alienating them for fear they will take their tourist dollars elsewhere. Yet the environmental, social and cultural impacts of tourism are being felt across the island."


Continue reading here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...