21st June 2010, 08:05 PM
It's a tricky one, as I'm sort of a 'heritage tourist', or was when I came here the first two times. How much do tourists contribute to the UK economy and could it survive without them? Would the money that flows in be replaced by something else or is access to heritage sites a reasonable swap for money to maintain them. A quick glance at the stats from the ONS site showed the following:
What part of that money would have to disappear if access to sites was limited due to the desire to not be Anglo-Disney? What level of wear and tear is acceptable? Should access to sites be income-driven, or is that just a subtle form of class-ism? Poor families not being able to access heritage sites mean that they aren't exposed to their own heritage while tourists blithely wander across the landscape?
Quote:Three-month trends (seasonally adjusted)So, even during the volcanic interruptions, the drop was only 5%, still accounting for almost ?4 billion. That's for one quarter, making tourism to the UK worth at least ?16 billion a year, as I would imagine the summer quarter and the winter one (holiday times) would be reasonably higher.
In February 2010 to April 2010, the seasonally adjusted number of visits by overseas residents to the UK decreased by 5 per cent to 7.1 million, when compared with the previous three months. Associated spending by overseas residents on visits to the UK decreased by 5 per cent to ?3.8 billion.
What part of that money would have to disappear if access to sites was limited due to the desire to not be Anglo-Disney? What level of wear and tear is acceptable? Should access to sites be income-driven, or is that just a subtle form of class-ism? Poor families not being able to access heritage sites mean that they aren't exposed to their own heritage while tourists blithely wander across the landscape?
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.