To start with my own personal opinion is; free sight-seeing is good for the economy. In effect if you can see something for free in another city or country you will stay longer and spend more overall. On the other hand if you have to pay $10 or more to enter and see any sight you will limit the total amount you spend and the time you stay in the city. The average tourists budget is generally limited and is used for souvenirs and other things as well, not just for sight-seeing.
Let's look at an example. Say you were going to London and you wanted to take in three of the best sights and they were; The Tower of London, The London Eye and Tower Bridge, how much would you pay? The Tower is £19.80, the Eye £18.90 and the bridge £8.00, that's a total of £46.70. It's quite a lot and converts at the time of writing to US $74.40, now it seems a lot more. Apart from the London Eye which is own by a major entertainment firm the other two are government owned and run. So the amounts you pay go directly to line the pockets of big business and directly to government coffers. Neither is good for the economy. Big business cut costs, offer lower pay and cut jobs all to make a bigger profit; and money direct to the government does not create or keep people in jobs. So clearly it is not good for the economy nor the people that tourism is supposed to help.
So what comes of this example? Well it is obvious as almost $75.00 come out of your travel budget you will stay in the city for less time, probably not have a night out at a good restaurant, nor spend a night at the pub or buy many expensive souvenirs. Because you spend less time in the city the little extras you might spend at a cafe, a quick pint of beer or two and the pastry or quick bite to eat as you wander around and experience a new place don't occur. Less money is spent that would go directly to small businesses and keep them and their employees in work. No, not good for the economy!
So let's take a look at another example. You get to London, you can do and see everything you want for free. You decide to stay an extra two or three days, and on one of those days you upgrade your hostel or you stay a night in a local B&B to treat yourself. You go for dinner at that nice restaurant you saw on the way to your hostel. Then you spend at few hours at the local pub, have a few pints and try some typical English pub food. Now you decide to buy a nice souvenir for yourself and your mum back home and maybe something for your little brother or sister. Due to all that walking around you've been doing each day, you've spent extra on snacks and drinks to get you through to dinner. So how much have you spent?
Extra 2 days Hostel $50.00
2 course Dinner $35.00
Night at Pub $45.00
Souvenirs $30.00
Snacks & Drinks $40.00
Total extra spent $200.00 (This is based on places I've been and current prices available in 2011)
Wow, an $200, so how does this work for the economy. The local small businesses have received your money directly and can pay their staff and keep them in employment and keep their own premises in profit. The government get their cut of 20% at $40 (which is only a few dollars less than they would have received if you visited their two sights in example 1), plus the income taxes from the workers. This does not consider the extra they would get from what you spent on the first two or three days you were in the city.
So which is better for the economy? Clearly it's the second example. You've helped small business and at the same time kept people in work, and you've also given the government their share which will be put to good use, we hope! Therefore it is obvious that free sight-seeing is good for the economy. However, it is also obvious that this wont happen, and in some places the city/government is re-introducing admission fees. The 'Forum Romani' in Rome is the classic example, free for many years but now you have to pay, a sad state of affairs indeed. I know I have very much simplified my argument, but in all honesty you should now see my point and where I'm coming from. What I'm showing is there are far more benefits to be gained by removing entry fees or even reducing them significantly than there is by leaving them as is, increasing them or sadly re-introducing them.
What's your options? Look for the free things to do in each city you visit and reduced the amount you spend and maybe see only one of the best sights, or see none of them at all and go where it's free. I experienced this and it started me on my own quest to find all that is free in Europe. But believe me it was hard, extremely hard to locate the free stuff to do. It's not contained in the one book and there's no website anywhere to be found containing the complete details per city. Not even the tourist offices of each city were helpful in this regard. I emailed them for information over a three year period and received basic and scattered details. So combined with my own travel and gathering what I could, I also contacted friends living all over Europe for information as well as asking friends going to Europe during the same 3 year period, to bring me back whatever they could find. Painstaking hours of maybe in the hundreds of hours searching and researching online was something else I did. Then when I received anything from any of my sources, I doubled and triple checked the details; opening hours, addresses, how to get there and essentially - ensured they were free. All of the information was collated and then rechecked over the past month or so and... I wrote my own PDF book! 'The Baldman's Free Travel 'Europe' 2012 Free Sites and travel tips'. And it's very unique and the only book containing all the free things to do in Europe.
Included in the book are Countries and cities where there was enough free sights/things to do to make a visit worthwhile. Not obscure out of the way things but central locations with very popular and great sights. I also decided not to include any city where one of the top 5 sights was not free. In the end there were 16 Countries and 40 Cities and over 600 free sites and things to do. There are large and small cities with 10 or more free things to do in most of them. There are sights where you can visit for free on certain days or at certain times. There are museums, galleries, churches, cathedrals, the best parks, great climbs, historical monuments, ancient ruins and the weird and wonderful sights. In the end the result was very pleasing and so much worth the 3 years of blood sweat and tears. Now I don't have to worry about entry fees. Instead of budgeting $100 for sight-seeing over 3 or more days per city, I either stay a few days longer with the same budget or stay the basic 3 days and just see the free stuff and spend more elsewhere. Was this a fruitless quest? I think not! It was hard but worth it, what I have produced will be beneficial for all travelers until governments get smarter and wiser with their tourist attractions.
Free sight-seeing is important and extremely good for the economy, it's not a case of if you build it... it's the case of what you have has been there for centuries,(especially Europe) it's all part of our shared culture and history... Make it free and we will come, we will stay longer and spend a great deal more. In the end the economy of that city or country will benefit from all the extra dollars the tourists will spend!
Happy Traveling
The Baldman
No comments:
Post a Comment