SHARE
COPY LINK

TOURISM

‘More local, more authentic’: How can Italy move toward responsible tourism in future?

As Italy gets reacquainted with tourism after the pandemic, the country's biggest destinations have had a chance to rethink the way things are done. American writer Mark Hinshaw in Italy's Marche region looks at how the industry could become more responsible and sustainable, and at what's already changing.

‘More local, more authentic’: How can Italy move toward responsible tourism in future?
Visitors have returned to Italian hotspots like Venice - but are those cities now changing their attitudes to mass tourism? Photo: Miguel Medina/AFP

Yesterday we ate in a nice restaurant. 

Eighteen months ago had I written such a mundane, boring sentence, I would have likely tapped the “Delete” key forthwith. However, it is entirely amazing how much pleasure there is sitting at a table covered with cloth and scattered with platters of well-prepared foods. 

We chatted with the staff, and the cook (the mom of the household) made us a complimentary special dish – a totally unexpected “thank you” for sticking with them when all they could do to survive was offer take-out and delivery in aluminum boxes. Those meals were good but I realized how quickly the taste can recede when there is an intervening period of even five minutes while in transit.

So we were smiling and laughing and having a splendid time over a typical two hour Italian pranzo. One writer recently compared this period to the end of Prohibition, when everyone felt released from its imposed strictures. But of course, we had to do it. 

I am hugely relieved whenever I see that the rates of Covid infection and death for Italy are almost back down to zero. It is predicted that the entire Apennine Peninsula and its nearby islands will soon be designated a “white” zone – meaning the removal of almost all restrictions.

EXPLAINED: What are the rules in Italy’s coronavirus ‘white zones’?

Of course, what this also means is a soon-to-be tsunami of tourism. We are eager to welcome back our relatives and friends and colleagues who, pre-pandemic, were a frequent part of our lives. 

One of the few benefits of this long disruption of human behavior (aside from saving lives) is that places that were hot destinations for visitors have been able to rethink how they manage the seasonal inundations.  

Photo: Miguel Medina/AFP

Friends in Florence report that, so far as they know, the city’s famed museums and galleries are still looking to spread artworks around to various venues in the area so that crowds can be dispersed and more locales can benefit from spending by visitors. 

There is really no reason why everything has to be jammed into the centro storico, while waiting crowds perch on every horizontal surface and eat in overpriced restaurants.

Mark Michanowicz, an American who has lived in Venice for decades, operates local tours and events on traditional sailing craft. He gave me his rundown on efforts there. The initial attempt to use turnstiles to meter out the crowds just created chaos and was abandoned. Now, fees are likely to be tacked onto the costs of various activities and tickets. Already, the main cathedral charges an entry fee when it was free before the pandemic. 

READ ALSO: Virus-hit Venice delays planned tourist tax until 2022

These measures may be slow in coming because few places have yet to see massive influxes. It will take a while for numbers to ramp back up; all aspects of the tourism industry have to calibrate their business models. To be sure, the future won’t be a continuation of the past. 

The gargantuan cruise ships were kicked out of Venice, as they had no business entering the Giudecca Canal simply for the effortless photo ops that a view of San Marco gave their sedentary passengers. No longer will the delicate, ancient scale of the city be overwhelmed by floating behemoths. The city and the national government are now in hot debate about where to put them; there are few places where they are not problematic by some measure. 

But good riddance; ten cruise ships at the port at the same time, disgorging 15,000 people, is almost obscene. Unfortunately, Venice may see a few more ships docking in the center until a new location is prepared.

READ ALSO: ‘They’re back’: First cruise ship in 17 months arrives in Venice

The MSC Orchestra cruise ship was the first to arrive in Venice in 17 months, on June 3rd, 2021. Photo: Miguel Medina/AFP

My hope is that, eventually, the vast, charmless port area of the island, which is largely used for parking cars and which most tourists never see, can be turned into real neighborhoods, allowing Venetian families to return to the city that had been consumed with airbnbs –  almost ruining the place by turning it into an absurdly pricey theme park. 

A whole new quarter could contain just homes and shops – no hotels, no visitor attractions, no over-priced restaurants with trite tourist menus. Just quiet streets and squares for ordinary people to live, like Venice used to have not long ago. 

Perhaps local artisans would even return, instead of the low-quality blown glass molded into cheap trinkets small enough for airline carry-on bags.

Several regions in Italy have been considering how they can attract visitors but without having everyone pile into the same damn locations. One thing that would help immensely is if travel writers would stop lazily doing their “Top Ten” lists — which are always the same places. Does the world really need another article about “Discovering the Cinque Terre” or the “Secrets of the Amalfi Coast”? 

READ ALSO: Is Italy really going to offer vaccines to tourists this summer?

Over the past year, I’ve been collaborating with Italian colleagues on some principles that could direct people toward tourism that is more socially, economically, and environmentally responsible. These principles could guide marketing efforts, promotional literature, ratings of lodgings, and public investment. 

The country has – almost literally – thousands of wonderful places to visit; there is no reason why Rome or Florence or Naples should bear the brunt of sharp seasonal fluctuations. More places and more people would potentially benefit from a few simple guidelines. 

We offer these with the thought that they might also be applicable to your own part of the world. They are applicable to all forms of transport, destinations, and lodging:

  • Does it minimize environmental impacts?

Does it minimize negative effects on the natural environment? Negative effects include degradation of landforms and sea bottoms, air quality, carbon emissions, water quality, beaches, and estuaries, and the consumption of fossil fuels.

  • Does it protect historic resources?

Does it display a respect and careful regard for preserving and interpreting the cultural heritage of a place? This includes architecture, archaeology, arts, history, indigenous and successive peoples, and traditional settlement patterns. 

  • Does it create local opportunities?

Does it stimulate and support existing businesses in a place, as well as create local employment with “living wages?” This includes encouraging travelers to purchase goods, food, and services from local merchants rather than buying imports or patronizing international corporations.

  • Does it provide authentic experiences?

Does it expose people to experiences that are true representations of a place, with local guides, participants, and instructors? This includes minimizing “packaged” experiences that buffer travelers from the actual language, culture, and customs of a place, thereby reducing an understanding of a destination.

  • Does it leave a gentle footprint?

Does it minimize the disruption of the local supply of housing, the normal type of daily businesses, and the day to day life of a place? This includes paying for impacts that are unavoidable through entry fees, ticketing surcharges, and carbon offsets.  

As we re-acquaint ourselves with travel, let’s do it right.

A version of this article appeared on Seattle’s Post Alley.

Mark Hinshaw is a retired city planner who moved to Le Marche with his wife two years ago. A former columnist for The Seattle Times, he contributes to journals, books and other publications.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

OPINION AND ANALYSIS

Why there are so many derelict houses in Italy – and no-one seems to care

From hilltop towns to seafront promenades, many parts of Italy are blighted by dilapidated buildings left to rot under the sun. So why don't local authorities tear them down and sell off the land? Reporter Silvia Marchetti explains.

Why there are so many derelict houses in Italy - and no-one seems to care

As many remote Italian towns are desperate to sell off old abandoned buildings – some do so successfully, others struggle – foreigners are often baffled by the fact that there are still so many dilapidated properties in Italy.

In almost any village there are houses in need of repair, covered in moss and vegetation, with broken windows and doors, apparently without owners. 

The main reason why there are so many of these forsaken homes is because the original owners have long migrated to other countries in search of a brighter future, or fled following natural calamities such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or landslides, leaving behind empty dwellings. 

These empty buildings can sit rotting in the sun for decades, if not centuries. No one seems interested in selling them off cheaply, likely because the heirs are nowhere to be found or can’t be bothered to deal with major renovation work or labyrinthine bureaucracy.

READ ALSO: Five pitfalls to watch out for when buying an old house in Italy

Local councils and mayors, who might dream of putting these buildings up for sale for a song or even a symbolic one euro to attract new buyers and breathe new life into dying communities, have their hands tied, in most cases forever. 

Authorities can seize these abandoned properties and place them on the market only if the buildings are a threat to ‘public safety and order’, like if there is the danger that parts of the building may crumble and kill passers-by or damage nearby properties or roads.

There is currently no law in Italy that allows town halls to seize these dilapidated buildings after a set number of years, and this is frustrating for mayors eager to give the old town centres a makeover, making them more appealing to tourists and buyers.

READ ALSO: Why Italians aren’t snatching up their country’s one-euro homes

I was recently talking to a friend of mine, who was deputy mayor in a town in Basilicata, and he complained how the only instances in which he ever stepped in to seize a property were when it had already crumbled to the ground. 

There is one exception: that’s when local authorities are the direct and sole owners of a building. There are specific laws approved by governments in the past granting towns struck by natural calamities to seize the buildings for public safety. 

Photo by Ehud Neuhaus on Unsplash

In Campania, where a terrible earthquake hit the Irsina area in 1980 sending locals running for their lives, many towns now have ghost districts which have passed into the hands of councils. Many villages there, like Zungoli and Bisaccia, have in fact since been able to sell dozens of old homes for one euro or a little more.

The process was quick here because the councils owned the properties. Sambuca in Sicily, struck by the 1968 Belice Valley quake, owns dozens of abandoned buildings in the old town centre, and it has already successfully sold two batches of cheap empty homes, triggering a property stampede

Another major problem in Italy is ‘abusivismo’ – illegal constructions that across time have turned into what Italians call eco-monsters, buildings that mar the environment and beauty of places. 

READ ALSO: ‘Italy’s one-euro homes cost a lot more than one euro – but can be worth it’

These can be abandoned concrete buildings such as old restaurants, beach clubs, sports centres, and shops built illegally, for instance along a lungomare seaside promenade back in the 1970s-1980s, that ruin the skyline and are ‘un pugno nell’occhio’ (an eyesore; literally ‘a punch in the eye’).

Visitors from abroad may well wonder why these ugly, abandoned buildings aren’t torn down and the land sold to developers. But they are normally only seized and demolished by local authorities if there are plans to redevelop the area with new public facilities, like playgrounds, public gardens or sports centres. Otherwise no-one cares. 

The trouble is, there is no political discussion of allowing mayors to seize derelict buildings and old illegal constructions after a certain number of years, even in the absence of urban regeneration projects and immediate safety risks. 

I think the government should take the issue more seriously, particularly if it wants to support the repopulation of Italy’s old villages by allowing interested buyers to give a new life to forgotten and neglected neighbourhoods.

SHOW COMMENTS