How to be a better tourist

Superficiality and failure to adequately research are problematic, along with “bucket lists.” How many times do we see posters saying “I am spending 3 days in XXX. What should I do there?” That screams superficiality and failure to plan. Why spend time anywhere if you haven’t figured out why you are there or what you want to see and do? It appalls me how many people wait to read the guidebook on the plane or rely solely on Internet resources to plan an expensive trip.

Rick has perpetuated the idea of living like a local, which is charming and intended to give one a deeper, richer experience, but you cannot live like a local and soak up the culture in a series of two-and-three night stays. I agree wholeheartedly that to extend the stay to a week in almost any locale makes for a better experience.

I think it's a great article, but it's probably preaching to the choir for most of the people here. I thought it was interesting that it asks travelers to consider why they want to go to a place rather than just going to say they've gone. I can't imagine traveling somewhere without having a specific interest, but then I see a lot of questions online like "I am going to _____, what should I see and do there?

I do wonder a lot about my part in the overcrowding at tourist sites, but yet I can't bring myself to give up travel. So I try to avoid the most popular times when possible, be polite, stay out of the way of locals, and make sure that my accommodations are ethical. Is this enough? Who knows. But I live in a highly touristy area and I always am happy to see the travelers who exhibit those types of behaviors, so I'm trying to emulate it too.

“I am spending 3 days in XXX. What should I do there?” Why spend time anywhere if you haven’t figured out why you are there or what you want to see and do?

I disagree with that. My purpose in going to certain countries or regions is to not to see defined tourist sites but to "have a look" and experience how that country is distinctive. Like soaking up the atmosphere. It's helpful to get ideas from other travelers who know that country better about where the cultural or environmental differences might be most interesting.

So, for example, if someone asked what they should do in Alaska, I might reach back into my memory and talk about some of the most memorable things I did or saw there, like bear-watching opportunities, seeing how many Alaskans took fishing vacations in RVs and how a restored gold-rush village that wasn't even in Alaska but in Yukon gave me a much better understanding of the Alaskan gold-rush days.

Right now I'm planning a week in Japan and trying to figure out where best to put myself into the thick of what it's like to experience Tokyo. It's not a matter of researching tourist sites, it's a different kind of planning. I know it sounds vague, but that's why general insights from people who've been there can be helpful.

I agree with Tamara and Marcia. "Preaching to the choir". That was my first reaction to the article. I suspect the people reading that article are the people that do plan in advance. I remember talking to a friend that had gotten back from a family vacation to Disney World. He got back complaining about the crowds and that nobody had warned him that Disney consisted of 4 parks. He had no idea and felt cheated because he had estimated he could do Disney for a long Weekend.

As for people asking questions about what to see. I always assume they've at least done some basic research and are overwhelmed by how much there is to see and are trying to narrow down the field. I'll typically bring up my favourites and then depending on the situation I may add when to go and possibly a hidden treasure such as a site or restaurant nearby. Reading a Rick Steves guidebook is a good start but we need to remember that it is only one man's opinion and by asking questions on this forum they are getting thousands of experienced opinions.

I am afraid I have a different bucket list than the one described in the article. The items on the list are entire trips, not a 'been there, took a selfie, moved on' type of tick list.

I tend to not reply to the 'I have 3 days in XXX' either. Or if I do reply it is get a book and research the area to see what you want to see. I perceive the question as being a lazy approach. Now, if the question is 'I have 3 days in XXX, after researching I only see 3 sites that are important to me; what gardens, parks, out of the way museums, day trips or experiences do you recommend to flesh out my time', then I'll try to add tidbits.

But you know, there are people with no time to read until they get on a plane and still have a good time. As long as they don't come back complaining about 'surprises' that early basic homework would have addressed, I am okay letting the live and let live credo stand.
The article did push a button, however. If it were me at the Berlin Wall having to move around some juvenile photo shoot, I would have photo bombed it....

I didn't disagree with the author. I thought it was odd the article never mentioned traveling outside of high-season? You can lose a big portion of the crowds just traveling a little earlier or later in the year than the July/August masses. I had Burgundy nearly to myself in May, the French coast south of Arcachon was practically deserted in June. I camped in the Lot Valley in June and was often the only tent in the campground. I don't even want to be in Italy or Spain in the summer - much better to explore relatively uncrowded Baltic/Scandinavia and plan Italy and Spain between October and April.

As far as how many days to visit a place. I do look at sights I want to see (including down time), then decide how long I need to stay to accomplish those? I normally plan one sight in the AM and a second in the PM. If I find myself with extra time, I have a list of good to see (not must see) sights. If all you want is to get the feel of a place, you should have an idea how long you want for that. You may want two nights, another person may think a week is the right amount of time. It doesn't matter. What matters is to start with what you want to do and turn that into time, rather than start with time then try to cram everything you want to do into that.

Thanks for sharing a very interesting article. Even more interesting is the "This applies to other people" response from readers. I think that this is the crux of the whole tourism issue. "Other people are tourists and create problems, not me." None of us are exempt from falling into this trap from time to time. I know I'm not.

I appreciate what people have shared about doing research and having a list of your interests rather than a list of what people tell you should be the interests. If you do your research in just one way, for example Rick Steves Guidebooks, you are really still just looking at what other people tell you should be the interests. It is important to use a variety of sources.

I think it's a great article, but it's probably preaching to the choir for most of the people here.

That may be true for some of the veteran travelers who post here, but I see a lot of posts, especially from those who are new to the forum and aren't as familiar with the RS philosophy who could benefit from reading it. I see a lot of proposed itineraries which are the epitome of "drive-by tourism".

Thankfully I began my travels by being "raised right". My first trip to Europe was a People to People tour way back in 1966. Our group of 8 (4 boys, 4 girls) joined 56 other students from Georgia and Alabama. Our chaperone was a high school science teacher and the mother of my best friend. We began meeting monthly several months before our departure. Our chaperone divided up the trip into 8 sections and assigned us each a section on which we had to report. We had to research the section and present what we would see and why we would see it. In addition we studied the culture and customs of the region and covered manners and etiquette. We were the only young people on the tour who had any idea of what we were seeing and we were by far the best behaved of the group.

It was on that trip I met and fell in love with my traveling partner. Our most recent trip together was just 4 weeks ago, to France and London. The lessons learned in 1966 has served us well and we have not only seen the sights but also have had wonderful "close to the ground" adventures, including building pig pens in Nicaragua and delivering babies in Tanzania. Good tourism is both possible and incredibly rewarding.

I do take major issue with Martha Honey's suggestion regarding cruising. She encourages folks to consider "choosing smaller vessels or going further off the beaten path". Choosing a smaller vessel that goes to the typical places doesn't address the fundamental problem. Cruising "off the beaten path" will only encourage cruise lines to send more and bigger ships to places "off the beaten path" and turn them into the nightmare of Venice, Cinque Terre, Civitavecchia (Rome), Livorno (Florence), Majorca and Barcelona. Cruising, both big boat and river cruising, it the antithesis of the RS philosophy of travel. Sadly, I speak from experience, a mistake I'll never make again.

If you do your research in just one way, for example Rick Steves Guidebooks, you are really still just looking at what other people tell you should be the interests.

All you have to do is look at the mention of CT in the Italy section to prove your point.

Thanks for posting. I shared the link on a TA Hawaii forum as there is a big "fight" over Kauai right now and this article has some universal points.

I do think it is somewhat "preaching to the choir" but I could not only nod my head at some points (like the "live like a local" think and AirBNB) but some points did make me think.

Having a husband who is not at all interested in churches or museums or most of the stuff in the RS books helps keeps us from many of the "overcrowded tourist" places although I do get him to a couple every now and then. We do have the luxury, now, of traveling off season or shoulder season ... but there are also negatives when restaurants are closed off season or no farmers markets, for example.

Sadly, I don't think there are easy answers but it is always good to read what others think and write about the topic.

I like the comment that if you don't have a lot of money, you end up planning better and consequently traveling better. I think that's my husband and I in a nutshell! LOL

We don't see ourselves as tourists but rather as visitors. By definition, to be a tourist, you are on a tour led by a leader. We travel independently to visit. Maybe some say that is semantics; I believe there is a difference. We don't go with the mobs.

As for the comments about those going to Paris tend to go to the very crowded popular attractions....well of course they do! If it's your first time in Paris, it makes sense to want to visit the Eiffel Tower or take a boat ride on the Seine. My first time was in the month of February ages ago. No crowds at all. I didn't take a boat ride but they were offered. I think this article is unrealistic to expect first time visitors to not want to see what makes that locale so famous.

By definition, to be a tourist, you are on a tour led by a leader.

That's not a definition of tourist I ever heard. The dictionary says a tourist is: "a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure". And that is pretty much all of us, whether we are on a tour led by a leader, or on cruise ship visiting a port for a few hours, or traveling independently. Anybody traveling for pleasure and not just for work is a tourist, whether you want to think of yourself as one or not.

Or, you could consider yourself a traveller rather than a tourist, if that suits your fancy.