Comments on: Paradise Lost: The hidden costs of tourism development in Sri Lanka

By: puniselva

puniselva — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:49:00 +0000

In reply to Groundviews. Raisa, thankssss.

By: Groundviews

Groundviews — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:43:00 +0000

You are correct – the theme was universal accessibility in terms of physical mobility, but the theme also spoke of the need for the “the creation of environments that can cater for the needs of all of us” – that includes the local residents, who often have no access to these spaces at all, and that also ties into economic affordability – especially since local tourists of a certain status are able to visit these places freely. Of course this is not directly related to the theme but was rather a subsection of a much wider topic which also warrants discussion – Raisa W

By: puniselva

puniselva — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:33:00 +0000

Thank youuuuu, Raisa.
Don’t people have rights to their livelihood-sustaining beaches over the rich tourist operators?
Where do we draw the limit to tourism right please?

By: Janitha Rukmal

Janitha Rukmal — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 07:39:00 +0000

The author of this article seems to have misinterpreted the entire
UNWTO theme and has harped on the inaccessibility of certain tourist
destinations instead of discussing the original thematic emphasis on
making the tourism more accessible in terms of physical mobility,
economic affordability and receptivity of those destinations.
If the
author carefully listened to the message of UNWTO secretary, the
emphasis is on making tourism accessible for the travelers and tourists
rather than unveiling the obscurity of certain areas which could be
potential boomers for the travel and tourism industries as emphasized in
this article as well as in their other presentations.
Hence this
theme is traveler-centric rather than destination-centric. I feel this
entire article is reflecting a negative image based on a misguided
premise