bbc.com
Edinburgh's Royal Mile: 72 Tourist Shops and the Challenges of Mass Tourism
Edinburgh's Royal Mile, visited by five million tourists annually, has 72 tourist shops, primarily run by three operators, causing concerns among residents about the displacement of local businesses and the impact on their quality of life; a new tourist tax is planned to address this.
- How does the rise in tourism-related businesses impact the quality of life for long-term residents of the Royal Mile?
- The high density of tourist shops on the Royal Mile contrasts with the decline in local businesses like grocers and doctors' surgeries, forcing residents to seek services elsewhere. This shift, coupled with a decrease in the Royal Mile Primary School's enrollment (from 165 to 118 pupils since 2004), highlights the displacement of residential life by tourism.
- What are the immediate consequences of the high concentration of tourist shops on Edinburgh's Royal Mile for local residents?
- The Royal Mile in Edinburgh, UK, boasts 72 tourist shops, primarily selling Scotland-themed items, alongside 42 cafes, 13 bars, and other businesses. This concentration of tourist shops, largely controlled by three operators, reflects the challenges of mass tourism, impacting local residents.
- Will the proposed tourist tax effectively address the long-term challenges posed by mass tourism on the Royal Mile's residential community?
- Edinburgh's plan to implement a tourist tax, projected to generate \$50 million annually, aims to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism. However, the effectiveness of this measure in addressing concerns such as the displacement of local businesses and the strain on residential areas remains uncertain, given the ongoing housing crisis and continuing increase in tourism.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative consequences of tourism. The headline itself poses a question that implies a negative answer. The article's structure prioritizes the voices of residents who express concerns about overtourism, placing these concerns prominently throughout the piece. While acknowledging positive economic impacts, this is downplayed compared to the extensive discussion of negative impacts.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although words like "blight," "filthy," and "theftdemic" carry negative connotations. The use of phrases like "overtourism problems" and "mass tourism brings" subtly frames tourism negatively. More neutral alternatives could include 'challenges of increased tourism', 'impacts of high visitor numbers', or simply 'tourism's effects'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of tourism on residents, giving significant weight to the concerns of local residents. However, it omits perspectives from tourism businesses beyond a brief statement from a representative of the Gold Brothers Group. It also doesn't fully explore the economic benefits of tourism beyond mentioning job creation and visitor spending. While acknowledging the council's efforts, it doesn't delve into the effectiveness of these initiatives or explore alternative approaches to managing tourism.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as either 'pro-tourism' or 'anti-tourism'. Jimmy Robertson, for example, states he's "not against tourism," suggesting a more nuanced perspective exists beyond the presented binary.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impacts of overtourism on Edinburgh's Royal Mile, including displacement of local businesses, decreased quality of life for residents, and strain on infrastructure. The concentration of tourist shops, decline in residential amenities, and issues with anti-social behavior directly contradict the goal of creating inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and communities.