不消費(fèi)就別來(lái)！世界各地景區(qū)用旅游稅驅(qū)逐“低價(jià)值游客”

對(duì)普通游客來(lái)說(shuō)，外出旅游能省則省，盡量少花錢(qián);但是對(duì)于旅游景點(diǎn)而言，最怕的是景點(diǎn)擠滿了游客、面臨過(guò)度旅游困境，而游客消費(fèi)又達(dá)不到他們的期望值。為此，世界各地景點(diǎn)陸續(xù)推出旅游稅，試圖逼退那些消費(fèi)少的“低價(jià)值游客”。

Countries and cities have generally tried to encourage tourism—based on the premise that holidaying visitors and the money they spend fosters economic development.

通常來(lái)說(shuō)，國(guó)家和城市都是鼓勵(lì)旅游的，前提是來(lái)度假的游客和他們的消費(fèi)能刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。

But in the age of overtourism, some popular destinations have reached their limit. City centers are clogged with avocado-toast-seeking hoards, historic sites are trampled by selfie-stick toting visitors, and locals are priced out by rising rents. To add insult to injury, many of these tourists don’t spend much money: They use apps to sleuth out super-budget deals, disembark from cruise ships with full bellies to stroll around and then return to their buffets and cabins, or forgo hotels for cheaper accommodation in neighborhoods that were once solely the domain of locals.

在這個(gè)過(guò)度旅游的時(shí)代，一些熱門(mén)景點(diǎn)的接待能力已經(jīng)超負(fù)荷。市中心擠滿了尋找美食的吃貨，歷史景點(diǎn)被大群自拍游客破壞，本地人則因?yàn)槁糜螛I(yè)興旺催漲房租而租不起房。更討厭的是，許多游客的消費(fèi)都不高：他們借助應(yīng)用程序制定超劃算的攻略，在游輪上吃飽了肚子才下船游覽，然后又返回游輪吃自助餐，不住酒店而選擇廉價(jià)的民宿。

sleuth[sluθ]: vi. 偵查

buffet[b??fe; b?f?t]: n. 自助餐

forgo[f?r'ɡo]: vt. 放棄;停止;對(duì)…斷念

That’s why so-called tourist taxes are cropping up in destinations around the world. Historically, these taxes have been used to fund tourism boards, hospitality trade groups, and destination marketing campaigns—the point being to bring more people into the country down the line.

這就是為什么世界各地的景點(diǎn)都陸續(xù)開(kāi)始征收旅游稅。在歷史上，旅游稅是用來(lái)給旅游局、酒店行業(yè)組織和景區(qū)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)活動(dòng)提供資金的，目的是在未來(lái)吸引更多人來(lái)本地旅游。

But a slew of new tourist taxes, or plans for them, in Venice, Amsterdam, Bali, Edinburgh, and New Zealand are taking an opposite tact: They’re using tourist tax revenue to both help the destination control the effects of overtourism, and also to disincentivize certain kinds of travelers.

然而，威尼斯、阿姆斯特丹、巴厘島、愛(ài)丁堡和新西蘭的新旅游稅卻是為了達(dá)到相反的目的：他們征收旅游稅既是為了幫景點(diǎn)控制過(guò)度旅游造成的不良影響，也是為了逼走某些類(lèi)型的游客。

Elizabeth Becker, the author of Overbooked: The Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism, says the rise of these taxes suggests governments are starting to see that when it comes to tourism, you can have too much of a good thing.

《超售：旅游業(yè)的迅猛發(fā)展》的作者伊麗莎白·貝克說(shuō)，這些稅種的興起意味著政府開(kāi)始意識(shí)到，旅游業(yè)太興旺也可能好事變壞事。

"It’s only in [the] last few years you have tourism taxes that are going to control tourism,” Becker said. This is because more and more destinations are recognizing that “there is no getting around the fact that there is a carrying capacity.”

貝克說(shuō)：“控制游客數(shù)量的旅游稅是幾年前才開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)的。這是因?yàn)樵絹?lái)越多景點(diǎn)意識(shí)到接待能力終歸是有上限的。”

Many of these measures aren’t simply centered on driving down numbers, but rather, attracting a “lower impact, higher value traveler,” she said—one that is going to spend some money, in addition to using resources or crowding the destination. She cites the example of Venice, which for years did little to stem the tide of visitors displacing locals. Now, in addition to a new tourist tax, the mayor has rolled out new measures meant to moderate tourists’ behavior and their effect on the city.

她說(shuō)，景點(diǎn)的許多措施不光是要減少游客人數(shù)，而且還要吸引“對(duì)環(huán)境影響更小、價(jià)值更高的游客”，最好就是多多花錢(qián)、少占用資源、不把景點(diǎn)擠爆的游客。她舉威尼斯為例，多年來(lái)威尼斯幾乎沒(méi)有采取措施來(lái)阻擋游客擠走本地人的趨勢(shì)。如今，除了新旅游稅，威尼斯市長(zhǎng)還出臺(tái)了多項(xiàng)新措施，旨在調(diào)節(jié)游客及其行為對(duì)城市造成的影響。

So how do these taxes work to deter “low value” tourism? Amsterdam provided an instructive example at the beginning of January when it implemented a day tourist tax of €8 per person. About a week later, two cruise lines announced they would no longer be stopping in port, and two more lines followed suit in February. These cruise ship “day-trippers” don’t stay in a hotel or eat much at local restaurants (why would you, when you have an all-you-can-eat buffet waiting for you on board?), and are generally in and out of the destination quite quickly. Though the tax—equivalent to the cost of a couple of beers—is relatively small, it was enough to put off extremely price-sensitive cruise lines. And it gave Amsterdam an effective way to say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

那么這些新稅收要如何能夠趕走“低價(jià)值”旅游人群呢?阿姆斯特丹在一月初做了一個(gè)示范：向每位游客每日征收8歐元(61元人民幣)的旅游稅。大約一周后，兩家游輪公司宣布將不再在該港口?？?，二月份又有兩家游輪公司相繼效仿。這些游輪上的“一日游游客”不會(huì)住酒店，也不會(huì)在本地餐廳消費(fèi)太多(如果游輪上就有自助餐廳，誰(shuí)會(huì)花這個(gè)錢(qián)呢?)，而且通常在到達(dá)后很快就會(huì)離開(kāi)。盡管這項(xiàng)稅的金額不多，不過(guò)是一兩罐啤酒的錢(qián)，但足以嚇退那些對(duì)價(jià)格極度敏感的游輪公司。阿姆斯特丹人用這種有效的方式告知他們：感謝你的到來(lái)，不過(guò)請(qǐng)你別來(lái)了，謝謝。

Not all these tourist taxes are meant to discourage tourists altogether from visiting. Bali—which has seen a huge uptick in visitors since it starred in Elizabeth Gilbert’s 2006 travel memoir Eat Pray Love—is one of the destinations mulling a tax. The roughly $10 fee will be used to preserve the environment and Balinese culture, which has been overrun with yoga retreats and acai bowl cafes. The Jakarta Post reports that officials aren’t trying to drive away travelers, mostly from Australia and China, but see this as a way for travelers to “contribute to preserving” the local culture.

不過(guò)，也不是所有旅游稅都是為了徹底趕走游客的。自從伊麗莎白·吉爾伯特的旅游回憶錄《美食、祈禱、戀愛(ài)》在2006年出版后，書(shū)中對(duì)巴厘島的描寫(xiě)就吸引大量游客蜂擁而至。如今，瑜伽會(huì)所和巴西莓碗餐廳泛濫的巴厘島也在考慮推出旅游稅，這項(xiàng)10美元(68元人民幣)左右的稅收將用來(lái)保護(hù)巴厘島的環(huán)境和文化。《雅加達(dá)郵報(bào)》報(bào)道說(shuō)，當(dāng)?shù)毓賳T不是想趕走游客(多數(shù)來(lái)自澳大利亞和中國(guó))，而是希望游客也能為當(dāng)?shù)匚幕谋Ｗo(hù)“盡一份力量”。

mull[m?l]: vt. 思索或思考某事物

Overtourism is often oversimplified, and it’s easy to blame the tourists themselves, or industry-disrupting companies such as Airbnb. But factors such as the rise of low-cost airlines, the growth of the cruise industry, and the failure of some governments to put constraints on growth are often underplayed, Becker says.

貝克指出，過(guò)度旅游經(jīng)常被看得太簡(jiǎn)單了，人們很容易將問(wèn)題歸咎于游客自身或愛(ài)彼迎等擾亂行業(yè)秩序的企業(yè)。然而，廉價(jià)航班的興起、游輪產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展，以及一些政府未能限制旅游業(yè)過(guò)度發(fā)展，這些因素的作用經(jīng)常被輕描淡寫(xiě)。

And as the democratization of travel continues, officials will continue to face the same conundrum: Can a destination benefit from tourists without completely destroying what made it appealing in the first place?

伴隨著旅游民主化的進(jìn)程，各地官員將繼續(xù)面臨同樣的難題：一個(gè)景點(diǎn)能否既受益于游客，又不讓游客完全毀掉最初的美好呢?

conundrum[k?'n?ndr?m]: n. 難題