Sustainable Destination Ratings: National Geographic's Annual List

Every year, the National Geographic Society's Center for Sustainable Destinations rates many of the world's favourite travel locations (mainly natural attractions but also including cities and towns) for how well they are being managed to enhance and protect their sustainable value.

It's always worth having a look at the list published around this time every year by Traveler Magazine, not only to see if there are any new additions (most of the same attractions appear every year) but to also see how each attraction is fairing when it comes to "maintaining its environmental and ecological quality; social and cultural integrity; historic and archaeological condition; aesthetic appeal; quality of tourism management; and outlook for the future".

There are many places that could or should make the list - I mean, there are only four Australian destinations included: Kakadu; Uluru; the Great Barrier Reef and Byron Bay yet no room for the likes of Kangaroo Island; the Daintree; and the Tasmanian Wilderness area. And there is a heavy focus on North America....but I think the point of the exercise is not so much to list everyone's favourite attractions but to provide feedback on how many of the world's favourites are being protected, enhanced and managed. As Traveler Magazine states, if there is any pattern in scores for the retested destinations it is this: When people care about the condition of a place, its score tends to go up and stay there (panellists cited initiatives to protect, restore, improve facilities or a bit of each as reasons to increase each place's respective rating) but when people see a place as a tourism cash cow, scores tend to slip (panellists docked many points where places exhibited reckless development and commercialization, such as Byron Bay).

Anyway, some of the more significant findings of the list include:

* Norway's Fjords region continues its reign as top of the list after increasing its rating..."visiting this region requires a substantial investment by the international tourist, which keeps visitor levels low and allows for a low level of impact...local operators and hoteliers are highly dedicated to traditional culture and educating tourists... environmental quality is at the highest level - (the) landscape is amazing and aesthetically one of the most beautiful."

* Kakadu National Park rates highly on the global scale..."Cleverly managed, unspoiled, beautiful - cultural values are visible through local rock art and the Aboriginal presence...a wealth of information is available at visitor centers around the area, and park personnel promote the environmental message at every opportunity...seasonal floods do a good job of renewing the area each year."

* The two leading urban attractions are Ancient Kyoto in Japan and the townships of the state of Vermont, USA..."Kyoto is magnificently preserved and managed and honors the serenity and charm of ancient Japan - it showcases a rich legacy of living cultures and festivals, immaculate gardens, a variety of crafts and cuisines, all within a modern city." Vermont in the US "has worked to preserve those qualities that make it unique, such as scenic countryside, lively small towns, historic streetscapes and local businesses - a tourist magnet in summer, it nonetheless never seems overrun by visitors.

* The worst rated places are the West Bank in Israel/Palestine and the Costa de Sol in Spain. For the West Bank..."no matter what their politics, tourists here will be upset by the giant wall, the intimidating border crossing, the desolate and hopeless feeling of the city." With regard to the Costa de Sol..."a textbook example of mass tourism run amok, with high-rise hotels, crammed beaches, water shortages, pollution, and indifference to local culture."

Anyway, how is your favourite destination performing? You can check the full list here at Traveler Magazine.