(In 2006)...200 travel experts rated 115 of the worlds top destinations based on the 12 geotourism principles. While the list, the destinations and scores have most likely shifted since then, the information explaining the criteria and impact preservation has on a destinations long term profit, local well being and environmental stewardship is valuable.

1. 115 Places Rated
Norway’s fjords, Tasmania, Vermont, and
Tuscany look to be in relatively good
shape. Not so for the Costa del Sol,
Phuket, and Key West. In cases like
Cape Cod, opinion is divided.
That’s all according to an unusual new sur-vey,
whose results yield what TRAVELER believes
to be the world’s first Index of Destination
Stewardship. Ever since travel began booming
after World War II, development pressures,
environmental problems, civil strife, cultural
erosion, and, yes, mass tourism have increas-ingly
challenged the integrity of destinations
worldwide. “Unspoiled” is a description you
hear less and less. Which great places have
remained great by protecting themselves
against these trends? Which have failed?
To find out, TRAVELER worked with the
National Geographic’s Sustainable Tourism
Initiative and a graduate team from Leeds
Metropolitan University in England to conduct a
Authenticity 21st cen-tury
style: An outboard
outrigger ferries tour-ists
across a Tahitian
lagoon. Despite a name
once synonymous with
paradise, Tahiti made a
poor score on the stew-ardship
index due to
overdevelopment.
complex global survey of over 200 specialists in
sustainable tourism and destination quality. We
asked these experts to evaluate 115 of the
world’s best known places based on six criteria
that pertain to cultural, environmental, and aes-thetic
integrity (“About the Survey,” page 67).
The scores that follow, based on a 1-to-100
scale, reflect their opinions. For each destina-tion,
symbols show which factors most influ-enced
their judgments. No destination rated 90
or above (“unspoiled and likely to remain so”),
but none fell into the “catastrophic” under-20
range either. Destinations in the best shape face
relatively few threats or, significantly, have
learned how to handle them. Those at the low
end have lost much, but could perhaps recover.
We expect that this index will generate a lot
of discussion, even a few arguments. That’s fine,
if it gets everyone, especially policymakers, to
think more about wise stewardship of the places
we love. The future of travel depends on it.
60 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER 61
PETER GUTTMAN/CORBIS
Destination Scorecard
Development, pollution, globalization, mass
tourism—are the world’s great places still...great?
TRAVELER introduces a new way to see how well your destination is
coping with the 21st century. By Jonathan B. Tourtellot

2. rank
score
key factors
Stewardship Index
WILD
Norwegian fjords 82 1
Cape Breton Island, Canada 78 2
South Island, New Zealand 78 2
Torres del Paine, Chile 78 2
Tasmania, Australia 77 3
Rocky Mountain parks, Canada 76 4
Scottish Highlands, United Kingdom 75 5
Kruger National Park, South Africa 74 6
Kyoto historic district, Japan 74 6
Quebec City historic center, Canada 74 6
Vermont, USA 74 6
Bay of Islands, New Zealand 73 7
Heidelberg, Germany 73 7
Laurentian Highlands, Quebec-Canada 73 7
Salzburg historic center, Austria 72 8
Alpine regions, Switzerland 71 9
Charleston, SC, historic center, USA 71 9
Colorado Rockies, USA 71 9
Dubrovnik, Croatia 71 9
Easter Island, Chile 71 9
Fez historic center, Morocco 71 9
Inside Passage, Alaska/Canada 71 9
Maine coast, USA 71 9
Northern California coast (Marin-Eureka) 71 9
Ring of Kerry, Ireland 71 9
Tuscany, Italy 71 9
Uluru (Ayer’s Rock) area, Australia 71 9
Yellowstone, USA 71 9
Baden Baden, Germany 70 10
Bavarian Alps, Germany 70 10
Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles 70 10
Krakow historic center, Poland 70 10
TOP SCORES
Destination Scorecard
;;
;;
?
?
THE GOOD Vermont
MIDDLE SCORES It’s no surprise that Norway’s fjords, rated at 82, lead the
Brittany, France 69 11
Four Corners (Colorado Plateau), USA 69 11
Loire Valley, France 69 11
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands 69 11
Guanajuato, Gto., Mexico 68 12
Cotswolds, United Kingdom 67 13
top-scoring destinations, thanks to a combination of luck
and wise stewardship. Geography dealt the Norwegian
coastline a good hand when it comes to remaining un-spoiled.
Rugged terrain, cool, wet climate, difficult access, and a
short tourist season keep development pressures comparatively
low. (Note how other “cool-fjord coasts” in Chile and New Zealand
also scored well.) It helps, too, to be in a sparsely populated coun-try
with one of the world’s best environmental track records
(although even here some experts took points off for excessive
cruise-ship traffic and threats to native salmon).
More instructive perhaps is ever popular Tuscany, which man-aged
a respectable 71 (“minor difficulties”) despite its attractive
climate, fabulous cultural attractions, and easy access—often a
formula for dismaying overdevelopment. What’s Tuscany’s secret?
History helped: The Industrial Revolution chanced to skip over
this Italian region, leaving intact its trademark landscape of hand-tended
fields, vineyards, and olive groves, all draped over a softly
Key for
symbols
Norwegian Fjords
“This place is wonderful: living tradi-tional
“One of the few places where a
large percentage of the populace
is committed to conservation/
preservation over injudicious
development.” —Panelist Tom Clynes,
travel author
culture, wonderful landscape, not
crowded. I am very happy with how this
destination is managed. Excellent envi-ronmental
quality, local people involved
in a very smooth way.” —Panelist Eduardo
Nycander, Rainforest Expeditions
Remote geography helps some high-scoring destinations stay unspoiled.
Other places have learned how to cope with popularity.
environmental conditions
social/cultural integrity
condition of historic structures
aesthetics
tourism management
outlook
GREEN = good rating
YELLOW = warning
RED = bad rating
Tight land-use codes
protect Tuscan land-scapes
that seem to
come from an artist’s
brush. “A genuine,
cultured atmosphere,”
adds one panelist, Prof.
A.P. Grima, University
of Toronto.
62
SANDRO SANTIOLI; DALLAS AND JOHN HEATON/CORBIS (OPPOSITE, UPPER), KATHLEEN BROWN/CORBIS (LOWER)
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER
muscled topography. Even so, subdivisions might have long ago
ruined the painterly scenery had Tuscans not adopted some of the
world’s toughest land-use and building codes: In scenic zones, local
regulations limit buildings to two stories, inhibit subdivision, and
govern aesthetics, including which colors you can paint your house.
Locals chafe under the rules, but let them stand. Shouldn’t people
be allowed to build what they want on their own property, even if
it’s ugly? Answers Alessandro Marangoni, in the region’s economic
development office, “Then it hurts the value of my house.”
Sensitivity to preserving sense of place extends even to such
unobtrusive forms of tourism as farm stays. The government
encourages agriturismo to help small farms stay in business, but
wants authenticity: The farmer’s tax breaks and low-interest loans
disappear if the family lets its tourism business exceed its farm
revenue. The current minister of tourism, Susanna Cenni, even frets
about Chianti villages that have become too cutesy. She’s seeking
ways to revive authentic rural businesses in the area.
If only other destinations had such problems . . . .
;;
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;

3. rank
score
key factors
Stewardship Index
WILD
Galápagos, Ecuador 67 13
San Juan Islands, WA, USA 67 13
Great Barrier Reef, Australia 66 14
Machu Picchu, Peru 66 14
Rhine Valley, Germany 66 14
Yosemite Valley, USA. 66 14
Amsterdam historic center, Netherlands 65 15
British Virgin Islands 65 15
Cuzco historic center, Peru 65 15
Grand Canyon, USA 65 15
Isle of Wight, United Kingdom 65 15
Salvador (Bahia) historic center, Brazil 65 15
Costa Rica 64 16
Lake District, United Kingdom 64 16
Petra, Jordan 64 16
Prague historic center, Czech Republic 64 16
Bahamian Out Islands 63 17
California wine country, USA 63 17
Cape Cod, U.S.A. 63 17
Iguaçu Falls, Argentina/Brazil 63 17
Mid-coast CA (Santa Barbara–Monterey) 63 17
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania 63 17
Capri, Italy 62 18
Fiji 62 18
Hawaii 62 18
Pompeii, Italy 62 18
Amalfi Coast, Italy 61 19
Borobudur, Indonesia 61 19
Mont-St.-Michel, France 61 19
Porto historic center, Portugal 61 19
St. Lucia 61 19
Sea of Cortez and its coast, Mexico 61 19
Tikal/Flores, Guatemala 61 19
Dead Sea, Israel/Jordan 60 20
Lake Tahoe, USA 60 20
Great Wall, China 59 21
Lake Titicaca, Bolivia/Peru 59 21
Azure Coast, Turkey 58 22
Bali, Indonesia 58 22
MIDDLE SCORES (CONTINUED)
Destination Scorecard
NOT SO BAD
Cuzco, Peru
“Great Inca and colonial town, but in
serious trouble . . . . Without real pro-tection
and lack of local involvement.
Numbers of tourists seem more highly
valued than delivery of quality experi-ences.”
—Panelist Lieve Coppin, consultant
Yosemite Valley, California
“Fantastic natural area, plagued by
overuse and crowding during summer
season.”—Panelist Kelly Bricker, University
of West Virginia and former tour operator
Mont-St.-Michel, France,
rates well for historic
preservation, poorly for
overcrowding and envi-ronmental
neglect that
filled its bay with silt,
and moderately well for
outlook, as plans move
ahead to restore the bay.
Mid-scoring destinations remain attractive, but with worrisome degradation.
Some places are doing something about it. Some aren’t.
The many destinations receiving mid-range scores, 55 to
69, fall into two camps: those with strong positives can-celed
out by equally strong negatives, and those with lots
of notable, but not yet disastrous, negatives.
Some of those in the first group are destinations with two
faces. At Yosemite, for instance, experts noted the park’s divided
personality: Its gorgeous scenery and backcountry versus traffic
and crowding in Yosemite Valley. The park’s new methods for cop-ing
with high visitation there, such as expanded shuttle service
and fewer parking lots, did receive cautious praise.
On Cape Cod, similarly, a national seashore protects the outer
beaches and much of the peninsula’s forearm, but development,
including hundreds of vacation homes, has ballooned to occupy
virtually every unprotected stretch of shoreline and much of an
interior that was semiwilderness just 50 years ago.
For France’s Mont-St.-Michel, raves for historic preservation con-trasted
with numerous complaints about high-season hordes, tacky
souvenir shops, and the like. Many experts noted that environmental
64
PHILIP GOULD/CORBIS, SERGIO PESSOLANO (OPPOSITE UPPER), GERALD FRENCH/CORBIS (LOWER)
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER
problems in the surrounding bay are finally being addressed. If that
effort succeeds, this score should go up in years to come.
The Maya ruin of Tikal and its associated tourist town of Flores
in Guatemala also present two faces, but the area as a whole
received many comments in the not-yet-disastrous vein. While
acknowledging the beauty of Tikal, experts zeroed in on numerous
problems: underappreciated ecological wonders, poor information
for visitors, growing danger from deliberate forest burn-off, lack of
tourism benefit for locals, pollution in Flores, inadequate destina-tion
management, and hotels without environmental controls. “It’s
not too late to save,” summed up one travel writer.
Some destinations were judged against their reputations. Costa
Rica’s surprisingly mediocre score, for instance, reflected a widely
held feeling that poor tourism management and widespread defor-estation
does not match the image of an ecotourism leader that
the country likes to project.
“Not too late to save.” It’s a good summary for all these middle-zone
destinations.
Key for
symbols
environmental conditions
social/cultural integrity
condition of historic structures
aesthetics
tourism management
outlook
GREEN = good rating
YELLOW = warning
RED = bad rating
;;
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;

4. Destination Scorecard
GETTING UGLY
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
“Massive overvisitation by massive
cruise ships.” —Andrew Drumm, The
Nature Conservancy
“Hard to differentiate St. Thomas
from an overcrowded Florida shopping
mall.” —Cary Wolinsky, photographer
About the Survey
Evaluating an entire destina-tion
requires weighing such
subtle issues as aesthetic
appeal and cultural integrity, as
well as balancing good points
against bad. No simplistic
numerical measures could do jus-tice
to the task. The best solu-tion
was to turn to informed
human judgment. We convened a
global panel of over 200 experts
in a variety of fields—ecology,
sustainable tourism, geography,
urban and regional planning,
travel writing and photography,
historic preservation, cultural
anthropology, archaeology—all
well traveled enough to have a
good basis for comparing desti-nations
against each other.
We asked experts to evaluate
only those places with which
they were familiar, using six cri-teria
weighed as appropriate to
each destination: environmental
and ecological quality; social and
cultural integrity; condition of
any historic buildings and archae-ological
sites; aesthetic appeal;
quality of tourism management;
and the outlook for the future.
For places where experts dis-agreed
widely, a second round of
scoring used a version of a
research tool called the Delphi
technique, whereby panelists
anonymously exchange further
comments about the place and
then re-score accordingly.
The index, then, is a compila-tion
of informed judgments and
perceptions about places that
may themselves have many
faces. It should be taken as such.
In low-scoring Key West, for
example, you can still find an
eco-friendly conch farm and
plenty of back-street charm;
high-scoring Tuscany still must
cope with a badly polluted Arno
River and summer overcrowding
in Florence and Siena.
Like the cards that Olympic
judges hold up, our experts’
scores take into account both
measurable accomplishment and
the intangibles of style, aesthet-ics,
and culture. And like
Olympic athletes, each destina-tion
has a chance to improve its
performance.
Daniel Chang, Elizabeth Parisian,
Leeds Metropolitan University,
and many others helped with this
study. For a list of panelists and
more of their observations, see
nationalgeographic.com/traveler.
rank
score
key factors
Stewardship Index
WILD
Reef and islands of Belize 58 22
Corfu (Kerkira), Greece 57 23
Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt 57 23
Annapurna Circuit, Nepal 56 24
Masai Mara, Kenya 56 24
Rajasthan, India 56 24
St. Petersburg historic center, Russia 56 24
Barbados 55 25
Crete, Greece 55 25
Havana historic center, Cuba 55 25
Ngorongoro crater, Tanzania 55 25
MIDDLE SCORES (CONTINUED)
LOWER SCORES
Amboseli, Kenya 54 26
Aruba 54 26
Everglades, USA 54 26
Hue, Vietnam 53 27
Tahiti 53 27
Angkor, Cambodia 52 28
Canary Islands 52 28
Outer Banks, NC, USA 52 28
Victoria Falls, Zambia/Zimbabwe 52 28
Acropolis, Greece 51 29
Chang Mai, Thailand 51 29
Pyramids, Giza, Egypt 51 29
Balearic Islands, Spain 50 30
Great Smoky Mountains, USA 49 31
Venice, Italy 49 31
Bethlehem, Israel/Palestine 48 32
French Riviera 48 32
Algarve, Portugal 46 33
Caribbean Coast, Q.R., Mexico 46 33
Costa Brava, Spain 46 33
Negril, Jamaica 46 33
North coast, Dominican Republic 46 33
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 45 34
Key West, FL, USA 43 35
Phuket area, Thailand 43 35
North coast, Jamaica 42 36
Costa del Sol, Spain 41 37
Benidorm exemplifies
the heavy footprint of
package tourism on
Spanish islands and
coasts. Cheap hotel
sprawl prompted low
scores for the Canaries,
Balearics, Costa Brava,
and Costa del Sol.
Loved to death? Or exploited to death? Both could apply to low-scoring
victims of crowding, poor planning, and greed. Still, there’s hope.
Look at the bottom 11 entries on the index: Every one of
these low-scorers are sun-and-sand shorelines and islands.
Behind that lurks an arithmetic reality: The population of
beach-lovers is ever growing, and there’s only so much
seacoast to go around. A rising demand for a finite resource calls
for wise stewardship. Unfortunately, bulldozers often come before
brains when quick profits beckon.
One textbook example is Spain’s Costa del Sol—the overbuilt
“Costa del Concrete,” which caters to package tours from north-ern
Europe, and where you can hear more English or German than
Spanish. As with many uncontrolled seashores, a nonstop line of
characterless hotels blocks off the coastline. Proving such a tide
can be turned, one Majorcan town has now razed a few hotels.
On any attractive shore, if no policies exist to cluster mass-tourism
hotels, or preserve traditional towns and open space,
resort sprawl tends to take over. Community leaders in a few such
destinations have begun to recognize the problem, asking how best
to handle hordes of tourists who are more interested in sun, rum,
and each other than in the country they happen to be visiting.
Different threats place other low-scoring destinations at risk:
excess popularity (the Acropolis and the Great Smokies), political
or civil strife (Bethlehem), poorly planned mass sightseeing
(Angkor), encroaching urban development (the Pyramids), inappro-priate
tourism development (Great Smokies again—i.e.,
Gatlinburg), even sea-level rise from global warming (Venice).
This Stewardship Index is intended to be a wake-up call. Low
scoring places can learn from high-scorers, and many of the desti-nations
on the facing page have begun to take countermeasures.
Often, though, it’s very, very late in the game. Jamaica’s resort
town of Negril, for instance, has a vigorous reef-restoration pro-gram—
now that as much as 90 percent of its reef has died, due
to both local and global factors.
Negril may be working on reform, but in many travel paradises
greed and shortsightedness still rule. Unless that attitude changes,
countless destinations remain golden-egg-laying geese, filing down
the path to the chopping block.
GLENN CAMPBELL/GETTY IMAGES, JOEL W. ROGERS/CORBIS (OPPOSITE)
Key for
symbols
environmental conditions
social/cultural integrity
condition of historic structures
aesthetics
tourism management
outlook
GREEN = good rating
YELLOW = warning
RED = bad rating
;;
66 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TRAVELER 67
?
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
;;
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?