This is a perfect example of the choices we need to make when it comes to the sort of tourism we want. This will be a short thread so please do bear with me!

In tourism there are two vital questions you must always have a good answer to:

1) Who is it for?

2) What is it for? https://twitter.com/saoirse_mchugh/status/1357082539467411461

Both of those questions are informed by a third:

3) What are you measuring?

This isn't meant as a castigation of our tourism bodies, but I think we're constantly measuring the wrong thing. And that leads to the wrong answers to 1 & 2 above.

We focus on volume rather than value

If we look at volume of visitors in pure numbers pre-pandemic, then the tourism policy has been a success. It was growing really well, with greater volumes than had ever been achieved before.

But in reality, this growth had become detrimental in some key areas.

Detrimental in that some of the key sites (Cliffs of Moher, Glendalough, Ring of Kerry etc) had become overrun at key times of year. This had a negative impact on the visitor experience, on the communities, and also on the very places that people were crowding into.

The type of visitor had changed too – what I would loosely term an InstaTourist had become more common – someone who would drive or get on a coach in Dublin, travel across the country just to get a selfie at an iconic place, then back on the bus and away again.

The development of 'Signature Points' like this one proposed for Keem Bay caters to exactly this sort of tourist. I think it is fair to ask why should we spend millions on them?

They contribute very little to the local economy – a cup of coffee at most, they use services & leave

And the development at Keem would undoubtedly cost millions. As I understand, it isn't serviced by suitable roads and there are no facilities there at the moment. I wasn't a big fan of the idea of a Signature Point at Dunquin but at least that was at a pre-existing tourism site.

And when I visited last summer I thought it was quite nice. I mean, not €2.5m nice, but nice.

Bear in mind this was more than 2m EVEN THOUGH it is right next to the Blasket Visitor Centre. What's proposed for Keem has none of those advantages so it will be much more expensive.

So you might be looking to spend, conservatively, €3m on a signature point at Achill. To serve tourists who will drive up to it, take a snap, then drive off again. Pretty minimal benefit for the local community. Also not very environmentally sound.

So what's an alternative?

Imagine spending that money by empowering the local community instead. Work out walking routes with landowners, make sure they have no insurance worries or anything. Provide training in tour guiding, walking, visitor services etc.

If you create sustainable walking trails you will get all the benefits of better access to our built & natural heritage AND you will attract a different sort of tourist. One who will stay a few days at least so they can try different walks. Keeping the money in the community

It's simple really, would you rather have:

100,000 visitors a year who spend roughly €5 per person per day

OR

25,000 visitors who spend roughly €100 per person per day (accommodation, meals, snacks, pints etc)

As an added benefit & perhaps more important than anything else – if you worked with landowners and communities to create sustainable trails, you will have also developed a really wonderful asset for domestic tourism AND the local community.

Could come in handy during pandemics!

My philosophy on this is:

If you make it a better place to live, you make it a better place to visit.

Listen to locals, understand their needs. Measure the right things.

Actually aim for truly sustainable tourism.

Sorry this was a longer thread than I thought it would be