Sunday, October 12, 2025
LinkedPrime
Technology

Sharp Island overrun shows Hong Kong needs balanced approach to responsible eco-tourism

The first thing I want to say about the Sharp Island overtourism issue, which emerged during the National Day Golden Week, is: there’s a nasty undercurrent of racism in much of the commentary I have seen about it. It’s a shame that visitors acted boorishly at a site of ecological interest, which gained popularity thanks to Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu. However, boorish behaviour unfortunately happens everywhere. I myself, a happily self-confessed woke virtue signaler, have made howlers in the past. I once rode an elephant while on holiday, ignorant of the animal abuse that is now widely recognised to occur in the background of the attractions. I wouldn’t want all British people tarred with the same brush from a lapse in judgment in my past. If anything, it’s a good thing for the environment that visitors come from across the land border. If we want to encourage sustainable tourism, we should celebrate visitors using the lowest carbon forms of transport. I know there’s a lot of discussion about how much tourism Hong Kong can sustain. However, given that the recent Policy Address seems to lean into tourism as an industry, it’s probably here to stay. So I’m not going to litigate whether or not tourism is good for Hong Kong, but instead address how to improve the quality of that tourism. Sharp Island, a UNESCO Geopark in Sai Kung, was popularised on Xiaohongshu. I had a peep at the posts with Sharp Island tags; they show beautiful scenery, happy families making hand hearts in front of gorgeous landscapes, and comparisons with Okinawa. It all looks rather lovely – standard social media FOMO fuel. It would be nice to think that the social media companies could identify when a particular location is going viral and automatically append guidelines on how to enjoy it responsibly. Responsible travel guidelines are fairly straightforward. Hong Kong country parks have their own guidelines, Bali has a list of dos and don’ts, and Copenhagen goes a step further and rewards those tourists who leave the place better than they found it. But, realistically, it’s too much to hope that every travel influencer on every social media site would sign up to that kind of voluntary code of conduct. Besides, even if travel influencers did teach about good behaviour while pouting into the camera, it only takes a few poorly behaved tourists to cause irreparable damage. The trick is to incentivise good tourism and completely eliminate bad behaviour. Responsible tourism has some stakeholders: local tour operators who need sustainable income, tourists who want to maximise their visits, and nature that wants to maintain a liveable ecosystem. Coming up with a solution should optimise for all three parameters. Nature, being the most delicate and having the most to lose, has the least wiggle room for compromise. Optimising solely for entirely environmental protection, i.e., forbidding travel and letting the coral enjoy pristine isolation, would be great for nature but would discourage the kind of low-carbon tourism that we want more of. Not to mention it’s a shame to restrict the area for everyone just to filter out the boors. Only one stakeholder wins there: nature benefits, but tourists and tour operators lose. The other extreme is to go full hog on tourism: cram in as many tourists as possible, set up booths selling plastic merch, and make as much money from the coral in the short period it remains alive. In this case, after a short-term pop, all the stakeholders lose. No good. A compromise might involve researching just how many tourists an ecological site can accommodate, and how much interaction they can be afforded. A site might have a sustainable carrying capacity in the thousands for benign tourists who view it from a distance, but just dozens if those tourists want to get closer to the action. Tour providers already need to be licensed. The infrastructure is in place to add an extra eco-tourism credential for companies that want to call themselves “eco-tour providers.” Said providers, if well-trained on ecological behaviour, could safely introduce tourists to the wonders of Hong Kong’s biodiversity. Such a designation could also be used to authenticate the true eco-tourism providers – like the magnificent Saiyuen in Cheung Chau – as distinct from cowboy operators. Having a limited number of licensed eco-tour providers for particularly sensitive spots would automatically cap the number of visitors. It would ensure that tourists could still visit beauty spots under the supervision of qualified, ecologically aware local guides, and would also help local communities continue to make a living from tourism.

Basel Kirmani •
Sharp Island overrun shows Hong Kong needs balanced approach to responsible eco-tourism
The first thing I want to say about the Sharp Island overtourism issue, which emerged during the National Day Golden Week, is: there’s a nasty undercurrent of racism in much of the commentary I have seen about it. It’s a shame that visitors acted boorishly at a site of ecological interest, which gained popularity thanks to Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu. However, boorish behaviour unfortunately happens everywhere. I myself, a happily self-confessed woke virtue signaler, have made howlers in the past. I once rode an elephant while on holiday, ignorant of the animal abuse that is now widely recognised to occur in the background of the attractions. I wouldn’t want all British people tarred with the same brush from a lapse in judgment in my past. If anything, it’s a good thing for the environment that visitors come from across the land border. If we want to encourage sustainable tourism, we should celebrate visitors using the lowest carbon forms of transport. I know there’s a lot of discussion about how much tourism Hong Kong can sustain. However, given that the recent Policy Address seems to lean into tourism as an industry, it’s probably here to stay. So I’m not going to litigate whether or not tourism is good for Hong Kong, but instead address how to improve the quality of that tourism. Sharp Island, a UNESCO Geopark in Sai Kung, was popularised on Xiaohongshu. I had a peep at the posts with Sharp Island tags; they show beautiful scenery, happy families making hand hearts in front of gorgeous landscapes, and comparisons with Okinawa. It all looks rather lovely – standard social media FOMO fuel. It would be nice to think that the social media companies could identify when a particular location is going viral and automatically append guidelines on how to enjoy it responsibly. Responsible travel guidelines are fairly straightforward. Hong Kong country parks have their own guidelines, Bali has a list of dos and don’ts, and Copenhagen goes a step further and rewards those tourists who leave the place better than they found it. But, realistically, it’s too much to hope that every travel influencer on every social media site would sign up to that kind of voluntary code of conduct. Besides, even if travel influencers did teach about good behaviour while pouting into the camera, it only takes a few poorly behaved tourists to cause irreparable damage. The trick is to incentivise good tourism and completely eliminate bad behaviour. Responsible tourism has some stakeholders: local tour operators who need sustainable income, tourists who want to maximise their visits, and nature that wants to maintain a liveable ecosystem. Coming up with a solution should optimise for all three parameters. Nature, being the most delicate and having the most to lose, has the least wiggle room for compromise. Optimising solely for entirely environmental protection, i.e., forbidding travel and letting the coral enjoy pristine isolation, would be great for nature but would discourage the kind of low-carbon tourism that we want more of. Not to mention it’s a shame to restrict the area for everyone just to filter out the boors. Only one stakeholder wins there: nature benefits, but tourists and tour operators lose. The other extreme is to go full hog on tourism: cram in as many tourists as possible, set up booths selling plastic merch, and make as much money from the coral in the short period it remains alive. In this case, after a short-term pop, all the stakeholders lose. No good. A compromise might involve researching just how many tourists an ecological site can accommodate, and how much interaction they can be afforded. A site might have a sustainable carrying capacity in the thousands for benign tourists who view it from a distance, but just dozens if those tourists want to get closer to the action. Tour providers already need to be licensed. The infrastructure is in place to add an extra eco-tourism credential for companies that want to call themselves “eco-tour providers.” Said providers, if well-trained on ecological behaviour, could safely introduce tourists to the wonders of Hong Kong’s biodiversity. Such a designation could also be used to authenticate the true eco-tourism providers – like the magnificent Saiyuen in Cheung Chau – as distinct from cowboy operators. Having a limited number of licensed eco-tour providers for particularly sensitive spots would automatically cap the number of visitors. It would ensure that tourists could still visit beauty spots under the supervision of qualified, ecologically aware local guides, and would also help local communities continue to make a living from tourism.
Read original article →

Related Articles