Attracting just over 10 million visitors a year, the Louvre is the world’s most popular museum. An estimated 80% of this sum visits to see one painting: Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Mona Lisa.” Due to its tide of patrons, the Louvre has devised a new queue system, hoping to reduce wait time and increase visitors’ viewing interval. While this restructuring is beneficial to the museum and visitors, it helps contribute to the ever-expanding travel industry and thus, leading to overtourism.

Overtourism, defined by Justin Francis of Responsible Travel, occurs when “too many visitors are in a particular destination at a given time.” This is relative to location, but in short, it is the swell of travelers that overwhelms a place in terms of economy, geography, wildlife and more.

Francis reports that approximately two billion tourist arrivals occur per year, and this number increases by about 6% each year. On the surface, this seems like a good thing. Increased revenue and wider recognition for popular travel destinations, along with the general upswing of travel, leads to a more connected and culturally-aware world. On the flip side, overtourism can choke an area, disrupt the lives of locals and generate negative travel experiences for tourists.

The biggest side effect of overtourism, other than intruding on locals’ lives, is its impact on spontaneity and fully exploring another location or culture.

Tourists are drawn to certain attractions—like “The Mona Lisa,” for example—because it is revered as a cultural icon. Whether it is a famous piece of art, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam or a historical structure, part of the appeal is being able to say, “I went there.” Showing selfies of yourself in front of the Colosseum to your friends can often be used as bragging rights, rather than true appreciation of the site.

Obviously, certain destinations are popular and important for a reason. The Vatican Museum is chock-full of history and art. Is it entirely necessary to spend precious vacation time waiting in line or spending money on tickets or entrance fees to be jam-packed with a crowd of other tourists?

Seeing these pieces and traveling to these sites are worthwhile. Yet, it may detract from real encounters with different cultures. To experience this, it may be beneficial to travel to quieter towns; to visit the locals that are at the heart of a cultural identity.

It can be difficult to spontaneously travel, especially if lodging and other experiences need to be booked months in advance, but it is worth setting aside time for exploring. It is good to reach out to nearby towns, ones that may be “off the beaten track” sort to speak.

Pre-planning helps secure things like lodging, but it may also lead to more spontaneity, specifically by booking out of peak travel seasons. This, in itself, will give wiggle room to tourists as they don’t have to combat lines and general congestion. As a bonus, out of season rates are usually cheaper.

Now, the nature of pre-planning inherently reduces the idea of spontaneity. Some people may enjoy picking a destination, traveling there and doing whatever they want day-to-day. Others may need more structured itineraries.

So, no, travel does not need to be one way or the other.

It is, however, important to consider locals and other tourists while planning (or randomly deciding to go on) a trip. Slight adjustments, whether that it bypassing the Louvre to explore a different part of France or booking a room in a hostel rather than a downtown hotel, can drastically change the travel experience—hopefully in a positive and more memorable way.

Maddie Peters can be reached at pete9542@stthomas.edu.