creating tourist traps

[jasonlulu_2000]

That’s why a number of beauty spots and historic sites have been introducing charges or restrictions on the tourists who visit. There are many reasons for this: to reduce overcrowding, which can spoil the ambience of a place, to manage wear and tear on old crumbling buildings, to tidy up the mess that visitors leave behind, or – as some may suggest – creating tourist traps to make more money out of the visitors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/chinese/features/take-away-english/ep-190826

Does it mean that "creating tourist traps" is one of the reasons for charges or restrictions according to the text above?


Thanks for your help!

Jason

 

[jutfrank]

That's what it seems to be saying, but it doesn't make much sense.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, the cynical view expressed after "as some may suggest" is that if you limit the number of people who can visit a place, or charge them for entry, it makes people think there must be something interesting there so more tourists will go.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes, it does.

It doesn't really make sense, does it? The places where they're restricting admission are already tourist traps. That's the problem they want to solve, not what they want to create.

It's poorly written in general. For instance, did you notice that the construction is not parallel?: to reduce / to tidy up / creating. (Do you know what the writer should have used instead of creating?)

And "to make more money out of the visitors" mixes up idioms.

(Cross-post.)

 

[jutfrank]

After reading emsr2d2's explanation in post #3, I see now that it should say something like:

... or - as some may suggest - to prevent creating tourist traps ...

That's a pretty bad omission, I'd say.

 

[emsr2d2]

I was suggesting that it's a cynical viewpoint - the reason for bringing in restrictions and fees is specifically to create a tourist trap. Those tourists who previously went there for free now have to pay for the privilege. They are "trapped" - if they want to see it, they have get their wallets out.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

After reading emsr2d2's explanation in post #3, I see now that it should say something like:

... or - as some may suggest - to prevent creating tourist traps ...

That's a pretty bad omission, I'd say.

Yup!

Here in Maine, they're putting restrictions on Acadia National Park because it's already overcrowded. So they're not preventing anything. They're reducing congestion.

I imagine it's the same story in the article's other examples.