Do you think mass tourism is sustainable in the long-term? Why/why not? Should local governments be available to keep tourists out? For example, if your dream was to visit the redwood forests in California and you were told you could not visit, how would you feel about that? To whom do natural resource mass tourism sites actually belong?

1. The mass tourism can and can not be sustainable on the long term, depending on what kind of tourist site it is.

Explanation:

The mass tourism is sustainable on the long run for some places, and it is not sustainable for other place. The places where it is is sustainable are mostly the ones that are man-made and are well regulated and protected. Such tourist attractions are the Colosseum in Rome, Eiffel Tower in Paris, Big Ben in London etc.

On the other hand, the natural sites that are tourist attractions can not be sustainable, in general, on the long term. The reason for that is that if there are constantly lot of tourists on those places, they get disturbed, damaged, degraded, and over time may easily disappear, as those places are much harder to be protected directly and stop damaging them.

2. The local governments should be able to forbid tourist activities, especially when taken in consideration that the natural resources mass tourism sites belong to the government.

Explanation:

The natural resources tourism sites belong to the government, and in collaboration with the local authorities they control them together. Whenever the local government feels like the tourist place is in some kind of danger to be damaged, it should be , and it is able to stop any tourist activities there, or at least to restrict them and minimize them.

In the example of a tourist wanting to visit the redwood forest in California and not being allowed to, it does seem cruel. On the other hand, the tourist as disappointed he/she may be, should realize that it is done for the good of the forest, to be protected and continue to exist in the future.

answerthey are called the pampas;