Do you buy too much junk in third world countries?

by Grant Martin on

One of the biggest problems that I have when I’m traveling overseas is “strong dollar syndrome.” With a rough approximation of the exchange rate in my head and the smell of foreign commerce, everything looks cheap and I buy trinkets and souvenirs with reckless abandon.

This has happened all over the place, from the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul to the artisan market in Ubud, Indonesia to the Old City in Shanghai, China. That amazing tea set — the one with the intricate detailing, matching coasters and sterling spoons is only 20 Turkish Lira? Oh, the hand carved chess board with tiny stone robot pawns is a mere 100,000 Rupiahs? Heck yeah I’ll shell out for that!

All too often I’ve over committed to a cheap, cultural travel trinket, tossed it into my bag and carried it across an entire continent — just to bring it home and set it lovingly under my living room coffee table. As I sit typing this from my dining room in Chicago, I look left at a twice-opened chess set from Turkey and the rarely used cracked-glass ice cream dish from Vietnam. Did I really need to bring those back with me?

In part, yes. The memories that come back from my travels run strong every time I see an artifact that I’ve collected from the road. And whether or not I put things I’ve collect to regular use, it’s still nice having a reminder of the good times.

But in today’s globalized economy where it’s almost cheaper to have bulk items sold shipped and resold across an entire ocean it’s easy to see how the line between cultural and kitsch can blur.

Here’s an example: one game I now like to play in foreign markets is “Could I find this at the dollar store at home?” Completely out of context, without the smells, tastes and experiences of the road, might this item be in a heap of discounted refuse at the local supermarket? In the case of the teacup that I bought in Shanghai three years ago, most definitely.

As a result, I now keep my overseas purchases confined to a tightly defined window. Yes, I still want the experience of buying a unique, cultural object from an exotic destination, and I definitely want these memories tied to the object. But unless it has significant cultural or functional value or can be purchased in no other place in the planet, I’ll check the local Target. The rest of my souvenirs I’ll bring back in my camera.

[Photo : Flickr | *Zoha.n]

Who pays for rescue efforts when people are lost? Who should?

by Jamie Rhein on

A few days ago, Kraig wrote about the three hikers lost on Mt. Hood. At the time of his post, one of the hikers had been found dead. The other two were still missing. Almost a week after they set out on their climb, they are still missing and most probably are dead. Because of this tragic situation, the question of who foots the bill for rescue efforts has come up once more.

Back in 2005, then Gadling blogger Erik Olsen wrestled with the question about who should pay–the lost hiker who hopefully is found–or tax payers? Olsen’s musings came about after a hiker hurt his ankle while hiking in Colorado. Several fire departments rescued the hiker after he spent a night on the mountain. The sticker price for the rescue was $5,000. In this case, the fire departments wanted the hiker to pay.

Usually, the people who are getting rescued don’t pay anything. But is that fair? Rescue attempts can be pricey. Consider this: From 1992 to 2007, the U.S. National Park Service spent $58 million on search and rescue efforts.

This recent Newsweek article echoes some of Erik’s points. As the article highlights, the hard economics question of who should pay for rescue attempts has as many facets to consider as it always has.

While one might say that people who take risks by heading up a mountain top or straying off a path should pay up once he or she is found, there are other factors to keep in mind.

  • One is a concern that people may avoid calling for help until it’s too late out of fear for what a rescue attempt might cost.
  • Some risks are unknown. A beautiful sunny day could go sour if the wind shifts, for example. Should people be punished when nature is at fault?
  • A large portion of rescue attempts are made by volunteers, therefore the cost is curtailed.
  • When fire departments and military units are part of rescue efforts, they often have hours to log towards rescues. A real live rescue helps them meet their quota.
  • Sometimes a rescue attempt may be launched even though the hiker is not in danger. A seasoned hiker may be holed up somewhere waiting for more favorable hiking conditions while a family member is frantic with worry.

With the knowledge that lost hikers are part of the outdoor scene, being financially proactive seems to be the best approach for handling costs before they occur. Colorado, for example, collects a small portion of the money from state recreational fees to put into a fund that is earmarked for search and rescue.

In Alaska, people who are mountain climbing up Mount McKinley pay $200 for the privilege.

Although planning for a tragic situation is never pleasant, it seems that in this case, planning ahead for the ” just in case” is sound. Otherwise, at the worst possible moment, people will be faced with the question, “How much is a life worth?

Relative stability brings tourists back to Zimbabwe

by Sean McLachlan on

For a while now most news out of Zimbabwe has been bad. Gross mismanagement by President Robert Mugabe led the country to financial ruin and hyperinflation, with people using gasoline as currency because nobody wanted the government’s $50 million dollar bills.

But with the return of relative stability thanks to the new unity government, tourists are coming back to Zimbabwe. The nation’s Council of Tourism reports that 362,000 people visited Zimbabwe by August 2009, up from 100,000 in the same period in 2008. It wasn’t clear if this figure only counted tourists or all foreign visitors. A decade ago, Zimbabwe raked in $250 million annually in tourism revenue. That dipped to just $40 million in 2005, but has risen to $100 million since the unity government came into power in 2008.

However the numbers are created, it’s still good news. With the country’s economy in shambles, an influx of foreign currency is sure to help. The government has been offering tax incentives for companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe tourism. And with attractions such as Victoria Falls (pictured here) and abundant wildlife, if you’re looking for good deals on an African trip you may want to consider Zimbabwe. They’ll certainly be glad to see you.

Tourism experts say discounts, economic upturn will make 2010 a good year

by Sean McLachlan on

It’s no secret that 2009 has been a rough year for the travel industry. With everyone tightening their belts, discretionary expenses like holidays are often the first thing to go. But industry leaders meeting in London for the World Travel Market say 2010 is looking better.

Cautious optimism about the economy is one cause for this brighter outlook, but travel companies know positive indicators such as increased productivity and exports don’t necessarily translate to more money being spent on travel. What will also help is the shift to more budget travel options. Tour operators have been choosing budget airlines and more modest hotels in order to offer lower prices, and some budget companies have actually seen an increase in business. This trend will continue into 2010, experts say, which is good news for people who want to get away from it all without spending it all. An increased emphasis on budget travel will keep people moving and hopefully encourage them to choose more luxurious options once we get into another prosperous period.

The travel industry is certainly looking for a silver lining around the tsunami that hit it this year. A report released at the World Travel Market estimates there will be an 8% drop in global travel bookings this year, as well as a 14% drop in airline passengers and a 16% drop in hotel bookings.

With figures like that, 2009 will be an easy act to follow.

UK towns opening up to euro

by Sean McLachlan on

A lot of travelers stop by the United Kingdom as part of a European trip, but they have the problem of what to do with their euros when they are in a land that uses pounds.

This is becoming less of a problem, according to a report by the BBC. More and more businesses are accepting euros as well as pounds in an effort to attract tourists. Shops, restaurants, even hotels are accepting euros. I noticed this trend several years ago in London, but it has spread across the country now, and is gaining ground in places like Northern Ireland towns that want to draw in shoppers from the Republic of Ireland, which uses euros.

There are some limitations, however. Most places only accept banknotes and give change in pounds. Also, the exchange rate may not be all that good, although the little town of Dunster is offering a one-to-one rate, a great deal considering that in a bank a euro will only buy you 85 pence, minus whatever fee they slap on you.

But before you whip out your euros in the Green and Pleasant Land or Emerald Isle, be careful. Some places defiantly stick to the pound. I’ve even seen signs telling in no uncertain terms that euros are not welcome. For the UK, integration with the Eurozone is still a long way off.