Fourth?!

I kinda don't want to write and send my post below down a notch, but I guess the blog must go on.

National Geographic has released their latest "Best & Worst Locations" photos and ratings.

I'm sad to say the South Island of NZ only made it to fourth, behind the Norweigan Fjords, and 2 Canadian entries. But in fact, on closer inspection, it's tied 3rd with Gaspé Peninsula, Quebec.

That's not bad going I guess, but then with glaciers, soaring snowy mountains, stunning limestone formations, rainforest, UNESCO landscapes, beautiful beaches, 'great walks', stunning lakes, endemic wildlife, and a plethora of other interesting places to go and things to see, you can kind of understand how it would be in the top 5. I think putting the South Island below the fjords, a couple of National Parks in Canada & a Canadian peninsular is still a little harsh.

To explain a bit more abotu why; The National Geographic's Center for Sustainable Destinations convened an independent panel of 437 experts in fields from historic preservation and sustainable tourism to travel writing and archaeology to assess 133 iconic places around the world.

The panel based its decisions on six criteria: environmental and ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, condition of historic buildings and archaeological sites, aesthetic appeal, quality of tourism management, and outlook for the future. The results appear in the November/December 2009 issue of National Geographic Traveler magazine.

I guess I should concede that whilst we have a small population, the tourism here is swamping the islands (not to the point that I can't still drive most of my time on open roads) and certain sites especially. Still, it provides some employment for the population and is helping us to lift from recession.

Tis a pretty pretty place, gotta admit I'm kinda happy I get to live and work here!