# data[].attributes.body
This paradox perfectly captures the core nature of urban tourism. Cities are fundamentally built for local residents' daily life, work, and public services—most urban infrastructure (such as public transport, public squares, cultural heritage sites, and commercial districts) is originally designed for locals, not tourists. However, tourists become the most intensive users of these shared facilities during peak travel seasons. This mismatch between the original purpose of urban space and the actual usage by tourists is the root cause of many urban tourism problems, such as over-tourism, resource conflicts between residents and visitors, and the pressure on public services. It is a universal, long-standing contradiction that runs through the development of urban tourism worldwide, so I find it the most convincing and realistic.

# data[].attributes.body
This paradox is universal, observable and typical in almost all tourist cities, which is why I agree with it the most.

# data[].attributes.body
The impact of tourism on local economies varies from person to person.

# data[].attributes.body
Most cities are originally designed for local residents, not for tourism. Public facilities such as transportation, streets, restaurants, parks and public services are built for daily urban life, rather than specifically for tourists. However, during peak tourism periods, tourists intensively occupy and overuse these urban facilities, which creates heavy pressure on the urban system.

# data[].attributes.body
Although tourists make heavy use of urban facilities and services, most of these were originally built for local residents. Very little in the city is specially designed or planned only for tourist use.

# data[].attributes.body
The number of tourists can be observed with the naked eye. Therefore, the impact of the number of tourists on the economy can also be perceived.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Paradox 2 the most. Although cities receive a large number of tourists, tourists are often still economically and physically “invisible” in urban space. This is because cities are mainly built for residents, not only for tourists, so visitors often mix into everyday urban life. At the same time, their spending may be spread across different sectors and is not always easy to identify clearly. I think this paradox best shows the complexity of urban tourism.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Paradox 4 the most.Because when a city prioritizes tourism development, it often allocates limited land, capital, and human resources to tourism-related industries (hotels, attractions, retail), crowding out investment in high-value manufacturing, tech innovation, or public services. This long-term structural imbalance erodes the city's comprehensive competitiveness and sustainable development potential.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Low- quality employment （low skills, could be easily replaced）

2. Economic leakage (local communities don't get much revenue

3. Crowding-out effect (higher living costs)

# data[].attributes.body
Tourism brings economic benefits to cities, but the more a city relies on tourism, the less it benefits.

In the short term, tourism can indeed bring considerable income, job opportunities and enhance the image of a city. However, when a city overly relies on the tourism economy, it often faces the risk of a "Dutch disease" - excessive concentration of resources in tourism-related industries, neglecting the diversified development of other economic sectors. At the same time, excessive tourism may lead to a decline in the quality of life for local residents and the occupation of public spaces, thereby triggering social conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
Healthy urban tourism is tourism empowering the city: it boosts the economy, improves infrastructure, and revitalizes culture, ultimately achieving a win-win situation for both residents and tourists.

Imbalanced urban tourism is "the city being held hostage by tourism": sacrificing residents' lives for tourism, turning the city into a pure consumption space, and ultimately leaving the city soulless and making tourism unsustainable.

# data[].attributes.body
Tourism can bring economic benefits to the city, but when a city is overly dependent on tourism, the economic structure of the city is too single, and the more likely it is to be affected by the vulnerability of tourism, which brings negative effects.

# data[].attributes.body
I mostly agree with Paradox 4.

Tourism can generate job oppotunity, revenue, and international visibility for cities. However, when a city becomes overly reliant on tourism, its economy risks becoming fragile and one-dimensional. Under the external factor such as pandemics (COVID-19) can affect and devastate tourism flows.

Moreover, overdependence may lead to issues such as overcrowding, rising living costs surrounding the destination. In this situation, tourism is both a blessing and a potential trap on the cities.

# data[].attributes.body
It is hard to determine whether some urban facilities are built for tourists or local residents. Some public facilities such as public transportation and parks are for everyone's use. It's not just tourists who use them intensively.

# data[].attributes.body
This resonates because tourism dependence often leads to rising costs, crowding out of local businesses, and a fragile economy vulnerable to shocks (e.g., crises or seasonality). What initially appears as a financial gain can turn into a structural burden, making the city less resilient and less livable—a clear case of diminishing returns.

# data[].attributes.body
Urban tourism is very important for the city‘s development, but now the definition for urban tourism is not clear. We can’t identify the tourists and citizens and we don’t have suitable method to count the tourists.

# data[].attributes.body
I most agree with Paradox 5: the asymmetric relationship between tourism and city policy versus cities’ need for tourism. This paradox captures the fundamental tension where tourism is often managed separately from urban planning, leading to conflicts like those seen in Barcelona and Venice, yet cities still rely on tourism’s economic and cultural benefits. It directly points to the need for a more integrated approach—one that moves beyond treating tourists as outsiders and instead fosters “localhood,” co-creation, and the model of the “temporary local,” as seen in Copenhagen’s strategy. Resolving this paradox is essential for making urban tourism truly sustainable.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Paradox 4 the most. Urban tourism can bring economic benefits, such as more jobs, higher income, and more business opportunities. However, when a city becomes too dependent on tourism, it can also face problems like overcrowding, rising prices, and loss of local identity. I think this paradox is very realistic because tourism can help a city, but too much dependence can also make the city more fragile.