There’s an instinct to shun the places that we are told are ‘musts’ by everyone and every search engine. There’s an assumption that they places might not live up the hike; there must be an alternative; it will be too touristy, busy, obvious. This is definitely true of some places, of course. There’s always a patch of more virgin land that is quieter, prettier and cleaner.

But there is an ethical dilemma. Concentrating tourism and human activity is undoubtedly causing ecological damage. This is no more evident than in the Cocora Valley : the famous giant palms are dwindelling in number due to pressure from footfall. However, a high concentration of tourism – if well-managed – may relieve pressure on other sites. This is the argument for national parks. We get access to nature in a limited and managed way. The alternative, seeking out new and unseen wonders, is often more damaging, due to a lack of management and ecosystem resilience. What feels like a more authentic or responsible choice can quietly cause greater harm.

And despite everything, Cocora remains an extraordinary place. The scale of the landscape and the the shifting mist remain beautiful. You move from open, cinematic vistas into quieter stretches of forest, across rivers and hummingbird-filled clearings, and back again. It’s in those moments away from the main viewpoints but still within the same shared space that the experience regains its depth.

So perhaps the question isn’t simply whether a place is “too touristy,” but what kind of impact our choices create.