I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but from a naive perspective, putting a higher tax on tourism activities for non citizens seems like a solid solution with no obvious pitfall.
Second, the obvious pitfall here is that tourists don't like feeling like they are visiting a tourist trap, and openly charging them different prices makes it seem like one. I've visited plenty of sites that charge significantly more for non-citizens (in India, in this case) and it feels more exploitative than paying a fee in a country that does not do this. Some museums in Spain, for instance, reach a middle ground by providing free admission to EU citizens during a low-traffic time of the week.
Charging for public goods is very un-kiwi, even for visitors ... it also means having to pay for people to collect the money (in the US that person in the little hut collecting fees when you enter a public park) .... probably something more indirect like a hotel tax would be culturally more acceptable
I'm just trying to point out that citizenship is in many cases effectively arbitrary if a country is trying to protect its cultural and social values.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/social-networking/63642145...
A tourist trap isn't "you're charged more than the locals", a tourist trap is "you're charged for crap".
They don't advertise this fact so locals only seem to know it.
Out of curiosity, in India specifically, are the prices targeted at tourists truly exploitive, or are they simply in line with what we can afford in terms of currency exchange? There is a vast gap between "prices are ridiculous, even for tourists", vs. "the tourist is paying more than locals, but they're still getting a bargain or similar to what they'd pay back home".
As a tourist, I don't care if I'm being singled out and paying "reasonable prices based on my wealth". I'm smart enough to "nope out of" paying $100 USD for something that should be $20 USD, but I'm not going to complain because a native is trying to earn a decent wage in their poor economy (eg: $100 USD vs. $70 USD).
Visiting Bhutan, on the other hand, incurs fees of at least US$150/day. While justified in terms of minimising impact etc, one politically convenient side effect is to ensure that tourists never interact with anybody not employed by a five-star hotel or visit places without them.
Of course, there is a huge difference between making your own way to a tourist trap, vs. being "guided" there. One should always be prepared to be scammed if one is paying someone just to travel to a given destination, vs. paying to actually enter that location by the authoritative body at an official entrance. If you're not paying someone at a physical barricade to the location, you're being scammed. Not too hard to understand.
This is of course only in cases of low income countries.
By the way, if you're going tramping in New Zealand, then join the New Zealand Alpine Club. They run a separate system of accomodation for the serious outdoors people. In many of these places, there is a simple and cheap NZAC lodge tucked away in a quiet spot about 5 minutes walk from the overcrowded tourist hostels.