Tourism is a luxury, not a right, and if there is a perceived negative externality to Norway from overtourism, it should be mitigated in the market. There will be fewer people who are willing to go to Trolltunga if they are not a Norwegian resident and the price of entry is $200.
Sidenote: I lived in Norway for a few years, gorgeous place but it does need to be preserved to keep its integrity.
- lottery (example: powerball)
- waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella)
- application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?)
or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases, money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer, maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.
These are at least fair relative to wealth / income.
And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g., lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists).
Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been answered ;-)
This is not a whataboutism either, unless you can put that label on trying to focus on major showstoppers that bring whole system down before light cosmetic defects.
There's a difference between addressing greater wrongs, and questioning the creation of yet another instance.
There are, of course, alternatives to top tourism destinations. But allocating access to the top destinations on price alone, and where that price does not relate to underlying costs, strikes me as the essence of unfairness.