Should popular heritage sites limit how many visitors they admit?

Write my answer and get scored

Machu Picchu, Venice and the Alhambra now ration entry, and the practice divides people who care equally about heritage. Both positions deserve a hearing before I give my own. Those who oppose limits make a democratic argument. A monument built by a whole society belongs to that society, and a daily cap inevitably favours the organised and the wealthy, since tickets sell out months ahead or resell at a premium. Tourism also pays for the conservation everyone wants, and towns whose incomes depend on visitors cannot simply be told to receive fewer. Those who support limits answer that the object being visited is finite. Stone wears, humidity from crowded bodies damages pigment, and a site loved to death serves nobody, least of all the visitors shuffling through it. Restricted numbers also improve the experience that people paid for. In my opinion the limits are necessary, but the way they are allocated matters more than the limit itself. Rationing by price is what makes caps unfair, so sites should combine timed entry with a genuine lottery, resident allocations and free days for schools in the region. Conservation and access only conflict when access is treated as a market. In conclusion, capping visitor numbers is the responsible choice for fragile sites, provided the tickets are distributed by fair rules rather than by wealth.