The group that espoused reconciliatory views, much like the set of individuals who adhered to negative viewpoints, also viewed the landscape as aesthetically displeasing; however, they moved beyond notions of beautification and adopted an environmental ethic that allowed them to not only comprehend the current situation but to also reflect on the unstable nature of the global environment. This group was also able to recognize that the situation had to be dealt with on a constant basis. In this sense, this was the most reflective group of tourists and perhaps the one most amenable to the local situation. It is, however, important to note that this group ignored the nuances and side-effects of the restoration efforts, particularly the fact that replenishment could lead to adverse impacts on the beach ecosystems. One of the key differences between the latter two aforementioned groups was that tourists who espoused reconciliatory viewpoints had local knowledge of the situation, although incomplete, prior to travel and in some instance upon arrival. Arguably, hotels and the government benefit from tourists’ ignorance; however, knowledge provision is a crucial element to enable tourists to understand restoration efforts in a way that does not impede their enjoyment of the site. Interestingly, as informed as this group seemed, in comparison to the other two, they framed their argument in a way that humans were not at fault and rather Mother Nature or global climate change was the culprit.