Overtourism and Tourismphobia: A Journey Through Four Decades of Tourism Development, Planning and Local Concerns

Over the past four decades, while the increasing demand for mobility, leisure and unique experiences have been examined as key factors in the growth of tourism, the attendant growth paradigm has historically centered around exponential increments in visitation and this has been at the centre of debates concerning the pressure from and dependence on tourism that has come to characterise destination communities. Scholars such as Doxey (1975) focused on the antagonistic relationship emerging between local residents and tourists, Butler (1980) on the tourism area life cycle and the stages from development to decline and O'Reilly (1986) on tourist carrying capacity or the extent to which destinations can cope with visitation. Multilateral organisations such as the United Nation World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 1983) have long deliberated on the effects of tourism saturation and concerns of excessive visitation are not new. More recent applications of the seminal conceptual frameworks above emphasise that reconciling host–guest convergences, divergences and aggravations continue to remain pressing, especially in light of continued tourism growth trajectories (Alvarez-Sousa, 2018; Tsaur, Yen, & Teng, 2018)

These debates have informed academic research as well as practitioner thinking, and have helped shape policy and planning interventions (i.e. Ajuntament de Barcelona Direcció de Turisme, 2017) – however, these have often shifted the problems associated with tourism, rather than fully addressing the underlying root causes.

Over the last decade, while many scholars have maintained their interest in the classical debate concerning the impacts of tourism, some have attempted new conceptualisations, others have converged with the narrative of social movements challenging the tourism growth premise, with the subsequent coining of the terms “overtourism” and “tourismphobia” (Dredge, 2017; Goodwin, 2017; Milano, 2017a). Saarinen (2006, p. 1121) was prescient in his assertions that in the face of rapidly growing tourism economies, there is a “need for alternative and more environment and host-friendly practices in development, planning, and policies”. Moreover, Saarinen’s (2013, p. 10) call that “in order to have tools for setting the limits to growth in tourism in a local-global nexus with less tourism-centric evaluation criteria, stronger governmental and inter-governmental policies and regulations are most probably needed” is evidently more pressing today. More recently, Hall (2019, p. 13) argued that when it comes to sustainable tourism, “the belief that all problems can be solved by exerting greater effort and demanding greater efficiency within the status quo of continued tourism growth and consumption, necessitates challenge”.

The terms “overtourism” and “tourismphobia” have their genesis in the rapid unfolding of unsustainable mass tourism practices and the responses that these have generated amongst academics, practitioners and social movements concerned with the detrimental use of urban, rural and coastal spaces, among others, for tourism purposes. The commercially expedient practices of policymakers, destination managers and key firms in the tourism sector (especially airlines and cruising) have evidently lead to unsustainable and inadvertent tourism outcomes, and excessive dependency on tourism at the expense of alternative economic sectors. Accordingly, quality of life and well-being of local residents has become central to the emergence of grassroots-led social movements across the globe protesting against the pressures that tourism growth has enforced.

Prominent cases affected by the evolving overtourism phenomenon include Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Barcelona, Granada, Dubrovnik, Lisbon, Madrid, Malta, and Venice (Boissevain, 1996; Colomb & Novy, 2016; Milano & Mansilla, 2018). While the “overtourism” debate dates back over four decades, with the study of the “pleasure periphery” and the so-called “golden hordes” (Turner & Ash, 1975), tourism “monoculture” and the impact of mass tourism has seen sensationalist mass media reportage of the term “tourismphobia” emerging in Spanish tourism centres, including Barcelona and Palma de Mallorca. Imprecisely and exploitatively adopted by Spanish mass media, the term has been used to describe the emergence of social discontent with the pressures linked to tourism growth, as well as toward discrediting and besmirching the activities of grassroots-led social movements and civil society groups involved (Milano, 2017a). “Tourismphobia” appeared for the first time in 2008 in an article published in “El País” titled “Turistofobia”, by Catalan anthropologist Manuel Delgado. Delgado (2008) drew urgent attention to the emergence of a new touristic class replacing the working class and longstanding local residents, and how this substitution has occurred against the interests of tourists travelling to experience sincere human encounters and authentic urban life.

The terms “overtourism” and “tourismphobia” became the buzzwords of 2017 and have since evolved from what could be viewed as a sensationalist and oversimplified media narrative criticising the impacts of tourism (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018), not always objectively addressing the real drivers of the phenomenon, into a subject receiving increased attention by both academics and practitioners studying it (Bellini, Go, & Pasquinelli, 2016; Milano, 2018; Postma, 2013). Although, an increasing number of studies on “overtourism” and “tourism overcrowding” in destinations have been published by the World Travel and Tourism Council (2017), the UN World Tourism Organization (2018, 2019); the European Parliament (Peeters et al., 2018), concurrently to a proliferation of academic and industry conferences and trade fairs (i.e. 2017 ITB Berlin, the 2017 World Travel Monitor Forum in Pisa, the 2017 World Travel Market in London, and the 2018 UNWTO Global Summit on Urban Tourism in Seoul), coming to terms with overtourism remains a work in progress (Milano, Cheer, & Novelli, 2019).

The term overtourism has since been defined variously. For instance, drawing on a previous discussion paper we published in The Conversation in July 2018 (Milano, Cheer, & Novelli, 2018) and in our forthcoming volume “Overtourism: Excesses, discontents and measures in travel and tourism” (Milano et al., 2019), we describe it as “the excessive growth of visitors leading to overcrowding in areas where residents suffer the consequences of temporary and seasonal tourism peaks, which have caused permanent changes to their lifestyles, denied access to amenities and damaged their general well-being” (Milano et al., 2019).

All in all, what has become a well traversed argument is that the current growth model has proved to be anachronistic with the negative impacts of tourism evidenced in numerous studies (including this Special Issue), necessitating that tourism planning and development interventions must shift to more conscious and responsible models and practices (see: Pollock, 2015). This is alluded to by Scheyvens and Biddulph (2018, p. 4) who call for a more inclusive tourism, defined as “Transformative tourism in which marginalised groups are engaged in ethical production or consumption of tourism and the sharing of its benefits”. However, the challenge as Mostafanezhad and Norum (2019, p. 8) outline is that when it comes to realising sustainable tourism and overcoming the symptoms of overtourism, “the policies and practices which have developed around it are frequently pursued within the broader context of neoliberal global capitalism – which, by definition, is throttled by the bottom line”.

Moreover, most of the solutions employed by policymakers so far have been implemented within a neoliberalism framework and an abiding tourism growth paradigm promoting capital accumulation through dispossession (Harvey, 2003). This is likely rooted in the nature of power, capital accumulation and class struggle of contemporary tourism political economies (Bianchi, 2018), where overtourism has served to generate further inequalities and a renewal of class skirmishes. Overtourism might be wrongly perceived as nothing more than a media sensation, an oversimplification that elides the historical impacts of tourism, the scope and unprecedented nature of global mobilities and its implications on local communities. For instance, popular tourism cities have become more intensely susceptible to global capital flows which tends to overcome local tourism management responses. Management and planning operating in isolation are unable to satisfactorily address tourism-related tensions without a profound paradigm shift in the underlying structure of the global tourism political economy (Bianchi, 2018).

Indeed, a place that is attractive and alluring to tourists should still be a place that is habitable and secure for local residents, and not sacrificed for the economic imperative above all else. That is why Lefebvre's (1968) perspective on the right to the city remains alive and relevant, and can help rethink the present day production of tourism spaces. In whichever geopolitical context it occurs – urban, rural, coastal or island environments, addressing the causes and consequences of overtourism requires bottom-up technical and political solutions that seeks harmony between the economic imperative, and the social, cultural and ecological inheritances of people and places.

Models and measures of tourism success around the globe that mirror a shift from a focus on destination development campaigns firmly aimed at stimulating growth in visitation, tourist spend and investment, to a more accurate forecasting of what the implication of excessive tourism numbers might mean for a destination, should be the basis of strategic tourism planning and governance. This is gradually emerging with some popular tourism cities afflicted with overtourism responding with a mix of taxes, legislation and regulation, doubtless promoted by backlash of local communities and related social movements.

The renewed interest in the adverse impacts of tourism, as implied in the term overtourism, is related to a variety of well-established causes, such as the loss of sense of belonging, diminishment of sense of place, increased congestion and privatisation of public spaces, explosive growth of cruise tourism, the rapid growth in numbers of seasonal and day visitors (Cheer, Milano, & Novelli, 2019), the rise in tourism induced real estate speculation and the associated decline in purchasing power parity of local residents vs. visitors, the dismantling of socio-cultural connectivity (Milano, 2017a; 2018) and the mainstreaming of special and niche tourism practices in vulnerable places (national parks, small islands and critical cultural heritage places).

In particular, this Special Issue offers critical reflections on the contemporary evolution of tourism development and the implication of such processes on people, place and space across the European region. It is aimed at developing more nuanced insights into current tourism dynamics and to ultimately foster participatory and collaborative responses to what is evidently a rapidly evolving phenomenon with significant policy and practice implications (Dredge, 2017).

This Special Issue builds upon existing and emerging knowledge and makes a theoretical and practical contribution that moves beyond the “top 10 things you can do about overtourism”, mediatic sensationalism and oversimplification of an evolving phenomenon. It explores the genesis of overtourism and its underlying system dynamics, offering case specific suggestions on how counter productive outcomes might be addressed from a tourism planning perspective.