Introduction ā triggers and causes
Tourism generates almost 10 percent of global GDP and supports more than 270 million jobs (WTTC, 2015). According to a long-term forecast by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), international tourist arrivals will reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011). After the economic crisis of 2008, tourism was seen as an important economic driver promoting wealth and growth. Therefore, a lot has been done to develop it in cities and in rural areas. Additionally, travelling became more and more popular and affordable for developing nations. Nowadays, there is a greater demand for tourism from citizens of economically emerging nations and from a growing number of retirees in many of the more developed countries (Chambers, 2009), where the number of people who are in good health, live longer and have the personal and financial freedom to travel is increasing (Samochowiec, KĆ¼hne & Frick, 2015).
The expansion of wealth in many economically emerging countries such as China and India has provided increasing numbers of people with the means and leisure to participate regularly in recreational tourism. The economic power of India and China is set to increase considerably: for example, India would only need to reach a quarter of the European Unionās GDP per capita to be as large as the EU by 2035 (Gros, 2018).
Another development that has significantly changed and shaped tourism in recent years is technological development and digitization. Shared economy platforms such as Airbnb, 9flats and Wimdu have tremendously increased the accommodation available, not only in cities. Online booking platforms, apps, digital maps and rating platforms make travelling easier and faster, and allow tourists to move around cities more freely, more quickly, and independently of travel guides. These developments have led to tourism activities becoming interwined with local life (Koens, Postma & Papp, 2018).
Another trend has also encouraged this integration of tourists into residentsā living sphere. The most talked-about trend in travel is authenticity (Bandi Tanner, 2018). In the context of tourism, it may be seen as a counter-reaction, an alternative way to organize holidays in order to avoid crowded places and mass tourism. Itās about finding the unique, authentic experience and visiting lesser-known places away from popular sights and tourist attraction points (Wanhill, 2000).
In recent years, some destination marketing organizations seemed to be convinced that authenticity and traditions were at risk of being lost as traditions are staged by marketers and tourism professionals. To prevent this, local people and residents should be the agents and mediators of what is authentic and traditional, not city and travel guides. Thus, destination marketing organizations are trying to intertwine touristsā paths with local neighborhoods (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2017). But the question that is now becoming more and more apparent is: are authentic tourist experiences increasingly at the expense of locals?
These developments have led to the fact that popular vacation destinations, historic capitals and cities, as well as cultural hubs and natural attraction points are increasingly suffering from overload. Although the phenomenon has been around for a while, the term āovertourismā has gained increasingly more attention from 2017. Authors such as Jungk (1980) and Krippendorf (1986) started this discussion in the 1980s. But in the past few years some destinations have reached a critical point of perceived tourism development, and there has been a radical change in localsā perceptions of tourism (Goodwin, 2017). In some cities, residents are even taking to the streets because they feel pushed out of their own cities and overrun by the masses of visitors.
Goodwin (2017) defines overtourism as a phenomenon that describes destinations where hosts or guests, locals or tourists, feel that there are too many visitors and that the quality of life in the area, or the quality of the experience, has deteriorated unacceptably. Overtourism can also be described as unchecked and unsustainable tourism leading to significant problems. When tourism is not managed correctly, it has the potential to cause much damage and disruption (Coldwell, 2017). The problems and challenges arising from overtourism are described in the next section.
Problems and challenges ā interpreting limits
While traditionally tourists spend their holidays in places and spaces dedicated primarily to the tourism industry, such as hotels and attraction points, today they are visiting residential spaces more and more. Many popular cities have been transformed by visitors to a considerable extent, for example Venice and Dubrovnik (Foster, 2017; Stieghorst, 2018). The rapid growth of tourism in cities such as Barcelona, Amsterdam and Paris, with tourists and visitors taking over public spaces, streets and housing, has led to the localsā perception of a reduced quality of life. But the reasons for the rise of anti-tourism sentiments are varied. Too many visitors not only impact negatively on residentsā quality of life, they also damage the environment of a destination and are putting the UNESCO World Heritage status of some destinations at risk (Seraphin, Sheeran & Pilato, 2018). The rise of anti-tourism is also a consequence of a changing paradigm (Clancy, 2018).
An important precondition of acceptance of high-density tourism is that the benefits of tourism-generated income reach the local community. However, this is true only up to a certain point: when a peak is reached, residents become more interested in quality of life than the income generated by the tourism industry (Croes et al., 2017). But what is this peak or limit?
Another aspect influencing local populationsā perceptions of and reactions to tourists is geographical and cultural proximity. Tourism is a convenient conflict arena for socioeconomic issues. If tourists are visibly different, they may become a projection surface for populist and demagogic motives (Riek et al., 2006; Papathanassis, 2017). This can develop into a critical situation when residents feel overwhelmed by tourists.
Destinations suffering the strain of tourism face a number of consequential problems. Among these are increasing traffic congestion, pollution, parking problems, destruction of historical sites, and upset residents moving away (Yazdi & Khanalizadeh, 2017). Further consequences are the localsā loss of sense of belonging and sense of place, real estate speculation, the privatization of public spaces and a decline in purchasing power parity of locals versus tourists (Milano, 2017).
In the context of tendencies to overtourism, and particularly in the context of the management of its impacts, the concept of carrying capacity is a widely discussed framework. This concept is rooted in a notion of ālimits to growthā, and has become a critical indicator for sustainability. Due to the ongoing serious challenges arising from human actions, knowing the limit to which development is feasible within the context of the carrying capacity of our natural ecosystems becomes crucial (Taiwo & Feyisara, 2017). The carrying capacity refers to physical, perceptual, economic and ecological limits (Swarbrooke, 2002). One definition of the term carrying capacity refers to the maximum population that can be supported or sustained by an ecosystem over time before breaking down (Miller, 2004). Another definition is postulated by Ortolano (1984), who defines carrying capacity as the growth limits that can be reached without violating the environmental capacity goals of an area. However, carrying capacity has been conceptualized differently among various disciplines, branches and fields. In urban and regional planning, carrying capacity is a tool for achieving sustainable development, because it determines the level of human activities, population growth, physical development and patterns of land use that an urban environment can withstand without causing serious degradation and irreversible change (Taiwo & Feyisara, 2017).
In the context of tourism, the carrying capacity of a destination is related to the maximum limit of tourism development. WTO/UNEP (1992) define carrying capacity as the level of visitors an area can accommodate with high levels of satisfaction for visitors and few impacts on resources. In some cities, the current quantity of visitors has already passed the tourist carrying capacity. Fisher and Kurtilla (1972) define the carrying capacity concept in ecological terms as the maximum number of visitors that can be accommodated by a given destination without there being excessive deterioration of the environment, and in economic terms as the maximum number of visitors that can be accommodated at a constant quality of their experience. Thus, tourism carrying capacity is determined not only in terms of ecology and the general deterioration of a region, but it also incorporates human values and the visitorsā experiences and satisfaction.
One typology of carrying capacity, which seems to be of special significance in the context of overtourism, is the social or psychological carrying capacity. The social carrying capacity refers to the quality of touristsā experience and to the impacts on the residents of an area (Marzetti & Mosetti, 2005). As overtourism is a phenomenon that depends on the residentsā subjective perceptions, the question of how much is too much is answered differently in different regions and destinations. It can be assumed that the problem of overtourism is mainly related to the social carrying capacity of a destination. From the residentsā perspective, it is related to the degree of the host populationās tolerance of the presence of tourists; from the visitorsā perspective, it refers to the quality of experience that visitors will accept before switching to alternative destinations (Lopez-Bonilla & Lopez, 2008). Thus, the social carrying capacity of a tourist area is an indicator of residentsā and visitorsā perceptions of crowding, indicating the maximum number of visitors tolerated by both groups.
Mansfeld and Jonas (2006) have developed the ācarrying capacity value stretchā (CCVS), which is a model and a method to analyze the carrying capacities of a destination. The model allows the detection of the sociocultural impacts of tourism by measuring carrying capacity in a qualitative manner. It analyzes three different complementary levels: the tolerance level, the current situation level and the expectation level within a community. Gaps between the levels compose the CCVS, which describes the interval between the residentsā minimum and maximum perceived capacities to cope with sociocultural impacts. It is mostly applied as a method in destinations that are interested in a balanced progress between tourism and rural development.
Compared with other...
