1. Introduction
Concerns and conflicts pertaining to tourism are not a new phenomenon. But they have gained significant traction in recent years and their current manifestations appear to involve more than âold wine in new bottlesâ (Dredge, 2017). One seemingly new aspect is that todayâs debates and controversies prominently feature tourism in cities. Discussions in the past revolved primarily around non-urban environments, especially in what Turner and Ash (1975) had termed âthe pleasure peripheryâ. The emphasis rested on the changes tourism was said to bring to ânaturalâ habitats, âpristineâ landscapes and âtraditionalâ communities, including the way the latter were becoming progressively urbanised as a result of tourism-related development. Today, it is not so much âtourist urbanisationâ (Mullins, 1991), but rather the âtouristificationâ of the urban that dominates popular and academic debates. Previously confined to the domain of tourism studies, âtouristificationâ has fast become an overused and ambiguous buzzword and the same applies to the two concepts of the title of this special issue: âovertourismâ and âtourism-phobiaâ.
This critical review aims to shed light on the recent proliferation of manifestations of discontent and protest around tourism-related issues in cities. Based on a review of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature, as well as on the editorial work done by the authors to bring to fruition a collective book which explores the diversity of struggles and social mobilisations around urban tourism in more than 16 cities in Europe, North America, South America and Asia (Colomb & Novy, 2016), we first explore the main reasons why tourism has become an increasingly visible object of contention in cities, and argue that cities need to be regarded not only as sites but also as stakes of many of the conflicts and contestations that have emerged. The paper then discusses the considerable range and variety of tourism-related social struggles and mobilisations which have recently been witnessed in urban settings. The terminology that is often used to describe them tends to distract researchers and policy-makers from the complexities of the disputes taking place, and of the people and claims involved. Taking issue with tourism and its impacts is not per se âtourism-phobicâ, and the often-alluded-to notion of âovertourismâ distracts us from the fact that there is more to consider than the volume of visitation when making sense of (urban) tourismâs current problematisation, politicisation, and contestation. The last section of the paper provides a brief overview of the main policy responses so far, and their underlying rationales. Like other policy areas (Wilson & Swyngedouw, 2014), tourism seems to have been, for a long time, depoliticised through its presentation as an uncontroversial, positive matter (Novy, 2016). Due to a proliferation of protests and mobilisations, tourism is increasingly recognised for what it is in citiesâ political arenas - increasingly consequential and inherently political (Burns & Novelli, 2007). A variety of responses are emerging - often characterised by a consensualising discourse on âsustainable tourismâ that obscures inequalities of resources and power, and stifles alternative voices and approaches. But they also involve some developments that can be taken as evidence of changing political agendas in some localities, somewhat different from previously pursued approaches.
2. The rise of tourism as a source of contention in urban settings
In the early 2010s, the mood of the global travel industry was optimistic. The impact of the 2008â2009 global financial crisis had been less wsevere than feared. By the end of 2012, the sector surpassed a symbolic milestone: more than one billion tourists were recorded crossing international borders that year, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO, 2012), providing a perfect occasion for industry representatives to boast about the importance of tourism as an indispensable driver of economic growth, âinclusiveâ development and environmental sustainability (UNWTO, 2013). A few years later, by contrast, tourism advocates often found themselves on the defensive, as media headlines increasingly revolved around the costs and conflicts associated with tourism, and âlocalsâ in a growing number of contexts were depicted to be entering a ârevolt against tourismâ (Becker, 2015).
âRevoltsâ, if we want to stick to this term, certainly have not been unheard of in the past. The emergence of seaside tourism in England in the mid-nineteenth century was for example marked by considerable conflicts, as working-class tourists faced hostility from residents and well-off vacationers sniffing in disdain at the thought of having to share âtheirâ summer residencies alongside the lower classes (Smith, 2013, p. 363). The rise of mass tourism in Spain a hundred years later also prompted concerns: in an article from 1973, the New York Times reported that âSpaniards [had begun to] lose their enthusiasm for that rising deluge of touristsâ (Giniger, 1973). Many of the issues the article listedâthe dominance of âlow qualityâ tourism, the industryâs dependence on foreign tour operators, and negative environmental and socio-cultural impactsâcorrespond to the burgeoning academic critique of tourism that was developed around that time by members of what Jafari (2001) termed the âcautionary platformâ of tourism research. Such issues are remarkably similar to the ones at stake in current disputes, so it is tempting to treat the latter as a mere continuation of a long history of tourism-related conflicts.
There are, however, significant differences that speak against doing so: not only the extent, intensity, and media exposure of what is currently unfolding, but also the degree of organised social mobilisations which, as discussed later, have developed in many locales around the impacts of tourism. And, crucially, whereas attention previously centred largely on developments outside major urban centres, the current âwave of anti-tourism protestsâ (Coldwell, 2017) makes itself particularly felt in cities. The focal points for much of the protests have been Southern European cities such as Rome, Venice, Lisbon, San Sebastian, Palma de Mallorca or Barcelona, but manifestations of protest and resistance have also been reported in other cities within and beyond Europe. Amsterdam, Budapest, Berlin, Cape Town, Seoul, New Orleans, or Hong-Kong are a few of the growing number of cities where reports of backlashes against tourism flows or developments have recently appeared in the news. These backlashes point towards what we have termed elsewhere a growing problematisation and politicisation âfrom belowâ of tourism in cities (Novy & Colomb, 2016). They are not uniform in nature, and cannot be explained by a single set of causes. But we argue that a number of factors have contributed to their spread. In a nutshell: tourism has become an object of mobilisation because there is more of it, in a wider range of urban destinations, spreading to previously âuntouchedâ neighbourhoods, taking new forms, and because it is often not governed or regulated enoughâor merely governed in the interest of a narrow range of actors (Novy, 2018).
Sharp quantitative and qualitative changes in urban tourism patterns and broader forms of individual mobility have made the negative impacts and externalities of visitor flows on cities more visible and more contested. Tourism in general has grown at a phenomenal rate since the Second World War, and urban tourism has grown at a faster rate than tourism overall (Bock, 2015; IPK International, 2016). A steady rise in visitor numbers has been witnessed not just in traditional âtourist citiesâ such as Rome, Paris or Venice, but also in other cities which until the 1990s had hardly been exposed to (mass) tourism. Urban tourism has therefore become in many cities much more consequential and, thus, more prone to conflict. âAlong with growth comes growing painâ, as the popular saying goes: as popular areas, public spaces and transport services have become increasingly overcrowded in many places, it becomes understandable why the notion of âovertourismâ has gained so much traction.
The changing spatialities of tourism flows in and across city space also warrant attention. Urban tourism has spread geographically and is no longer predominantly confined to âtourist bubblesâ (Judd & Fainstein, 1999). Visitors increasingly seek to experience âordinaryâ spaces off the beaten track, or to âlive like a localâ, to use Airbnbâs motto. Areas with few conventional tourist attractions have, in the 1990s and 2000s, become desirable sites of tourism, leisure and consumption by visitors and residents alike - for example Kreuzberg in Berlin (Novy, 2011), Shoreditch/Brick Lane in London (Shaw, Bagwell, & Karmowska, 2004), or the âfavelasâ of Rio de Janeiro (Broudehoux, 2016). The expansion of visitor flows to these areas has significant consequences for their dwellers and users, which unsurprisingly exacerbates the potential for reactive protestsâespecially because such areas are often affected by broader forces of urban change, such as gentrification. Besides, considerable potential for conflict arises from several particular trends transforming contemporary tourism, such as the rise of ânightlife tourismâ, âparty tourismâ or âalcotourismâ (Bell, 2008), of cruise ship tourism (UNWTO, 2010), and of short-term holiday rentals facilitated by digital platforms (Guttentag, 2015).
Moreover, two decades of tourism research have shown that tourist practices intersect with other patterns of place consumption, mobility, work and leisure, and that the notion of the âtouristâ itself as a distinguishable entity should be called into question (see debates around the âde-differentiationâ of tourism and everyday life in Hannam, 2009; Larsen, 2008; McCabe, 2005). The growing international mobility of university students, the increase in second home-ownership, as well as increasingly flexible working practices in the cultural and service industries, have led to new forms of temporary mobility and residence whereby a person can spend a few weeks in a city and simultaneously combine study, work and âleisureâ tourism. This has visible impacts on urban spaces, housing markets and socio-economic relations in the city, which compound those of âtraditionalâ tourist flows (Novy, 2018).
But tourism flows are only one driver of urban change, closely intertwined with other forces and processes of socio-spatial restructuring in cities, which may themselves be the object of contestation, as we will see. We consequently need to look at the social mobilisations around urban tourism in the broader context of the economic and physical transformation of cities, and of shifting forms of urban governance under conditions of globalisation, economic restructuring, neoliberalisation and financialisation. Here it is important to highlight the ambiguous and contradictory role of public policies. The promotion of tourism as a driver of development by (urban) political and economic elites is not new. But it has remarkably intensified in recent decades due to the transformation of tourism into a major global industry, the turn towards entrepreneurial forms of urban governance (Harvey, 1989), as well as the shift from manufacturing-based capitalism to âpost-Fordistâ economies and the associated rise of urban industries based on consumption, culture, and leisure. City governments, regardless of their ideological orientation, have thus multiplied their activities to support the tourism sector, for example through investments in tourist-oriented attractions, campaigns and events, or measures to redesign and sanitise urban spaces (Fainstein, Hoffman, & Judd, 2003; Judd & Fainstein, 1999; Spirou, 2011).
Historically, however, the role of the local state has in most contexts been limited to providing a suitable environment for the tourism sector to thrive (Hall & Jenkins, 2004). â[E]xplicit tourism management policy that goes beyond promotionâ (Van der Borg, Costa, & Gotti, 1996, p. 316), although not unheard of, was extremely rare. Tourism was overwhelmingly treated as an automatically âgood thingâ generating growth and jobs, which does not require much regulation or oversight (Novy, 2016). This has been compounded by neoliberalisation processes affecting various aspects of urban governance and public policies in many cities, characte...
