Given that the owners appoint and supervise the managers, this question raises the more fundamental question of who owns the destination. For theme parks, the answer is uncomplicated, these destinations are privately owned by the shareholders and managed for them. For national parks in countries with no residents within the park boundary, park wardens are appointed by and accountable to a national government department. However, there is an opportunity cost borne by local communities, often displaced when the protected area was gazetted. Local communities in the buffer zone expect to benefit from tourism, too.
In the vast majority of destinations, there is a resident population going about their daily lives, and sharing their place, their public spaces, transport, roads, pavements, shops, bars, restaurants and cafes with commuters, day excursionists, students, business travellers and tourists. As the UK NGO Tourism Concern reminded us for years, we take our holidays in their homes. But tourists don’t generally behave as guests; too often, there is a sense of entitlement, a sense that by purchasing a flight to a destination and accommodation, the visitor owns the destination in which they will ‘holiday’ while residents go about their everyday lives.
There is inevitable competition for seats on public transport, restaurants and cafes, promenades, beaches, shops, and museums. Locals can quickly feel invaded by people who are conspicuously consuming because they are wealthier or on holiday, spending more per day than they would at home. They are enjoying leisure, often noisily, sometimes drunkenly, while you are hurrying to work or taking the kids to school. To borrow language from park planners, there are recreational use conflicts in destinations.
Tourists and day excursionists use the public space for free and make no contribution to the provision of public toilets, litter collection and waste disposal – they are freeloaders. Changes in the housing market exacerbate these conflicts as more and more properties are converted to use as short-term lets, reducing the availability of accommodation for residents and their families and driving up rental costs. Local government responds by introducing various fees and tourism taxes and restricting the growth of short-term lets. As visitor numbers have recovered to pre-Covid levels and continue to increase, we can only expect these conflicts to continue and, in many places, intensify.
The causes of overtourism are complex, and the impacts on destinations require, as we recognised in the Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism in Destinations in 2002 “the participation of a broad range of government agencies and particularly at the local destination level. Recognising that in order to protect the cultural, social and environmental integrity of destinations, limits to tourism development are sometimes necessary.” A “more balanced relationship between hosts and guests in destinations (…) can only be achieved by government, local communities and business cooperating on practical initiatives in destination.”
So that is the answer to the question. The destination belongs to the people who live there, like the tourists who arrive, they are heterogeneous; only elected local governments working with their electors and local businesses can manage a destination. It is their responsibility. Where parts or all of the community feel that the balance between locals and visitors is not satisfactorily achieved, conflicts and demonstrations will occur.
Managing overtourism is complex – the causes are diverse, and there are many solutions being tried; some work better than others. Although the specifics vary from place to place, there is much to be learnt from the experience of others.
The ICRT.global is launching its second Professional Certificate course on Addressing Overtourism at the end of February. The development of our first three professional certificate courses has been sponsored by easyJet holidays.
