Tourism saturation is already a growing global problem, but it has a solution. Without fear of error, it can be affirmed that tourism improves the economy in destinations, but at the same time, an excess of travelers harms host locations and their residents.
These seemingly contradictory statements reflect a clear trend: the worrying situation of a global phenomenon where tourism is reaching excessive proportions in numerous destinations. Just mention places like Palma de Mallorca, Paris, Dubrovnik, Tenerife, Venice, Seville, Amsterdam, Madrid, Kyoto, Berlin, Bali, Rome, Barcelona, or Reykjavik, among many others, which face the contradiction of enjoying the benefits generated while taking measures against saturation by setting limits on growth.
The dilemma they face raises opposing decisions: if the influx of tourists were to suddenly decrease significantly, it would negatively impact the economy of those who depend on it. Yet, unchecked growth cannot continue.
The definition of “tourismphobia” or the similar term “touristophobia,” as a combination of rejection, distrust, and disdain toward tourists, is gaining followers. However, changing the model is not as simple as it seems, though it is not impossible. Tourism saturation, or overtourism, is considered “the excessive growth of visitors that causes a place to become overcrowded, and residents suffer the consequences and permanent changes in their lifestyles, social well-being, and access to common goods and services.”
The issue of tourism saturation becomes a public concern when it already affects the urban ecosystem. As a result, residents of tourist destinations, and even tourists themselves dissatisfied with the overcrowded experience, raise their voices. Thus, tourism saturation is a shared responsibility involving public sector actors at all levels, host tourism agents, as well as those in the places of origin and the marketing proposals.
The causes of tourism saturation are varied, but some factors have undeniably accelerated the process globally. These include the availability and immediacy of booking low-cost travel services through online platforms, as well as low-cost strategies for transportation and accommodations, which have promoted exponential growth in tourist movements, especially to traditionally popular destinations. These measures, rather than catering to a natural demand for tourism, stimulate its increase under the pretext of economic development and encourage consumption through marketing campaigns promoted by institutional bodies, traditional and online media, turning tourist destinations into must-visit collectibles.
All these aspects synthesize the perception that residents may have of tourism, as Amer (2009) notes: “The resident population benefits from tourism, but it is also the resident population that suffers the costs of tourism.” Everyone must be aware that growth cannot be unlimited and that residents should be the priority. Therefore, it is necessary to control the number of visits to align with the destination’s capacity. This capacity expresses the tolerance threshold for tourism to ensure that the unique characteristics that give the place its appeal are respected. This involves applying balance formulas between the needs of residents and the services required by tourists, avoiding congestion in public spaces, pressure on infrastructure, and the exclusion of residents from the housing market, as well as the uncontrolled proliferation of souvenir shops, tourist rentals, free tours, and the pollution and waste they generate.
The need to reconcile the use and enjoyment of tourist spaces by both visitors and residents is reflected in an extensive academic literature related to the notion of tourism carrying capacity, which is referenced in numerous case studies of heritage sites, areas of historical interest, coastal zones, and unique natural areas.
Among the tools available to understand the comprehensive impact of tourism on a territory is the Tourist Destination Saturation Index (TDSI), a management tool that measures the status of a set of variables to understand the socio-spatial consequences of tourism activity in a territory, allowing for the identification of areas where management and investment should be focused from a sustainability perspective. The results of applying the TDSI should highlight potential public-private partnerships of interest to avoid saturation situations that require consensus among stakeholders and the local community.
The recommendations that can be developed to correct deviations and strive to balance forces are a first step toward a more respectful, tolerant, inclusive, and sustainable form of tourism, involving people and places, and requiring participatory planning that fosters dialogue among all tourism managers at a destination. These stakeholders could be summarized as:
- The tourism sector (businesses, entrepreneurs, and tourism services)
- The territory (attractions, tourist circuits and routes, infrastructure, connectivity, and accessibility, etc.)
- Tourism actors (professionals, workers, and service providers)
- The local community
- Governance (destination management and planning)
From this dialogue, some key proposals should emerge, such as the establishment of tolerable limits to tourism activity for all involved parties, the adoption of fiscal policies regarding housing use, and the promotion of other differentiated economic activities, as well as the development of specific regulations.
Beyond the tools applied to measure the impact of tourism activity, any solution reached must consider:
- Respecting the well-being of the resident population and ensuring that tourism has positive and shared impacts on local development.
- Preserving and respecting the territory’s environmental, cultural, and identity assets.
- Providing relevant information to identify aspects that could determine the saturation of a tourist destination, in order to adapt tourism offerings and the territory to changes in demand.
- Supporting management and coordination in the territory in relation to its status as a tourist destination.
In response to these conceptual premises, instruments are being developed to reduce the risks of “dying of success” and avoid the growth of local conflicts between residents and tourists. The planning of corrective and preventive actions by public bodies at different levels is being seen in local governments, driven by the need for immediate intervention, so as not to harm the economic sector, whose importance for the most overcrowded destinations cannot be denied.
All possible interventions must be conceived under the umbrella of sustainability in economic, environmental, and social terms. Most of the corrective measures being implemented are aimed at the establishment and management of Smart Tourist Destinations, while efforts are made to control the number of visitors, prices, tourism offerings, or promotion. This is evidenced by access limitations, local tourism taxes, or increased fees for low-cost airlines, or redirecting them to other terminals, promoting cleaner transportation like trains, reducing advertising, or creating new tourism products that help decongest crowded areas or spread demand outside peak seasons with genuinely appealing advantages, among other actions.
In summary, the correct equation will result in a metric of the number of visitors, with indicators of quality and sustainability that ensure the destination’s economic performance, while maintaining the core attractiveness that initially motivates visitors, and benefiting all involved actors. Most residents are not against tourism but against a specific way of doing tourism. There is no single formula, but many tools for a solution, as long as all stakeholders accept that there are limits, and these are sufficient to ensure the long life of tourism.
