Overtourism - defined as the excessive growth of visitor numbers in a particular area - has undeniably profound effects: damaged natural areas, a poorer quality of life for the local population, endless waiting times to visit popular attractions, a deteriorated travel experience for tourists. At the same time, however, the phenomenon is difficult to measure.
The travel platform Evaneos and the management consultancy Roland Berger have developed the first overtourism index. The index was created on the basis of external data (based on a selection of 70 of the 100 most important destinations worldwide) and is intended to serve as a decision-making aid for players in the tourism industry.
To measure the degree of risk posed by overtourism, each destination is rated on a scale from 1 (low risk) to 5 (extreme risk) by linking four objective criteria:
- International travellers per inhabitant
- International travellers per square kilometre
- seasonal concentration
- sustainability maturity level (this evaluation criterion takes into account the social impact of tourism, the condition of the host infrastructure or the development of the transport system, among other things)
The phenomenon is multifaceted
First realisation: overtourism is not a phenomenon that can be generalised, which is why it is necessary to divide it into different categories to do justice to its complexity. For this reason, the overtourism index not only lists the destinations that are more or less at risk, but also defines a new categorisation based on the different types of overtourism. This categorisation should make it possible to identify the most appropriate solutions for each situation.
"Each category of overtourism raises different questions to which appropriate answers must be found. A rush of tourists in a major European capital should be dealt with very differently from a summer seaside resort. Rather than pointing the finger at certain destinations that are most affected, this index is about thinking about and implementing the most appropriate solutions," comments Aurélie Sandler, Co-CEO of Evaneos.
Various categories and initial solutions
The analysis of the destinations identified three types of hazards caused by overtourism:
- Beach destinations
- Favourite European travel destinations
- City destinations
In addition, there are so-called "destinations under observation", which include destinations that require preventive measures. The fifth category, "Protected destinations", summarises those destinations that have so far been spared from mass tourism.
1. Beach destinations
With an average index of 4 on a scale of 5, tourism at seaside resorts is the most vulnerable category. The reason for this is a particularly high proportion of tourists (3.2 to 9.9 tourists per 1 inhabitant) in relatively small (1,600 to 8,000 tourists per square kilometre) and ecologically fragile areas. The countries affected include Cyprus (4.4), Mauritius (4.2), Greece (4) and Croatia (3.8). These destinations are all the more vulnerable as an average of 25 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) depends on tourism.
These highly vulnerable destinations, where the vast majority of tourists stay by the sea, urgently need to introduce binding measures. The first response is to regulate the capacity of these destinations, for example by introducing quotas to preserve the most frequented places. In addition, tourist flows need to be spread out over the year by promoting these destinations more intensively for the low season. The aim is not to reduce the number of tourists per se, but to enable a better distribution of visitor numbers throughout the year, which will not jeopardise GDP.
What can be done to combat mass tourism? The study by Evaneos and Roland Berger tries to find solutions. Mark De Jong, Unsplash
2. Favourite European destinations
Although the most popular European destinations are able to receive a large number of tourists, they experience a particularly high influx in the summer season: up to 43 percent of arrivals are concentrated in the third quarter. With an average index of 3.5, Spain (3.6), Italy (3.6) and Portugal (3.6), closely followed by France (3.3), are the most vulnerable destinations in the months of June, July and August.
As these destinations are less economically dependent on tourism (9 percent of GDP on average) than the seaside resorts, measures are primarily needed here to distribute the seasonal flow of tourists to spring or autumn. This requires educating travellers and mobilising the tourism industry to expand its offerings to balance out the seasonal pressure. Travellers who visit Italy or France in April or September can benefit from milder temperatures and a more relaxed trip with fewer crowds of tourists.
3. Urban destinations
In the case of city tourism, which primarily affects the major European capitals, measures must be taken to relieve the pressure on cities and transfer the economic effects of tourism to peripheral areas. Although these destinations have a healthy level of sustainability and a low economic dependence on tourism (5 percent of GDP on average), up to 37 percent of arrivals in the third quarter were concentrated in these metropolises. They achieved an average index of 3.2 and are among the top 3 most vulnerable metropolises: Denmark (Copenhagen) tops the list with a score of 3.8, followed by the Netherlands (Amsterdam) with 3.7 and Ireland (Dublin) with 3.4.
These destinations have a great interest in distributing tourist flows in favour of other regions. In the Netherlands, for example, Rotterdam is being given more prominence to relieve the pressure on Amsterdam. Another option is to encourage travellers to travel longer, allowing them to visit other and sometimes less well-known regions in addition to the busiest cities. To this end, Evaneos has stopped selling city breaks that involve travelling by plane and last less than five days since January of this year.
4. Destinations under observation
The challenge for "destinations under observation" is to act with foresight and take preventive measures. With an index of 3, the destinations in this category have a balanced concentration of tourists throughout the year (between 24 and 28 percent). However, as they are becoming increasingly popular with travellers, they require forward-looking management of density, both in terms of size (between 54 and 240 per square kilometre) and population (0.8 tourists per inhabitant). With an average share of 9 percent of GDP, these destinations are at a turning point. At the top are Morocco (3.1), Vietnam (3), Egypt (2.7) and Iceland (2.9). The latter is particularly vulnerable with a density of 5.2 tourists per inhabitant.
The main task of tourism managers is to keep an eye on the reception capacity and possible measures to preserve the sights. The aim is to anticipate the development of the infrastructure in these destinations and to accompany it in the best possible way to preserve authenticity and at the same time to educate travellers with targeted and limited offers.
5. Sheltered destinations
These are destinations that not only have a large area and therefore a balanced distribution of tourist flows in terms of surface area (16 to 80 per square kilometre) or inhabitants (0.3 per 1 inhabitant). With a seasonality of between 24 and 28 percent throughout the year and an average index of 2.5, these destinations are now protected from overtourism. Countries in this category include Canada (2.3), the USA (1.7), Australia (1.5) and Tanzania (1.8).
With a rating of 4.2, Greece is a destination that is particularly prone to overtourism in summer. In addition to this objective observation, there is a situation that is particularly evident on Mykonos and Santorini: the massive influx of tourists affects the quality of life of the local population, fuelling their anger. The consequences are manifold: price inflation, overcrowded roads, difficulties with the water supply, which in turn also worsens the travellers' experience. Please, find the complete Overtourism Index attached as a pdf. / red
