The short answer is yes. But it won’t happen without a new approach to managing it. And that requires a frank discussion about what needs to change.
Let’s start with the basics. Demand is growing, a consequence of greater prosperity and choice. For numbers to decline we would need less connectivity and fewer people with the means to travel and pay for accommodation away from home. There is no plausible or palatable plan for that.
But social rejection of tourism is growing too, adding to political pressure. Pictures of protesters armed with mobile phones and water pistols harassing people on café terraces make great clickbait, but they also reward a misdirected antagonism.
Communities are right to be concerned about availability of housing for local people and are entitled to demonstrate. But tourists do not make the rules nor set policy. The visitor economy is a force. Smart politicians will harness it. What might that look like?
Counting the positives
For a start, there needs to be greater acceptance that demand is useful. Europe is full of destinations that would like more visitors, if only they could overcome the accidental tyranny of TikTok and other platforms (and the travel trade can help with that). Tourists provide public revenue to maintain cultural heritage, improve interpretation and pay staff. They also directly sustain the museums, galleries, restaurants and cafes that locals value – these depend on visitors to add to local demand and ensure commercial viability. Moreover, celebration of place is a collective act, sadly diminished if visitors aren’t welcome to join the fun.
Second, there needs to be an appreciation that the sector is good at solving problems and developing new products – and that it wants clients to be welcomed by host communities. Buyers and their supply chain have a strong long-term interest in the visitor economy being valued by local stakeholders, for the jobs it supports, certainly, but also for a net positive impact on the destination itself.
Third, despite the adverse coverage, there needs to be a recognition that strong anti-tourism sentiment, while growing, is not yet widely shared. There is no room for complacency, but there should be political space to devise long-term solutions. MMGY-TCI Research found in recent surveys of large European cities that nearly 10% of residents have become tourism ‘rejectors’ versus 3% pre-pandemic. This index is showing that “tourism-phobia” is spreading across all segments of population (including young residents and people living outside places frequented by tourists).
Changing the game
The European Tourism Manifesto, an alliance of over 70 European public and private organisations, covering the whole tourism value chain and beyond recently published ‘Tourism in transition – A New Consensus for Change’. Its four priorities are: decarbonisation; vision and strategy; borders and connectivity; innovation and adaptation. It makes a clear call for a more integrated EU approach to policy and strategy to sustain a thriving visitor economy, but what does good look like locally?
‘More well-paid jobs’ was the answer from Assessore Simone Venturini, political lead for tourism in Venice. There is no reasonable dispute that, without visitors, Venice would have sunk, but without a thriving resident population, conservation’s victory is soured by the loss of community. We’re back to housing, and the salaries to pay for it. Who has the power to change the game?
Governance is key. Whether it’s enabling a more interventionist strategy for land use, tax breaks for start-ups, or investment infrastructure, local authorities often lack the tools and resources they need to diversify their economy and manage their destination, but they still attract all the criticism.
Compliance and enforcement – hardly the glamourous duo of local politics – are more necessary than ever. There is no point in limiting short term lets of entire properties without the will and the means to ensure no abuse, genuine deterrence and appropriate action against offenders. Weak law, badly enforced, will only fuel further antagonism.
Equally, symbolic responses to local pressure can undermine government credibility. Setting limits on the number of overnight stays might buy some political space, but it stokes suspicion among sectoral stakeholders that the priority is to be seen to be doing something, rather than take the harder road of consensus building and collaboration.
A more agile, local response
Yet the sector’s problems can also create opportunities. Buyers are looking for sustainable products; destinations need tourism to deliver net benefit to their communities. Price-sensitive consumers will not drive transition so it is up to the sector to organise itself to find solutions and push for a business environment that will reward good practice.
We need an enabling framework that encourages value-adding, fosters creativity, and rewards effort. We need to de-risk green investments and improve systems for businesses and policy-makers to monitor sustainability. This would transform decision-making and product-sourcing throughout the industry.
Meanwhile, local actors need to be empowered to adapt to other changes: with hotter summers the norm, will outdoor sites open earlier and later? With top public sector attractions struggling to cope with demand and provide a good experience, will they keep having to ask the Minister for permission to vary prices and limits?
The case to improve management of flow and capacity is clear. Dispersal and diversification do not ‘spread the virus’ (as one academic put it to me recently) unless we accept the premise that all tourism is bad news. It isn’t, but we can and must do better. We need a whole-of-government approach, with empowered subnational governments to make it happen. Without water pistols (or cannons).
