I haven't seen this posted anywhere else on the forum, so hopefully it isn't a duplicate.
This article provides reasonably current information on the measures that are being implement in a variety of locations to curb excess tourism. This may be helpful for those planning a visit to any of these places - https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2025/01/29/these-countries-are-taking-extreme-action-to-tackle-overtourism/ .
This article misses dozens of destinations (large cities to smaller villages) in Europe, e. g. Germany is completely not listed.
Just to list a few German cities with bans against misuse of housing spaces (permenent renting designated housing appartments to tourists):
In Germany better book hotels or hostels.
Otherwise travelers end up without accomodation and lost money. It can happen that their via AirBnB and other platforms booked accomodation disappears suddenly from the vacation rental market. There are dozens of cases in which toruist paid before arrival. Money is lost in most cases.
And nearly all German (and other country's) destinations at North and Baltic Sea have a day tax ("Kurtaxe") since decades or centuries - not for overnight only, e. g. Sylt or some Frisian islands take 4.90 EUR per day. Same is valid for spa towns, e. g. Wiesbaden takes 5 EUR (in this case per night).
Markk, Does this end all short-term, under 30-day apartment rentals?
I do not understand your question. Please re-phrase.
Nobody is against renting your apartment in which you really live for 1-4 weeks if you are longer not at home. It is against taking a housing unit completely of the housing market for renting it to tourists.
The regulations are individual on state and / or community / town level. People can apply for permission at authorities in the listed towns.
Ken, thanks for the post.
The elimination of low-cost tourist accommodations does impact tourism numbers. There seems to be a desire among some to want to discourage the working class from tourism and return tourism to the ranks of the gentry were it existed for generations prior to the 21st century. Thats fine. Each location gets to make such choices and live with the results.
The word "extreme" was put in the title to sell advertising and by doing so discredits the entire article. A five euro a day tourist tax means instead of a full English breakfast (which you rarely finish anyway) you order a croissant and coffee. The measures identified in the article are token at best. Almost like wanting to placate the part of society that is complaining about tourists while protecting the part of society that is benefiting from tourists.
Not much research went into the article. I loved the reference to the one-off water guns in Barcelona and the fence in Hallstatt that stayed up for about a week as if either had any impact on over tourism. AI could write that article in 2.3 seconds.
Some places like Spain saw a substantial increase in tourism in 2024, but tourism in Europe as a whole was only about 1% greater in 2024 than pre-COVID so there have to be places where tourism is still down, and a really useful article would be one that identifies those areas and the opportunities for tourism in them.
Kenko, I understand your question. Assume that the legislation is local legislation; although there might be a country out there with national laws on short term rentals. Where I live the city has regulations and then each district in the city can have regulations. The regulations vary widely so there is really no way to know the rules in the exact location you might be looking. Fairly common is a limitation on how many nights in a year a unit can be rented. In the legislation proposed for Vienna for instance the number is so low that its pretty impossible to run an AirBnb in many parts of the city. The hotel companies love it and rates are through the roof.
The odds of renting an illegal unit from Booking.com or AibBnb is pretty low. While you read a lot of blanket statements, finding facts is pretty difficult its generally someone repeating "what they heard". My perception is that there have been enough lawsuits against the platforms that they are doing a much better job of filtering out the law breakers. There were 450 million bookings in 2023 so if there were 4 million illegal rentals that still would not be 1%.
There have been enough lawsuits against the platforms that they are doing a much better job of filtering out the law breakers.
They are not filtering out any law breakers (in terms of misuse) and do not cooperate with local authorities against misuse. In Germany AirBnB & Co started so called information campaigns against the towns and communities (2017 and 2019).
And yes - it's still a risk to book such accomodations because the illegal pros operate the units separately (separate accounts, e-mails and payment accounts). So the platforms have no punishing possibility against someone who has (officially) only one unit of the platform.
Yorkshire Dales, England- Bans on the construction of second homes and holiday properties in villages have been introduced to curb tourism, allowing only permanent residents.
That is hardly news. It has been in place for many years. Just as in the Lake District (not mentioned in the article) it has been pretty ineffective. All that happens is that outsiders outbid the locals to buy existing properties when they come on the market.
In the Lake District second homers are also charged substantially extra council tax, but that is just seen as another expense by the loaded second homers.
The effect is that the locals can't afford to live in their own villages, that leads to a loss of workforce to serve all the tourists. So minimum wage workers have to be doing long journeys into the area (90 minutes to two hours each way each day is not unusual). Workers who can't afford to run cars so they rely on public transport (or chartered buses) take several times as long as they otherwise would. The public transport which far too many tourists refuse to use.
And of course many of those second homes are let out as Air B and B's and similar. It is a zero sum game. If there were easy answers the National Park Authority would have found and implemented them years ago.
There is a reason why Booths is the main supermarket in both Keswick and Windermere - due to the rich second homers and other vacationers. Many of the low wage locals have to travel to Penrith, Cockermouth and beyond to do their routine shopping as they simply can't afford to shop at Booths. The travel costs to other towns are well offset by the lower shopping bills.
I know this particular forum is Europe centric but I'll add overtourism management in some of our own most-visited U.S. National Parks as well. Required timed-entry reservations range from access to just parts of the parks - such as Acadia's Cadillac Summit Road - to entry at all during certain seasons and/or hours, such as at Arches. So for planning ahead....
https://www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/national-parks/national-parks-reservations-2025/
So tourism in the Galapagos is "regulated with rules like walking on marked trails"? Heck, staying on designated routes, where established, and not creating damaging, sometimes confusing and even dangerous social trails has been a visitation rule in our parks for time out of mind.
Kathy, you are correct. Sort of my take on the article was nothing radical and nothing extreme. Even the limitations on short term rentals, if thats what the locals want, then its their right and I see nothing radical or extreme about it. It all seems common sense to me and in some instances so underplayed that I doubt they really expect much impact from it. Although Amsterdam does seem serious. But if anyone is really interested, do watch these actions. There have been similar in the past and on a few occasions they have been rescinded. Maybe the collateral damage was too great. Dont know.
But I am glad they are taking care of themselves. Thats what democratic systems are supposed to do. I am an outsider, not my place to be critical, or egg it on.
Great to see Potsdam, Berlin, Lüneburg, Münster and Düsseldorf on that list.
When will these articles just end?
So, it is your big opportunity to go on your first trip to Europe and it's the author, Duncan Madden, who says "As travelers, we have to be more aware of the impact we have by prioritizing responsible travel." What does that mean, Duncan? I'm in Spain, so you are saying I should skip seeing Barcelona and all the wonderful places it has to see? I shouldn't visit one of the most picturesque villages of Austria, Hallstatt, because tour buses dump their masses off at 9:00am. I should avoid all the places I have dreamed about seeing after saving thousands of dollars over the years so I could take a trip of a lifetime to Europe because you, Duncan Madden, have self proclaimed tourists are ruining the world because of the invented journalistic word of "overtourism".
From Duncan's own website: "I'm a freelance writer, consultant and strategist. For more than ten years I've worked with global brands, digital agencies, startups, publishing houses, magazines and newspapers curating their voices, building their products, clarifying their messages and telling stories."
You are a story teller Duncan that's for sure.
Threadware, you have never made more sense.
I have yet to visit Hallstatt but it is indeed on the bucket list, will have to figure out from where to do this little excursion logistically. Linz most likely. D. Madden's comments have no bearing on not to visit Hallstatt, basically immaterial and useless.
Fred, i went last year. It was unexpectedly enjoyable.
"As travelers, we have to be more aware of the impact we have by prioritizing responsible travel."
Why would we not?
-- Mike Beebe
This whole "responsible travel" meme I find a bit ridiculous. If we were completely responsible, we wouldn't burn tons of fossil fuel crossing oceans. But we do, because we can and feel compelled to. So now the cake has been baked, we're debating the flavor of the frosting.
My use of AirBnB lodgings has been characterized as irresponsible by those who claim that such lodgings cause homelessness by limiting available housing. This of course ignores the ability of people to build new houses. And cities have every right to limit or even outlaw letting of short-term rental housing, which they should do if they believe such laws would be beneficial. I'd advise them also to consider possible adverse consequences of such laws, though.
Probably this is a result of my great age and curmudgeonly outlook, but I'm happy to let the places I visit constrain my travel choices in the ways they think best, rather than agonizing over whether my travel style is "responsible" or "sustainable." Others look at things differently, and they'll no doubt regard me with some little contempt. I'm OK with that.
Meanwhile I'll be careful to treat my hosts respectfully, contribute happily to their economy, clean up after myself and generally appreciate the differences and experiences I encounter. Travel is wonderful!
@ Mr E...thanks for the positive answer. Good to know as this little excursion to Hallstatt would only amount to a day trip from Linz, where I would prefer staying anyway. It could be most likely done on this summer's trip, peak season, regardless of Madden's remarks.
Well, Hallstatt is the size it is and as the numbers of tourist grow then it will have problems. It seems even the larger cities have these problems. It is simply a numerical percentage. If 20% of people travel and then the general population overall increases and the traveling people remain at 20%, there will still be more people. Yet Hallstatt (or other) will remain the same size.
You can only put so much of anything in a finite space before it is crowded.
As an observation, I could be wrong, who is selling these properties to corporations to be turned into rental properties? Isn’t it the local owners who originally owned the property who sold out?
We have a cousin who rents out rooms in their one-family home on the island of Korčula. They live in the house, all year long. Isn’t that the true meaning of a B&B?
It isn’t the tourist who ruined your neighborhoods, it’s your neighbors.
That’s a good point about the neighbors. Awhile back one of our neighbors started advertising his “mother-in-law” basement for rent on AirBNB. The Homeowner Association quickly moved to update their bylaws to restrict short term rentals.
Any political argument which purports to be universally applicable on every street from Baku to Boston can only be seen as completely invalid. What I find amazing is so few recognize this.
Somewhat related: https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does-banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish
The article is very relatable. It shows that other forces impact the shortage or affordable living quarters. Take San Francisco for instance where rents are so astronomical, more people are sharing the tiniest of apartments to live within the city. It is not because of short term rentals, it is because the real estate market is plain out of whack and it meets the standard, "supply v. demand" economic principle. It is the reason a house cost much less 40 miles outside the city limits generally than right smack in the middle of the city.
Thanks for sharing that article.
