Protests against mass tourism - responsibility and future behavior of tourists?

First I Agree with the locals of the Canary Islands as the same happens here where I live in the south-west of the Netherlands. It’s a tourist hotspot not only for Dutch tourists, but from Belgium and Germany too having a second home close to the beach. Not only for holidaying but also as an investment. Causing a building rage that’s only interesting for real estate companies but a nightmare for us locals as prices keep soaring and nobody can afford a home in it’s own village anymore. As a result these places are dying out and disrupting the local way of living.

But I am afraid it’s too big to change. The massive scale makes it difficult to manage and local governments are not always capable to keep it under control as those big companies are well equiped to find loopholes to get what they want.

In general about mass tourism is that as long as everybody wants to travel and most want to do this as cheap or cost effective as possible it will be the platform for the business models of big companies like AirBnB, Booking.com and the likes. I have not the illusion that mass tourism will disappear, not soon anyway. So if everybody changes it’s travel style it will remain at a massive scale and so still interesting in one way or another for those big companies.

All in all it’s too much about the money and profit and not in the interest of everybody (in many cases the locals who actually are those bear the burden). But remains to my opinion indissoluble part of mass tourism, neverhteless it's good to bring this under attention.

For myself there is not going to change very much about the way I travel as I always travel off the beaten path as I enjoy exploring regions and discovering hidden gems. Doing this for many decades. And prefer to avoid mass tourist places like the plague or just visit them for things that interests me like a good museum.

I think it is important to note, the protest is to goad the government into action, not to eliminate tourists. Articles, and protests, like this also simplify the issue. Many of the property owners snatching up places, are the Spanish themselves, as are many of the tourists. Another big chunk are EU nationals, who have rights to travel, live, and buy property. Many of these two groups also short term let their property...because why not, they are not permanent residents, and they are somewhat free to do as they wish with property, but yes, the government needs to heavily regulate it, and tax it to control it. As for building hotels, I think you would want to subsidize it, so you can then clamp down on short term lets, force the tourists into well regulated businesses, and have enough supply to meet demand.

While being an island, you would think you could limit visitors, but that in itself is nearly impossible. How is it done? Limiting flights in? Limiting sea options?, are they going to restrict me from flying in on my private jet (well, let the big spenders in). Does it apply to just non-EU nationals? Can they tell the Spaniards your not allowed to visit?

The answer to your questions are that yes, most people want to travel responsibly, as long as it does not interfere with their plans (I mean, face it, we all rationalize using oodles of fossil fuels to fly to Europe and get around once there) and what will change behavior are the old pressures of not wanting to fight crowds and pay excessive costs. That is the main reasons I have not been back to places I once enjoyed (Barcelona, Cinque Terre, Venice, to a degree Amsterdam) and probably will continue to use to make travel decisions.

we all rationalize using oodles of fossil fuels to fly to Europe

Yeah, many forum members are particularly adept at skirting around that by saying that was just to good of a price to not take that guzzling cruise, but suggest they do recycle their newspapers back home as an offset.

It is always interesting to me how it is so easy to point out how everyone else is the problem…….

It is always interesting to me how it is so easy to point out how everyone else is the problem

You can point at me. I made my mark in the Oil & Gas industry and I continue to stand by the Oil & Gas industry. Now, I am enjoying the fruits of my labours. I fly to Europe 2x per year, usually Air Canada Signature Class and pay a premium for doing so.

What I don't do is hide behind a veil pretending to be green when I'm not.

As business traveller I had a remarkable fossil footprint - minimum two flights a week within Germany but also London or Zurich, sometimes 4 and more. I started changing business travel behavior around 2012 with actively trying to travel less and more environmental friendly. In my country the train network improvements of Deutsche Bahn played a huge role in reducing train travel times; so some typical domestic flight connections were reduced in frequency or even erased, e. g. Berlin - Nuremberg. Also street-based travel traffic was massively reduced, e. g. Hamburg or Hanover to / from Berlin - or Frankfurt - Cologne. Also a lot of business alignments were transfered to calls and online video conferences.

Shall tourists travel more social (and environmental) responsibly and
avoid these mass tourist places?

What makes "these tourist places" different than any tourist destination, socially or environmentally?

Will you change your travel behavior in the future?

Only to the extent that circumstances exist that would make the holiday less enjoyable or too expensive.

It will be interesting to see if the vocal group represents the local majority view. These issues are too complicated for an outsider to begin to make a judgment about them. I'll just believe that the locals will implement policies that reflect their views and then I will comply with those policies.

Shall tourists travel more social (and environmental) responsibly and avoid these mass tourist places?
Will you change your travel behavior in the future?

Plenty of hypocrisy to go around, especially here on a travel forum for mostly US based tourists who are focused on travel to Europe, and I accept my own responsibility for contributing to the problem, carbon footprints, etc.

As for myself, I have for years avoided these overrun "mass tourist places". I missed the chance, for instance, to visit the Cinque Terre 40 years ago, and again about 20 years ago, and I know now I will never go...and that is OK. Same with Croatia, Barcelona, Venice...and more recently the Amalfi Coast that has seen an explosion in interest. It isn't so much an ethical decision that I have chosen to skip these destinations, it is more that I can't stand being in overcrowded places, overrun with tourists.

But I will continue to travel, to Europe, and Asia, as well as in the US, as long as my money holds out and my health allows me to do it. And I don't apologize for traveling to the "do as I say, not as I do" folks who are all around us.

It is always interesting to me how it is so easy to point out how everyone else is the problem…….

Not sure what your point is, and how it contributes to the discussion.

I think Paul's assessment is clearheaded.

My take is that if the people favor restrictions, and if they can vote and/or pressure their government to implement them, then restrictions are perfectly legitimate. Municipalities all over the USA are banning or heavily restricting AirBnb's for instance, and easily defeating legal challenges.

This is the most likely way a place can tamp down tourist numbers - reducing the number places tourists can sleep. Other schemes, as Paul notes, would be unconstitutional in most places, and/or nearly impossible to implement.

One inevitable outcome of STR restrictions would be a rise in the price of holiday accommodations. Fewer STR's, same demand. Average tourist wealthier, local rents probably not dropping but also probably not rising as quickly.

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/spain/overtourism-protests-and-concerns

There is a similar discussion going on in the Spain forum. I'll just mention that the Spanish experience with overtourism is perhaps slightly different in that on top of housing issues/expulsion of local life in the historic centre we also deal with climate change related issues like wildfires/desertification/drought whose effects are increased in part due to mass tourism's drain on local resources.

In the midst of our current devastating drought we have in Barcelona and the surrounding region, the average tourist in Barcelona is estimated to consume at least 60% more water compared to the typical resident.

You can read more here - https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/03/29/agriculture-vs-tourism-how-are-farmers-and-hotels-coping-with-the-spanish-drought

the average tourist in Barcelona is estimated to consume at least 60% more water compared to the typical resident.

Very interesting statistic. Tourists aren't necessarily keyed in, they purchased a vacation, taking showers every day on a whim living distantly from the residents bubble but affect those residents, inside the bubble, by their actions.

I don't think anyone should be shamed into not travelling or feel like they shouldn't visit the places that they've dreamed about visiting. That said, I am all for laws and regulations aimed at helping to preserve places and keep them feeling real and lived in rather than like theme parks. I worked at a National Park for a few summers that was one of the first to implement a reservation system to access the most popular parts of the park at the busiest times of the year. It was controversial and unpopular at first, but people have gotten used to it now and it does work to keep places as they should be.

Shall tourists travel more social (and environmental) responsibly and avoid these mass tourist places?

Avoid, no. Travel responsibly, yes.

Will you change your travel behavior in the future?

I already avoid the following: Airbnb, tacky souvenir shops, renting a car (unless I need to), and tacky attractions. I have never been interested in traveling by cruise ship, especially in Europe. I also don't shame those who do enjoy these things as I don't think that's productive in the end. That's where the rules and regulations to limit these sorts of things come into place, and I welcome them.

While some people can and will change their behavior, as a natural pessimist, I think demographics will overwhelm any good intentions. That is, with more people on the planet every year, and more with the discretionary wealth and time to travel, it will take some natural or economic disaster to change the trend. Taking time to consider the long-term future of the planet is a western luxury value.

My travel behaviour or style is not going to be changed, regardless.

I'll stick to what I have been doing anyway, ie, no rental car, no ride share, using only only public transport, no flying within Europe

using only trains and long distant buses, day or night, be it 2 hours or 12 hours, no AirB&B , apts, VBRO, or holiday rentals , only local small hotels or local hotel chains (Motel One, Polonia, Mercure, etc) , depending on the price,

What makes "these tourist places" different than any tourist destination, socially or environmentally?

The difference is called balance. If tourism is impacting the life of local people in a way they are no longer able to afford housing or eating it is out of balance. Examples for environmentally outbalanced are impacts on local nature and living conditions such as emissions (e. g. by cruise ships), unnecessary and over-average clear water usage (see parts of Spain) and impacting amounts or concentrations of waste water.

Socially it can be also impacting if tourists no longer behave as guests, not respecting local laws, behaviors or culture.

A decline in tourism due to well-intentioned but poorly informed rhetoric may result in a worse situation. What is "worse", "acceptable", "good"? Only the citizens of the community get to decide that for themselves. I leave that up to their institutions to debate, discuss and regulate.

Whenever one travels it should be as a polite guest which includes respecting the rules the location has established for themselves.

With all respect but this opprtunistic ignoring lean-back attitude is lacking for me. Because we know: Our world has KPIs for living and environment conditions - so some well educated and informed people already thought about a lot of topics and took decisions.

And even if somebody is desinterested or sceptical of these existing regional, national or global sustainability KPIs, nobody shall be economically so confused to think that price increases for housing far beyond inflation for multiple years is an acceptable condition for local people. The individual lack of will to contribute reducing known and unwanted conditions shows the own status of personal development.

I would argue that most Danish people feel as if they are personally leaders in achieving the goals you outline above MarkK. And yet they have extremely high rates of second homeownership that no Danish people are willing to give up, often readily rent those homes, and by some measures (for instance those of the World Wildlife Fund) are per capita the worst polluters on the planet when one figures in every aspect of pollution that they are responsible for, inside and outside of their own borders.

There's a very good chapter in Michael Booth's book The Almost Nearly Perfect People: The Truth About the Nordic Miracle that does a good job of highlighting the disconnect between belief and actual impact, and how deeply and conveniently blind people are to this disconnect.

My point being that it's easy enough to sit within your bias and look down on other people's points of view But not everybody who thinks about a problem differently from you is unintelligent nor misinformed.

Nobody's perfect, and I think we all make self-exceptions, including the most environmentally and socially aware among us. It's easier to learn if we're not calling names.

My point being that it's easy enough to sit within your bias and look down on other people's points of view But not everybody who thinks about a problem differently from you is unintelligent nor misinformed.

But, when it's foreign or in country business owners in the milieu with skin in the game ie. operating multiple AirBnB listings or junk stores displacing stores that make up a community and then take the aw shucks attitude of well I'll just let the locals decide each and every time, that can get real old real fast. That same aw shucks guy contends he brightened up the area with his paint brush and the local residents should be thrilled he's in the area, and not castigated for his actions. That locals who would decide went away when the locals went away. The only ones left making the decisions in the now new community are the flooding tourists going hmmm ... this AirBnB or that Vrbo, this junk souvenir store or that junk souvenir store. The local hardware store left the area.

Hank, honest question: how many Danish people do you know personally?

btw.: the accounting of WWF seems to have the failure that they mix up production and consumption for one country but they do not make a single accountability in the overall view. Said in other words they sum up both sides of a balance sheet if you know from business what failure this means. Do you know how they balance only Maersk? I am working in that business since years btw. - the whole part of emission accountability is just at the beginning currently. It will be fun in a few years when cost of emissions will have increased.

GHG DK: The EU states with around 6.6 t CO2e per capita, Denmark itself calculates consumption produced in other countries in which sums up to around 11 t CO2e per capita which still contains 50% of exported emissions and is still far below footprints of other countries. I am not aware of any KPI of other pollution in which Denmark is leading but maybe you share a detailed KPI and link to source?

Hank, i read a lot of rehoritic, but no direct advice for tourism?

But back to the thread title. There are protests going on every day, all over the world. 1000 gathering in the street and yelling doesn't make them correct, and I don't have the time to research each protest to be informed enough to have an opinion. So I leave it up to their institutions to solve the issue the best they can.

As the original post points out, this is not exactly a new topic. The concern that tourism (or over-tourism if you like) can fundamentally alter a place is well known.

The interesting part is (1) when does a healthy tourist economy reach the point where locals want to see it controlled in a more aggressive manner? and (2) what are the methods that will successfully reach the "balance" that some in this thread have referred to?

I have no answers for that. I can tell you that I will continue to travel to Europe, but will do so with a refreshed sense of respect for these local rules and the reasons why they are needed. I just got back from Rome (among other places in Italy) and will be in Amsterdam (among other places in the Netherlands and Belgium) in June so I'm not avoiding some of the tourism hot spots, but I'm thinking about how and when I travel there differently (e.g., no AirBnb in Netherlands because of stringent local limits).

Follow the local rules and pay attention to the logic behind them, but don't stop traveling. That's my plan at this point.

MarkK's concerns are legitimate and real and are issues the world needs to deal with. As each of us touches upon these issues when we travel it is helpful to have posts like this as a reminder we all have a stake in humanity and our attitudes and actions do have an impact on the places we visit.

Shall tourists travel more social (and environmental) responsibly and avoid these mass tourist places?

NO

Will you change your travel behavior in the future?

NO

If a city or region or country does not want tourists, then just say so. I'll stay away.

If the citizens of any tourist area are having issues with over-tourism, that is an internal problem they have to solve with their own government. Tourists are customers. If you don't want customers, put out a closed sign, turn the lights off and lock the door.

it isn't the customer's responsibility to solve problems of the establishment whether it is a restaurant, hotel, or a tourist area. Local governments are afraid to solve the housing issue because it would affect so many landlords who have become a powerful force in the political economy.

What was it Yogi Berra said, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

If the citizens of any tourist area are having issues with over-tourism, that is an internal problem they have to solve with their own government

There is complexity to that statement. Living in the city, some serious tourism overrun maybe occurring 10 km away on the diagonal but I who lives at the top of the diagonal probably doesn't hear or doesn't care. I'm not imagining any serious upheaval going on in people's long-standing living, I'm just hearing City Hall telling me tourism visits and dollars are up.

Exactly periscope. City hall coffers are bulging from tourism dollars and the impact is not felt in City hall, but at that lower end of your diagonal. My point is that tourists are helpless to solve a local issue. Now for those people who want to "live like a local" perhaps they should pony up some extra cash when in the city and donate it to a local cause to "save housing". Then you can really say you are "living like a local".

Tourists are customers

No, tourists are guests.

In Europe perhaps we don't see everything in the lens of big business and consumerism. Which I feel is often the case in American daily life.

Blaming “tourists” for problems is in my view the wrong approach. The tourists wouldn’t come if there were no lodging. The locals control how much lodging is available

As for the “guest” vs “customer “ issue; a customer is one who has to pay for a good or service, a guest does not..
If I am paying for it , I am a customer, regardless of the location.

As for the “guest” vs “customer “ issue; a customer is one who has to pay for a good or service, a guest does not.. If I am paying for it , I am a customer, regardless of the location.

Well perhaps these touristy cities don't see themselves as merely a "product" to be consumed by "customers" such as yourself. Europe is not some kind of McDonald's where you order your happy meal of Barcelona with a side of Santorini and a glass of Amsterdam. These are real living and breathing communities that are fighting a grassroots fight against overtourism that is slowly killing them. That may be a hard scenario to imagine for most Americans.

actually, maybe uninvited guest is more accurate.**

I dont think locals have as much control over those kind of things as we think. Tourism is money and big business developers and foreign investors get more interest from politicians than taking care of residents. More business means more tax revenue and campaign contributions (in the US). Much of that tourism money seems to leave the area without benefit to the residents.

** referencing Cameron Hewitt on this so no vitriol please.

Tourism is money and big business developers and foreign investors get more interest from politicians than taking care of residents. More business means more tax revenue and campaign contributions (in the US). Much of that tourism money seems to leave the area without benefit to the residents.

Stan (and Cameron) have nailed it.

I don't travel as much as you guys do, so never realized that the European city that l live in was a unique exception to what is going on in all of Europe.

The locals control how much lodging is available.

NOPE. Investors can come in and completely dominate an area without any need for government interest or rezoning. They can boutique / junkstore up an area in a heartbeat. They can purchase apartment blocks, remodel them and raise the rents. They can pursue AirBnB and the like after they get their toes in the door. And there goes the locals and there goes the neighbourhood.

The tourists wouldn’t come if there were no lodging. The locals control how much lodging is available

Seems you forget the day tourists - also bus groups wise - and the cruise ships.
Examples such as Venice show the extent of despair. From today on they test their day tourist access fee - access must be pre-booked. Read article "Venice launches experiment to charge day-trippers an access fee in bid to combat over-tourism". Plan is to have that permanently from 2025 on.
And they have further plans against mass tourism: from June 1, 2024, Venice will ban tourist groups of more than 25 people accompanied by tour guides. Guided tours in the city center and on the islands of Burano, Murano and Torcello will also no longer be allowed to use loudspeakers. Tour groups stopping on bridges or in narrow alleyways will also no longer be tolerated in future.

Another example: In old town of Dubrovnik the number of locals shrinked from 5,000 to nearly only 500 people - rest are tourist homes, empty to a certain percentage of the year. So, old town is dead. In the last season before Corona, 1.5 million tourists visited the city of 41,000 inhabitants. This means there were 36 visitors for every inhabitant over the year. In Venice and Bruges, the next places on the European overtourism ranking list, the ratio is 21 to 1. So the list of rules for tourist is long (see video for dummies) because most of them do not know how to behave as a guest, as a customer or even as a human being.

People of province Zeeland in the Netherlands are hardly discussing the balance of tourism because the reason why tourists are visiting is destroyed by too many of them.

I'm part of the problem here, because I go to Tenerife most years.

I have noticed a huge change over time in that much of the building of apartment blocks are soon almost entirely bought out by short term rental "investors".

The locals are very much priced out of areas - and the local buses in the mornings are full of people in service industries coming to the coast from the "less desirable" areas inland.

MarkK - I am from Zeeland in the Netherlands and don't understand what you actually mean with "the reason why tourists are visiting is destroyed by too many of them".

Wil, a hope of spending vacation in Zeeland is to have coastal nature (public access to coastline) and not too much people around me (tourism density; anti-example AFP photo Scheveningen beach). But more and more of the coastline is built with tourist houses and apartments. So the question is about the balance, see also this Master Thesis with several sources. Also a German documentary team was reporting the manifold views on this topic.

I am curious to hear your local view, not only if you have different view / sources.

Your wish is not unique, many are looking for nature with not too many people around. In this way Zeeland is promoted for years offering this as a region you can come to rest. But attracting an increasing number of visitors it attracts an increasing economic interest too and so becoming this more and more a business model that keeps growing. So as a result it becomes harder and harder to find these places along the coast and so the region loosing it’s innocence making it so appealing.

I live close to Cadzand-Bad, a well known seaside resort in Zeeland and have seen it changing in a period of 15 years from a working class place being completely dead during winter into a place for wealthy people busy almost all year around. I visit it almost weekly and my impression is mostly based on what I have experienced during this period. And with this the arguments of our local government regarding tourism. Btw I have watched the German documentary recently with great interest and hits the nail on the head.

Zeeland is actually the Delta Region, a former group of islands and a strip of land at the nothern border of Belgium nowadays connected by causeways and a tunnel and so more accessible for those living outside the region. Main activity is agricultural, including fishing and there is some heavy industry concentrated east of Vlissingen and along the canal from Ghent to Terneuzen in the south. Compared to other regions it’s with around 400.000 inhabitants sparsely populated.

Surrounding regions are very much urbanized, like the Randstad (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague etc.), Ruhr-area in Germany and the larger cities in Flanders, Belgium like Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges. So Zeeland nearby is with all the water where you still can have that sensation of space and tranquility for many ideal to calm down. And just a few hours driving for many it’s obvious that Zeeland has become a tourist hot spot.

Ater the fall of the Berlin Wall and the introduction of the euro the EU has changed into a truly economic powerhouse, so many has embraced capitalism and so the consuming, leisure industry. So having a second home is not only good for escaping the hustle and bustle of the cities but also creates a market for investment. Apparently there is a serious number of people who can afford this. Seen the position of Zeeland amidst all these cities this real estate market is huge and so interesting for big money.

All the bigger projects like holiday villages and apartment buildings are realized by huge foreign companies and most property sold to foreigners. Local entrepreneurs understandably want to benefit but some of them put the local governments under pressure or try to influences them to cooperate in favour of these companies. Investments groups are involved too, so the business model gains influence. The goal of the business model is that the value of property keeps increasing and so attracting more and more people willing and able to buy. As a result prices of homes, including those for locals too are sky rocketing. But not everybody is capable or willing to go with this flow of what I call greed.

So my doubt is of the local governments are capable of dealing with the increasing pressure of these large companies. And manage in such a way that there will be a well balanced property market. And as our national government has embraced neo-liberalism for many years I am not so shure this will happen soon. As a result you get two groups, those who benefit and those not and that puts our local society under pressure. Most locals can't afford a home anymore so this gives a lot of tension like in the Canary Islands, in contrary to the past it happens nowadays in our backyard too.

All interesting points about tourism and lodging. Locals WOULD have control of lodging if enough concerned locals were elected to political law making positions. Other communities around the world have passed laws regarding "temporary lodging" such as AirBnB, hotels and other types of daily rental units. Zoning is a solution, but rental taxes produce revenue which pay locals to work in city government, pay for infrastructure and tourism taxes are hard to turn your back on once you have become addicted.

The most impacted in my opinion are those cities like Hallstatt and Venice, etc. where "_________" hit the place hard in the morning and almost disappear in the evening, but even then, "visitors" "customers" "tourists" spend money and like it or not, money makes the world go 'round.

On a trip to Belgium I met up with a friend who had been a neighbor in the states due to a work assignment and was now living back in Europe. He was living in Paris, but timed his visit back to where he grew up in Brugge to meet up with us. As he took us around Brugge and showed us all the sites and discussed the history of this quaint city, I had an opportunity to just slow down and observe all the people on the streets with large backpacks and rolling suit cases. I stopped in my tracks and said, "How in the world do you get use to all these people just roaming the streets of your town?" I recalled growing up in a small uninteresting town where if you were from out of town, we all knew you were a stranger. His answer was plain and simple, "without "_________" we the residents, would not benefit from all the shops and other businesses we have because they couldn't exist with just the resident population."

He was right, without "_____", there wouldn't be dozens and dozens of restaurants, shops, chocolate shops, etc. The locals living there without "______" would have a slower, calmer, quieter place to live, but the choices would not at all be what they are today. One of my least favorite places in Italy is Pisa. Without that leaning tower, I would hate to see what Pisa would end up looking like.

It is the same where I live. January 1st the place swells with "people" until about May 1st and then, we as year 'round locals, can eat at restaurants without a 45-60 minute wait, take advantage of local shops and all the other establishments that exist to make a living and serve the seasonal "_________".

People always want the good without the bad. Who is to blame? Well, let's see, where is my guidebook that tells me where I should go that no one else goes. Shh!!! Don't tell anyone where I am going. I am just going to slip in "the back door".

I live close to Bruges, Brugge too and quite familiar with what happens there regarding tourism and ofcourse your friend is right that the locals profit from all those visitors. So as long as tourism works with you it’s ok but with the increasing amount of tourists you have to know when it will work against you.

And to my opinion you have to be carefull with big money as it doesn’t care much about the locals. And that’s the worry about the region where I live is that the soaring prices results in homes that aren’t affordable anymore for an increasing number of locals and villages dying out. That happens in Venice, Amsterdam etc. and till so far in a lesser extent in Bruges too. So local societies become devided in those benefitting from tourism and those not. And if the latter is a majority finding a balance must be a priority and that is the challenge the tourist hotspots are facing.

It doesn't always take large corporations to disrupt locals and their centuries old communities. Heck a small time foreigner operator can come in, purchase a couple of apartments in a century old block. Gussy them up to throw up on AirBnB - get the revenue stream going and be damned about the dynamic of those locals who have lived there for years at affordable rents. That same small-time foreign investor most assuredly didn't drop off a questionnaire to get the residents thoughts of having AirBnB rentals in their building, before investing.

Interesting issue that is more complex than on the surface.

A key issue for property owners in a city or area that attracts tourist concerns restrictions on the use of private property.

In the USA zoning laws are widespread in our country. i have read that Houston, Texas, at one time was the only major city in the country that had no zoning laws. There was an excellent article in the Economist magazine on the subject over 20 years ago.
The lack of zoning laws led to some beneficial and non-beneficial results. Overall home prices were significantly lower as a result of no zoning restrictions, however, this occasionally let to situations like seeing an X-rated bar with topless dancers not far from a church.

I live on an island in South Georgia where land is expensive and some have complained that some residents sold their modest properties (for great prices) and moved to the cheaper mainland, reducing the percentage of minority population, yet those individuals benefited from the high prices they received on the sale of their property.

As a member of a homeowners association for a very nice subdivision, we have faced the issue of homeowners temporarily renting their homes or a portion of their homes to tourists increasing their income. We have received advice from attorneys that we cannot restrict such use of those properties, based on Supreme Court of Georgia cases. Some complaints have arrived of groups of tourists coming with multiple vehicles and parking on the street, among other things.

Also, as a world traveler, I hate to see key historical places be degraded by massive numbers of tourist. Still, I understand that private property rights must be protected. Our island does have older neighborhoods where older, historic buildings or homes cannot be torn down and replaces with mini-mansions. Only a small area of our island has such restrictions, but those are largely respected by residents since it protects the historic nature of the town in question.

Still, with tourists coming in massive numbers alone could irritate local residents. I can see that problem since I have been to the Canary Islands and understand that. Still, how do you keep people from coming to you location?

Will I change my travel behavior in the future? This question assumes that current behavior needs changing……..

I don’t see myself changing anything at this point. Probably the biggest deterrent to over tourism isn’t some ethical dilemma for most people, it is the desire to simply avoid the crowds themselves.

In return, I am polite, helpful and usually patient with the hordes of tourist that descend in my area.

Locals WOULD have control of lodging if enough concerned locals were
elected to political law making positions.

And Threadware, this same thread mentions Venice, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris where this is exactly what has happened. I will add Budapest and Vienna as two more locations. So yes, imperfect, but democracy works.

The other points are hard to respond to as they wave a little from a broad generalization to specific instances. Broad European generalities are only correct by luck. The specific locations would require a lot of study, understanding and presence for me to have an opinion on. But I do know that bad things are happening to good people and I hope and pray that their institutions lead them to good solutions.

That same small-time foreign investor most assuredly didn't drop off a
questionnaire to get the residents thoughts of having AirBnB rentals
in their building, before investing.

Periscope's view on short term rentals is understandable given the ideologically driven mantra that soaks the internet. It may even be a correct representation in some locations. In the city where I live the "House" does have a say in things and does get to approve the short term rentals.

An amazing 90% of locals live in an owned home (the EU average is about 70%) so when an investor (more often than not a local citizen) improves a flat, the investment value of all the other homes goes up. The locals sort of like that since 90% have a stake in it. In tge case of my city, the improvements are not taking the city to some new standard, more like returning the city to what it was pre-WWII with some 21st century improvements. The locals like that too.

But the city is regulating the short term rentals to keep things in check. They are licensed, inspected, taxed and subject to House approval. They also pay higher common fees which assists the house in maintenance (most houses are fairly poor).

The improvments that are bringing the apartments to 21st century dignity in living are putting people back in the inner city, as it was 80 years ago, and as a result, the boarded up ground floor retail spaces are reopening to serve those living there. Since buying my apartment empty space has become a beauty parlor, dry cleaner, art gallery, coffee shop; and the Synagogue and two other buildings have completed repairs overdue for 50 years.

There are still thousands of empty apartments waiting to be renovated to 21 century living standards if anyone is interested. No, the city doesn't have a housing shortage.

But my city is not the norm. I doubt there is a norm. There are tens of thousands of unique situations that deserve serious workable solutions, not "good intentions" or an informed, unvested groups superior caring for the world.

Periscope's view on short term rentals is understandable given the ideologically driven mantra that soaks the internet.

That statement is glaringly INCORRECT. I have had direct involvement in 2 cities with both city-councillor driven community committees and at Appeals hearings in front of a full slate of city councillors pushing back at "investors" who have sought to alter individual streets through home occupation licensing and rezoning. Allowing any changes to those individual streets would impact 3 other streets. Fought against "investors" who have sought to change the characterization of specific street addresses from Residential zoning only, to mixed-used Residential / Commercial ( that kind of change would have allowed a broad range commercial applications including up to XXXX video houses.
,

It may even be a correct representation in some locations

Has and continues to happen in both communities I have been involved in.

To the original question.

I have avoided most of the popular, high profile, heavily touristed destinations over the last 10 years. Not for any great ethical reason just simply because I hate crowds.
So I have no need to change my travel behaviour.

If you are worried about the effects of overtourism at any destination then simply stay away.
It's all the individual tourist can do about.
Equally if you are concerned about the housing/short term rental situation then don't stay in BNBs.
When I vote I know my vote is not lilely to be enough on it's own to decide an election. Nevertheless I vote.

Anyway I am off to NZ, off season South Island 3 weeks, living out of our Juicy van. Hopefully I don't negatively impact on the locals.

Equally if you are concerned about the housing/short term rental situation then don't stay in BNBs.

The problem here is that the normal traveller is not pro-actively informed about the situation and therefore cannot take a whatever responsible decision - meaning in common welfare sense. There are no standardized indicators / KPIs published by the travel industry to give transparency.

MarkK I wonder whether informing the "normal" (definition? ) traveller would have much impact.
Most people will put their own self interest ahead of the "greater good" choice.
My choices are based on my self interest. I don't spend too much time thinking about the impact of my tourism choices on the locals. As I said I avoid crowded highly touristed places but simply because they don't appeal to me.
In Europe I have stayed in just 5 BnBs. 4 of those were houses owned by long term local residents who lived on site. The other was a local man's diving boat. So I wouldn't think that has had a big affect on local housing costs/shortages. Those choices were made on practicality (cost/location) not any moral high ground though.

Eatsrootsandleaves, in Berin where there is a housing shortage government officials have said that eliminating airbnb would be a drop in the bucket. Its a straw man to keep eyes off larger issues. So don't feel too guilty about staying in an airbnb. Some cities, believe it or not, have had the communities benefit from short term rentals, some apparently have been negatively impacted. Let the locals sort it out and regulate it as they think best (as they have done in many cities already). It's crazy to think tourists will know enough to make good decisions for each of thousands of unique situations.

I wonder whether informing the "normal" (definition? ) traveller would have much impact.

I am not - it works in all industries. Information is key to change - albeit the least compelling one. Do some of us like or need it harder?