Taxing your way to solving overtourism?

Allan, great example for referring to Chartres! After spending 2 nights there a number of years ago, I could not imagine missing the light show on the facade of the Cathedral. We were thrilled to view it for two nights. It was absolutely magical. Creativity-- what a concept!

Pricing signals and approaches like timed entry do affect demand by trying to smooth it out (e.g. congestion pricing on roadways). The problem of overtourism is concentrated demand (too many people) in one place at one time. Obviously crowds in and of themselves are not unattractive enough to keep many people away (although it works great for me), so you need other tools to manage that demand. I don't think of taxes or fees as "punishment" - they are imperfect mechanisms that have their pros and cons. For one thing, they can used to generate revenue to offset the costs of overtourism. I do believe that (competent, non-corrupt) governments can take in revenue and spend it wisely on infrastructure improvements that ultimately benefit both locals and tourists. If not governments, then who do you recommend performs this function instead? What incentives would the private sector have to further the public good?

Aside from taxes, other barriers to entry could include VISA requirements or a lottery system that makes travel to certain places more costly (e.g. Bhutan and the Galapagoes Islands, respectively). Alternatively, you can make certain places less attractive by not improving accessibility to them in terms of infrastructure (e.g. paved roads), or by keeping them in poor or rough condition.

The Chartres example sounds like a "pull" factor, not "push" factor in terms of demand. If you make something more attractive, you're not limiting overall demand, you're increasing it. I think the key is having effective tools to manage and spread out the demand to improve quality of experience for everyone (tourists and locals). If you want to lower demand in general, then you have to make traveling somewhere a more expensive, inconvenient, or less attractive proposition relative to other places.

Perhaps a better way to look at such taxes is not as a disincentive to excess tourists, but for funding repair and protection of infrastructure, restoration, safety measures, additional police and administrative resources, etc., for the community.

I am a planner when I travel so I am all for the limiting entry, timed tickets, stuff like that because I feel like it rewards those of us who plan ahead and do our research. Of course the down side is that there are those who are able to travel on a whim and can't plan for limited entry etc... Nothings perfect. Maybe for those people do the extra taxes if they are just day tripping? Hotels offering incentives for stays of at least 2 nights and even better ones with 4 or more? There is probably no perfect solution and the solution probably also depends on location. My guess is that Venice's solutions will be very different than say the Louvre in Paris. I personally really do not like cruises, which I know are a big problem for places like Venice. I know they can be great for some people, but they aren't great for a lot of the places they visit or the people who are already in those places and are actually staying the night. On our RS Greece tour in 2014 we all took a vote and got up extra early to get to the Acropolis before the 7, yes 7, cruise ships scheduled to arrive that day docked and inundated the site. That's probably about 15,000 to 20,000 people arriving at 1 site at the same time. Yowza!! We also did the same to see Mystras because of the extra cruise ships arriving that day. It has soured me on cruising. At least until I'm too old to do small tours like RS or independent travel, which I figure gives me about 40 years.

I'm not sure how taxes or fees could keep a large cruise ship from crushing a smaller riverboat, but the revenue could be put to use mitigating the impact of the crush of tourist. While not the same, congestion management charges for driving in a congested zone may deter some drivers while being used to pay for alternatives such as transit. And as the article noted, requiring entry fees can be used to meter the number of tourist in an area at any one time.

I didn't get the 'taxing to solve over-tourism' angle so much from the article, and while I didn't read every word it seems that just 2 or 3 locations actually mentioned raising taxes to fix a problem. With communications, population increase, modern transportation, greater freedoms (for some), and generally more income, there are lots of people today who can travel, who 20-30 years ago a person in their demographic, couldn't.

Governments are going to have to find their way in a new, ever expanding travel environment, and I do agree that taxes won't always be the way, but I am also a firm believer in the public square, and in citizens having pride in their culture. The idea that sites would be allowed to deteriorate in order to make them less attractive seems like walking backwards. Tax is not a bad word.

-If not governments, then who do you recommend performs this function
instead?

Nothing wrong with public/private partnerships. In Chartres, the private sector went to the government to ask for help and they worked together on a solution. Now Chartres wasn't asking to solve an over tourism problem, they were trying to change tourist habits and get them to stay longer.

-Alternatively, you can make certain places less attractive by not
improving accessibility to them in terms of infrastructure (e.g. paved
roads), or by keeping them in poor or rough condition.

-If you want
to lower demand in general, then you have to make traveling somewhere
a more expensive, inconvenient, or less attractive proposition
relative to other places.

Yikes. How does that benefit the citizens of the area? You're inconvenienced by all those tourists and so we're going to underfund the infrastructure to keep people away? That's just creating a new problem.

-Tax is not a bad word.

No it's not if tax money is used properly. My points weren't that taxes are evil, but too many times local governments see taxation as the only solution. If it's used to fund infrastructure improvements and improve the lives of the citizens, then great. But let's not think that throwing money at a problem is an automatic fix. Too many times taxing the tourist is a Band-Aid to look popular to voters. How about the creative thinking in Amsterdam-instead of limiting tourism, the government is looking to keep those tourists by advertising all the other wonderful spots in the country. Same number of tourists, same VAT taxes being collected, but spreading the herd over a larger area.

Yikes. How does that benefit the citizens of the area? You're
inconvenienced by all those tourists and so we're going to underfund
the infrastructure to keep people away? That's just creating a new
problem.

Admittedly, Europe is not a good example of this, but fragile ecosystems are. There are tribes in the Amazon, for example, that would be really adversely affected if the area became more developed or their way of living is more "out in the open" and accessible to tourists. They are trying to preserve a way of life that's foreign to most tourists, and they want to keep it that way. I'm sure the animals in the Galapagos also would be worse off if their ecosystem trampled on. There are some environments where less people (or even no people) is a good thing.

A lot to road infrastructure (in the US) does use private-public partnerships since revenue is harder to raise with taxation alone (the politics don't play out well), so no argument with that at all.

I think even using marketing tools to spread tourists around or dissolve the boundaries between peak v.s non peak season will affect some locals unfavorably, so it's a delicate balance. I think it's easy for governments to levy taxes that fall squarely on tourists because the tourists are captive to them, they have no recourse like locals do.

I think it's easy for governments to levy taxes that fall squarely on
tourists because the tourists are captive to them, they have no
recourse like locals do.

As a visitor to a location, I don't actually have a problem with tourist taxes and I just build it into my budget. I just always wonder if the money is going to where it is supposed to go and I wonder if the locals hold their politicians accountable. In my home town we raised our hotel tax and the purpose of it is supposed to be to help market Calgary to the world. But I remember reading an article that said that hotel tax just went into general revenue so there was no way to confirm if it was spent the way it was promised. Since I don't use hotels at home, the tax didn't matter to me and so I promptly ignored it. That's what makes me think some of these tourist taxes are just band-aids that politicians use to satisfy the locals that something is being done. And it's why I appreciate places like Chartres and Amsterdam that are trying creative and longer term solutions to tourism problems. If they work, who knows, but they're trying something.

Tourism in the European Union made up $60.13 per $1,000 of GDP in 2004. All the articles say tourism is, and has been, on the rise in recent years. So its fair to assume that tourism is an even larger part of the GDP in 2019. But the 2004 numbers say that tourism is a little more than 6% of the EU economy. So, if tourism is curtailed, where will the people that rely on that 6% of the economy work? Not saying it shouldn't be curtailed, but there might be some unintended consequences. Cutting tourims in half would have about the same impact in the EU as closing all the automotive production plants in the US would have on the US economy/employment.

BUT, I'm good with it. I dont like the crowds!!

The solution is to find ways to redistribute the tourists in time and location. Of course, then those serving the tourist industry will have to move to where the tourists are and plan fewer winter vacations...

Taxation is broadly a good thing, it pays (or at least contributes), to the things that make a nation civilised - health care, education, rule of law, public transport, etc., even museums (I admit taxation can also be used to pay for evil things too). There is also the natural justice of taking money from the better off to aid the poorer.

However, I don't think you're querying the general philosophy of progressive taxation but whether it "works" if used for tourism. Like you, I'm not sure.

On the one hand it's a source of funds. I'm not a fan of hypothecated taxes, so I'm not concerned that money raised isn't used for some specified "tourism remedial work". It seems fair we contribute as tourists and I don't mind if that goes in a general bucket that pays for social care no tourist will ever use. After all, as a tourist, I'm already paying general taxes such as VAT (usually), and I've no right to query how that is spent by the residents.

Equally, I can see using taxes on tourists as a "sin tax" with the hope it will reduce numbers. But it doesn't seem likely to work does it? If the amounts are small will they have any effect? And if you make them massive fees then one is just penalising the decent, moderate earners whilst not troubling the wicked, capitalist fat-cats. There are plenty of people in the world who already couldn't afford travel, making it even more inequitable would not be a good thing.

So I've no objection to "low" tourist taxes as a way of contributing to the destination (whilst admitting it's not a very progressive tax). But I don't agree with high tourist taxes developed as a way of cutting numbers. Instead, popular sights, cities and even regions should introduce rationing. The Diggers would know what to do, but until that day we should accept that countries exist and nationalise the sights (many are already, of course), then limit the number of tourists allowed. Allocate the available access equitably - based on need & benefit, not based on ability to pay.

The simpliest and most profitable way would be to define contingencies for tourist classes (1 day, 2-4 days, ...) and to put the contingencies on auctions - reselling prohibited such with concerts / sport events which filter Viagogo ticket sales.

Other examples are the ports of Norway, e.g. Bergen and Stavanger. In a German article residents share their mass tourist experiences and it is really unfunny.

Hallstatt died the unique case of death by Chinese copy.

I would not rate the example of Chartres as positive example because the final note is not written yet. Overnights means that the accomodation platforms will increase the price levels for living within 5 years on factor 2-3. Withput regulation no chance. Dozens of examples available.

Demark found a good way to protect their summer houses on the coasts from the tourist floods from Sweden, Norway, Germany and other countries. They just denied permission to sell such a house to a non-Dane. Very effective solution. Norway's Lofoten have the same rule with additional requirements.

I went to Chartres as a day trip. If I could have made it work, I would have added a night. They had both the lights on the cathedral and a city-wide light festival going that evening. Unfortunately an overnight didn't work because I had to be back in Paris. It's a great town, I hope I get to stay a night in the future.

To me the problem with taxing people is who you eliminate. The lower classes. People with money will pay. Those without will miss the sight. I'm not in favor of excluding the poor to improve the view for the rich. That may sound like class envy, really I'm just an egalitarian (everyone is equal) so I avoid policies that effectively exclude people.

The sights don't belong to the current city council. They were built a long time ago using other people's time, talents and money. It's like charging tolls on roads that were built with everyone's gas taxes (or special lanes). People who paid for the road can't afford to use it.

I'm actually happier with limiting visits and forcing people to book ahead if it's a priority for them. I generally don't like to make reservations. It wouldn't work well for me but might help preserve the sight. Realistically, travel agents will book up all the reservations and resell them to people with money - so same result. :-(

I started traveling overseas in 1981 when I took a job with the US Army Corps of Engineers in Saudi Arabia. I traveled quite a bit from then until 1991 (living in Germany for four years as well). I remember visiting many popular places in Europe like Venice, Paris, Florence and Rome.

You didn't have to make reservations to see the Sistine Chapel, Accademia in Florence, St. Mark's in Venice, etc.

Now, when I travel, those very key popular places, even a place like Westminister Abbey requires booking a specific time.

It just means that one has to plan ahead before traveling.

True, tourism had saturated places like Venice, etc. and multiple cruise ships add to the problem.
The World Population has grown, the Soviet Union is no more and many more people are retired with funds to travel.
Not sure taxation would solve the problem. It might deter some tourists if taxes added 10-20% to what otherwise the cost would be, but not most.
It seems to me that places like Venice need to grab the bull by the horns and take action, like limiting the number of cruise ship in port. Perhaps they should require moving the port to another location?

People will still want to visit the Lourve, Academia and Westminister Abbey, not sure that those places aren't already handling the problem properly.

Saying that adding a head tax to people arriving by cruise in Venice hurts only those of less means is pretty disingenuous. If one has enough means to travel to Europe and take a cruise, you can afford a tax. This generally applies to most any tourist destination.

Such taxes will do nothing to curb over-tourism in Venice. If that is the intent they will fail. If the goal is to pay for infrastructure improvements and to deal with the massive numbers of people that visit, it seems worthwhile.

I do agree that there are many ways to limit or discourage tourism, especially to protect fragile urban systems or ecosystems. Such efforts will usually be unfortunate for the visitor because it makes it harder to visit. But with the massive numbers of tourists now coming from all over the world, these are becoming increasingly necessary.