Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/annals

Conceptualising overtourism: A sustainability approach

T
Tanja Mihalic
⁎

SEBLU, School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Associate editor: Juergen Gnoth This paper conceptualises a new tourism phenomenon: overtourism. Conceptualisation is based
Keywords: on relevant tourism knowledge on sustainability and related responsibility. The proposed model,
Overtourism presented in concise pictorial form, brings together the tourism capacities of the ‘sustainability
Sustainable tourism pillars’ as well as the novel ‘socio-psychological’ and ‘socio-political’ capacities. Ultimately, the
Responsible tourism model may assist in monitoring, diagnosing and influencing the risks of any unsustainable
Responsustable tourism tourism situation. The proposed novel capacities add to growing academic call to revisit the
Socio-pshychological capacity contemporary academic and practical approaches to tourism and sustainability, based on its low
Socio-political capacity
efficacy in practice. Paper suggests to extend and update the existing sustainable tourism para­
digm to encourage more sustainable tourism strategies, policies and their more effective im­
plementation.

Introduction

The term “overtourism” has been in use only for few years (Ali, 2016; Dickinson, 2018a); however, its roots have been widely
discussed in tourism literature since the mid-1960s (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018). Over 50 years before the present paper, socio-
political concern over the growth of tourism and its negative natural and social-environmental effects had already induced academic
discussion on tourism's impacts. In 1987, the Brundtland's report Our Common Future (WCED, 1987) pushed the global debate on
environmental sustainability to the forefront of socio-political discussions and agendas. Tourism scholars and socio-political forces
soon reacted by developing and disseminating the term “sustainable tourism” and its conceptual basis (Inskeep, 1991; Nash & Butler,
1990; UN, 1992). Sustainable tourism is now a mainstream tourism paradigm, primarily based on a balance between economic,
environmental, and socio-cultural sustainability, and coded by the UNWTO definition.
Tourism researchers from varied disciples have consistently expanded sustainable tourism's horizons (e.g. Butler, 1974; Cohen,
1987; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). The emerging science of sustainability (Munasinghe, 2007) connects to the pillars of sustainable
tourism—economic, environmental, and socio-cultural sustainability—and has a strong multidisciplinary focus. This three-pillared
approach dominates sustainability thinking (Wall, 2019) and is incorporated in destinations' tourism agendas worldwide (UNWTO,
2019a). However, in reality, tourism destinations continue to encourage economic growth—to be sure, we are strongly embedded in
a capitalistic socio-political system (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017; Hall, 2011; Hunter, 1997). Historically, tourism has
been too slow to implement sustainable practices, leading to the recognition of a gap between theoretical sustainability and its
practical implementation (Buckley, 2012; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010; Sharpley, 2020).
Overtourism is, among other things, the acceleration and growth of tourism supply and demand, the use of tourism destinations'
natural ecological goods, the destruction of their cultural attractions, and negative impacts on their social and economic environ­
ments. These have rendered tourism irresponsible—and this has led to today's stronger focus on implementing responsible tourism

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103025
Received 4 December 2019; Received in revised form 22 July 2020; Accepted 30 July 2020
Available online 14 August 2020
0160-7383/ © 2020 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

paradigms based on sustainability (Goodwin, 2011; Mihalic, 2016, 2020; UNWTO, 2012). Nonetheless, overtourism still occurs in
many destinations and provides the strongest practical evidence so far of the illusiveness of a sustainable and responsible tourism
paradigm. In 2017, numerous media reports on tourism growth, overtourism, antitourism, and tourismphobia began to emerge
notably from diverse destinations. Barcelona definitely took first place under the overtourism spotlight, followed closely by other
destinations such as Venice, Dubrovnik, Amsterdam, and Hong Kong, to name but a few. The media and public embraced the topic
because of its appeal to “people's basic instincts” and “an element of alarm and fear in it” (Ali, 2018, para. 1).UNWTO acknowledged
that a “serious situation” existed that needed to be addressed in “a serious way” (Coldwell, 2017), and responsible destination
managers started to fear phone calls and media questions such as “Is your destination already a Barcelona?”
Academia has confirmed that this new phenomenon, along with its related issues, must be addressed in an appropriate and
scientific manner (Capocchi, Vallone, Amaduzzi, & Pierotti, 2019). Despite the urgency and the fact that much literature has been
produced, overtourism is still not fully defined academically and remains subject to various interpretations (Koens et al., 2018; Dodds
and Butler, 2019; Gretzel, 2019) from different aspects and disciplines. Seen as “a complex and multidimensional phenomenon,”
overtourism entails complex and multidisciplinary issues (Alonso-Almeida, Borrajo-Millán, & Yi, 2019, p. 14) that must be jointly
addressed. It is in this context that the present paper considers the gaps in literature and knowledge around the topic of overtourism.
The main purpose of the present research is to fully conceptualise the complex phenomenon of overtourism and offer a knowledge
for monitoring and managing its existence or the risk of its existence. The main question guiding the research is: what elements are
required to form a holistic and practical synthesis of all relevant dimensions of unsustainable and irresponsible overtourism? Our goal
is to incorporate all relevant overtourism issues and their interrelationships into a complex, multidimensional model presentable in
concise pictorial form. The disciplinary approach entails application of sustainomics (Munasinghe, 2007) and enables a multi­
disciplinary and practical synthesis that helps to make development more sustainable.

Methodological approach and data

This paper is an epistemological attempt to offer a conceptual model, supported by a constructivist approach that emphasises the
ability of the researcher to construct new knowledge. It uses a conceptual research methodology, which involves a review of existing
theoretical knowledge and existing evidence on a given topic—here, overtourism—and related concepts. With the proposed con­
ceptual model (Jaakkola, 2020), we seek to build a theoretical framework that predicts relationships between model constructs and,
most of all, introduces new constructs (Fulmer, 2012).
The starting point for theoretical framing (Bramwell et al., 2017) is knowledge of sustainable tourism, which also covers mul­
tidisciplinary issues associated with the phenomenon of (unsustainable) overtourism. Along these lines, this study conceptualised
overtourism using an engaged scholarly approach (Van de Ven, 2007). We engaged with academic multidisciplinary knowledge: it
drew on a narrative historical review of tourism theory and schools of thought. We also drew on practical evidence and information
concerning the newly recognised phenomenon of overtourism, which has not yet gained full academic consensus and recognition.
Both approaches have been iterated to fit the proposed overtourism conceptual model.
Our sources for the present study include academic tourism literature and tourism practice surveys, commercial reports, media,
collaborative sources, and personal contacts. The academic sources were accessed through depositories and online databases ac­
cessible via the University of Ljubljana academic library service, Google, and Researchgate. Reports issued by socio-political, in­
stitutional, governmental, or media actors were found through websites. Practical studies and reports from tourism media and
different organisations, such as the WTTC and McKinsey&Company (2017), CELTH (2018), UNWTO (2018), and TRAN (2018), were
used to engage the reality of overtourism.

State of the art

In applying a paradigm to understand new developments, paradigm shifts become relevant (Dwyer, 2017). Here we use “para­
digm shift” to describe a major change in concepts and practices of how we see (un)sustainable development of tourism. We use
“paradigm” to refer to the whole set of relevant ideas and schools of thought on tourism and sustainability that have achieved
consensus or have been validated among academics and stakeholders in practice and expressed through definitions and strategy
based actions.
Over time, accepted sustainable tourism definitions may no longer correspond to the full subject matter, which is constantly
fuelled or shifted by new knowledge and insights within the field. Not all existing research and knowledge is reflected in circulating
definitions or paradigms; such work might remain outside the paradigm until an event or issue, such as unsustainable overtourism,
attracts attention to it and makes it suddenly relevant to the actors. As such, all knowledge, concepts, and models that could inform
new overtourism phenomena are relevant to a new theoretical framing.
In 1964, Forster reports on reactions to tourism in the social environment (Forster, 1964, p. 218). Shortly thereafter, Clawson and
Knetch (1966) argue that increased visitation to an area lowers total visitor satisfaction. In his 1973 book Tourism: Blessing or Blight,
British author George Young challenges thinking that tourism contributes positively to development. The positive economic impacts
of tourism (Archer, 1977) are thus faced with new questions, and a double faceted way of thinking about tourism emerges—ulti­
mately, Young argues that with the blessings of tourism come many negative impacts.
Meanwhile in 1973, Swiss-based tourism professor Kaspar (1973) suggests a new branch of tourism science called “tourism
ecology” that increases academic attention on the natural environment of tourism. In 1974, British tourism professor Richard Butler
argued that “greater attention should be paid to … the undesirable social impacts of tourist development” (Butler, 1974, p. 100). The

2
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

following year, Turner and Ash publish The Golden Hordes (Turner & Ash, 1975), a book about tourism's destruction of the landscape
and corruption of the local culture. Also in 1975, American researcher Harry Matthews addresses tourism issues from a political
science perspective. Almost a decade later Swiss ecologist Jost Krippendorf (1984) presents a fresh understanding of alternatives to
the mainstream mass tourism that has, become environmentally, socially, politically, and ethically intolerable (Swarbrooke, 1999).
Tourism scholars of the era develop and also criticise alternative tourism concepts, such as alternative, minimum impact, eco, ethical,
green, and responsible tourism (Cohen, 1988). In the 1990s, the emerging fields of tourism ecology and environmental economics
emphasise the need for environmentally friendly tourism policies (Mihalic & Kaspar, 1996).
The fierce economic and social academic debate on tourism's positive and negative impacts then leads to novel discussions
regarding capacity and acceptable limits and on mass tourism and its alternatives at the time, such as eco-tourism. Each of the above
mentioned new approaches, and many others, receive a unique conceptualisation, often adopted or produced in the form of a
declaration and critique (e.g. Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism, 2002; Manila Declaration on World Tourism, 1980;
Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism, 2002). Notably, the Our Common Future debate (WCED, 1987) attracts the attention of shapers of
the socio-political reality, including media, private citizens, tourism professionals and academia members. Finally, in 1991, Edward
Inskeep applies the sustainable development concept to tourism policy and planning (Inskeep, 1991). Since then, many researchers
and international institutions, among others UNWTO, do the same, and the sustainable tourism paradigm is now the mainstream
school of tourism thought.
The “three-pillar” concept that situates sustainable tourism as rooted in economic, socio-cultural, and natural pillars is part of
UNWTO's (2019a) definition of sustainable tourism as well as part of tourism strategies of destinations worldwide. However, some
scientists claim that the “‘intellectually appealing’ theoretical concept of sustainable tourism has little practical application … al­
lowing essentially the same behaviour as before” (Wheeller, 1993, p. 121). Indeed, it remains hard to find a consensus on the
efficiency of implementing sustainable tourism (Chettiparamb & Kokkranikal, 2012). Numerous researchers claim that practice is
“not yet close to the sustainability” (Buckley, 2012, p. 528) or “…alarmingly unsustainable” (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010, p. 117). Still,
the overtourism phenomenon is upsetting the academic and professional tourism world and is a known form of unsustainable
tourism, which—taking all socio-political agendas for more sustainable tourism into account—should not have occurred.

Tourism ecology

Before the full development of the tourism sustainability paradigm, the need to holistically address tourism attractions as part of
the tourism business led to a school of thought on tourism ecology. More specifically, Kaspar (1973) is the first to integrate tourism
blights related to the natural ecological environment into the tourism discussion. Two years later, the World Bank extends its
understanding of the terms “environment” and “ecology”. Ecology used describes the relationships between organisms and their
environment, including the “man-environment relationship” (WB, 1975, pp. 5–6).This change broadened the meaning of the eco­
logical environment, now recognised as cultural and social as well as natural (Mihalic & Kaspar, 1996).
In general, the tourism system (see Fig. 1) is depicted as rooted in tourism economics, referring to tourism supply (supply
stakeholders) and tourism demand (visitors) (Inskeep, 1991, p. 22). Moreover, the system is also embedded in different environments
important to tourism ecology, namely: ecological, economic, and socio-political environments. The socio-political environment that

Fig. 1. The tourism ecology framework: the triple environments of the tourism system.
Note: TS: Tourism Supply; TD: Tourism Demand.
Source: adapted from Mihalic & Kaspar, 1996.

3
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

emerges with political economy and welfare economics is considered a key factor in the implementation of the ecological concept
(Frey, 1985; Mihalic & Kaspar, 1996). It includes social ecological awareness and ethics, as well as formal and informal pressures on
ecological behaviour, including laws, politics, and policy instruments. According to Frey (1985), every society must go through
certain developmental stages in order to enter the phase of ecological (e.g.) environmental responsibility. The first phase is ignorance
of environmental problems, which is replaced by the phase of awareness. This leads to social discussion and the formation of an
environmental agenda leading to environmental actions; it is to the phase of tourism responsibility.
Later evolutions of the tourism sustainability view embrace economic, socio-cultural, and natural sustainability and the socio-
political dimension (Bramwell et al., 2017), as presented in Fig. 1. To effectively address the sustainability concept–implementation
gap, tourism destinations should have strong sustainability ethics and guidance from governments, the private sector, public-private
networks, and communities (Hall, 2011). Theoretically, the interplays of ethics, stakeholders, a critical mass, and consensus-building
are important socio-political enablers of sustainable tourism. Notably, the overtourism debate brings the involvement of political
processes and stakeholders' rights to the forefront (Postma & Schmuecker, 2017). In addition, numerous scholars emphasise the need
to focus on spatial and socio-political limits and active co-ordination among planning, socio-political processes and systems, gov­
ernance, management, the media, and community involvement (Becken & Simmons, 2019; Bramwell et al., 2017; Innerhofer,
Erschbamer, & Pechlaner, 2019; Joppe, 2019; Russo & Scarnato, 2017; UNWTO, 2019b; Zacher, Pechlaner, & Olbrich, 2019).

Mass tourism, crowding, and tourism carrying capacities

Before sustainable tourism thinking takes centre-stage, the mainly sociological mass tourism debate (Cohen, 1984; Fink, 1970;
Graham & Cohen, 1991; Krippendorf, 1984) greatly contributes to the development of ethical tourism thinking. In those days, in
general, mass tourism is seen as an outcome of the growth and concentration of tourism demand and supply. It manifests in its too-
high numbers and too-high negative impacts on the environment (Mihalic & Kaspar, 1996).
On the demand side, excess tourism results in destruction of destinations' environments by turning them into “touristic” places.
New trends to avoid such crowded places and search for authentic individually tailored new modes of tourism and alternatives such
as eco-tourism follow (Butler, 1980; Cohen, 1987, 1988; Poon, 1994, 1993; Wanhill, 2000). At the same time, on the supply side, the
growing tourism business fails to sufficiently mitigate and manage tourism's negative environmental impacts. No general guidelines
for determining a destination's tourism capacity are identified as each tourism environment has multiple limits (Wall, 2020).
Limits depend on place specific factors such as tourism type, stage of development, environmental and social characteristics, and
typical visitor behaviour in terms of tourism's flows through time and space. In addition, socio-spatial studies on tourism crowding
expands the context by including personal and behavioural variables of residents that impact their perception of social density or
crowding and thus satisfaction with their residential neighbourhoods. Due to overtourism, issues of mass tourism, crowding, and
tourism capacity have become relevant again.
Carrying capacity comes to be seen as a basic metric in tourism planning for determining the upper limits of development and
visitor use and the optimal utilisation of tourism resources (Inskeep, 1991, p. 144). The analyses imply setting limits on tourism
development. Most models refer to ecological and spatial (natural), ecological and sociological (socio-cultural), and economic en­
vironments. However, in the context of overtourism, social and psychological carrying capacities (Bezzola, 1975; Innerhofer et al.,
2019; Muler Gonzalez, Coromina, & Galí, 2018) seem to be of special significance and are generally from two perspectives. The upper
limit is both the maximum levels of overcrowding that visitors are willing to accept and the maximum levels of tourism and its
(negative) impacts that local residents are willing to accept. As a result of a descriptive approach to evaluating the socio-psycho­
logical attitudes towards tourism development the following alternative diagnoses emerge: tourism development is possible, is not
possible, and stakeholders are indifferent to tourism development.

Social exchange theory, quality of life (welfare), and stakeholder theory

Nevertheless, to explain residents' attitudes towards tourism development, tourism researchers refer to tourism social capacity
and socio-psychological social exchange theory (SET) (Navarro Jurado et al., 2012; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990). In this context, the
majority of studies discuss tourism impacts and support for tourism, while some also address satisfaction with tourism or quality of
life in a tourism destination (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2011; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999). Tourism development
depends on how the residents of a destination weigh the potential benefits and risks of tourism's presence. They develop their support
for tourism based on their satisfaction with their quality of life in the tourism-affected community (Dyer, Gursoy, Sharma, & Carter,
2007; Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-Mejía, & Porras-Bueno, 2008).
Quality of life refers to the feeling that life is going well overall and concerns people's perceived satisfaction with the circum­
stances in which they live (Moscardo, 2009). In the context of overtourism we define quality of life as a concept of “… human welfare
… measured by social indicators…” (UN, 1997, p. 61). This definition opens discussion of tourisms stakeholders' perceptions of social
impacts, such as residents' satisfaction or irritation with tourism circumstances.
Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Sautter & Leisen, 1999) suggests that a destination is characterized by its relationships with
various groups and individuals, including local businesses, government, competitors, activist groups, and residents as well as national
business chains. Stakeholders connect to sustainability, as they have the power to affect its performance or have a stake in it. Sautter
and Leisen caution that failure to retain participation of even a single stakeholder group will result in the failure of, in our case, the
achievement of quality of life centred sustainability. Growing tourism that neglects the interests of local residents necessarily leads to
overtourism, here defined as tourism that irritates stakeholders.

4
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Destination irritation index, diminishing tourism satisfaction, and tourism area life cycle

The concept of Doxey's destination irritation index (Irrindex) (Doxey, 1975) suggests that as visitation grows at a given desti­
nation, residents pass through a sequence of emotions and reactions towards the visitation and the visitors, beginning with euphoria
and culminating in antagonism. Initially, the visitors are welcomed. As they grow in numbers and congestion increases along with
rising prices and other negative impacts, social interactions and acceptance become negative (Ross, 2000). Similarly, Clawson and
Knetch (1966) explain the negative impact of increased visitation on visitors' satisfaction based on the economic law of diminishing
returns—the same can be applied to residents' satisfaction.
Spatial economics, based on the link between a destination's carrying capacity and its irritation level, was established by Butler's
Tourism Area Life Cycle concept (TALC) (1980). More specifically, it refers to the developmental growth of a destination and its
visitation levels and shows a decline in a destination's development and visitation when carrying capacities have been reached. At this
point, an area's attractiveness starts to decline because of overuse and the negative impacts of tourism (Ross, 2000). However, a
destination can reverse a decline and rejuvenate tourism, depending on its socio-political capacities, the circumstances and possi­
bilities of appropriate destination management, and the destination's prevailing policy. In light of the overtourism debate, the above
SET, TALC, and Irrindex concepts are relevant again. In the overtourism context, Butler (2019) argues that to prevent an un­
sustainable future, destinations must prepare for sustainability at the earliest stages of their life cycles.

Sustainable tourism and responsible tourism

The Our Common Future report (WCED, 1987) suggests that sustainable development should maintain the integrity and diversity
of the ecological environment, meet basic human needs, keep options open for future generations, reduce injustice among and
between generations, and increase self-determination. The concept is widely accepted by governments and industry representatives
(Wall, 2000), and the tourism industry and academia also embrace it. Inskeep (1991) identifies and defines five pillars of sustainable
tourism, which include the economic, environmental (meaning natural), and social responsibilities of tourism as well as its re­
sponsibility to tourists (meaning assuring visitor satisfaction) and to global equity in development. The last pillar receives less
attention in the following sustainable tourism development debate but remains a part of academic thinking and develops into a ‘just
tourism’ concept of its own (Camargo, Lane, & Jamal, 2007; Hultsman, 1995; Jamal & Camargo, 2014). The main tourism sus­
tainability consensus culminates in the three-pillared concept of sustainability (Fig. 1), renamed as the natural, socio-cultural, and
economic pillars (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1999; UNWTO, 2004).
In cooperation with academia and tourism practitioners, UNWTO has done enormous work regarding the sustainable tourism
paradigm. The current short UNWTO sustainable tourism definition dates from its work in 2005 and situates “sustainable tourism” as
“Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of
visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (UNEP & WTO, 2005; UNWTO, n.d., para 2). UNWTO also provides a
longer conceptual definition of sustainable tourism, which expands the “simply expressed” (UNWTO, n.d., para 1) definition of the
above quoted paragraph as follows:
Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural aspects … and a suitable balance must be
established between these three dimensions … Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all re­
levant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building … Sustainable
tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction…
(UNWTO, n.d., para 7–8)
One shortcoming of that conceptual definition is that it does not position both main stakeholders of the tourism system (visitors
on one side and industry and host communities on the other) on the same level with regard to the sustainability pillars, although the
shorter definition does. Instead, it only refers specifically to visitors, implying an overly visitor-centred vision that does not prioritize
destination residents. In fact, such a narrow view of sustainability, when implemented, gives priority to marketing aspects and
economic growth (Wall, 2019), ignoring stakeholders' theory (Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Furthermore, it ignores quality of life, an
important aspect of sustainability (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Milano, Novelli, & Cheer, 2019b; Perkumiene & Pranskuniene, 2019).
However, it rightly acknowledges some triggers for the implementation of sustainability, such as the “informed participation of all
relevant stakeholders,” “political leadership,” and “consensus,” that correspond to socio-political requirements arising from our
academic debate on tourism ecology (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, the full socio-political environment has never truly made its way into the
main sustainability paradigm but has remained on the agenda of some tourism researchers.
As already mentioned, since the start of the 21st century, understandings of sustainability are informed by research findings
showing the concept's excessively slow implementation in the tourism industry. For this reason, responsible tourism came to the
forefront, emphasising “sustainability in action,” the implementation of sustainable tourism through sustainable actions or beha­
viours. European and international organisations have amended their documents with a new awareness of sustainability (pillars) and
responsibility (action and behaviour). Examples include the European document titled European Charter for Sustainable and
Responsible Tourism (EC, 2012) and UNWTO's Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, subtitled For Responsible Tourism (UNWTO, 2012).
Simultaneously, the academic discourse on tourism is changing accordingly, as shown by the books Responsible Tourism (Leslie,
2012) and Taking Responsibility for Tourism (Goodwin, 2011). Knowledge relating to sustainable tourism has expanded, with some
scholars arguing in favour of the term “responsible tourism” alone, meaning tourism that realises the concept of sustainability. Based
on the more conservative standing of the EC and UNWTO (since both organisations have retained both terms), a new joint

5
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Table 1
Extended sustainability: developing SRT.
Source: adapted from Mihalic, 2016 and adjusted according to the literature review in this paper.
No. Description category Sustainable tourism Responsible tourism

1 2 3 4
1 Core Concept-pillars-centred Concept-implementation-centred
2 Rationale Idea of sustainable tourism Making tourism sustainable
3 Theoretical/practical Focus on understanding sustainability Focus on sustainability implementation
4 Based on elements Sustainability pillars Sustainability enablers
1. Economic capacity 1. Socio-political environment (awareness, ethics, norms,
2. Socio-cultural capacity leadership, collaboration, consensus, critical mass,
3. Natural (environmental) capacity tourism agendas, governance, destination management,
media, civil initiatives, political agendas…)
2. Socio-psychological capacity of destination-based
stakeholders (locals, industry, networks) (supply side)
3. Socio-psychological capacity of visitors (demand side)
5 Measure/indicator focus Positive and negative impacts Satisfaction and dissatisfaction (quality of life)
6 Opposite Unsustainable tourism Irresponsible tourism
7 Definition: old-new paradigm Old: ‘Tourism that takes full account of its current and … addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the
(text in italics added by author) future economic, social and environmental impacts, … environment and host communities.’
New: ‘Quality of life centred tourism that takes full account … and responsibly addresses the 1) host communities and
of its current and future 1) economic, 2) socio-cultural and industry, 2) visitors and 3) socio-political environment.’
3) natural impacts … (UNEP & WTO, 2005, para. 2; UNWTO, n.d.)

Note: SRT: Sustainable Responsible Tourism.

sustainable-responsible tourism concept (SRT) is suggested and dubbed “responsustable” tourism, merging the two terms and re­
cognising the difference between the conceptual pillars and the implementation enablers of sustainability (Mihalic, 2016, 2020).
The new responsustable tourism, presented in Table 1, has been reframed to accommodate broader input from practical over­
tourism occurrences and academic research. The updated SRT combines all the elements of tourism ecology (Fig. 1) equally in the
same three-plus-three model: the capacities of economic, socio-cultural, and natural pillars; the socio-psychological capacity of the
visitors and destination-based stakeholders; and the socio-political environment (Table 1, line 4).
For any tourism destination, the risk of unsustainability is real. In line with the proposed SRT framework, destinations can address
this risk from the perspective of the sustainability pillars or enablers (Table 1, columns 2 and 3). In the first case, the impacts are
addressed. In the second case, the risk is also managed by ensuring the wellbeing and satisfaction of local residents, other local
stakeholders (e.g. industry), and visitors.
The mainstream sustainable paradigm of tourism has not yet fully internalised the reality that the tourism system is a part of a
global resource allocation mechanism of global capitalism (Burrai, Buda, & Stanford, 2019). Indeed, it was capitalism-driven tour­
ism's continuous growth that produced overtourism, a new unsustainable tourism phenomenon, presented in the next section.

Overtourism and related phenomena

Overtourism and undertourism

Generally, overtourism means unsustainable tourism. The definition of overtourism in the Collins Online English Dictionary is “The
phenomenon of a popular destination or sight becoming overrun with tourists in an unsustainable way” (Dickinson, 2018b). UNWTO
suggested a perceived quality of life and satisfaction centred socio-psychological definition: “the impact of tourism on a destination,
or parts thereof, that excessively influences perceived quality of life of citizens and/or quality of visitors' experiences in a negative
way” (UNWTO, 2018, p. 6). The latest definition from the European Parliament's TRAN Committee (TRAN, 2018, p. 19) goes further
by adding the socio-political dimension. It defines “overtourism” as “the situation in which the impact of tourism…exceeds physical,
ecological, social, economic, psychological and or political capacity thresholds.” This definition refers to impacts, socio-psychological
and socio-political dimensions, and well-captured relevant multidimensional elements of the phenomena.
“Undertourism,” the opposite of overtourism, has already entered academic discussion as a term (Peltier, 2019; Trono, Mansfeld,
& Schmude, 2019). Media did not pick up the topic, although they have published some promotional advertisements to attract
visitation to alternatives to overtourism (Glusac, 2019). In this sense, the word “undertourism” is under consideration by Cambridge
Dictionary. The proposed definition is “the situation when a city or other holiday destination does not receive many tourists or
enough tourists” and also as an “… increasingly common marketing tactic being used by less-frequented destinations” (Undertourism,
2019). Such definitions reflect the practical uses of the word well but do not capture all dimensions of the academic debate on
undertourism's opposite. According to the full understanding of overtourism, the opposite should refer to destinations where the
impact on tourism players means that tourism does not contribute to quality of life in the destination in the long run and that
stakeholders are irritated by insufficient tourism opportunities and benefits.

6
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Antitourism and tourismphobia

Another term emerging from the overtourism debate is “antitourism,” but it is mostly used in scholarly literature and has not yet
entered the popular vocabulary. Outside of academic sources, only one definition, “opposing tourism” (Antitourism, n.d.), was found,
and that on a page in the collaboratively edited non-academic source. Although this meaning fits our discussion well, a scan of
tourism literature reveals two slightly different interpretations. The first is older and refers to intellectual and cultural responses to
mass tourism that attach disrespectful or negative meaning to terms such as “tourist” and “tourism” (Buzard, 1993; Cohen, 1988;
McCabe, 2005). In response to these negative representations of tourists and tourism, other visitors try to avoid everything known to
be “touristic” (McWha, Frost, Laing, & Best, 2016; Robinson, 2015).
Meanwhile, the second interpretation is based on recent overtourism thinking and is directly connected to the phenomenon of
overcrowding. Hughes (2018) connects antitourism with the negative impacts of mass tourism and destination mobilisation using the
motto “Tourists go home.” “Aversion to tourism” or tourism “rejection” is a result of the negative effects of tourism development
(Martín, Martínez, & Fernández, 2018). From the perspective of local residents, antitourism starts after visitor carrying capacity is
reached and perceptions of quality of life begin to decline. Residents' contentment with the growth of tourism in terms of visitation
and impacts turns into dissatisfaction and irritation, resulting in their opposition to tourism development, projects, or presence
(Navarro Jurado et al., 2019). In such circumstances, overtourism is met with mobilised or organised movements of irritated des­
tination residents acting against the development of tourism and social movements being organised to oppose growth projects.
Similarly, the new meaning of antitourism can also be applied from the visitor perspective: antitourism or antivisitation from the
visitor perspective starts after visitors' carrying capacity limit has been reached: overall visitor satisfaction with the destination turns
into dissatisfaction and visitors react by leaving and avoiding the destination in the future.
Indeed, one may argue that the same old understanding of mass tourism, defined as too many visitors causing excessive un­
sustainable impacts, has made a return as overtourism. Even if this is true, the practical evidence of the unsustainability of tourism
that has caused the problem to return to the tourism research agenda demands a rethinking of current tourism paradigms and
practices. Notably, the new phenomenon draws attention to the social and political mobilisations and networks that must meet
demands for sustainable development (Lalicic, 2019; Novy & Colomb, 2019; Valdivielso & Moranta, 2019). More specifically,
overtourism and antitourism give ground to the socio-political dimension of sustainability, which should be given more attention in
the sustainability paradigm context.
In the above context, some researchers employ the term “tourismphobia” (Koens et al., 2018; Martins, 2018; Milano, Novelli,
Cheer, 2019b; Taş Gürsoy, 2019). The term describes forms in which antitourism manifests, such as organised movements and
pressures. One instance is discrimination expressed against visitors, as epitomized by the slogans “tourists you are terrorists” and “no
tourists allowed” observed in Barcelona (Martins, 2018, p. 5).

Overcrowding and growth-led tourism

The industry avoids all use of the term “overtourism” and tries to enforce the term “overcrowding” as noted in a 2017 report from
the WTTC and McKinsey & Company (title page). This and implicit definitions of overcrowding as “signs of success” (2017, title page)
demonstrate the industry's current thinking about the phenomena. It is likely that the WTTC wants to soften criticism of the market-
based, capitalist tourism system that produces not only benefits but also disadvantages. Obviously fully aware that the term
“overcrowded…is imprecise,” the report's authors explicitly admit they have no intention to “dampen…the basis of tourism” (WTTC
and McKinsey&Company, 2017, p. 8). Further, the report takes the position of managerial ecology (Hall, 2019), as expressed by the
WTTC's unquestioning faith in management as a solution to overcrowding.
On the contrary, a position of political ecology should be taken. In this context, some tourism researchers see overtourism as one
“symptom of the problem” related to the growth-led neoliberal capitalism tourism business model (Fletcher, Murray Mas, Blanco-
Romero, & Blázquez-Salom, 2019; Higgins-Desbiolles, Carnicelli, Krolikowski, Wijesinghe, & Boluk, 2019, p. 1926). They suggest
focussing on degrowth and placing the rights of local communities above the rights of tourists and the rights of tourism businesses to
make profits. Given that many residents also directly or indirectly receive or are aware of financial and other benefits of tourism for
the destinations, a consensus on degrowth and proper action will not be easy. An UNWTO study on overtourism found that the
majority of residents in eight “overcrowded” European cities believed “there should be no limitations to the growth of visitor
numbers” (2018, p. 9).
The academic discussion concerning the economic sector's dominance and constant ignorance of the impacts and efforts for
growth (Fletcher et al., 2019; Taş Gürsoy, 2019) is too slow in entering the tourism sustainability paradigm. Much academic evidence
of tourism's imperfections, discussed in the framework of economic blights (Young, 1973) or capitalistic growth (Fletcher et al., 2019,
p. 1745), has yet to be common ground among all tourism stakeholders. This is well illustrated by the views of different stakeholders:
“The growth is not the enemy” says one side (Rifai, 2017, UNWTO press release title); tourism degrowth is “an emerging agenda for
research and praxis” says the other (Fletcher et al., 2019, p. 1745).
Another illustration of a discourse occurring between academia and industry is the idea that the tourism system “needs to be
changed” (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019, p. 1938–1939) which emerges against the idea that overtourism can be managed by
“managing overcrowding” (WTTC and McKinsey&Company, 2017, title page). Another example is the tension between the idea of a
destination “coping with success” (WTTC and McKinsey&Company, 2017, title page) and the idea of being a “victim of its own
success” (Cheer, Milano, & Novelli, 2020, p. 230).

7
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Fig. 2. Conceptualisation of overtourism.

Note: TS: Tourism Supply; TD: Tourism Demand.
Source: the author's fusion of the concepts taken from the presented schools of thought on tourism.

Overtourism: concept and discussion

To accomplish our original aim to capture all relevant overtourism elements within a single graphic model, many iterations of the
first attempt at the model and consistent use of the different terms found in this paper were made. The model is presented in Fig. 2.
The proposed concept combines the updated SRT by bringing the sustainability pillars and responsibility enablers together on the
same platform. This platform comprehensively illustrates all relevant dimensions of overtourism risk, monitoring, and influencing.
The first column in Fig. 2 shows the three sustainability pillars and capacities. The pillars are a subject of positive and negative
impacts of tourism development and presence. Indicator values could be benchmarked to planned, agreed upon, or legal carrying
capacities among destinations or over time to help monitoring, diagnosing, and analysing the risk of overtourism and its underlying
reasons.
The second column in Fig. 2 shows the three sustainability enablers (see Table 1) in three separate yet interdependent boxes. The
socio-psychological capacity of tourism stakeholders is shown in the first two boxes. The first box refers to the destination's supply
side, and the second box to its demand side. These represent stakeholders' satisfaction: for example, opinions about the impacts of
tourism growth and the presence and possible irritation experienced by local stakeholders and visitors. Here, the main local sta­
keholders are local residents and the tourism industry along with other relevant stakeholders from the private, public, or social
sectors of the destination's supply side (Mon, 2015).
Then, a third box contains the socio-political environment and in short relates to awareness, agendas and actions. It provides
space for sustainable tourism awareness, ethics and values, norms, legislation, and information including from the media. It also
provides space for tourism leadership, governance, and management, as well as for civil initiatives and political agendas. Examples
are governmental, private, or non-governmental tourism actions and collaborations that connect all relevant stakeholders from the
private, public, and social spheres and their networks to achieve synergies, cooperation, consensus, and a critical mass that leads to
responsible sustainable action.
In dealing with overtourism issues, some researchers point to the need for greater regulation and government leadership instead
of the styles of self-governance that have led to overtourism (Koens et al., 2018). For example, relevant indicators for monitoring and
diagnosing overtourism include number of media articles and their sentiment, relevant civil initiatives or political demands, and a
destination and government's sustainable development actions, to name but a few.
The six boxes of the model propose six sets of indicators to support the final diagnosis of overtourism risk. The relative impact-
capacity ratio must be observed to understand the occurrence of this risk and manage the prevention and mitigation measures. If
residents wish to move away from the destination and the rate of such migration rises due to irritation from tourism, this clearly
indicates an unfavourable overtourism situation and calls for a response.
The proposed overtourism conceptual model synthesises multidimensional knowledge relevant to sustainable tourism on one
platform, allowing us to present it in a concise pictorial form. All relevant sustainability elements for monitoring and diagnosing
unsustainable tourism are incorporated in a coherent and all-inclusive model. The proposed model holds implications for addressing
overtourism issues through sustainability awareness, ethics, and a destination's management and governance. It offers a full fra­
mework for monitoring tourism and diagnosing the risk of overtourism. This includes informing tourism destination management and
policies on how to avoid and reduce the negative impacts of tourism and manage satisfaction with its presence. All the boxes in the

8
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

overtourism conceptual model are important. However, the relationships among them are not simple. For example, the physical
impact and perceptual socio-psychological indicators might give opposing results (Wall, 2019) and different signals to the response
action. An example is the negative impacts of overtourism on bathing water quality (hard quantitative data on faecal bacteria) that
would demand closing the destination and local sentiment not to close the beach due to other visitation benefits for the community
(opinion data). Only if we add the socio-political box, can we gain a holistic perspective on closing the beach, following the legis­
lation on bathing water pollution standards in the destination.
The outcomes of risk monitoring are shown in the third column in Fig. 2. Overtourism is presented at the top, as it goes hand in
hand with too many visitors or too high a rate of visitation growth. As practical experiences reveal, overtourism may turn into
antitourism if a critical mass, such as civil or political power, is present. Examples of such transitions include Barcelona in 2017
(Milano, Novelli, & Cheer, 2019a), where a political party became involved, or Mayo beach (Thailand), where the government
reacted to the global civil pressure regarding intolerable damage to the natural environment of one of the world's most admired
marine environments (Ellis-Petersen, 2018).
Further, the proposed outcomes of risk monitoring in the third column in Fig. 2 also connect to other unfavourable tourism
situations, presented as antitourism and undertourism, as well as to the favourable situation of sustainable and responsible tourism.
Thus, by conceptualising overtourism, we were able to expand the elements of sustainable tourism that should be addressed, if
sustainability is to be responsibly implemented.

Conclusion

This study is an epistemological attempt to add to academic schools of thought on tourism by proposing a conceptualisation of
overtourism, based on anything relevant that tourism researchers know. The area of relevance is defined by knowledge and dis­
cussions about sustainable tourism. Both the tourism research field and the science of sustainability are recognised as multi­
disciplinary—nevertheless, this paper is not occupied with deep disciplinary discussions of relevant concepts and insights; instead it
collects existing concepts and insights that influence tourism (un)sustainability performance and could inform our full multi­
disciplinary understanding of new overtourism phenomena.
More specifically, the study mainly built on literature published by academic researchers of tourism from different disciplines as
well as on non-academic sources and practical evidence on overtourism. The study tried to pull all relevant elements of an over­
tourism model together into the same tourism platform. Ultimately, the study seeks to inform researchers, strategists, policies, and
destination governors and managers how to make tourism more sustainable by illuminating the elements that need to be addressed.
Old approaches that narrowly balance the three pillars of sustainability have proven unsuccessful, resulting in alarmingly un­
sustainable tourism practices and, in many destinations, excessive growth, overcrowding, and overtourism. Addressing diverse
element constructs and joining multidisciplinary elements on the same platform is novel and may help overcome the kind of partial
approach by one discipline that should be avoided in order to bring all the relevant sustainability implementation factors together
(Munasinghe, 2007).
Through the process of conceptualisation, it become evident that some historically old and new developments in tourism ecology,
economics, political tourism economy, welfare economics, geography, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines regarding the
sustainability-responsibility tourism academic debate helped us consider overtourism from a reframed perspective. In this regard,
overtourism—a manifestation of unsustainable tourism—has put the mainstream paradigm of sustainable development to the test
and opened the door to its redesign. In this context, the specific case of an overtourism situation can be fully conceptualised by an
expanded SRT based understanding of sustainable tourism as follows: “quality of life centred tourism that takes full account of its
current and future economic, socio-cultural, and natural impacts and responsibly addresses destination stakeholders (host commu­
nities and industry), visitors, and the socio-political environment” (see Table 1).
One future avenue for the continued monitoring of overtourism includes the development of indicator groups for each box in the
model and their elements and actual application of the model in a real setting. More research to understand what constitutes the
critical mass of resident dissatisfaction with tourism is needed to diagnose this risk in a particular context. The WTTC already suggests
basing the risk of overtourism (using the term ‘overcrowding’) on benchmarking with similar destinations and using the top quantile
values to define the situation. Yet, the results for overtourism risk have only been presented according to each indicator. We assume
that a single (composite) overtourism indicator for destinations will soon be developed.
The main limitation of this study was its approach, which was based on the sustainable tourism paradigm and relevant tourism
schools of thought. As the sustainable development paradigm for tourism evolved inside the tourism field and remained ‘pro-growth’-
oriented, it has long been contested as a weaker form of sustainability. However, future debates and research will show whether the
new socio-political box and its further development may give domicile to anti-growth, tourism equality, and equity-based voices
among tourism researchers. The same box also opens the door to address the efficacy of destination management to manage un­
sustainable situations an thus explore if overtourism can be managed.
Further paradigm acceptance and development ought to be informed and supported by vigorous multifaceted theoretical un­
derpinnings from both inside and outside the tourism field. This paper offers a conceptual coverage of overtourism and also proposes
a tourism paradigm shift towards an extended tourism sustainability paradigm. Notably, the study emerged from “the desire to
continue to research, promote, deliver and experience” (Burrai et al., 2019, p. 993) sustainable and responsible tourism while at once
working to enhance and develop its theoretical credibility, practical relevance, and social welfare contribution. Almost every tourist
destination worldwide has a sustainable tourism-based tourism development agenda. As such, shifting the mainstream sustainable
tourism definition, as suggested in the present paper, would certainly progress sustainability and responsibility in tourism by taking

9
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

into account all multidimensional elements of sustainable welfare clarified by the conceptualisation of unsustainable overtourism in
this paper.

Statement of contribution

The contribution of this paper to theory and practice is twofold. First, the conceptualisation of overtourism adds to tourism
knowledge and theory, as a new tourism phenomenon is conceptualised in all its dimensions. It also adds to tourism practice, as the
model offers an overtourism monitoring tool which informs managerial decision for making tourism more sustainable. Second, during
the conceptualisation process, the sustainable tourism paradigm was extended. The extension has been informed and validated by
review of academic literature and other relevant sources and network reports on overtourism. The conceptualisation of sustainable
tourism through novel elements calls on academia and practitioners to think about ways to expand the existing paradigm of sus­
tainable development.
The paper offers a social science approach, as it explores sustainability perspective and considers responses and actions, relying on
a rigorous understanding of the historical, contemporary, and contextual practical and theoretical information about the social issue
under consideration (overtourism).

Declaration of competing interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency under Grant P5-0117.

References

Ali, R. (2016). Foreword: The coming perils of overtourism. In R. Ali, & J. Clampet (Eds.). Iceland and the trials of 21 century tourism. New York: Skift.
Ali, R. (2018). The genesis of overtourism: Why we came up with the term and what's happened since. Retrieved 12.11.2019, from https://skift.com/2018/08/14/the-
genesis-of-overtourism-why-we-came-up-with-the-term-and-whats-happened-since/.
Alonso-Almeida, M. M., Borrajo-Millán, F., & Yi, L. (2019). Are social media data pushing overtourism? The case of Barcelona and Chinese tourists. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 11(12).
Antitourism (n.d.) Wiktionary. Retrieved 20.5.2020 from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antitourism.
Archer, B. H. (1977). Tourism multipliers: The state of the art. Cardiff: University of Walles Press.
Becken, S., & Simmons, D. G. (2019). Stakeholder management: Different interests and different actions. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues, realities
and solutions (pp. 234–249). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Bezzola, A. (1975). Probleme der Eignung und der Aufnahmekapazitaet touristischer Bergregionen der Schweiz. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.
Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B., & Miller, G. (2017). Twenty-five years of sustainable tourism and the journal of sustainable tourism: Looking back and moving
forward. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 1–9.
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 528–546.
Burrai, E., Buda, D.-M., & Stanford, D. (2019). Rethinking the ideology of responsible tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 992–1007.
Butler, R. (1974). The social implications of tourist developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 2(2), 100–111.
Butler, R. (2019). Overtourism and the tourism area life cycle. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions (pp. 250–261). Berlin/
Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of the tourism area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.
Buzard, J. (1993). The beaten track: European tourism, literature and the ways to culture, 1800–1918. Oxford University Press.
Camargo, B., Lane, K., & Jamal, T. (2007). Environmental justice and sustainable tourism: The missing cultural link. The George Wright Forum, 24(3), Retrieved August,
13th, 2019, from http://udem.academia.edu/BlancaCamargo/Papers/745351/Environmental_Justice_and_Sustainable_Tourism_The_Missing_Cultural_Link.
Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism (2002). Cape town: International conference on responsible tourism in destinations.
Capocchi, A., Vallone, C., Amaduzzi, A., & Pierotti, M. (2019). Is “overtourism” a new issue in tourism development or just a new term for an already known
phenomenon? Current Issues in Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1638353.
CELTH (2018). Visitor pressure and events in an urban setting. Understanding and managing visitor pressure in seven European urban tourism destinations. Breda: Centre of
Expertise in Leisure, Tourism & Hospitality.
Cheer, J. M., Milano, C., & Novelli, M. (2020). Afterword: Overtourism or just the beginning? In C. Milano, J. M. Cheer, & M. Novelli (Eds.). Overtourism: Excesses,
discontents and measures in travel and tourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Chettiparamb, A., & Kokkranikal, J. (2012). Responsible tourism and sustainability: The case of Kumarakom in Kerala, India. Journal of Policy Research, 4(3), 302–326.
Clawson, M., & Knetch, J. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Washington: Resource for the Future.
Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism approaches, issues and findings. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 373–392.
Cohen, E. (1987). “Alternative Tourism”—A Critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 12(2), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.1987.11014508.
Cohen, E. (1988). Autheticity and commoditization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–386.
Coldwell, W. (2017). First Venice and Barcelona: Now anti-tourism marches spread across Europe. The Guardian. Retrieved August, 10th, 2020, from https://www.
theguardian.com/travel/2017/aug/10/anti-tourism-marches-spread-across-europe-venice-barcelona.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137–152.
Dickinson, G. (2018a). Dear dictionaries, this is why ‘overtourism’ should be your 2018 word of the year. The Telegraph. Retrieved August, 10th, 2020, from https://
www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/overtourism-word-of-the-year/.
Dickinson, G. (Ed.). (2018). Overtourism. New word suggestion. Collins Dictionary.
Dodds, R., & Butler, R. W. (2019). Introduction. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions (pp. 1–21). Berlin/Boston: Walter de
Gruyter GmbH.
Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor–resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. The impact of tourism. In the sixth annual TTRA conference
proceedings (pp. 195–198). San Diego: The Travel Research Association.
Dwyer, L. (2017). Saluting while the ship sinks: The necessity for tourism paradigm change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 29–48.
Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Carter, J. (2007). Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast,

10
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Australia. Tourism Management, 28(2), 409–422.

EC (2012). European charter for sustainable and responsible tourism. Brussels: European Commission.
Ellis-Petersen, H. (2018). Thailand bay made famous by the beach closed indefinitely. Retrieved August, 13th, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/
2018/oct/03/thailand-bay-made-famous-by-the-beach-closed-indefinitely.
Fink, C. (1970). Dear Massentourismus (mass tourism). Verlag Paul Haupt und Stuttgart.
Fletcher, R., Murray Mas, I., Blanco-Romero, A., & Blázquez-Salom, M. (2019). Tourism and degrowth: An emerging agenda for research and praxis. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1745–1763.
Forster, J. (1964). The sociological consequences of tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 217–227.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Frey, B. S. (1985). Umweltoekonomie (2nd ed.). Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Goettingen.
Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 327–331.
Glusac, E. (2019). Cooler, farther and less crowded: The rise of “undertourism”. The New York Times.
Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Graham, G., & Cohen, E. (1991). Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 155.169.
Gretzel, U. (2019). The role of social media in creating an d addressing overtourism. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions (pp.
263–276). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2–4), 437–457.
Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
27(7), 1044–1060.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The culture-ideology of consumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
10(2) (116-115).
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Carnicelli, S., Krolikowski, C., Wijesinghe, G., & Boluk, K. (2019). Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
27(12), 1926–1944.
Hughes, N. (2018). “Tourists go home”: Anti-tourism industry protest in Barcelona. Social Movement Studies, 17(4), 471–477.
Hultsman, J. (1995). Just tourism: An ethical framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 553–567.
Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 850–867.
Innerhofer, E., Erschbamer, G., & Pechlaner, H. (2019). Overtourism. The challenge of managing the limits. In H. Pechlaner, E. Innerhofer, & G. Erschbamer (Eds.).
Overtourism. Tourism management and solutions (pp. 3–13). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Rev(2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0.
Jamal, T., & Camargo, B. A. (2014). Sustainable tourism, justice and an ethic of care: Toward the just destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(1), 11–30.
Joppe, M. (2019). The roles of policy, planning and governance in preventing and managing overtourism. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues,
realities and solutions (pp. 250–261). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Kaspar, C. (1973). Fremderverkehrsoekologie - eine neue Dimension der Fremdenverkehslehre. (Tourism ecology - a new dimension of tourism science). In E. Walter
(Ed.). Festscrift zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres von P. Bernecker (pp. 139–143). Wien.
Ko, D.-W., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23(5), 521–530.
Koens, K., Postma, A., & Papp, B. (2018). Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability, 10(12), 1–15.
Krippendorf, J. (1984). Die Ferienmenschen. Zuerich: Orel Fuessli Verlag.
Lalicic, L. (2019). Solastalgia: An application in the overtourism context. Annals of Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102766.
Leslie, E. (2012). Responsible tourism. Concepts, theory and practice. Wallingford: CABI.
Manila Declaration on World Tourism (1980). The world tourism conference, Manila. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.
Martín, J. M. M., Martínez, J. M. G., & Fernández, J. A. S. (2018). An analysis of the factors behind the citizen’s attitude of rejection towards tourism in a context of
overtourism and economic dependence on this activity. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(8).
Martins, M. (2018). Planning and tourismphobia: An analysis of the strategic tourism plan of Barcelona 2010–2015. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing,
4(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1247519 (4(1), 3-7).
McCabe, S. (2005). Who is a tourist: A critical review. Tourist Studies, 5(1), 85–106.
McWha, M. R., Frost, W., Laing, J., & Best, G. (2016). Writing for the anti-tourist? Imagining the contemporary travel magazine reader as an authentic experience
seeker. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1013525.
Mihalic, T. (2016). Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse – Towards ‘responsustable’ tourism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111(Part B), 461–470.
Mihalic, T. (2020). Sustainomics in Tourism. Ljubljana: School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana. Available on: https://publizr.com/seblu/eet-
sustainomics-in-tour-4th-ed-e-studybook-2020.
Mihalic, T., & Kaspar, C. (1996). Umweltökonomie im Tourismus. St.Galler Beiträge zum Tourismus und zur Verkehrswirtschaft. Bern: Paul Haupt.
Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2019a). Overtourism and degrowth: A social movements perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2019.1650054.
Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2019b). Overtourism and tourismphobia: A journey through four decades of tourism development, planning and local concerns.
Tourism Planning and Development, 16(4), 53–357.
Mon, C. (2015). Governance in a tourism sector. Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to European UnionAALEP. Retrieved August, 13th, 2019, from http://
www.aalep.eu/governance-tourism-sector#main-content.
Moscardo, G. (2009). Tourism and quality of life: Towards a more critical approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 159–170.
Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L., & Galí, N. (2018). Overtourism: residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity - case
study of a Spanish heritage town. Tourism Review, 73(3), 277–296.
Munasinghe, M. (2007). Making development more sustainable : Sustainomics framework and practical applications. Colombo: Munasinghe Institute for Development.
Nash, D., & Butler, R. (1990). Towards sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 11(3), 263.
Navarro Jurado, E., Romero-Padilla, Y., Romero- Martínez, J. M., Serrano-Muñoz, E., Habegger, S., & Mora-Esteban, R. (2019). Growth machines and social move­
ments in mature tourist destinations Costa del Sol-Málaga. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1786–1803.
Navarro Jurado, E., Tejada Tejada, M., Almeida García, F., Cabello González, J., Cortés Macías, R., Delgado Peña, J., & Solís Becerra, F. (2012). Carrying capacity
assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1337–1346.
Novy, J., & Colomb, C. (2019). Urban tourism as a source of contention and social mobilisations: A critical review. Tourism Planning and Development, 16(4), 358–375.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2011). Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 964–988.
Peltier, D. (2019). Travel megatrends 2019: Undertourism is the new overtourism. Retrieved 12.11.2019, from https://skift.com/2019/02/05/travel-megatrends-
2019-undertourism-is-the-new-overtourism/.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586–599.
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown tourism and resident quality of life: The marketing of gaming to host community residents. Journal of
Business Research, 44(3), 165–177.
Perkumiene, D., & Pranskuniene, R. (2019). Overtourism: Between the right to travel and residents' rights. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(7), 2138. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11072138.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Wallingford: CAB International.
Poon, A. (1994). The new tourism revolution. Tourism Management, 15(2), 91–92.
Postma, A., & Schmuecker, D. (2017). Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations: Conceptual model and strategic framework.

11
T. Mihalic Annals of Tourism Research 84 (2020) 103025

Journal of Tourism Futures, 3(2), 144–156.

Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism (2002). Quebec: World ecotourism summit.
Rifai, T. (2017). Tourism: Growth is not the enemy; it’s how we manage it that counts. Press Release. Retrieved 12.11.2019, 2019, from http://www2.unwto.org/ru/node/
48527.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1–7.
Robinson, P. (2015). Conceptualisating urban exploration as beyond tourism and as anti-tourism. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 3(2), 141–164.
Ross, G. (2000). Community attitude. In J. Jafari (Ed.). Encyclopedia of tourism. London and New York: Routledge.
Russo, A. P., & Scarnato, A. (2017). ‘Barcelona in common’: A new urban regime for the 21st-century tourist city? Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(4), 455–474. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1373023.
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders. A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328.
Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Turism, 28(11), 1932–1946. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669582.2020.1779732.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford: CABI.
Taş Gürsoy, İ. (2019). Beauty and the beast: A fairy tale of tourismphobia. Tourism Planning and Development, 16(4), 434–451.
TRAN (2018). Research on TRAN committee - overtourism: Impacts and possible policy responses. Brussels: TRAN Committee, European Parliament.
Trono, A., Mansfeld, J., & Schmude, J. (2019). Between overtourism and undertourism. Implications and crisis management strategies. Paper presented at the between
overtourism and undertourism. Implications and crisis management strategies. Lecce: Italy.
Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery. London: Constable.
UN (1992). Agenda 21. Retrieved 17.05.2020 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21.
UN (1997). Glossary of environment statistics. Studies in methods, series F, no. 67. New York: United Nations.
Undertourism (2019). Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved 10.05.2020, from https://dictionaryblog.cambridge.org/2019/10/28/new-words-28-october-2019/.
UNEP, & WTO (2005). Making tourism more sustainable. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism Organization.
UNWTO (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations. A guidebook. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO (2012). Global code of ethics for tourism. For responsible tourism. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO (2018). “Overtourism”? - understanding and managing urban tourism growth beyond perceptions. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO (2019a). International tourism highlights (2019 ed.). . Retrieved 04.05.2020, from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152.
UNWTO (2019b). UNWTO Guidelines for Institutional Strengthening of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs). Preparing DMOs for new challenges. Madrid: United
Nation World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO. (n.d.). Sustainable development of tourism. definition. Retrieved 11.11.2019, 2019, from https://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5.
Valdivielso, J., & Moranta, J. (2019). The social construction of the tourism degrowth discourse in the Balearic Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12),
1876–1892.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejía, M.d.l.Á., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2008). Understanding residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in a former
mining community. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373–387.
Wall, G. (2000). Sustainable development. In J. Jafari (Ed.). Encyclopedia of tourism. London and New York: Routledge.
Wall, G. (2019). Perspectives on the environment and overtourism. In R. Dodds, & R. W. Butler (Eds.). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions (pp. 27–45). Berlin/
Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Wall, G. (2020). From carrying capacity to overtourism: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 212–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2019-0356.
Wanhill, S. (2000). Small and medium tourism enterprises. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 132–147.
WB (1975). Environment and development. Washington: World Bank.
WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wheeller, B. (1993). Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2), 121–129.
WTTC, & McKinsey&Company (2017). Coping with success. Managing overcrowding in tourism destinations. London: World Travel and Tourism Council, McKinsey
Company.
Young, G. (1973). Tourism blessing or blight? Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc.
Zacher, D., Pechlaner, H., & Olbrich, N. (2019). Strategy is the art of combining short- and long-term measures. Empirical evidence on overtourism from European
cities and regions. In H. Pechlaner, E. Innerhofer, & G. Erschbamer (Eds.). Overtourism. Tourism management and solutions. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.

Tanja Mihalič research interests include tourism economics and management, environmental economics, sustainability, responsibility, sustainomics and educational
and tourism industry values. She has experience in developing tourism educational and research programs and as adviser in sustainable and responsible tourism to
DMOs, national governments, European Union and United Nations World tourism Organisation.

12