"Anti-tourism protests" are not against tourists or tourism

"Anti-tourism protests" are not against tourists or tourism.

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Not because the topic is simple, but because it's constantly misinterpreted.

"They live off tourism, where would they be without tourism?" - there are frequent comments by people who are not connected with tourism, and even more, what is interesting, by people who are directly within the tourism industry or live from tourism. 

When we talk about "today"fight against tourism", measures against excessive tourism, the negative consequences of tourism... create the impression that people are against tourists, against arrivals, against an industry that brings income and development.

But the reality is completely different.

There is no "fight against tourism", it is not a protest by local residents - especially those in destinations that live exclusively from tourism, against tourism and tourists. There is a fight against the imbalance where the city loses its function as a city, and it becomes exclusively a destination. 

Here is an extreme example that is intentionally exaggerated, but precisely because of that it vividly demonstrates what we are talking about.

Imagine, for example, Split or Dubrovnik simply “shut down” after the summer season. That absolutely nothing works. No facilities for the local population, no daily life, no city, no hospital, no kindergarten... just a backdrop that is activated when tourists come. Crazy, it's not a city anymore, right? 

By definition, a city is a populated place with a large population, developed infrastructure, economy and public functions such as education, healthcare, administration and transport. But a city is not just buildings. A city is people - their culture, lifestyle, daily routines, relationships and identity that is built over time.

A city is not a product that turns on and off seasonally. A city is a people who live there all year round. And no, not everyone lives off tourism. 

And this is exactly where the problem arises when tourism takes over without management, when space, facilities and infrastructure begin to adapt exclusively short-term stay, not long-term living.

But let's go back to the initial hypothesis: The local population is not against tourism or tourists. 

Because tourism in itself is not a problem. Tourism brings value, jobs, development, prospects, a better quality of life... The problem arises the moment when the measure is lost and there is no management, when the city ceases to be a place to live and becomes exclusively a place for tourists.

And here we come to a key misconception that is increasingly pervading the public narrative, especially when we look at the protests in European cities. At first glance, it seems as if people are against tourism or tourists. But they are not.

People are against the negative consequences of tourism or excessive touristification. 

Touristification touristification) denotes the process of transformation of space, economy and social relations under the influence of tourism, whereby local functions and lifestyles are increasingly adapted to the needs of visitors (Milano, Novy & Colomb, 2019).

Because we all share the same space, but in completely different contexts.

For local residents, it is everyday life: housing, work, school, infrastructure, city identity, and for tourists, it is short-term stay, experience, consumption. The same space, but a completely different context.

The problem arises when that same space begins to be managed exclusively from a tourism perspective.

Then comes what we see today across Europe: rising housing prices, displacement of local residents, disappearance of neighborhood and city amenities and their replacement with tourist ones (only cafes, restaurants, souvenir shops that also have "tourist - seasonal" opening hours), pressure on infrastructure, crowds, noise, decline in quality of life. The city simply loses its function and identity.

And that's why the reaction is not against tourism or tourists. It is a reaction to the lack of management and the balance between the quality of life of the local population and tourism. 

Because like any system, especially tourism, it does not regulate itself.

Every stakeholder in tourism logically looks at their own interest and wants more; more guests, more revenue, more traffic. And that is normal and legitimate. But that is exactly why one has to look at the bigger picture. The context of the city. Space capacities. The quality of life of the local population.

Especially in tourism, which is not just an industry, but a social and cultural phenomenon that shapes the space, changes the way of life and redefines the identity of the destination in the long term.

That's why it's important to explain this simply. So I'll try through two concrete examples. 

Tourism is like traffic. Nobody is against cars. But if you put more vehicles on the road than it can handle - you get a collapse and a traffic jam. The solution is not a ban, but management.

This traffic management looks very concrete: traffic lights that regulate flow, widening roads where possible, developing public transport to reduce pressure on roads, building roundabouts, building parking lots and "park & ​​ride" systems at city entrances, and even closing historic cores to traffic to protect space and quality of life.

And it is here that the parallel with tourism becomes clear.

Because we don't solve traffic by banning cars, but by managing flow and infrastructure, so we don't solve tourism by banning tourists, but by managing arrivals, space and capacities.

An example is Zagreb, which today very vividly shows what happens when growth is not accompanied by management. In the meantime, the city has gained more residents and cars, the area has been rebuilt, but the road infrastructure has remained almost the same. The result? Everyday crowds, congestion and a decline in the quality of life. And what's worst, there is no single, quick and cheap solution - because for too long we have not had a planned and sustainable development of the city. 

The problem is not that people are driving cars. The problem is that the system is not adapted to that load.

It's the same with tourism.

If the number of arrivals increases, and the infrastructure, spatial planning and management remain the same: the result is the same as in traffic: collapse of the system, only in a different form. Crowds, pressure on space, a decline in the quality of experience for both guests and locals.

That is why the key question is: not how many tourists we want, but how many we can accept in a quality manner and how we manage that flow.

Tourism is like foodFood is essential and we all need it to survive.

But when there is too much of it, problems arise. With food, the consequences are very clear and understandable to everyone: overloading the body, weight gain, fatigue, loss of energy, and in the long run, more serious health problems. The body simply can no longer function normally.

And what do we do then? We don't stop eating, right?

We do what is logical: we reduce the amount, watch what we eat, introduce balance, move more, do sports or fitness, and create a new routine.

Of course, everyone has a different metabolism, just as every destination is different. Each has its own rhythm and its own way of finding the optimal balance.

And most importantly, it takes time, a lot of effort, and changing habits. 

Because when you overdo it with your diet, results don't come overnight. It takes time and a combination of different approaches to lose 10 or 20 kilos. There is no one-size-fits-all solution or instant fix.

“People are not protesting against tourism. They are protesting against tourism running the city - instead of the city running tourism.”

It's always about balance, not prohibition. It's the same with tourism.

When there is “too much”, a destination shows the same symptoms as the body: infrastructure fatigue, pressure on space, rising prices, a decline in the quality of life. The system no longer functions normally. And the solution is the same as with food. We do not stop “consuming” tourism. We do not close destinations. Instead, we introduce a balance: we manage the quantity, distribute arrivals, strengthen the infrastructure, return space to the local population.

Ultimately, the law of physics is very simple: a one liter bottle holds one liter of water. It cannot hold five liters — because then it will overflow. In tourism, we call it the breaking point.

Because the problem is not in tourism. The problem is always in management.

And that's exactly the point.

The motive for traveling is always the destination, to get to know new and different ways and cultures of living.

Interestingly, another thing is happening in the process of touristification paradox which we often overlook.

The authentic culture, everyday life and identity of the city, what is original and real, are starting to turn into a tourist attraction. Instead of being lived, they are starting to be “performed”. The city is gradually losing its identity. And it was precisely this identity that was the motive for coming. And this is where we come to absurdity tourism: we are destroying what tourists come for in the first place.

That's why tourism is not an end in itself. If tourism makes a city undesirable to live in, in the long run it becomes undesirable to come to. And if we lose our identity and who we are (the motive for coming), we will not only lose balance. We will lose the reason for coming.

P.S.

The cover photo of the article features a sculpture from Saint-Tropez, the work of French artist François-Xavier Lalanne.

The sculpture shows three figures connected by a rope, through which the relations of power and tension between different parties are symbolically displayed. And that's exactly why it's a good metaphor for the tourism we're talking about.

Three figures, one rope and everyone pulling on their own side. Without a common direction. Because the problem is not that everyone wants more - more guests, more income, more development. That's normal.

The problem arises when everyone pulls for themselves, and no one manages the whole. Then the system does not grow. It only strains.

To the point of bursting.