European Tourism Sustainability and the Tourismphobia Paradox: The Case of the Canary Islands

Abstract

The growth of the tourism sector has led to overtourism in many destinations, which can negatively affect sections of the local population. This often results in a phenomenon known as tourismphobia, which describes the fact that residents develop reservations about tourists and take -not always legal- countermeasures; these measures are not sustainable in the long term, leading to the tourism paradox (with less economic activity). The origins of this phenomenon have so far been insufficiently analyzed. This article aims to present an explanatory approach for the emergence of this phenomenon based on the structural-cognitive model and to illustrate it using the example of the Canary Islands. For the Canary Islands, it can be shown that both the political opportunity structures allow for significant scope, and resource mobilization is comparatively easy to achieve. On the micro level, the high costs of overtourism for many residents, combined with relatively low returns from tourism and the non-prohibitive costs of countermeasures, lead to collective action against overtourism –manifesting as tourismphobia. In this way, this article provides a viable explanation for the emergence of tourismphobia and thus makes a significant contribution to knowledge in this field of research. Complementary analytical resources are also outlined, combining Austrian economics and new-institutional economics.

1. Introduction

According to Eurostat [1], the tourism sector is one of the most important industries in Europe, with a contribution of 10% to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the European Union (EU) and accounting for 12% to the employment in these states on average. In Southern European countries, the impact is higher [2,3,4]. In fact, a series of complex social phenomena are occurring in these countries, such as overtourism and tourismphobia, giving rise to the so-called tourism paradox, which we intend to analyze here, with a renewal of theoretical and methodological frameworks.

In Southern European countries, there is a long tradition of engaging with the tourist sector [5,6]. The development of tourism from an elite activity to a global mass phenomenon has led to overcrowding externalities in some destinations, which are referred to as overtourism. Overtourism generally refers to a phenomenon in which the capacities of the destination in question are overutilized, particularly in physical, environmental, and social terms (according to new-institutional economics, this phenomenon is called “the tragedy of the commons”, and the solutions are beyond the power of state control and prohibition [7,8].

Therefore, tourism, often lauded for its economic benefits, faces increasing resistance from local communities—a phenomenon called tourismphobia [9,10,11,12]. The term has gained traction in recent years to describe the aversion or hostility that residents feel towards tourists and tourism activities. Tourismphobia is a phenomenon which has an array of facets, particularly regarding economic, environmental, social, and cultural distortions [2,3,4].

According to Hirschman [13], individuals—in this case the residents—can react to dissatisfaction with a situation—in this case the issue of overtourism—with three strategies. One possibility is to leave the region in order to escape the situation that is perceived as inadequate (exit). Another option is to sit out overtourism, for example in the hope that this phenomenon will subside by itself after a certain period of time or that the local government will succeed in introducing effective containment measures (loyalty). The third alternative for the affected residents is to voice their opposition (voice). This can include complaints, protests, strikes or even psychological and physical violence. In other words (and from a temporal perspective), tourismphobia has been the voice strategy in the context of overtourism, intended to change the public opinion and the agenda settings; currently, under political renewal, local communities follow the loyalty strategy against the foreigners, which means tourismphobia and degrowth policies (to control the activity); finally, with the impoverishment generated, only the exit strategy will remain.

Tourismophobia is the result of overtourism, managed under inadequate analysis and instruments adopted by local governments (focusing on the residents-tourists clash); this is unsustainable in the long term (an alternative is the digitalization of tourism, with methods such as geek‘n’talent) [14,15,16]. A look at the research shows that the connection between overtourism and the occurrence of tourismphobia has been insufficiently investigated (see Figure 1). The relevant research on overtourism is particularly concerned with three problem areas [17], namely the management of overtourism, the experiences of overtourism by residents and tourists, and the context of overtourism. In the context of tourismphobia, the experiences of residents are crucial. Previous research has examined how overtourism affects the emotions of residents [18,19,20], their quality of life [21,22] and their community [9,10,11,12].

What has been completely lacking to date, however, is the development of a theoretical construct that explains (in a clear and generally accepted way) the connection between overtourism and tourismphobia, with tourism paradox. Against this background, the aim of this paper is to explain the mechanism that leads to the emergence of tourismphobia with the help of the structural-cognitive model. In context, we use the example of the Canary Islands (in Spain) to explain the relationships between the various influencing factors.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we explain the historical context and define the key terms. In addition, we explain the previous research in the field of overtourism and tourismphobia. Section 3 is dedicated to the presentation of the structural-cognitive model. This approach is applied to the situation in the Canary Islands in Section 4. The results are discussed in Section 5. Finally, a conclusion is drawn in Section 6.

2. Overtourism and Tourismphobia: Historical Context, Definitions and Research

2.1. Historical Context and Definitions

Tourism has a long history that stretches back thousands of years and has developed in various forms. In ancient times, a traveler’s purpose was often religious or business-related [26]. The Romans, for example, traveled to famous temples, festivals, or to relax in their villas by the sea. Pilgrimages, for example to religious sites, such as Delphi in Greece, or Jerusalem, were also popular. In the Middle Ages, traveling was dangerous and often lengthy, and was mainly relevant for pilgrims, traders and adventurers [27]. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the so-called “Grand Tour” emerged in Europe [28]: young aristocrats, especially from Great Britain, undertook long educational journeys through Europe to broaden their education and cultural horizons. Important destinations were Italy, France, and Switzerland. The industrial revolution fundamentally changed tourism [29], because the development of transportation possibilities, like the railway or the steamships, made traveling affordable for larger sections of the population. Thomas Cook, a pioneer of modern tourism, organized the first package tours in the 1840s. Seaside resorts and spa towns, such as Brighton and Baden-Baden, became popular destinations. Enormous advances in mobility occurred in the 20th century, when airplanes made long-distance travel possible. Massive reductions in transport costs were the reason for the emergence of mass tourism [30]. In the 1950s and 1960s, the era of package holidays and beach tourism began, especially in Mediterranean countries, such as Spain, Italy and Greece. Tourism has become an important economic sector. The 21st century brought modern technologies, such as online booking platforms and apps, which have made traveling easier and more personalized (via the geek‘n’talent method) [2,3,4,14,15,16]. Following the COVID-19 crisis [31], the importance of digitizing the tourism sector was recognized, as had been carried out in the rest of the orange economy [15,32].

Overall, tourism has evolved from an elite activity to a global mass phenomenon that has a strong impact on the economies of many countries. In some destinations, tourism has become so excessive that this phenomenon is referred to as overtourism. Conclusively defining the term “overtourism” is not easy, especially as a large number of definitions exist [33]. For example, Peeters et al. [34] define overtourism as “the situation in which the impact of tourism, at certain times and in certain locations, exceeds physical, ecological, social, economic, psychological and/or political capacity thresholds”. However, this definition leaves the determination of these thresholds open. According to Mihalič et al. [21,22], overtourism can be defined as “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 environments”. This approach appears to be more ambiguous.

In this context, attitudes toward tourists have varied over time, with some communities historically welcoming outsiders while others have shown resistance due to cultural or economic disruptions [5,35,36]. Mass tourism has favored the emergence of a phenomenon known as tourismphobia. Huete and Mantecón [37] describe tourismphobia as the “fear or aversion to tourism and tourists by local residents, often due to the perceived negative impacts that tourism brings to their community”. A similar definition is given by Milano [12]: “A social reaction where the local population expresses negative feelings towards the presence of tourists and the effects of tourism on their daily lives”. Another definition is presented by Milano [11], who describes tourismphobia as “a feeling of rejection towards tourism that manifests in the form of assaults to restaurants, businesses and yachts; attacks on tourist buses, bikes damaged in tourist spots, and other acts of vandalism”.

As we have seen, the term “tourismphobia” encompasses various degrees of hostility toward tourists and tourism activities [38]. It can manifest itself as a mild discomfort with the presence of tourists or as a fierce local resistance, often leading to protests and political change [39].

2.2. Current Research

Research into the phenomena of overtourism and tourismphobia addresses a large number of areas and can currently only be surveyed to a limited extent. In addition to the development of indicators, the areas addressed by the research include, in particular, the analysis of the causes and effects of overtourism, the perception and behaviour of local residents, an investigation of public overtourism management (regulation and governance), and a discussion of containment instruments [17,40].

For example, research has looked at the development and evaluation of a wide range of indicators for measuring overtourism [41]. In particular, certain measures, such as tourism density (overnight stays per km²) and intensity (overnight stays per inhabitant), the proportion of Airbnb bed capacity, and the intensity of air travel are discussed [42].

A variety of causes for the emergence of overtourism can be identified in academic literature: Dodds and Butler [43] highlight 10 factors that favor the emergence of overtourism, including the increase in the number of tourists, the ease of traveling, the development of new travel groups, a predominantly growth-oriented mindset, a short-term approach, competition for space, facilities and services, increased access to media and education, a lack of control by destinations over the number of tourists, an imbalance of power between stakeholders, and the fact that tourism stakeholders are fragmented and at odds. Other authors [34,44] add such causes as the share of Airbnb accommodations, the proximity to cruise ports, the intensity of air traffic, and the proximity to World Heritage sites to this list. To simplify matters, the causes of overtourism can be categorized according to economic drivers, technological developments, and the marketing and branding of travel destinations [45,46]. In addition to globalization, economic drivers include economic growth, the increasing prosperity of large sections of the population, and the growing middle class, particularly in emerging countries, which are driving mass tourism. In addition to the development of online booking systems, mobile travel apps and social media, technological developments include, in particular, changes in air travel that enable low-cost air travel [47]. In addition, the reach and quality of destination marketing appears to have improved considerably, partly due to the ability to address larger potential customer groups thanks to improved technology.

Research into the effects of overtourism is given a great deal of space. Economic, environmental, and social impacts are analyzed in this context [40], as follows:

Economic impacts: Overtourism can lead to an array of economic distortions, such as rising living costs [48] and the displacement of local businesses. Furthermore, empirical studies show that land and house prices increase [49]. Overtourism also causes seasonality-related problems, like the loss of jobs and lower incomes during the off or low season [50]. While tourism may boost the local economy, it can also create disparities, benefiting only certain sectors or groups.

Environmental impacts: Overtourism often causes numerous environmental problems for the region concerned. In addition to the threat to local animal and plant species and geological sites [51], there is an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution [52]. There are also overcrowding externalities in the form of excessive traffic and the overuse of public spaces [53]. Overtourism can also lead to the deterioration in public safety and cleanliness in cities [54]. Problems can also arise in terms of land utilization [55].

Social impacts: Overtourism can also cause social conflict between different regional interest groups and create inequalities because tourism changes the income distribution of a region [56,57]. In this way it can lead to a marginalization of specific local groups [58]. In addition, locals can withdraw from the historic centers [49]. Community resilience and quality of life can also decline [50,59]. The locals are often subjected to culture shocks by tourists [60].

In the research field of the perception and behaviour of residents, which partly overlaps with the consequences of overtourism, the topics of tourismphobia and social conflicts, as well as the socio-psychological effects, are analyzed. In the first area, the reasons for the emergence of tourismphobia, the forms of protest (i.e., demonstrations, anti-tourism graffiti), and the social tensions between tourists and residents are analyzed in more detail [9,61]. In the second field, researchers analyze how overtourism affects the emotions of residents [18,19], their quality of life [21,22], and the social fabric of a community, i.e., through loss of a sense of community, social alienation, and the perception that the interests of tourists are prioritized over those of locals [12,18,19].

The relevant research is also dedicated to the containment of the negative effects of overtourism [40]. Comprehensive approaches based on a strategy for containment can only be found in isolated cases. In addition to Postma and Schmuecker [62], the approach by Milano [9,10,11,12] can be identified here in particular. Postma and Schmuecker [62] present a framework for dealing with the conflicts of overtourism and mitigating the negative effects. Milano’s [9,10,11,12] approach focuses on the so-called 5Ds (deseasonalization, decongestion, decentralization, diversification, and luxury tourism). In addition, there are also approaches that essentially shower the instruments under specific framework conditions.

These relate, for example, to the design of infrastructure and forms of decentralization [59] and to local involvement and collaboration [63]. Recommendations are also made for planning and regulation [53], and the smart tourism approach is discussed [64]. The research fields of degrowth and segmentation [65] and tourist–resident interactions [66] are also considered.

What has not yet been adequately addressed in research is the connection between the overuse of a destination and the occurrence of tourismphobia. So far, it has not been possible to explain how overuse leads to residents protesting against overtourism and possibly even using psychological and physical violence.

3. Theoretical Framework: The Structural-Cognitive Model (SCM)

3.1. Basic Ideas of the Structural-Cognitive Model

As tourismphobia is a collective phenomenon, an approach that can explain collective behaviour based on individual actions lends itself to explaining it. Such an approach is available in the form of the structural-cognitive model (SCM), which goes back to the work of Karl-Dieter Opp [67,68,69,70,71,72]. The approach offers the opportunity to gain new insights into the (sometimes) complex interactions between structural challenges, individual and collective actions, and the cognitive processes that guide these actions.

The SCM is based on the integration of macro-sociological and micro-sociological perspectives to explain collective action based on methodological individualism [72]. To this end, it brings together structural conditions and individual decisions based on incentives in a common framework of analysis. Ultimately, phenomena at the macro level are, thus, explained as the results of individual rational behavior.

Due to the successful application of the SCM to explain social movements [68,69], this model is suitable for analyzing tourismphobia. The aim is to investigate which structural changes have had an incentivizing effect on individuals to engage in activist activities. A schematic representation of the SCM can be found in Figure 2, which shows, in particular, the integration of the macro and micro-sociological perspectives described above.

3.2. Macro Perspective

The SMC assumes that, at the macro level, political opportunity structures (POSs) and resource mobilization (RM) significantly influence the emergence and development of social movements. POSs are understood as specific political, economic, and social conditions that either promote or hinder the activities of social movements [73]. RM is the ability of movements to mobilize resources, such as money, supporters, and media attention to achieve their goals [74].

According to Eisinger [73], the political environment or political context is decisive for influencing the phenomena of social movements. The political environment includes the formal political structure, the social structure, and social stability. Such structures only stimulate or prevent social movements when they become political opportunity structures. This is the case when contexts hinder or facilitate the activities of social or political protests in the pursuit of political goals in various ways and help determine the chances of success of citizens’ political activity [73]. In this way, the macro- and micro perspectives are combined by identifying the political context as an influencing factor on individual motivations to protest [71].

The RM approach assumes that the success of social movements depends on the availability of scarce resources (such as time, money, and skills) and their effective utilization. Therefore, the RM approach focuses on the process by which organizations obtain resources from providers to achieve their defined goals. According to the RM approach, the success of a social movement depends on the ability of its members to acquire resources and mobilize people to achieve the movement’s goals [74,75].

The POS and RM approaches thus identify macro-sociological factors that are assumed to influence the emergence, development, and social position of social movements. Both POS and RM assume that macro-sociological factors provide incentives that, in turn, influence the activities of social movements. However, there are no explicit hypotheses about such micro–macro connections. Instead, there are several directional statements. According to Opp [71], both approaches can, therefore, only be regarded as incomplete versions of the theory of collective action.

3.3. Micro Perspective

At the micro level, the SCM utilizes rational choice theory (RCT) in its broad form [68], which assumes that individuals generally choose their actions on the basis of (subjective) cost-–benefit considerations.

Although individuals may differ considerably in terms of both their preferences and their resources, they share the drive to improve their individual situation and living conditions as a kind of universality [76,77,78]. This drive is concretized by individual needs, to which the individual assigns different utility values. In this context, it is assumed that the actions of any individual result from their specific goals and preferences [79]. An unfulfilled goal or unsatisfied preferences thus initiate an action by the individual [80,81]. Both “hard”, i.e., in particular material, and “soft”, i.e., immaterial, social, and psychological. incentives can be established as guiding factors for action [82]. However, in the context of the utility orientation used here, the heroic assumption of complete information and optimal information processing by individuals and, thus, objective rationality in the sense of expected utility theory [83] is rejected (for an extension of the homo oeconomicus concept, i.e., to include incomplete information or the influence of social norms [67,84].

Various types of restrictions (such as the scarcity of financial or time budgets) limit the individual’s scope for action and the possibilities for realizing individual goals. A central restriction exists due to the real and, therefore, imperfect conditions, particularly regarding information. Individuals are only aware of a limited number of relevant options for action. Furthermore, it must be assumed that individuals are subject to cognitive limitations, meaning that the limited information is not always processed adequately. Decisive cause-and-effect relationships between certain variables are not known, there are conflicting goals, and it is hardly possible to evaluate certain variables. The decision-making situation is, therefore, poorly structured; thus, the individual acts with limited rationality [84].

In this respect, the SCM explains at the micro level how the perceptions, beliefs, and decisions of individuals are shaped by the social context and how these individual incentives influence collective action. In this context, framing processes in particular play a central role in explaining how movements construct certain interpretative frameworks to define problems, propose solutions, and mobilize supporters.

4. Case Study: SCM Applied to the Canary Islands’ Tourismphobia

4.1. Overview Pre-SCM on the Canary Islands Case

Into the EU, there are many cases of tourismphobia in the Southern and Mediterranean area (the economies most exposed to tourismphobia and tourism paradox), including in Barcelona (Spain), the Balearic Islands (Spain), Venice (Italy), Ragusa/Dubrovnik (Croatia), etc. [85,86,87]. Special attention has been paid here to Canary Islands (Spain), because tourism is the region’s main economic sector and they are one of the oldest cases of tourismphobia and the tourism paradox. Also, the Canary Islands case allows us to show the new-institutional theory of the failure of nations in action [88], as an empirical and comparative illustration, connected with other theoretical and methodological heterodox frameworks from Austrian economics and new-institutional economics (i.e., the theory of social cost, property rights ethics, patronage and rent seeking, and crony capitalism) [14,16,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. In this sense, the contrast of two Spanish cases of tourismphobia is proposed here (as in the work of Acemoglu and Robinson [88] concerning Nogales—USA. vs. Nogales—Mexico, South Korea vs. North Korea, etc.). We compare the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands (as a control case for tourismphobia arguments). Both cases are Spanish cases (with the same language, culture, regulation, etc.), but the Balearic Islands is a smaller and richer region than the Canary Islands. The Canary Islands have tourism services for the whole year, while Balearic Islands offer tourism services just for 6 month per year: what is the difference between these cases? Tourismphobia has been recognized and implemented in Canary Island public policies and regulations. How can we apply the theoretical and methodological frameworks to the Canary Islands case of tourismphobia? To explain the case, this works uses official information from the central Spanish Government and local Canary Island Government [97,98].

The Canary Islands are one of Spain’s most popular tourist destinations, and yet it is the first region to demonstrate en masse against its most prosperous sector (200,000 people as of April 2024) [99]. They demand that the tourism sector be halted: the construction of hotels, commercial ports, infrastructure, etc., should also be halted. They demand an urgent change in the economic model, but what is the alternative? The Canary Islands owe 35% of their GDP to tourism and more than 40% of their jobs to tourism. With these figures, it is difficult to understand why such a large part of society is attacking its main economic engine. However, there are important reasons behind all this.

(a) The Canary Islands are poor, at least in European terms. Their GDP per capita is the third lowest in all of Spain. With EUR 22,000 per head, it is a region 40% poorer than Madrid. The protesters blame tourism for this, hence their tourismphobia. They argue that the money from foreigners does not stay on the islands, but that it is instead absorbed by large companies and that the only things that remain are precarious jobs as waiters or hotel staff.

(b) The Canary Islands perceive tourism as overcrowding and overconsumption of resources, with visitors who clog the roads, litter, and consume natural resources. This is why tourism is perceived as a major problem for the Canaries, as the islands have scarce natural resources, such as water (as they are small islands with no large rivers): too many golf courses, swimming pools, and floating and thirsty overpopulation, etc., place stress on these resources. Water is normally extracted from underground aquifers which, when they run out, leave everyone without supplies. Another major problem is energy: the island of Fuerteventura serves as an example, and accounts for half of all the blackouts that occur in the whole of Spain.

(c) The Canary Islands have a problem with the housing market (which is the real issue that has sparked this wave of protests, namely the rental market). Canary residents are the ones who spend the most money on their rents, based on their income. The Canary Islands have the fourth most expensive rentals in Spain, but being the third poorest region, housing becomes a real issue. Here, again, the blame falls on tourists, and more specifically on holiday rentals, such as Airbnb, which supposedly leave residents without housing. Questions surrounding tourismphobia in the Canary Islands are, therefore, as follows: Is tourism ruining the Canary Islands? Why is the region the third poorest autonomous community in Spain? Can such an important sector as tourism really be wiped out, and is there any real alternative to the current situation?

The Canary Islands do not have a problem with tourism (at least compared to islands in the same country, with the same rules and institutions), but rather with the management of tourism and the lack of viable alternatives, beyond tourismphobia and prohibition. A comparison between the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands is as follows:

(a) Poverty: The Canary Islands are not the most touristic autonomous community in Spain. The Balearic Islands, with islands, such as Mallorca, Menorca, and Ibiza, have practically double the tourist figures of the Canary Islands, both in relation to their surface area and in relation to the number of inhabitants. Furthermore, the Balearic Islands receive almost all their visitors only in the summer months (they concentrate their activity in four months, compared to the Canary Islands, which are active all year round). However, as the Canary Islands have a subtropical climate, the tourist season is spread throughout the year and, therefore, congestion is reduced, so the argument of overcrowding does not seem consistent.

(b) Overcrowding: The Balearic Islands are one of the richest autonomous communities in Spain, even surpassing historic industrial regions, such as Asturias or Cantabria. An Austrian economics author, Hayek [16,100], pointed out in his demographic theory that the problem lies in job opportunities and wellbeing access when considering whether a territory is overpopulated or underpopulated. According to new institutional economics, there is a basic conceptual error, because tourism does not mean poverty or negative externalities: people visit a place because it is richer or with positive externalities for foreigners. Concerning overcrowding or overconsumption, it can help to follow an empirical illustration: New York City (specially Manhattan, as another island), is a good example, because it is one of the most touristic places in the world, but it is also one of the richest. Returning to the comparison with the Canary Islands, Manhattan’s tourist overcrowding in relation to the surface area and population is overwhelming, at more than 400%. In short, tourism is far from being synonymous with poverty. In fact, it is usually the opposite. It is usually a good opportunity to make other industries grow. As it turns out, the influx of tourists increases the number of museums, restaurants, transport services, infrastructure, and services of all kinds.

4.2. SCM Applied to the Canary Islands’ Tourismphobia

The situation in the Canary Islands is characterized by the following facts:

Tourism-driven policies and the housing crisis: The profit opportunities offered by tourism have favored a policy in the Canary Islands that has prioritized the interests of large tourism companies over the wellbeing of the inhabitants. Tourism accounts for around 35% of the islands’ GDP, making it the main driver of economic development [89,90,91]. However, this dependence has led to imbalances, particularly in the housing market. The rapid expansion of short-term rentals via platforms, such as Airbnb, has drastically reduced the housing stock available to residents, for instance, in Tenerife, the rapid growth of short-term rentals via platforms such as Airbnb has drastically reduced the housing stock available to residents. Studies indicate that the number of holiday rental properties in tourist-heavy municipalities, like Adeje and Arona, increased by over 60% between 2015 and 2020, displacing long-term tenants [101,102,103].

Property owners, incentivized by the higher profitability of holiday rentals, have prioritized short-term leases over long-term contracts. In this way, the rental supply for locals has been reduced. As demand has tended to rise, rents have increased, reaching levels in some regions that are no longer affordable for many locals. For example, in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, rental prices surged by 20% between 2018 and 2022, forcing many families to relocate to less desirable neighborhoods or, in extreme cases, to precarious housing conditions [101,102,103].

This movement has resulted in significant changes to the social structures in the communities concerned. Historically established structures are being broken up and traditional neighborhoods, such as La Laguna in Tenerife, are becoming transient places dominated by tourists rather than a stable local population.

This dynamic has led to a growing divide between local communities and policy makers, who are often seen by residents as stooges of powerful tourism conglomerates.

Strain on public infrastructure: The influx of tourists poses a considerable challenge for the infrastructure of the Canary Islands. Roads, public transport, and sewage systems are overloaded, resulting in a decline in service quality. For example, traffic jams in the major tourist centers, such as Las Palmas or Playa de las Américas, have become a daily nuisance for residents. Public transport systems, which are designed to meet the needs of a smaller, local population, have difficulty coping with the increasing demand during the peak tourist season. Reports from Titsa, Tenerife’s public bus company, state that delays and service disruptions have increased significantly during the high season [104].

Similarly, public services, such as hospitals and emergency services, are heavily utilized by tourists. This creates intense competition between locals and tourists for the relevant public services. Reports of longer waiting lines in hospitals during the tourist season, for example, illustrate the disproportionate utilization of existing capacities. A study notes that emergency room wait times in hospitals, such as Hospital Universitario de Canarias, increase by 30% during the winter months, when the Canary Islands experience their peak tourist influx [105].

The overcrowding of public spaces further exacerbates the dissatisfaction of residents. Beaches, parks, and other shared spaces are often dominated by tourists, leaving little room for locals to enjoy their own surroundings. This dynamic fosters feelings of marginalization and increases resentment towards the tourism industry and government policies that appear to prioritize tourists over locals.

Environmental exploitation and overtourism: Overtourism has a significant impact on the environment. First and foremost are the effects on the water supply, excessive waste, and ecological damage. On the one hand, the limited freshwater supply of the islands is put under considerable strain as hotels, holiday resorts, and tourists consume a disproportionately high amount, with the result being that the inhabitants have to contend with shortages. In Lanzarote, for instance, water demand during the tourist season frequently exceeds supply, leaving residents to cope with shortages [97,98,106].

Furthermore, the high number of tourists results in a problem for the disposal of the waste generated by them, whereby the local systems, which are designed for much smaller population groups, are not sufficiently equipped. Beaches and hiking trails, even in famous places, such as the Teide National Park, often suffer from litter and pollution.

In addition, there is an increase in the pollution of treasured natural areas, such as the Garajona y National Park on La Gomera, as higher footfall inevitably results in more rubbish being left behind [97,98,106]. Additionally, coastal ecosystems are under threat. Coral reefs and marine habitats near El Hierro and Fuerteventura have shown signs of degradation due to pollution and overuse from diving and boating activities.

Political exclusion and discontent: The inhabitants of the Canary Islands perceive the political decision-making process as opaque and see few opportunities to exert direct influence. Important urban planning and tourism-related decisions are often made with little or no involvement of the local population. For example, large hotel projects or the relaxation of regulations for holiday rentals are often approved without meaningful public consultation. The controversial Cuna del Alma project in Tenerife—an expansive luxury resort planned near protected areas—serves as an example which sparked outrage among environmental activists and residents alike, who argued that it prioritized profits over environmental conservation and local needs [97,98,106].

Such political decision-making processes, which are perceived by residents as marginalizing, undermine residents’ trust in political institutions. Residents feel that their voice is ignored in favor of the powerful tourism lobby. Urban development projects, such as the conversion of coastal areas into luxury resorts, often displace local businesses and change the character of neighborhoods. In such projects, the needs of tourists take precedence over those of residents, exacerbating the feeling of disenfranchisement.

The lack of effective regulation of the tourism industry exacerbates this dissatisfaction. Measures that allow uncontrolled expansion of tourist areas have led to overcrowding and environmental degradation and reinforce the impression that the government prioritizes profit over people. This political alienation creates fertile ground for grassroots movements demanding greater representation and transparency in decision-making.

In order to explain why tourismphobia occurs in the Canary Islands against this backdrop [107], the SCM approach described above will be used.

4.3. Relevant Macro Perspective of the Canary Islands Case

4.3.1. Political Opportunity Structures

The confluence of the abovementioned problems—the housing crisis, infrastructure overload, environmental degradation, and political marginalization—has created an ideal environment for collective action in the Canary Islands. The emergence of grassroots organizations, such as Save La Tejita, environmental groups, like Ben Magec-Ecologistas en Acción, and networks that defend the interests of residents, are a good example for this possibility.

In principle, it is possible to influence the political decision-making process to achieve an outcome that makes tourism more difficult. On the other hand, tourists can be directly influenced in order to discourage them from visiting the destination in question.

There are many ways to influence the outcome of the political process in the Canary Islands, as Spain has democratic decision-making structures and applies the principles of the rule of law. The possibilities include the following:

-

Participation in local elections: Local elections offer residents the opportunity to influence policy-making by supporting candidates and parties that prioritize sustainable development and community interests. Although voter turnout in the Canary Islands is often modest, mobilizing voters to support reform-oriented candidates can lead to tangible change. In Lanzarote, for example, members of the local council were elected who supported tourism restrictions after campaigning for stricter regulations on holiday rentals.

-

Engaging in public consultations and decision-making processes: Although public consultations in the Canary Islands are often criticized as inadequate, participation in these processes can still provide a platform to voice concerns. Stakeholders can also advocate for more transparency and more frequent consultations. In 2023, for example, activists in Gran Canaria succeeded in delaying the approval of a new hotel complex by overwhelming a public hearing with objections and forcing the planners to revise the proposal.

-

Legal action and advocacy: Legal action can be an effective tool for influencing policy. Filing lawsuits or challenging decisions in court has proven successful in other regions facing similar issues. In 2021, a legal challenge by environmental groups delayed the approval of a golf course in Fuerteventura, citing violations of environmental protection laws.

-

Grassroots movements: Such movements can influence political decisionmakers and change their decision-making behavior.

-

Utilizing social media and digital lobbying: Social media can be used to raise awareness and mobilize support for selected areas of concern, which, in turn, can influence policy makers. The hashtag #StopCunaDelAlma gained a lot of attention and raised awareness of the impact of the planned luxury resort on local communities and the environment [108].

There are also opportunities for residents to influence tourists directly. These measures are aimed at sensitizing tourists to the shortcomings of mass tourism or discouraging them from visiting by lowering the actual or perceived quality of the destination. This approach includes the following aspects:

-

Education and awareness-raising campaigns: Educating tourists about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of overtourism can be effective. For example, the aforementioned #StopCunaDelAlma campaign in Tenerife made tourists aware of the effects of overtourism [108].

-

Protest actions at tourist hotspots: Direct protests at popular tourist destinations can deter tourists and draw attention to local grievances. For example, protests against the construction of new tourist facilities in Gran Canaria have disrupted operations and sent a clear message to tourists about the community’s dissatisfaction with urban sprawl [99].

-

Negative reviews on travel platforms: Residents can use platforms, such as TripAdvisor and Google, to highlight the disadvantages of visiting the islands. Negative reviews can shape the perceptions of potential visitors and discourage them from choosing the Canary Islands as a travel destination [109].

-

Raising awareness through social media: As previously mentioned, social media campaigns can be an effective tool to sensitize tourists. Hashtags, such as #OvertourismCanaries or #NoMoreHotels, have been used to sensitize both locals and tourists to the pressures of overtourism [110].

-

Restriction of tourist services through boycotts: The refusal to provide services to tourists leads to a significant reduction in the quality of the travel destination. In Lanzarote, for example, protests led to the temporary closure of beaches.

-

Violent measures: The quality of the travel destination can also be lowered with violent measures, for example against tourist buses and the infrastructure in hotspots of overtourism [110].

All in all, the political opportunity structure (POS) is favorable for these movements due to widespread dissatisfaction among residents and the visible consequences of perceived government inaction. Public discontent provides a powerful platform for mobilization, with grassroots leaders using local grievances to challenge entrenched power structures.

4.3.2. Resource Mobilization (RM)

The ability of a movement in the Canary Islands that opposes overtourism to mobilize resources, such as money, supporters and media attention, in order to achieve its goals is comparatively good.

On the one hand, the effects of overtourism—as described above—directly affect a very large number of Canary Islanders, some of whom can be recruited as supporters.

Secondly, potential supporters can be recruited relatively cheaply via social media due to the rather manageable social structures.

Thirdly, many of the campaigns—such as participation in local elections or a demonstration—can be realized at relatively low cost for the participants.

As the Canary Islands are comparatively remote and the frequency of spectacular events that attract media attention is likely to be low, various forms of protest against overtourism quickly attract the attention of the regional mass media.

Given that large sections of the population are affected by overtourism, it should also be easy to raise funds—at least on a moderate scale.

4.4. Relevant Micro Perspective of the Canary Islands Case

Rational choice theory (RCT) assumes that individuals make their decisions based on rational considerations by weighing up costs and benefits. In this context, only general statements can be made, as individuals are affected to varying degrees by overtourism and as many residents even benefit from overtourism, as tourism contributes significantly to the value added to the islands.

The residents of the Canary Islands weigh up whether the economic benefits of tourism (jobs, higher income from tourism industries) outweigh the negative effects. As was made clear above, overcrowding, noise, the loss of local culture, the rising cost of living, and environmental damage all result in costs for the locals. On the other hand, there are the benefits of economic incentives, such as employment opportunities and the promotion of local trade. If the costs are perceived to be higher than the benefits, this could lead to a form of “tourismphobia” in which individuals perceive tourism as disruptive and burdensome, and they may want to take action against tourism to protect their quality of life. At the same time, as the costs of relaying information through social media and political articulation are comparatively low, the cost–benefit calculation can turn out to be in favor of political protest against overtourism at an early stage. In other words, individuals who derive only minor benefits from tourism but are confronted with major disadvantages will be correspondingly quick to turn against overtourism.

Social media can also lead to cognitive distortions in the perception of risks and benefits. If the negative effects of tourism (such as environmental pollution or overloading of public services) are perceived more strongly than the positive effects, this can lead to a distortion of perception. This means that individuals may see tourism as more harmful and less beneficial than it actually is which can lead to a negative attitude.

Social norms also play a role. If a majority of the population is against tourism, individual decisions can be influenced by collective pressure. According to rational choice theory, the behavior of individuals is also influenced by the expectations and norms of society. If the behavior of others in society is perceived as deviant or problematic, this can motivate individuals to also take a negative stance towards tourism, even if this is not necessarily in their direct personal interest.

5. Results and Discussion

As we have seen, tourism dominates the Canary Islands’ economy, contributing around 35% of GDP, but also creating significant socioeconomic, infrastructural, and environmental challenges. The rapid rise of short-term rental platforms, like Airbnb, has reduced housing availability for residents, with some areas, such as Adeje and Arona, seeing a 60% increase in holiday rentals between 2015 and 2020 [101,102,103,107]. This shift has displaced long-term tenants, driven up rents, and fractured traditional neighborhoods, like La Laguna, which are increasingly dominated by transient tourists. Public infrastructure is overstretched, with roads, public transport, and hospitals unable to meet the demands of both residents and tourists. Environmental degradation is a critical issue, with overtourism causing water shortages, excessive waste, and damage to natural landmarks, like Teide National Park. Coastal ecosystems near El Hierro and Fuerteventura also face significant threats from pollution and overuse. Residents feel excluded from key tourism-related decisions, such as large-scale projects, like the controversial Cuna del Alma resort, which prioritize profits over community and environmental needs.

These facts allow the following conclusions to be drawn at the macro level: Overtourism incurs considerable costs for many residents of the Canary Islands. At the same time, the political opportunity structures are very favorable. In addition to the opportunity for the dissatisfied residents to influence the political process through elections, petitions, and protest actions, they also can influence tourists directly. The extent to which the population is affected by the consequences of overtourism gives hope for understanding among large parts of the population and also improves the success of measures aimed at combating overtourism.

At the same time, due to the manageable social structure on the Canary Islands and the cost-effective possibilities of social media, it is comparatively easy to generate human and financial resources for measures against overtourism, which are also likely to have a high potential for attention in the media due to the general conditions.

While incentives at the macro level create the structural conditions for collective action, individuals at the micro level decide whether to participate in activism. Residents’ perceptions of how overtourism impacts their daily lives play a decisive role in shaping their willingness to engage in protests, demonstrations, or other forms of activism. Ultimately, this decision is the result of weighing individual costs against individual benefits.

For many residents, overtourism imposes significant costs. Rising living expenses, such as higher rents or increased prices for goods and services, negatively affect their standard of living. If these costs are not offset by compensatory benefits, such as higher income from tourism, individuals become more inclined to take action against tourism. As we have seen, the costs of collective action for residents are relatively low. Influencing the political process through voting or demonstrations, as well as directly engaging with tourists, can be achieved at a relatively small expense. Furthermore, social media and close-knit community structures provide cost-effective ways to incentivize and coordinate such actions. The widespread impact of overtourism can also generate social incentives, motivating individuals to act collectively.

Taking these factors together, it becomes evident that both the political opportunity structures allow for significant scope, and resource mobilization is comparatively easy to achieve. On the micro level, the high costs of overtourism for many residents, combined with relatively low returns from tourism and the non-prohibitive costs of countermeasures, lead to collective action against overtourism—manifesting as tourismphobia.

This is evident in protests, graffiti, media campaigns, and other forms of public expression. These actions have succeeded not only in drawing attention to the issue both within and beyond the Canary Islands and influencing public discourse, but also in pressuring policymakers to adopt measures to curb tourism. Local governments have introduced regulations on holiday rentals, restrictions on development in environmentally sensitive areas, and policies promoting sustainable tourism practices. Although these political changes are gradual, they reflect the growing influence of grassroots activism on shaping the future of tourism in the Canary Islands.

The application of the SCM approach to explain the emergence of tourismphobia in the Canary Islands provides the following insights.

Regarding the political opportunity structures, it can be seen that the occurrence of a social phenomenon, such as tourismphobia, requires a correspondingly broad starting point. Overtourism has the characteristic that it affects many residents, leading to rising prices, overcrowded infrastructure, and other negative effects on the population. In this respect, overtourism deeply affects many residents. On the other hand, there are essentially two ways for residents to take action against overtourism in this context. One way is to influence the political decision-making process. In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, there are many other ways of exerting influence in addition to local elections, demonstrations, and legal action. In the case of overtourism, there is also the possibility of influencing the alleged polluter—the tourist—directly. This can take the form of demonstrations, boycotts, etc. Overall, the POSs for the occurrence of overtourism in democratic constitutional states are, therefore, very favorable.

As the case study of the Canary Islands has shown, overtourism also offers favorable conditions for mobilizing the necessary resources. As shown above, overtourism significantly affects a large number of inhabitants. On the other hand, there are cost-effective and far-reaching channels of mobilization in the form of social media. In order to achieve a correspondingly broad resonance in the conventional media, it is also necessary that, from the media’s point of view, action by residents against overtourism—i.e., tourismphobia—is worthy of coverage, i.e., that the competition between individual events for attention is not too great. As the case study shows, this is more likely to be the case in destinations that do not have many spectacular events, such as the Canary Islands, than in destinations where a large number of spectacular events can be expected every day, which is probably the case in Madrid (where there is not tourismphobia) [111].

With regard to the micro perspective, which can essentially be captured on the basis of cost–benefit considerations carried out at the individual level, it can be seen that democratic states governed by the rule of law sometimes provide residents with very cost-effective opportunities to influence overtourism. This fact coincides with the fact that overtourism results in considerable costs for many residents. From an individual point of view, action against overtourism makes sense if the consequential costs of overtourism are not compensated by the corresponding benefits of tourism. This means that if a large number of residents benefit from tourism, for example through better earning opportunities or in other ways, such as better infrastructural development, then the individual cost–benefit calculation of many individuals is likely to make the acceptance of the deplorable conditions caused by overtourism appear to be a preferable option.

Overall, the following considerations can be drawn:

(1) Tourismphobia is a phenomenon of wealthy places, with a POS dispute and a paradox as a result (the degrowth of the main economic sector).

(2) The possibilities for mobilization regularly prove to be good in the case of overtourism. On the one hand, many people are often significantly affected and are, therefore, very willing to make major efforts remove this problem; on the other hand, the affected groups of people usually live in manageable social structures where it is easier to become a lobbyist and/or rent-seeker.

(3) As a result of tourismphobia, technology is used against the tourism sector and in favor of lobbyists and/or rent seekers [4]; there is currently not enough of an effort being made to ensure tourism sector digitalization, despite the availability of Next Gen Funds EU [4,112,113]. A solution for tourismphobia can incorporate other schools of economics [14,16,114,115,116,117], beyond the Neoclassical synthesis (and its F-twist, mathiness, etc.) [118,119,120,121,122,123], with real successful applications of digitalization (i.e., readjustment effect, the geek‘n’talent method) [2,3,4,14,15,16], as in Madrid, to enable the Canary Islands to become a rich region in Spain and one of the country’s primary tourist destinations.

6. Conclusions

The research agenda on the topic has not yet provided a viable theoretical construct to explain the occurrence of tourismphobia and the paradox of tourism. For this reason, the aim of this work has been to present the renewal of such a theoretical framework and to illustrate its explanatory power using the case study of the Canary Islands (in contrast to other cases). It has become clear that the SCM approach is well suited to explain the phenomenon of tourismphobia (at least in a genetic causal and relational manner, at both the micro and macro levels). The SCM approach shows that political opportunity structures in democratic constitutional states are very favorable in the case of social problems, such as excessive tourism, as the costs for those affected to influence the political process or directly address polluters are comparatively low and the incentives are high (to become a lobbyist and/or a rent-seeker). Furthermore, due to the large number of affected residents and the low mobilization costs resulting from social networks and manageable social structures, there are very good opportunities to mobilize the necessary resources. However, tourismphobia will only occur if the individual cost–benefit calculation of a large number of residents indicates that measures against overtourism are the most favorable option. According to the SCM approach, this is most likely to occur if a large number of residents bear the considerable costs of overtourism, a small number of residents benefit from tourism, or the costs of measures against overtourism are low (or becoming a lobbyist and/or rent-seeker is easy, with many benefits, according to the new institutional economics reading). From this perspective, action recommendations can be derived for a policy to reverse tourismphobia at the local level. This should be based on a rational cost–benefit calculation and on the wellbeing of the inhabitants. The burden of overtourism on the inhabitants should be reduced, and a broader share of the population in the economic benefits of tourism should be ensured. This can be achieved through actions other than state control and restrictions (tourismphobia policies), in the same way that other Spanish regions (i.e., Madrid), have achieved with various proposals, such as those mentioned here (i.e., the readjustment effect, geek‘n’talent method).

The limitations of this work, which will be improved in future research, are related to the systematization of literature review and a comparison among economic schools of thought; also, we intend to introduce more empirical illustration and measurements of practical consequences (i.e., labor and business data, housing and hospitality data), to promote the dialogue between schools to find a common solution. We are going to try to connect more our heterodox proposal with mainstream studies. However, this is only a proposal for a theoretical renewal in the analysis of the complex socioeconomic phenomenon that has arisen.