Exploring Overtourism Implications Through the ‘Lens’ of Local Community—A Case Study of Santorini Island, Greece

Abstract

Tourism, although a key driving force for the flourishing of local/regional and national economies, is also a source of distinct negative repercussions, e.g., the intense use of scarce resources, environmental deterioration, social marginalization, and the degradation of the quality of life of host communities, to name but a few. These repercussions appear to be further exacerbated under overtourism conditions in a number of highly rated tourist destinations around the globe. Identifying host communities’ perceptions of the tourism footprint/burden is essential in contemporary policy research, which seeks to realize local perspectives, values, and expectations regarding the acceptable type/level of tourism development of their land and to highlight potential policy directions for future action that ensure sustainability and resilience objectives. Grounded in an assessment of overtourism impacts in a highly rated insular destination (Santorini Island, Greece), this work aims to gather community perceptions as to the drawbacks of the current tourism trajectory through a questionnaire survey. Results demonstrate that, although respondents recognize the crucial role that tourism plays in the island’s economic profile, they also acknowledge that the rapidly escalating expansion of the sector is unsustainable in the long run, with severe repercussions for both the environment and the quality of the community’s everyday life.

1. Introduction

Tourism is a steadily evolving sector around the globe, a growth that is largely grounded in critical drivers such as rising mobility patterns, more affordable transport and accommodation options, as well as the globally expanding middle class population, all of which are expected to further reinforce the steadily escalating tourism demand [1]. As such, tourism is widely perceived as a key economic driver and a developmental lever for the flourishing of local/regional and national economies. Moreover, as a labor-intensive activity, it produces undeniable positive outcomes in terms of economic wealth and employment and income opportunities.

However, tourism development is also accompanied by distinct adverse repercussions, such as the intense use of resources and environmental deterioration, social marginalization and degradation of quality of life, gentrification and rising costs for host communities, pronounced land use change and privatization of public space, etc., thus largely affecting the long term sustainability and resilience objectives of destinations. This holds even truer in the context of insular regions, i.e., highly rated tourism destinations, but also territories marked by insularity challenges and vulnerabilities, e.g., confined natural resources and limited access to the global supply chain, high import costs, cultural and environmental fragility, and climate change vulnerability [2], to name but a few. In these regions, the prevalence of the mass tourism model and the high dependence on tourism negatively affect stability and sustainability achievements, resulting in land use changes, especially in vulnerable coastal areas, due to the immense deployment of tourism infrastructure and facilities; irrational management of scarce water and land resources; pollution resulting from unmanageable volumes of waste; CO₂ emissions due to intense transportation, etc. [3]. Thus, although tourism in insular territories is often viewed as a potential source of livelihood, a developmental lever that can provide jobs and income [4], and a catalyst for social and territorial cohesion as well as local economic growth at the island scale [5], it is also a source of significant pressure on multiple levels (social, spatial, cultural, environmental, political, etc.). In addition, under conditions of climate change, as well as other recent global crises (economic, energy, health, geopolitical tensions, etc.) that largely affect insular territories, the rapidly evolving monocultural model of tourism in island regions endangers long-term sustainability objectives [3].

Currently, the adverse repercussions of tourist pressure are observed in many tourist destinations around the globe—insular regions included—bringing forward the concept of overtourism, a complex and multifaceted term that attracts the interest of the research and policy community, as well as of host communities. Overtourism now appears persistently in public, political, and academic debate and is perceived as a pressing, globally relevant, and alarming trend [6]. In addition, it seems to represent a political reality with strong European (given the intensity of the phenomenon on the European continent), digital, political, and media coverage dimensions [7]. Indeed, the overtourism trend has given rise to widespread concern regarding its impacts on various destinations, both urban and regional/insular; these impacts are largely perceived as place-specific and influenced by factors such as infrastructure deployment, governance, and the social context [8]. Overtourism has also been the subject of a rapidly expanding volume of academic research, with the frequency of the term’s use sharply increasing in relevant articles addressing various dimensions of the phenomenon [9,10]. Indicatively, the very essence and understanding of the term and its complex, multilevel, and multifaceted repercussions; the factors enabling overtourism; and the pool of potential policy measures for handling overtourism or mitigating its adverse outcomes fall among the topics that attract the interest of the research and policy community, while challenging the dominant economic growth paradigm of the tourism sector, namely, the ‘visitors’ economy [11].

But how is overtourism actually defined? This question does not have a clear answer. In fact, a commonly agreed definition of overtourism—occasionally referred to as ‘overcrowding’ or ‘visitor pressure’ [12]—does not exist. In addition, while the term was initially used to highlight the adverse impacts of tourism mainly in city contexts, e.g., Venice and Barcelona [9,13,14], it has expanded to include other types of territories, e.g., nature-based destinations such as national parks, coastal areas or islands, and rural heritage sites, mainly due to their notable tourism attractiveness and high vulnerability [7,15].

The exponentially expanding literature on the overtourism concept shows that the term remains obscure and lacks a clear-cut, widely accepted definition, as well as a well-documented and commonly agreed methodological approach for its identification and assessment [16]. In fact, a range of overtourism definitions can be identified in the literature, expressing different viewpoints on the topic. In a relevant study, Leka et al. [17] identify the varying literature-based meanings attached to overtourism, with the term commonly understood as an unsustainable tourism model [18]; a state of “too many tourists at a place and in an unsustainable way” [19] (p. 48); a threat to quality of life [20], heritage [6], natural and socio-cultural resources [20], and place attachment [21]; and a phenomenon mainly associated with the volume, type, and time frame of tourist flows, coupled with the carrying capacity and fragility of the destination.

While the various definitions of overtourism reflect diverse viewpoints on the topic, a certain consensus has been reached regarding its impacts on local communities, with tourism overcrowding and an overdeveloped tourism industry perceived as factors responsible for the degradation of natural and cultural resources and landscapes, as well as the deterioration of residents’ quality of life and the experiences gained by tourists in a given destination [9,22,23,24]. Furthermore, there is consensus regarding the role of local communities in both identifying and prioritizing the impacts of overtourism in their homeland, and in being part of the tourism planning process so that more informed and win–win (local population and visitors) policy decisions can be achieved [15,25,26].

Currently, however, most overtourism studies focus on the quantitative assessment of tourism dynamics—demand and supply—to identify inefficiencies and articulate relevant policy interventions. Thus, the existing literature has primarily investigated the impacts of tourism development—both positive and negative—in economic, environmental, social, spatial, etc., terms at the region’s level—macro-level. In contrast, little attention has been given to how such impacts are perceived or experienced by the local population of a destination—micro-level. Therefore, a certain gap exists regarding studies that engage community actors and residents, i.e., the groups that feel the pressure generated by tourism most directly [27], to qualitatively assess and prioritize overtourism impacts and articulate place-based remedies for a given destination. This also holds true for the study region of this work (Santorini Island) despite the fact that it ranks high among areas suffering from overtourism [28]. Such a community engagement approach calls for broadening the role of local communities in the tourism planning process, in an effort to embed local perspectives into both the agenda-setting and policy formulation stages. As a result, the scope of policy formulation will be broadened, distributed knowledge concerning how the local population and actors experience the adverse repercussions of overtourism will be collected, and more balanced policies will be articulated to safeguard residents’ quality of life while preserving tourists’ experience and the economic benefits of the destination.

In this context, the focus of the present work is on gathering the population’s perceptions of the repercussions of overtourism in their homeland—Santorini Island—and on quality of life, perceived as a critical component in guiding more informed policy decisions. To this end, a questionnaire survey is conducted, aiming to capture the community’s experiences and illuminate the impacts of overtourism through the lens of the local population. The structure of this work is as follows: Section 2 presents the methodological approach. Section 3 elaborates on the study region and summarizes critical overtourism implications in Santorini Island (macro-level) based on previous work conducted by the authors. Section 4 discusses the core elements of the questionnaire survey (micro-level) and the results obtained through statistical analysis and Importance–Performance Analysis. Section 5 attempts to roughly combine the results obtained at the macro-level (the whole area of Santorini Island) and micro-level (the questionnaire survey results) as a means of drafting policy priorities. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

The work carried out in this research article builds on a previous endeavor by the authors that aimed to establish a methodological framework for exploring the impacts of overtourism in environmental, economic, social, and spatial terms, using Santorini Island as a case study [17]. From this work, conducted at the municipality level (the macro-level), several data-enabled key findings emerged, indicating specific fields of policy intervention (sectoral and/or spatial) for mitigating the adverse implications of tourism on the island.

Taking into consideration the results obtained from the aforementioned work, the gap in scientific research regarding local population perceptions as to the overtourism phenomenon and its implications, as well as the intensity of the tourism phenomenon and related overtourism signs in this specific destination, the following research questions were formulated:

• How does the local community (micro-level) perceive the issue of overtourism and its impacts on the study area?
• What are the important policy issues that arise from the community’s perspective?
• Do local people recognize the medium-to-long-term challenges and risks of overtourism as revealed at the macro-level, or do they perceive only the short-term annoyances in their everyday activities, especially during the tourism peak season?
• Do they consider the current tourism model sustainable in the long run, or do they recognize the need to shift towards a more sustainable and resilient one?

At the heart of the above research questions lies the citizens’ perspective (micro-level), which is explored by means of a questionnaire survey in a distinct overtourism example, i.e., Santorini Island. However, the authors also considered it highly important to attempt to combine the outcomes of this research with those recently delivered in the study region at the macro-level. Within this context, the methodological approach developed in this work (Figure 1) represents an attempt to combine results emanating from both macro- and micro-levels so that critical overtourism dimensions can be identified and inform policy analysis. More specifically, in Figure 1, the content in the white boxes is derived from the authors’ previous work [17]. The key outcomes of this content that are relevant to the present article are briefly presented in Section 3. In contrast, the content in the blue boxes reflects work developed in this research paper. More specifically, the steps of the proposed methodological approach are as follows:

• The first step aims to gather insights into the study region (macro-level) so that the research context (environmental, cultural, economic, social, etc.) can be fully grasped (box 1).
• The second step relates to the assessment of overtourism impacts in environmental, economic, social, and spatial terms (macro-level), accomplished through the use of a range of well-established indicators from the literature (box 2). Information related to this step is provided by the authors’ previous work on the topic [17] and reflects the long-term implications of overtourism at the island level.
• The third and fourth steps aim to illuminate the impacts of overtourism as identified through the lens of the local community (micro-level). A questionnaire survey is carried out for this purpose, and the qualitative data collected are analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 31 software (boxes 3 and 4).
• The fifth step is an effort to classify/prioritize overtourism repercussions as well as potential options for the future tourism profile of Santorini Island, as stated by questionnaire respondents (micro-level) (box 5). To this end, a modified Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) is conducted.
• Finally, in the last step (box 6), an attempt is made to roughly combine the work carried out at the macro- and micro-levels, which are perceived as complementary in highlighting issues that need to be incorporated into the policy discourse to articulate measures capable of mitigating overtourism impacts in Santorini Island.

3. The Study Region

The study region—Santorini Island—is part of the Cyclades Island complex in the Southern Aegean Region (Figure 2a). The Island of Santorini (or Thera) is actually the flagship and the main tourist destination of the Municipality of Thera, which also includes the smaller island of Thirasia and the uninhabited islets of Palaia Kameni, Nea Kameni, Aspronisi, Christiani, Askania, and Esxati (Figure 2b). The distinct natural and cultural identity, the unique geomorphological origin and volcanic scenery, the majestic views of the Aegean Sea, and the characteristic architecture of Santorini Island have gradually transformed it into an extremely popular tourist destination with global reach, a Cycladic tourism hotspot, and a “global tourism power” [29]. The municipality covers an area of 90.69 km², and its population in 2021 was 15,480 inhabitants.

Considering that overtourism is the outcome of rapidly evolving tourism demand and supply in a destination [16], Leka et al. [17] studied the dynamics of the tourism sector as well as its impacts in environmental, economic, social, and spatial terms. In this work, the assessment of tourism dynamics over time, using both quantitative and qualitative indicators, revealed an alarming state for the island, with certain capacity thresholds already reached or even exceeded. Also alarming are the implications of tourism overload for the island’s landscape, due to the excessive built-up expansion to meet tourism demand. This overload also affects the agricultural sector, placing at stake well established traditional production patterns and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) products that have steered the island’s extroversion for many decades and form part of its local tradition and identity. Similar findings emerged regarding changes in land use patterns, chiefly resulting from the intense expansion of tourist accommodations, even within Natura 2000 and Archaeological Zones or in close proximity to them [17].

More specifically, the escalating trends of the tourism sector in Santorini Island, both in terms of supply and demand [17], and the distinct transition into an overcrowded tourism destination—a remarkable example of destinations suffering from overtourism [28]—have had noticeable repercussions in environmental, economic, social, and spatial terms. The most profound and critical of these are summarized as follows [17]:

• Gradual shift in the local production identity from an agrarian society to a thriving service-oriented economy, mainly a ‘visitor economy’. This is due to the growing prevalence of the tourism sector in the local economic profile and is largely reflected in the employment share of the tertiary sector, which increased from 68.77% in 2001 to 90.66% in 2021, with the primary and secondary sectors showing visible downturns over time.
• Vegetation health and coverage, as captured by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), are rapidly decreasing, with a more rapid pace of decrease observed in the central and southern parts of the island. These areas are also characterized by the shrinkage of agricultural land over the past three decades and a significant percentage of wider agricultural zones currently left uncultivated. The decrease in vegetation coverage in the central and southern parts is attributed to the fact that these areas have been the most heavily impacted by construction (artificial land; Figure 3a), followed by the northern part. In addition, large-scale tourism infrastructure, i.e., four- and five-star hotels with significant bed capacity, pools, and other auxiliary spaces, occupy large plots in the central and northern parts of the island (Figure 3b,c).
• Vegetation degradation and loss. Close inspection of the NDVI loss shows that this is considerably affecting the vineyards (Figure 3a), a very important primary resource for the production of Santorini’s famous local wine—a PDO product—and a cornerstone of the local agricultural tradition. This degradation is interpreted as a combined effect of climate change and drought, coupled with the spread of new construction (or related preparatory works) taking place since 2017 in such areas. According to the results presented by Leka et al. [17], the central part of Santorini Island is very heavily affected by built-up areas, while significant pressure is currently identified in both the northern (Oia settlement) and southern parts, particularly the outstanding archaeological space of Akrotiri (Figure 3b,c).
• Noticeable loss of housing affordability. This is a critical overtourism repercussion that significantly affects various groups of the local population and creates hostile feelings toward the tourism phenomenon on the island. Quantitatively, the mean rental price and the mean sale price in Santorini Island are 56% and 100% higher, respectively, than the averages for Cyclades and the Attika Region.
• Airbnb accommodation expansion. The tourism supply in the Municipality of Thera in general, and Santorini Island in particular, is further enriched by the rapid increase in Airbnb accommodations. In 2023, the number of Airbnb accommodations reached 4783 units and 10,750 beds [31], which is a considerably large number, given that the Athens metropolitan capital has 11,314 Airbnb beds.

4. Overtourism Repercussions Through the Lens of the Locals: Methodology and Results

“… while Santorini’s white and blue cliff sides are undeniably picturesque, the experience is less enjoyable when visitors are forced to fight crowds at popular viewpoints”

[32]

In this section, the structure and results of a questionnaire survey (see Stage 3 in Figure 1) conducted in Santorini Island are presented. This survey aimed to capture local community perceptions as to the impacts of overtourism on both their land and daily lives, and collect local views on the options available for shifting toward more sustainable tourism pathways.

4.1. Structure of the Questionnaire Research

The structure of the questionnaire—its thematic groups, number of questions, and type of data collected—is presented in

Table 1. Thematic groups and structure of the questionnaire.

Thematic Groups	Questions	Type of Data Collected
Demographics/Profiling of Respondents	Q1–Q10	Sex and age group; occupation; residency status (currently permanent and former residents); residency length (currently permanent and former residents); frequency of visit (visitors); municipal zone of residence (permanent residents); relation to the tourism-sector (employee or owner of tourism business).
Tourism Intensity and Seasonality	Q11–Q13	Perceived change in tourism activity over the last decade; preferred time to visit; season preference.
Developmental Profile and Daily Life	Q14–Q15	Perceived importance of tourism in the developmental profile of Santorini Island; quality of everyday life during peak tourist season.
Pressures/Problems that are due to (Over)Tourism	Q16	Residents: congestion; waste management capacity; crowding; health infrastructure; living costs; environmental stress; concern for local identity.
	Q17	Tourists: intention to visit (tourist experience/attractiveness of destination).
Policy Priorities Towards a Sustainable Tourist Model	Q18	Geotourism (Volcano/Caldera); natural tourism; heritage/archaeological tourism; gastronomy tourism; architectural tourism; religious tourism; entertainment/nightlife; maritime/cruise tourism.
Governance and Participation	Q19–Q20	Views on current mass tourism model vs. alternative/low-impact forms; willingness to participate in local decision-making.

. Because the questionnaire was mainly distributed through various social media platforms, and thus accessible to a wider audience, respondents—based on their revealed socio-demographic profiles—were classified into three main groups: current permanent residents, former residents (those who had lived on the island in the past for several years), and visitors (tourists) with at least one prior stay.

The respondent recruitment strategy followed a mixed-mode approach, comprising online dissemination through social media networks (Facebook and Instagram) and e-mail invitations, complemented by on-site questionnaire distribution to reach participants less likely to engage digitally. Thus, the questionnaire was distributed both digitally via Google Forms and through face-to-face (F2F) interaction (interviews using a printed questionnaire form). Data collection occurred between 24 February and 18 June 2024, resulting in 331 total responses (approximately 92.4% online and 7.6% paper-based). After data validation—removal of incomplete or non-eligible cases, e.g., tourists with no prior visitation—324 valid questionnaires were retained for further analysis. Out of these valid responses, the following was noted:

• A total of 232 respondents (71,6%) were current permanent municipal residents;
• A total of 52 respondents (16,04%) were former residents, residing in the municipality of Thira for several years;
• A total of 40 respondents (12,34%) fell into the visitors group (tourists).

The visitors group is composed of 57.5% of respondents who identified themselves as regular visitors of Santorini Island; 20.0% of respondents who reported that they have visited Santorini a few times (e.g., 2–3 visits); and a remaining 22.5% of respondents who reported just one previous visit. Thus, almost 2/3 of the visitors group (tourists) consists of repeat visitors, meaning respondents who are capable of articulating a more mature and experience-based perspective on their tourism satisfaction in Santorini Island.

Questionnaire data were analyzed using core statistical procedures in the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 31 software to gain insight into the data set and generate customized graphical outputs.

4.2. Statistical Analysis of Questionnaire Data

At the stage of data analysis using SPSS, a multilevel analytical approach was adopted to ensure both statistical rigor and interpretive clarity. This comprised three main stages:

• Descriptive statistics: Frequencies and percentages were calculated for key demographic and contextual variables, including sex, age group, occupation, residency status (municipal zone and length of residence), and frequency of visit (for visitors).
• Comparative analysis: Cross-tabulations were performed to compare responses among the main subgroups (e.g., residents vs. visitors; respondents related or unrelated to tourism; sex and age groups).
• Visualization: Graphical representations were deployed to facilitate interpretation.

Profiling of the sample respondents (Figure 4) shows a slight dominance of female participants across all age groups; the prevalence of the economically active, middle-aged group (35-64), followed by the 15-34 age group; and a relatively small number of respondents aged 65+. This pattern holds true for both the ‘current permanent municipal residents’ and ‘former residents’ groups, and is also evident in the ‘visitors’ group.

The spatial distribution of respondents (referring exclusively to the ‘current municipal residents’ group) (

Table 2. Spatial distribution of currently permanent population.

Thematic Area	Municipal Zone	Population (2021)	Spatial Distribution of Permanent Residents * Nr/(%)	Spatial Distribution of Permanent Residents Related to the Tourism Sector ** Nr/(%)
Northern part	Oia, Imrovigli, Vourvoulos	1898	25/(10.8)	14/(11.0)
Central part	Messaria, Thira, Karterados, Pyrgos, Vothonas, Exo Gonia, Episkopi Gonias	8472	169/(72.8)	90/(70.9)
Southern part	Emporeio, Megalochori	4346	31/(13.4)	19/(15.0)
Akrotiri	Akrotiri	515	6/(2.6)	3/(2.4)
Therasia	Therasia	249	1/(0.4)	1/(0.7)

* The group of permanent residents accounts for 232 persons (respondents). ** The group of permanent residents related to the tourism sector either as employees or business owners, which accounts for 127 persons (respondents).

and Figure 5) seems to follow an uneven pattern. More specifically, the majority of respondents (72.8%) reside in the central part of the island, an area that also displays demographic prominence (see Table 2). This is followed by the southern (13.4%) and northern parts (10.8%), while Akrotiri (2.6%) and Therasia (0.4%) account for much smaller shares. A similar pattern is observed among respondents related to the tourism sector, either as employees or business owners, with the majority of them (70.9%) located in the central part, followed by the southern (15.0%), northern (11.0%), Akrotiri (2.4%), and Therasia (0.7%) parts of the island. The prevalence of the central part in the spatial pattern of respondents aligns with the higher population concentration (see Table 2), as well as its strong tourist specialization and higher tourism intensity [17]. At the same time, the inclusion of responses from all five thematic areas of Santorini Island (Table 2) ensured broad geographic coverage and supported the spatial validity of the questionnaire survey, enabling a nuanced understanding of sub-regional variations across the island.

Slightly more than half of the permanent population of the sample [54.6%, or 137 respondents out of the current permanent population group of 232] reported professional engagement in tourism, either as employees or tourism business owners. The remaining 45.4% indicated no occupational link to the tourism sector. This balanced composition captures the dual perspective within the community, providing a nuanced foundation for analyzing the perceptions of tourism impacts and local development priorities.

Despite the paramount importance of the tourism sector in Santorini’s economic profile—Santorini and Mykonos are perceived as the flagships of the Greek tourism brand—the majority of respondents consider that tourism activity has been over-intensified during the last decade (Question 11). Out of the whole respondent sample (324 respondents), those who hold this view, by rating the intensification of tourism activity as “very much” and “a lot”, account for 70.06% (227 respondents) and 22.53% (73 respondents), respectively (Figure 6).

A similar view is expressed regarding the importance of the tourism sector in the local economy (Question 14), with respondents recognizing its substantial contribution. The responses “extremely important” and “very important” account for 55.56% (180 responses) and 38.58% (124 responses) respectively. Thus, an overwhelming consensus is reached on the pivotal role tourism has acquired in Santorini’s economic profile over the last few decades (Figure 7), although its importance has been overemphasized during the recent decade, rendering Santorini Island a distinct example of overtourism in the global context [28,33,34].

The rising intensity of the tourism sector has clearly influenced the quality of life of the local population, especially during the peak tourist season. This is evident from their responses to Question 15, where “very bad” and “bad” ratings regarding the influence of the rising tourism intensity on residents’ daily life gathered 45.9% (147 respondents) and 41.3% (132 respondents), respectively. Thus, the majority of respondents converges on the view that both the current form and the rising intensity of tourism are major sources of discomfort and undermine the quality of life of the local population (Figure 8). Furthermore, according to respondents, this discomfort and deterioration in quality of life are mainly due to road traffic and congestion, crowding in public space, waste management, and the capacity of health services (Question 16) (Figure 9).

Of interest in this respect is that respondents rated lower aspects such as environmental pressure, adequacy of local resources and their overconsumption due to the steadily escalating tourist flows, as well as the carrying capacity of cultural resources. This finding can be interpreted as reflecting the fact that respondents were primarily reporting disturbances in their immediate everyday surroundings and neighborhoods.

Of great interest were respondents’ views on whether the current mass tourism model is beneficial for the sustainable future of the island or whether it should be changed (Question 19). The majority of respondents of the questionnaire sample (78.70%, 255 respondents) favored a shift toward alternative tourism forms, taking into account the abundance and value of Santorini Island’s natural and cultural resources and the necessity to pave more sustainable and resilient future tourism paths. A further 12.65% (41 respondents) were also opposed to the current mass tourism model, stressing the necessity for a shift toward the primary and secondary production sectors, which have a strong tradition in Santorini Island, are part of the local identity, and have delivered renowned products of origin. In contrast to these views, a small minority (8.64%, 28 respondents) claimed that the current mass tourism model should remain to the benefit of the local economy (Figure 10). Of the 28 respondents supporting the mass tourism model, 26 are permanent residents, and 22 of them are directly related to tourism activity.

4.3. Importance–Performance Analysis

The Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA), carried out in Stage 5 of the methodological framework (see Figure 1), originates as a business research technique useful for formulating management strategies [35]. Its strength lies in its diagnostic nature and its capability to identify attributes of a product or service for which, given their importance, the product or service either underperforms or overperforms [36]. Despite its origin, however, IPA has proven to be quite a useful tool in various fields, including tourism, education, healthcare, public administration, etc., for guiding related strategies [37].

At the heart of the IPA rationale lies an expectation–disconfirmation model, which features customer satisfaction as a function of the importance (or, alternatively, expectations) and performance of different product or service attributes [35,38]. In its classical form, the joint consideration of importance and performance is visualized in a two-dimensional plot (Figure 11) to facilitate data interpretation and enable prioritization of management decisions. By plotting these two dimensions on a two-dimensional matrix, IPA also enables the visual categorization of attributes into management quadrants, thereby assisting in the efficient allocation of limited resources [32,39].

The classical interpretation of the four quadrants, shown in Figure 11, is as follows [37]: Quadrant 1—‘keep up the good work’—represents major strengths and potential competitive advantages of a product or service, i.e., well-performing attributes and the need to continue investing in these strengths to ensure their sustainability. Quadrant 2—‘possible overkill’—is associated with attributes of low importance to customers; thus, high performance in this quadrant implies resource waste and the need to redirect or reallocate resources to other attributes of the product or service. Quadrant 3—‘low priority’—incorporates attributes that display low performance but do not gain the interest of managers since they are relatively unimportant to customers (low importance). Finally, Quadrant 4—‘concentrate here’—is the most crucial one in the plot, featuring underperforming attributes that are of great importance to customers, thus indicating the highest priority for investment or policy formulation to restore competitiveness.

In this work, the aforementioned conceptual structure of IPA and the classical interpretation of the four quadrants are retained but applied in a modified form, adapted to the peculiarities of the questionnaire survey design. This modified version of IPA is used to identify policy considerations and priorities for Santorini Island as expressed by the survey respondents. In particular, implementation of the modified IPA relies on the reflection of respondents on: (i) Question 16 (Q16), which aims to illuminate the main adverse impacts of (over)tourism on their daily life, and (ii) Question 18 (Q18), which highlights respondents’ views on the alternative tourism forms that a sustainable and resilient future for Santorini Island should display. The concurrent evaluation of respondents’ perceptions in these two questions provides an evidence-based prioritization of overtourism challenges and potential policy reactions to address their impacts, anchored in the lived experience and expectations of the local community.

The peculiarities of the survey design are as follows: (a) Questions 16 and 18 did not follow a traditional 1–5 Likert-type scale but were presented in a checklist-based form, allowing respondents to select multiple items; and (b) Respondents provided input related to the Importance, but not the Performance, of the attributes presented—the Importance of an attribute serving, in some sense, as a reference point for assessing the current state of a service/product element [36]—thus making the classical IPA formulation infeasible. To address these drawbacks, the two IPA dimensions (Importance and Performance) were approximated directly from the checklist responses, drawing on established IPA applications in tourism and destination studies that rely on non-Likert, dichotomous, or multi-response data forms [35,37,38,40,41]. In addition, the IPA literature explicitly acknowledges that Performance measures may be adapted when direct performance ratings are not available. Building on the methodological flexibility highlighted in alternative IPA formulations [36,42,43], this study adopts a survey-only variant of IPA in which Importance is calculated as the proportion of respondents selecting each attribute from a given list, while Performance is not directly measured but is approximated as a complementary proxy derived from Importance. In particular, Importance and Performance are calculated using Equations (1) and (2), respectively:

$$I_i=n_i/N$$

(1)

$$P_i=1-I_i$$

(2)

where N is the total number of respondents, $n_i$ is the number of respondents selecting a specific attribute i, $I_i$ is the Importance of a specific attribute i, and $P_i$ is the respective performance of this attribute.

Since Performance in this modified version of IPA is calculated as a proxy for Importance (Equation (2) above), the higher the number of respondents rating an attribute as important, the lower its performance is assumed. This, in turn, implies that the high importance attached to this attribute demonstrates a certain deficiency (e.g., a high impact in Q16) or a substantial need for improving its condition (e.g., support of a potential tourism form in Q18). Stated differently, it signals the need for more substantial and targeted policy action in order to achieve a better performance value [e.g., mitigating an impact (in Q16) or reinforcing alternative tourism forms (in Q18)]. Conversely, the low Importance of an attribute ‘i’ is interpreted as an indication of higher perceived adequacy, since respondents tend to give prominence to items they consider problematic or salient. In other words, attributes ‘i’ that demonstrate acute problems usually display high Importance for the local audience, which is also linked to the low Performance of the relative management or policy action, with Performance reflecting the perceived adequacy rather than objective quality of a system. The resulting IPA matrix produced by this modified IPA form therefore functions as exploratory salience–adequacy mapping rather than a traditional Importance–Performance comparison. Consequently, the findings must be interpreted within the context of this methodological distinction, which reflects a compromise due to the structure of the data available and the study’s aim to prioritize overtourism-related issues based on respondents’ perceived urgency and adequacy.

By applying this modified IPA framework to Santorini Island, each potential response from the available lists in Q16 and Q18 (x₁–x₁₀ for Q16 and y₁–y₉ for Q18) was positioned within the IPA matrix according to its comparative position relative to the sample-specific mean values. The thresholds used for Q16 were $\overline{I}=0.632$ and $\overline{P}=0.337$, while the corresponding means for Q18 were $\overline{I}=0.448$ and $\overline{P}=0.298$. These means formed the basis for the quadrant classifications, which structured the IPA matrices presented in

Table 3. Data presented in the modified Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) of Santorini (over)tourism pressures (Q16). Source: Own elaboration based on survey data.

Attribute	Label	Mean Importance	Mean Performance
x1	Road congestion/traffic	0.921	0.079
x2	Waste management capacity	0.797	0.203
x3	Crowding in public spaces	0.808	0.192
x4	Health services capacity	0.771	0.229
x5	Living cost pressures	0.714	0.286
x6	Respect for residents	0.688	0.312
x7	Environmental pressures	0.609	0.391
x8	Public resources/utilities	0.605	0.395
x9	Cultural carrying capacity	0.500	0.500
x10	Perceived crime/safety	0.222	0.778

and

Table 4. Data presented in the modified Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) of Santorini Island displaying the key comparative advantages/options in support of a future sustainable tourism path (Q18). Source: Own elaboration based on survey data.

Attribute	Label	Mean Importance	Mean Performance
y1	Volcano/Caldera geotourism	0.818	0.182
y2	Natural Scenery	0.685	0.315
y3	History/museums	0.608	0.392
y4	Local products/gastronomy	0.599	0.401
y5	Architecture/settlements	0.540	0.460
y6	Churches/monasteries	0.312	0.688
y7	Entertainment/nightlife	0.370	0.630
y8	Cruise-related offer	0.265	0.735
y9	Sea/sun and beaches	0.225	0.775

and visually summarized in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

The outcomes of the modified Importance–Performance Analysis for Questions 16 and 18, and their linkages to macro-level results, are briefly outlined below.

More specifically, Quadrant 1—‘Keep up the good work’—is notably empty, indicating that Santorini has not yet achieved strong performance in most attributes valued as important by the respondents. From the perspective of both residents and visitors, the absence of attributes in this quadrant indicates that Santorini lacks policy areas or tourism assets that are simultaneously highly valued and effectively managed. Conversely, those attributes respondents deem crucial for serving long-term sustainability objectives—whether concerning improvements to daily life conditions or the promotion of alternative, place-based sustainable tourism forms—remain underperforming and outside the main focus of policy concerns. These findings are consistent with the macro-level results (e.g., intense built-up expansion driven by the mass tourism model and environmental deterioration).

Quadrant 2—‘Possible overkill’. With respect to the impacts of overtourism (Q16), this quadrant contains the attributes ‘environmental pressure’, ‘public resources/utilities’, ‘cultural carrying capacity’, and ‘perceived crime/safety’ (x7–x10) (Figure 12). The Importance of all four attributes is rated relatively low by respondents, while the modified IPA approach shows them to be performing comparatively well. By contrast, macro-level results stress the deterioration of environmental parameters and landscape quality over time, mainly due to the expansion of built-up space and tourism infrastructure. An effort to interpret this contradiction suggests that the lower priority attached to these attributes by respondents (micro-level) reflects a scale and time-horizon gap between problems that manifest acutely and visibly in daily life, such as traffic saturation or inadequate service provision, and pressures that operate more diffusely and cumulatively, such as ecosystem degradation or erosion of cultural carrying capacity. Regarding the key drivers of the tourism model in Q18, ‘entertainment/nightlife’, ‘cruise-related offer’, and ‘sea/sun and beaches’ (y7–y9) (Figure 13) receive low Importance ratings from respondents. However, they display higher Performance gains, largely as a result of the emphasis placed on the mass tourism model, which is strongly built around these attributes. When considered alongside macro-level results demonstrating that overestimation of these attributes in Santorini’s tourism model has led to violations of the carrying capacity, further exploitation of these attributes in the island’s tourist model should be restrained.

Quadrant 3—‘Low priority’. None of the x and y attributes (Table 3 and Table 4) fall into the category of attributes marked by both low Importance and low Performance. This implies that even the least important tourism pressures (in Q16) and offerings (in Q18) perform at or above the estimated mean values for each of the studied data sets. In practical terms, however, there are no attributes that can be safely neglected; instead, the IPA matrix suggests a rebalancing rather than a simple “cutting” of policy attention, taking into account the dynamic external decision environment within which planning in general, and tourism planning in particular, takes place.

Quadrant 4—‘Concentrate here’. As far as the impacts of overtourism are concerned (Q16), this quadrant contains attributes that are rated high in Importance but displaying relatively low Performance. These include ‘road congestion/traffic’, ‘waste management’, ‘crowding in public spaces’, ‘capacity of health services’, ‘pressure on living costs’, and ‘respect for residents’ (x1–x6 in Table 3; Figure 12). This result aligns with macro-level findings [17], which identify rapid expansion of the built-up environment in specific parts of the island, creating overcrowded and congested urban spots. In addition, macro-level work shows that the costs of renting or buying a house are far higher than those in the rest of the Cyclades Island complex and the Athens metropolitan area. This pressure in the real estate market is also rated high in Importance by the respondents. Similarly, regarding the options available for shaping the future of tourism in Santorini Island (Q18), the most preferable (i.e., high-Importance) alternative tourism forms grounded in the abundance of the island’s local assets are ‘Volcano/Caldera geotourism’, ‘natural scenery’, ‘history/museums’, and ‘local products/gastronomy’ (y1–y4 in Table 4; Figure 13), although these display relatively low Performance.

5. Discussion

Tourism today constitutes an important economic sector for Mediterranean countries and a lever for the flourishing of coastal and insular economies [17,44]. However, the rapidly escalating tourist flows in highly attractive Mediterranean coastal and insular destinations have led many of them, including Santorini Island, to receive volumes of tourists that in many cases exceed their carrying capacity and lead to overtourism. The overtourism phenomenon, combined with the particular challenges associated with insularity and climate change, creates an explosive mixture—a ‘red code’ for insular regions—that calls for immediate policy action to mitigate adverse effects. That said, overtourism is currently at the heart of the scientific and policy discourse, particularly in geographically confined insular territories, with attention focused on its impacts on the natural and manmade environment, the quality of life of local communities, as well as the quality of the tourism experience itself [17,45,46,47].

Acknowledgement of the explosive mixture of challenges faced by insular territories has strongly motivated the integration of sustainability objectives into tourism planning and management, giving rise to a paradigm shift that aligns with the 2030 UN Agenda and the SDGs, and seeks to achieve a balance among economic growth, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility [48]. Within such a paradigm shift, the quantitative and qualitative adverse impacts of tourism overload need to be addressed; moreover, a holistic, integrated, and long-term planning approach that steers the transition from ‘tourism growth’—a quantitative assessment placing emphasis on the number of visitors, economic output, etc.—to ‘sustainable tourism’ must be adopted.

Further to the aforementioned key considerations embedded in the planning effort toward a sustainable tourism destination (the macro-level), community engagement [48,49] (the micro-level) is of critical importance in shaping the destination’s brand in a way that conforms to local expectations, identity, traditions, and historical trajectory, as well as ensures broad consensus among actors and stakeholders at the local (destination) level. Engagement of local actors and stakeholders in the (tourism) planning process acts as a ‘bridge’, both by downscaling macro-level study findings to local communities and by upscaling local views and expectations to the policy discourse accomplished at the macro-level. In addition, community engagement supports raising awareness of local populations and stakeholders about the medium-to-long-term repercussions of (over)tourism, thereby enabling the adoption of ‘painful’ but necessary environmentally friendly and socially responsible decisions.

That said, this research stresses the importance of a methodological framework that attempts to prioritize policy actions by establishing the aforementioned bridge between the macro- and micro-levels and by co-evaluating results from studies conducted at both scales. This framework is implemented in Santorini Island, a highly appreciated tourist destination globally, in which tourism is the dominant economic lever. The prevailing mass tourism model has yielded significant economic benefits at the national and regional/local levels, and the continuously escalating tourist demand has motivated the expansion of accommodation infrastructure, mainly in the central and southern parts of the island. As depicted in the authors’ macro-level study [17], however, intensification of tourism activity in Santorini Island has also produced adverse overtourism effects, with particularly negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts. These impacts signal severe structural changes and the tertiarization of the local economy; rising vulnerability of natural and cultural resources; rapidly decreasing vegetation health and coverage; shrinkage or abandonment of agricultural land; deployment of large-scale land-intensive tourism infrastructure; and significant loss of housing affordability, to name but a few [17].

Concerning the micro-level, the results of the questionnaire survey conducted in this work revealed a near-unanimous recognition of tourism’s importance (Question 14: “extremely/very important” ≈ 94%), alongside strong perceptions of daily life degradation, especially in the peak season (Question 15: “bad/very bad” ≈ 87%), and a broad mandate to abandon the current mass tourism model (Question 19: ≈79%) in favor of shifting to alternative/sustainable forms. However, although residents’ views generally converge on the need for change, their lived experience is mainly focused on immediate frictions (traffic, crowding of public space, and degraded service provision). The medium-to-long-term trajectory of the destination—revealed by macro-level studies/indicators highlighting structural risks, monocultural economic direction, loss of agricultural identity/landscape integrity, and environmental vulnerability, and requiring medium-to-long-term rebalancing—does not appear to be consciously at the heart of community knowledge, although respondents seem to recognize the consequences of the intense mass tourism model in their land.

Despite the restrictions of the modified IPA model applied in this work and the drawbacks of the available data (the outcomes of the questionnaire survey), the integration of results from the micro- and macro-levels can enrich the basis upon which relevant policy formulation at both the local and island levels is carried out. At the local level, ‘traffic congestion’, ‘waste management capacity’, ‘crowding in public spaces’, ‘health services capacity’, ‘living cost pressure’, and ‘respect to residents’ (x1–x6 in Question 16) emerge as critical issues, mainly in tourism hotspots; at the island level, ‘Volcano/Caldera geotourism’, ‘natural scenery’, ‘history/museums’, and ‘local product/gastronomy’ (y1–y4 in Question 18) are featured as attractive options for shaping the future of tourism in Santorini. In the modified IPA applied, the abovementioned attributes are placed in the “Concentrate here” quadrant, addressing attributes of high Importance but low Performance, or, stated differently, policy fields demanding urgent handling. Conversely, elements like ‘sea and sun’ and ‘entertainment/nightlife’ appear closer to the “possible overkill” IPA quadrant (lower Importance and relatively better Performance), suggesting scope for effort reallocation. Notably, the “Keep up the good work” quadrant is empty, i.e., currently there are no well performing high-Importance attributes, a fact that underlines a gap in strategic planning and related policy formulation for handling overtourism implications in Santorini Island.

Concurrent consideration of the results obtained at the macro-level [17] and those produced at the micro-level demonstrates the necessity for strategic reorientation of the island’s tourism and land policies. Such a reorientation should align with the broader global concern for sustainable tourism; reinforce the long-term resilience of tourism in Santorini Island; ensure the island’s integrity against the repercussions of climate change; and deepen interlinkages between tourism and primary/secondary sectors. Currently, implementation of Local Urban Plans throughout the Greek territory seems to open a ‘window of opportunity’ for the Municipality of Thira to reconsider priorities and become a protagonist in establishing a creative dialog both among locals as well as stakeholders across the various decision-making levels, in order to articulate a more sustainable and resilient future for Santorini Island. Such a task is, in any case, fraught with difficulties, given the hierarchical structure of the Greek spatial planning system and the power of the upper hierarchical levels (national and regional); the lack of established interaction paths among the various levels and the limited participatory culture in co-designing and co-deciding policy interventions; the fact that local administrations lag behind in embedding such challenges into their agendas; and the economic significance of tourism for the national economy, which is a decisive factor in establishing strategic policy directions at the national level that must then be properly downscaled to lower ones.

6. Conclusions

‘…. Of course, the answer is not to attack tourism. Everyone is a tourist at some point in his/her life. Rather, we have to regulate the sector, return to the traditions of local urban planning, and put the rights of residents before those of big businesses’. Ada Colau, Mayor of Barcelona 2015–2023

[50]

The immense pressure currently exerted on Mediterranean coastal and insular territories by escalating tourist flows has given rise to the emergence of new concepts, such as overtourism, carrying capacity, touristification, and tourismphobia, which are currently at the heart of the research and policy discourse. For insular territories, which constitute the core of this work, vulnerability to overtourism is largely related to the specific characteristics of the insularity context, their high vulnerability to climate-related threats, and their limited capacity to cope with the newly emerging threats these imply.

The adverse repercussions of overtourism call for policy reactions and interventions that are generally not compatible with, or even contradict, the ‘growth paradigm’ promoted by the mass tourism model in many destinations. These repercussions highlight the drawbacks of this paradigm and the need to shift from a “growth for development” to a “degrowth for livability” stream [7]. This shift emphasizes the importance of ‘quality over quantity’, rendering quality a critical concern for articulating strategies capable of mitigating overtourism effects. In addition, the focus on ‘quality’ gives prominence to the local population of the destination, who are primarily the recipients, but also often the ‘victims’, of the adverse repercussions of overtourism. This, in turn, implies the need to complement tourism planning studies at the macro level with those at the micro level, thereby bringing local communities on board and embedding local views into strategic policy decisions. Such an approach is essential for achieving a future of tourism in insular territories driven by principles such as environmental and social justice, sustainability, solidarity, and collective identity.

The present study is part of an effort to establish a methodological framework that integrates macro- and micro-level concerns of overtourism in insular territories in support of the current planning and policy discourse on this topic. Convergence and/or divergence of macro- and micro-level results produced in the context of Santorini Island need to be further elaborated and, most importantly, communicated to all relevant actors—citizens, administrative bodies, the entrepreneurial community, etc.—at various decision-making levels, apart from the study area itself. Communication of diligently explored and properly articulated convergence/divergence results from the macro- and micro-level study, being currently the next step of this research effort, is crucial for enriching the knowledge stock and raising awareness among the various actors regarding the risks/burdens inherent in the current trajectory of tourism in Santorini Island, as well as the collective action needed for the collaborative planning of more place-based and people-centred tourism pathways in this remarkable, insular destination of global reach.