Participation Matters: A Comparative Assessment of Urban Governance Responses to Overtourism

Abstract

This article explores participatory planning as a key tool for addressing the challenges of overtourism, a phenomenon that exerts complex pressures on the environment, social cohesion, and the cultural identity of cities, despite its contribution to economic growth. Through a comparative analysis of six European urban destinations with high tourism intensity, the study presents different forms of participatory processes as strategies for the sustainable management of tourism. The findings show that the active involvement of stakeholders—local authorities, professional associations, civil society organizations, and residents—strengthens the legitimacy and social acceptance of policies, while improving their overall effectiveness. The article examines whether existing strategies address the structural conditions that generate overtourism or are limited to managing its symptoms, and how the level of community engagement influences the sustainability of these policies. It also highlights that the concept of overtourism, while useful, is often overused in both public and academic discourse, which makes evidence-based analysis even more crucial. The study concludes that there is a pressing need for a more inclusive and strategically oriented model of tourism governance, one that goes beyond symptom management and targets the deeper causes of the phenomenon.

1. Introduction

Between 2007 and 2017, urban tourism worldwide quadrupled in size, while in 2017 alone, 170 million trips were recorded, accounting for almost 30% of global tourism (UNWTO, 2018). The rapid growth in urban tourism in the 21st century can be explained by at least four drivers. First, the global increase in mobility, facilitated by affordable transport options, particularly in air travel. Second, the accelerating urbanization of the population. Third, the ability of urban destinations to provide a wide range of diversified tourism products, combined with the established trend of adding leisure days to business trips. Fourth, many declining industrial cities and port towns—heavily affected by deindustrialization and economic crises—successfully leveraged tourism to revitalize, improve their domestic and international image, and attract new economic activities (Martín Martín et al., 2018; Sarantakou, 2023).

Despite these benefits, the concentration of visitors in urban centers has generated challenges such as overcrowding, environmental degradation, and social tensions, raising concerns over the long-term sustainability of destinations (Panayiotopoulos & Pisano, 2019). Addressing these challenges requires effective management measures and close collaboration among all stakeholders (Santos et al., 2025). Within the framework of sustainable urban development, participatory planning emerges as a key prerequisite for strategies that respond to local needs. Through consultation, cooperation, and joint efforts, trust is fostered, conflicts are better managed (Carr et al., 1998), and local communities are empowered to engage in decision-making—enhancing quality of life, preserving cultural identity, and strengthening social cohesion (Milne & Ateljevic, 2001; Peeters et al., 2019; Tosun & Timothy, 2003). However, while researchers have extensively documented overtourism in cities, a significant gap remains in understanding how governance frameworks and participatory mechanisms are implemented and function in practice. Existing studies tend to focus on impacts rather than on the institutional processes that shape policy responses to overtourism (Koens et al., 2018; Martín Martín et al., 2018; Milano et al., 2022; Sarantakou & Terkenli, 2019). As a result, there is still limited empirical evidence on the extent to which cities are progressively integrating participatory processes into their governance models and management strategies.

This article aims to address this research gap through a comparative analysis and assessment of six European cities that have implemented policies to address overtourism. By linking the level of participatory governance to both the evolution and the character of the adopted measures, the study introduces a novel analytical lens that reveals how varying degrees of civic engagement correspond to distinct governance approaches. Specifically, this article examines whether the policies adopted in major urban destinations tackle the structural conditions that generate overtourism or merely manage its symptoms, and how the level of community involvement in their design and implementation shapes policy orientation and adaptive capacity. The analysis covers the period 2015 to the present, with particular emphasis on the post-pandemic phase, applying a comparative evaluation (benchmarking) methodology across six urban case studies.

1.1. Conditions and Symptoms of Overtourism in Urban Destinations

The term “overtourism”, introduced in the early 21st century, describes the negative consequences of uncontrolled tourism development, which undermine both residents’ quality of life and visitors’ overall experience (Goodwin, 2017; UNWTO, 2018). Theoretical foundations are built on Doxey’s (1975) model of social reactions to tourism and Butler’s (1980) destination life-cycle model. The literature distinguishes two main forms of overtourism: (a) in islands, rural, and environmentally sensitive areas, where environmental pressures prevail (Dodds & Butler, 2019; Klarić, 2017; Milano et al., 2022; Peeters et al., 2018), and (b) in urban centers, mainly historic areas, where socio-economic impacts are more prominent (Capocchi et al., 2019; Koens et al., 2018; Milano, 2017; Namberger et al., 2019; Seraphin et al., 2018). This distinction highlights the need for a multi-dimensional and geographically sensitive framework, alongside sustainable policies that strengthen community participation (Tosun, 2000), environmental awareness, and social cohesion (Żemła, 2024).

The rise in overtourism is linked to systemic transformations: increased international mobility, low-cost air travel, and digital technologies such as short-term rental platforms and social media (Dodds & Butler, 2019; Goodwin, 2017). The shift from the traditional “3S: Sun, Sea, Sand” model to the “3E: Education, Experience, Entertainment” paradigm expanded tourism into residential areas, fueling social tensions and tourismphobia (Żemła, 2024). COVID-19 further exposed the sector’s structural vulnerability and revived debates on sustainability (Gössling et al., 2020). As Dodds and Butler (2019) note, rapid visitor growth, easier access to travel, and the expansion of tourism consumption, combined with short-term economic logic and institutional discontinuities, limit the capacity to design long-term strategies.

Distinguishing between the “conditions” that generate overtourism and its “symptoms” is essential for effective management. Structural conditions such as laissez-faire policies, lack of spatial regulation of accommodation (including short-term rentals), weak participatory governance, and insufficient integration of local knowledge (Goodwin, 2017) enable the phenomenon to manifest. Peeters et al. (2018) identify eight critical conditions, including proximity to entry gates and heritage sites, reliance on quantitative performance indicators, mass tourism strategies from distant markets, exclusion of local communities, neglect of saturation indicators, absence of short-term rental regulations, uniform accommodation taxation, and limited involvement of key stakeholders such as airlines and ports (

Table 1. Drivers of Overtourism.

Drivers of Overtourism	Description
Proximity to gateways & heritage sites	Short distance to airports, ports, UNESCO monuments
Emphasis on quantitative indicators	Evaluation of success based on number of visitors
Mass tourism strategy	Attraction of mass tourism from long-haul markets
Exclusion of the local community	Lack of resident participation in planning
Neglect of saturation indicators	Disregard of early warning signs of overload
Lack of regulatory framework	Inadequate regulation of short-term rentals
Flat-rate taxation	Non-differentiated taxation of accommodation facilities
Limited stakeholder involvement	Minimal participation of airlines, ports, etc.

Adapted from: Peeters et al. (2018).

).

“Symptoms” represent directly observable expressions of pressure on spatial, economic, environmental, and social levels (Peeters et al., 2018). As documented by Peeters et al. (2018), UNWTO/WTCF (2018), European Commission (2013), Ryan (2020), and Sarantakou and Karachalis (2024), symptoms vary depending on context and governance capacities. Spatially, gentrification, loss of local identity, and environmental degradation undermine residents’ quality of life and tourism authenticity (Gravari-Barbas & Guinand, 2017; Shoval & Isaacson, 2009; World Travel & Tourism Council, 2017). In urban contexts, tourist concentration in cultural districts and the rise in short-term rentals (e.g., Airbnb) strain housing markets and social cohesion (Hristov et al., 2021; Pappalepore et al., 2014; Silk & Amis, 2005). Cities like London and Barcelona experience overload with higher living costs and loss of authenticity (Andersson, 2017). Economically, weak regulation drives rising housing and commodity prices, reinforcing inequalities (Peeters et al., 2018; Sarantakou & Karachalis, 2024). Environmentally and culturally, exceeding carrying capacity leads to water and air degradation, waste accumulation, noise pollution, and pressure on cultural assets, eroding authenticity (European Commission, 2013; Peeters et al., 2018). Socially, the lack of resident participation is associated with declining quality of life, tourismphobia, social conflicts, weakened cohesion, and displacement (Goodwin, 2017; Ryan, 2020; Uslu et al., 2020). Tourismphobia manifests in negative attitudes and actions against tourists, amplified by social and economic pressures. Neglecting the distinction between conditions and symptoms often results in superficial interventions that fail to address root causes. Thus, for a strategically informed and sustainable policy approach, overtourism must be analyzed not only as a set of impacts but as a phenomenon embedded in broader socio-economic and institutional contexts (Pappalepore et al., 2014) (

Table 2. Drivers and typical symptoms of overtourism by sector.

Sector	Drivers	Typical Symptoms of Overtourism
Spatial Organization/ Land Use	Significant increase in arrivals Boom in short-term rentals Growth in day-trippers and cruise tourism Lack of spatial planning	Expansion of tourist accommodations—displacement of housing Replacement of local shops with tourism-oriented businesses Congestion of public spaces
Economy	Laissez-faire economy	Rising cost of living Resident displacement
Environment & Culture	Exceeding carrying capacity	Deterioration of water/air quality Increased waste, noise pollution Pressure on cultural infrastructure and loss of authenticity
Society	Limited stakeholder involvement—exclusion of local communities	Social discontent Tourism-phobia Social conflicts Ghettoization

Own elaboration based on the sources: Peeters et al. (2018); UNWTO (2018); European Commission (2013); Ryan (2020); Sarantakou and Karachalis (2024).

).

The development and application of scientifically sound methods for assessing the footprint of tourism activity and identifying the symptoms of overtourism constitute a key prerequisite for participatory planning (Punzo et al., 2022). Since tourism planning affects multiple stakeholder groups with differing perspectives, it requires objective and transparent data collection processes to ensure consensus and acceptance of measures that may entail economic or social costs, such as tourism taxes or building restrictions (Sarantakou & Karachalis, 2024). At the international and European level, the sustainability indicator framework of the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2004, 2005) and the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) (European Union, 2016) provide tools for sustainable destination planning and management (Coccossis & Koutsopoulou, 2020; De Marchi et al., 2022; Kuščer, 2014; Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012). Among the most widely used indicators are: the Tourism Function Index (TFI), which compares the number of tourist beds with the resident population to reflect social impacts; the Tourism Density Index, which measures visitors or overnight stays per square kilometer and captures spatial intensity (Peeters et al., 2018); and Doxey’s (1975) Irritation Index (Irridex), which describes the progression of resident attitudes from enthusiasm to hostility. Although qualitative, the Irridex is critical for understanding social carrying capacity, since feelings of exclusion and unequal distribution of benefits accelerate social reactions (Blackstock, 2005; Wang & Wall, 2005). The search for acceptable limits has revived the debate on carrying capacity (Bertocchi et al., 2020). Contemporary approaches no longer focus on a “maximum number of visitors” but on acceptable thresholds of change, emphasizing participatory planning with local communities. Carrying capacity is examined through environmental, infrastructural, socio-cultural, perceptual, and economic dimensions. According to UNWTO (UNWTO, 2018), it is defined as “the maximum number of people who can visit a destination simultaneously without causing degradation of the natural, economic, and socio-cultural environment and without an unacceptable decline in visitor satisfaction.” The combined use of such indicators enables multidimensional assessment, provided that evaluations are based on reliable data and permanent monitoring structures, such as Tourism Observatories.

Addressing overtourism requires targeted measures tailored to the needs of each destination. Recent studies (Peeters et al., 2018; Ryan, 2020; Sarantakou & Karachalis, 2024) classify these measures along a continuum from soft interventions to hard regulatory approaches:

• Information and marketing—Promoting responsible tourist behavior through information campaigns, digital tools, and communication of capacity limits.
• Access control—Regulating flows through visitor limits, entry permits, or timed scheduling.
• Economic measures—Differential pricing, congestion charges, and reinvestment of revenues in infrastructure and environmental protection.
• Infrastructure and alternative routes—Upgrading infrastructure and developing new attractions to decentralize flows.
• Zoning/urban planning—Defining zones according to saturation levels and restricting or withdrawing tourist beds.

As tourism evolves dynamically, these measures must be integrated into a flexible management system with regular monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment (Koens et al., 2018; UNWTO/WTCF, 2018).

1.2. Sustainable Tourism Development and Participatory Destination Planning

The integration of participatory methods into tourism planning has emerged as a fundamental factor for advancing sustainable and socially responsible policies. Active involvement of local communities has proven in practice to improve living conditions, strengthen democratic governance, and foster social cohesion. Their engagement in decision-making increases public acceptance of tourism initiatives, cultivates a sense of belonging and collective responsibility, and acts as a catalyst for empowerment and shared values (Nyamboke, 2024). Studies demonstrate that aligning strategies with residents’ priorities enhances sustainability and reduces tensions (Saarinen, 2019), while participation ensures social acceptance and sustainable resource management (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Jamal & Stronza, 2009). The combination of participatory planning and sustainable strategies creates a robust and socially sensitive institutional framework in which tourism can act as a driver of environmental protection, heritage preservation, and social well-being (Dredge & Jenkins, 2011).

Tosun (2006) and Malek and Costa (2015) distinguish two main dimensions of participation: involvement in decision-making and in the distribution of benefits. The first refers to communities’ ability to actively shape strategies and policies, while the second focuses on the fair distribution of positive outcomes. Even with limited decision-making power, communities can benefit if resources are allocated transparently and equitably (Blackstock, 2005; Wang & Wall, 2005). This approach resonates with Arnstein’s (1969) “Ladder of Participation,” which highlights that the transfer of power to citizens strengthens democracy and social inclusion. As Strategéa (2015) notes, participation extends beyond elections or formal institutions to citizens’ everyday interaction with policies shaping their environment, infrastructure, and working conditions. Thus, participation constitutes not merely the delegation of power but also a means of empowerment, equipping communities with tools to manage and safeguard their interests (see

Table 3. Categorization of participation levels and related roles and responsibilities.

Participation Level	Community Role	Objective	Negotiation Ability	Responsibility	Main Characteristics
1. Functional Participation	Passive participation/Execution of instructions	Execution of instructions, Simple presence	Negligible/None	None	Passive participation, without influence
2. Dialogical Participation	Dialogue & consultation/Informed audience	Dialogue, exchange of information	Limited to Small	None	Active informing, limited influence
3. Collaborative Participation	Equal member/Advisory role	Co-decision making, advising	Moderate to High	Large to Very large	Two-way communication, influence on decisions
4. Self-governing Participation	Equal member with autonomy	Full control & initiative undertaking	Maximum	Maximum	Full autonomy, substantial intervention, creative drive

Adapted from Strategéa (2015).

).

According to Bingham et al. (2005), participation enhances democratic processes and leverages local knowledge, which is often overlooked. Fung (2006) emphasizes that sustainable participation requires negotiation capacity, information management, and a deep understanding of local needs. Managing overtourism demands strategies that balance economic viability, social cohesion, and environmental protection (Butler, 1999; T. H. Lee & Hsieh, 2016; Moldan et al., 2012). In practice, however, the environmental dimension often dominates, while social and cultural aspects remain underemphasized, reducing policy effectiveness, particularly in contexts of inequality and tension (Savage et al., 2004). Stakeholder theory highlights the importance of integrating diverse social and institutional actors (Donaldson & Preston, 1995), as accounting for local specificities is essential for sustainability (Timur & Getz, 2008). Through consultation and dialogue, trust is cultivated, cohesion reinforced, and balanced development promoted (Pechlaner et al., 2024). As Karachalis (2021) observes, genuine community involvement strengthens resilience, supports the social fabric, and mitigates the consequences of overtourism.

Despite growing attention to overtourism in urban areas, the literature shows that most strategies focus on technical tools—such as carrying capacity indicators, spatial planning instruments, or digital monitoring technologies—rather than assessing how participatory they actually are. As Milano et al. (2022) demonstrate, overtourism is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, but existing research does not adequately evaluate whether strategies involve substantive community participation. Studies of residents’ roles in urban tourism planning suggest that participation often remains consultative, with limited influence on final decisions (Koens et al., 2018), or focuses narrowly on the use of participatory tools—such as participatory mapping or serious games in urban tourism (Koens et al., 2018). Consequently, the field remains largely unexplored regarding the extent to which strategies adopted in urban destinations are genuinely participatory and how residents’ involvement impacts their effectiveness.

2. Materials and Methods

This study has a dual focus: first, it examines whether the policies adopted by popular urban destinations aim to address the underlying conditions that generate overtourism or merely manage its symptoms; second, it evaluates the degree of participation in the design and implementation of these policies. The reference period extends from 2015 to the present, with particular emphasis on the post-pandemic phase and the recovery of international tourism. To achieve these objectives, a comparative evaluation (benchmarking) methodology is applied to six selected case studies of urban destinations.

2.1. Research Questions

The formulation of the research questions is grounded in the theoretical framework developed in Chapters 1.1, and 1.2, which identified three key dimensions of the overtourism phenomenon: (a) the distinction between conditions and symptoms (Chapter 1.1, Table 1 and Table 2), (b) the nature and effectiveness of management strategies (Chapter 1.1), and (c) the role of participatory governance in sustainable tourism development, including the differentiation of participation levels (Chapter 1.2). Based on the above, the research questions are formulated as follows:

• RQ1: Are the conditions that generate overtourism and the symptoms associated with the phenomenon common across the six destinations under evaluation?
• RQ2: Are the strategies and actions implemented by the six destinations to address overtourism similar?
• RQ3: To what extent do the overtourism management strategies applied in the six European urban destinations aim to address the underlying conditions that produce it, rather than merely managing its symptoms?
• RQ4: What level of participation characterizes the governance and planning processes related to overtourism management in the six urban destinations?
• RQ5: Is there a differentiation in both management policies and levels of participation before and after the pandemic?

2.2. Comparative Evaluation Criteria

The selection of destinations was conducted in two stages, using critical and non-critical criteria. The critical criteria served as exclusionary factors (on/off), reducing the initial pool of candidate cities. There are four (4) such criteria, considered as assumptions of the final evaluation model, as they apply to all destinations examined. The non-critical criteria, two (2) in number, were applied in the second stage and assessed individually.

The four critical exclusion criteria are as follows:

• European dimension: Only European urban destinations were selected, as they face comparable challenges and have adopted common management policies.
• High tourism demand and evidence of overtourism: Destinations were required to demonstrate a high Tourism Function Index (TFI: beds/population × 100), based on data from statista.com, and to be cited in at least one scientific study on overtourism and management strategies in the post-pandemic period.
• Adoption of strategic responses to overtourism: Destinations must have implemented strategies addressing overtourism impacts and promoting sustainable practices in the current post-pandemic context.
• Participatory processes: Demonstrated culture and structures of participatory governance in tourism, with participation levels above “Functional Participation” (Level 1 in Table 3).

The additional (non-critical) criteria used were:

5.

The existence of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs), serving as a platform for stakeholder collaboration.

6.

The existence of permanent data collection and analysis structures, such as Tourism Observatories.

According to data from holidu.co.uk, published by Fleck (2023) on Statista, in 2022, the 20 European cities with the highest tourist-to-resident ratios (TFI) were identified. This high ratio is considered an indicator of potential pressure on local resources and underlines the need for overtourism management strategies (see

Table 4. 20 Cities with high Tourism Function Index in 2022 (Fleck, 2023).

Ranking	City	Country	Tourists per Inhabitant
1.	Dubrovnik	Croatia	27.42
2.	Rhodes	Greece	26.33
3.	Venice	Italy	21.26
4.	Heraklion	Greece	18.43
5.	Florence	Italy	13.81
6.	Reykjavik	Iceland	12.10
7.	Amsterdam	Netherlands	12.09
8.	Lisbon	Portugal	11.14
9.	Porto	Portugal	10.55
10.	Dublin	Ireland	9.07
11.	Athens	Greece	8.99
12.	Paris	France	7.24
13.	Nice	France	7.01
14.	Bruges	Belgium	6.65
15.	Prague	Czech Republic	6.32
16.	Copenhagen	Denmark	4.99
17.	Milan	Italy	4.87
18.	Edinburgh	UK	4.51
19.	Brussels	Belgium	4.50
20.	Barcelona	Spain	4.42

).

From the initial 20 cities, 8 met the critical criteria. Subsequently, based on the level of participatory practices, cities that did not exceed the average level on the Participation Ladder were excluded. Ultimately, six destinations were selected: Dubrovnik (Croatia), Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Edinburgh (Scotland), Lisbon (Portugal), Copenhagen (Denmark), and Barcelona (Spain).

2.3. Research Sources

Case studies were analyzed through content analysis of strategic and operational documents, as well as action plans published by municipal authorities and destination management organizations on their official websites. Additional data sources included academic literature and reports from international organizations. The reference period spans 2015–2025, with particular emphasis on the post-pandemic recovery phase.

2.4. Analysis of Results

The analysis is structured according to the research questions and follows a comparative and thematic approach.

For each destination, the following dimensions are examined:

• The conditions contributing to overtourism.
• The symptoms and their socio-spatial manifestations.
• The strategic and operational frameworks adopted.
• The specific actions implemented.
• The level of participatory engagement (as defined in Table 3) foreseen in each strategic, operational, or action plan.

The results are coded and presented in matrices summarizing, for each city, the five key analytical categories. This structure facilitates cross-case comparison and enables the identification of shared and differentiated patterns across the six destinations, aligned with the thematic axes of the research questions (RQ1–RQ5).

3. Results

3.1. Dubrovnik (Table 5)

The Dubrovnik, renowned for its medieval Old Town—a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979—is one of the most tourism-intensive cities in Europe. In 2018, it received 1.27 million tourists, nearly 30 times its resident population (The Dubrovnik Times, 2019; CityPopulation.de, n.d.). Factors such as global media exposure through Game of Thrones, the expansion of low-cost airlines (Dubrovnik Tourist Board, 2025; Zračna luka Dubrovnik, 2024), cruise tourism with 600,000 day visitors in 2017 (Abbasian et al., 2020; Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2021; Reuters, 2024), and the proliferation of short-term rentals—4373 beds within the UNESCO core in 2024—have created intense pressures, raising rents and reducing the resident population from 5000 in 1991 to 1557 in 2019 (Stojčić et al., 2024b).

Following a UNESCO warning in 2015 that the site risked inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the city adopted the “Respect the City” (RTC) strategy in 2017, focusing on regulating daily visitors and accommodation (Milić, 2021; TZ Dubrovnik, 2024). After negotiations with CLIA and UNESCO, strict limits were imposed—two ships and 5000 passengers per day (Dubrovnik Port Authority, n.d.; The Dubrovnik Times, 2019). In 2021, the COVID-19 crisis prompted a revised planning framework through the “Heritage Management Plan” (PUP 2021–2026) and the “Action Plan Respect the City” (APPG, Phase II) (Grad Dubrovnik, 2021). The PUP incorporated carrying-capacity and social-impact assessments (Stojčić et al., 2024a). The municipality introduced a moratorium on short-term rentals within the Old Town and launched social-housing programmes (Grad Dubrovnik, 2021). By 2025, national legislation introduced additional restrictions on short-term rentals, including higher taxation and co-ownership consent requirements (HR Hrvatski Sabor, 2024a, 2024b).

Between 2023 and 2025, 25 projects (EUR 1.98 million) under URBACT III/Interreg and the “Integrated Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism Development” aimed to diversify products, relieve pressure on the historic core, and strengthen participatory governance (Grad Dubrovnik, 2023). This plan sought to extend the tourism season, diversify tourism products, and strengthen participatory governance, with the goal of reducing pressure on the historic core (Vukadin et al., 2023a). Key initiatives included digital visitor monitoring, a mobile app informing tourists about low-congestion times, vehicle restrictions, smart parking and waste systems (TZ Dubrovnik, 2024). The World Heritage Dialogue and an Interpretation Centre were created to raise awareness of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value (Grad Dubrovnik, 2023).

Participation has become a core principle of governance since 2021. The RTC, PUP and APPG strategies combined Level 2 (Dialogic Participation) public consultations with Level 3 (Collaborative Participation) co-creation workshops, while the URBACT Local Group comprises 30 members (65% local stakeholders). Level 4 (Self-governed Participation) is applied through citizen-led micro-funding initiatives to improve quality of life (Grad Dubrovnik, 2023, 2024). Importantly, Dubrovnik’s policies did not seek to reduce tourism per se (Jutarnji List, 2024). On the contrary, arrivals at Dubrovnik Airport rose from 2.32 million in 2017 to 2.95 million in 2024 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2024; Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2021; Zračna luka Dubrovnik, 2024). Nevertheless, cruise passengers declined from 600,000 to 200,000 (2017–2023) (TZ Dubrovnik, 2024). In 2023, Dubrovnik was recognised as Croatia’s Best Smart City for its innovative and participatory approach (Vukadin et al., 2023b).

Table 5. Overtourism Management in the City of Dubrovnik.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals,
UNESCO World Heritage Status   Increased exposure through film and social media	Overcrowding of the Old Town Significant increase in youth tourism and day visitors	Tourism development strategy and provisions for cruise tourism RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025 UrbAct 2023–2025	Access Control: Digital visitor monitoring and visitor forecasting Infrastructure Improvement: smart sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical Participation: Carrying Capacity Study 2024 Public hearings Collaborative Participation: Co-creation of strategies (PUP/APPG) Institutionalized presence of citizen representatives in the URBACT Local Group Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting for infrastructure projects
Cruise tourism	Traffic congestion Noise pollution Pressure on cultural assets	Tourism development strategy and provisions for cruise tourism RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025	Access Control: Spatio-temporal distribution of cruises Imposition of limits on cruise ships Digital visitor monitoring and visitor forecasting	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Consultation with CLIA, UNESCO, residents Citizen briefings Strategic and Participatory Workshops
Short-term rentals	Rising rentsRising rents Displacement of permanent residents Social discontent	RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025 UrbAct 2023–2025	Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Moratorium in the Old Town 2024	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings Participatory Workshop and Focus Groups

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Grad Dubrovnik, 2021, 2023, 2024; Milić, 2021; TZ Dubrovnik, 2024).

Table 5. Overtourism Management in the City of Dubrovnik.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals,
UNESCO World Heritage Status   Increased exposure through film and social media	Overcrowding of the Old Town Significant increase in youth tourism and day visitors	Tourism development strategy and provisions for cruise tourism RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025 UrbAct 2023–2025	Access Control: Digital visitor monitoring and visitor forecasting Infrastructure Improvement: smart sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical Participation: Carrying Capacity Study 2024 Public hearings Collaborative Participation: Co-creation of strategies (PUP/APPG) Institutionalized presence of citizen representatives in the URBACT Local Group Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting for infrastructure projects
Cruise tourism	Traffic congestion Noise pollution Pressure on cultural assets	Tourism development strategy and provisions for cruise tourism RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025	Access Control: Spatio-temporal distribution of cruises Imposition of limits on cruise ships Digital visitor monitoring and visitor forecasting	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Consultation with CLIA, UNESCO, residents Citizen briefings Strategic and Participatory Workshops
Short-term rentals	Rising rentsRising rents Displacement of permanent residents Social discontent	RTC (I) 2017 PUP 2021–2026 APPG (II) 2021–2025 UrbAct 2023–2025	Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Moratorium in the Old Town 2024	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings Participatory Workshop and Focus Groups

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Grad Dubrovnik, 2021, 2023, 2024; Milić, 2021; TZ Dubrovnik, 2024).

3.2. Amsterdam (Table 6)

Amsterdam has experienced a doubling of tourism over the past 15 years. Visitor numbers rose from 5.63 million in 2012 to 8.26 million in 2017, accounting for one-third of all overnight stays in the Netherlands (CBS, 2020). Tourism peaked in 2019 with 10.2 million visitors and 24 million overnight stays (Onderzoek Amsterdam, 2024), while the post-pandemic recovery was rapid, reaching 8.87 million visitors in 2023, including 6.97 million international arrivals (Roadgenius, 2024). This tourism growth is largely driven by the city’s visibility on social media (Huang et al., 2024; Kilipiri et al., 2023; Sigala & Gretzel, 2017), attracting younger tourists (Cohen & Cohen, 2019), low-cost airlines (European Commission, 2021; Papatheodorou, 2021), the spread of short-term rentals (Aalbers, 2016), and cruise tourism, which accounts for 25% of arrivals (CBI, 2020).

Tourism activity is monitored through the Amsterdam Tourism Monitor, which provides key data for sustainable management (Onderzoek Amsterdam, 2024). The sector makes a major economic contribution, accounting for 10% of total employment (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024b), yet it also generates significant social and environmental pressures. Residents report a decline in quality of life due to tourist-related nuisance—noise, public drunkenness, litter, and petty crime—while the housing crisis has worsened following a 30% rise in short-term rentals between 2018 and 2023, 70% of which are concentrated in the city centre. This has led to a 15% increase in rents and the displacement of residents (S. Lee & Kim, 2023; Valente et al., 2023). The supply of tourist accommodation rose to 92,000 beds (+13% since 2019) (CBS, 2020). Environmental impacts are also evident: during Pride 2023, 73 tons of waste were generated, and pollution complaints increased by 61% (NL Times, 2024; Álvarez Umbarila, 2024). A survey of 6000 residents highlighted concerns about cleanliness (51%), congestion (38%), and accessibility (35%), with 20% now avoiding the city center (BinnenstadsEnquête, 2024; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024a).

Amsterdam’s strategy to address overtourism aims to establish a new balance between residents and visitors, prioritizing the quality of life of permanent (City of Amsterdam, 2018; Petrenko, 2024; van der Borg, 2024). This approach began with the strategy “A New Spring and a New Voice” (2018–2022) and the implementation program “City in Balance,” which focused on reducing nuisance, dispersing visitors, and improving economic balance. Measures included behavioral campaigns (“Enjoy & Respect”), restrictions on new tourist-oriented shops in the city center, regulation of short-term rentals, and an increase in the tourist tax to 7% (Amsterdam City Council, 2018; GroenLinks, 2018). Since 2019, broader green transition strategies have also influenced tourism planning (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019). In 2021, the “Regulation on Tourism in Balance” introduced a threshold of 10–20 million overnight stays, with specific measures (e.g., taxation) activated when limit values of 12 or 18 million are exceeded (Amsterdam City Council, 2021). The “Hotelbeleid 2024” imposed a freeze on new hotel capacity, allowing only upgrades under the “new-for-old” principle (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024b) the same time, the 2022–2026 Coalition Agreement supports the prohibition of short-term rentals in high-pressure areas (Amsterdam Coalition, 2022). Since 2022, the “Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035” has marked a shift toward a sustainable model focused on high-quality visitors, emphasizing polycentric development and the decongestion of the historic center (Amsterdam City Council, 2022; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2025a). The 2025 Visitor Economy Implementation Program foresees a 50% reduction in river cruises by 2028, a cap of 100 sea cruises per year, and the relocation of the cruise terminal outside the city center by 2035. The use of technological tools for crowd management (e.g., the Crowd Monitoring System Amsterdam—CMSA) remains a key operational priority (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2025b).

The assessment of participatory processes in Amsterdam’s tourism management strategies reveals a combined approach oscillating between Dialogic Participation (Level 2) and Collaborative Participation (Level 3), while decision-making authority remains centralized within the municipal government. The regulation “Verordening op het toerisme in balans” (2021) represents Level 2 participation, relying on the biennial survey “toerisme gerelateerde leefbaarheid” that captures residents’ perceptions of disturbance, safety, and social cohesion. Although residents have limited bargaining power, their feedback serves as a signal value, triggering policy adjustments (Amsterdam City Council, 2021). At the local project level (e.g., new hotels), the mandatory acceptance measurement and consultative panels place participation firmly at Level 3, ensuring a meaningful advisory role for residents. New hotel initiatives must engage in early participation, and the MRA Expertteam evaluates the depth of engagement—from consultation to co-production—while a lack of neighborhood support can affect project approval (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2024a). Self-governed Participation (Level 4) is politically encouraged through the Coalition Agreement 2022–2026, which promotes democratic engagement, neighborhood rights, and community budgets (buurtbudgetten), though it is rarely applied directly in tourism governance (Amsterdam Coalition, 2022; GroenLinks, 2018).

Table 6. Overtourism Management in the City of Amsterdam.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased exposure through social media (Instagram, TikTok)	Significant increase in international arrivals, especially young tourists	A new spring and a new voice 2018–22 City in Balance 2018–22 Regulation on Tourism in Balance 2021 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025	Marketing: Attracting “valuable visitors” Information: Deterrent campaign: I live here, Amsterdam Rules Control: Maintaining overnight stays within the 10–20 million range Economic Measures: Tourist tax as trigger: incentive (<12 M)/restriction (>18 M)	Collaborative Participation: Co-developed campaigns with residents Collaborative Participation: Vision 2025 co-created with 100+ stakeholders Dialogical Participation: Tourism limits set by citizens’ initiative (30,000 people); policy triggered by residents’ experience
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Increased waste Traffic congestion	A new spring and a new voice 2018–22 City in Balance 2018–22 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Center Approach Implementation Program 2025 Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025 Amsterdam Climate Neutral Roadmap 2050 (2020)	Information: Behaviour cam-paign: Enjoy & Respect Control: 24 h Action Service Centre Digital visitor mon-itoring Infrastructure Im-provement: Sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Eco-renovations Zoning: Hotel Stop land use	Dialogical Participation: Feedback from resident complaints Biennial urban planning feedback by neighborhood Collaborative Participation: Resident–business cooperation via amsterdam & partners Self-governing Participation: Neighborhood Rights Neighborhood Budgets
Cruise tourism	Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Reduced accessibility Overcrowding Increased waste Traffic congestion Social discontent	Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Center Approach Implementation Program 2025	Access control: Limit sea cruises; reduce river cruises by 50% by 2028 Urban planning: Relocate terminals outside the city center	Dialogical Participation: Partnership with the cruise industry Collaborative Participation: Public input on alternative terminal locations
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacementResident displacement Social discontent	City in Balance 2018–2022 Coalition Agreements 2018/2022 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025	Economic Measures: tourist tax 30-day annual rental limit Zoning: Short-term rental tier system	Dialogical participation: Local meetings and discussions at neighborhood level

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Amsterdam City Council, 2018, 2021, 2022; Amsterdam Coalition, 2022; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b; GroenLinks, 2018).

Table 6. Overtourism Management in the City of Amsterdam.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased exposure through social media (Instagram, TikTok)	Significant increase in international arrivals, especially young tourists	A new spring and a new voice 2018–22 City in Balance 2018–22 Regulation on Tourism in Balance 2021 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025	Marketing: Attracting “valuable visitors” Information: Deterrent campaign: I live here, Amsterdam Rules Control: Maintaining overnight stays within the 10–20 million range Economic Measures: Tourist tax as trigger: incentive (<12 M)/restriction (>18 M)	Collaborative Participation: Co-developed campaigns with residents Collaborative Participation: Vision 2025 co-created with 100+ stakeholders Dialogical Participation: Tourism limits set by citizens’ initiative (30,000 people); policy triggered by residents’ experience
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Increased waste Traffic congestion	A new spring and a new voice 2018–22 City in Balance 2018–22 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Center Approach Implementation Program 2025 Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025 Amsterdam Climate Neutral Roadmap 2050 (2020)	Information: Behaviour cam-paign: Enjoy & Respect Control: 24 h Action Service Centre Digital visitor mon-itoring Infrastructure Im-provement: Sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Eco-renovations Zoning: Hotel Stop land use	Dialogical Participation: Feedback from resident complaints Biennial urban planning feedback by neighborhood Collaborative Participation: Resident–business cooperation via amsterdam & partners Self-governing Participation: Neighborhood Rights Neighborhood Budgets
Cruise tourism	Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Reduced accessibility Overcrowding Increased waste Traffic congestion Social discontent	Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 (2022) Center Approach Implementation Program 2025	Access control: Limit sea cruises; reduce river cruises by 50% by 2028 Urban planning: Relocate terminals outside the city center	Dialogical Participation: Partnership with the cruise industry Collaborative Participation: Public input on alternative terminal locations
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacementResident displacement Social discontent	City in Balance 2018–2022 Coalition Agreements 2018/2022 Vision on Tourism in Amsterdam 2035 Visitor Economy Implementation Program 2025	Economic Measures: tourist tax 30-day annual rental limit Zoning: Short-term rental tier system	Dialogical participation: Local meetings and discussions at neighborhood level

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Amsterdam City Council, 2018, 2021, 2022; Amsterdam Coalition, 2022; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b; GroenLinks, 2018).

3.3. Edinburgh (Table 7)

Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, is one of the leading tourist destinations in the United Kingdom, attracting over 4 million visitors annually thanks to its rich cultural heritage and the architecture of its UNESCO-listed Old and New Towns. International festivals such as the “Edinburgh Fringe” further enhance its global reputation (Ferguson, 2018), while the city experienced a strong post-pandemic recovery (VisitScotland, 2024).

The “Edinburgh Tourism Strategy 2020” (2012–2020) aimed to increase both the value and volume of tourism, leading to a 54% rise in international and a 29% rise in domestic visitors (ETAG, 2012; VisitScotland, 2025). However, the 2016 mid-term evaluation warned of growing visitor density in the historic core and tensions with residents, prompting the priority “Influencing Investment” to safeguard key resources and the World Heritage status (SQW, 2016). Since 2019, social pressures for stricter visitor limits have intensified due to the housing crisis and rising inequalities (Galster & Lee, 2021; Gurran & Redmond, 2021; Todd & Leask, 2024).

The “Tourism Strategy 2030” marks a shift from growth-oriented policies to managing tourism impacts and addressing climate change, focusing on social wellbeing, sustainability, and participatory governance (ETSIG, 2020). Complementary plans such as the “City Plan 2030” encourage polycentric development, while the “2030 Climate Strategy” promotes environmental sustainability in tourism (City of Edinburgh Council, 2021, 2024a, 2024b). Since 2022, the city has been designated as a short-term let control area, requiring planning permission for STRs. The “City Centre Transformation” (2019) promotes sustainable mobility, public space renewal, and improved management. From 2026, a 5% “Visitor Levy” will fund tourism impact mitigation and sustainability projects (City of Edinburgh Council, 2024b).

In terms of participation, Edinburgh follows an evolutionary approach, moving from consultation toward collaborative decision-making. The “Tourism Strategy 2030” integrates a three-phase dialogic participation process with multiple stakeholder consultations (ETSIG, 2020), while the “2030 Climate Strategy” reaches Level 3 (Collaborative Participation), emphasizing co-design, an Independent Forum, and Citizens’ Review Panels (City of Edinburgh Council, 2021). Finally, participatory budgeting financed through the “Visitor Levy” represents a form of Level 4 (Self-Governed Participation), granting citizens full decision-making power over the allocation of public resources (City of Edinburgh Council, 2024b).

Table 7. Overtourism Management in the City of Edinburgh.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased exposure through international festivals     UNESCO World Heritage Status	Significant increase in international arrivals, especially young tourists Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure Increased waste Traffic congestion Noise pollution Social discontent	Tourism Strategy 2030 CCT 2019 Edinburgh Climate Strategy 2030	Access Control: Visitor management Economic Measures: Tourist tax 5% (2026) Protection of local businesses Infrastructure Improvement: Enhancement of public transport Noise reduction initiatives Sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical Participation: Consultations with citizens, local businesses, and stakeholders Collaborative participation: Collaboration with artists, cultural organizations Co-design of the 2030 Climate Strategy Independent Forum Citizens’ Committees Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent	Tourism Strategy 2030 Promotion of Sustainable Tourism	Economic Measures: Tourist tax 5% (2026) Support for long-term housing Zoning: short-term lease control. land use control	Dialogical Participation: Public consultations Feedback from local communities and grassroots collectives

Own elaboration based on the sources: (City of Edinburgh Council, 2021, 2024b, 2024a; ETAG, 2012; ETSIG, 2020; SQW, 2016).

Table 7. Overtourism Management in the City of Edinburgh.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased exposure through international festivals     UNESCO World Heritage Status	Significant increase in international arrivals, especially young tourists Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure Increased waste Traffic congestion Noise pollution Social discontent	Tourism Strategy 2030 CCT 2019 Edinburgh Climate Strategy 2030	Access Control: Visitor management Economic Measures: Tourist tax 5% (2026) Protection of local businesses Infrastructure Improvement: Enhancement of public transport Noise reduction initiatives Sustainable mobility Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical Participation: Consultations with citizens, local businesses, and stakeholders Collaborative participation: Collaboration with artists, cultural organizations Co-design of the 2030 Climate Strategy Independent Forum Citizens’ Committees Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent	Tourism Strategy 2030 Promotion of Sustainable Tourism	Economic Measures: Tourist tax 5% (2026) Support for long-term housing Zoning: short-term lease control. land use control	Dialogical Participation: Public consultations Feedback from local communities and grassroots collectives

Own elaboration based on the sources: (City of Edinburgh Council, 2021, 2024b, 2024a; ETAG, 2012; ETSIG, 2020; SQW, 2016).

3.4. Lisbon (Table 8)

The Municipality of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, recorded a compound annual tourism growth rate of +7.2% between 2009 and 2013, with overnight stays reaching 8.1 million in 2013 (ATL & ERT-RL, 2015) and rising to 15.8 million in 2024 (INE, 2025), Lisbon’s tourism expansion is largely attributed to the increase in air connectivity, particularly through low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet (Eurocontrol, 2024), and by Lisbon’s emergence as a major Mediterranean cruise port, handling 300,000–400,000 passengers annually (Cruise Lines International Association, 2023). Targeted marketing in markets such as the United States and the promotion of cultural assets—including gastronomy, fado music, and historic neighborhoods—have further enhanced the city’s appeal (Boager & Castro, 2022).

In 2022, tourism spending in Lisbon reached EUR 8.83 billion, marking a 30% increase compared to 2019 (OECD, 2022; Turismo de Portugal, 2025). Yet this rapid growth triggered a surge in short-term rentals (STRs), rent inflation, and resident displacement from traditional neighborhoods such as Alfama, Chiado, and Bairro Alto, deepening social inequalities and eroding local identity (Alves et al., 2023; Barata Salgueiro et al., 2017; Cruz, 2016; da Silva Lopes et al., 2021). The overconcentration of visitors has also intensified resource consumption, CO₂ emissions, and waste management pressures, deteriorating urban ecosystems and quality of life (Gössling et al., 2020; Remoaldo et al., 2023). Following social protests, the Lisbon City Council officially recognized overtourism symptoms (Vidal et al., 2023).

The Lisbon Regional Strategic Tourism Plan 2015–2019, while primarily oriented toward economic growth and diversification of tourism products (ATL & ERT-RL, 2015), introduced initial regulatory measures—notably the tourist tax and controls on STRs. The Municipal Regulation (2019) banned new STR registrations in high-demand zones (where STRs exceeded 20% of dwellings) and strengthened inspections and penalties (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 2019). These actions reduced STRs by 12%, stabilized rents, and slowed resident displacement (Almeida et al., 2021; Cruz, 2016; Lisboa Tourism Observatory, 2023). Despite growing debates around overtourism, cruise tourism continues to be explicitly framed within Lisbon’s strategic plans as a priority product and a key area for infrastructure investment and economic growth, rather than as an activity requiring regulatory restriction or visitor limits. The Strategic Tourism Plan 2020–2024 shifted toward polycentric and thematic development, creating 12 tourism clusters with distinct identities (Entidade Regional de Turismo da Região de Lisboa, 2020). These frameworks were developed through broad dialogic participation, engaging multiple public and private actors, and implemented via collaborative governance mechanisms such as local councils and joint management protocols for high-pressure areas (Branco et al., 2024). Recent strategies align tourism with broader sustainability and social cohesion goals. Urban mobility policies integrate with EU sustainability agendas, focusing on infrastructure improvement and urban livability (European Commission, 2019). The Local Action Plan of Lisbon (LAP_Lisbon) aims to mitigate investor pressure and strengthen community resilience through a co-governance model involving local stakeholders and direct citizen participation in urban regeneration and heritage management (Brito & Franco, 2019). Post-pandemic, Lisbon has expanded co-governance frameworks for managing mass tourism. The BIP/ZIP program fosters community self-organization and partnerships across 67 vulnerable neighborhoods, supported by GABIP local offices (Brito & Franco, 2019). Meanwhile, the Participatory Budgeting, rebranded in 2019 as “Green PB”, represents a model of self-governed participation, granting citizens full control over project selection (Falanga et al., 2021).

Tourism governance is led by Turismo de Lisboa (ATL) and the Lisbon Tourism Observatory, a citizen science project that systematically monitors tourism’s urban impacts and public perceptions (Vidal et al., 2023). Overall, Lisbon has evolved from limited stakeholder consultation (2015–2019) to co-governance frameworks (GABIP/CHL) and direct democracy tools (Green PB), empowering citizens as co-creators of local development. However, participation remains largely collaborative rather than fully self-governed (Franz & Knorringa, 2020; Peeters et al., 2018), which may constrain policy effectiveness and sustain local discontent in heavily touristic districts (Barata Salgueiro et al., 2017; Torkington & Ribeiro, 2022).

Table 8. Overtourism Management in the city of Lisbon.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Traffic congestion Social discontent	Lisbon Regional Tourism Strategic Plans 2015–19 & 2020–24 Strategic Tourism Plan 2015–2019 Urban mobility policies LAP_Lisbon	Economic Measures: Tourist tax Information: Information provision Promotion of cultural identity Development of new activities and alternative tourism forms Infrastructure Improvement: Development of bike lanes Urban planning: Urban regeneration and heritage management	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings Participatory Workshop and Focus Groups Collaborative and Self-governing Participation: BIP/ZIP program GABIP local offices Green PB
Cruise tourism	Traffic congestion Noise pollution Overcrowding Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure.	Strategic Tourism Plans 2015–19 & 2020–2024	Marketing: Marketing of identity elements Development of new poles: 12 tourism hubs with thematic diversification Infrastructure Improvement: New Cruise Terminal	Functional & Dialogical Participation: Public hearings Local surveys via Tourism Observatory Limited influence on final decisions
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent Widening social inequalitiesζη	Lisbon Regional Tourism Strategic Plan 2015–2019 Tourism Strategic Plans 2015–19 & 2020–24 Municipal Regulation (2019) LAP_Lisbon BIP/ZIP program	Economic Measures: Fines and inspections Rent stabilization Zoning: With graded restrictions	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings and surveys BIP/ZIP program GABIP local offices

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 2019; Entidade Regional de Turismo da Região de Lisboa, 2020; Lisboa Tourism Observatory, 2023; Cruise Lines International Association, 2023; Roadgenius, 2024; Eurocontrol, 2024; OECD, 2022; European Commission, 2019; Alves et al., 2023; Branco et al., 2024).

Table 8. Overtourism Management in the city of Lisbon.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity Traffic congestion Social discontent	Lisbon Regional Tourism Strategic Plans 2015–19 & 2020–24 Strategic Tourism Plan 2015–2019 Urban mobility policies LAP_Lisbon	Economic Measures: Tourist tax Information: Information provision Promotion of cultural identity Development of new activities and alternative tourism forms Infrastructure Improvement: Development of bike lanes Urban planning: Urban regeneration and heritage management	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings Participatory Workshop and Focus Groups Collaborative and Self-governing Participation: BIP/ZIP program GABIP local offices Green PB
Cruise tourism	Traffic congestion Noise pollution Overcrowding Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure.	Strategic Tourism Plans 2015–19 & 2020–2024	Marketing: Marketing of identity elements Development of new poles: 12 tourism hubs with thematic diversification Infrastructure Improvement: New Cruise Terminal	Functional & Dialogical Participation: Public hearings Local surveys via Tourism Observatory Limited influence on final decisions
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent Widening social inequalitiesζη	Lisbon Regional Tourism Strategic Plan 2015–2019 Tourism Strategic Plans 2015–19 & 2020–24 Municipal Regulation (2019) LAP_Lisbon BIP/ZIP program	Economic Measures: Fines and inspections Rent stabilization Zoning: With graded restrictions	Dialogical and Collaborative Participation: Public hearings and surveys BIP/ZIP program GABIP local offices

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 2019; Entidade Regional de Turismo da Região de Lisboa, 2020; Lisboa Tourism Observatory, 2023; Cruise Lines International Association, 2023; Roadgenius, 2024; Eurocontrol, 2024; OECD, 2022; European Commission, 2019; Alves et al., 2023; Branco et al., 2024).

3.5. Copenhagen (Table 9)

Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, has become one of Europe’s top urban destinations over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2024, overnight stays rose from 11.3 million to 15.1 million (Danmarks Statistik, 2025; Wonderful Copenhagen, 2025). Tourism revenues reached DKK 57.2 billion (€ EUR 7.6 billion) in 2024, making a significant contribution to the city’s GDP (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2025). Growth has been fueled by improved air connectivity, the spread of short-term rentals, and strategic branding of Copenhagen as a sustainable and innovative destination, supported by its title of European Green Capital 2014 (City of Copenhagen, n.d.; GDS-Movement, 2023; Interiordaily, 2024; Wonderful Copenhagen, 2024). Cruise tourism has also expanded, with 818,000 cruise passengers in 2024 (Copenhagen Malmö Port, 2025).

However, rising visitor numbers have created pressure on central attractions such as Nyhavn and Tivoli Gardens, straining infrastructure and mobility, and affecting residents’ quality of life. Cruise tourism has been linked to environmental impacts, with NO_x emissions increasing by up to 86% in certain areas (Lansø et al., 2023; Murena et al., 2018). Housing prices have also risen (Giannoulatou, 2013), while concerns grow over touristification and erosion of cultural identity (Korstanje, 2024).

The “Tourism for Good” strategy (2018–2021) was launched during a period of growing concern in Europe over overtourism, aiming to make tourism regenerative and a force for positive change (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2022). In 2020, the Wonderful Copenhagen (WOCO) destination management organization introduced the concept of “Localhood” through its strategy “The End of Tourism as We Know It.” The focus was on achieving a balance between visitors and residents by implementing preventive measures to ensure high levels of social acceptance of tourism (above 80%) and to disperse visitor flows spatially and temporally (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2020). The latest strategy, “Copenhagen, All Inclusive” (2024–2030), strengthens active tourism management and promotes collaborative solutions where tourism creates “friction points” or “bad encounters” between locals and visitors. Through targeted marketing campaigns, it emphasizes off-season tourism growth and partnerships with cruise companies to minimize disruptions for residents (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2024). Finally, the 2021–2025 Roadmap for the Copenhagen Climate Plan (CPH 2025), adopted by the City of Copenhagen, includes concrete actions for the green transition of the cruise sector and the advancement of sustainable urban mobility (City of Copenhagen, 2025).

In summary, Copenhagen’s goal is not to attract fewer visitors, but to encourage a broader spatial and temporal distribution across the destination (Wonderful Copenhagen, 2022). The city’s strategies aim to balance tourism flows and revenues through “soft” management tools such as targeted marketing and communication, collaboration with urban planners to develop new peripheral tourism hubs, and the promotion of sustainable mobility and wider use of digital visitor cards (City of Copenhagen, 2025).

Table 9. Overtourism Management in the City of Copenhagen.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased promotion as a sustainable and innovative destination	Significant increase in arrivals	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30 CPH 2025	Marketing: Attracting specific markets Information: Promotion of sustainable mobility Infrastructure improvement: Strengthening green infrastructure	Dialogical participation: Campaigns and local surveys for social acceptance CPH 2025 Collaborative participation: Copenhagen Legacy Lab Copenhagen Compass
Cruise tourism	Overcrowding Traffic congestion Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure. Noise pollution	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30 CPH 2025	Marketing: Attracting specific markets Infrastructure improvement: Creation of tourist hubs Development of soft/alternative tourism forms Improvement of infrastructure in lesser-known areas	Collaborative participation: Workshops Public consultations Management committees Copenhagen Compass
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Degradation of social cohesion	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30	Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical participation: Public hearings and surveys on short-term rentals Copenhagen Compass

Own elaboration based on the sources: (City of Copenhagen, n.d., 2024, 2025; Wonderful Copenhagen, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2025).

Table 9. Overtourism Management in the City of Copenhagen.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Increased promotion as a sustainable and innovative destination	Significant increase in arrivals	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30 CPH 2025	Marketing: Attracting specific markets Information: Promotion of sustainable mobility Infrastructure improvement: Strengthening green infrastructure	Dialogical participation: Campaigns and local surveys for social acceptance CPH 2025 Collaborative participation: Copenhagen Legacy Lab Copenhagen Compass
Cruise tourism	Overcrowding Traffic congestion Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure. Noise pollution	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30 CPH 2025	Marketing: Attracting specific markets Infrastructure improvement: Creation of tourist hubs Development of soft/alternative tourism forms Improvement of infrastructure in lesser-known areas	Collaborative participation: Workshops Public consultations Management committees Copenhagen Compass
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Degradation of social cohesion	Tourism for Good 2018–2021–2025 Copenhagen, All Inclusive 2024–30	Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions	Dialogical participation: Public hearings and surveys on short-term rentals Copenhagen Compass

Own elaboration based on the sources: (City of Copenhagen, n.d., 2024, 2025; Wonderful Copenhagen, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2025).

3.6. Barcelona (Table 10)

Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia, represents a successful case of urban tourism management with a long tradition in local planning and governance. Following the transformative impact of the 1992 Olympic Games, the city shifted from a declining industrial port to a major urban destination. Visitor numbers rose from 1.7 million in 1990 to 7.44 million in 2012, marking a significant post-Olympic boom (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2013). Growth continued, reaching a record 26 million visitors in the wider metropolitan area in 2023, including 15.6 million overnight stays within the city, generating over EUR 12.75 billion in economic impact (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2024a; Observatori del Turisme a Barcelona, 2024). The Games catalyzed coastal redevelopment and transport modernization, boosting global attractiveness (Milano et al., 2022). From 2013, the rapid growth in short-term rentals and low-cost airlines consolidated Barcelona’s city-break tourism (Karachalis & Sarantakou, 2023).

Yet success brought rising socio-economic and environmental costs. More than 60% of tourist flows concentrate in areas such as La Rambla, the Sagrada Familia, and the Gothic Quarter, displaying clear symptoms of overtourism since 2015 (Peeters et al., 2018). Short-term rentals drove rental prices up by 25% between 2013–2017, transforming housing into tourist accommodation and accelerating gentrification of the historic center (Blanco-Romero et al., 2018; Peeters et al., 2018; Ramos & Mundet, 2021). Growing discontent culminated in 2017 when Spanish media popularized the term “tourismophobia” to describe anti-tourism protests (Ramos & Mundet, 2021).

Municipal monitoring confirms this discontent: by 2023, 23% of residents considered tourism harmful, rising to 28.2% in high-pressure zones (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2024b). In response, municipality has been implementing the Strategic Tourism Plan 2020 (PET20), focusing on regulating tourism, consensus-building and sustainable tourism management. The plan included 5 areas (governance, tourism management, urban planning, employment and business, and marketing), 10 strategic programs, and 100 actions (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017c). A key regulatory tool was the Special Urban Plan for Tourist Accommodation (PEUAT), dividing the city into four zones with differentiated restrictions on accommodation growth, aiming to decongest saturated districts and redistribute tourism (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017b).

Since 2018, Barcelona has been working to be totally in line with the 2030 Agenda, making sure it is sustainable, safe, and has a high-quality tourism product. The Barcelona Destination Tourism Sustainability Plan (PSTDB), approved in 2022, focuses on ecological transition, digital integration, energy efficiency, territorial decentralization, and competitiveness. A key objective of the plan is to maintain the ratio of tourist accommodation to permanent residents at 8.5% or lower by 2030 (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2025). The 2024–2027 Tourism Management Operational Framework implements the objectives of the PSTDB. It actively promotes the “Biosphere Commitment,” with more than 1100 businesses certified with the Biosphere label for adopting sustainable practices. In addition, digital platforms such as the Urban Big Data Platform and the Smart Tourism Observatory enable real-time monitoring of visitor flows and support evidence-based decision-making in destination management. Finally, it imposes additional regulations and taxes on cruises (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2024d, 2024c).

The social legitimacy of tourism policies has long been a priority for Barcelona. Since 2012, Catalonia has reinvested tourist tax revenues in housing, infrastructure, culture, and sustainability (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017a). In Barcelona, these funds are managed by local entities through differentiated rates and socially equitable mechanisms, while the PSTDB establishes a dedicated fund (Fons ReCiutaT) to channel benefits back to city residents (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2024c). The PET20 and PSTDB strategies incorporate Level 3 Collaborative Participation, emphasizing two-way communication and co-design processes that actively involve residents and stakeholders in shaping tourism policies. The Consell de Turisme i Ciutat (CTiC) stands as a model of participatory governance, ensuring representation across all affected sectors, while the Crowded Spaces Working Groups (CS Work Groups) reinforce decentralized and cooperative management in the city’s most impacted areas.

Table 10. Overtourism Management in the City of Barcelona.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022)	Access Control: Vehicle traffic restrictions Infrastructure improvement: Smart parking smart recycling bins Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Identification and Management of 15 Areas of High Attendance (EGA)	Dialogical participation: Decidim.barcelona platform Collaborative Participation: Consell de Turisme i Ciutat (CTiC) Public consultations and hearings Resident and local stakeholder briefings Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting
Cruise tourism	Overcrowding Traffic congestion Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure Noise pollution Social discontent	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022) 2024–2027 Tourism Management Framework	Access Control: Digital monitoring of flows Traffic restrictions in central zones Economic measures: Tourist tax	Collaborative Participation: Institutional consultations (Port) and accountability to citizen bodies (CTiC) Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent Tourismphobia Widening social inequalities	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022) PEUAT (2017)	Economic measures: Tourist tax Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Areas with restrictions	Self-governing Participation: Collaborative Participation: Consell de Turisme i Ciutat (CTiC) Public consultations and hearings Resident and local stakeholder briefings Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community (Fons ReCiutaT) CS Work Groups

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017b, 2017c, 2024c, 2024d, 2025).

Table 10. Overtourism Management in the City of Barcelona.

Conditions	Overtourism Symptoms	Strategic Framework	Actions	Participatory Processes
Low-cost flights and increased air connectivity	Significant increase in international arrivals Exceeding environmental and infrastructure carrying capacity	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022)	Access Control: Vehicle traffic restrictions Infrastructure improvement: Smart parking smart recycling bins Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Identification and Management of 15 Areas of High Attendance (EGA)	Dialogical participation: Decidim.barcelona platform Collaborative Participation: Consell de Turisme i Ciutat (CTiC) Public consultations and hearings Resident and local stakeholder briefings Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community Self-governing Participation: Participatory budgeting
Cruise tourism	Overcrowding Traffic congestion Pressure on public spaces and infrastructure Noise pollution Social discontent	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022) 2024–2027 Tourism Management Framework	Access Control: Digital monitoring of flows Traffic restrictions in central zones Economic measures: Tourist tax	Collaborative Participation: Institutional consultations (Port) and accountability to citizen bodies (CTiC) Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community
Short-term rentals	Rising rents Resident displacement Social discontent Tourismphobia Widening social inequalities	PET20 (2017) PSTDB (2022) PEUAT (2017)	Economic measures: Tourist tax Urban planning: Polycentric urban development with new attractions Zoning: Areas with restrictions	Self-governing Participation: Collaborative Participation: Consell de Turisme i Ciutat (CTiC) Public consultations and hearings Resident and local stakeholder briefings Reinvestment of tourist tax in the local community (Fons ReCiutaT) CS Work Groups

Own elaboration based on the sources: (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2017b, 2017c, 2024c, 2024d, 2025).

4. Conclusions and Discussion

The methodology for selecting the case studies, based on both critical and non-critical criteria (high tourism intensity, European dimension, existence of strategic planning for overtourism, participatory processes, destination management organizations and observatories), ensured common grounds and made the six cities comparable.

This research confirms that overtourism is a multifactorial and tangible phenomenon that manifests differently across European urban destinations. However, in the international literature, the term often exhibits interpretative ambiguity and relies on fragmented data. The simultaneous and sustained occurrence of all related symptoms (spatial, social, environmental, and economic) is rarely empirically documented. Moreover, the conceptual confusion between conditions and symptoms frequently leads to policies that focus more on managing the manifestations of the problem rather than addressing its underlying causes.

4.1. RQ1—Conditions and Symptoms

The findings indicate that the underlying conditions generating overtourism are largely common across the six destinations: inadequate spatial planning, strong dependence on low-cost air transport, uncontrolled expansion of short-term rentals, the growth in cruise tourism, and the concentration of cultural heritage sites—often amplified by promotion through social media. However, the intensity and origin of the problem vary. In all cases, tourism development was a deliberate policy objective, stemming from previous promotional strategies. Even destinations that initially adopted a “sustainable profile” (such as Copenhagen) were not immune to the symptoms of overtourism.

The symptoms differ in degree but follow similar patterns: housing crises (Barcelona, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Lisbon), environmental pressures (Dubrovnik, Copenhagen), and social discontent or tourism-phobia (Barcelona). This convergence suggests that overtourism is not merely a quantitative phenomenon, but rather a structural outcome of the institutional and spatial organization of tourism.

4.2. RQ2 & RQ3—Strategies and Approaches

The comparative analysis revealed three main strategic orientations:

• Integrated Regulatory Planning (Barcelona, Amsterdam)—characterized by strong regulatory measures (visitor caps, zoning restrictions, limits on new accommodations) and a high degree of participation.
• Heritage and Access Management (Dubrovnik, Lisbon)—focusing on congestion control in sensitive areas, cruise ship limitations, and access management to historic cores.
• Sustainable Management and Spatial Dispersion (Copenhagen, Edinburgh)—emphasizing soft measures, targeted marketing, and “value over volume” policies.

Despite their differences, most policies—particularly those implemented before the pandemic—remain reactive, addressing the symptoms rather than the structural causes of overtourism. This confirms a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and policy implementation. The most effective strategies are those that combine regulatory instruments, economic disincentives, and participatory consensus-building mechanisms.

4.3. RQ4—Levels of Participatory Governance

Participation emerges as a critical determinant of both policy success and legitimacy. Cities with institutionalized forms of collaborative or self-managed participation (Barcelona, Copenhagen) achieve higher levels of social acceptance and adaptability, whereas those limited to functional or dialogic participation (Amsterdam, Lisbon) remain largely consultative. Participatory governance functions as a mechanism for social redistribution—a notable example being the reinvestment of tourism tax revenues into local communities in Barcelona.

The central finding is that the degree of participation correlates directly with the scope and nature of implemented measures:

• Functional/Dialogic Participation (Levels 1–2): Primarily used for data collection and policy communication without substantial influence on decision-making (e.g., Amsterdam, Lisbon).
• Collaborative Participation (Level 3): Involves co-design and institutionalized policy-making processes, as seen in initiatives such as Vision 2025 and local PUP/APPG plans.
• Autonomous/Self-managed Participation (Level 4): Empowers communities through participatory budgeting, fostering institutional trust and social responsibility (Copenhagen, Barcelona).

4.4. RQ5—The Post-Pandemic Period

In the post-pandemic era, urban tourism planning appears more mature and integrated, shifting the focus from managing overtourism symptoms to embedding “desirable” tourism within the broader framework of sustainable urban development. Cities now adopt proactive approaches, where tourism is aligned with policies for resilience, housing, environmental protection, and social cohesion, in accordance with UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 on sustainable cities.

This period is characterized by the institutionalization of accountability and social reinvestment mechanisms (e.g., tourism taxes in Barcelona and Edinburgh), the enhancement of monitoring and evaluation systems (Amsterdam Tourism Monitor, Lisbon Tourism Observatory), and the redefinition of innovation, not as a tool of destination promotion, but as a governance mechanism for adaptive policy management.

The principal contribution of this study lies in the systematic linkage between overtourism management strategies and their embedded levels of participatory governance. It underscores that participatory governance should be regarded not merely as an instrument for legitimizing decisions but as a fundamental prerequisite for achieving long-term sustainability, adaptability, and institutional resilience in tourism policy. The study further shows that different degrees of participation correspond to distinct policy orientations—ranging from reactive, regulation-driven measures to more integrated and collaborative approaches. This conceptual framework provides a transferable reference for urban destinations seeking to align participatory governance structures with sustainable tourism management objectives.

The study acknowledges some limitations, as it relies mainly on secondary data sources (strategic documents, academic publications, and institutional reports). Nevertheless, this methodological approach enabled a cross-case comparative assessment across diverse social and institutional contexts. Future research could extend this work by analyzing evaluation reports of existing strategies, focusing on their effectiveness and long-term resilience in achieving the objectives of sustainable and participatory urban governance.