Barcelona Metropolis

The paradox is this: the more people oppose tourism, the more tourists there are. And this contradiction is only set to intensify in the future, as opposition to tourism grows while tourist numbers continue to rise. Let’s face it: tourism only became an urgent issue when major cities turned into tourist destinations.

For 50 years, tourism has largely centred on peripheral areas such as beaches, exotic cities and nearby mountains, with overtourism sparking little social reaction. It was only when tourism began to spread into the metropolitan areas of major countries that it entered academic debates, specialist journals, café conversations and even graffiti-covered walls in the streets.

The new landscape of tourism-related tensions has spread across the globe: Amsterdam, Dubrovnik, Porto, Málaga, New York, Kyoto, Seville, Paris, Barcelona and Venice. The “tourism issue” has now made its way onto the agendas of major cities, with most currently devising strategies to mitigate its impact.

This is an urgent debate, as all projections point to a strong surge – a second wave that will particularly affect global cities. The World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO)[1] forecasts that by 2030, international tourist numbers could reach 1.8 billion, while domestic trips (those within borders) are expected to double, rising from the current 8 billion to 15 billion. By 2030, there will be an average of two tourist trips per person per year, though this figure can be misleading: some people will travel multiple times, while many others may not leave their usual surroundings at all. It is, however, important to recognise that the immediate scenario suggests intense tourism pressure on global cities.

This rise in tourism is driven by two combined factors working simultaneously. In developed economies, leisure time has been expanding year by year. Studies on time use show that free time has now surpassed working hours in most Western societies, not only because we work fewer hours but also because people are joining the workforce later and retiring earlier. Furthermore, people are spending less time on unpaid, obligatory tasks, as chores like cleaning, caregiving or cooking are often outsourced or reduced. Since tourism is a form of leisure, this increase in free time is likely to lead to growing demand to spend part of it on travel, driven by a wide variety of motivations.

The second reason is the expansion of the middle class in many emerging economies, where travel has been added to the list of new social milestones. A study by Airbus estimated that this middle class will grow from 3.8 billion to nearly 5 billion by 2030, reaching 5.8 billion by 2040. While vast areas of poverty and hardship will persist in Africa, the Americas and Asia, what we might call the middle class – albeit loosely defined – is set to become the dominant class within a few years, eager for its share of travel: the tangible dream of exploring new horizons. This is why aviation organisations forecast exponential growth, despite concerns about emissions. If passenger numbers has returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2024, estimates suggest that they will double by 2042 and increase 2.5 times by 2052.

While cities are debating limits on tourism and even the possibility of reducing its flow, a second post-pandemic wave will put tourist cities’ response capacity to the test. What are the elements of this containment strategy? What approaches are overcrowded urban destinations experimenting with? Despite their variety, we can group these approaches into containment strategies, diversification strategies, selection strategies and reduction strategies.

Containment measures

The most immediate, intuitive response to the pressure of tourism is containment, that is, limiting growth. But how do we restrict the presence of visitors in an open space with permeable borders, and, in the case of the European Union, one that is based on the right to free movement? Most cities opt to limit the growth of accommodation options, much like a stopped watch after a murder. Rather than being the result of a reflection on the city’s limits (how many tourists are too many?), this pragmatic approach halts the opening of new establishments. This is the case in Barcelona, where the Special Tourist Accommodation Plan (PEUAT) prohibits the opening of new establishments in most of the city, setting out a scenario of gradual reduction in supply. Earlier, in 2017, Venice had already approved a plan that stopped the growth of accommodation options in the city centre.

However, most strategies focus on limiting certain types of accommodation, such as hostels, student residences, and, most notably, tourist rental properties. The reference model has been New York’s Local Law 18, which banned this type of accommodation for stays shorter than 30 days, effectively eliminating short-term tourist rentals. Amsterdam has also imposed a 30-day limit, while in Paris, tourist stays are capped at a maximum of 120 days. In Berlin, it is required that residents live in tourist accommodation properties to ensure visitors do not displace the local population. In Barcelona, the mayor has proposed eliminating the 10,000 tourist rental properties in the city within four years, while the Generalitat Government of Catalonia’s Decree Law 3/2023 sets limits on this type of accommodation in oversaturated areas.

The main problem with the containment strategy is the creation of new accommodation options in peripheral areas. If Madrid’s tourist website lists Seville as a nearby destination and London’s includes Paris, where exactly do the boundaries of a tourist city lie? This is why New York’s strategy faced the creation of new accommodation offerings in neighbouring New Jersey, particularly in well-connected areas such as Jersey City, Hoboken or Weehawken. Venice also faces daily influxes from the Lido, where establishments that cannot be located in the city centre due to containment measures have been set up. As a result, the city has introduced an entry fee that applies to both short stays and overnight stays.

In the case of Barcelona, tourism is also becoming a metropolitan issue. We may not fully appreciate the importance of the surrounding areas within the Catalan tourism system: El Prat de Llobregat generates more revenue than Palamós or L’Ametlla de Mar, and Sant Boi de Llobregat brings in more than Sant Carles de la Ràpita or Llançà. For this reason, all containment measures must consider a metropolitan dimension; otherwise, the problem will simply shift to a new geographical area.

Measures aimed at limiting access are less common, likely due to their significant negative impact on the economic life of global cities. Most of the access restrictions in major cities are justified on environmental and decarbonisation grounds, rather than with the goal of reducing the number of visitors. In fact, the majority of tourist arrivals in large cities – particularly in Barcelona – are by air, meaning the most effective containment strategy would be to limit air traffic and reduce flight slots. However, the international trend has been the opposite, with the possible exceptions of Heathrow in London and Schiphol in Amsterdam.

The shockwave

The second strategy involves more carefully spreading tourists across time and space. Tourist cities, in reality, face minimal seasonality; instead, the primary issue is the extreme concentration of activity in areas with the highest density of tourist attractions and accommodation. Nonetheless, redirecting tourist flows is not straightforward, as they have been shaped by time and historical significance. Moreover, new decongestion zones can sometimes become overcrowded themselves if they aren’t equipped to handle the surge in visitors, as residents of El Carmel in Barcelona have come to know.

Selection also involves tackling specific segments that evidently disrupt city life and increase tensions. Amsterdam’s “Stay Away” strategy is a campaign launched in 2023 by municipal authorities to discourage uncivil behaviour among tourists, especially targeting young British men aged 18 to 35. The campaign uses online ads that appear when people search terms like “stag party in Amsterdam” or “pubs in Amsterdam”, warning of the consequences of alcohol and drug abuse, including fines, criminal records and hospitalisation. Other measures include banning cannabis smoking on the streets of the Red Light District, restricting alcohol sales and proposing to relocate brothels to designated areas outside the historic centre.

These strategies align with the early examples of tourism “demarketing” – that is, they aim to reduce promotion, adopt a selective approach, or even, as we have seen, launch campaigns to deter certain groups. Whereas large urban agencies once focused primarily on attracting new visitors, capturing new segments, and ultimately pursuing continuous demand growth, the current context calls for strategies that, in some cases, seem to promote a kind of invisibility. Many cities have abandoned their usual promotional campaigns and traditional advertising spaces, shifting instead to more selective approaches targeted at specific groups and designed for maximum discretion in broader markets.

Reducing outbound tourism

With a second wave of tourists on the horizon, global cities and major Western destinations are developing a shared set of strategies: reducing accommodation availability, capping visitor numbers, regulating cruise ships, preventing the spatial concentration of tourists, or targeting specific visitor segments, sometimes even restricting certain urban areas or testing demarketing strategies. Yet all these actions simply shift the problem, as rising demand will seek alternatives if access to a particular city or region is limited. Could this be described as NIMBY? “Not in my backyard” refers to actions that prevent an activity in a nearby space, only to push it to another “backyard”. For instance, during the peak tourist season in Barcelona in August, there are three times as many residents of Barcelona travelling as there are tourists visiting the city. If tourism is indeed a problem, why do we ourselves take part in it?

Therefore, on the agenda of urgent issues, we cannot simply focus on reducing the number of visitors to global tourist cities. We must open a broader debate on strategies to reduce outbound tourism, particularly in a context, as we have seen, of increasing free time. What we need first is a global discussion, rather than a local one, about the limits of tourism and responsible tourism – aimed at moderating travel – and, above all, developing new practices that impact transport methods, destination choices, tourist behaviour and compensation mechanisms.

However, beyond control and redistribution measures, cities need to rethink themselves as truly liveable spaces that are also attractive to residents. This means developing a network of community and leisure hubs that reduce the need to leave the city to find recreational or cultural activities. Projects like La Villette in Paris, the redevelopment of the banks of the Seine, Madrid Río, Federation Square in Melbourne, the transformation of Cheonggyecheon and Itaewon in Seoul into green corridors cutting across the city, Refshaleøen in Copenhagen, and Jean-Drapeau Park in Montreal are examples of initiatives that are reconfiguring metropolitan cities as liveable spaces that no longer spark the urge to escape. Perhaps this is the most compelling tourism strategy: to rebuild global cities and metropolitan spaces as human-scale, re-naturalised, dynamic environments. The most effective tourism strategy for the future may well be non-tourism.