Content uploaded by Jan Henrik Nilsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Henrik Nilsson on Nov 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jan Henrik Nilsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Henrik Nilsson on Apr 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conceptualizing and contextualizing
overtourism: the dynamics of accelerating
urban tourism
Jan Henrik Nilsson
Abstract
Purpose –From the background of the dramatic increase of urban tourism, framed by the concept of
overtourism, the purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss current dynamic processes of urban
tourism growth, as presented in the scientific literature. With the help of a literature review, this paper aims
to discuss current definitions and conceptualizations of overtourism anddiscuss the drivingforces for the
growth of urban tourism, thereby situating overtourism in relational to general structural change.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper builds on a non-exhaustive review of the scientific
literature about overtourism and related topics, supplemented by a review of a few central policy
documents.
Findings –Conceptually, overtourism relates to two different, but related, perspectives. The first one
concern (negative) experiences of resident population and visitors, whereas the second relates to
thresholds for the carrying capacity of destinations. Most of the reviewed literature focuses on three
aspects of overtourism: localized problems in inner cities, the supply of unregulated accommodation
through Airbnb and Airbnbs as a driving force of gentrification. Important perspectives are missing from
the literature, mainly related to the development of driving forces of urban tourism growth in time and
space. This observation is the starting point for a discussion on driving forces in an evolutionary
perspective with the ambition of relating the growth of urban tourism to long waves of structural
development.
Research limitations/implications –The paper focuses on overtourism in urban contexts, rural tourism
is not discussed.
Practical implications –In identifying the importance of driving forces for understanding the dynamics
of urban tourism growth, a holistic view on managing mitigation might be possible.
Originality/value –The paper adds anevolutionary perspective to the discussion about overtourismand
its causes. Thereby, it answers to a need to take tourism seriously in social science, as a major economic,
social and ecologic force. In emphasizing the relationship between driving forces on different geographic
scales and levels, power relations are highlighted. The paper discusses the role of driving forces for
mitigating overtourism. An understanding of the dynamics of driving forces is essential for the
development of urban sustainable tourism.
Keywords Urban tourism, Overtourism, Driving forces of urban tourism growth, Tourism geography,
Tourism innovation
Paper type Viewpoint
1. Introduction
The phenomenon we call overtourism has recently gained tremendous interest in the tourist
industry, in media and in the academic literature. For example, during the international
travel trade fair ITB Berlin, 2019, overtourism was one of the main topics discussed during
the convention. Although the debates generally had a managerial approach, it was
highlighted as a critical issue for many destinations. Overtourism was seen as a threat to the
tourist experience and thereby to the reputation of the destination itself (ITB Berlin, 2019;
Jan Henrik Nilsson is based
at Department of Service
Management and Service
Studies, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden.
Received 4 August 2019
Revised 21 October 2019
29 October 2019
8 January 2020
13 January 2020
Accepted 23 January 2020
©International Tourism Studies
Association.
Funding: The research behind
this publication was funded by
Formas, the Swedish research
council for sustainable
development, project
2018-02238.
DOI 10.1108/IJTC-08-2019-0117 Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-5607 jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
author’s observations). The situations described in terms of overtourism are connected to a
rapid increase in international flows of tourists, particularly the last 20 years (Worldbank,
2019;UNWTO, 2019). For example, in Europe (EU 28) the number of over-night stays
increased by 27 per cent between 2004 and 2017. Urban tourism has grown faster than
other forms of tourism (Nilsson, 2018b). In a sample of 12 major cities growth rates were on
average 43 per cent, with large differences between the cities (Eurostat, 2019). These
numbers probably underestimate real growth in city tourism. It neither includes day-trippers
and visitors from cruise ships nor people staying at un-regulated, mainly peer-to-peer,
accommodation. These actors have significantly increased the supply of beds for tourists
the last 10 years (Airbnb, 2019;Ioannides et al.,2018;Oskam, 2019). The relation between
platform economies (Srnicek, 2017) in particular Airbnb and tourism-related urban
problems lies at the heart of the debate about overtourism.
Shortly before the ITB took place, two reports on overtourism were published by UNWTO
and the European parliament, respectively (Peeters et al.,2018;UNWTO, 2018).
Furthermore, a study of destination managers from a wide range of European regions
shows that the issues associated with overtourism have become increasingly relevant
(Eckert et al., 2019). Overtourism is a recent concept, not reaching mainstream debate until
2017 (Goodwin, 2017). The issues the concept tries to capture have however been present
for a long time. The spread of the concept is an indication that urban tourism goes through a
period of rapid quantitative and qualitative change. It seems reality was seeking for a
concept that could help describe the problematic situations we see at many destinations,
which in turn are connected to over-crowding and spatial conflicts. There is a certain
conceptual vagueness around overtourism, it is so far unclear what is meant by the
concept, what kind of phenomena to include in it and in which perspectives it should be
studied (Koens et al., 2018;Peeters et al., 2018). It is a fundamentally qualitative concept as
it emphasizes the experiences of residents and visitors at destinations; the qualitative
changes discussed above take place there. However, these experiences are dependent on
fundamental socio-economic changes which influence the current massive growth of urban
tourism.
1.1 Aims and scope
From the background of the dramatic increase of urban tourism, framed by the concept of
overtourism, the purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss current dynamic processes
of urban tourism growth, as presented in the scientific literature. With the help of a literature
review, this paper aims to:
䊏discuss current definitions and conceptualizations of overtourism; and
䊏discuss the driving forces for the growth of urban tourism, thereby situating the
overtourism phenomenon in relational to general structural change.
The paper concentrates on overtourism in urban environments, rural issues are not
discussed. The place specific problems differ considerably between the two types of
contexts, making it difficult to cover both within the scope of one article. The outline of the
paper follows its two aims. Section 1 discusses different conceptualizations of overtourism.
Based on a literature review, gaps in the literature are identified. This forms the point of
departure for Section 2, which discusses the driving forces behind overtourism in an
evolutionary perspective.
2. Conceptualizations
This paper builds on a non-exhaustive review of the literature about overtourism. A desktop
search using Elsevier Scopus (for arguments for the choice of search engine, see Mu
¨ller,
2018), undertaken 10 July 2019, discovered 37 relevant articles using the concept in titles,
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
abstracts or keywords. They were all published in 2017-2019. Apart from them, two reports
published by the European Parliament and UNWTO, respectively, have been used (Peeters
et al., 2018;UNWTO, 2018). Because the concept is very recent there is a need to go
beyond the word itself to put the phenomenon in perspective. In the debate, overtourism is
often associated with the development of new forms of tourism accommodation, mainly
Airbnb, with physical changes in the urban landscape viewed as “touristification,” and with
tourism–generated gentrification (Dolnicar, 2019;Novy 2018b). Accordingly, a
complementary search was conducted using “Airbnb,” “touristification,” and “tourism AND
gentrification” as search terms. Furthermore, a number of books on overtourism and related
subjects have been published the past years (Dodds and Butler, 2019;Milano et al.,2019).
Together, this selection gives a reasonable, if not complete, overview of an emerging field
with unclear boundaries.
As a concept, overtourism is used to describe particular kinds of problems at destinations,
as a result of high and increasing numbers of visitors. According to an early text on the
subject (Goodwin, 2017: 1):
Overtourism describes destinations where hosts and guests, locals and visitors, feel that that
there are too many visitors and that the quality of life in the area or the quality of the experience
has deteriorated unacceptably.
The definition proposed by UNWTO (2018) has a similar perspective:“theimpactoftourismon
a destination, or parts thereof that excessively influences perceived quality of life of citizens
and/or quality of visitors¨ experiences in a negative way.” In a recent report, requested by the
European Parliament, another definition is adopted: “Overtourism describes the situation in
which the impact of tourism, at certain times and certain locations, exceeds physical,
ecological, social, economic, psychological, and/or political capacity thresholds.” (Peeters
et al.,2018
: 15) All three definitions are descriptive and localized, they try to describe a
situation where the pressure caused by high numbers of tourists on a particular place reach a
level where it causes significant problems. However, the key words in the first two definitions
are experience and feeling which suggests a subjective perspective on the issue. In the third
definition, the keyword is capacity thresholds, which points at an ambition to make
operationalizations of the concept possible. Operationalizations open up for discussing
various kinds of solutions to the problem. One way of doing that is to regard overtourism as a
market failure. Plichta (2019: 3) views overtourism as:
[...] a typical management problem of the public and private property rights, e.g. between
tourists¨ and residents¨ right to use common space, [...] a manifestation of excessive
consumption of goods to which property rights remain unallocated.
This way, overtourism becomes much like a diagnosis to be solved by some managerial
remedy. In this rhetoric, the concept loses parts of its critical potential, not the least in
relation to non-economic restraints.
2.1 Literature review
Overtourism is essentially a descriptive and localized concept; most texts on the subject
are, as seen below, based on single destination studies. However, there are also attempts
to frame overtourism in relation to the carrying capacity of destinations. Carrying capacity is
generally viewed as the maximum number of visitors a destination can accommodate, but
the numbers differ depending on whether the estimated restraints are built on physical,
infrastructural, environmental or experiential capacities. However, “the concept of carrying
capacity of tourist destinations is mainly discussed in relation to the quality of the tourist
experience” (Marsiglio, 2017, quote p. 633). In practice, it has large similarities to the
overtourism concept. However, carrying capacities have mainly been used in studies of
natural areas, islands and designated tourist destinations and less in urban contexts
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
(Butler, 2019). Cities are highly complex, making the concept difficult to operationalize in
the context of urban areas. In relation to a study of overtourism in Munich, Namberger et al.
(2019) discuss six forms of tourism carrying capacity (based on Swarbrooke, 1999):
Physical, environmental or ecological, economic, infrastructural, perceptual and social
carrying capacity. They conclude that it is very problematic to implement the concept
carrying capacity numerically. Instead, they point at the perception of the local population,
“their basic tolerance,” as the preferred approach to capacity restraints.
Despite the problems to operationalize overtourism in “objective” terms, the phenomenon is
quantitative by nature. In their report to the European Parliament, Peeters et al. (2018) try to
come to terms with that. Based on a statistical study, they identify eight factors connected to
increased risk of overtourism: Tourism density (tourists/km
2
), tourism intensity (tourists/
capita), Airbnb¨sshare of accommodations, closeness to cruise ports, air travel intensity, air
travel growth, tourism¨sshare of GDP and closeness to World Heritage Sites. The diversity
of factors points to the complexity and to the dynamic character of the phenomenon. This is
however one of only a few texts, which concentrate on conceptualizing overtourism in
general terms. Most publications about overtourism investigate its dynamics and the
consequences of tourism growth in cities and destinations.
Crowding in urban tourist hotspots is the most obvious and the most discussed aspect of
overtourism. In media, overtourism has often come to represent problems in the relation
between locals and tourists, including conflicts and resistance. These conflicts are
associated with particular cities; Barcelona, Venice and Dubrovnik are often mentioned (Phi,
2019). Spatial concentrations of visitors in hotspots at particular times, for instance when
cruise ships and coaches arrive, may at times be highly problematic (Bauman, 2019). In
cities like Barcelona and Berlin, urban problems associated with increasing tourism cause
anti-tourism sentiments, which also influence local politics. Related problems and
sentiments are today commonplace in many cities (Colomb and Novy, 2017;Novy and
Colomb, 2019). Generally, it has become more difficult for cities and regions to manage
travel to destinations because a large percentage of tourists arrange their travel itineraries
themselves, with the help of internet travel agents and low-cost carriers.
In these situations, the relations between visitors and locals become increasingly important
to study. One set of papers measure and evaluated residents¨ attitudes and perceptions in
relation to local tourism growth, for example, in Hong Kong (Cheung and Li, 2019), Berlin
(Raschke et al., 2019), Munich (Namberger et al., 2019), Alcati in Turkey (Gu
¨rsoy, 2019),
Barcelona and Catalonia (Martı
´net al.,2018;Muler Gonzalez et al.,2018). When
concentrations of tourists become too high, the daily lives of residents are negatively
inflicted by difficulties to move around their neighborhoods, higher price levels on food and
drinks and difficulties to find service and retail facilities serving local needs (Dumbrovska
´,
2017). Similar changes in the urban landscape are referred to as touristification, i.e. when
places are transformed to cater for tourists¨ demand for services and consumption (Novy,
2018a). Places like these risk losing some of their previous sense of place based identity.
Another problem connects to tourists¨ inappropriate behavior, resulting in disturbance and
a sense of insecurity (Koens et al.,2018). This is a cause of concern in many cities, but it
seems that some cities in East-Central Europe, such as Krakow, Budapest and Riga, have
more severe problems than other cities due to their popularity as nightlife destinations
(Smith et al.,2019;Thurnell-Read, 2012; author¨s observations). However, the residents¨
attitudes and perceptions of the night time economy is indeed very mixed, i.e. also
recognizing the benefits for the local economy (Pinke-Sziva et al.,2019;Smith et al., 2019).
The growth of these problems is often associated with improved accessibility by air by low-
cost carriers and increasing supply of low-cost accommodation by Airbnb (Ron
ca
´k, 2019).
In many context, overtourism is immediately associated with Airbnb. This author recently heard
the following at a geography conference: “Overtourism –that¨sAirbnb, isn¨t it?” This comment
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
from a well-informed researcher suggests that Airbnb is indeed viewed as a vital force in
current urban tourism development. This is also reflecting the scientific debate, peer-to-peer
accommodation has become a well-studied research field (Dolnicar, 2019,andOskam, 2019,
for overviews). Airbnb data are often used as an indicator in studies of overtourism
(Namberger et al.,2019). Availability of data is good and a high degree of “mapability” gives
the reader an immediate visual understanding of their impact (Adamiak et al.,2019;C
ocola
Gant, 2016;Gonza
´lez-Pe
´rez, 2019). Discussions regarding the spatial impact of Airbnb in
cities are often focusing on the relation between tourism and gentrification (Gravari-Barbas
and Guinand, 2017, for an overview). The term tourism gentrification was first coined in a study
of the spatial impact of corporate capital on the social and economic structure of the French
quarters of New Orleans (Gotham, 2005). With recent technological development, influences
of platform capitalism (Srnicek, 2017) on tourism driven gentrification have gained increasing
interest as these processes seem to be accelerating following the growing presence of Airbnb
(Dolnicar, 2019). Two particular processes have been in focus in the recent literature: the
quantitative expansion of peer-to-peer accommodation with consequences for the housing
market and the role of peer-to-peer accommodation in the tourist penetration of residential
areas outside traditional tourist districts.
There are numerous reports about the spread of Airbnb, particularly its impact in large cities in
the USA and Western Europe (Heo et al.,2019;Wachsmuth and Weisler, 2018). They point at
large growth rates; larger cities count their number of Airbnb listings in tens of thousands.
There are evidence suggesting that residents with a weak position in the housing market are
pushed out by peer-to-peer accommodation (C
ocola Gant, 2016). Using insights from rent
gap theory, Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018) analyzed the Airbnb market in New York City.
They concluded that the platform works as a means for property owners to extract a higher
income from short-term rentals than from renting to permanent residents. They could also
show that residential areas “with strong cultural cachet” (Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018),
p. 1155) were more likely to attract high numbers of Airbnb listings.
As exemplified with the New York case, Airbnb has become a means of spreading out tourism
accommodations from traditional tourism areas into urban residential districts. This is not only
thecaseinlargecitieslikeBerlin(
Novy, 2018a;Stors and Kagemeier, 2017)orParis(Gravari-
Barbas and Jacquot, 2017) but also in middle-sized cities like Utrecht (Ioannides et al.,2018).
These “newly discovered” tourist districts have certain place specific qualities in common;
they are called post-industrial, alternative, artistic, neo-bohemian, etc. These tourist districts
are often located “off the beaten track.” There are few traditional tourist sites in the areas,
instead it is the atmosphere of everyday life that attracts visitors. They might not even
recognize themselves as tourists, but as visitors or temporary locals (Larsen, 2019;Maitland
and Newman, 2009). The contemporary “urban traveller notion connects to the blurred
boundaries between tourism and other forms of mobility” (Pasquinelli, 2017,p.34).Insights
like these question previous ideas about the nature of urban tourism.
The literature does point at close connections between increased tourist presence and
gentrification in many residential districts. However, it seems to be an open question
whether the “touristification” of these districts primarily comes as a result of incoming
tourists or if the transformations are a result of long-term socio-demographic and cultural
change, which in turn bring in new forms of sights and services, making the urban
landscape increasingly attractive to tourists. It is evident in the literature that tourism is only
one of many arenas where controversies over urban spatial politics take place.
Gentrification is also connected to local governance, de-regulations, marketization, real-
estate speculation, etc. (Aalbers, 2018).
2.2 Missing perspectives
To summarize, the reviewed literature has mainly focused on three particular aspects of
overtourism. First, a large proportion of the literature discusses localized problems in inner
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
cities caused by large flows of visitors. Issues like crowding, looting and nightlife
disturbance have also caused resistance and gained considerable media attention.
Second, the supply of unregulated accommodation through Airbnb has been identified as a
major cause of these, and other, problems. Third, the spatial distribution of Airbnbs into an
increasing number of urban districts is discussed as an important driving force of
gentrification and as a spatial indicator of that same process. The spread of visitors and
tourist-oriented businesses into new urban districts highlights the importance of cultural
driving forces behind the new urban tourism, as observed by Larsen (2019) and
Pappalepore et al. (2014). In search of authentic experiences, tourists are attracted to areas
“off the beaten track” where tourists themselves become parts of the gentrification process.
The reviewed literature is however rather limited in analyzing the temporal and spatial
perspectives of urban tourism growth. This means that it does not pay enough attention to
structural relations between different geographical scales and levels. Similarly, the dynamic
character of urban development is not visible in the literature due to the lack of time
perspective. For example, in most reviewed case studies, the perspective of long-term
structural change is omitted, and the temporal development of traditional tourism
businesses taken for granted. The lack of time perspective is particularly evident in relation
to the driving forces of overtourism. These perspectives are frequently mentioned but
seldom discussed systematically (Dodds and Butler, 2019;Plichta, 2019). In Section 3,
driving forces of urban tourism growth are discussed. A focus on driving forces brings an
evolutionary perspective, which takes the dynamics of urban tourism growth into account. In
doing so, influences on tourism of structural developments on higher geographical levels
and scales become increasingly visible.
3. Driving forces of urban tourism growth
The general observation that driving forces of urban tourism growth were insufficiently
analyzed in the literature implies that there is a need for an improved understanding of the
processes leading to overtourism, particularly addressing temporal and spatial
perspectives. They need to be analyzed looking at both the demand and supply sides of
tourism. Therefore, in this section some basic factors behind the growth of urban tourism
are briefly discussed. Thereafter, an evolutionary perspective is added; it ends up focusing
on the impact of 21st century innovation, mainly related to digitalization.
Socio-economic factors, such as economic growth, higher standard of living and changing
price relations, are together with fewer restrictions on travel vital forces behind the growth of
global tourism. When tourist demand is discussed, we tend to focus on leisure travel,
because it in most cases constitutes the highest number of arrivals (UNWTO, 2019).
However, in many cities business tourism is also an important contributor to the local
destination, not the least because business traveller tend to spend more money than leisure
tourists do (Davidson and Cope, 2003). Business tourism depends on the dynamics of
urban economies, often with a high presence of advanced services that are very dependent
on face-to-face contacts (Bryson et al., 2004;Moretti, 2013). Thereby, concentrations of
such services in urban areas result in a high demand of hotels, meetings facilities and
transport (Beaverstock et al.,2010;Spirou, 2011). In contemporary society, the practical
borders between business and leisure travel seem to be increasingly blurred (Urry, 2007).
In urban areas, they depend on similar supply of infrastructure and services.
When analyzing the supply side of urban tourism, it seems reasonable to differentiate
between two categories of supply. In the first category, we find those developed at the
particular destinations, such as attractions, hotels and structures supporting the meetings
industry –the core functions of the tourism and hospitality sector (Spirou, 2011). The
second category includes various forms of infrastructure, transport and other forms of
communications systems and supporting structures not necessarily bound to any specific
city or destination. Airlines, travel agents, on-line booking systems and platform businesses
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
like Airbnb or Uber are well-known examples of this category. Apart from recent literature
focusing on the role of Airbnb, the importance of these kinds of supporting and facilitating
structures tends to be under-researched in tourism geography (Debbage, 2018;Clancy,
2011). This might seem a bit surprising, given their importance for understanding structural
change in spatial and temporal perspectives, i.e. for understanding contemporary
restructuring of tourism. Therefore, the importance of the latter category of supply side
factors is emphasized in Section 3.1.
3.1 Evolutionary perspectives
In tourist studies, the tourist area lifecycle, tourism area life cycle (TALC), model (Butler,
1980) is a classic reference for describing and analyzing destination development in an
evolutionary perspective. Based on the product life cycle, the TALC seeks to describe a
development process that is typical for tourist areas. They pass through a series of stages
from its early exploration to involvement, development, consolidation and stagnation to a
critical stage where they can either decline or rejuvenate. As stated in the term itself, The
TALC is mainly used for analyzing places where tourism is a dominant industry, such as
seaside destination, resorts or tourist cities (Agarwal, 2002;Butler, 1980;Butler, 2019). The
model is developed around the lifecycle of one industry or rather a cluster of related
industries. Thereby, its usefulness for analyzing “ordinary” cities could be questioned, given
their higher degree of complexity. However, the model points at the importance of a critical
stage in the lifecycle where the number of visitors reaches a level where the carrying
capacities of the tourist area are put under pressure, resulting in a deteriorating tourist
experience. The current overtourism debate suggests that a number of large cities have
reached this point today. The TALC points at the dynamic character of tourism development
at the destination level. It also points at the importance of different kinds of innovation for the
dynamics of the lifecycle process, similar to changes in technological innovation cycles
(Dicken, 2015;Perez, 2010).
The dynamics of the TALC is associated with technological and organizational innovation,
i.e. supply side factors changing the basic preconditions for tourism development. In
general, innovations tend to come in waves. This is particularly evident in the case of
transport and infrastructure where major technological breakthroughs, such as the steam
engine, the combustion engine and Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
facilitated further innovations in a wide range of industries (Dicken, 2015;Freeman and
Louc¸a
˜, 2001). Tourism is not an exception, it has gone through waves of expansion and
restructuring connected to general techno-economic change. The steamships and railways
of the industrial revolution made large-scale public transport possible. This in turn gave way
to tourism innovations like the Grand Hotel, travel agents and tour operators. During the
20th century, Fordist production of motor cars, aviation and other motorized transport
created the necessary preconditions for mass tourism to occur, for instance in the form of
packaged tours to distant destinations (Lo
¨fgren, 1999;Nilsson, 2016). Later developments
follow in a series of incremental innovations, which might lead to renewal and growth. To
mention a few examples, the hotel business has grown significantly in recent years
(Eurostat, 2019;Spirou, 2011). The capacities of hotels in cities like Copenhagen and
Stockholm has doubled since the turn of the Millennium (Danmarks Statistik, 2019;SCB,
2019). During the last 40 years, cruise tourism has grown faster than any other tourism
sector. In this century, the number of passengers has increased from 10 to 28.2 million in
2018 (Gross and Klemmer, 2014;CLIA, 2019). In these “old” types of industries,
infrastructure and business models have adapted to technical and organizational change
but not in disruptive ways.
In discussing the impact on the travel industry of late 20th century techno-economic
restructuring, Ioannides and Debbage (1998: p. 119) recognize that “[m]uch like
manufacturing or producer services, the travel sector has been significantly affected by
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
technological innovation, particularly the adoption of new information technology.” In
analyzing the travel industry, they further conclude that different parts of the industry could
be characterized as either Pre-Fordist, Fordist or Neo-Fordist, although with vague
delimitations between them. Neo-Fordism in this context reflects a contradiction between
tendencies toward increasing Fordist concentration and toward flexible specialization
(Ioannides and Debbage, 1998). It also points at the power relations between global
capitalist actors and small local businesses, who are mutually dependent on one another at
the destination. Different generations of technologies and business models co-exist in many
context-dependent ways; they tend to build over-lapping structures. As shown in previous
examples, old models normally does not disappear; they transform to continue to be valid in
new business environments. The recognition of tourism and the tourist industry as a
complex network, where different business models compete and co-exist in various ways, is
important for our understanding of the dynamics behind recent growth in urban tourism. The
need for understanding such complexities is particularly evident in relation to 21st century
tourist development, where waves of innovation based on ICT have had huge impact on the
tourist industry and the tourist landscape.
3.2 Contemporary innovation
The latest wave of disruptive innovation is “primarily associated with [...] ICT and,
especially, with digital technologies” (Dicken, 2015, p. 79). These processes have resulted
in the formation of a new techno-economic production paradigm, which is radically different
from 20th century Fordism (Perez, 2010). These innovations created dynamic processes
that have changed all other industries in radical ways, including tourism. The internet has
had profound impact on tourism: “IT has, with global availability and access to the Internet,
become a silent but strong global transformational force in tourism” (Go
¨ssling, 2017,
p. 1025). There are distinct steps in the development of the internet that has acted as
preconditions for a series of disruptive innovations in tourism.
When the internet went public in the 1993, a number of innovations followed, i.e. websites,
e-mail, search engines, etc. With the help of these digital tools, a new set of business-to-
customer services was introduced, through which companies could reach customers
without the help of travel agents. These technologies facilitated coordination, distribution
and information search (Sigala et al., 2012). Lower transaction costs for businesses and
customers and improved economies of scale and scope put strong pressure on the prices
of tourist services, which in turn resulted in increasing demand. Online booking sites and
low-cost airlines, mainly using online distribution channels, are examples of innovative
business models who build on these technologies. Different kinds of tourist sites are
increasingly linked to one another, allowing tourists to self-administrate their itineraries in a
singular visit to the Internet (Cavagnaro, 2018). The emergence of these innovations acted
as a driving force of management change in established parts of the tourism industry, such
as in transport.
Because international aviation started to liberalize in the 1990s, it became possible to
develop new business models, mainly in the form of low-cost carriers entering previously
regulated markets. Aviation faced rapid change of business models due to innovations
connected with the internet. The low-cost business model is much more dynamic and cost
efficient than that of traditional flag carriers. One reason for their early success was the use
of digital media for distribution. Its influence on the practices of competing airlines points to
its disruptive character (Doganis, 2006;Nilsson, 2009). Together with online booking sites,
low-cost airlines have been vital in individualizing travel, making tourists less dependent on
tour operators. Low-cost aviation has become an increasingly important factor behind the
growth of tourism, in particular in cities and regions that earlier had few international
connections, as in East-Central Europe and parts of the Mediterranean (Dobruszkes, 2013;
Nilsson, 2018a).
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
Lower prices and improved accessibility through the increasing density of networks are
clearly two important reasons for the rise of air travel. This creates a number of opportunities
for “new” destinations at the same time as they become increasingly dependent on global
actors like low-cost airlines and Airbnb. There are also interesting connections between low-
cost airlines and digital media in how they influence tourist behavior. In a recent master
thesis on tourists in Copenhagen, Desh (2019) shows the importance of cheap flights for
both the decision to travel and for the choice of destination. Flights prices were viewed as
very important for nearly all her respondents, some even booked a flight to Copenhagen
just because it was cheap. Price was their primary reason for the choice of destination; only
after their decision to travel, they informed themselves about Copenhagen in social media.
This behavior points at the almost non-existent time lag between urge to travel and the act
of purchasing.
The first generation of the Web mainly allowed customers access directly to websites, i.e.
for information search and bookings. With the next phases in the development of the
internet, from 2005 onwards, new functions were made possible. Interactive platforms
where large numbers of people can cooperate with one another began to reach the market.
Finally, the introduction of smartphones in 2007 made digital information virtually ubiquitous,
almost independent of space and time. An increasing proportion of the information available
online is user generated in the form of postings, comments and ratings (Cavagnaro, 2018;
Sigala et al., 2012). Several categories of platforms are relevant for analyzing the growth of
urban tourism (Go
¨ssling, 2017): On-line travel agents and booking sites (e.g. Expedia),
peer-to-peer marketplaces for the collaborative economy (e.g. Airbnb), information sharing
platforms (e.g. Tripadvisor) and social media platforms (e.g. Facebook and Instagram).
Peer-to-Peer marketplaces, such as Airbnb, bring radical change into the tourist
accommodation business by increasing the reach of potential hosts and guests (Guttentag,
2015). As business models, platforms like Airbnb have a series of advantages in mobilizing
assets, lower transaction costs through standardized mediation processes, enhanced
methods to create trust and quality control by feedback mechanisms (Gyim
othy, 2017).
Information sharing sites have similar advantages, building on the trust of fellow tourists
rather than on traditional marketing material. Both peer-to-peer marketplaces and
information sharing sites include elements from social media, simplifying communication
between visitors. Access to all that material, and other digital information generated through
search practices, is commercially valuable. This makes information the main “raw material”
of the 21st century and the financial backbone of companies like Facebook and Google
(Srnicek, 2017). By reaching so many people and knowing so much about them, these
global actors have come to influence international tourism. Marketing power is shifting away
from destinations toward an amorphous network of influencers and common users,
managed by profit seeking algorithms. The internet is transforming from being merely inter-
active to becoming increasingly inter-activistic, i.e. sites take the on role of actors through
their inherent logics and not by particular decisions.
Besides travel information sites like TripAdvisor, social media such as Facebook and
Instagram is an increasingly important source of travel information and for sharing
experiences in postings and pictures. It has large potential of reaching distant followers or
as Mun
˜ar and Steen Jakobsen (2013: 4) puts it:
[O]ne of the most interesting characteristics of social media is that they allow communication
with large numbers of people in different locations and at different times. This feature disrupt
traditional boundaries in the scope of communication [...]
In digital media, boundaries between social media, search engines and ranking sides are
increasingly blurred. Together, they have the potential to significantly influence travel flows,
to “hype” certain destinations. Sharing of travel experiences, updates and pictures in social
media may also encourage additional travel and reinforce travelling identities (Go
¨ssling and
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
Stavrinidi, 2016). This point at increasing connections between platforms, i.e. people use
them more or less simultaneously. Information gathered on one platform influences search
behavior on another (Zillinger, 2019). The so-called sharing economy builds on the same
functions as social media; they facilitate contacts between people. Commercial platforms
like Airbnb or Uber also provide help with presentations, transfer of payments and fora for
rating services and guests. This way, platforms help creating a sense of trust between the
partakers of the transaction (Dredge and Gyimothy, 2017). Commercial platforms charge a
commission for this.
It is reasonable to view the continued growth of urban tourism during the latest decades, at
least partly, as a combined effect of recent waves of innovation. Each new generation of
innovations provides opportunities for new businesses and for renewal of the old ones.
Following that, it could be argued that overtourism does represent a qualitatively new stage
in the development of urban tourism. The practices of buying tourist services have changed
radically. This contradicts the view of some texts who question the concept as such,
suggesting it does not bring any new insights. For instance, Capocchi et al. (2019,p.4)
declare that “the phenomenon of overtourism is not novel.” It is this author¨s opinion that
overtourism should not be mixed up with mass tourism just because both are possible
sources of pressure on urban destinations, through crowding and other disturbances. Mass
tourism can be thought of as representing a Fordist form of travel mainly dependent on
large operators, i.e. “mass production for mass consumption.” Overtourism on the other
hand may represent the results of a broader, more individualized, form of travel simplified
by new technologies and business models and building on a Neo-Fordist logic. Platforms
themselves and connections to complementary platforms improve economies of scope and
increases pressure on consumer prices, which in turn drives the demand of travel. Although
difficult to prove empirically, it could be argued (based on neo-classic economic models,
cf. Pulina and Corte
´s-Jime
´nez, 2010) that much of the increase in contemporary tourism is
driven by supply-side innovation.
4. Concluding discussion
From the background of the dramatic increase of urban tourism, framed by the concept of
overtourism, the purpose of this viewpoint paper is to analyze and discuss current dynamic
processes of urban tourism growth. It is based on a review of current scientific literature on
overtourism and issues related to overtourism, such as Airbnb, touristification and tourism
gentrification. As a first step, different conceptualizations of overtourism are discussed. All
definitions of the concept are descriptive in character. They describe localized situations
where the presence of large numbers of tourist has a negative impact on the quality of life in
the area and on the tourists¨ experiences. Although being basically an experiential concept,
overtourism is made up of, and depend on, a series of material circumstances, leading to
situations where local capacity thresholds are reached.
The review points at a substantial literature discussing highly localized aspects of
overtourism, such as crowding, disturbance, misbehavior, as well as conflicts in the relation
between locals and visitors, sometimes, leading to organized resistance. Furthermore, the
“sharing” economy, in particular in the form of peer-to-peer accommodation (with Airbnb as
the most important actor) is identified as a major driving force of urban tourism growth.
Apart from Airbnb, few driving forces of overtourism are discussed at any length. The
literature also identifies a close relation between increasing number of tourists in urban
areas and gentrification; tourism is viewed as one factor (of many) connected to
gentrification. In urban districts where the presence of tourists is a recent phenomenon,
these processes are connected to new cultural tendencies in urban tourism –taking place
“off the beaten track.” The literature review helped to identify one perspective as being
surprisingly under-used in analyzing the causes of overtourism –the driving forces of urban
tourism growth, in particular techno-economic driving forces. This lack of supply side
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
perspective indirectly leads to weaknesses in the analysis of the spatial impacts of tourism
growth and of its dynamics in a time perspective.
As a consequence, an evolutionary perspective on the driving forces of urban tourism
growth is developed in the following section of the paper. The growth of modern (urban)
tourism is related to the development of a series of innovations that radically transformed
the means of travel and communication. The earliest major wave of such innovation came
alongside the industrial revolution in the 19th century, paving way for a series of industries
that remain important to this day. However, the most recent and possibly the most radical
wave of innovations is a result of ICT development, most importantly the Internet. The
internet has transformed all parts of the tourist industry, i.e. hotels, cruise lines, airlines and
digital reservation systems. The most important results of the internet revolution for the
tourist industry are the development of peer-to-peer platforms like Airbnb, information
platforms like TripAdvisor and social media. The combined impact of these incremental and
radical innovations is very complex and difficult to fully understand. However, increasing
price competition, improved accessibility to information, booking possibilities and payments
solutions have resulted in radically reduced transaction costs for tourists. These innovations
have also made it possible for tourists to be more independent of traditional industry actors
in customizing their own itineraries, thereby also affecting the culture of urban tourism. In
short: platforms increase opportunities to increase the supply of tourist services, which in
combination with contemporary social and cultural change increase the aggregate demand
in urban tourism. Depending on place specific circumstances, this may lead to overtourism.
References
Aalbers, M.B. (2018), “Introduction to the forum. From third to fifth-wave gentrification”, Tijdschrift Voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Adamiak, C., Szyda, B., Dubrownik, A. and Garcia-A
´lvarez, D. (2019), “Airbnb offer in Spain –spatial
analysis of the pattern and determinants of its distribution”, Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 8 No. 3, doi:
10.3390/ijgi8030155.
Agarwal, S. (2002), “Restructuring seaside tourism. The resort lifecycle”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 25-55.
Airbnb (2019), “Fast facts”, available at: https://press.airbnb.com. (accessed 24 July 2019).
Bauman, A. (2019), “New urban tourism and urban infrastructure”, Presentation at the RGS annual
conference, London.
Beaverstock, J.V., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J. and Witlox, F. (Eds), (2010)International Business
Travel in the Global Economy, Ashgate, Farnham.
Bryson, J.R., Daniels, P.W. and Warf, B. (2004), Service Worlds. People, Organisations, Technologies,
Routledge, Abingdon.
Butler, R.W. (1980), “The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: implications for management of
resources”, The Canadian Geographer/Le Ge
´ographe Canadien, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-12..
Butler, R.W. (2019), “Overtourism and the tourism area life cycle”, in Dodds, R. and Butler, R.W. (Eds),
Overtourism. Issues, Realities and Solutions, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Capocchi, A., Vallone, C., Amaduzzi, A. and Pierotti, M. (2019), “Is ‘overtourism’ a new issue in tourism
development or just a new term for an already known phenomenon?”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:
10.1080/13683500.2019.1638353.
Cavagnaro, E., (Ed.) (2018), Sustainable Value Creation in Hospitality. Guests on Earth, Goodfellow publ,
Oxford.
Cheung, K.S. and Li, L.-H. (2019), “Understanding visitor-resident relations in overtourism: developing
resilence for sustainable tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1197-1216.
Clancy, M. (2011), “Global commodity chains and tourism: past research and future directions”, in
Mosedale, J. (Ed.), Political Economy of Tourism. A Critical Perspective, Routledge, London.
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
CLIA (2019), “2019 Cruise trends & industry outlook”, available at: https://cruising.org. (accessed 25 July
2019).
C
ocola Gant, A. (2016), “Holiday rentals: the new gentrification battlefront”, Sociological Research
Online, Vol. 21 No. 3,pp. 1-9.
Colomb, C. and Novy, J. (Eds). (2017), Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City, Routledge, London.
Danmarks Statistik(2019), “Homepage”, available at: www.dst.dk. (accessed9 September 2019).
Davidson, R. and Cope, B. (2003), Business Travel, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Debbage, K. (2018), “Economic geographies of tourism: one ‘turn’ leads to another”, Tourism
Geographies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 347-353.
Desh, J. (2019), “The role of social media in tourist decision-making and the concentration of tourist flows. The
case of Copenhagen”, Master thesis, Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University.
Dicken, P. (2015), Global Shift. Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 7th ed., The
Guildford Press, London.
Dobruszkes, F. (2013), “The geography of European low-cost airline networks: a contemporary analysis”,
Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 28, pp. 75-88.
Dodds, R. and Butler, R.W. (2019), “Overtourism”, Issues, Realities and Solutions, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Doganis, R. (2006), TheAirline Business, Routledge, London.
Dolnicar, S. (2019), “A review of research into paid online peer-to-peer accommodation: launching the
annals of tourism research curated collection on peer-to-peer accommodation”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 75,pp. 248-264.
Dredge, D. and Gyimothy, S. (Eds) (2017), “Collaborative economy and tourism”, Perspectives, Politics,
Policies and Prospects, Springer, Cham.
Dumbrovska
´, V. (2017), “Urban tourism development in Prague: from tourist mecca to tourist ghetto, in
Bellini & Pasquinelli”, Tourism in the City, Springer, Cham.
Eckert, C., Zacher, D., Pechlaner, H., Namberger, P. and Schmude, J. (2019), “Strategies and measures
directed towards overtourism: a perspective of European DMOs”, International Journal of Tourism Cities,
Vol. 5 No. 4, doi: 10.1108/IJYC-12-2018-0102.
Eurostat (2019), “Night spent at tourist accommodation establishments by NUTS 2 regions”, available at
www.appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. (accessed 18 July 2019).
Freeman, C. and Louc¸a
˜, F. (2001), “As time goes By”, From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information
Revolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gonza
´lez-Pe
´rez, J.M. (2019), “The dispute over tourist cities. Tourism gentrification in the historic Centre
of Palma (Majorca, Spain)”, Tourism Geographies,doi:10.1080/14616688.2019.1586986.
Goodwin, H. (2017), “The challenge of overtourism”, Responsible Tourism Partnership Working Paper 4.
October 2017.
Go
¨ssling, S. (2017), “Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an exploratory review”, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1024-1041.
Go
¨ssling, S. and Stavrinidi, I. (2016), “Social networking, mobilities, and the rise of liquid identities”,
Mobilities, Vol.11 No. 5, pp. 723-743.
Gotham, K.F. (2005), “Tourism gentrification: the case of New Orleans¨ vieux carre (French quarter)”,
Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1099-1121.
Gravari-Barbas, M. and Guinand, S., (Eds). (2017), Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary
Metropolises. International Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Gravari-Barbas, M. and Jacquot, S. (2017), “No conflict? Discourses and management of tourism-related
tension in Paris”, in Colomb, C. and Novy, J., (Eds), Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City, Routledge,
London.
Gross, S. and Klemmer, L. (2014), Introduction to Tourism Transport, Cabi, Wallingford.
Gu
¨rsoy, I.T. (2019), “Beauty and the beast: a fairy tale of tourismphobia”, Tourism Planning &
Development, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 434-451.
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
Guttentag, D. (2015), “Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation
sector”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.18 No. 12, pp. 1192-1217.
Gyim
othy, S. (2017), “Business models of the collaborative economy”, in Dredge, D. and Gyim
othy, S.
(Eds), Collaborative Economy and Tourism: Perspectives, Politics, Policies and Prospects, Springer,
Berlin.
Heo, C.Y., Blal, I. and Choi, M. (2019), “What is happening in Paris? Airbnb, hotels, and the Parisian
market: a case study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 70, pp. 78-88.
Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.G. (1998), “The economic geography of the tourist industry”, A Supply-
Side Analysis, Routledge, London.
Ioannides, D., ; Ro
¨slmaier, M. and van der Zee, E. (2018), “Airbnb as an instigator of ‘tourism bubble’ expansion
in Utrecht¨slombok neighbourhood”, Tourism Geographies,doi:10.1080/14616688.2018.1454505.
ITB Berlin (2019), “Convention program”, available at: www.itb-berlin.com. (accessed 11 July 2019).
Koens, K., Postma, A. and Papp, B. (2018), “Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of
tourism in a city context”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 12, p. 4384, doi: 10.3390/su10124384.
Larsen, J. (2019), “Ordinary tourism and extraordinary everyday life: re-thinking tourism and cities”, in
Frisch, T., Stors, N., Stoltenberg, L. and Sommer, C., (Eds), Tourism and Everyday Life in the City,
Routledge, London.
Lo
¨fgren, O. (1999), On Holiday. A History of Vacationing, University of CA Press, Berkeley.
Maitland, R. and Newman, P. (2009), “World tourism cities”, Developing Tourism off the Beaten Track,
Routledge, London.
Marsiglio, S. (2017), “On the carrying capacity and the optimal number of visitors in tourist destinations”,
Tourism Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 632-646.
Martı
´n, J.M., Guaita Martı
´nez, J.M. and Salinas Ferna
´ndez, J.A. (2018), “An analysis of the factors behind
the citizen¨sattitude of rejection towards tourism in the context of overtourism and economic dependency
on this activity”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 2851, doi: 10.3390/su10082851.
Milano, C., Cheer, J.M. and Novelli, M. (2019), Overtourism. Excesses, Discontent and Measures in
Travel and Tourism, CABI, Walllingford.
Moretti, E. (2013), The New Geography of Jobs, Mariner Books, Boston.
Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L. and Galı
´, N. (2018), “Overtourism: residents¨perceptions of tourism
impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity –case study of a Spanish heritage town”,
Tourism Review, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 277-296.
Mu
¨ller, D.K. (2018), “Tourism geographies: a bibliometric review”, A Research Agenda for Tourism
Geographies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Mun
˜ar, A.M. and Steen Jakobsen, J.K. (2013), “Trust and involvement in tourism social media and web-
based travel information sources”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Namberger, P., Jackisch, S., Schmude, J. and Karl, M. (2019), “Overcrowding, overtourism and local
level disturbance: how much can Munich handle? ”, Tourism Planning & Development,Vol.16No.4,
pp. 452-472.
Nilsson, J.H. (2009), “Low-cost aviation”, in Go
¨ssling, S. and Upham, P. (Eds), Climate Change and
Aviation. Issues, Challenges and Solutions, Earthscan, London.
Nilsson, J.H. (2016), “Hotellens och krogarnas framva
¨xt”, Ett Kulturgeografiskt Perspektiv,O
¨rebro
University Press, O
¨rebro.
Nilsson, J.H. (2018a), “Mobility and regionalisation: changingpatterns of air traffic in the Baltic sea region
in connection to european integration”, Geographia Polonica, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Nilsson, J.H. (2018b), Globalisering och urban turismutveckling –drivkrafter och konsekvenser.
Geografiska Notiser,.
Novy, J. (2018a), “Destination’ Berlin revisited. From (new) tourism towards a pentagon of mobility and
place consumption”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-442.
Novy, J. (2018b), “Urban as a bone of contention: four explanatory hypotheses and a caveat”,
International Journal of Tourism Cities,doi:10.1108/IJTC-01-2018-0011.
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
Novy, J. and Colomb, C. (2019), “Urban tourism as a surce of contention and social mobilisations: a
critical review”, Tourism Planning & Development, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 358-375.
Oskam, J.A. (2019), “The future of airbnb and the ‘sharing economy’”, The Collaborative Consumption of
Our Cities, ChannelView, Bristol.
Pappalepore, I., Maitland, R. and Smith, A. (2014), “Prosuming creative urban areas. Evidence from east
London”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 44, pp. 227-240.
Pasquinelli, C. (2017), “Tourism connectivity and spatial complexity: a widening Bi-dimensional arena of
urban tourism research,in Bellini & pasquinelli”, Tourism in the City, Springer, Cham.
Peeters, P., Go
¨ssling, S., Klijs, J., Milano, C., Novelli, M., Dijkmans, C., Eijgelaar, E., Hartman, S.,
Heslinga, J., Isaac, R., Mitas, O., Nawijn, J., Papp, B. and Postmaa, A. (2018), Research for the TRAN
Committee –Overtourism: impact and Possible Policy Responses, European Parliament, Policy
Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels.
Perez, C. (2010), “Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, Vol.34 No. 1, pp. 185-202.
Phi, G.T. (2019), “Framing overtourism: a critical news media analysis”, Current Issues in Tourism, doi:
10.1080/13683500.2019.1618249.
Pinke-Sziva, I., Smith, M., Olt, G. and Berezvai, Z. (2019), Tourism and the night: towards a broader
understanding of nocturnal city destinations, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Plichta, J. (2019), “The co-management and stakeholders theory as a useful approach to manage the
problem of overtourism in historical cities –illustrated with an example of krakow”, International Journal of
Tourism Cities,Vol.5No.4,doi:10.1108/IJTC-12-2018-0107.
Pulina, M. and Corte
´s-Jime
´nez, I. (2010), “Have low-cost carriers influenced tourism demand and
supply? The case of Alghero, Italy”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 617-635.
Raschke, A.L., Mu
¨ller, C. and Brandt, S. (2019), “The effects of peer-to-peer accommodations on
residential neighbourhoods”, Presentation at the Nordic Geographers¨ Meeting, Trondheim (accessed
18 June 2019).
Ron
ca
´k, M. (2019), “Prague and the impact of low-cost airlines”, in Dodds, R. and Butler, R.W. (Eds),
Overtourism. Issues, Realities and Solutions, De Gruyter, Berlin.
SCB. (2019), “Sweden statistics, webpage”, available at: www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se (accessed 25
July 2019).
Sigala, M., Christou, E. and Gretzel, U. (2012), “Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality”, Theory,
Practice and Cases, Ashgate, Farnham.
Smith, M., Pinke-Sziva, I. and Olt, G. (2019), “Overtourism and resident resistance in Budapest”, Tourism
Planning & Development, Vol. 16 No. 4,pp. 376-392.
Spirou, C. (2011), Urban Tourism and Urban Change. Cities in a Global Economy, Routledge, Abingdon.
Srnicek, N. (2017), Platform Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Stors, N. and Kagemeier, A. (2017), “The sharing economy and its role in metropolitan tourism”, in
Gravari-Barbas, M. and Guinand, S., (Eds), Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises.
International Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999), Sustainable Tourism Management, Cabi, Wallingford.
Thurnell-Read, T. (2012), “Tourism, place and space. British stag tourism in Poland”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 39No. 2, pp. 801-819.
UNWTO (2018), “World tourism organization (UNWTO); Centre of expertise leisure, tourism & hospitality;
NHTV breda university of applied sciences; and NHL stenden university of applied sciences”,
‘Overtourism’? –Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth beyond Perceptions, UNWTO,
Madrid.
UNWTO (2019), “Homepage”, available at: http://statistics.unwto.org (accessed 19 July 2019).
Urry, J. (2007), Mobilities, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Wachsmuth, D. and Weisler, A. (2018), “Airbnb and the rent gap: gentrification through the sharing
economy”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1147-1170.
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
Worldbank (2019), “Webpage”, available at: http://data.worldbank.org (accessed 19 July 2019).
Zillinger, M. (2019), “The curious case of online information search”, Current Issues in Tourism,doi:
10.1080/13683500.2019.1639641.
Corresponding author
Jan Henrik Nilsson can be contacted at: jan-henrik.nilsson@ism.lu.se
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
jINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j
