If there’s anyone you call when it comes to talking about overtourism, it’s author and journalist Elizabeth Becker. Her book—Overbooked: The Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism—came out in 2013, long before the buzzword was on the mind of most tourism officials and travelers. In fact, when she was writing her book, “people didn't understand what I was looking at,” she says. Now, cities, islands, and entire countries are catching on to the concept—and catching up—while trying to get a handle on a constantly growing influx of travelers. And that rush of people expanding their horizons isn’t going to stop, or even slow, according to Becker. So how has the approach to overtourism changed in the last few years? And what can places be doing to actually solve the problem? We called up Becker to find out.

You literally wrote the book on overtourism five years ago. How has the concept changed?

Let's start with numbers. Tourism goes up and up and up. Nothing seems to stop it—not the recession, terrorism, war, natural calamities. There are seven billion people, and we're looking at close to two billion trips a year very soon. The surface of the earth has not changed. That's the physical reality, and there's no reason to believe that people will reduce their travel.

Since my book came out, the Chinese have become the number-one source of foreign travel. They only started traveling this century, basically, since before that they didn't have the ability to leave their country. They have become the greatest source of travelers, even though only seven percent of the population has passports.

That’s a crazy low percentage but that’s, what, tens of millions of people? [Editor's note: It’s 97 million.]

That was my conclusion when I wrote the book before, and I'd say that's my even stronger conclusion now. Outside of Europe, [Chinese politician] Deng Xiaoping was one of the first leaders to see tourism as an incredible, underused force to make money, to modernize, to improve foreign relations. And that’s definitely affecting overtourism.

I think one of the other big issues is that people are finally understanding that the sentiments of the people who are being visited are paramount. Previously, all the articles, all the material, everything was about the consumer—where the traveler should go, how to entice them, what the traveler should do, where they should stay, have fun, and explore. Now the people in the destinations are coming to the forefront, and that's critical. A lot of places are saying ‘no’ to visitors, and even the visitors are saying, ‘I don't want to go to such a crowded place.’ It's a critical mass that wasn't there when I was researching.

Do you feel that saying ‘no’ to visitors is productive in fighting overtourism?

We're finally seeing that travel and tourism is an industry, and like any industry, you know your capacity. If you can say, We have X number of hotels we can support, X plane loads or cruise ships of people, and beyond that we don't have room for you, that's normal. When a hotel doesn't have enough rooms, they say, ‘I'm sorry, we're overbooked.’ That is nothing against the visitor; that is the reality.

Because of the romance and love affair we all have with travel, people think it's of another species. This is the raison d'être for a lot of people. We work hard, we save, and we go on a trip. Anything that doesn't allow the traveler to do what he or she wants is seen as an affront. This is an industry, though. Take that emotional subjective viewpoint away—it exists, but take it away just for a second—and look at the people who are the foundation of the industry. That's the people in those gorgeous spots. Is it right for them to say, ‘I'm sorry but my life is destroyed, we don't have enough space, our grocery shop just became a souvenir shop?’ That is a legitimate complaint.

Charleston has severely limited access to Airbnbs, depending on how old the homes are, and all but eliminated whole-home rentals.


Let’s talk home sharing. Sharing a home with someone who lives there every day can be helpful in sharing this point of view, but on the other hand, these rentals are so much harder to regulate. Where do you stand on the pros and cons of these services?

We're going through this here, by the way. I just wrote to my congressman about this. [Editor's note: Washington D.C.’s city council just approved a 90-night cap for Airbnb and other rentals.] What happens with Airbnb is that they sidestep all the laws and regulations when they come into a city. They ignore the terribly important zoning laws. People in these cities work very hard to get residential zoning and keep it, to make sure their block remains residential, or to make sure that this commercial area has only certain kinds of commercial businesses. Then you have regulations to make sure everyone follows certain safety rules. Then you let the community have a voice on how you're coming up with all those rules and regulations.

Airbnb overwrote all of this. They did not come before any governing body, so that's why they're quoted as disruptors. But why do they not subject themselves to the rules and regulations of a city the way the rest of us do? That's the first problem here. Nobody is arguing that there isn’t a built-in constituency for Airbnb. However, the hotels have their argument that they follow the rules. They pay living wages and so forth. Then you have the affordable housing act, where it’s said that the rentals are diminishing the stock of affordable housing—that there's no longer year-long rentals, just short term rentals. Is that democratization? If there has been a process that led to this, it has not been a democratic one.

The city that is sort of interesting on this issue is Charleston, South Carolina. They have a tourism police force and recently put in regulation [Editor's note: Charleston now bans whole-home rentals]. Just before it came into effect, half of Airbnbs listings came down. Charleston is very careful about this because they are such an old city, they work very hard to restore and enhance this city, and they don't need the problems that come with Airbnbs and rentals.

Outside the home-sharing world, are there places you think are handling overtourism really well?

In our hemisphere, Costa Rica rocks. They have looked into traffic flows and the use of public spaces They have thought through how tourists behave. They're not perfect. You go there, you run into a few crowds here and there, but you never get the sense that it's out of control and that you're not enjoying it as much as you could. You really feel the long tradition of understanding how tourism fits into their world.

Barcelona is continuing to fight overtourism on its streets.


Is there anything you feel places like Barcelona or Reykjavik could learn from them?

There are a couple of things that inhibit cities [unlike whole countries]. Many local cities have no say on how many cruise ships come and how often they visit. They don't have a say over the size of the airport and how many airlines land there. And cruise companies aren’t the ones who are going to feel the pressure when passengers do land.

It doesn't take miracles, it just takes a lot of hard work. You don't have to be Orwellian about it. When I say, 'It's okay for cities and regions to say this is how many we can tolerate, and we want your visit to work well, and we want people to welcome you when you visit,' that's not George Orwell, that is hospitality. A country like Bhutan is criticized for charging $250 a day, which includes lodging, [meals, a tour guide, and more] and about $50 of that goes to development, which means they've dramatically increased their literacy and created a green environment. It’s not perfect, but it's a good experience. And they have had no trouble getting people to visit. They have to turn people away. They're just being practical, helping their people rise up from poverty, get more jobs, and prevent overtourism.

Look at the furious resentment of Bhutan, because they're not open to everybody all the time. No one is—come on. Travel and tourism has to recognize that it's an industry, in a real world, governed by real governments. Some are good, some are awful, some are responsible, some are corrupt.

Whose responsibility is it then, to deal with the overtourism?

It's the governments. Do you call Carnival Cruise when you see too many tourists spoiling your downtown historic district? No, you call the mayor. In New York, the reason your city changed quite a bit was because your mayor, Michael Bloomberg worked to clean up Times Square. He did it responsibly and he made a big impact. Leadership cannot be discounted.

Other than just telling travelers “no,” a lot of tourism boards and cities are trying to encourage visitors to just get out of the city center, to explore other parts of the country. Do you think that helps solve the problem of overtourism or create other opportunities for the same problem?

If you want to look at the best example, it's France. They were pioneers of preventing overtourism. The French have devised their transportation systems, particularly their trains, roads, and buses to connect so if you land in Paris, you could get just about anywhere in the country in terms of transportation. Plus, they'd make sure that their cultural events, their festivals, even the art placed in local museums are fed by the center. You see these beautiful paintings somewhere in one of the provinces and you'll see underneath "From the Collection of the Louvre." Perpignon Photo Festival and the Cannes Film Festival are all same idea. France was the first industry to have a ministry of culture. They are old hat, and they spread people all over the country.