From carrying capacity to overtourism: a

perspective article
Geoffrey Wall

Geoffrey Wall is based at Abstract

the Department of Purpose – This paper aims to place current burgeoning interest in overtourism into historical context.
Geography and Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws upon the author’s experiences of working for
Environmental approximately four decades on tourism and recreation using such concepts as impacts and carrying
Management, University of capacity.
Waterloo, Waterloo, Findings – This paper shows that overtourism is not a new concept. Rather it has a substantial history,
Canada. although early origins within park and recreation settings in North America have been superseded by an
emphasis on the urban areas of historic towns, particularly in Europe.
Originality/value – The paper provides a corrective to the common assumption that overtourism is a
new phenomenon and, in doing so, points out the deficiencies of concepts and approaches, such as
carrying capacity, that are being revived but have been used previously, criticized and found wanting.
Keywords Carrying capacity, Overtourism
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Globally, the pressure of people on resources has been an ongoing concern since the
seminal writings of Malthus (1993) on the ability of the earth to support a growing population
(originally published 1798). The perspective has since been supported by authors such as
Ehrlich (1968) and Meadows et al. (1972), and the discussion has been enriched by use of
concepts such as conservation, resources management, sustainable development and
climate change. In the short term, factors, such as technological change, have proven
Malthus wrong but a long-term perspective suggests that the core of his thesis may yet be
correct: his ideas have been disapproved but not disproved.
With respect to tourism and recreation and, usually, adopting a more local perspective, there
has been long recognition that there can be negative outcomes as illustrated in the titles of
such books as Tourism: Blessing or Blight (Young, 1973) and Tourism: The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly (Pulsipher and Rosenow, 1979). Mathieson and Wall (1982), for the first time,
provided a thorough assessment of the state of knowledge according to economic,
environmental and socio-cultural categories; a perspective which has come to dominate
thinking on impacts and sustainability. In this context, carrying capacity is a concept that has
attracted much attention and is the precursor to current concerns with overtourism, which
emphasizes that the number of tourists, and their behaviour can overwhelm the places that they
visit, damaging both the tourism resources and the lifestyles of those living in destination areas.

Past perspectives
Received 29 August 2019 Drawing in part on Hardin’s (1968) “Tragedy of the Commons” and working in the context of
Revised 5 September 2019
Accepted 6 September 2019 parks and protected areas, researchers, mostly in the US Department of Agriculture,

PAGE 212 j TOURISM REVIEW j VOL. 75 NO. 1 2020, pp. 212-215, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 DOI 10.1108/TR-08-2019-0356
recognized that natural areas could be “loved to death” by their users. They suggested that
such places had limits, or carrying capacities, that if exceeded would result in
the destruction of the resource (Wagar, 1964, 1974). Carrying capacity was defined as the
maximum number of users that can be supported without an unacceptable decline in the
quality of the resource or of the visitor experience. Later, other types of capacity were also
identified, such as those pertaining to ancillary facilities, such as parking and
accommodation, and those reflecting the views of local residents. The approach assumed
that environmental damage and the quality of experience decline with a growing number of
users, although this is not always the case, especially in urban areas where the presence of
others may be part of the attraction. Early applications of the carrying capacity concept
encouraged the search for a magic number of visitors that might be approached with
impunity and exceeded at peril (Coccossis and Mexa, 2004).
As experience accumulated, it was recognized that it is simplistic to focus solely on
numbers to the exclusion of other variables, such as type of visitor, length of stay,
activities undertaken and group composition. It was determined that relationships
between levels of use and environmental change are not linear and there is not a simple
link between density of use and crowding (Wall and Wright, 1977). Also, capacity itself
can be influenced by management, for example, the planting of bushes in a previously
open area creates more edges between different vegetation types, increasing the
number of secluded areas, with positive implications for both wildlife and human
behaviour. Furthermore, although particular places may be more or less suitable for
specific uses, with varying resilience to change, land does not have an inherent
capacity. Rather, appropriate levels of use vary with the goals and objectives that are
established. Thus, for example, the same area might be designated for use as a nature
reserve, a golf course or a theme park with different implications for appropriate
activities and levels of use.
Still with a focus on relatively natural areas, such insights led to broader perspectives,
such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, that suggested the desirability of the
provision of a diversity of supply, to meet varying needs and desires according to
accessibility, acceptable activities and intensity of management (Clark and Stankey,
1979). Within individual sites, zoning systems were introduced, such as core areas and
buffer zones, to reflect management goals and objectives. Limits of acceptable change
were suggested as a way of conceptualizing desirable outcomes (Cole and McCool,
1997). Much effort was spent on the creation of frameworks to guide visitor
management (Newsome et al., 2002). Although demarketing was mentioned
occasionally as a means of reducing pressures on heavily used destinations, most
destinations actively sought more visitors, as they still do.
Much of the above research was pioneered in North America under the guise of
recreation management with a focus upon relatively natural areas where most users
were domestic, even though they may have travelled considerable distances. The word
“tourism” was seldom used. Consequently, there has been a time lag in the
dissemination of these ideas into the tourism literature, especially in Europe, where
notions of capacity have been adopted more recently, often without full appreciation of
their origin and history, now attracting attention especially in complex urban settings,
such as Venice and Barcelona, where there are numerous attractions, massive visitor
numbers and multiple stakeholders. Hence, concern with and application of carrying
capacity has migrated across continents, from natural to urban settings, and has
re-emerged as “overtourism”.

Future perspectives
The key questions have always been “How many is too many?”, “How can this be
determined?” and “What management strategies can be used to balance supply and

VOL. 75 NO. 1 2020 j TOURISM REVIEW j PAGE 213

 demand?” Other important questions follow, for example, “Who should determine these
things?” These questions will not disappear but will remain fundamental challenges,
regardless of the trajectory that tourism takes. Both supply and demand change at a variety
of time scales, such as weekly and seasonally, and it is inefficient economically to cater to
peak periods when supply may be overwhelmed, causing deterioration in the resource and
visitor experiences, because it will be underused at other times. The tourism system is
made up of multiple components; each with its own ability to support users, and the sizes of
these components has tended to increase. As units of supply, such as cruise ships, resorts,
casinos and accommodation establishments, for example, have become larger in the
search for economies of scale, the pressure to keep them full has not subsided, and the
challenge of keeping the components in balance increases.

Visitor management techniques

Niche tourism, by providing options which eschew the concentration and crowding of mass
tourism, is one outcome which may satisfy those who are able to afford it but, whether the
market for tourism expands as a larger population is able to become tourists, or declines as
greater constraints are placed upon travel, for example through decreased energy
availability, it is certain that the requirement for informed and skilled planning and
management of supply-demand relationships will not subside. In fact, it is likely that
stronger and more active management measures will be required in the future. Fortunately,
many management options exist that can be applied individually or in combination. They
are sometimes classified into direct and indirect techniques, the former requiring
compliance by visitors, whereas the latter are more subtle ways of influencing their
behaviour. Examples of such strategies are provided in the table and more detailed
discussions of options can be found in Wall and Mathieson (2008) and Newsome et al.
(2002) (Table I).

Conclusions
Concerns about too many visitors have grown along with the number tourists. Discussions
about the pressure of people on resources have a long history but, in the context of tourism,
research was pioneered in the national parks of North America focussing upon carrying
capacity. Accordingly, it has been argued that overtourism is not a new concept but the
ideas have crossed continents and are now being hotly debated, in a different context,
particularly pertaining to the historic cities of Europe, stimulating the production of a
burgeoning literature (Dodds and Butler, 2019). The issue attracts attention to the need for
careful planning and management of tourism, as well as respect for the well-being of the
permanent residents of tourism destinations, which will be ongoing preoccupations of both
researchers and managers.

Table I Selected management options

Direct Indirect

Impose entry/user fees and charges Vary ease of access

Restrict activities/equipment Site design and manipulation
Impose participation requirements, e.g. permits and Type and degree of maintenance
licenses
Enforce rules and regulations Provision of information
Designate sites for specific activities, e.g. camping Environmental education/interpretation
Increase management presence e.g. more staff, patrols Zoning
Undertake research
Limit ancillary facilities, such as parking
spaces and accommodation

PAGE 214 j TOURISM REVIEW j VOL. 75 NO. 1 2020

References
Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979), “The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning,
management and research”, General Technical Report PNW 98, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Coccossis H. and Mexa A. (Eds) (2004), The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment:
Theory and Practice, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Cole, D.N. and McCool, S.F. (1997), “The limits of acceptable change process: modifications and
clarifications”, in Clark, R.N. and Cole, D.N. (Eds), Proceedings of a Workshop on Limits of Acceptable
Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions. General Technical Report
INT-GTR-371, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ogden, UT, pp. 61-68.
Dodds, R. and Butler, R. (Eds) (2019), Overtourism: Issues, Realities and Solutions, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Ehrlich, P.R. (1968), The Population Bomb, Sierra Club/Ballantine Books, New York, NY.

Hardin, G. (1968), “The tragedy of the commons”, Science, Vol. 162, pp. 1243-1248.
Malthus, T. (1993), An Essay on the Principle of Population, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (Originally
published 1798).
Mathieson, A.R. and Wall, G. (1982), Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, Longman, Harlow,
Essex.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972), The Limits to Growth: A Report
for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, Universe Books, New York, NY.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A. and Dowling, R.K. (2002), Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and
Management, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Pulsipher, G.L. and Rosenow, J.E. (1979), Tourism, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Century Three
Press, Lincoln, NE.
Wagar, J.A. (1964), “The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation”, Forest Science Monograph,
No. 7, Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC.
Wagar, J.A. (1974), “Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered”, Journal of Forestry, Vol. 72,
pp. 274-278.
Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. (2008), Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities, Pearson, Harlow.
Wall, G. and Wright, C. (1977), The Environmental Impact of Outdoor Recreation, Department of
Geography Publication Series No. 11, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Young, G. (1973), Tourism, Blessing or Blight?, Penguin, Baltimore.

Corresponding author
Geoffrey Wall can be contacted at: gwall@uwaterloo.ca

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

VOL. 75 NO. 1 2020 j TOURISM REVIEW j PAGE 215