全球首個超限旅遊指數（Overtourism Index）衡量熱門景點超限旅遊程度（中英對照）

旅遊平台 Evaneos 與 Roland Berger 管理顧問公司推出了全球首個工具，用以衡量全球 100 個最受歡迎旅遊目的地中 70 個地點的超限旅遊（Overtourism）程度。超限旅遊指數（Overtourism Index）為旅遊業相關權益方提供決策支持，以更客觀地應對這一現代挑戰。該指數還可作為工具，幫助旅遊業為其客戶選擇最合適的度假套餐。

超限旅遊指數：客觀衡量現代旅遊問題

超限旅遊（Overtourism）指的是特定地區的遊客數量超過其環境、基礎設施和當地社會可承受的極限，並帶來深遠的影響，包括：自然環境受損、當地居民生活品質下降、熱門景點大排長龍，以及遊客旅遊體驗變差。

然而，要準確衡量超限旅遊的程度並不容易。Evaneos 旅行社與Roland Berger 管理顧問公司共同開發了首個「超限旅遊指數」（Overtourism Index），以數據取代主觀印象，客觀評估這一現代旅遊問題。

該指數分析了全球 100 個最受歡迎的旅遊目的地中的 70 個，並根據以下四項客觀標準評估每個目的地的超限旅遊風險，分數從 1（低風險）至 5（極高風險）：

每位居民對應的國際遊客數量（人均國際旅客）
每平方公里的國際遊客數量
旅客集中在旅遊旺季的程度
可持續發展成熟度（如旅遊對當地社會的影響、基礎設施狀況、交通系統的發展程度等）

由於超限旅遊的影響因地區而異，因此需要將其細分為不同類型，以更全面理解其複雜性。該指數識別出高風險和低風險目的地，並根據不同的過載類型進行分類，從而制定最合適的解決方案。

不同類型的超限旅遊需要不同的應對策略。例如，歐洲主要城市的遊客激增與海濱度假勝地的擁擠情況需要採取截然不同的管理措施。因此，該指數的目標不是單純列出受影響最嚴重的目的地，而是促使我們思考並實施最適合的解決方案。

超限旅遊的類別與初步解決方案

分析顯示，超限旅遊主要出現在三類目的地：

海灘度假勝地
熱門歐洲旅遊目的地
城市旅遊目的地

此外，還有兩類也要關注的目的地：

「觀察中」的目的地（需要預防性措施）
「受保護」的目的地（尚未受到大規模旅遊影響）

超限旅遊對海灘度假勝地的影響

海濱度假勝地是最容易受到超限旅遊影響的類別之一，平均脆弱性指數為 4（滿分 5）。這主要是因為遊客密度極高（每位居民對應 3.2 至 9.9 名遊客），且這些地區的生態環境通常較為脆弱（每平方公里 1,600 至 8,000 名遊客）。

受影響最嚴重的國家包括：

塞浦路斯（4.4）
模里西斯（4.2）
希臘（4.0）
克羅埃西亞（3.8）

這些國家平均有 25% 的 GDP 依賴旅遊業，因此更容易受到超限旅遊的影響。

為了減輕這些脆弱地區的壓力，應實施強制性措施，例如：

設立遊客配額（總量管制），以保護受影響最嚴重的景點
加強旅遊淡季的推廣，將遊客流量分散至全年，而非限制總體遊客數量，以減少對 GDP 的衝擊

超限旅遊對熱門歐洲旅遊目的地的影響

許多歐洲著名景點在夏季迎來大量遊客，約 43% 的遊客到訪時間集中在第三季度。

其中，遊客湧入量最高的國家是：

西班牙、義大利、葡萄牙在6月、7月和8月流入最多旅客（平均指數 3.6）
法國（3.3）

儘管這些國家對旅遊業的經濟依賴程度較低（平均占 GDP 的 9%），但仍然需要管理遊客流量。例如，政府可以鼓勵遊客選擇春季或秋季旅遊，如 4 月或 9 月造訪義大利或法國，以享受宜人的天氣並避開擁擠人潮。

超限旅遊對城市旅遊目的地的影響

許多歐洲主要城市因遊客過多而面臨嚴重擁擠問題，因此須採取措施來分散旅遊經濟效益至周邊地區。

目前最受影響的城市為：

丹麥哥本哈根（3.8）
荷蘭阿姆斯特丹（3.7）
愛爾蘭都柏林（3.4）

這些城市正在嘗試：

引導遊客前往其他城市（如荷蘭推廣鹿特丹，以減輕阿姆斯特丹的壓力）
延長遊客停留時間，讓旅客探索較冷門的區域

「觀察中」的旅遊目的地

這些目的地目前的旅遊流量相對均衡，全年平均遊客分布為 24% 至 28%。然而，隨著其知名度提升，它們需要提前規劃，以確保旅遊密度保持在可控範圍內（每平方公里 54 至 240 名遊客，每位居民對應 0.8 名遊客）。

旅遊業對這些地區的 GDP 貢獻平均為 9%，目前正處於關鍵發展階段。例如：

摩洛哥（3.1）
越南（3.0）
埃及（2.7）
冰島（2.9）（冰島的旅遊密度極高，每位居民對應 5.2 名遊客）

當地旅遊管理者應密切監控旅遊承載量，並採取預防性措施，如：

預測基礎設施需求
保護當地文化與環境，確保旅遊發展不影響當地生活

「受保護」的旅遊目的地

這些地區的遊客流量較為分散，旅遊密度較低（每平方公里 16 至 80 名遊客，每位居民對應 0.3 名遊客），全年旅遊旺季變化適中（24% 至 28%）。

這類目的地的平均超限旅遊指數為 2.5，尚未受到大規模旅遊衝擊。代表性國家包括：

加拿大（2.3）
美國（1.7）
澳洲（1.5）
坦尚尼亞（1.8）

這些國家目前未受超限旅遊影響，但仍應維持良好的旅遊管理，以確保旅遊業的可持續發展。

以下是該指數報告電子書：

Overtourism Index – New Tool To Fight Destination Overload.

（原文來源：https://tourismanalytics.com/blog-posts/overtourism-index-new-tool-to-fight-destination-overload）

Nik Fes | Tourism Review | September 16, 2024

Overtourism, the excessive growth of visitor numbers in a given area, has undeniably profound effects. These effects include damaged natural spaces, poorer quality of life for local populations, endless waiting times to visit popular attractions, and a deteriorated travel experience for tourists.

However, the phenomenon is difficult to measure. The first Overtourism Index, developed by Evaneos and the management consultancy Roland Berger, aims to eliminate subjective impressions and enable an objective approach to this modern tourism issue.

The index categorizes overtourism and is based on an analysis of 70 destinations among the 100 most popular travel destinations worldwide in terms of visitors.

To evaluate the risk of overtourism, each destination is rated on a scale from 1 (low risk) to 5 (extreme risk) by considering four objective criteria:

International travelers per capita
International travelers per km2
Seasonal concentration
Sustainability maturity level (the social impacts of tourism, the state of the host infrastructure, the development of the transport system, etc.)

The concept of overtourism cannot be generalized, so it’s important to categorize it into different types to understand its complexity fully. The Overtourism Index identifies high-risk and low-risk destinations and creates new categories based on the various types of overload. This classification aims to help identify the most effective solutions for each situation.

Each category of overtourism raises unique questions that need to be addressed. Dealing with a surge of tourists in a significant European capital requires a different approach than managing overcrowding in a summer seaside resort. Instead of singling out the most affected destinations, this index encourages us to think about and implement the most suitable solutions.

The Overtourism Categories and Initial Solutions

The analysis of the destinations identified three types of hazards caused by overtourism:

Beach Destinations
Popular European travel destinations
Urban Destinations

In addition, there are also “destinations under observation,” which require preventive measures. The fifth category, “protected destinations,” includes those spared from mass tourism.

Overtourism at beach destinations

Seaside resorts are one of the most vulnerable tourism categories, with an average vulnerability index of 4 out of 5. This is primarily due to the high concentration of tourists (ranging from 3.2 to 9.9 tourists per resident) in relatively small and ecologically fragile areas (1,600 to 8,000 tourists per square kilometer). Countries that are particularly affected include Cyprus (4.4), Mauritius (4.2), Greece (4), and Croatia (3.8). These destinations are especially vulnerable because, on average, 25 percent of their GDP depends on tourism.

To address these vulnerabilities, these highly affected destinations must implement mandatory measures. One approach is to regulate the capacity of these areas by introducing quotas to preserve the most frequented places. Additionally, efforts should be made to spread tourist flows throughout the year by promoting these destinations more intensively during the off-peak season. The goal is not to reduce the overall number of tourists but rather to ensure a better distribution of visitor numbers throughout the year, thus minimizing the risk to the GDP.

Overtourism in popular European destinations

Many famous European destinations experience a significant increase in tourist numbers during the summer season. Approximately 43 percent of arrivals occur in the third quarter of the year. Spain, Italy, and Portugal have the highest influx during June, July, and August, with an average index of 3.6, closely followed by France at 3.3.

Despite being less economically reliant on tourism than seaside resorts (averaging 9 percent of GDP), these destinations would benefit from measures to manage tourist flows throughout the year, including encouraging travel in the spring or autumn. Travelers can explore Italy or France in April or September to enjoy pleasant weather and a more peaceful trip with fewer tourists.

Overtourism in urban destinations

City tourism, especially in major European capitals, needs measures to reduce city congestion and spread tourism’s economic benefits to surrounding areas. While these destinations have a good level of sustainability and low economic reliance on tourism (averaging 5% of GDP), up to 37% of visitors in the third quarter were focused on these metropolises. They achieved an average index of 3.2. The top 3 most at-risk metropolises are Copenhagen, Denmark (score of 3.8), Amsterdam, Netherlands (score of 3.7), and Dublin, Ireland (score of 3.4).

These destinations are eager to redirect tourist traffic to other regions. In the Netherlands, for example, Rotterdam is being promoted more to ease the pressure on Amsterdam. Another option is encouraging travelers to stay longer, allowing them to visit other, sometimes lesser-known regions alongside the most popular cities.

Travel destinations under observation

Destinations categorized as “under observation” face the challenge of being proactive and taking preventive measures. On average, these destinations have a balanced flow of tourists throughout the year, ranging from 24 to 28 percent. However, as they become more popular, they require proactive management of tourist density, both per square kilometer (ranging between 54 and 240 tourists per km²) and in terms of population (0.8 tourists per inhabitant). These destinations contribute an average of 9 percent to GDP and are at a critical juncture. For instance, Morocco (3.1), Vietnam (3), Egypt (2.7), and Iceland (2.9) are ranked at the top, with Iceland having an exceptionally high risk due to a tourist density of 5.2 per inhabitant.

The tourism managers’ key responsibility is to monitor the capacity of tourist sites and implement measures to preserve them. This involves anticipating and supporting infrastructure development in these destinations to maintain authenticity while providing targeted and limited offerings to educate travelers.

Protected travel destinations

These destinations cover a large area and have a balanced distribution of tourist traffic, with 16 to 80 tourists per square kilometer or 0.3 tourists per inhabitant. They have a 24 to 28 percent seasonality throughout the year and an average overtourism index of 2.5, protecting them from overtourism. Countries in this category include Canada (2.3), the USA (1.7), Australia (1.5), and Tanzania (1.8).

Related articles

Sustainable/Eco/Green Tourism

STUDY SHOWS A MAP OF OVERTOURISM IN ITALY

Travel Tech

THE IMPACT OF OVERTOURISM ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

Security

OVERTOURISM IS BACK: MOST DESTINATIONS EXCEED THEIR VISITOR RECORDS