Overtourism perception among residents in a rural proximity destination during the COVID-19-pandemic – The writing on the wall for a sustainability transition of tourism?

2.1 Overview

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework used, depicting the interrelationship between key elements in residents’ responses to tourism development. It postulates a causal chain beginning with residents’ perception of tourism impacts, which influences their subjective well-being ultimately shaping their attitudes towards tourism (left part). The attitudes, in turn, are closely connected to the acceptance of tourism which materializes in differing behaviors (right part). In the following sections, we explain each component of the framework, starting with residents’ perceptions of tourism.

Figure 1:

Resident responses to tourism

Source: own elaboration, based on Carmichael (2000)

2.2 Resident perceptions of tourism

Residents’ perceptions form the foundation of the conceptual framework (Figure 1). Perception is defined as the process and result of stimulus processing, aiming for a realistic representation of the environment (Wirtz, 2024; Goldstein & Irtel, 2014). However, perception underlies individual filters due to sensory impressions and cognitive influences such as expectations, experiences, and cultural imprints, resulting in a subjectively distorted depiction of reality (Breyer, 2017; Herrmann, 2016).

Residents’ perceptions are crucial, serving as the foundation for their support or opposition towards tourism development (Almeida-García, Peláez-Fernández, Balbuena-Vázquez, & Cortés-Macias, 2016; Gannon, Rasoolimanesh, & Taheri, 2021; Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2010). Since tourism significantly impacts living spaces, habits, social life, beliefs, and values of inhabitants, it potentially shapes their lives decisively (Almeida-García, Balbuena Vázquez, & Cortés Macías, 2015; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Deery et al., 2012). Emerging beneficial and detrimental effects manifest in economic, ecological, and socio-cultural dimensions, with residents’ perceptions varying due to variables such as personal benefits from tourism, emotional attachment to the living space and environmental awareness. Table 1a summarizes ambiguous empirical findings regarding these variables and their influences on residents’ perceptions.

Despite the significance of residents’ perceptions in tourism, the quantitative dominance of the field hinders deep understanding, emphasizing the need for qualitative research (Deery et al., 2012; Hadinejad et al., 2019; Nunkoo, Smith, & Ramkissoon, 2013; Sharpley, 2014).

The main significance of perception lies in its influence on locals’ subjective well-being, serving as a resonance body for tourism’s multifaceted impacts. Uysal, Sirgy, Woo, and Kim (2016) and Woo, Uysal, and Sirgy (2018) underline, that the perception of tourism’s influences inhibits or enhances subjective well-being and quality of life in a destination. Therefore, the examination of tourism’s impact on the subjective well-being of locals can be understood as a continuation of perception research.

2.3 Subjective well-being: a key component of quality of life

Perception has a crucial influence on subjective well-being, a key component of quality of life (Figure 1). Subjective well-being, often equated with happiness or life satisfaction (Diener, 1984), comprises a positive subjective, cognitive, and affective evaluation of life, defined as “experiencing a high level of positive affect, a low level of negative affect, and a high degree of satisfaction with one’s life” (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 1). High endorsement of these constructs indicates high subjective well-being.

Regarding the distinction between the two constructs, Gasper (2010, p. 351) explains “‘well-being’ is used somewhat more to refer to actual experience, and ‘quality of life’ more to refer to context and environments”. Furthermore, there is a difference regarding the target group: Quality of life focuses on the aggregated subjective well-being of a collective, whereas subjective well-being refers to individuals (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener & Suh, 1997; Gasper, 2010). Moreover, subjective well-being is an expression of living a ‘good life’, an individual understanding based on one’s unique conceptualization of values, goals and socio-cultural influences (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener & Suh, 1997). Thus, subjective well-being is highly individualized, akin to a fingerprint.

As this contribution focuses on the individual, a concentration on subjective well-being is obligatory. However, tourism research often blurs the distinction between quality of life and subjective well-being constructs^[1] (Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2013; Uysal et al., 2016).

2.4 Measurement of subjective well-being in tourism

Research on subjective well-being in a tourism context has been predominantly quantitative, revealing a significant gap in qualitative understanding (Uysal et al., 2016; Magnini, Ford, & LaTour, 2012). Usually, subjective well-being is measured by applying the Bottom-up Spillover Theory of Andrews and Withey (1976), respectively Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) investigating how perceived tourism impacts influence pre-defined subdimensions of life satisfaction, which cumulatively affect overall life satisfaction (Woo et al., 2018; Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Kim et al., 2013).

However, the applicability of the Bottom-Up Spillover Theory is questioned by Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) as it neglects individuals’ varying importance placed on the subdimensions of one’s unique interpretation of quality of life.

While a substantial body of research suggests tourism’s potential to enhance locals’ subjective well-being (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Jeon, Kang, & Desmarais, 2016; Kim et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2015), Table 1b reveals more nuanced findings, indicating that tourism’s impacts on specific life satisfaction subdimensions can vary significantly. Consequently, the individual weighting of these subdimensions – based on personal interpretations – may lead to a reduction in overall life satisfaction. Furthermore, a temporal variability is evident in Bimonte and Faralla’s (2016) study, demonstrating declining satisfaction during peak seasons. This aligns with the findings of Su, Yang and Swanson (2022) on quality-of-life deterioration as destinations develop – with peak seasons simulating these conditions. Woo et al. (2015) in turn report, that a reduction in locals’ subjective well-being can lead to a withdrawal of their support for tourism. Thus, subjective well-being gains relevance due to its influence on locals’ attitudes.

2.5 Resident attitudes towards tourism

The final component of Figure 1 (left part), attitude, is considered “an enduring predisposition towards a particular aspect of one’s environment. This predisposition can be reflected in the way one thinks, feels and behaves with respect to that aspect” (McDougall & Munro, 2010, p. 116). An individual’s attitudes can thus be reflected in his/her behavior.

Diedrich and García-Buades (2009) as well as Schönherr, Bichler and Pikkemaat (2023) note that the attitudes of local residents towards tourism are not static, but dynamic and reflected in their acceptance of tourism. Tourism acceptance refers to how positively or negatively locals view tourism in a destination (Schmücker & Eisenstein, 2021).

The question of when the attitude of locals becomes negative is at the center of Doxey’s (1975) Irritation Index. The model delineates the evolution of locals’ attitudes towards tourism through four stages: Euphoria, apathy, irritation, and antagonism. Whilst the irritation stage marks the zenith of locals’ tourism saturation, beyond which oversaturation may occur, the antagonism phase, characterized by rejection of further tourism development, represents the culmination of this process. This oversaturation (Figure 1, right part) also indicating a surpassing of social carrying capacity (Graefe, Vaske, & Kuss, 1984), can manifest itself in an active or passive opposition (Carmichael, 2000). Brehm’s (1966) Theory of Psychological Reactance may elucidate the divergence in residents’ responses to tourism impacts. This theory posits that perceived constraints on range of action or freedom of choice elicit reactance behavior aimed at restoring autonomy. In the context of tourism, intense impacts restricting locals’ daily lives and leisure – especially in aspects of high personal significance – may trigger pronounced reactance. Consequently, residents might engage in active opposition through various forms of resistance, potentially manifesting as symptoms of overtourism.

2.6 Perspectives on overtourism and the COVID-19-pandemic

Overtourism denotes perceived excessive negative impacts of tourism, fuelling feelings of oversaturation among residents (Koens et al., 2018). According to Milano, Novelli and Cheer (2022) and UNWTO (2018), this feeling can diminish locals’ perceived liveability and subjective well-being, provoking not only passive resignation, but also active opposition manifested through protests and anti-tourism movements.

Thus, the subjective perception of a touristified living environment influencing locals’ well-being is central to understand the phenomenon. Reflecting this subjectivity, overtourism is defined here as “the excessive growth of visitors leading to areas where residents suffer consequences of temporary and seasonal tourism peaks, which have caused permanent changes to their lifestyles, denied access to amenities and damaged their general well-being” (Milano et al., 2019, p. 1). Given the supposed degrading effects of overtourism on subjective well-being, the latter serves here as a qualitative overtourism indicator.

At the centre of overtourism is the phenomenon’s intruding character on locals’ daily lives, reducing subjective well-being through housing pressures, infrastructure catering more to tourists, and environmental degradation (Peeters et al., 2018). Despite the destination-type-spanning dimension of overtourism, research has disproportionately focused on urban destinations, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of rural overtourism dynamics (see Koens et al., 2018; Namberger et al., 2019; Peeters et al., 2018). While urban areas face more social impacts and rural destinations suffer greater ecological harm (Peeters et al., 2018), Butler (2019) argues that the effects of overtourism cut deeper in rural contexts by introducing disruptions urban areas only experience as exacerbations of existing issues like traffic and noise.

Although approaches to manage overtourism have focused on urban areas (UNWTO, 2018), rural destinations are affected, too. The intricacy of rural destinations warrants recognition, stemming from the inherent variety of rural areas themselves, as reflected in the OECD’s (1993) classification into economically integrated, intermediate, and remote rural areas. Each category exhibits distinct tourism patterns in terms of visitor demographics, duration of stay, population density, infrastructure, and primary attractions (Lane, 2009). Aptly observed by Mayer and Woltering (2024), rural tourism’s diversity mirrors that of rural areas themselves. In each rural destination, this heterogeneity manifests through unique landscapes, lifestyles, cultural traditions, and natural heritage which in turn foster a broad spectrum of niche tourism offerings, ranging from agricultural to adventure tourism (Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2014). These niche tourism forms align closely with the multifaceted rural experiences posited by Rosalina et al. (2021) as quintessential for rural tourism: Physical (landscape and culture), social (rural lifestyle), and psychological (evoking relaxation, nostalgia, and identity). This complex interplay of rural diversity and multifaceted experiences complicates uniform management strategies, particularly for issues like overtourism, necessitating context-specific approaches. Nevertheless, Peeters et al. (2018) studied 41 overtourism sites, including seven rural ones, and found that common strategies in rural destinations were, among other, codes of conduct restricting visitor behavior/attraction access (43 % of cases), tourist dispersion via new attractions/marketing (29 %) or stronger stakeholder involvement (29 %). Kästl and Firgo (2024) conducted a case study that largely validated the applicability of typical anti-overcrowding measures, originally developed for urban contexts, to rural destinations.

However, Butler and Dodds (2022) lament the lack of serious institutional efforts to curb overtourism and it appears that by 2020 overtourism had spread widely, nourishing dissatisfaction, driving a desire for change and ultimately catalyzing a stronger impetus for sustainable tourism development.

Nevertheless, those voices were silenced as the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting imposition of widespread lockdowns and unprecedented international travel restrictions seemingly ended overtourism (UNWTO, 2023). These containment measures led to increased spatial confinement and psychological distress (Derks et al., 2020). Consequently, domestic day trips to natural areas gained significant popularity as a coping mechanism (Derks et al., 2020; Geng, Innes, Wu, & Wang, 2021; Gössling, McCabe, & Chen, 2020; Sigala, 2020). During periods of eased restrictions, overall domestic day trip numbers at times exceeded pre-pandemic levels in Germany, especially in summer months (dwif, 2022, 2023). Bavaria emerged as the most visited destination for day trips in 2020 (ADAC, 2021), with 90 % of visitors in 2021 originating from within the state (dwif, 2022). Trip distances shortened, indicating a preference for local nature-based recreation (dwif, 2022). Derks et al. (2020) reported a 140 % growth in visitors to natural areas in rural destinations compared to pre-pandemic levels. Concurrently, the pandemic led to a significant shift towards domestic tourism (Hall et al., 2020; Sharma, Thomas, & Paul, 2021).

Figure 2:

High visitor frequentation in the Allgäu Alps (Rubihorn) during the COVID-19-pandemic

Source: Benedikt Siegert/Allgäuer Zeitungsverlag, 15.05.2020

In Germany, the proportion of domestic vacationers increased from 35 % pre-pandemic to 56 % in 2020 and 50 % in 2021 (ADAC, 2021; Stiftung für Zukunftsfragen, 2022). Rural, alpine destinations in Bavaria experienced the most pronounced demand surge, with some regions exceeding 5-year averages in overnight stays (ADAC, 2021; Schmude et al., 2021), suggesting a concentration of both day-trippers and vacationers in these destinations during the pandemic. Although some argue the pandemic measures temporarily ended overtourism (Gössling et al., 2021), others suggest it merely shifted locations, as evidenced by the stark contrast between deserted typical overtourism destinations, like Venice, and overcrowded rural, alpine destinations in Bavaria, like the Allgäu (see Figure 2) (Hall & Seyfi, 2020). According to media reports, the Allgäu turned out to be a particularly heavily frequented destination due to the pandemic-induced changes in travel behavior – experiencing not only a ‘rush to idyll’ (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2020) but being ‘overrun by streams of tourists’ (Allgäuer Zeitung, 2020). This raises questions about whether COVID-19 made tourism more local but amplified overtourism perceptions in rural destinations.

2.7 Intermediate conclusion

Synthesizing the theoretical background reveals a complex interplay between residents’ perceptions, subjective well-being, and attitudes towards tourism development. This framework elucidates the genesis of overtourism, manifested through passive or active opposition and potentially indicated by diminished resident well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic, rather than ending overtourism, may have redirected its impacts to rural destinations. The following research gaps are evident: A dearth of qualitative approaches to comprehend residents’ perceptions, limitations in current subjective well-being measurement methodologies, insufficient exploration of rural overtourism dynamics, and limited understanding of the pandemic’s impact on overtourism perceptions in rural contexts. The empirical part of this contribution addresses these gaps by examining overtourism perceptions in the Allgäu, challenging the notion of proximity tourism as a sustainability transition pathway and providing insights into rural overtourism manifestations during the pandemic.

3.1 Qualitative approach

A qualitative approach was chosen for this inherently subjective research topic marked by an overrepresentation of quantitative research. This approach facilitates a deeper understanding of individuals’ subjective experiences, perceptions, and attitudes (Flick, 2022). Semi-structured interviews, characterized by a pre-formulated interview guide (Misoch, 2019), with local people in the Allgäu provide the required in-depth perspectives on quality of life, subjective well-being and (over-)tourism perceptions.

The interview guideline was developed based on previous studies (e. g., Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Kim et al., 2013) and grounded in relevant theories, such as Brehm’s Theory of Reactance (1966). This theoretical foundation informed the core topics of the interview guideline: 1) leisure behavior of the residents, 2) perception of tourism, 3) subjective well-being, 4) attitude towards tourism, 5) perception of overtourism, and 6) future vision of tourism in the Allgäu.

Exemplary questions include: 1.1) What do you like to do in your leisure time in the Allgäu?, 2.1) How would you describe the situation in the Allgäu during the pandemic in terms of tourism, including day trips?, 3.1) How happy are you to be living in the Allgäu?, 4.1) Do you think the advantages or disadvantages of tourism have prevailed in the Allgäu during the pandemic?, 5.1) How do you assess the situation in the Allgäu during the pandemic with regard to the phenomenon of ‘overtourism’?, 6.1) How would you feel if the Allgäu were to experience the same level of tourism from now on as during the pandemic?

Because of the study’s dual focus on tourism perception during the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of tourism in the Allgäu, it was necessary to include both ‘pandemic’ and ‘future’ temporal dimensions during the interviews. To assess potential changes during the pandemic, a ‘present’ dimension, i. e. the time when the interviews were conducted, was also incorporated. For instance, respondents were asked about their current happiness living in the Allgäu, their happiness during the pandemic, and their projected future happiness if tourism maintained at the intensity of the pandemic. As present tourism perception falls outside the research scope, related findings are largely omitted from the results presentation, serving only as a baseline. Questions on the socio-demographic data of the respondents marked the end of the interview guide.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

We collected data from 15 semi-structured interviews, conducted between August and November 2022. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. The selection of respondents was based on three criteria: 1) nature-centered leisure activities, 2) proximity of residence to major tourist attractions in Oberallgäu/Ostallgäu, and 3) personal experience with tourism in the Allgäu during the pandemic.

Three of the 15 interviews were excluded from data analysis as the participants revealed during the interviews that they did not meet at least one of the criteria. Therefore, a total of 12 interviews were analyzed. Seven interviews were conducted in-person at the respondents’ residences, while five were administered through online devices. The average length of the interviews was 69 minutes (see Appendix 1). After transcription, we employed Mayring’s (2015) qualitative content analysis, specifically content structuring, to extract and summarize key content via a category system. The deductive main category system was enriched with inductively derived subcategories from the material. For instance, the category ‘Perception of travel behavior changes’, based on studies of pandemic-induced tourism shifts (e. g. Derks et al., 2020), was expanded to include emergent themes like ‘Limited experience in natural areas’. Using MAXQDA software for coding, the category system was refined iteratively. A coding guide was developed to determine text element categorization, including definitions, anchor examples, and coding rules where necessary (Mayring, 2015). The interviews and their analysis was done in German, with some assorted statements of the respondents translated to English by the authors for illustrative purposes. In the results section, respondents are referred to with ‘R’ and their respective number, e. g. R1.

3.3 Study area

The interviews were carried out in the Allgäu, a sustainability-award-winning rural destination in the south of Germany located in the Prealps and Alps. The destination is characterized by a diverse cultural and near-natural landscape used both in summer and winter seasons for a wide range of outdoor activities. In addition to its landscape resources, the Allgäu offers cultural attractions such as the royal castles Hohenschwangau and Neuschwanstein. Not only because of its various attractions, but also because of its national and international accessibility the Allgäu has become one of the top vacation destinations in Germany (Allgäu GmbH, 2024). Before the pandemic, the Allgäu recorded an estimated 88 million day trips^[2] while setting a new record in 2019 with 4 million guest arrivals and 14 million overnight stays (Bayern Tourismus Marketing GmbH, 2024; dwif, 2021). In 2019 two districts of the Allgäu, Oberallgäu and Ostallgäu, ranked first (40.1k overnight stays per 1000 inhabitants) and fifth (25.9k) in tourism intensity among Bavarian districts, underscoring the region’s significance as a tourism hotspot (Bayern Tourismus Marketing GmbH, 2024) and highlighting its economic importance. Simultaneously, overtourism concerns arose, with 59.7 % of residents perceiving tourism burdens, citing temporal and spatial issues like overcrowding at Neuschwanstein or Linderhof Castles, ski slopes and cross-country trails or mountain hiking trails (Bauer et al., 2022).

During the pandemic, the Allgäu experienced declining guest arrivals (2020: 2.5 million; 2021: 2.3 million) and overnight stays (2020: 10 million; 2021: 9 million) (Bayern Tourismus Marketing GmbH, 2024). However, this decline was partially mitigated by a significant increase in visitors from the German domestic market. The share of German guests rose from 87.6 % in 2019 to 93.0 % in 2020 and peaked at 95.0 % in 2021 (Bayern Tourismus Marketing GmbH, 2024). Consequently, in 2020 and 2021, tourists visiting the Allgäu originated almost exclusively from within Germany.

Tourist activity remained concentrated in two districts of the destination, Oberallgäu and Ostallgäu. Despite pandemic-related declines in overnight stays, Oberallgäu maintained a high tourism intensity, ranking second among Bavarian districts in 2020 (29.8k overnight stays/1000 inhabitants) and 2021 (26.4k). Ostallgäu similarly exhibited high tourism intensity within the state-wide assessment, ranking fourth in 2020 (20.1k) and third in 2021 (19.3k) (Bayern Tourismus Marketing GmbH, 2024). Since this concentration of tourist flows may have placed a higher burden on the residents of these two districts, the study focuses on investigating the effects of tourism on local residents specifically there.

4.1 Profile of the respondents

The respondents, aged between 21 and 82 years (average 38), were evenly split between genders and mostly born or raised in the Allgäu, with varying educational backgrounds. Half of the respondents reported an economic dependency on tourism. All considered the Allgäu their home, with high emotional attachment. Most respondents value environmental protection and are strongly connected to nature, underpinned by an engagement in outdoor activities – often in remote areas for solitude and adventure, but also in popular hotspots. During the lockdowns, most respondents observed increased recreational activities by residents in natural areas, without feeling disturbed by fellow locals. The visited natural areas were mostly identical to those of the time the interviews were conducted whilst outdoor recreation remained constant or increased compared to post-pandemic times.

4.2 Perceptions of tourism-induced changes in everyday life and leisure time

During the pandemic, all respondents, except R6 and R11, perceived a tourist rush after the initial lifting of COVID-19 restrictions in spring 2020, with most (excluding R5 and R11) noting an increase in visitor numbers as the pandemic progressed. The majority felt tourism levels were too high, though R5, R6, R7, and R11 disagreed. Notably, perceptions of tourism volume possibly have been influenced by the contrast between strict lockdowns and subsequent openings, with the sudden presence of visitors triggering feelings of oversaturation:

“It’s … your own head that’s playing tricks on you. Because … before on a Saturday afternoon – no corona, no lockdown – you looked left and right and the city was packed. Then there’s a lockdown and suddenly the city is empty. … It goes on like that for four weeks and suddenly the city is full again. If you had counted the people – there probably wouldn’t have been that many. But then it seemed … so much …” (R12, pos. 68).

When asked about potentially changed travel characteristics, respondents explained that the pandemic’s limitations led to a rediscovery of the Allgäu by domestic tourists, including new target groups like young visitors. These visitors, as residents deduced from license plates, travelled from a radius of around 200 km and predominantly originated from urban centers. Not only holiday appartements but also camping (including wildcamping) gained popularity. Many of the new visitors lacked familiarity with the Allgäu’s alpine environment and natural landscapes. Concurrently, these natural areas experienced intensified usage by tourists. Notably, visitors ventured beyond established leisure infrastructure to explore and engage with nature in more remote settings.

These pandemic-induced changes in travel behavior led to the perception of extreme overcrowding, severely disrupting residents’ daily lives and leisure activities. R10 summarized:

“It was just too much. There were too many people. I mean, we’re used to a lot of people here. But it was just too extreme because everything was overcrowded.” (R10, pos. 64).

Victims of overcrowding were not only public spaces in cities, but also the immediate living environment of residents: Due to transport infrastructure (e. g. roads and parking lots) reaching its limits, tourists were parking on private property and blocking driveways. Leisure infrastructure like cable-cars and mountain huts was saturated, too. Furthermore, the overcrowding extended to forests and mountains, with hikers or long queues of e-bikers on trails, described as “e-bike highways” (R1, pos. 66).

The overcrowding of nature-based attractions and the temporary closure of recreational facilities, like swimming pools or fitness centers, led to tourism pervading places of retreat for locals. The guests’ intrusion into natural areas induced damage to flora and fauna. Through ignorance and lack of knowledge, protected areas were disregarded, meadows trampled on, and wildlife disturbed. Furthermore, environmental damages exacerbated due to an increased waste problem, partly induced by wild camping.

The shift in accommodation preferences from hotels to holiday appartements, coupled with a transition from spatially and temporally concentrated and therefore avoidable international tour groups to dispersed domestic individual tourists, led to a higher visibility of leisure activities in the locals’ everyday lives. This made tensions arise from guests’ perceived aggressiveness, lack of consideration, and their entitlement “we pay, so everything belongs to us” (R2, pos. 87). Traits of this attitude favoured violations of privacy:

“We were sitting on our terrace and then the skiers drove right past our coffee table through the garden. … By doing that, they massively invaded our privacy.” (R10, pos. 24).

The pandemic-induced changes of tourism in everyday and leisure spaces led to an impairment of the locals. This was perceived as less severe in daily life due to habituation. R2 argued that habit leads to higher tolerance, stating: “If something is extreme, you don’t really perceive the ‘even worse’ anymore.”(R2, pos. 105). Most respondents felt impaired during leisure time, except R2, R11, and R12, with R2 explaining that tourism had become a habit even in local people’s leisure spaces.

4.3 Impacts on residents’ subjective well-being and their attitudes towards tourism

4.3.2 Attitudes

The degradation of subjective well-being was mostly reflected in the respondents’ attitudes towards tourism. At the time of the interviews, all respondents – except for R9 and R12 – experienced more advantages from tourism, like intercultural encounters or prosperity, than disadvantages. During the pandemic, however, most respondents stated that advantages of tourism diminished and did not predominate.

Figure 3 displays the related change in tourism acceptance. During the pandemic, only R5 and R7 considered themselves to be supporters of tourism. As a hotel manager and heiress to a hotel, R5 in particular saw tourism in a positive light – as confirmed by almost all the statements. R5 continues to be a staunch supporter of tourism in the Allgäu.

Figure 3:

Retrospective examination of the change in tourism acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Source: own elaboration

Nevertheless, the tourism acceptance of R3, R6, and R8 reduced to a neutral stance. R4 and R1 (neutral at the time of the interview) identified themselves as opponents during the pandemic. Notwithstanding that R2, R3, R6, R8, R10, and R11 claimed neutrality, their overall statements suggested either tendential or direct opposition to tourism. Hence, the neutral stance is divided into neutral/tendency opponent (R2, R10, R11) and neutral/opponent (R3, R6, PR8), collectively referred to as indirect tourism opponents.

The study revealed that the attitudes of supporters and opponents were reflected in their behavior (Table 2). Residents with a neutral attitude reacted either as supporters or opponents – depending on the situation.

Tourism supporters like R5 exhibited quiet acceptance by avoiding overcrowded places and times without perceiving it as a restriction, but rather normality. As they aimed to cope with tourism consequences, their behavior was not actively supportive but an unconscious adaptation through avoidance tactics. Locals with neutral stances exhibited behaviors spanning the spectrum of tourism supporters and opponents. R3, R6, and R8 – despite their neutral/opposing stance – situationally acted as tourism supporters. These respondents described habitually avoiding tourism as a form of quiet acceptance. Simultaneously, some interviewees, like R3, felt disturbed by the consequences of tourism and engaged in active political opposition. The opponents did not approve of the restrictions on tourism. Nevertheless, some also fell into a resigned acceptance by using temporal or local avoidance and adaptation tactics:

Table 2:

Reactions of the respondents to overtourism perceptions during the COVID-19-pandemic

Actor groups	Supporters	Opponents
Behavior	Quiet acceptance	Active opposition	Resigned acceptance
Examples	Avoidance, adaptation	Political involvement, information on misconduct, discussion	Avoidance, adaptation

Source: own elaboration

“I had to reschedule to very early or late times of the day and to more remote places. And the places that I actually visit every year as an Oberstdorf resident … I haven’t visited at all over these years.” (R1, pos. 88).

However, other opponents resisted through discussions calling out tourist misconduct, and political initiatives like R1’s ‘Oberstdorf for Future’ to promote sustainable tourism and address traffic issues.

Tourism opponents and locals with a neutral stance perceived restrictions on their scope of action due to tourism consequences, exemplified by R1: “I could not freely visit nature at the times I wanted to” (pos. 92). In accordance with reactance-behavior, all residents who experienced these limitations – except for R6 and R12 – turned to methods of active opposition against tourism impacts.

4.4 Perceptions of Overtourism in times of COVID-19

Results illustrate heterogeneous perceptions of overtourism among Allgäu residents during the pandemic. While most respondents were familiar with the term ‘overtourism’, R4 required an explanation. To ensure correct interpretation, other locals were asked to provide associations with the term and situation. Key associations included ‘traffic load,’ ‘displacement of locals,’ ‘destruction of nature,’ and ‘tourist monoculture.’ Notably, R1 and R8 equated overtourism with the general tourism occurrence in the Allgäu during the pandemic.

Although the majority acknowledged experiencing overtourism, R5, R7, and R11 held differing views. R5 contended that overtourism primarily afflicts urban areas, asserting that isolated spatiotemporal peaks in rural regions reflect organizational challenges rather than overtourism. Similarly, R7 differentiated between her unaffected immediate surroundings and nearby cities exhibiting overtourism. R11 perceived no excessive tourism influx and therefore no overtourism tendencies. Despite the consequences of overtourism, most locals remained content residing in the Allgäu – except for R9, who questioned the desirability of living in a place shaken by the phenomenon.

4.5 Residents’ visions of a sustainability transformation of tourism

Regarding the option of sustainability-driven proximity tourism in the future which could evoke the overtourism perceptions during the pandemic the following results emerged: All respondents, except R5 and R6, would position themselves as opponents if tourism in the Allgäu was to reach the same extent as during the pandemic. R10 (pos. 36) exemplified: “We are not that big to be able to cope with all that. And since I’ve now experienced what it’s like when there are masses: That’s not desirable.”.

While R8 and R3 deemed a happy life possible under such circumstances alongside R5 and R6, others like R12 (pos. 152) doubted it: “That would definitely restrict me. It would make me … unhappy, also more stressed. … And of course, that goes hand in hand with anger and rage.”. Respondents largely anticipated that tourism oversaturation in the Allgäu, resulting from a sustainability transformation, would precipitate their active opposition aimed at effecting change. Only R2 and R8 diverged from this trend, foreseeing resigned acceptance instead.

In a scenario of potential future tourism oversaturation locals outlined various behavioral coping strategies. R4 and R7 emphasized self-efficacy through initiatives prioritizing sustainable tourism practices and safeguarding local well-being. R1, R5, R6, R9, R10, and R11 stated intentions to engage politically, seek dialogue with local authorities, or leverage voting power to influence decision-making. However, R8 and R2 expressed political resignation, attributing an unwillingness for change among politicians due to vested economic interests in tourism. R2 (pos. 169) metaphorically described: “Because … so many live off tourism – it’s a bit like Don Quixote. A fight against windmills.”. R2 even contemplated leaving the Allgäu if future tourism would reach levels akin to those of pandemic-times.

To avert future overtourism, mitigate local opposition, and ensure sustainable tourism in the Allgäu, findings underscore the need of a multifaceted approach (see Table 3).

Respondents especially emphasized the imperative to not only meet the needs of tourists but also those of locals. The respondents underscored this point by calling for “harmony between locals and visitors – and above all nature” (R7, pos. 185). At the same time spatial redistribution was opposed, with one respondent noting, “I feel that the Oberallgäu really has been developed to its limits for tourism” (R1, pos. 100). Off-season promotion for temporal redistribution was disapproved due to eliminating crucial regeneration phases for humans and environment.

5.1 Resident perceptions of tourism

This study examined residents’ perceptions of tourism in the Allgäu during the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing discrepancies between local perceptions and official statistics regarding tourist volume. Contrary to official data, residents reported an increase in perceived tourism presence, potentially attributed to unaccounted day-trippers and local recreationists – though we cannot test this hypothesis. Nevertheless, this incongruence aligns with the subjective nature of perception (Breyer, 2017; Herrmann, 2016): The lost experience of tourism during lockdowns likely influenced respondents’ evaluations, with the stark contrast between ‘zero-tourism’ and the subsequent abrupt resurgence potentially engendering an overwhelming perception of tourism volume. This phenomenon parallels seasonality effects on resident satisfaction (Bimonte & Faralla, 2016). Irrespective of perceptual influences, most interviewees characterized tourism volume as excessive during the high times of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

The primary driver of this perceived increase stemmed from altered travel behavior, with guests – predominantly originating from proximate urban areas, as suggested by Derks et al. (2020) – (re)discovering the Allgäu. This travel pattern exemplifies a substitution of long-distance travel with ‘proximity tourism’, aligning with sustainable travel paradigms advocated by Ballantine (2020), Hall et al. (2020), and Romagosa (2020). Consequently, our findings offer empirical insights into the ramifications of increased domestic and proximity tourism for destination communities and sustainability objectives.

However, altered travel behavior negatively impacted residents’ living spaces, affecting both every day and leisure environments during the pandemic. Residents reported fewer disturbances in daily life compared to leisure time, potentially due to cultural imprinting effects (Herrmann, 2016), as tourism has become the norm over time. This phenomenon appears to have established higher tolerance thresholds. Nonetheless, problematic encounters occurred when visitors behaved aggressively and inconsiderately towards locals, such as invading their privacy. Notably, tourism beneficiaries and those indirectly dependent on the industry demonstrated more positive perceptions, underlining findings by Andereck et al. (2005) and Gursoy et al. (2019). The tourism-induced consequences for residents’ leisure time were more pronounced. Environmental awareness influenced residents’ perceptions, consistent with Gursoy et al. (2010) illustrating that ecocentric values may lead to a more negative perception of tourism due to its environmental consequences. Perceived overcrowding and negatively connoted tourist behavior represented a departure from normality, resulting in less tolerance in leisure spaces compared to everyday spaces, due to a lack of cultural imprinting.

Irrespective of cultural imprinting or other factors influencing perception, most respondents exhibited sensitivity towards overcrowding and intensified tourism presence. The expansion of tourism into near-natural areas displaced some residents from their tranquil retreats. Furthermore, the high car traffic generated by increased individual visitation challenges the sustainability contribution of ‘proximity tourism’, albeit at the regional/local level.

5.2 Residents’ subjective well-being and attitudes towards tourism

Tourism perception negatively impacted various self-chosen life domains essential for overall life satisfaction according to the Bottom-up Spillover Theory (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). The ratio of positive and negative affects and the sense of happiness were also negatively influenced, leading to a reduction of most respondents’ subjective well-being.

These findings contradict prevalent literature demonstrating increased well-being through tourism (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Jeon et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2015). However, they align with Bimonte and Faralla’s (2016) observed reduction in resident satisfaction during peak season. The pandemic-induced contrast between over- and under-tourism may simulate high and low season experiences.

This identification of the negative effects of tourism on residents’ subjective well-being was facilitated by the interview guideline design. Responding to Andereck and Nyaupane’s (2011) critique, we asked for respondents’ self-defined life domains relevant to their well-being, ensuring impacts genuinely affected overall life satisfaction. Additionally, this study incorporated Deci and Ryan’s (2008) interpretation of the construct by investigating tourism’s impact on residents’ positive and negative affects. To reduce abstraction, residents’ sense of happiness was also addressed using more colloquial terminology. Thus, whether tourism influences subjective well-being might be a question of operationalization.

The tourism experiences during the pandemic negatively impacted some residents’ tourism acceptance. Compared to the present, more residents identified as opponents (R1, R4, R9, R12), neutral with opposing tendencies (R2, R10, R11), or neutral opponents (R3, R6, R8). Fewer residents retrospectively revealed themselves as tourism supporters during the pandemic compared to the survey time (R5, R7).

Residents’ attitudes align with Doxey’s (1975) Irridex model stages: Supporters exhibited ‘euphoria’ (R5) or ‘apathy’ (R7), maintaining acceptance despite recognizing negative impacts. R7, however, experienced reduced subjective well-being and tourism disillusionment. Neutral residents showed inconsistent attitudes, ranging from ‘irritation’ to ‘antagonism’. The neutral/tendency opponent group (R2, R10, R11) experienced decreased well-being, but persistent tourism benefits prevented irritation from evolving into antagonism. Residents, whose neutral stance was recognizable as that of opponents, reported reduced well-being and more tourism-related disadvantages than benefits. Their profile matches explicit opponents, as both groups exhibit antagonism indicative of tourism saturation.

Responses to tourism saturation ranged from passive spatial and temporal displacement strategies (R1, R2, R4, R8–10) to active opposition (R1–3, R8–10), aligning with Carmichael (2000). Active opposition fits to Brehm’s (1966) Theory of Reactance, as perceived constraints on freedom prompted such responses. This suggests that further expansion of tourism may catalyze more active opposition against an expected touristification.

While these findings elucidate the impacts of tourism on residents’ subjective well-being and attitudes in the Allgäu, it is crucial to contextualize these results within the broader spectrum of rural tourism destinations and their varied characteristics: Independent of our study area, these effects most likely vary considerably regarding the broad spectrum of rural destinations and, therefore, hardly can be generalized. That said, it could be argued that established, already highly frequented destinations like the Allgäu, might be more strongly affected by resident opposition compared to rural areas characterised by a lower tourism intensity (see the map of German districts in Mayer & Woltering, 2024, p. 200). Typically, the tourism intensity is an indicator based on official statistics and does not reflect day-trippers and/or local recreation due to substantial data gaps. This limitation underscores the need for a more systematic visitor monitoring – not only – in rural destinations (also outside protected areas) to cover these visitor flows and allow the calculation of realistic visitor density indicators better capturing the social carrying capacity.

Irrespective of visitor numbers, the structure, behavior as well as the spatial and temporal distribution of tourists within a destination might be even more influential in shaping overtourism perception (Reif, 2019) and its impact on subjective well-being. For instance, well-managed international package tourists concentrated at site-hardened attractions might have less negative impacts on residents’ subjective well-being compared to individual day-trippers causing traffic congestion, parking issues in residential areas by blocking driveways and intruding residents’ secret escapes in near-natural surroundings – all while contributing less to the local economy. In the same vein, the duration of stay may be relevant, with high numbers of day-trippers potentially being perceived more problematic than smaller numbers of longer-staying tourists. While our study’s respondents did not mention it, the cultural proximity between hosts and guests, particularly in the case of domestic tourism, may have additional complex and potentially counterintuitive effects on residents’ attitude towards tourism and their subjective well-being. Still, all these assumptions need further investigation using quantitative approaches.

5.3 Perceptions of overtourism

Most respondents (R1–4, R6, R8–10, R12) perceived pandemic-era tourism as overtourism, exacerbating pre-pandemic concerns in the study area identified by Bauer et al. (2022). Contrary to Gössling et al.’s (2021) prediction, overtourism persisted, with pandemic-induced shifts towards proximate rural destinations reconfiguring its spatial dynamics. While pre-pandemic overtourism in the Allgäu concentrated primarily on cultural attractions (Bauer et al., 2022), the phenomenon expanded multidimensionally, permeating every day and leisure spaces, including near-natural areas.

This study’s findings challenge some established notions in the literature: The assertion by Milano et al. (2022) that overtourism consistently diminishes destination liveability is contested, as most respondents remained content living in the Allgäu despite overtourism perceptions. Furthermore, contrary to Peeters et al. (2018), overcrowding and tourist behavior induced infrastructural, social, and ecological burdens, which appeared equally significant in the rural destination instead of being concentrated on the ecological dimension.

Applying Doxey’s (1975) Irritation Index reveals that overtourism perception can manifest during the irritation phase, not just in the antagonism phase as previously assumed (Section 2.5). This finding questions conventional understanding, indicating that residents may perceive overtourism even while acknowledging tourism benefits. To reflect this complex interplay between Irritation Index and overtourism perception, the modified Carmichael (2000) model has further been expanded (Figure 4).

Meanwhile subjective well-being turned out to be a reliable overtourism indicator, with all but one respondent showing a relationship between reduced well-being and overtourism perception. However, due to the exploratory nature of this study, this relationship needs to be tested further using quantitative approaches.

Figure 4:

Formation and expression of locals’ attitudes in the context of Doxey’s (1975) irritation index and overtourism

Source: own elaboration

5.4 Future visions of tourism and study limitations

Our results reveal that based on their experiences in the COVID-19-pandemic local respondents would reject a sustainability transformation in the sense of the ‘proximity tourism’ proposed by several authors. If pandemic-level tourism persists, locals would therefore increasingly engage in active resistance. To maintain tourism acceptance in the future, respondents also reject spatial and temporal dispersion strategies (Peeters et al., 2018), citing concerns over the loss of essential recovery periods and retreats. Instead, they advocate for increased integration of the local population in tourism policy decisions, in line with destination management 4.0 aspirations (Stettler & Müller, 2024; Olbrich & Pechlaner, 2021). By endorsing a ‘soft tourism’ model harmonizing nature, residents, and visitors, while opposing further tourism growth, respondents align with the ‘new compatibility’ scenario for tourism in Bavaria by Bauer et al. (2021).

This contribution is not free from limitations, arising from its methodology, which might have influenced the results. The relevance of the results is limited by the small sample (n=12), which is not representative for the population of the study area. As the research covered a broad thematic spectrum this diversity was challenging for respondents, potentially leading to contradictory responses. Future research could therefore implement the subject areas more compactly.