The term "mass tourism" is used in many destinations around the world, but practice shows it is most often linked to coastal destinations — cities with direct access to the sea or ocean.
Do headlines like these sound familiar: "Venice: We are charging entry to the city! Barcelona: No more tourist apartment rentals! Florence welcomes the decision and bans short-term stays in the historic center. Dubrovnik: Enough of the noise — fines for dragging suitcases along Stradun! Amsterdam: Stop cruise ships from entering the port!"?
The reasons vary — from high rental prices and shortages of long-term housing, noise, environmental pollution, unbearable amounts of waste, congested traffic, to generally excessive tourist visits or, put more mildly, visits they can no longer manage.
The concept of mass tourism is tied to negative impacts on the lives of local residents. From the privatization of public spaces, extreme growth in real estate prices and the conversion of every free space into an apartment, pressure on communal networks, pronounced seasonality that hurts service quality while driving high prices for products and services — reflected in an imbalance of price and quality — through to land devastation, threats to biodiversity, and finally a drop in local purchasing power that leads to general dissatisfaction.
Doxey's irritation index
Tourism professionals know Doxey's irritation index, developed back in 1975, roughly when some of the countries and cities mentioned were already heavily affected by mass arrivals.
Although this model is not based on detailed research, it assumes that homogeneity characterizes the community and that the community as a whole is hostile toward tourism — but it often happens that the community is in fact heterogeneous, where, for example, the unemployed on one side and entrepreneurs on the other welcome any growth in tourism, seeing in it their own chance to grow.
So, Doxey's irritation index says that local people who at first had a positive view of tourism began to have a negative view of tourist activities because of the rapid development of the tourism industry and its negative aspects.
The model suggests that communities go through a sequence of reactions as the tourism industry developing in their area becomes more pronounced, and their perceptions change with experience — in four stages.
Stages
Euphoria is the first stage, in which the destination's population feels positive emotion because of the opportunities tourism brings to the area. This stage is linked to the early development of the destination as a tourist location — so there is a sense of excitement and anticipation. Arrivals and overnight stays are counted, there is talk of the nationalities visiting us, and generally the overall goal is a satisfied guest.
Apathy is the second stage, in which more formal contact with tourists begins to develop. Residents of a local community start to see tourists as a source of income and investment. The most important thing is that the guest arrives, spends as much as we think they should, and leaves very quickly.
Annoyance or irritation is the third stage, in which residents begin to see the negative side of the tourism industry in their area: overcrowding, too much traffic, environmental pollution, too much waste — while they view investments as money thrown at tourist activities and facilities, not at things local residents need.
Antagonism is the final stage, in which things are at their worst. Tourists are seen as the cause of all problems arising in an area, and comparing the situation in the listed countries with this theory, I would say they have reached the final stage, which clearly calls for a response due to overtourism or weak destination management. We will leave that for time and the profession to judge.
As I write about this model, destinations in the region come to mind and which stages they are in. I know of some locations in Croatia that are in the third stage, destinations on the Montenegrin coast that are largely in the second, and the destination I among others represent is still in the first.
I also doubt that we as a destination will ever have a problem with mass tourism — that is, with tourism that could have a general negative impact on the environment — except at individual or micro locations within the destination.
I see the reason in the fact that this is a rural destination, where the very structure and area point to the opposite potential: so-called green tourism that promotes environmental protection and the preservation of natural resources.
What can be expected in BiH?
This form of tourism, if we take a healthy approach — for which it is not too late — aims precisely at reducing tourism's own negative impact on the environment. Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina can and should be a destination for escape from urban environments into nature and activities that mean staying and being active outdoors.
That can be walking, hiking, cycling, visiting national parks and nature parks, visiting cultural and natural heritage, water activities such as rafting, kayaking, canyoning, with planned investment in villages and the production of local products. In this context, every intention that exploits and devastates the natural environment for the interests of individuals or interest groups is negative, and every initiative and new area of protected land is positive — of which, by the way, Republika Srpska currently has very little, only 3%.
If we are on the right side of tourism, with enough empathy for nature and the environment, and with enough knowledge for local communities that nurture the biodiversity they live in to also be desirable destinations with an authentic tourism offer, we will be an essential stop for tourists with refined taste who want something unique, different, and an experience subordinated to sustainable growth — because centuries of shaping life in these places give us the chance for contemporary affirmation in today's tourism world, where authenticity is valued.
Similar posts
A small case study in authenticity
At the green market in Trebinje, a sign reads "white garlic" next to what has always been called saransak or cesan. The green market has long been a synonym for gathering, a place of local supply and demand, conversation and commentary. For a long time people have stopped by as if by duty and bought home-grown produce. From Trebinje, or from a little farther away, from the neighbors. Why white garlic, and not saransak? Probably so they would not have to explain it to the buyer, so they would not have to repeat the same story to the tenth customer, so they would not waste time on a word half the people do not know. You call it what the customer calls it. You sell faster. But every time we replace a local name with a universal one, we lose something that is hard to bring back later. Saransak carries place, language, and the generations that called it that. White garlic is the same product, of course, but without a local address. When you sell saransak, you have sold a local product with an authentic name. You have gained an experience and new knowledge. When you sell white garlic, you have sold, or bought, white garlic you can find at your own market too. Saransak has an address; white garlic does not. Tourism lives from that address. From what cannot be bought at another market, in another town, at least not under that name. And not with the same value. And when we erase the word, we erase part of that value too. I am not talking about nostalgia. I am talking about a resource that disappears just as quickly as any other when no one protects it or uses it.
The tourism product that never made it into the brochures
In tourism we often talk about investment, hotels, accommodation capacity, attractions, and statistics. We measure arrivals, overnight stays, and revenue. Yet none of that is what a guest carries home in the backpack of memories. Let us start with ourselves. What makes us happy when we travel? I am sure most people give similar answers. We want the journey to pass without stress. Without unnecessary complications. We want to feel welcome, safe, and at ease. That is precisely why the tourist experience begins long before arrival at the accommodation. It does not begin on the road, at the airport, or, especially relevant for us, at the border crossing either, even though queues at border crossings during the tourist season are among the most serious obstacles to competitive tourism development in the region. When a traveler spends hours in a line in the sun or shut inside a bus, it is hard to expect them to rate the experience as pleasant. Time meant for rest turns into a test of patience, and the first impression of the trip becomes frustration. The issue of tourist buses is especially sensitive, where the ride to the destination is often shorter than the wait at the border. Such experiences leave a mark and often cancel out much of the effort invested in promotion or in developing the tourism offer, not to mention the effort invested by the agency. And that is where the tourism of feeling begins, because a tourist does not divide their experience into sectors and jurisdictions. They do not care whether the queue is the fault of border police, road infrastructure, a travel agency, or someone else. They remember only how they felt in that moment. If we fly, we are happy when there are no excessive crowds, when check-in goes quickly, and when the flight is safe and comfortable. When we reach the accommodation, we want a kind host to greet us, a clean room, no noise, and everything looking as it was presented at the time of booking. We care about the receptionist's smile and a good coffee. We care that the taxi arrives on time and that we feel safe walking through the city. In one of my earlier texts I wrote that a destination should be viewed as your own home, and the tourist as a guest coming into your house. When friends or family visit, we do not show them the furniture. We try to make them feel comfortable, welcome, and relaxed. The same should apply to destinations. A tourist wants to feel the atmosphere of a place, meet people, try local food, walk the streets, and for a few days become part of everyday local life. A personalized approach to the guest is a tourism product The tourist experience begins long before the tourist arrives in person. We do not know when someone first caught themselves thinking, I am going there. When exactly we invited them, who invited them, and how many times we invited them before the decisive moment. That is why the invitation to tourists begins with the way our city streets are arranged, with the cleanliness of promenades, with flowers, with the safety we promise. It begins with how we dispose of waste, with our attitude toward nature. It begins with the culture of how we treat one another. With the service and the offer they have researched. When they arrive, a guest quickly senses whether they are welcome somewhere. They sense the waiter, the receptionist, the taxi driver, the shopkeeper, the guide, the grandmother at the market, the clerk at the exchange office, and the passerby they asked for directions. A destination's reputation is built precisely in those encounters. That is why I believe the future of tourism will not belong to destinations with the most attractions, but to those that best understand people. Those who learn to manage guests' feelings. Those who work on emotion. And that is exactly why a personalized approach to the guest should never be seen as an added value of the tourism product, because it is a tourism product in itself.
The destination as home
Imagine a tourist destination as your own home, and the tourist as a guest who brings gifts into that house: their money, time, trust, and a recommendation to others. We often tend to trivialize the word "tourist", treating them as someone who stops by to "sleep over" and "see a few things". Yet today's traveler seeks far more than a quick tour and wants to know where we sleep, what we eat, where we go out, what our courtyards, streets, and riverbanks look like. They want to try our food, walk our paths, and meet our people. In short, they want to become part of our everyday life for a few days, and they are ready to pay fairly for it. Even by a rough estimate, the average tourist in our destination leaves about 100 euros a day. That amount is quickly and easily distributed through the local economy, from bed and breakfast, through morning coffee and lunch at a restaurant, all the way to a taxi or car rental, fuel, souvenirs, local products, and the like. And how do we behave when we expect guests in our own house? We do not leave dirty socks in the middle of the room, we do not pile garbage bags behind the door, and we certainly do not throw an old mattress into the yard. We tidy up, air the rooms, wipe away the dust, and often buy flowers for the table. With that gesture we show respect both for ourselves and for the person arriving. Why, then, should it be any different with our destination? Why is it acceptable that containers overflow, that plastic and trash pile up along rivers and lakes, right beside the roads tourists use, and our children walk every day? If we carefully protect our living room, why does a riverbank serve as a dump? If we would clear things around the house so a guest does not have to step over them, how can we in good conscience leave trash on the shore and naively expect no one will notice? Statistics and global trends do not forgive neglect. According to data from relevant tourism platforms and organizations, more than 70% of today's travelers directly take ecological awareness and cleanliness into account when choosing a destination. A bad review because of an illegal dump on the way to a viewpoint, or a photo of trash on social media, can wipe out dozens of good ratings in an instant. A tourist who stumbles over our carelessness rarely returns. To change this, we must understand that tourism is not only the business of tourism workers, the municipal utility company, or local hospitality operators; it is a reflection of the whole society. Change requires concrete steps, from stopping the habit of seeing public goods as somehow "someone else's", and realizing that riverbanks, forests, and streets are our own backyard, through competent services that must provide adequate infrastructure, because it is essential, and often it is precisely infrastructure that amplifies individual irresponsibility, to zero tolerance toward those who destroy, whether through civic initiatives that raise warnings or through stricter enforcement of legal penalties. A destination is a mirror of our culture of living. As much as we care about the place where we live, that is how much it will matter tomorrow to our guest. Cleanliness, order, and care for the environment must be the minimum of our personal and collective self-respect.