Tourist taxes are popping up everywhere these days, touted as a solution to overtourism. But are they really making a difference, or just padding city budgets?
First up, Venice. The city of canals introduced a pilot programme in April, charging day-trippers €5 each. The result? A cool €2.2 million in 29 days but absolutely no reduction in visitor numbers. In fact, the first 11 days of the trial saw 75,000 visitors daily — 10,000 more than the same period last year. Critics argue this move by the city’s mayor Luigi Brugnaro was more about keeping UNESCO off Venice’s back than managing crowds.
Venice isn’t alone in this; earlier this year, Indonesia announced a tourist tax for Bali, and starting next year, the EU will charge €7 for all non-EU tourists visiting the Schengen zone. But does charging a fee really keep the hordes away or is it just another revenue stream?
Barcelona is also jumping on the bandwagon, steadily increasing its tourist levy from €2.75 in 2023 to €3.25 in 2024, with another bump to €4 planned for October. The goal isn’t to cap visitor numbers but to fund infrastructure projects to help the city cope with millions of tourists each year.
But if you think Barcelona’s tax is steep, wait until you hear visit Amsterdam. In 2024, the city hiked its tourist tax from 7% to a whopping 12.5%, making it the highest in Europe. Cruise ship passengers also saw their daily tax jump from €8 to €11. Amsterdam’s officials are transparent about where this money goes — investing in local infrastructure, green spaces and community resources.
Copenhagen is exploring a different angle. Instead of a flat fee, they introduced CopenPay on July 15. This program rewards eco-friendly tourists with perks like free meals and museum admissions. It’s a softer approach compared to Bhutan, which charges a hefty daily fee to maintain its “Gross National Happiness” by limiting tourist numbers.
Infact, the tiny Himalayan kingdom has long controlled its tourism through high fees. Visitors once had to book through sanctioned tour operators and pay $250 a day, which covered all essentials and included a $65 Sustainable Development Fee (SDF). Post-COVID, Bhutan dropped the all-inclusive requirement but doubled the SDF to $100, plus a $40 visa fee, to keep tourism sustainable.
Meanwhile, even places like Machu Picchu are loosening their reins. In 2024, the daily visitor cap was raised to allow between 4,500 and 5,600 people to explore the ancient ruins. Despite concerns about overtourism, popular spots like Italy’s historic cities or Dubrovnik seem more inclined to hike prices rather than limit tourists.
Venice’s pilot scheme is set to return next year with the fee doubled to €10. But real caps or bans? Don’t hold your breath.
So, are these tourist taxes effective? They certainly boost city budgets but don’t seem to significantly curb visitor numbers. What we’re likely to see is more places adopting these fees, in various forms, to manage the impact of tourism.
Even the UK is jumping in, introducing a £10 visa fee for Gulf State visitors, which will soon apply worldwide to previously exempt visitors, including Europeans (but not the Irish, thanks to the Common Travel Area).
The bottom line? Traveling to your favourite destinations is getting pricier, but don’t expect fewer crowds just because you’re paying more.
