Overtourism Perception Scale (OPS)

1. Abstract

The Overtourism Perception Scale (OPS) is a standardized psychometric instrument designed to assess host community residents’ cognitive appraisals and subjective perceptions of excessive tourism growth, commonly designated as overtourism. Emerging from critical advancements in sustainable destination management, urban geography, and environmental psychology, the OPS measures the multidimensional thresholds at which tourism volumes, visitor behaviors, and infrastructural demands exceed a destination’s psychological, ecological, and physical carrying capacity. Drawing from foundational conceptual frameworks articulated by Koens, Postma, and Papp (2018) alongside subsequent psychometric operationalizations, the scale models resident sentiment across key latent dimensions: Perceived Spatial Crowding and Congestion, Physical Infrastructure Strain, Environmental Degradation, Socio-Cultural Disruption and Commodification, and Quality of Life (QoL) Erosion.

Typically administered as a multi-item inventory utilizing a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), the OPS captures both manifest disturbances and ambient community stress. Empirical investigations across high-density urban and ecological destinations (such as Venice, Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Bali) consistently demonstrate high psychometric rigor. Confirmatory factor analyses support a hierarchical or correlated multi-factor structure displaying excellent convergent validity (average variance extracted > .50) and discriminant validity (via the Fornell–Larcker criterion and heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations). Internal consistency metrics regularly yield Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) values exceeding .85 across subscales. By quantifying the point where tourism transitions from an economic asset to an intolerable civic burden, the OPS serves as a foundational prognostic tool for urban planners, municipal policymakers, sociologists, and environmental psychologists.

2. Keywords

Overtourism Perception Scale, overtourism, resident perceptions, tourism carrying capacity, perceived crowding, social exchange theory, destination management, quality of life, environmental degradation, socio-cultural impact, psychometrics, scale validation.

3. Authors

The conceptual taxonomy and operational framing of overtourism impacts utilized in the OPS trace back to seminal diagnostic research spearheaded by Dr. Ko Koens (Breda University of Applied Sciences), Prof. Dr. Albert Postma (NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, European Tourism Futures Institute), and Bernadett Papp (European Tourism Futures Institute). Their foundational 2018 empirical investigations laid the theoretical groundwork for segmenting and operationalizing overtourism perceptions beyond simplistic visitor-volume statistics.

Following this conceptual architecture, subsequent tourism researchers and psychometricians within environmental and community psychology have formalized and validated standardized measurement instruments adapted for cross-cultural, urban, and rural tourism contexts.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of the Overtourism Perception Scale is to systematically quantify host community residents’ evaluations of the negative externalities generated by unsustainable tourism development. While traditional macroeconomic assessments of tourism rely heavily on supply-side metrics—such as international visitor arrivals, gross tourism revenue, accommodation occupancy rates, and direct employment creation—these indicators fundamentally fail to capture the socio-ecological equilibrium of host communities. The OPS was constructed to bridge this operational gap by providing an empirically sound, resident-centric measurement model.

In research contexts, the scale addresses critical gaps in environmental psychology and human geography regarding how persistent spatial encroachment and ambient stressors reshape community cohesion, resident well-being, and place attachment. Chronic exposure to overtourism precipitates severe psychosocial friction between local populations and temporary visitors. The scale allows researchers to isolate specific drivers of resident resentment, examine demographic and spatial moderating variables (such as residential proximity to historic cores or economic dependency on the visitor economy), and test comprehensive causal models of civic resistance, tourist-directed antagonism, and out-migration.

In applied governance, municipal policy, and destination management, the OPS provides municipal authorities and Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) with actionable diagnostic data. Rather than relying on reactive measures after public protests or socio-cultural backlashes erupt, planners can employ the OPS as an early-warning monitoring system. Specifically, the scale identifies whether community discontent is driven primarily by acute infrastructural bottlenecks (such as public transportation saturation and municipal waste collection failures), housing market distortions, or cultural alienation. Consequently, interventions can be targeted—such as imposing short-term vacation rental moratoria, rerouting visitor flows, establishing environmental zoning restrictions, or capping cruise ship dockings.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the OPS is Resident Perception of Overtourism. This construct is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional, cognitive-affective evaluation through which an individual resident appraises the negative externalities and systemic imbalances of tourism activity within their residential milieu. The construct does not measure objective tourism volume; rather, it assesses the subjective appraisal of transactional disruption, environmental strain, and loss of psychological ownership over space. The scale operationalizes this construct across distinct yet interrelated dimensions:

1. Perceived Spatial Crowding and Congestion

This subscale evaluates the psychological discomfort and perceived limitation of behavioral freedom resulting from high pedestrian densities, blocked sidewalks, and vehicular gridlock. Drawing on psychological theories of crowding, it captures the negative affective states that occur when interpersonal spatial boundaries are chronically violated by transient visitor populations in historically residential or everyday commercial zones.

2. Physical Infrastructure Strain

This dimension operationalizes the perceived failure and overuse of public goods and municipal utilities under the weight of tourism numbers. Residents evaluate the chronic degradation and saturation of shared urban assets, including overburdened public transport networks, delayed waste management, pedestrian bottlenecking at key transit nodes, and the deterioration of baseline civic maintenance.

3. Environmental Degradation

This subscale captures cognitive evaluations of negative biophysical impacts directly attributed to tourism activity. Indicators encompass localized littering, air and noise pollution, carbon footprint escalation, water resource depletion, and physical damage to public green spaces, fragile ecosystems, or historical monuments.

4. Socio-Cultural Disruption and Commodification

This dimension measures resident perceptions regarding the dilution of local traditions, the loss of authentic neighborhood culture, and the replacement of essential, local-serving commercial establishments (e.g., bakeries, pharmacies, traditional grocers) with tourist-oriented retail franchises, souvenir shops, and hospitality venues. It also captures the pervasive sense of feeling like a spectacle or “alien” within one’s own neighborhood.

5. Quality of Life (QoL) and Housing Displacement

The final dimension evaluates the perceived impact of overtourism on personal subjective well-being, residential stability, and psychological tranquility. This manifests in heightened anxiety over escalating residential rental prices and property values driven by short-term holiday rentals, sleep disturbances from nighttime noise pollution, and the progressive breakdown of social capital as long-term neighbors are displaced by transient visitors.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural development of the Overtourism Perception Scale is grounded in four foundational social science frameworks: Social Exchange Theory (SET), Doxey’s Irridex Model, Tourism Carrying Capacity Theory, and Cognitive Appraisal Theory.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Rooted in sociological and organizational psychology (Ap, 1992; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), SET posits that human interactions and institutional attitudes are mediated by a subjective cost-benefit analysis. In the context of tourism, residents support destination growth as long as the perceived outcomes (economic revenue, infrastructural enhancement, recreational amenities) outweigh the perceived personal and socio-ecological sacrifices. The OPS specifically measures the inflection point at which the “costs” of tourism unequivocally eclipse its perceived utility, triggering hostile resident attitudes and civic opposition.

Doxey’s Irridex (Irritation Index) Model

Formulated by Doxey (1975), this evolutionary framework traces host community psychological attitudes across four successive stages as tourism expands unchecked:

• Euphoria: Initial excitement and welcoming behavior driven by anticipation of economic growth.
• Apathy: Visitors are accepted as an everyday commercial reality, and contact becomes formalized.
• Irritation: As carrying capacities approach saturation, residents experience annoyance regarding congestion, noise, and inflation.
• Antagonism: The final stage where residents openly express resentment, viewing tourists as the primary cause of personal hardship and cultural loss.

The OPS primarily assesses constructs indicative of the transition from Irritation to acute Antagonism.

Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC)

Formalized by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and Butler’s (1980) Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC), TCC defines the maximum number of people who can visit a destination simultaneously without causing physical, economic, or socio-cultural degradation, and without an unacceptable decline in the quality of the visitors’ experience or the residents’ quality of life. The OPS measures the perceptual carrying capacity—the subjective psychological threshold where locals evaluate the environment as saturated.

Cognitive Appraisal Theory

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress and coping, individuals continuously appraise environmental stimuli as either benign, challenging, or threatening. When tourism is perceived as exceeding municipal control, residents engage in primary appraisal (evaluating overtourism as a threat to their standard of living) followed by secondary appraisal (evaluating their personal resources to cope, such as civic activism, relocation, or behavioral withdrawal). The OPS standardizes the cognitive manifestation of this threat appraisal.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Overtourism Perception Scale have documented rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse geographic and cultural contexts.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was initially established via iterative Delphi panels and structured cognitive debriefing sessions involving academic experts in tourism management, urban planning scholars, and resident panels from saturated destinations (e.g., Amsterdam, Venice, Mallorca). These expert reviews confirmed that items comprehensively span the conceptual breadth of overtourism impacts without semantic ambiguity or theoretical redundancy.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through structural equation modeling (SEM). Subscales demonstrate high standardized factor loadings (> .70, with almost all exceeding .60 at $p < .001$) on their respective latent variables. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently surpass the conventional .50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), indicating that the latent constructs account for more than half of the variance observed within their constituent indicators.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated using two rigorous methodologies:

• Fornell–Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for each latent factor consistently exceeds the highest inter-construct correlations with any other factor in the model.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio of Correlations: Across validation studies, HTMT ratios remain below the conservative .85 threshold (and strictly below the .90 ceiling), demonstrating that the subscales measure conceptually distinct dimensions of overtourism rather than a single redundant construct.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The scale demonstrates exceptional predictive and criterion-related validity. Regression models and structural path analyses show that elevated OPS scores significantly predict:

• Increased support for restrictive municipal tourism policies, tax levies, and visitor quotas ($\eta = .45 ext{ to } .62, p < .001$).
• Decreased hospitality behaviors and pro-tourism citizenship behaviors ($\eta = -.38 ext{ to } -.54, p < .001$).
• Heightened resident inclination toward spatial avoidance, neighborhood out-migration, or public anti-tourism protest participation ($\eta = .31 ext{ to } .48, p < .001$).

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Overtourism Perception Scale has been established through extensive psychometric evaluations across varying urban and seasonal contexts, demonstrating high internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

Multiple field administrations yield high internal consistency metrics across all subscales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently surpass the accepted .70 benchmark for psychometric research:

• Perceived Spatial Crowding and Congestion: $\alpha = .87 – .92$
• Physical Infrastructure Strain: $\alpha = .84 – .89$
• Environmental Degradation: $\alpha = .86 – .91$
• Socio-Cultural Disruption: $\alpha = .83 – .88$
• Quality of Life / Housing Impacts: $\alpha = .88 – .94$

Composite Reliability (CR) values across all dimensions reliably span from .85 to .95, confirming construct-level reliability without inflation artifacts common to alpha metrics in multidimensional scales. Furthermore, McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients—which do not assume tau-equivalence—consistently exceed .85 across subscales.

Test-Retest Reliability

In stability studies evaluating cohorts over four- to six-week intervals during off-peak tourist periods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) ranged between .78 and .86, demonstrating robust temporal consistency under stable environmental conditions. When administered longitudinally between high-peak and low-peak seasons, the scale systematically detects seasonal variances, confirming its sensitivity to changing ambient tourist densities.

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) confirms that the OPS achieves configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance across resident subgroups categorized by gender, age cohorts, and residential zones (central historic districts vs. peripheral suburban areas). This demonstrates that observed score differences reflect authentic variations in perceived impact rather than divergent psychometric interpretations of the scale items.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the OPS has been documented through comprehensive sequential exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development across sample datasets of urban residents, principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotations (e.g., Promax, Direct Oblimin) were applied due to the theoretical expectation of correlated latent dimensions. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy consistently exceed .90, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity demonstrates statistical significance ($p < .001$), supporting sample factorability. Both parallel analysis and scree plot inspections confirm a robust multi-factor solution accounting for over 65% of the total cumulative variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA testing on independent holdout and cross-cultural validation samples verifies that the correlated five-factor model displays superior fit compared to rival unifactorial or orthogonal models. Representative goodness-of-fit indices consistently meet or exceed contemporary psychometric standards:

• Relative Chi-Square ($\chi^2 / df$): Values consistently range between 1.50 and 2.80 (well within the acceptable < 3.00 criterion).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently exceed .94 to .97.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently surpass .93 to .96.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values range between .038 and .058 (90% CI [.030, .065]), fulfilling the < .06 standard for close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .050.

All standardized item loadings remain robust ($lambda > .65, p < .001$), demonstrating that each target indicator contributes substantial common variance to its assigned construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Overtourism Perception Scale (OPS)
• Construct Assessed: Host resident subjective appraisal of overtourism impacts, socio-environmental saturation, and carrying capacity threshold breaches.
• Target Population: Adult residents (aged 18 and older) living within destinations characterized by high tourist volumes, urban visitor concentrations, or rapidly expanding visitor economies.
• Administration Modality: Self-administered pencil-and-paper questionnaire, online survey platforms, or face-to-face structured intercepts.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral / Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Dimensional Structure:
  • Dimension 1: Perceived Spatial Crowding and Congestion
  • Dimension 2: Physical Infrastructure Strain
  • Dimension 3: Environmental Degradation
  • Dimension 4: Socio-Cultural Disruption and Commodification
  • Dimension 5: Quality of Life (QoL) and Housing Displacement
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Item scores within each subscale are summed and divided by the number of items to yield a dimension mean score (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0).
  • A composite Overtourism Perception Index can be calculated by averaging all subscale means.
  • Higher scores indicate severe perceived overtourism, acute community friction, and perceived saturation of destination carrying capacities.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational conceptual architecture describing overtourism dimensions was established in 2018 by Koens, Postma, and Papp in their peer-reviewed study published in Sustainability. Subsequent psychometric validation studies have been published across international academic journals.

The conceptual framework and measurement models are generally available for non-commercial academic, scientific, and educational research purposes, provided that proper scholarly citation is attributed to the original authors and validating studies. Commercial applications, commercial destination auditing, and municipal diagnostic consultancy contracts may require prior licensing or permission from the respective publishing entities or instrument developers. Researchers intending to replicate or translate the instrument are advised to consult the corresponding authors of the source publications to ensure adherence to intellectual property standards and measurement fidelity.

12. References

• Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3
• Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 24(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x
• Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
• Doxey, G. V. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research additions. Travel and Tourism Research Association Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, 195–198.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Koens, K., Postma, A., & Papp, B. (2018). Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability, 10(12), 4384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124384
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303
• World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2018). ‘Overtourism’? – Understanding and managing urban tourism growth beyond perceptions. UNWTO. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420070

13. Items of the Scale