Venice, Italy has added a tourism tax, joining heavily visited cities around the world, but it won’t stop over tourism.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Venice Adds Tourist Tax
In an effort to protect residents of the city of Venice and the unique ecosystem, the City Council has voted to implement a tourist tax from January 1st, 2023. The fee is designed to target more than 90% of visitors and will be variable based on occupancy.
“Day-trippers will have to sign up online the day they plan to visit and pay a fee ranging from 3 euros to 10 euros per person, depending on the time of year and how crowded the city is, the AP reported. Those who don’t pay the tax will risk a fine up to 300 euros (or $315).
Children under 6 will be exempt from the fee. Overnight visitors who book a hotel stay will also be exempt as they already pay a €5 ($5.33) per night tax.” – Travel & Leisure
Interestingly, the northern Italy city will charge via a website but as the city has no gates but may ask visitors for proof of their payment. Other Italian cities have added the tax through hotels but this will be unique as it is only incurred through the website and requires visitors to be both informed and diligent if they want to visit Venice.
Overtourism Is A Real Concern, Especially In Venice
Amsterdam charges a similar fee but added a flat €3/day on top of a 7% tax at hotels. The European Tourism Association (ETOA) analyzed these growing fees across the continent:
“The ETOA reported that tourism taxes within Europe were growing with only nine out of 28 EU member states – many of them in Northern Europe – not charging tourism taxes. These were: Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK.” – HotelManagement.net
The rich history of Venice, the charm of its water taxis, the Bridge of Sighs, and the bell towers are an annual draw for nearly 20 million visitors from around the world. Unlike other destinations, the island built on silt is buoyed by man-made elevation systems designed to fight the acqua alta (high water, tide) of the Venetian Lagoon. This leads to frequent floods in Piazza San Marco (and St. Mark’s Basilica) and a general sense that any trip to Venice could be the last to see it as it was.
To be clear, the island isn’t sinking because of overtourism, but it’s not helping. Millions of visitors to the small island put a strain on other resources too, as visitors outnumber residents 2:1.
More effective measures can be found in Bhutan, which charge visitors to the tiny mountainous nation $200-250/day. The Galapagos require a costlylicensed tour guide. Maya Bay (featured in the film, The Beach) has been closed to visitors for some time.
The negative effects of overtourism are real. They can include environmental degradation, elevated costs for locals, and damage to infratructure and assets. It can also lead to damage to the image of the destination for those who find crowding, extensive waits, and a generally unpleasant visiting experience.
Tourism Taxes Don’t Work
Adding a €3-10 fee to enter Venice will not deter North Americans from flying 4,000-7,000 miles with designs on St. Marco Square. Likewise, Japanese tourists traveling still further, aren’t going to miss an opportunity to see the Serene city. Amsterdam added a similar tax years ago, €8/day for visitors was tacked on to cruise arrivals. But on a cruise priced between $2,500-4,500/person, who is going to notice €8 and further, would it be enough to exclude Amsterdam itineraries?
Of course, not.
If tourist numbers are not reduced by these fees, then they are either too low or don’t serve the purpose. So why have them? I trust that it’s become abundantly clear that these cities are seizing on the perfect opportunity. They enjoy the image of doing something for the citizenry, it’s environmentally conscious (fewer tourists, less waste, fewer carbon emissions spent) but most importantly, deeper pockets. After all, who keeps the tourism tax money? It’s not returned to the citizens, though some of it might make its way back in the form of expanded municipal benefits.
Looking at Amsterdam, and its effectiveness, the same link used above states that Amsterdam expects growth to continue to increase by 50% by 2030 despite the fees.
Conclusion
Venice, Italy is adding a tourist tax but it’s unlikely to have a positive effect on Piazza Di San Marco. Tourism taxes rarely work unless they are sufficiently high, but they are good at raising revenue for the municipality that may or may not be spent to actually reduce tourism. In the case of Venice’s tourism tax, it’s specifically encumbersome on the tourist to be educated that it exists, how to pay and demonstrate that it’s been paid, and then enforced by Venetian officials. It seems even less likely to succeed than other attempts.
What do you think? Are tourism taxes a suffient model to deter tourists? In Venice’s specific model, do you think this will help battle overtourism?
Venice is stupid, so I don’t really care what tourists get stuck with there, but will this hold up in EU courts? Aren’t citizens of all EU states entitled to freedom of movement throughout the Union? Could this, if legal, only apply to non-EU/EEA nationals?
I think you’re leaning too hard into the word “tax”. “User Fees” are everywhere: toll roads, tourist sites, municipal golf courses, etc. I think people are mature enough to understand this and are fine with the premise that the maintenance/improvement of the “used thing” is fairly borne by those who use it. Even the airport facility fees included in our ticket price.
I don’t go to Venice; I won ‘t be charged a tax/fee. Fair enough. If cruisers/tourists want to visit and are charged, my congrats to those in charge of Venice infrastructure who have rightly decided to gain some of their budget from those who visit. Not primarily as a determent (although it may function as one at the margin).
Again, if your post was based on “user fees” and not “taxes”. I think your argument would change.
You highlight the same problem in different ways without actually mentioning the cause.
Mentioning symptoms without diagnosing the cause is a failed exercise.
We have a problem of overpopulation and overconsumption and we need to start castrating people that have popped out more than 2 kids.
I agree with the issue, not the castration solution, but the world has reached peak baby.
You won’t get people to take you seriously unless you shock them. Both religious conservatives and liberals are two faced scum. They don’t want real solutions, only ways that will help them grift.
This is an issue with outdoor toursim as well. Hours long waits at National Park gates, hordes of dumb people feeding animals, littering their fast food wrappers, etc. High(er) user fees may keep 10-15% away perhaps but that still leaves these over touristed places with WAY too many people.
I think you are missing some data. The read I am getting is if you are staying at a hotel in Venice area you don’t pay the tax even on your hotel bill but day trippers do. People coming from USA and Japan are not likely to be day trippers so the daily tax will be OBE for vast majority.
His article quote says hotel visitors pay €5. Not clear whether that’s per room or pp. But it’s in the room rate.
“Overnight visitors who book a hotel stay will also be exempt as they already pay a €5 ($5.33) per night tax.”
Someone mentioned enforcement before; I’d assume it’s honor/verify system similar to bus riders or Swiss freeway drivers with required sticker. No proof? Big fine.
You are correct. This applies to day trippers only. We just went to Venice and were exempt from the tax because we stayed at a hotel overnight.
I’m thinking it may be a problem for many people who aren’t aware of it and may get hit with a fine. I hope there’s signage to alert people so they can register via their phone.
That being said, I’m chuckling that “tourism taxes” apply in many places in the form of hotel and rental car taxes which are substantial, between 5 to 10 percent from what I’ve read. Hotel and rental car tourism taxes are a way of saying “We have too many tourists! Go away!” which is understandable in some cases, but for many cities I visit particularly in the states, that should NOT be the message they want to send.
What hasn’t been suggested is perhaps to create more tourist spots to meet demand. For example: Why does everyone want to pay to sit in line at overpriced Disneyworld? Because Disney isn’t building new parks, that’s why! I was thinking that there “ought to be a law” for cities to build more “historic” buildings and set building codes for classical architecture rather than the office drone square monstrocities and condo units that make me yearn for Soviet Architecture as a creative alternative… For the past 1/2 century or so, quite frankly, post modernist architecture stinks (I could use a nastier word) and we’re building junk that nobody will want to visit a hundred years from now much less today.
I was in Bhutan. It was AMAZING. Only 80,000 visitors yearly. Heaven on earth.
FYI Bhutan is reopening to tourists next week and their “tourist tax” policy will regress; they’ll be more like Venice and Thailand where a per diem tax is charged. In Bhutan’s case, it will be $200/day and that will not include any of the services/accommodations that the old $200-240/day included. Their ministry of tourism states that over 70% of past tourists were from neighboring countries that were exempt from the per diem fee. I guess they only want rich people visiting.