Venice’s decision to impose an entry fee on day visitors is one of the boldest interventions undertaken in Europe to address overtourism. Charging up to €10 for visits during peak periods—while exempting those who stay overnight in the city—the Italian city is seeking to protect its historic core, reduce pressure on infrastructure, and steer tourism toward more sustainable patterns, reinvesting the revenue in cultural heritage management and environmental protection.
This development is not only about Venice. It directly concerns Greece as well, which faces similar challenges in highly popular destinations such as Santorini, Mykonos, Rhodes, and Corfu, as well as in historic city centers—Athens being a prime example. The question is not whether Greece will confront comparable dilemmas, but whether it will be prepared in time to manage them strategically.
The Venice model strengthens the international debate on transitioning from mass, low value-added tourism to a higher-quality, more sustainable form of tourism. For Greece, this could be an opportunity to redefine its tourism policy, since charging day visitors can function as a decongestion tool: it discourages “quick-consumption” tourism and encourages longer stays, with higher spending per visitor and a better distribution of revenue within the local economy.
At the same time, it creates fiscal space for investments in infrastructure, culture, and the environment—critical elements for a country with unique monuments, fragile island ecosystems, and pronounced seasonality. However, adopting such measures is not without risks. An entry fee may create the impression of an expensive or less welcoming destination, especially for cost-sensitive markets or for visitors who opt for shorter stays.
In the Greek case, where a significant share of tourism relies on day trips, cruises, and organized packages, there is a risk of negative impacts on small businesses that depend on mass day tourism. Moreover, if such measures are not accompanied by social consensus, transparency, and clear, tangible returns to local communities, they may provoke backlash and carry political costs.
The essential lesson from Venice’s experience is not the entry fee itself, but the political philosophy that accompanies it: tourism cannot remain uncontrolled. It requires strategic planning, limits, and active management.
Within this framework, Greece must address the issue not in a piecemeal manner, but as part of a coherent national tourism strategy—emphasizing the extension of the tourist season, a more balanced distribution of visitor flows, and the promotion of less saturated destinations.
Harnessing modern digital visitor-management tools and reinvesting related revenues in protecting natural and cultural assets can strengthen the competitiveness of Greek tourism and safeguard its long-term sustainability. In a world where overtourism threatens to wear down precisely what makes destinations attractive, Venice’s experience serves simultaneously as a warning and an opportunity.
What is at stake for Greece is not only economic, but deeply political and strategic: preserving the quality, authenticity, and resilience of Greek tourism in the future.