The case of Kyoto

Kyoto has always been one of the most popular destinations in Japan for domestic tourists and also for foreign tourists; the city is included in the itineraries of many tours for international visitors. Kyoto was an ancient capital of Japan (Tokyo became the county’s capital in 1868) and because it was not bombed during Second World War, tourists can enjoy viewing traditional Japanese-style houses as well as its well-known temples (most notably, Kinkaku-ji, or the Golden Pavilion) while exploring the city. In 2018, Kyoto prefecture announced that the annual number of tourists visiting the city had reached 85 million and the economic impact of tourism-related consumption was more than 1.3 trillion yen, indicating the importance of the tourism industry in Kyoto (Kyoto Prefecture, 2019). In the past few years, the popularity of Kyoto has been further driven by foreign tourists. Figure 14.2 summarizes the increase of the inbound market in Kyoto. In 2018,4.6 million foreign tourists were staying in Kyoto Prefecture, more than three times that of 2013 (1.1 million nights). The biggest market is mainland China, followed by Taiwan, the United States of America and South Korea.

However, this excessive volume of tourists can cause problems. The Japanese media have reported that, similar to other cities such as Barcelona and Amsterdam, over-tourism is occurring in Kyoto (The Nikkei, 2018b). Not unexpectedly, the term kanko-kogai is used to describe the current situation in the city, the term being used to indicate that Kyoto is receiving far more tourists than it is able to accommodate. The principal consequence is that the day-to-day life and environment of local residents is suffering significant negative impacts, with specific problems reported by local people being issues with transportation, excessive noised and poor air quality. Because of the sudden increase in the numbers of tourists visiting and staying in Kyoto, the public transportation system has become overcrowded with foreign tourists, preventing residents from going about their daily business (Kyoto Shimbun, 2019). Furthermore, because of the high demand for accommodation, a number of new hotels have been constructed, which has resulted in noise and

Figure 14.2 Growth in number of international visitors staying in Kyoto Prefecture.

Source: Adapted from Kyoto Prefecture (2019).

air pollution (Kyoto Shimbun, 2019). The new hotels include international luxury hotel brands such as Park Hyatt and Aman.

Of course, a variety of factors have brought about the surge of tourists in Kyoto and the adverse effects accompanying it, but the development of P2P accommodation in particular is often blamed for creating the problems (Kyoto Shimbun, 2018). The biggest issue is that, in the past, formal accommodation facilities and the general residential areas were located in relatively different places and, hence, interactions between tourists and residents were limited. However, with the growth in the supply of P2P accommodation in primarily residential areas, tourists now share those spaces with residents. Hence, an increasing number of residents have begun to feel that their daily lives are being disturbed. This is not limited to obvious problems, such as noise; the mere existence of strangers in their neighbourhoods makes residents feel uncomfortable (Jordan & Moore, 2018). Figures 14.3 and 14.4 offer examples which illustrate the negative opinions of the community with regards to P2P accommodation; similar posters can be found in abundance around Kyoto, pointing to widespread negative attitudes. The signs translate as: ‘Against mimpaku (P2P accommodation)’ and ‘Mimpaku (P2P accommodation) is not acceptable’.

In addition, it is highly likely that the manner in which the media covers debates surrounding the growth in P2P accommodation in Kyoto has an influence on the perceptions of local residents. For example, the term ‘illegal P2P accommodation’ is often used (Kyoto Shimbun, 2018), which might create unconscious bias amongst readers. Interestingly, Mody, Suess and Dogru

Figure 14.3 Protest sign in a residential area of Kyoto.

Photo: Takahiro Ikeji.

(2018) found that residents’ perceptions of P2P accommodation in the United States are not as negative as those reported in the media; in Japan, however, the situation may be different, although further research is necessary. Nevertheless, the majority of P2P accommodation customers in Japan are international tourists (Japan Tourism Agency, 2018), indicating that the proportion of Japanese citizens who have rented such accommodations remains low. If people have not used P2P accommodation, it is perhaps not surprising that their perceptions are influenced by the media which often adopts a negative perspective on the P2P phenomenon.

Under such circumstances, strict measures have been taken against the development of P2P accommodation in Kyoto. As previously mentioned, Japanese municipalities are able to impose additional regulations on P2P

Figure 14.4 Protest sign in a residential area of Kyoto. Photo: Takahiro Ikeji.

accommodation as long as they are deemed necessary to protect the living environment of residents. Consequently, in residential areas in Kyoto, P2P accommodation can only operate for up to 60 days, from 15 January to 16 March. Moreover, in order to prevent the use of illegal P2P accommodation, the city has made significant efforts to control the sector. For example, a hotel tax was introduced in October 2018, and it was announced that a proportion of the revenue raised would be allocated to measures of preventing the illegal operation of P2P accommodation (Kyoto City, 2018). Specifically, 150 million Japanese yen will be allocated to strengthen the system for reporting and monitoring the illegal and inappropriate use of P2P accommodations.

Consequently, the number of P2P accommodation facilities registered in Kyoto has decreased significantly. Although the total number of such facilities prior to the introduction of regulations was uncertain, it is reported that around 2,000 facilities were mandated to close their businesses between 2016 and 2018 (Airstair, 2019). At the same time, however, the number of simplified

Figure 14.5 Growth in hotel and simplified accommodation rooms in Kyoto. Source: Adapted from Kyoto City (2019).

accommodation rooms increased from 2,929 in 2014 to 12,539 in 2018 (Kyoto City, 2019). In other words, it would appear that former P2P accommodation facilities are being converted into simplified accommodations, which are registered under the Japanese Hotels and Inns Act (see Figure 14.5). As discussed, the key difference is that P2P accommodation can only operate between 15 January and 16 March without any locational restrictions, whereas simplified accommodations can operate without any time restrictions but outside of residential areas.

This change is intended to relieve some problems that residents experience, as one of the main problems related to P2P accommodation facilities is considered to be their location. In other words, if the P2P accommodation is not located in residential areas, it becomes more similar to traditional accommodation. However, it is still unclear whether residents’ negative attitude towards P2P accommodation will be relieved, or whether the overall volume of tourists in Kyoto will continue to be controversial. It should also be noted that although Kyoto is presented in this chapter as a representative case, similar situations are occurring in other cities elsewhere in Japan (The Nikkei, 2018b).