**4. Research Results**

A total of 160 respondents (including 10 key experts) for whom Wrocław was a place of residence and work (85%) participated in the study. As already indicated, the sampling was purposive and qualitative. The survey was carried out in the same period (November 2019) for the three types of respondent groups.

Almost half of the surveyed residents were aged 24 years or less (46.25%), 16.25% were aged 25–45 years, and 37.5% were aged 45 years or more. A vast majority (67.5%) of the participants worked in the field of tourism, representing several service categories: organization and servicing of tourist traffic (52.5%), accommodation and catering services (15%), and tourism-related services (26.88%) (Table 1).


**Table 1.** Structure of respondents.

Source: own elaboration.

The assessment of the impact of tourist traffic on the survey respondents (Wrocław residents) was carried out with reference to seven types of city functioning spheres; this division reflects the areas of potential overtourism impact on urban agglomerations indicated in the literature. The respondents' evaluations of the nature and degree of tourist traffic intensity impact on Wrocław, expressed on a 5-degree scale, indicate that symptoms of negative impact of tourism are noticeable but in a widely varying degree. Negative opinions ranged from 10% to 50% among key experts and from 7% to 34% among other experts (Figure 2). In terms of all seven investigated variables (Figure 2), the mean score for the opinions confirming the overtourism symptoms observed by the respondents was Mro = 66.0% (Vo = 12.9) for other experts and Mre = 68.6% (Ve = 24.4) for key experts. The mean rate of opinions denying the existence of such symptoms equalled Mro = 26.1% (Vo = 53.5) among other experts and Mre = 27.1% (Ve = 55.1) among key experts with regard to the perception and feeling of the impact of tourist traffic on the functioning of the city. The values of the coefficient of variation indicate significant differences in the indications in both studied groups in terms of the intensity of the respondents' indications for particular variables. It can be presumed that the magnitude of the diversity of opinions in the surveyed populations of other experts and key experts may be derived from and correlated with their area of residence and age. However, in this case, such relationships and correlations were not subject to the statistical analyses.

It is worth noting the manifestations of overtourism perceived by the respondents (mainly congestion, noise, queues for services) in relation to the negative impact of tourism on (Mpv in a scale of 1–5):


At the same time, the respondents widely denied opinions about the negative impact of tourist traffic on:


The results of the research allow for a careful conclusion that the respondents tended to believe that tourism had a positive impact on the city functioning (mean of positive opinions: 66.2%) but at the same time they began to notice the phenomena which might have a negative impact on the Wrocław urban space, with the constantly growing tourist traffic (5.35 million in 2018, with an increase by 11% compared with 2017) [2]. However, the range of negative assessments, i.e., those that strongly emphasized the threat of overtourism, should be considered as relatively small.

The respondents were also asked to indicate some key problems related to the impact of tourist traffic on the city as well as to assess the strength of the impact and the severity of the problem on a scale of +3 to −3 (Figure 3). The results indicate that among both other experts and key experts, positive opinions prevailed in relation to particular issues reflecting the probable difficulties that might occur in the city as a result of the concentrated tourist traffic. However, the differences between the mean values of negative and positive indications (determined on the basis of the responses) were slightly significant in this case. In general, as indicated by the respondents, the biggest problems of the city due to tourist traffic (Mpv on a scale of 1–7) were the following: lack of parking lots—56.6% of indications (Mpv = 4.66), excessive air pollution—55.6% of indications (Mpv = 4.40), too high housing prices—53.1% of indications (Mpv = 4.34), city traffic congestion—53.7% of indications (Mpv = 4.53), excessively increasing catering prices—42.5% of indications (Mpv = 4.22), too little greenery—41.9% of indications (Mpv = 3.91). In both groups, definitely distinctive positive indications, pointing at favourable features of the impact of tourist traffic on the socioeconomic development of the city, included: attractiveness of the city for tourists—91.3% of indications (Mpv = 6.12), high growth rate—71.2% of indications (Mpv = 5.11), intensive functioning of the urban community—67.5% of indications (Mpv = 5.05). Interestingly, the opinions of key experts were more critical but in several points coincided with the views of other experts. The detailed data for the groups of other experts and key experts are presented in Figure 3.

The mean values of the responses confirming the negative impact of the tourist traffic on the socioeconomic situation of the city were Mro = 32.5% (Vo = 47.2) for other experts and Mre = 39.0% (Ve = 50.6) for key experts. The mean result for opinions denying the existence of such symptoms equalled Mro = 46.6% (Vo = 44.1) among other experts and Mre = 38.1% (Ve = 69.2) among key experts.

The dysfunctionality of tourism in the context of negative impact on local communities in areas visited by tourists is currently a serious sociocultural problem, especially in cities and areas of high tourist traffic concentration. Examples of negative interference of tourism with the local environment, in particular with the residents, can also be observed in Wrocław. The identification and analysis of the symptoms, of varying intensity, is of particular importance for determining the strategic directions of the city development, including the reduction of overtourism. The research results indicate that this problem has already been noticed among those who live and work in Wrocław. Almost half of the respondents confirmed the perception of problems in the city functioning that constituted direct or indirect consequences of tourism. Namely, Mro = 46.4% (Vo = 45.7) of other experts and Mre = 43.3% (Ve = 50.2) of key experts confirmed and Mro = 27.4% (Vo = 55.3) of other experts and Mre = 34.4% (Ve = 61.8) of key experts denied their existence.

The issues most frequently pointed out by both the surveyed other experts and key experts that evidently reflected the already noticeable signs of a conflict between tourists and residents included: limited parking capacity for own means of transport—indicated by about 80% of the surveyed other experts and key experts, with the mean point values of positive and negative indications for both groups at the level of Mpv = 4.16; excessive noise—nearly 70% of the opinions in both groups confirmed this observation (Mpv = 3.61); rent and services becoming too expensive in the areas of residence—67% of confirming responses among other experts and 60% among key experts (Mpv = 3.77). Apart from the dominant opinions of other experts and key experts confirming the symptoms of the tourist traffic impact on the local community, an interesting finding is the residents' declaration of their willingness to move to more modern regions and housing estates of Wrocław—53% of confirming responses among other experts and 40% among key experts (Mpv = 3.37). One may presume that this case is not related to the negative impact of tourist traffic but to the willingness of daily functioning in the areas currently fulfilling a residential function in the city, at the same time being modern housing estates with a comprehensive socioeconomic infrastructure fully equipped and adapted to the needs of residents. In addition, this observation can be linked to the respondents' opinion on the city safety issues: the sense of security among the city permanent residents turned out moderate. The research revealed an almost even distribution of the respondents who described the city as safe (40.0% of indications) or unsafe (31.2% of indications) (Figure 3). Almost 30% of residents assessed this issue neutrally. Despite such ambiguous views of the residents, with regard to their own safety, most respondents did not notice any issue: they felt safe, as evidenced by nearly half of the subjects—46.9% (Mpv = 2.81) (Figure 4).

Among the remaining distinctive opinions of respondents who denied specific problems in the functioning of the Wrocław inhabitants, one should mention absence or limitation of retail and service infrastructure—54.4% (Mpv = 2.63) and the lack of objections to sharing daily life in the city with tourists—38.1% (Mpv = 2.85). Detailed results are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

The respondents' opinions regarding the current image of Wrocław from the perspective of tourist traffic features are important (Figure 5). It is remarkable that in no other case did the responses of key experts and other experts turn out to be as convergent as in the assessment of the city image. Strongly distinctive, unanimous views of the respondents on this issue were indications confirming the positive impact of tourist traffic on the city revenue—90.6% of the indications (Mpv = 4.37), satisfaction with tourists coming to Wrocław—89.4% of the indications (Mpv = 4.35), and satisfaction with the city development through tourist activity—86.9% of the indications (Mpv = 4.28). It is worth emphasizing that the respondents defined the city image generally in positive terms—mostly above 70% of the indications.

**Figure 4.** Problematic issues in Wrocław caused by tourist traffic in the opinion of key experts and other experts. Source: own elaboration.

**Figure 5.** The tourist image of Wrocław in the opinion of key experts and other experts. Source: own elaboration.

In addition, the respondents were strongly in favour of greater and more intense promotion of the city—almost 80% of responses (Mpv = 4.07), and they did not perceive any excessive subordination of the urban space to tourists' needs—58.7% (Mpv = 3.52). The respondents' opinion contradicting the statement provided in the survey was the denial of the impact of tourist traffic on running a business in the city—about 47% of responses (Mpv = 3.04). This may indicate a moderate influence of tourism on the economic activity of Wrocław residents, but at the same time it confirms the current observations that the predominance of tourism in the local, regional, or national economy does not necessarily account for the economic potential and strength of the area.

In the assessment of the image of Wrocław, determined by 19 variables (Figure 5), the mean result for opinions confirming its features observed by the respondents was Mro = 65.5% (Vo = 37.0) for other experts and Mre = 62.6% (Ve = 47.5) for key experts. The mean result for opinions denying the positive qualities of the city image equalled Mro = 15.0% (Vo = 100.3) among other experts and Mre = 26.3% (Ve = 107.6) among key experts.

An interesting picture of the respondents' views was revealed with regard to the problem of buying out flats and building new apartments by entrepreneurs and the fact that residents rented rooms and apartments to tourists (Figure 6). The mean results for opinions confirming the presented symptoms were Mro = 48.7% (Vo = 34.1) among other experts and Mre = 48.2% (Ve = 35.7) among key experts. The mean rates of negative responses to these statements equalled Mro = 25.0% (Vo = 35.9) for other experts and Mre = 30.0% (Ve = 47.1) for key experts.

The most distinct statements obtained from respondents in this respect clearly included opinions confirming both positive and negative views of this phenomenon. However, the response rates confirming or denying particular elements of the described phenomenon did not in any case exceed the values of 70% or 40%, respectively, in the group of other experts and 80% or 50%, respectively, in the group of key experts. They also did not show any significant differentiation between the two groups. Specifically, the respondents noted rather positive consequences or symptoms of such housing management, in particular in terms of expanding the accommodation base and offer—66.3% of responses (Mpv = 3.61), stimulating housing estates—63.1% of responses (Mpv = 3.48), and increasing the earning opportunities for residents—61.9% of responses (Mpv = 3.53). Only in two cases of opinions expressed by respondents was the negative dimension of this process observed. Both other experts and key experts indicated the negative consequences of conducting such activity in Wrocław, in the form of increased prices of residential facilities—66.9% of responses (Mpv = 3.76) and increased living costs for inhabitants—51.3% of responses (Mpv = 3.50). Despite the positive perception of this phenomenon in most opinions, the rates of responses regarding intervention in or restriction of such housing management in the city were almost evenly distributed (50% in each case). In addition, in this case, similarly to other respondents' assessments of the city image, functioning in the city, or the perceived problems of Wrocław socioeconomic development, there was a strong diversity of indications in particular groups of respondents, expressed in high values of the coefficient of variation. More detailed information on the specific response rates is presented in Figure 6.

The distribution of the response rates among other experts and key experts was statistically significantly different in the case of the statement "There are signs of a negative impact of tourism on the city tourist values" (Figure 2) (*p* = 0.009345), "too little greenery in the centre" vs. "enough greenery in the centre" (Figure 3) (*p* = 0.02412), and the question "Are you satisfied with living in Wrocław?" *(p* = 0.03932). The mean point value for the responses to the statement "too little greenery in the centre" vs. "enough greenery in the centre" (Figure 3) for other experts and key experts was statistically significantly different (*p* = 0.0107).

On the basis of the obtained results, it should also be noted that 72.5% of the respondents were satisfied with living in Wrocław and did not intend to move out in the nearest future or change their place of residence (66.25%), despite the increased tourist traffic. However, it should be clearly emphasized that almost 34% of the surveyed were already planning such a migration, which may be caused by the difficulties or limitations in everyday life in the city.

**Figure 6.** The purchase and construction of apartments by entrepreneurs and renting rooms and apartments by residents for tourists in the opinion of respondents. Source: own elaboration.

Only about 30% of the respondents were familiar with the concept of gentrification processes, which can result from overtourism. It is highly probable that the lack of respondents' knowledge of this phenomenon could have contributed to many positive opinions on housing policy and management in Wrocław. At the same time, the basic reasons for the lack of such knowledge should undoubtedly be sought in the lack of contacts or any observations in this respect by the surveyed experts (residents), who mostly lived outside the city centre (nearly 85%), where the symptoms of gentrification are typically not present.

Figure 7 illustrates the results of the correlation analysis of the studied variables. The values of the rank correlation coefficients ranged from −0.30 (statistically significant, *p* = 0) for total scores for the variables presented in Figures 2 and 5 to 0.32 (statistically significant, *p* = 0) for the variables presented in Figures 3 and 5. Statistically significant low correlations were reported for the pairs of survey questions indicated as variables in pairs presented in Figures 2 and 5, Figures 2 and 4, Figures 3 and 5, and Figures 4 and 6.

**Figure 7.** Correlation analyses of the studied variable responses to the survey questions. Source: own elaboration.

Other correlation coefficients for the studied variables did not exceed 0.15 and were not statistically significant (Table 2).


**Table 2.** Rank correlation matrix for the studied variable groups.

Source: own elaboration.

Identification of risk factors and assessment of the degree of overtourism threat to urban agglomeration units face a number of methodological problems, including those stemming from the limited possibilities to obtain source data based on the opinions of city residents exposed to overtourism. In turn, the main problem with the interpretation of the overtourism phenomenon is the need to assess risk factors and the level of overtourism threat from various perspectives of tourism stakeholders (inhabitants, entrepreneurs, local authorities, others), whose opinions are frequently contradictory.
