Fodor’s ‘No List’ includes destinations they advise travellers to reconsider visiting in order to help reduce pressure caused by the burden of overtourism. The Canary Islands have the dubious honour of making the list for 2026. However, the reasons for inclusion are, as is often the case where the Canaries are involved, hovering on one-dimensional.
There are serious infrastructure and social problems, such as those cited by John Beckley in his sustainability website Canary Green and quoted by Fodor’s. But how they are presented reveal a perception problem that has blighted the Canary Islands for decades.
Not all Canary Islands have a problem with too many tourists.
The Canary Islands?
Lumping all the Canary Islands together under one umbrella makes no sense. While the list references Tenerife, Gran Canaria, and Lanzarote, Fodor’s don’t differentiate between these islands and La Gomera, La Palma, and El Hierro. After devastating fires a couple of years ago, La Palma was desperate for tourists to return. In fact, a lack of tourists has been a problem there for many years. Fodor’s advising travellers to reconsider visiting the Canary Islands could have a detrimental impact on the smaller islands.
The islands are more than just tourist resorts.
The real Tenerife
Despite it being the Canary Islands on Fodor’s list, the article explaining the inclusion focusses almost entirely on Tenerife. And even then, not Tenerife as a whole. Tenerife is much more than just a holiday resort. Same with Gran Canaria and Lanzarote. Often when sources outside the island mention Tenerife, they’re really referring to the tourist resorts of the south. Fodor’s list is no different. It completely disregards life beyond the resort areas, especially those locations where, historically, the majority of Canarios have lived since the conquest. What Tenerife is like outside of its resort areas seems of little importance, which feels insulting.
During peak commuter periods, this stretch of the TF5 is a nightmare.
Too many cars
Fodor’s quote John Beckley as saying, “Traffic is one of the biggest issues. What used to be a 40-minute drive from the north can now take well over an hour each way.” John is a good friend. We worked together on Tenerife Magazine over a decade ago. He’s been a driving force for positive change on Tenerife for as long as I’ve known him. The volume of traffic leading to and from the resort areas has become crazy over the last decade. But when John mentions driving from the north, I think he must mean the northern part of the south. Even on a quiet day, it would take an hour to drive from Puerto de la Cruz in the north to the southern resorts. During peak commuter periods, we could double travel time as the flow of traffic between Puerto de la Cruz and Santa Cruz during those hours has historically been problematic, even though it doesn’t receive the same media attention in English language publications. Notice the reference to ‘commuter’ traffic, not tourists.
No comment required.
“Truly no local spaces left”
This statement is attributed to ATAN (Asociación Tinerfeña de Amigos de la Naturaleza). It is exaggerated hyperbole. Where are there no local spaces left? Anaga? Teno? Orotava Valley? Teide National Park? If it’s a reference to the south coast, which is being consumed by tourist developments, then make that distinction clear, otherwise it is hugely misleading and incorrect.
Fiesta de San Juan celebrations in the southern resort of Palm-Mar.
“We are losing our identity, culture, and, ultimately, our right to exist as a community,”
I struggle with this argument. Canarian Culture is something to be proud of, to fight to protect. Over fourteen tears of living on Tenerife, Andy and I immersed ourselves in traditional activities in villages, towns, and cities across Tenerife. The last places we associated with Canarian culture were those locations where there’s a media focus on the protests. The reason is they were purpose-built for tourism. Unlike Venice, Barcelona, or Dubrovnik, there was no culture to erode because very few people lived there. Most of those who did lived in hill towns, where Canarian culture remains strong. In guidebooks written in the late 1960s, many resort areas don’t even exist. Here’s an extract for a rocky beach in the centre of what is now Costa Adeje: “There is a road to the clifftop and a path down to the beach.” That’s it. That’s the entry for Costa Adeje.
The main problems of the impact of mass tourism mainly affect areas which were built purely for mass tourism. Ironic much.
… And Fiesta de San Juan celebrations at Puerto de la Cruz in the north.
Unique issues
Problems as a result of mass tourism in purpose-built resorts shouldn’t be lumped in with those of historic cities. Resorts don’t evolve in the same organic way as towns. Bits are tagged on as demand grows, creating road layouts that make no sense, and a fragile infrastructure which can’t support rapid growth. It is ironic (part 2) that this has occurred on an island whose former capital San Cristóbal de La Laguna was the first unfortified town whose layout followed a grid model. It was so ground-breaking, it served as a blueprint for various settlements in the Americas. The expansion of the population in Tenerife’s resort areas is staggering. In Arona, where Playa de las Américas is located, the population in the 1960s was 6331. By 2021, that had risen to over 83,000. And this in an area which has historically suffered from a lack of water. Therein lies the real problem. By comparison, the northern town of La Orotava’s population in the 1960s was 23,196. In 2021 it was 42,456.
Costa Adeje sweeping west.
A wider view
The perception of problems with tourism is mostly presented in the UK media from limited points of view which don’t necessarily reflect opinions or experiences outside of certain geographical areas. An economic and social study carried out by ECOSOC in 2024 provides an insight into a more comprehensive picture of how tourism is viewed by the wider Canarian population. Nearly 70% of islanders believed tourism was beneficial because it attracted investment, even though at the same time it raised the cost of living. Three out of four people thought tourism contributed to economic development, while also increasing the price of rental and purchase properties. 62% believed tourism generated employment. More than half of the population felt tourism contributed to the consumption of local products. Interestingly, 57% believed tourism contributed to increasing cultural activities, and 51.7% agreed that tourism helped conserve and even enhance historical monuments. However, more than half agreed tourism had some negative consequences for the environment. Which is the drum John Beckley keeps banging away at.
Slow Travel reveals different faces of popular destinations.
There are alternatives
The reasons for the inclusion of the Canary Islands on Fodor’s No List 2026 are mostly related to mass tourism. There’s no mention or promotion of the alternatives, such as sustainable Slow Travel models which introduce travellers to the traditional areas of the Canary Islands, and where small family businesses reap the financial benefits rather than international ones.
The points mentioned above are not intended to dilute the problems experienced, some of which do affect the wider population. But these should be presented in such a way that this is made clear. And it’s in this that Fodor’s, and others who publish similar articles, fail.
