EU-27 · Eurostat & Green Key · 2019–2024

How sustainably does each EU member state manage tourism?

Tourism pressure is not the same as tourism volume. A country hosting many visitors isn't automatically less sustainable than a country hosting few. What matters is how tourism flows relate to the society and infrastructure that carry them — and whether the sector is diversifying, decarbonising, and distributing visitors across the year. This dashboard tracks up to eight indicators across the 27 EU member states, sourced exclusively from Eurostat and the official Green Key International registry. Each metric is explained in context as you interact with it below.
Detecting your country…
01 /

Cross-country comparison

All 27 EU member states
Metric
Year
Highlight country
Filter region
02 /

Country profile

Click any country in the bar chart
Country
Compare with
Year
Profile vs comparator
Country
Region median
Methodology & data sources

Every number in this dashboard comes from a public source.

This page documents exactly where each indicator comes from, how it's computed, and — importantly — what it doesn't measure. We aim for conservative, honest indicators over impressive-sounding but unreliable ones.

What this dashboard measures

For each of the 27 EU member states, we track eight indicators across a five-year window (2019–2024). The indicators fall into three buckets — volume, pressure, and sustainability infrastructure — as described at the top of the dashboard.

Each indicator is a measured value from a national statistical office, not an estimate or a proxy guess. Where a derived metric is computed (such as length of stay, or tourism intensity), the formula is straightforward arithmetic on two measured quantities from the same source.

Tourism intensity, explained

Tourism intensity is the total number of tourist nights spent in a country divided by the number of resident inhabitants. It's the single best indicator of how tourism relates to the society that hosts it.

Context: a tourism intensity of 1 means tourism adds the equivalent of one extra resident-night per inhabitant per year. Germany sits around 3. Hungary around 4. Malta exceeds 40 — every resident, on average, shares their country with forty tourist-nights every year. Croatia pushes 30. These are fundamentally different tourism economies, and comparing them without normalising for population would be misleading.

Intensity does not measure impact directly — that depends on how tourism is spatially distributed within the country, what kind of visitors arrive, and what infrastructure exists to absorb them. But as a first-order indicator of exposure, it's hard to beat.

Seasonality indicators

Peak-month share is the percentage of annual nights spent that occur in the country's busiest month. A value of 13% means tourism is relatively flat across the year (close to 1/12 = 8.3% minimum). A value of 28% means more than a quarter of all annual tourism happens in one month.

Seasonality Gini is the Gini coefficient computed over the monthly distribution of nights. A Gini of 0 means perfectly equal distribution across twelve months; a Gini of 1 means all tourism occurs in a single month. In practice EU countries range from ~0.10 (Denmark, year-round business travel) to ~0.50 (Croatia, Greek islands — summer only).

Countries with high seasonality face structural challenges: peak-summer infrastructure stress, off-season unemployment, and more volatile sector revenue.

Data sources

Every figure comes from one of two public sources: the Eurostat dissemination API, or the official Green Key International monthly xlsx registry. Both are freely available.

IndicatorSourceDataset codeCadence
Tourist arrivalsEurostattour_occ_arnatAnnual
Nights spentEurostattour_occ_ninatAnnual
Monthly nights (seasonality)Eurostattour_occ_nimMonthly
PopulationEurostatdemo_gindAnnual
Sectoral GVA share (proxy)Eurostatnama_10_a64Annual
Accommodation capacityEurostattour_cap_natAnnual
Sustainability certificationsGreen Key Internationalmonthly xlsxMonthly

GVA share: what it is and isn't

Eurostat's dedicated Tourism Satellite Accounts dataset (tour_eco_int) is no longer publicly disseminated — it relied on voluntary submissions and had spotty coverage. As a substitute, this dashboard uses NACE Rev. 2 sector "I" (Accommodation and food service activities) as a share of total gross value added.

This metric overstates tourism's true share because it includes restaurants and cafés serving local residents.

It also understates tourism's full economic footprint because it excludes transport, travel agencies, attractions, and other tourism-adjacent activities.

But it's available consistently across all 27 EU states for every year, which makes cross-country and over-time comparisons meaningful. For a fuller picture, refer to national Tourism Satellite Accounts where available (most EU countries publish their own).

Regional groupings

The dashboard groups EU-27 into five regions for comparison purposes:

Central & Eastern Europe (AT, BG, HR, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SK, SI) — nine countries.

Western Europe (BE, FR, DE, IE, LU, NL) — six countries. Larger economies with diversified tourism profiles.

Mediterranean (CY, GR, IT, MT, PT, ES) — six countries with high summer seasonality and beach-tourism dependence.

Nordics (DK, FI, SE) — three countries. Low seasonality, high per-capita spend patterns.

Baltics (EE, LV, LT) — three small countries with growing tourism sectors.

Regional aggregates use the median across member states (not the mean) — this avoids large countries dominating the comparison, and makes the regional value a more representative "typical" country in that group.

What this dashboard is not

This is a structural snapshot, not a sustainability rating. Countries with high tourism intensity (like Croatia or Malta) are not "less sustainable" — they're simply more exposed to tourism flows, which creates both economic dependence and ecological pressure. A balanced reading of these indicators requires understanding the trade-offs each country has made.

Resident perceptions are deliberately omitted: there is no harmonised cross-country survey of how locals feel about tourism volume, and inserting non-comparable national surveys would mislead the eye.

Certification coverage is a leading indicator of intent, not of actual environmental performance. Green Key-certified properties commit to a set of operational practices; this dashboard reports the count, not whether those practices have been independently audited at each location.