Tourism in Oxford can be a sensitive subject. For a minority of business owners in the city, visitors are a gold mine. For many residents, however, they are a source of frustration. So how do we balance these perspectives? Is tourism inevitable in a place like Oxford? Are restrictions possible – or even fair? And crucially: how do local people actually feel about this topic?
Oxford and tourism go hand in hand. Despite the city experiencing a decrease in visitors in 2025, anyone who finds themselves in the city centre, especially during summer, will likely feel surrounded by large groups of school pupils, mainly from Western European countries and China.
Personally, I often think twice before entering certain roads, such as Cornmarket Street and Queen Street, on a busy day. However, I’ve conducted a questionnaire in order to gain a better understanding of other local opinions.
How local residents see tourism’s benefits – and its costs
Economically, there is significant agreement that tourism contributes positively to the local economy, with 91% of a total sample of 100 agreeing with this sentiment. According to Oxford City Council (OCC), tourism generates around £780mn per year for local Oxford businesses and supports about 14% of jobs in the city. It would be harsh to denounce tourism without considering its beneficial financial impact.
Despite this, residents are still unhappy with the scale and organisation of tourism in Oxford, with one going so far as to say that “local government seems to be happy to turn the historic part of the city into a theme park for visitors”.
This sense of frustration is not directed at the tourists themselves, but at the management of tourism in the city. Overcrowding and commercialisation are starting to make parts of the city feel less like Oxford, and more like a postcard of Oxford.
OCC has been fairly active in implementing policies aimed at benefiting both the city and the management of tourists in the centre. These include so-called “tourism hubs” and the recent proposal of a £2 nightly charge, which has been labelled a “tourist tax”.
These are steps forward, but the core issue remains unresolved: for whom is Oxford being shaped?
Who shapes Oxford’s tourism future?
Many of the city’s residents feel they have little say, despite their living with the consequences.
OCC is primarily responsible for policies and projects related to tourism in Oxford. The University of Oxford is mentioned only as a partner in many of these projects; however, its significant influence is evident through the land it owns, the economic activity it generates, and the fact that it attracts tourists to the city.
This is demonstrated by the 2024 GLAM report, which indicated that 3.5 million people visited Oxford University gardens, libraries, and museums, emphasising the key role the University plays.
Oxford, in a sense, is managed by two power centres: the University, which shapes and attracts visitors to the city for many reasons, and the City Council, which must manage the consequences, influences, and accountability of the University’s actions.
Oxford University’s role and responsibility in tourism
Oxford University is, unsurprisingly, very astute in its approach to projects and policies throughout the city.
As a partner, it can select which projects to support both financially and operationally. In addition, as it is a partner and not formally responsible for these projects, it can avoid culpability for actions over which it may have considerable influence.
Of the 100 respondents to my questionnaire, 99% agreed that the University had a significant impact on tourism in the city, with 74% agreeing that the University should give more consideration to how this affects residents’ experiences of the city.
There appears to be a democratic gap within the University’s operations. Local people are not always consulted when the University is conducting or assisting with certain projects; even when they are consulted, there are many examples where financial power prevails, casting a pre-determined gloom over many projects throughout the city.
Most notable to me is the Castle Mill accommodation controversy, which faced major pushback from citizens, but was nevertheless approved by OCC, reinforcing the privilege and power the University holds over the city.
Simply put, residents end up dealing with busier streets, higher rents, and a general rise in the prices of services, commodities, and goods due to the many high-earning tourists who make their way to the city.
This, in turn, creates a growing sense that Oxford may be becoming a place where visitors have more influence over the way the city is curated than the residents themselves.
Putting residents back at the centre
This is not about closing the gates to tourists or completely diminishing the powers of the University, but rather about giving residents a greater seat at the table.
As the University accounts for the largest share of employment in the city, it should be in its best interest to improve the quality of life for the city’s residents. This would also benefit the University itself, as it would help attract more workers, scholars, and students to the city, creating a more competitive and demanding job market that would further reaffirm the unique status it currently holds.
Both the University and the City Council could be more transparent in planning and ensuring that communities in the city know the full extent to which projects affect housing, transport, and public space. Goodstadt’s report highlights failures of transparency regarding major projects in Oxford, noting, “There was inadequate consultation on the proposal, and it could have been more clearly documented”.
Another way in which the University could directly benefit the overall experience of the city is through revenue reinvestment and community-first priorities. I would propose a community dividend, in which the University pays a set percentage of profits from sources such as University-owned commercial property, licensing revenue from tech spinouts, future endowment returns, and profits to museums and colleges from the tourism industry.
This should be used for local shared assets such as parks, paths, sports grounds, and community centres. This is not common in the UK, and Oxford currently has no stable mechanism like this; however, it is common in many US university towns (e.g., “payment in lieu of taxes”). Notably, the UK and the US have different tax policies regarding universities.
However, a university with the financial might of Oxford should not struggle to contribute some profits to benefit the very land upon which it stands. This would also reduce the financial burden on the council, creating a win-win situation for everyone except Oxford University.
So, who is Oxford really for?
I am not an economist (and I know many professors of economics at Oxford who could debate me on the details). That said, improvements in how tourism is managed can certainly be achieved in the city through crucial reforms, which could create a positive atmosphere for all parties.
It is better to say that tourism itself isn’t Oxford’s problem – rather, it’s how tourism is managed. The phrase “you reap what you sow” should apply but it does not, at least regarding the potential negative consequences of tourism. The City Council and the University benefit greatly from the global attention the city receives, yet many of the ramifications fall directly on local residents.
A better future is most certainly possible
The University could make efforts to be transparent and to improve consultation with residents about how its actions may affect daily life, and should also look into investing a larger share of tourism income into shared spaces. The Council, in addition, should do more to champion the residents of the city by improving infrastructure, regulating the density of tourist shops and short-term rentals to ensure the authenticity of the city’s neighbourhoods, and protecting the elements that give these neighbourhoods their meaning to residents.
The most important shift is cultural: residents need a meaningful and permanent voice in shaping Oxford’s identity – not a token opinion that can be disregarded through financial power, but a meaningful seat at the table where plans and projects affecting tourism are made and approved. The people of the city should be empowered and entrusted to play more than just a supporting role in matters concerning the very place they live.
Oxford will always attract the world. Its beauty and history make this inevitable.
The challenge now is to ensure it remains a world-class city to live in, as much as it is to visit. If the Council, the University, and residents work together, the “dreaming spires” might feel a little less crowded and a lot more like home.
Oxford is not merely a backdrop for academia. The University, for all its achievements, is a guest in a city that existed before it and has life, culture, and significance independent of it.
Notes:
I mention my questionnaire which I have conducted with around 100 respondents. You can view the full extent of the questionnaire on Google spreadsheet using this link.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
