Overtourism Communication and Public Visitor Guidance in Kyoto, Japan: A Soft Urban Governance Perspective

Overtourism management increasingly uses public communication to frame how visitors are expected to move, behave, and understand their responsibilities in pressured destination spaces. Yet, in heritage cities, such communication is often examined through isolated signs, etiquette campaigns, visitor advisories, or congestion notices rather than as part of a wider visitor-management communication system. This paper examines Kyoto as a case of overtourism communication in an urban heritage setting. Using document-based content analysis supported by exploratory statistical tests, it maps 64 public-facing communication artifacts published between 2016 and 2025 and codes them by message orientation, artifact type, source environment, and spatial focus. The findings show that exclusionary messaging does not dominate Kyoto’s public-facing overtourism communication within the analyzed corpus. Dispersal and behavioral guidance is the most common orientation, while restriction is targeted and secondary, and invitational place guidance remains comparatively limited. Message orientation is significantly associated with artifact type, with restriction concentrated in signs and posters and invitational place guidance appearing mainly in guides and brochures. Semi-institutional actors account for most artifacts, indicating the central role of destination-management organizations and other visitor-facing tourism bodies in translating management concerns into public guidance. Spatially, guidance-oriented communication appears broadly across the city, while restriction has its clearest place-based concentration in Eastern Kyoto, especially Gion-related areas. A smaller set of messages invites visitors to explore wider Kyoto or less conventional places beyond standard guidebook routes. Drawing on the lens of soft urban governance, the paper argues that public-facing overtourism communication can be understood as one visible layer through which visitor-management expectations are framed, spatially differentiated, and made publicly legible. As a document-based analysis, the study does not measure visitor reception, compliance, or behavioral effects, which remain priorities for future research.