However, after floating it as an option for years, the floating city of Venice has finally followed through, and from January you'll need to pay somewhere between 3-10 euros ($4.50-$15) if you want to visit the city for the day.

The argument the Venetians put forward for the levy is that too many tourists come just as a day trip, zipping in on the train from other parts of Italy or from cruise ships moored nearby (the ships are now banned from the historic centre). These visitors gawk at the Grand Canal, take a photo in St Mark's Square, and glance at the Bridge of Sighs as they shuffle past. But they contribute nothing to the local economy (many even bring packed lunches), while at the same time placing an unsustainable strain on the urban environment.

The entrance fee is supposed to generate income for the upkeep of the city and try to encourage visits outside peak periods (hence the sliding scale of the price). But it does also feel a bit like Venice is finally just admitting what many visitors already know - that it's basically become an Italian Disneyland.

Crowds jostle past each other to wait in lines, the food and beverage outlets charge outrageous prices, and there's even a boat ride that takes you on a loop around a waterway (perhaps the gondoliers will start singing about how it's a small world).

So why stop at Venice? Travel through Tuscany in summer and you'll find that many of the popular destinations there are just as busy. Perhaps the Italians should also be charging entry fees for cities like Florence and Siena, or small towns like San Gimignano. They certainly get crowded enough with day-trippers and, much like Venice, they're often just filled with people walking the streets and looking at the old buildings, spending very little money with local businesses.

And it's not just Italy, of course. I've just returned from the Greek Islands, where the motto in some of the towns of Santorini seems to be "take photos, give nothing". The small Austrian town of Hallstatt also has a chronic overtourism problem, as does Dubrovnik and, to some extent, Amsterdam. Using this logic, there's probably also justification for entry fees to Hoi An in Vietnam, Chefchaouen in Morocco, even New Orleans in the USA.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not. Why? Because charging people to come into a city seems antithetical to the whole purpose of a city as a hub of commerce and culture, and local businesses want as many visitors as possible. But, of course, that assumes it's a "living city" and perhaps the sad reality is that somewhere like Venice has just become one big tourist attraction, where there's no longer normal residents leading normal lives. (Having said that, the last time I was in Venice it was easy to get away from the crowds in some quieter local parts of the main island, so perhaps there's still a chance it can be saved.)

Venice may still seem like an extreme example and, since the announcement this month, it's being described as the first city to charge visitors an entry fee. Yet, in a way, it's not the first - but actually one of hundreds of cities around the world that make tourists pay to visit. Because although you may not realise it, hidden away in the cost of your hotel stay is often a "tourist tax". For example, Barcelona charges up to 3.50 euros a night and Paris charges up to 4 euros a night. In cities where most visitors stay overnight, they are all effectively being charged an entry fee - it's just not obvious.

However, if a destination is trying to combat overtourism by encouraging longer stays rather than day trips, then this nightly tourist tax is actually counterintuitive! People who stay overnight - especially for multiple nights - should actually be paying less tax because they're already contributing more to the economy by eating at restaurants, visiting sights, and catching public transportation, for example.

Maybe the authorities in Venice are on the right track, but they're just looking at the solution from a different perspective. What would happen if they got rid of the city's current tourist tax from hotels (currently up to 5 euros a night) and passed that cost on to the day-trippers instead? It would probably mean more revenue than is currently being generated, but also encourage a greater number of travellers to stay overnight, ultimately spending more money in local businesses and fostering a more sustainable form of slow travel.

This idea is probably too late for Venice, but there are other destinations around the world that might benefit from this approach. The nightly tourist tax is an antiquated method of raising revenue. Finding a way to instead charge day-trippers is a better solution for a new world where there are more travellers than ever.

You can see more things to do in Venice on Michael Turtle's Time Travel Turtle website.