Sitting in an airbnb in a sleepy Spanish village, this is definitely on my mind. Roughly three separate topics.

1. Pecuniary externalities: these are second-order impacts on someone because of economic transactions that two people willingly engage in. We usually don't care about others' feelings toward mutually beneficial exchange. Tourism/housing/accomodation doesn't seem to be different here. Pecuniary externalities are not a thing anybody should care about.
2. It matters whether we're in small-town, low-competition places like I'm in right now (it's not like tenants are lining up for this house; and if there weren't an airbnb service here, the owners would probably just use it for occasional vacation or housing-market-savings account -- hashtag short the currency #994746) or downtown Barcelona. In the latter, still someone would be "priced out" -- whether by tourism or high-end immigration, by business offices -- and the blame would lay with the very obstacles that stop the price from falling to marginal cost (zoning + fiat money), not the exact facility that's taking place there.
3. What would have to be true for this to be the outcome?
   a) hotels either bankrupt, or on their way there because they're empty since the tourists now don't go there but stay in airbnbs,
   b) strict zoning would stop developers from expanding the supply in combination with increased demand,
   c) I guess, a ton more tourists that usually/in recent times.

Maybe a little bit of (c), but in the absence of (b) that would adjust very quickly.

Plus, this (and gentrification etc) is usually a convo about morality and "rights", since there's no formal transgression made. At the end of the day, all kinds of claims about unfair housing comes down to someone, somewhere, objecting to what others do with their money and stuff. That seems outdated and silly, or in the limit confiscatory and undermining of the idea of property; call the Catholic Church or the Greta morality police, whatever.

Here are my two sats:

Nobody has a right to live anywhere;Nobody has a right to live anywhere;

if the most efficient use of a plot of some Canaray island land is to build quaint houses to rent out short-term for British tourists... why shouldn't humanity do that?
Put differently, if you don't like that, you gotta bid that away from the current owners -- that is, pay top dollar to have that place for yourself. That's what a free world does.

Anything else is imposing a loss on those people. Why do you, in your moral elevation, have the right to impose losses on others simply because you "don't like" what they're doing?

Plus, your Tenerife dude can just move if he doesn't like the offered trade-off. What's the problem...?