In the controversial case of expansion at Heathrow airport , the UK government insists that the benefits of economic growth outweigh the environmental and wellbeing costs. But what if focusing on prosperity is a shortsighted approach? The debate about a third runway, placed in the context of exponential growth in travel and tourism, makes the impact on people and the environment clear to see.
Authors
- Ilaria Pappalepore
Reader in Tourism and Events, University of Westminster
- Ko Koens
Professor of New Urban Tourism, Inholland University of Applied Sciences
- Shirley Nieuwland
Researcher Tourism Transitions, Inholland University of Applied Sciences
Tourism accounts for an estimated 8% of global CO2 emissions , and emissions related to tourism will continue to grow despite technological advances . The Heathrow expansion, for example, has been shown to be incompatible with net-zero requirements .
Meanwhile, many tourism destinations are struggling to cope with growing numbers of visitors. Residents have protested at the impact of overtourism on their quality of life, with harms including overcrowding, loss of amenities for residents and a skewed property market.
London's airport development plans (expansion is also mooted at Gatwick and Luton ) aim to inject investment into a range of sectors beyond tourism. However, our research suggests that aligning tourism with other sectors and better cooperation of decision-making at different levels of government could lead to increased wellbeing, a healthier environment and greater benefits to the local economy.
This provides options to rethink what tourism could look like when the focus is not just economic growth.
It should be possible to look at new models that take a holistic approach to tourism development. This means putting the wellbeing of the community and the environment first. Falling under the umbrella term of "post-growth" , there are various approaches that all rethink the role of economic growth. They advocate prioritising human wellbeing within planetary boundaries.
"Degrowth" argues that limiting growth is essential for a sustainable future. On the other hand, "doughnut economics" and regenerative approaches are more agnostic about economic growth. They argue that human prosperity and wellbeing should be prioritised regardless of whether GDP is going up or down.
In the context of tourism and travel, these approaches provide a different perspective on the role of the sector and what it can bring to a place, beyond economic growth.
They also go further than most strategies being implemented in popular tourist cities to prioritise residents' wellbeing, quality of life, and lower-carbon travel.
Taking the heat off tourist hotspots
As part of a net-zero emission pledge, and in an attempt to curb overtourism and the frustration of locals, some cities across Europe are enforcing restrictions on cruise ships . And Greece is applying a climate resilience tax on top of the tourism tax on all overnight stays.
One of the cities that has done the most to curb tourism is Amsterdam. After the start of the COVID pandemic, it adopted a citizen initiative to cap tourism at 20 million overnight stays per year.
This number was reached in 2023, and the city has put forward a wide range of measures since then. These include a tourist tax rate of 12.5%, strict rules on short-term rentals, limits on visitor numbers at large attractions and reducing the number of cruises. The city has also strengthened its environmental regulations.
Copenhagen, on the other hand, chooses not to restrict tourism. Rather, it now rewards visitors who engage in climate-friendly actions, with the "CopenPay" pilot project. Visitors who choose to cycle, use public transport or participate in volunteering are eligible for discounts or free access to 24 attractions .
While these initiatives are laudable, there are two reasons why they don't go far enough.
The first is that the majority of the measures are based on financial disincentives, such as charging entrance fees to destinations and taxing the most polluting transport. They rest on the assumption that we do not need to address the underlying pursuit of growth that led to this unsustainability.
Likewise, arguments in favour of green growth are based on technological advances, such as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This underpins claims that air travel can continue to grow. However, both within and beyond the travel sector, it has been argued that green growth is a myth .
In the long run, these measures do not cut the ever-growing number of travellers. Nor do they effectively address climate issues.
Second, cities need support from higher levels of government if they want to encourage travel that is more environmentally friendly and contributes to the wellbeing of residents. In the case of Amsterdam, the ongoing expansion of Schiphol airport can be linked to overtourism, as well as noise and air pollution.
City leaders want to cut the maximum number of flights . But they cannot do much as long as economic growth is the focus of the Dutch government's plans.
This highlights the deep complexities of controlling visitor numbers. And it also suggests that the economic benefits that come with the growth of London's airports may come with societal and environmental costs. These will be felt by London and its residents, and cannot be solved with local policies.
Rather than going further and faster with growth, when it comes to travel and tourism we may need to go "closer by and slower".
That might mean placing greater emphasis on promoting destinations to nearby markets , investment in low-carbon travel options and regenerative tourism activities . A post-growth approach should ensure that the economic benefits do not outweigh long-term ecological and societal growth. After all, these are the things we all need for a resilient society.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
