Copyright ©2010 Tourism Recreation Research
The Future of Tourism: Can Tourism Growth and Climate
Policy be Reconciled? A Mitigation Perspective
STEFAN GÖSSLING, C. MICHAEL HALL, PAUL PEETERS and DANIEL SCOTT
Abstract: Tourism is an increasingly significant contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions growth in
the sector is in substantial conflict with global climate policy goals that seek to mitigate climate change through
significant emission reductions. This article discusses the role of various tourism sub-sectors in generating emissions,
and technical and management options in reducing these. It concludes that given observed and anticipated emission
growth rates, technology and management will not be sufficient to achieve even modest absolute emission reductions
in the sector, pointing to the key role of social and behavioural change in realizing climatically sustainable tourism. The
article also discusses some of the systemic barriers that have to be overcome in order for tourism to comply with post-
Kyoto Protocol global mitigation frameworks. The article concludes that radical change will be needed to reconcile the
holiday and business travel demands of a growing world population with the climate policy targets of the international
community, specifically restricting anthropogenic global warming to less than 2°C.
Keywords: aviation; climate change; climate justice; climate policy; greenhouse gas emissions; mitigation; tourism.
Climate Change and Tourism
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 35(2), 2010: 119–130
STEFAN GÖSSLING is Professor at the Department of Service Management, Lund University, PO Box 882, 25108 Helsingborg, Sweden.
e-mail: stefan.gossling@msm.lu.se
C. MICHAEL HALL is Professor at the Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag
4800, Christchurch, New Zealand 8140. e-mail: michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz
PAUL PEETERS is Associate Professor at the Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport, NHTV Breda, University of Applied Sciences, PO
Box 3917, 4800 DX Breda, The Netherlands. e-mail: peeters.p@nhtv.nl
DANIEL SCOTT is Canada Research Chair in Global Change and Tourism, Department of Geography and Environmental Management,
University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave., West Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. e-mail: dj2scott@uwaterloo.ca
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC) 4th Assessment Report (AR4) (2007) concluded that
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the major
source for the observed and projected changes in the global
climate system. It is now increasingly recognized that
observed and projected climate change will affect ecosystem
services in ways that increase vulnerabilities with regard to
food security, water supply, natural disasters, as well as
human health (IPCC 2007). This, in turn, affects socio-
economic development (Global Humanitarian Forum 2009),
including tourism. The IPCC emphasizes the fact that global
emissions should decline in the near future to avoid
‘dangerous interference with the climate system’, as outlined
in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UN 1992). Mitigation, to reduce the speed at which
the global climate changes, as well as adaptation, to cope
with change that is inevitable, are thus of great importance
(Parry et al. 2008).
The IPCC (2007: 30) notes that ‘warming of the climate
system is unequivocal, as it is now evident from observations
of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average
sea level’. These changes have started to affect many natural
systems, including hydrological systems (e.g., increased
runoff and earlier spring peak discharge, warming of lakes
and rivers affecting thermal structure and water quality);
terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., earlier spring events including
leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying, biodiversity
decline, and pole -ward and upward shifts in ranges in plants
and animal species); and marine systems (e.g., rising water
temperatures, changes in ice cover, salinity, acidification,
oxygen levels and circulation, affecting shifts in ranges and
changes in algae, plankton and fish abundance). Together,
these changes are projected to severely affect socio-economic
development and well-being (e.g., Stern 2006; UNDP 2007;
Asian Development Bank 2009). For example, a 2009 report
puts the current number of climate change related deaths at
300,000 a year, rising to 500,000 per year by 2020, and current
economic losses of US$ 125 billion per year (Global
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
120 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
Humanitarian Forum 2009).
Since the publication of the AR4, an increasing number
of publications have made the point that it may have
understated both the rate of climate change (e.g., Lean and
Rind 2009; Richardson et al. 2009) and the associated
potential risks. ‘Dangerous interference with the climate
system’ may take place already at moderate global warming
levels (Richardson et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2009). Hansen et al.
(2008) have thus argued that the concentration of greenhouse
gases needs to be reduced substantially and potentially to
even lower than current levels.
All observed and projected changes in the global
climate are of particular relevance to tourism. Tourism
businesses, destinations, transit routes and tourists are all
sensitive to variability and change in climate and weather
parameters, which affect the length and quality of tourism
seasons and tourist experiences as well as the sustainability
of tourism resources (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008; Scott and
Lemieux 2009). In many destinations, tourism is also closely
linked to the qualities of the natural environment, affecting a
wide range of the environmental and cultural resources that
are significant attractions, such as snow conditions, wildlife
productivity and biodiversity, water levels and quality, as
well as national parks, World Heritage and other
conservation sites (e.g., Gössling and Hall 2006; Hoegh-
Guldberg et al. 2007; IPCC 2007; UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008;
Hall 2009a, 2009b; Hall and Lew 2009; Scott and Lemieux
2009).
Climate also has an important i nfluence on
environmental conditions that can deter tourists, including
infectious diseases, wildfires, insect or water-borne pests (e.g.,
jellyfish and algal blooms), and extreme weather events such
as tropical cyclones or droughts. Because climate represents
both a vital resource to be exploited and important risk to be
managed in tourism, it is expected that the integrated effects
of climate change, with shifts in both climatic means and
extremes, will have profound impacts on tourism businesses
and destinations. Furthermore, because climate, the natural
environment, destination image, personal safety, and travel
cost are primary factors in travel decisions, and each are
projected to be significantly impacted by global climate
change, far-reaching shifts in consumer travel demand may
also occur. Accumulating evidence indicates that climate
change, and particularly high emission scenarios, will
fundamentally transform aspects of the global tourism sector
in the decades ahead (Hall and Higham 2005; Gössling and
Hall 2006; Scott 2006; UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008; Scott and
Lemieux 2009; Hall and Lew 2009). A multi-sector
comparison by KPMG (2008) concluded that both tourism
and aviation sectors were in the ‘danger zone’ based on their
relatively low awareness of climate change risk and little
evidence of strategic planning to cope with the challenges of
climate change. In the light of these findings, tourism
businesses should therefore have great interest in addressing
and mitigating climate change. The following sections of
this paper discuss the mitigation challenge for global tourism,
assessing the current and future contribution of the sector to
greenhouse gas emissions, the reasons for rapid growth in
emissions, as well as the challenges for absolute emission
reductions in line with post-Kyoto negotiations.
Tourism’s Contribution to Global Climate Change
The contribution made by tourism to global emissions
of CO2 is estimated to be in the order of 5% in 2005 (UNWTO-
UNEP-WMO 2008; see Table 1). While this share may appear
minor, it should be noted that the sector’s contribution to
radiative forcing, a measure considering the warming caused
by all greenhouse gases, is probably higher; in the order of
4.4-9.0%, when including aviation-induced cirrus clouds
(UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008). As indicated in Table 1, most
tourism emissions are a result of transport, with aviation
accounting for 40% of tourism’s contribution to CO2, and up
to 75% of the sector’s contribution to radiative forcing. This
estimate may even be conservative, as the role of aviation in
radiative forcing has been revised upwards from 2-8% (best
estimate: 3%; IPCC 2007) to 2-14% (best estimate: 4.9%; Lee et
al. 2009). Overall, tourism’s contribution to climate change
is thus, on a global level, substantial. If tourism were a
country, its emissions would come fifth, after the United
States, China, the European Union, and Russia (see Hall
2010). However, as only a small share of humanity is
currently participating in international tourism (Hall 2005,
2010; Gössling et al. 2007 ) and air travel and tourism related
emissions per capita differ very widely (UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO 2008), the social equity implications are pronounced
and indeed have been termed ‘luxury emissions’ by some
commentators and civil society groups preparing for the
important climate policy negotiations at Copenhagen in 2009
(see also Shue 1993; Gardiner 2004).
With regard to national emissions, industrialized
nations show significantly higher levels of tourism mobility
than developing countries (Gössling 2002; Hall 2005). The
share of tourism-related emissions is consequently higher
in these countries in both relative and absolute terms, with
tourism for instance accounting for an estimated 11% of
national CO2 emissions in Sweden in 2001, a figure that is
expected to increase to 16% by 2020 (Gössling and Hall 2008).
In New Zealand, a country that strongly promotes ‘clean
and green’ as part of its tourism branding (Ministry of
Economic Development 2006), the tourism sector ranked fifth
largest for the total amount of energy used and CO2 emissions
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 121
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
released within New Zealand, when internal energy use was
considered in a study of 25 different industrial sectors
(Patterson and McDonald 2004). However, if return overseas
travel by inbound tourists was included, the tourism sector
then became the second highest user of energy and the highest
CO2 emitter, with the authors concluding: ‘The projected
increases in the number of international tourists… cannot
be compensated for by even the most optimistic assumptions
concerning improvements in energy efficiency’ (Patterson
and McDonald 2004: 9).
However, the contribution of tourism to climate change
becomes most obvious when examined on a per capita basis.
Individual tourism mobility and associated GHG emissions
can vary by several orders of magnitude (Gössling et al.
2009a). Highly mobile travellers (both for business and
leisure) may exceed annual emissions of 50 t CO2 from air
travel alone (Gössling et al. 2009b; Gössling and Nilsson
2010), corresponding to almost 12 times the global per capita
annual average of 4.3t CO2 (all emissions), or about 1,250
times the global average emissions from air travel (300 pkm
corresponding to about 40 kg CO2 per capita per year) (IATA
2008a).
In the future, tourism’s role in climate change is likely
to become ever more pronounced. UNWTO-UNEP-WMO
(2008) provide a technology-adjusted business-as-usual
scenario, indicating that the sector’s growth in CO2
emissions may exceed 150% between 2005 and 2035, most
of this attributed to air travel. Even though this scenario does
not include the economic crisis beginning in mid-2008,
evidence from past crises, such as 11 September 2001, SARS
in 2003, or the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, shows that air
travel usually recovers quickly: ‘Despite some dramatic
external factors which have temporarily slowed or reversed
the growth rate of aviation, the industry has proven to be
remarkably resilient to these events with consistent recovery
to long-term growth rates’ (Lee et al. 2009: 57).
The United Nations World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO 2009) and the World Travel and Tourism Council
(WTTC 2009) have acknowledged the contribution made by
tourism to climate change and called for drastic reductions
in emissions from tourism in the order of 25–30% by 2020
and 50% by 2035 (both from 2005 levels). When set against
projected ‘business as usual’ growth trends, this raises
important questions regarding the technical, economic and
social feasibility of achieving these stated emission reduction
goals. Taking as a starting point the aforementioned stated
positions of the international tourism sector on emission
reductions, the following sections discuss the potential of
technology and management approaches, as currently
envisaged by industry groups, to achieve these goals, and
the need to consider additional aspects of social, economic
and political change.
Achieving Climatically Sustainable Tourism: Industry
Perspectives
Considerable debate has evolved in recent years over
GHG emissions from tourism. This debate is now global and
includes virtually all tourism stakeholders at the national
and international level (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008; PATA
2008; WTTC 2009). Among the various global tourism
stakeholders, including for instance UNWTO, WTTC,
airlines, hotel chains and associations, tour operators, and
tourism organizations, two important paradigms appear to
dominate. First, volume growth in tourism arrivals is
unquestioned, with international tourist arrivals projected
to double from 800 million in 2005 to 1.6 billion by 2020
(UNWTO 2009) and an expectation of even greater growth
in domestic tourist volumes (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008;
Hall 2010). In this context, it is interesting to note that there
is not a single country in the world seeking to stabilize or to
put a cap on tourist arrivals1. Second, nearly all strategies to
reduce emissions from tourism are production-oriented, and
almost exclusively rely on new technology and better
management to improve energy efficiency, while also
replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy,
including biofuels (WEF 2009; WTTC 2009). In short, the
vast majority of tourism stakeholders presuppose that the
mobility, accommodation and activity patterns of a growing
number of tourists can be delivered in a way that allows for
simultaneous volume growth and reductions in GHG
emissions (Hall 2010). The following sections examine this
assumption for accommodation and transport, as too little
information is available for a similar discussion with regard
to activities (Hall 2008), although it should be noted that
accommodation, air travel, and car travel combined account
for 93% of CO2 emissions from tourism (UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO 2008).
Sub-Sectors CO2 (Mt) %
Air transport 515 40%
Car transport 420 32%
Other transport 45 3%
Accommodation 274 21%
Activities 48 4%
TOTAL 1,307 100%
Total World (IPCC 2007) 26,400
Tourism contribution 4.95%
: UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008
Source: UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008
Table 1. Emissions from Tourism by Sub-sector
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
122 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
Accommodation: There is strong evidence that a
considerable share of energy use can be avoided in
accommodation establishments (15–20%), and an equally
large share of fossil energy use could be replaced by
renewable energy with economically acceptable investment
horizons (5–10 years payback time; Paulina Bodhanowicz,
Leeds University, personal communication 2008). Clearly,
many hotels and resorts could profit from investigating their
energy use, and moving towards cost reductions through
increasing efficiencies (Bodhanowicz 2009) especially
through insulation improvements, lighting systems, air
conditioning, and water heating (Kammen 2009). However,
given the global growth in accommodation capacity, as well
as a general trend towards more spacious rooms with more
comfort and electric appliances (Riewoldt 2006), it is doubtful
that there will be any absolute reductions in emissions from
accommodation on a global level in the near future. With the
exception of on-site solar, the future prospects of widespread2
utilization of renewable energy in accommodation sub-sector
is largely dependent on the implementation of renewable in
local-regional electricity grids or innovative partnerships
with multiple accommodation providers and near-by
landowners to facilitate cooperative implementation of wind,
biomass or other renewable technologies. Most of these
technologies compete with applications in other sectors as
well while there also needs to be acceptance by consumers
of trade-offs between savings in energy consumption and
thermal comfort (Bodhanowicz and Martinac 2002). Finally,
the need to maintain healthy ecosystems provides a further
constraint to total renewable energy capacity (Makarieva et
al. 2008).
Car transport: In terms of emissions, the second most
important tourism transport mode is the car, with railways,
coach travel and waterborne transport being less important
both in terms of global passenger volumes and their
contribution to GHG emissions. UNWTO-UNEP-WMO
(2008) estimate that of the 465 Mt CO2 emissions caused by
transport other than aviation, 420 Mt CO2 are attributable to
travel by car. Growth in private car ownership and the
growth of conurbations in an increasingly urbanized world
means that private cars are an increasingly significant means
for urban and peri-urban leisure transport measured not only
by a rise in per person car trips but also in trip length,
particularly in emerging economies (OECD 2002). Car travel
has a large potential to become more energy efficient in the
future, with supply-side approaches including use of
biofuels, increased use of gas, new engine concepts,
hybridization, and use of hydrogen fuel (Price water house
Coopers 2007), but due to a rapidly increasing number of
cars in countries such as India or China, it is anticipated
that despite these efficiency gains, overall tourism related
emissions from this transport mode will continue to increase
(UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008). It is also worth noting that
most efficiency gains are currently used for improving comfort
and performance of cars instead of reducing energy use
(Sprei et al. 2008). Nevertheless, the automotive industry also
argues that ‘the real challenge’ is changing the demand side
as part of CO2 reduction, as the customer mindset has been
seen as a ‘barrier to low emission vehicle acceptance in the
past’ (Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2007: 4).
Even given the development of new technologies,
changes in consumer behaviour, and the introduction of new
regulatory and taxation frameworks on emissions, the
likelihood of there being a reduction in the absolute amount
of emissions from car transport is extremely unlikely. In the
case of Europe, which can be regarded as one of the regions
which will have some of the most rigorous regulatory
demands for reduction in GHG emissions from cars, the
expectation is that by 2020 mild-hybrids will have a market
share of about 10% and full hybrids a maximum market share
of 5% due to battery restrictions. Such battery restrictions
also will not allow electric vehicles to play more than a niche
role by 2020. Assuming that technical hurdles such as storage
and fuel cell cost and packaging are overcome, fuel cell
vehicles might gain a market share of 1 to 3% by 2020.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and flexible fuel vehicles
with ethanol may have estimated market shares of between
5% and 10% each (Hans-Jörg Bullinger, Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft in Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2007). Such
forecasts reinforce the likelihood that the internal
combustion engine, with its accompanying emissions, will
remain the dominant source of power for car transport.
Air transport: Given the rapid growth in distances
travelled, it seems unlikely that any absolute reduction in
greenhouse gases is feasible in air transport. A comparison
of viewpoints as presented by ICAO (2009) and the Aviation
Global Deal Group (2009; www.AGDgroup.org) (AGDG)
provides some insights into the very different perspectives
on realistic emission reductions. According to ICAO (2009),
the aviation industry foresees a continuous increase in fuel
use. Passenger numbers will grow by 4.0% per year and
distances travelled at 5.0% per year (measured in revenue
passenger-kilometres, RPKs) by 2030, a development fuelled
in particular by the fastest growing economies, such as the
Asia-Pacific region (Boeing 2008). Airbus (2007) projects even
higher growth rates, with an annual 4.9 per cent increase in
passenger numbers up to 2026. Consequently, to meet the
emission reduction target of 25–30% for tourism-related
aviation by 2020 (WTTC 2009), efficiency gains in the order
of 6% per year would have to be achieved over the next
decade. This estimate of required efficiency gains can be
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 123
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
compared with scenarios presented by ICAO (2009), IATA
(2009) and the Aviation Global Deal Group (AGDG) (2009),
indicating that there are considerable differences in expected
emissions trajectories.
The final report of ICAO’s Group on International
Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) (June 2009) did not
include any emission reduction target for the sector for either
the near- or long-term. The only commitment was to a fuel
efficiency goal of 2% per annum through 2020. This ‘goal’
was dismissed by several GIACC members as a public
relations exercise because fuel efficiency gains of 1.5-2% per
year have been reported by the aviation industry for the past
decade, so that essentially the recommendation was to
maintain the status quo. IATA (2009) has made a similar
commitment to a 1.5% per annum increase in fuel efficiency
between 2009 and 2020, but with no attendant restrictions
on emissions growth until 2020, when emissions from
aviation would be capped regardless of any demand
increases. IATA’s stated long-term goal is a 50% reduction
by 2050 (over 2005 levels). In contrast, the AGDG (2009)
foresees that aviation emissions will more than double over
the next 15–20 years, despite technology advancements, with
sectoral ‘emission reductions’ achieved instead through the
Clean Development Mechanism and emission trading with
other sectors that are able to achieve emission reductions.
While ICAO and IATA insist on a ‘technology fix’, airlines
in the AGDG do not see this as a realistic scenario, outlining
the need to buy emission permits from global markets to
‘reduce’ aviation sector emissions. In comparison, even the
most optimistic emission reduction scenarios presented by
scientists do not expect emission reductions beyond 2% per
annum over the next 20 years (e.g., UNWTO-UNEP-WMO
2008; Lee et al. 2009). Furthermore, the annual gains in fuel
efficiency will inevitably decline due to physical and
technical limits (Lee et al. 2001; Pulles et al. 2002; Green 2003;
Lee 2003; Peeters and Middel 2007). Consequently, there is a
considerable mismatch between scenarios as presented by
ICAO, IATA, the AGDG and the opinion of the scientific
community.
In this context, it can be observed that airlines have not
been confronted with serious GHG emissions regulation
anywhere in the world3, despite well-documented evidence
of aviation’s environmental and social costs (Lu 2009).
Indeed, organizations such as the World Economic Forum
(WEF) (2009) argue for greater deregulation with respect to
the implementation of a ‘Single European Sky’ (a single
European airspace) as well with the removal of other
perceived barriers and regulatory costs to business.
Technocratic views on solving the problem dominate debates
on how to achieve climatically sustainable tourism (Hall
2010). These are facilitated by various discourses on
technological breakthroughs, including the role of biofuels.
For instance, much media attention has been given to second-
generation aviation biofuels made from algae or the use of
aircraft powered by solar energy, even though their
contribution to a reduction in the GHG emissions of mass
aviation transport in the foreseeable future is highly
questionable given that it is not a viable fleet-wide fuel
replacement and is likely to be used in niche markets only.
As the ICAO (2009: A-2) identifies, aviation currently has
‘no commercially viable alternative energy source to jet
kerosene. For sustainable alternative jet fuels to become…
viable…, in addition to maintaining the safety and reliability
of… jet fuel, they must meet strict sustainability criteria along
the whole supply chain on a life-cycle basis. A key attribute
of this policy is that the development and deployment of
alternative fuels do not compete with food production, or
valuable land and/or water resources, either directly or
indirectly’.
Similarly, flying a passenger aircraft at a useful speed
with solar cells on the aircraft’s wings and body are
physically impossible, even with projected advancements
in solar cells and power storage mediums (let alone the
challenges of flying at night or when the sun is at low angles
in the sky). Statements like ‘In the not too distant future,
family holidays to Florida (from the UK) could be undertaken
with solar-powered jumbo jets, saving thousands of tonnes
of CO2 every year from the travel industry’ (Holiday
Hypermarket 2009), suggest that such ‘visions’ have possibly
fostered a public understanding that solutions are currently
being actioned by commercial airlines and will be
implemented in ‘the not too distant future’.
Airlines have also used such media presentations to
foster their own discourses on the environmental
performance of aircraft. For instance, Scandinavian Airlines
(SAS) (2009a), which operates one of the oldest fleet of aircraft
in Europe, launched their campaign “Can you fly with a
clear environmental conscience? Yes, you can!” in early
2009, seeking to provide an understanding of “problem
solved” through the provision of largely selective information
with respect to ‘green approaches’, fuel savings, route
planning, lighter aircraft, alternative fuels and ISO 14001
certification. While SAS ‘want our customers to be able to fly
SAS with a clear conscience, confident that we are doing our
utmost to minimize the impact of air travel on our climate’
(Mats Jansson, CEO, SAS Scandinavian Airlines in SAS
2009b), and the airlines principal target to reduce CO2
emission by 20% in 2020 is laudable, the reality is that GHG
emissions from aviation still remain greater than those of
other modes of transport in per capita terms per trip. Similar
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
124 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
examples include IATA’s “carbon neutral growth” and
carbon neutral vision (IATA 2008b, 2009) while the WEF
(2009: 25) states, ‘The aviation sector has an impressive track
record in technological innovation. In fact, the air transport
cluster has improved fuel efficiency by 70% per passenger
km over the past forty years. Technological innovation can
deliver significant long-term improvements (beyond 2020)
in airframes, engines, and alternative fuels’. Not mentioned
is that the pace of efficiency reductions itself show strong
reductions over time as it started with over 6% per year in
the 1960s and has trickled down to about 1.5% in 2000 (see
Peeters and Middel 2007), meaning the future prospects are
much lower than those in the past.
Overall, it would appear that technologically optimistic
perspectives dominate the discourses of GHG emission
reductions in the tourism sector. While observed emission
trends from aviation and tourism continue to grow, the
technology needed to bring about absolute emission
reductions is always in the near future – though never at
hand.
Tourism Consumption and Growth
The technological solutions to achieve the stated
significant emission reduction targets (25-30% by 2020 and
50% by 2035 – WTTC 2009) are not obvious and are very
unlikely to be sufficient to address the trend of emissions
growth in tourism. This is especially the case considering
the dominant and fast-increasing proportion of aviation
transport emissions within the tourism sector and that none
of ICAO, IATA, or AGDG foresee absolute emission
reductions from aviation before 2020 (or necessarily even by
2035). It is, therefore, impossible to see how tourism sector
emission reduction targets of the UNWTO, WTTC and WEF
could be achieved. Several critical questions arise from this
proposition, including: the validity of the arrivals growth
paradigm, and even more important, the average transport
distance per trip, in a carbon constrained future global
economy, and the role of social-behavioural change to
achieve sectoral emission reductions.
The Growth Paradigm and its Implications
Positive perspectives on tourist arrivals growth are
ubiquitous in tourism management and planning, and the
growth paradigm appears unchallenged because of the
contemporary economic crisis: all evidence at the time of
writing of this article in July 2009 suggests that business
leaders and politicians are largely set to return to the same
routes of economic development, with minor adjustments,
that led to economic crisis in 2008 (cf. Hall 2009b). The notion
that growth can be reconciled with sustainable development,
and that tourism growth may even be a precondition for
sustainable development essentially remains the same (Hall
2010). Wolf-Michael Iwand, former Head of Environment of
German tour operator TUI, was one of the first to advocate
this approach, reflected in his claim of tourism as a ‘global
strategy for sustainable development’ (Iwand 1999). Current
UNWTO perspectives continue to echo this in the form of
“pro-poor” discourses, even though these prescriptions
usually build on simplifications of the situation in
developing countries (e.g., Gössling et al. 2009b; Hall 2007),
and the ability of tourism to reduce poverty in general (e.g.,
Butcher 2003; Chok et al. 2007; Scheyvens 2007; Peeters 2009).
Another perspective on poverty reduction may also
emerge out of an improving understanding of tourism’s
contribution to climate change. In 2009 the report of the
Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) (2009: 1) indicated that
every year climate change already leaves over 300,000 people
dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic
losses of US$ 125 billion (more than the all present world
development aid). In all, four billion people are regarded as
vulnerable to climate change, and 500 million people are at
extreme risk with approximately half a million lives expected
to be lost to climate change by 2029. If these estimates are
robust and given that tourism is conservatively recognized
as contributing to 4.4–9.0% of radiative forcing (UNWTO-
UNEP-WMO 2008), this would suggest that, proportionally,
in 2009 tourism is already responsible for at least 13,200
deaths, seriously affecting 14.3 million people, and
producing economic losses of US$ 5.5 billion as a result of
its emissions (even assuming the lowest 4.4% share of global
radiative forcing). Of major significance to the dialogue on
tourism as a development strategy, the estimated share of
annual economic losses caused by emissions from tourism
(US$ 5.5 billion) is higher than the US$ 5.42 billion tourism
expenditure in the 49 least-developed countries (2006 figures
derived from UNCTAD 2008) (see also Gössling et al. 2009a;
Hall 2010).
Notwithstanding this paradox, implications of pro-
growth advocacy have become evident in the current
economic crisis. Many airlines are struggling economically,
being stuck in the logic of declining profit margins that for
years have been compensated for with growth in passenger
volumes. In 2008, IATA (2007) reported profit margins of
1.1% for global aviation, notably for the “profitable” year
2007. Since then, most airlines have had to ground aircraft,
and many had to be bailed out by government (Hall and
Lew 2009). Tourist spending has been reduced because of
economic uncertainty, and many destinations struggle to
maintain tourist numbers and revenues. This calls for new
approaches to tourism development also from an economic
point of view, particularly with respect to developing
stronger inter-sectoral economic linkages between
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 125
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
international tourism businesses and local firms in other
sectors as well as, in some cases, seeking to develop industries
other than tourism.
Mobility Consumption
In order to understand how emission reductions in
tourism can be achieved, it is essential to understand the
distribution of emissions as well as drivers of emissions.
UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (2008: 141) outline three general
trends in tourism growth and corresponding energy use and
emissions:
1) Growing tourism demand: the number of tourist trips is
expected to grow exponentially over the coming three
decades. According to UNWTO’s Tourism 2020 Vision,
the number of international tourist arrivals is forecast
to reach 1.6 billion by 2020, an increase of nearly 100%
over 2005 (803 million). It is unclear how domestic
tourist volumes will develop, but rapid growth can be
expected in many markets as well, and in particular in
developing countries like India and China. Growth
rates in domestic tourist trips in India and China have
been in the order of 10% per year in recent years
(National Bureau of Statistics of China 2007).
2) Increased long-haul travel: according to UNWTO’s
Tourism 2020 Vision, the share of long-haul tourism is
projected to increase from 18% in 1995 to 24% in 2020,
which, given the overall growth in tourism, implies
that the number of long-haul trips will more than triple
between 1995 and 2020. Furthermore, average trip
distance is also increasing. In the EU, the number of
trips is projected to grow by 57% between 2000 and
2020, while the distances travelled are expected to grow
by 122% (Peeters et al. 2007).
3) More frequent holidays: there is a trend of more frequent
holidays over shorter periods of time (e.g., World
Tourism Organization 1999; Hall 2005; Dubois and
Ceron 2006).
Apart from these general trends, there are some further
aspects of importance. First, much of the growth in emissions
from tourism is aviation-related, and recent studies indicate
an important relationship between trip distance and overall
emissions. For instance, in the case of France, 2% of the longest
flights account for 43% of emissions (Dubois and Ceron
2009), while 4.5% of long-haul trips cause 26.5% of all
holiday-making emissions in The Netherlands (de Bruijn et
al. 2008). Second, there is growing evidence that a minor
share of highly mobile travellers is responsible for a major
share of the overall number of flights made and distances
travelled. The most frequent travellers or ‘hypermobiles’
report to fly up to 425,000 pkm per year , which is 4,116
times the global average of about 300 pkm per year, and to
participate in up to 300 return flights per year (Gössling et al.
2008). Third, there is a trend towards greater energy intensity
in global travel among the aeromobile elites, i.e., those flying
business or first class, and those being in partial or full
ownership of private aircraft (Cohen 2009). Note that
ownership of private aircraft usually includes business jets,
but in the most extreme cases even a privately owned A380
(USA Today 2007).
These insights are important because they indicate that
a large share of emissions from tourism are the result of a
small share of trips, which in turn are likely to be caused by
an even smaller number of travellers (i.e., those flying
frequently over long distances, and using energy-intense
transportation like first class or private aircraft). Figure 1
illustrates this for all trips (by all transport modes) made
within the tourism system by EU (plus Switzerland and
Norway) citizens: short-haul trips (within a range of 750
km), currently account for the vast majority of trips (81%),
but cause only 40% of transport related emissions. Long-
haul (range larger than 2000 km) and medium-haul trips
(range between 750 and 2000 km), on the other hand, account
for only 19 per cent of all trips, but cause 60% of emissions.
This relationship will become even more problematic by 2020,
as in particular the number of long-haul trips is expected to
grow from 6% to 12% and medium-haul from 13% to 17%.
To reconcile trip numbers and traveller growth with a
decline in emissions, it seems clear that long trips have to be
reduced, while on short distances, there is a need to shift
mobility from air travel to surface (ground and water) travel,
and in particular train and bus travel. Such a social shift in
Figure 1. Relationship Between Trips and Transport-related
Emissions of CO2
Source: Adapted from Peeters et al. 2007
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
126 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
travel behaviour could lead to substantial reductions in
emissions, in line with post Kyoto-requirements (UNWTO-
UNEP-WMO 2008). However, any such scenario is
dependent on serious climate policy, i.e., going beyond
climate policy as for instance planned by the European Union
for aviation, and including a focus on mobility consumption
(Peeters et al. 2007; Gössling et al. 2008; Scott and Pentalow
2009).
Whether all mobility is essential, is another complex
question that emerges from the paradox of climate change
impacts versus the benefits associated with the same GHG
emissions. While most tourism organizations as well as
many governments contend that maintaining or enhancing
air mobility is necessary, an alternate perspective would
indicate that various mechanisms exist that lead to growth
in travel and emissions. For instance, Nilsson (2009) reports
that some 60% of low-cost aviation may be “induced”, in the
sense that people choose to fly because the trip is seen as a
bargain. Likewise, highly mobile lifestyles are supported by
mechanisms such as frequent flyer and frequent purchase/
loyalty reward programmes, which reward highly mobile
travellers or increased consumption with additional, free
mobility or energy-intense upgrades (Gössling and Nilsson
2010). The influence of such programmes on increases in
energy consumption and emissions may be substantial, but
has not been adequately assessed. There is also evidence
that the closer that consumers are to achieving their reward,
the more likely they will be to engage in behaviour to achieve
it (a parsimonious goal-distance model, in which effort
investment is a function of the proportion of original distance
remaining to the goal) (Kivetz et al. 2006) resulting in
unnecessary travel, even from the travellers’ own perspective.
Overall, a tourism system that seeks to strike a balance
between the mobility requirements of a growing number of
humans and climate mitigation will have to focus on
changing long-haul travel and the travel patterns of the
hypermobile, which often carry a high degree of cultural
capital (Thurlow and Jaworski 2006), while simultaneously
seeking to avoid a larger number of human beings entering
GHG intense mobile lifestyles. Such a social equity
perspective on per capita emissions related to consumption
is now emerging even in a more general context (Chakravarti
et al. 2009).
Conclusions
The article has shown that emissions from tourism are
significant and increasingly relevant on global, national and
individual levels. As climate change is expected to affect
tourism more than most other economic sectors (KPMG 2008),
it should be in the tourism sector’s own interest to make a
considerable contribution to emission reductions, even
though there is also a clear ethical and moral dimension
with regard to the human suffering caused by climate change
(Global Humanitarian Forum 2009). Current proposals by
tourism stakeholders to mitigate the contribution of tourism
to climate change are focusing almost exclusively on
technological solutions, which may, or may not emerge,
emphasizing the importance of a precautionary principle in
dealing with uncertainty (Costanza 2000).
To complement this and provide the greatest chance of
achieving the stated emission reduction targets for tourism,
consumption-based a pproaches to mitigating the
contribution made by tourism to climate change have to be
developed, based on equity principles and climate justice
(Gardiner 2004; Chakravarti et al. 2009). Many tourism actors
seem to have an incomplete understanding of the drivers of
growth in emissions and their complexity and dynamics.
Evidence has been presented in this article that a large share
of tourism-related emissions is caused by a comparably small
share of humanity, and changing the travel patterns of these
individuals will be of primary importance. Equally important
will be the prevention of a global development towards
emission intense mobile lifestyles. This demands
consideration of the distribution of wealth, as high incomes
are correlated with mobility that is highly intense in
emissions. Ultimately, there may even be a need for more
radical conceptualizations of lifestyle equity given that a
high-emissions tourism world is not compatible with the
goals of climate stabilization.
There seems to be a strong reluctance within the tourism
industry to accept the idea of a future with less air transport,
currently covering just 17% of global tourist trips, and more
trips by low impact modes such as rail and coach. It is not
clear what mechanism makes this kind of behaviour changes
unmentionable, but it seriously hampers an economically
efficient path towards a solution. Recent work shows that
futures focusing on alternative transport modes, while
keeping air travel at current levels could reduce emissions
in 2050 by as much as 70% with respect to the 2005 level
while keeping total revenue growth (Peeters et al. 2006). As
tourism is not overtly considering such futures, it is clear
governments will have to take responsibilities to introduce
fair pricing, regulatory or emission trading systems that will
help encourage the industry develop new low impact
products. Clearly, reducing emissions demands a high price
of carbon (Peeters et al. 2006).
Such a radical approach to dealing with emission
reductions has to be informed by a comprehensive
assessment of the social mechanisms creating highly mobile
and highly energy-intense travel patterns. For instance, it
could be argued that the purpose of transport modes is to
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 127
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
move a person from A to B, and that in the light of the
consequences of climate change for other humans, there may
be little room for ‘luxurious’ mobility. With a first class
passenger consuming roughly twice as much energy as an
economy class passenger, causing proportionally higher
emissions, it is clear that a ‘climate just’ world would seek to
phase out such high-energy travel options. This obviously
goes as well for any other form of transport that is driving up
emissions in a highly disproportionate way relative to other
available transport alternatives. Further investigation of such
drivers in mobility is strongly encouraged. In addition, it
may be argued that the media has played a major role in
making distant and exotic destinations more desirable. Many
tourism marketing organizations in industrialized countries
are now targeting China as a new market for long-haul
incoming tourists. Frequent flyer programmes have also been
essential in rewarding high mobility with further ‘free’
mobility. All of these ‘mechanisms for mobility’ may have to
be adjusted in a climatically sustainable tourism future,
illustrating the kind of radical change required for the global
tourism system to adequately respond to the climate change
challenge.
Clearly, a number of the ideas contained in this article
will be perceived as provocative by some. This was our
explicit intent in an effort to advance a serious dialogue on
the ability of the tourism industry to deliver its share of
emission reductions over the next 30–40 years. The IPCC
and many political leaders recognize the luxury of time for
decisions on climate policy has run out. What is at stake is
no less than the very preconditions for human survival in
many parts of the world, with hundreds of thousands of
climate-change related deaths already occurring each year
(Stern 2006; UNDP 2007; World Humanitarian Forum 2009).
As long as the financial crisis prevails, there may be a chance
to review social and economic paradigms. Horst Köhler,
former head of the International Monetary Fund, an
institution that for decades advocated growth and neoliberal
approaches to market capitalism, recently stated that there
may be a need to re-think growth: ‘We have talked ourselves
into believing that permanent economic growth is the answer
to all questions’ (Köhler, 24 March 2009). This may be a
starting point to reconsider the growth paradigm in tourism
as well (Hall 2009b, 2010). There is an opportunity to
accommodate a greater number of people travelling in a
declining emissions budget for tourism, by combining
technological innovation and behavioural change, and
induced by appropriate government intervention. This,
however, requires a fundamental re-thinking of the tourism
system.
End Notes
1. Bhutan, which for many years limited international
tourist arrivals to 4,000 per year, has recently
abandoned this goal. The Seychelles, having sought to
communicate that the number of arrivals to the islands
is limited, had a “cap” of 125,000 arrivals in 2001,
which was replaced with a new “cap” of 250,000
arrivals when 125,000 arrivals were reached. With
currently about 130,000 arrivals per year, it may take
decades before this new “limit” is reached.
2. There are many showcase examples of innovative
implementation of renewable power in the tourism
sector (e.g., micro-hydro in mountain resorts, single
turbine wind power, biomass powered distributed
heating systems, lake water based cooling, geo-thermal
heating), but these systems are not widespread and are
physically limited in terms of potential implementation.
3. For noise and safety widespread and strong regulation
exists, but not for energy consumption or greenhouse
gases.
References
AIRBUS (2007). ‘Flying by Nature’: Global Market Forecast 2007–2026. Available at www.airbus.com/fileadmin/documents/gmf/PDF_dl/00-all-
gmf_2007.pdf – Accessed on 18 February 2008.
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2009). The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review. Philippines. Asian Development Bank.
AVIATION GLOBAL DEAL GROUP (2009). www.AGDgroup.org – Accessed on 14 July 2009.
BODHANOWICZ, P. (2009). Theory and Practice of Environmental Management and Monitoring in Hotel Chains. In Gössling, S., Hall, C. M. and
Weaver, D. (Eds) Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. London. Routledge: 102–130.
BODHANOWICZ, P. and MARTINAC, I.M. (2002). Thermal Comfort and Energy Savings in the Hotel Industry. Paper presented in American
Meteorology Society 15th Conference on Biometeorology and Aerobiology & 16th International Congress on Biometeorology, 28 October-1 November,
2002, Kansas City: 16A.8
BOEING (2008). Summary Outlook 2008–2027. Available at www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pdf/boeing_cmo_summary_2008.pdf – Accessed
on 1 August 2008.
BUTCHER, J. (2003). The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand ... and Saving the World ? London. Routledge.
CHAKRAVARTI, S., CIKKATUR, A., DE CONINCK, H., PACALA, S., SOCOLOW, R. and TAVONI, M. (2009). Sharing Global CO2 Emission
Reductions Among One Billion High Emitters. PNAS early edition, available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0905232106 – Accessed
on 14 July 2009.
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
128 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
CHOK, S., MACBETH, J. and WARREN, C. (2007). Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critica l Analysis of ‘Pro-Poor Tourism’ and
Implications for Sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism 10(2/3): 144–165.
COHEN, M. J. (2009). Sustainable Mobility Transitions and the Challenge of Countervailing Trends: The Case of Personal Aeromobility. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management 21(2): 249–265.
COSTANZA, R. (2000). Visions for Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and their Use in Policy Analysis. Conservation Ecology 4(1): 5 [online] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5/ – Accessed on 14 July 2009.
DE BRUIJN, K., DIRVEN, R., EIJGELAAR, E. and PEETERS, P. (2008). Reizen op grote voet 2005. De milieubelasting van vakanties van Nederlanders. Een
pilot-project in samenwerking met NBTC-NIPO Research. Breda. NHTV University for Applied Sciences.
DUBOIS, G. and CERON, J.P. (2006). Tourism/Leisure Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecasts for 2050: Factors for Change in France. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 14(2): 172–191.
DUBOIS, G. and CERON, J.P. (2009). Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Travel of French Tourists: Methods and Results. In the
Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Tourism and Sustainability, Travel and Tourism in the Age of Climate Change, The Impact of Climate
Policy and Oil Price on Tourist Arrivals to the Caribbean Region, University of Brighton, Brighton, England: (July 8-10).
GARDINER, S.M. (2004). Ethics and Global Climate Change. Ethics 114: 555–600.
GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN FORUM (2009). The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis. London. Global Humanitarian Forum.
GREEN, J.E. (2003). Greener by Design. In Sausen, R., Fichter, C. and Amanatidis, G. (Eds) Proceedings of the AAC-Conference, June 30 to July 3, 2003.
Friedrichshafen. European Commision: 334–342.
GÖSSLING, S. (2002). Global Environmental Consequences of Tourism. Global Environmental Change 12(4): 283–302.
GÖSSLING, S. and HALL, C.M. (Eds) (2006). Tourism and Global Environmental Change. London. Routledge.
GÖSSLING, S. and HALL, C.M. (2008). Swedish Tourism and Climate Change Mitigation: An Emerging Conflict? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism 8(2): 141–158.
GÖSSLING, S., HALL, C.M. and SCOTT, D. (2009a). The Challenges of Tourism as a Development Strategy in an Era of Global Climate Change. In
Palosou, E. (Ed) Rethinking Development in a Carbon-Constrained World: Development Cooperation and Climate Change. Helsinki. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs: 100–110.
GÖSSLING, S. and NILSSON, J.H. (2010). Frequent Flyer Programmes and the Reproduction of Aeromobility. Environment and Planning A: 241–252.
GÖSSLING, S., PEETERS, P. and SCOTT, D. (2008). Consequences of Climate Policy for International Tourist Arrivals in Developing Countries.
Third World Quarterly 29(5): 873–901.
GÖSSLING, S., BRODERICK, J., UPHAM, P., PEETERS, P., STRASDAS, W., CERON, J.-P. and DUBOIS, G. (2007). Voluntary Carbon Offsetting
Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency and Credibility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(3): 223–248.
GÖSSLING, S., HULTMAN, J., HAGLUND, L, KÄLLGREN, H. and REVAHL, M. (2009b). Voluntary Carbon Offsetting by Swedish Air Travellers:
Towards the Co-creation of Environmental Value? Current Issues in Tourism 12(1): 1–19.
HALL, C.M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility. London. Pearson Education.
HALL, C.M. (2007). Pro-poor Tourism: Do “Tourism Exchanges Benefit Primarily the Countries of the South”? Current Issues in Tourism 10(2&3):
111–118.
HALL, C.M. (2008). Tourism and Climate Change: Knowledge Gaps and Issues. Tourism Recreation Research 33(3): 339–350.
HALL, C.M. (2009a). Changement Climatique, Authenticité et Marketing des Régions Nordiques: Conséquences Sur Le Tourisme Finlandais et la
«plus grande marque au monde» ou «Les changements climatiques finiront-ils par tuer le père Noël?» Téoros 28(1): 69-79.
HALL, C.M. (2009b). Degrowing Tourism: Décroissance, Sustainable Consumption and Steady-State Tourism. Anatolia 20(1): 46–61.
HALL, C.M. (2010). Changing Paradigms and Global Change: From Sustainable to Steady-State Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 35(2).
HALL, C.M. and LEW, A. (2009). Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. London. Routledge.
HANSEN, J., SATO, M., KHARECHA, P., BEERLING, D., MASSON-DELMOTTE, V., PAGANI, M., RAYMO, M., ROYER, D.L. and ZACHOS, J.C.
(2008). Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Open Atmosphere Science Journal 2: 217–231.
HOEGH-GULDBERG, O., MUMBY, P.J., HOOTEN, A.J., STENECK, R.S., GREENFIELD, P., GOMEZ, E., HARVELL, C.D., SALE, P.F., EDWARDS,
A.J., CALDEIRA, K., KNOWLTON, N., EAKIN, C.M., IGLESIAS-PRIETO, R., MUTHIGA, N., BRADBURY, R.H., DUBI, A., and HATZIOLOS,
M.E. (2007). Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737–1742.
HOLIDAY HYPERMARKET (2009). Solar powered aircraft the future of renewable travel. Available at http://news.holidayhypermarket.co.uk/
Solar-Powered-Aircraft-Future-of-Renewable-Travel-76263354105.html – Accessed on 21 July 2009.
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (IATA) (2007). New IATA Financial Forecast Predicts 2008 Downturn, online, available at
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2 007-12-12-01 – Accessed on 2 August 2008.
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (IATA) (2008a). World Air Transport Statistics. Available at http://www.iata.org/ps/
publications/wats.htm – Accessed on 14 April 2009.
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (IATA) (2008b). Building a Greener Future (Second Edition), online, available at http://
www.iata.org/NR/rdonlyres/22669B08-918C-4AB7-8D8F-8F9743BA8FE6/61062/BuildingaGreenerFutureApril2008.pdf – Accessed on 2
August 2008.
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (IATA) (2009). Carbon-neutral Growth by 2020. Available at http://www.iata.org/pressroom/
pr/2009-06-08-03.htm – Accessed on 18 July 2009.
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) (2009). Fourth Meeting of the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change
(GIACC/4), ICAO Headquarters, Montréal, Canada, 25 to 27 May 2009. Available at: http://www.icao.int/env/meetings/2009/GIACC_4/
GIACC_4.html – Accessed on 18 July 2009.
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010 129
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) (2007). Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
IWAND, W. M. (1999). Tourismus als Globale Strategie für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. International Tourism Exchange (ITB). March 7, 1999, Berlin.
KAMMEN, D. (2009). The Benefits of Decarbonising the Economy. In Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Schellnhuber, H.J., Alcamo, J., Barker, T., Kammen,
D.M., Leemans, R., Liverman, D., Munasinghe, M., Osman-Elasha, B., Stern, N. and Wœver, O. (Eds) Synthesis Report from Climate Change: Global
Risks, Challenges and Decisions, Copenhagen. Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen: 29.
KIVETZ, R., URMINSKY, O. and ZHENG, Y. (2006). The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress,
and Customer Retention. Journal of Marketing 43(1): 39–58.
KÖHLER, H. (2009). Berliner Rede 2009. http://www.bundespraesident.de/artikel,2.653316/Berliner-Rede-2009.htm – Accessed on 14 July 2009.
KPMG (2008). Climate Changes Your Business. Available at www.kpmg.nl/sustainability – Accessed on 14 July 2009.
LEAN, J.L. and RIND, D.H. (2009). How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades? Geophysical Research Letters 36: 5.
LEE, D.S., FAHEY, D.W., FORSTER, P.M., NEWTON, P.J., WIT, R.C.N., LIM, L.L., OWEN, B., and SAUSEN, R. (2009). Aviation and Global
Climate Change in the 21st Century. Atmospheric Environment 43(22&23): 3520–3537.
LEE, J. (2003). The Potential Offered by Aircraft and Engine Technologies. In Upham, P., Magham, J., Raper, D. and Callum, T. (Eds) Towards
Sustainable Aviation. London. Earthscan: 162–178.
LEE, J.J., LUKACHKO, S.P., WAITZ, I.A. and SCHAFER, A. (2001). Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost and Emissions.
Annual Review Energy Environment 26: 167–200.
LU, C. (2009). Aviation and Economic Development: The Implications of Environmental Costs on Different Airlines Business Models and Flight
Networks. In Gössling, S. and Upham, P. (Eds) Climate Change and Aviation. London. Earthscan: 193–219.
MAKARIEVA, A.M., GORSHKOV, V.G. and LI, B.-L. (2008). Energy Budget of the Biosphere and Civilization: Rethinking Environmental Security
of Global Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources. Ecological Complexity 5(4): 281–288.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (2006). Evaluation of Brand New Zealand. Wellington. Ministry of Economic Development.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS OF CHINA (2007). China Statistical Yearbook - 2006. Online documents at URL http://www.stats.gov.cn/
tjsj/ndsj/2006/indexee.htm – Accessed on 25 August 2007.
NILSSON, J.H. (2009). Low-Cost Aviation. In Gössling, S. and Upham, P. (Eds) Climate Change and Aviation. London. Earthscan: 113–129.
OECD (2002). Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Pol icies (Final Report). Paris. OECD.
PARRY, M., PALUTIKOF, J., HANSON, C. and LOWE, J. (2008). Climate Policy: Squaring Up to Reality. Nature Reports Climate Change 2: 68–70.
PACIFIC ASIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (PATA) (2008). CEO Challenge on Climate Change. Available at http://www.toinitiative.org/fileadmin/
docs/ActivityReports/press_rel/ press_release_pata.pdf – Accessed on 15 July 2008.
PATTERSON, M.G. and MCDONALD, G. (2004). How Clean and Green is New Zealand Tourism?: Lifecycle and Future Environmental Impacts. Lincoln.
Manaaki Whenua Press.
PEETERS, P. (2009). Pro-poor Tourism, Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Tourism Recreation Research 34(2): 203–205.
PEETERS, P.M. and DUBOIS, G. (2010). Methods for Unlikely Futures: Exploring Tourism Travel under Climate Change Mitigation Constraints.
Journal of Transport Geography 18: 447–457.
PEETERS, P.M. and MIDDEL, J. (2007). Historical and Future Development of Air Transport Fuel Efficiency. In Sausen, R., Blum, A., Lee, D.S. and
Brüning, C. (Eds) Proceedings of an International Conference on Transport, Atmosphere and Climate; Oxford, United Kingdom, 26th to 29th June 2006.
Oberpfaffenhoven. DLR Institut für Physic der Atmosphäre: 42–47.
PEETERS, P., GÖSSLING, S. and BECKEN, S. (2006). Innovation Towards Tourism Sustainability: Climate Change and Aviation. International
Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 1(3): 184–200.
PEETERS, P., SZIMBA, E. and DUIJNISVELD, M. (2007). Major Environmental Impacts of European Tourist Transport. Journal of Transport
Geography 15: 83–93.
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS (2007). The Automotive Industry and Climate Change: Framework and Dynamics of the CO2 (R)evolution. Stuttgart.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers AG.
PULLES, J.W., BAARSE, G., HANCOX, R., MIDDEL, J. and VAN VELTHOVEN, P.F.J. (2002). AERO Main Report. Aviation Emissions and Evaluation
of Reduction Options. Den Haag. Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat.
RICHARDSON, K., STEFFEN, W., SCHELLNHUBER, H.J., ALCAMO, J., BARKER, T., KAMMEN, D.M., LEEMANS, R., LIVERMAN, D.,
MUNASINGHE, M., OSMAN-ELASHA, B., STERN, N. and WŒVER, O. (2009). Synthesis Report from Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and
Decisions. Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen.
RIEWOLDT, O. (2006). New Hotel Design. London. Laurence King Publishing.
SAS (2009a). Can You Fly With a Clear Environmental Conscience? Available at http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGROUP_SUSTAINABILITY/
CMSForeignContent/Eng%20miljo.pdf – Accessed on 18 July 2009.
SAS (2009b). SAS Takes Lead on Environment and Aviation Issues at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Press Release SAS Group. Available
at http://se.yhp.waymaker.net/sasgroup/release.asp?id=185496 – Accessed on 28 July 2009.
SCHEYVENS, R. (2007). Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus. Current Issues in Tourism 10(2&3): 231–254.
SCOTT, D. (2006). Climate Change and Sustainable Tourism in the 21st century. In Cukier, J. (Ed) Tourism Research: Policy, Planning, and Prospects.
Waterloo. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo: 175–248.
SCOTT, D. and LEMIEUX, C. (2009). Weather and Climate Information for Tourism. Geneva and Madrid. WMO and UNWTO.
Climate Change and the Future of Tourism: Gössling et al.
130 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010
SCOTT, D. and PENTALOW, L. (2009). The Impact of Climate Policy and Oil Price on Tourist Arrivals to the Caribbean Region. In Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Tourism and Sustainability, Travel and Tourism in the Age of Climate Change. University of Brighton, Brighton, England,
July 8-10. In press.
SHUE, H. (1993). Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions. Law and Policy 15(1): 39–60.
SMITH, J.B., SCHNEIDER, S.H., OPPENHEIMER, M., YOHE, G.W., HARE, W., MASTRANDREA, M.D., PATWARDHAN, BURTON, I., CORFEE-
MORLOT, J., MAGADZA, C.H.D., FÜSSEL, H.-M., PITTOCK, A.B., RAHMAN, A., SUAREZ, A. and VAN YPERSELE, J.-P. (2009). Assessing
Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Reasons for Concern“. PNAS (Early
edition).
SPREI, F., KARLSSON, S. and HOLMBERG, J. (2008). Better Performance or Lower Fuel Consumption: Technological Development in the Swedish
New Car Fleet 1975–2002. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 13(2): 75–85.
STERN, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
THURLOW, C. and JAWORSKI, A. (2006). The Alchemy of the Upwardly Mobile: Symbolic Capital and the Stylization of Elites in Frequent-flyer
Programmes. Discourse and Society 17(1): 99–135.
UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Published for the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
UNWTO ( 2009 ). World Touris m Baromet er – June 2009. A vailable at http://www. unwto.o rg/facts/eng/pdf/baro mete r/
UNWTO_Barom09_2_en_excerpt.pdf – Accessed on 15 July 2009.
UNWTO–UNEP–WMO (2008). Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid. United Nations World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), UNWTO.
USA TODA Y (2007 ). ‘Saudi Prince Alwaleed buys his own A380 jumbo jet’, USA Today (13 November). Online availab le at http://
www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2007-11-12-prince-alwaleed-a380_N.htm – Accessed on 9 July 2008.
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (2009). Towards a Low Carbon Travel and Tourism Sector. Davos. World Economic Forum.
WORLD TOURISM ORGANISATION (WTO) (1999). Changes in Leisure Time. Madrid. WTO.
WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURISM COUNCIL (WTTC) (2009). Leading the Challenge on Climate Change. London. WTTC.
Submitted: July 29, 2009
Accepted: January 7, 2010
