A new proposal in an authoritative journal claims that ecotourism could provide a mechanism to decarbonise the tourism sector1. We argue that this is inaccurate, and creates new political strategies for tourism to avoid regulation of its climate impacts, and expand its footprint inside public protected areas. We suggest that the mistaken perception of ecotourism as a decarbonisation mechanism arises from disciplinary disjunctions between research on tourism and climate change, and ecotourism and conservation; and that it is catalysed by inclusion of carbon in ecocertification programs for tourism and ecotourism enterprises.

Political cooption of research

Climate action involves politics as well as science and economics, and the framework for our analysis here is political ecology, the environmental outcomes of political processes. The tourism industry contributes to climate change2,3, and is affected by it4,5, but continues to pursue economic growth, with consequent growth in emissions. As for other industries with high environmental impacts, it uses a portfolio of political measures to create pretences of reduced contributions to climate change6, whilst in reality it continues to increase them7.

One measure is to co-opt researchers, keen to analyse new mechanisms; and environmental non-government organisations, optimistic about new options. With good intentions, they devote time to technical analysis, and compendia of case studies and small-scale success stories. This creates delays of years or decades, during which industries escape effective regulation. Eventually, researchers realise that positive contributions are proportionately miniscule, and the broader sector is unchanged. The industry then proposes another new option, and the process repeats.

We argue here that the suggestion that ecotourism could serve as a mechanism to decarbonise the tourism sector as a whole1, falls into this category: a positive proposal doomed to fail in technical terms, but able to create political delays to put off effective regulatory options.

This new claim is ecologically damaging not only as an additional excuse for continued growth in aircraft carbon emissions, but also as an excuse for private tourism development inside public protected areas, a form of land grab8,9.

We suggest that this new proposal has been entertained for two reasons. First, prior research on tourism and climate change, and ecotourism, arose from different disciplinary backgrounds, and have pursued different topics. Second, ecocertification programs for tourism and ecotourism include carbon emissions and climate change10, so this new proposal appears plausible.

Disciplinary separation between tourism-climate and ecotourism research

Research on tourism and climate change falls into two main categories: contributions of tourism, principally air travel components, to climate change2,3; and effects of climate change on tourism destinations and tourist behaviours4,5. Both have been analysed extensively, even though they make up only a small proportion of research on tourism sustainability overall11. Research on ecotourism, in contrast, has focussed on localised small-scale environmental impacts, management, technologies, education, nature conservation, and recently human mental health. There is also research not linked specifically to tourism, on the contributions of protected areas to reducing climate change impacts.

There are many tourism and ecotourism certification programs that include climate change indicators, but their structures are weak. In box-tick designs, improvements in energy efficiency representing ~0.0002% of annual revenue count as a contribution to carbon reduction. There are similar political claims for other environmental aspects of tourism. For example, the industry claims to be “nature positive”, but in fact <0.01% of enterprises, by revenue, make net positive contributions to conservation8,9. Greenwashing and socialwashing are widespread, with some large tourism corporations advertising charitable foundations that represent <0.01% of annual revenues8,9.

There are various mechanisms by which ecotourism can, and sometime does, contribute to conservation of biodiversity, including threatened species. These include funding for private and communally owned conservation reserves, anti-poaching programs, veterinary services, and translocations12. Some developing nations rely on tourism to fund up to 80% of parks agency budgets, and some ecotourism projects successfully protect particular threatened species populations against encroachment by extractive industries or subsistence farming or harvesting12, though others exacerbate these effects12. In some developed nations, ecotourism has become a political tool for private land grabs inside public protected areas8,9. Research on these topics says little about climate change, except in comparing risks to threatened species.

Decarbonisation options for tourist air travel

Aircraft emissions make a substantial2,3 and continually increasing13,14 contribution to global climate change, and leisure tourism accounts for the majority of aircraft use. Emissions per passenger-kilometre depend on aircraft designs, fuel types, flight profiles, speeds, routes, load factors, and seat layouts, and routes are influenced by reciprocal landing rights, hub-and-spoke air carrier networks, no-fly zones, and geopolitics. Travel choices are influenced by technological substitutes such as online video meetings instead of business travel or family get-togethers, and social changes such as holiday preferences and market demand. Many airlines now operate carbon offset programs, supposedly as an individual customer-choice mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. These, however, are too small to be effective, and operate as misleading political tactics to divert attention from institutional failings15,16.

Both technology and operations can be modified to reduce carbon emissions per passenger kilometre13,14. Such improvements, however, are restricted by a range of structural lock-ins1,17. An alternative approach to decarbonise air travel is to reduce passenger kilometres flown. One potential mechanism for this is to remove subsidies and fuel-tax exemptions for international air travel, and remaining exemptions for domestic travel17,18. Aircraft, airline, and tourism industries oppose that approach19. To pursue continued global growth, they adopt political pretences claiming to support decarbonisation6. These include: fake leadership; downplaying impacts; claims of ongoing progress; waiting for future solutions; counterclaims of socioeconomic benefits; false claims that growth creates sustainability; and claims that obstacles are insurmountable6.

Chinese case study in ecotourism and park visitor management

The new proposal that ecotourism could decarbonise the tourism sector1 is illustrated by one example from China. Ecotourism has different meanings in China than in Western nations. The closest Chinese term is shengtai luyou, ‘ecological tourism’ similar but not identical to western ecotourism concepts20. China also uses the term jing hua xin ling20, ‘clean and purify heart and spirit,’ for nature holidays contributing to mental health. It uses terms that translate as ‘clean air, clean water’, or ‘forest oxygen bar’ (sen ling yang ba), signifying escape from urban pollution. China operates a unique and strict ecotourism certification system, which ranks the top 100 destinations competitively each year21. Western ecotourism certification systems apply to products and enterprises, and are lax, longer duration, and non-competitive.

The proposed ecotourism alternative is illustrated by Jiuzhaigou Forest Reserve1. This is one of the Chinese certified ecotourism destinations, because of visitor management measures22 taken by the government agency responsible, the China National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Former private tourism accommodation inside the reserve was removed22. Visitors enter daily through numerous parallel entry turnstiles. They travel in electric buses, re-routed in real time to minimise crowding at individual scenic spots, with central video monitoring22. Mobile toilet buses at scenic spots reduce sewage treatment inside the park, and a central catering facility reduces restaurant waste22. These are globally exemplary visitor management practices.

They do not, however, decarbonise tourism to Jiuzhaigou. Efficient visitor management on site means that more people can visit, up to 100,000 per day in peak season. These visitors travel from their homes, mostly in the giant cities of China’s southern and eastern seaboards, ~1800 km away. At ~25 gC per passenger km13, this generates ~90 kgC per visitor. Electric buses reduce emissions on site23. A tourist visit to Jiuzhaigou involves ~50 km travel by electric bus, if both the two main valleys are included. At a saving of 2.8 gC per passenger km relative to diesel buses, this represents 140 gC per visitor, ~0.16% of air travel emissions.

In addition, the electric buses must be charged offsite, using electricity from large-scale power stations. There is a nominally green power station nearby1, but it is part of China’s national power grids, which rely on coal-fired power stations and giant hydroelectric dams with major environmental impacts. The electric buses reduce noise and air pollution within the reserve, but they do not decarbonise the park visit as a whole. Park visitors stay in hotels near the park, eat and drink, and buy souvenirs manufactured elsewhere and shipped to the park’s gift shops. Tourism in Chinese protected areas creates a range of ecological impacts24.

Net conservation and climate-change outcomes of ecotourism globally

Similar patterns operate worldwide. In some developing nations, parks agency budgets rely on fees charged for international inbound tourists. Considered independently from climate change, ecotourism can sometimes generate net gains for threatened species populations12, though there are many other cases where the reverse applies12. Considered independently from ecotourism, the tourism sector as a whole contributes ~9% to global climate change2, and climate change is one of the major drivers of species extinction25.

If we consider climate change and ecotourism jointly, then from a species-conservation perspective there are some cases where decreases in species extinction risks through local ecotourism funding for conservation, can outweigh increases in extinction risks to the same species from the climate-change contributions of tourists travelling to those ecotourism destinations. Considering climate change and ecotourism jointly from a climate-change perspective, however, local savings in carbon emissions from ecotourism are negligible compared to additional emissions produced by tourist travel from cities or countries of origin.

Overall, ecotourism can create either net environmental gains or net environmental costs. This applies both for park visitor management practices, as put forward for China1, and for private tourism products and enterprises with net positive contributions to conservation, which jointly constitute <0.01% of the global tourism sector by financial turnover8,9. Whatever ecotourism meaning is adopted, however, and whatever its overall site-scale species-conservation outcomes, ecotourism does not decarbonise the tourism industry.

Political strategies and risks

From a technical perspective, the quantitative calculation that ecotourism can contribute little to decarbonising the tourism sector as a whole is unsurprising. The concern is political. Now that ecotourism has been proposed as a tourism decarbonisation measure, by respected researchers in an authoritative journal1, there is a risk that tourism growth advocates will co-opt that proposition as a new political tool.

Recent years have seen the emergence of Big Tourism, a conglomerate of large tourism corporations, industry associations, lobbyists, government tourism agencies, and other advocates8,9. Big Tourism promotes continuing growth, claiming that climate change is being addressed6,7. As these claims are debunked, Big Tourism seeks new arguments, to create further delays. If research is diverted into quantifying potential contributions of ecotourism to decarbonisation, that buys the tourism industry additional time without effective regulation.

There is a parallel political risk as Big Tourism continues its attempts to gain control of commercial development opportunities inside public protected areas, using the terminology of ecotourism8,9. If it can be claimed that these developments contribute to combating climate change, and divert research effort into demonstrating that they do not, that will provide a window of political opportunity for new land grabs8,9.

Discussion

We endorse the importance of decarbonising tourism, the value of park visitor management and infrastructure, and the potential benefits of ecotourism. We disagree that ecotourism or park visitor management can offset carbon lock-in for aircraft and hotels. Quantitatively, ecotourism and park management have little effect on global carbon emissions from tourism. Ecotourism can contribute to conservation, but it cannot decarbonise the tourism industry.

Politically, there is a substantial risk that this claim may be adopted by international airline and hotel corporations, as an excuse to shift responsibility for decarbonisation to ecotourists and park visitors, and an excuse for private development land grabs inside public protected areas. Aircraft carbon emissions could be reduced to some degree through technological and operational adjustments, but global decarbonisation requires reduction and restructure of tourist air travel, contrary to current growth paradigms for the airline and tourism sectors.