Governments shouldn’t chase growth at all costs. The harms of over tourism show why

In the controversial case of expansion at Heathrow airport^[1], 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.

Tourism accounts for an estimated 8% of global CO2 emissions^[2], and emissions related to tourism will continue to grow despite technological advances^[3]. The Heathrow expansion, for example, has been shown to be incompatible with net-zero requirements^[4].

Meanwhile, many tourism destinations are struggling to cope with growing numbers of visitors. Residents have protested at the impact of overtourism^[5] 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^[6] and Luton^[7]) aim to inject investment into a range of sectors beyond tourism. However, our research suggests that aligning tourism^[8] with other sectors and better cooperation of decision-making at different levels of government^[9] 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”^[10], 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”^[11] 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.

As part of a net-zero emission pledge, and in an attempt to curb overtourism and the frustration of locals, some cities across Europe^[12] are enforcing restrictions on cruise ships^[13]. And Greece is applying a climate resilience tax^[14] 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^[15] per year.

This number was reached in 2023, and the city has put forward a wide range of measures^[16] 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”^[17] pilot project. Visitors who choose to cycle, use public transport or participate in volunteering are eligible for discounts or free access to 24 attractions^[18].