Travel often puts people in a moral tug-of-war: the joy of discovery versus the environmental and social costs of modern tourism. Should we stop traveling, or change how we travel? Experts say the latter is possible if we make thoughtful choices.
Wolfgang Strasdas, scientific director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism in Berlin, argues that travel need not be a source of guilt. Tourism supports livelihoods and can drive local prosperity. Still, he stresses we should weigh a trip’s environmental footprint and the risks of overtourism before booking.
Timing matters. Strasdas recommends avoiding peak-season visits to overcrowded cities — for example, reconsidering Athens in midsummer. Traveling in the shoulder or off-season eases pressure on fragile sites and local services. He also suggests choosing less-crowded alternatives that offer rich experiences: think Leipzig instead of Berlin, or Philadelphia instead of New York.
There’s also undertourism — places that would welcome more visitors. Petra Thomas, managing director of Forum Anders Reisen, an association of over 140 sustainable tour operators, notes that many rural areas in regions like Catalonia need more visitors while urban hotspots such as Barcelona are overburdened. Members of her association follow strict criteria to steer clients away from destinations at risk of overuse and toward communities that benefit from additional tourism income.
Behavior on the ground is just as important as destination choice. Thomas points out that tourism can foster cultural exchange and broaden perspectives, but poor behavior by visitors can cause harm. She recalls a tour in rural Cameroon where travelers photographed people and private spaces without consent, violating residents’ dignity. Small thoughtless acts — whether intrusive photos or giving cash to begging children — can have unintended negative consequences.
Decisions about visiting countries with problematic governments add another layer of complexity. Oliver Zwahlen, a Swiss travel writer and blogger at Weltreiseforum, warns that boycotts often punish ordinary workers more than authorities. Shopkeepers, guides and hospitality staff depend on tourism, and keeping connections open can help isolated communities remain linked to the wider world.
The climate impact of travel is the hardest issue to solve. Air travel produces a significant carbon footprint and is likely to remain a major challenge for the foreseeable future. Zwahlen’s personal approach is to fly less frequently but stay longer when he goes, choose direct flights on fuel-efficient aircraft when possible, and avoid unnecessary short-haul flights.
Practical steps help reduce harm. Forum Anders Reisen promotes rail and bus options where feasible, while acknowledging that some destinations require flying. Strasdas recommends consulting airline climate-efficiency rankings such as Atmosfair and offsetting unavoidable emissions. Choosing newer aircraft, direct routes, and fewer transfers also lowers the carbon cost per trip.
Ultimately, travel can be beneficial to both visitors and host communities if planned and practiced responsibly. By avoiding peak crowds, choosing alternatives, respecting local people and cultures, and reducing emissions where possible, travelers can help make tourism more sustainable — turning what often feels like a dilemma into a net positive.