Travel often creates a moral dilemma. People worry about the carbon emissions from flying and the wider impacts of modern mass tourism. Does that mean we should stop traveling, or can we travel better?
For Wolfgang Strasdas, scientific director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism in Berlin, the answer is clear: travel need not be a source of guilt. Tourism is a vital economic sector in many places and an important driver of prosperity. Still, he says, some factors deserve careful consideration before you go — especially a trip’s environmental footprint and the pressure of overtourism.
Choose off-season over peak season
Ask yourself whether you really need to visit Athens in the middle of summer when it is overcrowded, Strasdas advises. Traveling in the off-season, if possible, helps ease pressure on popular destinations. Consider alternative but equally interesting places that are less crowded — for example Leipzig instead of Berlin, or Philadelphia instead of New York.
There is also undertourism: places whose residents would welcome more visitors. Petra Thomas, managing director of Forum Anders Reisen (an association of more than 140 sustainable tour operators), points out that rural areas in regions like Catalonia want more visitors while Barcelona suffers from too much. Forum Anders Reisen members follow strict criteria to ensure clients avoid destinations already at risk of overuse.
Behavior matters
Thomas believes tourism can have a positive impact: it brings people together, fosters cultural exchange, and gives travelers experiences that broaden their perspective. But she has seen how tourists’ behavior can cause harm. On a tour in rural Cameroon, for example, she watched people photograph villagers’ homes and even take pictures inside without consent, violating residents’ privacy. She says she felt embarrassed for them.
Oliver Zwahlen, a Swiss travel writer and blogger at Weltreiseforum, has wrestled with everyday moral conflicts travelers face. He says most people genuinely try to travel responsibly, but the right choice is often unclear. Small acts — like giving pens to begging children — may help, but could also incentivize harmful practices.
Boycotts and local livelihoods
Decisions about whether to visit countries with objectionable governments are also difficult. Zwahlen warns that travel boycotts mainly hurt ordinary people — shopkeepers, restaurant staff, and others who rely on tourist income — and that tourism can keep isolated communities connected to the outside world.
The climate trade-off
Still, Zwahlen says one issue has no easy solution: travel will always challenge environmental protection. Air travel, in particular, leaves a large carbon footprint and is likely to remain problematic for the foreseeable future. His personal strategy is to travel less often but for longer stretches, fly only when necessary, and favor direct routes and newer, fuel-efficient aircraft.
Reduce emissions where possible
Forum Anders Reisen stresses reducing emissions whenever feasible. Member companies offer bus and train connections when practical, but Thomas acknowledges some destinations can only be reached by air. Strasdas recommends consulting airline climate-efficiency rankings such as those from Atmosfair and offsetting unavoidable emissions. Despite the environmental concerns, he maintains that travel’s benefits generally outweigh its harms.
In principle, he says, travel can be a win-win for visitors and host communities.
