Regenerative tourism, degrowth in tourism, and applying doughnut economics to tourism. These concepts all actively challenge the status quo. But what is what? In this post, I’ll talk about what these three post-growth approaches have in common, where they differ, and how destinations can use them in practice.
The common thread of post-growth approaches
All three concepts can be used to give shape to alternative approaches to tourism development. The main thing they have in common is that they have other priorities than growth and maximization of profit, and instead focus on community wellbeing and respecting planetary boundaries – or in other words: social and ecological sustainability. They acknowledge that capitalism got us into the unsustainable tourism mess, and we should let go of its core principles. Using these ideas in tourism means striving to transform the tourism system where capitalist and growth-focused approaches are being challenged. Tourism and economic growth serve to make a broader societal and ecological impact but are not a goal in itself.
So how does this differ from sustainability? Traditionally, sustainable tourism (including focusing on the SDGs) usually seeks to minimize negative impacts while tourism can continue to grow. In contrast, post-growth approaches actively seek a positive contribution to society and the environment. In some cases, growth is needed to achieve this, but this is certainly not always the case. That said, we should not see these approaches as completely opposite from sustainability efforts, but rather as an extension of them. Sustainability practices can be deepened and altered based on post-growth principles coming from regenerative-, degrowth-, or doughnut thinking. Let’s dive into the nuances between them!
Regenerative tourism
Regenerative tourism is by far the most popular term, but also the most misused one. Originating from Indigenous wisdom, regeneration has found its way first to agriculture and the built environment, and its principles have now also found their way to tourism. It applies an ecological worldview to tourism and sees the destination as a complex living system. This means that human life and the natural world are not seen as separate but rather as a coherent whole with many interdependencies between them. This shifts the perspective from ‘we need to preserve nature’, to ‘we áre nature’ and provides us with a new perspective to give shape to tourism development. The focus lies on making a positive contribution to place, considering all its different elements. It thus also has a strong place-based focus, where the needs of people and place (both in social and ecological terms) are put first. With that, it puts great emphasis on the participation of local people in the tourism development process and often works with relatively small-scale local initiatives.
Regenerative tourism development is valued because of its positive approach but is also often misinterpreted or misused by integrating just one of the aspects of regenerative tourism. In some cases, it is reduced to ‘making a positive impact’ or ‘doing something good’. This would already classify picking up trash from the beach as being regenerative but by far does not address the complexity of a regenerative approach. Now don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with taking trash from the beach, just as a single action it does not qualify as regenerative tourism just yet. For that, we need to include all of the other elements of regenerative tourism in destination development as well.
Degrowth
Originally being an environmental- and political movement, degrowth is quite clear in its position on economic growth: it should de-grow. But, not all is said with that, not everything and everywhere should de-grow. Mainly countries in the Global North need to focus on de-growing the economy and specifically sectors that are polluting or disrupting social aspects. This is needed to bring back balance in worldwide social equity and ecological limits of the planet.
Translating this tourism, degrowth mainly has two focal points. The first one is that destinations that experience high visitor pressure should not want to attract more visitors, but rather focus on developing policies and measures that will result in fewer tourists for two reasons. To ease visitor pressure on residents and quality of life, as well as curbing negative ecological impacts. The second meaning addresses the inherent unsustainability of tourism on a global scale. To reduce global carbon emissions, travelling in the way that is done now (countless flights around the world), should be reduced. There is a conflict however with regenerative tourism development at destinations that are dependent on overseas visitors for which flights are required. How can we make place-based regeneration compatible with the global challenge of reducing carbon emissions? This is something that is still up for debate.
Doughnut Economics
Developed by economist Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics is a model for regenerative economics. This means that the economy should be used as a tool to achieve other goals rather than pursuing its growth as a goal in itself. The model is doughnut-shaped with a social foundation on the inside of the doughnut and an ecological ceiling on the outside of it. Doughnut economics sees the economy as a tool to achieve other goals positioned within the doughnut, such as access to housing or clean water while at the same time not overshooting the planetary boundaries. Doughnut economics is, therefore, less strict on the role of growth, as long as we stay within planetary boundaries and safeguard basic social factors to which everybody should have access. Likewise, tourism can be seen as a means to contribute to other destination goals, either related to the social or ecological sphere. To achieve such goals, we need to ask ourselves if growth of tourism is desirable or not, and if so, in what ways tourism can contribute to broader goals.
Combining the three perspectives
Doughnut economics in tourism can work as a tool to combine degrowth and regenerative practices, depending on the local context. The doughnut can be used as a guiding model for where degrowth is required and to what extent and in which areas regenerative projects can be implemented. It could serve as a compass to guide the direction of tourism development, taking into account the complexity and interdependence of different social and ecological impacts on the destination.
When it comes to these concepts, it does not have to be a question of either/or. Yes, regenerative tourism is the more positive story, but sometimes degrowth Ãs required. But we can do both by looking at the specific needs of each destination. Moving tourism forward is not so much about holding on to one concept as the holy grail, but more so about knowing its defining principles and using them based on what is going on in the specific local context. It is also not needed to reject sustainability efforts altogether to work on these forms of tourism development. Previous work related to sustainability can form a strong foundation to which principles of post-growth approaches can be added and further integrated into destination development.Â
