Regenerative tourism: what it is, principles, benefits and examples

Regenerative tourism is an approach that sees tourism as a means, not an end, to strengthen the capacity of places, communities and ecosystems to renew themselves over time. It does not stop at reducing harm, as classic sustainability does: it aims to create the conditions for life, natural and social, to renew itself.

This article explains what regenerative tourism is, which principles guide it and how it differs from sustainable tourism. It then shows what emerges when the approach is put to the test in the field, with data collected in four Alpine destinations by the European Interreg REGENERATE project.

Key points

• Regenerative tourism is not a market niche, but an approach that considers tourism a means to regenerate places, communities and ecosystems, not an end in itself.
• It rests on five principles: nature as a subject, communities at the centre, tourism as an ecosystem, a place-based approach and system change.
• The difference from sustainable tourism lies in the goal: not “doing less harm”, but generating a net positive impact on the whole system and questioning the very model that is being “sustained”.
• In the Alpine destinations analysed by the REGENERATE project, common themes to work on emerge: housing, mobility, sustainable work and local trade.
• There is no label or “badge” that says who is regenerative and who is not, and rightly so: regeneration is not a point of arrival but a long path made of practices, which starts with measuring impacts and dialogue with communities.

What is regenerative tourism?

Regenerative tourism is a way of thinking about and doing tourism that aims to develop the capacities of places, resident communities and visitors to live in harmony with the socio-ecological systems they are part of. This is the definition proposed by Bellato, Frantzeskaki and Nygaard in one of the most cited academic reviews on the subject (Tourism Geographies, 2023). In other words, regenerative tourism aims for tourism to serve the territory and the wellbeing of those who live in it, and not the other way round, with the territory serving the “tourism machine”.

In simpler terms, it means ensuring that travel and tourism reinvest in people, places and nature, supporting their renewal over the long term (Dredge, Journal of Tourism Futures, 2022, p. 271).

For this reason, rather than “regenerative tourism”, it would be better to speak of a regenerative approach to tourism. It is not a trend, nor a type of tourism, nor a new word for doing things the same way.

The concept of regeneration is not limited to tourism: it is also discussed in agriculture, architecture and design. And it is not a recent invention: many local, ancestral and indigenous practices are regenerative without calling themselves so.

Why sustainability alone is no longer enough

Regeneration is spreading as an evolution of the sustainability paradigm, a paradigm that, on its own, shows its limits. According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report 2026, only 36% of measurable SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress. Some 49% are advancing too slowly and 15% have fallen below 2015 levels.

Meanwhile, tourism keeps growing. In 2025 international arrivals reached 1.52 billion, 4% more than in 2024 (UN Tourism, January 2026). In 2019 the sector generated 5.2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, 8.8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Between 2009 and 2019 its emissions grew by 3.5% a year, twice as fast as the world economy (Sun et al., Nature Communications, 2024). And growth is not slowing down: according to a study by Google and Deloitte (November 2024), by 2040 international trips could reach about 2.4 billion, 60% more than in 2019.

Talking about regenerative tourism therefore requires a change of mindset in rethinking the way we understand travel and tourism, from an extractive outlook (extracting value from places, nature and communities without necessarily giving back as much value) to a regenerative one, in harmony with planetary boundaries. It does not cancel out the efforts made for sustainability, but builds on them to take a step further: creating value that stays in places and strengthens the capacity of communities and ecosystems to renew themselves.

What are the characteristics of regenerative tourism?

Regenerative tourism is a complex approach. Its essential elements can be summed up in five principles.

Nature as a subject

Nature becomes a stakeholder in tourism, no longer just a backdrop. Regenerative tourism aims to be nature positive: it contributes to actions that protect, improve, restore and regenerate ecosystems. Nature-based solutions, that is, solutions that use natural processes to respond to social and environmental challenges, are an essential part of this approach.

Communities at the centre

Communities become protagonists, through a process of capacity building (strengthening skills) and empowerment. This goes well beyond simple involvement. On the IAP2 spectrum of public participation, empowerment is the highest level: the final decision rests with the community. In this way communities take back the tourism development model they want for their territories.

Tourism as an ecosystem

Tourism is not seen as an industry, or even a sector, but as an ecosystem. Destinations are living organisms: complex, dynamic and unique systems, where cooperation wins over competition.

A place-based approach

There are no “regenerative solutions” that can be replicated everywhere. Tourism must adopt a place-based approach, that is, one specific to the place: it identifies and responds to local needs and improves the social, economic and physical wellbeing of a territory. Because it builds on the uniqueness of the place, every path towards regeneration will be different.

System change

The regenerative approach aims at system change: from an extractive, energy-hungry model to a regenerative one that self-organises. This means questioning the current metrics of “tourism success”, asking whether they really create wellbeing for the place or only for a few.

In this perspective, the value created by tourism in the territory, not only economic but also relational and cultural, must remain in the territory to generate further value.

What are the benefits of regenerative tourism?

Regenerative tourism is based on the idea that tourism should serve the territory, and not the other way round. In this way it can generate benefits for territories, for the communities that live in them and for visitors.

For communities. The first benefit is the creation of lasting value, not only economic but also cultural and social. The approach encourages the participation of local communities, operators, businesses and visitors, even in ways that would not otherwise be considered, such as volunteering activities through which visitors help improve the destination’s habitats.

For nature. Regenerative tourism aims to regenerate ecosystems, offering alternative and collaborative forms of funding for environmental restoration. Tourists themselves can contribute financially to these initiatives, supporting nature conservation.

For visitors. Tourists have the chance to experience transformational journeys: experiences that bring significant and lasting changes to their lives, fostering connection with local communities, nature and other visitors.

It is a demand that already exists. In a Booking.com survey of 32,000 travellers in 34 countries, including Italy, 69% say they want to leave the destinations they visit in better condition than they found them (Booking.com, April 2025). These are declared intentions, not measured behaviours, but they point in a clear direction.

What are the differences between sustainable and regenerative tourism?

Sustainability does not challenge business as usual: it supports it, trying not to cause further harm. Regeneration, instead, wants to move beyond the logic of “doing less harm” and embrace that of positive impact.

Sustainability also tends to work in silos: as the 17 SDGs show, it breaks problems down into isolated targets to monitor. Regeneration instead looks at the territory as a living ecosystem, acting on the interconnections between environment, communities and the economy to generate net value at system level.

The most substantial difference, however, is another one. Sustainability does not aim for the change of mindset required by the regenerative approach, which invites us to reconsider our own role in a complex system and to question the paradigm of infinite growth.

Regenerative tourism in the Alps: what the REGENERATE project reports say

To understand how far, or how close, a regenerative model is, data are needed. This is the starting point of REGENERATE, an Interreg Italy-Austria project (February 2024 – September 2026). It involves four Alpine destinations: Alta Badia, Arabba (Livinallongo del Col di Lana) and Colle Santa Lucia (Dolomiti Bellunesi), Tarvisiano, and Nassfeld-Pressegger See, Lesachtal and Weissensee (NLW) in Carinthia.

In the project, we at Etifor developed the common methodology to monitor the impacts of tourism policies. The work resulted in two final reports: one on the environmental impact of tourism and one on its socio-economic and cultural impact. The starting point was simple: for mountain destinations in the Alps, detailed research and data on the impact of tourism were lacking.

The environmental report: transport is the main issue

Each destination chose an impact to measure based on its own needs. In Alta Badia, traffic and noise; in Weissensee, waste. In Arabba, Colle Santa Lucia and Tarvisiano, the carbon footprint, that is, greenhouse gas emissions expressed in CO2 equivalent. The emissions analyses follow the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 standards.

The result is clear-cut. In Colle Santa Lucia, transport accounts for 96% of the 6,895 tonnes of CO2 equivalent linked to tourism in 2024. In Livinallongo (Arabba) it is 88% of 43,682 tonnes. In Tarvisiano it accounts for 73% of 67,229 tonnes in 2023, with an average footprint of 116 kg of CO2 equivalent per tourist. To put this in perspective, the report offers a few comparisons. A medium-sized petrol car emits about 150 g of CO2 per km, so a trip around the world is worth about 6 tonnes: tourism emissions in Colle Santa Lucia are equivalent to about 1,150 trips around the world, those in Livinallongo (Arabba) to 7,280. In terms of Italian per-capita consumption (7 tonnes of CO2 a year), they correspond to the annual emissions of almost a thousand people in the first case and about 6,240 in the second, against 346 and 1,247 residents (ISTAT data, Etifor elaboration).

In Alta Badia, measurements showed systematic breaches of the legal limit of 70 dB in built-up areas. Peaks of up to 73.6 dB at Funtanacia and Passo Gardena coincide with the passage of more than 2,000 vehicles at peak hours. In Weissensee, tourist waste reaches about 765 tonnes a year, with summer peaks five times higher than in the low-season months.

The regenerative reading of these numbers is the most interesting part of the report. Tourists “import” global emissions to consume a local resource, the landscape and the community, and leave behind noise and pollution. Electric cars reduce CO2, but do not solve traffic, noise and land take. For this reason the report points to possible system measures: access restrictions on the Dolomite passes, a mobility plan agreed with stakeholders, and longer minimum stays for those arriving from far away. Tourism is a complex phenomenon and it makes no sense to treat it in silos: it must be tackled by taking this complexity into account. A regenerative approach asks for this too: looking not only at the individual parts, but also at the connections between them, at how the system “talks to itself” and at the trade-offs.

The socio-economic report: housing, mobility, work and the local supply chain

The second report collected primary data from three groups: residents (with focus groups divided by age group), tourism operators (using the Delphi method, two rounds of anonymous questionnaires to bring the opinions of a panel of experts closer together) and tourists (with voluntary surveys). There are four themes, none of which had previously been monitored by the destinations.

• Mobility. The private car dominates everywhere: it is used by 81% of tourists in Alta Badia, about 77% in NLW, 74% in Arabba and Colle Santa Lucia, and 67.6% in Tarvisiano. All groups complain about infrequent public transport. In Alta Badia, however, tourists welcome the idea of limiting traffic (4.3 out of 5): between intention and behaviour there remains a gap, which is also infrastructural.
• Housing. It is the challenge felt most strongly by residents and operators in all destinations. Second homes and short-term rentals push prices up and reduce the housing available to residents and seasonal workers.
• Work. Work in tourism is perceived as unattractive to young people, because of seasonality, heavy hours and a lack of housing. Proposed solutions include year-round contracts, a five-day week and staff accommodation.
• Local supply chain. Demand for local products is high: in NLW, 79% of tourists are satisfied with their availability in shops and 90% in restaurants. Supply, however, struggles to organise itself because of logistical and network problems among producers.

The common thread is the gap between tourists’ perception, generally positive, and the reality lived by residents, who are more exposed to traffic, housing costs and prices. Hence the report’s proposal to flip the questions: not “how do we bring in more tourists?”, but “how can tourism fund public transport for residents?”. And not “where do we build new hotels?”, but “how do we use the existing building stock to keep young people here?”.

Download the full reports

The two reports are available in English and can be downloaded free of charge:

• Environmental impact of tourism in the project area (Report T2.1, January 2026, PDF, in English)
• Socio-economic impact of tourism in the project area (Report T2.2, January 2026, PDF, in English)

The project also gave rise to a co-design process with young people from the area, described in the article on the four regenerative ideas for Alpine tourism.

Examples of regenerative tourism around the world

Some destinations, in Europe and in the rest of the world, have already chosen to work in a regenerative way, with different approaches.

• Copenhagen, Denmark. With CopenPay, tourists receive small rewards, such as admissions or meals, in exchange for positive actions: cycling, arriving by train, collecting litter, taking part in biodiversity workshops. Participants rose from about 5,000 in summer 2024 to 25,000 in summer 2025 and bike rentals grew by 59%, according to Wonderful Copenhagen.
• Midlands, Ireland. The national tourism development authority Fáilte Ireland is leading a systemic transition of the area through the Regenerative Tourism and Placemaking Scheme, a programme co-funded by the European Union through the Just Transition Fund. This pioneering top-down public funding model aims to turn the Midlands counties into a European hub for regenerative tourism, providing direct funds to develop low-carbon infrastructure, landscape protection and inclusive tourism experiences for the benefit of residents. To date, the initiative has mobilised an investment of almost 60 million euros, funding more than 85 community and private projects ranging from the restoration of historic sites to the development of universally accessible trail networks and the training of dozens of local businesses.
• Regenerative Vanua, Vanuatu (Pacific Ocean). A movement for regenerative (agri)tourism, Regenerative Vanua blends the indigenous philosophy of Vanua (the unbreakable bond between land and community) with the tourism system, creating direct synergies between local farmers and the hospitality supply chain. As well as reviving pride in native food culture and encouraging a return to the land, the project is driving the development of regenerative agritourism and gastronomic experiences across the islands of Vanuatu and the Pacific.
• Fogo Island Inn, Canada. The Fogo Island Inn operates as a social enterprise, reinvesting 100% of its profits in the local community through the Shorefast foundation, ensuring economic resilience and protecting the island’s culture. To pursue a model of radical transparency, it created the Economic Nutrition Label: a graphic label, modelled on the nutritional values of food, which shows exactly how every dollar spent by tourists is distributed among residents’ wages, purchases from local suppliers and taxes.
• Wānaka, New Zealand. The Love Wānaka Community Fund directly connects the tourism economy to climate action, collecting donations from visitors and contributions from hospitality businesses to fund local environmental conservation initiatives. Instead of merely reducing harm, the fund invests in the active regeneration of the territory by supporting projects ranging from freshwater protection and zero-waste campaigns to the control of invasive species. Since its launch in 2023, the initiative (together with its sister fund in Queenstown) has mobilised more than 300,000 dollars, funded 16 local organisations and led to the planting of more than 10,500 native trees thanks to the joint action of residents and volunteer tourists.

In Italy, the path of Siena towards GSTC certification shows how a city can govern tourism as a vital function of the city, starting from recognised sustainability standards.

What is required of destinations to become regenerative?

Let us be clear: no destination today can call itself regenerative. The REGENERATE reports confirm this: the Alpine destinations analysed are still at the stage of “measuring the damage”, a necessary first step towards regeneration, but one that will then require reflection and an action plan that go deep into “how” we do tourism, towards the change of mindset we have already mentioned. The path is long and ambitious, and its effects will only be seen in the long term, but we must not be discouraged! Let us try to look at the concept of regeneration as our guiding star, the ambition that guides our actions.

A few steps are needed to embark on this path:

1. Measure impacts. Without reliable environmental and social data, and without standards such as those of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), planning is done by guesswork.
2. Rethink the business model. Investments are not enough: we need to answer the question “does what I do support life or not?”.
3. Open spaces for dialogue with communities. These are processes that require dedicated time and space, that build relationships of trust and that need expert facilitation.
4. Introduce new indicators of success. Beyond arrivals and overnight stays, what counts includes, for example, the availability of long-term rental housing, the quality of public transport, the wellbeing of residents and the balance of the ecosystem.
5. Invest in new professional skills. Not only people able to facilitate, measure and co-design with the territory, but also professionals from different disciplines linked to knowledge of social and environmental dynamics, alternative economics, and so on.

How can we help destinations towards regenerative tourism?

We know from experience: a process towards regeneration draws its strength from the bottom up, but it needs to be managed and guided. We have experience in facilitating participation processes among local stakeholders, to strengthen destination governance, as in the REGENERATE project.

We also develop slow tourism products in contact with nature, to foster low-impact or positive-impact experiences of connection with the territory.

We know how to assess where and how to regenerate degraded or at-risk habitats, and how to enhance ecosystem services and nature-based solutions.

Finally, with the WOWnature platform, tourists and companies can fund ecosystem regeneration projects and take part in them directly.

Frequently asked questions about regenerative tourism

What is regenerative tourism in simple words?

It is an approach that considers tourism a means, not an end, to strengthen the capacity of places, communities and ecosystems to renew themselves over time. It means reinvesting in people, places and nature.

What is the difference between sustainable tourism and regenerative tourism?

Sustainable tourism seeks to reduce negative impacts without changing the underlying model. Regenerative tourism aims for a net positive impact and system change, putting nature and communities at the centre of decisions.

Are there already regenerative destinations?

No, no destination can today call itself fully regenerative, and there is no “badge” or “scheme” that certifies it: doing regeneration is a constant process that requires continuous evolution. More and more destinations, however, are starting explicit paths in this direction and beginning to reflect on the systemic impacts of tourism that serves territories. In the Alps, the REGENERATE project measured the impacts of four destinations as a first step, and went on to experiment with regenerative models in the creation of tourism experiences and services.

Where can a destination start?

By measuring environmental and social impacts, through structured dialogue with residents and operators, and with new indicators of “success” that go beyond arrivals and overnight stays. Standards such as GSTC help give a recognised basis to the journey.