Content uploaded by Siamak Seyfi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Siamak Seyfi on Oct 01, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
287
To cite: Seyfi, S., & Hall, C. M. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic, tourism and degrowth.
In Hall, C. M., Lundmark, L., & Zhang, J. (Eds). Degrowth and Tourism: New
Perspectives on Tourism Entrepreneurship, Destinations and Policy. Routledge
COVID-19 pandemic, tourism and degrowth
The COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) outbreak and its massive and swift
spread halted mobility globally on an unprecedented scale and substantially and abruptly
slowed down the consumption of tourism. This chapter aims to provide a brief assessment of
this pandemic which has become a health, economic and geopolitical crisis with direct and
enormous effects on the tourism industry at international, national and local levels. It also deals
with how enforced degrowth and slow consumption ensued from the unprecedented lockdown
and social distancing practices by government have provided unique opportunity for the reset
of tourism. The chapter also discusses the challenges of the pandemic in achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is finished by critical discussion of transformative
discourse shaped in the aftermath of this outbreak in the wider academic community.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; crisis in tourism; lockdown; slow consumption; mobility
restrictions; transformation
288
Introduction
According to many media and academic commentators, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided
a space for the potential transformations of the tourism industry as well the context in which it
operates and from being a force of exploitative, capitalist globalization and neoliberal injustices
(Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020) towards a more resilient, responsible and sustainable tourism
(Cheer, 2020; Galvani et al., 2020; Ioannides & Gyimóthy, 2020; Kwok & Koh, 2020; Rowen,
2020). Niewiadomski (2020) argues that one of the fundamental effects of COVID-19 is that
the world is experiencing a temporary de-globalisation. He further states that failure and
incapability of the market in resolving the crisis, with a consequent strengthening and revival
of nation state, which can be seen in the border control and travel restrictions taken by
government and the range of governmental recovery packages that have been implemented.
Undoubtedly, the limitations on global mobility as a consequence of COVID-19 is significant
but this does represent only one dimension of globalization. Other key dimensions of
globalization such as the global financial system and the mobility of capital, and the global ICT
network continue to operate and as the emergence of new platforms, such as Zoom and other
web-based video conferencing tools, indicates may have even been strengthened in some
aspects.
Brouder (2020) argues that the COVID-19 crisis has been different from other crisis such as 11
September 2011 or the global financial crisis of 2008 and believes that the former provides a
unique opportunity for transformative change in tourism. Brouder (2020) further proposes a
matrix of potential evolutionary pathways towards tourism transformation, which he claims that
it is largely rely on the sufficient institutional innovation occurs on both the tourists and the
hosting destinations as well as emerging of new paths. Nevertheless, the inherent uncertainty
surrounding the pandemic and its magnitude, volatility and profile of this crisis suggests that
its character is very different compared with previous ones (UNWTO, 2020a) and has
challenged any prediction and conceptualisation of the transformative paths. As a result, the
coronavirus pandemic is so far-reaching in terms of its potential economic, social,
environmental and political impacts and has grown so rapidly and abruptly that making
forecasts has become quite challenging.
Nevertheless, for many concerned with the effects of growthism in tourism and in the wider
ecological economy, COVID-19 is regarded as potentially enabling a sustainability or socio-
289
technical transition (Cohen, 2020; Sarkis et al., 2020; Wells et al., 2020). From a tourism
perspective the need for an effective sustainability transition is regarded as critical (Hall et al.,
2017; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2020a). As Fletcher et al. (2020) suggest:
… even if the COVID-19 crisis ends relatively soon, we cannot afford to return to levels
of travel experienced previously, particularly by the wealthiest segment of the world’s
population. This is not only because of the social unrest overtourism provoked, but also
because the industry’s environmental damages (including climate change as well as
pollution and resource depletion) which were already beyond unsustainable.
Since the advent of the COVID 19 pandemic, many believe that the mobility restrictions across
the globe have been able to curb some forms of pollution such as air and have contributed to
the actions against climate change. For instance, a report showed that the crisis temporarily cut
CO2 emissions in China by 25% in the aftermath of the lockdown measures in the country
(Myllyvirta, 2020) while air quality improved considerably in many parts of the world during
lockdowns (Baldasano, 2020; Li et al., 2020; Mahato et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, even though the air quality effects experienced by people during lockdowns were
substantial, the actual long-term impact is potentially negligible. Forster et al. (2020) estimate
that global NOx emissions declined by as much as 30% in April 2020, contributing a short-term
cooling effect. However, this cooling trend was offset by ~20% reduction in global SO2
emissions that weakens the aerosol cooling effect, causing short-term warming. As a result,
they estimate that the direct effect of the pandemic-driven response represents a cooling of only
around 0.01 ± 0.005 °C by 2030 compared to a baseline scenario that follows current national
policies (Forster et al., 2020). Their conclusion being that substantial cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions are still necessary.
COVID-19 is both a public health crisis and a real-time experiment in downsizing the consumer
economy and many suggest that this pandemic may represent the beginning of a sustainable
consumption transition (Goffman, 2020; Ateljevic, 2020; Brouder, 2020), and offers an
opportunity to reset and reshape tourism in a more sustainable way (Hall et al., 2020a; Cheer,
2020; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020). This is also commented by major global institutions:
290
The pandemic is an unprecedented wake-up call, laying bare deep inequalities and
exposing precisely the failures that are addressed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change (United Nations (UN), 2020a)
Nevertheless, this outbreak has challenged the SDGs which were supposed to be attained by
2030, and many of the goals enshrined in the SDGs are facing severe setbacks as a result of the
economic and social consequences of COVID-19 (Barbier & Burgess, 2020; Leal Filho,
Brandli, Lange Salvia, Rayman-Bacchus, & Platje, 2020). Caught in a vicious negative
feedback development loop, the lack of progress towards achieving the SDGs has actually made
many countries, and especially developing countries, much more vulnerable to the pandemic
than they should be (UN, 2020a). With the impacts on the global economy making it extremely
difficult to generate, “financial and technical support for the poorest and most vulnerable people
and countries hardest hit” (UN, 2020a, p. 1). According to Sumner, Hoy and Ortiz-Juarez
(2020) as a result of COVID-19 global poverty could increase for the first time since 1990 and
could represent a reversal of approximately a decade of progress in poverty reduction. “In some
regions the adverse impacts could result in poverty levels similar to those recorded 30 years
ago. Under the most extreme scenario of a 20 per cent income or consumption contraction, the
number of people living in poverty could increase by 420–580 million, relative to the latest
official recorded figures for 2018” (Sumner et al., 2020, p. 2). Table 14.1 shows the various
effects of this pandemic on each goal of SDGs (UN, 2020b) and the responses that are required
to be taken for pandemic recovery. As Barbier and Burgess (2020) observe:
The COVID-19 pandemic is causing a growing financial burden on all countries,
disrupting economies and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths globally. Low and
middle-income economies will additionally suffer from the lack of international funding
available for achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change
mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity conservation. The pandemic is likely to
further undermine progress towards the SDGs by 2030, which was already faltering even
before the outbreak.
291
Table 14.1 COVID-19 and the SDGs
SDG
COVD-19 effects
COVID-19 responses
Goal 1: No
poverty
Intensifying the global
poverty rate; loss of income
and increase in poverty rate
especially for vulnerable
groups of society
supporting low- and middle-income
countries and vulnerable groups such as
women and children
Goal 2: Zero
hunger
Disruption in food
production and distribution
Ensuring prompt measures needed for
viable food supply chains to mitigate the
risk of large shocks; boosting social
protection programmes; keeping global
food trade and domestic supply chain going;
supporting smallholder farmers’ ability to
increase food production.
Goal 3: Good
health and well-
being
Devastating effects on
health outcomes
Coordinated support required from the
international community; accelerating
research and development of a vaccine and
treatments; providing guidance and advice
for people to look after their mental health
Goal 4: Equality
education
Closure of schools; lack of
proper and efficient remote
learning; acceptability of
remote learning for all
Helping countries in mobilizing resources
and implementing innovative and context-
appropriate solutions to provide education
remotely, leveraging hi-tech, low-tech and
no-tech approaches; seeking equitable
solutions and universal access
Goal 5: Gender
equality
Women’s economic gain at
risk; increased levels of
violence against women;
increased exposure to
COVID-19 among health
and social care women
workers
Mitigating gender-based violence,
including domestic violence; providing
social protection and economic stimulus
packages for women and girls; coordination
mechanisms include gender perspectives
Goal 6: Clean
water and
sanitation
Supply disruptions and
inadequate access to clean
water, sanitation
Funding and support to reach more girls and
boys with basic water, sanitation and
hygiene facilities in remote areas and
slump; continued support to affected, at-
risk, low-capacity and fragile countries
Goal 7:
Affordable and
clean energy
Supply and personnel
shortage and disruption in
access to electricity; further
weakening health system
response and capacity
Prioritizing energy solutions to power
health clinics and first responders; keeping
vulnerable consumers connected;
increasing reliable, uninterrupted, and
sufficient energy production in preparation
for a more sustainable economic recovery
292
Goal 8: Decent
work and
economic
growth
Suspension of economic
activities; lower income;
less work time; massive
unemployment
Ensuring the availability of essential health
services and protection of health systems;
helping people cope with adversity, through
social protection and basic services;
protecting jobs, supporting SMEs and
informal sector workers through economic
response and recovery programmes;
promoting social cohesion and investing in
community-led resilience and response
systems
Goal 9: Industry,
innovation and
infrastructure
Substantial reduction in
global manufacturing
growth; disruptions in
global value chains and the
supply of products.
Providing and making digital technologies
accessible for all; investments in
infrastructure to accelerate economic
recovery
Goal 10:
Reduced
inequalities
Deepened existing
inequalities especially most
vulnerable groups and
communities; on economic
inequalities and fragile
social safety
Scale-up of international support and
political commitment aiming to support low
and middle income countries and vulnerable
groups; investing in policies and institutions
that can turn the tide on inequality
Goal 11:
Sustainable
cities and
communities
Population living in slumps
face higher risk of exposure
to COVID-19 for high
population density and
poor sanitation conditions
Supporting local governments and
community-driven solutions in informal
settlements; providing urban data,
evidence-based mapping and knowledge for
informed decision; mitigating economic
impact and initiate recovery
Goal 12:
Responsible
consumption
and production
Offered an opportunity to
build recovery plans and
responsible and sustainable
consumption and
production patterns
Profound and systemic shift to a more
sustainable economy that works for both
people and the planet and social change
Goal 13:
Climate action
Reduced commitment to
climate action; less
environmental footprints
Green transition; green jobs and sustainable
and inclusive growth; green economy;
investing in sustainable solutions;
confronting all climate risks; and
cooperation
Goal 14: Life
below water
Temporary shutdown of
activities as well as reduced
human mobility and
resource demands
Long-term solutions for the health of our
planet as a whole; reviving the ocean and
start building a sustainable ocean economy
Goal 15: Life on
land
highlighted the need to
address threats to
ecosystems and wildlife
Helping nations manage COVID-19 waste;
delivering a transformational change for
nature and people; working to ensure
293
economic recovery packages create
resilience to future crises; and modernizing
global environmental governance
Goal 16: Peace,
justice and
strong
institutions
Increased geopolitical
conflicts; increased level of
risk for conflict areas,
Respecting human rights; calling for a
global ceasefire; protecting UN personnel
and their capacity to continue critical
operations; supporting refugees and
displaced people
Goal 17:
Partnerships for
the goals
Aggregate backlash against
globalization; massive
recession of global
economy
Increasing international cooperation on
public health through global solidarity
mainly for developing countries and the
most vulnerable populations, including
refugees and internally displaced persons
Source: United Nations (2020b); High (2020)
Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down the “runaway consumption train”
(United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 1998). However, it has also caused both
directly and indirectly incredible turbulence within the global economic system as a result of
its effects on supply chains, the capacity to engage in international trade, international mobility,
finance, cash flows, retail, and consumer behaviour (Hall et al., 2020b; Shafi, Liu, & Ren,
2020), and especially tourism (Gössling et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2020a). A clear outcome of the
impacts of COVID-19 and the closing of many international borders during lockdowns is that
the economic and employment effects have led to calls for economic stimulation packages from
governments (International Labour Organisation (ILO), 2020; International Monetary Fund
(IMF), 2020; OECD, 2020)). However, the nature of any stimulation package and its
connection, if any, to decarbonization, environmental and welfare policies, will clearly have
long-term implications for the nature of growth and sustainability. Perhaps somewhat
optimistically, Newell and Dale (2020):
Returning to ‘business as usual’ will not happen, and we are entering a period of ‘new
normal’. COVID-19 has exposed vulnerabilities that extend beyond pandemic issues,
necessitating thinking beyond solely pandemic responses and addressing broader
resilience to a range of disturbances. … Economic recovery after such a global pause can
be accelerated by a green new deal leading to a post-pandemic carbon-neutral economy.
However, economic stimulation needs to embrace diversification and avoid focusing
294
investment in single industries or sub-industries, regardless of whether these are ‘green’
(i.e., eco-tourism, solar).
The need for an appropriate response, including degrowth strategies, to the global heating crisis
has been long standing. However, to what extent does the COVID-19 pandemic provide a
realistic basis for a sustainable transition? This chapter discusses the impact of COVID-19 on
tourism and the role of degrowth as a response. It first examines why the COVID-19 pandemic
provides a potential opportunity for slowing growth and enabling sustainable consumption
before looking at COVID-19 and its effects on tourism. The chapter then concludes by noting
that many of the government responses to COVID-19 are not geared towards green responses
but are instead reinforce business as usual or worse. As a result, the prospects for a global
sustainable transition appear limited.
Slowing growth
Changing consumption and concomitant lifestyles is a socio-political issue, not just an
economic and environmental one, especially with respect to factoring in equity within and
between societies. There can be no presumption that growth alone increases welfare, rather
welfare is an issue of distribution of wealth. If progressive taxes and appropriate regulation and
state intervention were necessary for the functioning of the welfare state as a response to the
socio-economic shocks of the second world war and the preceding depression, then similar
socio-technical system change is surely required for the current COVID-19 and environmental
shocks. This is particularly important because of the limited capacities for changing individual
behaviours via social marketing interventions or nudging in the time period available to avoid
disastrous environmental change arising from current patterns of material consumption (Hall,
2013, 2014, 2016). As Vermeulen (2009, p. 25) argues, the focus of responses to
overconsumption needs to be on “structures as a whole, rather than their individual actions.
Short-term solutions may rely on improving efficiencies within existing modes of production
and consumption (reformist changes). In the longer term, however, what is needed is a re-think
of how and what we consume (transformist changes).”
Hall (2011, 2015) essentially identifies three different approaches to the growth crisis. (1) A
business as usual (BAU) approach which, if anything, may only intensify existing market-
oriented approaches to the problem of growth – what in policy terms may be described as a first
295
order change. (2) A green growth approach which still utilizes quantitative notions of output
but which puts a strong focus on technological solutions and greater efficiency in MRE use. (3)
A degrowth approach that seeks to integrate efficiency and sufficiency approaches.
Given the role of rebound effects and the interconnectedness of growth and MRE consumption,
“Energy-efficient technological improvements as the solution for the world’s energy and
environmental problems will not work. Rather energy-efficient technology improvements are
counter-productive, promoting energy consumption. Yet energy efficiency improvements
continue to be promoted as a panacea” (Polimeni, 2008, p. 169). Nevertheless, it is important
to emphasise this this does not mean that MRE efficient technologies should not be promoted.
Instead, it depends on their context and the overall nature of consumption, not only within
tourism but the transfer of consumption between tourism and other aspects of what individuals
consume within specific socio-technical systems. As Polimeni et al. (2008, p. 169), note, “If
individual energy consumption behaviours are significantly altered to reduce consumption and
this behaviour is unwavering, then energy efficient technologies can further reduce energy
consumption”.
The third approach reflects what has been suggested in the debate over growth and the
environment since the 1960s (Boulding, 1966; Daly, 1991; Latouche, 2009; Polimeni et al.,
2008; Hall, 2015), which is that a sufficiency approach is required that limits consumption
patterns in relation to bio-physical constraints. As Czech (2006, p. 1653) comments, so long as
economic growth is the focus, whether ‘green’ or not, “technological progress will not result in
biodiversity conservation; rather, an expansion of the human niche and the consumption of
more natural resources will result”.
Hall (2009, 2015) sought to develop a framework for efficiency (green growth) and sufficiency
(degrowth) in sustainable tourism in order to respond to the problematic fixation with visitor
growth economic growth, what Georgescu-Roegen (1977) termed “growth mania” (Figure
14.1). Hall (2009, 2010) integrated Daly’s notion of a steady state economy with that of
degrowth (Kerschner, 2010; Buch-Hansen, 2014) and suggested the notion of steady-state
tourism, defining it as a tourism system (whether, destination, regional or global) that
encourages qualitative development, with a focus on quality of life and social and ecological
well-being measures, but not aggregate quantitative growth to the detriment of natural capital.
Arguing that the problem with tourism is that the larger something has grown, the greater,
296
ceteris paribus, are its maintenance costs (Hall, 2011, 2015). One of the significant aspects of
Hall’s model is that he argued that the lower rates of maintenance throughput in a tourism
system that arise from a degrowth/steady-state approach would have to be carefully managed,
because an emphasis on short-supply chains, local destinations and reduced resource
consumption and distance travelled would be recessionary if implemented in isolation from
other measures (Hall, 2015). This is therefore something that can be examined in the ‘natural
experiment’ that arises from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism.
COVID-19
The novel coronavirus COVID-19 spread swiftly around world from the end of 2019. As of
mid-August, 2020, nearly 21 million cases have been reported and over 750,000 people had
died of this virus worldwide (World Health Organization (WHO), 2020). Quarantines, mobility
restrictions and strict social distancing measures implemented in response to the pandemic, led
to an unprecedented downturn in the global economy, disrupted supply chains, sharply reduced
production and consumption leading to dramatic declines in employment and the GDP
297
(Gössling et al., 2020). The World Bank’s (2020) global economic baseline forecast suggested
a 5.2 percent contraction in global GDP in 2020, triggering the deepest global recession in
decades and meaning that per capita incomes in most emerging and developing economies will
shrink (World Bank, 2020). However, the long-term economic impact will depend on the
combination of: the medical capacity to restrict the effects of the coronavirus; the measures put
in place to restrict transmission; the characteristics of government interventions to boost the
economy; and business and consumer behaviour.
Tourism, which is often regarded to be one of the most labour-intensive sectors of the economy,
has been dramatically affected by the pandemic because of the impact on international aviation
and travel (Hall et al., 2020a). The July 2020 International Air Transport Association (IATA)
forecast is for global enplanements to fall 55% in 2020 compared to 2019. Passenger numbers
are expected to rise 62% in 2021 compared to 2020, but still down almost 30% compared to
2019. A full recovery to 2019 levels is not expected until 2023 (IATA, 2020). According to the
UNWTO (2020b) the near-complete lockdown imposed by countries around the world in
response to the pandemic in May 2020 led to a 98% fall in international tourist numbers in that
month when compared to 2019. The UNWTO also reported a fall of 300 million international
tourists representing a 56% year-on-year drop in tourist arrivals between January and May
2020. This translates into a loss of US$320 billion in international tourism receipts – more than
three times the amount during the Global Economic Crisis of 2009 (UNWTO, 2020b).
The economies of emerging destination and destinations largely dependent on tourism such as
Small Islands Development States (SIDS) are being hit hard by the collapse of the tourism
sector. For instance, tourism which accounts for 50 to 90 percent of GDP and employment in
some countries in the Caribbean, have largely been economically crippled by the pandemic,
with millions of jobs at risk (Srinivasan, Muñoz, & Chensavasdijai, 2020). The virus also
affected the world’s top tourist destinations. For instance, Europe which was the most visited
continent by international tourists welcomed 672 million tourists in 2019, nearly half of the
international arrivals in the world, is estimated to experience a financial loss of roughly €1
billion per month (Brzozowski, 2020). Despite the effects of the pandemic on the global tourism
industry, many believe that the COVID-19 pandemic has given a rare opportunity for tourism
degrowth and transformation and questioning the meaning of globalized tourism in an attempt
to encourage a more responsible and/or sustainable tourism (Hall et al., 2020a; Ateljevic, 2020;
Brouder, 2020; Cheer, 2020; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; Gössling et al., 2020; Prayag, 2020).
298
Nevertheless, this transformation is neither guaranteed not necessarily the most appropriate
with respect to tourism from a degrowth perspective.
COVID-19 and slowing down consumption
As discussed above, the COVID-19 pandemic slowed down the global economy leading to a
massive recession and dramatically changed consumer spending. Consumer spending is one of
the most important driving forces for global economic growth (Baker et al., 2020; Jones, 2020),
and the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a massive transformation in customer purchasing
patterns with many customers grappling with uncertainty (Hall, 2020b; Jones, 2020). The
empirical study of Andersen et al. (2020) shows the effect of social distancing laws on consumer
spending in Scandinavia. They reported that aggregate spending dropped by around 25 percent
in Sweden and by four additional percentage points in Denmark. Similarly, the study of Chen,
Qian and Wen (2020) on the impact of COVID-19 on consumption after China’s outbreak in
late January 2020 shows that spending on goods and services were significantly affected, with
a decline of 33% and 34%, respectively; within dining and entertainment and travel declining
by 64% and 59%.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruptions in global tourism industry (Hall et
al., 2020a, 2020b; Gössling et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic brought international travel
to an abrupt halt and therefore greatly affected global mobility (UNCTAD, 2020). Remarkably,
the UNWTO reported in May 2020 that 100 per cent of global destinations had introduced some
form of travel restrictions which represents the most severe restriction on international travel in
history (UNWTO, 2020a). Due to the resulting travel restrictions as well as the slump in
demand among travelers, the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impacts on lodging, car
rental, and cruise lines and airlines and the broader aviation and travel sector. Significant
reductions in passenger numbers culminated in the cancelation of flights which drastically
decreased airline profits and caused many of them to lay off staff or declare bankruptcy. IATA
reported that the airline industry lost $314 billion in revenues due to the sharp reduction in the
number of passengers. They also indicated that airlines would require $200 billion in bailouts
to survive the crisis (Jasper & Philip, 2020). Similar to aviation sector, the cruise industry and
lodging sector also witnessed sharp declines (Cheer, 2020) and a collapse in share prices. For
example, Carnival's stock dropped by nearly 60% while Royal Caribbean and Norwegian have
lost more than 70% of their value (Businesswire, 2020). This was an especially important issue
299
for many small island nations that depend heavily on the employment and cash flow that ships
generate. Other sectors within the tourism and hospitality industry were also substantially
crippled. For instance, short-term rental platforms like Airbnb were affected (Kuhzady, Seyfi,
& Béal, 2020). Although P2P accommodation and Airbnb in particular were increasing in
popularity prior to the COVID-19 epidemic, major shifts have been seen in demand for short-
term rentals (DuBois, 2020). For instance, Airbnb’s revenue in 2020 is expected to be less than
half of what it was in 2019 (Kuhzady et al., 2020).
The pandemic, albeit temporarily, did reduce ‘over-tourism’, with many local residents in
tourist destinations unhappy with the overwhelming number of tourists which they believed
was disrupting their life, a phenomenon which gained popular interest among tourism
academics and practitioners as well as wider media coverage (Milano, Cheer, & Novelli, 2019;
Phi, 2019; Sæþórsdóttir, Hall, & Wendt, 2020). However, in the light of COVID-19 outbreak
and growing mobility restrictions and restricted lockdowns and quarantine in nearly all tourism
destinations in response to the pandemic, the concern for overtourism was replaced by a
newfound worry of ‘undertourism’ or the complete absence of tourism which was previously
only a marginal issue for major tourist destinations (Romagosa, 2020; Sæþórsdóttir et al., 2020).
Yet the overtourism/undertourism issue clearly restates the classic issue of finding the
appropriate ‘balance’ between tourism and destinations. Importantly, this was being articulated
before COVID-19. In the case of coastal areas for example, Hjalager (2020) was suggesting
that undertourism existed in many areas where there appeared to be no other development
opportunities apart from tourism. Similarly, Haywood (2020) commented that “in reality, the
vast majority of communities-as-destinations suffer from under-tourism – a problem that is
bound to become an even more serious as economies tank and poverty levels ratchet up [as a
result of COVID-19]”. Such a position reflects the seemingly automatic position of many
tourism researchers, as well as the tourism industry, that tourism should be used as a form of
economic development, which stands in contrast to a broader perspective that the best form of
tourism may well be little or no tourism at all (Hall, 2008). Just as significantly the
undertourism/overtourism question of balance also returns us to the key question of balance in
the understanding of what sustainability means in a tourism context.
For example, the UNEP and the UNWTO (2005) publication Making Tourism More
Sustainable: Guide for Policy Makers, described by Eugenio Yunis, UNWTO Head of
sustainable development of tourism as “applicable world-wide… a ‘bible’ for all decision-
300
makers who are encouraged to be actively involved in the development of an environmentally
and socially responsible tourism which creates long term economic benefits for the businesses
and destinations” (Yunis, 2006, p. 2), argues that sustainable tourism is based on the three
pillars (economic, social, environmental) of sustainable development and that “delivering
sustainable development means striking a balance between them” (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005,
p. 9; our emphasis).
This notion of balance is one of the cornerstones of the so-called sustainable tourism paradigm
that has come to normalized by the tourism industry, policy makers and the majority of the
tourism academy (Hall, 1994, 2011). To illustrate this Hall (2011) provided the example of an
inquiry undertaken by the British Independent Television Commission in 1998 with respect to
an attack on the environmental movement in a Channel Four television programme “Against
Nature”, first shown in the United Kingdom in November and December 1997. In the
programme’s defence, Michael Jackson, Chief Executive of Channel Four, wrote “The small
but significant group of people who hold views opposed to the environmental lobby have rarely
been seen on British television” (quoted in Edwards, 1998, p. 201). In response editorial of the
Ecologist magazine stated: “Jackson’s view is the norm for a culture in which business
dominance is so total, so normal, that any challenges to that domination are seen as ‘biased’
and ‘strange’, requiring immediate balance” (Edwards, 1998, p. 201). Similarly, in an academic
vein Edgell (2006, p. 24) states that, “For sustainable tourism to be successful, long-term
policies that balance environmental, social, and economic issues must be fashioned” with the
preface to the first edition of the book noting that it “stresses that positive sustainable tourism
development is dependent on forward looking policies and new management philosophies that
seek harmonious relations between local communities, the private sector, not-for-profit
organizations, academic institutions, and governments at all levels to develop practices that
protect natural, built, and cultural environments in a way compatible with economic growth”
(Edgell, 2006, p. xiii; our emphasis); while the preface to the third edition states: “Sustainable
tourism is part of an overall shift that recognizes that orderly economic growth combined with
concerns for the environment and quality-of-life social values, will be the driving force for long-
term progress in tourism development and policies” (Edgell, 2020). Nevertheless, the argument
is somewhat circular as the book also states that, “orderly economic growth” is “part of the goal
of sustainable tourism” (Edgell, 2020). Although economic growth has become an undefined
‘orderly economic growth’ in the book’s new edition it is still economic growth.
301
In addition to the fetishization of economic growth, tourism stakeholders, even given the issues
of overtourism, fail to address the fundamental growth problem. Instead, the ongoing message
of international tourism bodies in relation to tourism and sustainability is that a continued focus
on improved competitiveness, efficiency, the market and growth is the answer, even though it
must be done “better” (Zurab Pololikashvili, Secretary-General of the UNWTO, in UNWTO,
2018).
Tourism’s sustained growth brings immense opportunities for economic welfare and
development’, said the UNWTO Secretary-General, while warning at the same time that
it also brings in many challenges. ‘Adapting to the challenges of safety and security,
constant market changes, digitalization and the limits of our natural resources should be
priorities in our common action’ … The UNWTO Secretary-General stressed education
and job creation, innovation and technology, safety and security; and sustainability and
climate change as the priorities for the sector to consolidate its contribution to sustainable
development and the 2030 Agenda, against the backdrop of its expansion in all world
regions and the socio-economic impact this entails. To address these issues, Mr.
Pololikashvili concluded that ‘public/private cooperation as well as public/public
coordination must be strengthened, in order to translate tourism growth into more
investment, more jobs and better livelihoods (UNWTO, 2018).
Sustainability itself is strongly positioned by the UNWTO as an economic and competitive
value rather than an ethical or environmental one. For example, in its focus on the SDGs it
comments: “many companies already seem to acknowledge that their contribution [to the
SDGs] should be integrated into core business and form an inherent part of the creation of value
to succeed on today’s markets” (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017, p. 41). Hall (2019) argues that the
UNWTO, like all major tourism institutions, treat sustainability and overtourism as managerial
issues, i.e. that all that is needed to solve them is to improve management practices together
with better information and greater efficiency. For example, the UNWTO and UNDP (2017, p.
14) state, “Both countries and companies lack frameworks to capture, aggregate and report on
the full economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism [with respect to] Improving
performance by measuring impact and sharing knowledge”. While thy go on to define
sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social
and environmental impacts” (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017, p. 17). Although of course account for
impact is not the same as changing practices. Nevertheless, measurement, surveillance, control,
302
and regulation lie at the core of managerialist values developed in an economic and
philosophical context where process is subordinated to output (and profit) (Lynch, 2014).
The conclusion to the foreword of the WTTC and McKinsey & Company (2017, p. 5) report
on Managing Overtourism in Tourism Destinations states: “To solve this challenge [of
overtourism], leaders must be willing to identify and address the barriers (including beliefs,
norms, and structures) that are holding us back from effectively managing overcrowding. And
they must look for ways to compromise: when overcrowding goes too far, the repercussions are
difficult to reverse”. However, cuts in visitor numbers is rarely the strategy adopted to manage
tourism. Instead, the managerial focus is on shifting demand in space and time and searching
for greater efficiencies. At the macro-level economic growth and its relationship to visitor
growth are not fundamentally questioned. Such perspectives also constrain responses to
COVID-19. Demands from industry to open up travel bridges and bubbles for economic reasons
have been widespread and, in many countries, have arguably outweighed health concerns,
leading to further waves of COVID-19 cases (Australian Leisure Management, 2020; BBC,
2020; McIlroy & Cranston, 2020; Sullivan, 2020). The active promotion of domestic tourism
in many countries as a result of holidaymakers not being able to travel internationally has also
highlighted the issues involved in shifting tourist consumers from one location to another. For
example, record numbers of visitors to the UK countryside have caused huge problems with
complaints “that a new generation of holidaymakers are treating the countryside like a festival
site, leaving behind tents, chairs and excrement, as well as endangering rare habitats and
wildlife” (Barkham, 2020). The problem of overtourism has therefore simply shifted in time
and space. Encouraging people to travel domestically may therefore reduce the amount of
emissions but the UK experience shows that other environmental impacts have occurred
instead. Fundamentally, there is therefore a need for changed behaviours and strategies that
better acknowledge the environmental and social dimensions of tourism as well as the economic
ones. As the COVID-19 experience shows, slowing tourism related consumption does have
recessionary impacts but restarting tourism as part of a sustainable transition also means that
tourism needs to be reimagined in order to contribute to sustainability.
Conclusion
The lack of tourism as the result of COVID-19 health concerns and associated travel restrictions
has significantly affected the socio-economic condition of destinations worldwide
303
(Sæþórsdóttir et al., 2020). However, the future of post-viral tourism is largely dependent on
different issues such the duration of the pandemic, the severity and stringency of social
distancing interventions on business, the magnitude and effectiveness of government stimulus
packages, and business and consumer behaviours (Hall et al., 2020a). As this chapter has
observed, a number of commentators and academics have suggested that the coronavirus crisis
may help move the world toward responsible, sustainable and socially innovative tourism
(Galvani et al., 2020; Romagosa, 2020). Such optimistic perspectives have however tended not
to fundamentally challenge treating issues of growth beyond managerialist options.
As Hall (2015) has suggested, changing consumption and concomitant lifestyles is a socio-
political issue, not just an economic and environmental one, factoring in equity within and
between societies in particular (Khor, 2011). There can be no presumption that growth alone
increases welfare, rather welfare is an issue of distribution of wealth. If progressive taxes and
appropriate regulation and state intervention were necessary for the functioning of the welfare
state as a response to the socio-economic shocks of the second world war and the preceding
depression, then similar socio-technical system change is surely required for the current shocks
(Hall, 2015). Vermeulen (2009, p. 25) argues that the focus of responses to overconsumption
needs to be on “structures as a whole, rather than their individual actions. Short-term solutions
may rely on improving efficiencies within existing modes of production and consumption
(reformist changes). In the longer term, however, what is needed is a re-think of how and what
we consume (transformist changes)”.
Issues of growth, including the response to COVID-19, sustainable tourism and overtourism
are framed as managerial problems by government, industry and most tourism researchers. Yet,
as Hall (2011, p. 661) pointed out, the continuing contribution of a growing tourism industry to
unsustainable global change “raises a clear question as to whether sustainable tourism can
actually be achieved via a so-called “balanced” approach that seeks to continue to promote
economic growth”. Green growth and the management of visitor growth as part of the response
to overtourism are little more than a marginal reform of a socio-economic system unsustainably
geared towards economic growth. They are not major shifts in the tourism policy paradigm
(Hall, 2011). It is not just a case of tourism getting more efficient, as important as that is.
Tourism consumption needs to be spatially and temporally shifted in order to reduce its overall
emissions and MRE consumption. But a degrowth response to tourism also needs to go further
than managerial, and technological responses and deal with the nature of consumptive
304
behaviour otherwise destination managers, mediated by state agencies, corporate interests and
economic rationality, may ‘manage’ resources into oblivion – what Hall (2019) described as
“Brundtland-as-usual”. Instead, tourism and travel behaviours need to shift from being focused
on efficiency and management to traveling within the environmental, social, economic limits
of the ecosystems of which humanity is a part.
References
Andersen, A. L., Hansen, E. T., Johannesen, N., & Sheridan, A. (2020). Pandemic, shutdown
and consumer spending: Lessons from Scandinavian policy responses to COVID-19. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2005.04630.
Ateljevic, I. (2020). Transforming the (tourism) world for good and (re) generating the potential
‘new normal’. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 467-475.
Australian Leisure Management. (2020). WTTC calls for leadership from Australian
government to save the travel & tourism sector. Australian Leisure Management, 16 August.
Retrieved from https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/wttc-calls-for-leadership-from-
australian-government-to-save-the-travel-tourism-sector/
Baker, S. R., Farrokhnia, R. A., Meyer, S., Pagel, M., & Yannelis, C. (2020). How does
household spending respond to an epidemic? Consumption during the 2020 covid-19 pandemic
(No. w26949). Washington DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Baldasano, J. M. (2020). COVID-19 lockdown effects on air quality by NO2 in the cities of
Barcelona and Madrid (Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 741, 140353.
Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2020). Sustainability and development after COVID-19. World
Development, 135, 105082.
Barkham, P. (2020). ‘The worst of human nature’: UK staycationers’ trail of destruction. The
Guardian, 14 August. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/14/uk-staycations-countryside-coast-
visitors-trail-of-destruction
305
BBC. (2020). Coronavirus: Restart tourism to beat virus, says United Nations. BBC News, 10
June. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52997197
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.),
Environmental quality in a growing economy (pp. 3-14). Baltimore: John Hopkins University
and Resources for the Future.
Brouder, P. (2020). Reset redux: possible evolutionary pathways towards the transformation of
tourism in a COVID-19 world. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 484-490.
Brzozowski, A. (2020). European tourism sector urges measures to mitigate COVID-19
impact. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/european-
tourism-sector-urges-measures-to-mitigate-covid-19-impact/
Buch-Hansen, H. (2014). Capitalist diversity and de-growth trajectories to steady-state
economies. Ecological Economics, 106, 167-173.
Businesswire. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the global cruise industry: Compare key
industry players' actions. Retrieved from
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200417005169/en/Impact-COVID-19-Global-
Cruise-industry-Compare-Key
Cheer, J. M. (2020). Human flourishing, tourism transformation and COVID-19: a conceptual
touchstone. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 514-524.
Chen, H., Qian, W., & Wen, Q. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
consumption: Learning from high frequency transaction data. Available at SSRN 3568574.
Cohen, M. J. (2020). Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption
transition? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 1-3.
Czech, B. (2006). If Rome is burning, why are we fiddling? Conservation Biology, 20(6), 1563-
1565.
306
Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-state economics (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Island Press.
DuBois, D. (2020). Impact of the coronavirus on global short-term rental markets. Retrieved
from https://www.airdna.co/blog/coronavirus-impact-on-global-short-term-rental-markets
Edgell, D. L., Sr. (2006). Managing sustainable tourism: A legacy for the future. Binghampton:
Haworth Press.
Edgell, D. L., Sr. (2020). Managing sustainable tourism: A legacy for the future (3rd ed.).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Edwards, D. (1998). Learning to think the right thoughts: “ChannelOne”. The Ecologist, 28(4),
201-203.
Fletcher, R., Murray, I. M., Blázquez-Salom, M., & Asunción, B. R. (2020). Tourism,
degrowth, and the COVID-19 Crisis. POLLEN Ecology Network, 24 March. Retrieved from
https://politicalecologynetwork.org/2020/03/24/tourism-degrowth-and-the-covid-19-crisis/
Forster, P. M., Forster, H. I., Evans, M. J., Gidden, M. J., Jones, C. D., Keller, C. A., Lamboll,
R. D., Le Quéré, C., Rogelj, J., Rosen, D., Schleussner, C., Richardson, T. B., Smith, C. J., &
Turnock, S. T. (2020). Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19.
Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0883-0.
Galvani, A., Lew, A. A., & Perez, M. S. (2020). COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness
and the sustainability of travel and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 567-576.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1977). The steady state and ecological salvation: a thermodynamic
analysis. Bioscience, 27(4), 266-270.
Goffman, E. (2020). In the wake of COVID-19, is glocalization our sustainability future?.
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 48-52.
307
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Hall, C. M. (1994). The politics of tourism. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Hall, C. M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-
state tourism. Anatolia, 20(1), 46-61.
Hall, C. M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state
tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131-143.
Hall, C. M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from
first- and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 649-
671.
Hall, C. M. (2013). Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing
sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, “nudging” and “green growth”?
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 1091-1109.
Hall, C. M. (2014). Tourism and social marketing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2015). Economic greenwash: On the absurdity of tourism and green growth. In V.
Reddy & K. Wilkes (Eds.), Tourism in the green economy (pp. 339-358). London: Earthscan.
Hall, C. M. (2016). Intervening in academic interventions: framing social marketing’s potential
for successful sustainable tourism behavioural change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(3),
350-375.
Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the
managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044-1060.
308
Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2017). Tourism and resilience: Individual,
organisational and destination perspectives. Bristol: Channel View.
Hall, C. M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020a). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be
careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 577-598.
Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., Fieger, P., & Dyason, D. (2020b). Beyond panic buying: Consumption
displacement and COVID-19. Journal of Service Management, doi:10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-
0151.
Haywood, K. M. (2020). A post-COVID future: tourism community re-imagined and enabled.
Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 599-609.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after
COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 610-623.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Carnicelli, S., Krolikowski, C., Wijesinghe, G., & Boluk, K. (2019).
Degrowing tourism: rethinking tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1926-1944.
High, E. (2020). Outcomes from European Sustainable Development Report Webinar.
Retrieved from https://www.unsdsn.org/outcomes-from-european-sustainable-development-
report
Hjalager, A. M. (2020). Land-use conflicts in coastal tourism and the quest for governance
innovations. Land Use Policy, 94, 104566.
Ioannides, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the
unsustainable global tourism path. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 624-632.
International Air Transport Association (IATA). (2020). Recovery delayed as international
travel remains locked down. IATA Pressroom. Press Release No: 63, 28 July. Retrieved from
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-07-28-02/
309
International Labour Organisation (ILO). (2020). COVID-19 has exposed the fragility of our
economies. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-
ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_739961/lang--en/index.htm
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2020). Policy responses to COVID-19. Retrieved from
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19
Jasper, C., & Philip, S. (2020). Airlines need up to $200 billion to survive virus, IATA says.
Bloomberg, 18 March. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-
17/airlines-need-up-to-200-bailout-to-survive-virus-iata-warns
Jones, K. (2020). These charts show how COVID-19 has changed consumer spending around
the world. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-covid19-consumers-shopping-goods-
economics-industry
Kerschner, C. (2010). Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 18(6), 544-551.
Khor, M. (2011) Risks and uses of the green economy concept of sustainable development,
poverty and equity. Research Paper No. 40, Geneva: South Centre.
Kuhzady, S., Seyfi, S., & Béal, L. (2020). Peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation in the sharing
economy: a review. Current Issues in Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1786505.
Kwok, A. O., & Koh, S. G. (2020). COVID-19 and Extended Reality (XR). Current Issues in
Tourism, doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1798896.
Latouche, S. (2009) Farewell to growth. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., Lange Salvia, A., Rayman-Bacchus, L., & Platje, J. (2020).
COVID-19 and the UN sustainable development goals: threat to solidarity or an opportunity?
Sustainability, 12(13), 5343, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135343.
310
Li, L., Li, Q., Huang, L., Wang, Q., Zhu, A., Xu, J., ... & Azari, M. (2020). Air quality changes
during the COVID-19 lockdown over the Yangtze River Delta Region: An insight into the
impact of human activity pattern changes on air pollution variation. Science of The Total
Environment, 732, 139282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139282.
Lynch, K. (2014). New managerialism, neoliberalism and ranking. Ethics in Science and
Environmental Politics, 13(2),141-153.
Mahato, S., Pal, S., & Ghosh, K. G. (2020). Effect of lockdown amid COVID-19 pandemic on
air quality of the megacity Delhi, India. Science of the Total Environment, 730, 139086,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139086.
McIlroy, T., & Cranston, M. (2020). Pressure builds for Australia to reopen. Financial Review,
8 June. Retrieved from https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/pressure-builds-for-australia-to-
reopen-20200608-p550hk
Milano, C., Cheer, J. M., & Novelli, M. (Eds.). (2019). Overtourism: Excesses, discontents and
measures in travel and tourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Myllyvirta, L. (2020). Analysis: Coronavirus temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a
quarter. Carbon Brief. Retrieved from https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-
temporarily-reduced-chinas-co2-emissions-by-a-quarter
Newell, R., & Dale, A. (2020). COVID-19 and climate change: an integrated perspective. Cities
& Health, doi:10.1080/23748834.2020.1778844.
Niewiadomski, P. (2020). COVID-19: from temporary de-globalisation to a re-discovery of
tourism? Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 651-656.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Tourism policy
responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19). Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/tourism-policy-responses-to-the-
coronavirus-covid-19-6466aa20/
311
Phi, G. T. (2019). Framing overtourism: A critical news media analysis. Current Issues in
Tourism, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1618249.
Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., & Alcott, B. (2008). The Jevons Paradox and
the myth of resource efficiency improvements. London: Earthscan.
Prayag, G. (2020). Time for reset? COVID-19 and tourism resilience. Tourism Review
International, 24(2-3), 179-184.
Romagosa, F. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities for sustainable and proximity
tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 690-694.
Rowen, I. (2020). The transformational festival as a subversive toolbox for a transformed
tourism: lessons from Burning Man for a COVID-19 world. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 695-
702.
Sarkis, J., Cohen, M. J., Dewick, P., & Schröder, P. (2020). A brave new world: Lessons from
the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 159, 104894, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104894.
Shafi, M., Liu, J., & Ren, W. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and
medium-sized enterprises operating in Pakistan. Research in Globalization, 2, 100018,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100018.
Sharma, S., Zhang, M., Gao, J., Zhang, H., & Kota, S. H. (2020). Effect of restricted emissions
during COVID-19 on air quality in India. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138878,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138878.
Srinivasan, K., Muñoz, S., & Chensavasdijai, V. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and the
Caribbean: navigating uncharted waters. Retrieved from
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/29/covid-19-pandemic-and-the-caribbean-navigating-uncharted-
waters/
312
Sullivan, A. (2020). Coronavirus quarantine plans raise serious questions for tourism in Ireland
and Britain. DW, 5 June. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-quarantine-
plans-raise-serious-questions-for-tourism-in-ireland-and-britain/a-53690865
Sumner, A., Hoy, C., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2020). Estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global
poverty. Working Paper 2020/43. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER United Nations University World
Institute for Development Economics Research.
Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., Hall, C. M., & Wendt, W. (2020). From boiling to frozen? The rise and
fall of international tourism to Iceland in the era of overtourism. Environments, 7(8), 59; doi:
10.3390/environments7080059.
UNCTAD. (2020). COVID-19 and tourism: assessing the economic consequences [pdf].
Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcinf2020d3_en.pdf
United Nations (UN). (2020a). Shared responsibility, global solidarity: Responding to the
socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. UN Secretary General, New York [pdf]. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sg_report_socio-economic_impact_of_covid19.pdf
United Nations (UN). (2020b). The Sustainable Development Goals: Our framework for
COVID-19 recovery. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sdgs-
framework-for-covid-19-recovery/
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (1998). Human development report 1998. New
York: UNDP.
United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Tourism Organization (UNEP &
UNWTO). (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers. Paris: UNEP.
UNWTO. (2018). Press release: Tourism can and should lead sustainable development:
UNWTO Secretary-General opens ITB 2018. PR 18020, 06 Mar 18. Madrid: UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2020a). 100% of global destinations now have covid-19 travel restrictions.
Retrieved from https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-travel-restrictions
313
UNWTO. (2020b). Impact of COVID-19 on global tourism made clear as UNWTO counts the
cost of standstill, 28 July, https://www.unwto.org/news/impact-of-covid-19-on-global-tourism-
made-clear-as-unwto-counts-the-cost-of-standstill.
UNWTO & UNDP. (2017). Tourism and the sustainable development goals – Journey to 2030.
Madrid: UNWTO.
Vermeulen, S. J. (2009). Sustainable consumption: A fairer deal for poor consumers.
Environment and Poverty Times, No. 6, September. Arendal: UNEP & GRID.
Wells, P., Abouarghoub, W., Pettit, S., & Beresford, A. (2020). A socio-technical transitions
perspective for assessing future sustainability following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 29-36.
World Bank. (2020). Pandemic, recession: the global economy in crisis. Retrieved from
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) and McKinsey & Company. (2017). Coping with
success: Managing overcrowding in tourism destinations. London: WTTC.
Yunis, E. (2006). 12 aims of a sustainable tourism. Paper presented at EcoTrans European
network for sustainable tourism development. Making tourism more sustainable – helpful
instruments and examples of good practice in Europe, 3 February. Reisepavillon fairgrounds,
Hanover, Germany, [pdf]. Retrieved from
www.ecotrans.org/docs/1_hamele_Yunis_intro_aims.pdf
