As the tourism industry emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic there are clear opportunities for change. But while the financial benefits of tourism are well documented, the wider social and environmental agendas provide diverging perspectives on how the sector should respond to this opportunity.
From the environmental perspective, there are calls either to limit traveler volumes or to increase the efficiency of transport reducing the impact per passenger. Over the longer run the industry focus is on the latter to retain activity. The UK Government’s recent publication of its Net Zero Strategy echoes this, with a heavy focus on R&D opportunities. But limits or increased tariffs may be imposed in the nearer term to prompt behavioural change. This almost certainly jeopardises employment, particularly in a sector hard hit by the pandemic, so justifying any policy change on the basis of social welfare should be considered with caution.
At present, social responsibility regarding environmental damage due to tourism is at the discretion of travelers. Carbon offset options have been popular with airlines to meet traveler expectations to date. The appropriate carbon price level is uncertain, but with CORSIA, the global carbon offset scheme launched by ICAO in 2016 coming into effect for the first time this year, determining a single price of carbon is getting closer. (See the recent APF work incorporating carbon prices here). Given that France and Austria have banned domestic flights where alternative transport exists, COP26 and its aftermath will attract much attention as to whether volume-limiting measures (through restrictions or price mechanisms) or increasing the efficiency of aviation is the preferred action in both the short and longer term.
It is important to consider these climate decisions in the context of a travel industry that accounted for 1 in 4 new jobs over the past five years. COVID-19 has obviously had a devastating effect on many reliant on the sector. Unsurprisingly, island destinations have the greatest tourism reliance, supporting 53% of the Maldives’ employment, for example. This is true even among more diverse developed economies—Iceland, and Greece, for example, both rely on tourism for roughly one-fifth of their national income.
In addition, the people most negatively affected by COVID-19 tend to be those most reliant on the sector for employment. Tourism disproportionately employs women, youth, and minorities. McKinsey found women’s jobs to be 1.8 times more vulnerable to the crisis than those held by men, due to pre-existing inequalities. Limiting tourism volumes further threatens these jobs.
Although the tourism industry often provides a foot in the door and an income for those who might struggle to find employment elsewhere, the sector sometimes fails to fully develop these individuals. There is a need to develop training and upskilling opportunities directly aimed at the sector to ensure that the wider benefits of development can be fully realized.
Pressure for improvements to the tourism model are nothing new, and making difficult decisions about climate change is essential. However, limiting volumes, especially in the short term, could be detrimental to those employed in the sector. Alternatives might include targeted policies or encouraging geographical dispersion of visitors, which too would combat problems of over-tourism as well as more widely distributing the benefits of tourism for a more sustainable future.
You may be interested in
Our new global trade service: TradePrism
TradePrism is the most comprehensive forecasting service for trade. Offering 1200 product-level forecasts of trade between 46 major economies, and high-level indicators for an additional 137 economies delivered through an interactive data visualisation platform allows organisations to understand the key trends across global trade.Find Out More
Sneak preview: our new Asia Real Estate Service
The new Asia Real Estate Economics Service helps companies understand the implications of macroeconomic, geopolitical, financial and climate change on private and public real estate performance in Asia. The first globally consistent and independent set of real estate forecasts, the service offers regular analysis and commentary from our highly experienced team of real estate economists.Find Out More
Oxford Economics Launches Global Risk Service
Oxford Economics launches our Global Risk Service, a suite of data-driven and forward-looking tools that measure macro-economic and financial crises risks in 166 countries.Find Out More