Only a smaller part of tourism development aid directly addresses climate change
New research on international development aid in tourism shows that the climate dimension in that sector still appears considerably less often than might be expected given the exposure of tourist destinations to extreme weather events, sea-level rise, droughts, fires and pressures on natural resources. In an analysis of 842 tourism projects of international aid, with a total value of 13.13 billion US dollars, the researchers identified only 89 projects that explicitly address climate change. According to the summary of the paper published in the journal Climate and Development, those projects were additionally analysed to determine how they connect tourism, development aid and climate resilience.
The finding points to an important gap between political messages about the green transition of tourism and the way development money is directed in practice. Tourism is used in many countries as a tool for economic growth, employment, the development of small enterprises and the encouragement of local revenues, but the research shows that climate change is often not treated as a central development risk in such programmes. The authors of the paper warn that the potential of tourism to encourage climate-resilient development is still insufficiently used, especially in countries that depend on natural attractions, coastal areas, cultural heritage and stable seasonal conditions.
According to the published summary of the research, most projects that nevertheless include a climate component are focused on adaptation, and less on reducing emissions. Such an approach is not unimportant: destinations must prepare for floods, heat waves, water shortages, coastal erosion and disruptions in supply chains. But the researchers emphasise that gradual, limited solutions dominate, while there are fewer projects that would change the fundamental way tourism develops towards a low-carbon, more resilient and more inclusive model. In other words, aid often tries to mitigate the immediate consequences of climate risks, but less often re-examines consumption patterns, transport dependencies, spatial planning and investment priorities.
What the project analysis showed
The study titled Tourism, aid, and climate change: a structural analysis of climate resilient development is based on data from the d-portal platform, which enables the search of data published through the International Aid Transparency Initiative. According to IATI documentation, d-portal is used to review development and humanitarian activities, including information on donors, recipients, sectors and projects. Such a database is important because it enables insight into how international aid funds are actually distributed, not only how they are presented in strategic documents.
In the broader sample of 842 tourism projects, the researchers identified 89 projects with a clear climate component. This means that only a little more than one tenth of the analysed projects directly dealt with climate change, although this is a sector that is at the same time vulnerable to climate impacts and responsible for part of global emissions. According to the summary of the paper, the drivers of the projects, the relationship between tourism and climate goals, and characteristics that could indicate transformational potential were analysed.
The results show that adaptation is more pronounced than mitigation, that is, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In practice, this often refers to strengthening disaster resilience, protecting infrastructure, managing risks and preserving ecosystems that are important for the tourism offer. On the other hand, according to the summary of the study, investments in decarbonisation remain limited, while climate-change mitigation measures are mostly linked to forest carbon sinks. Such a distribution suggests that tourism in development aid is still not used enough as a lever for the systematic reduction of emissions from transport, accommodation, energy, food and tourist consumption.
The authors of the research therefore distinguish projects that only add a climate component to the existing development model from those that could change the direction of development. A transformational approach would mean, for example, investment in low-carbon mobility, the energy efficiency of accommodation, local supply chains, ecosystem regeneration, a fairer distribution of the benefits from tourism and destination planning in line with long-term climate risks. According to the available information from the paper, precisely such interventions remain rarer than technical and sectorally narrow adaptations.
Tourism is simultaneously exposed to climate risks and part of the emissions problem
The importance of these findings stems from the dual role of tourism in the climate crisis. On the one hand, destinations depend on stable weather patterns, safe infrastructure, available water, healthy ecosystems and cultural sites that can be endangered by extreme weather events. On the other hand, travel, transport, accommodation, energy consumption, food and related services create a significant climate footprint. According to World Travel & Tourism Council data, travel and tourism accounted for 7.3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2024, while the share in 2019 was 8.3 percent.
WTTC states that transport is the largest single source of emissions in the sector, with a share of 40 percent in travel and tourism emissions, followed by utilities and energy services. The same organisation points out that emissions intensity per dollar of economic contribution decreased between 2019 and 2024, which suggests some progress in efficiency. But the very fact that the sector still participates in a significant part of global emissions shows why development projects in tourism cannot be viewed separately from climate policies.
At the international level, climate action in tourism is often linked to the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism. UN Tourism states that the signatories of that declaration commit to accelerating climate action, supporting the goal of reducing emissions by at least half over the next decade and reaching net zero emissions as soon as possible before 2050. The declaration envisages five areas of action: measurement, decarbonisation, regeneration, collaboration and financing. In the context of the new study, financing itself proves to be one of the key links between principled commitments and real projects on the ground.
Development aid still does not use the full potential of destinations
Development aid in tourism can have different goals: from the renewal of local infrastructure and the strengthening of entrepreneurship to the protection of heritage, the training of workers and the development of new tourism products. When such programmes are linked to climate goals, they can help destinations reduce vulnerability and at the same time create more resilient sources of income. For example, investment in renewable energy sources in accommodation facilities can reduce costs and emissions, while the restoration of wetlands, forests or coastal ecosystems can simultaneously protect local communities and create a more sustainable tourism offer.
However, according to the findings of the new study, such integration is not the rule. Projects more often remain at the level of smaller adaptations, such as improving disaster-response capacity or strengthening the resilience of individual locations. This can be useful, but it does not necessarily change the development trajectory of a destination. If tourism continues to depend on energy-intensive transport, unsustainable construction, excessive water consumption and seasonal pressure on local communities, individual adaptation measures may have a limited effect.
This finding is particularly important for countries and regions in which tourism forms a large part of the local economy. Climate risks affect not only hotels and visitors, but also workers, food suppliers, carriers, local craftspeople, public services and residents. If development projects do not include long-term climate planning, there is a danger that models will be financed that bring revenues in the short term but increase adaptation costs in the long term. For that reason, the authors of the research emphasise the need for an approach that connects development, emission reduction and social inclusion.
Global context: money for adaptation continues to lag behind
Broader data on climate finance show that the problem is not limited only to tourism. The OECD states that it collects and publishes data on climate-related development finance at the level of individual activities, including projects focused on climate-change mitigation and adaptation. According to OECD analyses, development financiers support mitigation, adaptation and environmental-protection projects in developing countries, but the balance between different goals remains a matter of debate.
UNEP warned in its Adaptation Gap Report that the impacts of climate change are intensifying and that countries must significantly increase adaptation efforts, especially in financing. In such an environment, tourism could be an important channel for investments because climate risks often materialise precisely in local spaces: on coasts, islands, mountain destinations, protected areas, cities and rural communities. If aid projects are designed only as support for tourism competitiveness, and not also as an instrument of climate resilience, an opportunity is missed to connect economic development and the protection of the public interest.
In reports on development finance, the OECD also emphasises the need for better availability, effectiveness and alignment of development and climate funds. This is directly connected with the findings of the tourism study, because the number of projects with a climate component in itself does not say enough about the quality of investment. It is also important whether projects are designed to reduce risks in the long term, include local communities, monitor results and change investment patterns. Without that, the climate component can remain an addition to a project, rather than its fundamental development framework.
From disaster resilience to changing the travel model
According to the summary of the research, many analysed projects view climate adaptation through the prism of disaster resilience. Such a focus is understandable because extreme events can endanger lives, infrastructure and revenues in the short term. Floods can close transport routes, fires can destroy natural attractions, droughts can limit water supply, and heat waves can reduce the safety and attractiveness of a destination. For public authorities and donors, such risks are visible, measurable and often politically urgent.
Still, the research indicates that disaster resilience alone is not sufficient if it is not connected with a change in the development model. Tourism that relies on growth in the number of arrivals without adequate resource management can additionally burden destinations that are already climate-vulnerable. If emissions from transport, the energy consumption of accommodation, food imports and pressure on space are neglected, the sector can continue contributing to the risks to which it is simultaneously trying to adapt. That is why discussions about climate-resilient tourism increasingly emphasise the need for an integrated approach that connects infrastructure, energy, transport, nature, the local economy and visitor management.
The Glasgow Declaration in that sense offers a framework, but implementation depends on concrete plans, financing and monitoring results. UN Tourism states that signatories develop climate plans aligned with the five mentioned areas of action and that they need to report on progress. The new study shows that international development aid in tourism is still not fully aligned with the ambition of such frameworks. This does not mean that existing projects have no value, but that their climate dimension could be deeper, more systematic and more oriented towards long-term changes.
The study raises the question of priorities in future financing
The new analysis does not claim that tourism is the only or main area of climate development aid, but it shows that there is insufficiently used space within it. Tourism projects often touch precisely those systems that are key to the climate transition: transport, energy, water, spatial planning, nature protection, local food production and employment. If these elements are viewed separately, projects can remain fragmented. If they are connected, tourism can become one of the ways of financing broader community resilience.
According to the available information, the researchers conclude that existing projects more often encourage gradual adaptation than the transformational changes needed for sustainable and low-carbon development. This is a warning to donors and governments that climate policy in tourism should not remain at the level of strategies, declarations and general formulations. Projects are needed that clearly measure emissions, direct investments towards decarbonisation, protect natural systems, include local actors and monitor effects after the end of financing.
For destinations that already feel the consequences of climate change, such a shift is not only an environmental issue. It is also a matter of economic security, jobs, public infrastructure and quality of life. The study therefore reminds us that tourism cannot develop in the long term separately from climate reality. If international aid wants to support sustainable development, climate resilience and emission reduction will have to become an integral part of tourism projects, not an exception shown by only a smaller part of the analysed programmes.
Sources:
- Climate and Development / Taylor & Francis – summary of research on tourism development aid, climate change and the analysis of 89 projects (link)
- International Aid Transparency Initiative – explanation of the use of the d-portal platform for reviewing development and humanitarian activities (link)
- UN Tourism – information on climate action in tourism and commitments from the Glasgow Declaration (link)
- UN Tourism – text and description of the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism (link)
- World Travel & Tourism Council – data on the environmental footprint of travel and tourism, including the share in global emissions in 2024 (link)
- OECD – overview of development finance for climate and the environment and available data on climate-related development finance (link)
- UNEP – Adaptation Gap Report 2024 on the need to increase efforts and financing for climate adaptation (link)