Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

journal homepage: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/annals-of-
tourism-research

A review of research into tourism and climate change -

Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on
tourism and climate change
Daniel Scott a,b,⁎, Stefan Gössling c,d,e
a
Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada
b
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
c
Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal 6851, Norway
d
Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University, Helsingborg 25108, Sweden
e
School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Kalmar 39182, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The tourism sector declared a climate emergency in 2020. It is against this background that this
Received 29 November 2021 Curated Collection on Climate Change and Tourism is launched. A bibliometric analysis of 1290
Received in revised form 11 April 2022 articles reviews the 35-year development of climate change and tourism scholarship, including
Accepted 20 April 2022
major research themes, key knowledge gaps, and our capacity to deliver the enormous knowl-
Available online 6 May 2022
edge requirements for an effective sectoral climate response. A central finding is that the last
three decades of research have failed to prepare the sector for the net-zero transition and cli-
Keywords: mate disruption that will transform tourism over the next three decades. The climate change
Climate change
imperative demands more of the tourism academy and this collection will stimulate research
Tourism
and capacity for climate resilient tourism development.
Emissions
Mitigation © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Adaptation
Impacts

Introduction: the climate crisis imperative for tourism

Climate change is a defining challenge of our era and in response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth As-
sessment Report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021, 2022), the United Nations Secretary-General António
Guterres (United Nations, 2021) declared a “code red for humanity … (with) … a clear moral and economic imperative to protect
the lives and livelihoods of those on the front lines of the climate crisis.” Evidence of the disruption of the global climate system
and its accelerating impacts on natural and human systems is synthesized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2021, 2022) in its strongest and most certain language ever. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon-dioxide continue to rise at
rates unprecedented in the geologic record, exceeding 420 ppm in February 2022 (a level that last occurred 3.5 million years
ago). The combined human influence on the climate systems has warmed the planet 1.2 °C since pre-industrial era
(1850–1900) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021). As the record shattering heatwave in western Canada and
the USA, intense wildfires from Canada to Greece to Siberia, drought in Brazil, and deadly floods in China and Germany vividly
underscore, the climate crisis is no longer a problem of the future. Callaghan et al. (2021) estimated over 85% of the global pop-
ulation has already experienced extreme weather events worsened by climate change.
As the global climate system continues to respond to the elevated levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases and ongoing his-
toric high levels of emissions (United Nations Environment Program, 2021), additional future climate change is unavoidable, with

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada
E-mail address: daniel.scott@uwaterloo.ca (D. Scott).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103409
0160-7383/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

enormous consequences for natural and human systems for future generations to come. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (2022) warned that projected climate change would fundamentally reshape ecosystems and the development prospects
and wellbeing of billions worldwide. In response, Ripple et al. (2019), together with nearly 14,000 scientists from nearly all dis-
ciplines and over 160 countries, declared a climate emergency. Since then, more than 2000 national and sub-national jurisdictions,
representing more than 1 billion people in 35 countries, have also declared a climate emergency and calls for urgent climate ac-
tion (Climate Emergency Declaration, 2021). A survey of over 1 million people in 50 countries by the United Nations Development
Programme (2021), found 64% agreed that climate change represents an emergency for society.
Accumulating evidence on the consequences of inaction and growing social advocacy and activism has shifted the imperative
among global leaders of government, business, and civil society to respond to the climate emergency. The landmark Paris Climate
Agreement (United Nations, 2015, p. 22) represents the consensus of 195 countries to avoid the worst consequences of climate
change and endeavor to stabilize climate at “well below 2 °C (…) and [to] pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to
1.5 °C.” To achieve this climate safeguard, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) has estimated global CO2 emis-
sions will need to be reduced by approximately 50% by 2030 and reach net-zero by mid-century. The window of opportunity to
do so is rapidly closing. The United Nations Environment Programme (2021) annual global emissions report concluded that most
countries have not yet committed to the deep emission reductions required to achieve the Paris Agreement targets. While evi-
dence of ambition raising is evident in the more than 130 countries that have committed to or are considering net-zero emission
targets by 2050 (Höhne et al., 2021), rarely are policies and plans in place to deliver on these pledges (Climate Action Tracker,
2021; Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit). Consequently, multiple analyses conclude the prospect of achieving the Paris Agree-
ment targets are limited (International Energy Agency, 2021). Regardless of whether the Paris Agreement targets are achieved, as
countries and sectors strive to achieve deep emission reductions, the low carbon transition will represent one of the most conse-
quential socio-economic transformations in human history, with implications for global tourism that cannot be overstated.
The Covid-19 pandemic has and will continue to reshape parts of global tourism (Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2021), and in the years ahead, climate change will further transform it. Climate
change is already influencing tourism investment, planning, operations, and demand (Ma & Kirilenko, 2020; World Travel and
Tourism Council, 2021) and as Scott (2021), p. 5) summarized, “… any phenomenon that will adversely affect economic growth
in many areas of the world, greatly increase regional water and food insecurity, harm the health and displace more than a billion
people, substantially alter many ecosystems and increase extinction risks, increase transportation costs, threaten cultural heritage,
and increase security risks is not compatible with sustainable tourism development.” The World Travel and Tourism Council
(2015), p. 5) has stressed that “The next 20 years will be characterized by our sector fully integrating climate change and related
issues into business strategy, supporting the global transition to a low carbon economy, and strengthening resilience at a local
level against climate risks.” The signatories of the 2021 Glasgow Declaration: A Commitment to a Decade of Tourism Climate Ac-
tion (One Planet, 2021) reaffirmed the salience of climate action and pledged to cut tourism emissions in half by 2030 and achieve
net-zero emissions before 2050. While no progress has been made on similar ambitions stated more than a decade ago (Scott &
Gössling, 2022a), emerging climate and carbon risk disclosure requirements from governments and the financial sector will com-
pel sector climate action and accountability as never before. Regardless of whether society achieves a Paris Agreement compatible
+2 °C world through rapid decarbonization or a more climate disrupted high emissions world is realized; the imperative of un-
derstanding how climate change will transform global tourism over the next three decades and beyond is a preeminent challenge
facing the tourism academy.
It is against this background the Annals Curated Collection on Climate Change and Tourism is launched; a time when the
global science and policy communities have jointly declared that we have entered the decisive decade for climate action. This in-
troduction to the curated collection maps the field based on a systematic bibliometric review of 1290 articles spanning the 35
years of scholarship. While it is beyond the scope of this introductory paper to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the state
of knowledge on climate change and tourism, it identifies major research themes, key gaps, and future research directions. It
also critically examines the capacity of the tourism research community to deliver the massive knowledge requirements required
for effective sectoral response to the net-zero transition and impacts of accelerating climate change. The curated collection pre-
sents all papers that have appeared Annals of Tourism Research to demonstrate the journal's contribution to this grand challenge
and to stimulate new research and capacity to deliver much needed decision-relevant information to support climate responses
within the tourism sector.

Methods

Systematic reviews of the climate change and tourism literature have examined its development since the mid-1980s.
Scott, Jones, and McBoyle's (2006) initial bibliography included publications related to both ‘weather/climate’ and ‘climate
change’ themes, with the former dominating until 2000. Becken (2013) undertook a review of the literature published be-
tween 1986 and 2012, with a database of 459 records using Web of Science and Google searches to include books and
book chapters. The analysis identified emergent trends in the field as well as formative networks among scholars and insti-
tutions. The knowledge domain at the time was found to consist of 50% of publications focused on climate change impacts
and adaptation, 34% emissions and mitigation, and 8% of publications that included both. Fang, Yin, and Wu (2018) used
Web of Science and CiteSpace to identify a database of 976 records between 1990 and 2015, which as used to characterize
trends in the climate change and tourism domain, including subject areas, key contributors and cited works, and interna-
tional collaboration networks.

2
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

This state-of-the-art review of the structure and evolution of the climate change and tourism field differs from the previous bib-
liometric studies in three ways. In addition to being the most current analysis of the state of the field, covering the period of 1986 (the
first recorded journal publication in the field) to 2020, it is also the most comprehensive using both Scopus and Web of Science da-
tabases to overcome any potential limitations of either database. Benckendorff and Zehrer (2013) and McKercher (2008) found tour-
ism was better represented in Scopus, so it was important to include this database for the first time. In addition to peer reviewed
research papers and review papers, editorials and rejoinders were included as they often provide keen insights into salient or provoc-
ative topics within knowledge domains. The analysis is inclusive of all journals and not restricted to publications from only leading
tourism journals. This is vital because tourism scholarship is heavily influenced by other disciplines (Belhassen & Caton, 2009), and
this is particularly the case with the climate change and tourism nexus. The analysis followed the protocol of the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009) and included a comprehensive
eligibility screening process by the authors based on content, not only publication type. The four-stage Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process and the resulting database are outlined in Fig. 1.
The identification stage began with an initial search of Scopus and Web of Science using the query strings ‘climate change AND
tourism/tourist’. The result was remarkably similar with 2866 records found in Scopus and 2868 in Web of Science. Additional
related searches were completed in both databases using the strings ‘global warming AND tourism’, ‘climate change AND recre-
ation’, and ‘climate change AND hospitality’. The combination of these searches returned a total of 4167 records in Scopus and
4116 in Web of Science (Fig. 1).
The screening stage included the removal of duplicate records from the combined database of Scopus and Web of Science re-
cords (the combined dataset was reduced to 3683). At this stage a few relevant publications known to the authors were noted to
be missing from the combined data set (e.g., the highly cited work of Lenzen et al., 2018 on carbon emissions from the tourism
sector). The authors were able to add 10 additional well cited publications to the database (increasing the total to 3693). While
every effort was made to make the database as comprehensive as possible, it is acknowledged that the observed gaps in the
Scopus and Web of Science databases represent a limitation and some papers may not have been included.
The eligibility review stage was critical to this analysis. The authors devised a three-category system to classify papers eligibil-
ity. Category 1 consisted of papers that directly examined some interconnection between climate change and tourism and were

Fig. 1. Flowchart of publication search and selection method.

Source: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses process flowchart adapted from Moher et al. (2009).

3
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

included in the analysis. Category 2 papers examined some dimension of climate change and referred to tourism tangentially
(often on a list with other sectors like transport, health, conservation, agriculture), but provided no specific findings or interpre-
tation relevant to tourism. For example, several studies on the changing patterns of natural snowfall and annual snowpack alluded
to unspecified potential impacts on ski tourism, without any analysis specific to ski operations or demand. Without tangible in-
sights on the magnitude or timing of impacts or response strategies for tourism, such speculative studies were excluded from
the analysis. The final category included papers that were not at all relevant to climate change and tourism. To overcome potential
bias in the eligibility screening, both authors independently reviewed the title and abstract of all 3693 records retained at the
screening stage. There was broad agreement between the two authors in the first review round (greater than 90%). Where a dif-
ferent categorization occurred, the authors reviewed the paper independently and all cases were resolved in the second round.
The eligibly screening resulted in 1290 records (35%) of records being retained for the bibliometric analysis (Fig. 1), 643 were
common to both Scopus and Web of Science databases, while 368 were unique to Scopus and 280 unique to Web of Science. A
salient methodological finding from this eligibility screening was that raw search results from Scopus and Web of Science should
not be used in bibliometric analyses of this sub-field of tourism. Extensive screening and expert curation are required to avoid
misrepresentation of the field. Both authors have contributed to this knowledge domain (as researchers and reviewers) since
the mid-late 1990s, bringing a collective 48 years in the field to this critical task.
This extensive screening process is important to explain the difference in the number of publications in this field reported by
Fang et al. (2018) and the current analysis. Fang reported 976 publications through to 2015 and our final database of 1290 pub-
lications should not be misinterpreted as revealing limited growth in the field in the last 5 years. As the results show, it is quite
the opposite, with the field doubling in size since the analysis by Fang et al. (2018). The reason for the different number of pub-
lications considered in each analysis is that Fang et al. (2018) used the raw outputs from Web of Science, only eliminating records
based on publication type and not content, while this analysis utilized a highly curated database.
The analysis of the final database (1290 records) included several evaluative and relational indicators common to bibliometric
studies, including: number of articles over time, number of authors, author productivity/citation impact, institutional productivity,
article contributions by journal/discipline, keywords/major subject areas, geographic patterns of authors and research areas, article
citation impact, trends in major and emergent research themes.

Results

The state of climate change and tourism field

Fig. 2 provides a chronological overview of the development of the climate change and tourism literature over the 35 years
since the first journal publication appeared in the mid-1980s and some of the key events that influenced the progress and

Fig. 2. Development of climate change and tourism literature and milestone events.

4
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

focal areas within the literature. The number of publications prior to 2000 was very limited and represents only 1.6% of publica-
tions in this analysis. Consequently, tourism was not even mentioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's First
Assessment Report (AR1) in 1990. Growth in publications began in the mid-2000s after the Third Assessment Report (AR3)
and the Djerba Declaration on Tourism and Climate Change, the first of its kind in the tourism sector. By the time of the United
Nations World Tourism Organization commissioned the special report on Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global
Challenges in 2007 for the Davos Declaration, only 93 journal articles were available to draw on. It is important to note that
this milestone report, which continues to be cited in the scientific literature and government and industry reports, had only 7%
of the publications in this analysis available to it. An update of this state of knowledge resource for United Nations agencies
and other international tourism organization is long overdue.
Substantive growth in climate change and tourism scholarship began toward the end of the 2000s (Fig. 2), increasing by a fac-
tor of five from 2010 and 2020. Over three-quarters of the records included in this analysis have been published since 2012, after
the last comprehensive review papers (Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2013; Scott, Gössling, & Hall, 2012a) and books (Becken & Hay,
2012; Scott, Gössling, & Hall, 2012b) of the field were published. The elevated profile of climate change in international policy
leading up to and resulting from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the landmark Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, further
stimulated scholarship in the tourism sector. Illustrative of how quickly the field is evolving, nearly half (49%) of the publications
in this analysis occurred in the last 5 years (2016–2020) and after the Paris Agreement was signed. While this growth at first ap-
pears impressive, it mirrors the growth in tourism publications broadly, and should not be construed as an indicator that climate
change has become key priority within tourism scholarship. We found that climate change focused papers represented less than
2% of publications in the top five tourism journals between 2000 and 2010, increasing to only 3.5% between 2011 and 2020 even
after the United Nations World Tourism Organization et al. (2008) declared climate change the greatest threat to sustainable tour-
ism in the 21st century.
Research themes and methodological approaches in the climate change and tourism literature have become more diverse over
time as new disciplinary and regional perspectives have contributed to the field. Fig. 3 provides a conceptual framework of the
field. All 1290 publications included in this analysis can be situated within this knowledge map, with some contributing to
more than one thematic area. Like climate change research and policy more broadly, the climate change and tourism corpus of
knowledge can be organized into the two major themes that structure Fig. 3. The first are studies that seek to estimate the green-
house gas emissions from the tourism and strategies to reduce these emissions to decarbonize the sector. Much-cited works have
focused on emissions from global tourism (e.g., Lenzen et al., 2018), national tourism (e.g., Becken & Patterson, 2006; Dwyer,
Forsyth, Spurr, & Hoque, 2010) and to a lesser extent destinations (e.g., Sun, 2014), as well as the options and costs of
decarbonizing the sector (Gössling, 2011; Peeters & Dubois, 2010; Scott, Gössling, Hall, & Peeters, 2016). More recently, studies
have also extended to consideration of the implications of the broader societal transition to a state of net-zero emissions in the
mid-21st century (Scott & Gössling, 2022b). Collectively, this research seeks to understand and reduce the carbon risk of the tour-
ism sector.
The second overarching theme in Fig. 3 is physical climate risk. Research in this area seeks to understand the impacts of
changes in climate and the manifestations throughout other environmental and socio-economic systems (most focus on negative
consequences, but positive outcomes are possible as well), as well as adaptation strategies to reduce the burden and optimize co-
benefits for the tourism sector. Here, much cited papers have focused on cumulative global risks (Scott, Hall, & Gössling, 2019),

Fig. 3. Conceptual framework of the climate change and tourism field.

5
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

changing climate resources for tourism (e.g., Gómez Martín, 2005; Amelung, Nicholls, & Viner, 2007), altered demand patters
(e.g., Lise & Tol, 2002; Peeters & Dubois, 2010), impacts on transportation (e.g., Koetse & Rietveld, 2009), behavioural responses
(e.g., Gössling et al., 2013), adaptation options (e.g., Scott & McBoyle, 2007), and specific subsectors such as ski tourism (Steiger,
Scott, Abegg, Pons, & Aall, 2019).
Importantly, Fig. 3 also displays the interactions between these two major areas of climate change risk and responses (consis-
tent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concept of climate resilient development) and the important intercon-
nections with other major drivers of tourism development and competitiveness at global and destination scales, some of which
are the focus of other curated collections (e.g., Risk and Resilience, Demand Forecasting, Air Transport and Tourism, Tourism De-
sign).
The distribution of literature among these core themes is not equal. This analysis found only 22% of publications focused on
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation, while 57% examined climate impacts and adaptation strategies. The remaining 22% of
publications examined either both dimensions of the climate change challenge (most often at the local/destination scale) (11%)
or focused on implications of impacts and decarbonization for tourism demand (10%). It was a challenge to classify some papers
that discuss demand implications, even tangentially, as it is important to identify studies focused on arrivals, occupancy rates or
other indicators of demand that translate carbon and climate risk into economic performance metrics that inform the business
case for climate action to the tourism industry.
Keywords offer high-level indicators of publication content and provide additional insights into the focal themes within the
field (Table 1). Many of the keyword derived themes were identified in the analyses by Becken (2013) and Fang et al. (2018).
Virtually all papers included keywords that were one of the core search terms of ‘climate-climate change-global warming’ and
many that were published in non-tourism journals also included ‘tourism-sustainable tourism’ or other related core search
terms (both not shown in Table 1). Within the carbon risk major theme, the most prominent keywords reveal a focus on estimat-
ing emissions (or carbon footprint), followed by studies that examine aspects of reducing those emissions (mitigation-
decarbonization‑carbon management), which included a focus on strategies like carbon pricing, energy efficiency, and the in-
creased use of renewable energy. There was also a large cluster of studies that focus on transport, which is the largest source
of emissions from tourism. The most frequent keywords in this group were car-automobile and aviation-air travel. More recent
keywords to emerge include mobility justice and net-zero, which is a recent shift in mitigation target setting policy that will
have important transition impacts on tourism (Scott & Gössling, 2022b).
The physical climate risk theme was defined by three major groups of keywords, the largest including aspects of impacts-
vulnerability (e.g., from changing snow resources to sea level rise), with a sub-theme focus on climate extremes of different
types (storms, heat, precipitation). Far fewer studies included adaptation responses in the keywords. The large majority of studies
that included keywords defining the type of destination of focus, were climate risk studies. The major types of destinations ob-
served in the literature included in order of keyword count: mountain (including ski and glacier tourism), nature-based (including
park-protected area, ecotourism), coastal (including beach, reef tourism), cultural, urban, polar, and islands. The disproportionally
small number of studies dedicated to urban and island tourism, relative to the salience of these global market segments, is a gap
that future research should address (Loehr & Becken, 2021). Study areas (country or other geographic identifiers) are not consis-
tently provided as keywords, so that the keywords analysis cannot be used to assess the geography of climate change and tourism
research activity.

Table 1
Major themes represented in keywords (1,2).

Carbon Risk Climate Risk Desnaon Focus Other Key Themes

Mobility-transportaon Adaptaon = 170 Mountain = 225 Economic-
(aviaon, cruise, rail, development = 206
car) = 273
GHG-emissions- Impacts-vulnerability = 167 Nature-based = 138 Stakeholder
footprint = 104 percepons-
behaviour = 164
Migaon- Climac extremes (storms, Coastal-marine = 79 Policy-governance
decarbonizaon-carbon rain, heat, fire) = 34 = 64
management = 51
Renewables – Cultural-heritage = Water-food = 51
solar/wind = 22 49
Energy efficiency = 17 Urban = 48 Ethics-jusce = 15
Carbon tax-price = 8 Polar = 27 Last Chance = 11
Islands-SIDS = 9 Markeng-image =
10
Rural =6 Media = 5
Denial = 4
1 = Values presented are the cumulative number of times keywords and related keywords were included in
the database of 1290 records. It is possible a publication could include more than one keywork from a group
(e.g., emissions and carbon footprint), so that the values to not necessarily represent discrete number of pub-
lications.
2 = Shades from dark to light highlight the concentration of research efforts in each field.

6
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

The final group of key themes included dimensions of carbon and climate risk. This included research that examined climate
change implications for the tourism economy and development, stakeholder perception aspects of climate responses in tourism,
as well as policy-governance. Themes such as destination image (including marketing) and ethics (climate justice) were not as
well developed as expected.
This review of the rapidly growing climate change and tourism literature identified several salient knowledge gaps, some of
which have persisted for more than a decade (see discussions in earlier reviews by Scott et al., 2012a, Becken, 2013, Gössling
et al., 2013). Knowledge gaps and research priorities in five overarching key areas are outlined below.
Geographic knowledge gaps are one of the most visible and long-standing gaps in the tourism and climate change literature.
That this literature is primarily concentrated in developed countries or from the perspective of travel from developed countries,
with limited research in the global south and particularly vulnerable countries (e.g., small island developing states), has been
an identified limitation since the Davos special report (Scott et al., 2008). The list of top contributing countries (by author affili-
ation) in the next section (see Tables 2) further evidences this geographic distribution and related capacity gap. Subsequent re-
views of the literature and tourism content within IPCC Assessment Reports have identified persistent regional gaps including
Asia, Africa, South America, Middle East, and Small Islands (Scott et al., 2012a, 2016; Becken, 2013, Scott, 2021). Review of the
content of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment (2022) does not reveal progress, however the in-
creasing contributions of authors from some underrepresented regions (specifically East Asia/China, Middle East, southern
Africa) over the last decade are a notable positive trend.
Importantly, these geographic gaps are most pronounced in regions expected to have the strongest tourism growth in the next
20–30 years and often where tourism is both most vulnerable to climate change and has the largest impact on national economy
(Scott et al., 2019). These strategic gaps limit understanding of the potential contribute of tourism to the Sustainable Development
Goals and should be priorities for the tourism academy as well as the international development assistance organizations (as ob-
ligated under both the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change and Paris Climate Agreement).
Within the carbon risk theme, there remain strategic knowledge gaps related to sector emissions, decarbonization strategies,
and the implications of deep decarbonization pathways for tourism development. These gaps exist from community destination to
sector scales. Although our understanding of increasing sector emissions continues to improve (e.g., Gössling & Peeters, 2015;
Lenzen et al., 2018; Sun & Higham, 2021) many uncertainties remain at sub-sector and destination scales, particularly with re-
spect to accounting for scope three emissions (i.e., those related to travel to destinations and supply-chains). Addressing these
gaps with robust methodologies, particularly in data poor destinations, are foundational to develop climate action plans that
will enable tourism to be part of the decarbonized economy of mid-century.
The need to develop methods to accurately measure sector emissions and monitor progress on sector emission reduction
pledges has long been recognized in the literature (e.g., Scott et al., 2008) and more recently by the tourism industry (World
Travel and Tourism Council, 2021). Although promising approaches to measuring sector scale emissions have been developed
by the academic community (e.g., Sun & Higham, 2021), industry has instead decided to rely on non-audited reports of individual
tourism organizations that are participating in initiatives such as the Glasgow Declaration on climate change and tourism (One
Planet, 2021) and Tourism Declares (2021). This type of non-systematic measurement and extrapolation is not robust (see the
critical review of such corporate pledges by New Climate Institute, 2022), nor representative of the sector (Scott & Gössling,
2022a) and demands scrutiny and methodological innovation by the tourism research community.
New research contributions are urgently needed at all scales (traveler, organization, destination, sectoral) to inform and accel-
erate decarbonization of the tourism sector at a pace commensurate with science-based sectoral targets (−50% by 2030, net-zero
by 2050). Critical analysis of the incompatibility of pro-growth and pro-climate discourses and policies of leading tourism organi-
zation like the United Nations World Tourism Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, national tourism organiza-
tions, and destination management organizations are needed (Becken, 2019; Loehr & Becken, 2021; Scott & Gössling, 2022b).
There is also a salient need to assess the tourism implications of global net-zero scenarios that have been proposed by a range

Table 2
Geography of author contributions based on institutional affiliation.

Country Number of papers contributed to (out of 1290) IPCC region

USA 176 North America

Australia 144 Australasia
Canada 135 North America
Spain 112 Europe
New Zealand 107 Australasia
England 102 Europe
China 96 Asia
Germany 92 Europe
Austria 88 Europe
Netherlands 81 Europe
Sweden 74 Europe
Finland 65 Europe
South Africa 65 Africa
Norway 62 Europe
Switzerland 53 Europe

7
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

of experts and organizations, to determine which decarbonization pathways might better support climate resilient tourism de-
velopment consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals and principles of climate justice (Gössling & Scott, 2018; Scott &
Gössling, 2022b). Air travel demand management is central to all published net-zero scenarios and research on effective and
equitable strategies and policies, from carbon disclosure and pricing to carbon compatible marketing, are needed. The
post‑carbon transition compels a critical new research agenda in tourism if visions of tourism in a ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘net-
zero’ global economy are to be developed. How this decarbonization transition interconnects with and can be informed by
other dimensions of the sustainable tourism literature, including “degrowth”, “slow”, “responsible”, and “pro-poor” tourism, re-
quire important theoretical and pragmatic contributions for future destination models under net-zero imperatives (Gössling &
Higham, 2021).
Although studies of the risks posed by changing climate represent the largest proportion of the literature included in this anal-
ysis, there are many important knowledge gaps related to the consequences of an increasingly climate disrupted world for tour-
ism. The tourism sector is recognized as highly sensitive to impact of climate change (Dogru, Marchio, Bulut, & Suess, 2019; Scott
et al., 2012a) and natural and cultural heritage assets and environmental services critical for tourism are being impacted by cli-
mate change (Ma and Kirilenko, 2020; Scott et al., 2016; World Travel and Tourism Council, 2021). Although the lived experience
of climate change impacts and diverse adaptive responses that provide insight into future impacts anticipated to occur more often
and become more severe are occurring more frequently, they are not being well studied. These natural experiments represent
continuing missed learning opportunities (Gössling, Scott, Hall, Ceron, & Dubois, 2012; Scott, 2021). While there is often an ur-
gency to accelerate adaptation actions, there remains an important need to better understand the multiple and interacting climate
risks at the destination scale, including more insight into their distributional aspects (equity) and those most germane in the near
and mid-term (defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as 2021–40 and 2041–60, respectively) that are most
influential on decision makers. Climate services and climate attribution studies are advancing in many other sectors but remain
rudimentary in tourism (Damm, Köberl, Stegmaier, Jiménez Alonso, & Harjanne, 2020; Scott & Lemieux, 2010). Critical reviews
of the climate change and ski/mountain tourism (Steiger et al., 2019) and tourist behavioural response (Gössling et al., 2012) lit-
eratures, represent important contributions that examine their respective limitations in a way that science assessment reports of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cannot. Updates and reviews of other literatures with a critical mass of scholar-
ship (e.g., coastal change, nature-based tourism, arid/dry destination tourism) would be welcome contributions to guide future
research on physical climate risks.
All destinations and tourism markets will need to adapt to the direct and indirect consequences of accelerating climate change,
whether to minimize negative impacts or optimize opportunities. A much greater focus on the solution space for climate risks is
needed, as knowledge of the capacity of current adaptations to successfully cope with future climate change as well as the process
of effective adaptation and the limits of adaptation in the unique circumstances of the visitor economy remain limited (Kaján &
Saarinen, 2013; Loehr, 2020; Scott & Becken, 2010). There remains highly inadequate research on the limits to adaptation (phys-
ical, economic, social) under future climate scenarios, the scalability of adaptations, associated co-benefits, maladaptation, and
adaptive capacity (including enablers and constraints). How the potential solution space differs across destinations and reflexive
inquiry on who participates, who makes decisions, who pays, and who benefits from adaptation are important research needs to
better inform feasible, effective, and just adaptation by the tourism sector. The implementation imperative in the broader climate
change adaptation literature and praxis, or what Klein, Adams, Dzebo, Davis, and Siebert (2017) refer to as “fourth generation”
adaptation research, has yet to be well established in the tourism sector.
One of the most salient limits to the climate change and tourism literature has been the limited ability to capture the complex-
ity of the climate change and tourism nexus more fully (Scott et al., 2012a, 2015). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (2022):pg 1–70) defines climate resilient development as “a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and ad-
aptation solutions to support sustainable development for all.” Knowledge of the place of tourism in climate resilient development
remains in a nascent state. Mora et al. (2018) warn that the analysis of single climate change impacts provides a highly incom-
plete and potentially misleading assessment of the consequences of climate change for a location or sector. Yet that remains the
dominant form of climate risk assessment in the tourism literature. Simspon et al. (2021) reinforce the importance of recognizing
that risks can arise both from impacts due to climate change and from responses (mitigation and adaptation), and the need to
assess interactions among multiple drivers of climate change risk, including how risks interact and traverse sectoral and regional
boundaries.
The complexities of climate change risk at the destination scale have been illustrated in Fig. 3. Interacting carbon and climate
risks contribute to aggregate climate change risks for destinations. Because tourism is characterized by extensive spatial intercon-
nectedness, transboundary climate change risks across competing destinations will subsequently have important implications for
regional market dynamics and destination competitiveness. For example, diverse regional ski tourism markets show there will be
opportunities even when negative impacts occur at the operator and destinations scale, because market share can be gained
through greater adaptive capacity and the loss of competitors (Scott, Steiger, Knowles, & Fang, 2020; Steiger & Scott, 2020). Tour-
ism is also strongly intertwined with other economic sectors, with carbon and climate risks in tourism affecting and being affected
by many other sectors (dampen or amplify risk), adding to the conceptual complexity of holistic understanding of consequences
and response strategies. The combination of these diverse contributors to climate risk are place specific, so that there is no single
best pathway to climate resilient tourism.
Carbon and climate risks will unfold concurrently in destinations, with their relative salience evolving with time. To date a
comprehensive analysis of the integrated carbon and climate risks and associated mitigation and adaptation responses, including
any complementary or antagonistic interactions, has not been completed for any tourism destination (at any scale). Recent case

8
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

studies by Michailidou, Vlachokostas, and Moussiopoulos (2016) and Loehr (2020) that explore interactions of mitigation and ad-
aptation in Greece and Vanuatu represent notable progress in this regard.
It is important to emphasize that the limited representation of total climate change risk and response interactions is not purely
a conceptual problem, but one that will increasingly challenge the tourism industry and policy makers. The limited understanding
of these complexities at virtually every destination represents an important constraint to tourism-climate planning and policy de-
velopment. The research community has an important role to develop novel methods that assist policy makers to prioritize carbon
and climate risks for further study and decision support tools to advance climate resilient tourism development during this deci-
sive climate decade of the 2020s. Furthermore, as climate change risk disclosure becomes mandatory, a requirement endorsed by
the G7 nations in Juneet al., 2021 and subsequently the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (2021), publicly
traded tourism companies will need to assess their combined carbon and climate risk. The financial sector is likely to successively
demand similar risk assessment disclosures of destinations and other private companies. No such integrated climate risk assess-
ment, compliant with recommended disclosure guidelines, has been completed (or publicly disclosed).
A final area where new contributions are greatly needed is at the science-policy interface. Several studies have demonstrated
that tourism and climate policy at the national scale are incoherent. An analysis of tourism sector climate change policy in 44
countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011, p. 9) concluded that “… that current [national tour-
ism] policy, with few exceptions, is inadequate to the scale of the challenge, both on mitigation and on adaptation.” A decade
later, Becken, Whittlesea, Loehr, and Scott's (2020) review of tourism and climate change policy documents from 61 countries
echoed this conclusion. The place of tourism in Nationally Determined Contributions submitted to the Paris Climate Agreement
has also been found to be limited and in need of science-policy research support (Scott & Gössling, 2018). Tourism plans have
been found to similarly lack climate change risk recognition and response strategies (Freeman-Prince, 2021; Jarratt & Davies,
2020). Likewise, there has been limited analysis of proposed climate change policies that would have potentially salient impacts
on tourism (e.g., the French Government proposed ban on flights that can be made by train in less than two-and-a-half hours,
escalating carbon pricing, sustainable aviation fuel mandates – see Scott & Gössling, 2022b; Gössling & Lyle, 2021 for others).
Operationalizing the recommendations of these studies for a minimum level of climate change integration into tourism policy
and plans would require extensive foundational science and policy research at the country and regional scales.
These overarching knowledge gaps and research priorities are not exhaustive. Sub-field reviews, like those of Gössling et al.
(2012), Steiger et al. (2019), and Anastasia et al. (2021), each identify a range of specific limitations and gaps in their respective
literatures, which further contribute to a climate change and tourism research agenda. However, what these overarching knowl-
edge gaps demonstrate clearly is that the tourism sector is currently unprepared for the enormous knowledge requirements of the
transition to climate resilient tourism development. The capacity of the tourism academy to deliver urgently needed research is an
important uncertainty that is explored in the following section.

Tourism academy capacity: meeting the urgency of the moment

Previous bibliometric studies of the climate change and tourism field by Becken (2013) and Fang et al. (2018) have ex-
amined journal, author and institutional contributions and networks through co-authorship and co-citation. These studies
provide insight into the intellectual structure and the disciplinary and regional contributions to the field over time. We
will not repeat those analyses but only comment that the leading contributors (authors and institutions) identified
most recently by Fang et al. (2018) remained largely unchanged, while the list of most cited papers is very different be-
cause the much greater curation of our approach removed some highly cited climate change publications that were not
tourism focused.
Instead, this analysis focuses on the capacity of the field and tourism academy to provide the urgent information requirements
of the climate resilient tourism transition. One important indicator of capacity is the growth in the number of unique authors con-
tributing to the field and their regional representation. The number of unique authors in the database for this analysis is 2183.
While not directly comparable because of methodological differences, this nonetheless represents a very positive trend with ap-
proximately four-fold growth over the 495 distinct authors identified by Becken (2013) a decade ago. Using the institutional af-
filiations of these authors, 98 countries have contributed to the field. Table 2 displays the top 15 countries, based on the number
of papers that had at least one author from that country. Table 2 reveals high concentration of scholarship in Europe, followed by
Australasia and North America. Positively, contributions from China and South Africa have grown substantially in the 2010s. The
limited authorship representation of key tourism regions, including the Middle East, South and Central America, and Small Islands,
mirrors the regional gaps in knowledge found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (Scott
et al., 2016) and is disconcerting considering the importance of tourism for economic development in these regions and their high
vulnerability to climate change. Building research capacity and the knowledge base in these key tourism regions must be a prior-
ity for the field for the 2020s.
While the tourism academy is known for its diverse disciplinary contributions to research and training (López-Bonilla & López-
Bonilla, 2020), an important indicator of capacity to inform the sectoral climate change response is the proportion of climate
change and tourism knowledge being produced within tourism schools/departments and journal. The interdisciplinary climate
change and tourism scholarship has long been noted as a strength and this diversity continues among the leading contributors.
Less than 20% are based in tourism or hospitality programs, which has important implications for the types of research questions
being asked and prioritized, the engagement with the broader tourism literature and potentially tourism stakeholders, as well as
for training of tourism researchers and professionals.

9
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

The disciplinary diversity of this research is paralleled by the wide range of journals it is published in. The 1290 publications
included in this analysis were published in 343 unique journals. Notably, 194 (57%) of those journals had only one publication in
the database, and the papers in them had limited interaction or consequential influence on the field (as evidenced by the very low
citation of these papers). The distribution of publications across thematic journal types found 47% of papers appeared in the cat-
egory representing tourism, hospitality, recreation, leisure, and sport journals. Approximately one-third appeared in environment
or climate focused journals, while 20% were in transportation, geography, economics, or other interdisciplinary journals. The pro-
portion of climate change focused papers published in top tourism journals, also provides an indication of the salience of climate
change as a theme and research capacity in the tourism academy. Between 2000 and 2009, climate change related papers repre-
sented only 1.5% of the papers published in the five tourism journals with the most climate change content (Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Tourism Management, Current Issues in Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, and Annals of Tourism Research). Positively,
the proportion of climate change content in these journals increased to 3.4% of published papers in the following decade (2010 to
2019).
Research expertise informs curriculum development, and while these are only two indicators, the relative disciplinary contri-
bution from tourism schools/departments and journals suggests the challenge of climate change may have limited exposure
among the next generation of tourism professionals who will be critical for the development and implementation climate action
in the sector. This question of the place of climate change in tourism curriculum is one that deserves greater exploration within
the tourism academy.
A second key finding from the citation analysis was the number of publications in the field that are not widely cited and could
provide additional insight if more broadly read or incorporated in review and synthesis publications. Of the 1290 publications in-
cluded in this analysis, 15% have no citations at all and 51% have 10 or less citations. While some of these papers have been pub-
lished recently, further analysis of the factors contributing to low citation would be useful to inform researchers on more effective
knowledge mobilization strategies at a time when new climate change and tourism insights are needed most. Similar concerns
about fragmentation and disconnection have been raised about the sustainable tourism literature more broadly (Bramwell &
Lane, 2013; Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017; Moyle et al., 2021).
Similarly, there is an important need to better mobilize knowledge in the scientific literature for business and government de-
cision makers that are unlikely to have access to academic journals or the time to synthesize the key findings relevant to their
destination or market. The 2008 special report Climate Change and Tourism Responding to Global Challenges (Scott et al., 2008)
commissioned by the United Nations World Tourism Organization, is an example of a sector targeted synthesis report that was
widely read and referred to by diverse sectoral stakeholders. That a similar state of knowledge science assessment report to trans-
late the more than a decade of new research for decision makers continues to be a missed opportunity. Recently, Loehr and
Becken (2021) found important differences in climate change knowledge across academic, practitioner, and political domains, not-
ing that availability, access, and transferability of knowledge were key barriers that must be addressed to enhance the impact of
academic knowledge outputs on climate action. Others contend that information for strategic climate action at international and
national scales is readily available in the scientific literature and often through boundary organizations, but is not acted on be-
cause of conflicts with sectoral stakeholder interests (e.g., Gössling & Scott, 2018).

Conclusion

The climate change and tourism literature has grown rapidly as the scientific understanding and societal response to the cli-
mate crisis have evolved. The available literature makes it clear that there can be no sustainable tourism if we as a sector and
society fail on climate change. The evidence is that climate change already affects tourism regionally, through diverse impacts
on natural and cultural heritage and changes in demand patterns. There clearly is an analogue to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
how accelerating climate change and responses will redraw the global geography of tourism and its capacity to contribute to
the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their post-2030 successors. Nonetheless, this analysis concludes that climate change
does not appear to be a high priority on the tourism academy's research agenda (based on the proportion of newly published re-
search), nor is there evidence that the tourism industry makes widespread use of the information base that is available (based on
reviews of reports, declarations, and other climate initiatives from leading international tourism organizations and national and
destination tourism policy and plans). It is disconcerting that a central finding of this review is that the last 30 years of research
have failed to effectively prepare the sector for a climate resilient transformation that must take place over the next 30 years.
As we begin this UN declared decisive decade for climate action, evidence-based collective action is not possible without a ro-
bust foundation of knowledge. Is the tourism academy researching as if “our house was on fire”, to paraphrase the youth climate
activist Greta Thunberg? Our collective response has been inadequate, and the climate emergency declared by the governments
and communities in which virtually every tourism scholar lives, demands we do more. Bramwell et al. (2017) argue that to be-
come more impactful and meaningfully serve society and the tourism sector, the tourism academy must re-focus its research to
connect with key challenges facing society. We contend the grand challenge of climate change and the ambitious research agenda
outlined above is one the tourism academy must prioritize.
The imperative of this decisive climate decade means that the tourism academy cannot rely on a new generation of re-
searchers to resolve the research and capacity gaps identified in this review (though strategic curriculum reforms would be highly
valuable to mainstream climate action among future tourism professionals). We must bring to bear existing tourism expertise and
collaborative networks. As tourism scholars we all have sustained engagement with specific tourism destinations and a wide
range of sector stakeholders, and utilizing this expertise, access to local knowledge, and trusted relationships with decision makers

10
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

are fundamental to advancing and mobilizing climate change information rapidly. The tourism academy's Covid-19 response (over
1500 publications in 2 years) demonstrates this shift in expertise and research capacity can be done expeditiously. Our journals
also have an important role in reorienting and mobilizing our expertise through targeted special issues, commissioned critical re-
views, and, as some top journals did for the Covid-19 pandemic, require that submitted research acknowledge and discuss its rel-
evance and usefulness considering the net-zero transition and climate disruption that will fundamentally reshape the sector for
the foreseeable future.
As important as enhanced capacity will be changes in how we do research on climate change and tourism. Loehr and
Becken (2021) identify important differences in climate change knowledge across academic, practitioner, and political do-
mains. The climate change imperative demands we foster transdisciplinary partnerships to reduce the barriers to knowledge
exchange and disconnects between these communities and accelerate climate action in this decisive decade and beyond.
Equal attention needs to be paid to the underlying reasons for non-action, specifically where a knowledge basis exists.
Much evidence suggests that political interests, lobbyism, and identity conflicts remain significant barriers to action
(Gössling, 2019; Gössling, Fichert, & Forsyth, 2017). There is also a share of the population that is opposed to any climate ac-
tion, without much insight into their ulterior motivations. Others seem to feel that their personal actions are irrelevant or un-
avoidable, an issue that has received much attention in the context of academic air travel (Wynes, Donner, Tannason, &
Nabors, 2019). Calls to address the implementation gap tourism research have been highlighted by Bramwell et al. (2017),
Carter, Baxter, and Hockings (2001), Tribe (2008), and Sharpley (2020), and we will not repeat the many excellent recom-
mendations to enhance the decision relevance of tourism scholarship by these and other leading scholars, only reemphasize
their necessity for the climate change imperative.
The climate change and tourism field present specific challenges and opportunities in this regard. The disconnect between
tourism policy and planning and the substantive scientific literature that is available is a function of a lack of awareness and per-
haps in some cases non-inclusion. The first can be improved upon by a concerted effort to make more extensive use of diverse
knowledge mobilization strategies and new collaborations (see for example Lancet, 2021 and Times Higher Education, 2019) to
overcome what some refer to as the “valley of death” between our information base and diverse decision makers.
The second challenge can be a function of researchers asking the wrong questions and improving decision relevant research
through further collaboration with policy makers and industry. It can also be related to the uncomfortable questions climate
change and the net-zero transition pose about current and future of tourism development (see examples in Gössling & Scott,
2018, Loehr & Becken, 2021), which can limit engagement with and uptake of scholarship in this field.
Nonetheless, there are important near-term opportunities to scrutinize and support the development climate action plans of
tourism sector signatories to Tourism Declares a Climate Emergency and Glasgow Declaration: A Commitment to a Decade of
Tourism Climate Action initiatives. Beyond these leading sectoral organizations, the financial sector and governments (national
tourism departments through to destination communities) will be increasingly open to new knowledge that can inform climate
change risk disclosure requirements and government and citizen mandates for climate action. The tourism academy should
also look to strengthen its contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Tourism content
has declined in the latest Sixth Assessment Report relative to other sectors, in part because there is virtually no tourism expertise
among the lead or contributing author teams. The place of tourism in climate change policy negotiations and planning will not
improve if we as a community do not have stronger representation in globally leading science assessment processes such as
these. The tourism academy can also look to the response of our colleagues in health for a world leading approach to advance
the state and application of knowledge on climate change. The Lancet Countdown initiative was established in 2016 and brings
together 35 leading academic institutions with UN agencies, the World Bank, and other key decision-making international orga-
nizations to provide open access independent science assessments (including science translations and policy briefs) relevant to
the delivery of commitments made by governments worldwide under the Paris Agreement.
The world's youth are faced with a vastly unequal inter-generational burden (Thiery et al., 2021) and anxiety over of climate
change (Marks et al., 2021). As instructors and professional mentors we need to do more to respond to climate change. This
would begin with a more critical engagement of the implications for tourism of a decarbonized and climate disrupted world.
It is not rare for academia to pursue or contribute to the opposite, including, for example, destination marketing and develop-
ment based on carbon-intensive volume growth, advocacy of reliance on decarbonization technology solutions that lack scal-
ability or do not even exist, maladaptive climate risk responses, new tourism design and planning that propagates climate
risk, performance measurement that lack climate resilience indicators (or broader sustainability metrics), tourism policy that
is incompatible with climate policy, tourism and international development narratives that do not include climate resilience
or climate justice lens. The carbon-intense professional mobilities of academics and the performance systems reinforcing
them have also received increased attention for ‘climate hypocrisy’ (e.g., Higham & Font, 2020) at a time when pressure from
students has led several thousand universities worldwide to declare climate emergencies and pledges of ambitious emission
reductions.
It is hoped that the curated collection of papers will foster critical reflection on the complex and urgent challenges of climate
change and serve as a catalyst to engage the tourism academy broadly in the collective action needed to build the capacity to in-
form and accelerate the transition to climate resilient tourism.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Both authors contributed to all aspects of this review paper.

11
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Amelung, B., Nicholls, S., & Viner, D. (2007). Implications of global climate change for tourism flows and seasonality. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 285–296.
Anastasia, A., Figini, P., García, C., González, M., Lam-González, Y., & León, C. (2021). Climate change, coastal tourism, and impact chains – A literature review. Current
Issues in Tourism, 24(16), 2233–2268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1825351.
Becken, S. (2013). A review of tourism and climate change as an evolving knowledge domain. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 53–62.
Becken, S. (2019). Decarbonising tourism: Mission impossible? Tourism Recreation Research, 44, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1598042.
Becken, S., & Hay, J. E. (2012). Climate change and tourism: From policy to practice. Abingdon: Earthscan.
Becken, S., & Patterson, M. (2006). Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions from tourism as a key step towards achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 323–338.
Becken, S., Whittlesea, E., Loehr, J., & Scott, D. (2020). Tourism and climate change: Evaluating the extent of policy integration. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(10),
1603–1624.
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2009). Advancing understandings: A linguistic approach to tourism epistemology. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 335–352.
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 121–149.
Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B., & Miller, G. (2017). Twenty-five years of sustainable tourism and the journal of sustainable tourism: Looking back and moving for-
ward. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 1–9.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2013). Getting from here to there: Systems change, behavioural change and sustainable tourism (editorial). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21
(1), 1–4.
Callaghan, M., Schleussner, C. F., Nath, S., Lejeune, Q., Knutson, T. R., Reichstein, M., ... Minx, J. C. (2021). Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of
100,000 climate impact studies. Nature Climate Change, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01168-6.
Carter, R. W., Baxter, G. S., & Hockings, M. (2001). Resource management in tourism research: A new direction? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(4), 265–280.
Damm, A., Köberl, J., Stegmaier, P., Jiménez Alonso, E., & Harjanne, A. (2020). The market for climate services in the tourism sector – An analysis of Austrian stake-
holders’ perceptions. Climate Services, 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.02.001.
Climate Emergency Declaration (2021). Climate emergency declarations in 2,033 jurisdictions and local governments cover 1 billion citizens. Availablehttps://
climateemergencydeclaration.org/climate-emergency-declarations-cover-15-million-citizens/.
Dogru, T., Marchio, E. A., Bulut, U., & Suess, C. (2019). Climate change: Vulnerability and resilience of tourism and the entire economy. Tourism Management, 72,
292–305.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 355–376.
Fang, Y., Yin, J., & Wu, B. (2018). Climate change and tourism: A scientometric analysis using CiteSpace. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 108–126.
Freeman-Prince, N. (2021). An evaluation of National Tourism Plans in the Caribbean-SIDS region in the context of climate change. Availablehttp://hdl.handle.net/
10012/17552.
Gómez Martín, M. B. (2005). Weather, climate and tourism a geographical perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 571–591.
Gössling, S. (2011). Carbon management in tourism. London: Routledge.
Gössling, S. (2019). Celebrities, air travel, and social norms. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, Article 102775.
Gössling, S., Fichert, F., & Forsyth, P. (2017). Subsidies in aviation. Sustainability, 9(8), 1295.
Gössling, S., & Higham, J. (2021). The low-carbon imperative: Destination management under urgent climate change. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1167–1179.
Gössling, S., & Lyle, C. (2021). Transition policies for climatically sustainable aviation. Transport Reviews, 1–16.
Gössling, S., & Peeters, P. (2015). Assessing Tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(5), 639–659.
Gössling, S., & Scott, D. (2018). The decarbonisation impasse: Global tourism leaders’ views on climate change mitigation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12),
2071–2086.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2013). Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon economy. WIREs Climate Change, 4(6), 525–538.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J. P., & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research,
39(1), 36–58.
Higham, J., & Font, X. (2020). Decarbonising academia: Confronting our climate hypocrisy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1), 1–9.
Höhne, N., Gidden, M. J., den Elzen, M., Hans, F., Fyson, C., Geiges, A., ... Rogelj, J. (2021). Wave of net zero emission targets opens window to meeting the Paris agree-
ment. Nature Climate Change, 11(10), 820–822.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working Group I to the
sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport available: accessed 5 December 2021.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2021: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working
Group 2 to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change Availablehttps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (Available: Accessed 15
March 2022).
International Energy Agency (2021). Net zero by 2050. Availablehttps://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050.
International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (2021). IFRS foundation announces international sustainability standards board, consolidation with CDSB and
VRF, and publication of prototype disclosure requirements. Availablehttps://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2021/11/ifrs-foundation-announces-issb-
consolidation-with-cdsb-vrf-publication-of-prototypes/.
Jarratt, D., & Davies, N. J. (2020). Planning for climate change impacts: Coastal tourism destination resilience policies. Tourism Planning & Development, 17(4), 423–440.
Kaján, E., & Saarinen, J. (2013). Tourism, climate change and adaptation: A review. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(2), 167–195.
Klein, R., Adams, K., Dzebo, A., Davis, M., & Siebert, C. (2017). Advancing climate adaptation practices and solutions: Emerging research priorities. Availablehttps://
www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/klein-et-al-2017-adaptation-research-priorities.pdf.
Koetse, M. J., & Rietveld, P. (2009). The impact of climate change and weather on transport: An overview of empirical findings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 14(3), 205–221.
Lancet (2021). Lancet countdown: Tracking Progress on health and climate change. Availablehttps://www.thelancet.com/countdown-health-climate/about.
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y. Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y. P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528.
Lise, W., & Tol, R. S. (2002). Impact of climate on tourist demand. Climatic Change, 55(4), 429–449.
Loehr, J. (2020). The Vanuatu tourism adaptation system: A holistic approach to reducing climate risk. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(4), 515–534. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09669582.2019.1683185.
Loehr, J., & Becken, S. (2021). The tourism climate change knowledge system. Annals of Tourism Research, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103073.
López-Bonilla, J., & López-Bonilla, L. (2020). Leading disciplines in tourism and hospitality research: A bibliometric analysis in Spain. Current issues in tourism
(pp. 1–17).
Ma, S.(David), & Kirilenko, A. P. (2020). Climate change and tourism in english-language newspaper publications. Journal of Travel Research, 59(2), 352–366. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0047287519839157.

12
D. Scott and S. Gössling Annals of Tourism Research 95 (2022) 103409

Marks, E., Hickman, C., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, E. R., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., & van Susteren, L. (2021). Young people's voices on climate anxiety,
government betrayal and moral injury: A global phenomenon. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918955.
McKercher, B. (2008). A citation analysis of tourism scholars. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1226–1232.
Michailidou, A., Vlachokostas, C., & Moussiopoulos, Ν. (2016). Interactions between climate change and the tourism sector: Multiple-criteria decision analysis to assess
mitigation and adaptation options in tourism areas. Tourism Management, 55, 1–12.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS
Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097.
Mora, C., Spirandelli, D., Franklin, E. C., Lynham, J., Kantar, M. B., Miles, W., ... Hunter, C. L. (2018). Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified
by greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 8(12), 1062–1071.
New Climate Institute (2022). Corporate climate responsibility monitor 2022. https://newclimate.org/2022/02/07/corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2022.
One Planet (2021). Glasgow declaration. Availablehttps://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sustainable-tourism/glasgow-declaration (accessed 8 October 2021).
Organisation for eEconomic cCo-operation and Development & United Nations Environment Program (2011). Sustainable Tourism. Development and climate change:
Issues and policies. Paris, France: OECD.
Peeters, P., & Dubois, G. (2010). Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 447–457.
Ripple, W., Wolf, C., Newsome, T., Barnard, P., Moomaw, W., & Grandcolas, P. (2019). World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. BioScience, 70, 1, 8–12.
Scott, D. (2021). Sustainable tourism and the grand challenge of climate change. Sustainability, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041966.
Scott, D., Amelung, B., Becken, S., Ceron, J. -P., Dubois, G., Gössling, S., ... Simpson, M. (2008). Climate change and tourism: Responding to global challenges. (Madrid:
United Nations World Tourism Organization; Paris: United Nations Environment Program; Geneva: World Meteorological Organization).
Scott, D., & Becken, S. (2010). Adapting to climate change and climate policy: Progress, problems and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 283–295.
Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2018). Tourism and climate change mitigation: Embracing the Paris agreement – Pathways to Decarbonization. Brussels: European Travel Com-
mission. https://etc-corporate.org/uploads/2019/03/ETC-Climate-Change-Report_FINAL.pdf.
Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2022a). From Djerba to Glasgow: Have declarations on tourism and climate change brought us any closer to meaningful climate action? Journal
of Sustainable Tourism.
Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2022b). Destination net-zero: What does the international energy agency roadmap mean for tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1962890.
Scott, D., Gössling, S., & Hall, C. M. (2012a). International tourism and climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(3), 213–232.
Scott, D., Gössling, S., & Hall, C. M. (2012b). Climate change and tourism: Impacts, adaptation and mitigation. London: Routledge (431pp).
Scott, D., Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Peeters, P. (2016). Can tourism be part of the decarbonized global economy? The costs and risks of alternate carbon reduction policy
pathways. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(1), 52–72.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2016). A review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment and implications for tourism sector climate resilience and decarbonization. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 24(1), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1062021.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2019). Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 77, 49–61.
Scott, D., Jones, B., & McBoyle, G. (2006). Climate, tourism and recreation: A bibliography-1936 to 2005. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Scott, D., & Lemieux, C. (2010). Weather and climate information for tourism. Proceedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 146–183.
Scott, D., & McBoyle, G. (2007). Climate change adaptation in the ski industry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(8), 1411.
Scott, D., Steiger, R., Knowles, N., & Fang, Y. (2020). Regional ski tourism risk to climate change: An inter-comparison of eastern Canada and US northeast markets.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(4), 568–586.
Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(11), 1932–1946.
Steiger, R., & Scott, D. (2020). Ski tourism in a warmer world: Increased adaptation and regional economic impacts in Austria. Tourism Management, 77. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104032.
Steiger, R., Scott, D., Abegg, B., Pons, M., & Aall, C. (2019). A critical review of climate change risk for ski tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(11), 1343–1379.
Sun, Y. Y. (2014). A framework to account for the tourism carbon footprint at island destinations. Tourism Management, 45, 16–27.
Sun, Y. Y., & Higham, J. (2021). Overcoming information asymmetry in tourism carbon management: The application of a new reporting architecture to Aotearoa New
Zealand. Tourism Management, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104231.
Thiery, W., Lange, S., Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C. F., Gudmundsson, L., Seneviratne, S. I., ... Wada, Y. (2021). Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes.
Science, 374(6564), 158–160.
Times Higher Education (2019). Universities must act swiftly and independently on climate change an open letter from academics and campaigners to sector leader.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/universities-must-act-swiftly-and-independently-climate-change.
Tourism Declares (2021). Tourism declares a climate emergency. Availablehttps://www.tourismdeclares.com/.
Climate Action Tracker (2021). Assessment of government targets and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement temperature limit.
Availablehttps://climateactiontracker.org/countries/.
Tribe, J. (2008). Tourism: A critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 245–255.
United Nations (2015). United Nations treaty collection chapter XXVII environment, 7.d Paris agreement, Paris, 12 December 2015 (C.N.92.201), New York.
Availablehttps://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf 5 November 2021.
United Nations (2021). IPCC report: ‘Code Red’ for human driven global heating, warns UN chief. Availablehttps://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2021). Covid-19 and tourism: An update. Availablehttps://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/ditcinf2021d3_en_0.pdf.
United Nations Development Programme (2021). The Peoples' climate vote. Availablehttps://www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote.
United Nations Environment Program (2021). Emissions gap report 2021: The heat is on. Availablehttps://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/37350/
AddEGR21.pdf.
United Nations World Tourism Organization, & United Nations Environment Programme, & World Meteorological Organization (2008). Davos Declaration. Climate
Change and Tourism. Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid. Available. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284412341 (accessed 5 November 2021).
World Travel & Tourism Council (2015). Travel & tourism 2015: Connecting global climate action. London: WTTC Availablehttps://www.hospitalitynet.org/file/
152005907.pdf (accessed 5 November 2021).
World Travel & Tourism Council (2021). A net zero roadmap for travel & tourism. Proposing a new target framework for the Travel & Tourism Sector Availablehttps://
action.wttc.org/climate-environment (accessed 10 November 2021).
Wynes, S., Donner, S. D., Tannason, S., & Nabors, N. (2019). Academic air travel has a limited influence on professional success. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226,
959–967.
Simpson, et al. (2021). A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth, 4(4), 489–501.

Daniel Scott is a university research chair in global change and tourism at the University of Waterloo, Canada and a vice-chancellor visiting fellow at the University of
Surrey, UK.
Stefan Gössling is a professor at the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Sweden and the sustainable tourism research co-ordinator at the Western
Norway Research Institute.

13