Article

Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a Barrier?

Hale Özgit 1, * and Umar Saleem 2

1 School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Cyprus International University, 99258 Nicosia, Turkey
2 Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Department of Business Administration, Cyprus International
University, 99258 Nicosia, Turkey; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: hozgit@[Link]

Abstract
Climate change poses a significant challenge to global tourism, influencing destination choices
and traveller behaviour. This study examines the awareness of individuals regarding the im-
pact of climate change on tourism destinations and their decision-making processes. Through
a qualitative research design, semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed in
NVivo 15 to explore the extreme natural events, environmental concerns, and sustainabil-
ity considerations that can shape travel preferences. Findings from the literature and 20
interviews indicate that climate change is increasingly perceived as a barrier to destination
selection, with tourists prioritising safety, environmental resilience, and sustainability. Ad-
ditionally, transportation choices reflect a balance between efficiency and ecological impact,
with a growing inclination toward sustainable travel alternatives. This research highlights the
need for policy frameworks that address climate-related risks in the tourism sector, with a
focus on adaptation strategies and responsible travel practices. The study contributes to the
discourse on climate change and tourism by highlighting behavioural trends and proposing
measures for enhanced awareness and sustainable decision-making.

Keywords: climate change; tourism behaviour; travel destinations; sustainability;

environmental awareness

1. Introduction
The United Nations Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action, released in March 2023,
Academic Editors: Ren-Fang Chao,
Yi Fu and Shang-Pao Yeh
identified global dependence on fossil fuels, unsustainable land use, and excessive con-
sumption contributing to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss [1]. The COVID-
Received: 16 May 2025
Revised: 25 June 2025
19 pandemic has heightened our understanding of the relationship between these impacts
Accepted: 26 June 2025 and human health risks, underscoring the necessity to enhance public awareness regarding
Published: 29 June 2025 the ramifications of climate change. The report by the One Planet Sustainable Tourism Pro-
Citation: Özgit, H.; Saleem, U. gramme [1] highlighted the importance of rebalancing human relationships with nature to
Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a restore ecological health and enhance personal, social, and economic well-being. It reveals
Barrier? Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973. that tourism is essential, as it depends on healthy ecosystems and facilitates connections
[Link]
between individuals and these environments [1] (p. 6). Nevertheless, revitalising nature
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. and our relationship with it is crucial for recovering the tourism sector from the pandemic’s
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. impacts and for its future prosperity and resilience.
This article is an open access article
Ref. [2] posited that climate change is an ongoing phenomenon that necessitates
distributed under the terms and
understanding the probability of future climatic events and their effects on the tourism
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
industry. The author points out the necessity of examining extended timeframes and
([Link] additional variables associated with climate change. This makes the “knowledge” more
licenses/by/4.0/). uncertain due to significant climatic alterations, with annual extreme events substantially

Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 [Link]

Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 2 of 20

affecting the tourism sector. Additionally, tourism-related emissions, a major contributor to

global climate change, will rise sharply by 2050 (up 73% from 2019), and the sector will
continue to grow rapidly in the coming decades [3] (p. 6). Moreover, sustaining tourism
development involves significant consequences that lead to global issues, mainly the
industry’s environmental impacts. However, mitigating the impacts arising from tourism
development involves eliminating the environmental impacts, mainly climate change.
Climate change results in various environmental issues, such as the extinction of
species, water scarcity, the conservation of natural habitats and marine life [4], air and noise
pollution [5,6], extreme weather events [7], earthquakes [8], and the risk of safe travel [9]
as a consequence of the change in travellers’ behaviour. In their study, Ref. [10] assessed
the impact of environmental disasters due to climate change and followed the risks of
more extreme events accordingly. The authors suggested that as climate change increases
the risks of more extreme events, it is crucial to make societies more resilient. In this
regard, being a defender against disasters is crucial to sustaining communities due to their
huge social, environmental, and economic impacts. According to [10], countries should
develop early warning systems, improve infrastructure, develop productive agriculture,
and respond quickly to unexpected conditions to develop a defence mechanism. It is
obvious that environmental disasters cause huge economic costs, particularly in lower-
income countries, and extreme events can be severe and challenging to recover from [10].
Therefore, understanding human behaviour through the analysis of various models is
necessary. This extends beyond individual development and the intricate interactions
between individuals and their anthropogenic, natural, and social environments [11].
This study aims to explore the awareness of individuals who travel regarding the
effects of climate change on tourism destinations and their behaviours in this context.
Nowadays, as the concept of sustainability is discussed across various dimensions, the
impact of climate change on a global scale—such as global warming, wastewater manage-
ment, changes in weather conditions and air temperatures, flood disasters, and epidemic
risks—has made the selection of tourism destinations and changes in tourist behaviour
increasingly significant. Although the issues caused by climate change primarily stem from
temperature fluctuations due to global warming, drought, and damage to biodiversity, it
is clear that the extreme weather events occurring in our world also contribute to these
changes. Furthermore, understanding travel behaviour is crucial as it encompasses the
transportation of goods and services and exhibits significant interactions and linkages with
activity participation and personal mobility, as suggested in previous studies [11] (p. 2).
Therefore, the primary goals of this study are to determine whether the challenges
arising from climate change influence tourists’ destination choices and to raise awareness
of the adverse effects of climate change. In line with the study aim, the following research
questions were developed:
1. What is the connection between the travel purpose and the travel destination?
2. Is climate change perceived as an obstacle to selecting travel destinations?
3. How do extreme natural events influence tourist behaviour?
The first section of this paper reviews the current literature on climate change and
tourist behaviour in selecting travel destinations. The following sections detail the re-
search methodology employed in this study, followed by a presentation and discussion of
the findings. Following the Discussion and Conclusion Section, this study also presents
recommendations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review
Studies examining the effects of climate change on the tourism industry and its
impact on personal travel decisions and destination choices have yielded valuable insights.
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 3 of 20

A study conducted by Amelung and Viner [12] posited that climate change may shift
the peak tourist season in the Mediterranean, rendering summers less appealing due to
increasing temperatures and water scarcity. Furthermore, it is emphasised that small island
nations face an elevated risk from the repercussions of climate change, such as rising sea
levels and more-frequent extreme weather events [13]. The observable effects of climate
change also influence personal travel decisions and preferences for destinations. It is also
established in the literature that travellers are willing to invest more in “climate-friendly”
travel alternatives, such as carbon-neutral flights or eco-friendly accommodations [14].
Additionally, a study by Kulendran and Dwyer [15] revealed that travellers are inclined to
select destinations perceived as less vulnerable to climate change, such as coastal regions
with a reduced risk of flooding or mountainous areas with reliable snowfall. These findings
suggest that climate change has a substantial impact on the tourism industry, affecting
aspects such as seasonality, severe weather events, and personal travel choices. As an
increasing number of travellers become cognizant of the environmental costs of their
journeys and the threats posed by climate change, the tourism industry must evolve to
accommodate shifting preferences and perspectives.
The literature asserts that although global tourism development is driven by many
investments in infrastructure and superstructure through government support, there is
an increasing promotion of cultural and natural heritage [16]. Additionally, international
tourists’ intention to travel also increases due to the activities and resources presented
that inspire curiosity about those destinations. Furthermore, the study suggests that as
international tourist mobility increases, specific challenges, such as noise and air pollution,
along with the degradation of specific destinations, become significant environmental
concerns [16]. They also underscore challenges in air transportation in their review of
travel behaviour and climate change [17]. They suggested three different parties that
should be involved in mitigating transport emissions in light of the increasing climate
change. Hence, air transport goods and service providers, companies, governments, and
policymakers—decision-makers regarding taxes, environmental and transport laws, and
other regulatory issues [17]—and international environmental organisations should all
focus on how they will mitigate the problems arising from international mobility from a
global perspective. These problems are also emphasised by climate change activists as
they expressed frustration, indicating that government actions regarding the global climate
crisis are lagging and insufficient to create a significant impact [18] (p. 302). However, it
is mentioned that one of the key limitations is the unawareness of communities due to
inadequate education and comprehension of environmental issues and the consequences
of their actions [16]. Conversely, Howarth et al. [4], in their study, posited that one of
the greatest challenges of the 21st century is individuals’ high dependency on fossil fuel
consumption, which contributes to global climate change, attributing this change to human
activities. Nevertheless, understanding individuals’ behaviour in response to the impacts of
climate change and, consequently, the effects of these changes on sustainable development
requires further research into their awareness [16]. Additionally, it is indicated that the
tourism sector faces challenges in transitioning to sustainable emissions due to travellers’
lack of awareness about climate change and its impact on their holidays, coupled with
significant barriers to changing their behaviour [19]. The global airline industry’s market
size was expected to reach USD 900 billion in 2023, representing a positive increase over
time [20]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the industry was among the most severely
impacted sectors globally, whereas 4.5 billion passengers travelled globally before the
pandemic [21]. According to a report released by the Statista Research Department on
31 July 2024, South Asia is expected to experience the highest average annual growth in
passenger traffic at 7.4 per cent until 2043. Furthermore, it predicts a 3.8 percent annual
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 4 of 20

increase in air travellers globally until 2043 [21]. This prediction indicates that an increase
in global transportation is likely; however, it may also affect climate conditions. Several
studies have highlighted the relationship between international mobility and climate
change and, thus, its impact on travellers’ destination choice decisions [4–9,19].
Moreover, one study confirms that travel decisions may be influenced by various risk
categories, whereby travellers consider specific destinations based on the associated level of
risk inherent in those locations [22]. Böcker et al. [23], on the other hand, state that in the past
decade, as climate change adaptation and mitigation gained attention, many studies have
explored how weather affects travel behaviour, particularly the use of active transport modes
that are healthy and environmentally friendly, despite varying weather conditions. Ref. [24]
investigated travel behaviour through the lens of age perception, indicating that factors such
as travellers’ age group and life period have a greater impact on location selection, vehicle
ownership, and the mode of transportation selected than the travel distance. Hence, the au-
thors excluded climate change from the factors influencing destination choice. Additionally, a
comprehensive narrative synthesis reveals that younger generations exhibit greater awareness
and concern for climate change, significantly influencing their travel decisions [25]. Their
perceptions indicate a tendency to choose destinations demonstrating ecological responsibility
and sustainability in tourism practices. This demographic actively seeks experiences that align
with their values, further driving the tourism industry towards greener initiatives [24,25].
Furthermore, as previously stated, climate change is now widely recognised as a significant
factor influencing travellers’ choice of destinations, their perceptions, and trends in tourism.
The connection between environmental conditions and tourist behaviour becomes apparent as
global temperatures rise and weather patterns alter. The impacts of climate change manifest
in various ways, including heightened concerns regarding the safety of destinations and
the sustainability of travel practices [22]. A study by Arabadzhyan et al. [26] indicates that
environmental changes lead to altered travel patterns, as tourists are drawn to destinations
perceived as safer and more resilient to climate threats. Consequently, this situation calls for
a transformation in the tourism sector’s operational practices, highlighting the necessity for
adaptive strategies that enhance the sustainability of popular travel destinations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly intensified pre-existing concerns regard-
ing travel risks. Recent studies suggest that the perception of health risks, which is now
intertwined with environmental considerations, has increased travellers’ reluctance to visit
unsafe international destinations [27,28]. Nevertheless, the pandemic has necessitated a
re-evaluation of travel intentions, heightening sentiments of animosity towards regions that
have been adversely impacted by health crises [29]. This duality of risk, encompassing both
health and environmental factors, provides profound insights into the evolving dynamics
of the travel decision-making process. In a micro-level analysis, Ref. [30] examined farmers’
perceptions of climate change. These perceptions resonate within a broader context of
tourism, underscoring how the adaptive choices made by local communities can signifi-
cantly influence the attractiveness of destinations. As these communities adopt sustainable
practices to mitigate the effects of climate change, they enhance the appeal of their regions
to tourists seeking responsible travel options.
The existing literature on travel behaviour, sustainability, and crisis-related tourism
decisions offers valuable insights into environmental awareness, transportation choices, and
post-pandemic recovery [31–49] (see Table 1). However, a critical evaluation of existing
studies reveals several unaddressed gaps that demand thorough exploration in the current
research. For instance, previous studies [3,32] have extensively examined the adoption of
sustainable tourism and the digital influence on travel decisions; however, they overlook
the role of multi-sectoral policy frameworks in bridging the gap between sustainability
awareness and actionable behavioural change. Similarly, studies have highlighted climate risk
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 5 of 20

perception and mobility choices [9,23] but fail to account for longitudinal shifts in traveller
adaptation amidst increasing environmental uncertainties. The intersection between post-
pandemic tourism behaviour and extreme weather preparedness remains fragmented [22,42],
discussing travel hesitancy during crises yet neglecting the role of geopolitical instability
and economic volatility in reshaping global mobility trends over time. Additionally, some
studies explore sustainable travel behaviour in developing regions [47], but there is limited
inquiry into the structural barriers preventing low-carbon transitions in tourism-dependent
economies. Hence, previous studies have categorically established the need to explore further
travel choices to clearly understand human behaviour [3,9,11–13,22–24,26,31–49]. Thus, by
addressing these unresolved tensions, particularly the disconnect between awareness and
implementation, the policy gaps in sustainability adoption, and the structural constraints
limiting behavioural shifts, the present study can initiate a holistic investigation into the
evolving paradigms of travel behaviour, sustainability, and crisis resilience.

Table 1. Study themes from the literature.

Theme Author(s)
Theme 1: Relationship Between Travel Purpose
24, 31, 32, 43, 49
and Destination
Theme 2: Relationship Between Transportation
3, 9, 11, 16, 33, 23, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39
and Environment
Theme 3: Relationship Between Extreme
17, 22, 26, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
Natural Events and Travel Preferences

In the current study perspective, Descriptive Decision Theory (DDT) can provide
a useful lens to understand individuals’ processes for making decisions in the context
of climate change and travel preferences. DDT clearly exhibits the actual behaviour of
decision-making scenarios, rather than the expected behaviour under normative models.
Hence, using the lenses of DDT, it is more appropriate to shed light on the complexities of
travel behaviour influenced by climate change. DDT theory provides the bounded rational-
ity to understanding the distinctive and common characteristic of travel decision-making
for professional, as well as leisure, travellers. More specially, the application of DDT lenses
mainly stresses the importance of cognitive processes, biases, and heuristics that guide
individuals’ choices in four ways. Firstly, in the context of travel behaviour for climate
change, tourists may rely on mental shortcuts to simplify the decision-making process. For
instance, tourists may avoid destinations frequently cited in the news or on social media
for extreme weather events due to the perceived higher risk, even if those risks are not
statistically significant [50]. This behaviour aligns with the findings of the current study, in
which the participants identified safety and environmental conditions as key factors in their
decision-making process for destination selection. Secondly, DDT asserts that individuals
evaluate the perceived risks and benefits associated with different options. In this study,
the respondents demonstrated an awareness of environmental concerns and the impact of
climate change on their travel decisions. Additionally, the respondents were involved in ex-
plaining the ways in which they weigh the risks of climate change against potential benefits,
such as cultural immersion or leisure activities. Hence, DDT reflects their willingness to
choose destinations based on safety and environmental resilience, illustrating this decision-
making process [51]. Thirdly, DDT suggests that decisions are heavily influenced by context,
especially recent experiences and cultural factors. Factors such as media coverage of cli-
mate disasters and personal experiences with climate-related events likely shape travellers’
perceptions and choices. Hence, the respondents’ preferences for certain regions can be
influenced not only by safety but also by their past travel experiences and perceptions of
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 6 of 20

local responses to environmental challenges [52]. Fourthly, DDT’s lens clearly explains
individuals’ responses to information in decision-making. This study highlights that an
increased awareness of climate change issues (e.g., through reports or personal experiences)
modifies travellers’ behaviours. The study’s findings support sustainable travel initiatives
or the avoidance of high-risk destinations by showing that information on climate risks and
sustainability can drive behavioural changes in travel decisions [53]. In the past, studies
have linked “extreme natural events” to multiple contexts, such as environmental changes,
climate change, and diseases. COVID-19 has emerged as one of the important outcomes of
climate change. Some scholars, such as Zambrano-Monserrate et al. [54], have established
that the COVID-19 pandemic is an “extreme natural event” influenced by human-induced
environmental alterations, including deforestation and habitat fragmentation. Moreover,
COVID-19 and climate change are often intertwined, with either positive or negative effects
on the environment and disproportionate effects on communities [55–59]. Hence, the DDT
theory can, in the context of climate change, provide a more nuanced understanding of the
psychological mechanisms and contextual factors that influence decision-making, aimed at
promoting sustainable practices and addressing climate-related travel barriers.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection Methods
This study employed a qualitative research design [60] to fully explore the participants’
opinions [61] regarding the structure of travel behaviour, transportation preferences, and
responses to extreme natural events. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews.
The exploratory categories were developed based on the research gaps identified in the
literature review to explore the underlying travel behaviour for sustainable travel, as
indicated in Table 1. Based on the literature cluster findings from the existing literature in
NVivo and DDT theory, three categories were developed for the questionnaire, along with
leading questions, to ascertain travellers’ perspectives. Category 1 included the relationship
between travel purpose and destination and involved the following three questions:
• Question 1: What do you usually travel for, and how often?
• Question 2: What do you pay attention to when determining your preferred region
(Europe, Asia, America, etc.) or destination (Italy, France, New York, etc.) for your
travel purpose? Can you explain your answer with examples?
• Question 3: Based on your past experiences, what features of the country did you
consider when choosing? What activities and events generally determined your
preference for the relevant destination?
Category 2 was relevant to the relationship between transportation and the environ-
ment, and it was based on the following questions:
• Question 1: Can you state the means of transportation you prefer and the reasons for
them when travelling?
• Question 2: What are your views on the relationship between means of transportation
and environmental pollution?
• Question 3: Assuming that you are aware of the negative impacts of transportation
vehicles on the environment, how would you evaluate your travel choice by taking
into account news or announcements regarding the environmentally friendly activities
of airline companies?
Category 3 was based on the relationship between extreme natural events and travel
preferences. The following questions were asked of respondents:
• Question 1: What are your views on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on your
travel experiences?
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 7 of 20

• Question 2: How long did it take for you to start travelling after the pandemic? How
would you describe the reasons?
• Question 3: What is your personal attitude towards travelling to countries that have
experienced earthquakes or floods that resulted in the loss of life? Can you please
respond with details about your positive or negative opinion?

3.2. Sampling and Participants

The study proceeded using a purposive sampling approach by selecting participants
based on predefined criteria relevant to the research objectives, i.e., (a) each participant
must have travelled outside their country at least 5 times or more in the last 3 years; (b) the
participant must be travelling for business, work, or non-emergency reasons. Purposive
sampling, particularly through snowball sampling, effectively captures information-rich
cases that provide in-depth insights into the themes under investigation [62,63]. Twenty-
four participants were selected as the sample, currently living in Cyprus, based on their
engagement with travel, transportation, and environmental considerations, ensuring a
diverse range of experiences. The interviews were conducted between February 2025
and April 2025. However, only 20 respondents completed the entire interview, as all the
interviewees had the freedom to leave at any time (Table 2). All the participants preferred
face-to-face interviews, and the average time for a single interview lasted around 30 min.
This approach enhances the validity of the findings by maximising thematic diversity while
maintaining relevance to the study’s focal questions.

Table 2. Participants’ profiles.

Sr. No. Profession Age Nationality Gender

1 PhD Student 24 Nigeria Male
2 Software Specialist 33 Turkey Male
3 Computer Engineer 45 Cyprus Male
4 Academic 46 Iran Female
5 Lecturer 36 Cyprus Female
6 Student 29 Jordan Female
7 Academic 45 US Female
8 Academician 34 UK Male
9 Network and Systems Specialist 34 Cyprus Male
10 Architect 37 Cyprus Male
11 Banker 38 Cyprus Male
12 Interior Architect 42 Cyprus Male
13 Computer Engineer 51 Cyprus Male
14 Civil Engineer 40 Turkey Male
15 Computer Engineer 51 Cyprus Male
16 Lecturer 46 Iran Female
17 Construction Technician 32 Cyprus Male
18 Landscape Architect 42 Cyprus Male
19 Architect 44 Turkey Male
20 Architect 46 Cyprus Female
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 8 of 20

3.3. Data Analysis

The primary method of analysis in the current study is content analysis, which enables
the systematic examination of patterns in interview data and the literature by ensuring
a structured and replicable approach to interpreting the respondents’ perspectives [64].
The primary data consists of qualitative responses collected through structured inquiries
developed based on the literature [23,24,31–49]. All the responses were transcribed and
translated into English, as some of the respondents used both Turkish and English during
the interview process. The responses were analysed using content analysis through NVivo
15, a widely recognised method in qualitative research for identifying recurring themes,
patterns, and relationships within textual data [65]. The analysis adhered to an iterative
coding framework, ensuring alignment with established research methodologies in the-
matic structuring. An initial open coding phase was conducted to enhance analytical rigour,
followed by axial coding to establish interconnections between themes [66] based on three
identified categories. At the beginning of the data analysis, both researchers conducted
independent manual coding. Before finalising a total of 20 codes, we ensured the consistent
interpretation of the assigned codes. This collaborative process underscored the rigour
of the analysis and enhanced the reliability of its findings. These codes were followed by
an auto-coding process conducted using NVivo, resulting in a total of 2648 nodes. This
finding indicates that a more comprehensive analysis was undertaken by expanding the
initially identified codes. Following careful evaluation, it was determined that these codes
refer to three categories, as detailed in Table 1. The contents emerging from the data were
categorised according to travel behaviour determinants, transportation choices, and risk
avoidance related to environmental disasters, as identified through themes and data from
the literature. The final coding framework was validated through intercoder reliability
measures [67] to ensure the alignment of all of the content within the identified categories at
a nominal level. This was achieved by reassessing emerging themes from the literature and
interviews, as well as findings from NVivo, to ensure consistency in thematic identification.
The content mapping process comprises six stages, from familiarising the data to producing
a final report [68]. Moreover, in the qualitative analysis utilized with NVivo, the accuracy
and reliability of the identified themes were enhanced by quoting the participants. To
ensure the dependability of content data interpretations, the existing literature was used to
cross-check the emerging themes during the study. Dummy codes, such as P1, P2, and so
on, were used to ensure the anonymity of the respondents, as shown in Table 2.

4. Results
The findings of the content analysis indicate three categories, i.e., (a) Category 1: The
relationship between travel purpose and destination. (b) Category 2: The relationship
between transportation and the environment. (c) Category 3: The relationship between
extreme natural events and travel preferences.

4.1. Category 1: Relationship Between Travel Purpose and Destination

Travel behaviour is influenced by many factors, ranging from individual motivations
to external socio-economic conditions. Understanding how travellers determine their desti-
nations provides insight into broader trends related to sustainability, cultural engagement,
safety concerns, and geopolitical influences. This study has explored opinions regarding
their travel purposes and destination selection criteria, offering a nuanced perspective
on the impact of intersecting personal and professional priorities. In this regard, four
respondents have a unique perspective for destination purposes, as stated below:
P8 described it as follows:
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 9 of 20

“Travels for leisure and professional conferences, prioritising cultural exploration, sus-
tainability, and accessibility. Prefers destinations with a rich heritage, eco-friendly
infrastructure, and moderate climates.”
P8 integrates sustainability into travel decisions by making it a key factor alongside
cultural exploration.
P10 stated the following:
“Travels for cultural exchange, architectural observations, symposiums, and professional
meetings. Also, travel for family visits and leisure with children. Prioritises struc-
tural features, historical significance, environmental conditions, and accessibility when
choosing destinations.”
P10 brings a fascinating blend of professional and personal considerations by high-
lighting architectural insights in travel selection.
P17 stated the following:
“Travels primarily for vacations, aiming to escape the instability of their home country.
Prefers direct flights to European destinations for convenience. Prioritises safety, quality
transportation, natural beauty, cuisine, and historical landmarks.”
P17’s statement reveals the role of geopolitical or economic instability and its process
in shaping travel preferences, accentuating security and comfort.
Lastly, P20 stated the following:
“Travels for sightseeing and experiencing beautiful destinations, typically once or twice a
year. Prefers safe and comfortable locations, favouring European destinations. Selects
destinations based on visually appealing landmarks and historical significance.”
P20 highlights a simple yet strong preference for aesthetically significant places, prioritising
visual appeal over other factors. Based on the content analysis, three subcategories emerged.

4.1.1. Professional and Leisure Travel: Motivations for Movement

One primary sub-theme that emerged from responses is the intersection between pro-
fessional obligations and leisure travel. Multiple respondents prefer travel that integrates
professional development with cultural exploration. For instance, P8 stated the following:
“I prioritise cultural exploration, sustainability, and accessibility. I prefer destinations
with a rich heritage, eco-friendly infrastructure, and moderate climates.”
P8’s response highlights a dual concern for academic engagement and environmental
considerations by demonstrating intellectual curiosity and its alignment with sustainable
travel preferences.
Similarly, P10 exhibited a strong professional motivation for travel, noting the following:
“I travel for cultural exchange, architectural observations, symposiums, and professional
meetings. I also travel for family visits and leisure with children. Structural features, histori-
cal significance, environmental conditions, and accessibility are my key considerations.”
The focus on architectural observations and symposium attendance highlights the
importance of acquiring industry-specific knowledge through travel. This reveals how
specialised professionals view travel as an educational endeavour and an opportunity for
professional networking. In contrast, some respondents focused exclusively on leisure
travel, highlighting visual and historical experiences. P20 stated the following:
“I travel for sightseeing and experiencing beautiful destinations, typically once or twice a
year. I prefer safe and comfortable locations, favouring European destinations. I select
places based on visually appealing landmarks and historical significance.”
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 10 of 20

P10 statements have underscored the role of cultural richness and visual aesthetics
in travel motivations, which is why it is essential to understand where historical and
architectural elements shape destination preferences.

4.1.2. Geopolitical Considerations and Destination Selection

For many respondents, destination choices are heavily influenced by geopolitical
concerns. P17 directly linked travel preferences to socio-political stability, explaining
the following:
“I travel primarily for vacations, aiming to escape the instability of my home country. I
prefer direct flights to European destinations for convenience. My priorities are safety,
transportation quality, natural beauty, cuisine, and historical landmarks.”
P17’s response indicates a tendency among travellers from unstable regions to priori-
tise locations perceived as secure and efficient. Multiple respondents echoed this concern
by highlighting safety as a determining factor in selecting travel destinations.
For instance, P20 acknowledged the following:
“I prefer safe and comfortable locations.”
Destination selection as a recurring theme suggests a broader trend in destination
decision-making where travellers weigh security risks, the ease of transport, and infrastruc-
tural stability before committing to a location.

4.1.3. The Role of Cultural and Sensory Experiences

Cultural immersion is an important motivator that influences travel choices. Many
of the participants expressed preferences for destinations rich in historical and artistic
significance. P8 highlighted an environmentally conscious dimension to this preference,
stating the following:
“I prefer destinations with rich heritage and eco-friendly infrastructure.”
P8 suggested a growing awareness of sustainable tourism practices among travellers
seeking authentic cultural experiences. P17 expanded upon the same idea by integrating
sensory heritage into their travel decision-making process. P17 stated the following:
“Natural beauty, cuisine, and historical landmarks are my top priorities.”
Similar to P1 and P8, P17′ s statement illustrates that travellers increasingly seek multi-
sensory experiences through sightseeing, gastronomy, and immersive historical exploration,
rather than purely transactional tourism. Similarly, P10 explicitly integrates architectural
and environmental considerations into their travel planning, remarking the following:
“Structural features, historical significance, and environmental conditions shape my
travel decisions.”
Here, P10 reinforces, through sensory and intellectual engagement, that contemporary
travel choices reflect a desire for aesthetic and cultural enrichment.
The findings from the content analysis revealed three sub-key themes shaping travel
preferences: a, professional and leisure intersections [2,12,28]; b, geopolitical and safety
concerns [6,27,36]; and c, cultural and sensory immersion [7,22,41]. The respondents demon-
strated a variety of motivations, from career-driven travel to sustainability-conscious ex-
plorations [5,18,24]. Furthermore, concerns regarding safety, infrastructural resilience, and
environmental consciousness play a significant role in destination selection [9,23,47]. The
increasing preference for sustainable destinations suggests a shift toward environmentally
responsible tourism among respondents with academic or professional affiliations [3,32,49].
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 11 of 20

Similarly, geopolitical stability remains critical, particularly among travellers from less sta-
ble regions seeking predictability and security [9,29,45]. These insights offer a foundational
understanding of the evolving nature of travel motivations within broader socio-cultural
and environmental contexts, paving the way for future research on responsible tourism
and travel behaviour in an era of climate change [19,24,31,45].

4.2. Category 2: Relationship Between Transportation and Environment

The relationship between transportation preferences and environmental awareness
among travellers is increasingly relevant in discussions on sustainable tourism. With grow-
ing concerns over climate change, many travellers are considering the ecological impact
of their transportation choices while prioritising efficiency and convenience. This study
explores the participants’ responses regarding transportation methods, environmental
concerns, and engagement with sustainable travel initiatives. Four respondents mentioned
the following in this regard:
P8:
“Prefers trains and public transportation for environmental benefits but uses flights when
necessary, prioritising airlines with sustainability initiatives. Supports eco-friendly
transport policies.”
P10:
“Prefers flights for international travel and trains or trams for urban mobility due to
efficiency. Acknowledges transportation’s contribution to air, noise, and visual pollution.
Views sustainable aviation initiatives positively, considering them the least disruptive
travel option.”
P12:
“Uses public transport within Europe for safety and convenience, but prefers renting cars
outside Europe for reliability. Supports sustainable energy usage in transportation. Ac-
knowledges the necessity of flights for long-distance travel due to geographical constraints.”
P16:
“Prefers flights for international travel due to time efficiency. Uses trains and metro within
cities for convenience. Acknowledges high carbon emissions from air travel but sees no
alternative for long-distance trips. Supports emerging sustainable transport initiatives.”
P8 has actively integrated sustainability into their transportation choices, making it a
clear priority when selecting travel methods [3,31,39]. P10’s statement presents a balanced
view, acknowledging environmental concerns while valuing the role of sustainable avia-
tion [5,16,35]. P12 pointed out that the comparison between transportation choices within
Europe versus other regions is interesting, showing how geography impacts environmental
consciousness [11,24,37]. P16, along with other respondents, such as P2, P1, and P7, are
aware of transportation emissions but see them as unavoidable in specific contexts, reflect-
ing real-world constraints in sustainable travel [17,20,40]. For the second category, three
subcategories have emerged, which require further attention in addition to understanding
the role of the environment and transportation [9,23,45].

4.2.1. Transportation Preferences and Efficiency

One of the most consistent themes among the respondents is the need for efficiency
and convenience in transportation, particularly when travelling internationally. Air travel
remains the predominant choice, often due to time constraints and accessibility, despite its
well-documented environmental impact.
P16 stated the following:
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 12 of 20

“I prefer flights for international travel due to time efficiency. Within cities, I use trains
and the metro for convenience. I acknowledge the high carbon emissions from air travel but
see no alternative for long-distance trips.” This perspective underscores the difficulty
of balancing sustainability with practicality, as alternatives, such as rail transport,
may not always be viable across vast distances.
Similarly, P10 highlighted the intersection between efficiency and environmental concerns:
“I prefer flights for international travel and trains or trams for urban mobility. I recog-
nise transportation’s contribution to air, noise, and visual pollution, but see sustainable
aviation initiatives as the least disruptive travel option.” This respondent acknowl-
edges environmental degradation yet remains optimistic about technological
advancements in air travel that could mitigate its negative effects.
For some respondents, regional variations have a significant impact on transportation
choices. Respondent 12 offered a comparative view:
“I use public transport within Europe for convenience, but prefer renting cars outside Eu-
rope for reliability. Sustainable energy in transportation should be prioritised, but flights
remain necessary for long-distance travel due to geographical constraints.” This state-
ment highlights the geographic limitations of eco-friendly transport, illustrating
how the available infrastructure shapes behaviour.

4.2.2. Environmental Awareness and Conscious Travel Decisions

While efficiency remains a dominant concern, environmental awareness appears
increasingly significant in transportation-related decision-making. Some travellers actively
support sustainable alternatives where possible.
P8 adopts a highly conscious approach:
“I prefer trains and public transportation for environmental benefits, but use flights when
necessary, prioritising airlines with sustainability initiatives. I support eco-friendly
transport policies.”
P8’s response suggests that travellers are more inclined to adopt sustainable options
when practical alternatives exist, particularly in regions with well-developed rail systems.
P16 mirrored this sentiment by acknowledging personal efforts to minimise their impact,
despite the inevitability of air travel:
“I support emerging sustainable transport initiatives. Even though I rely on flights, I
would adopt lower-emission options if widely accessible.”
This reflection highlights a growing willingness to engage with sustainability, despite
systemic limitations currently restricting the broader adoption of eco-friendly transporta-
tion. On the other hand, scepticism exists regarding the effectiveness of green travel
initiatives. P20, an architect, expressed doubt:
“I believe airlines are not sufficiently committed to reducing pollution.”
P20’s statement highlights a lack of trust in corporate environmental responsibility
by underscoring the need for greater transparency in sustainability efforts within the
travel industry.

4.2.3. Geographical and Regional Considerations in Sustainable Travel

The feasibility of sustainable transportation solutions depends largely on regional
infrastructure. Travellers who visit frequent locations with advanced rail systems appear
more inclined toward rail travel, while those in regions with limited alternatives depend
on flights.
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 13 of 20

P12 captured this distinction:

“I use public transport within Europe, but outside Europe, I rely on rental cars for reliability.”
P12 highlighted the role of regional transport networks in shaping behavioural pat-
terns, reinforcing the necessity of localised policy measures, rather than broad sustainability
mandates. P10 provided another perspective on the role of urban design that directly influ-
ences travel choices:
“I consider structural and environmental conditions when selecting transportation. I acknowl-
edge pollution but find aviation initiatives promising in minimising long-term disruptions.”
Some of the respondents, such as P3, P5, P9, and P11, suggested similar approaches
by stating that urban planning is vital in facilitating low-impact mobility and reinforc-
ing the importance of sustainable city design [31,33,39]. The findings from the second
category’s content analysis revealed three sub-themes: a, efficiency versus sustainability
trade-offs [3,23,40]; b, regional infrastructure shaping transport behaviours [8,21,37]; and c,
scepticism versus engagement with eco-friendly travel initiatives [11,20,41]. The respon-
dents essentially prioritise convenience while recognising environmental concerns [5,16,35].
Many of the respondents have advocated for greener transport solutions, but all these
solutions have remained bound by existing infrastructural limitations [28,38,45]. While
sustainable travel policies gain traction, regional accessibility and technological innovation
will determine whether travellers can fully embrace low-emission alternatives [9,24,44].
Continued industry efforts to increase transparency in sustainability initiatives may encour-
age greater participation among environmentally conscious travellers [11,25,42]. As global
tourism evolves, bridging the gap between efficiency and sustainability will be central to
the future of responsible travel behaviour [19,24,31,45].

4.3. Category 3: Relationship Between Extreme Natural Events and Travel Preferences
Extreme events, including natural events, such as pandemics, earthquakes, and floods,
significantly influence travel behaviours and decision-making processes. When choosing
destinations, travellers often consider safety, infrastructure resilience, and personal risk tol-
erance. This section of the current study explores travellers’ opinions regarding the impact
of COVID-19, their hesitancy toward disaster-affected areas, and the underlying factors
shaping their choices. Here, four respondents give insight into their unique perspectives
and behavioural shifts:
P8:
“Resumed travel a year post-pandemic, considering vaccination rates and safety proto-
cols. Evaluate disaster-affected destinations cautiously, balancing recovery support with
environmental concerns.”
P8 adopts a thoughtful approach to post-pandemic travel and disaster-stricken areas,
weighing ethical and safety considerations.
P10:
“Resumed travel after 1–1.5 years due to health concerns and the psychological impact
of the pandemic. Avoids visiting disaster-affected areas with inadequate precautions but
acknowledges the role of responsible urban planning in mitigating risks.”
P17:
“COVID-19 influenced travel choices, directing preferences toward destinations with
strong healthcare systems. Delayed travel for three to four years due to economic disrup-
tion. Avoids disaster-affected areas completely, believing recovery takes too long to ensure
personal safety.”
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 14 of 20

P17 highlights health infrastructure and economic factors affecting travel choices while
maintaining a strict avoidance policy in disaster-stricken regions.
P20:
“COVID-19 had a significant impact on travel behaviour, leading to delays in resuming
trips until people feel secure. Avoids travelling to regions affected by earthquakes or floods
due to fear of potential risks.”
P17, like many other respondents (P2, P4 and P9), indicates a clear demonstration
of fear-driven travel decisions, prioritising safety over personal interest in destinations.
Through a detailed content analysis, three sub-themes have emerged under this category,
which are detailed below.

4.3.1. COVID-19 and Its Influence on Travel Decisions

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global travel patterns, leading to heightened
concerns regarding hygiene, public health infrastructure, and personal safety. Many of
the respondents exhibited caution in resuming travel, with some delaying trips for ex-
tended periods.
P8 described his approach:
“I resumed travel a year post-pandemic, considering vaccination rates and safety protocols.”
P8’s response reflects a data-driven decision-making process, indicating how travellers
reassessed risks based on evolving health measures. Psychological and emotional factors
influenced the hesitancy of the other respondents toward post-pandemic travel.
P10 highlighted these concerns:
“I resumed travel after 1–1.5 years due to health concerns and the psychological impact of
the pandemic.”
The dilemma highlights the mental burden of global crises and their far-reaching
impacts, extending beyond immediate physical risks to influence personal comfort levels
when re-engaging with travel. Conversely, some of the travellers maintained minimal
concern regarding pandemic-related disruptions. In this regard, P11, however, expressed a
contrasting viewpoint:
“I continued travelling during COVID-19, although less frequently. My travel choices
were not affected post-pandemic.”
This notion suggests that individual adaptation varied, with some of the travellers
prioritising mobility, regardless of external risks.

4.3.2. Avoidance of Disaster-Prone Destinations

Extreme weather events and natural disasters influence travellers’ perceptions of
destinations’ stability [22,44]. Many of the respondents (P3, P5, P1, and many more, as
indicated in Table 2) actively avoid regions with a history of earthquakes or floods, fearing
personal harm. Extreme weather events, including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and
wildfires, played a crucial role in shaping travel preferences, with many of the respondents
opting to avoid high-risk destinations entirely due to safety concerns. Most of the travellers
have prioritised personal security and infrastructural resilience, selecting destinations
based on perceived stability and economic recovery rates.
In this regard, P20 expressed strong avoidance:
“I avoid travelling to regions affected by earthquakes or floods due to fear of potential risks.”
Similarly, P17 cited long-term recovery issues:
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 15 of 20

“I avoid disaster-affected areas completely, believing recovery takes too long to ensure
personal safety.”
Both of these responses highlight the uncertainty surrounding post-disaster conditions,
reinforcing scepticism toward infrastructural rehabilitation. Interestingly, some of the
respondents adopted a more nuanced approach, evaluating destinations based on the
government’s response and urban planning efficiency. P10, similarly to the points of view
of other respondents (P9, P13, P16), suggested a conditional acceptance of risk, where
well-managed recovery efforts foster confidence in revisiting affected regions. Meanwhile,
others maintained neutral perspectives, perceiving disasters as inevitable, rather than as
exclusionary factors in travel. While risk avoidance remains dominant among leisure
and professional travellers, a minority demonstrate risk tolerance behaviours, navigating
decisions with situational awareness, rather than outright avoidance.

4.3.3. Ethical Considerations in Post-Disaster Tourism

There is a growing discussion surrounding post-disaster travel behaviour that revolves
around the ethical implications of visiting affected areas. Some travellers adopt responsible
tourism perspectives by stressing that their presence supports economic recovery, local
businesses, and cultural preservation efforts.
P8 articulated this viewpoint:
“I evaluate disaster-affected destinations cautiously, balancing recovery support with
environmental concerns.”
This suggests that for some individuals, disaster-zone tourism can be approached as a
means of solidarity, contributing to local economic restoration. However, scepticism arises
regarding the ethicality of travelling to crisis-impacted regions for leisure, with concerns
about resource allocation, local displacement, and trauma sensitivity.
In this regard, P17 expressed caution:
“I believe recovery takes too long to ensure personal safety, so I prefer not to travel to
disaster-stricken areas.”
Based on the findings of the content analysis, the researchers were able to identify
COVID-19 as a significant natural event that had the potential to influence travel deci-
sions. Our additional findings were categorised into three sub-areas, namely (1) efficiency
versus sustainability trade-offs [3,23,40]; (2) regional infrastructure shaping transport be-
haviours [8,21,37]; and (3) scepticism versus engagement with eco-friendly travel initiatives
for post-disaster tourism [11,20,41]. The findings elucidate that the respondents essentially
prioritise convenience while recognising environmental concerns [5,16,35]. Although mul-
tiple respondents (Table 2) have advocated for greener transport solutions, these solutions
have remained bound by existing infrastructural limitations [28,38,45]. As sustainable
travel policies gain traction, regional accessibility and technological innovation will deter-
mine whether travellers can fully embrace low-emission alternatives [9,24,44]. Moreover,
continued industry efforts to increase transparency in sustainability initiatives may encour-
age greater participation among environmentally conscious travellers [11,25,42]. Hence,
bridging the gap between efficiency and sustainability will be central to the future of
responsible travel behaviour [19,24,31,45] as global tourism continues to evolve.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The primary objective of this study was to determine whether the challenges stemming
from climate change influence tourists’ destination choices and to raise awareness about
the detrimental effects of climate change. It has been concluded that the adverse impacts
of extreme natural events and the environmental factors caused by climate change affect
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 16 of 20

decision-making for all types of travellers in relation to sustainable tourism development

in three ways: (a) The connection between the travel purpose and the destination, which
is influenced by professional, leisure, geopolitical, and cultural-sensory factors, which
motivate movement. (b) The nexus between transportation and environment, which is
determined by transportation preferences, environmental awareness, and regional consid-
erations for sustainable travel. (c) The relationship between extreme natural events and
tourists’ travel preferences/behaviour, including the influence of COVID-19, the avoidance
of disaster-prone destinations, and ethical considerations in post-disaster tourism. In this
context, it was found that the effects of climate-change-induced destruction on tourism
destinations pose significant risks to sustainable development. Based on the content anal-
ysis, it was found that the primary focus of climate change is relevant to environmental
concerns related to transportation, extreme events, and travel behaviours. Additionally,
some minor factors influencing climate-change-related destination preferences are the food
crisis, global energy crisis, solid waste management, problems that may be experienced
in the local energy crisis, risks related to access to clean water resources, and increasing
environmental problems due to risks related to air pollution—highlighting that the change
in climate conditions is a global problem. Since all the risks in question are valid in all coun-
tries, particularly island countries, it has become necessary for policymakers to support
sustainable development by considering environmental risks and updating policies in line
with current conditions. These results were aligned with the existing literature [4,26,36].
In light of the findings, it can be established that urbanisation and irregular construction
could be identified as important sources of environmental problems, and that problems
arising from the destruction of nature for tourism development should be prevented. Fur-
thermore, the current study establishes that travellers prioritise short-term convenience
over long-term environmental consequences, thereby reinforcing behavioural inertia in
transportation choices.
Moreover, the increased awareness of transportation-related pollution influences
decision-making as many travellers actively seek sustainable alternatives [1,11,39]. In this
regard, public transportation is viewed as an environmentally favourable option, while
green aviation initiatives and electric transport policies remain focal points for future im-
provements [17,20,40]. Despite the optimism surrounding sustainable travel solutions, scep-
ticism exists regarding the effectiveness of airline and corporate sustainability efforts [11,42].
Many travellers express concerns about the industry’s insufficient commitment to reducing
emissions by emphasising the need for greater transparency and accountability in green
initiatives [11,25,41]. Availability heuristics also influence travel preferences, as individuals
in regions with strong public transportation infrastructure are more likely to opt for eco-
friendly alternatives. At the same time, those in areas with limited access tend to default
to rental cars or taxis. Despite widespread awareness of its environmental impact, air
travel remains unavoidable for long-distance trips due to time constraints and the limited
availability of alternative modes of transportation [24,45]. Rail and metro systems, on the
other hand, are frequently used for urban travel, offering a balance between sustainability
and convenience [10,23,28]. Additionally, geographical limitations can further influence
transport choices by highlighting the role of urban and regional mobility infrastructure
in impacting the adoption rates of sustainable transport [8,21]. While environmentally
friendly practices are theoretically supported, their real-world viability remains dependent
on technological advancements and policy implementations [20,28,44]. Moreover, many
individuals actively avoid earthquake-prone, flood-stricken, or disaster-affected regions,
citing concerns about long-term recovery, infrastructural resilience, and economic stabil-
ity [9,29,46]. Lastly, professional travellers often engage in bounded rationality, selecting
locations based on career growth, accessibility, and networking opportunities. In contrast,
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 17 of 20

leisure travellers frequently prioritise cultural and sensory appeal over logistical consid-
erations. It can be concluded that the motivations behind travel range from professional
obligations to leisure exploration, with travellers prioritising career development, cultural
immersion, and personal relaxation [2,16,24,31].

5.1. Theoretical Understanding

This study contributes to the travel behaviour literature by integrating DDT to explain
the cognitive processes underlying travel choices. This perspective is derived from DDT
lenses, which reveal the interplay between psychological and external factors in travel
decision-making. The findings suggest that travellers do not act purely on rational cal-
culations but are influenced by heuristics, biases (such as optimism and the status quo),
and contextual constraints [51]. Thus, it can be concluded that decisions involve a balance
between systematic evaluations and intuitive judgments, illustrating the core DDT princi-
ples’ application to destination selection, transportation preferences, and crisis-adaptive
behaviours. The theoretical contribution of this study underscores the role of bounded
rationality, DDT lenses, and heuristic-driven biases in travel decision-making. Recognis-
ing these factors enables more profound insights into behavioural trends, particularly in
sustainable travel, transportation accessibility, and responses to global crises, as indicated
below in the three categories of RQ1 to RQ3, respectively.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

Although RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 were sufficiently addressed based on each category us-
ing DDT lenses, future research can investigate advancements in sustainable transportation
alternative options, such as air taxi travel, post-pandemic tourism recovery, and climate
adaptation strategies, which will continue to shape global travel patterns. These advance-
ments can be categorised using DDT lenses into three categories with sub-themes. As
travellers become increasingly aware of environmental impacts and crisis preparedness, a
multi-sectoral collaboration between policymakers, industry leaders, and urban developers
may ensure responsible and resilient travel [19,24,31,45]. The second limitation of the
study pertains to the time frame. Future research may leverage longitudinal impacts by
comparing and contrasting the decisions made by travellers situated in Europe with those
in developing nations, in order to identify potential cultural decision differences.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Ö.; methodology, H.Ö. and U.S.; software, U.S.; vali-
dation, H.Ö. and U.S.; formal analysis, H.Ö. and U.S.; investigation, H.Ö.; resources, H.Ö. and U.S.;
data curation, H.Ö.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Ö. and U.S.; writing—review and editing,
H.Ö. and U.S.; visualization, U.S.; supervision, H.Ö.; project administration, H.Ö. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by Cyprus International University Ethics Committee (decision number
EKK24-25/06/07 and 05.03.2025). Ethical review and approval were waived for this study based on
the consent of the project supervisor, which is acknowledged by the ethical committee of the Cyprus
International University.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement: The study’s research data are available upon request from the corre-
sponding author.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 18 of 20

References
1. One Planet Sustainable Tourism Programme—Glasgow Declaration: A Commitment to a Decade of Climate Action. 2021.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on
14 February 2025).
2. Weaver, D. Can sustainable tourism survive climate change? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 5–15. [CrossRef]
3. Peeters, P.; Papp, B. Envisioning Tourism in 2030 and Beyond. The Changing Shape of Tourism in a Decarbonising World. 2023.
Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 17 February 2025).
4. Howarth, C.; Waterson, B.; McDonald, M. Public understanding of climate change and the gaps between knowledge, attitudes
and travel behavior. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 11–15
January 2009.
5. Brooker, P. Civil aircraft design priorities: Air quality? climate change? noise? Aeronaut. J. 2006, 110, 517–532. [CrossRef]
6. Jacob, D.J.; Winner, D.A. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 51–63. [CrossRef]
7. Konisky, D.M.; Hughes, L.; Kaylor, C.H. Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Clim. Change 2016, 134, 533–547.
[CrossRef]
8. Sadhukhan, B.; Chakraborty, S.; Mukherjee, S. Investigating the relationship between earthquake occurrences and climate change
using RNN-based deep learning approach. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022, 15, 31. [CrossRef]
9. Fletcher, J.; Higham, J.; Longnecker, N. Climate change risk perception in the USA and alignment with sustainable travel
behaviours. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0244545. [CrossRef]
10. Ritchie, H.; Rosado, P.; Roser, M. Natural Disasters. Published online at [Link]. 2022. Available online: https:
//[Link]/natural-disasters (accessed on 14 February 2025).
11. Montello, D.R. (Ed.) Handbook of Behavioral and Cognitive Geography; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018.
12. Amelung, B.; Viner, D. Mediterranean tourism: Exploring the future with the tourism climatic index. J. Sustain. Tour. 2006, 14,
349–366. [CrossRef]
13. Becken, S.; Hay, J.E. Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2007; Volume 1.
14. Gössling, S.; Peeters, P. Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 639–659. [CrossRef]
15. Kulendran, N.; Dwyer, L. Measuring the return from Australian tourism marketing expenditure. J. Travel Res. 2009, 47, 275–284.
[CrossRef]
16. Kement, Ü.; Göral, M.; Bayram, G.E.; Valeri, M.; Mchavu, S.U. The Effect of Tourist Experience on Environmentally Responsible
Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Environmental Sensitivity. Rev. Tur. Desenvolv. (RTD)/J. Tour. Dev. 2024, 46, 32760. [CrossRef]
17. Gössling, S.; Dolnicar, S. A review of air travel behavior and climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2023, 14, e802.
[CrossRef]
18. Swarbrooke, J.; Horner, S. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2007.
19. Hares, A.; Dickinson, J.; Wilkes, K. Climate change and the air travel decisions of UK tourists. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 466–473.
[CrossRef]
20. Gurcoskun, F.; Ayazlar, G. A Roadmap for the Postpandemic Aviation Industry. In International Conference on Modern Trends in
Business Hospitality and Tourism; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 67–80. [CrossRef]
21. Statista Research Department. Air Traffic—Passenger Growth Rates Forecast 2024–2043. Available online: [Link]
com/statistics/269919/worldwide-growth-rates-for-passenger-traffic/ (accessed on 1 December 2024).
22. Karl, M.; Muskat, B.; Ritchie, B.W. Which travel risks are more salient for destination choice? An examination of the tourist’s
decision-making process. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100487. [CrossRef]
23. Böcker, L.; Dijst, M.; Faber, J. Weather, transport mode choices and emotional travel experiences. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
2016, 94, 360–373. [CrossRef]
24. Shin, J.; Tilahun, N. The role of residential choice on the travel behavior of young adults. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022,
158, 62–74. [CrossRef]
25. Lee, K.; Gjersoe, N.; O’neill, S.; Barnett, J. Youth perceptions of climate change: A narrative synthesis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change 2020, 11, e641. [CrossRef]
26. Arabadzhyan, A.; Figini, P.; García, C.; González, M.M.; Lam-González, Y.E.; León, C.J. Climate change, coastal tourism, and
impact chains–a literature review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2233–2268. [CrossRef]
27. Chua, B.-L.; Al-Ansi, A.; Lee, M.J.; Han, H. Impact of health risk perception on avoidance of international travel in the wake of a
pandemic. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 985–1002. [CrossRef]
28. Sánchez-Cañizares, S.M.; Cabeza-Ramírez, L.J.; Muñoz-Fernández, G.; Fuentes-García, F.J. Impact of the perceived risk from
Covid-19 on intention to travel. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 970–984. [CrossRef]
29. Wechtler, H.; Lindblom, A.; Lai, P.-H. Country image, animosity, and xenophobia: Australian travel intentions in the post-
pandemic era. J. Vacat. Mark. 2025, 13567667251333473. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 19 of 20

30. Singh, S. Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation decisions: A micro-level evidence from Bundelkhand Region,
India. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 116, 106475. [CrossRef]
31. Abd Hamid, M.; Isa, S.M. The theory of planned behaviour on sustainable tourism. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2015, 6, 84–88.
32. Jalilvand, M.R.; Samiei, N. The impact of electronic word of mouth on a tourism destination choice: Testing the theory of planned
behavior (TPB). Internet Res. 2012, 22, 591–612. [CrossRef]
33. Brand, C.; Götschi, T.; Dons, E.; Gerike, R.; Anaya-Boig, E.; Avila-Palencia, I.; De Nazelle, A.; Gascon, M.; Gaupp-Berghausen, M.;
Iacorossi, F.; et al. The climate change mitigation impacts of active travel: Evidence from a longitudinal panel study in seven
European cities. Glob. Environ. Change 2021, 67, 102224. [CrossRef]
34. Line, T.; Chatterjee, K.; Lyons, G. The travel behaviour intentions of young people in the context of climate change. J. Transp.
Geogr. 2010, 18, 238–246. [CrossRef]
35. Dällenbach, N. Low-carbon travel mode choices: The role of time perceptions and familiarity. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.
2020, 86, 102378. [CrossRef]
36. Zafri, N.M.; Khan, A.; Jamal, S.; Alam, B.M. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. Transp. Res.
Interdiscip. Perspect. 2022, 13, 100548. [CrossRef]
37. Taylor, H.A.; Gardony, A.L.; Brunyé, T.T. Environmental knowledge: Cognitive flexibility in structures and processes. In Handbook
of Behavioral and Cognitive Geography; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 97–115. [CrossRef]
38. de Sousa Jabbour, L.; Beatriz, A.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Ribeiro, D.A. The interplay between stakeholders, resources
and capabilities in climate change strategy: Converting barriers into cooperation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1362–1386.
[CrossRef]
39. Dover District Council. Dover District Council Climate Change Strategy (January 2021). Dover District Council, 2021. Available
online: [Link] (accessed
on 28 April 2025).
40. Su, Y.-P.; Hall, C.M.; Ozanne, L. Hospitality industry responses to climate change: A benchmark study of Taiwanese tourist hotels.
Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 92–107. [CrossRef]
41. Becken, S.; Whittlesea, E.; Loehr, J.; Scott, D. Tourism and climate change: Evaluating the extent of policy integration. J. Sustain.
Tour. 2020, 28, 1603–1624. [CrossRef]
42. Prideaux, B.; Thompson, M.; Pabel, A. Lessons from COVID-19 can prepare global tourism for the economic transformation
needed to combat climate change. Tour. Geogr. 2020, 22, 667–678. [CrossRef]
43. Dover District Council. Parks and Amenity Open Space Strategy (October 2013). Dover District Council, 2013. Available
online: [Link]
pdf (accessed on 28 April 2025).
44. Abbass, K.; Qasim, M.Z.; Song, H.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Younis, I. A review of the global climate change impacts,
adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 42539–42559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Wolf, F.; Filho, W.L.; Singh, P.; Scherle, N.; Reiser, D.; Telesford, J.; Miljković, I.B.; Havea, P.H.; Li, C.; Surroop, D.; et al. Influences
of climate change on tourism development in small pacific island states. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4223. [CrossRef]
46. Bone, G. The Copenhagen Global Summit on Climate Change: A View from the Ground. Globalizations 2010, 7, 313–317. [CrossRef]
47. Dillimono, H.D.; Dickinson, J.E. Travel, tourism, climate change, and behavioral change: Travelers’ perspectives from a developing
country, Nigeria. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 437–454. [CrossRef]
48. Uyarra, M.C.; Côté, I.M.; Gill, J.A.; Tinch, R.R.T.; Viner, D.; Watkinson, A.R. Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental
features: Implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environ. Conserv. 2005, 32, 11–19. [CrossRef]
49. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
50. Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185, 1124–1131. [CrossRef]
51. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial
Decision Making: Part I; World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2013; pp. 99–127.
52. Slovic, P.; Finucane, M.L.; Peters, E.; MacGregor, D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason,
risk and rationality. In The Feeling of Risk; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 21–36.
53. Woods, C.T.; Aaron, S. Unpacking the role of experiential knowledge in environmental decision-making. Environ. Manag. 2020,
65, 112–130.
54. Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A.; Ruano, M.A.; Sanchez-Alcalde, L. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Sci. Total
Environ. 2020, 728, 138813. [CrossRef]
55. McMichael, A.J. Extreme Weather Events and Infectious Disease Outbreaks. Virulence 2015, 6, 543–547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Morens, D.M.; Folkers, G.K.; Fauci, A.S. The Challenge of Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases. Nature 2004, 430,
242–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness: WHO Six-Year Strategy for the Health Sector
and Community Capacity Development; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
Sustainability 2025, 17, 5973 20 of 20

58. Morens, D.M.; Breman, J.G.; Calisher, C.H.; Doherty, P.C.; Hahn, B.H.; Keusch, G.T.; Kramer, L.D.; LeDuc, J.W.; Monath, T.P.;
Taubenberger, J.K. The origin of COVID-19 and why it matters. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Ernst, K.C.; Crimmins, A.R.; Anenberg, S.; Hayden, M.H.; Hoppe, B.O.; Mickley, L.J.; Peck, D.E.; Tanana, H.J.; West, J.J. Focus on
Covid-19 and Climate Change. In Fifth National Climate Assessment; Crimmins, A.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.E.,
Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [CrossRef]
60. Poth, C.N.; Shannon-Baker, P. State of the methods: Leveraging design possibilities of qualitatively oriented mixed methods
research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2022, 21, 16094069221115302. [CrossRef]
61. Ozgit, H.; Caglar, M. The Effectiveness of the Tourism and Hospitality Management Programmes in the Professional Careers of
Their Graduates in North Cyprus. Anthropologist 2015, 22, 397–404. [CrossRef]
62. Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data
collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42,
533–544. [CrossRef]
63. Noy, C. Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2008, 11,
327–344. [CrossRef]
64. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
65. Neuendorf, K.A. The Content Analysis Guidebook; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2017.
66. Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2021; pp. 1–440.
67. O’Connor, C.; Joffe, H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2020,
19, 1609406919899220. [CrossRef]
68. Tracy, S.J. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2024.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.