Discussions about tourism, especially on social media, are peppered with buzzwords that champion responsible travel – “sustainable,” “ecotourism,” and “regenerative” are just a few. Often used interchangeably, with meanings implied but seldom defined, it’s easy to get lost in the constellation of terminology.
All of these terms are presented as the solution to tourism’s dark side, promising a better path for visitors and hosts alike. But with so many terms swirling around, sorting through the digital chatter can feel chaotic and tends to raise more questions than answers. What do these words actually mean? Where do they overlap? And which one is the right fit?
At Loam, we’ve landed on regenerative as the term that most closely aligns with our vision for the future of travel. Tourism that is responsive to and actively supports the revitalization of host communities and their environments. Tourism that becomes a force for good.
But to better appreciate the range of ideas at play, and to understand why we’ve chosen a regenerative approach, it’s worth taking a step back. Pausing to explore the context and definitions helps us to clarify the distinctions, and frankly untangle, three of the most common concepts: sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and regenerative tourism.
Let’s break things down.
Sustainable Tourism
Researchers highlight the emergence of sustainable tourism in the late 20th century, an approach that seeks to balance economic growth with conservation initiatives. Sustainability, particularly with regard to development and the environment, moved to the forefront of the global agenda following the United Nations’ 1987 Brundtland Report.
Sustainable tourism is codified by the UN World Tourism Organization as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.”
However, critical scholarship recognizes that many initiatives often fail to effectively address underlying systemic issues because the “do no harm” approach emphasizes impact mitigation rather than fundamental transformation of tourism practices.
Ecotourism
Scholars have traced ecotourism’s emergence to the 1980s, slightly preceding sustainable tourism, yet within the same broader context of sustainable development efforts. Early planners sought to funnel tourism revenue towards conservation and development projects. Initially focused on national parks, ecotourism later widened in scope to benefit wildlife, biodiversity, landscapes, and local communities. While in practice often conflated outdoor adventure and nature tourism, it is ecotourism’s focus on conservation that sets it apart from conventional models.
The International Ecotourism Society provides a useful and widely-cited definition of ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education.”
Regenerative Tourism
Regenerative tourism, researchers note, has conceptual roots in regenerative agriculture’s holistic, bottom-up approach to ecological systems change. A relatively recent term, it has gained momentum in the post-COVID era, when the return to travel provided an opportunity to reimagine the future of tourism.
The term has been defined in tourism research as a practice that, “at its simplest, seeks to ensure travel and tourism reinvest in people, places and nature and that it supports the long-term renewal and flourishing of our social-ecological systems.”
Where regenerative tourism steps beyond sustainable tourism is in its implicit call to action, moving away from impact mitigation toward dynamic and responsive engagement with host communities; some scholars describe this as generating “net-positive effects, fostering mutualism between visitors, hosts, and the environment.”
At the heart of these three terms is the shared recognition that tourism, as it currently operates, produces negative consequences for all parties involved – from local residents to the places visited, and for tourists themselves. A myriad of such problems exist, and are often encapsulated by the umbrella-like term “overtourism.”
While they often target the same challenges, each concept advocates a slightly different approach, and it is these subtle distinctions that set them apart.
So which one is correct? My answer, admittedly, is a nuanced non-answer: in their own ways, all of them are. Each, importantly, promises to steer tourism in a more thoughtful, intentional, and impactful direction. That said, I prefer the regenerative tourism paradigm. By centering reciprocity and action, it expands upon the earlier models and realizes tourism’s potential not just to minimize harm, but to enthusiastically create positive, informed change. Travel with purpose, travel that regenerates – that’s why I’m so excited about what we’re building here at Loam.
While the growing popularity of these terms – reflective of the underlying groundswell of energy pushing tourism to do better – is encouraging, their loose and opaque use can unintentionally dilute their value. Unsubstantiated claims risk confusing travelers, eroding trust, and overshadowing the work and organizations genuinely committed to making a positive difference through these frameworks. A label alone does not guarantee impact – transparency, accountability, and meaningful action do.
.svg)