Regenerative Tourism: Change in Thinking (part 1)

Turning degeneration into regeneration 

For the last few decades, sustainability has been the guiding principle for tourism development. It has helped destinations reduce environmental impacts, improve resource efficiency, and increase awareness of social responsibility. Yet, despite these and other sustainable development efforts, many of the social-ecological challenges facing people and nature continue to accelerate (Caesar et al. 2026). The COVID-19 pandemic, with its transformative impacts on tourism, prompted a growing number of researchers and practitioners to ask a different question: How can tourism actively contribute to the health and vitality of the places it depends on? This question lies at the heart of regenerative tourism. 

Regeneration is fundamentally a phenomenon that occurs in living systems. Throughout nature, from individual cells to entire ecosystems, life continuously renews, adapts, and evolves to reach its potential. In the broader modern social-ecological systems, however, the balance between degeneration and regeneration is heavily tilted towards degeneration. As evidenced by the alarming transgression of several planetary boundaries that define humanity's safe operating space, many natural systems are under increasing pressure (Caesar et al., 2026). Consequently, the concept of regeneration has gained momentum within sustainability discussions (e.g., Reed 2007, Fischer et al. 2024, 2026, Veijalainen et al. 2026). 

For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services highlights regenerative strategies, including regenerative tourism, as pathways that can support biodiversity conservation, sustainable production, and cultural values (IPBES 2024). Importantly, regeneration encourages us to see humans not as separate from nature, but as participants within it. This shift may sound subtle, but it represents a significant change in perspective. 

What Is Regeneration in the Context of Tourism? 

Many conventional sustainability approaches are characterised by targets, indicators, and improvements, reflecting problem-solving, control, and optimisation. These approaches remain important, but regeneration suggests that deeper transformation may require changes in how we perceive ourselves and our relationship with the planet. The living systems’ perspective points to the role of values, mindsets, and worldviews in driving transformations (Benne & Mang 2015). It emphasises potential, interconnectedness, co-development, and well-being. This does not mean abandoning science or practical planning. Rather, it involves complementing conventional approaches with greater attention to the dynamism and context-specificity of living systems. 

In regenerative tourism, this means shifting from viewing destinations as resources to be managed to asking how people can contribute to the flourishing of the places they live in and visit. From this perspective, tourism becomes more than an economic activity; it emerges as a potential catalyst also for cultural, social, and ecological – even inspirational – value creation. However, shifting to regenerative thinking still happens gradually at best. Existing habits, institutional structures, and economic systems often favour familiar ways of thinking and operating. For this reason, many regenerative practitioners describe the journey as one of continuous learning: listening more deeply to places and building relationships across sectors, while allowing new possibilities to emerge through collaboration (e.g., Bellato et al. 2024). 

One challenge facing regenerative tourism is that regeneration looks different in every place. Its design and operationalisation cannot simply be copied to another location that is experiencing degeneration arising from different conditions. Therefore, regenerative tourism cannot be reduced to a universal checklist or easily translated into traditional certification systems. As a result, alternative approaches to evaluation are being explored, although no consensus has yet emerged (Buckton et al. 2025).  

Early signs of regenerative change in places of visitation may manifest as new collaborations among local actors, stronger community participation, shifts in narratives and mindsets, tourism experiences that reflect the unique character of a place, and enhanced capacity for local self-organisation. Whether these shifts translate into regenerative dynamics capable of overcoming simultaneously occurring degenerative dynamics remains contested (see, Fischer et al. 2024). 

Regenerative tourism is a relevant approach for building the vitality of the Baltic Sea region, which faces many interconnected challenges and contains strong traditions for creating fertile ground for exploring regenerative approaches. Tourism in the region could become a contributor to the long-term vitality of places and communities across the basin. This possibility is what motivates the RegenT project. 

In the next blog, we will introduce the RegenT project and explore how Novia and its partners are working to translate regenerative tourism theory into practical action across the Baltic Sea region. 

References 

Benne, B., & Mang, P. (2015) Working regeneratively across scales – Insights from nature applied to the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.037 

Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Lee, E., Cheer, J. M., & Peters, A. (2024) Transformative epistemologies for regenerative tourism: towards a decolonial paradigm in science and practice? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 32: 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2208310  

Buckton, S.J., I. Fazey, P. Ball, Z. Ofir, J. Colvin, M. Darby, A.P. Hejnowicz, G. Leicester, Newman, R., Page, G.G., Parsons, K., & van Mierlo, B. (2025) Twelve principles for transformation-focused evaluation. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 4: e0000164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000164  

Caesar, L., Sakschewski, B., Andersen, L., Bai, Y., Bala, G., … & Rockström, J. (2026) Planetary Health Check 2026: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 120 p. https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2026.25  

Fischer, J., Farny, S., Abson, D.J., Zuin Zeidler, V., von Salisch, M., Schaltegger, S., Martín-López, B., Temperton, V.M., & Kümmerer, K. (2024) Mainstreaming regenerative dynamics for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 7: 964–972. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01368-w  

Fischer, J., Farny, S., Pacheco-Romero, M., & Folke, C. (2026) Resilience and regeneration for a world in crisis. Ambio 55: 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02287-6  

IPBES (2024) Thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Ed. K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, & A. Agrawal. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382215  

Reed, B. (2007) Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Building Research and Information 35: 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701475753  

Veijalainen, A., Salo, M., Rouhiainen, H., Räikkönen, J., & Sääksjärvi, I.E. (2026) Bridging biodiversity and regenerative development: Conceptual groundwork for life-affirming relationships. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02398-8  

Texten har granskats och godkänts av Novias redaktionsråd 23.10.2026.