Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a Barrier?

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 impact 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 sustainability 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. Additionally, 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.

1. Introduction

The United Nations Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action, released in March 2023, identified global dependence on fossil fuels, unsustainable land use, and excessive consumption contributing to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened our understanding of the relationship between these impacts and human health risks, underscoring the necessity to enhance public awareness regarding the ramifications of climate change. The report by the One Planet Sustainable Tourism Programme [1] highlighted the importance of rebalancing human relationships with nature to restore ecological health and enhance personal, social, and economic well-being. It reveals that tourism is essential, as it depends on healthy ecosystems and facilitates connections between individuals and these environments [1] (p. 6). Nevertheless, revitalising nature and our relationship with it is crucial for recovering the tourism sector from the pandemic’s impacts and for its future prosperity and resilience.

Ref. [2] posited that climate change is an ongoing phenomenon that necessitates understanding the probability of future climatic events and their effects on the tourism industry. The author points out the necessity of examining extended timeframes and additional variables associated with climate change. This makes the “knowledge” more uncertain due to significant climatic alterations, with annual extreme events substantially 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 management, 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:

• What is the connection between the travel purpose and the travel destination?
• Is climate change perceived as an obstacle to selecting travel destinations?
• 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 research 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. 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 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 [4,5,6,7,8,9,19].

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 authors 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 regarding 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 significantly 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 [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] (see

Table 1. Study themes from the literature.

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

). 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 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 [3,9,11,12,13,22,23,24,26,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. 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.

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 rationality 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 explaining 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 climate 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 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 [55,56,57,58,59]. 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 environment, 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?
• 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. 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

). 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.

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 [23,24,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. 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 thematic 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 destinations 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:

“Travels for leisure and professional conferences, prioritising cultural exploration, sustainability, 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 structural features, historical significance, environmental conditions, and accessibility when choosing destinations.”

P10 brings a fascinating blend of professional and personal considerations by highlighting 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 professional 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, historical 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.”

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 prioritise 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 infrastructural 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 multisensory 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 demonstrated a variety of motivations, from career-driven travel to sustainability-conscious explorations [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]. Similarly, geopolitical stability remains critical, particularly among travellers from less stable 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 growing 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. Acknowledges 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 aviation [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, reflecting 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:

“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 recognise transportation’s contribution to air, noise, and visual pollution, but see sustainable aviation initiatives as the least disruptive travel option.” This respondent acknowledges 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 Europe for reliability. Sustainable energy in transportation should be prioritised, but flights remain necessary for long-distance travel due to geographical constraints.” This statement 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 transportation. 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.

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 patterns, reinforcing the necessity of localised policy measures, rather than broad sustainability mandates. P10 provided another perspective on the role of urban design that directly influences travel choices:

“I consider structural and environmental conditions when selecting transportation. I acknowledge 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 reinforcing 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 respondents 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 encourage 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 tolerance. 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 protocols. 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 disruption. Avoids disaster-affected areas completely, believing recovery takes too long to ensure personal safety.”

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 extended 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:

“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 decisions. Our additional findings were categorised into three sub-areas, namely (1) efficiency versus sustainability trade-offs [3,23,40]; (2) regional infrastructure shaping transport behaviours [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 multiple 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 determine whether travellers can fully embrace low-emission alternatives [9,24,44]. Moreover, continued industry efforts to increase transparency in sustainability initiatives may encourage 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 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 considerations 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 analysis, 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 countries, 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. Furthermore, 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 improvements [17,20,40]. Despite the optimism surrounding sustainable travel solutions, scepticism 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 stability [9,29,46]. Lastly, professional travellers often engage in bounded rationality, selecting locations based on career growth, accessibility, and networking opportunities. In contrast, leisure travellers frequently prioritise cultural and sensory appeal over logistical considerations. 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 calculations 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 principles’ 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. Recognising 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 using 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 advancements 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.