Choose a less crowded destination, leave when the tourist season is over, use public transport once you arrive. These are decisions that more and more Italians associate with an environmentally friendly holiday. But there remains a distance between what you would like to do and what you actually do: changing habits is easier when it does not involve greater costs or major sacrifices. This is the picture that emerges from the Human Company's "Tourism & Sustainability" Observatory, created with Ipsos Doxa and Legambiente.
According to the data communicated for this edition, 72% of travelers are aware that their choices can contribute to the sustainability of destinations. Almost eight out of ten say they are willing to change their travel habits to reduce their environmental impact. For around three in ten, however, decisions related to holidays are also a source of eco-anxiety.
Lesser known destinations and off-season departures
Among the changes that interviewees would consider, the most shared is the choice of lesser-known destinations (75%). Next comes the possibility of traveling in the low season (74%): two ways of distributing visitors beyond the busiest locations and periods. 62% say they are willing to use public transport or other less impactful modes of travel; 57% would also accept longer travel times.
Attention also concerns daily gestures during the stay: respecting flora and fauna, managing waste correctly, not wasting water and energy, choosing local products and services. Visible aspects gain weight in the evaluation of accommodation facilities, such as the use of renewable energy, separate waste collection and the valorisation of local products. Support for the local economy and the use of local suppliers are cited by 26% of those interviewed, three percentage points more than in 2025.
Nature attracts, but it is not a label of sustainability
71% of the Italians interviewed declare that they practice open-air tourism; for around three out of ten travelers it is a frequent habit. The share rises to 37% among families with young children and to 36% both among members of Gen Z and among residents in the North East. Contact with the territory also seems to count for the relationships it can create. For 79% of those interviewed, outdoor tourism favors experiences capable of bringing travelers closer to local communities. The belief is even more widespread among Millennials (82%) and among those who regularly travel to Europe (84%).
It is therefore not surprising that farmhouses (90%), alpine and mountain refuges (86%) and campsites and villages (83%) are the accommodations most often perceived as sustainable. This is followed by B&Bs (79%), hostels (72%) and apartments for rent (70%); at the bottom of the ranking are cruise ships.
Who needs to make it easier to travel better?
For those interviewed, it is not enough to entrust the change to the good will of those who leave. In dividing the responsibilities for the transition, they indicate the institutions (28%), hospitality operators, the European Union and local administrations (25%), and the travelers themselves (22%). To better manage tourist flows, the solutions that gather the most support are incentives for departures in the low season (35%), the strengthening of public transport (28%) and the development of alternative itineraries (27%).
Restrictive measures are less convincing: 15% indicate limitations on short-term rentals and 12% higher tourist taxes. Hospitality could also require some adaptation. About six in ten travelers would choose a property with cooling systems designed to consume less energy, while accepting a slight reduction in perceived comfort.
A look at the future
Looking to 2030, 29% of those interviewed indicate regenerative tourism among the possible development directions for the sector: experiences that, in the intention, contribute to the protection of the places and the well-being of the communities visited. This is followed by proximity tourism (19%), stricter rules and shared standards (18%). However, a share of 18% also indicates the difficulty of distinguishing concrete interventions from greenwashing.
