Would you book a holiday to see a glacier that could disappear within your lifetime? Increasing numbers of travellers are interested in threatened landscapes,…
A glacier retreating up a mountain. A coral reef losing its colour. An Arctic landscape changing as temperatures rise. For some travellers, these are reasons to book a trip immediately, not to stay away. The desire to experience a threatened place before it could vanish is often called last-chance tourism.
The sense of urgency has a scientific basis. UNESCO reported in 2022 that glaciers in one-third of World Heritage sites with glaciers were projected to disappear by 2050. Meanwhile, unusually warm seas can cause coral bleaching, leaving reefs under severe stress. Bleached coral is not necessarily dead, but recovery depends on conditions improving.
Supporters argue that visiting fragile environments can make climate change feel real. A guide explaining how far a glacier has retreated may leave a stronger impression than a photograph. Visitor spending can also support local jobs, scientific education and, in some cases, projects that protect nature. For communities that depend on tourism, simply telling people to stay away may not be a fair solution.
The problem is the impact of getting there and moving around. Long-haul flights and some cruises produce substantial emissions, while overcrowding can put extra pressure on wildlife, water supplies and walking routes. There is also a psychological contradiction: the fear of losing a place may increase demand for precisely the activities contributing to global warming.
Researchers have questioned whether environmental awareness gained during these holidays reliably translates into more responsible habits afterwards. A moving experience does not automatically change how frequently somebody flies or what they consume.
The destinations themselves are not all facing the same risks. A glacier may retreat over many decades, while an episode of unusually high sea temperatures can cause widespread coral bleaching in a much shorter period. In both cases, the story is more complicated than a dramatic advertisement suggesting that visitors have one final chance. Predictions involve uncertainty, and some natural systems may recover if conditions improve.
Tourism businesses also shape how people understand that uncertainty. Phrases such as ‘before it is gone forever’ can turn scientific concern into a reason to purchase a holiday immediately. Photographs on social media may spread the message further. Caring visitors may still be encouraged to book.
Different communities will experience these changes differently. Jobs linked to hotels and tours may be valuable, especially in remote regions, while extra traffic, waste and pressure on local housing can create resentment. Residents should therefore have a meaningful role in deciding how many visitors can come and where they are allowed to go.
There is also a difference between seeing damage and understanding its causes. A knowledgeable guide can explain the science and local history; a rushed sightseeing trip may offer little more than a photograph. If education is a central reason for travelling, the quality of that education matters.
So what might travelling responsibly involve? Choosing a lower-emission journey where practical, following local visitor rules, booking with operators who respect community priorities, and contributing to credible conservation work are useful steps. Yet these choices cannot cancel every environmental cost.
Last-chance tourism is neither automatically selfish nor automatically beneficial. Before deciding to go, travellers should consider whose interests the trip serves, what alternatives exist, and whether the destination is being protected or simply marketed as something to see before it is gone.
Available levels: A1 · A2 · B1 · B2 · C1 · C2