Since the pandemic, I’ve started asking myself before every trip whether I really need to go. I love traveling. But when I think about the environmental cost, I start to wonder whether it’s worth that much.
When I lived in Paris, I flew home to Japan once a year. I always stayed at least a month, and I went to see family and friends, so it never felt wasteful. Sightseeing trips are fun too, so why does a trip to see people feel more meaningful?
When I looked into it, I found that the UN’s tourism agency doesn’t treat sustainable tourism as a kind of trip. It applies to all tourism. The real question was which parts of an ordinary trip to rethink.
Below, I split a trip into transport, lodging, timing and place, and money, and look at what changes in each, using Japan as the example. I wrote it for people planning a trip to Japan and for those who already live here. I’ve included what I could confirm, and also what I couldn’t.
At a glance: what to look at on an ordinary trip
- First, whether to goThink about how often, how long, and why
- TransportThe heaviest load is transport, flying above all
- LodgingCheck what a certification actually covers
- Timing and placeShift when you go and the time of day to avoid crowds
- MoneyPay for locally made goods and services
None of these is a box you can tick and be done with. Each section explains what changes and what doesn’t.
Sustainable tourism is a way of weighing any trip’s impacts
Sustainable tourism is tourism that takes full account of its economic, social, and environmental impacts, now and in the future. It’s a yardstick for every kind of trip. Ecotourism and other special kinds of travel are only part of it.
The UN definition, and the one Japan uses
UN Tourism, the UN’s specialized agency for tourism (formerly UNWTO), defines it like this:
“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”
UN Tourism
The same page says that sustainable tourism guidelines and management practices apply to all forms of tourism, including mass tourism. The definition comes from a 2005 guide by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNWTO (UN Tourism).
Japan’s national guidelines for destinations use a Japanese translation of the same definition (Japan Tourism Agency & UNWTO, 2020).
Some sources describe sustainable tourism as having three “pillars,” others four. The definition names three kinds of impact: economic, social, and environmental. GSTC, which sets international standards, and Japan’s guidelines add a fourth area, destination management. They’re simply counting different things.
How it differs from ecotourism
Ecotourism is one type of travel, built around nature (Stronza et al., 2022).
Sustainable tourism isn’t a type. It’s a yardstick you apply to mass tourism and niche tourism alike (UN Tourism).
Even so, researchers have long seen sustainable tourism as a form of small-scale tourism, with ecotourism as the typical case. A research handbook attributes that view to McCool (2013) and others. I haven’t read the original paper (Sheppard, 2022).
That may be why “sustainable travel” is so often presented as a special kind of trip.
Four parts of an ordinary trip you can change
What sets sustainable tourism apart isn’t where you go or what kind of trip you take. It’s which parts of the trip you look at.
The biggest question comes first: whether to take the trip at all. If you go, why, how often, and for how long? After that, split an ordinary trip into four parts (transport, lodging, timing and place, and money), and you can see what’s open to change.
Transport, flying above all, puts the heaviest load on the environment. For lodging, look past words like “eco” and “certified” to what a certification actually covers. You can avoid crowds by shifting when you go and the time of day. With money, the theory is that paying for locally made goods and services tends to keep more of it in the area.
None of these is a box you can tick and be done with. Once you know what each choice changes and what it doesn’t, start with whatever matters most to you.
| What to look at | What it mainly affects | What a traveler can change | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to go | Climate, local life, and the local economy | How often, how long, and why | Do I really need this trip? |
| Transport | Climate | Mode, distance, and frequency | Will I fly, and if so, how many times a year? |
| Lodging | Climate and the people who work there | Where you stay | What the certification covers (who issued it, for what, and until when) |
| Timing and place | Local life | When and where you go | Entry fees, reservations, and time restrictions |
| Money | The local economy | What you pay for | Is it locally made, or a local service? |
Transport: flying is a large share of tourism’s emissions
Getting there is a big part of a trip’s emissions. Long-distance trips mostly mean flying. In 2016, 96.3% of international arrivals between world regions, such as from Europe to Asia, came by air (UNWTO & ITF, 2019).
One estimate breaks transport down further. In 2005, transport made up 75% of tourism’s CO2, with flying at 40% and cars at 32%. Accommodation was 21%. The figures come from a 2008 report by three UN agencies (UNWTO, UNEP, and WMO), as cited in the report above (UNWTO & ITF, 2019).
Where tourism’s CO2 came from in 2005
Share of all tourism CO2 (= 100%)
Still, this is one breakdown from 20 years ago. I couldn’t confirm what the breakdown looks like today.
Tourism’s share of global emissions
Estimates of tourism’s share of global emissions range from about 5% to about 8%. Each one counts something different, so you can’t line them up and say the share rose or fell.
| Whose estimate | Year covered | What it counts | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Three UN agencies (UNWTO, UNEP, WMO) | 2005 | CO2 from all of tourism (transport, accommodation, and more) | About 5% (UNWTO & ITF, 2019) |
| UN Tourism and the International Transport Forum (UNWTO & ITF) | 2016 | CO2 from tourism transport only | 5% (UNWTO & ITF, 2019) |
| Peer-reviewed study | 2009–2013 | Greenhouse gases, including supply chains for shopping and food | About 8% (Lenzen et al., 2018) |
| Tourism industry body (WTTC) | 2024 | All greenhouse gases | 7.3% (WTTC, 2025) |
Both 5% figures look the same, but 2005 covers all of tourism and 2016 covers transport only. WTTC is a tourism industry body, and its figure comes from research it commissioned on its own industry. The 8% study is behind a paywall, so I took the figure from the university’s announcement and the abstract.
Another thing that splits estimates is whether they count flying’s non-CO2 effects, such as contrails. Both UN figures in the table cover CO2 only. WTTC’s summary doesn’t mention contrails either. I couldn’t confirm whether the 8% estimate includes them.
Flight emissions depend on how you count them
Depending on what you count, flying makes up 40% of tourism’s emissions, or a little over 10%.
The 2005 estimate counted only the CO2 tourism emits directly, and there flying was 40%. An estimate that includes supply chains for shopping and food puts it at 12%. That paper first said 20%, and the authors corrected it to 12% after publication (Lenzen et al., 2018). The two estimates differ in year and method, so they don’t show that flight emissions went down.
How you count non-CO2 effects also matters. In 2018, about 66% of aviation’s warming effect (effective radiative forcing) came from sources other than CO2, by the best estimate. The largest was the cloud cover that spreads from contrails (Lee et al., 2021).
To include non-CO2 effects, you multiply a CO2-only figure. The multiplier ranges from 1.0 to 4.0, depending on the metric and time frame. The UK government recommends 1.7 as its “central estimate,” but notes that the uncertainty is large (DESNZ, 2026).
The calculator from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which travelers often see, counts CO2 only (ICAO, 2024).
ICAO is also the body that set up CORSIA, the offsetting scheme for international aviation (ICAO).
One round trip between Paris and Tokyo, per person
One economy-class round trip between Paris and Tokyo comes to about 1,250 kg of emissions per person without non-CO2 effects. With them, it’s about 2,120 kg.
I got these numbers by multiplying the UK government’s factors by the shortest distance between Paris (Charles de Gaulle) and Tokyo (Haneda). That’s 19,414 km (about 12,060 miles) round trip. The factors include an 8% uplift on distance and exclude emissions from producing the fuel. The same table gives 39 kg per room per night for a hotel in Japan (DESNZ, 2026).
One Paris–Tokyo round trip (economy class, per person)
In kg. The two gray bars are for reference and use a different unit from the flight
These two numbers can’t simply be divided into each other, though. The flight figure is per person, and the hotel figure is per room. Two people sharing a room comes to about 20 kg each.
The hotel figure uses 2021 data and leans toward large luxury chains. The flight factor averages short-haul and long-haul international flights that don’t touch the UK. If you fly from somewhere else, the distance changes, and so does the result.
What a carbon offset actually reduces
The bodies that write tourism standards treat offsets as something for leftover emissions you couldn’t cut. They don’t treat buying offsets as an alternative to flying less.
A carbon offset means paying for a project elsewhere that cuts or absorbs as much as you emitted. GSTC’s standard for tour operators says offsets should be used “only for residual emissions.” Its hotel standard also says they’re “not a substitute” (GSTC, 2025).
From September 27, 2026, the EU bans calling products “climate neutral” or similar on the basis of offsets. The ban comes from an EU directive and applies through each member state’s laws.
The European Commission’s Q&A (September 2026 version) gives an example of a banned claim. It’s an airline saying a flight is “climate neutral” because it invests in tree planting (European Commission, 2026).
Claims based on reductions actually made over a product’s life cycle aren’t covered by this ban. Vague environmental claims are also banned, though, unless the company can show excellent environmental performance.
It also isn’t clear that the credits you buy produce real reductions. One estimate that pooled 14 studies found that less than 16% of credits represented real reductions.
The authors say the estimate of credits that don’t represent real reductions should be read as a lower bound. Their analysis also leaves out two problems: stored carbon being released later, and the same reduction being counted twice. The real share may be even lower (Probst et al., 2024).
Verra, which describes itself as the world’s largest carbon crediting program, has called one of the studies used in that estimate “patently unreliable.” Verra has a direct stake in the results (Verra, 2023; Verra). I couldn’t find any assessment of the quality of J-Credits, Japan’s own credit scheme.
Hotels and tours: what to check when you see “GSTC certified”
GSTC doesn’t certify hotels or destinations itself. It accredits the bodies that do. To know what “GSTC certified” means, you need to see which body certified what, against which standard, and until when.
GSTC accredits the certifiers
The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) is an international nonprofit founded in 2007. It sets standards for destinations, hotels, and tour operators (Japan Tourism Agency & UNWTO, 2020).
GSTC itself explains that it doesn’t directly certify hotels, destinations, or tour operators. Instead, it accredits certification bodies. That means checking whether a body can do the job impartially, then approving it (GSTC).
A research institute in the JTB travel group reported the same explanation, which it heard at GSTC’s annual conference (JTB Tourism Research & Consulting, 2026).
So when you see “GSTC” on a hotel’s page, it could mean several things.
| What it says | What it means in GSTC’s system | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Certified by a GSTC-accredited body | Certification within the system | Which body, which standard, which property, and until when |
| GSTC member | Not certification | Whether it’s only a membership |
| GSTC training certificate | A qualification for an individual | Whether it’s being mixed up with property certification |
| Located in a destination that won an award or certification | Not certification of the hotel itself | Whether the hotel itself is certified |
| “Certification by 20XX” | A goal, not certification | Whether it has been certified yet |
I sorted these based on how GSTC’s standards documents use the terms and on the report above. I haven’t confirmed GSTC’s formal definitions.
What certification guarantees, and what it doesn’t
Certification looks at what a hotel does. Results are outside its scope. GSTC’s hotel standard says its 40 criteria state “what should be done.” They don’t say how to do it or whether the goal has been achieved (GSTC, 2025).
| What to look at | What it guarantees | What it doesn’t guarantee |
|---|---|---|
| Audit | An accredited body audited the hotel against the standard | That emissions or crowding actually went down |
| Emissions | The hotel reports emissions from its own electricity and fuel | Emissions from the flights guests took to get there |
| Wages | At least the legal minimum wage | A wage people can live on (a living wage) |
| Hotel size | An audit based on the standard | The same strictness for a small inn and a large hotel |
Green Key’s criteria starting October 2026 list pay at or above a living wage as a mandatory item. Where a country has a legal minimum wage, though, paying at least that meets the criterion (Green Key, 2026). I couldn’t find any study showing that certified hotels have a smaller environmental impact.
For how hotel certifications compare, see Green Key certified hotels and certified sustainable hotels in Tokyo.
Japan’s sustainable tourism guidelines are a self-check for destinations
The Japan Tourism Agency’s Japan Sustainable Tourism Standard for Destinations (JSTS-D) is a tool for local governments and destination management organizations (DMOs). It isn’t meant for hotels or travel companies. A DMO is the body that leads tourism planning for an area. The guidelines came out in June 2020, aligned with GSTC’s standard for destinations.
The process starts with a self-assessment. The guidelines say an area can begin with as few as 5 or 10 items.
The conditions for using the agency’s logo include a written plan and staff who have passed a training test. Areas are asked to report their results around the end of the fiscal year, but there’s no numerical bar for outcomes (Japan Tourism Agency & UNWTO, 2020). A destination with the logo may not meet every item.
Japan’s “100 regions” target also counts logos
The national target also counts what areas do. It doesn’t count outcomes.
Japan’s 2023 Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Plan (the fourth plan) set a goal of 100 areas working on sustainable tourism by 2025. It counted the local governments and DMOs that had obtained the guidelines’ logo. Of those, 50 were to be areas with international certification or awards (Japan Tourism Agency, 2023).
The “100 regions” target and results
Dashed line = target for 2025
Areas working on it (target: 100)
With international certification or awards (target: 50)
| Year | Areas working on it | With international certification or awards |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 12 | 6 |
| 2023 | 31 | 12 |
| 2024 | 46 | 19 |
| 2025 | 118 | 30 |
Japan hit the 100-area goal but fell short of the 50 with international certification or awards. The 2022 figure comes from the fourth plan, and the figures from 2023 on come from the fifth (Japan Tourism Agency, 2023; 2026).
“International certification or awards” here means certification or awards from Green Destinations, and UN Tourism’s “Best Tourism Villages.” Because awards are included, some may fall outside GSTC’s certification system.
This target doesn’t measure whether crowding or emissions went down.
Timing and place: each area sets its own crowding measures
The national government’s role is to back the decisions each area makes for itself. Entry fees, reservations, and time limits vary from place to place. I couldn’t find any material checking whether these measures reduced crowding.
Areas decide, and the national government supports them
Japan’s 2023 package of measures on overtourism starts from how heavy crowding and bad manners affect local life. From there, it says each area should set out what it wants to be, with national support (Ministerial Council on Tourism, 2023).
The fifth Basic Plan, adopted in 2026, includes a new “100 areas” target. It counts areas that set up a forum including residents and draw up plans on crowding and bad manners. The goal is 100 by 2030, and in 2025 there were 47 (Japan Tourism Agency, 2026).
It’s the same number, 100, but the fourth plan counted logos and the fifth counts plans. Neither counts whether crowding went down.
Entry fees and reservations: who pays, and where the money goes
As of March 2026, Japan’s national parks had 20 entry fees and 119 other systems where users share the cost. Some use entry fees to maintain facilities. Others put part of a tour fee toward protecting nature (Ministry of the Environment, 2026).
On Mt. Fuji, Yamanashi and Shizuoka each charge 4,000 yen per person. Here are the rules for both as of summer 2026.
| Yamanashi Prefecture (Yoshida Trail) | Shizuoka Prefecture (Fujinomiya, Gotemba, and Subashiri Trails) | |
|---|---|---|
| Name and fee | Trail fee, 4,000 yen per person per climb (Yamanashi Prefecture) | Climbing fee, 4,000 yen per person per climb (Shizuoka Prefecture) |
| Daily cap | 4,000 people a day (excluding those staying at mountain huts) | Not listed on the prefecture’s page |
| Hours | The 5th Station gate is closed from 2 p.m. to 3 a.m. (excluding those staying at mountain huts) | Starting the climb between 2 p.m. and 3 a.m. requires a mountain hut stay |
| Steps | Reservation and an equipment check | Advance registration, an e-learning course, and showing your climbing pass at the 5th Station |
| Where the money goes | Trail safety, controls and visitor services at the 5th Station, a reserve fund, and more (fiscal 2025 accounts) | Paid into a Shizuoka Prefecture fund for passing Mt. Fuji on to future generations |
In both prefectures, the earlier Mt. Fuji conservation contribution ended in fiscal 2024. The rules can change from year to year, so check the pages from Yamanashi and Shizuoka before you go.
What travelers can change: when, what time, and where
One pillar of the national measures is spreading visitors out to quieter times and places. That includes suggesting less crowded routes and special early-morning or evening programs at museums (Ministerial Council on Tourism, 2023). As a traveler, you can change when and where you go.
But if you skip a crowded spot and head somewhere farther away, you travel more. I couldn’t find any material looking at whether spreading visitors out increases transport emissions.
Money: what stays local depends on what you pay for
The reasoning goes that the more you pay for locally made goods and services, the more money tends to stay in the area. But I couldn’t find any figure showing what percentage of tourist spending stays local in Japan.
“Leakage”: when tourist money leaves the area
If hotels and shops buy their supplies from outside the area, part of what you pay goes straight back out. This is called “leakage” (Fang et al., 2023).
Okinawa Prefecture is one place in Japan with published figures. In fiscal 2019, tourists spent 797 billion yen there. Of that, 65.8 billion yen, about 8%, left the prefecture at the point of spending, and 731.2 billion yen stayed (Okinawa Prefecture).
But the estimate assumes that transport, retail, personal services, and some other sectors sourced everything within the prefecture. So the leakage may be understated. Okinawa is also an island, and this is a prefecture-wide figure, so it doesn’t carry over directly to other areas.
Another number you’ll often see: of every $100 spent by a tourist from a wealthy country, only about $5 stays in a developing country. It appears on a page of the UN Atlas of the Oceans. The page gives no date or source, and I couldn’t trace the original study (UN Atlas of the Oceans). It’s also about developing countries, so I don’t treat it as fact here.
The case for buying local is still theory
The Japan Tourism Agency encourages visitors to choose local crafts and dishes made with local ingredients (Japan Tourism Agency). But I couldn’t find any study in Japan showing how much more money stays local when people choose that way.
Japan’s national travel spending survey does give figures by prefecture. Those show where travelers spent money, though. They don’t show how much of it stayed (Japan Tourism Agency).
Even so, when you pay a locally run inn or shop, your money lands in the area first. Without knowing how much stays, you can still choose where your money goes.
Who promotes the term?
Many of the groups promoting sustainable tourism also stand to gain when tourism grows. So “sustainable” sometimes becomes a reason to travel more, rather than a reason to travel less.
The Japan Tourism Agency publishes sustainable tourism guidelines. It has also set a target of 60 million international visitors by 2030.
The guidelines themselves say that working to international standards “adds prestige” to an area’s efforts, and that the logo can show this. In the same passage, they cite a survey by the booking site Booking.com (Japan Tourism Agency & UNWTO, 2020; my translation).
One of GSTC’s 10-year goals is market transformation, with growing demand for sustainable products and experiences. Its members include Booking.com, Trip.com, and cruise companies (JTB Tourism Research & Consulting, 2026). WTTC, from the emissions table, is also a tourism industry body.
Researchers have raised criticisms too. Butler (2013) argues that the concept has been politicized and pulled far from what the Brundtland Report seems to have meant (Sheppard, 2022).
The fact that its backers have a stake doesn’t make the term meaningless. But is choosing a trip labeled “sustainable” becoming a reason to take one more trip? That’s worth asking yourself before you book.
Common questions
Can a trip that involves flying ever be sustainable?
I didn’t find any way for a traveler to erase a flight’s emissions. What you can change is how often you fly, how far, and how long each trip lasts.
As far as I know, flying is just about the only realistic way to get from Europe to Japan. And the round trip emits the same amount, however many days you stay.
When I lived in Paris, I went home once a year, for at least a month each time. Fly less often, and you cut the emissions from those round trips. Stay longer, and the same round trip gives you more days there.
That trips to see people feel more meaningful is my own view. The numbers can’t tell you that.
Is choosing a certified hotel or a “sustainable” tour enough?
I wouldn’t call it enough. Certification looks at what a business does. It doesn’t count results, or the flights its guests took.
Still, a third party has audited it against a standard. That makes it easier to check than a self-declared “eco” label. What to check is which body certified what, against which standard, and until when.
Does a booking site take money out of the area?
The hotel’s share goes to the local hotel. The booking site’s commission leaves the hotel. I couldn’t find published figures for typical commission rates.
With the big international booking sites, the hotel’s contract is with a company outside Japan. According to the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s 2022 announcements, those companies are Booking.com B.V. (the Netherlands) and an Expedia company in Switzerland (Japan Fair Trade Commission, 2022). They don’t say which company books the commission as income.
Booking.com explains that it receives its commission from the hotel after the stay. Book directly through the hotel’s own website or by phone, and you skip the booking site and its commission (Booking.com).
Final thoughts
Splitting a trip into transport, lodging, timing and place, and money shows you where change is possible. Where you start can depend on what matters most to you.
One question comes before all four, though. Before you book your next trip, ask yourself whether you really need it. If you decide to go, the next questions are why, and for how long.
For help choosing where to stay, see the hotel articles and Green Key certified hotels.
Sources
- Booking.com. “How we work.”
- DESNZ (2026). “Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2026” (methodology paper and full set; factor used: Business travel – air: International, to/from non-UK, Economy class). UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
- European Commission (2026). “Questions and answers on Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition),” September 2026 version.
- Fang et al. (2023). “Tourism Economy and Community Development.” Chapter 10 in Ecotourism: Environment, Health, and Education (Sinophone and Taiwan Studies, Vol. 7), pp. 303–330. Springer. Authors: Fang, W.-T., Hassan, A., & Horng, M.
- Green Key (2026). “Green Key Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 1 October 2026 – 31 December 2031: Hotels & Hostels.”
- GSTC. “Certification.”
- GSTC (2025). “GSTC Hotel Standard v.4.01 with Performance Indicators and SDGs.”
- GSTC (2025). “GSTC Tour Operator Standard v.4.01 with Performance Indicators and SDGs.”
- ICAO. “Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).”
- ICAO (2024). “ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology,” Version 13.1.
- Japan Fair Trade Commission (2022). Approval of the commitment plan submitted by Booking.com B.V. (press release in Japanese, March 16, 2022).
- Japan Fair Trade Commission (2022). Approval of the commitment plan submitted by Expedia (press release in Japanese, June 2, 2022).
- Japan Tourism Agency (2023). 観光立国推進基本計画（令和5年3月31日閣議決定） [Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Plan, approved by the Cabinet on March 31, 2023]. In Japanese.
- Japan Tourism Agency (2026). 観光立国推進基本計画（令和8年3月27日閣議決定） [Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Plan, approved by the Cabinet on March 27, 2026]. In Japanese.
- Japan Tourism Agency. “Travel Etiquette for the Future.”
- Japan Tourism Agency. 旅行・観光消費動向調査【日本人対象の需要側統計】調査の概要 [Travel and Tourism Consumption Trend Survey: overview]. In Japanese.
- Japan Tourism Agency & UNWTO (2020). 日本版持続可能な観光ガイドライン（JSTS-D） [Japan Sustainable Tourism Standard for Destinations]. Japan Tourism Agency and the UNWTO office in Japan. In Japanese.
- JTB Tourism Research & Consulting (2026). GSTC 2026年グローバル・サステナブル・ツーリズム会議 ＜報告書＞ [Report on the GSTC 2026 Global Sustainable Tourism Conference, Phuket, April 20–24, 2026]. In Japanese.
- Lee et al. (2021). “The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018.” Atmospheric Environment, 244: 117834.
- Lenzen et al. (2018). “The carbon footprint of global tourism.” Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. (article page / author correction)
- Ministerial Council on Tourism (2023). オーバーツーリズムの未然防止・抑制に向けた対策パッケージ [Package of measures to prevent and curb overtourism], October 18, 2023. In Japanese.
- Ministry of the Environment (2026). 令和8年版 環境・循環型社会・生物多様性白書 [Annual Report on the Environment, the Sound Material-Cycle Society and Biodiversity in Japan, 2026], Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 2. In Japanese.
- Okinawa Prefecture. 令和元年度 沖縄県における旅行・観光の経済波及効果【推計結果】 [Economic ripple effects of travel and tourism in Okinawa, fiscal 2019: estimates]. In Japanese.
- Probst et al. (2024). “Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects.” Nature Communications, 15: 9562. (full text (PMC))
- Sheppard, V. A. (2022). “Linking resilience thinking and sustainability pillars to ecotourism principles.” Chapter 4 in D. A. Fennell (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Ecotourism, pp. 53–69. Routledge.
- Shizuoka Prefecture. 富士山の入山料・事前登録について [Mt. Fuji climbing fee and advance registration]. In Japanese.
- Stronza et al. (2022). Chapter 28 in Fennell (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Ecotourism. Routledge.
- UN Atlas of the Oceans. “Leakage.”
- UN Tourism. “Sustainable development.”
- UNWTO & ITF (2019). “Transport-related CO2 Emissions of the Tourism Sector – Modelling Results.” (PDF)
- Verra. “Verified Carbon Standard.”
- Verra (2023). “Technical review of West et al. 2020 and 2023, Guizar-Coutiño 2022, and coverage in Britain’s Guardian.”
- WTTC (2025). “Travel & Tourism Environmental & Social Research: 2025 Update (Summary of Findings).”
- Yamanashi Prefecture. 山梨県富士山吉田口県有登下山道の通行について [Using the prefecture-owned Yoshida Trail on Mt. Fuji]. In Japanese.
- Yamanashi Prefecture. 山梨県富士山吉田口県有登下山道使用料の使途について [How the Yoshida Trail fee is used]. In Japanese.
- Yamanashi Prefecture. 令和8年度の富士登山 [Climbing Mt. Fuji in fiscal 2026]. In Japanese.
