This is a draft of this paper. The author requests that all quotes or citations refer to the official version of this paper, which can be found at the following site:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669582.2013.819877#preview

Toward sustainable educational travelJournal of Sustainable Tourism, 2014, 22(3): 421-439

Joshua Longa∗, Alison Vogelaarb and Brack W. Halec

aSouthwestern University, Environmental Studies, 1001 E. University Blvd., Georgetown TX 78626, United States; bFranklin College Switzerland, Communication and Media Studies, Lugano, Switzerland; cFranklin College Switzerland, Environmental Science, Lugano, Switzerland

(Received 20 August 2012; final version received 12 June 2013)

In the past decade, sustainability and global citizenshiphave emerged as two of the most prominent themes incontemporary higher education. Literature that specificallymerges the two themes has, however, lagged behind. Thispaper integrates the literature from the fields ofsustainable tourism and educational travel in order toarticulate relevant concepts and to summarize theoreticaland empirical approaches for improving the sustainability ofeducational travel programs. While most of the literaturefocuses upon carbon-related issues, a more comprehensiveassessment and implementation would focus on the threedimensions of sustainability: economic, environmental, andsocio-cultural. This paper advocates several practicalmeasures, such as the incorporation of sustainability intoprogram mission statements, the training of travel leadersin all three dimensions of sustainability, and theimplementation of sustainability-related assessment measuresfor educational travel programs. Further, we argue that

maintaining critical scholarly engagement with broadertheoretical frameworks is necessary to contextualize thesepractical and empirical approaches, and to reassess thepotential benefits and negative impacts associated witheducational travel.

Keywords: educational travel; study abroad; sustainability; global citizenship; eco- citizenship; higher education

In the past decade, institutions of higher education(IHEs) have emerged as important loci for theadvancement, scholarly engagement, and practice of(environmental) sustainability. However, the sizeableecological footprint of university operations presentsa noteworthy contradiction between the rhetoric andpractice of sustainability. One example of thiscontradiction lies in the increasing growth ofeducational travel programs, such as study abroad.Although these programs often aim to promote globalcitizenship and sustainability, they also have largecarbon footprints and can negatively impact theeconomies, cultures, and ecosystems of theirdestinations. While recent scholarly publications haveidentified potential challenges associated with suchprograms, studies that adequately address their impactsare less common and only recently emerging.Additionally, only a few studies serve as models forfuture research. Finally, little evidence suggests thatscholarship on this topic is being sufficiently readacross disciplinary and institutional boundaries – animportant consideration given the ubiquity ofeducational travel programs at IHEs. Because botheducational travel and sustainability practices areinterdisciplinary topics, it is important to bringtogether the scholarship from different disciplines toestablish a clear agenda for assessment andimplementation of sustainable practices in university-

level educational travel.

This paper reviews current scholarship from the fields of sustainable tourism andeducational travel to:

(1)  establish a clear definition of sustainable educational travel and its related terms;

(2)  synthesize perspectives from the sustainable tourism and the educational travel literatures to address the current state of sustainable practicesand summarize important theoretical and empirical approaches relevant to this emerging field;

(3)  offer insight into some of the logistical, curricular, and assessment strategies for improving the sustainability of educational travelprograms;

(4)  offer recommendations for the development of a research agenda that advances practical and theoretical approaches to sustainable educational travel.

Definition of terms

Before summarizing the literature, it is important toclarify several terms used in this paper: sustainability,global citizenship, educational travel, and study abroad. Overuse andmisappropriation has given sustainability multiple meanings.For reviews of these meanings, we recommend WCED(1987), Lele (1991), Sneddon, Howarth, and Norgaard(2006), and Paton (2008). For this study, we follow adefinition derived from Brown, Hanson, Liverman, andMerideth (1987), where sustainability involveseconomic, environmental, and/or socio-culturalresponsibilities; concerns both the natural and human

worlds; and ultimately “. . . will encourage andsupport the sustainable use of the biosphere andequitable resource use” (718).

Our use of global citizenship borrows from Hanson (2010, p.80), who defines a global citizen as one who is“involved locally, nationally, and internationally; isconscientious, informed, and educated about issues;exhibits environmental and social responsibility;advocates alongside the oppressed; or lives by thedictum, ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’.”

The terms educational travel and educational tourism (often usedinterchangeably) require some qualification. A widelycited definition of educational tourism from Bodger(1998) includes any program in which “participantstravel to a location as a group with the primarypurpose of engaging in a learning experience directlyrelated to that location” (28). Ritchie, Carr, andCooper (2003) add that educational travel/tourisminvolves overnight stays at a destination and has theobjective of educating students about sustainabletravel to reduce negative impacts. For this paper, weuse educational travel in the context of IHEs.

The term study abroad falls under the umbrella of“educational travel”, and it has traditionally impliedan educational travel program that required students totake up residence in a foreign destination. However,study abroad has since come to encompass variouseducational opportunities outside a student’s homecountry, including short stay programs, long-termresidence programs, internships, service learningprograms, and other specialized programs (Engle &Engle, 2003). Because this paper focuses on travelprograms in higher education, we recognize that theterms study abroad and educational travel can be used

interchangeably and our usage reflects this.

Building upon these definitions, we suggest adefinition of sustainable educational travel as student travelundertaken as a part of university/college curriculumthat recognizes and strives to minimize the negativeeconomic, socio-cultural, and environmental effects oftravel and to maximize the potential beneficialeffects.

The drive for green and global institutions

North American IHEs have an ambiguous relationship withsustainability. On one hand, IHEs have long been at theforefront of sustainable discourse and practice. IHEsare living laboratories for eco-friendly construction,design, and sustainable living, with universitiesimplementing initiatives to decrease carbon footprints,conserve water resources, promote biodiversity, andreduce waste (Silvia, 2008). They are also importantspaces for sustainability research (Beringer &Adomßent, 2008), pedagogy and curriculum development(Rowe, 2002) and action (Barlett & Chase, 2004).University programs are also reaching beyond campus,forging partnerships to implement environmentalpractices and promote sustainability (Allen-Gil,Walker, Thomas, Shevory, & Elan, 2005; Molnar, Heller,& Solecki, 2011). Nevertheless, IHEs consumesignificant quantities of energy, water, and chemicalswhile producing wastewater, solid waste, and evenhazardous waste. Some universities produce greenhousegas emissions comparable with many small USA cities(Knuth, Nagle, Steuer, & Yarnal, 2007) and havemultiple ecological impacts on surrounding communities(Klein-Banai & Theis, 2011; Venetoulis, 2001).

Just as IHEs are rushing to showcase sustainabilityinitiatives, many are also placing emphasis oninternationalization and the promotion of globalcitizenship among their students (Altbach & Knight,2007). Numerous institutions incorporate principles ofglobal citizenship into their mission statements,curricula, and core values (Lewin, 2009; Tarrant,2009). One rationale for this movement stems from theglobalization of business and the increasedemployability of workers with international experience(Sjoberg & Shabalina, 2010; Jong, Schnusenberg, & Goel,2010). Additionally, the literature on globalcitizenship suggests that international experienceprovides students with a greater sense of interculturalunderstanding, social justice and equity, self-awareness, and environmental literacy (Bel- lamy &Weinberg, 2006; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingrich, 2002;Parker, Wade, & Atkinson, 2004).

The integration of educational travel programs is awidely utilized strategy for promoting globalcitizenship at IHEs, and policy shifts at thegovernment and institutional levels suggest that thistrend will continue (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Tarrant,2009). Citing the many benefits of studentinternational travel, a USA bipartisan report (CALSAFP,2005) recently announced the goal of sending abroad onemillion USA students annually by 2015, stating:

Promoting and democratizing undergraduate study abroadis the next step in the evolution of American highereducation. Making study abroad the norm and not theexception can position this and future generations ofAmericans for success in the world . . . Study abroadshould be integral to undergraduate education. (3)

Similarly, the USA Secretary of Education’s Partnershipfor Global Learning challenges the USA to “launch a new

era of international engagement”, and calls uponuniversity administrators to “advance foreign languageproficiency” and “continue to encourage our students tostudy abroad” (Duncan, 2010).

Such promotional rhetoric is widespread on NorthAmerican campuses. As Lewin (2009) states, in a globalage providing opportunities for USA students to have an“inter- national experience is no longer just theinterest of individual students. It has now become apriority of the collective” (8). Consequently,educational travel programs have become more popular(Altbach & Knight, 2007; Duffy, 2009; Engle & Engle,2003). USA student participation in study abroad hasgrown by 150% in the past two decades (Jong et al.,2010; Open Doors, 2011), and the number ofinternational students enrolling in USA institutionshas increased by 32% since 2000 (Open Doors, 2011).These students represent a significant number of futureinternational travelers, and the knowledge gainedduring educational travel will inform their ability toexemplify sustainable practices as global citizens(Lutterman- Aguilar & Gingrich, 2002; Paige, Fry,Stallman, Josic , & Jon, 2009; Tarrant & Lyons, 2012).

Despite the related ideological underpinnings ofsustainability and global citizenship, it is difficultto reduce an institution’s ecological footprint whilesimultaneously expanding educational travel. As Dvoraket al. (2011, p. 143) point out, while IHEs strive tobecome both global and green, there are “contradictionsand tensions between these goals, in particular when weconsider the carbon emissions involved in internationalactivities like study abroad”. At the same time, thereis potential synergy between these two movements, and,as this paper suggests, the process of “greening” studyabroad programs would improve their legitimacy and

efficacy as a tool for fostering responsible globalcitizens.

Review of the literature: connecting educational traveland sustainable tourism

Despite practical and discursive overlaps between thefields of sustainable tourism and educational travel,few scholars draw from both fields to critically engagethe issue of sustainability in educational travel. Onlytwo recent peer-reviewed publications directly relatethe issue of sustainability in study abroad programswith the goal of institutional change (Dvorak,Christiansen, Fischer, & Underhill, 2011; Hale,Vogelaar, & Long, in press). We build upon thesearticles with perspectives from other disciplines toprovide a comprehensive look at the current state ofsustainability within educational travel.

Our literature review was purposefully broad in scope:we included peer-reviewed scholarly articles,government reports and institutional/organizationalpublications. Using a textual snowball samplingtechnique to locate relevant sources (Babbie, 2010), webegan with a keyword search in five electronicdatabases (EBSCO Host Academic Search Complete, GoogleScholar, JSTOR, Science Direct, and Springer Link) andthen mined the most relevant bibliographies to seek outadditional related, widely cited, and influentialsources. Whenever possible, the entire record and textwere included in each search, meaning that any recordwith search terms in the abstract, keywords, title,subject headings, and within the text were queried andidentified.

Study abroad and educational travel: slow progress toward sustainability

Although educational travel has a long history, moderntravel programs sponsored by IHEs are relatively recentphenomena, and the incorporation of sustainablepractices into study abroad is even more recent. Thepopularity of study abroad and the introduction of newmodels have created an educational travel landscapewith a range of “choices in program focus, destination,duration, participant preparation, and ideal outcome”(Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 2). Consequently, a large bodyof literature examines assessment, learning out- comes,and pedagogical efficacy of the programs. This includescase studies on program development (Harris, Murray, &Urbaczewski, 2011), student satisfaction with thelearning experience (Wang, Taplin, & Brown, 2011), thepedagogy of intercultural sensitivity (Myers, Hill, &Harwood, 2005; Pedersen, 2009, 2010), and perspectiveson duration of stay and program effectiveness (Dwyer,2004; Sjoberg & Shabalina, 2010; Wynveen, Kyle, &Tarrant, 2012).

The importance of study abroad in promoting globalcitizenship, personal growth, intellectual development,and intercultural learning is a prominent theme inthese studies (e.g., McKeowan, 2009). In contrast,other scholars discuss financial, familial, physical,and psychological obstacles that students face (Jong etal., 2010; Naffziger, Bott, & Mueller, 2008; Soneson &Cordano, 2009). They also address complications fromschedule conflicts, curricular challenges, health andsafety issues, and administrative oversights (Harris etal., 2011; Shackelford, 2011). Other studies haveexamined the effects of study abroad on studentenvironmental attitudes and intercultural sensitivity(Rexeisen & Al-Khatib, 2009; Wynveen et al., 2012).

Another major concern is with the impact on hostcommunities. Schroeder, Wood, Galiardi, and Koehn(2009) examined the effects of short-term study abroadprograms on host communities, while Cusick (2008)explored the potential incorporation of United NationsEducation for Sustainable Development goals into thecurricula of environmentally focused study abroadprograms. Both Reilly and Senders (2009) and Palacios(2010) questioned the influence of Western perspectivesand behaviors in host regions, and to mitigate this,Reilly and Senders introduced a self-reflexive model(“critical study abroad”) that directly challenges IHEsto measure the legitimacy of study abroad programsagainst their own rhetoric of global citizenship.

These articles indicate a movement toward merging thediscourses of sustainability with study abroad.However, they do not provide a practical framework forassessing study abroad or implementing sustainablepractices. Dvorak et al. (2011) appears to be the firstpeer-reviewed publication directly focused on theconnections between study abroad and sustainablepractices. Their paper accomplished three importantgoals:

(1)identifyingstudyabroadasanidealtargetforachievingIHEgoalsofsustainability and internationalization;

(2)  presenting tangible examples of sustainable study abroad to serve as potential models for several disciplines;

(3)  offering broad suggestions for international educators, faculty, and IHEs that may help improvethe sustainability of such programs.

Similarly, a second peer-reviewed publication by Hale,

Vogelaar, and Long (in press) surveyed currentpractices among study abroad travel leaders and programcoordinators, and provided a first glimpse into thegeneral state of sustainable practices in educationaltravel programs. They identified several importantpatterns:

(1)  a notable disparity between sustainable discourse and practice in study abroad programs;

(2)  individuals, not institutions, are generally driving current best practices in study abroad;

(3)  emerging strategies that may facilitate the implementation of sustainable practices are not readily accessible in the academic literature.

Connecting educational travel and sustainable tourism

Although educational travel is a form of tourism andcan affect destinations in various ways, surprisinglylittle study abroad research draws from the sustainabletourism literature, which has much to contribute.1Below, we detail the potential negative economic,socio-cultural, and environmental impacts ofeducational travel addressed in the literature(summarized in Table 1). A similar table could bedeveloped for tourism’s potential positive consequencesfor sustainable development.

The economic impacts of tourism are well documented(e.g. Ardahaey, 2011; Mathieson & Wall, 1982;Patterson, Gulden, Cousins, & Kraev, 2004; Theobald,2005; Vogel, 2001). Economic growth has encouragedtourism’s use as a model of develop- ment (Shah,McHarry, and Gardiner, 2002), and much researchexamines tourist-generated economic activity (Ardahaey,2011; Hall & Page, 2006; Mathieson & Wall, 1982;

Patterson et al., 2004). Tourist activity affects theprimary tourism sector of host destinations (i.e.lodging, food industry, transportation, amusement, andretail trade) and industries that sup- port hotels,restaurants, and retail (Ardahaey, 2011; Patterson etal., 2004). In developing regions, these effects can bemore pronounced, such as the “induced impacts” thatoccur due to increased wages of those employed in thetourist industry (Archer, Cooper, & Ruhanen, 2005;Ardahaey, 2011). Indeed, the economic impacts oftourism reverberate through mul- tiple levels of aneconomy (Ardahaey, 2011; Shah et al., 2002).Additionally, much activity takes place in the informaleconomy, making exact measurements of economic impactsin many destinations a complex task (Ardahaey, 2011;Hall & Page, 2006).

Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Travel

Environmental Economic Socio-cultural

Excessive solid andhuman waste production

Unbalanced increase injobs and revenue in

tourism sector

Tourist invasionof “backstage”

areasDegradation of naturalareas (e.g. throughcamping, hiking

trails, taking naturalsouvenirs)

Increased foreignownership/ Leakage ofrevenues out of host

region/country

Tourist behavioursthat may threatenlocal cultural

norms

Excessive use ofscarce resources (e.g.water, food, fuel)

Resource scarcity forlocal inhabitants

because of increasedneeds of tourists

Touristparticipation in

negativebehaviours (e.g.

drugs,prostitution,gambling,vandalism)

Increased pollution(air, noise, water)

Localizedinfrastructure

development for hostregion

Indigenouscultures exploitedand commoditized

for marketing andbranding of

tourist experienceCrowding and increased

traffic

Uncertain access toimproved

infrastructure forlocal inhabitants

Introduction of non-native species Resource degradation

Overdevelopment oflandscapeLittering

The economic effects also link directly to the physicalenvironment and livelihoods of the destinationcommunities. The development of new facilities andinfrastructure for tourism measurably impacts theresources and ecosystems of the visited region. Localcommunities often carry the burdens of degradedenvironments and resource scarcity without sharing thebenefits that accompany such developments (Archer etal., 2005; Patterson et al., 2004; Shah et al., 2002).Critical perspectives on tourism’s economic impactshave much to contribute to responsible destinationselection and travel planning for study abroad, butthey are lacking in the educational travel literature.

The socio-cultural impacts of study abroad are alsounderrepresented. This discourse tends to focus onsocio-cultural benefits gained by students during suchexperiences, whereas the sustainable tourism literaturehas examined ways in which tourists’ unfamiliaritywith, and lack of knowledge about, local beliefs,traditions, and customs can cause adverse impacts(Archer et al., 2005; Cole, 2007; Marion & Reid, 2007).Perceptions of these cultural values are furthercomplicated by the marketing or branding of a touristdestination. This can lead to homogenizing stereotypes,and can create an exoticized view of indigenouspopulations who are often expected to act out“traditional” performances for tourists (Hall & Page,

2006; Pomering & White, 2011). These perceptions canalso affect the demarcation of “authentic” versustourist space, creating complex landscapes for culturalcommoditization, insensitivity, and locally undesirablebehavior (Archer et al., 2005; Brunet, Bauer, Lacy, &Tshering, 2001; Shah et al., 2002). Indeed, thedesignation of tourist and local space is an importantconcept in the literature. According to Weaver (2006),travel destinations can be understood through Goffman(1959) and MacCannell’s (1976) metaphor of thefrontstage and backstage. Frontstages are spaces intendedand managed for tourists, while backstages are spaceswhere locals live and work. As Weaver argues, whentourists venture into backstage spaces, their actionshave a greater tendency to become more unsustainable orculturally insensitive. Further, while on vacation,some tourists are more likely to engage in undesirablebehaviors and crimes (i.e. drug use, gambling,prostitution, and vandalism) in travel destinationsthan at home (Archer et al., 2005).

While the above scholars highlight negative impacts,others maintain a critical perspective, suggesting thatthe role of tourism in promoting modern values andsocial progress can be a positive force (Liu, 2003).Additionally, multiple works address the complex natureof tourist activity on gender relations (Kinnaird &Hall, 1996; Williams, 2002), pre-existing socialrelationships and values (Archer et al., 2005; Shah etal., 2002; WCPA, 2002), and local quality of life(Archer et al., 2005).

Perhaps the most perplexing gap in the educationaltravel literature is the lack of critical engagementwith environmental sustainability. Alternative forms oftourism (particularly ecotourism) were traditionallytouted as a way to increase awareness of environmental

issues and encourage the protection of biodiverseregions (Hill & Gale, 2009). But scholars have alsobeen pointing to the complexity of the industry’senvironmental impacts for at least three decades (seeMathieson & Wall, 1982). For instance, early onMcKercher (1993) identified tourism as an industrialactivity with heavy resource dependency, waste disposalissues, and specific infrastructure requirements.Indeed, tourism remains a growing, multi-faceted globalindustry with cross-border economic and environmentaleffects – an issue that makes governance and policymaking a complex task (Bramwell & Lane, 2011;McKercher, 1993). Moreover, while individual touristimpacts on the environment can seem insignificant,aggregate effects are often substantial. Tourists’reputation for trampling, littering, resource overuse,and waste disposal permeates the literature (e.g. Gossling, Borgstro m Hansson, Ho rstmeier, & Saggel,2002; Hall & Page, 2006; WCPA, 2002). In manydestinations, it can be difficult for visitors to avoidenvironmental degradation. Many tourist destinationsare located in sensitive ecological areas, andtravelers find themselves engaging in destructiveactivities in areas that were never suitable fortourist traffic (Archer et al., 2005; Hillery,Nancarrow, Grifin, & Syme, 2001).

These activities degrade natural ecosystems andfrequently put tourists in direct com- petition withlocal populations for resources. Further, what wereonce local impacts are collectively becoming global-scale issues. Recent studies indicate that tourism nowac- counts for an estimated 3.5%–5.5% of species lossand as much as 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions,primarily from transport and accommodation (Hall, 2011;Scott & Becken, 2010; Scott, Peeters, & Go ssling,

2010). These issues may intensify, as tourism is likelyto grow 4%–7% annually (McKercher, Prideaux, Cheung, &Law, 2010).

Despite significant environmental impacts associatedwith tourism, positive aspects also exist. Stronza(2007) argues that in addition to economic incentivesfor conservation, workers involved in ecotourismdevelop new values and social relations that empowerlocal communities and encourage environmentallyresponsible behavior. Other research suggests thattourism remains an avenue for local engagement andempowerment through open lines of communication withhost communities, particularly when they are involvedin the planning process (Cole, 2006; McIntosh & Zhara,2007). Additionally, such new forms of alternativetourism as volunteer and service tourism are providingopportunities for research and environmental action(Ellis, 2003; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008; Wearing, 2004).

In summary, an established body of literature detailsthe economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impactsof tourism, and has significant relevance foreducational travel programs. Many of the impacts areexplored critically and present serious concerns forprograms striving to promote sustainability and theideals of global citizenship. However, there are alsopotential benefits from sustainable tourism practices,and further research is needed to assess the efficacyof both practical and theoretical frameworks. Thefollowing sections outline strategies for improvingsustainability in educational travel, and explorepractical and theoretical avenues for future studies.

Measures for enhancing sustainability in educational

travel programs

The scholarly literature contains both descriptivestudies (which evaluate programs at specificinstitutions) and prescriptive studies (which providestrategies and models to help stakeholders). Most peer-reviewed research focuses on environmentalsustainability, particularly climate-related impacts.An IHE’s complex organizational dynamics (Stephens &Graham, 2010), involving unique carbon inventories(Srinivasamohan & Lee, 2010), and a diversity of studyabroad program types (Hale, Vogelaar, & Long, in press)and disciplinary frameworks (Selby, 2006), means it ischallenging to create a template for evaluating thesustainability of educational travel. Nonetheless, inthis section, we provide an overview of ideas andapproaches used to mitigate the negative impacts ofeducational travel programs and to maximize thepotential benefits to student travelers and destinationcommunities. We focus on three areas: programlogistics, curricular and co-curricular design, andprogram mission and assessment (see Table 2 for asummary).

Table 3: Best Practices for Making Educational Travel MoreSustainable

Category Strategies and Approaches

Logisticsand

Mitigation

Reducing carbon emissions by minimizing air and car travel

Purchasing carbon offsets from recognized offset schemesSelecting destinations that facilitate minimal negative impact

Choosing low-impact lodging, food, and transportation

Curricularand Co-

curricular

Incorporating sustainability into lectures and student learning goals

Selecting destinations with unique pedagogical significance for teaching sustainability

Employing pedagogical tools such as journals, footprint calculators, and written assignments that emphasize self-evaluation and individual responsibility

Pre-travel education regarding intercultural sensitivity, especially cultural attitudes, norms, and history specific to the destination

Developing professional development for travel leaders and program coordinators

Developing or borrowing a code of ethics or voluntary guidelines regarding behaviour and activity

ProgramMission andAssessment

Developing program mission statements that reflect principles of sustainability

Employing carbon and ecological footprint analysesDeveloping post-travel assessment tools that measure thelevel of student engagement with sustainable practices and concepts during travel

Program logistics and mitigation strategies

Much of the effort to address sustainability ineducational travel programs occurs at the level ofprogram logistics. Logistical measures allow programsto “walk the talk” while demonstrating sustainablepractices to students and educating them about the manyfacets of travel. The most important logisticalfeatures include choice of transportation, destinationselection, and the choice of food and lodging at thedestination.

The carbon footprint associated with transportation,particularly air travel, is a major concern foreducational travel programs (Scott et al., 2010).Several strategies exist for improving thesustainability of air travel. Groups and individualsshould fly direct when the option is available(Kollmuss & Bowell, 2007), and should remember thatthey sometimes have the option to select airlines with

lower carbon emissions (Miyoshi & Mason, 2009; Weaver,2006). Also, light rail, bus, and train transportationare more efficient compared to either car or airtransport (Bamford, 2004). Further, longer durations(e.g. semester or longer) in less carbon-intensivedestinations may be preferable as they can compensatefor emissions from long-distance travel (Hunter & Shaw,2007). Finally, transportation at the destination shouldfocus on public transportation, walking, or biking(Bamford, 2004; Dvorak et al., 2011; Hale, Vogelaar, &Long, in press).

Regardless of duration of stay or means oftransportation, carbon offsets are often a prescriptionfor reducing the footprint of a travel program.Ideally, a traveler buys offsets commensurate with thedamage caused by one’s emissions, and the funds gotoward projects that provide carbon sinks or invest inenergy efficiency/renewable energy schemes that preventadditional emissions (Go ssling et al., 2007; Kollmuss& Bowell, 2007). While available from third-partyproviders, offsets can also be developed at theinstitutional level (Srinivasamohan & Lee, 2010).Dvorak et al. (2011) discuss a program assignment thatrequires students to calculate and track their carbonfootprint for the trip, and then encourages them toreduce their emissions at home by an equivalent amount.Certainly, carbon offsets are not without critique.Some studies suggest that offsets may discourageresponsible behavior, allowing travelers to “buy theright” to pollute. Also, not all carbon offsets arecreated equal (Kollmuss & Bowell, 2007). Many providersuse different carbon calculators and invest indifferent offset schemes, with varying levels oflegitimacy. Go ssling et al. (2007) point out thatreforestation schemes, for example, involve a

significant time lag between the time of carbonemission (the travel) and the time of total uptake(forest growth), meaning that the completesequestration of the emitted carbon may take 20–100years. With atmospheric carbon dioxide levels recentlysurpassing 400 ppm for the first time in human history,waiting years to realize emissions reductions may notbe a sustainable option. Finally, carbon offsets donothing to mitigate other environmental impacts oftravel.

A significant portion of a travel’s impact occurs atthe destination, and so choosing a sustainable locationfor a program is important. This may include travel toless eco- logically vulnerable areas, but it may alsomean that program coordinators choose more sustainablelocations, such as ecovillages, sustainable campuses,and other places featuring sustainable infrastructureand design (Dvorak et al., 2011; Leggett, 2012; Tarrant& Lyons, 2012). Several articles cite rating systemsand organizations (e.g. terrapass.com and car-bonfootprint.com) that help leaders select locationsbased upon their sustainability track record. Choosingaccommodation with eco-certification can be helpful, asis choosing local providers rather than global chains(Jackson, 2010). Food selections that focus upon local,in-season, and culturally appropriate options alsoimprove a program’s sustainability.

Scholars and international institutions also advocateactivities at the site that respect local cultures andissues. A 2009 UNESCO-sponsored paper highlightedcommunity well- being and the “strengthening of socialand cultural patterns” (Gebhard, Meyer, & Roth, 2009b,p. 19). Another paper from this series recommendstraining for industry leaders, host businesses, andtour guides/travel leaders (Gebhard, Meyer, Parkyn,

Rohacand, & Roth, 2009a). Weaver (2006) providesseveral strategies for demarcating the aforementionedfrontstage and backstage of a site in order to reduceecological footprints. While this literature is largelygeared toward the mainstream tourism industry, it alsohas merits for travel program leaders, as a programitinerary may take students through front-, back-, andintermediate “stages”. Choosing activities to minimizea trip’s backstage presence may increase sustainabilityand safety while reducing negative social and economicimpacts.

Curricular and co-curricular design

Several articles and programs suggest that the incorporation of sustainability into a pro- gram’s curriculum can help balance environmental impacts, as students gain lessons that encourage them to live more sustainably in the future. Although most travel programs do not explicitly examine issues related to sustainability, some suggest that it can have broad appeal (Blewitt & Cullingford, 2004). Dvorak et al. (2011, p. 161) state:

Courses, regardless of discipline, could, with a littleimagination and creativity, include specificenvironmental or climate change assignments (forexample, a medieval history course could include anassignment comparing the carbon footprint of a medievalperson and a modern day person. An English course couldinclude reflective essays on the impact of climatechange on the region visited).

Even without explicit incorporation, study abroad caninfluence sustainable behaviors, a principle Dvorak etal. (2011) call “collateral learning”. They suggestthat students on travel programs experience newcultures with different, sometimes less resource-

intensive, ways of living. Further, study abroadprograms present situations where students live out ofsuitcases with less access to energy, water, and goods.Thus, students learn different ways of living, both interms of environmental impacts and attitudes. Indeed,Paige et al. (2009) found that former study abroadparticipants generally lead simpler, less resource-intensive lives than people who had not studied abroad.With respect to short-term study abroad, Wynveen et al.(2012, p. 348) found “a stronger relationship betweenstudents’ perceived responsibility for the environmentand their personal obligations to reduce their negativeimpacts on it after their study abroad experience”.Notably, Wynveen et al. also mention the influence ofexperienced travel leaders who employ specificpedagogical strategies to achieve sustainable learningoutcomes.

Program leaders facilitate this type of learningthrough curriculum that actively educates studentsabout different practices, through discussion andreflections about students’ experiences, and throughthe modeling of best practices in the program (Ritchieet al., 2003; Wynveen et al., 2012). Duffy (2009)recommends using a code of ethics, a set of voluntaryguidelines regarding traveler behavior. In the field ofeducational travel, the Green Passport Program and theLeave No Trace Program each provide guidelines forstudents study- ing abroad. Educating students about,and exposing them to, these programs represents animportant tool, and serves as a reminder of the linksbetween global citizenship and sustain- able practices.Duffy (2009) also suggests the use of “visitoreducation programs”, which strive to reduce negativeimpacts that result from a lack of awareness orknowledge. As Marion and Reid (2007) state, “. . .

these programs have different names (Leave No Trace,Codes of Conduct, Environmental Guidelines forTourists) but share common objectives: to sustainopportunities for high-quality visitor experienceswhile avoiding or minimizing associated negativeimpacts to protected area resources, visitorexperiences, and park neighbors” (2007:5). Done well,education programs encourage visitors to consider theirimpacts while allowing visitors to retain their freedomof choice (Marion & Reid, 2007). These programs aremost commonly associated with national parks or otherprotected areas, but are applicable elsewhere. Thoughthe Leave No Trace program (LNT.org) “had its originsin wilderness and backcountry settings, it has grown toinclude frontcountry (urban/suburban) environments andis widely applied in USA protected areas” (Marion &Reid, 2007, p. 7).2

Destination selection also has implications forlearning outcomes and curricular development,especially as they relate to environmental awarenessand sustainability. Though many studies assert or implythis relationship, fewer systematically examine thefunction of location on learning and curriculardevelopment. Tarrant & Lyons’s (2012) study of theeffect of short-term study abroad experiences onenvironmental citizenship found provisionally thatlocation does influence students’ environmentalcitizenship. Nakagawa and Payne (2011) found that placeand sense of place were key components in study abroadstudents’ experiences, and thus they advocate a place-responsive pedagogy/environmental education thatconsiders the implications of sites on studentexperiences of and in a place. Dvorak et al. (2011, p.151) recommend learning from communities andindividuals “deeply engaged in environmental work . . .

whose whole lifestyle and culture reflecteddramatically different sets of relationships to thenatural world”. They also highlight the importance ofselecting destinations with “particular relevance tothe discussion of climate change” (156). And finally,Leggett (2012, p. 43) cites the pedagogicalsignificance of travel in the developing world to help“students understand the urgency and complexity of suchissues as environmental degradation, overpopulation,and non-sustainable growth – both at home and abroad”.

Program mission and assessment

Surprisingly few studies discuss official commitmentsor mission statements regarding sustainability ineducational travel programs, and those that do discussthis also note that university-level commitments tosustainability (e.g. the American College andUniversity President’s Climate Commitment) have notfound their way to the programmatic level. Duffy (2009)identifies the university mission statement as animportant place to start. With an intentionalstatement, programs and IHEs would convey the messagethat sustainable practices are a worthwhile goal, andthey would incorporate measures to assure theirimplementation. A handful of organizations and IHEshave begun to make such commitments. For example, theForum on Education Abroad’s (2011) most recent Standardsof Good Practice support sustainability with the inclusionof a (brief) section on environmental and socialresponsibility. Additionally, Middlebury College hasmade an explicit commitment to sustainable educationaltravel through a program called Sustainable StudyAbroad (Leggett, 2012).

There is also a shortage of sustainability assessmentin educational travel programs. Some studies have

advocated for program-wide eco-audits and/or carbonfootprint analyses (Dvorak et al., 2011, Srinivasamohan& Lee, 2010; Tripoli, 2010). Others, such as Hunter andShaw (2007), suggest a “net ecological footprint”model, a useful tool that accounts for differences inimpact between student lifestyles at home and theiractions abroad. Ultimately, if programs andinstitutions are not explicitly addressingsustainability in their mission statements, and ifthere is no framework for assessment, then steps takento improve the overall sustainability of a program willremain intermittent and largely invalidated.

Recommendations and future research

According to Dvorak et al. (2011), the sustainabilityof study abroad programs can be viewed from threeperspectives. The first is that the educational valueof study abroad experiences outweighs the environmentalcosts associated with travel. The second is that, in anera of climate change and widespread environmentaldegradation, the heavy environmental costs of studyabroad cannot be justified. The final perspectivestates that the justification for study abroad programsrests on two considerations: “the overall carbonfootprint of the program, and the ability of the coursecontent to provide skills and inspire change instudents” (146). We support this last perspective, butwould expand it beyond carbon footprint to include theecological, economic, and socio-cultural impacts of aprogram. To facilitate future efforts, we offer threepractical recommendations that encourage dialogueacross institutional and disciplinary boundaries aboutsustainability within educational travel. We recognizethat these recommendations must occur alongside

continued research, and so we end this section withsuggestions for future studies.

First, we recommend travel programs adopt a missionstatement that clearly recognizes and advocateseconomic, socio-cultural, and environmentalsustainability. The articulation of such missionstatements must be inclusive of all stakeholders on andoff campus, and necessitates an open dialogue toformulate its goals. Once incorporated into itsmission, a program must develop and employ assessmentprotocols to encourage implementation and validatesustainability measures.

Second, we recommend professional development programsto educate program leaders and administration about theimpacts of educational travel and sustainable options.Such programs are uncommon (see exceptions in Cusick,2008 and Wynveen et al., 2012). We believe that mosttravel leaders and administrators would benefit fromtraining in the theory and practice of sustainabilitybased upon the experience and research of thosepractitioners who are involved in sustainabletravel/tourism. Such training may encourage theintegration of sustainability concepts and practicesinto travel curricula.

Finally, we recommend the implementation of a programproposal and review process that explicitly examinessustainable practices. As discussed above, the choiceof travel destination and logistics are closely tied toa trip’s impacts, and as some have noted, the efficacyof sustainability education is often linked to theefforts of the travel leader to incorporate theseconcepts into the curriculum (Wynveen et al., 2012).Program proposals should (1) require consideration ofthe ecological, socio-cultural, and economic impacts of

their travels, and (2) consider opportunities forintegrating sustainability concepts into thecurriculum. The proposal review process should requiretravel leaders, program coordinators, andadministration to engage in meaningful dialogue aboutthese issues and require an assessment process thatmeasures a trip’s sustainability and pedagogicaleffectiveness.

The successful implementation of these recommendationsmust coincide with ongoing research that addressesspecific gaps in the literature and explores frameworksfor under- standing changes in the tourism industry.The absence of a clearly articulated research agendamay be a key reason for the shortage of scholarlyresearch that combines sustain- ability and educationaltravel. Below, we propose an agenda for the comingyears. We divide this agenda broadly into “impacts” and“practices” (summarized in Table 3).

Comprehensive assessment of educational travel impactsis an important first step. Assessment tools gearedtoward the environmental impacts of tourism certainlyexist (e.g. carbon footprint and water footprintcalculators). However, metrics that examine the broaderecological footprint of travel are as yetunderdeveloped for educational travel or areinaccessible to a broader audience.3 Further, it isnecessary to consider travel’s diverse andinterconnected influences on ecosystems in light ofsocio-cultural dynamics and broader issues of politicaleconomy. With this in mind, it is important for futureresearch to develop comprehensive frameworks formeasuring the impacts of educational travel throughboth quantitative models (i.e. carbon and waterfootprints, economic impact, pollution, etc.) andconceptual frameworks (i.e. host–guest exchange,

cultural commoditization, transformative learning,local empowerment, migration/ mobility, etc.).

Table 3: A Research Agenda for Sustainable EducationalTravel

Researcharea

Research questions

ImpactsGeneral What is the difference in the impact from short-term

versus long-term programs? Is there a programmatic impact difference from independent programs and those with local partnerships?

Is a universal template for assessing sustainability in educational travel programs possible and/or desirable?

Environmental

What tools can be used to assess and compare the varying ecological impacts of study abroad courses?

Economic How do travel programs influence and support local economies? How can we assess these impacts?

Socio-cultural

What measures or frameworks exist, or can be developed, to assess the socio-cultural impacts on thehost destination?

What measures or frameworks exist, or need to be developed, to assess the pedagogical impacts on student travellers?

CurrentpracticesGeneral With whom do travel programs partner?

What types of businesses do travel programs support/work with?

Who makes the decisions about travel partnerships, destinations, and funding?

Do travel programs address sustainability in their mission statement?

How do we best implement offsets in ways that are meaningful?

What kinds of cultural and natural heritage do academic travel programs support and/or neglect?

Destination Which destinations are most frequented? Are they sustainable?

How do institutions choose regions to study in?

Do travel programs spend more time in front or backstages? Is the framework of front and backstages explicit and/or useful in this context?

Pedagogy Which pedagogical tools and models support sustainablepractices in travel programmes?

How do we measure “collateral learning”? What types of sustainable lifelong learning practices take place, and do these match up with the ideals of global citizenship?

How do they differ across program types, destinations,lengths?

Another important area for research is within academicinstitutions themselves. We have summarized some ofthese findings, but much is still unknown. Studies thatexplore administrative commitments and partnershipsassociated with educational travel may reveal moreabout how management at the institutional level eithermitigates or exacerbates impacts. Additionally, thepedagogical benefits of educational travel requirefurther critical investigation. This paper has reviewedsome of the more promising scholarship on this topic,but more research is needed in light of the emergentpopularity of new models of tourism (i.e. volunteer andservice tourism, justice tourism, etc.). Many of theseare highly applicable for educational travel programs,but as some authors have noted (Coghlan & Gooch, 2011;Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008; McIntosh & Zhara, 2007) thereis a need for further examination of their impacts onboth travelers and destination communities.

Finally, it is important to emphasize the evolvingnature of the tourism industry in the era of neoliberalglobalization and the implications this has for futureresearch. This paper has focused largely on theadvancement of practical and empirical approaches, butthe efficacy of these measures requires ongoing

theoretical engagement with the broader frameworks oftechnological advancement, human mobility, andpolitical economy. As Williams (2013) notes, thedynamics of migration and mobility have shifteddramatically, creating new pathways that both influenceand evolve within the boundaries of changing marketconditions, technological advancements, and stateintervention. As a result, activities once seen aspath-dependent developments in tourism infrastructures,policies, and practices can be subject to reinvention,agency, and reorientation. In a similar vein,alternative models of tourism specifically aimed atglobal justice and the empowerment of marginalizedcommunities have shown a remarkable tendency to be co-opted and “greenwashed” by the commercial tourismindustry, reminding us that even small-scale altruisticefforts can be subsumed by broader forces (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008). Both Williams and Higgins-Desbiolles remind us of the challenges of creating aformalized set of sustainable best practices, andsuggest that programs and travel leaders must carefullyweigh the trade-offs in order to justify educationaltravel and also weigh the outcomes of a trip. In short,we believe that while there are clear steps that can betaken to improve the sustainability of educationaltravel, continued critical engagement is needed inorder to minimize the negative impacts, maximize thebenefits, and bolster the credibility and efficacy ofthis form of travel.

Conclusion

Sustainability and global citizenship have emerged astwo prominent themes in contemporary higher education,but critical scholarship that connects educational

travel – a frequently used mechanism to enhance globalcitizenship – to institutional sustainability greatlylags behind the rapid growth of these programs. Giventheir recent growth and popularity, it is necessary torevaluate the role of educational travel in studentlearning and institutional development. If IHEs useeducational travel to develop global citizens, theycannot overlook the significant ecological, socio-cultural, and economic footprints of such programs. Thegreening of educational travel reinforces the ideals ofglobal citizenship while providing a practical outletfor those ideals. Likewise, it allows IHEs to addresswhat are perhaps their most significant global impacts.In this way, the greening of study abroad programslegitimizes the rhetoric of both the sustainability andglobal citizenship movements, and provides a timelyopportunity to (re)define what we mean by a successfuleducational travel program.

In this paper, we provide a set of potential bestpractices for sustainable educational travel, as wellas recommend the incorporation of sustainability intoprogram mission statements, the training of travelleaders in all three dimensions of sustainability, andthe implementation of sustainability-related assessmentmeasures for travel programs. We also recognize thatcontinued critical engagement with theoreticalframeworks is necessary in order to contextualize andevaluate educational travel’s negative impacts andpotential benefits. We hope that that this paperencourages fellow researchers, travel leaders, andadministrators to advance scholarship and practicesthat promote the sustainability and pedagogicalefficacy of university educational travel.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism for their helpful recommendations.

Notes

1. For an introduction, we recommend Hardy et al. 2002; Lu& Nepal 2009; Harris et al. 2002; Weaver 2006; Hall & Page 2006.

2. Other resources include: Greenpassport.org, a pledge service and online community; the Rising Green blog, a web community for young environmentalists with a section about study abroad; 350.org, an online resourcefacilitating campaigns, grassroots organizing, and masspublic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and GoAbroad’s Innovation in Sustainability award.

3. For example, Hunter and Shaw (2007) provide a broader conceptualization of “net ecological footprint” that may prove applicable to educational travel, but this connection has not been addressed in the literature.

Notes on contributors

Joshua Long has a PhD in human geography from the Universityof Kansas. He is an assistant professor of Environmental Studies at Southwestern University where he serves as co-adviser of the Southwestern Community Garden and also sits on the University Sustainability Committee. His research interests include sustainable tourism, sustainable food and agriculture, and urban political ecology. He has coordinated/led student travel to destinations in Italy, Switzerland, and England.

Alison E. Vogelaar has a PhD in communication from the

University of Colorado, Boulder. She is an assistant professor of communication and media studies at Franklin College Switzerland where she also co-directs the Center forSustainability Initiatives. Her research interests include environmental discourses, the rhetoric of social movements, and sustainable educational travel. She also leads a yearly academic travel program to Scotland that focuses upon the themes of folk culture, tourism, representation, and sustainability.

Brack W. Hale has a PhD in land resources from the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is currently an associate professor ofbiology and environmental science at Franklin College Switzerland and co-director of the Center for SustainabilityInitiatives at Franklin. His research interests include sustainability issues in higher education, particularly in regard to the environmental impacts of educational travel programs. He also regularly leads educational travels through Franklin’s Academic Travel program, having taken students to destinations in Europe and Latin America.

References

Allen-Gil, S., Walker, L., Thomas, G., Shevory, T., & Elan, S. (2005). Forming a community partnership to enhance education in sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(4), 392–402.

Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalizationof higher education: Motiva- tions and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542

Archer, B., Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2005). The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In W.F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism (pp. 79–102). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Ardahaey, F.T. (2011). Economic impacts of tourism industry.International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8), 206–216. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n8p206

Babbie, Earl. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.

Bamford, C. (2004). Sustainable transport and logistics: Vision or reality? In J. Blewitt & C.

Cullingford (Eds.), The sustainability curriculum (pp. 141–156). London: Earthscan.

Barlett P.F., & Chase G.W. (Eds.). (2004). Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Bellamy, C., & Wineberg, A. (2006).Creating global citizens through study abroad. The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21(2), 20–21.

Beringer, A., & Adomßent, M. (2008). Sustainable university research and development: Inspecting sustainability in higher education research. Environmental Education Research, 14(6),607–623. doi:10.1080/13504620802464866

Blewitt, J., & Cullingford, C. (Eds.). (2004). The sustainabilitycurriculum (p. 257). London: Earthscan.

Bodger, D.H. (1998). Leisure, learning, and travel. Journal of Physical Education, 69, 28–32.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 411–421. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.580586

Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M. & Merideth Jr., R.W. (1987). Global sustainability, toward definition. Environmental Management, 11, 713–719.Brunet, S., Bauer, J., De Lacy, T., & Tshering, K. (2001). Tourism development in Bhutan: Tensions between tradition and modernity. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 243–263.

Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.

Cole, S. (2007). Implementing and evaluating a code of conduct for visitors. Tourism Management, 28(2), 443–451.

Coghlan, A. & Gooch, M. (2011). Applying a transformative learning framework to volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 713–728.

Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global competence and national needs. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=190

Cusick, J. (2008). Study abroad in support of education for sustainability: A New Zealand case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(4), 801–813. doi:10.1007/s10668-008-9144-5

Duffy, L.N. (2009). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Study Abroad Stu- dents’Preparation for and Participation in Sustainable Tourism Practices (Master’s thesis). University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

Duncan, A. (2010). International engagement through education. Speech presented to the Council on Foreign Relations Meeting, released 26 May 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/05262010.html

Dvorak, A.M.W., Christiansen, L.D., Fischer, N.L., & Underhill, J.B. (2011). A necessary partnership: Study abroad and sustainability in higher education. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XXII, 143–167.

Dwyer, M.M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X, 151–163.

Ellis, C. (2003). Participatory environmental research in tourism: A global view. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 45–55.

Engle, L., & J. Engle. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward aclassification of program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, IX, 1–20.

Forum on Education Abroad. (2011). Standards of good practice for education abroad (4th ed.). Carlisle, PA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.forumea.org/standards-index.cfm

Gebhard, K., Meyer, M., Parkyn, M., Rohacand, J., Roth, S. (2009a). Sustainable Tourism: Training the Trainers Programme. Venice: Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE) and UNESCO Regional

Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (BRESCE).

Gebhard, K., Meyer, M., and Roth, S. (2009b). Criteria for Sustainable Tourism. Venice: Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE) and UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (BRESCE).

GoAbroad Innovation Awards - GoAbroad News. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.goabroad.com/news/goabroad-innovation-awards

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York:Doubleday.

Go ssling, S., Borgstro m Hansson, C., Ho rstmeier, C., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43, 199–211.

Go ssling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Peeters, P., & Strasdas, W. (2007). Voluntary carbon offsetting schemes for aviation: Efficiency, credibility and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 223–248. doi:10.2167/jost758.0

Hale, B.W., Vogelaar, A.E., & Long, J. (in press). A-Broad Spectrum: Sustainability in educational travel. International

Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(4).

Hall, C.M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first- and second-orderto third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 649–671.

Hall, C.M., & Page, S.J. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place, and space. London: Routledge.

Hanson, L. (2010). Global citizenship, global health, and the internationalization of curriculum: A study of transformative potential. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), 70–88.

Hardy, A., Pearson, L., & Merz, S.K. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475–496.

Harris, A.L., Murray, M.C., & Urbaczewski, A. (2011). Study abroad as an education experience: Challenges, realizations,and lessons learned. Communications of the AIS, 28, 17–30.

Harris, R., Williams, P., & Griffin, T. (2002). Sustainable tourism: A global perspective (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Higgins-Desboilles, F. (2008). Justice tourism and alternative globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 345–364.

Hill, J., & Gale, T. (Eds.). (2009). Ecotourism and environmentalsustainability: Principles and practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Grifin, G., & Syme, G. (2001). Tourist perception of environmental impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 853–867.

Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as akey indicator of sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 28(1), 46–57. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.016

Jackson, L.A. (2010). Toward a framework for thecomponents of green lodging. Journal of Re- tail & Leisure Property, 9(3), 211–230.Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://www. palgravejournals.com/rlp/journal/v9/n3/abs/rlp20106a.html

Jong, P.D., Schnusenberg, O., & Goel, L. (2010). Marketing study abroad programs effectively: What do American businessstudents think? Journal of International Education in Business, 3(1/2), 34–52. doi:10.1108/18363261011106876

Kinnaird, V., & Hall, D. (1996). Women and tourism - theoretical writing. Tourism Management, 2(17), 96–102.

Klein-Banai, C., & Theis, T.L. (2011). An urban university’secological footprint and the effect of climate change. Ecological Indicators, 11(3), 857–860. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.11.002

Knuth, S., Nagle, B., Steuer, C., & Yarnal, B. (2007). Universities and climate change mitigation: Advancing grassroots climate policy in the US. Local Environment, 12(5), 485–504. doi:10.1080/13549830701657059

Kollmuss, A., & Bowell, B. (2007). Voluntary offsets for air-travel carbon emissions: Evaluations and recommendations of voluntary offset companies (p. 53). Retrieved from http:// sustainability.tufts.edu/wpcontent/uploads/TCI_Carbon_Offsets_Paper_April-2-07.pdf

Leggett, B.Y.K. (2012). Leaving light footprints. InternationalEducator, XXI(3), 41–52.

Lele, S.M. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), 607–621.

Lewin, R. (2009). Transforming the study abroad experience into a collective priority. AAC&U Peer

Review, 11(4), 8–12.Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6),

459–475.Lu, J., & Nepal, S.K. (2009). Sustainable tourism

research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 5–16.

Lutterman-Aguilar, A., & Gingrich, O. 2002. Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship.Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, VII, 41–82.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Marion, J.L., & Reid, S.E. (2007). Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(1), 5–27.

Martin, S., & Jucker, R. (2005). Educating earth-literate leaders. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education, 29(1), 19–29. doi:10.1080/03098260500030298Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. Harlow:

Longman.McIntosh, A.J., & Zhara A. (2007). A cultural encounter through volunteer tourism: Towards the ideals of sustainable tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 541–556.

McKeowan, Joshua. (2009). The first time effect: The impact of study abroad on college student intellectual development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McKercher, B. (1993). Some fundamental truths about tourism:Understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 7–16.

McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2010). Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 297–317. doi:10.1080/09669580903395022

Miyoshi, C., & Mason, K.J. (2009). The carbon emissions of selected airlines and aircraft types in three geographic

markets. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(3), 138–147. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.11.009

Molnar, C., Heller B., & Solecki W. (2011). Using higher education-community partnerships to promote urban sustainability. Environment Magazine, 53(1), 18–28.

Myers, D.N., Hill, M., & Harwood, S.A. (2005). Transforming pedagogical outcomes. Landscape Journal, 24(2–5), 172–184.

Naffziger, D.W., Bott, J.P., & Mueller, C.B. (2008). Factorsinfluencing study abroad decisions among college of businessstudents. International Business: Research Teaching and Practice, 2(1), 39–52.

Nakagawa, Y., & Payne, P.G. (2011). Experiencing beach in Australia: Study abroad students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 94–109.

Open Doors Information Portal. (2011). Institute of International Education. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/.. ./Open-Doors/Fast-Facts/Fast%20Facts%202011.ashx

Paige, R.M., Fry, G.W., Stallman, E.M., Josic , J., & Jon, J. (2009). Study abroad for global engage- ment: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural Education, 20(1), S29–S44. doi:10.1080/14675980903370847

Palacios, C.M. (2010). Volunteer tourism, development and education in a postcolonial world: Con- ceiving global connections beyond aid. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 861–878.

Parker, J., Wade, R., & Atkinson, H. (2004). Citizenship andcommunity from local to global: Implications for higher education of a global citizenship approach. In J. Blewitt & C. Cullingford (Eds.), The sustainability curriculum (p. 257). London: Earthscan.

Paton, J. (2008). What’s left of sustainable development? Journal of Australian Political Economy, 62, 94–119.

Patterson, T., Gulden, T., Cousins, K., & Kraev, E. (2004). Integrating environmental, social and eco- nomic systems: A dynamic model of tourism in Dominica. Ecological Modeling, 175, 121–136.

Pedersen, P.J. (2009). Teaching towards an ethnorelative worldview through psychology study abroad. Intercultural Education, 20(1), S73–S86. doi:10.1080/14675980903370896

Pedersen, P.J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectivenessoutcomes in a year-long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70–80.

Pomering, A., & White, L. (2011). The portrayal of Indigenous identity in Australian tourism brand advertising:Engendering an image of extraordinary reality or staged authenticity?

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(3), 165–174. doi:10.1057/pb.2011.19Reilly, D., & Senders, S. (2009). Becoming the change we want to see: Critical study abroad for tumultuous world. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XVIII, 241–267.

Rexeisen, R.J., & Al-Khatib, J. (2009). Assurance of learning and study abroad: A case study. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 20(3), 192–207.

Ritchie, B.W., Carr, N., & Cooper, C.P. (2003). Managing educational tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.Rowe, D.(2002). Environmental literacy and sustainability as core requirements: Success stories and models. In W.L. Fihlo (Ed.), Teaching sustainability at universities (pp. 79–103). New York: Peter

Lang.Schroeder, K., Wood, C., Galiardi, S., & Koehn, J. (2009). First, do no harm: Ideas for mitigating negative community impacts of short-term study abroad. Journal of Geography, 108, 141–147.

Scott, D., & Becken, S. (2010). Adapting to climate change

and climate policy: Progress, problems and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 283–295.

Scott, D., Peeters, Paul, & Go ssling, S. (2010). Can tourism deliver its “aspirational” greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 393–408.Selby, D. (2006). The catalyst that is sustainability: Bringing permeability to disciplinary boundaries. Planet, (17), 57–59.

Shackelford, A.L. (2011). Address risks associated with study abroad. Dean and Provost. Wiley Periodicals.

Shah, K., McHarry, J., & Gardiner, R. (2002). Sustainable tourism: Turning the tide. Towards earth summit 2002, Economic briefing no. 4. United Nations Environmental Program International Advisory Board.

Silvia, A. (2008). Green campuses, green programs. Journal of New England Board of Higher Education, 23(2), 30.

Sjoberg, S.D., & Shabalina, O.I. (2010). More than a sight-seeing trip: Enhancing the value in short-term study abroad.Business Education Innovation, 2(2), 46–59.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., & Norgaard, R.B. (2006) Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57, 253–268.

Soneson, H.M., & Cordano, R.J. (2009). Universal design and study abroad: (Re)Designing programs for effectiveness and access. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XVIII, 269–288.

Srinivasamohan, A., & Lee, H. (2010). Cross-border carbon footprints: University study abroad and carbon offsetting programs. Conference Presentation: Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences.

Stephens, J.C., & Graham, A.C. (2010). Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: Exploring the transition management framework. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 18(7), 611–618. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009

Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 210–230.

Tarrant, M. (2009). A conceptual framework for exploring therole of studies abroad in nur- turing global citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 433–451. doi:10.1177/1028315309348737

Tarrant, M., & Lyons, K. (2012). The effect of short-term educational travel programs on environ- mental citizenship. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 403–416.

Theobald, W.F. (Ed.). (2005). Global tourism. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Tripoli, L. (2010). Sustainable travel: Policies, programs, and results. Sustainability, 3(5), 290–293.

Venetoulis, J. (2001). Assessing the ecological impact of a university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2), 180–196.

Vogel, H.L. 2001. Travel industry economics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wang, Q., Taplin, R., & Brown, A.M. (2011). Chinese students’ satisfaction of the study abroad experience. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(3), 265–277.

Wearing, S. (2004) Examining best practice in volunteer tourism. In R. Stebbins & M. Graham (Eds.)Volunteering as leisure/ Leisure as volunteering (pp. 209–224). Cambridge: CABI.

Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice (1st ed., p. 240). Burlington, MA:

Butterworth Heinemann.Williams, M. (2002). Tourism liberalization, gender and the GATS. IGTN Series: Economic Literacy Series: General Agreement on Trade in Services. Retrieved from: web.igtn.org/home/index.php?option=com

docman. . .6.

Williams, A.M. (2013). Mobilities and sustainable tourism: Path-creating or path-dependent relationships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(4), 511–531.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas guidelines for planning and management. In Best practice protected area guidelines series, No. 8. Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK: IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

Wynveen, C., Kyle, G., & Tarrant, M. (2012). Study abroad experiences and global citizenship: Fostering proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 334–352.