Next Article in Journal
Unsafe Bicycling Behavior in Changsha, China: A Video-Based Observational Study
Next Article in Special Issue
How to Influence Rural Tourism Intention by Risk Knowledge during COVID-19 Containment in China: Mediating Role of Risk Perception and Attitude
Previous Article in Journal
The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Visitors’ Motives for Attending a Healthy Food Exhibition
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph17093254
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Right to A Clean Environment: Considering Green Logistics and Sustainable Tourism

by
Dalia Perkumienė
1,*,
Rasa Pranskūnienė
1,
Milita Vienažindienė
1 and
Jurgita Grigienė
2
1
Business and Rural Development Research Institute, Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas 53361, Lithuania
2
Faculty of Law, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas 53361, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3254; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093254
Submission received: 27 March 2020 / Revised: 4 May 2020 / Accepted: 4 May 2020 / Published: 7 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism and Health)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The globalization process has yielded various undesirable consequences for the environment and society, including increased environmental pollution, climate change and the exhaustion and destruction of resources. The influence of these processes makes it difficult to guarantee citizens’ rights to a clean environment, and the implementation of this right requires complex solutions. The aim of this integrative review article is to discuss the right to a clean environment, as it relates to green logistics and sustainable tourism, by analyzing various scientific and legal sources. Rethinking the possible solutions of green logistics for sustainable tourism, such as tourism mobilities, bicycle tourism, the co-creation of smart velomobility, walkability, and others, can help us also rethink how to balance, respect, protect, and enforce human rights in the present-day context of climate change challenges. The integrative review analysis shows the importance of seeking a balance between the context (the right to a clean environment), the challenge (climate change), and the solutions (green logistics solutions for sustainable tourism).

1. Introduction

The rapid globalization processes in the natural environment and society cause various undesirable consequences, such as increased environmental pollution, climate change, and the exhaustion and destruction of natural resources. These processes degrade the quality of life, endanger human health (and even life), and limit and violate the social rights of individuals to live in a clean and healthy natural environment. The influence of these processes makes it very difficult to guarantee citizens’ rights to a clean environment. Protecting the environment and ensuring people’s rights to a clean and healthy environment is one of the priority areas of law, economics, and politics. The concept of human right to a clean, high quality, and healthy natural environment, the relevant legal regulations, and the implementation of those rights have been studied by various scholars [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
Tourism, as one of the fastest growing industries [11,12], is one of the major contributors to the greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions [13]. Climate change, and its potentially substantial impacts on tourism worldwide, is a pressing issue [14]. Leisure travel significantly increases CO2 emissions due to the transportation used during people’s holidays [15]. Lenzen et al. [13] showed that the pursuit of economic growth comes with a significant carbon burden, as tourism is significantly more carbon-intensive than other potential areas of economic development. Fang et al. [16] noted that the interaction between climate change and tourism has been one of the most critical and dynamic research areas in the field of sustainable tourism in recent years. As the current situation is untenable, so in the present, the concept of sustainability is one of the key issues worldwide [17]. The tourism sector is no exception and contributes to the challenges of sustainability. Moreover, the sustainability conversion of the tourism sector, both globally and socially, determines not only legal and political structures but also societal provisions and individual values [18]. The scientific sources related to sustainable tourism and its development present various research positions. Part of them [11,19,20,21] focus on examining the concept of sustainable tourism, its importance, and the appropriate methods to achieve it. Other academics have studied green hotels [22,23,24,25], discussed the economic development of the tourism industry [26,27,28], debated the collaboration and partnership development of sustainable tourism [12,29,30]. Based on the opinions of these researchers, tourism can be sustainable if there is close cooperation and sharing between various industries, as well as between tourists, hotels, communities, and public authorities. Various researchers have studied tourism [31,32,33] and climate change [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. These authors noted that without major changes in thinking and purposeful activities on sustainable tourism, the development of tourism will be impossible.
Sustainable tourism development also requires the application of green activities and innovations. Various authors [44,45,46,47,48,49] noted that one of the challenges for the development of sustainable tourism is the implementation of the principles and initiatives of green solutions. Green solutions and sustainable tourism are very closely linked, especially in the use of green logistics and its activities, such as the management of tourist flow (especially in resort areas), reducing traffic flow and noise levels, and other environmental factors. These sectors are closely linked through laws. The concepts of green logistics and green transport have been analyzed from different perspectives. Nilnoppakun [50] and Lin et al. [51] addressed the issue of green logistics and green transport development for tourist attractions and suggested an initiative for the superior development of green transport from a government and enterprise perspective. Researchers analyzed various greening processes and solutions in the tourism sector [52], emphasized the main tasks of green transport in the area of reducing the negative environmental impacts of households and entities operating in the city [53]. Khan et al. [54] underlined that application of green transport practices as the only solution to control air pollution, climate change, and global warming problems. The studies about drone food delivery services as green solutions, having the great potential to save the environment, have emerged in recent years [55,56,57,58]. Hanna et al. [59] debated the advocacy for sustainable transport, and Oklevik et al. [12] presented ideas about the effects of perceived traffic risks, noise, and exhaust on bicyclist behavior. However, there are studies related to the innovations of green logistics in the context of sustainable tourism. Pan et al. [60] provided an overview of the interrelationships between tourism and sustainability from a cross-disciplinary perspective and underlined the main elements of sustainable tourism, such as green energy, green transportation, green buildings, green infrastructure, green agriculture, and smart technologies, which should be linked to green logistics initiatives.
As sustainable tourism and green logistics are broad and complex fields, green logistics is discussed in this study to seek out innovative ideas, exploring how green logistics solutions can contribute to the challenges of sustainable tourism development and how they influence decisions while helping to achieve the right to a clean environment. Climate change also is discussed as one of the main challenges to achieving the right to a clean environment in the context of sustainable tourism. Thus, the aim of this integrative review article is to discuss the right to a clean environment through green logistics and sustainable tourism by analyzing various scientific and legal sources.
This work is organized as follows. Subsequent sections present the materials and methods, results, discussion, and concluding insights. The literature review method is presented in the materials and methods section. The results are discussed in the results chapter (the review data are organized under the following themes: the right to a clean environment and its legal regulation; tourism challenges: between climate change and sustainability; and green logistics solutions for sustainable tourism. The discussion section debates how balance should be sought for the right to a clean environment. This integrative review finishes by offering concluding insights.

2. Materials and Methods

Literature reviews, as Torraco [61] notes, are conducted differently for various audiences and for different purposes. This integrative review paper seeks to undertake an interdisciplinary discussion about the right to a clean environment considering green logistics and sustainable tourism. For this paper, the integrative review approach outlined by Whittemore and Knafl [62] was adopted: “The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies, and contributes to the presentation of varied perspectives on a phenomenon of concern”. Additionally, Whittemore and Knafl [62] noted that integrative reviews are the broadest type of research review method that allows for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research in order to more fully understand the phenomenon being studied. An integrative review may also combine data from theoretical as well as empirical literature [62]. The aim of this integrative review is not only to analyze general laws and scientific opinions but also to interpret the various aspects that are associated with the right to a clean environment, as well as those related to sustainable tourism and green logistics. We have chosen to examine the special tensions related to the right to a clean environment, so the selected international legal documents and cases focus on issues in this field.
We use five stages for this review [62]: identification of the problem, a search of the literature, evaluation of the data, analysis of the data, and presentation (Table 1).

3. Results

As mentioned for the integrative review, we examined articles discussing legal documents related to a clean environment (Table 2); tourism, climate change, and sustainability (Table 3); and green logistics solutions for tourism (Table 4). The integrated review data were organized under the following themes: the right to a clean environment and legal regulations (3.1); tourism challenges considering climate change and sustainability (3.2); and green logistics for sustainable tourism (3.3).

3.1. The Right to a Clean Environment and Its Legal Regulations

The right to a clean environment is divided into two parts: First, the concept of a clean environment is discussed, and then the legal regulations for a clean environment are presented more deeply. The legal documents and cases selected for the analysis are presented in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, the cases of the review run from 1948 to 2016, which ensures a selection of classical and typical cases related to this theme.

3.1.1. The Right to a Clean Environment

When analyzing the right to a clean environment, the concept of the environment should be defined first. Thorme [2] defines the environment as “a human right” and clearly emphasizes that this entails the right to a “safe, healthy, and environmentally sustainable environment” [2]. However, a deep and comprehensive analysis of the regulations of these rights at the international and EU levels are not very common [3,8]. Moreover, most countries’ national constitutions use similar concepts of a clean environment. For example, the Portuguese and Lithuanian Constitutions speak about the constitutional right to a clean environment [63,64]. The meaning of “a clean environment” here is ambiguous as the term may refer to freedom from crime or the threat of pollution. For example, children have the right to a safe environment at school [65]. Lewis [9] discusses the nature of the relationship between the environment and human rights in international law and recognizes that this relationship is undisputed. The author distinguishes between the concept of a human right and a good environment. Lewis [9] sees climate change as the greatest environmental challenge and examines whether the right to a good environment can provide new approaches to the human rights implications of climate change (see Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan case [66]). Analyzing the concept of a clean environment, lawyers and scholars have explored the relationship between human rights and the right to a clean environment from different perspectives. Some authors, such as Fitzmaurice [67] and Lansdown et al. [68], highlight children’s rights to a clean and safe environment. Shelton [4] identifies three main strands of human rights to a clean environment: 1. The absence of the right to a clean environment; 2. The existence of the right to a clean environment; and 3. The right to a clean environment stemming from other inherent human rights (e.g., the right to life, health, and information) [3,4,9]. Dogaru [6] argues that the right to a clean and safe environment is a fundamental human right, the nature and characteristics of which do not change over time. In the scientific legal literature, the right to a clean environment is associated with others human social, economic, cultural, political, and civil rights [5]. Fundamental human rights are inalienable, and this principle applies to the right to a healthy and a safe environment [1,5].
Thus, the right to a clean environment, understood as the relationship between the environment and humans, should help regulate individual rights and the opportunity to live in a clean and safe environment. The individual’s right to a clean environment is a fundamental human right that derives from other inherent human rights. Table 2 presents a description of the literature on relevant legal cases and conventions.

3.1.2. Legal Regulation of the Right to a Clean Environment

The right to a clean and safe natural environment is also enshrined in the legal instruments of the European Union. The rights of persons to a clean and safe environment are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [78]. This declaration emphasizes the rights of individuals to a safe, healthy, and clean environment. The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment [79] also declared the human right to a safe and clean environment. Another important declaration is the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development [80], which emphasizes the human right to “a healthy and full life in harmony with nature”. The Rio Declaration is closely related with the Stockholm Declaration and is a key piece of environmental legislation. The Rio Declaration emphasizes that people have the right to a healthy and a productive life in harmony with nature [10]. The human right to a clean and a healthy environment is also highlighted in the Treaty of Maastricht, which amended the treaties establishing individual communities to establish the European Union. In the preamble to the EU Treaty, the Member States are said to “promote the economic and the social development of their peoples, with a view to promoting the greater cohesion and the protection of the environment” [81]. It is also important to mention the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce the greenhouse effect by limiting CO2 emissions [82]. People’s right to a safe environment is also closely related to the Treaty of Amsterdam, whose preamble entrenches the principle of endless development and stronger protection of the environment [83]. The importance of the Aarhus Convention [84] for ensuring a clean and safe environment should also be noted in the analysis of the international environmental instruments. In order to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, such as the right to a healthy, safe, and clean environment, the European Court of Justice often emphasizes the international treaties of Member States related to the protection of these rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is the main treaty on this subject. Moreover, Article 6 (1) of the Maastricht Treaty imposes an obligation on the European Union to respect the fundamental rights of each Member State [81]. Compliance with and enforcement of a contract can be upheld as a court decision, as in the case of the Nold v. KG commission [69], which upheld these rights. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights addresses issues related to the right of each individual to a healthy, safe, and clean environment with respect to the right to life, the right to private and family life, freedom of expression, etc. Cases of pollution, noise, odors, etc., which may affect people’s well-being or pose a direct threat to health, have also been examined [85]. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not directly enshrine the right to a healthy, safe, and clean environment. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) links this right with the right to life, the right to a private and family life, freedom of expression, and others. The interpretation of this legal provision in the context of environmental protection is found in the ECHR judgment of Öneryıldız v. Turkey [70]. Above all, this obligation arises in relation to dangerous activities, whether carried out by a private or public entity [70]. International courts often deal with cases involving the greenhouse effect and emissions, particularly CO2 [67]. In the case Fadeyeva v. Russia [72], the ECHR noted that, in order for complaints concerning environmental factors to fall within the scope of Article 8, environmental factors must first be proven to actually affect the scope of the applicant’s private life, as well as the degree of severity of the exposure, which is determined by the intensity, duration, physical, and mental impacts of the adverse effects, as well as the overall environmental context. Similar violations of an individual’s right to life as the result of the harmful effects of the environment and the right to a private and family life have also been analyzed in other cases, such as Budayeva et al. v. Russia [73], the ECHR case X v. Iceland 5 DR 86 [74]; Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v the United States of America, Tatar v. Romania [76], etc. In the ECHR case Kolyadenko v Russia [77], 56 EHRR 2, the applicants alleged that the State was responsible for putting their lives at the risk and for the damage done to their homes and property as a result of the sudden large-scale evacuation of water from the Pionerskoye reservoir and the ensuing flooding in the area around the reservoir. The applicants also complained that they had not received effective remediation in the matter.
In conclusion, legal instruments aim to maximize the assurance of the implementation of citizens’ rights by addressing climate change and other environmental challenges. This area remains problematic, especially in international law. In this situation, the question is whether the implementation of legal norms could be enhanced between different areas such as tourism and green logistics. What are the possible solutions? Therefore, the next section of this article discusses tourism challenges in the context of climate change and sustainability.

3.2. Tourism Challenges: Concerning Climate Change and Sustainability

The tourism sector bears a large responsibility for the quality of the environment to ensure the fulfillment of an individual’s right to a clean environment. The relationship between tourism and environmental quality assurance is complicated [86] and covers a range of activities that may have a negative impact on the environment. Many of these tourist activities that have a negative impact on the environment are related, for example, to roads and the airports, as well as to tourist attractions [21]. The negative impacts of hotels, marinas, restaurants, and shops on the environment should also be mentioned. The negative impacts of tourism development are detrimental to the environment and environmental resources. Muler Gonzalez et al. [87] pointed out that the negative impact of tourism is also particularly visible under an increase in tourist flow in the case of overtourism, which can lead to undesirable and environmentally harmful effects, such as increased pollution, soil erosion, loss of natural habitats, and increased forest fires. Traveling for leisure purposes is not a necessity, but it contributes significantly to CO2 emissions [13]. Tourism also includes the transportation of tourists to and from their accommodations. It is estimated that transport accounts for about 75% of tourism’s CO2 emissions and aviation counts for about 40% [88]. The improvements in energy efficiency in the transport sector are expected to lead to an increase in energy efficiency between 2005 and 2035. This will reduce the emissions per passenger kilometer by up to 32% [15].
Moreover, tourism should be sustainable to achieve the individual right to a clean environment. Sustainable tourism is not an isolated or special form of tourism; rather, all types of tourism should become more sustainable. Thus, increasing tourism in a more sustainable way does not only mean controlling and managing the negative effects of the industry. Economic development and environmental protection should not be seen as opposing forces but should instead be pursued together, as sustainable tourism practices can only be attained when the holistic principle of sustainability is understood and integrated into the strategic planning of the industry [20,89]. Sustainable tourism is often also referred to as responsible tourism [90], which has been adopted by industries who feel that the word sustainability is overused. A challenging issue here is ecotourism, which refers to responsible travel to natural areas that preserve the environment. The idea of ecotourism, according to Krüger [91], is a form of nature-based tourism, contributing both towards socioeconomic and environmental benefits. This concept entered the scientific, and later public, consciousness in the 1990s and presently faces challenges due to its popularity. Voumard [92] noted that eco-tourism theoretically consists of responsible travel to natural areas, which benefits both environment and social goals. Ignoring these positive goals, Voumard highlighted the uneven results of eco-tourism development, singling out the gaps between the promised and observed results. Although eco-tourism yields economic benefits, it can also have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of wildlife in protected areas [93]. The challenging issue of seeking sustainability in ecotourism led us to examine one more aspect of sustainable tourism. Responsible tourism seeks to minimize the negative social, economic, and environmental impacts and to ensure citizens’ rights to a clean and safe environment. Responsible tourism is about making “better places for people to live in better places for people to visit” [94]. We argue that one of the key factors for a good place to live and also a place to visit is a safe and clean environment. Therefore, sustainable tourism as responsible tourism seeks to ensure and enforce people’s rights to a clean environment. This relationship is a result of the close cooperation between law and tourism. This cooperation remains very challenging and debatable. Table 3 presents a description of the literature on tourism, climate change, and sustainability.
Notably, tourism is increasingly affected by the same effects of climate change: Some areas are expected to become too hot for the tourists, while other coastal areas may be flooded [95,96]. Hall et al. [40] noted that tourism is an extremely significant global activity. Tourism is also a major global phenomenon, as Mearns [38] argues, which is highly sensitive to climate change but is, at the same time, a major contributor to climate change that could have significant impacts on natural and manmade attractions worldwide.
It is difficult today to imagine a world without tourism [38]. In order to be properly understood, the phenomenon of tourism should be clearly and comprehensively defined to assess its true meaning and purpose. The development of the tourism industry, as Wang et al. [28] noted, caused many environmental problems, but, the implementation of low-carbon technologies has recently become an inevitable choice for tourism development. Moreover, the rapid development of the tourism industry has caused many losses, which requires the introduction of low-carbon technologies in order to achieve sustainable development. According to Scott et al. [37], there is very little knowledge on the abilities of current tourism operators and communities to adapt to potential changes related to climate change issues, as there is a growing lack of confidence in the current interpretations of the real impact of climate change on the tourism industry. Mearns [38] observes that with the tourism industry drastically reducing its contribution to climate change, all long-distance travel should be stopped in order to limit climate impacts. On the other hand, many poor countries across the world are heavily dependent on these long-distance travelers to create jobs and reduce poverty [96,99]. The thriving local communities, as Mearns [38] argues, living in intact natural landscapes are critical for tourism’s long-term sustainability and viability. Juvan and Dolnicar [100] discussed the pro-environmental behavior of tourists, noting that during holidays, the treatment of the environment decreases during all types of holidays; de Bruijn et al. [101] also noted that the carbon footprint of travelers doubles when they go on holiday. Baldner [102] noted that such pro-environment attitudes may be driven by a desire to protect individuals while protecting the environment, while an anti-environmental approach may be driven by a desire to maintain the status quo. Traveling to holiday destinations should not cost us the Earth; instead, it should create better places for people to live in and for people to visit. In tourism policy terms, Hall et al. [41] note that sustainability is primarily seen as being ‘environmental’ and development as ‘economic’ (and to a lesser extent, ‘social’); the concept of sustainable tourism, or sustainable tourism development, seeks to mitigate the paradox between these two understandings without fundamentally affecting existing economic relationships [103]. Continuing growth in aviation and tourism emissions are clearly in conflict with global climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals [41]. Despite enthusiasm for changing consumer tourism behavior, people seem to be reluctant to give up their international travel or to make other important changes [37,99].
Overall, the role of the tourism sector should help to ensure the quality of the environment. Could tourism enforce a citizen’s right to a clean environment? Grimm et al. [39] suggest that the entire tourism system can and should take steps to reduce the GHG emissions associated with its activities. It seems important to note that green solutions in logistics (another challenging sector) could also contribute to the maintenance of a clean environment, so the next section of this article discusses the challenges and possible green solutions that could contribute fulfilling the right to a clean environment.

3.3. Green Logistics Solutions for Sustainable Tourism

Due to the impact of green logistics as possible green solutions for climate change, as well as increasing air pollution, noise, and traffic accidents, green logistics has recently been receiving increasingly more attention. In academia, debates on green logistics are often associated with the concept of sustainable development. Green logistics can be defined as all attempts to minimize the ecological impact of logistics activities [104]. Further, green logistics is a research field that aims to assess and reduce the environmental impact of logistics [105]. Logistics systems are created in accordance with human needs and interests and reflect the trends in strategies for implementing sustainable development [44,48]. Scott et al. [106] observed that the term “green logistics“ is often used interchangeably with “reverse logistics“, but in contrast to reverse logistics, green logistics “summarizes the logistics activities that are primarily motivated by the environmental considerations” [107]. As green logistics and sustainable tourism concepts are closely intertwined, complementing each other to preserve a high quality and clean environment, all efforts in the green logistics area are, therefore, focused on contributing to sustainability [108]. Could green logistics solutions for more sustainable tourism facilitate a better implementation of citizens’ rights to a safe and clean environment?
Seroka-Stolka et al. [48], Gavrilović et al. [52], Pan et al. [60], and Wang et al. [109] emphasized that the implementation of green logistics initiatives for sustainable tourism should be based on the economic, ecological, and social responsibility levels that are equivalent and complementary. According to Broman and Robèrt [110], ecological, social, and financial capital is essential for sustainable society and for the transition to a such society. The clear link between logistics and tourism can be seen in green transportation, which has a direct impact on the efficiency of sustainable tourism, as well as fuel-efficient vehicles, biofuels, electric vehicles, bicycles, and tricycles for delivery. Thus, governmental authorities should enforce green practices in logistics and transport-related operations, to increase tourist safety and security, which may mitigate adverse effects on environmental sustainability and also attract tourists [111].
Peeters et al. [97] focused on the challenge of mitigating climate change, which is critical to the future of desirable tourism transportation. However, to date, relatively little attention has been paid to this aspect of sustainable tourism. Smith et al. [112] noted that tourism policy directions have evolved over several years and in different contexts for many tourism destinations and that it is far from clear what a desirable transport future looks like. Thus, what could be the possible solutions here? The possible solutions for green logistics for sustainable tourism, such as mobility tourism, bicycle tourism, and the co-creation of smart velomobility and walkability are discussed in the next section. A description of the literature on green logistics solutions for tourism is shown in Table 4.

3.3.1. Tourism Mobilities

In recent years, increasingly more research about tourism mobilities has emerged. Hanna and Adams [59] analyzed the ways in which participants understand and apply the potential conflict between the concept of sustainable holidays and air transport. Kantenbacher et al. [115] presented research findings suggesting that voluntary reductions in flying are more likely than other forms of environmentally friendly sacrifice. As Scuttari et al. [116] point out, in ecologically sensitive but intensive tourism locations, transport policy-makers face the paradox of realizing the need to minimize transport-related impacts but failing to reverse the current situation. The authors noted that this situation occurs because the recognized negative impacts of traffic on the tourism economy are understood as less problematic than the potential impacts of traffic management. The authors [108] noted that alternative transportation is expected to be efficient, frequent, cheap, and integrated with a long daily schedule and that restrictions on private mobility should be clearly laid out. Tourism is in a state of the change, as Nilsson [21] points out, especially in urban areas where innovations such as low-cost aviation and digital reservation platforms have created new dynamics, including new models for tourist activities and mobility spaces. In trying to mitigate the negative impacts of urban tourism, which are caused by tourism transport, Nilsson [21] observed that the efforts to promote participation in non-motorized transport have gradually become particularly relevant and interesting. Through an in-depth life-history approach, Cass and Faulconbridge [122] contributed to the understanding of mobility focused on the emotional experience of mobility. According to these authors, rethinking ideas about the value of travel time, which focuses on mobility, can be as effective as the time used to engage in other practices. They also emphasize that this factor is important because it reveals the tools for creating mobility cultures and meaningful mobility performance. Recent research shows the importance of discussing tourism mobilities. Drones, as one more challenging solution, emerging in green research, would seem having the great potential to save the environment [55,57], especially in drone food delivery services, while debates about passenger drones [113] on the topic of environment and sustainability are mostly characterized by a lack of solid scientific evidence and uncertainties about the environmental impact. Hoed [114] also provides empirical evidence for the newer concepts of tourism mobility closer to the structure of everyday life while more explicitly recognizing that tourism mobility occurs in, rather than away from, the space and time of daily commitments. In addition, it emphasizes the wide variety of tourism practices that are carried out indirectly or directly as part of a mobile life. Docherty [127] notes that there will undoubtedly be a shift towards a more advanced future for mobility, which will have a major impact on the role of mobility in society.

3.3.2. Green Tourism Transport Solution—Bicycle Tourism

Nilsson [21] positively describes urban cycling tourism development as a state-of-the-art technological process and describes the changes in regional social and technological mobility. Based on his many years of experience, Lee [125] observes that the participants in relevant research can break free from their unconscious car models and become the embodied bicycle carriers who enter into an active negotiation with their commuting practices. A holistic approach is needed for a better understanding of tourism’s role. Nilsson [21] suggests that, in this sense, cities can be considered as creative areas of innovation where relative innovations, such as urban cycling tourism, can be of interest to urban tourism in general. Cycling is considered an authentic local experience and can become a part of the tourism location. Cycling, as Hoed [114] observes, is an affordable mode of transport that provides an opportunity for older people to recover and socialize. In many countries, older people rarely cycle and are mostly dependent on motorized travel. The author [109] also observes that, given a slower approach to tourism, cycling provides a lively experience of (tourism) mobility as an object for analysis and assumes the role of non-motorized travel. Kingham and Tranter [128] noted that cycling is environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable, and Wang and Wen [109] emphasized that cycling can be a viable alternative to private cars for short trips and can be more effective than walking for improving one’s health because it is more intensive. According to Zhang et al. [111], bicycle sharing is a good example of environmentally friendly traveling and an innovative solution to meet people’s future needs for mobility in urban environments. Nilsson [21] also emphasizes that there are several types of cycling tourists. The predominant type in the literature is fit cycling tourists [21]. For this type of tourist, cycling is an important element of travel and is used for sports, long trips, or to organize several excursions. Such cycling tourists usually visit rural areas. Another, less visible, category involves holiday cyclists. For these tourists, cycling is a part of their holiday experience but is not their primary focus [129]. Such cyclists, due to their narrow definition, cannot be considered suitable bicycle tourists [130], but they are nonetheless interesting as an element of urban tourism [21]. They, as Nilsson [21] observes, take tours or are a day-trippers who use bicycles in more commonplace ways than special-interest bicycle tourists.

3.3.3. Green Tourism Transport Solution as a Co-Creation of Smart Velomobility

Berrada [123] observes that the concept of co-creation in tourism is underdeveloped in the literature and that the researchers in this exciting field continue to place the tourist down the chain, limiting tourists to a responsive role in the tourism experience designed and delivered by one or more providers. In the logic of tourism value creation, tourism companies must treat tourists as participants in product development and tourism experiences, not just as spectators [118]. The concept of velomobility relates to mobility research related to cycling. Behrendt [124] notes that smart velomobility considers how physical and digital spaces are created around and during cycling, as well as how velocity data is created, shared, and analyzed in individual and collective/fleet use. As the author observes, this concept relates to physical mobility, infrastructure, power relationships, representations, and everyday experiences and practices by exploring the digital and online aspects of mobility, transport, cities, and objects. Based on this, Behrendt [131] developed the concept of smart velomobility, which is concerned with the networked practices, systems, and technologies of cycling. The author observes that the motor age, overshadowed by the digital age, entails not only motoring but also a speed change in the digital age. It brings together forms of cycling mobility (velomobility) with the smart/intelligent/code/data aspects of mobility [132]. The deployment of smart transport systems in cars and public transport is changing rapidly from a niche activity to a basic socio–technical mode, while intelligent cycling remains in a niche state and, therefore, has the potential for innovations in further integrating low carbon technology transitions [129]. Behrendt [131] hopes that both research and policy will increasingly use utopian approaches for the future of intellectual mobility, thereby overcoming the current divide between certain mobility options in the prevailing the internet of things and car-oriented visions for future mobility, rather than developing more radical approaches to unsustainable mobility, including focusing on active modes.

3.3.4. Green Tourism Transport Solution via Walkability

There is growing interest in making places greener by improving their walkability [132]. Schmeidler [133] observes that walking is a versatile mode of transport, and for many people, it is the only means of transportation. Moreover, as Wang and Wen [109] observe, there is an increasing emphasis on walking as an active form of sustainable mobility. Ram and Hall [116] state that walking is an essentially human activity. More recently, the authors in [116] observed that walking is a means for promoting greater health and well-being, community development, and more sustainable travel [134]. However, despite the importance of the topic of walking, there is currently no integrated treatment of the subject in the social science literature (see also Popp [135]). Hall and Ram [112] discuss walking as an important part of the tourist experience and a significant element of sustainable mobility. The authors [112] also emphasize the need to evaluate the tourist choices of hiking and transport options in order to encourage visitors to use active transport at targeted locations. Botella-Carrubi et al. [136] focused on pilgrimage travel. These trips are a great attraction for both pilgrims and tourists. The key elements in this type of travel are the travelers’ communality and their relationship with nature. Saunders et al. [119] described the results of a qualitative study on middle-aged adults who personally described an extensive long-distance walking experience. Miles [118] discussed the world’s first national inshore walkway and noted that the biggest advantage of this foot walk is that it is designed for both serious and casual participants, starting with a random stroll at a short distance followed by the more difficult hurdle of walking the whole route. UNWTO [134] noted that walking tourism was one of the most popular ways to experience a destination in 2019.
Thus, possible solutions using green logistics for sustainable tourism include mobilities, bicycle tourism, the co-creation of smart velomobility, and walkability. Following Hoedʹs [114] notion that travel and tourism should no longer be isolated and understood separately from other forms of mobility (thus relating tourist activities, experiences, and destinations to (active) everyday mobility), the right to a clean environment could be ensured using these and other evolving solutions for a more sustainable future.
The next section of this article discusses the challenges and importance of seeking balance to achieve the right to a clean environment by examining the context (the right to a clean environment), the challenge (climate change), and the solutions (green logistics for sustainable tourism).

4. Discussion: Seeking Balance for the Right to a Clean Environment

The integrative review highlighted the importance of seeking a balance between the right to a clean environment as the context, climate change as the challenge, and green logistics solutions for sustainable tourism as solutions.
The concept of this discussion is outlined in Table 1. Accordingly, the discussion section is divided into the following sections: context, challenge, and solutions. The discussion is summarized by debating alternative travel solutions and is presented in the framework of “seeking balance” (Figure 1).

4.1. The Right to a Clean Environment as the Context

As previously noted, ensuring the human right to a clean, healthy, and safe natural environment and protecting the environment from negative impacts is one of the most pressing issues, from both socio–economic and legal–political perspectives. These issues depend on the recognition, regulation, and application of preventive environmental methods or measures seeking a harmonized legal framework at the national and international levels. Notably, in the current period of technical progress, the environment is affected by various negative factors, such as pollution, climate change, and nuclear dangers that threaten not only human life and health but also humanity as a whole. These negative outcomes are global issues and require both national and international unified responses and solutions. In the scientific literature and legal documents, the concept of a clean environment is not well established, and the most commonly used terms are the “right to a healthy and clean environment” and the “right to a healthy and safe environment”. According to Lewis [8], attempts to recognize the right to a good environment under international human rights law have few prospects of success. According to the author [8], the negative impact of the environment on human rights can be direct, because a polluted or damaged environment will directly affect a person’s access to his or her rights, or indirect, as poor environmental conditions could undermine the government’s ability to protect and enforce its citizens [8]. It should be noted that the current legislative proposals and concrete decisions to fulfill the right to a safe and clean environment have only distracted society from the important work that could be done to strengthen and clarify the relationship between human rights and the environment.

4.2. Climate Change as the Challenge

Lewis [8,9] proposes that greater attention should be given to clarifying states’ obligations to respect, protect, and enforce human rights in the context of climate change and, in particular, how human rights laws can adapt to the international and long-term effects of climate change. For a more effective implementation of human rights for a clean and safe environment, legal practitioners, scientists, and public activists recommend that a human rights-based approach to climate change should focus on how existing rights can be enforced and implemented, rather than creating new laws or restrictions [3,8,9,10]. As Simpson et al. ([35], p. 12) point out, to adapt to climate change and reduce its contributions to the global emissions, it is essential that the tourism industry also make concerted efforts to reduce its environmental impact. In this difficult and problematic situation, the question remains: What should be done to at least partially resolve the issues discussed above? One of the solutions to reduce, or at least suspend, the impact of the aforementioned negative effects on the environment is to use the ideas of green logistics to achieve more sustainable tourism.

4.3. Green Logistics for Sustainable Tourism as Solutions

As mentioned previously, tourism and transport pose some of the greatest threats to a clean and safe environment. The smart and targeted use of green logistics ideas in the tourism industry would help limit and reduce negative factors and at least partially achieve the right to a clean and safe environment. Behrendt [124] points out that the various benefits of cycling, such as better public health and well-being, lower emission values, affordability, increased physical activity, and reduced congestion and emissions, can be realized in the smart/digital world age. As delivery and passenger drones may soon come closer to real life implementation they will become more ‘tangible’ to wider parts of society, so as Kellermann et al. [113] point out, a true assessment of the environmental friendliness of drones therefore needs to include a stronger comparative perspective, taking into account other modes of transportation. As Wang and Wen [105] point out, creating a friendly environment for walking and cycling is essential to increase people’s daily physical activity levels and reduce car addiction. Nilsson [21] notices that in a city, there is a link between vehicles, vehicle speed, and social interaction, as areas dominated by walking or cycling provide more services and activities than car-dominated areas. Diaz-Soria [137] observes that tourists deliberately create distance from their destination, allowing them to enjoy the tourist experience as something exclusive. Nilsson [21] notes that the relationship between cycling, locals, and tourists is complex and requires further research. This is especially true in unconventional tourist areas, which cycling tourist flows can affect in unforeseen ways. Hoed [114] emphasizes the importance of continuous dialogue with slower and more age-inclusive attitudes. This is a fruitful quest for the future of tourism that will be sustainable for both people and places. The industry of tourism must adopt new ways of the thinking and, more importantly, act to develop strategies to make tourists greener and more socially respectful while they are traveling [133]. This would encourage tourists to start thinking about how they travel and to act according to their destinations. As Weston et al. [138] report, this would also support the strategies of sustainability in the infrastructure of sustainable transport and the development of sustainable growth in tourism. It would give tourists the opportunity to act in the same way that they think. It would let to solve challenges between locals, tourists and unique places, together looking for smart, more sustainable practices of green solutions.

4.4. The Framework “Seeking Balance”

Figure 1 shows the importance of seeking a balance between the context (the right to a clean environment), challenge (climate change), and solutions (green logistics for sustainable tourism). In this article, we did not seek to debate how to avoid or restrict an individual’s right to travel. Despite reducing tourist flows, this could also negatively impact the natural environment. We rather invite the reader to consider sustainable alternatives to travel that balance the right to travel with the right to a clean environment. These rights are clearly contradictory and influence each other. On the one hand, tourism can damage local communities through the intervention of outsiders in the target society. On the other hand, tourism can help preserve cultural and natural heritage. However, the paradox remains: The more people travel, the greater their threat to the quality of the environment. How can we reconcile and balance these rights? Are laws capable of solving this problem? It seems interesting to point out, moreover, that such challenging discussions started to emerge more in recent years. Gascón [139] argues that the right to tourist mobility can limit the mobility of locals, as well as their use and enjoyment of their resources (the right to tourism vs. the right to the city). Interestingly, transforming tourism into a right allows the debate to be observed. This debate, however, is no longer about whether the negative effects of tourism should be addressed through technological development and ourselves via regulatory measures (whose viability is questionable) or, conversely, through institutional intervention and austerity policies [139]. The debate instead focuses on how to manage conflicts of rights. As Gascón [139] observes, this conflict encompasses the rights of a citizen as a tourist versus the rights of a citizen as a resident and the right of tourists to travel around the planet versus the rights designed to ensure ecosystem resilience. The discussed sustainable tourism challenges related to the pro-environmental behavior of tourists and ecotourism also opens up a broader debate on issues of responsibility. Rossello et al. [140] discussed the widespread impact of natural disasters and unexpected events for all areas, including tourism, and highlighted the impact of disasters on tourist needs. Therefore, it seems particularly important (in this dispute on rights) to keep in mind the possible applications of correct technological (and other) solutions to this problem. Scott et al. [141] discuss the need for international tourism leadership to improve its sectoral scale, emissions, and monitoring capacity to meet the increasing requirements for transparency, as well as assess the risks of climate change and climate policy, foster greater collaboration to facilitate climate resilience, and accelerate technological, policy, and social innovation to put tourism firmly on a path toward a low-carbon economy. Also emphasized is the need for dialogue between tourism and the researchers of tourism.
Ultimately, the right to a clean environment (i.e., a safe, high quality, clean, sustainable, or good environment) is difficult to implement. The successful implementation of this right depends on the application of various complex ideas and rational solutions, such as tourism mobilities, bicycle tourism, the co-creation of smart velomobility, and walkability. The right to a clean environment could be ensured just carefully adapting these and other evolving solutions (e.g., various drone services) for a more sustainable future.
Green logistics ideas and solutions that seek more sustainable tourism and related practices could help encourage the adoption of the discussed solutions aimed at reducing environmental impacts and, at the same time, contribute to the implementation of the personal right to a clean environment. Moreover, as Perkumienė and Pranskūnienė [142] note, the interdisciplinary discussions on overtourism have shown the importance of rethinking the concept of sustainability in tourism as a holistic principle of democracy and the degrowth movement. Thus, the same importance is also needed in rethinking the concept of sustainable logistics solutions in the tourism sector. Vidal-González and Sánchez [143] observe that the interest in and demand for an ‘authentic’, rural, primitive, natural, and immaterial heritage is booming in our postmodern society, which seeks to escape its harsh urban realities. This is a positive direction, as some of the presented solutions respond to the emerging reconsiderations of sustainability.

5. Conclusions

This integrative review invites the reader to consider the sustainable alternatives to travel that could balance the right to travel with the right to a clean environment, highlighting the importance of seeking a balance between the context (the right to a clean environment), challenge (climate change), and green solutions (green logistics for sustainable tourism).
The right to a clean environment should allow a person to live in a harmonious system, where environmental factors do not pose a risk to human health and well-being. The implementation of this right requires complex decisions. Lewis [8,9] proposes that greater attention should be given to clarifying states’ obligations to respect, protect, and enforce human rights in the context of climate change and, in particular, to understand how human rights laws can adapt to the international and long-term effects of climate change. Rethinking the possible green logistics solutions for sustainable tourism, such as tourism mobilities, bicycle tourism, the co-creation of smart velomobility, walkability, and others could help us also rethink how to balance, respect, protect, and enforce human rights in the present-day context of ongoing climate change challenges.
Optimistically, some of the presented solutions show how green logistics solutions in the tourism sector could be adopted for daily use and sustainable tourism experiences, seeking a more harmonious implementation of the individual rights to a clean environment. This integrative review paper is only preliminary work; further research is needed to discuss the evolving green solutions and challenges for more sustainable logistics and tourism and more effectively guarantee each citizen’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

Author Contributions

Data collection: R.P., D.P., M.V., and J.G.; methodology: R.P., D.P., and M.V.; visualization: R.P., D.P., and M.V.; writing—original draft: D.P., R.P., M.V., and J.G.; writing—review and editing: D.P., R.P., M.V., and J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shaw, M.N. International Law, 6th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Thorme, M. Establishing Environment as a Human Right. Denv. J. Int. L. Poly. 1991, 19, 303–305. [Google Scholar]
  3. Monkevičius, E. Ensuring human rights in a secure environment in the context of globalization. Soc. Innov. Glob. Growth 2012, 1, 200–201. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shelton, D. Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment. Stanf. J. Int. Law 1991, 28, 129–171. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sieghart, P. The International Law of Human Rights; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dogaru, L. Preserving the Right to a Healthy Environment: European Jurisprudence. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 141, 1346–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. MacDonald, J.G. Environment: Evolution of a Concept. J. Environ. Dev. 2003, 12, 151–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Lewis, B. The Human Right to a Good Environment in International Law and the Implications of Climate Change. Ph.D. Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2015. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278670381_The_human_right_to_a_good_environment_in_international_law_and_the_implications_of_climate_change (accessed on 7 November 2019).
  9. Lewis, B. Introduction to Environmental Human Rights and Climate Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Handl, G. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Tulane University Law School: Tulane, LA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Postma, A.; Schmuecker, D. Understanding and overcoming negative impacts of tourism in city destinations: Conceptual model and strategic framework. J. Tour. Futures 2017, 3, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oklevik, O.; Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Jacobsen Steen, J.K.; Grøtte, I.P.; McCabe, S. Overtourism, optimisation, and destination performance indicators: A case study of activities in Fjord Norway. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1804–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lenzen, M.; Sun, Y.Y.; Faturay, F.; Ting, Y.P.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A. The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Becken, S. A review of tourism and climate change as an evolving knowledge domain. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 6, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Page, S.J. Tourism Management. An Introduction; SAGE: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fang, Y.; Yin, J. Climate change and tourism: A scientometric analysis using Cite Space. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 26, 108–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Higgins-Desbiolles, F.; Carnicelli, S.; Krolikowski, C.; Wijesinghe, G.; Boluk, K. Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1926–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. UNEP International Environment. Making Tourism More Sustainable-A Guide for Policy Makers; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2005; pp. 11–12. [Google Scholar]
  19. Muhanna, E. Sustainable Tourism Development and Environmental Management for Developing Countries. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2006, 4, 14–30. [Google Scholar]
  20. NiedzIółka, I. Sustainable tourism development. Reg. Form. Dev. Stud. 2014, 3, 157–166. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nilsson, J.H. Urban bicycle tourism: Path dependencies and innovation in Greater Copenhagen. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1648–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Alexander, S. Green Hotels: Opportunities and Resources for Success; Zero Waste Alliance: Portland, OR, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hsiao, T.Y.; Chuang, C.M.; Kuo, N.W.; Yu, S.M.F. Establishing attributes of an environmental management system for green hotel evaluation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Soler, I.P.; Gémar, G.; Sánchez-Ollero, J.L. Are green hotels expensive? The impact of eco-friendly policies on hotel prices in Spanish cities. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2016, 15, 1511–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yusof, Y.; Awang, Z.; Jusoff, K.; Ibrahim, Y. The influence of green practices by non-green hotels on customer satisfaction and loyalty in hotel and tourism industry. Int. J. Green Econ. 2017, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Herrera, M.R.G.; Sasidharan, V.; Hernández, J.A.; Herrera, L.D.A. Quality and Sustainability of Tourism Development in Copper Canyon, Mexico: Perceptions of Community Stakeholders and Visitors. Tour. Manag. Perspect 2018, 27, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Scheyvens, R.; Biddulph, R. Inclusive tourism development. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 15, 589–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, W.; Qiao, J.; Cheng, J.; Sun, Y.; He, W. Research on the impact of economic development of tourism industry based on low carbon mode. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2019, 14, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Graci, S. Collaboration and Partnership Development for Sustainable Tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 20, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Perkumienė, D.; Vienažindienė, M.; Švagždienė, B. Cooperation Perspectives in Sustainable Medical Tourism: The Case of Lithuania. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Tourism and Global Environmental Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Uncertainties in predicting tourist flows under scenarios of climate change. Clim. Chang. 2006, 79, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Swedish tourism and climate change mitigation: An emerging conflict? J. Hosp. Tour. 2008, 8, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gössling, S. Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Simpson, M.C.; Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M.; Gladin, E. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hares, A.; Dickinson, J.E.; Wilkes, K. Climate Change and the Air Travel Decisions of UK Tourists. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Scott, D.; Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mearns, K. Climate change and tourism: Some industry responses to mitigate tourism’s contribution to climate change. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2016, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  39. Grimm, I.J.; Alcântara, L.C.S.; Sampaio, C.A.C. Tourism under climate change scenarios: Impacts, possibilities, and challenges. Braz. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hall, C.M.; Scott, D.; Gössling, S. The Primacy of Climate Change for Sustainable International Tourism Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hall, C.M. Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2010, 35, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Armenski, T.; Pavluković, V.; Pejović, L.; Lukić, T.; Djurdjev, B. Interaction between Tourists and Residents: Influence on Tourism Development. Pol. Sociol. Rev. 2011, 173, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  43. Peeters, P.; Higham, J.; Cohen, S.; Eijgelaar, E.; Gössling, S. Desirable tourism transport futures. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. GuoChuan, Y. Constraints and counter measures of China’s Green Logistics Development. J. Bus. Econ. 2010, 2, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rodrigue, J.P.; Slack, B.; Comtois, C. Green logistics. In Handbook of Logistics and Supply-chain Management; Brewer, A., Button, K., Hensher, D., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 339–350. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sarkar, A.N. Evolving Green Aviation Transport System: A Holistic Approach to Sustainable Green Market Development. Am. J. Clim. Chang. 2012, 1, 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Saroha, R. Green Logistics & its Significance in Modern Day Systems. Int. Rev. Appl. Eng. Res. 2014, 4, 89–92. [Google Scholar]
  48. Seroka-Stolka, O.; Ociepa-Kubicka, A. Green logistics and circular economy. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jedliński, M. The position of green logistics in sustainable development of a smart green city. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Nilnoppakun, A.; Ampavat, K. Is Pai a Sustainable Tourism Destination? Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Lin, W.; Qiqi, Z.; Mu, Z. Research on the Green Destination Development Evaluation: A Low-carbon Perspective. J. Tour. 2017, 18, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gavrilović, Z.; Maksimović, M. Green Innovations in the Tourism Sector. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 23, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Mesjasz-Lech, A. Urban air pollution challenge for green logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 16, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Khan, S.A.R.; Yu, Z.; Anees, M.; Golpîra, H.; Lahmar, A.; Dong, Q. Green Supply Chain Management, Economic Growth and Environment: A GMM Based Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, J.J.; Hwang, J. Merging the norm activation model and the theory of planned behavior in the context of drone food delivery services: Does the level of product knowledge really matter? J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 42, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hwang, J.; Kim, I.; Gulzar, M.A. Understanding the eco-friendly role of drone food delivery services: Deepening the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Hwang, J.; Kim, I. Consequences of a green image of drone food delivery services: The moderating role of gender and age. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hwang, J.; Cho, S.B.; Kim, I. Consequences of psychological benefits of using eco-friendly services in the context of drone food delivery services. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hanna, P.; Adams, M. Positive self-representations, sustainability and socially organised denial in UK tourists: Discursive barriers to a sustainable transport future. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pan, S.Y.; Gao, M.; Kim, H.; Shah, K.J.; Pei, S.L.; Chiang, P.C. Advances and challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 452–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2016, 15, 404–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 52, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Constitution of The Republic of Lithuania. 1992. Available online: http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm (accessed on 15 January 2020).
  64. Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 1976. Available online: https://dre.pt/constitution-of-the-portuguese-republic (accessed on 15 January 2020).
  65. Dwyer, K.P.; Osher, D.; Warger, C. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools; U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and Department of Justice (DOJ): Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
  66. Case Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, No. 25501/2015. Available online: https://elaw.org/PK_AshgarLeghari_v_Pakistan_2015 (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  67. Fitzmaurice, M. The Right of the Child to a Clean Environment. South. Ill. Univ. Law J. 1999, 23, 611–656. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lansdown, G. Children’s welfare and children’s rights. In Child. Welfare and Social Policy: An Essential Reader; Hendrick, H., Ed.; The Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  69. Case Nold v. KG v. Commission, No. 4-73/1974. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61973CJ0004 (accessed on 15 February 2020).
  70. Case Öneryıldız v. Turkey, No. 48939/99. 2004. Available online: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-1204313-1251361%22]} (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  71. Case Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands, No. C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396. 24 June 2015. Available online: https://elaw.org/nl.urgenda.15 (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  72. Case Fadeyeva v. Russia, No. 55723/00. 2005. Available online: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-69315%22]} (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  73. Case Budayeva and others v. Russia No.15339/02. Available online: https://international.vlex.com/vid/case-of-budayeva-and-others-v-russia-36578005 (accessed on 15 March 2020).
  74. Case X v. Iceland No. 5 DR 86/1976. Available online: https://swarb.co.uk/x-v-iceland-echr-18-may-1976/ (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  75. Case Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America, No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC/ 2016. Available online: http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  76. Case Tatar v. Romania, No. 67021/01, 27/2009. Available online: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-2615810-2848789%22]} (accessed on 22 March 2020).
  77. Case Kolyadenko v. Russia, No. 56 EHRR 2/2013. Available online: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-109283%22]} (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  78. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13. 1948. Available online: http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_13.html (accessed on 24 January 2020).
  79. Sohn, L.B. Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. A/CONF.48/14 United Nations Publication. 1972. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28247/Stkhm_DcltnHE.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 January 2020).
  80. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26. 1992. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2020).
  81. Treaty on European Union (TEU)/Maastricht Treaty. 1992. Available online: https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/treaty_on_european_union_en.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2020).
  82. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1997. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/forests/docs/kpeng_en.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2020).
  83. Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts. 1997. Available online: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/amsterdam_en.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2020).
  84. Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, Denmark. 1998. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/aarhus_convention_1998_en.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
  85. Mazilu, D. Dreptul Comunitar al Mediului; Lumina Lex: Bucharest, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  86. Tang, Z. An integrated approach to evaluating the coupling coordination between tourism and the environment. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Muler, G.V.; Coromina, L.; Galí, N. Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity-Case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 277–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Harrison, D.; Sharpley, R. Mass Tourism in a Small World; Middlesex University: Wallingford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  89. Brokaj, R. Local government’s role in the sustainable tourism development of a destination. Eur. Sci. J. 2014, 31, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
  90. Mathew, P.V.; Sreejesh, S. Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 31, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Krüger, O. The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 579–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Voumard, M. Promises and pitfalls of ecotourism: Patterns from a literature review. Investig. Turísticas 2019, 17, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Zhou, Y.; Buesching, C.D.; Newman, C.; Kaneko, Y.; Xie, Z.; Macdonald, D.W. Balancing the benefits of ecotourism and development: The effects of visitor trail-use on mammals in a Protected Area in rapidly development China. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 165, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cavagnaro, E.; Curiel, G. The Three Levels of Sustainability; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rogerson, C.M. Climate change, tourism and local economic development in South Africa. Local Econ. J. Local Econ. Policy Unit 2016, 31, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Becken, S.; Hay, J. Climate Change and Tourism: From Policy to Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  97. Peeters, P.; Eijgelaar, E. Tourism’s climate mitigation dilemma: Flying between rich and poor countries. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Cohen, S.A.; Higham, J.E.S. Eyes wide shut? UK consumer perceptions on aviation climate impacts and travel decisions to New Zealand. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Scheyvens, R. Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus. Curr. Issues Tour. 2007, 10, 231–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Juvan, E.; Dolnicar, S. Drivers of pro-environmental tourist behaviours are not universal. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. De Bruijn, K.; Driven, R.; Eijgelaar, E.; Peeters, P. Travelling Large in 2012; NHTV Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport: Breda, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  102. Baldner, C. Morality and Environment: Analyzing the Effects of the Moral Foundations on Attitudes toward the Environment in Italy. Rass. Psicol. 2018, 35, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  103. Hall, C.M.; Page, S.J. Progress in tourism management: From the geography of tourism to geographies of tourism—A review. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Vasiliauskas, A.V.; Zinkevičiūtė, V.; Šimonytė, E. Implementation of the concept of green logistics reffering to it applications for road freight transport enterprises. Bus. Theory Pract. 2013, 14, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. McKinnon, A.C. Environmental Sustainability: A new priority for logistics managers. In Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics; McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Whiteing, A., Piecyk, M., Eds.; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  106. Scott, C.; Lundgren, H.; Thompson, P. Guide to Supply Chain Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  107. Kutkaitis, A.; Župerkienė, E. Darnaus vystymosi koncepcijos raiška uosto logistinėse organizacijose. Manag. Theory Stud. Rural. Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 2011, 2, 130–137. [Google Scholar]
  108. Karia, N.; Asaari, M. Transforming green logistics practice into benefits: A case of third-party logistics (3PLs). In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang, L.; Wen, C. The relationship between the neighborhoods built environment and active transportation among adults: A systematic literature review. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Broman, G.I.; Robèrt, K.H. A framework for strategic sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Duan, Z.-Y.; Bryde, D. Sustainable bike-sharing systems: Characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Smith, A.; Robbins, D.; Dickinson, J.E. Defining sustainable transport in rural tourism: Experiences from the New Forest. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kellermann, R.; Biehle, T.; Fischerb, L. Drones for parcel and passenger transportation: A literature review. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 100088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hoed, D.W. Where everyday mobility meets tourism: An age-friendly perspective on cycling in the Netherlands and the UK. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Kantenbacher, J.; Hanna, P.; Miller, G.; Scarles, C.; Yang, J. Consumer priorities: What would people sacrifice in order to fly on holidays? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Scuttari, A.; Orsi, F.; Bassani, R. Assessing the tourism-traffic paradox in mountain destinations. A stated preference survey on the Dolomites’ passes (Italy). J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hall, C.M.; Ram, Y. Measuring the relationship between tourism and walkability? Walk Score and English tourist attractions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Miles, S. The Wales Coast Path. In The Routledge International Handbook of Walking; Hall, C.M., Ram, Y., Shoval, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  119. Saunders, R.; Weiler, B.; Laing, J. Life changing walks of midlife adults. In The Routledge International Handbook of Walking; Hall, C.M., Ram, Y., Shoval, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  120. Peeters, P.M.; Gössling, S.; Klijs, J.; Milano, C.; Novelli, M.; Dijkmans, C.H.S.; Eijgelaar, E.; Hartman, S.; Heslinga, J.; Isaac, R.; et al. Research for TRAN Committee-Overtourism: Impact and Possible Policy Responses; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ram, Y.; Hall, C.M. Walking tourism in cities: Introducing the special issue. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2018, 4, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Cass, N.; Faulconbridge, J. Satisfying everyday mobility. Mobilities 2017, 12, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Berrada, M. Co-Creation of the Tourist Experience via Internet: Towards Exploring a New Practice. J. Int. Bus. Res. Mark. 2017, 2, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Behrendt, F. Why cycling matters for Smart Cities. Internet of Bicycles for Intelligent Transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 56, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Lee, D.J. Embodied bicycle commuters in a car world. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2016, 17, 401–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rodrigue, J.P.; Slack, B.; Comtois, C. Green Supply Chain Management. In The Sage Handbook of Transport Studies; Rodrigue, J.P., Notteboom, T., Shaw, J., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2013; pp. 427–438. [Google Scholar]
  127. Docherty, I. New Governance Challenges in the Era of ‘smart’ Mobility. In Governance of the Smart Mobility Transition; Marsden, G., Reardon, L., Eds.; Emerald Points: Bingley, UK, 2018; pp. 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  128. Kingham, S.; Tranter, P. Cycling and sustainable transport. In Cycling Futures; Bonham, J., Johnson, M., Eds.; University of Adelaide Press: Adelaide, Australia, 2015; pp. 131–152. [Google Scholar]
  129. McKibbin, D. Cycling for Leisure, Recreation and Tourism. In Research and Information Service Briefing Paper 24/15; Northern Ireland Assembly: Belfast, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  130. Lamont, M. Reinventing the wheel: A definitional discussion of bicycle tourism. J. Sport Tour. 2009, 14, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Behrendt, F. Mobility and data: Cycling the utopian Internet of Things. Mobilities 2020, 15, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Laker, L. Where is the world’s most walkable city? The Guardian. 2017. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/12/walkable-city-worlds-most-new-york-melbourne-fes-el-bali (accessed on 5 October 2019).
  133. Schmeidler, K. Walking as a sustainable transport mode in cities. In Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific Conference “Theoretical and Practical Issues in Transport”, Pardubice, Novi Sad, Serbia, 11–13 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  134. UNWTO. World Tourism Organization. Walking Tourism—Promoting Regional Development; World Tourism Organization, Ed.; World Tourism Organization (UNWTO): Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  135. Popp, M. When Walking is no Longer Possible: Investigating Crowding and Coping Practices in Urban Tourism Using Commented Walks; Hall, C.M., Ram, Y., Shoval, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 360–368. [Google Scholar]
  136. Botella-Carrubi, D.; Currás Móstoles, R.; Escrivá-Beltrán, M. Penyagolosa Trails: From Ancestral Roads to Sustainable Ultra-Trail Race, between Spirituality, Nature, and Sports. A Case of Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Diaz-Soria, I. Being a tourist as a chosen experience in a proximity destination. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 96–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Weston, R.; Guia, J.; Mihalič, T.; Prats, L.; Blasco, D.; Ferrer-Roca, N.; Lawler, M.; Jarratt, D. Research for TRAN Committee–European Tourism: Recent Developments and Future Challenges, European Parliament; Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  139. Gascón, J. Tourism as a right: A “frivolous claim” against degrowth? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1825–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Rosselló, J.; Becken, S.; Gallego, M.S. The effects of natural disasters on international tourism: A global analysis. Tour. Manag. 2020, 79, 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Scott, D.; Michael, C.H.; Gössling, S. A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its implications for tourism: Why we will always have Paris. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 933–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Perkumienė, D.; Pranskūnienė, R. Overtourism: Between the Right to Travel and Residents’ Rights. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Vidal-González, P.; Sánchez, V. Hiking paths and intangible heritage: A quest for cultural roots. Cases in the province of Castellón, Spain. Sport Soc. 2018, 22, 2065–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 17 03254 g001 550
Figure 1. The “seeking balance” framework.
Figure 1. The “seeking balance” framework.
Ijerph 17 03254 g001
Table
Table 1. The stages of the review.
Table 1. The stages of the review.
No.Stage of ReviewDescription of Review Stages
1.Problem IdentificationTheoretical and empirical discussions about the right to a clean environment considering green logistics and sustainable tourism
2.Literature SearchWe used open databases and open libraries to find articles about green logistics and tourism and the right to a clean environment: DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals): 239 articles on green logistics, five articles on green tourism/bicycle tourism, and 10 articles on logistics and cycling; IDEAS/RePEc: We found 52 results for “the right to a clean environment“, 419 results for “green logistics“, three results for “tourism and green logistics“; ScienceOpen: We found 113 results for „green logistics“, two results for “right to a clean environment“; SSRN eLibrary: We found 43 results for “green logistics“ and 88 results for “right to a clean environment“; WorldWideScience.org: We found 3173 results for “the right to a clean environment“; WorldWideScience.org: We found 1509 results for “green logistics solutions for tourism“; ScienceDirect: We found 640 results for “green logistics solutions for tourism“, ScienceDirect: We found 317 results for “green logistics and tourist mobility“, but only some of them concentrated on the right to a clean environment in a global warming context in logistics and tourism. No articles about green logistics solutions for tourism topic were found in the databases and the open libraries of IDEAS/RePEc, The OAPEN Library, OpenDOAR, Electronic Journals Library, WorldWideScience.org, EBSCO, and others. The literature was also searched for research on the right to a healthy, safe, and a clean environment, sustainable, green logistics, logistics and tourism). We then evaluated the data (theoretical and an empirical literature, the legal cases discussing the right to a clean environment, and green logistics and tourism).
3.Data EvaluationTheoretical and empirical literature, the legal cases discussing the right to a clean environment, and green logistics and sustainable tourism.
4.Data AnalysisTheoretical and empirical literature and legal cases discussing the right to a clean environment, green logistics, and tourism were analyzed for the following topics: legal cases and conventions, literature on tourism, climate change, and sustainability, and literature on green logistics solutions for sustainable tourism.
5.PresentationThe integrative review is presented in the results chapter (the integrated review data were organized under the following themes: the right to a clean environment and its legal regulations (Section 3.1); tourism challenges: considering climate change and sustainability (Section 3.2); green logistics for sustainable tourism (Section 3.3); the discussions chapter presents the conceptual framework (Figure 1) “Seeking the balance”.
Table
Table 2. Legal documents related to a clean environment.
Table 2. Legal documents related to a clean environment.
YearLegal Cases and ConventionsKeywords
2015Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan. No. 25501. [66]The right to a clean environment, fundamental rights, climate change, nuclear dangers, human life and health
1974Nold v. KG v. Commission [69]The right to a healthy, safe, and clean environment, the right to life, the right to respect the private and family life, and cases of pollution and noise
2004ECHR case Öneryıldız v. Turkey [70]The right to a healthy, safe, and a clean environment; the right to life, the right to respect private and family life, and freedom of expression
2015Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396 (24 June 2015) [71]Greenhouse effects and emissions, particularly CO2
2005Fadeyeva v. Russia [72]Environmental factors, private life, the right to life, environmental contexts
2008Budayeva and others v. Russia [73]The right to life, the individual’s right to life as a result of the harmful effects of the environment; the right to respect private and a family life.
1976X v. Iceland, 5 DR 86 [74]Harmful effects of the environment; the right to respect private and family life.
2016Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America [75]
2009Case Tatar v. Romania [76]
2013Case Kolyadenko v. Russia (2013) [77]
1948Universal Declaration of Human Rights [78]The right to a clean and safe environment, fundamental rights, a healthy and clean environment.
1972The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment [79]The human right to a safe and clean environment; the global human impact on the environment and attempts to develop; solving the problems of preserving and improving a safe and clean human environment; decent living in an environment that can produce dignity and well-being
1992Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [80]The human right to a healthy and full life in harmony with nature; the rights of individuals to a safe environment, the right to a healthy and a productive life in harmony with nature.
1992Treaty on European Union (TEU)/Maastricht Treaty [81]The human right to a clean and a healthy environment; the protection of the environment.
1997Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [82]Climate change; greenhouse effects by limiting CO2 emissions.
1997Treaty of Amsterdam [83]Endless development and stronger protection of the environment.
1998Aarhus Convention [84]A clean and healthy environment; the duty of states to ensure the rights of citizens to objective information, public participation in decision-making and environmental matters to ensure their right to live in an environment favorable to their health and well-being.
Table
Table 3. Description of the literature on tourism, climate change, and sustainability.
Table 3. Description of the literature on tourism, climate change, and sustainability.
AuthorsYearJournal/BookKeywords
Sustainability, Tourism and Climate
Wang, Qiao, Cheng, Yanan Sun, He [28]2019 International Journal of Low-Carbon TechnologiesAcid rain pollution, concrete, damage, economic loss
Grimm, Alcântara, Sampaio [39]2018Brazilian journal of tourism researchClimate impacts, tourism, adaptation, mitigation
Muler, Coromina, Galí [87]2018Tourism ReviewSustainable tourism, social exchange theory, heritage towns
Mathew, Sreejesh [90]2017Journal of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementResponsible tourism, sustainability, quality of life, destination management
Rogerson [95]2016Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy UnitCapacity building, climate change, local economic development, tourism
Mearns [38]2016African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and LeisureClimate change, tourism, global warming, sustainability, airlines
Tang [86]2015Tourism ManagementTourism, environment, relationship, coordination
Peeters, Eijgelaar [97]2014Tourism ManagementClimate change, sustainable development, air transport volume, mitigation of emissions
Hall, Scott, Gössling [47]2013Sustainable DevelopmentGreen growth, aviation, greenhouse gas emissions, tourism policy
Scott, Hall, Gössling [37]2012Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and MitigationTourism, climate change
Cavagnaro, Curiel [94]2012The Three Levels of SustainabilitySustainable tourism, clean environment
Becken, Hay [96]2012Climate Change and Tourism: From Policy to PracticeClimate change, tourism, policy, practice
Page [15]2011Tourism Management: An Introduction.Tourism, sustainability, tourism management, pro poor tourism and poverty
Cohen, Higham [98]2011Current Issues inTourismChanging consumer tourism behavior, climate change, social norms
Simpson, Gössling, Scott, Hall, Gladin [35]2008Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism
Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices		Climate Change, adaptation, tourism, tools
Scheyvens [99]2007Current Issues in TourismPoverty, development, pro-poor tourism
Table
Table 4. Description of literature sources on green solutions for tourism.
Table 4. Description of literature sources on green solutions for tourism.
AuthorsYearJournal/BookKeywords
Kim, Hwang [55]2020Journal of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementPro-environmental role, drone food delivery services, norm activation model, theory of planned behavior, product knowledge
Kellermann, Biehle, Fischer [113]2020Transportation
Research
Interdisciplinary
Perspectives		Environment, drones, logistics, passenger transportation
Hwang, Kim [57]2019Business Strategy and the EnvironmentEnvironment, drone food delivery services, green image
Nilsson [21]2019Journal of Tourism FuturesCycling, bicycle tourism, urban tourism, mobility culture
Hoed [114]2019Journal of sustainable tourismTourism, active mobility, cycling, well-being
Seroka-Stolka, Ociepa-Kubicka [48]2019Transportation Research ProcediaGreen logistics, circular economy, green practices
Smith, Robbins, Dickinson [112]2019Journal of Sustainable TourismSustainable travel, tourism, social practices
Hanna, Adams [59]2019Journal of Sustainable TourismSustainable transport, sustainable barriers, transport futures
Kantenbacher, Hanna, Miller, Scarles, Yang [115]2019Journal of Sustainable TourismEnvironment, air travel, tourist behavior, climate change
Scuttari, Orsi, Bassani [116]2019Journal of Sustainable TourismSustainable tourism, tourism transport, alternative transportation, behavioral change
Hall, Ram [117]2019Journal of Sustainable TourismActive transport, transport choice, built environment, walkability, accessibility
Miles [118]2018The Routledge International Handbook of WalkingTransport, walking
Saunders, Weiler, Laing [119]2018The Routledge International Handbook of WalkingWalking experiences
Gavrilović, Maksimović [52]2018Strategic managementGreen logistics initiatives, green management, environment, sustainable tourism
Peeters, Gössling, Klijs, Milano, Novelli, Dijkmans, Eijgelaar, Hartman, Heslinga, Isaac, Mitas, Moretti, Nawijn, Papp, Postma [120]2018Research for TRAN 1 CommitteeOvertourism, EU, Tourism transportation, sustainable tourism
Ram, Hall [121]2018International Journal of Tourism CitiesWalkability, cities, destinations, accessibility, tourism walking
Broman, Robèrt [110] 2017Journal of Cleaner ProductionStrategic sustainable development, sustainability principles, sustainability science
Cass, Faulconbridge [122]2017MobilitiesMobility, travel, practice, affect, transport mode changes, lower carbon mobility
Berrada [123]2017Journal of International Business Research and MarketingValue co-creation, tourism, tourist experience, sustainability, new technologies, internet
Wang, Wen [109]2017Urban ScienceSustainable mobility, active transportation, built environment, cycling, walking
Karia, Asaari [108]2016Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations ManagementGreen logistics practice, environmental performance, economic performance, quality of life, third-party logistics, sustainable development, carbon emission
Behrendt [124]2016Journal of Transport GeographySmart Cities, Cycling, Sustainable Transport, Mobility, Intelligent Transport, Internet of Things
Lee [125]2016Social and Cultural GeographyCycling, bicycle commuters, mobility, embodiment, bike to work.
Zhang, Zhang, Duan, Bryde [111]2015Journal of Cleaner ProductionGreen practices, transportation, bike-sharing, sustainable development, sustainability
McKinnon [105]2015Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of LogisticsEnvironmental sustainability, green practices, regulations on emission level, public policy interventions
Rodriguez, Slack, Comtois [126]2013Green Supply Chain ManagementGreen activities, green transportation, sustainable urban mobility
1 TRAN = Committee on Transport and Tourism.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perkumienė, D.; Pranskūnienė, R.; Vienažindienė, M.; Grigienė, J. The Right to A Clean Environment: Considering Green Logistics and Sustainable Tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093254

AMA Style

Perkumienė D, Pranskūnienė R, Vienažindienė M, Grigienė J. The Right to A Clean Environment: Considering Green Logistics and Sustainable Tourism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093254

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perkumienė, Dalia, Rasa Pranskūnienė, Milita Vienažindienė, and Jurgita Grigienė. 2020. "The Right to A Clean Environment: Considering Green Logistics and Sustainable Tourism" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093254

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop