Metaversal sustainability: conceptualisation within the sustainable tourism paradigm

The paradigm of sustainable tourism development (in short: sustainable tourism paradigm), firmly rooted in the 20th-century sustainable development principles, has traditionally focused on economic, socio-cultural and environmental (natural) sustainability on our planet (WCED, 1987). However, the 21st century has broadened frontiers, allowing for astronaut travel to universe and virtual travel in the metaverse, which have challenged these established principles.

The metaverse, which is described as a “flourishing” environment with a global “potential for paradigm shifting” (Song et al., 2023, p. 1), is analysed in this perspective paper using Kuhn’s paradigmatic theory and commensurability thesis. The disruptive potential of the emerging metaverse phenomenon leads us to propose an update of the sustainable tourism paradigm and its sustainability pillars. The introduction of the term “metaversal sustainability” (Mihalic, 2023) offers a new perspective on what should be sustained. The inclusion of metaversal sustainability is seen as crucial for the survival of the sustainable tourism paradigm and for ensuring its effective implementation. This paradigm update has profound implications on multiple levels, including the economic, social, cultural, political, environmental, metaversal, educational and research ones.

A paradigm, or worldview, encompasses a community’s collective understanding in a particular era. It includes perceptions of “what” our world is and beliefs of “how” to behave to achieve goals within a specific cultural and value context. To help assess and monitor the current state of a scientific paradigm, school of thought or phenomenon, Kuhn (1962, p. xiii) outlined a dual framework comprising universally recognised “concepts or theory” and “practice” over time.

Paradigms are dynamic. When we are confronted with new phenomena, alternative concepts (“what”) and solutions (“how”) can emerge, leading to new dimensions or a paradigm shift, provided they are relevant to the community. Kuhn’s commensurability thesis on the coherence of paradigms across conceptual, methodological, perceptual and interdisciplinary dimensions plays a central role in maintaining the stability and resilience of paradigms.

The paradigm of sustainable development, which goes back to the Brundtland Report Our Common Future’ (WCED, 1987), marked a significant shift in the socio-political focus – from neoliberal economic development to a sustainable one. In this new paradigm, the economic environment is only one of those considered, alongside the socio-cultural and natural ones. These widely recognised “pillars of sustainability” are commonly referred to as the 3Ps (profit/progress–people–planet). The Brundtland Report described sustainability as “the spaces in which we live on this planet” (WCED, 1987, Foreword, p. 3). The “paradigmatic side of the 3Ps”, “sustainability”, addresses the question of “what” to sustain within the diverse environments of planet Earth, whereas the paradigmatic side of “development” focuses on “how” to sustain them, aiming to achieve humanity’s goals and increase well-being through technological and social innovation. At the heart of sustainability is an awareness of and commitment to the values of stewardship, responsibility, equity, poverty reduction, international understanding, peace, partnership and prosperity (WTO, 1999; UN, 2015).

The current Encyclopaedia of Tourism (Mihalic, 2022, p. 483) presents the theory and practice of sustainable tourism paradigm, emphasising the commitment to sustainability values (Tribe et al., 2015). Sustainability achievements encompass the 3Ps. Development solutions include responsibility for considering the developmental needs of stakeholders (“visitors, industry and host communities”) and implementing socio-political agendas for sustainable tourism development.

The metaverse has become a prominent subject and business reality in the 21st century (Song et al., 2023). It integrates virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality, blockchain technology, artificial intelligence (AI), big data and cloud computing, enabling immersive 3-D experiences such as time travel and experiences of historical cultures or natural phenomena (Buhalis et al., 2023). Commercial tourism examples (Gursoy et al., 2022) include Japanese First Airlines virtual flights, National Geographic’s virtual kayak tours of the Antarctic icebergs, virtual visits to Machu Picchu and Wander’s historical walking tours offered in conjunction with Google Street View.

VR headset devices expand the tourism space by merging real and computer-generated environments into a mixed reality (MR). Whether realistic or fantastical, these realities are increasingly interwoven with the future of tourism. They enable experiences in collective spatial environments in the convergence of physical and virtual environments (Go and Kang, 2022).

The terminology for the emerging phenomenon of “tourism in the metaverse” is still evolving. It is often referred to as “virtual tourism”, “VR tourism”, “metaverse tourism” and “metaversal tourism” (Buhalis et al., 2023; Go and Kang, 2022, pp. 3, 12; Yang et al., 2023). In contrast to traditional “on-site tourism”, it offers an immersive experience through technology. Furthermore, virtual tourism is not synonymous with “digital tourism” or identical to the use of digital technological solutions for travel and tourism, which lack the immersive nature of VR.

Based on Kuhn’s perceptual incommensurability thesis, several scenarios relevant to the tourism paradigm can be presented. In a first scenario, the new phenomenon is perceived as digital tourism, which includes electronic or computerised travel experiences through the integration of digital technologies such as digital cameras, digital music and digital marketing. This view is consistent with Brundtland’s view of technology as a means to achieving sustainability (“how”) but is not commensurable with the perception of the metaverse as a new environment for tourism visits and experiences (“what”). Consequently, this digital technology-centred approach can support a shift towards a distinct technological or smart tourism paradigm with its own values, motivations and interests.

The second scenario goes beyond mere digital perception and recognises the existence of a VR space in which tourism stakeholders engage with computer-generated environments and interact with other users (Metaverse, 2024). This includes immersive visits in VR, online meetings and interactions with avatars and virtual assistants. Consequently, the virtual environment is transforming into an autonomous and socially interactive multi-user platform that has its own ecological (e.g. social and environmental/natural), economic and metaversal impacts on tourism. This perspective requires an extension of the concept of sustainability by recognising the metaverse as a legitimate tourism environment. Consequently, the responsibility for the governance of sustainability (the “how”) must be addressed by formulating new agendas, strategies and policies centred on sustainable tourism in this new and evolving technological space.

In contrast to Kuhn’s theory of paradigm evolution in relation to new phenomena, the third scenario maintains the status quo of the dimensions of sustainability. In this perspective, sustainable development remains linked to responsibility for the 3Ps of planet Earth. There is no metaverse governance, and it is unknown how or whether this will occur. In particular, the utilisation of the financial potential of the metaverse in tourism is decoupled from the responsibility for its impact on the ecological environment. This approach risks reinforcing the traditional domination of economy over ecology and perpetuating outdated, economically motivated tourism paradigms such as economic development, economic competitiveness, mass tourism and overtourism, which are echoed in tourism in the metaverse.

Metaverse tourism use has multiple positive environmental impacts (Wall, 1997). It strengthens virtual and real economies; promotes economic growth, innovation, social interaction, cultural exchange and global unity; expands tourism capacities; and opens new opportunities for (virtual) travel. It can improve real and metaversal destination branding, increase demand for less-visited places and stimulate tourism earnings. It can also improve accessibility and affordability for underprivileged groups and partially or fully replace physical travel.

However, some negative impacts include the exclusion of individuals without access to technology, disconnection from physical reality and psychological issues. Immersive virtual experiences can negatively affect an individual’s physical health by weakening the muscles or leading to eye fatigue and postural problems. Negative impacts include cultural homogenisation, loss of diversity and authenticity, promotion of dominant cultures and ethical and legal dilemmas related to the property rights of tangible or intangible counterparts, such as their history. The significant energy and resource consumption of metaversal infrastructure, combined with the waste created by virtual technologies (energy consumption, CO₂ emissions and land use), raises environmental concerns. Furthermore, there are consequences for crime, safety, privacy and data protection, and promoting travel to real-world sites may increase overtourism and the associated environmental problems.

The conceptualisation of metaversal sustainability builds on the second scenario, which assumes awareness of the metaverse’s immersive character, becoming a new virtual space for living and exploration. The quartet of environments shown in Figure 1 represents the expanded conceptualisation of the 3Ps’ sustainability, as part of the sustainable tourism paradigm. Terrestrial (also “physical” or “natural” in a broader sense) environments, illustrated as circles with solid lines, have finite capacities, whereas the metaverse, represented by a dashed line, has an unknown or possibly infinite extent. This simple visual representation summarises the coexistence of four sustainability environments.

The environments are interconnected and blend the physical and virtual realities. At its core, the economy, the smallest circle, is nested within society’s broader context, and both are encompassed by the largest circle representing nature. This triad exists as interconnected physical habitats on Earth while simultaneously being embedded within the metaverse, symbolising the interplay and coexistence of MRs. Figure 2, generated by an AI image generator (Open AI, 2023), illustrates a VR tourist experiencing a virtual eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 AD via VR headsets.

The concept of metaversal sustainability faces several significant limitations. One major challenge lies in establishing effective communication between the planet’s physical environments and the VR of the emerging metaverse. This involves tackling interdisciplinary questions, such as whether we can measure and compare virtual and material environments to create a commensurable sustainability model. Furthermore, can we effectively manage the impacts of on-site and virtual tourism? How will the new interpretation of Brundtland’s “worlds that humans live in” impact the perception of technology in the sustainable development paradigm? The inherent asymmetries among ecological and economic environments, each driven by varying and often incommensurable motives and interests, complicate matters. These challenges raise questions about the applicability of commensurability in these environments, as well as the presence of a critical mass of social and political consensus for the adjusted paradigm.

The proposed sustainability model (Figure 1) only addresses the “what” (i.e. Kuhn’s knowledge “achievements”) of the dual framework. Once a new understanding of sustainability is established, the corresponding “how” (i.e. Kuhn’s “solutions for practitioners”) will follow, opening up opportunities for future research on the practical tourism development. How will the new concept of sustainability affect the landscape of responsible tourism stakeholders? What new interests, motives and perceptions might emerge? How should agendas, policies and innovations for effective sustainable tourism development in VR and MR be designed? The management, regulation and monitoring of metaversal travel also requires attention, as do considerations for defining and counting tourists and day-trippers in virtual space. Governance and management approaches for tourism development in MRs and their impacts must be researched and developed.

This study advocates for sustainable tourism and its VR metaversal sustainability adaptation. However, our argument supports a broader societal approach to sustainable development rather than advocating tourism-specific adaptation. We envision societal paradigmatic evolution to capture the emerging VR as a “flourishing metaverse environment” (Song et al., 2023, p. 1). If the societal paradigm of sustainable development is updated, a corresponding adaptation of the sustainable tourism paradigm will follow, guiding its “what” and “how”.

This research is a fundamental step in advancing our understanding and practical implementation of the evolving paradigm of sustainable tourism, which encompasses both the physical and virtual realms. Based on Kuhn’s paradigmatic theory, it advocates the recognition of metaversal sustainability, which is crucial in the 21st century but is not considered either in the prevailing sustainable tourism paradigm or in our societal sustainable development one. Recognising the metaverse as a space (environment) for sustainable tourism enables stakeholders to advance responsible tourism beyond the traditional 3P framework and promote leadership and impact management across different environments – planetary, extra-planetary, physical, virtual, mixed, fantastical or realistic.

This perspective paper also coins the new term “metaversal sustainability” to establish it within the paradigm of sustainable tourism, thus contributing to a field terminological lexicon. As the terminology is still evolving, other terms may prevail, such as “virtual sustainability” or “VR sustainability”, as opposed to the sustainability of planetary physical environments. Opening the discussion on environments that humans live in and explore may open the question of extra-terrestrial space of “astronaut tourism” or “tourism in the universe”, which is also evolving. How will “space technology” and “immersive technology” development and impacts be governed? Future research should investigate the validity and applicability of new environments by exploring different scenarios and commensurabilities of the new concepts. It is important to understand and recognise all forms of tourism and their impacts (both positive and negative) in all possible environments to move sustainably and responsibly in the new realities.

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency under Grant P5-0117.