Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers114-1Decarbonisation and Degrowth in M...

Decarbonisation and Degrowth in Mountain Tourism: Representations and Barriers to Action in the Ariège Pyrenees

Emmanuel Salim, Alix Varnajot et Julie Bousquet
Cet article est une traduction de :
Décarbonation et décroissance dans le tourisme pyrénéen : représentations et freins à l’action dans les Pyrénées Ariégeoises [fr]

Résumé

This article examines tourism stakeholders’ representations of, and barriers to, decarbonisation and degrowth in the Pyrénées Ariégeoises (France), based on 17 semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2024 and April 2025. While decarbonisation is broadly supported, it remains weakly operationalised, with few public or private actors referring to quantified targets or local carbon assessments. Individual transport is consistently identified as the main source of emissions. Key barriers to decarbonisation include limited financial and human resources, institutional complexity, and insufficient coordination between public and private actors. When explicitly questioned about degrowth as a more radical pathway, stakeholders express strong reluctance, as the concept is associated with involuntary economic decline, job losses, and the depopulation of mountain valleys. As a result, actors tend to favour notions such as “transition” or “alternative development models”. Moreover, the absence of a politically shared and credible alternative project further constrains territorial transformation. Drawing on these empirical findings and the existing literature, the article suggests moving beyond the term “degrowth” towards “post-growth”, and emphasises the need to co-construct territorially embedded and multi-level governance frameworks to support decarbonisation and a socially acceptable sustainability transition in mountain tourism destinations.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 ADEME (Agence de la transition écologique) is the French public agency responsible for supporting p (...)

1Tourism is often perceived as a tool for economic development, particularly in peripheral regions (Kaján, 2014). However, since the early stages of its development, tourism practices have also been subject to substantial criticism regarding their social and environmental consequences (Gay, 2018). One of these critiques concerns greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change (Mora et al., 2018). Climate change thus represents a dual challenge for the tourism sector. On the one hand, it leads to an increase in the frequency and intensity of hazards such as wildfires, landslides, and variability in snow conditions, which may adversely affect tourism, particularly in mountain regions (Steiger et al., 2023), and therefore require the implementation of adaptation measures. On the other hand, GHG emissions associated with tourism activities are estimated to account for 8.8% of global emissions (Sun et al., 2024), the majority of which result from individual travel between places of residence and tourism destinations. For example, Clivaz and Savioz (2020) estimate that up to 80% of GHG emissions related to tourism in Chamonix–Mont-Blanc are attributable to transport to the destination. This figure is corroborated by a recent report from the French Agency for Ecological Transition1 (ADEME, 2021a).

2In response to these challenges, several major tourism stakeholders signed the Glasgow Declaration at COP26 (One Planet, 2021), which aims to align the sector with the decarbonisation targets set out in the Paris Agreement (Damian et al., 2015). Decarbonisation plans have since been developed, notably in the aviation sector. However, recent research highlights two key findings. First, changes in individual behaviour, particularly among frequent air travellers, are unlikely to alter the overall trajectory of civil aviation or its contribution to GHG emissions (Gössling and Dolnicar, 2023). Second, current aviation decarbonisation efforts do not allow the Paris Agreement targets to be met within the required timeframe (Becken, 2024; Gössling and Humpe, 2024), and the sector’s GHG emissions continue to increase (Gössling et al., 2024).

  • 2 Domaines Skiables de France (DSF) is the national professional association representing French ski (...)

3With regard to mountain tourism, research on climate change issues has primarily focused on the disappearance of the cryosphere. This includes impacts on predominantly summer practices such as glacier tourism in the European Alps, New Zealand, and the Canadian Rockies (Stewart et al., 2016; Nesur et al., 2022; Salim, 2023), as well as mountain recreational activities more broadly in the Austrian Alps (Pröbstl-Haider and Wanner, 2025). The most extensively studied issue, however, remains the influence of climate change on ski tourism practices and their economic organisation, particularly in Europe (Abegg et al., 2021; François et al., 2023). This literature highlights two main adaptation strategies, namely artificial snowmaking (Berard-Chenu et al., 2022) and the diversification of activities (Rouch and George, 2023). Research conducted in the French and Swiss Alps shows a tendency to maintain, or even reinforce, the existing ski-based system, without guaranteeing either its long-term sustainability or its capacity to transition (Bonnemains, 2023). The functioning of this tourism system, particularly in large ski resorts such as those in the Tarentaise valley in France, relies on upmarket strategies intended to sustain high levels of investment. This dynamic stimulates strong demand in international markets and raises significant decarbonisation challenges. Despite the decarbonisation plans developed by many ski resorts, particularly in France under the impetus of Domaines Skiables de France (DSF)2, these initiatives largely fail to account for emissions generated by visitor mobility to and from resorts (Salim et al., 2024).

4Moreover, the concepts of degrowth and decarbonisation do not rely solely on technological transformations and political decisions, but are also embedded in a broader set of values and social and cultural factors (Conde and Takano-Rojas, 2025). In the tourism sector, the concept of degrowth and its social representations has been primarily addressed in the context of overtourism (Fletcher et al., 2019; Valdivielso and Moranta, 2019). However, the tourism literature has so far paid limited attention to the social and cultural dimensions associated with degrowth and decarbonisation. The study by Gössling and Scott (2018) constitutes a notable exception, as it explores the social representations of 17 major actors in the tourism industry in relation to decarbonisation objectives. It identifies three distinct positions, namely decarbonisation leaders, technological optimists, and defenders of a carbon-based economy.

5These observations raise questions about how tourism stakeholders perceive the idea of decarbonisation and the barriers to its implementation. More broadly, they call into question the notion of a “degrowth” of certain flows, such as international visitors and investment, and the ways in which key tourism actors conceptualise and mobilise this idea in their operations. These issues arise both in territories where ski-based tourism is most highly developed, such as the Northern Alps (Berard-Chenu et al., 2024), and in regions where activity diversification strategies have been documented, such as the Southern Alps (Bonnemains and Claeys, 2023; Hatt and Claeys, 2024). They are also relevant in the Pyrenees, where dependence on long-distance international visitors remains limited and where the investment challenges highlighted by Vlès (2021) have contributed to advancing actors’ awareness of decarbonisation issues. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to examine how tourism stakeholders in the Pyrenees perceive tourism decarbonisation objectives, how they implement, or fail to implement, measures to achieve them, and to identify the main obstacles to their implementation. It also seeks to explore stakeholders’ attitudes towards the idea of degrowth, the ways in which they define it, and how they mobilise it in the development of their decarbonisation strategies.

6This study is grounded in human geography, within the field of Mountain Studies, and examines territorial reconfigurations related to climate change. The interdisciplinary approach adopted draws on economic sciences to analyse the concepts of degrowth and decarbonisation, as well as on the tools of social geography to explore the representations of territorial actors.

From Decarbonisation to Degrowth

Decarbonisation, from the Paris Agreement to Mountain Tourism

7The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to below 2°C, and ideally to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Damian et al., 2015). Compared to 2020 levels, achieving this target requires a 30% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and the attainment of carbon neutrality by 2050 (IPCC, 2018), objectives reaffirmed by the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism (One Planet, 2021). Such targets, translated at the European level through the Green Deal and at the French level through the National Low-Carbon Strategy, require a clear understanding of the emission sources within the activities to be decarbonised.

  • 3 The ANMSM represents French mountain resort municipalities, providing expertise to public authoriti (...)

8In the ski industry, GHG assessments have been conducted in several contexts, notably in Whistler, Canada, where transport to the tourism destination was shown to account for 86% of total emissions (Kelly and Williams, 2007). More recently, the French National Association of Mayors of Mountain Resorts (ANMSM3), in collaboration with ADEME, published the carbon footprint of ten French mountain resorts, showing that transport accounts for 57% of emissions, while energy consumption in buildings represents 27% (ANMSM and ADEME, 2010). Although DSF has included the requirement for its member ski areas to carry out carbon assessments within its eco-commitments, their implementation remains uneven. Some operators, such as Compagnie des Alpes, have undertaken such assessments and report that 80% of ski area operators’ emissions originate from grooming activities (Ski I. Love, 2022).

9According to ADEME (2022), a ski day in La Clusaz, Le Grand Bornand, or Tignes generates 48.9 kg CO₂-eq., mainly associated with transport (52%), followed by services (17%), individual equipment (16%), food consumption (8%), accommodation (4%), and finally ski lifts and snow management (3%). These results highlight the relatively limited contribution of ski area operators’ activities to overall emissions, which are largely dominated by transport. More generally, carbon assessments conducted by ski lift operators tend to cover direct emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions related to energy use (Scope 2), while excluding Scope 3 emissions corresponding to upstream and downstream indirect emissions (Salim et al., 2024).

10Research on tourism decarbonisation shows that current efforts are far from sufficient to meet established climate targets (Becken and Scott, 2024; Gössling et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2024). Very few studies have sought to assess decarbonisation efforts in the ski industry, and even fewer have focused on the French context. A notable exception is Salim et al. (2024), who examined the decarbonisation plans of French and Swiss ski areas and showed that these generally aim for carbon neutrality between 2030 and 2037, primarily through reductions in emissions from grooming vehicles and ski lift operations, corresponding to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. However, these strategies largely overlook Scope 3 emissions, particularly those associated with tourist mobility, which may represent between 57% and 80% of total tourism-related emissions at the resort level, depending on the destination. A small number of Swiss resorts, such as Laax or Andermatt, have already adopted approaches that explicitly include Scope 3 emissions, while French resorts continue to struggle to implement operational measures addressing this dimension (ibid.).

11Decarbonisation strategies focused on direct emissions, namely Scopes 1 and 2, therefore appear insufficient and invite consideration of more radical concepts. In this respect, while sufficiency, as emphasised in ADEME’s 2050 transition scenarios (ADEME, 2021b), promotes a voluntary reduction in consumption and production without fundamentally challenging economic growth. By contrast, degrowth allows for a deeper questioning of the tourism economic model itself and of the volumes of flows involved. Already discussed in the late 2000s (Bourdeau and Berthelot, 2008; Hall, 2009), degrowth now constitutes a relevant analytical framework for rethinking the limits of current decarbonisation strategies.

Degrowth as a Framework for Rethinking Tourism

12Beyond climate change, human societies face numerous environmental challenges that call their long-term viability into question. These challenges are commonly framed through the concept of planetary boundaries, which can be defined as environmental limits that should not be exceeded in order to ensure the habitability of the Earth system, at least seven of which have already been transgressed (Caesar et al., 2025). Research on planetary boundaries has been complemented by the definition of a “social foundation”, intended to ensure that respecting these boundaries is accompanied by satisfactory living standards for populations, leading to the development of the “doughnut” concept (Raworth, 2017). The inability of countries to remain within planetary boundaries while simultaneously guaranteeing adequate living standards for their citizens has prompted critiques arguing that the capitalist model is ontologically tied to infinite growth, in contradiction with the objective of maintaining planetary boundaries (Kallis et al., 2018).

13The idea of degrowth, which emerged from critiques of the dogma of economic growth within activist circles in the early 1980s, was popularised in the 2000s through the works of Latouche (2009). Degrowth is a normative concept with analytical and practical applications, which posits that infinite economic growth is impossible and explores alternatives to growth-based development (Kallis et al., 2018). It responds to critiques of the assumed decoupling between economic growth and environmental degradation that underpins the premises of green growth, an assumption that has been empirically refuted (Hickel and Kallis, 2020). Furthermore, the rejection of the decoupling hypothesis also implies that economic growth is disconnected from improvements in social outcomes and from reductions in inequality (Parrique et al., 2019), and that the pursuit of continuous GDP growth does not systematically lead to improvements in well-being (Laurent, 2019).

14Degrowth does not aim to promote a zero-growth model across the entire planet, nor does it advocate for generalized economic contraction or a return to the past (Latouche, 2009). Rather, it calls for economic degrowth in societies characterised by excessive resource use, alongside limited economic growth in others (Fletcher et al., 2019). Kallis et al. (2018) emphasise that degrowth should not be understood simply as recession, and that countries experiencing involuntary recession or economic depression do not constitute examples of degrowth. Instead, degrowth seeks to repoliticise sustainability discourse by advocating for radical transformations of political economy. It envisions societies organised around forms of common governance, with a strong emphasis on care and conviviality (Asara et al., 2015; D’Alisa et al., 2015). More broadly, degrowth can be understood as part of the wider field of “transitions”, which aims to foster a profound paradigm shift towards more sustainable societies (Escobar, 2015).

  • 4 Here understood according to the definition proposed by the World Tourism Organization in 1993 as t (...)

15In the field of tourism, relatively little research has addressed the issue of degrowth. The earliest references to the concept can be found in the works of Bourdeau and Berthelot (2008) and Hall (2009), who view degrowth as a useful concept for moving beyond growth-oriented policies promoted by the World Tourism Organization, and who further estimate that sustainable development objectives are already considered doomed to failure. The notion of “sustainable tourism”4 is often mobilised by economic and institutional actors in the tourism sector as a means of rationalising and commodifying the environment as an exclusive good for tourist consumers (Boluk et al., 2019).

16More recently, Fletcher et al. (2019) coordinated a special issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism devoted to tourism and degrowth. Within this issue, Higgins-Desbiolles et al. (2019) propose a conceptual framework aimed at limiting the inequalities and injustices generated by neoliberal tourism, by focusing on the interests and rights of local communities hosting tourists. Gascón (2019) shows that arguments in favour of a “right to tourism” create tensions between the rights of tourists and those of residents. These tensions tend to neutralise discourses on tourism degrowth, as they become delegitimised insofar as they are perceived as undermining an established right. More recently still, the links between tourism and degrowth have been used to examine the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on tourism destinations, highlighting the relative advantages of destinations that have invested in proximity-based tourism and diversified offerings (Romagosa, 2020).

17To date, research on tourism and degrowth remains largely conceptual, with relatively few studies providing empirical material, particularly in the French context. Murray et al. (2025) identify several avenues for further investigation, including political analyses of tourism degrowth, the biophysical limits to tourism growth, post-capitalist practices, and the notion of “de-touristification”, understood as a specific tourism degrowth strategy aimed at reducing tourism intensity in highly touristified areas. Our interdisciplinary research aligns directly with these directions and seeks to contribute empirical evidence on how tourism stakeholders in the Ariège Pyrenees perceive the challenges of tourism decarbonisation and degrowth, as well as their attitudes towards these issues. It also examines the concrete obstacles that hinder their operational implementation, with the aim of identifying potential levers for advancing a sustainable tourism transition.

Methodology and Study Area

  • 5 The data are drawn from the tourism reports of the Pyrénées Ariégeoises for the 2023–2024 winter se (...)

18The present research is conducted in the département of Ariège (Occitanie region, France), within the area covered by the Pyrénées Ariégeoises Tourist Office, whose geographical scope corresponds to that of the communautés de communes of Haute-Ariège and Pays de Tarascon (Figure 1). Located between Toulouse to the north and Andorra and Spain to the south, this territory records slightly over 2 million overnight stays per year, the majority of which occur in summer (58%)5, and offers 45,292 tourist beds, most of which are second homes (70%). Tourists are predominantly French, accounting for 75% of visitors in summer and 87% in winter, and largely residents of the Occitanie region, representing 80% and 85% respectively. International visitors are mainly from Spain (36%), the United Kingdom (10%), and the Netherlands (9%).

19The destination includes six ski resorts, the largest of which, Ax-3-Domaines, is operated by SAVASEM (Ski Alpin en Vallées d’Ax, a mixed-economy company) and recorded 313,606 skier-days during the 2023–2024 winter season. Several caves, including Lombrives and Niaux, a talc quarry, and the Wolves’ House in the Orlu Valley constitute the main tourist attractions of the area. The thermal tourism offer includes sites such as Ussat, dedicated exclusively to spa treatments, and the Bains du Couloubret, which are also open for leisure activities and recorded the highest attendance, with 133,840 entries in 2024. The territory regularly hosts stages of the Tour de France, with a finish at the Plateau de Beille in 2024 and an estimated crowd of between 60,000 and 80,000 spectators6. Finally, the area supports a wide range of nature-based activities, including hiking, climbing, canyoning, and mountaineering.

20In terms of ski tourism, 9% of skier-days in France take place in the Pyrenees, compared with 86% in the Alps (Cour des comptes, 2024). Although Ax-3-Domaines is the main ski resort in the Pyrénées Ariégeoises territory, accounting for 70% of ski-related turnover in the département of Ariège, and with a ski area ranging from 1,400 to 2,400 metres in altitude, it faces direct competition from large resorts in Andorra, such as Granvalira, which recorded more than 1.6 million skier-days in 20247, as well as from more modest resorts in Cerdagne, such as Font-Romeu, which recorded 526,000 skier-days during the 2024 winter season8.

21At the regional level, the Regional Spatial Planning, Sustainable Development and Territorial Equality Scheme (Schéma Régional d’Aménagement, de Développement Durable et d’Égalité des Territoires, SRADDET) “Occitanie 2040”, under its objective of combating climate change, is aligned with the national low-carbon strategy’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. At the inter-municipal level, the Climate Air Energy Plan (Plan Climat Air Énergie Territorial, PCAET) of the Ariège Valley, published in 2019, aims to reduce GHG emissions by 54.8% by 20509.

Figure 1. The territories of Haute Ariège and Pays de Tarascon forming the Pyrénées Ariégeoises tourism area, main tourist sites, and their visitor numbers

Figure 1. The territories of Haute Ariège and Pays de Tarascon forming the Pyrénées Ariégeoises tourism area, main tourist sites, and their visitor numbers

Visitor data are drawn from the Pyrénées Ariégeoises tourism reports for the 2023–2024 winter season and summer 2024.

22The empirical material mobilised in this study is based on 17 semi-structured interviews conducted with tourism stakeholders in the Pyrénées Ariégeoises, including 9 public and 8 private actors. The selected participants represent different scalar levels, ranging from national and regional bodies, such as the Commissariat de massif, the Regional Committee for Tourism and Leisure, and the Agence des Pyrénées, to local actors, including municipalities, inter-municipal authorities, and tourism businesses. Respondents were recruited through purposive sampling in order to cover the full range of governance levels and categories of actors involved in tourism in the Pyrénées Ariégeoises.

  • 10 Here understood as referring to the concept in social psychology that seeks to identify an individu (...)

23The interviews were conducted between October 2024 and April 2025, either in person or via videoconferencing. The interview guide (Appendix 1) explored respondents’ representations of the GHG emission reduction targets set by the Paris Agreement, their understandings of decarbonisation and the barriers to its implementation, as well as their attitudes10 towards degrowth. With an average duration of 54 minutes, the interviews were recorded with participants’ consent and fully transcribed. To preserve anonymity, generic descriptors are used when presenting the results.

24The data were analysed using a directed content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). In a first stage, coding was based on a predefined theoretical category, namely representations of decarbonisation and degrowth. In a second stage, an inductive approach was applied to further explore representations of decarbonisation and attitudes towards degrowth without relying on pre-established categories. All data were processed using the MaxQDA software.

Results

Barriers to the operationalisation of decarbonisation objectives

25Overall, the actors interviewed agree on the legitimacy of GHG reduction objectives, yet very few are able to cite quantified targets or even orders of magnitude at the global scale. Several respondents emphasise the highly “theoretical” nature of the objectives set by the Paris Agreement. The interviews also show that very few carbon assessments have been carried out at the local level, even though the objectives promoted by DSF are well known. Nevertheless, most respondents agree that transport and mobility account for the largest share of tourism-related GHG emissions in their territory. This point is notably raised by several tourism office managers in response to arguments suggesting that ski areas generate limited GHG emissions due to the electric operation of their infrastructure: “Even if the territory were completely energy-positive, if people continue to come by private car, it would not change much. Transport remains the key issue to address.”

26Some actions have been implemented to reduce the carbon footprint of tourism in the Pyrénées Ariégeoises. Building insulation is often cited as a successful measure by private actors who have direct control over their premises. By contrast, it remains a major challenge for public actors, who consider that they lack the necessary resources. Several private stakeholders mention the introduction of teleworking software, carpooling applications, or in-kind benefits as measures to reduce GHG emissions. One respondent explained: “I decided […] to pay for my employees’ seasonal ski passes so that they can use the ski lift to get here instead of driving their cars.”

27At the scale of the Pyrénées Ariégeoises, public tourism actors are also seeking to promote soft mobility by supporting the development of cycling infrastructure. The Skirail scheme is integrated into the Occitanie Region’s low-carbon strategy. It combines train travel with ski passes for Ax-3-Domaines, or train, shuttle, and Nordic skiing or snowshoeing passes for the Plateau de Beille, and is identified as an opportunity to reduce car use. However, several respondents highlight the heavy coordination required between actors and the scheme’s strong dependence on regional political will: “This has been around for at least 20 years; it really gained momentum because the region increased train frequencies, and now all the students from Toulouse go skiing using Skirail.”

28Several barriers to decarbonisation are identified by respondents. The most widely shared, particularly among public institutions, is the lack of financial and human resources, along with the complexity of the French territorial “layer cake”, which results in a multiplicity of actors being involved in mobility-related projects. According to institutional respondents, these two constraints generate misunderstandings surrounding public–private partnerships. As one interviewee noted regarding the implementation of a shuttle service whose timetable does not match that of the tourist site it serves: “[Private actors] would have liked to be involved in the discussion so that it would better reflect real-world conditions. So yes, there is a lack of coordination between actors. The region wanted to implement this scheme, in my view, under very tight deadlines and with highly complex administrative requirements, which I understand, but in practice private actors do not understand it.” As a result, some private stakeholders feel excluded from decision-making processes.

29Another barrier to the decarbonisation of mobility identified by respondents lies in tourists’ habits: “We [develop] shuttle services, but they fail because people want to arrive when they want and leave when they want. […] So, in terms of mindsets, we are not there yet.” With regard to mobility, the “last kilometre” therefore remains a central challenge clearly identified by tourism actors, both public and private.

Degrowth: A Contested Concept Associated with Territorial Decline

30Respondents, whether from public or private organisations, indicate that they do not use the term degrowth in an operational manner in their work. Some define it broadly as a voluntary or involuntary reduction in consumption or economic activity, while others associate it with sobriety or a slowdown in activity. Overall, the term is predominantly perceived negatively, as it is associated with a loss of the territory’s economic attractiveness and a consequent reduction in employment, as illustrated by one private actor: “Degrowth, in any case, yes, I experience it when there is no snow. That is imposed degrowth.” More generally, some respondents associate the term with yet another critique of tourism, or more specifically of their own activity, which they feel does not provide concrete solutions. One public actor explained: “Degrowth worries me a bit, because I work with people who live here and want to stay here. What do we offer instead?” This reluctance is echoed by a private actor: “For me, degrowth is not something very positive […]. Degrowth necessarily means less activity for [my team], and therefore fewer jobs.”

31Nevertheless, most public and private actors consider the current development model to be unsustainable and agree with the underlying principle of protecting resources for future generations. Some even refer to actions that would fall within degrowth-oriented strategies, such as the idea that resource protection requires better management or even a reduction in tourist flows. Others mention the possibility of developing less resource-intensive tourism offers without necessarily reducing visitor numbers, although they acknowledge having no concrete means to achieve this.

32Tourism stakeholders interviewed indicate a preference for using terms such as “stagnation,” “transition,” or “change in development model” rather than “degrowth.” Overall, actors refer more to the idea of a gradual adaptation of tourism activities to ecological constraints than to a radical reduction in activity. They seek to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the maintenance of a viable economic activity, a position that can be likened to the notion of green growth, as illustrated by this public-sector representative: “More than degrowth, I ask myself: how can we aim for growth that is much more respectful? And fair. And how can we find a balance, respect, and fairness.”

33The interviews reveal several barriers to the implementation of degrowth. The fear of a local economic collapse emerges clearly, with most actors, both public and private, concerned that a voluntary reduction in activity would lead to job losses and a weakening of the vitality of mountain territories. Moreover, uncertainty regarding the future of ski resorts makes it difficult to envisage “slowing down” tourism, which is perceived as the main source of income for the territory. This concern is also shared by elected officials, who fear that such trajectories could accelerate youth outmigration and further contribute to the depopulation of mountain valleys.

34Furthermore, a major barrier lies in the reluctance to assume the role of “the one who will close the resort” or to bring an end to a family legacy. This reluctance is reinforced by a strong cultural identity in territories historically structured around skiing. The actors also point to the absence of political consensus around any trajectory that would fundamentally challenge the current development model, and they do not see how such an orientation could be implemented in practice. This reflects a clear lack of a well-defined “alternative project.” Several respondents emphasize that there is no robust or widely shared vision of what a “positive” form of degrowth would entail. In other words, public and private stakeholders do not know how to “grasp” degrowth in practical terms, nor which alternatives could be proposed to maintain employment and quality of life.

Discussion and Conclusion

35The idea of decarbonisation is clearly present among tourism stakeholders in the Ariège Pyrenees, who are aware that mobility represents the main source of GHG emissions in the tourism sector at the global scale and the central challenge at the local scale, in line with the findings of Gössling and Scott (2018). Efforts to reduce emissions primarily focus on buildings and the operation of ski areas, in accordance with the decarbonisation plans observed in other ski resorts (Salim et al., 2024). By contrast, mobility, and in particular the issue of the “last kilometre,” remains a major challenge for which stakeholders face persistent difficulties, as observed in other tourism contexts (Sovacool et al., 2018; Minguez and Loloum, 2025).

  • 11 Data sourced from the Pyrenees Ariégeoises tourism report for the 2023–2024 winter season
  • 12 Data sourced from the Ariège Valley SCoT, adopted on 18 March 2025. http://www.registre-numerique.f (...)

36The Toulouse–Latour-de-Carol railway line nevertheless represents a potential opportunity for the decarbonisation of tourist mobility, yet it accounted for only 6% of skier-days in the 2023–2024 season11. This low share can be explained by significant infrastructural constraints, including a single-track line that limits service frequency and under-dimensioned rolling stock, resulting in an average annual occupancy rate of 73% and rapid saturation during peak periods12.

37Among the barriers to decarbonisation identified through the interviews are the lack of human and financial resources allocated to this issue, a constraint already highlighted in previous studies (Dias et al., 2024). Another major obstacle concerns the fragmentation of responsibilities across the different territorial levels of governance in France, as noted by Piriou and Rimaud (2019). In the case of mobility, the organising authority lies at the regional level (or at the national level for overnight Intercités services), whereas the issues to be addressed primarily concern intermunicipal bodies or even individual municipalities. This institutional fragmentation, further reinforced by a renewed form of Jacobin centralisation identified by Dumont (2018), leads many actors to feel that they lack control over issues that directly affect them and to perceive a form of domination and insufficient consideration of local constraints by regional and national authorities. The complexity of the French multi-layered administrative system thus emerges as a major obstacle to achieving decarbonisation objectives. In addition, the central role of private cars in visitors’ imaginaries and practices constitutes a significant barrier to the uptake of public transport, in line with the findings of Le-Klähn and Hall (2015). In this context, stronger cooperation across territorial scales, taking local constraints into account and supported by adequate resources, could help foster greater modal shift away from private car use.

38With regard to degrowth, the majority of respondents agree with and express a positive attitude toward the underlying idea, as illustrated by Hickel (2021), of reducing resource use in order to achieve a balance between development and the environment, while at the same time holding a negative perception of the term itself. This finding corroborates the work of Drews and Reese (2018), who show that the term “degrowth” generates more negative affects and emotions than alternative terms such as “post-growth.” More broadly, studies on perceptions of the term “degrowth” either highlight its usefulness in questioning the current model and its status quo (Hickel, 2021; Kallis et al., 2018), or emphasise its overly negative and theoretical character, which limits its acceptability among broader audiences (van den Bergh, 2018; Drews and Antal, 2016). The results presented here suggest that the term induces concern and rejection and is not mobilising for actors within the tourism territory of the Pyrénées Ariégeoises. Furthermore, several respondents now refer to “mountain resorts” rather than “ski resorts,” illustrating through language the diversification of tourism that is envisioned in a future where snow reliability can no longer be guaranteed. This shift, already observed and described by Vlès and Hatt (2019), reveals early signs of a transformation in resorts preparing to operate without continuous snow cover. This semantic diversity, which also includes notions of “alternative models” and “transition,” is preferred by actors over the term “degrowth.”

39Several barriers to the implementation of degrowth are identified. Fear of an economic collapse resulting from a reduction in tourism flows constitutes a major obstacle in this peripheral territory that is highly dependent on tourism, illustrating the position outlined by Fletcher et al. (2019), according to which growth is considered necessary for the functioning of the capitalist model. This difficulty is further reinforced by individual psychological resistance, rooted in the fact that no actor wishes to assume the symbolically heavy role of the one who would reduce activity or bring an end to a long-standing family enterprise. The absence of credible economic alternatives capable of compensating for a voluntary reduction in tourism intensifies these concerns and prevents the emergence of consensual trajectories.

40Ultimately, although the general objective of reducing GHG emissions is widely shared, it remains largely theoretical and insufficiently operationalised. The results highlight the need to strengthen communication and spaces for dialogue between academic spheres, citizens, and local stakeholders, in order to make national decarbonisation objectives and associated concepts, such as degrowth, more tangible and appropriable at the territorial scale. They also confirm the importance, already emphasised by Kallis et al. (2018), of constructing a positive imaginary around societies that respect planetary boundaries, within which notions such as “post-growth” may encounter less resistance. Finally, this study opens up several avenues for future research, particularly regarding the multi-level governance of decarbonisation, the analysis of territorial imaginaries related to winter, snow, and tourism, and the conditions under which new economic sectors capable of offering credible alternatives to the dominant tourism model may emerge.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abegg B., Morin S., Demiroglu O.C., François H., Rothleitner M., Strasser U., 2021.– “Overloaded! Critical revision and a new conceptual approach for snow indicators in ski tourism”, International Journal of Biometeorology, vol. 65, pp. 691–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-020-01867-3.

ADEME, 2022.– Réalisation de bilans de gaz à effet de serre et stratégie climatique associée, Chambéry.

ADEME, 2021a.– Synthesis of GHG emission of the tourism industry in France.

ADEME, 2021b.– Transition(s) 2050, Angers.

ANMSM, ADEME, 2010.– Bilan carbone des stations de montagne, Chambéry.

Asara V., Otero I., Demaria F., Corbera E., 2015.– “Socially sustainable degrowth as a social—ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability”, Sustainability Science, vol. 10, no 3, pp. 375–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9.

Becken S., 2024.– “Mapping the mitigation context for sectoral decarbonisation”, Tourism Recreation Research, pp. 1–8.

Becken, S. and Scott, D., 2024. “Tourism and climate change stocktake: a call to action”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1–21.

Berard-Chenu L., François H., George E., 2024.– “Responses to climate change in Alpine ski destinations”, Handbook on Managing Nature-Based Tourism Destinations Amid Climate Change, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 121–135.

Berard-Chenu L., François H., George E., Morin S., 2022.– “Trajectoires de développement de la production de neige dans les stations de ski des Alpes françaises : l’influence des spécificités locales et des politiques régionales de soutien”, Journal of Alpine Research|Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 110, no 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.10434.

van den Bergh J., 2018.– “Agrowth instead of anti- and pro-growth: Less polarization, more support for sustainability/climate policies”, The Journal of Population and Sustainability, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 53–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2018.3.1.53.

Boluk K.A., Cavaliere C.T., Higgins-Desbiolles F., 2019.– “A critical framework for interrogating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda in tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 7, pp. 847–864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1619748.

Bonnemains A., 2023.– “Adaptations et vulnérabilités des stations de sports d’hiver françaises face aux changements climatiques”, L’Information géographique, vol. 87, no 2, pp. 123-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.872.0123.

Bonnemains A., Claeys C., 2023.– “Saisir les opportunités de ses vulnérabilités ? Trajectoire territoriale d’une station de moyenne montagne, Céüze 2000”, Journal of Alpine Research|Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 111, no 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.11196.

Bourdeau P., Berthelot L., 2008.– Tourisme et décroissance. De la critique à l’utopie ?, Paris, pp. 78-85.

Butler R.W., 1999.– “Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review”, Tourism Geographies, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 7–25.

Caesar L., Sakschewski B., Andersen L., Bechthold M., Bergfeld L., Beusen A., Billing M., Bodirsky B.L., Botsyun S., Dennis D.P., Donges J., Dou X., Eriksson A., Fetzer I., Gerten D., Häyhä T., Hebden S., Heckmann T., Heilemann A., et al., 2025.– Planetary Health Check 2025: A scientific assessment of the state of the planet, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 144 p.

Clivaz C., Savioz A., 2020.– “Recul des glaciers et appréhension des changements climatiques par les acteurs touristiques locaux. Le cas de Chamonix-Mont-Blanc dans les Alpes françaises”, Via. Tourism Review, no 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/viatourism.6066.

Conde J.J., Takano-Rojas H., 2025.– “Rethinking energy transition: Approaches from social representations theory”, Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 122, pp. 104001.

Cour des comptes, 2024.– Les stations de montagne face au changement climatique, Cour des comptes, Paris.

D’Alisa G., Demaria F., Kallis G. (dir.), 2015.– Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era, Routledge, New York.

Damian M., Abbas M., Berthaud P., 2015.– “Les grandes orientations de l’accord climatique de Paris 2015”, Natures Sciences Sociétés, supplément no 3, pp. 19-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015031.

Dias Á., Viana J., Pereira L., 2024.– “Barriers and policies affecting the implementation of sustainable tourism: The Portuguese experience”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, pp. 1–19.

Drews S., Antal M., 2016.– “Degrowth: A ‘missile word’ that backfires?”, Ecological Economics, vol. 126, pp. 182–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.011.

Drews S., Reese G., 2018.– “‘Degrowth’ vs. other types of growth: Labeling affects emotions but not attitudes”, Environmental Communication, vol. 12, no 6, pp. 763–772. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1478476.

Dumont G.-F., 2018.– “Géopolitique des territoires français : décentralisation versus recentralisation”, Diploweb.com : la revue géopolitique, pp. 1-19.

Escobar A., 2015.– “Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: A preliminary conversation”, Sustainability Science, vol. 10, no 3, pp. 451-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5.

Fletcher R., Murray Mas I., Blanco-Romero A., Blázquez-Salom M., 2019.– “Tourism and degrowth: An emerging agenda for research and praxis”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 12, pp. 1745–1763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1679822.

François H., Samacoïts R., Bird D.N., Köberl J., Prettenthaler F., Morin S., 2023.– “Climate change exacerbates snow-water-energy challenges for European ski tourism”, Nature Climate Change, vol. 13, no 9, pp. 935–942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01759-6.

Gascón J., 2019.– “Tourism as a right: A ‘frivolous claim’ against degrowth?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 12, pp. 1825–1838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1680685.

Gay J.-C., 2018.– “Le tourisme par la géographie”, L’Espace géographique, vol. 47, no 2, pp. 97-101.

Gössling S., Dolnicar S., 2023.– “A review of air travel behavior and climate change”, WIREs Climate Change, vol. 14, no 1, pp. e802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.802.

Gössling S., Humpe A., 2024.– “Net-zero aviation: Transition barriers and radical climate policy design implications”, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 912, pp. 169107.

Gössling S., Humpe A., Leitão J.C., 2024.– “Private aviation is making a growing contribution to climate change”, Communications Earth & Environment, vol. 5, no 1, pp. 1–11.

Gössling S., Scott D., 2018.– “The decarbonisation impasse: Global tourism leaders’ views on climate change mitigation”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 26, no 12, pp. 2071–2086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1526293.

Hall C.M., 2009.– “Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism”, Anatolia, vol. 20, no 1, pp. 46–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2009.10518894.

Hatt É., Claeys C., 2024.– “Dépendance, attachement, contestation : quelles transitions pour les stations de sports d’hiver ?”, Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 112, no 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.12792.

Hickel J., 2021.– « What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification », Globalizations, vol. 18, no 7, pp. 1105-1111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222.

Hickel J., Kallis G., 2020.– “Is green growth possible?”, New Political Economy, vol. 25, no 4, pp. 469–486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964.

Higgins-Desbiolles F., Carnicelli S., Krolikowski C., Wijesinghe G., Boluk K., 2019.– “Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 12, pp. 1926–1944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601732.

Hsieh H.-F., Shannon S.E., 2005.– “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15, no 9, pp. 1277–1288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

IPCC, 2018.– Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pörtner H.-O., et al. (dir.).

Kaján E., 2014.– “Arctic tourism and sustainable adaptation: Community perspectives to vulnerability and climate change”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, vol. 14, no 1, pp. 60–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2014.886097.

Kallis G., Kostakis V., Lange S., Muraca B., Paulson S., Schmelzer M., 2018.– “Research on degrowth”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 43, pp. 291–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941.

Kelly J., Williams P.W., 2007.– “Modelling tourism destination energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions: Whistler, British Columbia, Canada”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 15, no 1, pp. 67–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/jost607.0.

Latouche S., 2009.– Farewell to growth, Polity, Cambridge, Malden.

Laurent É., 2019.– Sortir de la croissance : Mode d’emploi, Éditions Les liens qui libèrent, Paris.

Le Klähn D.-T., Hall C.M., 2015.– “Tourist use of public transport at destinations — a review”, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 18, no 8, pp. 785–803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.948812.

Maio G., Haddock G., 2010.– The psychology of attitudes and attitude change, SAGE Publications, London.

Minguez I., Loloum T., 2025.– “Framing energy sufficiency in a Swiss mountain resort”, Sustainability, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010238.

Mora C., Spirandelli D., Franklin E.C., Lynham J., Kantar M.B., Miles W., Smith C.Z., Freel K., Moy J., Louis L.V., Barba E.W., Bettinger K., Frazier A.G., Colburn Ix J.F., Hanasaki N., Hawkins E., Hirabayashi Y., Knorr W., Little C.M., et al., 2018.– “Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions”, Nature Climate Change, vol. 8, no 12, pp. 1062–1071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0315-6.

Murray I., Fletcher R., Blázquez-Salom M., Blanco-Romero A., Cañada E., Sekulova F., 2025.– « Tourism and degrowth », Tourism Geographies, vol. 27, nos 3-4, pp. 547-557.

Nesur K., Salim E., Girault C., Ravanel L., 2022.– “Sharing scientific knowledge on glaciers to the general public: The role of glacier interpretation centres in mountain tourism diversification strategies”, Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 110, no 1. Online: http://journals.openedition.org/rga/10143, retrieved March 2, 2026.

One Planet, 2021.– The Glasgow Declaration: A commitment to a decade of tourism climate action.

Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., Kerschner C., Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H., 2019.– Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability, European Environmental Bureau, 41 p.

Piriou J., Rimaud M.-N., 2019.– « Réformes territoriales et exercice de la compétence tourisme par l’institution publique départementale française. Cas exploratoires de la Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres », Mondes du Tourisme, no 16. Online: http://journals.openedition.org/tourisme/2376, retrieved March 2, 2026.

Pröbstl-Haider U., Wanner A., 2025.– “Short-term summer trips: Climate hazards and substitution”, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 110, p. 103861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2025.103861.

Raworth K., 2017.– Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction.

Romagosa F., 2020.– “The COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities for sustainable and proximity tourism”, Tourism Geographies, vol. 22, no 3, pp. 690–694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763447.

Rouch L., George E., 2023.– “Tourism diversification paths in ski mid-mountain territories: Any transformations?”, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1–16.

Salim E., 2023.– “Glacier tourism without ice: Envisioning future adaptations in a melting world”, Frontiers in Human Dynamics, vol. 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2023.1137551.

Salim E., Loloum T., Bonnemains A., 2024.– “Towards decarbonisation plans for ski tourism: Examples from the Swiss and French Alps”, in Handbook on Managing Nature-Based Tourism Destinations Amid Climate Change, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 136–149.

Ski I Love, 2022.– “La Compagnie des Alpes accélère sa trajectoire Net Zéro Carbone”, I Love Ski®. Online: https://www.iloveski.org/fr/2022/04/26/compagnie-des-alpes-net-zero-carbone/, retrieved March 2, 2026.

Sovacool B.K., Noel L., Kester J., Zarazua de Rubens G., 2018.– “Reviewing Nordic transport challenges and climate policy priorities: Expert perceptions of decarbonisation in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden”, Energy, vol. 165, pp. 532–542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.086.

Steiger R., Demiroglu O.C., Pons M., Salim E., 2023.– “Climate and carbon risk of tourism in Europe”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1–31.

Stewart E.J., et al., 2016.– “Implications of climate change for glacier tourism”, Tourism Geographies, vol. 18, no 4, pp. 377–398.

Sun Y.-Y., et al., 2024.– “Drivers of global tourism carbon emissions”, Nature Communications, vol. 15, no 1, pp. 10384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50307-0.

Valdivielso J., Moranta J., 2019.– “The social construction of the tourism degrowth discourse in the Balearic Islands”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 12, pp. 1876–1892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1668458.

Vlès V., 2021.– “Anticiper le changement climatique dans les stations de ski : la science, le déni, l’autorité”, Sud-Ouest européen. Revue géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, no 51, pp. 127-139.

Vlès V., Hatt E., 2019.– “Des stations de ski et d’alpinisme confrontées aux enjeux de la transition : changement énergétique et écologique, évolution touristique, requalification urbaine”, Le tourisme hivernal – clé de succès et de développement pour les collectivités de montagne ?, L’Harmattan, « GRALE » Series , pp. 177-198.

Haut de page

Annexe

Annexe 1 : Grille d’entretien

Présentation

Depuis quand travaillez-vous à ce poste ?

Quel est votre rôle ?

Quels sont vos principaux projets aujourd’hui ?

Comment décririez-vous la structure du tourisme au sein de votre territoire (activité, proportion, origine des touristes)

Quels sont, selon vous, les principaux enjeux du tourisme au sein de votre territoire ?

Perception du changement climatique

Que pensez-vous du changement climatique ?

A votre avis, quels sont les causes du changement climatique ?

Vous sentez-vous personnellement concerné par le changement climatique ?

Pensez-vous que le changement climatique a un effet sur le tourisme ? (dans le monde, en France, dans votre territoire)

Pensez-vous que le changement climatique induit des risques pour le tourisme ? Pouvez-vous en citer ? (dans le monde, en France, dans votre territoire)

Avez-vous l’impression qu’il faille adapter le tourisme dans votre destination au changement climatique ?

A votre échelle/dans votre travail, comment préparez-vous l’adaptation du tourisme ?

Quels sont les difficultés que vous rencontrez ?

Avez-vous engagé des démarches d’adaptation ?

Si oui, lesquelles ?

Si non, pourquoi ?

Perception des objectifs de réductions de GES

Que savez-vous des objectifs de réduction de GES ?

Connaissez-vous les objectifs français en matière de réduction de GES (et ceux de DSF ?)?

Avez-vous développé une comptabilité carbone pour votre destination ?

OUI = Comment mettez-vous en œuvre ces objectifs de réduction

NON = Pourquoi et mettez-vous en œuvre des stratégies pour réduire vos émissions de GES ?

Quelles sont ces stratégies ?

A votre avis, quelles sont les actions les plus efficaces pour réduire vos émissions ?

Quelles sont pour vous les difficultés à l’élaboration et à la mise en œuvre de stratégies de réduction de GES ?

Considérant que le plus gros facteur d’émission pour le tourisme en montagne est le transport vers les destinations, comment envisagez-vous cet aspect ? (Quel impact pouvez-vous avoir ?)

(en fonction de la structure du tourisme) Pensez-vous qu’il soit viable pour vous de réduire la clientèle internationale et particulièrement les marchés lointains pour le compenser par une clientèle domestique.

Attitude vis-à-vis de la décroissance

Aujourd’hui, on parle beaucoup de décroissance. Qu’en pensez-vous personnellement et dans le cadre de votre activité professionnelle ?

Que pensez-vous de la décroissance du tourisme (en termes de revenu, de flux, ou autre) ?

Pensez-vous que les stations de ski pyrénéennes collaborent efficacement avec d’autres secteurs touristiques et d’activité, décideurs et communautés pour lutter contre le changement climatique ?

Comment les politiques publiques peuvent-elles soutenir les stations de ski pyrénéennes et françaises dans leur transition vers des modèles de décroissance, des modèles touristiques plus durables et à faible impact ? (autre que des subventions)

Haut de page

Notes

1 ADEME (Agence de la transition écologique) is the French public agency responsible for supporting public policies related to ecological transition, including climate change mitigation, energy, and sustainable development.

2 Domaines Skiables de France (DSF) is the national professional association representing French ski lift and ski area operators. As a national professional body, it informs and represents companies operating ski lifts and ski areas, as well as urban, tourism, and industrial cable transport systems.

3 The ANMSM represents French mountain resort municipalities, providing expertise to public authorities and supporting local development, tourism governance, and sustainability in mountain areas.

4 Here understood according to the definition proposed by the World Tourism Organization in 1993 as tourism that “meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future” (Butler, 1999, p. 10).

5 The data are drawn from the tourism reports of the Pyrénées Ariégeoises for the 2023–2024 winter season (https://pro-pyrenees-ariegeoises.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_bilan_hiver.pdf) and 2024 summer season (https://pro-pyrenees-ariegeoises.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024_bilan_ete.pdf), retrieved March 2, 2026.

6 https://www.ladepeche.fr/2024/07/14/tour-de-france-en-ariege-lariege-et-le-monument-plateau-de-beille-fideles-a-leur-legende-12082015.php, retrieved March 2, 2026.

7 Data provided by the operator Grandvalira Resorts

8 Data published by AltiService, the ski area operator: https://www.altiservice.com/sites/default/files/2025-03/Altiservice%20bat%20des%20records%20de%20fr%C3%A9quentation_compressed.pdf, retrieved March 2, 2026.

9 The PCAET is available at the following address: https://scot-va.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2.StrategieTerritoriale-PCAET.pdf, retrieved March 2, 2026.

10 Here understood as referring to the concept in social psychology that seeks to identify an individual’s positive or negative evaluations of an object or entity (Maio and Haddock, 2010).

11 Data sourced from the Pyrenees Ariégeoises tourism report for the 2023–2024 winter season

12 Data sourced from the Ariège Valley SCoT, adopted on 18 March 2025. http://www.registre-numerique.fr/revision-scot-vallee-ariege/telechargement?document2=189577, retrieved March 2, 2026.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. The territories of Haute Ariège and Pays de Tarascon forming the Pyrénées Ariégeoises tourism area, main tourist sites, and their visitor numbers
Crédits Visitor data are drawn from the Pyrénées Ariégeoises tourism reports for the 2023–2024 winter season and summer 2024.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17319/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 666k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Emmanuel Salim, Alix Varnajot et Julie Bousquet, « Decarbonisation and Degrowth in Mountain Tourism: Representations and Barriers to Action in the Ariège Pyrenees »Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine [En ligne], 114-1 | 2026, mis en ligne le 20 avril 2026, consulté le 12 mai 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rga/17319 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/165gl

Haut de page

Auteurs

Emmanuel Salim

Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, UTOPI (UMR CNRS 5311), Toulouse, France
Université de Lausanne, Institut de Géographie et Durabilité, Sion, Suisse
Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, ISTHIA, Toulouse, France

Articles du même auteur

Alix Varnajot

Université d’Oulu, Unité de recherche en Géographie, Oulu, Finlande

Julie Bousquet

Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, ISTHIA, Toulouse, France

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search