Abstract
Ethical decisions to visit disappearing destinations are self-serving and influences feed into self-interest. Data were collected from a sample of pre-, during- and post-visit tourists to Venice and Svalbard, using expressive techniques and scenarios using the Hunt–Vitell model to understand ethical decisions, and the constructive technique and collage to understand influences. The results show that travel decisions are driven by individual selfishness, and any threat to freedom (i.e. the right to travel) is underplayed. The preferred scenario for long-term benefit for planet and people is via short-term economic and social negative impacts on the destination’s locals, rather than the tourists’ own experience. Respondents believe that they are blameless for their purchasing habits as they lack perceived behavioural control, and instead corporations ought to be providing sustainable products as the norm and not sell products that harm. In the scenarios, where respondents express concern for the locals in a disappearing destination (i.e. if we do not visit, they will not benefit from our expenditure), individual selfishness to visit could be the driver, rather than an altruistic act to provide support. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.