Travel can sometimes place us in a moral dilemma. A sense of unease may arise from everyday realities — the carbon emissions caused by flying, for example, or the broader consequences of modern mass tourism. Is this simply something to accept? Should we simply stop traveling or are there better ways to do it?

For Wolfgang Strasdas, the answer is clear: "I don't think we need to feel guilty at all," says the scientific director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism in Berlin, who has studied the impacts of travel for many years.

In many parts of the world, tourism is a key economic sector and an important driver of prosperity. Even so, he argues that certain factors deserve careful consideration in advance, particularly the environmental footprint of a trip and the pressures associated with overtourism.

Chose the off-season to travel over the peak season

"You should ask yourself: 'Do I really need to go to Athens in the middle of summer, when it's already overcrowded?'," he says.

Switching to doing sightseeing in the off-season, if your circumstances allow, at least helps to ease the pressure on a location. You could also ask yourself whether there are alternative destinations that are just as interesting but less crowded. You could chose the German city of Leipzig instead of the capital, Berlin, or Philadelphia instead of New York, he suggests.

"There is also undertourism," says Strasdas — places whose residents would be delighted to welcome more visitors.

Petra Thomas, the managing director of Forum Anders Reisen, an association for sustainable tourism with more than 140 affiliated tour operators, agrees.

She gives the example of the northern Spanish region of Catalonia, where many people in rural areas would like to see more tourism. Barcelona, Catalonia's capital, meanwhile, clearly has too much of it.  Forum Anders Riesen tour operators commit to a strict set of criteria so their clients can enjoy their vacations without a guilty conscience. Among other things, this means that regions should be avoided that are "already so heavily frequented by tourists that there is a risk of overuse," Thomas says.

Embarrassment in Cameroon

Thomas is convinced that "there are conditions under which tourism has a positive impact." People come together, cultural exchange takes place and travelers gain valuable experiences that change their view of the world, she says.

However, she has also seen firsthand how tourists' behavior can cause unpleasant situations. She recalled a trip with a tour group in rural Cameroon when some of her fellow travelers began photographing the homes of local villagers in a disrespectful manner.

"Several of them took pictures inside the homes as if it were nothing," she recalls. She felt the tourists had violated the privacy of the local people. "I felt embarrassed for them."

Oliver Zwahlen, a passionate globetrotter and author of the blog Weltreiseforum (World Travel Forum) has been dealing for years with the moral conflicts that travelers face every day.

"At some point, I realized that most people genuinely try to act responsibly when they travel and want to do as little harm as possible,” says the Swiss writer. At the same time, he notes, the "right” course of action is often unclear.

"Should you give pens to children who are begging?” Zwahlen asks. "Does that support their education, or does it make it more appealing for parents to send their children out to beg instead of to school?"

'A travel boycott affects ordinary people'

Dealing with countries whose governments and political system that a traveler doesn't want to support can also pose challenges.

"Yes, there may be legitimate objections to customs, laws, or governments," says Zwahlen. "But when we boycott traveling to a place, we mainly affect ordinary people — like those who sell water to tourists in their shops or who work as restaurant staff."

Additionally, in isolated countries, tourists are a great opportunity for people to stay in touch with the outside world.

For Zwahlen, however, one issue has no easy solution.

"No matter what you do, travel will always be a challenge for environmental protection," he says.

Air travel in particular leaves a substantial carbon footprint and is likely to remain problematic for the foreseeable future. At best, he says, travelers can try to limit the harm.

"I've always tried to travel less often, but for longer periods," he explains. He flies only when there is no practical alternative and, whenever possible, chooses direct routes and newer aircraft that consume less fuel.

Rating airlines according to climate efficiency

The Forum Anders Reisen (Alternative Travel Forum) takes a similar view. "From our perspective, the goal is to reduce emissions wherever possible," says Petra Thomas. Member companies in the association try to offer bus and train connections whenever feasible, but some destinations can only be reached by air, Thomas notes.

In such cases, tourism researcher Wolfgang Strasdas recommends consulting the airline index published by the climate protection organization Atmosfair, which evaluates airlines based on their climate efficiency.

Any remaining carbon dioxide emissions, he suggests, should then be offset. Despite the environmental concerns, Strasdas maintains that the benefits of travel ultimately prevail.

"In principle, travel is a win-win situation for everyone involved," he says.

This article was originally published in German.