Despite the growth of impact investment on a global scale, regenerative tourism continues to have a reduced presence in investors’ portfolios. A new study from the Leadership for Impact Knowledge Center at NOVA SBE, developed in partnership with Blink Impact, seeks to identify the obstacles that explain this gap and the conditions necessary to overcome it.
Regenerative tourism is distinguished from an approach focused solely on reducing negative impacts. The proposal involves actively contributing to the vitality of the ecological, social, and cultural systems of the territories where tourism activity develops.
The research, conducted by Ricardo Zózimo and Ana Milhazes, used a systemic analysis that combined review of academic and practical literature, mapping of systems, and interviews with investors, academics, professionals, and intermediaries. The goal was to identify recurring patterns and structural blockages that hinder the relationship between regenerative tourism and capital.
The starting point highlights the contrast between the growth of impact investment and the limited expression of regenerative tourism. According to data from the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) cited in the study, global assets in impact investing surpassed 1.5 trillion dollars in 2023.
The research identifies three conditions considered fundamental to accelerate the transition: strengthening trust among the different stakeholders, promoting long-term investment approaches, and developing new ways of measuring success, more aligned with regenerative impacts.
“The study shows that investors are not just financiers; they are agents who shape the system and influence the transitions that become possible,” says researcher Ricardo Zózimo.
Capital beyond the short term
One of the study’s central conclusions is that the transition to regenerative models requires more than what is typically termed “patient capital.” The authors argue the need for capital capable of following different time horizons, rooted in the territories and recognizing that these function as living systems, and not merely investment assets.
The analysis aimed at investors identifies four areas where capital decisions can have particularly relevant influence: the objectives and time horizons of investments; the way what is considered valuable is defined; the use of metrics, certifications and technology; and the importance of relationships, trust, and participatory governance models.
In this context, the study argues that metrics and certification systems should be used as learning tools over time, and not merely as mechanisms to demonstrate results at a given moment.
“Regeneration is a journey, not a destination,” is one of the central ideas of the analysis. The results unfold over time, which implies ongoing assessment and a greater capacity to learn from the data and from the evolution of the projects themselves.
Those on the ground also influence the system
The second document produced within the study is a Practitioners’ Toolkit, intended for professionals who develop regenerative tourism projects.
The analysis concludes that many of these initiatives are deeply connected to the territory, to local relationships and to the context in which they operate, but this complexity is not always easily understood by external investors. This difficulty in making the work “legible” can limit access to capital and hinder alignment between those who develop the projects and those who fund them.
Another problem identified arises even before capital inflows. Differences in expectations regarding timelines, governance, and the very meaning of success can create misalignments between investors and operators.
Therefore, the study argues that there is no single financial answer for the transition. Depending on the needs and the development stage of each initiative, different instruments may be necessary, from grants and philanthropy to public financing, blended finance or mission-aligned investment.
The choice of investors is also presented as a strategic decision. Refusing capital that imposes conditions incompatible with a project’s long-term trajectory can, according to the study, be a way to protect that trajectory.
Trust, for its part, does not depend on presenting an image of perfection, but on the coherence between what the projects state and the evidence they present.
