The psychophysiological effects of travel: a horizon 2050 paper

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the state of the literature related to the psychophysiological effects of travel, to identify gaps in the literature and to propose a vision to guide research between now and 2050.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was guided by a systematic literature review which started with more than 2,100 papers. The extant review and its findings are written in a conceptual nature with the concluding propositions, for the year 2050, guided by the systematic review and the authors’ personal knowledge.

Findings

It was found that research related to the psychophysiological effects of travel has greatly progressed over the past two decades. Findings include evidence that travel reduces both perceived and actual stresses and that taking more vacations has the ability to make people healthier. The study also revealed that travel can have negative effects on physiological health. The overall results led to a call for research on the psychophysiological benefits of travel between now and 2050.

Research limitations/implications

The systematic review of literature was limited to studies conducted in English and to studies that included the words “travel” or “tourism” and “benefits”, stress, “health” and “wellness”. Results provide a discussion of theories that should guide the research agenda.

Practical implications

The review and proposed vision for research provide a detailed guide for researchers to follow. Should the proposed research come to fruition, tourism practitioners globally will have results to aid in engineering tourism experiences that could provide health benefits to visitors.

Social implications

The proposed vision could have profound social implications, as the understanding of the positive and negative effects of travel should make travel experiences healthier for all. The study also proposes a call for research to determine ways to make the benefits of travel available to both the “haves” and “have nots” so that the benefits of travel can be more inclusive.

Originality/value

The main contribution of this manuscript is that it proposes 11 propositions for research between now and 2050 based on a thorough review of gaps related to the psychophysiological benefits of travel. The resultant propositions provide a clear and unique call for research in this area of inquiry.

目的

本研究的主要目标是检查与旅行的心理生理益处相关的文献状况, 找出文献中的空白, 并提出从现在到2050年指导研究的愿景。

设计/方法/途径

这项研究以一项系统的文献综述为指导, 该综述从2100多篇论文开始。现有的综述及其研究结果是在系统综述和作者个人知识的指导下, 以概念性的形式撰写的, 并附有2050年的结论性命题。

结果

研究发现, 在过去的二十年里, 与旅行的心理生理益处相关的研究取得了长足的进步。研究结果包括有证据表明, 旅行可以减轻感知和实际的压力, 多度假可以使人们更健康。该研究还表明, 旅行会对生理健康产生负面影响。总体结果促使人们呼吁研究从现在到2050年旅行的心理生理益处。

独创性

本文的主要贡献是, 它根据对旅行的心理生理益处相关差距的全面回顾, 提出了从现在到2050年的11个研究主题。由此产生的主题为这一研究领域的研究提供了明确而独特的呼吁。

Objetivo

Los objetivos principales del presente estudio eran examinar el estado de la literatura relacionada con los beneficios psicofisiológicos de los viajes, identificar lagunas en la bibliografía y proponer una visión que guíe la investigación de aquí a 2050.

Diseño/Metodología/Enfoque

El estudio se guió por una revisión bibliográfica sistemática que partió de más de 2.100 artículos. La revisión existente y sus hallazgos están redactados de forma conceptual con las proposiciones finales para el año 2050, guiadas por la revisión sistemática y el conocimiento personal de los autores.

Resultados

Se encontró que la investigación relacionada con los beneficios psicofisiológicos de los viajes ha progresado mucho en las dos últimas décadas. Resultados incluyen pruebas de que viajar reduce tanto el estrés percibido como el real y de que tomar más vacaciones tiene la capacidad de hacer que las personas estén más sanas. El estudio también reveló que viajar puede tener efectos negativos sobre la salud fisiológica. Los resultados globales condujeron a una llamada a la investigación sobre los beneficios psicofisiológicos de los viajes de aquí a 2050.

Originalidad

La principal aportación de este manuscrito es que propone once proposiciones para la investigación de aquí a 2050 basadas en una revisión exhaustiva de las lagunas relacionadas con los beneficios psicofisiológicos de los viajes. Las proposiciones resultantes constituyen un llamamiento claro y único a la investigación en este ámbito de estudio.

Citation

Petrick, J.F. and Wang, X. (2024), "The psychophysiological effects of travel: a horizon 2050 paper", Tourism Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-12-2023-0879

Introduction

Tourism’s worth has historically been measured via the economic benefits it provides to destinations. These benefits have been criticized as they can often lead to over-tourism, which can result in depreciation of the environmental, social and cultural assets of communities (Dodds and Butler, 2019). Furthermore, economic benefits often do not trickle down to individuals in a community resulting in tourism being perceived as only benefiting large tourism providers. With many tourism destinations reliant on the economic benefits of travel, these perceived conflicts of interest create a conundrum for governmental officials making decisions on whether to promote tourism development. Hence, multiple approaches for sustainable tourism development have been conceptualized (Mihalic, 2020), and developed (Reihanian et al., 2012). These models are typically based on finding the best compromises for receiving economic gain while also retaining the ecological, socio-political and cultural elements of the community as a whole. Hence, debates on the worth of tourism have typically focused on destination outcomes without consideration of the effects of travel on individuals.

Past developments

In 2011 the USA Travel Association (USTA) asked five academics from the USA (including the author) to collectively determine broad areas of benefits that travel might have on individuals (beyond economic). Using a modified Delphi Technique the group determined that the primary benefits travel has to individuals are related to health, education and relationships. The USTA then sent out a call for three individual grants (1 for each of the 3 areas), which were all awarded to the first author and his graduate students. Each of the three grad students used the grant funding for their dissertation research. Results from their dissertations empirically found that traveling benefits individuals’ education (Stone and Petrick, 2013), relationships (Durko and Petrick, 2016) and psychological health (Chen et al., 2016). Hence, travel has been shown to make individuals smarter, to strengthen their relational bonds with others and to make them healthier.

These benefits led Petrick and Huether (2013) to suggest that travel should be promoted by educators and prescribed by relationship therapists and doctors. For the supply side of travel, this is likely relevant as past research has found that persons who perceive travel to have greater benefits are more likely to travel more (Chen and Petrick, 2016). While each of these potential benefits warrants future research, the current review focuses on the perceived and actual (psychophysiological) effects of travel on individuals.

Due to importance of the health effects of travel on individuals, the current study will conduct a systematic literature review to better understand the state of research on the topic, to identify gaps in the literature and to provide propositions to the field based on the findings. It is believed this topic is important as an understanding of both the positive and negative effects of travel (beyond economic) could have a profound impact on tourism demand. If travel is shown to have both psychological and physical (psychophysiological) benefits, tourism would likely be prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists and vacation time promoted by bosses. It is important to study both, as people’s perceptions of how they feel, have been found to have a direct relationship with their overall physiological health (Ursin and Eriksen, 2010). Furthermore, identification and understanding of negative effects of travel on individual’s health could assist industry and travelers in reducing these risks. Hence, the primary purpose of the following study is to identify gaps in the current research related to the psychophysiological positive and negative effects of travel and to develop a vision for research in this area between now and 2050. The below review reveals that most related studies have examined the psychological benefits of travel (perceived benefits) while inquiry is less prevalent and related to the physiological benefits (effects on the body or actual benefits) and some research has found negative physiological and psychological effects.

Methodology

A systematic literature review was conducted to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the psychological and physiological effects of tourism. The systematic review process followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as suggested by Moher et al. (2009). To identify relevant studies, a comprehensive search was conducted from July 15th to 17th, 2024, with the use of three electronic databases, including APA PsycInfo, CAB Abstracts and JSTOR. The search terms used in each database were [(tour* OR travel) AND (stress OR health) AND (benefit OR negative)]. The “*” enabled any terms with the same stem preceding the asterisk to be captured. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were:

• published in peer-reviewed journals;

• written in English;

• studies focused on leisure tourism or travel; and

• studies related to the positive or negative psychological or physiological health of travelers/tourists.

The exclusion criteria were:

• studies not available in full-text;

• articles published in nonpeer-reviewed sources;

• studies focused on health tourism or business travel; and

• research focused hotel/tourism employee well-being or residents’ well-being (e.g. nontourists).

The study selection was conducted through Covidence, a software platform that facilitates the title and abstract review stage of systematic reviews (Macdonald et al., 2016). The total number of articles found in the initial search was 2,391. After removing duplicates, 2,177 unique articles remained. The two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. Each reviewer gave a score of “yes” (fits inclusion criteria), “maybe” (might fit the inclusion criteria) or “no” (does not fit the inclusion criteria) for each article. The two authors' decisions were unanimous for 2,085 articles, resulting in an initial inter-rater reliability of 95.8%. Discrepancies in the remaining 92 articles were resolved through discussion, resulting in 68 articles going into full-text review. Subsequently, the authors conducted an in-depth review of the 68 studies that met the inclusion criteria at the abstract screening stage. After further assessment of eligibility, 50 articles remained. The 18 studies removed at this stage were all due to the above-mentioned exclusion criteria. The study selection process is shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. The form included fields for:

• study characteristics (authors, year of publication and journal of publication);

• participant characteristics (sample size, age and gender);

• study design and methodology; and

• positive or negative effects of tourists’ psychological or physiological health.

This systematic review hence represents the manuscripts that met inclusion criteria and failed exclusion criteria. The following subheadings reveal the broad categories of the research found as well as the headings requested by the journal’s editor. Please note that four articles appear in two of the tables, as they had found both positive and negative effects of travel.

Psychological benefits of travel

A total of 19 different articles were found that were categorized as revealing the psychological benefits of travel (see Table 1). Results revealed that multiple studies found well-being to be a primary benefit of travel/tourism (Lehto and Lehto, 2019; Yan et al., 2024). Gilbert and Abdullah (2002) did a quasi-experiment among UK tourists. They found that holiday-taking respondents reported higher well-being (including happiness and life satisfaction) than nonholiday-taking respondents. Later, Steyn et al. (2004) found that compared to pretrip, tourists experienced an overall increase in psychological well-being and happiness after their trips. Similarly, hotel and B&B experiences were found by Chen et al. (2022) to positively affect the hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being among Taiwanese respondents. Furthermore, Badulescu et al. (2022) found a correlation between positive tourism experiences and tourists' mental well-being by analyzing panel data from the 27 European Union countries, covering the period from 2000 to 2019.

However, Filep (2014) critiqued the over-reliance on subjective well-being or tourism benefits research and suggested including broader factors. He argued that meaningful travel experiences and reflections could contribute to tourists’ personal growth and well-being. Following his systematic review, empirical studies have hence investigated this effect. Ahn and Janke (2011) found that older adults had opportunities to express themselves and to engage and socialize with new people during educational travel. Thus, they perceived a sense of achievement, and significant improvements were found in their mental well-being, stress relief and increased energy levels. Hassell et al.’s (2015) research on campers at Warren National Park also found that overcoming challenges and meaningful experiences helped respondents reaffirm a part of their identity, thus enhancing their well-being.

Life satisfaction is another benefit of tourism that has been discussed in previous research (Yan et al., 2024). Chen et al. (2016) did a cross-sectional online survey and found that the recovery experience tourists gained from leisure trips increased their life satisfaction across different trip durations. Specifically, longer trips provided more opportunities for recovery experiences than shorter trips. A pre-post study on Finns by Vento et al. (2020) also supported the positive effects that holidays had on satisfaction with life, satisfaction with the economic situation, satisfaction with employment situation, satisfaction with social life and satisfaction with the quality of leisure time. Similarly, satisfaction with family life, love life, arts and culture, work life, spiritual life, intellectual life, culinary life and leisure and recreation have also been found to be significantly and positively affected by travel experiences (Sirgy et al., 2011).

In addition, increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect during and after vacations have been found to contribute to overall happiness and life satisfaction (Gilbert and Abdullah, 2002; Sirgy et al., 2011), and higher-order needs, such as social and intellectual needs (Sirgy et al., 2011). In particular, Nawijn (2011) found that tourists’ positive affects exceeded their negative affects almost fourfold. Moreover, positive affects have been found to increase even before the holiday as tourists have been found to enjoy the anticipation, whereas the positive affect faded out within two weeks after returning to work (Syrek et al., 2018).

Reduction of stress has also been found through different types of tourism, such as educational travel (Ahn and Janke, 2011), ecotourism (Cheng et al., 2013) and hotel spas (Koh et al., 2010). Durko and Petrick (2016) interviewed 548 cruise passengers and found a significant reduction in stress levels for respondents postcruise and improved overall health and relationship satisfaction.

Furthermore, engagement with nature during travel has been associated with stress reduction, relaxation and improvement in overall well-being (Cooper and Buckley, 2022; Hassell et al., 2015). Lee et al. (2018) investigated hiking tourists in Vikos-Aoös National Park, Greece. They found that connections with nature improved tourists’ quality of life and emotional well-being through positive feelings such as excitement, happiness and relaxation. Similarly, Cervinka et al. (2020) found that restoration, decreased perceived stress and increased mindfulness were experienced by those who took forest tours.

Moreover, tourism has also been found to facilitate social interaction between family members and friends (Hassell et al., 2015). Similarly, Koh et al. (2010) investigated 214 customers visiting hotel spas in Houston, TX, and found that respondents experienced perceived social benefits with family and friends, having fun and meeting health-conscious people. Vento et al. (2020) also found that holidays strengthened family relationships as they spent more time doing positive things together.

Disadvantaged groups, such as low-income families, individuals with disabilities and their caregivers, have also been found to benefit from tourism (Chen and Petrick, 2013). Qiao et al. (2019) investigated how social tourism could benefit left-behind children, who remain in rural areas while their parents migrate to urban areas for work. After visiting four large cities in China, significant improvements in positive emotions and life satisfaction, including friendship, family, school, study and environmental satisfaction, were found among left-behind children. Since the holiday was found to increase family-level social comparison, thus Vento et al. (2020) also argued holidays improve the well-being of families from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

By interviewing six mothers of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Sedgley et al. (2017) found that mothers valued holidays as they gave them a perception of normalcy and had opportunities for relaxation and enjoyment. Flaherty et al. (2021) also argued that travel offers a break from daily routines and opportunities to develop self-esteem, which can further benefit travelers’ mental health.

Physiological benefits of tourism

A total of six articles were identified which found physiological benefits of travel (see Table 2). All but one of these articles (Hruska et al., 2020) found both physiological and psychological benefits (revealed in separate columns in Table 2). Hruska et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional study with 63 participants through lab visits where blood was drawn and interviews assessing their vacationing behavior over the past 12 months. Results found that each additional vacation was associated with a 24% decrease in the odds of having metabolic syndrome. Thus, the authors suggested that regular vacationing could reduce risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.

Hanna et al. (2019) investigated outdoor adventure tourism participants and found that their experiences with nature (outside their usual environment) combined with physically demanding activities improved their physical fitness and pushed their physical limits. Those experiences benefited their physical health and improved their psychological well-being, including stress reduction, escape from daily stressors and overall well-being. Future research will need to be conducted to more fully understand the role that travel versus activity had on these health gains.

Pomfret and Varley (2019) also explored the benefits of adventure travel during family holidays through interviews with parents and visual methods such as drawing pictures for young children. They found that adventure activities had significant health and fitness benefits and catalyzed healthier lifestyle changes. Moreover, they found that adventure holidays provided valuable time for family bonding, facilitated family cohesion and communication and created lasting memories. They also found that travel contributed to children’s personal growth and improved their life skills, resilience and problem-solving skills.

Moreover, the ability for travelers to escape their daily routines has been found to bring both mental and physical benefits. Guided by the cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS) Petrick et al. (2021) measured cruise passengers’ actual stress (heart rate) using wearable devices and their perceived stress using self-reported diaries. They found that cruise travelers’ actual and perceived stress changed during the cruise, resulting in strengthened hearts and the ability to handle stress.

Similarly, Lin and Yang (2024) found that stress reduction can also be caused by environmental changes due to tourism and that it further triggered positive emotional and cognitive reactions. They further found social and spiritual benefits through increased social interaction and broadened horizons during travel. Furthermore, they found that travel also benefited sedentary people by increasing their physical activities.

In addition to enhancing physical fitness, traveling has also been found to benefit other physical health. Strauss-Blasche et al. (2004) experimented with overweight males who had metabolic syndrome. Their fitness and recreational ability (ability to relax, sleep and eat well) significantly improved during a vacation and remained improved seven weeks after. Chen and Petrick’s (2013) review also suggested reduced health risks for frequent travelers, such as fewer cardiovascular events. Positive mood and socialization have additionally been found to be improved during a vacation (Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004), as well as improved quality of life and happiness (Chen and Petrick, 2013). Combined, the above suggests that travel has both physiological and psychological health benefits.

Negative effects of tourism

The systematic literature review identified 21 articles that found negative health effects for individuals who travel (Table 3). Among the negative effects, previous studies have identified the risk of contracting infectious diseases among tourists, such as measles (Hoad et al., 2013), H1N1 influenza (Massad et al., 2010), dengue virus, chikungunya, Zika, leptospirosis, spotted fever group Rickettsia (Warner et al., 2023) and legionellosis (World Health Organization, 2007). Additionally, acute respiratory illness has also been found to be a health risk for tourists (Balaban et al., 2012; Mehto et al., 2017; World Health Organization, 2007), including influenza-like illness (Alfelali et al., 2015) and pneumonia (Uyeki et al., 2003), as well as Influenza A and B viruses and rhinovirus (German et al., 2015). Walker et al. (2021) investigated SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19) among Australian passengers on the Diamond Princess Cruise ship and found that the limited space on the cruise was a likely cause of the rapid spread of the infection.

Other types of diseases have also been found to be contracted while traveling, including rabies caused by being licked and bitten by animals (Piyaphanee et al., 2010) and human immunodeficiency virus infection due to sexual behavior (Armstrong et al., 2020). Moreover, previous studies have reported discomforts that can occur while traveling, including gastrointestinal issues (e.g. diarrhea, nausea and vomiting), respiratory infections (e.g. colds, coughs and sore throats), skin problems (e.g. rashes, insect bites and sunburns) and musculoskeletal problems (e.g. muscle aches and joint pains) (Farnham et al., 2022; Mehto et al., 2017). Headaches, fatigue, coughs and other physical discomforts have also been found in tourists (Pearce, 1981).

Previous studies have also investigated alcohol and drug consumption among tourists and found the increased frequency of alcohol consumption during traveling (Bellis et al., 2007), including at-risk alcohol consumption increases (Klunge-de Luze et al., 2014). Similarly, illicit drug consumption has been found to increase over normal consumption among British backpackers traveling in Australia (Bellis et al., 2007).

In addition, tourism has been found to affect the mental health of tourists. Tourists have been found to have experienced increased stress caused by cramped or long driving times (Steyn et al., 2004), negatively affecting their post-travel life satisfaction (Chen et al., 2016). Travel fatigue, unfulfilled expectations and companion conflict have also been found to contribute to tourists’ negative emotions (Lin and Yang, 2024; Pearce, 1981), which have been found to decrease their satisfaction in social life, family life, love life, arts and culture, work life, health and safety, financial life, spiritual life and culinary life (Sirgy et al., 2011). Furthermore, travelers who were separated from their partners have been found to have decreased positive mood, increased cortisol and decreased sleep quality (Diamond et al., 2008).

Review articles

A total of 8 articles were also found that reviewed past literature related to the positive psychological and physiological effects of travel (see Table 4). Because these articles fit the inclusion criteria, they are listed, but due to them not having their own findings, they are not discussed further. These manuscripts are recommended reading for those interested in this area of inquiry.

Theoretical grounding

Much of the above-reviewed literature lacked theoretical grounding, yet research on the psychophysiological benefits of travel will need to be theoretically grounded to aid generalization beyond the subjects studied. Hence, studies that have been grounded in theory, that could guide future inquiry, are reviewed in this section. Sirgy (2019) discussed seven theories that could guide research related to the psychological benefits of travel. These included: “self-congruity theory, self-expressiveness theory, bottom-up spillover theory, leisure benefits theory, goal theory and broaden-and-bill theory” (p. 1). The theory that has likely shown the most promise for this area of inquiry is Andrews and Withey’s (1976) bottom-up spillover theory. This theory proposes that overall life satisfaction is determined by other domains in people’s lives. Studies grounded in this theory have consistently shown that travel has a positive effect on both travelers, (Kang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2023; Neal et al., 2007; Yu et al., 2021) and residents’ overall well-being (Han et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2021). Hence, bottom-up spillover theory helps explain that travel can play an integral role in the perceived well-being of individuals.

Similarly, as discussed above, Petrick et al. (2021) revealed that the CATS shows promise for physiological benefits, though most current studies in this area of inquiry have lacked theoretical grounding. CATS helps explain how people process the positive and negative effects of stress. As described by Ursin and Eriksen (2004) CATS explains this process in four steps:

1. something(s) stresses an individual;

2. one’s brain perceives and appraises the stress(es) received;

3. there are physiological responses to stress; and

4. individuals have feedback from the response which can be positive (e.g. coping) or negative (e.g. feelings of helplessness/hopelessness).

Figure 2 helps explain this process, and further displays the importance of studying both the psychological and physiological benefits of travel. The model reveals that conceptual grounding for related studies has evolved from understanding how tourism activity impacts one’s overall life (e.g. bottom-up spillover theory), to understanding both the impacts travel has on the psychological and physiological well-being of individuals (CATS).

COVID-19-related developments

As discussed in the negative effects of travel the COVID-19 pandemic had profound negative psychophysiological effects to individuals as well as the travel industry. Due to the very nature of many tourism offerings (e.g. having social settings with multiple strangers around), the spread of the virus was often directly related to travel, which also warrants the following additional review. One example is the Diamond Princess cruise ship which had nearly 700 persons infected and as many as 14 people die, which led to negative social media discourse about travel (Roth-Cohen and Lahav, 2022). This discourse and the potential negative health benefits of traveling led to a shutdown of most of the travel industry during the pandemic.

The pandemic also revealed that being able to travel was extremely important to many people’s lives. Once COVID-19 vaccines were found to be effective and travel bans were lifted, much of the world saw vast increases in the number of travelers (Lanckbeen, 2023). This phenomenon was termed by many to be “revenge travel” suggesting that because travelers were unable to travel during the pandemic, they had a greater “need” to travel post-pandemic (Shadel, 2020). Hence, travelers were taking “revenge” on the virus. This type of behavior has historically been termed “compensatory consumption” meaning that people behave in a manner (e.g. choose travel), to compensate for discrepancies between their desired state of being (Kim and Gal, 2014).

Recent studies suggest that revenge travel occurred. Shadel (2020) found that the pandemic worsened, people’s desires to travel increased and that persons who lived in the most affected geographic locations had their desires increase the most. Additionally, Wang and Xia (2021) revealed that nostalgia played a key role in helping people cope with the implications of COVID-19 and likely played a role in their desire for revenge travel.

The combination of the negative economic effects of travel, and the increases in travelers’ motivations to travel due to the pandemic likely make it more important than ever for tourism providers to better show the potential positive psychophysiological benefits of travel over the next 25 years.

A vision for research between now and 2050

The above review shows that travel can have both psychological and physical positive and negative effects on individuals. Based on the above systematic literature review and the authors’ knowledge on the topic, the following propositions for future research to be undertaken between now and 2050 are put forth:

1. With the perceived psychological benefits of travel already having been substantially studied, future research should focus on clinical trials to better understand the intervention effects of travel on persons’ physical health. Studies have already shown that travel can enhance physiological health via the examination of travelers’ blood-based markers (Gump and Matthews, 2000; Hruska et al., 2020) and HRV (Petrick et al., 2021). The following are among the many potential physiological measures that should be used in the future, to better understand the health benefits of travel:

   • Stress index measured using Baevsky’s Stress Index (Baevsky and Chernikova, 2017).

   • Electrodermal activity (EDA) measured using wrist-worn sensors.

   • Skin temperature measured using wrist-worn sensors.

   • Activity and sleep quality measured using triaxial actigraphy.

   • Brain wave measurements using electroencephalographs and analysis of brain B-amyloid via levels of the radiotracer C-PiB to better understand cognitive effects.

   • Stress detection using patented machine learning algorithms measured on a smartwatch (F. Sasangohar, personal communication, November 28, 2023):

   • Self-reported measures such as PSS, GAD-7 and PHQ-9 using custom-built mobile applications.

2. It is also believed to be important for research between now and 2050 to examine the potential negative effects of travel, beyond its potential for spreading viruses, etc. It is recommended for future study that specific settings and causes of the occurrence of negative effects be determined and that guidelines for travel providers be developed.

3. It is well-known that food plays a central role in much travel (Mak et al., 2012), and that travelers typically eat much more on vacation than they do in their usual environments (Gurbaskan Akyuz, 2019). Yet, the above review did not find any studies that examined the role of food on the psychophysiological effects of travel (beyond being a potential cause for diarrhea). Hence, it is likely that there are negative effects of food intake during travel that should be examined. Due to the importance of understanding these potential negative effects, it is recommended that future research should use gastric emptying tests to better understand this phenomenon.

4. There is also a strong need for longitudinal research related to the health benefits of travel as the effect of one travel experience likely has much less effect on one’s health than the cumulative effects over time. Yet, the above review found no empirical longitudinal studies that have examined long-term psychophysiological effects. Hence, it is suggested that future studies fill this gap by examining the psychophysiological effects from a baseline, through Clawson and Knetsch’s (1963) five phases of travel (anticipation/planning, travel to, onsite, travel back and recollection) as well as throughout one’s lifetime. These studies should also include comparisons of travelers to nontravelers while controlling for socioeconomic and other variables.

5. The above review also suggests that different types of travelers receive differing benefits from travel. Hence, research between now and 2050 should attempt to better understand which personality types and other predispositions (e.g. culture, demographics, etc.) are more likely to receive both positive and negative psychophysiological benefits of travel and why they receive them.

6. Similarly, an understanding of which types of travel offer the largest health benefits is important. The dearth of research in this area of inquiry, combined with the likely importance different settings have on tourism experience, suggests this is an important gap that should be examined. Kaplan (1995) suggested the important role that natural landscapes have on restorative benefits and Epel et al. (2016) revealed more benefits from travel that included meditation. Hence, future research should examine the psychophysiological benefits of travel in built vs natural landscapes as well as which specific activities undertaken during travel have the most benefit.

7. Travel has also historically been for the “haves” and not as accessible for the have-nots.” This led McCabe (2009) to make a call for more scientific research to examine the benefits of travel and to subsequently have these results be used to formulate social policy agendas. Even though this is a very important topic for understanding and gaining travel equity, the above review found no related empirical inquiry. Hence, as research better defines which aspects of travel have the best benefits, for specific types of people, future research and policies should find ways to provide these benefits to wider audiences.

8. Similarly, one way to potentially bring positive benefits of travel to those with fewer resources could be the use of virtual reality though the role of technology in aiding psychophysiological benefits of travel was found to be a gap in the literature. Therefore, future studies should help fill this gap by conducting parallel studies using virtual reality (VR) and actual travel to help determine if the psychophysiological benefits of actual travel can be emulated in virtual environments.

9. The current review also revealed that wearable monitors could be used to examine physiological benefits of travel in situ (Petrick et al., 2021). As these wearable monitors are becoming more sophisticated and less invasive, it will be important for research between now and 2050 to find ways to allow for technology to measure physiological data while minimizing intrusion of vacation experiences in situ. While watch monitors (e.g. Apple watches) are currently less invasive they do not gather as sophisticated data as more obtrusive monitors such as Equivital’s^TM eqlifemonitors or Apple Watches. Future research should not only use these monitors but also determine best practices to allow for benchmarking and comparison between studies.

10. The above review revealed that much of the research that has shown physiological benefits of travel has come from or has been grounded in other disciplines. These include psychoneuroendocrinology (Petrick et al., 2021), psychology (Hruska et al., 2020; Epel et al., 2016) and medicine (Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004), among others. This is likely due to other fields being more skilled at using physiological measures. Hence, over the next 25 years, tourism scholars should work on partnerships with other disciplines to better gain a holistic understanding of the psychophysiological benefits of travel.

11. As both positive and negative psychophysiological effects are found, it will also be important to understand how long they last, and which types of trips have more benefits. The above review revealed that taking more vacations is more important than traveling more days (Hruska et al., 2020), but the above review found scant research that has examined specific thresholds for the role quantity and quality of travel have on the received benefits. Hence, future research is necessary to better know the specific types of trips that can best benefit travelers’ health and well-being.

A summary of the above 11 propositions, and a visual guide for future research, is displayed in Figure 3, which follows the CATS displayed in Figure 2. Hence, the figure is a conceptual guide for future research and is a theoretical implication of the study. The figure reveals that future research agendas should be theoretically grounded and examine travelers vs nontravelers, haves and have nots and different personality types; situational factors should include urban vs natural settings, the role of food and differing activities and VR vs actual travel; that measures should include best practices related to perceived stress (psychological) and physiological stress; and that longitudinal studies should be conducted to determine how all of the above effects the overall positive and negative health of individuals.

Conclusions

Based on the above review it is becoming evident that travel has psychophysiological benefits to individuals. Hence, when discussing the value of tourism, discourse should go beyond the positive and negative benefits to communities and include the benefits that individuals receive. Specifically, policymakers should include research-based knowledge on the positive and negative effects travel has on individuals’ (their constituencies) psychological, mental and physical health when voting and making decisions.

From a practical standpoint, the current and future findings should be used by destinations to engineer their resources to best offer visitors the ability to receive health benefits and to sustainably market these resources to potential visitors. Results also suggest that destination and attraction management should promote vacation time being used by their employees to relieve stress and to become healthier which should also result in more efficiency in the workplace.

The current review also identified multiple different segments of the population who receive these benefits, though the benefits received seem to be even more profound for those with disabilities or who have mental illnesses. Hence, priority for examination in these areas between now and 2050 is called for. In conclusion, findings from the proposed road map for future research could have profound impacts on the travel industry as they could lead doctors, psychologists and mental health experts to prescribe travel to benefit their patients.

Figures

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Figure 2

Cognitive activation theory of stress

Figure 3

Proposed research agenda for 2050

Table 1

Psychological benefits of travel

Author and publication year	Psychological benefits
Ahn and Janke (2011)	Stress reduction, personal growth
Badulescu et al. (2022)	Well-being
Cervinka et al. (2020)	Stress reduction, personal growth
Chen et al. (2016)	Life satisfaction
Chen et al. (2022)	Well-being
Cheng et al. (2013)	Stress reduction
Cooper and Buckley (2022)	Stress reduction
Durko and Petrick (2016)	Stress reduction
Gilbert and Abdullah (2002)	Well-being, life satisfaction
Hassell et al. (2015)	Relaxation, stress reduction, social interaction
Koh et al. (2010)	Stress reduction, social interaction
Lee et al. (2018)	Quality of life, emotional well-being
Nawijn (2011)	Positive affect, life satisfaction
Qiao et al. (2019)	Positive affect, life satisfaction
Sedgley et al. (2017)	Relaxation, family bonding
Sirgy et al. (2011)	Life satisfaction, positive affect
Steyn et al. (2004)	Relaxation, family bonding
Syrek et al. (2018)	Positive affect, happiness
Vento et al. (2020)	Life satisfaction, family bonding, family-level social comparison improvement

Source: Table by authors

Table 2

Physiological benefits of travel

Author and publication year	Physiological benefits	Psychological benefits
Hruska et al. (2020)	Reduced metabolic syndrome, reduced cardiovascular diseases risks
Hanna et al. (2019)	Physical fitness	Stress reduction, well-being
Lin and Yang (2024)	Increased activity	Positive affect, social interaction, life satisfaction
Petrick et al. (2021)	Strengthen hearts	Improved ability to handle stress
Pomfret and Varley (2019)	Physical fitness, healthier lifestyle	Family bonding, children’s personal growth
Strauss-Blasche et al. (2004)	Improved fitness and ability to relax, sleep and eat well	Positive affect

Source: Table by authors

Table 3

Negative effects of travel

Author and publication year	Negative effects
Alfelali et al. (2015)	Influenza-like illness
Armstrong et al. (2020)	HIV risks
Balaban et al. (2012)	Respiratory illness
Bellis et al. (2007)	Alcohol and drug consumption
Chen et al. (2016)	Mental strain
Diamond et al. (2008)	Increased stress, sleeping problems
Farnham et al. (2022)	Dunburn, itching from mosquitoes, gastrointestinal disorders
German et al. (2015)	Influenza A and B viruses, rhinovirus
Hoad et al. (2013)	Measles transmission
Klunge-de Luze et al. (2014)	Alcohol and drug consumption
Lin and Yang (2024)	Fatigue, unmet expectations, conflicts with companions
Massad et al. (2010)	H1N1 infection
Mehto et al. (2017)	Gastrointestinal issues, respiratory infections, skin problems, musculoskeletal problems, fever and malaria
Pearce (1981)	Negative emotion, anxiety, colds, coughs, sunburn
Piyaphanee et al. (2010)	Rabies
Sirgy et al. (2011)	Negative emotion
Steyn et al. (2004)	Increased stress
Uyeki et al. (2003)	Acute respiratory illness
Walker et al. (2021)	COVID-19
Warner et al. (2023)	Dengue virus, chikungunya, zika, leptospirosis, spotted fever group rickettsia
World Health Organization (2007)	Communicable diseases

Source: Table by authors

Table 4

Review articles

Author	Publication year
Al-Abri et al	2005
Chen and Petrick	2013
Filep	2014
Flaherty et al	2021
Lehto and Lehto	2019
Ma et al	2021
Reid et al	2018
Yan et al	2024

Source: Table by authors