Why Travel Experts Say "Slow Travel" Habits From the Past Can Save Your Next Vacation
As revenge travel fades, data from the European Travel Commission and Expedia reveals a major shift toward slow travel, rail journeys, and secondary cities.
Across the tourism sector the frenzy that followed the lifting of pandemic restrictions is easing. The wave of “revenge travel” – trips taken to make up for lost time – is now described as past‑tense. Industry observers point to a quieter, more measured approach that is gaining ground. This shift is not a fleeting mood; it is reflected in the data compiled by the European Travel Commission, which notes a clear rise in “slow travel” among long‑haul itineraries aimed at Europe. Where roughly one‑fifth of such plans previously favoured a leisurely pace, the figure has grown to more than one‑quarter, signalling a substantive re‑orientation of traveller priorities.
The term “slow travel” encompasses several linked behaviours. First, travellers are choosing to linger longer at each destination, extending the length of stay rather than ticking off a packed checklist. Second, they are favouring transport modes that move at a gentler rhythm. Rail networks, in particular, are seeing heightened demand that mirrors the broader desire for a less hurried journey. The European Travel Commission’s observations tie this rail surge directly to the growing appeal of a slower, more immersive experience, suggesting that the mode of movement itself has become a signal of intention.
Environmental considerations are woven into the appeal of slower journeys. A concrete illustration comes from the carbon footprint of a single corridor between two popular cities: London to Nice. When the trip is made by train, the journey generates about 36 kg of carbon dioxide. By contrast, the same distance travelled by aircraft produces roughly 250 kg of CO2. The stark difference underscores how a modest change in transport choice can translate into a substantial reduction in emissions, an outcome that aligns with the increasing environmental consciousness of modern travellers.
Beyond the ecological dimension, the health benefits of stretching out a holiday have been documented in academic research. A 2020 review published in the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Studies examined the relationship between stay length and traveller wellbeing. The study found that longer stays were associated with higher overall satisfaction and lower reported stress. Importantly, the authors linked the act of “slowing down” with activation of the parasympathetic nervous system – the body’s rest‑and‑digest response – suggesting that a slower pace may facilitate both mental and physical recovery from everyday pressures.
The desire to move more deliberately also extends to the places that travellers choose to explore. Secondary cities, once overlooked in favour of iconic capitals, are attracting renewed interest. According to Expedia Group’s Unpack ’25 report, about two‑thirds of surveyed individuals intend to add a “detour destination” to their upcoming itineraries. This trend reflects a willingness to step off the beaten path, turning smaller urban centres into focal points of a journey rather than mere stop‑overs. The report’s findings reinforce the notion that slow travel is not simply about prolonging time in a single spot but also about re‑mapping travel routes to incorporate richer, more varied experiences.
When these strands are examined together, a coherent picture emerges. The shift away from revenge travel has opened space for travellers to reconsider the rhythm of their holidays. The European Travel Commission’s data provide a macro‑level view of this transition, showing a measurable increase in the proportion of long‑haul plans that now embed slower, rail‑centric options. The carbon‑emission comparison of the London–Nice corridor offers a tangible illustration of how a slower mode can lessen environmental impact. Meanwhile, the 2020 academic review lends scientific weight to the claim that extended stays boost satisfaction and reduce stress, linking the physiological response to the very act of decelerating one’s itinerary.
Industry analysts note that the momentum behind slow travel is likely to influence future service provision. Rail operators, for example, are being encouraged to expand capacity and improve cross‑border connections, recognizing that a growing customer base is seeking alternatives to short‑haul flights. Though the source material does not detail specific policy actions, the alignment of rail demand with traveller preferences suggests that transport providers will need to adapt their offerings to remain competitive. Likewise, tourism boards may shift promotional strategies to highlight secondary cities, capitalising on the two‑thirds of travellers who now anticipate a detour.
What remains to be seen is how quickly these behavioural shifts will translate into concrete changes on the ground. The European Travel Commission’s figures capture a snapshot of current intent, but the evolution of rail infrastructure, airline scheduling, and destination marketing will determine whether the slow‑travel momentum sustains its upward trajectory. As travellers continue to weigh the trade‑offs between speed, cost, environmental impact, and personal wellbeing, the data collected so far point toward a future where the journey itself is valued as much as the destination.
