Tourism Destinations

Carbon Footprints

Prepared by Dick Sisman & Associates - March 2007

Contents
Page
Executive Summary

1.0

Introduction

2.0

Carbon Footprints of Destinations - Review

2.1

Ecological Footprints

2.2

Carbon Dioxide Footprints - Majorca & Cyprus

2.3

Carbon Dioxide Footprint - New Zealand

2.4

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Whistler, Canada

2.5

Footprints of Different Holiday Types

3.0

Method for Determining Carbon Footprints

4.0

Specific Areas of Energy Consumption

4.1

Hotel Energy Consumption

4.1.1

Water Heating

4.1.2

Lighting

10

4.1.3

Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

10

4.1.4

Overall Hotel Energy Saving

11

4.2

Food

12

4.2.1

Food Miles

12

4.2.2

Waste

12

4.2.3

Bottled Water

13

4.2.4

Desalination

13

5.0

Energy Saving Tips

13

6.0

Conclusions

14

Appendix I

15

References

19

Tourism Destinations
Carbon Footprints
Executive Summary
The tourism industry is responding to the widespread concern over the future of the
global climate. However, little quantitative work has been done on carbon dioxide
emissions associated with tourism destinations. This report presents a framework
illustrating how this can be done. It is suggested that the Travel Foundation (TF)
encourages development of carbon accounting within the tourism industry.
The carbon footprints are likely to vary greatly between destinations, reflecting
climate, culture, energy sources, available technology and activities undertaken.
Thus each destination should be treated individually.
The report evaluates work that has been done and reaches a preliminary conclusion
that, air travel apart, the carbon footprint of a holiday may be less, in some cases,
than that of staying at home. Air travel is clearly the most significant overall source of
greenhouse gas emissions in land-based tourism and support should be given to
measures to mitigate this impact. However, the greenhouse gas impact of the cruise
industry should also be examined.
Two areas: hotel energy consumption and waste disposal are examined in more
detail. A number of areas are identified where the Travel Foundation could consider
initiating work to reduce CO2 impacts. These include:
-

Anaerobic digestion of waste with methane recovery;

Optimisation of the use of bottled water;
Further encouragement of use of local food produce

Some of these are likely to have the potential to produce marketable CO2 credits
subject to appropriate verification processes.
This report is one of a series of three from The Travel Foundation. It follows the
Insider Guide: Climate change and tourism and precedes a third report in which
suggestions are made to the TF of a range of projects which will help to reduce or
offset CO2 emissions in destinations.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

1.0

Introduction

This report has been prepared to address the following brief from The Travel
Foundation:
A review of existing ways to determine the carbon footprint of a tourist destination,
listing key areas of generation of carbon dioxide emissions and a specific example of
how to do this for a typical holiday. This would be accompanied by appropriate
conversion factors as to double counting etc. It would also recommend an
appropriate methodology for TF to use
Most tourism-related activities require energy directly in the form of fossil fuels or
indirectly in the form of electricity often generated from petroleum, coal or gas. This
consumption leads to the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide. With
a few exceptions, it is only very recently that researchers have started to study
energy consumption from tourist activities and to estimate the resulting greenhouse
gases that contribute to the anthropogenic component of global warming.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earths atmosphere has a life of 100 years or more; CO2
from any one source has ample time to mix on a global scale and thus become
indistinguishable from CO2 from other sources. The impact of CO2 is global; there is
no specific local impact of CO2 emissions from a particular location. In the context of
this report, the term footprint therefore applies to the quantitative aspects of CO2
arising from specific activities and locations.
In 2003 the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) acknowledged the two-way
relationship between tourism and climate change. Climatic changes will have impacts
on a number of tourist destinations and tourist flows. In turn, tourism is a major
contributor to climate change by its use of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse
gases. The Travel Foundation has already drawn attention to this important area, for
example through its recent Insider Guide Climate Change and Tourism (1). When
accounting for tourisms environmental impacts, there are a number of key areas that
directly generate carbon dioxide emissions. These are accommodation and catering,
transport (air road, rail and water), other transport services, equipment hire, and
cultural and recreational services (2, 3)
This study will:

review some published approaches to footprinting of destinations and, from

these, develop estimates of carbon footprints;
identify a methodology which can be used by tourism locations or tourism
businesses to calculate their specific footprint;
focus in detail on two areas of tourism energy consumption. Hotels; and Food

This report is one of a series of three from The Travel Foundation. It follows the
Insider Guide: Climate change and tourism and precedes a third report in which
suggestions are made to the TF of a range of projects which will help to reduce or
offset CO2 emissions in destinations. The brief for this work excludes cruise holidays
as they involve sequential visits to a number of destinations; however it is suggested
that the greenhouse gas impact of the cruise sector should also be examined.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

2.0

Carbon Footprints of Destinations Review

2.1

Ecological Footprints

One approach to tourism footprinting has been developed by WWF (4). This
estimates the ecological footprint of a holiday product in terms of the resources used.
The approach integrates the environmental impacts associated with a holiday into a
single indicator. It is broader than a carbon footprint and usually converts the impact
into area units where one area unit is a hectare of world average bioproductive
space. The 2002 report (5) analysed the footprint of typical summer package
holidays in two Mediterranean destinations, Majorca and Cyprus, based on data
provided by Thomson holidays.
This approach is intellectually appealing and while it has been applied (for example
6, 7), it has not been widely adopted by the tourism community and suffers from
some difficulties in conversion of the impacts to common units. For example, there is
some debate over the relevance of forestry to compensating for CO2 emissions. Also,
no account is taken of social and economic impacts. The following is a brief review of
some work that has been done in this area; the studies covered are described in
more detail in Appendix I.
2.2

Carbon Dioxide Footprints Majorca & Cyprus

The WWF papers can be used as a base to make some estimates of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions or the carbon footprint associated with a holiday destination.
Despite the improvements in aviation technology and operational aspects such as
higher load factors (percentage of seats occupied), the major component is air travel.
The estimates (see also Appendix I) should be taken as illustrative only. Much
greater precision would be required to come to definite conclusions. The analysis
leads to a rough estimate of the carbon footprint per bed night in Majorca as 27 kg
CO2 (5.5 kg when the flight is excluded) and for Cyprus as 66 kg CO2 (18 kg when
the flight is excluded).
In Cyprus there were 1,486,000 UK visitors in 2002 with an average stay of 11.2
days, compared with the14 days for Thomson clients identified in the WWF paper.
Thus the overall CO2 footprint for UK holidaymakers to Cyprus can be estimated very
approximately as 1 million tonnes of CO2 including flights, and 300,000 tonnes
without flights.
In Majorca there were 2,025,000 UK visitors in 2002 (31% of the total). The average
stay was 9.3 days giving a total of 18.83 million bed nights. This leads to an overall
CO2 footprint for UK visitors of 103,000 tonnes CO2, or 508,000 tonnes CO2 if flights
are included.
This can be compared with the average domestic per capita energy consumption in
the UK of about 5.4 6.0 kg CO2 per day. This figure is remarkably close to the CO2
per bed night for a visitor to Cyprus. This suggests that the net carbon footprint of a
holiday in some destinations, air transport excluded, could be close to zero or even
negative, in terms of CO2.
2.3

Carbon Dioxide Footprint New Zealand

Becken (8) has estimated the energy consumption associated with tourism
businesses in New Zealand. Three categories were identified: attractions,
entertainments and activities. The average energy use per tourist was much higher

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

for activities (95.6 megajoules per tourist) compared with attractions and
entertainment (6.2 and 9.4 megajoules per tourist, respectively). This approach has
recently been developed further to examine the components of a tourism visit, as
indicated in Appendix I. Clearly this information could be used to help calculate the
tourism CO2 footprint. In this work, activities associated with direct consumption of
fossil fuels stand out more than might be the case for some other destinations. In
New Zealand the CO2 intensity of many components of any overall footprint is lower
than in many other countries as about 70% of electricity is generated from hydro
power and only 30% from fossil fuels. Thus the carbon footprint of tourism is likely to
be significantly less, air travel apart, than in other destinations with less use of
renewable energy. Becken and Patterson have also used a top down approach to
energy accounting based on United Nations procedures.
2.4

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Whistler, Canada

Kelly and Williams (9) have calculated overall greenhouse gas (GGs) emissions for
Whistler, a year round mountain resort some 120 km from Vancouver. GG emissions
were calculated for two main areas: buildings and the disposal of solid waste.
For energy consumption, buildings were divided into categories and the consumption
per unit area calculated. Predictions were made as to future energy consumption per
unit area, allowing estimations to be made of savings using estimates of the share of
each type of fuel. GGs were estimated using established Canadian conversion
factors.
Based on this work, which included other energy dependent activities such as
transport, it was estimated that commercial activities accounted for about 39% of the
total of 2.9GJ of energy consumed in the year 2000. The overall CO2 footprint for the
activities included was 132,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is much lower than
for the consumption of the same amount of energy in many other locations, because
of the high proportion of hydro-derived electricity.
The studies in New Zealand and Canada illustrate the importance of taking local
energy sources into account when estimating destination CO2 footprints. The
Whistler study also indicates the possible contribution of waste disposal to landfill
which will be highly dependent on the way the landfill site is managed.
2.5

Footprints of Different Holiday Types

A study, partly sponsored by the FTO, (C. Thompson, personal communication)

compared two holidays in Bulgaria: one to a Black Sea mainstream resort; and the
other to a responsible 'adventure holiday'. Comparison indicated that, per customer,
the carbon footprint of the mainstream holiday was less than that of the 'responsible'
holiday. For example the energy consumption in heat and light per person in a 450
room hotel was less than in a 14 room hostel. The study also pointed to the need to
ensure standards in sewage treatment not just in large hotels but in smaller types of
accommodation. While this study was based on only one comparison, it may indicate
a wider pattern and it does point to the need to include carbon footprints in
consideration of responsible tourism products. A provisional comparison of energy
consumption by hotels in the Gambia (D. Sisman personal communication) suggests
that, where no energy efficiency measures have been carried out, the average spent
on energy per bedroom is about the same for large and small hotels.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

3.0

Method for Determining Carbon Footprints

We have elected to develop this method using a bottom-up approach as we feel this
demonstrates more clearly the individual components; this is important if energy
savings are to be made. The table below lists individual elements that contribute to
the carbon footprint of a destination or location. The list is clearly not complete for all
destinations; on the other hand, all of the items listed may not apply to every
destination.
The approach used has been to:

identify sources of energy consumption

briefly outline the approach used to estimate the total energy use associated
with that source
indicate the units of energy and the conversion factor to
generate the relevant quantity of CO2

In the last column, some suggestions have been made that could help to reduce the
footprint.
We have omitted infrastructure and construction aspects. While these are important
they are complex and are generally once-off in nature. A separate detailed study
would be necessary to identify all of the individual components contributing to
construction of hotels, ports airports roads etc.
The conversion factors used are from recognised sources, in the UK wherever
possible; a significant number come from the website of the department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Different factors for sources of CO2
such as electricity will be necessary in other destinations as shown by the studies in
New Zealand and Canada described briefly above.
We point out that while the brief from the Travel Foundation refers to the footprint of a
destination, it may be equally or more useful to consider the overall net footprint of a
tourists visit as illustrated in section 2. In brief, for a net carbon footprint, the CO2 not
generated at a tourists home because of his or her absence should be set against
the individual footprint at the destination. This can include air travel but the
comparison is likely to be more useful if air travel is treated separately.
Table 1
Energy
Consumption

Activity

Destination CO2 Footprint

Approach to
Estimating

Energy Metric

Conversion to
CO2
Reference UK
DEFRA (10)
(except where
indicated)

Renewables,
More efficient
equipment,
Dont waste energy

Overall Energy

Hotel
(Electricity)
Lights

Key Reduction Ideas

Lighting

No f lights of specific
watt rating and hours
on as subset of
electricity bill

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

Kilowatt hours
(kWh)

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Low energy
replacements.
Room key cards to stop
usage when vacant

Air Conditioning

Fixed units
and fans
Mobile units
and fans

Heating

Cooking

Cookers

Hotplates

Toasters

Refrigeration

Fixed units

Coolers

Laundry

Washing

Drying

Drinks

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Room key cards to stop

usage when vacant

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Subset as for lighting

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

? use average per

person per day
(pppd) ? separate
meter subset as for
lighting
No of units, rating
time of use - subset
as for lighting
No of units, rating
time of use - subset
as for lighting
? use average per
person per day
(pppd) ? separate
meter subset as for
lighting
? use average per
person per day
(pppd) ? separate
meter subset as for
lighting
? use average per
person per day
(pppd) ? separate
meter subset as for
lighting
? use average per
person per day
(pppd) ? separate
meter subset as for
lighting

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Minimise use through

use of ventilation
Use lowest comfortable
thermostat setting
vary seasonally
Timers, seasonal
variation in thermostat
setting, insulation
Energy efficient stoves

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Minimise use and heat

loss

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Use on demand

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Energy rating

kWh

0.43 kg CO2per
kWh

Minimise use

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Energy efficient
systems

kWh

0.43 kg CO2 per

kWh

Possible open air

drying

kWh electricity

0.43kg CO2per
kWh

Heat and cool minimal

quantities required
Care not to double
count

Preparation

Hotel Oil & Gas

Oil and gas
consumption

Hotel Food
Transport
Food and drink

No of units, rating
time of use - subset
as for lighting
No of units, rating
time of use - subset
as for lighting

Power
consumption
heating etc

Annual

Quantities of
gas and/or oil
consumed

2.68kg CO2 per litre

oil
Natural gas
Therms x 5.5 kg
CO2 or
kWh x 0.19 kg CO2

Food miles

Mainly air transport

Tonne
kilometres

c 1kg CO2 per

tonne km (11)

Personal
Transport
Carbon Footprint of Destinations

Transfers

Bus/ car
/train
(mini buses
& luggage
trailers)

Bus/ car/
train

Home to airport

Petrol

2.31 kg CO2 per

litre

Diesel
LPG

Airport to
accommodation

Rail
Bus (10)
Car
Air (11,12)

Internal
transfers
Air journey
Local
transport

Air
Base on fuel
consumption
petrol diesel or
LPG
One week
cruise (13)
Two week
cruise

Cruise
holiday

Order of preference
Hybrids > diesel >
petrol

2.68 kg CO2 per

litre
1.51 kg CO2 per
litre
0.06 kg CO2 per
pass km
0.038 kg CO2 per
pass km
See above
0.102 kg CO2 per
pass km
As above
See figures above
for petrol and diesel

3000 kg CO2 per

passenger
6000 kg CO2 per
passenger

Use bus and train

where possible

As above

Wider use of efficient

electric vehicles

Conversion factor
debatable limited data
more comparative
information required

Waste Disposal
Waste
disposal
route

Anaerobic digestion /
landfill / incineration
w/w out energy
recovery
1
Example landfill

Methane and
CO2

Example incineration

CO2

2kg CO2
equivalents per kg
waste
0.28 tonnes CO2
per kg waste

Aerobic bio
treatment
Transport

Energy consumption

Depends on source
Electricity / oil / gas
0.94 kg CO2 per
tonne kilometre
(diesel - trucks)

Trucks

Tonne
kilometres

Accommoda
tion
Transport

See hotels

See hotels

See hotels

See hotels

See hotels

See hotels

Avoid landfill reduce

reuse recycle and use
anaerobic digestion
with methane capture
Incineration with
energy recovery is
another option but
large plants are a
requirement
Reduce water volumes
e.g. dual flush toilets
Reduce reuse recycle
will lead to decrease in
transport requirements
Replace fleet

Staff
Same factors apply as
for hotels
As above replace fleet
gasoline to diesel to
hybrids

Agricultural
Production

1 tonne of waste landfilled can give rise to 60 cubic metres of CO2 approx 130kg CO2 and 120 cubic
metres of methane approximately 90kg. Methane has a Global Warming Potential approximately 21
times that of CO2 hence the high CO2 number.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

Transport

See hotels

Food miles/kms

For air c 1.00 kg

CO2 per tonne
kilometre (10) Use
vehicle miles and
fuel consumption
for trucks etc

Husbandry

Use local produce

Difficult to estimate but

could be neutral if no
land cleared and crops
are cycled

Car/ Vehicle
Hire
Small car

Fuel consumption

km/litre or
manufacturers
data on CO2

0.17 kg CO2per
passenger km
(ppkm)

Medium car
Large car

As above
As above

As above
As above

0.22 kg CO2 ppkm

0.27 kg CO2 ppkm

Conferences
etc

Need once-off
estimate

Many
components as
above

Water
heating

Energy consumption

CO2 production in
diesel cars is
approximately 0.75 that
of petrol cars per pass
km

Events
Minimise transport use
- electric vehicles
where possible

Water

Bottled water

See Food section

Desalination
Swimming pools

Heating
Pumping

See 4.3.3
Based on energy
consumption
See 4.23

Depends on source
Electricity / oil / gas

Reduce hot water use

e.g. low flow shower
heads
Use tap water where
appropriate
Cover pools
use low energy
circulation systems

The list of potential items is enormous and in approaching such a task for a specific
location it is essential to carry out an audit of all energy consuming activities. Some
potential additional activity components are illustrated in more detail in the
accompanying report.
It is also important to use relevant conversion factors. These may well vary, for
example the factor used for air travel in Table 1 is significantly different from that
used by Becken. Likewise, as already pointed out, the conversion factor for grid
electricity to CO2 in New Zealand is likely to be much less than that for the UK (used
in Table 1) because of the much greater contribution from hydro power.
4.0

Specific Areas of Energy Consumption

In this section two areas are reviewed where there are opportunities to reduce
carbon footprints. A detailed study of each of these areas or of the overall impact of
food is beyond the scope of this report.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

4.1

Hotel Energy Consumption

This section should be read in conjunction with the Travel Foundation Hotel
Makeover report (in preparation). Tourist accommodation is perhaps the simplest
area of the tourism industry to target for improvements in energy efficiency. On
average, hotels spend 700 per bedroom per year on energy. Through careful
energy management, hotels can reduce their energy costs between 10% and 40%,
saving up to 300 per room. The particular report (14) does not provide sufficient
details of energy mix and prices to allow calculation of the CO2 saving. However
some idea of the possible scale of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be calculated
from a 100 saving in UK consumption of grid electricity. This is equivalent to some
1000 kWh or about 0.43 tonnes of CO2.
In hotels the main energy consuming systems are:
-

heating
air conditioning and ventilation
hot water production
lighting
electricity (lifts, etc.)
cooking

Figure 1

Average Distribution of Hotel Energy Consumption (US, 15)

Water heating 41%
Lighting 18%
Space heating 18%
Cooling 6%
Cooking 5%
Office Equipment 3%
Refrigeration 2%
Ventilation 1%
Other 6%

Figure 1 shows the average distribution of hospitality energy use in the US. The
highest areas of energy consumption are water heating, lighting and space heating.
4.1.1

Water Heating

Savings of approximately 20% to 30% of hotel laundry costs can be realised simply
by giving guests the option to reuse their towels and bedding if staying for more than
one night. In addition to saving energy, water and staff time, this clearly
communicates a positive approach to managing environmental issues within an
organisation. However, if the offer is made it is important that it is followed through;
there are many informal reports of hotels which make the proposition to customers
but still renew towels etc regardless of customer action.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, hotels are paying up to 40
percent of their energy bill towards heating water. Given that hotels have large steam
and hot water needs, laundry systems provide an excellent opportunity to reduce
energy costs. Energy consumption patterns in laundries vary from hotel to hotel,
depending on the type of laundry equipment and the linens being washed.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

4.1.2

Lighting

Lighting is the second largest energy-using system in a hotel, and is probably the
easiest and most cost-effective area for reducing energy costs. According to the
Alliance to Save Energy, fluorescent lamps produce four times as much light per watt
than incandescent lamps, and they can last eight to ten times longer. A compact
fluorescent light used in place of an incandescent light that is left on continuously for
12 months, all 8,760 hours of the year, will pay for itself in less than one year.
The Sheraton Tacoma Hotel developed a project to change to compact fluorescent
light fixtures. The staff replaced 2,000 incandescent light fixtures with quadruple-tube
compact fluorescent light bulbs in various areas of the hotel such as the guest rooms
and the lobby. The cost saving was calculated at up to $15,000 with a payback rate
of 18 months. Replacing a single 100 watt bulb that is switched on for 4 hours each
day with its 20 watt low energy equivalent will save about 115 kWh per year,
equivalent to 50 kg of CO2. While 4 hours a day year round is possibly high, six such
substitutions would reduce CO2 emissions by the same amount approximately as a
return flight to Majorca.
Lighting, ventilation, and other devices or systems can be controlled with a variety of
sensors that reduce electricity consumption significantly. A photocell can control day
and night operation. Occupancy sensors (motion or ultrasonic) can operate lighting.
The infrared sensor uses less energy to operate and is less sensitive to air
movement but does not see around corners. An ultrasonic sensor can be used in a
restroom and even detect movement around partitions. Other sensors are available
that can control operation of a device by door opening, time of day, timer, noise level,
and proximity.
The Hyatt Regency International Hotel in New Zealand understood that guests often
left appliances and heating and cooling systems on, when they were out of their
rooms. The hotel developed a project to link energy use with room occupancy. Now,
when a guest leaves the room, all energy appliances shut down, with the exception
of refrigerators, alarm clocks, and other essential appliances. The project costs were
$16,000, while the payback period was only 14 months, with savings of $14,000
annually (16). This will have led to a significant reduction in the CO2 footprint of the
hotel.
4.1.3

Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Examples (15) of energy-saving opportunities which can improve HVAC systems

efficiency include:

Insulation: insulate all heating and cooling lines and vessels using appropriate
insulation thickness to minimize heat gains or losses.
Building Envelope: optimize the effective space requiring air conditioning
through measures such as false ceilings and segregation of critical areas for
air conditioning by air curtains.
Building Heat Load Minimization: minimize the air conditioning loads by
measures such as roof cooling, roof reflectance, efficient lighting, optimal
thermostat setting of temperature of air conditioned spaces, sun film
applications, etc.
Solar Heat Gain Control: install awnings, overhangs, or low e-coated windows
with low Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) for renovation and new
construction.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

10

4.1.4

Select high-efficiency units when replacing HVAC equipment: reduce energy

bills by selecting higher-efficiency air conditioning units. Although some highefficiency units may be more expensive than average-efficiency units, the
higher initial payment can be recovered through increased energy savings in
as little as two to five years
Adjust thermostat and air conditioning settings seasonally a degree or two
cooler in winter a degree or two warmer in summer.
Overall Hotel Energy Saving

Table 2 shows how hotels of different sizes can measure and monitor their energy
performance by calculating energy used per year (kWh) / floor area (m2)
Table 2 Potential CO2 Reductions in Hotels Energy Performance (17)
Hotel
Type

Performance (kWh/m )
Good
Fair
Gas Electricity Gas
Electricity
Gas

Luxury
less
less than
300
90 150
Hotel (100 than
90
500
300
460
bedrooms)
Business
less
less than
260
80 140
or Holiday than
80
Hotel (50- 260
400
150
bedrooms)
Small
Les
less than
240
80 120
Hotel (20s
80
100
than
360
bedrooms) 240
(N.B - CO2 savings estimated by the author)

Poor
Electricity

Savings Per
Year
Difference
between
Good and
Poor Gas
2
CO2 kg/m

Savings Per
Year
Difference
between
Good and
Poor
Electricity
2
CO2 kg/m

more
than
460

More than
150

30

26

more
than
400

more than
140

27

26

more
than
360

more than
120

23

17

As mentioned above, the Travel Foundation has recently sponsored a study to

identify ways in which hotels (Travel Foundation, 2007 report in preparation ) can
improve their environmental and social performance. The study covered three hotels
and some of the suggestions made are listed below:

Use compact fluorescent lamps in lighting where there are long burn times in
particular to replace high wattage halogen and incandescent bulbs
Reduce the run-on time of guestroom extractor fans
Be sure to switch lights of when not required
As energy source use wherever possible a fuel with low energy rating e.g.
LPG instead of oil
Insulate heat exchangers and exposed pipe runs
Use solar water heaters
Reduce the output of shower heads
Increase the interval between bed linen changes
Ensure washing machines are loaded to the nominal capacity
Kitchen staff to turn equipment off when not required.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

11

4.2

Food

4.2.1

Food Miles

The Womens Environmental Network has estimated that a quarter of UK CO2

emissions come from transporting food from growers, via processors and distributors.
While this seems high, there is undoubtedly a significant effect in holiday destinations
as well as in the UK, where imports account for 95% of fruit and 50% of all
vegetables consumed in the UK. For example, it has been shown that an apple from
a village shop travelled 38 miles before being eaten, a British supermarket apple
travelled 220 miles and a New Zealand apple bought in a UK supermarket travelled
11,300 miles. The Travel Foundation and other organisations have already
developed programmes to encourage local farmers to produce for tourism
consumption. The potential to develop such programme is primarily economic but
also brings significant CO2 benefits. Such initiatives could be carried further by
development of local cuisine using local ingredients.
4.2.2

Waste

Waste represents a useful resource that can be utilised to reduce energy

requirements. While in some situations composting may represent the best
environmental option, use of waste to generate energy is one area that has not been
fully exploited.
The American Hotel and Motel Association (AHMA) has estimated that 25-30% of the
total waste stream generated by the hotel industry is food waste (18). Factors that
affect the amount of waste generated by a hotel include size of the hotel, number of
guest rooms, rate of occupancy, and purchasing practices of the hotel. Larger hotels,
in order to accommodate more guests, typically have more restaurants and guest
rooms than smaller hotels; and as a result, generate more total waste per hotel (19).
One study of wastes from 25 hotels showed that, from 1991-1993, the hotel waste
consisted of 46% food waste, 25.3% paper, 11.7% cardboard, 6.7% plastics, 5.6%
glass, and 4.5% metals. It has been estimated that around 11% of the food produced
in the UK is thrown away. This means that on average we throw away 2.7kgs of food
per person, per week. Of this food waste around seven million tonnes (40%) is
produced by the large scale food manufacturers within the UK. This waste stream
could be made up of animal by products, contaminated packaging, out of date
ingredients or simply manufacturing by products. Such waste within the tourism
industry could be a valuable source of energy (20).
Waste that goes to landfill can produce large amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas
with about twenty times the climate impact relative to carbon dioxide (21). While
detailed studies of waste practices in destinations would be required, the opportunity
to reduce the impact can be illustrated by reference to the UK where 70 percent of
landfill gas is captured or flared. By composting waste, an average UK household
would reduce methane emissions by an amount equivalent to a small petrol car
driving 1000 miles.
Anaerobic digestion of wastes provides biogas. Biogas contains about 60 percent
methane that can be used to generate electricity or used for heat or for fuel for
vehicles. Any animal manure, human sewage or food waste will produce methane
during anaerobic digestion. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has 21 times the
global warming potential of carbon dioxide. However, it is also a potential fuel and
there are many opportunities to recover methane and utilise it with energy recovery.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

12

One tonne of organic waste can generate over 200 kWh of electricity (equivalent to
saving about 80 kg of CO2 equivalent for grid electricity in the UK). Over 125
European anaerobic digestion facilities produce more than 300 Megawatts of
electricity (enough to supply 300,000 households), divert millions of tons of food
waste from landfills each year, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Recently hundreds of farms in Mexico and South America have installed anaerobic
digesters to collect and use methane from manure to provide energy for farm use.
Many of these digesters have been paid for by a company that aggregates and sells
carbon credits to factories and utility companies in countries that signed agreements
under the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions (22). Carbon credits are
earned by reducing greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane.
These credits have considerable value. There is a real opportunity for the Travel
Foundation to investigate the potential for anaerobic digestion technology in the
accommodation sector and to identify appropriate technology.
4.2.3

Bottled Water

The abstraction, processing, packaging, transportation and sale of bottled water, and
disposal of associated waste, involve a significant amount of energy use. A major
contribution to the cost of bottled water is likely to be transport, certainly where
transport is across international borders. WWF argues that the distribution of bottled
water requires substantially more fuel than delivering tap water. This is especially
true since over 22 million tonnes of the bottled liquid is transferred each year from
country to country. Instead of relying on a mostly pre-existing infrastructure of
underground pipes and plumbing, transporting bottled water burns fossil fuels and
results in the release of thousands of tonnes of harmful emissions.
Since some bottled water is also shipped or stored cold, electricity is expended for
refrigeration. Energy is likewise used in bottled water processing. In filtration, an
estimated two gallons of water are wasted for every gallon purified
Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable plastics and are not
reused or recycled. With both landfill and incineration becoming options of last
choice, reusing and recycling systems would benefit the environment, save energy
and, increasingly, are likely to be cost-effective options (23). These are some areas
where there are opportunities for the Travel Foundation to promote best practice in
water use and waste management.
4.2.4

Desalination

Desalination is highly energy intensive (24). A report published by the US State of

Texas indicates desalination uses 10.6 kWh per thousand gallons produced. A 10
million gallon per day facility will consume 106,000 kWh per day and will produce
33,700 kg carbon dioxide per day or 12,300 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
5.0

Energy Saving Tips

The lists below give some ideas on how everyone can contribute to reducing the
carbon footprint of tourism:

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

13

Before you go on Holiday

Turn down central heating when relevant
If you use an office switch off as much as
possible there
Switch off lights
Replace light bulbs with low energy
equivalents
Switch off computers, TVs
Use public transport or car share to get
to and from the airport
To keep in warmth in winter partially
draw curtains and blinds
Disconnect all charging equipment

On Holiday
Remove packaging of new items before you go
Travel as light as you can compatible with
comfort
Eat local produce and dishes and drink local
drinks
Bring back light weight souvenirs
Drink tap water where it is safe
Use stairs instead of the lift where possible

Walk cycle sail rather than use energy consuming

transport
Look to save energy e.g. use towels for more
than one day
Offset your holiday flight
Look for recycling opportunities
N.B - Further ideas for energy saving, and thus reducing CO2 emissions, are available from a
range of sources (for example 1, 25, 26, 27).

6.0

Conclusions

The tourism industry is responding to the widespread concern over the future of the
global climate. The travel industry is playing its part by giving guidance and initiating
appropriate projects. Through this report, the Travel Foundation is indicating a
methodology for use in calculating such footprint and has reviewed aspects of the
carbon footprint of two particular parts of tourism, hotel energy consumption and
waste disposal.
Little quantitative work has been done on carbon dioxide emissions connected with
tourism activities. This is an increasingly important area of management and it is
suggested that the Travel Foundation encourage development of CO2 accounting in
the tourism industry (including, in due course, other greenhouse gases). This report
has provided a framework for developing a CO2 account for a destination. As with all
accounting there are inaccuracies; one of the main aims of introducing such a system
should be not to estimate the absolute amount of emissions with precision but to
develop a sound system for comparing emissions on a year by year basis so that
progress can be measured.
The tentative estimates of carbon footprints of tourists in this report for Cyprus and
Majorca suggest that, excepting air travel, emissions of CO2 while on holiday could
be less than they would have been had they stayed at home. Thus, in reducing a
tourists footprint action taken before leaving may well be as important as actions
while at a destination. The CO2 generated by air travel to and from a destination will,
in most cases, be larger than the input at the destination. The Travel Foundation
should continue to promote measures to mitigate the impact of aviation.
Many opportunities exist for reducing CO2 emissions. Some of these are identified in
the text and most will bring other benefits if implemented. Some such as substitution
of local agricultural produce for imported food, or introduction of anaerobic digestion
with methane recovery might qualify as marketable emission reductions through
carbon offset schemes.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

14

Appendix I
1.0

Further Details of Footprint Studies Reviewed in the Report

(Please note that the Appendix is an expanded version of some of the text in the
main report)
1.1

Ecological Footprints

One approach to tourism footprinting has been developed by WWF (4,5). This uses
a mechanism for calculating the ecological footprint that a holiday product has on the
environment, in terms of the resources used. The approach integrates the
environmental impacts associated with a holiday into a single aggregated indicator.
It is broader than a carbon footprint and usually converts the impact into area units
where one area unit is one hectare of world average bioproductive space. WWF
indicates that around 2 such units were available per person on the planet (2002).
The average UK footprint per capita (1996) has been estimated at 6.3 area units (4).
The 2002 report analysed the footprint of typical summer package holidays in two
Mediterranean destinations, Majorca and Cyprus, based on data provided by
Thomson holidays. Another example where this approach has been used is in
estimating the national ecological footprint of Wales (28). For the calculation, land
and sea area is divided into four basic types: bioproductive land; bioproductive sea,
energy land (forested land required for the absorption of carbon emissions) and built
land (buildings roads, etc). Transport, for example requires built land for roads,
parking, airports, rail tracks etc as well as a large amount of forested land to absorb
carbon emissions from fuel consumption. Transport obviously also requires energy
and materials are required for construction and maintenance.
This approach is intellectually appealing and while it has been applied (for example
Gossling et al, 2002 (6), Hunter and Shaw, 2005 (7)), it has not been widely adopted
by the tourism community and suffers from some difficulties in conversion of the
impacts to common units. For example, there is some debate over the relevance of
forestry to compensating for CO2 emissions. Also the approach takes no account of
social and economic impacts.
1.2

Carbon Dioxide Footprints Majorca and Cyprus

The WWF paper can be used as a base to make some estimates of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions or the carbon footprint associated with a holiday destination. The
major component is air travel despite the improvements in technology and
operational aspects such as the high load factors (percentage of seats occupied)
achieved by some operators. The calculations that follow should be taken as
illustrative only, much greater precision would be required to come to definite
conclusions.
For Majorca the ecological footprint per bed night was calculated as 0.03 hectares of
which air travel accounted for 0.02 and for Cyprus 0.07 hectares (air travel 0.03). For
Cyprus the energy footprint was 363 units (4.5% of total) and, for Majorca, 134 units
(3.4% of the total). In Majorca and Cyprus air travel accounted for 57% and 46%
respectively. These components are further broken down in the WWF paper; this
breakdown has allowed the present estimation of carbon dioxide emissions in Table
1.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

15

This leads to a rough estimate of the carbon footprint per bed night in Majorca as 27
kg CO2 (5.5 kg when the flight is excluded) and for Cyprus as 66kg CO2 (18 when
flights are excluded).
In Cyprus there were 1,486,000 UK visitors in 2002 with an average stay of 11.2
days (29), compared with the14 days for Thomson clients identified in the WWF
paper. Thus the overall CO2 footprint for UK holidaymakers to Cyprus can be
estimated very roughly as 1 million tonnes of CO2 including flights, and 300,000
tonnes without flights.
Appendix I. Table 1 Annual Energy Consumption and Estimated CO2
Emissions*
Component
Hotel energy
Electricity kWh
Gas kWh
Oil (litres)
Gas oil (litres)
Renewable
electricity
Total
Excursions
Train (pass km)
Bus/coach
Jeep
Boat
Total
Car Rental
Fuel litres
Total
Air Travel
Flights pass km
Total
Transfers
Car (vehicle km)
Taxi (vehicle km)
Bus coach (pass
km)
Total

Majorca

1,192,785
170,398
726
356
710,929

CO2 generated
(tonnes)
513
32.4
0.2
0.1

Cyprus

2,066,418
24,947
89,950
0
0

546
211,674
4,868,509
0
254,009

12.7
175

4,803

CO2 generated
(tonnes)
889
4.7
22.5
0
0
916

8,751,888
2,115,040
2,117.553

315

11
11

8,209

19
19

29,428,547

3119
3119

61,904,847

6567
6567

18,552
18,552
1,333,548

4.1
4.1
48

0
0
1,163,445

Overall Total
Number of bed
nights
CO2 per bednight
CO2 per bednight
excluding flight

15
203

127
442

42

56

42

3935
148172

7986
121554

0.027
0.0055

0.066
0.018

*Conversion factors used are from UK DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs) and do not necessarily apply to these destinations

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

16

In Majorca there were 2,025,000 UK visitors in 2002 (30), 31% of the total. The
average stay was 9.3 days giving a total of 18.83 million bed nights. This leads to an
overall CO2 footprint for UK visitors of 103,000 tonnes CO2, or 508,000 tonnes CO2 if
aviation is included. The CO2 per bed night can be compared with the average
domestic per capita energy consumption in the UK equivalent to about 5.4 6.0 kg
CO2 per night (for example, 31). This figure is remarkably close to the CO2 per bed
night for a visitor to Majorca. This suggests that the net footprint could be close to
zero or even negative (in terms of CO2) for some destinations.
1.3

Carbon Dioxide Footprint New Zealand

A similar approach has been adopted by Becken (8) to determine the energy
consumption associated with tourism businesses in New Zealand. Three categories
were identified: attractions, entertainments and activities. The average energy use
per tourist was much higher for activities (95.6 megajoules per tourist) compared with
attractions and entertainment (6.2 and 9.4 megajoules per tourist, respectively). This
approach has recently been developed further (2) to examine the components of a
tourism visit, as indicated in Table 2. Clearly this information can be used to calculate
the CO2 footprint. In New Zealand the CO2 intensity of many components of any
overall footprint is lower as electricity is based on 70% hydro power and only 30%
from fossil fuels. Thus the activities associated with direct consumption of fossil fuels
stand out more than might be the case for some other destinations. Becken and
Patterson (32) also used a top down approach to energy accounting based on United
Nations procedures (33).
Appendix I. Table 2 CO2 Generation by Tourism Activity in New Zealand (32)
Travel activity

Domestic air

CO2
g/passenger
km
189

Hotel

CO2
g/visitor
night
7900

Private car

69

B&B

4140

Rental car
Coach

63
69

Motel
Hostel/Backpackers

1378
1619

Camper van
Train (diesel)

141
99

Campground

1364

Motor cycle
Scheduled
bus
Backpacker
bus
Cook Strait
ferry

58
51

1.4

Accommodation

Attractions/
Activities
Buildings
(museums)
Nature
attraction
Air activity
Motorised
water activity
Adventure
Nature
recreation

CO2
g/visit
172
417
27700
15300
2240
1670

40
165

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Whistler, Canada

Kelly and Williams (9) have calculated overall greenhouse gas (GGs) emissions for
Whistler, a year round mountain resort some 120 km from Vancouver. GG emissions
were calculated for two main processes: energy consumption and the disposal of
solid waste.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

17

For energy consumption, buildings were divided into categories and the consumption
per unit area calculated. Predictions were made as to future energy consumption per
unit area allowing estimations to be made of savings using estimates of the share of
each type of fuel. GGs were estimated using established Canadian conversion
factors.
Based on this work, which included other energy dependent activities such as
transport, it was estimated that commercial activities accounted for about 39% of the
total of 2.9GJ of energy consumed in the year 2000. The overall CO2 footprint for the
activities included was 132,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is much lower than
for the consumption of the same amount of energy in many other locations because
of the high proportion of hydro-derived electricity. It also indicates the possible
contribution of waste disposal to landfill which will be highly dependent on the way
waste disposal, in particular landfill sites, is managed.
Appendix I. Table 3 - Energy Consumption & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Whistler
Sector

Residential

Passenger
transportation
Commercial
Industrial and
Institutional

Municipal
Buildings and
Infrastructure

Public
transportation
Solid waste
disposal
Total

Fuel

Electricity
Propane
Wood
Sub total
Gasoline

21.3
4.9
1.2
27.4
31

Greenhouse gas
emissions (CO2
equivalents)
3.2
6.5
3.4
13.1
47.6

Electricity
Propane
Gasoline
Diesel
Sub total
Electricity
Propane
Gasoline
Diesel
Sub total
Diesel

18.4
18.4
0.7
1.6
39.1
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.7
0.9

2.8
24.2
1.1
2.5
30.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
1.4

Carbon Footprint of Destinations

Energy
consumption %

6.3
2,890,000
Gigajoules

131,600 tonnes
CO2 equivalent

18

References
1. The Travel Foundation, 2006. Insider Guide: Climate Change and Tourism
2. Becken and Murray, 2006. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14. Measuring
Nnational Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Tourism as a Key Step towards
Achieving Sustainable Tourism
3. INESCC www.inescc.pt/urepe/chose/energy.htm
4. WWF, 2000. Living Planet Report. WWF, Goldalming, UK.
5. WWF, 2002. Holiday Footprinting A Practical Guide for Responsible Tourism.
WWF, Goldalming, UK.
6. Gossling, S. Hansson, C.B. Horstmeier, O and Saggel, S. 2002. Ecological
Economics, 43, 199-211.
7. Hunter, C and Shaw, J 2005. Environmental Conservation. 32, 294-304.
8. Becken, S 2001. Energy Consumption of Tourist Attractions and Activities in
New Zealand. Summary report of a survey. Lincoln University, New Zealand.
9. Kelly, J. and Williams P. W., 2007. Modelling Tourism Destination Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Whistler, British Columbia,
Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15, 67-90.
10. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/gas/05.htm
11. Sustainable Aviation, 2006 (assuming 100kg weight per passenger).
www.sustainableaviation.co.uk
12. DEFRA as above plus Hansard 20.7.05.
13. Based on limited information. QE2 published fuel consumption and typical
cruise schedule www.qe2.org.uk/
14. Egeneration
www.egeneration.co.uk/centre/modules/sustainable_tourism/3_energyefficiency
.asp
15. Alliance To Save Energy: Hotel Energy Efficiency
www.ase.org/section/topic/ee_hotels
16. Zero Waste Alliance Green Hotels: Opportunities & Resources for Success
www.zerowaste.org/publications/GREEN_HO.PDF#search=%22Hotel%20food
%20waste%20figures%22
17. Action Energy Guide 36. Energy Efficiency in Hotels A Guide for Owners and
Managers.
www.egeneration.co.uk/centre/modules/sustainable_tourism/3_energyefficiency
.asp
18. Alaska Conservation Solutions.
http://www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/akcalculator.html
19. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
http://ndep.nv.gov/recycl/what.htm
20. Earthtoys.
www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=06.12.01&article=waste
21. Learning Joy Resources Methane from Biogas.
www.learningjoyresources.com/AD.html
22. Earthpledge Waste = Fuel. www.earthpledge.org/foodwaste.html
23. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management.
www.ciwem.org/policy/policies/bottled_water.asp
24. Edie Net www.edie.net/Library/view_article.asp?id=3916&channel=0
25. ABB Top 100 Energy Saving Tips.
http://www.abb.co.uk/cawp/gbabb903/3e322697ff65ce50c1256c6700532460.a
spx#skilift
26. Green Consumer Guide.
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/commercial.php?news=3227

27. The Carbon Trust. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/default.ct

28. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2004. Reducing Wales Ecological Footprint.
SEI, York.
29. Visit Cyprus. www.visitcyprus.org
30. Dades Informatives 2002. Illes Balears.
31. National Statistics www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vInk=7287
Brighton Webs Ltd www.brighton-webs.co.uk/Energy/default.asp
32. Becken, S and Patterson, M. 2006. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 14, 323328.
33. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting: Interim Version 1993.
Handbook of National Accounting Series F No 61. New York, United Nations.

Carbon Footprint of Destinations