Contrary to most sectors, to date the tourism and aviation industries have not managed to level off greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, effective mitigation through technological innovation or structural and behavioural change cannot be expected shortly. Airlines and tourism companies appear to use carbon offsetting as a last resort. However, offsetting is generally acknowledged as a second-best solution for mitigating emissions, after reducing energy use. This paper seeks to determine the mitigation potential of voluntary carbon offsetting by comparing public and industry awareness of climate change and aviation emissions, and attitudes to various mitigation measures with relevant online communication by 64 offset providers. Methods were a literature review and online content analyses. Overall, the gaps that were identified between awareness, attitude and actual behaviour are not bridged by provider communication. From this perspective, the mitigation potential of voluntary carbon offsetting for achieving reductions of tourism transport emissions is estimated as low. The same conclusion is reached by comparing carbon dioxide volumes of flight offsets with actual air travel emissions. Current sales of flight offsets compensate less than 1% of all aviation emissions.
MULTIFILE
Tourism is on course to thwart humanity’s efforts to reach a zero carbon economy because of its high growth rates and carbon intensity. To get out of its carbon predicament, the tourism sector needs professionals with carbon literacy and carbon capability. Providing future professionals in the full spectrum of tourism-related study programmes with the necessary knowledge and skills is essential. This article reports on ten years of experience at a BSc tourism programme with a carbon footprint exercise in which students calculate the carbon footprint of their latest holiday, compare their results with others and reflect on options to reduce emissions. Before they start, the students are provided with a handout with emission factors, a brief introduction and a sample calculation. The carbon footprints usually differ by a factor of 20 to 30 between the highest and lowest. Distance, transport mode and length of stay are almost automatically identified as the main causes, and as the main keys for drastically reducing emissions. The link to the students’ own experience makes the exercise effective, the group comparison makes it fun. As the exercise requires no prior knowledge and is suitable for almost any group size, it can be integrated into almost any tourism-related study programme.
DOCUMENT
PBL is the initiator of the Work Programme Monitoring and Management Circular Economy 2019-2023, a collaboration between CBS, CML, CPB, RIVM, TNO, UU. Holidays and mobility are part of the consumption domains that PBL researches, and this project aims to calculate the environmental gains per person per year of the various circular behavioural options for both holiday behaviour and daily mobility. For both behaviours, a range of typical (default) trips are defined and for each several circular option explored for CO2 emissions, Global warming potential and land use. The holiday part is supplied by the Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (CSTT) of the BUas Academy of Tourism (AfT). The mobility part is carried out by the Urban Intelligence professorship of the Academy for Built Environment and Logistics (ABEL).The research question is “what is the environmental impact of various circular (behavioural) options around 1) holidays and 2) passenger mobility?” The consumer perspective is demarcated as follows:For holidays, transportation and accommodation are included, but not food, attractions visited and holiday activitiesFor mobility, it concerns only the circular options of passenger transport and private means of transport (i.e. freight transport, business travel and commuting are excluded). Not only some typical trips will be evaluated, but also the possession of a car and its alternatives.For the calculations, we make use of public databases, our own models and the EAP (Environmental Analysis Program) model developed by the University of Groningen. BUAs projectmembers: Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (AT), Urban Intelligence (ABEL).
This project extends the knowledge and scope of carbon footprinting in tourism. Currently, the carbon footprint of holidaymakers is available as time-series based on the CVO (Continue Vakantie Onderzoek) for the years 2002, 2005 and all between 2008 and 2018. For one year, 2009, a report has also been written about inbound tourism. The carbon footprint of business travel has not been determined, whereas there has been considerable interest throughout the years from businesses to assess and mitigate their travel footprints. There is also increasing policy attention for travel footprints. In 2018, a modified setup of the CVO caused the need to revise our statistical model and correction factors to be developed to counter the potential effects of a trend-breach. The project aimed to check and improve the current syntax for Dutch holidaymakers, adjust the one for inbound tourism, and develop a new one for Dutch business travel. The project output includes a report on the carbon footprint of Dutch holidaymakers for 2018, on inbound tourism for 2014, and on Dutch business travel for 2016, based on the CVO, inbound tourim dataset, and CZO. The project ends with a workshop with stakeholders to identify the way forward in tourism carbon footprinting in the Netherlands (tools, applications, etc.)Project partners: NRIT Research, NBTC-NIPO Research, CBS
A CO2 analysis was made of the CBS Holiday Survey, on the impact of domestic holidays.Societal issueContribution to and impacts from climate change.Benefit to societyCO2-insights can better inform policymakers on how to support more sustainable choices and create climate proof policy in tourism.
