Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
dubious. A number of other authors have begun to include travel to the des-
tination in research on the eco-efficiency of tourism (Gössling et al, 2005;
Høyer, 2000; Peeters et al, 2007). These studies include an analysis of the car-
bon emissions and economic benefits relative to the length of stay.
With slow travel to access a destination, the carbon footprint of a holiday
is further reduced. However, there is potential for tourists to engage in car-
bon-intensive activities at the destination, which might shift the relative impact
of the travel element (Filimonau et al, 2010). Current work on the life cycle
assessment of tourism argues there may be an optimum length of stay for a
holiday where the transport impacts and destination-based impacts are 50:50
(Filimonau et al, 2010).
However, from a slow travel and low-carbon perspective, while such
analysis is useful, if travel includes a long-haul flight, and subsequent con-
sumption at the destination is carbon-intensive, there is no benefit of an
extended stay. While a tourist might access a destination by slow travel, if sub-
sequent consumption levels result in a high carbon footprint, much of the
benefit is lost. For instance, Becken and Simmons (2002) highlight the ten-
dency for tourists to travel considerable distances around New Zealand, as the
iconic tourist destinations are spread throughout the country. Tourists might
also engage in such high-carbon activities as helicopter rides, and consume at
a high level in luxury hotels (Becken, 2002; Becken et al, 2003a). Should
tourists travel to the destination by slow travel followed by relatively high-
carbon consumption practices, then the 50:50 rule described above may be a
useful tool. Therefore, while extending the length of stay is a useful compo-
nent of slow travel, that can reduce the holiday's carbon footprint on a pro-
rata, per day basis, it is crucial for slow travel that the travel component is
low-carbon.
There is also the consideration of distance travelled, where there are two
issues. First, slow modes of transport pose some limitations on the distance
travelled, due to the extended time commitment; and, second, the carbon foot-
print of any motorized trip increases in relation to distance travelled. Based on
modal constraints, it is clear that some forms of transport, particularly walk-
ing, significantly limit the distance that can be travelled, unless very extended
periods of travel are intended. In the same vein, long-haul travel by coach and
train requires more time than flying. While long-haul travel by coach and train
is not impossible, with the exception of backpackers and others engaged in
an extended period of travel, most tourists would not normally be able to
make the required time commitment. This largely limits slow travel to intra-
continental travel.
With respect to the second issue, carbon footprint, much analysis has been
conducted using an eco-efficiency framework (see Chapter 2). Generally eco-
efficiency improves for closer-to-home destinations. For instance, the analysis
by Gössling et al (2005) suggests France should attract visitors from
Switzerland who travel a short distance and spend extensively, as opposed to
visitors from Latin America who travel a long way and spend less. Allied to
these low-carbon considerations is the distance travelled to destinations by
motorized forms of transport. If someone travels by train or coach over a long
