Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
sustained in the longer term, but at a lower capacity. There seems to be a
reluctance, for the most part, to move to this type of strategic restructuring for
political reasons. Ironically, it is often the case that government support
extends a life cycle of a destination during market decline, but is sometimes
lacking when new markets are emerging. Slow travel is a good example of this.
A related, but potentially significant, issue is the transport of food and
beverages to destinations for tourist consumption. Tourism impact assessment
tends to overlook the indirect impacts of tourism activity, which can have a
high cumulative effect (Filimonau et al, 2010). Food, for tourist consumption,
can have a particularly high carbon footprint in developing economies. This is
primarily due to transport costs, when food is sourced at an international level
in order to meet the needs of the inbound markets (Filimonau et al, 2010).
Tourism businesses tend to have limited awareness, and minimal control, of
the environmental issues in their supply chain. There are, of course, a number
of initiatives in many countries that focus on the provision of locally sourced
foods, but these are unlikely to counterbalance global trends in hospitality.
There will be some impact reduction by sourcing local food and products, but
in many cases this still remains at a small scale. It is clearly associated with
slow food and travel and warrants further research.
Improving energy efficiency
There is evidence to infer that some sectors within tourism (accommodation,
transport and activities) are now seeking to improve their energy efficiency.
Rising fuel costs have been a key driver, as efficiency can bring considerable
cost savings (Becken and Patterson, 2006). In the accommodation sector,
energy efficiency has been achieved though building design and improved insu-
lation, together with energy efficiency strategies such as the introduction of
renewable energy schemes (Dalton et al, 2008; Önüt and Soner, 2006).
However, given the relatively low contribution made by the accommodation
sector to tourism emissions as a whole, such a strategy can only make a small,
albeit positive, contribution to low-carbon tourism.
On the other hand, improving energy efficiency in the transport sector has
far greater potential, given its high share of carbon emissions. Both the avia-
tion and automobile industries have been developing increasingly fuel efficient
models. Airlines expect to improve fuel efficiency in some classes of aircraft by
20 to 30 per cent by 2024 (Bows et al, 2009b). Additional gains can be made
through more efficient management of air traffic routes, and by increasing seat
density. However, given the anticipated increase in demand for flights, any
energy efficiency gains are likely to be lost simply because of the predicted
growth in air travel. Even with a 'top end' improved technology scenario, pas-
senger growth rates, it is argued, will cancel out technology improvements as
aviation is 'technically mature' (Bows et al, 2009b, p21). Most commentators
now argue that there is limited scope for further development (Becken and
Hay, 2007; Bows et al, 2009b; Chapman, 2007; Peeters, 2007). Bows et al
(2009b) note two problems with the 'technology will save us' approach pre-
sented by some advocates. Firstly, innovation is risk-laden for individual
companies when there may be relatively small gains to be made; and secondly,
