This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 07 February 2015, At: 07:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Estimating the carbon footprint of

Australian tourism
a b c d
Larry Dwyer , Peter Forsyth , Ray Spurr & Serajul Hoque
a
School of Marketing, Australian School of Business , University of
New South Wales , Sydney, Australia
b
Department of Economics , Monash University , Melbourne,
Australia
c
School of Marketing , University of New South Wales , Sydney,
Australia
d
STCRC Research Fellow , Monash University , Melbourne,
Australia
Published online: 02 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Larry Dwyer , Peter Forsyth , Ray Spurr & Serajul Hoque (2010) Estimating
the carbon footprint of Australian tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:3, 355-376, DOI:
10.1080/09669580903513061

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580903513061

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 18, No. 3, April 2010, 355–376

Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism

Larry Dwyera∗ , Peter Forsythb , Ray Spurrc and Serajul Hoqued
a
School of Marketing, Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia; b Department of Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; c School of
Marketing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; d STCRC Research Fellow, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 5 March 2009; final version received 17 November 2009)
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

This paper explores the issues in estimating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
the tourism industry and related activity in Australia. The scope of tourism consists
of the economic activities defined as “tourism characteristic” and “tourism connected”
as defined in the Australian Tourism Satellite Account (TSA). Two approaches are
employed and contrasted – a “production approach” and an “expenditure approach”.
Depending on the approach, tourism contributes between 3.9% and 5.3% of total industry
GHG in Australia. The rationale for each approach is explained. The GHG emissions
have been estimated for 2003–2004, the latest year for which detailed industry GHG
emissions data are available in a form suitable for this type of analysis. Tourism’s
GHG emissions are compared with other industries in the Australian economy. The
policy implications of the results are discussed. It should be possible to adopt a broadly
similar method for any destination with TSA – enabling tourism stakeholders to play an
informed role in assessing appropriate and effective climate change mitigation strategies
for their destination.
Keywords: carbon sinks; climate change; ecological footprint; emissions; environment;
socioeconomic impacts

Introduction
A major cause of contemporary climate change is the build–up of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) in the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2 ; Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC], 2007a, p. 97). The IPCC has predicted an average global rise
in temperature of 1.4◦ C to 5.8◦ C between 1990 and 2100 (IPCC, 2007b). Increasingly, the
shorthand term “carbon footprint” is used to refer to the amount of GHG emissions associ-
ated with the production and consumption of goods and services at the level of an individual
firm, industry or entire economy. For present purposes this term means the carbon/GHG
emissions from the tourism sector in Australia.
In the 2003 Djerba Declaration, the United Nations World Tourism Organization,
the United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization
(UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008) acknowledged the two-way relationship between tourism
and climate change. Climate change has a substantial capacity to affect destination com-
petitiveness with impacts on tourist flows and expenditure. In turn, tourism is a major
contributor to climate change through the use of fossil fuels and emissions of GHGs.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: l.dwyer@unsw.edu.au
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09669580903513061
http://www.informaworld.com
 356 L. Dwyer et al.

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 GHGs, mainly CO2 . Because of the extensive use of
energy-intensive technologies that deliver tourist amenities and to construct and operate new
infrastructure, accommodations and other facilities, energy use in tourism destinations may
be greater than that associated with other similar-sized communities (Kelly & Williams,
2007). Tourism destinations also rely on substantial amounts of energy for importing food
and other material goods, transporting water and disposing waste (Becken, Simmons, &
Frampton, 2003; Gössling, 2002). Tourist attractions, ski destinations and theme parks,
all with use of mechanized activities, may also generate substantial energy demands in
destinations (Becken et al., 2003). Energy is also used in upstream and downstream business
functions (e.g. tour office administration, marketing and goods transportation) that support
the delivery of these activities (Becken et al. 2003; Lundie, Dwyer, & Forsyth, 2007).
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

According to the UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (2008), emissions from tourism, including

transportation, accommodation and activities (excluding the energy used for construction
and facilities, for example), account for about 5% of global CO2 emissions. However, other
GHGs also make substantial contributions to global warming. For tourism, emissions from
aviation are particularly relevant. In 2005, tourism’s contribution to global warming was
estimated to contribute between 5% and 14% to the overall warming caused by human
emissions of GHG (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). Air travel in particular accounts for a
major share of tourism-related energy use, particularly for developing countries and island
destinations where the vast majority of tourists arrive by airplane (Becken, 2002; Gössling,
2000, 2002).
As awareness of the impacts of tourism-related energy consumption on global environ-
ments increases, and as knowledge of energy consumption’s effects on tourism destination
sustainability grows, so does the need for planners to develop proactive energy manage-
ment strategies (Dwyer & Kim, 2003). Countries worldwide have obligations to meet under
the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The KP is a “cap and trade” system that imposes national caps
on the emissions of Annex I (developed) countries. Under the KP, industrialized coun-
tries agreed to reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% of their 1990 levels by the
end of 2012, with varying reductions agreed to by the signatories. The objective of the
KP is to limit emissions of GHGs in the atmosphere (www.unfccc.int/kyoto-protocol).
As the UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (2008, p. 13) has recently stated, “The tourism sector
has an important place in that (Kyoto Protocol) framework, given its global economic
and social value, its role in sustainable development and its strong relationships with
climate”.
Most GHG emissions produced from within the destination are included under the
KP accounting rules. At this time the KP extends only to an obligation on parties to
monitor emissions from international aviation. Consequently there is no requirement on
the signatories to actually estimate and report on these emissions. Given this, we have
included international aviation emissions as “non-Kyoto” in the tables constructed below,
even though we acknowledge that the protocol’s intent is to cover these emissions. There
also are GHG emissions that are produced in other countries as part of their production
of goods and services which are subsequently imported for consumption by tourists in the
destination. Individual countries do not assume any responsibility under the KP for the
carbon footprint from goods produced outside of their jurisdiction.
In order to meet the objectives of the protocol, Annex I countries are required to prepare
policies and measures for the reduction of GHGs in their respective countries, including
general statements of action. The tourism industry, alongside other industry sectors, is
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 357

expected to play its role in reducing GHG emissions wherever possible, and the Davos
Declaration (2007) identifies roles for tourism stakeholders. Among the tourism-specific
strategies emphasized by the Davos Declaration are the mitigation of GHG emissions,
the adaptation of tourism businesses and destinations to changing climate conditions, the
application of the existing and new technologies to improve energy efficiency and securing
financial resources to assist regions and countries in need. Tourism stakeholders will be
expected to play their role in the strategy’s formulation and implementation (Department
of Energy, Resources and Tourism, 2008). Accurate information on the carbon footprint
of each of the various sectors that comprise “the tourism industry” is essential for these
tasks.
Since tourism is not a traditional sector in the System of National Accounts, no country
possesses comprehensive national statistics on the energy demand or emissions specifically
resulting from tourism. However, for efficient policy resource allocation, policies to mitigate
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

climate change need to be based on as much detailed information as is available regarding

the emissions of GHG associated with tourism activity. Recognizing this, some attempts
have recently been made to measure tourism’s carbon footprint. A study commissioned
by the WTO, UNEP and WMO has estimated the global direct emissions of CO2 from
three main tourism sectors – transportation, accommodation and activities – as well as the
contribution to radiative forcing (i.e. including all GHGs) for the year 2005 (UNWTO-
UNEP-WMO, 2008). The total world tourism carbon footprint is estimated to be 1307
CO2 million tonnes (mt) from total world emissions of 26,400 CO2 mt, with international
and domestic tourism emissions from three main subsectors estimated to represent between
4.0% and 6.0% of global emissions in 2005, with a best estimate of 5.0% (UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO, 2008, Table 11.6). A global average tourist journey is estimated to generate 0.25
t of CO2 emissions. To produce these estimates the research team commissioned by the
UNWTO-UNEP-WMO had to meet the challenges of data inconsistencies and availability
problems.
Unfortunately, there has been little attempt to measure the CO2 emissions associated
with individual tourism destinations. One exception is the investigation by Patterson and
McDonald (2004), who combined Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) estimates with prelim-
inary work on environment accounts to measure the direct and indirect impacts of tourism
activities in New Zealand for the year 1997–1998. One component of the study was the
comparative analysis of the environmental performance of the tourism sector with other
sectors in the economy, especially using “pressure indicators” such as the CO2 loading on
the environment. The tourism sector ranked fifth largest for the total amount of energy
used and CO2 emissions released within New Zealand, when internal energy use was con-
sidered. If return overseas travel by inbound tourists was included, the tourism sector then
became the second-highest user of energy and the highest CO2 emitter out of the 25 sectors
considered (Patterson & McDonald, 2004).
Jones and Munday (2007) combined the Wales TSA estimates with pilot environment
satellite account estimates to produce direct, indirect and induced waste and GHG emissions
due to tourism demand. They used an input–output impact model to derive their estimates.
More recently, Jackson, Kotsovos and Morissette (2008) provided a first set of estimates of
energy use and GHG emissions for two Canadian tourism industries, air transportation and
food and beverage services. They found that air transportation directly generated 1.03 t of
GHG emissions for every $1000 of tourism output (in nominal terms) in 2002, while food
and beverage services produced only 0.03 t of emissions for every $1000 of output. The
authors’ emphasize that their exploratory study demonstrates that it is possible to link the
TSA with Environment Satellite Account.
 358 L. Dwyer et al.

Carbon footprints are likely to vary greatly between destinations, reflecting climate,
culture, energy sources, available technology, activities undertaken and the country of
origin of the tourists. Thus each destination should be treated individually. Unfortunately,
the development of a carbon footprint for any destination is not straightforward, as there
are several different interpretations given to what the carbon footprint is and what it
should encompass. In their study of tourism’s carbon footprint in New Zealand, Becken
and Patterson (2006) have suggested two approaches for accounting for CO2 emissions
from tourism: a bottom-up analysis involving industry and tourist analyses and a top-down
analysis using environmental accounting. They demonstrated for New Zealand that both
approaches result in similar estimates of the degree to which tourism contributes to national
CO2 emissions. The bottom-up analysis provides detailed information on energy end-uses
and the main drivers of CO2 emissions. These results can be used for the development
of targeted industry-based GHG reduction strategies. The top-down analysis allows the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

assessment of tourism as a sector within the wider economy, for example with the purpose
of comparing tourism’s eco-efficiency with other sectors, or the impact of macroeconomic
instruments such as carbon charges.
While valuable, each of these studies has its limitations. In particular, they focus only
on some sectors of the tourism industry. No attempt has been made to define the scope
of the “tourism industry” in a comprehensive way. The UNWTO-UNEP-WMO study
provides estimates for five disparate sectors associated with tourism (air transport, car,
other transport, accommodation, other activities). The Canadian pilot study focuses only
on air transport and food and beverage services, while Becken and Patterson (2006) for
“pragmatic reasons” focus only on the tourism-characteristic industries in New Zealand’s
TSA. These characteristic industries comprise accommodation and catering services; road,
rail and water passenger transport; air transport; other transport and transport services;
equipment hiring; and cultural and recreational services. Becken and Patterson (2006) have
stated that the tourism-characteristic industries, as defined in the New Zealand TSA, are
usually summarized as “passenger transport, accommodation and tourist attractions”. Their
study does not include restaurants and other catering services because of their heterogeneous
nature. The so-called “tourism-related industries” also lie outside the scope of the New
Zealand study.
A further limitation of some studies is their focus on CO2 emissions from the direct
impacts of tourism. The indirect impacts are associated with the outputs of each industry
associated with supplying inputs to the tourism industry. The estimation of both the direct
and indirect emissions is necessary to provide a complete picture of tourism’s carbon
footprint. While Patterson and McDonald (2004) estimate the indirect as well as direct
GHG emissions, a limitation of the forecasts made by these authors was a failure to use
computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis to determine the indirect effects on output
of tourism, which increases over time. Incorporating inter-industry effects, CGE modeling
in other contexts indicates that increases in tourism to a destination change industry balance
rather then generate a large expansion of economic activity (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2003,
2004).
The focus of the present study is on the carbon footprint of the Australian tourism
industry. We provide a comprehensive estimate of tourism’s carbon footprint based on the
definition of “tourism” in a national TSA. Jackson et al. (2008) in their pilot study linked
two Canadian satellite accounts, the tourism and the environment account, to provide a
set of estimates of GHG emissions for two tourism industries, air transport and food and
beverage services. The measures presented here also include all the direct and indirect
GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) produced by Australian tourism.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 359

The paper is structured as follows: the next section outlines the method adopted to
estimate the carbon footprint Australian tourism. The definition of tourism consists of
the economic activities included in the Australian (ATSA). Two approaches are employed
and contrasted – a “production approach” and an “expenditure approach”. The rationale
for each approach is explained. Section three presents the carbon footprint of Australian
tourism estimated using the production method, while section four shows the results using
the expenditure method. The carbon footprint has been estimated for 2003–2004, the latest
year for which detailed industry GHG emissions data are available in a form suitable for this
type of estimate. In section five, tourism’s carbon footprint is compared with other industries
in the Australian economy. The final section discusses some of the policy implications of
the results.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Two approaches to estimate Australian tourism’s carbon footprint

To estimate the carbon footprint of tourism, it is important to define the scope of analysis
and this means defining the tourism industry. For present purposes, the Australian tourism
industry is as defined in the ATSA (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2007). In the
ATSA, tourism-characteristic industries are defined as those industries that either would
cease to exist in their present form or would be significantly affected if tourism were to
cease. In the ATSA, for an industry to be “characteristic”, at least 25% of its output must be
consumed by visitors. In the ATSA, six industries are classified as “characteristic”. These
are:

r Travel agency and tour operator services

r Taxi transport
r Air and water transport
r Motor vehicle hiring
r Accommodation
r Cafés, restaurants and food outlets

Tourism-connected industries are the industries other than tourism-characteristic indus-

tries, for which a tourism-related product is directly identifiable and where the products are
consumed by visitors in volumes which are significant for the visitor and/or the producer
(TSA, RMF, 2008). Tourism-connected industries in the ATSA include the following:

r Clubs, pubs, taverns and bars

r Other road transport
r Rail transport
r Food manufacturing
r Beverage manufacturing
r Transport equipment manufacturing
r Other manufacturing
r Retail trade
r Casinos and other gambling services
r Libraries, museums and arts
r Other entertainment services
r Education
r Ownership of dwellings
 360 L. Dwyer et al.

Production-based approach Expenditure-based approach

Includes
• GHG emissions directly produced by tourism
industries
• GHG emissions from Australian-based
airlines (inbound and outbound services)
• GHG emissions from imports used as inputs
in producing goods and services for sale to the
Australian tourism industry
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015
Includes
• GHG emissions associated with
expenditures in Australia by foreign and
domestic tourists
• GHG emissions from air travel by tourists
on Australian and non-Australian-based
airlines
• GHG emissions associated with
expenditure by outbound Australian residents
within Australia prior to or following flights

(hotels, internal transport and the like)

Excludes Excludes
• GHG emissions of non-Australian-based • GHG emissions associated with expenditure
airlines (inbound and outbound services) on outbound airfares

• GHG emissions from production of imports • GHG emissions associated with expenditure
directly purchased by tourists by Australian outbound travellers on goods
and services in destinations outside Australia

Figure 1. Production- and expenditure-based approaches: inclusions and exclusions.

All remaining products and industries are classified as “all other goods and services” or
“all other industries” in the ATSA.
Even within the TSA, however, there are several alternative measures of “tourism”. This
paper provides both production- and expenditure-based estimates of Australian tourism’s
carbon footprint. The expenditure-based estimates are for the carbon footprint which
arises from the expenditures by non-Australian-based and domestic tourists on tourism
in Australia, as reported in the ATSA. The items included within and excluded from each
measure are listed in Figure 1.
These differences in calculation give rise to consequential differences in some of the
component measures of Australian tourism’s carbon footprint. The results are set out in
sections three and four.

Production-based measure of Australian tourism’s carbon footprint

Using the production approach, total (direct plus indirect) GHG emissions in 2003–2004
were estimated to be 54.4 mt, comprising direct and indirect emissions: total direct GHG
emissions were 26.3 mt, and total indirect GHG emissions were 28.1 mt.
Table 1 provides the results of the production-based calculation of Australian tourism’s
carbon footprint. The table includes five columns. Column 1 includes GHG emissions from
Australian-based production and consumption – these count as Australian emissions for the
KP measurement purposes. Column 2 includes GHG emissions from Australian-supplied
international aviation. These are Australian-sourced emissions, though they currently are
not counted for the KP measurement purposes. Column 3, also not counted for the KP
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 361

Table 1. Production-based carbon footprint (GHGs in mt), 2003–2004.

Kyoto Non-Kyoto
Total GHGs Share of
Australian International aviation Foreign- (Kyoto + Total direct
Kyoto Australian sourced non-Kyoto) & indirect GHGs
Source emissions airlines emissions emissions emissions emissions (%)
1. Direct emissions 10.5 10.5 19.3
from tourism
industries
2. Emissions from 11.1 11.1 20.2
tourism-related
private motor vehicle
use
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

3. Emissions from 4.7 4.7 8.6

international aviation
4. Total direct GHG 21.6 4.7 26.3 48.4
emissions
5. Indirect emissions 18.8 18.8 34.6
from tourism inputs
6. Emissions from 8.1 8.1 14.8
imports
7. Emissions from 1.2 1.2 2.2
transport of imports
8. Total indirect GHG 18.8 9.3 28.1 51.7
emissions
9. Total direct and 40.4 4.7 9.3 54.4 100.00
indirect GHG
Emissions

Note: Table 1 data record the estimates of CO2 -equivalent emissions in million tonnes (mt). As discussed in the
text, we have included international air services emissions as “non-Kyoto” given that countries including Australia
do not actually report on them at the present time.

measurement purposes, includes GHG emissions from foreign producers, of either aviation
services or imports used directly or indirectly by Australian tourism. Column 4 provides
the total GHG emissions for each row. These are expressed as percentages in the column 5.
The shares of direct and indirect GHG emissions in total GHG emissions were 48.3%
and 51.7%, respectively. Of the total 54.4 mt of CO2 emissions, 14.0 mt fall outside the
commitments included under the Kyoto Protocol.

Direct GHG emissions

The production-based total direct GHG emissions by the Australian tourism industry in
2003–2004 was 10.5 mt (row 1). This is based on the estimates of GHG emissions directly
associated with industrial production, based on the Monash Multi-Regional Forecasting
(MMRF) model’s Green database (MMRF–Green; Adams, 2006), which in turn uses data
from the Department of Climate Change (DCC, 2006, 2007a, 2007b). The scope of “tourism
industries” is based on the identified tourism characteristics and the connected industries
listed in the national TSA. The GHG emissions from these tourism industries were then
derived by applying to total GHG emissions the ratio of tourism output to total output of
these industries. The main sources of direct GHG emissions are illustrated in Figure 2.
 362 L. Dwyer et al.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Figure 2. Shares of direct GHG emissions by tourism industry, 2003–2004.

As displayed in Figure 2, domestic air transport was the largest component of tourism
industry GHG emissions at 56.7%, followed by accommodation services (9.2%), shopping
(7.1%), non-air transport (6.6%) and food and drink (2.8%). Food and drink refers to animal
food (meat and dairy) and other food and drink; non-air transport refers to road transport,
rail transport, water transport and other transport; and shopping refers to textile, clothing
and footwear, wood products, paper products, chemical products and nonmetal and mineral
products.
The estimates in Table 1 are directly comparable to the GHGs or carbon footprint of
other industries as represented in the DCC statistics on industry GHG emissions (Adams,
2006) with two notable exceptions. These are emissions from tourist use of motor vehicles
(row 2) and emissions associated with international air travel supplied by non-Australian-
based airlines (row 3). Both of these pose particular problems for the estimation of the
tourism industry’s carbon footprint.

Fuel used by motor vehicles for tourism

The production of fuel used by motor vehicles creates emissions, but in addition, the
consumption or use of the fuel also generates emissions. Both domestic and international
tourists generate GHGs when using rental cars. Tourism expenditure data from the ATSA
were used to estimate the use of fuel for both domestic and international tourists renting
motor vehicles, and these in turn were used to estimate GHGs.
Additionally, households that use motor vehicles for tourism experiences generate
GHGs in this activity. In our view the GHG emissions created by tourists’ use of motor
vehicles should therefore be included as part of the carbon footprint.
Australian GHG emissions from motor vehicles used by tourists were derived as follows:
The ATSA indicates that tourism’s consumption of fuel for the year 2003–2004 was $4828
million (ABS, 2007). Tourism’s consumption of fuel in liters was estimated by dividing the
tourism consumption of fuel in million dollars by the average price per liter, which was
$0.9449 for the year 2003–2004 (MotorMouth, 2007). Finally, tourism GHG emissions from
motor vehicles used by tourists were calculated by multiplying the tourism consumption
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 363

of fuel in liters by the amount of emissions per liter of fuel burned. We assume that petrol
cars emit 2.3 kg of CO2 per liter of fuel burned (Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and the Environment, 2009).
Emissions from tourist-related private motor vehicle use were estimated to be 11.1 mt.
The GHG emissions from household use of motor vehicles were first estimated (DCC,
2006). The proportion of GHG emissions due to household use of motor vehicles for
tourism-related travel was then calculated using ATSA data on tourism-related motor vehicle
fuel purchases by households (ABS, 2007). This enabled the estimation of the GHGs emitted
from tourist-related motor vehicle use.
In the DCC (2006) data, GHGs from the use of fuel in motor vehicles in Australia are
included in the GHG emissions of the household sector and not of the industrial sector. Thus,
while tourism use of household motor vehicles is another source of GHGs, it is not strictly
part of the “tourism industry” when defined in production-based terms. However, because
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

of the significance of this component of tourism-generated GHGs (from both domestic and
international visitor activity), they have been identified and included in this study.

Australian airlines’ international operations

The inclusion of GHGs from the production of international airline services by Australian-
based airlines reflects the fact that such production is included in the national TSA (ABS,
2007). For the production-based measures, an estimate of the GHG emissions resulting
from Australian airlines’ international services was obtained by multiplying the Qantas
international passenger services by an estimate of the emissions per passenger kilometer. In
2003–2004, all but a very small proportion of international services by Australian airlines
were operated by Qantas and its subsidiaries. Qantas provided 55,395 million passenger
kilometer (pkm) of international services in 2003–2004 (Qantas, 2003–2004). Approxi-
mately 80% of the relevant flights use Boeing 747s with 20% using Airbus A330s. Estimates
from the German Aerospace Institute (DLR) indicate that Boeing 747s produce GHGs at
an average of 0.09 kg/pkm, while Airbus A330s (or equivalents) produce 0.065 kg/pkm
(Schaefer, 2006). Using the weighted average of 0.085 kg/pkm, an estimate of 4.709 mt
of GHG emissions is obtained. These estimates allow only for the passenger component
of flights and exclude airfreight, which is not counted as tourism. GHG emissions from
international aviation do not fall under the KP.
Adding rows 1, 2 and 3 of Table 1, the total direct production-based GHG emissions from
tourism are estimated to be 26.3 mt with 21.6 mt of these falling within the commitments
identified under the KP.

Indirect GHG emissions

Indirect GHG emissions include those associated with the production of firms that provide
inputs to the tourism industry. This is to recognize that the tourism GHG emissions include
those associated not only with tourism production but also with the intermediate products
that are purchased by the tourism industry to produce the goods and services that meet
visitor needs. These effects are important to consider because the overall carbon footprint
greatly depends upon the total effect (direct plus indirect). An input–output model was
employed to calculate the indirect GHG emissions from tourism industry sector.
 364 L. Dwyer et al.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Figure 3. Shares of indirect GHG emissions from tourism purchases, 2003–2004.

Indirect GHG emissions are associated with GHGs generated in producing inputs used
by the tourism industry (row 5), emissions from imports (row 6) and emissions from
transport of inputs (row 7).

Indirect emissions from tourism inputs

Indirect GHG emissions from tourism inputs are estimated to be 19.2 mt. This estimate
was derived from the calculations of the outputs of each industry associated with supplying
inputs to tourism as recorded in the database and input–output structure of the Australian
economy embodied in the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies MMRF model1
(Adams, 2006) based on the data from the DCC (2006). However, this estimate includes
0.4 mt from indirect use of aviation, which has already been counted in the direct estimates.
It was therefore deducted from the 19.2 mt, giving a total of 18.8 mt.
The main items comprising indirect emissions from tourism inputs are illustrated in
Figure 3. Electricity produced by coal was the largest component of indirect GHG emissions
at 37.44%, followed by agriculture, forestry and fishery 30.64%, gas (4.06%), chemical
products (3.66%), petrol refinery (3.49%), electricity produced by gas (2.82%), iron steel
(2.48%), air transport (2.31%), business services (1.84%), trade (1.51%) and road transport
(1.45%), as illustrated in Figure 3.

Emissions from imports

GHGs from imports are emissions produced in other countries as a result of producing
goods and services for export to Australia.
The Australian TSA indicates that the tourism industry purchases $36.3 billion
of inputs (output less gross value added). Gross indirect output was $48.7 billion,
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 365

of which it is estimated that $25.4 billion represents indirect gross value added pro-
duced in Australia (ABS, 2007). The total import content of Australian tourism pro-
duction and sales is $10.9 billion, which is the difference between $36.3 billion and
$25.4 billion.
The pattern of imports was estimated using the Australian input–output structure in
the MMRF model (Adams, 2006). It was assumed that GHG emission from the pro-
duction of each individual product bears the same ratio to output as it does in Aus-
tralia (i.e. it is assumed that equally emission-intensive technologies are used in Aus-
tralia and abroad). The direct GHG emissions from production are estimated to be
3.2 mt.
To derive the indirect GHG emissions from imported inputs, it was assumed that the
ratio of direct to indirect was the same as that for total tourism. On this assumption, an
estimate of 8.1 mt of GHG emissions is obtained. GHG emissions from imports do not fall
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

under the KP.

Emissions from the transport of imports

The estimate of emissions from shipping imports to Australia was based on an estimate of
the total GHG emissions from shipping goods to and from Australia, and the tourism import
share (4.8%) of total imports and exports in value terms. This gives a figure of 1.2 mt of
GHG emissions, none of which fall within the KP. Adding rows 5, 6 and 7 of Table 1 we
get total indirect emissions of 28.1 mt. Of this, 18.8 mt fall within the KP.
Using the production-based measure of the carbon footprint, the total global emissions
associated with Australian tourism was 54.5 mt in 2003–2004. Of this, 40.4 mt fall within
the KP.

Expenditure-based measure of Australia’s tourism carbon footprint

Using the expenditure approach we estimate total direct GHG emissions to be 29.5 mt and
total indirect GHG emissions to be 32.0 mt.
Total (direct plus indirect) GHG emissions are estimated to be 61.5 mt. The major
components are displayed in Table 2, which has the same columns as Table 1.

Direct GHG emissions

Of the 29.5 mt direct GHG emissions, 21.6 mt fall under the KP. GHG emissions from
tourism industries and motor vehicles are the same as for Table 1.
Table 3 provides estimates of the GHG emissions, by country, associated with in-
ternational aviation. In the expenditure-based measures, international aviation is handled
differently – the GHG emissions associated with carrying inbound visitors, traveling on
Australian and non-Australian-based airlines, are included, but the GHG emissions from
airlines carrying outbound Australian residents are excluded.
GHG emissions from international aviation are estimated to be 7.9 mt. Of this total,
2.1 mt. is estimated to be generated by Australian-based airlines and 5.8 mt. from overseas-
based airlines. The figure of 2.1 mt for Australian-based carriers differs from the 4.7 mt
estimated using the production approach, since the production-based estimates include
international inbound and outbound air travel supplied by Australian airlines, while the
expenditure estimates only include inbound services of Australian airlines.
 366 L. Dwyer et al.

Table 2. Expenditure-based carbon footprint (GHG in mt), 2003–2004.

Kyoto Non-Kyoto
Total GHG Share of
Australian International aviation Foreign- (Kyoto + Total direct
Kyoto Australian sourced non-Kyoto) & indirect GHG
Source emissions airlines emissions emissions emissions emissions (%)
1. Direct emissions from 10.5 10.5 17.1
tourism industries
2. Emissions from 11.1 11.1 18.1
tourism-related private
motor vehicle use
3. Emissions from 2.1 2.1 3.4
international
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

aviation – Australian
4. Emissions from 5.8 5.8 9.4
international
aviation – non-
Australian-based
5. Total direct GHG 21.6 2.1 5.8 29.5 48.0
emissions
6. Indirect emissions 18.3 18.3 29.5
from tourism inputs
(excluding outbound
aviation)
7. Emissions from 7.7 7.7 12.5
imports
8. Emissions from 3.2 3.2 5.2
imports directly
purchased
9. Emissions from 1.6 1.6 2.6
transport of imports
10. Emissions from 1.2 1.2 1.9
international aviation –
non-Australian-based
11. Total indirect GHG 18.3 13.7 32.0 52.0
emissions
12. Total direct and 39.9 2.1 19.5 61.5 100.0
indirect GHG
emissions

Note: Table data record the estimates of CO2 -equivalent emissions in million tonnes (mt). As discussed in the text,
we have included international air services emissions as “non-Kyoto” given that countries including Australia do
not actually report on them at the present time.

In 2003–2004 the great majority of Australian-based international services were pro-

vided by the Qantas Group (Qantas, 2003–2004). The GHG emissions were based on
passenger kilometers from major inbound tourism markets as identified from Tourism
Research Australia’s International Visitor Survey (Tourism Australia, 2004), Qantas mar-
ket shares, adjustments for non-direct flying and scaled down to allow for multiple
destination visits (e.g. where a UK visitor makes a stopover in Hong Kong)2 . The
GHG emissions associated with Australian-based airlines (Qantas Group) are shown in
column 2.
Since these estimates were derived, a new source of information on aviation emissions
has become available. In a recently published report, Qantas (2008) has presented data on
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 367

Table 3. Expenditure-based emissions from international aviation (Australian and foreign, in mt).

Country of residence Qantas Group Foreign airlines Total

New Zealand 0.116 0.272 0.388

Japan 0.314 0.610 0.938∗
Hong Kong 0.060 0.108 0.168
Singapore 0.064 0.212 0.276
Malaysia 0.018 0.184 0.204∗
Indonesia 0.024 0.056 0.080
Taiwan 0.008 0.122 0.130
Thailand 0.014 0.088 0.104∗
Korea 0.020 0.256 0.280∗
China 0.086 0.192 0.278
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Other Asia 0.020 0.146 0.166

USA 0.288 0.470 0.908∗
Canada 0.056 0.114 0.226∗
UK 0.514 1.322 1.852∗
Germany 0.116 0.234 0.354∗
Other Europe 0.270 0.768 1.038∗
Other countries (average of above) 0.130 0.288 0.418
Total 2.118 5.442 7.874∗

Source: Authors’ estimates.

Note: ∗ indicates that add-ons are included (Japan 0.014; Malaysia 0.002; Thailand 0.002; Korea 0.002; USA
0.075; UK 0.016; Germany 0.016; other Europe 0.68). The add-on total is 0.314 Mt.

actual emissions of CO2 from its fuel use. The estimation as described in the paper is very
close to the actual data recorded for Qantas. Interestingly, the actual emissions in terms of
passenger kilometers are less than those estimated by some researchers (e.g. Becken, 2002;
Gössling, 2002) for aviation in Europe and New Zealand. The estimates derived here were
based on the very detailed study of fuel burned for specific types of flights such as flights
from Sydney to Singapore using a Boeing 747-400 aircraft or a flight from Sydney to Hong
Kong using an Airbus A330. This information is much more detailed and accurate for our
purposes than those estimates employing broad averages based on estimated fuel use for
other airlines such as Lufthansa and British Airways. The estimates in this paper are also
close to those of Scheelhaase and Grimme (2007). In contrast with flights within Europe,
for example, flights to and from and within Australia tend to be much more direct with fewer
connections required. In addition, long-haul flights, as are associated with Australia, burn
less fuel per passenger kilometer than short- to medium-haul flights (e.g. the A330s used
on some Qantas routes have the least emissions per passenger kilometer of all jet aircraft
prior to the introduction of the A380). Australian skies, moreover, tend to be less congested
with less fuel-burning air traffic control delays that occurs in Europe. These reasons could
explain the lower figures of actual CO2 emissions for the Australian case.
Table 3 shows the expenditure-based GHG emissions associated with inbound visitor
return travel. Column 3 of Table 3 indicates the non-Australian-based aviation component
of direct GHG emissions. The total, in column 4, includes an allowance for short-haul
connecting flights in origin regions. The estimates of GHG emissions from international
aviation do not depend upon distance only, but allow for market volume and transit destina-
tions en route to Australia. Of the countries included in this table, travel to Australia from
the United Kingdom, with 1.852 mt CO2 for a return trip, generates the highest emissions.
 368 L. Dwyer et al.

This is followed by other Europe (1.038 mt) and Japan (0.938 mt). The least GHG emissions
are associated with Indonesia (0.080 mt), Thailand (0.104 mt) and Taiwan (0.166 mt).
GHG emissions were estimated to be 0.126 g per passenger kilometer for short-haul
flights (Scheelhaase & Grimme, 2007) and 0.085 g per passenger kilometer for long-haul
flights (from DLR; Schaefer, 2006).
It should be noted that there is a considerable range of estimates of the CO2 emissions
from aviation. The estimates here are in the low-to-middle portion of this range. The aircraft
used on Australian international routes are large and relatively new, and thus their emissions
per passenger kilometer are relatively low. Australian routes are less congested than northern
Hemisphere routes, and flights are more direct. As noted, an allowance has been made for
multiple trips, which are important for long-haul destinations such as Australia.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Indirect GHG emissions

Indirect GHG emissions associated with tourist expenditure include those from tourism
inputs (row 6), tourism imports (row 7), directly purchased imports (row 8), transport of
imports (row 9) and non-Australian-based aviation (row 10).

Indirect emissions from tourism inputs and imports

Indirect emissions from tourism inputs total 18.3 mt. Emissions from tourism-related
imports total 7.7 mt. These amounts are slightly different from the figures of 18.8 mt and
8.1 mt in Table 1 because outbound international aviation services by Australian airlines
are excluded in Table 2.
The major emissions from tourism inputs are associated with electricity (produced
by coal, gas, oil; 40.29%); agriculture, forestry and fishery (30.64%); chemical products
(3.66%); and petrol refinery (3.49%).

Emissions from directly purchased imports

As discussed above, GHGs from imports are emissions produced in other countries as
a result of producing goods and services for export to Australia. In Table 2 these are
estimated on the same basis as emissions from imports used indirectly. Assuming that
equally emission-intensive technologies are used in Australia and overseas, emissions from
directly purchased imports are estimated to be 3.2 mt.

GHG emissions relating to transport of imports

The estimate of emissions from shipping imports to Australia was based on an estimate of
the total GHG emissions from shipping goods to and from Australia and the tourism import
share (4.8%) of total imports and exports in value terms. These are estimated to be 1.6 mt.
This is higher than given in Table 1 (1.2 mt) because it includes an estimate for imports
directly purchased by tourists.

Indirect emissions from non-Australian-based aviation

These are the same (1.2 mt) as estimated in Table 1.
Table 2 indicates that total (direct and indirect) GHG emissions are estimated to be
61.5 mt. As compared with the production-based approach, the expenditure-based measures
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 369

have higher global GHG emissions because they include more air transport along with
GHG emissions associated with imports provided directly to tourists. The Australian KP
emissions are calculated as 39.9 mt with an additional 21.6 mt emissions produced by the
global activity generated by tourists to and within Australia.

Comparison of tourism with non-tourism industries

Given the different measures of what constitutes tourism, there is no single ideal measure
to compare tourism’s emissions with those of other industries. Tourism is unlike other
industries because of its complex multi-product structure, the inclusion of some household
emissions (private tourism-related motor vehicle use) and the heavy reliance of many
destinations on international aviation services to deliver inbound tourists. Where other
industries are normally identified on a production basis, tourism is usually defined from
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

the expenditure side through its pattern of demand (i.e. tourism products are what tourists
purchase).
In this section we compare tourism’s direct carbon footprint with that of other industries
in the Australian economy. We employ three methods for comparison. The first relates to KP
emissions only. The second compares tourism with other industries, using the production-
based method for estimating GHG emissions, while the third relates to the expenditure
method. The three sets of results are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that with respect to the Kyoto emissions (columns 2 and 3), tourism’s
direct emissions including emissions from tourism industries and household use of motor
vehicles for tourism purposes (21.60 mt) represent 3.93% of the total emissions (550.25 mt)
from Australian industry and households. As discussed, this figure understates the full
production and emissions from tourism, under its definition in the TSA, by excluding
some production which is included in the TSA (production associated with international
air services by Australian airlines). Using this method of estimation, tourism is the seventh-
ranked industry in terms of emissions.
Columns 4 and 5 in Table 4 show that tourism’s direct emissions including emis-
sions from tourism industries, household use of motor vehicles for tourism purposes and
Australian production of international aviation services represent 4.74% of the total emis-
sions from Australian industry and households, plus international aviation. This is based on
the TSA definition of tourism production. Some of this production is, however, associated
with emissions which do not fall within the KP (production associated with producing
international aviation services). Columns 4 and 5 correspond to the production-based car-
bon footprint of tourism. On this approach, total emissions from Australian industry are
554.95 mt. Tourism, with GHG emissions of 26.3 mt, is the sixth-ranked industry in terms
of emissions.
Columns 6 and 7 in Table 4 show that tourism’s direct emissions including emissions
from tourism industries, use of motor vehicles and the production of both Australian and
non-Australian-based international aviation services for inbound tourists represent 5.29% of
the total emissions from Australian industry and households and international aviation. This
table corresponds to the expenditure-based carbon footprint of tourism. On this approach
total emissions from Australian industry are 558.15 mt. Tourism, with GHG emissions of
29.5 mt, is Australia’s fifth-ranked industry in terms of emissions.
If the objective is to compare the proportion of tourism’s total contribution with output,
as defined by the Australian TSA, with the proportion of its contribution to emissions,
then columns 4 and 5 provide the most relevant measures. However, if the intention is to
highlight only Kyoto emissions, then columns 2 and 3 are more relevant. However, these
 370 L. Dwyer et al.

Table 4. Tourism (production and private motor vehicle use) compared to “non-tourism” economic
sector direct GHG emissions, by economic (Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation [ANZSIC]) sector, Australia, 2003–2004 (mt).

Tourism (production Tourism (production, Tourism (production,

and private private motor vehicle private motor vehicle use and
motor vehicle use and Australian-based Australian & non-Australian-
use) international aviation) based international aviation)

GHG GHG GHG

emissions Share emissions Share emissions Share
Economic sector (mt) (%) (mt) (%) (mt) (%)

Electricity and gas supply 194.00 35.26 194.00 34.96 194.00 34.76
Agriculture, forestry, fishing 130.06 23.64 130.06 23.44 130.06 23.30
Residential (transport) 44.50 8.09 44.50 8.02 44.50 7.97
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Metal products 33.88 6.16 33.88 6.10 33.88 6.07

Tourism 29.50 5.29
Road transport 26.92 4.89 26.92 4.85 26.92 4.82
Tourism 26.30 4.74
Mining 23.06 4.19 23.06 4.16 23.06 4.13
Tourism 21.60 3.93
Petroleum, coal and chemical 18.82 3.42 18.82 3.39 18.82 3.37
Accommodation, cultural & personal 15.96 2.90 15.96 2.88 15.96 2.86
Oil and gas extraction 15.03 2.73 15.03 2.71 15.03 2.69
Nonmetallic mineral products 10.35 1.88 10.35 1.86 10.35 1.85
Residential (nontransport) 9.72 1.77 9.72 1.75 9.72 1.74
International air 7.90 1.42
transport–Australian &
non-Australian-based airlines
Mining nonenergy 5.86 1.07 5.86 1.06 5.86 1.05
Air transport 4.79 0.87 4.79 0.86 4.79 0.86
International air transport – 4.70 0.85
Australian airlines
Food, beverages, tobacco 3.50 0.64 3.50 0.63 3.50 0.63
Water transport 2.22 0.40 2.22 0.40 2.22 0.40
Wood, paper and printing 2.15 0.39 2.15 0.39 2.15 0.39
Railway transport 1.69 0.31 1.69 0.30 1.69 0.30
Government administration & 1.57 0.29 1.57 0.28 1.57 0.28
defence
Water, sewerage and drainage 1.33 0.24 1.33 0.24 1.33 0.24
Other transport, services and storage 1.23 0.22 1.23 0.22 1.23 0.22
Education, health & community 1.15 0.21 1.15 0.21 1.15 0.21
services
Wholesale and retail trade 0.86 0.16 0.86 0.15 0.86 0.15
Machinery and equipment 0.48 0.09 0.48 0.09 0.48 0.09
Communication 0.46 0.08 0.46 0.08 0.46 0.08
Textile, clothing, footwear & leather 0.45 0.08 0.45 0.08 0.45 0.08
Finance, insurance, property & 0.20 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.20 0.04
business
Other manufacturing 0.02 0.004 0.02 0.004 0.02 0.004
Total 550.25 100.00 554.95 100.00 558.15 100.00

Notes: “Tourism” is not an ANZSIC economic sector and, to avoid double counting, is consequently not counted
in the total. Table data record the estimates of CO2 -equivalent emissions in million tonnes (mt).
Tourism appears three times in the left-hand column, as it is measured in three different ways.
Total in column 2 and last row represents GHG emissions from all economic (ANZSIC) sectors.
Total in column 4 and last row represents GHG emissions from all economic (ANZSIC) sectors plus emissions
from international air transport by Australian airlines.
Total in column 6 and last row represents GHG emissions from all economic (ANZSIC) sectors plus emissions
from international air transport by Australian and non-Australian airlines.
Total percentages in last row and columns 3, 5 and 7 are subject to rounding.
Source: DCC (2007a).
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 371

two alternative sets of data cannot be compared with one another because of the different
definitions of the industry that have been used in each case.
Users of this information thus need to be aware of the dangers of making comparisons
with carbon emissions from other industries and, in some cases, against the economy as a
whole. This arises because of the hybrid nature of the industry definitions and particularly the
inclusion of part of household sector emissions (private motor vehicle use), the inclusion of
Kyoto and non-Kyoto emissions and in view of the fact that indirect effects and expenditure-
based estimates (used in our columns 6 and 7) are not normally available for other industries.

Policy implications
The simplest and the most direct way in which to compare the carbon footprint of the
tourism industry with that of other industries in the economy is to use the direct production
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

of GHG emissions from tourism production of 10.5 mt (see Table 1, row 1). This paper
has pointed out that because of the enormous importance of transport, and particularly
road and international air transport, to Australian tourism, that figure gives a misleading
impression of the tourism contribution to GHG emissions. A more meaningful indicator
is provided by including emissions from private motor vehicle use for tourism purposes
(which is currently identified as part of the household production in the national accounts)
and a wider interpretation of emissions from international aviation to include those resulting
from transport of international visitors to Australia.
In addition, to fully understand the implications of tourism for GHG emissions, we
have argued that it is also necessary to consider the indirect effects of production of goods
and services for tourism consumption, also including those occurring from the production
elsewhere of goods and services imported into Australia for tourism-related use.
Different GHG emissions associated with tourism must be treated differently under
international obligations. As discussed, some of the emissions from Australian tourism
are produced in Australia, and included under Kyoto accounting rules. In addition, there
are GHG emissions from Australian firms producing in Australia, which are not included
under Kyoto rules – the main example of this is GHG emissions from Australian airlines’
international services. It is uncertain how aviation will be handled in a post-Kyoto frame-
work. Finally there are GHG emissions which are produced overseas, for example in the
production of goods which Australia imports to supply tourists or the tourism industry.
Australia, like other signatories of the KP, has the responsibility for its “KP” emissions
and has committed to reduce them. The Australian Government has committed to a target
of reducing emissions by 60% of 2000 levels by 2050 (Department of Energy, Resources
and Tourism, 2008). However, it has no specific commitments to reduce GHG emissions
from international aviation. The international aviation components of these emissions are
largely unattributed at present but remain a significant risk to the Australian tourism sector.
Although these have been categorized above as “non-Kyoto”, we acknowledge that others
may prefer to classify them as “Kyoto”. Either way, given Australia’s distance from markets,
it is important that the magnitude of this component (and future risk) be examined as
mitigation policies to be enacted to meet the challenges of climate change that may well have
serious consequences for long-haul travel. Emissions from goods and services imported
into Australia are the responsibility of other countries, but would affect Australian tourism
if their prices were to change due to the implementation of climate change mitigation
policies in supplier countries.
All of these issues create complex analytical and measurement problems that have had
to be addressed in developing the estimates included in this paper.
 372 L. Dwyer et al.

Information on tourism’s carbon footprint, particularly by the type of characteristic and

connected industry, can help industry associations and the managers of tourism enterprises
to develop tools which can help them to actively manage their emissions as part of standard
business practices, as a way to adapt to a carbon-constrained future and to manage increasing
input costs. Emissions management (measurement, monitoring and reduction strategies)
allows an enterprise to build awareness of energy consumption, identify inefficiencies and
implement strategies to achieve efficiency gains. It also informs investment decisions, such
as the value of investing in more efficient technology or renewable energy (Department of
Energy, Resources and Tourism, 2008).
In using these estimates of carbon footprint, it is important to be aware of what they seek
to measure and what they do not. A carbon footprint is essentially an accounting measure
to determine the intensity of industry’s GHG emissions. It is not an impact model. Thus,
it would not be correct to conclude that if the tourism industry were to expand or contract
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

by 10%, total GHG emissions would change by 5.44 mt (10% of 54.4 mt, see Table 1).
To better appreciate this we can distinguish between the carbon intensity and the carbon
impact of tourism.
The carbon intensity of tourism is the outcome of an economic/technical relationship
between tourism and GHG emissions. This is what is measured by tourism’s carbon footprint
as estimated in this paper. As indicated, carbon intensity measures (measured in metric
tonnes of emissions) can be developed at many levels. Thus, they can be developed for
individual tourists, individual operators, industry sectors, regions, and entire destinations
and on an international level. The focus of this paper has been on the carbon intensity of
tourism in a particular destination.
In contrast, the carbon impact of tourism is the ultimate impact on GHGs that changes in
tourism flows and expenditure will create. This is different from the carbon intensity since,
to measure the impact, it is necessary to specify what further changes in GHG emissions are
associated with changes in tourism due to the changing composition of industry following
the demand shock.
Two examples should suffice to distinguish the intensity and impact measures. For
example, if there is an increase in domestic tourism for any reason, there will be less
spending by residents on other goods and services – this reduction also affects GHGs. If
there is an increase in foreign inbound tourism, there will be more GHGs directly associated
with this tourism. However, there will be other changes taking place – as tourism exports
rise, putting upward pressure on the exchange rate, the adverse impact on the export of
non-tourism goods and services, along with a reduction in import-competing production,
will reduce GHG emissions in these industries. The net result of these industry interactive
effects can only be determined through economic modeling, preferably using a CGE model
(Dwyer, Forsyth, Madden, & Spurr, 2000; Dwyer et al., 2004). Alternatively, suppose a
policy is enacted to discourage domestic aviation, perhaps by levying a carbon tax on it.
There will be less domestic flying, but tourists will still spend more, perhaps on surface
transport, perhaps on overseas trips or perhaps on other goods and services. To estimate the
impact on GHGs of the policy, it is necessary to specify what the discouraged air travellers
do and to model the expenditure changes and their impacts. This is to recognize that
a carbon tax, if widely applied to industry, would change a number of technologies and
prices throughout the economy. A higher-priced destination may also impact adversely both
domestic and inbound tourism flows, increasing outbound tourism flows with effects on
GHG emissions in other economies. Once again, the final impact on tourism prices, overall
tourism demand and global GHG emissions require, at a minimum, economic modeling
of the changes (Berrittellaa, Bigano, Rosona, & Tol, 2006; Forsyth, Dwyer, & Spurr,
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 373

2007). CGE modeling incorporates inter-industry effects and in other contexts indicates
that increases in tourism to a destination change industry balance rather than generate a
large expansion of economic activity (Dwyer et al., 2003, 2004). Such results are clearly
significant to estimation of the carbon impacts in any destination over time and following
any shocks to tourism demand.
The tourism industry presents challenges to the estimation of its GHG intensity and im-
pacts given its diversity across different “industries” and the complexity of its products (e.g.
varieties of accommodation). Of course, if individual businesses are to develop strategies
to manage their emissions, they will need to develop their carbon footprints individually.
Notwithstanding this, as an accounting measure the carbon footprint of tourism can provide
important information to policymakers as to the GHG emissions of tourism in any destina-
tion, the breakdown of emissions by sector, including international benchmarking and the
emissions associated with different visitor segments. Kyoto and non-Kyoto emissions can
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

be distinguished as has been done above. Given the push from all quarters for all countries
to reduce their GHG emissions, the measures of carbon footprint are an essential base to
determine areas that can be addressed and strategies to be implemented to reduce emis-
sions while maintaining destination competitiveness. The approaches used also facilitate
the measurement of the carbon footprint over time. This can be expected to change accord-
ing to changes in visitor expenditure, industry structure, stakeholder actions and the policy
instruments which are put in place (Dubois & Ceron, 2006). The UNWTO-UNEP-WMO
(2008) provides a discussion on the range of technological, behavioral, managerial and
policy measures and initiatives that can bring tourism on to a more sustainable emission
pathway. Trends in emissions can be identified whether in aggregate, by industry sector
or by visitor market. To estimate the impacts of different industry interventions on overall
GHG emissions, economic modeling is required.

Conclusions
The emission of GHGs is a major cause of climate change, which is expected to have
profound effects on the destination competitiveness of countries on all continents. The
same as other industries, tourism generates GHGs directly when it sells goods and services
to tourists and indirectly when it purchases inputs which require energy in their production.
Information on tourism’s carbon footprint is essential for informed policymaking to reduce
GHG emissions of the industry.
Using the TSA definition of tourism, two broad methods have been used to estimate
the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. To our knowledge, the estimates presented are
the first that employ both a production- and an expenditure-based approach to estimate
tourism’s carbon footprint over the entire range of tourism characteristic and tourism-
connected industries in a destination. We also emphasized that a comparison of tourism’s
carbon footprint with other industries is not straightforward but depends on the economic
activities that are included in the measurements. Moreover, estimates of tourism’s future
carbon footprint will change according to changes in the composition of its characteristics
and connected industries.
These estimates of the carbon footprint of the Australian tourism industry are, to our
knowledge, the most accurate to date given the available data. The paper has explained
the differences between the production- and expenditure-based approaches and outlined
the difficulties and methods of calculating international aviation and foreign-sourced GHG
emissions. While these are not currently part of Australia’s Kyoto emissions, they are
 374 L. Dwyer et al.

nonetheless significant in the debate on global climate change and are subject to increasingly
intense international scrutiny.
Various challenges present themselves in any attempt to estimate a destination’s carbon
footprint. Researchers need to consider how improved measurements and the data necessary
for this can be derived. Nevertheless, the measurement of tourism’s carbon footprint has
relevance for any destination. Estimation of tourism’s carbon footprint represents a starting
point for the development of industry strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
If tourism industry stakeholders are to play their role in reducing industry GHG emissions
alongside other industries as part of a comprehensive post-Kyoto global climate change
response framework, a knowledge of overall emissions and the emissions by industry sector
are essential to informed debate on policy. The approach outlined above is very useful for
governments and their transport/tourism departments, tourism industry associations and
lobby groups to base strategies on a consistent data set. As we have discussed, estimation of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

tourism’s carbon footprint can provide the basis for modeling how climate change mitigation
policies will affect a destination’s tourism industry. Such knowledge is also essential in the
context of developing sustainable destination planning practices. The methods employed in
this study can form the basis for estimating the carbon footprint of any tourism destination
which has a TSA available to it.

Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was undertaken for the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre
(STCRC), Australia. A more substantial version was published as a technical paper (Forsyth et al.,
2008). Permission from the STCRC to publish the present paper is acknowledged. The authors wish
to thank Drs. Thiep Van Ho and Daniel Pambudi for their input into the wider project.

Notes on contributors
Larry Dwyer is Qantas Professor of Travel and Tourism Economics at the Australian School of
Business, University of New South Wales. His research interests are in tourism management, tourism
economics and policy.
Peter Forsyth is a Professor of Economics at Monash University, Victoria, Australia. His research
interests are microeconomics and tourism and aviation economics.
Ray Spurr works in the School of Marketing at the University of New South Wales. His primary
research interest is in tourism policy.
Serajul Hoque is a Research Fellow with the STCRC and is an economic modeller based at Monash
University.

Notes
1. The MMRF model is a multi-sectoral, multi-regional computable general equilibrium model of
the Australia economy, which recognizes an energy and gas emission accounting module that
explicitly accounts for each of the 58 industries and eight regions in the model.
2. The multiple destinations adjustment factor was calculated as follows: Data on the proportion of
visitors who had visited another country en route to and from Australia were taken from Tourism
Research Australia’s 2003–2004 International Visitor Survey (Tourism Australia, 2004) for each
of the recorded main origin markets. Estimates were made of visitors’ length of stay from each
origin market. The proportions of the days spent on trips from each destination in Australia were
estimated. Thus, for example the proportion of the days spent in Australia on a trip from New
Zealand was estimated at 0.96 and from the United States (on which multiple destinations are
common) was 0.81.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 375

References
Adams, P.D. (2006). MMRF Green database 2003–04, Centre of Policy Studies, Faculty of Business
and Economics. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2007). Australian national accounts: Tourism Satellite account
2005–06 (Cat. No. 5249.0). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved May 11,
2007, from www.abs.gov.au
Becken, S. (2002). Analysing international tourist flows to estimate energy use associated with air
travel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(2), 114–131.
Becken, S., & Patterson, M. (2006). Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions from tourism as
a key step towards achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 323–
338.
Becken, S., Simmons, D., & Frampton, C. (2003). Energy use associated with different travel choices.
Tourism Management, 24(3), 267–277.
Berrittella, M., Bigano, A., Rosona, R., & Tol, R.S.J. (2006). A general equilibrium analysis of climate
change impacts on tourism. Tourism Management, 27(5), 913–924.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Davos Declaration. (2007). Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/davos-

declaration 2007
DCC. (2006). Australian methodology for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks 2005:
Energy (transport). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved December 4, 2007,
from http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory
DCC. (2007a). Australian greenhouse emissions information system. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from http: //www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/
DCC. (2007b). National greenhouse gas inventory 2005. Canberra, Australia: Australian Govern-
ment. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/2005/pubs/inventory
2005.pdf
Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism. (2008, July). Tourism and climate change – a frame-
work for action. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. (2009). Motor vehicle
emissions. Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Government. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from
http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=158
Dubois, G., & Ceron, J.P. (2006). Tourism and climate change: Proposals for a research agenda.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 399–415.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Madden, J., & Spurr, R. (2000). Economic impact of inbound tourism under
different assumptions about the macroeconomy. Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4), 25–363.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2003). Inter-industry effects of tourism growth: Some implications
for destination managers. Tourism Economics, 9(2), 117–132.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: New and old
approaches. Tourism Management, 25, 307–317.
Dwyer, L., & Kim, C.W. (2003). Destination competitiveness: A model and indicators. Current Issues
in Tourism, 6(5), 369–413.
Forsyth, P., Dwyer, L., & Spurr, R. (2007). Climate change policies and Australian tourism (CRC
Tech Rep., December). Gold Coast, Queensland: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.
Forsyth, P., Hoque, S., Spurr, R., Dwyer, L., Ho, T.V., & Pambudi, D. (2008). Carbon footprint of the
Australia tourism industry (CRC Tech Rep., July). Gold Coast, Queensland: CRC for Sustainable
Tourism.
Gössling, S. (2000). Sustainable tourism development in developing countries: Some aspects of
energy-use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 410–425.
Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change
(Part A), 12(4), 283–302.
IPCC. (2007a). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning,
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of working group I to the fourth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 996). Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2007b). Summary for policymakers. In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van
der Linden, C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (pp. 1–186).
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
 376 L. Dwyer et al.

Jackson, C., Kotsovos, D., & Morissette, C. (2008). Linking the Canadian tourism satellite account
and the Canadian system of environmental and resource accounts to measure the environmental
impact of tourism in Canada: An exploratory study for two pilot industries. Paper presented at
the 9th International Forum on Tourism Statistics, Paris, November 19–21.
Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2007). Exploring the environmental consequences of tourism: A satellite
account approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 164–172.
Kelly, J., & Williams, P.W. (2007). Modelling tourism destination energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions: Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(1), 67–
90.
Lundie, S., Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (2007). Environmental-economic measures of tourism yield.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 503–519.
MotorMouth. (2007). Motormouth news, 33 (October 2004). Australia. Retrieved November 14, 2007,
from http://motormouth.com.au/newsletters/0410.htm
Patterson, M.G., & McDonald, G. (2004). How clean and green is New Zealand Tourism? Lifecycle
and future environmental impacts. Landcare Research Science Series No. 24. Lincoln, New
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 07:19 07 February 2015

Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.

Qantas. (2003–2004). Qantas annual report 2003–04. New South Wales, Australia: Qantas Airways
Limited.
Qantas. (2008). Qantas Annual Report 2008. Sydney, Australia: Qantas Airways Limited.
Schaefer, M. (2006). VARMISSION – Mission planner for BADA, version 1.03L. Washington, DC:
DLR.
Scheelhaase, J., & Grimme, W. (2007). Emissions trading for international aviation – an estimation
of the economic impact on selected European Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management,
13(5), 253–263.
Tourism Australia. (2004). International visitor survey 2002–2004. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government.
TSA, RMF. (2008). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework. Madrid,
Spain: United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), the Statistical Office of the European Com-
munities (EUROSTAT), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
and the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).
UNWTO-UNEP-WMO. (2008). Climate change and tourism – Responding to global challenges.
Madrid, Spain: UNWTO.