Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Assessing tourism's global environmental impact

1900–2050

Stefan Gössling & Paul Peeters

To cite this article: Stefan Gössling & Paul Peeters (2015) Assessing tourism's global
environmental impact 1900–2050, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23:5, 639-659, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500

View supplementary material

Published online: 12 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2701

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 35 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20

Download by: [207.241.229.243] Date: 29 October 2017, At: 11:56

 Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015
Vol. 23, No. 5, 639 659, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008500

Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900 2050

osslinga,b,c* and Paul Peetersd,e,f
Stefan G€
a
Department of Service Management, Lund University, Box 882, Helsingborg 25108, Sweden;
b
School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden; cWestern
Norway Research Institute, 6856 Sogndal, Norway; dCentre for Sustainable Tourism and
Transport, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 3917, 4800 DX Breda, The
Netherlands; eFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands; fEnvironmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

(Received 13 October 2014; accepted 22 December 2014)

This paper pioneers the assessment of tourism’s total global resource use, including its
fossil fuel consumption, associated CO2 emissions, fresh water, land, and food use. As
tourism is a dynamic growth system, characterized by rapidly increasing tourist
numbers, understanding its past, current, and future contributions to global resource use
is a central requirement for sustainable tourism assessments. The paper introduces the
concept of resource use intensities (RUIs), which represent tourism’s resource needs per
unit of consumption (e.g. energy per guest night). Based on estimates of RUIs, a first
assessment of tourism’s global resource use and emissions is provided for the period
1900 2050, utilizing the Peeters Global Tourism Transport Model. Results indicate that
the current (2010) global tourism system may require c.16,700 PJ of energy, 138 km3 of
fresh water, 62,000 km2 of land, and 39.4 Mt of food, also causing emissions of 1.12 Gt
CO2. Despite efforts to implement more sustainable forms of tourism, analysis indicates
that tourism’s overall resource consumption may grow by between 92% (water) and
189% (land use) in the period 2010 2050. To maintain the global tourism system
consequently requires rapidly growing resource inputs, while the system is
simultaneously becoming increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in resource flows.
Keywords: energy; food; fresh water; greenhouse gas emissions; land use; scenarios;
tourism

Introduction
Earth systems are now significantly affected by human activities. Critical resources are
becoming scarce, ecosystem services increasingly degraded, and pollution and waste
increasingly difficult to absorb (Ehrlich, Kareiva, & Daily 2012; Rockstr€om et al., 2009;
Steffen et al., 2011). There are now more than 7 billion people inhabiting the Earth, com-
pared to 2.5 billion in 1950, with further growth to 8.3 10.9 billion expected by 2050
(United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ [UNESA, 2013] low and
high variants; see also Gerland et al., 2014). There is concern that this growth in popula-
tion will further influence the structure and functioning of the Earth system in many
ways, including atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (N2O), and methane
(CH4) concentrations; exploitation of fisheries; deforestation; and species loss (Ehrlich
et al., 2012; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013; Rockstr€om et al.,
2009; Steffen et al., 2011). Tourism is directly and indirectly implicated in all of these

*Corresponding author. Email: stefan.gossling@ism.lu.se

Ó 2015 Taylor & Francis

 640 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

processes, as well as others, such as global water use or the conversion of lands for infra-
structure (G€
ossling, 2002). Tourism is also an important factor in global food consump-
tion, with consequences for food production, again a significant factor in emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) (IPCC, 2007) as well as freshwater use (Clarke & King, 2004).
Jost Krippendorf, economist and one of the founding fathers of sustainable tourism,
remarked more than 20 years ago:

I think [. . .] we really have to come to action, and to measurable action, in the field of sustain-
able tourism. We have to develop [. . .] a really practical and simple way of measuring sus-
tainability. [. . .] some five or six indicators with which those responsible [. . .] could then
measure every year what progress has been made in the fields of lower energy consumption,
of the surface used for tourism infrastructure, of CO2 emissions or whatever other indicators
could be taken. (Krippendorf, 1993, p. 58)
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Even though Krippendorf (1993) advocated regional and national assessments, solu-
tions to environmental problems are increasingly sought at the global scale, involving
supranational governance structures. As an example, responsibilities for reducing emis-
sions of GHGs are negotiated in global summits, the Conferences of Parties (cf. www.
unfccc.int), while emission reductions from aviation and shipping are overseen by Inter-
national Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization
(IMO). However, for any discussion of sustainability or associated responsibilities of
resource consumption, it is necessary to understand relative and absolute contributions.
This paper consequently has its starting point in the Anthropocene debate, and the notion
of planetary boundaries, within which global tourism needs to become sustainable (see
Steffen et al., 2011). It seeks to begin an ongoing process of assessing tourism’s global
impact on the whole environment, thus establishing both a benchmark and procedures for
the assessment of future efforts to manage tourism’s impact.
Assessments of tourism’s sustainability have focused on a wide range of aspects,
recently summarized by Buckley (2012) as parks (biodiversity, conservation), pollution
(climate change), prosperity (poverty alleviation), peace (security, safety), and population
(stabilization and reduction). Buckley concedes that with regard to these sustainability
dimensions, tourism is “not close” to sustainability (Buckley, 2012, p. 528). This paper is
concerned with tourism’s resource use, i.e. including energy, water, land and food use, as
well as emissions of GHGs. It builds on a first attempt by G€ossling (2002) to assess
tourism’s global environmental impacts in the year 2000. This research indicated that tour-
ism was then responsible for 5% of global fossil energy consumption and associated emis-
sions of CO2, as well as the use of 0.5% of the world’s biologically productive lands. This
assessment has since been confirmed for energy and emissions in a detailed calculation by
United Nations World Tourism Organization United Nations Environment Programme
World Meteorological Organization (UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008), but uncertainties
regarding land use persist due to the lack of global data on tourism-related infrastructure
and the multiple use of transport infrastructure. While there is considerable data on water
use in tourism (G€ ossling et al., 2012; G€ossling, Hall, & Scott, 2015), very limited data
exists on food consumption, other than food’s climatic relevance (G€ossling, Garrod, Aall,
Hille, & Peeters, 2011). This paper consequently seeks to understand the size and complex-
ity of tourism’s growing resource use over time, including its future development. However,
to collect resource use data over time is inherently difficult due to the lack of global accurate
datasets that could be used for this purpose. A specific methodology was thus developed for
this paper, including a literature review to understand resource use associated with tourism
consumption, estimates of resource use intensities (RUIs), and the use of the Global Tourism
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 641

and Transport Model (GTTM; Peeters, 2013) to project past and future resource consump-
tion. These aspects are explained in greater detail in the following sections.
Tourism includes international and domestic trips made for leisure, to visit friends
and relatives, or for business. International tourist arrivals increased from 25 million in
1950 to 528 million in 1995, and 1.035 billion in 2012 (UNWTO, 2010, 2013). By 2030,
the number of international arrivals is projected to reach 1.8 billion (UNWTO, 2012).
Notably, the volume of domestic tourism is approximately four times larger (UNWTO-
UNEP WMO, 2008). Global tourism is consequently a socio-economic system charac-
terized by recent rapid growth. To understand its growth dynamics and to assess its future
development with regard to resource consumption (energy, water, land, food) and emis-
sions of CO2, calculations were made for the period 1900 2010, along with three scenar-
ios for 2050. The period 1900 2050 was chosen for various reasons. First of all, the
paper is embedded in the Anthropocene debate, i.e. the geological epoch in which human
activities have begun to significantly transform the Earth, and for which modelling has
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

often had a starting point in 1900 (Steffen et al., 2011). Second, scenarios looking into
the future, in this case to 2050, demand calibrating on an equal or longer historical period
(see Peeters, 2013). Finally, the past may not be as interesting as the future for most stake-
holders, and the development of future scenarios is thus warranted.
To assess aggregated current, past, and future contributions to resource consumption
and emissions in tourism, this paper introduces the concept of resource use intensities (Cai
et al., 2009; Tittonell, Leffelaar, Vanlauwe, van Wijk, & Giller, 2006) to derive input val-
ues for the GTTM, a model that is then used to calculate resource use pathways over time.
Common to all approaches to the RUI concept is the measurement of a quantity of input
against a quantity of output. This is also the definition used in this paper, where RUIs are
defined as the amount of resources needed to sustain different units of tourism consump-
tion, calculated as the average amount of energy (and associated emissions), water, food,
or land needed per guest night, trip, or passenger-km (pkm). RUI is a concept first devel-
oped in health care in the 1980s, to assess the allocation of health costs (e.g. Caterinicchio
& Davies, 1983). In the 1990s, the concept was also used in ecosystem studies to describe
correlations between biodiversity and species’ resource use (Loreau, 1998), before it gained
importance in development studies. Here, it was first mentioned in the context of defining
sustainable livelihoods (Chambers & Conway, 1991). More recently, applications widened
to, for instance, the consumption of food resources in local economies (De Boer &
Baquete, 1998) or the use of fertilizers and their effects on crop yields (Tittonell et al.,
2006). In tourism studies, the concept has never been applied, save a mention by Goodall
and Stabler (2000) in the context of performance measurement.
The following section presents the calculation process for RUIs, based on a literature
review of RUIs for the most relevant global environmental aspects of tourism, i.e. energy
use and emissions, water, land, and food, starting from G€ossling (2002). Due to large arti-
cle numbers in this area over the last decade, earlier reviews are cited wherever possible,
and updated with more recent papers. This is followed by a discussion of the GTTM. The
last section of the paper presents and discusses the results of the model runs.

Calculating current resource use intensities

To calculate RUIs, the literature on tourism and the use of energy, water, land, and food,
as well as associated emissions of CO2 was reviewed. Minimum and maximum ranges
for different use intensity indicators were derived from this review, such as energy use
per tourist per trip. These values were consecutively used to estimate average RUIs. The
literature overview below includes in particular review papers or papers that fill specific
 642 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

knowledge gaps. It is important to note, however, that considerable knowledge gaps

remain: all data presented must be seen as indicative.

Energy use and emissions

All tourism is dependent on energy, and virtually all energy use in tourism is derived from
fossil fuels. When burnt, these fuels contribute to emissions of various GHGs, including
CO2. Tourism also contributes directly and indirectly to emissions of other long-lived
GHG, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluor-
ocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), but there are no global estimates avail-
able for these. Tourism-related energy use/emissions have thus far been calculated for
three major subsectors: transport to and from the destination; accommodation; and activi-
ties at destinations. Together, these correspond to 4.95% of global emissions of CO2 in
the year 2005, or 1304 Mt CO2 (UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008; for system boundaries
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

of this estimate see the Technical Annex [TA] available in the web-based version of this
paper as Supplementary Data Table II). Most energy use and CO2 emissions are associ-
ated with transport, as aviation accounts for 40% of tourism’s overall CO2 footprint, fol-
lowed by cars (32%) and accommodation (21%). Cruise ships account for an estimated
19 Mt CO2 or 1.5% of global tourism emissions of CO2 (cf. Eijgelaar, Thaper, & Peeters,
2010). All calculations in UNWTO UNEP WMO (2008) represent energy throughput.
Note that a more complete analysis of the energy needed to maintain the tourism system
would also have to include food and beverages, infrastructure construction and mainte-
nance, as well as retail and services, all of these on the basis of a life cycle perspective
accounting for the energy embodied in the goods and services consumed in tourism
(Scott, Peeters, & G€ ossling, 2010). However, no database exists for these, and the esti-
mate thus must be considered conservative. Another important omission is aviation’s
emissions of short-lived GHGs, which increase this transport sector’s contribution to radi-
ative forcing (Lee et al., 2009).
CO2 emissions in tourism are primarily related to transport, which account for 75% of
all energy demand. However, there are huge differences between the energy needed for
different trips. Energy use for a home-based bicycle tour may not require any direct input
of fossil fuels at all, while long-haul trips involving combined flight/cruise elements can
require energy inputs exceeding 3000 kg of fuel per traveller (Eijgelaar et al., 2010;
Lamers & Amelung, 2007). Table 1 summarizes RUIs for energy use and emissions of
CO2, presenting minimum/maximum values as identified in the literature, as well as esti-
mates for global averages. Min max values also mirror the different development paths
tourism may take, depending primarily on income development and global wealth distri-
bution, as well as resource use policies, such as the taxation of fossil fuels. As indicated,
there are vast differences in min max values summarized in G€ossling (2010), of up to
three orders of magnitude, with, for instance, fossil energy use per guest night in accom-
modation varying between 3.5 and 3717 MJ; travel to/from the destination between <1
and 123,500 MJ; and energy use per trip between 50 and 135,815 MJ. Emissions of CO2
vary in line with these values. Available data suggests, for instance, that emissions in
accommodation vary between 0.1 and 260 kg CO2 per guest night, and emissions per
tourist per trip between <0.001 and 9.3 t CO2. Notably, these values represent average
data for specific forms of tourism. Trips involving private aircraft or super yachts are
likely to result in considerably larger emissions. Overall, data indicates that both cruise
and air travel are the major factors increasing emissions, even though specific forms of
accommodation can also entail high energy use/emissions. On global average, a tourist
trip (including domestic and international travel) may currently consume 3.575 MJ of
 Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Table 1. Energy use and CO2 in tourism (various years).

Energy use1/CO2 emissions by subsector/unit Min max Estimated global average Reference

Energy
Accommodation per guest night 3.6 3717 MJ 272 MJ2 G€ossling, 2010; UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
Travel to/from destination (air travel) 0 123,500 MJ3 10,000 MJ4 UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
Energy use per trip, domestic and international 50 135,815 MJ5 3575 MJ6 UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
(including accommodation, transport,
activities)
Emissions
Per cruise passenger per day ? 295 kg CO2 ?7 169 kg CO2 Eijgelaar et al., 2010; Walnum, 2011
Emissions per cruise trip per passenger 248 5610 kg CO28 1.2 t CO2 Eijgelaar et al., 2010; Lamers and
Amelung, 2007; Walnum, 2011
Emissions per guest night (accommodation) 0.1 260 kg CO2 13.8 kg CO2 UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
Emissions per tourist per day (trip average; 15 492 kg/CO2e 58 kg CO2 G€ossling, 2010; UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
including transport, accommodation)
Emissions per tourist per trip, domestic and <0.001 9.3 t CO28 250 kg CO2 Eijgelaar et al., 2010, G€ossling, 2010,
international UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008
1
Energy use only refers to fossil fuels, and energy throughput including indirect emissions (see Technical Annex Table II).
2
Based on global average of 19 kg CO2 per guest night.
3
Lower range refers to trip by bike, higher estimate for first-class return flight to most distant destination (great circle), e.g. Frankfurt (Germany) Christchurch (New Zealand),
corresponding to 18,000 pkm (one way).
4
Return trip by air at global average of 7000 km.
5
Lower estimate referring to trip by bike with nature camping; higher estimate referring to Antarctica trip involving flight and cruise, based on Eijgelaar et al. (2010).
6
Calculation based on average emissions of 250 kg CO2 per trip (domestic and international), with conversion factors as follows: 2.7 kg CO2 D 1 L diesel D 38.6 MJ.
7
Only value found in the literature (Eijgelaar et al., 2010).
8
Values exceeding 9 t CO2 for a trip including return flight have been reported by Lamers and Amelung, (2007). Lower value referring to hypothetical bicycle trip/nature camping;
higher value referring to Antarctica cruise (Lamers & Amelung, 2007).
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 643
 644 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

fossil energy, corresponding to 250 kg of CO2, as reported by UNWTO UNEP WMO

(2008).

Water use
Tourism is both dependent on freshwater resources and a factor in global and local fresh-
water use (G€ ossling et al., 2012). Tourists consume water when showering or using the
toilet, when participating in activities such as ski tourism (snowmaking), and when using
spas, saunas, wellness areas, or swimming pools. Fresh water is also needed to maintain
hotel gardens and golf courses and is embodied in tourism infrastructure development
(e.g. accommodation) and food and fuel production (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2008; Hoek-
stra & Hung, 2002; Pigram, 1995; Worldwatch Institute, 2004). Though people also con-
sume water at home, there is evidence that tourism increases overall water consumption,
even though comparison remains difficult (G€ ossling, 2014; G€ossling et al., 2012,).
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Recent research on water use in tourism distinguishes “direct” and “indirect” water
use categories (Table 2), i.e. excluding marketing and sales as well as shopping and other
tourism-related services, for which limited data exists. Direct water use ranges between
84 and 2425 L per tourist per day in accommodation (including water use in rooms, for
gardens, and pools irrigation), with activities adding 10 875 L per guest night (Deya
Tortella & Tirado, 2011; G€ ossling et al., 2012; Hadjikakou, Chenoweth, & Miller, 2013;
Page, Essex, & Causevic, 2014). The higher value for activities refers to golf, which
appears to be the most water-intense activity in tourism (Deya Tortella & Tirado, 2011).
An average estimate for direct water use in tourism is 350 L per day for accommodation,

Table 2. Direct and indirect water use in tourism, 2010.

Min max water Estimated average

Water use category direct use in Litre per guest night Litre per guest night

Accommodation 84 2425 350

Activities 10 875 20
Water use category indirect Litre per guest night

Infrastructure 0.2 0.2

Fossil fuels for transport 5 2500 130
Energy use at hotel 1 220 75
Biofuels 2500
Food1 4500 8000 6000
Other consumption n.a. n.a.
Total per guest night, direct 4600 12,000 6575
and indirect
Total per tourist per trip2 19,500 50,750 27,800
Total global annual water 138 km 3
consumption tourism (2010)
1
Referring to combined green, blue, and grey water use, i.e. the amount of water necessary to produce food. This
is not equivalent to “critical” water abstraction, which would consider only blue water, i.e. the water derived
from rivers, lakes, or groundwater reserves (cf. Ridoutt & Pfister, 2010).
2
The calculation uses a revised higher average length of stay value of 4.23 in 2005, rather than 4.15 as in
UNWTO UNEP WTO (2008).
Source: Update based on G€ossling (2014).
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 645

and 20 L per day for activities (G€ ossling, 2014; see also Bohdanowicz & Martinac, 2007;
Hadjikakou et al., 2013; Page et al., 2014).
Considerably greater uncertainty exists with regard to indirect water use, i.e. specifi-
cally with regard to food, fossil fuels, energy use at the hotel, biofuels, or the construction
of tourism-related infrastructure. While water use for the construction of accommodation
appears to be less relevant when interpolated to water use per guest night (G€ossling, 2014;
Rosello-Batie, Mola, Cladera, & Martinez, 2010), there is no data for airports, ports, roads,
constructions for activities (e.g. ski lifts), events, museums, restaurants, which would have
to be added (for an overview of what is included in calculations see the online TA).
Fuel production, and hence power generation involving fossil fuels, is water intensive.
Data for oil production indicates 1.4 6.2 L of water (consumptive use), or 3 18 L of
water per litre of fuel, if measured as general water input (G€ossling, 2014). An average
value may thus be in the order of 10 L of general water input per litre of fuel. Given an
average return travel distance of 1898 km in 2010 and energy use of 1.123 MJ/pkm
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

(domestic and international tourism; Peeters, 2013), this translates into approximately
130 L of water per guest night.
Energy consumed in hotels needs to be considered as well. Values in the literature
suggest direct energy use of between 3.6 and 3717 MJ (Table 1) or the equivalent of
0.09 22 L diesel per guest night. This translates into water use values of 1 220 L per
guest night, with an estimated average of 75 L per guest night (G€ossling, 2014). Biofuels
will have an even greater water footprint, with United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2009) reporting that the production of 1 L of liquid bio-
fuels currently requires 2500 L of water on global average. This is relevant, given the
sector’s focus on biofuels as a main pillar for future “sustainable” development.
Finally, with regard to food, the only two available studies of the weight of food con-
sumed per tourist per day in upscale accommodation suggest values between 2.22 kg
(5-star hotel in Zanzibar, Tanzania; G€ ossling, 2001) and 3.1 kg, plus 1.8 L of beverages
(average of one 4-star and one 5-star hotels in Greece; G€ossling, 2014). Both studies indi-
cate a high share of high protein food, with meat consumption in the latter study amount-
ing to 0.385 kg per tourist per day, plus 0.139 kg of seafood and fish, and 0.294 kg of
dairy products and eggs. On global average, it is estimated that food consumption
accounts for 4500 8000 L per tourist per day, or an estimated average of 6000 L per tour-
ist per day (including green, blue, and grey water). In total, this amounts to an estimated
average consumption of 27,800 L of water per trip (Table 2) or an annual total of
138 km3 to maintain the current global tourism system.

Land use
The use and conversion of lands is central to tourism. Direct uses of land for tourism and
recreation purposes include airports, roads, railways, paths, trails, pedestrian walks, shop-
ping areas, parking, campsites, vacation homes, golf courses, marinas, ski areas, and indi-
rect land use for food production, burying grounds for solid wastes, lands to treat waste
water, and industrial areas required for production (computers, TVs, beds, etc.). The area
affected by tourism is thus significantly greater than the directly built area. Land use for
tourism represents one of the areas where research is insufficient and where considerable
refinement is needed in the future.
UNWTO distinguishes a wide range of accommodation categories, such as hotels,
hostels, motels, pensions, bed and breakfast, self-catering accommodation, or holiday vil-
lages. These are responsible for most of the direct land alteration linked to tourism.
 646 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

Depending on accommodation type, area use per bed varies substantially, with an esti-
mated average area of 25 m2 needed for pensions, 30 m2 for hotels, 50 m2 for campsites
and self-catering accommodation, 130 m2 for holiday villages, and 200 m2 for vacation
homes (G€ ossling, 2002). Land use is considerably greater when resort hotels are built.
For example, the land used for five resort hotels in the Kiwengwa area, Unguja Island
(Tanzania), indicated average land use values of 284 m2 per bed, while a five-star hotel in
the Seychelles with its own golf course may use 4580 m2 per bed (G€ossling, Borgstr€om-
Hansson, H€ orstmeier, & Saggel, 2002). Up-market hotels and resorts thus appear to con-
sume most land, while city hotels require comparably small areas as a result of the high
value of prime sites leading to high-density multi-storey building.
With an estimated 34 million beds worldwide in the late 1990s, land use for accom-
modation was estimated to be in the order of 1450 km2 (G€ossling, 2002). However, this is
likely to have been a serious underestimate. The GTTM suggests that there have been
19.3 billion guest nights in 2005 (domestic and international; see TA). At an average
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

occupancy rate of 59%, this would correspond to almost 90 million beds, or, at an average
per bed area of 42 m2, an area for accommodation in the order of 3760 km2. Traffic infra-
structure, activities (specifically golf, ski, and fun parks), as well as indirect land alter-
ation are even more land consuming. Golf courses alone were estimated to cover 13,500
km2 worldwide in 2001 (G€ ossling, 2002). More recent data by Hudson and Hudson
(2010) suggests that there are now 32,000 golf courses in 140 countries, the largest (Mis-
sion Hills, China) covering 15 km2. As most of the golf courses appear to have 18 holes,
average sizes would be 50 60 ha per golf course (G€ossling, 2002), i.e. all golf courses in
the world would together (2010) cover a total area of about 17,600 km2. There is also
new information on the number of ski resorts in the world. Skiresort.info (2013) lists
4874 ski resorts worldwide, with up to 650 km of slopes per resort. In the GTTM, golf
courses serve as a proxy for tourist activities (Table 3), i.e. these may in reality require a
considerably larger area. In total, the area used by tourism for accommodation, traffic
infrastructure, and activities would thus be in the order of 62,000 km2, or 11.7 m2 per
tourist, in 2010 (Table 3). Note that this does not consider land used for food production,
burying grounds for waste, or areas needed for production of beds, white goods (electrical
appliances), electronics, or other goods needed to maintain the global tourism system.

Table 3. Land use in tourism, 2010.

Land use Min max Average estimate

Accommodation
 Per bed 25 4580 m2 42 m 2
Total accommodation1 4264 km 2
Traffic infrastructure2 38,882 km2
Golf courses3 18,680 km2
Global total area for tourism 61,826 km2
Total per tourist4 11.7 m2
1
Calculation based on 101.5 million beds in 2010 (Technical Annex).
2
Estimate based on land use for airports (13,598 km2), roads (20,616 km2), and other transport infrastructure
(4668 km2). See also Technical Annex.
3
Considering growth in the number of golf courses since 2010 (cf. Hudson & Hudson, 2010).
4
Calculation based on 5.30 billion tourist trips in 2010 (based on GTTM; Peeters 2013).
Source: Update based on G€ossling (2002).
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 647

Food consumption
Food production has a wide range of sustainability implications, including land con-
version and the associated loss of species and ecosystems (Vitousek, Mooney,
Lubchenco & Melillo, 1997); changes in global biogeochemical processes, such as
nitrogen cycles (Vitousek et al., 1997); water consumption (Chapagain & Hoekstra,
2007, 2008; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007); the use of substances potentially harmful
to human health, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides (Koutros et al.,
2008), and the foodservice sector’s contribution to global emissions of GHGs relat-
ing to agriculture, food processing, transport, and the preparation of meals. Tourism
is also a factor in the consumption of “problematic” foods, such as giant shrimps
leading to the deforestation of mangrove ecosystems. Food consequently has many
sustainability implications, which are not covered in the following assessment (for
system boundaries see the online TA, Table II). It also needs to be noted that food
represents the resource use area in which the least research has been conducted, call-
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

ing for considerable research efforts in the future.

Virtually all impacts related to food consumption have direct and indirect links to
tourism and hospitality because of the large amounts of food prepared in tourism contexts
(G€ossling et al., 2011). According to UNWTO UNEP WMO (2008), almost 25 billion
tourist days were spent in 2005. At an average of three meals per tourist per day, this cor-
responded to roughly 75 billion meals per year or about 200 million meals per day. Only
two studies appear to exist that discuss food use intensities, calculating foodstuff con-
sumption of between 2.2 kg (G€ ossling, 2001) and 3.1 kg plus 1.8 L of beverages per
tourist per day (G€ ossling, 2014). These values can be compared to various studies esti-
mating average “at home” food consumption in terms of weight per day (note that caloric
intake is a more common measure). One of the earliest studies appears to be Bingham,
McNeil, and Cummimgs (1981), investigating food consumption in a village near Cam-
bridge, UK. The study found that the weight of food consumed was 1277 g per day (adults
only). Food purchases will be greater, as a share is thrown away (peel, bones, etc.).
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2002), consumption in the USA
equals 3800 calories per person per day. Of this, 1100 calories (29%) are lost to spoilage,
plate waste, and cooking and other losses, resulting in 2700 calories of food actually
eaten. More specifically, this includes bone-free red meat, poultry, and fish (242 g per per-
son per day), plus 37 g of cheese, 93 g of fats, 881 g of fruits and vegetables, as well as
248 g of grain, i.e. a grand total of 1.5 kg of foodstuffs.
Even though 1.5 kg is far lower than the 2.2 3.1 kg of food consumed in the
hotels studied (G€ ossling, 2001, 2014), this corresponds to 2700 calories, and hence a
larger caloric intake than required to feed a human being, as 62% of US Americans
were considered overweight in 2000 (USDA, 2002). Note, however, that the ratios
of carbohydrates to protein to fats may vary in the studies. As these values compare
food consumption in a wealthy industrialized country with food consumption in
upscale tourism, it is assumed that the “all tourism” average is lower, at 1800 g per
day. Consequently, the difference between standard diets at home and diets on holi-
day is at least 0.5 kg per person per day. It is likely that foods consumed in tourism
also include a higher share of higher-order foods. As indicated in Table 4, global
tourism may thus have resulted in the consumption of almost 39.4 Mt of food,
10.9 Mt more than in an “at home” scenario. These figures are only indicative, how-
ever, and demand further research, also in light of considerable options to reduce
specific resource use (G€ ossling et al., 2011; Pratt 2013).
 648 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

Table 4. Amount of food eaten in tourism, 2010.

Food use Min max Average estimate

Food consumption per tourist per day1 ? 2200 to 3100 ? 1800 g

Global food use for tourism2 39.4 Mt
1
Min max values based on available literature (G€ossling, 2001, 2014). Both lower and higher values are likely
to exist. As the studies focus on upscale accommodation, a lower average value of 1800 g per tourist per day is
assumed to be closer to actual food consumption averages. The value is about 0.5 kg higher than the assumed
average consumption of 1300 g of foodstuffs consumed at home in industrialized countries.
2
The calculations are based on 21.86 billion guest nights in 2010.

Summary: resource use intensity indicators in tourism

The values provided for energy and emissions, fresh water, land use, and food consump-
tion indicate that there exist vast differences representing up to three orders of magni-
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

tude in RUIs, depending on the tourism product consumed (Table 5). For example,
documented energy use per guest night may vary between 3.6 and more than 3700 MJ,
and corresponding emissions between 0.1 and 260 kg CO2. Even though further research
is required to confirm minimum maximum and average values, the results presented in
Table 5 can serve as indicative benchmarks: any development of tourism that focuses on
below-average RUIs will constitute low-intensity consumption and contribute to a de-
materialization of the global tourism system. Current trends, however, point in the oppo-
site direction, as the tourism system becomes more energy, freshwater, land and food
intense on a per trip per arrival per guest night basis, while the total number of tourists
continues to increase, a result of a growing and wealthier world population engaging in
more resource intense tourism.
The following presentation of results from different model runs uses adjusted average
RUIs as presented in Table 5 to approximate resource consumption in global tourism

Table 5. Summary of resource use intensities in global tourism, 2010.

Aspect Range of estimates Global average

Energy
- Per guest night 3.6 3717 MJ 272 MJ
- Per trip (domestic and international average) 50 135,815 MJ 3,575 MJ
Emissions
- Per night (accommodation) 0.1 260 kg CO2 13.8 kg CO2
- Per trip (domestic and international average) <0.1 9.30 t CO2 250 kg CO2
Fresh water, Litre per tourist per day
- Direct (accommodation) 84 2425 350
- Indirect (fuels, food) 4500 8000 6000
- Combined 4600 12,000 6575
Land use, m2
Direct, per bed 30 4580 m2/bed 42 m2
Accommodation, traffic infrastructure 11.7 m 2
and activities, per tourist
Food use, grams per day
- Per tourist per day 2200 3100g 1800 g
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 649

since 1900 and to develop scenarios for the 40 years from 2010 to 2050 (for details see
TA). The understanding of the development of the global tourism system over time is
important for various reasons: first of all, to develop sustainable tourism requires a long-
term planning approach, in which regulatory measures have to be justified. For instance,
if global emissions of GHGs are to be reduced, it needs to be discussed how growth sys-
tems running counter to this endeavour should be dealt with (Scott et al., 2010). Second,
tourism is already dependent on vast amount of resources, and for reasons of environmen-
tal and economic vulnerability and security it is essential to understand the amount of
resources that will be needed to maintain the system in the future.

Growth in resource use: 1900 2050

The GTTM (Peeters, 2013) is a systems-based model of interactions between socio-eco-
nomic parameters and tourism infrastructure, including several feedback loops and a mul-
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

titude of interactions between all variables. It is utilized to calculate global tourism trips
divided over 20 distance classes for 3 transport modes, also including developments in
guest night numbers. Fed with average RUI values per guest night, tourism-related
resource use pathways over time can be determined by the model. The GTTM has its
starting point in 1900 when resource use by humanity was still relatively small on a global
scale (Rockstr€ om et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2011) because of lower population levels and
considerably lower average per capita resource use levels. It models resource use up to
2010, or what may be considered “current” levels of global resource use consumption, as
discussed in preceding sections. With the GTTM calibrated to the history of 1900 2010,
it is combined with three socio-economic background scenarios taken from the IPCC
SRES scenarios (IPCC, 2000) to calculate the resource use up to 2050.
The main inputs for GTTM are historic and projected time-series data for global pop-
ulation growth, global income per capita, global income distribution based on Gini-coeffi-
cients, as well as transport cost and speed. Historic time-series are derived from various
sources (cf. Peeters, 2013 for an overview). Future population and economic data are
taken from the data developed for the IPCC SRES scenarios (IMAGE-team, 2006; IPCC,
2000). In basic terms, the model assumes the global number of trips to be a direct function
of population growth, and per capita income and distribution. The distribution of trips
over distance classes and by transport modes is determined by the development of trans-
port costs and average speeds of the GTTM’s three transport modes: aircraft, car, and
other. “Other” includes rail, bus, and shipping, i.e. three rather different transport modes.
Cost data is fed into a psychological economics component of the model. This is to
avoid a difficulty with standard economic modelling, i.e. to reproduce long time-series
assuming constant sensitivities to cost and travel time, which are clearly not constant
over such long periods. To address this, the GTTM uses insights from prospect theory
(Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The GTTM is programmed in system
dynamics software (Powersim Studio) that allows for feedback modelling and is able to
consider, for instance, that the value of travel time changes in a world where average
speeds increase. The main output of the model is trip numbers divided over 20 transport
distance classes for 3 transport mode categories (aviation, car travel, other). In a last step,
the GTTM integrates RUIs with the development of trip numbers, guest nights, and dis-
tances travelled by transport mode to calculate global resource use and emissions for the
period 1900 2050. As noted, this excludes day trips. The model is calibrated using tour-
ism and transport data from 1900 up to 2005. For further details of the GTTM, see the
online TA, as well as Peeters (2013) for an overview of sources.
 650 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

The following section presents the results from the three model runs, showing the
development of resource use (energy and associated emissions, water, land use and food
use) needed to maintain the global tourism system from 1900 to the present day, and antici-
pated growth up to 2050 for three different background scenarios (for a review of scenario
planning see Moriarty, 2012). The three model runs are “Economic slowdown”, assuming
a stagnating world economy and limited population growth, thus representing the lowest
environmental impact growth scenario; “Business as usual” (BAU), i.e. in line with current
socio-economic and efficiency trends; and “Global growth”, a maximum scenario assuming
further growth in global income levels and high population growth. Together, the three sce-
narios represent the range of conceivable developments. Note that all model runs consider
the same efficiency gains due to advances in technology (see online TA for details). An
important distinction between the various parameters of resource use is that CO2 concentra-
tions are largely cumulative, while the values for energy, water, and food, as well as the
total accumulated amount of land, represent annual throughput.
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

In terms of assumptions, the scenarios suggest that by 2050, there will be 7.77 billion
tourist trips (domestic plus international) in the “Economic slowdown” and 15.45 billion
in the “Global growth” scenario. The BAU scenario considers 13.6 billion trips. This cor-
responds to 18.0 trillion pkm travelled in global tourism in the Economic slowdown sce-
nario, 36.2 trillion pkm in BAU, and 41.4 trillion pkm in Global growth. Figure 1 shows
the result of the energy use, with a moderate, continuous increase up to the period
1965 1970, when modern mass commercial aviation was introduced, leading to rapid
growth of overall emissions from tourism (Figure 2). This development continued, weak-
ened only by the oil crises, and led to the current distribution of CO2 emissions from

Figure 1. Past and future growth in energy demand in global tourism.

 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 651
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Figure 2. Past and future growth in emissions (CO2) from global tourism.

tourism, i.e. a share of about 40% aviation, 32% automobility, 21% accommodation, 4%
activities, and 3% other transports (UNWTO UNEP WMO, 2008). From 2010 2050,
tourism is anticipated to grow considerably in energy use and emissions, doubling energy
use over the coming 25 years in the BAU scenario, despite efficiency gains (cf. Scott
et al., 2010). Notably, further growth would occur up to 2050, both in the global growth
and BAU scenario. In the Economic slowdown scenario, even significantly reduced popu-
lation growth and economic stabilization result in continued growth in resource use,
though at far more moderate levels than in the other scenarios. The BAU scenario sug-
gests that energy use will increase from 16,697 PJ in 2010 to 44,110 PJ by 2050.
As energy use and emissions are interrelated, Figure 2 indicates a pathway similar to
Figure 1: emissions would double from current levels up to 2035 2040. In the BAU sce-
nario in Figure 2, emissions from accommodation make a smaller contribution to overall
emissions over time, because the number of guest nights grows at a slower pace than dis-
tances travelled. Overall, the BAU scenario suggests an increase from 1101 Mt CO2 in
2010 to 2957 Mt CO2 by 2050.
Figure 3 presents the model’s results for water use in tourism. Notably, this includes
direct water use sub-sectors in accommodation, irrigation, pools, and rooms, as well as
indirect use for fuel and food production. Food water use estimates include green, blue,
and grey water (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010a, 2010b), and thus represent the overall
amount of water needed for food production, not the share of water abstracted for food
use from rivers, lakes, or groundwater sources (cf. Ridoutt & Pfister, 2010). As shown in
Figure 3, total water use in tourism will continue to increase, despite anticipated improve-
ments in water efficiency. Direct water use is expected to grow at a slower pace than
 652 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Figure 3. Past and future growth in water use for global tourism.

indirect water use, because of changing diets towards higher-order foods, as well as con-
tinued growth in fuel use, both affecting indirect water consumption. Over the next
45 years, water consumption (both direct and indirect) is expected to double, from an esti-
mated 138 km3 in 2010 to 265 km3 by 2050.
With regard to global land use, traffic infrastructure, activities, and accommodation
are the major contributing factors. It is anticipated that over the next 25 years, land use
for tourism will double, and almost triple to 2050, mostly because of additional roads, as
well as an expansion of air traffic and tourism-related activities. The share of area use for
accommodation infrastructure is comparably small in absolute terms, even though it is
expected to grow significantly in relative terms. Notably, accommodation may be built in
particularly sensitive areas, such as coastal zones. Current land use of approximately
62,000 km2 is projected to increase to 178,700 km2 in the BAU scenario to 2050.
Finally, with regard to food use in tourism, Figure 5 shows that by 2050 food
consumption will have doubled from 39.4 Mt in 2010 to 82 Mt, primarily as a function of
growth in tourist numbers and the overall number of guest nights spent.
All model runs show that tourism-related resource use will increase considerably with
an expanding tourism system, despite efficiency gains. As summarized in Table 6, tourism
may currently (2010) consume 16,697 PJ of energy, 138 km3 of fresh water, 61,826 km2
of land, 39.4 Mt of food, while causing emissions of 1119 Mt of CO2. By 2050, these val-
ues would rise to 44,110 PJ of energy (C164%), 265 km3 of water (C92%), 178,731 km2
of land use (C189%), 82 Mt of food (C108%), and 2957 Mt of CO2 emissions (C164%).
Clearly, for each of the aspects studied, this growth represents further conflict with plane-
tary boundaries. For instance, tourism already accounts for an estimated 5% of global
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 653
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Figure 4. Past and future growth in land use for global tourism.

emissions of CO2 (Scott et al., 2010), and even though fossil energy supplies appear to be
available for at least another two decades (Aleklett et al., 2010), long-term scenarios
involve increasing use of more CO2-intense energy sources such as oil sands. Global
domestic blue water consumption is 42 km3 (2005; Hoekstra & Mekonnen, 2012), of
which tourism is responsible for 16.9% (7.1 km3, representing direct water use for accom-
modation and activities). Land use is known to be linked to a wide range of conflicts
worldwide, with, for instance, scenarios of future food demand suggesting that increases
in food production of at least 50% will be required to feed a growing world population
(The Royal Society, 2009). Food production is linked to a wide range of environmental
impacts and the quality and quantity of food consumed in tourism may become increas-
ingly relevant in global food security (Godfray et al., 2010).
Resource use modelling as in this paper indicates that the global tourism system has
entered a phase of exponential growth, confirming the notion of a period of “Great Accel-
eration” in humanity’s global environmental impact (Steffen, 2011, p. 743). Even if effi-
ciency gains were substantial, these would be outpaced by arrival numbers, growth in the
average distances travelled, and a trend towards greater RUIs in a small but growing share
of upscale tourism, counterbalancing dematerialization processes. In all of the areas stud-
ied, including the consumption of water, energy, and food, demand for land, and emis-
sions of CO2, tourism’s impact will double within 25 45 years. These insights question
the green growth rhetoric characterizing many current policy documents (UNEP, 2011),
as well as the green growth paradigm more generally (Hall, 2013). On the contrary, even
under assumptions of continued efficiency gains, absolute growth in resource use will
continue at a rapid pace: the results of the modelling presented in this paper suggest
 654 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Figure 5. Past and future growth in food consumed in tourism.

growth in energy, emissions, water, land use, and food consumption by factors of between
1.92 and 2.89 for the period 2010 2050 (Table 6).
In the light of findings as presented by Steffen et al. (2011) or Rockstr€om et al. (2009),
this raises the question as to whether natural systems can sustain continued growth in eco-
nomic sectors such as tourism. For some aspects, such as climate change, evidence also
suggests that human activities already exceed sustainable boundaries (IPCC, 2013; Rock-
str€
om et al., 2009), while for other aspects, such as water use, global limits may not as yet
be reached, though scarcity can already be felt locally. These insights emphasize that
tourism is not only a resource-intense sector, it is also increasingly becoming vulnerable
to resource scarcity and global environmental change, given its dependence on resource
availability and stable climate conditions.

Table 6. Global environmental impact of tourism, 2010 and 2050.

Aspect Global total 2010 Global total 2050, BAU scenario Growth factor 2010 2050

Energy 16,697 PJ 44,110 PJ 2.64

Emissions 1119 Mt CO2 2957 Mt CO2 2.64
Fresh water 138 km3 265 km3 1.92
Land use 61,826 km2 178,731 km 2 2.89
Food use 39.4 Mt 82.0 Mt 2.08
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 655

Conclusions
This paper has introduced the concept of RUIs to tourism, concluding that there are vast
differences in the resource input required to generate a unit of tourism services. For exam-
ple, documented values suggest that one night in accommodation can require between
3.6 and 3717 MJ of energy and cause GHG emissions of between 0.1 and 260 kg CO2.
Differences of up to three orders of magnitude were also found for water and land use
RUIs. Food use, in comparison, is more difficult to assess, due to a lack of scientific stud-
ies in this area. However, high RUIs appear to be common in more luxurious forms of
tourism involving five-star accommodation, as well as in tourism based on energy-intense
transport modes (cruise ships, aviation) or long-distance travel. It is these forms of tour-
ism that appear to become increasingly popular, triggered by growth in a global class of
wealthy travellers. Results, and average RUI estimates derived from these, thus confirm
that tourism is a resource-intense economic sector (Dwyer, Forsyth, Spurr, & Hoque,
2010; Perch-Nielsen, Sesartic, & Stucki, 2010) and bound for further growth. Notably, all
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

estimates presented in this paper exclude day trips and represent energy throughput for
direct and indirect tourism services and thus constitute conservative estimates: a complete
life cycle analysis would result in higher values.
Based on the RUIs found in various elements of the tourism sector, as well as data on
past growth in tourist arrival numbers and anticipated future growth trajectories, consider-
ing population growth developments and changes in income levels and distribution,
results also indicate that tourism has only just entered a period of expansion. Since the
1960s, the introduction of commercial aviation and widespread car use in industrializing
nations have triggered rapid growth in tourism, and the system is now in the middle of a
what might be termed a “global bust cycle”. Consequently, modelling shows that for all
resource aspects studied, i.e. energy and emissions, water, land, and food, current
resource use will double within 25-45 years. While these results are based on a modelling
approach using available data that needs future refinement, projections as presented in
this paper are in line with findings in the more general Anthropocene debate (Steffen
et al., 2011) and help understanding the dynamic of the global tourism system with regard
to resource use. They suggest that the global tourism system is increasingly at odds with
objectives to reduce global resource use, and in particular emissions of GHGs, for which
global stabilization goals have been formulated (www.unfccc.int; www.unfccc.int; www.
ipcc.ch). Given the huge differences in RUIs, alternative tourism development pathways
appear possible, but this would require currently unimaginable political efforts to restruc-
ture the global tourism system, combined with resource saving actions by industry and
individual travellers, none of which do exist at the moment (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development and United Nations Environment Programme [OECD
and UNEP], 2011).
In acknowledging Krippendorf (1993), this paper has outlined a challenge: sustainable
tourism will be defined, on a global scale, as the point in time when absolute resource use
will begin to decline, despite a growing number of travellers, indicating not only demate-
rialization of the system, but development in recognition of the physical boundaries of
the planetary system (Costanza et al., 2014; Hall, 2010). This will require considerable, if
not massive efforts to reduce resource consumption, and to minimize emissions of GHGs
and land use. Ultimately, this is in the interest of tourists, industry, and government, as
tourism is dependent on stable resource flows. As indicated by Anthropocene research
(Rockstr€ om et al., 2009), critical planetary boundaries have already been transgressed
with regard to biodiversity loss, nitrogen cycle, and climate change, and the prospect of
 656 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

systemic disruptions is no longer an issue of the long-term future. Clearly, global tourism
is not only increasingly less sustainable (Buckley, 2012; Krippendorf, 1993), but also
becoming increasingly vulnerable to systemic disruptions.
Much future research is needed to refine the results presented in this paper, specifically
with regard to country-specific studies focusing on food, energy, water, land use, and emis-
sions of GHGs. Research may also address how consumption in tourism is different from
consumption at home, and to which extent it is additional. Based on such an improved
understanding of the global tourism system’s resource use implications, it will be warranted
to discuss what a sustainable tourism system would look like, and which implications this
has for the development of a global tourism system in line with planetary boundaries.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.
1008500).

Notes on contributors
Stefan G€ossling is a professor at the School of Business and Economics at Linnaeus University,
Kalmar, and at the Department of Service Management, Lund University, both in Sweden. He is
also the research co-ordinator at the Western Norway Research Institute (Sustainable Tourism). He
studied geography and biology, and holds a PhD in human ecology from Lund University. Stefan
has worked with aspects of sustainable tourism since 1994, focusing primarily on transport, mobili-
ties, energy, and water.

Paul Peeters is an associate professor specialised in the impacts of tourism on the environment and
specifically on climate change. His publications cover a wide range of topics including global and
regional tourism and climate scenarios, system dynamic approaches to tourism, tourism transport
mode choice and modal shift, policy-making and transport technological developments. He is
responsible for the NHTV Centre for Sustainable Tourism & Transport (www.cstt.nl) and a group
of six researchers at NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands.

References
Aleklett, K., H€o€ok, M., Jakossbsson, K., Lardelli, M., Snowden, S., & S€oderbergh, B. (2010). The
peak of the oil age analyzing the world oil production reference scenario in world energy
outlook 2008. Energy Policy, 38, 1398 1414.
Bingham, S., McNeil, N.I., & Cummimgs, J.H. (1981). The diet of individuals: A study of a
randomly chosen cross section of British adults in a Cambridgeshire village. British Journal of
Nutrition, 45, 23 35.
Bohdanowicz, P., & Martinac, I. (2007). Determinants and benchmarking of resource consumption in
hotels case study of Hilton International and Scandic in Europe. Energy and Buildings, 39, 82 95.
Buckley, R.C. 2012. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2),
528 546.
Cai, Z., Yang, Q., Zhang, B., Chen, H., Chen, B., & Chen, G. (2009). Water resources in unified
accounting for natural resources. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simula-
tion, 14(9), 3693 3704.
Caterinicchio, R.P., & Davies, R.H. (1983). Developing a client-focused allocation statistic of
inpatient nursing resource use: An alternative to the patient day. Social Science and Medicine,
17(5): 259 272.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 657

Chambers, R., & Conway, G.R. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st
century (IDS Discussion Paper 296). Accessed 28 June 2014 from https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/
Dp296.pdf
Chapagain, A.K., & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2007). The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in
The Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 109 118.
Chapagain, A.K., & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2008). The global component of freshwater demand and sup-
ply: An assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural
and industrial products. Water International, 33(1), 19 32.
Clarke, R., & King, J. (2004). The atlas of water. London: Earthscan.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S.,
& Turner, R.K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmen-
tal Change, 26, 152 158.
De Boer, W.F., & Baquete, D.S. 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural peo-
ple in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation,
25(3), 208 218.
DEFRA. (2013). DEFRA conversion factors. Accessed 22 August 2013 from http://www.co2bench
mark.com/DEFRA-conversion-factors
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Deya Tortella, B., & Tirado, D. (2011). Hotel water consumption at a seasonal mass tourist destina-
tion. The case of the island of Mallorca. Journal of Environmental Management, 92,
2568 2579.
Dowrick, S., & Akmal, M. (2005). Contradictory trends in global income inequality: A tale of two
biases. Review of Income and Wealth, 51(2), 201 229.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 1 18.
EC. (2011). Aviation and emissions trading [ICAO Council Briefing, 29 September 2011].
Accessed 28 April 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/docs/presen
tation_icao_en.pdf
Ehrlich, P.R., Kareiva, P.M., & Daily, G.C. (2012). Securing natural capital and expanding equity to
rescale civilization. Nature, 486, 68 73.
Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., & Peeters, P. (2010). Antarctic cruise tourism: The paradoxes of ambassa-
dorship, last chance tourism and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18
(3), 337 354.
Gerland, P., Raftery, A.E., Sevcikova, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., . . . Wilmoth, J. (in press).
World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1257469
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., . . . Toulmin,
C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, 812 818.
Goodall, B. and Stabler, M. (2000). Environmental standards and performance measurement in
tourism destination development. In G. Richards & D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable
community development (pp. 63 82). London: Routledge.
G€ossling, S. (2001). Tourism, environmental degradation and economic transition: Interacting pro-
cesses in a Tanzanian coastal community. Tourism Geographies, 3(4), 230 254.
G€ossling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental
Change, 12(4), 283 302.
G€ossling, S. (2010). Carbon management in tourism: Mitigating the impacts on climate change.
London: Routledge.
G€ossling, S. (in press). New key performance indicators for water management in tourism. Tourism
Management, DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.018
G€ossling, S., Borgstr€om-Hansson, C., H€orstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint
analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43(2 3), 199 211.
G€ossling, S., Garrod, B., Aall, C., Hille, J., & Peeters, P. (2011). Food management in tourism.
Reducing tourism’s carbon “foodprint”. Tourism Management, 32(3), 534 543.
G€ossling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Pattersson, T., & Richardson, R. (2005). The eco-
efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics, 54(4), 417 434.
G€ossling, S., Peeters, P., Hall, C.M., Dubois, G., Ceron, J.P., Lehmann, L., & Scott, D. (2012).
Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Man-
agement, 33(1), 1 15.
G€ossling, S., Hall, C.M., & Scott, D. (2015). Tourism and Water. Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.
 658 S. G€
ossling and P. Peeters

Hadjikakou, M., Chenoweth, J., & Miller, G. (2013). Estimating the direct and indirect water use of
tourism in the eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 548 556.
Hall, C.M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state
tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131 145.
Hall, C.M. (2013) Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable
tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, “nudging” and “green growth”? Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 1091 1109
Herold, A. (2003). Comparison of CO2 emission factors for fuels used in greenhouse gas inventories
and consequences for monitoring and reporting under the EC emissions trading scheme (ETC/
ACC Technical Paper, 10). Accessed 22 December 2014, from http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/
docs/ETCACC_TechnPaper_2003_10_CO2_EF_fuels.pdf
Hoekstra, A.Y., & Chapagain, A.K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a
function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 35 48.
Hoekstra, A.Y., & Hung, P.Q. (2002). Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows
between nations in relation to international crop trade (Value of Water Research Report Series
No.11). Delft: UNESCO-IHE.
Hoekstra, A.Y., & Mekonnen, M.M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3232 3237.

Hudson, S., & Hudson, L. (2010). Golf tourism. Oxford: Foodfellow.
IMAGE-team. (2006). The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios. A comprehensive anal-
ysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century (No. CD-ROM 500110001
[former 481508018]). Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2000). Special report on emission scenarios (No.
ISBN-10: 0521800811 (web version)): International Panel on Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013. The physical science
basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econo-
metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263 291.
Koutros, S., Lynch, C.F., Ma, X., Lee, W.J., Hoppin, J.A., Christensen, C.H., . . . Alavanja, M.C.R.
(2008). Heterocyclic aromatic amine pesticide use and human cancer risk: Results from the US
Agricultural Health Study. International Journal of Cancer, 124(5), 1206 1212.
Krippendorf, J. (1993). Interview: Jost Krippendorf. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 55 60.
Lamers, M., & Amelung, B. (2007). The environmental impacts of tourism, to Antarctica. A global
perspective. In P.M. Peeters (Ed.), Tourism and climate change mitigation. Methods, green-
house gas reductions and policies (pp. 51 62). Breda: NHTV.
Lee, D.S., Fahey, D.W., Forster, P.M., Newton, P.J., Wit, R.C.N., Lim, L.L., . . . Sausen, R. (2009).
Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmospheric Environment, 43,
3520 3537.
Loreau, M. (1998). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: A mechanistic model. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 5632 5636.
Mekonnen, M.M., & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010a). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and
derived crop products (Value of Water Research Report Series No.47). UNESCO IHE.
Mekonnen, M.M., & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010b) The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm ani-
mals and animal products (Value of Water Research Report Series No.48). UNESCO IHE.
Moriarty, J.P. (2012). Theorising scenario analysis to improve future perspective planning in tour-
ism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(6), 779 800.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentand United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme. (2011). Climate change and tourism policy in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Page, S.J., Essex, S., and Causevic, S. (2014). Tourist attitudes towards water use in the developing
world: A comparative analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 57 67.
Peeters, P. (2013). Developing a long-term global tourism transport model using a behavioural
approach: Implications for sustainable tourism policy making. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
21(7), 1049 1069.
Peeters, P.M., & Middel, J. (2007). Historical and future development of air transport fuel effi-
ciency. In R. Sausen, A. Blum, D.S. Lee, & C. Br€ uning (Eds.), Proceedings of an international
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 659

conference on transport, atmosphere and climate (TAC); Oxford, United Kingdom, 26th to 29th
June 2006 (pp. 42 47). Oberpfaffenhoven: DLR Institut f€ ur Physic der Atmosph€are.
Perch-Nielsen, S., Sesartic, A., & Stucki, M. (2010). The greenhouse gas intensity of the tourism
sector: The case of Switzerland. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 131 140.
Pigram, J.J.J. (1995). Resource constraints on tourism: Water resources and sustainability. In R.W.
Butler & D. Pearce (Eds.), Change in tourism: People, places, processes (pp. 208 228).
London: Routledge.
Pratt, S. (2013). Minimising food miles: Issues and outcomes in an ecotourism venture in Fiji. Jour-
nal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(8), 1148 1165.
Randers, J. (2012). 2052: A global forecast for the next forty years. Accessed 25 May 2012 from
http://www.clubofrome.org/?pD703
Ridoutt, B.G., & Pfister, S. (2010). A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the
impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environmental
Change, 20, 113 120. 
Rockstr€om, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J.
(2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and
Society, 14(2), 32.
Downloaded by [207.241.229.243] at 11:56 29 October 2017

Rosello-Batie, B., Mola, A., Cladera, A., & Martinez, V. (2010). Energy use, CO2 emissions and
waste throughout the life cycle of a sample of hotels in the Balearic Islands. Energy and Build-
ings, 42, 547 558.
Scott, D., Peeters, P., & G€ossling, S. (2010). Can tourism deliver its “aspirational” emission reduc-
tion targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 393 408.
Skiresort. (2013). Ski resorts worldwide. Accessed 10 December 2013 from http://www.skiresort.
info/ski-resorts/ 
Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., . . . Svedin, U.
(2011). The anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40, 739 761.
The Royal Society. (2009). Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of
global agriculture. London: Author.
Tittonell, P., Leffelaar, P.A., Vanlauwe, B., van Wijk, M.T., & Giller, K.E. (2006). Exploring diver-
sity of crop and soil management within smallholder African farms: A dynamic model for simu-
lation of N balances and use efficiencies at field scale. Agricultural Systems, 91(1), 71 101.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2013). World population prospects:
The 2012 revision. Accessed 6 December 2013 from http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/panel_popula
tion.htm
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Water in a changing
world (United Nations World Water Development Report 3). Accessed 4 September 2013 from
http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/WWDR3_Water_in_a_Changing_
World.pdf
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2010). Historical perspective of world tourism.
Accessed 4 February 2014 from http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/historical.htm.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2012). UNWTO tourism highlights 2012 edition.
Madrid: Author.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2013). UNWTO annual report 2012. Accessed 6
December 2013 from http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/annual_re
port_2012.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Light-duty automotive technology and fuel
economy trends: 1975 through 2008 (No. EPA420-R-08-015). Washington, DC: Author.
US Department of Agriculture. (2002). Profiling food consumption in America. Agriculture fact
book 2001 2002. Accessed 11 December 2013 from http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.
htm
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J.M. (1997). Human domination of
Earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494 499.
Walnum. (2011). Energy use and CO2 emission from cruise ships A A discussion of methodologi-
cal issues (Vestlandsforsking Note 2/2011). Accessed 30 January 2014 from http://www.vest
forsk.no/filearchive/vf-notat-2-2011-cruise.pdf
Worldwatch Institute. (2004). Rising impacts of water use. Accessed 4 September 2013 from http://
www.worldwatch.org/topics/consumption/sow/trendsfacts/2004/03/03/