Estimating the carbon footprint and energy consumption of Taiwan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Estimating the carbon footprint and energy consumption of Taiwan tourism Dr. Ya ‐ Yen Sun Assistant Professor, Department of Kinesiology, Health and Leisure Studies National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan 2011.10.17 Michigan State University

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Environmental Extended Input ‐ Output Model 3. Literature review 4. Case study ‐ electricity usages and its associated CO 2 emission of visitors in Taiwan

Introduction 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 relationship with climate. 2003 Djerba Declaration by World Tourism Organization (WTO) and United Nationals Environment Programme (UNEP)

Kyoto Protocol (KP) > Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% of their 1990 levels by the end of 2012. � Greenhouse gas (GHG) – CO 2 , O 3, CH 4, N 2 O, CFCs, PFCs, FCs, HCFCs, and SF 6 � KP only controls CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6 > Carbon footprint ‐ the amount of GHG emissions associated with the production and consumption of goods and services at the level of an individual firm, industry or entire economy

WTO ‐ UNEP CO 2 estimates with global tourism

The accurate information on the carbon footprint of each of the various sectors that comprise “the tourism industry” is essential for � The mitigation and regulation of GHG emission, � The securing of financial resources to assist regions and businesses

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Environmental Extended Input ‐ Output Model 3. Literature review 4. Case study ‐ electricity usages in Taiwan

Environmentally Extended Input ‐ Output Model (EEIO) The basic idea of EEIO models > Augmenting the technical coefficients matrix with additional rows and / or columns to reflect energy consumption or pollution production.

Generalized IO model R = resource input coefficient = resource intensity per dollar of output Q = pollution output coefficient = pollution intensity per dollar of output Direct impact Industry A Industry B Direct impact per $ of output coefficient Energy Oil 0.2 0.3 BTUs ( British thermal unit ) Coal 0.1 0.4 BTUs Pollution CO 2 0.5 1.1 tonnes SO x 0.7 0.7 tonnes

Calculation formula ‐ type I multipliers Type I resource and pollution multipliers R* = R(I ‐ A) ‐ 1 = M (X) ‐ 1 (I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Q* =Q (I ‐ A) ‐ 1 = N (X ) ‐ 1 (I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Where X = Total output A = Technical input coefficients M = Flow ‐ in resource matrix N = Flow ‐ out commodity matrix R* = The total amount of resource required, directly and indirectly, per dollar’s worth of output by industry Q* = The total amount of ecological commodity emitted, directly and indirectly, per dollar’s worth of output by industry

Total effects Total amount of resources required: R* (I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Y Total amount of pollution produced: Q* (I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Y > Production driven: Total amount of ecological resources = R* [(I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Y] Total amount of ecological emission = Q* [(I ‐ A) ‐ 1 Y] > Consumption driven: Total amount of ecological resources = [R(I ‐ A) ‐ 1 ]* Y Total amount of ecological emission= [Q(I ‐ A) ‐ 1 ]* Y

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Environmental Extended Input ‐ Output Model 3. Literature review 4. Case study ‐ electricity usages in Taiwan

Literature Review EEIO studies on tourism ‐ a relative new research topic Articles Becken & Jones & Munday Kelly & Williams Dwyer, Forsyth, Konan & Chan Patterson (2006) (2007) (2007) Spurr, & Hoque (2010) (2010) New Zealand Wales, UK Whistler, Australia Hawaii Destination Canada 1997/98 2000 2000 2003 ‐ 2004 1997 Reference Year Carbon dioxide; Carbon Carbon ‐ dioxide Green House Seven fuel Environment energy dioxide, waste equivalent GHG Gas (GHG) types and three al variables consumption outputs emission for GHG gases energy and the (CO2, Methane disposal of and NOx) solid waste

Differences across the previous studies 1. Analysis method � Top ‐ down approach � Bottom ‐ up approach 2. Research scope

The bottom ‐ up analysis > The bottom ‐ up analysis computes energy use and GHG emission based on information on energy end ‐ uses of typical tourism industry and tourist behavior. 1. Sample transportation, accommodation and attraction business to calibrate the average energy efficiency and coefficients with respect to per dollar sales (industry analysis) 2. Combine with tourist travel behavior and visitor volume (tourist analysis) to estimate total energy use in the tourism sector.

The top ‐ down analysis > The second approach, referred as Integrated Economic ‐ Environmental Accounting, allows the assessment of tourism as a sector within a comprehensive national economic platform. 1. Adopt Tourism Satellite Accounts and national EEIO table 2. Allocate the proportional sales, energy use and GHG emission to the the tourism industry by the TSA tourism ratio.

Advantages of the bottom ‐ up approach > Detailed energy information can be gathered using business surveys to reflect the regional characteristics in production function. For example, the transportation category can be differentiated by domestic air, private air, rental car, coach, train, motorcycle, scheduled bus, or ferry, depending on the transportation modes that are best utilized in the area. > The linkages of recreational behaviors and GHG emission can be established. It helps to trace the GHG emission due to behavior changes overtime. � Whistler, British Columbia, Canada (Kelly & Williams, 2007) � 2004 World Rally Championship (Jones, 2008) � Hawaii (Konan & Chan, 2010)

Advantage of the top ‐ down method > The top ‐ down analysis is best suited for comparing the tourism’s eco ‐ efficiency with other sectors, or formulating the macroeconomic instruments such as carbon charges on the tourism industry at the national level. � GHG estimation for New Zealand (Becken & Patterson, 2006) � Wales, UK (Jones & Munday, 2007) � Australia (Dwyer, et al., 2010)

Differences across previous studies 1. Analysis method 2. Research scope � tourism ‐ characteristic industries � tourism ‐ characteristic industries & tourism ‐ related industries � Whether to include air transportation, especially international aviation � Residents vs. tourists � Internal destination energy consumption vs. employee commuting to and from the destination vs. visitor travel to and from the destination. � Direct effects � Direct + indirect effects � Direct + indirect + induced effects

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Environmental Extended Input ‐ Output Model 3. Literature review 4. Case study ‐ electricity usages & CO 2 emission for tourists in Taiwan

Study purposes of the Taiwan project 1. To construct the Environmental Extended Input ‐ Output Model (EEIO) as a life ‐ cycle assessment tool for Taiwan. � 10 energy types � GHG emission 2. To evaluate the amount of carbon emission based on different visitor segments per capita including � Inbound tourist vs. domestic tourist � Visitor segments based on nationality and travel purposes � Per dollar tourist spending vs. per dollar output of the non ‐ tourism injection � Per tourist in Taiwan vs. a global average tourist journey 3. To estimate total carbon emission associated with tourism in 2006

Data sources 1. 2006 National Taiwan IO table 2. 2006 Taiwan Tourism Satellite Account 3. 2006 Energy consumption data � Coal � Crude oil and petroleum products (7 types) � Natural gas � Electricity 4. 2006 Energy converting coefficients � Parameters that can covert each energy use to the emission of GHG

Analytical framework

An example ‐ The tourism electricity consumption in Taiwan Party-trip World consumption in China ferry Kaohsiung Domestic International Games Taiwan passenger day visitors visitors visitors participant (NT$) Accommodation 4,000 0 1,276 13,659 3,208 Food & beverage 2,764 771 1,395 6,565 2,399 Transportation 1,635 288 944 4,568 599 Entertainment 1,207 90 427 2,399 476 Shopping 25,703 570 1,728 10,509 4,502 Travel agency 2,330 0 157 1,760 185 Total 37,640 1,720 5,928 39,460 11,370

Economic & environmental effects Multipliers CO2 (kwh per Sales Electricity emission dollar direct Per 1000 party trips ($ million's) Jobs (000 kwh) (000 kg) sales) Direct effects China ferry passenger $34.3 22.5 217.8 139.0 0.00635 KHH domestic visitors $1.6 1.2 6.4 4.1 0.00400 Domestic visitors $5.7 4.2 43.2 27.6 0.00758 International visitors $38.1 28.0 369.2 235.6 0.00969 World Games participatns $10.8 7.4 96.0 61.3 0.00889 Direct + Indirect effects China ferry passenger $57.8 32.4 326.2 208.1 0.00951 KHH domestic visitors $2.8 1.8 11.6 7.4 0.00725 Domestic visitors $9.6 5.8 60.6 38.7 0.01063 International visitors $63.8 38.5 487.5 311.0 0.01280 World Games participatns $18.4 10.7 131.8 84.1 0.01220