The primary data used for this study was based on 146 valid responses from B&Bs in British Columbia (13% of an 1100 sample size), which were completed using an online survey tool in October 2008.  Research found that a significant number of B&B owner/operators indicated they have implemented “green” practices in their operations. The most common “green” practice was recycling; an average 73% of owner/operators “always” recycle. Owner/operators also exhibited environmental awareness by “usually” or “always” purchasing organic (40%), locally grown (66%) and low-toxic items (62%). The tendency to purchase organic and local items depended on availability and the B&B’s location, with remote locations finding this difficult. Additionally, 80% of participants indicated that they take the initiative to learn about environmental management. This shows that the trend of becoming more sustainable is apparent within B&Bs in B.C.

Barriers that hindered B&B operators from implementing “green” practices included financial restrictions, lack of resources and location. The financial restrictions cited as a barrier were also consistent with the response that a monetary incentive would be effective. The majority of respondents were not part of a “green” association that recognizes environmental initiatives through certification. In fact, no standard certification process exists for B&Bs in B.C.

Recommendations from this report outline how stakeholders could help B&Bs develop more “green” practices. First, government and associations could improve communications and increase the availability of feasible “green” practices that B&Bs could implement. The creation, implementation, communication and monitoring of government incentive programs in the field of sustainability would also improve B&Bs “green” practices. Second, an association could be created at the provincial or local level to recognize “green” initiatives through certification. Third, B&Bs could also become more aware of the current provincial and federal incentives offered to establishments for retrofitting.

Overall recommendations for government, associations and industry include the creation of a co-operative marketing initiative involving all three stakeholders.  This initiative could help increase awareness of “green” practices and specifically target the “green” niche market. The study notes that B&Bs are often not considered when discussing the impact of tourism and its contributions to mitigating climate change or moving towards more sustainable tourism. If Canada is to be seen as an eco-conscious destination, the B&B industry must not be forgotten. – new-

Bibliography
- Bohdanowicz, P., «European Hoteliers’ Environmental Attitudes: Greening the Business», Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 46 no 2, 2005, p.188-204.
- Gunter, H., «State programs help define green hotels», Hotel & Motel Management, vol. 223 no 10, 2008, p. 4.
- Hanna, E., «Setting the guestroom for the guest», Hotel & Motel Management, vol. 223 no 10, 2008, p. 48.
- Johnson, A., «Savings by the load», Hotel & Motel Management, vol. 223 no 11, 2008, p. 34.
- Rushmore, S. & Baum, E., «Hotel and Motels: Valuations and Market Studies», USA: The Appraisal Institute, 2001.
- Winter, J. P. & Azimi, S. L., «Less Garbage Overnight: A Waste Prevention Guide for the Lodging Industry», New York: INFORM, 1996.

A 2010 study by R. Dodds et al., “Carbon Offsetting Programs in North America: Assessing the Involvement of the Hospitality and Tourism Industry,” assessed the current marketplace for carbon offsetting providers in North America and the adoption of offsetting by the hospitality industry.  The study identified and contacted 50 carbon offset providers operating in North America. Of the 50 providers, 20 respondents participated in a telephone interview.   This study sought to determine 1) the status of the voluntary carbon offset market in North America and 2) the current level of involvement of the hospitality and tourism industry in mitigating climate change.

Key Findings of the Study

Offsetting and the Hospitality Industry

The study found that, overall, the hospitality industry was the most predominant industry utilizing offset providers, representing 19% of all offset business. Among hospitality and tourism sectors:

• Festivals and events represented the largest share of offsetting services, accounting for 5% of all offsetting business.

• Cruises were the least prominent sector of the hospitality industry, representing a statistically insignificant 0.2% of the client base.

Fifteen percent of respondent offset providers report that hospitality represented 75% or more of their client base. However, 32% of all respondent offset providers did not have any clients among the tourism and hospitality industry.

Respondents most often identified cost (40%) and lack of education (40%) as the barriers to buy-in by the hospitality industry and 85% of all respondents strongly agreed that there is confusion in the marketplace regarding carbon offsetting.

Offset Provider Practices

Renewable energy and biological sequestration were the most common types of offset project undertaken by offset providers, with each one used by 65%. Other common types were:

• Energy efficiency projects (30%)

• Methane capture (40%)

• Half of respondents identified biological sequestration as the most popular type of project among clients

The study also found that there are numerous standards and certifications, with respondents identifying 14 different ones in use. The most commonly used standard was the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). The Gold Standard, the world’s best known, was adhered to by four respondents. When asked which was the most credible method, respondents felt that ‘additionality’ was best ensured by standards (67%) and third-party verification (44%).

Implications of the Study

The findings indicate that the hospitality and tourism Industry is beginning to take action on the issues of climate change. Though the festival and events sector is a leader in adopting carbon offsetting practices, more efforts are needed to mitigate climate change, especially in the transportation sector. The study concluded that it is not clear whether the industry is purchasing offsets based on concern for climate change or in response to consumer demand; nor is it clear whether the industry is supporting the highest standard of offset providers or less reliable offset providers.

The recent economic downturn has demonstrated that the industry is highly price‑sensitive and the costs associated with adopting carbon offsetting practices were identified as a major barrier to buy-in for the hospitality industry.

Based on these survey findings, Dodds et al. (2010) call for more government regulation in the voluntary offsetting market to provide clearer standards of practice and a higher level of accountability. Further education regarding climate change and carbon offsetting within the industry is required as lack of education was a common theme among respondents (40%), yet many offset providers have not incorporated client education into their business practices. Some airlines have begun to provide carbon offset credits at the point of purchase, but few consumers are aware of the concept or knowledgeable about how it works.

As demand for offsetting is likely to increase as consumers become better acquainted with the practice, there is a need for regulation and education. If governments provide trustworthy regulation, consumers will become more confident in the value of their offset credits.  In the absence of government regulation, a number of recommendations should be considered and the hospitality and tourism industry should use discretion when adopting carbon offsetting practices. It is important to select offsetting providers that can produce a transparent accounting of their methods and offset projects. Familiarize yourself with the various offsetting methods and issues such as additionality and permanence, and look for the most trustworthy standards.

Industry should note that carbon offsetting is not a solution to the issues of climate change, but simply one part of a holistic strategy to mitigate your impact. Offsetting should be incorporated into a system-wide carbon mitigation strategy and supported by rigorous climate change education.

¹“An offset project is considered additional if it is not business as usual. Typically, this means that the project would not have happened without the extra funding from the sale of offsets.” (David Suzuki Foundation, 2009) Only with the applied concept of additionality can the offsetting program have a net benefit for the climate.

Source:

- Dodds, R., Bessada, T., Garcia-Arredondo, J., McDougall, A., and Thiesen, N. “Carbon Offsetting Programs in North America: Assessing the Involvement of the Hospitality and Tourism Industry”, 2010

Nonetheless, golf remains an important activity across Québec’s 362 golf clubs, while worldwide an estimated 25,000 golf courses cater to some 50 million players. Internationally, various organizations and initiatives exist to reduce golf’s environmental impact, but one of the most popular remains the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. In 2009, 783 golf courses were certified by this program worldwide, including 82 in Canada and 11 in Québec.²

Golf courses that have implemented initiatives to reduce their environmental impact can be recognized by a variety of actions, including:

• decreased water use
• improved irrigation systems and water application
• water quality monitoring
• reduced or eliminated pesticide use
• increased natural organic fertilizer use
• improved spill containment for pesticide mixing and loading areas
• decreased managed turf grass area to increase wildlife habitat
• landscaping with native plants to increase wildlife habitats
• removed exotic invasive plants
• vegetation planted in and around waterways
• installed of contained equipment in wash-off area.

Where such environmental actions have been implemented, golf course managers have generally also reported a positive business value or cost savings, according to Audubon International assessments.³

Situation in Québec

Currently, there is no information that systematically documents environmental improvements implemented by Québec golf courses. However, numerous golf courses are actively working towards reducing their negative environmental impact, while several are also in process of certification by Audubon International. The most prevalent positive environmental action presently in Québec remains the reduction of pesticide use, owing to legislation implemented back in 2003 by the Provincial Government.⁴ According to baseline assessments for the period 2003-2005, Québec’s golf sector used 39,382 kg of active ingredients per year (according to sales figures) and 75.9%, or 29,885 kg, in the form of fungicides.⁵ In comparison with total pesticide use in the Province, pesticide use by golf represented about 1.1% of the total. The continuous reductions in pesticide use remains important to maintain watershed ecosystem health, but especially since their application by golf courses in Québec occurs almost entirely on permeable soils.

Since 2003, the Québec Pesticides Management Code and its associated regulations require all Québec golf courses to submit a pesticide reduction plan prepared by a certified agronomist to the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs every three years.⁴ For the period 2006-2009, the objective was to achieve average reductions of 12.9% in the use of fungicides, 9.4% in herbicides, 8.2% in insecticides, 7.4% in rodenticides and 2.8% in growth regulators. The results are currently being analyzed and the objectives for the next three years will be revised in 2010.

Though golf courses in Québec have taken numerous other actions to improve their environmental management, the overall impact of these is not documented, with the exception of the Laurentides, where water use is monitored by public sector organizations. A few golf courses have also installed industrial equipment to filter, treat and reuse wastewater. However, such initiatives are limited to only a few places, since they cost up to CAD 200,000. Elsewhere, golf courses have exchanged their carts for electric versions, implemented recycling programs, and use recyclable or biodegradable balls and tees. Increasingly, some golf courses supply their restaurants with local and regional foods, as in the case of the Rawdon Golf Club, which also received Le Phénix de l’environnement Award in 2009 for having implemented a variety of initiatives to improve its environmental management.⁶

While there aren’t clearly any 100% eco-friendly golf courses, work is under way to improve management at some places. There is currently a move in Québec to implement a variety of voluntary initiatives in 2010. For example, the Association des terrains de golf du Québec is drafting a sustainable development policy and green program, which will address comprehensive environmental management requirements covering a range of issues, including waste and water management (composting, recycling), hazardous substance use, vegetation around waterways and others. A number of other organizations, such as the Coalition for Responsible Golf, are also working to help golf courses improve their environmental management practices in Québec.

What about green golfers?

Few studies have assessed golfers’ attitudes towards the environment, and none have been reported from Québec. However, in 2008, Golf Digest published a survey that illustrated how perceptions of 650 avid golfers compared with the general American population regarding golf and its relationship with the environment.⁷ According to this study, golfers were typically male, affluent and older than the general population surveyed and some similarities and differences were noted amongst the two groups concerning environmental attitudes. For example, both groups appeared environmentally conscious and participated in activities like recycling and agreed that government regulation is a necessary approach for addressing environmental issues. However, while golfers also appeared to support the idea that golf is an environmentally friendly/compatible sport, they were less likely than the general population to participate in initiatives such as carpooling. Figure 1 summarizes some of the attitudes towards specific impacts linked to water and pesticide use, which suggests that fewer golfers believe the game’s water and pesticide use has a negative impact on the environment than the general population. The Golf Digest study ⁷ also suggests that, while golfers agree with the need to improve the environmental management of golf courses, such improvement does not necessarily represent a big plus for increased participation in the game.

Some golf courses are also focussing on player education to raise environmental awareness and several try to get players involved by having them volunteer to carry out restoration and environmental works, while others encourage the provision of financial support towards environment initiatives.

Golf clearly has the potential to be more environmentally responsible and the numerous initiatives in place by some golf courses currently leave no room for inaction by the great majority.

Source

(1) Wheeler, K. & Nauright, J. (2006). A green game?: A Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf. Sport in Society, 9(3) 427-443.

(2) Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses

(3) Audubon International (2007). Golf’s Green Bottom Line: Uncovering the Hidden Business Value of Environmental Stewardship on Golf Courses. Audubon International. 64 p.

(4) Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. Code de gestion des pesticides. Last access November 4, 2009 http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/pesticides/permis/code-gestion/index.htm

(5) Laverdière, C., Dion, S., and Gauthier, F. (2007). Bilan des plans de réduction des pesticides sur les terrains de golf. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. 54 p.

(6) Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. Les Phénix de l’environnement, édition 2009. Last access October 28, 2009. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/Phenix/2009/5-realisation-entrep.htm

(7) Golf Digest (2008). Golf and the Environment: Golfer Perceptions and Attitudes Concerning the Game and its Relationship with the Environment. Golf Digest Publication. Research Resource Centre. 25 p.

Economic incentives are considered a key component of sustainable tourism growth. Yet, there are very few examples of this when it comes to producing or purchasing tourism products. It is well known that existing “eco-conscious” tourists are not really motivated by price and that most others, and especially mass tourists still are. Moreover, studies also show that price is perceived as a significant barrier for purchasing responsible tourism experiences¹.

Offering financial rewards is not relevant to all businesses since some tourism operations offer clients opportunities to participate in different activities (especially eco and nature-based) that lead them to better understand the importance of natural resource conservation. It is assumed that such experiences might be rewarding, because they are meaningful at a personal level and clients automatically benefit by learning and can often result in responsible action elsewhere too.

There are many examples of small incentives to encourage responsible behaviour, such as giving a small discount for reusing a cup in café, giving away reusable shopping bags away at stores and so on. But why not reward tourists for partaking in environmental actions? Here are some examples from around the world.

At festivals…

In 2009, Roskilde Festival in Denmark² focussed some of its environmental initiatives on climate change with its Green Footsteps campaign. The organizers encouraged clients to take at least one environmental action, such as arriving at the festival by public transport instead by car and awarded them with green footsteps for this. A total of 40 000 actions were taken by festival-goers linked to cut energy consumption and CO² production, and as a reward, those with enough green footsteps could reserve a spot at the camping area before it opened for the general public. Those with the most green footsteps were also invited to join the festival’s Climate Community, a camping quarter providing an enriched visitor experience for participating patrons. They were offered engageing activities, knowledge about climate change, climate friendly showers (energy from wind, sun and humans on bikes) and a dance floor.

At nature parks…

Phillip Island Nature Parks³ (PINP) in Victoria, Australia provides wildlife experiences involving a variety of species, notably the Little Penguins whose conservation and volunteer program also includes a reward component for participants. PINP manages numerous conservation projects such as revegetation and weed removal, amongst others. The park rewards every international and domestic volunteer who helps with conservation works by offering free accommodation. The park also waives park entree fees for participating international volunteers. As do many zoos and aquariums around the world PINP also runs an “adopt an animal” program, where visitors can donate funds to help with penguin and other environmental conservation works. Those who participate become members and once a year receive free tickets to see the penguins. PINP is a not-for-profit organization and does not receive ongoing funding from the government, and it generates its own revenue to ensure business viability.

On tours…

GeoEx⁴ is a tour company that offers all its travelers who contribute $250 or more to the Living Planet Trust (a donor-directed fund administered by the Tides Foundation of San Francisco) a $250 travel voucher toward a future trip. These tax-deductible donations to the Living Planet Trust are dedicated to offsetting the carbon emissions generated by travelers’ international air passage and to funding local initiatives at the destination they just experienced.

At ski areas…

Several ski resorts in North America have carpool and bus incentive programs, encouraging skiers to take fewer cars to the mountains. For example, at Arapahoe Basin resort⁵ in Colorado, guests with four individuals in a vehicle are offered a 30% discount on lift tickets. The resort also provides financial support to a local bus system to encourage public transport use and reduce vehicle congestion and air pollution. Similarly, Aspen/Snowmass⁶ partnered with the City of Aspen to provide carpooling guests (with two or more adults) a free parking pass for all-day parking at the resort.

At airports…

Several airports are also rewarding the eco-conscious. For example, at Boston Logan Airport⁷ those who drive hybrid cars get preferential parking and taxis with low emission vehicles are eligible for a US $ 25,000 grant (from the government). Hybrid taxis also have privileged front of the line passenger pick-ups at the airport. Similarly, San Francisco airport has a Green Rental Car program that rewards customers renting hybrid cars with a $15 discount8.

On islands…

Targeta Verda⁹ or Green Card is an initiative of the Balearic Island Foundation to raise funds from tourists for sustainable development projects while giving discounts for visiting attractions and buying commercial products. The card costs 10 euros and is valid for 15 days for visitors, and for one year for residents while its benefits include free bike hire. Funds from the card have also been put towards various ecological restoration projects on the island, heritage interpretation and visitor awareness programs.

While Shopping …

Many tourist attractions (such as zoos) already sell products in their gift shops, which are produced responsibly and in some cases, the purchase of an item may provide a portion of the cost towards some conservation effort (for example, save a threatened animal from extinction). Eco-perks Green Rewards Store¹⁰ is a California-based online store that gives eco-points to customers who buy responsibly produced products and services. These could be anything from T-shirts and carbon offsets to stays at places such as W Hotels or Chumbe Island Coral Park in Zanzibar. The company also sells a wide variety of low-impact tourism experiences at various destinations: hanggliding, birdwatching, kayaking, cycling tours and so on. The more people buy, the more eco-points redeemed that can be used to purchase other products and services sold by the company. Eco-points can also be donated to a variety of causes such as environmentally oriented NGOs and ecosystem restoration projects. The company also provides information and tools to help reduce the negative impacts of every-day life.

So what?

It might be worthwhile to provide visitors with some kind of a reward, however small, because it would help communicate some of the environmental actions a company is undertaking that may otherwise be invisible and thereby raise awareness about an issue. Since most consumer groups have expressed some kind of an interest in purchasing green products, this may help also help to attract new clients.

Sources:

1. Reem, C. (2009). PhoCusWright’s Going Green: The Business Impact of Environmental Awareness of Travel. PhoCusWright. Sherman, CT, USA. 29 p.
2. Roskilde Festival. Reserve a spot at the camping area. Last consulted July 7, 2009. http://www.roskilde-festival.dk/uk/news/singlenews/reserve-a-spot-at-the-camping-area/
3. Philip Island Nature Parks. Wildlife and habitat programs. http://www.penguins.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=19 Last consulted June 16, 2009.
4. Geographic Expeditions. Responsible Travel. Walking the Talk. 2009 http://www.geoex.com/about_us/responsible_travel.asp Last consulted July 7, 2009.
5. Arapahoe Basin. http://www.arapahoebasin.com/ABasin/about/environment/transportation.aspx Last consulted July 6, 2009.
6. Aspen Snowmass. http://www.aspensnowmass.com/onmountain/statsfacts/statsfacts.cfm?area=Aspen%20Mountain Last consulted July 6, 2009.
7. Massachusetts Port Authority. Preferred Parking at Logan for Passengers Driving Clean Fuel Vehicles. http://www.massport.com/about/press_news_cleanvehiclehtml.html Last consulted July 13, 2009.
8. San Francisco International Airport. Save some green when you rent green. http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/tofrom/rental-cars/greenrentals/ Last consulted July 13, 2009.
9. Foundation for a Sustainable Balearics. http://www.targetaverda.com Last consulted June 4, 2009.
10. Eco Perks. http://www.ecoperks.com/ Last consulted July 2, 2009.

The relationship between climate change and tourism is interwoven and interdependent.  Climate change has major implications for the future of tourism because weather conditions factor heavily into the business direction of tourism operators. In Canada, seasonal and outdoor tourism may be adversely impacted by abnormal or unpredictable weather patterns, and costly changes to infrastructure may be required to cope with these changes .

With the growing concern about the effects of climate change and how the tourism industry is vulnerable to these effects, the challenge is to determine the awareness of tourism stakeholders and their level of participation in mitigating such effects.

A 2008 study by L. Kole et al at Ryerson University aimed to determine the level of awareness among Canadian travel agents with regard to climate change, and their willingness to offer carbon offsetting as a mitigation strategy to their clients. The study also aimed to determine whether more information regarding environmental issues and carbon offsetting needs to be provided to travel agents to assist them in channelling this knowledge to consumers.

The study sent an e-survey to 1886 members of the Association of Canadian Travel Agents (ACTA) and 2,500 members of the Canadian Institute of Travel Counsellors (CITC). The study received a 5.9% response rate.

Findings

The study found that while travel agents consider climate change a threat, they were unaware of the tourism industry’s contribution to climate change. Their consumers, travellers, also did not make the connection between climate change and their travel habits. Most travel agents have a ‘basic’ understanding (50%) of climate change and carbon offsetting. More than 50% said their first business priority was ‘making a profit.’ However, 9% of travel agencies said their first priority was ‘spreading knowledge of climate change.’ In addition, although 46% of agents felt it was important to communicate environmental issues related to tourism, they were not encouraged to do so by their agencies.

Some 34% of Canadian travel agents believe their customers would be willing to pay up to $10 as an additional charge for carbon offsets, although they felt that the government should bear the financial costs of carbon offsets. Less than half of these agents ’sometimes’ suggest carbon offsets to their customers while customers ‘rarely’ bring up the option of carbon offsets.

The study concludes that since most travel agents have only a ‘basic’ knowledge and understanding of climate change, they are not sufficiently informed to help transfer knowledge about climate change and carbon offsets to their clients. This is also the main reason that agencies are apprehensive about presenting carbon offsetting as a viable option. Travel agents need to be well-versed in environmental issues and carbon offsetting in order to be ambassadors of environmental change.

Implications

In order to increase awareness, a combined effort needs to be initiated among governments, academic institutions and corporations to educate agents about the effects of climate change on tourism and carbon offsetting. As travel agents are representatives at the frontline of the tourism industry, they wield considerable influence when it comes to travellers’ actions and awareness of environmental issues.

There are a number of approaches for communicating climate change awareness within the tourism industry and for making climate change and carbon offsetting a fundamental part of the industry:

1. Education Campaign for Agents – climate change and mitigation strategies should be part of travel training institutions’ curriculum.
2. Increase client awareness through the tourism industry, in order to incorporate this issue into mainstream culture.
3. Offer clients a flat-rate fee for carbon offsetting.

Travel agents must realize that they can help mitigate the effects of climate change. Agents can inspire action by educating consumers about how their travels contribute to climate change, and by offering them carbon offsetting options to enable them to reduce their carbon emissions.

Sources:

Kole, L., Krestell, S., Parlagreco, L. & Dodds, R. (2008). Climate Change and Carbon Offsetting. Toronto: Ryerson University. 49 pages.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2008). Climate Change and Tourism:
Responding to Global Challenges. Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org/index.php

Although multiple studies have been conducted by organizations such as Lonely Planet, National Geographic and others, there is little research data about visitors to Canada, let alone Canada’s biggest city – Toronto. A 2007 study conducted by Arente and Ennamorato on Canadian tourists’ awareness and perceptions of sustainable tourism found that only 12% of Canadians are ‘somewhat’ familiar with the concept of sustainable tourism while 31% had never even heard of it. As for participation in sustainable tourism practices, 49% would choose to participate in activities that have sustainable benefits while travelling and 42% would use travel agencies that follow sustainable tourism guidelines. Over 75% of respondents believe that businesses that market and sell tourism as well as mass media should take on the responsibility of distributing information on sustainable tourism.

To augment this data, a recent study of 400 visitors to Toronto was conducted by Dodds, Antonov, Babkina & Gordon (2008). The purpose of the study was to determine the level of demand for and use of sustainable tourism products (e.g., choosing responsible tour operators, carbon offsetting flights and car rentals, purchasing green products and services such as hotels who showcased environmental policies,  and organic and fair trade food/products).

Findings

The study found that young and not necessarily affluent respondents were willing to pay for sustainable products. Of the respondents, 46% were between the ages of 19- 29 and had a relatively low household income (48% with an income of $24-59,000). Results showed that 11% were willing to pay 11-25% more and 59% of respondents were willing to pay 1-10% more.

Although there is often confusion over the term ‘sustainable tourism’ (45% had never heard of sustainable tourism or were not familiar with it as a form of tourism), 72% of respondents said they were likely to use sustainable tourism products in the future.

The study also found that the more respondents were likely to consider buying sustainable tourism products in the future (77%), the more likely they would pay a premium for them.

In terms of motivation or choice, 44% of respondents said they participated in sustainable tourism practices because they did not want to harm the environment. Although this number is not the majority, many people were also concerned that it corresponded with their moral values (38%) and understood the importance of doing so (39%).

Conclusions

Many sceptics maintain that there is not outstanding participation in or widespread demand for more responsible tourism products. This, however, may be due to limited awareness (33% of the travellers who had never purchased sustainable tourism products said that this was because they were not aware of them).

Canadian travellers are also comparable to international travellers. In a 2007 TripAdvisor ecotourism survey of 1,000 travelers worldwide, 38% responded that environmentally-friendly tourism is a consideration when travelling. This finding is similar to the Toronto study. Only 4% of respondents were ‘not at all’ likely to participate in sustainable tourism practices while travelling in the future, while 44% were ‘somewhat’ likely to consider purchasing sustainable tourism products.

References :

Arente, H. & Ennamorato, M. (2007). Sustainable Tourism: Travel Like You Mean It!  Toronto: TNS Canadian Facts. Retrieved Dec 16, 2008, from http://www.tns-cf.com/conferences/ttra/ttra-2007.pdf

Dodds, R., Antonov, Y., Babkina, I., & Gordon, S. (2008). Travellers’ Demand For and Participation in Sustainable Tourism Practices in Canada. Toronto: Ryerson University.

TripAdvisor. (2007). TripAdvisor Travelers Keen on Going Green. Press release. Retrieved Dec 16, 2008, from http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/PressCenter-i120-c1-Press_Releases.html

Landscapes are an important tourism resource, so it is unrealistic for tourism stakeholders to offer unequivocal support for wind farms. For this reason, battles to stop wind farm development around tourism attractions continue, while at the same time opinions about wind farms continue to diverge. For example, there is opposition to the recently erected wind turbine on Grouse Mountain in Vancouver(2) and to the proposed wind farm near Mont St. Michel, a UNESCO World Heritage Area in France, even though the turbines would be situated some 15 km from it.(3)

Wind turbines as tourist attractions?

For some people, wind turbines are symbols of sustainable development and valued for producing clean energy. Perhaps this attitude can give wind turbines some recognition for being part of modern heritage. Windmills, the predecessors of modern wind turbines, were also contested when introduced to the European landscape around the 12th century. In countries like Holland, windmills today are a visual part of the nation’s heritage and in Québec, many are also tourist attractions, notably on Île Perrot and Île aux Coudres.

However, wind turbines are unlikely to be a major tourism draw in their own right, especially since they are now increasingly part of the cultivated landscape in many countries. In some cases, they diversify the attraction base of a destination, like Cap Chat in the Gaspé Peninsula, where a visitor centre showcases the highest vertical-axis wind turbine in the world. Similar interpretation centres worldwide offer guided tours; in Denmark, for example, there are boat tours to see the offshore wind farms at Middelgrunden near Copenhagen. Preferences and attitudes towards modern wind farms are likely to evolve over time as people get accustomed to their presence, but it is unlikely that they will appeal to everyone in the future.

Visitor preferences

A Scottish report reviewing a number of studies evaluating the impact of wind farms on tourism suggests limited overall negative impacts.(4) However, tourists generally prefer wind energy projects to be located away from accommodation areas, historic sites, scenic areas and viewpoints, and places of natural beauty. The proportion of visitors who flatly oppose wind turbines near tourism attractions appears to be a minority, according to some reports. For example, a broad national survey in France showed 22% of the population thought wind turbines affected tourism negatively, while the rest were positive or neutral.(5) Similarly, in the Languedoc-Roussillon Region, a survey showed only 16% of visitors thought wind turbines degraded the landscape in general.(6) In a more recent study from Scotland, about 20% to 30% of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms and the rest were mainly positive or neutral.(4) Tourist perceptions were also evaluated in a study in the Gaspé Region of Québec, where visitors generally expressed a positive attitude towards wind farms.(6) However, when asked about the establishment of new wind farms in the future, 56.4% preferred to see a concentration of wind turbines (more than 12 turbines) in a few places, rather than fewer turbines (less than 12) in multiple locations. Furthermore, 5.6% of visitors surveyed did not want to see any wind turbines in the Gaspé Region.(7)

Economic impact

While preference studies show broadly similar patterns, very few quantitative studies published to date have established empirical links between wind farms and the net economic impact on tourism. (8) Several studies use hypothetical scenarios to assess future preferences, thus indicating likely impacts on tourism.(9,10) Such studies tend to show that visitors would not change their travel patterns to an area if a wind farm were established, as 92% of visitors indicated in a survey in Southwest England, for example.(9) Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that wind farms have a serious negative economic impact on tourism.

A report from Scotland estimated the net economic impact of potential wind farm development by calculating the combined effect of the changing number of tourists going to an area when a wind farm is constructed and the subsequent change in expenditures, and the lowered willingness to pay for a “room with a view” in an accommodation facility affected by the construction. The study looked at four areas in Scotland that represent about 12% of the country’s tourist activity and found that, in total, 81% to 98% of the tourists to these areas would be affected.(4) It also estimated the proportion of accommodation facilities in the same areas that would be impacted by the proposed wind farms, and this ranged from 9.83% to 32.40%. In the visitor survey part of the study, 63% of tourists preferred a landscape free of wind turbines from the hotel bedroom, while 28% were neutral and 9% were positive. The authors suggest visitor perceptions about wind farms are based on where they are. Thus, opinions about wind farms are likely to change if one has a passing view for a few seconds while driving by compared to having a longer, static view from a hotel room. For accommodation establishments with affected views, the study found a reduction in use by 4.9% to 16.20% and estimated a net expenditure reduction of between 0.48% to 1.59% respectively. The study also found proposed wind farm development may lead to a 2.5% loss due to fewer returning tourists visiting the area.(4)

Conclusion

In most places, like Québec, a variety of legislative and planning tools help minimize the social and environmental impact of wind farms.(11) In addition to its visual impact, wind farm development continues to push the limits of social acceptability in terms of its planning, management, operational control and fairness with regard to the distribution of benefits.(12) The few studies mentioned here suggest that even though the majority of tourists may appear positive about wind farms, one must look closer at preferences with regard to visiting places and choosing accommodations. In this context, it would be worthwhile to independently assess the effects of wind farms on tourism at the local and regional scale in Québec.

Sources:

(1) Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement et Parcs (2006). L’énergie pour construire le Québec de demain. La Stratégie énergétique du Québec 2006-2015. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 138 p.

(2) Colebourn, J. (2009). “Wind turbine power project installed atop Grouse Mountain,” in the Province. September 25. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009. Http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?Id=2035719&sponsor=

(3) nouvelobs (2009). “Manifestation anti-éolien au Mont-Saint-Michel,” in Le Nouvel Observateur. September 26. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009.
Http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/sciences/20090926.SCI7308/manifestation_antieolien_ au_montsaintmichel.html
(4) Riddington, G., Harrison, T., mcarthur, D., Gibson, H., and Millar, K. (2008). “The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism. A report for the Scottish Government.” Accessed online 16 Oct. 2009. Www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

(5) Synovate (2003). Perception et répresentation de l’énergie éolienne en France. Ademe. 18 p.

(6) Institute CSA (2003). Impact potentiel des éoliennes sur le tourisme en Languedoc-Roussillon, France. Synthèse de Sondage. 5 p.

(7) Richard Guay Consultants (2004). Étude de marketing auprès des touristes de la Gaspésie afin de connaître leurs attitudes face à l’installation d’éoliennes. A report presented to technocentre Éolien Gaspésie-les-Îles. Québec. 37 p.

(8) Riddington, G., mcarthur, D., Harrison, T. And Gibson, H. (2009). “Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes,” International Journal of Tourism Research. Published online in Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.750 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122609399/abstract

(9) visitbritain (2006). Foresight. Issue 33. July. Strategy and Communications Division.

(10) mori Scotland (2002). Tourist Attitudes towards wind farms. research study conducted for the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association. Final Report. Edinburgh. 24 p.

(11) Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions (2007). Guide d’intégration des éoliennes au territoire : vers de nouveaux paysages. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 38 p.

(12) Saucier, C., Côté, G., Fortin, M.-J., Jean, B., Lafontaine, D., Feurtey, É., Guillemette, M., Méthot, J.-F. And Wilson, J. (2009). Développement territorial et filière éolienne. Des installations éoliennes socialement acceptables : élaboration d’un modèle d’évaluation de projets dans une perspective de développement territorial durable. Rimouski: Université du Québec à Rimouski. 227 p.

Offset Providers

The choice of offset providers internationally continues to augment, while the Carbon Catalogue presently lists 12 providers across Canada with an offset price range of 12.50 $ to 39.90 $ per ton CO2e.(1) For those wishing to purchase offsets from organizations based in Québec, the four principal providers include Planetair,(2) Carbone Boréale,(3) Zero GHG Inc.(4) and ZÉRØCO2.(5)

(1) Planetair is a not-for-profit organization managed by the Unisféra International Centre, also a non-profit organization. (2) Planetair is the exclusive distributor of Myclimate, one of the most respected offset supplier worldwide, since all their projects conform to the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)* and Gold Standard.** These projects finance only renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in various developing countries. Planetair plans to offer Canadian projects in the future depending on sales volumes.

(2) Carbone Boréale (CB) is both a program, and a laboratory of researchers at the University of Québec in Chicoutimi. CB offsets finance tree plantations in a deforested area of Québec and contributes to supporting research. The plantations are verified and managed according to ISO 14064-3 norms, and are registered by the Canadian EcoProjectsTM GHG.(3)

(3) ZeroGHG Inc. is a private consultancy firm offering offsets in a variety of renewable and energy efficiency projects in addition to their consulting services to develop GHG reduction strategies, quantifying emissions and performing audits. ZeroGHG projects are located in various countries, and at least 80% must meet CDM* and Gold Standard**.(4)

(4) ZÉRØCO2 is a private enterprise selling offsets that finance reforestation projects in various communities. Since 2006, ZERØCO2 has reforested more than 20 hectares of land, creating green spaces equivalent to just over 40 football fields in the heart of communities. (5)

Indirect Offset Sellers

Some tourism businesses have partnered up with various offset-selling organizations. For example, since 2007, Air Canada (AC) encourages its customers to purchase offsets via non-profit organization ZeroFootprint that invests in forest restoration project in British Columbia. To date, AC customers bought $187,612 of offsets, equivalent of 11725 tones of GO2.(6) In contrast, Air Transat does not sell offsets for reasons relating to the efficiency of such projects in their ability to solve climate change related problems amongst other reasons.(7)

For those traveling by rail, VIA Rail also does not directly offer offsets to its customers, however it also encourages its customers to calculate their GHG emissions with Tree Canada, an Ottawa-based offset company. Since 1990, VIA Rail has reduced its GHG by 15% approximately, although it is responsible for only 0,03% of total GHG emissions compared to 13% generated by motorists in Canada.(8) For travelers that hire vehicles, numerous car rental companies also offer carbon offsets on-line such integrated into their reservation forms such as Alamo, Enterprise and National Car Rentals amongst others.(9)

Tourism Operations Buying Offsets

Some Québec and other travelers to Québec probably purchase offsets, however none of the above named organizations had data available at the time of writing this article about their clients. Some tourism operations also buy offsets in Québec, but no study assessed their transaction value to date.

Some accommodation establishments also have a carbon neutral policy. For example, the Chicoutimi Hotel has been offsetting its heating and electricity use and has been encouraging its clients to offset their stay with CB.(2) Since 2006, the hotel l’Auberge des Seigneurs in St-Hyacynthe has been offering Eco-Friendly Packages to its clients and in 2008, it has also engaged to calculate guest’s travel related GHG contributions amongst other environmentally friendly services.(10) This establishment also compensates emissions of meetings and events held in the hotel by planting trees. Similarly, in an effort to be carbon neutral, Novotel Montreal plants a tree for every online booking. (11)

Montreal based tour company, Karavanniers du monde has also taken climate change mitigation serirosly and since January 2009, its price structure includes carbon compensation costs with Planetair. (2, 12) The company’s client’s base is approximately 97% Québécois and based on discussions with the operation’ owner, there have been no complaints at all concerning the price increase resulting from mandatory carbon compensations. On the contrary, clients are pleased to see such an effort by the company. Some other travel companies such as Omnitour, Voyages Tour Étudiants also offers offsets to its customers. (2) Similarly, since 2006, the regional-based operation WeLa Aventure organizes eco-friendly hiking and cycling trips in the Saguenay,(13) and it compensated for its clients travel related CO2 emissions to and from the region via supporting tree plantations by ZIP Saugenay (14) and the cooperative COOP4Temps.(15)

Increasingly festivals and events across Québec are also eco-friendly, and some compensated for GHG emissions.(16) For example, since 2008, Montreal’s International Jazz Festival is carbon neutral.(17) Both Québec and Montreal Convention Centers offer eco-friendly events with their partner organizations (18, 19) and both centers offer offsetting as an option for such events. For example, In 2004, the Québec Convention Centre committed to reducing its energy consumption by 33% per m2 and its total GHG emissions by 50%.(20) Since 2007, it hosted 32 eco-friendly events of which 7 involved carbon compensations.

At Montreal’s Jean-Drapeau Park (JDP), sustainable development policy integrates GHG mitigation and compensation strategies for the organization and activities (about 100 events per year) on the park’s territory. (21) JDP created a fund (Fonds Oxygène) to implement this policy, and partners and suppliers will be asked to contribute to this fund, which will finance specific environmental improvement projects (22). Additionally, drivers to JDP will be required to pay $1 extra to leave their vehicles in the parking to help offset GHG emissions with CB.

Conclusion

Although it is well known that carbon compensation projects do not represent an ultimate solution to mitigating GHG emissions, the purchase of offsets in credible projects can raise awareness, and provide funds towards worthwhile initiatives.(23) Although buying offsets in tree plantations remains controversial, in certain cases they can deliver net environmental improvements, while buying offsets in renewable energy projects and technology developments permit a shift away from using fossil fuels.

This brief synopsis of the situation in Québec shows that carbon neutrality in the tourism sector is a patchwork. The analysis also highlights the need for measuring net contributions of greenhouse gases by the travel and tourism sector in order to enable a coordinated approach to assessing how this could be effectively mitigated.

* CDM certifies emission reductions that are sold on the voluntary market and it ensures that developed countries’ carbon credits comply with Kyoto Protocol regulations.
** The Gold Standard is an independent organization that certifies carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. Such carbon credits need to meet sustainable development objectives. This means that a carbon-offset project must lead directly to a net GHG emission reduction. Gold Standard does not certify forestry projects.

Sources:

(1) Carbon Catalogue Project: Find a Carbon Offset: Canada. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.carboncatalog.org/projects/canada/
(2) Planetair. Offset Projects. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://planetair.ca/
(3) Éco-conseil. Plantations Compensatoires de GES. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://dsf.uqac.ca/eco-conseil/ges/frame_ges.html
(4) ZeroGHG Inc. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.   http://www.zeroghg.com/
(5) ZeroCo2. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://zeroco2.com/welcome.php
(6) Air Canada. Carbon Offset Program. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html?src=hp_ql
(7) Transat AT (2009) Greenhouse gas reduction and fuel management. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.transat.com/en/social.responsibility/gas.reduction.fuel.management.aspx
(8) Via Rail Canada. Environment: Helping To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Last Consulted Apr 17, 2009. http://www.viarail.ca/corporate/en_environment/reducing_greenhouse_gas.html
(9) Terra Pass Inc. (2009) Rental Car Carbon Offset Program Proves Most Popular With Consumers. Published on-line in Earth News, April 6, 2009. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/rental-car-carbon-offset-program-proves-most-popular-with-consumers775734.shtml#%23
(10) l’Auberge des Seigneurs à St Hyacynthe. Last Consulted Apr. 24, 2009.
http://www.hoteldesseigneurs.com/notre_environment.asp
(11) Novotel Montréal Centre. http://www.novotelmontreal.com/home/novotel_news.shtm Last Consulted June. 2, 2009.
(12) Karavaniers du Monde. Destinatons: Fiche technique. Last Consulted Apr. 3, 2009.  http://www.karavaniers.com/voyages/calendrier/?voyage_depart=134
(13) Wela Aventure. Horaire et parcours. Randonnées des cols du Fjord 2009. Fiche d’information. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009. http://www.welaaventure.com/
(14) ZIP Saguenay. Réalisations. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.zipsaguenay.ca/zipsaguenay/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=5&Itemid=12
(15) Coop Quatre Temps. Mission. http://www.coop4temps.com/ Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.
(16) Réseau québécois des femmes en environnement. Sustainable Event. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.evenementecoresponsable.com/
(17) Festival International de Jazz de Montréal. Une édition 2008 carboneutre. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.montrealjazzfest.com/Fijm2008/planetAir_fr.aspx
(18) Centre des congrès de Québec. Développement Durable. Évennements éco-responsables. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-index.php?page=devdurable_eve_resp
(19) Palais des congrès de Montréal. Environnement. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.congresmtl.com/fr/visiteurs/environnement.aspx
(20) Centre des congrès de Québec. Lauréate du prix Stellaris: Efficacité Énergétique. Press Release 2 April, 2004. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=41
(21) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Politique de développement durable. Montréal. 8 p.
(22) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Fonds Oxygène.Le fonds de compensation de gaz à effet de serre Montréal. 4 p.
(23) Broderick, J. (2008). Voluntary Carbon Offsets. A Contribution to Sustainable Tourism? In Sustainable Tourism Futures. Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. In Gössling, S., Hall, C.M. and Weaver, D.B. (Eds.). Routledge, New-York. 169-197.

Collaborative Initiatives

To date none of the 21 tourism regions had produced a comprehensive regional scale sustainable development strategy with a clearly articulated vision, set of achievable short and long-term objectives and progress measure indicators. Yet, tourism is an important economic activity in Québec and in 12 regions it directly generates at least 3% of all income (3). Tourism has much more potential to be sustainable, since most regions have rich natural and cultural resource bases and diversified economies. Although natural resource exploitation forms the foundation of many regions across Québec, there is much untapped potential to expand tourism in these areas, thereby achieving greater economic integration. Untapped potentials also remain between biodiversity conservation and tourism development on private and public lands besides the protected area networks managed by the Provicial Parks Authority, la Sépaq and Parks Canada.

In some regions such as the Laurentians, concrete initiatives have been undertaken towards strategically integrating tourism into the regional economy through the Provincial Government’s Accord Program (4). In other regions a shift towards increased collaboration between stakeholders is occurring by the establishment of various cooperatives. Examples include the Lac Saint Pierre Biosphere Reserve (5), l’Échappé Bleue (6), Le Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux (7) and V.E.R.T.E. cooperatives (8). There are probably numerous other locally driven projects, but to nobody has examined their socio-economic value or general importance.

There are also 23 territorial areas across Québec with Local Agenda 21 (LA21) strategies (9) and one of the best examples with a strong tourism orientation includes the municipality of Baie-Saint-Paul. There, an LA21 process and willingness and leadership by certain stakeholders continue to enable greater community interaction as part of the redevelopment planning of Le Massif Resort (10).

Operational Changes to Improve Performance

Some tourism operations have a longer history of functioning according to sustainability ideals such as the Le Baluchon rural resort (11) and the zoos in Granby and Saint-Félicien (12, 13). However, very few businesses have a transparent Corporate Social Responsibility strategies, such as those published by the Granby Zoo(12) and Transat AT (14). Many tourism operations have reduced their energy and water use and waste output via different mechanisms, but their overall impact is not evaluated. Hotels in Québec seem to be making visible progress, especially since the Québec Hotel Association has its own Reser-Vert certification program (15), and the CITQ also recently modified its rating system to include environmental considerations and carries out checks on behalf of the Canadian Hotels Associations of Green Key rated establishments (16). Since recent years, numerous events including conferences and festivals are increasingly organized as ecologically and socially responsible, such as Montreal’s International Jazz Festival (17). Many other tourism operations also have supply chain management policies and source various products locally and or produced responsibly. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is the first ‘green’ Tourism Region awarded by Recyc-Québec for achieving more than 80% waste recuperation for its office operations (18).

Besides environmental efforts, some tourism businesses are also making contributions to improving north-south relations. For example, L’Auberge l’Autre Jardin (19) has been directly providing financial benefits to developing countries via its support of Carrefour Tiers Monde. Similar actions can be observed by Parc Safari that sells fair-trade products from developing nations (20). Sustainability news about small and medium enterprises (SME) in Québec is not well documented, which suggests limited progress. Since SMEs comprise about the majority of the tourism industry (21), it might be worthwhile to examine their progress, and issues so that appropriate tools could help them implement change towards sustainability.

Quebec’s tourism includes a variety of products to help reduce its greenhouse gas emissions such as a vast bike network developed by Vélo-Québec (22), the Bixi bike in Montreal (23) and the bio buses in Old Quebec and Montreal (24). Some businesses and events are also carbon neutral, but their profiles and numbers has not been documented. For example, Karavaniers du monde is the first tour operator in Quebec to include the cost of carbon offsets in its pricing (25). Climate change does not seem to be a preoccupation of the Quebec tourism sector, despite the vulnerability status of some products notably ski, snowmobile and various other outdoor activities (26).

Some sub sectors in Québec have a long history of encouraging businesses and visitors alike to reduce their environmental impact, notably Québec’s Adventure and Ecotourism Association (27). How many visitors to and from Quebec travel environmentally consciously is not known. Undoubtedly Québecois travelers are increasingly ethically minded. Since 88% of tourists in Québec are of domestic origin, consumers locally need more indication about industry’s progress so they can choose responsibly (28).

Where to next?

Various operational changes to improve environmental and social performance of the tourism sector are occurring at all scales, but nobody knows the real progress in the absence of benchmark indicators. Québec is not ahead nor behind other Canadian Provinces but there has not been a national study to compare progress at this scale. Québec’s tourism sector is in the beginning phase of operationalizing sustainable tourism and the above examples highlight the need for a Provincial scale action plan combined with a set of feasible progress indicators.

The support tools and knowledge network to put sustainable tourism principles into action is growing across Québec, and numerous institutions offer special training to improve human resource capacity, in responsible environmental managers that is directly applicable to tourism (29).

There is also a growing amount of effective tools and mechanisms reported from outside Québec to help implement change rapidly and help sustain a viable and responsible industry sector. However, local leadership remains an important key driver to implementing any action plan. There needs to be more leadership from government and industry to move the fragmented sub-sectors forward and to provide a coordinated approach to the entire process in Québec. The tools are wide ranging, and many remain unexplored potentials in Québec, including financial incentives and voluntary measures.

Sources:

1. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec (2005) Towards a Sustainable Tourism. Tourism Policy of Québec. Governemenet du Québec: Québec City. 37 p.

2. La Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec (2008) Plan d’action quinquennal de la FCMQ pour l’environnement. La Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec (FCQM): Montreal. 8 p.

3. Sauvé, R. La reconnaissance de l’industrie touristique dans l’économie locale et régionale. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009. Québec City, Canada. Available at: http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mercredi.html

4. Ministère du développement Économique Innovation et Exportation. Accord Program. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.mdeie.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=3715]

5. La réserve mondiale de la biosphère du Lac-Saint-Pierre. Coopérative de solidarité de la réserve mondiale de la biosphère du Lac-Saint-Pierre. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.biospherelac-st-pierre.qc.ca/content/cooperative.html].

6. L’Échappé Bleue. L’Échappée bleue. Coopérative de Tourisme durable. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.lechappeebleue.com].

7. Le Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux. Qui sommes-nous. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.capjaseux.com/-Qui-sommes-nous-.html].

8. La Coop V.E.R.T.E. Qui nous sommes? Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.coopverte.com/coopverte/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=19&Itemid=37].

9. Gagnon, C. and E. Arth. Guide des Agendas 21e siècle locaux. Les Agendas 21e siècle locaux québécois. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.a21l.qc.ca/9544_fr.html].

10. Le Massif. Territoire Le Massif. The development project. Last accessed  14 April, 2009. [http://www.lemassif.com/en/territoire_le_massif/the_development_project.php].

11. Le Baluchon. About the Baluchon. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.baluchon.com/inn-accomodation/index_ang.cfm].

12. Zoo Granby (2006) Réalisations en responsabilité sociale et environnementale. Zoo de Granby: Granby. 24 p.

13. Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien. Au sujet du CCBB/Zoo Sauvage. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.borealie.org/page.php/fr/1/4.htm].

14. Transat A.T. (2008) Transat for Sustainable Tourism. 2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Transat AT Inc: Montreal, Québec. 44 p.

15. L’Association des hôteliers du Québec. RéserVert, le Programme de reconnaissance en développement durable. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.reservert.com/fr/page.php?label=r%E9servertleprogramme].

16. Corporation de l’industrie touristique du Québec. CITQ is mandated by the Hotel Association of Canada for the Green Key Eco-Rating Program visits. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.citq.info/EN/classification.asp].

17. Festival International de Jazz de Montréal. Une édition 2008 carbon neutre. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.montrealjazzfest.com/Fijm2008/planetAir_fr.aspx].

18. Bisson, K. Là où commence un tourisme plus vert. Last accessed 16 April, 2009. [http://lafrontiere.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=87930&id=836&classif=].

19. L’Auberge Autre Jardins. Mission et historique. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.autrejardin.com/auberge.php].

20. Ranger, J.-P. Tourisme durable. Parc Safari. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009 Québec City, Canada. Available at http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mercredi.html

21. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec. Programmes et services aux entreprises touristiques. Last accessed 15 April, 2009.  [http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/ministere/index.asp].

22. Laraue, S. Tourisme durable et velo. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009 Québec City, Canada. Available at http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mardi.html

23. Montreal Tourism. BIXI: Montreal’s Brand New Public Bike System. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/Press/Whats-hot/News/bixi-montreal-s-brand-new-public-bike-system].

24. Société de Transport de Montréal. For one year, 155 STM buses to run on biodiesel in downtown Montreal (Press Release). Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.stm.info/English/info/a-biofiche.htm].

25. Karavaniers du monde. Cuba. Mère des Caraïbes. Informations Techniques. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.karavaniers.com/voyages/calendrier/?voyage_depart=134].

26. Singh, B. and C. Bryant (2006) Impact et adaptation aux changements climatiques pour les activités de ski et de golf et l’industrie touristique : le cas du Québec. Rapport préparé pour Ouranos Inc. Département de géographie, Université de Montréal: Montréal. 404 p.

27. Aventure Écotourisme Québec. Leave No Trace Program. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.aventure-ecotourisme.qc.ca/content/templates/content_en.asp?articleid=46&zoneid=10].

28. Tourisme Québec (2009) Le tourisme au Québec en bref – 2007. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec: Québec. 16 p.

29. Villeneuve, V. Chaire en éco-conseil. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.uqac.ca/recherche/organismes/chaire_ecoconseil.php].

Although there is no question that tourism needs to be sustainable, the actual demand for sustainable tourism is difficult to assess as most figures reflect anecdotal evidence of market share. In recent years, a number of surveys have assessed the demand for more sustainable forms of travel and, in some instances, a willingness to pay and/or financially offset the impact of respondents’ travel.

A number of studies have shown that consumers are becoming more interested in sustainable forms of tourism. In Europe, 95% of Swiss tourists consider respect for local culture to be highly important when choosing a holiday(1) and approximately 87% of respondents in a 2004 responsibletravel.com survey indicated they were also interested in locally produced food, local culture and using local guides when on holiday. A 2002 survey commissioned by the Association of British Travel Agents(2) found that, for 87% of respondents, it was very important that their holiday not damage the environment and, for 76%, that it benefit the people of the destination they were travelling to (for example, through jobs and business opportunities). According to National Geographic Traveller(3), there are 55 million Geotourists in the United States who are environmentally and socially responsible. Geotourists are defined as having “ceaseless expectations for unique and culturally authentic travel experiences that protect and preserve the ecological and cultural environment.” Of these travellers, 38% would be willing to pay a premium to patronize travel companies that use sustainable environmental practices (although it should be noted that only 6% of US travellers take holidays overseas).

It would seem that 2007 was the year when everyone jumped on the “environment bandwagon,” with contradictory results. Most optimistic, a Lonely Planet poll of 24,500 consumers from 144 countries stated that 93% of people said they would or might purposefully partake in environmentally-friendly travel in the future(4). Travellers who consult Lonely Planet are already likely to be much more sensitive to sustainability issues, which accounts for this high percentage that is not supported by other research. For instance, in April 2007, the online travel community, TripAdvisor(5), surveyed 1000 travellers worldwide. Of these, 38% said that environmentally-friendly tourism is a consideration when travelling, 38% had stayed at an environmentally-friendly hotel, 9% specifically seek out such hotels, 34% are willing to pay more to stay in environmentally-friendly hotels and 37% are willing to pay a premium of at least 5-10%. Perhaps of greater long-term concern to the travel industry was the finding that 24% believe air travel should be avoided.

An October 2007 study by TNS Travel & Tourism of over 6,000 people in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and North America(6) concluded that the willingness to pay to offset the environmental costs of their holiday ranged from a low of 2% for Germans, to a high of 12% for Spaniards. With regard to taking steps to reduce their environmental impact, the Italians lead all countries with 32% willing to switch to greener plans, while the United States lag well behind other countries with only 16% expressing such a willingness.

In an American STI survey(7), 75.4% of respondents who are self-declared environmentally-oriented consumers indicated that they were willing to pay $1-20 extra per ticket to mitigate the greenhouse gas effects of their travel and 76.7% said they would switch online travel sites to one that made contributions on their behalf to offset the portion of their emissions. The TNS Travel and Tourism survey was thus less optimistic about the attitude of Americans than the earlier STI study and the survey undertaken by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) in 2003(8). The TIA study suggested that more than half of all US adults would be more likely to select an airline, rental car or hotel that uses more environmentally-friendly products and processes. Yet only 14% said their actual selection of a supplier would be influenced by the supplier’s efforts to preserve the environment. In terms of products, 13% would be willing to pay more to use green products – although fully 56% said they might. The amount or rate of the fare premium seems to be the source of their hesitation: 76% would pay less than 10% more per usage, with the majority indicating they would pay less than 5% more.

Compared to their American neighbours, Canadian “travellers express a willingness to take personal action. One-third say that they would switch from a preferred holiday destination to another that supported sustainable tourism, while four in 10 would try to find and use a travel agency that adheres to environmentally sensitive guidelines. And over one-quarter (28%) say they would pay a premium for an ethical and sustainable holiday.”(9) Research conducted by Dodds & Leung(10) suggests that 25% expect travel agents to provide information on climate change and carbon-offsetting options.

While it has been suggested that 44% of British travellers would likely choose an airline with a reputation for fuel-efficient planes(11), Tiscali(12) found that 67% would not even be thinking about the impact their summer holidays could have on the environment. Although consumers may indicate that they expect environmental and social issues to be taken into consideration on their holidays, they do not take it upon themselves to ensure these criteria are being met. Responsibility for ensuring that tourism is more sustainable falls into the hands of the operator. In the UK, over 80% say tour operators should be responsible for preserving the local environment and culture and ensuring that local people benefit from tourism, and the same percentage is more likely to book a holiday with a company with a ‘responsible’ travel policy – a 28% increase since 2001(13). A report by Tearfund(14) declared that 55% of consumers believe that travel agents have a responsibility to provide the information, while 48% think tour operators should provide it.

So what now? Are industry and government moving in this direction?

Although consumers may expect to see social or environmental considerations addressed in the brochures and Websites of operators and travel providers, they do not currently demand these when booking travel packages because many operators simply do not offer responsible/sustainable travel options.

To further the sustainability agenda within the tourism industry, there are a number of recommendations. First, governments should focus their capacity-building efforts on suppliers, using methods like legislated compliance (e.g., environmental, reputation and business probity) and ensuring that resources are available for supplier training and learning and, where needed, filling resource gaps. Second, there is a need to increase public-private partnerships to train the tourism sector in environmental and social awareness and mitigation strategies and industry associations should offer incentives and reporting guidelines. Governments and industry alike need to support training and the sharing of best practices while encouraging industry associations to make adherence to sustainable or responsible tourism policies a condition of membership and to report on progress.

Third, with greater consumer awareness of issues such as climate change, the demand for more information is growing. Demand for sustainable tourism products and services may also grow, if the industry starts to offer more sustainable choices to clients. Businesses can diversify and gain a competitive advantage.

Finally, there is a need to encourage corporate social responsibility reporting from tour operators, airlines, cruise lines, hotels and destinations so that they can understand the impact they themselves are having. Reporting will also provide measurable criteria to allow for comparison of companies and destinations.

Sources:

1. Switzerland Travel Writers and Journalism Club, cited on the Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa Website. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.fairtourismsa.org.za/fairtrade/index.html
2. MORI (2002). “Package Holidays 2002.” London: Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA).
3. Travel Industry Association of America (2003). “Geotourism: New Trend in Travel Study.” Prepared for National Geographic Traveller, October 2003.
4. Travelmole (2007). “Travellers Back Radical Moves to Protect Environment.” Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1121133.php.
5. TripAdvisor (2007). “TripAdvisor Travelers Keen on Going Green.” Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/PressCenter-i120-c1-Press_Releases.html.
6. TNS Travel and Tourism (2007). “Quarter of holidaymakers say they’ll switch to greener plans.” Press release. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-4078B2FF93A14AD084EE03C776EE6009.aspx
7. Anavo & STI (2004). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/enewsletters/february05travelreport.html
8. TIA (2003).
9. TNS Canadian Facts (2007, December 4). “Canadian travellers express willingness to change their travel behaviours owing to environmental concerns: survey”. Press release. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-4CEBC86E3705458FBD60A0D5D960E94A.aspx
10. Dodds, R., & Leung, M. (2007). “Climate change awareness in the tourism industry.” Conference Proceedings TTRA Canada, October 18-20, 2007.
11. TNS Travel and Tourism (2007).
12. Tiscali (2007). “Summer Lifestyle Report 2007.” Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.tiscali.co.uk/presscentre/press_release/2007/july/071807summerlifestyle.html
13. Taylor Nelson Sofres (2004). Responsible Travel ‘Had Enough’ Survey. Retrieved July 5, 2005 from http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101763.htm.
14. Tearfund (2001). “Worlds Apart – A call to responsible global tourism.” Middlesex, UK