ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Research article

The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism

Colin Hunter, Jon Shaw
Department of Geography & Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen, AB24 3UF, UK
Received 31 December 2004; accepted 26 July 2005

Abstract

This paper argues for ecological footprint (EF) analysis to become widely adopted as a key environmental indicator of sustainable
tourism (ST). It is suggested that EF analysis provides a unique, global perspective on sustainability that is absent with the use of locally
derived and contextualised ST indicators. A simple methodology to estimate indicative, minimum EF values for international tourism
activities involving air travel is presented. Critically, the methodology accounts for the EF that would have been used by a tourist at
home during the tourist trip, providing an estimate of the net, as well as the gross, tourism-related EF. Illustrations of the application of
the methodology are provided, including the evaluation and comparison of specific tourism products. It is suggested that some
(eco)tourism products may, potentially, make a positive contribution to resource conservation at the global scale. Areas for further
research in applying EF analysis to tourism are outlined.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainable tourism; Indicator; Ecological footprint

1. Introduction adoption of a particular approach or type of indicator are

best made. This paper argues for the widespread use of the
The importance of learning from related fields and ‘ecological footprint’ (EF) as a key environmental indica-
disciplines is increasingly being recognised in the sustain- tor of ST. The very act of proposing such adoption of the
able tourism (ST) literature, both as a means of advancing EF (or any single indicator) runs counter to some
knowledge and understanding of ST, and as a means of perceptions of progressive thinking in ST and SD research,
avoiding ‘re-inventing the wheel’ in ST practice (e.g. Farrell where sustainability is regarded as an adaptive concept
& Twining-Ward, 2003; Hunter, 2002a; Ko, 2001). requiring that indicators of ST ‘‘reflect the space and time
Potentially, one area where a great deal may be learned specific context of the locality under study’’ (Twining-
from the broader sustainable development (SD) and Ward & Butler, 2002, p. 367). Other studies, however,
environmental management literature is in the develop- appear to assume that the development and use of a generic
ment and use of suitable indicators of ST. This is explicitly set of ST indicators is appropriate (Manning, Clifford,
recognised by Twining-Ward and Butler (2002), in one of Dougherty, & Ernst, 1996; Miller, 2001). In proposing the
the very few works to date specifically designed to widespread use of the EF technique in ST analyses, we
formulate indicators of ST. Despite the undoubted demand acknowledge the importance of using indicators that reflect
for appropriate indicators of ST, these authors argue (p. local circumstances, as suggested by Twining-Ward and
365) that research in this area is ‘‘still in its incipient Butler (2002), but do not take this position to mean that
stages’’, a view echoed by others (e.g. Li, 2004; Miller, suitable indicators ought to be wholly determined by local
2001; Rebollo & Baidal, 2003). conditions and attitudes.
It is, perhaps, whilst the art/science of ST indicator Indeed, it could be argued that, to date, ST indicators
research is still in its infancy that arguments for the and indicators adopted to measure environmental condi-
tions in tourism planning and management frameworks
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 272328; fax: +44 1224 272331. have been designed almost exclusively with the localised
E-mail address: geo341@abdn.ac.uk (C. Hunter). monitoring of destination-based impacts and resource

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.016
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 47

demands in mind (e.g. Hughes, 2002; Li, 2004; Manning et and producing wastes in order to sustain itself, thereby
al., 1996; Moore, Smith, & Newsome, 2003; Rebollo & appropriating a portion of the planetary biosphere in the
Baidal, 2003; Smith & Newsome, 2002; Ward, Hughey, & process (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). EF analysis portrays
Urlich, 2002). This parochialism may detract from the these demands on natural resources in terms of an
appreciation of tourism as an agent of global environ- estimated hypothetical equivalent land/sea (biosphere)
mental change, and ignores the consequences of impacts area, with the size of the footprint (sometimes also referred
generated in the transit region (Gössling, 2002; Hunter, to as ‘appropriated carrying capacity’) for a given
1995). Uniquely, the EF is specifically designed to express population and for a specified time period (normally a
aggregate environmental impact in terms of pressure on the year) determined by the lifestyle of the population in
global biosphere, and can account for travel-related impact question. The EF itself does not exist in real space, but
components. The use of EF analysis in the context of ST rather can be viewed as the aggregation of myriad actual
remains almost completely unexplored with very limited land and sea areas around the world appropriated by a
work carried out to date. The aims of this paper are, given population relying on the global movement of raw
therefore, to: provide an overview of the EF concept, materials and products. The unique attribute of EF
including its use in tourism research; present a simple analysis is the expression of demands upon natural
methodology for the rapid estimation of indicative net resources in terms of an equivalent land/sea area (global
tourism EF values using existing secondary data sources; hectares, or gha), thereby (it is claimed) facilitating
and, illustrate different applications of the net EF as a key comprehension of environmental impact and providing a
environmental indicator of ST. powerful educational tool (e.g. Chambers, Simmons, &
With reference to the second of these aims, it will be Wackernagel, 2000; Wackernagel & Yount, 2000).
argued that the notion of a net EF in the tourism context is Detailed descriptions of the procedures involved in EF
particularly significant, as tourists when away from home calculations are found elsewhere (e.g. Chambers et al.,
are not generating the footprint that they normally would 2000; Wackernagel, Lewan, & Hansson, 1999), but,
in the source country. The need to consider the EF of an broadly speaking, they can be accomplished either by
international ecotourist in the context of the EF generated using the more traditional compound (‘top down’)
by her or him at home is explicitly recognised by Fennell approach, or with the component-based (‘bottom-up’)
(2002). Also, a desirable attribute of any potential indicator approach. The former takes the nation state as its primary
of SD or ST is that the necessary data be relatively easily unit of analysis, employing national trade flow and energy
available from existing, secondary sources (e.g. Bell & data to estimate the average per capita footprint, while the
Morse, 2003), and this is reflected in the nature of the latter approach seeks to account for most consumption
methodology developed in this paper. Finally, it is (e.g. for a region) by summing available life-cycle data
important to state that we recognise that the EF could across individual footprint components. Typically, EF
only ever be one of a suite of indicators necessary for the calculations account for, and then combine, the use of
holistic appraisal of ST. Locally based and derived energy, foodstuffs, raw materials and water, and also
indicators that also encompass economic and social capture transport-related impacts, the production of wastes
activities and impacts would clearly also be required. (including carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels),
and the loss of productive land associated with buildings,
2. The EF concept roads and other aspects of the built environment. Which-
ever way the EF is actually calculated, it is effectively an
The EF provides an aggregate estimate of demands upon aggregate indicator of environmental impact or environ-
the biophysical productivity and waste assimilation capa- mental sustainability that uses gha as the common currency
city of nature imposed by human lifestyles. Although a to express impact magnitude across all components.
unique form of SD indicator, the EF technique draws upon Although it is relatively easy to conceive of an equivalent
older environmental impact appraisal approaches includ- EF land area required to, for example, produce ‘x’ tonnes
ing net primary productivity accounting, energy and of a particular crop, or the equivalent sea space required to
‘Emergy’ accounting, carrying capacity assessment, and produce ‘y’ tonnes of a fish species, it is less easy to
life-cycle analysis (Wackernagel & Yount, 2000). Published appreciate how other EF components, particularly the
descriptions of EF analysis were first provided in the early generation of carbon dioxide, can be converted into gha
to mid-1990s (Rees, 1992; Rees & Wackernagel, 1994), space. This is achieved in EF calculations by translating
and their authors subsequently defined the EF as ‘‘an energy use/carbon dioxide emissions into an equivalent
accounting tool that enables us to estimate the resource land (forest) area required to sequester carbon dioxide
consumption and waste assimilation requirements of a loading estimates. It is also important to appreciate that
defined human population or economy in terms of a most advocates of the EF technique stress that EF
corresponding productive land area’’ (Wackernagel & calculations provide conservative estimates of global
Rees, 1996, p. 9). environmental impact, and the tradition in EF analysis is
The EF conceptualises a population or economy as to consciously err on the side of caution when making
having an ‘industrial metabolism’, consuming resources estimates of resource use and waste production for use in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
48 C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

calculations (e.g. Monfreda, Wackernagel, & Deumling, p. 12) connects perceptions of ST with EF analysis, and
2004; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). argues that:
Many applications of EF analysis have focused on nations
ythe fundamental contribution of ecological footprint-
and cities or groups of cities (e.g. Folke, Jansson, Larsson, &
ing, currently absent from the great majority of tourism
Costanza, 1997; Fricker, 1998; Parker, 1998; Wackernagel,
impact studies, would be the ability to couch actual or
1998a; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996; Wackernagel, Lewan
potential tourism activities in terms of widely scoped
et al., 1999; Wackernagel, Onisto et al., 1999). A recent report
ecological demand beyond the physical confines of any
provides details of the EF of 134 countries using the
particular geographical setting (e.g. a destination area).
compound approach (Venetoulis, Chazan, & Gaudet,
2004). The per capita EF for the year 2000 ranged from Despite the fact that travel, for example, is an inherent
0.50 gha for Bangladesh to 9.57 gha for the USA. North part of the tourism industry, relatively little work has
America and Western Europe are the world regions with addressed the environmental impacts of tourist travel in the
the highest average per capita footprints, followed by Central context of ST (Becken, 2002; Gössling, 2000; Gössling,
and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, the 2002; Hoyer, 2000; Simmons & Becken, 2004), and wider
Asia–Pacific region, Latin America and the Caribbean, and demands upon natural resources, such as the implications
Africa. Taking Western Europe in more detail, for example, of supplying energy, food and water to destination areas,
national per capita EFs ranged from 3.26 gha for Italy, to are often excluded from studies of the sustainability of
8.17 gha for Norway. A much used benchmark for compar- tourism products and destinations (e.g. Hunter, 2002a).
ison in EF studies is the so-called ‘fair earthshare’ value; i.e. Although purely theoretical in nature, Hunter’s (2002b)
the global average area of productive land/sea space available advocacy of the touristic EF as an important, global
annually on a per capita basis. One recent estimate of this, environmental indicator of ST would appear to be borne
which excludes land set aside for non-human species, is out by the (albeit very limited) available evidence where
1.8 gha/year (World Wildlife Fund, 2004). Other cited values attempts have been made to calculate a tourism-related EF.
are slightly higher (e.g. Chambers et al., 2000; Chambers, As far as we are aware, only two such studies exist
Griffiths, Lewis, & Jenkin, 2004), with some 2 gha/year (Gössling, Borgstrom Hansson, Horstmeier, & Saggel,
regarded as a reasonable estimate (Venetoulis et al., 2004). 2002; World Wildlife Fund-UK, 2002).
As with other indicators of sustainable development and, Gössling et al. (2002) provide a component-based
indeed, environmental impact appraisal tools more gen- framework for the calculation of a leisure tourism EF for
erally, EF analysis has been closely scrutinised and subject the Seychelles, using secondary data sources. These authors
to criticism. Debate on the utility of ecological footprinting found that the per tourist EF to be some 1.9 gha/year
encompasses a range of issues, including its application in (similar to the fair earthshare value of some 2 gha/capita/
policy-making (e.g. Hanley, Moffatt, Faichney, & Wilson, year), with an average holiday in the Seychelles equivalent
1999; Moffatt, 2000; Opschoor, 2000), and its analytical to 17–37% of the annual EF of a citizen of an
soundness (e.g. van den Bergh & Verbruggen, 1999; industrialised country. Well over 90% of the total leisure
Costanza, 2000; Ferguson, 1999, 2001; Levett, 1998; Rees, tourism footprint was found to be due to air travel to and
2000; van Vuuren & Smeets, 2000; Wackernagel, 1998b, from the destination. Critically, the authors conclude that,
1999; Wackernagel & Silverstein, 2000). It is clear, in part, the Seychelles maintains a high quality local
however, that EF calculations are becoming more frequent environment for tourists at the expense of a much larger
and better understood (e.g. Nijkamp, Rossi, & Vindigni, hinterland, and that traditional approaches used to assess
2004), with many new applications proposed (Wackernagel sustainability, such as limits of acceptable change or
& Yount, 2000). Recently, for example, EF analysis has environmental impact assessment, would fail to provide
been applied to situations as diverse as the examination of the required global perspective on the sustainability of
external debt relief (Torras, 2003), and passenger transport tourism activity in the Seychelles. Indeed, focusing on the
in Merseyside, England (Barrett & Scott, 2003). Moreover, air travel component, the authors argue (p. 210) that
the technique has now been widely used by many private ‘‘[t]aking these results seriously, air travel should, from an
sector organisations, NGOs, local authorities and educa- ecological perspective, be actively discouraged.’’ The key
tional establishments in order to ‘‘illustrate and inform point here, echoing that made by Gössling et al. (2002), is
many different audiences about sustainable development’’ that locally derived and based indicators of ST are not, by
(World Wildlife Fund-UK, 2002, p. 1). their very nature, capable of providing a global perspective
on tourism’s resource demands and impacts.
Using a mix of primary and secondary data, the World
3. EF applications in tourism Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) study presents component-based
EF analyses of two typical, 2-week UK package holiday
Notwithstanding the obvious potential relevance of EF products (flying from Gatwick airport) to the popular
analysis to ST research and practice, very little attempt has Mediterranean destinations of Majorca and Cyprus. The
been made to examine ecological footprinting in this EF per bed night for Majorca was found to be 0.03 gha,
context. In considering the ‘touristic EF’, Hunter (2002b, giving a total EF per guest over the 2-week holiday of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 49

0.37 gha, while the corresponding values for Cyprus were period. The key indicator for any tourism product or
0.07 gha and 0.93 gha, respectively. Accounting for ap- destination area should therefore be the net, rather than the
proximately 50% of the total EF in both cases, air travel gross, EF generated. This distinction may appear rather
was found to be by far the largest single component of the obvious, and in some scenarios the EF that would have
holiday EF, although a much smaller proportion than that been generated at home will be small compared to the gross
reported by Gössling et al. (2002) for the Seychelles, given holiday EF, making the difference between gross and net
the relatively short flights involved to the Mediterranean EF values similarly small. Yet as we seek to demonstrate
area. It should also be noted that the work of Gössling below, other, very different, outcomes for the apparent
et al. (2002) included an additional radiative forcing sustainability of tourism products are possible, and for this
allowance for aircraft emissions other than carbon dioxide, reason it is critical to distinguish between gross and net
an approach apparently not adopted in the World Wildlife tourism EF values. Moreover, as the net estimate provides
Fund-UK (2002) study. Nevertheless, World Wildlife the more conservative basis for tourism EF accounting, it is
Fund-UK (2002) conclude that the Majorca and Cyprus more in keeping with the tradition in EF analysis of erring
holidays account for around 20% and 50%, respectively, on the side of caution when calculating the magnitude of
of the annual fair earthshare value, analogous to people impact of a particular activity or group (e.g. Monfreda et
‘‘spending 20 –50 % of their annual income in a 2-week al., 2004).
period!’’ (World Wildlife Fund-UK, 2002, p. v). Although As with the calculations summarised above, the context
the report notes that judging the overall sustainability of used for the methodology and examples provided in the
specific holidays would require additional information on remainder of this paper is international, holiday tourism.
the state of the local environment at the destination area Secondary data, particularly for arrivals by air, are
and the effects of tourism on the local community and on relatively easily available for international tourism, and
the local and national economy, the conclusion is drawn the environmental costs of air travel are attracting
that whilst holidays involving air travel can be made more increasing attention and concern in the literature (e.g.
‘responsible’, it is unlikely that such holidays will be wholly Simmons & Becken, 2004).
sustainable. Indeed, it is argued that:
4. The rapid calculation of an indicative net EF for
In certain respects, holidays abroad typify the unsus-
international tourism by air
tainable nature of current developed country consump-
tion patterns. If everyone in the world took an annual
The gross tourism EF can be seen as having two broad
holiday similar to the Cyprus break, an extra half-planet
components: that generated in the transit zone and that at
would be required to support the additional consump-
the destination area. The net tourism EF is simply the sum
tion involved in holidaying alone! (World Wildlife
of the transit and destination area components, less the
Fund-UK, 2002, p. 13).
source country EF for the period away from home.
The two tourism-related calculations of the EF sum- Potentially, there is the complication that a very small
marised above illustrate the potential benefits of adopting footprint will actually be generated by a tourist in the
the EF as a key environmental indicator of ST: the EF source country even when the tourist is away from home;
provides a means of identifying and understanding globally for example, by leaving on some home heating or security
expressed demands on the biosphere brought about by lighting. The normal, major footprint components asso-
tourism activity. Although very valuable, however, these ciated with energy use, transportation, food consumption
are isolated examples focusing on forms of mass tourism, and the consumption of other raw materials, etc. will be
and they did not set out to provide explicit guidance on absent, however, so it would appear reasonable to assume
how EF analysis might be rapidly and routinely adopted in the home-based footprint to be negligible during the
ST assessments using existing, secondary data sources, and international tourist trip.
used in different contexts (e.g. to estimate the impact of The overall procedure for obtaining indicative estimates
different types of tourism product, or to examine the of the annual equivalent net per capita EF for international
national implications of tourism policy). Moreover, both tourism involving air travel is summarised below. Steps
studies appear to focus on and highlight the gross holiday 1–5, relating to the air travel EF, draw from a number of
EF. As illustrated by the above quotation, the World sources, as indicated.
Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) study uses the gross estimate of a
holiday footprint to extrapolate impact in terms of Transit zone:
additional, absolute, planetary space required. In other (1) Determine the total, round trip flight distance (km).
words, the holiday EF appears to be interpreted and (2) Obtain energy use per tourist (megaJoules, MJ) by
presented as a wholly additional ‘burden’ on the global multiplying flight distance by an energy intensity
biosphere. In reality, however, whilst on holiday (and as conversion factor of 1.75–2.75 MJ/km (see below).
recognised by World Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) in their (3) Obtain the equivalent land area (ha of forest) per
study), the tourist is clearly not producing at home the tourist (per year), by dividing energy use per tourist by
footprint that would normally be created over the same 73 GJ/ha (i.e. the number of gigaJoules that 1 ha of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
50 C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

forest will sequester, in carbon dioxide equivalent, per small (e.g. Gössling et al., 2002), and as such they are not
year when liquid fossil fuel is combusted) (World considered further as part of the rapid EF estimation
Wildlife Fund, 2000). methodology presented here.
(4) Allow for the additional radiative forcing of aircraft Step 4 recognises the emission or formation of sub-
emissions other than carbon dioxide emitted at altitude stances other than carbon dioxide, such as nitrogen oxides,
(IPCC, 1999; Schumann, 1994) by multiplying by a methane, ozone and water vapour, at high altitude which
factor of 2.7 (Gössling et al., 2002), giving a new contribute to radiative forcing (global climate change
estimate of required forest land (ha) (see below). potential) by aircraft (IPCC, 1999). We have, therefore,
(5) Multiply by the appropriate ‘equivalence factor’ (in adopted the approach of Gössling (2002) and Gössling
2001 this was 1.38) to correct for forest land being more et al. (2002) whereby the contribution to radiative forcing
productive than average world space (World Wildlife by other substances effectively increases the forest area
Fund, 2004), giving a final estimate of the transit zone required, in EF terms, to combat global climate change.
per tourist footprint in gha/year (see below). The IPCC (1999) has estimated, from a range of values,
Destination area: that aviation’s carbon dioxide emission is only some 37%
(6) Use either the host or source country average per capita of its total radiative forcing effect, and the use of a 2.7
EF as a proxy for the destination area EF of the tourist, multiplier is therefore suggested in step 4 (100%/
reduced pro rata from an annualised value according to 37% ¼ 2.7).
the length of stay (see below). With reference to step 5, it should be noted that
Net EF: equivalence factors are specific to each year for which
(7) Use the average per capita EF of the source country national per capita EFs are produced. The latest national
and the length of stay away from home to calculate the per capita EF estimates although produced in 2004 (World
per tourist EF that would have been generated at home Wildlife Fund, 2004) were actually for the year 2001, and
for the period away (again reduced pro rata from an for this year the equivalence factor was determined to be
annualised value), and subtract this from the gross per 1.38. This highlights the broader point that care should be
tourist EF (the sum of steps 1–6). taken to ensure that a consistent reference year is used for
all aspects of a tourism EF estimate, where applicable; i.e.
Additional explanation is required for some of these if combining a per tourist EF estimate with actual
steps. With reference to step 2, energy intensity is the international tourist arrival numbers and length of stay
energy use per passenger km, accounting for average load information in order to estimate the total EF of interna-
factors and an average freight-to-passenger ratio (Becken, tional tourism from a particular source country.
2002). Different conversion factors are suggested by With this important caveat in mind, the destination area
different sources and vary according to trip length. For per tourist footprint (step 6) can be estimated using
long haul flights, Lenzen (1999) estimates 1.75 MJ/km;1 compound national footprint data (e.g. Venetoulis et al.,
Gössling et al. (2002), drawing on a range of sources, 2004; World Wildlife Fund, 2004) in one of two ways. It
suggest 2.0 MJ/km; and British Airways and Lufthansa cite can be assumed either that, on average, tourists consume
overall energy intensities of 2.03 and 1.86 MJ/km, respec- resources at the destination in approximately the same
tively (Green Globe, 2000, cited in Becken, 2002). For manner and extent as they would at home, or in the same
short haul flights, the Energy Efficiency Conservation manner and at the same rate as the average resident of the
Authority (1999) calculates a figure of 2.75 MJ/km in the host country. In situations where the holiday product is of
context of New Zealand. The choice of figure to be applied an up-market, luxury type but is situated in a compara-
will therefore depend upon the nature of the flight under tively poor country where the per capita EF is small, the
consideration. Except where noted, EF calculations that former approach may be the most appropriate (Gössling
appear later in this paper adopt an energy intensity value of et al., 2002). However, in the first instance, we adopt the
2.0 MJ/km, since this falls between the extremes noted latter alternative (Hunter, 2002b), as this provides more
above and would seem most appropriate to the medium conservative net EF estimates, in keeping with the general
and long haul flight scenarios presented. tradition of erring on the side of caution when undertaking
Clearly, accounting as above for the transit EF solely in EF analysis. This said, net EF estimates that follow would
terms of fuel/energy use by aircraft excludes other best be viewed as potential minimum values, and we return
contributions to the transit EF such as land travel to and to the implications of assuming higher resource consump-
from the airport, a contribution to airport infrastructure tion by the tourist at the destination later in the paper.
and energy use, and in-flight food and beverage consump- Whichever alternative is used, the average annual per
tion by tourists. The size of these components relative to capita footprint of source or host nation is reduced from
the fuel consumption footprint component of even the the annualised value on a pro rata basis according to the
shortest of international flights is likely to be extremely length of stay. Data on average length of stay (bed nights)
are commonly available from national tourism organisa-
1
Lenzen’s conversion factor refers to secondary energy and thus tions, or are advertised as a matter of course for individual
excludes energy used in extracting, refining and transporting fuels. holiday products.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 51

As a partial check, it is interesting and informative to over a 2-week period at home would normally generate an
compare EF values obtained using the above methodology EF of some 0.21 gha (14/365 days
5.40 gha). The net per
with those obtained in an actual study. In the case of the tourist EFs over the 2-week holiday are thus 0.16 gha for
World Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) work, a quite detailed, Majorca and 0.72 gha for Cyprus. This reveals the net EF
component-based approach was employed in calculating values as a percentage of gross values to be 43% for
the EF whilst at the destination area, using, for example, Majorca and 77% for Cyprus. In the case of Majorca,
data obtained from hotels on the use of various natural therefore, the additional impact of the holiday may
resources. Whilst the precise basis of the air travel EF potentially have been under half of that reported using
calculation is unclear, a check against the destination area the gross EF value.
EF is still possible. Majorca is used as an illustration since
no national EF values are available for Cyprus. Given that 5.2. Extending existing studies
the annual average per capita footprint of a Spanish citizen
was some 4.80 gha in 2001 (World Wildlife Fund, 2004), Another opportunity to apply the EF concept to tourism
Step 6 of our methodology suggests that the destination is to extend existing studies to encompass a tourism EF
area per tourist EF for a two-week holiday in Majorca can calculation. Becken (2002), for example, provides a very
be estimated as 0.18 gha (14/365 days
4.80 gha).2 This useful and detailed examination of the energy use and
compares well to the World Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) carbon dioxide emissions associated with international air
destination area EF of 0.16 gha. tourist travel to New Zealand in 1999. Her data can be
used to estimate in gross EF terms the impacts of New
5. Examples of the application of the net tourism EF Zealand’s international tourism trade (Table 1). Becken’s
methodology calculation of energy used in the transit zone from each
major source country can be taken in conjunction with
There are very many potential illustrations of the EF total air arrivals data to estimate average per tourist energy
applied to tourism. With per capita national EF data, flight use in transit, some 34.9 GJ. This translates to an average
data and length of stay information, it is possible to transit EF of around 1.76 gha per tourist, using the
estimate—albeit crudely at this stage—a credible minimum equivalence factor of 1.35 for 1999 (World Wildlife Fund,
value for the net tourism EF of an international tourist on 2002). An estimate of the average per capita EF of a New
any given holiday product. With enough additional Zealand citizen for the year 1999 is 8.68 gha (World
information on the number and source of international Wildlife Fund, 2002). Using this value, and an average
tourist arrivals by air, the EF of a destination area (even length of stay for all international tourists to New Zealand
host country) can be estimated. Additional primary data, of 18 bed nights (Tourism Research Council New Zealand,
not to mention the refinement and development of the 2004), it can be estimated that the average gross EF
methodology presented in this paper, will permit the per international tourist to New Zealand around the
generation of increasingly sophisticated EF estimates. In turn of the century was 2.19 gha, higher than the fair
the meantime, the intention of the following paragraphs is earthshare value of some 2 gha/year. Approximately 80%
merely to direct the reader to a range of possible uses of the of the gross per tourist EF can be attributed in this case
tourism EF. to the flight component, reflecting New Zealand’s rela-
tive geographic isolation from many major international
tourist markets.
5.1. Calculating the net EF
Extending this analysis to individual source countries
also allows the calculation of net tourist EFs because
A useful starting point is to re-visit an existing tourism
national EF data can be used. Table 2 presents an estimate
EF study and consider the importance of using the net,
of the average net EF per UK tourist for a stay of 28 nights
rather than the gross, EF as the more appropriate,
(Tourism Research Council New Zealand, 2004) in 1999.
conservative indicator of environmental sustainability. Of
In this case, an estimated gross EF per tourist trip of
the two existing studies outlined above, the World Wildlife
4.15 gha is obtained, with some 84% of this (3.48 gha)
Fund-UK’s (2002) work provides the simpler basis for
accounted for by the transit component. At home, a UK
consideration as its focus is the individual product,
resident in 1999 would on average have generated an EF
involving one source country (the UK), rather than the
over the same time period of approximately 0.41 gha
destination as a whole. The gross per tourist EFs for a 2-
(World Wildlife Fund, 2002), producing a net per tourist
week holiday to Majorca and Cyprus were found to be
EF of 3.74 gha. This value represents around 70% of the
0.37 gha and 0.93 gha, respectively. Since the annual
annual average per capita footprint of a UK resident at the
average per capita footprint of a UK citizen in 2001 was
time. From an environmental perspective, even allowing
5.40 gha (World Wildlife Fund, 2004), the average tourist
for widely differing interpretations of the meaning of
2
It is unclear from the World Wildlife Fund-UK (2002) report for which sustainable tourism, it is difficult to see this outcome as
year data was collected. It seems reasonable to assume that EF data for anything other than indicative of a highly unsustainable
the year 2001 is suitable. aspect of New Zealand’s tourism industry.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
52 C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

Table 1
Average gross EF per international tourist per year to New Zealand in 1999 for a stay of 18 nights, using the source study’s original energy intensity
conversion factor of 1.75 MJ/km

Step

Transit zone
2 Energy use per tourist (55.6 PJ/1,591,650 visitors) 34.9 GJ
3 Required forest land 0.48 ha
4 Air transport EF on forest land 1.30 ha
5 Air transport EF in world average space 1.76 gha

Destination area
6 Host country per capita EF for average length of stay (18 nights) 0.43 gha

Gross EF
Sum of (5) and (6) above 2.19 gha

Sources: Becken (2002), World Wildlife Fund (2000), and authors’ calculations.

Table 2
Average net EF per UK tourist per year to New Zealand in 1999 for a stay of 28 nights, using the source study’s original energy intensity conversion factor
of 1.75 MJ/km

Step

Transit zone
1 Round trip flight distance 39,910 km
2 Energy use per tourist (167,202 visitors) 69,843 MJ (69.8 GJ)
3 Required forest land 0.96 ha
4 Air transport EF on forest land 2.58 ha
5 Air transport EF in world average space 3.48 gha
Destination area
6 Host country per capita EF for average length of stay (28 nights) 0.67 gha
Gross per tourist EF 4.15 gha
Net EF
7 Deducting home country per capita EF for average length of stay (0.41 gha) 3.74 gha

Sources: Becken (2002), World Wildlife Fund (2000), and authors’ calculations.

Building on the claim that the EF is a useful educational additional footprint of around 62,500 gha, although some
tool (e.g. Chambers et al., 2000), there is also scope allowance needs to be made for ‘opportunity cost’ trips
through the net tourist ecological footprint for policy which otherwise would have been taken by the extra
makers to better understand the environmental implica- visitors.
tions of their decisions. To illustrate, it is not uncommon This can be compared with, for example, the effects of
for national tourism organisations and governments to aiming for a 10% increase over the same time period in
target key overseas markets in their promotion and Australian tourists. The 521,912 Australian tourists visiting
development strategies (see Scottish Executive (2000) New Zealand in 1999 (Becken, 2002), each of whose
targets relating to encouraging visitors from the USA, average stay of 12 nights (Tourism Research Council New
Germany and France). In the New Zealand context, the EF Zealand, 2004) generated a net EF of around 0.66 gha
implications of encouraging a (for the sake of argument) (Table 3), were responsible for a total footprint of
10% increase in the number of UK tourists over a given approximately 344,462 gha. The suggested increase in this
time period can be estimated very quickly.3 UK tourist case would result in an additional footprint (again
arrivals to New Zealand in 1999 were 167,202 (Becken, excluding trips which otherwise would have been taken)
2002), resulting in a total tourism EF for UK tourists of of around 34,500 gha being generated. Such increases in
some 625, 335 gha (167,202
3.74 gha). The suggested footprint magnitude can easily be compared by interested
increase in tourist numbers would thus generate an parties seeking to evaluate the impacts of international
tourism, and used to inform their marketing or lobbying
3
Assuming roughly static parameters used in the methodology presented activities. In this very simple example, it appears that,
here, although changes in parameters could be built in to EF forecasts. notwithstanding the longer average length of stay of UK
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 53

visitors, achieving a 10% increase in Australian rather than 2.1 gha/year, is around the fair earthshare value. In this
British visitors would result in both economic benefit (more illustration, it is assumed (initially) that the tourist
additional bed nights—626,292 as opposed to 468,160) and consumes resources at a similar rate to the average
less additional global ecological impact (a smaller overall destination country resident, a not unreasonable scenario
footprint). given that Costa Rica is a well-known eco-tourism
destination (e.g. Weaver, 1999) and that low impact/
5.3. Rethinking the impact of ecotourism? consumption eco-tourism products exist there (Buckley,
2003).
In the case of New Zealand, international tourism For a stay of 14 nights, the average gross per tourist EF
generally involves long flights and also occurs in the would equate to around 0.45 gha (Table 4) but, interest-
context of a country with a high per capita national ingly, the net value is potentially as low as 0.09 gha, a
footprint, resulting in large net and gross tourism EFs. Yet reduction of some 80%. If the holiday period is stretched to
very different findings and sustainability implications occur 3 weeks, the net per tourist EF potentially becomes
in other situations. Table 4 considers international tourism negative (0.06 gha) suggesting, rather surprisingly, that
from a developed (high footprint) country, the USA, to a this particular holiday scenario might actually reduce the
developing (low footprint) country, Costa Rica, involving a consumption of global biological resources compared with
relatively short flight from Florida, and using the latest that of an average USA citizen for the same time period at
national EF data for 2001. According to World Wildlife home. Arguably, this would in fact be the case for shorter
Fund, (2004), the USA has one of the highest per capita lengths of stay if the tourists were more affluent and had
EFs in the world, 9.5 gha/year, whereas Costa Rica’s, at generally higher individual EFs than the USA average.

Table 3
Average net EF per Australian tourist per year to New Zealand in 1999 for a stay of 12 nights, using the source study’s original energy intensity conversion
factor of 1.75 MJ/km

Step

Transit zone
1 Round trip flight distance 6892 km
2 Energy use per tourist (521,912 visitors) 12061 MJ (12.06 GJ)
3 Required forest land 0.17 ha
4 Air transport EF on forest land 0.46 ha
5 Air transport EF in world average space 0.62 gha
Destination area
6 Host country per capita EF for average length of stay (12 nights) 0.29 gha
Gross per tourist EF 0.91 gha
Net EF
7 Deducting home country per capita EF for average length of stay (0.25 gha) 0.66 gha

Sources: Becken (2002), World Wildlife Fund (2000), and authors’ calculations.

Table 4
Average net EF per American ‘eco-tourist’ per year travelling from Miami to Costa Rica for a stay of 14 nights

Step

Transit zone
1 Distance 3604 km
2 Energy use per tourist 7208 MJ (7.2 GJ)
3 Required forest land 0.1 ha
4 Air transport EF on forest land 0.27 ha
5 Air transport EF in world average space 0.37 gha
Destination area
6 Host country per capita EF for average length of stay (14 nights) 0.08 gha
Gross per tourist EF 0.45 gha
Net EF
7 Deducting home country per capita EF for average length of stay (0.36 gha) 0.09 gha

Source: authors’ calculations using national EF data for 2001 from World Wildlife Fund (2004).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
54 C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

Evidence suggests that eco-tourists are often better provided by steps 1–5, irrespective of the length of stay.
educated and more affluent than other tourist types (e.g. Consequently, the net EF can never be negative, and is
Page & Dowling, 2002). simply a function of distance travelled by air. Changing the
Clearly it is important not to overplay the significance of assumption about the nature of resource demand by
these illustrations because the transit zone EF—principally (eco)tourists at the destination in this way would obviously
determined by the length of flight between the origin and produce higher net EF estimates. The Miami to Costa Rica
destination countries—is critical to the overall net tourist scenario, for example, would now give a net EF estimate of
EF. Recent critiques of eco-tourism (e.g. Mowforth & 0.37 gha, rather than 0.09 gha as previously (Table 4). With
Munt, 2003; Simmons & Becken, 2004) have built upon the longer flight, the difference for London to Manaus
earlier attacks focusing on the impacts of its frequent (2.46 gha, as compared to 2.05 gha; Table 5) is less marked.
reliance on long haul air travel. Hall and Kinnaird (1994, Potential differences associated with different assump-
cited in Mowforth & Munt, 2003) argue that ‘‘travel to eco- tions about tourist consumption at the destination
tourism destinations undertaken in fuel-hungry aeroplanes demonstrate the need for care in understanding the nature
is in itself incompatible with ecological sentimentsy. The of the tourism product and in applying the EF methodol-
extolling of eco-tourism developments in faraway lands... ogy. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that for
may be thus viewed as paradoxical.’’ Eco-tourists travelling some types of ‘adventure/hard’ eco-tourism product (e.g.
from, say, London to the interior of Brazil would create a Page & Dowling, 2002) resource use at the destination is
sizeable EF—broadly equivalent to the fair earthshare akin to that of the host population and, in contrast to the
value—even if their activities within the host country earlier illustrations provided above, these may have the
created a negligible footprint (see, for example, Wolfe, potential to offer a positive contribution to environmental
2004) and the length of their stay was a month or more sustainability in terms of global resource use. We would
(Table 5). stress again, however, that EF estimates obtained using the
Furthermore, it has so far been assumed that resource procedure reported here are best regarded as providing
use by the eco-tourist at the destination is relatively potential minimum values, particularly if host country EF
resource-conservative, reflecting that of the host country. data are used to approximate resource use by tourists at the
Yet, eco-tourism activities may also occur in much more destination. Certainly, and despite the tradition in EF
up-market, resource-demanding contexts with tourists analysis to provide conservative estimates, there are
living much more luxurious lifestyles than locals (e.g. circumstances where the use of the source country EF as
Kontogeorgopoulos, 2004), and tourists in general often a proxy for consumption at the destination provides the
exhibit rather hedonistic behaviour. It could be argued, more realistic alternative. On the other hand, it may be
therefore, that in many circumstances—particularly invol- rather too easily assumed that hedonistic behaviour by
ving ‘popular’ or ‘soft’ (Page & Dowling, 2002) forms of tourists will have a significant effect: host country national
eco-tourism—it would be more appropriate to adopt the EF values, and therefore proxy consumption by tourists at
average per capita EF of the source country as a proxy for the destination, reflect the nature of consumption as well as
the EF generated at the destination (Gössling et al., 2002). the magnitude of consumption. Eating and drinking more
Thus, the source country per capita EF would be used in locally/nationally produced food and beverage than
both steps 6 and 7 of the above procedure, and the net residents, for example, is likely to have a proportionately
tourism EF becomes the same as the transit zone EF small impact on the destination EF. Where food and drink

Table 5
Average net EF per UK ‘eco-tourist’ per year travelling from London to Manaus, via Rio de Janeiro, for 28 nights

Step

Transit zone
1 Distance 24,179 km
2 Energy use per tourist 48,358 MJ (48.4 GJ)
3 Required forest land 0.66 ha
4 Air transport EF on forest land 1.78 ha
5 Air transport EF in world average space 2.46 gha

Destination area
6 Host country per capita EF for average length of stay (28 nights) Negligible
Gross per tourist EF 2.46 gha
Net EF
7 Deducting home country per capita EF for average length of stay (0.41 gha) 2.05 gha

Source: authors’ calculations using national EF data for 2001 from World Wildlife Fund (2004), and indicative resource consumption information from
Wolfe (2004).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 55

are imported for tourists, however, and the energy assessing the sustainability of tourism products without
embodied in these products is therefore high, tourism considering the transit zone.
might generate a large additional EF at the destination. Avenues for further research in the application of EF
analysis to tourism are many and varied. Many more
6. Conclusions simple estimates of the EF of different tourism products
could be made using, for example, the methodology
It is likely that the use of ST indicators that are wholly outlined in this paper. These might also attempt to
derived from a local perspective and through local incorporate different modes of transport to the destination.
processes of participation will underplay the recognition Ways of estimating the EF of domestic tourism activities
of tourism activity as a user of natural resources at the could also be explored. Perhaps the greatest need, however,
global scale. Furthermore, different sets of locally derived is to collect ‘real world’ primary data for the resources
and contextualised indicators make it less easy to compare consumed during the life-cycle of a range of different
different areas or products in terms of environmental tourism products, including low-impact, ‘genuine’ eco-
impact and sustainability. At the very least, therefore, it tourism holidays of various kinds, and very up-market,
would appear appropriate to recognise the potential luxury hotel-type holiday resorts.
benefits of the widespread adoption of a unique indicator
capable of providing a global perspective on tourism’s
environmental impact. The use of EF analysis as an Acknowledgements
indicator of environmental sustainability allows quantita-
tive comparison between different impact components (e.g. We would like to thank Martin Mowforth for comment-
the transit zone and destination area footprints), and can ing on an earlier draft of this paper, and Tristan Wolfe for
provide an indication of the overall ecological impact of his insights into adventure- and eco-tourism in South
tourism products on global biological resources. The America. Thanks also to Pam Wight for a useful discussion
simple methodology outlined in this paper could be widely of the ecological footprint applied to tourism, and to Dan
adopted for the environmental appraisal of international Moran, Mathis Wackernagel and Thomas Wiedmann for
tourism products and destination areas. It should be their insights into air travel footprinting and carbon
stressed again, however, that the methodology is as yet sequestration rates. Of course the usual disclaimer applies.
rather crude, providing indicative estimates of the likely
minimum potential tourism EF. References
This said, it would appear critical in any tourism EF
analysis to determine the net tourism EF; i.e. to account for Barrett, J., & Scott, A. (2003). The application of the ecological footprint:
the EF that a tourist would normally produce at home a case of passenger transport in Merseyside. Local Environment, 8(2),
whilst s/he is abroad. Otherwise, the additional burden on 167–183.
Becken, S. (2002). Analysing international tourist flows to estimate energy
the planet’s resources created by the tourist trip/product
use associated with air travel. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(2),
may be greatly over-estimated, in contravention of the 114–131.
tradition in EF analysis work. Furthermore, as we sought Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: Learning from doing.
to demonstrate above, it may be that some tourism London: Earthscan.
products could actually alleviate the consumption of the van den Bergh, J., & Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade
world’s biological resources. The potential for this rather and indicators: An evaluation of the ‘‘ecological footprint’’. Ecological
Economics, 29, 61–72.
surprising outcome is greatest for some products to low EF Buckley, R. (2003). Case studies in ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI
countries, but involving tourists from high EF (generally Publishing.
developed) countries, and where short to medium haul Chambers, N., Griffiths, P., Lewis, K., & Jenkin, N. (2004). Scotland’s
flights are involved if the length of stay is of sufficient footprint: A resource flow and ecological footprint analysis of Scotland.
Oxford, UK: Best Foot Forward.
duration. By way of defining one avenue for future
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing nature’s
research, some types of ‘hard’ (Page & Dowling, 2002) interest: Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London:
eco-tourism product, at least on the face of it, exhibit the Earthscan.
necessary characteristics for a ‘zero’ or ‘negative net EF’ Costanza, R. (2000). The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept.
outcome. However indicative it may be at this stage, EF Ecological Economics, 32, 341–345.
analysis offers the prospect of more ‘rounded’ evaluations Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority. (1999). Energy-wise monitoring
quarterly. New Zealand’s transport sector energy use: highlights, Issue
of eco-tourism (and other tourism) products, and suggests 14. Wellington: EECA.
that any automatic dismissal of eco-tourism on environ- Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2003). Reconceptualizing tourism.
mental grounds—certainly if short to medium haul flights Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295.
are involved—may be rather premature. Furthermore, it is Fennell, D. A. (2002). Ecotourism programme planning. Wallingford, UK:
by no means clear that even eco-tourism products CABI Publishing.
Ferguson, A. (1999). The logical foundation of ecological footprints.
involving long haul flights will, in net EF terms, tend to Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 149–156.
be more environmentally demanding than many mass Ferguson, A. (2001). Comments on eco-footprinting. Ecological Econom-
tourism products. What is clear, however, is the danger of ics, 37, 1–2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
56 C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57

Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larsson, J., & Costanza, R. (1997). Ecosystem Parker, P. (1998). An environmental measure of Japan’s economic
appropriation by cities. Ambio, 26(3), 167–172. development: The ecological footprint. Geographische Zeitschrift, 86,
Fricker, A. (1998). The ecological footprint of New Zealand as a step 106–119.
towards sustainability. Futures, 30, 559–567. Rebollo, F. V., & Baidal, J. A. I. (2003). Measuring sustainability in a
Gössling, S. (2000). Sustainable tourism development in developing mass tourist destination: Pressures, perceptions and policy responses in
countries: Some aspects of energy use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Torrevieja, Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2, 3), 181–203.
8(5), 410–425. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying
Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and
Global Environmental Change, 12, 283–302. Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.
Gössling, S., Borgstrom Hansson, C., Horstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Rees, W. E. (2000). Ecofootprint analysis: Merits and brickbats.
Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 32, 371–374.
Ecological Economics, 43, 199–211. Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and
Hanley, N., Moffatt, I., Faichney, R., & Wilson, M. (1999). Measuring appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital
sustainability: A time series of alternative indicators for Scotland. requirements of the human economy. In A. M. Jansson, M. H.
Ecological Economics, 29, 203–213. Hammer, C. Folke, & R. Costanza (Eds.), Investing in natural capital:
Hoyer, K. G. (2000). Sustainable tourism or sustainable mobility? The The ecological economics approach to sustainability. Washington:
Norwegian case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(2), 147–160. Island Press.
Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental indicators. Annals of Tourism Research, Schumann, U. (1994). On the effect of emissions from aircraft engines on
29(2), 457–477. the state of the atmosphere. Annales de Geophysicae, 12, 365–384.
Hunter, C. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism Scottish Executive. (2000). A new strategy for Scottish tourism. Edinburgh:
development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(3), 155–165. The Stationery Office.
Hunter, C. (2002a). Aspects of the sustainable tourism debate from a Simmons, D. G., & Becken, S. (2004). The cost of getting there: Impacts of
natural resources perspective. In R. Harris, T. Griffin, & P. Williams travel to ecotourism destinations. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental
(Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A global perspective. Oxford: Butterworth- impacts of ecotourism (pp. 15–23). Wallingford: CABI.
Heinemann. Smith, A., & Newsome, D. (2002). An integrated approach to assessing,
Hunter, C. (2002b). Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological managing and monitoring campsite impacts in Warren National Park,
footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4(1), 7–20. Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4), 343–359.
International Panel on Climate Change. (1999). Aviation and the global Torras, M. (2003). An ecological footprint approach to external debt
atmosphere. A special report of IPCC working groups I and III. relief. World Development, 31(12), 2161–2171.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tourism Research Council New Zealand (2004). International visitor
Ko, J. (2001). Assessing progress of tourism sustainability. Annals of survey, http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/International+Visitor+
Tourism Research, 28(3), 817–820. Survey/, accessed 5 October 2004.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2004). Ecotourism and mass tourism in southern Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a
Thailand: Spatial interdependence, structural connections, and staged small island: Development and use of sustainable tourism develop-
authenticity. GeoJournal, 61, 1–11. ment indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5),
Lenzen, M. (1999). Total requirements of energy and greenhouse gases 363–387.
for Australian transport. Transportation Research Part D, 4D(4), Venetoulis, J., Chazan, D., & Gaudet, C. (2004). Ecological footprint of
265–290. nations. Oakland: Redefining Progress.
Levett, R. (1998). Footprinting: A great step forward, but tread van Vuuren, D., & Smeets, E. (2000). The ecological footprint of Benin,
carefully—a response to Mathis Wackernagel. Local Environment, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 34,
3(1), 67–74. 115–130.
Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in Wackernagel, M. (1998a). The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile.
China’s nature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Local Environment, 3, 7–25.
Tourism Management, 25(5), 559–564. Wackernagel, M. (1998b). Footprints: Recent steps and possible traps.
Manning, T., Clifford, G., Dougherty, D., & Ernst, M. (1996). What The author’s reply to Roger Levett’s response. Local Environment, 3,
managers need to know: A practical guide to the development and use of 221–225.
indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organisa- Wackernagel, M. (1999). An evaluation of the ecological footprint.
tion. Ecological Economics, 31, 317–318.
Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Wackernagel, M., Lewan, L., & Hansson, C. B. (1999). Evaluating the use
Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Manage- of natural capital with the ecological footprint—applications in
ment, 22, 351–362. Sweden and subregions. Ambio, 28, 604–612.
Moffatt, I. (2000). Ecological footprints and sustainable development. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linareas, A. C., Falfan, I., Garcia,
Ecological Economics, 32, 359–362. J., et al. (1999). National natural capital accounting with the ecological
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 29, 375–390.
national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological and Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprints:
biological capacity accounts. Land Use Policy, 21, 231–246. Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Soviety
Moore, S., Smith, A., & Newsome, D. (2003). Environmental performance Publishers.
reporting for natural area tourism: Contributions by visitor impact Wackernagel, M., & Silverstein, J. (2000). Big things first: Focusing on the
management frameworks and their indicators. Journal of Sustainable scale imperative with the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics,
Tourism, 11(4), 348–375. 32, 391–394.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, M. (2003). Tourism and sustainability: Develop- Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (2000). Footprints for sustaina-
ment and new tourism in the third world (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. bility: The next steps. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
Nijkamp, P., Rossi, E., & Vindigni, G. (2004). Ecological footprints in 2, 21–42.
plural: A meta-analytic comparison of empirical results. Regional Ward, J., Hughey, K., & Urlich, S. (2002). A framework for managing the
Studies, 38(7), 747–765. biophysical effects of tourism on the natural environment in New
Opschoor, H. (2000). The ecological footprint: Measuring rod or Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 239–259.
metaphor? Ecological Economics, 32, 363–365. Weaver, D. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya.
Page, S., & Dowling, R. (2002). Ecotourism. Harlow, Essex: Prentice-Hall. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 792–816.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Hunter, J. Shaw / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 46–57 57

Wolfe, T. (2004). Rio Negro expedition report, 9–17 April 2004. Southern World Wildlife Fund. (2002). United Nations Environment Programme
Cross Tours & Expeditions UK, http://www.amazon-brazil-expedi- World Conservation Monitoring Centre & Redefining Progress. Living
tions.com/TOURS/ReportRioNegroRainforest.htm, accessed 10 No- planet report 2002. Gland: WWF.
vember 2004. World Wildlife Fund. (2004). United Nations Environment Programme
World Wildlife Fund. (2000). United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre & Global Footprint Network.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre Redefining Progress & Living planet report 2004. Gland: WWF.
The Centre for Sustainability Studies. Living planet report 2000. World Wildlife Fund-UK. (2002). Holiday footprinting: A practical tool for
Gland: WWF. responsible tourism. Godalming: WWF-UK.