旅游风景区旅游交通系统碳足迹评估——以南岳衡山为例

随着全国各地旅游业的蓬勃发展,旅游风景区内碳排放总量不断攀升,严重影响了旅游业的可持续发展。选择南岳衡山旅游风景区为典型案例区,运用生命周期评价理论,构建了南岳风景区旅游交通系统碳足迹计算模型。结果表明:①从总量来看,不同类型交通方式的碳足迹情况相差甚远。公路旅游交通对旅游景区的环境威胁最大,碳足迹总量是索道旅游交通的2.6倍,人行道旅游交通的46.1倍;②从阶段构成来看,公路和索道旅游交通系统运营使用阶段碳足迹占整个生命周期的大部分,所占比率分别为79%和96%.而人行道旅游交通系统中建造施工和运营后期阶段能源消耗比较大;③从来源构成来看,在使用期内公路旅游交通的碳足迹比重最大,约占碳足迹总量的71%,其次是索道旅游交通占27%,人行道旅游交通仅占2%。研究结果有利于实现旅游风景区低碳旅游发展目标,为旅游风景区节能减排提供理论支撑。

Carbon footprint evaluation research on the tourism transportation system at tourist attractions: a case study in Hengshan

In recent years, there has been large-scale development in tourism in China. It is difficult to achieve sustainable development of the tourism industry because of increasing carbon emissions associated with tourist attractions. In this article, we focused on Hengshan as the case study and applied a life cycle evaluation theory to construct a carbon footprint calculation model of the tourism transportation system at a scenic spot in Hengshan. The following results were obtained: first, in terms of total volume, different types of transportation have different carbon footprints. The most energy-expensive method of reaching tourist attractions is tourist highways, which have a carbon footprint that is 2.6 times that of tourist cableways and 46.1 times that of tourist walkways. Second, in terms of the stages in which the carbon footprint is distributed, the majority of the carbon footprint of tourist highways (79%) and tourist cableways (96%) is in the operation and use stage of the life cycle. For tourist walkways, most of the energy consumption is at the construction and the later operation stages. Third, in terms of source constitution, the carbon footprint of tourist highways occupies the largest proportion (about 71%) during its useful life, followed by tourist cableways (27%) and tourist walkways (2%). The model described in this article will not only help to achieve the goals of low-carbon tourism development, but will also provide the theoretical support for saving energy and reducing emissions at tourist attractions. The following suggestions are proposed: first, it is important to increase awareness of low-carbon tourism, taking into account the transportation preferences of travelers and advocating a comprehensive means of tourist transport. Second, combined with the characteristics of the tourism infrastructure, some caution is needed when selecting low-carbon vehicles. Different types of transportation use different types of energy and have different energy consumption coefficients. Therefore, the vehicles that are most appropriate for local conditions should be selected. For the scenic spot in Hengshan, we suggest that the most appropriate vehicle is the Golden Dragon Type KLQ6702, which has a smaller carbon footprint per day than the Toyota COASTER (a ratio of approximately 1:7.2). Third, it would be advantageous to improve the energy efficiency of the other operation mechanisms at tourist attractions, and accelerate the pace of adopting low-carbon tourist transport. Optimal operation mechanisms for tourist transport can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we need to explore new, more flexible combinations of transport systems and operations to achieve sustainable development of tourism in China.