A green economy strategy framework for tourism destinations

Authors: Law, A., DeLacy, T., Lipman, G., and Jiang, M.

Invited submission to Journal of Clean Production, Special Issue on

Sustainable Tourism

Abstract:

This paper presents a conceptual model for tourism and the green

economy and a Green Growth 2050 Roadmap implementation framework

for a long-term green economy transition in tourism

destinations. The model and framework were developed and

tested in the case study destination of Bali, Indonesia and

offer an approach for destinations to develop individual,

holistic, green economy strategies. Based on a

‘roadmapping’ process of inclusive stakeholder visioning,

the framework offers a new approach to address some of the

traditional barriers to long-term tourism stakeholder

commitment. We provide a theoretical model and practical

framework to address the ambiguity of the terminology

surrounding the green economy and suggest a practical

approach for how science, tourism stakeholders and policy-

makers can work together to facilitate the decoupling of

growth from adverse environmental and social impacts.

Keywords

Green economy; green growth; sustainable tourism; roadmap

strategy; tourism policy and planning; Bali

1.Introduction

Promoted by the United Nations (UN) system, the World Bank, national/

regional governments and others, the green economy refers to a globally

evolving, multi-decade strategy which aims to holistically transform

the economy so that it can become ‘low-carbon, resource efficient and

socially inclusive’ (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2011,

p.16) and simultaneously address many of today’s recurring

sustainability challenges whilst continuing to grow. The complexity,

scale and scope of the required, four-decade transformation are almost

impossible to comprehend, even at the destination level. Each

destination has its own local characteristics, vision and pace of

change. Consequently, each destination also has its own unique green

economy challenges and opportunities (UNEP, 2011). With the aim of

assisting destinations to make a green economy transformation we used

an instrumental case study approach (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Stake,

2005) to develop a model framework.

A conceptual tourism and green economy model was developed together

with a Green Growth 2050 Roadmap implementation framework and the proof

of concept tested in Bali as part of a project commissioned by the

Indonesian Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy in 2011 to develop

a green growth strategy for Bali tourism. The aim was to create a

systematic process which allows government, tourism stakeholders and

the community to holistically and collectively:

Engage tourism in the transformation to a low-carbon, resource

efficient future;

Thoroughly assess trends to improve competitiveness and the

overall visitor economy;

Handle increasing visitor numbers and impacts, more sustainably;

Respond effectively to a rapidly moving marketplace in very

uncertain times;

Integrate tourism in overall community development, focusing on

local livelihoods;

Engage local stakeholders and industry employees in the

transformation;

Access global education and training programs for capacity

building in the sector;

Consider new and traditional funding sources to help

implementation; and

Routinely review progress and adjust to planned and unplanned

changes.

The outcome of the research is a five-step implementation framework

for how destinations can develop individual, holistic green economy

transformation strategies.

The paper begins with a review of the green economy literature and

theory. Green economy, green growth and sustainable development are

related, yet distinct concepts and a theoretical framework is provided

to avoid ambiguity. The paper then discusses the Green Growth 2050

framework. A conceptual tourism green economy model is presented

followed by an outline of how it was applied and tested in the case

study destination. The paper finishes with a review and discussion of

the outcomes in the case study research and the wider sustainable

tourism implications and use of the framework.

2.Literature review

2.1 The emerging green economy

The concept of a new green economy has recently found traction in

mainstream policy discourse. Sometimes also referred to as green growth

(particularly when referring to the operationalization of the green

economy concept) it is evident in the strategies of many governments

and organizations such as the G20, the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and various UN

agencies (Lipman et al., 2012). At Rio+20, the green economy was one of

the two conference themes (Rio+20 United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development, 2012):

a. A green economy in the context of sustainable development and

poverty eradication

b. The institutional framework for sustainable development

The choice of themes for Rio+20 and the conference outcomes (published

as The Future We Want (United Nations Sustainable Development Platform,

2012)) reflect not only the growing international interest in the idea

of a green economy but its seemingly conglomerate wording of ‘green

economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty

eradication’ also illustrates the confusion of what we understand by

green economy. Today’s policy discourse on sustainability has become

entangled in interrelated but different terminology, where terms such

as sustainable development, green growth, low-carbon development,

sustainable economy and steady-state economy are being used

subjectively and interchangeably (United Nations Department of Economic

and Social Affairs [UN-DESA], 2012). The broadness of possible

interpretations of the terms consequently translates into different

meanings for different groups (Schmalensee, 2012). First, we therefore

take a look at how the new green economy is defined in the literature

and then proceed to review how it has been shaped and developed.

2.2 Defining the new green economy

UNEP defines the green economy as one that ‘results in improved human

well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing

environmental risks and ecological scarcities’ (UNEP, 2011, p. 16) and

further clarifies:

‘The concept of a green economy does not replace sustainable

development; but there is a growing recognition that

achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the

economy right. Decades of creating new wealth through a

“brown economy” model based on fossil fuels have not

substantially addressed social marginalisation, environmental

degradation and resource depletion. In addition, the world is

still far from delivering on the Millennium Development Goals

by 2015.’ (UNEP, 2011, p. 17)

This definition appears to be the most widely used, however many others

have been suggested (see UN-DESA, 20112). The World Bank for instance,

whilst focussing on green growth as opposed to a green economy, refers

to the same concept of a transformation to a cleaner economy that is

socially inclusive and defines green growth as:

‘Growth that is efficient, clean, and resilient - efficient

in its use of natural resources, clean in that it minimizes

pollution and environmental impacts, and resilient in that it

accounts for natural hazards and the role of environmental

management and natural capital in preventing physical

disasters’. It is added that ‘its outcome will likely be good

for the poor, but specific policies are needed to ensure that

the poor are not excluded from benefits and are not harmed in

the transition’ (World Bank, 2012, p. 30).

Despite the lack of a common definition there are general consistencies

for both the green economy and green growth concepts. UN-DESA (2012, p.

60) analysed over 80 publications and national strategies on the green

economy, green growth and low-carbon development and concludes that the

green economy and green growth concepts overlap in their integrated and

holistic approach to incorporating:

Growth and economic development

Environmental protection

Low-carbon development

Resilience

Resource efficiency

Ecological sustainability

Human well-being

Inclusiveness

Equity

At a first glance these key points appear to mirror those of the on-

going sustainable development debate. However, whilst related and often

overlapping, the green economy and sustainable development are two

separate concepts.

2.3 Sustainable development

The sustainable development debate entered the global policy platform

and mainstream thinking in the late 1980’s. The Brundtland Report,

published as Our Common Future, is widely acknowledged as one of the

landmark documents with the much quoted statement that we must meet

‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment

and Development, 1987, p. 8). Whilst the concept of sustainability was

by no means new or revolutionary, the Brundtland Report marked a

milestone nonetheless. Sustainability had entered the public and

political consciousness and gave rise to a wave of new models and ideas

for how sustainability could be made possible.

This idea was then enshrined in the international socio-economic

development lexicon by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit with its debate and

outcomes – Agenda 21 being entirely focused on the planetary

sustainable development concept. This was further elaborated at the

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg South

Africa, the ten year review of the Rio Summit outcomes which added a

stronger ‘People’ dimension to the discourse. The 20 year review in Rio

in 2012 then introduced the ideas of green economy and green growth to

the framework.

An enormous body of literature has since been written about the

principles and challenges of sustainable development (including

Dresner, 2002; Espinosa & Walker, 2011; Goldie et al., 2005; Mawhinney,

2002; Roorda et al., 2012; Senge et al., 2010; Sneddon et al., 2006;

Zaccai, 2012) and yet, despite its increasing importance in global

policy and mainstream thinking, the sustainability debate continues to

be fragmented and vague (Mundt, 2011). Different schools of thought

have emerged, with organisations being scattered across the spectrum of

transformist views, reformist views and the status quo (Hopwood et al.,

2005). It is also evident that our views on sustainability are still

evolving.

Perhaps the greatest change has been our understanding and views of

climate change. Until the rise of the climate change debate,

sustainability remained largely contained within an environmental

paradigm and generally not a key economic policy priority. In recent

years however, our understanding of the processes, causes and

consequences of climate change has grown significantly and with it our

understanding of the role our economy plays in influencing the climate

(Lane, 2009). The risks of climate change, coupled with the global

financial crisis marked a turning point in the sustainability debate

and opened the door for new approaches that were previously

unrealistic.

2.4 Green economics and the new green economy

Despite the recent economic trends, economists were already questioning

the sustainability of their models at least 200 years before, based on

a conflict between economics and the natural and social sciences (e.g.

Poston Jr. et al., 2009; Virginia, 2005). The same conflict inspired

thinkers, often with traditional economic backgrounds, throughout the

20th century to look for alternatives to growing problems of scarcity

and inequality. Writers began to look at the appropriateness of scale

and the idea that ‘small is beautiful’ (e.g. Schumacher, 1973). A key

focus became the limits of growth. Kenneth Boulding, famous for his

comment that ‘anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on

forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist’ (Boulding

in Scott Cato, 2009), called for an interdisciplinary approach to

economics involving the natural sciences as early as 1944. Alternatives

to economic growth have since been proposed by the works of Daly (e.g.

1991) in the form of steady-state economics (SSE), qualitative instead

of quantitative growth in the works of Milani (2000) and Douthwaite

(e.g. 1992), and all are calling for a holistic and integrative

approach.

Despite many overlapping concepts and ideas, today’s emerging green

economy paradigm differs fundamentally to the green economics

philosophy in its views on economic growth. The new green economy

concept embraces growth rather than considering it an oxymoron. It is

built on a similar understanding that our current growth patterns are

unsustainable and deeply inefficient (World Bank, 2012) and that this

involves risks that could impose severe human, environmental and

economic costs (OECD, 2011). However, whilst traditional economic

growth is identified as a major cause of the problem, the focus of the

new green economy lies in ‘decoupling’ economic growth from negative

environmental and social impacts.

It is in this realm that criticism of the concept is sometimes raised.

Hall (2013), for instance, argues that in a green economy approach,

‘greening’ of processes may be negated by rebound effects (where

increased efficiency leads to increased consumption). Acknowledging the

on-going academic debate across sectors about growth, degrowth and

decoupling, it is important to emphasise that the focus of this paper

is on tourism and developing a strategy founded on research but reliant

on inclusive choice assessment processes developed by local

stakeholders in a disciplined analytic process. In today’s political

and socio-economic reality, it is almost universally accepted that

growth is important for driving change and adaptation and, most

importantly, alleviating poverty and providing jobs for a still rapidly

expanding population in the developing world. Also widely accepted

today, is that sustainability has to be a precondition (and not an

afterthought), which presents a very different mindset to tourism

planning concepts than traditionally considered.

2.5 Sustainable tourism and the new green economy

Over the past six decades, tourism has developed into a worldwide

industry of gigantic proportions. International tourism arrivals have

grown mostly uninterrupted from 25 million 1950, to 1,035 million in

2012; and domestic tourism numbers are now estimated to be

approximately 5 to 6 billion (World Tourism Organization [UNWTO],

2013). Forecasts indicate that, at the projected pace of growth,

international tourist arrivals could reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO,

2011).

In the decades after World War II, mass tourism was welcomed almost

uncritically (Gössling et al., 2009). Tourism was seen as a

revolutionary and clean industry - with a general consensus that

travelling could broaden the mind, create happiness and that it could

even help in the prevention of war (Lane, 2009). Growth was good and

not much thought was given to potentially negative impacts of tourism

at the time. From the mid-70’s, however, researchers began to study the

environmental and social consequences of tourism and alternative

concepts were beginning to emerge. Several early influential works on

the impacts of tourism (e.g. Butler, 1980; Krippendorf, 1989), the

publication of the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment

and Development, 1987) and the 1992 Rio United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development a few years later popularized the idea of

sustainable tourism development and the concept began to attract formal

interest (Lane, 2009). Since then, a tremendous body of literature has

emerged and, over just a few decades, the concept of sustainable

tourism has evolved to include a wide range of different philosophies,

approaches and means of operationalization.

However, until recently, much of the debate about sustainable tourism

remained theoretical and the concept was long perceived with

apprehension and rejection by the industry, government and even

academics themselves (Lane, 2009).

Based on a literature review of earlier academic and industry

contributions, Clark (1997) identifies four, chronological positions

demonstrating how sustainable tourism has evolved over time: (1) ‘Polar

opposites’, where mass tourism and sustainable tourism were seen as two

separate entities and stereotyped as the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’; (2)

‘Continuum’, where it was acknowledged that sustainable tourism can

become mass tourism and mass tourism can become more sustainable; (3)

‘Movement’, which focussed on operationalizing the goal of

sustainability for mass tourism; and (4) ‘Convergence’, which accepted

sustainable tourism as the goal for all types of tourism. Sustainable

tourism has further evolved since Clark’s (1997) framework and two

further positions could be suggested as additions.

First is the impact of climate change on the sustainable tourism

debate. A fast growing body of literature has emerged on tourism and

climate change (including Becken & Hay, 2007; Burns & Vishan, 2010; De

Lacy & Lipman, 2010; Gössling, 2011; Klint, et al., 2012; Reddy &

Wilkes, 2013; Scott, et al., 2008; World Economic Forum [WEF], 2009)

and the UNWTO, for instance, is now referring to a new ‘quadruple

bottom line’ of sustainable tourism that integrates ‘environmental,

social, economic and climate responsiveness’ (UNWTO, 2007, p. 2).

Opinions are divided however, whether climate change has indeed been an

important driver of sustainable tourism (Lane, 2009; Scott, 2011) or

whether the increased focus on climate change has instead increased the

potential for the other pillars of the quadruple bottom line to be

neglected (Weaver, 2011).

Second is the emergence of the new green economy and the influence of

the global financial crisis on the sustainable tourism debate. In

recent years, a growing number of publications have suggested

integrative and holistic approaches to sustainable tourism. Building on

earlier works highlighting the importance of integrated approaches for

sustainable tourism planning (e.g. Inskeep, 1991) and the role of

partnerships with a holistic outlook between public and private sectors

(e.g. De Lacy et al., 2002), studies in the sustainable tourism field

increasingly build the knowledge and solutions for holistic approaches.

This has been done by, for example, incorporating both demand and

supply side into climate change adaptation (Jopp et al., 2010), in

holistic destination strategy models (De Lacy & Lipman, 2010; Lipman,

et al., 2012), by studying the role of governments and collective

action (Bramwell, 2011) and through a holistic investment framework for

sustainable tourism (UNEP, 2011). Referring back to Clark’s (1997)

sustainable tourism approaches framework, two additional positions in

the evolution of sustainable tourism could therefore be suggested: (5)

Climate focus, followed by (6) Holistic view.

However, whilst sustainable tourism research is increasingly looking at

holistic approaches, the emerging green economy presents a new

situation of change which has not yet been researched in the tourism

sector. It is clear that the emergence of a global, multi-decade green

economy strategy has wide-ranging consequences for tourism and in this

paper we propose a model for how destinations can develop a pro-active

green economy transformation strategy.

3.The Green Growth 2050 Roadmap framework

3.1 A conceptual model for tourism and the green economy

Having reviewed the tourism green economy literature, we now shift our

focus back to a conceptual model with the aim to bring these

theoretical issues and concepts into a holistic approach for a green

economy transition in tourism destinations. First, this requires

taking a holistic look at tourism itself.

The travel and tourism sector is defined, not only by its ‘production’

components as is the usual case for economic sectors, but by its

‘consumption’ – tourists travelling away from home, staying overnight,

undertaking various experiences and in doing so spending money through

an extended value chain. Consequently any integrated strategy framework

for a green economy transition in tourism must consider this full value

chain. It must be aimed at contributing to the creation of an

integrated and comprehensive framework within which governments,

industry and community stakeholders can structure their respective

responses by repositioning in a proactive way. The objective,

therefore, is to create a model to contribute to the collective

understanding of a long-term tourism transformation.

The model was therefore structured to provide answers to the what, why,

how and when of a green economy transformation in tourism destinations.

First, we need to ask what needs to be achieved in a tourism green

economy. Second, we need to ask why this needs to be achieved – or in

other words, through which indicators can tourism stakeholders assess

available options for the transformation of the sector. Third, we need

to identify how we can deliver on this vision and identify the

essential pillars of the response. Finally we need to consider the when

of this transformational process – and here we used the generally

accepted scientific (and politico-economic) goal of 2050 when the

earth’s temperature should be stabilized at two degrees above turn of

the century levels.

Figure 1 visualises the developed, conceptual approach. By integrating

the tourism value chain into the theoretical tourism green economy

framework, we identify a vision of (i) sustainable destinations; (ii)

sustainable mobility; and (iii) sustainable lifestyles; with indicators

of (iv) destination competitiveness (i.e. achieving first mover

advantage through innovation and new business models, industry

leadership, reputation management, customer retention and long-term

brand equity); (v) green growth in jobs and local livelihoods; and (vi)

advancing happiness and social well-being. Finally we identify seven

pillars for a tourism green economy response: (1) climate resilience

(adaptation) and managing the low-carbon transition (mitigation); (2)

natural resource and waste management, which includes biodiversity

conservation; (3) product development and destination management; (4)

branding, marketing and e-distribution; (5) capacity-building and green

jobs; (6) infrastructure, technology dissemination and communications;

and finally (7) important means of implementation such as policy

reform, public private partnerships (PPPs), finance and innovation.

FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE

Figure 1: Conceptual tourism green economy model (Developed by the

authors with input to earlier versions of the model from Shaun Vorster

and Rebecca Hawkins in a workshop setting).

Having developed the conceptual tourism green economy model, we now

look at how to practically implement such a model in a real destination

and thus how to operationalize a green economy vision. In our approach,

we draw on the experience of other industries sharing the

characteristic as a generator and victim of climate change, such as the

energy sector. Research into the future of hydrogen energy for example

combines a range of foresight techniques (such as scenarios and

forecasts) to create shared visions across stakeholder groups and

mobilise the resources necessary for their achievement (McDowall &

Eames, 2006). Building on such techniques, the concept of roadmaps has

emerged as a strategy development and implementation tool. Whilst the

term roadmap is often used to refer to any kind of forward-looking

document (Kappel, 2001), roadmaps generally refer to a process to

provide a consensus view or vision of the future and plotting a layout

of paths available to decision-makers (Kostoff & Schaller, 2001).

Roadmaps are forecasts as well as plans for action (Kappel, 2001),

although they differ from other strategy documents or future studies in

that the ‘future is treated instrumentally, as a “policy problem”, with

the emphasis placed on what is to be achieved’ (McDowall & Eames, 2006,

p. 1241).

This makes roadmap processes interesting for tourism planning. In the

early days, tourism master plans were often prepared for - rather than

with - local stakeholders. These ‘one-off’ approaches often overlooked

important cultural, political and socio-cultural constraints, resulting

in a lack of local commitment and a plan that quickly became out of

date (Doswell, 1997). As Mason (2008, p. 111) points out: ‘Tourism

planning and tourism management are taking place in the real world,

where there are different individuals and groups, different value

systems, varying and often conflicting interests and the processes of

negotiation, coercion, compromise and choice all conspire to ensure

that these activities are not necessarily rational and

straightforward.’ In hydrogen energy future research, for example, a

roadmap is usually developed in a pragmatic process where stakeholder

groups identify their challenges and opportunities (including drivers,

barriers, targets and threats), short-term policies are identified and

long-term targets mapped out (McDowall & Eames, 2006). We draw on this

approach by using our conceptual model in a case study in Bali to

develop a green growth roadmap framework.

3.2 Application of the Model in Bali

Bali is a major tourism destination for international and domestic

tourism: international tourist arrivals have risen rapidly from under

25,000 in 1970, to over 2.8 million in 2012, whilst domestic tourist

arrivals have exceeded 6 million in 2012 (Bali Government Tourism

Office, 2013, 2008). The Bali Tourism Satellite Account 2007 (Badan

Pusat Statistik [BPS] & Department of Culture and Tourism, 2009)

indicates a tourism share of 46% of Bali’s gross domestic product

(GDP), however Cole (2012) suggest that as much as 80% of Bali’s

overall economy depends on tourism. Despite being located in the

geographical heart of the largest Muslim country by population, Bali

has maintained its unique culture based on its own form of Hinduism,

making it a unique destination aware of the complex relationship

between its culture and influx of tourism (e.g. Picard, 1996; Pitana,

2010).

3.2.1 Methodology

The conceptual tourism green economy model (Figure 1) was applied and

tested as a case study in Bali as part of a four-month project in 2011

to develop a Green Growth 2050 Roadmap. Figure 2 illustrates the

approach we developed to apply the model based on a five phase

implementation framework consisting of: (1) mapping and modelling the

visitor economy; (2) stakeholder engagement and analysis; (3)

development of the roadmap strategy; (4) implementation; and (5)

continuous feedback.

FIGURE 2 NEAR HERE

In phase one, secondary data on tourism, economics, society and

environment were collated and knowledge gaps identified. Various

methods were then used to address these gaps: proprietary models and

advanced forecasting techniques were used to create a range of

projected visitor, travel, industrial and service ‘alternative

futures’; primary data and secondary data were collected to produce an

estimate of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water usage; and host

and visitor surveys were undertaken to understand perceptions and

utopian visions. Together, these gave an overview of Bali’s visitor

economy.

Phase two focused on stakeholder engagement and analysis. Sixty-seven

tourism stakeholders (comprising staff from Provincial and Regency

Government agencies, leaders of industry organisations, business owners

and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were divided into four

‘visioning groups’. Following an introduction workshop, each group met

twice for visioning workshops following the ‘seven-pillar’ structure of

the conceptual model (Figure 1) to identify issues, prioritise

challenges and propose strategies. A final stakeholder workshop was

conducted with all participants towards the end of the project to

review, and revise, the outcomes of phase three.

Phase three involved the development of the roadmap strategies. First,

the outcomes of the visioning groups were subjected to a qualitative,

textual analysis and results fed into the green growth roadmap

strategies. Starting with the in-depth stakeholder visioning, a

structured bottom-up structure was proposed, following best practise

patterns and governance demands, with measurable key performance

indicators (KPIs) such as human development, visitor yield and reduced

GHG emissions. The process built on the community-envisioned

sustainable development and authenticity base through such specific

strategy components as climate, environment, community well-being,

jobs, products, markets, infrastructure, and investment. These were

then framed in the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap.

Phases 4 and 5 are on-going implementation and continuous review

phases. Based on the outcomes and results of the first three phases, a

number of implementation processes were developed with the aim to

foster on-going, long-term commitment.

3.2.2 Data and Outcomes

The Bali case study produced a large volume of data and results,

however within the limitations of this paper we can only summarize some

of the key findings, which are presented in more detail in De Lacy et

al. (in press).

The results of phase one of the project include visitor and employment

forecasts, GHG emissions and water usage estimates as well as visitor

and resident surveys to understand Bali’s visitor economy and its green

economy challenges and opportunities. Data availability in Bali was

found to be limited, particularly on environmental indicators. Whilst

Bali monitors its tourism statistics closely, these are produced

predominantly on common economic indicators such as number of visitor

arrivals, visitor origin and spending (e.g. BPS Provinsi Bali, 2010).

Green economy indicators, however, also include GHG emissions, water

use, waste management, socio-cultural trends and the enhancement of

environments and ecosystems (e.g. Law et al., 2012, UNEP 2011, World

Bank 2012).

Three forecasting models, the Time Varying Parameter model

(econometric) (Beck 1983), the Causal Structural model (econometric)

(Pearl 2009), and the Basic Structural model (time-series) (Harvey &

Shephard 1993), were used to project possible international and

domestic visitor arrivals out to 2020 (Turner, 2011). Results show a

scenario where arrivals may increase from 2.6 million international and

5.2 million domestic visitors in 2011, to 4.8 million international and

9.5 million domestic visitors in 2020 (table 1). Based on this visitor

arrival forecast, an employment forecast was developed (Hoque, 2011).

Using information in the 2007 Bali Tourism Satellite Accounts (BPS &

Department of Culture and Tourism, 2009) together with forecast visitor

arrivals, estimates of future Gross Domestic Provincial Product and

employment from the tourism sector were then modelled out till 2020.

Results show that tourism employment could potentially grow from 800

thousand in 2007 (year of tourism satellite account) to 2 million by

2020 (Table 1). In a small island destination with a current population

of 3.8 million, such a rapid rise in visitation and resultant

employment indicate substantial pressure on Bali’s environment and

unique Hindu culture.

Bali tourism’s GHG emissions were estimated Law et al. (2011) by

adapting a methodology suggested by Scott et al. (2008) and WEF(2009).

When GHG inventories are carried out, tourism is often implicit in

other sectors such as transport, which leaves tourism with limited data

availability as well as varying data sources and formats (Becken & Hay

2007). Primary and secondary data were collected in Bali to identify

and fill these gaps where possible. The results show a first estimate

by sub-sector (including accommodation, land transport, air transport

and water transport) which provides a better understanding of the

source and magnitude Bali’s tourism’s GHG emissions (Table 1).

TABLE 1 NEAR HERE

Tourism’s water usage in Bali was also difficult to estimate due to

limited data availability. Water usage by tourism accommodation

businesses was estimated by surveying a cross section of enterprises

and scaling up. The results indicate that the share of Bali’s hotels of

overall water consumption may be as high as 22.7% (De Lacy et al.,

2011), which is alarming because Bali is already experiencing

significant water shortages for agricultural and domestic purposes

(Cole, 2012).

The results of the visitor and resident surveys showed that visitors

reported a high level of satisfaction with the Bali experience,

primarily focussed on nature and culture. They did however report

considerable concern with traffic congestion and waste (Filep, 2011).

Residents were also generally very supportive of tourism to Bali and in

particular its job creation. Residents were however very concerned

about traffic congestion and tourism’s impact on Bali’s unique culture.

They also expressed a strong desire for more tourism dispersion to more

equally share the economic benefits from tourism (Filep & Hendriyetty,

2011).

The stakeholder engagement process produced a stakeholder vision of 70

strategies, each with its own set of programs (Ministry of Tourism and

Creative Economy, 2013) to address the seven pillars of the conceptual

tourism green economy model (Figure 1). A key aim of the process was to

get a genuine interest in the strategic process, from people

traditionally and understandably dealing with near term realities. At

the same time the process allowed for the overlapping and fragmented

structure of governance policies to be factored into the roadmap

process.

The outcomes of the visioning groups were subjected to a qualitative,

textual analysis and results fed into Green Growth 2050 Roadmap

development (Figure 3).

First, a structured bottom-up framework was created based on best

practice patterns and governance. The structure was built on a Bali-

specific foundation around the concept of Tri Hita Karana (a

fundamental belief in the link between God, people and the environment)

sustainable development. This was integrated with a range of elements

seen as core to the success of any sound tourism strategy. These

foundations for success include: coherent policies, integrated

planning, solid research, leading technologies, investment

partnerships, strong leadership, effective institutions, comprehensive

training, community engagement and cultural prominence (reference implicates

authors – will be supplied after review).

FIGURE 3 NEAR HERE

The roadmap was focussed on delivering five objectives: improved

livelihoods, growing visitor economy, better environment, reduced

carbon, and an authentic Bali. Strategies to achieve these objectives

were developed based on the identified foundations and stakeholder

vision. The result was a suite of 12 strategies, each with its own

implementation programs and timetables: (1) enhance product; (2)

quality marketing; (3) build human capital; (4) manage water, (5)

manage waste; (6) conserve biodiversity; (7) reduce GHG emissions; (8)

build resilience; (9) upgrade infrastructure; (10) manage transport;

(11) improve land-use planning; and (12) strengthen financing . The

strategies were clustered into four areas that highlight the major

directions of the roadmap (Table 2).

TABLE 2 NEAR HERE

Following a review of the drafted roadmap with all participating

stakeholders and respective revisions, the project concluded with a

suggested implementation framework and recommendations (Table 3).

Referring back to our theoretical green economy framework, today’s

fast changing global socio-economics complicate long-term policy

making. Consequently there is a clear need for a continuous

implementation and evaluation process. This allows government and

stakeholders to assess the impact of various decisions against rapidly

changing marketplace dynamics. It was recommended that a small

monitoring unit should be established integrating the academic partners

resources, where appropriate, for continuity. The relevant governance

and academic framework could be used to track developments, manage

support and organize essential meetings around an annual re-visioning

conference. This ensures that the green growth vision is supported by a

dynamic process that is responding to constant change but with a very

clear goal and objectives which are measurable.

TABLE 3 NEAR HERE

3.2.3 Discussion

Undertaking the roadmap process in Bali highlighted many issues and

difficulties.

One key difficulty was the significant lack of data on basic green

economy indicators. Measuring tourism’s GHG emissions, water usage, and

waste management are essential to be able to develop targeted and

effective strategies and large data gaps were identified that could

only be partially filled within the scope of the project. This raises

the issue of how science itself is integrated into a practical roadmap

process.

In a project such as the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap for Bali tourism,

the research process moves well beyond the traditional role of

scientific enquiry. The boundaries of what is ‘useful’ or ‘legitimate’

knowledge become blurred as scientist, policy-makers and tourism

stakeholders have different views and professional realities (Vogel et

al., 2007). In such a project, scientific knowledge is only useful if

it considers the real socio-economic context in which it is presented.

As Vogel et al. (2007) argue, in a science-practice interaction,

scientists may consider knowledge derived from a rigorous scientific

process as ‘true’ and therefore automatically relevant for

practitioners, whilst for practitioners legitimacy of knowledge may be

related more to considering and addressing stakeholder values and

concerns (Vogel at al., 2007). For instance, just asking what

information a practitioner needs is unlikely to lead to successful

outcome for both parties - instead, finding out what exactly a

practitioner does, what decisions are pending and what challenges and

opportunities he/she faces, is more likely to lead to research outcomes

that are seen as ‘good’ research by both practitioner and scientist

(Altalo, 2005 in Vogel et al., 2007). In other words, trust, good

communication, people skills, awareness and a collective plan of action

to negotiate this complex reality consequently become just as important

as scientific rigour.

Another key issue arising from the roadmap process in Bali is the

challenge of proposing (at times radical) green growth policies and

strategies for a destination within the prevailing local social,

cultural, economic and political environment – where national,

provincial and local governments and broader institutions battle for

power and resources among each other, between different political

groups and philosophies, with business and labour and wider civil

society. A subtle understanding of the local policy making and

institutional environment is crucial.

There is no one standard way to analyse or evaluate a policy-making

environment. Stoker and Marsh (2010) encourage a pluralistic approach

to develop a better understanding of politics. March & Olsen (1989)

outline a framework for understanding institutions and decision-making

which enable actors to see the relations between institutional

characteristics and political agency, performance, and change.

Institutions, and the decisions or policies made within these

institutions, are formed by actors or key stakeholders such as

politicians, bureaucrats, heads of large corporations and interest

groups. Therefore, central to understanding the policy environment is

examining the decision-makers, and the power and interest dynamics

among them.

The Green Growth 2050 Roadmap implementation framework offered a

platform for all relevant tourism stakeholders in Bali to get together,

discuss and better understand the complex topics of a tourism green

economy as well as the options and available pathways for a response.

Here it was necessary to bridge a significant gap between academic

theory, evolving research techniques, global/national/local

policymaking and local community lifestyle requirements. The applied

multi-stakeholder engagement process allowed stakeholders to

collectively develop their vision of the future based on a workable

conceptual framework to ensure that the key tourism green economy

responses were addressed. Building on this vision, a holistic roadmap

was developed that provides the pathway for a green economy transition

whilst allowing stakeholders and government to implement and review

continuously based on naturally changing circumstances and evolving

visions. By focussing on the buy-in from all the stakeholders, both

public and private, and offering a structure which allows adaptation to

rapid change, the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap framework offers an

approach to address some of the major barriers to stakeholder

commitment and improves the chance of influencing the future direction

of Bali’s tourism development.

4.Conclusion

We conclude with a look at the future for tourism in the emerging green

economy and the implications of our case study results.

The next steps in the integrating global/regional/national pathway are

already being taken in the outcomes of the Rio+20 process, the

evolution of the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ towards ‘Sustainable

Development Goals’ and the UNFCCC consolidation of the Kyoto Protocol

into a new binding low-carbon Climate Accord. The shift to Asian led

growth, extreme urbanization and related rural drift are underscoring

the need for new inclusive social development models that ensure that

benefits of strategies are delivered at the local community level – and

not only in terms of GDP and jobs but in terms of lifestyle, wellbeing

and happiness.

Similarly the travel and tourism sector is slowly integrating its 20

year flirtation with sustainable development concepts more boldly into

overall government policy and industry corporate social responsibility

(CSR) strategies. This will be increasingly led by low-carbon

imperatives and infrastructure investment requirements - particularly

for transport expansion and building development. This work is moving

beyond traditional certification, towards mainstream holistic green

growth thinking and new public/private sector investment and

operational approaches – long on creativity and short on institutional

bureaucracy.

Against this rapidly evolving, universally connecting, background, it

is clear that local community engagement in lifestyle planning and

development will not only expand, but be an increasingly dominant part

of tourism strategy and implementation patterns.

Here the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap approach with its policy coherence,

‘big data’ enabled research, disciplined visioning processes and base

of the pyramid inclusive strategies - with a strong focus on

investment, has much to offer. So too does the closer engagement of

public, private, academic and community interests in exploring multiple

options to complex fast moving development challenges and opportunities

The proof of concept implementation in Bali can be the start of what is

in effect a new dynamic travel and tourism master planning process that

can serve the sector well for its inevitable green economy

transformation.

References

Altalo, M., 2005. Don’t ask me what I want, ask me what I do. Paperpresented at the US Climate Change Science Program WorkshopClimate Science in Support of Decision Making, November 14-16,Arlington, VA.

Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS] & Department of Culture and Tourism, 2009.Bali Tourism Satellite Account 2007, BPS and Department ofCulture and Tourism, Jakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS] Provinsi Bali. 2010. Bali in Figures 2010,BPS Provinsi Bali, Denpasar.

Bali Government Tourism Office, 2008. Bali tourism statistics 2007,Bali Government Tourism Office, Denpasar.

Bali Government Tourism Office, 2013. Statistics, Available at:http://www.tourism.baliprov.go.id/informasi/2010/12/statistics(accessed 01/10/2013)

Beck, N. 1983. Time-varying parameter regression models, AmericanJournal of Political Science, 27(3), 557-600.

Becken, S., & Hay, J.E., 2007. Tourism and climate change: Risks andopportunities, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Bramwell, B., 2011. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: Apolitical economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 459-477.

Burns, P.M., & Vishan, I., 2010. The changing landscape of climatechange: NAMAs, SIDS and tourism. Tourism and Hospitality:Planning and Development, 7(3), 317-328.

Butler, R.W., 1980. The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution:Implications for management resources. Canadian Geographer / LeGéographe canadien, 24(1), 5-12.

Clarke, J.,1997. A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 224-233.

Cole, S., 2012. A political ecology of water equity and tourism: A casestudy from Bali. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1221-1241.

Daly, H.E., 1991. Steady-state economics, second ed., Island Press,Washington D.C.

De Lacy, T., Battig, M., Moore, S., & Noakes, S., 2002. Public /private partnerships for sustainable tourism: Delivering asustainability strategy for tourism destinations, Asia PacificEconomic Cooperation (APEC) Secretariat, Singapore.

De Lacy, T., Law, A., & Hoque, S., 2011. Water usage from the tourismsector in Bali, Technical Report, Victoria University, Melbourne.

De Lacy, T., & Lipman, G., 2010. Moving to carbon clean destinations,in: Schott, C. (Ed.), Tourism and the implications of climatechange: Issues and actions. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley,pp.299-312.

De Lacy, T., Lipman, G. & Law, A., in press. Destinations in the greeneconomy: A 2050 green growth roadmap for Bali Tourism, in: DeLacy, T., Jiang, M., Lipman, G. & Vorster, S. (Eds.) Green growthand travelism: Concept, policy, and practice for sustainabletourism. Routledge, London.

Doswell, R., 1997. Tourism: How effective management makes thedifference, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Woburn.

Douthwaite, R.J., 1992. The growth illusion: How economic growth hasenriched the few, impoverished the many, and endangered theplanet, Green Books in association with Lilliput Press, Hartland,Devon.

Dresner, S., 2002. The principles of sustainability, EarthscanPublications Ltd, London, Sterling.

Espinosa, A., & Walker, J., 2011. A complexity approach tosustainability: Theory and application, Imperial College Press,London.

Filep, S., 2011. Preliminary analysis: Understanding visitors to Bali,Technical Report, Melbourne: Victoria University.

Filep, S. & Hendriyetty, N., 2011. Preliminary analysis: Residentperceptions of tourism in Bali, Technical Report, VictoriaUniversity, Melbourne.

Goldie, J., Douglas, B., & Furnass, B. (Eds.), 2005. In search ofsustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Gössling, S., 2011. Carbon management in tourism: Mitigating theimpacts on climate change, Routledge, Oxon, New York.

Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., & Weaver, D.B., 2009. Sustainable tourismfutures: perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations.Routledge, New York, London.

Hall, C.M., 2013. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding andgoverning sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism,“nudging” and “green growth”? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,21(7), 1091-1109.

Hancock, D.R., & Algozzine, B., 2011. Doing case study research: Apractical guide for beginning researchers, second ed., TeachersCollege Press, New York.

Harvey, A. & Shephard, N., 1993. Structural time series models, in:Maddala, G.S., Rao, C.R. & Vinod, H.D. (Eds.), Handbook ofstatistics 11: Econometrics. Elsevier Science Publishers,Amsterdam, pp.261-302.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G., 2005. Sustainable development:mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52.

Hoque, S., 2011. Impact of tourism on GDP and employment in Bali, 2010– 2020, Technical Report, Victoria University, Melbourne.

Inskeep, E., 1991. Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainabledevelopment approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Jopp, R., DeLacy, T., & Mair, J., 2010. Developing a framework forregional destination adaptation to climate change. Current Issuesin Tourism, 13(6), 591-605.

Kappel, T.A., 2001. Perspectives on roadmaps: How organizations talkabout the future. Journal of Product Innovation Management,18(1), 39-50.

Klint, L., Jiang, M., Law, A., De Lacy, T., Filep, S., Calgaro, E., etal., 2012. Dive tourism in Luganville, Vanuatu: Shocks,stressors, and vulnerability to climate change. Tourism in MarineEnvironments, 8(1/2), 91-109.

Kostoff, R.N., & Schaller, R.R., 2001. Science and technology roadmaps.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(2), 132-143.

Krippendorf, J., 1989. The holiday makers: Understanding the impact ofleisure and travel, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Woburn.

Lane, B., 2009. Thirty years of sustainable tourism, in: Gössling, S.,Hall, C.M. & Weaver, D. (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures:Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations.Routledge, Oxford, Woburn, pp.19-32.

Law, A., De Lacy, T., McGrath, G.M., Whitelaw, P.A., Lipman, G., &Buckley, G., 2012. Towards a green economy decision supportsystem for tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,20(6), 823-843.

Law, A., Hoque, S., & De Lacy, T., 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions fromthe tourism sector in Bali, Technical Report, VictoriaUniversity, Melbourne.

Lipman, G., De Lacy, T., Vorster, S., Hawkins, R., & Jiang, M. (Eds.),2012. Green Growth and Travellism: Letters from leaders,Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford.

March, J.G. & Olsen, J.P., 1989. Rediscovering institutions, FreePress, New York.

Mason, P., 2008. Tourism impacts, planning and management, second ed.,Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Burlington.

Mawhinney, M., 2002. Sustainable development: Understanding the greendebates, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, Malden, Melbourne,Berlin.

McDowall, W., & Eames, M., 2006. Forecasts, scenarios, visions,backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: A review of thehydrogen futures literature. Energy Policy, 34(11), 1236-1250.

Milani, B., 2000. Designing the green economy: The postindustrialalternative to corporate globalization, Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, Lanham, Oxford.

Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, 2013. Green Growth 2050Roadmap for Bali sustainable tourism development, Ministry ofTourism and Creative Economy of the Republic of Indonesia,Jakarta.

Mundt, J.W., 2011. Tourism and sustainable development: Reconsidering aconcept of vague policies. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011.Towards green growth, OECD, Paris.

Pearl, J., 2009. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, seconded., Cambridge University Press, New York.

Picard, M. (1996). Bali: Cultural tourism and touristic culture,Archipelago, Singapore.

Pitana, I.G., 2010. Tri Hita Karana: The local wisdom of the Balinesein managing development, in: Conrady, R. & Buck, M. (Eds.), Trendand issues in global tourism 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,Heidelberg, pp.139-150.

Poston Jr., D.L., DeSalvo, B.S., & Meyer, L.D., 2009. Malthusian theoryof population growth, in: Bryant, C.D. & Peck, D.L. (Eds.),Encyclopedia of death and the human experience (Vol. 2). Sage,Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, Singapore, pp.684-687.

Reddy, V., & Wilkes, K. (Eds.), 2013. Tourism, climate change andsustainability, Routledge, Oxon.

Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 2012.Objectives and themes. Available at:http://www.uncsd2012.org/objectiveandthemes.html (accessed22/05/2013)

Roorda, N., Corcoran, P.B., & Weakland, J.P., 2012. Fundamentals ofsustainable development, Earthscan Routledge, Oxon, New York.

Schmalensee, R., 2012. From “green growth” to sound policies: Anoverview. Energy Economics 34(1), S2-S6.

Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is beautiful: A study of economics as ifpeople mattered, Blond and Briggs Ltd., London.

Scott Cato, M., 2009. Green economics: An introduction to theory,policy, and practice. Earthscan, London.

Scott, D., 2011. Why sustainable tourism must address climate change.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 17-34.

Scott, D., Amelung, B., Becken, S., Ceron, J.P., Dubois, G., Gössling,S., et al., 2008. Climate change and tourism: Responding toglobal challenges. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP), Madrid, Paris.

Senge, P.M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S., 2010.The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations areworking together to create a sustainable world, first ed.,Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, Boston.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., & Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainabledevelopment in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics,57(2), 253-268.

Stake, R.E., 2005. Multiple case study analysis, Guildford Press, NewYork, London.

Stoker, G. & Marsh, D., 2010. Introduction, in: Marsh, D. & Stoker, G.(Eds). Theory and methods in political science. PalgraveMacmillan, Basingstoke, pp.1-12.

Turner, L., 2011. Tourism arrival forecasts for Bali through to 2020.Technical Report, Victoria University, Melbourne.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN-DESA](2012). A guidebook to the green economy: Issue 1. Available athttp://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1516(accessed 13/05/2013)

United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2011. Towards a greeneconomy: Pathways to sustainable development and povertyeradication. Available at: www.unep.org/greeneconomy/ (accessed04/10/2013).

United Nations Sustainable Development Platform, 2012. The future wewant. Available at

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html(22/05/2013).

Virginia, M.E., 2005. Malthus, Thomas, in: Roth, J.K. (Ed.), Ethics,(Rev. ed. Vol. 2 Genocide and Democide - Power), Salem, Pasadena,pp.891-892.

Vogel, C., Moser, S.C., Kasperson, R.E., & Dabelko, G.D., 2007. Linkingvulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice:Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental Change,17(3–4), 349-364.

Weaver, D., 2011. Can sustainable tourism survive climate change?Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 5 - 15.

Williams, S. (1998). Tourism geography, Routledge, London, New York.

World Bank (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway for sustainabledevelopment, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our commonfuture. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto,Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Karachi, Petaling, Jaya,Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Cape Town,Melbourne, Auckland.

World Economic Forum [WEF], 2009.Towards a low carbon travel andtourism sector, WEF, Geneva.

World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2007. Davos declaration. Climatechange and tourism. Responding to global challenges. Availableat: http://www.unwto.org/pdf/pr071046.pdf (accessed 10/11/2013)

World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2011. Tourism towards 2030: Globaloverview, UNWTO, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2013. Tourism highlights: 2013edition, UNWTO, Madrid.

Zaccai, E., 2012. Over two decades in pursuit of sustainabledevelopment: Influence, transformations, limits. EnvironmentalDevelopment, 1(1), 79-90.

Figure 1: Conceptual tourism green economy model (Developed by the

authors with input to earlier versions of the model from Shaun Vorster

and Rebecca Hawkins in a workshop setting).

Figure 2: The Green Growth 2050 Roadmap framework

Figure 3: The roadmap structure (Ministry of Tourism and Creative

Economy, 2013)

Table 1: Data summary. Adapted from Turner (2011), Hoque et al. (2011)

and Law et al. (2011).VisitorForecas

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Africa 12,9

7314,428

17,595

19,759

22,189

24,917

27,981

31,421

33,892

37,543

39,776America

s113,094

131,570

139,269

148,773

158,926

169,771

181,357

192,733

202,876

209,943

219,740Asia

Pacific1,746,38

1,846,32

2,170,56

2,429,65

2,619,67

2,844,30

3,027,70

3,253,07

3,363,09

3,521,04

3,722,032

Europe 613,774

591,344

582,275

586,200

595,032

612,633

637,440

671,105

711,943

752,711

804,010Middle

East6,60

06,09

26,30

06,53

26,98

87,23

47,46

77,73

27,98

08,25

58,469

Other Countri

231 249 255 264 276 285 293 302 311 321 332TOTAL 2,49

3,052,590,00

2,916,25

3,191,17

3,403,08

3,659,14

3,882,24

4,156,37

4,320,09

4,529,81

4,794,359Domesti

c4,646,34

5,250,77

5,745,96

6,287,93

6,880,85

7,245,91

7,731,09

8,247,30

8,629,29

9,076,32

9,532,488

GDP/ 20 200 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2020Tourism GDP 19 46. 26 28 30 33 35 37 39 42 44 46 49,2Tourism employment

816

40.56%

1,12

1,17

1,27

1,37

1,46

1,55

1,64

1,75

1,83

1,93

2,040GHG Emissions Estimate for Bali's Tourism Sector, Year 2011

Accommodation Land TransportWater

Transport Air Transport (Volume x Energy Use per Unit x

E.F.)(Tourism % of fuelconsumption x E.F)

(Volume x Distancex E.F.)

(Volume x Distancex E.F.)

Classified Unclassified   KtCO2

  KtCO2

KtCO2 KtCO2

KtCO2 Asia 777.51

5 Star 6.84

< 10rooms

6.69

Premium 717.64

Ketapang -Gilimanuk

3.53

Australia 329.66

4 Star

25.47

10 - 24rooms

13.30

Diesel 284.94

Lembar - Padangbai

10.08

Europe 1082.71

3 Star

57.26

25 - 40rooms

7.04

Pertamax 9.53

Cruise Ships

15.92

America 326.78

2 Star

44.59

41 -100

rooms

11.90   ASEAN 74.02

1 Star

106.29

> 100rooms

1.16        

Domestic 1033.23

280.54 KtCO2 1012.11 KtCO2 29.53 KtCO2 3623.91 KtCO2

Table 2: Summary of the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap’s major directions.

Cited from De Lacy et al. (in press).

Summary of the Green Growth 2050 Roadmap’s Major DirectionsProducts and Markets Cluster

a.Rationalise Government programs to encourage quality, authentic product and experiences with stronger environmental performance. Specifically target high yielding market segments and provide incentives for green growth product development.

b.Creative authentic Bali quality product mark. Specifically support with certification and promotion.

c.Establish ‘authentic Bali’ products that showcase the uniqueness ofeach Bali tourism destinations under ‘Bali brand’.

d.Build on ‘Bali my life’ integrated with ‘Clean Green Bali’ in a consistent high quality marketing program. Specifically shift to more digital marketing.

Community and Jobs Cluster

a.Accelerate programs to create green jobs, with incentives, trainingand micro-financing.

b.Build community program to strengthen the sector at a local level and increase local jobs and entrepreneurs with a focus on cultural

authenticity.c.Enhance the Bali education and training system so as to deliver

continuous learning and skills improvement for the tourism sector.d.Establish a hospitality and tourism recruitment program aimed at

matching industry needs with workforce availability.e.Support customary village practices as an effective means of

conservation.f.Include local food production linked to agri-tourism.

Climate and Environment Cluster

a.Government to strengthen implementation of waste management; water management; and biodiversity conservation.

b.Government and private sector to seek investment to lower carbon intensity of electricity and reduce carbon emissions from ground transport.

c.Tourism enterprises to measure and reduce waste production water use and GHG emissions. Specifically use a simple, bespoke online measuring tool.

d.Build resilience of the tourism sector to shocks and stressors including to future climate change risks.

e.Establish a dialogue between National Provincial and Regency Government and the tourism industry around developing more effective integrated land use planning.

Infrastructure and Investments Cluster

a.Create a comprehensive tourism infrastructure plan that cross relates to national and provincial plans / programs.

b.Develop an integrated approach to air, sea, road, rail, transport infrastructure and related traffic congestion – including light rail and new airport. Specifically identify transport choke points resulting from tourism or impacting adversely on product quality.

c.Implement carbon pricing systems in line with national carbon commitments and polluting vehicles to be gradually phased out by supply / price regulation.

d.Explore effective means to establish a sustainability financing facility to underpin green growth development.

e.Rationalise current visitor fees / charges and investigate innovative international financing.

Table 3: Summary of Green Growth 2050 Roadmap implementation framework.

Synopsised from De Lacy et al. (in press).

Summary of Green Growth 2050 Roadmap Implementation Framework

Implementation Structure1. Indonesian Government to endorse and adopt the roadmap

strategy.2. Present the roadmap to the Governor at a workshop in Denpasar

and the Minister at a workshop in Jakarta.3. Establish a Green Growth Roadmap Implementation Taskforce from

National, Provincial and Regency Governments jointly chaired by the Minister and the Governor to oversee the implementationof the Roadmap’s strategies.

4. Establish a small, skilled, dedicated Roadmap taskforce secretariat

5. The Roadmap taskforce will need to assign priority actions identified in the roadmap to the relevant Government agency making them responsible for their implementation and production of an annual report from each Government agency on implementation progress.

Recommendations to fast-track full implementation Obtain measurement tools for GHG emissions, water usage and

waste production; Develop a system for visitor contribution to help fund Bali

Green Growth actions; Develop a proposal for major Bali green growth financing for

use with international public and private sources; Put in place a single integrated Bali authentic green product

mark/ enterprise certification scheme; Develop a ‘Bali is my Life’ Brand Use Tool Kit for use by

industry and tourism precincts; Develop and implement a digital marketing plan for Bali

tourism.