Evaluation of the Carbon Footprint of Wooden Glamping Structures by Life Cycle Assessment
[ad_1]
1. Introduction
A significant challenge confronting the contemporary world involves addressing climate change, necessitating substantial mitigation efforts targeting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 [1] and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) [2]. Humanity has also realized that it is not only necessary to slow down CO2 emissions but also to ensure CO2 sequestration from the atmosphere [3]. Nowadays, we are measuring the carbon footprint of various economic sectors and the CO2 footprint of end products as well as services, providing a new choice opportunity for climate-conscious customers [4,5]. The present paper, therefore, quantifies the carbon footprint of wooden glamping as the final product in a local value chain developed for sustainable production in forest-based industry (FBI).
The intersection of sustainable construction and carbon sequestration has increasingly gained attention in the discourse on mitigating climate change. Carbon-neutral products are products whose CO2 emissions related to their production have been calculated and reduced to zero through in-house measures or are supported by external emission reduction schemes [6,7]. Other approaches, such as wood-based construction, offer a new opportunity to produce low-carbon-footprint facilities and could also become a compensation tool for a carbon offset project [8]. Within this context, the utilization of wood in building materials has emerged as a focal point due to its potential as a carbon sink. The literature examining the environmental impact of wood incorporation in various construction contexts forms the foundation for understanding its implications in glamping structures.
The environmental benefits of wood as a building material have been extensively documented [9,10]. The pivotal role of the FBI in carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere is underscored as an essential component within climate mitigation strategies [11,12]. Concurrently, the European Green Deal places considerable emphasis on the forest sector and wood products as pivotal contributors to achieving climate neutrality within the European Union by 2050 [12].
As it is known, the building sector accumulates an overall 40% of primary energy consumption as well as up to 30% of GHG emissions on this planet [13,14], while others estimate up to 37% of GHG emissions [2]. Based on different estimations made on a worldwide level, construction related CO2 emissions has up to 40% each year out of the total [15], while within the tourism sector, the second largest emitter of GHGs is tourist accommodations (21%), whose share in the global carbon footprint is estimated as at least 1% [16,17,18].
Hence, there exists a critical necessity to disseminate knowledge regarding the latest and most efficient strategies for decarbonizing buildings worldwide. To attain climate objectives, substantial interventions must primarily target existing buildings and new construction sectors by 2050, given that over 60% of current and past buildings are projected to emit CO2 during this period. Within the building sector, significant attention should be directed towards embodied carbon in all new constructions anticipated to be erected between 2024 and 2050, recognizing its pivotal role.
In the realm of eco-tourism accommodations, glamping structures have emerged as environmentally conscious alternatives [19]. Throughout the COVID-19 period and during the post-COVID times, as well as during contemporary times with tensions among countries [20], a significant portion of tourists prefer to spend their holidays in more remote locations [21] near to nature in a healthy, beautiful, harmonious, and comfortable environment [22,23]. Stress and the desire to escape crowded cities are two significant factors driving the growth of glamping-based tourism [19]. As a response, glamping provides a low-carbon solution [24] by utilizing natural resources and adjusting to an authentic way of life, promoting the beauty of nature without sacrificing the consumer’s comfort [19].
Throughout the period influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, in the post-pandemic era and amidst contemporary geopolitical tensions among nations [20], a notable proportion of tourists exhibit a preference for holiday destinations situated in more secluded areas [21], characterized by proximity to nature and offering a healthy, aesthetically pleasing, harmonious, and comfortable setting [22,23]. Stress alleviation and the inclination to escape densely populated urban areas emerge as two prominent factors fostering the expansion of glamping-oriented tourism [19]. In response, glamping initiatives offer a sustainable solution [24] by leveraging natural resources and embracing an authentic lifestyle, thus promoting the splendor of nature without compromising consumer comfort [19].
Many studies conducted CO2 emission assessments regarding eco-friendly travel [25] or [26] included a life cycle assessment (LCA) on accommodation, stay, catering, sport, and outdoor activities, but fewer assessments focused on the carbon footprint of building structures. Other researches evaluated the carbon storage potentials of the building sector, focusing on housing stock only [27] and construction materials [28] or on the urban built environment [29], while other assessments highlighted the role and carbon sequestration potential of the FBI [30,31], or more specifically, the CO2 capture capacities of wood products [32]. Although various reviews and research articles were published on these topics, there is no published research assessing the carbon storage capacities and impact of wooden glamping production for a more sustainable, post-COVID tourism situation in a rapid development curve. Even if the glamping construction for tourism was assessed, these studies have less attention on CO2 capture and carbon storage using predominantly wood materials and functionalized massive wood components. Research by Apolloni et al. [33] and Hindley [34] explored the potential of glamping in reducing the ecological footprint compared to traditional hospitality facilities [33,34]. However, despite the perceived environmental friendliness of glamping, few studies have comprehensively assessed the net carbon impact of wood used in these structures.
Key gaps in the existing literature point towards the need for a focused examination of the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping structures vis-à-vis the GHG emissions related to the entire life cycle. Previous studies have primarily centered on either the carbon sequestration capacity of wood or the eco-tourism benefits of glamping, but few have attempted to quantitatively compare carbon sequestration against emissions in this specific context.
This assessment demonstrates a dearth of empirical data and comprehensive analyses regarding the net carbon impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. Addressing this gap will be crucial in informing sustainable construction practices within the burgeoning eco-tourism industry and providing evidence-based insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction sector. The characterization of the research problem is the following: the environmental impact of construction and building materials has gained increasing attention due to concerns about climate change and sustainability [6]. Glamping structures, although providing eco-friendly alternatives to traditional accommodations, necessitate an evaluation of their overall carbon footprint. The utilization of wood in these structures raises questions regarding its role as a carbon sink or source throughout the life cycle of the glamping facilities. Understanding the net impact of wood incorporation—balancing carbon sequestration against emissions—presents a critical aspect for sustainable construction practices and climate mitigation strategies.
Hence, the present research examines the LCA of the manufacturing process involved in wooden glamping, recognized as a leading approach to sustainable tourism development [35]. The main hypothesis of the research is that the incorporation of wood in glamping structures results in a significant net carbon sequestration effect after excluding the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing and construction, as well as the entire glamping life cycle. The secondary hypotheses are that sustainable sourcing and management of timber, coupled with carbon-positive design principles and innovative production capacities, contribute substantially to the carbon sequestration potential of wooden glamping structures.
Building on previous theoretical frameworks and empirical research highlighting the carbon sequestration potential of wood [36] and the sustainability benefits [13] of eco-tourism accommodations, like glamping [37], this research realizes a step forward and employs a comprehensive quantitative methodology to assess the net carbon impact of wooden glamping. It compares the carbon sequestration achieved by wood in glamping structures against the carbon emissions generated throughout their life cycle.
Previous theoretical frameworks [38] and empirical research [39] have established the environmental benefits of wood as a building material and the eco-tourism advantages of glamping. However, few studies have quantitatively compared the net carbon impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. This research fills this gap by providing empirical evidence and a quantitative understanding of the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping. By contextualizing the findings within the existing literature, this study contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainable construction practices and environmental conservation in the tourism sector.
The objectives of the present research are as follows. 1. To assess the carbon sequestration capacities sequestered by the wood used in glamping structures throughout its life cycle. 2. To quantify the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing, construction, and operational phases of glamping structures. 3. Establish a comparative analysis to ascertain whether the carbon capture potential of timber in glamping surpasses the CO2 pollution generated during their life cycle. 4. Examine the influence of sustainable timber sourcing, management practices, and carbon-positive design on enhancing the carbon sequestration capacity of wooden glamping structures. 5. Provide empirical data and insights to inform policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction industry about the environmental implications and benefits of using wood in eco-tourism accommodations, like glamping, aiming to foster more sustainable practices and decision making in the construction and tourism sectors.
Based on these considerations, an innovative collaboration within the ProWood—Regional Wood Cluster, involving seven regional companies based in Romania, was examined. The primary aim was to assess the carbon emissions and sequestration potentials associated with glamping production for tourism. Operating within the forest-based industry sector, these companies established a regional supply value chain and innovation network to enhance the sustainability of wood-based product manufacturing. Situated in the south-eastern part of the Transylvania region, these companies benefit from a rich history and extensive expertise in forest and wood manufacturing.
Collectively, the involved companies embarked on the manufacturing of carbon-neutral glamping structures. This study seeks to evaluate the environmental impacts of glamping production and construction, spanning from forest management and wood manufacturing to glamping construction and eventual reusing or disposal, utilizing an LCA approach. Part of the ProWood Cluster under the Bio Wood Net project, “The distributed industrial research-innovation network in partnership for the sustainable development of the forestry sector in the Pro Wood Cluster”, aims to enhance the visibility of carbon-neutral production methods within the FBI and disseminate the scientific findings globally.
A distinctive aspect of this study lies in the evaluation of the environmental advantages of wood-based glamping construction facilitated by regional supply chains structured both horizontally and vertically. This assessment encompasses both the direct and indirect environmental benefits of the final product. Notably, environmental impacts were assessed across all phases of glamping, from harvesting and replanting to timber production, prefabrication, construction, and operational stages through to disposal. The manufacturing process of glamping embraced a regional value chain approach among industrial producers, while prefabrication technology was employed to enhance production efficiency and reduce the overall carbon footprint of the glamping industry. Given the predominantly organic nature of glamping components, wooden glamping structures sequester significant amounts of CO2.
2. Methodology
Utilizing the LCA as a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the environmental impact of specific activities, products, or services encompasses all stages in the life cycle, spanning from raw material acquisition through pre-processing, processing, manufacturing, promotion, dissemination, utilization, maintenance-related impacts, and eventual product disposal or valorization [40].
The current LCA employs a quantitative methodology to precisely assess and quantify the carbon sequestration potential inherent in the wood utilized within glamping structures. This entails the precise calculation of CO2 captured and stored within the wood biomass throughout its life cycle, encompassing growth to end of life.
Typically, standard methodological approaches identify at least four distinct stages in a building’s life cycle: (1) the preparation of construction materials, (2) on-site building, (3) building operation, and (4) building demolition [41]. Alternative methods may further segment the prefabrication process into six distinct components [42], including “element prefabrication”, “logistics”, and “on-site assembly” [43]. In the context of wood-based glamping construction, additional considerations come into play. These encompass various steps, such as forest management, harvesting activities, raw material logistics, mechanical pre-processing of wood-based materials, interior equipment manufacturing, groundwork, component logistics, on-site assembly, glamping operations, and eventual building dismantling, which may manifest at the outset of the supply chain.
The LCA methodology scrutinizes the environmental impact of glamping as a product, documenting the origin of raw materials and evaluating the impacts of construction processes, transportation, logistics, and eventual disposal or reintroduction into valorization cycles. Comprehensive explanations of LCA findings are crucial for facilitating deeper understanding. In accordance with EN standards [44]), the production stage of a conventional building entails three primary modules (A1–A3) focusing on the product stage, followed by two modules (A4–A5) concentrated on construction processes, a subsequent module (B1–B7) dedicated to operational stages, and a final module (C1–C4) assigned to end-of-life phases.
In the methodology, the calculations adhere to a systematic approach where 10 measurements are assumed for each parameter under consideration. These measurements are then synthesized into a single representative value, typically expressed as the average or mean value. However, to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results, a quality control mechanism is implemented. If the deviation of any individual measurement from the calculated average value exceeds 10%, it is flagged as an outlier. In such cases, the results are presented not as a single value but as an interval within which 90% of the measured values fall. This approach mitigates the impact of outliers and accounts for potential variability or uncertainty in the measurements. By presenting the results as an interval, rather than a single value, the methodology acknowledges the inherent variability in the data and provides a more robust representation of the measured parameters. This ensures that the findings are both accurate and reliable, enhancing the credibility of the research outcomes (Table 1).
2.1. Product Stage
2.1.1. Sustainable Raw Material Supply
Assessing the impact of wood harvesting activities on CO2 emissions presents a significant challenge. This complexity stems from various factors, such as the diversity of methods employed, site and harvesting conditions, tool efficacy, operational duration per unit of freshly harvested wood, emissions from transportation machinery, and distances to initial depositing platforms, among others [45]. Considering these variables, it is estimated that CO2 emissions resulting from wood harvesting account for approximately 6% of the CO2 stored within the economic, technological, geographical, and climatic contexts of the researched region [46]. Concurrently, replanting processes also contribute additional CO2 emissions, averaging around 2% [47]. The calculation of CO2 emissions associated with harvesting is determined by Equation (1).
where WCO2 is the amount of CO2 in a given amount of wood, and LCO2, TCO2, and RCO2 are the CO2 emissions that come from timber extraction, conveyance, and reforestation (Table 2). According to the literature, the logging-related emissions are 0.3881 t/yr CO2 eq. on each t wood harvested [48,49], the transport under the harvesting activity-related emissions are up to 0.1078 t/yr CO2 eq. [48], the replantation-related emissions are estimated to be 0.0078 t/yr CO2 eq. for each newly planted tree seedling during the initial 5-year period [49], and the transport to the first processing site is estimated to be 0.03874 t/yr CO2 eq. [50], as can be seen in Table 2.
2.1.2. Raw Material Transport
The transport of raw materials and feedstock-related GHG emissions have been calculated following the CarbonCare Carbon Emissions Calculator’s EN16258 Standards [51]; more specifically, the WTW (Well-to-Wheels) calculation, of which Romania is also a member state. Transportation distance, truck emissions, distance traveled, vehicle type, the weight of the goods being transported, and road type are all factors to consider [13]. Working with Equation (2), there are a few aspects to consider: the weighted average distance traveled between the providers of raw materials and the manufacturing site, expressed in hour duration, where the distances should also be weighted with the emission index of the trucks (EURO4 to EURO6) and the road types, as seen in Equation (2) as follows:
where TCO2 is the CO2 emission during transportation, Dkm is the distance from raw material suppliers to the manufacturing site, Tg/km is the integrated CO2 eq. emission with a full load, and Rh is the duration of the transportation, as it can extend or shorten the CO2 release time and is expressed in CO2 eq. emission (Table 2).
2.1.3. Production of Timber Components
The fabrication process of glamping encompasses a variety of tasks, commencing with the initial phase where raw materials undergo preparation and several procedures, such as timber cutting, sectioning, edging, stacking, autoclaving, and drying. This manufacturing process extends until the prefabrication stage. To discern the CO2 emissions, it is imperative to scrutinize each phase independently, encompassing emission parameters of all machinery alongside operational duration, as delineated in Equation (3) as follows:
in the defined notation, MCO2 denotes the comprehensive CO2 emissions considered throughout the manufacturing process. Specifically, MCO2 accounts for manipulation and stocking activities, ACO2 represents emissions from autoclaving, DCO2 pertains to drying processes, TCO2 signifies timber cutting, SCO2 denotes sectioning procedures, ECO2 refers to edging in timber processing, PoCO2 encompasses emissions from polishing, and PaCO2 denotes emissions associated with painting activities. These production steps are quantified in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions. Auxiliary materials such as nails, plumbing and electrical fixtures, insulation materials, paint, doors, windows, and furniture fittings possess predefined CO2 emissions per unit, which are integrated into the assessment as additional units expressed as AdCO2. The input data were gathered and measured directly from the participating companies (Table 3).
2.2. Building Phase
2.2.1. Conveyance to Construction Location
The building phase encompasses the conveyance of prefabricated components and all supplementary elements to the construction site. The assessment considers the transportation distance from the manufacturing facility to the construction site, incorporating and weighting the emission index of the transport vehicles (ranging from EURO5—136 gr/km to EURO6—98 gr/km), supplemented with precise data from suppliers. Given the considerable transportation distances of wooden prefabricated elements, only fully loaded trucks departing from the fabrication site are considered, employing Equation (4) for calculation as follows:
where TCO2 is the total carbon emission produced under the conveyance of the semi-finished parts, TrCO2 is the pollution index of the transportation vehicle, and DCO2 is the spatial interval between the production and building sites [52].
2.2.2. Incorporation and Assembling of Glamping Structures
The assessment of the building up and assembly phase comprehensively considers all immediate and indirect factors associated with construction. This process encompasses additional elements, materials, paints, and energy consumption during assembly preceding operational deployment. While construction inevitably generates a certain amount of waste, the utilization of prefabricated components substantially diminishes this aspect compared to conventional building methods. The waste primarily emanates from the assembly of indoor furnishings and wall elements. Energy consumption during glamping construction fluctuates based on the regional or national electrical mix; consumption adheres to IEA standards, yet overall emissions are contingent on this variability [53]. Water usage is negligible throughout the construction phase, although various forms of waste are generated on site, including wood, plastic, insulation, and general refuse [54]. Equation (5) is applied to this phase of assessment, incorporating emissions from all auxiliary installations, including metal, plastic, and components of doors and windows as follows:
where CCO2 represents the cumulative CO2 releases occurring throughout the construction phase, PCO2 denotes the carbon emissions attributed to plastic waste generated during construction, DWCO2 signifies the CO2 releases linked to doors and windows, EnCO2 represents the CO2 releases associated with energy uptake under the assembling process, WCO2 pertains to emissions from water installations, ElCO2 denotes releases from electricity consumption, IlCO2 refers to releases from indoor insulation, IOCO2 signifies releases from outdoor insuflation, ICO2 represents releases from ironwork, RCO2 denotes releases related to roofing, FCO2 pertains to releases from furnishings, and RCO2 representing the CO2 releases associated with the utilization of renewable energy technologies implemented in glamping structures (Table 4 and Table 5).
2.3. Operational Phase
Prior LCAs have yielded diverse outcomes regarding the carbon dioxide releases emanating from the constructed structure under the ”in-use phase” [13]. Predominantly, the majority of CO2 emissions are attributed to energy use given that, across the entire life cycle, approximately 80–85% of total energy utilization occurs during operational phases, assuming the building serves its intended purpose [55]. ”Cradle-to-grave” investigations suggest that CO2 emissions during the use phase of wooden houses could account for approximately 64% of total emissions [13]. Conversely, others emphasize that GHG emission levels are heavily contingent upon user behaviour, thereby lying beyond the scope of construction control [56]. Given that the CO2 emission impact of the ”in-use stage” is projected for the same facility lifespan, all sub-sectors are treated as a unified entity in the assessment. Within the glamping operational phase, CO2 emissions associated with usage, maintenance, repairs, and replacements, as well as electricity and water consumption, were quantified utilizing Equation (6) as follows:
where UCO2 denotes the CO2 releases linked to usage, encompassing waste generation, wastewater sludge elimination, and similar factors. MCO2 represents CO2 emissions associated with maintenance activities, while RCO2 signifies CO2 emissions related to repairs. SCO2 denotes CO2 emissions linked to substitutions, and ECO2 represents CO2 emissions attributable to energy consumption. Different CO2 indices are employed for distinct countries in this context. Finally, WCO2 refers to CO2 releases stemming from water consumption (Table 6).
2.4. End-of-Life Phase
The producer of sub-components guarantees the durability of the treated wood for a span of 50 years, thus establishing the estimated lifespan of the glamping structure [35]. Under this premise, the initial lifespan of the employed wood spans 50 years to sequester accumulated CO2 within the wooden components. Vandervareen et al. underscore the importance of disassembly over demolition upon completion of the ”in-use stage” [57]. Given that prefabricated elements are designed not only for ease of installation but also for eventual deconstruction, they contribute to enhancing material efficiency towards the end-of-life phase of such structures. The overall material of the glamping structure, as well as the masses of individual components, were assessed alongside potential CO2 emissions based on reuse, recycling, or disposal prospects in the present evaluation [58]. Following the standard protocols [59], diverse end-of-life scenarios were appraised, encompassing the disassembly of prefabricated components, collection and on-site sorting of waste materials, potential reuse or recycling, or ultimate disposal. Owing to the minimal CO2 emissions associated with the end-of-life phase, it was integrated into a single module using Equation (7).
where EoLCO2 is the “end-of-life” associated CO2 release, which sums up DCO2 as deconstructing activities and associated pollutions. TCO2 is the conveyance-related CO2 emission, WCO2 is the waste management-related CO2 release, and DCO2 is the GHG release associated with disposal or landfilling [52] (Table 7).
2.5. Application of the Methodology
The methodology utilizes a quantitative approach for accurate measurement and quantification of the carbon sequestration capacity of the wood utilized in glamping constructions. This encompasses a precise calculation of the quantity of CO2 sequestered and retained within the wood biomass across its entire life span, ranging from initial growth stages to the end-of-life phase.
The LCA served as a comprehensive framework for evaluating the environmental impact of wooden glamping structures. The LCA approach was selected because it allows for a holistic assessment by accounting for the carbon emissions associated with each stage and contrasting it with the carbon stored in the wood.
The methodology adheres to established carbon accounting principles and protocols endorsed by international standards, such as IPCC guidelines for GHG inventories, and it ensures credibility, consistency, and comparability of the results. This approach provided a standardized framework for accurately quantifying carbon sequestration and emissions.
The methodology involved collecting detailed data on timber sourcing, forest management practices, wood processing, transportation, construction, and other relevant factors. This data-driven approach enables precise calculations of carbon sequestration and emissions at each stage. Advanced modeling techniques may be used to estimate values where direct data are unavailable.
The selected methodology enables a comparative examination between the carbon sequestration attained by the wood utilized in glamping structures and the carbon emissions produced throughout their life cycle. This comparative analysis facilitates a comprehensive understanding of whether the carbon stored within the wood surpasses the emissions linked to the structures.
The methodology prioritizes robustness and transparency by following established scientific protocols. It allows for the replication of this study and ensures the reliability of the findings, providing stakeholders, policymakers, and the scientific community with credible and actionable information.
In summary, this methodology was chosen for its comprehensive nature, allowing for a rigorous evaluation of the carbon capture and storage potential of wood in glamping structures. It aims to provide empirical data and insights essential for informed decision-making, fostering sustainable construction practices, and supporting environmental conservation efforts in the tourism industry.
4. Discussion
The findings of this study on carbon capture and storage in wood-based glamping structures complete a research gap but also align with and extend on previous studies [13] while introducing novel insights and innovations in the assessment of environmental impacts in the FBI and eco-tourism accommodations [37].
This study’s findings corroborate earlier research emphasizing the carbon sequestration potential of wood in construction materials [62,69]. Consistent with studies by Petrovic and Quintana-Gallardo [13,97], our results calculated the carbon capture and carbon storage capacities along the footprint of the glamping manufacturing and construction activities [13,98]. Our paper demonstrates the substantial carbon storage capacity of timber incorporated in glamping structures, namely, 595 kg CO2e/m2 carbon storage in glamping, contributing significantly and precisely to the estimation of the carbon mitigation efforts. Furthermore, Casarbor Ltd. annually orchestrates reforestation initiatives, integrating into its business model the redirection of revenue generated from the sale of voluntary carbon sequestration credits, which are earned through glamping sales, towards reforestation efforts.
The carbon footprint calculation was detailed well, and it was found that only 6.5% of overall emissions were related to sourcing, including the replantation of forests. Due to the newly implemented regional value chain and innovative industrial equipment, the footprint related to the manufacturing of the glamping structure was radically decreased to 8–9.5%. If we take into account that the carbon footprint of the production stage of wooden construction is usually 30% during the production stage, the case of glamping realized a significant mitigation measure [13]. Contrary to this, the construction stage includes about 32–42% of the total carbon footprint, as it is calculated that the glamping structure is transported and constructed in different sites from 280 km up to 1783 km from the manufacturing site. These aspects were not taken into consideration in every other assessment. The use stage is responsible for 32 to 38% of the total carbon footprint, significantly less than other wooden structures, as glamping is a touristic structure and not residential. Last but not least, in the end-of-life stage, all minor steps were taken into consideration, such as deconstruction, the transport of materials from the touristic spot, reuse/recycling and/or disposal, and the meaning a carbon footprint of 11.6–13.7% out of the total footprint. The relatively high ratio under the end-of-life stage occurred because glamping is not reused in the middle of nature, which could be sometimes under the jurisdiction of nature conservation or other limitations.
The above-detailed methodological approach can be applied in many other circumstances to estimate the carbon capture and storage capacities for wood industrial stakeholders and eco-tourism-related players. Furthermore, in line with previous assessments looking for solutions on emission mitigation [99,100], our analysis reaffirms the importance of local and regional value chains for wood industries and the benefits of glamping as a more sustainable lodging option compared to traditional facilities [101].
The innovation of this study lies in its comprehensive quantitative assessment and direct comparison of carbon sequestration against emissions specific to wood incorporation in glamping structures. Prior studies have highlighted the carbon sequestration potential of wood and the eco-friendly attributes of glamping, yet few have quantitatively compared the net carbon impact in this context. Our study fills this gap by employing a rigorous life cycle assessment methodology, accurately measuring the actual carbon sequestration in wood while juxtaposing it against emissions generated throughout the glamping structure’s life cycle. This innovation provides empirical evidence and a quantifiable understanding of the net environmental impact, bridging a critical research gap.
The quantitative findings from this research hold profound implications for sustainable construction practices and policy formulation within the building sector for eco-tourism customers. By demonstrating a clear surplus of carbon sequestration over emissions in wood-based glamping structures, our study advocates for the promotion of sustainable forestry management and the use of wood in construction as a viable strategy for carbon mitigation. These findings present actionable insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction industry, encouraging the adoption of wood-based sustainable structures to achieve carbon neutrality and combat climate change effectively [37,101].
While aligning with prior research on the benefits of wood and glamping in eco-tourism, this study innovates by quantitatively demonstrating the net positive impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. The novel comparison of carbon sequestration and emissions offers concrete evidence supporting the viability of wood-based sustainable constructions in mitigating climate change, offering a significant contribution to the body of knowledge of sustainable construction practices within the tourism sector.
While the above-analyzed research provides valuable insights into the carbon sequestration potential of wood incorporation in glamping structures, there are several aspects that warrant further investigation to strengthen our understanding of the environmental impacts and sustainability implications of such practices. One key area for future research is the long-term effectiveness of carbon offset through reforestation efforts associated with wood-based industries. While reforestation has the potential to sequester carbon and mitigate emissions, there is a need for more comprehensive studies to assess the scalability, sustainability, and overall impact of reforestation initiatives on carbon balance and ecosystem health. Additionally, the analysis could benefit from a more robust consideration of the broader environmental impacts beyond carbon, such as biodiversity conservation, water resource management, and soil health. Furthermore, future research should explore the socio-economic implications of wood-based industries, including the equitable distribution of benefits and potential trade-offs with other land uses. By addressing these research gaps and weaknesses, future studies can provide a more holistic understanding of the sustainability challenges and opportunities associated with wood incorporation in glamping structures, ultimately informing more informed decision making and policy development in the field of sustainable construction and eco-tourism.
5. Conclusions
Given that carbon emissions stem not solely from the acquisition of raw materials and the fabrication of glamping units but also from operational and end-of-life stages, it is imperative to adopt a comprehensive perspective to grasp the wider landscape of environmental sustainability. Processes such as timber harvesting, cutting, refining, finishing, painting, crafting auxiliary components, and determining the net wood volume for assembly all contribute collectively to the carbon impact of wooden products.
According to the results, the main sources of GHG emissions were the construction stage, showing that the FBI sector can significantly reduce its emissions with local sourcing, regional value chains, and the application of innovative technologies. In this sense, the use of innovative, digitalized, and energy-efficient equipment, and renewable energy sources, all present potential for mitigating the environmental footprint. These practices demonstrate a proactive approach to carbon mitigation and offer valuable insights into sustainable construction practices.
The research emphasizes the significant role of transportation in influencing the carbon footprint of glamping structures. The distance between manufacturing sites and construction locations has a considerable impact on emissions, underscoring the importance of optimizing transportation routes and minimizing travel distances to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, by prioritizing the decision to employ local and sustainable materials, locally produced products have major benefits towards sustainability and climate neutrality.
This study reveals a noteworthy carbon sequestration potential associated with the use of wood in glamping structures. The wood used in these structures acts as a carbon sink, sequestering a substantial amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby offsetting a significant portion of the carbon emissions generated throughout the glamping life cycle.
Within the realm of sustainable forestry and wood product creation, the imperative lies in managing and reducing carbon emissions throughout timber processing endeavors. Embracing sustainable practices diminishes the sector’s ecological footprint and meets the escalating consumer demand for eco-friendly and low-carbon merchandise. Thus, while carbon emissions persist as a challenge in timber processing, they also present an avenue for the industry to foster innovation, enhance efficiency, and prioritize environmental stewardship.
The surplus carbon sequestration emerges as a method of carbon offsetting. Essentially, the carbon emissions generated during manufacturing, construction, and utilization are counterbalanced by the carbon stored in the wooden elements. Various entities can leverage this carbon offset to diminish their overall carbon footprint and fulfill sustainability objectives.
Sustainable sourcing and management entails optimizing environmental advantages, ensuring that the wood utilized in glamping structures originates from responsibly managed forests [102]. In this instance, sourcing wood from thinning activities, during which trees sequester the most CO2 in their initial growth stages [103], exemplifies best practices. By perpetuating a continuous cycle of carbon sequestration, sustainable forestry methods advocate for ethical tree harvesting and reforestation [104].
Carbon-positive design (CPD): The aforementioned LCA showcases the potential of employing carbon-positive design principles, aiming to sequester more carbon than is emitted during the life cycle of a structure. Such designs prioritize carbon storage and underscore the utilization of environmentally sound materials, aligning with global endeavors to combat climate change [105].
The research delves into often-overlooked considerations regarding end-of-life implications in carbon footprint evaluations [106]. By scrutinizing deconstruction, transportation, reuse/recycling, and disposal phases, this study underscores the significance of responsible waste management practices in curtailing the environmental impact of glamping structures.
The educational value of glamping is noteworthy, as it can heighten awareness regarding the importance of sustainable construction in climate mitigation efforts. Showcasing to guests and the general populace [19] the potential of wooden glamping structures to sequester carbon underscores the criticality of selecting building materials with minimal carbon footprints [107,108].
In essence, the excess carbon sequestration of wood utilized in glamping structures relative to their emissions represents a notable and beneficial environmental influence. It underscores how, when meticulously planned and executed with regard to environmental implications, sustainable construction processes can contribute to carbon neutrality and even carbon negativity. This scenario serves as a testament to the significance of integrating sustainability principles into building and design choices across diverse sectors.
[ad_2]
