RESEARCH ON CARBON DISTRIBUTION IN NATURAL SCENIC AREA

Full text

RESEARCH ON CARBON DISTRIBUTION IN NATURAL SCENIC AREA
Lin Chen, Rong Zhao & Maozhu Jin*
School of Business, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
Keywords: scenic area; low-carbon, carbon distribution order; Simulink simulation
Abstract. By calculating carbon sink of vegetation in a natural scenic area and tourist carbon
footprint, carbon distribution load rate, carbon distribution equilibrium degree and carbon
distribution order degree were introduced to study the carbon distribution order in a scenic area
quantitatively. Then Simulink was used to simulate the scenic area model to get the value of carbon
distribution load rate, carbon distribution equilibrium degree. On the basis of the carbon distribution
situation, managerial staffs of the scenic area could modify tourists’ touring routes to realize an
equilibrium state of carbon distribution order and ultimately make sustainable development come
true.
INTRODUCTION
The definition of “low carbon tourism” was officially put forward in a report “move forward low
carbon travel and low carbon tourism” at World Economic Forum in 2009. Low carbon tourism is a
tourism development model that on the premise of continuous tourism development, carbon
emission can be lowered, energy consumption can be reduced during travel by “system adjustment”
“technology innovation” “traditional concept transformation” to finally realize sustainable
development[Xie Zhihan,2013].
In recent years, researches on low carbon tourism emerged in endlessly. [James E.S.
Higham,2011], [Andrew,2010] Hares et al. studied the effect of travel by air to CO2 emission and
climate change. [Becken,2004]discussed tourists’ cognitive condition on the offset effect of climate
change and forest carbon sink to CO2 emission. [Kuo. N, 2009]adopted LCA ( a Life Cycle
Assessment) to conduct quantitative research on tourism energy use, gre\en house gas emission,
waste water and solid waste. [Becken,2002] tried top-down and bottom-up approaches to adjust
account on tourism carbon footprint in New Zealand. [Barr S,2010] built a low carbon evaluation
index system to apply various methods to the evaluation of tourism low carbon degree.
BASIC CONCEPTS
Drawing on the definition of forest carbon sink, in a natural scenic area, carbon sink means
vegetation’s ability to absorb and fix CO2 in itself.
The volume of forest carbon sink(volume of the absorbed CO2) in a time unit reflects the forest’s
carbon sink ability[Dong Yifei,2013]. The total carbon sink volume in a time unit is the sum of
products of vegetation area multiplies per unit vegetation’s absorbed CO2 volume in a time unit.
Specifically, if there are
m
kinds of vegetation in a scenic area, and the fixed carbon sink of each
vegetation in a time unit is , the plantation area of each vegetation is , then
the total carbon sink volume in a time unit is recorded as C, and C is：
C= (1)
According to the life cycle method of carbon footprint evaluation, tourists’ carbon footprint
refers to the consumed carbon volume during the whole trip either produced by a traveling group or
individual tourist.
In a natural scenic area, the major influential element for carbon distribution changes is tourists’
carbon emission during the travel, and it includes two aspects: carbon emission from the
transportation as well as from the tourists’ breath.
This paper has studied the carbon footprint in transportation, and the volume of the produced
CO2 by tourist transportation was recorded as
t
Q
,
International Conference on Applied Science and Engineering Innovation (ASEI 2015)
© 2015. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press
1992

...
t ii i i
Q Dn
βα
=
∑
(2)
t
Q
refers to CO2 emission volume of transportation tool
i
;
i
D
refers to the driving distance of
the transportation tool
i
;
i
n
refers to the number of
i
;
i
α
is the CO2 emission
coefficient(kg/MJ) of i’s consumed energy; and
i
β
(MJ/ unit.km) is the energy consumption of per
unit i.
In line with the carbon footprint study of transportation, a formula to show an individual tourist’s
transportation carbon emission volume
t
Q′
in a time unit could be gained.
t
Q′=
1
mii i i
i=1
...
i
WV
C
αβ
∑
, (3)
In this formula, the meaning of
i
α
and
i
β
are the same with those in formula (2),
i
=0W
or 1,
1
m
i
i=1
=1W
∑
;
i
=0W
means tourists do not choose i as their transportation tools, while
i
=1W
means the
contrary;
i
V
means the speed of i;
i
C
means the passengers carrying capacity of the
transportation tool i.
CO2 emitted by tourist breath per day can be recorded as 0.9kg per person. Carbon emission
volume from tourist breath in a time unit is
b
Q
, and
0.9
b
Qt
=
, (4)
If t=24, then
b
Q
is the carbon emission volume from tourist breath in one hour; if t=24×60,
then
b
Q
is the carbon emission volume from tourist breath in one minute.
MEASUREMENT OF CARBON DISTRIBUTION ORDER IN A NATURAL SCENIC
AREA
Tourist touring system of a scenic area is a carrier to provide service to the tourists. Tourist
distribution in the system directly influences the carbon distribution of the scenic area. Normally,
the tourist touring system is made up of scenic spots and road networks, just as Fig.1.shows.
2
V
1
V
n
V
1
V
5
V
4
V
3
V
Fig.1. The tourist sightseeing system
Suppose altogether there are n scenic spots in a scenic area, and there are recorded as V1,
V2,...Vn. The total tourist number of each scenic spot at moment t is
12
() { (), (),... ()}
n
xt x t x t x t=
.
The time needed for a tourist to arrive and leave the scenic spot is
12
{ , ,... }
n
T tt t=
, and the time
spend in each scenic spot is
12
{ , ,... }
n
τ ττ τ
=
. In this case, tourist carbon emission in each scenic
area is:
1993

()
tk b kk
k
QtQ t
k
q
τ
τ
′×+ × +
=
, k=1,2,...n. (5)
As the tourist number of each scenic spot at moment t is
12
() { (), (),... ()}
n
Xt xt x t x t=
, then the
carbon load of scenic spot i at moment t is:
() ()
i ii
lt xt q= ⋅
,
1,2,...in=
. (6)
Because the carbon sink volume of each scenic spot in a time unit is
12
{ , ,... }
n
C cc c
=
, then the
carbon load rate of scenic spot i at moment t is:
() ()
() i ii
i
ii
lt xt q
rt cc
⋅
= =
,
1,2,...in=
. (7) And the scenic area’s carbon load rat
e at moment t is:
1
1
()
R( )
n
ii
in
i
i
xt q
t
c
=
=
⋅
=
∑
∑
. (8)
The scenic area’s equilibrium degree of carbon distribution at moment t is:
2
1
( () ())
() 4
n
i
i
rt rt
Bt
=
−
=
∑
. (9)
In formula (9),
( )
tB
represents deviation degree of the scenic area’s actual carbon load rate and
the most optimal load rate. The bigger the B(t) value is, the further the scenic area is from being
equilibrium, and the smaller the the B(t) value is, the closer the scenic area is from being
equilibrium.
SIMULATION STUDY OF CARON DISTRIBUTION
Suppose that a scenic area is a closed system, then the scenic area model can be shown as Fig.3.
Altogether there are four scenic spots representing by 1,2,3, and 4. I is the entrance and O is the exit.
I→1, I→2 means from entrance to scenic spot 1 and scenic spot 2; 0.8 and 0.2 represent the two
scenic spot’s tourist shunting rate respectively; 20 represents the distance between I and 1, while 15
represents the distance between I and 2(km). In the scenic area, sightseeing bus and bus are the
major transportation tools. Set
i
q
=（0.02,0.03,0.04,0.05）, C=（0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5） and
ω
=0.5. In
the model, the time unit is one minute.
I
4
3
2
1
O
（0.8,20)
(0.2,15)
(0.6,10)
(0.5,18)
(0.3,16)
(0.5,8)
0.4
(0.5,20) 0.3 (0.3,12)
0.4
0.2
Fig.2. A Scenic Area System
The Simulink simulation model for the above scenic area model is shown as Fig.4. The
simulation is done by following the above mentioned measurement process to analyze the carbon
distribution order of the scenic area.
1994

Fig. 3. The Simulation Model of the Scenic Area
Simulink uses a graphic system module to describe the dynamic system thus offering a graphical
interactive environment for the users. Besides, the computing engine of MATLAB is applied to
work on the dynamic system in a certain time span and a certain space[Gao Zhiyun,2012].In the
model, the output of X represents each scenic spot’s tourist number at a certain time, and the output
of order represents the scenic area’s carbon distribution order.
The tourist data was sourced from Jiuzhai Valley in 30th July, 2012, and it was the number of
newly entered tourist in each minute for each scenic spot, recording as
()
i
xt
, just as Fig.5
presented. Seeing from Fig.5, in time dimension, whatever scenic spot it was, tourist number
differed in different time span. And tourist number of the four scenic spots all reached their peaks
during the time span of 100-200 minutes. In space dimension, tourist number differed in different
scenic spots even in the same time span. Seeing from Fig.5, it could be seen that tourist number of
scenic spot 1 was the biggest while in scenic spot 4, tourist number was the smallest.
Fig. 4. Tourist number of each scenic spot
Yellow, purple, blue and red represented scenic spot 1,2,3 and 4 respectively.
The carbon distribution rate (
()
i
rt
) of the four scenic spot in a day was shown in Fig.5. It could
be observed that the carbon distribution load rate was in strong conformity with tourist distribution
of the scenic spot, illustrating that carbon distribution load rate could well reflect the scenic area’s
tourist distribution.
1995

Fig. 5. Carbon distribution load rate of each scenic spot
The scenic area’s carbon distribution load rate R(t) was shown in Fig.6. Seeing from the Fig, it
could be told that during the time span of 80-200 minutes, the scenic area’s carbon distribution load
rate was beyond 1, and it was less than 1 in other time span. Therefore, it was necessary to guide
tourists to different scenic spot at different time of a day.
Fig. 6. Carbon distribution load rate of the scenic area
The scenic area’s carbon distribution equilibrium degree B(t) was shown in Fig.7. Judging from
Fig.8, it could be told that during the time span of 80-200 minutes, the equilibrium degree B(t) was
relatively high, indicating that in other time spans, the equilibrium degree was not that good.
Therefore, it was necessary to adjust tourist distribution by guiding tourists move from high load
rate scenic spot to those with lower load rate.
Fig.7. Carbon distribution equilibrium degree of the scenic area
1996

Judging from Fig.8, carbon distribution order degree was obviously higher during the time span
of 100-200 minutes, as a result, managerial staffs should take correspondent adjustment measures to
balance the scenic area’s carbon distribution order. On one hand, senior managerial staff should
control the ceiling of tourist numbers and launch decisions to guide tourists entering the scenic area
at a different time. On the other hand, the primary level managerial staffs should adopt appropriate
measures to adjust touring routes, guiding tourists move from high load rate scenic spot to those
with lower load rate. With macro and micro measures, the carbon distribution order would become
balanced and so would tourist distribution in time and space dimension. Finally, the scenic area’s
ecological environment could be protected and sustainable development could be realized.
Fig.8. Carbon distribution order degree of the scenic area
CONCLUSION
This paper, by calculating tourist carbon footprint and the scenic area’s carbon sink ability,
successfully got the carbon distribution load rate and carbon distribution equilibrium degree of the
scenic area, making the measurement of carbon distribution order of the scenic area a possible thing.
In the end, Simulink was used to do a simulation study of the natural scenic area’s carbon
distribution. Thanks to this simulation, the managerial staffs could get direct data, have a better
understanding of the scenic area’s carbon distribution situation and make timely measures to adjust
tourist distribution. In this case, no scenic spot would suffer from a long-term overload burden
which would definitely damage partial ecological environment, and eventually the ecological
environment of the whole scenic spot could be protected.
REFERENCES
[1] Xie Zhihan, Han Junqing. Study of Low-carbon Tourism and its Development Strategies in
Linfen, Shanxi Province. Journal of Green Science and Technology[J], 2013(2):262-264.
[2] James E.S. Higham, Scott A. Cohen. Canary in the coalmine: Norwegian attitudes towards
climate change and extreme long-haul air travel to Aotearoa/New Zealand[J].Tourism
Management, 2011(32):98-105.
[3] Andrew Hares, Janet Dickinson, Keith Wilkes. Climate change and the air travel decisions of
UK tourists[J].Journal of Transport Geography,2010(18):466-473.
[4] BECKENS. How tourists and tourism experts perceive climate change and carbon offsetting
schemes[J] . Sustainable Tourism,2004, 12( 4) : 332- 345.
1997

[5] Nae-Wen Kuo, Pei-Hun Chen. Quantifying energy use, carbon dioxide emission, and other
environmental loads from island tourism based on a life cycle assessment approach[J]. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 2009, (17): 1324-1330.
[6] Becken S, Simmons D G. Understanding energy consumption patterns of tourist attractions and
activities in New Zealand[J]. Tourism Management, 2002, 23(4): 343-354.
[7] Barr S, Shaw G, Coles T, et al. ‘A holiday is a holiday’: practicing sustainability, home and
away[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2010, 18(3): 474-481.
[8] Dong Yifei. Measure and analyze the carbon source and carbon skin of Mountain tourism[D].
Southeast University, 2013.
[9] Gao Zhiyun, Liu Bo, Liu Hongbo. Study on Simulink Simulation Technology for Urban
Pipeline Water Distribution System Based on Fuzzy Theory[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural
Sciences, 2012,05:2984-2987+2990.
1998