3. Results

Detailed results are shown in the attached table set. This section highlights the key findings.

3.1 Environmental impact of the tourism sector 

Figure 3.1 presents the impact of the tourism sector on the environment and its contribution to the Dutch economy. The contribution of the sector is different for each variable. Between 2015 and 2022, the tourism sector contributed an average of 4 percent to the value added of the Dutch economy. Its largest environmental impact was the consumption of drinking water, at an average of 9 percent, while the use of minerals was lowest. The tourism sector contributed 7 percent in environmental taxes and levies.

The ratio of the tourism sector's contribution to the economy on the one hand, and the environment on the other, provides an insight into how environmentally intensive the tourism sector is compared to the rest of the economy. In terms of drinking water consumption, biomass usage, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, the tourism sector is relatively environmentally intensive. When it comes to the use of minerals, metals, waste generation and particulate matter emissions, on the other hand, the tourism sector can be characterised as less environmentally intensive than average. 

Within the tourism sector, aviation and accommodation and food services have a high impact on the environment. For example, the use of water and biomass is largely concentrated in the latter sector. Greenhouse gas emissions, on the other hand, are mainly emitted by the aviation sector, which also consumes large amounts of energy. Environmental taxes are paid largely by the accommodation and food services sector. 

Figure 3.2 shows the environmental impact of the tourism sector and its contribution to the Dutch economy. This rose steadily until 2019. In 2022, after the dip caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the share of tourism in the economy as a whole was almost back to its average 4%. The figures for 2020 and 2021 contain a greater degree of uncertainty, which is further explained in the next paragraph. 

3.2 Robustness analysis method 

In this report, the share of production by each sector is used to determine the tourism sector’s share in the total. The share of a given sector can also be calculated on the basis of its level of employment. This provides an opportunity to verify the results obtained using the first method and ensure the robustness of the study. The use of these employment-based shares generally produces very similar results. Using this approach, the share of tourism for many sectors remains virtually unchanged. However, differences are seen in the employment agencies sector. This sector has high levels of employment, but other sectors have higher production levels (including sectors related to tourism). Because the focus of this study is on the environmental impact associated with the production of products and services for tourism, it is better to use the production-based approach.

The coronavirus dominated the years of 2020 and 2021. The measures taken to combat the virus (travel restrictions, the closure of restaurants and the cancellation of events) had a major impact on tourists’ travel behaviour. This change complicates the task of providing certainty about the exact size of the tourism sector during that period. However, this uncertainty has a limited impact on the current study, as the weight of the pandemic years is much lower compared to the ‘normal’ years, in the calculation of the average for the research period as a whole. For example, the value added of the tourism sector halved in 2020⁹⁾, see Figure 3.2. The decline in tourism activity runs parallel to a similar reduction in the environmental impact caused by tourists. 

3.3 Comparison with previous research 

The current study is largely a repetition of a previous research project conducted by Statistics Netherlands in 2017¹⁰⁾. In the current findings, the environmental impact is generally lower in relative terms, while the share of tourism in total value added is higher. An exception to this is the use of biomass. This difference may have been caused by an actual change in the tourism sector, but certainly also by the recalibration of the data since the previous study and improvements made in the methodology (see Section 2.2.3).