Step Out Of The Car

Thinking back to a question I raised at the end of one of my last posts, how do you reduce the dependence of people on their car? Well as the car not only allows easy movement nowadays, and instead acts as a symbol of power, status and superiority as well, it’s not going to be easy. Overall it seems there are 2 options available; one provide alternatives, and two reduce the attractiveness of car use (Beirao and Cabral, 2007).

The obvious alternatives to driving include public transport, cycling or walking, and if people are to start changing their habits the image of these alternatives, especially public transport, will have to improve to alter public perceptions. For the likes of busses and trains, this could involve increasing the number of services run, the reliability, and even the appearance of the vehicles. Serious thought would have to go into cost to, with low income families the ones who are now most rapidly buying cars (see my last post for the figures).  

At present, I would argue this is one of the main reasons why people do not look past their cars for many journeys, with across the country many people perceive the price of public transport to be extortionate. Beirao and Cabral (2007) disagree with this, and suggest that many car users in fact believe public transport to be cheaper. Where I live, however, Reading, a return journey on the bus costs £3.60 and a return train into town £2.60. With free parking across the town centre, it is no wonder so many people prefer to drive, even if they do think that public transport is cheaper. 

To promote walking and cycling, it is often necessary to highlight the pysiological and psychological benefits. In a poster aimed at getting people to leave their cars at home, Portsmouth County Council (PCC) recognise that the extra time taken through these transport methods, but point out how you may “begin to lose weight or generally feel fitter and more at one with the world!” How could anyone refuse?

The second, and perhaps more challenging way to coax people from their cars, is to make their use less attractive. Garling and Schuitema (2007) suggest that non-coercive schemes that involve giving information and feedback to drivers are ineffective and do not reduce car use. Santos and Rojey (2004) on the other hand, argue that demonstrating road pricing clearly to drivers, installing charging and prohibited zones across town and city centres, and increasing tax on fuel, can help to limit the number of car journeys made. PCC again highlight a similar idea in the aforementioned poster, by saying, “you are likely to save money on parking, fuel and maintenance by not using the car.” 

Alongside these ideas PCC also highlight reasons relating to stress, socialising and community in putting forward their case for a reduction in the use of cars. Overall the poster is a fantastic advert for life without a car, and will hopefully persuade people to seek alternative transport, if not with their many reasons shown here, but with their question and answer section, that helps to reassure people who are undecided. 

This is not too soon either, as to finish today I want to direct everyone to an article from the BBC website in 2002. While there seems to be limited evidence for its claims, the statistics produced by Dr. Steven Barrett are stagering and really highlight why wide spread behaviour changes are necessary. 

Traffic pollution kills 5,000 a year in UK

Cars 2: A Culture Shock

After making my last post I realised  that although I might have communicated the detrimental effect that cars can have on our environment, growth of a 'car culture' and the number of cars over time was only touched upon.

In what will be only a short post, I hope I can remedy that with a multimedia feast.  While the number of cars can (and will) be seen as a proxy, one can argue that it is the way a 'car culture' has been growing that is the most detrimental travel related factor for global environmental change. Car culture "a lifestyle built around using cars... [and] the practice and regular usage of cars in cities around the world" has been developing since the invention of the automobile, but began to really appear as the global north emerged from a post WW2 slump.

Fig. 1 clearly illustrates that even in 1949, people around the world were already travelling around 10 bn miles a year in cars and taxis, and within 20 years this had increased to close to 100bn.

Figure 1. While there seems to have been a decrease in the miles driven using motor vehicles  post 2006, there is a clear increase from 1949. The most rapid growth seems to have been during the 1980s, where the miles driven in cars and taxis alone grew from 130bn to 210bn.

Although this short video looks solely at America and its car culture, it describes clearly the reasons for its growth during the 1950s. I recommend listening out for what "few people worried about..." as to me, although this video focusses on the 50s, few people in America worry about these things now.

Closer to home Lucas and Jones (2009) illustrate the growth of a 'car culture' in the uk with a whole host of statistics in  an RAC published study. They suggest:

"Car ownership and use have continued to grow and extend across the population since the late eighties and are now embedded into most aspects of daily life in Britain." (p. 12)

They show that the use of a car as a percentage of all personal trips rose from 46% in 1975 to 63% in 2002, with low income households experiencing the greatest increase in car ownership. Overall "levels of car use are now well above those considered to be sustainable nationally", and 7 million more cars now than in 1995 (p. 11).

Here in my Car I Can Pollute The World... (Numan, 1979)

3 months and I've yet to look into the impact of the humble automobile on global environmental change. A travesty I agree.

Despite the masses of problems associated with the use of cars, such as acid rain, noise pollution and global warming, more cars are produced than ever: while only 39,759,847 cars were produced in 1999, over 60,000,000 have been made in 2012 already (OICA, 2012). But why? Well there is a demand of course. 

More people than ever rely on their cars, and despite an increasing understanding and consideration of future consequences, short term individual interests suffocate long term collective interets (Joireman et. al, 2004). While it is difficult to be completely sure why, Joireman et. al (2004) suggest that the spatial and temporal dislocation between actions, using a car, and consequences, the production of acid rain for example, stunts the perceived need to reduce ones use of automobile.   

It is therefore necessary to think about designing cars that are more sustainable. As the environmental self awareness of the automobile industry has grown over the last half a century, environmental considerations have been widely integrated into R&D, see fig. 1 (Mildenberger and Khare, 2000).

Figure 1. Environmental R&D considerations in the production of a new car.

Despite this procedure, it is clearly difficult to ascertain whether a new product will be considered environmentally friendly in 10 years time, and even if there is a move to more sustainable
vehicles  the growth in car ownership will most likely continue resulting in further urban sprawl, and a greater consumption of land for transport, an idea elaborated upon in the last post. It is therefore necessary perhaps to look into ways to not only reduce the environmental impact of cars, but to actually entice people away from using them.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (in land use)

So we’ve looked at the impact of travel on global environmental change though greenhouse gas emissions and the extinction of species as a result of habitat fragmentation and invasive species. It’s now time to turn our attention to a third indicator, land use change.

With the technological advancements over the last 2 centuries reducing the constraints on human movement, there has been an acceleration in the alteration of landscapes. This in turn has in turn led to an increasing concern about the ecological consequences of land use change.

The direct impacts of travel on land use change are clearer than ever with growing road, rail and air links aiming to combat decentralisation and create an all-encompassing global information nexus according to Cervero (2001). The removal of green space and urbanisation caused as a result is highlighted in a fantastic series of interactive maps. Of particular interest are the ones that show the length of road, fig. 1, and number of paved and unpaved airports per country, fig. 2.

Figure 1. Map showing the length of road per country (kms)

While the level of road in China and the USA is unsurprising owing to their size, it is interesting to note that France has the 7^th largest amount in the world with 1,027,183km of land tarmacked in order to transport cars. To improve the map, though, it would be ideal to see how the level of road has changed over time and what land uses were before.  



Figure 2. Map showing the number of airports by country

The airport map demands more attention, however, with the level of land devoted to concrete airports lower than it perhaps appears. In the U.K. for example, of the 505 airports counted 199 remain unpaved. This therefore raises questions relating to the extent to which travel really does impact on land use change, and whether the building of airports is as detrimental in the removal of green space as suggested.

While the indirect impacts of travel on land use change are less clear, they are perhaps greater and more widespread. As travel technology improvements have promoted increased trade and subsequent population growth, urbanisation and the concretisation of land have grown in parallel. While it is difficult to measure the exact impact of population and trade growth, Huston (2005) suggests the rate of land use change is greater than ever.

Habitat fragmentation. The Demon Among us.

In keeping with the topic of species extintion as a proxy for the impact of travel on the environment, it seems appropriate to explore the role of transport links, and specifically roads, on habitat fragmentation.



Habitat destruction leading to fragmentation is probably one of the most important causes of species decline across industrial area. Many species now depend on small habitat plots, and while the separation of these patches has often been a result of agriculture, Vos and Chardon (1998) investigated the role of extreme barriers such as roads.



Focussing on Dutch amphibians and specifically the Moor frog, a 40,000ha study area was examined, see fig. 1. Through counting calling males and egg clusters in moorland ponds, the impact of 4 types of road (motorways, roads over 7m, roads between 4 and 7m and small paved or pebbled roads) on frog distribution and fragmentation were examined.

Figure 1. Study Site. While it is tough to make out the specifics of the map, the level of roads and urbanised nature of the the site can be understood. This can help in finding other area for which this study could be representative; where else could the results of the study be useful? 

Through diving the area into 50x50m grids Vos and Chardon found frog distribution across 45% of the study site to be unaffected. For the majority of the area, however, pond occupation was markedly affected: only 73 of 109 moorland ponds were populated with Moor frogs.



The real strength of the study comes in its pursuit of rigour and trends across different species. In comparing the Moor frog results with the distribution of other amphibians such as the Tree and Pool frogs, Vos and Chardon showed road density to have an important negative effect on habitat fragmentation across many amphibians.


The thorough nature of the article continues into its discussion. While before in this blog I have critiqued authors’ inabilities to look at the implication of their conclusions, this study warrants no such criticism. Here there is a clear sense of what the results mean, and how it is important for us to remember that even minimal fragmentation can have widespread negative effects on multiple species. As urbanisation increases therefore, we must learn and understand that roads will become a greater problem than ever in the fragmentation of habitats, and unless monitored and planned the laying of roads will become one of the main contribotors to global environmental change.

To Educate or Tax? That is the Question

So after 4 days of suspense for you, and 4 days of reading for me, I can finally put my fingers to the keyboard and pass on the 2 most common ways to combat the ballooning problem that is invasive species and its exacerbation through increasing global trade and travel.

1.)    Education and information sharing

As Simpson (2004) suggested, if the world is linked for trade why can’t it be linked for information? In 2004 the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN) was established and has since provided the organisational backbone for “sharing invasive species information at a global level, via the Internet and other digital means.” Through the dissemination of invasive species data in a standardised way, the GISIN hopes to educate and inform not just local, but global systems in order to reduce problems associated with the introduction of foreign species.

While this might be the case, however, there are only 21 data providers to the network and just because the data is available to view it does not mean that the targets will take any notice of it.

At the same time, the task of educating the public on invasive species does not lie solely at the feet of the GISIN. Smaller more focussed groups such as the Aquatic Invaders Project (AIP) are more abundant, and while they may not have the global reach, many regions are well covered by the experts they employ (Patterson et. al, 2010). With their “free learning courses” where experts not only educate the public, but also learn about new problems and issues from them, the AIP can be seen to be considerably more grounded, and with their bottom-up approach, it is perhaps possible to suggest they are more likely to get to the root of the problems.

2.)    Taxes and charges

If the companies and governments aren’t learning, why not just hike up tax in a bid to encourage socially respectable behaviour eh? To reduce the cost and number of accidental introductions, Costello and McAusland (2003) have argued an invasion risk-related tariff should be employed: the greater the risk the cargo or the travel path has of bringing in invasive species to the import nation, the higher the tariff. The same researchers have also suggested that companies pay for regular port inspections and take insurance out against the risk of bringing invasive species into a country. The need for clear regulation and standards has also been championed in many studies, with Knowler and Barbier (2005) going on to introduce the idea of administrative changes and invasive species related subsidies.

Despite the ambitions of these projects, schemes and strategies there are still barriers in place preventing them from achieving their aims, such as limited funding or a lack of public motivation to evoke change for. Until these barriers are broken down it seems to me that all that is achieved will be practically superficial, as if you don’t have active public support it is going to be difficult to maintain any alterations, and ultimatly meet their lofty goals.

For a slightly more light hearted end to this post, I have posted a link below to a BBC page all about the invasion of mammals across Europe. While very accessible, it provides little more than a short summary to the species that are not native across the continent. It is noticeable, however, how a number of the species have been introduced in the last 30 years, so in my opinion well worth a read. 

'Alien mammal' invasion of Europe

Alien Vs. Native: The Sequel You Have All been Waiting For

With all this talk about the impact of travel on energy use and CO₂ emissions, I have neglected other environmental impacts. Way back in my second post I mentioned many ways in which the impact of travel could be measured, and therefore today, I’m going to talk a little about the extinction of species via species invasion, before looking at habitat fragmentation a little later.

For as long as humans have been trading and moving around the globe, they have transported species, and created aliens, a species occurring outside its natural range. While some have little impact, many have become invasive and have had huge effects on native populations causing extinctions through multiple means such as…



Water Vole

Predation: Water voles are now under threat by the Mink. 

Resource competition: This is very common and is often owing to an invasive species’ ability to reproduce and grow quickly.   

Muntjac Deer

Habitat alteration: This is very common and is often owing to an invasive species’, such as the munjac deer's, ability to reproduce and grow quickly.

Signal Crayfish

and even through the Spreading of new diseases: The signal crayfish has caused a mass extinction of the White Clawed Crayfish population through spreading the crayfish plague.

According to Preston et. al (2004) the spread of invasive species as a result of human movement can be traced back to the 1500s, a period when colonialisation was born, there was great exploration and the Europeans discovered America. Not all academics agree with this thought and some suggest it can be traced back further, an idea touched on by the video at the bottom. Either way, it is important to note that the level of invasive species at that point in time was low, see fig 1, and it was not until the industrial revolution that the number really began to grow rapidly Hulme (2009).

Figure 1. A clear representation of how invasive species of plants, invertebrates and mammals have grown rapidly since 1800. Although this post is perhaps focussing on mammals, the increase of invertabrates between 1975 and 2000, could perhaps be the geratest cause for concern (Hulme, 2009).

The continued growth over the last 2 centuries has in fact prompted Hulme (2009: 11) to suggest we have now entered the “3^rd age of biological invasions: the era of globalisation”. While there seems to be little literature to contest this, there are plenty of studies that highlight the impact globalisation has had, often highlighting different factors:

1.)    The growth of invasive species is regularly linked to the increase in trade and the emergence of new markets and products especially at particular nodes across the globe (McNeely, 2006; Meyerson and Mooney, 2007) In their 2007 article that focusses on North America, Meyeson and Mooney are able to explain the impact through a comparison between California and Chile, as despite their similar climates, the authors suggest the former has seen a considerably greater influx of invasive species as a result of the worldwide networks it belongs to.

2.)    increases in transport efficiency too are often cited as a contributing factor in the growth of invasive species (Hulme, 2009; McCullough et. al, 2006). As global travel becomes faster, more affordable and more available, more people and cargo are traveling than ever before. Containerisation and the speed at which ships can travel have provided the foundation a 4x increase in global imports since the 1970s (UNCTAD, 2007). This has in turn lead to an increase in the number of ports across all continents, and as the number of ports increase, so does the difficulty in locating stowaway species and pests.

3.)    Links are also made to disturbances. Although these can be at a local scale, such as road and rail tracks, they can also be seen on a global scale with climate change as a result of transport emissions. As climates change, the abiotic frame of species’ does not. This therefore requires many to shift their range, another idea touched upon by the video below, changing local biodiversity’s, and causing species to invade areas they could once not survive in.     

It is evident that the impact of human travel on invasive species and subsequent extinctions, although present from at least the middle ages, is now greater than ever. It seems globalisation has been the main driver in recent years, and from looking at fig. 1, if we do not do something to halt this trend we could be heading for an ecological crisis. But how…

Just a quick video to reiterate what I was saying regarding the damage that invasive species can do. This video is based in North East America, but many of the ideas are transferable.

Voluntary Carbon Offsetting: The New Black?

Having a look back, it has occurred to me I have been fairly critical of studies that have been unable to propose solutions to the many travel related problems they have highlighted. Perhaps this has been a little unfair, as if this blog has taught me one thing so far it’s that the impacts of transportation on our environment are truly global, and if reasonable strategies are going to be suggested to mediate issues, they require the input of not only expert actors, but also the general public (the ones that actually use the transport).

Owing to the clear difficulty therefore in implementing any sort of viable solution to the increasing carbon emissions, I was encouraged recently when I came across an article about the growth of voluntary carbon offset schemes by Gossling et. al (2007).

While is easy to plot a graph depicting the rapid growth of air travel since the mid-1970s, it is also possible to construct one showing an equally rapid expansion in the number of voluntary offset schemes in the last 10 years focussing primarily on aviation emissions, and at present there are 41 schemes that help to offset 200,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year.

While these figures helped to generate hope in my mind for offset markets, Gossling’s work is well balanced and he soon went on to explore the credibility and efficiency of these schemes. This duly crushed my burgeoning optimism, as it is shown current offsets are negligible in comparison to the 515 mega tonnes of CO₂ that are produced each year by the aviation industry, and in fact offsets would need to increase by a factor of 400 to become relevant.

Voluntary offsetting schemes therefore remain an ambiguous solution to aviation’s environmental impact, and although in principal they have the potential to evoke positive global environmental changes, we will not be balancing the scales for a long time yet.

Plane and Simple

After a couple of weeks discussing the impact of sea transportation, it's time to turn our attention to air travel, its impact on environmental change and public opinions surrounding its impacts.

Based in New Zealand, articles by Becken et. al (2003) and Becken (2002) have illustrated the energy usage of different forms of transport and the damage that the proposed increase in air travel could cause.

Increasing at an average rate of 9% per annum since 1960, air travel has been growing rapidly, and as the average trip length has increased by 43% in the last 2 decades, emissions produced are only becoming greater and more concerning. Becken adds to this by converting energy usage into mega joules per passenger per kilometre (MJ/PKM), and clearly shows the relatively high value of air travel (2.75 MJ/PKM) in comparison to other models of transport such as the train (1.44MJ/PKM) and the bus (0.75 MJ/PKM).

Despite this and a growing awareness of climate change among the public, there are still beliefs that air travel only accounts for marginal CO2 emissions, fuel use is always minimised and air travel is treated unfairly in comparison to other modes of transport according to Gossling and Peeters (2007).While this is done though clever advertising by the aviation industry, enthusiasm about technical progress and 'scientific' language that present 'undisputable' facts, it does raise some interesting questions.

These articles seem to fit together nicely as while one highlights the past and future impacts of air travel, the other illustrates public disillusionment. They also go together as they share a similar downfall; the discussion of their results and conclusions. While both clearly highlight hugely damaging environmental problems and thinking, there are limited solutions put forward, especially from Gossling and Peeters, who simply state their finding and the reasons for them. Although in Becken's articles there is an attempt to supply some strategies that could help mediate issues, they are specifically based around New Zealand that includes promoting alternate transport across the Cook strait. While commendable, the problem of air travel emissions is global and therefore an upscalling of solutions is vital.

Seaing is Believing

I speculated at the end of my last post that it was important not to underestimate the impact of sea travel and transportation on the environment. If you want to know why make sure to check out a 2007 article by Dalsoren et. al.

Although it focusses primarily on the regional impact around Norway and NW Russia, it is filled with some staggering statistics. For example Norwegian coastal ship traffic is responsible for more than one third of all Norwegian Nitrogen oxide emissions, and is one of a handful of industrial sectors that will not see a decrease in sulphur emissions in the coming decade. By 2015 in fact sea transportation could perhaps cause a 4% increase in sulphur and nitrate deposition across the study area.

While the study highlights and models the problems and large scale impacts of the shipping industry, it offers little in the way of solutions: the extent to which a solution if offered, in fact, is through reiterating that pollutant levels need to be reduced in order to allow the area to recover. Certainly not the most constructive advice.

Not everyone sees sea transportation to be such a major contributor to global environmental change, and next time I will be looking at some differing opinions as to type of travel could be more detrimental.

Now You Sea Me...

After getting all historical for the last couple of weeks, I thought it might be about time switch attention to the impact travel is having on the environment in the present day.  

With much of the current day work focussing on the impact of flying and driving, sea transportation seems to have been forgotten. In 2003 Endresen et. al, highlighted the environmental impact of marine travel, estimating that the 106,000 ocean going ships used over 200 million tonnes of fuel each year.

The estimates were calculated through the use of an extensive model that took into account factors such as the engine type and power output, the load of the ship, and the speed at which it would travel.

It was not the first time a fuel usage estimate has been calculated, and was in fact a response to the work of Corbett et. al (1999) who suggested the international fleet only used 147 million tonnes. While this study went onto show Nitrogen and Dimethlysulphate emissions from ships account for 14% and 20% of the global emissions respectively, the lower estimate of fuel usage is perhaps a result of a less extensive model that investigated fewer variables.  

While these two studies disagree on the exact level of fuel used through global sea transportation, and the emissions it is responsible for, they both conclude emissions are larger than they were previously considered to be. Although both are quick to mention the continuing uncertainty surrounding the impact variables, it is of vital importance to recognise the contribution of sea transportation to the global environment and not to just focus on the effects of air and road travel.   

The American Dream

When the topic is global environmental change, I thought it might be a good idea this week to turn my attention from Europe to somewhere new: America.

While I have already shown how the crusades had an important impact environmentally on the Baltic States, in the late 15^th century Spanish explorers were doing the same across Eastern America and the Caribbean. 

Through the migration of people from Europe to the Americas, environments were permanently changed. Frazier (2001) describe clearly the way in which by 1517 native populations had been reduced to  only 10% of their pre invasion level, the Caribbean had been turned into “one big plantation”, and how mines had ripped though a once “idyllic environment”.

These views are echoed by Moore et. al (1996) and while the descriptions of the environmental impacts are tied up in reviews of Columbus’ expeditions, they still make interesting reading, and clearly state the multiple ways in which relatively untouched natural environments were irreparably altered.

It is interesting therefore that it was not only travelling to the Baltic States that impacted upon the environment, as European explorers to the Americas had similar impacts. It is also worth mentioning that although not at exactly at the same time, these events, the crusades and explorations, happened during a similar period. Perhaps it was from the end of the 15^th Century that travel begun to have a real impact on the global environment.

Also check out the video below of the main study location and methods used in Brown and Pluskowsi's work in the Baltics. Probably should have posted it last week, but better late than never.

A Day is a Long Time in Global Environmental Change

While it was only yesterday I was speculating that perhaps the anthropocene began with the invention of the steam locamotive, a new idea has already come to light.

While browsing the web for climate data, as you do, I came across a series of articles highlighting the environmental impact of the Baltic crusades. Only last year Brown and Pluskowski were able to show through pollen and peat analysis at 2 sites how crusaders transformed the landscape of Northern Poland through the clearence of boradleaved woodland and agricultural intensification between the 13th and 15th centuries.

These ideas stem from a 2009 conference on the 'Ecology of the Crusades'. Other work also based around this conference includes a considerably longer paper by Pluskowski et. al (2011). While at points it seems to lack the place specific detail of the Brown and Pluskowski article mentioned before, it gives a neat overview of the ways in which crusaders impacted on ecology across the whole of medieveal Europe.

While these ideas do require further testing they are beginning to be supported by increased zooarcheological and documentary data, and therefore warrant serious consideration when thinking about the start of the anthropocene.

Watt, Where and When?

So we know what we are looking for. To establish when travel first had an impact on a global scale one has to look for increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and land use change.

While there are different theories as to when humans first started having a global environmental impact, most notably from Crutzen and Ruddiman, it is the former who suggests that the invention of the steam engine was a pivotal moment. In numerous articles Crutzen argues that the anthropocene, a human dominated epoch, began in the late 18^th century when Watt invented the steam engine. In a 2003 article with Steffen he shows how different variables and indicators have fluctuated over the last 200 years as a result of human intervention. Through simple  graphs he clearly illustrate the numerous ways in which we have impacted upon the environment, and provides a representation of the ways in which humans have come to dominate nature, an idea which they have so damningly previously written about in the article.

The steam engine, however, does not mean the steam locomotive. That was not invented until 1804. As Crutzen has looked at so many indicators to establish what could constitute the start of the anthropocene what is to say that it can’t be the marked increase in train transportation in the 19^th Century; could that provide the golden spike in our geological records?

While that is tough to prove, it is without question railway mania that started in the 1840s did contribute to the increase of greenhouse gas emissions at the time, and as train travel became more established land use change accelerated rapidly as tracks were built and extended.  Between 1825 and 1837 parliament agreed to the building of 93 new railway lines, and by 1851 6,800 miles of track had already been built.  Green land diminished, residential areas were destroyed, and as the links between cities improved and the economy  strengthened, urban sprawl continued apace. Although it is most likely as Crutzen suggests that humans had already had a marked effect on the environment by the mid 19th Century, it is still interesting to think about the environemtal impacts of this railway expansion, and to what extent it did lead to global environmental change.  

Measure for Measure

This last week I had been planning to base my second entry around when travel first began to impact the environment on a global scale. While reading, however, it became clear I didn’t really know what I was looking for; I didn’t know what the impacts of travel were. If I was going to look for a golden spike in the geological records, an idea that will be touched on next time, what should I be looking out for? Hence the topic of this week’s entry: what are the global impacts of travel and how can we measures them?

Written in 2002, Gossling’s 'Global environmental consequences of tourism', highlights succinctly 4 ways leisure travel, but also the transportation of humans more generally, has shaped our environment, and the ways we can measure the impacts. Along with the dispersal of diseases, monitored through case loads and mapping, the impacts are: 

1.) Land cover and use changes. According to Gossling, this is the single most of global environmental change. Central to economic growth land cover has been reducing, and land uses have been changing for centuries, and while travel can directly impact this (roads, railways, airports...), it can also have indirect impacts by linking places and promoting urban expansion. Currently the best way to monitor change is through satellite photos and the level of CO2, CH4 and NOx in the atmosphere.

2.) Energy use. Currently the transport sector is responsible for 25% of the world’s energy usage, and 22% of all fossil fuel emissions (IPCC, 2001). Quite clearly therefore the energy use of transport will impact hugely on global warming, and it is through the levels of greenhouse gases we will be able to measure changes.

3.) Extinction of wild species. Human mobility has caused a massive exchange of species, which in turn has affected our ecosystem functioning. While it is possible to measure the rates of extinction, the extent to which they have been caused by travel is more difficult to ascertain.

While 4 impacts have been highlighted here, it is important to remember there are more (this list is by no means exhaustive) and along with all these physical impacts, travel can change people perceptions of the environment and their relationship with it. Just something to think about next time when you chose to take the bus instead of walk.

A journey's beginning

First blog ever and what better to explore than the impact our travelling has had on the environment over the last 600 years. Right?

Since the 15th century, whether it is through exploring, trading, commuting, holidaying or almost any activity when you think about it, humans have been moving around the world. And this is certainly not confined to just one or two people; in 2011 alone 2.8 billion people travelled by aircraft across 35,000 routes (IATA, 2012).

With this kind of traffic it is unarguable that there will, and already are, global implications. Although I could focus on the financial repercussions, they seem trivial in comparison to the impact travel is having on our ecosystems and environment, the systems that we live in that support our existence.   

Through this blog I will explore the impact travel has had (and is having) on the environment at both a global and local scale. While this will predominantly involve me reviewing articles and giving my opinion, I will be reliving exhibits, discussing cutting edge travel affairs, and then just passing on anything I find 'blog-worthy'. 

For the speech I got my air travel stats from, check out this link on the State of the Air Transport Industry.

While a little, long some of the numbers are truly staggering, and although there is a distinct focus on the financial fragility of the industry, some of the promises relating to sustainability are interesting. None more so than their aim to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Call me sceptical but...