Tourism Village Carbon Footprint after COVID-19 Pandemic: A Challenge to Sustainability

: The tourism industry is the most signiﬁcant global Green House Gases (GHGs) contributor, which is often speciﬁcally produced by exploratory activities. This leads to the performance of several actions to reduce carbon emissions and maintain sustainable development. Since the Indonesian Tourism Village is a “carbon emission contributor and COVID-19 pandemic impact victim”, the low-carbon exploration should be necessarily implemented to achieve sustainability. Therefore, this study aims to determine the carbon footprint of solid waste produced by visitors, population, and buildings within seven certiﬁed Tourism Villages in Central Java (Kandri, Lerep, Samiran, Karangrejo, Candirejo, Samiran, and Dieng Kulon) and Special Region of Yogyakarta (Pentingsari) Provinces, Indonesia. This was conducted through a mixed method containing quantitative and analytical techniques. The quantitative method was conducted through a ﬁeld survey of seven Tourism Villages to obtain and analyze data on the population, infrastructures, situations, and environments. Meanwhile, the analytical method was conducted by calculating the carbon footprint of solid waste and buildings produced by seven Tourism Villages. The results showed that Dieng Kulon had the biggest CO 2 emissions from all sources (solid waste produced by visitors, population, and buildings). In addition, Candirejo had the lowest solid waste emission produced by visitors and the population before the impact of the pandemic. During the COVID-19 period, Kandri and Samiran were observed as the lowest contributors of solid-waste CO 2 emission produced by visitors and buildings, respectively. This indicated that the sustainability of Tourism Villages helped in increasing income as well as obtaining a cleaner and healthier environment. After the pandemic period, these villages should subsequently lead the economic recovery of rural communities to achieve sustainable development goals through the reduction of CO 2 emission. In addition, the “The Low-Carbon Sustainable Tourism Village Model” was proposed by this study to answer the challenge of sustainability.


Introduction
Climate change has been a devastating phenomenon over two centuries, as reported by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) [1], which stated that the global surface temperature alteration was averaged at 0.99 • between 1850-1900, with a 0.5 • increase also observed until 1950. However, a significant increase from 1.09-1.3 • was observed between 2011-2020, due to the contribution of GHGs (Green House Gases), specifically CO 2, and aerosols. This indicates that climate change has threatened global cultures, lands, and livelihoods [2]. Therefore, action should be initiated to promote in rural and urban areas were still very important, specifically in exploratory regions [21]. These studies showed that tourism activities should be adequately managed in producing low-carbon solid waste.
Among the contributors of global GHGs, buildings are found to have highly contributed to the crisis of climate change, specifically the 'embodied' emissions from the manufacturing and processing of construction materials, as reported by [23]. This study indicated that the average share of embodied GHG was approximately 20-25% of life cycle emissions. Based on the UN Environment Program [24], the direct energy-related emissions observed from buildings was approximately 6.9 GtCO 2 in 2019. However, both direct and indirect emissions were observed at 10 GtCO 2 in the same year (approximately 28% of total global CO 2 emissions). The manufacture, transportation, and utilization of all construction materials also contributed to CO 2 emissions at approximately 3.5 GtCO 2 in 2019 (10% of all energy sector emissions). According to [25], the building's life cycle related to energy consumption contained several stages, namely: planning and designing, material preparations, construction, operational maintenance, and dismantlement. Among these stages, the operational maintenance and material preparations highly contributed to the emission of CO 2 at 78.05 and 20.59%, respectively.
The tourism industry in Indonesia (specifically Tourism Villages) is reportedly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the decline and low demand of tourist arrivals and sectors, as well as the closure of exploratory, attractive, and entertainment sites, respectively. The impact of this pandemic is found to be devastating for rural communities, specifically Tourism Villages, leading to the necessary implementation of low-carbon exploratory activities to achieve sustainability. This has happened because the tourism activities' limitation by regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic made the Tourism Villages have low or even zero visitors and activities. The low tourism activities in Tourism Villages produced a low carbon footprint that is a 'blessing in disguise'. However, the gradual growth of the tourism industry during the post-pandemic period is optimistically achieved.
Since the carbon emission contribution of the tourism industry becomes greater year to year, it is important to reduce carbon footprints of Tourism Villages, especially the seven Tourism Villages considered in this study as the most popular and certified Tourism Villages in Central Java Province and Special Region of Yogyakarta Province. A total of six villages (Kandri, Lerep, Samiran, Karangrejo, Candirejo, Samiran, and Dieng Kulon) are located in Central Java, with only one (Pentingsari) in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. All these sites are found to be certified as "Sustainable Tourism Villages" by the local government, with some also being provided with several prestigious international awards. However, the concept of low-carbon sustainable tourism village have not been fully implemented yet.
It is also obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic has an impact of zero or very low visitor arrivals of those seven Tourism Villages. Hence, this study aimed to determine the carbon footprint of the Tourism Village which is produced by several exploratory activities, specifically in the utilization of energy in construction, building operation and maintenance, etc. Carbon footprints of the seven Tourism Villages are mostly contributed by the visitors and the buildings' operation and maintenance; therefore, it is important to calculate the carbon emissions before and after the COVID-19 pandemic produced by the visitors and buildings. The carbon footprints of the Tourism Villages have to be analyzed and a suitable model obtained for the future of Tourism Villages to have good economic impact as well as green and sustainable characteristics as advantages. A lowcarbon sustainable Tourism Village will be implemented in the model proposed in this research, the "Low-Carbon Sustainable Tourism Village Model", which aimed to reduce the carbon footprint of exploratory sites and solve the challenges of global sustainability.

Methods
This study was conducted through a mixed method containing both quantitative and analytical techniques. The quantitative method was implemented through the field survey and data analysis of seven Tourism Villages (Kandri, Lerep, Samiran, Karangrejo, Candi-Sustainability 2022, 14, 2400 4 of 17 rejo, Samiran, Dieng Kulon, Pentingsari), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. This survey was conducted to obtain data on the population, infrastructures, situations, and environments of Tourism Villages. Meanwhile, the analytical method was conducted by calculating the carbon footprint of buildings and the solid waste produced by these villages, as shown in Equation (1) [26], where, E c = Carbon emission of solid waste (kg CO 2 /kg) EF = Emission Factor of solid waste V = Solid waste volume  Based on [27,28], Emission Factor (EF) for household and individual solid wastes are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.  [27].

Subject Emission Factor
Rural-Household-Solid Waste-Inorganic 0.668 Rural-Household-Solid Waste-Organic 0.45 Table 2. The daily solid waste production per person based on research of [28]. Based on [23], the carbon emission of buildings for seven Tourism Villages was calculated using Equation (2).

Solid
where, E c = Carbon emission of the building (kg CO 2 /m 2 ) EF = Embodied GHG for building = 6.7 kg CO 2 /m 2 A = Building's area The results of the analysis of carbon footprints by seven Tourism Villages were then used as a reference to build "The Low-Carbon Sustainable Tourism Village Model".

Resources and Visitor Arrival in Tourism Village
Based on this study, six of the Tourism Villages were located at the foot of mountains, with only Kandri situated on the highland near Semarang City. This indicated that Lerep and Candirejo were located on the foothills of Mt. Ungaran and Sumbing, which is not far from the Borobudur Temple. In addition, Karangrejo (the same district as Candirejo) was located on the foothill of Mt. Menoreh, with the Dieng Kulon site situated on the Dieng Plateau between Mt. Sindoro and Sumbing. Meanwhile, Pentingsari was found on the foothill of Mt. Merapi. All these villages had beautiful green landscapes and cool weather, as well as peaceful recreational areas. These seven Tourism Villages also have several venues and products as tourist attractions, as presented by Table 3.  Among the seven Tourism Villages, Pentingsari and Lerep had the smallest (103 km 2 ) and largest (682 km 2 ) areas with the biggest population (9000 persons), respectively, as shown by Table 4. The monthly visitor arrivals were observed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020 and 2020-2021), indicating a drastic decline in all Tourism Villages between 2020-2021 (Table 5). Moreover, four Tourism Villages (Lerep, Candirejo, Karangrejo, and Pentingsari) had zero visitors until December 2021, with Dieng Kulon still having a significant number of tourists during the pandemic (45,000 visitors) to present.

Solid Waste Carbon Footprint
According to the field survey, several types of solid waste were found to exist in all Tourism Villages, i.e., food, paper, plastic, and organic pollutants. Since the exact volume of these wastes were unable to be obtained through field survey, significant assumptions were stated based on the number of visitors [28], as shown in Table 5. This indicated that the solid waste volume of seven Tourism Villages was individually calculated daily, with four pollutant categories (food, paper, plastic, and organic) being observed. In addition, the solid waste volume produced by these villages is shown in Figure 3.

Solid Waste Carbon Footprint
According to the field survey, several types of solid waste were found to exist in all Tourism Villages, i.e., food, paper, plastic, and organic pollutants. Since the exact volume of these wastes were unable to be obtained through field survey, significant assumptions were stated based on the number of visitors [28], as shown in Table 5. This indicated that the solid waste volume of seven Tourism Villages was individually calculated daily, with four pollutant categories (food, paper, plastic, and organic) being observed. In addition, the solid waste volume produced by these villages is shown in Figure 3.  Based on Tables 6 and 7 the solid wastes produced by the tourists before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were described, respectively. According to Table 6, Dieng Kulon produced the biggest solid waste volumes of 913,644 and 668,520 kg/month before and during the pandemic, respectively. The results also showed that the largest organic solid waste volume was found in Dieng Kulon at 609,772.50 and 446,175 kg/month, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. Furthermore, the Candirejo and Kandri had the smallest solid waste volumes of 11,142 and 1485.60 kg/month before and during this pandemic, respectively. Based on seven Tourism Villages before the pandemic, Candirejo was found to have the smallest volume of food waste at 522 kg/month. Meanwhile, zero visitors were recorded for Candirejo, Lerep, Karangrejo, and Pentingsari during the pandemic. The results also showed that Lerep and Pentingsari had large organic solid waste volumes of 48,999.93 and 20,652.95 kg/month before the pandemic, from a total of 73,418.35 and 30,945.05 kg/month, respectively. Paper and plastic wastes were found in large volumes at Lerep (11,164 and 9815 kg/month) and Karangrejo (9036 and 7944 kg/month) before the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicates that the organic solid waste volume was quite high in most Tourism Villages before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Building's Carbon Footprint
According to the field survey, the building types found in the seven Tourism Villages were the office, hall, homestay, public toilet, mosque, and shop ( Table 9). The results showed that the homestays were the most numerous building types found in all the villages, with most existing in Dieng Kulon (265 buildings), accompanied by Kandri and Candirejo (90 and 80 buildings). Another building type also existing in large numbers was the shop, with Table 9 showing that Dieng Kulon, Lerep, and Samiran had 60, 20, and 15 shops, respectively.
Based on this study, the number and volume of buildings existing in the seven Tourism Villages are shown in Table 10. This indicates that Pentingsari and Lerep, Karangejo and Kandri, as well as Dieng Kulon and Kandri, had the lowest and highest building areas (103 and 682 ha), numbers (91 and 340 buildings), and average volumes (210 and 400 m 3 ), respectively. According to Table 10, Pentingsari also had the highest building area ratio of 223.30%, accompanied by Karangrejo and Kandri at 155.17% and 125.14%, respectively.  Using Equation (2), all the building types in the seven Tourism Villages were calculated for building's CO 2 emission. According to Table 11, the homestays had the highest CO 2 emission of 80-90% in all locations. Also, the highest and lowest total building's CO 2 emissions were observed at Dieng Kulon (159,460 kg CO 2 /m 2 ) and Samiran (37,499.30 kg CO 2 /m 2 ), respectively. Kandri also had approximately 86% of the highest home stay's CO 2 emission at 80,398 kg CO 2 /m 2 . In addition, Lerep, Candirejo, and Pentingsari had about 25-30% home stay's CO 2 emission compared to total building's CO 2 emissions respectively.

Carbon Footprint Analysis
Based on this study, the seven Tourism Villages had beautiful scenes that were very attractive to both domestic and foreign visitors, with all the locations having low population densities (Tables 2 and 3). However, the arrival of visitors before the pandemic was very high, with the minimum and maximum values observed at Candirejo and Dieng Kulon (750 and 61,500 visitors/month), respectively. The high values of Dieng Kulon were due to the famous scenes of the Dieng Plateau and Arjuna Temple. Despite the decline during the COVID-19 pandemic, the solid waste and CO 2 emissions produced in this area were still high (Figure 4). Based on Figure 3, the four villages (Lerep, Candirejo, Karangrejo, and Pentingsari) with zero visitors during the pandemic were represented by orange bars. From these four villages, 3 locations (Lerep, Karangrejo, and Pentingsari) still had high CO 2 emissions (35,177.89 kg CO 2 , 28,472.59 kg CO 2 , and 14,827.10 kg CO 2 ), as illustrated in Figure 4. However, there was no significant reduction guarantee towards future visits. In this study, organic waste had the highest volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating a large CO 2 emission contribution (Figure 3). By implementing waste recycling as a proper management technique, the concerns of organic pollutants in these Tourism Villages should not be a problem. plastic, glass, metal, hazardous waste, etc. * Data of population and daily waste volume referred to [20]. Based on Table 13, Dieng Kulon had the highest CO2 emissions from all sources (solid waste produced by visitors, population, and buildings). The results also showed that Candirejo had the lowest emission produced by the visitors and population, before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Kandri and Samiran had the lowest CO2 emissions produced by visitors and buildings, respectively. This indicates that the high number of CO2 emissions was due to the large volume of solid waste produced by the visitors and the population. In addition, the high pollutant volume implied the bad habits of people (residents of the Tourism Villages and visitors) in producing solid wastes, and also the inappropriate trash management (3R-Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle). It is obvious that a large number of visitors and population will produce a large volume of waste, as discussed in the previous sub-section. However, a comparison among the tourism areas should provide a better understanding of the waste produced by the activities of a certain population. This led to the comparisons of the solid waste produced by the seven Tourism Villages with that produced by the Nusa Penida Islands. This tourism location had three subareas, namely Nusa Peninda, Lembongan, and Ceningan Islands, respectively. The waste volume data of the Nusa Penida Islands was in line with a previous study [20], and also current study which is explained by Table 9, where the Emission Factor (0.559) used for calculation was the average value of rural household inorganic (0.668) and organic (0.45) pollutants. Table 12 indicates that all seven Tourism Villages in this study produced a larger waste volume compared to those in Nusa Penida Islands. Therefore, the CO 2 emission produced by the solid waste in these villages was between 200-22,000% larger than the waste CO 2 emission in the Nusa Penida Islands. Despite Nusa Penida Island having the highest population and density (190.04 person/km 2 ) among all the locations in Table 12, it still only produced a carbon emission of 2299 kg CO 2 . Besides that, Lerep had the largest population (9000 persons) among the seven Tourism Villages, although it was not the most crowded location, as the density was only observed at 13.20 person/km 2 . Meanwhile, Dieng Kulon was the most crowded at 25.24 person/km 2 , thereby becoming the highest contributor of carbon emission at 510,727 kg CO 2 /kg.
Based on this study, it is interesting to analyze the carbon emission produced by the population of both Dieng Kulon and Nusa Penida Island (Table 12). Although the population density of Dieng Kulon was only 13.28% that of Nusa Penida Island, the waste CO 2 emission was still 22,215.19%. This shows that when the wastes produced by the visitors and population of Dieng Kulon were added together before the pandemic (Tables 5 and 8), the waste CO 2 emission was 948,493.10 kg CO 2 /kg. According to [20], the visitors of Nusa Penida Islands (all 3 islands included) were 391,071 daily or 11,732,130 monthly, subsequently producing waste of 5208.3 kg/month. After calculations, the total waste CO 2 emission was found at 34,157,389,047.56 kg CO 2 /kg or 34,157,389.05 t CO 2 /kg. This indicated that a large number of visitors generated high carbon waste emissions, which was in line with the data of Dieng Kulon and Nusa Penida Island. However, further analysis showed that each visitor in Nusa Penida Islands and Dieng Kulon only produced wastes of 0.00044/172.39 kg/day or 0.01332/5.75 kg/month, respectively. This indicated that each person in Dieng Kulon contributed higher waste CO 2 emission (96.36 kg CO 2 /kg per day or 3.21 kg CO 2 /kg per month) than those in the Nusa Penida Islands (0.00025 kg CO 2 /kg per day or 0.00745 kg CO 2 /kg per month).  [20].
Based on Tables 10 and 11, Dieng Kulon and Samiran had the highest and lowest ratios of area numbers (1.62 and 0.12) and CO 2 emissions (159,460 and 377,499.3 kg CO 2 /m 2 ), respectively. This indicates that the large values of building's CO 2 emission were due to the high number of existing buildings in the area. According to this study, Dieng Kulon had the largest number of buildings (340 buildings), with most found to be homestays (265 homestays). Therefore, the CO 2 emission produced by the seven Tourism Villages was a 'red flag' of environmental quality degradation, which should immediately be mitigated. In wider aspects, Dieng Kulon was found as the 'top rank' contributor of carbon emissions, as shown in Figure 4. This was because the large population and a great number of visitors had made this village a 'giant' of CO 2 emission, compared to Nusa Penida Islands (Table 12). In addition, Figure 4 showed that Kandri and Lerep had slightly larger carbon emissions compared to Candirejo, Karangrejo, Samiran, and Pentingsari. This indicates that most of the Tourism Villages (Dieng Kulon Village excluded) had larger carbon waste from buildings than the solid pollutant emission. Therefore, the high solid-waste CO 2 emission in Dieng Kulon was contributed by visitors and the population.
Based on Table 13, Dieng Kulon had the highest CO 2 emissions from all sources (solid waste produced by visitors, population, and buildings). The results also showed that Candirejo had the lowest emission produced by the visitors and population, before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Kandri and Samiran had the lowest CO 2 emissions produced by visitors and buildings, respectively. This indicates that the high number of CO 2 emissions was due to the large volume of solid waste produced by the visitors and the population. In addition, the high pollutant volume implied the bad habits of people (residents of the Tourism Villages and visitors) in producing solid wastes, and also the inappropriate trash management (3R-Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle).

Comprehensive Model
A low-carbon approach should be implemented in these seven Tourism Villages, including decreased energy consumption, pollution, and CO 2 emissions [22]. This indicates that a change of paradigm is needed, due to individual awareness, attitudes, capacity to change, as well as social alterations such as the cultures and environments in Tourism Villages. Furthermore, a social education of low-carbon habits was necessary for achieving better environmental qualities (cleaner, healthier, and sustainable), indicating that the community should lead health management, create societal strength, and develop a sustainable Tourism Village [7]. The stakeholders (government, tourism village's community, population, tourists or visitors) of Tourism Village development should also be involved in implementing low-carbon sustainability [13].
Based on the problems of CO 2 emissions produced by Tourism Villages, this study proposed a comprehensive model called the "Low-Carbon Sustainable Tourism Village Model" (Figure 5). The model essentials may be explained as follows. The model is described by a chart with several colors of rectangles to distinguish their meanings, which are also stated in the figure, and connected by arrows that described flow and causality. The Tourism Village is the center of this model, which is represented by a green rectangle because of its 'green characteristic'. However, the Tourism Village has contributed large CO 2 emissions (which are represented by a red rectangle that marked it as very important aspect) from its elements (which are marked by orange rectangles) such as infrastructures, population, and visitors. The CO 2 emissions produced by the Tourism Village's elements has contributed to climate change (that is marked by a blue rectangle). It is explained by the model that the buildings are infrastructure elements of the Tourism Village that produce a significant amount of CO 2 emissions that may come from venues, homestays, heritage sites, shops, public infrastructures, etc. Due to the large contribution of carbon emissions from the Tourism Village, it is necessary to conduct carbon footprint reduction programs, i.e., waste management, evaluation of building operation and maintenance, energy efficiency, etc. These actions should be accompanied by the social education of low-carbon habits, such as promoting and building awareness, attitudes, and planning capacity, as well as implementing sustainable tourism programs. This educational method is expected to develop an essential low-carbon habit, which should involve internal stakeholders Tourism Village's community) and external stakeholders (government) due to policy, regulation, and law enforcement). Therefore, the low-carbon Tourism Village is a good way to achieve sustainability.

Conclusions
This study focused on the high contribution of tourism activities to the carbon footprint. There is no doubt that Tourism Villages have contributed large CO2 emissions by the tourist attractions which were the main business of the seven Tourism Villages in Indonesia considered in this study, as well as in the heritage sites of Yogyakarta Special Region in Indonesia and also the Wulingyuan Scenic/Historic Interest Area (WSHIA) and Guizhou ethnic locations in China [11][12][13]. For the new concept of low-carbon tourism to

Conclusions
This study focused on the high contribution of tourism activities to the carbon footprint. There is no doubt that Tourism Villages have contributed large CO 2 emissions by the tourist attractions which were the main business of the seven Tourism Villages in Indonesia considered in this study, as well as in the heritage sites of Yogyakarta Special Region in Indonesia and also the Wulingyuan Scenic/Historic Interest Area (WSHIA) and