Carbon Footprint Assessment Within Urban and Rural Areas—Example of Inbound Tourism in Serbia

Abstract

In recent years, Serbia has become increasingly popular as a tourism destination, attracting travelers from the surrounding region, as well as Europe and even distant locations. The environmental impact linked with tourism activities, specifically their carbon footprints, has gained growing attention as sustainability becomes an important factor when discussing the future of tourism. This research, which is based on the DEFRA and ADEME methodologies using the Greentripper tool, examines the significance of carbon footprint estimations for incoming tourism in Serbia from a scientific standpoint. By considering the emissions produced from transportation, accommodation, and on-site activities, the results of 1,431,394,511 kg CO2e offer valuable information about the extent of carbon emissions linked to tourism movements. The primary driver of this carbon footprint is transportation (80.2%), on-site activities (15.2%), and housing (4.6%). The per capita tourism carbon footprint is 670 kg CO2e, which is lower compared to the values derived using general data and carbon emissions on a worldwide basis, which amount to 759 kg CO2e. These findings are essential for comprehending the environmental sustainability of tourism operations. Furthermore, carbon footprint assessments play a crucial role as a tool for making informed decisions and implementing initiatives to reduce carbon emissions in the tourism business. This could involve selecting environmentally friendly modes of travel, advocating for sustainable hotel choices, or integrating carbon offsetting activities into vacation packages. In addition, carbon footprint assessments promote transparency and responsibility in the tourism industry.

1. Introduction

1.1. Tourism and Carbon Footprint

Both domestic and inbound tourism flows play a significant role in the overall tourism development of certain countries. Inbound tourism contributes to the economy through the export of services to foreign visitors and direct spending by visitors on accommodation, transport, food, and recreational activities. In addition to direct spending, it creates employment opportunities and stimulates the growth of various industries [1].

According to estimates, tourism will contribute 3% of global GDP in 2023, as measured by the tourism direct gross domestic product (TDGDP). The current TDGDP level, which is equivalent to or even surpasses the level in 2019, indicates that economic activity has recovered to pre-epidemic levels. This recovery is mainly driven by robust domestic and international tourism. According to the data from the United Nations World Tourism Organization [2], the tourism industry is a crucial part of the global economy because of its resilience and speedy recovery.

The growth of tourism economic activities was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. The sensitivity of the tourism sector was particularly evident during this time, as it was more severly impacted than many other industries [4]. Despite the negative impacts the COVID-19 pandemic had on tourism, positive environmental effects were seen in emission reduction and improvement of air quality [5] and environment [6]. On the contrary, the rapid recovery and growth of tourism pose a threat, as they can result in increased carbon emissions. The carbon footprint associated with tourism reflects the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by travelers through their tourism activities [7,8]. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases are key drivers of the global rise of temperature [9], but the primary greenhouse gas found is carbon dioxide. According to a recent study, the carbon footprint of each tourism component, such as food, accommodation, transportation, shopping, and entertainment, can be quantified through corresponding tourism revenue or tourist expenditure [10,11,12,13]. Estimation of global tourism carbon footprint represents between 5% and 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally [8,14], or roughly 8% [15]. Taking into account the significance of global carbon emissions, the industry should aim to adopt sustainable practices in line with international goals. These include reducing carbon emissions by 50% by the year 2035 [16] and achieving complete carbon neutrality by 2050 [17]. It is important to note that the carbon footprint associated with tourism activities includes both direct carbon emissions, such as using petrol for travel purposes, as well as usage of this in goods and services that are purchased by tourists. An analysis by Ref. [18] highlights the correlation between carbon emissions and economic factors. This could have an impact on a range of aspects, such as food, accommodation, transport, fuel, and shopping expenses [4,12,15,19,20,21]. In addition to economic aspects, it is crucial to consider the sensitivity of tourism to climate change. Various tourist activities are conducted in tourist destinations, having a profound impact on ecosystems [22]. Specifically, there is a need to raise awareness about the potential for mitigating climate change through research focused on assessing the carbon footprint within the tourism sector [23]. While much research has focused on countries with high tourist traffic and abundant attractions [24], it is equally important to examine emerging destinations. This analysis should explore the relationship between tourism in developing countries and its impact on environmental degradation, particularly in terms of carbon footprints [25].

1.2. Serbia and Tourism Economy Aspects

In 2021, tourism contributed approximately 940.4 million euros to Serbia’s economy. In comparison with the nation’s GDP, this represented 1.8% and 2.1% of its gross value added (GVA), which is a significant improvement in comparison to the period before 2021. Out of this value, sports, entertainment, and leisure activities contributed 23%, with food and beverage services accounting for the majority (56.7%). Aside from the notable drop in tourism activities in 2020 due to the pandemic, tourism’s contribution to Serbia’s economy stayed largely stable between 2017 and 2021. Mainly due to travel restrictions and broader closures, Serbia’s tourism industry suffered significantly during the pandemic period in 2020 [26,27]. After the pandemic, significant tourism advancements were noted in terms of receipts from foreign tourists. As reported by the UNWTO in 2024 [2], this rise was one of the highest in Europe. The sector of tourism has seen an increase in employment, with the number of employees increasing from 74,981 in 2017 to 99.216 in 2021. This industry now accounts for around 4.5% of the entire workforce, totaling 102,300 employees in 2022, according to OECD [28] and CCIS [29]. The most prominent sector is food and beverage services, which employs 70,600 people. As sustainable tourism, alongside other industrial sectors, relies on inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration, it is important to understand that tourists have a variety of requests when visiting specific locations. For example, they appreciate the proven functionality and health benefits of the food they consume during specific touristic visits. In this respect, it is important for tourist service providers to facilitate the uptake and cross-over of innovation in the field of functional and healthy food development and provision, stimulate inter-sectoral collaboration, and accelerate the development and commercialization of novel food products. In this process, they must consider environmental benefits related to the process innovations and carefully apply environmental impact assessment tasks. In 2022, the Serbian tourism industry had a total of 7800 operational enterprises and 28,000 individuals who were engaged in entrepreneurial activities, resulting in 35,800 entitled entities [30]. Serbia welcomed 4,192,797 tourists in 2023, out of whom 2,134,305 were foreign visitors. Income generated through incoming tourism contributed 22.4% of the country’s total exports, amounting to 2.6 billion euros. This economic recovery surpassed pre-pandemic levels (GVA 2.4%) and significantly impacted local and global economies, as well as employment rates, economic growth, and community prospects.

These numbers highlight the urgent need to promote sustainability and inclusivity in the development of tourism. To attain sustainability in the tourism industry, it is crucial to prioritize the reduction of carbon emissions in its operations. This requires a fundamental change in the way industries operate, with a focused and determined effort to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in the energy sector. Hence, it is imperative to undertake a comprehensive reorganization of the energy infrastructure to reduce environmental impact and ensure long-term viability. Carbon footprint evaluations play a significant role in wider environmental conservation initiatives and attempts to mitigate climate change. Considering the increasing acknowledgment of tourism’s role in global carbon emissions [31], it is crucial to tackle the environmental consequences of adventure tourism to meet international climate goals. By measuring and reducing carbon footprints, the industry can actively contribute to the transition toward a more sustainable future.

1.3. The Primary Aim of Research

The primary aim of this research is to underscore the significance of transparent carbon footprint values in travel itineraries. This is done to accentuate the superior sustainability of the adventure tourism sector in comparison to mass tourism [12].

This study aims to analyze the carbon footprint created by incoming tourism in Serbia. No similar research has been conducted in Serbia thus far. The objective is to market Serbia as a sustainable destination and to stimulate pro-environmental consumer behavior, hence reducing CO₂ emissions resulting from tourism.

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the carbon footprint based on available data on the distribution and characteristics of inbound tourism in Serbia, while also providing an overview of regional differences between Belgrade, South–Eastern, Northern, and Western–Central Serbia. Specifically, this research aims to analyze the role of transportation in creating the carbon footprint of inbound tourism, to estimate the carbon footprint based on variations in accommodation preferences among foreign visitors, and to assess the impact of tourist activities. By examining these aspects, this research provides an overview of regional differences in Serbia and fills a research gap in understanding carbon footprints related to tourism in Serbia.

By presenting tourist trends and the economic aspects of inbound tourism in Serbia and at the global level, the importance of assessing the carbon footprint of inbound tourism is highlighted. In order to evaluate and quantify these impacts, an adequate methodology is also necessary. The following chapter describes the methodological approach used in this study, including data collection techniques and methods, emission calculation models, and analysis methods used to derive key results.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology and Data Collection to Determine Carbon Footprint

The quantification of greenhouse gas emissions involves multiple approaches, such as direct measurement at emission sources, continuous emissions monitoring, and estimation based on activity data combined with suitable conversion factors. These conversion factors include data such as calorific values and emission factors, which help in accurately assessing the emitted greenhouse gases.

Measuring greenhouse gas emissions involves multiple approaches, each with its advantages and/or limitations. Some methods include direct measurement at emission sources, continuous gas emissions monitoring, and estimation based on activity data [32]. Direct measurement of gas emissions at sources provides the most accurate results but is often impractical for large-scale tourism studies due to higher cost and logistical limitations. Continuous monitoring systems of gas emersions are mostly used in industrial processes and are less applicable to tourism-related emissions. However, in this research, we used an estimation-based approach using activity data and conversion factors to quantify tourism-related greenhouse gas emissions. The conversion factors, which include calorific values and emission factors, were derived from established databases such as the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). Conversion factors help provide accuracy in assessing emissions across various activities, including transportation, accommodation, and tourist activities. Although this method may provide a comprehensive overview, it brings limitations, particularly the reliance on aggregated data, which may reduce the precision of the results, especially on a regional level.

The applicability to larger-scale tourism carbon footprint assessments, alignment with international best practices, and the type and quantum of input data were the basis for using this methodology.

Lenzen et al. [15] propose life-cycle assessment and input–output analysis for a full assessment and computation of tourism carbon footprints, while Sun et al. [10] promote an environmentally expanded input–output approach. Additionally, Huang and Tang [12] identified two other techniques in addition to the ones described. The carbon emissions resulting from energy consumption and the use of fossil fuels can be calculated. Additionally, the Kaya carbon emission identity can be used to quantitatively connect these emissions to many aspects, such as economic conditions, policy decisions, and population size. Thus, a thorough framework must be developed to guarantee a meticulous level of precision, taking into account all aspects of the business activity, such as quantity, geographic location, and other pertinent factors. The main goal of this framework is to produce an accurate measurement of the carbon footprint per customer or a comparable metric for the business. This allows for the tracking of emissions and progress toward reduction goals over time.

The present research analyzes secondary data that has been processed using the Greentripper program to determine the carbon footprint. Greentripper conducts continuous evaluations of its emission factors (EF) to maintain precision and consistency with the most up-to-date scientific research on estimating greenhouse gas emissions.

The factors are determined by conducting calculations on various aspects, including:

• The influence of passengers on different modes of transportation, such as airplanes, buses, boats, and trains.
• The effects of vehicles, such as cars, campers, and motorcycles.
• The environmental impact of accommodation and meeting facilities on visitors.
• The impact of travelers’ activities and dietary choices.

Greentripper principally uses two well-established approaches for this objective:

• The Bilan Carbone technique, created by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME).
• The UK Government utilizes the DEFRA methodology, developed by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, to report greenhouse gas emissions.

This methodology incorporates conversion factors to accurately calculate emissions resulting from various activities, such as energy use, water consumption, waste management, recycling, and transportation. This methodology yields comprehensive outcomes, incorporating the implications of CO₂-equivalent emissions, various greenhouse gases, scopes, and direct and indirect emissions.

The Greentripper tool enables the evaluation of carbon footprints by displaying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in units comparable to carbon dioxide (CO₂). These assessments provide a thorough analysis to enhance understanding of one’s ecological footprint, acknowledging the constraints of existing approaches.

The formula used in Greentripper’s CO₂ emissions calculation is:

$${CO}_2 Emissions=Activity Data\times Emission Factor$$

Activity Data refers to the distance traveled, energy consumed, number of overnights, or number of meals consumed. Emission Factor is a coefficient representing the amount of CO₂ emitted per unit of activity, derived from databases created by ADEME and DEFRA

• Transportation Emissions are divided into air, road, and rail travel:

Air travel:

$${CO}_2 Emissions=Distance\times Emission Factor$$

It considers travel classes, flight distances, and stopovers. For this research, we used return, direct (where available), and economy flights.

Road travel (car, bus):

$${CO}_2 Emissions={\displaystyle \frac{Distance\times Fuel Consumption per km\times Emission Factor}{Number of Passengers}}$$

It considers fuel consumption or car model for an average consumption (small, medium, or large vehicle). The fuel type (petrol, diesel, electric) and vehicle efficiency impact emissions. For this research, we used a medium-sized petrol car with four passengers. For a bus transport, we used a coach bus (among options like city bus, minibus, camper, converted van, and motorhome) with 50 passengers.

• Accommodation Emissions:

$${CO}_2 Emissions=Number of Nights\times Emission Factor$$

Hotels have different energy consumption levels based on their star rating and sustainability practices, which consider the energy mix by country. For this research, we used 3-star hotels and accommodation-house options for homestays.

• Activity Emissions:

For non-motorized activities, the CO2e impact is considered zero. However, when activities require motorized locomotion or meals, emissions are calculated. In this research, cultural, recreational, and entertainment activities were estimated based on energy consumption and emission factors, using the impact of one day at a festival as a reference.

This section focuses on the data sources utilized to gain insights into tourists’ holiday preferences, the distances between tourist-generating centers and Serbia (as illustrated in Figure 1), as well as the lodging and activities during their visit. Our study only provides an overview of regional differences in tourism-related carbon footprints in Serbia. The lack of specific regional data limits the precision of our analysis, as without detailed regional data, the uncertainty in the accuracy of the data can be justified and therefore analyses at the regional level were not conducted. Future research could focus on collecting region-specific data to enable more precise evaluation and the development of targeted strategies.

In addition, we provide a detailed explanation of the methods used to process and aggregate this data, resulting in datasets that may be integrated with pre-existing records on inbound travel patterns in Serbia. This analysis is founded on the authoritative figures of visitor arrivals and overnight stays in 2023.

The data utilized to comprehend the vacation preferences of visitors, assets associated with tourism, and the distances between countries that generate tourism activities and Serbia are detailed in this section. In addition, we elucidate our methodology for analyzing and structuring this data to create datasets that may be integrated with preexisting records of travel patterns. The tourism flow records indicate the number of inbound tourists in Serbia. The data may encompass recreational activities, social visits, and professional journeys. The primary emphasis of our study is the quantification of the number of journeys undertaken in 2023. While visiting Serbia, the baseline case encompasses the costs of stay, transportation, accommodation, and leisure activities. According to a study conducted by [30], these activities typically consume a substantial amount of energy and result in higher carbon emissions in tourist destinations compared to non-tourism-focused communities of similar sizes.

2.2. Tourists

Records show that 4,192,797 tourists visited Serbia in 2023, with the number of domestic tourists being 2,058,492 and accounting for 49% of the total number, whereas foreign tourists accounted for 51%, with 2,134,305 visitors. Approximately 86% of these foreign tourists originated from Europe, while the remaining 14% were long-haul travelers. Excluding foreign tourists visiting from nearby countries, who are more likely to travel by private automobile, the most prevalent travel method for international visitors entering and exiting Serbia is air transport. To enhance the perspective of this study, the total area of Serbia is partitioned into four regions: the Belgrade region, Northern Serbia (province of Vojvodina), Central–Western Serbia and South–Eastern Serbia. The region of Kosovo and Metohija, as defined by UNSCR 1244/99, is excluded from the analysis due to insufficient data availability.

2.3. Transportation

When traveling from any country that does not share a border with Serbia, the distance is calculated by considering the mileage between the airport with the highest number of aircraft connections in the tourist’s country of origin and Belgrade airport. Conversely, while traveling from any country that borders Serbia, the distance is calculated using the mileage between the capital of that country and the destination in Serbia. The distance by road is determined by the road networks and is computed using the Google Maps engine. For tourists arriving by plane, the main method of transportation from the airport to the city center is usually via a taxi service. The reasoning behind this is inconvenient public transport options from Belgrade airport to the city center.

2.4. Accommodation

Serbia offers various accommodations to cater to the needs of travelers. This study especially examines the energy usage of the accommodations. Hotels are the predominant form of lodging for foreign tourists, although their overall proportion in the accommodation sector is decreasing. Between 2014 and 2022, hotels accounted for 75.3% of the total market. In 2016, the highest percentage of foreign tourists, amounting to 85.9%, opted for hotels as their preferred accommodation. However, in 2022 (no official data for 2023 is available), this figure decreased to 57.6% as a result of the heightened participation of rural tourist household accommodations in the tourism industry. By 2024, there was a significant increase of over 30% in the past two years. Additionally, there are over 800 rural tourist households that provide accommodation, as stated on the Ministry of Tourism’s website [33].

2.5. Leisure and Occupational Activities

This research estimates the energy consumption and emissions from the most common tourism activities in Serbia. These activities are divided into sports and recreation, cultural and entertainment, and excursion parts. The first part includes physical activities, such as hiking, walking, cycling, fishing, hunting, and visiting national parks. Cultural activities include visits to museums and galleries, monasteries, archaeological sites, and sightseeing. The entertainment and excursion part includes restaurants, clubs, shopping, concerts, spas, wineries, and traditional events. Due to the diversity of activities, a precise assessment of the carbon footprint of different activities was not possible. Different activities have different energy consumption patterns, and due to the lack of specific emission data for each type of activity, there were limitations in quantifying emissions for a particular activity. To overcome this limitation, we used average energy consumption data from a one-day festival as a reference model. By applying this approach, carbon emissions per visitor based on typical energy needs were estimated. This provides a baseline for understanding the relative contribution of leisure activities to the total carbon footprint of tourism in Serbia.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the methods and data sources described in the previous section, the CO₂ emissions from tourist arrivals, transportation, accommodation, and tourist activities, were calculated.

3.1. Tourists

Of the 2,134,305 international visitors to Serbia in 2023, more than eighty-six percent came from Europe, while the remaining fourteen percent were long-distance travelers. Out of all arrivals, the top ten nations accounted for 59.5% of the total. Each of these countries will be examined individually in different studies, as shown in

Table 1. Overview of inbound tourism in Serbia.

Country	Number of Tourists	Share %	Average Nights
Turkey	201,440	9.4	2.6
Russia	170,884	8.0	3.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina	158,824	7.4	2.2
Germany	123,059	5.8	2.3
Bulgaria	110,419	5.2	1.8
North Macedonia	109,738	5.1	2.4
Croatia	108,161	5.0	2.0
Romania	100,055	4.7	2.5
Montenegro	96,019	4.5	2.5
China	92,125	4.3	3.0
First ten countries	1,270,724	59.5	2.5
Other European countries	690,481	32.3	2.3
All other countries	173,100	8.2	4.1
All countries	2,134,305	100	2.6

. Conversely, the individual share was less than 4% in all other countries.

Out of all the regions analyzed, it is unsurprising that the Belgrade region attracts the highest number of international tourists, followed by Northern Serbia and Central–Western Serbia, while South–Eastern Serbia has the lowest proportion of incoming tourism (

Table 2. Regional distribution of inbound tourism in Serbia.

Region	Number of Tourists	Share %	Overnights	Average Overnights	Dominant Receptive Centre
Belgrade	1,191,270	55.8	2,970,336	2.5	Belgrade
Northern	361,513	17.0	983,667	2.7	Novi Sad
Central–Western	343,384	16.0	1,049,430	3	Zlatibor
South–Eastern	238,138	11.2	579,171	2.4	Niš
Total	2,134,305	100	5,582,604	2.6	Belgrade

).

3.2. Transportation

To determine the distance between countries that generate tourists and Serbia, we computed the distances between the primary destinations that attract tourists and the primary countries that generate tourism. The dominant receptive centers refer to the specific attractions within each area of Serbia (Belgrade, Northern, Central–Western, and South–Eastern) that attract the largest number of international tourists. Conversely, the dominant tourism-producing hubs in Serbia are the capitals or cities that attract the largest number of international tourists, as shown in

Table 3. Transportation inventory of inbound tourism.

Country	Dominant Tourist Generating Centre	Dominant Receptive Centre
		Belgrade	Novi Sad	Zlatibor	Niš
		Mean of Transport; Distance in km
Turkey	Istanbul	plane; 810	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240
Russia	Moscow	plane; 1700	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Banja Luka	bus; 330	bus; 310	bus; 360	bus; 560
Germany	Berlin	plane; 1000	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240
Bulgaria	Sofia	bus; 390	bus; 490	bus; 420	bus; 160
North Macedonia	Skopje	bus; 430	bus; 530	bus; 460	bus; 200
Croatia	Zagreb	bus; 400	bus; 380	bus; 590	bus; 630
Romania	Timisoara	bus; 150	bus; 150	bus; 380	bus; 350
Montenegro	Podgorica	bus; 450	bus; 520	bus; 230	bus; 360
China	Beijing	plane; 7450	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240
Other European countries	Capitals	plane; 1300	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240
All other countries	Capitals	plane; 7250	train *; 75	bus *; 250	bus *; 240

* Traveling from Belgrade.

.

Visitors from different nations utilize a variety of transportation options. This study examines the predominant form of transportation in each country. Although air travel is the most common option, people from neighboring nations and former Yugoslavian states have a preference for traveling by bus. Travelers are required to select the most efficient route when traveling to their intended destination. Individuals who choose air travel usually arrive in Belgrade before transitioning to buses to reach their ultimate destination. The train is predominantly utilized for transportation along the Belgrade–Novi Sad route, since the railway was recently upgraded and refurbished in 2022, rendering it the favored means of transit owing to its swiftness and ease.

3.3. Accommodation

The sub-sector of tourist accommodation is diverse and complex, covering a wide range of organizations that vary in size and the range of services they provide. Hotels continue to be the most dominant form of accommodation in Serbia’s tourism industry. In between 2014 and 2023, 75% of foreign visitors opted for a stay in a hotel, however, homestays as an alternative accommodation option have been gaining popularity and steadily increasing, making them the second most commonly chosen option. For this article, all other forms of lodging are classified as homestays and account for 25% of the total lodging share.

Alternative types of accommodation, such as apartments, camps, tourist villages, and other forms of private accommodation, do not have reliable information on the structure of visitors by country of origin, which makes precise segmentation difficult. Furthermore, the only official data is the share of 25% of this kind of accommodation for the period 2014–2022. There are no more recent data. For this reason, all these categories are united under the term “homestays”, which generally refers to all non-hotel types of accommodation (

Table 4. Accommodation type by number of tourists and overnights.

Country	Accommodation Type by Number of Tourists		Accommodation Type per Overnights
	Hotel	Home-Stay	Hotel	Home-Stay
Turkey	151,080	50,360	390,966	130,322
Russia	128,163	42,721	499,364	166,455
Bosnia and Herzegovina	119,118	39,706	263,657	87,886
Germany	92,294	30,765	211,689	70,563
Bulgaria	82,814	27,605	148,451	49,484
North Macedonia	82,304	27,435	195,247	65,082
Croatia	81,121	27,040	168,436	56,145
Romania	75,041	25,014	190,790	63,597
Montenegro	72,014	24,005	180,902	60,301
China	69,094	23,031	211,552	70,517
Other European countries	517,861	172,620	1,189,771	396,590
All other countries	129,825	43,275	536,130	178,710
Total	1,600,729	533,576	4,186,953	1,395,651
	2,134,405		5,582,604

).

3.4. Leisure and Occupational Activities

Transport is a significant contributor to the release of greenhouse gases in the tourism sector. Nevertheless, additional activities, such as lodging, recreation, and corporate gatherings, also have a substantial impact on increasing energy usage. Leisure and professional activities, tourist attractions, specialized transport services for tourists, and events such as conferences, business meetings, fairs, exhibitions, language learning, and other educational trips, as well as cultural, sports, and similar trips, are all significant factors to take into account.

According to the data provided by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia [34] for the year 2021, the mean age of international visitors who visited the country was 41 years. The majority of visitors (60%) were in the 25–44 age range, with the 45–64 age group accounting for a smaller but no less significant portion (32%). In this article, the responses obtained by SORS [34] are categorized into three kinds of activities: sport and recreation, culture and entertainment, and excursion (

Table 5. Activities in the destination by number of tourists in touristic regions.

Region	Number of Tourists	Activity Type
		Sport and Recreation	Culture	Entertainment and Outing
Belgrade	1,191,270	388,354	1,473,601	2,147,860
Northern	361,513	193,048	309,094	596,496
Central–Western	343,384	282,262	261,659	874,942
South–Eastern	238,138	70,965	220,278	288,623
Total	2,134,305	934,629	2,264,631	3,907,922

).

Surveyed visitors were able to provide alternative responses; hence, as a result, cumulative percentages of these responses are examined. The Central-Western area of the country had the highest level of participation in sports and leisure activities, where 82.2% of respondents engaged in activities such as cycling, hiking, walking, fishing, and hunting. For the same activities, the Northern region had a participation rate of 53.4%, followed by Belgrade with 32.6% and South–Eastern region with 29.8%. The highest intensity of cultural activities was recorded in Belgrade, with a rate of 123.7%, whereas the South–Eastern region had 92.5%, the Northern region had 85.5%, and the Central–Western region had a rate of 76.2%. The Central–Western region had the highest percentage (254.8%) of entertainment and outing activities, such as going to restaurants and clubs, shopping, concerts, spas, wineries, and traditional events like folklore. The Belgrade region ranked second with a percentage of 180.3%, followed by the Northern region (165%) and the South–Eastern region (121.2%).

3.5. Tourism Carbon Footprint

A multitude of activities within the tourist sector consumes energy, either through the combustion of fossil fuels or the utilization of electricity derived from sources such as petroleum, coal, or gas. Regretfully, the environment suffers as a result of this energy use, and climate change is frequently the result [35,36]. Examining carbon footprints in the tourist sector is a contemporary and efficient approach to comprehending and evaluating the ecological consequences of tourism endeavors. Based on the UNWTO, the average tourist journey, including international and a large share of domestic tourist excursions, lasts around 4.15 days. During this time, each emits roughly 250 kg of CO₂ equivalent. As a result of employing distinct research methodologies and data processing techniques, there may be modest variations in the findings compared to infrequent analyses conducted in Europe and worldwide. However, these discrepancies are not substantial enough to cast doubt on the general validity of the results.

Initially, the overall carbon capacity for tourism in the entire nation was computed using the formulae employed by Huang and Tang [12].

The equation TCF = Y × C indicates the tourist carbon footprint for a certain year. In this equation, TCF represents the carbon footprint, Y represents the total income of the inbound tourism business for that year (which was 2.6 billion USD in 2023 for the entire nation), and C represents the global average tourism carbon emission intensity of 623.13 kg/10³ USD$.

The carbon footprint of foreign tourism totaled 1,620,138,000 kg (1.6 billion tons) in 2023. By dividing the total carbon footprint (TCF) by the number of inbound tourists (N), the total per capita tourism carbon footprint was calculated. In this case, N represents the number of foreign tourists in 2023, which was 2,134,305. The carbon footprint of inbound tourism is estimated to be 759 kg CO2e per capita equivalent. Following a thorough assessment of the carbon footprint, we calculated the carbon footprints for accommodation, transit, leisure, and employment activities independently. This was done using the data obtained and processed for the year 2023, utilizing the open-source Greentripper tool. The purpose of this calculation was to analyze and quantify the impact of each of these factors, as shown in

Table 6. The total carbon footprint of inbound tourism in Serbia in 2023.

	Transportation				Accommodation		Activities
	Belgrade	Northern	Central-Western	South-Eastern	Hotel	Home Stay	Culture	Enter. and Outing
Country	kg CO2e *
Turkey	89,439,360	34,245	547,917	360,980	5,082,558	1,042,576
Russia	98,770,952	29,050	464,804	306,224	6,491,732	1,331,640
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1,949,723	316,387	340,315	377,183	3,427,541	703,088
Germany	66,697,978	20,920	334,720	220,522	2,751,957	564,504
Bulgaria	1,601,959	345,653	276,030	75,908	1,929,863	395,872
North Macedonia	1,775,780	374,751	303,720	96,015	2,538,211	520,656
Croatia	1,629,554	266,764	386,265	290,664	2,189,668	449,160
Romania	558,307	94,912	232,256	150,073	2,480,270	508,776
Montenegro	1,607,358	318,793	137,161	144,019	2,351,726	482,408
China	224,416,500	15,661	250,580	165,088	2,750,176	564,136
Other European countries	284,478,172	117,382	1,878,108	1,237,342	15,467,023	3,172,720
All other countries	363,510,000	29,427	470,832	310,195	6,969,690	1,429,680
Total per factor	1,136,435,643	1,963,945	5,622,708	3,734,213	54,430,415	11,165,216	22,646,320	195,396,050
Total kg CO2e	1,147,756,510				65,595,631		218,042,370
	1,431,394,511

* Equivalent per individual.

. When considering the number of foreign tourists in 2023, the per capita tourism carbon footprint amounts to 670 kg CO2e.

Carbon footprint per capita ($\overline{TCF}$) is calculated using the formula $\overline{TCF}=TCF/N$, where TCF is the tourism carbon footprint and N is the total number of tourists in the year. In this research, TCF of 1,431,394,511 kg CO2e is derived from transportation (1,147,756,510), accommodation (65,595,631), and activities (218,042,370). These values are calculated by taking into consideration the number of tourists by country (Table 1), share of the region (Table 2), and specific factors such as distance and mean of transport according to the regions for transportation (Table 3); accommodation type for accommodation (Table 4) and number of participants and activity type for activities (Table 5).

The transportation industry is well recognized for its significant influence on global carbon emissions, with road transportation being the primary source. The transportation sector accounts for 80.2% of the overall carbon footprint, while all other sectors contribute 15.2%, and lodging is responsible for 4.6%. The transport sector’s contribution exceeds the global average of 75%, as reported by a joint study conducted by UNWTO-UNEP-WMO in 2008 [37]. This finding is based on extrapolated data from 2005. Additionally, a study by Lenzen et al. [15] reveals that the transport sector’s share in 2013 was 49.1%. In addition, emissions from aircraft are increasing at a rapid rate, particularly for long-distance trips. Given the relatively brief duration of stays in Serbia (averaging 2.6 days), both recreational and work-related activities are highly concentrated and consequently result in a substantial carbon footprint. Due to the increasing popularity of homestays and alternative accommodation, carbon emissions from lodging have the least significant influence.

The results of this research emphasize the significant carbon footprint associated with inbound tourism in Serbia, with transportation as a dominant contributor (Figure 2).

From a multiplier effect perspective, tourism-derived gas emissions extend behind direct sources, influencing supply chains, energy consumption, as well as land use changes, thereby increasing environmental impacts. From an economic point of view, while tourism generates substantial revenue and employment, the linked carbon costs increase concerns about sustainability and the need for lower carbon emission models. From a social perspective, the growing awareness of climate change may influence tourists’ preferences, increasing demand for eco-friendly travel destinations and forcing economies to adopt greener practices. As for sustainable development, the findings indicate the need for regional emission reduction strategies, improving transport infrastructure and logistics, and promoting low-carbon accommodations and activities. These challenge require a stakeholder approach, integrating policies, innovations, and consumer behavioral changes to balance tourism growth with environmental responsibility.

3.6. Limitations and Further Research

Although our approach to assessing the carbon footprint of tourism at a national level has its merits, researchers need to be aware of its limits when using it in different situations.

Initially, as a result of insufficiently detailed transportation data, we assumed that tourists who traveled by road only did so via long-distance buses. Therefore, we omitted the data about passengers going by automobile. Furthermore, we assumed that all passengers only traveled from Belgrade to Novi Sad using the ICE train. For travelers who arrived in Serbia by plane, we considered only the airport with the highest number of connecting flights, both in the country of origin and Serbia. Presumably, there were tourists from neighboring countries who traveled to Serbia by plane as well. However, as we lacked this data, we simplified our research and assumed that all of them arrived by road. Due to the lack of detailed traffic data in this paper, we were forced to use simplified assumptions in different traffic scenarios.

Unfortunately, tourists who arrive in Serbia by waterway are not considered owing to insufficient data. Despite the cruise industry’s significant growth and its popularity in Europe’s tourism sector, it has not reached the same level of intensity in Serbia.

Regarding accommodation, there was also a simplification resulting from the overall data collected. We exclusively utilized two categories of lodging for our investigation, whereas tourists availed themselves of multiple options. Specifically, we categorized hotel accommodations based on a three-star rating, while all other categories such as private flats, camps, ethno villages, and studios were classified as homestays.

Given that official statistical data in the Republic of Serbia track in detail the number of overnight stays of foreign tourists only in hotel accommodation, while the data for alternative types of accommodation are still fragmentary and incomplete, it was necessary to make certain generalizations in order for the analysis to remain methodologically consistent and usable.

The limitations of this study include limited and unreliable information regarding tourist activity in that area. However, despite these limitations, they still play a crucial role in comparisons and provide significant insights into the amount of carbon emitted by different activities. In due course, we categorized all activities into three distinct types. The first group, which includes sport and recreation, is exempted from carbon footprint calculations and is assumed to have zero carbon emissions. For the second and third groups, which encompass all activities related to culture and entertainment, we calculate the average carbon emissions.

Even with its flaws, this methodology is nevertheless invaluable for finding ways to lower the carbon footprint of various tourism activities, which greatly aids in the pursuit of environmental sustainability.

However, the absence of more detailed official data affects the accuracy and relevance of our research, which limits the depth of our analysis. The absence of precise records on individual travel modes, routes, and energy consumption makes it difficult to capture the full complexity of tourist flows and their carbon impact. Similarly, the exclusion (no available data) of waterway tourism create gaps in our assessment. Without more granular data, certain emissions may be underestimated or overlooked, leading to potential biases in the results. Improved data collection and reporting, especially at the incoming country level, would bring benefits for future research, enabling a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of carbon emissions generated from tourism.

4. Conclusions

Traveling is a dynamic and thrilling experience as travelers engage in a diverse array of behaviors and activities. Tourism is undeniably associated with substantial carbon emissions due to its diverse approaches to engaging with the environment and subsequent influence on ecological consumption habits.

The impact of tourism on the environment can be measured by its carbon footprint within a certain period, which serves as an indicator of the sustainability of tourism in a particular region. Furthermore, it aids in comprehending the ecological consequences of human actions during travel. The tourism industry and the environment may see detrimental impacts if the environmental carrying capacity is exceeded with a high carbon footprint. On the other hand, the tourism industry may prosper sustainably if it stays within the ecosystem’s bounds.

With a particular focus on the carbon emissions linked to incoming tourists, this research paper offers a preliminary evaluation of the environmental effects of tourism in Serbia. The number of tourists and tourism revenue have increased in accordance with the growing popularity of inbound travel in Serbia. Assessing the carbon footprint of tourism flows and introducing carbon labeling benefits tour operators and destinations by enhancing transparency, building trust, and meeting the growing demand for sustainable travel. It differentiates businesses and destinations as sustainability leaders, strengthens brand reputation, and attracts eco-conscious travelers who are increasingly prioritizing low-carbon options. Carbon footprint data enable the possibility of greener alternatives, labeling tour operators as well as whole destinations as forward-thinking, responsible contributors in a rapidly evolving travel industry.

As a result, tourism-related activities have also contributed to a comparatively high level of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, it is expected that tourism’s carbon footprint will continue to increase in the future. Currently, not enough research has been done in Serbia or the South–East European region on this topic. This is of great importance because this topic has never been studied in detail in Serbia until now. This study offers a model that could be used also in regional sustainability research, such as in the Balkans.

However, this research did not fully cover the impact of off-season tourism on carbon dioxide emissions, as well as changes in tourist behavior patterns. Future research could include advanced and more suitable methods, such as time series analysis, to monitor the dynamics of carbon dioxide emissions related to tourism activities, as this would allow for more accurate and timely recommendations, ensuring that future tourism development would be more sustainable.

This study can aid in evaluating the ecological safety and sustainable growth of tourism on a broader scope.

Further investigation is required to ascertain and initiate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the tourism sector in Serbia. Academics and industry professionals in the tourist sector are striving to develop effective methods for assessing the environmental consequences of tourism activities. As progress is made, they will become more confident in their findings and implement targeted strategies to mitigate any negative impacts. Initially, employing innovative and user-friendly quantitative models is an essential initial measure in comprehending emission sources and trends in this particular environment.

By providing visitors with emissions data, stakeholders exhibit their dedication to environmental stewardship and empower customers to make well-informed decisions about their travel habits. In addition, the dissemination of carbon footprint data promotes a culture of sustainability inside the sector, stimulating ongoing enhancement and innovation. To summarize, the scientific importance of calculating carbon footprints for inbound tourism is extremely significant. These estimates are essential for supporting responsible tourist practices as they provide a quantifiable assessment of environmental impact, guide decision-making, and foster sustainability. Given the increasing demand for inbound tourism, it is crucial to prioritize carbon footprint studies to preserve the long-term sustainability of this business and protect our planet’s delicate ecosystems.