Mountains, forest or city? How your winter-holiday destination affects the environment
Mountains, forest or city? How your winter-holiday destination affects the environment
For many people, winter holidays are a time to rest, travel and change their daily routine. When choosing a destination, we rarely think about how our decision affects the environment. Yet whether we spend the holidays in the mountains, in a forest or in a city has real consequences for nature, greenhouse-gas emissions and local ecosystems. The point is not to give up rest, but to better understand the consequences of our choices.
Transport as the largest source of carbon footprint
For winter holidays, transport almost always accounts for the largest share of the trip’s overall carbon footprint. The way we travel determines whether our break will be relatively low-emission or whether it will generate significant amounts of carbon dioxide even before we arrive.
A good example is the popular Warsaw–Zakopane route, which is about 400 kilometres one way. Travelling by a passenger car with an internal-combustion engine means average emissions of around 140–160 g CO₂ per kilometre. In practice, this translates into about 55–65 kg CO₂ one way, i.e. 110–130 kg CO₂ per person for a round trip, assuming you travel alone. Even with a full car, the emissions per passenger remain significant.
By comparison, taking the train on the same route generates on average 5–10 times lower emissions. It is estimated that a train journey from Warsaw to Zakopane produces about 10–15 kg CO₂ one way per person, depending on the energy mix and how full the train is. The environmental difference between these two modes of transport is therefore very clear, even if the travel time can be similar.
It is also worth remembering that winter travel often involves worse road conditions. Driving on snow, traffic jams in tourist areas and stops with the engine running further increase fuel use and emissions. In practice, this means that getting to your holiday destination alone can account for as much as 60–80 percent of the total carbon footprint of a short tourist trip, regardless of how eco-friendly you behave once you are there.
Holidays in the mountains: attractions and environmental costs
Winter mountain tourism involves intensive use of natural resources, especially in the context of skiing. One of the most burdensome elements is artificial snowmaking on slopes, which in many regions has become essential to keep the winter season going.
Preparing a slope for skiing requires huge amounts of water. It is estimated that producing one cubic metre of artificial snow takes about 200–500 litres of water, depending on temperature and technology. A medium-sized ski slope can use tens of thousands of cubic metres of water during a single season, which is comparable to the annual water demand of a small town.
Snow production is also inseparably linked to electricity use. Snow cannons, pumping systems, snow groomers and slope lighting often operate around the clock during periods with suitable frost. It is assumed that preparing and maintaining one kilometre of a ski run may require from several dozen to more than one hundred megawatt-hours of energy per season, depending on how intensive snowmaking is and on weather conditions. In regions where energy comes mainly from fossil fuels, this translates into additional CO₂ emissions.
Environmental costs do not end with water and energy. Building and maintaining ski infrastructure means interference in the landscape, tree felling, artificial terrain shaping and constant noise. In winter, wild animals feel this particularly strongly, because it is a period of limited food availability and the need to conserve energy. Intense human presence, light and sounds disrupt their natural behaviour and can reduce their chances of survival.
This does not mean that holidays in the mountains are always a bad choice, but it shows the scale of impact. The larger the resort, the more artificial snow and the more intensive the infrastructure, the higher the environmental cost. Choosing smaller centres, activities that do not require snowmaking or rest outside the peak season can significantly reduce this impact.
Holidays in the forest: close to nature, but not without impact
A forest getaway is often seen as the most ecological form of winter holiday. Indeed, being close to nature and having less infrastructure can mean less environmental pressure, provided we behave responsibly. Winter is a particularly demanding time for forests and their inhabitants. Animals conserve energy, and any additional stress can affect their chances of survival.
Leaving marked trails, making noise, letting dogs run off-leash or feeding wild animals can do more harm than it seems. A forest holiday can be environmentally friendly if we limit ourselves to designated routes, keep quiet and respect nature-protection rules.
Holidays in the city: an underrated alternative
Although it is rarely associated with winter relaxation, a city can be one of the least environmentally burdensome options. Many people can reach a city by public transport or even without needing to travel far. Using existing infrastructure means there is no need to interfere with nature.
City holidays also offer access to museums, cultural events, parks, ice rinks and educational activities. This form of rest shifts pressure from natural ecosystems to spaces already transformed by humans, which on an environmental scale may prove more beneficial.
Mountains, forest and city – a comparison
Each of these options has its advantages and limitations. The mountains offer intensive attractions, but they come with high tourist pressure. The forest provides contact with nature, but requires particular caution and respect for nature-protection rules. The city is often the least invasive environmentally, although not everyone associates it with a holiday. The ultimate impact on the environment depends not only on the destination, but also on the scale of the trip and tourists’ behaviour.
What matters most regardless of location?
Regardless of whether we choose the mountains, the forest or the city, certain factors have a key impact on the environment. Data show that transport accounts on average for 60–80 percent of the carbon footprint of a short tourist trip. For example, travelling by car for 300 kilometres one way can generate about 60–70 kg CO₂ per person, whereas the same distance by train is only a few kilograms.
The length of stay also matters. Short, frequent trips generate proportionally higher emissions than one longer stay in the same place. According to tourism analyses, extending a stay by a few days can reduce emissions per day of rest by as much as 30–40 percent.
The amount of waste generated is also important. A typical tourist produces more rubbish while travelling than at home, mainly due to single-use packaging and takeaway food. Conscious meal planning and using reusable products can significantly reduce this problem.
Choosing a holiday destination with the environment in mind
When choosing where to go, it is worth pausing for a moment and asking yourself a few simple questions that help assess the real environmental impact of the trip:
- Do we really need to travel far, or is there an attractive option closer to home?
- How can we get there, and is travel by train or public transport possible?
- Are we planning one longer stay instead of several short trips?
- What does the infrastructure in the chosen place look like, and does it rely mainly on existing resources?
- Will the way we spend time require significant interference with the environment, or is it based on simple activities?
- Can we rest more calmly, without excessive noise and pressure on our surroundings?
The answers to these questions do not have to lead to perfect solutions, but they help us consciously choose a holiday option that is as little burdensome for the environment as possible, while still allowing us to truly rest.
A conscious choice instead of a perfect solution
There is no single perfect, completely “zero-impact” way to spend the holidays. Every trip has some environmental impact. What matters, however, is that this impact is conscious and as small as possible. The choice of destination, the way we travel and our behaviour on site all matter.
Winter holidays can be a time of rest not only for us, but also for nature, if we approach them with greater mindfulness and responsibility.
