Next Article in Journal
Data Assimilation in Spatio-Temporal Models with Non-Gaussian Initial States—The Selection Ensemble Kalman Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Economic Valuation of Reducing Submerged Marine Debris in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Observation of an Electromagnetically Induced Grating in Cold 85Rb Atoms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Bacterium from the Marine Environment for Trichloroacetic Acid Bioremediation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 17
10.3390/app10175741
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards Nearly Zero Energy and Environmentally Sustainable Agritourisms: The Effectiveness of the Application of the European Ecolabel Brand

by
Laura Cirrincione
1,*,
Maria La Gennusa
1,
Giorgia Peri
1,
Gianfranco Rizzo
1 and
Gianluca Scaccianoce
1,2
1
Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze Bld. 9, 90128 Palermo, Italy
2
National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Biomedicine and Molecular Immunology, via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(17), 5741; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175741
Submission received: 28 July 2020 / Revised: 13 August 2020 / Accepted: 17 August 2020 / Published: 19 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Environmental Solutions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourism represents an important economic driver in Italy, being responsible for approximately 13.2% of the total GDP (a value higher than the reference European average) and for nearly 10% of the regional GDP. Among the touristic sectors, the agritourist ones show a persistent growth, experiencing in 2019 a 6.7 point percentage improvement compared to the 2017 figures. Given this situation, the transition towards a low-carbon path, affecting the building sector for some time, should also involve agritourist buildings, through the release of EU directives, member state laws, and technical rules. On the other hand, agritourism sites could be awarded the Community EU Ecolabel. Unfortunately, awarding the EU environmental excellence brand implies the availability of several data on building energy behavior that should then be managed by complex evaluation tools. To overcome this issue, the use of the simplified ARERA (Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment) technical datasheets, issued to assess environmental improvements consequent to energy efficiency interventions in the urban residential building stock, is proposed. The application of this tool totally avoids using building computer-based simulation models, thus facilitating the preparation of the EU Ecolabel request documentation by agritourism owners. Being awarded the Community EU Ecolabel also implies approaching a net zero energy condition because of a lower energy consumption and a minor recourse to fossil fuels. For this purpose, an application of an easy graphical method, previously developed for residential and commercial buildings, which visually represents improvements achievable by a given agritourism when implementing energy efficiency measures, is presented.

1. Introduction

Tourism, and the activities connected to it, represent an important sector of the economic system. According to recent statistics the tourism industry represents about 10% of total global gross domestic product (GDP) and 7% of global trade [1,2], accounting for approximately 11% of the world’s employment, with an expected positive economic growth trend [3,4]. Tourism constitutes a significant contributor to energy consumption, both at a global and European scale [5,6,7], which translates to a significant impact on the environment and ecosystem; it is in fact responsible for about 5% of the global CO2 emitted by human activities [1,8].
Accommodation (thus the building), in particular, is the third energy consuming item (after travel and transport), much of which is consumed in space heating or air conditioning (up to 50% in some cases), followed by hot water, and cooking [9,10]. Moreover, a study conducted by the World Tourism Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme [11] estimates that accommodation generates 21% of tourism’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Accordingly, the number of papers analyzing tourism significance, in terms of energy consumption [12,13] and impacts on emissions [14,15], has been increasing lately.
Consequently, in recent years much attention has been paid to the concept of sustainable tourism, which in accordance with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNTWO) is defined as “development of tourism activities with a suitable balance between the dimensions of environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspects to guarantee its long-term sustainability”. Hence, the challenge of sustainable tourism is to mitigate its negative impacts, consisting mainly in: (i) high energy consumption, (ii) increasing GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and (iii) the contribution to climate change [16].
Therefore, taking into consideration global [17,18], European [19,20,21,22], and national [23] policies, the UNWTO recommended three central actions on which the tourism sector should concentrate in order to contribute in achieving a more sustainable development [1,24], which are resource efficiency, environmental protection, and climate change (linked to sustainable development goals (SDGs) 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) [25].
At the European scale, the European Commission set the basis for the best environmental management practice in the tourism sector in accordance with Article 46 of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) regulation [26,27]. Furthermore, by means of the “Guide on EU funding for the tourism sector 2014–2020” [28] the EU states that effective governance, policies, frameworks, and tools need to be implemented in order to properly guide and support (also from an economic point of view) the development and promotion of sustainable tourism practices.
Tools like these are indeed important because they encourage the owners and/or managers of the accommodation facilities to use practices and systems that allow both energy savings and pollutant emissions, by favoring the visibility of these structures in terms of environmental sustainability, which represent an added value, given that tourists are becoming increasingly more attentive to this issue.
In this regard one of the first initiatives undertaken by the European Community has been the releasing of the EU Ecolabel for tourist accommodation services [29], created to improve the environmental performance of hotels, campsites, hostels, agritourisms, holiday homes, and bed & breakfasts, by providing efficient guidelines on the action to be implemented in order to lower their environmental impact; and which still remains one of the most implemented initiatives.
The promotion of sustainable tourism is also the basis of the nearly zero-energy hotels (neZEH) project, launched by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the European Commission, with the intent of supporting European hotels in complying with the nZEB (nearly-Zero Energy Buildings) regulations [1]. On this subject, various studies have been conducted aimed at analyzing the achievable energy saving measures [30,31,32] and proposing suitable strategies and policies to be adopted [33,34].
Looking at the national scenario, the tourism issue is particularly relevant, considering that 16.5% of EU accommodation facilities are located in Italy [35], and since in the last two years Italy resulted to be amongst the top five most visited European tourist destinations (for accommodation in hospitality facilities), with a 13.4% share of the total of the EU-28 [36,37].
According to some recent statistics, the Italian tourism sector represents 13.2% of the national GDP (for a total contribution of around 230 billion euros), higher than both the world and European figures (which stand at around 10%). The economic impact of tourism is significantly reflected in the job market, accounting for 14.9% of the country’s total employment [38]. Tourism is in fact one of the fastest growing industrys in Italy, and both public and private business organizations are strongly interested in its economic and environmental impact, both at national and regional level [39,40].
Thus, from the collaboration between such organizations and the national and regional governments, different initiatives have been undertaken from an environmental sustainability point of view in recent years. These include the creation of a set of national environmental quality certifications (besides the previously cited EU Ecolabel), including the “Green Key” [41], “Bandiera Blu” [42], and “Spighe Verdi” [43], born from the collaboration between the Italian Foundation for Environmental Education—FEE Italia (whose actions are supported by ONU, UNEP, UNWTO, and UNESCO) and national authorities dealing with environmental policies [44].
Furthermore, other economic initiatives have been implemented to encourage the use of sustainable energy solutions through financial incentives. The “Tax Credit Alberghi—Bonus alberghi e agriturismi” (bonus for hotels and agritourism), a tax facility that encourages various upgrading activities, including those aimed at improving energy efficiency, has recently been introduced, specifically for accommodation facilities [45].
Agritourism, or rural tourism, has been promoted as a practice able to encourage the use of green practices, making farms sustainable and also maintaining the local historical and natural settings [8,46].
Thanks to this, according to recent statistics in Italy, the agritourism sector continues to record a growing trend, both in the number of structures, and in the presence of customers and its economic value. Agriculture economic reports make it possible to measure the economic dimension of the agritourism sector, which is equal to 1.36 billion euros, up 6.7% compared to the previous year. In particular, 60% of agritourisms are located in the regions of central and southern Italy, where Sicily prevails with more than 600 farms [47].
The growing interest in the agritourism sector is also reflected in the academic world, where studies concerning both the economic and social benefits of various tourist activities in the rural area, including agritourism [48], and the environmental performance of agritourism companies in terms of energy performance [49,50], can be found.
In the present work we verified whether the simplified ARERA (Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment) technical datasheets [51], issued for the urban residential building stock, can be easily applied to estimate the increase in energy efficiency (or the corresponding decrease in the release of polluting substances) consequent to the adoption of some improvements to a building or plant, planned for the issuance of the EU Ecolabel brand for accommodation facilities [29]. The convenience in the use of these technical datasheets lies in the fact that they allow the estimation of the energy demand reductions without necessarily going through the building simulation. For this purpose, a case study has been conducted to estimate what advantages agritourism owners could gain in adopting a well-known brand such as the EU Ecolabel [29], with particular reference to the actions aimed at saving energy and reducing emissions of pollutants, from the perspective of a possible “nearly Zero Energy Agritourism (nZEA)”, in parallel with the previously cited nZEB and neZEH projects.
The idea at the base of this work stems from the numerical consistency of agritourisms in Sicily [47] and their conceivable growth trend, which is a consequence of the increased interest in the rural landscape of the territory and in the products of the land that are strongly orienting tourism, directing it not only towards the urban context. The adoption of an environmental certificate like the EU Ecolabel [29] can therefore represent an advantage both for agritourism owners and for the entire territory.
Furthermore, the owners of agritourism in Sicily can apply for subsidized loans and financial funding [28,52] in the regional area and beyond. However, such requests must be supported by information concerning the consumption and energy efficiency of the agritourism and, in line with the new European directives on sustainability [17,18,19], by information on the environmental performance of the buildings themselves (premises).
Normally this information is of a complex nature and tends to imply the use of sophisticated simulation models, the use of which is not always the prerogative of (or available to) the managers of the holiday farms. The same problem can be found by analyzing the work of the decision makers who have to assess the adequacy of the requests for funding.
Essentially, the availability of simple but reliable tools for evaluating these premises is of paramount importance for the orientation of this important tourism sector towards a sustainable path.
Hence, as previously mentioned, in order to provide a contribution to this important issue we assessed the reliability of a scheme of simple computational methods provided by the Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment—ARERA [51], specifically for the residential and tertiary building stock. The advantage in the use of this computational scheme lies indeed in the fact that it is based on excel spreadsheets (technical datasheets) which, as already mentioned, allow the estimation of the energy demand reductions without the need of simulating the building behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

The proposed methodology aims at considering together in an easy and accessible way two aspects of the sustainability, which are energy efficiency and environmental safety, in order to help agritourism owners, and/or managers, to make decisions that are more favorable to them and consistent with the European policies in force. Specifically, according to the presented approach, the selection of energy efficiency interventions is based on a combination of the ARERA technical datasheets and the EU Ecolabel criteria, hence taking into account the environmental sustainability aspects, and also in view of achieving a possible nearly zero energy condition (nZEA). Therefore, two Sicilian agritourisms have been selected to show how the application of the proposed methodology actually works.
The considered approach can also be seen as a simple diagnosis method aimed at facilitating the social appropriation of knowledge and technology, so that the owners of agritourism facilities can confidently check their level of eco-efficiency. Moreover, the method can be utilized in order to choose between addressing actions concerning the energy performance of the structure or interventions regarding the installation of new (renewable) energy plants.

2.1. Agritourism Definition

The Italian national legislation [53], and the regional Sicilian one [54,55], define as ‘agritourism’ activities, those reception and hospitality activities exercised by agricultural entrepreneurs, through the use of their own company connected with the activities of cultivation of the land, forestry, and animal breeding. Thus, agritourism activities include:
  • providing accommodation;
  • administering meals and beverages consisting mainly in products of their own production and products from farms in the local area;
  • organizing recreational, cultural, educational, sports, and excursion activities aimed at promoting and supporting the territory and the rural heritage.

2.2. The ARERA Technical Datasheets

In the present work, the use of ARERA technical datasheets [51] was not an arbitrary (random) choice, but it was decided to turn to these methods since, although simplified, they constitute an official reference at the Italian national level.
The Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment—ARERA is indeed an independent body, established with the task of protecting consumers’ interests and promoting competition, efficiency, and the spread of services, and having adequate quality levels, through regulation and control activities. The action of ARERA concerns the sectors of electricity and natural gas [56], water services [57], district heating and district cooling [58], and the waste cycle [59].
One of the main tasks of ARERA is to promote the rational use of energy, with particular reference to the promotion and diffusion of end use energy efficiency and/or energy saving actions, and the adoption of measures for sustainable development. Among the feasible actions, there are both active measures, which involve the installation of high efficiency equipment, or the insertion of regulation devices for a more efficient use of energy, and passive interventions such as the modification of buildings’ envelope in order to reduce losses.
In this regard, the technical datasheets proposed by ARERA establish the guidelines for the preparation, execution, and final evaluation of specific actions, aimed at increasing energy efficiency (or promoting energy saving), providing reduced rates of primary energy consumption actually achieved (expressed in toe—Tons of oil equivalent), and also for the purpose of issuing energy efficiency certificates. Table A1 in Appendix A reports a comprehensive list of the current standardized and analytical ARERA technical datasheets.

2.3. The EU Ecolabel Brand

Established in 1992 (by Regulation n. 880/92 [60], now disciplined by Regulation (EC) n. 66/2010 [61] in force in the EU-28) and recognized across Europe and worldwide (Figure 1), the EU Ecolabel is a voluntary environmental performance certificate that is awarded to products and services meeting high environmental standards. The EU Ecolabel encourages companies to develop products and provide services that consume less energy, and generate less waste and CO2 emissions. As of March 2019, an increase by 88%, with respect to 2016, of the number of EU Ecolabelled products/services has been registered. Leading countries for number of products/services are: Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and France [62].
The EU Ecolabel provides exigent criteria, and relative guidelines, depending on the type of product and/or service, in order to reduce their overall environmental impact. Such criteria are established at a European scale with a wide participation of interested parties, including both public authorities, and consumer and environmental associations [63].
In particular, the EU Ecolabel for tourist accommodation services [29] was created specifically for hotels, campsites, hostels, agritourisms, holiday homes, and bed & breakfasts, in order to improve their environmental performance, by providing a set of criteria on the action to be implemented in order to lower their impact. Such criteria are divided into mandatory and optional, and focus on the five categories; general management, energy, water, waste and wastewater, and other, as shown in Table A2 in Appendix A.
In order to be awarded the EU Ecolabel a tourist accommodation service, other than falling within the product group “tourist accommodation” according to the legal obligations of the country in which the accommodation is located, must comply with all the mandatory criteria (if applicable), and receive at least twenty points under the optional criteria [29].
An added value, in terms of visibility, for tourist accommodation owners lies in the fact that the EU Ecolabel is recognized by the majority of travelers as a way of legitimizing the accommodation’s claims that it is making real efforts to reduce its impact on the environment in its operational activities.

2.4. Analysis Methodology

2.4.1. Merging the ARERA Technical Datasheets and the EU Ecolabel Criteria

As mentioned in the introduction section, the aim of the present work is to verify whether the simplified ARERA technical datasheets can be applied to estimate the increase in energy efficiency consequent to the adoption of some actions planned for the issuance of a EU Ecolabel for Tourist Accommodation Services, without necessarily going through the building simulation. Obviously, an increase in the energy efficiency implies a corresponding decrease in the release of polluting substances.
Therefore, since this work is mainly focused on the energy criteria, starting from the assumption that the considered agritourism meets all the mandatory criteria, it was decided to analyze possible “environmental action packages”, consisting of different combinations of the actions established by the optional energy criteria, which are better suited to a scenario such as agritourism, and which allow the obtaining of the weight of the energy category on the twenty points minimum limit set by the regulation, which corresponds to 7.34 points.
To this purpose, only the ARERA datasheets regarding the actions related to the improvement of the structure energy efficiency that could be transferred and applied to agritourism structures, according to the EU Ecolabel for Tourist Accommodation energy criteria, have been considered, as reported in Table 1, where the correspondent energy consumption categories have also been reported.
As can be seen in Table 1, under the dotted line, the two ARERA datasheets 6T and 20T, additional to those that can be associated to the EU Ecolabel, have also been taken into account. In fact, even though these two intervention typologies are not foreseen by the current Ecolabel scheme, they represent actions that can actually be applied to an agritourism structure in the perspective of a possible “nearly Zero Energy Agritourism (nZEA)” as a parallel with the well-known nZEB concept; and also, in view of a possible future improvement of the Ecolabel scheme.
The selected datasheets (Table 1), have been then put into the form of appropriate excel spreadsheets.
The equations relative to the ARERA calculation procedures, for each considered technical datasheet, are given in Appendix B.
One aspect that must be highlighted here regards the fact that while datasheets 5, 6, 15T, 19T, 20T, and 27T enable obtaining savings of consumed energy (energy saving measures, ESM), datasheets 7 and 8T allow, instead, the production of energy from renewable sources (renewable energy sources, RES).

2.4.2. Methodology Application Feasibility

With the aim of assessing the potential energy savings, with reference to a real context, it was decided to select two agritourisms situated in the Sicilian province of Palermo, considered as representative of the whole regional agritourism context regarding the size, the provided services, and more importantly for the purpose of the proposed methodology object of the present work, in terms of energy consumption. Apart from these physical and energy features, both agritourisms were selected thanks to their wide offer of services, which are representative of these kind of farms, and due to the fact that they operate in the two climatic zones where agritourisms are mainly sited in Sicily. Specifically, the two agritourism are Villa Dafne, sited in Alia and belonging to climatic zone D, and Bergi, located in Castelbuono and classified as climatic zone C. Both agritourisms fall into solar belt 3. Table 2 describes the main general characteristics of the two structures.
In Table 3 is reported the information relative to the energy characteristics of interest for the conducted study, which were obtained by on field surveys and interviews with the owners of the two businesses, thanks to which it was possible to reconstruct the energy consumption relative to an entire year of operation of the structures. In particular, the data regarding the energy consumption were distributed between four main categories and accordingly broken down into percentages, and corresponding toe/year, also with reference to the corresponding energy sources. As for the energy sources’ average costs, the following values were used:
-
0.19 €/kWh for electricity;
-
1.17 €/Sm3 for natural gas;
-
0.90 €/lt. for diesel oil.
Subsequently, it was hence possible to obtain the achievable energy savings (AES), in terms of percentage of electricity consumption covered by the datasheets proposed interventions on an annual basis, by comparing the values obtained from Equations (A1) to (A8), and the total energy consumption (Table 3), by means of the following equation:
A E S i = R i T o t .     c o n s . j   [ % ]
where:
-
Ri represent the energy savings obtained from Equations (A1) to (A8);
-
Tot. cons.j is the total figure reported in Table 3;
-
i and j represent the selected intervention and the considered agritourism, respectively.
Regarding the pollutant emissions, an assessment of the CO2 emissions’ reduction was conducted assuming for the considered climatic context an emission factor equal to 2.30 tCO2eq/toe for the electrical supply [64,65], while for natural gas and diesel oil an emission factor of 3.08 tCO2eq/toe and 2.34 tCO2eq/toe, respectively [66].
In order to single out the most convenient aforementioned “environmental actions packages”, an economic estimation relative to the interventions suggested by the ARERA technical datasheets was also performed. To this purpose, the information relative to the costs of supply and installation for the materials, used to calculate the proposed interventions costs, were obtained from the current regional price list [67] and from local market surveys, as reported in Table 4.
Successively, the economic savings, in terms of saved €/year, were obtained by multiplying the energy savings with the energy sources’ average costs, according to the considered categories breakdown (Table 1). Furthermore, in order to select the optimal “environmental actions packages”, for these the pay-back periods (not discounted) were also calculated and expressed in years.

3. Results

In this section the outcomes of the application of analysis methodology are reported.
Regarding the input parameters used in the equations relative to the ARERA calculation procedures, for each considered technical datasheets, these are given in Table A3 in Appendix B.
The following Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the achievable energy savings (AES) on the total annual consumption, relative to the application of the intervention proposed by each considered ARERA datasheet, to the two agritourisms. On the right side of the graphs, the EU Ecolabel points corresponding to each datasheet are also reported.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show how, amongst the ARERA proposed interventions enabling the obtaining of an EU Ecolabel score, the implementation of a photovoltaic (PV) system (datasheet 7) would be the one allowing the gain of a greater advantage in terms of energy consumption. Concerning the savings related to the domestic hot water (DHW) category, by comparing datasheets 8T and 27T, which are alternatives to each other, it can be observed how 8T would be the more convenient choice. Regarding the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) category, the savings achievable through the application of datasheets 15T and 19T should, instead, be considered jointly (15T + 19T) as they can be attributed to the same improvement intervention. As for datasheet 5, although it represents one of the easiest measures to implement, it does not seem to bring the benefits that would have been expected.
With respect to datasheets 6 and 20T, also in this case the consideration that the attainable benefits must be considered together (6 + 20T) is valid. As already explained these two datasheets fall out of the Ecolabel scoring scheme, nevertheless they represent the second-best intervention that allows the highest energy savings, after datasheet 7.
The overall obtained results for the two considered agritourisms are reported in Table 5 and Table 6.
As can be observed, according to what has been previously pointed out, a single intervention cost was given to datasheets 15T and 19T as the proposed intervention corresponds to the same type of system, i.e., the same system allows operation for both heating and cooling. The same consideration can be made for datasheets 6 and 20T in relation to the insulation of the building.
Looking at the economic savings column it can be noticed how, from this point of view greater advantages can be associated with datasheets 7 and 8T, followed by 15T + 19T, 27T and lastly 5. Considering the whole set of interventions, instead, the (6 + 20T) option would also result second in this case.
Referring to CO2 emissions reduction, the obtained results are obviously in line with what was seen beforehand (Figure 2 and Figure 3) and commented on with the energy savings.

4. Discussion

The application of the ARERA data sheets to agritourism raises a question concerning the suitability of these simplified forms to the energy performances of agritourisms sites, being originally developed for residential and commercial buildings.
On the other hand, a possible improvement of the energy features of an agritourism, due to the actions referred to in the ARERA datasheets, should be evaluated on the base of its effectiveness in addressing a given site, towards a nearly-zero energy path, as required by the current international standards [20,21,28].
Both issues are briefly discussed in the following.

4.1. Effectiveness of the Proposed Actions

The obtained results could seem not too encouraging in terms of energy savings. In fact, the reduction of the energy demand following the proposed actions accounts for about one third of the annual energy consumption for both the considered agritourisms. However, this is not surprising; the fact that the ARERA technical datasheets proposed interventions have been designed for the residential sector, in fact, place some limits on their application in a wider context, such as the agritourism one. Specifically, the limitations set on the reference physical units (UFRs) sizes might have made the outcomes much lower than the actually achievable results.
For instance, concerning datasheet 7 a maximum kWp of 20 kW is reductive for an agritourism, which could employ PV better having wide areas available to install such systems. Supporting this observation, during the survey of the agritourisms, it arose that both currently have a 100-kW PV undergoing design phase. In this context it would be more sensible to impose a limit on the maximum percentage of yearly energy consumption to be covered with the proposed intervention.
The latter consideration also applies to datasheet 8T.
Regarding, instead, datasheet 15T the application problem is mainly related to the residential standard apartment size (80–90 m2), which is difficult to translate into an agritourism setting. In the conducted analysis, for instance, in order to comply with such a parameter, three to four rooms were grouped and assumed equal to 1.5 standard apartments, but it could be a questionable criterion.
As for datasheets 19T, it would be more reasonable to install a centralized system rather than considering the replacement of the single air conditioning units (the same goes for the heat pumps proposed by datasheets 15T).
Nevertheless, since one of the aims of this work was that of singling the most convenient EU Ecolabel “environmental actions packages”, based on the comparison of the results reported in Table 5 and Table 6 it was decided to tentatively choose three alternative options, both for Villa Dafne (VD-n) and Bergi (B-n), as follows:
-
options VD-1 and B-1, constituted by datasheets number 5 and 7;
-
options VD-2 and B-2, constituted by datasheets number 7, 8T and (15T + 19T), the latter two must be considered together for the reasons indicated at the end of Section 2.4.2.;
-
options VD-3 and B-3, constituted by datasheets number 7, (15T + 19T) and 27T.
Table 7 summarizes the obtained results relative to the selected “environmental actions packages”.
By analyzing the data reported in Table 7 it was, therefore decided to consider as optimal options VD-2 for Villa Dafne and B-2 for Bergi. These two options allow, in fact, the obtaining of greater economic and energy savings and, correspondingly, higher CO2 emissions reductions. Moreover, they are characterized by the lower pay back periods.
It must be observed that the availability of effective and reliable methods for evaluating the energy actions involving agritourism is of paramount importance for suitable planning of this important sector. Therefore, the ARERA technical data sheets should be properly reconsidered in order to render them more complicit with the energy features of agritourism buildings and dwellings.

4.2. Towards a Nearly Zero Energy Agritourism

As already mentioned, another intention of this work concerned the possibility of applying some actions to the agritourism structures, additional to those envisioned by the EU Ecolabel, in order to move towards a potential “nearly Zero Energy Agritourism (nZEA)”. For this purpose, the results relative to ARERA datasheets 6 and 20T were added to the selected optimal options VD-2 and B-2 for Villa Dafne and Bergi, respectively; the outcomes of such combinations are reported in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
According to such approaches and visual representations, already used in the literature [68,69,70], the nearly zero energy condition (nZEA) is reached when the energy demand (reported on the x axis) is completely covered by the self-energy supply from renewable sources (reported on the y axis).
Therefore, the effectiveness of the ARERA proposed interventions in moving agritourism towards a sustainable path, nZEA, is given as a simple summation of the effects provided by the energy saving measures—EESM (datasheets 6, 15T, 19T, and 20T) and those attributable to the renewable energy sources—ERES (datasheets 7 and 8T). EA represents, instead, the current energy consumption and, Da and Dp the current (ante operam) and achievable (post operam) minimum distances (hence the perpendicularity) from the nZEA condition, respectively.
For the sake of simplicity, this assumption does not take into account the synergetic effects that are likely induced by the contemporary adoption of different energy actions on a given agritourism site.
Consequently, the results reported in Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that the selected combinations of interventions allow an improvement of 59% for Villa Dafne and a 62% for Bergi, in terms of approaching the nZEA condition with respect to the current conditions.
Regardless of the obtained results, the proposed methodology can be seen as a simplified scheme for analyzing and ranking the “environmental actions packages” applicable to agritourisms, and could be usefully adopted by local administrations to define the impact of different scenarios in order to better define environmental policies concerning the agritourism sector.
The proposed assessment/estimation methodology could, therefore, also represent important information for the design of the rural tourism sector, and of the/a regional energy plan by stakeholders and decision makers [71,72].

4.3. On the Correspondence between the EU Ecolabel Criteria and the ARERA Technical Datasheets

The application of the ARERA technical datasheets and the EU Ecolabel criteria to two different agritourisms in Sicily (here considered representative of the whole regional agritourism context) enabled us to better understand the level of compliance between two such schemes. The level of correspondence cannot totally match, since the ARERA methodology has been designed specifically for residential buildings and, on the other hand, the EU Ecolabel for Tourist Accommodation Services applies expressly to tourism facilities, with features that could not be perfectly applicable to agritourisms. These latter, in fact, are generally characterized by the presence of cultivated soils and the production of agrifarm foods and products.
Nevertheless, the comparison exerted on the two sites has shown that some useful correspondences can be assessed. In fact, by means of the combination of the ARERA technical datasheets and the EU Ecolabel energy optional criteria, it is likely possible to identify some “environmental actions packages”, suitable to the agritourism context. Such packages are allowed to obtain a 7.34 points minimum limit for the energy category, set by European regulation. In particular, it emerged that the combination of datasheets 5 and 7 (options VD-1 and B-1) allowed obtaining 7.5 EU Ecolabel points, while by adding datasheets 7, 8T and 15T + 19T (options VD-2 and B-2) it is possible to achieve 10.5 points, and from the union of datasheets 7, 15T + 19T, and 27T (options VD-3 and B-3) a total of 10 points can be reached.
Therefore, a suitable implementation of the ARERA technical datasheets (that, apart from other things, permits an easy computation of the energy performances of various building and system components) is recommended to be ancillary utilized with the EU criteria in order to assess a unique scheme for the application of the EU Ecolabel brand.
In addition, the above verified correspondence, allowed us to introduce a criterion for ranking the effectiveness of the proposed measures within the framework of the nearly Zero Energy Buildings approach (nearly Zero Energy Agritourism, in this case). In other words, once the ARERA datasheets have provided useful energy saving results, achieved thanks to the implementation of the proposed interventions, it is easy to report such results in terms of closeness to a zero energy situation for a given agritourism.

5. Conclusions

Agritourisms represent an important reality in the Italian tourism sector, specifically in Sicily due to their numerical consistency and constantly growing trend. The idea at the base of the presented work stems from some considerations regarding the use of a simple method, based on the ARERA technical datasheets (which constitute an official Italian reference), to assess the energy, environmental, and economic benefits related to the implementation of some energy efficiency measures on a given agritourism, specifically aimed at achieving the EU Ecolabel environmental excellence brand, in the perspective of approaching a potential nearly Zero Energy condition.
The results of the conducted analysis put in evidence some discrepancies regarding the application of the ARERA calculation methods, devised for the residential sector, in a wider context, like that of agritourism. Such an outcome was foreseeable, but it has probably been highlighted even more by the fact that the datasheets results are outdated, having not been updated in the last few years.
Nevertheless, the adoption of the proposed efficiency interventions, despite not being specifically defined for the agritourism context, contributed in addressing both structures toward a nearly Zero Energy path, hence, improving their performances in terms of sustainability.
Apart from the interventions proposed by the ARERA, clearly agritourism sites can be interested in further renewable technologies in order to promote their energy sustainability. In fact, the application of solutions like micro wind turbines, biomass, and high efficiency cogeneration for such purposes has been demonstrated [73]. Similar and/or recently available technologies could represent a driver for implementing new ARERA technical datasheets, in order to render them more compliant with the agritourism context, and the EU targets for energy efficiency and emissions reductions in the civil sector.
In conclusion, it arose that, although it was possible to combine the ARERA technical datasheets with the EU Ecolabel criteria, in order to apply the proposed analysis methodology to the agritourism context in a more efficient way, the existing ARERA technical datasheets should be suitably updated and/or replaced by other more effective tools, expressly planned for the accommodation and catering business sector.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the design, experimental analyses and editing of this research. Conceptualization, L.C., M.L.G., G.P., G.R., G.S.; Data curation, L.C., M.L.G., G.P., G.R., G.S.; Methodology, L.C., M.L.G., G.P., G.R., G.S.; Writing—original draft, L.C., M.L.G., G.P., G.R., G.S.; Writing—review and editing, L.C., M.L.G., G.P., G.R., G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out within the research funds provided by the XXXIII Cycle Doctoral Course in Energy and Information Technologies of the University of Palermo.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. ARERA technical datasheets.
Table A1. ARERA technical datasheets.
Datasheet N°Proposed Action
1-trisInstallation of high-quality compact fluorescent lamps, not exceeding 15 W power
2Replacement of electric water heater with gas water heater with sealed chamber and piezoelectric ignition
3New installation of 4-star single-family efficiency boiler fueled with natural gas
4Replacement of gas water heater (with open chamber and pilot flame) with gas water heater (with sealed chamber and piezoelectric ignition)
5Replacement of simple glazing with double glazing
6Wall and roof insulation
7Use of photovoltaic systems with an electrical power of less than 20 kW
8TInstallation of solar collectors for the production of domestic hot water
9TInstallation of electronic frequency regulation systems (inverters) in electric motors operating on pumping systems with power lower than 22 kW
10TElectricity recovery from natural gas decompression
11TInstallation of engines with higher efficiency
13a-bisInstallation, in residential environments, of water saving kits consisting of low-flow aerators and low-flow shower heads
13b-bisInstallation of low flow shower dispensers in hotels and guest houses
13c-bisInstallation of low flow shower dispensers in sports facilities
15TInstallation of outdoor air electric heat pumps instead of boilers in newly built or renovated residential buildings
16TInstallation of electronic frequency regulation systems (inverters) in electric motors operating on pumping systems with power greater than or equal to 22 kW
17TInstallation of luminous flux regulators for mercury vapor lamps and high-pressure sodium vapor lamps in outdoor lighting systems
18TReplacement of mercury vapor lamps with high pressure sodium vapor lamps in public lighting systems
19TInstallation of high efficiency outdoor air conditioners with cooling capacity lower than 12 kWf
20TThermal insulation of walls and roofs for summer cooling in domestic and service sectors
21TApplication in the civil sector of small cogeneration systems for winter and summer air-conditioning of rooms and the production of domestic hot water
22TApplication in the civil sector of district heating systems for room air conditioning and domestic hot water production
23TReplacement of incandescent traffic lights with LED traffic lights
24TReplacement of incandescent votive lamps with votive LED lamps
25TaInstallation of devices for automatically switching off equipment in standby mode in the residential sector
25TbInstallation of devices for automatically switching off equipment in stand-by mode in the hotel sector
26TInstallation of centralized systems for winter and/or summer air conditioning in civil use buildings
27TInstallation of electric heat pump for domestic hot water production in new and existing plants
28TRealization of high efficiency systems for the illumination of main motorway and extra-urban tunnels
29TaImplementation of new high-efficiency lighting systems for roads destined to motorized traffic
29TbInstallation of high efficiency lighting fixtures in existing lighting systems for roads destined to motorized traffic
Table
Table A2. EU Ecolabel for Tourist Accommodation Services criteria.
Table A2. EU Ecolabel for Tourist Accommodation Services criteria.
MandatoryOptional
General management criteria
1Basis of an Environmental Management System23EMAS registration, ISO certification of the tourist accommodation (up to 5 points)
2Staff training24EMAS registration or ISO certification of suppliers (up to 5 points)
3Information to guests25Ecolabelled services (up to 4 points)
4General maintenance26Environmental and social communication and education (up to 2 points)
5Consumption monitoring27Consumption monitoring: Energy and water sub-metering (up to 2 points)
Energy criteria
6Energy efficient space heating and water heating appliances28Energy efficient space heating and water heating appliances (up to 3 points)
7Energy efficient air conditioning and air-based heat pumps appliances29Energy efficient air conditioning and air-based heat pumps appliances (up to 3.5 points)
8Energy efficient lighting30Air-based heat pumps up to 100 kW heat output (3 points)
9Thermoregulation31Energy efficient household appliances and lighting (up to 4 points)
10Automatic switching off of HVAC and lighting32Heat recovery (up to 3 points)
11Outside heating and air conditioning appliances33Thermoregulation and window insulation (up to 4 points)
12Procurement of electricity from a renewable electricity supplier34Automatic switch off appliances/devices (up to 4.5 points)
13Coal and heating oils35District heating/cooling and cooling from cogeneration (up to 4 points)
36Electric hand driers with proximity sensor (1 point)
37Space Heater emissions (1.5 points)
38Procurement of electricity from a renewable electricity supplier (up to 4 points)
39On site self-generation of electricity through renewable energy sources (up to 5 points)
40Heating energy from renewable energy sources (up to 3.5 points)
41Swimming pool heating (up to 1.5 points)
Water criteria
14Efficient water fittings: Bathroom taps and showers42Efficient water fittings: Bathroom taps and showers (up to 4 points)
15Efficient water fittings: Toilets and urinals43Efficient water fittings: Toilets and urinals (up to 4.5 points)
16Reduction in laundry achieved through reuse of towels and bedclothes44Dishwasher water consumption (2.5 points)
45Washing machine water consumption (3 points)
46Indications on water hardness (up to 1.5 points)
47Optimised pool management (up to 2.5 points)
48Rainwater and grey water recycling (up to 3 points)
49Efficient irrigation (1.5 points)
50Native or non-invasive alien species used in outdoor planting (up to 2 points)
Waste and wastewater criteria
17Waste prevention: Food service waste reduction plan51Paper Products (up to 2 points)
18Waste prevention: Disposable items52Durable goods (up to 4 points)
19Waste sorting and sending for recycling53Beverages provision (2 points)
54Detergents and toiletries procurement (up to 2 points)
55Minimisation of the use of cleaning products (1.5 point)
56De-icing (1 point)
57Used textiles and furniture (up to 2 points)
58Composting (up to 2 points)
59Waste water treatment (up to 3 points)
Other criteria
20No smoking in common areas60No smoking in rooms (1 point)
21Promotion of environmentally preferable means of transport61Social policy (up to 2 points)
22Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel62Maintenance vehicles (1 point)
63Environmentally preferable means of transport offer (up to 2.5 points)
64Unsealed surfaces (1 point)
65Local and organic products (up to 4 points)
66Pesticide avoidance (2 points)
67Additional environmental and social actions (up to 3 points)

Appendix B

In the following the equations relating to the ARERA calculation procedures for each considered technical datasheet are given, in order to define the parameters reported in the following, Table A3.
Datasheet N° 5, “Replacement of simple glazing with double glazing”, allows obtaining the gross primary energy savings (RL) achievable per individual building:
R L = R S L × S w i n d o w   [ t o e / y e a r / b u i l d i n g ]
where:
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per m2 of replaced glass surface, dependent on the climatic zone and the buildings intended use (residential, office, school, hospital, etc.), expressed in toe/year/m2;
-
Swindow is the replaced glass surface, expressed in m2.
Datasheet N° 7, “Use of photovoltaic systems with an electrical power of less than 20 kW”, allows obtaining the achievable specific gross primary energy savings (RSL) for each reference physical unit (UFR), represented by a photovoltaic system with electrical power <20 kW:
R S L = k W p × h e q × k 1 × 0.22 · 10 − 3   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
kWp is the peak power of the system, expressed in kW;
-
heq is a coefficient dependent on the solar belt of the considered province, expressed in h/year;
-
k1 is a dimensionless coefficient that varies in function of the inclination (β) of the photovoltaic modules on to the horizontal plane, that is k1 = 0.70 for β > 70°, otherwise k1 = 1;
Datasheet N° 8T, “Installation of solar collectors for the production of domestic hot water”, allows obtaining the annual shares of primary net energy savings (RNC) for each reference physical unit (UFR), represented by the opening surface (m2) of the installed collectors:
R N C = R S N × U F R   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
RSN is the net specific primary energy savings achievable per m2 of UFR, based on the system typology and on the solar belt to which the site belongs, expressed in toe/year/m2;
Datasheet N° 15T, “Installation of outdoor air electric heat pumps instead of boilers in newly built or renovated residential buildings”, allows obtaining the annual shares of primary net energy savings (RNC) for each reference physical unit (UFR), represented by a standard apartment, which in terms of square meters of heated surface corresponds to about 80–90 m2:
R N C = a × R S L × U F R   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
a is the additionality coefficient (dimensionless);
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per single UFR, based on the COP of the heat pump typology, the surface/volume (S/V) ratio of the heated environment and the climatic zone (c.z.), expressed in toe/year/m2.
Datasheet N° 19T, “Installation of high efficiency outdoor air conditioners with cooling capacity lower than 12 kWf”, allows obtaining the annual shares of primary net energy savings (RNC) for each reference physical unit (UFR), represented by 1 kW cooling capacity of the air conditioning system at nominal conditions (expressed in actual installed cooling capacity):
R N C = a × R S L × U F R   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
a is the additionality coefficient (dimensionless);
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per UFR, dependent on the solar belt of the considered province, expressed in toe/year/m2.
Datasheet N° 27T, “Installation of electric heat pump for domestic hot water production in new and existing plants”, allows obtaining the annual shares of primary net energy savings (RNC) for each reference physical unit (UFR), represented by an electric heat pump water heater for the production of domestic hot water (expressed in number of units):
R N C = a × R S L × U F R   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
a is the additionality coefficient (dimensionless);
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per single UFR, based on the COP of the heat pump typology and on the climatic zone, expressed in toe/year/m2.
Datasheet N° 6, “Wall and roof insulation”, allows obtaining the gross primary energy savings (RL) achievable per insulated surface unit (m2):
R L = R S L × S w a l l − r o o f   [ t o e / y e a r / b u i l d i n g ]
where:
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per m2 of insulated surface, dependent on the climatic zone and the building intended use (residential, office, school, hospital, etc.), expressed in toe/year/m2;
-
Swall-roof is the insulated surface of walls and/or roof, expressed in m2.
Datasheet N° 20T, “Thermal insulation of walls and roofs for summer cooling in domestic and service sectors”, allows obtaining the annual shares of primary net energy savings (RNC) achievable per m2 of insulated surface unit (UFR):
R N C = a × R S L × U F R   [ t o e / y e a r ]
where:
-
a is the additionality coefficient (dimensionless);
-
RSL is the specific gross primary energy savings per m2 of insulated surface, based on the thermal transmittance K (W/m2/K) of the structure (walls and/or) before the intervention, expressed in toe/year/m2.
Table
Table A3. Equations (A1) to (A8) input data parameters for the two considered agritourisms.
Table A3. Equations (A1) to (A8) input data parameters for the two considered agritourisms.
Data-Sheet N. (Eq)Villa DafneBergi
Equation Input DataEquation ResultEquation Input DataEquation Result
5 (1)RSL = 0.009 toe/year/m2RL = 2.7 toe/yearRSL = 0.005 toe/year/m2RL = 1.2 toe/year
Swindow = 305 m2Swindow = 236 m2
7 (2)kWp = 19.9 kWRSL = 8.1 toe/yearkWp = 19.9 kWRSL = 8.1 toe/year
heq = 1852 h/yearheq = 1852 h/year
k1 = 1k1 = 1
8T (3)RSNelectrical = 0.210 toe/year/m2RNC = 4.9 toe/yearRSNelectrical = 0.210 toe/year/m2RNC = 3.5 toe/year
RSNgas = 0.123 toe/year/m2RSNgas = 0.123 toe/year/m2
UFRelectrical = 23 m2UFRelectrical = 5 m2
UFRgas = 0UFRgas = 21 m2
15T (4)a = 1RNC = 3.3 toe/yeara = 1RNC = 2.0 toe/year
RSL = 0.181 toe/year/UFRRSL = 0.143 toe/year/UFR
UFR = 18 UFR = 14
19T (5)a = 1RNC = 0.7 toe/yeara = 1RNC = 0.6 toe/year
RSL = 0.0037 toe/year/UFRRSL = 0.0037 toe/year/UFR
UFR = 200 kWfUFR = 150 kWf
27T (6)a = 1RNC = 3.9 toe/yeara = 1RNC = 1.9 toe/year
RSL = 0.106 toe/year/UFRRSL = 0.107 toe/year/UFR
UFR = 37UFR = 18
6 (7)RSL = 0.0028 toe/year/m2RL = 7.8 toe/yearRSL = 0.0015 toe/year/m2RL = 4.2 toe/year
Swall-roof = 2768.5 m2Swall-roof = 2791.75 m2
20T (8)a = 1RNC = 1.4 toe/yeara = 1RNC = 1.4 toe/year
RSL = 0.0005 toe/year/UFRRSL = 0.0005 toe/year/UFR
UFR = 2768.5 m2UFR = 2791.75 m2

References

  1. UNWTO Annual Report 2017; United Nations World Tourism Organization: Badri, Spain, 2018.
  2. WTTC Report 2017; World Travel and Tourism Council: London, UK, 2018.
  3. Silva, F.B.; Herrera, M.A.M.; Rosina, K.; Barranco, R.R.; Freire, S.; Schiavina, M. Analysing spatiotemporal patterns of tourism in Europe at high-resolution with conventional and big data sources. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Isik, C.; Dogan, E.; Ongan, S. Analyzing the Tourism-Energy-Growth Nexus for the Top 10 Most-Visited Countries. Economies 2017, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Nižić, M.K.; Grdić, Z.Š.; Hustić, A. The Importance of Energy for the Tourism Sector. Acad. Tur. 2016, 9, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki, S.; Bertoldi, P.; Labanca, N.; Castellazzi, L.; Serrenho, T.; Economidou, M.; Zangheri, P. Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency Trends in the EU-28 for the Period 2000–2016; JRC Science for Policy Report; Joint Research Centre (JRC): Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. World Energy Balances 2018; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris, France, 2018.
  8. UNEP. Tourism Green Economy and Trade: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013; pp. 260–291. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beccali, M.; Gennusa, M.L.; Coco, L.L.; Rizzo, G. An empirical approach for ranking environmental and energy saving measures in the hotel sector. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pablo-Romero, M.P.; Sánchez-Braza, A.; Sánchez-Rivas, J. Relationships between Hotel and Restaurant Electricity Consumption and Tourism in 11 European Union Countries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Aissa, S.B.; Aissa, S.B.; Goaied, M.; Goaied, M. Determinants of tourism hotel market efficiency. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 10, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paramati, S.R.; Shahbaz, M.; Alam, M.S. Does tourism degrade environmental quality? A comparative study of Eastern and Western European Union. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 50, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tang, C.; Zhong, L.; Jiang, Q. Energy efficiency and carbon efficiency of tourism industry in destination. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 539–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Paramati, S.R.; Alam, M.S.; Chen, C.F. The effects of tourism on economic growth and CO2 emissions: A comparison between developed and developing economies. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 712–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Isik, C.; Kasımatı, E.; Ongan, S. Analyzing the causalities between economic growth, financial development, international trade, tourism expenditure and/on the CO2 emissions in Greece. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2017, 12, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pan, S.Y.; Gao, M.; Kim, H.; Shah, K.J.; Pei, S.L.; Chiang, P.C. Advances and challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 635, 452–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  19. European Commission. Communication from the Commission Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  21. European Commission. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  22. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank. A Clean Planet for All a European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico; Ministero dell’Ambiente e della tutela del Territorio e del Mare. Italy’s National Energy Strategy (2017); Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico: Rome, Italy; Ministero dell’Ambiente e della tutela del Territorio e del Mare: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. UNWTO. A Roadmap for Celebrating Togerther; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.M. Tourism and the millennium development goals: Perspectives beyond 2015. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 16, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Styles, H.; Schönberger, J.L. European Commission JRC Scientific and Policy Report on Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector D; Galvez Martos European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the Voluntary Participation by Organisations in a Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS); Official Journal of the European Union, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
  28. European Commission. Guide on EU Funding for the Tourism Sector 2014–2020; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; ISBN 978-92-79-58401-5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Commission Decision (EU) 2017/175 of 25 January 2017 on Establishing EU Ecolabel Criteria for Tourist Accommodation; European Union, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
  30. González, J.P.; Yousif, C. Prioritising energy efficiency measures to achieve a zero net-energy hotel on the island of Gozo in the central Mediterranean. Energy Procedia 2015, 83, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tsoutsos, T.; Tournaki, S.; De Santos, C.A.; Vercellotti, R. Nearly Zero Energy Buildings Application in Mediterranean hotels. Energy Procedia 2013, 42, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Buso, T.; Becchio, C.; Corgnati, S.P. NZEB, cost- and comfort-optimal retrofit solutions for an Italian Reference Hotel. Energy Procedia 2017, 140, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Parpairi, K. Sustainability and Energy Use in Small Scale Greek Hotels: Energy Saving Strategies and Environmental Policies. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bianco, V.; Scarpa, F.; Tagliafico, L.A. Modeling energy consumption and efficiency measures in the Italian hotel sector. Energy Build. 2017, 149, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Datatur Report 2018. Available online: http://www.federalberghi.it/rapporti/rapporti.aspx?IDEL=160#.WCM66S3hDIU (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  36. Eurostat Report 2018. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/tourism/data/database (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  37. ISTAT Report 2018, Tourist flow in Italy Year 2017. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/11/EN_Tourism_2017.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  38. ONT Report 2019. Turismo in Cifre 2018/2019 (ONT, Italian National Tourism Observatory, Elaboration on WTTC, World Travel & Tourism Council Data); Agenzia Nazionale Turismo Italia, Ufficio Studi ENIT: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  39. Turismo in Cifre. Available online: http://www.ontit.it/opencms/export/sites/default/ont/it/documenti/files/ONT_2019-07-30_03066.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  40. Ali, Y.; Ciaschini, M.; Pretaroli, R.; Severini, F.; Socci, C. Economic Relevance of Tourism Industry: The Italian Case; Quaderno di Dipartimento n. 72 Università degli Studi di Macerata, Dipartimento di Economia e Diritto: Roma, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. ISPRA Report 2018. Available online: https://annuario.isprambiente.it/ada/macro/28 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  42. Green Key. Available online: https://www.greenkey.global (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  43. Bandiera Blu. Available online: http://www.bandierablu.org/common/blueflag.asp?anno=2019&tipo=bb (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  44. Spighe Verdi. Available online: http://www.spigheverdi.net/il-programma/ (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  45. Fee-Italia. Available online: http://www.feeitalia.org/fee/index.aspx (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  46. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari Forestali e del Turismo. Available online: https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/202 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  47. D’Alessandro, F. Green Building for a Green Tourism. A New Model of Eco-Friendly Agritourism. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. ISTAT Report 26 settembre 2018, “Anno 2017—LE AZIENDE AGRITURISTICHE IN ITALIA”. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/09/ReportAGR_2017.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  49. Mastronardi, L.; Giaccio, V.; Giannelli, A.; Scardera, A. Primi risultati di un’analisi aziendale, Agriregionieuropa. Agritur. Sostenibilità Ambient. anno 11 n° 40 2015. [Google Scholar]
  50. Peri, G.; Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Rieradevall, J.; Ciulla, G.; Rizzo, G. Proposal of a New Operative Brand for Environmentally Labelling Agritourism: Embodying Tourism, Buildings and Transportation Requirements. World Appl. Sci. J. 2014, 32, 1764–1774. [Google Scholar]
  51. Peri, G.; Rizzo, G. The overall classification of residential buildings: Possible role of tourist EU Ecolabel award scheme. Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Technical Datasheets ARERA—Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente. Available online: https://www.arera.it/it/ (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  53. P.S.R Sicilia 2014-2020—Programma di Sviluppo Rurale—Regione Sicilia; Regione Siciliana: Sicily, Italy, 2013.
  54. Disciplina dell’agriturismo. Gazz. Uff. 16 marzo 2006, n. 63 2006.
  55. Regione Sicilia—Legge Regionale. Norme Sull’Agriturismo; Regione Siciliana: Sicily, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  56. Disciplina dell’agriturismo in Sicilia. Gazz. Uff. Reg. Sicil. 1 Mar 2010 Parte I 2010.
  57. LEGGE. Norme per la Concorrenza e la Regolazione dei Servizi di Pubblica Utilità. Istituzione delle Autorità di Regolazione dei Servizi di Pubblica Utilità. GU Serie Generale n.270 del 18-11-1995 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 136. 1995. Available online: https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?Artid=26481 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  58. Legge. Recante Disposizioni Urgenti per la Crescita, L’equità e il Consolidamento dei Conti Pubblici. GU Serie Generale n.284 del 06-12-2011 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 251. 2011. Available online: http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00737571.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  59. Decreto Legislativo. Attuazione della Direttiva 2012/27/UE Sull’Efficienza Energetica, che Modifica le Direttive 2009/125/CE e 2010/30/UE e Abroga le Direttive 2004/8/CE e 2006/32/CE. GU Serie Generale n.165 del 18-07-2014. 2014. Available online: http://documenti.camera.it/leg17/dossier/pdf/AP0020.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  60. LEGGE. Bilancio di Previsione dello Stato per L’anno Finanziario 2018 e Bilancio Pluriennale per il Triennio 2018–2020. GU Serie Generale n.302 del 29-12-2017 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 62. 2017. Available online: https://www.tuttoambiente.it/leggi/bilancio-2018/ (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  61. Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 of 23 March 1992 on a Community Eco-Label Award Scheme; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
  62. Regulation (Ec) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
  63. EU Ecolabel. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  64. Ecolabel UE. Available online: http://certificazioni.isprambiente.it/valcer/node/3 (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  65. Moro, A.; Lonza, L. Electricity carbon instensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D 2018, 64, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vandepaer, L.; Treyer, K.; Mutel, C.; Bauer, C.; Amor, B. The integration of long-term marginal electricity supply mixes in the ecoinvent consequential database version 3.4 and examination of modeling choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1409–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. ISPRA Rapporti 317/2020, Fattori di Emissione Atmosferica di Gas a Effetto Serra nel Settore Elettrico Nazionale e nei Principali Paesi Europei; ISPRA: Roma, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-448-0992-8.
  68. Supplemento ordinario alla GAZZETTA UFFICIALE DELLA REGIONE SICILIANA (p. I) n. 5 del 1 febbraio 2019 (n. 8)—Prezzario unico regionale per i lavori pubblici anno 2019. Available online: http://www.gurs.regione.sicilia.it/Gazzette/g19-05o/g19-05o.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2020).
  69. Guerrieri, M.; Gennusa, M.L.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Scaccianoce, G. University campuses as small-scale models of cities: Quantitative assessment of a low carbon transition path. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yoshida, Y.; Shimoda, Y.; Ohashi, T. Strategies for a sustainable campus in Osaka University. Energ. Build. 2017, 147, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bisegna, F.; Cirrincione, L.; Maini, B.L.C.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Scaccianoce, G.; Sorrentino, G. Fostering the energy efficiency through the energy savings: The case of the University of Palermo. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2019 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe, Palermo, Italy, 11–14 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  72. Giaccone, A.; Lascari, G.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G. An ex post criticism, based on stakeholders’ preferences, of a residential sector’s energy master plan: The case study of the Sicilian region. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vourdoubas, J. The Nexus between Agriculture and Renewable Energy Sources in the Island of Crete, Greece. Eur. J. Appl. Sci. 2020, 8, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 10 05741 g001 550
Figure 1. Official EU Ecolabel logo [62].
Figure 1. Official EU Ecolabel logo [62].
Applsci 10 05741 g001
Applsci 10 05741 g002 550
Figure 2. Achievable energy savings (AES), on an annual basis, and EU Ecolabel points relative to each considered ARERA datasheet for Villa Dafne agritourism.
Figure 2. Achievable energy savings (AES), on an annual basis, and EU Ecolabel points relative to each considered ARERA datasheet for Villa Dafne agritourism.
Applsci 10 05741 g002
Applsci 10 05741 g003 550
Figure 3. Achievable energy savings (AES), on an annual basis, and EU Ecolabel points relative to each considered ARERA datasheet for Bergi agritourism.
Figure 3. Achievable energy savings (AES), on an annual basis, and EU Ecolabel points relative to each considered ARERA datasheet for Bergi agritourism.
Applsci 10 05741 g003
Applsci 10 05741 g004 550
Figure 4. Path towards a nearly zero energy condition (nZEA) for Villa Dafne.
Figure 4. Path towards a nearly zero energy condition (nZEA) for Villa Dafne.
Applsci 10 05741 g004
Applsci 10 05741 g005 550
Figure 5. Path towards a nearly zero energy condition (nZEA) for Bergi.
Figure 5. Path towards a nearly zero energy condition (nZEA) for Bergi.
Applsci 10 05741 g005
Table
Table 1. Correspondence between the Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment (ARERA) datasheets and the EU Ecolabel energy criteria.
Table 1. Correspondence between the Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy Networks and Environment (ARERA) datasheets and the EU Ecolabel energy criteria.
ARERA Technical Data Sheet N.EU Ecolabel Criterion N.EU Ecolabel Achievable PointsEnergy Consumption Category 1
5334HVAC
739, 40, 413.5RES
8T62DHW
15T6, 71.5HVAC
19T73.5HVAC
27T61.5DHW
6--HVAC
20T--
1 HVAC—Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning; DHW—Domestic Hot Water; RES—Renewable Energy Source.
Table
Table 2. General characteristics of the two selected agritourisms.
Table 2. General characteristics of the two selected agritourisms.
CharacteristicVilla DafneBergi
Covered surface (m2)10001400
Glazed surface (m2)236305
Opaque surface (m2)2768.52791.75
Surface/Volume ratio (-)0.620.5
N. of seats in the dining area150180
N. of rooms3534
Table
Table 3. Energy sources and energy consumption breakdown for the two selected agritourisms.
Table 3. Energy sources and energy consumption breakdown for the two selected agritourisms.
CategorySourceVilla DafneBergi
%Toe/Year%Toe/Year
Domestic Hot Water (DHW)natural gas/diesel oil00.00165.09
electricity229.7261.91
Lightingelectricity156.63154.77
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)natural gas/diesel oil2511.05154.77
electricity146.19247.64
Othernatural gas/diesel oil00.0000.00
electricity2410.60247.64
Total 44.18 31.82
Table
Table 4. ARERA technical datasheets proposed interventions costs.
Table 4. ARERA technical datasheets proposed interventions costs.
Datasheet N°Proposed InterventionCost
5Replacement of simple glazing with double glazing407.13 €/m2
7Use of photovoltaic systems with an electrical power of less than 20 kW1898.42 €/kWp
8TInstallation of solar collectors for the production of domestic hot water578.73 €/m2
15TInstallation of outdoor air electric heat pumps instead of boilers in newly built or renovated residential buildings4901.323 €/UFR *
19TInstallation of high efficiency outdoor air conditioners with cooling capacity lower than 12 kWf490.13 €/kW
27TInstallation of electric heat pump for domestic hot water production in new and existing plants570.65 €/UFR *
6Wall and roof insulation29.32 €/m2
20TThermal insulation of walls and roofs for summer cooling in domestic and service sectors29.32 €/m2
* UFR—Reference physical unit.
Table
Table 5. Proposed interventions costs and environmental benefits for Villa Dafne agritourism.
Table 5. Proposed interventions costs and environmental benefits for Villa Dafne agritourism.
ARERA Datasheet N.EU Ecolabel PointsProposed Intervention Cost (€)Energy Savings (AES)CO2 Emissions Reduction (tCO2eq/Year)Economic Savings (€/Year)
54123,971.096.20%7.72831.21
73.537,588.7018.26%18.68053.63
8T213,392.9111.00%11.24851.56
15T1.598,026.407.37%10.03429.31
19T3.51.67%1.7738.75
27T1.520,930.158.80%9.03881.25
6-81,172.4217.55%23.9738.74
20T-3.13%3.21381.90
Table
Table 6. Proposed interventions costs and environmental benefits for Bergi agritourism.
Table 6. Proposed interventions costs and environmental benefits for Bergi agritourism.
ARERA Datasheet N.EU Ecolabel PointsProposed Intervention Cost (€)Energy Savings (AES)CO2 Emissions Reduction (tCO2eq/Year)Economic Savings (€/Year)
5495,980.903.70%2.731350.79
73.537,588.7025.35%18.598053.63
8T214,608.1011.00%8.184595.95
15T1.573,519.806.29%4.692767.13
19T3.51.74%1.28554.06
27T1.510,182.106.00%4.401905.96
6-81,854.1113.16%9.811212.67
20T-4.39%3.221393.51
Table
Table 7. Summarized results for the two agritourisms.
Table 7. Summarized results for the two agritourisms.
Agrit.Environm. Actions PackageEU Ecolabel PointsEnvironmental Actions Package Cost (€)Energy Savings (AES)CO2 Emissions Reduction (tCO2eq/Year)Economic Savings (€/Year)Pay Back Period—Not Discounted (Years)
Villa DafneVD-17.5161,559.7924.46%26.310,884.8414.8
VD-210.5149,008.0136.63%39.816,334.519.1
VD-310156,545.2534.43%37.615,364.2010.2
BergiB-17.5133,569.6029.05%21.39,404.4214.2
B-210.5125,716.6042.64%31.515,416.728.2
B-310121,290.6037.64%27.712,726.739.5

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cirrincione, L.; La Gennusa, M.; Peri, G.; Rizzo, G.; Scaccianoce, G. Towards Nearly Zero Energy and Environmentally Sustainable Agritourisms: The Effectiveness of the Application of the European Ecolabel Brand. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5741. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175741

AMA Style

Cirrincione L, La Gennusa M, Peri G, Rizzo G, Scaccianoce G. Towards Nearly Zero Energy and Environmentally Sustainable Agritourisms: The Effectiveness of the Application of the European Ecolabel Brand. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(17):5741. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175741

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cirrincione, Laura, Maria La Gennusa, Giorgia Peri, Gianfranco Rizzo, and Gianluca Scaccianoce. 2020. "Towards Nearly Zero Energy and Environmentally Sustainable Agritourisms: The Effectiveness of the Application of the European Ecolabel Brand" Applied Sciences 10, no. 17: 5741. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175741

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop