Methodology

The Green Hotels Global system tracks and measures greenhouse gas emissions, waste diversion and water consumption for each hotel property. The methodology used for carbon measurement follows the guidelines of the International Tourism Partnership (ITP) and the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), as well as the GHG Protocol of the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Boundaries for greenhouse gas quantification follow the operational control approach.

Each hotel property’s carbon footprint is based on its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, as listed below:

Scope 1 emissions

  • Stationary combustion fuels used
  • Mobile combustion (if applicable) based on ITP/WTTC recommended default value of 1% of total GHG emissions
  • Fugitive emissions from air conditioning based on ITP/WTTC recommended default value of 1% of total GHG emissions

Scope 2 emissions

  • Electricity and district energy purchased from utility (emissions factors from utility specific source energy)

Other components of each property’s environmental performance include:

  • Water consumption
  • Waste diversion rate
  • EnergyStar rating (if applicable)

The Green Hotels Global tool provides facility-normalized environmental metrics per occupied room-night and per square foot, and weather-normalized metrics per heating and cooling degree day.

Green Hotels Global has a multi-pronged audit procedure that includes on-site audits.

Features of the Green Hotels Global online tool include:

  • Specific hotel measurements on a per-occupied-room-night and square foot basis, as well as weather-normalized footprints
  • Baseline comparisons
  • Benchmark performance
  • Current performance
  • Overall greenhouse gas emissions and intensity
  • Overall water use and intensity
  • Waste diversion rates
  • Historical tracking
  • Monthly and annualized performance monitoring
  • Target setting to allow for environmental impact management and reduction
  • Individual property performance and chain-level portfolio comparisons