1. Characterisation framework for energy-saving hotels in South Africa
Machete F, Hongoro C, Nhamo G and Mearns KF

2. Presentation outline Introduction
Energy saving characterisation framework
Results and discussions
Conclusion

3. Introduction
The number of South African hotels has doubled between 1997 and 2004
Literature shows that an increase in hotel numbers is proportional to economic growth and energy demand, respectively
This is evident from a study in Greece (Ali et al 2008)
The life cycle of a hotel depends entirely on energy availability
Hence, studies show that energy costs in hotels are the second highest operational cost after labour
Thus, energy is a strategic input resource in the hotel industry

4. Literature points out that 80% of enterprises closedown within five years of operation due to high operational costs
Given the level of energy cost in the operations of hotels, it can be deduced that in hotels, high energy cost are attributable to these failures, in addition to labour costs
In addition, South Africa is experiencing severe energy shortages since 2008
This, has resulted in regular power cuts (load-shedding), in attempt to balance energy demand and supply
The latter makes it not viable for small hotels to thrive in the country,
Small hotels, are forced to close doors, during load-shedding, given that they can’t afford alternative energy source due to financial constraints
Regular business closures result in high fixed costs and low sales

5. Given these challenges, hotels prioritise energy saving and alternative sources
Some are also know as energy saving hotels
However, the following challenges remain among for these hotels
some high cost energy saving investments yield less or no returns
energy saving methods yield mixed results
In Accra (Ghana), hotels are reluctant to invest in energy saving initiatives, because
The reluctance and lack of visible impact of energy saving is attributed to inconsistent energy saving characterisation frameworks
Thus, the aim of this study was to develop an energy saving characterises framework for hotels that advances green growth.

6. Theoretical formulation of energy saving characterisation framework
In this paper, energy saving refers to a positive net energy deference (between previous and current input energy use), determined through the formula below:
Where Esaving is the deference in energy use (net energy saved in kWh), B is the total energy used before (kWh) and A is the total energy used after (kWh) the implementation of energy saving methods.
The framework incorporates two environmental management instruments (environmental management accounting and carbon management accounting)

7. Environmental Management Accounting (EMA)
EMA uses physical (material flow) and monetary information for internal decision making
EMA has two pillars (PEMA and MEMA)
In PEMA, physical flow, use and saving of energy (kWh) is used to make decisions
While MEMA uses the monetary cost, saving and earnings
Carbon Management Accounting (CMA)
Similarly to EMA, CMA has two pillars (physical and carbon accounting)
In CMA, carbon is the currency used for trading like money under EMA.
In EMA, carbon is a PEMA parameter, while in CAM it is the MEMA parameter.
However, energy demand is a material flow accounting parameter in both EMA and CAM
Therefore, CAM can be viewed as a sub-division of PEMA under EMA

8. Integration of EMA and CAM in energy saving characterisation framework results in three energy saving parameters (indicators): (1) energy demand, (2) cost and (3) carbon footprint
The three indicators represent energy consumption related impacts within the three sustainable development pillars (social, economic and environmental)
Thus the reduction in input energy use in each indicators reciprocates reduction in related negative impacts
This paper adopts a framework with three compulsory indicators to be used to characterise energy saving hotels (see figure 1)

9. Figure 1: Energy saving characterisation framework

10. Figure 1, shows that only hotels that reduce their physical energy demand (in kWh), cost (in monetary currency) and carbon footprint (in CO2ekg) qualify to be characterised as energy saving.
However, the characterisation of energy saving methods can be based one its ability to reduce one or more input energy parameter(s)
Figure 2, presents the field test results of energy audit based on the adopted framework.

11. Figure 2: Energy saving performance per occupied room

12. Conclusion
It’s evident that using one indicator to characterise energy saving is misleading
Hence reduction in energy demand doesn’t translate to reduction in costs and/or carbon footprint, and vice versa
Thus previously characterised energy saving hotels experienced mixed return results
The three indicator framework builds on and advances green growth (sustainable development) agenda
Therefore, energy saving characterisation of hotels through this framework confirms the reduction in input energy demand, cost and carbon footprint, concurrently

13. Thank you
Be blessed