Having just returned from a visit to the magic kingdom, the above was a question that continually haunted my consciousness. Disneyland was remarkably pristine in that cookie cutter, artificial, yet aesthetically pleasing way, but it must be a major sink in terms of waste, energy consumption, carbon emissions, etc.
Or is it? Maybe in terms of footprint, by applying its incredible density (>15 million visitors each year!), it comes out not looking so bad?
It should be noted that Disney appears to be viewing environmental issues in a relatively serious manner, with a number of programs in place. Here are a few factoids I can provide that would support this notion.
- Trains now run on 100 percent biodiesel, including the EP Ripley, the same train Disney himself rode on the theme park's opening day. Disneyland says it buys 150,000 gallons of biodiesel each year, and prices are currently competitive with regular diesel. Seemingly nothing gets thrown away around here, just greened up. (link)
- After years of research and testing, Walt Disney Imagineering has perfected a new innovation in fireworks launch technology, marking the pyrotechnic industry's first major breakthrough in decades. The new technology uses compressed air to lift fireworks, virtually eliminating the need for smoke-producing black powder and other materials at launch, significantly reducing ground-level smoke and noise while continuing to provide a highly entertaining show. (link)
- Disney is planning to release a comprehensive environmental report this coming summer, which will include (among other things), checking in on carbon emissions, etc. (link
This all sounds good, but can we maybe take collected stats from a variety of places to get at an approximate ecological footprint value?
Anyway, let's have a go - so here in lies a "back of the envelope, not at all authoritative" guess at what that footprint might be.
Let's assume we need the following:
1. Attendance values at the park to gleam a sense of Disneyland's population. In other words, if we assume Disneyland to be a city, what is its comparible population?
2. What is a normal individual ecological footprint of somebody living in the US, or California, or maybe even in Orange County.
3. A sense of the relative scale of consumption. On a per person basis, how much does a person on Disneyland consume, say in comparison to normal life. This way, we can maybe project an adjusted eco-footprint based on factoring this differing level of consumption.
So let's start with the first note. Disneyland "population." This one is relatively easy, since rough attendance stats, as well as area measurements are all over the net (you can start at wiki for instance).
Anyway, the surface area of Disneyland (not Disneyworld, or the California adventure park) is about 85 acres, , or 344,000 square metres. From a comparative point of view, this is about the same as 64 football fields (or if you live in Vancouver about 50% bigger than Granville Island), and looks a little like the below.
As well, yearly attendance of Disneyland Park has been estimated at the 15 million mark (link), which means you're looking at an average daily attendance of about 40,000. I'm not sure how many people work there, although this place says there are at least 500 employers just on the night shift, and this place says there are over 60,000 cast members at a place like DisneyWorld (Note that according to area, Disneyworld is about 200 times larger, although attendance - at least to the Magic Kingdom - is only a little higher). In any event, I think it's pretty safe to say that a conservative estimate of the "population" of Disneyland sits at about the 40,000 mark.
O.K. now, an average eco-footprint. This one is a little harder to pick, because depending on your point of view, you may have differing opinions on what would be an appropriate value (national average, state average, county average, etc). For the sake of ease, I'm going to use a value that seems to have been calculated based on fairly rigorous data, and presented at an "official looking" outlet. (i.e. we're not using online calculators, or generalized statements, but documents from say a government).
Here, there is actually a decent report that calculates data for residents within Marin County (as in more Northern California, where heating needs are presumably much lower). It suggests that about 27 global acres is needed per person within this county, but it also brings up a value for a national footprint of 24 global acres per person. (top hit at this search within Marin's government site). Let's use the footprint of 24 acres per person value.
Interestingly, this already suggests that the land area at Disneyland is only good for sustaining between 3 and 4 individuals.
Next up are a few pertinent factoids that give the sense of the volume of consumption that goes on at Disneyland. Here most stats concern Disneyworld, but we can use them to get sense of relative energy consumption practices at the park. For the sake of brevity and ease of query, I'll use energy consumption values.
Disneyworld (whose acreage is much bigger than Disneyland, but attendance is roughly similar at ~17 million visitors per year*) seems to use as much as 6,500,000,000,000 BTUs per year. (link - this was calculated based on the statement that a 3% reduction saved 194,000 million BTUs per year). *This assumes that the attendance value which is for the Magic Kingdom represents more or less the same folks who would also visit other areas of Disneyworld.
Using stats like these, we can surmise that an average individual's energy consumption in the US was about 39 million BTUs per year in 1997. This means that (taking Disneyworld figures into account), Disneyworld energy use is comparable to a residential city with a population of approximately 170,000. If we assume that the daily population of a place like Disneyworld is closer to 50,000, this means that from a conservative estimate, consumption at places like Disney theme parks is over three times more than normal day to day consumption. Note that this isn't that surprising given what folks do at the park - how normal is going on several roller coasters a day, etc?).
Taking all of the above together (and siding on the conservative), we can surmise that the average eco-footprint for life in Disneyland is about:
This number is actually just shy of the actual area of Disneyland (at 85 acres), so it makes a tidy factoid that possibly the eco-footprint of a single individual at Disneyland is just about good for the entire area of Disneyland. Also, note that the globally available footprint value rings in at just under 5 acres per person, so a person attending Disneyland may be going 12 fold his or her fair earthshare.
As well, if the average population of Disneyland is 40,000, that would mean that the eco-footprint for Disneyland as a whole is:
That's about a 34,000 fold difference from actual land space.
Maybe a more interesting way to look at this, is to suggest that (using this back of the envelope calculation) given that the Earth only has about 28 billion acres available, technically, the planet would only be able to sustain 9600 Disneylands!
Of course, there are many caveats to this calculation (Can one effectively bridge so many different types of data sources? Is energy consumption a good enough indicator on its own? Since the "population" leaves at night, what does that do to the values? Since the "population" comes from elsewhere, what would happen if you factor in resources saved by not being at the normal place of residence? Isn't the Disneyworld data flawed because it's an entirely different space to Disneyland, etc), but it's certainly an interesting thing to think about.
And... with that in mind, what do you think?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
What do I think? Well, I have to admit that as an American child born in the 60s, raised on dreams of Disneyland as the child's Paradise, my first visceral reaction was to think, "What is the ecological footprint of my boot up your..." well, you get the drift.
But on more sober reflection (and before reading the post), I did realize that there are always things an enterprise that size can do to reduce its impact.
Your statistics are interesting, but not terribly relevant. Disneyland (and similar constructions) are made for fun. You don't get to (or even want to) do Disneyland every day. On average, a given person gets to go far less often than once a year. The proper way to look at the question is not "How much does Disneyland consume as a discrete entity," but "How much extra consumption does Disneyland attendance represent over the life of an attendee?"
I myself haven't been there since I was 11, and I'm now in my early forties. I got to go twice that summer. it might be fun to try calculating whether I could "atone" for my indulgence by, say, working from home three days a week (i.e. not using the gas it would take me to drive fifteen minutes to work) for a year.
Places like Disneyland (and perhaps even more so for Disneyworld) are frilly decorations on a wealthy society with abundant resources and an ever-increasing, increasingly well-to-do middle class, because it is the middle class that goes there, and being able to go there depends on having the time and money to do that sort of thing. I suggest that Disneyworld is even more so because I suspect (but do not know for sure) that a significantly larger percentage of its visitors come from significantly further away than for Disneyland.
Yes, Mark P, "frilly decorations" are a sign of "abundant resources" and being "increasingly well-to-do." You say that like it's a bad thing.
Try telling your fiancee that she isn't getting a ring from you because you disapprove of "middle-class" indulgences, and see how far you get. If she agrees, then you two barefoot crunchy granola types deserve each other.
it might be fun to try calculating whether I could "atone" for my indulgence by, say, working from home three days a week (i.e. not using the gas it would take me to drive fifteen minutes to work) for a year.
That's actually kind of an interesting idea - to somehow offset a visit by doing a little extra on the environmental scale before going.
Anyway, I have to admit that as mentioned earlier, I was a little torn about Disneyland. It was an "over the top" sort of place (the reasons for that are obvious), but we all had a good time. the kids especially.
Still, I think feeling torn is a sign of the times, and a good thing at that. Next step is to see if such sentiment can drive some of Disney's environmental efforts that much further...
the above was a question that continually haunted my consciousness.
Haunted? I mean... really? Haunted?
People are haunted by murders in their past or other dastardly deeds, not the carbon profile of a theme park.
Wait... did you kill someone at Disneyland, David? C'mon. Fess up. We know how Disneyland covers things like that up.
Either that or you rode the Haunted Mansion too many times. :-)
I'm a child of the 50s and 60s who like my cohorts is often referred to as a babyboomer and presumed to be a lover of all things Disney, but I was never much impressed with the whole Disney concept, though I did enjoy Fantasia's music and art and the many of the other animations and some live action stuff, wildlife programs especially.
So,in my late 40s, one of my siblings convinced me to give it a shot by going to Disneyworld during the winter season when attendance was low and temps were moderate.
Wow..I was really impressed. As to just what it's "footprint" is, I'm uncertain as to what how I feel about it. It is, afterall, a luxury of short duration and having seen Disney's operation in Florida up-close, I'm rather convinced that as it concentrates the activity and makes it pretty efficient, I can believe it's footprint is smaller than the cumulative footprint would be if an equal number of normal vacationeers pursued other recreational options commonly available.
Also, Disney, despite it's implied childish hedonism, does try to couch the foundation of its appeal in qualities of that promote good sense, appealing aesthetics and craft qualities, safety and even conservation as well as coooperation.
Haunted? I mean... really? Haunted?
Yeah, maybe haunted is too strong a word. Although, when I'm involved in course like this, I guess I'm always doing some consumption accounting in my head of some sort.
Doug: Thanks for the comment. This is why, it'll be really interesting when Disney releases its next environmental assessment report this summer, which looks to be much more comprehensive than previous years. I think they're obviously aware of these types of discussion, and it would be wonderful to see them show some truly groundbreaking leadership in their operations.
The footprint for Disneyland itself is worth considering, but I think it would be really interesting to also take into account the effects of travel to and from said venue. It's not like everyone who goes there is from Anaheim, right? In a similar vein, Rolling Stone recently had an article on efforts by rock bands to have "greener" tours. Pretty quickly, it became apparent that the biggest issue wasn't the tour bus or the kickass light show - it was the fans traveling to the show. (The article is here.)
I like the whimsy of the question, but any footprint that Disneyworld has must be *added to* the footprint of everyone who visits it. It's all above and beyond normal daily activity. No matter how much Disney works on reducing it, they are still contributing to, quoting Mark P, the "wealthy society with abundant resources and an ever-increasing, increasingly well-to-do middle class" that is the fount of the carbon emission problems in the first place. It's all extra footprints here. Hard enough to work on reducing our normal footprint, let alone our vacation one.
I like this question, but also find it dauntingly complex. I have always enjoyed my Disney park (both American sites) visits, but in latter days have definitely questioned the sustainability. One resource I think shouldn't be overlooked is water - how much more water is used to keep plants, animals, and humans that wouldn't otherwise be there thriving? There's also the development factor - yes, the parks themselves have a certain footprint, but so do the hotels, restaurants, and other businesses and homes supporting the parks that otherwise wouldn't exist. What is the ecological cost of replacing so much wetland/forest with concrete and asphalt? And in terms of energy consumption, an off-the-cuff guess is that the extra consumption one does during the day makes up for the fact that guests are gone during the night (unless Disney's magic extends to super-efficient roller coasters and churro fryers). Finally, it'd be interesting to see in their environmental assessment a breakdown of their food sourcing - how much is grown locally and/or sustainably vs. shipped in from a long distance?
My dream is to go to the Disneyland..but i can't go..very sad..:(
speedwell, I think you are a little sensitive. I did not imply any criticism of doing well. The implication of what I said, given the context of the original post, is that places like Disneyworld can exist only if certain conditions exist, and if those conditions are threatened (as they are right now), places like Disneyworld will either disappear or become far less profitable because no one can afford to visit. Does recognizing and stating the facts make me a granola type, whatever you mean by that?
...There is also an issue of, what is the "ecological footprint" of the travel that people do to get there, from all over the world? And, if Disneyland didn't exist, would that footprint still necessarily exist because people just went somewhere else?
Also, what is the pollution impact on the area, and the impact on wildlife and watershed compared to what other land uses might have been, like M.L. says?
It really is a complex calculation.
For the record, though, I have never been all that impressed by Disney's "Green" credentials. Not since the lemmings. (But then that's just me holding a grudge. I do know they run the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund.)
Why not broaden this to the question of, "What is the ecological footprint of fun?" I think it's time we took a closer look at fun in general. And maybe just agreed to phase it out. It's sort of an old fashioned concept. So last century. So wasteful. And just plain unnecessary.
cliff -- Geez, think a minute, will you? How much of an impact on the world we are actually having is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to know. And personally, I have enough faith in human cleverness to think that if we do know how much an impact we are having, and where and how that impact hits, we can try to find ways to reduce that impact or mitigate it while preserving quality of life....as opposed to, say, existing in blissfully happy ignorance right up to the moment that we look around and discover that we have totally screwed our quality of life by wasting resources that we actually need, through our ignorance and overconsumption.
I actually sort of doubt that the energy budget is a good way to estimate the ecological footprint of Disneyland. What about the damage done by making, say, all those souvenirs? People who go to Disneyland usually come home with heaps of basically worthless T-shirts, keychains, coffee cups, and other junk that they would never have bought if they'd stayed home. Making all that junk and then disposing of it after it gets thrown out is surely a big part of Disneyland's ecological impact...
This is the sort of question that gets me looks at family dinners. My mom is planning a family trip for next summer, and I'm campaigning for every environmental option I can think of. Granted, we live in Kentucky, and are dragging a lot of people along, so fuel efficiency is one thing I'm already losing on.
I wonder what the waste impact is? The cost of all the cardboard and wax paper from food vendors, as well as the cost of taking it out.
The fact that the Earth could sustain 9600 Disneylands is an interesting outcome of the calculations. I would have guessed much fewer.
It's an interesting thought process you went through, I think the real problem lies in that we are so unsure of how to really determine our impact on the Earth. Is it in the way you did and take the park as a singularity, is it to add the day spent there onto the carbon footprint of each visitor, is it to add it to the region the park is a part of, etc?
oh and, speedwell, I am one of those fiances who refuses a rock because I prefer to pick and choose my "indulgences" in order to be more responsible than the generation before me. And I'm not a "granola muncher". It amazes me that people still think that ostentatious wealth is the of all and be all, and so stereotypical to think that a woman wants her hand weighted down with theft fodder.
Sorry to blight your hard-work, David, but I had to respond to that third comment.
@alicia:"It amazes me that people still think that ostentatious wealth is the of all and be all, and so stereotypical to think that a woman wants her hand weighted down with theft fodder."
Thanks for saying it so much better than I ever could have.
your all granola munchers lol
@speedwell nature isn't negotiable!! what's done is done