Experimenting with Sustainable Hospitality: A Life Cycle Assessment Analysis of the Set-Up Phase of a Public Hostel in Italy

Abstract

This paper investigates a sustainable proposal for tourist hospitality. It presents a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis to evaluate the set-up phase of a new hostel by comparing two different scenarios of interior design: one with new furniture and another with reused furniture (collected thanks to the involvement of the local community). This LCA analysis is applied to the case of a public hostel located in a small village along the Italian VENTO cycleway. By focusing on the reuse of existing structures and objects, rather than constructing or producing new ones, the study aims to explore environmentally conscious hospitality, which can also include positive social impacts. The results of the analysis also demonstrate the relevance of applying sustainable practices during the setting-up phase of the hospitality building, enlarging the usual approach that is more dedicated to the “using” phase (concerning the energy savings in heating and cooling or the reduction in plastic waste, the laundering of towels and bedding, and the single-use of personal care products).

1. Introduction

Sustainability is an urgent issue in relation to the tourist field in general (World Tourism Organization, 2004, 2005; Gössling & Hall, 2005), and in hospitality in particular (Sloan et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2016; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Smith & Johnson, 2020; Olya et al., 2020; Daneshwar & Revaty, 2024). The hospitality sector, which represents a core component of tourism, including accommodation, food services, and temporary events (Wood, 2015), is among the most resource-intensive industries, consuming vast amounts of energy, water, and natural resources (Trang et al., 2019; Yeh et al., 2021; Kasim et al., 2014; van Rheede & Blomme, 2012). From the set-up phase for hospitality units to the disposal phase, the environmental impact of hospitality operations contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, deforestation, and waste generation (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2003; Taylor et al., 2009; Walmsley, 2011; Ben Youssef & Zeqiri, 2022). The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that buildings are responsible for approximately 30–40% of the world’s carbon emissions (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2009), and the accommodation sector has a large share among building use types because the occupants are temporary and there are many inefficiencies associated with many aspects of daily operations such as the laundering of towels and bedding, the use of personal care products, waste paper, heating and cooling, food waste, maintenance services, renovations, and the construction of additional buildings (Causone et al., 2021).

As the impacts of climate change become increasingly evident, the urgency to implement sustainable practices in the hospitality sector has intensified in the broader context of sustainable tourism (Jauhari, 2014; De Grosbois, 2012; Han et al., 2009). In this regard, hospitality plays a central role in driving the sustainability agenda forward, as hotels, resorts, hostels, guesthouses, and other forms of accommodation are key components of the tourism supply chain (Garay & Font, 2012; Gao & Mattila, 2014; Jones et al., 2014). Therefore, sustainable hospitality arises with the aim of reducing the sector’s environmental footprint while ensuring that local communities and ecosystems benefit from tourism activities (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2009).

There are numerous examples of hospitality businesses adopting sustainable tourism principles to align with the global shift towards greener operations (Berezan et al., 2013; Chen, 2015). Many of these are focused on the “using phase” of the hospitality asset, i.e., once hotels, resorts, and guesthouses are operational (Han et al., 2018). In this phase, the main environmental impacts are related to the fact that accommodation units are energy-intensive buildings due to heating, cooling, lighting, and water consumption, contributing significantly to the overall carbon footprint, as described above. Energy consumption in hotels is known to contribute significantly to carbon emissions, especially in regions where energy is predominantly derived from fossil fuels (Hall et al., 2012). Furthermore, the environmental impact goes beyond energy use to include food waste, laundry services, and single-use plastics (Hotels and Carbon Footprint|Carbon Gate—Carbon Measurement, n.d.).

While these applications are quite interesting, it should be kept in mind that sustainability in the hospitality sector goes beyond these and may also include the design and construction of buildings in the hospitality sector and the reuse of materials and furniture when hospitality sector activity ceases. In other words, sustainable approaches can involve different phases of the life cycle of a hospitality building: from the set-up (construction and design) to the use (operation), and disposal (end-of-life) phase.

During the set-up phase, the construction and design of hospitality buildings are critical contributors to the overall carbon footprint (Ricaurte, 2012). The buildings and construction sector are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and materials used in construction, especially steel, concrete, and glass, are the main sources of carbon emissions (UNEP—UN Environment Programme, 2023). The embodied carbon in construction materials accounts for approximately 11% of global carbon emissions (World Green Building Council, 2023). Hospitality buildings require not only structural components but also a significant amount of furniture, fixtures, and equipment, further increasing their carbon impact. Studies show that furniture production in the accommodation sector plays a significant role in carbon emissions, and the magnitude of its impact is largely affected by the materials used in manufacturing (González-García et al., 2011). In sum, building construction is regarded as one of the main environmental criticalities of the tourism sector (Spilanis & Karayiannis, 2009; GhulamRabbany et al., 2013; Gutiérrez, 2015). However, despite all these environmental impacts, the critical role of building construction and architecture in the tourism and hospitality sector has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature since tourism is usually studied once the infrastructure and accommodation services are already realized.

At the end of the cycle, the disposal phase involves managing the final part of the life of the buildings and their components. When hotels are renovated or decommissioned, they generate large amounts of waste, such as concrete, metal, and furniture. The World Green Building Council estimates that construction and demolition waste accounts for approximately 40% of total solid waste generation globally (World Green Building Council, 2023). This waste often ends up in landfills, causing environmental degradation and a loss of material value. However, sustainable practices, such as recycling building materials or reusing furniture, can help to reduce this impact.

Sustainable hospitality can thus address environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of buildings, from construction and design to daily operations and eventual disposal. By adopting a life cycle perspective, hospitality businesses can better align with global sustainability goals and reduce their overall carbon footprint.

Starting from this general framework, this paper aims to explore the application of sustainable approaches in the set-up phase of hostel development by repurposing existing buildings and reusing current furniture. The environmental benefit of such a practice is evaluated through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a method for measuring the environmental impacts of products over their entire life cycle from raw material extraction to disposal or recycling (Finnveden et al., 2009). In the context of hospitality, LCA has been in part already discussed and experimented (De Camillis et al., 2009, 2010; Castellani & Sala, 2011). In this paper, it is chosen to evaluate the benefits of reusing materials, such as furniture and fixtures, compared to producing new ones. The reuse of existing materials during hotel renovations can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of hospitality buildings (Hrafnkelsdóttir, 2022). This approach applies the concept of the circular model, which aims to minimize waste and resource consumption by encouraging the reuse, repair, and recycling of materials, as opposed to the traditional linear model of production and disposal (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016). The proposal combines a reflection on the design practices with the process of local community participation. It can be associated with the practices of the so-called “community-based tourism” (Blackstock, 2005; Hall, 1996; Amerta, 2017), which focuses on the involvement of the host community in planning and maintaining tourism projects. Such an approach is seen as a possible way to develop sustainability in the tourism and hospitality sectors (Okazaki, 2008; Dangi & Jamal, 2016). Even if it is not measurable through the LCA analysis, the involvement process is discussed in the paper to consider how this practice has been integrated into the design of the tourist building.

The paper is articulated as follows. The materials and methods section introduces the case of an application of sustainable practices in the set-up phase of a hospitality building. This building is a hostel realized in relation to the VENTO cycleway, which is a 700 km tourist path from Venice to Turin, in Italy. Moreover, the application of the LCA method to the case is described in the main calculation sections of this paper, which also reveals its main limitations.

Later, the main results are presented. Despite the intrinsic limitations of the analysis, they demonstrate that reusing elements can lead to substantial reductions in carbon emissions compared to producing new products, highlighting the importance of sustainable design and material choices in addressing the hospitality sector’s environmental challenges. Finally, in the conclusions, it is discussed how the hospitality industry can play a pivotal role in promoting sustainable tourism, where environmental considerations, cultural preservation, and community participation work in tandem to create a more responsible and enriching travel experience for visitors.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper presents an analysis, conducted through the LCA method, of the environmental benefits of revitalizing existing assets and reusing furniture in the set-up process of a new tourist hospitality building.

The analysis is applied and tested to the case study of a hostel in Castelnuovo Bocca d’Adda, a small village with 1534 inhabitants in 2024 (Istat, n.d.), located in the Lombardy Region, Italy. The project for a new hostel in Castelnuovo derives from the presence of the VENTO cycleway, which is a slow tourism path that spans 700 km from Venice to Turin (Figure 1) (Vento, n.d.).

The VENTO cycle path crosses four regions (Piedmont, Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, and Veneto), covering 13 districts and 118 municipalities with the intention of promoting economic, social, and cultural development to revitalize the Po Valley (Moscarelli, 2019). It is inspired by European models of long-distance, safe, and continuous cycle paths (Pileri et al., 2015), able to attract thousands of slow travelers in light of existing models such as the Vienna–Passau cycle path and the German cycle path along the Elbe (Pileri et al., 2015). At the moment, many small villages along VENTO, such as Castelnuovo Bocca d’Adda, still do not have hospitality services to host slow travelers. This is one of the reasons for which the case study was selected together with others, namely the following:

• VENTO is still a ongoing project, since in part it already exists, while the rest of the path will be realized in the next years through national and regional funds. This means that it is possible to contribute to the design process, since the practice experimented for Castelnuovo can be replicated in many other rural villages along the path which are in similar conditions;
• The interesting position of Castelnuovo, located where the Adda River flows into the Po, the longest river in Italy. Here, both the historical and natural heritage are quite relevant and could be rediscovered, since there would be a possible stop during the slow journey along VENTO;
• National funds, dedicated to the local development of Castelnuovo within the project called “Borghilenti”1 (Slow Villages), have offered the opportunity of a concrete design project, which is still ongoing and can be greatly studied and analyzed;
• The presence in Castelnuovo of an existing public building, which can be dedicated to the hostel for slow travelers. The building, called “Casa Peroni” (Peroni House), once functioned as a parish house and was connected to the nearby church and used for religious community purposes. It is located in the historical center of the village, quite close to the VENTO path (Figure 2). Currently, Casa Peroni is abandoned and was selected by the Municipality to be redesigned as a public hostel. In recent years, the building was recovered and set-up, as will be discussed in the analysis of this paper;
• The presence of an active local community in Castelnuovo, interested in contributing to the development of the project, including participating in the collection process of second-hand furniture donated to the municipality to set-up the public hostel.

The analysis of the sustainable practice of transforming Casa Peroni into a hostel is articulated in two parts, namely the following:

• Part 1. Set-up the hostel, concerning the reuse of the Casa Peroni building, its layout, and the process of collecting the furniture;
• Part 2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) calculations of the Casa Peroni project.

For what concerns this second part, it is necessary to better consider the methodological approach and anticipate the main limitations.

Methodology and Limits of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Calculations on the Casa Peroni Project

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a well-established systematic framework that helps to assess the environmental performance of a product, process or service by examining the inventory of energy and materials used and the emissions to the environment associated with each stage of the product life cycle (de Bruijn et al., 2002). Casa Peroni applied LCA in its renovation project, comparing the emissions generated by producing new products with those from reusing existing ones. LCA was selected for its quantitative capabilities in assessing environmental savings associated with reuse and recycling, offering a through method to evaluate resource and energy consumption, emissions, and waste generation across different life cycle stages (Spilanis & Karayiannis, 2009; Geyer et al., 2016; Landeta-Manzano et al., 2017; Kaddoura et al., 2019; Krystofik et al., 2018; Böckin et al., 2020), from the producing phase to the reusing phase. This comprehensive assessment can highlight the relative benefits or disadvantages of different processes, such as switching from new production to reuse and recycling strategies. Three prominent LCA methodologies are typically employed to assess product life cycles which are Cradle-to-Gate, Cradle-to-Grave, and Cradle-to-Cradle2.

The paper discusses an LCA analysis focusing on the carbon footprint of the furniture used in the transformation of Casa Peroni as a new hostel, applying the Cradle-to-Gate approach in the production phase and the Cradle-to-Cradle approach in the reuse phase. These two methodologies were chosen because of their relevance in assessing the different environmental impacts related to the production and reuse stages of the furniture life cycle. The Cradle-to-Gate specifically assesses the impacts from the extraction of raw materials to the completion of the product at the factory gate before it reaches the consumer (FIRA, 2011). It helps to isolate the environmental impacts resulting from the production process and is ideal for assessing the production of new furniture (Ecochain, n.d.). The Cradle-to-Cradle is a holistic circular model that focuses on reuse and renewal, which is crucial for assessing the impacts related to extending the life cycle of products rather than discarding them after their first use (FIRA, 2011). The Cradle-to-Cradle is in line with the objectives of the Casa Peroni renovation project, which aims to reduce the need for new production by incorporating reused furniture into the hostel. By adopting this approach, the project contributes to reducing the environmental burden of waste production and promotes sustainability through the reuse of resources. Two scenarios were developed and compared to assess the environmental impact:

• Scenario 1: New Furniture Production
  This scenario simulates emissions from producing new furniture, establishing a baseline for understanding the environmental impacts associated with each stage in the Cradle-to-Gate approach, including raw material extraction, transport, utilities, and packaging. This scenario captures the “potential avoided emissions,” as the reuse of existing furniture could eliminate the need for emissions associated with these stages.
• Scenario 2: Reused Furniture
  This examines emissions arising from preparing donated furniture for reuse at Casa Peroni. Emissions in this scenario are generated from transportation and cleaning–repair activities necessary to refurbish and prepare furniture for its second life cycle. These emissions are categorized as “additional emissions,” reflecting impacts tied only to the reuse process as opposed to creating entirely new items.

The environmental savings that could be achieved through reuse are assessed in the LCA using the “avoided burden approach”, which measures the emissions potentially avoided by comparing them with the additional emissions created during reuse (Geyer et al., 2016). The avoided burden approach is a methodology used within LCA to quantify the benefits of product reuse by comparing the emissions generated during the reuse process with the emissions that would have occurred if the product had been manufactured. This approach helps to establish a link between the potential avoided emissions and the additional emissions, providing a comprehensive understanding of the net environmental impact of reuse. The avoided burden approach is based on two primary emission sources: avoided emissions from the end of life phase and avoided emissions from the new production phase. The majority of avoided emissions typically arise from the new production phase, as the reuse of products can significantly reduce the environmental impact associated with raw material extraction, transportation, utilities, and packaging (Fortuna & Diyamandoglu, 2017). However, emissions can also be generated during the reuse process itself, which involves transport and cleaning–repair activities. For reused products, emissions during their first life cycle which are related to the production phase can be treated as potential avoided emissions, while emissions generated during their second life cycle, such as refurbishment, are considered additional emissions (Thomas, 2003; Curran, 2010; Castellani et al., 2015; Fortuna & Diyamandoglu, 2017).

More specifically, it is necessary to clarify the LCA calculations for each scenario. In both cases, we assume the usual LCA calculations on the climate impact of items in kgCO₂e emissions per product (Scenario 1) or per monetary unit such as the cleaning–repair cost of the product (Scenario 2) (González-García et al., 2011; Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2019).

For Scenario 1, the LCA calculations focus on each stage of new furniture production, with individual carbon emissions calculated for each stage. These individual emissions, associated with processes like raw material extraction, the transportation of raw materials, utilities, packaging, and others3 were aggregated to arrive at an average carbon emission for the furniture type and multiplied according to the number of the same furniture which used in the project (1); then, the total emissions of all furniture types are added together to reach the main total emissions of this phase (2). For the first part of the calculations, the study titled A Study on the Feasibility of Quantifying Carbon Footprints of Furniture Products, conducted by FIRA International Ltd. (FIRA, 2011) was used. The carbon footprint used in this study was calculated using the Furniture Footprinter™ tool developed by FIRA International Ltd. (3 Cockerell Cl, Stevenage SG1 2NB, UK) in collaboration with Best Foot Forward. This tool is specifically designed to calculate and compare carbon footprints throughout the supply chain, with a focus on the furniture industry (FIRA, 2011). The Furniture Footprinter™ tool collects detailed data on key factors contributing to a product’s carbon footprint, including raw materials, raw material transportation, utilities, packaging, and other components. For each product, the tool gathers data such as material weights, transportation distances, utility consumption, packaging information, and other relevant factors from manufacturers. This comprehensive approach ensures a consistent and thorough calculation of the carbon footprint. Additionally, the Furniture Footprinter™ tool is designed to allocate emissions generated at each stage of production from shared sources correctly. This allows emissions to be attributed directly to specific furniture items and provides an average carbon footprint for each product. The tool’s calculations align with the widely accepted Cradle-to-Gate LCA methodology, confirming the validity and applicability of the method within the project context. Given that material composition and production methods vary for different furniture types, FIRA’s approach estimates the approximate carbon footprint for each product by calculating the average emissions across similar products.

In order to clarify the methodology, we can consider the process to calculate the total emission from a product (E_PR) [kgCO₂e]. We will look at the case of the sofa product.

Table 1. E_PR associated with each stage of the production process for a sofa product, based on data from FIRA International Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK (FIRA, 2011).

	a	b	c	d	e	f = a + b + c + d + e
Product	ERM	ERMT	EU	EPA	EO	EPR
	[kgCO2e]	[kgCO2e]	[kgCO2e]	[kgCO2e]	[kgCO2e]	[kgCO2e]
Product 1	105.08	5.51	5.60	3.44	0.13	119.76
Product 2	91.92	4.85	5.60	3.16	0.13	105.66
Product 3	68.42	4.21	5.60	3.16	0.13	81.52
Product 4	94.30	7.37	5.60	3.44	0.13	110.84
Product 5	101.48	7.07	5.60	3.64	0.13	117.92
Product 6	75.69	2.73	3.40	1.20	3.32	86.34
Product 7	61.93	4.50	3.40	1.20	1.28	72.31
Product 8	86.51	7.51	5.60	3.16	0.44	103.22
Product 9	57.00	5.00	3.00	0.00	0.00	65.00
Product 10	60.00	2.00	3.00	0.00	0.00	65.00
Product 11	55.00	6.00	3.00	0.00	0.00	64.00
Average	77.94	5.16	4.49	2.04	0.52	90.14

shows the kgCO₂e values of a sofa product at each stage of the production process (the data are taken from FIRA International Ltd.) (FIRA, 2011). The E_PR value for a sofa product was obtained by combining the data from each production stage, by following Formula (1).

$$E_{PR}=\left(E_{RM}+E_{RMT}+E_U+E_{PA}+E_O\right)$$

(1)

where E_RM represents emissions from raw material extraction [kgCO₂e], E_RMT represents emissions from raw material transportation [kgCO₂e], E_U represents emissions from utilities [kgCO₂e], E_PA represents emissions from packaging [kgCO₂e], and E_O represents emission from others.

This method was applied in the same way for each product. In this manner, we can calculate the total emissions from the production phase for all furniture (E_PR(tot)) [kgCO₂e] by following Formula (2).

$$E_{PR\left(tot\right)}={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^n\left(E_{RM}+E_{RMT}+E_U+E_{PA}+E_O\right)$$

(2)

E_PR(tot) refers to the potential emissions that can be avoided through reuse (PAE) [kgCO₂e].

For Scenario 2, the calculations were made by following the methodology of a previous study (Hrafnkelsdóttir, 2022), examining the example of IKEA—ReTuna which is the first second-hand mall in the world and therefore the calculations are valid in this respect. In addition, the emission values used in the calculations are based on the Mistra report. The Mistra Sustainable Consumption Report (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2019) produced emission values for each product type by performing LCA studies on products representative of each product subcategory. IKEA’s example of the second-hand store in ReTuna strengthens the basis of the calculations in this context. The emissions in Scenario 2 were calculated from the reuse activities at Casa Peroni, focusing on two primary stages: transportation and the cleaning–repair of the donated furniture. Each stage was assessed for carbon emissions, which represent the additional emissions involved in preparing the furniture for a second life cycle; these emissions are detailed as follows:

• The Transportation of Donated Furniture. The transportation emissions (E_T) [kgCO₂e] of donated furniture were calculated, taking into account the number of existing furniture items and travel distances. The distance from the donor, where the furniture was collected, to the renovation workshop, and then its delivery to the final destination (Casa Peroni), was assumed to be an average of 1 km for each furniture item (all of these were collected in the small urban center of the village). A standard emission factor for a private vehicle was used to estimate emissions, which takes into account the amount of kgCO₂e emitted per kilometer traveled. In sum, the total amount of transportation emissions (E_T(tot)) [kgCO₂e] was calculated based on three factors: distance traveled (d) [km], number of items transported (n), and vehicle emission factor (VEF)4 [kgCO₂e/km], as described in Formula (3).

  $$E_{T\left(tot\right)}=d\ast n\ast VEF$$

  (3)
• The Cleaning–Repair of Donated Furniture. The cleaning and repairing emissions (E_CR) [kgCO₂e] of each donated furniture item were calculated according to the cost of cleaning and repair (C_CR) [SEK] and the repair emission factor (REF)5 [kgCO₂e/SEK]. C_CR is different for each product and can vary from EUR 80 to EUR 200. Thus, the total amounts (E_CR(tot)) [kgCO₂e] were obtained by following Formula (4).

  $$E_{CR\left(tot\right)}={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^n\left(C_{CR}\ast REF\right)$$

  (4)

The sum of these two stages (transportation and cleaning—repair) gives the total emission of this phase, that is, the additional emissions (AE) [kgCO₂e] involved in preparing furniture for Scenario 2, shown in Formula (5).

$$AE=E_{T\left(tot\right)}+E_{CR\left(tot\right)}$$

(5)

The environmental benefits of reusing furniture were measured throughout a comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 by subtracting additional emissions (AE) from potential avoided emissions (PAE) to achieve a potential emission savings (PES) figure [kgCO₂e], shown in Formula (6).

$$PES=PAE-AE$$

(6)

This calculation provides a measure of how many emissions can be avoided by choosing to reuse over producing new furniture. This represents a revelant result, since it makes it possible to quantify the sustainability of this design approach (Figure 3).

Nevertheless, there are many limitations related to the calculation itself which should be acknowledged.

First, the accuracy of the LCA is limited by the quality and level of detail of the available data, particularly for emissions associated with furniture production and reuse (FIRA, 2011). For Scenario 1, emissions data for new furniture production (E_PR) were derived from industry averages reported in a 2011 study. While this reliance on historical data may not fully reflect advances in manufacturing technologies, material efficiency, or current developments in energy sources and manufacturing practices, this study’s calculation methodology is still suitable for use. Other studies are currently scarce and often provide average data, whereas FIRA stands out by detailing emissions from each stage of the production process. This approach enables the identification of the stages contributing the most emissions, making FIRA a preferred choice for understanding the environmental impact more precisely. For Scenario 2, emissions from cleaning and repairing (E_CR) donated furniture were based on generalized costs for current industry cleaning and repair activities in Italy undertaken in the Casa Peroni project, as detailed project outcome data are not available. Moreover, the formulas used in the clean–repair section were derived from the study (Hrafnkelsdóttir, 2022) which was undertaken under Swedish standards and adjusted for the SEK (Swedish Krona). Therefore, the currencies that we used always had to be converted to SEK. In addition, the study excludes the use and disposal phases, because it is assumed that the refurbished products will ultimately be used by secondary and tertiary users, and the final outcome will ultimately be disposal, simplifying the LCA by focusing on emission savings in the Cradle-to-Gate and Cradle-to-Cradle approaches. Moreover, the inherent complexity of LCA, affected by changes in material composition, production methods, and energy consumption, presents challenges in capturing all relevant impacts with high precision. Nevertheless, the analysis provides a basic framework for demonstrating the environmental benefits of reuse, highlighting the potential emission savings (PES) in renovation projects such as Casa Peroni, the main purpose being to illustrate the difference rather than to arrive at strict numerical results.

3. Results

The study examines how design practices, such as reusing existing buildings and furniture and involving the local community in the process, contribute to experiments and promote sustainability in tourism hospitality. The conversion of Casa Peroni into a hostel can enrich the theoretical discussion on sustainable tourism.

The practice of transforming Casa Peroni into a hostel is articulated in two parts, firstly concerning the analysis of the process of setting-up the hostel in terms of environmental and social aspects, and secondly, the quantitative LCA calculation to evaluate the environmental benefits of reuse within the Casa Peroni renovation project.

3.1. Part1. Setting-Up the Hostel: The Reuse of Casa Peroni Building, and Layout and Collection of the Furniture

The process of redesigning Casa Peroni began in 2022 with the initial phases of the Borghilenti project. Casa Peroni’s redesign is still ongoing, with completion expected in 2025, while the Borghilenti project is scheduled to be finished in 2026 (Figure 4).

The building’s original footprint and height were maintained. This approach reduces environmental impact and prioritizes heritage preservation by reusing the existing footprint of the structure rather than building on a new site. Due to structural limits, the existing wall of the building had to be demolished before restoration, but the renewed Casa Peroni still reflects its historic essence and furthermore, rather than consuming soil, the project utilized the existing land, reinforcing a sustainable approach.

After the rebuild of the external facade of the building, the internal layout aims to host 13 people at the same time for accommodation and has a multipurpose community area, designed to host public events such as meetings, debates, readings, and performances, thus restoring Casa Peroni’s central role in village life. The final layout consists of a list of different units and spaces (Figure 5).

The layout of Casa Peroni was designed to meet the needs of different users by avoiding creating separate spaces for each purpose as much as possible. This flexible spatial organization, made possible by an adaptable design, allows different activities to be carried out in common areas. By reducing the need for multiple separate rooms, the project maximizes space efficiency and minimizes material use.

Once the new purpose and layout of Casa Peroni were decided, the focus turned to interior design and furniture selection to support the function of the building. In this phase, a strategy was developed that involved the local community directly in furnishing Casa Peroni instead of buying or producing new items. In February 2024, Castelnuovo Bocca d’Adda Municipality invited its residents to a public meeting to discuss shaping the future spaces of Casa Peroni and to launch a campaign for collecting unused furniture. After this meeting, the municipality explained the renovation project on their official social media, describing the specific types of furniture needed. Residents were asked to send details such as dimensions and photos of any donated furniture to the design team of the Borghilenti project (Borhgilenti, n.d.). The document for each item was carefully reviewed by architects and by a local craftsman and then cataloged based on a general project. Suitable items were inspected on site, and the chosen items were brought to a local workshop for refurbishment. This community-driven approach reduces waste and carbon emissions while strengthening local ties and giving an active role to residents in improving the tourism offerings of village.

The specific steps undertaken during this phase are described in

Table 2. Phases of community involvement in furnishing and designing Casa Peroni’s interior design.

Phase	Description	Promoting Actor	Actor Involved	Period
Call for Donations	The municipality launched a public call inviting residents to donate unused furniture for reuse in Casa Peroni.	Municipality	Local Community and Politecnico di Milano	February 2024
Catalog Creation	Each donation was thoroughly documented, assessed for its potential for refurbishment, and categorized by condition (e.g., new, lightly used, or requiring repairs).	Architect	Municipality	May 2024
Collection and Refurbishment	Donated items were collected, evaluated for suitability, and transported to a local workshop for repairs, cleaning, and refurbishment before being placed in the hostel.	Architect and Local Craftsmen	Municipality and Politecnico di Milano	June 2024, ongoing process (expected completion: 2025)

.

The renovation of Casa Peroni and the participatory approach to furniture collection demonstrate that the project is not only aimed at preserving the building’s value but also at exemplifying sustainable practices in the hospitality sector. By minimizing new production and involving the community, the project aligns with its sustainability objectives while strengthening local engagement.

The results of this collecting process were the donation of almost all the furniture necessary to set-up the new hostel; these items were the following: 2 double beds, 4 bunk beds (calculated as 8 single beds), 1 single bed, 2 sofas, 3 armchairs, 3 coffee tables, 16 chairs, 1 rectangular desk, 4 tables, 2 night tables, 2 drawer units, 2 bookcases, and 4 wooden cabinets. All of these were renovated and incorporated into the design.

3.2. Part2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Calculations on the Casa Peroni Project

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis for the Casa Peroni renovation project compared the environmental impacts of producing new furniture in Scenario 1 (E_S1) with reusing existing furniture in Scenario 2 (E_S2). The results for each scenario, as well as the calculated potential emission savings (PES), are summarized below and described in

Table 3. Potential emission savings (PES—column j), reused furniture (Scenario 2—columns g–i) compared to new production (Scenario 1—columns a–f).

		a	b	c	d	e	f = a + b + c + d + e	g	h	i = g + h	j = f − i
Products	N.	ERM	ERMT	EU	EPA	EO	EPR(tot) = PAE	ET(tot)	ECR(tot)	AE	PES
	#	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e	kgCO2e
Double Bed	2	67.38	4.08	33.74	5.90	2.34	113.44	0.48	33.71	34.19	79.25
Single Bed	9	315.27	24.39	127.80	25.02	9.00	501.48	2.16	151.72	153.88	347.60
Sofa	2	155.87	10.32	8.98	4.07	1.04	180.28	0.48	56.19	56.67	123.61
Armchair	3	96.99	7.14	17.25	3.99	2.88	128.25	0.72	46.36	47.08	81.17
Coffee Table	3	26.88	3.12	16.8	5.25	0.18	52.23	0.72	33.71	34.43	17.80
Chair	16	226.92	27.56	137.00	3.08	43.36	437.92	3.84	191.05	194.89	243.03
Rectangular Desk	1	27.72	1.73	3.36	1.14	1.20	35.15	0.24	15.45	15.69	19.46
Dining Table	4	53.52	3.96	33.68	3.96	3.96	99.08	0.96	61.81	62.77	36.31
Night Table	2	69.00	3.00	10.00	8.00	6.00	96.00	0.48	42.14	42.62	53.38
Drawer	2	49.32	7.48	19.82	1.46	2.90	80.98	0.48	56.19	56.67	24.31
Bookcase	2	24.80	1.48	7.14	1.78	1.08	36.28	0.48	56.19	56.67	-20.39
Wooden Cupboard	4	96.08	4.32	13.36	9.08	2.20	125.04	0.96	112.38	113.34	11.70
Total	50	1209.75	98.58	428.93	72.73	76.14	1886.13	12.00	856.91	868.91	1017.22

.

• Emissions of Scenario 1 (E_S1)
  In Scenario 1, the total emissions from new furniture production (E_PR(tot)) were calculated as 1886.13 kgCO₂e. This value, representing potential avoided emissions (PAE) when furniture is reused, indicates the carbon footprint associated with the full production life cycle of new furniture, including raw material extraction, transportation, utilities, and packaging. From Table 3, it is evident that raw material extraction contributes the largest portion of emissions in new furniture production.
• Emissions of Scenario 2 (E_S2)
  In Scenario 2, emissions were calculated for the reuse activities; these emissions were specifically as follows:
  Transportation emissions (E_T(tot)): 12.00 kgCO₂e;
  Cleaning and repair emissions (E_CR(tot)): 856.91 kgCO₂e;
  Additional emissions (AE): 868.91 kgCO₂e.

The potential emission savings (PES) were determined by subtracting the additional emissions (AE) of Scenario 2 from the potential avoided emissions (PAE) of Scenario 1 and the result is 1017.22 kgCO₂e (Table 3). This represents the environmental benefit of reusing furniture instead of producing new products. The comparison of PAE and PES reveals that approximately 54% of emissions can be avoided by opting to reuse instead producing new furniture.

The LCA results reveal that reusing existing furniture leads to a significant reduction in emissions compared to producing new furniture, thus directly answering the research question by demonstrating how a reuse approach contributes to significant environmental benefits. This aligns with the hypothesis that sustainable practices, like reusing products, can reduce the carbon footprint of renovation projects in the hospitality sector.

As can be seen from Table 3, due to the proximity of the donation points, the emissions from transportation (E_T(tot)) are lower. This highlights the importance of localized donation systems in minimizing environmental impact during reuse activities. In addition, cleaning and repair emissions (E_CR) vary significantly across furniture types, reflecting differences in material composition, damage levels, and replacement needs. For example, despite relatively low emissions for new production, bookcases show net negative savings in Scenario 2 which can be visible in the column of (PES). This can be attributed to materials such as laminated wood or special surfaces that require more energy-intensive repairs. Chairs, with a higher total number of 16 products, have the largest total additional emissions. This highlights the importance of the role of volume in driving emissions, even for products with lower individual replacement needs. At this point, attention should be paid to products that are repeated during the design phase; that is, products that are used more frequently.

To contextualize these savings, the reuse approach enables interior furnishings to be designed with nearly half the carbon footprint required for producing new furniture. This underscores the significant environmental benefits of reuse, particularly in minimizing emissions from production processes. By examining the Casa Peroni project, this study contributes to an understanding of how a reuse approach, combined with small-scale community involvement, can have a substantial impact on reducing emissions. As outlined in the literature on sustainability, the environmental benefits of reusing materials have been shown to reduce both carbon footprints and material waste. The results from the Casa Peroni project validate these findings and demonstrate the practical application of these principles in the set-up process of hospitality. The findings highlight that sustainable renovation strategies are not only achievable but also effective in real world applications, providing a scalable model for similar projects.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper investigates the environmental benefits of sustainable design practices in the field of tourist hospitality. It presents a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analysis to evaluate the set-up phase of a new hostel by comparing two different scenarios of interior design: using either new or reused furniture. The analysis is applied to the case study of the Casa Peroni hostel, along the VENTO cycleway, which is going to be created with the reused furniture collected through the participation of the local community. By comparing the total carbon footprint in Scenario 1 (new production) and Scenario 2 (reuse), this study underscores the environmental benefits of reuse within the Casa Peroni renovation project. The avoided burdens approach effectively quantifies the potential emission savings that are achievable by substituting new furniture with reused products. Even with all the limitations of the LCA calculation discussed in the methodology section, the findings of the study demonstrate how this approach significantly reduced (almost 50%) the environmental impact associated with the production of new furniture. In this sense, it can provide an interesting practice useful to experiment with sustainability in the hospitality field. The results of the analysis also demonstrate the relevance in applying sustainable practices during the set-up phase of the hospitality building, instead of emphasising the usual approach which is more dedicated to the operational phase (concerning the energy savings in heating and cooling or the reduction in plastic waste, the laundering of towels and bedding, and the single-use of personal care products).

The transformation process of Casa Peroni not only provides environmental benefits but also has a social perspective by encouraging community participation in the project. Such renovation projects in historical sites such as Castelnuovo Bocca d’Adda offer a model that can lead to sustainable tourism development in a more holistic view.

The findings of this study have significant theoretical implications, particularly from the perspectives of environmental and social sustainability within the tourism and hospitality sectors. First, the study provides a concrete approach to tackle the complex issue of construction activities in the tourism and hospitality sectors, which contribute significantly to environmental degradation. In this context, including sustainable practices during the set-up phase represents a critical but underutilized intervention area. This implies the need for a deeper examination, also in tourism studies, of the environmental impacts of building reuse and an evaluation of how this process can be systematically integrated into the planning and design processes of hospitality facilities. Furthermore, even though this study did not deeply analyze the operational process, we accept that sustainability challenges are not limited to the set-up phase; the transition to the operational phase must also be considered. Effective solutions in the operational phase, such as energy efficiency, waste management, and resource utilization, should be integrated holistically with sustainable design choices made during the set-up phase to ensure long-term environmental benefits.

The findings align with similar research on sustainable building reuse in the tourism sector, further reinforcing the significance of Casa Peroni’s approach. For instance, the “RETOU” (Repurposing Urban Buildings into Tourism Accommodation Facilities) research project (Vardopoulos et al., 2023; RETOU, n.d.) emphasizes the environmental benefits of repurposing abandoned or underutilized urban buildings for tourism purposes, a core principle also demonstrated in the Casa Peroni project. Both Casa Peroni and RETOU highlight how the reuse process reduces the environmental footprint associated with set-up process, contributing to the broader shift towards sustainability and circular model practices. While both studies highlight the environmental benefits of reusing existing buildings, RETOU in particular points to the full use of existing building and infrastructure advantages, such as taking advantage of existing utilities to minimize environmental impacts which is an aspect that could be further explored in future projects inspired by Casa Peroni. However, Casa Peroni case offers a unique perspective by showing how building reuse can be effectively implemented without consuming land, even in cases where there are structural limitations, ensuring that sustainability principles can be applied, and additionally proposes the idea of reused furniture by emphasizing that the interior design process is also involved in this process. We need to note that such an approach is often applicable to smaller-scale projects or specific tourism typologies where the reuse of structures and materials is feasible. The process remains time-intensive and resource-demanding, creating challenges to its scalability to larger or more traditional tourism and hospitality developments.

Moreover, the Casa Peroni project demonstrates the potential of community participation in promoting sustainable tourism practices, aligning with findings from other studies on community-based tourism, which underscores the social benefits of engaging local communities in tourism initiatives, particularly during the phase of touristic activities and decision-making (Terzić et al., 2014; Idziak et al., 2015; Thetsane, 2019; Basile et al., 2021). These cases illustrate how community involvement can promote local identity, cultural preservation, and sustainable development, as highlighted also by local development policies, SNAI (Agenzia per la Coesione Territoriale, n.d.). The Casa Peroni case contributes to this reflection by adding the involvement of the community not only through the proposed activities but also during the set-up phase of the hospitality unit. However, all the cases parallelly recognize, even if they apply community engagement strategies in different phases such as the operational phase, set-up phase or activities, and so on, the challenges of equitable participation, and the potential exclusion of stakeholders remains, since it is thought that the community is a stakeholder in of itself in community-engaged tourism models. In addition, as seen during the Casa Peroni project process, since community involvement approaches depend on local conditions, all community-based projects may not always be easily comparable to each other, as differences in social, economic, and cultural backgrounds can lead to varied outcomes. A long-term evaluation of community engagement in Casa Peroni and similar projects could further enhance our understanding of how sustainable tourism models can be both inclusive and effective.

Besides theoretical reflections, the Casa Peroni project also offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in tourist hospitality. Learning from this case, we can deduce some design guidelines for setting-up a hospitality asset in a sustainable way, such as the following:

• Avoiding the consumption of new natural resources and products as much as possible. This means not only preferring second-hand furniture, but also considering already existing buildings instead of new constructions to avoid environmental impacts derived from soil sealing;
• Investing time and design efforts in the layout and in the definition of processes to reuse existing products and resources, considering the peculiarities of the places in which the tourist hospitality building is located;
• Including many stakeholders, both private and public, and the local community. This engagement is essential to define unique projects, where hospitality is not only an economic activity, but also an exchange place between the tourists and the local people.

Even if the Casa Peroni project can inspire sustainable practice, it has also some critical aspects which could limit its replicability in other contexts and cases, namely the following:

• The complexity of the process, which requires careful coordination across multiple steps, such as integrating the building with the slow path, revitalizing the structure, supplying furniture donations, and strengthening ties with the community;
• The involvement of diverse actors, both private and public, which adds layers of complexity to decision-making and execution. Moreover, for private actors, the process can be challenging due to the significant funding required compared to the immediate outcomes;
• The lack of cost comparison, which is important for investors in terms of feasibility. It should be acknowledged that a direct comparison between sustainable and traditional methods requires a full cost analysis due to the ongoing nature of the Casa Peroni project. The final costs of the project are currently being assessed, so a comprehensive cost comparison with traditional methods is not possible at this stage. However, once the project is complete, cost savings and environmental benefits, especially in terms of kgCO₂e reduction, can be assessed more accurately.
• The project is still ongoing, and its full impacts, both environmental and social, remain to be evaluated.

These limitations, together with those of the LCA calculations, prevented a more comprehensive analysis of the findings. Despite this, the analysis could be regarded as significant for two main reasons. The first is that it enlarges the discussion on sustainability in tourist hospitality, while considering the set-up phase. The second is the effort to quantify the environmental benefits of saving materials, in addition to the social aspect of the process, which was useful in the collection of second-hand furniture. These findings concretely demonstrate the power of applying sustainable practices to tourism and hospitality and local community participation.