Traveling is certainly a luxury these days. But, in an effort to get away from the stresses of life, thousands are economizing their vacations through house swaps.

Individuals or families exchange houses for a period of time where the accommodations are cozy with a full kitchen and multiple beds as opposed to the typical hotel room and hotel fees.

Some of these house swap organizations are touting the eco-friendliness of home exchange. Can these benefits really be true?

On the one hand, house exchanges in aggregate could prevent the demand for a new hotel. Therefore, land is preserved, raw materials are diverted elsewhere (let’s not assume they won’t be used at some point), waste is not accrued, and greenhouse gas emissions are prevented as there will not be travel to and from the hotel.

Some other minor factors can contribute to eco-conscious travel and home exchange. For example, staying in the suburbs with a weekend farmer’s market ups the environmental benefits should the tourists walk to the market and purchase organic, and locally grown products.

"Instead of promoting a never-ending expansion of huge hotels, disposable comforts, and packaged holidays, the incremental footprint of a Home Exchange visit is virtually zero compared to a hotel stay where it would be significant," noted President of HomeExchangeNow.co.uk, Ed Kushins.

Part of the environmental savings could be from cleaning less often and avoiding disposable products. Carpets, sheets and towels are often cleaned every day at a hotel, but no one would go to the same extreme while staying in someone else's home. Also, those mini bottles of shampoo, teeny soaps and bottled water waste a lot in packaging.

However, there is an argument to be made that putting up that hotel in the middle of downtown, where the tourist attractions likely are, will prevent car travel from the suburban homes and land needed for parking lots.

Which scenario outweighs the other? The first scenario contributes to indirect environmental benefits by preventing the environmental costs associated with the tourist travel demands. The latter scenario has a high probability of being built green and saving vehicle miles traveled. The answer lies, of course, in the details. Factors that determine which scenario is ideal include the amount of travel from outlying areas by home exchange tourists into the downtown area. If the demand is small, putting up the hotel in downtown is probably not worth the land degradation and use of raw materials.

However, if travel from the suburbs is high, then the prevention of those vehicle miles traveled by staying in a hotel within walking distance of attractions is the better option.

For a true green travel experience, a tourist must research the options of the locale and then make an informed decision. While exchanging homes may not stop climate change, reducing the environmental impacts of traveling will contribute to environmental preservation.