You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sustainability
  • Article
  • Open Access

2 July 2016

Accommodation Consumers and Providers’ Attitudes, Behaviours and Practices for Sustainability: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
2
Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu 90014, Finland
3
School of Business and Economics, Linneaus University, Nygatan 18B, 392 34 Kalmar, Sweden
4
School of Hospitality and Tourism, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management in Tourism and Hospitality

Abstract

Accommodation and lodging are an integral component of the tourism and hospitality industry. Given the sectors’ growing contribution to resource consumption and waste, there is a growing body of literature on the attitudes, behaviours and practices of consumers, managers, staff and owners of lodging with respect to sustainability. This paper presents the results of a systematic analysis of articles on attitudes, behaviours and practices of consumers and the provision of accommodation with respect to sustainability. The results indicate that there is a dearth of longitudinal studies on the sustainability of practices and behaviours. There are limitations in geographical coverage as well as methods, with research dominated by convenience sampling approaches. It is concluded that while there appear to be improvements in the potential sustainability of lodging with respect to technological approaches, the lack of systematic long-term studies on behavioural interventions represents a significant challenge to reducing the absolute emissions of the sector as well as reductions in energy and water use and waste production. Given the lack of longitudinal studies, it is not known whether observed behavioural changes are sustained over time.

1. Introduction

The impacts of tourism on the natural and social environment have been a long-standing focus of tourism and hospitality research [1]. As a subsector, accommodation and lodging have been recognised as having a range of significant effects. After aviation and car transport, the accommodation sector is estimated to contribute 21% of tourism’s global greenhouse gas emissions [2]. In addition, the sector is a major user of energy, land and water resources as well as a contributor to water, food and other waste [3,4,5,6,7].
Much of the focus in improving the sustainability of the accommodation and lodging sector, as with tourism overall, has been on encouraging the adoption of technologies and management systems that produce greater efficiencies in per room or customer inputs and outputs [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. For example, the World Economic Forum [14] (p. 7) suggests, ‘For the accommodation cluster, reductions in carbon emissions will primarily be driven by the use of existing mature technologies in lighting, heating and cooling that can significantly improve hotel energy efficiency’. Undoubtedly, greater efficiencies are an important component of improvements in sustainable consumption of tourism resources. However, concerns also exist about the extent they may contribute to undesirable rebound effects unless there is also simultaneous attention paid to changes in actual consumption behaviour as well as the adoption of technological, behavioural and policy innovations that also contribute to greater sustainability [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Therefore, there is a growing body of literature on the attitudinal and behavioural dimensions of sustainable tourism and hospitality, including with respect to accommodation and lodging, as well as the persistent gap between consumers’ typically positive explicit attitudes towards sustainability and their actual consumption behaviours [22,24,25,26,27].
Research on sustainable accommodation attitudes and practices is centred around investigating the perspectives of producers and consumers. Producer or supply side research focuses on the attitudes of accommodation managers, owners and employees toward sustainability and their environmental policies and practices. Consumer focussed research examines the perceptions and behaviours of tourists towards the sustainable practices of accommodation providers, consumer practices, support for green accommodation product, and the impacts of government or producers actions on consumer behaviour. In addition, there is growing interest in stakeholder based approaches to understanding the sustainability policies and practices of accommodation providers [28,29]. However, despite significant interest in improving the sustainability of accommodation and lodging properties, there is little knowledge of the extent to which changes in consumption behaviours and sustainability practices have been maintained over time nor of the means by which behaviours and practices have been studied. Therefore, this study provides a systematic review of journal articles covering issues of consumer and producer behaviours and attitudes with respect to the greening and sustainability of accommodation and lodging. By using the systematic review methodology, a broad overview of the literature is created, allowing trends and themes to become clear. From this, conclusions can be drawn on the key findings and on future research directions.

2. Materials and Methods

The power of systematic literature reviews in providing statistically reliable conclusions has long been acknowledged in the field of health, where the use of systematic reviews is integral to evidence-based healthcare [30]. However, in tourism the use of systematic reviews is limited [31].
The PRISMA framework and 27-item checklist were used to guide the data selection and collection for this paper [32,33]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting, which in turn is based upon the clarity of the original research and its interpretation. The aim of the PRISMA Statement is therefore to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [33].
The search aimed to account for several dimensions that make up the focus of this review. To do this, the search looked at four keyword groups: tourists, behaviour, environment and accommodation type. Within each keyword group, synonyms were identified within relevant research through searches undertaken during the preliminary narrative literature review. This ensures that no relevant research is excluded through the use of applicable terminology that is not identical to the keywords. Keywords were identified via reading through literature and communication with researchers in the sustainable tourism and hospitality field who acted as an expert reference group. Search terms were also refined via trial exercises and the capacity of any search to identify relevant benchmark papers.
The formal systematic review was undertaken by an examination of the Web of Science and Scopus databases along with library searching and surveys of Google Scholar. The Scopus database was find to be more advantageous for the tourism and hospitality field because of its wider journal coverage. For the purpose of this study, only records from peer-reviewed periodicals were included in the systematic review. Therefore, books and book chapters, conference papers, and industry and government reports were excluded from the systematic review but were used for the thematic review that helped identify key terms. The full search term below shows the exact terms used to generate potential records for examination. Other refining elements used in searches of the Scopus databases were to select only document types classified as “articles” or “reviews”, and only documents published before 2015: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“consumer” OR “target audience” OR “tourism” OR “tourist” OR “travel*” OR “holiday*” OR “VFR” OR “vacation*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“response” OR “perception” OR “attitude” OR “behaviour” OR “motivation*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustain*” OR “green*” OR “environment*” OR “ecolog*” OR “CSR” OR “carbon” OR “emission*” OR “energy” OR “waste”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“accommodation” OR “backpacker*” OR “hostel*” OR “motel*” OR “hotel*” OR “lodging” OR “caravan park*” OR “holiday park*” OR “cabin*” OR “campground*” OR “resort*”) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR re) AND PUBYEAR < 2015.
The initial database search retrieved 572 documents. After screening for papers clearly not relevant to the subject, the number of appropriate articles was reduced to 105. From there, a small number of non-duplicate papers were added raising the total to 109 papers. Out of the 109 papers, only 93 were reviewed, due to the fact that nine could not be accessed, and seven were found to be not relevant to the study. Data was then recorded for each individual article including research method, sample method, sample size, sample demographics, target sample audience, geographical location of study, accommodation type (if applicable), variables, longitudinal study or not, and the key findings.

3. Results

Of the 93 papers, 44 were primarily consumer related with a main focus on tourists and visitors (Table 1). The remaining studies were producer related and studied specific hotels, their managers and employees (Table 2). Only two papers [34,35] included substantive research on both consumer and producer perspectives with respect to environmental practices and perceptions. The various elements of these papers has been included in both tables for ease of convenience. Over two-thirds of studies were undertaken in the period 2010–2014, reflecting the growing interest in the field. Many of the studies were exploratory in nature either reporting on profiles or not specifically aiming to test theory or scales, although many were theoretically informed. Of the 93 studies, only one was longitudinal with respect to charting changes in behaviours over time. This was a producer related study on attitudes and behaviours towards climate change by small-scale rural accommodation providers in New Zealand [36]. The absence of such studies arguably has significant implications for understanding the sustainability of behavioural change.
Table 1. Overview of consumer oriented papers.
Table 2. Overview of producer oriented papers.
The most common study location by region was Asia, with 36.1% of all of the papers being carried out there. Europe follows with 19.6% of the studies, and the least popular study locations were Africa (5.2%), the Middle East (3.1%), and South America (2.1%). Table 3 provides a more detailed breakdown by country and shows that the USA, Taiwan, and Spain have been the most studied locations. The relative lack of research in Africa and South America is reflective of the overall amount of climate change related tourism research noted in IPCC reports [18,127]. However, this is not the case with Asia in which there is very limited reporting in IPCC reports [18,128], although there is a growing interest from researchers and institutions, such as the UNWTO [127].
Table 3. Study locations in papers.
With respect to accommodation types, hotels were specifically focused upon in over 70% of the studies, and were also studied in conjunction with other accommodation types (Table 4). Research was therefore focussed on formal accommodation businesses. All research that looked at the perceptions, attitudes and knowledge of employees was conducted in the formal hotel sector. There was therefore only limited research on other forms of lodging, such as self-catering accommodation and B&Bs, even though these may be significant in many destination contexts. No studies of second homes were included in the papers that were reviewed even though their contribution to tourist bed-nights and resource use as self-catering or rental accommodation is extremely significant for many destinations [129,130].
Table 4. Accommodation type studied in paper.
In terms of methods, the most common data collection method of all of the studies were questionnaires or surveys (Table 5). Over two-thirds of the studies were based primarily on questionnaires/surveys, one study combined surveys with focus groups and another with interviews. One paper also utilised panel data. The next most common research method was interviews (eight papers) sometimes in conjunction with by case studies and content analysis. One of the clear limits in the data set is the lack of quantitative analysis of actual reductions in energy or water use, or waste in conjunction with research on attitudes and behaviours.
Table 5. Primary research method.
Sampling methods were more dispersed across the studies (Table 6). The most common sampling method was based on convenience (36 studies). Twelve consumer related studies used the intercept method. Purposive sampling was used with the second most widely used method with producer related studies. However, many studies did not state their sample method.
Table 6. Stated sampling method.
The sample size of the studies with respect to the number of respondents ranged from one to 2308 (Table 7). Those studies with a very small sample size were usually hotel case studies. Studies with larger sample sizes consisted of questionnaires or surveys.
Table 7. Sample size of studies (number of respondents).

4. Discussion and Conclusion

Several studies found that individuals who already participated in general pro-environmental behaviour or consumption practices were more likely to choose to stay at a green hotel, over those who did not [67,76]. A consumer’s “green” attitude is therefore a key mediator of their intention to stay at a green hotel [77]. However, context is also important. Although normative motives are the dominant determinant of pro-environmental behaviour in a household setting, hedonic motives appear a stronger predictor of such behaviour in a hotel setting [62]. Some studies observed that because green hotel rooms are often more expensive than non-green hotels, higher income bracket consumers are more likely to stay at green hotels, while consumers have reported being willing to pay a 1.5%–6% premium for green hotels [39,41,53], although the long-term maintenance of such premiums is unknown given the widespread adoption of at least some sustainability measures, e.g., reuse of towels, by lodging properties. Those consumers with a higher knowledge of green hotels and their practices were more likely to stay in them [52], although experiences of sustainable practices may have a positive effect on environmental attitudes and behaviours [37,60]. Nevertheless, there were some papers that observed a gap between consumers’ intentions to stay at green hotel and their actions to do so [43]. The most common sustainable hotel practices that customers appeared to value and think of were the use of recycle bins and recycled products, as well as reusable towel and linen schemes [39,47,63]. Inconvenience remains a powerful barrier to consumers in adopting sustainable practices in hotels [67].
Firm size appears to have a significant impact on the sustainable practices of accommodation operations [56,92,112,118,120]. Larger hotels implement more effective and longer-term green initiatives [98,125]. This was mainly due to a high level of capital, and a strong business culture, and with some evidence of the importance of being part of an international chain for which sustainability is being incorporated in brand values as well as CSR initiatives [118]. Although other studies found that foreign-owned and multinational subsidiary firms were not significantly correlated with higher participation in sustainable certification schemes and superior environmental performance [88]. Regulatory and cultural context is therefore clearly significant [3,7]. Barriers to implementing sustainable practices were noted as being inadequate resources, level of investment, lack of awareness amongst stakeholder, and the pressure to make maximum financial returns [99]. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Internet and social media are noted as an important channel to communicate hotels’ green initiatives [81], while hotel employees’ and managers’ knowledge and attitudes were regarded as essential to the implementation and success of green initiatives [102]. Although, it should be noted that the amount of studies that looked at employees’ attitudes and behaviours as compared to that of managers and owners was extremely limited. Furthermore, there is little research that actually looked at implementation practices and measured changes in indicators of sustainability, rather than relying on self-reporting and perceptions of change. In the New Zealand context, a substantial gap was reported between the positive perceptions held by operators of their energy saving initiatives and actual levels of implementation [116].
Hotels’ most common green practices appeared to be water conservation, energy efficiency and waste reduction [100,120], and they were known to adopt these practices due to cost savings, response to environmental concerns and when there was simplicity in implementing and operating sustainable practices [97,102,117]. Although not a central research focus, there is also limited evidence that accommodation and lodging businesses were more likely to be positive towards green practices if their area had been affected by a natural disaster or extreme weather conditions [35].
This systematic review on the behaviour and attitudes of consumers and producers towards sustainable accommodation has indicated a number of significant issues in the conduct of research. The English language literature is geographically and culturally uneven with few papers from Africa and South America and with most from the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The majority of studies used surveys or questionnaires as their main form of data collection, and the most common sampling method used was convenience sampling. There is relatively little duplication in the survey questions used in different studies which makes accurate comparisons between the results of papers difficult. Even more concerning, only one longitudinal study had been conducted which raises a number of issues regarding the tracking of consumer and lodging provider behaviour change. There is clearly substantial need for monitoring material flows over time while simultaneously tracking the attitudes of managers, staff and customers as well as the impacts of new technologies and interventions so as to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the various activities that can lead to positive change. Similarly, there are few studies that clearly indicate the results of any intervention into influencing consumptive behaviour and none of these are tracked over time—the assumption clearly being made that changes in messaging, for example, will be maintained as the resultant behaviours have become new norms, even if those messages may then be removed from hotel rooms. Such long-term tracking is essential, for example, to compare the value of norm and non-norm approaches to encouraging customer behaviours [42,70], while the potential value of norm-based approaches for staff and managers is also a potentially significant area of study [82]. However, it must be emphasised that norm-based approaches, while having significant potential, also need to be examined in a far wider cultural context than what has so far been the case. In addition, there is insufficient reporting of the actual changes to quantities of energy, food and water consumed, or the production of waste which any intervention has influenced. We do not know, for example, whether any rebound effects have occurred so that reductions in consumption and/or waste in one area of an organisation have been accompanied by increases elsewhere [131].
A clear outcome of the study therefore is that there is a greater need for integrated long-term studies of accommodation and lodging firms and their consumers. Although environmental management systems approaches [7], for example, highlight the need for inclusion of all stakeholders in improving system sustainability, this is not reflected in the literature. Only five studies included lower level employees in assessments of sustainable behaviour and practices [80,81,82,83,84], even though they are the staff who actually implement any intervention. There is therefore a clear need for studies that seek to compare not only the attitude and behaviour gaps within stakeholder groups, such as consumers and managers, but also between such groups, and then seek to chart how practices change and are maintained over time in light of any differences in physical infrastructure and/or behavioural interventions.

Acknowledgments

The willingness of Stefan Gössling, Paul Peeters, Yael Ram and Daniel Scott to comment on the appropriateness of search terms is gratefully acknowledged.

Author Contributions

Colin Michael Hall and Leroy Paul-Andrews conceived and designed the systematic analysis; Colin Michael Hall, Natasha Dayal, Dea Majstorović, Hamish Mills, Leroy Paul-Andrews and Chloe Wallace performed the systematic analysis; Colin Michael Hall, Natasha Dayal, Dea Majstorović, Hamish Mills, Leroy Paul-Andrews and Chloe Wallace analyzed the data; Colin Michael Hall, Natasha Dayal, Dea Majstorović, Hamish Mills, Leroy Paul-Andrews, Chloe Wallace and Van Dao Truong wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hall, C.M.; Lew, A. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Scott, D.; Amelung, B.; Becken, S.; Ceron, J.-P.; Dubois, G.; Gössling, S.; Peeters, P.; Simpson, M. Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges; United Nations World Tourism Organisation, United Nations Environment Program, World Meteorological Organisation: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gossling, S. Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Sustainable culinary systems: An introduction. In Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, and Tourism & Hospitality; Hall, C.M., Gössling, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013; pp. 3–44. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hall, C.M.; Gössling, S. Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, and Tourism & Hospitality; Hall, C.M., Gössling, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kasim, A.; Gursoy, D.; Okumus, F.; Wong, A. The importance of water management in hotels: A framework for sustainability through innovation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 1090–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Scott, D. Tourism and Water; Channel View: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ayuso, S. Comparing voluntary policy instruments for sustainable tourism: The experience of the Spanish hotel sector. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kasim, A. Corporate environmentalism in the hotel sector: Evidence of drivers and barriers in Penang, Malaysia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 680–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kasim, A. Towards a wider adoption of environmental responsibility in the hotel sector. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2007, 8, 25–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ali, Y.; Mustafa, M.; Al-Mashaqbah, S.; Mashal, K.; Mohsen, M. Potential of energy savings in the hotel sector in Jordan. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 3391–3397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zografakis, N.; Gillas, K.; Pollaki, A.; Profylienou, M.; Bounialetou, F.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Assessment of practices and technologies of energy saving and renewable energy sources in hotels in Crete. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 1323–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cashman, A.; Moore, W. A market-based proposal for encouraging water use efficiency in a tourism-based economy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. World Economic Forum. Towards a Low Carbon Travel & Tourism Sector; World Economic Forum: Gland, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hall, C.M. Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism. Anatolia 2009, 20, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gössling, S.; Peeters, P. Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 639–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Scott, D.; Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Peeters, P. Can tourism be part of the decarbonized global economy? The costs and risks of carbon reduction pathways. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 52–72. [Google Scholar]
  18. Scott, D.; Hall, C.M.; Gössling, S. A review of the IPCC 5th Assessment and implications for tourism sector climate resilience and decarbonisation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 8–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Scott, D.; Hall, C.M.; Gössling, S. A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its implications for tourism: Why we will always have Paris. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Truong, V.D.; Hall, C.M. Social marketing and tourism: what is the evidence? Soc. Mark. Q. 2013, 19, 110–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Truong, V.D.; Hall, C.M. Corporate social marketing in tourism: To sleep or not to sleep with the enemy? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 15, 435–443. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hall, C.M. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1091–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hall, C.M. Tourism and Social Marketing; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, C.M. Intervening in academic interventions: Framing social marketing’s potential for successful sustainable tourism behavioural change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 350–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luchs, M.G.; Naylor, R.W.; Irwin, J.R.; Raghunathan, R. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M.; Ceron, J.-P.; Dubois, G. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 36–58. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cohen, S.A.; Higham, J.E.; Gössling, S.; Peeters, P. Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches; Cohen, S.A., Higham, J.E., Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ong, L.T.A.; Smith, R.A. Perception and reality of managing sustainable coastal tourism in emerging destinations: the case of Sihanoukville, Cambodia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 256–278. [Google Scholar]
  29. Teng, C.; Horng, J.; Hu, I. Hotel environmental management decisions: The stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2015, 16, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Russell, L.B.; Gold, M.R.; Siegel, J.E.; Daniels, N.; Weinstein, M.C. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1996, 276, 1172–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weed, M. Sports tourism research 2000–2004: A systematic review of knowledge and a meta-evaluation of methods. J. Sport Tour. 2006, 11, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, W-65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Firth, T.; Hing, N. Backpacker hostels and their guests: Attitudes and behaviours relating to sustainable tourism. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, Y.J.; Palakurthi, R.; Hancer, M. The environmentally friendly programs in hotels and customers’ intention to stay: An online survey approach. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2012, 13, 195–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hall, C.M. New Zealand tourism entrepreneur attitudes and behaviours with respect to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 1, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fairweather, J.R.; Maslin, C.; Simmons, D.G. Environmental values and response to ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 82–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lee, W.H.; Moscardo, G. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 546–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chan, J.K.L.; Baum, T. Motivation factors of ecotourists in ecolodge accommodation: The push and pull factors. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2007, 12, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Manaktola, K.; Jauhari, V. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 19, 364–377. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nepal, S.K. Ecotourists’ importance and satisfaction ratings of accommodation-related amenities. Anatolia 2007, 18, 255–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dalton, G.J.; Lockington, D.A.; Baldock, T.E. A survey of tourist attitudes renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 2174–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Goldstein, N.; Cialdini, R.; Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tsai, C.W.; Tsai, C.P. Impacts of consumer environmental ethics on consumer behaviours in green hotels. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2008, 17, 284–313. [Google Scholar]
  45. Choi, G.; Parsa, H.G.; Sigala, M.; Putrevu, S. Consumers’ environmental concerns and behaviors in the lodging industry: A comparison between Greece and the United States. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2009, 10, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.J.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Han, H.; Kim, Y. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kwan, P.; Eagles, P.; Gebhardt, A. Ecolodge patrons’ characteristics and motivations: A study of Belize. J. Ecotour. 2010, 9, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, J.; Hsu, L.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 901–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tsagarakis, K.P.; Bounialetou, F.; Gillas, K.; Profylienou, M.; Pollaki, A.; Zografakis, N. Tourists’ attitudes for selecting accommodation with investments in renewable energy and energy saving systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1335–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bastic, M.; Gojcic, S. Measurement scale for eco-component of hotel service quality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1012–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, A.; Peng, N. Green hotel knowledge and tourists’ staying behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 2211–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Do Valle, P.O.; Pintassilgo, P.; Matias, A.; André, F. Tourist attitudes towards an accommodation tax earmarked for environmental protection: A survey in the Algarve. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1408–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hu, H. The effectiveness of environmental advertising in the hotel industry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2012, 53, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chan, E.S. Managing green marketing: Hong Kong hotel managers’ perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 442–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ham, S.; Han, H. Role of perceived fit with hotels’ green practices in the formation of customer loyalty: Impact of environmental concerns. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 731–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Han, X.; Chan, K. Perception of green hotels among tourists in Hong Kong: An exploratory study. Serv. Mark. Q. 2013, 34, 339–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kucukusta, D.; Mak, A.; Chan, X. Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-star hotels: Perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. MacIntosh, E.; Apostolis, N.; Walker, M. Environmental responsibility: Internal motives and customer expectations of a winter sport provider. J. Sport Tour. 2013, 18, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mensah, I.; Mensah, R.D. International tourists’ environmental attitude towards hotels in Accra. Int. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 444–455. [Google Scholar]
  62. Miao, L.; Wei, W. Consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 32, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Millar, M.; Mayer, K.; Baloglu, S. Importance of green hotel attributes to business and leisure travelers. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 2013, 21, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Miththapala, S.; Jayawardena, C.; Mudadeniya, D. Responding to trends: Environmentally-friendly sustainable operations (ESO) of Sri Lankan hotels. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2013, 5, 442–455. [Google Scholar]
  65. Prud’homme, B.; Raymond, L. Sustainable development practices in the hospitality industry: An empirical study of their impact on customer satisfaction and intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Slevitch, L.; Mathe, K.; Karpova, E.; Scott-Halsell, S. “Green” attributes and customer satisfaction: Optimization of resource allocation and performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 802–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Baker, M.A.; Davis, E.A.; Weaver, P.A. Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chan, K.; Han, X. Effectiveness of environmental advertising for hotels. Serv. Mark. Q. 2014, 35, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chang, L.; Tsai, C.; Yeh, S. Evaluation of green hotel guests’ behavioural intention. Adv. Hosp. Leis. 2014, 10, 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chen, M.; Tung, P. Developing an extended theory of planned behaviour model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chia-Jung, C.; Pei-Chun, C. Preferences and willingness to pay for green hotel attirbutes in tourist choice behaviour: The case of Taiwan. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2014, 31, 937–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Esparon, M.; Gyuris, E.; Stoeckl, N. Does ECO certification deliver benefits? An empirical investigation of visitors’ perceptions of the importance of ECO certification’s attributes and of operators’ performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 148–169. [Google Scholar]
  73. Horng, J.; Hu, M.; Teng, C.; Lin, L. Energy saving and carbon reduction behaviours in tourism—A perception study of Asian visitors from a protection motivation theory perspective. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 6, 721–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Huang, H.C.; Lin, T.H.; Lai, M.C.; Lin, T.L. Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: An examination of motivation crowding effect. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, M.; Wong, I.; Shi, G.; Chu, R.; Brock, J. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. J. Serv. Mark. 2014, 28, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  76. Noor, N.A.M.; Kumar, D. ECO friendly ‘activities’ VS ECO friendly ‘attitude’: Travelers intention to choose green hotels in Malaysia. World Appl. Sci. J. 2014, 30, 506–513. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Baloglu, S.; Mercado, H.U. The efficacy of sustainability values in predicting travelers’ choices for sustainable hospitality businesses. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stumpf, T.; Park, J.; Kim, H.J. Appreciative and consumptive lodging attributes: Conceptualisation and measurement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zupan, S.; Milfelner, B. Social responsibility, motivation and satisfaction: small hotels guests’ perspective. Kybernetes 2014, 43, 513–528. [Google Scholar]
  80. Chan, E.S.; Hawkins, R. Attitude towards EMSs in an international hotel: An exploratory case study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Do Paço, A.; Alves, H.; Nunes, C. Ecotourism from both hotels and tourists’ perspective. Econ. Sociol. 2012, 5, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Chou, C. Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: interactions and outcomes. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ferus-Comelo, A. CSR as corporate self-reporting in India’s tourism industry. Soc. Responsib. J. 2014, 10, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Teng, C.C.; Horng, J.S.; Hu, M.L.M.; Chen, P.C. Exploring the energy and carbon literacy structure for hospitality and tourism practitioners: Evidence from hotel employees in Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Deng, S.L.; Ryan, C.; Moutinho, L. Canadian hoteliers and their attitudes towards environmental issues. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 1992, 11, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Becken, S.; Frampton, C.; Simmons, D. Energy consumption patterns in the accommodation sector—The New Zealand case. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hobson, K.; Essex, S. Sustainable tourism: A view from accommodation businesses. Serv. Ind. J. 2001, 21, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rivera, J. Does it pay to be green in the developing world? Participation in a Costa Rican voluntary environmental program and its impact on hotels’ competitive advantage. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2001, 10, 176–182. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ayuso, S. Adoption of voluntary environmental tools for sustainable tourism: Analysing the experience of Spanish hotels. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006, 13, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chan, E.S.; Wong, S.C. Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Le, Y.; Hollenhorst, S.; Harris, C.; McLaughlin, W.; Shook, S. Environmental management: A study of Vietnamese hotels. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 545–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dalton, G.J.; Lockington, D.A.; Baldock, T.E. A survey of tourist operator attitudes to renewable energy supply in Queensland, Australia. Renew. Energy 2007, 32, 567–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Erdogan, N. Environmental management of small-sized tourism accommodations in Turkey. J. Appl. Sci. 2007, 7, 1124–1130. [Google Scholar]
  94. Henderson, J.C. Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 26, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Holcomb, J.L.; Upchurch, R.S.; Okumus, F. Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 19, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Leslie, D. The missing component in the ‘greening’ of tourism: The environmental performance of the self-catering accommodation sector. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 26, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Graci, S.; Dodds, R. Why go green? The business case for environmental commitment in the Canadian hotel industry. Anatolia 2008, 19, 250–270. [Google Scholar]
  98. McNamara, K.E.; Gibson, C. Environmental sustainability in practice? A macro-scale profile of tourist accommodation facilities in Australia’s coastal zone. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 85–100. [Google Scholar]
  99. Graci, S. Examining the factors that impede sustainability in China’s tourism accommodation industry: A case study of Sanya, Hainan, China. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2009, 19, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Richins, H.; Scarinci, J. Climate change and sustainable practices: A case study of the resort industry in Florida. Tour. Int. Multidiscip. J. Tour. 2009, 4, 107–128. [Google Scholar]
  101. Ryan, C.; Stewart, M. Eco-tourism and luxury—The case of Al Maha, Dubai. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sloan, P.; Legrand, W.; Tooman, H.; Fendt, J. Best practices in sustainability: German and Estonian hotels. Adv. Hosp. Leis. 2009, 5, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  103. Dief, M.E.; Font, X. The determinants of hotels’ marketing managers’ green marketing behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Jackson, L. Toward a framework for the components of green lodging. J. Retail Leis. Prop. 2010, 9, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nelson, V. Promoting energy strategies on eco-certified accommodation websites. J. Ecotour. 2010, 9, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Prayag, G.; Dookhony-Ramphul, K.; Maryeven, M. Hotel development and tourism impacts in Mauritius: Hoteliers’ perspectives on sustainable tourism. Dev. South. Afr. 2010, 27, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. López-Gamero, M.D.; Claver-Cortés, E.; Molina-Azorín, J.F. Environmental perception, management, and competitive opportunity in Spanish hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2011, 52, 480–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Smerecnik, K.R.; Andersen, P.A. The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North American hotels and ski resorts. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tortella, B.D.; Tirado, D. Hotel water consumption at a seasonal mass tourist destination. The case of the island of Mallorca. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2568–2579. [Google Scholar]
  110. Fernández-Alles, M.T.; Cuadrado-Marqués, R. Hotel environmental impact management: A case study in Cádiz Province. In Soft Computing in Management and Business Economics; Gil-Lafuente, A.M., Gil-Lafuente, J., Merigó-Lindahl, J.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 335–346. [Google Scholar]
  111. Kleinrichert, D.; Ergul, M.; Johnson, C.; Uydaci, M. Boutique hotels: Technology, social media and green practices. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2012, 3, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Nicholls, S.; Kang, S. Going green: the adoption of environmental initiatives in Michigan’s lodging sector. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 953–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Oreja-Rodriguez, J.; Armas-Cruz, Y. Environmental performance in the hotel sector: The case of the Western Canary Islands. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Sánchez-Ollero, J.L.; García-Pozo, A.; Marchante-Lara, M. Environment and strategic behaviour: The case of hotels in Andalusia. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2012, 6, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar]
  115. Zhang, J.J.; Joglekar, N.; Verma, R. Pushing the frontier of sustainable service operations management: Evidence from US hospitality industry. J. Serv. Manag. 2012, 23, 377–399. [Google Scholar]
  116. Becken, S. Operators’ perceptions of energy use and actual saving opportunities for tourism accommodation. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Fotiadis, A.K.; Vassiliadis, C.A.; Rekleitis, P.D. Constraints and benefits of sustainable development: A case study based on the perceptions of small-hotel entrepreneurs in Greece. Anatolia 2013, 24, 144–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Su, Y.P.; Hall, C.M.; Ozanne, L. Hospitality industry responses to climate change: A benchmark study of Taiwanese tourist hotels. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wyngaard, A.T.; De Lange, R. The effectiveness of implementing eco initiatives to recycle water and food waste in selected Cape Town hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ali, Y.; Mashal, K.; Mohsen, M.; Mustafa, M. Energy and environmental performance: Exploratory indicators in the accommodation sector in Jordan. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2014, 9, 4467–4480. [Google Scholar]
  121. Cherapanukorn, V.; Focken, K. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability in Asian luxury hotels: Policies, practices and standards. Asian Soc. Sci. 2014, 10, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Coles, T.; Zchiegner, A.; Dinan, C. A cluster analysis of climate change mitigation behaviours among SMTEs. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. De-Miguel-Molina, B.; de-Migue-Molina, M.; Rumiche-Sosa, M. Luxury sustainable tourism in small island developing states surrounded by coral reefs. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 98, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Garcia-Pozo, A.; Sanchez-Ollero, J.L.; Marchante-Mera, A. Environmental good practices, quality certifications and productivity in the Andalusian hotel sector. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2014, 8, 1185–1194. [Google Scholar]
  125. Mackenzie, M.; Peters, M. Hospitality managers’ perception of corporate social responsibility: An explorative study. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Tsai, Y.; Wu, C.; Wang, T. Attitude towards green hotel by hoteliers and travel agency managers in taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 1091–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Su, Y.-P.; Hall, C.M. Climate change and tourism in Asia: A review. In Responding to Climate Change: Tourism Initiatives in Asia and the Pacific; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  128. Hall, C.M. Tourism and climate change: Knowledge gaps and issues. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2008, 33, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hall, C.M. Second home tourism: An international review. Tour. Rev. Int. 2014, 18, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Adamiak, C.; Hall, C.M.; Hiltunen, M.; Pitkänen, K. Substitute or addition to hypermobile lifestyles? Second home mobility and Finnish CO2 emissions. Tour. Geogr. 2016, 18, 129–151. [Google Scholar]
  131. Aall, C.; Hall, C.M.; Groven, K. Tourism: Applying rebound theories and mechanisms to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In Rethinking Climate and Energy Policies: New Perspectives on the Rebound Phenomenon; Santarius, T., Walnum, H.J., Aall, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 209–226. [Google Scholar]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.