Environmental Commitment - An Evaluation Of Ontario's Accommodation Industry

  ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT:   AN EVALUATION OF ONTARIO’S  ACCOMMODATION   INDUSTRY 

Charles Cheng Tony Ho Silvia Lau Paul Yi

GROUP RESEARCH REPORT

By Charles Cheng 050472943 Tony Ho 050360403 Silvia Lau 050580984 Paul Yi 042842054

Sec. 011

Submitted To Dr. Sonya Graci School of Hospitality and Tourism Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for HTR 841 Research & Data Analysis April 13, 2009 Ryerson University

Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental commitment in the accommodation industry; specifically, in the small and medium-sized accommodation facilities in Ontario. This study was conducted with the assistance of members of the Ontario Accommodation Association. The primary data used for this study was collected through the use of an online questionnaire tool, specifically, SurveyMonkey. Using SurveyMonkey, the researchers were able to gather a total of 138 completed questionnaires from small and medium-sized accommodation facilities in Ontario; which resulted in a response rate of 27% (138 completed questionnaires out of 507 sent). The primary data shows that the small and medium-sized properties are relatively committed to environmental sustainability. A majority (65%) of the properties received a Level 4 rating (60-79.9% of all practices listed in the questionnaire). Fifteen-percent of the properties received a commitment rating of Level 5 (the highest rating). While no properties were assigned a rating level of 1, 2% received a rating of Level 2 and 20% of the properties were given a rating of Level 3. Although many properties received a relatively high rating, very few have plans to implement additional environmentally-friendly practices in the future; 43% have plans to further their environmental agenda. The owners/operators of small and medium-sized properties (42%) indicated that the most frequently faced barrier they encountered when implementing sustainable practices was the lack of resources (e.g. time, money, and space). Other barriers that were mentioned included: ‘cost of implementation’ (33.3%) and ‘cost of continuous improvements’ (33.3%).

i

Through the researchers’ findings, it was determined that the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario demonstrate a high level of concern toward energy conservation, waste reduction and water conservation. The top three practices implemented by over 95% of the properties are related to energy conservation. These practices include the use of energy efficient light and turning off appliances/electronics/lighting when they are not in use. The second highest level of commitment is towards waste reduction by approximately 80% of the properties, which include practices such as recycling paper, glass and cans. This study also indicated that the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario are highly committed towards water conservation by implementing practices such as installing low-flow showerheads and offering a linen reuse program. Recommendations were made on the basis of the findings of this study to help further improve the environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry. The recommendations that were suggested are: making information more readily available, creating awareness of the various incentives available, streamlining operations, providing education and training, and establishing motivating regulations.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

i iii vii viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1.2 Importance of Study

2 3

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

5

2.1 Sustainability and Tourism 2.1.1 Sustainable Tourism 2.1.1.1 Environmental Sustainability 2.2 Impacts of the Accommodation Industry 2.3 Benefits of Environmentally Sustainable Practices 2.3.1 Financial Benefits 2.3.1.1 Financial Savings 2.3.1.2 Financial Gain 2.3.2 Competitive Advantage 2.3.3 Labour Productivity 2.3.4 Guest Loyalty 2.4 Barriers to Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices 2.4.1 Age of Facility 2.4.2 Size Facility 2.4.3 Location of Facility 2.4.4 Lack of Knowledge and Awareness 2.4.5 Lack of Resources 2.4.5.1 Financial Resources 2.4.5.2 Human Resources 2.4.5.3 Time 2.4.5.4 Information 2.5 Incentives 2.6 Influential Factors 2.6.1 Social Responsibility 2.6.2 Stakeholder Influence 2.6.2.1 Employee Influence 2.6.2.2 Governmental Pressure 2.6.2.3 Pressure from Customers 2.7 Environmentally Sustainable Practices and the Accommodation Industry 2.7.1 Energy Conservation 2.7.1.1 Energy Efficient Products 2.7.1.2 Renewable Energy 2.7.2 Water Conservation 2.7.2.1 Low-Flow Showerheads and Toilets 2.7.3 Waste Management 2.7.3.1 Recycling and Reusing 2.7.3.2 Composting

iii

5 8 9 9 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 31 32

2.7.4 Green Purchasing 2.7.5 Air Quality 2.8 Conclusion

32 33 33

3.0 METHODOLOGY

35

3.1 Purpose and Objectives 3.2 Research Methods 3.3 Research Stages 3.3.1 Stage One: Literature Review 3.3.2 Stage Two: Developing and Pre-Testing the Questionnaire 3.3.2.1 Developing the Questionnaire 3.3.2.2 Pre-Testing the Questionnaire 3.3.3 Stage Three: Primary Data Collection 3.3.4 Stage Four: Data Analysis 3.3.5 Stage Five: Recommendations and Conclusion 3.4 Limitations 3.4.1 Time Constraints 3.4.2 Questionnaire Quality 3.4.3 Unavailability of Contact Information 3.4.4 Lack of Concern for Environmental Sustainability 3.4.5 Technological Barriers 3.4.6 Evaluation of Commitment towards Environmental Sustainability 3.4.7 Other Barriers 3.5 Conclusion

4.0 REPORT FINDINGS

35 36 37 37 37 38 39 40 41 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 49 49 50

51

4.1 Frequencies and Central Tendencies 4.1.1 Descriptive Information 4.1.1.1 Location of Properties 4.1.1.2 Age of Property 4.1.1.3 Number of Rooms 4.1.1.4 Number of Employees 4.1.1.5 Annual Average Daily Room Rate 4.1.1.6 Education Level 4.1.1.7 Target Market 4.1.1.8 Property Features 4.1.2 Tourism and Sustainability 4.1.2.1 Level of Negative Environmental Impact 4.1.2.2 Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge 4.1.3 Environmental Initiatives 4.1.3.1 Organization 4.1.3.2 Environmental Awareness 4.1.3.3 Energy 4.1.3.4 Water 4.1.3.5 Waste Reduction 4.1.3.6 Waste Disposal 4.1.3.7 Air 4.1.3.8 Local Environment 4.1.3.9 New Practices Planned for Future 4.1.3.10 Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices

iv

51 52 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64 65

4.1.4 Benefits 4.1.5 Barriers 4.1.6 Incentives 4.2 Cross Tabulation 4.2.1 Recycling by Regions 4.2.2 Regions by Composting Food Waste 4.2.3 Regions by Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products 4.2.4 Numbers of Rooms by Disposable Items 4.2.5 Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen by Recycling Cooking Oil 4.2.6 Level of Education by Commitment Level 4.2.7 Regions by Commitment Level 4.2.8 Age of Properties by Commitment Level 4.2.9 Number of Rooms by Commitment Level 4.2.10 Target Markets by Commitment Level 4.3 Conclusion

5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

66 67 68 69 69 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83

84

5.1 Regions and Recycling 5.2 Regions and Composting Food Waste 5.3 Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products 5.4 Knowledge of Environmental Sustainability 5.5 Commitment toward Environmental Sustainability 5.5.1Regions and Commitment Level 5.5.2Target Market and Commitment Level 5.5.3Environmental Certification and Commitment Level 5.5.4 Level of Education and Commitment Level 5.5.5 Planned Practices and Commitment Level 5.6 Common Practices Implemented 5.7 Uncertain Barriers 5.8 Conclusion

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

84 85 87 88 89 90 91 92 92 93 93 95 96

97

6.1 Availability of Information 6.2 Incentives Awareness 6.3 Streamline Operations 6.4 Education and Training 6.5 Motivating Regulations

97 98 99 100 100

7.0 CONCLUSION

102

REFERENCES

105

APPENDICES

113

Appendix A: Initial Email Message Appendix B: Survey Email Message Appendix C: Reminder Email Messages Appendix D: Questionnaire Appendix E: Other Target Markets Appendix F: Other Property Features Appendix G: Environmental Certifications Held by Properties Appendix H: Other Initiatives Planned for Future

v

113 114 115 116 126 127 128 129

Appendix I: Other Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices Appendix J: Other Benefits Appendix K: Other Barriers Appendix L: Other Incentives Appendix M: Respondent Number by Practices Implemented

vi

130 131 132 133 134

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Open-ended Questions Categories and Codes Table 2: Commitment Level Rationale Table 3: Location of Properties Table 4: Age of Property Table 5: Number of Rooms Table 6: Number of Employees Table 7: Annual ADR Table 8: Education Level Table 9: Target Market Table 10: Property Features Table 11: Level of Negative Environmental Impact Table 12: Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge Table 13: Environmental Certification Table 14: Creating Environmental Awareness Table 15: Energy Conservation Practices Table 16: Water Conservation Practices Table 17: Waste Reduction Practices Table 18: Waste Disposal Practices Table 19: Air Quality Table 20: Local Environment Table 21: Additional Practices Planned for Future Implementation Table 22: Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices Table 23: Benefits for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices Table 24: Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices Table 25: Incentives for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices Table 26: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Paper Table 27: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Cans Table 28: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Glass Table 29: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Composting Food Waste Table 30: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products Table 31: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Number of Rooms and Use of Disposable Items Table 32: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen and Recycling Cooking Oil Table 33: Level of Education and Commitment Level Table 34: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Level of Education and Commitment Level Table 35: Committed Level Ratings of Lodging Properties in Ontario Table 36: Regions and Commitment Level Table 37: Properties with Certification by Commitment Level Table 38: Ratings of Properties Planning to Further their Environmental Agenda Table 39: Practices with Implementation Rate of 80% and Over

vii

43 45 52 54 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 71 71 73 74 76 77 78 79 90 91 92 93 94

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Ontario Figure 2: Recycling v. Regions Figure 3: Regions v. Composting food waste Figure 4: Regions v. Purchasing environmentally-friendly products Figure 5: Number of rooms v. Use of disposable items Figure 6: Food outlet(s)/kitchen v. Recycling cooking oil Figure 7: Level of education v. Commitment level Figure 8: Regions v. Commitment level Figure 9: Age of property v. Commitment level Figure 10: Number of rooms v. Commitment level Figure 11: Target markets v. Commitment level

viii

53 70 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 82 83

1.0 INTRODUCTION The tourism industry is one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the world, having both positive and negative impacts on people’s lives and on the environment (WTTC, 2007; UNWTO, 2008; UNEP, 2008a). From 1950 to 2007, international tourist arrivals grew from 25 million to 903 million. By 2020, international arrivals are expected to reach 1.6 billion (UNWTO, 2008). This illustrates the continuous rapid growth of the tourism industry. This also shows that it is an attractive industry and form of development for regions around the world due to it being a profitable investment in many cases (Graci, 2008). The tourism industry accounted for 9.9% of the global GDP and contributed 238 million jobs in 2008. By 2018, the tourism industry is expected to represent 10.5% of the global GDP and provide 58 million new employment opportunities (WTTC, 2008). The growth of the tourism industry demonstrates that it will continue to have a profound impact on the environment. The development and long term success of the tourism industry requires constant availability of natural and cultural resources (Butler, 1993; Butler, 1998; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Murphy & Price, 2005). It consumes such resources as water, energy, and land with the commoditization of cultural practices and traditions (UNEP, 2008b; UNEP, 2008c). As a highly resource intensive and sizable industry, tourism will leave a substantial ecological footprint (Butler, 1998; Johnson, 2003; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Murphy & Price, 2005). Due to the significant impact the tourism industry has on the economy, socio-culture and environment, there is a great need to implement best practices to ensure a sustainable growth (Hunter, 2002; Murphy & Price, 2005; Dodds, 2007; Graci, 2008). For it to move towards sustainability, these practices must be adopted by all sectors of the industry with emphasis placed on the accommodation sector (Álvarez Gil, Burgos Jiménez & Céspedes Lorente, 2001; Pryce, 2001). 1

This introduction section provides a brief overview of the ever-increasing need to steer the tourism industry towards sustainability. The purpose and objectives of the research study are also introduced. As there have been many previous studies conducted on a similar topic area, the importance of the study is explained in detail. Section 2.0, the Literature Review, is a discussion of the literature reviewed by the researchers that relates to the topic of environmental sustainability. Sustainability in the context of tourism is examined in a greater depth in this section. The impacts of the accommodation industry are also discussed in detail along with environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry. Section 3.0, Methodology, outlines the specific research methods applied and the different research stages proceeded through. The limitations encountered throughout the study are also disclosed. Section 4.0 reports the findings from the study while section 5.0 provides a discussion of the key findings. Section 6.0 lists the recommendations for the accommodation industry based on the major findings. Finally, section 7.0 presents the conclusions of the study.

1.1 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the environmental commitment in the accommodation industry. This study focuses on Ontario’s accommodation industry, and concludes with recommendations to further the development and implementation of environmental measures and policies. The main focus is on the small and medium-sized lodging properties in Ontario. This study was completed with the assistance from the members of the Ontario Accommodation Association (OAA). To satisfy the purpose of this study, the researchers have fulfilled the following four objectives:

2

1. To review literature to identify and consolidate the knowledge of environmental sustainability, common practices implemented, benefits, barriers, and incentives. 2. To survey members of the Ontario Accommodation Association to evaluate their knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability. 3. To identify the benefits and barriers to implementing sustainable practices in the Ontario accommodation industry. 4. To determine the incentives to further the implementation of sustainable practices in the Ontario accommodation industry. The results will help the governing bodies of the industry and the managing bodies of the accommodation facilities to formulate measures and policies to better improve the industry’s environmental sustainability.

1.2 Importance of Study The concept of sustainable tourism has been discussed and studied extensively, yet many of these discussions and studies only touch upon the theoretical aspects of sustainable development in tourism. As the need for sustainable development becomes more apparent, the discussions and studies must provide insight into the formulation of practical solutions (Page, 2002; Liu, 2003). Since tourism has the potential to provide great economical benefits, countries often begin developing tourism without considering its negative impacts. The growth of the tourism industry around the world has caused concern of the increasing consumption of ecological resources and degradation of the natural environment to be neglected. Tourism-related infrastructures, such as hotels, are becoming more resource intensive as the number of travellers continues to increase (Hunter, 2002; Bohdanowicz, 2005). The accommodation sector is an 3

essential and dynamic component of the tourism industry (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001), with accommodation being one of the two main activities within the industry, the other being transportation (WTTC, IFTO, IH&RA & ICCL, 2002). Although these properties do not usually have considerable negative impacts on the environment nor are they highly resource intensive individually, collectively, they have a great detrimental impact on the environment and global resources (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). According to Berry and Ladkin (1997), small and medium-sized properties account for a large share of the accommodation industry; their combined influence on a destination can be greater than that of larger properties (Tzschentke, Kirk & Lynch, 2008). The OAA, for example, contributed over $263 million to Ontario’s GDP in 2005 with only 901 members (Joppe, Choi & Kim, 2007). Assuming that in 2006 the OAA members contributed the same amount to Ontario’s GDP, it would account for nearly 10% of Ontario’s accommodation industry’s contribution towards the province’s GDP (Joppe, Choi & Kim, 2007; Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs, 2008). Furthermore, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, studies have previously been conducted on environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry in areas of Ontario; however, none has been done on the province as a whole. Most of the studies on the accommodation industry have mainly focused on large lodging properties, as opposed to small and medium-sized properties (Bohdanowicz, 2005; Graci, 2008). Therefore, this study was undertaken to evaluate the knowledge and commitment towards environmental sustainability by the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario’s accommodation industry, more specifically, amongst the OAA members.

4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW In this section, the researchers will review tourism and business literature to identify and consolidate the knowledge of environmental sustainability, common practices implemented, and the benefits, barriers and incentives to the implementation of sustainable practices in the accommodation industry. The literature reviewed by the researchers focuses on the topic of environmental sustainability. The majority of the literature is environmental studies that were conducted on the accommodation industry in Europe and Australasia. Studies from North America and Asia were also reviewed. Although this research paper is being done on the accommodation industry in North America, particularly on the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario, studies from Europe and Australasia were examined because cultures in these two regions are similar to that of North America (Hall, 1976; Hall, 1984; Hofstede, 1991). Studies from Asia were also reviewed as the operation of lodging facilities is similar across the globe. This literature review begins with a general discussion of sustainability in the context of tourism, followed by an examination of the impacts of the accommodation industry. The benefits, barriers and incentives to the implementation of sustainable practices will also be discussed along with the current environmental initiatives adopted by the industry. A number of influential parties to the implementation of sustainable practices are also reviewed.

2.1 Sustainability and Tourism In the early days of mass tourism, tourism was considered an ideal channel for investment and development (Sharpley, 2002). Not only was tourism seen as an ‘environmentally-friendly’ industry, “free of the environmental impacts attributed to 5

manufacturing, mining, logging and intensive agri-business” (Lane, 1994, p.19), but also as a valuable economic contributor (Lane, 1994). However, as tourism changes and evolves over time, the activities engaged in, the people engaging in them, the destination where the activities take place and the time at which they take place are all changing constantly (Butler, 1993). According to Butler (1993), as tourism evolves, the impacts it has on a destination and the environment will follow suit. With the rapid growth of the tourism industry, the mass consumption of resources may lead the industry to a point where it can no longer be selfsustainable. The resources may begin to deteriorate and lose their capability of renewing themselves. This amount of resource consumption may also cause a greater level of land degradation. Tourists may cease to travel to a destination when the resource has declined to a certain level (Butler, 1993). This uncontrolled tourism development also poses threats to the physical landscape by way of alterations and places enormous pressure on a destination, leading to pollution (UNEP, 2008b). Despite the economic benefits of tourism, there are negative consequences associated with it as well. Leakage is the main negative economic impact of tourism (UNEP, 2008d). It is the amount of tourist expenditure that goes to foreign airlines, hotels or other foreign companies. This happens through import leakage (when visitors demand goods that cannot be supplied by the host nation) and export leakage (when overseas investors who finance the resorts, hotels and other foreign tourism companies take their profits back to their country of origin) (UNEP, 2008d). According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, import leakage for developing regions can amount to 40-50% of their gross tourism income for small economies and 10-20% for large and “diversified economies” (UNEP, 2008d). Other negative economic impacts include high infrastructure cost for tourism development, increase in prices for basic 6

goods and services due to increasing demand, economic dependence of the local community on tourism, and seasonality of jobs (UNEP, 2008d). Often, native culture is commoditized to conform to tourism expectations once tourism is developed in an area (Cohen, 1988; UNEP, 2008c). This can be seen through “staged authenticity” (MacCannell, 1973, p. 595), where cultural expressions and shows are performed to meet the tastes of tourists, even though they may not reflect the true culture (MacCannell, 1973; Cohen, 1988). Local products are produced and designed to bring them more in line with new tourist tastes. This all leads to the cultural erosion of a particular community (Cohen, 1988; UNEP, 2008c). Cultural clashes also occur when visitors do not respect the pattern and lifestyle of the local community and instead act in ways that are considered inappropriate in the local culture. Cultural adaptation, resource use conflicts and ethical problems (e.g. crime generation and child labour) often accompany tourism (UNEP, 2008c). Swarbrooke (1999) has claimed that the impacts tourism will have is ultimately determined by the constant change of tourists’ preferences, desires and activities. A sustainable tourism industry is imperative to ensure a constant availability of resources to meet tourists’ changing needs and wants. To propel the industry towards sustainability, businesses must incorporate sustainable best practices in their operations and participate in sustainable development of tourism (Butler, 1993; Butler, 1998; Graci, 2004; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Murphy & Price, 2005; Dodds, 2007; Graci, 2008). To be able to participate in sustainable tourism development, a workable definition of sustainable development must exist (Liu, 2003). There have been many attempts to define sustainability in tourism; however, very few incorporate a holistic view of its development (Godfrey, 1998; Hunter, 2002) that includes the economic, socio-cultural and environmental 7

aspects (UNEP, 2008a). The most comprehensive definition that takes into consideration all three facets is penned by Richard Butler (1993). Butler defines sustainable development in the context of tourism as: “Tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and wellbeing of other activities and processes” (Butler, 1993, p. 29).

This definition is more usable for organizations that look to implement sustainability into their operations as it incorporates the three aspects of sustainable development – economic, socio-cultural and environmental. It allows for a more “practical approach to incorporating sustainability in tourism planning and development rather than a very theoretical definition that does not incorporate all tourism activities” (Graci, 2008, p. 12).

2.1.1 Sustainable Tourism It is from Butler’s (1993) definition of sustainable development that a modern and widely accepted definition of sustainable tourism was drafted. According to UNWTO (2004): “Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass tourism and the various niche tourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability. Thus, sustainable tourism should: 1. Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity. 2. Respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter-cultural understanding and tolerance.

3. Ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income-earning

8

opportunities and social services to host communities, and contributing to poverty alleviation” (UNEP, 2008a).

2.1.1.1 Environmental Sustainability For the purpose of this study, the researchers have decided to use the term ‘environmental sustainability’ throughout the report. Environmental sustainability is defined as “the ability to maintain the qualities that are valued in the physical environment” (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, 2006). According to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability (2006), these qualities of value may include: • • • • •

“Human life; the capabilities that the natural environment has to maintain the living conditions for people and other species (e.g. clean water and air, a suitable climate); the aspects of the environment that produce renewable resources such as water, timber, fish, solar energy; the functioning of society, despite non-renewable resource depletion; and the quality of life for all people, the liveability and beauty of the environment” (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, 2006).

‘Environmental sustainability’ is being used throughout the study because the researchers believe it is a more formal term than its alternatives such as “green” and “eco-”. In addition, the researchers believe that ‘sustainability’ is more holistic as mentioned previously.

2.2 Impacts of the Accommodation Industry The growth of the tourism industry around the world is apparent as the number of tourists is expected to reach 1.6 billion by the year 2020 (UNWTO, 2008). As the number of travellers continues to increase, the stress placed upon the environment also increases due to the development of resource intensive infrastructures, such as lodging facilities (Hunter, 2002; Bohdanowicz, 2005). The accommodation sector consists of different “sleeping facilities” such as hotels, motels, resorts, guesthouses and campgrounds (Theobald, 2005, p. 22; Holloway, 9

1998, p. 143). Individually, these properties do not usually have significant negative impacts on the environment or consume a substantial amount of resources. However, collectively, their detrimental impact on the environment and global resources is of a great magnitude (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). As small and medium-sized properties constitute a large proportion of the accommodation industry (Berry & Ladkin, 1997), their collective influence can be greater than that of larger facilities (Tzschentke, Kirk & Lynch, 2008). In a study done on the eco-efficiency of tourism, “hotels emit an average 20.6 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) per bed per night” (Gössling, Peeters, Ceron, Dubois, Patterson & Richardson, 2005, p. 420). The accommodation sector is the third highest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions in the tourism industry (Greenhotelier, 2007). It is energy-intensive as it is an operation that never rests (Gössling, 2002; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Gössling et al., 2005). “Hotels use generally more energy per visitor [than local residents], as they have energy intense facilities, such as bars, restaurants, and pools, and more spacious rooms” (Gössling, 2002, p. 291). The average energy consumption in hotels is 130 megajoules (MJ) per bed per night (Gössling, 2002, p. 291), which is the equivalent of a 10 ton truck travelling at 600 miles per hour. Becken, Frampton and Simmons (2001) found the average energy consumption by guests each night for Bed and Breakfasts, Motels and Hostels totals 181 MJ. This finding supports the supposition of Tzschentke, Kirk and Lynch (2008) that small and medium-sized properties together can have more influence than that of larger properties. According to the 2001 Climate Change Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 1990s was the warmest decade, with 1998 being the warmest year (Greenhotelier, 2006c). Since the 20th century, the global climate has been increasing annually, causing a ‘warmer world’, now seen as global warming. As the world 10

becomes increasingly aware of the effect carbon dioxide has in relation to global warming, many people are looking for a solution to reduce the amount of global carbon dioxide emissions (Greenhotelier, 2006c). Tourists and residents alike require a clean and dependable supply of water for survival and activities such as drinking, cooking and cleansing. However, water is integral to the amenities usually expected by tourists, such as swimming pools, landscaped gardens and golf courses, as well as being essential to support industries, such as agriculture, that supply the tourism industry (Pigram, 1995). Thus, tourists demand more water than local residents on a per capita basis (Essex, Kent & Newnham, 2004). It has been estimated by Salem (1995) that 15,000 cubic metres of water would typically supply 100 rural farmers for three years and 100 urban families for two years, yet only supply 100 luxury hotel guests for less than two months (Holden, 2000). In dryer regions, tourists’ water consumption can amass to 440 litres a day per tourist, which is almost double the average amount of water used by residents in Spain (UNEP, 2008b). One estimate suggests that on average, a hotel generates approximately one kilogram of waste per guest per night of which at least thirty per cent can be sorted for reuse and recycling (Bohdanowicz, 2005; Greenhotelier, 2007). The waste each property creates through activities and services such as administration, technical services, restaurant/bar, kitchen, room use, laundry, purchasing, and renovation all contribute substantially to the world’s waste problem (Anguera, Ayuso & Fullana, 2000). As part of the tourism industry, lodging facilities, too, have tremendous impacts on the socio-cultural and economic environments in host communities. These impacts parallel those that the tourism industry has and include import and export leakages, changes in the local economic

11

and employment dispositions, cultural clashes, and cultural adaptation (UNEP, 2008c; UNEP, 2008d).

2.3 Benefits of Environmentally Sustainable Practices There are many benefits to the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices within the accommodation industry as the need to reduce the negative impacts the tourism industry has on the environment becomes more apparent. Sustainable practices can be of great assistance to the small and medium-sized properties. It can result in significant cost savings, customer loyalty, investor interest, help meet government regulations, and encourage employee involvement (Pryce, 2001; Whitehouse, Rider, Speir & Thompson, 2005). In addition, hotels would be able to gain a competitive advantage within their industry, as being environmentallyfriendly appeals to the market where consumers value a more sustainable environment (Tzschentke et al., 2004; Chan, Chu, Ho & Tse, 2007). Tourists are also more likely to purchase environmentally-friendly products as their environmental awareness increases. A recent study conducted by Ryerson University found that out of 500 respondents, 42% were likely to purchase ‘environmental products’ in the future, 92% were likely to purchase ‘responsible travel services’ and 93% for ‘green travel products’ (Chan et al., 2007). This section outlines the benefits of implementing environmental programs in a lodging property. The benefits are categorized into four subcategories: Financial benefits, competitive advantage, labour productivity, and customer loyalty.

12

2.3.1 Financial Benefits Hotel operators who have followed through with the implementations of environmentally sustainable practices within their properties were able to realize financial savings through practices such as water and energy conservation. Not only do hotel operators benefit from financial savings, they can also realize financial gain (Pryce, 2001).

2.3.1.1 Financial Savings By implementing sustainable practices, accommodation facilities will be able to attain financial savings through the efficient use of resources (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998; Bohdanowicz, Churie-Kallhauge & Martinac, 2001). Scandic Hotels, which used to be Hilton’s European franchise brand, has made sustainability a part of their corporate policy. With sustainability encompassed in the operations, construction and design, the hotel chain has been able to reduce energy consumption by 24%, water consumption by 13% and waste production by 40%. The efficient use of resources has allowed Scandic Hotels to financially benefit from savings of more than 7.6 million Euros since 2003 (Bader, 2005).

2.3.1.2 Financial Gain An accommodation property that can effectively design and implement proper sustainable practices will not only save on costs but generate profits (Bohdanowicz et al., 2001). Álvarez Gil et al., (2001) stated that there is a positive correlation between the success of an organization’s environmental management performance and its financial performance. In a study conducted by Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cortés, Pereira-Moliner & Tarí (2009), properties that are proactive in implementing sustainable practices can improve in their “occupancy rate per 13

room, GOP, GOPPAR per day, competitive performance and stakeholder satisfaction” (MolinaAzorín et al., 2009, p. 519). Although implementing environmentally sustainable practices can lead to positive impacts on a property’s financial performance, Álvarez Gil et al. (2001) found this correlation to be weak as the amount of return on investment depends on the type and extent of practices the property implements; that is, the higher the investment, the higher the financial gain (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). Although implementing sustainable practices does not necessarily lead to significant profit generation, it can help reduce the risk of potential law suits against the organization or reduce the penalty of an accidental misconduct. For example, a property may be fined for improper treatment of waste (Whitehouse et al., 2005). “…in Nova Scotia a judge dismissed a case against a pulp and paper mill for a small oil spill because the company had an environmental management system [EMS] in place that addressed spill issues. The judge cited the company’s due diligence, stating ‘the supervisor who found the leak knew the equipment, what to do to stop the leak and did so immediately. He had been instructed on what to do in the event of any oil spill and he did that.’ R. v. Stora Forest Industries Ltd., [1993] N.S.J. No. 330 (N.S. Prov. Ct. Jun 23, 1993)” (Whitehouse et al., 2005, p.12).

2.3.2 Competitive Advantage As more consumers value environmental sustainability, organizations can gain a competitive advantage by further integrating environmental programs into their operations (Graci, 2004; Tzschentke et al., 2004; Chan et al., 2007). Properties are also able to gain a competitive advantage through awards and recognitions for their successful implementation of environmental programs. Such awards and recognitions can help improve a hotel’s public image 14

and increase the success of its marketing campaigns (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). Lodging facilities such as Fairmont Hotels & Resorts are recognized and rewarded for reaching a level of commitment with environmental management systems (Fairmont Hotel & Resorts, 2008; Greenhotelier, 2006a). With efforts to reduce energy consumption and waste production, the Hong Kong Sustainable Communications Association awarded the InterContinental Grand Stanford Hong Kong hotel the 2005 Eco-Hotel Champion Award. Scandic Hotels also received recognition for their sustainable efforts in 2002. They received the IH&RA (International Hotel & Restaurant Association) Environmental Award for the introduction of the 95% biodegradable rooms in 1995 (Bader, 2005).

2.3.3 Labour Productivity Studies have shown that environmental efficiency could lead to higher labour productivity in an organization. Mazzanti and Zoboli (2009) found in a study that there is a “positive relationship between labour productivity and environmental productivity (emissions efficiency)” (Mazzanti & Zoboli, 2009, p. 1190). Porter and van der Linde (1995) indicated that pollution leads to inefficiency in an organization through the inefficient use of resources. Resource inefficiencies can take form of “incomplete material utilization and poor process controls, which result in unnecessary waste…” (Porter & van der Linde, 1995, p. 122).Absenteeism amongst employees could be reduced in a healthier working environment such as one with better air quality (Bohdanowicz et al., 2001). An organization can attain benefits by involving employees in the sustainable practices planning and the implementing process. Their involvement can contribute to the overall workplace morale. The increase in morale can help

15

motivate employees to become more productive in the workplace (Perron, 2005; Whitehouse et al., 2005).

2.3.4 Guest Loyalty With the growing number of consumers who are concerned about the environment and organizations’ environmental responsibility, lodging facilities that are successfully integrating sustainability will be sought after (Bohdanowicz et al., 2001). Properties that can implement sustainable practices satisfying the needs of this market will be able to gain loyalty from the clients in this market. The protection of the physical, cultural and natural environment could help attract new customers while retaining existing ones (Hillary, 2004; Lane 2007).

2.4 Barriers to Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices The tourism industry relies heavily on the natural resources available in the environment. This reliance of the industry strains the ecosystem and has significant negative impacts on tourist destinations (Williams, 1998; Collins, 1999). A large amount of resources is being exhausted by accommodation facilities through the services that they provide to their guests. During the Rio’s Earth Summit of 1992, there was a strong acknowledgement for environmental management among hotels within the industry after the action plan for sustainable development, Agenda 21, was adopted. Following the summit, recognition of the importance for environmental sustainability grew worldwide to hotels through the efforts of various associations (Chan & Lam, 2003). Yet with the motivations and positive attitudes towards implementing an environmental management system (EMS) within the accommodation industry, there are still

16

barriers that impede the implementation process of environmentally sustainable practices (Ghobadian, Viney, Liu & James, 1998; Chan, 2008). There are various barriers impeding the implementation of EMS in hotel properties. In his study, Chan (2008) has determined four impeding factors – “implementation and maintenance costs, lack of professional advice, lack of knowledge and skills, and lack of resources” (p. 192194) – causing a lack of actions being taken by hotels. Similarly, the major barriers Graci (2008) found in her study in Sanya, China are comparable to those of Chan’s (2008). This section reviews the following barriers: Age, size, location of facility, lack of knowledge and awareness, and lack of resources.

2.4.1 Age of Facility There is a negative correlation between the age of a facility and the number of practices that the facility implements; old facilities will generally implement less sustainable practices than their newer competitors. The environmental programs in old facilities tend to be less extensive as well (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). This may be the result of technical and political barriers within the organization. Many of the environmentally sustainable practices require modern technology where older properties may face difficulties in the installation process. Major renovations may be needed which could force properties to close off parts of or the whole building for a period of time. In addition, the organization may be unwilling to implement and commit to the environmental programs (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001).

17

2.4.2 Size of Facility It has been argued that the size of a property can be an indication of the willingness and commitment of a lodging property to integrating sustainability within its operation. This is due to the fact that a large property has a greater impact on the environment than a small property (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001) when compared individually. Although, McNamara and Gibson (2008) and Middleton and Hawkins (1994) agree that large facilities do tend to implement more sustainable practices into their operation. Álvarez Gil et al. (2001) also argue that large properties that implement more sustainable practices are “sun-and-sand” properties (p. 464). This argument is partly supported by Rivera (2002) who suggests that large hotels in main city centres contribute less to sustainable development. This is due to the high expenses the properties will incur should they commit to any standards and they believe the idea of sustainability is irrelevant since their clientele is corporate travellers. Furthermore, small and medium-sized enterprises tend to stray away from environmental management – they fail to establish any written sustainable policies, sustainable standards and procedures, or perform any environmental assessments (Schaper, 2002).

2.4.3 Location of Facility The location of the accommodation facility may pose as a significant barrier to the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices. In a study conducted by Graci (2004), two hotel facilities in Toronto, Canada identified location as a major barrier since the resources available in rural areas differ from those in urban areas. For example, the lack of space, technology and infrastructure prevents certain practices from being implemented (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Hoford, MacDonald, Shain & Tan, 2008). According to Berry and 18

Ladkin (1997), in rural areas and small towns, there is a deficiency in infrastructures that is needed for implementing certain sustainable practices. For example, recycling in rural areas becomes problematic when the infrastructure to support this is not available (Graci, 2004; Hoford et al., 2008; Tzschentke et al., 2008). However, composting can be done by facilities in rural areas due to the greater availability of space (Graci, 2004). Although space is available for composting, other factors may prevent this to be implemented successfully. Hoford et al. (2008) found in their study on the environmental commitment of bed and breakfasts in British Columbia, Canada that composting food waste proves to be a problem for properties in rural regions because of “bears” and “fruit flies” (p. 84).

2.4.4 Lack of Knowledge and Awareness One strong barrier is the lack of awareness in regards to sustainability and what it could offer. The low implementation rate of sustainable practices for small and medium-sized lodging facilities is caused by their failure to recognize what benefits it could boast (Hillary, 1995; Holland & Gibbon, 1997; Blackburn & Revell, 2005). This lack of awareness of the benefits available has hindered the integration of sustainability for many properties. Tzschentke et al., (2008) also suggests that an inability to identify the financial benefits of sustainability will result in a low implementation rate of sustainable practices within the industry. There is also an issue of the small business owners/managers’ inability to recognize their own environmental damages. These business operators assumed that environmental damages were only caused by tourists. They believe that small organizations have insignificant impacts on the environment (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Vernon, 2000). This lack of acknowledgement may be

19

an impediment to the owners/operators of accommodation facilities’ willingness to acquire knowledge on the concept of sustainability (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Vernon, 2000) Due to a lack of knowledge on sustainability, there is a perception that sustainability is complicated and unattainable (Whitehouse et al., 2005). There is also the belief that sustainability is not important to the business or able of contributing to the bottom line (Whitehouse et al., 2005). These different perceptions and views can interfere with an owner’s decision to implement sustainable practices within their lodging facilities (Perron, 2005). Many hoteliers lack the knowledge of how to implement sustainability in their operations. In a study conducted by Horobin and Long (1996), 80% of the respondents strongly agreed with the principles of sustainability; however, they were uncertain of the ways to approach sustainable development. This lack of knowledge is caused by the lack of awareness of national and international associations that provide guidelines, offer advices, and award certifications (Bohdanowicz, 2008). Likewise, Schaper (2002) notes that many operators of small businesses understand the importance of sustainability and want to contribute to it; however, due to the lack of awareness of sustainable management, environmental laws and sustainable practices, these operators are unable to implement sustainability.

2.4.5 Lack of Resources The lack of resources is another impeding factor for accommodation facilities to implement environmentally sustainable practices (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Chan, 2008), especially with the small and medium-sized properties (Berry & Ladkin, 1997). As noted by Graci (2004), “without the required resources, many environmental [practices] are not

20

implemented” (Graci, 2004, p. 18). Resources needed to implement sustainable practices include financial resources, human resources, time and information.

2.4.5.1 Financial Resources Financial resources are required in all aspects of an environmental program, and it is one of the leading barriers identified by many small and medium-sized firms (Graci, 2004; Perron, 2005). While businesses realize the benefits of sustainable practices, many are concerned with the cost associated with the implementation of the practices (Bohdanowicz et al., 2001; Whitehouse et al., 2005) as well as the “operational management costs after implementation” (Whitehouse et al., 2005, p. 17). Accommodation facilities are aware of the premium associated with environmentally-friendly products which hinders their decision to purchase such products (Tzschentke et al., 2008). Tzschentke et al. (2008) have indicated in their study that the return on investment from good environmental practices may take years, in which case, small and medium-sized properties may not want to wait for it.

2.4.5.2 Human Resources Another barrier to implementing sustainable practices in accommodation operations is the lack of human resources. This is especially true with small and medium-sized facilities (Perron, 2005). The lack of sufficient employees to carry out sustainable practices, along with their lack of knowledge and skills required becomes an apparent barrier (Perron, 2005). Employees were recognized as a major barrier by two-thirds of the respondents in a study by Graci (2004). Environmentally sustainable practices may not be part of the daily operations of the facility, as “few employees are keen on undertaking extra work” (Graci, 2004, p. 18). 21

2.4.5.3 Time The time needed to implement sustainable practices is identified as a barrier by many facilities (Horobin & Long, 1996; Graci, 2004; Perron, 2005). A study conducted by Horobin and Long (1996) on fifty-four small firms and their level of awareness on sustainable tourism found that 76% of the respondents are ready to accept that their line of business has an impact on the environment. Although they agree that they have a responsibility to protect the environment, they lack the time and motivation to act on this accord (Horobin & Ladkin, 1996). Training is required for employees to carryout sustainable practices in the workplace and to recognize the growing need for sustainability; this process is time consuming, especially for small and medium-sized facilities (Graci, 2004; Perron, 2005).

2.4.5.4 Information Studies have revealed that small and medium-sized enterprises have trouble in finding relevant environmental information for their business (Merritt, 1998; Tilley, 1999). Specifically, a lack of information offered to small and medium-sized accommodation properties has become a barrier for facilities considering the integration of environmental sustainability in their operations (Perron, 2005). In Horobin and Long’s study on small firms and their level of awareness on sustainable tourism (1996), over half the firms had no information regarding sustainable practices and made no attempt to gather any. In order to improve this situation, Perron (2005) also suggests that methods of communication and information transfer needs to be directed to small and medium-sized enterprises and needs to be more efficient.

22

2.5 Incentives There are many incentives to motivate small and medium-sized facilities to implement environmentally sustainable practices, but one of the more common sources of motivation comes from the economic benefits that are generated with a successful adoption of sustainable practices (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998; Graci, 2004). The financial benefits that can be realized has been deemed as one of the more crucial incentives as many organizations are always concerned about the costs to implement and maintain environmental management programs (Bohdanowicz et al., 2001; Graci, 2004). Government assistance programs are another incentive to increase the willingness of small and medium-sized firms in the implementation of sustainable practices (Graci, 2004). An example would be the Refunds and Rebate for Sales Tax offered by the Ontario Ministry of Revenue. With this program, “the Ministry of Ontario provides incentives for various energy system installations including the Solar Energy Systems Rebate and the Wind, Micro HydroElectric and Geothermal Energy Systems Rebate for retail sales tax paid on installed energy systems into residential premises” (Natural Resources Canada, 2009). As well, Natural Resources Canada offers an ecoEnergy Retrofit program for small and medium-sized businesses, providing financial support to assist with the implementation of energy saving projects (Natural Resources Canada, 2009).

2.6 Influential Factors The implementation of environmental sustainability by accommodation organizations are adopted not only because of the benefits that can be realized but also due to the influential factors. Middleton and Hawkins (1998) listed reasons why organizations should be keen on 23

taking measures to develop sustainable tourism, which include “complying with laws, or procurement and investment policies; achieving a competitive advantage; reducing operating costs; conserving assets and resources; meeting association membership criteria; and meeting customer demands and expectations” (p. 108). This section identifies the principal factors that have influence on a firm’s decision to adopt sustainable initiatives.

2.6.1 Social Responsibility One of the influential factors identified to the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices was the sense of social responsibility amongst those involved in the integration of sustainability in the operations of a facility. The individual/informal initiatives were mostly driven by a “sense of it being the right thing to do” (Pryce, 2001, p. 105). Many managers feel they have the responsibility to contribute in preserving the environment (Tzschentke et al., 2004). Having this mindset can also improve the effectiveness of environmental regulations while mitigating the repulsion thereof (Porter & van der Linde, 1995).

2.6.2 Stakeholder Influence The stakeholders have a significant influence on the implementation of environmental practices in accommodation facilities that range from external, such as government and customers, to internal, such as employees (Henriques & Sadorsky 1999; Graci, 2004).

2.6.2.1 Employee Influence Employee plays a pivotal role when it comes to the implementation of the environmental practices in the facility as their involvement could lead to a success through their support of the 24

practices being adopted (Graci, 2004). Having employees’ involvement could lead to a possible reduction in deterrence against the move towards environmental sustainability as they would be more willing to offer up their time to volunteer in environmental activities (Graci, 2004).

2.6.2.2 Governmental Pressure Pressure by the government is an important factor in a company’s decision to implement environmentally sustainable practices in its daily operations (Rivera, 2002; Graci, 2004). Inspections conducted by the government can be a form of government pressure to the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices in the facilities of accommodation organizations (Khanna & Anton, 2002; Kassinis & Vafeas, 2002).Government regulations also play an essential role in the decision making process. Poorly written and communicated environmental regulations attract discontent and repulsion and damages a firm’s competitiveness as ‘quick-fixes’ are usually applied. Contrastingly, well written and communicated regulations foster innovative approaches to environmental sustainability and enhance a firm’s competitiveness through increased productivity (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Despite the positive correlation found between governmental pressures and the degree of environmental sustainability in a lodging property (Rivera, 2002; Graci, 2004), the extent of this correlation depends on the governmental commitment towards environmental sustainability and a destination’s degree of environmental sustainability (Le, Hollenhorst, Harris, McLaughlin & Shook, 2006). Le et al. (2006) found that in their study of environmental management in Vietnamese hotels, governmental pressures only have a minimal influence on a hotel’s decision to implement sustainable practices. They conclude that governmental pressures are only

25

influential when the government is actively involved in sustainable development and in “a more established sustainable tourism environment such as Costa Rica” (Le et al., 2006, p. 563).

2.6.2.3 Pressure from Customers Customers who are not using resources sparingly have influenced the adoption of environmental practices in hotels. In one study, accommodation facilities would implement sustainable practices because they were not able to control the energy use of their customers. The facility used this as motivation to implement sustainable practices to make up for the shortcoming of the guests (Tzschentke et al., 2004). On the other hand, customers’ demand for more environmentally sustainable products would also be a form of pressure. Many tourists are now supporting small and medium-sized operations that are more socially and environmentally responsible (Ateljevic & Doorne 2000).

2.7 Environmentally Sustainable Practices and the Accommodation Industry For the tourism industry to move towards sustainability, best practices must be adopted by all sectors of the industry with emphasis placed on accommodation facilities, which constitutes a key sector of this industry (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001; Pryce, 2001). The accommodation industry has become a strong user of energy which raises concerns for the effect that considerable energy consumption could have on the environment (Chan & Lam, 2003; Lam & Ng, 1994). Hotels are among some of the tourism facilities that consume excessive water resources, resulting in water shortages (UNEP, 2008b). As mentioned previously, the accommodation facilities also generate a large amount of waste (Bohdanowicz, 2005;

26

Greenhotelier, 2007) in addition to the water consumption and energy intensive nature of the industry. Since small and medium-sized lodging facilities account for a large portion of the lodging industry (Berry & Ladkin, 1997) and have a profound impact collectively (Tzschentke, Kirk & Lynch, 2008), these properties must make an effort to help move the industry towards sustainability. Horobin & Long (1996) found that 75% of small tourism firms have already implemented initiatives towards sustainability. The most common practices were recycling (bottles, cans, and papers), reducing energy consumption and informing guests on ways to protect the local environment. Nearly half of these small businesses made attempts to buy environmentally-friendly cleaning products and recycled products (Horobin & Long, 1996). Despite these efforts, major initiatives such as the implementation of environmental management systems (EMSs) and the formulation of an environmental policy are not taken because of the lack of resources and knowledge (Horobin & Long, 1996; Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Whitehouse et al., 2005; Bohdanowicz, 2008; Chan, 2008). This section reviews the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken by the accommodation industry that can be implemented in small and medium-sized properties.

2.7.1 Energy Conservation Tracking utility bills can help properties monitor the effectiveness of their energy conservation initiatives (Gunter, 2008). By installing energy efficient technologies such as appliances, lighting and heating/cooling systems, lodging operations can realize cost savings on their monthly utilities bills. Installing such energy efficient equipments can reduce electric bill by

27

anywhere from 10% to 50% (BnBscape, 2008). Molina-Azorín et al., (2009) found that small and medium-sized properties demonstrate the highest commitment in energy conservation.

2.7.1.1 Energy Efficient Products Manufacturers have introduced products that consume less energy. Energy Star labelled office equipment, home electronics, heating/cooling systems, appliances, and lighting are government approved products accommodation facilities can purchase to conserve energy. The percentage of energy saving from using these products ranges from 4% to 75% (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). Many properties have installed Energy Star products (Treasure Mountain Inn, 2009; Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009; Highland Lake Inn, 2008). Hoford et al. (2008) found that 45% of Bed and Breakfast establishments in British Columbia have replaced 50% to 99% of property lighting with energy efficient bulbs. Michaels (2008) identified the potential monetary saving from installing, for example, energy efficient lighting is $1 per lamp annually. Perhaps the best way to conserve energy is to use human-powered equipments. Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast cut the establishment’s lawn with manual reel mower (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), gasolinepowered lawnmowers in the United States cause as much air pollution as 3.5 million new-model cars. Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast has also encouraged its staff to commute by bicycle or foot; nearly all of the employees are committed to this since 2004. The property staffs also ride a bicycle trailer to shop for local grocery (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009).

28

2.7.1.2 Renewable Energy Lodging properties can reduce their amount of greenhouse gas emissions significantly by sourcing renewable energy (BnBscape, 2008). Properties can harness renewable energy such as solar energy by installing solar panels. For example, Highland Lake Inn has installed solar panels that are expected to reduce the property’s carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 10.5 tons over its 30-year working life (Highland Lake Inn, 2008). In another example, Treasure Mountain Inn purchases approximately 35% of its electricity from wind power sources (Treasure Mountain Inn, 2009). Sourcing renewable energy may be expensive; however, government funding programs are available. For example, Natural Resources Canada offers an ecoEnergy Retrofit program to provide financial support to small and medium-sized businesses to assist with their energy saving projects (Natural Resources Canada, 2009).

2.7.2 Water Conservation Water conservation is the area where small and medium-sized properties display a great deal of commitment towards following energy conservation (Molina-Azorín et al., 2009). To properly conserve water, all faucets should be inspected for leaks. An average faucet uses 10 litres of water each day; contrastingly, a leaking tap can use almost 130% more water each day (BnBscape, 2008). Accommodation properties that offer a linen reuse program can help conserve water as well. According to the American Hotel and Lodging Association, 88% of its member hotels have a linen or towel reuse program (Johnson, 2008). This program offers hotel guests the option to reuse towels and bed sheets, providing benefits to the association members including monetary savings, water conservation and the establishment of goodwill towards environmentally conscious guests (Johnson, 2008). 29

2.7.2.1 Low-Flow Showerheads and Toilets “During an average shower, a person may use [anywhere from] 25 to 35 gallons of water” (Hairston & Stribling, 1995, p. 1). According to Hairston and Stribling (1995), installing low-flow showerheads is the “most effective way” to limit water consumption (p. 1). “A lowflow showerhead delivers water with just as much force as a standard showerhead, yet it uses only 2 to 3 gallons per minute” (Hairston & Stribling, 1995, p. 1). A return on investment from installing low-flow showerheads will be attained within approximately one month (Hairston & Stribling, 1995). A standard toilet uses 4 to 6 gallons of water per flush. Low-flow toilets, on the other hand, use only 3 gallons of water per flush and perform as effectively as the standard-flow toilets (Hairston & Stribling, 1995, p. 2). Installing low-flow showerheads and toilets are popular methods Bed and Breakfasts use to conserve water (Hoford et al., 2008). Showerheads, faucets, toilets, and urinals with automatic sensors can also reduce water consumption by dispensing water when necessary (Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, 2001). Treasure Mountain Inn, for example, has installed low-flow showerheads, faucets and toilets. The inn also encourages guests to reuse their towels, bed sheets and linens. All these helped the property save an estimate of 40,000 gallons per year (Treasure Mountain Inn, 2009).

2.7.3 Waste Management The accommodation industry can reduce the amount of waste produced by implementing and following a waste management system that is modelled around the concepts of reduce, reuse, and recycle (Greenhotelier, 2004). Large amounts of waste generation by lodging facilities becomes problematic as the global landfill capacity is diminishing at a rapid rate, causing the 30

cost of waste disposal to become increasingly expensive (Greenhotelier, 2004). With proper implementation of recycling programs, the amount of waste produced by the accommodation industry can be considerably reduced (Greenhotelier, 2007).

2.7.3.1 Recycling and Reusing Approximately fifty-four per cent of a hotel’s solid waste (e.g. paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, and metals) can either be recycled or reused (Alexander, 2002). By recycling and reusing, the amount of solid waste generated can be greatly reduced and cost savings can be realized (Alexander, 2002). The Hilton Corporation has implemented a waste management program, the Recycling Center of Excellence, to reduce the volume of waste sent to the landfills from their properties. While comparing the waste generation in the same six-week period in 2006 and 2007, Hilton reduced 24 tonnes of waste sent to the landfills (Greenhotelier, 2007). The Westin San Francisco Airport Hotel introduced a recycling program that promotes the recycling of 22 tons of materials and monetary saving of $6,000 annually (Alexander, 2002). Properties may also reduce the amount of solid waste generation by avoiding the use of disposable products. Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast offers guests bathing products in larger-sized bottles that are refilled (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009). Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast and Highland Lake Inn only provide guests with reusable glass or ceramic beverage containers as opposed to plastic or Styrofoam containers (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009; Highland Lake Inn, 2008).

31

2.7.3.2 Composting Forty-six per cent of a hotel’s solid waste is food waste (Alexander, 2002). Since all food waste can be composted, accommodation facilities are increasingly recognizing that composting is a better alternative to dumping food waste as composted waste can be used as organic fertilizers (Alexander, 2002; BnBscape, 2008). Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast and Highland Lake Inn compost all biodegradable wastes and composted food wastes are used as fertilizers for gardens (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009; Highland Lake Inn, 2008).

2.7.4 Green Purchasing A lodging facility can help reduce hazardous waste generation by making an effort to only purchase environmentally-friendly products (Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, 2001). Lodging facilities can purchase and use biodegradable cleaning products such as baking soda, white vinegar and lemon juice (BnBscape, 2008). Regular cleaning detergents often contain many toxic chemicals such as phosphates and disinfectants that are released into the local water supply when used (Hanna, 2008). Using bio-degradable cleaning products will minimize the amount harmful substances being released into the local water supply (Hanna, 2008) Purchasing certified organic produces is another way to help a firm to become more environmentally sustainable as certified organic foods are grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or sewage sludge, and have not been genetically modified. Organic farmers focus on soil improvement and rely on “biological systems to produce high quality food and reduce environmental impact” (BnBscape, 2008). Properties can also grow their own organic produce. Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast and Highland Lake Inn have a plot of land dedicated to

32

growing vegetables, fruits and herbs (Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast, 2009; Highland Lake Inn, 2008).

2.7.5 Air Quality Many lodging properties use cleaning materials, paints and air fresheners that release toxic chemicals such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the air (BnBscape, 2008). To reduce these harmful pollutants, hoteliers can install reusable High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters and regularly monitor the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for mold and bacteria as well as obstructions to air flow (BnBscape, 2008). To improve the indoor air quality, organizations such as Marriott International has implemented smoke free policies in all of their North American locations (Greenhotelier, 2006b).

2.8 Conclusion This literature review provides an informative overview of environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry. Sustainability, namely environmental sustainability, in the context of tourism has been reviewed along with the benefits, barriers and incentives to the implementation of environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry. As the tourism industry continues to grow, the negative impacts it has on the environment as well as the economy and society will accumulate (Butler, 1993). Therefore, the need for the industry to move towards sustainability is paramount (Butler, 1993; Butler, 1998; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Murphy & Price, 2005; Dodds, 2007; Graci, 2008). A fair amount of initiatives have already been taken by the small and medium-sized properties in the 33

accommodation industry, as reviewed in this section, mainly due to the self-conscience of the owners and operators. However, many barriers are still preventing them from furthering their environmental agendas. The incentives and influential factors identified through the in-depth review of the current literature may serve as motivators for the properties. With the accommodation sector being one of the main sectors of the tourism industry and small and medium-sized properties representing a large portion of the accommodation sector (Berry & Ladkin, 1997), they must be more active with the implementation of environmental management programs, as their collective influence can be greater than that of larger facilities (Tzschentke et al., 2008).

34

3.0 METHODOLOGY The researchers carried out this study through several phases. This section outlines the procedures and research approaches used in identifying the extent of environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry. The specific techniques used to conduct the research and to analyse the data are discussed in detail. A quantitative research approach was used to identify the industry’s knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability.

3.1 Purpose and Objectives The focus of this study is the evaluation of environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry, in particular, the accommodation industry in the province of Ontario. Small to medium-sized lodging properties in Ontario were the focus of this study. The following objectives were established to satisfy the purpose of this study: 1. To review literature to identify and consolidate the knowledge of environmental sustainability, common practices implemented, and benefits, barriers and incentives. 2. To survey members of the Ontario Accommodation Association (OAA) to evaluate their knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability. 3. To identify the benefits and barriers to implementing sustainable practices in the Ontario accommodation industry. 4. To determine the incentives to further the implementation of sustainable practices in the Ontario accommodation industry.

35

Small and medium-sized lodging properties were determined by the accommodation capacity (number of rooms) each establishment holds. The size classification of the accommodation facilities was based on a study conducted by Camisón (2002); he identified that small and medium-sized properties hold up to 300 rooms. In this study, it was found that all of the lodging properties (138) in the Ontario Accommodation Association have fewer than 300 rooms. Therefore, these properties are classified as small and medium-sized lodging facilities in Ontario.

3.2 Research Method Qualitative research is an exploratory approach as it involves observations, interviews, and case studies on the research topic. It provides an in-depth understanding of the decision making process. Quantitative research seeks to draw conclusions. It is a descriptive approach that analyzes data in attempts to draw relationships between variables. Since the limitation of qualitative research is its lack of defensible data, and the limitations of quantitative research is the lack of ability to capture the in-depth details of the situation (Sommer & Sommer, 2002), a multi-method approach is more desirable. However, due to the time constraint imposed, a quantitative research approach was applied to satisfy the objectives of this study. The researchers used a questionnaire as a quantitative approach to evaluate the commitment of the small and medium-sized lodging facilities in Ontario towards environmental sustainability. The questionnaire was used as it allowed the researchers to collect a large amount of data within a short period of time (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). In addition, secondary materials were reviewed to explore concepts surrounding environmental sustainability in the tourism industry. These secondary sources also provided a starting point for research and it led 36

the researchers to related studies through citations (Jobber, 1982). By applying both techniques, the researchers were able to formulate conclusions with sufficient evidence.

3.3 Research Stages This section outlines in detail the stages the researchers followed throughout the study. One or more of the research objectives was satisfied in each of the stages. The techniques used to obtain information in this study as well as the process of data analysis are further discussed in the following stages.

3.3.1 Stage One: Literature Review The first stage involved an in-depth review of tourism and business literature. The researchers identified and consolidated the knowledge of environmental sustainability, common practices implemented, and benefits, barriers and incentives to the implementation of sustainable practices in the accommodation industry. This stage was undertaken prior to the collection of primary data as it allowed for a general insight into the topic area. Academic journals, books, internet materials, government documents, business/organization publications, and other related studies were reviewed.

3.3.2 Stage Two: Developing and Pre-Testing the Questionnaire This stage consists of two steps: the development of the questionnaire and the pre-testing of the questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect primary data in regards to the knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability in the Ontario

37

accommodation industry. In addition, basic information such as age and size of the properties were gathered. 3.3.2.1 Developing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was modeled after those from previous studies on environmental commitment in the accommodation industry. These studies are: Environmental Commitment in the Tourism Accommodation Industry in Sanya, China by S. Graci (Graci, 2008) and Evaluation of Green Practices in British Columbia’s Bed and Breakfast Industry by J. Hoford, A. MacDonald, J.P. Shain, and J. Tan (Hoford et al., 2008). The questionnaire format consists of open-ended, close-ended and rating scales questions. As not all of the possible answers to a question are known, open-ended questions were used to avoid suggesting answers to respondents and to receive a more genuine response. While open-ended questions can lead to more genuine responses, they require more time for respondents to complete. As a result, a large number of closed-ended questions were used as they are less time consuming and responses from several groups can be compared (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Rating scales allow researchers to measure the opinions of the respondents (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). According to Chang (1994), the number of scale points that maximizes the reliability of responses is arguable. Some researchers argue that an odd numbered point scale enhances reliability (Lissitz & Green, 1975; Jenkins & Taber, 1977) while others argue that an even numbered point scale is better (Bendig, 1954). The debate continues and the inclusion or omission of a midpoint is entirely dependent on the preference of the researcher (Garland, 1991). The researchers decided to use a four-point scale because they believed that if a midpoint was included, a large number of respondents may take a neutral stance. The researchers wanted the respondents to give a thoughtful response after carefully considering both sides of the issue. 38

3.3.2.2 Pre-Testing the Questionnaire An e-mail message (Appendix A) was sent before the pre-testing of the questionnaire to the members of the Ontario Accommodation Association to inform them of the questionnaire that they would be receiving in two to three weeks time. The pre-testing of the questionnaire was administered after it was developed over a period of seven days. Since the questionnaire was modeled after those from previous related studies, the questions have already been tested in various manners. Despite this, additional questions were added. Therefore, it was important to pre-test the questionnaire to reduce ambiguity and to identify any problems relating to the order and wording of the questions (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Eleven individuals were selected to pre-test the questionnaire; Bruce Gravel, President of the Ontario Accommodation Association, a Front Desk Manager at the Toronto Marriott BloorYorkville hotel, and nine university-level students. A test questionnaire was created on and administered through SurveyMonkey; a draft copy of the questionnaire was sent to Bruce Gravel for revision. Since most participants lack knowledge of the hospitality industry; therefore, all subsequent answers were fabricated. To test the questionnaire, the researchers included a comment section at the end of the questionnaire for feedback on the clarity and design. The respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement on a five-point Likert scale to the following statements: • • • • • •

The questions are worded clearly; This survey is straightforward; This survey is more fun to answer than others; I learned something new from this survey; This survey is too long; and This survey lacks importance.

An open-ended question was also asked to obtain detailed suggestions and comments to further improve the questionnaire. Based on the received comments and suggestions, a number of minor 39

changes were made regarding the formatting and wording of the questions. In regards to formatting, the font size of all questions and answer choices was enlarged from size 2 on SurveyMonkey to size 3. The wording of several questions was also modified. For example, in section 3, ‘Tourism and Sustainability’, question 2 was changed from ‘How aware are you in regards to sustainable tourism development’ to ‘In your opinion, how much do you know about sustainable tourism development’. This change was made to offer more clarity and to minimize the possibility that the respondents might feel offended. Although 18% of the respondents found the questionnaire to be lengthy, the researchers did not eliminate any questions because all respondents completed the questionnaire within 10-15 minutes. As well, the order of questions was not modified as respondents found the order to be logical.

3.3.3 Stage Three: Primary Data Collection Primary data was collected through a questionnaire in this stage of the study. The questionnaire helped to determine the knowledge of and commitment toward environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry. The questionnaire was administered on the Internet through SurveyMonkey. With the assistance of Bruce Gravel, a list of the current members was provided along with their contact information. The list contained 737 members (which are owners/operators of the properties); however, only 507 members provided an e-mail contact to the association. Therefore, only those with an e-mail contact were asked to complete the questionnaire. The web link to access the questionnaire along with a cover letter urging a prompt completion of the questionnaire from the President was forwarded to the members through SurveyMonkey on February 23, 2009. The survey email message that was sent to all members is in Appendix B. 40

The members were given a period of two weeks, from February 23, 2009 to March 9, 2009, to complete the questionnaire. Three reminders (Appendix C) were sent out to those who have not responded and to those who have partially completed the questionnaire on February 27, 2009, March 3, 2009 and March 6, 2009. The responses were downloaded from SurveyMonkey and exported to Microsoft Excel on March 10, 2009. They were then imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program for analysis on the same day they were downloaded. The response rate for the questionnaire is 27% (138 fully completed questionnaires out of 507 sent). While inputting survey data into SPSS, the researchers identified 27 respondents’ responses (not included in the 138 or the 27% response rate) were not usable. These responses were not entered into SPSS as they were only partially completed questionnaires. The partially completed questionnaires proved no use to the researchers because the respondents only completed section 2, ‘About You’. The information collected in this section is background information of the property and the owner(s)/operator(s), which is not in-depth information that can be used for the analysis of the researched topic.

3.3.4 Stage Four: Data Analysis In the data analysis phase, the SPSS program was used to analyze the questionnaire responses from the OAA members. SPSS is a computer program that transforms raw data, such as responses to a questionnaire, into comprehensible information (SPSS Inc., 2009). The statistical analyses conducted were frequencies, cross tabulations, chi-squares, and central tendencies. Frequencies of responses from the questionnaire were analyzed to determine the number of times a response occurs (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). 41

The data was further analyzed through cross tabulations of variables in SPSS to determine the correlations (i.e. the “association between two sets of [responses]”) (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p. 362). In addition, chi-squares were produced to test “the correlation between two variables [independent] from one another” (Holmes, 2008, p. 17). Chi-square analysis allowed the researchers to test whether the correlation was due to chance (i.e. the null hypothesis of having no reliable difference between the two sets being tested is accepted) or the correlation was not due to chance (i.e. the null hypothesis of having no reliable difference between the two sets being tested is rejected) (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). To determine whether the correlations tested are statistically significant (i.e. not due to chance), a Degree of Freedom (df) of <5 and Pearson Chi-Square asymptotic significance (asymp. sig.) of ≤0.05 were used. The df of <5 means the researchers are only allowing a maximum of five values that are “free to vary” (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p. 362); that is, any associations with a df of >5 will render them statistically insignificant. The asymp. sig. of ≤0.05 refers to the highest accepted percentage (5%) of likelihood that a correlation is the result of random chance (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). That is, the correlations with an asymp. sig. of ≤0.05 (or 5%) will be accepted as being statistically significant and the null hypothesis will be rejected because there is a >95% likelihood that the correlations are not results of random chance. For rating scale questions, the central tendency was measured. Central tendency is a number that best describes the sample as a whole (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Mean was used to measure the central tendency as it is a better measure than the median and mode considering the response distribution. Since a small number of scale points was used for the rating scales (4-point scales), the extremity of response distribution is low, rendering median a less effective measure

42

of central tendency. Mode was not used to measure central tendency because “it provides only a rough estimate of central tendency” (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p. 250). The responses to the open-ended questions were categorized and coded. Coding is the process of transforming raw data into a set of categories for statistical analysis (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). These questions and their respective response categories and SPSS codes are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Open-ended Questions Categories and Codes Open-ended Questions Where in Ontario is your lodging property located?

Response Categories North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western

SPSS Code* 1 2 3 4 5

Please indicate (only in whole numbers, no decimals): 1 to 15 years 16 to 30 years 31 to 45 years 46 to 60 years 61 years and more 1 to 15 rooms 16 to 30 rooms 31 to 45 rooms 46 to 60 rooms 61 rooms or more 0 to 2 employees 3 to 5 employees 6 employees or more $1 to $65 $66 to $130 $131 to $195 $196 or more

Age of you property (in years, approx.)

Number of rooms

Number of employee(s)

Annual average daily room rate

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

* SPSS refer to this as ‘label’.

Most of the other responses to open-ended questions where respondents were asked to ‘specify’ were reworded to offer clarity and categorized by common themes. These ‘specific’

43

responses are then analysed for frequency and can be found in Appendix E to Appendix L. The closed-ended responses were also coded to allow for statistical analysis. During the analysis, several response categories were collapsed due to their similarity. The categories that were collapsed are: •

‘Not A Lot’ was grouped with ‘A Little’ to have just ‘A Little’ from Question 2 in the ‘Tourism and Sustainability’ section;

•

‘Somewhat Not Important’ was collapsed with ‘Somewhat Important’ to have only ‘Somewhat Important’ from Questions 1 & 2 in the ‘Benefits’ section; and

•

‘Somewhat Not Motivating’ was collapsed with ‘Somewhat Motivating’ to have only ‘Somewhat Motivating’ from Questions 1 & 2 in the ‘Incentives’ section.

The analysis of the quantitative data enabled the researchers to identify the environmental knowledge and commitment of the OAA members. It also identified the benefits and barriers to implementing environmental programs in the Ontario accommodation industry and determined the incentives sought out by the industry. To allow for a quantifiable measure of the level of commitment towards environmental sustainability in Ontario, the researchers have given each member property a rating of their commitment level. The rating system applied is modeled after Hotel Association of Canada’s Green Key Ratings system (HAC, 2009). Each environmental practice listed in the questionnaire has been assigned a value of 1 point. For each practice implemented, the members received 1 point, with a maximum of 35 points (there are 35 practices listed in the questionnaire). The points were then tallied-up to compute the percentage of practices each property implements. The percentages were categorized into different levels of environmental commitment as followed (on page 45): 44

Table 2: Commitment Level Rationale Rating Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Percentage Implemented 1 – 19.9% 20 – 39.9% 40 – 59.9% 60 – 79.9% 80 – 100%

Number of Practices Implemented 1-6 practices implemented 7-13 practices implemented 14-20 practices implemented 21-27 practices implemented 28-35 practices implemented

Source: HAC, 2009.

Although the researchers recognize that different environmental practices will have a different impact on the environment and a property’s stakeholders, the amount of impact each practice can have is dependent on various factors such as location, age of property and target market. Instead of assigning a different point value to each practice, similar to HAC’s Green Key Ratings system, a single value of 1 was used to minimize variability and subjectivity.

3.3.5 Stage Five: Recommendations and Conclusion After the completion of stages one through four, the researchers were able to evaluate the knowledge of and commitment toward environmental sustainability in the accommodation industry. In this final stage, the researchers used findings from the previous four stages to formulate conclusion addressing the four objectives and to offer recommendations on how to further improve the environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry.

3.4 Limitations A number of limitations were faced in the study. These limitations mainly affected the participation rate from the members of the OAA. A slight degree of result accuracy was also compromised. However, the limitations did not prevent the researchers from completing the objectives of this study and most were overcome by problem-specific actions taken by the researchers. The limitations faced in the study are summarized in this section. 45

3.4.1 Time Constraints Time was the principle constraint faced by the researchers. As a relatively short period of time was given (approximately 8 weeks) to complete this study, the quality of the questionnaire and the response rate were compromised. Although the questionnaire was improved considerably through pre-testing, it was difficult for the researchers to further better the quality of the questionnaire with the time that was given. This limitation has led to some clarity issues with one of the questions (Question 2 from the ‘About You’ section) and perhaps the accuracy of some responses to this question. The researchers were also unable to prolong the questionnaire’s period of accessibility to accommodate all those who are interested in participating in the research study. This has, in part, contributed to the low response rate.

3.4.2 Questionnaire Quality From the members’ e-mails received by the researchers specifying the problem of not being able to continue onto the second page, it was diagnosed that Question 2 from the ‘About You’ section was rather unclear. The question asks the members to indicate: the age of their property; the number of rooms in the property; the number of employees employed; and the annual average daily room rate. The researchers specified the type of answers they were looking for (numeric answers); however, they did not detail what not to type in the answer boxes (text answers and symbols such as “$”). The researchers were not aware of this issue because the pretest participants were able to complete the trial survey without difficulties. None of the participants found Question 2 to be problematic; leading the researchers to believe Question 2 was worded clearly. To overcome this issue, a note specifying what to enter and what not to enter in the answer boxes to Question 2 was highlighted in all reminder e-mails sent to the 46

members. Although a clarification note was sent out, the response rate might still have been compromised as it is possible that not all recipients have fully read the e-mail message. The responses to Question 2, ‘number of employees’ part, may be distorted due to the ambiguity of the question. The researchers expected the respondents to indicate the number of hired staff, including managers if any, while excluding the owner(s). However, some respondents might have included the owner(s) in the count. For example, one bed and breakfast establishment has one room; the respondent indicated the property has two employees. The researchers do not believe a 1-room property would require any employees to operate other than the owner(s). As well, another bed and breakfast with six rooms indicated they have no employees. Thus, the findings may be slightly skewed.

3.4.3 Unavailability of Contact Information Of the list of 737 current OAA members, only 507 provided the association with their email contact information. The rest either do not have e-mail or simply did not provide the association with their e-mail address. The participation rate could have been higher had the sample size been larger.

3.4.4 Lack of Concern for Environmental Sustainability The lack of concern for environmental sustainability is one of the limitations faced that greatly affected the response rate. Two OAA members have expressed their unwillingness to participate in the study immediately following the informative e-mail that was sent to the members regarding a questionnaire they would be receiving. They thought that the study was government-funded and believed that taxpayers’ money was being misused. The members still 47

would not participate, albeit explanation was made regarding the unfunded nature of the study. The two members further explained that their primary concern is how to attract more tourists to Ontario, as opposed to furthering the industry’s environmental commitment. The number of members that share this concern could be much higher as 32 OAA members have opted-out from the questionnaire.

3.4.5 Technological Barriers Several technological barriers may have affected the total number of completed questionnaires. A barrier that was frequently encountered by the members was the computer incompetency. Some of OAA members have contacted the researchers regarding not being able to access the questionnaire through the URL link provided. The issue was immediately brought to the attention of SurveyMonkey support staff for diagnosis. However, no problem was detected and the researchers were advised to inform the members to copy and paste the URL link into a new web browser to access the questionnaire rather than clicking on the link or typing out the link. This ‘copy-and-paste’ method had already been recommended to the members in the questionnaire e-mail. The researchers are aware of the possibility of the pop-up blocker feature in web browsers blocking the questionnaire from ‘popping up’ and a mistype when typing a long URL link. However, it is likely that not all of the recipients have fully read the message. Thus, the growing frustration with not being able to access the questionnaire might have limited the number of completed questionnaires. To overcome this barrier, the researchers replied to those who have contacted them with the solution to the problem and bolded the ‘copy-and-paste’ method in the three survey reminders.

48

Other technological barriers faced by the OAA members were limited access to the Internet (i.e. dial-up connection or no readily accessible Internet connection) and out-dated computer systems. These caused a disconnection from the Internet or the computer system to crash when responding to the questionnaire. For example, one member indicated “[his] web browser or dial up service will not support [the questionnaire]”.

3.4.6 Evaluation of Commitment towards Environmental Sustainability The level of commitment rating assigned to each property may not be a true representation of their actual level of commitment. This may be attributed to the constant point value of 1 assigned to each practice listed in the questionnaire while different point values are more illustrative of the amount of impact that each practice can have on the environment and a property’s stakeholders. The researchers felt that the amount of impact that each practice has on the environment and a property’s stakeholders is dependent on many factors such as location, age of property and target market. Therefore, to minimize this variability and subjectivity, a point value of 1 was used. Also, the rating the researchers assigned to each property may not be a faithful representation of the true level of commitment because the number of practices listed in the questionnaire is only 35 while the number of practices listed in HAC’s Green Key Audit totals approximately 140. Consequently, the assigned rating may be higher than the actual.

3.4.7 Other Barriers Other limitations encountered in the study were unavailability of members and language barrier. A number of members notified the researchers via e-mail messages that they were not

49

available to complete the survey due to family issues, seasonal nature of the property, them being on vacation, and the property being closed temporarily due to renovation. Many of the properties are located in the French-speaking communities in Northern and Eastern Ontario; therefore, language could be a barrier for some members as only an English version of the survey was produced. The existence of such barrier is made certain by an e-mail from a member who was interested in participating in the study but was not able to complete the survey due to the language barrier. This member had requested assistance from the President of the OAA; however, the President was away and due to the time constraints, the data collection period could not be extended to accommodate this member.

3.5 Conclusion The section summarized the approaches applied to carry out the research study and to collect and analyze the data to determine Ontario’s small to medium-sized lodging properties’ knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability. The different research stages as well as the objective for each stage were discussed in detail. Despite the various limitations encountered, the researchers were able to gather useful data for analysis to identify the common barriers the properties face when implementing environmental sustainability into their operations. The findings also allowed the researchers to determine the specific environmentally sustainable practices currently in place and the motivational factors that would encourage the accommodation industry to further their environmental agenda.

50

4.0 REPORT FINDINGS The response rate for the questionnaire is 27% (138 completed questionnaires out of 507 sent). From these responses, the researchers conducted frequency, central tendency, crosstabulation and chi-square analyses, which are discussed in this section. These analyses allow the researchers to evaluate Ontario’s small and medium-sized accommodation industry’s knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability. The benefits and barriers to integrating such concept in Ontario are identified. Furthermore, the findings help the researchers determine incentives that will further the environmental agenda of the accommodation industry.

4.1 Frequencies and Central Tendencies The researchers used frequencies to analyze the responses provided by the participants of this study. Frequencies of responses from the questionnaire were analyzed to determine the number of times a response occurs (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Frequency analysis was conducted for each question in the questionnaire. This section showcases the knowledge of and commitment towards sustainability by the members of the Ontario Accommodations Association. In addition, the importance of the benefits and the barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable practices identified. Central tendency analysis allows the researchers to determine a number that best describe the sample as a whole (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). Mean was used to measure the central tendency as it is a better measure than the median and mode considering the response distribution. Central tendency was only done on rating scale questions.

51

This section is organized in the same manner as the questionnaire; the subsections are: Descriptive Information, Tourism and Sustainability, Environmental Initiatives, Benefits, Barriers, and Incentives. 4.1.1 Descriptive Information This section contains frequencies for the question responses under the ‘About You’ of the questionnaire. The information provides a background profile of respondents and their property. 4.1.1.1 Location of Properties Table 3 illustrates the location of the lodging properties surveyed in this study. The region categories used for this study is shown Figure 1, Map of Ontario, on the next page. Table 3: Location of Properties Where in Ontario is your lodging property located? Region Frequency North-western 8 North-eastern 37 Eastern 45 Central 23 South-western 25 n=138

52

Valid Percent 5.8% 26.8% 32.6% 16.7% 18.1% 100.0%

Figure 1: Map of Ontario

According to the Table 3 from the previous page, the majority of the respondents are located in Eastern (32.6%) and North-eastern (26.8%) Ontario. In contrast, only 5.8% of the properties surveyed are located in North-western Ontario.

4.1.1.2 Age of Property Table 4 on page 54 indicates the number and percentage of properties within the predetermined age brackets. As illustrated in the table, only a small percentage of properties are between 1 to 15 years of age. Approximately 27% of the respondents’ property is 31 to 45 years of age. Many (31.2%) of the small and medium-sized properties are at least 61 years of age or over.

53

Table 4: Age of Property Age of your property (in years, approx.) Age 1 to 15 years 16 to 30 years 31 to 45 years 46 to 60 years 61 years or over n = 138

Frequency 5 27 37 26 43

Valid Percent 3.6% 19.6% 26.8% 18.8% 31.2% 100.0%

4.1.1.3: Number of Rooms Since most of the properties are small and medium-sized enterprise and are family owned/operated, it is expected that the majority of the properties operate with only a few number of rooms. The data shown in Table 5 indicates that over 40% of the respondents owns/operates a property that is between 1 to 15 rooms. Table 5: Number of Rooms Number of rooms Number of Rooms 1 to 15 rooms 16 to 30 rooms 31 to 45 rooms 46 to 60 rooms 61 rooms and more n=138

Frequency 60 42 11 11 14

Valid Percent 43.5% 30.4% 8.0% 8.0% 10.1% 100.0%

4.1.1.4 Number of Employees Participants were asked to provide the number of employees currently at their establishments. Nearly 40% of the properties employ six employees or more, as shown in Table 6 on the following page. Thirty-five percent of the lodging properties have 0 to 2 employees. Properties with 3 to 5 employees have the lowest frequency rate at 25.4%. As mentioned in the 54

Limitations section, the responses for this question may be distorted as some respondents might have included the owner(s) in the count while the researchers were seeking only the number of hired staff including managers. Despite this, the results still provided the researchers with a reasonable indication of the size of the workforce within the properties. Table 6: Number of Employees Number of employee(s) Number of Employees 0 to 2 3 to 5 6 or more n = 138

Frequency 48 35 55

Valid Percent 34.8% 25.4% 39.9% 100.0%

4.1.1.5 Annual Average Daily Room Rate Table 7 (page 56) illustrates the number and percentage of lodging properties that has a certain range of annual average daily rate (annual ADR; the annual average amount charged to guest(s) per room per night). The annual ADR amongst 82 members (61.2%) is between $66 and $130. This is followed by properties whose annual ADR is between $1 and $65 (17.9%) and $131 and $195 (17.2%). Very few properties (five) have an annual ADR of $195 or more. There were four missing responses for this question. The responses for these four missing responses were “$0” which the researchers believe that the respondents were uncomfortable with disclosing any financial information.

55

Table 7: Annual ADR Annual average daily room rate (ADR) Average Daily Rate $1 to $65 $66 to $130 $131 to $195 $195 or more n = 134 Missing responses = 4 Total = 138

Frequency 24 82 23 5

Valid Percent 17.9% 61.2% 17.2% 3.7% 100.0%

4.1.1.6 Education Level Table 8 indicates the highest level of education completed by the owners/operators. The majority of the owners/operators of the small and medium-sized properties hold either a College Diploma (30.4%) or a University Degree (31.9%). The number of High School graduates is also relatively high at 23.9%. Ten members (7.2%) are recipients of a Masters/Doctorate Degree. Trade School graduates accounts for the lowest number of respondents at only 6.5%. Table 8: Education Level What is the highest level of education you have completed? Level of Education Frequency High School 33 College Diploma 42 University Degree 44 Masters/Doctorate Degree 10 Trade School Certificate 9 n = 138 Note: Only one response was allowed.

56

Valid Percent 23.9% 30.4% 31.9% 7.2% 6.5% 100.0%

4.1.1.7 Target Market Referring to Table 9, between ‘Leisure’ and ‘Business’ markets, ‘Leisure’ is the predominant target market for members of the OAA with 83.3% while ‘Business’ only accounts for 55.1%. Between the ‘International’ and ‘Domestic’ markets, the ‘Domestic’ market is targeted more than the ‘International’ market. There are also respondents who target ‘Other’ markets such as “people waiting for homes/apartments”, “extended stay (e.g. monthly renters)” and “hospital related (e.g. medical stays)”. Table 9: Target Market Who is your target market? Target Market Frequency Missing Response Leisure 115 23 Business 76 62 International Tourists 85 53 Domestic Tourists 107 31 Other (please specify)* 22 116 n = 138 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. *Respondents’ answers to ‘Other, (please specify)’ are in Appendix E.

Valid Percent 83.3% 55.1% 61.6% 77.5% 16.1%

4.1.1.8 Property Features As indicated in Table 10 (page 58), the more common features offered by the small and medium-sized hotels in Ontario (excluding ‘Other’) are food outlet(s)/kitchen and meeting space. Twenty-nine percent of properties have beverage outlet(s) and a swimming pool. Many of the properties offer other features such as “spa” , “24HR marketplace”, “fitness center”, “garden” and “mini golf”.

57

Table 10: Property Features What feature(s) does your property have? Target Market Frequency Missing Response Food outlet(s)/ Kitchen 67 71 Beverage outlet(s) 40 98 Swimming pool 40 98 Meeting space 53 85 No additional feature(s) 25 113 Other (please specify)* 69 69 n = 138 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. *Respondents’ answers to ‘Other (please specify)’ are in Appendix F.

Valid Percent 48.6% 29.0% 29.0% 38.4% 18.1% 50.0%

4.1.2 Tourism and Sustainability This section analyzes the frequencies and central tendencies of the respondents’ opinion on their property’s level of negative impact on the environment and their knowledge on sustainable tourism development.

4.1.2.1 Level of Negative Environmental Impact Referring to Table 11 (page 59), the average level of impact the respondents think their properties have on the environment is 1.70. Respondents tend to believe their properties have either a ‘low’ (53.6%) or a ‘very low’ (39.1%) negative impact on the environment. Very few (10 respondents) believe their properties have a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ impact. This confirms the finding by Berry and Ladkin (1997) and Vernon (2000) that the owners/operators of small and medium-sized properties believe they only have a minimal impact on the environment.

58

Table 11: Level of Negative Environmental Impact How much of a negative impact do you think your property has on the environment? Very low =1 Low =2 High =3 Very high =4 Average level of impact 54 (39.1%) 74 (53.6%) 8 (5.8%) 2 (2.9%) 1.70 Impact n = 138

4.1.2.2 Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge As shown in Table 12, the majority of the owners/operators feel they know a little (73.9%) about sustainable tourism development. Only a small percentage of respondents indicated that they know a lot (15.2%) or nothing (10.9%) about sustainable tourism. This indicates that small and medium-sized accommodation facilities owners/operators are lacking the necessary knowledge to pursue sustainability. The average level of knowledge is 2.04. Table 12: Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge In your opinion, how much do you know about sustainable tourism development? Nothing=1 A little=2 A lot=3 Average level of knowledge (Valid %) (Valid %) (Valid %) 15 (10.9%) 102 (73.9%) 21 (15.2%) 2.04 Knowledge n = 138

4.1.3 Environmental Initiatives A summary of the environmentally sustainable practices initiated by Ontario’s small and medium-sized accommodation industry are analyzed in this section. The frequency of each practice is analyzed. This section is organized by the categories in the ‘Environmental Initiatives’ part of the questionnaire. The categories are: Organization, environmental awareness, energy, water, waste reduction, air, and local environment.

59

4.1.3.1 Organization Only a small percentage (7.2%) of properties is environmentally certified. Out of 138 properties, 128 do not hold any environmental certification (illustrated in Table 13). Although ten respondents indicated their property is certified, one did not specify which certification they hold and one made an irrelevant comment (“do not acknowledge environmental certification process”) (Respondent #3, 2009). Two respondents are certified by Audubon Green Leaf, five are certified by HAC Green Key, and one respondent is a member of the Green Hotels Association. Table 13: Environmental Certification Do you hold any environmental certification? Frequency No 128 Yes (If yes, please specify which one)* 10 n = 138 * Environmental Certifications held by respondents are in Appendix G.

Valid Percent 92.8% 7.2% 100.0%

4.1.3.2 Environmental Awareness Referring to Table 14, seventy-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they do inform their guests about how they can be environmentally-friendly while twenty-three percent do not. It appears that the owners/operators are more likely to inform their staff than their guests about ways to become environmentally-friendly; 92% inform their staff about such matter. Table 14: Creating Environmental Awareness No Practice Inform guests about how they can be environmentally-friendly in your property Inform staff about how they can be environmentally-friendly in your property n = 138

60

Yes

#

%

#

%

32

23.2%

106

76.8%

11

8.0%

127

92.0%

4.1.3.3 Energy Table 15 indicates that a significant number of properties have already implemented energy conservation practices. The most common are using energy efficient lighting (97.8%), turning off all items that consume energy when they are not in use (97.8%) and repairing or replacing inefficient heating or cooling systems (97.1%). Cost may be the principal barrier to the low implementation rate of energy efficient electronics and renewable energy. It may also be the result of the low awareness of energy and monetary saving benefits associated with the two practices. Table 15: Energy Conservation Practices No Repair or replace heating/ air conditioning unit(s) when they are not running efficiently Use energy efficient appliances Use energy efficient electronics Use energy efficient lighting Turn off appliances/electronics/lighting when not in use Use renewable energy n = 138

Yes

#

%

#

%

4

2.9%

134

97.1%

22 35 3 3 130

15.9% 25.4% 2.2% 2.2% 94.2%

116 103 135 135 8

84.1% 74.6% 97.8% 97.8% 5.8%

4.1.3.4 Water Table 16 on page 62 shows that the more common water conservation practices implemented are, washing on full load (92.8%), offering a linen reuse option (81.2%) and installing low-flow showerheads (80.4%). Low-flush toilets are not being widely used by the small and medium-sized properties, possibly due to their old age and the cost associated. Implementation of systems to collect rainwater and reuse greywater is still limited in the small and medium-sized accommodation industry; the properties’ age and the cost may, again, be the influencing factors. 61

Table 16: Water Conservation Practices No # 27 43 10 26 113 130

Have low-flow showerheads Have low-flush toilets Use the laundry/dishwashing machine on full load Offer linen reuse option Collect rainwater Reuse greywater n = 138

Yes % 19.6% 31.2% 7.2% 18.8% 81.9% 94.2%

# 111 95 128 112 25 8

% 80.4% 68.8% 92.8% 81.2% 18.1% 5.8%

4.1.3.5 Waste Reduction The majority of the respondents, as shown in Table 17, attempt to reduce waste by purchasing in bulk (89.1%) and avoiding the use of disposable items (81.9%). It was to the researchers’ surprise that only 77.5% of the properties reuse paper as the researchers consider this as one of the simplest methods of reducing waste. As well, only 40.6% of the respondents use refillable shampoo and soap dispensers; this low usage rate may be the result of sanitary concerns. Table 17: Waste Reduction Practices No # 82 25 15 31

Use refillable shampoo and soap dispensers Avoid the use of disposable items Purchase in bulk to reduce plastic Reuse paper n = 138

Yes % 59.4% 18.1% 10.9% 22.5%

# 56 113 123 107

% 40.6% 81.9% 89.1% 77.5%

4.1.3.6 Waste Disposal In Table 18 on page 63, many of the respondents practice recycling of materials, specifically, cans (91.3%), plastic (89.1%), paper (89.9%), and glass (87.0%). However, only a small percentage of properties recycle cooking oil (37%), which may be the result of the lack of 62

recycling facilities capable of recycling cooking oil. For example, several researchers identified that recycling in rural areas becomes problematic when the infrastructure to support this is unavailable (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Hoford et al., 2008; Tzschentke et al., 2008). Also, only 38.4% of the properties compost food waste. This may be the result of the lack of space (Graci, 2004), intrusion by wildlife, such as “bears” and insect infestation (Hoford et al, 2008, p.84). Ninety-three percent of the respondents dispose hazardous wastes in accordance to government regulations, indicating their possible high willingness to adhere to government regulations. Table 18: Waste Disposal Practices No Recycle paper Recycle cans Recycle glass Recycle plastic Recycle cooking oil Compost food waste Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations n=138

# 14 12 18 15 87 85 10

Yes % 10.1% 8.7% 13.0% 10.9% 63.0% 61.6% 7.2%

# 124 126 120 123 51 53 128

% 89.9% 91.3% 87.0% 89.1% 37.0% 38.4% 92.8%

4.1.3.7 Air Table 19 on page 64 indicates the implementation rate of environmentally sustainable practices that would improve air quality is relatively low with 44.9% for using air filters and 67.4% for avoiding the use of products that release harmful chemicals into the air, such as paint thinner. The reasons for the low rates may attribute to a lack of knowledge or the unavailability of alternative environmentally-friendly products within close proximity.

63

Table 19: Air Quality No Use air filters Avoid using products that release harmful chemicals into the air n=138

# 76 45

Yes % 55.1% 32.6%

# 62 93

% 44.9% 67.4%

4.1.3.8 Local Environment It is indicated in Table 20 that the majority (94.9%) of small and medium-sized properties purchase local products. A large percentage of them avoid using chemical products when caring for facility grounds and gardens (84.5%) and avoid the use of hazardous and toxic substance (89.1%). A fair amount (73.9%) of property owners/operators purchases environmentallyfriendly products such as biodegradable detergents; the percentage may be limited due to the difficulty of locating such products. Only 41.3% of properties purchase organic foods and 24.6% encourage the use of public transit. Table 20: Local Environment No Avoid using chemical products when taking care of facility grounds and gardens Purchase local products Purchase organic foods Purchase environmentally-friendly products Encourage the staff and customers to use public transportation Avoid the use of hazardous and toxic substances n=138

Yes

#

%

#

%

20

14.5%

118

84.5%

7 81 36 104 15

5.1% 58.7% 26.1% 75.4% 10.9%

131 57 102 34 123

94.9% 41.3% 73.9% 24.6% 89.1%

4.1.3.9 New Practices Planned for Future According to Table 21 on the following page, 57% of small and medium-sized properties indicated that they do not plan on implementing any new environmentally-friendly practices. 64

Only 42.8% of the properties have plans to implement new practices. Examples of ‘other’ initiatives planned for the future are: “set up [an] environmental team”, installation of a grey water system, “build an enclosed ‘composting station’”, and sourcing solar energy. Table 21: Additional Practices Planned for Future Implementation Do you plan to implement any new environmentally-friendly practices in your property? Frequency Valid Percent No 79 57.2% Yes (please specify what and when)* 59 42.8% n=138 100.0% *Respondents’ other initiatives planned for future are in Appendix H.

4.1.3.10 Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices All of the respondents do implement environmentally-friendly practices as indicated in Table 22 on the following page. The principal reason as to why properties implement environmentally-friendly practices is the belief that ‘it is the right thing to do’ (91.3%). The economic and environmental benefits appear to be secondary reasons with 57.2% and 58% respectively. The competitors, customers and government do not have a strong influence as to why the properties initiate such practices. ‘Other” reasons noted by the respondents for implementing environmentally-friendly practices are: wellbeing of future generation and environment, personal interest and habits, and the conscience of the respondents.

65

Table 22: Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices Why are you implementing environmentally-friendly practices in your property? (Please select all that apply) Reasons Frequency Missing Response Valid Percent Do not implement any environmentally0 138 0.0% friendly practices It is the right thing to do 126 12 91.3% Others in the industry are doing it 10 128 7.2% Pressure from consumers 7 131 5.1% Pressure from the government 5 133 3.6% Economic benefit(s) 79 59 57.2% Environmental benefit(s) 80 58 58.0% Other (please specify)* 18 120 13.0% n=138 Note: Multiple responses were allowed. *Respondents’ answers to ‘Other (please specify)’ are in Appendix I.

4.1.4 Benefits The participants were asked to rate the level of importance for each of the given benefits for implementing environmentally sustainable practices. The frequency of each rated benefit, along with the calculated score of the average level of importance is shown in Table 23 (page 67). While most of the benefits were given a rating in between ‘somewhat important’ and ‘very important’, ‘reduced pollution’ (2.81) was rated with the highest level of importance and ‘investor interest’ (1.79) was rated with the lowest level of importance.

66

Table 23: Benefits for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices How important are the following benefits for implementing environmentally-friendly practices in your facility? Not Somewhat Very Average level of Benefits important=1 important=2 important=3 importance (Valid %) (Valid %) (Valid %) Reduced pollution 0 (0.0%) 26 (18.8%) 112 (81.2%) 2.81 Cost savings 2 (1.4%) 50 (36.2%) 86 (62.3%) 2.61 Better public image 3 (2.2%) 60 (43.5%) 75 (54.3%) 2.52 Improved working 4 (2.9%) 60 (43.5%) 74 (53.6%) 2.51 conditions for staff Customer loyalty 5 (2.6%) 65 (47.1%) 68 (49.3%) 2.46 Staff motivation and 6 (4.3%) 77 (55.8%) 55 (39.9%) 2.36 satisfaction Competitive 12 (8.7%) 71 (51.4%) 55 (39.9%) 2.31 advantage Sets an example for other facilities in the 10 (7.2%) 77 (55.8%) 51 (37.0%) 2.30 industry Investor interest 51 (37.0%) 65 (47.1%) 22 (15.9%) 1.79 n = 138 * Other benefits commented by respondents are in Appendix J.

4.1.5 Barriers The participants were asked to rate the level of frequency for each of the barriers faced when implementing environmentally sustainable practices. Table 24 on the following page displays the frequency of each rated barrier, as well as the calculated score of the average level of frequency. Forty-two percent of the respondents found lack of resources (e.g. time, money, and space) as the most frequently faced barrier when implementing sustainable practices; this finding has an average frequency score of 3.21. Cost of implementation (3.07) and cost of continuous improvements (3.07) of environmentally sustainable practices were also the barriers often faced by one third of the respondents.

67

Table 24: Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices How frequent do you face the following barriers when implementing environmentally-friendly practices within your facility? Average Never=1 Rarely=2 Sometimes=3 Often=4 Barriers level of (Valid %) (Valid %) (Valid %) (Valid %) frequency Lack of resources 6 (4.3%) 17 (12.3%) 57 (41.3%) 58 (42.0%) 3.21 Cost of continuous 9 (6.5%) 18 (13.0%) 65 (47.1%) 46 (33.3%) 3.07 improvements Cost of implementation 7 (5.1%) 22 (15.9%) 63 (45.7%) 46 (33.3%) 3.07 Cost of certification 22 (15.9%) 28 (20.3%) 37 (26.8%) 51 (37.0%) 2.85 Lack of incentives 16 (11.6%) 30 (21.7%) 58 (42.0%) 34 (24.6%) 2.80 Cost of auditing 25 (18.1%) 33 (23.9%) 32 (23.2%) 48 (34.8%) 2.75 Location of your property 26 (18.8%) 31(22.5%) 52 (37.7%) 29 (21.0%) 2.61 Lack of knowledge or 17 (12.3%) 41 (29.7%) 61 (44.2%) 19 (13.8%) 2.59 training Lack of awareness & 22 (16.7%) 34 (24.6%) 65 (47.1%) 16 (11.6%) 2.54 benefits Lack of skills & abilities 20 (14.5%) 46 (33.3%) 59 (42.8%) 13 (9.4%) 2.47 Lack of consultants to 28 (20.3%) 42 (30.4%) 51 (37.0%) 17 (12.3%) 2.41 assist management Lack of employee 37 (26.8%) 50 (36.2%) 42 (20.4%) 9 (6.5%) 2.17 involvement or support Lack of management 45 (32.6%) 51 (37.0%) 32 (23.2%) 10 (7.2%) 2.05 commitment n = 138 * Other barriers commented by respondents are in Appendix K.

4.1.6 Incentives Participants were asked to rate the listed incentives based on the level of motivation to implementing environmentally sustainable practices. Table 25 (page 69) indicates the frequency for the rated incentives and the average level of motivation. It was discovered that tax breaks (2.56) was the highest rated incentive by over 60% of the respondents, followed by government financial support (2.38).

68

Table 25: Incentives for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices How motivating are the following incentives to implementing environmentally-friendly practices? Incentives

Not motivating=1 (Valid %)

Somewhat motivating=3 (Valid %)

Very motivating=4 (Valid %)

Average level of motivation

Tax breaks

8 (5.8%)

45 (32.6%)

85 (61.6%)

2.56

67 (48.6%)

2.38

31 (22.5%)

2.13

27 (19.6%)

2.09

25 (18.1%)

2.07

22 (15.9%)

1.97

Government financial 14 (10.1%) 57 (41.3%) support Government 13 (9.4%) 94 (68.1%) guidance/support Trade Associations 15 (10.9%) 96 (69.6%) guidance/support Environmental 15 (10.9%) 98 (71.0%) labelling Environmental awards 26 (18.8%) 90 (65.2%) and recognition n = 138 * Other incentives commented by respondents are in Appendix L.

4.2 Cross-Tabulation Cross tabulations were used to identify the correlations between two sets of variables and chi-squares were used to determine the statistical significance of the correlations (Sommer & Sommer, 2002; Holmes, 2008). The acceptance criteria for the correlations are Degree of Freedom (df) of <5 and Pearson Chi-Square asymptotic significance (asymp. sig.) of ≤0.05. Despite the predetermined acceptance criteria for relationships between two sets of variables, those cross tabulations that are interesting but shows no statistical significance are produced and discussed in addition to those that are statistically significant.

4.2.1 Recycling by Regions From this cross tabulation (Figure 2 on the next page), it can be deduced that properties located in Eastern Ontario are more likely to recycle cans, paper and glass than those located in 69

other regions. This was determined as Figure 2 indicates that 98.5% (this is the average of the percentage differences between the properties that recycle each item and those that do not in all 5 regions) of all Eastern Ontario properties are more likely to recycle cans, paper and glass. In contrast, the North-western region (70.8%) is the least likely to recycle, perhaps due to the scarce availability of recycling facilities. One intriguing finding is that the properties in North-eastern Ontario (87.4%) recycle more than those in Central Ontario (82.6%). This finding rejects the researchers’ initial assumption that lodging properties in Central Ontario (urban region) would recycle more than those in other regions because of the limited availability of recycling facilities in the more rural regions (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Hoford et al., 2008; Tzschentke et al., 2008).

Figure 2: Recycling v. Regions 45 44 44

45 40 34 34

Number of properties

35

Do Not Recycle Cans Recycle Cans

29

30

Do Not Recycle Paper

25 19

20

22 23 21

21

Recycle Paper Do Not Recycle Glass

17

Recycle Glass

15 10 5

6 2

8

6 2

3

5

3

4

3 0

1

6 2

1

3

2

4

0 North‐western

North‐eastern

Eastern

Central

Regions

70

South‐western

Table 26: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Paper Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Recycle Paper f % 6 4.3 34 24.6 44 31.9 17 12.3 23 16.7 124 11.742 4 0.019

Do Not Recycle Paper f % 2 1.4 3 2.2 1 0.7 6 4.3 2 1.4 14

Total 8 37 45 23 25 138

Table 27: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Cans Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Recycle Cans f % 6 4.3 34 24.6 45 32.6 19 13.8 22 15.9 126 9.515 4 0.049

Do Not Recycle Cans f % 2 1.4 3 2.2 0 0.0 4 2.9 3 2.2 12

Total 8 37 45 23 25 138

Table 28: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Glass Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Recycle Glass f % 5 3.6 29 21.0 44 31.9 21 15.2 21 15.2 120 11.841 4 0.019

Do Not Recycle Glass f % 3 2.2 8 5.8 1 0.7 2 1.4 4 2.9 18

71

Total 8 37 45 23 25 138

Tables 26 to 28 (on the previous page) are chi-square tests conducted to determine the significance of the relationships. Using the significance level of ≤0.05 and df of <5, the association between the likelihood of properties recycling paper, cans and glass and the region they are located in is statistically significant (chi-square=11.742, 9.515, 11.841; df=4; p< 0.05). All asymptotic significances are less than the accepted level of 0.05 and the degrees of freedom are less than 5, rendering the relationships not results of chance.

4.2.2 Regions by Composting Food Waste Figure 3 shows the relationship between the region that the properties are in and their likelihood of composting food waste. Properties in Eastern and Central Ontario are more likely to compost food waste than do other regions. Using the data from Figure 3, 47% (0.47=21/45) of properties in Eastern Ontario are composting food waste while 49% (0.49=11/23) of the properties in Central Ontario compost. The percentages of properties composting are significantly lower for North-western (25%), North-eastern (30%) and South-western (32%) Ontario. Figure 3: Regions v. Composting food waste

Number of Properties

30

26

25

24 21 17

20 15 10 5

11 12

11

8

6

Compost food waste Do not compost food  waste

2

0

Regions

72

Table 29: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Composting Food Waste Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Compost Food Waste f % 2 1.4 11 8.0 21 15.2 11 8.0 8 5.8 53 4.380 4 0.357

Do Not Compost Food Waste f % 6 4.3 26 18.8 24 17.4 12 8.7 17 12.3 85

Total 8 37 45 23 25 138

The relationship between regions and composting food waste is not significant (chi square=4.380; df=4; p> 0.05). Since the calculated significance is >0.05, this relationship is very likely attributed to random chance (35.7% likelihood). Despite the insignificance, the result is rather intriguing. As well, the significance level may be higher if the sample size is larger and the distribution of properties by regions is more balanced.

4.2.3 Regions by Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products A cross-tabulation analysis was performed to identify the association between regions and purchasing environmentally-friendly products. Figure 4 (on the next page) illustrates that 82% (0.82=37/45) of the properties in Eastern Ontario and 83% (0.83=19/23) of properties in Central Ontario purchase environmentally-friendly products. In contrast only 65% of owners/operators in North-eastern Ontario, 63% in North-western, and 68% in South-western regions purchase environmentally-friendly products. This denotes that there is a higher chance for properties in Eastern and Central regions of Ontario to purchase environmentally-friendly products in comparison to properties in other regions.

73

Figure 4: Regions v. Purchasing environmentally‐friendly products 37

Number of properties

40 30

Purchase environmentally‐ friendly products

24 19

20 10

17

13 8 5

8

Do not purchase  environmentally‐friendly  products

4

3

0 North‐western North‐eastern

Eastern

Central

South‐western

Regions

Table 30: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products

Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Purchase EnvironmentallyFriendly Products f % 5 3.6 24 17.4 37 26.8 19 13.8 17 12.3 102 5.078 4 0.279

Do Not Purchase Environmentally-Friendly Products f % 3 2.2 13 9.4 8 5.8 4 2.9 8 5.8 36

Total 8 37 45 23 25 138

Table 30 represents the chi-square that tested the correlation between regions and purchasing environmentally-friendly products. The test reveal that the two variables have a weak correlation (chi square=5.078; df=4; p> 0.05). However, the relationship between regions and purchasing environmentally-friendly products confirms the researchers’ assumption that the likelihood of properties in urban regions of Ontario to participate in responsible purchasing is greater than that of properties in rural regions. The rationale for this assumption is that one 74

member whose property is located in the more rural region of Ontario (North-eastern) mentioned to the researchers through an e-mail message that purchasing environmentally-friendly products is a ‘real challenge’ as the owners would have to purchase many of these products from the United States.

4.2.4 Number of Rooms by Disposable Items It is apparent from Figure 5 that smaller-sized lodging facilities tend not to use disposable items, such as plastic cutlery and plates, than do larger-sized facilities. Ninety-two percent (0.92=55/60) of the properties with 1 to 15 rooms avoid the use of disposable items. Eighty-one percent (0.81=34/42) of properties with 16 to 30 rooms avoid the use of such items. The accommodation facilities with 31 to 45 rooms and 46 to 60 rooms have a 73% (0.73=8/11) implementation rate of this waste reduction practice, whereas only 57% (0.57=8/14) of 60 or more roomed properties implement this.

Figure 5: Number of rooms v. Use of disposable items

Number of properties

60

55

50

Avoid use of disposable items

40

34 Do not avoid use of disposable  items

30 20 10

5

8

8

8

8

3

3

31 to 45  rooms

46 to 60  rooms

6

0 1 to 15 rooms

16 to 30  rooms

Number of rooms

75

61 rooms or  more

Table 31: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Number of Rooms and Use of Disposable Items Number of Rooms 1 to 15 rooms 16 to 30 rooms 31 to 45 rooms 46 to 60 rooms 61 rooms or more Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Avoid Use of Disposable Items f % 55 39.9 34 24.6 8 5.8 8 5.8 8 5.8 113 10.916 4 0.028

Do Not Avoid Use of Disposable Items f % 5 3.6 8 5.8 3 2.2 3 2.2 6 4.3 25

Total 60 44 11 11 14 138

Table 31 represents a chi-square test conducted to determine the significance of the relationship between the number of rooms and the use of disposable items. Using the predetermined significance level and degrees of freedom, the association between the two variables is statistically significant (chi square=10.916; df=4; p< 0.05). This illustrates a strong correlation between the use of disposable items and the number of rooms the properties has, rendering this correlation not the result of a random chance.

4.2.5 Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen by Recycling Cooking Oil Figure 6 on the following page shows a cross-tabulation between food outlet(s)/kitchen and recycling cooking oil. In this graph, it is evident that respondents who indicated having food outlet(s)/kitchen in their property also confirmed that they recycle cooking oil; in comparison, those who do not feature food outlet(s)/kitchen have indicated that they do not recycle cooking oil.

76

Figure 6: Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen v. Recycling Cooking Oil 70

61

Number or properties

60 50

Include Food  Outlet(s)/Kitchen

41

40

Do Not Include Food  Outlet(s)/Kitchen

26

30 20

10

10 0 Recycle Cooking Oil

Do Not Recycle Cooking  Oil

Environmental practice

Table 32: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen and Recycling Cooking Oil Property Feature Include Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen Do Not Include Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Recycle Cooking Oil f %

Do Not Recycle Cooking Oil f %

Total

41

29.7

26

18.8

67

10

7.2

61

44.2

71

51 32.835 1 0.000

87

138

Table 32 represents the chi-square that tested the correlation between food outlet(s)/kitchen and recycling cooking oil. The testing resulted in the two variables being statistically high in significance (chi square=32.835; df=1; p< 0.05).

4.2.6 Level of Education by Commitment Level As illustrated in Figure 7 on page 78, properties owned/operated by university and college graduates appear to have a higher level of commitment towards environmental 77

sustainability than high school graduates. This is justified in Table 33 by the percentages of Level 4 and Level 5 properties owned/operated by college (Level 4: 28%; Level 5: 40%) and university (Level 4: 31%; Level 5: 35%) graduates, which are higher than those of High school graduates. Due to the low number of owners/operators with a Masters/Doctorate Degree or Trade School Certificates, it is difficult to formulate a conclusion on their level of commitment towards environmental sustainability. Table 33: Level of Education and Commitment Level

High School College Diploma University Degree Masters/Doctorate Degree Trade School Certificate Total n=138

Commitment Level Rating Level 3 Level 4 f % f % 8 29.6 20 22.7 7 25.9 25 28.4 10 37.0 27 30.7

f 1 2 0

Level 2 % 33.3 66.7 0.0

0

0.0

1

3.7

9

0 3

0.0 100

1 27

3.7 100

7 88

Level of Education

f 4 8 7

Level 5 % 20.0 40.0 35.0

10.2

0

0.0

8.0 100

1 20

5.0 100

Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

Figure 7: Level of education v. Commitment level 30

27 25

Number of Properties

25 20

20 Level 2

15

Level 3 10

10

8

7

8

Level 4

9

Level 5

7

7

4

5 1

2 0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0 High School

College Diploma

University Degree

Level of Education

78

Masters/Doctorate  Degree

Trade School  Certificate

Table: 34 Pearson Chi-Square Test – Level of Education and Commitment Level Level of Education High School College Diploma University Degree Masters/Doctorate Degree Trade School Certificate Total Chi-Square Degrees of Freedom Significance n=138

Level 2 f % 1 0.7 2 1.4 0 0.0

Level 3 f % 8 5.8 7 5.1 10 7.2

Level 4 f % 20 14.5 25 18.1 27 19.6

Level 5 f % 4 2.9 8 5.8 7 5.1

0

0.0

1

0.7

9

6.5

0

0.0

10

0

0.0

1

0.7

7

5.1

1

0.7

9

3 8.779 12 0.722

27

88

20

Total 33 42 44

138

According to the chi-square table above, little significance is shown for the relationship between the level of education and the level of commitment towards environmental sustainability (chi square=8.779; df=12; p>0.05). Although the cross-tabulation between the two variables show a positive correlation (i.e. the higher the education, the higher the commitment), the chisquare test reveals this correlation is a result of random chance.

4.2.7 Regions by Commitment Level Referring to the Figure 8 on the following page, 45% (0.45=9/20) of the properties that received a level 5 commitment rating are located in Eastern Ontario, 30% (0.3=6/20) in Northeastern, 20% (0.2=4/20) in South-western, 5% in North-western (0.05=1/20), and no properties in Central Ontario received a commitment level of 5. This figure also indicates that properties in Eastern Ontario are more committed to environmental sustainability than other regions, followed by North-eastern, South-western, Central and finally North-western.

79

Figure 8: Regions v. Commitment level 35 31 30

Number of properties

25

23 Level 2 Level 3

20

Level 4

16

Level 5

14

15 9

10 6

7

6

5

4

5 1

2

1

7 4

2 0

0

0

0

0 North‐western

North‐eastern

Eastern

Central

South‐western

Regions Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

4.2.8 Age of Properties by Commitment Level As indicated in Figure 9 (page 81), properties that are 61 years of age or over are more committed to environmental sustainability than properties that are under 61 years of age. Properties between the ages of 1 to 15 years are the least committed. This suggests that the age of a property is not necessarily a barrier to implementing environmental practices. The finding does not support the findings by Álvarez Gil et al. (2001) which states that older facilities generally implement less environmental practices than newer facilities.

80

Figure 9: Age of property v. Commitment level 30 27

27

Number of properties

25

20

Level 2

17

Level 3

15

Level 4

15

Level 5 10

9

8

5 2 2 0

7 3

1

6 4

3

1

4

1

0

1

0 1 to 15 years

16 to 30 years

31 to 45 years

46 to 60 years

61 years or  more

Age of property Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

4.2.9 Number of Rooms by Commitment Level Figure 10 on page 82 illustrates that smaller properties (with 1 to 30 rooms) have a higher commitment level than larger properties (with 31 rooms or more). This challenges the findings of McNamara and Gibson (2008) and Middleton and Hawkins (1994) as they concluded that larger properties tend to implement more environmental practices into their operations. Therefore, the size of a lodging property may not be an influencing factor to the property’s commitment toward sustainability.

81

Figure 10: Number of rooms v. Commitment level 45

41

40

Number of properties

35 29

30

Level 2 Level 3

25

Level 4 Level 5

20 15 9

10

9

9 7

5

3 1

6

5

5

4 2

1

1

16 to 30  rooms

31 to 45  rooms

0

1

2

3

0

0 1 to 15 rooms

46 to 60  rooms

61 rooms or  more

Number of rooms Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

4.2.10 Target Markets by Commitment Level Properties that cater to the leisure market are more committed to environmental sustainability than those catering to the business market as shown in Figure 11 (page 83). Of the 20 properties in Ontario that received a Level 5 rating, all cater towards the leisure market while only 55% (0.5=11/20) of the Level 5 properties cater towards the business market. A majority (83%=73/88) of the Level 4 properties in Ontario targets the leisure market whereas only 59% (0.59=52/88) of the properties with a commitment level rating of 4 target the business clientele.

82

Figure 11: Target markets v. Commitment level 80

73

70

Number of properties

60

52 Level 2

50

Level 3

36

40

Level 4

30

Level 5 21

20

20

15

12

15 11

9

6

10

2

1

1

0

2

0 Leisure

Not catering to  leisure

Business

Not catering to  business

Target markets Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

4.3 Conclusion Of the 507 questionnaires that were sent out, the researchers were able to collect 138 completed versions. The raw data collected allowed the researchers to perform tests and analyses which assisted the researchers in identifying the most common practices through frequencies and central tendency. Furthermore, the researchers were able to recognize correlations between two different variables and chi-squares were used to determine the statistical significance of the correlations. The following section is an in-depth discussion of the major findings from this study.

83

5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS In this section of the report, an in-depth discussion and analysis is presented on the key and interesting findings of this study. After calculating the frequencies and mean, along with conducting cross-tabulation analysis and chi-square testing on the results using SPSS, a total of ten cross-tabulations were identified. The relationship shown in the cross-tabulations is discussed in detail. The level of commitment shown by the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario is also discussed. The final topics of discussion are the common practices being implemented by the industry and the uncertain barriers that were discovered throughout this study.

5.1 Regions and Recycling The questionnaire results illustrate that small and medium-sized properties in Eastern Ontario are more likely to recycle (cans, paper, glass) than any other regions, followed by Northeastern, South-eastern and Central, then North-western Ontario. The researchers were able to discover the properties that recycled the least amount of cans are located in South-western Ontario; properties that recycled the least amount of paper are located in Central Ontario; and properties that recycled the least amount of glass are located in North-eastern Ontario. This is very intriguing because according to the literature review, recycling in rural areas tends to be less due to the lack of available recycling infrastructures and facilities (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Graci, 2004; Hoford et al., 2008; Tzschentke et al., 2008). However, this may not be the case for Ontario as the findings from the questionnaire showed that properties in the North-eastern region recycle much more than those in Central and South-western regions, which are more urbanized. A lot of the properties in Ontario (small and medium-sized) recycle paper (90%), cans (91%), and glass (87%). There are still barriers that prevent properties from participating in 84

recycling, such as [lack of] customer participation (Respondent #55, 2009). Respondent #58 provided evidence to the barrier of ‘customer participation’ mentioning that customers are “putting recyclable products in the garbage” instead of recycling bins (Respondent #58, 2009). Respondent #38 (2009) from South-western Ontario mentioned that one barrier to participating in recycling was that there were no available functioning recycling programs in the region. This result supports the statement made earlier by the researchers of how Ontario may be one exception to the fact that recycling in rural areas tend to be less. Although it was revealed earlier those properties in the North-eastern region recycle much more than Central and South-western regions, the researchers discovered that rural areas still face the barrier in lack of available recycling infrastructures and facilities. Respondent #107 (2009), a resident in the North-eastern region, indicated that the region does not recycle glass yet, therefore glass must be discarded in a landfill. Other mentioned barriers faced by small and medium-sized properties are the lack of resources (e.g. time and space) and lack of employee involvement or support. Referring back to Table 23 on page 64, the average level of frequency for lack of resources is 3.21, while lack of employee involvement or support has an average frequency of 2.17.

5.2 Regions and Composting Food Waste According to the cross-tabulation analysis conducted on the relationship between regions and composting food waste, small and medium-sized properties in Central (49%) and Eastern (47%) Ontario are more likely to compost food waste in comparison to those in other regions. In contrast, the small and medium-sized properties in North-western (25%), North-eastern (30%) and South-western (32%) Ontario are less likely to compost food waste. Although the chi-square 85

analysis calculated this relationship to be insignificant and is due to random chance, the researchers thought this was an interesting finding as they believe the properties in the more rural regions of Ontario (i.e. North-western, North-eastern and South-western) would be more likely to compost because they have more ‘green’ areas. The cross-tabulation between regions and composting food waste in Figure 2 (page 69) shows that there are more small and medium-sized properties that do not compost food waste compared to those properties that do. For example, Respondent #3 (2009) indicated that “compost fails to decay as it is supposed to”. Although the respondent did not specify why the compost fails to decay, this example verifies that composting food waste is not practiced all that much. In the North-eastern region of Ontario, Respondents #49 and #109 (2009) mentioned that “bears” in their areas as a reason for a lack of food waste composting. The respondents indicated that they are worried about bears invading their facility; therefore they do not practice composting food waste. According to Hoford et al. (2008), fruit flies are another reason for not composting food waste as they can become difficult, especially for surrounding neighbours and customers. Based on these findings, location of property is considered as a barrier preventing small and medium-sized properties in Ontario from composting food waste. It is recommended that further research be done to test this relationship with a larger sample size and with the number of properties being distributed more evenly across the regions of Ontario.

86

5.3 Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products Although the chi-square testing for the relationship between regions and purchasing environmentally-friendly products revealed no statistical significance, it still reinforces the researchers’ assumption that the possibility of properties in the urban regions of Ontario purchasing environmentally-friendly products is in fact greater than that of properties in rural regions. Of the five regions in Ontario, over eighty percent of the properties in Eastern and Central Ontario purchase environmentally-friendly products. In comparison, the three remaining regions of Ontario (North-eastern, North-western, and South-western) accounted for 65%, 63%, and 68%, respectively. This indicates that there is a higher possibility for properties in the regions of Eastern and Central Ontario to purchase environmentally-friendly products compared to properties in the other three regions. There are various reasons that have been recorded in the questionnaire which indicate why respondents do not purchase environmentally-friendly products. One of the reasons for not purchasing environmentally-friendly products may be due to the perception that the products are less effective. Another reason for the lack of support could be because of the high costs associated with the products. For example, Respondent #25 (2009) mentioned that although the cost of environmentally-friendly products is the main reason for not purchasing any ‘green’ products, it was also mentioned that the refusal for implementing this practice is because most green products are not as capable as the current products being used. Furthermore, respondents of the questionnaire indicated that cost of implementation was a barrier faced with an average frequency of 3.07 when implementing environmentally sustainable practices. According to data collected from the questionnaire, the researchers discovered that the availability of environmentally-friendly products or lack thereof, is another reason why some 87

owners/operators do not implement this practice. As mentioned by one of the respondents, “it is always difficult to find eco-friendly supplies, in a close proximity. For many things we had to look over the [border] to get them which doesn’t make sense to us” (Respondent #119, 2009). To further elaborate on this point, another respondent mentioned, “suppliers [of environmentallyfriendly products] may not be available in small towns” (Respondent #77, 2009). These examples illustrate some frustrations that owners/operators encounter when trying to implement this practice. They may want to become more sustainable, but due to their location and the lack of available products within those regions, the owners/operators are forced to continue with the use of their current products. The researchers believe that further research should be done to test the correlation of region and purchasing environmentally-friendly products. It is recommended that the research be conducted with a larger sample size and with the number of properties being distributed more evenly across the regions of Ontario. This may increase the significance of the correlation.

5.4 Knowledge of Sustainability and Impacts on Environment A majority (73.9%) of the owners/operators of the small and medium-sized lodging facilities in Ontario indicated they know ‘a little’ about sustainable tourism development. However, the average level of impact they believe their property has on the environment is only 1.70 out of 4 (with 1 being very low and 4 being very high). The reason for this belief is these properties are of smaller size (Bohdanowicz, 2005) and smaller properties tend not to have significant negative impacts on the environment (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001) individually. For this reason, the properties in Ontario believe they have implemented enough environmental practices and a large number of properties do not have major environmental initiatives (e.g. installation of 88

grey water system – 94.2%, installation of rainwater tanks – 81.9%, and sourcing renewable energy – 94.2%) placed. Furthermore, a majority (nearly 60%) of these properties do not have future plans to implement additional environmental practices. The findings imply that the owners/operators lack sufficient knowledge to realize the true impacts their property has on the environment. The low level of knowledge is attributed to limited access to quality information. Studies conducted by Merritt (1998) and Tilley (1999) revealed that small and medium-sized businesses have trouble locating relevant environmental information for their operation. Owners/operators also feel the information they received on environmental sustainability and the impact their property has on the environment is only a marketing tool used by companies to generate higher product sales. One respondent mentioned that, due to the wealth of information that is available, it is difficult for owners/operators to identify which information is factual and which is used as a marketing ploy (Respondent #42, 2009). Horobin and Long (1996) indicated in their study that small and medium-sized firms show a low willingness to gather quality information on environmental sustainability. Therefore, quality information needs to be easily accessible and clearly communicated to the owners/operators of small and medium-sized properties to increase their level of knowledge on environmental sustainability (Perron 2005).

5.5 Commitment towards Environmental Sustainability Table 33 (page 90) shows the commitment level rating of the small and medium-sized lodging properties in Ontario. According to the table, the majority of properties (65%) received a commitment rating of Level 4. There are no properties that received a rating of Level 1 as all properties have taken minimal actions in protecting the environment. Fifteen-percent of the 89

properties are considered to be highly committed toward environmental sustainability as they received a commitment rating of Level 5. Table 35: Commitment Level Ratings of Lodging Properties in Ontario

Freq. %

Level 1 0 0%

Commitment Level Rating Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 3 27 88 2% 20% 65%

Level 5 20 15%

Note: No properties received a rating of level 1. The practices implemented by each property are shown in a table in Appendix M.

As mentioned earlier in the Limitations section, the ratings may not be a true representation of the actual level of commitment by the properties because the number of practices listed in the questionnaire is only 35, while the number of practices listed in HAC’s Green Key Audit totals approximately 140. In addition, a point value of 1 was assigned to each practice despite the possibility that their impact on the environment and the property’s stakeholders may vary.

5.5.1 Regions and Commitment Level Of the five regions in Ontario (North-western, North-eastern, Eastern, Central, and South-western), properties in Eastern Ontario are the most committed to environmental sustainability (refer to Table 34 on page 91). Forty-five percent of the Level 5 properties are located in Eastern Ontario and thirty-five percent of the properties with a commitment level of 4 are located in this region. North-eastern Ontario properties show the second highest level of commitment towards environmental sustainability with 30% of the Level 5 and 26% of the Level 4 properties located in the region. Although properties in North-western Ontario appear to be the least committed, it is difficult to conclude that the properties in the region are the least committed, as the number of properties reported to be located in this region is very low. 90

Table 36: Regions and Commitment Level Level 2

Regions North-western North-eastern Eastern Central South-western Total n=138

f 1 2 0 0 0 3

% 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

Commitment Level Rating Level 3 Level 4 f % f % 2 7.4 4 4.5 6 22.2 23 26.1 5 18.5 31 35.2 7 25.9 16 18.2 7 25.9 14 15.9 27 100 88 100

Level 5 f 1 6 9 0 4 20

% 5.0 30.0 45.0 0.0 20.0 100

Note: No property received a rating of Level 1

With no Level 5 properties in Central Ontario, the region is the least committed to environmental sustainability (excluding North-western). This supports the finding by Rivera (2002) that hotels in city centres contribute less to sustainable development because of the high costs the properties will incur should they commit to any standards and they believe the concept of sustainability is irrelevant to the business clientele.

5.5.2 Target Market and Commitment Level In Rivera’s 2002 on the assessment of environmental initiatives by hotels, the research concludes that hotels targeting the business market are less incline to integrate sustainability into their operations as the organizations believe it to be an irrelevant concept for the business travelers. The finding made by the researchers of this study confirms Rivera’s (2002) study. Figure 11 on page 83 clearly indicates that the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario that cater towards the leisure market are more committed to environmental sustainability than those catering towards the business market. This suggests that a property’s environmental responsibility does not strongly influence a business traveler’s decision on which lodging property to stay at.

91

5.5.3 Environmental Certification and Commitment Level As shown in Table 35, there are five properties with an environmental certification that received a Level 5 rating. They account for the majority (63%) of the properties who hold an environmental certification. This indicates that properties with an environmental certification have the highest level of commitment towards implementing sustainable practices than those without a certification (12% for Level 5). Table 37: Properties with Certification by Commitment Level Commitment Level Rating Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Total 0 0 1 2 5 8* Hold Certification (#) 0 3 26 84 15 128 Do Not Hold Certification (#) * Two Level 4 properties were not included because one did not specify which certificate is being held and the other made an irrelevant comment.

As mentioned in the note from the above table, two properties with a Level 4 rating were not accounted for because one respondent did not specify which certificate their property held and another respondent made an irrelevant comment.

5.5.4 Level of Education and Commitment Level Based on the initial finding by the researchers, the level of commitment towards environmental sustainability by the properties in Ontario is influenced by the level of education obtained by the owners/operators. However, further analysis rejects this finding. The chi-square test reveals that the relationship between the level of commitment and the level of education is insignificant, rendering the relationship a result of chance. This suggests that the level of education an owner/operator has does not affect their property’s commitment level rating on environmental sustainability.

92

5.5.5 Planned Practices and Commitment Level According to Table 36, a majority of properties (36) that indicated that they are planning to further implement sustainable practices in the future have received a commitment rating of Level 4. An interesting finding is that only 8 of the 27 properties (30%) that were given a rating of Level 3 indicated that they are planning to implement additional sustainable practices in the future. Table 38: Ratings of Properties Planning to Further their Environmental Agenda Commitment Level Rating Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Level 1 Plan to further implement sustainable practices in the future Do not plan to further implement sustainable practices in the future

Level 5

0

0

8

36

15

0

3

15

52

5

Note: No properties received a rating of level 1.

This is an interesting discovery because Schaper (2002) found that many operators of small businesses understand the importance of sustainability and want to contribute to it. Therefore, the researchers believe that properties with a lower rating would develop plans to further their implementation of sustainable practices.

5.6 Common Practices Implemented Of all the 35 practices mentioned, 18 were implemented by at least 80% of all properties. These practices are listed in Table 37 on the following page. Among these practices, the most frequently implemented is the use of energy efficient lighting (97.8%). The researchers also discovered that the top 3 practices implemented relate to energy conservation. This confirms the finding made by Molina-Azorín et al. (2009) that small and medium-sized properties exhibit the

93

highest commitment toward energy conservation due to cost savings, which has been identified in this study to be the second most important benefit for implementing environmental practices. Table 39: Practices with Implementation Rate of 80% and Over Environmental Practices Use of energy efficient lighting Repair/replace heating/AC unit Turn off appliances/electronics/lighting when not in use Purchase local products Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations Inform staff how to be environmentally-friendly Use dishwashing/laundry machine on full loads Recycle cans Recycle paper Purchase in bulk Recycle plastic Avoid use of hazardous/toxic substances Recycle glass Avoid using chemical products when taking care of facility grounds/gardens Use energy efficient appliances Avoid use of disposable items Have low-flow shower heads Offer linen reuse option

Freq. 135 134 134 131 129 128 128 126 124 123 123 123 120 118 116 113 112 111

% 97.8% 97.1% 97.1% 94.9% 93.5% 92.8% 92.8% 91.3% 89.9% 89.1% 89.1% 89.1% 87.0% 85.5% 84.1% 81.9% 81.2% 80.4%

n=138 The above table also indicates that the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario show the second highest level of commitment towards waste reduction by implementing practices such as purchasing local products and recycling. The properties are also highly committed to water conservation as they have implemented such practices as washing on full loads, installing low-flow showerheads and offering a linen reuse program. By examining Table 37, researchers are able to determine that the top three major concerns for the lodging properties in Ontario are energy conservation, waste reduction and water conservation.

94

5.7 Uncertain Barriers The size of a property is found by a number of researchers to be an indication of the willingness and commitment of a lodging property to integrating sustainability within its operations (Middleton & Hawkins, 1994; Álvarez Gil et al., 2001; Schaper, 2002; Rivera, 2002; McNamara & Gibson, 2008). McNamara and Gibson (2008) and Middleton and Hawkins (1994) discovered that larger lodging properties tend to implement more environmental practices into their operations than smaller-sized properties. Large properties have a greater impact on the environment than small properties (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001) when compared individually. The cross-tabulation analysis on the number of rooms a property has and the commitment level rating of a property (Figure 10 on page 82) from this report, however, does not support the findings from the previously mentioned researchers. This study indicates that smaller lodging properties in Ontario (with 1 to 30 rooms) have a higher commitment towards environmental sustainability than larger properties (with 31 rooms or more). The result renders that the size of a property to be an uncertain barrier to a property’s commitment toward sustainability. Álvarez Gil et al. found in their 2001 study a negative correlation between the age of a property and the number of practices that they implement and the extent to which the practices are implemented. They concluded that older facilities generally implement less environmental practices than newer facilities and the environmental programs in older facilities tend to be less extensive as well (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). In contrast, this study reveals that the age of a property is not necessarily a barrier to implementing environmental practices. Figure 9 on page 80 illustrates that properties with an age of 61 years or over are more committed to environmental sustainability than those that are under the age of 61 years. Properties that are the least committed are between the ages of 1 to 15 years. 95

5.8 Conclusion This section covered an in-depth analysis and discussion on the cross-tabulations, the industry’s level of commitment towards environmental sustainability, common practices being implemented, and a number of uncertain barriers. The topics discussed in this section provide the researchers with an understanding of the knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability by the small and medium-sized properties in Ontario. The common practices being implemented helped to indicate the main concerns the industry has in regards to environmental sustainability. A number of factors that were thought to be significant barriers to the industry’s level of commitment are found to be uncertain and future in-depth research should be conducted to evaluate and confirm their influence as barriers.

96

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results from this study, the following are five recommendations that government, Trade Associations, third parties and property owners/operators could pursue to further extend environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry. These recommendations include availability of information, incentives awareness, streamline operations, education and training, and motivating regulations.

6.1 Availability of Information One of the major barriers that small and medium-sized businesses face is the difficulty in locating useful information on environmental sustainability (Perron, 2005). In addition, Horobin and Long (1996) found that many properties do not have information in regards to sustainable practices and show no endeavour to collect any. Similarly, in this study, some respondents indicated that they are not aware of where environmentally sustainable products could be purchased. Due to the lack of readily available information, owners/operators may not be aware of products and suppliers that are present within close proximity. Although a vast amount of information is provided, government, Trade Associations and perhaps educational institutions should develop marketing schemes to constantly inform owners/operators of the available information. Marketing schemes such as conferences, monthly newsletters and special informative events are ways in which information can be conveyed. For example, special informative events could include a free themed dinner with presentations and demonstrations on ways to become more environmentally sustainable. The information provided to owners/operators of accommodation facilities must be clearly communicated and specifically directed to the small and medium-sized accommodation 97

facilities. It should integrate low cost alternatives and identify where environmentally-friendly products can be purchased. It should also highlight the benefits associated with adopting environmentally sustainable practices. This in turn may motivate properties to consider implementing more environmental programs.

6.2 Incentives Awareness According to this study, lack of incentives is one of the more common barriers faced by the small and medium-sized accommodation facilities in Ontario when implementing environmentally sustainable practices. However, this may be attributed to the owners/operators lack of awareness on the available incentive programs. A number of respondents indicated that they find the cost of implementing sustainable practices is often an impeding factor. They also indentified that the most motivating incentives are government financial support and tax breaks. It is recommended that the Government be more aggressive in advertising the incentive programs for properties implementing specific environmental projects. For example, brochures with information on incentives can be mailed out along with other information packages sent by the Government. Trade Associations should also be active in promoting the incentives provided. As ‘no interest loans’ was mentioned by respondents as a motivating incentive and a barrier they face, third parties such as banks and private lenders could offer low interest loans for properties lacking sufficient money to implement certain environmental initiatives. If such loans are offered, property owners/operators must be made aware of this incentive in which Trade Associations could be an advocate.

98

6.3 Streamline Operations Inefficiency in an organization is positively related to the amount of pollution an organization produces (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Waste can be seen as a form of pollution and unnecessary waste are generated by “incomplete material utilization and poor process controls” (Porter & van der Linde, 1995, p. 122). In addition, Mazzanti and Zoboli (2009) identified that low “environmental productivity” (p. 1190) leads to low labour productivity. This confirms that having good environmental practices can reduce operating costs, leading to financial benefits. Streamlining operations is a way to improve the environmental productivity of accommodation facilities. Property owners/operators could follow the guidelines provided below to streamline their operations (Porter & van der Linde, 1995): Step 1: Carefully examine current operation processes to identify areas where inefficiency is present. Step 2: Identify possible improvement measures to reduce any inefficiency found. Step 3: Select the best course of action. Step 4: Execute plans. Step 5: Control and monitor progress to identify any flaws (if any). Step 6: Follow up to evaluate any improvements. Step 7: Repeat steps 2 to 6 over time. For example, property owners/operators can use resources more efficiently; avoid using hazardous materials and eliminating unneeded processes. The practice of streamlining operations can help prevent damage towards the environment, as opposed to controlling the damage caused by the property.

99

6.4 Education and Training Horobin and Long (1996) identified that a majority of small business owners/operators strongly agreed with the principles of sustainability; however, they were uncertain of the ways to approach sustainable development. The properties in the Ontario accommodation industry do not have sufficient knowledge on sustainable tourism development. Therefore, education and training can help properties further their implementation of environmentally sustainable practices. Training designed for owners/operators can be provided as part of a conference or seminar geared towards environmentally sustainable development. Training can also be provided for employees on ways in which they can contribute to the environmental goals of the property. In addition to training, education can offer more insight into the evaluation of available information on environmental sustainability. This can help owners/operators to distinguish between factual and questionable information. In turn, training and education can motivate owners/operators and employees to adopt sustainable practices and instil a positive mindset towards sustainability.

6.5 Motivating Regulations A number of respondents have indicated that government regulations are not motivating incentives to integrating sustainability in their property’s operations. However, Porter and van der Linde (1995) stated that environmental regulations can in fact encourage participation in sustainability. Regulations must be well written and clearly communicated to have an encouraging effect (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). It is recommended that regulators develop regulations that focus on prevention rather than control. These regulations should be flexible that they allow owners/operators to be creative 100

and innovative in meeting with the standards. Regulators should “employ phase-in periods” (Porter & van der Linde, 1995, p. 124) where stricter standards will gradually be enforced. By encouraging the industry’s participation in formulating standards from the early planning process, standards can be more realistic while considering the needs of both parties.

101

7.0 CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability in the small and medium-sized accommodation industry in Ontario. Due to the continual growth in the tourism industry (UNWTO, 2008; WTTC, 2008), the need to adopt environmental practices by the accommodation properties is important (Butler, 1993; Butler, 1998; Graci, 2004; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Murphy & Price, 2005; Dodds, 2007; Graci, 2008); as they make up one of the main sectors of tourism (WTTC, IFTO, IH&RA & ICCL, 2002). Since the small and medium-sized properties represent a large portion of the accommodation industry (Berry & Ladkin, 1997) and their collective impact can be greater than that of larger properties (Tzschentke et al., 2008; Frampton & Simmons, 2001), they too must adopt sustainable practices. Four objectives were set to help the researchers to satisfy the purpose of this study. These objectives were met despite the limitations encountered throughout the research. A literature review was written to identify and consolidate the knowledge of environmental sustainability, common practices implemented, and benefits, barriers and incentives in the accommodation industry as a whole. The Ontario Accommodation Association members were surveyed to evaluate the knowledge of and commitment towards environmental sustainability in the small and medium-sized accommodation industry in Ontario. Benefits and barriers of implementing sustainable practices in Ontario were found. Incentives to adopting sustainable practices in the province were determined. A number of key and interesting findings were discussed in this report. Respondents indicated that their properties have a low negative impact on the environment; however it was also identified that they hold some knowledge on sustainable tourism development. The 102

researchers found that energy conservation, waste reduction and water conservation to be the pressing concerns for Ontario’s small and medium-sized accommodation industry. It was also revealed that size and age of a property and the level of education obtained by the owner(s)/operator(s) have no (or a questionable amount of) influence on a property’s level of commitment towards environmental sustainability. This study concludes that the Ontario accommodation industry is relatively committed to environmental sustainability as a majority of the properties received a commitment rating of Level 4. However, only 43% of the properties have plans to implement additional environmental practices in the future. As well, the properties that received the lower ratings show no intention to further their environmental agenda; no Level 2 properties and 60% of the Level 3 properties do not plan to implement additional practices in the future. Based on the findings of this report, five recommendations were made to help further improve the environmental sustainability in the Ontario accommodation industry. These recommendations include availability of information, incentives awareness, streamline operations, education and training, and motivating regulations. This research study can be valuable to both the academia and the industry. Due to the limited number of studies conducted on environmental sustainability in Ontario’s accommodation industry, this study can be used as a reference for future research. Property owners/operators can understand the benefits and application of environmental practices, especially to their properties from this study. It is also helpful to the regulatory bodies and Trade Associations in guiding the industry towards environmental sustainability. As identified in this report, several findings were deemed interesting; however they proved to be insignificant through a chi-square analysis. Further research is recommended to 103

confirm these findings with a larger sample size for a longer period of time. Another possible research could be conducted to compare the level of commitment towards environmental sustainability in small properties versus medium-sized properties.

104

REFERENCES Alexander, S. (2002). Green hotels: Opportunities and resources for success. Portland: Zero Waste Alliance. Álvarez Gil, M. J., Burgos Jiménez, J., & Céspedes Lorente, J. J. (2001). An analysis of environmental management, organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29(6), 457-471. Anguera, N., Ayuso, S., & Fullana, P. (2000). Implementation of EMSs in seasonal hotel: Assuring stability. In R. Hillary (Ed.), ISO 14001: Case studies and practical experiences (pp. 162-172). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). ‘Staying within the fence’: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism, 02-10-2009. Bader, E. E. (2005). Sustainable hotel business practices. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 5(1), 70-78. Baker, C. (2007b). Climate change and tourism. Greenhotelier, (45), 8-22. Becken, S., Frampton, C., & Simmons, D. (2001). Energy consumption patterns in the accommodation sector—the New Zealand case. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 371. Bendig, A. W. (1954). Reliability of short rating scales and the heterogeneity of the rated stimuli. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38(3), 167-170. Berry, S., & Ladkin, A. (1997). Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tourism Management, 18(7), 433-440. Blackburn, R., & Revell, A. (2005). The business case for sustainability? An examination of small firms in the UK’s construction and restaurant sectors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(6), 404-420. BnBscape. (2008). Eco-practices. Retrieved 09/02/2009, 2009, from http://www.bnbscape.com/ecopractices.html Bohdanowicz, P., Churie-Kallhauge, A., & Martinac, I. (2001). Energy-efficiency and conservation in hotels - towards sustainable tourism, 2/9/2009. Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 188-204. Briar Rose Bed & Breakfast. (2009). Boulder hotels leader in sustainability. Retrieved 09/03/2009, 2009, from http://www.briarrosebb.com/boulder-hotels.html 105

Butler, R. (1998). Sustainable tourism - Looking backwards in order to move forward? Tourism: A geographical perspective (pp. 27-43). Harlow, England: Longman. Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism - an evolutionary perspective. In J. G. Nelson, R. Butler & G. Wall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 27-44). Waterloo: Department of Geography. Campbell, F. A. (1999). Whispers and waste. Our Planet, 10(3), 09/02/2009. Retrieved from http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/103/07_whisp.htm Camisón, C. (2000). Strategic attitudes and information technologies in the hospitality business: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19, 125-143. Chan, A., Chu, B., Ho, E., & Tse, V. (2007). Demand and participation for green travel. Toronto: Ryerson University. Chan, W. W., & Lam, J. C. (2003). Energy-saving supporting tourism sustainability: A case study of hotel swimming pool heat pump. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(1), 74-83. Chan, E. S. W. (2008). Barriers to EMS in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 187-196. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205-215. Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2007). Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 663-679. Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371-386. Collins, A. (1999). Tourism development and natural capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(1), 98-109. Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability. (2006). What is environmental sustainability. Retrieved 07/03/2009, 2009, from http://www.ces.vic.gov.au/CES/wcmn301.nsf/childdocs/441BB07721D61152CA256F250028C5FB?open Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism & policy implementation: Lesson from the case of Calvia, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 46-66. Essex, S., Kent, M., & Newnham, R. (2004). Tourism development in Mallorca: Is water supply a constraint? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 4-28.

106

Fairmont Hotel and Resorts. (2001). The green partnership guide a practical guide to greening your hotel (2nd ed.). Toronto: Fairmont Hotels & Resorts. (2008). Awards. Retrieved 25/01/2009, 2009, from http://www.fairmont.com/EN_FA/AboutFairmont/environment/Awards/EnvironmentAward s.htm Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66. Ghobadian, A., Viney, H., Liu, J., & James, P. (1998). Extending linear approaches to mapping corporate environmental behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(1), 13-23. Godfrey, K. B. (1998). Attitudes towards 'sustainable tourism' in the UK: A view from local government. Tourism Management, 19(3), 213-224. Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12(4), 283-302. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., & Richardson, R. B. (2005). The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics, 54(4), 417-434. Graci, S. R. (2004). Accommodating green: Examining the factors that influence the implementation of environmental management initiatives in the tourist accommodation industry. Partnerships for Sustainable Development: International Conference of Greening of Industry Network, Hong Kong. Graci, S. R. (2008). Environmental commitment in the tourism accommodation industry in Sanya, China. (Doctor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo). Greenhotelier. (2004). The know-how section: Better waste management. Greenhotelier, (32), 14. Greenhotelier. (2006a). Energy achievements at Fairmont. Greenhotelier, (39), 11. Greenhotelier. (2006b). The know-how section: Wastewater treatment. Greenhotelier, (39), 1-4. Greenhotelier. (2006c). Renewable energy in the tourism industry. Greenhotelier, (40), 12-19. Greenhotelier. (2007). Greening the urban jungle. Greenhotelier, (43), 12-18. Gunter, H. (2008). State programs help define green hotels. Hotel and Motel Management, 223(10), 4. HAC. (2009). Green key ratings. Retrieved 25/01/2009, 2009, from http://www.hacgreenhotels.com/site/about/gk_ratings.htm 107

Hairston, J. E., & Stribling, L. (1995). Conserving water installing water-saving devices, 02-102009. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books. Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books. Hanna, E. (2008). Environmental training. Hotel & Motel Management, 223(10), 48-48. Helen, H., & Jonathan, L. (1996). Sustainable tourism: The role of the small firm. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(5), 15-19. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87-99. Highland Lake Inn. (2008). Highland lake inn living green. Retrieved 2/9, 2009, from http://www.hlinn.com/living-green.html Hillary, R. (1995). Small firms and the environment: A groundwork status report. Birmingham: Groundwork. Hillary, R. (2004). Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production, (12), 561-569. Hoford, J., MacDonald, A., Shain, J. P., & Tan, J. (2008). Evaluation of green practices in British Columbia’s bed and breakfast industry. Toronto: Ryerson University. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Holden, A. (2000). Environment and tourism. New York: Routledge. Holland, L., & Gibbon, J. (1997). SMEs in the metal manufacturing, construction and contracting service sectors: Environmental awareness and actions. Eco-Management and Auditing, 4(1), 7-14. Holloway, J. C. (1998). The business of tourism (5th ed. ed.). Harlow: Longman. Holmes, M. (2008). Easy access guide to SPSS. Unpublished manuscript. Horobin, H., & Long, J. (1996). Sustainable tourism: The role of the small firm. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(5), 15-19.

108

Hunter, C. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4(1), 7-20. Jenkins, G. D., & Taber, T. D. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 392-398. Jobber, D. (1982). International marketing research— Effective use of secondary sources. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 82(9), 18-21. Johnson, P. A. (2003). Exploring the ecological footprint of tourism in Ontario. (Master of Arts in Geography, University of Waterloo). Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, (23), 399–415. Khanna, M., & Anton, W. Q. (2002). Corporate environmental management: Regulatory and market-based pressures. Land Economics, 78(4), 539–558. Kirkland, L., Henri, & Thompson, D. (1999). Challenges in designing, implementing and operating an environmental management system. Business Strategy and the Environment., 8(2), 128-143. Lam, J. C., & Ng, A. K. W. (1994). Energy consumption in Hong Kong. Energy: The International Journal, 19(11), 1157–1164. Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1), 8-22. Le, Y., Hollenhorst, S., Harris, C., McLaughlin, W., & Shook, S. (2006). Environmental management: A study of Vietnamese hotels. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 545-567. Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 10-13. Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459–475. MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603. Mazzanti, M., & Zoboli, R. (2009). Environmental efficiency and labour productivity: Trade-off or joint dynamics? A theoretical investigation and empirical evidence from Italy using NAMEA. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1182-1194. McNamara, K. E., & Gibson, C. (2008). Environmental sustainability in practice? A macro-scale profile of tourist accommodation facilities in Australia's coastal zone. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 85-100. 109

Merritt, J. Q. (1998). EM into SME won't go? Attitudes, awareness and practices in the London borough of Croydon. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(2), 90-100. Michaels, S. (2008). Go green without hurting your bottom line. Hotel & Motel Management, 223(5), 18-18. Middleton, V. T. C., & Hawkins, B. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A marketing perspective. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Molina-Azorín, J. F., Claver-Cortés, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Tarí, J. J. (2009). Environmental practices and firm performance: An empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(5), 516-524. Murphy, P. E., & Price, G. G. (2005). Tourism and sustainable development. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism (3rd ed., pp. 167-193). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Natural Resources Canada. (2009). ecoENERGY retrofit incentive for buildings. Retrieved 09/02/2009, 2009, from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/financialassistance/existing/retrofits/index.cfm?attr=0 NetRegs. (2002). How green are small businesses?, 02-04-2009. Page, S. J., & Thorn, K. (2002). Towards sustainable tourism development and planning in New Zealand: The public sector response revisited. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 222238. Perron, G. M. (2005). Barriers to environmental performance improvements in Canadian SMEs. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. Pigram, J. (1995). Resource constraints on tourism: Water resources and sustainability. In R. Butler, & D. G. Pearce (Eds.), Change in tourism: People, places, processes (pp. 208-228). New York: Routledge. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, Claas. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120-134. Pryce, A. (2001). Sustainability in the hotel industry. Travel & Tourism Analyst, (6), 95-114. Rivera, J. (2002). Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: The Costa Rican certification for Sustainable Tourism. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 333-360. Salem, N. (1995). Water rights. Tourism in Focus, 17, 4-5. Schaper, M. (2002). The challenge of environmental responsibility and sustainable development: Implications for SME and entrepreneurship academics, 02-04-2009. 110

Sharpley, R. (2002). Sustainability: A barrier to tourism? In D. J. Telfer (Ed.), Tourism and development: Concepts and issues. Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications. Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (5th ed.) SPSS Inc. (2009). About SPSS Inc. Retrieved 07/03/2009, 2009, from http://www.spss.com/corpinfo/?source=homepage&hpzone=nav_bar Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. New York: CABI Pub. Theobald, W. F. (2005). The meaning, scope, and measurement of travel. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism (3rd ed., pp. 5-24). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Tilley, F. (1999). The gap between the environmental attitudes and the environmental behaviour of small firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(4), 238-248. Treasure Mountain Inn. (2009). Our environmental commitment. Retrieved 14/03/2009, 2009, from http://www.treasuremountaininn.com/ecoefforts.html Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P. A. (2004). Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 116-124. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). ENERGY STAR – the power to protect the environment through energy efficiency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Mobile source emissions - past, present, & future. Retrieved 09/03/2009, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/index.htm UNEP. (2008a). Sustainable tourism: Definition. Retrieved 24/01/2009, 2009, from http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/sustain/ UNEP. (2008b). Environmental impacts of tourism. Retrieved 26/01/2009, 2009, from http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/sustain/impacts/environmental/mainareas.htm UNEP. (2008c). Socio-cultural impacts of tourism. Retrieved 26/01/2009, 2009, from http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/sustain/impacts/sociocultural/negative.htm UNEP. (2008d). Economic impacts of tourism. Retrieved 09/02/2009, 2009, from http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/sustain/impacts/economic/negative.htm UNWTO. (2008). Tourism highlights - 2008 edition

111

Walker, H., Sisto, L. D., & McBain, D. (2008). Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons from the public and private sectors. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, (14), 69–85. Whitehouse, T., Rider, M., Speir, J., & Thompson, D. (2005). Successful practices of environmental management systems in small and medium-size enterprises, 02-04-2009. Williams, S. (1998). Tourism geography. London: Routledge. WTTC. (2008). Annual report: Progress and priorities 2008/2009 WTTC, IFTO, IH&RA, & ICCL. (2002). Industry as a partner for sustainable tourism. United Kingdom: UNEP.

112

APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Email Messages Subject: ATTN: OAA Members Body: Dear Members of the Ontario Accommodation Association, We are four senior students at Ryerson University's Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management. We are writing this email to inform you that you will be receiving a survey within the next 2-3 weeks from us. This survey is being conducted as part of a study for the Ontario Accommodation Association to research the green practices you are using at your property. We hope to evaluate how environmentally-friendly the small- to medium-sized lodging properties in Ontario are because your property together with other small- to medium-sized properties make up a large chunk of Ontario's accommodation industry. The results of the survey will assist OAA in its Government Action efforts to ensure you will benefit from becoming environmentally-friendly. All answers you input in the survey will be kept strictly confidential. We look forward to your valuable participation! If you have any questions regarding the survey or the study, please feel free to contact one of us at the email address below. Sincerely, Tony Ho, [email protected] Charles Cheng, [email protected] Paul Yi, [email protected] Silvia Lau, [email protected]

113

Appendix B: Survey Email Message Subject: Attn: [FirstName] [LastName] Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName], As mentioned in a previous email, we are four senior student researchers at the Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Ryerson University, currently conducting a research study assignment. The following message is a formal request by the President of the Ontario Accommodation Association, Bruce Gravel, for you as a member: Greetings Ontario Accommodation Association members, Attached is a survey being conducted for your OAA, to research our members' green practices. The survey is being conducted by a team of four senior students at Ryerson University's Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, under the supervision of their professor, Dr.Sonya Graci. As their senior year research project, the students wish to find out how "green" the small- to medium- sized segment of Ontario's accommodation industry is: a perfect fit for this association. The survey results will assist your OAA in its Government Action efforts on your behalf. Please take a few moments of your time to complete the survey. All answers will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you for your valuable co-operation. Best, Bruce Gravel President Please take the time to complete the survey. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The cut off date and time of the survey is Monday March 9th, 2009 at 6:00pm eastern time. We will be sending out reminders to those who have not completed the survey. Here is a link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx You may click on the survey link above to access the survey. However, we would recommend that you copy the link and paste it into a new web browser to access the survey. This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. Thanks for your participation! Sincerely, Tony Ho, [email protected] Paul Yi, [email protected] Charles Cheng, [email protected] Silvia Lau, [email protected] Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click on the following link, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list: http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx

114

Appendix C: Reminder Email Messages Subject: Reminder: OAA Survey Body: Dear [FirstName], This is a reminder to those who have not completed the OAA survey. Your participation is very important to us and to the success of our unfunded research study. We hope that you could take a moment to complete this survey. Here is a link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx You may click on the survey link above to access the survey. However, we would recommend that you copy the link and paste it into a new web browser to access the survey. Please note that some of the questions accept only numeric answers, that is, no words, no decimals and no symbols such as "$" or "%". This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. Thanks for your participation! Sincerely, Tony Ho, [email protected] Charles Cheng, [email protected] Silvia Lau, [email protected] Paul Yi, [email protected] Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx

115

Appendix D: Questionnaire

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

Appendix E: Other Target Markets Responses (f=22; n=138) Other • Academics (e.g. school, students, parents) • Cottagers • Extended stay (e.g. monthly renters) • Group/parties • Hospital related (e.g. medical stays) • Local events (e.g. festival theatre goers) • Local family • People/crew working in area • People waiting for homes/apartments • People with pets • Recreation groups (e.g. snowmobilers, sports teams, hunters, hikers, bird watchers, fishing guests, etc.) • Spa/retreats • Zoomers (55+)

126

Percentage

16.1%

Appendix F: Other Property Features Responses (f=69; n=138) Other • 24HR marketplace • BBQ • Beach • Boats & Boat rentals • Breakfast (complimentary/continental) • Breakfast room • Business/conference center • Chapel • Dining room • Fishing • Fitness center • Free long distance calling in North America • Game room • Garden • Gas fireplace • Gift store • Golfing activities (e.g. putting green, driving range, etc.) • Guest laundry • Hiking/walking trails • Hot tubs • Housekeeping cottages • Hunting • Internet • Jacuzzi suite • Kitchen (in rooms) • Lake • Library • Lounge • National Park • Outdoor activities (e.g. shuffleboard, winter activities, etc.) • Playground • Sports courts (e.g. tennis, basketball, bowling alley, etc.) • Satellite TV • Sauna/steam room • Spa • Sun deck • Tele-theatre • Waterfront Park

127

Percentage

50.0%

Appendix G: Environmental Certifications Held by Properties Responses (f=10; n=138) Other • Audubon 3 Green Leafs • Audubon 1 Green Leaf • HAC 1 Green Key • HAC 3 Green Keys (f=2) • HAC 4 Green Keys (f=2) • Member Green Hotels Association • Do not acknowledge environmental certification process* Note: One respondent did not specify. * Irrelevant

128

Percentage

7.2%

Appendix H: Other Initiatives Planned for Future Responses (f=51; n=138) • Replace a power heater with gas heater, nearly finished • Change from generator systems for power to solar • Equip all rooms with recycling boxes [green and blue] so that guests are encouraged to use them • Fish stock conservation • Recycle (f=3) • Paint for rooms • More environmentally-friendly cleaning products • Putting blue boxes in each room • Plan to change exterior lights to energy efficient lights, and put food waste in a compost • Just replaced the roof and the windows in order to save hydro • Cannot yet, but hope to in the future. New windows, change out heating systems in our cabins • Eliminate use of bottled water • Solar water heating panels • We will start offering towel reuse option this summer. Sheets are changed after 3 days (required by town by-laws) • Every customer is given a handout upon registration on how they can help and in turn how we are making changes to improve our facility and be environmentally responsible • We are always conscientious about our products and how they affect our customers. We continually are looking at ways to conserve reuse and recycle • Want to join environmental organization, Audubon or HAC • Composting, we tried but bears became a problem. Will build an enclosed “composting station” in the near future. • Set up and environmental team • Replacing neon’s and old style bulbs • Looking into proper composting • Ongoing in accordance to our corporate guidelines • We work very diligently to have our guests follow our guidelines for recycling but it is an ongoing challenge • Soap and shampoo dispensers (f=3) • Future plans to install a grey water system • Organic recycling (f=3) • We dry our clothes on clothes lines. We have a [vermin-culture] box in the basement • Special heating upgrade energy efficient, possibly using geothermal • Expand solar hot water system, composting system, new accommodations will be energy efficient, straw bale structures, more rainwater collection, more clotheslines, less powered activities (i.e. power boating, more kayaking, etc, possibly fully powered by Bull Frog, grow our own produce • Always researching (f=5) • Looking at employing evacuated tubes for solar water heating • More native, low maintenance gardens, more local product and produce • Salt water pool • We are investing in low water use washers • Solar, wood or geothermal heating • Composting for guests, produce our own honey for sale, constructing straw bale cottages • Low flow shower heads • We are working on a solar energy supply system • Casually implementing energy efficiency any way possible (e.g. replacing old appliances with energy saving ones as funds become available, no time frame. • Hydro producing windmill, solar heated hot water

%

37.0%

Note: 8 respondents mentioned their current practices; such practices are not included on the list and when calculating the % here.

129

Appendix I: Other Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices Responses (f=18; n=138) Other • Wellbeing of future generation and environment (f=6) • Personal interest and habits (f=3) • Marketing advantage (f=3) • Conscience (f=6)

130

Percentage 13.0%

Appendix J: Other Benefits Responses (f=28; n=138) Not important(f=2) • “Eye-rolling environmental fanatics” • “What the government thinks”

Percentage 1.5%

Somewhat important(f=9) • Wellbeing of future generation and environment (f=4) • Customer acknowledgement of the importance of environment (f=2) • Water conservation • Community pride • Marketing advantage

6.5%

Very important(f=17) • Wellbeing of future generation and environment (f=11) • Government financial incentives (e.g. grants, funds, tax breaks) (f=2) • Self-satisfaction (f=2) • Water conservation • Governmental incentives (e.g. grants, funds, tax breaks)

12.3%

131

Appendix K: Other Barriers Responses (f=28; n=138) Never (f=3) • Organizational commitment (f=2) • Lack of knowledge

Percentage 2.2%

Rarely (f=2) • Lack of time (f=2)

1.4%

Sometimes (f=10) • Lack of facilities for disposal of certain wastes (e.g. aerosols or fluorescent tubes) • Lack of public concern • Lack of time • Lack of staff support • Lack of customer support (f=2) • Availability of environmentally-friendly products and suppliers • Size of community • Practicality of some ‘bigger’ initiatives • Animals and insects Often (f=13) • Long wait time for compost to decay • Governmental incentives (e.g. grants, funds, tax breaks) • Lack of governmental commitment (f=2) • Committing to more than one’s ‘fair share’ of responsibility • Cost of environmentally-friendly products • Weak performance of environmentally-friendly products • Unavailability of recycling program • Difficulty in distinguish valid information from invalid • Customer support • No interest loans • Deficient recycling program • Availability of environmentally-friendly products and suppliers

132

7.2%

9.4%

Appendix L: Other Incentives Responses (f=21; n=138) Not motivating (f=4) • Government regulations (f=3) • Lack of response

Percentage 2.9%

Somewhat motivating (f=7) • Goodwill • No interest loans • Low cost alternatives (f=2) • Smaller eco-foot prints • Recycling facilities • Government auditing

5.1%

Very motivating (f=10) • Training and education (f=2) • Government financial incentives (e.g. grants, funds, tax breaks) (f=4) • Low cost alternatives (f=2) • Increase operating efficiency • Self-satisfaction

133

7.2%

A N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

B Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y

c Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

F Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N

G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

I N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

J N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N

K N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y N N

L Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N

N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

P Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N N

Q Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y

R Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

V Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

X N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y N N

Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N Y

Z N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

AA N N Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y N

BB Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N

CC Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

DD Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

EE N N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y N

FF Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

GG N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

HH Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

II N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y

Appendix M: Respondent Number by Practices Implemented

134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

135

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N

B Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

F Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

H Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N

J Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

K Y Y N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N

L Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

M N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N

N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N

O N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

P Y N N Y Y N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Y N N Y Y

Q N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N

R Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

S N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

T Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

U Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

V Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

W Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

X Y N N Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N N

Y Y N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N Y N Y Y Y

Z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N

AA Y N Y Y N N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N Y

BB Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

CC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

DD Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

EE Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N Y N Y N N

FF Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

GG N Y Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N N Y N N Y N N Y

HH Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

II Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y

136

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y

B Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

c Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

F N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

I N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

J N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

K N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

L Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

M Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y

N N Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N

O N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

P N N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y

Q Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

R Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

S N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y

T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

V Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

W Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

X Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y

Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

AA N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y

BB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

CC N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

DD N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

EE N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N N Y

FF N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y

GG N N N Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Y N Y N

HH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

II N N N N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N Y

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

A N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N

B Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y

E N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y

F N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

I N N N N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N

J Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y

K Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N

L Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y

N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N

O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

137

Legend for Environmental Practices A – Hold environmental certification B – Inform guests about how they can be environmentally friendly C – Inform staff about how they can be environmentally friendly D – Replace/repair heating/air conditioning units when needed E – Use energy efficient appliances F – Use energy efficient electronics G – Use energy efficient lighting H – Turn off appliances/electronics/lightings when not in use I – Use renewable energy J – Have low-flow shower heads K – Have low-flush toilets L – Use laundry/dishwashing machines on full loads M – Offer linen reuse options N – Collect rainwater O – Reuse greywater P – Use refillable shampoo/soap dispensers Q – Avoid use of disposable items R – Purchase in bulk to reduce plastic packaging

P Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N N Y Y N N

Q Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y

R Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N

S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N

T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

V Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

W Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y

X N N N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N

Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N

Z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

AA N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N

BB N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y

CC N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N

DD N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

EE N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y

FF N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N Y Y Y N

GG Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N

HH Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

S – Reuse paper T – Recycle paper U – Recycle cans V – Recycle glass W – Recycle plastic X – Recycle cooking oil Y – Compost food waste Z – Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations AA – Use air filters BB – Avoid using products that release harmful chemicals into air CC – Avoid use of chemical products when taking care of facility grounds/gardens DD – Purchase local products EE – Purchase organic foods FF – Purchase environmentally-friendly products GG – Encourage staff/customers to use public transportation HH – Avoid use of hazardous/toxic substances II – Plan to implement new environmentally-friendly practices

II Y N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N N