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 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Objectives 2
1.2 Importance of Study 3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Sustainability and Tourism 5
2.1.1 Sustainable Tourism 8
2.1.1.1 Environmental Sustainability 9
2.2 Impacts of the Accommodation Industry 9
2.3 Benefits of Environmentally Sustainable Practices 12
2.3.1 Financial Benefits 13
2.3.1.1 Financial Savings 13
2.3.1.2 Financial Gain 13
2.3.2 Competitive Advantage 14
2.3.3 Labour Productivity 15
2.3.4 Guest Loyalty 16
2.4 Barriers to Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices 16
2.4.1 Age of Facility 17
2.4.2 Size Facility 18
2.4.3 Location of Facility 18
2.4.4 Lack of Knowledge and Awareness 19
2.4.5 Lack of Resources 20
2.4.5.1 Financial Resources 21
2.4.5.2 Human Resources 21
2.4.5.3 Time 22
2.4.5.4 Information 22
2.5 Incentives 23
2.6 Influential Factors 23
2.6.1 Social Responsibility 24
2.6.2 Stakeholder Influence 24
2.6.2.1 Employee Influence 24
2.6.2.2 Governmental Pressure 25
2.6.2.3 Pressure from Customers 26
2.7 Environmentally Sustainable Practices and the Accommodation Industry 26
2.7.1 Energy Conservation 27
2.7.1.1 Energy Efficient Products 28
2.7.1.2 Renewable Energy 29
2.7.2 Water Conservation 29
2.7.2.1 Low-Flow Showerheads and Toilets 30
2.7.3 Waste Management 30
2.7.3.1 Recycling and Reusing 31
2.7.3.2 Composting 32

iii
 2.7.4 Green Purchasing 32
2.7.5 Air Quality 33
2.8 Conclusion 33
3.0 METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Purpose and Objectives 35
3.2 Research Methods 36
3.3 Research Stages 37
3.3.1 Stage One: Literature Review 37
3.3.2 Stage Two: Developing and Pre-Testing the Questionnaire 37
3.3.2.1 Developing the Questionnaire 38
3.3.2.2 Pre-Testing the Questionnaire 39
3.3.3 Stage Three: Primary Data Collection 40
3.3.4 Stage Four: Data Analysis 41
3.3.5 Stage Five: Recommendations and Conclusion 45
3.4 Limitations 45
3.4.1 Time Constraints 46
3.4.2 Questionnaire Quality 46
3.4.3 Unavailability of Contact Information 47
3.4.4 Lack of Concern for Environmental Sustainability 47
3.4.5 Technological Barriers 48
3.4.6 Evaluation of Commitment towards Environmental Sustainability 49
3.4.7 Other Barriers 49
3.5 Conclusion 50
4.0 REPORT FINDINGS 51
4.1 Frequencies and Central Tendencies 51
4.1.1 Descriptive Information 52
4.1.1.1 Location of Properties 52
4.1.1.2 Age of Property 53
4.1.1.3 Number of Rooms 54
4.1.1.4 Number of Employees 54
4.1.1.5 Annual Average Daily Room Rate 55
4.1.1.6 Education Level 56
4.1.1.7 Target Market 57
4.1.1.8 Property Features 57
4.1.2 Tourism and Sustainability 58
4.1.2.1 Level of Negative Environmental Impact 58
4.1.2.2 Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge 59
4.1.3 Environmental Initiatives 59
4.1.3.1 Organization 60
4.1.3.2 Environmental Awareness 60
4.1.3.3 Energy 61
4.1.3.4 Water 61
4.1.3.5 Waste Reduction 62
4.1.3.6 Waste Disposal 62
4.1.3.7 Air 63
4.1.3.8 Local Environment 64
4.1.3.9 New Practices Planned for Future 64
4.1.3.10 Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices 65

iv
 4.1.4 Benefits 66
4.1.5 Barriers 67
4.1.6 Incentives 68
4.2 Cross Tabulation 69
4.2.1 Recycling by Regions 69
4.2.2 Regions by Composting Food Waste 72
4.2.3 Regions by Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products 73
4.2.4 Numbers of Rooms by Disposable Items 75
4.2.5 Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen by Recycling Cooking Oil 76
4.2.6 Level of Education by Commitment Level 77
4.2.7 Regions by Commitment Level 79
4.2.8 Age of Properties by Commitment Level 80
4.2.9 Number of Rooms by Commitment Level 81
4.2.10 Target Markets by Commitment Level 82
4.3 Conclusion 83
5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 84
5.1 Regions and Recycling 84
5.2 Regions and Composting Food Waste 85
5.3 Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products 87
5.4 Knowledge of Environmental Sustainability 88
5.5 Commitment toward Environmental Sustainability 89
5.5.1Regions and Commitment Level 90
5.5.2Target Market and Commitment Level 91
5.5.3Environmental Certification and Commitment Level 92
5.5.4 Level of Education and Commitment Level 92
5.5.5 Planned Practices and Commitment Level 93
5.6 Common Practices Implemented 93
5.7 Uncertain Barriers 95
5.8 Conclusion 96
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 97
6.1 Availability of Information 97
6.2 Incentives Awareness 98
6.3 Streamline Operations 99
6.4 Education and Training 100
6.5 Motivating Regulations 100
7.0 CONCLUSION 102
REFERENCES 105
APPENDICES 113
Appendix A: Initial Email Message 113
Appendix B: Survey Email Message 114
Appendix C: Reminder Email Messages 115
Appendix D: Questionnaire 116
Appendix E: Other Target Markets 126
Appendix F: Other Property Features 127
Appendix G: Environmental Certifications Held by Properties 128
Appendix H: Other Initiatives Planned for Future 129

v
Appendix I: Other Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices 130
Appendix J: Other Benefits 131
Appendix K: Other Barriers 132
Appendix L: Other Incentives 133
Appendix M: Respondent Number by Practices Implemented 134

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Open-ended Questions Categories and Codes 43

Table 2: Commitment Level Rationale 45
Table 3: Location of Properties 52
Table 4: Age of Property 54
Table 5: Number of Rooms 54
Table 6: Number of Employees 55
Table 7: Annual ADR 56
Table 8: Education Level 56
Table 9: Target Market 57
Table 10: Property Features 58
Table 11: Level of Negative Environmental Impact 59
Table 12: Level of Sustainable Tourism Development Knowledge 59
Table 13: Environmental Certification 60
Table 14: Creating Environmental Awareness 60
Table 15: Energy Conservation Practices 61
Table 16: Water Conservation Practices 62
Table 17: Waste Reduction Practices 62
Table 18: Waste Disposal Practices 63
Table 19: Air Quality 64
Table 20: Local Environment 64
Table 21: Additional Practices Planned for Future Implementation 65
Table 22: Reasons for Implementing Environmental Practices 66
Table 23: Benefits for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices 67
Table 24: Barriers for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices 68
Table 25: Incentives for Implementing Environmentally Sustainable Practices 69
Table 26: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Paper 71
Table 27: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Cans 71
Table 28: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Glass 71
Table 29: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Composting Food Waste 73
Table 30: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly
Products 74
Table 31: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Number of Rooms and Use of Disposable Items 76
Table 32: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Food Outlet(s)/Kitchen and Recycling Cooking Oil 77
Table 33: Level of Education and Commitment Level 78
Table 34: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Level of Education and Commitment Level 79
Table 35: Committed Level Ratings of Lodging Properties in Ontario 90
Table 36: Regions and Commitment Level 91
Table 37: Properties with Certification by Commitment Level 92
Table 38: Ratings of Properties Planning to Further their Environmental Agenda 93
Table 39: Practices with Implementation Rate of 80% and Over 94

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Ontario 53

Figure 2: Recycling v. Regions 70
Figure 3: Regions v. Composting food waste 72
Figure 4: Regions v. Purchasing environmentally-friendly products 74
Figure 5: Number of rooms v. Use of disposable items 75
Figure 6: Food outlet(s)/kitchen v. Recycling cooking oil 77
Figure 7: Level of education v. Commitment level 78
Figure 8: Regions v. Commitment level 80
Figure 9: Age of property v. Commitment level 81
Figure 10: Number of rooms v. Commitment level 82
Figure 11: Target markets v. Commitment level 83

viii
 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 self-

sustainable. 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 environmentally-

friendly 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” (Molina-

Azorín 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. 192-

194) – 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 Hydro-

Electric 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), gasoline-

powered 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 low-

flow 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 Bloor-

Yorkville 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 Response Categories SPSS Code*
North-western 1
North-eastern 2
Where in Ontario is your lodging property located? Eastern 3
Central 4
South-western 5
Please indicate (only in whole numbers, no decimals):
1 to 15 years 1
16 to 30 years 2
Age of you property (in years, approx.) 31 to 45 years 3
46 to 60 years 4
61 years and more 5
1 to 15 rooms 1
16 to 30 rooms 2
Number of rooms 31 to 45 rooms 3
46 to 60 rooms 4
61 rooms or more 5
0 to 2 employees 1
Number of employee(s) 3 to 5 employees 2
6 employees or more 3
$1 to $65 1
Annual average daily room rate $66 to $130 2
$131 to $195 3
$196 or more 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 Percentage Implemented Number of Practices Implemented
Level 1 1 – 19.9% 1-6 practices implemented
Level 2 20 – 39.9% 7-13 practices implemented
Level 3 40 – 59.9% 14-20 practices implemented
Level 4 60 – 79.9% 21-27 practices implemented
Level 5 80 – 100% 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 pre-

test 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 e-

mail 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, cross-

tabulation 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 Valid Percent
North-western 8 5.8%
North-eastern 37 26.8%
Eastern 45 32.6%
Central 23 16.7%
South-western 25 18.1%
n=138 100.0%

52
 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 Frequency Valid Percent
1 to 15 years 5 3.6%
16 to 30 years 27 19.6%
31 to 45 years 37 26.8%
46 to 60 years 26 18.8%
61 years or over 43 31.2%
n = 138 100.0%

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 Frequency Valid Percent

1 to 15 rooms 60 43.5%
16 to 30 rooms 42 30.4%
31 to 45 rooms 11 8.0%
46 to 60 rooms 11 8.0%
61 rooms and more 14 10.1%
n=138 100.0%

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 Frequency Valid Percent
0 to 2 48 34.8%
3 to 5 35 25.4%
6 or more 55 39.9%
n = 138 100.0%

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 Frequency Valid Percent
$1 to $65 24 17.9%
$66 to $130 82 61.2%
$131 to $195 23 17.2%
$195 or more 5 3.7%
n = 134 100.0%
Missing responses = 4
Total = 138

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 Valid Percent
High School 33 23.9%
College Diploma 42 30.4%
University Degree 44 31.9%
Masters/Doctorate Degree 10 7.2%
Trade School Certificate 9 6.5%
n = 138 100.0%
Note: Only one response was allowed.

56
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 Valid Percent
Leisure 115 23 83.3%
Business 76 62 55.1%
International Tourists 85 53 61.6%
Domestic Tourists 107 31 77.5%
Other (please specify)* 22 116 16.1%
n = 138
Note: Multiple responses were allowed.
*Respondents’ answers to ‘Other, (please specify)’ are in Appendix E.

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 Valid Percent
Food outlet(s)/ Kitchen 67 71 48.6%
Beverage outlet(s) 40 98 29.0%
Swimming pool 40 98 29.0%
Meeting space 53 85 38.4%
No additional feature(s) 25 113 18.1%
Other (please specify)* 69 69 50.0%
n = 138
Note: Multiple responses were allowed.
*Respondents’ answers to ‘Other (please specify)’ are in Appendix F.

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
Impact 54 (39.1%) 74 (53.6%) 8 (5.8%) 2 (2.9%) 1.70
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 %)
Knowledge 15 (10.9%) 102 (73.9%) 21 (15.2%) 2.04
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 Valid Percent
No 128 92.8%
Yes (If yes, please specify which one)* 10 7.2%
n = 138 100.0%
* Environmental Certifications held by respondents are in Appendix G.

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 Yes
Practice # % # %
Inform guests about how they can be environmentally-friendly
32 23.2% 106 76.8%
in your property
Inform staff about how they can be environmentally-friendly in
11 8.0% 127 92.0%
your property
n = 138

60
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 Yes
# % # %
Repair or replace heating/ air conditioning unit(s) when they are
4 2.9% 134 97.1%
not running efficiently
Use energy efficient appliances 22 15.9% 116 84.1%
Use energy efficient electronics 35 25.4% 103 74.6%
Use energy efficient lighting 3 2.2% 135 97.8%
Turn off appliances/electronics/lighting when not in use 3 2.2% 135 97.8%
Use renewable energy 130 94.2% 8 5.8%
n = 138

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 Yes
# % # %
Have low-flow showerheads 27 19.6% 111 80.4%
Have low-flush toilets 43 31.2% 95 68.8%
Use the laundry/dishwashing machine on full load 10 7.2% 128 92.8%
Offer linen reuse option 26 18.8% 112 81.2%
Collect rainwater 113 81.9% 25 18.1%
Reuse greywater 130 94.2% 8 5.8%
n = 138

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 Yes
# % # %
Use refillable shampoo and soap dispensers 82 59.4% 56 40.6%
Avoid the use of disposable items 25 18.1% 113 81.9%
Purchase in bulk to reduce plastic 15 10.9% 123 89.1%
Reuse paper 31 22.5% 107 77.5%
n = 138

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 Yes
# % # %
Recycle paper 14 10.1% 124 89.9%
Recycle cans 12 8.7% 126 91.3%
Recycle glass 18 13.0% 120 87.0%
Recycle plastic 15 10.9% 123 89.1%
Recycle cooking oil 87 63.0% 51 37.0%
Compost food waste 85 61.6% 53 38.4%
Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations 10 7.2% 128 92.8%
n=138

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 Yes
# % # %
Use air filters 76 55.1% 62 44.9%
Avoid using products that release harmful chemicals into the air 45 32.6% 93 67.4%
n=138

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 environmentally-

friendly 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 Yes
# % # %
Avoid using chemical products when taking care of facility
20 14.5% 118 84.5%
grounds and gardens
Purchase local products 7 5.1% 131 94.9%
Purchase organic foods 81 58.7% 57 41.3%
Purchase environmentally-friendly products 36 26.1% 102 73.9%
Encourage the staff and customers to use public transportation 104 75.4% 34 24.6%
Avoid the use of hazardous and toxic substances 15 10.9% 123 89.1%
n=138

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 environmentally-
0 138 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?

Somewhat Very
Not motivating=1 Average level
Incentives motivating=3 motivating=4
(Valid %) of motivation
(Valid %) (Valid %)
Tax breaks 8 (5.8%) 45 (32.6%) 85 (61.6%) 2.56
Government financial
14 (10.1%) 57 (41.3%) 67 (48.6%) 2.38
support
Government
13 (9.4%) 94 (68.1%) 31 (22.5%) 2.13
guidance/support
Trade Associations
15 (10.9%) 96 (69.6%) 27 (19.6%) 2.09
guidance/support
Environmental
15 (10.9%) 98 (71.0%) 25 (18.1%) 2.07
labelling
Environmental awards
26 (18.8%) 90 (65.2%) 22 (15.9%) 1.97
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 Do Not Recycle Cans
35
29 Recycle Cans
30
Number of properties

Do Not Recycle Paper

25
21 22 23 21 Recycle Paper
19 Do Not Recycle Glass
20 17
Recycle Glass
15

10 8
6 6 5 6
3 3 3 4 3 4
5 2 2 2 2
0 1 1
0
North‐western North‐eastern Eastern Central South‐western

Regions

70
 Table 26: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Paper
Regions Recycle Paper Do Not Recycle Paper Total
f % f %
North-western 6 4.3 2 1.4 8
North-eastern 34 24.6 3 2.2 37
Eastern 44 31.9 1 0.7 45
Central 17 12.3 6 4.3 23
South-western 23 16.7 2 1.4 25
Total 124 14 138
Chi-Square 11.742
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.019
n=138

Table 27: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Cans

Regions Recycle Cans Do Not Recycle Cans Total
f % f %
North-western 6 4.3 2 1.4 8
North-eastern 34 24.6 3 2.2 37
Eastern 45 32.6 0 0.0 45
Central 19 13.8 4 2.9 23
South-western 22 15.9 3 2.2 25
Total 126 12 138
Chi-Square 9.515
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.049
n=138

Table 28: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Recycling Glass

Regions Recycle Glass Do Not Recycle Glass Total
f % f %
North-western 5 3.6 3 2.2 8
North-eastern 29 21.0 8 5.8 37
Eastern 44 31.9 1 0.7 45
Central 21 15.2 2 1.4 23
South-western 21 15.2 4 2.9 25
Total 120 18 138
Chi-Square 11.841
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.019
n=138

71
 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

30 26
24
25
Number of Properties

21

20 17

15 11 11 12
8 Compost food waste
10 6
2 Do not compost food 
5 waste
0

Regions

72
 Table 29: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Composting Food Waste
Regions Compost Food Waste Do Not Compost Food Waste Total
f % f %
North-western 2 1.4 6 4.3 8
North-eastern 11 8.0 26 18.8 37
Eastern 21 15.2 24 17.4 45
Central 11 8.0 12 8.7 23
South-western 8 5.8 17 12.3 25
Total 53 85 138
Chi-Square 4.380
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.357
n=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
40

Purchase environmentally‐
Number of properties

30 24 friendly products
19
17 Do not purchase 
20
13 environmentally‐friendly 
products
8 8
10 5 4
3

0
North‐western North‐eastern Eastern Central South‐western

Regions

Table 30: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Regions and Purchasing Environmentally-Friendly Products
Do Not Purchase
Purchase Environmentally- Environmentally-Friendly
Regions Friendly Products Products Total
f % f %
North-western 5 3.6 3 2.2 8
North-eastern 24 17.4 13 9.4 37
Eastern 37 26.8 8 5.8 45
Central 19 13.8 4 2.9 23
South-western 17 12.3 8 5.8 25
Total 102 36 138
Chi-Square 5.078
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.279
n=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

60 55

50 Avoid use of disposable items
Number of properties

40 34
Do not avoid use of disposable 
30 items

20
8 8 8 8 6
10 5 3 3

0
1 to 15 rooms 16 to 30  31 to 45  46 to 60  61 rooms or 
rooms rooms rooms more

Number of rooms

75
 Table 31: Pearson Chi-Square Test – Number of Rooms and Use of Disposable Items
Avoid Use of Do Not Avoid Use of Disposable
Number of Rooms Disposable Items Items Total
f % f %
1 to 15 rooms 55 39.9 5 3.6 60
16 to 30 rooms 34 24.6 8 5.8 44
31 to 45 rooms 8 5.8 3 2.2 11
46 to 60 rooms 8 5.8 3 2.2 11
61 rooms or more 8 5.8 6 4.3 14
Total 113 25 138
Chi-Square 10.916
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significance 0.028
n=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

60
Include Food 
Number or properties

50 41 Outlet(s)/Kitchen

40 Do Not Include Food 
26
Outlet(s)/Kitchen
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 Recycle Cooking Oil Do Not Recycle Cooking Oil Total
f % f %
Include Food
41 29.7 26 18.8 67
Outlet(s)/Kitchen
Do Not Include Food
10 7.2 61 44.2 71
Outlet(s)/Kitchen
Total 51 87 138
Chi-Square 32.835
Degrees of Freedom 1
Significance 0.000
n=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

Commitment Level Rating
Level of Education Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
f % f % f % f %
High School 1 33.3 8 29.6 20 22.7 4 20.0
College Diploma 2 66.7 7 25.9 25 28.4 8 40.0
University Degree 0 0.0 10 37.0 27 30.7 7 35.0
Masters/Doctorate
0 0.0 1 3.7 9 10.2 0 0.0
Degree
Trade School Certificate 0 0.0 1 3.7 7 8.0 1 5.0
Total 3 100 27 100 88 100 20 100
n=138
Note: No property received a rating of Level 1.

Figure 7: Level of education v. Commitment level

30
27
25
25
20
Number of Properties

20
Level 2
15 Level 3
10 Level 4
9
10 8 8
Level 5
7 7 7

4
5
2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0
High School College Diploma University Degree Masters/Doctorate  Trade School 
Degree Certificate

Level of Education

78
 Table: 34 Pearson Chi-Square Test – Level of Education and Commitment Level
Level of Education Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Total
f % f % f % f %
High School 1 0.7 8 5.8 20 14.5 4 2.9 33
College Diploma 2 1.4 7 5.1 25 18.1 8 5.8 42
University Degree 0 0.0 10 7.2 27 19.6 7 5.1 44
Masters/Doctorate
0 0.0 1 0.7 9 6.5 0 0.0 10
Degree
Trade School
0 0.0 1 0.7 7 5.1 1 0.7 9
Certificate
Total 3 27 88 20 138
Chi-Square 8.779
Degrees of Freedom 12
Significance 0.722
n=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 chi-

square 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 North-

eastern, 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

25 23
Level 2
Number of properties

Level 3
20
Level 4
16
14 Level 5
15

9
10
7 7
6 6
5
4 4
5
2 2
1 1
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

25
Number of properties

20
Level 2
17
Level 3
15
15 Level 4
Level 5

10 9
8
7
6

5 4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0
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

35

29 Level 2
30
Number of properties

Level 3
25 Level 4
Level 5
20

15

9 9 9
10 7
6
5 5
4
5 3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0
0
1 to 15 rooms 16 to 30  31 to 45  46 to 60  61 rooms or 
rooms rooms rooms 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

60
52
Number of properties

50 Level 2
Level 3
40 36
Level 4
30 Level 5
21 20
20 15 15
12 11
9
10 6
1 2 1 2
0
0
Leisure Not catering to  Business Not catering to 
leisure 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 North-

eastern, 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 environmentally-

friendly 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

Commitment Level Rating
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Freq. 0 3 27 88 20
% 0% 2% 20% 65% 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
Commitment Level Rating
Regions Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
f % f % f % f %
North-western 1 33.3 2 7.4 4 4.5 1 5.0
North-eastern 2 66.7 6 22.2 23 26.1 6 30.0
Eastern 0 0.0 5 18.5 31 35.2 9 45.0
Central 0 0.0 7 25.9 16 18.2 0 0.0
South-western 0 0.0 7 25.9 14 15.9 4 20.0
Total 3 100 27 100 88 100 20 100
n=138
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
Hold Certification (#) 0 0 1 2 5 8*
Do Not Hold Certification (#) 0 3 26 84 15 128
* 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 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Plan to further implement sustainable
0 0 8 36 15
practices in the future
Do not plan to further implement
0 3 15 52 5
sustainable practices in the future
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 Freq. %
Use of energy efficient lighting 135 97.8%
Repair/replace heating/AC unit 134 97.1%
Turn off appliances/electronics/lighting when not in use 134 97.1%
Purchase local products 131 94.9%
Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations 129 93.5%
Inform staff how to be environmentally-friendly 128 92.8%
Use dishwashing/laundry machine on full loads 128 92.8%
Recycle cans 126 91.3%
Recycle paper 124 89.9%
Purchase in bulk 123 89.1%
Recycle plastic 123 89.1%
Avoid use of hazardous/toxic substances 123 89.1%
Recycle glass 120 87.0%
Avoid using chemical products when taking care of facility grounds/gardens 118 85.5%
Use energy efficient appliances 116 84.1%
Avoid use of disposable items 113 81.9%
Have low-flow shower heads 112 81.2%
Offer linen reuse option 111 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), 1-
4.

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, 02-10-
2009.

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/financial-
assistance/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), 222-
238.

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, t6ho@ryerson.ca

Charles Cheng, c9cheng@ryerson.ca
Paul Yi, pyi@ryerson.ca
Silvia Lau, s3lau@ryerson.ca

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, t6ho@ryerson.ca

Paul Yi, pyi@ryerson.ca
Charles Cheng, c9cheng@ryerson.ca
Silvia Lau, s3lau@ryerson.ca

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, t6ho@ryerson.ca
Charles Cheng, c9cheng@ryerson.ca
Silvia Lau, s3lau@ryerson.ca
Paul Yi, pyi@ryerson.ca

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) Percentage

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
16.1%
• 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
Appendix F: Other Property Features

Responses (f=69; n=138) Percentage

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 50.0%
• 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
Appendix G: Environmental Certifications Held by Properties

Responses (f=10; n=138) Percentage

Other
• Audubon 3 Green Leafs
• Audubon 1 Green Leaf
• HAC 1 Green Key 7.2%
• 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
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. 37.0%
• 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
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) Percentage

Other
• Wellbeing of future generation and environment (f=6)
• Personal interest and habits (f=3) 13.0%
• Marketing advantage (f=3)
• Conscience (f=6)

130
Appendix J: Other Benefits

Responses (f=28; n=138) Percentage

Not important(f=2)
• “Eye-rolling environmental fanatics” 1.5%
• “What the government thinks”
Somewhat important(f=9)
• Wellbeing of future generation and environment (f=4)
• Customer acknowledgement of the importance of environment (f=2)
• Water conservation 6.5%
• Community pride
• Marketing advantage
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) 12.3%
• Water conservation
• Governmental incentives (e.g. grants, funds, tax breaks)

131
Appendix K: Other Barriers

Responses (f=28; n=138) Percentage

Never (f=3)
• Organizational commitment (f=2)
• Lack of knowledge 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) 7.2%
• 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
9.4%
• 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
Appendix L: Other Incentives

Responses (f=21; n=138) Percentage

Not motivating (f=4)
• Government regulations (f=3)
• Lack of response 2.9%
Somewhat motivating (f=7)
• Goodwill
• No interest loans
• Low cost alternatives (f=2)
• Smaller eco-foot prints 5.1%
• Recycling facilities
• Government auditing
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) 7.2%
• Increase operating efficiency
• Self-satisfaction

133
 A B c D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II

Appendix M: Respondent Number by Practices Implemented

1 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
2 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N N N
3 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y N N N N N
4 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N
5 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
6 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y N
7 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
8 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
9 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y
10 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y
11 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
12 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
13 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y
14 N Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N N N N
15 N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
16 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N
17 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
18 N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y
19 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y N
134

20 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
21 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
22 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
23 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N
24 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
25 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y
26 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y N
27 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
28 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
29 N N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N
30 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y
31 N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N
32 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N
33 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N
34 N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
35 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
36 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
37 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
38 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N
39 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
40 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
41 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N N N Y
 A B c D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II
42 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
43 N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
44 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N
45 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
46 N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
47 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
48 N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y
49 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
50 N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N
51 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
52 N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y
53 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y
54 N N Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N N
55 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y
56 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
57 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y
58 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
59 N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
135

60 N Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N
61 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N
62 N N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N
63 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
64 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
65 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
66 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N
67 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N
68 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
69 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
70 N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y
71 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
72 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y
73 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
74 N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N
75 Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N
76 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N
77 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y
78 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
79 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
80 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
81 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
 A B c D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II
82 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y N
83 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
84 N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N
85 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N
86 N Y Y Y Y Y Y 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
87 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
88 N Y Y Y N Y 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 N Y Y
89 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
90 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N
91 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N N Y
92 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
93 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
94 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N
95 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y
96 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
97 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
98 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N
99 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y
100 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y
101 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
136

102 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
103 N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
104 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
105 N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N
106 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N
107 N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
108 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y
109 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
110 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N
111 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N
112 N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y
113 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N
114 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
115 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N
116 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N
117 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y
118 N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N
119 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
120 N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N
121 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N
122 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
 A B c D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II
123 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N N N N Y Y Y
124 N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y N N
125 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N
126 N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
127 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y
128 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N
129 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N
130 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N
131 N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N
132 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N
133 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y
134 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N
135 N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N
136 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
137 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N
138 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N

Legend for Environmental Practices

A – Hold environmental certification S – Reuse paper
B – Inform guests about how they can be environmentally friendly T – Recycle paper
137

C – Inform staff about how they can be environmentally friendly U – Recycle cans
D – Replace/repair heating/air conditioning units when needed V – Recycle glass
E – Use energy efficient appliances W – Recycle plastic
F – Use energy efficient electronics X – Recycle cooking oil
G – Use energy efficient lighting Y – Compost food waste
H – Turn off appliances/electronics/lightings when not in use Z – Dispose hazardous waste according to government regulations
I – Use renewable energy AA – Use air filters
J – Have low-flow shower heads BB – Avoid using products that release harmful chemicals into air
K – Have low-flush toilets CC – Avoid use of chemical products when taking care of facility grounds/gardens
L – Use laundry/dishwashing machines on full loads DD – Purchase local products
M – Offer linen reuse options EE – Purchase organic foods
N – Collect rainwater FF – Purchase environmentally-friendly products
O – Reuse greywater GG – Encourage staff/customers to use public transportation
P – Use refillable shampoo/soap dispensers HH – Avoid use of hazardous/toxic substances
Q – Avoid use of disposable items II – Plan to implement new environmentally-friendly practices
R – Purchase in bulk to reduce plastic packaging