The US traveler’s familiarity with and perceived credibility of lodging ecolabels

Abstract

Despite the proliferating numbers and types of ecolabels for lodging in the United States, little is known about consumer reactions toward them. Thus, this study examines the US adult travelers' familiarity with and perceived credibility of six ecolabels used by lodging firms in the market today, which vary in terms of industry scope (lodging only vs. multi-industry) and issuer type (profit, nonprofit, or government): Audubon International, Green Key Eco, TripAdvisor's GreenLeaders, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, and Green Business Bureau. Results based on 392 responses collected from a national online survey in April 2014 show that Energy Star and GreenLeaders had the highest levels of familiarity and perceived credibility, while familiarity and credibility levels for the other four ecolabels were relatively low, indicating critical needs for better marketing about ecolabels, overall. These results also provide lodging managers with important insight into consumer reactions toward the ecolabels currently existent and utilized by lodging firms and identify which ecolabels, if any, to pursue.

From Spectrum to Multiverse: A New Perspective on the Diversity of Quality Control Tools for Sustainable Tourism Theory and Practice

“…As per underlying conformity assessment logic, certification programs are conceptualized as external systems, involving third-party verification prior to granting certification and logo use (Font 2002; Toth 2002). This does not occur in GreenLeaders, where applicants “sign up for free by completing a survey,” “there is no third-party verification,” but usually first- or second-party verification (criterion 1: conceptualization) (Park and Millar 2016, p. 5). Recognition programs and certification programs further diverge in their primary functions as advancing prestige conferral and management, respectively (criterion 2: function).…”

“…Certification programs are conceptualized as tools to manage sustainability progress throughout business operations (Honey 2007; Honey and Rome 2001), whereas GreenLeaders “promotes” sustainability practices (TripAdvisor 2018). Finally, recognition programs and certification programs diverge in QCT structures; the latter is more procedurally rigorous, involving a comprehensive bundle of QCTs (criterion 3: QCT structures) (DestiNet 2014; Markovic and Petrovic 2013; Park and Millar 2016; Ski Area Citizens Coalition 2013; TripAdvisor 2015; Yu, Li, and Jai 2017). For example, GreenLeaders requires completion of “seven required practices, such as “track energy on a regular basis” and “use [of] at least 75 percent energy-efficient light bulbs” (Hasek 2013, p. 1, as cited in Park and Millar 2016, p. 5) whereas the certification program EarthCheck requires the development and documentation of an “Environmental and Sustainability Policy,” “Benchmarking Assessments,” “Risk Assessment, Environmental Action Plan and Environmental Management System,” and “demonstrate compliance through an Onsite Certification Audit” (EC3 Global 2018).…”

“…For example, the candidate QCT of environmental best practices is sometimes referred to as “environmentally friendly practices” and “green practices” (Le et al 2006, p. 556; Nicholls and Kang 2012, p. 961; Rahman, Reynolds, and Svaren 2012, p. 720). Other studies refer only to genre (e.g., ecolabels) or specific “brand” (e.g., Green Tourism Business Scheme) (Bohdanowicz and Zientara 2008; Le et al 2006; Nicholls and Kang 2012; Park and Millar 2016).…”

“…Expert intervention has added advantages of conferring high credibility through independent verification of conformance (Font 2002; Toth 2002; Weaver 2006). Tourism certification programs, therefore, have attracted considerable and arguably inordinate attention in QCT inquiry (e.g., Buckley 2002; Font 2002; Font and Buckley 2001; Font and Harris 2004; Honey and Rome 2001; Honey and Stewart 2002; Medina 2005; Park and Millar 2016) and practice (e.g., Synergy Report, Mohonk Agreement, Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council, Global Sustainable Tourism Council [GSTC]), with a focus on optimization.…”

“…The literature reveals numerous implicit QCTs (see Ayuso 2006, 2007) beyond Weaver (2006), but ironically also unintentionally emphasizes the limited attention afforded to aggregating and organizing this knowledge by not, for example, using a common term such as QCT. (Implicit) QCT enquiry has always privileged certification above a broader articulation of the affiliated diversity, with early (1990–2007) foci on conceptual, exploratory, and evaluative insights (Black and Crabtree 2007; Buckley 2002; Font 2002; Font and Buckley 2001; Font and Tribe 2001; Honey and Stewart 2002; Honey and Rome 2001; Toth 2002; Weaver 2006) and more contemporary (post-2007) themes of (1) demand, attitudes, and awareness (e.g., Nicholls and Kang 2012; Park and Millar 2016); (2) performance and impact (e.g., Assaf, Josiassen, and Cvelbar 2012; Erdogan and Tosun 2009; Font et al 2012); and (3) factors influencing, and/or perceptions of, [potential] adoption (i.e., barriers, facilitators, drivers, motivations, decision-making processes, and perceived benefits and challenges to adoption and implementation) (e.g., Bonilla-Priego, Najera, and Font 2011; Carasuk, Becken, and Hughley 2013). Aggregation of such implicit QCTs and their variability parameters offers additional options for the subsequent advancement of sustainable tourism practice to, for example, create a framework for QCT selection.…”