The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in north american hotels and ski resorts

Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 19, No. 2, March 2011, 171–196

The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North
American hotels and ski resorts
Karl R. Smerecnik∗ and Peter A. Andersen

School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA
(Received 4 September 2009; ﬁnal version received 1 August 2010)

This study examines the diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North
American hotels and ski resorts. It seeks to understand what sustainability innovations
are being adopted and the variables affecting the rate of adoption. An electronic survey
was distributed to 49 medium/large hotels and ski resorts. Rogers’ diffusion of inno-
vations theory was utilized to hypothesize that a hotel/resort manager’s perceptions of
sustainability would correlate with the adoption of the innovations. Over 4000 pub-
lished studies have used diffusion of innovations theory to examine the innovation in
mass media, public health, sociology, communication and agriculture. Results from this
study revealed that the perceived simplicity of sustainability innovations and high levels
of opinion leadership of hotels/resorts were most strongly associated with the adoption
of sustainability innovations. The perceived relative advantage of sustainability innova-
tions and the general innovativeness of the hotels/resorts also correlated to some extent
with the adoption of innovations leading to increased sustainability. Sustainability com-
munication must emphasize simplicity and ease of adopting sustainability innovations
to increase the rate of adoption. The ﬁndings provide useful theoretical knowledge and
advice for change agents, opinion leaders and suppliers in the resort industry on how to
further diffuse sustainability in the sector.
Keywords: sustainable tourism; sustainable development; diffusion of innovations;
tourism management; hotel; ski resort

Introduction
Concern for environmental sustainability is increasing globally (Dunlap, Gallup, & Gallup,
1993; Pew Research Center, 2007). The predominant paradigm of development through
the conquering of nature is being replaced by human interdependence with the ecosphere
(Hawken, 1993; McDonough & Braungart, 2002; Schmidheiny, 1992). Businesses play
a key role in creating a more sustainable future through transforming their products and
services to offer consumers options for a more sustainable lifestyle. This study investigates
this transformation occurring in the North American hotel and ski resort industries through
their adoption of sustainability innovations. Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory
(DIT), a leading model for understanding the adoption of sustainability innovations, has
been the basis of thousands of studies worldwide in mass media, public health, sociology,
communication and agriculture. This study uses DIT to examine four characteristics of
successful innovations and two characteristics of successful innovation adopters that have
been highly predictive in prior studies to investigate the diffusion of sustainability in the
resort industry. Few earlier studies have investigated sustainability in the resort industry as

∗
Corresponding author. Email: smerecnik@gmail.com
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.517316
http://www.informaworld.com

172 K.R. Smerecnik and P Andersen
.A.

an innovation process and utilized DIT (e.g. Le et al., 2006). This study contributes new
insight into an under-researched field.

The context of sustainability
According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987, Chapter
2), “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (see also Schubert
& L´ ng, 2005). The 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the World Business Council for Sustain-
a
able Development articulated the ideology of eco-efficiency as the core of sustainability
(DeSimone & Popoff, 1997; Holliday, Schmidheiny, & Watts, 2002; Schmidheiny, 1992;
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1996). Though definitions vary,
most scholars agree that sustainability is founded on decreasing environmental impact,
closing the consumption cycle to eliminate wasteful outputs and decreasing unnecessary
inputs (Epstein, 1996; McDonough & Braungart, 2002).
Since businesses play a leading role in the global economy through the production
of goods and services, their involvement is integral to increasing sustainability and to
communicating its value. Andriate and Fink (2008) explain that, increasingly, “business
enterprises have discovered that competitive advantages may be captured by measuring
success in terms of the triple bottom line (TBL): social equity, ecological integrity, and
financial profitability” (p. 118). Leaders of companies are realizing that if the natural
resources upon which they depend become depleted, ecological and financial stability will
be disrupted (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999).
This study focuses on sustainability in hotels and ski resorts because companies
in these industries are responding to the demands of environmentally conscious stake-
holders, a planet in ecological crisis and the risks of litigation and regulation and are also
attempting to maintain profitability and market growth (Edwards, 2005; Freeman, Pierce,
& Dodd, 2000; Hitchcock & Willard, 2006). Resorts occupy an innovative demographic
in the for-profit sector (Orfila-Sintes, Crespi-Cladera, & Martinez-Ros, 2005) and show a
trend of increased adoption of sustainability initiatives (Honey, 2008; International Busi-
ness Leaders Forum, 2007). Hotels and resorts create a significant environmental impact
and must take a more proactive approach to reducing it (Becken, Frampton, & Simmons,
2001; Brown, 1996). Within the tourism industry, hotels and resorts require the greatest
amount of energy (Bohdanowicz, 2005). Sustainability is therefore necessarily not only
for the betterment of the natural environment but also for maintaining competitive hotel
performance; Erdogan and Baris (2007) explain, “[S]ome [hotel] managers now under-
stand that long-term economic sustainability and growth depend upon the nature of their
environmental policies” (p. 604).

Resort sustainability
In addition to the previously mentioned reasons for adopting sustainability innovations,
the hospitality sector also faces pressure from consumer demands, government regulations
and environmental organizations (Erdogan & Baris, 2007; Goodman, 2000). As a result,
hotels and ski resorts are adopting environmental sustainability innovations such as min-
imizing their use of energy, water and nondurable products and minimizing waste and
greenhouse gas emissions (Erdogan & Baris, 2007; Honey, 2008; Trung & Kumar, 2005).
Many hotel chains recognize the advantages of reducing their environmental impact through
new environmental policies and initiatives; some of the more sustainable medium-to-large

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 173

hotel/resort companies include Accor, Fairmont, Hilton, Kimpton, Marriot and Taj (Houdr´ , e
2008). Scandic Hotels in Scandinavia may be one of the most progressive examples of a
hotel chain that has holistically integrated sustainability into its core values and practices;
their Omtanke corporate social responsibility (CSR) program created a number of positive
results for the company, one of which was an increase in satisfaction among managers,
employees and customers (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Goodman, 2000).
There is inconclusive evidence for how proactive environmental initiatives impact
overall resort performance. Some literature reveals the positive impact of sustainability
on customer satisfaction and loyalty, which is believed to improve overall resort per-
formance (Kassinis & Soteriou, 2003), but other research has found no conclusive evi-
dence of a correlation with performance (Claver-Cort´ s, Molina-Azorń, Pereira-Moliner, &
e ı
L´ pez-Gamero, 2007). Some limited data reveal correlations between resort demographics
o
and adoption of environmental policies (Deng, Ryan, & Moutinho, 1992; Kirk, 1998; Le,
Hollenhorst, Harris, McLaughlin, & Shook, 2006; Tzschentke, Kirk, & Lynch, 2008).
Larger hotels tend to implement more strategic environmental management practices
(L´ pez-Gamero, Claver-Cort´ s, & Molina-Azorń, 2008; Mensah, 2006), while the personal
o e ı
values and beliefs of managers in small hotel operations were predictors of sustainability
adoption (Tzschentke et al., 2008). A significant difference was observed between chain-
owned hotels and independent hotels, the latter relying on managers to introduce sustainabil-
ity, while the former have more strategic environmental policies and values (LIFE, 2001).
The ski resort industry is an important sector to examine within the overall tourism
industry because ski resorts both create significant environmental impacts and are depen-
dent on the natural environment to maintain profitability (World Tourism Organization
and United Nations Environment Programme, 2008). Pickering, Harrington and Worboys
(2003) explain, “Ski resorts are an intensive form of tourism development in mountain
areas resulting in clearing; road construction; slope grooming; provision of utility services
(water, sewage treatment, power supplies); accommodation services; and other tourism in-
frastructure” (p. 249). In addition to the impact on the physical environment, climate change
is affecting much of the industry, as a number of studies have found decreased snowfall
and warmer winters (Moen & Fredman, 2007; Nolin & Daly, 2006; Whetton, Haylock, &
Galloway, 1996). As ski resorts realize the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions and responding to environmentally conscious stakeholders, many are improving their
environmental policies. Hudson (1995) envisions a sustainable ski resort to be “committed
to developing in only such ways as will protect and sustain the resort’s natural assets for
future generations” (p. 185). Though it is arguable that hotel and ski resorts are somewhat
different industries, this study primarily focuses on the lodging and hospitality aspects of
the ski industry.
Over 75% of US ski resorts signed the Sustainable Slopes Charter in 2000 that cre-
ated guidelines for improved environmental performance, including reforms in planning
and design, water use, energy, waste reduction, natural habitat management, education and
outreach (Hudson, 2006; National Ski Areas Association, 2005, 2008). Customer demand
for these environmental considerations is apparent from the existence of such organizations
as the Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition, specifically with the organization’s creation of the Ski
Area Environmental Scorecard (Hudson, 2006; Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition, 2008).
Research shows that ski resorts that are more innovative tend to be more environmentally
proactive (Sharma, Arag´ n-Correa, & Rueda-Manzanares, 2007) and that the effects of
o
climate change will create competitive advantage for resorts that naturally receive more
snowfall and will require improved snowmaking infrastructures for others (Scott, McBoyle,
Minogue, & Mills, 2006). One study created a model for improved strategic performance

.A.

in ski resorts, specifically incorporating elements of sustainability supported by the World
Tourism Organization (Flagestad & Hope, 2001), but other research has found that the
voluntary adoption of the Sustainable Slopes program, created by US National Ski Area
Association, did little to improve ski resorts’ environmental performance (Rivera & de
Leon, 2004; Rivera, de Leon, & Koerber, 2006). Further research is required to explain
which factors influence the adoption of environmental policies in the ski resort industry
(Sharma et al., 2007).

Diffusion of innovations theory and resort sustainability
DIT defines an innovation as an “idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an
individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 7) and is highly predictive of the
adoption of new innovations by individuals and organizations. As mentioned earlier, DIT
has been widely utilized internationally in various disciplines, with over 30 nations using
DIT as a primary theory of development and with approximately 4000 published studies
employing the theory (Rogers, 1995). As sustainability is spreading throughout numerous
industries (Esty & Winston, 2009), DIT offers a highly appropriate approach for examining
the adoption of resort sustainability.
When resorts seek to implement new environmental policies, practices or products,
regardless of their various motivations (Bansal & Roth, 2000), they are introducing a
sustainability innovation. How companies perceive the concept of sustainability and its value
and adopt the innovation is a complex process involving numerous facets of communication
(Berkhout & Rowlands, 2007; Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2003; Vasi, 2006) and can be
explained through DIT. Damanpour (1991) explains that innovations in a corporate context
can be “a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure
or administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizational members”
(p. 556). Rogers (2003) contends that adopting an innovation is based on five characteristics
of the innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity (though Rogers terms it the
inverse “complexity”), trialability and observability. Rogers has found that between 49%
and 87% of variance in adoption is explained by these five attributes.
This study proposes that relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity and trialability (all
innovation characteristics), as well as opinion leadership and innovativeness (both adopter
characteristics), affect the voluntary adoption of sustainability innovations in resorts. Since
the immediate effects of sustainability, such as decreased electricity or water use, are often
not physically visible, observability may be a less appropriate characteristic to address
in this study. Most diffusion studies, especially related to sustainability, have focused on
an innovation being adopted by individuals in the context of a society, region or culture
(e.g. McEachern & Hanson, 2008). Studies on sustainability innovations have primarily
investigated such topics as diffusion of environmental sustainability policies (Bergstr¨ m o
& Dobers, 2000; Foxon & Pearson, 2008; Kern, J¨ rgens, & J¨ nicke, 2001; Tsoutsos &
o a
Stamboulis, 2005), sustainability innovations adopted in geographical regions (Geltz, 2008;
McEachern, & Hanson, 2008; Vasi, 2006, 2007) and consumer adoption of sustainability
innovations (Labay & Kinnear, 1981). Studies have not systematically investigated the
diffusion of sustainability innovations in the resort industry. Only one diffusion study
investigated the influences that impact resort managers’ intention to adopt environmentally
friendly practices in Vietnamese hotels (Le et al., 2006) and found that the characteristics
of innovations were the strongest predictor of the intention to adopt.
The most important sustainability innovation in a resort’s organizational structure
is the adoption of an environmental strategy and management plan, often termed an


“environmental management system” (EMS; Damanpour, 1991; Hitchcock & Willard,
2006). An EMS incorporates elements of formal environmental policies, impact assess-
ments, environmental performance indicators, eco-labels, strategic objectives, planning for
monitoring environmental progress and ongoing management reviews (L´ pez-Fern´ ndez &
o a
Serrano-Bedia, 2007; Prakash & Potoski, 2006). Because of the complexity of integrating an
EMS, especially in resorts with minimal understanding of its environmental impact, many
companies rely on international standards. This adds credibility to the management system,
increases the capacity of management control, allows for transparency, meets consumer
demands and protects multinational companies from criticisms of their global operations
(Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2000; Casades´ s, Marimon, & Heras, 2008; Jiang & Bansal, 2003;
u
Prakash & Potoski, 2006).

Characteristics of innovations
Numerous diffusion studies show that successful adoption of innovations can be predicted
from the perceived innovation characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, simplic-
ity and trialability (Rogers, 2003). Though it has not been widely used in sustainability
innovations, DIT has been used to explain the spread of organic farming (Padel, 2002),
sustainable prevention innovations (Johnson, Hays, & Daley, 2004) and renewable energy
technologies (Tsoutsos & Stamboulis, 2005). The current study was conducted because few
studies have yet to test these important diffusion variables in the context of environmental
sustainability at resorts (e.g. Le et al., 2006).

Relative advantage
Adoption of sustainability innovations at resorts may provide a number of perceived benefits
or relative advantages, defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003, p. 229). Relative advantage has been the
best predictor of the rate of adoption of an innovation. This is also called the business case,
where return on investment is considered before adopting an innovation (Reinhardt, 2007).
Scholars illustrate the business case for sustainability in terms of competitive advantages
that sustainability can bring, such as easier hiring of the best talent; increased employee
productivity, satisfaction and retention; reduced cost of manufacturing, commercial sites
and facilities; increased revenue and market share; improved public image and customer
satisfaction; and reduced risk, improved relationships with regulators and easier financ-
ing (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Dunphy et al., 2003; Esty & Winston, 2009; Freeman et al.,
2000; Hoffman, 2007; Molina-Azorń, Claver-Cort´ s, Pereira-Moliner, & Jos´ Tar´, 2009;
ı e e ı
Shrivastava, 1996; Willard, 2002). Hudson (1995) echoes these same advantages in the ski
resort industry with his case study of sustainability at the Verbier resort in the Swiss canton
Vallis.
Despite a resort’s “green” intentions, many sustainability innovations, such as improved
efficiency, waste reduction, renewable energy and improved product design also have a direct
link to cost savings (Hitchcock & Willard, 2006), and relative advantage is often expressed
in economic profitability (Esty & Winston, 2009; Feiertag, 1994; Rogers, 2003). In a study
of the hotel sector in Spain, proactive environmental initiatives were positively correlated
with overall hotel performance (Molina-Azorń et al., 2009). But many hotels are primarily
ı
concerned with the upfront costs of being more sustainable; one study reported that the
primary barrier to adopting an EMS for hotels was the perceived cost of implementation
and maintenance (Chan, 2008). However, hotels that already implemented an EMS were

.A.

less hindered by the other reported barriers, suggesting that “hotels may likely experience
the benefits once they have adopted and implemented the [environmental management]
system despite the operational costs” (Chan, 2008, p. 194).
A significant component of profitability lies in appealing to market demand and main-
taining customer loyalty. Hilton Hotels in Europe adopted a number of sustainability innova-
tions that led to $9 million in savings over two years and gave them competitive advantage for
environmentally conscious customers (Griffiths, 2008). In regard to corporations in general,
consumers prefer to purchase environmentally sustainable products (Hitchcock & Willard,
2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007); one survey found that 53% of consumers prefer to
purchase products from companies that are environmentally sustainable (Tandberg, 2007).
Environmentally sustainable companies hold greater consumer loyalty and can access a
number of new market segments (Diesendorf, 2000; Willard, 2005). Chouinard (2005), the
CEO of Patagonia (a leading outdoor sports clothing company), explains, “[E]ach time we
tried to do the right thing for the environment, regardless of the cost to us, we ended up
saving money” (p. 219); though he speaks from experience in the outdoor sporting goods
sector, similar cost savings have consistently been found in the resort industry (e.g. Chan
& Lam, 2003).
Another relative advantage is risk minimization because of both the potential dangers
that global climate change could inflict on resorts and the financial implications of risk
generally (Sussman & Freed, 2008). Banks and venture capital firms are demanding stronger
environmental policies before providing access to capital (Epstein & Roy, 2001; Kasemir,
Toth, & Masing, 2003). Many financial institutions, such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup,
Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, have modified their lending policies to reflect
environmental considerations (Bhat, 1996; Epstein & Mills, 2005; Hoffman, 2007).
Studies indicate that employees typically want to work for companies with a positive
environmental record (Society for Human Resource Management, 2008; Tandberg, 2007).
More sustainable corporations have higher employee retention, greater access to hiring
top talent and increased employee productivity (Tandberg, 2007; Willard, 2002, 2005).
Companies with negative public images typically have to pay their employees higher salaries
to attract and retain them (Bhat, 1996; Dunphy et al., 2003). One study has shown that
employee morale was a significant driver for a company to adopt the use of renewable
energy (Wiser, Fowlie, & Holt, 2001).
Another relative advantage of adopting environmental sustainability innovations is
preventing regulatory penalties. Regardless of a resort’s environmental values, it is required
to follow legal regulations that mitigate environmental impact. Costs for failing to meet
environmental regulations will increase in coming years, presenting significant risks for
environmentally unsustainable companies (Bhat, 1996). Many companies are motivated to
adopt sustainability innovations because of future federal regulations (Labatt & Maclaren,
1998; Schmidheiny, 1992). Some scholars argue that if regulation can be anticipated, it
provides an opportunity for innovation and competitive advantage (Dunphy et al., 2003).
Considering the many proposed advantages, the following is hypothesized in this study:
(H1 ) The perceived net relative advantage of environmental sustainability innovations is posi-
tively correlated with the adoption of environmental sustainability innovations.

Compatibility
Adopting an innovation is dependent on perceived benefits and also on compatibility of
the innovation with a company’s organizational structure, attitudes toward the innovation


and decision-making processes (Higa, Sheng, Hu, & Au, 1997). Rogers (2003) explains
that compatibility is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters” (p. 240). Few studies
have examined how compatibility of sustainability innovations affects the rate of adoption
in the resort industry (Banerjee, 2001).
Studies show that nonresort companies with strong environmental values and policies
are more likely to adopt sustainability innovations (Bansal, 2003; Berkhout & Rowlands,
2007; Farhar, 1999; Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995; Prakash, 2000; Sharma, 2000; Wiser
et al., 2001). There are numerous cases where companies will go above and beyond regu-
lations and competitors in their adoption of sustainability innovations, possibly indicating
deeply embedded environmental values (Chouinard, 2005; Freeman et al., 2000; Sutton,
2000). Environmental values held by senior officials are critical, as Bohdanowicz (2005)
explains: “environmental commitment at a corporate level is likely to induce responsible
behavior at individual facilities” (p. 198). In addition, adopting sustainability innovations
at a resort is also dependent upon how those innovations, especially if they are of a tech-
nical nature, are compatible with the facilities. Therefore, the following is hypothesized
here:

(H2 ) The adoption of environmental sustainability innovations is positively correlated with
the degree to which they are compatible with current resort operations, practices, values and
facilities.

Simplicity
The perceived simplicity of an innovation is positively related to its rate of adoption (Rogers,
2003). According to Rogers (2003), complexity, the inverse of simplicity, is “the degree
to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use” (p. 257).
Hobday (1998) explains that complexity “is used to reflect the number of customized
components, the breadth of knowledge and skills required and the degree of new knowledge
involved in product” (p. 690). Research has shown a negative relationship between the
complexity of an innovation and its rate of adoption (Hobday, 1998), but exceptions have
been found (Wonglimpiyarat, 2005). Scholars acknowledge that sustainability, especially
in an era of multinational corporations and globalization, has become a complex issue for
corporations (van Marrewijk & Hardjono, 2003); the complexity of changing values to
adopt sustainability innovations may be inherent in the paradigm shift that is taking place.
The term “simplicity” was chosen over “complexity” in order to maintain a consistent
positive-oriented hypothesis direction. No studies that have investigated the correlation
between simplicity and adoption of sustainability innovations in an organizational setting
could be found. The following is hypothesized:

(H3 ) The perceived simplicity of environmental sustainability innovations is positively corre-
lated with the adoption of environmental sustainability innovations.

Trialability
The ability to utilize an innovation for a trial period is positively correlated with its rate
of adoption (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) defines trialability as “the degree to which an
innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis” (p. 258). Diffusion research has
primarily focused on trialability of sustainability innovations outside of organizations (van

.A.

Alphen, van Hekkert, & Sark, 2006). Chan and Ho (2006) give the example of “energy
performance contracting” that hotels can use to try sustainability innovations; the authors
explain that energy performance contracting is “a unique arrangement where contractors
usually assume responsibility for purchasing and installing the equipment, as well as mainte-
nance throughout the contract” (p. 310). Hotels could use this approach to try sustainability
innovations that produce renewable energy or improve energy efficiency. Other examples
of companies adopting sustainability innovations for trial periods of time show that they are
prerequisites for fully adopting them (e.g. Holliday et al., 2002). Therefore, the following
hypothesized here:
(H4 ) The degree to which a resort can try environmental sustainability innovations on a limited
basis is positively correlated with the adoption of environmental sustainability innovations.

Characteristics of adopters
The characteristics of adopters affect the rate at which an innovation is adopted (Rogers,
2003). Two characteristics that have been shown to impact adoption, namely opinion leader-
ship and innovativeness, will be discussed below.

Environmental opinion leadership
Opinion leaders are crucial to the diffusion process. The adopter characteristic of opinion
leadership constitutes “the degree to which an individual is able to influence other indi-
viduals’ attitudes or overt behavior informally in a desired way with relative frequency”
(Rogers, 2003, p. 27). Most innovations are adopted upon recommendation of opinion
leaders. But opinion leadership is dependent upon conformity to a system’s norms. If a
system’s norms are changing, opinion leaders are often innovators, but if a system’s norms
are not changing, opinion leaders maintain the norm (Rogers, 2003). It is valuable to test
this claim in the context of environmental sustainability innovations in the hotel and resort
industry to assess if self-perceived environmental opinion leadership is correlated with the
adoption of sustainability innovations. The following is hypothesized:
(H5 ) Environmental opinion leadership is correlated with the adoption of environmental sus-
tainability innovations.

Innovativeness
Characteristics of resorts, such as size, context and ownership, influence the adoption of
sustainability innovations (Deng et al., 1992; Kirk, 1998; Le et al., 2006; Mensah, 2006;
Tzschentke et al., 2008). Beyond a resort’s organizational structure, the ability to adapt
to change is a strong predictor for a company’s adoption of technological innovations
(DeCanio, Dibble, & Amir-Atefi, 2000; Higa et al., 1997). An additional adopter charac-
teristic is innovativeness, defined as “the degree to which an individual or other unit of
adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other members of a system”
(Rogers, 2003, p. 22; see also Midgley & Dowling, 1978). Innovativeness is a charac-
teristic varying among organizations and is consistently related to company performance
(Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004); some research has investigated innovativeness in the hotel
industry (Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005; Orfila-Sintes & Mattsson, 2009), but since no prior
research has examined the relationship between innovativeness and sustainability in the
resort industry, the following is hypothesized:


(H6 ) The perceived resort innovativeness is positively correlated with the adoption of environ-
mental sustainability innovations.

Finally, on the basis of the overall rationale posited above, the following is hypothesized:
(H7 ) The combined variables of the innovation and adopter characteristics will significantly
predict the adoption of sustainability innovations.

Methods
A quasi-experimental, survey-based study was devised to examine the diffusion of envi-
ronmental sustainability innovations in North American hotel and ski resorts. Participants,
procedures, measures and data analysis will be discussed in this section.

Participants
Participants were primarily managers from major hotels and ski resorts, who were directly
responsible for or most knowledgeable about their resort’s environmental policies or overall
operation. Because the respondents held varying positions in their resorts, we categorized
them into five groups to better indicate the nature of their positions (10 participants did
not respond to the question): managers (N = 19), directors (N = 10), human resources
(N = 4), environmental managers (N = 3) and others (N = 3). Many resorts still do
not have a job position for a sustainability director, and therefore the task of managing
environmental performance is either distributed or added as an additional responsibility to
an employee’s primary role (e.g. L´ pez-Gamero et al., 2008).
o
The study sample consisted of 49 respondents from 43 hotels, 3 ski resorts and 3 that
were both a ski resort and a hotel. The average number of staff employed by the participating
resorts was 304 (the largest was 1300, and the smallest was 7). A slight majority (45%) of
participants were four-star resorts, and a majority (53%) were privately owned as opposed
to corporate-owned. Participants were primarily from California (N = 27) and were also
from nine other states in the US, and two were international.

Procedure
An availability sampling method was used to recruit participants, primarily through partner-
ships with professional trade associations, personal contacts and social networking web-
sites. Participants were contacted by email, phone and newsletters. The researchers part-
nered with four organizations to reach participants. Partnering organizations included the
California Hotel and Lodging Association, the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association,
the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and the School of Hospitality and Tourism
Management at a large California university.
Participating resorts accessed the survey online through SurveyMonkey.com during
the winter of 2009. The survey provided informed consent, described the nature of the
survey and its anonymity and shared the incentive of an executive summary of results for
completing the survey. If the participant agreed with the terms, they progressed to the
survey.
The survey included questions on sustainability innovations, DIT questions, ex-
ploratory research items and resort demographics. A final page thanked the participant,
reminded them that the results were confidential and anonymous and provided a space for
feedback.

.A.

Table 1. Sustainability innovations indices.

Sustainability management (α = 0.80; 8 items)
(1) Creation of an environmental committee
(2) Written environmental policy
(3) Creation of an environmental impact assessment report
(4) Creation of a detailed program to reduce environmental impacts
(5) Hiring of external consultants to advise on environmental policies or programs
(6) Sending officials to conferences related to sustainability
(7) Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions or carbon footprint
(8) Adoption of any nationally or internationally recognized sustainability certification programs
Environmental communication (α = 0.85; 6 items)
(1) Environmental training of staff
(2) Environmental education of guests
(3) Existence of environmental statements in public messages or resort descriptions
(4) Routine meetings to discuss environmentally related issues
(5) Community environmental support, involvement or advocacy
(6) Our hotel/resort carries out dialogue with other resorts in our industry about environmental
sustainability
Managing resort pollution (α = 0.86; 3 items)
(1) Knowledge of environmental pollution around resort
(2) Intervention to prevent this pollution
(3) Maintenance of local habitat and biodiversity
Resource conservation (α = 0.91; 12 items)
(1) Separate collection of hazardous waste
(2) Recovery of food waste
(3) Compositing of organic and food waste
(4) Knowledge of the existence of local recycling firms and their operations
(5) Cooperation with these firms
(6) Paying attention to recycled goods
(7) Purchasing products that are designed to be reusable
(8) Purchasing products and materials that aim to reduce environmental impacts
(9) Encouraging recycling among guests
(10) Purchasing from local firms and companies
(11) Purchasing energy-saving materials
(12) Purchasing less hazardous materials
Water recycling (α = 0.85; 5 items)
(1) On-site wastewater treatment
(2) Discharge of treated wastewater to the surrounding environment
(3) Rainwater/snow runoff capture and reuse
(4) Use of treated wastewater in landscaping irrigation
(5) Use of recycled water for snowmaking
Energy conservation (α = 0.90; 9 items)
(1) Producing all of your resort’s energy through solar, wind or other renewable sources of energy
(2) Purchasing renewable energy from a local utility provider
(3) Purchasing renewable energy credits/green tags
(4) Resort’s transportation fleet utilizing alternatively fuelled or hybrid vehicles
(5) Strategic transportation to reduce environmental impact (e.g. a plan for reducing car idling
times)
(6) Providing public transportation for guests
(7) Employee carpool or alternative transportation incentives
(8) Resort buildings have been constructed to maximize building efficiency, utilizing sustainable
materials and methods (meeting the criteria for Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design [LEED] or Energy Star certifications)
(9) Policies for remodeling include sustainable features
(Continued on next page)


Table 1. Sustainability innovations indices. (Continued)

Guestroom sustainability (α = 0.69; 8 items)
(1) Energy saver control system in guest rooms
(2) Keycard control system in guest rooms that shuts off power when the card is removed
(3) Using energy-saving light bulbs in guest rooms
(4) Recycling containers in rooms (e.g. for newspapers and plastic bottles)
(5) Voluntary linen/towel reuse program
(6) Sorting linen according to dirtiness
(7) Strategically reducing the amount of cleaning chemicals to use
(8) Using sensor-activated lighting in lobby restrooms and other locations that only require
intermittent lighting

Measures
The researchers created an environmental sustainability innovation measure (see Table 1)
and modified previously published measures to test the DIT variables (see Table 2 for scales
and Table 3 for factor analysis). The majority of indices were based on a Likert-type scale.

Table 2. DIT indices.

Relative advantage (α = 0.84; 7 items)
(1.2) Will add significant value and market advantage to our resort’s profile and services
(1.3) Will reduce customer satisfaction (reverse coded)
(1.4) Will reduce employee satisfaction, retention and productivity (reverse coded)
(2.l) Is not well matched to our current procedures (reverse coded)
(2.4) Are compatible with our existing employee practices
(4.1) Require too much technical expertise (reverse coded)
(4.6) Is much too complex to implement at this time (reverse coded; Calantone et al., 2006;
Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Vishwanath & Goldhaber, 2003; Zhu & He, 2002)
Innovativeness (α = 0.81; 2 items)
(3.2) Our hotel/resort will often adopt new practices and products before other resorts in our
industry.
(3.4) Our hotel/resort often embraces new ideas (Hurt et al., 1977).
Simplicity (α = 0.86; 3 items)
(4.2) Will be a simple and easy process
(4.4) Will be easily attainable because of our expansive knowledge about environmental
sustainability
(4.5) Will require minimal resources (Igbaria et al., 1996; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Vishwanath
& Goldhaber, 2003; Zhu & He, 2002)
Environmental opinion leadership (α = 0.95; 2 items)
(5.2) Our resort/hotel is very likely to be consulted by other resorts in our industry about
sustainability innovations.
(5.4) Our resort/hotel is considered by other resorts to be a reliable source of information on
environmental sustainability (King et al., 1999).
Trialability (α = 0.77; 2 items)
(6.1) Before deciding to adopt a sustainability innovation, our resort would need to test the
adoption on a smaller scale.
(6.2) Having time to try sustainability innovations would motivate our resort to adopt those
innovations (Moore & Benbasat, 1991).
Cautiousness (α = 0.63; 2 items)
(3.1) Our hotel/resort is generally cautious about accepting new ideas.
(3.3) Our hotel/resort must see other resorts using new innovations before we will consider them
(Hult et al., 2004).

Note: Item numbers correlate with the items in the factor analysis in Table 2.

Table 3. DIT indices factor analysis.
182

DIT indices – rotated component matrix

Opinion Relative
Index items leader advantage Simplicity Trialability Cautiousness Innovativeness
(1.1) Cost saving 0.517 0.416
(1.2) Add value and market advantage 0.556 0.551a
(1.3) Customer satisfaction (reverse coded) 0.817a
(1.4) Employee satisfaction (reverse coded) 0.615a 0.359 −0.397
(1.5) Regulations 0.685
a
(2.1) Current procedures (reverse coded) −0.448
(2.2) Purchasing practices 0.536
.A.

(2.3) Compatible with facilities 0.519 0.38 −0.36
(2.4) Compatible employee practices (reverse coded) 0.751a
(3.1) Accept new ideas (reverse coded) −0.570a 0.37
a
(3.2) Adopt practices before others 0.583 −0.393
K.R. Smerecnik and P Andersen

(3.3) See other resorts before (reverse coded) 0.398 0.35 −0.540a
(3.4) Often embrace new idea 0.399 −0.444 −0.384a
(4.1) Technical expertise (reverse coded) 0.789a
(4.2) Simple and easy 0.851a
(4.3) Components and processes (reverse coded) 0.357 0.685
(4.4) Easy because of knowledge 0.502 0.700a
(4.5) Resources 0.813a
(4.6) Complex (reverse coded) 0.750a
(5.1) Dialogues with others 0.893
(5.2) Is very likely to be contacted about sustainability innovations 0.868a
(5.3) Learn more from others than they do from us −0.706
(5.4) Is considered a reliable source .863a
(6.1) Test on smaller scale 0.783a
(6.2) Time to try would motivate adoption 0.717a
(6.3) Knowledge of suppliers that will allow to try products 0.633
(6.4) Trial period (reverse coded) −0.456 0.506 0.366

Note: In some cases, an item was included in a scale even though it did not load in the factor analysis because it strengthened the reliability of the scale and was conceptually
compatible.
a Items included in the construct.


Sustainability innovations
The environmental sustainability innovation measure (α = 0.82) combined seven sustain-
ability subscales, including sustainability management (α = 0.80), environmental commu-
nication (α = 0.85), managing resort pollution (α = 0.86), resource conservation (α =
0.91), water recycling (α = 0.85), energy conservation (α = 0.90) and guestroom sustain-
ability (α = 0.69). The sustainability scales measured the degree of adoption of various
innovations, such as an EMS, renewable energy technologies, energy-efficient building de-
sign, community environmental advocacy and purchasing reusable products. These indices
were constructed through a combination of reliability analysis and factor analysis in an
attempt to create optimally reliable scales; the items of the indices were selected from the
previously cited literature on sustainability (e.g. Banerjee, 2001; Bansal & Roth, 2000;
Berkhout & Rowlands, 2007; Bhat, 1996; Esty & Winston, 2009; Hitchcock & Willard,
2006; Willard, 2002). The titles of the sustainability innovation indices were adapted to
appropriately fit the items that were included in the scale.

Relative advantage
This study employed items from several previous measures of relative advantage (Calantone,
Griffith, & Yalcinkaya, 2006; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Vishwanath & Goldhaber, 2003;
Zhu & He, 2002), including quality, productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. Reliability
analysis following factor analysis was used to construct a reliable relative advantage scale
(α = 0.84).

Compatibility
Compatibility of sustainability innovations was measured using items from several previ-
ous studies (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Calantone et al., 2006; Moore & Benbasat, 1991;
Vishwanath & Goldhaber, 2003; Zhu & He, 2002). The measure consisted of compatibility
items on operations, suppliers and facilities. Following a factor analysis, reliability analysis
revealed that the compatibility scale had a weak reliability (α = 0.59). Therefore parts of
the compatibility scale were combined with the relative advantage scale, eliminating the
ability to test the second hypothesis.

Simplicity
Several previously used scales were combined to measure simplicity, because no single,
previously developed scale was appropriate for researching sustainability innovations. Re-
verse coding of “complexity” scales from Igbaria, Parasuraman and Baroudi (1996) and
Vishwanath and Goldhaber (2003) were utilized, as well as “ease of use” scales from Moore
and Benbasat (1991) and Zhu and He (2002); the items measured time commitment, cost
commitment, components of the sustainability innovation, knowledge base and ease of use.
The term “simplicity” is used instead of “complexity” in order to keep the survey items
consistently positively coded. Reliability of the scale was good (α = 0.86).

Trialability
Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) measure for trialability was modified to test items of short-
term trials, trial opportunities and knowledge of professional contacts to initiate the trial.
After deleting two weak items, the reliability of the scale was adequate (α = 0.77).

.A.

King, Summers and Childers’ (1999) opinion leadership scale was modified to assess the
degree to which a resort perceives itself as a credible industry leader in sustainability.
Reliability for the opinion leadership scale was excellent (α = 0.95).

Innovativeness
As some companies are more innovative than others (Hult et al., 2004), it would be reason-
able to assume that the adoption of sustainability innovations would be more compatible
with resorts that are more innovative and would confirm Rogers’ (2003) claim that inno-
vativeness leads to early adoption. The present study modified Hurt, Joseph and Cook’s
(1977) innovativeness scale to test the adoption of sustainability innovations. Following
factor analysis and the deletion of two items, the reliability was good (α = 0.81).

Cautiousness
Two items from the “innovativeness” scale failed to associate with the primary measure of
innovativeness and were combined into a two-item measure labeled “cautiousness”. The
reliability of the measure was only marginally adequate (α = 0.63).

Data analysis
Hypotheses 1–6 tested the univariate relationships between diffusion characteristics and the
various dimensions of sustainability innovations, using correlation coefficients. Hypothesis
7 was tested using multiple regression analysis, regressing the diffusion characteristics on
the composite sustainability innovations index. All hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 alpha
level. Power estimates for testing the primary hypotheses were 0.17 for a small effect, 0.67
for a medium effect and 0.98 for a large effect.

Results
Hypothesis 1, which posited that “the perceived net relative advantage of environmen-
tal sustainability innovations is positively correlated with the adoption of environmental
sustainability innovations,” was partially confirmed. The relative advantage index corre-
lated with two of the six univariate indices: sustainability management index (r = 0.35,
r 2 = 0.12, p < 0.05) and environmental communication (r = 0.31, r 2 = 0.10, p < 0.05).
Hypothesis 2, which posited that “the adoption of environmental sustainability innova-
tions is positively correlated with the degree to which they are compatible with current resort
operations, practices, values and facilities”, was not tested because the index developed to
test compatibility was found not to be reliable (α = 0.59).
Hypothesis 3, which posited that “the perceived simplicity of environmental sustain-
ability innovations is positively correlated with the adoption of environmental sustainability
innovations”, was confirmed. The simplicity index correlated with environmental commu-
nication (r = 0.42, r 2 = 0.18, p < 0.01), managing resort pollution (r = 0.34, r 2 = 0.12,
p < 0.05), resource conservation (r = 0.55, r 2 = 0.30, p < 0.01), water recycling
(r = 0.66, r 2 = 0.44, p < 0.01), energy conservation (r = 0.66, r 2 = 0.44, p < 0.01)
and guestroom sustainability (r = 0.43, r 2 = 0.19, p < 0.01).


Hypothesis 4, which posited that “the degree to which a resort can try environmental
sustainability innovations on a limited basis is positively correlated with the adoption of
environmental sustainability innovations”, was not confirmed. None of the sustainability
innovations significantly correlated with trialability.
Hypothesis 5, which posited that “environmental opinion leadership is correlated with
the adoption of environmental sustainability innovations”, was confirmed. Environmental
opinion leadership correlated with sustainability management (r = 0.49, r 2 = 0.24, p <
0.01), environmental communication (r = 0.69, r 2 = 0.48, p < 0.01), managing resort
pollution (r = 0.55, r 2 = 0.30, p < 0.01), resource conservation (r = 0.46, r 2 = 0.21,
p < 0.01) and energy conservation (r = 0.47, r 2 = 0.22, p < 0.05).
Hypothesis 6, which posited that “the perceived resort innovativeness is positively
correlated with the adoption of environmental sustainability innovations”, was partially
confirmed. The innovativeness index correlated with the sustainability management index
(r = 0.40, r 2 = 0.16, p < 0.01) and the environmental communication index (r = 0.40,
r 2 = 0.16, p < 0.01).
Hypothesis 7, which posited that “the combined variables of the innovation and adopter
characteristics will significantly predict the adoption of sustainability innovations”, was
partially confirmed, with only one variable, simplicity, entering the model (r = 0.58, r 2 =
0.34, F = 6.41, p < 0.05).
The post hoc cautiousness variable did not significantly correlate with any of the
sustainability innovations (see Table 4 for correlation table of DIT scales).

Discussion
This section includes a discussion of the findings and their implications, the contribution
to diffusion and resort sustainability research, the limitations of the study and suggestions
for future research.

Simplicity
Simplicity was the most predictive variable for the adoption of sustainability innovations;
it was the only variable in the regression analysis to significantly predict overall resort
sustainability innovation. It was also strongly correlated with all six of the sustainability
innovation categories. Evidently, the primary facilitator of environmental innovations of
all types is the degree to which the management perceived that innovations were relatively
easy to understand and implement. Because implementing environmentally sustainable
innovations can be a challenging task for resorts (van Marrewijk & Hardjono, 2003), it
is important to recognize the vital role that perceived simplicity plays in the process of
adopting sustainability innovations.
This finding has important implications for change agents, opinion leaders and suppliers
in the resort industry. Sustainability communication must emphasize simplicity and ease of
adopting sustainability innovations to increase the rate of adoption. This is especially true
within the resort industry, as sustainability is still in early stages of being widely adopted.
This supports research that has shown perceived complexity to be a barrier for companies
when they are considering adopting sustainability innovations (Shrivastava, 1995). The
degree to which resort managers perceive sustainability innovations as easy to implement
will significantly promote adoption.
As resorts and the larger corporate sector cope with the current economic downturn,
they will be attempting to reduce risk and maximize financial return. Adopting complex

186

Table 4. Correlation matrix of DIT scales.

Correlations

Relative advantage Simplicity Trialability Opinion leader Innovativeness Cautiousness
index index index index index index

Relative advantage index Pearson correlation 1 0.017 −0.144 0.145 0.282 −0.406b
Significance (two-tailed) 0.910 0.351 0.348 0.063 0.006
.A.

N 44 44 44 44 44 44
Simplicity index Pearson correlation 0.017 1 0.242 0.385b 0.201 0.343a
N 44 44 44 44 44 44
K.R. Smerecnik and P Andersen

Trialability index Pearson correlation −0.144 0.242 1 0.327a −0.235 0.316a
N 44 44 44 44 44 44
Opinion leader index Pearson correlation 0.145 0.385b 0.327a 1 0.303a 0.004
N 44 44 44 44 44 44
Innovativeness index Pearson correlation 0.282 0.201 −0.235 0.303a 1 −0.142
N 44 44 44 44 44 44
Cautiousness index Pearson correlation −0.406b 0.343a 0.316a 0.004 −0.142 1
N 44 44 44 44 44 44
a Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).


innovations increases risks of lost revenue, time and resources. As sustainability will con-
tinue to diffuse throughout the industry, resorts will continually be looking for innovations
that improve company performance while minimizing uncertainty and cost.

Relative advantage
Resort perception of the relative advantage of environmental sustainability was partially
confirmed as moderately correlating with the sustainability management and environmental
communication indices. Typically, relative advantage is the strongest predictor of innova-
tion adoption. Businesses are constantly looking for innovations that provide a competitive
advantage to their company. As sustainability is still an emerging trend in the resort industry,
it is possible that a number of resorts are still in the early stages of adopting sustainabil-
ity innovations. It is conceivable that this early stage is characterized by less financially
intensive sustainability innovations and instead by those that are strategy-oriented, such
as sustainability management and environmental communication; these two variables are
also especially relevant to the tasks performed by resort managers, who were the primary
participants in the study.
Another plausible reason that relative advantage was not a greater predictor or correlated
with sustainability innovation adoption was due to the varying expertise of the managers
who participated in the study. It is possible that the decision to adopt resort sustainability
innovations was made by a corporate headquarters, company board or CEO who had strate-
gically assessed the relative advantages that the innovation would create. The participating
managers, though skilled in their knowledge of sustainability implementation, may not have
been highly knowledgeable about the full range of relative advantages that sustainability
innovations would create for the resort. In addition, managers may not see a strong enough
customer demand for sustainability in their resorts and therefore not perceive it as providing
a considerable relative advantage. Though no definitive claims can be made about this, the
finding provokes a topic for future research on the dissemination of knowledge related to
relative advantages of innovations.

Environmental opinion leadership strongly correlated with the adoption of sustainability
innovations. It is important to note that environmental opinion leadership is a characteristic
of the adopter as opposed to most of the other predictors that are characteristics of inno-
vations. It bodes well for the diffusion of sustainability innovations that managers, who
perceive their resorts to be opinion leaders in sustainability, are in fact adopting numer-
ous sustainability innovations. Rogers (2003) explains that when social systems are in a
state of change, opinion leaders tend to be the most innovative; as sustainability is diffus-
ing throughout numerous corporate sectors it is not surprising that environmental opinion
leadership also correlated with innovativeness (r = 0.30, r 2 = 0.09, p < 0.05). It is also
not surprising that environmental opinion leadership correlated highest with environmental
communication. These findings suggest that sustainability will become even more prevalent
at resorts as environmental opinion leaders continue to advocate on behalf of sustainability
innovations with multiple audiences.

Innovativeness
Interestingly, although innovativeness has been connected to high performance (Hult
et al., 2004) and has been investigated in the hotel industry (Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005;

.A.

Orfila-Sintes & Mattsson, 2009), there has been limited research that supports innovative-
ness being connected to sustainability performance. The correlation with sustainability
management and environmental communication, as well as with environmental opinion
leadership, provides evidence that sustainability is becoming an emergent practice of inno-
vative hotels and will most likely lead to other hotels adopting sustainability. The results
reveal that the higher the innovativeness, the greater the communication by the resort or-
ganization to the public, to guests, to workers and to other hotels. The correlation portends
greater diffusion of sustainability.

Trialability
Trialability did not correlate with the adoption of any sustainability innovations. The lack
of association may be a consequence of the difficulty in partially or temporarily adopting
sustainability innovations. Most suppliers of sustainability-related products and services
may not yet offer trial periods. Another explanation is that resorts may spend extensive
time researching appropriate sustainability innovations and only implement them when the
data strongly support advantages for the company; it may be difficult or uneconomical to
partially implement such an innovation. The time spent researching may supersede attempts
to implement trial periods of innovations.

Cautiousness
Cautiousness was a post hoc index developed from two “innovativeness” survey items that
seemed more appropriate as a distinct construct because of its separate factor loading.
Cautiousness did not correlate with the adoption of sustainability innovations. Similar to
innovativeness, cautiousness is a characteristic of an adopter as considered by scholars to
be a key construct in the development of new business processes and structures (Zhen et al.,
2004), as would be the case with the integration of sustainability innovations. Cautiousness
may not have correlated with sustainability adoption because of an inadequately constructed
measure. The nature of cautiousness does not necessarily intuitively correlate with the
adoption or rejection of innovations. It is an intriguing adopter characteristic to measure,
as it could lead to successful adoption of sustainability innovations because of careful
considerations of the innovation implementation process; but just as possibly, it could
negatively correlate with adoption because of the risk of implementing new sustainability
initiatives. This characteristic warrants further study to assess its influence on the adoption
of sustainability innovations.

Contribution
Scholars have argued that environmental sustainability in resorts is an area that requires
further research (Erdogan & Baris, 2007; Reid, 2006; Trung & Kumar, 2005). Few studies
have examined the diffusion of sustainability in the resort industry (e.g. Le et al., 2006).
This study provides new insights into an under-researched field. As little research has in-
vestigated the role of perceived simplicity in the adoption of sustainability innovations, this
study reveals that it is critical for change agents and opinion leaders to emphasize simplicity
to increase the rate of sustainability adoption. Communication about sustainability innova-
tions must highlight the ease of implementing these innovations. Additionally, this study
suggests that environmental opinion leadership is an important factor that correlates with


the adoption of some sustainability innovations, indicating that sustainability may become
more widespread within the industry.

Limitations
Several limitations existed in the current study. The most significant limitation was the rel-
atively small sample size. Our reliance on personal contacts, email, social networking and
partnering organizations yielded a small availability sample. Although the sample was ge-
ographically diverse and varied in its degree of sustainability innovation, we make no claim
as to its representativeness. One cause of the low participation was reliance on partnering
organizations. To maintain the privacy of their members, partnering organizations would
not give us access to their membership email list and took responsibility for distributing
the survey. This prevented the researchers from knowing who received the survey and cal-
culating a response rate. For example, the California Hotel and Lodging Association only
placed a link to the survey on their monthly newsletter. Though it was allegedly sent to over
1700 members, it was unclear how many of those members actually received the newsletter,
let alone read it. Our partnering organizations also refused to send out reminder emails,
reducing the exposure of the study to potential participants. In the future, an agreement
should be made before partnering with an organization on the number of reminder emails
that can be sent to ensure a proper participant recruitment method.
A second limitation is the variability of participants’ knowledge of sustainability. Most
hotels and resorts do not have a staff position dedicated to environmental policies, so
participants held several different staff positions. The survey indicated that participants
should be “directly responsible for or most knowledgeable about your resort’s environmental
policies or overall operations”. The varied expertise of the participants who completed
the survey possibly increased the variability of responses. In order to control for this in
future studies, a survey measure could have participants rank their personal knowledge of
sustainability and competence of implementation.
Lastly, it is evident that for our statistically significant outcomes the variance accounted
for was generally small, suggesting small effect sizes for the hypothesized variables. Obvi-
ously, other variables such as political ideology, information level, organization size, public
relations factors and economic solvency were in play here. Future studies should cast a
wider net to attempt to capture more variance in sustainability innovation.

Future research
Future research on sustainability in the resort industry should focus on issues related to
communication, management and organizational capacity for environmental sustainability.
Specifically, it could focus on communication between stakeholders and resorts, commu-
nication between managers and employees, risk communication related to environmental
damages, internal sustainability compliance-gaining tactics and community engagement.
Industry knowledge of these items could add value to resorts’ sustainability performance
as well as maximize feedback channels for continual improvement. More research should
also focus on how to effectively communicate with stakeholders in order to gain community
support for sustainable development; this can potentially lead to policy initiatives that may
give a competitive advantage to resorts that have already adopted numerous sustainability
innovations.

.A.

Leadership and management research in resort sustainability can also be improved.
Future research can focus on the effectiveness of combining transformational leadership
skills with integrating sustainability, also echoed by other scholars (e.g. Denning, 2005).
Studies can be conducted on the most effective management techniques to increase adoption
of environmental values throughout a company as well as to find ways to allow employees
to participate in the construction of those values. Research can focus on how managers can
create incentives for employees to educate themselves on sustainability and find appropriate
ways to improve processes and products to be more sustainable, as seen in the example
of the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco (Reid, 2006). Scholars can also find ways to
improve information-sharing technologies in order to maximize sustainability knowledge
throughput.
Additional research can focus on factors beyond sustainability diffusion topics such
as the organizational capacity for change. For example, one study found a number of
dimensions that led to organizational capacity for change to integrate sustainability; the
dimensions consisted of trustworthy leadership, trusting followers, capable champions,
involved management, innovative culture, accountable culture, systems communication
and systems thinking (Judge & Elenkov, 2005). Improving the understanding of what
factors lead to successful organizational change will help resorts to more successfully
adopt sustainability innovations and effectively change to practices that strategically reduce
environmental impacts.

Conclusion
This study reveals the importance of perceived simplicity and relative advantage in the
process of adopting sustainability innovations. It also confirms that environmental opinion
leadership and innovativeness create a higher rate of sustainability innovation adoption.
The study was very limited because of a low response rate yet still provides a valuable
contribution to the emerging fields of resort sustainability and diffusion of sustainability
innovations. The professional sample of resorts allows for important insight into current
industry trends and a picture of the modern shape of corporate sustainability in hotels and
resorts.
Sustainability in the resort industry is complicated because customers expect luxurious
comfort as a priority, often over environmental concerns (Kirk, 1995); one (albeit now
dated) survey has shown that US guests are not willing to pay more for green policies
(Watkins, 1994). Resorts must not look solely to customer demand for a reason to adopt
sustainability initiatives but rather understand the holistic long-term benefits that pervade
all operations; fortunately, scholars and managers are now realizing that sustainability can
bring value to numerous aspects of resort performance (Banerjee, 2001; Bansal & Roth,
2000; Dunphy et al., 2003; Esty & Winston, 2009; Freeman et al., 2000; Hoffman, 2007;
Molina-Azorń et al., 2009; Shrivastava, 1996; Willard, 2002). It is imperative for resorts
ı
to adopt sustainability innovations not only to increase competitive advantage but to reduce
society’s overall environmental impact. The resort industry and the greater corporate sector
need to shift their business models to a paradigm that provides a long-term vision for
creating value for society while not eroding natural resources. Adopting sustainability
innovations can act as a transformational innovation that can dramatically reshape the way
resorts and companies provide products and services and contribute to society’s progress
toward integrating sustainable lifestyles (Denning, 2005).


Notes on contributors
Karl R. Smerecnik recently earned his MA in communication studies from San Diego State Uni-
versity, USA in May 2009. His research and publications focus on the intersection of environmental
communication and sustainable development.
Peter A. Andersen (PhD, Florida State University) is a Professor of communication at San Diego State
University, USA and is the author of 5 books and over 130 journal papers on health communication,
nonverbal behavior, social influence and interpersonal communication.

References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in information
technology adoption. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 15–29.
Andriate, G.S., & Fink, A.A. (2008). Managing the change to a sustainable enterprise. In J. Wirtenberg,
W.G. Russell, & D. Lipsky (Eds.), The sustainable enterprise fieldbook: When it all comes together
(pp. 118–140). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Banerjee, S.B. (2001). Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from
industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4),
489–513.
Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational
values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510–527.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–748.
Becken, S., Frampton, C., & Simmons, D. (2001). Energy consumption patterns in the accommodation
sector – the New Zealand case. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 371–386.
Bergstr¨ m, O., & Dobers, P. (2000). Organizing sustainable development: From diffusion to transla-
o
tion. Sustainable Development, 8(4), 167–179.
Berkhout, T., & Rowlands, I.H. (2007). The voluntary adoption of green electricity by Ontario-based
companies: The importance of organizational values and organizational context. Organization &
Environment, 20(3), 281–302.
Bhat, V.N. (1996). The green corporation: The next competitive advantage. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell
Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 188–204.
Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and
implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4),
271–293.
Brown, M. (1996). Environmental policy in the hotel sector: “Green” strategy or stratagem? Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 18–23.
Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). The contemporary expansion of standardization. In N. Brun-
sson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calantone, R.J., Griffith, D.A., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2006). An empirical examination of a technology
adoption model for the context of China. Journal of International Marketing, 14(4), 1–27.
Casades´ s, M., Marimon, F., & Heras, I. (2008). ISO 14001 diffusion after the success of the ISO
u
9001 model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1741–1754.
Chan, E.S.W. (2008). Barriers to EMS in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27(2), 187–196.
Chan, W.W., & Ho, K. (2006). Hotels’ environmental management systems (ISO14001): Creative
financing strategy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4), 302–
316.
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.
Chouinard, Y. (2005). Let my people go surfing. New York, NY: Penguin.
Claver-Cort´ s, E., Molina-Azorń, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J., & L´ pez-Gamero, M.D. (2007). Environ-
e ı o
mental strategies and their impact on hotel performance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6),
663–679.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

.A.

DeCanio, S.J., Dibble, C., & Amir-Atefi, K. (2000). The importance of organizational structure for
the adoption of innovations. Management Science, 46(10), 1285–1299.
Deng, S.L., Ryan, C., & Moutinho, L. (1992). Canadian hoteliers and their attitudes towards environ-
mental issues. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 11(3), 225–237.
Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation: A journey by narrative. Strategy & Leadership,
33(3), 11–16.
DeSimone, L.D., & Popoff, F. (1997). Eco-efficiency: The business link to sustainable development.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development. In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A.
Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century (pp.
19–37). St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Dunlap, R.E., Gallup, G.H., Jr, & Gallup, A.M. (1993). Of global concern: Results of the health of
the planet survey. Environment, 35(9), 7–15, 33–40.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Edwards, A. (2005). The sustainability revolution. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
Epstein, M.J. (1996). Measuring corporate environmental performance: Best practices for cost and
managing an effective environmental strategy. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Epstein, M.J., & Roy, M-J. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key
performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585–604.
Epstein, P.R., & Mill, E. (2005). Climate change futures: Health, ecological and economic dimensions.
Retrieved from the Center for Health and the Global Environment Harvard Medical School
website: http://www.climatechangefutures.org/pdf/CCF Report Final 10.27.pdf
Erdogan, N., & Baris, E. (2007). Environmental protection programs and conservation practices of
hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(2), 604–614.
Esty, D.C., & Winston, A.S. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy
to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Farhar, B. (1999). Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable resources: A review of util-
ity market research. Retrieved from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory website:
http://www.repartners.org/tools/pdf/26148.pdf
Feiertag, H. (1994). Boost sales with environment-driven strategy. Hotel & Motel Management,
209(2), 8.
Flagestad, A., & Hope, C. A. (2001). Strategic success in winter sports destinations: A sustainable
value creation perspective. Tourism Management, 22(5), 445–461.
Foxon, T., & Pearson, P. (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technolo-
gies: Some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. Journal of Cleaner Production,
16(1), 148–161.
Freeman, R.E., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. (2000). Environmentalism and the new logic of business: How
firms can be profitable and leave our children a living planet. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Geltz, C. (2008). Painting these towns green: How diffusion of innovation theory brought energy
improvements and sustainability to hard-to-serve utility customers and their communities. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainability Communication, 3, 96–107.
Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing sustainability in service operations at Scandic Hotels. Interfaces,
30(3), 202–214.
Griffiths, S. (2008, April 18). Hilton Europe touts energy savings to green travellers: Com-
pany claims sustainability is emerging as a “key differentiator” for attracting increas-
ingly environmentally-conscious travellers. Retrieved from the BusinessGreen website:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2214695/emode-europe-touts-energy.
Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York, NY: Harper-
Collins.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., & Lovins, L.H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial
revolution. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Higa, K., Sheng, O.R.L., Hu, P.J.-H., & Au, G. (1997). Organizational adoption and dif-
fusion of technological innovation: A comparative case study on telemedicine in Hong
Kong. IEEE Computer Society: Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved from http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/
hicss/1997/7734/04/7734040146.pdf


Hitchcock, D., & Willard, M. (2006). The business guide to sustainability: Practical strategies and
tools for organizations. London: Earthscan.
Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization. Research Policy,
26(6), 689–710.
Hoffman, A.J. (2007). Carbon strategies: How leading companies are reducing their climate change
footprint. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Holliday, C.O., Jr, Schmidheiny, S., & Watts, P. (2002). Walking the talk: The business case for
sustainable development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington, DC:
Island.
Houdr´ , H. (2008, August). Sustainable hospitality: Sustainable development in the hotel industry.
e
Cornell Industry Perspective, 2. Retrieved from http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/
chr/pubs/perspective/perspective-14924.html
Hudson, S. (1995). The “greening” of ski resorts: A necessity for sustainable tourism, or a marketing
opportunity for skiing communities? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 176–185.
Hudson, S. (2006). Ski resorts: Enjoyment versus environmental responsibility – Does there have to
be a choice? In I.M. Herremans (Ed.), Cases in sustainable tourism: An experiential approach
to making decisions (pp. 123–144). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Hospitality.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., & Knight, G.A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on
business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.
Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human
Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65.
Igbaria, G., Parasuraman, P., & Baroudi, J.J. (1996). A motivational model of microcomputer usage.
Journal of Management Information Sciences, 13(1), 127–143.
International Business Leaders Forum. (2007). Going green: Minimum standards towards a sustain-
able hotel operation. Retrieved from http://www.iblf.org/docs/GoingGreen.pdf
Jennings, P.D., & Zandbergen, P.A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional
approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.
Jiang, R.J., & Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the need for the ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies,
40(4), 1047–1067.
Johnson, K., Hays, C., & Daley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations:
A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 135–149.
Judge, W.Q., & Elenkov, D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental per-
formance: An empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research, 58(7),
893–901.
Kasemir, B., Toth, F., & Masing, V (2003). Venture capital and climate policy. In B. Kasemir, J. J¨ ger,
. a
C.C. Jaeger, & M.T. Gardner (Eds.), Public participation in sustainability science: A handbook
(pp. 155–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kassinis, G.I., & Soteriou, A.C. (2003). Greening the service profit chain: The impact of environ-
mental management practices. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 386–403.
Kern, K., J¨ rgens, H., & J¨ nicke, M. (2001). The diffusion of environmental policy innovations:
o a
A contribution to the globalization of environmental policy. Retrieved from WZB Social
Science Research Center Berlin website: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=
653583
King, C.W., Summers, J.O., & Childers, T.L. (1999). Opinion leadership. In W.O. Bearden, R.G.
Netemeyer, & M.F. Mobley (Eds.), Handbook of marketing scales: Multi item measures for
marketing and consumer behavior research (2nd ed., pp. 77–80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels: The hospitality industry exposes many of
the conflicts which arise when implementing environmental policies. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 3–8.
Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in
Edinburgh. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 33–47.
Labatt, S., & Maclaren, V (1998). Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives: A typology and
.
preliminary investigation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16(2), 191–
209.
Labay, D.G., & Kinnear, T.C. (1981). Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of
solar energy systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 271–278.

.A.

Le, Y., Hollenhorst, S., Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W., & Shook, S. (2006). Environmental manage-
ment: A study of Vietnamese hotels. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 545–567.
LIFE. (2001). Green flag for greener hotels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment
/ecolabel/ecolabelled products/categories/pdf/lifefinalreport.pdf
L´ pez-Fern´ ndez, M.C., & Serrano-Bedia, A.M. (2007). Organizational consequences of imple-
o a
menting an ISO 14001 environmental management system: An empirical analysis. Organization
Environment, 20(4), 440–459.
L´ pez-Gamero, M.D., Claver-Cort´ s, E., & Molina-Azorń, J.F. (2008). Complementary resources
o e ı
and capability for an ethical and environmental management: A qual/quan study. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82(3), 701–732.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New
York, NY: North Point.
McEachern, M., & Hanson, S. (2008). Socio-geographic perception in the diffusion of innovation:
Solar energy technology in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2578–2590.
Mensah, I. (2006). Environmental management practices among hotels in the greater Accra region.
Hospitality Management, 25(3), 414–431.
Midgley, D.F., & Dowling, G.R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal
of Consumer Research, 4(2), 229–242.
Moen, J., & Fredman, P. (2007). Effects of climate change on alpine skiing in Sweden. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 418–437.
Molina-Azorń, J. F., Claver-Cort´ s, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Jos´ Tar´, J. (2009). Environmental
ı e e ı
practices and firm performance: An empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 17, 516–524.
Moore, G.C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
National Ski Areas Association. (2005, December). Sustainable slopes: The environmental charter for
ski areas. Retrieved from http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable slopes/Charter.pdf
National Ski Areas Association. (2008, July). Sustainable slopes: Annual report 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/ sustainable slopes/ssar-08.pdf
Nolin, A.W., & Daly, C. (2006). Mapping “at risk” snow in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of
Hydrometeorology, 7(5), 1164–1171.
Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespi-Cladera, R., & Martinez-Ros, E. (2005). Innovation activity in the hotel
industry: Evidence from Balearic Islands. Tourism Management, 26(6), 851–865.
Orfila-Sintes, F., & Mattsson, J. (2009). Innovation behavior in the hotel industry. Omega, 37(2),
380–394.
Padel, S. (2002). Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation?
Sociologia Ruralis, 41, 40–61.
Pew Research Center. (2007, June 27). Global unease with major world powers: Rising environ-
mental concern in 47-nation survey. Retrieved from http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php
?ReportID=256
Pickering, C.M., Harrington, J., & Worboys, G. (2003). Environmental impacts of tourism on the
Australian Alps protected areas: Judgments of protected area managers. Mountain Research and
Development, 23(3), 247–254.
Prakash, A. (2000). Greening the firm: The politics of corporate environmentalism. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). The voluntary environmentalists: Green clubs, ISO 14001, and
voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). The sustainability yearbook 2007. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.
com/Extweb/onlineforms.nsf/docid/0FA19C1F89E68B448525726 E005534A9?opendocument
Reid, R.E. (2006). The greening of the Fairmont Palliser. In I.M. Herremans (Ed.), Cases in sustainable
tourism: An experiential approach to making decisions (pp. 51–69). Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Hospitality.
Reinhardt, F. L. (2007). Bringing the environment down to earth. In Harvard Business Review on
green business strategy (pp. 41–64). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Rivera, J., & de Leon, P. (2004). Is greener whiter? Voluntary environmental performance of western
ski areas. Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 417–437.
Rivera, J., de Leon, P., & Koerber, C. (2006). Is greener whiter yet? The sustainable slopes program
after five years. Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 195–221.


Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Schmidheiny, S. (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the
environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schubert, A., & L´ ng, I. (2005). The literature aftermath of the Brundtland Report “Our Common
a
Future”: A scientific study based on citations in science and social science journals. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 1–8.
Scott, D., McBoyle, G., Minogue, A., & Mills, B. (2006). Climate change and the sustainability of
ski-based tourism in eastern North America: A reassessment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
14(4), 376–398.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate
choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.
Sharma, S., Arag´ n-Correa, J.A., & Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2007). The contingent influence of
o
organizational capabilities on proactive environmental strategy in the service sector: An analysis
of North American and European ski resorts. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
24(4), 268–283.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 16(2), 183–200.
Shrivastava, P. (1996). Greening business: Profiting the corporation and the environment. Cincinnati,
OH: Thomas Executive.
Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition. (2008). Ski area environmental scorecard 2008/2009. Retrieved from
http://www.skiareacitizens.com/
Society for Resource Management. (2008, January). SHRM survey brief: Green workplace. Retrieved
from http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/SHRMGreenWorkplace
SurveyBrief.aspx
Sussman, F.G., & Freed, J.R. (2008, April). Adapting to climate change: A business approach.
Retrieved October 30, 2008 from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change website: http://www.
pewclimate.org/business-adaptation
Sutton, P. (2000). Building corporate capabilities to promote ecological sustainability: A “case study”.
In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A. Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate
challenge of the 21st century (pp. 127–166). St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Tandberg. (2007). Corporate environmental behavior and the impact of brand values. Retrieved from
http://www.seegreennow.com/GreenSurvey.aspx
Trung, D.N., & Kumar, S. (2005). Resource use and waste management in Vietnam hotel industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 109–116.
Tsoutsos, T.D., & Stamboulis, Y.A. (2005). The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies
as an example of an innovation-focused policy. Technovation, 25(7), 753–761.
Tzschentke, N.A., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P.A. (2008). Going green: Decisional factors in small hospitality
operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1), 126–133.
van Alphen, K., Hekkert, M. P., & van Sark, W.G.J.H.M. (2008). Renewable energy technologies
in the Maldives: Realizing the potential. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(8),
162–180.
van Marrewijk, M., & Hardjono, T.W. (2003). European corporate sustainability framework for
managing complexity and corporate transformation. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 121–
132.
Vasi, I.B. (2006). Organizational environments, framing processes, and the diffusion of the program
to address global climate change among local governments in the United States. Sociological
Forum, 21(3), 439–466.
Vasi, I.B. (2007). Thinking globally, planning nationally and acting locally: Nested organizational
fields and the adoption of environmental practices. Social Forces, 86(1), 113–136.
Vishwanath, A., & Goldhaber, G.M. (2003). An examination of the factors contributing to adoption
decisions among late-diffused technology products. New Media Society, 5(4), 547–572.
Watkins, E. (1994). Do guests want green hotels? Lodging Hospitality, 50(4), 70–72.
Whetton, P.H., Haylock, M.R., & Galloway, R. (1996). Climate change and snow-cover duration in
the Australian Alps. Climate Change, 32(4), 447–479.
Willard, B. (2002). The sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line.
Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.

.A.

Willard, B. (2005). The next sustainability wave: Building boardroom buy-in. Gabriola Island, BC,
Canada: New Society.
Wiser, R.H., Fowlie, M., & Holt, E.A. (2001). Public goods and private interests: Understanding
non-residential demand for green power. Energy Policy, 29(13), 1085–1097.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2005). Does complexity affect the speed of an innovation? Technovation, 25(8),
865–882.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (1996, January). Eco-efficient lead-
ership for improved economic and environmental. Retrieved from http://www.wbcsd.org
/includes/getTarget.asp?type=d&id=OdkxMg
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Retrieved from
http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
World Tourism Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Climate
change and tourism: Responding to global challenges. Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org
/frameset/frame sustainable.html
Zhen, J., Caldwell, N., Harland, C., Powell, P., Woerndl, M., & Xu, S. (2004). Small firms and
e-business: Cautiousness, contingency and cost-benefit. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Man-
agement, 10(1), 27–39.
Zhu, J.J.H., & He, Z. (2002). Perceived characteristics, perceived needs, and perceived popularity:
Adoption and use of the Internet in China. Communication Research, 29(4), 466–495.

Copyright of Journal of Sustainable Tourism is the property of Multilingual Matters and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in north american hotels and ski resorts

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in north american hotels and ski resorts

Similar a The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in north american hotels and ski resorts (20)

Más de armandogo92

Más de armandogo92 (20)

The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in north american hotels and ski resorts