ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379

Eco-resorts vs. mainstream accommodation providers:

an investigation of the viability of benchmarking
environmental performance
Jan Warnkena,*, Melanie Bradleya, Chris Guildingb
a
School of Environmental and Applied Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Parklands Drive, PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre,
Southport, Qld. 4215, Australia
b
Service Industry Research Centre, Griffith University, Gold Coast Parklands Drive, Southport, Qld. 4215, Australia
Received 10 March 2003; accepted 24 November 2003

Abstract

Per capita energy and water consumption figures of five fully accredited eco-resorts were benchmarked against 11 hotels, 13
condominium complexes and six caravan parks located in three major tourist destinations in Queensland, Australia. Somewhat
surprisingly, it appears some eco-resorts fail to achieve above average standards with respect to these dimensions of environmental
performance. The most efficient resource consumption outcomes were evident where resource use efficiency was factored in at the
early stage of resort planning. A noteworthy observation was that none of the businesses investigated could provide data for waste
and wastewater production.
The problems of developing a benchmarking process for the consumption of water and electricity by accommodation providers
are discussed. A major obstacle was found in the fact that consumption rates are influenced by a multitude of site specific
characteristics such as age of building, building size and layout, nature of operation, extent of communal facilities, climate, etc. With
such a large number of factors affecting energy and water consumption, one is drawn into the problem of how many benchmarking
groups need to be developed in order for benchmarking accommodation complex resource consumption to be a meaningful exercise.
This also renders problematic the development of environmental compliance accreditation criteria. The study’s findings renew
concerns about the focus of some industry administered green accreditation schemes and the emphasis placed on their role as a key
instrument for promoting more sustainable outcomes for the tourist accommodation sector.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Benchmark; Accreditation; Eco-tourism; Accommodation; Resource use

1. Introduction Two major focal points with respect to promoting

greener tourist industry practices have been in evidence:
Since the Rio Conference on Sustainable Develop-
(a) the incorporation of principles of sustainable
ment (UNEP, 1992), governments, industrial bodies,
development into relevant planning, policy and
researchers and communities have proposed various
regulatory frameworks at almost all levels of the
paradigms, policies, strategies, frameworks and accredi-
industry, ranging from international tourism orga-
tation schemes designed to operationalise one or more
nisations to stakeholders concerned with the
dimensions of the sustainable development philosophy
management of local tourist destinations, and
(for an overview see Pezzoli, 1997). Due to its
(b) the establishment of a range of tourist industry self-
environmental and socio-cultural impact, the tourism
administered accreditation and award schemes con-
industry has featured prominently in such initiatives.
cerned with monitoring and rewarding sustainable
tourism management achievements. Achievements
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-55528587; fax: +61-7-55-948-
made in connection with such schemes are often
067. acknowledged by conferring an industry-specific
E-mail address: j.warnken@griffith.edu.au (J. Warnken). ecolabel award (UNEP, 1998; Buckley, 2002a).

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
368 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379

Award and ecolabel accreditation schemes, in parti-
cular, have been viewed as promising self-regulatory
mechanisms for improving the industry’s environmental
performance (UNEP, 1998). Local, regional, national
and international ecolabels developed significantly in the
second half of the 1990s. These were awarded either
specifically for a particular type of activity or operation,
or more generically for a range of tourism-related
operations (for examples, see Font & Buckley, 2001,
Part IV; Buckley, 2002a). A common criterion adopted
for full accreditation under these green or ecolabel
schemes is the achievement of a performance level that is
perceived as approaching industry best practice (Buck-
ley, 2002b; Eco-tourism Association of Australia, EAA,
2001). Eco-tourism labels have been regarded as
denoting particularly high standards due to their holistic
orientation and commitment to environmental inter-
pretation, conservation of natural areas and contribu-
tions to local communities, etc. (Wood & Halpenny,
2001, p. 122).
For many of these green accreditation schemes, core
performance dimensions of best practice include an
appraisal of energy and water usage efficiency, and
minimisation of waste and wastewater production
(UNEP, 1998; EAA, 2001). These dimensions of
performance can be appraised relatively objectively
and quantitatively, thereby facilitating cross-organisa-
tional and temporal monitoring. The apparently objec-
tive and quantifiable qualities of these dimensions of
performance may be more illusory than real, however,
as calculating and defining levels for best practice
standards for these core dimensions of performance
indicators is neither straightforward theoretically
(UNEP, 1998; Wood & Halpenny, 2001; Buckley,
2002b) nor practically (UK CEED, 1998; Beckens,
Simmons, & Frampton, 2001; Becken & Simmonds,
2002, p. 351). As a result, few studies have attempted to
capture per capita resource consumption data at a
national or international level. The few notable excep-
tions include studies conducted in New Zealand
(Beckens et al., 2001; Becken & Simmonds, 2002), Hong
Kong (Deng & Burnett, 2000) and the Caribbean (UK
CEED, 1998). Some of these studies have appraised the
performance of fully accredited eco-tourism operators,
however. This gap in the literature motivated the study
reported herein. Data have been collected enabling a
resource consumption benchmarking exercise to be
conducted for a number of large, fully accredited eco-
resorts and several mainstream accommodation provi-
ders in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative field data
collected were complemented by qualitative information
obtained from site managers and engineers concerning
their interest in environmental performance monitoring
and perceived challenges associated with technical
solutions, as well as data obtained from general tourism
statistics. This has facilitated an insight into the
practical problems of appraising industry best practice
as well as the benchmarking exercise that underlies green
tourism accreditation schemes.
As already intimated, the study’s principal aim was to
compare quantifiable performance outcomes of high
profile members of an eco-accreditation scheme with the
performance of mainstream tourist accommodation
providers. The comparison is based primarily on per
capita resource consumption and waste production
data. The study concerns one of the world’s most
established eco-tourism accreditation schemes, the
Queensland Nature and Eco-tourism Programme
(National Eco-tourism Accreditation Programme,
NEAP) (Font & Buckley, 2001; Buckley, 2002b), and
focuses on the accommodation sub-sector of the tourism
industry. The accommodation industry was selected for
investigation for a number of reasons:
(a) previous works (Warnken, 2002) have highlighted the
problems encountered when attempting to establish
general tourism statistics for tour operators;
(b) comparisons are rendered difficult by factors such
as accredited ecotours’ inclusion of a 4WD compo-
nent, a characteristic which is rarely present for
mainstream tour operators;
(c) resource use has been an important issue for many
hotel chains and other mainstream accommodation
providers (e.g. IHEI, 1995; GCCC, 1996; TCA,
1998; UNEP, 1998). It was therefore anticipated
that members of this industrial sector would be
generally supportive of the study.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In
the next section the development of the Queensland
tourism industry’s green accreditation schemes and the
nature of NEAP’s accreditation criteria are described.
Following this, the study’s research method and findings
are presented. In the paper’s penultimate section,
practical aspects of appraising industry best practice
and benchmarking are discussed in connection with the
assessment criteria of NEAP and other green tourism
accreditation schemes. In the concluding section, a
suggestion concerning what appears to be the most
practical way forward in promoting environmentally
sustainable tourist accommodation practice is offered
together with an acknowledgement of the study’s main
limitations.
2. Green accreditation schemes and Queensland tourism
In Australia, the framework for sustainable develop-
ment has been largely shaped by the country’s three-tier
governmental environment (federal, state and local).
The significant level of influence that can be exerted at
the lowest level of government (i.e. local government)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379 369

has resulted in considerable emphasis attached to ‘green Challenge programme, which is a voluntary scheme
.
planning’ (Buhrs & Aplin, 1999). As a result, tourism administered by the Australian Greenhouse Office
issues have been addressed in a number of formally (AGO) since 1995. This programme provides participat-
adopted strategies and ‘directional’ papers such as the ing businesses with advice on how to reduce greenhouse
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Working gas and waste emissions, engage in environmental
Group on tourism (Anon, 1991) and the National performance monitoring and reduce operational costs.
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development Tourism businesses that have elected to participate in
(Commonwealth of Australia, 1992). These documents the Greenhouse Challenge have been able to log their
emphasise the importance of: achievements made with respect to environmental
performance.
(1) integrating ESD principles into tourism strategies at
At the State level, the Queensland Government
all levels,
introduced the Queensland Eco-tourism Plan in 1997.
(2) developing industry codes of environmental practice,
This plan directed attention to better environmental
(3) examining regulatory mechanisms for achieving
practice by promoting the NEAP accreditation. A
good environmental outcomes, and
similar approach was taken to tourism via the Strategy
(4) conducting research into environmental and eco-
for Growing Tourism (Tourism Queensland, 2000),
nomic impacts.
which was underwritten by NEAP accreditation and
the AGO’s Greenhouse Challenge and Cleaner Produc-
A more detailed action plan, backed by actual
tion programmes.
funding commitments, was promulgated in 1994 in the
Local government and regional management schemes
federal government’s National Eco-tourism Strategy
directed towards improving environmental performance
(Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994). At
have focused primarily on water conservation and
that time, eco-tourism was the fastest growing tourism
wastewater issues as a result of initiatives developed
sector and widely regarded as an ideal vehicle for
under catchment management programmes. Although
achieving more ecologically sustainable outcomes, while
most of these schemes were not specific to the tourism
improving overall economic performance.
industry, they often attracted a number of tourism
The first national tourism accreditation scheme with a
operators, particularly those with a high local profile.
major focus on environmental issues, the NEAP, was
Typical of these schemes was the Waterwise Programme
launched in 1996. Subject to some amendments (detailed
instigated and funded by Gold Coast City Council
in Buckley, 2001, 2002a), which included a name change
(GCCC, 1996).2 In many ways, this voluntary pro-
to the Nature and Eco-tourism Accreditation Programme,
gramme was similar to Australia’s Greenhouse Challenge
the scheme has continued under the management of
scheme as it provided participating businesses with
‘‘Eco-tourism Australia’’ (EA) (formerly, ‘‘Eco-tourism
advice on resource saving technology and measures,
Association of Australia’’).1 It is now widely recognised
encouraged monitoring and helped to reduce operating
as one of the longest standing (Wood & Halpenny, 2001)
costs.
and leading schemes in the world (Buckley, 2002b),
Apart from national accreditation programmes and
having conferred accreditations on more than 250
government initiatives directed at improving environ-
businesses by 2000 (EAA, 2001).
mental performance, accommodation providers could
Unlike the case in Europe (particularly Germany and
also be accredited under international standards, e.g.
Austria), in Australia no localised accreditation
ISO 14000, or linked to sector specific international
schemes, or national green tourism labels, for main-
award schemes such as the International Hotels Environ-
stream accommodation providers have developed
ment Initiative (IHEI, 1995) or the International Hotel
(Buckley, 2001). At the time of writing, a national
Association’s Environmental Award programme. The
strategy for sustainable tourism is being developed—
equivalent at a national level was a manual published
again with the objective of implementing a national
by the Tourism Council of Australia (TCA, 1998). Other
accreditation scheme, this time for a much wider range
sources of guidance on how to improve environmental
of operators.
performance have been managers operating in-house
Another federal government initiative directed at
environmental programmes in prominent accommoda-
improving environmental performance across all indus-
tion chains and also institutional bodies representing
tries resulted as part of its response to global climate
professionals such as engineers and property managers.
change, which ultimately culminated in the National
The overview provided above highlights the
Greenhouse Strategy (Commonwealth of Australia,
prominence of NEAP accreditation to the context of
1998). Arising from this strategy is the Greenhouse
environmental performance management in the
1
NEAP I had two accreditation levels: ‘‘eco-tourism’’ and ‘‘ad-
2
vanced ecotourism’’. NEAP II has three accreditation levels: ‘‘nature The GCCC is the local government authority for Australia’s
tourism’’, ‘‘eco-tourism’’ and ‘‘advanced ecotourism’’. second largest tourist destination.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
370 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
Australian tourism industry. This prominence beckons
questions with respect to the accreditation programme’s
real effect on:
(a) improving the environmental performance of accre-
dited businesses; and,
(b) directing non-accredited, industry members towards
the pursuit of improved environmental performance.
As a corollary question, one can turn to also ask: if
the NEAP accreditation incentive has limited effects in
the tourism industry, what needs to be done to better
achieve improved environmental management?
3. Research method and nature of sample
An attempt has been made to shed light on the
efficacy of the NEAP accreditation scheme by compar-
ing dimensions of environmental performance of non-
accredited accommodation providers with businesses
fully accredited under NEAP I and II. Validity in this
exercise has been sought by focussing on dimensions of
environmental performance that are:
(a) quantifiable,
(b) relevant to the operations of both accredited and
non-accredited business, and
(c) meaningful as a measure for ecological sustainability.
Unfortunately, many dimensions of performance
appraised in the NEAP accreditation exercise only
satisfied one or two of these criteria. A particular focus
of the NEAP accreditation exercise concerns environ-
mental education (Buckley, 2001). While the existence of
an environmental education exercise may be readily
verifiable, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the
lasting impact of an educational experience. In fact,
there appears to be significant scepticism over whether
environmental education programmes actually work
(Hemmelskamp & Brockmann, 1997). A second dimen-
sion of performance appraised in the NEAP accredita-
tion exercise relates to the planning phase, e.g.
conducting an environmental planning, land use or
impact assessment study (Buckley, 2001). Compliance
under this particular NEAP criterion, however, may
simply result from general requirements under environ-
mental planning and protection or nature conservation
legislation, rather than a requirement of the NEAP
accreditation programme. A third dimension of perfor-
mance appraised in the NEAP accreditation exercise
relates to disturbance of wildlife, and other factors
defined for very specific tour operations. These are
unlikely to be relevant for many tourism businesses such
as inner-city hotels or motels, or a major bus company.
Due to the problems associated with basing a study
such as this on any of these dimensions of environ-
mental performance, the decision was taken to restrict
the focus to energy and water consumption and waste
and wastewater production. Figures for energy and
water consumption and waste and wastewater produc-
tion provide meaningful and quantifiable measures of
environmental performance and, if calculated on a per
capita basis, facilitate comparison across different types
of business and over time.
Having identified the dimensions of performance to
be appraised, we then turn to the issue of what type of
tourism business should be addressed. The nature of
activities associated with tourism operations can vary
remarkably and, therefore, result in a wide spread of per
capita resource consumption figures (e.g. Becken &
Simmonds, 2002). Accordingly, a significant challenge
when attempting to compare between accredited and
non-accredited tourism businesses revolves around the
identification of a sphere of tourism activity that is
sufficiently homogeneous to facilitate meaningful inter-
organisational comparison and likely to yield the
requisite data. The accommodation sector of the
tourism industry was chosen because its primary activity
is narrowly focused (i.e. providing bed spaces and
associated facilities), it accounts for a significant
proportion of industry-wide resource use (Beckens
et al., 2001), and it collects extensive statistical data
that include visitor numbers and resource consumption
figures (IHEI, 1995; GCCC, 1996; TCA, 1998; IHRA
and UNEP, undated; Deng & Burnett, 2000).
The spatial scope of the study was restricted to focus
only on accommodation providers located in three
major Queensland coast destinations (Cairns, Gold
Coast and Sunshine Coast). This decision was taken as
part of an attempt to control for climatic variability.
The last detailed accommodation census conducted in
Queensland that included all businesses with five or
more accommodation units was conducted in 1997
(ABS, 1997). Based on this census, Queensland’s major
accommodation categories include hotels and motels,
self-contained apartment complexes (also known as
condominiums) and caravan parks. Backpacker accom-
modation and bed and breakfast establishments were
not included in the ABS survey and are therefore
considered of lesser importance for the Queensland
accommodation sector. These sectors, however, are
growing and might need further attention in the future.
In order to develop a representative sample, several
accommodation guides from major automobile clubs
were screened for typical building styles in Queensland’s
three major destinations. Initially, an attempt was made
to identify at least 20 operators for each of the main
accommodation categories by randomly selecting a page
from an accommodation guide for each of the three
destinations, and then finding the first or last operator
on that page that matched criteria for the relevant
category. For several categories (e.g. major low-rise
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
hotels), the number of businesses in a destination was so
small that all businesses were considered initially. In
addition, all 15 NEAP accommodation accredited eco-
resorts in Queensland were selected from the EAA
(2001) guide.
In a first step, managers of all selected businesses were
contacted by phone, informed about the study’s aims
and asked to participate. For those accommodation
providers that agreed to participate, a site visit was
arranged and quantitative as well as qualitative data
collected at the time of the visit (in some cases more than
one site visit was made). For the purpose of managing
the site interviews, an interviewer check list of issues to
be addressed was developed.3
Due to the different nature of the organisations
studied, various approaches were taken to collect data.
For electricity, gas and diesel consumption, data were
generally derived from copies of invoices or computer
based recording systems maintained by the subject
organisations. In most cases, water consumption data
were determined following a review of invoices or
information provided by a local authority. Occupancy
levels were usually maintained by business management
systems with the data provided as either room or guest
nights sold. For some (especially condominium com-
plexes), however, the number of guests per unit occupied
were not recorded and resource consumption per unit
(or room) night had to be used in the comparison
exercise. Most condominiums also provided accommo-
dation for long-term residents. Energy consumption was
therefore only recorded for holiday apartments. Elec-
tricity used for common property facilities (pools, lifts,
etc.) was divided by the number of apartments in the
complex and added to energy figures for individual
holiday units.
For the majority of the participating businesses,
energy and water consumption figures were sourced
from electricity and rates bills. As a result, recording
periods rarely coincided with standard calendar months
and figures had to be adjusted by calculating average
daily values and subtracting or adding relevant
amounts. In general, electricity and gas (mostly for
heating) figures were converted to overall energy use
(MJ) using factors and equations provided by local
energy companies. Three eco-resorts (two in Cairns and
one on the Gold Coast) used gas or diesel generators to
generate electricity. In these cases, the overall energy use
was calculated for metered or estimated4 electricity
outputs and not actual fuel consumption. Although this
underestimated total energy consumption, it was con-
3
Issues addressed in this checklist included: type and size of
facilities, year of construction, overall floor space, number of
swimming pools, etc.
4
Energy consumption figures were calculated from the diesel fuel
consumption of several generators using an average efficiency rate of
3.65 kWh/l, as indicated by the generator manufacturer.
371
sidered a better comparison of the general utilisation of
electricity consuming devices in eco-resorts and other
mainstream accommodation providers.
During the initial phone contact, the subject organi-
sations were informed that data collection would not be
at their expense, and that all information would be
treated in a strictly confidential manner (these arrange-
ments were also confirmed by fax). Despite providing
these assurances, the number of accommodation provi-
ders that were willing and able to provide data for
this study was lower than expected. None of the
motel operators were interested or willing to collabo-
rate. Only six caravan parks, all managed by a single
local government authority, provided access to data
suitable for per capita resource use audits. Attempts
to collect data in condominium complexes were
complicated by their complex management and
ownership structure (Warnken, Russell, & Faulkner,
2003). For this accommodation category, almost 100
people were contacted by phone. This exercise yielded
only four cases with data suitable for the benchmarking
analysis.
Collaboration with hotels proved to be more success-
ful, however. It was found that operators of several
larger premises already conducted internal audits, while
others maintained records that were relatively easy to
access. The decision was taken to exclude from the study
small hotels that operated in conjunction with signifi-
cant bar activity. The reason for this sample refinement
was that most of the energy and water consumption in
these hotels related to bar and liquor store operations
rather than the sale of accommodation activities.
Eleven hotels agreed to participate in the study. Most
of these were in the 4–5 stars category, typically with
more floor space and facilities than any of the other
accommodation providers (see Table 1). Hotels could be
separated into two main types: (a) low-rise style
comprising detached buildings with large landscaped
areas, and (b) high-rise and medium-rise towers with
underground parking, elevators and relatively small
landscaped areas.
The condominium complexes could also be separated
into two categories: (a) low-rise, 2–3 storey walk-ups
with underground parking, no elevators and usually no
centralised air-conditioning; and (b) high-rise to med-
ium-rise buildings with elevators, underground car
parking and, for more recent constructions, centralised
air-conditioning throughout the building. In contrast to
hotels, common property areas for both condominium
categories were usually similar in size and type of
facilities.
For Queensland listed eco-resorts, only those busi-
nesses that displayed a NEAP accredited, or advanced
accredited logo for its accommodation operation,
and were of a size comparable to the hotels and
condominium complexes were included in the sample.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
372 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379

Table 1
Characteristics of accommodation providers included in sample

Hotels Eco-resorts Condominium Caravan parks

complexes

Number of 11 5 13a 6
businesses
Star ratingb 312
5 312
5 312
5 2
412
Floor space (m2) 10,000–50,000 1500–35,000c n.i. n.a.

Accommodation
Price range ($ 60–165 115–167 53–80 35–110
AUS)d
Number of units 170–410 41–357 18–250e 76–400
Type Rooms Cabins, rooms Apartments Tent and van sites, cabins
Building style Ranging between low Low rise, several Single complexes, Cabins and tent sites (powered
rise, single complex to buildings (cabins) ranging between low and unpowered)
multi-tower high rise and high rise

Associated facilities
Pool(s) 100% 80% 100% 67%
Spa(s) 90% 40% 70% 0%
Sauna(s) 55% 15% 40% 0%
Restaurant(s) 100% 100% 0% 0%
Conference 100% 100% 0% 0%
room(s)
Laundryf 65% 100% 100%g 100%

n.i.: No information could be obtained.

n.a.: Not applicable.
a
Only four of the 13 condominium complexes provided per capita energy consumption data.
b
Based on Australian Automobile Association (AAA) ratings.
c
Accommodation units only.
d
Average price per one night twin share off peak season.
e
Not all apartments were rendered to the holiday letting pool.
f
In-house or guest laundry.
g
Washing machine and dryer in each apartment.

Further, isolated resorts located on off-shore islands 4. Findings

or in the Australian Outback were also excluded due
to their special transport and infrastructure constraints.
In the end, the sample was reduced to five high
profile NEAP accredited resorts. The five eco-resorts
included in this study were all similar to type ‘‘a’’ hotels
(i.e. low-rise style), but often with more and smaller
detached buildings providing other accommodation
facilities (e.g. bunkhouse/cabin style and campsite
accommodation).
All the caravan parks investigated in the study
featured a number of accommodation facilities ranging
from multi-bedroom cabins to powered and non-
powered tent and van sites. Within their premises,
caravan parks included the same basic types of
associated recreational facilities as hotels and condomi-
niums, e.g. pools and laundry facilities (Table 1). The
most significant contrasting factor for the condomi-
niums and caravan parks was that unlike the hotels and
eco-resorts, they had no conference or restaurant
facilities.
4.1. Incidence of environmental performance
management activity
All hotels, eco-resorts and caravan parks participating
in the study had installed one or more of the energy and/
or water conservation devices noted in Table 2. This is
despite the fact that not all of them had staff involved in
an environmental management initiative (Table 3). Ten
hotels (91 per cent) monitored their energy or water
consumption on a regular basis, or collaborated with
external agencies to audit their environmental perfor-
mances. This was in contrast to eco-resorts where only
three businesses out of five (60 per cent) undertook similar
monitoring (Table 3). None of the condominium com-
plexes were affiliated with, or employed, any internal or
external formal environmental management programmes
directed towards reducing resource consumption.
As already noted, all the caravan parks participating
in the study were owned by the same entity, the GCCC.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379 373

Table 2
Incidence of energy and water saving technology installation

Resource Facility provided Proportion of the sample providing

the facility (n ¼ 31)

Energy Gas hot water systems 14 (45%)

Energy Energy efficient lighting 11 (35%)
Energy Demand driven energy use control systems (mostly for a/ca, 8 (26%)
includes key card systems for power on/off)
Energy Energy efficient appliances (e.g. bar fridge) 5 (16%)
Energy Heat exchange systems for pool heating 3b
Energy Solar hot water 2 (6%)
Water Dual flush toilets 17 (55%)
Water Low flow shower heads 10 (32%)
Water Low flow taps 6 (19%)
Water Effluent recycling 4 (13%)
Water Low irrigation landscaping, water efficient gardens 4 (13%)
a
Air conditioning.
b
Not applicable for all premises.

Table 3
Incidence of resource consumption monitoring programs and resource conservation initiatives

Accommodation type Resource consumption monitoring program (energy and/or Resource conservation initiatives
water) (technical measures)

Internal Externala Total Energy Water

Hotels (n ¼ 11) 10 (73%) 7 (64%) 10 (91%) 11 (100%) 8b (73%)

Condominiums (n ¼ 13) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7c (78%) 7 (78%)
Eco-resorts (n ¼ 5) 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%)
Caravan parks (n ¼ 6)d 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%)
a
Resource consumption monitoring program conducted, audited or assessed by an outside organisation.
b
A ninth accommodation provider had started to implement but had not completed monitoring programs at the time of data collection.
c
Only nine businesses provided information.
d
All caravan parks were managed by the same organisation.

While this factor clearly undermines the ability to
generalise from observations made, it was considered
that the general layout and type of facilities in this
sample are common for caravan parks of the same star
rating. Considerable expenditure was made upgrading
these facilities immediately prior to, and during, the time
of study, i.e. 1999–2001. In connection with this
expenditure, a significant independent (external) energy
audit had been undertaken. The upgrades made to water
and energy distribution systems included the installation
of dual flush toilets, low flow shower heads, water
efficient landscaping, gas heating for hot water, key card
systems for demand-driven energy use, and energy
efficient lighting.
4.2. Benchmarking per capita environmental performance
A highly significant observation was that none of the
respondents could provide data for waste and waste-
water production. A significant factor that was probably
driving this failure to monitor wastewater production
was the fact that, in the past, there was minimal, if any,
economic incentive to minimise waste production.5
Only five hotels kept records of energy consumption
and visitor data covering more than 2 years. In several
cases, long-term energy data had been initially collected,
but the records were not maintained following a change
in the hotel operating company. Water consumption
data spanning more than 2 years were only available in
four properties (hotels) where maintenance staff had
been instructed to regularly check their main water
meters. For some of the accommodation providers
included in the study, local government authorities had
just begun to change their water pricing formula from a
flat rate to a volume-based rate. It was noted that this
was resulting in increased attention directed towards
water consumption monitoring. Unfortunately, none of
5
At the time of the study, the local water authority on the Gold Coat
was considering introducing wastewater charges (based on a fixed
percentage of town water consumption). Several businesses were
concerned about this approach and, as a result, were in the process of
installing devices to measure their actual wastewater production.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
374 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379

the eco-resorts or condominium complexes could
provide sufficient long-term water consumption data
to allow a comparison with trends in hotels.
Those hotels that had more than 2 years data revealed
that per capita consumption of electricity and water
declined in most cases (Table 4). During the time period
investigated, occupancy rates revealed no notable
changes. The only variable that could not be verified,
but may account for a variation in per capita energy
consumption, relates to changed levels of non-accom-
modation related activities (e.g. hosting of conferences,
trade shows, parties, restaurant activity, etc.).
The lack of waste and wastewater production data
and the inconsistent sources of data consulted (e.g. in-
house accommodation records, invoices from energy or
water providers), signify that the per capita energy and
water consumption figures are the only dimensions of
the eco-resorts’ environmental performance that can be
Table 4
Changes in annual per capita energy and water consumption from
1998 to 2000
Hotel Changed per capita annual consumption in
Electricity (kWh/GN) Water (kl/GN)
Gold Coast 1
7.9
0.39
Gold Coast 2a
36.4
0.41
Gold Coast 3 +17.7 n.i.
Sunshine Coast 1
4.3 +0.05
Cairns 3
18.7
0.24
Note: Negative values represent a reduction in consumption.
n.i.: No information could be obtained.
kWh/GN: Thousand watt hours per guest night.
kl/GN: Thousand litres per guest night.
a
This hotel added a second high-rise tower in 1997 which became
operational in 1998, initially causing higher than normal per capita
energy and water consumption.
benchmarked to the other accommodation provider
groupings. Table 5 provides data pertaining to such a
benchmarking exercise, however even these figures need
to be considered with care, as assumptions had to be
made when converting room or unit nights to guest
nights where businesses could not provide occupancy
data in the format sought. In addition, as already noted,
the recording periods for the raw data collected
(occupancy and resource consumption) did not always
coincide. The data for the electricity consumption of
condominium complexes are shown separately (Table 6).
The condominium complex resource consumption data
have been segregated to highlight the relatively complex
nature of attempting to aggregate across this sub-sector.
Most of the businesses could only supply electricity
figures, data relating to occupancy levels was relatively
incomplete and some buildings included space dedicated
to non-accommodation activities (e.g. tourist retail
shops).
From the data reported in Tables 5 and 6, it can be
seen that the average per capita energy consumption for
eco-resorts is relatively high, ranking second only to
hotels. More revealing insights are obtained, perhaps,
via a consideration of the case by case data presented in
Table 7. There is a large variation in the per capita
energy consumption in the eco-resorts. For the two high
energy consuming eco-resorts located near Cairns,
interview data collected revealed the extent to which
they attached considerable importance to the provision
of natural rainforest settings and environmental educa-
tion for their ‘eco-tourism’ programmes. They appeared
to have little interest in monitoring energy consumption
levels. This perhaps accounts partially for their relatively
poor electricity consumption performance relative to
hotels of a similar size operating under approximately
the same climatic conditions. It should also be noted
that the two eco-resorts mentioned above used diesel

Table 5
Per capita benchmark figures for energy and water consumption

Measure Accommodation type n Mean 1 s.e. Min. Max.

a
KWh/GN Hotels 11 44.16 5.53 23.92 84.28
(electricity) Eco-resorts 5 29.93 5.65 10.48 40.80
Caravan parks 6 4.49 0.81 1.99 7.21
MJ/GNa Hotels 9 191.19 17.99 110.58 265.19
(Total energyb) Eco-resorts 5 164.56 37.51 67.51 256.29
Caravan parks 6 31.54 3.07 22.11 43.12
L/GNa (water) Hotels 10 621 93 390 1410
Eco-resorts 4 653 164 390 1090
Caravan parks 6 558 108 307 996

kWh/GN: Thousand Watt hours per guest night.

MJ/GN: Mega Joules per guest night.
L/GN: Litres per guest night.
a
In cases where data for GN were not collected, figures were calculated based on the average ratio of guests/room night for premises that collected
both types of data.
b
Electricity and gas consumption.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
Table 6
Electricity consumption figures for condominiums
Electricity consumption Min.
kWh/UN (units only) 18.97
kWh/GNa (units only) 12.04
kWh/UN (common property only) 4.53
kWh/GNa (units and common property) 17.30
MJ/GN (units and common property) 62.28
kWh/UN: Thousand Watt hours per unit night.
kWh/GN: Thousand Watt hours per guest night.
MJ/GN: Mega Joules per guest night.
a
Based on conservative estimates of one person per bedroom.
b
Building with tourist retail shops included in electricity figures.
Table 7
Case by case observations of annual per capita energy consumption
(MJ/GN)
Hotels Eco-resorts Caravan parks
Cairns 111, 113, 167, 253 229, 256
Gold Coast 96, 202 7, 88, 182 2, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43
Sunshine Coast 204, 210, 265
generators. In light of the energy conversion method
applied for this study (see above), the total energy
consumption for these resorts in real terms was likely to
be higher.
The lowest per capita energy consumption for an eco-
resort was observed at a recently completed Gold Coast
project that was initially conceived as an eco-tourism
facility. This 357 unit resort can be regarded as highly
energy efficient as it provided two restaurants and an in-
house laundry and achieved a level of per capita energy
efficiency approaching the best performing condomi-
nium complex which was a 15 storey high-rise compris-
ing 118 units, no air-conditioning and no additional
facilities other than a pool, spa and sauna.
It was found that cross-sample per capita water
consumption differences were not as great as energy
consumption differences (Table 5). Within each accom-
modation provider sub-category, however, the per
capita water consumption rate was three to four times
greater than for the high water consuming premises
relative to the low per capita water consuming premises.
For hotels, these differences were largely a function of
different building styles. Those hotels that comprised
several detached structures required a large amount of
water to irrigate their relatively extensive gardens,
landscaped areas and pools.6
6
Unfortunately, data that distinguishes between the type of water
consumed, e.g., water for irrigation or water used in buildings, was not
collected by any of the sample organisations.
375
Max. n
27.54 5 buildings (75 units in total)
13.77 2 buildings (68 units in total)
8.04 6 buildings
30.80 (38.09b) 4 (5b) buildings
110.88 (137.12b) 4 (5b) buildings
Per capita water consumption for eco-resorts ap-
peared to be heavily affected by location. Properties
located in the Cairns region benefit from regular heavy
rainfalls. As a result, the Cairns eco-resorts were able to
store much of their water needs by collecting rainwater
from their roof area. It was significant that both the
Cairns eco-resorts started to collect some data for the
consumption of collected rainwater, as measurement of
this water consumption was not required by any water
providing authority. The coastal eco-resort on the Gold
Coast had no town water supply and only 1400 mm per
annum of average rainfall (most during a short wet
season). As a result, the complex had to bridge the dry
season by using groundwater of moderate to poor
quality. Somewhat unsurprisingly, water consumption
figures were highest for the Cairns premises and lowest
for the coastal resort on the Gold Coast.7
5. Discussion
Obviously the quantitative data reported above
suffers from a relatively small sample size. The number
of operators providing a complete data set was too small
to enable the conduct of a statistically robust analysis.
Accordingly, in this section, the quantitative observa-
tions made are considered in the context of data
gathered during on site interviews with engineering
and general managerial staff.
5.1. Per capita energy and water consumption
The quantitative observations do bear out the
expectation that per capita energy and water use
are significantly affected by the physicality of buildings
7
It should be apparent from this discussion that the significance of
water consumption is dependent on location. Although water
consumption was found to be greater in the Cairns properties, this
does not necessarily signify poor environmental management as water
is not as limited a resource in Cairns as it is in the Gold Coast area.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
376 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
(i.e. whether a building’s design incorporates factors
such as a large open, high ceiling foyer), as well as the
expected extent and grandeur of customer service. A five
star, fully air-conditioned hotel comprising detached
buildings, major conference facilities, restaurants and an
in-house steam laundry cannot be run at the same per
capita energy consumption level as a compact holiday
residential tower without central cooling for its rooms,
and no restaurants or conference facilities. In light of
these factors, the finding that per capita energy
consumption is highest in hotels, second highest in
condominium complexes, and lowest in caravan parks
(albeit, recently refurbished) carries considerable intui-
tive appeal. Perhaps most surprising is the per capita
energy consumption levels observed for eco-resorts.
These varied considerably, ranging approximately
across the entire spectrum of energy consumption levels
noted.
For at least one sector of accommodation providers in
this study, i.e. major hotels, per capita resource
consumption figures declined over a 5-year period. It
was found from comments made by site engineers and
managers that the prime motive for such reductions
stemmed from a quest for reduced operating costs in an
increasingly competitive market. Action plans for
reducing resource costs were often developed by site
engineers following discussion with colleagues net-
worked through their professional body, the Australian
Institute of Hotel Engineers (comments made by a hotel
engineer in Gold Coast Hotel 1). Other hotels sought
additional support from government or industry in-
itiated environmental sustainability policy or pro-
gramme, e.g. the Greenhouse Challenge programme
coordinated by the AGO.
Trends in actual per capita energy and water
consumption figures could not be established for any
of the non-hotel accommodation providers. Despite
this, discussions with resident managers and results from
an infrastructure audit for the Gold Coast (Warnken,
2002), suggests that for condominium complexes, per
capita electricity and water consumption is likely to
increase rather than decrease, as a growing number of
holiday apartments are refurbished or built with air-
conditioning facilities.
A comparison between the individual eco-resorts also
reveals some noteworthy issues. Older businesses that
were established before or during the early stages of eco-
tourism popularisation, revealed low resource use
efficiency when compared to more recently established,
purpose built eco-resorts that had been designed with
due regard given to a wide range of environmental
issues. It was notable that the Cairns eco-resort
managers were primarily concerned with responding to
consumer demand, i.e. providing the necessary facilities
to meet the standards of comfort and service associated
with their resorts. It appears unfair to compare the
energy efficiency of such a Cairns based resort with a
similar complex based on the Gold Coast. Although
located in the same Australian state, more air-condi-
tioning is required in Cairns due to a longer, humid hot
season. Air-conditioning is required in Cairns during
most of the wet season to retard the growth of indoor
moulds. Consequently, unoccupied rooms or parts of
the resort cannot be shut down during the wet season
when visitor numbers are generally lower than during
the dry season. In this case, the only alternative is to
design buildings with sufficient ventilation and mould-
retardant materials. Because retro-fitting of existing
buildings is usually twice as expensive as providing the
same features in a new building, this example highlights
the importance of planning for resource use efficiency in
the early design phase.
5.2. The problem of defining ‘‘industry best practice’’
The field study observations reinforce some of the
concerns raised in regard to the effectiveness of ecolabel
accreditation schemes in promoting more environ-
mentally sustainable practices in the tourism sector
(Sasidharan and Font, 2001; Buckley, 2002b). Ecolabels,
including NEAP, pride themselves in representing
industry best practice for environmentally sustainable
tourism (EAA, 2001, p. 9). Observations made in this
study (e.g. the Cains eco-resorts), however, highlight
some of the problems of the NEAP accreditation scheme
in this regard. It appears the determination or bench-
marking of industry best environmental practice is not
always straightforward with respect to energy consump-
tion, which most certainly is not an obscure dimension
of environmental performance.
For accommodation providers as well as other
businesses involved in tourism, the general mode of
operation, type of product, existing infrastructure
(buildings, access roads, etc.), and local climatic condi-
tions in combination with each other as well as other
factors will set strict limits on the level of per capita
energy and water consumption performance that can be
achieved. If variables such as building layout and
geographical location are taken into account when
determining best practice, then threshold levels of
performance would have to be developed for many
sub categories of the main types of accommodation
provider. For a nation-wide programme such as NEAP,
this would require either
(a) substantial investment in measuring environmental
performance of a whole range of businesses in many
different locations prior to establishing an eco-
accreditation scheme or, alternatively,
(b) building up a database for environmental perfor-
mance data from a large number of accredited
operators or operators applying for accreditation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
Another option would be to restrict accreditation to a
narrowly defined set of operators, e.g. in Germany there
is an environmental quality mark for alpine club
.
mountain huts (‘‘Umweltgutesiegel auf Alpenvereinsh-
.
utten’’, for details see Font and Buckley, 2001).
In 2001, the EAA listed only 25 Queensland
accommodation providers, with 15 being fully accre-
dited at the advanced or standard levels (NEAP I). In
other words, 15 Queensland accommodation providers
could have claimed that with respect to quantifiable
standards such as per capita energy and water con-
sumption, their actual environmental performance was
at or near the level for industry best practice. Concern
over the standards required for NEAP accreditation
(under both editions I and II) is heightened further when
it is recognised that compliance on a small number of
largely qualitative (yes/no) criteria, out of a range of
factors has been regarded as sufficient for initial
accreditation. For example, fulfilment of only five out
of 15 core criteria was necessary for compliance under s.
3.15 ‘environmental sustainability, energy use and mini-
misation: buildings’ (Nature and Eco-tourism Certifica-
tion Programme, 2nd ed.). None of these criteria
referred to the need for on-going performance monitor-
ing of per capita energy use. This may partially account
for this study’s observation that two eco-resorts, despite
being NEAP accredited, displayed per capita energy
consumption figures that were as high as main stream
competitors operating under the same climatic condi-
tions without any environmental accreditation (Table 7
Cairns businesses).
5.3. Benchmarking
Another important dimension of many green accred-
itation schemes, including Green Globe 21 (GG21) and
to some extent NEAP, concerns ‘benchmarking’ (Buck-
ley, 2002b). This process is best described as the
‘‘continuous measurement and improvement of an
organisation’s performance against the best in the
industry to obtain information about new working
methods or practices’’ (Kozak, 2002, p. 499). Under
NEAP II, seeking improvement of environmental
performance is encouraged by motivating already
accredited operators to seek the next level of accredita-
tion level. In theory, this can provide an extra incentive
for an operator to raise its environmental performance
as part of a quest for a more prestigious label. In
practice, however, the more advanced levels of NEAP
accreditation largely focus on providing environmental
experiences and education as well as environmental
contributions to local communities and green conserva-
tion. Awarding bonus criteria at the highest level, i.e.
‘advanced eco-tourism accreditation’ is the only other
encouragement provided for NEAP operators. For
accommodation providers and tourist attractions the
377
bonus criteria include, amongst other factors, the
requirement of having undertaken an energy audit
within the last 2 years. It appears as significant, and
something of an oversight, that NEAP operators are not
required to maintain on-going energy consumption
monitoring. This signifies that NEAP has encouraged
improvement environmental performance management,
but has given no explicit reference to some of its core
dimensions of performance, i.e. energy or water
consumption. This may partially account for only two
of the five sampled eco-resorts having data readily
available for both visitor numbers and energy or water
consumption (unfortunately one had commenced its
operation only 2.5 years before data collection and the
other had just started its data collection). On the other
hand, five out of the 11 hotels sampled were able to
provide energy data and occupancy figures covering at
least 3 years. Although this data had not been used to
calculate per capita consumption, it does indicate that
some hotel engineers were interested in monitoring
energy consumption performance in absolute terms.
6. Conclusion
As already noted, no claim can be made that the
data collected for this study is representative of the
Queensland accommodation sector in general, or all
NEAP accredited accommodation providers. For this
reason, it is important that the quantitative observations
made are viewed in the spirit of an exploratory
investigation. Further, as only the accommodation
sector of the tourism industry has been appraised, it
should be noted that the data collected should not be
viewed as representing any other aspects of the tourism
industry.
Despite these caveats, the study does provide some
useful insights in connection with the nature of
environmental performance management, and environ-
mental performance accreditation, in the tourist accom-
modation industry. Firstly, it appears as a fairly
damning indictment that the operations of 31 accom-
modation providers have been considered and not one
was able to provide data concerning waste or waste-
water production. Further research designed to deter-
mine the generalisability of this finding is to be
welcomed. Secondly, the observations made provide
some quantitative support for recent claims that green
accreditation schemes alone may be insufficient to
promote more sustainable environmental practices in
the tourism industry (Buckley, 2002b). Future develop-
ments in this sector, e.g. the implementation of an
International Eco-tourism Certification Standard
(IESC), a merger between NEAP and Green Globe 21,
or a third revision of NEAP planned for October 2003,
need to be considered carefully in terms of their
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
378 J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379
practicality as factors that can affect the degree to which
environmental management is practised.
With respect to the goal of reducing per capita
resource consumption in the tourist accommodation
sector, economic measures (e.g. consumption-based
billing, increased pricing for excessive resource use,
rebates on expenditures for resource monitoring and
saving devices) still appear to be promising alternatives,
or complements, to green accreditation schemes. This
appears to be particularly the case if the schemes are
backed by governmental or industry initiatives (e.g. the
Australian Greenhouse Challenge Programme (AGCP))
that provide, at little or no cost, direct technical advice
and/or links to organisations or businesses with relevant
expertise and experience. A system such as the AGCP
can be applied across a range of accommodation
providers and can deal with the ever increasing mix of
accommodation types: strata-titled serviced apartments
(including dual key units) in hotel complexes, increas-
ingly large holiday homes on camping grounds, one
bedroom ‘studios’ in condominium complexes, and any
combination of apartments, serviced rooms, luxury
cabins, bunkhouses and camp sites in a modern eco-
resort.
In Australia, considerable effort has gone into the
development and marketing of NEAP as a tool to
improve sustainability in the tourism industry (Buckley,
2002a, b). This study should serve to raise a cautionary
note with respect to whether this scheme promotes
sufficiently the application of energy conserving prac-
tices as well as the minimisation of waste and waste-
water production. It appears other mechanisms such as
volume-based billing may have the capacity to make
more significant inroads towards more green manage-
ment practice with respect to resource consumption and
waste production. Perhaps these alternative approaches
should receive greater visibility and acknowledgement in
future campaigns directed at the promotion of green
tourist accommodation provision. Despite this some-
what cautionary note with respect to some of the
problems of practically applying accreditation schemes
such as NEAP, one should not forget that such schemes
raise the environmental awareness levels of both the
tourist accommodation providers as well as the accom-
modation users. The promotion of green tourism under
NEAP might have even increased the environmental
awareness of non-ecotourism operators and, therefore,
helped to create a more open mind set for considering
energy and water conservation measures.
In any further research that attempts to build on the
initiative provided by this study, it is suggested that a
significant attempt be made to secure a larger sample
size. This could perhaps be achieved by first approach-
ing bodies such as EA and hotel professional associa-
tions in an attempt to gain greater co-operation form
their membership. Further, the benchmarking metho-
dology that has been reviewed here, might be better
operationalised if a narrower criteria for sample
selection were to be adopted, e.g., if a study were to
be conducted in a relatively populated area such as
Sydney, or an attempt could be made to simply
benchmark the environmental management perfor-
mance of all five and four star hotels against one
another. It is perhaps also worth noting that studies
such as that reported herein will probably become easier
to pursue over time as organisations continually
improve the extent and accuracy of data collected.
References
ABS. (1997). Tourist accommodation, Queensland. Belconnen, ACT:
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8635.3 Series.
Anon. (1991). Ecologically sustainable development working groups,
final report: Tourism. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Becken, S., & Simmonds, D. G. (2002). Understanding energy
consumption patterns of tourist attractions and activities in
New Zealand. Tourism Management, 23, 343–354.
Beckens, S., Simmons, D. G., & Frampton, C. (2001). Energy
consumption patterns in the accommodation sector—the
New Zealand case. Ecological Economics, 39, 371–386.
Buckley, R. C. (2001). Eco-tourism accreditation in Australia. In
X. Font & R. C. Buckley (Eds.), Tourism ecolabelling: Certification
and promotion of sustainable management (pp. 165–173).
Wallingford: CABI.
Buckley, R. C. (2002a). Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29, 183–208.
Buckley, R. C. (2002b). Tourism ecocertification in the international
year of eco-tourism. Journal of Eco-tourism, 1, 197–203.
.
Buhrs, T., & Aplin, G. (1999). Pathways towards sustainability: The
Australian approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 42, 315–340.
Commonwealth Department of Tourism. (1994). National eco-tourism
strategy. Canberra: AGPS.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). National strategy for ecologically
sustainable development. Canberra: AGPS.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1998). National greenhouse strategy.
Canberra: AGPS.
Deng, S., & Burnett, J. (2000). A study of energy performance of hotel
buildings in Hong Kong. Energy and Buildings, 31, 7–12.
EAA. (2001). Australian eco-tourism guide 2001, the essential resource
for the Australian eco-tourism industry. Brisbane: Eco-tourism
Association of Australia.
Font, X., & Buckley, R. C. (2001). Tourism ecolabelling: Certification
and promotion of sustainable management. Wallingford: CABI.
GCCC (1996). Water wise: Manual of best practice, water conservation
in large hotels and resorts. Gold Coast, Australia: Wet Paper
Consultants for Gold Coast City Council.
Hemmelskamp, J., & Brockmann, K. (1997). Environmental labels:
The German ‘‘Blue Angel’’. Futures, 29, 67–76.
IHEI (1995). Environmental action pack for hotels: practical steps to
benefit your business and the environment. London: International
Hotels Environment Initiative.
IHRA and UNEP (undated). Environmental good practice in hotels,
case studies form the international hotel and restaurant association
environmental award. Paris: IHA and UNEP.
Kozak, M. (2002). Destination benchmarking. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29, 497–519.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Warnken et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 367–379 379

Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary
overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 40, 549–574.
Sasidharan, V., & Font, X. (2001). Pittalls of ecolabelling. In X. Font &
R.C. Buckley (Eds.), Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promo-
tion of sustainable management (pp. 105–119). Wallingford: CABI.
TCA (1998). Being green keeps you out of the red, an easy guide to
environmental action for accommodation providers and tourist
attraction. Woolloomooloo, Sydney: Tourism Council Australia.
Tourism Queensland (2000). Strategy for growing tourism. Brisbane:
Tourism Queensland.
UK CEED (1998). An assessment of the environmental impacts of
tourism in St Lucia. British Airways Environment Report 5/98.
Cambridge: UK CEED.
UNEP (1992). Rio earth summit: Convention on biological diversity.
Nairobi: UNEP.
UNEP (1998). Ecolables in the tourism industry. Paris: UNEP.
Warnken, J. (2002). Tourism infrastructure audit, Gold Coast: project
2.2 of the Gold Coast Visioning Project. CRC Report Series,
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold
Coast.
Warnken, J., Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Condominium
developments in maturing destinations: Potentials and
problems for long-term sustainability. Tourism Management, 24,
155–168.
Wood, M. E., & Halpenny, E. A. (2001). In X. Font, & R. C. Buckley
(Eds.), Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustain-
able management (pp. 165–173). Wallingford: CABI.