Implementation of sustainable development practices in the hospitality industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to describe and understand how and to what extent hotel managers adopt sustainable development (SD) practices in their establishment, given the presence of barriers to the adoption of such practices by hotel establishments, and the lack of knowledge as to the ways and means by which an SD orientation is developed and implemented. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research strategy was chosen to answer the research questions, that is, a multi-site case study of five Canadian hotels. Findings The study shows why and how hotel managers proceeded to develop and implement an SD orientation, as well as the contextual factors that affected the extent to which SD practices were adopted. Research limitations/implications The initial elaboration and validation of a process model of SD adoption in hotel establishments constitute a conceptual building block upon which this complex phenomenon can be further studied. Practical implications This study demonstrates that in the hospitality industry, implementing an SD orientation is a strategy that can be enabled through the provision of required knowledge and expertise as well as appropriate tools and techniques to hotel managers. Originality/value In describing and understanding the dynamics of implementing a SD orientation in five Canadian hotels, this study has provided a conceptually and practically fruitful answer to the question of “how” and “to what extent” hotels adopt SD practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".