2. European SUSTAINABLE DESTINATIONS
THROUGH EU LEGISLATION: FICTION OR REALITY?
Dissertation
“I hereby declare that this research is wholly the work of Ekaterina
Larionova. Any other contributors or sources have either been referenced in
the prescribed manner or are listed in the acknowledgements together with
the nature and the scope of their contribution”.
Ekaterina Larionova
Student at the NHTV University of Applied Sciences
Master Program Tourism Destination Management
Student Number: 152137
Date: December 2, 2016
5. III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EU has become one of the leading destinations worldwide, and the tourism industry is
highly beneficial for the socio-economic environment of EU member states. Moreover,
sustainability is placed in the centre of successful tourism development. Thus, the European
Commission strategy has underlined the importance of not just the competitive position of
the EU but also sustainable and responsible tourism development. In addition, the emerging
issues provoked by tourism gave a background for a development of various certification
programmes. Certification programmes and awards are widely spread across the EU,
assessing a level of sustainability and, therefore, promoting sustainable strategies. Thus,
Green Destinations organisation developed Green Destinations Standard, recognised by
GSTS, which includes “the following themes: Destination Management, Nature & Scenery,
Environment & Climate, Culture & Tradition, Social Well-being, Business & Hospitality” (Green
Destinations, 2016).
Significantly, an effectiveness of sustainable strategies is dependent on the adequate legal
system. Sustainability, being a cross-field concept, is regulated by different kind of laws.
Hence, the European Union has constantly been working on the development of powerful
legislation, and a majority of sustainable development issues are cover by EU law.
Importantly, there is no research done about the direct influence of EU legislation on
sustainable development of EU destinations. Thus, the central goal of this study is:
To analyse and identify how EU legislation contributes to the sustainability of EU
destinations in order to simplify the process of compliance with Green Destinations Standard
criteria and to motivate other destinations to be sustainable and, therefore, more
competitive.
The following research questions assist in achieving the goal:
1. How important is sustainability for the competitiveness of the destinations?
2. To what extent is national legislation connected with EU legislation?
3. For which Green Destinations Standard Criteria it is not necessary to check local
compliance for each destination due to the transposition of EU regulations into
national legislation?
7. V
• Last but not least, enforcement and implementation issues are appeared to be central
when it comes to compliance with laws and, therefore, with Green Destinations
Standard criteria.
Further, the recommendations are given for different stakeholder groups in order to enhance
or improve the overall sustainable development and competitiveness of EU destinations (see
Table 1).
RECOMMENDATIONS
GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITIES
- To ensure in time transposition of EU legislation into
national legislation system
- To monitor the effective compliance with the regulations.
- To ensure appropriate enforcement of national legislation
- Cooperation of different municipalities to support regional
initiatives
DESTINATION
MANAGERS
- To enhance or increase the importance of sustainable
destination development
- To set up a short-term and a long-term regional/local
sustainable strategy
- To cooperate with other nearby and similar destinations
- To address complex issues to the national or regional
government authorities
‘GREEN
DESTINATIONS’
- Do not exclude any criterion from Green Destinations
Standard
Table 1: Recommendations. Author’s own development.
14. 3
Besides, EU laws also regulate such sustainability aspects as Waste Management, Security,
Human Rights, Intellectual Property Rights, Social Policy, Energy, Culture, and Transport.
However, it is of high importance to mention, that there is no research done about the direct
influence of EU legislation on sustainable development of EU destinations.
To conclude, the EU has become one of the leading destinations worldwide, and the tourism
industry is highly beneficial for the socio-economic environment of EU member states.
Moreover, sustainability is placed in the centre of successful tourism development. Thus, the
European Commission strategy has underlined the importance of not just the competitive
position of the EU but also sustainable and responsible tourism development. In addition, the
emerging issues provoked by tourism gave a background for a development of various
certification programmes. Certification programmes and awards are widely spread across the
EU, assessing a level of sustainability and, therefore, promoting sustainable strategies.
Significantly, an effectiveness of sustainable strategies is dependent on the adequate legal
system. Sustainability, being a cross-field concept, is regulated by different kind of laws.
Hence, the European Union has constantly been working on the development of powerful
legislation, and a majority of sustainable development issues are cover by EU law.
In order to fulfil a gap, this research is focusing on interrelations between EU legislation
system and sustainable development of EU destinations on the basis of Green Destinations
Standard criteria.
I.II. RESEARCH GOAL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The central goal of this study is formulated as:
To analyse and identify how EU legislation contributes to the sustainability of EU
destinations in order to simplify the process of compliance with Green Destinations Standard
criteria and to motivate other destinations to be sustainable and, therefore, more
competitive.
The following research questions will be answered to achieve the settled goal:
1. How important is sustainability for the competitiveness of the destinations?
15. 4
2. To what extent is national legislation connected with EU legislation?
3. For which Green Destinations Standard Criteria it is not necessary to check local
compliance for each destination due to the transposition of EU regulations into
national legislation?
Hypothesis: “All EU destinations should comply with Green Destinations Standard
criteria, which are covered by EU law”.
4. How far are the relevant transposed laws and regulations enforced and respected in
practice?
I.III. REPORT STRUCTURE
The report consists of 5 chapters. The first chapter is an ‘Introduction’ and represents a
necessary background of the study with research goal and research questions. The second
chapter is ‘Theoretical Background’, which is devoted to a literature review of the most
important and relevant topics for this research as well as to summaries of EU legislation. The
third chapter is ‘Methodology’, describing the entire research process. The fourth section is
‘Findings’, which represents the results of primary data collection and analysis. Finally, the
fifth chapter is about overall conclusions and recommendations.
16. 5
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
II.I. SUSTAINABILITY
The most used and well-known definition of sustainable development is the one given in the
Brundtland Report of World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) –
“sustainable development is development that “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This report
influenced the evolution of sustainable development in tourism context (Ruhamen et al.,
2015). Sustainable tourism conception evolved alongside, but, at the same time, separate
from a paradigm of sustainable development (Ruhamen et al., 2015).
Sustainable tourism concept has been widely discussed in academic literature for the last
decades (Hassan, 2000; Miller et al., 2010; Ruhamen et al., 2015; Schianetz et al., 2007;
Seghezzo, 2009), and a lot of criticism has been addressed towards it (Ruhamen et al., 2015).
Thus, some academics have criticized that there is a lack of progress in research in this field
(Bramwell & Lane, 2005; Loulanski & Loulanski, 2011), there are never-ending debates about
the definition of sustainable tourism (Gössling, Hall, & Weaver, 2008) and this concept is only
a synonym of eco-tourism (Lu & Nepal, 2009). Nevertheless, there has been significant
progress in sustainable tourism research with a clear move from conceptual and definitional
papers to those, focusing on applying theories through empirical research (Ruhamen et al.,
2015).
The following definition of sustainable tourism is applied for this study: “Sustainable tourism
can be defined as tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and
environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and
host communities" (UNEP and UNWTO, 2005). However, in order to understand this
definition, it is important to differentiate between sustainable development of tourism and
sustainable tourism (Peeters et al., 2015). “Sustainable development of tourism describes a
process generally at a high level of both geographical scale and abstraction which is measured
against long-term economic, social and environmental requirements (e.g. a certain level of
emissions of CO2 or the economic reality to make a profit on business, but also to create
equitable wages)” and “Sustainable tourism describes the sustainability of a product (package
tour, tourism transportation, accommodation or destination)” (Peeters, et al., 2015).
17. 6
Furthermore, UNEP and UNWTO (2005) defines sustainable tourism development as
following: “Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management practices (that) are
applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass tourism and the
various niche tourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to the environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be
established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability.” Thus,
sustainable tourism is not a type of tourism, but a guideline to follow by any form of tourism,
destination, and tourism product (Peeters et al., 2015).
The definitions of sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism development illustrate that
sustainability in tourism context covers three dimensions: economy, environment, and
society. Thus, “economic dimension focuses on economic structure, public budget, regional
aspects, consumption, labour and pricing. Environment dimension concerns are on
environmental protection, biodiversity, resources, energy, air and waste control. Social/social
equity cares for settlement structure, local culture, income and assets, security, mobility and
public health” (Nilnoppakun & Ampavat, 2016, p. 264). Importantly, UNEP and UNWTO (2005)
include cultural aspect besides three ones mentioned earlier and, additionally, Spindler
(2013) also incorporates cultural conservation as well as recreation activities devoted to
tourism destinations.
In this research paper, sustainable development will be discussed in a scope of a tourism
destination. Surprisingly, there is no commonly accepted definition of sustainable tourism
destination regarding its scope (Lee, 2001). However, it is important to underline, that
sustainable development on a destination level requires a broader view, tackling the overall
sustainable development of the destination, rather than focusing only on tourism activities
(Lee, 2001). Further, strategic planning of sustainability of a destination requires national and
local government, and public and private sectors stakeholders’ involvement (Pavia et al.,
2015).
As a reaction to irreversible effects of tourism development on social, cultural and
environmental aspects, international organizations such as World Tourism Organization
(WTO), the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), UNEP, UNESCO etc. broadly promoted
sustainable tourism (Epler Wood, 2002; UNEP and CI, 2003; WTO, 2000) what, consequently,
18. 7
caused the development of sustainability concepts and tools for current situation assessment
(Schianetz et al., 2007).
II.II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
“An assessment tool is something, that typically consists of a systematic step-by-step
assessment procedure and/or computational algorithm that is used to implement a concept”
(Schianetz et al., 2007, p. 372). According to Schianetz et al. (2007), tools for assessing
sustainability enable to determine the areas, which are weak and there is a need for
improvement and “which actions should or should not be taken in an attempt to make society
sustainable” (Devuyst et al., 2001, p. 9). Moreover, sustainability assessment tools evaluate
the effectiveness of objectives and implied strategies for sustainable development (Schianetz
et al., 2007). Thus, sustainability evaluation process has become a major part of sustainable
development.
Many different tools for monitoring, managing, measuring and improving sustainability have
been developed (Golja & Slivar, 2014; Ness et al., 2007; Strasdas, n.d.). One of the possible
ways to determine the level of sustainability is certification. According to Honey & Rome
(2001, p. 5) “certification is a voluntary procedure that assesses, monitors, and gives written
assurance that a business, product, process, service, or management system conforms to
specific requirements.” In other words “certification is a process of assessment to confirm
that standards are met” (Patterson, 2016, p. 53). Thus, it is essential to identify what
standards are in the sustainability context. According to Patterson (2016, p. 53) “sustainability
standards – Benchmarks of or targets for minimum performance that a tour operator,
transportation provider, hotel, attraction, or other tourism organization must meet to be
considered sustainable or environmentally responsible”.
An example of sustainability standards for the tourism industry can be Global Sustainable
Tourism Council Destination Criteria (GSTC-D), which applicable around the globe, providing
a guideline for sustainable tourism management and development policies. Importantly,
Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) is worldwide known by developing sustainable
criteria for hotel and tour operators and tourism destinations. Besides, any entity, which has
19. 8
a right to develop sustainable tourism standard can apply for recognition, approval or
accreditation by GSTC. There is a significant difference between these three categories. GSTC
– Recognised means, “that the standard aligns with the GSTC Criteria and that any additional
clauses do not contradict GSTC Criteria requirements” (Global Sustainable Tourism Council,
2016). GSTC – Approved means, “that the standard used for certification is aligned with
the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC-Recognised) and that the certification
procedures largely meet international standards for transparency, impartiality, and
competence” (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2016). Lastly, GSTC Accredited means,
“that a certification body (CAB) is using a GSTC-Recognized standard and awards certification
according to processes that comply with international standards and good practices” (Global
Sustainable Tourism Council, 2016). Basically, these categories are put in order from less
complex to a more complex process of evaluation, from “recognising” a written, published
sustainable tourism standard to verifying the process of standard application in the field with
an ability to use the GSTC logo.
This study focuses on certain criteria of Green Destinations Standard owned by Green
Destinations, Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) and European Centre for Eco and Argo Tourism
(ECEAT). Green Destinations Standard is a tool for monitoring, assessing and improving
sustainability in destinations and regions, which is recognised by GSTC. The Standard applies
100 criteria, and 100 indicators, which can be seen in Appendix I. Green Destinations does
not award tourism destinations, but allows existing certification programmes, countries and
other eligible entities to use its Standard (Green Destinations, 2016). The Standard is currently
used by QualityCoast, QualityDestination certification, and Slovenia Green program.
To sum up, nowadays, sustainable development is a crucial part of any tourism business.
Further, it is equally important on a destination level, what, however, requires a more
sophisticated approach, since a destination is a complex concept. Awareness of sustainable
development is becoming higher, that is why many sustainability assessment tools have got
recognition among different stakeholders. A variety of assessment systems is available all
over the world, what sometimes can even be confusing. Nevertheless, an important role of
complying with sustainability criteria is devoted to regulations. Therefore, next part of
literature review will focus on European Union (EU) legislation as a contributor to a
sustainable development of EU destinations.
20. 9
II.III. EU LEGISLATION
First and foremost, it is essential to understand the basic principals of EU law. EU legislation
consists of primary legislation, which is the basis for all EU actions and secondary legislation,
which includes regulations, directives, decisions, etc. (European Union, 2016). Moreover,
different types of legal acts of secondary legislation have a different level of legal force.
Hence, regulations, directives, and decisions are binding, and non-binding instruments are
resolutions and opinions (EUR-lex, 2016). Importantly, regulations and decisions become
binding for EU members the same day they enter into force and directives must be first
incorporated into national legislation by EU Member States (European Commission, 2016).
Since sustainability is such a complex concept, it is not surprising, that regulations, covering
different aspects of sustainable development, belong to various law fields. Further,
summaries of law fields, relevant to sustainable development, will be introduced. To make
the summaries a researcher uses “EUR-Lex” database, which has access to EU law (directives,
regulations, decisions, etc.), official Journal of the European Union, summaries of EU
legislation, etc. Importantly, the database is daily updated and is an official website of EU law.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste management is broadly covered by EU policies, tackling different angles of this issue.
Thus, EU law ensures the proper treatment of urban waste water including collection,
treatment and wastewater discharge, and treatment of industries’ wastewater. Moreover,
EU legislation underlines the importance of recycling.
ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
EU’s environmental policy covers not only protection of human health by improving
environment quality, but also focuses on a rational usage of natural resources. There is also
a focus on fertile soil, seas, fresh water, clean air and biodiversity conservation. Furthermore,
the EU is contributing a lot of effort to emissions reduction by member states.
22. 11
EUROPEAN TOURISM
Importantly, the EU developed “Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European
Tourism”, and there are some challenges, which should be mentioned: safety of tourists and
local communities and accessibility of tourist sites without any discrimination.
CULTURE
EU legislation encourages to preserve cultural heritage, what is essential for sustainable
development of destinations.
TRANSPORT
EU transport strategy includes the elimination of traffic growth, the promotion of public
transport, the development for reducing CO2 emissions and raising awareness of how to
decrease the environmental impact of transport.
As it has been illustrated, EU legislation covers diverse areas of sustainable development,
however, it is not enough to just establish regulations to be effectively sustainable. Thus, the
importance of compliance with listed laws comes next, since EU policy goals cannot be
achieved, if the Member States do not effectively apply on the ground (Ballesteros et al.,
2013).
II.IV. COMPLIANCE
Compliance with EU legislation by the Member States has become a widely-discussed issue
amongst academics as well as practitioners (Batory, 2016; Ballesteros et al., 2013; García
Quesada, 2014; Falkner & Treib, 2008). For instance, even though, the Water Framework
Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) is considered as the most ambitious piece of EU legislation, it has
faced many implementation problems (Voulvoulis et al., 2017). Such failures of compliance
have a negative impact on the effectiveness of EU regulations; thus, the EU might be
considered as a system, which is able to adopt legislation within different states, but “unable
to ensure its application” (García Quesada, 2014, p. 332).
Furthermore, a lot of attention has been given to a reason for non-compliance within
different EU members (García Quesada, 2014). One of such reasons can be dependence on
24. 13
III. METHODOLOGY
Firstly, research approach and sampling will be introduced. Secondly, the researcher
describes the implemented methods followed by analysis processes. Thirdly, there is a section
about validity and reliability. And, lastly, the limitations of the research are presented.
III.I. RESEARCH APPROACH
This research can be mainly characterised as empirical since empirical studies are designed to
gain information from ‘real world’ (Veal, 2011). However, the researcher made use of
secondary data as well to provide a necessary theoretical background.
Moreover, both qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied. Qualitative
research is usually concerned with the meaning of words, whereas quantitative approach
involves numerical data (Veal, 2011). As any research method has its limitations, these two
are not an exception. Hence, the application of both compensates potential disadvantages.
Furthermore, to answer research questions, a combination of descriptive, explanatory, and
evaluative research types was incorporated. The descriptive type was used to investigate and,
therefore, describe some phenomena; this approach is relevant to this study since the field
of direct connections between EU legislation, and sustainability is not well researched yet.
Secondly, explanatory approach tends to “explain how or why things are as they are” (Veal,
2011, p. 6); thus, this technique was implemented to explain why certain criteria can or
cannot be excluded out of Green Destinations Standard. Lastly, evaluative type of research is
an “evaluation of policies […]” (Veal, 2011, p. 6), which ideally suited in a context of analysing
how effective EU policies are and their level of implementation.
In addition to above-described research types, deductive as well inductive research
approaches were utilised. The deductive process intends to confirm or to disprove
hypotheses (Veal, 2011). Hence, this method was used to test the hypothesis made for this
study. In addition, the method of induction was suitably implemented where the explanations
and conclusions were evolved out of the data, since in inductive research process “the data
come first and the explanation later” (Veal, 2011, p. 39).
25. 14
III.II. SAMPLING
Criterion sampling was chosen as the most appropriate for the goal of this research. According
to Veal (2011), criterion method implies, that the individuals are selected based on a certain
criterion. Thus, for one questionnaire, participants were selected due to their relevant
expertise in sustainability, and for another questionnaire, they were selected due to their job
position. Importantly, the sample size was limited by a number of available contacts provided
by the commissioner.
III.III. SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION
Secondary data was constantly reviewed during the entire research process. As a result, the
second chapter is devoted to the theoretical background, which provides with essential
knowledge to understand the context of the study. The following secondary data sources
were used:
- Academic articles about sustainability and EU legislation;
- Books;
- EUR – Lex – official database of EU law;
- Official reports of the European Parliament;
- Industries’ reports;
- Reports of International Conferences;
- Websites etc.
However, the major part of this study is fairly given to the primary data collection, the
methods of which are introduced further.
III.IV. QUESTIONNAIRES
Two questionnaires were designed: one for destinations’ representatives and another one for
the sustainability experts. As the primary goal was to test the hypothesis of the third research
question, the first step was to select Green Destinations Standard criteria which are
26. 15
potentially covered by EU legislation. Thus, all 100 criteria were thoroughly revised on the
basis of different EU law areas, which are introduced in chapter 2. Consequently, 30 criteria
were chosen (see Appendix II) and integrated into questionnaires.
Significantly, if the representative number of EU destinations comply with a number of
selected criteria due to EU legislation, these criteria might be excluded from the assessment.
However, during the research process, preliminary findings showed, that there is no need to
separate the reasons of compliance. Thus, the researcher together with the commissioner
decided, that the criteria which destinations comply with “due to EU legislation” as well as
“Due to national legislation” can be equally considered as compliant throughout the EU.
Additionally, the survey aimed to find out how important suitability is for the competitiveness
of destinations.
The questionnaires consisted of closed as well as of open questions. The destinations and
experts were asked to answer 6 and 4 questions respectively (see Appendix III, IV).
Two questionnaires were distributed via personal e-mails from 13th
of September till 14th of
October. All the contacts were provided by Green Destinations and consisted of 29 experts
and 28 destinations. As a result, 22 experts and 23 destinations filled in the questionnaires.
Below, Map 1 illustrates a territory covered by this study. Further, the list of experts and
destinations participated in this survey can be found in Appendix V.
Some questions (Q1, Q2, and Q3 of Destinations’ questionnaire and Q1 and Q2 of Experts’
questionnaire) were analysed in a quantitative way, using Qualtrics platform. Two analytical
processes were used: frequencies, which represents percentages and counts for individual
variables and means, which are the “averages for numerical variables” (Veal, 2011, p. 418).
Moreover, some destinations selected “Not sure” answers for Q3 were contacted once again
to specify the reason for their choice. In particular, it refers to only those criteria, which do
not have “Do not comply” answers and a number of “Not sure” answers do not exceed 2.
Thus, 3 out of 7 contacted twice destinations’ representatives selected “Not sure” option for
a reason of a lack of specific expertise. Therefore, their answers were not taken into account.
27. 16
Open-ended questions (Q4, Q5, and Q6 of Destinations’ questionnaire and Q3 and Q4 of
Experts’ questionnaire) provided with names, countries and destinations of participants,
therefore, were simply used to map the research area.
The detailed questionnaires’ results are situated in Appendix VI.
III.V. EXPERTS AND DESTINATIONS’ CORRESPONDENCE
On the stage of questionnaires’ distribution, many experts and destinations’ representatives
contacted the researcher back. They gave essential comments on the questionnaires and
their answers, as well as some additional insights, which the questionnaires could not reveal.
Thus, 6 experts and 4 destinations e-mailed back to the researcher (see Appendix VII).
Map 1: An overview of experts and destinations participated in filling in
the questionnaires. Author’s own development.
28. 17
Most importantly, the correspondence was used as a basis to structure interviews’ topics,
because participants repeatedly referred to the similar issues. Further, the data was coded
according to the research questions in a similar manner as transcriptions of interviews. Thus,
coded information was quantitatively analysed and interpreted, and was a valuable added
value to the findings.
III.VI. INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted in order to get insight into the importance of sustainable
development, interconnections between EU and national legislation systems and their factual
implementation. The type of interviews can be characterised as semi-structured. The
researcher prepared several questions organised by the topics in advance, however, stayed
flexible and a particular order of asking the questions was adapted individually for each
interview. Moreover, the interviewer engaged in dialogue and added follow-up questions
where necessary, or asked to explain a specific answer.
The interviews were taken during the Global Green Destination Day (GGDD) on 27th
-28th
of
September in Ljubljana. Five interviews were scheduled beforehand, and all of them were
conducted as planned (see Table 2) and lasted from 20 to 40 minutes. Importantly, three out
of five interviewees took part in filling the questionnaires before the Conference and,
therefore, were well-informed about the research topic. Nevertheless, all interviewees got an
e-mail several days prior to the meeting with an outline of the interview. Moreover, all
participants kindly agreed that the interviews could be recorded.
Interviewee Position Date
Bruce Hanson
Head of Tourism at Broads
Authority
27.09.2016
Jan Andersson
Head of business operations
In Municipality of Åre
28.09.2016
Jessica Viscart
Head of observation unit in
Brittany Tourist Board
28.09.2016
Joas van den Berg
Sustainability coordinator in
Municipality of Noordwijk
27.09.2016
Juan Pablo Perez Gomez
QualityCoast Regional
Coordinator (Galicia)
27.09.2016
Table 2: List of conducted interviews.
29. 18
The next step was to analyse qualitative data. This process is highly important for making
sense out of gathered data: “break it down, study its components, investigate its importance,
and interpret its meaning” (Bailey, 2007, p. 125). Miles and Huberman (1994) created a list of
techniques to analyse the data. The list has been adapted in a way to suit this study, and it is
represented in Table 3 below.
Step Action
1 Transcribing the data
2 Coding: attaching key words or tags to segments of text to permit later retrieval
3 Data linking: connecting relevant data segments with each other, creating network
of information
Step one refers to a transcription of the recorded interviews in a table according to the topics
which were preliminary designed (see Appendix VIII). Step two is coding, which is defined by
Bailey (2007, p.127) as “the process of organizing a large amount of data into smaller
segments […]”. Thus, the data was repeatedly revised and coded according to each research
question. Further, within the same research question sub-themes were identified. The third
step was to find a link between different segments of sub-themes to represent findings in a
holistic way.
III.VII. OBSERVATIONS
Within the research two participant observations took place. The researcher mainly acted as
a ‘participant as observer’ and as a ‘complete participant’ (Bailey, 2007), which is
characterised by deep involvement in the activities on the field. Moreover, the observations
were unstructured with a flexible approach, what enabled to shift the focus when necessary.
First and foremost, the researcher visited GGDD Conference on 27th
-28th
of September in
Ljubljana. This event was devoted to green and sustainable tourism, tackling current issues
and key aspects of sustainable development. The Conference consisted of more than 30
Table 3: Adapted list of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis by Miles and Huberman (1994)
30. 19
lectures given by destinations’ representatives from all over the world and various
workshops. Importantly, one of the organising entities was Green Destinations Partnership.
Secondly, the researcher was invited to give a short presentation about preliminary results at
an annual national QualityCoast meeting on 10th
of October in Noordwijk. The meeting
included the presentation of certificates for Dutch winners of Sustainable Destinations Top
100 (2016), QualityCoast Awards and Panel Discussion: “How do the coastal destinations deal
with coastal developments?”. During this meeting, the researcher managed to interact with
participants, talking about the research topic and other sustainable activities. Moreover, since
the commissioner was present at the meeting, the direct feedback on the results was
delivered. More than that, further research direction and possible conclusions were
discussed.
To sum up, both events played a significant role in framing the overview about sustainable
destinations, their perceptions and activities, and helped to gain an in-depth understanding
of issues in this area. Furthermore, the GGDD Conference, as well as QualityCoast meeting,
gave opportunities for the networking and an exchange of contact details.
III.VIII. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
According to Veal (2011), validity represents the extent to which the information given in the
research is as true as it claimed to be by the researcher. To ensure a high level of validity for
this study, a triangulation method was utilised. Triangulation is identified by using several
research approaches within one study in order to get a broader and deeper understanding
(Veal, 2011). Hence, triangulation was used in the way of different data collection methods,
such as questionnaires, interviews, correspondence and observations.
Reliability of the research refers to the extent to which the results of the study would be same
if it was conducted again later or with different sampling method (Veal, 2011). It is very
difficult for social sciences to meet this criterion because the research process is closely
connected with human beings, and social environment might change at a fast pace (Veal,
2011). Importantly, such area as the sustainability keeps developing and spreading within a
higher number of EU destinations. Moreover, legislation is constantly being improved, and
new laws are created to satisfy needs of changing society. Factors mentioned above do not
32. 21
IV. FINDINGS
The information provided in this chapter is based on primary data, gathered by the
researcher. Findings are structured in the research questions order, which are presented in
introduction. Moreover, it is essential to mention, that when the researcher refers to terms
as “EU legislation”, “national legislation”, “regulations”, “legislation” etc., only regulations
relevant to this study are meant.
IV.I. HOW IMPORTANT IS SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE
DESTINATIONS?
In order to answer the first research question, the results of questionnaires, interviews, and
experts and destinations correspondence are used and presented in listed order.
The results of the questionnaire designed
for destinations will be presented first.
Figure 1 illustrates a question, which was
addressed to representatives of
destinations.
The questionnaire revealed that the vast
majority of destinations consider
sustainability as a “very important” as well
as an “important” factor for their
competitiveness. Thus, 16 (69%) and 5 (22%)
destinations out of 23 think, that
Figure 2: The importance of sustainability for the
destinations’ competitiveness. Destinations’
perception.
Figure 1: A question for destinations’ representatives.
69%
22%
9%
%%
33. 22
sustainability is “very important” and
“important” respectively. Only 2
destinations (9%) believe that
sustainability has no benefits for the
competitiveness, selecting “Neutral”
option. Results mentioned above are
visualised in Figure 2.
The experts, taking part in filling in a
questionnaire, were asked the same
question, however, connected to all
destinations in general. The results showed that 14 (64%) and 7 (32%) experts out of 22
consider sustainability to be “Very important” and “Important” respectively. Additionally,
only 1 (4%) expert find sustainability as a “Not very important” factor. Listed results can be
seen in Figure 3.
As it has been shown, the majority of destinations and experts agree, that sustainability is
“Very important” for the competitiveness of destinations, many of them consider
sustainability as an “Important” factor. Two destinations think that sustainability is a
“Neutral” feature when it comes to the competitiveness. None of the experts chose
“Neutral”, however, one of them think of sustainability as “Not very important”, which is less
positive than “Neutral” option. Importantly, none of the destinations’ representatives as well
as the experts chose a “Not at all important” answer. Hence, according to the most of the
participants from both questionnaires, sustainability plays an essential role in destinations’
competitiveness.
Secondly, five interviewees were asked how important they find sustainability for tourism
destinations. All the interviewees believe, that “sustainability is a key factor for the future”
(Interviewee E, 2016); however, different thoughts are supporting that opinion. For instance,
sustainability is admitted to be very important when it comes to environmental issues. Thus,
“For our destination, it is very important. We are seriously at risk by climate change”
(Interviewee B, 2016). Moreover, Interviewee D (2016) stated, that “if we don’t work on the
environment, we will lose tourism in a few years”.
64%
32%
4%
Figure 3: The importance of sustainability for the
competitiveness of destinations. Experts’ perception.
34. 23
Besides, it was said, that “Sustainability is more, than just focusing on green and
environment” (Interviewee A, 2016), it is important, that “firstly, original inhabitants cope
with it (tourism) and, secondly, make a profit out of it” (Interviewee A, 2016). Therefore, there
is awareness, that sustainable development also covers social aspects of destinations,
precisely, the well-being of a local community.
However, some destinations might find it difficult to incorporate sustainable strategies,
because “Sustainability [...] is […] essential in the long-run, but it is difficult to make the
destinations understand this in short-run. Because, most of the times the destinations work
almost in 100% short-term basis” (Interviewee C, 2016). Moreover, “Sometimes you have to
wait until something bad happens, so they can start working on improvement” (Interviewee
C, 2016).
Consequently, all the interviewees, coming from different EU countries acknowledged the
importance of sustainable development for tourism destinations. They also underlined that
it is essential for solving environmental problems as well as social ones. Moreover, some
difficulties in strategy implementation have been identified.
Thirdly, according to Expert Correspondence A (2016), sustainability will become even more
important for the competitiveness of destinations in future, at least for Europe.
To conclude, the results have clearly shown, that sustainability is undeniably an essential
feature of destinations to stay competitive. Sustainable development is not only about the
environment, but tackles different areas of destinations’ development, therefore, evoking
various difficulties on the field. However, regardless existing barriers, sustainability might be
even a more urgent topic in future within all EU destinations.
36. 25
IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL LAW
In the first place, where EU legislation introduces a broad framework, the national law
specifies the exact steps for successful implementation (Interviewee A, 2016). Secondly,
national law in many cases is much stricter (Interviewee C, 2016). And thirdly, according to
Interviewee A (2016), “national law is way more important” for many other aspects than
water management and environment. For example, crime issues are mostly in the hands of
national law makers (Interviewee E, 2016). Therefore, national legislation is in no way less
important than EU law and “the strongest incentive to change things is most of the times local
one” (Interviewee A, 2016).
DIFFERENT LEVEL OF DEPENDENCE ON EU LEGISLATION
The remaining questions to be answered is how far national law is dependent on EU law.
Thus, 75-80% of environmental law in Spain exists due to EU legislation (Interviewee C, 2016).
Moreover, if the UK pulls out EU laws, so many things are at risk and a lot of protection will
be lost (Interviewee B, 2016). Furthermore, according to Interviewee B (2016), most
regulations are coming from EU level and “we (the UK) don’t do very much until we are
forced”. Significantly, Interviewee C (2016) thinks, that for countries with a not well-
developed body of law, EU legislation gives “a great platform to work with”.
Oppositely, “Swedish people are quite clever to find their own regulations […] to preserve the
nature” and, moreover, the EU can learn from Sweden about legislation in human rights area
(Interviewee E, 2016). In addition, according to Interviewee A (2016), national legislation on
the welfare of animals in circuses in the Netherlands developed without EU guidance.
Further, according to Expert Correspondence A (2016), the countries with very strong national
regulations (e.g. Austria) regarding criteria might say that they comply due to national
legislation. Whereas, in cases with less strong national legislation (e.g. in Greece),
destinations might meet criteria due to EU law (Expert Correspondence A, 2016). Therefore,
in some countries, national law is more dependent (such as Spain, Greece, the UK) on EU law
than in other countries (such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria) and “we need to see in
every country case by case” (Interviewee C, 2016).
37. 26
DESTINATIONS’ INITIATIVES
The experts and the destinations’ representatives stated many times, that while filling in the
questionnaires, they missed some options to choose from when it comes to a reason for
compliance with Green Destinations Standard criteria. Hence, according to Destinations
Correspondence B (2016), Noordwijk comply with some criteria, not due to EU or national
legislation, “but because we as a destination do so” and many things are done on a regional
level, which are beyond the requirements (Interviewee A, 2016). Expert Correspondence B
(2016) provided the information, that “some things are also arranged on regional & local
level”. Therefore, it can be concluded that regulations on a regional level can play a big role
for sustainability of a destination. Moreover, it shows, that most of the times destinations’
initiatives come from the countries, which are less dependent on EU legislation, such as the
Netherlands.
To conclude, the results illustrated that there is a strong connection between national and EU
legislation in all countries, which took part in this research. However, the level of dependence
on EU law differs from case to case. For instance, legislation in Spain, Greece and the UK is
more dependent on EU legislation, than Swedish, Austrian and Dutch legal systems. Further,
it was revealed, that national law plays a significant role in sustainable development of
destinations, as well as regional and local initiatives. Importantly, local initiatives are more
often present in less dependent on EU law countries. Therefore, it can be suggested that
national law is more progressive in countries with more regional and local input and less
dependent on EU framework.
39. 28
national legislation. In fact, the results revealed, that the vast majority of destinations, which
comply with some criteria, do it due to national legislation.
To sum up, a high degree of the variance of answers illustrates, that it is quite complicated to
generalise the results and select criteria, which are compliant amongst all participants.
Although it was expected, that the majority of 30 criteria would be compliant due to EU
legislation, most of the compliance throughout the participants is present due to national
legislation system.
EXPERTS’ PERCEPTION
Firstly, the results of experts’ questionnaire illustrate, that there is much more “Do not
comply” answers than in destinations’ questionnaire. Thus, 25 criteria are considered as not
compliant.
Secondly, “Not sure” option is present in all criteria but one. All criteria include either “Do not
comply” or “Not sure” answers, or both of them simultaneously. Therefore, there is no
criterion by the experts’ opinion which is considered compliant throughout the EU.
Thirdly, the results show, that there is no agreement amongst the experts upon any single
criteria.
However, the experts, as the destinations, while choosing a compliance option, most of the
time selected “Due to national legislation”.
Therefore, generally, the experts’ answers were less positive as destinations’ ones. As a result,
there is no criterion, which all destinations of represented countries comply with.
Nevertheless, experts believe, that the compliance is achieved due to national legislation,
which is in line with destinations’ opinion.
To conclude, both questionnaires disclosed a great level of disagreements upon each
criterion. In addition, there were unexpectedly many “Do not comply” and “Not sure”
answers. Due to stated above reasons, it is not possible to generalise and select the criteria,
which could be excluded out of Green Destinations Standard. Hence, the tested hypothesis
40. 29
was disproved. Furthermore, national law is appeared to be the main reason for compliance
with criteria.
First two findings introduced that there is an awareness concerning the importance of
sustainability, that national and EU legislation are closely connected, and EU law is a helpful
guideline for EU member states. Thus, it could be logically expected, that many destinations
should comply with Green Destinations Standard criteria which are covered by EU legislation.
However, the results of the questionnaires are opposite from what was expected. The
question then arises: Why was the hypothesis disproved? The answer can be found in the
next subchapter.
41. 30
IV.IV. HOW FAR ARE THE RELEVANT TRANSPOSED LAWS AND REGULATIONS
ENFORCED AND RESPECTED IN PRACTICE?
To answer this research question, qualitative analysis of experts and destinations
correspondence and interviews was implemented.
Many EU laws regulate various aspects of sustainability, however, in many cases just the
existence of such laws is not sufficient, and proper implementation and enforcement are
necessary (Experts Correspondence A, 2016). According to Interviewee C (2016), “One thing
is the law and what is written on a paper, another thing is reality and what happens on the
ground”. Moreover, it might take years before specific law is effectively enforced
(Interviewee A, 2016; Interviewee C, 2016), and sometimes the situation is different per
country (Interviewee A, 2016). Additionally, even when destinations comply with certain
criteria of Green Destinations Standard it does not mean, that regulations are well enough
implemented (Interviewee B, 2016).
Interviewee E (2016) illustrates a positive example of implementation. Thus, Sweden
thoroughly follows every single regulation coming from Brussels and, therefore, most of EU
legislation is implemented in Sweden successfully. Moreover, water quality regulations are
very well enforced in the Netherlands, what, however, is not a case for other countries, for
example, for France (Interviewee A, 2016). In fact, most of the implementation examples
given by interviewees are devoted to the negative cases.
Hence, for instance, “Spain was fined many times for not implementing EU law properly”
(Interviewee C, 2016). Moreover, according to Interviewee C (2016), environmental NGOs in
Spain complain, that the data about recycling situation is not reliable, being much more
optimistic than the reality is. One of the reasons for failure to comply with EU law is high
standards required by the EU (Interviewee C, 2016).
Furthermore, there is a problem with implementing energy reduction regulation in the
Netherlands, since not all municipalities effectively address this issue (Interviewee A, 2016).
Likewise, Azores (Portugal) faces the enforcement problem regarding the introduction and
alien species spread (Destinations Correspondence C, 2016). More than that, the UK is not as
good in recycling as, for example, Germany is (Interviewee B, 2016). Lastly, the organisation
43. 32
systems and shortcomings in labour inspections and civil society systems. Lastly, for the world
of transposition neglect, it is not a goal to comply with EU law. Thus, the importance of
transposition is not recognised at all due to ‘national arrogance’, and, consequently, the
transposed laws are not well enforced (Falkner & Treib, 2008).
World of Law
Observance
World of
Domestic Politics
World of Dead
Letters
World of
Transposition
Neglect
Transposition
Stage
In time and
correct
Likely to be
timely, if there is
no conflict of
interests
Politicized
transposition
Inactivity
Practical
Implementation
Stage
Successful Successful
Systematic non-
compliance
Shortcomings in
enforcement and
application are a
frequent
phenomenon
Countries
Denmark,
Finland, Sweden
Austria, Belgium,
Germany, The
Netherlands,
Spain, the UK
Ireland, Italy,
Czech Republic,
Hungry, Slovakia,
Slovenia
France, Greece,
Luxembourg,
Portugal
The theory of “Four worlds of compliance” support the finding, that there are different levels
of transposition and implementation of EU laws throughout the EU. Importantly, this theory
can serve as a guidance and explain implementation processes in EU member states (Falkner
& Treib, 2008).
Table 4:Four worlds of Compliance. Adapted from Falkner and Treib (2008).
44. 33
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V.I. CONCLUSIONS
1. The findings of the first research question have clearly illustrated, that all participants
consider the sustainable development of tourist destinations as a key factor for the
competitiveness. Importantly, not only experts but the vast majority of destinations’
representatives agree, that sustainability plays an essential role. In particular, the
interviewees stated, that environmental issues are quite urgent for some destinations
and if it is not sustained, it will bring significant problems. For example, the Broads
National Park is at high risk to be under water due to the climate change. Moreover,
some destinations are aware of the fact that sustainable development is a principal
approach when it comes to the well-being of a local community. Therefore, all EU
destinations see sustainability as a crucial feature for their competitiveness.
2. The second research question aimed to investigate interconnections between
national and EU legislation systems. Firstly, a very strong connection between these
two systems has been recognised. Many national laws are derived from EU
regulations, and it is complicated to separate them. Thus, many of the destinations
comply with Green Destinations Standard criteria due to EU legislation as well as due
to a national one.
Secondly, EU legislation, in general, is very helpful for destinations to organise
sustainable development. Major issues, such as nature protection and water
management are covered by EU law, being a guideline for the member states.
Thirdly, while the EU introduces a legal framework, national regulations are usually
more specific and detailed about requirements and implementation. Moreover, when
it comes to other issues than the environment, national law is more important. Hence,
national legislations systems of EU member states are in no way less important than
EU legislation.
Fourthly, there are different levels of dependence of national law on EU law. Some
countries as Spain, Greece and the UK are more dependent on EU legislation than
others (e.g. Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria).
45. 34
Last, but not least, the research revealed, that a lot of initiatives are done by
destinations themselves on regional and local levels. Such initiatives are usually taken
beyond the requirements and mostly in less dependent on EU law countries.
3. The questionnaires’ results illustrated that there is only one criterion: “Crime, safety,
and health hazards are adequately monitored and publicly reported”, which is
compliant amongst all 23 destinations. Importantly, there is a compliance due to
national law, which is the case for the majority of criteria. Notably, there is a high level
of variance amongst the answers of destinations’ representatives. Thus, a significant
number of destinations do not comply with certain criteria and/or are not sure why
and/or whether they comply.
Furthermore, there is a remarkable disagreement on criteria compliance amongst the
experts. Hence, there is no criterion which is considered to be compliant by all the
experts. Moreover, experts’ answers are generally less positive than destinations’
ones. Nevertheless, the most frequent reason of compliance is national regulations,
which is in line with destinations’ opinion.
Consequently, it is not possible to generalise and select the criteria, which are
compliant throughout the EU destinations. Therefore, the hypothesis, that “All EU
destinations should comply with Green Destinations Standard criteria, which are
covered by EU law” is disproved.
4. Essentially, compliance issue is appeared to be the central one, which perfectly
explains a disproval of the hypothesis. Even though there are plenty of EU and national
laws regarding the sustainable development, this fact does not ensure an effective
implementation and enforcement amongst all EU destinations. Several reasons for
non-compliance with laws and, therefore, with the Green Destinations Standard
criteria were found: high requirements by the EU authorities, a relatively long process
before the regulations are well implemented, direct infringements, a funding issue,
and a lack of human and technical resources. Importantly, non-compliance reasons
vary from country to country and from destination to destination. Therefore, the
theory of “Four worlds of compliance” by Falkner and Treib (2008) is suggested by the
researcher as one of the possible explanations.
48. 37
REFERENCES
Börzel, T. A. (2011). Non-compliance in the European Union:pathology or statistical artefact?
Journal of European Public Policy , 803-824.
Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to Qualitative Field Research (Second Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Pine Forge Press.
Ballesteros, M., Mehdi, R., Eliantonio, M., & Petrovic, D. (2013). Tools for Ensuring
Implementation and Application of EU Law and Evaluation of their Effectiveness. Brussels:
European Parlament.
Batory, A. (2016). Defying the commission: creative compliance and respect for the rule of
law in the EU. Public Administration , 94 (3), 685-699.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2005). From niche to general relevance? Sustainable tourism,
research and the role of tourism journals. Journal of Tourism Studies , 16 (2), 52-62.
Devuyst, D., Hens, L., & De Lannoy, W. (2001). How green is the city? Sustainability Assessment
and the Management of Urban Environments. New York: Columbia University Press.
Epler Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practicies and Policies for Sustainability.
Burlington: UNEP.
EUR-Lex. (2015, July 30). Good-quality water in Europe (EU Water Directive). Retrieved
November 2016, from EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=cellar:d6fa0437-51a1-47de-9280-3cb25a8bf69e
EUR-lex. (2016). Legislation. Retrieved November 2016, from EUR-lex: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/collection/eu-law/legislation/recent.html
European Commission. (2016). Applying EU law. Retrieved from European Commision:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/overview-law-making-
process/applying-eu-law_en
European Commission. (2010). Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination - a new political
framework. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0352
European Commission. (2016, November 27). Overview of the EU Tourism Policy. Retrieved
November 2016, from European Commission:
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/policy-overview/
European Union. (2016, November 4). EU law. Retrieved November 2016, from European
Union: https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en
49. 38
Falkner, G., & Treib, O. (2008). Three Worlds of Compliance of Four? The EU15 Compared to
New Mamber States. Journal of Common Market Studies , 46 (2), 293-313.
Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Weaver, D. (2008). Sustainable Tourism futures: Perspectives on
systems, restructuring and innovations. London: Routledge.
García Quesada, M. (2014). The EU as an "enforcement patchwork": the impact of national
enforcement for complieance with EU water law in Spain and Britain. Journal of Public
Policy , 34 (2), 331-353.
Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2016). GSTC Accreditation. Retrieved October 2016,
from Global Sustainable Tourism Council: http://www.gstcouncil.org/en/gstc-
certification/recognition-of-sustainable-tourism-standards/program-gstc-
accredited.html
Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2016). GSTC Recognition. Retrieved October 2016, from
Global Sustainable Tourism Council: http://www.gstcouncil.org/en/gstc-
certification/recognition-of-sustainable-tourism-standards/program-gstc-
recognized.html
Global Sustianable Tourism Council. (2016). GSTC Approval. Retrieved October 2016, from
Global Sustainable Tourism Council: http://www.gstcouncil.org/en/gstc-
certification/recognition-of-sustainable-tourism-standards/program-gstc-
approved.html
Golja, T., & Slivar, I. (2014). The Importance of Measuring Sustainability in Reaching Higher
Destination Competitiveness. In V. Grozdanic (Ed.), 10th European Conference on
Management Leadership and Governance (pp. 100-110). Zagreb: Academic Conferences
and Publishing International Limited.
Green Destinations. (2016). Green Destinations in Brief. Retrieved November 2016, from
Green Destinations: http://greendestinations.info/about-us-introduction/
Green Destinations. (2016, April). Green Destinations Standard. Retrieved October 2016, from
Green Destinations: http://greendestinations.info/standard/#
Green Destinations. (2016). Green Destinations Standard. Retrieved November 2016, from
Green Destinations: http://greendestinations.info/standard/
Hamele, H. (2002). Eco-Labels for Tourism in Europe: Moving the Market towards more
Sustainable Practices. In M. Honey, Ecotourism & Certification: setting standards in
practice (pp. 187-211). Washington: Island Press.
Hassan, S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable
tourism industry. Journal of travel research , 38 (3), 239-245.
50. 39
Honey, M., & Rome, A. (2001). Protecting Paradise: Certification Programs for Sustainable
Tourism and Ecotourism. Washington: Institute for Policy Studies.
Jovicic, D. (2014). Key issues in the implementation of sustainable tourism. Current issues in
Tourism , 17 (4), 297-302.
Lee, K. F. (2001). Sustainable Tourism Destinations: The importance of cleaner production.
Journal of cleaner production (9), 313-323.
Loulanski, T., & Loulanski, V. (2011). The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and
tourism: A meta-study. Journal of Sustainable tourism , 19 (7), 837-862.
Lu, J., & Nepal, S. K. (2009). Sustainable Tourism Research: An analysis of paper published in
the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 17 (1), 5-16.
Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public understanding of
sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 37 (3), 627-645.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics , 498-508.
Nilnoppakun, A., & Ampavat, K. (2016). Is Pai a Sustainable Tourism Destination? Procedia
Economics and Finance , 39, 262-269.
Notarstefano, C. (2008). European Sustainable Tourism:context, concepts and guidelines for
action. International Journal of Sustainable Economy , 1 (1), 44-59.
Patterson, C. (2016). Sustainable Tourism. Business Development, Operations, and
Management. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Pavia, N., Floričić, T., & Cerević, M. (2015). Sustianable sensitivity of tourism and sustainable
initiatives in tourism destination. Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe , 3, 245-258.
Peeters, P., Eijgelaar, E., Dubois, G., Strasdas, W., Lootvoet, M., Zeppenfeld, R., et al. (2015).
From responsible best practices to sustainable tourism development. Policy Department
B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Transport and Tourism. Brussels: European
Parlament.
Ruhamen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C.-l. J. (2015). Trends and patterns in
sustainable tourism research: a 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism , 23 (4), 517-535.
Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., & Lockington, D. (2007). Concepts and tools for comprehensive
sustainability assessments for tourism destinations: A comparative review. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism , 15 (4), 369-389.
51. 40
Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics , 18 (4), 539-
556.
Spindler, E. A. (2013). The History of Sustainability: The Origins and Effects of a Popular
Concept. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.
Strasdas, W. (n.d.). Development of a Certification System for Sustainable Management.
Politics, Policy and Governenca in Sustainable Tourism , 262-266.
UNEP and UNWTO. (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable - A Guide for Policy Makers.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Conservation International (CI).
(2003). Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism's Global Footprint. Washington, DC:
UNEO and CI.
Veal, A. J. (2011). Research methods for Leisure and Tourism (Fourth Edition ed.). Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K. D., & Giakoumis, T. (2017). The EU Water Framework Directive: From
great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment ,
575, 358-366.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press.
World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2000). Sustainable Development of Tourism: A
Compilation of Good Practicies. Madrid: WTO.
Zürn, M. (2005). Law and Governance in Postnational Europe: Compliance beyond the Nation-
State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
