Next Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Road Safety in Saudi Arabia: Exploring Traffic Accident Causes Associated with Driving Behavior Using a Bayesian Belief Network
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Teachers’ Error Orientations on Students’ Mathematics Learning: The Role of Teacher Emotions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/su14106313
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ecolabels as a Tool of Sustainable Development in Tourist Destinations

by
Kristina Bučar
1,*,
Zvjezdana Hendija
1 and
Ines Katić
2
1
Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6313; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106313
Submission received: 29 April 2022 / Revised: 18 May 2022 / Accepted: 20 May 2022 / Published: 22 May 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The research aimed to explore whether ecolabels could be used as innovation tools to achieve sustainable tourism development (STD) at the level of a tourist destination. The paper used results obtained by a questionnaire survey among destination management organizations (DMOs) in cities and municipalities to investigate how much ecolabels are used at the level of tourist destinations in a case study of the Republic of Croatia (in 2017 and 2021). DMOs were chosen as the subject of research due to their crucial role in the development of tourist destinations. The findings from the linear research indicate that DMOs in Croatia still do not recognize the importance and role of implementation of tourist ecolabels as an innovation tool in achieving sustainable tourism development at the destination level. The paper provides new theoretical insights into the application of ecolabels at the level of cities and municipalities as tourist destinations. Thus, it could induce future research by scholars in this field because an analysis of academic literature indicates that there is a lack of such research. Moreover, the results given by this research could provide a basis for DMOs to start to think in a different way about the application of ecolabels at the level of a tourist destination.

1. Introduction

The international tourism market is unpredictable and depends on many factors, and changes are often impossible to predict. However, in 2019, 1.47 billion international tourist arrivals were recorded globally and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has almost entirely stopped travel in the international tourism market, beginning in 2020 [1]. Various unpredicted situations from the past show that the tourism market recovers rapidly, whether those be a natural disaster, financial crisis, infectious disease, or similar external impacts on tourism [2,3]. Therefore, based on those past situations, it is expected that the tourism market is going to recover fast after the crisis, which started at the beginning of 2020.
Thus, after each such crisis, tourist trends change. Tourist destinations should work on their ability to respond to new conditions and requirements once international tourism trends fully recover again. Long-term planning of tourism development on the principles of sustainability can provide such an opportunity. Sustainable development (SD) provides a high-quality experience for tourists and at the same time brings positive economic effects, raises the quality of life for the local population, and preserves the quality of the environment in the destination [4]. Over the years, the concept of SD has been increasingly implemented in tourism businesses. Moreover, SD is the only way that tourist destinations can be developed in the long term. In 2015, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in their document “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” introduced a list of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), wherein goal 12.3 emphasizes the importance of sustainable tourism development (STD) and innovations are highlighted as an important tool in that process [5,6]. Implementing innovations means the application of new ideas and methods [7]. According to UNWTO innovation in tourism considers “collaborative action between governments, academia, corporations, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and start-ups, investors, supporting business partners (accelerators, incubators, etc.) and connecting all stakeholders to collaboration opportunities and prioritizing capacity building in tourism and technology” [8]. Innovations can be an additional driver of business in tourism [9]. In this process, the implementation of various ecolabels in the tourism industry can play an important role as they at the same time promote sustainability and encourage the application of innovations in environmental management without compromizing consumer freedom of choice [10,11,12,13]. The implementation of ecolabels in tourism has been going on for almost 35 years [14]. In most cases, their application in tourism practice requires a change in business practices, which often includes the application of innovations in energy use, waste management, water management, etc. [9,15,16]. Therefore, although ecolabels are not an innovation by themselves, their application can be considered an innovative tool. In particular, they can be considered at the level of tourist destinations, which are extremely difficult to manage in terms of development due to their characteristics. UNWTO defines destination management as “the coordinated management of all the elements that make up a tourism destination (attractions, amenities, access, marketing and pricing)” [17].
Destination management organizations (DMOs) need to implement destination management by leading, directing, and coordinating the work of all stakeholders at the level of the tourist destination [18]. Although DMOs usually undertake typical marketing activities, their activities are much broader, and they have become a leading subject in tourist destination planning and management [18,19,20]. The UNWTO emphasizes that DMOs play an important role in the development of every tourist destination [18]. So, DMOs should have a crucial role in the process of implementation of ecolabels at the level of the tourist destination to ensure long-term SD.
The research aimed to explore whether ecolabels can be used as an innovation tool to achieve sustainable tourism development at the tourist destination level. To achieve the aim of the paper, two types of research were conducted. In the first phase, this study contributes to the knowledge of existing scientific literature work. In this part, the research was conducted by the method of biometric analysis of scientific articles published on the Web of Science and Scopus databases to collect and study the relevant scientific literature. Published articles that related to ecolabels and innovations in tourism in the period from 1950 to the end of 2020 were researched with an emphasis on those adopted for tourist destinations. There is growing scientific research in the field the ecolabels and innovations in tourism. However, there are only a few published scientific papers in the field of ecolabels and innovations at the level of tourist destinations. This research aims to fill this gap.
In the second phase, this study investigates the attitude of DMOs in Croatia toward the implementation of the ecolabels as an innovative tool in the process of SD at the level of a tourist destination. Primary research was conducted by application of the survey method, using the linear method. For this purpose, a survey questionnaire was created for local Croatian tourists’ boards (TBs) which have the role of destination management organizations (DMOs) in Croatia since May 2019 [21]. This research was conducted to determine how many DMOs use ecolabels as a tool in their STD. In this paper, the results of the survey of 2017 and 2021 were compared to determine whether there is a change in DMO attitudes in the application of ecolabels at the destination level.
Based on this, the following hypotheses are set in the paper:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The field of application of ecolabels at the level of tourist destinations is poorly researched among scholars;
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
DMOs in Croatia use ecolabels only for promotional purposes;
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
DMOs in Croatia do not recognize ecolabels as a tool of sustainable development at the level of a tourist destination.
The results show that DMOs in Croatia consider the application of ecolabels as an effective tool that can improve their competitive position in the tourism market, can provide better promotion, and could attract more tourists to their destination. However, DMOs in Croatia still do not recognize ecolabels as an innovation tool that will increase and accelerate the SD of destinations.
The paper begins with the theoretical background, which gives insights into sustainable tourism development and the role of ecolabels as a tool by which it can be achieved. The introduction is followed by a literature review, research methodology, results, discussion, and implication and conclusion.

2. Literature Review

The tourism market has recorded a significant increase in the number of international tourist arrivals since the middle of the 20th century, making it one of the fastest-growing economic sectors [1]. However, in addition to numerous positive effects, the spontaneous and unplanned development of tourism can also have numerous negative effects on a tourist destination [4]. To maximize the positive ones and avoid the negative ones, it is extremely important to find ways to achieve long term STD. Thus, according to UNWTO, “sustainable tourism development (STD) meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future and it is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, and biological diversity and life support systems” [22].
STD should be implemented in planning, and in this process, raising the awareness of all stakeholders in tourism is vital [23]. In recent years, the level of environmental awareness has increased, so the demand for environmentally friendly products increased in the last two decades and has thus become one of the important determinants in purchasing decisions [24,25,26]. Those tourists who are aware of global environmental problems are interested in green products and want to travel responsibly [27,28]. Greening businesses in tourism are not only important to attract tourists, but could also be one of the good ways to preserve tourism resources and achieve STD. A green business means a business that leads to general well-being and social equality and at the same time reduces environmental risks and environmental degradation [29]. In tourism, a green business means applying innovations to improve the management of energy sources, water usage, and waste management while using local labour and local products [29] or as a business that protects and maintains environmental quality [30]. Successful green strategies successfully balance the needs of all stakeholders in tourism—the government, the tourism industry, local government and community, and tourists [31,32]. In theory, green products should provide consumers with relevant environmental information when purchasing products and services [16]. Therefore, various forms of certificates and ecolabels have emerged in tourism that encourage businesses in the tourism industry to raise the standard of green business, which involves the implementation of innovations in doing business [33,34,35].
“An ecolabel is an official symbol signifying that a product has been designed to do less harm to the environment than similar products without this designation” [36]. The main task of tourist ecolabels is to encourage care for the environment, the tourism industry, and tourists [16]. Ecolabels are intended for tourists who are aware of environmental problems by providing them with relevant information and should facilitate the decision of tourists when making their decision to travel to a tourist destination [10,37].
The first ecolabel was the Blue Angel program organized by the German government in 1977 [38]. In tourism, the first ecolabel was the Blue Flag, which was established in France in 1985 by the non-profit Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) to encourage local authorities to provide tourists with clean and safe beaches and marinas [38]. Since then, and especially since the beginning of the 21st century, the number of ecolabels and certificates for the field of tourism has increased significantly [10,12,15,39,40]. In 2019, 203 ecolabels existed in the international tourism market, where 15% of them were mono-focused (focused on a single area within the tourism market, for example, solely only for hotels or tour operators) and the others were poli-focused (those concerning which one certificate applied to more than one area, for example, one certificate covers hotels, activities, conferences, and destinations) [10]. The same research showed that 37% of all ecolabels in the international tourism market are associated with accommodation, 15% of them cover the field of tourist agencies or tour operators, 14% of them restaurants, and 12% are associated with tourist destinations [10].

2.1. Ecolabels for Tourist Destinations

An increase in the number of ecolabels and certificates in tourism practice has also led to increased scholarship interest in this research area [10]. A bibliometric analysis of published scientific articles in the Web of Science and Scopus databases for the period from 1950 to the end of 2020 was conducted, with emphasis on ecolabels covering the field of tourist destinations [31,32,33]. These databases were chosen because they are databases that are the largest independent publishers of scientific papers in the field of social sciences. The research was conducted on 19 March 2021. In the first step, in searching the databases of the scientific literature, the keywords “ecolabel * AND tourism” were used. A search set up in this way made it possible for words that had “ecolabel” or “ecolabelling” in their roots to be included in the search. In the next step, keywords “ecolabel* AND destination*” were used. While in the last step (advanced search) article topics, titles, abstracts, and keywords were added to the research.
The results show that from 1950 to the end of 2020, a total of 91 papers in the field of ecolabels in tourism were published in a total of 55 different scientific journals (Figure 1). The time distribution shows that the first paper in the field of ecolabels in tourism was published in 2001. Until the end of 2010, only 24 papers or 26 per cent of the total number of papers were published. In the next decade, 67 articles were published in total, an increase of 74 percent. A significant increase in published articles was recorded in 2019, when as many as 13 and in 2020 12 articles in the field of ecolabels in tourism were published. That shows that in just two years (in 2019 and 2020) almost one third (27 per cent) of the total published articles from 2001 to the end of 2020 were published.
For the field of ecolabels in the tourism sector, the highest number of scientific articles were published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 of them. Then followed seven published papers in the journal Sustainability and five papers each in the Journal of Ecotourism, Tourism Management and Coastal Management. Thus, 24 papers or 37 per cent of all published papers in this field were published in these five scientific journals.
However, only 24 scientific papers were published in the period from 1950 until the end of 2020 in the area “ecolabels * AND destination”. That is a total of 26 per cent of published papers related to the field of tourism and the use of ecolabels. In the field of ecolabels and destinations, the first paper was published in 2002. By 2010 only another seven papers had been published. By 2015, only four more papers were published. In the period from 2015 to the end of 2020, another nine papers were published, which represents 37.5 per cent of the total published papers. The increased number of scientific articles in the field of ecolabels in tourist destinations shows that this area within tourism is increasingly coming into the focus of scholars, as Table 1 shows.
Table 1 shows that the 24 published papers in the field of ecolabels and tourist destinations were published in 15 different scientific journals. In only four of them, more than one paper was published. Thus, six papers or 25 per cent of all published papers in the field of ecolabels and tourist destinations were published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. In the journal Ocean and Coastal Management, three papers were published and two each in the journals Sustainability and Journal of Ecotourism. Thus, a total of 13 papers were published in these four scientific journals or as much as 53 per cent of the total published papers in the field of ecolabels in tourist destinations. Of all published papers in the field of ecolabels and destination, seven papers or 29 per cent deal with general topics (Lesar, L., Weaver, D., Gardiner, S., 2020 [41]; Lesar, L., Weaver, D., Gardiner, S., 2020 [54]; Grapentin, S., Ayikoru, M., 2019 [50]; Bučar, K., VanRheenen, D., Hendija, Z., 2019 [10]; Park, E., Boo, S., 2010 [44]; Kozak, M., Nield, K., 2004 [46]; Buckley, R., 2002 [63]). A total of five papers or 21 per cent of them deal with the Blue Flag certificate, which is also the oldest ecolabel in the field of tourism (Fraguell, R.M., Marti, C., Pinto, J., Coenders, G., 2016 [43]; Merino, F., Prats, M.A., 2020 [47]; Zielenski, S., Botorelo, C.M., 2019 [48]; Klein, L., Dodds, R., 2018 [55]; Pencarelli, T., Splendiani, S., Fraboni, C., 2016 [58]; Capacci, S., Scorcu, A.E., Vici, L., 2015 [59]). However, only six articles in their research connect ecolabels and environmental management (Fraguell, R.M., Marti, C., Pinto, J., Coenders, G., 2016 [43]; Park, E., Boo, S., 2010 [44]; Merino, F., Prats, M.A., 2020 [47]; Duglio, S., Beltramo, R.,2016 [51]; Klein, L., Dodds, R., 2018 [55]; Arenado Rodriguez, R., Garcia Lopez, A., Jimenez Caballero, J.L., 2017 [56]). These results imply that scholars still to a great extent do not recognize ecolabels as a tool that can induce STD at the level of tourist destinations.

2.2. Ecolabels as Innovations in Tourism

In the last step of the bibliometric analysis, a search of scientific papers in the WoS database and Scopus focused on the implementation of innovation in tourism was conducted. In this research step, the keywords “innovation* AND tourism*” were used. The bibliometric analysis showed that for the period from 1950 until the end of 2020 there was 5898 published scientific paper in the field of innovation and tourism. The first scientific paper in this field was published in 1969. Analysis showed that in this field since 1988 more than 10 papers were published annually. In the period after 2005, more than 100 papers were published annually. The year that had the most published papers focusing on innovation and tourism was 2020—679 altogether. The journal that published the most papers was Sustainability—195 of them. The International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management published 152 papers; in the International Journal of Hospitality Management 143 were published and the journal Tourism Management published 135 scientific papers.
Then, in the bibliometric analysis, keywords “innovation* AND tourist destination*” were used. The research showed that 940 papers were published in the WoS database and Scopus. The first paper was published in 1998 and since 2008 more than 10 papers have been published annually in this field. The year that saw the largest number of papers published in this field was 2019—150 of them. The journal that published the most papers was Sustainability, 57 of them, followed by Tourism Management, 37, Current Issues in Tourism, 33, and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31.
In the end, in this final step of bibliometric analysis, in the WoS Core Collection database and Scopus search the keywords “innovation* ecolabel* AND tourism*” were used. Analysis showed that only two scientific papers were published which covered the fields innovation, ecolabels, and tourism (Table 2).
However, only a few published scientific papers in their focus of research address innovation, ecolabels, and tourism. The paper published by Baird, T., Hall, C.M., and Castka, P. (2018) in the journal Sustainability explored the sustainable production of wine through the implementation of new technologies and innovations and raised some sustainability issues in the process of developing rural tourism [64]. In the paper published in the Journal of Evolutionary Economics, authors Blanco, E. and Lozano, J. (2015) focused their research on businesses that decide on their environmental strategy and the paper emphasized that in this process the application of ecolabels plays an important role [65].
The search showed that there was only one published report in the field “innovation* ecolabel* AND tourist destination*”. In 2018, the European Commission and European Parliament released a report that emphasizes that there are a large number of certificates and ecolabels in the European tourism market; the report analyses the possibility of introducing a single EU certification system and introducing only one European tourism label which then should improve tourist offers at the level of a tourist destination [66].
The number of published articles that cover the implementation of innovation, ecolabels, and tourism is extremely small considering the number of published papers in the fields of innovation and tourism. Moreover, the number of published scientific papers covering the fields of ecolabels and innovations in tourism is certainly too small given the fact that the application of ecolabels in tourism practice is becoming increasingly important. The use of ecolabels in tourism is equally important for tourists who are increasingly deciding on their travel destination based on the implementation of ecolabels. However, it is also important on the side of the tourist offer to implement the ecolabels to improve their business as much as possible. The tourist offers, by applying ecolabels, in practice encourage the application of innovations and thus make the organization’s business sustainable in the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural direction. Therefore, scholars should focus their research more on the application of ecolabels and innovations in tourism and on that way to help tourism groups implement them as quickly and easily as possible.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area

For case analysis of the use of ecolabels at the level of tourist destinations, the Republic of Croatia was chosen. Croatia is a middle-size southern European country. Tourism significantly contributes to the GDP of Croatia and is one of the strategic determinants of the economic development of the country [32,67]. In the last 60 years, tourist demand in Croatia increased from 3.68 million total tourist overnights in 1954 to 92.2 million in 2019 [68]. That year—2019—was the last year before the COVID-19 pandemic crisis that caused a decline in the tourism sector in Croatia and worldwide. Thus, according to the Croatian National Bank, EUR 8.6 billion in revenue from foreign tourism was generated in Croatia in 2019, bringing tourism to a share of 19 per cent of Croatia’s GDP [69]. At the same time, almost 90% of tourist overnights take place in only four summer months and almost as much tourist movement takes place in the coastal tourist region, which makes up about 30% of Croatia’s territory [70,71]. This type of tourism is so-called mass tourism and in some tourist destinations, “over-tourism” [72]. This form of tourism could often have negative impacts on the environment. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly clear that the attractiveness of a tourist destination directly depends on the preservation of the environment and it is necessary to integrate the principles of sustainable tourism development into tourist destination development plans [67]. The application of ecolabels at the level of destinations, considering better environmental management, could also contribute to a better organization of tourism and minimize the negative effects of tourism in a tourist destination.

3.2. Research Methodology

The second part of the research gives results obtained from a survey among destination management organizations (DMOs) in Croatia. The survey was conducted to determine the attitudes of DMOs towards the application of ecolabel certificates in their tourist destination. The first survey was conducted from 11.4.2017 until 5.5.2017 and the second survey was conducted in the period from 20.3.2021 to 31.3.2021. Both surveys were conducted among local DMOs in cities and municipalities in Croatia anonymously online via the Google format form.
In the period from 2017 until 2021, the number of local DMOs did not change. However, in a 2017 study, 120 of the total local DMOs were selected by random sampling. Since we obtained interesting results from that first study, it was repeated in 2021 for all local DMOs in Croatia. In 2017, 22.5 per cent of DMOs responded to the survey, while in 2021 the survey questionnaire was sent to 259 local DMOs and 21.6 per cent of them responded to it. In Croatia, local DMOs are at the level of tourist destinations including cities and municipalities [21]. The surveys conducted in 2017 and 2021 show that an almost equal share of DMOs in Croatia responded to the survey. This indicates that small numbers of DMOs in Croatia consider this topic important, regardless of whether they use ecolabels in their destination or not. The demographic characteristics of the respondents did not change much in the observed period because persons employed by DMOs in Croatia by law can remain in that position for a longer period [21].
Linear research was conducted to determine changes in the attitudes of DMOs towards the application of ecolabels and could provide insight into the change in attitudes of the target group within 4 years [73]. Thus, both questionnaires had the same 10 questions related to the attitude of the DMO towards the application of ecolabels in their tourist destination. The questionnaire was structured in two parts. In the first part, there were questions related to whether DMOs are currently using or planning to use ecolabels in the future. Respondents were able to mark one of the answers offered to these questions. In that part, there was also the question of how DMOs promote ecolabels, if they use them. On that question, respondents could mark multiple responses. At the end of the first part of the questionnaire, there was a question related to what could motivate their DMO to introduce environmental certificates in their destination. On that question a five-point Likert-type scale was used (from “1 = not affect at all” to “5 = affect a lot”) to investigate attitudes of DMOs related to each statement and they had the opportunity to mark multiple reasons as important. The second part contained questions related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the representatives who filled out the questionnaire on behalf of the DMO. The survey of 2021 had only one additional question and referred to the intention to use ecolabels at the level of tourist destinations in the post-COVID-19 pandemic phase. This form of linear research is increasingly used in tourism and mostly is used to determine changes in the attitudes of tourists in the observed period [73,74,75,76]. Based on those studies, and due to the numerous positive characteristics, which offer longitudinal research in this case, it was used to determine whether there are changes in the attitudes of DMOs in the application of ecolabels at the level of a tourist destination [77].

4. Results

4.1. Usage of Ecolabels in Tourist Destinations in Croatia

In the analysis of the obtained data, the method of analysis via Windows Excel was used. The research showed that the number of DMOs in Croatia using ecolabels in their business decreased by 7.4 per cent in 2021 compared to 2017 (Table 3). As the main reason for not introducing ecolabels, DMOs in 2021 pointed out the complicated process of obtaining ecolabels in 40.5 per cent of cases and the high cost of obtaining ecolabels in 32.7 per cent of cases. However, in the 2017 survey, 37.8 per cent of respondents who did not use ecolabels at the time when the research was conducted planned to introduce them in the future, while in the survey in 2021, 50 per cent of DMOs planned to do that as well (Table 4). Nevertheless, DMOs stated that in the future they plan to use ecolabels in the development of their tourist destinations, although the survey in 2021 was conducted at the beginning of the year, at a time when most international tourist travels were completely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a large number of ecolabels are awarded only for one year, with a fee being paid each year. It is, therefore, possible that DMOs have given up on getting ecolabels for 2020 due to an almost complete discontinuation of tourist travel in the international tourism market that year.
Furthermore, this survey showed that DMOs in Croatia have not significantly changed their attitude towards the use of ecolabels in practice in the last four years, though the latest trends in the tourism market show that the number of ecolabels in tourism practice around the world recently increased significantly, and that SD of destinations visited by tourists is increasingly important in their travel decision-making process as well [10,78]. Those trends have also been followed by an increasing number of published scientific articles by scholars in this field of research (Table 1).
Surveys conducted in 2017 and 2021 show that the structure of ecolabels used by tourist destinations in Croatia has not changed significantly. The research showed that those DMOs that used ecolabels in 2017 did in 93% of cases in 2021 as well. The ISO 14,001 environmental management system is not used by any destination. The most represented ecolabel is Blue Flag, although the share of its use decreased by 16 per cent in 2021 compared to 2017. Almost a third of destinations use the EDEN ecolabel, and other ecolabels such as Green Destinations, Superbrands, and NATURA 2000 are used by almost a third of respondents, which are broadly targeted ecolabels and thus more recognizable to tourists.

4.2. Reasons for Using Tourist Ecolabels in Destinations by Croatian DMOs

One of the goals of the conducted survey in 2021 was to find out what could encourage DMOs to use ecolabels in the future. For that purpose, the question was asked, “what can be the main reasons to encourage DMOs to greater implementation of ecolabels in the future?” Here, a five-point Likert-type scale was used and DMOs had the opportunity to mark multiple reasons as important.
Local DMOs in Croatia indicate, as the main reason, the possibility of “destination image improvement”, in 68 per cent of cases, and another 25 per cent of DMOs consider that as the reason that will moderate effects on their decisions in the future (Figure 2). Therefore, 93 per cent of DMOs consider the image of their destination as the most important reason which will encourage them in the implementation of ecolabels in their destination. The image of the tourist destination is created as a consequence of tourists’ experiences, expectations, and personal beliefs concerning the destination that they visit [79,80]. In 67 per cent of cases, DMOs singled out “better destination promotion” as a factor that will significantly affect their decision and 23 per cent as a factor that will have a moderate effect on the implementation of ecolabels in their destination.
Surveys in 2017 and 2021 did not show a significant change in the way ecolabels are promoted at the tourist destination level in Croatia (Figure 3). Promotion of ecolabels still puts emphasis on the official DMO website, where a 2017 survey showed how DMOs used it in 100 per cent of cases and it decreased to 91 per cent in 2021. Promotion through social media slightly increases from 73 per cent in 2017 up to 81 per cent in 2021. In 72 per cent in 2017 and 71 per cent of cases, DMOs used brochures, posters, and promotional flyers as a tool for promotion ecolabels that are applied to their destination. Those kinds of promotional methods are aimed at tourists who are already in the destination, and they cannot serve to attract them. However, those ways of promotion are quite practical because they appeal to tourists who are already in a tourist destination.

4.3. The Intention of the Croatian DMOs to Use the Tourist Labels in the Future

The last question for DMOs in 2021 considered the expected use of ecolabels in the post-COVID-19 phase, “Do you think that after the COVID crisis in the tourism market it will be important to use eco-labels/certificates for tourists to come to a tourist destination?” More than 53 per cent of the surveyed DMOs in Croatia believed that after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic the usage of ecolabels is going to be important to significantly attract tourists to the destination. A total of 43 per cent of them were not sure whether ecolabels are going to be important or not in the post-COVID-19 pandemic phase. As some of the main reasons, DMOs pointed out that “ecolabels or certificates in some way guarantee a safe stay and care for the health and the environment”, “the time we live and the time ahead will significantly influence the thinking of tourists when deciding which destination to travel to”, “tourists will look more for destinations that are not only safe but also environmentally friendly”, “guests will strive for destinations that care about their environment, which offer alternative modes of transport, domestic products, raise the quality of service. Ecolabels/certificates are certainly one of the ways that will provide information to the guest.” Although the number of DMOs in Croatia who are using ecolabels did not significantly increase in 2021 compared to 2017 (Table 2), research has shown that DMOs recognize that a future certification will be an important factor for tourists in choosing a destination. However, DMOs still do not see opportunities to implement ecolabels as a management tool.

5. Discussion and Implications

5.1. Implications for DMOs

The tourism SD implies more efficient management of all resources in tourism and at the same time harmonization of the needs of all stakeholders in tourism [81]. However, planning tourism development is not easy because each tourist destination is specific in its natural and social characteristics, so it is not possible simply to apply the planning process of one tourist destination to another one [29]. Moreover, tourism development planning in the destination is a complex process since a large number of stakeholders participate in the development at the level of the tourist destination. A stakeholder is considered as an individual or group that has an interest or ability to influence a processor that can positively or negatively affect or is affected by the operation [82,83]. In tourism, the stakeholders on the demand side are tourists, while on the service provider side they are those who are directly or indirectly involved in the public sector, local government, entrepreneurs in tourism (transport, catering, travel, retail, food producers, food industry, construction), and all other related sectors such as NGOs, cultural organizations, local population, etc. [35,82,84,85,86,87,88]. Cooperation between all stakeholders in tourism is important to maximize the positive effects of tourism and minimize the negative ones, thus ensuring sustainable destination development [89,90]. Regardless of whether they participate directly or indirectly in tourism development, each stakeholder has an important role in the development of tourism and should take their part of the responsibility for their action [91]. Moreover, they should work in the direction of the common interest of SD of the tourist destination.
Thus, their work needs to be coordinated, and in most cases in the world, this task is entrusted to DMOs [18]. DMOs should harmonize the interests of different stakeholders to achieve optimal economic effects and long-term development, respecting economic, environmental, and socio-cultural principles of sustainability.
At the same time, tourists are more and more specific in their requirements [92,93,94]. About 66% of consumers want to have a positive impact on the environment during their daily activities [95]. Moreover, tourists behave in an increasingly responsible way during their travels and support efforts that bring about positive changes in the environment [93]. Thus, 87% of tourists in 2018 stated that they want their tourist travels to contribute to sustainability [96]. The ecolabelling focuses on identifying practices that promote sustainability in their business and that can help create an image of sustainability that will attract the category of tourists who care about it [46,97]. Those destinations that are developing on the principles of sustainability can expect tourists from Europe to respond positively to these changes [92]. Therefore, DMOs should develop the ability to adapt quickly to changes in the tourism market [19]. In addition, the experience of individual destinations has shown that the proper application of ecolabels can become a good tool for achieving SD [98]. To be successful, DMOs should develop their strategies by integrating activities of implementing new technologies and innovative practices by following trends in the tourist market [19]. The application of innovations in business has multiple benefits. Besides having many positive impacts on tourism businesses, it also can have some positive consequences for the environment and the local community [99]. Ecolabels are not new in themselves because they have been present in the tourism market for the last 35 years. However, the idea that ecolabels, in addition to indicating the ecological preservation of the tourist destination, can also encourage numerous innovations at the destination level is a new way of considering the use of ecolabels. In addition, ecolabels can be a good tool that will make the application of innovations visible to tourists at the destination level and could improve the image of the tourist destination as well [100]. Properly targeted promotion can attract more tourists for whom their trip must encourage STD in the destination. In addition, there are growing expectations that their behavior during their travel to the destination can help contribute to the SD of tourist destinations [92,101]. The satisfaction of tourist needs is considered one of the most important factors (variables) in achieving a successful STD [9,102]. Thus, tourists whose travels are motivated by ecological sustainability will, if their expectations are met, more often show their loyalty to these tourist destinations [10,24]. Therefore, DMOs should choose the method of promotion very carefully and in a targeted manner [100]. In the future, DMOs could provide visibility of ecolabels through QR codes, which would represent an innovative improvement of the tourist offer of destinations according to the model that is already successfully applied in some smart cities in the world. The OECD defines smart cities as “initiatives or approaches that effectively leverage digitalization to boost citizen well-being and deliver more efficient, sustainable and inclusive urban services and environments as part of a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process” [103]. Smart cities can offer an opportunity to develop space on the principles of sustainability, and to enable this it is necessary to develop strategies that will simultaneously encourage the application of innovation and the involvement of various stakeholders in the process [104]. The development of smart cities can encourage more efficient sharing of information, and digital innovations and also could encourage and improve the circular economy, the organization of traffic, and energy delivery; generally, it can provide better organization of life and better communication between public and private stakeholders [100]. However, Croatia is a country with a small population, so there are not many large cities and there are no cities that are in the global ranking of smart cities [68,105]. Even so, the size of settlements should not be an obstacle for smaller ones to take some innovative solutions offered by smart cities. Thus, in Croatia, about 40 cities from 128 use some of the solutions that are applied in smart cities [106,107]. The city of Šibenik is one of the good examples in Croatia of a city that uses QR codes for tourist purposes to provide tourists with easier access to information [108]. Such innovative solutions can be applied regardless of the size of the tourist destination and whether DMOs want to get closer to tourists’ ecolabels for a tourist attraction or an entire tourist destination. In this way, the application of innovations in tourism could improve the tourist offer and the business of tourism stakeholders, and also provide better living conditions for the local population.

5.2. Framework for Implementation Ecolabels at the Level of Tourist Destination

After the COVID-19 crisis, in addition to health security, certification and accreditation programs will play an important role in the development of the tourism sector [103]. The application of certificates and ecolabels could encourage and accelerate the application of innovations in tourism businesses in their efforts to achieve long-term SD. This process should be supported by international organizations and state and local governments. At the international level, UNWTO emphasizes that sustainable tourism development is possible to reach if all relevant stakeholders are properly informed but that should be followed by “strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building” [109]. However, to provide these conditions and make this possible, at the state level conditions need to be created.
In the case of the Republic of Croatia, the government of 2019 brought in a new law that authorizes DMOs to design and implement sustainable development at the destination level. However, this law concerning the tourism practices of DMOs did not come to life in practice, although tasks and goals are clearly defined. Therefore, the government should make additional efforts. As a first step, it should adopt the strategy of tourism development because the last one expired in 2020. The new strategy for the sustainable development of tourism in Croatia is in the process of adoption and it should be accepted and published by the end of 2022 for a period of 7 years. In this new strategy, DMOs should have clear guidelines for their actions. At the same time, the state government should implement and encourage the education of staff in DMOs so that they can implement these guidelines. In addition, in Croatia, the government should consolidate DMOs because the current system in which there are so many DMOs in a small area limits and disables their action.
By adopting the development strategy of tourism, the government should also encourage the implementation of innovations in the whole tourism sector and not only in the hospitality sector. Unlike tourist destinations, hotels are a leader in the application of innovations in the tourism sector because there are positive effects of ecolabels through the application of innovations in waste, water, and energy management [13,15]. Benefits from the implementation of innovations in the whole tourism sector at the tourist destination level would not only bring positive effects for the tourism industry, but also for the local community. Ecolabels could become one such instrument. Through the implementation of innovations at the destination level, they would increase the living standards of the local population by (i) creating new jobs, (ii) preserving the environment (by implementing new technologies for waste, water, and energy management), (iii) building new infrastructure (sewage infrastructure, water supply, windmills, etc.).

6. Conclusions

Changes in the international tourism market often happen unpredictably, which is confirmed by recent unpredicted cases, such as the economic crisis of 2009 and also the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. Such situations indicate the need that tourist destinations in some way should be prepared in advance for unpredicted disturbances in the tourist market. That means that tourist destinations should plan their development in a way that is going to make them prepared for the changes in the international tourism market that follow in the future. In this process, DMOs should play a crucial role. DMOs should carefully plan tourism development in destinations to create a basis for long-term STD.
The Croatian economy is highly dependent on the tourism industry. Therefore, it is extremely important to develop awareness among all stakeholders about the importance of STDs. Hence, it would be good to educate all stakeholders about the benefits of implementing ecolabels in their business which could be a significant tool not only in achieving sustainable business but also in that way to reach sustainable development at the destination level.
The research of scientific articles conducted in this paper shows that the ecolabels for tourist destinations are poorly researched by scholars and even weaker is the research concerning their role as an innovative tool for improving the quality of tourist offers in tourist destinations. Thus, this research confirmed H1. The survey conducted among DMOs in the Republic of Croatia in this paper shows how DMOs in Croatia are still not fully aware of the opportunities that the application of ecolabels at the destination level could provide. The positive promotion of their destination DMOs is seen as the biggest benefit of the implementation of ecolabels. However, most DMOs in Croatia recognize the need to implement ecolabels, which confirmed H2. Thus, it would be good that DMOs not implement ecolabels solely to achieve a positive image of their tourist destination and also that they recognize them as an opportunity to apply eco-friendly and green strategies at the destination level. DMOs do not recognize ecolabels as an innovation tool for sustainable development at the destination level, which confirmed H3.
The main goal of implementing ecolabels on the level of tourist destination should be the achievement of STD. That would imply the implementation of modern technological solutions and various innovations in destination management (such as better energy, water, and waste management, QR codes, etc.). By applying innovations in destination management, the negative impacts of mass tourism could be minimized or eliminated, and at the same time could significantly raise the quality of tourist offers at the tourist destination level.
This study presents a review of academic literature in the field of ecolabels and innovations in tourism. The paper provides new theoretical insights into the application of ecolabels at the level of a tourist destination. It could be a good start for scholars and practitioners and help to stimulate further interest. Moreover, the following results are given by this research: (i) it could provide a basis for the DMOs to start to think in a different way about the application of ecolabels at the level of a tourist destination; (ii) and it could encourage DMOs to re-evaluate their development plans in which they include ecolabels as an innovative development sustainable tool.
The survey conducted in 2017 did not include all local DMOs from Croatia. The longitudinal research was conducted in the first half of 2021 during the new circumstances caused by the pandemic crisis that started in 2020 when the international tourism market was still uncertain when tourist travel would begin to normalize. In addition, a large number of ecolabels for the destination level are allocated for one year; it would be good to research whether DMO attitudes change after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should be expanded to include more questions to gain better insight into the attitudes of DMOs. At the same time, a more detailed statistical analysis should be performed to obtain a correlation between individual responses. Moreover, the research was conducted among local DMOs in Croatia; therefore, it would be good to explore the point of view of other southern European Mediterranean tourist countries which are developing a similar tourism product based on “3S” tourism. Such research could provide the opportunity to compare the ways in which DMOs working in cities and municipalities operate in different countries. At the same time, such research could provide an insight into how effective the applications of ecolabels really are at the level of tourist destinations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.B.; methodology, K.B. and Z.H.; software, I.K.; validation, K.B., Z.H. and I.K.; formal analysis, K.B.; investigation, K.B., Z.H. and I.K.; resources, K.B. and I.K.; data curation, Z.H.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B. and I.K.; writing—review and editing, K.B. and Z.H.; visualization, K.B.; supervision, Z.H.; project administration, I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that the research was conducted anonymously.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (English Version). Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/abs/10.18111/wtobarometereng?publicationCode=wtobarometereng (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  2. Ritchie, B.W. Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 669–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Tourism Organization and World Tourism Organization. Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals—Journey to 2030: Highlights. 2017. Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419340 (accessed on 5 January 2022).
  4. Inskeep, E. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  5. European Commission (Eurostat). Sustainable Development in the European Union: 2015 Monitoring Report of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 2015 Edition; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2015; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/999711 (accessed on 14 December 2021).
  6. UN. Sustainable Tourism: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabletourism (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  7. Cambridge Dictionary. Innovation. 2021. Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/innovation (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  8. UNWTO. What is Innovation? 2021. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/what-is-tourism-innovation (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  9. Lin, M.; Li, F.-Y.; Ji, Z. How to Innovate the Service Design of Leisure Farms: The Innovation of Sustainable Business Models. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bučar, K.; Van Rheenen, D.; Hendija, Z. Ecolabelling in tourism: The disconnect between theory and practice. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2019, 67, 365–374. [Google Scholar]
  11. Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mihalič, T. Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pascual-Fernández, P.; Santos-Vijande, M.L.; López-Sánchez, J.Á.; Molina, A. Key drivers of innovation capability in hotels: Implications on performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. United Nations Environment Programme; Industry and Environment Centre; World Tourism Organization; Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe. Awards for Improving the Coastal Environment: The Example of the Blue Flag; WTO Stationery Office: Madrid, Spain, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  15. Facts and Figures—Ecolabel—EUROPA. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/facts-and-figures.html (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  16. Bohdanowicz, P.; Lic, T.; Simanic, B.; Martinac, I. Sustainable Hotels—Eco-Certification According to Eu Flower, Nordic Swan and the Polish Hotel Association. In Proceedings of the Regional Central and Eastern European Conference on Sustainable Building (SB04), Warszawa, Poland, 27–29 October 2004; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
  17. UNWTO. A Practical Guide to Tourism Destination Management. Default Book Series. 2019. Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284412433 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  18. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). UNWTO Guidelines for Institutional Strengthening of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs)—Preparing DMOs for New Challenges; World Tourism Organization (UNWTO): Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Foris, D.; Florescu, A.; Foris, T.; Barabas, S. Improving the Management of Tourist Destinations: A New Approach to Strategic Management at the DMO Level by Integrating Lean Techniques. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borzyszkowski, J. Destination management organizations (DMOs) and crisis management. J. Tour. Serv. 2013, 4, 6–17. [Google Scholar]
  21. NN. Zakon o Turističkim Zajednicama i Promicanju Hrvatskog Turizma. 2019. Available online: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/full/2019_05_52_990.html (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  22. Steck, B. Practical Guide for Local Planners, Developers and Decision Makers. In Sustainable Tourism as a Development Option; GTZ: Bonn, Germany, 1999; Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SPE-Tou-062.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2021).
  23. WTO. Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry (English Version); World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 1997; Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/abs/10.18111/9789284403714 (accessed on 15 October 2021).
  24. Pianroj, N. Perceived customer loyalty toward green hotels. AU J. Manag. 2012, 10, 2. Available online: https://aujm.au.edu/index.php/aujm/article/view/51 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  25. Renko, S.; Renko, N.; Polonijo, T. Understanding the Role of Food in Rural Tourism Development in a Recovering Economy. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2010, 16, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Škrinjarić, T. Evaluation of environmentally conscious tourism industry: Case of Croatian counties. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2018, 66, 254–268. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pimonenko, T.; Bilan, Y.; Horák, J.; Starchenko, L.; Gajda, W. Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Dodds, M.; Heisey, K.; Ahonen, A. Promoting Responsible Sustainability in Sport Tourism: A logic model approach. In Routledge Handbook of International Sport Business; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. UNWTO. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yusof, N.; Rahman, S.; Iranmanesh, M. The environmental practice of resorts and tourist loyalty: The role of environmental knowledge, concern, and behaviour. Anatolia 2016, 27, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mazilu, M. Green tourism in the age of green economy. Int. J. Econ. Stat. 2013, 1, 8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Qiu, P.; Zhou, Z.; Kim, D.-J. A New Path of Sustainable Development in Traditional Agricultural Areas from the Perspective of Open Innovation—A Coupling and Coordination Study on the Agricultural Industry and the Tourism Industry. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dziuba, R. Sustainable Development of Tourism—EU Ecolabel Standards Illustrated Using the Example of Poland. CER 2016, 19, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Sloan, P.; Legrand, W.; Chen, J.S. Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry. Principles of Sustainable Operations, 2nd ed; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Sustainability-in-the-Hospitality-Industry-2nd-Ed-Principles-of-Sustainable/Legrand-Sloan-Chen/p/book/9780415531245 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  35. WTO, World Tourism Organization. Contributions of the World Tourism Organization to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. 2002. Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/action/showBook?doi=10.18111/9789284410910 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  36. Cambridge Dictionary. Eco-Label. 2021. Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/eco-label (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  37. Hays, D.; Ozretic-Došen, Đ. Greening hotels—Building green values into hotel services. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 20, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. UNEP; E.P.A. Centre; W.T.O. Awards for Improving the Coastal Environment. 1996. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/241910 (accessed on 22 October 2021).
  39. UNEP. The Trade and Environmental Effects of Ecolabels: Assessment and Response. 2005. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/8313 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  40. Totem Tourism. Tourism and Greenwash Report. 2013. Available online: http://www.totemtourism.com/store/p9/Tourism_and_Greenwash_Report.html (accessed on 23 October 2021).
  41. Lesar, L.; Weaver, D.; Gardiner, S. Beyond certification: An empirically expanded quality control tool ‘multiverse’ for sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1625–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cerqua, A. The signalling effect of eco-labels in modern coastal tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 25, 1159–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Fraguell, R.M.; Martí, C.; Pintó, J.; Coenders, G. After over 25 years of accrediting beaches, has Blue Flag contributed to sustainable management? J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 24, 882–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boo, S.; Park, E. An examination of green intention: The effect of environmental knowledge and educational experiences on meeting planners’ implementation of green meeting practices. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1129–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fairweather, J.R.; Maslin, C.; Simmons, D.G. Environmental Values and Response to Ecolabels Among International Visitors to New Zealand. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 82–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kozak, M.; Nield, K. The Role of Quality and Eco-Labelling Systems in Destination Benchmarking. J. Sustain. Tour. 2004, 12, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Merino, F.; Prats, M.A. Sustainable beach management and promotion of the local tourist industry: Can blue flags be a good driver of this balance? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 198, 105359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zielinski, S.; Botero, C.M. Myths, misconceptions and the true value of Blue Flag. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 174, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De-Miguel-Molina, B.; De-Miguel-Molina, M.; Rumiche, M. Luxury sustainable tourism in Small Island Developing States surrounded by coral reefs. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 98, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grapentin, S.; Ayikoru, M. Destination Assessment and Certification: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Duglio, S.; Beltramo, R. Environmental Management and Sustainable Labels in the Ski Industry: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2016, 8, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Lai, P.-H.; Shafer, S. Marketing Ecotourism through the Internet: An Evaluation of Selected Ecolodges in Latin America and the Caribbean. J. Ecotourism 2005, 4, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wearing, S.; Cynn, S.; Ponting, J.; McDonald, M. Converting Environmental Concern into Ecotourism Purchases: A Qualitative Evaluation of International Backpackers in Australia. J. Ecotourism 2002, 1, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lesar, L.; Weaver, D.; Gardiner, S. From Spectrum to Multiverse: A New Perspective on the Diversity of Quality Control Tools for Sustainable Tourism Theory and Practice. J. Travel Res. 2019, 59, 424–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Klein, L.; Dodds, R. Blue Flag beach certification: An environmental management tool or tourism promotional tool? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2017, 43, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rodríguez, R.A.; López, A.G.; Caballero, J.L.J. Has implementing an ecolabel increased sustainable tourism in Barcelona? Cuad. de Turismo 2017, 40, 93–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Slabbert, L.; Du Preez, E.A. Trail Accreditation as a Mechanism to Enhance Hikers’ Confidence During Decision-Making. Tour. Rev. Int. 2017, 21, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Pencarelli, T.; Splendiani, S.; Fraboni, C. Enhancement of the “Blue Flag” Eco-label in Italy: An empirical analysis. Anatolia 2015, 27, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Capacci, S.; Scorcu, A.E.; Vici, L. Seaside tourism and eco-labels: The economic impact of Blue Flags. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ottenbacher, M.C.; Schwebler, S.; Metzler, D.; Harrington, R.J. Sustainability Criteria for Tourism Attractions: A Case Study of Germany. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. (IJSESD) 2015, 6, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Puhakka, R. Environmental Concern and Responsibility among Nature Tourists in Oulanka PAN Park, Finland. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 11, 76–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Puhakka, R. Nature tourists’ concern for the environment and response to ecolabels in Oulanka National Park. Nord. Geogr. Publ. 2010, 39, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
  63. Buckley, R. Tourism ecolabels. Ann. Tour. Res. 2001, 29, 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Baird, T.; Hall, C.M.; Castka, P. New Zealand Winegrowers Attitudes and Behaviours towards Wine Tourism and Sustainable Winegrowing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Blanco, E.; Lozano, J. Ecolabels, uncertified abatement, and the sustainability of natural resources: An evolutionary approach. J. Evol. Econ. 2015, 25, 623–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weston, R.; Grebenar, A.; Hamele, H.; Sillence, G.; Balas, M.; Denman, R.; Pezzano, A.; Reiner, K. Research for TRAN Committee—European Tourism Labelling; European Parliament and European Commission: Strasbourg, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Katić, I. Application of International Ecolabels in the Sustainable Development of Croatian Tourism (Primjena Međunarodnih Ekoloških Oznaka u Održivom Razvoju Turizma Hrvatske). Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2019. Available online: https://katalog.efzg.hr/pagesResults/bibliografskiZapis.aspx?&currentPage=1&searchById=40&sort=0&age=0&spid0=40&spv0=338.48%3a502.17(497.5%3a4-67EU)(043.2)&mdid0=0&vzid0=0&xm0=1&selectedId=22005748 (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  68. Croatian Bureau of Statistics—Republic of Croatia. Available online: https://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  69. Ministry of Tourism and Sport of the Republic of Croatia. Register of Tourist Boards at Ministry of Tourism and Sport of the Republic of Croatia. 2021. Available online: https://mint.gov.hr/documents-11456/11456 (accessed on 27 January 2021).
  70. Bilen, M.; Bučar, K. Osnove Turističke Geografije; Mikrorad: Zagreb, Croatia, 2004; Available online: https://www.bib.irb.hr/981137 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  71. Hendija, Z.; Kesar, O.; Bučar, K. Osnovni Podaci o Turizmu u Svijetu i Hrvatskoj u 2018. Godini, Godište 5, Broj 2; Ekonomski Fakultet: Zagreb, Croatia, 2020; Available online: https://www.bib.irb.hr/1067305 (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  72. Vagena, A. Overtourism: Definition and Impact. Acad. Lett. 2021, 2, 1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Marušić, M.; Prebežac, D.; Mikulić, J. Istraživanje Turističkih Tržišta; University of Zagreb: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  74. Čorak, S.; Boranić Živoder, S.; Marušić, Z. Opportunities for tourism recovery and development during and after COVID-19: Views of tourism scholars versus tourism practitioners. Tourism 2020, 68, 434–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marušić, Z.; Sever, I.; Čorak, S. Identifying Trends in Tourism Demand Using Longitudinal Survey. In Evolution of Destination Planning and Strategy: The Rise of Tourism in Croatia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ritchie, B.W.; Burns, P.M.; Palmer, C.A. Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  77. Caruana, E.; Roman, M.; Hernández-Sánchez, J.; Solli, P. Longitudinal studies. J. Thorac. Dis. 2015, 7, E537–E540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. UNWTO. International Tourism Highlights, 2020 Edition; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2021; Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284422456 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  79. Kotler, P.; Gartner, D. Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. J. Brand Manag. 2002, 9, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. George, R. Marketing Tourism in South Africa, 6th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bučar, K. Green Orientation in Tourism of Western Balkan Countries. In Green Economy in the Western Balkans: Towards a Sustainable Future; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  82. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  83. Savage, G.T.; Nix, T.W.; Whitehead, C.J.; Blair, J.D. Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1991, 5, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Čavlek, N.; Bartoluci, M.; Prebežac, D.; Kesar, O. Turizam—Ekonomske osnove i organizacijski sustav. Rev. Univ. Coursebook 2011, 23, 233–236. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hartman, S.; Parra, C.; de Roo, G. Framing strategic storytelling in the context of transition management to stimulate tourism destination development. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Petrić, L. Upravljanje Turističkom Destinacijom: Načela i Praksa; Udžbenici Sveučilišta u Splitu = Manualia Universitatis studiorum Spalatensis: Split, Croatia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  87. Rudan, E. Uloga lokalnog stanovništva u razvoju turizma destinacije. Tranzicija 2012, 14, 58–67. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/86070 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
  88. Swarbrooke, J. Sustainable tourism management. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2001, 3, 87–90. [Google Scholar]
  89. McComb, E.J.; Boyd, S.; Boluk, K. Stakeholder collaboration: A means to the success of rural tourism destinations? A critical evaluation of the existence of stakeholder collaboration within the Mournes, Northern Ireland. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2017, 17, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. WWF. Towards Sustainable Tourism Investment. 2009. Available online: https://assets.panda.org/downloads/towards_sustainable_tourism_investment.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  91. Paskova, M.; Zelenka, J. How crucial is the social responsibility for tourism sustainability? Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 534–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Center for Responsible Travel. The Case for Responsible Travel: Trends and Statistics. Available online: https://www.responsibletravel.org/trends-and-statistics (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  93. King-Chan, M.S.E.; Capistrano, R.C.G.; Lopez, E.L.F. Tourists really do behave responsibly toward the environment in Camiguin Province, Philippines. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 573–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. UNWTO. Sustainable Development. 2021. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  95. Euromonitor International. Top Countries for Sustainable Tourism: Embracing a Green Transformation for Travel Recovery. 2021. Available online: https://go.euromonitor.com/white-paper_Travel-and-Tourism-21-03-12_Top-Countries-for-Sustainable-Tourism.html (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  96. Statista. Factors for Eco-Friendly Travel 2018. 2019. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/948736/factors-for-eco-friendly-travel/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).
  97. Chen, C.L. From catching to watching: Moving towards quality assurance of whale/dolphin watching tourism in Taiwan. Mar. Policy 2011, 35, 10–17. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223791533_From_catching_to_watching_Moving_towards_quality_assurance_of_whaledolphin_watching_tourism_in_Taiwan (accessed on 7 November 2021). [CrossRef]
  98. Rattan, J.K. Is certification the answer to creating a more sustainable volunteer tourism sector? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015, 7, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Eppinger, E. How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Carrasco-Santos, M.J.; Ciruela-Lorenzo, A.M.; Méndez Pavón, J.G.; Cristófol Rodríguez, C. An Online Reputation Analysis of the Tourism Industry in Marbella: A Preliminary Study on Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. UNWTO. Launch of the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. 2021. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/news/2011-08-16/launch-global-sustainable-tourism-criteria (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  102. Frangos, C.C.; Karapistolis, D.; Stalidis, G.; Constantinos, F.; Sotiropoulos, I.; Manolopoulos, I. Tourist Loyalty is All about Prices, Culture and the Sun: A Multinomial Logistic Regression of Tourists Visiting Athens. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 175, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. OECD. Managing Tourism Development for Sustainable and Inclusive Recovery; OECD Tourism Papers 2021/01; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. World Bank. Croatia’s Cities: Boosting the Sustainable Urban Development Through Smart Solutions. 2019. Available online: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/849771604611597185-0080022020/original/19aSmartCities.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  105. IMD Business School. Smart City Observatory Web Page. Available online: https://www.imd.org/smart-city-observatory/home/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  106. Smart Cities and Inclusive Growth. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/OECD_Policy_Paper_Smart_Cities_and_Inclusive_Growth.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  107. The Netherlands Enterprise Agency. Background Information on Smart City Initiatives in Croatia. 2018. Available online: https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2018/07/background-information-on-smart-city-initiatives-in-croatia.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  108. Tourism4all—Sibenik Card. Available online: https://sibenikcard.com/tourism4all/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  109. Mint.hr. Pokrenuta Aktivnost Izrade Nove Strategije Razvoja Održivog Turizma do 2030. Godine. 2021. Available online: https://mint.gov.hr/vijesti/pokrenuta-aktivnost-izrade-nove-strategije-razvoja-odrzivog-turizma-do-2030-godine/22088 (accessed on 9 September 2021).
Sustainability 14 06313 g001 550
Figure 1. Progression of the number of articles analyzing ecolabels in tourism and separately ecolabels for tourist destinations published from 2001 until the end of 2020.
Figure 1. Progression of the number of articles analyzing ecolabels in tourism and separately ecolabels for tourist destinations published from 2001 until the end of 2020.
Sustainability 14 06313 g001
Sustainability 14 06313 g002 550
Figure 2. The share of the main reasons that will encourage DMOs in Croatia to greater implementation of ecolabels in the future (according to research in 2021).
Figure 2. The share of the main reasons that will encourage DMOs in Croatia to greater implementation of ecolabels in the future (according to research in 2021).
Sustainability 14 06313 g002
Sustainability 14 06313 g003 550
Figure 3. The way in which DMOs in Croatia promote and highlight ecolabels in 2017 and 2021 (%).
Figure 3. The way in which DMOs in Croatia promote and highlight ecolabels in 2017 and 2021 (%).
Sustainability 14 06313 g003
Table
Table 1. Summary of articles analyzing ecolabels for tourist destinations from 1950 until the end of 2020.
Table 1. Summary of articles analyzing ecolabels for tourist destinations from 1950 until the end of 2020.
JournalNumber of Papers, Authors and Year of PublishingTitle of Article
Journal of Sustainable Tourism1. Lesar, L., Weaver, D., Gardiner, S. (2020) [41]1. Beyond certification: an empirically
expanded quality control tool ‘multi verse’ for sustainable tourism
2. Cerqua, A. (2017) [42]2. The signalling effect of ecolabels in modern coastal tourism
3. Fraguell, R.M., Marti, C., Pinto, J., Coenders, G. (2016) [43]3. After over 25 years of accrediting beaches, has Blue Flag contributed to sustainable management?
4. Park, E., Boo, S. (2010) [44]4. An assessment of convention tourism’s potential contribution to environmentally sustainable growth
5. Fairweather, J.R., Maslin, C., Simmons, D.G. (2005) [45]5. Environmental values and response to ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand
6. Kozak, M., Nield, K. (2004) [46]6. The role of quality and ecolabelling systems in destination benchmarking
Ocean and Coastal Management1. Merino, F., Prats, M.A. (2020) [47]1. Sustainable beach management and promotion of the local tourist industry: Can Blue Flags be a good driver of this balance?
2. Zielenski, S., Botorelo, C.M., (2019) [48]2. Myths, misconceptions and the true value of Blue Flag
3. de-Miguel-Molina, B., de-Miguel-Molina, M., Rumiche-Sosa, M.E. (2014) [49]3. Luxury sustainable tourism in Small Island Developing States surrounded by coral reefs
Sustainability1. Grapentin, S., Ayikoru, M. (2019) [50]
1. Destination Assessment and Certification: Challenges and Opportunities
2. Duglio, S., Beltramo, R. (2016) [51]2. Environmental Management and Sustainable Labels in the Ski Industry: A Critical Review
Journal of Ecotourism1. Lai, P.-H., Shafer, S. (2005) [52]1. Marketing ecotourism through the internet: An evaluation of selected ecolodges in Latin America and the Caribbean
2. Wearing, S., Cynn, S., Ponting, J., McDonald, M. (2002) [53]2. Converting environmental concern into ecotourism purchases: A qualitative evaluation of international backpackers in Australia
Journal of Travel Research1. Lesar, L., Weaver, D., Gardiner, S. (2020) [54]1. From Spectrum to Multiverse: A New Perspective on the Diversity of Quality Control Tools for Sustainable Tourism Theory and Practice
Tourism1. Bučar, K., VanRheenen, D., Hendija, Z. (2019) [10]1. Ecolabelling in tourism: The disconnect between theory and practice
Tourism Recreation Research1. Klein, L., Dodds, R. (2018) [55]1. Blue Flag beach certification: an environmental management tool or tourism promotional tool?
Cuadernos de Tourismo1. Arenado, R.; López, A.G.; Caballero, J.L.; Arenado-Rodríguez, R. (2017) [56]1. Has implementation an ecolabel increased sustainable tourism in Barcelona?
Tourism Review International1. Slabbert, L., Du Preez, E.A. (2017) [57]1. Trail accreditation as a mechanism to enhance hikers’ confidence during decision-making
Anatolia1. Pencarelli, T., Splendiani, S., Fraboni, C. (2016) [58]1. Enhancement of the “Blue Flag” Eco-label in Italy: an empirical analysis
Tourism Management1. Capacci, S., Scorcu, A.E., Vici, L. (2015) [59]1. Seaside tourism and ecolabels; The economic impact of Blue Flag
Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development1. Ottenbacher, M.C., Schwebler, S., Metzler, D., Harrington, R.J. (2015) [60]1. Sustainability criteria for tourism attractions: A case study of Germany
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism1. Puhakka, R. (2011) [61]1. Environmental concern and responsibility among nature tourists in Oulanka PAN Park, Finland
Nordia Geographical Publications1. Puhakka, R. (2010) [62]1. Nature tourists’ concern for the environment and response to ecolabels in Oulanka National Park
Annals of Tourism Research1. Buckley, R. (2002) [63]1. Tourism ecolabels
Table
Table 2. Summary of published articles analyzing innovation, ecolabels, and tourism until the end of 2020.
Table 2. Summary of published articles analyzing innovation, ecolabels, and tourism until the end of 2020.
JournalAuthors and Year of PublishingTitle of Article
SustainabilityBaird, T.; Hall, C.M.; Castka, P. (2018) [64]New Zealand Winegrowers Attitudes and Behaviors towards Wine Tourism and Sustainable Winegrowing
Journal of Evolutionary EconomicsBlanco, E.; Lozano, J. (2015) [65]Ecolabels, uncertified abatement, and the sustainability of natural resources: an evolutionary approach
Table
Table 3. The share of tourist destinations in Croatia that used ecolabels in 2017 and 2021, and their intention to use ecolabels in future.
Table 3. The share of tourist destinations in Croatia that used ecolabels in 2017 and 2021, and their intention to use ecolabels in future.
Share Of Tourist Destinations
Using Ecolabels
in Current Year		Share of Tourist Destinations
Planning to Apply Ecolabels
in the Future
201740.7%37.8%
202133.3%50.0%
Table
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of respondent DMOs.
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of respondent DMOs.
YearGender in %Education in %Age in %
Male Female High School Bachelor’s Degree Mr.sc./PhD.−3031–50Over 51
201718824451193259
202117834653163262
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bučar, K.; Hendija, Z.; Katić, I. Ecolabels as a Tool of Sustainable Development in Tourist Destinations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106313

AMA Style

Bučar K, Hendija Z, Katić I. Ecolabels as a Tool of Sustainable Development in Tourist Destinations. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106313

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bučar, Kristina, Zvjezdana Hendija, and Ines Katić. 2022. "Ecolabels as a Tool of Sustainable Development in Tourist Destinations" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106313

APA Style

Bučar, K., Hendija, Z., & Katić, I. (2022). Ecolabels as a Tool of Sustainable Development in Tourist Destinations. Sustainability, 14(10), 6313. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106313

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop