Page 49 - Sustaining Accommodation SMES

5.2 Quantitative Study

unit is located (rural, urban, coastal). Of particular note was the in-
clusion of the Sustainability Orientation measure within this sec-
tion, which requested that respondents evaluate the significance of
sustainability as a guiding principle and their perceived success in
practising it, utilising a highly differentiated 0–9 interval scale.
• Section B: iso 21401 Readiness Level. This extensive section aimed to
quantify the current state of sustainable implementation. The study
commenced with the administration of binary (yes/no) questions,
the purpose of which was to ascertain the adoption of fundamen-
tal sustainable practices. These practices included the presence of
an environmental label, a sustainability strategy, and specific infras-
tructure such as waste handling systems. The core of the readiness
assessment comprised two sets of items measured on a 6-point in-
terval scale (0 – not at all implemented, to 6 – Extremely well im-
plemented):
1. The first set evaluated the implementation level of 37 specific sus-
tainability practices across the Triple Bottom Line dimensions
environmental (e.g., utilisation of efficient equipment, sustain-
able planting), economic (e.g., sustainable procurement, sup-
porting local employment), and socio-cultural (e.g., promoting
gender equality, reflecting local art in design).
2. The second set was specifically designed to assess the extent of
implementation of 17 requirements directly aligned with the iso
21401 standard. These requirements encompass issues such as
risk identification, architectural adaptation to the environment,
circular economy models, energy consumption minimisation,
and professional training for local populations.
• Section C. Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of iso 21401: This
section employed a scale ranging from 0 (Not at all pertinent) to
6 (Completely pertinent) to assess the perceived relevance of 15 bar-
riers that may prevent or complicate the adoption of iso 21401.
The items covered practical and organisational constraints such as
limited staff or time availability, high implementation and renewal
costs, insufficient knowledge of the standard’s benefits, perceptions
of excessive rigidity or bureaucratic burden related to documenta-
tion requirements, and the lack of adequate monitoring tools. The
selection and formulation of these survey items were informed by
insights emerging from the preceding qualitative interviews and the

49