Page 52 - Sustaining Accommodation SMES

5 Research Framework and Objectives

analytical logic was applied to iso 21401 adoption needs and enabling
conditions. Responses were aggregated into high importance (scores 5–
6) versus lower importance categories, and percentages were calculated
for each enabling condition. Needs were aligned with Stern’s behavioural
categories to allow direct comparison with the barrier analysis and to sup-
port a behavioural diagnosis of adoption feasibility.
Where variables were binary or dichotomised, chi-square tests of in-
dependence were applied to examine whether response distributions dif-
fered significantly across countries. These tests were used selectively and
diagnostically, supporting identification of contextual variation rather
than causal inference. Countries with insufficient response counts were
excluded from inferential testing to preserve analytical robustness. De-
grees of freedom and p-values are reported alongside descriptive statis-
tics where inferential tests are presented. No composite indices were con-
structed and no parametric modelling was employed. This reflects both
the heterogeneity of the sample and the study’s emphasis on producing
results that are directly interpretable for policy makers and practition-
ers. The analytical approach therefore complements the detailed survey
design by translating measured constructs into empirically grounded in-
sights on sustainability practices, iso 21401 readiness, barriers, and en-
abling conditions across Mediterranean accommodation contexts.
To examine the relationship between sustainability values and observ-
able sustainability related behaviour, an association analysis was con-
ducted between the importance attributed to sustainability as a guid-
ing principle of the business and three behavioural constructs capturing
sustainability engagement. The importance of sustainability as a guid-
ing principle was treated as a value-based driver, consistent with Stern’s
(2000) environmentally significant behaviour framework. Responses
were aggregated into low importance (scores 0–2) and high importance
(scores 7–9), with midpoint responses excluded to strengthen interpre-
tive contrast.
Behavioural engagement was operationalised using three constructs.
First, sustainability practice adoption was derived from binary indica-
tors capturing whether specific practices were present within the or-
ganisation. A composite adoption indicator was created by calculating
the number of practices adopted by each respondent and subsequently
dichotomised into lower versus higher adoption levels. Second, sus-
tainability practice implementation was operationalised based on the
share of practices reported at high implementation intensity (scores 5–6),

52