<%BANNER%>

Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector in the Anglophone Caribbean

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022046/00001

Material Information

Title: Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector in the Anglophone Caribbean
Physical Description: 1 online resource (202 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Best, Mechelle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: caribbean, ems, environmental, greening, hotels, tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Globally, tourism development has been blamed for the degradation of natural resources in high use tourism areas. The Caribbean, long known as the world's most tourism-dependent region, is no exception. To reduce its negative impacts on the environment, the Caribbean accommodations sector has embarked on a course of 'greening' or environmental management, an innovation which has been heavily promoted to offer a plethora of benefits to its adopters. To better understand greening in the Caribbean, this study sought to achieve four objectives: (1) to determine the extent of adoption of environmental management in the accommodations sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators, and constraints of implementing environmental management and the outcomes which result from implementation; (3) to determine whether motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which environmental management was implemented, and (4) to determine whether the level of environmental management implemented influenced the outcomes experienced by hotels. Diffusion of innovations theory was employed as the lens through which environmental management in the accommodations sector of the Anglophone Caribbean was examined. Data were collected through an online survey of 197 hotels in 19 countries. Key constructs analyzed were motives, facilitators, constraints and outcomes of environmental management. This study found that two thirds of the accommodations sector had implemented some level of environmental management. Just under half of these adopters had implemented basic environmental best practices on an ad hoc basis. The remainder had implemented environmental programs, environmental management systems, or had their properties certified against a recognized standard. It was also found that there were many similarities between hotels that had implemented environmental management and those that had not adopted the innovation at all. The motives and constraints constructs emerged as significant predictors of level of environmental management. A single motive, internal green champion was significantly associated with level of environmental management implemented. Several constraints (lack of capital, potential benefits not apparent, no access to technology, lack of know-how, lack of time, and EM is not necessary) were also significantly related to level of environmental management. Additionally, level of environmental management was positively related to the number and type of outcomes experienced by hotels. A critical finding of this study was that irrespective of the level of environmental management implemented, hotels enjoyed a range of outcomes or benefits. Foremost amongst these were the decrease in resource consumption, decrease in operating costs, and the overall improvement of property management. On the basis of these findings several recommendations were made to strengthen the greening efforts in the region. Paramount amongst these is the continuation of campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of environmental management to the industry and the need for hotels to partner with each other and industry associations to access technical expertise. An important consideration is also the facilitative role of government in developing policy, providing incentives and the much needed infrastructure for environmental management.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mechelle Best.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022046:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022046/00001

Material Information

Title: Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector in the Anglophone Caribbean
Physical Description: 1 online resource (202 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Best, Mechelle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: caribbean, ems, environmental, greening, hotels, tourism
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Globally, tourism development has been blamed for the degradation of natural resources in high use tourism areas. The Caribbean, long known as the world's most tourism-dependent region, is no exception. To reduce its negative impacts on the environment, the Caribbean accommodations sector has embarked on a course of 'greening' or environmental management, an innovation which has been heavily promoted to offer a plethora of benefits to its adopters. To better understand greening in the Caribbean, this study sought to achieve four objectives: (1) to determine the extent of adoption of environmental management in the accommodations sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators, and constraints of implementing environmental management and the outcomes which result from implementation; (3) to determine whether motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which environmental management was implemented, and (4) to determine whether the level of environmental management implemented influenced the outcomes experienced by hotels. Diffusion of innovations theory was employed as the lens through which environmental management in the accommodations sector of the Anglophone Caribbean was examined. Data were collected through an online survey of 197 hotels in 19 countries. Key constructs analyzed were motives, facilitators, constraints and outcomes of environmental management. This study found that two thirds of the accommodations sector had implemented some level of environmental management. Just under half of these adopters had implemented basic environmental best practices on an ad hoc basis. The remainder had implemented environmental programs, environmental management systems, or had their properties certified against a recognized standard. It was also found that there were many similarities between hotels that had implemented environmental management and those that had not adopted the innovation at all. The motives and constraints constructs emerged as significant predictors of level of environmental management. A single motive, internal green champion was significantly associated with level of environmental management implemented. Several constraints (lack of capital, potential benefits not apparent, no access to technology, lack of know-how, lack of time, and EM is not necessary) were also significantly related to level of environmental management. Additionally, level of environmental management was positively related to the number and type of outcomes experienced by hotels. A critical finding of this study was that irrespective of the level of environmental management implemented, hotels enjoyed a range of outcomes or benefits. Foremost amongst these were the decrease in resource consumption, decrease in operating costs, and the overall improvement of property management. On the basis of these findings several recommendations were made to strengthen the greening efforts in the region. Paramount amongst these is the continuation of campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of environmental management to the industry and the need for hotels to partner with each other and industry associations to access technical expertise. An important consideration is also the facilitative role of government in developing policy, providing incentives and the much needed infrastructure for environmental management.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mechelle Best.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022046:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE ACCOMMODATIONS SECTOR IN THE
ANGLOPHONE CARIBBEAN





















By

MECHELLE NICOLE BEST


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 Mechelle Nicole Best







































To my mother, Althea and sister, Harriet. Your unwavering support means more than I can ever
express.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank God for continuing to bless me and for the opportune reminders that my burdens

only seem to be more than I can bear. I also thank my family (the Best a person could have) and

friends for being stalwart in their support. For all those times when the light at the end of the

tunnel appeared dim or non-existent, they saw it for me; their confidence in my abilities

continues to astound me.

I thank my committee for supporting me through my time at the University of Florida, in

particular for giving the nod to my research which was along a road less traveled. I thank my

committee chair Dr. Brijesh Thapa, simply for being himself. Brij exemplifies attention to detail,

that element that I've always believed separates excellence from being merely good. Brij was

meticulous in his guidance of my research, yet at the same time retained his easy going nature

which has encouraged so many graduate students within and outside our department. I am very

fortunate to have had a chair who willingly gave up nights and weekends to ensure I met my

deadlines.

I thank Dr. Taylor Stein for agreeing to sit on my committee without having met me, for

introducing me to benefits-based management, extension service, Jackson County and nature-

based tourism in the state of Florida, and for being the coolest boss ever. Taylor's readiness to

acknowledge the work of others is a truly remarkable trait.

I thank Dr. John Confer for guiding me through the initial years of this PhD program, for

sharing his Ecotourism course with me, and for introducing me to diffusion of innovations

theory. I also thank him for his quiet words of encouragement in the last two years and for being

so very generous with his praise.

Finally, I thank Dr. Stephen Holland for his very practical approach to research, for his

useful comments on the development of this particular study, and for giving praise whenever he









felt it was due. I also thank Dr. Holland for his wry sense of humor which I glimpsed for the

first time on my introductory trip to Jackson County.

December through March is a very busy time in the Caribbean hotel industry and I am

grateful to Caribbean hoteliers for reminding me that their interest in our industry extends way

beyond the day to day operations of their properties. I therefore thank them for participating in

my study. I also thank the Executive Vice President and the Chairman of the Sustainable

Development Committee of the Bahamas Hotel Association, along with the Executive Vice

Presidents of the Anguilla Hotel & Tourism Association, the Grenada Hotel & Tourism

Association, and the St. Kitts & Nevis Hotel & Tourism Association for encouraging their

members to participate in the study. Finally I thank my friends and colleagues from around the

region for helping me to 'ground truth' the information in my database.

I thank the US Department of State's Fulbright Program and the Organization of American

States for funding my first two years of study through the Fulbright/OAS Ecology Scholarship

for the Eastern Caribbean. I am also grateful to my department, the Department of Tourism,

Recreation & Sport Management for granting me a graduate teaching assistantship to facilitate

my final two years at the University of Florida.

It would be remiss of me to omit my Caribbean Posse in Gainesville. I thank them for

keeping me sane with their insanity, for helping me to stay current with the affairs of the world,

for the application of their finely tuned scientific minds to everyday events, and for slaking my

thirst for all things Caribbean. I'd like to specially thank Cindy, for traveling with me across the

state of Florida for research and other purposes, and Grace-Anne, my Stats Guru.

It is very difficult to lose faith when one is surrounded by the faithful. I am very grateful to

all who have helped me to keep the faith.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IS T O F T A B L E S .............................................................................. ............... 9

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 12

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 13

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... ......................... .... 15

State ent of Problem ..................................... .................. ........... ........ ....... 18
T h eoretical F ou n dation ............................................................................... ......................2 0
Contribution of Study ......................... ...................... .... .... ............ .... 22
P purpose of Study ............................................................................... 24
R research Q u estion s........... ............................. .. ............ .................. ............ ................ .. 2 5
E nvironm ental M anagem ent ........................................ ............................................25
Environmental M management Outcomes ........................................ ....... ............... 25
Environmental M management and Outcomes ....................................... ............... 26
D efin itio n s ..........................................................................2 6

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ........................................................................ .. .......................29

T tourism and the E nvironm ent ....................................................................... ...................29
Sustainable Tourism ................ ... .....................................37
Environmental Management in Business .................................................... 39
Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector .........................................43
M o tiv e s ................... ...................4...................6..........
F a c ilita to rs ................................................................................................................. 4 9
C o n stra in ts ................................................................................................................. 5 0
O utcom es ........................................................ ........................ 53
Environmental Management Systems and Certification ..............................................54
Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean ...................... .......................... 57
Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector ............... ..........59
Diffusion of Innovations Theory ..................... ................... 61
Applications of Diffusion of Innovation ................ .............. ........ 65
Gaps in Diffusion of Innovation Research ................ .............. ....... 68
Sum m ary ............................................ ................................. .........................69

3 METHODS .........................................77

S tu d y S ite s .............. .... ...............................................................7 7
S election of P articip ants ............. ..... ............ ................. ........................................7 8


6









D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 7 9
In strum entation ......... .... ........................................................................ 8 1
Environm ental M anagem ent ........................................ ................................. 81
M o tiv e s ............. ..... ............ ................. .......................................................8 2
F acilitato rs ......... .... .............. ..................................... ...........................8 2
C on strains ......... ..................................... ...........................82
Outcomes ......... .......... ..... .............................83
T reatm ent of D ata ......... ... .................. ................. ...........................83
E nvironm ental M anagem ent ..................................................................................... 84
Environmental Management Outcomes .............................. ...............85
Environmental Management and Outcomes ...............................................85

4 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................ 9 1

Profile of Participants and Hotels ...... .................... ....... ........91
E nvironm ental M anagem ent............................................................................................. 93
Frequencies of Variables .............. ......... ......... ....... ...........94
M o tiv e s ............. ..... ............ ................. .......................................................9 4
F acilitato rs ......... .... .............. ..................................... ...........................9 5
C on strains ......... ..................................... ...........................9 7
Outcom es ............. ......... ..................... ............... 98
Results of Research Questions Tested ..................... ......... .......................100
Environm ental M anagem ent .............................................. ............... 100
Environmental Management Outcomes .................................................. .......... 110
Environmental Management and Outcomes ................................. .......................111

5 DISCU SSION ......... ......... .... ..... .. ........ ...................... ........ 133

Sum m ary of R esults............................ ... .......... .....................133
Diffusion of Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector ...................... 135
H hotel Characteristics .............................................. 138
Motives for Environmental Management ...........................................................................139
Facilitators of Environmental Management ............ .............. ........................ 142
Constraints to Environmental Management ........................................... .............144
Outcomes of Environmental Management .............................................. ................. 46
Theoretical Implications ................ ........ .............. ...................148
M anagem ent and Policy Implications .......................................................................... 149
D elim stations ................................................................................... ........................ ........... 152
Limitations ................. .. ........................... ..................152
Future W ork ........................................................154

APPENDIX

A SURVEY IN STRUM EN T.......... ............................................................... ................156

B LETTER FROM THE BAHAMAS HOTEL ASSOCIATION....................................175




7









C C O N TA C TS W ITH H O TEL S ..................................................................... ..................176

D ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS .......................................... 179

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................. ..................... 19 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................202
















































8









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1. Stayover tourists and economic contribution in selected Caribbean destinations in
2 006 .............. ....................... ................................................ ...... 73

2-2. Caribbean tourist arrivals by primary market .......................... ... ....................... 73

2-3. Adoption of cleaner technologies in Caribbean hotels.................... .................. 74

3-1. Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean.....................................87

3-2. All-Inclusive hotels in the English Caribbean 1993 & 1999..............................................87

3-3. Consumption of goods and services by the Caribbean accommodations sector ..................88

3-4 Q questionnaire D distribution .......................................................................... ....................88

3-5. Levels of environm ental m anagem ent........................................................ ............... 88

3-6. Motives for implementing environmental management ...................................................... 89

3-7. Facilitators of environm ental m anagem ent ........................................ ........ ............... 89

3-8. Constraints to implementing environmental management. ................................................90

3-9. Outcomes of environmental management. ........................................ ........................ 90

4-1. H otels participating in survey........................................... .................. ............... 112

4-2. Profile of respondents .................................................................................. 112

4 -3 P profile of h hotels ...................................... ................................................ 113

4-4. H hotels' organization m membership ......................................................... ............... 114

4-5. Importance of natural environment in the accommodations sector (frequency in
percentage) ............. ..... .. ......... ................. ............................ 114

4-6. Level of familiarity with environmental management in the accommodations sector........ 114

4-7. Decades of environmental management implementation................................................... 114

4-8. Levels of environmental management in place in hotels ................................................... 115

4-9. Types of environm ental m management certification ............................................................115

4-10. Budget allocations for environmental management ................................................ 115









4-11. Motives for implementing environmental management (percentage) .............................116

4-12. Facilitators of environmental management (percentage) .................. ...................16

4-13. Constraints to environmental management (percentage) .............................................117

4-14. Outcomes of environmental management (percentage)............................... .............. 118

4-15. Property type and environmental management in place.................. ..................118

4-16. Property size and environmental management in place ...................................................119

4-17. Property ownership and environmental management in place .............. ............... 119

4-18. Guest origin and environmental management in place ................................ ...............119

4-19. Organization membership and environmental management in place.............................120

4-20. Importance of the natural environment to the accommodations sector............................. 121

4-21. Constraints to environmental management ............................................ ............... 121

4-22. Lvel of environmental management regressed on hotel characteristics............................122

4-23. Regression of level of environmental management on motives ................ ..................122

4-24. Reliability analysis for factors of motives for implementing environmental
m anagem ent .................................. ................................... ........... 123

4-25. Factor analysis of motives for environmental management.................... ..................123

4-26. Regression of level of environmental management on motives factors...........................123

4-27. Level of environmental management regressed on facilitators .............. ... ...............124

4-28. Factor analysis of facilitators of environmental management ................ ................124

4-29. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management.................125

4-30. Regression of level of environmental management on facilitators factors .....................125

4-31. Level of environmental management regressed on constraints .............. ... ...............126

4-32. Factor analysis of constraints to environmental management ................ ................127

4-33. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management................. 128

4-34. Regression of environmental management on constraints factors .................................. 128









4-35. Level of environmental management regressed on dimensions of motives, facilitators
and con strains ...........................................................................129

4-36. Regression of outcomes on dimensions of motives, facilitators and constraints and
level of environm ental m anagem ent.......... ........................................... ............... 129









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1. The Wider Caribbean adapted from Central Intelligence Agency (1993).............................27

1-2. Variables that influence environmental management ................................. ............... 27

1-3. Influence of environmental management on outcomes .....................................................28

1-4. Relationship between characteristics, motives, facilitators, constraints and
environm ental m anagem ent outcome es........................................ ........................... 28

2-1. Relationships between tourism and the environment (Page & Dowling, 2002) ...................74

2-2. Institutional drivers of environmental management (Hoffman, 2000)..............................75

2-3. Institutional drivers of environmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000).......................................75

2-4. Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness for an innovation that has been
adopted by the entire social system (Rogers, 2003) .................................. ............... 75

2-5. The Diffusion Process (Rogers, 2003) ............................................................................ 76

4-1. Cumulative implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels ...............130

4-2. Cumulative implementation of levels of environmental management in Caribbean hotels. 130

4-3. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints and
environm mental m anagem ent ........... ...................................................... ............... 131

4-4. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints;
environmental management; and outcomes of environmental management.................32









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE ACCOMMODATIONS SECTOR IN THE
ANGLOPHONE CARIBBEAN

By

Mechelle Nicole Best
August 2008

Chair: Brijesh Thapa
Major: Health and Human Performance

Globally, tourism development has been blamed for the degradation of natural resources in

high use tourism areas. The Caribbean, long known as the world's most tourism-dependent

region, is no exception. To reduce its negative impacts on the environment, the Caribbean

accommodations sector has embarked on a course of 'greening' or environmental management,

an innovation which has been heavily promoted to offer a plethora of benefits to its adopters.

To better understand greening in the Caribbean, this study sought to achieve four

objectives: (1) to determine the extent of adoption of environmental management in the

accommodations sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators, and constraints of

implementing environmental management and the outcomes which result from implementation;

(3) to determine whether motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which

environmental management was implemented, and (4) to determine whether the level of

environmental management implemented influenced the outcomes experienced by hotels.

Diffusion of innovations theory was employed as the lens through which environmental

management in the accommodations sector of the Anglophone Caribbean was examined. Data

were collected through an online survey of 197 hotels in 19 countries. Key constructs analyzed

were motives, facilitators, constraints and outcomes of environmental management.









This study found that two thirds of the accommodations sector had implemented some

level of environmental management. Just under half of these adopters had implemented basic

environmental best practices on an ad hoc basis. The remainder had implemented environmental

programs, environmental management systems, or had their properties certified against a

recognized standard. It was also found that there were many similarities between hotels that had

implemented environmental management and those that had not adopted the innovation at all.

The motives and constraints constructs emerged as significant predictors of level of

environmental management. A single motive, internal green champion was significantly

associated with level of environmental management implemented. Several constraints (lack of

capital, potential benefits not apparent, no access to technology, lack of know-how, lack of time,

and EM is not necessary) were also significantly related to level of environmental management.

Additionally, level of environmental management was positively related to the number and type

of outcomes experienced by hotels.

A critical finding of this study was that irrespective of the level of environmental

management implemented, hotels enjoyed a range of outcomes or benefits. Foremost amongst

these were the decrease in resource consumption, decrease in operating costs, and the overall

improvement of property management.

On the basis of these findings several recommendations were made to strengthen the

greening efforts in the region. Paramount amongst these is the continuation of campaigns to

raise awareness of the importance of environmental management to the industry and the need for

hotels to partner with each other and industry associations to access technical expertise. An

important consideration is also the facilitative role of government in developing policy,

providing incentives and the much needed infrastructure for environmental management.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In its broadest definition, the Caribbean consists of an archipelago between North and

South America, countries on the South American continent, and countries within Central

America (Figure 1-1). The region, home to approximately 60.4 million people (KPMG, 2000,

cited in Jayawardena 2007a), is culturally rich with its mix of primarily African, Indian, and

European descendants. Pockets of indigenous groups are also found in countries such as

Guyana, Belize, Dominica, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

As a consequence of being former and existing colonies of several European nations,

English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and various patois are the primary languages

spoken in the region. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Haiti, and Puerto Rico comprise

the five largest countries in the Caribbean and over 80% of the region's population reside in

these countries (KPMG, 2000, cited in Jayawardena 2007a). Notably, English-speaking

countries are in the minority.

The countries of the Caribbean are geologically, topographically, biologically, and

culturally diverse. The Caribbean has rich biodiversity with various species of flora and fauna

indigenous to the region or endemic to certain countries. Habitat for these species include

tropical rainforests, hardwood forests, coral reefs, grasslands, and savannah (United Nations

Environment Programme, 1989). With its geographic location, encircling the Caribbean Sea, the

region enjoys warm temperatures year round. Given the political stability and proximity to

North America, the Caribbean is one of the most sought after tourist destinations in the world

(Jayawardena, 2007a).

Tourism as a feature of Caribbean island economies dates back to the period of the earliest

European settlement when absentee owners journeyed to the new world to visit their properties









and took relatives and friends with them (Williams, 1970). Towards the end of the nineteenth

century, tourism grew as the region's tropical climate was seen to be imbued with natural

recuperative elements (Pattullo, 1999). However, tourism only emerged as a tool for economic

development in the 1950s, with the Bahamas and Jamaica in the Anglophone Caribbean, and

Puerto Rico in the Spanish Caribbean taking the lead roles (Bell, 1993; Duval, 2004). With the

onset of packaged tourism facilitated by scheduled jet services to the region, tourism as a key

foreign exchange earner has further spread to other destinations in the region (Bell, 1993; Duval,

2004).

In general, the Caribbean tourism product for many decades has been mainly based on the

three Ss sun, sand, sea form of tourism and has followed the traditional mass tourism

development model (Duval, 2004; Jayawardena, 2007b). This is particularly the case in mature

destinations such as, Barbados, Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Bahamas, (France & Wheeller, 1995;

Jayawardena 2007b). Newer destinations like Dominica, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, and

Belize have capitalized on terrestrial natural, marine, and cultural-heritage resources to expand

their tourism products. Given the popularity of these alternative offerings, mature destinations

have also attempted to exploit such resources to diversify and rejuvenate their tourism products

(France, 1998; France & Wheeller, 1995; Jayawardena, 2007a).

The Caribbean has become "the most tourism intensive region in the world" in terms of the

economic dependence of tourism which has remained unchanged in recent years (World Travel

& Tourism Council [WTTC], 2007). In 2007, the region hosted approximately 17.8 million

land-based international tourists (CTO, 2008 ) that represented less than 1% of international

tourism, yet provided significant economic contribution (WTTC, 2007). Tourism is the single

largest employer in the region and the leading industry for capital investment that ranges from









21% to 70% of total national investments (WTTC, 2004). More importantly, only four countries

in the Caribbean derived less than 10% of their economies from tourism; of the other 19

countries, tourism accounts for between 25% and 75% of their economic activity (WTTC, 2004).

The current trend of high tourism dependence is expected to continue and economic

contributions of 17.3% or US$77.2 billion are projected for 2007 (WTTC, 2007).

Stayover visitors to the Caribbean originate from all regions of the globe but the majority

of visitors have originated from a few primary locations. The United States, Canada and the

United Kingdom have consistently been the top performing markets over the years. The US

and/or the UK has been the number one country of origin for respective destinations (Barbados

Tourism Authority, 2006; CTO, 2007; Sobers, 2006). In 2006, the US market accounted for 7.5

million arrivals (41%), Canada 1.6 million (9%), and Europe 3.8 million (21%) (CTO, 2007).

In addition to land-based tourism, many countries in the region have increasingly

encouraged cruise tourism as a means of diversifying income. Statistics from the Caribbean

Tourism Organization indicate tremendous growth in cruise tourism over the last two decades,

including destinations, such as Belize, Grenada, and Dominica (CTO, 2005, 2006, 2007; Sobers,

2006; Woodfield, 1998). In 1996, cruise arrivals to the Caribbean were approximately 11

million passengers (CTO, 2003). By 2000, arrivals had increased to 14.5 million passengers and

were 18.4 million passengers in 2006 (CTO, 2007). The Caribbean is the number one

destination for cruises, with 50% of cruise capacity and projected sustained growth (Florida

Caribbean Cruise Association, 2007).

Caribbean tourism relies heavily on the region's natural resources. In spite of this heavy

reliance on natural resources, land-based tourism development has occurred with minimal regard

to environmental resources (Patullo, 1999). Such impacts include beach erosion, deforestation,









loss of vegetation, soil erosion, pollution of coastal waters, and coral reef loss (de Albuquerque

& McElroy, 1995; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998; Wilkinson, 1989). Reforms to reduce

these impacts have been legislated in some destinations, while the industry has made various

initiatives to decrease its impact on the natural environment (Mycoo, 2006).

Statement of Problem

Sustainable tourism has been a topic of considerable discussion, debate, and research in the

last decade. Much of the debate stems from issues of definition and the application of the

concept. In the Caribbean, the sustainable tourism discourse is ongoing with commitment by

some governments. However, such commitments are only slowly evolving into the steps needed

to advance the issue of sustainable tourism from rhetoric to policy and/or practical application.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that sustainable tourism in Caribbean destinations is not

possible without legislative action to support verbal commitments (Sinclair & Jayawardena,

2003).

The discourse on sustainable tourism has not been limited to the level of regional

governments, but has perhaps to a greater extent been taken up by the private sector partners of

the industry. Interestingly, in this segment of the industry, it has been suggested that sustainable

tourism has departed from rhetoric and is actually being applied. The Caribbean tourism

industry has been developing and implementing environmental programmes which seek to

improve their impact on the biophysical environment and host community. Such programmes

have to a great extent been implemented by the accommodations sector and the phenomenon has

become known as the 'greening' of the industry.

In 1997, the Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) created the Caribbean Action (now

Alliance) for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) to improve its membership's capacity to manage their

impacts on the natural environment. CAST's mission is to enhance industry practices by









providing training and education on sustainable tourism (CAST, 2007). The formation of CAST

represents a landmark decision by the Caribbean hotel industry, whereby members of CHA

agreed that the environmental concerns in the industry warranted a more concentrated effort.

Since the establishment of CAST, different levels of environmental management have

emerged in the accommodations sector. These range from the implementation of a few basic

initiatives such as the replacement of inefficient lighting in key areas, to a full scale

environmental management system (EMS) that has been benchmarked and certified against an

international standard such as Green Globe (GG) or the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) (Best, 2002, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson &

Cresser, 2004; May, 2006). The Caribbean is home to the first four hotels in the world certified

against the GG standard for travel and tourism companies. It is also the region with the highest

number of certified properties and the first country to be benchmarked against the GG

Community Standard (CAST, 2007). There is also one hotel in Aruba that has been certified

against the ISO 14001 standard for environmental management systems (Bucuti, 2007).

Additionally, various hotels within the region have won international awards in recognition of

their environmental stewardship (CAST, 2005).

In the context of environmental management, Meade and del Monaco (1999) noted that

"the Caribbean hotel industry is positioned to reinvent itself in a way that improves profitability,

enhances guest relations, builds bridges into the local communities, and preserves the

Caribbean's natural beauty" (p. 1). Yet, in spite of these prospects and the aforementioned

achievements, it remains to be seen whether environmental management has been the "quiet

revolution" in the industry as described (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). In essence, if 'greening'

is the next major innovation for the accommodations sector, to what extent has it impacted the









Caribbean? What factors facilitated its adoption or transition from one level to another?

Additionally, what constraints exist to the adoption and implementation of environmental

management? In order to examine such issues from the standpoint of the Caribbean

accommodations sector, diffusion of innovations was the most appropriate theory.

Theoretical Foundation

Diffusion of innovations is the process by which a given innovation is adopted and spread

within a social system over time (Rogers, 2003; Strang & Soule, 1998). An innovation is "an

idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new ... [which] presents an individual or an

organization with a new alternative or alternatives, [or] with new means of solving problems"

(Rogers, 2003, Preface).

Diffusion of innovation studies came to the fore with the work of rural sociologists Ryan

and Gross (1943) on the use of hybrid corn by farmers in Iowa, which was rated as "the most

influential diffusion study of all time" (Rogers, 2003, p. 31). Ryan and Gross' (1943) study was

aimed at understanding why hybrid corn seed was not quickly adopted by most farmers. The

study examined rates of adoption and the differences between innovators and later adopters. It

also highlighted the important role of interpersonal networks in the diffusion process (Rogers,

2003; Ryan & Gross, 1943). Interviews were conducted with farmers who were asked to recall

the time of adoption, sources of information on the innovation, and consequences of adopting the

innovation. Following Ryan and Gross' (1943) hybrid corn study, these elements have been used

in most diffusion research in a range of disciplines including public health, communication,

anthropology, and education (Rogers, 2003).

An interesting aspect of diffusion of innovation theory is that much of its application and

expansion has been in developing countries. Rogers (2003) estimates that of 434 diffusion

studies conducted by rural sociologists between 1941 and 1981, 24% were in the developing









regions of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Ground breaking studies in developing countries

include, inter alia, a water boiling campaign in Peru (Wellin, 1955 cited in Rogers, 2003), rice

cultivation in Bali, Indonesia (Bardini, 1994; Lansing, 1987), family planning in Taiwan

(Berrelson & Freedman, 1964, cited in Rogers, 2003) and the adoption of photovoltaics to

generate electricity in the Dominican Republic (Lesnick, 2000).

In more recent decades, diffusion of innovations theory has also been used in recreation

and tourism studies to understand the implications of information technology and other

innovations in international tourism for the Caribbean tourism industry (Poon, 1987),

transportation systems in US national parks (Dilworth, 2003), intention of the public to visit a

new urban park in Ohio (Mowen & Confer, 2003), the likelihood of adopting environmentally

friendly management practices in Vietnamese hotels (Le, 2005; Le, Hollenhorst, Harris,

McLaughlin & Shook, 2006), and the use of technologies such as website development and

email as a means of marketing and communication (Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Standing, Borbely

& Vasudavan, 1999).

A number of innovations (such as jet aircraft services) have been central to the

development of tourism in the Caribbean (Poon, 1987). Poon (1987) investigated the role of

technological innovations in the Caribbean's effort to remain competitive in the face of emerging

destinations, globalization, changing demand, and increasing environmental degradation fuelled

by tourism. The innovativeness of Caribbean hotels in the utility of technological applications

was also assessed. Poon (1987) further examined the influence of hotel structure, organization,

ownership and management in adopting new technologies that would improve their

competitiveness. It was found that hotels' innovativeness was most influenced by the caliber of

managers and their willingness to embrace changes and innovations. Poon (1987) proposed that









a combination of progressive, intelligent, and customer-focused management, honed skills, and

consistent innovation would be needed in Caribbean hotels.

Le et al. (2006) investigated the influence of innovation, environmental, and organizational

characteristics on the likelihood of Vietnamese hotels to adopt environmentally friendly

practices. They found that innovation characteristics, particularly complexity and observability,

were the most influential variables. A surprising finding in their study was that 'greenness' level

did not influence the likelihood of adopting environmentally friendly practices. It was suggested

that this may have resulted from hoteliers' lack of information about such practices (Le et al.,

2006).

Since the emergence of diffusion of innovations theory, it has been consistently applied to

research in developing countries. Additionally, the theory has been used to investigate

innovations in the hotel sector as well as the wider tourism industry in the Caribbean and other

destinations. Furthermore, various aspects of natural resource and environmental management

within the tourism context as well as in other fields have been assessed with diffusion of

innovations. These elements confirm the suitability of diffusion of innovations theory to

investigate the adoption and impact of environmental management in the Caribbean

accommodations sector.

Contribution of Study

A decade has elapsed since systematic environmental management was introduced to

Caribbean accommodations sector on a widespread basis (CAST, 2007). While some research

has been undertaken over the years (Best, 2002, 2003, 2004; Kingsbury, 2006; Meade & del

Monaco, 1999; Mycoo, 2006), to the author's knowledge no comprehensive study has been

undertaken in the Anglophone Caribbean which focused on why hotels have adopted and

implemented environmental management, the facilitators and challenges encountered in the









process, and the outcomes experienced. While the aforementioned issues are important, it would

also be useful to understand how motives compare with outcomes, whether in fact hotels have

been able to achieve what they desire from environmental management.

Environmental management has been promoted as having a range of benefits to hotels that

include improved impacts on the natural environment, increased efficiencies, reduced operating

costs, improved relationships with the wider community, and improved staff morale, amongst

others (CAST, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Vernon, 2003; Goodman, 2000). It is the attainment

of these benefits which encourage hotels to embark on greening programmes.

The need for more research on environmental management in the accommodation sector

has been expressed in various fora. Since the Caribbean region leads the world in the number of

hotels that have been certified against Green Globe (CAST, 2007), it is appropriate that such

research be conducted in the region.

From a methodological standpoint, the study was conducted in the Caribbean instead of a

single destination within the region. Bohdanowicz's (2005) research on attitudes to

environmental management in the hotel sector proposed that conducting research in a single

destination represented a serious limitation in the research. By conducting a study that

encompasses a number of different countries, the geographical limitation was minimized and

literature on environmental management expanded.

Diffusion of innovation was selected as the theoretical framework against which to build

this study. This research further developed the theory in a number of ways. Rogers (2003)

proposed that the lack of studies on the consequences of innovations represents a deficiency in

the theory. Studying the consequences of the innovation will therefore broaden the theory.









Another way in which this research helped to expand the diffusion of innovation theory

was by analyzing an innovation which was modified and studying its diffusion at a stage before

the innovation has been completely adopted by the social system. Building on the latter

contribution, this study will serve as baseline data for comparative research (Smith, 2007).

This study has several benefits for the Caribbean tourism industry. First, it has provided

comprehensive data on environmental management in the accommodations sector. Second, a

greater understanding of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in terms of the number

and types of hotels and the levels of environmental management was realized. Third,

comprehensive knowledge and understanding of what motivates hotel owners/managers to adopt

and implement environmental management, as well as the factors which facilitated and

constrained the process was gained. Overall, the results of this study are valuable to hoteliers,

local and regional hotel associations, and policy makers.

Purpose of Study

This study sought to examine the implementation of environmental management in the

accommodation sector of the Caribbean tourism industry from the perspective of general

managers and owners of hotels. To achieve this, the study focused on four primary objectives:

(1) to determine the extent of adoption of environmental management in the accommodation

sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators, and constraints of implementing environmental

management and the outcomes which result from implementation; (3) to determine whether

motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which environmental management

was implemented, and (4) to determine whether the level of environmental management

implemented influenced the outcomes experienced by hotels. Research questions were

developed to address these objectives.









Research Questions


Environmental Management

* Research question 1: To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the
Caribbean accommodation sector?

* Research question 2: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of
environmental management in terms of (a) characteristics, (b) organization membership,
(c) importance of natural resources to the accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of
environmental management?

* Research question 3: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of
environmental management with regards to constraints?

* Research question 4: Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental
management in Caribbean hotels?

The model in Figure 1-2 indicates variables that potentially influence the adoption or

implementation of environmental management. The following research questions pertain to this

model.

* Research question 5: Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the
level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

* Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

* Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of
environmental management implemented?

* Research question 8: Which variables have the most influence on the implementation of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

Environmental Management Outcomes

Figure 1-3 models the potential influence of level of environmental management on the

outcomes of implementing environmental management. The following research questions

pertain to this model.

* Research question 9: Does level of environmental management implemented influence
the number of outcomes experienced?











Environmental Management and Outcomes

Figure 1-4 models the potential influence of characteristics, motives, facilitators, and

constraints to implementing environmental management on the outcomes achieved. The

following research question pertains to this model.

* Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints,
level of environmental management, and the outcomes of environmental management
(Figure 1-4)?

Definitions

The following is a list of definitions pertinent to this research.

* Capacity building the development of individual and organizational abilities and skill
sets "to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives (United Nations
Development Programme, 1997, p. 3).

* Constraint an obstacle to the adoption or implementation of environmental management.

* Environmental management the management of policy or actions which impact the
biophysical environment.

* Environmental management system "a set of management tools and principles that is
intended to help organizations integrate environmental issues into the conduct of their
daily business ... designed to guide an organization in allocating resources, assigning
responsibilities, and continually evaluating its practices, procedures, and processes in order
to enhance environmental management" (Gibson, 2005, p. 25).

* Facilitator a factor which makes a process or action (e.g. environmental management)
less difficult.

* Green hotels hotels that have implemented any level of environmental management.

* Motive a reason or cause for adopting a behavior or taking an action.

* Non-adopters hotels that have not implemented environmental management.

* Sustainable tourism development for tourism purposes which meets the needs of its
various stakeholders, but does not negatively impact available resources for future
generations












L U I I IV t A I U





P oCar.


MM n I

iS Nluj
Gu; re 1awit4


'A





San
HIONDURAS "


EL SALVADOR

AI


1I

Us


SanJs \Jd

COSTA*
RICA
----i ^ yi1
North Pacific

Ocean

hi.
dedco


"-ml THE


v-, .ro it s
"h ,
scls ',,g ,= m,


*.


I Caribb

4M d. P.1d..
d.S.lS PtVdWi
tarn Mininu


OIfAiranc
WIUU
Bar"nq
. K*
c.,


Ocean


S - - Tr o Cance

Turks and Cas Islanrds
*- (U .K
M GWdTLuIk
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC a
SamJay Ja A 'r .
Ant R S e HThaVaA fr

V%. r. 5 I,*I ,i F"E





.. Ne teSliands Andtie B IM U
ELANDS S A'ND
it I io @ E1''DBA


a=,z m la ., ,,l o s ,o


IT S Cba a aptf000 .et Bnel c


Figure 1-1. The Wider Caribbean adapted from Central Intelligence Agency (1993)


In
SLIRINAME


Motives


Facilitators


Constraints




Figure 1-2. Variables that influence environmental management


MMN6 .


kwn* i JAMAIC-A
jmws













Environmental
Management


Outcomes


Figure 1-3. Influence of environmental management on outcomes




Motives


Environmental
Management


Outcomes


Constraints


Figure 1-4. Relationship between characteristics, motives, facilitators, constraints and
environmental management outcomes









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This study examines environmental management in the accommodations sector of the

Caribbean tourism industry. Literature pertaining to environmental management in the tourism

industry and general business sector is reviewed in this chapter. The review of literature is

divided into the following sections.

Tourism and the Environment
Sustainable Tourism
Environmental Management in Business
Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector
Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean
Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector
Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Summary

Tourism and the Environment

Globally, tourism is considered to be the largest service industry with projected future

growth (World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2007). According to the WTO (2007)

international tourism receipts amounted to US $733 billion in 2006 which represented

approximately 37% global services exported. For Least Developed Countries tourism receipts

accounted for over 70% of services exported. There were 846 million international tourist

arrivals in 2006 and 1.6 billion arrivals are projected by the year 2020 (WTO, 2007).

Tourism is generally viewed as a non-extractive industry and consequently is regarded as

an attractive means of using a destination's human, cultural and natural capital for economic

development (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). Since tourism has been regarded as basically benign,

development has continued unchecked in many countries, including the Caribbean (Patullo,

1999). However, as is now well documented, tourism is not the harmless industry it was

suggested to be due to its ecological and sociocultural impacts.









The relationship between tourism and the natural environment is complex and sometimes

controversial. Furthermore this relationship may be one of conflict, coexistence, or symbiosis

(Budowski, 1976) (Figure 2-1). In a conflict relationship, tourism and the environment are

incompatible, with tourism having a negative impact on the environment; from the perspective of

conservationists such high costs do not justify tourism activity (Budowski, 1976; Page &

Dowling, 2002). When tourism and the environment co-exist there is minimal contact between

the two sides. However this type of relationship is unlikely to endure if tourism development

increases (Budowski, 1976; Page & Dowling, 2002). In a symbiotic relationship, there is mutual

benefit between tourism and the environment (Budowski, 1976; Page & Dowling, 2002). Some

authors also argue that these categories are not mutually exclusive but may in effect be exhibited

to varying degrees within the same destination (Page & Dowling, 2002).

Significantly, the earth's natural resources have been major attractions for much of global

tourism (Farrell & Runyan, 1991). This is evidenced regardless of how the tourism activity is

categorized, whether as mass tourism, adventure tourism, nature-based tourism, or ecotourism.

In the latter type of tourism it is estimated that most of this tourism activity takes place in

protected areas (Weaver, 2001), and regions that may be more sensitive to human interaction,

which results in more severe impacts (Pearce, 1985).

In the Caribbean, the natural environment has long been the primary attraction for tourists

(Patullo, 1999). Though the climate is similar throughout the region, the types of resources vary

from island to island and continent. Included in the range of attractions are white, pink, and

black sand beaches, coral reefs (including the world's second largest barrier reef in Belize),

rivers, waterfalls, hot springs, savannah, mangroves, rainforests, and a plethora of flora and

fauna. These resources primarily provide habitat for a range of fauna and flora, several of which









are endemic to the region (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 1989) and are also

attractions for the tourism industry. This latter statement underscores the fact that natural

resources are viewed in different ways by various, oftentimes competing groups. To the tourism

industry, these resources are attractions that pull visitors to the destination; to other groups

including natural resource managers and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

the resources are important as part of a wider ecological system that provide ecological services

to humans and habitat and sustenance for various species. Indeed, depending on how polarizing

these perspectives become, tourism and the environment may coexist, be in conflict (Birdlife

International, 2006, 2007; Government of Grenada, 2006) or in symbiosis (Hawkins et al., 1999).

Change to resources is unavoidable, whether the use is for consumptive or non-

consumptive purposes. Tourism development involves construction of lodging facilities, visitor

centres and facilities at natural resource attractions, roads and access points; and installation of

sanitary lines and telecommunication lines. However, tourism activities have taken a much

larger toll as land clearing takes place to facilitate such construction, resulting in habitat

disturbance and loss (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). For example, construction of hotels and other

tourism facilities in some coastal areas in Barbados, St. Lucia and Jamaica has resulted in the

destruction of mangrove forests and in-filling of hundreds of acres of wetlands, thereby reducing

the ability of the ecosystem to perform services such as nutrient filtering, control of freshwater

injection to the marine environment, and provision of food and habitat for local and migratory

birds (Bacon, 1987; Burke, 2007; Carrier & Macleod, 2005). Clearing may also be undertaken

on the beaches and in the nearshore waters. While the direct impacts of land clearing such as

habitat loss is experienced immediately, others such as changes to species populations and

reproductive behavior become more evident over a longer period (Butler, 2000; Primack 2002).









Beyond the changes ensuing from land clearing for initial construction, natural resources

may be further affected by the ongoing operation of facilities such as hotels and restaurants

which cater primarily to tourists. Consumption of natural resources such as water is often much

higher for tourists than for residents of the surrounding communities. For example, in Barbados

and St. Lucia, the average daily consumption of water by hotel guests was approximately three

times that of residents (Drosdoff, 2005; Pantin, 1998 cited in Burke, 2007). Similarly in Oahu,

Hawaii, hotels and golf courses were in the top 100 largest consumers of water, accounting for

20% of water used by this group (Gopalakrishnan & Cox, 2003). In the Mediterranean, where

tourists also consume three times the amount of freshwater as residents, the development of

tourism facilities in coastal areas has contributed to the overexploitation of freshwater resources.

This has caused coastal groundwater to drop below sea level in Spain, Cyprus, Italy, Libya,

Greece, and Israel (UNEP, 1999).

The tourism industry's high consumption of water has in some cases resulted in

competition between tourism entities and residents, particularly in areas where resources are

scarce (Bohdanowicz, Churie-Kallhauge & Martinac, 2001; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003;

Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, Loke, Leung, & Tucker, 1997). Further, tourism demand for water may

compound existing problems because demand may be concentrated within a certain area and

tourist facilities may be given priority for the resource in times of scarcity to maintain tourists'

satisfaction (De Stefano, 2004). This is exemplified by Tangier, Morocco where during the

drought of 1994-1996, tourist facilities were given precedence over the community (UNEP,

1999). The exacerbation of existing water problems has forced the government of Barbados to

tap alternative and more expensive methods of producing potable water (Burke, 2007).









Direct energy sources used globally include electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel, and

natural gas (Gossling, 2002). Energy used to cater to tourists also tends to be higher than that

consumed by residents. Gossling (2002) estimated that in 2001, energy used by accommodation

units accounted for 0.12% of global energy consumption, while tourism as a whole

(accommodations, activities within destination, all transportation) accounted for 3.2%. In St.

Lucia, a tourism industry survey found that hotel guests consumed more energy on average than

residents (Pantin, 1998 cited in Burke, 2007). Gossling, 2002 also described a similar trend for

hotel guests in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Increased solid waste generation is often cited as a negative impact of tourism

development, with the generation of waste by tourism enterprises sometimes outstripping the

capacity of the local infrastructure to absorb such waste (Davies & Cahill, 2000; Neto, 2002).

Land-based tourists to the Caribbean have been estimated to generate twice the amount of solid

waste per person as residents and cruise ship passengers four times as much as residents,

intensifying waste disposal problems that already afflicted many of the islands of the region

(Burke, 2007; Campbell, 1999 and UWI, 1999 cited in Dixon et al., 2001). Mbaiwa (2005)

further suggested that negative impacts (e.g. soil and water contamination) arose when solid

waste disposal practices diverged from the established protocols for specific areas, citing the

example of the Okavango Delta in Botswana where some lodges and camps burned their waste

instead of using the government operated landfill.

The environmental impacts of tourism activities surpass the construction and operation of

lodgings, facilities, and infrastructure. Natural resource attractions also sustain changes due to

increased visitation. A range of impacts to ecosystems attributed to tourism activity have been

examined over the years and have been found in developed and developing countries alike. A









1995 study of National Parks superintendents in the U.S. found that impacts to the natural

environment caused or intensified by tourism included water and air quality problems; impacts to

wildlife associated with littering, noise, and habitat disturbance; impacts to coastlines and

shorelines from pollution, clustering of accommodations, changes to wildlife breeding patterns,

and sedimentation; and impacts to vegetation including trampling, erosion, chopping trees for

firewood, trail widening, and removal of plants (Wang & Miko, 1997).

In a case study of Hanauma Bay, a popular marine tourism destination in Hawaii,

significant changes to the bay were attributed to tourism (Orams, 1999). Despite being

established as a marine protected area (MPA) in 1970, degradation increased due to continued

tourism development and the bay's popularity with tourists for activities such as scuba diving,

snorkeling, and fish feeding. In addition to loss of coral and fish, there was a marked reduction

in biomass of fauna such as corals and sponges, increased siltation, trampling of benthic life

forms, and increased fresh water run off in the nearshore leading to reduced salinity, among

others. Declaring the area as an MPA had only succeeded in making the bay more attractive for

tourists and tour operators alike. The lasting result has been severe degradation of the entire

Hanauma Bay marine ecosystem as a direct result of development in the immediate area and

uncontrolled use of resources (Orams, 1999).

Impacts are not restricted to tourist activity as local residents are also responsible to

varying degrees (Butler, 2000; Pearce, 1989). However the impacts may be seriously

compounded by tourism due to the additional numbers of users, and may also be intensified

because of the concentration of visitors during a particular season or at a given time (Butler,

2000). The frequent lack of baseline data against which to compare study data and the fact that









ecological change is a natural process, present other challenges to determining the causes of

natural resource degradation (Butler, 2000; Page & Dowling, 2002).

The Galapagos Islands provide a clear example of the impacts to natural resources which

either result from or are exacerbated by tourism activity. Since 1959, 97% of the islands'

territory has been protected as a national park (Honey, 1994) and the Galapagos constituted the

first site to be inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1978 (World Heritage Centre [WHC],

2007). The Galapagos Islands are home to one of the most well known protected areas in the

world and as a result of its popularity now finds itself inscribed on the list of World Heritage in

danger (WHC, 2007). A UNESCO mission to the Galapagos in 2007 cited uncontrolled tourism

development as one of the major threats to the islands' natural resources (WHC, 2007).

Visitation to the national park has increased continuously over the years, with 61,466 in 2000 to

148,664 in 2006 (Parque National Galapogos, 2007). Human migration encouraged by tourism

and the increase in invasive species were listed as other major threats to the islands (WHC,

2007).

It has been argued that the relationship between tourism and the environment may be

symbiotic. Tourism earnings and support are important for natural resource conservation and

natural resources are important for tourist attractions (Page & Dowling, 2002; Romeril, 1985).

Properly planned tourism which minimizes environmental impacts can also be beneficial to

resource conservation (Romeril, 1985). In some instances, protected areas have been established

in part to safeguard resources for tourism as in the creation of the Princess Alexandra Land &

Sea National Park in the Turks & Caicos Islands (Best, 2001). Also due to tourist demand for

resources to be protected Mangue Seco Environmentally Protected Area in Brazil was created

(Puppim de Oliveira, 2005).









The symbiosis between tourism and the natural environment is exemplified by the U.S.

National Park Service (NPS), which is charged with the joint mission of preserving the resources

within their sites and offering these same resources to the public for their enjoyment (NPS,

2007). National parks in the U.S. are major attractions for both domestic and international

visitors, with visitation increasing from 282,435,101 visitors in 1979 to 438,392,184 visitors in

2006 (NPS, 2007). Attracting the public is important to the NPS, not only because facilitating

public recreation is their mission, but also because visitor fees and donations help to support its

education and conservation programs.

Support for a symbiotic tourism-environment relationship is also noticeable in developing

countries especially with respect to revenue generation (Dharmaratne, Yee Sang & Walling,

2000). Using an existing protected area in Jamaica and a proposed protected area in Barbados,

Dharmaratne et al. (2000) assessed willingness to pay site fees (use) and membership fees in an

NGO set up to manage the same protected area (non-use). At both sites, willingness to pay for

use far exceeded existing fees; even if fees were raised to a level lower than the maximum

amount users were willing to pay, the protected areas would nonetheless increase their revenues

significantly. Williams and Polunin (2000) conducted a two-part study in four Caribbean

destinations to determine the types of coral reef characteristics preferred by SCUBA divers and

their level of satisfaction. The research concluded that if MPAs were properly managed, the

most important characteristics such as fish biomass, abundance, and variety would be enhanced

(Williams & Polunin, 2000).

The aforementioned examples confirm that it is possible for tourism and natural resource

conservation to exist in symbiosis. However, even in a symbiotic state resource degradation will

be evident. With the increasing proof of natural resource degradation resulting from tourism









activities, considerable pressure has been brought to bear on the industry with repeated calls for

change. The evolution of sustainable tourism and the ongoing debate over its definition and

implementation have occurred in part because of the growth in concerns of tourism impacts and

increasing pressure from stakeholders.

Sustainable Tourism

Similar to sustainable development, sustainable tourism is a highly contested concept.

Although the concept of sustainable tourism development evolved from sustainable

development, it is oftentimes treated as an end in itself, separate and distinct from other

industries (Hunter, 2002). Sustainable development as defined by the World Commission on

Environment and Development (1987) refers to development which is conducted in such a way

that it satisfies the needs of the present without hampering the ability of future generations to

fulfill their own needs. Sustainable development is not a new concept but in effect may be a case

of new wine in old bottles that has been expressed in various ways over the decades and

essentially coalesces on the idea that use of resources must be managed on a sustainable basis

(Butler, 1998; Murphy & Price, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999).

Similarly, sustainable tourism may be defined as development for tourism purposes

which assuages the needs of its various stakeholders, but does not negatively impact available

resources for future generations (Hunter, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). From this perspective

tourism becomes a means to end, where that end is not tourism itself, but the satisfaction of its

stakeholders' needs.

There is some disagreement on an exact definition of sustainable tourism. However,

there are a few points around which the various definitions coalesce (Page & Dowling 2002;

Swarbrooke, 1999). It is generally agreed that sustainable tourism should give rise to benefits

for the wider community, involve the community wherever possible, have minimal impact on









natural and cultural resources, and be economically viable (Page & Dowling 2002; Swarbrooke,

1999).

The natural environment has been the element of greatest concern in sustainable tourism

(Butler, 1998). Various reasons have been promulgated, including inter alia, the interest of

strong environmental groups, the evidence of environmental degradation attributed to tourism

activity, the dependence of most of global tourism on the natural environment, the relative ease

of dealing with physical tourism impacts in comparison with the more difficult socio-cultural

impacts, and the marketing mileage which a company can attain through environmental

management (Butler, 1998, 2000; Font & Harris, 2004).

Sustainable tourism has been criticized as being steeped in rhetoric and slow to be

manifested in reality. However, there are successful examples globally. Such examples include

(1) Couran Cove Island Resort, Australia which has used environmental best practices in its

planning and development (Lim & McAleer, 2005); (2) the Community Baboon Sanctuary in

Belize which has helped to stabilize that area's howler monkey population and facilitate the

development of community managed tourism (Alexander, 2000); and (3) Fairmont Hotels Green

Partnership program which seeks to make each hotel in the chain sustainable (Fairmont Hotels &

Resorts, 2007). These examples are not only found in ecotourism or other alternatives to mass

tourism, but also in the traditional style of tourism. It has been suggested that the priority should

be for all types of tourism to become sustainable (Clarke, 1997).

The umbrella term of environmental management subsumes much of the examples of

sustainable tourism that have been evidenced to date. Environmental management has been a

significant part of business management for a few decades, though the transition to the service

industry and particularly the tourism industry is relatively recent. The following section will









review environmental management in the non-service industries followed by the

accommodations sector of the tourism industry.

Environmental Management in Business

Broadly defined environmental management encompasses measures taken to protect the

environment from harmful anthropogenic impact so as to sustain resources over time (ADEH,

2007; FOA, 2007). Some aspects of environmental management or 'greening' in business as it is

commonly known, have become mainstream because of government regulations, especially in

developed countries (Meyer, 2000). By the 1990s, even environmental management systems

were no longer viewed as cutting edge, and the current integration of environmental concerns

into operations management is now perceived as effective business strategy (Greeno &

Robinson, 1992; Meyer, 2000). However, the incorporation of environmental concerns has yet

to become the norm (Greeno & Robinson, 1992). It is this transitional position which prompted

Gladwin (1998) to query whether greening was "truly becoming a "selection criterion" by which

organizations will either fail or survive and entirely new organizations will be created?" (p. 51).

A number of membership organizations have been established over the years which

continue to carry forward the agenda of environmental management in business. The Coalition

for Environmentally Responsible Economies, the Business Council for Sustainable

Development, Responsible Care American Chemistry Council, and the US Environmental

Protection Agency's Design for the Environment are all organizations or programs focused on

fostering environmental responsibility in business. In addition special environmental guidelines

have been developed within Total Quality Management principles and the International

Organization for Standardization has developed the ISO 14000 series, a body of standards for

environmental management (ISO, 1996).









Environmental management as a concerted effort in business can be traced back to the

1950s (Kirk, 1995). In the U.S., the passage of various environmental regulations and legislation

in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the impetus for change (e.g., the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the Clean Water Act of 1973) (Meyer, 2000;

Walley & Whitehead, 1994). Environmental management has now become an international

phenomenon. Companies which manufacture tangible products are more likely to have

implemented environmental management than service oriented companies (Foster et al., 2000;

Grove et al., 1996).

Meyer (2000) proposed that for most companies, government regulations were at the root

of initial efforts at environmental management. In the decades of the 1970s and 1980s

environmental management was met with much recalcitrance and the general complaint that

achievement of minimum environmental standards would prove to be a heavy financial burden to

businesses (Greeno & Robinson, 1992; Meyer, 2000). These efforts were more about

compliance with regulations than about the potential for overall management through an

environmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000). However, compliance with governmental regulations

was completely voluntary, but the underlying threat of additional and more stringent legislation

made voluntary measures more attractive (Sarkis & Rasheed, 1995).

Basic government regulations received support from environmental activists who added

pressure on businesses to improve their operations (Hoffman, 2000). Greeno & Robinson (1992)

refer to this scrutiny as "managing in a fishbowl" where the focus on companies would only

continue to increase. Some of the pressures included, the desire to have a competitive and

strategic edge over their competitors, readying themselves to meet more stringent future

regulations, and complying with the tenets of sustainable development (Greeno & Robinson,









1992). However, businesses while proactive, were mainly trying to prepare themselves to meet

the regulatory and stakeholder demands of the future, without seeing the potential of

environmental management as a business strategy in itself (Greeno & Robinson, 1992).

Using the example of the Dutch flower industry, Porter and Van der Linde (1995) suggest

that environmental regulations can drive companies to be more proactive and innovative, and

that environmental management in itself should be seen as a sound business strategy. In the

1990s, the Dutch flower industry was the number one exporter of cut flowers worldwide.

However, traditional flower cultivation on such an immense scale had detrimental ecological

impacts through contamination of groundwater and soil by fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

With the expectation of stricter regulations on chemical discharges the flower industry designed

a closed loop system for growing flowers in material other than soil. Thus, as Porter and Van der

Linde (1995) proposed, the expectation of regulations forced the flower industry to be both

proactive and innovative which offered a greater competitive advantage.

Environmental management as a strategic business practice represents the nexus of

business and environmental management, moving from business and environmental management

as separate processes (Figure 2-2) to business and environment as a shared process (Figure 2-3)

(Hoffman, 2000). Environmental management is now part of the core business philosophy and

operations management (Meyer, 2000).

Companies that utilize environmental management as a business strategy enjoy a number

of benefits. These benefits include greater levels of innovation, fewer pollutants generated and

resources consumed, enhanced employee morale, improved public image, improved financial

performance, and competitive advantage (Kleiner, 1991; Meyer, 2000; Shrivastava, 1995).

Environmental management as a business strategy has been implemented by a number of very









well known international companies including Xerox (Meyer, 2000; Xerox, 2006) and 3M (3M,

2007a; Meyer, 2000).

For almost twenty years Xerox has had an environmental management program,

commencing in 1990 when it began to recycle materials used in manufacturing (Meyer, 2000).

Since 1990, Xerox's basic environmental management efforts have grown immensely, with an

aggressive proactive approach to environmental impacts. Current efforts include, inter alia,

environmental remediation, reducing direct emissions of greenhouse gasses, and designing

products that are energy efficient (Xerox, 2006).

Xerox has a formal policy that covers its environmental initiatives with an overall goal of

creating 'waste-free' products in facilities that are also 'waste-free' (Xerox, 2006). The

company's environmental policy speaks to operating in a way "that safeguards health, protects

the environment, conserves valuable materials and resources" and "designing, manufacturing,

distributing and marketing products and processes to ... minimize environmental impact"

(Xerox, 2006, p. 34). Additionally an ISO 14001 certified management system is in operation in

all of their manufacturing plants (Xerox, 2006).

Since 1975 3M has had a formal environmental policy. A number of its manufacturing

facilities are certified against the ISO 14001 environmental standard (3M, 2007a). 3M's

Corporate Environmental Policy acknowledges its responsibility to "solve its own environmental

pollution and conservation problems" (3M, 2007a, 1) and develop products that have the least

environmental impact.

In 2005, 3M reached the 30 year milestone of its 3P-Pollution Prevention Pays program,

which was set up to prevent pollution at the source by re-thinking the entire production process

and thereby changing how its products are manufactured (3M, 2007b). The 3P program, based









on voluntary employee participation, is central to 3M's wider sustainability strategy and

encourages employees to be innovative in pollution prevention (3M, 2007a). According to 3M

(2007a) its 6,000 plus 3P initiatives thus far have resulted in the reduction of pollutants generated

by over 2.5 billion pounds and significantly enhanced their bottom line. The program has also

helped 3M to be a market leader with respect to meeting national and international regulations,

and also an innovator with influence on industry standards (Shrivastava, 1995).

Environmental management in the business sectors has a longer industry in manufacturing

than in the service industry (e.g., transportation, banking, hospitality, travel and tourism, health

care, entertainment) (Kassinis & Soteriou, 2003). This appears to be disproportionate given the

increasing size of the service industry, and the fact that it too can cause detrimental impacts to

the natural environment (Grove, Fisk, Piekett & Kangun, 1996). The very aspects of services

which distinguish them from manufactured products (intangibility, heterogeneity, perishability,

and simultaneous production and consumption) may be a major reason why the industry tends to

be overlooked (Grove et al., 1996). However, the service industry still uses a range of tangible

products on a daily basis. Given the reliance on manufactured goods, the service industry still

wastes resources and generates copious amounts of solid waste (Grove et al, 1996). The

following section will examine environmental management in service industry, especially the

accommodations sector.

Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector

Fewer studies exist of environmental management in service industries largely because the

overall 'product' is intangible and correspondingly challenging. The paucity of research on

environmental management in the service industry is starkly evident in tourism, where in spite of

the acclaim given to sustainable tourism which emphasizes the natural environment a

relatively limited amount of empirical research has been conducted (Butler, 1998).









To establish a context for environmental management in accommodations, it is necessary

to consider a few critical issues. First, most enterprises which provide accommodations are

profit-oriented businesses with managers making fiscally responsible decisions (Knowles,

Macmillan, Palmer, Grabowski & Hashimoto, 1999; Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Second, these

enterprises offer a service to customers and managerial decisions are influenced by the need to

optimize customer satisfaction (Gustin & Weaver, 1996). Third, construction and operation of

accommodation units have impacts on the natural environment (Kasim, 2007).

An evaluation of research indicates that a range of environmental management (from basic

initiatives to environmental management system certification) has been implemented across the

sector. Also there are various motives, facilitators, and constraints which determine the level of

environmental management implemented in a hotel (Alvarez Gil, Burgos Jimenez & Cespedes

Lorente, 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000;

Tzschentke, Kirk & Lynch, 2004; Vernon, Essex, Pinder & Curry, 2003). While environmental

management has been increasing incrementally, researchers have also shown a certain amount of

skepticism with regards to the sincerity of greening efforts (Brown, 1996; Gray & Collison,

1991). Such skepticism has also been expressed about the business sector in general (Saha &

Darnton, 2005).

Environmental management in the hotel industry is often characterized as a relatively

recent phenomenon, yet there are individual lodging facilities that were built and/or operated

with consideration for the natural environment over the years (Stipanuk, 1996). Stipanuk's

(1996) review of literature published in the 1960s indicates that hotels were concerned with some

of the same environmental issues such as waste disposal, water use, and water pollution that are

being discussed today. Stipanuk (1996) cites properties such as Statler Hotels Corporation and









Caneel Bay in the US Virgin Islands that were designed to properly manage solid waste,

conserve water and energy, and conserve the natural landscape in the 1950s. Additionally,

surveys conducted by the American Hotel & Motel Association (AH&MA) from the mid 1970s

through to the mid-1980s addressed environmental issues (Stipanuk, 1996). By the early 1990s,

international hotel chains such as Inter-Continental Hotels, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, and

Scandic Hotels had initiated internal environmental programs (International Tourism Partnership

[ITP], 2007; Kirk, 1995). However, the establishment of the International Hotels Environment

Initiative (IHEI) now the International Tourism Partnership in 1992 is generally considered to

be the launch of a global 'greening' wave in the tourism industry (ITP, 2007; Kirk, 1995).

The IHEI, spearheaded by the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, in its

original charter charged members to "encourage the observance of the highest standards of

environmental management, not only directly within the industry but also with suppliers and

local authorities" and "recommend systems for monitoring improvements in environmental

improvements and for environmental audits" (ITP, 2007, 5 & 6). Charter members of the IHEI

included Accor Hotels, Hilton International, Inter-Continental Hotels, Marriott Corporation, and

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITP, 2007). Additionally, IHEI has produced a number of guidelines

on environmental best practices, most notably their manual 'Environmental Management for

Hotels' and 'Green Hotelier' magazine (ITP, 2007; Kirk, 1995).

Since the early 1990s the concept of environmental management in the accommodations

sector has been increasingly discussed by academics and practitioners alike, though research has

not necessarily kept pace with efforts to implement such strategies in the industry (Bohdanowicz,

2005). Findings of some studies reveal various attitudes towards environmental management

(Kirk, 1998; Brown, 1996). Similarly, authors either applaud, disdain, or are middling in their









evaluation of these efforts (Butler, 1998; Honey, 1999). Some in fact have suggested that much

'greenwashing' exists, and there may in effect be a bandwagon situation where lodging providers

adopt the terms but often not the practices and that "sophisticated marketing techniques often

allow the travel industry to appear "green" without making fundamental or costly reforms"

(Honey, 1999, p. 47).

Motives

The decision to implement any form of environmental management is a major decision for

a hotel. The question is what drives managers or owners to adopt environmental management

practices in their operations. Using a variety of methods including in-depth semi-structured

interviews, questionnaire based surveys and case studies, researchers have elicited diverse

motives for adopting environmental management. These motives fall into three broad

categories: cost and efficiency motives, external pressures and influence, and internal forces

(Alvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001;

Goodman, 2000; Lin & Hemmington, 1997; Tzschentke et al., 2004).

In several studies, a major motive or the number one motive in some cases was the

prospect of reduced operating costs from decreased consumption of resources such as water and

energy, and the generation of solid waste (Alvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz,

2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke et al., 2004). In a study of

voluntary instruments for sustainable tourism in Spanish hotels, cost savings were identified as a

key incentive in the adoption of environmental best practices (Ayuso, 2007). These practices

were mainly related to reduction in resource and materials consumption. Goodman also

highlighted cost savings as the underlying reason for Scandic Hotels adopting environmental

management as the strategy to thwart financial shortfalls. In preliminary findings among

participants in the Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS) in Scotland, Tzschentke et al.









(2004) found that rising costs resulting from metering of water, and new levies and taxes for

climate change and landfill disposal forced hotels to become more efficient in their consumption

of resources and generation of waste. Generally, for a number of hotels an environmental

management strategy simply made good business sense (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005;

Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke et al., 2004).

Pressure from external forces is yet another reason why hotels have taken the step to

implement environmental management schemes. Such pressure has been from the government,

the wider tourism industry, and the market (both direct and indirect) (Alvarez Gil et al., 2001;

Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Vernon et al., 2003). In a survey

of the Taiwanese hotel sector environmental legislation that dealt with pollution control in

particular was influential on hotels in terms of the equipment used and the operation of the hotel

(Lin & Hemmington, 1997). For all types of environmental legislation the response from the

hotel industry in Taiwan was generally slow (Lin & Hemmington, 1997).

In a study of the Danish tourism industry 15 percent of respondents (n=47) cited pressure

from existing government regulations and avoiding new regulations as an incentive for adopting

sustainable practices; notably none of those in agreement were hotels, only tourism associations,

tour operations and attractions (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Importantly, 50 percent of the

hotels who responded noted that more government regulations to push the adoption of

sustainable practices were necessary (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Nonetheless, while meeting

government regulations is imperative, mere adherence does not constitute cohesive

environmental management (Bohdanowicz, 2005).

Pressure on hotels to implement some form of environmental management is also exerted

from outside by trade associations. This may be in the form of agreements and declarations,









guidelines, and toolkits which may be developed and promoted by local and international

industry associations. Examples of these include the ITP's (2007) 'Going Green' guidelines, the

WTO's (1996) 'Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry', the Caribbean Hotel

Association's (1995) Environmental Management Toolkit for Caribbean Hotels', the Lanzarote

Charter for Sustainable Tourism (1995), and the IHEI's (1993) manual 'Environmental

Management for Hotels'. These broad industry approaches have been criticized as being

designed especially for large, western type hotels and therefore fail to take into account the

special circumstances of small businesses and businesses in developing countries (Vernon et al.,

2003). Few hotels consider them as a real incentive for implementing environmentally friendly

practices (Ayuso, 2007; Hobson & Essex, 2001; Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Even in those

instances in which guidelines have been developed for particular localities, the buy-in has been

less than favorable (Hobson & Essex, 2001; Vernon et al., 2003).

Tourism is an industry in which the customer is able to exert influence on 'product'

offerings. A number of studies have examined whether customer demand influences a hotel's

decision to implement environmental management. In Bramwell and Alletorp's (2001) study of

the Danish tourism industry, greater customer awareness of environmental issues and customer

demand comprised the top incentive to implement sustainable practices. Likewise, among

European hoteliers, customer demand was the second ranked motive for adopting environmental

practices (Bohdanowicz, 2005). In both cases, direct customer demand was very influential. In

Ayuso's (2007) research on Spanish hotels, both direct and indirect customer demand were

offered as reasons for adopting environmental best practices, indicators, management systems,

and ecolabels. The indirect demand was filtered through tour operators which had baseline









environmental practices with which they required their contracted hotels to comply (Ayuso,

2007).

Environmental management in hotels is not an easy task, though hoteliers have sound

motives in achieving operating efficiencies and responding to external pressures from the

market, the wider tourism industry and government. However, without the driving force of

internal factors, none of the aforementioned motives would be sufficient to make environmental

management a reality. Internal factors which have been cited as motives include the recognition

that the natural environment is important to the individual hotel and the wider sector, the

manager/owner's concern about natural resources and acceptance of a moral/ethical

responsibility to take action to conserve them, the expectation of gaining a competitive

advantage, the prospect of using environmental stewardship to diversify and expand their market,

and the expectation of an improved image in the view of the public or recognition for their

efforts (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000;

Tzschentke et al., 2004; Vernon et al., 2003).

Facilitators

While the literature on environmental management has largely focused on motives and

constraints, less attention has been given to factors that facilitate the process. Capacity building

initiatives, funded projects and government incentives have been highlighted as facilitators

(Ayuso, 2007; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001).

Education has been suggested as an important means of increasing the adoption of

environmental management in the hotel industry. Awareness is particularly important for small

and medium sized businesses, since the lack of knowledge and understanding are often noted as

barriers to adoption (Kasim, 2007). Government incentives such as tax breaks and training at









reduced costs, offered by agencies such as local hotel and tourism associations may ease the

adoption of environmental best practices for hotels (Kasim, 2007).

In the Danish tourism sector, 50% of hoteliers surveyed indicated that advice from a

consultant or external expertise was the main way in which adoption of sustainable practices

could be facilitated by external entities (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Additionally, 30%

suggested that support from public funds would reduce the financial burden of implementing

best practices (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001).

The development of guidelines and support from public agencies, have been suggested as

means through which implementing environmental management in hotels could be facilitated

(Hobson & Essex, 2001). In Plymouth 72% of hotels that had heard of a toolkit designed to

assist hotels, purchased it; 72% of the purchasers used information in the toolkit to make changes

in their operations (Hobson & Essex, 2001).

Constraints

Knowles et al. (1999) noted the existence of a gap between theory and practice of

environmental management in hotels. While the interest in- and the intention of- adopting

environmental management in hotels are evident, the practice has simply not kept pace due to

various constraints such as costs; interest, knowledge and technical support; complexity; human

resources, and time (Ayuso, 2007; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Hobson & Essex, 2001; Stabler

& Goodall, 1997; Vernon et al., 2003). In some cases, hoteliers suggested that they were

already doing enough for the environment and did not need to take further action (Zurburg, Ruff

& Ninemeler, 1995).

In the US, the American Hotel &Motel Association's (AH&MA) 1994 study of hotelier's

level of awareness, the most often cited responses for limited environmental action were the lack

of implementation budget (39%) and high expense related to such action (34%) (Zurburg et al.,









1995). Similarly in Guernsey, UK, 30% of hoteliers surveyed thought that changes in

accordance with environmental management resulted in higher capital investment, higher

operating costs, or would not be profitable (Stabler & Goodall, 1997).

In the Danish tourism industry, over 50% of respondents indicated that high investment

costs presented the main obstacle in their efforts to implement sustainable tourism practices

(Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Likewise in Plymouth, England, 59% of respondents perceived

initial capital costs to be high in adopting sustainable tourism practices (Hobson & Essex, 2001).

Similar results were also evident in the Spanish hotel sector (Ayuso, 2007) and in East Cornwall,

England where respondents indicated that environmental innovations were expensive with low

return on investment (Vernon et al., 2003).

Lack of interest in environmental concerns was also noted as a barrier to implementing

environmental management. In Guernsey, UK 8% of respondents were not interested in

adopting environmental protection measures because they felt that such measures would only

minimally affect performance, while 7% felt that such measures were not important to their

business (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). In Plymouth study, 66% of the respondents noted that a

lack of interest in environmental sustainability was the primary reason for not implementing

sustainable management practices (Hobson & Essex, 2001).

In contrast to the lack of interest in environmental concerns, some hoteliers are unaware of

environmental issues and hotels' impacts on the natural environment. In the 1994 AH&MA's

survey of hotel managers' environmental awareness, 80% indicated moderate awareness of

environmental issues, programs, policies, and strategies relevant to their properties (Zurburg et

al., 1995). Lack of information on sustainable practices was noted by 53% of the respondents

the Plymouth accommodation sector (Hobson & Essex, 2001). Similarly, only 39% of









respondents were aware of a toolkit specially designed to assist the industry with sustainability

issues (Hobson & Essex, 2001). A study of self-catering accommodations in the Lake District

National Park of Cumbria, UK, found that despite high awareness of local sustainability

initiatives, there was very little awareness of national or international initiatives or guidelines

developed for the industry (Leslie, 2007). In Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, hotels were found to have

a narrow perspective on environmental responsibility, believing that cleanliness of their

properties constituted such responsibility (Kasim, 2007).

Several studies have found the complexity of environmental management and the need to

collaborate with external parties as barriers (Ayuso, 2007). Hoteliers indicated that the required

organizational and administrative changes could be overwhelming, particularly where the

business had not been very structured prior to establishing the EMS (Ayuso, 2007). Spanish

hoteliers also indicated that collecting data to measure environmental indicators could be very

difficult (Ayuso, 2007). Kasim (2007) also noted that some environmental measures may be

difficult to incorporate into hotel operations because they may be perceived to cause a lower

quality of guest service.

In addition to internal difficulties, research on environmental management has shown that

the need to collaborate with external stakeholders adds to the complexity. Hoteliers have

suggested that environmental management is more extensive than a single hotel, since one hotel

could make a concerted effort to be responsible and have their efforts diminished by their

external stakeholders (e.g. a lack of public transportation to reduce energy consumption and air

pollution, and the absence of recycling facilities) (Vernon et al., 2003). Similar issues were cited

by Spanish hotels which also suggested that suppliers, subcontractors, and public authorities

complicated the implementation of environmental management systems (Ayuso, 2007).









Environmental management success depends on management philosophy and employee

support. In Bramwell and Alletorp's (2001) study in Denmark, negative attitudes were cited as

one of six primary obstacles to adopting sustainable practices. Increased training, awareness

campaigns, and communication are necessary for successful environmental management efforts

(Ayuso, 2007). However hotel managers have indicated that even in light of these initiatives

some staff members resist changes (Ayuso, 2007). Recognition, rewards, and incentives may

help to surmount this challenge, but may also add to the program's costs (Kasim, 2007).

In Guernsey, 9% of respondents noted that the lack of time had prevented them from

reviewing sustainable measures (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Lack of time and energy to dedicate

to starting sustainable practices were also cited in the Plymouth accommodations sector (Hobson

& Essex, 2001). In smaller hotels, time and shortage of manpower were major barriers to

environmental action (Vernon et al., 2003).

Outcomes

The outcomes of environmental management are the realization of expectations and

potential benefits of implementation. Outcomes are related to cost reductions and increased

efficiencies achieved through better management of resources, material consumption, and waste

generation. Outcomes also ensue from incorporating environmental management as part of the

overall management of hotels. Additional outcomes relate to human resources, organizational

change (both cultural and structural), marketing and competitive advantages, and community-

based outcomes (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Kirk, 1995; Tzschentke et al.,

2004).

The Scandic Hotel chain has credited its environmental management program for the

chain's financial recovery. Successes such as more efficient consumption of energy and water

which by 1996 resulted in savings of US $800,000 and US $100,000 respectively, were cited









(Goodman, 2000). A great number of hotels from a sample of the Green Tourism Business

Scheme in Scotland also reported significant savings in water, waste, and energy (Tzschentke et

al., 2004). Vermont's Green Hotels in the Green Mountain State (GHGMS) program currently

has 40 participating green hotels (GHGMS, 2007). Between them, the hotels have saved almost

2.5 billion gallons of water and 37,000 kilowatts of electricity. Additionally, the hotels have

saved over 24,500 pounds of detergent and recycled over 430,400 pounds of waste (GHGMS,

2007). Savings in resources, increased efficiency, and minimization of waste have also resulted

in financial savings to the hotels (GHGMS, 2007).

Four hotels that were recognized as 'environmental best-practice champions' by Cornell

University School of Hotel Administration cited increased marketing opportunities as a direct

outcome of their environmental programs (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). High guest satisfaction,

increased corporate business, improved employee morale and pride were also noted (Enz &

Siguaw, 1999). The Scandic Hotel chain has also touted employee satisfaction and retention as

positive outcomes of its environmental program (Goodman, 2000).

Changes to organizational structure were reported by Cornell's environmental best-practice

champions (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). Such changes included new management and staff positions,

special committees, and green teams (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). Implementing an environmental

program also resulted in modifications to the company culture in terms of new communication

and training for employees, new feedback channels, and greater employee participation in

decision-making (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). For Scandic Hotels, another change to corporate culture

was reporting on the environmental program in the company's annual report (Goodman, 2000).

Environmental Management Systems and Certification

Similar to the manufacturing industry, environmental management in the accommodations

sector generally began with changes in basic technologies and policies. These technologies have









been classified as 'ecotechniques', and include inter alia, equipment such as aerators for faucets

and fluorescent bulbs (which reduce the consumption of water and electricity respectively), solid

waste management, use of biodegradable chemicals, and a purchasing policy that supports these

initiatives (Alvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayala, 1995; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1993; Enz & Siguaw,

1999). Such ecotechniques allowed hotels to implement changes and realize efficiencies without

the immediate intensive capital investments and/or involvement of many employees or guests

(Alvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayala, 1995). The establishment of a comprehensive environmental

program or an environmental management system may become more desirable as a hotel

expands its initiatives or seeks a more systematic way of environmental management (Ayuso,

2007).

Ecotechniques have been described as the most basic form of environmental management.

The environmental management system, developed along the lines of a quality management

system, is perhaps the most complicated (Ayuso, 2007). The EMS has been described as

a set of management tools and principles that is intended to help organizations integrate
environmental issues into the conduct of their daily business ... designed to guide an
organization in allocating resources, assigning responsibilities, and continually evaluating
its practices, procedures, and processes in order to enhance environmental management"
(Gibson, 2005, p. 25).

Internationally, a small but growing number of hotels have implemented an EMS (Ayuso, 2007;

Green Globe (GG), 2007).

The International Organization for Standardization's ISO 14001 describes the

environmental management system and provides guidance on how the standard should be used

(Tribe, Font, Griffiths, Vickery & Yale, 2000). Key criteria include (1) setting an environmental

policy, (2) reviewing the organization's operations and identifying environmental aspects, (3)

developing a structured program which includes setting and achieving objectives and targets, and









(4) undertaking periodic audits and corrective action as necessary (Tribe et al., 2000). The GG

standard also includes these criteria (GG, 2007).

Unlike the manufacturing sector in which improvement in pollution generation practices

were necessary because of government regulations (Meyer, 2000; Walley & Whitehead, 1994),

environmental management in the accommodations sector has generally been voluntary,

following the 'clan' approach to regulation (Hjalager, 1996). The 'clan' approach is self-

regulation which the industry may deem to be more appropriate in lieu of formal binding

governmental regulations (Hjalager, 1996). The voluntary approach also extends to

environmental certification whereby companies choose to be certified against a specific standard.

A number of certification or eco-labeling programs have been developed in the past twenty

years at local, regional and international levels (Font & Buckley, 2001). Such programs include

Green Seal (U.S.), Ecotourism Australia Eco Certification Program (Australia), Certification for

Sustainable Tourism (Costa Rica), Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (UK), Quality

Tourism for the Caribbean (regional), Nordic Ecolabeling (regional), EU Flower (European

Union) Green Globe (international), ISO 14001 (international) (Bohdanowicz, Simanic &

Martinac, 2004; CAST, 2007; EMAS, 2007; Font & Buckley, 2001). It is noteworthy that GG is

the only international standard and certification scheme developed specifically for the travel and

tourism industry (Buckley, 2001). In the US, California, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New

Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin have also established lodging certification

programs, while North Carolina and Pennsylvania have statewide initiatives to encourage green

hotels (Hasek, 2007).

Some ecolabels like GG, EMAS, and ISO14001 require an EMS to be in place for a

company to be certified, others do not (EMAS, 2007; GG, 2007; ISO; 2007). GG and IS014001









also require a site audit by a third party auditor prior to certification, while for other schemes

such an inspection is either note necessary or is conducted by an auditor employed by the

ecolabel (GG, 2007; ISO, 2007). In addition, GG and Nordic Swan require that hotels be

benchmarked (meet minimum performance standards on specific environmental indicators) in

order to be audited for certification (Bohdanowicz et al., 2004; GG, 2007).

Similar to the adoption of EMS, ecolabeling has experienced minimal adoption in the

accommodations sector (Bohdanowicz et al., 2004). In Europe, only 1% of hotels have ecolabels

(Bohdanowicz et al., 2004). In the US, only 300 or so hotels have been certified in the eight

states with green lodging programs (Hasek, 2007). In the Caribbean hotel sector the adoption of

eco-labeling has also been slow, despite having the first GG certified hotel in the world, and the

highest percentage of certified hotels (CAST, 2007; GG, 2007).

Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean

Tourism development in the Caribbean began in the 1940s and 1950s in a few destinations,

namely, Barbados, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cuba and Jamaica (Holder, 1996). In the Caribbean,

tourism growth was facilitated by inter alia, peace, jet aircraft, packaged tours and charter flights,

and paid holidays (Mings, 1969; Poon, 1993). Since the early 1960s, based on its reputation as

an exotic destination and the playground of the rich, Caribbean countries have increasingly

adopted tourism to develop their fledgling economies (Patullo, 1999).

With its strong focus on tourism, the Caribbean has for some time been regarded as the

most tourism dependent region in the world (Holder, 2006; WTTC, 2007). According to the

Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) (2007) arrivals to the Caribbean in 2006 were

approximately 18.5 million. Tourism development in the region has faced numerous challenges,

with increasing amounts of funds being borrowed and funneled into developing tourism products

(Patullo, 1999). Nevertheless, tourism has in many ways improved the economies of Caribbean









countries, though it has also contributed to environmental and socio-cultural costs (Clayton,

2003; Jayawardena, 2002; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998).

The Caribbean tourism product for many decades has been mainly based on the three Ss -

sun, sand, sea form of tourism and followed the traditional mass tourism development model

(Duval, 2004). The Caribbean product consists primarily of managed and unmanaged natural,

cultural, and historic attractions; over 125,000 hotel rooms in a range of categories from very

small family-run inns, to large chain hotels; a plethora of restaurants offering local and

international cuisine; local travel agents and tour operators; and other ancillary service providers

(CHA, 2007). Special events such as music and other cultural festivals, food festivals, and

marine and terrestrial sporting events are also important elements of the Caribbean tourism

product (CTO, 2007). Although the Caribbean is internationally renowned, its primary markets

have chiefly been the US, Canada, and the UK (Table 2-2) (CTO, 2007).

The continued dependence on tourism as the primary foreign exchange earner in the

Caribbean has led to significant pressure to expand tourism's contribution to the economies

(Grandoit, 2005). However, the region faces major competition from other destinations such as

the Pacific islands, Southeast Asia, and the United States (Hawkins, Jackson & Somerville,

2006; McElroy, 2004). Such competition is in the form of both 3S and alternative types of

tourism (Poon, 2002). Given the challenges, the Caribbean has had to struggle to remain

competitive in the international tourism market. Due to increased development in sensitive and

fragile areas, much of this effort has occurred at the expense of the natural environment which is

the core of the tourism product (McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998).









Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector

The Caribbean Hotel Association first published its "Environmental Management Tool Kit

for Caribbean Hotels" in 1995 (Jones, 1995). This toolkit was one of the CHA's first tangible

products aimed at encouraging its members to implement sustainable tourism practices and also

included the association's Environmental Charter (CAST, 2007). This toolkit did not outline an

EMS, but suggested various ecotecniques that hotels could employ and the potential benefits that

could be achieved (Jones, 1995).

In 1997, the Environmental Committee of the Caribbean Hotel Association evolved into

the Caribbean Action (now Alliance) for Sustainable Tourism with the express purpose of

increasing awareness of tourism impacts on the environment and offering assistance to the

industry to reduce or avoid impacts (CAST, 2007). The emphasis was primarily targeted

towards the accommodations sector. The formation of CAST represented a pivotal point at

which large environmental management initiatives directed at the industry emerged. CAST was

also the conduit through which international environmental initiatives such as IHEI and GG were

promoted in the region (Best, 2004).

When the CHA launched its environmental manual in the mid 1990s, there were no hotels

with an EMS in the region, although there were hotels implementing ad hoc environmental best

practices or environmental management programs (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). There were

also a few hotels such as the Casuarina Beach Club in Barbados and Hotel Mockingbird Hill and

Half Moon in Jamaica that were already developing reputations for being environmentally

responsible (Best, 2004; CAST, 1998; Meade & del Monaco, 1999).

The greening of Caribbean hotels has been facilitated to some degree through projects

funded by international development agencies (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson &









Cresser, 2004; Cresser, 2006; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). In 1997, with funding from the US

Agency for International Development (USAID), the Jamaica Hotel and Tourist Association,

Jamaica Manufacturers Association, and the Government of Jamaica launched the

Environmental Audits for Sustainable Tourism (EAST) project (Meade & del Monaco, 1999).

The objectives of EAST were (1) to raise awareness and increase understanding of audits and

EMS; (2) to build technical capacity; (3) to assist a selection of tourism establishments in

conducting audits; and (4) to help finance the implementation of audit recommendations for

demonstration purposes (Meade & del Monaco). Since 1997, the EAST project was extended for

three successive phases (until 2006) with additional objectives and various successes (Brown-

Thompson & Cresser, 2004; Lane, 2004). In addition to EAST, USAID has funded several other

major projects in the Caribbean, such as the Caribbean Hotel Environmental Management

Initiative (CHEMI) and Rural Enterprise, Agricultural, and Community Tourism Project

(REACT) (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Cresser, 2006; PA Consulting, 2007).

Hotels of various sizes, types, ownership throughout the Caribbean have implemented

environmental best practices, programs, and management systems (Best, 2004; Blanchard &

Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004; May, 2006). Currently 57 of those hotels are

also Green Globe certified (CAST, 2007). In case studies of environmental management in the

hotel sector of five countries in the region, Yaw (2005) noted a range of reasons for using cleaner

technologies (environmental best practices) as well as various barriers to their use (Table 2-3).

Outcomes of environmental management realized in Caribbean hotels included increased

efficiencies in resource consumption, reduced costs, increased human resource training,

improved employee morale, improved general management, improved community relationships

and greater community outreach (Best, 2002, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson









& Cresser, 2004; May, 2004, 2006; Meade & del Monaco, 1999; Yaw, 2005). Despite the

various projects and the achievements of these hotels, much of this information has been

compiled through case studies, and no comprehensive studies of hotels across the region have

been undertaken. Thus there is still some question as to the extent of the diffusion of

environmental management throughout the region's accommodation's sector.

Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Innovations such as the introduction of scheduled jet services to Caribbean destinations in

the 1960s (McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998) and computer technology in the mid- to late 1980s

(Poon, 1987) have significantly affected the Caribbean's tourism industry across geopolitical

boundaries. Environmental management was another innovation to the accommodations sector

which emerged in the 1990s (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Like scheduled airlift and computer

technology, environmental management appeared to have the potential to deliver beneficial

outcomes for adopters (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Several reasons were posited, specifically,

the need for businesses to safeguard the natural environment; the efficiencies, decreased resource

consumption and reduced costs; the competitive and marketing edge for 'green' hotels; increased

customers; and the overall goodwill of assuming their corporate social responsibility (CAST,

2007; Jones, 1995; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Such incentives are most often used to

persuade Caribbean hotels to adopt green practices (CAST, 2007).

Diffusion has been defined by Rogers (2003) as "the process by which an innovation is

communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system" (p. 6).

Also, Strang and Soule (1998, p. 266) noted that diffusion is "the spread of something within a

social system," where 'spread' refers to movement from originator to adopter by way of

influence and communication. Rogers (2003) also describes diffusion as social change or the

process through which the function and structure of a social system are changed. The process









begins with the innovation which is communicated through various means to members of a

social system. These members choose to adopt, modify and adopt, or reject the innovation. If

the innovation is adopted then there are consequences to the social system (Rogers, 2003).

Innovation diffusion dates back to the work of Tarde in 1903, but the bulk of research

appeared after Ryan and Gross' (1943) work on the use of hybrid corn by farmers in Iowa. Ryan

and Gross' (1943) study was conducted because the administrators of the Iowa Agricultural

Experiment Station wanted to understand why hybrid corn seed was not quickly adopted by most

farmers. The administrators saw hybrid corn as being advantageous to farmers, but some

farmers took a few years to start using the seed or to plant their entire fields with it. Within a

thirteen year period 99% of the farmers sampled were using hybrid seed, but the majority of

adoptions occurred after the first five years and the rate of adoption followed the typical s-shaped

curve. When categories of adopters were compared, the innovators were more educated, with

larger farms and higher incomes. The innovators were also more worldly than later adopters

(Gross, 1942 cited in Rogers, 2003). Information on the hybrid corn seed was mainly spread

from farmer to farmer. This led to the conclusion that interpersonal networks were critical to the

process and diffusion was essentially a social process (Rogers, 2003; Ryan & Gross, 1943).

Research on diffusion of innovations covers the gamut of disciplines from anthropology to

politics to economics (Rogers, 2003; Downs & Mohr, 1976). Brown (1981) notes two main

streams in which research on innovation diffusion has been conducted: (1) the economic history

perspective which subsumes the diffusion process in itself (continuous adaption, adoption,

markets, and infrastructure) and (2) the development perspective which examines the impact of

the innovation on economic development and social change. Generally, research on innovation

diffusion has been in these two streams, though most research has been conducted on the rates of









adoption of innovations and the communication process that facilitates diffusion (Rogers, 2003;

Smith 2004).

Rogers (2003) proposed four elements of innovation diffusion: 1) the innovation, 2)

communication channels, 3) time, and 4) the social system. An innovation is any idea, product,

process, system, management style, service style, or combination thereof, which is new to the

individual, organization, industry, or other unit and is usually held to be potentially beneficial to

the user (Bigoness & Perreault, Jr., 1981; Rogers, 2003). Consequently much of the literature

has focused on innovations that have been adopted without modifications, but there is a lack of

research on those innovations that have been modified prior to or during adoption, or that have

been rejected (Rogers, 2003; Van de Ven, 1999).

Research on diffusion of innovations has focused on (1) the differences between early and

late adopters, (2) the influence of innovation characteristics on the rate of adoption, and (3) why

the rate of adoption appears to change after a certain level of adoption has been reached (Rogers,

2003). The characteristics of an innovation are strong determinants of its adoption.

Characteristics are described as relative advantage (the extent to which the potential adopter

perceives the innovation to better than what it replaces), compatibility (the extent to which the

innovation is congruent with the potential adopter's needs, values, and experiences), complexity

(the extent to which the innovation is perceived to be difficult to comprehend and use),

trialability (the extent to which the innovation can be tried without complete adoption), and

observability (the extent to which the outcomes of an innovation can be observed by others)

(Rogers, 2003).

Communication is the means of sharing information between individuals and groups. To a

certain degree, communication of innovations depends on relationships between individuals,









organizations, or groups within a social system. When individuals, organizations, or groups are

similar, communication between them is greater than when they are different. For some

diffusion scholars, the communication element is the most important variable in the diffusion

process, since the decision to adopt may depend on the assessment of the innovation which is

informally communicated by an adopter to a potential adopter (Smith, 2004).

The dimension of time comes in to play in (1) the innovation decision process in which

knowledge passes from awareness of the innovation to adoption or rejection of the innovation

This process typically involves five stages knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation

and confirmation which usually occur chronologically; (2) the innovativeness of an individual

or unit (i.e., speed with which an innovation is adopted by one unit compared with other units).

Adopters are usually classified as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and

laggards (Figure 2-4). However, innovativeness is relative to the social system within which it

occurs, the innovation, and time; and (3) the rate of adoption of the entire social system, (i.e., the

amount of units within a system to adopt the innovation within a given time). The rate of

adoption is usually plotted graphically as frequency over time, with a resulting distribution curve

that is S-shaped (Figure 2-5). In spite of differences in the gradation of the S-shaped curve, most

innovations studied have been found to follow the curve (Bigoness & Perreault, Jr., 1981;

Rogers, 2003).

The fourth element is the social system which is defined as a group of interrelated yet

distinguishable units that work collectively to achieve a common goal. The social system is

composed of a structure which may influence the diffusion of an innovation. Social structure

includes opinion leaders (persons who can influence the attitudes or behavior of others and may

assist or hinder the adoption of an innovation) and change agents (a professional who is external









to the social system and influences innovation decisions), among others. The norms within the

social system may also determine whether or not an innovation diffuses within that system

(Rogers, 2003).

A major aspect of diffusion of innovation which has received limited study is the

consequence of the innovation, that is, the changes to a social system or individual that results

from the adoption or rejection of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). It is estimated that less than

0.2% of the approximately 5000 studies conducted on diffusion of innovations have focused on

consequences of the innovation. Consequences are generally identified in six categories:

desirable or undesirable, direct or indirect, and anticipated or unanticipated (Rogers, 2003).

Applications of Diffusion of Innovation

Diffusion of innovation theory has been used in various studies to understand changes in

the tourism industry. Studies have examined the adoption of information technology such as the

Internet and the use of emails by tourism companies (Murphy et al., 2003; Poon, 1987; Sahadev

& Islam, 2005; Standing, Borbely & Vasudavan, 1999). The theory has also been used to assess

environmental management in hotels (Le, Hollenhorst, Harris, McLaughlin & Shook, 2006). In

addition, diffusion of innovation research has been conducted extensively in developing

countries (Rogers, 2003).

Standing, Borbely and Vasudavan (1999) conducted research among Western Australian

travel agents' use of the internet. Such use included using the World Wide Web (WWW) for

information searches as well as to provide information and other services to customers.

Specifically, the study analyzed the rate of adoption of the WWW, the challenges to the adoption

of this innovation either for information or provision, and the types of strategies used to make

decisions about adopting the WWW. The study found that the majority of travel agents (58%)

had not adopted WWW technology to search for or provide information and other services (e.g.,









reservations and payments) to customers. Even for those travel agents that had used the Web,

the use of websites other than their own was limited to basic searches for information about

locations, hotels, timetables, and fares. Most travel agents had not used the Web for services

such as making reservations or payments. Additionally, their own sites were limited to providing

information. Adoption of the Web was constrained by participants' lack of trust in the benefits

of the web, inadequate training, costs, integrating the web with other business applications, and

the necessity of revamping business processes (Standing et al., 1999).

Murphy et al. (2003) examined email technology as an innovation within a stratified

sample of websites of 200 hotels from the Swiss Hotel Association. Content analysis of website

features and a survey of email responses were used to conduct the research. For the email

response survey, the speed of the response to a request for information and the format of the

response were analyzed. The study also analyzed phases of the adoption process. Results

identified significant relationships between hotel characteristics (size, category, location, and

linguistic region) and the adoption of email technology. However, since all hotels did not

provide adequate responses to their emailed request, Murphy et al. (2003) suggested that a

bandwagon effect was in play, in which some hotels may have adopted email technology simply

because other hotels had done so. The authors further noted that their examination of website

features (initiation phase) and email service (implementation phase) was an important

contribution to the research on diffusion of innovations which has primarily analyzed a single

phase of the innovation.

Sahadev and Islam (2005) conducted research that pertained to factors that influence Thai

hotels' propensity (relative time taken) to adopt information and communication technology.

Seven factors were used as independent variables: hotel age, size, type, range of activities,









proportion of visitors from the hotel's high-penetration countries, level of competition between

local hotels, and market size. The sample comprised ninety-five Thai hotels that had participated

in a national exhibition. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered by the

researchers to hotel executives. Hotel age was the only factor found to significantly influence

the propensity of Thai hotels to adopt information and communication technologies (Sahadev &

Islam, 2005). Contrary to other studies, size was not found to be a significant predictor of

likelihood to adopt an innovation. However, the significance of size has been mixed in research

findings (Rogers, 2003).

A longitudinal study of diffusion was conducted on (1) email as a communication and

marketing strategy and (2) outsourcing of website creation and maintenance in bed and

breakfasts (B & B) in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas (Smith, 2007). For this study an email

survey of B & B operators was conducted quarterly over a three year period. Results showed

that the number of B & Bs with email addresses available for public contact increased over time

(Smith, 2007). Outsourcing of web creation and maintenance also increased from 44% in 2001

to 50% in 2002, and 61% in 2003. Furthermore, Smith (2007) suggested that during the three

year period the S-shaped curve progressed from early majority adopters to late majority adopters.

Smith's (2007) longitudinal method served to extend the research on diffusion of innovation

since diffusion studies have tended to be cross sectional.

Diffusion of innovations was used by Le et al. (2006) to investigate factors that influence

the likelihood of Vietnamese hotels to adopt environmentally friendly practices. The factors

were segmented into three main categories: perceived innovation characteristics (complexity,

observability, compatibility, relative advantage), environmental characteristics (competition,

customer demand, government regulation), and organizational characteristics (size, location,









level of risk-taking, greenness level). Data were collected via a self administered questionnaire

completed by owners, managers, or other decision makers of hotels. The sample size was 437

hotels with a 47% response rate. Le et al. (2006) found that innovation characteristics, especially

complexity and observability, had the strongest influence on hotels' likelihood to adopt

environmentally friendly practices. Other influential factors were relative advantage, size,

location, level of risk-taking, and perceived competition. However, "greenness" level was not a

significant influence on a hotel's likelihood of adopting environmentally friendly practices. Le

et al. (2006) noted that it was perhaps because of the absence of information that some of the

hotels may have appeared to reject an environmentally friendly practice which they may have

adopted at a later time when more information was available.

Gaps in Diffusion of Innovation Research

Since the 1940s, diffusion of innovation has been studied extensively in a range of

disciplines. However, a number of methodological and other issues are still evident. First,

innovations have been assumed to hold advantages for the adopters and widespread adoption

anticipated. As a result of this pro-innovation bias, very little attention has been afforded to

innovations that have been rejected (Haider & Kreps, 2004; Rogers, 2003; Strang & Soule, 1998;

van de Ven, 1999).

Second, limited research has focused on the consequences or outcomes of adopting an

innovation. Rogers (2003) estimates that less than 1% of more than 5000 studies on diffusion of

innovation have been conducted on the consequences of innovation adoption. This is highlighted

as a major gap in the research as the literature is heavily weighted towards an examination of

innovation adoption, but lacks insight as to whether innovations achieve their aims (Rogers,

2003).









Third, studies on innovation diffusion have generally been cross sectional. Thus,

conclusions can only be drawn about the state of adoption at that particular point in time. Cross

sectional studies also require participants to recall actions and decisions that may have been

taken long before the research was conducted (Rogers, 2003). Research conducted at intervals

may circumvent the recall issue and include late adopters. Only a few longitudinal studies on

diffusion of innovations have been conducted.

Fourth, the majority of research on diffusion of innovation has used a single quantitative

method usually a questionnaire to collect data (Rogers, 2003). In those few instances in

which quantitative and qualitative techniques have been combined in diffusion studies, neither

validity nor reliability was compromised (Rogers, 2003).

Summary

Since the 1960s, Caribbean countries have increasingly turned to tourism as a means of

economic development. These countries, like many others in the world, initially regarded

tourism as much more benign than natural resource extractive industries. However, it has

become evident that the tourism industry has had and continues to have negative impacts on the

natural environment and is often blamed for much of the natural resource degradation in its

environs. These impacts are consequences of activities such as land clearing for facilities

construction, in-filling of wetlands, infrastructural development, terrestrial, freshwater and

marine pollution, and consumption of energy, freshwater, and food resources. Whether the

tourism industry is guilty of causing these impacts is sometimes debatable, since residents also

use resources. However, the extent of tourism industry's activities may exacerbate or accelerate

impacts engendered by residents (Butler, 2000). Nonetheless, the relationship between tourism

and the environment is not simply negative, rather it is a complex relationship in which the two

parties could be in conflict, be symbiotic, or merely coexist (Budowski, 1976), though the latter









situation becomes progressively less likely as tourism development increases, or environmental

degradation becomes more apparent.

Concerns about tourism's negative impacts on natural resources, pressure from various

stakeholder group, and global initiatives on sustainable development influenced the emergence

of the sustainable tourism concept. Sustainable tourism speaks to the development of tourism

which benefits the community while minimizing the negative impacts to both the natural and

cultural environment (Hunter, 2002; Page & Dowling, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). However,

sustainable tourism efforts have been more focused on the natural environment than community

benefits or cultural resources (Butler, 1998, 2000; Font & Harris, 2004). Additionally, while

many governments, agencies, non-governmental organizations and other groups have stated their

commitment to sustainable tourism, they have been criticized as being slow to action their

rhetoric. Whilst examples of sustainable tourism best practices have not yet been adopted by all

segments and players of the industry, there are a growing number of examples to date. These

measures, collectively known as environmental management or greening, have primarily been

undertaken by the private sector.

Environmental management subsumes measures taken to protect the natural environment

from anthropogenic impacts (ADEH, 2007). In developed countries, environmental management

was initially centered on pollution reduction measures which were regulated by various

government agencies since the early 1970s. Consequently, manufacturing industries have had a

longer history of managing certain aspects of their environment than service industries (Meyer,

2000). Environmental management has broadened beyond pollution control and is gradually

being seen more as a business strategy than a reaction to regulation. Further, it is no longer just









the purview of manufacturing and chemical industries, but is emerging as a core part of service

businesses as well.

Environmental management in the tourism industry is most evident in the accommodations

sector. Environmental management has been seen in several forms, from implementation of

basic environmental best practices, to a property having its environmental management system

certified against an international environmental standard such as Green Globe or ISO 14001. A

range of motives (e.g. cost reduction, stakeholder pressure), facilitators (e.g. government

incentives, technical assistance), and constraints (high costs, limited knowledge) have been

highlighted as determinants of the level of environmental management implemented (Alvarez

Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000;

Tzschentke et al., 2004; Vernon et al., 2003). A number of outcomes (e.g. increased efficiency,

employee satisfaction) has also been identified in the growing body of research in this area (Enz

& Siguaw, 1999; GHGMS, 2007).

As a region which has for some time been considered to be the world's most tourism

dependent region, the Caribbean has made great strides in implementing environmental

management or 'greening' their properties. The greening movement in the region has been

influenced by the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism which was established in 1997 to

assist the industry in its efforts to become sustainable (CAST, 2008). In the years since 1997,

this movement has encompassed independent hotels and hotel chains, as well as hotels of various

sizes and types (Best, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004; May,

2006).

Environmental management was proposed as an innovation which offered a range of

benefits to Caribbean hoteliers (Meade & Monaco, 1999). Thus it was expected that this









innovation would have wide adoption within the industry. The extent to which environmental

management and other innovations (e.g. Internet and email technology) have been adopted

within the tourism industry, have occasionally been examined through the lens of diffusion of

innovations theory. Diffusion of innovation subsumes the dispersal of an innovation within a

social system, the communication channels which facilitate this dispersal, the rate at which the

innovation is adopted and the change to the social system which result from the innovation.










Table 2-1. Stayover tourists and economic contribution in selected Caribbean destinations in
2006.


Expenditure (US$
million)b


Contribution to
GDP (%)c


Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas 1
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica 1
Montserrat
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Islands
US Virgin Islands


72,962
253,669
,491,633
562,558
247,308
298,973
356,271
267,257
83,916
118,490
113,474
,678,905
7,963
91,768
302,510
97,432
232,743
150,579
671,362


69.4
337.3
1,884.5
763.2
205.2
353.7
392.7
607.0
60.3
156.8
86.6
1,436.6
8.6
106.9
325.7
95.6
260.3
304.0
1,365.9


28.5
10.1
ND
12.4
4.4
ND
16.0
ND
2.7
7.9
ND
ND
0.9
8.5
14.8
2.2
ND
ND
ND


aAdapted from CTO (2007). bAdapted from CTO (2008). Includes restaurant data.
ND no data.

Table 2-2. Caribbean tourist arrivals by primary market.
US Canada Europe Other
Anguilla 44,489 1,977 9,220 17,276
Antigua and Barbuda 73,497 10,053 106,538 63,581
Barbados 130,767 49,198 240,923 141,670
Belize 152,509 15,553 34,370 44,876
Bermuda 227,725 27,675 32,347 11,226
Cayman Islands 217,363 14,910 16,721 18,263
Dominica 21,311 2,552 11,234 48,819
Grenada 27,121 6,334 32,496 52,539
Guyana 57,193 14,580 8,390 33,311
Jamaica 1,190,721 153,569 256,074 78,541
Montserrat 2,151 395 2,501 2,916
St. Lucia 117,450 17,491 85,565 82,004
St. Vincent & Grenadines 28,598 6,542 21,961 40,331
Trinidad & Tobago 87,452 26,040 45,646 73,605
US Virgin Islands 605,746 5,267 15,077 74,934
Adapted from CTO (2007).


Tourist
Arrivalsa


_ I \_I












Table 2-3. Adoption of cleaner technologies in Caribbean hotels.

Antigua Barbados Jamaica St. Lucia
Reasons for adopting cleaner technologies:
To attract "green consumers"
To reduce costs
To comply with international protocols / /
To comply with national policies /
To do our part in maintaining/
environmental integrity
Constraints to adopting cleaner technologies:
Too expensive
No requests from guests
No government sanctions
Lack of skilled, professional staff
Adapted from Yaw (2005).


INTEGRATION
Overall advancement of
tourism and environment
TOURISM
ve impacts of + ve
he environment IV I v
o tourism vs impacts ol tourism
eelop meant and the environment
development /

symbiosis
0 /








Impact adversely
\ ./ THE


conlion




Overall define ofmp
oth tourism and e n tourism on






Notes 1. Symbiosis occurs in quadrant I.
2. Conflict occurs in quadranls II-IV.
3. Integralion occurs when the symbolic
effects oulweigh he possible conflicts
Sthat nvronm and he environment eronre
impact adversely
on each olher






advced.

Figure 2-1. Relationships between tourism and the environment age & Dowling, 2002)
Overall decine of
lourism and environment


Notes: 1. Symbiosis occurs in quadrant I.
2. Conflict occurs in quadranis tI-IV.
3. Integration occurs when the symbolic
effects outweigh the possible conflicts
so that tourism and the environment are
advanced.


Figure 2-1. Relationships between tourism and the environment (Page & Dowling, 2002)












Social
Pespcrnsibility


RFgulato ri
Coalmpirficf

Figure 2-2. Institutional drivers of environmental management (Hoffman, 2000)


Figure 2-3. Institutional drivers of environmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000)


Innovators Ea
S / Early
Adopters
2.5% 13.5%


Early
Majority
34%


Late
MNjorily
34%


1-2sd Y-sd


Laggards
16%


+ sd


Figure 2-4. Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness for an innovation that has
been adopted by the entire social system (Rogers, 2003)


__ ~~


I I i1











10% Later Adopters
90% -

Innovation I Innovation II Innovation III




I /
70%



/30% -ke-OTf

20%
10% E- cy
10% Earlier. ,'
AlAopters
-- Time --


Figure 2-5. The Diffusion Process (Rogers, 2003)









CHAPTER 3
METHODS

The methods used to evaluate environmental management in the Caribbean

accommodations sector are outlined in this chapter. The following sections are covered in this

chapter.

Study Sites
Selection of Participants
Data Collection
Instrumentation
Treatment of Data

Study Sites

This study was conducted among various types of accommodations within the English-

speaking countries of the Caribbean. The countries included in the study were Anguilla, Antigua

and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman

Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St.

Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, the Turks & Caicos Islands, and the United

States Virgin Islands (Table 3-1).

Accommodation in the Caribbean covers a wide range of properties, from less than five

rooms to mega-resorts with over 1,000 rooms (CHA, 2007). Accommodations include hotels

and resorts, guest houses, villas, apartments, eco-lodges, and camping facilities, but hotels and

resorts comprise the majority (Spittle, 2005; Travelwatch, 2006). There is also a variety of types

of accommodation units, from properties that are locally owned and operated, to those that are

foreign owned and/or part of an international chain (Travelwatch, 2006).

Traditionally hotels were operated under the European Plan (EP) which was a room only

rate, the Full American Plan (FAP) which included the room and three meals, or the Modified

American Plan (MAP) which included the room, breakfast and dinner (Issa & Jayawardena,









2003, 2005; Spittle, 2005). In more recent years, the all-inclusive (AI) has emerged as the fastest

growing part of the accommodations sector, though this growth has been less evident in the

English-speaking Caribbean (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005) (Table 3-2). The AI builds on the FAP

by adding all drinks, activities (e.g., scuba diving, weddings, and golf), taxes, and depending on

country regulations, transfers to and from the airport (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005). Additionally,

tipping is prohibited in AIs (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005).

Tourism has long been proposed as a tool for economic development in the Caribbean and

the accommodations sector has played a key part in this regard (Mings, 1969). It has been

suggested that hotels are often equated to tourism, however the entire tourism experience is a

much larger phenomenon than just hotels (Poon, 2002). Nevertheless, the accommodations

sector does comprise a major element of the tourism industry in terms of employment (see Table

2-1), consumption of goods and services (Table 3-3), consumption of natural resources, and

generation of wastes (Hawkins et al., 2006; Tourism Global, 2007; Travelwatch, 2006). It is

noteworthy that the smaller accommodation units which are locally owned may contribute more

to the economy than their larger and internationally owned counterparts (Travelwatch, 2006).

Selection of Participants

The study targeted general managers or owners of properties in the 19 countries identified.

Since these individuals are normally responsible for strategic decision making, they were

deemed the most suitable group to be surveyed. Selection of hotels was based on membership in

the Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) or the individual country's national hotel association.

CHA is an alliance of 35 national hotel associations throughout the English, Spanish, Dutch, and

French sub-regions of the Caribbean. At the commencement of this study, there were 19

member associations from the Anglophone Caribbean (CHA, 2007). In addition to its

association members, individual hotels or other types of accommodation units are members of









the CHA. There were 849 hotels with membership in the CHA at the end of 2007, which

account for approximately 125,476 rooms (CHA, 2007). The CHA categorizes accommodations

as small (75 rooms and less), medium (76-500 rooms) and large (over 500 rooms) (CHA, 2007).

Two thirds of the membership of the CHA is within the small hotel category (CHA, 2007). In

the country of Belize for example, approximately 99% of accommodations have less than 50

rooms, with 67% having less than 10 (Belize Tourism Board, cited in Craig, Nicholas & Oxley,

2005).

A database of hotels in the English speaking countries was compiled using CHA's

membership list in combination with membership lists from the 19 national hotel associations.

This database in itself constitutes a sample of hotels in the Caribbean region, since not all

accommodation units are members of either the national or regional association. Therefore, all

hotels in the database for which email addresses of general managers/owners could be obtained

were emailed invitations to participate in the survey. Some 920 hotels were in the database.

However, despite telephone calls to each property to confirm an appropriate email address, a

number of emails did not reach the intended recipient; 840 emails were confirmed received.

Invitations to hoteliers in the Bahamas were accompanied by a letter of support from the

Bahamas Hotel Association. Executive Directors for associations in Anguilla, Grenada, St. Kitts

& Nevis, and Trinidad also forwarded the survey link to their members. These actions were

undertaken to increase survey response rate.

Data Collection

Data for this study were collected from December 2007 until March 2008. Table 3-4

indicates the distribution schedule. Data were collected through an online user administered

questionnaire. This method was chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the study sites covered a

wide geographic range and it was not feasible to travel to each country to administer surveys or









to recruit local researchers to do so. Secondly, using an online survey significantly reduced the

cost of paper, postage, and recruiting, hiring, and training research assistants to administer the

questionnaire. Thirdly, the database indicated that the majority of hotels had email addresses and

a website. Fourthly, online surveys have been found to have a quicker return rate and in some

instances, the same or significantly higher response rate than mail surveys, particularly for

groups that frequently use the email or the Internet (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004). In an

experiment to determine whether response rates differed between email and postal mail methods,

Schaefer and Dillman (1998) got a response rate of 57.5% using the postal approach, and 58%

for the group contacted entirely by email. Their chi-square test of the response rates found that

there was no significant difference between the two responses (Schaeffer & Dillman, 1998). In a

meta-analysis of web based surveys Schonlau, Fricker and Elliott (2003) found that response

rates ranged from 27% to 89%, with an average of 65% for government surveys of organizations

conducted annually from 1997 to 2000. However, the range was from 8% to 62% for non

government surveys using censuses or probability samples (Schonlau et al., 2003). In the survey

in which the response rate was 8%, the respondents were contacted through an intermediary and

this was cited as a plausible explanation for the low rate (Schonlau et al., 2003).

General managers/owners were invited to participate in the survey by email. To ensure

that the email reached the intended target, email addresses for general managers or owners were

confirmed through telephone calls to the hotel. Since previous studies have shown better

response rates when advance notification was made, a pre-notice was first emailed to alert the

hotelier to expect an invitation (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004; Schaefer & Dillman,

1998). This pre-notice also served to test the validity of the email addresses and those that were

found to be invalid were removed from the database. Following the pre-notice, an email with the









URL link was sent to the hotels (Table 3-4). Subsequently, four email reminders were sent. One

reminder was sent in January and three were sent in February. Each reminder contained the

URL link to the questionnaire (Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). Given the time of year (winter

season) when the surveying commenced, the decision was taken to send the second reminder

after a three week interval. It was felt that this would help to recruit persons who may have been

away for longer than one or two weeks.

Instrumentation

Data for this study was collected through a user administered -based survey. The

questionnaire was created and accessed through Zoomerang, an online survey tool. The

questionnaire was designed to solicit general managers' and owners' evaluation of the motives,

facilitators, and constraints they experienced with environmental management in their hotels, as

well as the outcomes that have resulted from its implementation. A pilot study was conducted to

test the questionnaire for content and face validity, and user-friendliness of the online survey.

No problems were reported by the respondents of the pilot study.

The questionnaire consisted of five main sections which measured variables that pertain to

environmental management, motives, facilitators, constraints, and outcomes. Property

characteristics such as location, type, ownership, and size were also determined.

Environmental Management

This section assessed the level of environmental management by asking respondents to

indicate the level of environmental management in operation at their respective hotel (Table 3-5).

This was a forced-choice question in which the respondent was only able to select one option.

The choices ranged from the implementation of basic environmental best practices to having a

certified environmental management system in place.









Motives

In this section motivations for implementing environmental management were measured

(Table 3-6). Based on the literature, motives were represented in three themes: (1) cost reduction

and efficiency, (2) internal pressure, and (3) external pressure. Some of the items were adapted

from Ayuso (2007), Bohdanowicz (2005), Bramwell & Alletorp (2001), Stabler & Goodall

(1997), and Vernon et al. (2003). Items were measured on a five point Likert type scale with a

range of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree,

and 5=Strongly agree.

Facilitators

This section assessed factors which were considered to facilitate the implementation of

environmental management (Table 3-7). Based on the literature, two main types of facilitators

were identified: capacity building and incentives. Some of the items were adapted from Ayuso

(2007) and Bramwell & Alletorp (2001). Facilitators were measured using a five point Likert

type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neither agree nor

disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Constraints

Factors which hampered the adoption or implementation of environmental management

were assessed in this section (Table 3-8). Three major types of constraints have been

documented in the literature: costs, human resources, and technical. Items were adapted from

Ayuso (2007), Bramwell & Alletorp (2001), Hobson & Essex (2001), Stabler & Goodall (1997),

Vernon et al. (2003), and Zurburg et al. (1995). Constraints were measured using a five point

Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree

nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.









Outcomes

This section measured the results from implementing environmental management in hotels

(Table 3-9). Some of the items were adapted from Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001, Enz & Siguaw

(1999), Goodman (2000), Kirk (1995), and Tzschentke et al. (2004). Outcomes were measured

through four responses: 'not at all', 'a little', 'somewhat', and 'a lot'.

Treatment of Data

Data for this study were exported from Zoomerang to Microsoft Excel and imported from

Excel into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 14.0 for Windows Graduate Student

Version (SPSS). All data analyses were conducted using SPSS and Amos 6.0.

All constructs and independent items were assessed through frequencies and simple

descriptive methods prior to the testing of research questions. Main construct scales were

reduced to indices for additional analyses. All analyses were evaluated for significance at the .05

level. Similarly, all regression analyses were conducted using the backward stepwise method,

given that this research is largely exploratory (Field, 2005).

The four main constructs: motives, facilitators, constraints and outcomes, were measured

with multi-item scales. The internal consistency of these scales was assessed using Cronbach's

alpha. For the main scales, coefficient alpha of .7 and higher was considered to be acceptable

(Nunnally, 1978). However, given that this research was exploratory, and the fact that some

indices only contained a few items (2-7), coefficient alpha of .6 was deemed acceptable for

indices derived from the main construct scales (Cortina, 1993; Nunnally, 1978).









Environmental Management

* Research question 1: To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the
Caribbean accommodations sector?

The frequency of environmental management implementation was calculated to determine

the portion of the sample that had implemented the innovation and to assess the various levels of

the innovation that had been implemented. The diffusion of environmental management was

determined by plotting the year of implementation (X axis) against the cumulative frequency (Y

axis), thereby creating the diffusion curve.

* Research question 2: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of
environmental management in terms of (a) characteristics, (b) organization membership,
(c) importance of natural resources to the accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of
environmental management?

Chi-square analysis was used to assess characteristics and organization membership, while

independent sample t-tests were used to assess importance of natural resources to the

accommodations sector and knowledge of environmental management.

* Research question 3: Is there a difference between green hotels and rejecters with regards
to constraints?

Independent sample t-tests were used for this analysis.

* Research question 4: Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental
management in Caribbean hotels?

Level of environmental management was regressed on hotel characteristics. Categorical

predictor variables were coded as dummy variables for the regression analysis.

* Research question 5: Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the
level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

Level of environmental management was regressed on motives. Factor analysis was

conducted on the items in the motive construct. Environmental management was regressed on

the ensuing factors.









* Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

Level of environmental management was regressed on facilitators. Factor analysis was

conducted on the items in the facilitator construct. Environmental management was regressed on

the ensuing factors.

* Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of
environmental management implemented?

Level of environmental management was regressed on constraints. Factor analysis was

conducted on the items in the constraints construct. Level of environmental management was

regressed on the ensuing factors.

* Research question 8: Which variables have the most influence on the implementation of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationships between factors of

motives, facilitators and constraints and level of environmental management.

Environmental Management Outcomes

* Research question 9: Does level of environmental management implemented influence
the number of outcomes experienced?

Simple linear regression was used to determine such a relationship. Level of EM was a

categorical predictor variable. In the data collection each item in the outcomes construct was

rated as not at all, a little, somewhat, or a lot. This was used to develop a weighted total. The

weighted total number of outcomes was employed as the outcome variable.

Environmental Management and Outcomes

* Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints,
level of environmental management, and the outcomes of environmental management
(Figure 1-4)?

A path analysis based on multiple regressions was conducted to assess these relationships.

Level of environmental management was regressed on factors of motives, facilitators and









constraints. Total outcomes was regressed on factors of motives, facilitators and constraints and

level of environmental management.










Table 3-1. Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean
Country No. No. rooms Average Stay
accommodation (2005)b (days)
units (2007)a
Anguilla 25 746 8.1
Antigua and Barbuda 39 ND ND
Bahamas 59 14,800 ND
Barbados 76 6,353 7.4
Belize 41 5,593 ND
Bermuda 33 3,067 6.4
British Virgin Islands 32 2,722 9
Cayman Islands 44 2,954 4.9
Dominica 29 787 ND
Grenada 29 1,470 7.4
Guyana 35 ND ND
Jamaica 124 22,528 6.9
Montserrat 9 ND ND
St. Kitts & Nevis 19 ND ND
St. Lucia 67 4,511 10.1
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 47 1,692 ND
Trinidad & Tobago 64 5,929 ND
Turks & Caicos Islands 31 ND ND
United States Virgin Islands 41 4,762 4.3
TOTAL 844
ND Not determined
(a) From CHA and national hotel associations' databases
(b) Adapted from Compendium of Statistics 2005 (WTO, 2007)

Table 3-2. All-Inclusive hotels in the English Caribbean 1993 & 1999.
No. of resorts No. of resorts
(1993) (1999)
Anguilla 3 1
Antigua and Barbuda 8 10
Bahamas 5 7
Barbados 5 6
Bermuda 1 1
Grenada 1 2
Jamaica 26 33
St. Kitts & Nevis 1 1
St. Lucia 8 9
Turks & Caicos Islands 4 2
United States Virgin Islands 2 2
Adapted from Issa & Jayawardena (2005).









Table 3-3. Consumption of goods and services by the Caribbean accommodations sector.
Services/Goods Avg. purchased Avg. purchased
locally (%) regionally (%)
Electricity 100
Water 100
Telecommunications 91
Agricultural produce: Vegetables 74 11
Agricultural produce: Dairy 67 10
Agricultural produce: Meats 63
Agricultural produce: Fresh fruit 16 7
Fish 20 8
Light manufacturing (e.g., bakery products, 47 13
uniforms, printing)
Construction, fixtures & equipment 39 8
Services (e.g., information technology, 84
transportation, maintenance, security)
Adapted from Tourism Global (2007).

Table 3-4. Questionnaire Distribution
Pre-notice December 10, 2007 840 Emails to General Managers/Owners
Invitation December 17, 2007 840 Emails to General Managers/Owners
1st Reminder January 9, 2008 829 Emails to General Managers/Owners
2nd Reminder February 5, 2008 809 Emails to General Managers/Owners
3rd Reminder February 18, 2008 798 Emails to General Managers/Owners
4th Reminder February 28, 2008 778 Emails to General Managers/Owners

Table 3-5. Levels of environmental management.
Some environmental initiatives in place (e.g., aerators, energy saving lights, towel/linen
reuse programme, solid waste separation for reuse or recycling) implemented in ad hoc
fashion
Environmental programme (planned environmental actions throughout the property,
involving all or most departments)
Environmental management system (EMS) (Comprehensive environmental programme
which includes a formal environmental policy, objectives, targets, and action plan,
performance monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff levels, documentation)
Environmental management system which has been certified against a recognized standard
(e.g., local Authority or Environmental Agency, Green Globe, CST, ISO 14001)










Table 3-6. Motives for implementing environmental management
Cost reduction & efficiency
Potential cost savings
Need to keep up with competitors
Advantage over competitors
Internal pressure
Importance of conserving natural resources
Internal Green Champion
Pressure from shareholders
External pressure
Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc.
Government regulations
Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Table 3-7. Facilitators of environmental management
Capacity building
In-house training
Participation in external training
Technical assistance from external agencies
Incentives
Funding (e.g., grants)
Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening project)
Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions)
Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.










Table 3-8. Constraints to implementing environmental management.
Costs
Implementation is costly
Lack of capital
Lack of time
Potential benefits were not apparent
Human resources
Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult
Employee resistance
Lack of know-how
Technical
More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated
No access to technology
Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property
Environmental management is unnecessary
Property unaware of any stage beyond its current level of environmental management
Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Table 3-9. Outcomes of environmental management.
Decrease in resource consumption (e.g., water, energy)
Decrease in solid waste generation
Change in organizational structure and culture
Decrease in operating costs
Increase in occupancy
Environmental management used to market the property
Increase in guest satisfaction
Increased participation in community outreach activities
Use of employee incentives to encourage participant in environmental management
Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations
Environmental management performance incorporated in management evaluations
Overall improvement in property management
Environmental management component in annual property reports
Improvement in employee morale
Increase in staff training
Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy
Items were measured as 'not at all', 'a little', 'somewhat' or 'a lot'.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Profile of Participants and Hotels

The survey was conducted in 19 countries in the Anglophone Caribbean, with at least one

respondent from each country (Table 4-1). There were 197 usable questionnaires completed

which yielded a 27% response rate. Forty two percent (42%) of the participants represented

hotels in Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, and Trinidad & Tobago. Most participants were either,

general managers (41%), owners (9%), or owner/general managers (27%). Approximately 19%

were managers or supervisors in other departments such as sales and marketing, front office, and

human resources, while 4% were environmental officers or managers (Table 4-2).

Small hotels (1-75 rooms) comprised the bulk of the sample (73%), while medium hotels

(76-500 rooms) and large hotels (501+) were 25% and 3%, respectively. The number of

employees at these hotels ranged from one at a 4-room property in Tobago, to 800 at an 850-

room property in the Bahamas. Roughly half of the hotels represented were established between

1940 and 1989; there was one hotel in Bermuda which was over 100 years old (Table 4-3).

Average annual occupancy ranged from 10% to 95%. Occupancies of 50% or less were reported

by 32% of the hotels. Almost one quarter of the hotels (23%) experienced occupancies over

75% (Table 4-3).

The majority of hotels represented were categorized as either mid-range (47%) or luxury

properties (34%); the remaining hotels were in the budget category. Most hotels were both

locally owned and operated (63%), while 24% were either foreign owned and operated or foreign

owned and locally operated. Hotels that were part of local chains and international chains

collectively comprised 13% percent of the sample. Most respondents indicated that the majority









of guests at their hotel originated in the United States (61%). For 19% of the hotels, most guests

originated in the United Kingdom, while 11% were from the Caribbean (Table 4-3).

The database used for the survey sample was compiled by merging the membership lists

of the Caribbean Hotel Association and the national hotel associations of the individual

countries. Responses were mixed with respect to current or previous membership in these

associations, the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism and other environmental

organizations. Membership in the national association is a requirement for membership in CHA.

About 83% of the hotels were members of their local association, while 77% were members of

CHA. Membership in CAST was 44%. Similarly, membership in other environmental

organizations such as the Green Hotels Association and the International Hotels Environment

Initiative was 42% (Table 4-4).

Respondents were asked two questions which sought to assess their understanding of the

relationship between the accommodations sector and the natural environment, and their

familiarity with the concept of environmental management within the sector. Seventy-eight

percent (78%) of respondents agreed (agreed and strongly agreed responses combined) that their

property depended on the natural environment. A similar pattern of agreement emerged with

respect to the importance of the sector's role in environmental protection (85%), the importance

of a pristine natural environment to guests (91%), and the overall importance of the natural

environment to the individual property (91%). Interestingly, 25% of participants suggested that

the accommodations sector did not have a positive impact on the natural environment, while

51% felt that its impact was positive (Table 4-5). In terms of their familiarity with

environmental management in the accommodations sector, 41% of the respondents indicated that

they were somewhat familiar, while 40% indicated that they were very familiar (Table 4-6).









Environmental Management

Among the sampled hotels, 68% had implemented some form of environmental

management. These hotels were classified as adopters; hotels that had not implemented any

form of environmental management were categorized as non-adopters. Most adopters were

small with 75 rooms or less (69%), mid-range (45%) or luxury (39%) properties that were locally

owned and operated (52%). Additionally, guests at these hotels originated mainly from the

United States (64%).

Thirty-two percent (32%) of the properties started their environmental management efforts

prior to 2000, while 68% started in 2000 or later (Table 4-7). Adopters were asked to select one

of four levels to describe their current efforts. About forty-four percent (44%) were in the basic

category of properties that had implemented environmental best practices (e.g., energy saving

bulbs, water saving devices, linen and/or towel reuse program, practice of the 3 Rs) on an ad hoc

basis. Twenty-five percent (25%) had an environmental policy and a planned approach to their

environmental initiatives, while 31% had implemented an environmental management system

(Table 4-8). Of this latter group, just over half indicated that their property's EMS was certified

against a recognized standard. Standards included Green Globe, Blue Flag, and Certification for

Sustainable Tourism (Table 4-9).

Respondents were asked whether their respective properties had a written environmental

policy; 47% answered in the affirmative. The average length of time to have had an

environmental policy was 5.2 years. One respondent from the United States Virgin Islands

indicated that their property had a policy for over 30 years. Additionally, 41% of adopters had

an environmental officer or manager.

Participants were asked to denote the portion of their overall operations budget that was

allocated for environmental management. The highest allocation reported was 60% of total









operating budget, while the lowest was 0%. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the 46 hotels that

noted a budget allocation for environmental management indicated that it was 15% or less (Table

4-10). Finally, respondents were asked to rate the overall benefit of environmental management

to their properties based on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely beneficial. The lowest

rating was 2, with the highest at 10. The average rating was 6.7. Notably, one participant

indicated that while the benefit of environmental management to their property was a mere 2, the

overall personal benefit was 8. Other participants also indicated that they anticipated an increase

in the overall benefit over time.

Frequencies of Variables

Motives

This construct assessed motives for implementing environmental management in the

hotels. Eight motive items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale format which ranged

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The importance of conserving natural resources

and potential cost savings were overwhelmingly cited as the top two motives for implementing

environmental management. Ninety-five percent (95%) of respondents were in agreement1 and

2% in disagreement about the importance of conserving natural resources. For potential cost

savings, 82 % agreed that this was a motive, while 5% disagreed. Other motives identified were

advantage over competitors (63% agreement); internal green champion (49% agreement); and

the need to keep up with competitors (40% agreement) (Table 4-11).

There were several items that hoteliers did not consider to be strong motives to

implement environmental management. Government regulations were considered to be the least

important motive, as 53% were in disagreement. However, 19% of respondents agreed that


1 Within the Frequencies of Variables section, 'agreed/agreement' represents agreed combined with strongly agreed,
while disagreed/disagreement represents disagreed combined with strongly disagreed responses.









government regulations motivated their hotels to implement environmental management.

Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents etc. (45% disagreement) and pressure from

shareholders (42% disagreement) were also considered to be lesser factors behind hotels'

environmental initiatives. Notably, a number of respondents agreed that pressure from guests,

tour operators, travel agents etc. (25%) and pressure from shareholders (30%) were reasons for

implementation of environmental management.

Based on composite mean values, Caribbean hotels were motivated to implement

environmental management primarily because of the importance of natural resource conservation

(mean=4.62), potential cost savings (mean=4.20), advantage over competitors (mean=3.61), and

because of an internal green champion (mean=3.38). The need to keep up with competitors,

pressure from shareholders, pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents etc., and

government regulations were weaker motives for implementation (Table 4-11).

Based on an open-ended question, hoteliers were also asked to indicate additional motives

for implementing environmental management. Approximately 34% of adopters indicated

motives such as taking care of the environment for the sake of children and future generations,

educating staff and guests, living up to the company's social responsibility, improving the lives

and livelihood of local communities, and simply because it was 'common sense' or the right

thing to do (Appendix E).

Facilitators

This construct assessed factors that facilitated the implementation of environmental

management in hotels. Six items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale format which

ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In-house training was the most popular

facilitator of environmental management with 83% in agreement and 6% in disagreement.

Participation in external training was also a strong contributor to the implementation of hotels'









efforts, with 62% in agreement and 19% in disagreement. The third most popular facilitator was

technical assistance provided by external agencies; 56% of respondents agreed and 22%

disagreed (Table 4-12).

There were two items that most respondents noted were not very helpful in implementing

environmental management: government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) and

funding (e.g., external grants). Sixty three percent (63%) disagreed that government incentives

was a facilitator, while 14% agreed it had helped in their efforts. Also 51% disagreed that

funding was a facilitator, while 18% agreed. Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or

regional greening projects) emerged as the most ambivalent of the facilitators. Thirty-nine

percent (39%) of hoteliers agreed that participation in projects helped them to implement

environmental management while 35% disagreed.

Based on composite mean values, there were several factors regarded as facilitators of

environmental management. The top three facilitators were in-house training (mean=4.03),

external training (mean=3.50), and technical assistance from external agencies (mean=3.34).

Project assistance, funding, and government incentives were weaker facilitators (Table 4-12).

Participants were also asked whether other factors had been useful in implementing

environmental management. Most respondents (78%) noted the lack of other facilitators, while

9% reported the affirmative. Factors included participation in corporate programs, suggestions

from guests, and having a pioneering approach. Some respondents also indicated the projects in

which their hotels had participated, or the agencies from which they received assistance.

Assistance was provided through agencies such as CAST, Rainforest Alliance, Program for

Belize, the Cayman Islands National Trust, and the World Heritage Alliance for Sustainable

Tourism (Appendix E).









Constraints

This construct assessed constraints to implementing environmental management in hotels.

Respondents included both adopters and non-adopters. Twelve constraints were measured using

a 5-point Likert-type scale format which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Only a few of the items were actually ranked highly by the majority of respondents. The top

constraint to implementing environmental management or moving on to more advanced levels,

was that implementation is costly (67%) followed by lack of capital (56%). However, 21%

disagreed that lack of capital was a constraint to implementation (Table 4-13). Lack of time was

noted as a constraint (42%) but 40% also disagreed.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents agreed that more advanced level of

environmental management was too difficult or complicated, while 24% disagreed. Thirty-four

percent (34%) agreed that current level of EM is most appropriate for the property and prevented

them from moving to another level. Ninety percent (90%) of respondents disagreed that EM was

not necessary. Similarly, 63% disagreed that lack of awareness was a constraint. Also, 59%

disagreed with potential benefits not apparent as a constraint.

There were several other constraints with which respondents disagreed more than agreed,

namely no access to technology, employee resistance, lack of know-how, and the difficulty in

making organizational change. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagreed that no access to technology

was a constraint. Conversely, 27% noted that no access to technology was a problem.

Approximately 46% disagreed that employee resistance presented a challenge to implementing

or expanding environmental management on their properties. However, 22% acknowledged that

employee resistance was a constraint. Forty-two percent (42%) disagreed that lack of know-how

was a constraint to implementing environmental management, while 29% agreed. Finally,









making necessary organizational changes is too difficult was noted as a constraint for 41% while

24% disagreed.

Based on composite mean values, each of the twelve items was to some extent considered

a constraint to implementation of environmental management. The top constraints identified

were costliness of implementation (mean=3.72), lack of capital (mean=3.53), difficulty or

complexity of a more advanced level of environmental management (mean=3.18), and lack of

time (mean=3.03). Other constraints included were the current level of environmental

management was most appropriate for the property, making necessary organizational changes

was too difficult, a lack of know-how, no access to technology, employee resistance, potential

benefits were not apparent, the property was unaware of any stage beyond their current level of

environmental management, and the belief that environmental management was not necessary

for the property (Table 4-13).

Furthermore, respondents were asked whether there were additional factors that prevented

them from implementing environmental management. Only 18% noted other constraints which

included the lack of- or limited recycling facilities, issues with land tenure, too much paperwork,

disinterest of locals in environmental management, tourism not taken seriously, and the

perception that environmental management was not a government priority (Appendix E).

Outcomes

This construct assessed the outcomes that properties experienced as a result of

implementing environmental management. Sixteen items were employed whereby respondents

could indicate whether the outcome was not observed at all, or observed 'a little,' 'somewhat' or

'a lot'. Decrease in resource consumption was the outcome most experienced by respondents.

Less than 1% of respondents indicated that their hotels had not experienced this outcome,

whereas 46% experienced it a lot, 39% somewhat and 14% a little. The second most cited









outcome was overall improvement in property management. Approximately 92% of hotels

experienced this outcome2. The decrease in solid waste generation was also one of the most

achieved outcomes. Twenty-eight (28%) of respondents noted their properties experienced this

outcome a lot, 36% somewhat, and 27% a little (Table 4-14).

The majority of adopters experienced decrease in operating costs. Nineteen percent (19%)

of the properties experienced it a lot, 37% somewhat, and 32% a little. Implementing

environmental management led to increase in staff training for 85% of respondents.

Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy was an outcome for 84% of respondents.

Most respondents (82%) also noted increase in guest satisfaction as an outcome.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of respondents noted environmental management used to

market the property as an outcome. Likewise, 74% of respondents noted a change in

organizational structure and culture. Twenty six percent (26%) of respondents did not

experience this outcome at all. Improvement in employee morale was another outcome observed

by a majority (73%) of respondents. Similarly 71% indicated increase in participation in

community outreach activities.

Environmental management component in annual property reports was indicated as an

outcome by 62%. Other outcomes were use of employee incentives to encourage participation in

EM (60%); increase in room occupancy (55%); EM performance incorporated in management

evaluations (55%), and EM performance incorporated in employee evaluations (54%).

As with motives, facilitators and constraints, respondents were as an open-ended question

whether they had experienced other outcomes. Only 8% indicated other outcomes which

included: international recognition, recognition within the hotel chain, relationships with


2 Unless otherwise stated, experience of outcome is a combination of 'a little', 'somewhat', and 'a lot'.









government agencies, inclusion in hotel school curriculum, and increased environmental

awareness in the wider community resulting from changes in employee behavior (Appendix E).

Results of Research Questions Tested

Environmental Management

* Research question 1: To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the
Caribbean accommodations sector?

Environmental management was in existence at 67% of the hotels that were surveyed (i.e.,

adopters). Forty-four percent (44%) of adopters had implemented basic environmental best

practices, while 56% had more advanced levels of environmental management such as a program

of planned actions or a comprehensive environmental management system. The innovation of

environmental management or greening had diffused to approximately two thirds of the

Caribbean's accommodations sector. These results suggest that the sector is still on the growth

section of the s-shaped diffusion curve and is yet to reach the plateau stage (Figure 4-1). The

four levels of environmental management identified (environmental best practices,

environmental program, EMS, certified EMS) were also graphed. These followed the initial

stages of the s-shaped diffusion curve, but like the main curve were yet to reach the plateau stage

(Figure 4-2).

* Research question 2: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of
environmental management in terms of (a) characteristics, (b) organization membership,
(c) importance of natural resources to the accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of
environmental management?

Contingency tables and Pearson x2 were calculated for each characteristic. 'EM in place'

was operationalized as a dichotomous categorical variable.









(a) Hotel Characteristics

A 2 x 3 contingency table was created for EM in place and property type (Table 4-15).

Adopters (hotels with EM in place) comprised 16% budget properties, 45% mid-range

properties, and 39% luxury properties, whereas non-adopters comprised 23% budget properties,

54% mid-range properties, and 23% luxury properties There was no significant association

between EM in place and property type (2(2)=4.95; p>.05). Consequently, there was no

difference in property type between adopters and non-adopters.

A 2 x 2 contingency table was created for EM in place and property size (Table 4-16). To

meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cases per cell, large hotels were removed from this

analysis because with large hotels included, the 2 x 3 contingency table had 2 cells with less than

5 counts each. Adopters comprised of 71% small properties and 29% medium properties, while

non-adopters comprised 82% small properties and 18% medium properties. EM in place was not

significantly associated with property size (x2(1)=2.34; p>.05). Adopters and non-adopters were

not different with regards to property size.

A 2 x 3 contingency table was developed for EM in place and property ownership (Table

4-17). To meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cases per cell, the initial 6 categories for

property ownership were reduced to 3, by grouping (a) locally owned and operated with locally

owned and foreign operated; (b) foreign owned and operated with foreign owned and locally

operated; and (c) international chain or group with locally operated chain or group. Adopters

comprised 54% of locally owned properties, 28% foreign owned properties, and 18% chain or

group properties. Non-adopters comprised 81% of locally owned properties, 16% foreign owned

properties, and 3% chain or group properties. There was a significant association between EM in

place and property ownership (X2(2)=13.87; p<.01). Adopters and non-adopters were different









with regards to property ownership. Compared with adopters, non-adopters were more likely to

be locally owned and less likely to be foreign owned, or part of a chain or group.

A 2 x 4 contingency table was created for EM in place and guest origin (Table 4-18). To

meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cases per cell, the initial 6 choices (USA, UK,

Caribbean, Canada, Germany and other) was reduced to the 4 categories: USA, UK, Caribbean

and Other (Canada, Germany and other countries). Sixty-four percent (64 %) of adopters' guests

originated in the USA, 18% in the UK, 10% in the Caribbean, and 8% in other locations, while

53% of non-adopters' guests originated in the USA, 21% in the UK, 15% in the Caribbean, and

11% in other locations. There was no significant association between EM in place and guest

origin (X2(3)=2.02; p>.05). Therefore adopters and non-adopters did not differ in the origins of

their guests.

(b) Organization Membership

To assess the difference in organization membership between adopters and non-adopters,

2 x 2 contingency tables were created and Pearson's chi-square calculated (Table 4-19). Eighty-

seven percent of adopters were members of their National Hotel Association (NHA), compared

with 73% of non-adopters. There was a significant relationship between EM in place and

national association membership (x(1)=4.75; p=.03) in which adopters were more likely than

non-adopters to be members of NHA.

Seventy-seven percent of adopters were members of the Caribbean Hotel Association,

compared with 76% of non-adopters. There was no significant relationship between EM in place

and membership in CHA (X(1,=0.03; p>.05). Therefore there was no difference between

adopters and non-adopters in CHA membership.









Fifty percent of adopters were members of the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable

Tourism, compared with 28% of non-adopters. There was a significant relationship between EM

in place and CAST membership ( (1)=5.03; p=.03). There was a difference between adopters

and non-adopters in CAST membership such that adopters were more likely to be members in

CAST than non-adopters.

Fifty-one percent of adopters were members of other green organizations compared with

18% of non-adopters. There was a significant relationship between EM in place and other green

organization membership (X2(1)=10.61; p<.01) such that adopters were more likely to be members

in other green organizations than non-adopters.

(c) Importance of Natural Environment

Independent sample t-tests were performed to determine the differences between adopters

and non-adopters with respect to the importance of the natural environment to the

accommodations sector. Of the five statements, respondents were significantly different on the

statement 'the accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment' (t(154)=-

2.34; p=.02). Non-adopters were more likely to agree with this statement (M=3.58) than

adopters (M=3.22) (Table 4-23).

(d) Knowledge of Environmental Management

An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine whether familiarity with

environmental management in the accommodations sector differed between adopters and non-

adopters. The two groups were significantly different (t(oo00=5.44; p<.001), with adopters being

more familiar with environmental management (M=4.34) than non-adopters (M=3.41).









* Research question 3: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of
environmental management with regards to constraints?

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether adopters and non-

adopters differed in the constraints to environmental management. Of the twelve constraints

tested, adopters and non-adopters differed significantly on 'EM is not necessary' (t(133)=-2.07;

p=.04) and 'property unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM' (t(100.03)=5.44; p<.001)

(Table 4-21). Adopters disagreed more with both 'EM is not necessary' (M=1.38) and 'property

unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM' (M=2.18) than did non-adopters (M=2.07 and

M=2.57, respectively). Therefore, these items were more of a constraint for non-adopters than

for adopters.

* Research question 4: Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental
management in Caribbean hotels?

Hotel characteristics were measured as categorical variables which were dummy coded for

the purpose of this regression analysis. This resulted in 2 dummy variables for hotel size with

small hotel as the referent category; 2 for hotel type with budget hotel as the referent category; 5

for ownership with locally owned and operated as the referent category; and 5 for guest origin

with USA as the referent category. Level of EM was recorded to 2 categories to facilitate

analysis: environmental best practices was kept intact as basic EM; environmental program,

EMS, and certified EMS were combined to create advanced EM. A logistic regression was

conducted with characteristics as the predictor variables (with each characteristic in a separate

block) and level of EM as the outcome variable.

The regression model with all characteristics improved on the base model by correctly

classifying 58% of the cases compared with the initial 53%. However, none of the

characteristics variables were significant, nor were the model changes (Block 1 2(2)=1.73; p>.05;

Block 2 (4)=2.57; p>.05; Block 3 (6)=5.42; p>.05; Block 4 x(9)=11.55; p>.05). The non-









significant Hosmer & Lemeshow test statistic at each stage of analysis indicated that the model

fit the data relatively well in terms of actual and expected classifications (Table 4-22). Hotel

characteristics did not predict the level of EM implemented.

* Research question 5: Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the
level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

A logistic regression was performed on motives (8 predictor variables) and level of EM

(outcome). All predictor variables were entered into the model which was estimated by the

backward likelihood ratio method3. The regression model at each step of the estimation was

significant. However, the model at step 3 (X2(6)=18.37; p<.01) had the highest hit ratio (70%) and

contained 6 variables (pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc., pressure from

shareholders, internal green champion, need to keep up with competitors, government

regulations, potential cost savings), of which one was statistically significant. This model

accounted for 21-28% of the variation between basic EM and advanced EM (R2=.21 (Cox and

Snell), .28 (Nagelkerke)). The non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test statistic indicated that

the model fit the data well (Table 4-23).

Controlling for other variables, internal green champion, was significantly related to level

ofEM (/=0.90, p<.01, Exp(/)=2.45). Internal green champion was positively related to level of

EM. Therefore a 1 unit increase in the motive internal green champion results in an increase by

0.90 in the predicted probability that a hotel would be in the advanced EM group. A 1 unit

increase in internal green champion also increases the odds by 145% that a hotel would be in the

advanced EM group. The odds are that hotels motivated by internal green champion would

implement advanced EM.



3 This method of estimation was used for all subsequent logistic regressions.









Based on the literature, three conceptual dimensions of motives for implementing

environmental management were developed: (1) cost reduction and efficiency, (2) internal

pressure, and (3) external pressure (Table 3-6). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to

determine whether there were indeed any underlying dimensions within the motives construct.

Following a principal component factor analysis with Varimax rotation, and using .5 as the factor

loading threshold4, three factors were identified. These factors explained 68% of the variance.

Factor 1 consisted of four motives: need to keep up with competitors, advantage over

competitors, potential cost savings, and government regulations. Factor 2 consisted of three

motives: pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc., pressure from shareholders, and

importance of conserving natural resources. Factor 3 comprised internal green champion.

Cronbach's alpha for factors 1 and 2 was determined to confirm internal consistency of the items

(factor 1 a=.77; factor 2 a=.41) (Table 4-24). The reliability analysis for factor 2 indicated that

removal of importance of conserving natural resources would increase a to .71. This step was

conducted and the factor analysis was re-run with seven variables to determine any changes to

the factor structure (Hair et al., 2005). With the removal of importance of conserving natural

resources, the variables still loaded as 3 factors, with 74% of explained variance. Since factor 3

consisted of a single item, it was excluded from further analysis (Table 4-25).

Factor 1 was titled 'Financial Motives' and factor 2 'Stakeholder Pressure'. Factor scores

were subsequently employed as predictors in a logistic regression with level of EM as the

outcome variable. The regression model with the two predictors improved the model with

constant only by correctly classifying 57% of the cases compared with the initial 52%.

However, this model change was not significant (X2(2)=2.36; p>.05) and neither dimension was


4 This method was employed for all factor analyses.









significantly related to level of EM. Thus, financial motives and stakeholder pressure did not

predict level of EM (Table 4-26).

* Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

A logistic regression was performed on facilitators (6 predictor variables) and level of EM

(outcome). All predictor variables were entered into the model which was estimated by the

backward likelihood ratio method. The regression model was not significant at any step of the

estimation, though at step 1 the hit ratio increased from 55% to 62%. The model change was not

significant (X2(6)=5.88; p>.05) and data fit was weak (R2=.07 (Cox and Snell), .09 (Nagelkerke))

(Table 4-27). There were no significant relationships between facilitators and level of EM.

Based on the literature, two conceptual dimensions of facilitators of environmental

management were developed: (1) capacity building and (2) incentives (Table 3-7). An

exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether there was an underlying

structure within the facilitators construct. The variables loaded well onto two factors, with .5

used as the factor loading threshold (Table 4-28). The two factors explained 72% of the

variance.

Factor 1, labeled 'Incentives', comprised three facilitators: funding, government

incentives, and project assistance. Factor 2, labeled 'Capacity Building', comprised three

facilitators: in-house training, participation in external training, and technical assistance from

external agencies. Cronbach's alpha for factors 1 and 2 was determined to confirm internal

consistency of the items (factor 1 a=.79; factor 2 a=.66) (Table 4-29).

The factor scores for Capacity Building and Incentives were employed as predictors in a

logistic regression with level of EM as the outcome variable. At step 1 of the estimation the

regression model was not significant, at step 2 it was (x2(2)=4.17; p<.05), though the hit ratio









increased only marginally from 55% to 56%. The model change was significant (X2(2)=4.17;

p<.05). Controlling for Incentives, Capacity Building was significantly related to level of EM

(P=0.47, p=.05, Exp(/)=1.60) (Table 4-30). The positive relationship between capacity building

and level of EM indicates that with a 1 unit increase in capacity building, there is a .47 increase

in the predicted probability that hotels would be in the advanced EM group. Additionally, with

the 1 unit increase in capacity building, the odds of being in the advanced EM group increase by

60%. Incentives was not significant at the .05 level and therefore did not predict level of EM.

* Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of
environmental management implemented?

Level of EM was regressed on 12 items in the constraints construct. The regression model

at each step of the estimation was significant. The model at step 1 (X2(12)=33.26; p<.001) was

retained because the number of significant items did not increase beyond this step. This model

had a hit ratio of 74% (compared with 53% at base) and explained between 37% and 49% of the

variation between basic EM and advanced EM (R2=.37 (Cox and Snell), .49 (Nagelkerke))

(Table 4-31). With other variables held constant, six of the twelve constraints were significantly

related to level of EM: lack of capital (P=-1.37, p=.03, Exp(/)=.26); potential benefits not

apparent (P=0.78, p=.04, Exp(8)=2.19); no access to technology (P=1.70, p<.01, Exp())=5.50);

lack of know-how (P=-1.24, p=.02, Exp(8)=.29); lack of time (P=-1.11, p=.02, Exp(8)=.33); EM

is not necessary (P=-2.08, p<.01, Exp(8)=. 13).

Lack of capital was negatively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in lack of

capital, the predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group decreased by 1.37,

while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 74%. Potential benefits not apparent was

positively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in potential benefits not apparent, the

predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group increased by 0.78, while the









odds of this occurrence increased by 118%. No access to technology was positively related to

level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in no access to technology, the predicted probability of hotels

being in the advanced EM group increased by 1.70, while the odds of this occurrence increased

by 450%.

Lack of know-how was negatively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in lack of

know-how, the predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group decreased by

1.24, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 71%. Lack of time was negatively related

to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in lack of time, the predicted probability of hotels being in

the advanced EM group decreased by 1.11, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 67%.

EM is not necessary was negatively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in EM is not

necessary, the predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group decreased by 2.08,

while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 88%.

Based on the literature, three conceptual dimensions of constraints to implementation of

environmental management were developed: (1) costs, (2) human resources and (3) technical

constraints (Table 3-8). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether the

data pointed to any underlying dimensions within the constraints construct. The variables loaded

in four factors, which collectively explained 63% of the variance (Table 4-32). Factor 1

consisted of four constraints: more advanced level of environmental management too difficult or

complicated, making necessary organizational changes is too difficult, lack of time, potential

benefits not apparent. Factor 2 consisted of three constraints: no access to technology, lack of

know-how, employee resistance. Factor 3 comprised two constraints: lack of capital and

implementation is costly. Factor 4 comprised three constraints: current level of EM is most

appropriate for the property, property unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM, and EM









is not necessary. Cronbach's alpha was determined to confirm internal consistency of the items

within each factor (factor 1 a=.64; factor 2 a=.67; factor 3 a=.84; factor 4 a=.49) (Table 4-33).

Factor 4 was excluded from further analysis because of its unacceptable alpha. Factor 1 was

titled Organizational Constraints, factor 2 Technical Constraints, and factor 3 Cost Constraints.

Organizational Constraints, Technical Constraints, and Cost Constraints were employed as

predictors in a logistic regression with level of EM as the outcome variable. The regression

model with the three predictors did not improve on the base model, correctly classifying 51% of

the cases compared with the initial 53%. The model change was not significant (X2(3)=1.37;

p>.05). None of the predictors were significantly related to level of EM (Table 4-34).

* Research question 8: Which variables have the most influence on the implementation of
environmental management in Caribbean hotels?

Level of EM was regressed on the dimensions of motives (Stakeholder Pressure, Financial

Motives), facilitators (Capacity Building, Incentives), and constraints (Organizational, Technical,

Cost) which were identified via the factor analyses (Figure 4-3). The regression model was not

significant at any step of the estimation, nor were there significant relationships at the .05 level

between the individual factors and level of EM (Table 4-35).

Environmental Management Outcomes

* Research question 9: Does level of environmental management implemented influence
the number of outcomes experienced?

To assess the relationship between level of EM and number of outcomes, outcomes was

regressed on level of EM (basic EM, advanced EM). The regression model was significant

(F(1,107)=9.54; p<0.1) and explained 8% of the variance in total outcomes. Level of EM was a

significant predictor of total outcomes (P=6.20; p<.01); as level of EM changes from basic EM to

advanced EM, total outcomes increases by 6.20. Hotels with advanced EM are more likely to

experience more outcomes than hotels with basic EM.









Environmental Management and Outcomes

* Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints,
level of environmental management and the outcomes of environmental management in
hotels (Figure 1-4)?

A path analysis was conducted on (a) the dimensions of motives (Stakeholder Pressure,

Financial), facilitators (Capacity Building, Incentives), and constraints (Organizational,

Technical, Cost) identified by factor analysis, (b) level of EM, and (c) outcomes (Figure 4-4).

To build the first stage of the path analysis, level of EM was regressed on Stakeholder Pressure,

Financial Motives, Capacity Building, Incentives, Organizational Constraints, Technical

Constraints, and Cost Constraints. No significant relationships were found between the factor

dimensions and level of EM at the .05 level.

To construct the second stage of the analysis, outcomes was regressed on level of EM,

Stakeholder Pressure, Financial Motives, Capacity Building, Incentives, Organizational

Constraints, Technical Constraints, and Cost Constraints. Controlling for other variables,

significant relationships were found between Capacity Building and outcomes (P=.30; p<.05)

and Technical Constraints and outcomes (P=-.31; p<.05) (Table 4-36). Capacity Building was

positively related to outcomes. Thus for a 1 unit increase in capacity building, outcomes would

increase by .30. There was a negative relationship between technical constraints and outcomes

where for every 1 unit increase in technical constraints, outcomes would decrease by .31.

However, given that none of the dimensions was significantly related to level of EM, this

variable did not play a mediating role between the dimensions and outcomes. Thus the path

analysis supported direct effects of the dimensions on outcomes, but no indirect effects.












Table 4-1. Hotels participating in survey
Country

Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Montserrat
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Islands
United States Virgin Islands
n=195

Table 4-2. Profile of respondents


General Manager
Owner
Owner/General Manager
Environmental Officer/Manager
Other
n=185


% Total
respondents
2.5
5.1
7.1
10.7
11.7
2.5
1.0
2.0
10.2
5.1
0.5
8.1
0.5
3.6
5.1
6.6
9.1
2.5
5.1


% Total respondents
41.1
9.2
26.5
4.0
23.2











Table 4-3. Profile of hotels
% Total respondents
Hotel size
Small (1-75 rooms) 72.9
Medium (76-500 rooms) 24.5
Large (500+ rooms) 2.6
n=192
Hotel opening year
Prior to 1900 0.5
1940s 1.1
1950s 3.7
1960s 9.6
1970s 13.4
1980s 18.2
1990s 27.8
2000+ 25.7
n=187
Average annual occupancy
Under 25% 4.6
26 50% 27.7
51 -75% 44.5
Over 75% 23.1
n=173
Hotel categories
Budget 19.1
Mid-range 47.4
Luxury 33.5
n=194
Hotel ownership
Locally owned and operated 60.6
Locally owned and foreign operated 2.6
Foreign owned and operated 10.4
Foreign owned and locally operated 13.5
Part of international chain or group 8.8
Part of locally operated chain or group 4.1
n=193
Guest origins
USA 60.6
UK 18.7
Caribbean 11.4
Canada 2.1
Germany 2.1
Other 5.1
n=193











Table 4-4. Hotels' organization membership

National Hotel Association (n=158)
Caribbean Hotel Association (n=171)
Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (n= 19)
Other Green organizations (n= 18)


% Total respondents
82.9
76.6
43.7
42.4


Table 4-5. Importance of natural environment in the accommodations sector (frequency in


percentage)
Questionnaire statement


This property is dependent on the
natural environment
The accommodations sector has a
positive impact on the natural
environment
The accommodations sector has an
important role to play in protecting the
natural environment
A pristine natural environment is very
important to our guests
The natural environment in very
important to this property


Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree;
SA=Strongly agree.


SD D N A SA # of
cases
6.2 6.2 9.8 32.1 45.6 193


5.7 19.3 24.0 35.9 15.1


Mean

4.05


192 3.35


6.2 1.6 7.3 26.9 58.0 193 4.29


6.3 1.0 2.1 27.1 63.5 192 4.41

6.7 0.5 2.6 24.7 65.5 194 4.42


N=Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree;


Table 4-6. Level of familiarity with environmental management in the accommodations sector
% Total respondents
Not all familiar 6.3
Somewhat unfamiliar 4.7
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar 7.9
Somewhat familiar 40.8
Very familiar 40.3
n=191


Table 4-7. Decades of environmental management implementation
% Total respondents


1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000+
n=94


1.1
2.2
5.5
23.6
67.6









Table 4-8. Levels of environmental management in place in hotels


Some environmental best practices in place (e.g., aerators, energy saving lights,
towel/linen reuse programme, solid waste separation for reuse or recycling)
An environmental policy and planned actions throughout the property
(involving all or most departments) to reduce consumption of resources and
generation of waste.
An environmental policy and a comprehensive programme to reduce
consumption of resources and generation of waste. Programme includes
objectives, targets, and action plan, performance monitoring and feedback,
participation at all staff levels, documentation of all environmental and social
initiatives.
Certification against a recognized standard (e.g., local Authority or
Environmental Agency, Green Globe, ISO 14001)
n=131


% Total
respondents
43.5

25.2


14.5




16.8


Table 4-9. Types of environmental management certification
Total
Green Globe 24
Certification for Sustainable Tourism 4
Other (Blue Flag, Rainforest Alliance, Program for Belize) 13


Table 4-10. Budget allocations for environmental management
% Total respondents
Under 15% 82.6
16-30% 8.7
31-50% 6.5
Over 50% 2.2
n=46










Table 4-11. Motives for implementing environmental management (percentage)
Questionnaire statement SD D N A SA # of Mean


Pressure from guests, tour operators,
travel agents, etc.
Pressure from shareholders
Internal Green Champion
Need to keep up with competitors
Advantage over competitors
Importance of conserving natural
resources
Government regulations
Potential cost savings
Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree;
SA=Strongly agree; NA=Not applicable.


23.8 20.8 30.7 20.8


20.2
10.4
15.9
7.1
2.4

22.7
3.4


21.3
12.5
17.8
12.5
0.0

29.9
1.7


28.7
28.1
26.2
17.9
2.4

28.9
12.7


21.3
27.1
30.8
37.5
24.0

11.3
35.6


cases
4.0 101


8.5
21.9
9.3
25.0
71.2

7.2
46.6


2.60

2.77
3.38
3.00
3.61
4.62


97 2.51
118 4.20


N=Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree;


Table 4-12. Facilitators of environmental management (percentage)
Questionnaire statement SD D N A


SA # of
cases


In-house training 2.6 3.4 11.1 54.7 28.2 117 4.03
Participation in external training 7.6 11.4 19.0 46.7 15.2 105 3.50
Technical assistance from external 10.5 11.4 21.9 45.7 10.5 105 3.34
agencies
Funding (e.g., external grants) 30.2 20.8 31.3 10.4 7.3 96 2.44
Government incentives (e.g., tax 43.5 19.6 22.8 8.7 5.4 92 2.13
credits, duty free concessions)
Project assistance (e.g., participation in 19.6 15.5 25.8 25.8 13.4 97 2.98
national or regional greening project)
Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree;
SA=Strongly agree.


Mean










Table 4-13. Constraints to environmental management (percentage)


Questionnaire statement


More advanced level of
environmental management too
difficult or complicated
Making necessary organizational
changes is too difficult
Implementation is costly
Lack of capital
Potential benefits not apparent
No access to technology
Lack of know-how
Employee resistance
Lack of time
Current level of Environmental
Management is most appropriate for
the property
Environmental Management is not
necessary
Property unaware of any stage
beyond current level of
environmental management


SD D N A SA # of Mean


cases
3.0 21.2 37.1 31.8 6.8 132


3.18


3.8 37.1 35.6 18.2 5.3 132 2.84


3.6
4.4
11.7
8.2
11.5
16.7
7.5
6.6


10.9
16.3
47.4
41.0
30.9
29.5
32.8
31.4


19.0
23.0
25.5
23.9
28.1
31.8
17.9
27.7


43.1
34.8
13.1
20.1
25.2
18.2
32.8
27.7


23.4
21.5
2.2
6.7
4.2
3.8
9.0
6.6


3.72
3.53
2.47
2.76
2.80
2.63
3.03
2.96


53.4 36.1 6.8 3.0 0.8 133 1.62

23.7 39.3 21.5 12.6 3.0 135 2.32


Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N=Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree;
SA=Strongly agree.









Table 4-14. Outcomes of environmental management (percentage)


Questionnaire statement

Decrease in resource consumption (e.g., water,
energy)
Decrease in solid waste generation
Change in organizational structure and culture
Decrease in operating costs
Increase in room occupancy
Environmental management used to market
the property
Increase in guest satisfaction
Increase in participation in community
outreach activities
Use of employee incentives to encourage
participation in environmental management
Environmental management performance
incorporated in employee evaluations
Environmental management performance
incorporated in management evaluations
Overall improvement in property management
Environmental management component in
annual property reports
Improvement in employee morale
Increase in staff training
Implementation of an environmental
purchasing policy


N L S AL # of
cases
0.9 13.9 38.9 46.3 108


8.4
25.7
12.0
45.1
24.5

17.6
28.7


27.1
28.7
32.4
23.5
28.3

21.6
21.8


36.4
34.7
37.0
21.6
30.2

37.3
27.7


28.0
10.9
18.5
9.8
17.0

23.5
21.8


Mean

2.31

1.84
1.31
1.62
.96
1.40


102 1.67
101 1.43


39.6 31.7 18.8 9.9 101


53.6 25.8 13.4 7.2


97 .74


54.5 21.8 14.9 8.9 101


7.8 29.1 40.8 22.3
38.0 22.0 23.0 17.0


26.7
15.5
17.3


35.6
30.1
30.8


27.7
40.8
29.8


9.9
13.6
22.1


103 1.78
100 1.19


1.21
1.52
1.57


Note: N=Not at all; L=A little; S=Somewhat; AL=A lot.

Table 4-15. Property type and environmental management in place
Property type
Budget (%) Mid-range (%) Luxury (%)


EM in place
Adopters
Non-adopters
Chi-square
df
n=192


16.0
23.0
4.95


45.0
54.1


38.9
23.0









Table 4-16. Property size and environmental management in place
Property size
Small (%) Medium (%)
EM in place
Adopters 71.2 28.8
Non-adopters 81.7 18.3
Chi-square 2.34
df 1
n=185

Table 4-17. Property ownership and environmental management in place
Property ownership
Locally owned Foreign owned Part of chain
(%) (%) or group (%)
EM in place
Adopters 54.3 27.9 17.8
Non-adopters 80.6 16.1 3.2
Chi-square 13.9*
df 2
n=191
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-18. Guest origin and environmental management in place
Guest Origins
USA UK Caribbean Other
(%) (%) (%) (%)
EM in place
Adopters 63.6 17.8 10.1 8.5
Non-adopters 53.2 21.0 14.5 11.3
Chi-square 2.02
df 3
n=191









Table 4-19. Organization membership and environmental management in place
Organization membership
Yes (%) No (%)
National Hotel Association
EM in place
Adopters 87.2 12.8
Non-adopters 72.9 27.1
Chi-square 4.75*
df 1
n=157
Caribbean Hotel Association
EM in place
Adopters 76.7 23.3
Non-adopters 75.5 24.5
Chi-square 0.03
df 1
n=169
Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism
EM in place
Adopters 50.0 50.0
Non-adopters 27.8 72.2
Chi-square 5.03*
df 1
n=118
Other green organizations
EM in place
Adopters 51.2 48.8
Non-adopters 18.2 81.8
Chi-square 10.61**
df 1
n=117
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed).









Table 4-20. Importance of the natural environment to the accommodations sector
Mean
Adopters Non- t df
Questionnaire statement1 adopters
This property is dependent on the natural 4.14 3.82 1.77 189
environment
The accommodations sector has a positive 3.22 3.58 -2.34* 154
impact on the natural environment
The accommodations sector has an important 4.35 4.13 1.28 189
role to play in protecting the natural
environment
A pristine natural environment is very 4.42 4.37 0.30 188
important to our guests
The natural environment in very important to 4.44 4.36 0.45 190
this property
1Likert-type scale Strongly disagree=l; Disagree=2; Neither agree nor disagree=3; Agree=4;
Strongly agree=5. *Significant at .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-21. Constraints to environmental management
Mean
Adopters Non- t df
Questionnaire statement1 adopters
More advanced level of environmental management 3.26 3.02 1.37 130
too difficult or complicated
Making necessary organizational changes is too 2.87 2.79 0.45 130
difficult
Implementation is costly 3.73 3.68 0.28 135
Lack of capital 3.60 3.40 0.99 133
Potential benefits not apparent 2.38 2.62 -1.45 135
No access to technology 2.79 2.70 0.51 121
Lack of know-how 2.74 2.90 -0.83 137
Employee resistance 2.67 2.54 0.71 112
Lack of time 3.05 3.00 0.22 132
Current level of Environmental Management is most 2.93 3.02 -0.45 135
appropriate for the property
Environmental Management is not necessary 1.38 2.07 -5.10* 131
Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of 2.18 2.57 -2.07* 133
environmental management
Likert-type scale Strongly disagree=l; Disagree=2; Neither agree nor disagree=3; Agree=4;
Strongly agree=5. *Significant at .05 level (2-tailed).









Table 4-22. Level of environmental management regressed on hotel characteristics
B SE Exp(@)
Characteristics
Type


Mid-range
Luxury
Ownership
Foreign owned
Part of chain or group
Size


MediumHotel
LargeHotel
Guest origin
UK
Caribbean
Other1
Model change x2
-2Log likelihood
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerke R2
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2
Hit Ratio
n=122
1Other' includes Canada,


-0.16 0.55 0.85
-0.39 0.60 0.68

0.66 0.48 1.94
-0.03 0.61 0.97

-0.17 0.49 0.85
-0.65 1.24 0.52


0.68
0.28
2.10
11.55
157.05
.09
.12
4.64
58.2

Germany and other countries.


0.50
0.65
1.12


1.98
0.66
0.06


Table 4-23. Regression of level of environmental management on motives
B SE Exp(f,)


Pressure from guests, tour operators,
travel agents, etc.
Pressure from shareholders
Internal Green Champion
Need to keep up with competitors
Government regulations
Potential cost savings
Model change x2
-2Log likelihood
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerke R2
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2
Hit Ratio
n=79
**Significant at .01 level (2-tailed).


-0.10 0.31 0.75


-0.51
0.90**
0.17
0.23
-0.29


0.27
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.29


0.06
0.00
0.57
0.42
0.31


18.37**
91.03
.21
.28
6.22
69.90









Table 4-24. Reliability analysis for factors of motives for implementing environmental
management


Factor 1 (Financial Motives)
Need to keep up with competitors
Advantage over competitors
Government regulations
Potential cost savings
Overall index item alpha
Factor 2 (Stakeholder Pressure)
Pressure from guests, tour operators,
travel agents, etc.
Pressure from shareholders
Overall index item alpha


Alpha Corrected
item total
correlation

.66
.64
.51
.50


Alpha if
item
removed


.51 -.33

.43 -.15


Table 4-25. Factor analysis of motives for environmental management
Factor loadings


Factor 1 (Financial Motives)
Need to keep up with competitors
Advantage over competitors
Government regulations
Potential cost savings
Factor 2 (Stakeholder Pressure)
Pressure from guests, tour operators,
travel agents, etc.
Pressure from shareholders
Variance explained


74.0


Table 4-26. Regression of level of environmental management on motives factors
B SE Exp(fl)
Financial motives 0.12 0.23 1.12
Stakeholder pressure -0.34 0.23 0.72


Model change x2
-2Log likelihood
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerke R2
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2
Hit Ratio
n=79


2.36
107.04
.03
.04
12.27
57.00









Table 4-27. Level of environmental management regressed on facilitators
B SE Exp(fl)
In-house training 0.14 0.29 1.15
Participation in external training 0.19 0.26 1.21
Technical assistance from external agencies 0.06 0.28 1.07
Funding (e.g., external grants) 0.24 0.33 1.27
Government incentives (e.g.. tax credits. -0.36 0.28 0.70


duty free concessions)
Project assistance (e.g., participation in
national or regional greening project)
Model change x2
-2Log likelihood
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerke R2
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2
Hit Ratio
n=84


0.16 0.28 1.18


5.88
109.80
.07
.09
6.34
62.00


Table 4-28. Factor analysis of facilitators of environmental management
Factor loadings
Factor 1 (Capacity Building)
In-house training .71
Participation in external training .82
Technical assistance from external agencies .77
Factor 2 (Incentives)
Funding (e.g., external grants) .91
Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) .84
Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional .70
greening project)
Variance explained 72.00









Table 4-29. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management
Alpha Corrected Alpha if
item total item


correlation


Factor 1 (Capacity building)
In-house training
Participation in external training
Technical assistance from external agencies
Overall index item alpha
Factor 2 (Incentives)
Funding (e.g., external grants)
Government incentives (e.g., tax credits,
duty free concessions)
Project assistance (e.g., participation in
national or regional greening project)
Overall index item alpha


removed

.71
.38
.53


.60
.73

.80


Table 4-30. Regression of level of environmental management on facilitators factors
B SE Exp(fl)
Capacity building 0.47** 0.24 1.60
Incentives 0.05 0.23 1.05
Model change X2 4.17*
-2Log likelihood 111.52
Cox and Snell R2 .05
Nagelkerke R2 .07
Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 12.04
Hit Ratio 56.00
n=84
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed).









Table 4-31. Level of environmental management regressed on constraints
B SE


More advanced level of environmental
management too difficult or complicated
Making necessary organizational changes is
too difficult
Implementation is costly
Lack of capital
Potential benefits not apparent
No access to technology
Lack of know-how
Employee resistance
Lack of time


0.90 0.46


Exp(fl)
2.47


0.43 0.38 1.53


0.28
-1.37*
0.78*
1.70**
-1.24*
0.01
-1.11*


Current level of environmental management 0.05
is most appropriate for the property
Environmental management is not necessary -2.08**
Property unaware of any stage beyond -0.33
current level of environmental management
Model change X2 33.26**
-2Log likelihood 67.60
Cox and Snell R2 .37
Nagelkerke R2 .49
Hosmer and Lemeshow x 4.73
Hit Ratio 74.00
n=73
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed).


0.57
0.62
0.39
0.59
0.53
0.32
0.46
0.32


1.33
0.25
2.19
5.50
0.29
1.01
0.33
1.05


0.76 0.12
0.33 0.72


I









Table 4-32. Factor analysis of constraints to environmental management
Factor loadings
Factor 1 (Organizational constraints)
More advanced level of environmental .62
management too difficult or complicated
Making necessary organizational changes is .68
too difficult
Potential benefits not apparent .63
Lack of time .75
Factor 2 (Technical constraints)
No access to technology .81
Lack of know-how .78
Employee resistance .64
Factor 3 (Cost constraints)
Implementation is costly .84
Lack of capital .87
Factor 4
Current level of Environmental Management .62
is most appropriate for the property
Environmental Management is not necessary .79
Property unaware of any stage beyond .64
current level of environmental management
Variance explained 62.80









Table 4-33. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management
Alpha Corrected Alpha if
item total item
correlation removed
Factor 1 (Organizational constraints)
More advanced level of environmental .44 .56
management too difficult or complicated
Making necessary organizational changes is .43 .57
too difficult
Potential benefits not apparent .43 .57
Lack of time .40 .59
Overall index item alpha .64
Factor 2 (Technical constraints)
No access to technology .56 .47
Lack of know-how .53 .51
Employee resistance .37 .72
Overall index item alpha .67
Factor 3 (Cost constraints)
Implementation is costly .73
Lack of capital .73
Overall index item alpha .83
Factor 4
Current level of environmental management is
most appropriate for the property
Environmental management is not necessary
Property unaware of any stage beyond current
level of environmental management
Overall index item alpha .49


Table 4-34. Regression of environmental management on constraints factors
B SE Exp(f,)
Organizational constraints .02 0.23 1.02
Technical constraints -0.35 0.24 0.71
Cost constraints .071 0.22 1.07
Model change x2 2.33
-2Log likelihood 102.19
Cox and Snell R2 .03
Nagelkerke R2 .04
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2 15.07
Hit Ratio 55.60
n=76
**Significant at .01 level (2-tailed). ***Significant at .001 level (2-tailed)










Table 4-35. Level of environmental management regressed on dimensions of motives,
facilitators and constraints


Financial motives
Stakeholder pressure
Incentives
Capacity building
Organizational constraints
Technical constraints
Cost constraints
Model change x2
-2Log likelihood
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerke R2
Hosmer and Lemeshow x2
Hit Ratio
n=47


B SE
-0.31 0.42
-0.36 0.38
0.37 0.35
0.71 0.53
0.18 0.30
0.31 0.30
-0.45 0.38


5.44
59.70
.11
.15
5.79
63.80


Table 4-36. Regression of outcomes on dimensions of motives, facilitators and constraints and
level of environmental management


Financial motives
Stakeholder pressure
Incentives
Capacity building
Organizational constraints
Technical constraints
Cost constraints
Level of environmental management
F ratio
R2


B SE
1.48 1.35
-0.55 1.21
1.11 1.14
3.34* 1.66
-1.36 1.01
-2.45* 0.98
1.78 1.18
3.30 2.17


.18
.17
-.06
.12
.30
-.16
-.31
.18


4.66***
.51


n=46
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). ***Significant at .001 level (2-tailed).


Exp(fl)
0.73
0.70
1.46
2.03
1.20
1.37
0.64














200-

180-

160-

140-

U
120-
- -

100-

80-
U
60-

40-

20-

0-


94


1 2


5 6


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1964 1973 1976 1981 1984 1986 1987 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year of EM


Figure 4-1. Cumulative implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels






50-





40-






o- I
/

I, /

20- ..- /




/ ./ EMLevel
10- / /y
.- Basic Best
-- / ...Practices
.---' -~ / __ Environmental
-- -.. Program
0-- EMS
I I I I I I I I I I I I CertifiedEMS
1988 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year of EM level

Figure 4-2. Cumulative implementation of levels of environmental management in Caribbean

hotels













Financial
\ Motives




-.31

Stakeholder
Pressure

36





F ig incentives b d s o




Environmental


Building A
Management





18,

Organizational
Constraints /


.31

Technical
Constraints


-.45,

Cost
Constraints


-__ .Paths not significant at the .05 level.


Figure 4-3. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints and
environmental management.














Motives


N-.17
\-.31 -.

Stakeholder













Environmental --------- Outcomes
Pressure Outcomes
I \ '-- .
--









s Managemennt









Constraints. -




Technical
Constrai ts


-.45. 'A

Cost
Constraints


*Standardized beta values significant at .05.
Paths significant at the .05 level.
- -.Paths not significant at the .05 level.


Figure 4-4. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints;
environmental management; and outcomes of environmental management.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Since the late 1990s, the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism has spearheaded a

'greening' movement, which focused primarily on the accommodations sector. This study was

conceptualized to assess the extent to which greening has spread in the accommodations sector

of the Anglophone Caribbean; understand why hotels were inclined to implement this

innovation; factors that facilitated its implementation; and the associated challenges to adoption.

The study also sought to assess the changes to properties that resulted from greening. It was

anticipated that not all hotels would be adopters of environmental management. Thus this study

further sought to determine why some hotels had not adopted this innovation and whether there

were differences in hotel characteristics and constraints to adoption between adopters and non-

adopters.

Summary of Results

There was a 27% response rate to the survey which accounted for 197 of the hotels that

had been invited to participate. Hotels in the survey were mainly represented by owners or

general managers. A small percentage of the respondents were either Environmental Officers or

Managers. Most hotels were small, locally owned and operated, and either mid-range or luxury

properties. The majority of guests were from the US, followed by the UK and the Caribbean.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of hotels had implemented some level of environmental

management that ranged from ad hoc implementation of environmental best practices, to

environmental management systems certified against an international environmental standard.

About 41% of hotels had an Environmental Officer/Manager, while 47% had a written

environmental policy. On average, hotels allocated 12% of their operating budget to

environmental management. The overall benefit of environmental management to the properties









averaged 6.7 out of 10, where 1 indicated that EM was not at all beneficial to the property and 10

that it was extremely beneficial.

The importance of conserving natural resources and potential cost savings were most often

cited as reasons for implementing environmental management. These were followed by

advantage over competitors, internal green champion, and need to keep up with competitors.

Additional motives included taking care of the environment for their children and future

generations, educating staff and guests, and improving the lives of community members.

In-house training was the most frequently selected facilitator of implementing

environmental management. This was followed by participation in external training and

technical assistance from external agencies. Government incentives and funding from external

agencies were the least perceived facilitators. Other facilitators included suggestions from guests

and participation in corporate programs.

The main constraint to implementing environmental management or advancing to a higher

level of EM was implementation is costly, followed by the lack of capital and lack of time. The

least selected constraint was environmental management is not necessary. Other constraints

included limited recycling facilities, lack of interest from residents, and the intensiveness of

paperwork required for environmental management.

The number one outcome of implementing environmental management was decrease in

resource consumption, followed by overall improvement in property management. Other

outcomes experienced included decrease in solid waste generation; decrease in operating cost;

increase in staff training; increase in guest satisfaction; environmental management used to

market the property; and change in organizational structure and culture. Additional outcomes









proposed by respondents included international recognition, relationships with government

agencies, and increased awareness within the wider community.

Diffusion of Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector

An innovation may be adopted intact, rejected, or adopted with modifications (Rogers,

2003). The adoption of environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector has

exemplified this position, whereby four different levels of environmental management have been

implemented. The levels were (1) environmental best practices implemented on an ad hoc basis;

(2) an environmental program in which there is an environmental policy and planned actions; (3)

an environmental management system in which there is an environmental policy and a

systematic method to improve environmental performance through setting objectives and targets,

developing an action plan, monitoring performance, involving staff, and documenting all

initiatives; and (4) certification against a recognized standard.

The findings of this study indicate that environmental management has diffused to two

thirds of the hotels surveyed. However, the diffusion has not reached a plateau (Figure 4-1).

Since the amount of annual adoptions has not yet leveled, the possibility remains that additional

hotels will implement environmental management. It is unlikely that complete diffusion will

occur as the accommodations sector is a dynamic system. Annually, a number of new properties

are added to the accommodations inventory which inevitably changes the number of potential

adopters. Further, though some new properties may be built with consumption reduction

measures (e.g., aerators, energy saving bulbs), operational practices may militate against the

efficacy of such measures.

For a small group of properties in this study, the accommodations sector was perceived to

have a positive impact on the environment (8%) and environmental management was not









necessary (4%). Additionally, non-adopters' were more likely to be unfamiliar with the concept

of greening, and their lack of awareness may have been a factor in not adopting environmental

management. The lack of understanding which stymies the implementation of environmental

management is congruent with what Kasim (2007, p. 37) termed as the "myopic view of

environmental responsibility" in his study on the hotel sector in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Adopters and non-adopters were compared to determine differences on the importance of

the natural environment to the accommodations sector, membership in organizations, familiarity

with EM in the accommodations sector, and hotel characteristics. With respect to the importance

of the natural environment, adopters and non-adopters generally agreed that: (1) their properties

were dependent on the natural environment, (2) the accommodations sector had an important role

to play in protecting the natural environment, (3) a pristine natural environment was very

important to their guests, and (4) the natural environment is very important to their properties.

This is understandable because the Caribbean tourism industry has traditionally emphasized the

use of coastal and marine resources and also other types of natural resources in the last two

decades. Therefore, hoteliers recognize the importance of natural resources to their properties.

Adopters and non-adopters had divergent views on the impact that the accommodations

sector had on the natural environment. Non-adopters were more likely than adopters to agree

with the item that, 'the accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural

environment'. Hotels that consider the sector's impact to be positive may not perceive the need

to change their operations. A similar finding was reported by Stabler and Goodall (1997) where

some respondents indicated that the tourism sector and specifically, the hospitality sector did not

contribute to environmental problems. These respondents were disinclined to make changes to

their properties. Comparable attitudes were also exhibited by Caribbean hoteliers in the CHEMI









project (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004) and by hoteliers in the popular tourist area of Plymouth, UK

(Hobson & Essex, 2001).

In terms of hotel characteristics, adopters and non-adopters were similar in property type,

size and guest origins, but differed in ownership. Adopters were more likely than non-adopters

to be foreign owned or part of a chain or group. Foreign owners of adopters may originate in

countries in which environmental awareness is high and this might have influenced business

practices. Additionally, for some properties environmental management may require capital

expense for retrofitting. Foreign property owners may have greater access to funding to make

the needed changes.

Hotels that are part of a chain or group may have opportunities to implement EM that are

not available to independent properties. Alvarez Gil et al. (2001) suggested that being part of a

chain gave individual properties greater access to information and also allowed for sharing of

various types of resources. Further, the economies of scale in a chain or group of hotels could

allow for environmental initiatives that may be cost prohibitive for independent hotels.

Additionally, chain/group hotels could provide internal pressure for continuous improvement, or

could develop environmental management protocols centrally to be disseminated throughout the

chain (Alvarez Gil et al., 2001). Such a strategy has been implemented by Sandals Resorts

International (R. May, personal communication, August 6, 2003).

Adopters and non-adopters differed in membership in organizations. Adopters were more

likely to be members of their national hotel association, CAST, and other environmental

organizations. Information plays a crucial role in the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003).

Information on environmental management is likely to be shared within the national hotel

associations and even more so within CAST and other environmental organizations.









Additionally, these organizations offer periodic training, usually at reduced rates to their

members. Thus membership in these organizations may have exposed adopters to information

which may have helped them to implement environmental management.

As evidenced by the diffusion curve (Figure 4-1), the rate of adoption increased after 1997,

the year in which CAST was established. For adoption of innovation by individuals, the

escalation in adoption has been attributed to the sharing of information among individuals

(Rogers, 2003). In the case of Caribbean green hotels, the acceleration may have occurred in

part because of the establishment of CAST, an organization that has focused on providing

assistance to hotels primarily in the form of information on how to properly manage their use

of and impacts on natural resources. In this study, 44% of the respondents were members of

CAST, while 42% were members of other green organizations such as the Caribbean

Conservation Association and the International Hotels Environment Initiative. For all of these

organizations, building awareness is a key component of their activities. In the case of CAST,

particularly in its initial years of existence, much emphasis was placed on increasing awareness

of environmental impacts. Consequently, workshops were periodically conducted in various

countries within the region.

Hotel Characteristics

Adopters were primarily small properties 75 rooms or less5. This is not a surprising

finding given that two-thirds of CHA's membership comprises small hotels (CHA, 2008). The

small properties tend to be locally owned and operated, a pattern which was also reflected in the

results of this study. Similar to other studies conducted in the Caribbean, adopters in this study




5 This is in accordance with the Caribbean Hotel Association's classification.









run the gamut in terms of size, ownership, and guest origin (Best, 2004; Blanchard, 2004;

Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004).

In this study hotel characteristics were not predictive of the level of environmental

management implemented. In previous studies, findings on the relationship between

characteristics and environmental management (whether policy, likelihood of adoption, or

implementation) have been mixed. Kirk (1998) found that property characteristics such as size,

ownership and classification (type) were not related to a property having a written policy

(regarded as a key precursor to environmental action). Alvarez Gil et al (2001) found that hotel

size and chain affiliation to be significantly related to environmental management.

Motives for Environmental Management

The importance of conserving natural resources was the overwhelming motive for

implementing environmental management. This is an important finding in light of the criticisms

that have been leveled at the hotel industry, with regard to both its role in degrading natural

resources, and the practice of 'greenwashing' (Butler, 1998; Honey, 1999). The Caribbean is

primarily comprised of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) which are vulnerable to even the

slightest changes in the natural environment. This is especially important for the tourism

industry due to its reliance on the region's terrestrial and marine resources for both mass and

alternative styles of tourism. With the survival of their businesses so heavily reliant on natural

resources, hoteliers were perhaps more inclined to rank the conservation of resources highly.

Another factor is that much resource degradation (e.g., marine pollution, coral bleaching and

death) became apparent in the Caribbean in the 1990s and beyond. This evidence may have had

some influence on Caribbean hoteliers.









Hoteliers may also have been concerned about natural resources because they themselves

reside in these communities or have personal interests in resource conservation. Additional

motives suggested by hoteliers included protecting resources for children and future generations

and being individually responsible for environmental preservation. Evidently, individual belief

systems may have influenced such business decisions, a factor that was also highlighted by

Dewhurst and Thomas (2003). This type of influence was exemplified by a Jamaican hotelier

who was motivated by "core values of personal responsibility, quality of life, concerns about

providing next generation fair opportunities, global equality, love and appreciation for our

mother earth." Understanding the influence of belief systems and norms is important since in

small hotels and owner-operated hotels in particular, daily operations and policy decisions can

easily be affected. Given that small hotels and owner-run properties constitute the majority of

the Caribbean accommodations sector this is crucial to the diffusion of environmental

management.

Reduced cost has been heavily promoted as a significant benefit of implementing

environmental management (CAST, 2008; IHEI, 1993; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Therefore,

it is not surprising that potential cost savings emerged as a strong motive for implementing

environmental management since hotels are generally profit-seeking enterprises and greening has

been perceived as a solid business strategy. Yet, it is noteworthy that support for this motive was

not as strong as in other studies (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001;

Tzschentke et al., 2004) and agreement with this motive was 82% compared with 95% for the

importance of conserving natural resources.

The prospect of gaining a competitive advantage over other hotels was the third most

popular motive for implementing environmental management. Using EM to position one's hotel









to be more attractive to the market and consequently increase room nights, is another benefit that

has been used to encourage hotels (CAST, 2008; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). This study found

that 75% of hotels did include EM in their marketing, and 55% observed increases in room

occupancy, which suggests that some competitive edge was gained by implementing EM.

The items in the motives construct collectively predicted level of EM. However, despite

the respondents' support for 'the importance of conserving natural resources' and 'potential cost

savings', neither was individually a significant predictor of level of environmental management.

In fact, of the top four motives, only internal green champion proved to be a significant predictor

of environmental management. The relationship between green champion and level of

environmental management was positive. Thus, having an internal green champion increased a

hotel's likelihood of implementing an advanced level of environmental management. This

finding is consistent with Rogers' (2003) generalization that "the presence of an innovation

champion contributes to the success of an innovation in an organization" (p. 414). As an

indication of this position, one of the goals of Jamaica's Environmental Audits for Sustainable

Tourism was to "develop environmental champions ... to encourage adoption of best

environmental management practices by others" (Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004, p. 98).

The predictive relationship between internal green champion and level of environmental

management is a key finding of this study because it does not appear that this item (IGC) has

previously been tested.

Two dimensions of motives were identified within the motives construct: financial motives

and stakeholder pressure. Neither dimension was a significant predictor of level of

environmental management. Thus, there may be additional items that may add to the predictive

ability of these dimensions which were not included in the original motives construct.









Facilitators of Environmental Management

The facilitator construct consisted of six items. In-house training was the most often

selected facilitator. Formal or informal in-house training helps to share information about

greening with all levels of staff and properly prepares them to implement the innovation.

Training creates a 'buy-in' and consequently, employee support for the innovation which is

critical for successful implementation.

Besides in-house training, external training and technical assistance from external agencies

were also noted as key facilitators. Since environmental management is an innovation, it would

be expected that a certain degree of training would be required for successful implementation.

This would be relevant as hotels progress from basic to more advanced EM. Participation in

external training and technical assistance from outside agencies would also help hotels to

improve the capabilities of its staff, particularly where in-house expertise is deficient. Bramwell

and Alletorp (2001) also found that technical expertise and advice from consultants were most

often cited by Danish hoteliers as external facilitators of adopting environmental best practices.

The perception of high implementation costs and lack of capital were major barriers to

implementing environmental management. This coupled with other types of resistance to

greening have led to incentives by some governments to encourage change. For instance, the

Government of Barbados via the Tourism Development Act (2002) encourages greening by

offering hotels tax concessions of 150% for "acquiring Green Globe or similar certification"

(Part IV, 31 (b)), and duty free concessions on plumbing fittings (which may be water saving

devices), energy saving bulbs and fittings, and waste water disposal and sewerage systems,

among other items (Second Schedule). However, such incentives are not widespread in the









Caribbean and it is not surprising to find that most hoteliers rated government incentives as a

weak facilitator.

Project assistance received mixed support as a facilitator. Yet, since 1997, at least four

major projects funded by international agencies have been conducted in the Caribbean: EAST (4

phases), the Caribbean Hotels Environmental Management Initiative (CHEMI) which involved

200 hotels in seven countries in the Eastern Caribbean, Jamaica's Rural Enterprise, Agricultural,

and Community Tourism Project (REACT), and more recently The Bahamas' Sustainable

Tourism Entrepreneurial Management & Marketing project (STEMM) which commenced in

2006 and also targets between 100 and 200 hotels. Of these projects, only CHEMI was focused

primarily on environmental management in hotels, though it was still a strong component for the

other four projects (Bahamas Hotel Association, 2007; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-

Thompson & Cresser, 2004; REACT, 2008). The magnitude of these projects may explain why

about 40% of hoteliers regarded project participation as a facilitator.

Respondents identified a number of facilitators to environmental management, but

individually none was significantly related to level of EM. These facilitators converged into two

dimensions when they were factor analyzed: Capacity Building and Incentives. Capacity

Building was found to be a predictor of level of EM, whereby hotels were more likely to

implement advanced EM if Capacity Building was considered a facilitator. This serves to

reinforce the idea that understanding the requirements of EM and being properly equipped to

take action are important elements of implementing environmental management, particularly

more advanced forms.









Constraints to Environmental Management

The constraint construct was measured using 12 items. Only two items, 'implementation is

costly' and 'lack of capital', were noted as constraints by the majority of respondents. The

emphasis placed on cost and lack of capital constraints corresponds with much of the research on

environmental management, where cost is seen as the primary barrier to adoption (Bramwell &

Alletorp, 2001); Hobson & Essex, 2001; Stabler & Goodall, 1997; Zurburg et al., 1995).

Constraints elicited responses from both adopters and non-adopters. For adopters, cost and lack

of capital posed challenges to expanding their existing EM or progressing to more advanced

levels; whereas for non-adopters these constraints may have contributed to the decision to forego

EM. In addition cost of certification prevented respondents from seeking to have their properties

certified.

Lack of time was a constraint for 42% of the respondents. Since most of the hotels were

small, this finding is understandable. A quarter of the properties in this study had 10 or less

employees; 43% had 25 or less. For smaller properties with few staff, implementation of

advanced levels of EM may prove to be very difficult. This position was also supported by

responses to an open-ended question in which the requirements of advanced EM were presented

as barriers by hoteliers who indicated that their properties were small with limited personnel.

Lack of time was linked with costs in that some respondents felt that personnel did not have the

time to work on environmental management and hiring additional personnel would be too costly.

Lack of time and implementation is costly were correlated.

Adopters and non-adopters experienced similar constraints, although they differed in the

statements 'EM is not necessary' and 'property unaware of any stage beyond current level of

EM'. Adopters disagreed more with both constraints than did non-adopters. The constraint









'property unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM' was more relevant to adopters than

to non-adopters. Thus it appears that the necessity of EM may be the key to understanding why

some hotels have not implemented EM. Perhaps in situations where decision-makers see the

necessity of EM, they seek ways to overcome the other challenges they may encounter.

However, if EM is deemed unnecessary, then hoteliers would not make the effort to implement

any form of EM.

The items in the constraints construct collectively predicted of level of EM. Within that

construct, 'potential benefits not apparent', 'lack of capital', 'lack of time', 'lack of know-how'

and 'no access to technology' were significant predictors of level of EM. For adopters, 'lack of

capital', 'lack of time', and 'lack of know-how' may have prevented them from moving from

their current level of EM to a more advanced level, since level of EM decreased as agreement

with these constraints increased.

The relationship between 'potential benefits not apparent' and 'level of EM' and 'no

access to technology' and 'level of EM' is unusual because as agreement with these constraints

increased, so did the likelihood that hotels would be in the advanced EM group. In the case of

'potential benefits not apparent' it may be that respondents in agreement with this variable were

hotels that had already implemented an advanced level of EM and could see no potential benefits

of greater advancement. For instance, managers/owners of hotels with an environmental

program may not be convinced of the additional benefits of implementing an EMS which may

require more manpower and capital (Ayuso, 2007). Similarly, hotels with an EMS may not see

the potential benefit of having their EMS benchmarked or certified. 'No access to technology'

may have similar circumstances, where hotels have already moved beyond simple environmental









best practices, but are unable implement the most advanced level of EM because they cannot

access the technology to make certain changes within their properties.

Four dimensions emerged from a factor analysis of the constraints. Three of these,

Organizational, Technical and Cost Constraints were used in further analysis. Neither

Organizational, Technical, nor Cost Constraints were significantly related to level of EM. Thus,

it appears that individual constraints have more direct relationships with level of EM and not all

constraints within a dimension may affect a hotel to the same extent. There may be additional

items that could add to the predictive ability of these dimensions which were not included in the

original constraints construct.

Outcomes of Environmental Management

Respondents generally agreed that their properties have benefited from environmental

management, giving 'overall benefit' an average rating of 6.7 out of 10. Benefits from EM are

reflected in the outcomes which the properties have experienced. The outcomes measured

through sixteen items and delineated those changes that resulted from the implementation of

environmental management. Each item was experienced by a majority of the hotels, but

'decrease in resource consumption' was the most frequently cited outcome. Since all adopters

have at least implemented basic measures aimed at reducing resource consumption, the

popularity of this outcome is understandable. This outcome may have wider benefits for the

community since hotel guests have on average been seen to use significantly more resources than

residents, as exemplified by previous research in Barbados and St. Lucia (Burke, 2007; Dixon et

al., 2001).

'Overall improvement in property management' was the second most cited outcome. This

improvement has oftentimes been an unanticipated result of implementing EM and is seldom









given as a motive for adopting environmental management. Yet this is an important outcome

because it emphasizes that environmental management can have a far reaching impact on a

property.

The potential of reducing operating costs was a motive for 82% of respondents. For 88%,

a 'decrease in operating costs' was an outcome of implementing EM. This outcome has been

reported in a range of studies in the accommodations sector as well as in other service and

manufacturing sectors (see for example Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke, et al., 2004). Blanchard

and Lorde (2004) reported that small Caribbean hotels that had implemented environmental best

practices enjoyed the cost savings accrued, and continued to more advanced levels of EM as a

result.

The average weighted total outcomes for adopters with basic EM was 17.5 out of 48,

whereas for adopters with advanced EM it was 23.7. 'Level of EM' also predicted the outcomes

experienced by adopters. Properties with advanced EM were more likely to experience a greater

number of outcomes and to rate their experience of those outcomes higher than properties with

basic EM. Of the 16 items within the outcomes construct, less than half could be achieved by

implementing 'ecotechniques' only (e.g., 'decrease in resource consumption', 'decrease in solid

waste generation', 'decrease in operating costs'). Thus, in order for hotels to enjoy a greater

range of outcomes it would be necessary for them to implement policy changes and actions that

are associated with more advanced levels of environmental management.

Level of EM was analyzed as a mediating variable between dimensions of motives,

facilitators, and constraints and outcomes. Capacity Building and Technical Constraints were

understandably influential. However, while these dimensions directly influenced outcomes,

there was no indirect effect through level of EM. The direct influence of these dimensions on









outcomes suggests that the outcomes a hotel experiences may be influenced by Capacity

Building and Technical Constraints regardless of the level of EM that has been implemented.

Theoretical Implications

This study has added to the diffusion of innovations theory in a number of ways. The

study examined the diffusion of an innovation in accommodations within a wide geopolitical

range. It considered the diffusion of three variations of the same innovation: environmental

management at the basic level of best practices, at an intermediate level of an environmental

program with planned actions, and at the most advanced level of an environmental management

system.

The geographic spread of adoption of these variations of EM was seen throughout the

study region, though some countries such as Barbados and Jamaica exhibited a higher proportion

of adopters than others. This diffusion may result in part from the fact that despite geographic

boundaries, accommodation sub-sectors within the region have a number of factors in common

such as small size, limited resources, and membership in the Caribbean Hotel Association and

the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism. Following Rogers (2003) an innovation

diffuses more readily when there is homogeneity within a system and when members of the

system share information.

This study sought to understand why some hotels did not adopt the innovation of

environmental management and assessed the differences between adopters and non-adopters in

terms of characteristics, attitudes to the natural environment, understanding of innovation

(greening/EM) and the constraints to adopting the innovation. It found that there were very few

differences between adopters and non-adopters. However, given that adoption of EM within the

industry is still in the growth segment of the diffusion curve, the number of non-adopters may









decrease over time. This is supported by the fact that some of the non-adopters have indicated

that they were relatively new properties and/or intended to implement EM in the future.

An important theoretical aspect of this study is that an open, dynamic system was studied,

in that there is ongoing change in hotel ownership and the addition of new properties to the

Caribbean accommodations inventory. It is therefore unlikely that diffusion of this innovation,

particularly the most advanced variation, would reach 100 percent. Moreover, unlike an

innovation in the form of a piece of equipment or a crop variety, environmental management as

an innovation subsumes both operational policies and practices as well as hard products or

equipment. This increases the difficulty of diffusion since the innovation may easily be modified

or differently interpreted by the adopter.

This study analyzed the respondents' basic familiarity with the innovation and focused on

motives, facilitators, and constraints to implementing the innovation. Furthermore, the study

analyzed outcomes from the innovation; an area that has been found to be limited. It found that

outcomes accrued as a result of implementing even the most basic form of the innovation and

that more outcomes accrued if an advanced level of the innovation was implemented.

Management and Policy Implications

The survival of the Caribbean accommodations sector depends to a large extent on the

quality of the natural environment. Therefore, the accommodations sector has an important role

in protecting natural resources. One way to enhance protection is for properties to implement

environmental management. Additionally the sector's survival depends on its economic

sustainability and the outcomes of EM proposed by this study emphasize that adopting this

innovation makes sound business sense.









Adopters of environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector

exhibited a range of characteristics. This should provide encouragement to those properties that

may think their respective characteristics preclude them from implementing environmental

management. Further, properties can choose how they want to begin environmental management

whether by implementing basic environmental best practices or through more advanced

environmental management from the onset. Benefits accrue to the environment and to the

property irrespective of the level of EM implemented.

The various benefits of environmental management, primarily the increased efficiencies

and corollary cost savings, are often used to persuade hotels to adopt environmental

management. For hotels that have adopted EM, these reasons are often cited. Outcomes of

environmental management were a highlight in this study. Decreased resource consumption was

the number one outcome, but surprisingly, improvement in overall management rather than

increased cost savings was the second most experienced outcome. Cost savings was nonetheless

an outcome for most of the properties that had implemented EM. For hotels considering

implementing EM, it should be communicated clearly that the potential benefits of EM can be

realized, as evidenced by the hotels in this study. Furthermore, for adopters that are considering

advanced EM should be encouraged by the finding that hotels with advanced EM were more

likely to enjoy additional outcomes.

While environmental management in its most advanced forms will involve most or all

personnel within a property, the existence of a 'Green Champion' may help to take a property to

the next level. 'Internal green champion' was found to be the sole motive which predicted level

of EM and this suggests EM may have a better chance of success if there is at least one person

within a property who really drives the process.









Several additional motives for implementing EM were identified but the 'importance of

conserving natural resources' was found to be the most popular. However, not all hoteliers made

the connection between tourism and the environment and this suggests a need for the national

hotel associations and CAST to continue their efforts to raise awareness about the sector's

impact on the environment and actions that can reduce those impacts.

Implementing environmental management, even at its most basic level is seldom an easy

task. Thus it is not surprising that capacity building influenced level of EM. This again points to

a role for national associations and CAST. However, hoteliers should also be proactive and

lobby their associations to organize appropriate training for them. Technical assistance was both

a popular facilitator and an element within capacity building. While the national association may

not be able to provide such services directly, they are better positioned to negotiate rates on

behalf of their members, through economies of scale which would be impossible for individual

hotels. Additionally, CAST maintains a network of Technical Service Affiliates that hotels may

find useful.

Constraints to implementing environmental management were identified, several of which

were seen to influence the level of environmental management implemented. The influential

constraints were lack of capital; lack of time; potential benefits not apparent; no access to

technology; lack of know-how; and EM is not necessary. While these and other constraints may

have prevented some hotels from implementing environmental management, the fact that 67% of

the respondents had implemented EM attests that such constraints were not insurmountable.

Given the results of this study, the following are recommended:

o National Associations and CAST should continue to encourage and where
possible facilitate the environmental management in hotels.









For hotels:


o Start environmental management at the most comfortable level comfortable.
o Consider a more advanced level of EM if basic EM has already been
implemented.
o Work collectively to access 'expert' training or work with hotel association to do
such.
o Think outside the box and tap resources which may be often overlooked (e.g., a
science teacher at a local school to deliver a staff workshop).
o Consider membership in National Association and CAST if not yet a member.

For policy-makers:

o Partner with other sectors to conserve resources.
o Work with the industry to implement infrastructural changes (e.g. recycling)
which will also benefit residents.
o Consider creating incentives (e.g. tax credits, duty free concessions) for properties
to adopt environmental best practices.


Delimitations

This study targeted general managers and owners of hotels because they tend to make

major decisions within a property. However implementation of environmental management,

particularly at advanced levels, requires input from most if not all personnel. Therefore this

study may have primarily captured one perspective of environmental management.

This study was restricted to hotels within the Anglophone Caribbean though greening is

also occurring in the Spanish, French, and Dutch sub-regions. This was intentional to ensure the

study manageable. While this study may offer insight into environmental management, the

findings should be considered within the context of the Caribbean.

Limitations

The research method for this study was an Internet based survey. This method of research

is still developing and is relatively new to the Caribbean. The responses from several hoteliers

indicate that there was some reluctance to respond to the survey because of the method.









Hoteliers were invited to participate by email and in spite of having email addresses confirmed

for each hotel, many of the contacts did not reach the intended recipient. Additionally, emails

may have ended up in junk mail despite attempts to prevent this occurrence. A pre-notice was

sent to each hotelier in the database, however if this pre-notice went to junk mail it is highly

likely that the subsequent invitation and reminders followed the same route. Furthermore, the

nature of emails is that they can be read and easily forgotten if the subject is not a priority.

Responses from hoteliers also indicated that this had occurred on a number of occasions. A

solution to circumvent this issue would have been to send more frequent reminders. However it

was also felt that this would constitute harassment of the hoteliers.

Another limitation of the study was the time frame in which the data was collected which

limited the response rate. Data collection started in December, during Christmas week and

ended in March. The entire data collection period was during winter season, the peak of

Caribbean tourism activity. In addition to Christmas and New Year's, there were two other

major events within the data collection period: Caribbean Marketplace in mid-January which is

the Caribbean Hotel Association's premiere event for hoteliers and their buyers, and ITB Berlin

in early March, which is one of two major European events attended by Caribbean hoteliers.

The response rate to the survey, though acceptable, was somewhat lower than anticipated.

While the timing of the study did contribute to this limitation, it was also felt that fewer non-

adopters may have responded to the survey because of the misperception that it was aimed at

hotels that had implemented environmental management. It is possible that the low response rate

and the type of respondents influenced the results of the study.

The study was also limited in that much of the focus was on properties that had adopted

some level of environmental management. Therefore there was a low level of variation between









the responses to the questionnaire. Also, the characteristics of responding hotels were very

similar. This relative homogeneity may have been the underlying reason why characteristics

were not found to be predictors of the adoption of the innovation under study.

Given the response rate to the survey, an attempt was made to determine whether non-

response bias existed. However, extensive analysis on non-respondents proved difficult since the

identities of most respondents were anonymous to the researcher. Through a comparison with

the Caribbean Hotel Association database, respondents and non-respondents were found to be

similar with regards to size. For both groups, two thirds were small hotels (75 rooms or less).

Future Work

While this study has contributed to the literature in various ways, it did not address the

concern of cross-sectional studies, which offer a snap shot of a fixed point in time. Given the

dynamism of the accommodations sector and the tenet of continuous improvement inherent in

environmental management, a longitudinal study capturing the same or similar data is

recommended. Such a study could look at the continued diffusion of environmental

management, whether the proportion of adoption within the four levels changes, and differences

to motives, facilitators, constraints and outcomes over time.

This study was primarily quantitative. More in-depth qualitative studies are recommended,

whether on a country by country, hotel characteristic, or other basis. Qualitative studies may be

better able to investigate the nuances that this study has missed. For example, adopters and non-

adopters were very similar on a range of variables, including constraints to adopting

environmental management, so reasons for not adopting are not clear. A qualitative study may

be better poised to elicit this type of information.









A key finding in this study was the underlying dimensions within the motives, facilitators,

and constraints. However, not all scales were internally consistent. The items included in these

indices and the suggestions made by respondents should be reviewed with the intent of testing

and refining the indices for use in further investigation.

This study was conducted in the Anglophone Caribbean which in numbers of rooms

represents less than half of the Caribbean accommodations sector. To reach a more

comprehensive understanding of environmental management in this sector it is recommended

that the survey be extended to include hotels in the Spanish, French, and Dutch Caribbean. Since

most of the Caribbean's room inventory is in the Spanish Caribbean, it is particularly important

that hotels in these countries also be assessed.










APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Environmental Management in Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean
1. In which country is your property located?
2. In which year did your property first open?
3. Please select whether you are a
[General Manager OOwner Owner/General Manager Other
4. Approximately how many persons (total) does your property employ?
5. Select your property type from the following categories.
OBudget OMid-range OLuxury
6. How many rooms does your property have?
7. What is your average annual occupancy percentage?
8. Select your type of property ownership from the following categories. (Check one only).
O Locally owned and operated
E Locally owned and foreign operated
E Foreign owned and operated
E Foreign owned and locally operated
Part of international chain or group
O Part of locally operated chain or group
9. Where do the majority of guests to your property originate from?
O USA 0 Canada 0 UK O Germany
O Caribbean 0 Other
10. Is your property currently a member or has ever been a member of the following organizations?
National hotel association Yes No
Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) Yes No
Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) Yes No
Green organization (e.g., Caribbean Conservation Association,
Green Hotels Association, International Hotels Environment Initiative) Yes No

11. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the accommodations
sector and the natural environment. 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor
Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree.
12345
This property is dependent on the natural environment
The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment
The accommodations sector has an important role to play in protecting the
natural environment
A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests
The natural environment in very important to this property










Environmental management, or 'greening' as it is more commonly known in the Caribbean, refers
to the actions a property takes to reduce its harmful impacts on the natural environment.

12. How familiar are you with environmental management in the accommodations sector? (Check
one only).
O Not all familiar
0 Somewhat unfamiliar
0 Neither familiar nor unfamiliar
0 Somewhat familiar
0 Very familiar

13. Does your property have any type of environmental management in place? Yes No
13b. If yes, in what year did your property begin environmental management?
*If no, go to Question 22.
14. From the following list, please select the description which is most applicable to environmental
management at your property. (Check one only).
O Some environmental best practices in place (e.g., aerators, energy saving lights, towel/linen reuse
programme, solid waste separation for reuse or recycling)
Which of the following environmental best practices have been implemented on your property? (Check
all that apply).
Energy saving bulbs O
Aerators on taps in guestrooms O
Low flush toilets (1.6 gal/flush or less) in guestrooms O
Low flow shower heads (2.5 gal/minute or less) in guestrooms O
Towel reuse program 0
Linen reuse program 0
Reuse or recycling of copy/print paper 0
Reuse or recycling glass or plastics O
D An environmental policy and planned actions throughout the property (involving all or most
departments) to reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste.
O An environmental policy and a comprehensive programme to reduce consumption of resources and
generation of waste. Programme includes objectives, targets, and action plan, performance
monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff levels, documentation of all environmental and
social initiatives.
O Certification against a recognized standard (e.g., local Authority or Environmental Agency, Green
Globe, ISO 14001)










14b. Based on your response to 14a, in which year did your property achieve this level of
environmental management?


15. If your property is certified, against which of the following standards is it certified?
O Green Globe
0 ISO 14000
0 Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST)
O Other

16. To what extent would you agree that the following items motivated your property to implement
environmental management? 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor
Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree.
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
a) Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents,
etc.
b) Pressure from shareholders
c) Internal Green Champion
d) Need to keep up with competitors
e) Advantage over competitors
f) Importance of conserving natural resources
g) Government regulations
h) Potential cost savings


16b. Are there any other reasons? Yes
16c. Please list


17. Does your property have a written environmental policy?
18. If yes, how long has the policy been in place?
O Less than 1 year
0 1-5 years
0 6-10 years
O More than 10 years


Yes No


19. Approximately what percent of your overall operations budget is allocated for environmental
management in your property?










20. To what extent would you agree that the following assisted your property in reaching its current
level of environmental management? 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor
Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree.
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
1. In-house training
2. Participation in external training
3. Technical assistance from external agencies
4. Funding (e.g., external grants)
5. Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions)
6. Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening
project)

20b. Did you receive any other assistance in implementing your environmental management?
Yes No
20c. Please list


21. Does your property have an Environmental Officer or Manager on staff? Yes No
22. To what extent would you agree that the following were barriers to your property in
implementing environmental management? 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither
Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree.
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
a. More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or
complicated
b. Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult
c. Implementation is costly
d. Lack of capital
e. Potential benefits not apparent
f No access to technology
g. Lack of know-how
h. Employee resistance
i. Lack of time
j. Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for
the property
k. Environmental Management is not necessary
1. Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of
environmental management


22b. Are there any other barriers to implementing environmental management?
22c. Please list


Yes No










23. To what extent have the following outcomes resulted from your property's incorporation of
environmental management in its operations?
Not at A Some- A
All Little what Lot
a. Decrease in resource consumption (e.g., water, energy)
b. Decrease in solid waste generation
c. Change in organizational structure and culture
d. Decrease in operating costs
e. Increase in room occupancy
f Environmental management used to market the property
g. Increase in guest satisfaction
h. Increase in participation in community outreach activities
i. Use of employee incentives to encourage participation in
environmental management
j. Environmental management performance incorporated in employee
evaluations
k. Environmental management performance incorporated in management
evaluations
1. Overall improvement in property management
m. Environmental management component in annual property reports
n. Improvement in employee morale
o. Increase in staff training
p. Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy


23b. Are there other outcomes experienced as a result of implementation of environmental
management? Yes No
23c. Please list
24. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all beneficial and 10 is extremely beneficial, how would
you rate the overall benefit your property has experienced from implementing environmental
management?
Additional Comments





Thank you for your assistance.
If you wish to be excluded from reminders to complete this survey, please indicate your email address


For more information on this survey, please contact Mechelle Best at mechbest@ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-
4042 ext 1385 or Dr. Brijesh Thapa at bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1239.
University of Florida
Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management
330 FLG
P.O. Box 118208
Gainesville, FL 32611-8208










Survey as it Appeared on Zoomerang


Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector

Dear Caribbean Hotelier

My name is Mechelle Best. I am a Barbadian graduate student at the University of Florida. I am
conducting a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels. This research is in partial
fulfillment of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Tourism. Your responses will be completely confidential and the
findings will never discuss individual responses. This questionnaire should take less than 20 minutes to
complete. Your responses will be very important in understanding the status of environmental
management in Caribbean hotels. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to
you as a participant in this study. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to. You are
free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation at any time without
consequence.

Will you participate in this study?

If Yes, Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study.

If No, Won't you please reconsider? You were chosen at random and your responses represent hotels
that were not selected.

If Yes, Please continue with the survey.

If No, Thank You!

Should you experience problems completing the survey, please email me at mechbest@ufl.edu or call
(352)392-4042 ext. 1385.











Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


1 In which country is your property located?



2 In which year did your property first open?



3
Please select whether you are a
G General Manager
Owner
Owner/General Manager
Other



4
Approximately how many persons (total) does your property
employ?

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....

5
Select your property type from the following categories.
0 Budget
Mid-range
0 Luxury



6 How many rooms does your property have?



7 What is your average annual occupancy percentage?



8
Select your type of property ownership from the following categories. (Check one only).
Locally owned and operated
Locally owned and foreign operated
Foreign owned and operated
Foreign owned and locally operated
Part of international chain or group
Part of locally operated chain or group












9 Where do the majority of guests to your property originate from?
SUSA
SCanada
SUK
Germany
Caribbean
Other





10 Is your property currently a member or has ever been a member of the following
organizations?


Yes
National hotel association


ii i
Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA)


-D


Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST)



Green organization (e.g. Caribbean Conservation Association, Green Hotels
Association, International Hotels Environment)


?ZJ


11 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements
about the accommodations sector and the natural environment.


1
Strongly disagree


2
Disagree


Neither Agree nor
Disagree


4 5
Agree Strongly agree


This property is dependent on the natural environment



The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural
environment



The accommodations sector has an important role to play in protecting
the natural environment


A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests
A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests


-5L











The natural environment in very important to this property

-i -j ijwi


a


Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector

Environmental management, or 'greening' as it is more commonly known in the Caribbean,
refers to the actions a property takes to reduce its harmful impacts on the natural environment.

12
How familiar are you with environmental management in the
accommodations sector? (Check one only).
Not all familiar
Somewhat unfamiliar
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar
Somewhat familiar
0 Very familiar


13
Does your property have any type of environmental management in
place?
YES N I
If yes, in what year did your property implement environmental
management?


Ii



.. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ...j










From the following list, please select the description which is most applicable to
environmental management at your property. (CHECK ONE ONLY).
Some environmental best practices in place (e.g. aerators, energy
saving lights, towel/linen reuse programme, solid waste
separation for reuse or recycling).
An environmental policy and planned actions throughout the
Property (involving all or most departments) to reduce
consumption of resources and generation of waste.
An environmental policy and a comprehensive programme to
reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste.
Programme includes objectives, targets, and action plan,
performance monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff
levels, documentation of all environmental and social initiatives.
Certification against a recognized standard (e.g. local Authority or
Environmental Agency, Green Globe, ISO 14000).











Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


15
Which of the following environmental best practices have been
implemented on your property? (Check all that apply).

.j Energy saving bulbs
Aerators on taps in guestrooms
Low flush toilets (1.6 gal/flush or less) in guestrooms
Low flow shower heads (2.5 gal/minute or less) in guestrooms
,) Towel reuse program
j Linen reuse program
j Reuse or recycling of copy/print paper
Reuse or recycling glass or plastics







Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


16
In which year did your property achieve its current level of
environmental management?




17
If your property is certified, against which of the following standards is it
certified?
.j Green Globe
j ISO 14000
.. Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST)
Other




Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


18
To what extent would you agree that the following items motivated your
property to implement environmental management?











12 34 5
Strongly Neither Agree nor N/A
Strongly Disagree either Agree nor Agree Strongly agree
disagree Disagree

Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc.


Pressure from shareholders



Internal Green Champion


Need to keep up with competitors


Advantage over competitors


Importance of conserving natural resources


Government regulations


Potential cost savings






19
Are there any other reasons for implementing environmental
management not listed in question 18?


XYESJ N0J
If yes, please list









20 Does your property have a written environmental policy?


If yes, for how many years has it been in place?
If yes, for how many years has it been in place?

















21
Approximately what percent of your overall operations budget is
allocated for environmental management in your property?



Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


22
To what extent would you agree that the following assisted your property in
reaching its current level of environmental management?


1
Strongly
disagree


2
Disagree


In-house training


-ij


_.U


3
Neither Agree nor
Disagree


wJ


Participation in external training


Technical assistance from external agencies
jj.. __2 J _i


Funding (e.g. external grants)


4 5
Agree Strongly agree


-U


4J


4J


_J


4J


Government incentives (e.g. tax credits, duty free concessions)
IlwJ .


Project assistance (e.g. participation in national or regional greening project)




23
Did you receive assistance other than that listed in question 21 in implementing
your environmental management?


If yes, please list
















24
Does your property have an Environmental Officer or Manager on staff?


Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


25
To what extent have the following outcomes resulted from your property's incorporation of
environmental management in its operations?


1 2 3 4
Not at All A little Somewhat A lot

Decrease in resource consumption (e.g. water, energy)


Decrease in solid waste generation


Change in organizational structure and culture


Decrease in operating costs
_1U J 4J

Increase in room occupancy


Environmental management used to market the property


Increase in guest satisfaction


Increase in participation in community outreach activities


Use of employee incentives to encourage participation in environmental management
2J-











Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations


Environmental management performance incorporated in management evaluations


Overall improvement in property management


Environmental management component in annual property reports


Improvement in employee morale


Increase in staff training


Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy





26

Are there other outcomes (different to the list in question 26)
experienced as a result of implementing environmental management?

YE1I NDJ
If yes, please list.







27
24. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all beneficial and 10 is
extremely beneficial, how would you rate the overall benefit your
property has experienced from implementing environmental
management?


Bi~e)
















Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector


28
To what extent would you agree that the following prevented your property from going
beyond its current level of environmental management?


1 2
Strongly
disagree Disagree


4 5
Neither Agree nor A e N/A
DisagreeAgree Strongly agree


More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or com
_.1J J _5J .4J _

Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult


Implementation is costly


Lack of capital


Potential benefits not apparent


No access to technology
.I jJi __jJ

Lack of know-how


Employee resistance


Lack of time


Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the


Environmental Management is not necessary


Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management


plicated


-J


_J


property
-J









-iJ


-Jw


Are there any other barriers to implementing environmental
management?


YES, N li
If yes, please list.


Additional Comments


a


Environmental


Management in the Caribbean


Accommodations Sector


-U


_J


31
If you wish to be excluded from reminders to complete this survey,
please indicate your email address.






IAmrmA









Thank you for your assistance.


For more information on this survey, please contact Mechelle Best at
mechbest@ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1385 or Dr. Brijesh Thapa at
bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1239.

University of Florida
Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management
330 FLG
P.O. Box 118208
Gainesville, FL 32611-8208

For questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact
University of Florida Institutional Review Board
Tel. (352) 392-0433
PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611












APPENDIX B
LETTER FROM THE BAHAMAS HOTEL ASSOCIATION











BAHAMAS HOTEL ASSOCIArlON



January 2, 2008


Dear Fellow Hotelier:

During the past year we have seen the rapidly emerging 'mainstreaming of green'. This is beginning to
impact the bottom line of many of us in the hospitality industry, as a growing number of consumers are
weighing the environmental practices of a hotel and destination in making their buying decision.

Orbitz recently announced a 'Green Vacation' program. A growing number of airlines are encouraging
passengers to offset their 'carbon credits' in novel ways. The state of Wisconsin is certifying 'green
tourism businesses'. More than 40 million US baby boomers are actively seeking environmentally-
friendly brands, according to a recently released study by the American Association for Retired Persons.

As hoteliers, these trends should be informing the way we operate our businesses and how we market
them.

To better understand what environmental management practices Bahamian and Caribbean hoteliers
have in place or would consider, a study is being undertaken by Mechelle Best. As Chairperson for the
sustainable tourism efforts of the Bahamas Hotel Association and a fellow hotelier, I would like to
encourage you to spend a few minutes to complete and return the survey.

As you review the survey form, some of the language may appear unfamiliar. I assure you, if it is not the
language you speak or understand you need to begin to understand it. The marketplace is changing.
Consumer motivations are changing. To survive as hoteliers in the future, it will be essential that we
understand this and be ahead of the curve in what we do and how we do it.

Thank you for assisting with this importance survey, the results which BHA and others will draw upon to
help guide our future competitiveness.

Sincerely,


Michael Hartman
Chairperson, Sustainable Tourism, BHA
General Manager & Co-Owner, Tiamo Resorts



MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF THE CARIBBEAN HOTEL ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF THE BAHAMAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS
P O. BOX N-7799 NASSAU. BAHAMAS
TELEPHONES: (242) 322-8381-4 FAX: (242) 502-4220 502-4221
E-MAIL. bhainfo@bohaoashotels org









APPENDIX C
CONTACTS WITH HOTELS

Pre-Notice


Dear Caribbean Hotelier

I am a Barbadian student at the University of Florida, where I am completing a PhD in Tourism.
I am conducting a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in partial fulfilment
of my degree. I would like to invite you to participate in this study by completing a
questionnaire which is accessible through the internet. I wanted to alert you to the fact that you
will be emailed the link to the questionnaire in a few days. Completion of the survey should not
take too much of your time. The data collected will be very useful in understanding
environmental management in Caribbean hotels and will be beneficial to the industry. Since
only a sample of hoteliers will be invited to participate, your response is very important.


Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your participation.









Survey Invitation


Dear Caribbean Hotelier

I am a Barbadian student at the University of Florida, where I am completing a PhD in Tourism.
I am conducting a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in partial fulfilment
of my degree. I would like to invite you to participate in this study by completing a
questionnaire which is accessible through the internet. Completion of the survey should not take
too much of your time. The data collected will be very useful in understanding environmental
management in Caribbean hotels and will be beneficial to the industry. Since only a sample of
hoteliers will be invited to participate, your response is very important.

You may access the survey by clicking on the following link.

http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB2279R8L5VMS

The survey may also be accessed by copying the link and pasting it in your browser.

Thank you in advance for your participation.









Survey Reminder


Dear Caribbean Hotelier

I recently invited you to participate in a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels
which I am conducting in partial fulfilment of a PhD in Tourism. If you have already completed
the questionnaire please accept my sincerest thanks for your participation. If you have not yet
completed the questionnaire there is still time for you to become involved.

I am particularly appreciative of your help because research of this nature on environmental
management in the Caribbean accommodations sector has not been conducted before.
Completion of the survey should not take too much of your time. The data collected will be very
useful in understanding environmental management in Caribbean hotels and will be beneficial to
the industry. Since only a sample of hoteliers have been invited to participate, your response is
very important.

You may access the survey by clicking on the following link.

http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB227B4GUYATD

The survey may also be accessed by copying the link and pasting it in your browser.

Thank you in advance for your participation.









APPENDIX D
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS

Table D-1. Other motives for implementing Environmental Management
Country Other motives
Anguilla Best practices

Antigua & Barbuda We believe we have a responsibility to care for our
environment and with this in mind chose off our own backs to
pursue the green globe award for all our properties.
To become a green Globe certified green Hotel

Bahamas A smarter way to do business.
it is the right thing to do for the sake of our children

Barbados It's the right thing to do...

Belize Set good examples for employees that they can carry on to
their homes
Environmental Best Practices result in improved living
conditions for local communities.
How about just because you believe in community
involvement, purchasing local goods where possible. I see
properties jumping on the bandwagon because of economic
reasons and then not practicing what they preach
The protection and conservation of Belize's world heritage
sites are a legacy to future generations. The effect of this can
be maxminized by educating tourists and locals.
As a local citizen it is vital that the environment be protected
for future use
Part of philosophy of the organization's management
principles

Bermuda Trends in tourism

Dominica We all need to do our part to help
to sensitise staff to the importance of minimising costs and
damage to environment. It was also aimed at educating the
client and the community to the need for implementing best
environmental practices
A personal reason and what decide us to stay on that pure
nature island and a decision to explain to staff anf locals how
to keep the environment safe and green.Change the habits and
be more consciencious about the eco environment protection.









Table D-1. Continued
Country
Dominica


Grenada


Jamaica


Montserrat


Other motives
* Strong commitment to educating others on good
environmental practices for a clean and green environment
* Health benefit, and keeping the natural beauty of the Island.
* more than we can imagine. Need and enviro manager but too
costly and how to train???
* common sense
* strong belief in it, used to train staff
* We are the Nature Island of the Caribbean, if not the world,
and we each have a responsibility to preserve our naturalness.

* Our property is very much about peacefulness, creativity,
relaxation and enjoying 'the good things in life' within our
lush tropical environment, so doing our share in protecting this
treasure called 'nature' came naturally with the concept of the
property.
* General concern for the earth and our children.
* To work along with local environmentalists, to set an
example, create awareness and to encourage others in the hotel
sector in the Caribbean

* Core values of personal responsibility, quality of life,
concerns about providing next generation fair opportunities,
global equality, love and appreciation for our mother earth
* To educate team members on the importance of
Copnservation and how it affects the environment that we all
live in.
* Marketing tool
* To educate or staff and guest the importance of saving our
ozone layer and also us living here in the aribbean to protect
our natural resources such as our reefs, educating our guest
that whatever they see in the ocean to let it remain as the more
we remove the longer they take to build back
* It is just the responsible thing to do
* As a training institution we are honored to be the first of it's
kind with this certification.We find it useful in the training
environment.
* Doing our part toconserve and maintain a cleaner and
healthier environment
* It makes good sense to participate to offer assistance from a
community point of view.

* recycle waste water to kitchen garden harvest used in
restaurant









Table D-1. Continued
Country
St. Lucia


St. Vincent & the Grenadines





Tobago


Other motives
* Corporate Responsibility
* self interest in protecting the environment

* Composting contributes to the quality of soil and reduces
garbage rot & smells
* Good corporate practice.
* For us who live here on the islands

* Better management of systems previously not in place.
* I am an environmentalist and see destruction of the
environment all around and I do my part to best educate others


United States Virgin Islands Founded with the intention of being environmentally
responsible.
Good idea and it seems to be catching on!









Table D-2. Other facilitators of implementing environmental management
Country Other facilitators
Belize To expand, project assistance from Programme for Belize in
implementing Rainforest Alliance's Best Management
Practices
Rainforest Alliance
A guest, who works with an environmental agency in the
United States gave us tips/suggestions.
Educational materials from the World Heritage Alliance

Bermuda corporate policy
corporate programs

Cayman Islands National Trust for the Cayman Islands

Dominica CAST consultant

Jamaica While we paid for it we partnered with Hotel Association
Green Globe initiative

St. Kitts & Nevis cast

St. Lucia as Sandals is a chain, after the pilot projcet it was
impelmented in the best way on the other properties by the
group director

St. Vincent & the Grenadines CAST

Tobago A grant for Solar water heating. i would not have been able to
afoord it otherwise

United States Virgin Islands We are more pioneering.
Corporate









Table D-3. Other constraints to implementing environmental management
Country Other constraints
Antigua & Barbuda Too much paperwork to prove results.
some what
*Budget and training materials
Not seen as a necessity by the owner
staff lassitude

Bahamas Government doesn't help. They see no need in it and the
locals don't care at all
Local help is hard to get ir recycling assistance

Barbados Hottel is too small to maintian the required records and woud
require someone to be employed soley for this purpose
we found GG to be unreasonable & costly with way too
much paperwork. More emphasis needs to be placed on
environmental issues surrounding the Island and the Govt
needs to be much more involved awareness and education is
paramount for all inhabitants of Barbados.

Belize Availability of products within Belize (against importing
products without good reason etd) and lack of recycling
facilities
We will look long and hard at any environmental
management system that is bureaucratic, creates anew
recurrent overhead cost to maintain accreditation or seems
over-engineered for a small operation such as our own.
*lack of time and experience newly opened
*No government support for such programs. The value
revenue over environment

Bermuda Bernuda only began recycling in June-infrastructure is slow
to progress
time, money, priority

British Virgin Islands local laes and land ownership

Dominica no recycling on the island except for beer and pop bottles.
Electrical company shows no interest in introducing solar/
wind power which would be cleaner plus cheaper in the end
result
There has not been effective marketing in the destination
such that there is a strain for management to market rooms.
There is very little support for owners.









Table D-3. Continued
Country
Dominica


Grenada






Jamaica






















St. Kitts & Nevis


Other constraints
* Location and shipping are MAJOR issues, no national
support (such as recycling programs etc...) Don;t want to
appear TOO 'rustic' or 'granola'
* see earlier: e.g. no recycling facilities provided by the state or
private company; as for solar energy, feeding back into the
grid is not allowed as yet etc.; high duties on imported
products, making energy saver bulbs etc. very expensive
* availability of resources and technical support

* "For small properties mainly a question of affordability-
aside from the initial capital expenditure being able to hire
appropriate skilled staff to operate more highly technical
systems. Most of our line staff are not skilled or properly
educated or trained. We have to achieve higher levels of
occupancy, increase profitability in order to be able to afford
the required investments and engage appropriate staff.
Furthermore the high cost of acquiring financing makes it
almost impossible to borrow to invest so it must come from
cash flow. There are also no incentives provided by the
government. Utility rates also do not reward businesses that
save as the rate structure benefits the larger users.
The management generally functions as the environmental
officer in smaller businesses and therefore needs a good
supporting network in terms of assistants in order to be able to
devote sufficient time to developing the environmental
systems most times the daily operations consumes one"s
time. "
* Financial assistance and continued commitment
* Commitment from internal stakeholders

*No resources to re-cycle glass,metals in St Kitts
* Lack of island infrastructure i.e. no recycling facilities, so if
done on property, no benefit is derived as local authorities
cannot handle recycled waste of any kind
* Local Government


St. Lucia any change in routine is difficult to implement especially
something which was there all the time, free of costs team
members need to be made aware of what is surrounding them
as a lot of them take everything for granted and then the
change in attitude is much more difficult









Table D-3. Continued
Country
St. Vincent & the Grenadines





Tobago


Trinidad


Turks & Caicos Islands


United States Virgin Islands


Other constraints
* Cultural acceptance
* time enough for government to step up to the plate and deal
with litter offerners and environmental damagers more
seriously.

* Finance
* Funding

* Tourism in our country is nbot taken seriously enough.
SFunding is most important. Workshops should be available
for educating the public on the environment.

* Government participation and assistance is needed to
implement environmental in the Turks and Caicos

* lease on land runs out in 4 yrs
* Lack of governmental assistance
* Money
* Access to technology locally. People to service what they
implement.
* Training, education and government support









Table D-4. Other outcomes of environmental management
Country Other outcomes
Antigua & Barbuda Alliance with Governemnt Bodies.

Bahamas World wide recognition.

Barbados I cannot answer these question as yet because we are working
on becoming "Green"

Belize increased awareness of our buyer behaviour the cradle to
grave principle and consciousness of contributing to our
adopted community

It is difficult to answer the above since we have not changed
our policies much over the years, but have invested in various
changes. We are very small and do not spend as much time on
paperwork as, perhaps, we should.

Bermuda Environmental hotel of the year-Fairmont

Dominica more contacts by Green organizations on line

Grenada "since we are a new property, our decrease in consumption
etc. is leveled out by the strong increase in occupation which
comes with the natural growth rate of a new project, so our
overall figures don't really work yet for statistics like this.
Unfortunately, environmental practices on small islands are
limited by e.g. the lack of recycling facilities etc."

Guyana "Greater staff awareness and appreciation
Better waste management via integration of kitchen waste into
garden"

Jamaica Inclusion in curriculum of Hotel School

St. Lucia indirect spreading of environmental awareness throughout
the island via team members and their behavior

Tobago Energy saving









Table D-5. Other comments
Country Other comments
Bahamas we try to recyle as much as possible wit the available
resourese that we have created, no resource avaialble on the
island
*EMS, Solar System, R.O. Sytems

Barbados Environmental policies needs to be lead from management and
through staff. Perhaps hieghtended awareness through recent
reports on sea level rises and Noble Peace prizes might help.
There are always excuses why not do, just need to work on
what if you don't implement
Barbados Environmental management to the highest level is very
important. Not only does it reduce costs over time but it also
has other benefits. Many travelers today are very discerning
and this type of property can be very attractive to them. Most
important of all is the quote, We do not inherit the Earth from
our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Without proper
management of the environment we can destroy our most
important asset.
Barbados As I have said before, we are now signing off on the contract to
become "Green". We have put a couple of energy saving
devices in place. We are now in the process of working
toward becoming "Green".
Barbados Linen changes
Chemicals used
Barbados We are a small property and we try to be environmentally
responsible, however, we do need to put systems in place so
that we may better do so. Certainly, there is lots of room for
improvement but with a small staff this can sometimes be
difficult.

Belize Many of the organised certification schemes seem to lack the
necessary flexibility to take account of our size and capital, as
well as availability of goods within the country, and the
conditions here. Assessments need to be able to be flexible,
and not simply about ticking boxes. eg. we are marked down
because we do not recycle grey water we have over 150
inches of rainfall a year, and we have xeric gardens requiring
no irrigation. Tell me the benefit in recycling our grey water?
Our problem is how to dispose of it!!
Environmental Management has been catapolted to the the
near top of priorities on the "to do" list and will result in many
positive changes this season!









Table D-5. Continued
Country
Belize


Bermuda

Dominica


Other comments
* collected rainwater filtered into water tanks
septic system
well system for watering/outdoor shower
* The Black Orchid Resort has been using environmentally
sensitive cleaning chemicals which do no harm to the
surrounding environment since 2006. The resort is also a
member of the World Heritage Alliance and uses their
available information in creating tours, best practices,
consistent with their policies. We have just embarked on this
level recently (for the 2008 World Heritage Alliance
workplan) and are in the process of educating the guests about
World Heritage sites and ways to conserve their carbon
footprint while here at the resort and in Belize.
* We are situated on the Barrier Reef. It is vital that waste
water, sewerage and human resources be properly managed so
as not to affect the environment. Clients are ask not to waste
water, it is a necessity not a commodity, no touching of the
reef,garbage is been taken into the mainland for disposal,
holidng tanks in place for rain water, energy consumption is
minimized.
* lack of finance can be attributed to our indiscretions where
the environment is concerned, we tend to do what we can with
what we have.

* Solar panels, guest-room terry/linen washing initiatives.

* environmental management is essential and needs to be
implemented on a continuing basis. However, lack of apparent
benefits and staff
* solar water heaters, composting, no unnecessary electrical
usage, use green products when possible
* Dominica is advertising by the government,TO and hoteliers as a
nature isle of the caribbean but... we still have 40% hydroelectric
and with an effort from the UNIQUE electricity company ,we can
reach 70% here with our well known 365 rivers!the monthly cost
average bill for a 5 rooms is 3000-4000!! !extreme for this island
No delears or distributors of solar -everyhting here in a caribbean
island.Weird?
no rules about wate and reuse of anything!
no school program or whatsoever...

All the food from the restaurant is organic. we do not use chemical
cause we are located by a riverside.we organise the garbage and
have a compost from the restaurant.we will implemented next year
the solar panel for the guests to have hot water ,for now it is electric!









Table D-5. Continued
Country
Dominica


Grenada


Jamaica


St. Lucia


St. Vincent & the Grenadines


Other comments
* energy saving lights
* The environment suffers negatives from other businesses and
it has been difficult to get them to join the circle for protection
of the natural surroundings and the "Iguana" Habitat which is
special.
* I strongly believe that environmental management should be
implemented in the odernizi accommodation sector
* organic farm, recycling, waste management

* officially since the installation of solar panels in June 2007,
although daily environmental practices had been in place from
the start (just not in writing)

* To go green is to go clean.....
* We r discussion about that.
* We are government owned
* Have recently undertaken programme to redress current
deficiencies.
* We have actually taken over this property 2006 and it has
been implemented since then.

* We have implemented and implementing a lot of programs
and initiatives but this is happening as I write, so benefits not
apparent yet. Investment in odemizing and increasing
efficiencies.
* We are just 10 months old and are dealing with the teething
stages and other organizational factors. I am a believer of
environmental management and so is the owner. I am very
familiar with Green Gold as I wrote a story for them whilst in
employment at the Wyndham Morgan Bay a then existing
hotel property in St. Lucia. We won a certificate for this.

*No motorized sports to protect the reef. Save the reef
program. Save turtle program.
Swe do our small part by asking guests to consider laundry
necessities, turn off lights, etc.
* Sewage plant
Desalination plant
using only natural material for the construction
Saving raining water in underground tank
* When I am more established I would give more thought into
implementing environmental management in my establishment









Table D-5. Continued
Country
Tobago

Turks & Caicos Islands








United States Virgin Islands


Other comments
* We strive to be a model in this field in Tobago

* We do not encourage littering on island and neither do we
have cars etc. Company uses low impact Golf carts as means
of transportation around the island. Minimizes the amount of
properties or structures to be built online since opening
(1973)!
* Unfortunately Grand Turk does not have a recycling system
in place.

* Waste water management, Energy conservation team,
Environment conservation education
* This year our laundry facility which works for two
properties became completely green. We have installed ozone
washers that use cool water and have enabled us to lower the
temp of our driers as well as the drying time.
* Comply with OSHA Standards e.g MSDS, DPNR regulations
* We have a green team on property. We have conducted an
energy audit and hoping to get an environmental audit done
early this year









LIST OF REFERENCES


3M. (2008a). Pollution Prevention Pays (3). Retrieved July 22, 2008 from
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en US/global/sustainability/management/environ
ment.

3M. (2008b). Worldwide Environmental Facts. St. Paul, MN: 3M.

Alexander, S. E. (2000). Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in
Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 341-
350.

Alvarez Gil, M. J., Burgos Jimenez, J., & Cespedes Lorente, J. J. (2001). An analysis of
environmental management, organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels.
Omega, 29(6), 457-471.

Ayala, H. (1995). Ecoresort: a 'green' masterplan for the international resort industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3-4), 351-374.

Ayuso, S. (2007). Comparing Voluntary Policy Instruments for Sustainable Tourism: The
Experience of the Spanish Hotel Sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 144-159.

Bacon, P. R. (1987). Use of wetlands for tourism in the insular Caribbean. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14(1), 104-117.

Bahamas Hotel Association. (2008). Sustainable Development. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from
www.bhahotels.com/stemm.php.

Bell, J. H. (1993). Caribbean tourism in the year 2000. In D. J. Gayle & J. N. Goodrich (Eds.),
Tourism Marketing and Management in the Caribbean (pp. 220-235). London:
Routledge.

Best, M. N. (2002a). A Review of Legislation, Policy and Institutional Arrangements, Assisting
or Constraining, the Implementation of Marine Protected Areas in Dominica and the
Turks & Caicos Islands. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of the West Indies,
Barbados.

Best, M. N. (2002b). The greening of Barbados' tourism industry: The private sector role. Paper
presented at the Caribbean Waste Water Association's Conference & Environmental
Forum, St. Lucia, October 7 11, 2002.

Best, M. N. (2003). Community outreach: A means through which Barbados' accommodations
sector is making tourism sustainable. Paper presented at the Jamaica Institute of
Environmental Professionals' National Scientific Conference on the Environment,
Kingston, Jamaica, April 9-10, 2003.









Best, M. N. (2004, March 3 5, 2004). Barbados' Green Globe 21 hotels: A reflection on their
journey. Paper presented at the Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable Tourism,
Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 5, 2004.

Birdlife International. (December 22, 2006). Grenada update: No 'peace on earth' for rare dove.
Birdlife International Press Release. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
www.birdlife.org/news/pr/2006/12/grenada_dove update.html.

Birdlife International. (February 16, 2007). Grenada Government defiant as dove sanctuary
protest grows. Birdlife International Press Release. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
www.birdlife.org/news/news/2007/02/grenada_dove update.html.

Blanchard, J., & Lorde, D. (2004). Sustainable tourism in the Caribbean: The experience of
small hotels implementing environmental management systems. Paper presented at the
Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 -
5, 2004.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers' environmental attitudes: Greening the business.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 188-204.

Bohdanowicz P., Curie-Kallhaunge A., Martinac I. (2001), Energy-efficiency and conservation
in hotels towards sustainable tourism, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
on Asia Pacific Architecture "Sensible Design and Smart Practice", University of Hawai'i
at Manoa, April 5-7, 2001, Hawai'i, USA.

Bohdanowicz P., Simanic B., Martinac I., Sustainable hotels eco-certification according to EU
Flower, Nordic Swan and the Polish Hotel Association, Proceedings of the Regional
Central and Eastern European Conference on Sustainable Building (SB04), October 27-
29, 2004, Warszawa, Poland.

Bramwell, B. & Alletorp, L. (2001). Attitudes in the Danish tourism industry to the roles of
business and government in sustainable tourism. The International Journal of Tourism
Research, 3(2), 91-103.

Brown, L. A. (1981). Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York: Methuen.

Brown, M. (1996). Environmental policy in the hotel sector: "Green" strategy or stratagem?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 18-23.

Brown, R. (2006). Green Globe in Jamaica: Sustainability case study. Paper presented at the
Green Globe International & Caribbean Green Tourism Conference, Montego Bay,
Jamaica, October 31 November 3, 2006.

Brown-Thompson, R., & Cresser, H. (2004). Environmental management and sustainability at a
national level. Paper presented at the Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable
Tourism, Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 5, 2004.









Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexistence or
symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 3(1), 27-31.

Burke, R. I. (2007). Environment and Tourism: Examining the Relationship between Tourism
and the Environment in Barbados and St. Lucia. Bridgetown, Barbados: Caribbean Policy
Development Centre.

Butler, R. (1998). Sustainable tourism looking backwards in order to progress? In Hall, M. &
A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 25-34). New York:
Longman.

Butler, R. W. (2000). Tourism and the environment: a geographical perspective. Tourism
Geographies, 2(3), 337-358.

Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism. (January 11, 2005). Promoting a Greener
Caribbean: Increasing numbers of Green Globe 21 properties featured on new brochure.
Caribbean Alliancefor Sustainable Tourism Press Release. Retrieved November 29,
2007, from www.cha-cast.com/NewsPress.htm.

Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism. (2007). CAST. Retrieved November 29, 2007
from www.cha-cast.com.

Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2002). Tourist and Cruise Passenger Arrivals 2000. St.
Michael, Barbados: Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2005). Latest Statistics 2004. St. Michael, Barbados:
Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2006). Latest Statistics 2005. St. Michael, Barbados:
Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2007). Latest Statistics 2006. St. Michael, Barbados:
Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Carrier, J. G., & Macleod, D. V. L. (2005). Bursting the bubble: The socio-cultural context of
ecotourism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(2), 315-334.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1993), Overview on ecotourism around the world. IUCN's ecotourism
program. Proceedings of the 1993 World Congress on Adventure Travel and Eco-
tourism, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78 (1), 98-104.

de Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1995). Tourism development in small islands: St
Maarten/St Martin and Bermuda. In D. Barker & D. F. M. McGregor (Eds.), Environment
and Development in the Caribbean: Geographical Perspectives. (pp. 70-89). Mona,
Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies.









Davies, T., & Cahill, S. (2000). Environmental Implications of the Tourism Industry (No.
Discussion Paper 00-14). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Dewhurst, H. & Thomas, R. (2003). Encouraging sustainable business practices in a non-
regulatory environment: A case study of small tourism firms in a UK national park.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(5), 383-403.

Dilworth, V. A. (2003). Visitor perceptions of alternative transportation systems and intelligent
transportation systems in national parks. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M
University.

Dixon, J., Hamilton, K., Pagiola, S., & Segnestam, L. (2001). Tourism and the Environment in
the Caribbean an Economic Framework (No. 22740). Washington, DC: The World
Bank.

Downs Jr., G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700-714.

Drosdoff, D. (2004, May). Barbados acts to prevent water crisis. IDBAmerica. Retrieved July 6,
2008, from www.iadb.org/idbamerica/index.cfm?thisid=2793&lanid=l.

Duval, D. T. (Ed.) (2004). Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, Development, Prospects. London:
Routledge.

Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (1999). Best hotel environmental practices. The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 72-75.

Farrell, B. H., & Runyan, D. (1991). Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1),
26-40.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Foster Jr., S. T., Sampson, S. E., & Dunn, S. C. (2000). The impact of customer contact on
environmental initiatives for service firms. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20(2), 187-203.

France, L. (1998). Sustainability and development in tourism on the islands of Barbados, St
Lucia and Dominica. In D. F. M. McGregor, D. Barker & S. Lloyd Evans (Eds.),
Resource Sustainability and Caribbean Development (pp. 109-125). Mona, Jamaica: The
Press, University of the West Indies.

Gladwin, T. N. (1998). Economic globalization and ecological sustainability: Searching for truth
and reconciliation. In N. Roome (Ed.), Sustainability Strategies for Industry: The Future
of Corporate Practice (pp. 49-50). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J.B. (2003). Tourism in Perspective. Tourism: Principles, Practices,
Philosophies (9th ed.), (pp 4-40). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.









Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing sustainability in service operations at Scandic Hotels.
Interfaces, 30(3), 202-214.

Gopalakrishnan, C., & Cox, L. J. (2003). Water Consumption by the Visitor Industry: The Case
of Hawaii. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 19(1), 29.

Gossling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental
Change, 12(4), 283-302.

Government of Barbados. (2002). The Laws of Barbados CAP 341. Tourism Development Act.
31 August 2002.

Government of Grenada. (December 20, 2006). The Ministry of Tourism hotel project not
threatening dove. Government of Grenada Press Release. Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from http://tourism.gov.gd/newsitem.aspx?nid= 108.

Grandoit, J. (2005). Tourism as a development tool in the Caribbean and the environmental by-
products: The stresses on small island resources and viable remedies. Journal of
Development and Social Transformation, 2, 89-97.

Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., Piekett, G. M., & Kangun, N. (1996). Going green in the service sector.
European Journal ofMarketing, 30(5), 56-66.

Haider, M., & Kreps, G. (2004). Forty Years of Diffusion of Innovations: Utility and Value in
Public Health. Journal of Health Communication, 9(0), 3-11.

Hair, F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Van'T Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. & Aldam, C. (1999).
Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities.
Conservation Biology, 13(4), 888-897.

Hawkins, R., Jackson, J., & Somerville, H. (2006). Increasing Local Economic Benefits From
the Accommodation Sector in the Eastern Caribbean. Bristol, UK: The Travel
Foundation.

Hjalager, A. M. (1996). Tourism and the environment: The innovation connection. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 4(4), 201-218.

Hobson, K., & Essex, S. (2001). Sustainable tourism: A view from accommodation businesses.
Service Industries Journal, 21(4), 133-146.

Hoffman, A. J. (2000). Integrating environmental and social issues into corporate practice.
Environment, 42(5), 22-33.









Holder, J. S. (1996). Maintaining competitiveness in a new world order. In L. C. Harrison & W.
Husbands (Eds.), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism
Planning, Policy andDevelopment (pp. 145-173). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise?
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hunter, C. (2002). Aspects of the sustainable tourism debate from a natural resources
perspective. In R. Harris, T. Griffin & P. Williams (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Global
Perspective (pp. 4-23). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

International Hotels Environment Initiative. (1993). EnvironmentalManagementfor Hotels.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

International Tourism Partnership. (2007a). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
www.tourismpartnership.org/pages07/About.html.

International Tourism Partnership. (2007). Going Green: Minimum Standards Toward a
Sustainable Hotel. London: International Tourism Partnership.

Issa, J. J., & Jayawardena, C. (2003). The "all-inclusive" concept in the Caribbean. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(3), 167-171.

Issa, J. J., & Jayawardena, C. (2005). The "all-inclusive" concept in the Caribbean. In C.
Jayawardena (Ed.), Caribbean Tourism: People, Service andHospitality (Vol. 2, pp. 223-
235). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Jayawardena, C. (2002). Mastering Caribbean tourism. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 14(2), 88-93.

Jayawardena, C. (Ed.). (2007a). Caribbean Tourism: More than Sun, Sand and Sea (Vol. 3).
Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Jayawardena, C. (2007b). Attitudes, beliefs and customs: Assets or liabilities to tourism? In K.
O. Hall & R. Holding (Eds.), Tourism: The Driver of Change in the Jamaican Economy?
(pp. 277-317). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Jones, E. B. (1995). Environmental Management Toolkit for Caribbean Hotels. San Juan,
Puerto Rico: Caribbean Hotel Association.

Kasim, A. (2007). Towards a wider adoption of environmental responsibility in the hotel sector.
International Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(2), 25-49.

Kingsbury, P. (2006). Corporate environmental sustainability: Sandals Resorts International in
Jamaica. In J. Pugh & J. Henshall Momsen (Eds.), Environmental Planning in the
Caribbean (pp. 111-127). Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.









Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 7(6), 3-8.

Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in
Edinburgh. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 17(1), 33-47.

Kleiner, A. (1991). What Does It Mean to Be Green? Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 38-47.

Knowles, T., Macmillan, S., Palmer, J., Grabowski, P., & Hashimoto, A. (1999). The
development of environmental initiatives in tourism: Responses from the London hotel
sector. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(4), 255-265.

Le, Y., Hollenhorst, S., Harris, C., McLaughlin, W., & Shook, S. (2006). Environmental
management: A Study of Vietnamese Hotels. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 545-
567.

Leslie, D. (2007). The missing component in the 'greening' of tourism: The environmental
performance of the self-catering accommodation sector. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 26(2), 310-322.

Lin, Y.-H., & Hemmington, N. (1997). The Impact of Environmental Policy on the Tourism
Industry in Taiwan. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(1), 35-45.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Essex:
Longman Group Limited.

McElroy, J. L. (2004). Global perspectives on Caribbean tourism. In D. T. Duval (Ed.), Tourism
in the Caribbean: Trends, Development, Prospects (pp. 39 56). London: Routledge.

McElroy, J. L., & de Albuquerque, K. (2002). Problems for managing sustainable tourism in
small islands. In Y. Apostolopoulos & D. J. Gayle (Eds.), Island Tourism and
Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences (pp. 15-
31). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Meade, B., & del Monaco, A. (1999). Environmental management: The key to successful
operation. Paper presented at the First Pan-American Conference Latin American
Tourism in Next Millenium: Education, Investment and Sustainability, Panama City,
Panama, May 19-21, 1999.

Meyer, H. (2000). The greening of corporate America. Journal of Business Strategy, 21(1), 38-
43.

Mings, R. C. (1969). Tourism's potential for contributing to economic development in the
Caribbean. Journal of Geography, 68(3), 173-177.

Mowen, A. J., & Confer, J. J. (2003). The relationship between perceptions, distance, and socio-
demographic characteristics upon public use of an urban park "in-fill". Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 21(3), 58-74.









Murphy, J., Olaru, D., Schegg, R., & Frey, S. (2003). The bandwagon effect: Swiss hotels' Web-
site and e-mail management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
44(1), 71-87.

Murphy, J., Tan, I., & Abd Rahman, R. (2002). Diffusion of email customer service in
Singapore's travel industry. Paper presented at the Australian & New Zealand Marketing
Academy, Melbourne, Australia, December 2-4, 2002.

Murphy, P. E., & Price, G. G. (2005). Tourism and Sustainable Development. In W. F. Theobald
(Ed.), Global Tourism (3 ed., pp. 167-193). Burlington, VT: Elsevier Inc.

Mycoo, M. (2006). Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and green
certification: A case study of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 489-511.

Neto, F. (2002, February 20-22, 2002). Sustainable Tourism, Environmental Protection and
Natural Resource Management: Paradise on Earth?. Paper presented at the International
Colloquium on Regional Governance and Sustainable Development in Tourism-driven
Economies, Cancun, Mexico.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill.

Orams, M. (1999). Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management. New York:
Routledge.

Page, S. J. & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism. London: Prentice Hall.

Pattullo, P. (1999). Last Resorts. London: Cassell.

Pearce, D. G. (1985). Tourism and environmental research: a review. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 25(4), 247 255.

Poon, A. (1987). Information Technology and Innovation in International Tourism-Implications
for the Caribbean Tourist Industry. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Sussex,
London.

Poon, A. (2002). Challenges, Opportunities and Key Success Factors in Developing Sustainable
Ecotourism Products in Caribbean Economies. Barbados: Caribbean Development Bank.

Primack, R. B. (2002). Essentials of Conservation Biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates.

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2005). Tourism as a force for establishing protected areas: The case of
Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 24-49.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion ofInnovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press.









Sahadev, S., & Islam, N. (2005). Why hotels adopt ICTs: a study on the ICT adoption propensity
of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
17(4/5), 391-401.

Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental Technologies and Competitive Advantage. Strategic
Management Journal, 16, 183-201.

Sinclair, D., & Jayawardena, C. (2003). The development of sustainable tourism in the Guianas.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 402.

Smith, W. (2004). Ev Rogers: Helping to Build a Modern Synthesis of Social Change. Journal of
Health Communication, 9(0), 139-142.

Smith, W. L. (2007). Understanding diffusion of technology in rural entrepreneurship operations:
A three year longitudinal study. International Journal ofInnovation and Learning, 4(2),
160-171.

Sobers, A. (2006). Caribbean Tourism Performance In 2005. St. Michael: Caribbean Tourism
Organization.

Spittle, H. S. (2005). Service and hospitality in all-inclusives and resorts: Viewpoints of an
international hotelier. In C. Jayawardena (Ed.), Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and
Hospitality (Vol. 2, pp. 215-222). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Stabler, M. J., & Goodall, B. (1997). Environmental awareness, action and performance in the
Guernsey hospitality sector. Tourism Management, 18(1), 19-33.

Standing, C., Borbely, S., & Vasudavan, T. (1999). A study of Web diffusion in travel agencies.
Paper presented at the System Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Stipanuk, D. M. (1996). The U.S. lodging industry and the environment: An historical view.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 39.

Stipanuk, D. M., & Ninemeier, J. D. (1996). The future of the U.S. lodging industry and the
environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(6), 74.

Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From
hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265-290.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. New York, NY: CABI Publishing.

Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, N., Loke, M. K., Leung, P., & Tucker, K. A. (1997). Energy and tourism
in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 390-401.

Travelwatch. (2006). Increasing Local Economic Benefits From the Accommodation Sector in
the Eastern Caribbean: Supplementary Report I Literature Review. Bristol, UK: The
Travel Foundation.









United Nations Environment Programme. (1989). Regional Overview of Environmental
Problems and Priorities Affecting the Coastal and Marine Resources of the Wider
Caribbean. CEP Technical Report No.2 UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme,
Kingston, 1989.

UNEP. (1999). Report of the Workshop on Tourism and Sustainable Development in the
Mediterranean (No. MAP Technical Reports Series No. 126). Athens: United Nations
Environment Programme.

Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The Innovation
Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2003). The 'greening' of tourism micro-
businesses: outcomes of focus group investigations in South East Cornwall. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 49-69.

Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It's not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3),
46-51.

Wang, C.-Y., & Miko, P. S. (1997). Environmental impacts of tourism on U.S. National Parks.
(Cover story). Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 31-36.

Weaver, D. B. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 104-112.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 297-326.

Williams, E. (1970). From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean. London: Andre
Deutsch Limited.

Woodfield, N. K. (1998). The role of ecotourism in Grenada: A marketing ploy or a step towards
sustainable development? In D. F. M. McGregor, D. Barker & S. Lloyd Evans (Eds.),
Resource Sustainability and Caribbean Development (pp. 148-168). Mona, Jamaica: The
Press, University of the West Indies.

World Commission on Sustainable Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2004). The Caribbean: The Impact of Travel &Tourism on
Jobs and the Economy. London: World Travel & Tourism Council.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2007). Caribbean Travel & Tourism Navigating the Path
Ahead. London: World Travel & Tourism Council.

Xerox Corporation. (2006). Report on Global Citizenship: Revealing our True Colors. Stamford,
CT: Xerox Corporation.









Yaw, F. (2005). Cleaner technologies for sustainable tourism: Caribbean case studies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 13(2), 117-134.

Zurburg, R., Ruff, D., & Ninemeier, J. (1995). Environmental action in the United States lodging
industry. Hospitality & Tourism Educator, 7(2), 45-49.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mechelle Best is a citizen of Barbados, an island in the Eastern Caribbean. She graduated

from the University of the West Indies with a Bachelor of Science degree in hotel management

(first class honours) in 1995. In 2002 she graduated from the University of the West Indies with

a Master of Science degree in natural resource management.

Ms. Best's career in the tourism industry began with internships at the world renowned

Sandy Lane Hotel in Barbados and the Caribbean Hotel Association in Puerto Rico. After a stint

in the airline industry from 1995 to 1996, she was employed by Almond Resorts, Inc., first as a

Management Trainee, then as the Environmental & Conservation Manager for the company's

two properties. In the latter position, Ms. Best spearheaded the implementation of an

environmental management system at the Almond Beach Club & Spa and the Almond Beach

Village. From 1999 until 2002, she worked with Almond's management and staff to achieve

certification against the Green Globe standard for travel and tourism companies and thereafter to

maintain that certification.

At the end of 2002, Ms. Best left Almond Resorts, Inc. for self-employment, becoming a

consultant in tourism and environmental management in the Caribbean. In this capacity she has

been fortunate to work on several regional projects and with many hotels and attractions in the

Caribbean.

In 2004, Ms. Best was awarded a Fulbright/Organization of American States' Ecology

Scholarship for the Eastern Caribbean and commenced doctoral studies at the University of

Florida. She received her Ph.D. in August 2008 and intends to use the knowledge and

experience gained to continue contributing to the sustainable development of the Caribbean's

tourism industry.





PAGE 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE ACCOMMODATIONS SECTOR IN THE ANGLOPHONE CARIBBEAN By MECHELLE NICOLE BEST A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Mechelle Nicole Best 2

PAGE 3

To my mother, Althea and sister Harriet. Your unwavering suppor t means more than I can ever express. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank God for continuing to bless me and for the opportune reminders that my burdens only seem to be more than I can bear. I also th ank my family (the Best a person could have) and friends for being stalwart in their support. For all those times when the light at the end of the tunnel appeared dim or non-existent, they saw it for me; their conf idence in my abilities continues to astound me. I thank my committee for supporting me through my time at the University of Florida, in particular for giving the nod to my research wh ich was along a road less traveled. I thank my committee chair Dr. Brijesh Thapa, simply for being himself. Brij exemplifies attention to detail, that element that Ive always believed separa tes excellence from being merely good. Brij was meticulous in his guidance of my research, yet at the same time retained his easy going nature which has encouraged so many graduate students w ithin and outside our department. I am very fortunate to have had a chair who willingly gave up nights and weekends to ensure I met my deadlines. I thank Dr. Taylor Stein for agreeing to sit on my committee without having met me, for introducing me to benefits-based management, extension service, Jackson County and naturebased tourism in the state of Florida, and for be ing the coolest boss ever. Taylors readiness to acknowledge the work of others is a truly remarkable trait. I thank Dr. John Confer for guiding me through the initial years of this PhD program, for sharing his Ecotourism course with me, and for introducing me to diffusion of innovations theory. I also thank him for his quiet words of encouragement in the last two years and for being so very generous with his praise. Finally, I thank Dr. Stephen Holla nd for his very practical ap proach to research, for his useful comments on the development of this particular study, and for giving praise whenever he 4

PAGE 5

felt it was due. I also thank Dr. Holland for hi s wry sense of humor which I glimpsed for the first time on my introductory trip to Jackson County. December through March is a very busy time in the Caribbean hotel industry and I am grateful to Caribbean hoteliers for reminding me that their intere st in our industry extends way beyond the day to day operations of their properties. I therefore thank them for participating in my study. I also thank the Ex ecutive Vice President and the Ch airman of the Sustainable Development Committee of the Bahamas Hote l Association, along with the Executive Vice Presidents of the Anguilla Hotel & Touris m Association, the Gren ada Hotel & Tourism Association, and the St. Kitts & Nevis Hotel & Tourism Association for encouraging their members to participate in the study. Finally I thank my friends and colleagues from around the region for helping me to ground truth the information in my database. I thank the US Department of States Fulbri ght Program and the Organization of American States for funding my first two years of st udy through the Fulbright/OAS Ecology Scholarship for the Eastern Caribbean. I am also grateful to my department, the De partment of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management fo r granting me a graduate teachi ng assistantship to facilitate my final two years at the University of Florida. It would be remiss of me to omit my Caribbean Posse in Gainesville. I thank them for keeping me sane with their insani ty, for helping me to stay current with the affairs of the world, for the application of their finely tuned scientif ic minds to everyday events, and for slaking my thirst for all things Caribbean. Id like to spec ially thank Cindy, for traveling with me across the state of Florida for research and othe r purposes, and Grace-Anne, my Stats Guru. It is very difficult to lose faith when one is surrounded by the faithful. I am very grateful to all who have helped me to keep the faith. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................12 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .15 Statement of Problem........................................................................................................... ..18 Theoretical Foundation......................................................................................................... ..20 Contribution of Study.......................................................................................................... ...22 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................24 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....25 Environmental Management...........................................................................................25 Environmental Mana gement Outcomes..........................................................................25 Environmental Management and Outcomes...................................................................26 Definitions..............................................................................................................................26 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................29 Tourism and the Environment................................................................................................29 Sustainable Tourism............................................................................................................ ...37 Environmental Management in Business...............................................................................39 Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector................................................43 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....46 Facilitators................................................................................................................... ....49 Constraints.......................................................................................................................50 Outcomes.........................................................................................................................53 Environmental Management Sy stems and Certification.................................................54 Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean..............................................................................57 Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector...............................59 Diffusion of Innovations Theory............................................................................................61 Applications of Diffusion of Innovation.........................................................................65 Gaps in Diffusion of Innovation Research......................................................................68 Summary.................................................................................................................................69 3 METHODS...................................................................................................................... .......77 Study Sites..............................................................................................................................77 Selection of Participants...................................................................................................... ...78 6

PAGE 7

Data Collection.......................................................................................................................79 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......81 Environmental Management...........................................................................................81 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....82 Facilitators................................................................................................................... ....82 Constraints.......................................................................................................................82 Outcomes.........................................................................................................................83 Treatment of Data.............................................................................................................. .....83 Environmental Management...........................................................................................84 Environmental Mana gement Outcomes..........................................................................85 Environmental Management and Outcomes...................................................................85 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........91 Profile of Participants and Hotels...........................................................................................91 Environmental Management...................................................................................................93 Frequencies of Variables....................................................................................................... .94 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....94 Facilitators................................................................................................................... ....95 Constraints.......................................................................................................................97 Outcomes.........................................................................................................................98 Results of Research Questions Tested..................................................................................100 Environmental Management.........................................................................................100 Environmental Mana gement Outcomes........................................................................110 Environmental Management and Outcomes.................................................................111 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ....133 Summary of Results............................................................................................................. .133 Diffusion of Environmental Manageme nt in the Accommodations Sector..........................135 Hotel Characteristics.......................................................................................................... ...138 Motives for Environmental Management.............................................................................139 Facilitators of Environmental Management.........................................................................142 Constraints to Environmental Management.........................................................................144 Outcomes of Environmental Management...........................................................................146 Theoretical Implications....................................................................................................... 148 Management and Policy Implications..................................................................................149 Delimitations.........................................................................................................................152 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........152 Future Work..........................................................................................................................154 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................................................156 B LETTER FROM THE BAHAMA S HOTEL ASSOCIATION............................................175 7

PAGE 8

C CONTACTS WITH HOTELS.............................................................................................176 D ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS....................................................179 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................191 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................202 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. Stayover tourists and economic contribut ion in selected Caribbean destinations in 2006....................................................................................................................................73 2-2. Caribbean tourist arri vals by primary market........................................................................73 2-3. Adoption of cleaner techno logies in Caribbean hotels..........................................................74 3-1. Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean....................................................................87 3-2. All-Inclusive hotels in the English Caribbean 1993 & 1999.................................................87 3-3. Consumption of goods and services by the Caribbean accommodations sector....................88 3-4. Questionnaire Distribution....................................................................................................88 3-5. Levels of environmental management....................................................................................88 3-6. Motives for implementing environmental management.........................................................89 3-7. Facilitators of environmental management...........................................................................89 3-8. Constraints to implementi ng environmental management....................................................90 3-9. Outcomes of environmental management.............................................................................90 4-1. Hotels participating in survey........................................................................................... ...112 4-2. Profile of respondents................................................................................................... .......112 4-3. Profile of hotels........................................................................................................ ...........113 4-4. Hotels organization membership........................................................................................11 4 4-5. Importance of natural environment in the accommodations sector (frequency in percentage).......................................................................................................................114 4-6. Level of familiarity with environmental management in the accommodations sector........114 4-7. Decades of environmenta l management im plementation....................................................114 4-8. Levels of environmental management in place in hotels....................................................115 4-9. Types of environmental management certification.............................................................115 4-10. Budget allocations for environmental management..........................................................115 9

PAGE 10

4-11. Motives for implementing envir onmental management (percentage)................................116 4-12. Facilitators of environm ental management (percentage)..................................................116 4-13. Constraints to environmen tal management (percentage)..................................................117 4-14. Outcomes of environmental management (percentage)....................................................118 4-15. Property type and envir onmental management in place....................................................118 4-16. Property size and environm ental management in place....................................................119 4-17. Property ownership and environmental management in place..........................................119 4-18. Guest origin and environmental management in place.....................................................119 4-19. Organization membership and environmental management in place................................120 4-20. Importance of the natural environment to the accommodations sector.............................121 4-21. Constraints to environmental management.......................................................................121 4-22. Lvel of environmental manageme nt regressed on hotel characteristics............................122 4-23. Regression of level of envi ronmental management on motives........................................122 4-24. Reliability analysis for factors of motives for implementing environmental management.....................................................................................................................123 4-25. Factor analysis of motives for environmental management..............................................123 4-26. Regression of level of environmental management on motives factors.............................123 4-27. Level of environmental mana gement regressed on facilitators.........................................124 4-28. Factor analysis of facilita tors of environmental management...........................................124 4-29. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management...................125 4-30. Regression of level of environmenta l management on facilitators factors.......................125 4-31. Level of environmental mana gement regressed on constraints.........................................126 4-32. Factor analysis of constrai nts to environmental management...........................................127 4-33. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management...................128 4-34. Regression of environmental management on constraints factors....................................128 10

PAGE 11

4-35. Level of environmental management regr essed on dimensions of motives, facilitators and constraints.................................................................................................................129 4-36. Regression of outcomes on dimensions of motives, facilitators and constraints and level of environmental management................................................................................129 11

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. The Wider Caribbean adapted from Central Intelligence Agency (1993).............................27 1-2. Variables that influence environmental management...........................................................27 1-3. Influence of environmental management on outcomes.........................................................28 1-4. Relationship between characteristic s, motives, facilitators, constraints and environmental management outcomes...............................................................................28 2-1. Relationships between tourism and the environment (Page & Dowling, 2002)...................74 2-2. Institutional drivers of envir onmental management (Hoffman, 2000)..................................75 2-3. Institutional drivers of envi ronmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000)..........................................75 2-4. Adopter categorization on the basis of i nnovativeness for an i nnovation that has been adopted by the entire social system (Rogers, 2003)..........................................................75 2-5. The Diffusion Process (Rogers, 2003)..................................................................................76 4-1. Cumulative implementation of environm ental management in Caribbean hotels...............130 4-2. Cumulative implementation of levels of e nvironmental management in Caribbean hotels.130 4-3. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints and environmental management.............................................................................................131 4-4. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints; environmental management; and outcomes of environmental management...................132 12

PAGE 13

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE ACCOMMODATIONS SECTOR IN THE ANGLOPHONE CARIBBEAN By Mechelle Nicole Best August 2008 Chair: Brijesh Thapa Major: Health and Human Performance Globally, tourism development has been blamed for the degradation of natural resources in high use tourism areas. The Caribbean, long known as the worlds most tourism-dependent region, is no exception. To reduce its negati ve impacts on the environment, the Caribbean accommodations sector has embarked on a course of greening or environmental management, an innovation which has been heavily promoted to offer a plethora of benefits to its adopters. To better understand greening in the Cari bbean, this study sought to achieve four objectives: (1) to determine the extent of a doption of environmental management in the accommodations sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators, and constraints of implementing environmental management and the outcomes which result from implementation; (3) to determine whether motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which environmental management was implemented, a nd (4) to determine wh ether the level of environmental management implemented influe nced the outcomes e xperienced by hotels. Diffusion of innovations theory was employed as the lens through which environmental management in the accommodations sector of the Anglophone Caribbean was examined. Data were collected through an online survey of 197 hotels in 19 countries. Key constructs analyzed were motives, facilitators, constraints a nd outcomes of environmental management. 13

PAGE 14

14 This study found that two thirds of the acco mmodations sector had implemented some level of environmental management. Just under half of these adopters had implemented basic environmental best practices on an ad hoc basis. The remainder had implemented environmental programs, environmental management systems, or had their propertie s certified against a recognized standard. It was also found that there were many simila rities between hotels that had implemented environmental management and thos e that had not adopted the innovation at all. The motives and constraints constructs emerge d as significant predictors of level of environmental management. A single motive, internal green champion was significantly associated with level of environmental manageme nt implemented. Several constraints (lack of capital, potential benefits not apparent, no access to technology, lack of know-how, lack of time, and EM is not necessary) were also significantly related to level of environmental management. Additionally, level of environmental management was positively related to the number and type of outcomes experienced by hotels. A critical finding of this study was that irrespective of the level of environmental management implemented, hotels enjoyed a range of outcomes or benefits. Foremost amongst these were the decrease in resource consumpti on, decrease in operating costs, and the overall improvement of property management. On the basis of these findings several recommendations were made to strengthen the greening efforts in the region. Paramount amongst these is the continuation of campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of environmental management to the industry and the need for hotels to partner with each othe r and industry associations to access technical expertise. An important consideration is also the facilitativ e role of government in developing policy, providing incentives and the much needed infr astructure for environmental management.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In its broadest definition, the Caribbean c onsists of an archipelago between North and South America, countries on the South American continent, and countries within Central America (Figure 1-1). The region, home to approximately 60.4 million people (KPMG, 2000, cited in Jayawardena 2007a), is culturally rich with its mix of primarily African, Indian, and European descendants. Pockets of indigenous groups are also found in countries such as Guyana, Belize, Dominica, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. As a consequence of being former and exis ting colonies of several European nations, English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese a nd various patois are the primary languages spoken in the region. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Haiti, and Puerto Rico comprise the five largest countries in the Caribbean and over 80% of the regions population reside in these countries (KPMG, 2000, cited in Jaya wardena 2007a). Notably, English-speaking countries are in the minority. The countries of the Caribbean are geol ogically, topographicall y, biologically, and culturally diverse. The Caribbean has rich biodi versity with various spec ies of flora and fauna indigenous to the region or endemic to certain countries. Habitat for these species include tropical rainforests, hardwood fo rests, coral reefs, grasslands, and savannah (United Nations Environment Programme, 1989). With its geographi c location, encircling th e Caribbean Sea, the region enjoys warm temperatures year round. Gi ven the political stabili ty and proximity to North America, the Caribbean is one of the most sought after tourist dest inations in the world (Jayawardena, 2007a). Tourism as a feature of Caribb ean island economies dates back to the period of the earliest European settlement when absent ee owners journeyed to the new world to visit their properties 15

PAGE 16

and took relatives and friends with them (Willia ms, 1970). Towards the end of the nineteenth century, tourism grew as the regions tropical climate was seen to be imbued with natural recuperative elements (Pattull o, 1999). However, tourism only emerged as a tool for economic development in the 1950s, with the Bahamas and Jamaica in the Anglophone Caribbean, and Puerto Rico in the Spanish Caribbean taking the lead roles (Bell, 1993; Duval, 2004). With the onset of packaged tourism facilitated by scheduled jet services to the region, tourism as a key foreign exchange earner has further spread to other destinations in the region (Bell, 1993; Duval, 2004). In general, the Caribbean tourism product for many decades has been mainly based on the three Ss sun, sand, sea form of tourism and has followed the traditional mass tourism development model (Duval, 2004; Jayawardena, 2007b). This is particularly the case in mature destinations such as, Barbados, Bermuda, Jamai ca, and the Bahamas, (France & Wheeller, 1995; Jayawardena 2007b). Newer destinations like Dominica, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, and Belize have capitalized on terrestrial natural, marine, and cultural-heritage resources to expand their tourism products. Given the popularity of these alternative offerings, mature destinations have also attempted to exploit such resources to diversify and rejuvenate their tourism products (France, 1998; France & Wheeller, 1995; Jayawardena, 2007a). The Caribbean has become the most tourism inte nsive region in the world in terms of the economic dependence of tourism which has remain ed unchanged in recent years (World Travel & Tourism Council [WTTC], 2007). In 2007, the region hosted approximately 17.8 million land-based international tourists (CTO, 2008 ) that represented le ss than 1% of international tourism, yet provided significant economic c ontribution (WTTC, 2007). Tourism is the single largest employer in the region and the leading industry for capital investment that ranges from 16

PAGE 17

21% to 70% of total national i nvestments (WTTC, 2004). More importantly, only four countries in the Caribbean derived less than 10% of their economies from tourism; of the other 19 countries, tourism accounts for between 25% and 75% of their economic activity (WTTC, 2004). The current trend of high tourism dependen ce is expected to continue and economic contributions of 17.3% or US$77.2 billion are projected for 2007 (WTTC, 2007). Stayover visitors to the Caribbean originate from all regions of the globe but the majority of visitors have originated from a few primary locations. The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom have consistently been the top performing markets over the years. The US and/or the UK has been the number one country of origin for respective destinations (Barbados Tourism Authority, 2006; CTO, 2007; Sobers, 2006). In 2006, the US market accounted for 7.5 million arrivals (41%), Canada 1.6 million (9 %), and Europe 3.8 million (21%) (CTO, 2007). In addition to land-based tourism, many countries in the region have increasingly encouraged cruise tourism as a means of divers ifying income. Statistics from the Caribbean Tourism Organization indicate tremendous growth in cruise tourism over the last two decades, including destinations, such as Belize, Gr enada, and Dominica (CTO, 2005, 2006, 2007; Sobers, 2006; Woodfield, 1998). In 1996, cruise arrivals to the Caribbean were approximately 11 million passengers (CTO, 2003). By 2000, arrivals had increased to 14.5 million passengers and were 18.4 million passengers in 2006 (CTO, 2007). The Caribbean is the number one destination for cruises, with 50% of cruise ca pacity and projected sustained growth (Florida Caribbean Cruise Association, 2007). Caribbean tourism relies heavily on the regions natural resources. In spite of this heavy reliance on natural resources, landbased tourism development has occurred with minimal regard to environmental resources (Patullo, 1999). Such impacts include beach erosion, deforestation, 17

PAGE 18

loss of vegetation, soil erosion, pollution of coasta l waters, and coral reef loss (de Albuquerque & McElroy, 1995; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998; Wilkinson, 1989). Reforms to reduce these impacts have been legislated in some de stinations, while the industry has made various initiatives to decrease its impact on the natural environment (Mycoo, 2006). Statement of Problem Sustainable tourism has been a topic of consid erable discussion, debate, and research in the last decade. Much of the debate stems from issues of definition and the application of the concept. In the Caribbean, th e sustainable tourism discourse is ongoing with commitment by some governments. However, such commitments are only slowly evolving into the steps needed to advance the issue of sustainable tourism from rhetoric to policy and/or practical application. Furthermore, it has been suggested that sustainable tourism in Caribbean destinations is not possible without legislative action to support ve rbal commitments (Sinclair & Jayawardena, 2003). The discourse on sustainable tourism has not been limited to the level of regional governments, but has perhaps to a greater extent b een taken up by the private sector partners of the industry. Interestingly, in th is segment of the industry, it has been suggested that sustainable tourism has departed from rhetoric and is ac tually being applied. The Caribbean tourism industry has been developing and implementi ng environmental programmes which seek to improve their impact on the biophysical envir onment and host community. Such programmes have to a great extent been implemented by the accommodations sector and the phenomenon has become known as the greening of the industry. In 1997, the Caribbean Hotel Association (C HA) created the Caribbean Action (now Alliance) for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) to impr ove its memberships capacity to manage their impacts on the natural environment. CASTs mission is to enhance industry practices by 18

PAGE 19

providing training and education on sustainable tourism (CAST, 2007). The formation of CAST represents a landmark decision by the Caribbean hotel industry, whereby members of CHA agreed that the environmental concerns in the in dustry warranted a more concentrated effort. Since the establishment of CAST, different levels of environmental management have emerged in the accommodations sector. These range from the implementation of a few basic initiatives such as the replacement of ineffi cient lighting in key ar eas, to a full scale environmental management system (EMS) that ha s been benchmarked and certified against an international standard such as Green Globe (GG) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Best, 2002, 2004; Bl anchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004; May, 2006). The Caribbean is home to the first four hotels in the world certified against the GG standard for travel and tourism companies. It is also the region with the highest number of certified properti es and the first country to be benchmarked against the GG Community Standard (CAST, 2007). There is also one hotel in Aruba that has been certified against the ISO 14001 standard for environmen tal management systems (Bucuti, 2007). Additionally, various hotels with in the region have won interna tional awards in recognition of their environmental stewardship (CAST, 2005). In the context of environmental management Meade and del Monaco (1999) noted that the Caribbean hotel industry is positioned to reinvent itself in a way that improves profitability, enhances guest relations, builds bridges into the local communities, and preserves the Caribbean's natural beauty (p. 1). Yet, in spite of these prospects and the aforementioned achievements, it remains to be seen whether e nvironmental management has been the quiet revolution in the industry as described (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). In essence, if greening is the next major innovation for the accommodations sector, to what extent has it impacted the 19

PAGE 20

Caribbean? What factors facili tated its adoption or transition from one level to another? Additionally, what constraints exist to the adoption and implementation of environmental management? In order to examine such issues from the standpoint of the Caribbean accommodations sector, diffusi on of innovations was the mo st appropriate theory. Theoretical Foundation Diffusion of innovations is the process by whic h a given innovation is adopted and spread within a social system over time (Rogers, 2003; Strang & Soule, 1998). An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new [which] presents an individual or an organization with a new alternative or alternativ es, [or] with new means of solving problems (Rogers, 2003, Preface). Diffusion of innovation studi es came to the fore with the wo rk of rural sociologists Ryan and Gross (1943) on the use of hybrid corn by farm ers in Iowa, which was rated as the most influential diffusion study of all time (Rogers, 2003, p. 31). Ryan and Gross (1943) study was aimed at understanding why hybrid corn seed was not quickly adopted by most farmers. The study examined rates of adoption and the differen ces between innovators a nd later adopters. It also highlighted the important role of interper sonal networks in the diffusion process (Rogers, 2003; Ryan & Gross, 1943). Interviews were conducted with farmers who were asked to recall the time of adoption, sources of information on the innovation, and conseq uences of adopting the innovation. Following Ryan and Gross (1943) hybrid corn study, these elements have been used in most diffusion research in a range of di sciplines including public health, communication, anthropology, and education (Rogers, 2003). An interesting aspect of diffu sion of innovation theory is that much of its application and expansion has been in developing countries. Rogers (2003) estimates that of 434 diffusion studies conducted by rural so ciologists between 1941 and 1981, 24% were in the developing 20

PAGE 21

regions of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Ground breaking studies in developing countries include, inter alia, a water boi ling campaign in Peru (Wellin, 1955 cited in Rogers, 2003), rice cultivation in Bali, Indonesia (Bardini, 1994; Lansing, 1987), family planning in Taiwan (Berrelson & Freedman, 1964, cited in Rogers, 2003) and the adoption of photovoltaics to generate electricity in the Domi nican Republic (Lesnick, 2000). In more recent decades, diffusion of innovations theory has also been used in recreation and tourism studies to understand the impli cations of information technology and other innovations in international tourism for the Caribbean tourism industry (Poon, 1987), transportation systems in US national parks (Dil worth, 2003), intention of the public to visit a new urban park in Ohio (Mowen & Confer, 2003), the likelihood of adopting environmentally friendly management practices in Vietnamese hotels (Le, 2005; Le, Hollenhorst, Harris, McLaughlin & Shook, 2006), and the use of technologies such as website development and email as a means of marketing and communicati on (Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Standing, Borbely & Vasudavan, 1999). A number of innovations (such as jet aircraft services) have been central to the development of tourism in the Caribbean (Poon, 1987). Poon (1987) investigated the role of technological innovations in the Caribbeans effort to remain competitive in the face of emerging destinations, globalization, changing demand, and increasing environmental degradation fuelled by tourism. The innovativeness of Caribbean hotels in the utility of t echnological applications was also assessed. Poon (1987) further examined th e influence of hotel structure, organization, ownership and management in adopting ne w technologies that would improve their competitiveness. It was found that hotels innovativeness was most influenced by the caliber of managers and their willingness to embrace changes and innovations. Poon (1987) proposed that 21

PAGE 22

a combination of progressive, intelligent, and customer-focused management, honed skills, and consistent innovation would be needed in Caribbean hotels. Le et al. (2006) investigated the influence of innovation, en vironmental, and organizational characteristics on the likelihood of Vietnamese hotels to adopt environmentally friendly practices. They found that innovatio n characteristics, particularly complexity and observability, were the most influential variable s. A surprising finding in thei r study was that greenness level did not influence the likelihood of adopting enviro nmentally friendly practices. It was suggested that this may have resulted from hoteliers lack of information about such practices (Le et al., 2006). Since the emergence of diffusion of innovations theory, it has been consistently applied to research in developing countries. Additionall y, the theory has been used to investigate innovations in the hotel sector as well as the wider tourism indus try in the Caribbean and other destinations. Furthermore, various aspects of natural resource and environmental management within the tourism context as well as in othe r fields have been assessed with diffusion of innovations. These elements confirm the suitab ility of diffusion of innovations theory to investigate the adoption and impact of e nvironmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector. Contribution of Study A decade has elapsed since systematic environmental management was introduced to Caribbean accommodations sector on a widespre ad basis (CAST, 2007). While some research has been undertaken over the years (Best, 2002, 2003, 2004; Kingsbury, 2006; Meade & del Monaco, 1999; Mycoo, 2006), to the authors knowledge no comprehensive study has been undertaken in the Anglophone Caribbean whic h focused on why hotels have adopted and implemented environmental management, the faci litators and challenges encountered in the 22

PAGE 23

process, and the outcomes experienced. While th e aforementioned issues are important, it would also be useful to understand how motives compare with outcomes, whether in fact hotels have been able to achieve what they desire from environmental management. Environmental management has been promoted as having a range of benefits to hotels that include improved impacts on the natural environm ent, increased efficiencies, reduced operating costs, improved relationships with the wide r community, and improved staff morale, amongst others (CAST, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Vernon, 2003; Goodman, 2000) It is the attainment of these benefits which encourage hotels to embark on greening programmes. The need for more research on environmen tal management in the accommodation sector has been expressed in various fora. Since the Ca ribbean region leads the world in the number of hotels that have been certified against Green Globe (CAST, 2007) it is appropriate that such research be conducted in the region. From a methodological standpoint the study was conducted in th e Caribbean instead of a single destination within the region. Bohda nowiczs (2005) resear ch on attitudes to environmental management in the hotel sector proposed that conducting research in a single destination represented a serious limitation in the research. By conducting a study that encompasses a number of different countries, the geographical limitation was minimized and literature on environmental management expanded. Diffusion of innovation was select ed as the theoretical framew ork against which to build this study. This research further developed the theory in a number of ways. Rogers (2003) proposed that the lack of studies on the consequen ces of innovations represents a deficiency in the theory. Studying the consequences of the in novation will therefore br oaden the theory. 23

PAGE 24

Another way in which this research helped to expand the diffusi on of innovation theory was by analyzing an innovation which was modified and studying its diffusion at a stage before the innovation has been completely adopted by the social system. Building on the latter contribution, this study will serve as baseline data for comparative research (Smith, 2007). This study has several benefits for the Caribbean tourism industry. Firs t, it has provided comprehensive data on environmental manageme nt in the accommodations sector. Second, a greater understanding of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in terms of the number and types of hotels and the levels of envi ronmental management was realized. Third, comprehensive knowledge and understanding of what motivates hotel owners/managers to adopt and implement environmental management, as well as the factors which facilitated and constrained the process was gained. Overall, the results of this study are valuable to hoteliers, local and regional hotel associations, and policy makers. Purpose of Study This study sought to examine the implementation of environmental management in the accommodation sector of the Caribbean tourism industry from the perspective of general managers and owners of hotels. To achieve this, the study focused on four primary objectives: (1) to determine the extent of adoption of environmental management in the accommodation sector; (2) to determine the motives, facilitators and constraints of implementing environmental management and the outcomes which result from implementation; (3) to determine whether motives, facilitators, and constraints influence the level to which environmental management was implemented, and (4) to determine whethe r the level of environmental management implemented influenced the outcomes experien ced by hotels. Research questions were developed to address these objectives. 24

PAGE 25

Research Questions Environmental Management Research question 1 : To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the Caribbean accommodation sector? Research question 2: Is there a difference betwee n adopters and non adopters of environmental management in terms of (a) ch aracteristics, (b) or ganization membership, (c) importance of natural resources to th e accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of environmental management? Research question 3: Is there a difference betwee n adopters and non adopters of environmental management with regards to constraints? Research question 4: Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? The model in Figure 1-2 indicates variables that potentially infl uence the adoption or implementation of environmental management. Th e following research questions pertain to this model. Research question 5: Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of environmental management implemented? Research question 8: Which variables have the most influence on the implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Environmental Management Outcomes Figure 1-3 models the potential influence of level of environmental management on the outcomes of implementing environmental mana gement. The following research questions pertain to this model. Research question 9 : Does level of environmental management implemented influence the number of outcomes experienced? 25

PAGE 26

Environmental Management and Outcomes Figure 1-4 models the potential influence of characteristics, motives, facilitators, and constraints to implementing environmental management on the outcomes achieved. The following research question pertains to this model. Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints, level of environmental management, and th e outcomes of environmental management (Figure 1-4)? Definitions The following is a list of definitions pertinent to this research. Capacity building the development of indi vidual and organizationa l abilities and skill sets to perform functions, solve problems a nd set and achieve objectives (United Nations Development Programme, 1997, p. 3). Constraint an obstacle to the adoption or implementation of environmental management. Environmental management the management of policy or actions which impact the biophysical environment. Environmental management system a set of management tools and principles that is intended to help organizations integrate environmental issu es into the conduct of their daily business designed to guide an orga nization in allocating resources, assigning responsibilities, and continuall y evaluating its practices, proce dures, and processes in order to enhance environmental management (Gibson, 2005, p. 25). Facilitator a factor which makes a proce ss or action (e.g. environmental management) less difficult. Green hotels hotels that have implemente d any level of environmental management. Motive a reason or cause for adopti ng a behavior or taking an action. Non-adopters hotels that have not imp lemented environmental management. Sustainable tourism development for touris m purposes which meets the needs of its various stakeholders, but does not negativel y impact available resources for future generations 26

PAGE 27

Figure 1-1. The Wider Caribbean adapted fr om Central Intelligence Agency (1993) Facilitators Motives Constraints Environmental Management Figure 1-2. Variables that infl uence environmental management 27

PAGE 28

28 Environmental Management Outcomes Figure 1-3. Influence of envir onmental management on outcomes Facilitators Outcomes Constraints Environmental Management Motives Figure 1-4. Relationship between characteristics, motives, f acilitators, constraints and environmental management outcomes

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This study examines environmental manageme nt in the accommodati ons sector of the Caribbean tourism industry. Litera ture pertaining to environmental management in the tourism industry and general business sector is reviewed in this chapter. The review of literature is divided into the following sections. Tourism and the Environment Sustainable Tourism Environmental Management in Business Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector Diffusion of Innovations Theory Summary Tourism and the Environment Globally, tourism is considered to be the la rgest service industry with projected future growth (World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2007). According to the WTO (2007) international tourism receipts amounted to US $733 billion in 2006 which represented approximately 37% global services exported. For Least Developed Countri es tourism receipts accounted for over 70% of services exported. There were 846 million international tourist arrivals in 2006 and 1.6 billion arrivals are projected by the year 2020 (WTO, 2007). Tourism is generally viewed as a non-extractiv e industry and consequently is regarded as an attractive means of using a destinations human, cultural a nd natural capital for economic development (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). Since tourism has been regarded as basically benign, development has continued unchecked in many countries, including the Caribbean (Patullo, 1999). However, as is now well documented, to urism is not the harmless industry it was suggested to be due to its ecol ogical and sociocultural impacts. 29

PAGE 30

The relationship between tourism and the natural environment is complex and sometimes controversial. Furthermore this relationship may be one of conf lict, coexistence, or symbiosis (Budowski, 1976) (Figure 2-1). In a conflict relationship, tour ism and the environment are incompatible, with tourism having a negative imp act on the environment; fr om the perspective of conservationists such high costs do not just ify tourism activity (Budowski, 1976; Page & Dowling, 2002). When tourism and the environmen t co-exist there is minimal contact between the two sides. However this type of relations hip is unlikely to endure if tourism development increases (Budowski, 1976; Page & Dowling, 2002). In a symbiotic relationship, there is mutual benefit between tourism and the environment (Budowski, 1976; Page & Dowling, 2002). Some authors also argue that these categories are not mu tually exclusive but may in effect be exhibited to varying degrees within the same destination (Page & Dowling, 2002). Significantly, the earths natural resources have been major attractions for much of global tourism (Farrell & Runyan, 1991). This is evidenced regardless of how the tourism activity is categorized, whether as mass touris m, adventure tourism, nature-bas ed tourism, or ecotourism. In the latter type of tourism it is estimated th at most of this tourism activity takes place in protected areas (Weaver, 2001), and regions that may be more se nsitive to human interaction, which results in more severe impacts (Pearce, 1985). In the Caribbean, the natural environment has long been the primary attraction for tourists (Patullo, 1999). Though the climate is similar th roughout the region, the type s of resources vary from island to island and continent. Included in the range of attracti ons are white, pink, and black sand beaches, coral reefs (including the wo rlds second largest barrier reef in Belize), rivers, waterfalls, hot springs, savannah, mangrov es, rainforests, and a plethora of flora and fauna. These resources primarily provide habitat fo r a range of fauna and flora, several of which 30

PAGE 31

are endemic to the region (United Nations E nvironment Programme [UNEP], 1989) and are also attractions for the tourism industry. This latter statement unders cores the fact that natural resources are viewed in different ways by variou s, oftentimes competing groups. To the tourism industry, these resources are attract ions that pull visito rs to the destination; to other groups including natural resource managers and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the resources are important as part of a wider ec ological system that provide ecological services to humans and habitat and sustenance for variou s species. Indeed, depending on how polarizing these perspectives become, tourism and the envi ronment may coexist, be in conflict (Birdlife International, 2006, 2007; Government of Grenada, 2006) or in symbiosis (Hawkins et al., 1999). Change to resources is unavoidable, wh ether the use is for consumptive or nonconsumptive purposes. Tourism development invol ves construction of lodgi ng facilities, visitor centres and facilities at natura l resource attractions, roads and access points; and installation of sanitary lines and telecommunication lines. However, tourism activities have taken a much larger toll as land clearing takes place to faci litate such construction, resulting in habitat disturbance and loss (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). For example, c onstruction of hotels and other tourism facilities in some coastal areas in Ba rbados, St. Lucia and Jamaica has resulted in the destruction of mangrove forests and in-filling of hundreds of acres of wetlands, thereby reducing the ability of the ecosystem to perform services such as nutrient filtering, control of freshwater injection to the marine environment, and provisi on of food and habitat for local and migratory birds (Bacon, 1987; Burke, 2007; Carrier & Macle od, 2005). Clearing may also be undertaken on the beaches and in the nearshore waters. Wh ile the direct impacts of land clearing such as habitat loss is experienced immediately, others such as changes to species populations and reproductive behavior become more evident over a longer period (Butler, 2000; Primack 2002). 31

PAGE 32

Beyond the changes ensuing from land clearing for initial constructi on, natural resources may be further affected by the ongoing operation of facilities such as hotels and restaurants which cater primarily to tourists Consumption of natura l resources such as water is often much higher for tourists than for residents of the su rrounding communities. For example, in Barbados and St. Lucia, the average daily consumption of water by hotel guests was approximately three times that of residents (Drosdoff, 2005; Pantin, 1998 cited in Burke, 2007). Similarly in Oahu, Hawaii, hotels and golf courses we re in the top 100 largest cons umers of water, accounting for 20% of water used by this group (Gopalakris hnan & Cox, 2003). In the Mediterranean, where tourists also consume three times the amount of freshwater as resident s, the development of tourism facilities in coastal areas has contributed to the overexploitation of freshwater resources. This has caused coastal groundwater to drop below sea level in Spain, Cyprus, Italy, Libya, Greece, and Israel (UNEP, 1999). The tourism industrys high consumption of water has in some cases resulted in competition between tourism entities and residents, particularly in areas where resources are scarce (Bohdanowicz, Churie -Kallhauge & Martinac, 2001; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003; Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, Loke, Leung, & Tucker, 1 997). Further, tourism demand for water may compound existing problems because demand may be concentrated within a certain area and tourist facilities may be given priority for the res ource in times of scarcity to maintain tourists satisfaction (De Stefano, 2004). This is exem plified by Tangier, Morocco where during the drought of 1994-1996, tourist facilities were given precedence over the community (UNEP, 1999). The exacerbation of existing water problems has forced the government of Barbados to tap alternative and more expensive methods of producing potable water (Burke, 2007). 32

PAGE 33

Direct energy sources used gl obally include electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel, and natural gas (Gssling, 2002). Energy used to cater to tourists also tends to be higher than that consumed by residents. Gssling (2002) esti mated that in 2001, energy used by accommodation units accounted for 0.12% of global energy consumption, while tourism as a whole (accommodations, activities within destination, all transportation) accounted for 3.2%. In St. Lucia, a tourism industry survey found that hote l guests consumed more energy on average than residents (Pantin, 1998 cited in Burke, 2007). G ssling, 2002 also described a similar trend for hotel guests in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Increased solid waste generation is often cited as a negative impact of tourism development, with the generation of waste by tourism enterprises sometimes outstripping the capacity of the local infrastructure to absorb such waste (Davies & Cahill, 2000; Neto, 2002). Land-based tourists to the Caribb ean have been estimated to gene rate twice the amount of solid waste per person as residents and cruise ship passengers four times as much as residents, intensifying waste disposal prob lems that already afflicted ma ny of the islands of the region (Burke, 2007; Campbell, 1999 and UWI, 1999 cite d in Dixon et al., 2001). Mbaiwa (2005) further suggested that negative impacts (e.g. soil and water contamination) arose when solid waste disposal practices diverged from the esta blished protocols for sp ecific areas, citing the example of the Okavango Delta in Botswana where some lodges and camps burned their waste instead of using the government operated landfill. The environmental impacts of tourism activi ties surpass the constr uction and operation of lodgings, facilities, and infrastruc ture. Natural resource attractions also sustain changes due to increased visitation. A range of impacts to ecosy stems attributed to tourism activity have been examined over the years and have been found in developed and developing countries alike. A 33

PAGE 34

1995 study of National Parks superintendents in th e U.S. found that impacts to the natural environment caused or intensified by tourism incl uded water and air quality problems; impacts to wildlife associated with littering, noise, a nd habitat disturbance; im pacts to coastlines and shorelines from pollution, clustering of accommoda tions, changes to wildlife breeding patterns, and sedimentation; and impacts to vegetation including trampling, erosion, chopping trees for firewood, trail widening, and remo val of plants (Wang & Miko, 1997). In a case study of Hanauma Bay, a popular marine tourism des tination in Hawaii, significant changes to the bay were attributed to tourism (Orams, 1999). Despite being established as a marine protec ted area (MPA) in 1970, degradati on increased due to continued tourism development and the bays popularity with tourists for activities such as scuba diving, snorkeling, and fish feeding. In addition to loss of coral and fish, there was a marked reduction in biomass of fauna such as corals and sponges, increased siltation, tr ampling of benthic life forms, and increased fresh water run off in th e nearshore leading to reduced salinity, among others. Declaring the area as an MPA had only succeeded in making the bay more attractive for tourists and tour operators alike. The lasting result has been se vere degradation of the entire Hanauma Bay marine ecosystem as a direct re sult of development in the immediate area and uncontrolled use of resources (Orams, 1999). Impacts are not restricted to tourist activity as local residents are also responsible to varying degrees (Butler, 2000; Pearce, 1989) However the impacts may be seriously compounded by tourism due to the additional number s of users, and may also be intensified because of the concentration of visitors during a particular season or at a given time (Butler, 2000). The frequent lack of baseline data against which to compare study data and the fact that 34

PAGE 35

ecological change is a natural process, present other challenges to determining the causes of natural resource degrad ation (Butler, 2000; Page & Dowling, 2002). The Galapagos Islands provide a clear example of the impact s to natural resources which either result from or are exacerbated by tour ism activity. Since 1959, 97% of the islands territory has been prot ected as a national park (Honey, 1994) and the Galapagos constituted the first site to be inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1978 (World Heritage Centre [WHC], 2007). The Galapagos Islands are home to one of the most well known protected areas in the world and as a result of its popularity now finds itself inscribed on the list of World Heritage in danger (WHC, 2007). A UNESCO mission to the Ga lapagos in 2007 cited uncontrolled tourism development as one of the major threats to the islands natural re sources (WHC, 2007). Visitation to the national park has increased continuously over the years, with 61,466 in 2000 to 148,664 in 2006 (Parque National Galapogos, 2007). Human migration encouraged by tourism and the increase in invasive species were liste d as other major threats to the islands (WHC, 2007). It has been argued that the relationship be tween tourism and the environment may be symbiotic. Tourism earnings and support are im portant for natural resource conservation and natural resources are important for tourist attractions (Page & Dowling, 2002; Romeril, 1985). Properly planned tourism which minimizes environmental impacts can also be beneficial to resource conservation (Romeril, 1985). In some instances, protected areas have been established in part to safeguard resources for tourism as in the creation of the Princess Alexandra Land & Sea National Park in the Turks & Caicos Islands (Best, 2001). Also due to tourist demand for resources to be protected Mangue Seco Environmentally Protected Area in Brazil was created (Puppim de Oliveira, 2005). 35

PAGE 36

The symbiosis between tourism and the natura l environment is exemplified by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), which is charged wi th the joint mission of preserving the resources within their sites and offering these same res ources to the public for their enjoyment (NPS, 2007). National parks in the U.S. are major a ttractions for both domestic and international visitors, with visitation in creasing from 282,435,101 visitors in 1979 to 438,392,184 visitors in 2006 (NPS, 2007). Attracting the pub lic is important to the NPS, not only because facilitating public recreation is their mission, but also because visitor fees and donations help to support its education and conservation programs. Support for a symbiotic tourism-environment re lationship is also noticeable in developing countries especially with respect to reve nue generation (Dharmaratne, Yee Sang & Walling, 2000). Using an existing protected area in Jamaic a and a proposed protected area in Barbados, Dharmaratne et al. (2000) assessed willingness to pay site fees (use) and membership fees in an NGO set up to manage the same protected area (nonuse) At both sites, willingness to pay for use far exceeded existing fees; ev en if fees were raised to a level lower than the maximum amount users were willing to pay, the protected areas would nonetheless increase their revenues significantly. Williams and Polunin (2000) condu cted a two-part study in four Caribbean destinations to determine the types of coral reef characteristics preferred by SCUBA divers and their level of satisfaction. The research concluded that if MP As were properly managed, the most important characteristics su ch as fish biomass, abundance, and variety would be enhanced (Williams & Polunin, 2000). The aforementioned examples c onfirm that it is possible for tourism and natural resource conservation to exist in symbiosis. However, even in a symbiotic state resource degradation will be evident. With the increasing proof of na tural resource degradation resulting from tourism 36

PAGE 37

activities, considerable pressure has been brought to bear on the industry with repeated calls for change. The evolution of sust ainable tourism and the ongoing debate over its definition and implementation have occurred in part because of the growth in concerns of tourism impacts and increasing pressure from stakeholders. Sustainable Tourism Similar to sustainable development, sustainable tourism is a highly contested concept. Although the concept of sustainable touris m development evolved from sustainable development, it is oftentimes treated as an e nd in itself, separate and distinct from other industries (Hunter, 2002). Sust ainable development as defi ned by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) refers to de velopment which is conducted in such a way that it satisfies the needs of the present without hampering th e ability of future generations to fulfill their own needs. Sustainable development is not a new concept but in effect may be a case of new wine in old bottles that has been e xpressed in various ways over the decades and essentially coalesces on the idea that use of re sources must be managed on a sustainable basis (Butler, 1998; Murphy & Price, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999). Similarly, sustainable tourism may be defi ned as development for tourism purposes which assuages the needs of its various stakehol ders, but does not negatively impact available resources for future generations (Hunter, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). From this perspective tourism becomes a means to end, where that end is not tourism itself, but the satisfaction of its stakeholders needs. There is some disagreement on an exact defi nition of sustainable tourism. However, there are a few points around which the various definitions coalesce (Page & Dowling 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). It is generally agreed that sustainable tourism should give rise to benefits for the wider community, involve the community wherever possible, have minimal impact on 37

PAGE 38

natural and cultural re sources, and be economically viable (Page & Dowling 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). The natural environment has been the element of greatest concern in sustainable tourism (Butler, 1998). Various reasons have been pr omulgated, including inter alia, the interest of strong environmental groups, the evidence of envi ronmental degradation attributed to tourism activity, the dependence of most of global tourism on the natural environment, the relative ease of dealing with physical tourism impacts in co mparison with the more difficult socio-cultural impacts, and the marketing mileage which a company can attain through environmental management (Butler, 1998, 2000; Font & Harris, 2004). Sustainable tourism has been criticized as be ing steeped in rhetor ic and slow to be manifested in reality. However, there are succes sful examples globally. Such examples include (1) Couran Cove Island Resort, Australia which has used environmental best practices in its planning and development (Lim & McAleer, 20 05); (2) the Community Baboon Sanctuary in Belize which has helped to stab ilize that areas howler monk ey population and facilitate the development of community managed tourism (Ale xander, 2000); and (3) Fairmont Hotels Green Partnership program which seeks to make each hotel in the chain sustainable (Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, 2007). These examples are not only found in ecotourism or other alternatives to mass tourism, but also in the traditiona l style of tourism. It has been suggested that the priority should be for all types of tourism to b ecome sustainable (Clarke, 1997). The umbrella term of environmental manage ment subsumes much of the examples of sustainable tourism that have been evidenced to date. Environmental management has been a significant part of business management for a few decades, though the transition to the service industry and particularly the tourism industry is relatively recent. Th e following section will 38

PAGE 39

review environmental management in the non-service industries followed by the accommodations sector of the tourism industry. Environmental Management in Business Broadly defined environmental management en compasses measures taken to protect the environment from harmful anthropogenic impact so as to sustain resources over time (ADEH, 2007; FOA, 2007). Some aspects of environmental ma nagement or greening in business as it is commonly known, have become mainstream because of government regulations, especially in developed countries (Meyer, 2000). By the 1990s even environmental management systems were no longer viewed as cutting edge, and the current integration of environmental concerns into operations management is now perceive d as effective busine ss strategy (Greeno & Robinson, 1992; Meyer, 2000). However, the incorporation of environmental concerns has yet to become the norm (Greeno & Robinson, 1992). It is this transitional position which prompted Gladwin (1998) to query whether greening was truly becoming a selection criterion by which organizations will either fail or survive and entire ly new organizations will be created? (p. 51). A number of membership organizations have been established over the years which continue to carry forward the ag enda of environmental management in business. The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, Responsible Care American Chemistry Council, and the US Environmental Protection Agencys Design for the Environment are all organizations or programs focused on fostering environmental responsibil ity in business. In addition special environmental guidelines have been developed within Total Quality Ma nagement principles and the International Organization for Standardization has develope d the ISO 14000 series, a body of standards for environmental management (ISO, 1996). 39

PAGE 40

Environmental management as a concerted effo rt in business can be traced back to the 1950s (Kirk, 1995). In the U.S., the passage of va rious environmental regulations and legislation in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the impe tus for change (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act of 1970, a nd the Clean Water Act of 1973) (Meyer, 2000; Walley & Whitehead, 1994). Environmental mana gement has now become an international phenomenon. Companies which manufacture ta ngible products are more likely to have implemented environmental management than se rvice oriented companies (Foster et al., 2000; Grove et al., 1996). Meyer (2000) proposed that for most companie s, government regulations were at the root of initial efforts at environmental manageme nt. In the decades of the 1970s and 1980s environmental management was met with much recalcitrance and the general complaint that achievement of minimum environmental standards would prove to be a heavy financial burden to businesses (Greeno & Robinson, 1992; Meyer, 2000). These efforts were more about compliance with regulations than about the potential for overall ma nagement through an environmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000). Howeve r, compliance with governmental regulations was completely voluntary, but the underlying threat of additional and more stringent legislation made voluntary measures more a ttractive (Sarkis & Rasheed, 1995). Basic government regulations received support from environmental activists who added pressure on businesses to improve their opera tions (Hoffman, 2000). Greeno & Robinson (1992) refer to this scrutiny as managing in a fi shbowl where the focus on companies would only continue to increase. Some of the pressure s included, the desire to have a competitive and strategic edge over their competitors, readying themselves to meet more stringent future regulations, and complying with the tenets of sustainable development (Greeno & Robinson, 40

PAGE 41

1992). However, businesses while proactive, were mainly trying to prepar e themselves to meet the regulatory and stakeholder demands of the future, without seeing the potential of environmental management as a business st rategy in itself (Greeno & Robinson, 1992). Using the example of the Dutch flower indus try, Porter and Van der Linde (1995) suggest that environmental regulations can drive compan ies to be more proactive and innovative, and that environmental management in itself should be seen as a sound busin ess strategy. In the 1990s, the Dutch flower industry was the number one exporter of cut flowers worldwide. However, traditional flower cultivation on such an immense scale had detrimental ecological impacts through contamination of groundwater and soil by fe rtilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. With the expectation of stricter regulations on chemical discharges the flower industry designed a closed loop system for growing flowers in materi al other than soil. Thus, as Porter and Van der Linde (1995) proposed, the expectation of regulat ions forced the flower industry to be both proactive and innovative which offere d a greater competitive advantage. Environmental management as a strategic business practice repres ents the nexus of business and environmental management, moving from business and environmental management as separate processes (Figure 22) to business and environment as a shared process (Figure 2-3) (Hoffman, 2000). Environmental management is now part of the core business philosophy and operations management (Meyer, 2000). Companies that utilize environmental management as a business st rategy enjoy a number of benefits. These benefits include greater le vels of innovation, fewer pollutants generated and resources consumed, enhanced employee morale improved public image, improved financial performance, and competitive advantage (Kle iner, 1991; Meyer, 2000; Shrivastava, 1995). Environmental management as a business strate gy has been implemented by a number of very 41

PAGE 42

well known international companies including Xe rox (Meyer, 2000; Xerox, 2006) and 3M (3M, 2007a; Meyer, 2000). For almost twenty years Xerox has had an environmental management program, commencing in 1990 when it began to recycle ma terials used in manufacturing (Meyer, 2000). Since 1990, Xeroxs basic environmental manageme nt efforts have grown immensely, with an aggressive proactive approach to environmenta l impacts. Current efforts include, inter alia, environmental remediation, reducing direct emissions of greenhouse gasses, and designing products that are energy efficient (Xerox, 2006). Xerox has a formal policy that covers its envi ronmental initiatives with an overall goal of creating waste-free products in facilities that are also waste-free (Xerox, 2006). The companys environmental policy speaks to operati ng in a way that safeguards health, protects the environment, conserves valuable material s and resources and designing, manufacturing, distributing and marketing products and processes to minimize environmental impact (Xerox, 2006, p. 34). Additionally an ISO 14001 certifi ed management system is in operation in all of their manufactur ing plants (Xerox, 2006). Since 1975 3M has had a formal environmenta l policy. A number of its manufacturing facilities are certified agains t the ISO14001 environmental standard (3M, 2007a). 3Ms Corporate Environmental Policy acknowledges its re sponsibility to solve its own environmental pollution and conservation problems (3M, 2007a, ) and develop products that have the least environmental impact. In 2005, 3M reached the 30 year milestone of its 3P-Pollution Prevention Pays program, which was set up to prevent pollution at the sour ce by re-thinking the entire production process and thereby changing how its products are manuf actured (3M, 2007b). The 3P program, based 42

PAGE 43

on voluntary employee participati on, is central to 3Ms wide r sustainability strategy and encourages employees to be innovative in pollu tion prevention (3M, 2007a). According to 3M (2007a) its 6,000 plus 3P initiative s thus far have resulted in th e reduction of pollutants generated by over 2.5 billion pounds and significantly enhanced their bottom line. The program has also helped 3M to be a market leader with respect to meeting national and in ternational regulations, and also an innovator with influence on industry standards (Shrivastava, 1995). Environmental management in the business se ctors has a longer indus try in manufacturing than in the service industry (e.g., transportation, banking, hospitality, travel and tourism, health care, entertainment) (Kassinis & Soteriou, 2003). This appears to be disproportionate given the increasing size of the service industry, and the fact that it too can cause detrimental impacts to the natural environment (Grove, Fisk, Piekett & Kangun, 1996). Th e very aspects of services which distinguish them from manufactured product s (intangibility, heterogeneity, perishability, and simultaneous production and consumption) ma y be a major reason why the industry tends to be overlooked (Grove et al., 1996). However, the service industry still uses a range of tangible products on a daily basis. Given the reliance on manufactured goods, the se rvice industry still wastes resources and generates copious amount s of solid waste (Grove et al, 1996). The following section will examine environmental mana gement in service industry, especially the accommodations sector. Environmental Management in the Accommodations Sector Fewer studies exist of environmental management in service industrie s largely because the overall product is in tangible and correspondingly challenging. The paucity of research on environmental management in the service industry is starkly evident in tourism, where in spite of the acclaim given to sustainable tourism which emphasizes the natural environment a relatively limited amount of empirical rese arch has been conducte d (Butler, 1998). 43

PAGE 44

To establish a context for environmental management in accommodations, it is necessary to consider a few critical issues. First, mo st enterprises which provide accommodations are profit-oriented businesses with managers making fiscally responsible decisions (Knowles, Macmillan, Palmer, Grabowski & Hashimoto, 1999; Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Second, these enterprises offer a service to customers and mana gerial decisions are influenced by the need to optimize customer satisfaction (Gustin & Weav er, 1996). Third, construction and operation of accommodation units have impacts on the natural environment (Kasim, 2007). An evaluation of research indicates that a ra nge of environmental ma nagement (from basic initiatives to environmental management system certification) has been implemented across the sector. Also there are various motives, facilitators, and constrai nts which determine the level of environmental management implemented in a ho tel (lvarez Gil, Burgos Jimenez & Cespedes Lorente, 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke, Kirk & Lynch, 2004; Vernon, Essex, Pinder & Curry, 2003). While environmental management has been increasing incrementally, researchers have also shown a certain amount of skepticism with regards to the sincerity of greening efforts (Brown, 1996; Gray & Collison, 1991). Such skepticism has also been expressed about the business sector in general (Saha & Darnton, 2005). Environmental management in the hotel industr y is often characterized as a relatively recent phenomenon, yet there are individual lodging facilities that were built and/or operated with consideration for the na tural environment over the y ears (Stipanuk, 1996). Stipanuks (1996) review of literature published in the 1960s i ndicates that hotels were concerned with some of the same environmental issues such as waste disposal, water use, and water pollution that are being discussed today. Stipanuk ( 1996) cites properties such as Statler Hotels Corporation and 44

PAGE 45

Caneel Bay in the US Virgin Islands that we re designed to properly manage solid waste, conserve water and energy, and conserve the natural landscape in the 1950s. Additionally, surveys conducted by the American Hotel & Mo tel Association (AH&MA) from the mid 1970s through to the mid-1980s addressed environmenta l issues (Stipanuk, 1996). By the early 1990s, international hotel chains such as Inter-Continental Hotels, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, and Scandic Hotels had initiated in ternal environmental programs (In ternational Tourism Partnership [ITP], 2007; Kirk, 1995). However, the establishm ent of the Internationa l Hotels Environment Initiative (IHEI) now the International Tourism Partnership in 1992 is ge nerally considered to be the launch of a global greening wave in the tourism industry (ITP 2007; Kirk, 1995). The IHEI, spearheaded by the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, in its original charter charged members to encourag e the observance of the highest standards of environmental management, not only directly with in the industry but al so with suppliers and local authorities and recommend systems fo r monitoring improvements in environmental improvements and for environmental audits (ITP, 2007, & 6). Charter members of the IHEI included Accor Hotels, Hilton Inte rnational, Inter-Continental Ho tels, Marriott Corporation, and ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITP, 2007). Additiona lly, IHEI has produced a number of guidelines on environmental best practices, most notably their manual Environmental Management for Hotels and Green Hotelier mag azine (ITP, 2007; Kirk, 1995). Since the early 1990s the concept of environmental management in the accommodations sector has been increasingly discussed by academic s and practitioners alike, though research has not necessarily kept pace with efforts to implem ent such strategies in the industry (Bohdanowicz, 2005). Findings of some studies reveal vari ous attitudes towards environmental management (Kirk, 1998; Brown, 1996). Similarly, authors either applaud, disdain, or are middling in their 45

PAGE 46

evaluation of these efforts (Butle r, 1998; Honey, 1999). Some in f act have suggested that much greenwashing exists, and there may in effect be a bandwagon situation where lodging providers adopt the terms but often not the practices and that sophisticated marketing techniques often allow the travel industry to a ppear green without making fundamental or costly reforms (Honey, 1999, p. 47). Motives The decision to implement any form of envi ronmental management is a major decision for a hotel. The question is what dr ives managers or owners to adopt environmental management practices in their operations. Using a variety of methods incl uding in-depth semi-structured interviews, questionnaire based surveys and cas e studies, researchers have elicited diverse motives for adopting environmental manageme nt. These motives fall into three broad categories: cost and efficiency motives, external pressures and influence, and internal forces (lvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohda nowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Lin & Hemmington, 1997; Tzschentke et al., 2004). In several studies, a major motive or the number one motive in some cases was the prospect of reduced operating costs from decreased consumption of resources such as water and energy, and the generation of solid waste (lv arez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tz schentke et al., 2004). In a study of voluntary instruments for sustainabl e tourism in Spanish hotels, cost savings were identified as a key incentive in the adoption of environmental best practices (Ayuso, 2007). These practices were mainly related to reduc tion in resource and materials consumption. Goodman also highlighted cost savings as the underlying reason for Scandic Hotels adopting environmental management as the strategy to thwart financ ial shortfalls. In pr eliminary findings among participants in the Green Tour ism Business Scheme (GTBS) in Scotland, Tzschentke et al. 46

PAGE 47

(2004) found that rising costs resu lting from metering of water, and new levies and taxes for climate change and landfill disposal forced hotels to become more efficient in their consumption of resources and generation of waste. Gene rally, for a number of hotels an environmental management strategy simply made good bus iness sense (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodma n, 2000; Tzschentke et al., 2004). Pressure from external forces is yet anot her reason why hotels have taken the step to implement environmental management schemes. Such pressure has been from the government, the wider tourism industry, and the market (both direct and indirect) ( lvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Vernon et al., 2003). In a survey of the Taiwanese hotel sector environmental le gislation that dealt wi th pollution control in particular was influential on hotels in terms of the equipment used and th e operation of the hotel (Lin & Hemmington, 1997). For all types of e nvironmental legislation the response from the hotel industry in Taiwan was genera lly slow (Lin & Hemmington, 1997). In a study of the Danish tourism industry 15 pe rcent of respondents (n =47) cited pressure from existing government regulations and avoiding new regulations as an incentive for adopting sustainable practices; notably none of those in agreement were hotels, only tourism associations, tour operations and attractions (Bramwell & Al letorp, 2001). Importantly, 50 percent of the hotels who responded noted that more governme nt regulations to push the adoption of sustainable practices were nece ssary (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Nonetheless, while meeting government regulations is imperative, mere adherence does not constitute cohesive environmental management (Bohdanowicz, 2005). Pressure on hotels to implement some form of environmental management is also exerted from outside by trade associations. This may be in the form of agreements and declarations, 47

PAGE 48

guidelines, and toolkits which may be devel oped and promoted by local and international industry associations. Examples of these include the ITPs (2007) Going Green guidelines, the WTOs (1996) Agenda 21 for the Travel a nd Tourism Industry, the Caribbean Hotel Associations (1995) Environmental Management Toolkit for Caribbean Hotels, the Lanzarote Charter for Sustainable Tourism (1995), and the IHEIs (1993) manual Environmental Management for Hotels. These broad industry approaches have been criticized as being designed especially for large, western type hotel s and therefore fail to take into account the special circumstances of small businesses and bus inesses in developing co untries (Vernon et al., 2003). Few hotels consider them as a real incen tive for implementing environmentally friendly practices (Ayuso, 2007; Hobson & Essex, 2001; Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Even in those instances in which guidelines have been develope d for particular localitie s, the buy-in has been less than favorable (Hobson & E ssex, 2001; Vernon et al., 2003). Tourism is an industry in which the customer is able to exert influence on product offerings. A number of studies have examined whether customer demand influences a hotels decision to implement environmental management. In Bramwell and Alletorps (2001) study of the Danish tourism industry, great er customer awareness of envi ronmental issues and customer demand comprised the top incentive to implem ent sustainable practices. Likewise, among European hoteliers, customer demand was the second ranked motive for adopting environmental practices (Bohdanowicz, 2005). In both cases, direct customer demand was very influential. In Ayusos (2007) research on Span ish hotels, both direct and in direct customer demand were offered as reasons for adopting environmental be st practices, indicators, management systems, and ecolabels. The indirect demand was filtered through tour operators which had baseline 48

PAGE 49

environmental practices with which they requi red their contracted hotels to comply (Ayuso, 2007). Environmental management in hotels is not an easy task, though hoteliers have sound motives in achieving operating efficiencies and responding to external pressures from the market, the wider tourism industry and government However, without the driving force of internal factors, none of the af orementioned motives would be sufficient to make environmental management a reality. Internal factors which have been cited as motives include the recognition that the natural environment is important to the individual hotel a nd the wider sector, the manager/owners concern about natural resources and acceptance of a moral/ethical responsibility to take action to conserve th em, the expectation of gaining a competitive advantage, the prospect of usi ng environmental stewardship to di versify and expand their market, and the expectation of an improved image in th e view of the public or recognition for their efforts (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Br amwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke et al., 2004 ; Vernon et al., 2003). Facilitators While the literature on environmental mana gement has largely focused on motives and constraints, less attention has been given to factor s that facilitate the proc ess. Capacity building initiatives, funded projects and government incen tives have been highlig hted as facilitators (Ayuso, 2007; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Education has been suggested as an impor tant means of increasing the adoption of environmental management in the hotel industry. Awareness is particularly important for small and medium sized businesses, si nce the lack of knowledge and unde rstanding are often noted as barriers to adoption (Kasim, 2007). Government incentives such as tax breaks and training at 49

PAGE 50

reduced costs, offered by agencies such as local hotel and tourism associations may ease the adoption of environmental best pr actices for hotels (Kasim, 2007). In the Danish tourism sector, 50% of hoteliers surveyed indicated that advice from a consultant or external expertise was the main way in which adoption of sustainable practices could be facilitated by external entities (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Additionally, 30% suggested that support from public funds woul d reduce the financial burden of implementing best practices (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). The development of guidelines and support from public agencies, have been suggested as means through which implementing environmental ma nagement in hotels could be facilitated (Hobson & Essex, 2001). In Plymouth 72% of hotel s that had heard of a toolkit designed to assist hotels, purchased it; 72% of the purchasers used information in the toolkit to make changes in their operations (Hobson & Essex, 2001). Constraints Knowles et al. (1999) noted the existence of a gap between theory and practice of environmental management in hotels. While th e interest inand the intention ofadopting environmental management in hotels are evident, the practice ha s simply not kept pace due to various constraints such as co sts; interest, knowledge and tech nical support; complexity; human resources, and time (Ayuso, 2007; Bramwell & A lletorp, 2001; Hobson & Essex, 2001; Stabler & Goodall, 1997; Vernon et al., 2003). In some cases, hoteliers suggested that they were already doing enough for the environment and did not need to take further action (Zurburg, Ruff & Ninemeler, 1995). In the US, the American Hotel &Motel A ssociations (AH&MA) 1994 study of hoteliers level of awareness, the most often cited respons es for limited environmental action were the lack of implementation budget (39%) and high expense re lated to such action (34%) (Zurburg et al., 50

PAGE 51

1995). Similarly in Guernsey, UK, 30% of hoteliers surveyed thought that changes in accordance with environmental management re sulted in higher capital investment, higher operating costs, or would not be profitable (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). In the Danish tourism industry, over 50% of respondents indicated that high investment costs presented the main obstacle in their effo rts to implement sustainable tourism practices (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001). Likewise in Pl ymouth, England, 59% of respondents perceived initial capital costs to be hi gh in adopting sustainable touris m practices (Hobson & Essex, 2001). Similar results were also eviden t in the Spanish hotel sector (Ayuso, 2007) and in East Cornwall, England where respondents indicated that enviro nmental innovations were expensive with low return on investment (Vernon et al., 2003). Lack of interest in environm ental concerns was also noted as a barrier to implementing environmental management. In Guernsey, UK 8% of respondents were not interested in adopting environmental protection measures because they felt that such measures would only minimally affect performance, while 7% felt that such measures were not important to their business (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). In Plymout h study, 66% of the resp ondents noted that a lack of interest in environm ental sustainability was the primary reason for not implementing sustainable management pr actices (Hobson & Essex, 2001). In contrast to the lack of in terest in environmental concerns some hoteliers are unaware of environmental issues and hotels impacts on the natural environment. In the 1994 AH&MAs survey of hotel managers environmental awar eness, 80% indicated moderate awareness of environmental issues, programs, policies, and stra tegies relevant to thei r properties (Zurburg et al., 1995). Lack of information on sustainable practices was noted by 53% of the respondents the Plymouth accommodation sector (Hobson & Essex, 2001). Similarly, only 39% of 51

PAGE 52

respondents were aware of a toolk it specially designed to assist th e industry with sustainability issues (Hobson & Essex, 2001). A study of self-catering accommodati ons in the Lake District National Park of Cumbria, UK, found that despite high awareness of local sustainability initiatives, there was very little awareness of na tional or international initiatives or guidelines developed for the industry (Leslie, 2007). In Pu lau Pinang, Malaysia, hotels were found to have a narrow perspective on environmental responsi bility, believing that cleanliness of their properties constituted such responsibility (Kasim, 2007). Several studies have found the complexity of environmental management and the need to collaborate with external parties as barriers (Ayuso, 2007). Hoteliers indicated that the required organizational and administrative changes c ould be overwhelming, particularly where the business had not been very structured prior to establishing the EMS (Ayuso, 2007). Spanish hoteliers also indicated that co llecting data to measure environm ental indicators could be very difficult (Ayuso, 2007). Kasim (200 7) also noted that some environmental measures may be difficult to incorporate into hotel operations because they may be perceived to cause a lower quality of guest service. In addition to internal difficulties, research on environmental manage ment has shown that the need to collaborate with external stakehol ders adds to the comple xity. Hoteliers have suggested that environmental management is more extensive than a single hotel, since one hotel could make a concerted effort to be responsib le and have their efforts diminished by their external stakeholders (e.g. a l ack of public transportation to reduce energy consumption and air pollution, and the absence of recycl ing facilities) (Vernon et al., 2003) Similar issues were cited by Spanish hotels which also suggested that s uppliers, subcontractors, and public authorities complicated the implementation of environmental management systems (Ayuso, 2007). 52

PAGE 53

Environmental management success depends on management philosophy and employee support. In Bramwell and Alletorps (2001) stu dy in Denmark, negative at titudes were cited as one of six primary obstacles to adopting sustai nable practices. Increased training, awareness campaigns, and communication are necessary for successful environmental management efforts (Ayuso, 2007). However hotel managers have indicat ed that even in light of these initiatives some staff members resist changes (Ayuso, 2007) Recognition, rewards, and incentives may help to surmount this challenge but may also add to the programs costs (Kasim, 2007). In Guernsey, 9% of respondents noted that the lack of time had prevented them from reviewing sustainable measures (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Lack of time and energy to dedicate to starting sustainable practices were also c ited in the Plymouth accommodations sector (Hobson & Essex, 2001). In smaller hote ls, time and shortage of manpower were major barriers to environmental action (Vernon et al., 2003). Outcomes The outcomes of environmental management are the realization of expectations and potential benefits of implementation. Outcomes are related to cost re ductions and increased efficiencies achieved through better management of resources, material consumption, and waste generation. Outcomes also ensue from incorpora ting environmental management as part of the overall management of hotels. Additional outco mes relate to human resources, organizational change (both cultural and structural), marketing and competitive advantages, and communitybased outcomes (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Kirk, 1995; Tzschentke et al., 2004). The Scandic Hotel chain has credited its en vironmental management program for the chains financial recovery. Successes such as more efficient consumption of energy and water which by 1996 resulted in savings of US $800,000 and US $100,000 respectively, were cited 53

PAGE 54

(Goodman, 2000). A great number of hotels from a sample of the Green Tourism Business Scheme in Scotland also reported significant savings in water, waste, and energy (Tzschentke et al., 2004). Vermonts Green Hotels in the Gr een Mountain State (GHG MS) program currently has 40 participating green hotels (GHGMS, 2007). Between them, the hotels have saved almost 2.5 billion gallons of water and 37,000 kilowatts of electricity. Additionally, the hotels have saved over 24,500 pounds of detergent and re cycled over 430,400 pounds of waste (GHGMS, 2007). Savings in resources, increased efficiency, and minimization of waste have also resulted in financial savings to the hotels (GHGMS, 2007). Four hotels that were recogni zed as environmental best-practice champions by Cornell University School of Hotel Administration cite d increased marketing oppo rtunities as a direct outcome of their environmental programs (E nz & Siguaw, 1999). High guest satisfaction, increased corporate business, improved employee morale and pride were also noted (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). The Scandic Hotel chain has also touted employee satisfaction and retention as positive outcomes of its environm ental program (Goodman, 2000). Changes to organizational stru cture were reported by Cornell s environmental best-practice champions (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). Such change s included new management and staff positions, special committees, and green teams (Enz & Si guaw, 1999). Implementing an environmental program also resulted in modifications to th e company culture in te rms of new communication and training for employees, new feedback cha nnels, and greater employee participation in decision-making (Enz & Siguaw, 1999). For Scandic Hotels, another change to corporate culture was reporting on the environmental program in the companys annual report (Goodman, 2000). Environmental Management Systems and Certification Similar to the manufacturing industry, environmental management in the accommodations sector generally began with changes in basic t echnologies and policies. These technologies have 54

PAGE 55

been classified as ecotechniques, and include inter alia, equipmen t such as aerators for faucets and fluorescent bulbs (which reduce the consumpti on of water and electricity respectively), solid waste management, use of biodegradable chemicals, and a purchasing policy that supports these initiatives (lvarez Gil et al ., 2001; Ayala, 1995; Ceballos-La scurain, 1993; Enz & Siguaw, 1999). Such ecotechniques allowed hotels to implement changes and realize efficiencies without the immediate intensive capital investments and/or involve ment of many employees or guests (lvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayala, 1995). The es tablishment of a comprehensive environmental program or an environmental management system may become more desirable as a hotel expands its initiatives or seeks a more system atic way of environmental management (Ayuso, 2007). Ecotechniques have been described as the most basic form of environmental management. The environmental management system, developed along the lines of a quality management system, is perhaps the most complicated (A yuso, 2007). The EMS has been described as a set of management tools and principles that is intended to help organizations integrate environmental issues into the conduct of th eir daily business designed to guide an organization in allocating resources, assigning responsibilities, and continually evaluating its practices, procedures, and processes in order to enhance environmental management (Gibson, 2005, p. 25). Internationally, a small but growing number of hotels have implemented an EMS (Ayuso, 2007; Green Globe (GG), 2007). The International Organization for St andardizations ISO14001 describes the environmental management system and provides guidance on how the standard should be used (Tribe, Font, Griffiths, Vickery & Yale, 2000). Key criteria include (1) setting an environmental policy, (2) reviewing the organi zations operations and identifying environmental aspects, (3) developing a structured program wh ich includes setting and achievi ng objectives and targets, and 55

PAGE 56

(4) undertaking periodic audits and corrective action as necessary (Tribe et al., 2000). The GG standard also includes these criteria (GG, 2007). Unlike the manufacturing sector in which im provement in pollution generation practices were necessary because of government regula tions (Meyer, 2000; Walley & Whitehead, 1994), environmental management in the accommoda tions sector has generally been voluntary, following the clan approach to regulation (Hja lager, 1996). The clan approach is selfregulation which the industry may deem to be more appropriate in lieu of formal binding governmental regulations (Hjalager, 1996). The voluntary approach also extends to environmental certification whereby companies choos e to be certified agains t a specific standard. A number of certification or eco-labeling programs have been de veloped in the past twenty years at local, regional and international levels (Font & Buckley, 2001). Such programs include Green Seal (U.S.), Ecotourism Australia Eco Certification Program (Australia), Certification for Sustainable Tourism (Costa Rica), Eco-Manage ment and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (UK), Quality Tourism for the Caribbean (regi onal), Nordic Ecolabeling (re gional), EU Flower (European Union) Green Globe (international), ISO 14001 (internationa l) (Bohdanowicz, Simanic & Martinac, 2004; CAST, 2007; EMAS, 2007; Font & Buckley, 2001). It is noteworthy that GG is the only international standard a nd certification scheme developed specifically for the travel and tourism industry (Buckley, 2001). In the US, California, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin ha ve also established lodging certification programs, while North Carolina and Pennsylvania have statewide initiati ves to encourage green hotels (Hasek, 2007). Some ecolabels like GG, EMAS, and ISO 14001 require an EMS to be in place for a company to be certified, othe rs do not (EMAS, 2007; GG, 2007; ISO; 2007). GG and ISO14001 56

PAGE 57

also require a site audit by a third party audi tor prior to certification, while for other schemes such an inspection is either note necessary or is conducted by an auditor employed by the ecolabel (GG, 2007; ISO, 2007). In addition, GG and Nordic Swan require that hotels be benchmarked (meet minimum performance standard s on specific environmental indicators) in order to be audited for certifica tion (Bohdanowicz et al., 2004; GG, 2007). Similar to the adoption of EMS, ecolabeli ng has experienced minimal adoption in the accommodations sector (Bohdanowicz et al., 2004). In Europe, only 1% of hotels have ecolabels (Bohdanowicz et al., 2004). In the US, only 300 or so hotels have been certified in the eight states with green lodging programs (Hasek, 2007). In the Caribbean hotel sector the adoption of eco-labeling has also been slow, despite having th e first GG certified hotel in the world, and the highest percentage of certifie d hotels (CAST, 2007; GG, 2007). Hospitality and Tourism in the Caribbean Tourism development in the Caribbean began in the 1940s and 1950s in a few destinations, namely, Barbados, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cuba a nd Jamaica (Holder, 1996). In the Caribbean, tourism growth was facilitated by inter alia, peace, jet aircraft, packaged tours and charter flights, and paid holidays (Mings, 1969; Poon, 1993). Since the early 1960s, based on its reputation as an exotic destination and the playground of th e rich, Caribbean countries have increasingly adopted tourism to develop their fledgling economies (Patullo, 1999). With its strong focus on tourism, the Caribbean has for some time been regarded as the most tourism dependent region in the world (H older, 2006; WTTC, 2007) According to the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) (2007) arrivals to the Caribbean in 2006 were approximately 18.5 million. Tourism development in the region has faced numerous challenges, with increasing amounts of funds being borrowed and funneled into developing tourism products (Patullo, 1999). Nevertheless, tourism has in many ways improved the economies of Caribbean 57

PAGE 58

countries, though it has also contributed to e nvironmental and sociocultural costs (Clayton, 2003; Jayawardena, 2002; McEl roy & de Albuquerque, 1998). The Caribbean tourism product for many decades has been mainly based on the three Ss sun, sand, sea form of tourism and followed the traditional mass tourism development model (Duval, 2004). The Caribbean pr oduct consists primarily of managed and unmanaged natural, cultural, and historic attractions; over 125,000 hotel rooms in a range of categories from very small family-run inns, to large chain hotels; a plethora of restaurants offering local and international cuisine; local travel agents and to ur operators; and other an cillary service providers (CHA, 2007). Special events such as music a nd other cultural festival s, food festivals, and marine and terrestrial sporting events are also important elements of the Caribbean tourism product (CTO, 2007). Although the Caribbean is internationally renowned, its primary markets have chiefly been the US, Canada, and the UK (Table 2-2) (CTO, 2007). The continued dependence on tourism as the primary foreign exchange earner in the Caribbean has led to significant pressure to expand tourisms contribution to the economies (Grandoit, 2005). However, the region faces majo r competition from other destinations such as the Pacific islands, Southeast Asia, and the Un ited States (Hawkins, Jackson & Somerville, 2006; McElroy, 2004). Such competition is in the form of both 3S and alternative types of tourism (Poon, 2002). Given the challenges, the Caribbean has had to struggle to remain competitive in the international tourism market. Due to increased development in sensitive and fragile areas, much of this effort has occurred at the expense of the natural environment which is the core of the tourism product (McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998). 58

PAGE 59

Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector The Caribbean Hotel Association first publishe d its Environmental Management Tool Kit for Caribbean Hotels in 1995 (Jones, 1995). This toolkit was one of the CHAs first tangible products aimed at encouraging its members to im plement sustainable tourism practices and also included the associations Environmental Charter (CAST, 2007). This toolkit did not outline an EMS, but suggested various ecotecniques that hotels could employ and the potential benefits that could be achieved (Jones, 1995). In 1997, the Environmental Committee of the Ca ribbean Hotel Association evolved into the Caribbean Action (now Alliance) for Sustainable Tourism with the express purpose of increasing awareness of tourism impacts on th e environment and offering assistance to the industry to reduce or avoid impacts (CAST, 2007 ). The emphasis was primarily targeted towards the accommodations sector. The formati on of CAST represente d a pivotal point at which large environmental manage ment initiatives directed at the industry emerged. CAST was also the conduit through which international environmental initi atives such as IHEI and GG were promoted in the region (Best, 2004). When the CHA launched its environmental manual in the mid 1990s, there were no hotels with an EMS in the region, although there were hotels implementing ad hoc environmental best practices or environmental management progr ams (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). There were also a few hotels such as the Casuarina Beach Club in Barbados and Hotel Mockingbird Hill and Half Moon in Jamaica that were already deve loping reputations for being environmentally responsible (Best, 2004; CAST, 199 8; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). The greening of Caribbean hotels has been f acilitated to some de gree through projects funded by international development agencies (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson & 59

PAGE 60

Cresser, 2004; Cresser, 2006; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). In 1997, with funding from the US Agency for International Deve lopment (USAID), the Jamaica Hotel and Tourist Association, Jamaica Manufacturers Association, and th e Government of Jamaica launched the Environmental Audits for Sustainable Touris m (EAST) project (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). The objectives of EAST were (1 ) to raise awareness and incr ease understanding of audits and EMS; (2) to build technical capaci ty; (3) to assist a selection of tourism establishments in conducting audits; and (4) to help finance th e implementation of a udit recommendations for demonstration purposes (Meade & del Monaco). Since 1997, the EAST project was extended for three successive phases (until 2006 ) with additional objectives and various successes (BrownThompson & Cresser, 2004; Lane, 2004). In ad dition to EAST, USAID has funded several other major projects in the Caribbean, such as th e Caribbean Hotel Environmental Management Initiative (CHEMI) and Rural Enterprise, Ag ricultural, and Community Tourism Project (REACT) (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Cresser, 2006; PA Consulting, 2007). Hotels of various sizes, types, ownership throughout the Caribbean have implemented environmental best practices, programs, and management systems (Best, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004; May, 2006). Currently 57 of those hotels are also Green Globe certified (CAST, 2007). In case studies of environmental management in the hotel sector of five c ountries in the region, Yaw (2005) noted a range of reasons for using cleaner technologies (environmental best practices) as well as various barriers to their use (Table 2-3). Outcomes of environmental management rea lized in Caribbean hotels included increased efficiencies in resource consumption, reduced costs, increased human resource training, improved employee morale, improved general ma nagement, improved community relationships and greater community outreach (Best, 2002, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; Brown-Thompson 60

PAGE 61

& Cresser, 2004; May, 2004, 2006; Meade & de l Monaco, 1999; Yaw, 2005). Despite the various projects and the achievements of these hotels, much of this information has been compiled through case studies, and no comprehensive studies of hotels across the region have been undertaken. Thus there is still some question as to th e extent of the diffusion of environmental management throughout the regions accommodations sector. Diffusion of Innovations Theory Innovations such as the introducti on of scheduled jet services to Caribbean destinations in the 1960s (McElroy & de Albuquerque, 1998) and com puter technology in the midto late 1980s (Poon, 1987) have significantly affected the Cari bbeans tourism industry across geopolitical boundaries. Environmental management was anot her innovation to the accommodations sector which emerged in the 1990s (Mead e & del Monaco, 1999). Like scheduled airlift and computer technology, environmental management appeared to have the potential to deliver beneficial outcomes for adopters (Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Several reasons were posited, specifically, the need for businesses to safeguard the natural environment; the efficiencies, decreased resource consumption and reduced costs; the competitive a nd marketing edge for green hotels; increased customers; and the overall goodwill of assuming their corporate social responsibility (CAST, 2007; Jones, 1995; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). Such incentives are most often used to persuade Caribbean hotels to adopt green practices (CAST, 2007). Diffusion has been defined by Rogers (2003) as the process by wh ich an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time am ong the members of a social system (p. 6). Also, Strang and Soule (1998, p. 266) noted that diffusion is the spread of something within a social system, where spread refers to movement from originator to adopter by way of influence and communication. Rogers (2003) also describes diffusion as social change or the process through which the function and structure of a social syst em are changed. The process 61

PAGE 62

begins with the innovation which is communicat ed through various means to members of a social system. These members choose to adopt, modify and adopt, or rej ect the innovation. If the innovation is adopted then there are conseq uences to the social system (Rogers, 2003). Innovation diffusion dates back to the work of Tarde in 1903, but the bulk of research appeared after Ryan and Gross (1943) work on th e use of hybrid corn by farmers in Iowa. Ryan and Gross (1943) study was conducted because the administrators of the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station wanted to understand why hybrid corn seed was not quickly adopted by most farmers. The administrators saw hybrid corn as being advantageous to farmers, but some farmers took a few years to start using the seed or to plant their entire fields with it. Within a thirteen year period 99% of the farmers sampled were using hybrid seed, but the majority of adoptions occurred after the first five years and the rate of adop tion followed the typical s-shaped curve. When categories of adopters were compar ed, the innovators were more educated, with larger farms and higher incomes. The innovators were also more worldly than later adopters (Gross, 1942 cited in Rogers, 2003). Information on the hybrid corn seed was mainly spread from farmer to farmer. This led to the conclusion that interpersonal networks were critical to the process and diffusion was essentially a social process (Rogers 2003; Ryan & Gross, 1943). Research on diffusion of innovations covers the gamut of disciplines from anthropology to politics to economics (Rogers, 2003; Downs & Mohr, 1976). Brown (1981) notes two main streams in which research on innovation diffusion has been conducted: (1) the economic history perspective which subsumes the diffusion pr ocess in itself (continuous adaption, adoption, markets, and infrastructure) and (2) the developm ent perspective which examines the impact of the innovation on economic development and social change. Generally, research on innovation diffusion has been in these two streams, though most research has been conducted on the rates of 62

PAGE 63

adoption of innovations and the communication process that fac ilitates diffusion (Rogers, 2003; Smith 2004). Rogers (2003) proposed four elements of innovation diffusion: 1) the innovation, 2) communication channels, 3) time, and 4) the soci al system. An innovation is any idea, product, process, system, management style, service style, or combination thereof, which is new to the individual, organization, i ndustry, or other unit and is usually held to be potentially beneficial to the user (Bigoness & Perreault, Jr ., 1981; Rogers, 2003). Consequently much of the literature has focused on innovations that have been adopted without modificat ions, but there is a lack of research on those innovations that have been modi fied prior to or during adoption, or that have been rejected (Rogers, 2003; Van de Ven, 1999). Research on diffusion of innovations has focused on (1) the differences between early and late adopters, (2) the influence of innovation character istics on the rate of adoption, and (3) why the rate of adoption appears to change after a certain level of adoption has been reached (Rogers, 2003). The characteristics of an innovation are strong determinants of its adoption. Characteristics are described as relative advantag e (the extent to whic h the potential adopter perceives the innovation to better than what it re places), compatibility (the extent to which the innovation is congruent with the po tential adopters needs, values and experiences), complexity (the extent to which the innova tion is perceived to be difficult to comprehend and use), trialability (the extent to which the innovation can be tried without complete adoption), and observability (the extent to which the outco mes of an innovation can be observed by others) (Rogers, 2003). Communication is the means of sharing inform ation between individuals and groups. To a certain degree, communication of innovations depends on relationships between individuals, 63

PAGE 64

organizations, or groups within a social system. When individuals, orga nizations, or groups are similar, communication between them is greater than when they are different. For some diffusion scholars, the co mmunication element is the most im portant variable in the diffusion process, since the decision to adopt may depend on the assessment of the innovation which is informally communicated by an adopter to a potential adopter (Smith, 2004). The dimension of time comes in to play in (1) the innovation decision process in which knowledge passes from awareness of the innovation to adoption or rejec tion of the innovation This process typically involve s five stages knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation which usually occur chronologically ; (2) the innovativeness of an individual or unit (i.e., speed with which an innovation is adopted by one unit compared with other units). Adopters are usually classified as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Figure 2-4). However, innovativeness is relativ e to the social system within which it occurs, the innovation, and time; and (3) the rate of adopti on of the entire social system, (i.e., the amount of units within a system to adopt the in novation within a given time). The rate of adoption is usually plotted graphically as frequency over time, with a resulting distribution curve that is S-shaped (Figure 2-5). In spite of differences in the gradation of the S-shaped curve, most innovations studied have been found to follow the curve (Bigoness & Perreault, Jr., 1981; Rogers, 2003). The fourth element is the social system wh ich is defined as a group of interrelated yet distinguishable units that work collectively to achieve a common goal. The social system is composed of a structure which may influence the diffusion of an innovation. Social structure includes opinion leaders (persons wh o can influence the attitudes or behavior of others and may assist or hinder the adoption of an innovation) and change agents (a professional who is external 64

PAGE 65

to the social system and influences innovation decisions), among others. The norms within the social system may also determine whether or not an innovation diffuses within that system (Rogers, 2003). A major aspect of diffusion of innovation wh ich has received limited study is the consequence of the innovation, that is, the changes to a social sy stem or individual that results from the adoption or rejection of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). It is estimated that less than 0.2% of the approximately 5000 studies conducte d on diffusion of innovations have focused on consequences of the innovation. Consequences are generally identified in six categories: desirable or undesirable, direct or indirect, and anticipated or unan ticipated (Rogers, 2003). Applications of Diffusion of Innovation Diffusion of innovation theory has been used in various studies to understand changes in the tourism industry. Studies have examined the adoption of information technology such as the Internet and the use of emails by tourism co mpanies (Murphy et al., 2003; Poon, 1987; Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Standing, Borbely & Vasudavan, 1999). The theory has also been used to assess environmental management in hotels (Le, Ho llenhorst, Harris, McLaughlin & Shook, 2006). In addition, diffusion of innovation research has been conducted extensively in developing countries (Rogers, 2003). Standing, Borbely and Vasudavan (1999) condu cted research among Western Australian travel agents use of the internet. Such us e included using the World Wide Web (WWW) for information searches as well as to provide in formation and other services to customers. Specifically, the study analyzed the rate of adoption of the WWW, the challenges to the adoption of this innovation either for information or provi sion, and the types of strategies used to make decisions about adopting the WWW. The study found that the majority of travel agents (58%) had not adopted WWW technology to search for or provide inform ation and other services (e.g., 65

PAGE 66

reservations and payments) to cu stomers. Even for those travel agents that had used the Web, the use of websites other than their own was lim ited to basic searches for information about locations, hotels, timetables, and fares. Most tr avel agents had not used the Web for services such as making reservations or payments. Addi tionally, their own sites were limited to providing information. Adoption of the Web was constrained by participants lack of trust in the benefits of the web, inadequate training, costs, integrati ng the web with other business applications, and the necessity of revamping busine ss processes (Standing et al., 1999). Murphy et al. (2003) examined email tec hnology as an innovation within a stratified sample of websites of 200 hotels from the Swiss Hotel Association. Content analysis of website features and a survey of email responses were used to conduct the research. For the email response survey, the speed of the response to a request for information and the format of the response were analyzed. The study also analy zed phases of the adoption process. Results identified significant relationshi ps between hotel characteristic s (size, category, location, and linguistic region) and the adoption of email t echnology. However, since all hotels did not provide adequate responses to their emailed request, Murphy et al. (2003) suggested that a bandwagon effect was in play, in which some hotels may have adopted email technology simply because other hotels had done so. The authors fu rther noted that their examination of website features (initiation phase) and email servic e (implementation phase) was an important contribution to the research on diffusion of i nnovations which has primar ily analyzed a single phase of the innovation. Sahadev and Islam (2005) conducted research that pertained to factors that influence Thai hotels propensity (relative time taken) to adopt information and communication technology. Seven factors were used as independent variable s: hotel age, size, type, range of activities, 66

PAGE 67

proportion of visitors from the hotels high-pene tration countries, level of competition between local hotels, and market size. The sample compri sed ninety-five Thai hotels that had participated in a national exhibition. Data were collected through a ques tionnaire administered by the researchers to hotel executives. Hotel age wa s the only factor found to significantly influence the propensity of Thai hotels to adopt inform ation and communication technologies (Sahadev & Islam, 2005). Contrary to other studies, size wa s not found to be a sign ificant predictor of likelihood to adopt an innovation. However, the significance of size has been mixed in research findings (Rogers, 2003). A longitudinal study of diffusion was conducte d on (1) email as a communication and marketing strategy and (2) outsourcing of website creation and maintenance in bed and breakfasts (B & B) in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Ar kansas (Smith, 2007). For this study an email survey of B & B operators was conducted quarter ly over a three year period. Results showed that the number of B & Bs with email addresses available for public contact increased over time (Smith, 2007). Outsourcing of web creation and maintenance also increased from 44% in 2001 to 50% in 2002, and 61% in 2003. Furthermore, Smith (2007) suggested that during the three year period the S-shaped curve progressed from earl y majority adopters to late majority adopters. Smiths (2007) longitudinal method served to extend the research on diffusion of innovation since diffusion studies have te nded to be cross sectional. Diffusion of innovations was used by Le et al. (2006) to investigate factors that influence the likelihood of Vietnamese hotels to adopt en vironmentally friendly practices. The factors were segmented into three main categories: pe rceived innovation charac teristics (complexity, observability, compatibility, relative advantage), environmental characteristics (competition, customer demand, government regulation), and or ganizational characteris tics (size, location, 67

PAGE 68

level of risk-taking, greenness level). Data were collected via a self ad ministered questionnaire completed by owners, managers, or other decision makers of hotels. The sample size was 437 hotels with a 47% response rate. Le et al. (2006) found that innova tion characteristic s, especially complexity and observability, had the stronge st influence on hotels likelihood to adopt environmentally friendly practices Other influential factors we re relative advantage, size, location, level of risk-taking, and perceived comp etition. However, greenness level was not a significant influence on a hotels likelihood of adopting environmen tally friendly practices. Le et al. (2006) noted that it was perhaps because of the absence of information that some of the hotels may have appeared to rej ect an environmentally friendly practice which they may have adopted at a later time when more information was available. Gaps in Diffusion of Innovation Research Since the 1940s, diffusion of innovation has b een studied extensively in a range of disciplines. However, a number of methodological and other issues are still evid ent. First, innovations have been assumed to hold advantag es for the adopters and widespread adoption anticipated. As a result of this pro-innovation bias, very little attention has been afforded to innovations that have been rej ected (Haider & Kreps, 2004; Rogers, 2003; Strang & Soule, 1998; van de Ven, 1999). Second, limited research has focused on the consequences or outcomes of adopting an innovation. Rogers (2003) estima tes that less than 1% of more than 5000 studies on diffusion of innovation have been conducted on the consequences of innovation adoption. This is highlighted as a major gap in the research as the literature is heavily weighted towards an examination of innovation adoption, but lacks insi ght as to whether innovations achieve their aims (Rogers, 2003). 68

PAGE 69

Third, studies on innovation diffusion have generally been cross sectional. Thus, conclusions can only be drawn about the state of adoption at that particular point in time. Cross sectional studies also require participants to r ecall actions and decisions that may have been taken long before the research was conducted (R ogers, 2003). Research conducted at intervals may circumvent the recall issue and include late adopters. On ly a few longitudinal studies on diffusion of innovations have been conducted. Fourth, the majority of research on diffusion of innovation has used a single quantitative method usually a questionnaire to collect data (Roge rs, 2003). In those few instances in which quantitative and qualitative techniques have been combined in diffusion studies, neither validity nor reliability was compromised (Rogers, 2003). Summary Since the 1960s, Caribbean countries have incr easingly turned to tourism as a means of economic development. These countries, like ma ny others in the world, initially regarded tourism as much more benign than natural reso urce extractive industries. However, it has become evident that the tourism industry has ha d and continues to have negative impacts on the natural environment and is ofte n blamed for much of the natu ral resource degradation in its environs. These impacts are consequences of activities such as land clearing for facilities construction, in-filling of wetlands, infrastructu ral development, terrestrial, freshwater and marine pollution, and consumption of energy, fr eshwater, and food resources. Whether the tourism industry is guilty of causing these impacts is sometimes debatable, since residents also use resources. However, the extent of touris m industrys activities may exacerbate or accelerate impacts engendered by residents (Butler, 2000). N onetheless, the relationship between tourism and the environment is not simply negative, rather it is a complex relationship in which the two parties could be in conflict, be symbiotic, or merely coexist (Budowsk i, 1976), though the latter 69

PAGE 70

situation becomes progressively less likely as tourism developm ent increases, or environmental degradation becomes more apparent. Concerns about tourisms negative impacts on natural resources, pres sure from various stakeholder group, and global init iatives on sustainable developm ent influenced the emergence of the sustainable tourism concept. Sustainabl e tourism speaks to the development of tourism which benefits the community while minimizing the negative impacts to both the natural and cultural environment (Hunter 2002; Page & Dowling, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). However, sustainable tourism efforts have been more focused on the natu ral environment than community benefits or cultural resources (Butler, 1998, 2000; Font & Harris, 2004). Additionally, while many governments, agencies, non-governmental orga nizations and other groups have stated their commitment to sustainable tourism, they have been criticized as bei ng slow to action their rhetoric. Whilst examples of sustainable tourism best practices have not yet been adopted by all segments and players of the indus try, there are a growing number of examples to date. These measures, collectively known as environmental ma nagement or greening, have primarily been undertaken by the private sector. Environmental management subsumes measures taken to protect the natural environment from anthropogenic impacts (ADEH, 2007). In developed countries, environmental management was initially centered on pollution reduction measures which were regulated by various government agencies since the early 1970s. Cons equently, manufacturing industries have had a longer history of managing certain aspects of th eir environment than service industries (Meyer, 2000). Environmental management has broade ned beyond pollution control and is gradually being seen more as a business st rategy than a reaction to regulati on. Further, it is no longer just 70

PAGE 71

the purview of manufacturing and chemical industries, but is emer ging as a core part of service businesses as well. Environmental management in the tourism indus try is most evident in the accommodations sector. Environmental management has been se en in several forms, from implementation of basic environmental best practi ces, to a property having its envi ronmental management system certified against an international environmenta l standard such as Green Globe or ISO 14001. A range of motives (e.g. cost reduc tion, stakeholder pressure), facilitators (e.g. government incentives, technical assistance), and constrai nts (high costs, limited knowledge) have been highlighted as determinants of the level of environmental ma nagement implemented (lvarez Gil et al., 2001; Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 20 05; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke et al., 2004; Vernon et al., 2003). A number of outcomes (e.g. increased efficiency, employee satisfaction) has also been identified in the growing body of resear ch in this area (Enz & Siguaw, 1999; GHGMS, 2007). As a region which has for some time been c onsidered to be the worlds most tourism dependent region, the Caribbean has made gr eat strides in implementing environmental management or greening their properties. The greening movement in the region has been influenced by the Caribbean Alliance for Sust ainable Tourism which was established in 1997 to assist the industry in its effo rts to become sustainable (CAST, 2008). In the years since 1997, this movement has encompassed independent hotels and hotel chains, as well as hotels of various sizes and types (Best, 2004; Blanchard & Lorde, 2004; BrownThompson & Cresser, 2004; May, 2006). Environmental management was proposed as an innovation which offered a range of benefits to Caribbean hotelie rs (Meade & Monaco, 1999). Thus it was expected that this 71

PAGE 72

innovation would have wide adoption within the industry. The extent to which environmental management and other innovations (e.g. Internet and email te chnology) have been adopted within the tourism industry, have occasionally be en examined through the lens of diffusion of innovations theory. Diffusion of innovation subsumes the disper sal of an innovation within a social system, the communication ch annels which facilitate this dispersal, the rate at which the innovation is adopted and the change to the soci al system which result from the innovation. 72

PAGE 73

Table 2-1. Stayover tourists a nd economic contribution in select ed Caribbean destinations in 2006. Tourist ArrivalsaExpenditure (US$ million ) bContribution to GDP ( % ) c Anguilla 72,962 69.4 28.5 Antigua and Barbuda 253,669 337.3 10.1 Bahamas 1,491,633 1,884.5 ND Barbados 562,558 763.2 12.4 Belize 247,308 205.2 4.4 Bermuda 298,973 353.7 ND British Virgin Islands 356,271 392.7 16.0 Cayman Islands 267,257 607.0 ND Dominica 83,916 60.3 2.7 Grenada 118,490 156.8 7.9 Guyana 113,474 86.6 ND Jamaica 1,678,905 1,436.6 ND Montserrat 7,963 8.6 0.9 St. Kitts & Nevis 91,768 106.9 8.5 St. Lucia 302,510 325.7 14.8 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 97,432 95.6 2.2 Trinidad & Tobago 232,743 260.3 ND Turks & Caicos Islands 150,579 304.0 ND US Virgin Islands 671,362 1,365.9 ND aAdapted from CTO (2007). bAdapted from CTO (2008). cIncludes restaurant data. ND no data. Table 2-2. Caribbean tourist arrivals by primary market. US Canada Europe Other Anguilla 44,489 1,977 9,220 17,276 Antigua and Barbuda 73,497 10,053 106,538 63,581 Barbados 130,767 49,198 240,923 141,670 Belize 152,509 15,553 34,370 44,876 Bermuda 227,725 27,675 32,347 11,226 Cayman Islands 217,363 14,910 16,721 18,263 Dominica 21,311 2,552 11,234 48,819 Grenada 27,121 6,334 32,496 52,539 Guyana 57,193 14,580 8,390 33,311 Jamaica 1,190,721 153,569 256,074 78,541 Montserrat 2,151 395 2,501 2,916 St. Lucia 117,450 17,491 85,565 82,004 St. Vincent & Grenadines 28,598 6,542 21,961 40,331 Trinidad & Tobago 87,452 26,040 45,646 73,605 US Virgin Islands 605,746 5,267 15,077 74,934 Adapted from CTO (2007). 73

PAGE 74

Table 2-3. Adoption of cleaner tech nologies in Caribbean hotels. Antigua Barbados Jamaica St. Lucia Reasons for adopting cleaner technologies: To attract green consumers To reduce costs To comply with international protocols To comply with national policies To do our part in maintaining environmental integrity Constraints to adopting cleaner technologies: Too expensive No requests from guests No government sanctions Lack of skilled, professional staff Adapted from Yaw (2005). Figure 2-1. Relationships between tourism and the environment (Page & Dowling, 2002) 74

PAGE 75

Figure 2-2. Institutional drivers of e nvironmental management (Hoffman, 2000) Figure 2-3. Institutional drivers of environmental strategy (Hoffman, 2000) Figure 2-4. Adopter categorizati on on the basis of innovativeness for an innovation that has been adopted by the entire social system (Rogers, 2003) 75

PAGE 76

76 Figure 2-5. The Diffusion Process (Rogers, 2003)

PAGE 77

CHAPTER 3 METHODS The methods used to evaluate environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector are outlined in this chapter. The following sections are covered in this chapter. Study Sites Selection of Participants Data Collection Instrumentation Treatment of Data Study Sites This study was conducted among various types of accommodations within the Englishspeaking countries of the Caribbean. The countri es included in the study were Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, M ontserrat, St. Kitts & Ne vis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trin idad & Tobago, the Turks & Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands (Table 3-1). Accommodation in the Caribbean covers a wide range of properties, from less than five rooms to mega-resorts with ove r 1,000 rooms (CHA, 2007). A ccommodations include hotels and resorts, guest houses, villas, apartments, eco -lodges, and camping facilities, but hotels and resorts comprise the majority (Spittle, 2005; Travel watch, 2006). There is al so a variety of types of accommodation units, from properties that are locally owned and operated, to those that are foreign owned and/or part of an inte rnational chain (Travelwatch, 2006). Traditionally hotels were operated under the European Plan (EP) which was a room only rate, the Full American Plan (FAP) which include d the room and three meals, or the Modified American Plan (MAP) which included the room breakfast and dinner (Issa & Jayawardena, 77

PAGE 78

2003, 2005; Spittle, 2005). In more recent years, the all-inclusive (AI) has emerged as the fastest growing part of the accommodations sector, thou gh this growth has been less evident in the English-speaking Caribbean (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005) (Table 3-2). The AI builds on the FAP by adding all drinks, activities (e.g., scuba divi ng, weddings, and golf), taxes, and depending on country regulations, transfers to and from the airport (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005). Additionally, tipping is prohibited in AIs (Issa & Jayawardena, 2005). Tourism has long been proposed as a tool fo r economic development in the Caribbean and the accommodations sector has played a key part in this regard (Mings, 1969). It has been suggested that hotels are often e quated to tourism, however the entire tourism experience is a much larger phenomenon than just hotels (Poon, 2002). Nevertheless, the accommodations sector does comprise a major element of the tour ism industry in terms of employment (see Table 2-1), consumption of goods and services (Table 3-3), consumption of natural resources, and generation of wastes (Hawkins et al., 2006; Tourism Global, 2007; Travelwatch, 2006). It is noteworthy that the smaller accommodation units which are locally owned may contribute more to the economy than their larg er and internationally owned counterparts (Travelwatch, 2006). Selection of Participants The study targeted general managers or owners of properties in the 19 countries identified. Since these individuals are normally responsib le for strategic decision making, they were deemed the most suitable group to be surveyed. Selection of hotels was based on membership in the Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) or the i ndividual countrys national hotel association. CHA is an alliance of 35 national hotel associa tions throughout the Engl ish, Spanish, Dutch, and French sub-regions of the Caribbean. At th e commencement of this study, there were 19 member associations from the Anglophone Ca ribbean (CHA, 2007). In addition to its association members, individual hotels or othe r types of accommodation units are members of 78

PAGE 79

the CHA. There were 849 hotels with memb ership in the CHA at the end of 2007, which account for approximately 125,476 rooms (CHA, 2007). The CHA categorizes accommodations as small (75 rooms and less), medium (76-500 ro oms) and large (over 500 rooms) (CHA, 2007). Two thirds of the membership of the CHA is w ithin the small hotel category (CHA, 2007). In the country of Belize for example, approxima tely 99% of accommodations have less than 50 rooms, with 67% having less than 10 (Belize Tourism Board, cited in Craig, Nicholas & Oxley, 2005). A database of hotels in the English sp eaking countries was compiled using CHAs membership list in combination with membership lists from the 19 national hotel associations. This database in itself constitutes a sample of hotels in the Caribbean region, since not all accommodation units are members of either the nati onal or regional associat ion. Therefore, all hotels in the database for which email addresses of general managers/owners could be obtained were emailed invitations to participate in the survey. Some 920 hotels were in the database. However, despite telephone calls to each property to confirm an appropriate email address, a number of emails did not reach the intended r ecipient; 840 emails were confirmed received. Invitations to hoteliers in the Bahamas were accompanied by a letter of support from the Bahamas Hotel Association. Executi ve Directors for associations in Anguilla, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Trinidad also forwarded the survey link to their members. These actions were undertaken to increase survey response rate. Data Collection Data for this study were collected from December 2007 until March 2008. Table 3-4 indicates the distribution schedule. Data were collected throug h an online user administered questionnaire. This method was chosen for seve ral reasons. Firstly, th e study sites covered a wide geographic range and it was not feasible to travel to each c ountry to administer surveys or 79

PAGE 80

to recruit local researchers to do so. Secondly, using an online survey si gnificantly reduced the cost of paper, postage, and recr uiting, hiring, and traini ng research assistants to administer the questionnaire. Thirdly, the databa se indicated that the majority of hotels had email addresses and a website. Fourthly, online surveys have been f ound to have a quicker return rate and in some instances, the same or significantly higher respon se rate than mail surveys, particularly for groups that frequently use the em ail or the Internet (K aplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004). In an experiment to determine whether response rate s differed between email and postal mail methods, Schaefer and Dillman (1998) got a response rate of 57.5% using the postal approach, and 58% for the group contacted entirely by email. Their chi-square test of the response rates found that there was no significant difference between the two responses (Schaeffer & Dillman, 1998). In a meta-analysis of web based surveys Schonlau, Fricker and Elliott ( 2003) found that response rates ranged from 27% to 89%, with an average of 65% for government surveys of organizations conducted annually from 1997 to 2000. However, the range was from 8% to 62% for non government surveys using censuses or probability samples (Schonlau et al., 2003). In the survey in which the response rate was 8%, the respondents were contacted through an intermediary and this was cited as a plausible explanati on for the low rate (Schonlau et al., 2003). General managers/owners were invited to partic ipate in the survey by email. To ensure that the email reached the intend ed target, email addresses for ge neral managers or owners were confirmed through telephone calls to the hotel. Since previous studies have shown better response rates when advance notification was made a pre-notice was first emailed to alert the hotelier to expect an invita tion (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levi ne, 2004; Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). This pre-notice also served to test the validity of the email addresses and those that were found to be invalid were removed from the database. Following the pre-notice, an email with the 80

PAGE 81

URL link was sent to the hotels (T able 3-4). Subsequently, four email reminders were sent. One reminder was sent in January and three were se nt in February. Each reminder contained the URL link to the questionnaire (Schaefer & D illman, 1998). Given the time of year (winter season) when the surveying commenced, the de cision was taken to send the second reminder after a three week interval. It was felt that this would help to recruit pe rsons who may have been away for longer than one or two weeks. Instrumentation Data for this study was collected through a us er administered -based survey. The questionnaire was created and accessed through Zoomerang, an online survey tool. The questionnaire was designed to solicit general managers and ow ners evaluation of the motives, facilitators, and constraints they experienced with environmental management in their hotels, as well as the outcomes that have resulted from its implementation. A pilot study was conducted to test the questionnaire for conten t and face validity, and user-frien dliness of the online survey. No problems were reported by th e respondents of the pilot study. The questionnaire consisted of five main sectio ns which measured variables that pertain to environmental management, motives, facilitato rs, constraints, and outcomes. Property characteristics such as lo cation, type, ownership, and si ze were also determined. Environmental Management This section assessed the level of environmental management by asking respondents to indicate the level of e nvironmental management in operation at their respective hotel (Table 3-5). This was a forced-choice question in which the respondent was only able to select one option. The choices ranged from the implementation of ba sic environmental best practices to having a certified environmental management system in place. 81

PAGE 82

Motives In this section motivations for implementing environmental management were measured (Table 3-6). Based on the litera ture, motives were represented in three themes: (1) cost reduction and efficiency, (2) internal pressure, and (3) extern al pressure. Some of the items were adapted from Ayuso (2007), Bohdanowicz (2005), Bram well & Alletorp (2001), Stabler & Goodall (1997), and Vernon et al. (2003). It ems were measured on a five poi nt Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Di sagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. Facilitators This section assessed factors which were cons idered to facilitate the implementation of environmental management (Table 3-7). Based on the literature, two main types of facilitators were identified: capacity building and incentives. Some of the items were adapted from Ayuso (2007) and Bramwell & Alletorp (2 001). Facilitators were measur ed using a five point Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, where 1=Str ongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. Constraints Factors which hampered the adoption or implementation of environmental management were assessed in this section (Table 3-8). Three major types of constraints have been documented in the literature: costs, human res ources, and technical. Items were adapted from Ayuso (2007), Bramwell & Alletorp (2001), H obson & Essex (2001), Stabler & Goodall (1997), Vernon et al. (2003), and Zurburg et al. (1995). Constr aints were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a range of 1 to 5, wher e 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. 82

PAGE 83

Outcomes This section measured the results from impl ementing environmental management in hotels (Table 3-9). Some of the items were adap ted from Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001, Enz & Siguaw (1999), Goodman (2000), Kirk (1995) and Tzschentke et al. (2004) Outcomes were measured through four responses: not at all, a little, somewhat, and a lot. Treatment of Data Data for this study were exported from Zoom erang to Microsoft Excel and imported from Excel into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 14.0 for Windows Graduate Student Version (SPSS). All data analyses were conducted using SPSS and Amos 6.0. All constructs and independent items were assessed through frequencies and simple descriptive methods prior to the testing of research questi ons. Main construct scales were reduced to indices for additional analyses. All an alyses were evaluated for significance at the .05 level. Similarly, all regression analyses were conducted using the backward stepwise method, given that this research is largely exploratory (Field, 2005). The four main constructs: motives, facilitato rs, constraints and outcomes, were measured with multi-item scales. The internal consistenc y of these scales was assessed using Cronbachs alpha. For the main scales, coefficient alpha of .7 and higher was considered to be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). However, given that this rese arch was exploratory, and the fact that some indices only contained a few items (2-7), coefficient alpha of .6 was deemed acceptable for indices derived from the main construc t scales (Cortina, 1993; Nunnally, 1978). 83

PAGE 84

Environmental Management Research question 1: To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the Caribbean accommodations sector? The frequency of environmental management implementation was calculated to determine the portion of the sample that had implemented th e innovation and to assess the various levels of the innovation that had been implemented. Th e diffusion of environmental management was determined by plotting the year of implementati on (X axis) against the cumulative frequency (Y axis), thereby creating the diffusion curve. Research question 2: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of environmental management in terms of (a) ch aracteristics, (b) or ganization membership, (c) importance of natural resources to th e accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of environmental management? Chi-square analysis was used to assess char acteristics and organization membership, while independent sample t-tests were used to assess importance of natu ral resources to the accommodations sector and knowledge of environmental management. Research question 3: Is there a difference between green hotels and rejecters with regards to constraints? Independent sample t-tests were used for this analysis. Research question 4 : Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Level of environmental management was regre ssed on hotel characteri stics. Categorical predictor variables were c oded as dummy variables for the regression analysis. Research question 5 : Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Level of environmental management was re gressed on motives. Factor analysis was conducted on the items in the motive construct. Environmental management was regressed on the ensuing factors. 84

PAGE 85

Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Level of environmental management was regre ssed on facilitators. Factor analysis was conducted on the items in the facilitator construc t. Environmental management was regressed on the ensuing factors. Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of environmental management implemented? Level of environmental management was regre ssed on constraints. Factor analysis was conducted on the items in the constraints constr uct. Level of environmental management was regressed on the ensuing factors. Research question 8: Which variables have the most influence on the implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Logistic regression analysis was used to a ssess the relationships between factors of motives, facilitators and constraints a nd level of environmental management. Environmental Management Outcomes Research question 9: Does level of environmental management implemented influence the number of outcomes experienced? Simple linear regression was used to determin e such a relationship. Level of EM was a categorical predictor variable. In the data colle ction each item in the outcomes construct was rated as not at all, a little, some what, or a lot. This was used to develop a weighted total. The weighted total number of outcomes was employed as the outcome variable. Environmental Management and Outcomes Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints, level of environmental management, and th e outcomes of environmental management (Figure 1-4)? A path analysis based on multiple regressions was conducted to assess these relationships. Level of environmental management was regre ssed on factors of motiv es, facilitators and 85

PAGE 86

constraints. Total outcomes was regressed on factors of motives, facilitators and constraints and level of environmental management. 86

PAGE 87

Table 3-1. Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean Country No. accommodation units (2007)a No. rooms (2005)b Average Stay (days)b Anguilla 25 746 8.1 Antigua and Barbuda 39 ND ND Bahamas 59 14,800 ND Barbados 76 6,353 7.4 Belize 41 5,593 ND Bermuda 33 3,067 6.4 British Virgin Islands 32 2,722 9 Cayman Islands 44 2,954 4.9 Dominica 29 787 ND Grenada 29 1,470 7.4 Guyana 35 ND ND Jamaica 124 22,528 6.9 Montserrat 9 ND ND St. Kitts & Nevis 19 ND ND St. Lucia 67 4,511 10.1 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 47 1,692 ND Trinidad & Tobago 64 5,929 ND Turks & Caicos Islands 31 ND ND United States Virgin Islands 41 4,762 4.3 TOTAL 844 ND Not determined (a) From CHA and national hot el associations databases (b) Adapted from Compendium of Statistics 2005 (WTO, 2007) Table 3-2. All-Inclusive hotels in the English Caribbean 1993 & 1999. No. of resorts (1993) No. of resorts (1999) Anguilla 3 1 Antigua and Barbuda 8 10 Bahamas 5 7 Barbados 5 6 Bermuda 1 1 Grenada 1 2 Jamaica 26 33 St. Kitts & Nevis 1 1 St. Lucia 8 9 Turks & Caicos Islands 4 2 United States Virgin Islands 2 2 Adapted from Issa & Jayawardena (2005). 87

PAGE 88

Table 3-3. Consumption of goods and services by the Caribbean accommodations sector. Services/Goods Avg. purchased locally (%) Avg. purchased regionally (%) Electricity 100 Water 100 Telecommunications 91 Agricultural produce: Vegetables 74 11 Agricultural produce: Dairy 67 10 Agricultural produce: Meats 63 Agricultural produce: Fresh fruit 16 7 Fish 20 8 Light manufacturing (e.g., bakery products, uniforms, printing) 47 13 Construction, fixtures & equipment 39 8 Services (e.g., information technology, transportation, maintenance, security) 84 Adapted from Tourism Global (2007). Table 3-4. Questionnaire Distribution Pre-notice December 10, 2007 840 Emails to General Managers/Owners Invitation December 17, 2007 840 Emails to General Managers/Owners 1st Reminder January 9, 2008 829 Emails to General Managers/Owners 2nd Reminder February 5, 2008 809 Emails to General Managers/Owners 3rd Reminder February 18, 2008 798 Emails to General Managers/Owners 4th Reminder February 28, 2008 778 Emails to General Managers/Owners Table 3-5. Levels of environmental management. Some environmental initiatives in place (e.g., aerators, ener gy saving lights, towel/linen reuse programme, solid waste separation for re use or recycling) im plemented in ad hoc fashion Environmental programme (planned environmental actions throughout the property, involving all or most departments) Environmental management system (EMS) (Comprehensive environmental programme which includes a formal environmental po licy, objectives, targets, and action plan, performance monitoring and fee dback, participation at all staff levels, documentation) Environmental management system which has been certified against a recognized standard (e.g., local Authority or Environmenta l Agency, Green Globe, CST, ISO 14001) 88

PAGE 89

Table 3-6. Motives for implementing environmental management Cost reduction & efficiency Potential cost savings Need to keep up with competitors Advantage over competitors Internal pressure Importance of conserving natural resources Internal Green Champion Pressure from shareholders External pressure Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. Government regulations Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a ra nge of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. Table 3-7. Facilitators of environmental management Capacity building In-house training Participation in external training Technical assistance from external agencies Incentives Funding (e.g., grants) Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening project) Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a ra nge of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. 89

PAGE 90

90 Table 3-8. Constraints to implem enting environmental management. Costs Implementation is costly Lack of capital Lack of time Potential benefits were not apparent Human resources Making necessary organizationa l changes is too difficult Employee resistance Lack of know-how Technical More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated No access to technology Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property Environmental management is unnecessary Property unaware of any stage beyond its cu rrent level of environmental management Items were measured using a five point Likert type scale with a ra nge of 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4= Agree, and 5=Strongly agree. Table 3-9. Outcomes of environmental management. Decrease in resource consum ption (e.g., water, energy) Decrease in solid waste generation Change in organizational structure and culture Decrease in operating costs Increase in occupancy Environmental management used to market the property Increase in guest satisfaction Increased participation in community outreach activities Use of employee incentives to encourage pa rticipant in environmental management Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations Environmental management performance in corporated in management evaluations Overall improvement in property management Environmental management compon ent in annual property reports Improvement in employee morale Increase in staff training Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy Items were measured as not at all, a little, somewhat or a lot.

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Profile of Participants and Hotels The survey was conducted in 19 countries in the Anglophone Caribbean, with at least one respondent from each country (Table 4-1). Th ere were 197 usable questionnaires completed which yielded a 27% response rate. Forty two percent (42%) of the participants represented hotels in Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, and Trinid ad & Tobago. Most part icipants were either, general managers (41%), owners (9%), or owner/general managers (27%). Approximately 19% were managers or supervisors in other department s such as sales and marketing, front office, and human resources, while 4% were environmental officers or managers (Table 4-2). Small hotels (1-75 rooms) comprised the bulk of the sample (73%), while medium hotels (76-500 rooms) and large hotels (501+) were 25% and 3%, respectively. The number of employees at these hotels ranged from one at a 4-room property in Tobago, to 800 at an 850room property in the Bahamas. Roughly half of the hotels represented were established between 1940 and 1989; there was one hotel in Bermuda which was over 100 years old (Table 4-3). Average annual occupancy ranged from 10% to 95% Occupancies of 50% or less were reported by 32% of the hotels. Almost one quarter of the hotels (23%) experienced occupancies over 75% (Table 4-3). The majority of hotels represented were categ orized as either mid -range (47%) or luxury properties (34%); the remaining hotels were in the budget category. Most hotels were both locally owned and operated (63%), while 24% were either foreign owned and operated or foreign owned and locally operated. Hotels that were part of local chains a nd international chains collectively comprised 13% percent of the sample. Most respondents indicated that the majority 91

PAGE 92

of guests at their hotel originated in the United St ates (61%). For 19% of the hotels, most guests originated in the United Ki ngdom, while 11% were from the Caribbean (Table 4-3). The database used for the survey sample was compiled by merging the membership lists of the Caribbean Hotel Association and the na tional hotel associations of the individual countries. Responses were mixed with respect to current or previous membership in these associations, the Caribbean Alliance for Su stainable Tourism and other environmental organizations. Membership in the national associ ation is a requirement for membership in CHA. About 83% of the hotels were members of their local association, while 77% were members of CHA. Membership in CAST was 44%. Si milarly, membership in other environmental organizations such as the Green Hotels Associ ation and the International Hotels Environment Initiative was 42% (Table 4-4). Respondents were asked two questions which sought to assess their understanding of the relationship between the accommodations sector and the natural environment, and their familiarity with the concept of environmental management within the sector. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents agre ed (agreed and strongly agreed responses combined) that their property depended on the natural environment. A similar pattern of agreement emerged with respect to the importance of the sectors role in environmental protecti on (85%), the importance of a pristine natural environment to guests (9 1%), and the overall im portance of the natural environment to the individual prope rty (91%). Interestingly, 25% of participants suggested that the accommodations sector did not have a positiv e impact on the natural environment, while 51% felt that its impact was positive (Table 45). In terms of their familiarity with environmental management in the accommodations sector, 41% of the res pondents indicated that they were somewhat familiar, while 40% indicated that they were very familiar (Table 4-6). 92

PAGE 93

Environmental Management Among the sampled hotels, 68% had implemented some form of environmental management. These hotels were classified as adopters; hotels that ha d not implemented any form of environmental management were categ orized as non-adopters. Most adopters were small with 75 rooms or less (69%), mid-range (45 %) or luxury (39%) properties that were locally owned and operated (52%). Additionally, guests at these hotels originated mainly from the United States (64%). Thirty-two percent (32%) of th e properties started their envi ronmental management efforts prior to 2000, while 68% started in 2000 or later (Table 4-7). Adopt ers were asked to select one of four levels to describe their current efforts. About forty-four percent (44%) were in the basic category of properties that had implemented e nvironmental best practices (e.g., energy saving bulbs, water saving devices, linen and/or towel re use program, practice of the 3 Rs) on an ad hoc basis. Twenty-five percent (25% ) had an environmental policy and a planned approach to their environmental initiatives, while 31% had implemented an environmental management system (Table 4-8). Of this latter gr oup, just over half indicated that th eir propertys EMS was certified against a recognized standard. Standards include d Green Globe, Blue Flag, and Certification for Sustainable Tourism (Table 4-9). Respondents were asked whether their respec tive properties had a written environmental policy; 47% answered in the affirmative. The average length of time to have had an environmental policy was 5.2 years. One respond ent from the United States Virgin Islands indicated that their property had a policy for over 30 years. Additionally, 41% of adopters had an environmental officer or manager. Participants were asked to denote the portion of their overa ll operations budget that was allocated for environmental management. The highest allocation repor ted was 60% of total 93

PAGE 94

operating budget, while the lowest was 0%. Ei ghty-three percent (83%) of the 46 hotels that noted a budget allocation for envi ronmental management indicated that it was 15% or less (Table 4-10). Finally, respondents were asked to rate the overall benefit of e nvironmental management to their properties based on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being extremely beneficial. The lowest rating was 2, with the highest at 10. The av erage rating was 6.7. Notably, one participant indicated that while the benefit of environmental management to their property was a mere 2, the overall personal benefit was 8. Other participants al so indicated that they anticipated an increase in the overall benefit over time. Frequencies of Variables Motives This construct assessed motives for implementing environmental management in the hotels. Eight motive items were measured using a 5-point Likert-t ype scale format which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) The importance of cons erving natural resources and potential cost savings were overwhelmingly cited as the top two motives for implementing environmental management. Ninety-five per cent (95%) of respondent s were in agreement1 and 2% in disagreement about the importance of cons erving natural resources. For potential cost savings, 82 % agreed that this was a motive, whil e 5% disagreed. Other motives identified were advantage over competitors (63% agreement); internal green champion (49% agreement); and the need to keep up with competitors (40% agreement) (Table 4-11). There were several items that hoteliers did not consider to be strong motives to implement environmental management. Government regulations were considered to be the least important motive, as 53% were in disagreement. However, 19% of respondents agreed that 1 Within the Frequencies of Variables s ection, agreed/agreement represents ag reed combined with strongly agreed, while disagreed/disagreement represents disagreed combined with strongly disagreed responses. 94

PAGE 95

government regulations motivated their hotels to implement environmental management. Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agen ts etc. (45% disagreeme nt) and pressure from shareholders (42% disagreement) were also considered to be lesser factors behind hotels environmental initiatives. Notabl y, a number of respondents agreed that pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents et c. (25%) and pressure from shar eholders (30%) were reasons for implementation of environmental management. Based on composite mean values, Caribbean hotels were motivated to implement environmental management primarily because of the importance of natural resource conservation (mean=4.62), potential cost savings (mean=4.20), advantage over competitors (mean=3.61), and because of an internal green champion (mean=3.38). The need to keep up with competitors, pressure from shareholders, pressure from gue sts, tour operators, travel agents etc., and government regulations were weaker mo tives for implementation (Table 4-11). Based on an open-ended question, hoteliers were also asked to indicate additional motives for implementing environmental management. Approximately 34% of adopters indicated motives such as taking care of the environment for the sake of children and future generations, educating staff and guests, living up to the companys social responsibility, improving the lives and livelihood of local communities, and simply because it was common sense or the right thing to do (Appendix E). Facilitators This construct assessed factors that facil itated the implementation of environmental management in hotels. Six items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale format which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In-hou se training was the most popular facilitator of environmental ma nagement with 83% in agreement and 6% in disagreement. Participation in external training was also a str ong contributor to the im plementation of hotels 95

PAGE 96

efforts, with 62% in agreement and 19% in disagreement. The third most popular facilitator was technical assistance provided by external agencies; 56% of respondents agreed and 22% disagreed (Table 4-12). There were two items that most respondents noted were not very helpful in implementing environmental management: government incentive s (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) and funding (e.g., external grants). Sixty three per cent (63%) disagreed that government incentives was a facilitator, while 14% agreed it had helped in their efforts. Also 51% disagreed that funding was a facilitator, while 18% agreed. Project assistance (e .g., participation in national or regional greening projects) emerged as the most ambivalent of the facilitators. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of hoteliers agr eed that participation in proj ects helped them to implement environmental management while 35% disagreed. Based on composite mean values, there were se veral factors regarded as facilitators of environmental management. The top three fa cilitators were in-house training (mean=4.03), external training (mean=3.50), and technical assistance from external agencies (mean=3.34). Project assistance, funding, and government incentiv es were weaker faci litators (Table 4-12). Participants were also aske d whether other factors had been useful in implementing environmental management. Most respondents (78 %) noted the lack of ot her facilitators, while 9% reported the affirmative. Factors included pa rticipation in corporate programs, suggestions from guests, and having a pioneerin g approach. Some respondents al so indicated the projects in which their hotels had participated, or the agen cies from which they received assistance. Assistance was provided through agencies such as CAST, Rainforest Alliance, Program for Belize, the Cayman Islands National Trust, a nd the World Heritage Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (Appendix E). 96

PAGE 97

Constraints This construct assessed constraints to implem enting environmental management in hotels. Respondents included both adopters and non-adopters Twelve constraints were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale format which ranged from 1 (strongly di sagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Only a few of the items were actually ranked hi ghly by the majority of respondents. The top constraint to implementing environmental manage ment or moving on to more advanced levels, was that implementation is costly (67%) followe d by lack of capital (56%). However, 21% disagreed that lack of capital wa s a constraint to implementation (Table 4-13). Lack of time was noted as a constraint (42%) but 40% also disagreed. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents agreed that more advanced level of environmental management was too difficult or complicated, while 24% di sagreed. Thirty-four percent (34%) agreed that curren t level of EM is most appropri ate for the property and prevented them from moving to another leve l. Ninety percent (90%) of respondents disagreed that EM was not necessary. Similarly, 63% disagreed that l ack of awareness was a constraint. Also, 59% disagreed with potential benefits not apparent as a constraint. There were several other constraints with which respondents disagreed more than agreed, namely no access to technology, employee resistance, lack of know-how, and the difficulty in making organizational change. Forty-nine perc ent (49%) disagreed that no access to technology was a constraint. Conversely, 27% noted that no access to technology was a problem. Approximately 46% disagreed th at employee resistance presented a challenge to implementing or expanding environmental management on thei r properties. However, 22% acknowledged that employee resistance was a constraint. Forty-two percent (42%) disagreed that lack of know-how was a constraint to implementing environmental management, while 29% agreed. Finally, 97

PAGE 98

making necessary organizational changes is too diffi cult was noted as a constraint for 41% while 24% disagreed. Based on composite mean values, each of the twelve items was to some extent considered a constraint to implementation of environmenta l management. The top constraints identified were costliness of implementation (mean=3.72), lack of capital (mean=3.53), difficulty or complexity of a more advanced level of envi ronmental management (mean=3.18), and lack of time (mean=3.03). Other constraints included were the current level of environmental management was most appropriate for the prop erty, making necessary organizational changes was too difficult, a lack of know-how, no access to technology, employee resistance, potential benefits were not apparent, the property was unaware of any stage beyond their current level of environmental management, and the belief that environmental management was not necessary for the property (Table 4-13). Furthermore, respondents were asked whether th ere were additional factors that prevented them from implementing environmental manageme nt. Only 18% noted other constraints which included the lack ofor limited recycling facilities, issues with land tenure, too much paperwork, disinterest of locals in environmental management, tourism not taken seriously, and the perception that environmental management wa s not a government priority (Appendix E). Outcomes This construct assessed the outcomes that properties experien ced as a result of implementing environmental management. Sixteen items were employed whereby respondents could indicate whether the outcome was not observed at all, or observed a little, somewhat or a lot. Decrease in resource consumption was the outcome most experienced by respondents. Less than 1% of respondents indicated that th eir hotels had not experienced this outcome, whereas 46% experienced it a lot, 39% somewhat and 14% a little. The second most cited 98

PAGE 99

outcome was overall improvement in property management. Approximately 92% of hotels experienced this outcome2. The decrease in solid waste generation was also one of the most achieved outcomes. Twenty-eight (28%) of respondents noted thei r properties experienced this outcome a lot, 36% somewhat, and 27% a little (Table 4-14). The majority of adopters experienced decrease in operating costs. Nineteen percent (19%) of the properties experienced it a lot, 37% somewhat, and 32% a little. Implementing environmental management led to increase in staff training for 85% of respondents. Implementation of an environmental purchasing po licy was an outcome for 84% of respondents. Most respondents (82%) also noted increase in guest satis faction as an outcome. Seventy-six percent (76%) of respondents noted environmental management used to market the property as an outcome. Likewi se, 74% of respondents noted a change in organizational structure and culture. Twenty six percent (26%) of respondents did not experience this outcome at all. Improvement in employee morale was another outcome observed by a majority (73%) of respondents. Similarly 71% indicated increase in participation in community outreach activities. Environmental management component in annu al property reports wa s indicated as an outcome by 62%. Other outcomes were use of empl oyee incentives to encourage participation in EM (60%); increase in room occupancy (55%); EM performance incorporated in management evaluations (55%), and EM performance inco rporated in employee evaluations (54%). As with motives, facilitators and constraint s, respondents were as an open-ended question whether they had experienced other outcomes. Only 8% indicated other outcomes which included: international recogni tion, recognition within the hotel chain, relationships with 2 Unless otherwise stated, experience of outcome is a combination of a little, somewhat, and a lot. 99

PAGE 100

government agencies, inclusion in hotel school curriculum, and increased environmental awareness in the wider community resulting from changes in employee behavior (Appendix E). Results of Research Questions Tested Environmental Management Research question 1: To what extent has environmental management been adopted in the Caribbean accommodations sector? Environmental management was in existence at 67% of the hotels that were surveyed (i.e., adopters). Forty-four percent (44%) of adopters had implemen ted basic environmental best practices, while 56% had more adva nced levels of environmental management such as a program of planned actions or a comprehensive envir onmental management system. The innovation of environmental management or greening had diffused to approximately two thirds of the Caribbeans accommodations sector. These results suggest that the sector is still on the growth section of the s-shaped diffusion curve and is ye t to reach the plateau stage (Figure 4-1). The four levels of environmental management identified (environment al best practices, environmental program, EMS, certified EMS) we re also graphed. These followed the initial stages of the s-shaped diffusion curve, but like the main curve were yet to reach the plateau stage (Figure 4-2). Research question 2: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of environmental management in terms of (a) ch aracteristics, (b) or ganization membership, (c) importance of natural resources to th e accommodations sector, and (d) knowledge of environmental management? Contingency tables and Pearson 2 were calculated for each ch aracteristic. EM in place was operationalized as a dic hotomous categorical variable. 100

PAGE 101

(a) Hotel Characteristics A 2 x 3 contingency table was created for EM in place and property type (Table 4-15). Adopters (hotels with EM in place) comp rised 16% budget properties, 45% mid-range properties, and 39% luxury pr operties, whereas non-adopters comprised 23% budget properties, 54% mid-range properties, and 23% luxury properties There wa s no significant association between EM in place and property type ( 2 (2)=4.95; p>.05). Consequently, there was no difference in property type between adopters and non-adopters. A 2 x 2 contingency table was created for EM in place and property size (Table 4-16). To meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cas es per cell, large hotels were removed from this analysis because with large hotels included, the 2 x 3 contingency table had 2 cells with less than 5 counts each. Adopters comprised of 71% sma ll properties and 29% medium properties, while non-adopters comprised 82% small properties and 18% medium properties. EM in place was not significantly associated with property size ( 2 (1)=2.34; p>.05). Adopters and non-adopters were not different with regards to property size. A 2 x 3 contingency table was developed for EM in place and property ownership (Table 4-17). To meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cases per cell, the initial 6 categories for property ownership were reduced to 3, by grouping (a) locally owned and operated with locally owned and foreign operated; (b) foreign owned and operated with foreign owned and locally operated; and (c) intern ational chain or group with locally operated chain or group. Adopters comprised 54% of locally owned properties, 28% foreign owned properties, and 18% chain or group properties. Non-adopters co mprised 81% of locally owned properties, 16% foreign owned properties, and 3% chain or group properties. Th ere was a significant association between EM in place and property ownership ( 2 (2)=13.87; p<.01). Adopters and non-adopters were different 101

PAGE 102

with regards to property ownershi p. Compared with adopters, nonadopters were more likely to be locally owned and less likely to be fo reign owned, or part of a chain or group. A 2 x 4 contingency table was created for EM in place and guest origin (Table 4-18). To meet the Chi-square requirement of at least 5 cases per cell, the initial 6 choices (USA, UK, Caribbean, Canada, Germany and other) was reduced to the 4 categories: USA, UK, Caribbean and Other (Canada, Germany and other countries). Sixty-four percent (64 %) of adopters guests originated in the USA, 18% in the UK, 10% in the Caribbean, and 8% in other locations, while 53% of non-adopters guests orig inated in the USA, 21% in the UK, 15% in the Caribbean, and 11% in other locations. There was no significan t association between EM in place and guest origin (2 (3)=2.02; p>.05). Therefore adopt ers and non-adopters did not differ in the origins of their guests. (b) Organization Membership To assess the difference in organization me mbership between adopters and non-adopters, 2 x 2 contingency tables were created and Pearson s chi-square calculated (Table 4-19). Eightyseven percent of adopters were members of th eir National Hotel Association (NHA), compared with 73% of non-adopters. There was a signifi cant relationship betw een EM in place and national association membership ( 2 (1)=4.75; p=.03) in which adopters were more likely than non-adopters to be members of NHA. Seventy-seven percent of adopters were members of the Caribbean Hotel Association, compared with 76% of non-adopters. There was no significant relationshi p between EM in place and membership in CHA ( 2 (1)=0.03; p>.05). Therefore there was no difference between adopters and non-adopters in CHA membership. 102

PAGE 103

Fifty percent of adopters were members of the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism, compared with 28% of non-adopters. There was a significant relationship between EM in place and CAST membership ( 2 (1)=5.03; p=.03). There was a difference between adopters and non-adopters in CAST membership such that adopters were more likely to be members in CAST than non-adopters. Fifty-one percent of adopters were members of other green organizations compared with 18% of non-adopters. There was a significant rela tionship between EM in place and other green organization membership ( 2 (1)=10.61; p<.01) such that adopters were more likely to be members in other green organizations than non-adopters. (c) Importance of Natural Environment Independent sample t-tests were performed to determine the differences between adopters and non-adopters with respect to the impor tance of the natural environment to the accommodations sector. Of the five statements, respondents were significantly different on the statement the accommodations sector has a pos itive impact on the natural environment ( t(154)=2.34; p=.02). Non-adopters were more likely to agree with this statement (M=3.58) than adopters (M=3.22) (Table 4-23). (d) Knowledge of Environmental Management An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine whether familiarity with environmental management in the accommodati ons sector differed between adopters and nonadopters. The two groups we re significantly different (t(100)=5.44; p<.001), with adopters being more familiar with environmental management (M=4.34) than non-adopters (M=3.41). 103

PAGE 104

Research question 3: Is there a difference between adopters and non adopters of environmental management with regards to constraints? Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether adopters and nonadopters differed in the constrai nts to environmental management. Of the twelve constraints tested, adopters and non-adopters differed si gnificantly on EM is not necessary ( t(133)=-2.07; p=.04) and property unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM ( t(100.03)=5.44; p<.001) (Table 4-21). Adopters disagreed more with bo th EM is not necessary (M=1.38) and property unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM (M=2.18) than did non-adopters (M=2.07 and M=2.57, respectively). Therefore, these items were more of a constraint for non-adopters than for adopters. Research question 4 : Do hotel characteristics influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Hotel characteristics were measured as cate gorical variables which were dummy coded for the purpose of this regression analysis. This re sulted in 2 dummy variables for hotel size with small hotel as the referent category; 2 for hotel ty pe with budget hotel as the referent category; 5 for ownership with locally owned and operated as the referent category; and 5 for guest origin with USA as the referent category. Level of EM was recoded to 2 categories to facilitate analysis: environmental best practices was kept intact as basic EM; environmental program, EMS, and certified EMS were combined to crea te advanced EM. A logistic regression was conducted with characteristics as the predictor va riables (with each characteristic in a separate block) and level of EM as the outcome variable. The regression model with al l characteristics improved on the base model by correctly classifying 58% of the cases compared with the initial 53%. However, none of the characteristics variables were significant, nor were the model changes (Block 1 2 (2)=1.73; p>.05; Block 2 2 (4)=2.57; p>.05; Block 3 2 (6)=5.42; p>.05; Block 4 2 (9)=11.55; p>.05). The non104

PAGE 105

significant Hosmer & Lemeshow test statistic at each st age of analysis indicated that the model fit the data relatively well in terms of actual and expected classifications (Table 4-22). Hotel characteristics did not predict the level of EM implemented. Research question 5: Do motives for adopting environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? A logistic regression was perf ormed on motives (8 predictor variables) and level of EM (outcome). All predictor variables were ente red into the model which was estimated by the backward likelihood ratio method3. The regression model at each step of the estimation was significant. However, the model at step 3 ( 2 (6)=18.37; p<.01) had the high est hit ratio (70%) and contained 6 variables (pressure fr om guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc., pressure from shareholders, internal green champion, need to keep up with competitors, government regulations, potential cost savi ngs), of which one was statisti cally significant. This model accounted for 21-28% of the variation between basic EM and advanced EM (R2=.21 (Cox and Snell), .28 (Nagelkerke)). The non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test st atistic indicated that the model fit the data well (Table 4-23). Controlling for other variables, internal gr een champion, was significan tly related to level of EM ( =0.90, p<.01, Exp( )=2.45). Internal green champion was positively related to level of EM. Therefore a 1 unit increase in the motive in ternal green champion results in an increase by 0.90 in the predicted probability that a hotel would be in the advanced EM group. A 1 unit increase in internal green champion also increa ses the odds by 145% that a hotel would be in the advanced EM group. The odds are that hotels motivated by internal green champion would implement advanced EM. 3 This method of estimation was used for all subsequent logistic regressions. 105

PAGE 106

Based on the literature, thr ee conceptual dimensions of motives for implementing environmental management were developed: (1 ) cost reduction and efficiency, (2) internal pressure, and (3) external pressure (Table 3-6). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether there were indeed any underlyi ng dimensions within the motives construct. Following a principal component factor analysis with Varimax rota tion, and using .5 as the factor loading threshold4, three factors were identified. These f actors explained 68% of the variance. Factor 1 consisted of four motives: need to keep up with competitors, advantage over competitors, potential cost savings, and government regulations. Factor 2 consisted of three motives: pressure from guests, tour operators, trav el agents, etc., pressure from shareholders, and importance of conserving natural resources. Factor 3 comprised internal green champion. Cronbachs alpha for factors 1 and 2 was determined to confirm internal consistency of the items (factor 1 =.77; factor 2 =.41) (Table 4-24). The reliability an alysis for factor 2 indicated that removal of importance of conserving natural resources would increase to .71. This step was conducted and the factor analysis was re-run with seven variables to determine any changes to the factor structure (Hair et al ., 2005). With the re moval of importance of conserving natural resources, the variables still loaded as 3 factors, with 74% of explained variance. Since factor 3 consisted of a single item, it was excluded from further analysis (Table 4-25). Factor 1 was titled Financial Motives and factor 2 Stakeholder Pressu re. Factor scores were subsequently employed as predictors in a logistic regression with level of EM as the outcome variable. The regression model with the two predictors im proved the model with constant only by correctly classifying 57% of the cases compared with the initial 52%. However, this model change was not significant ( 2 (2)=2.36; p>.05) and neither dimension was 4 This method was employed for all factor analyses. 106

PAGE 107

significantly related to level of EM. Thus, financial motives and stakeholder pressure did not predict level of EM (Table 4-26). Research question 6: Do facilitators of environmental management influence the level of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? A logistic regression was perfor med on facilitators (6 predictor variables) and level of EM (outcome). All predictor variables were ente red into the model which was estimated by the backward likelihood ratio method. The regression model was not significant at any step of the estimation, though at step 1 the hit ratio increased from 55% to 62%. The model change was not significant ( 2 (6)=5.88; p>.05) and data fit was weak (R2=.07 (Cox and Snell), .09 (Nagelkerke)) (Table 4-27). There were no significant relati onships between facilita tors and level of EM. Based on the literature, two conceptual dimensions of facilitators of environmental management were developed: (1) capacity building and (2) in centives (Table 3-7). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether there was an underlying structure within the facilitators construct. Th e variables loaded well onto two factors, with .5 used as the factor loading threshold (Table 4-28). The two factors explained 72% of the variance. Factor 1, labeled Incentives, comprise d three facilitators : funding, government incentives, and project assistan ce. Factor 2, labeled Capaci ty Building, comprised three facilitators: in-house training, par ticipation in external training, and technical assistance from external agencies. Cronbachs alpha for fact ors 1 and 2 was determined to confirm internal consistency of the items (factor 1 =.79; factor 2 =.66) (Table 4-29). The factor scores for Capacity Building and Incentives were employed as predictors in a logistic regression with level of EM as the outcome variable. At step 1 of the estimation the regression model was not signi ficant, at step 2 it was (2 (2)=4.17; p<.05), though the hit ratio 107

PAGE 108

increased only marginally from 55% to 56%. The model change was significant ( 2 (2)=4.17; p<.05). Controlling for Incentives, Capacity Buildi ng was significantly related to level of EM ( =0.47, p=.05, Exp( )=1.60) (Table 4-30). The positive rela tionship between capacity building and level of EM indicates that with a 1 unit increase in capacity building, there is a .47 increase in the predicted probability that hotels would be in the advanced EM group. Additionally, with the 1 unit increase in capacity building, the odds of being in th e advanced EM group increase by 60%. Incentives was not significan t at the .05 level and therefore did not pr edict level of EM. Research question 7: Do constraints experienced by hotels influence the level of environmental management implemented? Level of EM was regressed on 12 items in the constraints construct. The regression model at each step of the estimation was significant. The model at step 1 ( 2 (12)=33.26; p<.001) was retained because the number of significant items did not increase beyond this step. This model had a hit ratio of 74% (compared with 53% at base) and explained betw een 37% and 49% of the variation between basic EM and advanced EM (R2=.37 (Cox and Snell), .49 (Nagelkerke)) (Table 4-31). With other variables held constant, six of the twelve constraints were significantly related to level of EM: lack of capital ( =-1.37, p=.03, Exp( )=.26); potential benefits not apparent ( =0.78, p=.04, Exp( )=2.19); no access to technology ( =1.70, p<.01, Exp( )=5.50); lack of know-how ( =-1.24, p=.02, Exp( )=.29); lack of time ( =-1.11, p=.02, Exp( )=.33); EM is not necessary ( =-2.08, p<.01, Exp( )=.13). Lack of capital was negatively related to leve l of EM. For a 1 unit increase in lack of capital, the predicted pr obability of hotels being in the advanced EM group decreased by 1.37, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 74%. Potential benef its not apparent was positively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in potential benefits not apparent, the predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group increased by 0.78, while the 108

PAGE 109

odds of this occurrence increased by 118%. No access to technology was positively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in no access to technology, the predicte d probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group increased by 1.70, while the odds of this occurrence increased by 450%. Lack of know-how was negatively related to leve l of EM. For a 1 unit increase in lack of know-how, the predicted probability of hotels be ing in the advanced EM group decreased by 1.24, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 71%. Lack of time was negatively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit incr ease in lack of time, the predicted probability of hotels being in the advanced EM group decreased by 1.11, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 67%. EM is not necessary was negatively related to level of EM. For a 1 unit increase in EM is not necessary, the predicted probability of hotels be ing in the advanced EM group decreased by 2.08, while the odds of this occurrence decreased by 88%. Based on the literature, three c onceptual dimensions of cons traints to implementation of environmental management were developed: (1) costs, (2) human resources and (3) technical constraints (Table 3-8). An e xploratory factor analysis was c onducted to determine whether the data pointed to any underlying dimensions within the constraints construct. The variables loaded in four factors, which collec tively explained 63% of the vari ance (Table 4-32). Factor 1 consisted of four constraints: more advanced le vel of environmental management too difficult or complicated, making necessary organizational changes is too difficult, lack of time, potential benefits not apparent. Factor 2 consisted of three constraints: no acce ss to technology, lack of know-how, employee resistance. Factor 3 comp rised two constraints: lack of capital and implementation is costly. Factor 4 comprised three constraints: current level of EM is most appropriate for the property, pr operty unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM, and EM 109

PAGE 110

is not necessary. Cronbachs alpha was determined to confirm internal consistency of the items within each factor (factor 1 =.64; factor 2 =.67; factor 3 =.84; factor 4 =.49) (Table 4-33). Factor 4 was excluded from further analysis b ecause of its unacceptable alpha. Factor 1 was titled Organizational Constraints, fa ctor 2 Technical Constraints, and factor 3 Cost Constraints. Organizational Constraints, Tec hnical Constraints, and Cost Constraints were employed as predictors in a logistic regre ssion with level of EM as the outcome variable. The regression model with the three predictors did not improve on the base model, correctly classifying 51% of the cases compared with the initial 53%. The model change was not significant (2 (3)=1.37; p>.05). None of the predictors we re significantly related to level of EM (Table 4-34). Research question 8: Which variables have the most in fluence on the implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels? Level of EM was regressed on the dimensions of motives (Stakeholde r Pressure, Financial Motives), facilitators (Capacity Building, Incentives), and constraints (Organ izational, Technical, Cost) which were identified via the factor analys es (Figure 4-3). The regression model was not significant at any step of the estimation, nor were there significant relationships at the .05 level between the individual factors a nd level of EM (Table 4-35). Environmental Management Outcomes Research question 9: Does level of environmental management implemented influence the number of outcomes experienced? To assess the relationship between level of EM and number of outcomes, outcomes was regressed on level of EM (bas ic EM, advanced EM). The regression model was significant (F(1,107)=9.54; p<0.1) and explained 8% of the variance in total outcomes. Level of EM was a significant predictor of total outcomes ( =6.20; p<.01); as level of EM changes from basic EM to advanced EM, total outcomes increases by 6.20. Hotels with advanced EM are more likely to experience more outcomes than hotels with basic EM. 110

PAGE 111

Environmental Management and Outcomes Research question 10: What relationships exist between motives, facilitators, constraints, level of environmental management and the outcomes of environmental management in hotels (Figure 1-4)? A path analysis was conducted on (a) the dime nsions of motives (S takeholder Pressure, Financial), facilitators (Cap acity Building, Incentives), and constraints (Organizational, Technical, Cost) identified by factor analysis, (b ) level of EM, and (c) ou tcomes (Figure 4-4). To build the first stage of the path analysis, le vel of EM was regressed on Stakeholder Pressure, Financial Motives, Capacity Building, Incenti ves, Organizational Constraints, Technical Constraints, and Cost Constrai nts. No significant relationships were found between the factor dimensions and level of EM at the .05 level. To construct the second stage of the analys is, outcomes was regressed on level of EM, Stakeholder Pressure, Financial Motives, Ca pacity Building, Incentives, Organizational Constraints, Technical Constraint s, and Cost Constraints. Co ntrolling for other variables, significant relationships we re found between Capacity Building and outcomes ( =.30; p<.05) and Technical Constraints and outcomes ( =-.31; p<.05) (Table 4-36). Capacity Building was positively related to outcomes. Thus for a 1 un it increase in capacity building, outcomes would increase by .30. There was a negative relationshi p between technical constraints and outcomes where for every 1 unit increase in technical constraints, out comes would decrease by .31. However, given that none of the dimensions wa s significantly related to level of EM, this variable did not play a mediati ng role between the dimensions and outcomes. Thus the path analysis supported direct effects of the dimensions on outcomes, but no indirect effects. 111

PAGE 112

Table 4-1. Hotels participating in survey Country % Total respondents Anguilla 2.5 Antigua and Barbuda 5.1 Bahamas 7.1 Barbados 10.7 Belize 11.7 Bermuda 2.5 British Virgin Islands 1.0 Cayman Islands 2.0 Dominica 10.2 Grenada 5.1 Guyana 0.5 Jamaica 8.1 Montserrat 0.5 St. Kitts & Nevis 3.6 St. Lucia 5.1 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 6.6 Trinidad & Tobago 9.1 Turks & Caicos Islands 2.5 United States Virgin Islands 5.1 n=195 Table 4-2. Profile of respondents % Total respondents General Manager 41.1 Owner 9.2 Owner/General Manager 26.5 Environmental Officer/Manager 4.0 Other 23.2 n=185 112

PAGE 113

Table 4-3. Profile of hotels % Total respondents Hotel size Small (1-75 rooms) 72.9 Medium (76-500 rooms) 24.5 Large (500+ rooms) 2.6 n=192 Hotel opening year Prior to 1900 0.5 1940s 1.1 1950s 3.7 1960s 9.6 1970s 13.4 1980s 18.2 1990s 27.8 2000+ 25.7 n=187 Average annual occupancy Under 25% 4.6 26 50% 27.7 51 75% 44.5 Over 75% 23.1 n=173 Hotel categories Budget 19.1 Mid-range 47.4 Luxury 33.5 n=194 Hotel ownership Locally owned and operated 60.6 Locally owned and foreign operated 2.6 Foreign owned and operated 10.4 Foreign owned and locally operated 13.5 Part of international chain or group 8.8 Part of locally operated chain or group 4.1 n=193 Guest origins USA 60.6 UK 18.7 Caribbean 11.4 Canada 2.1 Germany 2.1 Other 5.1 n=193 113

PAGE 114

Table 4-4. Hotels organization membership % Total respondents National Hotel Association (n=158) 82.9 Caribbean Hotel Association (n=171) 76.6 Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (n=119) 43.7 Other Green organizations (n=118) 42.4 Table 4-5. Importance of natural environment in the accommodations sector (frequency in percentage) Questionnaire statement SD D N A SA # of cases Mean This property is dependent on the natural environment 6.2 6.2 9.8 32.1 45.6 193 4.05 The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment 5.7 19.3 24.0 35.9 15.1 192 3.35 The accommodations sector has an important role to pl ay in protecting the natural environment 6.2 1.6 7.3 26.9 58.0 193 4.29 A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests 6.3 1.0 2.1 27.1 63.5 192 4.41 The natural environment in very important to this property 6.7 0.5 2.6 24.7 65.5 194 4.42 Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N= Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree; SA=Strongly agree. Table 4-6. Level of familiarity with environm ental management in the accommodations sector % Total respondents Not all familiar 6.3 Somewhat unfamiliar 4.7 Neither familiar nor unfamiliar 7.9 Somewhat familiar 40.8 Very familiar 40.3 n=191 Table 4-7. Decades of environm ental management implementation % Total respondents 1960s 1.1 1970s 2.2 1980s 5.5 1990s 23.6 2000+ 67.6 n=94 114

PAGE 115

Table 4-8. Levels of environmenta l management in place in hotels % Total respondents Some environmental best practices in place (e.g., aerators, energy saving lights, towel/linen reuse programme, solid wast e separation for reus e or recycling) 43.5 An environmental policy and planned actions throughout the property (involving all or most departments) to reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste. 25.2 An environmental policy and a comprehensive programme to reduce consumption of resources and genera tion of waste. Programme includes objectives, targets, and action plan, performance monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff levels, documentation of all environmental and social initiatives. 14.5 Certification against a recognized standard (e.g., local Authority or Environmental Agency, Green Globe, ISO 14001) 16.8 n=131 Table 4-9. Types of environm ental management certification Total Green Globe 24 Certification for Sustainable Tourism 4 Other (Blue Flag, Rainforest Al liance, Program for Belize) 13 Table 4-10. Budget allocations for environmental management % Total respondents Under 15% 82.6 16-30% 8.7 31-50% 6.5 Over 50% 2.2 n=46 115

PAGE 116

Table 4-11. Motives for implementing envi ronmental management (percentage) Questionnaire statement SD D N A SA # of cases Mean Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. 23.8 20.8 30.7 20.8 4.0 101 2.60 Pressure from shareholders 20.2 21.3 28.7 21.3 8.5 94 2.77 Internal Green Champion 10.4 12.5 28.1 27.1 21.9 96 3.38 Need to keep up with competitors 15.9 17.8 26.2 30.8 9.3 107 3.00 Advantage over competitors 7.1 12.5 17.9 37.5 25.0 112 3.61 Importance of conserving natural resources 2.4 0.0 2.4 24.0 71.2 125 4.62 Government regulations 22.7 29.9 28.9 11.3 7.2 97 2.51 Potential cost savings 3.4 1.7 12.7 35.6 46.6 118 4.20 Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N= Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree; SA=Strongly agree; NA=Not applicable. Table 4-12. Facilitators of envir onmental management (percentage) Questionnaire statement SD D N A SA # of cases Mean In-house training 2.6 3.4 11.1 54.7 28.2 117 4.03 Participation in external training 7.6 11.4 19.0 46.7 15.2 105 3.50 Technical assistance from external agencies 10.5 11.4 21.9 45.7 10.5 105 3.34 Funding (e.g., external grants) 30.2 20.8 31.3 10.4 7.3 96 2.44 Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) 43.5 19.6 22.8 8.7 5.4 92 2.13 Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening project) 19.6 15.5 25.8 25.8 13.4 97 2.98 Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N= Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree; SA=Strongly agree. 116

PAGE 117

Table 4-13. Constraints to envir onmental management (percentage) Questionnaire statement SD D N A SA # of cases Mean More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated 3.0 21.2 37.1 31.8 6.8 132 3.18 Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult 3.8 37.1 35.6 18.2 5.3 132 2.84 Implementation is costly 3.6 10.9 19.0 43.1 23.4 137 3.72 Lack of capital 4.4 16.3 23.0 34.8 21.5 135 3.53 Potential benefits not apparent 11.7 47.4 25.5 13.1 2.2 137 2.47 No access to technology 8.2 41.0 23.9 20.1 6.7 134 2.76 Lack of know-how 11.5 30.9 28.1 25.2 4.2 139 2.80 Employee resistance 16.7 29.5 31.8 18.2 3.8 132 2.63 Lack of time 7.5 32.8 17.9 32.8 9.0 134 3.03 Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property 6.6 31.4 27.7 27.7 6.6 137 2.96 Environmental Management is not necessary 53.4 36.1 6.8 3.0 0.8 133 1.62 Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management 23.7 39.3 21.5 12.6 3.0 135 2.32 Note: SD=Strongly disagree; D=Disagree; N= Neither agree nor disagree; A=Agree; SA=Strongly agree. 117

PAGE 118

Table 4-14. Outcomes of environmental management (percentage) Questionnaire statement N L S AL # of cases Mean Decrease in resource consumption (e.g., water, energy) 0.9 13.9 38.9 46.3 108 2.31 Decrease in solid waste generation 8.4 27.1 36.4 28.0 107 1.84 Change in organizational structure and culture 25.7 28.7 34.7 10.9 101 1.31 Decrease in operating costs 12.0 32.4 37.0 18.5 108 1.62 Increase in room occupancy 45.1 23.5 21.6 9.8 102 .96 Environmental management used to market the property 24.5 28.3 30.2 17.0 106 1.40 Increase in guest satisfaction 17.6 21.6 37.3 23.5 102 1.67 Increase in participation in community outreach activities 28.7 21.8 27.7 21.8 101 1.43 Use of employee incentives to encourage participation in environmental management 39.6 31.7 18.8 9.9 101 .99 Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations 53.6 25.8 13.4 7.2 97 .74 Environmental management performance incorporated in management evaluations 54.5 21.8 14.9 8.9 101 .78 Overall improvement in property management 7.8 29.1 40.8 22.3 103 1.78 Environmental management component in annual property reports 38.0 22.0 23.0 17.0 100 1.19 Improvement in employee morale 26.7 35.6 27.7 9.9 101 1.21 Increase in staff training 15.5 30.1 40.8 13.6 103 1.52 Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy 17.3 30.8 29.8 22.1 104 1.57 Note: N=Not at all; L=A little; S=Somewhat; AL=A lot. Table 4-15. Property type and environmental management in place Property type Budget (%) Mid-range (%) Luxury (%) EM in place Adopters 16.0 45.0 38.9Non-adopters 23.0 54.1 23.0Chi-square 4.95df 2 n=192 118

PAGE 119

Table 4-16. Property size and envi ronmental management in place Property size Small (%) Medium (%) EM in place Adopters 71.2 28.8Non-adopters 81.7 18.3Chi-square 2.34df 1 n=185 Table 4-17. Property ownership and environmental management in place Property ownership Locally owned (%) Foreign owned (%) Part of chain or group (%) EM in place Adopters 54.3 27.9 17.8Non-adopters 80.6 16.1 3.2Chi-square 13.9*df 2 n=191 *Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). Table 4-18. Guest origin and environmental management in place Guest Origins USA (%) UK (%) Caribbean (%) Other (%) EM in place Adopters 63.6 17.8 10.1 8.5Non-adopters 53.2 21.0 14.5 11.3Chi-square 2.02 df 3 n=191 119

PAGE 120

Table 4-19. Organization membership and environmental management in place Organization membership Yes (%) No (%) National Hotel Association EM in place Adopters 87.2 12.8 Non-adopters 72.9 27.1 Chi-square 4.75* df 1 n=157 Caribbean Hotel Association EM in place Adopters 76.7 23.3 Non-adopters 75.5 24.5 Chi-square 0.03 df 1 n=169 Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism EM in place Adopters 50.0 50.0 Non-adopters 27.8 72.2 Chi-square 5.03* df 1 n=118 Other green organizations EM in place Adopters 51.2 48.8 Non-adopters 18.2 81.8 Chi-square 10.61** df 1 n=117 *Significant at .05 level (2 -tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed). 120

PAGE 121

Table 4-20. Importance of the natural e nvironment to the accommodations sector Mean Questionnaire statement1 Adopters Nonadopters t df This property is dependent on the natural environment 4.14 3.82 1.77 189 The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment 3.22 3.58 -2.34* 154The accommodations sector has an important role to play in protecting the natural environment 4.35 4.13 1.28 189A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests 4.42 4.37 0.30 188 The natural environment in very important to this property 4.44 4.36 0.45 190 1Likert-type scale Strongly di sagree=1; Disagree=2; Neither ag ree nor disagree=3; Agree=4; Strongly agree=5. *Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). Table 4-21. Constraints to environmental management Mean Questionnaire statement1 Adopters Nonadopters t df More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated 3.26 3.02 1.37 130 Making necessary organizat ional changes is too difficult 2.87 2.79 0.45 130 Implementation is costly 3.73 3.68 0.28 135 Lack of capital 3.60 3.40 0.99 133 Potential benefits not apparent 2.38 2.62 -1.45 135 No access to technology 2.79 2.70 0.51 121 Lack of know-how 2.74 2.90 -0.83 137 Employee resistance 2.67 2.54 0.71 112 Lack of time 3.05 3.00 0.22 132 Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property 2.93 3.02 -0.45 135 Environmental Management is not necessary 1.38 2.07 -5.10* 131 Property unaware of any stag e beyond current level of environmental management 2.18 2.57 -2.07* 133 1Likert-type scale Strongly di sagree=1; Disagree=2; Neither ag ree nor disagree=3; Agree=4; Strongly agree=5. *Significan t at .05 level (2-tailed). 121

PAGE 122

Table 4-22. Level of environmental manage ment regressed on hotel characteristics B SE Exp( ) Characteristics Type Mid-range -0.16 0.55 0.85 Luxury -0.390.60 0.68 Ownership Foreign owned 0.66 0.481.94Part of chain or group -0.03 0.610.97Size MediumHotel -0.17 0.49 0.85LargeHotel -0.65 1.240.52Guest origin UK 0.68 0.501.98Caribbean 0.28 0.650.66Other1 2.10 1.120.06Model change 2 11.55 -2Log likelihood 157.05 Cox and Snell R2 .09 Nagelkerke R2 .12 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 4.64 Hit Ratio 58.2 n=122 1Other includes Canada, Germany and other countries. Table 4-23. Regression of level of environmental management on motives B SE Exp( ) Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. -0.10 0.31 0.75 Pressure from shareholders -0.51 0.27 0.06 Internal Green Champion 0.90** 0.27 0.00 Need to keep up with competitors 0.17 0.30 0.57 Government regulations 0.23 0.28 0.42 Potential cost savings -0.29 0.29 0.31 Model change 2 18.37** -2Log likelihood 91.03 Cox and Snell R2 .21 Nagelkerke R2 .28 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 6.22 Hit Ratio 69.90 n=79 **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed). 122

PAGE 123

Table 4-24. Reliability analysis for factor s of motives for implementing environmental management Alpha Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item removed Factor 1 (Financial Motives) Need to keep up with competitors .66 .67 Advantage over competitors .64 .68 Government regulations .51 .75 Potential cost savings .50 .76 Overall index item alpha .77 Factor 2 (Stakeholder Pressure) Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. .51 -.33 Pressure from shareholders .43 -.15 Overall index item alpha .71 Table 4-25. Factor analysis of motives for environmental management Factor loadings Factor 1 (Financial Motives) Need to keep up with competitors .78 Advantage over competitors .85 Government regulations .73 Potential cost savings .59 Factor 2 (Stakeholder Pressure) Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. .79 Pressure from shareholders .92 Variance explained 74.0 Table 4-26. Regression of level of envir onmental management on motives factors B SE Exp( ) Financial motives 0.12 0.23 1.12 Stakeholder pressure -0.34 0.23 0.72 Model change 2 2.36 -2Log likelihood 107.04 Cox and Snell R2 .03 Nagelkerke R2 .04 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 12.27 Hit Ratio 57.00 n=79 123

PAGE 124

Table 4-27. Level of environmental ma nagement regressed on facilitators B SE Exp( ) In-house training 0.14 0.29 1.15 Participation in external training 0.19 0.26 1.21 Technical assistance from external agencies 0.06 0.28 1.07 Funding (e.g., external grants) 0.24 0.33 1.27 Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) -0.36 0.28 0.70 Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening project) 0.16 0.28 1.18 Model change 2 5.88 -2Log likelihood 109.80 Cox and Snell R2 .07 Nagelkerke R2 .09 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 6.34 Hit Ratio 62.00 n=84 Table 4-28. Factor analysis of facil itators of environmental management Factor loadings Factor 1 (Capacity Building) In-house training .71 Participation in external training .82 Technical assistance from external agencies .77 Factor 2 (Incentives) Funding (e.g., external grants) .91 Government incentives (e.g., tax cr edits, duty free concessions) .84 Project assistance (e.g., participa tion in national or regional greening project) .70 Variance explained 72.00 124

PAGE 125

Table 4-29. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management Alpha Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item removed Factor 1 (Capacity building) In-house training .35 .71 Participation in external training .60 .38 Technical assistance from external agencies .50 .53 Overall index item alpha .66 Factor 2 (Incentives) Funding (e.g., external grants) .73 .60 Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) .61 .73 Project assistance (e.g., participation in national or regional greening project) .55 .80 Overall index item alpha .79 Table 4-30. Regression of leve l of environmental management on facilitators factors B SE Exp( ) Capacity building 0.47** 0.24 1.60 Incentives 0.05 0.23 1.05 Model change 2 4.17* -2Log likelihood 111.52 Cox and Snell R2 .05 Nagelkerke R2 .07 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 12.04 Hit Ratio 56.00 n=84 *Significant at .05 level (2 -tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed). 125

PAGE 126

Table 4-31. Level of environmental ma nagement regressed on constraints B SE Exp( ) More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated 0.90 0.46 2.47 Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult 0.43 0.38 1.53 Implementation is costly 0.28 0.57 1.33 Lack of capital -1.37* 0.62 0.25 Potential benefits not apparent 0.78* 0.39 2.19 No access to technology 1.70** 0.59 5.50 Lack of know-how -1.24* 0.53 0.29 Employee resistance 0.01 0.32 1.01 Lack of time -1.11* 0.46 0.33 Current level of environmental management is most appropriate for the property 0.05 0.32 1.05 Environmental management is not necessary -2.08** 0.76 0.12 Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management -0.33 0.33 0.72 Model change 2 33.26** -2Log likelihood 67.60 Cox and Snell R2 .37 Nagelkerke R2 .49 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 4.73 Hit Ratio 74.00 n=73 *Significant at .05 level (2 -tailed). **Significant at .01 level (2-tailed). 126

PAGE 127

Table 4-32. Factor analysis of cons traints to environmental management Factor loadings Factor 1 (Organizational constraints) More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated .62 Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult .68 Potential benefits not apparent .63 Lack of time .75 Factor 2 (Technical constraints) No access to technology .81 Lack of know-how .78 Employee resistance .64 Factor 3 (Cost constraints) Implementation is costly .84 Lack of capital .87 Factor 4 Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property .62 Environmental Management is not necessary .79 Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management .64 Variance explained 62.80 127

PAGE 128

Table 4-33. Reliability analysis for factors of facilitators of environmental management Alpha Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item removed Factor 1 (Organizational constraints) More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated .44 .56 Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult .43 .57 Potential benefits not apparent .43 .57 Lack of time .40 .59 Overall index item alpha .64 Factor 2 (Technical constraints) No access to technology .56 .47 Lack of know-how .53 .51 Employee resistance .37 .72 Overall index item alpha .67 Factor 3 (Cost constraints) Implementation is costly .73 Lack of capital .73 Overall index item alpha .83 Factor 4 Current level of environmental management is most appropriate for the property Environmental management is not necessary Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management Overall index item alpha .49 Table 4-34. Regression of environmental management on constraints factors B SE Exp( ) Organizational constraints .02 0.23 1.02 Technical constraints -0.35 0.24 0.71 Cost constraints .071 0.22 1.07 Model change 2 2.33 -2Log likelihood 102.19 Cox and Snell R2 .03 Nagelkerke R2 .04 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 15.07 Hit Ratio 55.60 n=76 **Significant at .01 level (2 -tailed). ***Significant at .001 level (2-tailed) 128

PAGE 129

Table 4-35. Level of environmental management regressed on dimensions of motives, facilitators and constraints B SE Exp( ) Financial motives -0.31 0.42 0.73 Stakeholder pressure -0.36 0.38 0.70 Incentives 0.37 0.35 1.46 Capacity building 0.71 0.53 2.03 Organizational constraints 0.18 0.30 1.20 Technical constraints 0.31 0.30 1.37 Cost constraints -0.45 0.38 0.64 Model change 2 5.44 -2Log likelihood 59.70 Cox and Snell R2 .11 Nagelkerke R2 .15 Hosmer and Lemeshow 2 5.79 Hit Ratio 63.80 n=47 Table 4-36. Regression of outcome s on dimensions of motives, faci litators and c onstraints and level of environmental management B SE Financial motives 1.48 1.35 .18 Stakeholder pressure -0.55 1.21 .17 Incentives 1.11 1.14 -.06 Capacity building 3.34* 1.66 .12 Organizational constraints -1.36 1.01 .30 Technical constraints -2.45* 0.98 -.16 Cost constraints 1.78 1.18 -.31 Level of environmental management 3.30 2.17 .18 F ratio 4.66*** R2 .51 n=46 *Significant at .05 level (2-tailed). ***Significant at .001 level (2-tailed). 129

PAGE 130

200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971995199419931992199019881987198619841981197619731964 Year of EM 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Cumulative Frequency 94 87 75 62 55 49 43 38 30 24 18 17 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 4-1. Cumulative implementation of environmental management in Caribbean hotels 200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519931988 Year of EM level 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cumulative Frequency Certified EMS EMS Environmental Program Basic Best Practices EMLevel Figure 4-2. Cumulative implementation of levels of environmental management in Caribbean hotels 130

PAGE 131

Paths not significant at the .05 level. Figure 4-3. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints and environmental management. 131

PAGE 132

132 *Standardized beta values significant at .05. Paths significant at the .05 level. Paths not significant at the .05 level. Figure 4-4. Relationships between dimensions of motives, facilitators, and constraints; environmental management; and outcomes of environmental management.

PAGE 133

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Since the late 1990s, the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism has spearheaded a greening movement, which focused primarily on the accommodations sector. This study was conceptualized to assess the extent to which greening has spread in the accommodations sector of the Anglophone Caribbean; understand why hot els were inclined to implement this innovation; factors that f acilitated its implementation; and the associated challenges to adoption. The study also sought to assess the changes to prop erties that resulted from greening. It was anticipated that not all hotels would be adopter s of environmental management. Thus this study further sought to determine why some hotels ha d not adopted this innovation and whether there were differences in hotel characteristics and constraints to adoption between adopters and nonadopters. Summary of Results There was a 27% response rate to the surv ey which accounted for 197 of the hotels that had been invited to participate. Hotels in th e survey were mainly represented by owners or general managers. A small percen tage of the respondents were ei ther Environmental Officers or Managers. Most hotels were small, locally ow ned and operated, and either mid-range or luxury properties. The majority of guests were fr om the US, followed by the UK and the Caribbean. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of hotels had im plemented some level of environmental management that ranged from ad hoc implementation of environmental best practices, to environmental management systems certified agai nst an international environmental standard. About 41% of hotels had an Environmental Officer/Manager, while 47% had a written environmental policy. On average, hotels allocated 12% of their operating budget to environmental management. The overall benefit of environmental management to the properties 133

PAGE 134

averaged 6.7 out of 10, where 1 indicated that EM wa s not at all beneficial to the property and 10 that it was extremely beneficial. The importance of conserving natural resources and potential cost savi ngs were most often cited as reasons for implementing environm ental management. These were followed by advantage over competitors, internal green cham pion, and need to keep up with competitors. Additional motives included taki ng care of the environment for their children and future generations, educating staff and guests, and improving the lives of community members. In-house training was the most frequently selected facilita tor of implementing environmental management. This was followe d by participation in external training and technical assistance from external agencies. Government incentives a nd funding from external agencies were the least perceived facilitators. Other f acilitators included suggestions from guests and participation in corporate programs. The main constraint to implementing environm ental management or advancing to a higher level of EM was implementation is costly, followe d by the lack of capital and lack of time. The least selected constraint was environmental ma nagement is not necessary. Other constraints included limited recycling facilities, lack of interest from reside nts, and the intensiveness of paperwork required for environmental management. The number one outcome of implementing environmental management was decrease in resource consumption, followed by overall im provement in property management. Other outcomes experienced included decrease in solid waste generation; decrease in operating cost; increase in staff training; increase in guest satisfaction; environmental management used to market the property; and change in organizati onal structure and culture. Additional outcomes 134

PAGE 135

proposed by respondents included internationa l recognition, relationshi ps with government agencies, and increased awareness within the wider community. Diffusion of Environmental Manageme nt in the Accommodations Sector An innovation may be adopted intact, rejecte d, or adopted with modifications (Rogers, 2003). The adoption of environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector has exemplified this position, whereby four different levels of environmental management have been implemented. The levels were (1) environmental best practices implemented on an ad hoc basis; (2) an environmental program in which there is an environmental policy and planned actions; (3) an environmental management system in wh ich there is an environmental policy and a systematic method to improve environmental perf ormance through setting objectives and targets, developing an action plan, monitoring performance, involving staff, and documenting all initiatives; and (4) certificati on against a recognized standard. The findings of this study i ndicate that environmental management has diffused to two thirds of the hotels surveyed. However, the di ffusion has not reached a plateau (Figure 4-1). Since the amount of annual adoptions has not yet leveled, the possibility remains that additional hotels will implement environmenta l management. It is unlikely that complete diffusion will occur as the accommodations sector is a dynamic system. Annually, a number of new properties are added to the accommodations inventory which inevitably changes the number of potential adopters. Further, though some new propertie s may be built with consumption reduction measures (e.g., aerators, energy saving bulbs), operational practices may militate against the efficacy of such measures. For a small group of properties in this study, the accommodations sector was perceived to have a positive impact on the environment (8%) and environmental management was not 135

PAGE 136

necessary (4%). Additionally, non-adopters were more likely to be unfamiliar with the concept of greening, and their lack of awareness may have been a factor in not adopting environmental management. The lack of understanding which stymies the implementation of environmental management is congruent with what Kasim (2007, p. 37) termed as the myopic view of environmental responsibility in his study on the hotel sector in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Adopters and non-adopters were compared to determine differences on the importance of the natural environment to the accommodations s ector, membership in organizations, familiarity with EM in the accommodations sector, and hotel ch aracteristics. With re spect to the importance of the natural environment, adopters and non-adopte rs generally agreed th at: (1) their properties were dependent on the natural environment, (2) the accommodations sector had an important role to play in protecting the natural environment, (3) a pristine natural environment was very important to their guests, and (4) the natural environment is very important to their properties. This is understandable because the Caribbean to urism industry has traditionally emphasized the use of coastal and marine resources and also ot her types of natural resources in the last two decades. Therefore, hoteliers re cognize the importance of natural resources to their properties. Adopters and non-adopters had divergent view s on the impact that the accommodations sector had on the natural environment. Non-adop ters were more likely than adopters to agree with the item that, the accommodations sect or has a positive impact on the natural environment. Hotels that consider the sectors impact to be positive may not perceive the need to change their operations. A similar finding was reported by Stabler a nd Goodall (1997) where some respondents indicated that the tourism sector and specifically, the hosp itality sector did not contribute to environmental problems. These re spondents were disinclined to make changes to their properties. Comparable a ttitudes were also exhibited by Caribbean hoteliers in the CHEMI 136

PAGE 137

project (Blanchard & Lorde, 2004) and by hotelie rs in the popular tour ist area of Plymouth, UK (Hobson & Essex, 2001). In terms of hotel characterist ics, adopters and non-adopters were similar in property type, size and guest origins, but differed in ownership. Adopters were more likely than non-adopters to be foreign owned or part of a chain or gr oup. Foreign owners of adopters may originate in countries in which environmental awareness is high and this might have influenced business practices. Additionally, for some properties environmental management may require capital expense for retrofitting. Foreign property owners may have great er access to funding to make the needed changes. Hotels that are part of a chain or group ma y have opportunities to implement EM that are not available to independent properties. lvarez Gil et al. (2001) suggested that being part of a chain gave individual properties greater access to information and also allowed for sharing of various types of resources. Fu rther, the economies of scale in a chain or group of hotels could allow for environmental initiatives that may be cost prohibitive for independent hotels. Additionally, chain/group hotels could provide internal pressu re for continuous improvement, or could develop environmental management protocol s centrally to be disseminated throughout the chain (lvarez Gil et al., 2001). Such a strategy has been implemented by Sandals Resorts International (R. May, persona l communication, August 6, 2003). Adopters and non-adopters differed in membership in organizations. Adopters were more likely to be members of their national hotel association, CAST, and other environmental organizations. Information plays a crucial role in the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003). Information on environmental management is lik ely to be shared within the national hotel associations and even more so within CA ST and other environmental organizations. 137

PAGE 138

Additionally, these organizations offer periodic training, usuall y at reduced rates to their members. Thus membership in these organiza tions may have exposed adopters to information which may have helped them to implement environmental management. As evidenced by the diffusion curve (Figure 4-1) the rate of adopti on increased after 1997, the year in which CAST was established. Fo r adoption of innovation by individuals, the escalation in adoption has been attributed to the sharing of information among individuals (Rogers, 2003). In the case of Caribbean green hotels, the acceleration may have occurred in part because of the establis hment of CAST, an organization that has focused on providing assistance to hotels primarily in the form of information on how to properly manage their use of and impacts on natural resources. In this study, 44% of the respondents were members of CAST, while 42% were members of other gr een organizations such as the Caribbean Conservation Association and the International Hotels Environment Initiative. For all of these organizations, building awareness is a key componen t of their activities. In the case of CAST, particularly in its initial year s of existence, much emphasis was placed on increasing awareness of environmental impacts. Consequently, wo rkshops were periodically conducted in various countries within the region. Hotel Characteristics Adopters were primarily sma ll properties 75 rooms or less5. This is not a surprising finding given that two-thirds of CHAs membership comprises small hotels (CHA, 2008). The small properties tend to be locally owned and opera ted, a pattern which was also reflected in the results of this study. Similar to other studies conducted in the Caribbean, adopters in this study 5 This is in accordance with the Caribb ean Hotel Associations classification. 138

PAGE 139

run the gamut in terms of size, ownership, a nd guest origin (Best, 2004; Blanchard, 2004; Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004). In this study hotel characteri stics were not predictive of the level of environmental management implemented. In previous studies, findings on the relationship between characteristics and environmental management (whether policy, likelihood of adoption, or implementation) have been mixed. Kirk (1998) found that property charact eristics such as size, ownership and classification (type) were not related to a prop erty having a written policy (regarded as a key precursor to environmental action). lvarez G il et al (2001) found that hotel size and chain affiliation to be significantly related to environmental management. Motives for Environmental Management The importance of conserving natural re sources was the overwhelming motive for implementing environmental management. This is an important finding in li ght of the criticisms that have been leveled at the hotel industry, with regard to both its role in degrading natural resources, and the practice of greenwashing (Butler, 1998; Honey, 1999). The Caribbean is primarily comprised of Small Island Developing St ates (SIDS) which are vulnerable to even the slightest changes in the natural environment. This is especially important for the tourism industry due to its reliance on th e regions terrestrial and mari ne resources for both mass and alternative styles of tourism. With the survival of their businesses so h eavily reliant on natural resources, hoteliers were perhaps more inclined to rank the conservati on of resources highly. Another factor is that much resource degrad ation (e.g., marine pollution, coral bleaching and death) became apparent in the Caribbean in the 1990s and beyond. This evidence may have had some influence on Caribbean hoteliers. 139

PAGE 140

Hoteliers may also have been concerned about natural resources because they themselves reside in these communities or have personal interests in resource conservation. Additional motives suggested by hoteliers included protecti ng resources for children and future generations and being individually responsible for environmen tal preservation. Eviden tly, individual belief systems may have influenced such business deci sions, a factor that was also highlighted by Dewhurst and Thomas (2003). This type of in fluence was exemplified by a Jamaican hotelier who was motivated by core values of personal re sponsibility, quality of life, concerns about providing next generation fair opportunities, gl obal equality, love and appreciation for our mother earth. Understanding the influence of belief systems a nd norms is important since in small hotels and owner-operated hot els in particular, daily opera tions and policy decisions can easily be affected. Given that small hotels a nd owner-run properties constitute the majority of the Caribbean accommodations sector this is crucial to the diffusion of environmental management. Reduced cost has been heavily promoted as a significant benefit of implementing environmental management (CAST, 2008; IHEI, 1993; Meade & del Monac o, 1999). Therefore, it is not surprising that potential cost savings emerged as a strong motive for implementing environmental management since hotels are genera lly profit-seeking enterp rises and greening has been perceived as a solid business strategy. Yet, it is noteworthy that sup port for this motive was not as strong as in other studies (Ayuso, 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001; Tzschentke et al., 2004) and agreement with th is motive was 82% compared with 95% for the importance of conserving natural resources. The prospect of gaining a competitive advant age over other hotels was the third most popular motive for implementing environmental mana gement. Using EM to position ones hotel 140

PAGE 141

to be more attractive to the market and consequently increase room nights, is another benefit that has been used to encourage hotels (CAST, 2008; Meade & del Monaco, 1999). This study found that 75% of hotels did include EM in their marketing, and 55 % observed increases in room occupancy, which suggests that some competitiv e edge was gained by implementing EM. The items in the motives construct collectively predicted level of EM. However, despite the respondents support for the importance of conserving natural re sources and potential cost savings, neither was individually a significant pred ictor of level of envi ronmental management. In fact, of the top four motives, only internal green champion prove d to be a significant predictor of environmental management. The relati onship between green champion and level of environmental management was positive. Thus, having an internal green champion increased a hotels likelihood of implementing an advanced level of environmental management. This finding is consistent with Rogers (2003) generalization that the presence of an innovation champion contributes to the succ ess of an innovation in an or ganization (p. 414). As an indication of this position, one of the goals of Jamaicas Environmental Audits for Sustainable Tourism was to develop environmental champions to encourage adoption of best environmental management practices by othe rs (Brown-Thompson & Cresser, 2004, p. 98). The predictive relationship between internal green champion and level of environmental management is a key finding of this study because it does not appear that this item (IGC) has previously been tested. Two dimensions of motives were identified within the motives construct: financial motives and stakeholder pressure. Neither dimension was a significant pr edictor of level of environmental management. Thus, there may be additional items that may add to the predictive ability of these dimensions which were not in cluded in the original motives construct. 141

PAGE 142

Facilitators of Environmental Management The facilitator construct consisted of six it ems. In-house training was the most often selected facilitator. Formal or informal in -house training helps to share information about greening with all levels of st aff and properly prepares them to implement the innovation. Training creates a buy-in and consequently, employee suppor t for the innovation which is critical for successful implementation. Besides in-house training, extern al training and technical assistance from external agencies were also noted as key facilitators. Since e nvironmental management is an innovation, it would be expected that a certain degree of training would be required for successful implementation. This would be relevant as hotels progress from basic to more advanced EM. Participation in external training and technical assistance from outside agencies would also help hotels to improve the capabilities of its sta ff, particularly where in-house e xpertise is deficient. Bramwell and Alletorp (2001) also found that technical expertise and advice from consultants were most often cited by Danish hoteliers as external fac ilitators of adopting envi ronmental best practices. The perception of high implementation costs and lack of capital were major barriers to implementing environmental management. This coupled with other t ypes of resistance to greening have led to incentives by some governme nts to encourage change. For instance, the Government of Barbados via the Tourism Development Act (2002) encourages greening by offering hotels tax concessions of 150% for ac quiring Green Globe or similar certification (Part IV, (b)), and duty free concessions on plumbing fittings (which may be water saving devices), energy saving bulbs and fittings, and waste water disposal and sewerage systems, among other items (Second Schedule). However, such incentives are no t widespread in the 142

PAGE 143

Caribbean and it is not surprising to find that mo st hoteliers rated government incentives as a weak facilitator. Project assistance received mixed support as a fa cilitator. Yet, sinc e 1997, at least four major projects funded by internat ional agencies have been conducted in the Caribbean: EAST (4 phases), the Caribbean Hotels Environmental Management Initiative (CHEMI) which involved 200 hotels in seven countries in the Eastern Caribbean, Jamaicas Rural Enterprise, Agricultural, and Community Tourism Project (REACT), an d more recently The Bahamas Sustainable Tourism Entrepreneurial Management & Mark eting project (STEMM) which commenced in 2006 and also targets between 100 and 200 hotels. Of these projects, only CHEMI was focused primarily on environmental management in hotel s, though it was still a strong component for the other four projects (Bahamas Hotel Association, 2007; Bl anchard & Lorde, 2004; BrownThompson & Cresser, 2004; REACT, 2008). The magnitude of these projects may explain why about 40% of hoteliers regarded project participation as a facilitator. Respondents identified a numb er of facilitators to e nvironmental management, but individually none was significantly related to level of EM. These facilitators converged into two dimensions when they were factor analyzed: Capacity Building and Incentives. Capacity Building was found to be a predictor of level of EM, whereby hotels were more likely to implement advanced EM if Capacity Building was considered a facilitator. This serves to reinforce the idea that understanding the requirements of EM and being properly equipped to take action are important elements of implem enting environmental management, particularly more advanced forms. 143

PAGE 144

Constraints to Environmental Management The constraint construct was measured using 12 items. Only two items, implementation is costly and lack of capital, were noted as c onstraints by the majority of respondents. The emphasis placed on cost and lack of capital constr aints corresponds with much of the research on environmental management, where cost is seen as the primary barrier to adoption (Bramwell & Alletorp, 2001); Hobson & E ssex, 2001; Stabler & Goodall, 1997; Zurburg et al., 1995). Constraints elicited responses fr om both adopters and non-adopters. For adopters, cost and lack of capital posed challenges to expanding their existing EM or progressing to more advanced levels; whereas for non-adopters these constraints ma y have contributed to the decision to forego EM. In addition cost of certifi cation prevented respondents from s eeking to have their properties certified. Lack of time was a constraint for 42% of the respondents. Since most of the hotels were small, this finding is understandable. A quarter of the properties in this study had 10 or less employees; 43% had 25 or less. For smaller properties with few staff, implementation of advanced levels of EM may prove to be very difficult. This position was also supported by responses to an open-ended question in which th e requirements of advanced EM were presented as barriers by hoteliers who i ndicated that their properties were small with limited personnel. Lack of time was linked with costs in that some respondents felt that personnel did not have the time to work on environmental management and hi ring additional personnel would be too costly. Lack of time and implementation is costly were correlated. Adopters and non-adopters experi enced similar constraints, although they differed in the statements EM is not necessary and propert y unaware of any stage beyond current level of EM. Adopters disagreed more with both constr aints than did non-adopter s. The constraint 144

PAGE 145

property unaware of any stage beyond current leve l of EM was more rele vant to adopters than to non-adopters. Thus it appears that the nece ssity of EM may be the key to understanding why some hotels have not implemented EM. Perhaps in situations where decision-makers see the necessity of EM, they seek ways to overco me the other challenges they may encounter. However, if EM is deemed unnecessary, then hoteliers would not make the effort to implement any form of EM. The items in the constraints construct collectively predicted of level of EM. Within that construct, potential benefits not apparent, lack of capital, lack of time, lack of know-how and no access to technology were significant predic tors of level of EM. For adopters, lack of capital, lack of time, and l ack of know-how may have prev ented them from moving from their current level of EM to a more advanced level, since level of EM decreased as agreement with these constraints increased. The relationship between poten tial benefits not apparent and level of EM and no access to technology and level of EM is unusual because as agreement with these constraints increased, so did the likelihood th at hotels would be in the adva nced EM group. In the case of potential benefits not ap parent it may be that respondents in agreement with this variable were hotels that had already implemented an advanced level of EM and could see no potential benefits of greater advancement. For instance, mana gers/owners of hotels w ith an environmental program may not be convinced of the additiona l benefits of implementing an EMS which may require more manpower and capital (Ayuso, 2007). Similarly, hotels with an EMS may not see the potential benefit of having their EMS benchm arked or certified. No access to technology may have similar circumstances, where hotels ha ve already moved beyond simple environmental 145

PAGE 146

best practices, but are unable implement the mo st advanced level of EM because they cannot access the technology to make certain changes within their properties. Four dimensions emerged from a factor analys is of the constraints. Three of these, Organizational, Technical and Co st Constraints were used in further analysis. Neither Organizational, Technical, nor Co st Constraints were significantly related to level of EM. Thus, it appears that individual constraint s have more direct relationship s with level of EM and not all constraints within a dimension may affect a hotel to the same extent. There may be additional items that could add to the predictive ability of these dimensions which were not included in the original constraints construct. Outcomes of Environmental Management Respondents generally agreed that their prop erties have benefited from environmental management, giving overall benefi t an average rating of 6.7 out of 10. Benefits from EM are reflected in the outcomes which the propertie s have experienced. The outcomes measured through sixteen items and delineated those change s that resulted from the implementation of environmental management. Each item was e xperienced by a majority of the hotels, but decrease in resource consumption was the most frequently cited outcome. Since all adopters have at least implemented basic measures aimed at reducing resource consumption, the popularity of this outcome is understandable. Th is outcome may have wider benefits for the community since hotel guests have on average been seen to use significantly more resources than residents, as exemplified by previous research in Barbados and St. Lu cia (Burke, 2007; Dixon et al., 2001). Overall improvement in property management was the second most cited outcome. This improvement has oftentimes been an unanticipat ed result of implementing EM and is seldom 146

PAGE 147

given as a motive for adopting environmental management. Yet this is an important outcome because it emphasizes that environmental mana gement can have a far reaching impact on a property. The potential of reducing operating costs was a motive for 82% of respondents. For 88%, a decrease in operating costs was an outcome of implementing EM. This outcome has been reported in a range of studies in the accommoda tions sector as well as in other service and manufacturing sectors (see for example Goodman, 2000; Tzschentke, et al., 2004). Blanchard and Lorde (2004) reported that small Caribbean ho tels that had implemented environmental best practices enjoyed the cost savings accrued, and co ntinued to more advanced levels of EM as a result. The average weighted total outcomes for adopters with basic EM was 17.5 out of 48, whereas for adopters with advanced EM it was 2 3.7. Level of EM also predicted the outcomes experienced by adopters. Propertie s with advanced EM were more likely to experience a greater number of outcomes and to rate their experien ce of those outcomes higher than properties with basic EM. Of the 16 items within the outcomes c onstruct, less than half could be achieved by implementing ecotechniques only (e.g., decrease in resource consumption, decrease in solid waste generation, decrease in operating costs). Thus, in order for hotels to enjoy a greater range of outcomes it would be necessary for them to implement policy changes and actions that are associated with more advanced levels of environmental management. Level of EM was analyzed as a mediating variable between dime nsions of motives, facilitators, and constrai nts and outcomes. Capacity Buildi ng and Technical Constraints were understandably influential. However, while these dimensions directly influenced outcomes, there was no indirect effect through level of EM. The direct influence of these dimensions on 147

PAGE 148

outcomes suggests that the outcomes a hotel e xperiences may be influenced by Capacity Building and Technical Constraints regardless of the level of EM that has been implemented. Theoretical Implications This study has added to the diffusion of innova tions theory in a number of ways. The study examined the diffusion of an innovation in accommodations within a wide geopolitical range. It considered the diffu sion of three variations of th e same innovation: environmental management at the basic level of best practices, at an intermediate level of an environmental program with planned actions, and at the most a dvanced level of an environmental management system. The geographic spread of adoption of these variations of EM was seen throughout the study region, though some countries such as Barbados and Jamaica exhibited a higher proportion of adopters than others. This diffusion may result in part from the fact that despite geographic boundaries, accommodation sub-sectors within the region have a number of factors in common such as small size, limited resources, and memb ership in the Caribbean Hotel Association and the Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tour ism. Following Rogers (2003) an innovation diffuses more readily when there is homogeneity within a system and when members of the system share information. This study sought to understand why some hotels did not adopt the innovation of environmental management and assessed the di fferences between adopters and non-adopters in terms of characteristics, att itudes to the natural environm ent, understanding of innovation (greening/EM) and the constraints to adopting the innovation. It found that there were very few differences between adopters and non-adopters. However, given th at adoption of EM within the industry is still in the growth segment of the diffusion curve, the number of non-adopters may 148

PAGE 149

decrease over time. This is supported by the f act that some of the non-adopters have indicated that they were relatively ne w properties and/or intended to implement EM in the future. An important theoretical aspect of this study is that an ope n, dynamic system was studied, in that there is ongoing change in hotel owners hip and the addition of new properties to the Caribbean accommodations inventory. It is therefore unlikely th at diffusion of this innovation, particularly the most advanced variation, w ould reach 100 percent. Moreover, unlike an innovation in the form of a piece of equipment or a crop variety, environmental management as an innovation subsumes both operational policies and practices as well as hard products or equipment. This increases the difficulty of diffu sion since the innovation ma y easily be modified or differently interpreted by the adopter. This study analyzed the respondents basic familiarity with the innovation and focused on motives, facilitators, and constraints to implem enting the innovation. Furthermore, the study analyzed outcomes from the innova tion; an area that has been f ound to be limited. It found that outcomes accrued as a result of implementing even the most basic form of the innovation and that more outcomes accrued if an advanced level of the innovation was implemented. Management and Policy Implications The survival of the Caribbean accommodations sector depends to a large extent on the quality of the natural environment. Therefore, the accommodations sector has an important role in protecting natural resources. One way to enhance protection is for properties to implement environmental management. Additionally the sectors survival depends on its economic sustainability and the outcomes of EM proposed by this study emphasize that adopting this innovation makes sound business sense. 149

PAGE 150

Adopters of environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector exhibited a range of characteristics. This should provide encouragement to those properties that may think their respective characteristics preclude them from implementing environmental management. Further, properties can choose how they want to begin environmental management whether by implementing basic environmental best practices or th rough more advanced environmental management from the onset. Be nefits accrue to the environment and to the property irrespective of the level of EM implemented. The various benefits of environmental manage ment, primarily the increased efficiencies and corollary cost savings, are often used to persuade hotels to adopt environmental management. For hotels that have adopted EM, these reasons are often cited. Outcomes of environmental management were a highlight in this study. Decreased resource consumption was the number one outcome, but surprisingly, improvement in overall management rather than increased cost savings was the second most experienced outcome Cost savings was nonetheless an outcome for most of the properties that had implemented EM. For hotels considering implementing EM, it should be communicated clearly that the potential benefits of EM can be realized, as evidenced by the hotel s in this study. Furthermore, for adopters that are considering advanced EM should be encouraged by the finding that hotels with a dvanced EM were more likely to enjoy additional outcomes. While environmental management in its most advanced forms will involve most or all personnel within a property, the exis tence of a Green Champion may help to take a property to the next level. Intern al green champion was found to be th e sole motive which predicted level of EM and this suggests EM may have a better chance of success if there is at least one person within a property who really drives the process. 150

PAGE 151

Several additional motives for implementing EM were identified but the importance of conserving natural resources was found to be the most popular. However, not all hoteliers made the connection between tourism and the environm ent and this suggests a need for the national hotel associations and CAST to continue their efforts to raise awareness about the sectors impact on the environment and actions that can reduce those impacts. Implementing environmental management, even at its most basic level is seldom an easy task. Thus it is not surprising that capacity build ing influenced level of EM. This again points to a role for national associations and CAST. Ho wever, hoteliers should also be proactive and lobby their associations to organi ze appropriate training for them. Technical assistance was both a popular facilitator and an elemen t within capacity build ing. While the national association may not be able to provide such services directl y, they are better positioned to negotiate rates on behalf of their members, through economies of scale which would be impossible for individual hotels. Additionally, CAST maintains a network of Technical Service Affiliates that hotels may find useful. Constraints to implementing environmental mana gement were identifie d, several of which were seen to influence the le vel of environmental management implemented. The influential constraints were lack of capita l; lack of time; potential benefi ts not apparent; no access to technology; lack of know-how; and EM is not nece ssary. While these and other constraints may have prevented some hotels from implementing e nvironmental management, the fact that 67% of the respondents had implemented EM attests th at such constraints were not insurmountable. Given the results of this study, the following are recommended: o National Associations and CAST should continue to encourage and where possible facilitate the environmental management in hotels. 151

PAGE 152

For hotels: o Start environmental management at the most comfortable level comfortable. o Consider a more advanced level of EM if basic EM has already been implemented. o Work collectively to access expert traini ng or work with hotel association to do such. o Think outside the box and tap resources which may be often overlooked (e.g., a science teacher at a local school to deliver a staff workshop). o Consider membership in National Associ ation and CAST if not yet a member. For policy-makers: o Partner with other sectors to conserve resources. o Work with the industry to implement in frastructural changes (e.g. recycling) which will also benefit residents. o Consider creating incentives (e.g. tax cred its, duty free concessions) for properties to adopt environmental best practices. Delimitations This study targeted general managers and ow ners of hotels because they tend to make major decisions within a property. However implementation of environmental management, particularly at advanced levels, requires input from mo st if not all personn el. Therefore this study may have primarily captured one perspective of environmental management. This study was restricted to hotels within the Anglophone Caribbean though greening is also occurring in the Spanish, Fren ch, and Dutch sub-regions. This was intentional to ensure the study manageable. While this study may offer insight into environm ental management, the findings should be considered with in the context of the Caribbean. Limitations The research method for this study was an Inte rnet based survey. This method of research is still developing and is relatively new to the Caribbean. The responses from several hoteliers indicate that there was some reluctance to re spond to the survey because of the method. 152

PAGE 153

Hoteliers were invited to participate by email and in spite of having email addresses confirmed for each hotel, many of the contacts did not reach the intended recipient. Additionally, emails may have ended up in junk mail de spite attempts to prevent this occurrence. A pre-notice was sent to each hotelier in the data base, however if this pre-notic e went to junk mail it is highly likely that the subsequent invitation and reminders followed the same route. Furthermore, the nature of emails is that they can be read and easily forgotten if the subject is not a priority. Responses from hoteliers also indicated that this had occurred on a number of occasions. A solution to circumvent this issue would have b een to send more frequent reminders. However it was also felt that this would cons titute harassment of the hoteliers. Another limitation of the study was the time fr ame in which the data was collected which limited the response rate. Data collection started in December, during Christmas week and ended in March. The entire data collection period was during winter season, the peak of Caribbean tourism activity. In addition to Christmas and New Years, there were two other major events within the data collection period : Caribbean Marketplace in mid-January which is the Caribbean Hotel Associations premiere event for hoteliers and their buyers, and ITB Berlin in early March, which is one of two major European events attended by Caribbean hoteliers. The response rate to the survey, though acceptabl e, was somewhat lower than anticipated. While the timing of the study did contribute to this limitation, it was also felt that fewer nonadopters may have responded to the survey becau se of the misperception that it was aimed at hotels that had implemented environmental management. It is possible that the low response rate and the type of respondents influenced the results of the study. The study was also limited in that much of the focus was on properties that had adopted some level of environmental management. Theref ore there was a low level of variation between 153

PAGE 154

the responses to the qu estionnaire. Also, the characteris tics of responding hotels were very similar. This relative homoge neity may have been the underlyi ng reason why characteristics were not found to be predictors of th e adoption of the innovation under study. Given the response rate to the survey, an attempt was made to determine whether nonresponse bias existed. However, extensive an alysis on non-respondents proved difficult since the identities of most respondents were anonymous to the research er. Through a comparison with the Caribbean Hotel Association database, resp ondents and non-respondents were found to be similar with regards to size. For both groups, two th irds were small hotels (75 rooms or less). Future Work While this study has contributed to the literature in various ways, it did not address the concern of cross-sectional studies, which offer a snap shot of a fixed point in time. Given the dynamism of the accommodations sector and the te net of continuous improvement inherent in environmental management, a longitudinal study capturing the same or similar data is recommended. Such a study could look at the continued diffusion of environmental management, whether the proportion of adoption within the four le vels changes, and differences to motives, facilitators, cons traints and outcomes over time. This study was primarily quantitative. More in-depth qualitative studies are recommended, whether on a country by country, ho tel characteristic, or other basis. Qualitative studies may be better able to investigate the nuances that this study has missed. For example, adopters and nonadopters were very similar on a range of va riables, including constraints to adopting environmental management, so reasons for not ad opting are not clear. A qualitative study may be better poised to elicit th is type of information. 154

PAGE 155

155 A key finding in this study was the underlying dimensions within the motives, facilitators, and constraints. However, not all scales were internally consistent. The items included in these indices and the suggestions made by respondents should be reviewed with the intent of testing and refining the indices for us e in further investigation. This study was conducted in the Anglophone Caribbean which in numbers of rooms represents less than half of the Caribbean accommodations sector. To reach a more comprehensive understanding of environmental ma nagement in this sector it is recommended that the survey be extended to include hotels in the Spanish, French, and Dutch Caribbean. Since most of the Caribbeans room inve ntory is in the Spanish Caribbea n, it is particularly important that hotels in these countries also be assessed.

PAGE 156

APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Environmental Management in Accommodations in the Anglophone Caribbean 1. In which country is your property located? 2. In which year did your property first open? 3. Please select whether you are a General Manager Owner Owner/General Manager Other 4. Approximately how many persons (tot al) does your property employ? 5. Select your property type from the following categories. Budget Mid-range Luxury 6. How many rooms does your property have? 7. What is your average annual occupancy percentage? 8. Select your type of property ownership from the following categories. (Check one only). Locally owned and operated Locally owned and foreign operated Foreign owned and operated Foreign owned and locally operated Part of international chain or group Part of locally operated chain or group 9. Where do the majority of guests to your property originate from? USA Canada UK Germany Caribbean Other 10. Is your property currently a member or has ever been a member of the following organizations? National hotel association Yes No Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) Yes No Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) Yes No Green organization (e.g., Caribbean Conservation Association, Green Hotels Association, Internati onal Hotels Environment Initiative) Yes No 11. Please indicate your level of agreement with th e following statements about the accommodations sector and the natural environment. 1=Str ongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree. 1 2 3 4 5 This property is dependent on th e natural environment The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment The accommodations sector has an importan t role to play in protecting the natural environment A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests The natural environment in very important to this property 156

PAGE 157

Environmental management, or greening as it is more commonly known in the Caribbean, refers to the actions a property takes to reduce its harmful impacts on the natural environment. 12. How familiar are you with environmental mana gement in the accommodations sector? (Check one only). Not all familiar Somewhat unfamiliar Neither familiar nor unfamiliar Somewhat familiar Very familiar 13. Does your property have an y type of environmental management in place? Yes No 13b. If yes, in what year did your prope rty begin environmental management? *If no, go to Question 22. 14. From the following list, please select the description which is most applicable to environmental management at your property. (Check one only). Some environmental best practices in place (e.g., aerators, energy saving lights, towel/linen reuse programme, solid waste separation for reuse or recycling) Which of the following environmental best practi ces have been implemented on your property? (Check all that apply). Energy saving bulbs Aerators on taps in guestrooms Low flush toilets (1.6 gal/flush or less) in guestrooms Low flow shower heads (2.5 gal/minute or less) in guestrooms Towel reuse program Linen reuse program Reuse or recycling of copy/print paper Reuse or recycling glass or plastics An environmental policy and planned actions th roughout the property (involving all or most departments) to reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste. An environmental policy and a comprehensive pr ogramme to reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste. Programme includes obj ectives, targets, and action plan, performance monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff levels, documentation of all environmental and social initiatives. Certification against a recognized standard (e.g., local Authority or Environmental Agency, Green Globe, ISO 14001) 157

PAGE 158

14b. Based on your response to 14a, in which year did your property achieve this level of environmental management? 15. If your property is certified, against which of the following standards is it certified? Green Globe ISO 14000 Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST) Other 16. To what extent would you agree that the following items motivated your property to implement environmental management? 1=Strongly di sagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A a) Pressure from guests, tour operators, travel agents, etc. b) Pressure from shareholders c) Internal Green Champion d) Need to keep up with competitors e) Advantage over competitors f) Importance of conserving natural resources g) Government regulations h) Potential cost savings 16b. Are there any other reasons? Yes No 16c. Please list 17. Does your property have a wr itten environmental policy? Yes No 18. If yes, how long has the po licy been in place? Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years 19. Approximately what percent of your overall opera tions budget is allocated for environmental management in your property? 158

PAGE 159

20. To what extent would you agree that the following assisted your property in reaching its current level of environmental manage ment? 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A 1. In-house training 2. Participation in external training 3. Technical assistance from external agencies 4. Funding (e.g., external grants) 5. Government incentives (e.g., tax credits, duty free concessions) 6. Project assistance (e.g., participati on in national or regional greening project) 20b. Did you receive any other assistance in im plementing your environmental management? Yes No 20c. Please list 21. Does your property have an Environmen tal Officer or Manager on staff? Yes No 22. To what extent would you agree that the following were barriers to your property in implementing environmental management? 1= Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A a. More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated b. Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult c. Implementation is costly d. Lack of capital e. Potential benefits not apparent f. No access to technology g. Lack of know-how h. Employee resistance i. Lack of time j. Current level of Environmental Mana gement is most appropriate for the property k. Environmental Management is not necessary l. Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management 22b. Are there any other barriers to implementing environmental management? Yes No 22c. Please list 159

PAGE 160

23. To what extent have the following outcomes r esulted from your propertys incorporation of environmental manageme nt in its operations? Not at All A Little Somewhat A Lot a. Decrease in resource consumption (e.g., water, energy) b. Decrease in solid waste generation c. Change in organizational structure and culture d. Decrease in operating costs e. Increase in room occupancy f. Environmental management used to market the property g. Increase in guest satisfaction h. Increase in participation in co mmunity outreach activities i. Use of employee incentives to encourage participation in environmental management j. Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations k. Environmental management performance incorporated in management evaluations l. Overall improvement in property management m. Environmental management component in annual property reports n. Improvement in employee morale o. Increase in staff training p. Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy 23b. Are there other outcomes experienced as a result of implementation of environmental management? Yes No 23c. Please list 24. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all bene ficial and 10 is extremely beneficial, how would you rate the overall benefit your property has experienced from implementing environmental management? Additional Comments Thank you for your assistance. If you wish to be excluded from reminders to comple te this survey, please indicate your email address For more information on this survey, please contact Mechelle Best at mechbest@ufl.edu Tel. (352) 3924042 ext 1385 or Dr. Brijesh Thapa at bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1239. University of Florida Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management 330 FLG P.O. Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 32611-8208 160

PAGE 161

Survey as it Appeared on Zoomerang Environmental Management in th e Caribbean Accommodations Sector Dear Caribbean Hotelier My name is Mechelle Best. I am a Barbadian graduat e student at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study of environmental management in Ca ribbean hotels. This research is in partial fulfillment of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Tourism. Your responses will be completely confidential and the findings will never discuss individual responses. This questionnaire should take less than 20 minutes to complete. Your responses will be very important in understanding the status of environmental management in Caribbean hotels. There are no anticipa ted risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this study. You do not hav e to answer any question you do not want to. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation at any time without consequence. Will you participate in this study? If Yes, Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. If No, Wont you please reconsider? You were chos en at random and your responses represent hotels that were not selected. If Yes, Please continue with the survey. If No, Thank You! Should you experience problems completing the surv ey, please email me at mechbest@ufl.edu or call (352)392-4042 ext. 1385. 161

PAGE 162

Environmental Management in th e Caribbean Accommodations Sector 1 In which contry is your property located? u 2 In which year did your property first open? 3 Please select whether you are a General Manager Owner Owner/General Manager Other 4 Approximately how many persons (total) does your property employ? 5 Select your property type from the following categories. Budget Mid-range Luxury 6 How many rooms does your property have? 7 What is your average annual occupancy percentage? 8 Select your type of property ownership fr om the following categories. (Check one only). Locally owned and operated Locally owned and foreign operated Foreign owned and operated Foreign owned and locally operated Part of international chain or group Part of locally operated chain or group 162

PAGE 163

9 Where do the majority of guests to your property originate from? USA Canada UK Germany Caribbean Other 10 Is your property currently a member or has ever been a member of the following organizations? 1 Yes 2 No National hotel association Caribbean Hotel Association (CHA) Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) Green organization (e.g. Caribbean Conservation Association, Green Hotels Association, International Hotels Environment) 11 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the accommodations sector and the natural environment. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly agree This property is dependent on the natural environment The accommodations sector has a positive impact on the natural environment The accommodations sector has an important role to play in protecting the natural environment A pristine natural environment is very important to our guests 163

PAGE 164

The natural environment in very important to this property Survey Page 1 Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector Environmental management, or greening as it is more commonly known in the Caribbean, refer s to the actions a property takes to reduce its harmful impacts on the natural environment. 12 How familiar are you with environmental management in the accommodations sector? (Check one only). Not all familiar Somewhat unfamiliar Neither familiar nor unfamiliar Somewhat familiar Very familiar 13 Does your property have any type of environmental management in place? If yes, in what year did your property implement environmental management? 14 164

PAGE 165

From the following list, please select the description which is most applicable to environmental management at your property. (CHECK ONE ONLY). Some environmental best practices in place (e.g. aerators, energy saving lights, towel/linen reuse programme, solid waste separation for reuse or recycling). An environmental policy and planned actions throughout the property (involving all or most departments) to reduce consumption of resource s and generation of waste. An environmental policy and a comprehensive programme to reduce consumption of resources and generation of waste. Programme includes objectives, targets, and action plan, performance monitoring and feedback, participation at all staff levels, documentation of all environmental and social initiatives. Certification against a recognized standard (e.g. local Authority or Environmental Agency, Green Globe, ISO 14000). 165

PAGE 166

Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 15 Which of the following environmental best practices have been implemented on your proper ty? (Check all that apply). Energy saving bulbs Aerators on taps in guestrooms Low flush toilets (1.6 gal/fl ush or less) in guestrooms Low flow shower heads (2.5 gal /minute or less) in guestrooms Towel reuse program Linen reuse program Reuse or recycling of copy/print paper Reuse or recycling glass or plastics Survey Page 4 Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 16 In which year did your property achieve its current level of environmental management? 17 If your property is certified, against wh ich of the following standards is it certified? Green Globe ISO 14000 Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST) Other Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 18 To what extent would you agree that the following items motivated your property to implement environmental management? 166

PAGE 167

1 Strly ong disagree 2 Disee agr 3 Neither re Ag e nor Disagree 4 Age re 5 Strongee N/A ly agr Pressure frms, tourrators, travel agent o guest ope s, etc. Pressure from sharolders eh Internal Green Chapion m Need to keep up with competitors Advantage over competitors Importane of conserving natural resources c Government regulations Potential cost savings 19 Are there any other reasons for implementing environmental management not listed in question 18? If yes, please list 20 Does your property have a wr itten environmental policy? If yes, for how mny years has it been in place? a 167

PAGE 168

21 Approximately what percent of y our overall operations budget is allocated for environmental management in your property? Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 22 To what extent would you agree that t he following assisted your property in reaching its current level of environmental management? 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly agree N/A In-house training Participation in external training Technical assistance from external agencies Funding (e.g. external grants) Government incentives (e.g. tax credits, duty free concessions) Project assistance (e.g. participation in national or regional greening project) 23 Did you receive assistance other than that listed in question 21 in implementing your environmental management? If yes, please list 168

PAGE 169

24 D oes your property have an Environmental Officer or Manager on staff? Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 25 To what extent have the following outcomes resu lted from your propertys incorporation of environmental management in its operations? 1 Not at All 2 A little 3 Somewhat 4 A lot Decrease in resource consumption (e.g. water, energy) Decrease in solid waste generation Change in organizational structure and culture Decrease in operating costs Increase in room occupancy Environmental management used to market the property Increase in guest satisfaction Increase in participation in community outreach activities Use of employee incentives to encourage par ticipation in environmental management 169

PAGE 170

Environmental management performance incorporated in employee evaluations Environmental management performance incorporated in management evaluations Overall improvement in property management Environmental management component in annual property reports Improvement in employee morale Increase in staff training Implementation of an environmental purchasing policy 26 Are there other outcomes (different to the list in question 26) experienced as a result of implementing environmental management? If yes, please list. 27 24. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all beneficial and 10 is extremely beneficial, how would you rate the overall benefit your property has experienced from implementing environmental management? 170

PAGE 171

Survey Page 8 Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 28 To what extent would you agree that the following prevented your property from going beyond its current level of environmental management? 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly agree N/A More advanced level of environmental management too difficult or complicated Making necessary organizational changes is too difficult Implementation is costly Lack of capital Potential benefits not apparent No access to technology Lack of know-how Employee resistance Lack of time Current level of Environmental Management is most appropriate for the property Environmental Management is not necessary Property unaware of any stage beyond current level of environmental management 171

PAGE 172

29 Are there any other barriers to implementing environmental management? If yes, please list. 30 Additional Comments Survey Page 9 Environmental Management in the Caribbean Accommodations Sector 31 If you wish to be excluded from reminders to complete this survey, please indicate your email address. 172

PAGE 173

Survey Page 10 173

PAGE 174

174 Thank you for your assistance. For more information on this survey please contact Mechelle Best at mechbest@ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1385 or Dr. Brijesh Thapa at bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu, Tel. (352) 392-4042 ext 1239. University of Florida Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management 330 FLG P.O. Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 32611-8208 For questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact University of Florida Inst itutional Review Board Tel. (352) 392-0433 PO Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611

PAGE 175

APPENDIX B LETTER FROM THE BAHAMAS HOTEL ASSOCIATION 175

PAGE 176

APPENDIX C CONTACTS WITH HOTELS Pre-Notice Dear Caribbean Hotelier I am a Barbadian student at the University of Fl orida, where I am completing a PhD in Tourism. I am conducting a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in partial fulfilment of my degree. I would like to invite you to participate in th is study by completing a questionnaire which is accessible through the internet. I wanted to alert you to the fact that you will be emailed the link to the questionnaire in a few days. Completion of the survey should not take too much of your time. The data coll ected will be very useful in understanding environmental management in Caribbean hotels a nd will be beneficial to the industry. Since only a sample of hoteliers will be invited to pa rticipate, your response is very important. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your participation. 176

PAGE 177

Survey Invitation Dear Caribbean Hotelier I am a Barbadian student at the University of Fl orida, where I am completing a PhD in Tourism. I am conducting a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels in partial fulfilment of my degree. I would like to invite you to participate in th is study by completing a questionnaire which is accessible through the internet. Completion of the survey should not take too much of your time. The data collected w ill be very useful in understanding environmental management in Caribbean hotels and will be benefi cial to the industry. Since only a sample of hoteliers will be invited to participat e, your response is very important. You may access the survey by clicking on the following link. http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB2279R8L5VMS The survey may also be accessed by copying the link and pasting it in your browser. Thank you in advance for your participation. 177

PAGE 178

178 Survey Reminder Dear Caribbean Hotelier I recently invited you to particip ate in a study of environmental management in Caribbean hotels which I am conducting in partial fulfilment of a Ph D in Tourism. If you have already completed the questionnaire please accept my sincerest thanks for your participation. If you have not yet completed the questionnaire there is s till time for you to become involved. I am particularly appreciative of your help becau se research of this nature on environmental management in the Caribbean accommodations sector has not been conducted before. Completion of the survey should not take too much of your time. The data collected will be very useful in understanding environmental management in Caribbean hotels and will be beneficial to the industry. Since only a sample of hoteliers have been invited to participate, your response is very important. You may access the survey by clicking on the following link. http://www.zoomerang.com/su rvey.zgi?p=WEB227B4GUYATD The survey may also be accessed by copying the link and pasting it in your browser. Thank you in advance for your participation.

PAGE 179

APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS Table D-1. Other motives for implem enting Environmental Management Country Other motives Anguilla Best practices Antigua & Barbuda We believe we have a re ponsibility to care for our environment and with this in mind chose off our own backs to pursue the green globe award for all our properties. To become a green Glo b e certified green Hotel Bahamas A smarter way to do business. it is the right thing to do for the sake of our children Barbados It's the right thing to do... Belize Set good examples for employees that they can carry on to their homes Environmental Best Practices result in improved living conditions for local communities. How about just because you believe in community involvement, purchasing local goods where possible. I see properties jumping on the bandwagon because of economic reasons and then not practicing what they preach The protection and conservation of Belize's world heritage sites are a legacy to future gene rations. The effect of this can b e maxminized by educating tourists and locals. As a local citizen it is vital th at the environment be protected for future use Part of philosophy of the organization's management principles Bermuda Trends in tourism Dominica We all need to do our part to help to sensitise staff to the importance of minimising costs and damage to environment. It was also aimed at educating the client and the community to the need for implementing best environmental practices A personal reason and what decide us to stay on that pure nature island and a decision to explain to staff anf locals how to keep the environment safe and green.Change the habits and b e more consciencious about the ec o environment protection. 179

PAGE 180

Table D-1. Continued Country Other motives Dominica Strong commitment to educating others on good environmental practices for a clean and green environment Health benefit, and keeping the na tural beauty of the Island. more than we can imagine. Need and enviro manager but too costly and how to train??? common sense strong belief in it, used to train staff We are the Nature Island of the Caribbean, if not the world, and we each have a responsibility to preserve our naturalness. Grenada Our property is very much about peacefulness, creativity, relaxation and enjoying the good things in life within our lush tropical environment, so doing our share in protecting this treasure called nature came na turally with the concept of the property. General concern for the earth and our children. To work along with local environmentalists, to set an example, create awareness and to encourage others in the hotel sector in the Caribbean Jamaica Core values of personal responsibility, quality of life, concerns about providing next generation fair opportunities, global equality, love and appreciation for our mother earth To educate team member s on the importance of Copnservation and how it affects the environment that we all live in. Marketing tool To educate or staff and guest the importance of saving our ozone layer and also us living he re in the aribbean to protect our natural resources such as our reefs, educating our guest that whatever they see in the oc ean to let it remain as the more we remove the longer they take to build back It is just the responsible thing to do As a training institution we are honored to be the first of its kind with this certification.We find it useful in the training environment. Doing our part toconserve and maintain a cleaner and healthier environment It makes good sense to participate to offer assistance from a community point of view. Montserrat recycle waste water to kitche n garden harvest used in restaurant 180

PAGE 181

Table D-1. Continued Country Other motives St. Lucia Corporate Responsibility self interest in protecting the environment St. Vincent & the Grenadines Composting contributes to the quality of soil and reduces garbage rot & smells Good corporate practice. For us who live here on the islands Tobago Better management of systems previously not in place. I am an environementalist and see destruction of the environment all around and I do my pa rt to best educate others United States Virgin Islands Founded with the intention of being environmentally responsible. Good idea and it seems to be catching on! 181

PAGE 182

Table D-2. Other facilitators of im plementing environmental management Country Other facilitators Belize To expand, project assistance from Programme for Belize in implementing Rainforest Alliance's Best Management Practices Rainforest Alliance A guest, who works with an environmental agency in the United States gave us tips/suggestions. Educational materials from the World Heritage Alliance Bermuda corporate policy corporate programs Cayman Islands National Trust for the Cayman Islands Dominica CAST consultant Jamaica While we paid for it we partnered with Hotel Association Green Globe initiative St. Kitts & Nevis cast St. Lucia as Sandals is a chain, after the pilot projcet it was impelmented in the best way on the other properties by the group director St. Vincent & the Grenadines CAST Tobago A grant for Solar water heating. i would not have been able to afoord it otherwise United States Virgin Islands We are more pioneering. Corporate 182

PAGE 183

Table D-3. Other constraints to im plementing environmental management Country Other constraints Antigua & Barbuda Too much papperwork to prove results. some what Budget and training materials Not seen as a necessity by the owner staff lassitude Bahamas Government doesnt help. They see no need in it and the locals dont care at all Local help is hard to ge t ir recycling assistance Barbados Hottel is too small to maintian the required records and woud require someone to be employed soley for this purpose we found GG to be unreasona ble & costly with way too much paperwork. More emphasis needs to be placed on environmental issues surrounding the Island and the Govt needs to be much more involve d awareness and education is paramount for all inhabitants of Barbados. Belize Availability of products with in Belize (against importing products without good reason etd) and lack of recycling facilities We will look long and hard at any environmental management system that is bureaucratic, creates anew recurrent overhead cost to maintain accreditation or seems over-engineered for a small operation such as our own. lack of time and experience newly opened No government support for such programs. The value revenue over environment Bermuda Bernuda only began recycling in June-infrastructure is slow to progress time, money, priority British Virgin Islands local laes and land ownership Dominica no recycling on the island excep t for beer and pop bottles. Electrical company shows no inte rest in introducing solar/ wind power which would be cleaner plus cheaper in the end result There has not been effective marketing in the destination such that there is a strain fo r management to market rooms. There is very little support for owners. 183

PAGE 184

Table D-3. Continued Country Other constraints Dominica Location and shipping are MAJOR issues, no national support (such as recycling progr ams etc...) Don;t want to appear TOO 'rustic' or 'granola' Grenada see earlier: e.g. no recycling faci lities provided by the state or private company; as for solar energy, feeding back into the grid is not allowed as yet etc.; high duties on imported products, making energy saver bulbs etc. very expensive availability of resour ces and technical support Jamaica "For small properties mainly a question of affordabilityaside from the initial capital expenditure being able to hire appropriate skilled staff to ope rate more highly technical systems. Most of our line staff are not skilled or properly educated or trained. We have to achieve higher levels of occupancy, increase profitability in order to be able to afford the required investments and engage appropriate staff. Furthermore the high cost of acquiring financing makes it almost impossible to borrow to invest so it must come from cash flow. There are also no incentives provided by the government. Utility rates also do not reward businesses that save as the rate structure be nefits the larger users. The management generally functions as the environmental officer in smaller businesse s and therefore needs a good supporting network in terms of assist ants in order to be able to devote sufficient time to developing the environmental systems most times the daily operations consumes one''s time. Financial assistance and continued committment Commitment from internal stakeholders St. Kitts & Nevis No resources to re-cycle glass,metals in St Kitts Lack of island infrastrucrure i.e. no recycling facilities, so if done on property, no benefit is derived as local authorities cannot handle recycled waste of any kind Local Government St. Lucia any change in routine is diffi cult to implement especially something which was there all the time, free of costs team members need to be made aware of what is surrounding them as a lot of them take everyt hing for granted and then the change in attitude is much more difficult 184

PAGE 185

Table D-3. Continued Country Other constraints St. Vincent & the Grenadines Cultural acceptance time enough for government to step up to the plate and deal with litter offerners and enviromental damagers more seriously. Tobago Finance Funding Trinidad Tourism in our country is nbot taken seriously enough. Funding is most important. Wo rkshops should be available for educating the public on the environment. Turks & Caicos Islands Government participation and assistance is needed to implement environmental in the Turks and Caicos United States Virgin Islands lease on land runs out in 4 yrs Lack of governemental assistance Money Access to technology locally. Peop le to service what they implement. Training, education and government support 185

PAGE 186

Table D-4. Other outcomes of environmental management Country Other outcomes Antigua & Barbuda Alliance with Governemnt Bodies. Bahamas World wide recognition. Barbados I cannot answer these question as yet because we are working on becoming "Green" Belize increased awareness of our buyer behaviour the cradle to grave principle and consciousness of contributing to our adopted community It is difficult to answer the above since we have not changed our policies much over the years, but have invested in various changes. We are very small and do not spend as much time on paperwork as, perhaps, we should. Bermuda Environmental hotel of the year-Fairmont Dominica more contacts by Green organizations on line Grenada "since we are a new property, our decrease in consumption etc. is leveled out by the str ong increase in occupation which comes with the natural growth ra te of a new project, so our overall figures don't really work yet for statistics like this. Unfortunately, environmental practices on small islands are limited by e.g. the lack of recycling facilities etc." Guyana "Greater staff awareness and appreciation Better waste management via inte gration of kitchen waste into garden" Jamaica Inclusion in curriculum of Hotel School St. Lucia indirect spreading of envi ronmental awareness throughout the island via team memb ers and their behavior Tobago Energy saving 186

PAGE 187

Table D-5. Other comments Country Other comments Bahamas we try to recyle as much as pissible wit the available resourese that we have create d, no resourse avaialble on the island EMS, Solar System, R.O. Sytems Barbados Environmental policies needs to be lead from management and through staff. Perhaps hieghtended awareness through recent reports on sea level rises and Noble Peace prizes might help. There are always excuses why not do, just need to work on what if you don't implement Barbados Environmental management to the highest level is very important. Not only does it reduce costs over time but it also has other benefits. Many travel ers today are very discerning and this type of property can be very attractive to them. Most important of all is the quote, We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Without proper management of the environment we can destroy our most important asset. Barbados As I have said before, we are now signing off on the contrat to become "Green". We have put a couple of energy saving devices in place. We are now in the process of working toward becoming "Green". Barbados Linen changes Chemicals used Barbados We are a small property and we try to be environmentally responsible, however, we do need to put systems in place so that we may better do so. Certai nly, there is lots of room for improvement but with a small staff this can sometimes be difficult. Belize Many of the organised certificat ion schemes seem to lack the necessary flexbility to take acc ount of our size and capital, as well as availability of goods within the country, and the conditions here. Assessments need to be able to be flexible, and not simply about ticking boxe s. eg. we are marked down because we do not recycle grey water we have over 150 inches of rainfall a year, and we have xeric gardens requiring no irrigation. Tell me the benefit in recycling our grey water? Our problem is how to dispose of it!! Environmental Management has been catapolted to the the near top of priorities on the "to do" list and will result in many positive changes this season! 187

PAGE 188

Table D-5. Continued Country Other comments Belize collected rainwater filtered into water tanks septic system well system for watering/outdoor shower The Black Orchid Resort has been using environmentally sensitive cleaning chemicals which do no harm to the surrounding environment since 2006. The resort is also a member of the World Heritage Alliance and uses their available information in creating tours, best practices, consistent with their policies. We have just embarked on this level recently (for the 2008 World Heritage Alliance workplan) and are in the proce ss of educating the guests about World Heritage sites and ways to conserve their carbon footprint while here at th e resort and in Belize. We are situated on the Barrier Reef. It is vital that waste water, sewerage and human res ources be properly managed so as not to affect the environmen t. Clients are ask not to waste water, it is a necessity not a commodity, no touching of the reef,garbage is been taken into the mainland for disposal, holidng tanks in place for rain water, energy consumption is minimized. lack of finance can be attribut ed to our indiscretions where the environment is concerned, we tend to do what we can with what we have. Bermuda Solar panels, guest-room terry/linen washing inititives. Dominica environmental management is essential and needs to be implemented on a continuing basis. However, lack of apparent benefits and staff solar water heaters, compos ting, no unnecessary electrical usage, use green products when possible Dominica is advertising by the government ,TO and hoteliers as a nature isle of the caribbean but... we still have 40% hydroelectric and with an effort from the UNIQUE electricity company ,we can reach 70% here with our well known 365 rivers!the monthly cost average bill for a 5 rooms is 3000-4000!!!extreme for this island No delears or distributors of solar -everyhting here in a caribbean island.Weird? no rules about wate and reuse of anything! no school program or whatsoever... All the food from the restaurant is organic. we do not use chemical cause we are located by a rivers ide.we organise the garbage and have a compost from the restaurant.we will implemented next year the solar panel for the guests to have hot water ,for now it is electric! 188

PAGE 189

Table D-5. Continued Country Other comments Dominica energy saving lights The environment suffers negatives from other businesses and it has been difficult to get them to join the circle for protection of the natural surroundings and the Iguana Habitat which is special. I strongly believe that envir onmental management should be implemented in the odernizi accommodation sector organic farm, recycling, waste management Grenada officially since the installati on of solar panels in June 2007, although daily environmental practic es had been in place from the start (just not in writing) Jamaica To go green is to go clean..... We r discussion about that. We are government owned Have recently undertaken programme to redress current deficiencies. We have actually taken over this property 2006 and it has been implemented since then. St. Lucia We have implemented and implementing a lot of programs and initiatives but this is happening as I write, so benefits not apparent yet. Investment in odernizing and increasing efficiencies. We are just 10 months old and are dealing with the teething stages and other organizational factors. I am a believer of environmental management and so is the owner. I am very familiar with Green Gold as I wrote a story for them whilst in employment at the Wyndham Morgan Bay a then existing hotel property in St. Lucia. We won a certificate for this. St. Vincent & the Grenadines No motorized sports to prot ect the reef. Sa ve the reef program. Save turtle program. we do our small part by asking guests to consider laundry necessities, turn off lights, etc. Sewage plant Desalination plant using only natural material for the construction Saving raining water in underground tank When I am more established I would give more thought into implementing environmental management in my establihment 189

PAGE 190

190 Table D-5. Continued Country Other comments Tobago We strive to be a model in this field in Tobago Turks & Caicos Islands We do not encourage littering on island and neither do we have cars etc. Company uses low impact Golf carts as means of transportation around the is land. Minimizes the amount of properties or structures to be built online since opening (1973)! Unfortunately Grand Turk does not have a recycling system in place. United States Virgin Islands Waste water management, Energy conservation team, Environment conservation education This year our laundry facili ty which works for two properties became completely green. We have installed ozone washers that use cool water and have enabled us to lower the temp of our driers as well as the drying time. Comply with OSHA Standards e.g MSDS, DPNR regulations We have a green team on property. We have conducted an energy audit and hoping to get an environmental audit done early this year

PAGE 191

LIST OF REFERENCES 3M. (2008a). Pollution Prevention Pays (3). Retrieved July 22, 2008 from http://solutions.3m.com/wps /portal/3M/en_US/global/sustainability/management/environ ment 3M. (2008b). Worldwide Environmen tal Facts. St. Paul, MN: 3M. Alexander, S. E. (2000). Reside nt attitudes towards conservati on and black howler monkeys in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 341350. lvarez Gil, M. J., Burgos Jimenez, J., & Cesp edes Lorente, J. J. (2001). An analysis of environmental management, organizational c ontext and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29(6), 457-471. Ayala, H. (1995). Ecoresort: a `green' masterplan for the internati onal resort industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3-4), 351-374. Ayuso, S. (2007). Comparing Voluntary Policy Instruments for Sustainable Tourism: The Experience of the Spanish Hotel Sector. Journal of Susta inable Tourism 15(2), 144-159. Bacon, P. R. (1987). Use of wetlands fo r tourism in the insular Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 14(1), 104-117. Bahamas Hotel Association. (2008). Sustainable Development. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from www.bhahotels.com/stemm.php Bell, J. H. (1993). Caribbean tour ism in the year 2000. In D. J. Gayle & J. N. Goodrich (Eds.), Tourism Marketing and Manage ment in the Caribbean (pp. 220-235). London: Routledge. Best, M. N. (2002a). A Review of Legislation, Policy and Institutional Arrangements, Assisting or Constraining, the Implementation of Mari ne Protected Areas in Dominica and the Turks & Caicos Islands. Unpublished M.Sc. th esis, University of the West Indies, Barbados. Best, M. N. (2002b). The greening of Barbados' t ourism industry: The priv ate sector role. Paper presented at the Caribbean Waste Water Association's Conference & Environmental Forum, St. Lucia, October 7 11, 2002. Best, M. N. (2003). Community outreach: A m eans through which Barbados' accommodations sector is making tourism sust ainable. Paper presented at the Jamaica Institute of Environmental Professionals' National Sc ientific Conference on the Environment, Kingston, Jamaica, April 9-10, 2003. 191

PAGE 192

Best, M. N. (2004, March 3 5, 2004). Barbados' Green Globe 21 hotels: A reflection on their journey. Paper presented at the Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 5, 2004. Birdlife International. (December 22, 2006). Gr enada update: No peace on earth for rare dove. Birdlife International Press Release Retrieved November 29, 2007, from www.birdlife.org/news/pr/2006/ 12/grenada_dove_update.html Birdlife International. (Feb ruary 16, 2007). Grenada Government defiant as dove sanctuary protest grows. Birdlife International Press Release Retrieved November 29, 2007, from www.birdlife.org/news/news/2007/02/grenada_dove_update.html Blanchard, J., & Lorde, D. (2004). Sustainable tourism in the Caribbean: The experience of small hotels implementing envi ronmental management systems. Paper presented at the Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable T ourism, Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 5, 2004. Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers' environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46 (2), 188-204. Bohdanowicz P., Curie-Kallhaunge A., Martinac I. (2001), Energy-efficiency and conservation in hotels towards sustainable tourism, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Asia Pacific Architecture "Sensible Design and Smart Practice", University of Hawaii at Manoa, April 5-7, 2001, Hawaii, USA. Bohdanowicz P., Simanic B., Martinac I., Sustainable hotels eco-cer tification according to EU Flower, Nordic Swan and th e Polish Hotel Association Proceedings of the Regional Central and Eastern European Confer ence on Sustainable Building (SB04) October 2729, 2004, Warszawa, Poland. Bramwell, B. & Alletorp, L. ( 2001). Attitudes in the Danish tour ism industry to the roles of business and government in sustainable tourism. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 91-103. Brown, L. A. (1981). Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective New York: Methuen. Brown, M. (1996). Environmental policy in the ho tel sector: "Green" strategy or stratagem? International Journal of Contem porary Hospitality Management, 8 (3), 18-23. Brown, R. (2006). Green Globe in Jamaica: Sustainability case study. Paper presented at the Green Globe International & Caribbean Green Tourism Conference, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 31 November 3, 2006. Brown-Thompson, R., & Cresser, H. (2004). Environmental management and sustainability at a national level. Paper presented at the Green Globe 21 Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Kaikoura, New Zealand, March 3 5, 2004. 192

PAGE 193

Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmenta l conservation: Conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 3 (1), 27. Burke, R. I. (2007). Environment and Tourism: Examining the Relationship between Tourism and the Environment in Barbados and St. Lu cia. Bridgetown, Barbados: Caribbean Policy Development Centre. Butler, R. (1998). Sustainable tourism looking b ackwards in order to progress? In Hall, M. & A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 25-34). New York: Longman. Butler, R. W. (2000). Tourism and the environment: a geographical perspective. Tourism Geographies 2(3), 337-358. Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism. (January 11, 2005). Promoting a Greener Caribbean: Increasing numbers of Green Globe 21 properties featured on new brochure. Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism Press Release Retrieved November 29, 2007, from www.cha-cast.com/NewsPress.htm Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism. (2007). CAST. Retrieved November 29, 2007 from www.cha-cast.com Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2002). Tour ist and Cruise Passenger Arrivals 2000. St. Michael, Barbados: Caribbean Tourism Organization. Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2005). Latest Statistics 2004. St. Michael, Barbados: Caribbean Tourism Organization. Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2006). Latest Statistics 2005. St. Michael, Barbados: Caribbean Tourism Organization. Caribbean Tourism Organization. (2007). Latest Statistics 2006. St. Michael, Barbados: Caribbean Tourism Organization. Carrier, J. G., & Macleod, D. V. L. (2005). Burs ting the bubble: The socio-cultural context of ecotourism. Journal of the Royal An thropological Institute 11(2), 315-334. Ceballos-Lascurin, H. (1993), Overview on eco tourism around the world. IUCN's ecotourism program. Proceedings of the 1993 World Congress on Adventure Travel and Ecotourism, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1), 98-104. de Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1995). Tourism development in small islands: St Maarten/St Martin and Berm uda. In D. Barker & D. F. M. McGregor (Eds.), Environment and Development in the Caribbean: Geographical Perspectives (pp. 70-89). Mona, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies. 193

PAGE 194

Davies, T., & Cahill, S. (2000). Environmenta l Implications of the Tourism Industry (No. Discussion Paper 00-14). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Dewhurst, H. & Thomas, R. (2003). Encouragin g sustainable business practices in a nonregulatory environment: A case study of sm all tourism firms in a UK national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(5), 383-403. Dilworth, V. A. (2003). Visitor perceptions of alternative transportati on systems and intelligent transportation systems in national parks. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University. Dixon, J., Hamilton, K., Pagiola, S., & Segnestam L. (2001). Tourism and the Environment in the Caribbean an Economic Framewor k (No. 22740). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Downs Jr., G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). C onceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(4), 700-714. Drosdoff, D. (2004, May). Barbados acts to prevent water crisis. IDBAmrica. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from www.iadb.org/idbamerica/index.cfm?thisid=2793&lanid=1 Duval, D. T. (Ed.) (2004). Tourism in the Ca ribbean: Trends, Development, Prospects. London: Routledge. Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (1999). Best hotel environmental practices. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40(5), 72-75. Farrell, B. H., & Runyan, D. (1991). Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1), 26-40. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Foster Jr., S. T., Sampson, S. E., & Dunn, S. C. (2000). The impact of customer contact on environmental initiatives for service firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20(2), 187-203. France, L. (1998). Sustainability and developmen t in tourism on the islands of Barbados, St Lucia and Dominica. In D. F. M. McGre gor, D. Barker & S. Lloyd Evans (Eds.), Resource Sustainability and Caribbean Development (pp. 109-125). Mona, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies. Gladwin, T. N. (1998). Economic globalization and ecological sustainability: Searching for truth and reconciliation. In N. Roome (Ed.), Sustainability Strategies for Industry: The Future of Corporate Practice (pp. 49-50). Washington, DC: Island Press. Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J.B. (2003). Tourism in Perspective. Tour ism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (9th ed.), (pp 4-40). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 194

PAGE 195

Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing sustainability in service ope rations at Scandic Hotels. Interfaces 30(3), 202-214. Gopalakrishnan, C., & Cox, L. J. (2003). Water Consumption by the Visitor Industry: The Case of Hawaii. International Journal of Wa ter Resources Development, 19(1), 29. Gossling, S. (2002). Global environm ental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change 12(4), 283-302. Government of Barbados. (2002). The Laws of Barbados CAP 341. Tourism Development Act. 31 August 2002. Government of Grenada. (December 20, 2006). The Ministry of Tourism hotel project not threatening dove. Government of Grenada Press Release Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://tourism.gov.gd/newsitem.aspx?nid=1108 Grandoit, J. (2005). Tourism as a development t ool in the Caribbean and the environmental byproducts: The stresses on small island resources and viable remedies. Journal of Development and Social Transformation 2, 89-97. Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., Piekett, G. M., & Ka ngun, N. (1996). Going green in the service sector. European Journal of Marketing 30(5), 56-66. Haider, M., & Kreps, G. (2004). Forty Years of Diffusion of Innovations: Utility and Value in Public Health. Journal of Health Communication 9(0), 3-11. Hair, F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Van'T Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. & Aldam, C. (1999). Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology 13(4), 888-897. Hawkins, R., Jackson, J., & Somerville, H. ( 2006). Increasing Local Economic Benefits From the Accommodation Sector in the Easter n Caribbean. Bristol, UK: The Travel Foundation. Hjalager, A. M. (1996). Tourism and th e environment: The innovation connection. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4(4), 201. Hobson, K., & Essex, S. (2001). Sustainable tour ism: A view from accommodation businesses. Service Industries Journal 21(4), 133-146. Hoffman, A. J. (2000). Integrating environmental and social issues into corporate practice. Environment 42(5), 22-33. 195

PAGE 196

Holder, J. S. (1996). Maintaining competitiveness in a new world order. In L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (Eds.), Practicing Responsible Tourism: Inte rnational Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development (pp. 145-173). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Hunter, C. (2002). Aspects of the sustainable tourism debate from a natural resources perspective. In R. Harris, T. Griffin & P. Williams (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective (pp. 4-23). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. International Hotels Environm ent Initiative. (1993). Environmental Management for Hotels Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. International Tourism Partnership. (2007a). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from www.tourismpartnership.org/pages07/About.html International Tourism Partnership. (2007). Going Green: Minimum Standards Toward a Sustainable Hotel. London: International Tourism Partnership. Issa, J. J., & Jayawardena, C. (2003). The "all-inclusive" concep t in the Caribbean. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(3), 167-171. Issa, J. J., & Jayawardena, C. (2005). The "all -inclusive" concept in the Caribbean. In C. Jayawardena (Ed.), Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and Hospitality (Vol. 2, pp. 223235). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers. Jayawardena, C. (2002). Mast ering Caribbean tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14(2), 88-93. Jayawardena, C. (Ed.). (2007a). Caribbean Tourism: More than Sun, Sand and Sea (Vol. 3). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers. Jayawardena, C. (2007b). Attitudes, beliefs and cust oms: Assets or liabiliti es to tourism? In K. O. Hall & R. Holding (Eds.), Tourism: The Driver of Change in the Jamaican Economy? (pp. 277-317). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers. Jones, E. B. (1995). Environmental Management T oolkit for Caribbean Hotels San Juan, Puerto Rico: Caribbean Hotel Association. Kasim, A. (2007). Towards a wider adoption of e nvironmental responsibility in the hotel sector. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 8(2), 25-49. Kingsbury, P. (2006). Corporate environmental sust ainability: Sandals Reso rts International in Jamaica. In J. Pugh & J. Henshall Momsen (Eds.), Environmental Planning in the Caribbean (pp. 111-127). Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 196

PAGE 197

Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 7(6), 3-8. Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environmental mana gement held by a group of hotel managers in Edinburgh. International Journal of Hospitality Management 17(1), 33-47. Kleiner, A. (1991). What Does It Mean to Be Green? Harvard Business Review, 69 (4), 38-47. Knowles, T., Macmillan, S., Palmer, J., Gr abowski, P., & Hashimoto, A. (1999). The development of environmental initiatives in tourism: Responses from the London hotel sector. International Journal of Tourism Research 1(4), 255-265. Le, Y., Hollenhorst, S., Harris, C., McLaugh lin, W., & Shook, S. (2006). Environmental management: A Study of Vietnamese Hotels. Annals of Tourism Research 33(2), 545567. Leslie, D. (2007). The missing component in the `greening' of tourism: The environmental performance of the self-catering accommodation sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management 26(2), 310-322. Lin, Y.-H., & Hemmington, N. (1997). The Impact of Environmental Policy on the Tourism Industry in Taiwan. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3(1), 35-45. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts Essex: Longman Group Limited. McElroy, J. L. (2004). Global perspectives on Caribbean tourism. In D. T. Duval (Ed.), Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, Development, Prospects (pp. 39 56). London: Routledge. McElroy, J. L., & de Albuquer que, K. (2002). Problems for ma naging sustainable tourism in small islands. In Y. Apostolopoulos & D. J. Gayle (Eds.), Island Tourism and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences (pp. 1531). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Meade, B., & del Monaco, A. (1999). Environmental management: The key to successful operation. Paper presented at the First Pa n-American Conference Latin American Tourism in Next Millenium: Education, Inve stment and Sustainability, Panama City, Panama, May 19-21, 1999. Meyer, H. (2000). The greeni ng of corporate America. Journal of Business Strategy 21(1), 3843. Mings, R. C. (1969). Tourism's potential for co ntributing to economic development in the Caribbean. Journal of Geography 68(3), 173-177. Mowen, A. J., & Confer, J. J. (2003). The relatio nship between perceptions distance, and sociodemographic characteristics upon public use of an urban park in-fill. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 21(3), 58-74. 197

PAGE 198

Murphy, J., Olaru, D., Schegg, R., & Frey, S. (2 003). The bandwagon effect: Swiss hotels' Website and e-mail management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 71-87. Murphy, J., Tan, I., & Abd Rahman, R. (2002). Diffusion of email cu stomer service in Singapores travel industry. Pape r presented at the Australi an & New Zealand Marketing Academy, Melbourne, Australia, December 2-4, 2002. Murphy, P. E., & Price, G. G. (2005). Tourism and Sustainable Development. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global Tourism (3 ed., pp. 167-193). Burlington, VT: Elsevier Inc. Mycoo, M. (2006). Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and green certification: A case study of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(5), 489-511. Neto, F. (2002, February 20-22, 2002). Sustainabl e Tourism, Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management: Paradise on Eart h?. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on Regional Governance and Sustai nable Development in Tourism-driven Economies, Cancun, Mexico. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill. Orams, M. (1999). Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management New York: Routledge. Page, S. J. & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism London: Prentice Hall. Pattullo, P. (1999). Last Resorts. London: Cassell. Pearce, D. G. (1985). Tourism and environmental research: a review. International Journal of Environmental Studies 25(4), 247 255. Poon, A. (1987). Information Technology and Innova tion in International Tourism-Implications for the Caribbean Tourist Industry. Unpublishe d PhD Dissertation, University of Sussex, London. Poon, A. (2002). Challenges, Opportunities and Key Success Factors in Developing Sustainable Ecotourism Products in Caribbean Economies. Barbados: Caribbean Development Bank. Primack, R. B. (2002). Essentials of Conservation Biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2005). Tourism as a for ce for establishing protected areas: The case of Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(1), 24. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press. 198

PAGE 199

Sahadev, S., & Islam, N. (2005). Why hotels ad opt ICTs: a study on the ICT adoption propensity of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Cont emporary Hospitality Management 17(4/5), 391-401. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental T echnologies and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 16, 183-201. Sinclair, D., & Jayawardena, C. (2003). The development of sustai nable tourism in the Guianas. International Journal of Cont emporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 402. Smith, W. (2004). Ev Rogers: Helping to Build a Modern Synthesis of Social Change. Journal of Health Communication 9(0), 139-142. Smith, W. L. (2007). Understanding diffusion of technology in rural entrepreneurship operations: A three year longitudinal study. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 4(2), 160-171. Sobers, A. (2006). Caribbean Tourism Performa nce In 2005. St. Michael: Caribbean Tourism Organization. Spittle, H. S. (2005). Service and hospitality in all-inclusives and reso rts: Viewpoints of an international hotelier. In C. Jayawardena (Ed.), Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and Hospitality (Vol. 2, pp. 215-222). Kingston, Jama ica: Ian Randle Publishers. Stabler, M. J., & Goodall, B. (1997). Environmental awareness, action and performance in the Guernsey hospitality sector. Tourism Management 18(1), 19-33. Standing, C., Borbely, S., & Vasudavan, T. (1999). A study of Web diffusion in travel agencies. Paper presented at the System Scien ces, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International C onference on System Sciences. Stipanuk, D. M. (1996). The U.S. lodging industr y and the environment: An historical view. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 39. Stipanuk, D. M., & Ninemeier, J. D. (1996). Th e future of the U.S. lodging industry and the environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 37(6), 74. Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265-290. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management New York, NY: CABI Publishing. Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, N., Loke, M. K., Leung, P ., & Tucker, K. A. (1997). Energy and tourism in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 390-401. Travelwatch. (2006). Increasing Local Economic Benefits From the Accommodation Sector in the Eastern Caribbean: Supplementary Report I Literature Review. Bristol, UK: The Travel Foundation. 199

PAGE 200

United Nations Environment Programme. (1989) Regional Overview of Environmental Problems and Priorities Affecting the Coas tal and Marine Res ources of the Wider Caribbean. CEP Technical Report No.2 UNE P Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, 1989. UNEP. (1999). Report of the Workshop on Tour ism and Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean (No. MAP Technical Reports Series No.126). Athens: United Nations Environment Programme. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2003). The 'greening' of tourism microbusinesses: outcomes of focus group inve stigations in South East Cornwall. Business Strategy and the Environment 12(1), 49-69. Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It's not easy being green. Harvard Business Review 72(3), 46-51. Wang, C.-Y., & Miko, P. S. (1997). Environmental impacts of tourism on U.S. National Parks. (Cover story). Journal of Travel Research 35(4), 31-36. Weaver, D. B. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradic tion or reality? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(2), 104-112. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of di ffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology 28(1), 297-326. Williams, E. (1970). From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean London: Andre Deutsch Limited. Woodfield, N. K. (1998). The role of ecotourism in Grenada: A marketing ploy or a step towards sustainable development? In D. F. M. McGr egor, D. Barker & S. Lloyd Evans (Eds.), Resource Sustainability and Caribbean De velopment (pp. 148-168). Mona, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies. World Commission on Sustaina ble Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Travel & Tourism Council. (2004). The Caribbean: The Impact of Travel &Tourism on Jobs and the Economy London: World Travel & Tourism Council. World Travel & Tourism Council. (2007). Caribbean Travel & Tourism Navigating the Path Ahead London: World Travel & Tourism Council. Xerox Corporation. (2006). Report on Global Citizenship: Revealing our True Colors Stamford, CT: Xerox Corporation. 200

PAGE 201

201 Yaw, F. (2005). Cleaner technologies for sust ainable tourism: Caribbean case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(2), 117-134. Zurburg, R., Ruff, D., & Ninemeier, J. (1995). En vironmental action in the United States lodging industry. Hospitality & Tourism Educator, 7(2), 45-49.

PAGE 202

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mechelle Best is a citizen of Barbados, an is land in the Eastern Caribbean. She graduated from the University of the West Indies with a Bachelor of Science degree in hotel management (first class honours) in 1995. In 2002 she graduated from the University of the West Indies with a Master of Science degree in natural resource management. Ms. Bests career in the tourism industry be gan with internships at the world renowned Sandy Lane Hotel in Barbados and the Caribbean Ho tel Association in Puerto Rico. After a stint in the airline industry from 1995 to 1996, she was employed by Almond Resorts, Inc., first as a Management Trainee, then as the Environmen tal & Conservation Manager for the companys two properties. In the latte r position, Ms. Best spearhead ed the implementation of an environmental management system at the Almond Beach Club & Spa and the Almond Beach Village. From 1999 until 2002, she worked with Almonds management and staff to achieve certification against the Green Globe standard for travel and tourism companies and thereafter to maintain that certification. At the end of 2002, Ms. Best left Almond Resorts, Inc. for self-employment, becoming a consultant in tourism and environmental manageme nt in the Caribbean. In this capacity she has been fortunate to work on several regional proj ects and with many hotels and attractions in the Caribbean. In 2004, Ms. Best was awarded a Fulbright/Org anization of American States Ecology Scholarship for the Eastern Caribbean and comm enced doctoral studies at the University of Florida. She received her Ph.D. in A ugust 2008 and intends to use the knowledge and experience gained to continue contributing to the sustainable development of the Caribbeans tourism industry.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101106_AAAAEQ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-06T16:55:32Z PACKAGE UFE0022046_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 35120 DFID F20101106_AAAZEH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH best_m_Page_098.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b0d5ee3c38a9a7ffe619e25ca95ba8a8
SHA-1
2c174904a71ae529283217774949b59d1ca0bdc3
32141 F20101106_AAAZDT best_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
5a4c499f260ab514d21c95afd4a8023c
06840998ed91ac885ae57d4c472b2b09ecc64dc3
29060 F20101106_AAAYZB best_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
de5dd3f1eb346039fff9084853c6f2c6
1011fd246d8ad54cb46a3b868f7b3adf62bd7b25
8696 F20101106_AAAYYM best_m_Page_021thm.jpg
ff095cfbc8f0a8e3b7988fe70773c952
4a7379dd6918fd08a12f0b9f6981ac495a7b0342
8456 F20101106_AAAYXY best_m_Page_014thm.jpg
00a8b942e790e90b581455ea4a75e329
a65e7a38562f19c7af8964b46f98214ffd55515c
663681 F20101106_AAAXVK best_m_Page_089.jp2
36e0c5e7e5ff4d9248abc8f33d6c07fa
33ef252033512d74b51690dfcd7110fc82b02c62
524179 F20101106_AAAXUW best_m_Page_075.jp2
de19d378dd56b49f848bb6dec9927acd
d7b02d6667f8e03236feb314bb5236a76d459b0e
25271604 F20101106_AAAYBF best_m_Page_038.tif
ac90db8b280a3bc0d1b5b69e1498068a
9c64f201754662d3f8a1869c5ff5f055ed1dfb56
F20101106_AAAYAR best_m_Page_024.tif
f26bf26c43dd25c57b7757aa07cbbd5a
adad7701ad8265ebb3844df3c3b35422f8398bde
8453 F20101106_AAAZEI best_m_Page_098thm.jpg
b6d7e359259db3b60d3443c62d286200
55f8980fe0d39ba4f48fcf7224995f945fd84930
7450 F20101106_AAAYZC best_m_Page_029thm.jpg
71caeae12104703465eec17187676acd
c8a3a294f89ebd2045f48ed399f2374c2ab3b779
35072 F20101106_AAAYYN best_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
bd9ec9c7d105c26dad9ffc7a4a1283a8
a99c713d20223963ecc57760377c6950212d5dce
33304 F20101106_AAAYXZ best_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
43bc457450f85fbe04a9cb6113ddc13c
305ee5beeed4e3e2ff3679ed4db8e19050b3c0ca
1008662 F20101106_AAAXVL best_m_Page_090.jp2
8f4939e8f069418d95fa3a6e1dab21b8
7c1db4cb33526dabe9e2820c6ceb2a2047d715c2
224962 F20101106_AAAXUX best_m_Page_076.jp2
22d183e7e93d869bf200c91aac032a82
c50244403c32f7957fa1dfaafc29c84bc501ce6f
F20101106_AAAYBG best_m_Page_039.tif
05d679c337c3471ed60b8509e61fc4d3
38d2b2e4f043be15f62b8a2269a029c4a0f3e1aa
1051944 F20101106_AAAXWA best_m_Page_105.jp2
54d4c82293524a0e495f7d46ef4d55be
c0df890093700f72e1f3c542dad5887808344ff6
33738 F20101106_AAAZEJ best_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
2d51c6e0627df33d5e7f7fb9b654cdc8
aa06c7fe2511ae16d9b663daad697f110123f938
7899 F20101106_AAAZDU best_m_Page_091thm.jpg
bb6149a378e007ce468a791d54fcabb3
2e53e358ed48b4f1198e5779c426ce711b781db2
36143 F20101106_AAAYZD best_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
e7f9cd0c8c717af385bbbb62f33295ff
56a220e527df891dc4763c14349131c1b68a302c
8654 F20101106_AAAYYO best_m_Page_022thm.jpg
6d6fa837139ae1becb6a6528785257bb
339faf66cce1bfbe24ce8b94bc1e631bbcf4c812
1051959 F20101106_AAAXVM best_m_Page_091.jp2
b586f1a9d068692931607bd07cf7cf8f
507589d7d6880f9ee62dd1b19acf1933f5b66a9a
966253 F20101106_AAAXUY best_m_Page_077.jp2
c6ab65a3d063fab5f20225c48fba087a
43bf0f41999adc32279be232c67e940a6016156f
F20101106_AAAYBH best_m_Page_040.tif
886dc9c8d2cd3cf207fe7b2c17c5002d
3a7ec6ba8eb7cd0414ebbc525445493bda5dcfb4
1051986 F20101106_AAAXWB best_m_Page_106.jp2
21bec974858d075bb8dd0c824a57f01a
d5fc43f9ddc26f1e3db9a920efbdc1a29769807d
F20101106_AAAYAS best_m_Page_025.tif
0b2a1aef2ede0233429d63d2e6425946
596eb90227a740da15b87e2500dd4b98c9495934
8455 F20101106_AAAZEK best_m_Page_099thm.jpg
ce08c1ce21b14eefd2cd2887c73f79bd
7aeb82e3d721038590ddf9314a8b69358c6ae7d5
35370 F20101106_AAAZDV best_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
caf50327e4a8085e1e05cf2d5afc2c08
cbc433bbbb9e7648d10cab8b74c9cebec1394cf2
9102 F20101106_AAAYZE best_m_Page_030thm.jpg
ddd4d0f66f37491d259aed6a6756d07b
f28db6a5456b74527ec05807854507f6eb19cceb
33340 F20101106_AAAYYP best_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
3c5b41557cc59e9b67eb7e0df1092f8f
67dd9897c7d0b91de358fd59959f2be5fe5cc119
1051902 F20101106_AAAXVN best_m_Page_092.jp2
5f4cb3ddb5a195c1460348a4614ac1d4
b39a285d7652ff6df79f3ddcad6ce044580974e8
1051947 F20101106_AAAXUZ best_m_Page_078.jp2
6d3ce10c79b626f23ac58f24c46003b3
2a8434bb69096d30cb81388a4eb691c97164ba99
F20101106_AAAYBI best_m_Page_041.tif
762b1e5c22c86d82f5e82cc1bda9dec0
58c63f1d40dde4371694fe22769781a074d9f97a
1051983 F20101106_AAAXWC best_m_Page_107.jp2
a2e3118b8c2f821827288c4c1c27d5e3
88a16a598f701fff207c03e5a99eb148da033b86
F20101106_AAAYAT best_m_Page_026.tif
4c0f8e5e4a959c0d8a6a0bb2130d9db9
6fb60a1be24e4be6309c78bfe5c3ad4ed60368da
29655 F20101106_AAAZEL best_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
e042bdd3e3c51a18de1a09fe8b4fa503
b7e43b4facba871ddc512dd2ad9dae6f7a04a7bb
8912 F20101106_AAAZDW best_m_Page_092thm.jpg
b34d21c9c6cc726c2ac7de8ef00c2f61
47ecf01368a7ff3e79c450f8ec56ad967d9e45f2
37176 F20101106_AAAYZF best_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
7f96f24293885af518d0f1e44f64fc82
d717474097a2d8d8d16437584b02a95129ca9e56
8301 F20101106_AAAYYQ best_m_Page_023thm.jpg
1bd45ea57dfaa84ef4efa9e49bdbbbd0
63c390f9cff12737103bd03d7c476ab7668a421b
1051985 F20101106_AAAXVO best_m_Page_093.jp2
fbeb7dc9935c8278ff0a4737482b4a30
b81c8b4522f16ae7606036c36dee2b1272f998bd
F20101106_AAAYBJ best_m_Page_042.tif
ad8d60ee693247792e02979c3fb24d50
ebb2a3cb4bda2de37e93b1975da3eccb813d5daf
1051967 F20101106_AAAXWD best_m_Page_108.jp2
d225dab1ee288a6d032a41f8a5fd336f
18d497ec186fde7d9e6bf6fb2848bcdfa170234b
F20101106_AAAYAU best_m_Page_027.tif
6a15b0d1e59ae1dc95404121df7f2f12
0d3707f012cb9dcda55ed4d8383f0ac2a88304dc
8328 F20101106_AAAZFA best_m_Page_107thm.jpg
b2710d182b378cc23628486c553e38a1
fb4ee1f20431011ddd6424bf07f07144fa32cf73
7639 F20101106_AAAZEM best_m_Page_100thm.jpg
ffc9829dc044199dc3d71c277d604918
c285a345f6fdb088c30f50aa552308ae848c5f2e
35498 F20101106_AAAZDX best_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
1806cb094f1ce176238d33cd22d0c274
69d4d3dc72b3bc454847097cbd2f089be7af8609
9218 F20101106_AAAYZG best_m_Page_031thm.jpg
35aa4cef2877f43aa96a33baddb9c641
3855de07b885e69fe991c25b2af1293669288055
34208 F20101106_AAAYYR best_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
a4dab1bf1a8fec1eb12992c44a58dd1c
08025871efe22d311e6bed9802e2e93709f9ac57
F20101106_AAAXVP best_m_Page_094.jp2
070574b50299bc1f5b4dec251b9ac538
bfeb11f34f907642bade67a8b6af28334f832047
F20101106_AAAYBK best_m_Page_043.tif
f10c2f6c14a375c4055f1174be6e8927
3bbadc25df6553b029a7c8409bd8130620126af9
1051968 F20101106_AAAXWE best_m_Page_109.jp2
23ae017bc25a0097b11bc58b02ecc5bd
ce9498f8c44097e601e69fda48628e30c919b2f8
F20101106_AAAYAV best_m_Page_028.tif
4adb0fccd5f8407860e3f4d70b958527
b12255298a582a94d1f655d272269a3fe7d48b42
38622 F20101106_AAAZFB best_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
e9f1ee343b7345c10693483a3fab8244
188736496bcc4fce57e8870eb2fd0ec1ca25f019
35218 F20101106_AAAZEN best_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
9204caa8d75f58c9c54141ae361efe33
a409950f56f8fef03a7a2283c091d48009e8d8af
8475 F20101106_AAAZDY best_m_Page_093thm.jpg
41e5a3389a9c11bf675d19e603dd3a1f
50fa206798fbeca9c8b62625324bfabee5ea024e
34489 F20101106_AAAYZH best_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
8546325c3197edcd8d8c2c3aef5c37f4
5800ecb7e2bac450e2dc05ea9e1e284a2668ae6b
8184 F20101106_AAAYYS best_m_Page_024thm.jpg
dfd5bb11c25c145bf86af00fe985eb91
237f1aff76fb9159d659c9d986a16eb1ba39313f
1051981 F20101106_AAAXVQ best_m_Page_095.jp2
3c44d8c7e13291fa9f7a9ac7fab0221f
38f14d9890fcebba28503a3d6dc79639ad899a4b
F20101106_AAAYBL best_m_Page_044.tif
ff875439eb7c28cf41f7429604d1da10
9a09496ac828fb7d9c39a6ddf0ecc24f92d34c0f
1051932 F20101106_AAAXWF best_m_Page_110.jp2
a39cebdf2534bf80e81ffcd83ecca2f2
e341637c327af69e4c71e3a0a3b62f4532702fd6
F20101106_AAAYAW best_m_Page_029.tif
5d890b0769b09b1e030207f75fb3c137
18565af6d312ba8b323be12633ab453cc51ee57e
9266 F20101106_AAAZFC best_m_Page_108thm.jpg
809a8bd8f11e92b44c3f630f2b7f5fce
a6a5b87f3cfc37812d413a0463e79b94e75e315a
8612 F20101106_AAAZEO best_m_Page_101thm.jpg
1c0266e5aca1a88bb02ff88c3f1e1576
a17cab66fac903a8daf8e6285fdbd8966bceef7c
33864 F20101106_AAAZDZ best_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
77d5c543fbd88d9a6e53e8ad2ed819b6
f8ce5ac9f915f1753d9c07c12213329956cc9343
8472 F20101106_AAAYZI best_m_Page_032thm.jpg
3eb896731a4363943832535b8a02bd0e
af9bf66361c641e0a55cb41637c281acd75c010e
29721 F20101106_AAAYYT best_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
44af30f0f014d702b7c54e6a2bc0fe21
832e47834cf92b354818a54d6dd02264de087b0e
1051979 F20101106_AAAXVR best_m_Page_096.jp2
6c85101cbf0608ae952a2fbf8e62a5a1
1216302c0ddcc71636ab2d9f3eab2b6af5a7354f
F20101106_AAAYCA best_m_Page_059.tif
469c296ccc6d87e227d8157751cc59a8
a4d902ff03d4f8de18107415ad998cc7bfd03b6c
F20101106_AAAYBM best_m_Page_045.tif
6d9734ddcef69fd4263f3944f4771bff
e2e76da34f1ba22b55aaf1099a62d8bcc5c0108e
1051984 F20101106_AAAXWG best_m_Page_111.jp2
c46773dba85cbde1f7c8742062b333c3
c946064295af2e51c7238b7e3b715e96f9608de1
F20101106_AAAYAX best_m_Page_030.tif
2151c95fa851b1912d3b68ef19d31e6c
dff303fabf92deccac68a9864e440ffad1ea274b
36222 F20101106_AAAZFD best_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
38e1398722564096fe209a510a835235
b952aae79afd45a670961dfb0e131250d34ffa67
32361 F20101106_AAAZEP best_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
db4fa7531af77b72287c9ef844df11b0
4ca82a729e502d66b318277675a9d86fbfb915fc
35389 F20101106_AAAYZJ best_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
ad95e1ec75c25c81173c28cfa48cfa86
60d70bbdc29d07fafd3dbecbf16943d2cb7675f6
7868 F20101106_AAAYYU best_m_Page_025thm.jpg
f36f46c0da2a1a72dafdd5738be2a8c3
4bc9cbed0b7cb002333aba308a0fadc6c5fb9e1d
F20101106_AAAXVS best_m_Page_097.jp2
7ea9483b322854c7a968ca2600681169
95ed02a104e465ce7ec183a0220cd01cc6cf94ce
F20101106_AAAYCB best_m_Page_060.tif
ed5acd81e1ace53b4cf69472bdc7c994
ec52d98038b62d46ae1cfbde4f0ea3381db8bc90
F20101106_AAAYBN best_m_Page_046.tif
0bdfaf100721a83170dbf125898b7856
100fed5a5be0e3c6ff41a0f20da5429f0aaaf23b
386296 F20101106_AAAXWH best_m_Page_112.jp2
2247746a11beeb9d1cd8a518867b6758
5d0bcee67acbd434b4ae6c72f6fa85056919b98f
F20101106_AAAYAY best_m_Page_031.tif
e38a34b4e5269be69c4b129031bd5bf5
09ea36c2351f827dc665d274df12e4186b7611f8
9054 F20101106_AAAZFE best_m_Page_109thm.jpg
03431a44352a7305215e4bd5f780ac5f
47445e074406d77ffcf8ce7be44d9f8d900de84f
8250 F20101106_AAAZEQ best_m_Page_102thm.jpg
40173398ccdd7f590cc90d11e6effd77
8864372f5e976e75fc05bc81853ba083c238df96
8628 F20101106_AAAYZK best_m_Page_033thm.jpg
f4b949f804c3d426128b33ee8b3d6ee6
36ff0cf994bbaa47af30a3bb629af601dc7b6e90
29695 F20101106_AAAYYV best_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
01b486e3a6439950a7ee8c7f0615f6ee
53e9e9bb8f6d47b8e0d2ce6a2de0b1ce35cdec58
1051929 F20101106_AAAXVT best_m_Page_098.jp2
069975f4c8b4abdf04db380756a672e2
a6cd917fa454f47a09418f8962d25524e1fbf4f4
F20101106_AAAYCC best_m_Page_061.tif
8ab8a214bd202d69207fd629cee3164e
54697049268e57c5dbb7279ecb653f6f5cfd24e4
F20101106_AAAYBO best_m_Page_047.tif
86a9851c1484d71a595e885f98f7961e
68486b2d57851ebc8a24e81de342aafb59af2055
425960 F20101106_AAAXWI best_m_Page_113.jp2
e0c418dd0e673f9c9cbd218585188541
8f713647f4f2344418d80e930f56a88c1ce485fc
F20101106_AAAYAZ best_m_Page_032.tif
f89e19e18c03e1adbc72737b4d27a150
00a15f6b971b64c176fde466f24b4dc6d84230fc
36355 F20101106_AAAZFF best_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
6f8719f1c8cb9c155a8d805aec060898
282686e18e74c9f5cd992179524c88d61da09ff5
29875 F20101106_AAAZER best_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
ab88f578ab16624ea9e433f29ec708aa
ef5e3f44a5c6f720da2fa5edae80ec3017c2fb71
7672 F20101106_AAAYYW best_m_Page_026thm.jpg
c2f3119ac1a6dcae0b9fdb551905d226
1ebc27203ba4dde1e248663591f0f51c684ade5c
F20101106_AAAXVU best_m_Page_099.jp2
c29bc527e6230bcdb866cbd698357d60
bd4767a7c5de462ec471e11eb0c5635aeffabc61
F20101106_AAAYCD best_m_Page_062.tif
05ac55b572251a25b34ab59242606cf9
a85ef01bb09ae8c0c19c8be06e9e81fe1ec08357
F20101106_AAAYBP best_m_Page_048.tif
40977b1f59b3b524e80477d72a2eef32
e2a5fbb7ce08ffd952bcd0f111c26efb3ce7545c
8870 F20101106_AAAZFG best_m_Page_110thm.jpg
6a8602c21232b165b53aee929e406fa6
6cc870d24e7d62b6583b89910f5561ec29f45279
7702 F20101106_AAAZES best_m_Page_103thm.jpg
681be9f3f780af17e9b3d8ebf537a736
a43472e58649a67f3286e817978059a0c5bb8ae5
34110 F20101106_AAAYZL best_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
cad29c5f1dd728b1f40f4dd0b35dde23
b1a2dd2d5a5db5f44d73583f9612a183d1a1aa8d
25789 F20101106_AAAYYX best_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
5454d534682cb4f2fa51817a7b8e6e54
c35e2bd2a16b3278b0108f25d848ff6906f73c46
1044366 F20101106_AAAXVV best_m_Page_100.jp2
b7866017541c79ffe062a205e39943c2
a46f2c5b7582e45513a75ddc51b4013ca988803e
F20101106_AAAYCE best_m_Page_063.tif
e1278fe2516b6d67de562ff83ad69dfe
a06d50e76e3e9a0ecf4653b3afb6dd8133218e59
F20101106_AAAYBQ best_m_Page_049.tif
58eb56a3da619147a360291b6d489e04
0d5761563819f4dd94b552b3c20d581bc9b8512e
866007 F20101106_AAAXWJ best_m_Page_114.jp2
15db76d5dec91d143173b5e8aa80ed00
64995e0563b0095f59299c0e10c81e8e69697f08
31647 F20101106_AAAZFH best_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
eef63b5f184be9a9b8234020437b810b
88ab9d8076b4cb7ce7523cdb76d01f602009d5ac
36076 F20101106_AAAZET best_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
39aedbc38ce972a07e693c8f6f5da186
607215914febe0b1ca38dcbb09bacd56c1e98f66
8464 F20101106_AAAYZM best_m_Page_034thm.jpg
20c567bd4de15ade0e5ad3802e21c643
dc72ffaa30e0e83de9601506a6c911cb6f5a706b
7340 F20101106_AAAYYY best_m_Page_027thm.jpg
c861331641bc760f72fdfbe5911bc6dc
3a11f5537ea3f5971dadc8e932216e922f3ae71c
1051945 F20101106_AAAXVW best_m_Page_101.jp2
4d0b0d1e8ad795df6a0f0d447fb88a29
a174979cd518482c2550033456c97a934d7825f7
F20101106_AAAYCF best_m_Page_064.tif
b59845e5c70df9cd8694f9d0f9179ede
ec7415e7c8d3107dd9d6e47932b2373fdf81d97e
F20101106_AAAYBR best_m_Page_050.tif
76954e3e2cd4408e18398bd917b72847
76d1f47f5ee2601fe8166f9db90fb08ef251cb79
728314 F20101106_AAAXWK best_m_Page_115.jp2
a81018785873b6d3a15ad8ea908b4aa7
173d255af2a88aa32397d5b3484842e5a52d4f3e
7881 F20101106_AAAZFI best_m_Page_111thm.jpg
18dced46c62f352ccb24b9c4f3d73ba1
84cd21b8273a08f65f57d1573ae016b43614c0b0
8546 F20101106_AAAZEU best_m_Page_104thm.jpg
9274e1920eb48cde42b2603f78b07275
8056abfa2da47390905f62a6db79aa4d1a1a97ec
34437 F20101106_AAAYZN best_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
1e8887b11536511c3935ec49d1fabfb6
fdc27b517aab933a785dfd3e5c79dfe1f7b3f9e5
7668 F20101106_AAAYYZ best_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
234fa1aca60c3b33f5e19846cf8edd9f
c945ac886331c78d053feaac11afb593892f3cfe
F20101106_AAAXVX best_m_Page_102.jp2
12d060aaa5bfdbbfd967ad74db8bc09a
12efe2d6e424b5551860cb3ae08ca2837cd1ed7e
F20101106_AAAYCG best_m_Page_065.tif
a531f891715f24d8783963984132c63b
2dd51c1e9fbd39fe338ddf51d63c58d994589cbb
291695 F20101106_AAAXXA best_m_Page_131.jp2
559025d6b68534780b770b4e0eeaf07c
26d5e5b044e226fe4bdddf727db5d4ddae8c5d2a
F20101106_AAAYBS best_m_Page_051.tif
31400d3a369d81c53be797771bd92ea5
353ea736e1accd267ff5c155ef02fa782bc60341
874504 F20101106_AAAXWL best_m_Page_116.jp2
997a5919d65ece40e7b4f62a39bd841e
64263c881383bc845d2073032016eee21bf6b2d1
12270 F20101106_AAAZFJ best_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
c33d770e44fa8d8a44ad209799f43174
01f6870db83ec9a4cc99f9847d9a02e032a9966b
8422 F20101106_AAAYZO best_m_Page_035thm.jpg
180e6c3149f8ad28e949b0f474548a18
159913f81bef43ff88388fdb881dd08851792efb
990541 F20101106_AAAXVY best_m_Page_103.jp2
60bf8f1f880dace3d9c2665659626056
451bb5d02556d00007537ff49ff21c6422c77f8f
F20101106_AAAYCH best_m_Page_066.tif
75ed78c2a5ec25e462be92cab71aace5
13658f635a02099e9df90c868bf988f6678bff3a
598455 F20101106_AAAXXB best_m_Page_132.jp2
c92bad15b251f037a4cc0a9e3e6e2c25
d0f0eee26a47071467e556d4ee208af78a4336a5
660941 F20101106_AAAXWM best_m_Page_117.jp2
1dcac63e893f03990782613dfdd6f2c8
2929ca8fe7bc82e07b089bf3b815926530568956
3476 F20101106_AAAZFK best_m_Page_112thm.jpg
0519aeb0951cff2ebf15eb9bd0ab7577
1d26788a1e34689fd43b50f1ae4af00ebd37dbeb
33575 F20101106_AAAZEV best_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
e3f9cb5429a5c3e5075c59cbd09f85bc
f26fdb1c2d4f327df8d2afc6a2761c706b6833ff
35329 F20101106_AAAYZP best_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
334f9bca9ec65d218cb10ff1bde5cec4
282c774d69a199e91af228dec60a511d0b4dcce3
1051975 F20101106_AAAXVZ best_m_Page_104.jp2
80d5dc55bbc64cb1de8f3881aae31f97
177def77ecbce967a0649b89c1ac41fa7acf36ea
F20101106_AAAYCI best_m_Page_067.tif
cfaa26822f1e9d64ec3a9a001209493c
b8a756bdd385baf24e43d2e21fd37c3a8c5ca095
1051980 F20101106_AAAXXC best_m_Page_133.jp2
96912f5be511bde2012bd18f11e12f84
01f540ecea67b2220200d901e263bd46746f1c5e
F20101106_AAAYBT best_m_Page_052.tif
fc16f0962dac4bf5d0cb88017ee38f3a
b34f8c807dec8c983e9358d338e71d5a6983a853
974327 F20101106_AAAXWN best_m_Page_118.jp2
8b955fa8b5fe6f49ab55dfb12a2de7e5
af5b226de160f5ff8d5669d4d43e1e7b9e2050bd
12707 F20101106_AAAZFL best_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
3c87dde662300c6a34c22a4958ff5b82
2d00b6d6ed432582e931724d75882385dd47d684
8356 F20101106_AAAZEW best_m_Page_105thm.jpg
3c9c0cf041d17414de1b88d93a09a1cf
8ad5391aaacaf181eb5101d2fd373e2df7ccf29a
8681 F20101106_AAAYZQ best_m_Page_036thm.jpg
10517c26878299aa219948f4ed0ad93d
60898139ff9a02fbce0df785d7f7eaa420d48bbb
F20101106_AAAYCJ best_m_Page_068.tif
13f498ef30cbf6e3a8651a8ab31828ac
f6a7b4a6c10037baed61842c03f25a16baeecbc5
1051958 F20101106_AAAXXD best_m_Page_134.jp2
acee245fe23ba57eb4609b186f279d75
44bd33985df6f9e3a7c889b1cc7b7c5b8c4d9ef1
F20101106_AAAYBU best_m_Page_053.tif
dbbf54663261befdfc3ad6474ee7a9fd
d1d25517fc355f3a243b99f93c9f566edf2364eb
458576 F20101106_AAAXWO best_m_Page_119.jp2
550df14be8007b4d3fc12f91d0aa40c5
fa690c4a1190b5c16b22bc2e8a4ae8d08c7f78a8
3770 F20101106_AAAZGA best_m_Page_120thm.jpg
75d621ca7332ac728daaf49914319889
226625dc81aa6cf60b8aa460d58f547de7e55c79
3251 F20101106_AAAZFM best_m_Page_113thm.jpg
bb5562627b07a0857cfa9bc8d4a4d086
420513047635abf5590ad07f0ed90bd6aece5d8d
35810 F20101106_AAAZEX best_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
1cde7461bc73d0aca122684b4f904a5f
4492a4bc07b3f3de5ad0a4d2892bcbbc34bef869
35130 F20101106_AAAYZR best_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
6ad4b86ce5adc192463d8991410c3539
39852be5f6846460d1096837be3a57eb8d46fbad
F20101106_AAAYCK best_m_Page_069.tif
514028859c8ac6b6be704a333b6f8894
3d879a0a3b0968c7dbb5f190076a1adabb5e879a
1051982 F20101106_AAAXXE best_m_Page_135.jp2
64d02da5af8f5e8afd0d7fea11621102
6949ed674f5d503cdc72d342cf602d55253ecb3d
F20101106_AAAYBV best_m_Page_054.tif
0e7a30073442a28498646c2606471731
3dc6e92dc5d4a3660aebeee40d8d148990d68636
401371 F20101106_AAAXWP best_m_Page_120.jp2
75eb8e6662f340bcbf7b7617bc3976e3
bc613a996170007b2273264a4cf70a350896abba
28271 F20101106_AAAZGB best_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
d519d58511851d3f156d467993fa6866
31557d2b77792f2133c165c809943bc3222bd80b
25265 F20101106_AAAZFN best_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
5d67124a59f1df1610b8706684cc83db
0daf80c47c10e8f15f0339e57ddb07ad74158ac6
8852 F20101106_AAAZEY best_m_Page_106thm.jpg
a79a668ef8eee5049630559a4ad862e1
a6eebca87ef6cc78dc9a2aed459603ce51e48f66
8452 F20101106_AAAYZS best_m_Page_037thm.jpg
2a73ee1c43545cfef19df2467cf6c083
cc70aefad0b03d50449b0c18eef7eaf4b2108bb6
F20101106_AAAYCL best_m_Page_070.tif
2ecf9f1d3756f67912edbc6dcd2169da
ffccc7efae756a5c0d232d54fdc7a2e044062104
1051948 F20101106_AAAXXF best_m_Page_136.jp2
9cf8bc74ab3171f479fe7c5a2c77e3da
9a091ddf7041007e57410e69db12a33c7e8ddbcc
F20101106_AAAYBW best_m_Page_055.tif
f43680342c3b12fd3bdf0d57e3f881ce
6407f286a74fee0c715a1a7bf95f9647128a964f
1025096 F20101106_AAAXWQ best_m_Page_121.jp2
36af845860099e8e55bcc86b73c8fd0a
8638941a5678b4e11b1c0cdf2499fc12bfc40815
7393 F20101106_AAAZGC best_m_Page_121thm.jpg
919882a5f68c06e1cdc98ecc4400a5ca
b4e876217f7ec76fb4b52386cce099a624bff8b3
7149 F20101106_AAAZFO best_m_Page_114thm.jpg
9cb2b5c07cbf6ad38787a5bf0876df1c
2511528c88a7cfc706a2c27112f8438dc0ad5e0c
35066 F20101106_AAAZEZ best_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
7f570dc78365f5b9c25d55001953f47a
5e7a385c083a6853fe2ac94857c3d34c8504a4ac
34006 F20101106_AAAYZT best_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
97eb3f5b93ed037d98140adc38d9e29a
ea96f0fd7a06e79d906c942b9be4c468f1f22a59
F20101106_AAAYCM best_m_Page_071.tif
e2c24b5a500adf8407e8eba4b9106dc0
13c1e6f47b5a99e3267b503a00fe6104db584233
1051927 F20101106_AAAXXG best_m_Page_137.jp2
7833e65847a5ebe46ec81a5bcaf219ae
2e6cf830fe044c4a1f5f8631d1804f863a6ab61f
F20101106_AAAYBX best_m_Page_056.tif
91889be7ade32e6e6d0344481e35547d
2a9b3f3153afb5439d3e6158268edb47c462425f
696928 F20101106_AAAXWR best_m_Page_122.jp2
3f4f85aa9535748790e7c7fac3ca491b
3b537e1ec37629fd2b279e13a55789fb1f8aad0f
F20101106_AAAYDA best_m_Page_085.tif
b11c725e56830511d5ea826267b5ab3c
a42cb47d6dcccffb923e23194ef7cb1418a39367
19710 F20101106_AAAZGD best_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
5519d31eaf6a762a0575dac1cffd7df9
763fad75ea067c4266e3ff10f459fb195eebe0f5
19688 F20101106_AAAZFP best_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
ea6639ed674c928919a0c2c34d6bb1cd
56968a2ff31ec14c7898d3a705ae2f026b3effb2
F20101106_AAAYZU best_m_Page_038thm.jpg
05ad4265805c8aedfe09486f362f42df
f847dcfa7e7abd7befcef855b25b05d66cb8b63c
F20101106_AAAYCN best_m_Page_072.tif
c42598372e7f3df569db2d01f9dffede
4936e0992c43332751b9f3534fcca029c7cc98fc
1051965 F20101106_AAAXXH best_m_Page_138.jp2
ba5ab30872e1f7307dfb9e0621890fe6
a6b5183c16cfa38a2b301e26970f232b23b6dc22
F20101106_AAAYBY best_m_Page_057.tif
da0f6b898d0b3146bd4bd0ce32be2d3c
60528f7eaaa22ab961403765a6a4e2703ab02514
752424 F20101106_AAAXWS best_m_Page_123.jp2
84bb87f21fbcf0ba53829cf0eee98d8b
483b7c09adef903e041c4c10e6484fa9f4338d7d
F20101106_AAAYDB best_m_Page_086.tif
c26da33821b24ae51898e6ddae278850
32f9bede4f7f3026777568c78763916601fed5f0
5361 F20101106_AAAZGE best_m_Page_122thm.jpg
4743d541b009654cbaf53be972eab433
38974150568563cadc1feb8cd444d40fcaa2128c
5293 F20101106_AAAZFQ best_m_Page_115thm.jpg
4849d562e1db7897997d5ad64cda5d7b
65d1f229f632a134b4fc83fd5f601af007ba3c47
34167 F20101106_AAAYZV best_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
de9dc8b27fc186cab0f032d36bb5bbbe
515d2d3f8b4c59d2a2b57643fc5bf49ac891cb7d
F20101106_AAAYCO best_m_Page_073.tif
65456f3607d790eaad5a8239de97070b
66fd609e5d148636219da1a9090ce16f3c7eb83e
F20101106_AAAXXI best_m_Page_139.jp2
dcfa53a49038c8f747212a98613b6d14
424e3d93803617c77914633f19dba6115df161a6
F20101106_AAAYBZ best_m_Page_058.tif
1cf6bf8cd9dafb3b02d48421145c5de8
c7ee320dd5189c79c73a719453049b72903efc3c
641423 F20101106_AAAXWT best_m_Page_124.jp2
bb3e9259d0ab9281aa28c1319e298908
8c1f35124a8e10f010af3e666473c5b0640dea90
F20101106_AAAYDC best_m_Page_087.tif
227e9cb79c24501656edc48ce4e624c2
72d45caf2998a8de3e06bf3314558b12793c3957
21666 F20101106_AAAZGF best_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
5bbf9a1c397e7852768780af075956ca
81e3773dab4d3e40d287a0bcec8f5a622b5f5924
25407 F20101106_AAAZFR best_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
462e5e35ff8fdb320be3dd0ffced965f
b729f3c7c92d37270113d6a8bc3c97ab78bae06f
8485 F20101106_AAAYZW best_m_Page_039thm.jpg
7f84d6aa4472d8440c8ffe0300c5f1b6
620a29bd58cf98a866e084ee78034cb7661e336d
F20101106_AAAYCP best_m_Page_074.tif
e5ba3c74d305dd66012764f579ff83b0
620b45aef85d948130cfa987b605c2efb399a143
1051973 F20101106_AAAXXJ best_m_Page_140.jp2
82490fb69a665dabb11146795b352a40
9e7692653a78d9e3354b177a9522095d6a84d0d3
585751 F20101106_AAAXWU best_m_Page_125.jp2
d11981fcad35e6e85b550f59aa321cb9
cfe395b08f12eeab30fd58b450b64fdcba5d2b4f
F20101106_AAAYDD best_m_Page_088.tif
b21de0f7d3dad580f49d03f2fd988e2e
2ebd72c8eaee469e637090d542ec30599726932e
5688 F20101106_AAAZGG best_m_Page_123thm.jpg
e0162bbb5e459b3c31f8c1fd312311d9
ae1ace9f94471ad186550d8786fcd8a835e6a902
6398 F20101106_AAAZFS best_m_Page_116thm.jpg
4dc2fcc094aaf57bb284c7cdd95da448
250bcb23f6a8a03d282509531d40d1280e575eb2
35441 F20101106_AAAYZX best_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
3fd4d067222352531a9ccbfd2c784fd7
1babad57486bc6eee82e61fd551b86ba669993e7
F20101106_AAAYCQ best_m_Page_075.tif
661a33a2ef073baf182af735aaf56948
478088f3ba12419be01228cec5aa47f73663bf2e
591375 F20101106_AAAXWV best_m_Page_126.jp2
704952872e3000e1758aeac7c483d5ac
88d5ba78b0544ce61267989d0e69a3dea9a3c1df
F20101106_AAAYDE best_m_Page_089.tif
dc72be834e29ddeec2a11d1ceded3fd3
4557c7187827f56b392d24436d243c041317bbca
17763 F20101106_AAAZGH best_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
820ae09b8b25684d8f483c9bf3de1fd4
559a187cabca1bf061fcfe33a0e5f557bc6241ef
19410 F20101106_AAAZFT best_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
420b10a09bcc3bb9d1538ebb75792cd4
59c1d63a758346f3fbe4807337a07ece00c5abd9
8596 F20101106_AAAYZY best_m_Page_040thm.jpg
7c2f9b67c03dcb0ba754b05cc5bedc21
9315462ce703296173b71338cd120f81cf4d8705
F20101106_AAAYCR best_m_Page_076.tif
aaafa157bcf1f92a20bc6707c2f0204b
692eb3034fb8506bc5e0e6714f98c2fc63252019
1051978 F20101106_AAAXXK best_m_Page_141.jp2
47dec4611d73456d77d88206074079b6
9d24af846623c720a0856930add402690c2023b7
467587 F20101106_AAAXWW best_m_Page_127.jp2
e41c9f97871c220426485b05ad5c0d28
c0f26d27f3b19a1a1482b00a79afbe0bb892bc76
F20101106_AAAYDF best_m_Page_090.tif
ec92c5d04a288c77fd807f5ad7dbf485
861e804aa346b76e9f6ddbb5052a13c61c0b7acf
4598 F20101106_AAAZGI best_m_Page_124thm.jpg
c19c70fd2d24a63708d8ed44a7ce3d37
5121a1af16a883f1c14a9c803034735a9855b82d
5056 F20101106_AAAZFU best_m_Page_117thm.jpg
068790a2db4e4926cb8836821d9f915a
81b1540243285d2128a0b0b7af655bfa867ae903
35563 F20101106_AAAYZZ best_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
70b3a2ebbb800dec860c007860767b78
2982f4d91f9e6b1f18a812acef7726ddb8634603
F20101106_AAAYCS best_m_Page_077.tif
81787a892ec575f65c38356d331929b4
315644335ad03fbdd6a184a90a565e0dca9073b2
F20101106_AAAXXL best_m_Page_142.jp2
e4d95ff651a83d46829b456a1fc86013
d82d698485ae6fc6e906b368e91af9312c4bc42f
814285 F20101106_AAAXWX best_m_Page_128.jp2
94d114b30dddd5c14e3b362e792027b5
4dc98b1de2330c2fc4c9ad5de4a066ad98078125
F20101106_AAAYDG best_m_Page_091.tif
a30336feb8e062feb3c3a5fd3ee74a25
fdfde41a0d089f045cd5862cc3d32e8102a9902f
1018292 F20101106_AAAXYA best_m_Page_157.jp2
d371489928b94a47dc9712c4276b8fe1
723ce7f2783f22f90c2debe8e71144125b7a0462
16744 F20101106_AAAZGJ best_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
9c76bd6de72517becbe43945ffa26d87
13abb3190524d030fa3d9cba665cb2cd37e53e4c
29206 F20101106_AAAZFV best_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
8d7e2b4dbb0053285d8c1b6d4cb56f80
6bce294375cff2b7d3b5329383d32aa4c938da5d
F20101106_AAAYCT best_m_Page_078.tif
4839542721d52bb3e22296b8b96a5408
aec2138454c7682ecf273c6ac2dfd93c802c3c0e
1051971 F20101106_AAAXXM best_m_Page_143.jp2
6c7fb344b30d5ed01f01d80d0e78f819
d1564b79f148691a9344aeb334c29637faea32a6
628433 F20101106_AAAXWY best_m_Page_129.jp2
d8a4b69b359565d125f7d9bc59a75853
7b427c7554d0921ac56e19a15b0d98585e41a935
F20101106_AAAYDH best_m_Page_092.tif
65da32585e1e02bc5c52d81848e2c876
ee184814573e4c3518d8281163f89345401108a9
685400 F20101106_AAAXYB best_m_Page_158.jp2
419f8fbf948b418ba3a07b24638f2207
cd81c78355beaf42634fe445a16f5bf1929d96e7
4423 F20101106_AAAZGK best_m_Page_125thm.jpg
6e92aa8fcb30747f6598e59efda8e4d3
4c557888cac528a24dd830d4c94f30cf45d5729b
1051914 F20101106_AAAXXN best_m_Page_144.jp2
b804932372a47800f1b609eed6a335dd
1fa44e60eb7fa82e19394497b77da0ec00bf1b16
39854 F20101106_AAAXWZ best_m_Page_130.jp2
b0fc3e961688d4e84cf63f1c9db15df4
2ea8a57b9b41cc4e7283e7773ea0cd9af0d68b3b
F20101106_AAAYDI best_m_Page_093.tif
c9311db8b235757ccc9da0914200838f
1616558a24b3d213952612dea6b725cca0bbc588
969120 F20101106_AAAXYC best_m_Page_159.jp2
b383d92719e0fe403d769cd57bce87eb
ead53f1fa38aede12ae36c27abca52a59986705f
16153 F20101106_AAAZGL best_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
7385e56de5062e7e693e90a3fe9085bc
1ff0c17b69811de173e99be44caa10c50896ae17
7141 F20101106_AAAZFW best_m_Page_118thm.jpg
cdbc6a0ac15c3cc92bf909ad2340551f
34c826e3b8930bacd0d0a81ea96bf49e39022008
F20101106_AAAYCU best_m_Page_079.tif
bee83bd004a54f333cbc3cb36680c9d6
ef72f58380a28df49be8871faff18c230477a325
F20101106_AAAXXO best_m_Page_145.jp2
4516160db74dd717961662a00f517d64
d5a81559e45f90cb4f5190ef42085c9e969c4966
F20101106_AAAYDJ best_m_Page_094.tif
f019c5451f735cde618de2641f830158
add67510984c01732e55695e6d5379d6713fe6a7
1051977 F20101106_AAAXYD best_m_Page_160.jp2
19579792111728bc89a8e96e4ff2ffdf
d9cf2d9467432460478cf57c22c21a2e5fa1a974
8292 F20101106_AAAZHA best_m_Page_133thm.jpg
a40a06b05331ccd917f77119a5d65a66
32292fbba09b26b4ad3648857e319bf12da30ee3
4333 F20101106_AAAZGM best_m_Page_126thm.jpg
c5a4c73910f7389badcf3e74a6b9bebe
8b09eb149f1d4b3e96c2eb7d6b9c50d433a0d976
16151 F20101106_AAAZFX best_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
8fa33692e85a36d4d230520d1dd94cff
9707ed2da0dc5a733c5cea11e81a4680e3bfad4e
F20101106_AAAYCV best_m_Page_080.tif
fa6ccd2d2847a1896894fd7cfeaeae8b
b0f3e360fbbdadc56787216d7affbab12446efac
1051972 F20101106_AAAXXP best_m_Page_146.jp2
f8f443c25a2ab245e01343e5a218f307
52d651681b1c330932223338559d8a927cc806da
F20101106_AAAYDK best_m_Page_095.tif
9a3c49697465979a483e3eaf4071bcd6
de50433fe620460a795045c67c0a7419cba591aa
763151 F20101106_AAAXYE best_m_Page_161.jp2
93a76ec0f1a208f9a0728be0eed85926
e82795ea0de2e4ad2df44da2b542efe6bea23fc6
32333 F20101106_AAAZHB best_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
df96c3d90b244de8e44565046af554e7
1f7f0fa6416f61b815f30e58328026765c43d309
13192 F20101106_AAAZGN best_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
22d3461279fc42a205ea1a65c4037a2a
8e422e7eda363071afd0e2214378dbe09f67574e
4557 F20101106_AAAZFY best_m_Page_119thm.jpg
c3b7455634a88ce3e27cfd12cfb7fd61
6c7ab65bbd779203b8cdeaf979cceeb7aebade03
F20101106_AAAYCW best_m_Page_081.tif
91a2ecadd5c2f15352afd8152f11bf96
64c26edf39ca14ff8405558fbff7759aa450dce2
F20101106_AAAXXQ best_m_Page_147.jp2
9d99521a76cc4678050163d512789615
4830a8999e07c026f37e0ea6293788e820e6ad6a
F20101106_AAAYDL best_m_Page_096.tif
51e8d6fad7287fd0085e5f49897b0cc0
8d81e494376982b926a531b218be1e1c003e8d0d
775761 F20101106_AAAXYF best_m_Page_162.jp2
73e7c089a99c64a5531a97e885659d5e
4e2901735dbc9f484d8aeb3b1faf86b668983a33
8027 F20101106_AAAZHC best_m_Page_134thm.jpg
08526a70ccd487cc8d0e7233b6999da3
a68707eb667c69ff2826467af448f3cc211b4bb0
3468 F20101106_AAAZGO best_m_Page_127thm.jpg
e9aa62e1ae6864ecb75d5fbc3ba9d9a1
4d67825d95e05b71fbf705cf431cb1747b434bd8
13157 F20101106_AAAZFZ best_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
81b120305fd41cf11d1db5a8d7d83af8
32efc87c8744031dcda066a3a42684cc6f9e7fb6
F20101106_AAAYCX best_m_Page_082.tif
eee689e5b7cc8f5d7c435e4a43325fee
054bb5a662d94cfb5a9944632dff915de620472e
1051976 F20101106_AAAXXR best_m_Page_148.jp2
2090fe6160ef6f22c56f136a70582860
fd91fecd1f228239879a0c0b66ed8d0be68771a3
F20101106_AAAYEA best_m_Page_111.tif
743bdf568d503374681286553b6eb453
0b8ebdd58d19f2913aa77b509cebbe5c9f9fd0ef
F20101106_AAAYDM best_m_Page_097.tif
26b66bb03ebbc2810d1e3319c0f0c76a
531589aabad08c4eb3ea4c56182012fd01b8f085
650574 F20101106_AAAXYG best_m_Page_163.jp2
185d11ad029746df45376c1555d5951c
6710c092af823354d0e6ab37e1952446287f9a27
34610 F20101106_AAAZHD best_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
87eb6d383511dbcf0d673ec2ae6cc6ed
1ac545b51048b25658371a1409480dbb9cd89b49
22783 F20101106_AAAZGP best_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
ebb6a77958b7c3fcc19e11cdd5fe8c0d
64b99ba81b6b8675add64ff8a378c43484e19482
F20101106_AAAXXS best_m_Page_149.jp2
5d319e7e27f0be2789b5d720f6b4bdc2
5dc18a4a54b5dde74f5e54a642ff2f629bce1025
F20101106_AAAYEB best_m_Page_112.tif
51cedb6ab29e282600b2b1ba02b2ef69
8fd6c73dab1088d9b51b15a5b2c7d4822f754254
F20101106_AAAYDN best_m_Page_098.tif
e320c797b43bc13cf5f3fd4412c0a222
09c4e1e64db335deb8800582ff158dc21f92b5ce
653624 F20101106_AAAXYH best_m_Page_164.jp2
ba88a17b5d97b5dbc12eb2f576e86391
ac463b2936eee0b17e86a5411f4e3cf02fdc7c58
F20101106_AAAYCY best_m_Page_083.tif
c71296b664ed9580cbc6f989c6a215fb
c666bab1bb801716aa949eed342078a6eae20e6f
8512 F20101106_AAAZHE best_m_Page_135thm.jpg
79fe596749a4780bef32b700d365110c
dfad0403506fb13f660727769b2f2fe60a5db996
5591 F20101106_AAAZGQ best_m_Page_128thm.jpg
7347c775ddcc7bdb5c04a56d698f746a
7cf8ee6238724b3280fc6870d91212f2c3a292a9
F20101106_AAAXXT best_m_Page_150.jp2
25630d1490351ba8baa4f5aceb6600ba
8d093a9eac1c9d60bfe0d30c84c7047359f913be
F20101106_AAAYEC best_m_Page_113.tif
27b02b195eeefcd8afb782455652478c
391a1c08757cdf52d8817215456ac7b3ec59459e
F20101106_AAAYDO best_m_Page_099.tif
2b2839bfd81f24d43fd11dbdea448bd2
a62882e7f02fcb24277f3abdf9c3f2b0c62ca33e
444505 F20101106_AAAXYI best_m_Page_165.jp2
a5721f8c80595477984d65d7f572dcd4
4a8092c47bc0f6158392dee779a017670aa28641
F20101106_AAAYCZ best_m_Page_084.tif
a30ff18cc0dbd65f45564d2b3d7e5aba
3162b7d93f35bb5e3f3bf79c94441e26a846217c
37268 F20101106_AAAZHF best_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
f3893ab6debd4d21ce926ddb0c830dda
df92b2a2bf8e7d917ab84c228a94922635d22c04
19168 F20101106_AAAZGR best_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
938c4fa80af1534dd04dce5b10e26b13
e3a12275d99cd9bd4dcf5b1cc4ea286c9abf9dca
F20101106_AAAXXU best_m_Page_151.jp2
38c515d04954063274beae70872bdc48
ee9e1bb51fb5bb2599f044692156a5a7eea1d1f1
F20101106_AAAYED best_m_Page_114.tif
08db58155dcae92202f6a5de0baff07e
56c2b4183479b9575e03fd2f41d30f9796c91e6f
F20101106_AAAYDP best_m_Page_100.tif
5a57074d7ad8b513f595e5e3afd49290
2c78442869045617a6328ff3821a72a58a9a1d2f
933541 F20101106_AAAXYJ best_m_Page_166.jp2
a0931e612c31bce2ac50fa2dc1d1d057
d9f3cd0b3a13320966762679b0c39e32ea3dc6b2
9078 F20101106_AAAZHG best_m_Page_136thm.jpg
a51986e425d924c4cb306ee4957b7a9b
917aa6a8c9587d83cd5310200538237251944aee
4835 F20101106_AAAZGS best_m_Page_129thm.jpg
4f92f06d3e53978f8f19afa9781a1466
303518c1e38ec611e99b41fabc4cd9fe60e89fc5
1047561 F20101106_AAAXXV best_m_Page_152.jp2
8da846dbad5f34bfea25bbf514b6d108
6cd9e2abd33b3fa2aef97d42e2533399aa4592be
F20101106_AAAYEE best_m_Page_115.tif
ba8e65801da23ad1d66cee68208e808a
081e26cd0c789ff7705b3e2dc41e5d1892f521e0
F20101106_AAAYDQ best_m_Page_101.tif
acc062527b47dbabf9f770dd8d3a0ff7
76f40acdc8c8e066967f49e4ab54a5483aa3ae74
498079 F20101106_AAAXYK best_m_Page_167.jp2
4a08caea99adb570dfb709139a01318e
019b2d6246d2e85b3c8ee60873e6d86bc193eab4
34330 F20101106_AAAZHH best_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
068e3c73f9fdfef76695e94cbd2c9e00
d70803783807372aa9219b4780953af61011c220
11832 F20101106_AAAZGT best_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
70bab6eac6557f1558d7c5836cb27483
b6a28184d8d02390b5607768619ef3c67c4cfee7
F20101106_AAAXXW best_m_Page_153.jp2
ca73d118159b65e73c42596599f16ae5
ac7021f2cff64eb8ee6c2b147d1d531cec0a6305
F20101106_AAAYEF best_m_Page_116.tif
d0b48c56eb0d3080860f6b79398fae90
c51429efd9105dd3d67ccbd70e1e9f62af19eb9a
F20101106_AAAYDR best_m_Page_102.tif
895f28955abc5c0fdafba8d68039488b
4a68af52def951217021a0fe9d8af8306155c387
8533 F20101106_AAAZHI best_m_Page_137thm.jpg
9b351b1e362f112b277ee68a9c7c7aa8
152477457dc2c4f6cf2c7a2b908468cdd468ee7d
3691 F20101106_AAAZGU best_m_Page_130thm.jpg
c8809506b74f43aa841cbd50d8f0af60
21d477f9c9d5d0695fc5d24802ce04fcc2346c6a
1051969 F20101106_AAAXXX best_m_Page_154.jp2
c4e449717b734374268c07220797072f
6a9444883bcb2052e17f66cfbb60eb001fa2683e
F20101106_AAAYEG best_m_Page_117.tif
5d207d349e1036f5687247d497658c4b
26c0b55d6d898717e770e8e2724e06ddeb932afd
1040950 F20101106_AAAXZA best_m_Page_183.jp2
8317dff3a781985b2d4f08717ec849d6
88ba4b15ca2cbcad36c8f5e3d34bfc0657d0088f
F20101106_AAAYDS best_m_Page_103.tif
0aa31872c6692b58d66f19fa7a04f14d
b66ea88224c7b3aa9a36089c7aad41cca320f827
710902 F20101106_AAAXYL best_m_Page_168.jp2
ec7f972722ddb557a679d6e8ce225fbf
a03b60785454917934e876097926fc4e8c2d9502
33029 F20101106_AAAZHJ best_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
0ccc5e17cebc3eff095b237bc61dd8c1
bfd0dd06509c19505938e78f90b81d86b621fa6d
9824 F20101106_AAAZGV best_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
25a62510372e12a10ccc1a0b51347369
155fc717521a0e3c12c17ded13910bd37fc75083
503399 F20101106_AAAXXY best_m_Page_155.jp2
8d285d295eb8172cf0719cdbd9c1658f
802c2e16d523d31101da0a269c46566ed63ea4ec
F20101106_AAAYEH best_m_Page_118.tif
2169f670818a00cc7ab82cc1820f5eef
df7479119a0ecb225b14971f6ba4d9ecbc20ae88
1051952 F20101106_AAAXZB best_m_Page_184.jp2
b939272220a02b95c4f3f27ada32e25c
cc6c969f2e04291127d328efc563b6cdbbaf92cb
F20101106_AAAYDT best_m_Page_104.tif
a9e28392e6c10c840e7a5eccb729562f
dda7532c539d7bf317a340cd0157f6fa560c3ac0
662065 F20101106_AAAXYM best_m_Page_169.jp2
e63a5b8f8fa5ca9b961462009c0affb4
c5de70fd344f3d64e65b01d57ac3602cd6a002fd
8325 F20101106_AAAZHK best_m_Page_138thm.jpg
df4abc0d47a34b377653a36e724e6d16
2fd37a0bd97d68a57b137224a1a6feac3fe556f7
2787 F20101106_AAAZGW best_m_Page_131thm.jpg
1ee4ac7f613cb5c707606f7eda02e470
48031f121b89e219e5f949046b2470f52ca7f5a8
F20101106_AAAXXZ best_m_Page_156.jp2
bae4b005890582620301afb9f9be580e
a9fcf2d58c9bcee3ae3bba46deecd798e4c239b9
F20101106_AAAYEI best_m_Page_119.tif
5254aba06c1925180584a95b38d7f6f7
918626b1b362747879baf16104b96129ffb0c00e
473458 F20101106_AAAXZC best_m_Page_185.jp2
bb7d5a4d0389dd5bff26a1258c68d772
7cf9fd5c55f838523e9dd15c5f81fd59106d7cf0
F20101106_AAAYDU best_m_Page_105.tif
874295542f9a311b1f3b3d1c3cb51c58
8b4b87bfe891fd59d004664f22666e57a5b3df6e
571969 F20101106_AAAXYN best_m_Page_170.jp2
c5014ff262196f610439ca8a1205bfb3
cdee0bd37fa55b2053b4cf96d70ab14726a556fc
32423 F20101106_AAAZHL best_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
eb0b04914efe995f904bf74d017d8c56
73bebda291cf4265057d91700851e101aeeb5d90
F20101106_AAAYEJ best_m_Page_120.tif
9554daf857ff783fa23ce9a2fa8ef7d7
def2b26c1c0a92c1c2ce77fbbe4ae434564c71d7
842654 F20101106_AAAXZD best_m_Page_186.jp2
ff05dc3f5d19d0ba75365f4b6bb89670
5740fa51797cc725f9883241e35d0fabc83a54b2
691416 F20101106_AAAXYO best_m_Page_171.jp2
8c07acfb91887cd59d6cf5276b9b7a84
16fc0550147a7adcd7dd719355bbe21b3d895126
8451 F20101106_AAAZIA best_m_Page_146thm.jpg
9c9da4fb32b020ceb9475747afc4e03c
c92204bf8ec2fcba14a79d470f18ba810c78e9be
8112 F20101106_AAAZHM best_m_Page_139thm.jpg
d4871fb023c912bca444657ecffc5e60
c433569f0cbba61a009b60601fcf5b93640d1c46
17436 F20101106_AAAZGX best_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
f8722480d3fca261129788c1b4b03c22
377a7d70fcc5584020411e9a517e45daee0316ba
F20101106_AAAYEK best_m_Page_121.tif
e9d1be19f84f2b77c2c1e01c9f9eaab2
37208965b7a18ecf873162ae801e5bd2ebda5376
F20101106_AAAXZE best_m_Page_187.jp2
0ec516b6988a5223288caac91a8b7ece
de6c6281a0f6e6d90b6b590c6cb190e150a4c006
F20101106_AAAYDV best_m_Page_106.tif
95db9367c24c7f37afce1cc897a536d0
d708369ba307d9d2527f22f73072be76bdd3444e
435407 F20101106_AAAXYP best_m_Page_172.jp2
635246d17c6eb1979848c889b7582dc6
4d2dd8994b314c90ce394935274de684d25996a5
33591 F20101106_AAAZIB best_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
eb2b044d37e6ac259188e6769efe67d3
e3fe5a07f7088979ca41e96937af866dc4352135
F20101106_AAAZHN best_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
d881779356870675851a5c4c47a4d055
87045e06db454314770dc892a1aa8c87cc68dab7
4825 F20101106_AAAZGY best_m_Page_132thm.jpg
1bf1d692abbf6c000f29aaa44c95c91a
8803dcbbc011e31bb0aac749de986b535856215f
F20101106_AAAYEL best_m_Page_122.tif
d261bfb71a07e0f9d903fde6a5b534f6
b0c3a183c838ff7c6ea570aa42e7f5cf9fd27603
F20101106_AAAXZF best_m_Page_188.jp2
80f2983a1279c488fd05f58293009d52
bb1bb5eaf673742a8a33d2fac82aeac853461945
F20101106_AAAYDW best_m_Page_107.tif
db1e5bb567e3800812bd70d26d83d605
e2360b58767e5d212642773b3dc52e808c9a0e76
35483 F20101106_AAAXYQ best_m_Page_173.jp2
665854b98d1ff05d845002e5365cf6ca
32cf74ead87f56890c7662ab069b347f4022c5e7
8835 F20101106_AAAZIC best_m_Page_147thm.jpg
718438ce4be0a864cbfc0689264800fe
5ab3f85c178b76c17a52b126b88b10cb942881e4
F20101106_AAAZHO best_m_Page_140thm.jpg
8607aba0c81ab067e2e309ae339302e4
c4ed09bf37e7f4ef1911783fccd389ca6610c4e7
33355 F20101106_AAAZGZ best_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
3c79d52e143fc78cbae28bb3d3c24e56
63e5ddecb179d28ef5165c861b04ae0a65ca5e4d
F20101106_AAAYEM best_m_Page_123.tif
e58f0ae9bad29999c41325defc33af06
ef1b79937c6580325ac9dc8f84922fd91fc3a713
F20101106_AAAXZG best_m_Page_189.jp2
a7bb89dc38a984bc67cf1ef84b05b0ed
cf2994c121f626e6537e5532caf119b877bee404
F20101106_AAAYDX best_m_Page_108.tif
23ec4b70183ffc6da9d81b0ad7fd95ce
f72e39af53ec1303be73d34983f7b06a9d9e324e
355691 F20101106_AAAXYR best_m_Page_174.jp2
699b474ecbe8ec4dc6b2edc63cb31bda
1e6c3f5cd9a5b2c7eaa936d67ae16fbdf7f7e13b
F20101106_AAAYFA best_m_Page_137.tif
8bed192cef8d46f1eec236b8ccd1f084
f5ce0b59edbc032ad689a02dadb8ffa0d4047643
33992 F20101106_AAAZID best_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
46ee40fdf1c6ab3984bea2ffcb6087df
2a6afb43496a55bb06866eeff6c1a1d57d8428c2
35272 F20101106_AAAZHP best_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
a7896d1db64c29779837035de81ec7e5
c787afb69658ae5cbf6082f3a1db4ed7f3a8e37f
F20101106_AAAYEN best_m_Page_124.tif
70b9a3ce98b1fb41066e56b54a71178c
47bfb562abba40bf61ae04ab0cb8e7e61d21cd18
584801 F20101106_AAAXZH best_m_Page_190.jp2
920e133136e0d601e592c6e846e66875
c62d7d06d2391d9ef53154d4b4d184595dbc9db9
F20101106_AAAYDY best_m_Page_109.tif
1c2bf3b9766a98832caba6ebb581cf72
882af4fb2bed4545ab7733b6ca67c513775b3905
1051855 F20101106_AAAXYS best_m_Page_175.jp2
c01ade6b4e47acce172a616d8c72d9ea
6c2ace1c043ef88cd0da22e6d4ccb16d9d62c422
F20101106_AAAYFB best_m_Page_138.tif
ea79c2b2a6267f66503ec9821e5e0aed
c95ac50c6a51563b09cd8ffd5e96409e4829f772
8740 F20101106_AAAZIE best_m_Page_148thm.jpg
643e1b68163b21a601990cf0e9272347
8b4e995a70ac4d8c857122af6eae6dee2f79795d
8726 F20101106_AAAZHQ best_m_Page_141thm.jpg
9199ec33523f3be9caf78c2c9d9a7d65
c9d41022414f342841ecf93c779f1cc06d6c9162
F20101106_AAAYEO best_m_Page_125.tif
612859e64556abdec7cbbb06c18260e8
401d468cd978a4accc63c7bf7c6b18f26e3e0bed
F20101106_AAAXZI best_m_Page_191.jp2
3cdd52b455876d669e5b1ae045e43c02
711a80ec95ed38829c764aa80f73a914d35d7823
F20101106_AAAYDZ best_m_Page_110.tif
978617cd1096be0c5bb002782d180f04
1328daf33440f1190a0a31bced0b6f25c7383322
512446 F20101106_AAAXYT best_m_Page_176.jp2
696cca6f46b7bc934bb8914f8f0b7601
7f59f3d57d3387703c361373962357a3146c5a84
F20101106_AAAYFC best_m_Page_139.tif
7e6c77b6ca936375ce960a2be05be91a
569ac305b7c6602db9abd4f3b0cdbb10d1c9b23a
32476 F20101106_AAAZIF best_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
e1d1121c4c88212930786c26670f9763
62bba3356835916bde0ff2c80678f5cb8da3cacc
33233 F20101106_AAAZHR best_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
f4700173b32c09bcd6f3043afbfc3c48
afa85c202064153487cf78e17573270a05144573
F20101106_AAAYEP best_m_Page_126.tif
ea616e3c7d56728742293eafbd8179ae
37b63bdb3353d06e3026304e6830fe0ad888271f
1051863 F20101106_AAAXZJ best_m_Page_192.jp2
a52432a8777fe99eef81e7515b64ae9d
124f3f5166e646e37d3b2332988d14b1a06ee048
611400 F20101106_AAAXYU best_m_Page_177.jp2
f834d16922bd82ae7829363d94c503ca
b0eea6f6ff153c348f703e9f69492669aec06122
F20101106_AAAYFD best_m_Page_140.tif
85e26b0ae84edd909e4692bd06571e47
825d8fc25c236f992e1b13132de951b60e2f63b1
8261 F20101106_AAAZIG best_m_Page_149thm.jpg
2e8901027a83f4c8b39c760ad65312fa
ab4d1ea506a61e88d75b0290f7c803bb4a2a936f
8101 F20101106_AAAZHS best_m_Page_142thm.jpg
454b838300c8e3c77db5c39f3a8bb0d7
820e63802d409c071921a4b455398c9553d53243
F20101106_AAAYEQ best_m_Page_127.tif
5d01d66f3285dde0f84cc224b3835fb3
b34dac5d62d0429549c4fb84ec55d8cd9ab57421
F20101106_AAAXZK best_m_Page_193.jp2
ffcc89907815205f84aed91fc40e25e8
e473d8a01437212d38e58949903ab50d7e51db79
734256 F20101106_AAAXYV best_m_Page_178.jp2
03d06ce0cc2783d7cc7cbb5af050c102
3c4903bc65d268bac95b2534cf03453f254874e6
F20101106_AAAYFE best_m_Page_141.tif
a273dd577013099097323f73334e8637
2fb79bac796968c61e80730473fb37cfd320139f
34472 F20101106_AAAZIH best_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
a403a243bc5dbe34df5b7f10dfd3c7b0
4355c9a49fcbbff02dfc1f82161c837d839dff57
31786 F20101106_AAAZHT best_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
7584ca4098bfd3f160d94352c15fe74b
3e0b2d14cecbfd39a17cd9b10546fae0f43bf872
F20101106_AAAYER best_m_Page_128.tif
aec91a0b23b77d9ad859188b1fd32295
ff02f3fd4d1f5a8d0503e17a1107fc7b906238e3
F20101106_AAAXZL best_m_Page_194.jp2
6a4c1ba9c5d50c82824234611b7c5d24
c9691610cbf1f157b7d72bc9227fbd2097e24da1
1038167 F20101106_AAAXYW best_m_Page_179.jp2
9744db6c6b27159a0b3f5a4bbd3fa1bd
35ed02ee5242d52ca4f79bac71eb16a0e44503c9
F20101106_AAAYFF best_m_Page_142.tif
f72f23e8c6508611beb7426151c837b6
ee04016293e1a376f2133e8567988c0740893fff
8556 F20101106_AAAZII best_m_Page_150thm.jpg
cf4ae4cf4c9959163af3f3fad755998d
83a1fd974b21894040b8ddddf764f17d274d7bd4
7628 F20101106_AAAZHU best_m_Page_143thm.jpg
65601d8dd3b1adfb1ed4ded33c30732f
6c60d03ddab89e91cb9be7925ffbc8690b13b0c9
F20101106_AAAYES best_m_Page_129.tif
e345ee596fb35ed1860e334ae6ce609a
8d9ab603ab827593c56b5add9adacd162a238530
F20101106_AAAXYX best_m_Page_180.jp2
8eb4ff1ea1c50743ebdd87d062ad4ede
09c12db20671b60fecf3c7627b72ac320c093a89
F20101106_AAAYFG best_m_Page_143.tif
99c2af25093d73fe6967fc565b3a0d1d
6a027558e147ef7effe478bb090417c18b5a7bd8
33778 F20101106_AAAZIJ best_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
f4dd2c8c3e7b7933b9ddc10ec6136bdd
dd3f5e173b102059c42525a6acf77a68423ede10
33851 F20101106_AAAZHV best_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
de72c4144f545b084688e736dec48e8f
038f736ec287b72802762fbeadbe4c0727faa5c2
1053954 F20101106_AAAYET best_m_Page_130.tif
a7a99d124568db8a6536efc3778261e0
8156fbff21fc175d0878b64e83048d7916491838
1051941 F20101106_AAAXZM best_m_Page_195.jp2
b5ad60e4b771f1240b8a2542f10eb6f4
65ce7cc074b65b32e76cae67cf65d1f49921ea61
384552 F20101106_AAAXYY best_m_Page_181.jp2
1c646fc01bf8040725c3af74dd34180c
1d94cf98ae41f4224731dee03c6ab5d88f7744eb
F20101106_AAAYFH best_m_Page_144.tif
888d3f1b7ef9a39a7cb3e035a3365a17
20cc641d6d883d7d7dfa69782a1b5e37a3f5cea8
8118 F20101106_AAAZIK best_m_Page_151thm.jpg
8c41574dbf7921da094d9121a0e87e78
60285243068e9861db1b87847877889bc579a08b
8747 F20101106_AAAZHW best_m_Page_144thm.jpg
f8c802cc49e039047bd3dc9b71041c85
0c121878b014263b430984eb13c37784b171afd1
F20101106_AAAYEU best_m_Page_131.tif
6e3b18ebcb7d4dd344a32e76e20a6040
030eebb4375dcfa4690388aee8776248cf7c4517
F20101106_AAAXZN best_m_Page_196.jp2
c974cf6838baf1970e86e2a440148c63
6ec8281f33a5948e6ec477cc4de4fc92f08f4bd1
609591 F20101106_AAAXYZ best_m_Page_182.jp2
2b4e2e1fa67a75d16d1df34dad212602
597d0546c66d4351ebe85da921bee8a82d2c73e8
F20101106_AAAYFI best_m_Page_145.tif
3018124d4f8037765664ba1452d7027b
db8c3669c313e53a431efb7952b9b057c8bff5c9
27790 F20101106_AAAZIL best_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
2372092fd4ce336463a830ee0ccd4407
207ef89cd5dcf347174cbcef1fcbe9b0713cdaa6
33380 F20101106_AAAZHX best_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
7db2f9737330a0e09cb5e94c6008e70b
6bfe55840df426ff357bc1ee3f8ebaddd4e974f2
8423998 F20101106_AAAYEV best_m_Page_132.tif
e977d0a89e6d7194d8b6cd061462eece
6d45e9bb341ccc007f7d84021084ccb88a070ad1
1051954 F20101106_AAAXZO best_m_Page_197.jp2
6e3f59dea91828c6b3fd5189fa811a12
b892738f2bae00f83cf3888237043bcf5aa8f9fe
F20101106_AAAYFJ best_m_Page_146.tif
1dc87444127d39ebb6e62f64cc3bcc41
15875a92b32ebaf918a07174d6fec3530ad8b038
7129 F20101106_AAAZJA best_m_Page_159thm.jpg
d75ca6d4cbd17247b27a54e3c4e547a9
ddac207ae2d09920887ee9aa01e6352088227adf
7570 F20101106_AAAZIM best_m_Page_152thm.jpg
a9e26114e0043d2a0925389b0ba3245a
75685e7e6cb62fa1957ca20d5beb1f4b4b1cc374
F20101106_AAAXZP best_m_Page_198.jp2
fcc50ecf8e2c22c1d94f9352ec324520
97b05dff5683ac130177a06fe43cbf30146a84e0
F20101106_AAAYFK best_m_Page_147.tif
5ab0a37469d3ff84e4f8c3b97b81619f
befbd2b68f37a6ed859a90b66a6c95c7a899ca7b
32153 F20101106_AAAZJB best_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
464f62ee3e5b1ed129af912af7f48470
b65e4beda48c54c9af179b8d2921f89f55a2c3af
36539 F20101106_AAAZIN best_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
7d34ae6377137ef6b2f79481edae6619
d107f945a6746bd7fc631df7f6fc3d39c349be5f
8330 F20101106_AAAZHY best_m_Page_145thm.jpg
c3a16974c8312acd8e59695378eb6549
ceb9e44aa21765f47a20875b38910fcc0725b118
F20101106_AAAYEW best_m_Page_133.tif
5a43996f3bd37be7dc6e3cf926bcff7f
79a94142b83668a589e4b98229798a80349a37ab
1051885 F20101106_AAAXZQ best_m_Page_199.jp2
30123e64a5144bcebae8a885a5f19374
c3a28500af2e629318d6ccc4f08b5ff038828e9c
F20101106_AAAYFL best_m_Page_148.tif
e6f293ad73b996395e39647655ba84f1
52e4225ad77d14992c7a55f1095c9acba23a161c
7646 F20101106_AAAZJC best_m_Page_160thm.jpg
82f27531cdd56a86721f421d9faaf2fa
028a282a78c07d8bc845a60fd5f59ed46155ceb1
9023 F20101106_AAAZIO best_m_Page_153thm.jpg
789ee525fc27f507cc07aa9cf5a435c0
ec35b00d56546ce2ae78246b28d0ac2341154563
33777 F20101106_AAAZHZ best_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
0e81fbae453fddc2926bdcffecf3c280
536f6e04c7612b6b1cbcc70a828a65547600500d
F20101106_AAAYEX best_m_Page_134.tif
e7a13426f70869a1a32c93df8de70a98
32137ae1df2c0e8b5d5c66fd0342f49b79278789
F20101106_AAAXZR best_m_Page_200.jp2
69ee392b828067baf6eda3714b282923
1fa7147e8d998e801748ced66beac9cf5bb48a8b
F20101106_AAAYGA best_m_Page_163.tif
adbeb7ac712d4e807cfea7487cd9f449
d8bb855e8ee8e3a3fe906f16b9e4eb3e232ffeb7
F20101106_AAAYFM best_m_Page_149.tif
b419e49ccd46e9205c463a1598bf6ad3
d02e4c8f38b97900f7dc4583ccd70b6563605380
19592 F20101106_AAAZJD best_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
3f1d77fb8691445caba397355dbf8c68
8b804dcf2dab724e28d9d28020d29f5f7e114679
32779 F20101106_AAAZIP best_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
e35982af99209c5138f98f63a0c47108
a45633815b2ca5f74ffea9516142700583a7937c
F20101106_AAAYEY best_m_Page_135.tif
e3cdf1dee91ac0c65c3a1f5bada8345d
22a708093879d91f823e228f85c49f6a62a5ac7d
183607 F20101106_AAAXZS best_m_Page_201.jp2
4d6af3593e86700cd5f3e36d90f389fe
cbfde117265ae7e8656471e3df76dc27b93d6fa8
F20101106_AAAYGB best_m_Page_164.tif
6eb064489f53193ed38efcad960c5e23
5ff9cec2265253883d33ea786ed2555a8f40e555
F20101106_AAAYFN best_m_Page_150.tif
897e85b6e8912335f730e70f93bb20a1
9f20b51fba6498ae3f7d04a5e2f93e347d214753
5017 F20101106_AAAZJE best_m_Page_161thm.jpg
32c0662b678ed9ee532bb00d8b49ff20
3c1e596fcbae4afe8e19595d820a606663da2337
8270 F20101106_AAAZIQ best_m_Page_154thm.jpg
a48be575200d4d4b6694514af59d5904
d4d276bde65b311503dfa4044f5c2e51b9c038e1
F20101106_AAAYEZ best_m_Page_136.tif
e6cbad75f22d35fdd74173759240bce4
67a9f90f9180e590dd8c64264e8ede4647665c7e
1051970 F20101106_AAAXZT best_m_Page_202.jp2
cff72320fc105cacf2df3b49df9ba206
2aec6889afc5ecdc9a61a977b2565d6aaa3763b0
F20101106_AAAYGC best_m_Page_165.tif
19352d3a6ed7cb7a1fcc03167f2dbd5a
4840854894c980b071c4f94656cd13b908f203f3
F20101106_AAAYFO best_m_Page_151.tif
c9ed76e79c80f1388d06d9e955893de4
09d999c41b7ba269011615ca8be5bc5ed983290f
20644 F20101106_AAAZJF best_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
8ef792d4b7c1ddfc0af4244841106dbf
3977325f17cf2c04f35f38e2640ad36ff326f594
15831 F20101106_AAAZIR best_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
1d9054830444a94f54f3ebe2398d959b
f6ef904eca6396fa414ea1876c540898abd49b07
F20101106_AAAXZU best_m_Page_001.tif
d1598781aa38f550dd90175f33dccc78
86292185bdf334a51959ac13e337cf2d455aefa1
F20101106_AAAYGD best_m_Page_166.tif
0ec1af878e953ca603a6f9615cb758a2
2084418f3fb141304dd0361579c0921721c910c4
F20101106_AAAYFP best_m_Page_152.tif
fafc38a57117e58d9e53a45e88318e70
f248384db098955edca16aea84e3d35e90823e31
6463 F20101106_AAAZJG best_m_Page_162thm.jpg
8dcd2092697d28575abc91a90d2f76b0
15c087134aa277cc8a82bd64bbc4c3d5006d9ebd
4110 F20101106_AAAZIS best_m_Page_155thm.jpg
71f6ba32e51287b0e47860919d2c753b
1b539b74e516c16b2914ecc720b143a283f80986
F20101106_AAAXZV best_m_Page_002.tif
d186f00b6f4e69a853ff793acf43d962
31c350cc2535ce67ee9a0b40be2710b54d9687af
F20101106_AAAYGE best_m_Page_167.tif
e374264ce58d8c0a909bde782a02c4bc
a2515a5dfc6e5a04e262e1e43e036745ce4310a0
F20101106_AAAYFQ best_m_Page_153.tif
850bc50fadc1239d834d7dd70e81837f
cc621d389811720d505091043d2797997761805a
19488 F20101106_AAAZJH best_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
d55278d48071c9dac899dcc08d2fc8d3
b8eb05f61209a2689fa7bd27667fa12fb416a17f
29733 F20101106_AAAZIT best_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
6e79d21fb148394dcd1ce1514647bb28
38aa380e06cc9fcd8a1f70ac0c8f42b42a1500a6
F20101106_AAAXZW best_m_Page_003.tif
233e56e463c532e5e60da0b991aa934f
7edf1dfb59e4819bd4fa73019fffb2c15528d8d8
F20101106_AAAYGF best_m_Page_168.tif
9e1eb3f06cb41e509e1ef064ca16703c
b80f3e1f87d515e172ba396d07cf6f073d3c304e
F20101106_AAAYFR best_m_Page_154.tif
db1aa6b50a4f45989c812776b78208f5
3a0c5b4b8c15323965dc935065867b32d9272ede
6191 F20101106_AAAZJI best_m_Page_163thm.jpg
f96304a6aa329b459bf43eed978c5270
7e77e694ccda3a0e0395bbbccc06bff15ded2d15
7536 F20101106_AAAZIU best_m_Page_156thm.jpg
863b34fb6ea2bbca4204e96d49c8874b
3fc542cf3353e51c537f65d846588b89617d418a
F20101106_AAAXZX best_m_Page_004.tif
6810e6ac7c527aacddf3221907a44d45
961a50f1a537b65cb8a6f1604bf0435f5700df55
F20101106_AAAYGG best_m_Page_169.tif
cbf3e2c5e0ffad2697ce53d167541be1
fd6ce1e482134000d9565b3090259b89841777e2
F20101106_AAAYFS best_m_Page_155.tif
35f458783a9560633aeaae25a59f02ab
f088c1d6c4df456400412b4b8d8d37898fed8a62
18017 F20101106_AAAZJJ best_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
1b5bfe5d29391b5beab40655fa0c9ef2
b40f2d2ba76e93e1c714306c8a5509580e6e6260
26469 F20101106_AAAZIV best_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
aecb84f03e92720159f8b81248162389
aa66b210447ab1759a73d0693967b1a67ce44808
F20101106_AAAXZY best_m_Page_005.tif
5dfd727880467093a94170cb3f6b6766
93907feedc58ec4a27db20172808067ec38a12f6
F20101106_AAAYGH best_m_Page_170.tif
fb8b207d5fc08dd1fa646619d278e15e
e9ccfe05517b011b12ad390bee1ff868bbed3dc8
F20101106_AAAYFT best_m_Page_156.tif
add632a977f7bba1892f92d8b8895e28
67d0d5dbc14773afacf6574e21ccf6a2b621d319
5487 F20101106_AAAZJK best_m_Page_164thm.jpg
c8a64eff576a5c6e2cf44dde38c3ea7b
060907f7793e38c88a9c82e8875279f23473bd47
6406 F20101106_AAAZIW best_m_Page_157thm.jpg
15901d05a244af7f18eba3e6cdd4e450
f293a76cc82c946be0972f009ab9fbdffb1d9eca
F20101106_AAAXZZ best_m_Page_006.tif
d8b9a267218b88ac7576c9c31fc014c2
ddf58c0b2270da52a3192c24469d6e45516824dd
F20101106_AAAYGI best_m_Page_171.tif
1c60a7b81ca5e86bddd101f9c291959f
13abdd7ae30a8a07819e05d5409242a317ac4c77
F20101106_AAAYFU best_m_Page_157.tif
f31dbb03f67b7843f4112c84a69af266
efad4c48fceb61fa196237602e3e74cad6ea0633
10466 F20101106_AAAZJL best_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
0e8e9a78757fc1d0bb50172abb719a2e
f419d9757658faa79ded3e2753f00a0d8229bd9e
21041 F20101106_AAAZIX best_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
188e94301d6da3c1569248d337ff03e6
d9c5ab002a69b5a769a5ffb2183b65acb2bf419d
F20101106_AAAYGJ best_m_Page_172.tif
98cd19bba6b0e99f6fcb746b2f6d55f2
0bb6aec379152894a8aa0977c50abcc1d6e7ce81
F20101106_AAAYFV best_m_Page_158.tif
00dc8a4d1b0f3a8fd6d80b30653071e2
f69421dd58e8e66a944df927daebec7d31d705e9
4484 F20101106_AAAZKA best_m_Page_172thm.jpg
e44f93f8dfc67094238089c2483944d6
d90113b9a6b3c020f46c8ea1dcaa0f6a771277bc
2623 F20101106_AAAZJM best_m_Page_165thm.jpg
ea91123327cd450aab47663cbc5d7373
2e4c82f5ec6eadd2d4d5030daf93b8a96a551519
5464 F20101106_AAAZIY best_m_Page_158thm.jpg
73e92f8d63e97bd3582e1daf31f51fab
7f1aafa1cdc4881c2f7324eb85ef41a5e7bd8f82
F20101106_AAAYGK best_m_Page_173.tif
062a3485a259629f00206f559013b4e7
e3a7550ad436ad33b5abe1a57a07d546e9fa63eb
F20101106_AAAYFW best_m_Page_159.tif
c30938f80e8623f47ff82e49563283d4
972254e0eaddfb540992f29971aa7c3818ab5d5c
2290 F20101106_AAAZKB best_m_Page_173.QC.jpg
9dfbdf3479d24bafb684314c0b0ad9ce
522e4c8af2aefedce63f51c95f35c5b681a0ef0b
22629 F20101106_AAAZJN best_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
5adff7cececad27f6d05fcd99e30a124
3fe6061b1da9d22ed33d6a8161e4f75180830f0f
F20101106_AAAYGL best_m_Page_174.tif
efbb426eb4e74ec1f82e38e075785cec
bef1f7389860245b0b165be74dd97f97d0b91a3b
861 F20101106_AAAZKC best_m_Page_173thm.jpg
92b542f93b64b002cbcb54df6d8f6e90
a6f9b80d8dbeeec3babfae955ba8a8d095b45a0b
6630 F20101106_AAAZJO best_m_Page_166thm.jpg
e1306dc78f827b3b32bfa08967ae092b
e6686f81491964045a12b332520a2fed33775269
29619 F20101106_AAAZIZ best_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
043809b59593d724916a35eb6e8e722c
961d6f6e097028e2169c2bad5f81da720d941a14
F20101106_AAAYHA best_m_Page_189.tif
f0ea4a433b89e64fbc33b8ed8bbbb36a
34abb047e622040877ce747de262c0cf18d1cc9d
F20101106_AAAYGM best_m_Page_175.tif
381c5288620d17a752ee8a6c7c379511
b8360c016b224edb1aaa7eb3cb8e48ba83efbbed
F20101106_AAAYFX best_m_Page_160.tif
018ba0ebdb100e1a17c134668992b89f
2ff33843d0fd1c475c0f22c9516d9305947fc781
10812 F20101106_AAAZKD best_m_Page_174.QC.jpg
e93c5223a80e45aa1a64e0a22ebce269
4b2334a04a166f14fb425dbbfd7e80d446f17dac
16692 F20101106_AAAZJP best_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
2f56388a00a1e6b752668df91268098f
b1a60b68f3d7db035dabaea0c74562dd56bc2a40
F20101106_AAAYHB best_m_Page_190.tif
1d7cc351ab9debd99f3a25105c796fb7
4ef8b9bd7c9e8d0ac07b3d3dcd41f2b9589130aa
F20101106_AAAYGN best_m_Page_176.tif
a1f8f3e633ad02fe246ac3a3787533a1
66b4240f94eb7403cf43b2b9004503b537baa876
F20101106_AAAYFY best_m_Page_161.tif
e317ef813d49c4e5db5879d49eeb6ad3
3860f24b36cc9d4e0b5f2c53066d7b2c8c6e29cc
2767 F20101106_AAAZKE best_m_Page_174thm.jpg
c9a4f414982829761313db3ad2a92087
416d1fcd814abebb85d50e254783dfaac3e492b6
5871 F20101106_AAAZJQ best_m_Page_167thm.jpg
50958b1431cac977af1a591643aa2691
21b477e462827a87fabbca033e6424559976f5f8
F20101106_AAAYHC best_m_Page_191.tif
789ee19f9c276dd984e37a538db1c713
821aa7e2be2be8811230be2021fd12115848214f
F20101106_AAAYGO best_m_Page_177.tif
ecada9204fedbf876a6e93aa0486ca3e
db7162d657f34b5f06b155bef97e5ca1bbd0a483
F20101106_AAAYFZ best_m_Page_162.tif
17418bb864fa81b85829a56883735963
3f4fef5f0e082968d80de1c578860c40a9a0f381
26293 F20101106_AAAZKF best_m_Page_175.QC.jpg
6f81fd50e665e6f3a6ee54069e40feb6
38103a89785278848df492f53700a1f4b506753c
21070 F20101106_AAAZJR best_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
3537bd1d7d0d1465ea82db2146d4ca2f
deec45e365112d28a05c79e830cce9a1455dba8b
F20101106_AAAYHD best_m_Page_192.tif
0f3c674b6e2e0ef1a5380bae7043662d
67740d94f91ae28a5f3b0035d584c5993efade86
F20101106_AAAYGP best_m_Page_178.tif
76d2e80df92285dab9ead60b0f7ad25d
a4e52d63c942bfbc9ff9fbed2411a46472e59f80
6470 F20101106_AAAZKG best_m_Page_175thm.jpg
1c9bdfb13f8b175c24b0633f42cf264a
64eb2cd083341757d3b82db47cd169989ab9bf36
6613 F20101106_AAAZJS best_m_Page_168thm.jpg
0e9374186607ba574aa8a4803c0da54a
52f951ab7af47a32b0a4f52293a3d2619aa1bf77
F20101106_AAAYHE best_m_Page_193.tif
90ba2d69a1640f6e751614015f6557bc
352bf567cabe7c5a7bd5ff88390914310500212d
F20101106_AAAYGQ best_m_Page_179.tif
eee498717189c2ae760e9faa14689d45
5bdbb90c705fd52d254e1991b05b888d21bbbacb
13774 F20101106_AAAZKH best_m_Page_176.QC.jpg
7908625a1a82fb0cce11a7e58d822431
d6937a9a6c562dfb042822a344fd983569617f26
20412 F20101106_AAAZJT best_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
3a26b6bfbeca0fbd43fe38398e06582c
2cf53c7bb5dd1bfe2ef409de14a7f4449d0d5141
F20101106_AAAYHF best_m_Page_194.tif
e72e08266f1d7ecf8ce01b42b2e9dd6c
a7785e2d704f9383270cd31ad20ad20779535b60
F20101106_AAAYGR best_m_Page_180.tif
661a1ecf1ce15bff764195be43bfe76c
85e7463af9da1069341124bbabde16bedcc3ae67
3400 F20101106_AAAZKI best_m_Page_176thm.jpg
6ae01da874c974abf4d97111823c7005
fa119992d412f4638ffed77db2d6fee6e9854ccc
6457 F20101106_AAAZJU best_m_Page_169thm.jpg
061eb72da4a1f68a7eedeb79475c05f4
66b1b31ac89bba1b92d46bb2e9827abe92d81000
F20101106_AAAYHG best_m_Page_195.tif
80df33b295f392befca8fdf7bff9cc42
d0001235bb726ac7d56f5c117d8e468468e8adac
F20101106_AAAYGS best_m_Page_181.tif
250e6f863f2ee11ece51e79f5d677ec4
7c645a5429e79e3227c4d332bd6a968b16832177
15104 F20101106_AAAZKJ best_m_Page_177.QC.jpg
8868ff90dbfd471bf2991b5e24c08fbb
d6c2728e55191e93730d468e39815228457596de
18251 F20101106_AAAZJV best_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
da7918558598a8b06308e6f509bd86c5
95c25cc00938dc9194b0fe033a317e9e544ad38c
F20101106_AAAYHH best_m_Page_196.tif
38e8010b588928240ed581728367f92f
e9b096a8f08732c92b65628e5fb6ae2fd39aeb3a
F20101106_AAAYGT best_m_Page_182.tif
1aa35d1eec043e77b98ad44d6b87ad96
f57d48b282d0cdf380df93d32849314abfc8e0f2
3865 F20101106_AAAZKK best_m_Page_177thm.jpg
618e96145f2bd0ae2eb7a65740292c44
747cb2e52e1d03d9ab68595b3cd75e0dc9272bfa
5703 F20101106_AAAZJW best_m_Page_170thm.jpg
b7fbc6e853160c75896e795a58632fd1
0d21d5907656a19db2432e7373393a6a2cf47814
F20101106_AAAYHI best_m_Page_197.tif
c09a4e24d7be4638a0c5105a24f09ac6
ef17139b7d426f0e499671aa034c313de9b68906
F20101106_AAAYGU best_m_Page_183.tif
eaeb10ed841539b095ea7389ba883b61
e46115622bd559a7978438e72eb0aeb095ab3e20
18827 F20101106_AAAZKL best_m_Page_178.QC.jpg
de61a07da426287755dda1639ef89c40
10522af1da63988b6759ee61509d3137069606ef
23396 F20101106_AAAZJX best_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
492e8754d50b6ad18cd117ec1c01f510
e958d6e8457a4ae57bf7ba418623f0afc92b62e2
F20101106_AAAYHJ best_m_Page_198.tif
ef2e3f51504214d1cdde76a46b687f9d
b3889b584ae0854948245e2f5144f2f97a2fdb3b
F20101106_AAAYGV best_m_Page_184.tif
c6d9be67c65b87803dc67e401db7b61a
a93a2720dc8bb1b4abaf15226f4e0da18bef3616
3973 F20101106_AAAZLA best_m_Page_185thm.jpg
8329c50c8b8787dd9a673fb810bcfa4d
dadc1a51a0cfd6cb467725b82be536434592d836
4558 F20101106_AAAZKM best_m_Page_178thm.jpg
65aec5e3a5db45eb1d6b994f3217d75c
a9d390674b3f47afc5338e5f86f4967be5d64bd1
7391 F20101106_AAAZJY best_m_Page_171thm.jpg
54593d19ce3c380e97838cdb4c430188
c4a95ee2997dde0d0bc9c59b0c6b23c1ea107372
F20101106_AAAYHK best_m_Page_199.tif
c69103916f8f341f8b0452bce00c99fc
91ce55fdc28a1bec536faf68f66587c6d8514530
F20101106_AAAYGW best_m_Page_185.tif
7358a95c52acf0651241062deb9ab1c7
72a31e14164a2edc3327f79122738aeda3432904
22653 F20101106_AAAZLB best_m_Page_186.QC.jpg
d85da7499c55aa6657d88318b696fb13
5b7230faf1e14b9fdaa7b500f74826f9f7052376
F20101106_AAAZKN best_m_Page_179.QC.jpg
78924d8b3cfadea2fdbfef24adec320d
52205770bcbbc6375f5be5e37077a57d38502c7a
11947 F20101106_AAAZJZ best_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
54f1b465b6eaa53f99fd7df085e5f101
7c150f1f16cdf4a5584ee061c77479ab5752b1ad
F20101106_AAAYHL best_m_Page_200.tif
e3f9a81b8a1912223bec002850fb40e8
563e750f21825bf2217b265f34769e1718ec9a43
F20101106_AAAYGX best_m_Page_186.tif
cefa527914767a053dde19a728f24ef2
9366294602c408d93d717f538735cba5cbc68cd6
6291 F20101106_AAAZLC best_m_Page_186thm.jpg
d2628bce811270ff83ae22c03a3932ed
99f021b0e8ee4476abf4bfbd9a654987e8368883
6476 F20101106_AAAZKO best_m_Page_179thm.jpg
e5987a5acc6a1533969b0676ea604a1d
599f135634619698e5980c4ac6c15d3e711225ba
F20101106_AAAYHM best_m_Page_201.tif
13e013b29656cc8e629b675a83e93b65
ad890a4ffa3fb1ade8a9a4d5786ee4dd71718cef
46860 F20101106_AAAYIA best_m_Page_013.pro
8901bf322e79a1a01eb4de601a71f6f2
b53e0514244650ede79629f4e0bc8d0f0ee0727a
29832 F20101106_AAAZLD best_m_Page_187.QC.jpg
d57b3e7f5b55b943884f05539efe2c78
1048ae248dc0fa2cfd451a45a525bd8a32548090
28063 F20101106_AAAZKP best_m_Page_180.QC.jpg
16a717cf51a42038ef0eabcfcf8a1e98
263e9115cc075986e7befc450e4b444aac003f44
F20101106_AAAYHN best_m_Page_202.tif
7b1db2bdd33c238ea07464622fce11ad
8bdf928a56d22437839f67501480a84288dec425
F20101106_AAAYGY best_m_Page_187.tif
0b2e1e8b1c976ce1c04d5534c65eb7ff
96b5b048b5b63fb2705f13af030542b73ce33c55
52574 F20101106_AAAYIB best_m_Page_014.pro
7cba54782f9f1d895e9ec12a5fb9842c
1d2c40eee70af50da569891a6555209f99feaf39
6936 F20101106_AAAZLE best_m_Page_187thm.jpg
d18f0deee8e4d60550cd1900eb2426aa
0774af851bdc54aeb29800c61df794311d9db54b
6532 F20101106_AAAZKQ best_m_Page_180thm.jpg
7c8e719f72342dc771f5cb81b86af96f
e902e85db506ccae614785eb409dba74b301a738
8375 F20101106_AAAYHO best_m_Page_001.pro
11d715ec2ecc7fb7678755e6e4d33fbe
c99148931fb05687d118c0179f939a0ad4a82b34
F20101106_AAAYGZ best_m_Page_188.tif
03a731287fe7ce9cdb272151183e49d0
9fd12fb97d6d97eadae796080e7f323f6903dab5
49494 F20101106_AAAYIC best_m_Page_015.pro
ffd1c789341160d649975cd587d20527
1ff2c96a6d99fe8c8319af2bac7cb91198bf2473
29709 F20101106_AAAZLF best_m_Page_188.QC.jpg
d256335b995595058a54e31fa3b15b39
42145afb23af6230cca14bc627d3fd3187d7511f
12276 F20101106_AAAZKR best_m_Page_181.QC.jpg
2a482f5c30bf058820efdb7c768e5035
d3a137d01a1e148902d86c867e59fb6982494d53
989 F20101106_AAAYHP best_m_Page_002.pro
e957d2742987d67f05cc3bba5eec9ec7
0c6c2d5faca16feabc55cbe473a6ccebe4b16138
53680 F20101106_AAAYID best_m_Page_016.pro
078b4ef05c63ceedd08a21f47d571a0d
10d505df65509a0e09bf3fb0e794e94180beb912
7094 F20101106_AAAZLG best_m_Page_188thm.jpg
450fd1d4aab2941bd4fd8c6c1745cefa
942e8f03efe4651af3c95180d909eb22405c9bf8
3083 F20101106_AAAZKS best_m_Page_181thm.jpg
1377c6cc3500716b2ec0d21d671a7eb8
1c8745e0d49d43d67eb8e8b51802e94c240de37a
2926 F20101106_AAAYHQ best_m_Page_003.pro
3888e3936eb626a2dbf9d4c628ceb8d2
9fdc834185a2a037f3d55de7a1ddfeb4f92f5ac3
53733 F20101106_AAAYIE best_m_Page_017.pro
ac59f867fc66974bd3b693b0422a5ae2
b97e6b7c4fd136cf1174ebbf1d801ef48137a635
27533 F20101106_AAAZLH best_m_Page_189.QC.jpg
da4c778d08a2b764c49d248656eef121
52fabb4dcae9a5c977a868949a83ded05b8a12f3
17502 F20101106_AAAZKT best_m_Page_182.QC.jpg
c37bbd4e64ae49859035080ee6de9d8b
c47ff2bc5f04da370d5f9bd8cce8482542234691
51023 F20101106_AAAYHR best_m_Page_004.pro
0b62a33b9ac2a4cebe05d3d8ad7619a0
0221d3aab99fd55ae2ea7e33aca0a4fd37f1c6cb
52708 F20101106_AAAYIF best_m_Page_018.pro
6532380a0138e4d432fef7e9c8cdacdc
9eef4698b4229060784aa6c739f257813d84822d
6934 F20101106_AAAZLI best_m_Page_189thm.jpg
041d880ab2dbe063b6ab854e12ecf74b
1c348004f9f39ac4c08c37cdba253a2de8c01c8a
4989 F20101106_AAAZKU best_m_Page_182thm.jpg
e797b1ef80150dbc25f76746c9f70a0d
0fb7a778e33009b6ab2b3f09d0bff3efc0a306ab
52132 F20101106_AAAYHS best_m_Page_005.pro
5164be55be87347605fec3f3c5c36800
49fbd18a657d68fb9ce00290039b24e2264e13be
54062 F20101106_AAAYIG best_m_Page_019.pro
2b367bafb5a4e9a2a241f7214346aecb
2684a3ced6b0e2e6567919fe3d89c898e188d6ef
16054 F20101106_AAAZLJ best_m_Page_190.QC.jpg
df70830096dba37649a90ec26ff7602b
9d6cc559abb18d601d38d11ca3b7ccaefd1dfe87
26306 F20101106_AAAZKV best_m_Page_183.QC.jpg
eb6269a5b08ba1f36b8ce4c1e3b91ad0
1a800842e50adfc96fb3b7abd07edbb6647f7093
94083 F20101106_AAAYHT best_m_Page_006.pro
e8dfc10cf72a3bbeaeeeb71c37a617e7
c58a8629421c781fed44095de451071a78cc966c
53574 F20101106_AAAYIH best_m_Page_020.pro
41ca36f65c1c89790f77b231c71e8670
434765db4decd897461665db8e6b5a562a82254f
4036 F20101106_AAAZLK best_m_Page_190thm.jpg
6d37ced6207ea22e50ab252ad0cdc1e7
975b37f35ceaec61bd6a126f4d6623a04388e716
6969 F20101106_AAAZKW best_m_Page_183thm.jpg
ddfa8cc47e6c93b2e8b346b7f4375c98
17e2a88d3da43af82ac02cb5252a783a9a78086c
103779 F20101106_AAAYHU best_m_Page_007.pro
82103394ed3f716d63bf9f930852d2c8
7deba55a821a46a5ba909b0ffc6bcf6a23ef4be4
53007 F20101106_AAAYII best_m_Page_021.pro
351897db2c211487992bb4b83d83e22f
65d6d30b905258b7151c5a9ca7319c00877883fe
33855 F20101106_AAAZLL best_m_Page_191.QC.jpg
b31e7fa6065af4c1c1eb6929be01e017
d280de17946e0cbd987698a1af1d75c4296ed891
28665 F20101106_AAAZKX best_m_Page_184.QC.jpg
31955b42e0a067ed60857964e22f333f
a58e9f16f368ef3a7eeaa86ee175cbb8b5265165
13284 F20101106_AAAYHV best_m_Page_008.pro
9943212ba978ac6823c931e4c37035cc
eec8f5ba055b8c61c5ee1ab6cfedad9529ec5c9d
51576 F20101106_AAAYIJ best_m_Page_022.pro
e86a0ede123f21dd33f6a20bf97b37e6
7bdfcafe301f0fd46068661f310c3444e6d41921
8682 F20101106_AAAZMA best_m_Page_198thm.jpg
a0811b4de2c041074f1a4fc604e96b41
ccddd2d45a0cff9e6f0f0ee5cfaa6c77aff76a5b
8643 F20101106_AAAZLM best_m_Page_191thm.jpg
3d1394acb7dadd9c9bd864a37eb9c5bc
28ab003edd81e39ac3538d7fd07b65ee837b28a3
6877 F20101106_AAAZKY best_m_Page_184thm.jpg
013e23c74622ac56752b6f242dc55819
2f21b05ce5f6c96d86861b0fb8e234cc2ccd6fb7
49541 F20101106_AAAYIK best_m_Page_023.pro
edd0b62d189d5341fe25f50e2736059c
9e45da99ae03c2635d348a5232198333ba3363dc
71842 F20101106_AAAYHW best_m_Page_009.pro
026f6b4a616e505107aa3f458dfffb99
542eb0c54338ba32cd0f74fe8329e00179dc6c49
38359 F20101106_AAAZMB best_m_Page_199.QC.jpg
03c874f1b3fa954316331e62eebca500
a0a7d32c14a2d833d5f25093b66d9991d916de79
38231 F20101106_AAAZLN best_m_Page_192.QC.jpg
dd0454db821931f5ed20b6a7c1bc0fc7
ea3e3600d0b17cd91ee1aad4528a052afd09fa65
14046 F20101106_AAAZKZ best_m_Page_185.QC.jpg
c55071eac39565ba7bb7fb09e91359e9
c269cd6ace502263ab945527f2570f4ef399b25d
50662 F20101106_AAAYIL best_m_Page_024.pro
d62c9d1ea3ed8037b108650884f877e8
518d57b1e39fc0bc66d0bc2774c2c7b01a36e455
68551 F20101106_AAAYHX best_m_Page_010.pro
4c90adaa958ef5286ff3bee268b72433
afbe5f9e776fa016068df225275d73917d9ada4e
9405 F20101106_AAAZMC best_m_Page_199thm.jpg
445534d60c4fe6c779543769f5820ad1
43f5c9cc462cfcc7b2b7679008130450821c3fcb
9037 F20101106_AAAZLO best_m_Page_192thm.jpg
eef96d5aaf6d60632946b3de89d1176f
f7bddbcccae4172e3001340744cae6721c3a4117
F20101106_AAAYJA best_m_Page_039.pro
e2ab983e0088e57f59b02fa6a37069de
fef684c0702050af8ab1dd64b2dc7e2737fe3c97
47440 F20101106_AAAYIM best_m_Page_025.pro
358a7cbf0137da54a2b77b94e247adf6
3b2df9fce7e670012c5cf3abd0f0981a3a235662
10330 F20101106_AAAYHY best_m_Page_011.pro
be0c1b1f256d3e2049f5c24754fe2db9
ef9c2825faf413625b453fc22205a5d261361a1c
36288 F20101106_AAAZMD best_m_Page_200.QC.jpg
f5d873cae946592a85e3b61b530dd3da
ac8c84e3e9f7714e4c77ab1712648f63f22a718d
37365 F20101106_AAAZLP best_m_Page_193.QC.jpg
408284bbb5bd29d32011458b4f63cde7
3d8bc55d5ff1f1008c20682880402922fb6fe533
52355 F20101106_AAAYJB best_m_Page_040.pro
2e0058cfca62f9bd20377e4267624501
d6c7ed9f32bcd45a8fa35f08580c3081363ca0bd
50509 F20101106_AAAYIN best_m_Page_026.pro
7b9e2be6d1ac1000319ef9d295a2b23a
ae02e45ae61345c0e0f61573ea811533d84151cd
8950 F20101106_AAAZME best_m_Page_200thm.jpg
0bd8d34dae535521700e52e8422af748
f93769630bf8e9934c823ceabd2d86ae88f8d479
9356 F20101106_AAAZLQ best_m_Page_193thm.jpg
6ac0e423bd284b6638cb3959fb0b7a7f
b51b562555d97631fb85453363bdf8c325c6c504
53654 F20101106_AAAYJC best_m_Page_041.pro
2553a58f0e1e460162c26b1740df10d0
d5b9b6169f010b2ba300e223e0d2dc533ac4609d
25457 F20101106_AAAYIO best_m_Page_027.pro
4db63eeafaca9c83979d3d11b60480a5
04ae4cd17246060fbffc49f9c5608e053e6b8b7e
46921 F20101106_AAAYHZ best_m_Page_012.pro
ffec7702338a3cf8272e08cef528c161
e6816f5a946852439140b46e7e6a0bb5b2eb5b87
5764 F20101106_AAAZMF best_m_Page_201.QC.jpg
c1b006d314730fead9dbe985345bf0b1
fbc65ef7d15a8f9fd854fb9277903331449a6e5f
37455 F20101106_AAAZLR best_m_Page_194.QC.jpg
f1b7f56b95208a86c25268a1e4dfbede
ec73ba9c56a91b93a70e7f182adbb3a127c14fc7
49411 F20101106_AAAYJD best_m_Page_042.pro
4996e3cf50bd96d74e7cb19c849ad26c
a62b3bcfb7fcbcbe93e5be1c0b0131c5469f1094
7955 F20101106_AAAYIP best_m_Page_028.pro
da54263a51f8c6b7c1bddaa1ae3d1087
6b684dacc29723b15424d7a5c1fa38564fb88f07
1701 F20101106_AAAZMG best_m_Page_201thm.jpg
2031f567f9ad32d76317311447e6ab35
6ee729d40402bae78e6248a78abbfe6189174dcd
9576 F20101106_AAAZLS best_m_Page_194thm.jpg
aa44355fa98f870cde63b4ee92e3405b
7e1cf9983539092d32303f454c7adc8aa7eebec3
56544 F20101106_AAAYJE best_m_Page_043.pro
6c91a9541a93c7a976b99303d42b969d
38ee8d926e9898ea269a669cf3a08880042fd37e
44912 F20101106_AAAYIQ best_m_Page_029.pro
7b270913da33640f6cd66c30c943799e
7ab89c5ed55872e0b258b4ad7d0ddea8c55bbf6d
30638 F20101106_AAAZMH best_m_Page_202.QC.jpg
f6a83b0164e186bcda34f7449ccb8645
7ba09f9412bf8154511da0b82fcafa6cdf625dbd
34354 F20101106_AAAZLT best_m_Page_195.QC.jpg
01e56c9100b04b7ea012f1b13957100a
1bdeb091b765438023ec8b1c8e47a2f535b31352
53978 F20101106_AAAYJF best_m_Page_044.pro
587eb189dd9c0badc5639b1ee5dc5dd3
0b406230f6e9a9c9af2384bcb1384bbe5bb23af7
55696 F20101106_AAAYIR best_m_Page_030.pro
e7926322bb3ce3f1654a22ed7eda8371
b73f420331a13888a3661758a174ce023b3c42e6
7872 F20101106_AAAZMI best_m_Page_202thm.jpg
192feba5b0d599aabd09af6a38fec531
ab7615580825639de73e010269c2e2e88169cf9f
8953 F20101106_AAAZLU best_m_Page_195thm.jpg
f63ce95009aaf35feb23b4f819e03bb9
d9b4a5d39dc9f1bde0580f2699f1aec7596ebf2f
55592 F20101106_AAAYJG best_m_Page_045.pro
da1495df013e3d0cd4b427cecd033f00
59fa84bd98a072aac29748db4d2386af54f7f0e2
57507 F20101106_AAAYIS best_m_Page_031.pro
d567ce710bda1b3a544076b386090aea
a7004aef2146be74235ca57b492b5dcc3c572aaa
230430 F20101106_AAAZMJ UFE0022046_00001.mets FULL
1665d4e153974a8ae1cd47ff751d0bef
154e38332faf86f8402ab0f658ad8170814863eb
37826 F20101106_AAAZLV best_m_Page_196.QC.jpg
e38b86563f3c732798877d44093a4659
3b389674dd85f631ef752d29808f0a1cd87c2fa7
53511 F20101106_AAAYJH best_m_Page_046.pro
8393ad7000469e472614fd310e7d6ee4
926b0819a4411c38b9b3190e6fb70704cff48391
52015 F20101106_AAAYIT best_m_Page_032.pro
b5e989b4e7b58d52fd0f2eef6a80f080
1bcb97372c1814aec6a31b56694685d5c12a3ee7
9278 F20101106_AAAZLW best_m_Page_196thm.jpg
9ea4816d6b96df8fff1533a9b8b53d85
b67e0f5e280527b9588810aeeab58fa22bc9c30d
53400 F20101106_AAAYJI best_m_Page_047.pro
cb41beaa935fa919c46d284ef762ae42
5f5ac3f09d27145f9fcd2aeecc967443e62d8296
53949 F20101106_AAAYIU best_m_Page_033.pro
b682500209550f8f1cc1c4756a9fd67a
0b33b1f112e45a3394da71e707322ce18bb6d727
37145 F20101106_AAAZLX best_m_Page_197.QC.jpg
5a623ff8ab87bfbd3deafb3246b26c2b
6256e1058ce1eb3f692c5eca6d2e738b8881cd5d
52208 F20101106_AAAYJJ best_m_Page_048.pro
4027deed5344a61efd1c3b50660f7118
01e159c2f1d34b2bc64faa3e5f2a2e258bae4491
52127 F20101106_AAAYIV best_m_Page_034.pro
4fbce1a57b6b9ae814f0a149226a4992
a5518c1537dec9016005ae4a607bd6a20a83e6e5
9362 F20101106_AAAZLY best_m_Page_197thm.jpg
22e0148412a8c04688165bd01df890f1
bcac78bfbca35b27b880e5305437e381015f5b3c
48840 F20101106_AAAYJK best_m_Page_049.pro
7fefe7af5f7dce2f99d466166f6d53dd
9e783d20b7b6a0dee7bc884cce8c70b9ae66bad0
51754 F20101106_AAAYIW best_m_Page_035.pro
e479bdc24786a744838eb91a8cf1e4ac
cdb6595f4f69abff3b527f4be7a7b2502824ca15
35016 F20101106_AAAZLZ best_m_Page_198.QC.jpg
0ef16a12ee002b21e6f18f43d42c98c6
29baf50582373f997bc5b65395990b98a00bdc5a
51169 F20101106_AAAYJL best_m_Page_050.pro
f8a5fd79205a622bf543553c8ec2fc58
d7472dda0daac31481a26c3becf0225dd2b52ab0
53839 F20101106_AAAYIX best_m_Page_036.pro
cd93f4d4d3d0df502f53f40bf9f56e61
1a7071b655a281054d14f1636d224f8b78de6533
52717 F20101106_AAAYJM best_m_Page_051.pro
a9b69cdb142344782d2db295b8dadcbe
249e61844f190494c5a2c6ddc4deee719a72813c
52370 F20101106_AAAYIY best_m_Page_037.pro
8cb5542bd000c867eafce537b83c928c
f42c83b0e6f08197dda5b1a7e9ab53723526370b
53700 F20101106_AAAYKA best_m_Page_065.pro
d9db0825c3cbc6e2851e92837ad2c294
7b9eb5ff6a2494985952ae3e5a3af6a92c665942
54124 F20101106_AAAYJN best_m_Page_052.pro
aef8a45def2a4525f859ea2ef9aeede3
8f6c1b939c4af5b7e4ad3a42d9248a2b1f3e1f89
52255 F20101106_AAAYIZ best_m_Page_038.pro
ad221331e744f20653cf200bea9c6366
b564939f2a9005bf9b8ebcc4b4ee3d87921d06f6
54279 F20101106_AAAYKB best_m_Page_066.pro
0fc63bf3f4046c2c53cd2fc71c1ca9d7
9491d4cf2ee11f7f34a51fc88ddcabffb548beaf
51885 F20101106_AAAYJO best_m_Page_053.pro
5ba17104e5a4477eb65ff3f62d00b79e
efe297b6003698b741d5ff21307742945edb2c6a
54196 F20101106_AAAYKC best_m_Page_067.pro
4bf730b64f311cf418e014b4782b148f
008e3256094eaca7759857bb645d79b90c83460f
55367 F20101106_AAAYJP best_m_Page_054.pro
16a8034df30c0b3669a6861993617895
dd13bc1d02376cac373848dbdf69d76447f13d07
50540 F20101106_AAAYKD best_m_Page_068.pro
e0108b31dced9135f9649dd52397ea05
908d46230a4b8d3373f576eb8542ce84d9338a2b
54731 F20101106_AAAYJQ best_m_Page_055.pro
384610702547c784d6912b333e5230e7
07148522e905afb56c5820c230b42943e96bc89b
55181 F20101106_AAAYKE best_m_Page_069.pro
a43e058acf86f377476c103ca883e456
625fb0b5f450873cbb75f229bb9880b5475beab4
52126 F20101106_AAAYJR best_m_Page_056.pro
b63751111d9932ff407f544845d6d9ec
24f38903ef5197b0b6e10ca7684fa11e530ab772
50603 F20101106_AAAYKF best_m_Page_070.pro
0d97aabd9b5771c3a5be9eba8346fdf0
2e57575224d77aef8ad421931ff9021b5fd2f447
55771 F20101106_AAAYJS best_m_Page_057.pro
90ec3668476320b0bf8251cab2c3ffe2
94327d2f7810efa1a2648eb017ef8c9d98fc3c54
49864 F20101106_AAAYKG best_m_Page_071.pro
f5442e1eecda9b2e2ef3eb6670effaeb
8a528124f253855e0f64f3113ccc0f774d94d5de
49069 F20101106_AAAYJT best_m_Page_058.pro
cbac9014f3e28a3ef326ee293d88ea21
11feb502ce8ef4498aff99d3c3909a28dc57d652
14764 F20101106_AAAYKH best_m_Page_072.pro
7581b94f4072ee5a32f8acb7d51634a3
a71951e63125d9eb3b57914ba78f9c13f284e020
50908 F20101106_AAAYJU best_m_Page_059.pro
9eb4ef4132cd8f8a4b727d09de570f87
458102c2ddfebebd981ef21bcac67af70c5a8499
51959 F20101106_AAAYKI best_m_Page_073.pro
4622110d4875e2cd35ce09c5fec1ba9b
3649c2bd7d08621324ff100b608f0a6b26584c25
54387 F20101106_AAAYJV best_m_Page_060.pro
4da4474ca7814d9fa67c53122c241aba
04e930f1891a9e429ce1e4791a6008ce146df7c0
44042 F20101106_AAAYKJ best_m_Page_074.pro
83a1e514fcaf8069e489099e9e9f3b16
6c43376d63f481eba36ae6cee31b2dae79b03b0f
55789 F20101106_AAAYJW best_m_Page_061.pro
e2f8cc09b2fdc5816f8cd3447328f86f
0034edb3fa906dceac6fb0dc9611e7df2a913e51
14660 F20101106_AAAYKK best_m_Page_075.pro
6e4bc15a0ec314a555eaa938a1a14562
bb028fee12b0d02db227f789a27e43014457e5ff
56462 F20101106_AAAYJX best_m_Page_062.pro
e1c7c07e334f43ff9339a484e8790fe2
4502421de88bf489736f93b66a11d698c77359f0
6155 F20101106_AAAYKL best_m_Page_076.pro
e8b737379ffe1861ea153c95cec6e8fa
07835d0d841d86fb79138bc55b32a11658901e40
51866 F20101106_AAAYJY best_m_Page_063.pro
dabfe53232302bcfcec2c3146629a0bb
c7bff8ebd61933e3c58bebc5ac25f47c55f52409
53529 F20101106_AAAYLA best_m_Page_092.pro
ca5fa6c3c6bbff972de285cbbdc60480
2961c898882ab286e29c5d782a07b9c669de331e
56352 F20101106_AAAYKM best_m_Page_078.pro
cc1c9f756d57e82608b748805d0af46f
08837a65857b3a3484a29430b301a9764e9bae21
55171 F20101106_AAAYJZ best_m_Page_064.pro
6d06235358aae7192ddb459e57dadf5f
30a27e1383d18a87b7bd20c6c670c538c5631a60
51818 F20101106_AAAYLB best_m_Page_093.pro
7e1b15c26b2d59b15e7e5bbb0dd65b2e
2a362281efd1af062e2e3319a0d071902c2e9ad0
52845 F20101106_AAAYKN best_m_Page_079.pro
4ec9620a6db3bbbf94a8183f6587da10
055d477a5f2ad141d8a6358849164ec8fb8c7925
53488 F20101106_AAAYLC best_m_Page_094.pro
cd99e48b473dcc5b8f549844944ff0bc
37c9f4baaf16ff90e88e7b27e65b2e305c588a9f
57337 F20101106_AAAYKO best_m_Page_080.pro
c2ce1787638ddb59745aeb38c882fe80
b7ddd3d2a34e31a0503452e1d5e72a245ad968a5
52831 F20101106_AAAYLD best_m_Page_095.pro
c1d8aa260041028df35679401989c402
a1e1fccc82051e0f6c56600a3a2600d794b621f9
49011 F20101106_AAAYKP best_m_Page_081.pro
f7ff3b8609a941657a2fd4db48abc16a
64038b12c6ec6050e9ac252490fab2b6121cb6ed
51119 F20101106_AAAYLE best_m_Page_096.pro
93ebf6821c00fe7379e7e1c3522fc3e0
71c8f1b2f891a742ae0fb80f7ba7d323c3271704
45388 F20101106_AAAYKQ best_m_Page_082.pro
e6dab7d556067220f3679b02c9f25542
a0a39aa669fcc00eaf66d9798e60ba547c97fc68
51768 F20101106_AAAYLF best_m_Page_097.pro
a4efc850f15232838be8c49a331eda9a
1a84585ea098d3bc782c9b1613a827c6c25d650b
42050 F20101106_AAAYKR best_m_Page_083.pro
1e8e361d05033b2617a06203525aaed9
401f3dd594b1459b112e582143ec815be328bdd7
52102 F20101106_AAAYLG best_m_Page_098.pro
5bcaa0dc517ee9db40e8b68a8e279d11
bd08df687732301df6f1845e314e498a2d83058d
49746 F20101106_AAAYKS best_m_Page_084.pro
2d26d61a81efb30535fbe211eb8f8c6e
5a5664e1c23b3f6ef45aaca423073d0bb192a744
51548 F20101106_AAAYLH best_m_Page_099.pro
8d869ac0ad6c739e833ce19c62a4539c
451ce2ea4b425105f8686a4fd13ac1bdd2880fdd
50304 F20101106_AAAYKT best_m_Page_085.pro
ec5fc6c12669239bac539758b02711fa
75dda9dc5d60784f6710e74ee90b288adb5ffe44
45371 F20101106_AAAYLI best_m_Page_100.pro
e62e4f1247788f3bc912ed04942c59e9
a35a294888675ce03b4bc51fb3833844bc13d947
3732 F20101106_AAAYKU best_m_Page_086.pro
3edc8968a698d4b537700ac4bd5ec215
bc5dbaf885d201a2a46cf24dd17e92fe12ab9601
52496 F20101106_AAAYLJ best_m_Page_101.pro
e221b162eee26550ba029c1f37406b65
b06a6224b35af42309db97c28259e0e4e6a49ef2
49235 F20101106_AAAYKV best_m_Page_087.pro
32ccb588b90eb78fe333f8efa6809ea2
18a2763126b87d9cc8e4eaca04adbc56b16bf38e
46498 F20101106_AAAYLK best_m_Page_102.pro
ededa7029b8023944a9b7b639cb07326
afb74b06fa273e5806375f55c2e80ba31fe00096
53632 F20101106_AAAYKW best_m_Page_088.pro
94b6605fece7fafbd28caa1a36a017b7
9919d46351bd978469025f6da2bb08ffdc2902ea
42667 F20101106_AAAYLL best_m_Page_103.pro
b0c4b18ee4a3b310565d81228a51e14f
cdd2c16beb4ed7c9103ce2fb5093aa20b85a0917
29038 F20101106_AAAYKX best_m_Page_089.pro
c154b6c1911d77e850e66cdba5a176ff
dad5436c49c08d49a925ff21b569ed29acc3653b
44828 F20101106_AAAYMA best_m_Page_118.pro
ef24b775e3703918b803b2fb14f6a239
67bb7b8694a5275b7351fe4415e64185664dc1f8
54994 F20101106_AAAYLM best_m_Page_104.pro
cf130316b0ebe1310e162c3f096cdb5e
6079194009a4916317dcd1fc196ec30194e64717
43971 F20101106_AAAYKY best_m_Page_090.pro
3714d118214ca50705426abd500d5454
2d7c4b61d7741347fa1f5480870910e14be9e26e
23227 F20101106_AAAYMB best_m_Page_119.pro
6d6849141cbacd154bd8f6bbeffb793d
0d28e691fa721978724f4610778aeba5e32d568d
50955 F20101106_AAAYLN best_m_Page_105.pro
e08de990cd83d2d34ecb416f9010f048
ae4204ac18e74820532439f8969fc732e41f661d
47301 F20101106_AAAYKZ best_m_Page_091.pro
6906b439ce1c90d4fb71c89d2a455119
ff15da06ca43c596a70c48d873d0457324555151
20299 F20101106_AAAYMC best_m_Page_120.pro
3b3d03e99e24e58e0f53e96d13ca7fc1
22a25f7208a84d9542f93e7bf1c175f355d6c6cd
55207 F20101106_AAAYLO best_m_Page_106.pro
edbecd4e3cafbabe06185438286cb8de
9de72f803d2ecba6df218e6e2bd6b927768bb9b4
52883 F20101106_AAAYMD best_m_Page_121.pro
791e5b2a9b3592feac7081ef16735d33
5d0daf51e3b33bd44c9d96c95dccbed2251576fe
53063 F20101106_AAAYLP best_m_Page_107.pro
fe1b2be3c974ac8e0918a6a21fa8608e
b9c472f85caf5e46fa5899469faf3043f60e0d1e
32128 F20101106_AAAYME best_m_Page_122.pro
a85b396b639928eebf0e6bbdd71ce5cd
e864b8330b67eedc22207f9a43821a6df0422542
56803 F20101106_AAAYLQ best_m_Page_108.pro
a6597bc7a3e3ffb0dbc10b6786c4488b
93f9f01bc8244054aa03af3812881312eb34bc82
32631 F20101106_AAAYMF best_m_Page_123.pro
eff807a725207313f4635b998b6c8206
823a91d5d2f79b6b3f305efcb86904265bd67c18
53990 F20101106_AAAYLR best_m_Page_109.pro
7f30da9107250ecf01f81b8f1b5550bd
5b4ab1a74cff56bd368fa605d9ac7fb86a632243
33412 F20101106_AAAYMG best_m_Page_124.pro
0d783b7fe59f6c28dcf163d28be84233
85d78e526c2fe6cbd24d9b111207d0b74dc68a54
55411 F20101106_AAAYLS best_m_Page_110.pro
2a6211b925028d281e90cbf11203020e
be9ed76f344f9670a08866a63a5ea20ec8da2678
26679 F20101106_AAAYMH best_m_Page_125.pro
4151ff9f5b576be6f77028daf3eb19e8
893256c7daac671f0247940ad66c94ba908a5454
48419 F20101106_AAAYLT best_m_Page_111.pro
c59e13f4ae5c690da81b2b2318365ff1
6362a73087436f86685a546c138bddd7c8d87b97
29992 F20101106_AAAYMI best_m_Page_126.pro
db3e3d0c8c32c1005aae0737f1b1d507
6e7af401afee9afe27ccae1aa13f3fccccbd5cf0
16537 F20101106_AAAYLU best_m_Page_112.pro
4d59963ec18c172d4d85f1e0ba0a4589
b898314b8f83b642f7417586f4b482c8adb78088
24082 F20101106_AAAYMJ best_m_Page_127.pro
7522e657b4572e3705a4ee91cb7af1dc
6a318ce9b32a81c7fdacbd914a73b4c59ebae959
34313 F20101106_AAAYLV best_m_Page_113.pro
295aef6607459c23200092c051849a8c
c7f863374b54fe6b493fd7e27f8dd1827256ff77
43604 F20101106_AAAYMK best_m_Page_128.pro
9964e80a71a57323e92f56e580c657f7
1b3edcef5dbcbf4a3dcee30ba555e54c01f67fbe
40719 F20101106_AAAYLW best_m_Page_114.pro
c115c110402b7a736084d0c9f4e9b089
711e89b887f7928abb5be00c21fb057c115934f7
29138 F20101106_AAAYML best_m_Page_129.pro
b11508cfdb4aa7fd6c1f65fc347c0dba
b8761bf05b7a9de3d5e36279b42c36c11364faba
33522 F20101106_AAAYLX best_m_Page_115.pro
5bcbef65d522042559a4d613444946b9
f5a714ef54c7df3fd83c62fdc4e4a7d3b0319b59
26236 F20101106_AAAYMM best_m_Page_130.pro
6fe70e3ab2b131b114641d942ccad96e
a70bd6c5076d1751b24af295d95f2bc6cb8ae2c0
42064 F20101106_AAAYLY best_m_Page_116.pro
a89e69b0a1e43938acdce7ecf1cbe98b
d4ab551859716b20a758be36081f4bb3e6b16788
50373 F20101106_AAAYNA best_m_Page_145.pro
5b5f4183fef18019dc8a1c81307f77ed
fa127b827ca094f60c5c1ac6c3f3e4c7002906ed
10456 F20101106_AAAYMN best_m_Page_131.pro
981caf9bda9e09fdf5e007a0b7f13913
ea13f5e8c1ebdbe038f3175a3e729b5dde79001e
30409 F20101106_AAAYLZ best_m_Page_117.pro
b9627abe49debfb7b587efd952d32e30
c79c12dc672b2ed164c9118b53429c8a15a00663
49953 F20101106_AAAYNB best_m_Page_146.pro
e993efbe888955f0b0a155151bd3e1a5
2e5c2959f1e9af3e6ad6c89a11d6af9a3b26b569
15053 F20101106_AAAYMO best_m_Page_132.pro
c21a5929d962a2245d49d5fbc4c4807c
d134e0e4b7416f1435f7eeb7d58d00731bd1755b
96 F20101106_AAAXKA best_m_Page_002.txt
75c4ec6436564409ac6552111debb15a
f6a7296a308276c81e2ceddddb5cb70c7a400762
51019 F20101106_AAAYNC best_m_Page_147.pro
da81fe0cbeac7852bd8db2cc050d2a8e
8053ecd32364ea064736db257f763d4b712d64a7
49536 F20101106_AAAYMP best_m_Page_133.pro
f32b2d06e4a39e60375863593c7bf155
df4b0f998d779244993644dac51bf9d0ed082939
2123 F20101106_AAAXKB best_m_Page_019.txt
be94adc5eee327d2aac111ae2db19167
6269a2301dad5b951429346e5945fcfaba06ea61
50023 F20101106_AAAYND best_m_Page_148.pro
a78b9aafc0799098c2a7045d3cab31b1
5ab90364b1d759a0a7abe300901c6990d347c528
48828 F20101106_AAAYMQ best_m_Page_134.pro
67b1755c4f7425240208a2ea2b6dda94
eaa69a0306f8eaa5e27900d0a3c906fbf4ab7d1c
8972 F20101106_AAAXKC best_m_Page_060thm.jpg
8756215109106dba99761a0c46736c8d
f6bf8446a1c7a639a44768914cb254f65497d41b
49189 F20101106_AAAYNE best_m_Page_149.pro
bba0e638fd7fff420f37a54ac0589f05
5c13697af1e5cdc872d20ff8d7237858d653837d
56805 F20101106_AAAYMR best_m_Page_136.pro
cc9ea5552f05f93ee5e55513c48608f1
9d67515a609984e587b2e444a86e79ef6e7f6b03
42418 F20101106_AAAXKD best_m_Page_077.pro
bc25bc928dbcbd6d2b2718d7e1c156a5
a07b7984a5f17cf8dcf2499eac3e0578a292780a
51450 F20101106_AAAYNF best_m_Page_150.pro
4db3d990d650444d907a2aad34148431
5aade619e877d34e99a641d34e50c98e6a57ff61
51790 F20101106_AAAYMS best_m_Page_137.pro
b258ecf08dabfea8658767b185cc04d7
e59e2bbc0c54520e5a0e3f7f647ca12ad2ff6772
298217 F20101106_AAAXKE UFE0022046_00001.xml
14bf836449c8960685c575bf03141459
65b8de661e751d820945c731542f919dd4570989
51792 F20101106_AAAYNG best_m_Page_151.pro
a0e083a1d8f89ddb76985a92b3d43493
ce4a87870e0e9fd37854c452f24d3a594458b81c
47569 F20101106_AAAYNH best_m_Page_152.pro
a0ed177da5a7b48386f748ab41fd77c2
1c62a15b573d3737c19a45b3e11f64b8a3d42e0e
49149 F20101106_AAAYMT best_m_Page_138.pro
a704de957419b22b07a8468849850f37
7efb7cdcefe5dcdb31c31b680ca7be77f0dd7136
55516 F20101106_AAAYNI best_m_Page_153.pro
4c1a7d716d3099f80d24227e4feb099b
cc71406b880ea08021739809509ce01b2766a48f
48974 F20101106_AAAYMU best_m_Page_139.pro
27639f6e0bc1a737edd2fdd62ca4d7f5
9e269182cae8c695b01a165cc76262a62f9be123
26250 F20101106_AAAXKH best_m_Page_001.jpg
7c5a13277ba1fa2c2fa276c74c72cd67
e73d54cf372418f9a73e4886dbd3688905953005
49202 F20101106_AAAYNJ best_m_Page_154.pro
bb1dea0e52f8baeeeb309a4a8ae22064
e98ae5401c239b6ca467bef45cbf81d0e564f809
52764 F20101106_AAAYMV best_m_Page_140.pro
e0f061511ef280dc154bebe28b2eb776
954127c4ab63b77e30816b1dc0343a769773aea4
4271 F20101106_AAAXKI best_m_Page_002.jpg
3db7d30eeb2b3b70ff099c786ceef766
19469249a2e6dc033e4cff31ba9bcfa785167701
22105 F20101106_AAAYNK best_m_Page_155.pro
e5788f410b680f963fa893c55f1a683b
f789f848da7a40ed42b08b6fd094f24454560341
53586 F20101106_AAAYMW best_m_Page_141.pro
d69a37addca59eef366e4efa880279ed
4bef31a06b8b304badfbecd3bb6b1d15a2fd6b77
F20101106_AAAXKJ best_m_Page_003.jpg
6be4254706a9dbb02f9c229f89640d92
15395264e731ed35fa3e2e474857864afee7dcd1
54359 F20101106_AAAYNL best_m_Page_156.pro
7828209608d04f4ffe2eca94334b86ba
3b34a082bd708b48b2425ad82e727b46f2464420
2051 F20101106_AAAXJV best_m_Page_053.txt
fd1f38ac043a27f45d26f28faa2e627b
0699c65bd3b57e15b79165a36a3fdb5b16634ba8
50858 F20101106_AAAYMX best_m_Page_142.pro
1f55084f918eb43081294ae2e4d301e4
464d7f3420a02f9d3f8653a1a55baefa3af0efdd
25609 F20101106_AAAYOA best_m_Page_171.pro
3504ea2a9ffc09c422f2a054c7d05bd0
b6b09699f1326fc801b9f5afd65b0397afbec2d5
103500 F20101106_AAAXKK best_m_Page_004.jpg
2dec7e6b9af518a118568284f7a7ab1c
47a34b28548e9b0cc52cf455dc0154f7587f659e
53595 F20101106_AAAYNM best_m_Page_157.pro
55eb7d52eb717d05e28e4fc254f53657
8986bbdc9a5128e3c66cd4df6870eeb484b67541
51842 F20101106_AAAXJW best_m_Page_135.pro
0294e6c9b90576c55a1b74c0ffd80bcf
b1094c123f714c23f6d875628bcddbf6a7f66d90
45696 F20101106_AAAYMY best_m_Page_143.pro
7ddbf73eeb43e9f9ea239226bb13c075
c762368f85cbc7cd039342f66d6fc3ecb671f3f9
9934 F20101106_AAAYOB best_m_Page_172.pro
40514cab2273eceea8a8daf4516bac05
bd64e2318f860f68a495903d016324e0e156063f
106353 F20101106_AAAXKL best_m_Page_005.jpg
cd8e5a62444fad302e879b08f4273747
309ed7e30c95e015e6c46e8a42ceb1ef7f2e7918
32267 F20101106_AAAYNN best_m_Page_158.pro
ec8696c9d23d68de0c0e18b4eea26461
4dacc69fd81f4adb0c6652f0226f84eab340c424
16801 F20101106_AAAXJX best_m_Page_181.pro
c303a3c3d15eb0c632337101c9adba7b
b6ada4f4d1d4a1ed338d258e503e477a2999f44f
52246 F20101106_AAAYMZ best_m_Page_144.pro
7c8e0bd1454971a4cb498431c06e85cf
c8c6920ca0d5e8ba0a7c6839e5d368df205929f4
437 F20101106_AAAYOC best_m_Page_173.pro
2625066a720430e12465b7ac01864868
92d68539983ba786b17c224985f47baf81236dc6
108498 F20101106_AAAXLA best_m_Page_020.jpg
65f40781b524d1f451b2518b08118c7f
f44687817d41d868aa05adf02c556c28ae7bbf37
117136 F20101106_AAAXKM best_m_Page_006.jpg
8d9d27af3b9f6601a9def9a1ef0f4318
0e337fd8de78569f4c9f854891b29cfbd7e888b4
42788 F20101106_AAAYNO best_m_Page_159.pro
b9c1b94e618b377a792edf8c41714f2b
951822f6a3ca256cc8a5b1ccc843491f70d17591
109983 F20101106_AAAXJY best_m_Page_021.jpg
89ac3b384b5714b07e1f543384eac445
b438b900702fd84f2bcfafc5148f8c301867695b
15130 F20101106_AAAYOD best_m_Page_174.pro
39efcb8c2a4b1c7880ea17319cee2026
81e1d6626ffa1ed100e8cb48631bf04a7d65fe22
103874 F20101106_AAAXLB best_m_Page_022.jpg
a8393ab95cb867aea0c03391c689aa3b
601d89e0e92aa98af87352ac473262ffcc20c911
131731 F20101106_AAAXKN best_m_Page_007.jpg
1f0fe72f88f4b642c392338f839101e0
9a74f46d4f9f3bacae030ee30119f48110616f46
48787 F20101106_AAAYNP best_m_Page_160.pro
8f4a0faf35669ec6e75247d116e081a9
c87cf72959acf21fabce521a898720a9f917a69e
9147 F20101106_AAAXJZ best_m_Page_062thm.jpg
376b011dd482d8205e73a562d1d53c3e
61f782815ec29a79f7f37ad4a9d641deb65eecbf
63462 F20101106_AAAYOE best_m_Page_175.pro
b4a445919ff504827e1790c3b1ef2cc8
d85b3764f2a111835c91e3518cb0bc7b9b51ae48
102771 F20101106_AAAXLC best_m_Page_023.jpg
d0236cffe4351955139112c57f03778e
28c24454192f5a32941a93558706cbf940155573
22445 F20101106_AAAXKO best_m_Page_008.jpg
1bcf119c72a8783649a5edfddb26642f
eea1741994a9c73a6b4297fc4434edb233c50e5e
38384 F20101106_AAAYNQ best_m_Page_161.pro
ee63dd0adb408b032e3967c4e053be2e
09150d475ee25a4def6b74d0c08480ce76846928
23450 F20101106_AAAYOF best_m_Page_176.pro
ec6942b804f78e95afe80aa6b4849f3e
5c658830496a3efaa256af146bfc683c44991893
103641 F20101106_AAAXLD best_m_Page_024.jpg
ba84c3b14df1ae4e593730a49c10a0e3
a84c66997533093950f45e1c8d6a750dcd91e14e
113634 F20101106_AAAXKP best_m_Page_009.jpg
16ce7a66d7349153b957ec469d6d0e2c
fb2ec67c2bf67aaf072086163efc7d90b4ceb4d8
25279 F20101106_AAAYNR best_m_Page_162.pro
39c5c4eeeef438596a3bf1828b1a39ee
0610044be51de0a051e398a126366ae145c576a3
24397 F20101106_AAAYOG best_m_Page_177.pro
9457f4379c32437809dc8d657a479d1e
4592b20da087f4a4369a8f4ec5aa1f85966d52eb
101591 F20101106_AAAXLE best_m_Page_025.jpg
3f008c3b162e3673ebb49ac5689c28d3
4466d014b85456b539152784b881edec29650eeb
130659 F20101106_AAAXKQ best_m_Page_010.jpg
9fd30777c612c4cf218e698694c95b8b
9061bdaa9970c633084b052bf50087b4bcb10f64
30685 F20101106_AAAYNS best_m_Page_163.pro
39ad2a7d9e37c0438a85eeb52c5b2d2b
060e7b77165629e649a002afb1837196d327437f
29824 F20101106_AAAYOH best_m_Page_178.pro
c86bc58e1f79d0b4073385113a83155b
ee2cbc0951c25f725b29b815249c87865ec59eac
98044 F20101106_AAAXLF best_m_Page_026.jpg
95329aef012ebca81d4456982a7a7e82
4bbc553395f48de8a451c005983d16f48f6a0fdd
22184 F20101106_AAAXKR best_m_Page_011.jpg
aacdfc6108b9ede17b7ac619d6b50682
cd9a3268e0f1fe37f8a3e728227c3216eb86d501
24228 F20101106_AAAYNT best_m_Page_164.pro
0ce21dd8f74b88759f05ae2f38953e62
8b4b34ded21cbe51c96056127d8590ebb0428dc8
49379 F20101106_AAAYOI best_m_Page_179.pro
6cd5b667c3c3848d5b512bdac68157ef
c329a5bebea90f0cb1faa132d5ee21f1d251b3bd
86269 F20101106_AAAXLG best_m_Page_027.jpg
90ebf183fe1e168ea2a627101dc27451
ba2c90b27c570623105306490da947a0b3997d85
93695 F20101106_AAAXKS best_m_Page_012.jpg
f69806d82620a359c8be18456bd97665
02a93802e231c5337c246b827c1854b94ab01770
25192 F20101106_AAAYNU best_m_Page_165.pro
9f5b5bb37c0bd8e856fa2b5985ffa660
3cda7a20584c642092edf6d7517f4009f5d7c2c6
53761 F20101106_AAAYOJ best_m_Page_180.pro
2146439c43a43f4d18293a81545a191a
0c3cc428cc07ce7a3d94c090a8289f580b7c9bf5
21411 F20101106_AAAXLH best_m_Page_028.jpg
28c7023c6d02656001cc6af5a12ed714
2c2325c04d566f200b6fca920acfe7a0269d3e10
99468 F20101106_AAAXKT best_m_Page_013.jpg
03f5632d5fc96f0600fbfc5f61c57c75
8d6b403c44c873f6919b85faecf4152865b937de
29084 F20101106_AAAYNV best_m_Page_166.pro
ee591195fdfc3b8da1d98907624423f6
58277e380570c9994e5edb885ec1524dc9d4ea37
28319 F20101106_AAAYOK best_m_Page_182.pro
acf772a65848da45b296b6b6aba99271
ea64cbae0b9921b7ca4406d613ec83ba76e05b52
92952 F20101106_AAAXLI best_m_Page_029.jpg
8ee51cc09883ffb77b9eb0f932860282
41852d62140b7029991acb54b3a161a63a6471fc
105524 F20101106_AAAXKU best_m_Page_014.jpg
b7564e6fdc990a8532dbc06a2a1052b7
7d99290ed56b416a55c26f574936a5da38d1a498
20172 F20101106_AAAYNW best_m_Page_167.pro
3b3da0befb82daa9507dde6d630abaf4
0fc31d1032230e57f8220d27fbe6750df2415a12
57599 F20101106_AAAYPA best_m_Page_198.pro
7a354b79054d6a3ac7fde05fc4c07726
1442926c5bcc25ee1178c20287f869bc9fe6ce70
F20101106_AAAYOL best_m_Page_183.pro
6d17c7199694c15c129549c22b67b0e9
bfcabbe3c96807840973c00fd22524dd2198396c
111081 F20101106_AAAXLJ best_m_Page_030.jpg
096592191a7d755ec2feecbb23ae9646
07dfd105c041a3d1cf9ee2c87a1e4e8a7d75697c
102041 F20101106_AAAXKV best_m_Page_015.jpg
65eb9540adcfde12b88a670243f1b0ac
2028f2b71c18748f715177605376f7480a311342
27399 F20101106_AAAYNX best_m_Page_168.pro
1ebf00b3431f84afde06189d5ca01dcb
ab034f2d8a7999ec258bbe192c0126499c665ce4
57766 F20101106_AAAYOM best_m_Page_184.pro
7bf396feb2db0b4686279fc8b7646a56
d8064246a9b5bb0cd7f12b6fb0c17eba2c117735
114611 F20101106_AAAXLK best_m_Page_031.jpg
0da5720581c54a628204867c400ff695
1ab0d4e43e90d9340d4e4ee4c793367a041a7268
108942 F20101106_AAAXKW best_m_Page_016.jpg
ae0a368adc9bfbbbd7042d47d2f33075
86d5b74cd072fbfd01a6732c920869fa107402ad
23367 F20101106_AAAYNY best_m_Page_169.pro
5cce67e227b0bab67f1a6fec6fee4194
6af48838bc51b87e7f7e52d89d1a3f6229251821
66166 F20101106_AAAYPB best_m_Page_199.pro
ef01e6319dba59ca200d98afae877f45
d442f6665f16275058dde7a1c7dc58b10d8c72f8
20777 F20101106_AAAYON best_m_Page_185.pro
90bd8e1adfc24832777c43a0cbcb8ad9
077c24a4f5460acca2c9b0272506780c27d9337d
106601 F20101106_AAAXLL best_m_Page_032.jpg
279f9e0af9c48db43b703607d922f7e3
897a012c4b011e8012765d88c184d1349fd2b382
110868 F20101106_AAAXKX best_m_Page_017.jpg
3a9e47c86c3af1406b6484ade813f85f
9f26b879f24c723a33c0263affeacc32833fa21c
21676 F20101106_AAAYNZ best_m_Page_170.pro
b41f30c2ee7127f573c10ffb383f6d4b
856cde81a04da3171b386b214dc87305028e24ab
59507 F20101106_AAAYPC best_m_Page_200.pro
72d637997e0d4931dc55933d83d70835
8ae477f4260f805df5eb81203182ced161092db9
40392 F20101106_AAAYOO best_m_Page_186.pro
c1b0301bafe3af2ca60754e438da5cdc
58cc4295d9c6a9d940e86b32085f26349edcd415
108420 F20101106_AAAXLM best_m_Page_033.jpg
7a36a669a6d1f5a9f2173fb45c75c33d
9ac74951112c7c6c3c5ff47855f7f732f50cd0ee
106569 F20101106_AAAXKY best_m_Page_018.jpg
f9e499d2c8be3601e2f6d9756ad3f3df
b7673d8be4d943147a38f38f5fbaf668b631d2a8
109099 F20101106_AAAXMA best_m_Page_047.jpg
ebf361c97324724d535af81827aeb1d9
21cea0980e06452d6a5e1391d8688aba07a42220
7714 F20101106_AAAYPD best_m_Page_201.pro
24b4a9d82e24e8b05e41307ff13a32bd
645a4d430f573d7334231abb0d998596664bcc3a
59269 F20101106_AAAYOP best_m_Page_187.pro
7062daa8e879e010070d6d3e9fad36b1
ab5b4a36c70ec27f558eaf211b6134eeddaa680e
104799 F20101106_AAAXLN best_m_Page_034.jpg
57d652606aba60d7087f4b466b282740
914a895230aa07ab75f980eb67cccde8f5183dd4
110510 F20101106_AAAXKZ best_m_Page_019.jpg
47093eeeb6aa89fcdf791dc4611ee353
f593dc7738f5c1213e38aa1eea13cd5bf0bcae8c
108736 F20101106_AAAXMB best_m_Page_048.jpg
a2cb198df20fcb9f464eea5d80fbcad8
d25c29ebbaa5001595d4a39d048fff2ba32be332
47016 F20101106_AAAYPE best_m_Page_202.pro
fe9a377044a83b1552bde69d43d8e2b8
f7e197bd3c33a0256c1a8d7c7e39d895150ae6a7
61729 F20101106_AAAYOQ best_m_Page_188.pro
2258f895e4093bb1c4007e020c548255
a05e6127306e2e557c96d00227420a28e59c8d3a
106986 F20101106_AAAXLO best_m_Page_035.jpg
708c1119a6adb6212d3b4a7da775f04b
c3e7d4a3839c2ad64bb6d9c6f6fff3238bdd06f2
98391 F20101106_AAAXMC best_m_Page_049.jpg
16effe092c266b1e9713d77e6ba26f6d
a81981f27ae6f7a3c328e964ea02622d78a04428
489 F20101106_AAAYPF best_m_Page_001.txt
8c1ea5f72539e3bad51bbf1d2905aba2
764ae65422e12224641ecfad73fa19a1c35a24eb
50207 F20101106_AAAYOR best_m_Page_189.pro
1b949f28fb9b3a9815748807797df24f
aa1b5c512cb2aee9422ad6894eed6395e75be30a
109087 F20101106_AAAXLP best_m_Page_036.jpg
327a0f33ad6d835e64346fcf6a5ca8d1
54e912c0ce1989b13112c3d2fc3d6212b483a5cc
106222 F20101106_AAAXMD best_m_Page_050.jpg
47fc142c56f37921b84dba0018f65f6d
a9cb73c63c4dd7f5d2a5cdb57201c810f55af89f
217 F20101106_AAAYPG best_m_Page_003.txt
1227f1205ad17397645212870ddc8749
7dd2c5562373e1aa578bc453335109d96e24c4f7
25758 F20101106_AAAYOS best_m_Page_190.pro
ceb8eac085c7b68f783a21b9e8577d82
c8d1a9ce1fbd3fdd742e79683bfddcdaa66160f5
106712 F20101106_AAAXLQ best_m_Page_037.jpg
27524b6dae8ea687d9a6651e169530e7
bc7442821d68fa4d414ce9f1b49a8a82d0b4dedc
107797 F20101106_AAAXME best_m_Page_051.jpg
58798937ec31ef27603abd8f8970e68c
e47b0ec00a584b07905e2fcc1e58a678558881b5
2055 F20101106_AAAYPH best_m_Page_004.txt
e0c45fe35225ffcb79d785b834228ac8
e8c3b9a54283674ddbcc4a561beecf42e6080d65
56910 F20101106_AAAYOT best_m_Page_191.pro
c8cc358e92b0bc1ed6a5478d8b73922e
4e2ac2e6ccb1cfa9a285aae98847a6618f68ca17
105643 F20101106_AAAXLR best_m_Page_038.jpg
9dc60793b3d0b26aa87eef6d81ecaa28
883a17dd52ffb6f01f0b9c96f71c4f85d166f2d2
108552 F20101106_AAAXMF best_m_Page_052.jpg
8d1f028dc3cd2cfd732c1992b1500394
40326cb2d86b2fb79cbcc228dac1926f12f5a8ab
2065 F20101106_AAAYPI best_m_Page_005.txt
e6ff965d5248f6e09e57eac0773c6ed6
1d5a769d50ac4d292e640c482cc9946158e57ec0
68942 F20101106_AAAYOU best_m_Page_192.pro
8971a832b327933e413efbeb55313b13
dd02981f185e1590f7f680080c9900791f415ae8
105256 F20101106_AAAXLS best_m_Page_039.jpg
4b2b6c07808efb8eb647a203e1949e18
1f220a5dabdecd98a92e602bc0e30484cbd17401
107190 F20101106_AAAXMG best_m_Page_053.jpg
78f9e86a25c74c1847392010a8f158a8
a5e61a93e27146c2d26bed977d9af6faaf201855
3927 F20101106_AAAYPJ best_m_Page_006.txt
d533fc2fdab6c0ad7e0302ade06369d3
8c1cc22a1ef8d94512f8633e5eceb0550bdec396
62688 F20101106_AAAYOV best_m_Page_193.pro
9f79a907924703b6f4b9f2380122c267
6c221942a6c26a7896fb84050bd59fbf82a8256d
107486 F20101106_AAAXLT best_m_Page_040.jpg
448e1e07ffef84740b93133fe872c79a
d22ffa7f34163a42940e71f94faa0956421a87d4
116415 F20101106_AAAXMH best_m_Page_054.jpg
b634213acf5b215b8f400647ddffa5a8
fb63f281a1da2e810c07dc355c2fe0137310a61e
4214 F20101106_AAAYPK best_m_Page_007.txt
ec2390e5bbae83962f1dd6fff00bb44e
7a0375b2de0fde445bdfa6bffb074b743fcfb8b9
64000 F20101106_AAAYOW best_m_Page_194.pro
3470eff9a67dd4cdc9387c6fd3400c73
d334c978d22cb3f1e7f4b45ab5c581cb4108e964
109021 F20101106_AAAXLU best_m_Page_041.jpg
fae9d6026446b33365a103b2ab983995
b1b99972c72d519a987bc00e5ce09397e37c40b3
111629 F20101106_AAAXMI best_m_Page_055.jpg
053445f875187f2a8e62d30b143288aa
2e0d135b24a6af8b5fb0691726bcab0a3aeb35d3
2040 F20101106_AAAYQA best_m_Page_024.txt
7c70d9848691204b3d2f2b7f1f7c5072
6199b80489140673b30d2f9073cdfbfc931068e2
657 F20101106_AAAYPL best_m_Page_008.txt
82420f3d215dd8c5df7e84e16a753e86
5bb870aeb96edb39626b2fb2ff1c3ff35ce15e30
57834 F20101106_AAAYOX best_m_Page_195.pro
367ce4a017ee025a2fefb0b7719d5546
e860cf86648c0b86bdc56523a114248f0fea311a
100843 F20101106_AAAXLV best_m_Page_042.jpg
747d0030444fbe3b275aa893f0a10379
5947922e145dfeb860c535b358738c5b1c5a8434
109787 F20101106_AAAXMJ best_m_Page_056.jpg
20411306c5c5397241513193c6bfeeb9
36479f2c2d4ac76b95633421d64ebd80d1aee8ec
1938 F20101106_AAAYQB best_m_Page_025.txt
f97a12c19d7e9ba16fa6517b14ff3a1d
523876a0199151c1bd31f6d9e39c1358684472e7
2837 F20101106_AAAYPM best_m_Page_009.txt
2ba363d6069ca56f9f511904a1aec0ec
239cf1d267e937a98ddde47a0fb1d84f90c4d6ae
64803 F20101106_AAAYOY best_m_Page_196.pro
1ccd12bc8213240b0cf6960205e108ca
6f944b2c2500af564f9c2cc9bf6929a93fc97d16
113452 F20101106_AAAXLW best_m_Page_043.jpg
22888b3f6046d7fd9684dc5b98e85812
92b7edb734017a1fa2811de1722af533baf17606
116490 F20101106_AAAXMK best_m_Page_057.jpg
d9cf49808949d57c179a1be7e9d0e84d
8404753f0b5c6d1f6ebcbadcef384921a01eb7dc
2674 F20101106_AAAYPN best_m_Page_010.txt
ae2d711550a34f543d1fb835a265a13c
9f7516860930d911b253c8cd8555bf626dab0dc1
66102 F20101106_AAAYOZ best_m_Page_197.pro
90745f96d99b725a619b2a225f233c22
79dfceae2df67e6c494355e767d181ab91a67a9a
109866 F20101106_AAAXLX best_m_Page_044.jpg
2702fac924ca8dace94d77bee3fb4a10
3447e2bc603c700de43bfcffea0034fa2dfdd2b3
101344 F20101106_AAAXML best_m_Page_058.jpg
3f9cd8d18462394d5b152f1ed2fed369
b2146454d2d028580d2daedea858c7c5ce326d6c
2098 F20101106_AAAYQC best_m_Page_026.txt
1a10305e14cf3182dd4ede7097f6fffe
22d7e43bbf47a10add756b4e8aca5df0a508fdcd
421 F20101106_AAAYPO best_m_Page_011.txt
02d675474a3a217aceec6e464d2982c5
b6b632a829922b87d6eae726c31acf229a25413f
114953 F20101106_AAAXLY best_m_Page_045.jpg
e25350efe97587fc665087264c683d80
74f3b048e82e3cc4f06513d673a3e6ef184eacde
93602 F20101106_AAAXNA best_m_Page_073.jpg
f5fc8d21fd21295f21c28bfd5f180708
506ada0519586bfe0ef604c2f322f5eb8ac645dd
107323 F20101106_AAAXMM best_m_Page_059.jpg
6fcf22772c648cc2dc23e9e8cedfc9c9
3e4e702dde4625d8f1386004169f31473be7a921
1417 F20101106_AAAYQD best_m_Page_027.txt
eb27786663d23680e1119540c06a2211
4340012de85eb94ae8b332f7e35e5989b4d5cdae
1906 F20101106_AAAYPP best_m_Page_012.txt
9607e900edd8844874b1b84b63bd33a9
370fb83d6b283b181841573dd5d73cd9b90594be
109405 F20101106_AAAXLZ best_m_Page_046.jpg
a700061d90b3eafc5b22039b0ce08682
e05d52d0c5bbeced96036b730efa2089f35a3a87
59732 F20101106_AAAXNB best_m_Page_074.jpg
20b7a648cde45c144cff240738c2c585
22425a8fdd1de434de233ae11b64d1b79696e6f3
114590 F20101106_AAAXMN best_m_Page_060.jpg
269142d75347bedfdacf176fa2999801
b625dfeced4f8091a5ee2c50215fbbfb0927d3d0
358 F20101106_AAAYQE best_m_Page_028.txt
7940f091d73fda5c2ff6b7158c19584e
88821d35c0102c4db0139fcd9b9af7e62754c20b
2044 F20101106_AAAYPQ best_m_Page_013.txt
d0191990abae6e100168360085ab078b
da493e1af3e64c6f9ba78b97fd112992e6ec0ca7
42974 F20101106_AAAXNC best_m_Page_075.jpg
c57164b44c1d31a0221133008d7b1149
3956d9d09d900904f4c66988b728d36eceb5cd44
114151 F20101106_AAAXMO best_m_Page_061.jpg
8be14c7f995a117f80abd8559dc01c28
35daa965cd32ce405f8e8729d7f4b1c26b7dec36
1877 F20101106_AAAYQF best_m_Page_029.txt
b4b91202e5c120c932075a3a7f490fa6
c7ae6d2bb0f2deb1e1772c4c5f2e7319d3d15ad3
2078 F20101106_AAAYPR best_m_Page_014.txt
1c2717285d2424d6b61b081c75a572a9
a904d1a415f34522ab3ca8ad001c7a656cd7c344
20943 F20101106_AAAXND best_m_Page_076.jpg
25a47fcbc33f407f5bbdf6d5dec1646f
92dbb6d2e7e6229bca4afbbab909152d659dffa8
114861 F20101106_AAAXMP best_m_Page_062.jpg
8b753fe1d7ee0d7e0bdae0260e731651
7d595c7ea7fc5c600709f0917ba585aad220e411
2191 F20101106_AAAYQG best_m_Page_030.txt
5b9a30fcafb3f399c56cc91a151dd91a
4b574d89b06f8aff328780514753bb388aedd06c
2039 F20101106_AAAYPS best_m_Page_015.txt
d137841820804109dafa1521246ddd30
0d4b65a38fd719c32756516ac899131f15f4d884
88236 F20101106_AAAXNE best_m_Page_077.jpg
dd35e67b4cb2097edd5cffc24ac92f0c
c556307f5bf8a1ff6537807be0dfc809d4566da3
103941 F20101106_AAAXMQ best_m_Page_063.jpg
40327f75cd8f31fb14d692f84e89d4ab
a22ef7ed7eb0c7b7e1c25067342a42fbb6038d32
2250 F20101106_AAAYQH best_m_Page_031.txt
6977074c08d623c6d9531e0cff95d66b
d0862ab5281a815afd8e08e30b40dc0b9962f306
2109 F20101106_AAAYPT best_m_Page_016.txt
45224473e94227f60b3b88fb42117d96
47b445e6a82b29f1021d9785df6a280749a3848d
114630 F20101106_AAAXNF best_m_Page_078.jpg
af236095b9cb6d1fe2587379dbbfc80c
e0e75844425c47a028527293468f0b5251343cdc
109513 F20101106_AAAXMR best_m_Page_064.jpg
59a9197a6d159af1897b3f4433e46e1d
08b1dcdf87453707dfe614d5d259fb976c390b91
2050 F20101106_AAAYQI best_m_Page_032.txt
773cc2e7558c0f03a89a6e4eccd36a44
736dd8a42d47c5c5af5c42cc2c75b7b44cdc09dc
2120 F20101106_AAAYPU best_m_Page_017.txt
c49f013435cfdf4f77cad90b9f3b99d0
74059a50946fc5426e57cf275b836b360d7ec89e
108901 F20101106_AAAXNG best_m_Page_079.jpg
5ded6790fa3cc9428fa7c35327653e16
8f3a182fb27a95e140e8ab021896ef190e80d345
109268 F20101106_AAAXMS best_m_Page_065.jpg
15992f2bab0568803903ddf23babaa12
f7d25302e6b5bae1161cad31097c5101b4bf38ec
2124 F20101106_AAAYQJ best_m_Page_033.txt
5aab61c48b0f827965193660373d4084
c15b826c9f564dffbac2a2908db44ec5e3cab41a
2111 F20101106_AAAYPV best_m_Page_018.txt
91b8d4227b98d077e492368106ea0f23
f8cf03b947a624b01c1be6d0cec14508fe66f9af
115155 F20101106_AAAXNH best_m_Page_080.jpg
b8a308eb1c7be23b973394dbb08fbd6f
995517b54fcb7e04e72290865a3934fb841c119e
109460 F20101106_AAAXMT best_m_Page_066.jpg
70c805502a38194a8b15148fad2259df
56705d1cf4e06cdc007160bf0c0737ef82688be3
2053 F20101106_AAAYQK best_m_Page_034.txt
93c13aa28a719fdc3de21578c3416b27
331e0ad5ede68a43387cd7ce6461bc7ff1e2cc27
2143 F20101106_AAAYPW best_m_Page_020.txt
25a6e38817e5a786d0bcb4c3f872244a
431c95d9c5a543fa750592ce60d0b3028aa75f8a
99399 F20101106_AAAXNI best_m_Page_081.jpg
9317837e187a55328c68026284ad0bf3
e14c0af1ae0a0a8a1eb255242f46c493ddf42325
109431 F20101106_AAAXMU best_m_Page_067.jpg
f497a5d254001d29b8df157bb659ccf9
15ca49c21ec1b002c15f4065c5db61755e73bbf3
2024 F20101106_AAAYRA best_m_Page_050.txt
ed26b919b37a903acdd3b1e76892d6ba
2ff962e96cd0ac385474c98422ce314ed6bc5ad2
F20101106_AAAYQL best_m_Page_035.txt
9169e9db3b197964ac26ffef4e308d48
6942775d75104af87cc50a46fdb370c1bc4ec8d2
2083 F20101106_AAAYPX best_m_Page_021.txt
e92f30e50689ead5ed35751262cc9cb9
9296b9aa4d8a91aebd0d8fb5cbdf6efb885e2068
92752 F20101106_AAAXNJ best_m_Page_082.jpg
0608d86c4cd8ad050963f62071f49bb4
3cebfb248100ac796deda70a1fd8bc81d30f53bf
103047 F20101106_AAAXMV best_m_Page_068.jpg
81e2422f1786d0acf9e21771cf341ea5
5a669f4108e3b1ca3a81ccd565d5d40dd2c581a0
F20101106_AAAYRB best_m_Page_051.txt
0696524f8f7f5455a9b550490931928c
9b988a7edf40e757f0289003d0aeb5a609a884ea
2125 F20101106_AAAYQM best_m_Page_036.txt
d63b26a71b1121131f71827bb4f50760
d51fbd92f24e72002e3031ab15c8ea95050d353e
F20101106_AAAYPY best_m_Page_022.txt
e0200f901e46ccf5456a57bdbbcfab92
377251fc21d58268b059a2e7e5e7cf1ce5034545
88254 F20101106_AAAXNK best_m_Page_083.jpg
f1eae818a2487057f87eebc70e019057
976c68390caa89170bcf0177f346b6622d354334
111062 F20101106_AAAXMW best_m_Page_069.jpg
44cb72c78e36161e8f76f14ae6833a6e
4e4099608991ca273cd0027735f90bd0a502f70f
F20101106_AAAYRC best_m_Page_052.txt
df851696e70be62f11ed3549f859f92a
15ce900ce32124c951f6eaeab7150176055a43ba
2103 F20101106_AAAYQN best_m_Page_037.txt
e2e59a4060782aab4369c8b228b10ff4
4465e0ee97ca6e87bbd1444d0bb238b5871189eb
1963 F20101106_AAAYPZ best_m_Page_023.txt
483b646b7486ce671fae7a40b6e3cf94
76c3079ac656792c41107e23556b49e6e026bd7e
106257 F20101106_AAAXOA best_m_Page_099.jpg
17030aa1fae3d897868756b7bce22d48
1ea27d361b97b0ea942812ddfe3dc636cfde3c31
99662 F20101106_AAAXNL best_m_Page_084.jpg
5e2894ac40bd8a329fcc31e26c67b522
3c90afe9fd0a440b2eb7d12f6a0834ad52764b79
103201 F20101106_AAAXMX best_m_Page_070.jpg
7e830fd3bbd247e3829e23d9ba33d539
b6f3727628fa6cf126a09ae1cb3ad1ae0266c909
2063 F20101106_AAAYQO best_m_Page_038.txt
b7b27f6ea499b36ac9d1804dc489efb1
3f0e413068aaa0ec6fc36c16b1064b16208b5880
100309 F20101106_AAAXNM best_m_Page_085.jpg
498687dfdfd18fb82b3b914d288a69d3
fd536ca6ac870fc7405559ecdb907d54260d8b2e
102743 F20101106_AAAXMY best_m_Page_071.jpg
a02796fec930164107b89a456d2bebdb
b3b17ef5f1cd778c2d4cb4d44ea8c42528172557
2176 F20101106_AAAYRD best_m_Page_054.txt
209f68d4dadc8fd1f4664d4d345e358e
a1d74ecedf629e17e619ed4ef01c6d7c1dbd0ed0
2019 F20101106_AAAYQP best_m_Page_039.txt
5d7d39dda076611beecb6a9af0053617
63a65811c3879849c7dbfd07c57c75725b7bf0dc
95928 F20101106_AAAXOB best_m_Page_100.jpg
66c4d73b80dc1b1988b850e7fc832b59
dd9da7c2ebdcf3362a0018d0e04c02168d0ca138
10125 F20101106_AAAXNN best_m_Page_086.jpg
d27964876da80327245db2112fc871f9
f38335514db5aec7b8563553d14d69a6aec82339
32699 F20101106_AAAXMZ best_m_Page_072.jpg
3a75b34ed56513ee2ca1f40af81913b5
09254bb248dd372272e49251386ef059a5f71641
2174 F20101106_AAAYRE best_m_Page_055.txt
c6646a14840edc17754c202a2f19072a
530a2e370a7cbcd57d532501023b5a289407572c
2061 F20101106_AAAYQQ best_m_Page_040.txt
b73125bc8679ac6e6095db6f457b1aee
177a238d0fe8e81654797943323f013a074a5857
109097 F20101106_AAAXOC best_m_Page_101.jpg
0230c14ed728dcd488af51d33945b0f0
ea28cf6a6ff7ed47fb71605a12b2aee37b28193f
72290 F20101106_AAAXNO best_m_Page_087.jpg
6c86dc7589b94842a455b486b91059a8
e7ad58bc9aeff697eb59683d01ace90cd88e4c86
F20101106_AAAYRF best_m_Page_056.txt
cc6c9b6dbec3fff35077c602014b7802
dea484c7aef6793eda7ff97a1f1a1f9316c40a16
F20101106_AAAYQR best_m_Page_041.txt
73fc4f67abb7a5201f3541f4b62ef61c
d4d9a82c5f66f97acec06e098a2771f99b433431
98685 F20101106_AAAXOD best_m_Page_102.jpg
42c484481a9bf69cb974de00d8055a31
7d0be4428770693a271bcd2be4fbfecc7cbfb208
100248 F20101106_AAAXNP best_m_Page_088.jpg
84941a2486fca0f787578bdf7b0d05af
d0ed1f513cec5ae0cece4806eff89a140c2d4722
2216 F20101106_AAAYRG best_m_Page_057.txt
ea4cd202375c5d7f4d8e04b577834598
9955926903a2c11a8e3fb3695c8d8cc0c1df789d
1962 F20101106_AAAYQS best_m_Page_042.txt
cff1e1b541d38f461943efde169a5093
e237fc59850b236f56d50f1e1db84418170d216d
91178 F20101106_AAAXOE best_m_Page_103.jpg
ad1b019de1c27e348361fd5e7637f1a5
42aac35daa7e21de6c2cc50621ce4718da2e9270
61683 F20101106_AAAXNQ best_m_Page_089.jpg
2fbcbe59ab6a31c180175812a61ad8f8
4e84941b6c6b0f5dd3af6742e7c1596d2391a444
1942 F20101106_AAAYRH best_m_Page_058.txt
8ee6fd8b5f5396675d433f88abc13eff
eafc0e56294fcd5b67a356f911c23e72ca079d88
2231 F20101106_AAAYQT best_m_Page_043.txt
3daa9153f85da96d3994eeadb15065e6
4791c0110814a015230a71ade778d455bfa86e7c
89869 F20101106_AAAXNR best_m_Page_090.jpg
d879184bea9cb916f8e960778bd6f221
e3e4e7c12dd0dd0ee680238192f4599141ad0496
112579 F20101106_AAAXOF best_m_Page_104.jpg
03c1da7e60c55cf164a860b5643e935d
4f91ad0ae08337010e8eee0cfdc34003927d4bc7
2023 F20101106_AAAYRI best_m_Page_059.txt
95dcb9428f974591c02d036a1438ded4
5d9c59876b9f1a255720993647f156e5e160ac99
F20101106_AAAYQU best_m_Page_044.txt
381a497f70c99e07393e20f47ed5fef1
8628728ff10c27cdf032849a1908763b03a30054
99644 F20101106_AAAXNS best_m_Page_091.jpg
00ffa812ba475e4bb86efd3d38c29a10
7020d38ad391bea040eecc2019df151e8581735a
105200 F20101106_AAAXOG best_m_Page_105.jpg
387aa560e6020ef18bb53ed6203bb4bb
23e246c3f49bf3f09ff7a5cf85b8dbf90064f954
2135 F20101106_AAAYRJ best_m_Page_060.txt
2fb63eeaeeb48c7fc8fbc31029c9659f
6c52e4f385df03d88d762ea925382e2bb643c4d9
2183 F20101106_AAAYQV best_m_Page_045.txt
f2c4b72cfc02d67bbbbb7b4ef36dbd41
92ece7a2e0c3d243d148f6e8fb23ac089d540cc2
109263 F20101106_AAAXNT best_m_Page_092.jpg
b7a3aeb4a33c9199bee1b3fb52eac39d
32463e1ffddbd0989c7a70a5c7f2f844f709b3b4
111484 F20101106_AAAXOH best_m_Page_106.jpg
755b4aa1f32bd7a551bbf9bd869a92b4
6d71cb26685bdeb0738bf7d1c24269ca0c7a9c2f
2213 F20101106_AAAYRK best_m_Page_061.txt
c9c42485545a8b63f2d7fb3ee1da96bc
5e8b69520746ebefda7a105c592b91a2d275c5a5
2099 F20101106_AAAYQW best_m_Page_046.txt
30d82556de103072745562df6bc66055
a9ec47c0586704e73ae2e5e9030e3de8c546c15b
107063 F20101106_AAAXNU best_m_Page_093.jpg
588efec10c2377e1af969594a8f124b9
0e31258c09cb5312ec62f6325811994e629bb6eb
106239 F20101106_AAAXOI best_m_Page_107.jpg
f6a319eac58b9a4ba22e70621daa65fc
787163f361e829c54ce8b82cba1e8b5fac2806d4
1797 F20101106_AAAYSA best_m_Page_077.txt
66258e7d3c1c3d5f8f7f6b584c4f6554
6e117c5e94cea7ef62d1791f0f68c1bf9cc798ea
2214 F20101106_AAAYRL best_m_Page_062.txt
c44724c0634be100922bab08d488f3e7
aed1c89ec51093309deb66d304a9f076d6f74e50
2106 F20101106_AAAYQX best_m_Page_047.txt
bda9dce20bd6a11248d42e08bb510599
d4ae3be62f8d03daed1ff703f7e31ed06032cb07
106803 F20101106_AAAXNV best_m_Page_094.jpg
f2dd6b3fff7c992747303c60b81c3e5a
8d4d9e3e0bdaf5f9de7d7ae611b4f527617c7222
115523 F20101106_AAAXOJ best_m_Page_108.jpg
c1bb5df8b874485cf8f86b5c717bdf43
56551377b8e96d8cbc61e9acc0e4cdf123c2d1cb
2241 F20101106_AAAYSB best_m_Page_078.txt
b63fa5761f4d170d5ab2b671fe58f720
ba32f234a6a7e593a81022d9c11a4c9a9263a25e
F20101106_AAAYRM best_m_Page_063.txt
288e57fdb2356d7d6de4a93b68ef33a5
c83980ffa08747d32dcca4b63ed238e54aa396a9
F20101106_AAAYQY best_m_Page_048.txt
79d0026090f9c5ab543b6b1921c3bb36
2aeb1d6cd2d03ce4f12351aae90dcce3d34c05ea
107455 F20101106_AAAXNW best_m_Page_095.jpg
6c18979df86ce65c826895ca083fd80e
4f7ef50ef0ad84388e674a9983339098f488bc4b
109311 F20101106_AAAXOK best_m_Page_109.jpg
13ee03401cae862142cde8a1d83be5e8
291aed28f0b0fc99b3e17c70987a1943fe6d88c1
2113 F20101106_AAAYSC best_m_Page_079.txt
b240390b7af07bbde329df38e7252706
0052d0d329fea30ece6e88b2ba99c6364b36d6df
2165 F20101106_AAAYRN best_m_Page_064.txt
e8467398e378f1dcb96f5c951d941ee2
33af45035485f3f5eb0277dd6e0a6cd5bd159621
1929 F20101106_AAAYQZ best_m_Page_049.txt
6def3fa964be745d32120d3afa18d1f0
d87f3248f5105a56396bf42a92f2ba4507918d1a
105541 F20101106_AAAXNX best_m_Page_096.jpg
b7330bc75c22bd7bcd8c0b36cb9e040d
bdee32109956bf48be298f19457b3ee0e13c77d2
56471 F20101106_AAAXPA best_m_Page_125.jpg
2b6741e229dcf4a291496e4e1a827152
ca66f00b42774e34236aa9ce317c58d667a62c48
111675 F20101106_AAAXOL best_m_Page_110.jpg
bdc99c602870367b17f8fe0ec0884638
5eccf80c68db62b9c8c6a49a9d4409514f90daa3
2242 F20101106_AAAYSD best_m_Page_080.txt
ea1db12a52908b6f14531aa57e4ebd52
5ac052e557d182aca90fa32105a0ee6ace2319a1
2110 F20101106_AAAYRO best_m_Page_065.txt
251f5836d7b6b4b38cfbaa259aa91309
4111f64c8b95af80195b7c593c0046fcf90b9ebf
107554 F20101106_AAAXNY best_m_Page_097.jpg
648362a7944b536f9aba73d978a8df55
17a56b17a0b95b7e9ee02604bb6849988d7bb0c4
57238 F20101106_AAAXPB best_m_Page_126.jpg
8b27a1dae83356c358413062ab72a472
2a49d8ac397aef78621cf76c2de77e6807c10b38
98169 F20101106_AAAXOM best_m_Page_111.jpg
fea94d39a9bd59920817ae1f724ff09c
83bf404e53e4fb2abe5cd047f41cc26d668b6578
2136 F20101106_AAAYRP best_m_Page_066.txt
405eadf37a8ccc0ad95df16fb22905b7
098b188a3109f17c7fbfc53eb9f343fd636144ac
105807 F20101106_AAAXNZ best_m_Page_098.jpg
59e7f6777a5dbfa75416fb3ed98db2c5
996aa89d4ed1e47d206018c9286382d3e4e2dcb4
40284 F20101106_AAAXON best_m_Page_112.jpg
662a426fd1d593156f887661c6905795
3fe661a971c765b18a05092ff8aff4d97c81eb0c
1976 F20101106_AAAYSE best_m_Page_081.txt
3257bd65f4534b46f550b29cfb7c9564
b700f263936341343c8fe8aeeb8e28c822d514eb
2128 F20101106_AAAYRQ best_m_Page_067.txt
4017a50033007eebf7ffd23d1483417e
aa510656f0f2392c3e8bce123eac863aaf5d3e7b
44636 F20101106_AAAXPC best_m_Page_127.jpg
2fc55d6f2ada9d29e2a0bb7c53ced81c
cf566c98456482486c1e174990f357da9d89cf86
41824 F20101106_AAAXOO best_m_Page_113.jpg
c73ec4da69ef97c9416e8069f4ea1763
f4e956574c78c21783e4f2ec35231bdb60b7cace
1800 F20101106_AAAYSF best_m_Page_082.txt
9b70c172f7b9c37dd6f213800302e510
d2b10d4c23aa3e7c17eaaf5acecab063e21bfc35
1994 F20101106_AAAYRR best_m_Page_068.txt
9421beab0a806947c99a39971db56135
ae3fc689f4b2ebc06669cb320a21e20198a9e688
76625 F20101106_AAAXPD best_m_Page_128.jpg
f382f9aeea138d65926de899f62aafa8
68e17bb6cd0affa2f0d0f55a48b4c1155cbf67f5
82922 F20101106_AAAXOP best_m_Page_114.jpg
ee3613cc75bde980a1cca98faa11683d
3628dd57dc671a13084bae6623677644aaa37a76
1724 F20101106_AAAYSG best_m_Page_083.txt
7a6ee0d4ebf4bb15615c96efe4b52bc2
3603bad2ced253a54d88bb3d23820811dc45f403
2207 F20101106_AAAYRS best_m_Page_069.txt
b3ebf2c9b296152b82a78e3517e69c80
42d2444bbca42f8027af5d1fa9b2829cbcf4dae0
60695 F20101106_AAAXPE best_m_Page_129.jpg
55e4eced5167d5c9ba4c184a32f78256
bcec25627173e2b70ff99257e1987f227c6493e8
68735 F20101106_AAAXOQ best_m_Page_115.jpg
f38f3952bb695bc0f6fcc28510742077
007d778c2f0bd988ae8c5c31647deacce62a78d2
2013 F20101106_AAAYSH best_m_Page_084.txt
5b3d524332b2d115bb4328c1dc84f296
3b669f3e6e1343891e3f5bc1e68acb0d8511c4a8
1993 F20101106_AAAYRT best_m_Page_070.txt
fa687f1c551fd4dea6bb6f19ac6a5d52
a104202b8f899395005c9d65849e84744a3bfc0e
39381 F20101106_AAAXPF best_m_Page_130.jpg
5215fba5afa4334e61175a396a1a35f0
b862e1fcabb8de357bf82a53019428c8d751c7b3
83804 F20101106_AAAXOR best_m_Page_116.jpg
8d544fb4b572610860f92d0e8bc14806
e8e815cf3eb691dd4497991ca70a4cd5b4be017b
2032 F20101106_AAAYSI best_m_Page_085.txt
aadfa338848c54bf3987474601fd81b3
ccea683d002810f6038eb5ac6e46ae9af3c5e1d9
1973 F20101106_AAAYRU best_m_Page_071.txt
b5485ecef3c5cc0afe76e5f136d29350
7928aeaeb624eabf556a42937ce0f6080fdf195a
32188 F20101106_AAAXPG best_m_Page_131.jpg
a35232f92323fef6019f8aa727bef5b2
6aab55442b233654e42e47b6a71262cd3bddbd91
64427 F20101106_AAAXOS best_m_Page_117.jpg
6421c0a18fe3aed7ec733f0b58c38bcd
91382ad65ea3fd628a2b041b87399783fcd49c50
152 F20101106_AAAYSJ best_m_Page_086.txt
78b58a915c2a58e02fc4eb3cb11aab1d
356868e6f650fd5c1284c2d4e76f74b138248425
586 F20101106_AAAYRV best_m_Page_072.txt
87e848ddef8c2b786192ac7a320f872f
8f2a898411ce4acb0fe19a0ecae7e096ee8d1a88
52403 F20101106_AAAXPH best_m_Page_132.jpg
6743db572aa61b0e871d54d22fe4771f
ec9f458f1cd6bd44d726208d9cf6550fcbc8168c
95330 F20101106_AAAXOT best_m_Page_118.jpg
7e8955bfbd3e1b99217e38b6c79b1e46
f524c17749bdaaabc851d30d9588f36b5a49823d
2814 F20101106_AAAYSK best_m_Page_087.txt
db4cd6dce64f0c7e23fed4ec2a10b4ef
9d1d130a56a7dd60bb086dac5a410d61b59660dd
2489 F20101106_AAAYRW best_m_Page_073.txt
0920f5951592044f02f0a787fbc68653
3be50451de9e6fd7859728bb4e7d4eda003a8ad6
102585 F20101106_AAAXPI best_m_Page_133.jpg
c64668ec7665ffc09176aa95a7c81b59
8aa98d198e847c27218aa609fd041ec2bca4a228
47253 F20101106_AAAXOU best_m_Page_119.jpg
0c01cb7faf3b3c2b78d9f49e629f1d77
5055df07a282df9e86082b450d23d4e2f428ad99
1703 F20101106_AAAYTA best_m_Page_103.txt
e5e9dd00751575ee552ddf7be770f552
93a64a121b30cd30a9d360d2c18efb0925c5414f
2458 F20101106_AAAYSL best_m_Page_088.txt
50b025d80a6ffeb5de474ce70f0e59cf
d017c0fc6eb5bd1cc46f97d3ae3fbd2096859484
2555 F20101106_AAAYRX best_m_Page_074.txt
23e4604d9eb24e3ede89d719f08c0c78
487f7577aa0267a78ab8c91506780ff289c7ced6
100095 F20101106_AAAXPJ best_m_Page_134.jpg
53f1b09f63bde6f124282093a1ce8bfa
7fb4830c391dcd36340a45224077f48a97638797
40639 F20101106_AAAXOV best_m_Page_120.jpg
cac4007d88b49026cd36a0d2f0869e1f
94bf832e3eb6e7473b4ea962e986933d8b73d007
2181 F20101106_AAAYTB best_m_Page_104.txt
65c2e9db2fd4459d1eb47f632068aebb
b6a1c0045d6239eebc78675011f1d1ec81036b48
1277 F20101106_AAAYSM best_m_Page_089.txt
08e8a7fae6c03bffd071ccb90add2ae8
9762692b4b8fc28a28bb638e359b4bb87f9b4afc
676 F20101106_AAAYRY best_m_Page_075.txt
ccb372f138fb5561a518ea798be2ee9a
b2c48675ecb873b146b26b8b4ff6e2ff78e15f46
106980 F20101106_AAAXPK best_m_Page_135.jpg
9087ecba19c06c20662a75bdd0bebcf9
742c73749b9a99e5d493531b442ef5083d9b222b
96325 F20101106_AAAXOW best_m_Page_121.jpg
f552c22d3f2dae183f9c13388f8fc72a
a98f19fa9750d739017236b6daf49968c5013947
2027 F20101106_AAAYTC best_m_Page_105.txt
491fc2f529ed3f54e7ddd8e7b7ba4c0b
83a3e9708ef06d59b4550b734dc99a6c0fec11a9
1854 F20101106_AAAYSN best_m_Page_090.txt
2ef1efae5e4f95a5a0420b731ea7a1cd
0864cf6a6bdddd598b18327de735dbe57427a10a
460 F20101106_AAAYRZ best_m_Page_076.txt
5340bc78e64fd8e43c7f18cdf6990fe7
71239ab82e291f2806357caf10dceb245e3a063f
105894 F20101106_AAAXQA best_m_Page_151.jpg
e04469d9d8ed2fbe053782f61c733e40
96848b12cc34102c885aea4eb61d44f99b4df6fc
114376 F20101106_AAAXPL best_m_Page_136.jpg
bddabc22b96d37acd69605fd953fc297
795378ebbae91ac5a98a7eb0b689e98c925ae155
67225 F20101106_AAAXOX best_m_Page_122.jpg
0de6c8cce54644a59992aac4632c4299
3e45592e4083f18b63558abf5d78453becb4becc
2179 F20101106_AAAYTD best_m_Page_106.txt
7607ea42ffb50f7c2776e387d40df22e
d56c559f270e31b9bc8eaffb05bc72ceaba17512
1975 F20101106_AAAYSO best_m_Page_091.txt
2cd4c1f17fb77c2179c92f66802ebaa8
c302a52d889aebe089d2a3f5df510dedd83d8d55
94053 F20101106_AAAXQB best_m_Page_152.jpg
074c0d7b34517d7ff18e737f762170b1
12650ab6cbf53aaa51ba53bc7883df84d1071523
104339 F20101106_AAAXPM best_m_Page_137.jpg
b4be0d52c9ee4b2ee094f4c5fdca8fd4
29200f2b52af6237b9ab247d9e476a09f96a7f25
72396 F20101106_AAAXOY best_m_Page_123.jpg
9aa5fe3e1e00673915d7b75255e543ed
e30d01c409d00255f9b20dbe59aa8beb0903d429
F20101106_AAAYTE best_m_Page_107.txt
2128b023a2d234c464c923a2d629558c
bfdc2fc862712bcf5de401c429c125ed2d15ce3b
2104 F20101106_AAAYSP best_m_Page_092.txt
7d8257ba3aa31167f9e34c38418c3ca2
be0595b733fd7de54f29fefc95d651540ccc171b
110808 F20101106_AAAXQC best_m_Page_153.jpg
5ff4034930c8119b8e6a7091eef0a8ff
f6e2945b360bbf370443b942f78b41e273f6b515
100040 F20101106_AAAXPN best_m_Page_138.jpg
a9b97b135c94ce12ba6dd40699e4c25e
04d3039e6b204492ea130798b08d49870a682568
60770 F20101106_AAAXOZ best_m_Page_124.jpg
d87989de08793a1f16e7ff8ef16eaf6a
71fedc29c2707cf5a3d4201d0c73fff8db359351
2080 F20101106_AAAYSQ best_m_Page_093.txt
c0ebabaac97a2d85989682a557228cda
fd78a27fce31fa994ca1e2cbc40e69a1295cd6f2
100166 F20101106_AAAXPO best_m_Page_139.jpg
27d006332abdb09a0979bb25c51777c0
120305b6385a75ba49edae9e46d91e11431bf59c
2236 F20101106_AAAYTF best_m_Page_108.txt
8f98d49b050c98ac3a3f9bd64cd0a282
4d213acdfab246c6a50b8dbdea5d8dfe3d89efc4
2133 F20101106_AAAYSR best_m_Page_094.txt
5d43faeab24f86cc4622c022f0b06ceb
06a11241355fcf1f3ecb66b4a02ebdcb31423467
99291 F20101106_AAAXQD best_m_Page_154.jpg
670272833b5db6c466e74d9bdaa4a860
c82ca0dba5cc4735d16ef0de5896f8015c506618
107422 F20101106_AAAXPP best_m_Page_140.jpg
4b5b3a69f74c16b6f2dc9f0ffb86b4b3
300eacb8120139e1b42251464e8fcbc2868e071d
F20101106_AAAYTG best_m_Page_109.txt
b990a27a32c59612c5babcaeaefb2152
994ce78b0deabac664b7064e84c03b877d6a3c9a
2079 F20101106_AAAYSS best_m_Page_095.txt
2c807c52b4150a7be6995128549eddbd
e294807f0edcb9fc5886990cc26f9aabe8402149
47668 F20101106_AAAXQE best_m_Page_155.jpg
390412caf3127c31b9bb23be2c47a204
a7fea051871523a6d2794fd024d257cd9354b357
109273 F20101106_AAAXPQ best_m_Page_141.jpg
fdc465b714525b19d6e83db7e933d497
2b5e2bb9c17ea353cb47bee07aadba7d72c1ec84
2195 F20101106_AAAYTH best_m_Page_110.txt
575805388ff973effc7675aa9b1d70d1
148df27963884b4be48f9da96e7cd4fb0af3f2b1
2022 F20101106_AAAYST best_m_Page_096.txt
bb32e2f4e09fd22163ffda2641ffde2a
cb43d8a5ba144540de9d772640b7013808ef3d44
101802 F20101106_AAAXQF best_m_Page_156.jpg
6a089b81fe771c418bcfcd4bd1392420
b61cdafe4061693e755e91f717b80fc915eec1f1
104005 F20101106_AAAXPR best_m_Page_142.jpg
844c59b06589c9295e97554d38438086
ce2d5713c8bfcc4b1cfe3a84755b7d75e8636df8
1931 F20101106_AAAYTI best_m_Page_111.txt
8e65ad42ede0d26b2bb178c580a76319
4b9dd3ed2fdf2d3ae10bd03e052db7d2843d23ef
2042 F20101106_AAAYSU best_m_Page_097.txt
ffe25de6de2d834d6d3a42755f20f684
fd27aedf645db7e617e9b5a35e1edd18317df897
92601 F20101106_AAAXQG best_m_Page_157.jpg
7867e113666551fe6bf40a0e75e92c82
3506c7421493980bcf7e389f9b5158241c2d5748
96486 F20101106_AAAXPS best_m_Page_143.jpg
79308d134cd61686d850aa15d7ce6cac
27ed7a328ddc2da33f448a8fe9649db323abdc8d
902 F20101106_AAAYTJ best_m_Page_112.txt
e8088151a45c4632dd07788fa42e640c
074676092b7414106a4d294b6dc09685275972d8
2049 F20101106_AAAYSV best_m_Page_098.txt
6ecef84fba5222716dbf9d4e639c4f47
41cbd6f515a21238a7a19c13f30ef192760cfc59
68915 F20101106_AAAXQH best_m_Page_158.jpg
421e50065d53cc644947dfe0e910e069
e2fbe17d69ae62dd9674fa108723c53c6165a960
105937 F20101106_AAAXPT best_m_Page_144.jpg
89384e5f56de76315a4a391052bc8a8e
d763ee9a62a6fbdf9ef3370668afe700b354be52
2185 F20101106_AAAYTK best_m_Page_113.txt
a80793942d79d32732b0264677264951
beecbc9547e82bcc1e28a35eef5cae69da974f89
F20101106_AAAYSW best_m_Page_099.txt
f0521c89ea2ff9e1bece522fbba98b29
aadffdc7e3723d8c48114a435b227d20170d01c3
95959 F20101106_AAAXQI best_m_Page_159.jpg
e9183a5ff393779a9678817ccc6e2b4d
3c86d7028d4dd69b475e8e2801fd94e39679a3ad
103570 F20101106_AAAXPU best_m_Page_145.jpg
f03de58b655390a4c09a6561b087f86f
0811acd49c2777de2c5122ed18c6701204f59606
1291 F20101106_AAAYUA best_m_Page_129.txt
74b0fdf061fc74c8d2f32bc8499a88cd
a5c2c29e8407baac6aaac2327dffda1f66c2f5e2
1930 F20101106_AAAYTL best_m_Page_114.txt
fe0fb52d3ca62e722432a14b4aa16c3d
503f64bf563523708a3fb34a3bd7d6b52a586229
F20101106_AAAYSX best_m_Page_100.txt
faa2bedfcaa065a01a2cc7c2846782da
e6da3ecd7a046c0a9187bb5a31619f0babd767c6
106917 F20101106_AAAXQJ best_m_Page_160.jpg
a566ed95f7a81a22f676f1eabb85b35f
f8b651ac7d460c2aaf784e55aa51459047d5337b
102119 F20101106_AAAXPV best_m_Page_146.jpg
03f05ea17bd483e2c099a5c4a7b84958
4e9cdb3a56ebcc80d0b029f3bb8ac68ee5e3bcb2
1629 F20101106_AAAYUB best_m_Page_130.txt
37b685f069ad694aef1585c1a78286c7
ff91766c07a3a144c7b246afbc61df18742529e5
1537 F20101106_AAAYTM best_m_Page_115.txt
6dbd4def848d42f393a94d137fac59e7
fe6c2e5c06d77f831f0a3c87e721be36b18c8f9d
2069 F20101106_AAAYSY best_m_Page_101.txt
c72eb4efa4db61693dc95941bd4f3cea
97852f023005f8eba3eb7b51a22686f7363dae78
68765 F20101106_AAAXQK best_m_Page_161.jpg
934babe41a1769294577eba687ea6f01
5fd440a80c22d55da24d3b9239964de1cb6c7238
104401 F20101106_AAAXPW best_m_Page_147.jpg
dcb668f9e72212c07ead96114a0cbd76
d8f5d80821f267739bb26619263b53040d574cc3
770 F20101106_AAAYUC best_m_Page_131.txt
e7daa3b77e8ccdc7c8d0fc993817bf13
9953ecc4039ab3e8bc108b52e256120cd82d76a6
1829 F20101106_AAAYTN best_m_Page_116.txt
6edcc4e79352c13a839933710ae908e6
ce99156c2255b14dafd9bce51ea39ad9161ea47a
1847 F20101106_AAAYSZ best_m_Page_102.txt
03063d4d09c6124845fa4da8dd57e608
673641a947573fa1b95f98de9ee8266dd8f2fae7
63037 F20101106_AAAXQL best_m_Page_162.jpg
86bf34cd42760833f96d4680786014c0
8b9b85b46265b5ca93409d29ba1463db62a89074
102301 F20101106_AAAXPX best_m_Page_148.jpg
82fe2a79a99522ad0760f19a8977e0d3
29d4a2f688a35ec6dd6e64c0bc34dfadafd4b1b5
54183 F20101106_AAAXRA best_m_Page_177.jpg
3a6d1bc1507378ca2f6ce37392ef64b8
c12f36089ae1fdba246285358930e31bf3ee7dd9
973 F20101106_AAAYUD best_m_Page_132.txt
2a36d08ca333e059019deda428a97bb9
31d5c8424e742f22156ba05719a6a9ba2061a128
1319 F20101106_AAAYTO best_m_Page_117.txt
4c9fbd58081d86ade5a574b924bb0aca
6d61c691718b96d1fb464f3b0a86eb683039ad72
60140 F20101106_AAAXQM best_m_Page_163.jpg
371ea13a1d6139b39c532d7eb60bd3c0
b6805ac7543da82129518574680c238a740d16de
100546 F20101106_AAAXPY best_m_Page_149.jpg
99edde83c20d1c936657adae7773adc3
4328bb6a4d7c1bd4fc560b4e43f420e1db7eb214
65951 F20101106_AAAXRB best_m_Page_178.jpg
60223aa24549c4704f19e789338777aa
f9a01a64ebc815048cb4b34433b0d744974731fb
2067 F20101106_AAAYUE best_m_Page_133.txt
956c091ac2c1638e19ca637e1c33938d
acdfae1b0d35058236d5abec5e1901d357ee1e5f
1979 F20101106_AAAYTP best_m_Page_118.txt
8f3a5e40396785ae59e9158120ed6ea2
1ebd5b40778cf0b6dfe0778292624aa244c41b40
52374 F20101106_AAAXQN best_m_Page_164.jpg
3f51411516f225088cca42e837c6b092
e917400adfd8be6bed338a91b1b8ab79c35d56ed
F20101106_AAAXPZ best_m_Page_150.jpg
5e2122ef0605b6627c809f945b5b6028
17404e4a57bc2c7debdc53c65e64f7bfca913d23
95698 F20101106_AAAXRC best_m_Page_179.jpg
af763ab26dbefc236b92c6fbffccf143
6876d20e870f284a4f0d490a6a8ecb458e1984a4
F20101106_AAAYUF best_m_Page_134.txt
4de2f5221096b73a835860756be2289b
484edab19873cdba46afd167e41e249d36b0db52
1307 F20101106_AAAYTQ best_m_Page_119.txt
ac9b366883a5a488feae6a7d618635c0
5014637449017192b33e9e275ed93cb9b55d60c0
41635 F20101106_AAAXQO best_m_Page_165.jpg
8b2e0924bfce3178d6163d5aa81f0fb6
88c812504ec86f590df01a5810e7d3319adedf65
105574 F20101106_AAAXRD best_m_Page_180.jpg
637c4850ec10aad24be144abd08f07c6
bc5cd87c63d8807f90c5a9c78bc5939435a36001
8754 F20101106_AAAZAA best_m_Page_041thm.jpg
d7dfda22b71420ec3d15ffbac9ef5759
ea1441a1481c530da5c50d64a3b1e325751178f8
1088 F20101106_AAAYTR best_m_Page_120.txt
a0ff2e011a68a6ffdbd25219c4f95c6e
a37e27b409da7f4af87fecebd9412d91731c2507
69388 F20101106_AAAXQP best_m_Page_166.jpg
9b98a7ed5dfd7f25eb19246f413d545f
75d54761bb3cd7f695d47c881eb0fc05ac78b66a
32471 F20101106_AAAZAB best_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
dac205994ff50446c05050b23d462978
d128c0040b6a3d3b9e00f044b28f697b61cd5254
2057 F20101106_AAAYUG best_m_Page_135.txt
50c04b781fe9110f256df12f8cbbf630
0d11550daac3598dc060247cf024e7af33953816
2622 F20101106_AAAYTS best_m_Page_121.txt
b4ba2636f81efc5811a7a81de79aa78f
ceb7cbbfc28368190d2924f3820314aecf33c21a
46571 F20101106_AAAXQQ best_m_Page_167.jpg
f1bcfbf893b12e52495dc4d6c11da823
bc93508c052eaa5271cf67e2beebcae66a1d8f1c
38961 F20101106_AAAXRE best_m_Page_181.jpg
7bc18047d9248e409edee16877b1fa4f
0a6fe9b2b21349b55402d1825c58dab47f2d347f
8209 F20101106_AAAZAC best_m_Page_042thm.jpg
04037a106c972c7d35d868ba85361c64
a35359179e22f2f74165b31bf34c31eb6d9fca71
2228 F20101106_AAAYUH best_m_Page_136.txt
9fdce6e421a79f9122b534ca494f5ea2
37dcbeefc4def87a61bc5f4e68d51c31b98e877d
1654 F20101106_AAAYTT best_m_Page_122.txt
2e3b57af75dfb805b687a01dcfe0c7ad
06dda82eab8938580241ddd9b004dd0580d558c8
63276 F20101106_AAAXQR best_m_Page_168.jpg
bb7a9eea0901f33f9c372e33e9074acf
8010bcbe14a300470fe79e06664b0b48085d03de
57330 F20101106_AAAXRF best_m_Page_182.jpg
683167326321b21a15087cba3f755f6f
934a3521391cb16cddadb1f8ba0efd8b5b678f71
37300 F20101106_AAAZAD best_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
4e911d1502d1d938c6ef4faf594a9e03
980e74fa2dba94a0fa449a7d560e846c45651aa8
2043 F20101106_AAAYUI best_m_Page_137.txt
b201a72c510df6fdf398c6570c23142a
5fec455bd634fbc24436920dabec257d17879318
1591 F20101106_AAAYTU best_m_Page_123.txt
a7aafb92737b17eb1afb3528b8c6231f
85a7502c418fbb5454d8cf3789890d050575a655
60803 F20101106_AAAXQS best_m_Page_169.jpg
e238b7ec91a2bde0651b213efec694ff
bc1339f1b130b1317b80b721a8bc22d1633bb8b9
96258 F20101106_AAAXRG best_m_Page_183.jpg
a57748933af82266e0442fc26736d73d
a268d56b526770e89187f6122c71e178a83ef066
8976 F20101106_AAAZAE best_m_Page_043thm.jpg
e68bf1aca3953ab1d0c7bf094e3b3a4d
37c41ddc93e9f3c119a0f9143c1abc222c0cd37c
1980 F20101106_AAAYUJ best_m_Page_138.txt
2084281dc3477eac5b7e00c61d8ee0a2
4bef6cf275bb696d98aed6a190c9f5be855644d0
F20101106_AAAYTV best_m_Page_124.txt
bc02e2aeefa5d1b4a1191408b13d9ad8
c1150e8c6793f39cc4ff05baae91abbda18f0638
56775 F20101106_AAAXQT best_m_Page_170.jpg
5586ebe5b3cf29b43978d3b81de581da
8804de6298c512c38ad428dced8a77e90b5387c5
110149 F20101106_AAAXRH best_m_Page_184.jpg
f4479842ea7ee9885d7e5e7e91b29fd0
929f5e906c89fd0164107535554ac4d3b050ffa6
35688 F20101106_AAAZAF best_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
5070090d2889d0e4bf7f1733331569eb
c6fdd7a285671754468d82751afcd16243d56896
1961 F20101106_AAAYUK best_m_Page_139.txt
39922881ac33d8b00bcc8f5bf1de495c
e69f704f5b0f464462872f551b7ef631a7fa5004
1399 F20101106_AAAYTW best_m_Page_125.txt
93715ba1e8fd3efe9da973a95e16b0c0
a568903f50d95e39cd12bbd8e0f1b89aa54d0622
71146 F20101106_AAAXQU best_m_Page_171.jpg
cb423e49293a996c0a51c89e213c8940
1eb6604f604ccf2d3de5b7f8cde699fa192d7b48
46759 F20101106_AAAXRI best_m_Page_185.jpg
dda8a61bc430c517bae68441e6ed7063
8de8f7ca57071c2523376ad1c710968fef9bb145
8889 F20101106_AAAZAG best_m_Page_044thm.jpg
5b32b056ac74f5307e02a61c01ee5ab0
88744fa45addca86f8505a6734c42596e90da30e
890 F20101106_AAAYVA best_m_Page_155.txt
a4ddf3804092888ac71c2968fe8603c3
1622d78cdc893bc15508a251aa32822d135ff025
2084 F20101106_AAAYUL best_m_Page_140.txt
055bf8cd76535d0be18fa6723870074f
3141289f522cbdfe229058a3c78f3519221c44b5
1385 F20101106_AAAYTX best_m_Page_126.txt
d7cc30de857f3122bbe827344f442970
36da6cfa0800adf9d34c8a76b320de504bd11105
35809 F20101106_AAAXQV best_m_Page_172.jpg
77a6ac4630d58015ab36aef827f38f14
16165b9e8eb3e4af110c6ad65f752705dfcd1c65
77483 F20101106_AAAXRJ best_m_Page_186.jpg
55bf3e607f524793d4561dcdcb29a7d8
03a824b073c931006d1bec14b8fa6ff65b4591ca
37329 F20101106_AAAZAH best_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
5dc171686c5b9e07bf361eb24cc3cbb1
ff5297b0646ae516cee25ae75ac5f2761b3acb78
2588 F20101106_AAAYVB best_m_Page_156.txt
e67bf96ff6c53d0d390f759da7992f63
39f7aad623aacfe887eae99ee0bb31773fda0abb
F20101106_AAAYUM best_m_Page_141.txt
80e71c77cbab87de80433d4467472415
b94771f9ca7f2d55c803029dc9eed0284cf30f44
F20101106_AAAYTY best_m_Page_127.txt
36773abe3d1484cc6372dfc47bdb7883
742fc55487d81eea1a7b6d201ec72df2da107e4e
6193 F20101106_AAAXQW best_m_Page_173.jpg
745469db0c3d1be458f6db8a42b47c18
5bc1d14b24b12eacebb58fce5cf82bb406136c56
112480 F20101106_AAAXRK best_m_Page_187.jpg
1941791824bd73b9c5ac39d879d95749
cb564f19075741c5040bc5b71e7411b35b9aa282
9188 F20101106_AAAZAI best_m_Page_045thm.jpg
348cd817081e2378d47f6ba5a6e7ca06
205a6b7d1ad90f5d20645f7200b66a8ba3fcec76
2322 F20101106_AAAYVC best_m_Page_157.txt
299446ca230e86f3b02d1c1155dcaee3
e472732261d8988010fe28bafa44701a478d1203
2037 F20101106_AAAYUN best_m_Page_142.txt
04ebcec86de41a2b01f19d9aaa927ea0
574f05ff51d468c398ad58661331784d52b7c9f9
2377 F20101106_AAAYTZ best_m_Page_128.txt
d8823d2c847ed5a2268160f8167b4325
b977211fb398a0dea188e600bb9c3975b06b748f
35540 F20101106_AAAXQX best_m_Page_174.jpg
110f22e3d9af514063158f1b4baddedd
4414cb751dfa3226cfba44270a6a07a6afc808da
258194 F20101106_AAAXSA best_m_Page_001.jp2
ed1af11489362479d1be69ae7fb46b23
4da9af8e0cde983d11d504dd07be6c211b501d72
114091 F20101106_AAAXRL best_m_Page_188.jpg
937a1dde6318d2356211d70073d3a63a
529f34696c5ca65f97d09e921082d7afd232ce43
35714 F20101106_AAAZAJ best_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
ba902af1cff49c6b57e0c03648be4613
60f779d44fa390c518187adbffbf30a5ff2cb37c
F20101106_AAAYVD best_m_Page_158.txt
4eb79a0aa900560107a257cc08fa8168
c9f0f35b625bb62b3c5649b77ca0e733145c29e6
1814 F20101106_AAAYUO best_m_Page_143.txt
17006ae00471707b034943df9068cfc7
b7d66d1987d00290c5c2b241bc565d6691c0b6c4
93511 F20101106_AAAXQY best_m_Page_175.jpg
3b9d0f389a321ebeaa92d10638a7a16f
089bef25e5784688ce8b5490fbdcfd006aab4428
29659 F20101106_AAAXSB best_m_Page_002.jp2
b9e987a04560a172711ac6f0bcb07ce0
800a9c0dbb07c9bccb7efbd2083614c916b6f729
98476 F20101106_AAAXRM best_m_Page_189.jpg
e1aa2bb295d4580202f4e52f650fda04
e70b4c88f20eb8e73dd67d29d927faf60a5171f2
8614 F20101106_AAAZAK best_m_Page_046thm.jpg
763775b1d6a17882093db8117e3f64db
16149f225f83bcbdb3a146cb6307f5786ca9fe33
1919 F20101106_AAAYVE best_m_Page_159.txt
8c095b865a416568a552bedd1750a003
392f73b7295f27b2d37ecf329a3221ffc92a92e4
2085 F20101106_AAAYUP best_m_Page_144.txt
edd5e91626e520cdc7bbbcfb7e784e89
9e5d4f8cdc05ddeb30b1a32d77a46d6e795bd699
50422 F20101106_AAAXQZ best_m_Page_176.jpg
27af54de927f279b425a839a3ec0cce1
e8d863109f5e1f24b41b0622522705587235de2b
72156 F20101106_AAAXSC best_m_Page_003.jp2
690cf2a8b596cbd7f2df33eb18a8e692
70e3378995852cfb18af6eaa954ee1aeaf9204cd
57088 F20101106_AAAXRN best_m_Page_190.jpg
beccad1d1f69a5b7f8210c0c58c76861
5e440bb5c8e3a3c3e76cb4964dbc983058b70ccf
35923 F20101106_AAAZAL best_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
b251a35826b8fbd026565b5f09eea677
9a75d9b3b98263c8edc11d6d83e642a6961bdc89
2139 F20101106_AAAYVF best_m_Page_160.txt
9b88363aed46b5daf880df7daa1a2c4d
c7d3a917fa59ffee75723a42ee1139de45c33851
1986 F20101106_AAAYUQ best_m_Page_145.txt
40ed7e7210176546f87e5dda6b4a3e7e
6ad4c703cd5f30034fbd03925d99e77e75454fef
F20101106_AAAXSD best_m_Page_004.jp2
6050bdcd3c152ffae6ffb160f3c1f89c
fcea69a0164dc0f1d152277c764bdd67fe7ef6d9
115171 F20101106_AAAXRO best_m_Page_191.jpg
087a4dacf171ab35bc0afe3480a68f2d
714b7c598aadaee916586783a9d12d356cd3d43c
9002 F20101106_AAAZBA best_m_Page_054thm.jpg
9ea1b985c24b60ca927737881e78b078
a078a00c5f9f1a484778459d27ed1528d7befa60
8714 F20101106_AAAZAM best_m_Page_047thm.jpg
3b9d446062d39bc55ae550f33097afeb
8ed8f184f686e84790ad8d073f5f6cc9a44f0d5e
1410 F20101106_AAAYVG best_m_Page_161.txt
6cba58f6695f4329283477628713ff49
88c4d917dd585882b40c6d94b8c0d615caa6d107
2000 F20101106_AAAYUR best_m_Page_146.txt
285b97e640d9195f644b96b3f9776632
a98631beb5372965f87e959875b85aa32a3f4451
F20101106_AAAXSE best_m_Page_005.jp2
8d6378f25b531910714beab0524f2989
762eb84341d806fdefc54032453da6a990d3fb64
141046 F20101106_AAAXRP best_m_Page_192.jpg
96a30a9bc539209b776ca36b64501b74
bcda45a50b8e24fcd21a8b4fd7e2cf3e789f9c3b
34736 F20101106_AAAZBB best_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
d80ea5a247b9d26e8218c9bbf5e2fabc
eeb5ba9e6eb5c79e6214501d53637a6ffbcb9df4
35258 F20101106_AAAZAN best_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
689dea49935d491666b4eb0287827770
73fce63364879b09d4f95d8256683eb86cc46206
2012 F20101106_AAAYUS best_m_Page_147.txt
d53b46602f200eba9815f7162c9ea4cd
9ed09e365f5c46fef4c09415ef1eda12a8e1330b
133618 F20101106_AAAXRQ best_m_Page_193.jpg
504e4ccab432d7143c1bef4e8ffeb888
2a3e9243768df6cbd5f95dd3baf5da3ef3f229c2
8766 F20101106_AAAZBC best_m_Page_055thm.jpg
3def2118014b895fa0e3d2594ef6e7b9
e27add1fcbc27a4e18251994e7946758fe90ed33
8639 F20101106_AAAZAO best_m_Page_048thm.jpg
c02ef49187ff2d5e2256d1112b7ca1b6
2d69fb063e2c9574250b56b7c07ca9c5ebfafdee
1209 F20101106_AAAYVH best_m_Page_162.txt
e694e102b70af9ff3ea4d16c1e8c5cd7
83ed237baeafbe66e5d4126372ad986c3be315fa
2006 F20101106_AAAYUT best_m_Page_148.txt
3c7f15fabdbd00a09f524c2518d9373b
1e3b7bb0d879efd88d9c146f45db29d7f4325dac
F20101106_AAAXSF best_m_Page_006.jp2
a11dc383707873ad503117c2e7131842
69b7024f2cf55cd17003bc78e49f3b05ac777ba6
132820 F20101106_AAAXRR best_m_Page_194.jpg
2ebbee418ba8fbbf0d04e97713b33071
dd4d04d5c21d55b81fd0fb819461a1547842b8ec
F20101106_AAAZBD best_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
d30549bb02cc421e321b30e91f7d12f4
9abe3c9a5999afee0788db571e1a460dc62c33af
31458 F20101106_AAAZAP best_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
6d04841526cf75ad58b68cb624b2b7a5
7bc7e488b95d2e3905c0e165764f326ec2472d58
F20101106_AAAYVI best_m_Page_163.txt
0f77730840eaad1c96c9410af28a3ce8
74cb23db7c4b863f6a94758f6d9955214fe52f87
1978 F20101106_AAAYUU best_m_Page_149.txt
7508525dd3fc50033728c38ef511b971
406d8a7e0dc81023034e8c72fd761a71122bcfec
F20101106_AAAXSG best_m_Page_007.jp2
64045f06748439d58b728a3f6a985a48
dd0646084f3ac6fdcf38f7e180ad8ea5424e455f
112381 F20101106_AAAXRS best_m_Page_195.jpg
ca5b9524eabf4f8bbc28cff0abbf3bfa
ebc0b26a0d5d06f966e3d90833d04dca37c05964
8703 F20101106_AAAZBE best_m_Page_056thm.jpg
f7799336ff8d86944938dae7e7f0a9d5
d84619e6ed50b66599dd7e5bd5eb465817126db3
8043 F20101106_AAAZAQ best_m_Page_049thm.jpg
6a983b698ea8fbb3db6ce2494f8503c2
a49a1986200a8cecdc75521e91c946f0af343f37
1091 F20101106_AAAYVJ best_m_Page_164.txt
0aa50d7fdaaf9dccdb801d573e1806fe
c51c733c60d5833529fa63901fa2c171c5b539c4
2031 F20101106_AAAYUV best_m_Page_150.txt
e1f2e002b395d9808677ad0156f0d95f
7dbd0d5317c8f3148131b97f8916772d0b4e8e6e
345172 F20101106_AAAXSH best_m_Page_008.jp2
a5cefb9004783b95c9db2de65dd8d45b
e7738d7afdab141e35b4ffa0326b8c579509ab73
132703 F20101106_AAAXRT best_m_Page_196.jpg
9e62bd96f4f6bd137b023ad1a8d6b8a2
ca22d3863cc3add5cb66f3f35a2b87381802eaba
38297 F20101106_AAAZBF best_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
989e609d9a92110743196286fef8c8c5
78b28e0afdec8f09c925f0f5765c0b511ee1d954
967 F20101106_AAAYVK best_m_Page_165.txt
c743e3b157ead3ba348005e0d3d4fcea
2a0955a53000408edf37d098db8c17418f841967
2076 F20101106_AAAYUW best_m_Page_151.txt
6a81cd0331876adb259c21d2190230f3
7f3fd7414f8fcd77382b2d1e4e543c682caf9e3c
F20101106_AAAXSI best_m_Page_009.jp2
0241bfa8ca376e755cd35a388de8c44e
e2ed2b9d9186bf06f8904eb38c128e64be163fbf
128760 F20101106_AAAXRU best_m_Page_197.jpg
cbea763d71a2bd3c9a13c69b00bd2b6d
c10da2ad44892f455d0981abae555ab9665626c2
8966 F20101106_AAAZBG best_m_Page_057thm.jpg
817294053e515d3e7cb0480dd8fee43c
7fb07d94d95a46d5ee818ccb5c8a88317adefb33
35654 F20101106_AAAZAR best_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
a97c9956ae71146a38bd883cc0b3d156
af9f0b1fe3709b51ce2d7b2c8100744d7e1fe193
738 F20101106_AAAYWA best_m_Page_181.txt
27f705ea38ea543f1839370a508fef00
425f9085a3649a4d7fc9434f70aeff2a3de80a7c
1270 F20101106_AAAYVL best_m_Page_166.txt
f8d901ed7927cfc8a3de471b98e5ee4e
ed416476b268058703fad144ed0e274f831f1ea8
F20101106_AAAYUX best_m_Page_152.txt
540ed59a2c58a5a32703f659a89b981b
c49d05e9e5bf8853c9c101f35cdffe5f7cc46618
F20101106_AAAXSJ best_m_Page_010.jp2
2edd4028cff48021d53156cec4776028
00ca66cab9dde28466012a23ad1279f6618bfa28
123798 F20101106_AAAXRV best_m_Page_198.jpg
e9ba6c20f229d2323405c388f4ca3804
dd159e2acfab428583576928863b0bf16ac24a69
33157 F20101106_AAAZBH best_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
4e1180c5b68f3a6f4d0ba8586044e7e3
896e587b9c89fd43d59fcc9084dee0a985c55de5
8152 F20101106_AAAZAS best_m_Page_050thm.jpg
59aa2dfcfaa95fae5b30e15b64711a55
8591377a50e7f105097a60d203b02f06a97d56c9
1582 F20101106_AAAYWB best_m_Page_182.txt
a136da23ad93fb8b948f1a6a65ea6ae1
2d202f0bd7a40993b13a4b50457c377e5eb5779f
968 F20101106_AAAYVM best_m_Page_167.txt
f29e9763c892d3d593df2d497831d6ba
6668ef4f1280b2d647cd6278ac071c46c9e91c27
2187 F20101106_AAAYUY best_m_Page_153.txt
3cace92a7b9927e553806f0e408d499a
5744d2731ce1e1a11edf9959fea56ba661b15c46
393601 F20101106_AAAXSK best_m_Page_011.jp2
3d32abc61f4a776fe6d7c8227b683228
1fde733c2498e692183ebb53084a54f0e09d70d8
134284 F20101106_AAAXRW best_m_Page_199.jpg
ad4c89f8974defe3ad2aad76b0d3ac82
246d0c79c596e455a6d2453b8b508556d35cbf4c
7998 F20101106_AAAZBI best_m_Page_058thm.jpg
782fc04a7b30c13e6d7771fb29edb394
7a053963918aec7c7196d5ec1cd12b52d7036983
34972 F20101106_AAAZAT best_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
a59c849ed9756804b5a7db75d581bf62
78dc6772ac59042207c08e1b1df944febdee1475
2825 F20101106_AAAYWC best_m_Page_183.txt
11848b0d88fff504bc51db47605330db
41a9d010c646042c50e47258723666cda4f5f116
1166 F20101106_AAAYVN best_m_Page_168.txt
8b90d170a43fd6431c6673d06d6c701e
bf0c9d8fc72d6f818366a52a43c29d252ccfbf5d
1988 F20101106_AAAYUZ best_m_Page_154.txt
836229a536cb36bac27acc1374090636
0624ee0ccdd1c9d2df7b0b40b7753a0b35570941
F20101106_AAAXTA best_m_Page_027.jp2
185b7ccd32954e3fe85d7b98ada71cc9
97734d2f620a98202cbae0a242930a036c593940
F20101106_AAAXSL best_m_Page_012.jp2
25d64686ba27364082adfe678f6c6226
f5c914146d21848c319c34d00f9f9ab6ea7a7971
126775 F20101106_AAAXRX best_m_Page_200.jpg
4238d91940e194e727f4feaa14612134
5fd1d284ee679888972736ffb270d2b3606315d6
34692 F20101106_AAAZBJ best_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
2d84bc240d1e50afc6205526f1687c34
d4115a316d4454f67aca23d4d55434151a11224e
8797 F20101106_AAAZAU best_m_Page_051thm.jpg
509c521aed47d890dd8434e08405efe1
5be556669da602741fd3620f4b43b6db929ce95f
2422 F20101106_AAAYWD best_m_Page_184.txt
e6020c5736399fe65240ec204f3885f3
74d2c18589f35d695902113c0d35ab0d8d87685a
1096 F20101106_AAAYVO best_m_Page_169.txt
c9de5a978d33b5e101f421c19e316d8b
2cf7f8ba82830a54b30526ea873ac839c942f04d
201895 F20101106_AAAXTB best_m_Page_028.jp2
41f5deeb739a3a37eb44870cc56eb468
16a1d2184d44054446b17cf366c4c93da789302f
F20101106_AAAXSM best_m_Page_013.jp2
965495b71421b90579c625ef8a8cbf5d
55f6bca8534131e9c6d8da6dff1822d1a4e4998d
18687 F20101106_AAAXRY best_m_Page_201.jpg
8df92c32563e2017c0b3b19b756d5aa6
f9dca1cb56887a99dd2768fd1fbddda987c701f3
8545 F20101106_AAAZBK best_m_Page_059thm.jpg
ac1b4d98e22014da76f3fea5d1e89911
ee3ee371ff1485a573f6019215d909b71bd14e5e
34747 F20101106_AAAZAV best_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
5be4c431afd4aa2d10b57894d4de1b9a
a7d1659039c85dec30e8fa9b04ce5c2ec9144563
842 F20101106_AAAYWE best_m_Page_185.txt
689cb02d8c5e03e5394b7116ce63acf5
d6d7b18e6b50ace7050ce6926b5806c1e057b6bf
916 F20101106_AAAYVP best_m_Page_170.txt
b4f469d816641ed2f0005dc329a7eae2
d9732a7764bd2622b001440535dce5dc216c4120
1029712 F20101106_AAAXTC best_m_Page_029.jp2
ada3677a05f214b0686d5f1e99aef9cb
434642d80d37e73db0d19716c7c3d2e01b3ce57b
F20101106_AAAXSN best_m_Page_014.jp2
4f0d69421272ecb76923d56c17ebffbe
2d6cbb34d8d534fe610f3c1f5c5988c1ef38421d
97949 F20101106_AAAXRZ best_m_Page_202.jpg
9b1d5a4300491d3d7e2d26e15e90d686
9a65bf2d19bac4a49b6eb07f71f1713f082f3ba5
37264 F20101106_AAAZBL best_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
5b978d7301da03dd1191a422b55a99d9
2552d3042f91b5abc547edf0bfe3c5f88cfcf335
8618 F20101106_AAAZAW best_m_Page_052thm.jpg
a19e2c1570c72ffa7a87b82734164cbc
6048894322a667381aa33a29c817c9c230ca4dc3
2150 F20101106_AAAYWF best_m_Page_186.txt
e54b2e0ab6d1b22404074ddc050bace8
bf3a558e4afdc5d350487af8bdc35116c136afd3
1069 F20101106_AAAYVQ best_m_Page_171.txt
5abf4901a372190bfb4f625b2e02a4a5
88d1d2cff26cfa4f9c0621b77cd4ac2f17ba7a06
1051931 F20101106_AAAXSO best_m_Page_015.jp2
ce310692ffd9b2aee68b2f0cb91321ad
b2168d7cda523cfdd441ad8a8519aadb7de44997
1051928 F20101106_AAAXTD best_m_Page_030.jp2
8194b37d751b82fc52d95648eaf8b178
7dffb8cd5deefa79fd852cab22415735834301aa
8594 F20101106_AAAZCA best_m_Page_068thm.jpg
7a3b14ad4fdf1dbef5b0c0620f4306fd
ad2e933a364cbab908b5fb8b8b97be0724c1a229
37350 F20101106_AAAZBM best_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
116822c9e0ad2cbd5a084ed661e828c5
32313a93c247515ce0f3cf73082a49463da4ca68
36223 F20101106_AAAZAX best_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
4adafa47d6d65aed1db71ab476a1ef6c
bca4cabda2182ef1914fc3f7b82372e81eab206d
3322 F20101106_AAAYWG best_m_Page_187.txt
38ae693061b44ea7ba20c9ebc48595e6
5009e198eca0d9114ea1dbbb35fa9b1fc7212feb
395 F20101106_AAAYVR best_m_Page_172.txt
efcc9e7b74237314ccddb34cd647603e
aef7d5ad1d06e24136cccc3a2fed60d038fc36e8
F20101106_AAAXSP best_m_Page_016.jp2
2802982641d2692e82a90097eba48c8a
22483aad97f90ada5a62acf495c05dc31982f682
1051930 F20101106_AAAXTE best_m_Page_031.jp2
2b0961154dea1d238b58a37dc34338dd
d1ac73f37bc9f5f4131c66fb638d72a1aa386811
35503 F20101106_AAAZCB best_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
c849de3a83c5f97d2078b36581ac8803
21103e87bdda0dcb962ca6c7080c98447f9b7ef1
8894 F20101106_AAAZBN best_m_Page_061thm.jpg
268f06d34bc18f6ecbc1f8086d4f3ee7
9f370bc42b6ef9de8042659df1939672f1c84e7b
8259 F20101106_AAAZAY best_m_Page_053thm.jpg
79a98cecfdad99e5fca0911c2e2c9a26
fb1d4e0c26c175575ae33dae32032d360c0aa9c7
2378 F20101106_AAAYWH best_m_Page_188.txt
e54e8523021c50dedf5f7ad1d473dc20
b38405728470071602544b9cde7e8e86ac412afc
17 F20101106_AAAYVS best_m_Page_173.txt
0726320cd45edd31d86347e7dd853517
a9262b4cc410c2036cccc83cf41abef0c7805c62
1051940 F20101106_AAAXSQ best_m_Page_017.jp2
5c0ee159f407cdb8ccde8b9302d5968e
d65bf782d0573ac2110774a441a779ed7532a5e8
F20101106_AAAXTF best_m_Page_032.jp2
fc2a28d686191c313fe328c3fd55126a
254f36c4518e8eae75c3d65cabce990aef9224f6
8644 F20101106_AAAZCC best_m_Page_069thm.jpg
98d97ffe4ec77e145385cd50d28b0ad9
16d8c6e5f5a43e784d34203dd72c206240e6eb6e
37537 F20101106_AAAZBO best_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
86619242276eaf666297e16ec469097e
05f5892105ceb31af048189156ddf446d886d48b
38822 F20101106_AAAZAZ best_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
5212ecf79370a835f8940c3acadffc32
d816d5a693ffa0d9a87aab14b585159093d95985
560 F20101106_AAAYVT best_m_Page_174.txt
d45e071c761c42843286ecd5dc34a76f
3b57fc290c5f6622003ae3787c373378a27cd259
1051961 F20101106_AAAXSR best_m_Page_018.jp2
347f620b6115f3d9758247089b5e98ce
6e6bfcf23ff2a1dbb4f3f971b1246ecad3fa119f
32720 F20101106_AAAZCD best_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
532dadec7b4f443f3aae918c6cb18a71
18f7e0e9304f957928551757304cce029ba381d2
33561 F20101106_AAAZBP best_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
447eacf06a672b1563bad6c29b411dcd
01152cb9dcc2facff94c8dbe84883fc9f97e7d83
1951 F20101106_AAAYWI best_m_Page_189.txt
67e179b7e73acadf252ef16b9e5057e0
c9523c51f4692d47e56227056b9a8e2672131ecd
2819 F20101106_AAAYVU best_m_Page_175.txt
3b7a36c9e4f0425c572b4a6f9dd3aa7a
5ff5a55322a2694260fbe3393737157735e241a6
1051966 F20101106_AAAXSS best_m_Page_019.jp2
3f9bca85e03f0e6c8ac34a6ebf74ffe9
61d0ddb0f2f764a4a2793109b82e968180a42394
1051938 F20101106_AAAXTG best_m_Page_033.jp2
b641ff96ad9259986a4e7cf019f3d398
02ecae01a86b410bd92206fb222b0f6425570dd0
8206 F20101106_AAAZCE best_m_Page_070thm.jpg
84ea6aea3b11a90fa6bddbf998965ef2
9620be4f9685d8b78b11197ca7652fa8a02f057c
8494 F20101106_AAAZBQ best_m_Page_063thm.jpg
3013757678888136f622dca672b411db
6ff0fc85e090ba25918b74dd0c8fefed5621a095
1030 F20101106_AAAYWJ best_m_Page_190.txt
9eedc7e6c195bad0ab24d92472d3314a
45b06b0d2c2b2b5840edc487bd131a3fc8bbbc55
994 F20101106_AAAYVV best_m_Page_176.txt
b1f60288d597b8b76f7d214438c40eb5
b6d8c5398b9af9a026ec143fad916a3e8ab162c1
F20101106_AAAXST best_m_Page_020.jp2
155b251c5f17ce89a9ce22a8b15b4a0f
bc9bf745620f4a863442df03911fb55862b30fbc
F20101106_AAAXTH best_m_Page_034.jp2
b3891eab827df79d11c88b07338e8ffe
d08333506416a5d34ed2b475de270431c95b3bbd
33706 F20101106_AAAZCF best_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
e011551082e8c8b5c4154ea27c2783d0
c0f9b1ee51dece2d350ce4873b1ff144b2914052
35558 F20101106_AAAZBR best_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
7c003979415a08e1bb466e022c4f2a62
9cedc21b141831e679feb7f8258391cef0673050
2348 F20101106_AAAYWK best_m_Page_191.txt
8686bf1ee4d8f7b94cf4e74a3cfcec00
f9f7ca8045cb4001a7e8bf6ae9111836e211ad14
961 F20101106_AAAYVW best_m_Page_177.txt
bbe91a425bc67bf57c380a0ae17127ad
689fd30270bd00ff81f5a22e89609c6021146ac9
F20101106_AAAXSU best_m_Page_021.jp2
a52778f60b10047b40f2a8d106c90241
fb2c847760a33fb94bec1bc5fc79228d692dcb3e
1051960 F20101106_AAAXTI best_m_Page_035.jp2
bd98e34332234e10c8c212dfec3f67b0
987ec80681ed8ed62d99fcc1a196beb4bd00b6fa
8244 F20101106_AAAZCG best_m_Page_071thm.jpg
e6a6e870d16d1c44d827ed7a8ea5ee22
24233d40ec0797f0b7246b38836498a11ad38813
561 F20101106_AAAYXA best_m_Page_002thm.jpg
25d79e7a51f257b238ac4481b27ec8e6
c67183bfa62e07542756b08a730c2ff00f9419e8
2823 F20101106_AAAYWL best_m_Page_192.txt
e21beb56b65d308318bf365dc9cb5066
1b120702417738f43aa92698ff0d3c1d8e2d3e5b
1173 F20101106_AAAYVX best_m_Page_178.txt
6178d3c6120884ee1264d011b79a8d89
929741861e2fdc51f9bf8b7271376673d011da32
F20101106_AAAXSV best_m_Page_022.jp2
dde321c4302d258b971a96244ac4734e
1be30b17794e86cc8896d0a338e0b097fc05a6ea
F20101106_AAAXTJ best_m_Page_036.jp2
bfb4aeb65da75ea255f868cb42746105
efd2a349d0b0254cc6b904c7f7713ddd4d2b2146
11174 F20101106_AAAZCH best_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
655a52e3dfbd9da20cbc1b22b21f49cc
e7eb14cc436d0117f650ad2d5b951e63a3cc6b9a
8887 F20101106_AAAZBS best_m_Page_064thm.jpg
ace1f6d51fc411822ef68b3411dd4759
418720a0ffe180e3cb3708bb2e61d9c82b34cbc8
2324 F20101106_AAAYXB best_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
92af2330c94665c81435142c12408719
5d25e44d6c7fb0106f775de04a67bcfbe269d12d
2569 F20101106_AAAYWM best_m_Page_193.txt
8293aadb80c2f821170787a8bf45509e
6235a8d5d65db0fd0775ff6c11fa0a9bb2a04b72
2826 F20101106_AAAYVY best_m_Page_179.txt
3525026413ed6e7dd9bc78ff948e1a89
aaa7f95f94ae453bad35b9010109c4dab81930cb
1051905 F20101106_AAAXSW best_m_Page_023.jp2
64e4f2490d4074cdf5f9999569a30a96
c03748b06a7b4e09d616f81cf0ca5136e75d3044
F20101106_AAAXTK best_m_Page_037.jp2
6ea72c124863ea7060697e16e776802b
95fed67cbfd950a919f546312d745e4aeae11b1e
2710 F20101106_AAAZCI best_m_Page_072thm.jpg
50e7bdccb3f41ca835015c1a0679b80b
37eb181999bb41f336b304c28253066f8b082000
36343 F20101106_AAAZBT best_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
59f6f7a92e6ead41e65fc6ab80b4ab07
df30facc0ba28da3c4fcaedc2d325bbc41ca09cb
909 F20101106_AAAYXC best_m_Page_003thm.jpg
6fae6ffb23a78bdcecdcd33516965c75
52bf55113658c6a0d82aadae2b215f6fdca213e7
2614 F20101106_AAAYWN best_m_Page_194.txt
894cdba9286c3ade8281cecd1fa5b9b9
4e18ab03a943c905e687ddbe78ba58e90a2618b9
2086 F20101106_AAAYVZ best_m_Page_180.txt
72dc71abb420ab04f21dcfeca6dbd3ca
8541ca08703ec22cb4b7214784d3c6d9c20e258e
F20101106_AAAXSX best_m_Page_024.jp2
4df84be4bd5a212b3f131de0297b235c
1beca61529f867f1d0be1a1f5ea9c1cbadf01caa
F20101106_AAAXUA best_m_Page_053.jp2
3d6b202fd94fc7608bd221b652cb18fe
9ec2ee4e9a7704a292ed002584a43840d060fcec
F20101106_AAAXTL best_m_Page_038.jp2
cb199c3bebffbb3e2d9a4ee9654f3ee1
61714e1b02d50603b9e8ce2bc3b02c19ebcf4938
28153 F20101106_AAAZCJ best_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
466c9c377a576d228b3d87d991842a6d
82c6eb4882c9443dd251a9769bac0da3c58e1d24
9140 F20101106_AAAZBU best_m_Page_065thm.jpg
2b164d82c61341f7addffdadd498a28e
7a8c9e5ed511f6e7263a3a4113b9b3c150412c84
33590 F20101106_AAAYXD best_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
380461869935003483f5aa632276e787
47b27b3602be44e9280a98fbaf26099c1e4104fd
2376 F20101106_AAAYWO best_m_Page_195.txt
f5fb7083a12ac1cc7330948c5f3d7c99
d904ea4f93943cb33f3238742f2ee173ea20c583
F20101106_AAAXSY best_m_Page_025.jp2
1a4ee91872d7a1e045c8eab6b49f563c
10586fbc7b0e781bd4eddd6a44b536f0f654e104
F20101106_AAAXUB best_m_Page_054.jp2
a69f2ce6403e3ab5194ca9a055ed1cf6
d761088abe02ff214ea5df70cc9f379dfb766011
F20101106_AAAXTM best_m_Page_039.jp2
67cea0c361efd199c8df6ea061c7e609
ccf05adb09d17e29dc2167a4c624f30542b8cc3b
7013 F20101106_AAAZCK best_m_Page_073thm.jpg
0cf4eadab214cee73f14b2c8e6c682b6
238389dc952903ee4f8b5de2c8dfabe984419c7a
35186 F20101106_AAAZBV best_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
6efa04b93dd2d746cb26ffde6d9fd5ca
2c902637072c10f5d41621a38e65ecb7ea1b12f0
8171 F20101106_AAAYXE best_m_Page_004thm.jpg
4f3b58af1a90536856615b25d8fa9169
7b959590c532d25da54a90e5374f81b916f4dba6
2639 F20101106_AAAYWP best_m_Page_196.txt
f0a1b74b47f1d7d1f8264687b2bc16ff
b3d8b0cda229458a4f73e488544a941c5077cddb
1051935 F20101106_AAAXSZ best_m_Page_026.jp2
945af05f46c362ab9cb9d6fd4c77f626
364bdd6d7e739022b26fd40ee50054f983e1bf6a
1051922 F20101106_AAAXUC best_m_Page_055.jp2
c18c22d0da48bba9bdd9eae7b503f4a9
81cf171e5146279b131d5723d8dc6db4a09d555e
F20101106_AAAXTN best_m_Page_040.jp2
12535cb8c39c71fb38f3056635733176
abb89ba6a579e5a059bae22ef6f49a7dfe4b8153
18302 F20101106_AAAZCL best_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
49d87f4e21a48c9d4d205ecc9dff1f44
2611a94995201108fd71766631b49ca11e0e20c0
8661 F20101106_AAAZBW best_m_Page_066thm.jpg
fddf905b961c5c8391c1084dc4930f26
b5caf311d384ed4dd82e924823822c9712110217
34182 F20101106_AAAYXF best_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
020b7002bda108e0fd373ba658aa9510
0834220f48f6321b143025898edbfa86d5533e2c
2703 F20101106_AAAYWQ best_m_Page_197.txt
5eb84b9ddbe171cf56aba44045d355e9
2e4472077a25344cc6e8b4dfae15d184c2477a02
F20101106_AAAXUD best_m_Page_056.jp2
b2ee1e0cde9f6b6f6e3335ff74df744d
537a6a911747203dcb6f64b23eba3d0ec2c2a5a0
F20101106_AAAXTO best_m_Page_041.jp2
555fa31cb09dd894eeb7c0d79e7da696
25959545cf5dc792cb8a8a825b2b4ae407d9ead7
7853 F20101106_AAAZDA best_m_Page_081thm.jpg
1944f095df06f7964279f5cc86c4eb3d
8b54cdefa685d139bf95b106d2fe7ad175509286
5079 F20101106_AAAZCM best_m_Page_074thm.jpg
875a1cefb2b188d81eea90a424067c44
60d596ffcd1a1c40148363132bd7a69744ccc9f8
36237 F20101106_AAAZBX best_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
dec6da90043f40d861666aba2e2f7b62
13ed578188400cfc616c969b3afec80e75dec507
F20101106_AAAYXG best_m_Page_005thm.jpg
34ea80a06540d601c62e6564fe5a8d3c
2771b11836ae5e41fd8b0278b68d117647acbcc7
2356 F20101106_AAAYWR best_m_Page_198.txt
4fdb51acc0ca9fd3a70a40dd5323b258
97d15dbc38dcd0f299ca4e66a6f94798d60fd1a1
F20101106_AAAXUE best_m_Page_057.jp2
e4d3f0b5e6480a96bf6e68ae4dede9b6
8579239bc92bf59075f98b96563399be2dd15173
F20101106_AAAXTP best_m_Page_042.jp2
37995060f788e98af0e73a283e81e127
b21c21bcb17cfe876a1ec01f83f33f145cd8655e
31382 F20101106_AAAZDB best_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
3c6f56ad6d782a321dc1e4da1e35b5cb
de43bb13ea5691dc90bfd9ee1a5f41dfbda8d045
13940 F20101106_AAAZCN best_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
53d731cb5929e66c5fb7ddf3723ad97c
77b347993ff1e4bd7bfb31945c5a0cc60e39a465
8693 F20101106_AAAZBY best_m_Page_067thm.jpg
d8cd2c93ac4abad4dc53ac2df09888e1
4374b0aa737e19f4cfd113e6570bbfc5025ce81d
25233 F20101106_AAAYXH best_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
787f1f921a35ad1e3a0c846b6b345374
38d7798ff25b9455b93e342af051504b885c1a5d
2690 F20101106_AAAYWS best_m_Page_199.txt
f088b3cadf153af320c6041f8801b3c4
d45fbf68b67ea980000a125ee038576f80cb8dfb
F20101106_AAAXUF best_m_Page_058.jp2
75cdf4b5e3b622c83769f96d969d0ddc
72ade6c4f66000d0161208fa17d8614b59297396
F20101106_AAAXTQ best_m_Page_043.jp2
337bffbadb0c307ba445793971ee904e
5da3f5b3df0a72397d5079a1d0596269456ee8e5
7894 F20101106_AAAZDC best_m_Page_082thm.jpg
9502f5056e391a1b92b067b2fec068a0
f10b134f7d3a2a7662ff6bb7efe0c2c2a3c5144c
4508 F20101106_AAAZCO best_m_Page_075thm.jpg
2d11cae7a0e059580614be284441e35f
d0921d3502347851f0a63668f20afe2c8d708e43
33429 F20101106_AAAZBZ best_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
06d1679ebc7904214c98ad4519ac5a38
167500f4fa0c73dafacb4c76ec036fb1eb5054fe
6355 F20101106_AAAYXI best_m_Page_006thm.jpg
356eab118002a065900f1463bfae25ec
8945255d90f751f57bde227ab23bf56cfaaf7768
2432 F20101106_AAAYWT best_m_Page_200.txt
4bd34c347dd6936c86b960866d6bd500
2df34f9d00ae10ee255f8298c1af44268ab7990c
F20101106_AAAXUG best_m_Page_059.jp2
90b702ec645be322cabc4092d89c3544
845bccbc8df9071677658d0d970af703ccdb4cd0
1051923 F20101106_AAAXTR best_m_Page_044.jp2
ed4e8e9cfd045582100065285ed7b30f
5d5147539f2b9d6fc6727e2e47c8e8a53bf5f82b
F20101106_AAAYAA best_m_Page_007.tif
862408be4f7a3c910a4c82317b6dc1ff
79f405a7e3eb48fca4db51be13e3967eb00c5bcc
27887 F20101106_AAAZDD best_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
bd10a3853c5dcb93700ebfd960d02fad
6fb46c7610f4e2cceecac4d448792ef451c89a9e
6597 F20101106_AAAZCP best_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
40536bf5515944d85e5b7ca32dce1657
42b0755dc559d87586758ef02c9bb807988b09a3
320 F20101106_AAAYWU best_m_Page_201.txt
bb381b76197347bc13339e0cd4d93c75
fd204784dea7139321ab2a45b6a17920a54e6054
F20101106_AAAXTS best_m_Page_045.jp2
5beb899b873189e4814b113b450b3218
836628b68a9b860cf60c7264b046ea88363d55df
F20101106_AAAYAB best_m_Page_008.tif
aca5f7035f02bcb3f27450e9c5053965
da580621b3995c0fbdf70ef8fa98f2cbd4a31e9d
6970 F20101106_AAAZDE best_m_Page_083thm.jpg
2d8865815e9be8896f544aa52444fd4a
811d2c8322d7fb416d8ce55cdf61c738b946dbbc
2132 F20101106_AAAZCQ best_m_Page_076thm.jpg
db8b24156c4053ee4b0c6dc554e139be
fe52e7df219c67fadd82a4659ccb03728073e6d2
27194 F20101106_AAAYXJ best_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
08b5418cffccf5ef4b95f52ca1515e55
8a41de6594beae20c1ff04d16b6bac15f251f91b
1898 F20101106_AAAYWV best_m_Page_202.txt
4092bb8967b72db105a656d91b45b52a
da7ff00896daabbdf54f528992c228ec5d294c2d
F20101106_AAAXUH best_m_Page_060.jp2
1c5c791f72b5e8e61ede4234abcbde9b
7dd0b0ad7257a6fe131b8e52211fa0b4f0225406
1051936 F20101106_AAAXTT best_m_Page_046.jp2
dc56126def8b5c8d8d6a360ffbce26a4
f07bf7e620be0cbb4cdce82ef43c7ae9ee7877a1
F20101106_AAAYAC best_m_Page_009.tif
0a1ee635ada7dd1e02091a728821e206
09e0b7f80395211039f7dd7322e27148c881f46e
31274 F20101106_AAAZDF best_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
c012a4ddf362bd4db705c6df2c7d1971
81d1c8f3badf230c3bd909c6c783b48b0deb6681
28337 F20101106_AAAZCR best_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
b9f8d6ee712f5eedf0bb1329e3e1d28b
f02988dcbe262c963127a690d47e2ee86717ee9a
6444 F20101106_AAAYXK best_m_Page_007thm.jpg
ce45bf6243eb40877e6cb53c9353b333
2b10a9d5314cd280cebbd35831cc4be30f5c10c1
2081 F20101106_AAAYWW best_m_Page_001thm.jpg
6bcc9586901d5c21c010f897f6b90736
91dec6a7dfc893532783d8ca2b321df19217ef24
1051946 F20101106_AAAXUI best_m_Page_061.jp2
fcce5d772e20d56157547d1696dffd17
fce26dcc5e4ff3f488c8ecc9b7be20bdb2f8060d
F20101106_AAAXTU best_m_Page_047.jp2
6315e11760c7b773985aa1d37fc3a3cf
a86812fa0b6ec2710a7b74a34f2363ceb1061e28
F20101106_AAAYAD best_m_Page_010.tif
0554d84f196bd91569029c68a9b089bc
dc66b0fadeefe0308bc571036b685606f3c856d6
8034 F20101106_AAAZDG best_m_Page_084thm.jpg
d0af477373c7316366b2db6d7b823605
a55c5da4ca5537d90206e16daf58da053903e0b0
7239 F20101106_AAAZCS best_m_Page_077thm.jpg
4da701f776af67ff1ac2343868bc4a95
75d9a2caafd92eb11c7f9acfe4ac6a2410d9a04c
8398 F20101106_AAAYYA best_m_Page_015thm.jpg
31f1485989ffe3f8f0b528ab58957531
4b69078886fec82f8481bee0c12afa59c0aeb567
6629 F20101106_AAAYXL best_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
efec0469009e8cc2742f3e2b5d6d7483
6cb50cc94a86e25b91f9415d1253ba40201ffe31
1677533 F20101106_AAAYWX best_m.pdf
c9b1f5ba1224d8b8d17774da56859531
167a559fb538c6fcd06f57b4b373b97bedffea11
F20101106_AAAXUJ best_m_Page_062.jp2
b94b65375cd4c16c128c3a0954596d5e
b61b0ab0d7d3ffafd69d1e0c4658953912f619dd
F20101106_AAAXTV best_m_Page_048.jp2
e06acb1f513e1ce4e8146d2910b5c3cf
d63ce70e3dc19854c876ce40b5f2151830cb453f
F20101106_AAAYAE best_m_Page_011.tif
78e49ff6e6b0ee3b4d0e39c0c2bbf4bb
fa1bd7b9613ef8254775ed6c2a1006136053bde6
30899 F20101106_AAAZDH best_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
462ff584ebeb34913cdb528242e9e7c2
4da3ce330469dc940faf17e4961abd17142f1534
36207 F20101106_AAAYYB best_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
a2cfa0aa45dbadcaa1b8f3a2178087d9
493fce167c73aa2c5c6ab20373dd99c765fda42c
1693 F20101106_AAAYXM best_m_Page_008thm.jpg
a8891a3f177b78295b986e523c073fa4
78c59c5deb4400cab9670c702b87175dbc260834
8174 F20101106_AAAYWY best_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
9ed81bc7a96359f992bf444b2d38bc18
6ddbe32c0000fa0b1c2e7382b8eca1e07279170a
F20101106_AAAXUK best_m_Page_063.jp2
bd87585a0ccf70d4dd2fe277db2e051a
326df05af52163f731eadef5854a22890588d99b
F20101106_AAAXTW best_m_Page_049.jp2
bfb797581a61c25b9f0622df0c646c08
99a2b129946c704887e3ff0c5adcf726c218513b
F20101106_AAAYAF best_m_Page_012.tif
2a73b150824e4ba04f60df5d6f3c1723
fb08bf60222031a2254ece80396976365c08256e
8247 F20101106_AAAZDI best_m_Page_085thm.jpg
032cdda8d65b224b6a5458865245aa53
f615c17c422a4c2cfd45aedd067b95d9a66c44fe
37975 F20101106_AAAZCT best_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
8df46d01912f3337554200ae990d9872
8c539aceaef141b13b24c913c50c064132555651
8937 F20101106_AAAYYC best_m_Page_016thm.jpg
a6f967e0e6c88c2d04e3f0ab6f41b3e4
2f8d762051248fd0ed74325e93c863509d0948a3
31521 F20101106_AAAYXN best_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
d37c844c801c2734319ba7f8814df130
ea51be34d2a61cac41d3b53a0d18d9d7afc78adb
1242 F20101106_AAAYWZ best_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
8080f1eb23136060691a91a378bdf97e
3fc4439f45e7c6a177e9694b8699204b7222672c
F20101106_AAAXVA best_m_Page_079.jp2
1fbd532f8337930609151d62c8ef4eb1
4464dfcd836325b33a149642b808fa3b5b4c5ba3
1051920 F20101106_AAAXUL best_m_Page_064.jp2
3595c31123fe317917508cb001474aa5
3fd7b0efefd8ff6fc021f74ee0a488fa666975b6
F20101106_AAAXTX best_m_Page_050.jp2
558b2ae4b83c2ce7b82a46611a40dc30
8062ea2d345855806435bd0823ebbf8a0993d76e
F20101106_AAAYAG best_m_Page_013.tif
6d2eb7d6bd6dcb03e2f4cbaff527a717
65f829c6d1142b7ec8c1fccff59c3e63eb24bd8a
3859 F20101106_AAAZDJ best_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
2916c9e639d204ec35a0a8ca0725eb71
febd846de2d2ca80b44ee3129dcb9484ae8dae30
9050 F20101106_AAAZCU best_m_Page_078thm.jpg
621b47c4ab76f497dddfce4fa79c0fee
f9c13e99ca2a085ee86bdefc6e8aa2e4a4f3f80f
35954 F20101106_AAAYYD best_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
4eb321299050339e69e4c67328de9ce0
36e76548aa9ad042461371b928655c8ced83ea9c
7594 F20101106_AAAYXO best_m_Page_009thm.jpg
b0c17ef5973f6f26af40c4fc7e824722
9fd4f1bb8aedbc50e7df6f8c7dd169677bb444b6
1051888 F20101106_AAAXVB best_m_Page_080.jp2
a02018b9b4f64037ba5bf4f3c49c4037
a46ebfdb05abd4b66e3cc0bf78bcbf2dc91b8a5f
F20101106_AAAXUM best_m_Page_065.jp2
8016a80df8caa51327e4be986acc04d3
a2102bee0b10297962ae7777e7b189bcbe7b50e1
1051963 F20101106_AAAXTY best_m_Page_051.jp2
d79b1c3418a84f0c0aa81a4904e26bf5
9f65bcaa536e5cf1e5d9a3d78642898c9cff0ca0
F20101106_AAAYAH best_m_Page_014.tif
8c8652e4bb08ede7cbf4db2a89cb2947
397203eb1e1f483b711f1a03edafd0ccf8cbcd33
1051 F20101106_AAAZDK best_m_Page_086thm.jpg
acef4ba69daacec91c55d429bb480456
37f7d99a7438490df40bc6fdcdcb07c14441890b
35352 F20101106_AAAZCV best_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
1746c3c0d01fed8cfe60d9ca57634387
374a734e3761f912df2bd66ee5498bf5b20104f9
8848 F20101106_AAAYYE best_m_Page_017thm.jpg
160dff8c6fabbabd67f4acefbb8d4148
3b04f975029fd7e37450149ea90195e4fbf8177c
37979 F20101106_AAAYXP best_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
b2a5362b9880f51ae023f163e06537b2
78a21fd82687be7bff0a43b1967a94b6fa616579
F20101106_AAAXVC best_m_Page_081.jp2
acf9f4c51d2c0e6c6b4ed2bdd806e871
97426559e128459170b3eeafbe1445f19bc52de8
F20101106_AAAXUN best_m_Page_066.jp2
ea463eac7a8ce63168772176472de841
3bbb688a2b148d7769fa756228dcbb18dfd492dc
F20101106_AAAXTZ best_m_Page_052.jp2
541563a38dc20e33845b56363e943762
823f9eb0f0767fb989be49b661f9f47890d34100
F20101106_AAAYAI best_m_Page_015.tif
81be1f126f6ebf63a0b8d4d3c00da6b0
1541d35130e93925e3ff7880f6a59938e6b9e7a7
21300 F20101106_AAAZDL best_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
8803426ed7cb99d22634a0a1be6e528e
26ca93e8533962f0bbaf00a4e90b4818de931139
8388 F20101106_AAAZCW best_m_Page_079thm.jpg
0e3ca4e69d45d610600c5bbb92139bd4
fff5695de166ffcb183130015c00541ca574b0d4
35653 F20101106_AAAYYF best_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
0e21aa5215616b41690f378001d550c6
6d7f221ad469b865c754347a3efabce8b603d60b
8609 F20101106_AAAYXQ best_m_Page_010thm.jpg
33fdcde1ff4a14ae18ab6ae12a3cb6a2
02bffebf5c21ec36129afdf287f5ad53eb52f949
1034625 F20101106_AAAXVD best_m_Page_082.jp2
2739f4115a4980bbab7f1aa8b702f38c
697cbbb1e79807ddab4a8bfc58e3013464741f72
F20101106_AAAXUO best_m_Page_067.jp2
cae4b98f599fe0c1b53384a4a2ce0ab1
b6478c5f49f5a0c365437210335f9bdc142bdb05
F20101106_AAAYAJ best_m_Page_016.tif
832ee594e28bc64fe701767ed8e3d2ec
9ca4ec3de935ad71a86a754f68301fb480419648
8569 F20101106_AAAZEA best_m_Page_094thm.jpg
5de2ad36705f4f876df00cb8e7baef97
620a3acf3bdcc5d7d550eb2ec7f45b47b1977233
5951 F20101106_AAAZDM best_m_Page_087thm.jpg
6e6e79cd9b0c3f0510641481c2cb50b2
17344e6ba4c65583c5f59ad746671cee21bf444d
37392 F20101106_AAAZCX best_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
89499587f3218d6a8ada3be58eb2627c
58bf81b3ce26cc79d746bc4b420b01830a7d3e87
8490 F20101106_AAAYYG best_m_Page_018thm.jpg
9c5a7c80bf2d7ee9b8b3a06a1e69c70e
66165f97bc4c9f8a9f7d53acd327a6383f301e1d
6381 F20101106_AAAYXR best_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
0af9c8651b36202b6ca36513dd784443
e9d3539ca5e98898a6fb8fafa7708f09fe720fef
961264 F20101106_AAAXVE best_m_Page_083.jp2
1a07084603c9b253b4ff23fcc0bc1545
c5d7e13ea3c040da65677ad3ce68be276162e85b
F20101106_AAAXUP best_m_Page_068.jp2
994a1909ec220a3df53744956cc8d6e1
8c3eec16cf0fe01e739361903c462f6bd10ab6a7
F20101106_AAAYAK best_m_Page_017.tif
4243d809c9162aaddeaeae42847a56ac
4cf81c14d72518d16ae53519106bd7a2f76f8a2f
34627 F20101106_AAAZEB best_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
e277b02ce458f30ed151241d7cdfb14c
2990ca96fc0869c7b24821fc61a2e8596c14c8f0
27600 F20101106_AAAZDN best_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
d3f637bb4778be3d598250e1bd513d50
6bb9aac80a5588bb22e6062ada3f36f9726fa95c
9321 F20101106_AAAZCY best_m_Page_080thm.jpg
3c1384f447e551d906899778f104f3f6
cc14ca5574bd8663ea0562933708d8f03e934ae6
35808 F20101106_AAAYYH best_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
dc6194e9a58375a86ea27955b9a27b57
803be76a8d33698b842513daaff55a8e5bfb9969
F20101106_AAAYXS best_m_Page_011thm.jpg
89de034431a25a49a63df2f7ee2de945
fb81346a062663f9cbaebe2187c88702a4f4e294
F20101106_AAAXVF best_m_Page_084.jp2
4073d03be250d5a842ed7f1652d8bed2
7a3ae7631017dbc525915a5a0c72d09eb688e3eb
1051942 F20101106_AAAXUQ best_m_Page_069.jp2
750d3cc9169cff3f02aad2798f76035c
752ffe2abd730adcb90affd5485a36a2bd86dfb3
F20101106_AAAYAL best_m_Page_018.tif
b261b5bf8e03d60cf665b1cfdc841e54
2ec29a3c18a2a4b567d38948c5c944167910b61c
8320 F20101106_AAAZEC best_m_Page_095thm.jpg
5914686c762fc8c29d4c1f49cf4954ad
d89b46b426e8e31cae713cf67c11cd5d21419fd7
6574 F20101106_AAAZDO best_m_Page_088thm.jpg
07ff7c39c5429ef217174d9e775650f6
9629ab8a1d0760550ab96aee64a7b0cd1006478d
32123 F20101106_AAAZCZ best_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
f57675994ecb1c419ef7d80bdf7b872e
398c846b5003c0de1441db951ac4673c4a96b532
8878 F20101106_AAAYYI best_m_Page_019thm.jpg
af63d251fb932684ce9ce25cb2ddcc62
0e0760e9facfbcd264d4b0bd4fd0afd2d3e3c185
25995 F20101106_AAAYXT best_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
bfc54d9c62120c9a0446a76cd933003b
db83fdcc8514d45232447ed4cc0d41dc438240ec
1051951 F20101106_AAAXVG best_m_Page_085.jp2
f0eb794184ea74c6112dc2e09d19efd8
0b311160cb7d6f8d10b2346a0d7c2c6d6bc0f619
F20101106_AAAXUR best_m_Page_070.jp2
3ba3d4b6b53677569b0dde18f0158f0d
e2c9c2d2e3f465d3a2fe7805fbfc9d85f61621d2
F20101106_AAAYBA best_m_Page_033.tif
5a4f1ede2d6de507dc86328e06618d70
beafea501f3d2843907692e71ed94982a8922a80
F20101106_AAAYAM best_m_Page_019.tif
c221dd0bcecf3f016d305a7ab0eebc26
9569d37b73f3835b0698eb20bb818757e07bc964
33713 F20101106_AAAZED best_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
6decc628d782e4b2bdba43234ebf8de5
e69190823cfb0f79cab4a7eda63516b2c121818b
17051 F20101106_AAAZDP best_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
d36ada4359817e9cff4e5bcbab9f2788
2b9aa657973add3bfdd5daba72df52d49607f688
35668 F20101106_AAAYYJ best_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
263930277e48fdaf8a15a59ff01123b5
fdf98218677bac1025a378263b17bc08b91c06d7
6363 F20101106_AAAYXU best_m_Page_012thm.jpg
8e8c2eac7a1f64a6dd7e2f09db8f274c
6dc5fa27dad3fd13a0b5e018662bfcd275794240
90500 F20101106_AAAXVH best_m_Page_086.jp2
13aacc9c6db0480f4822aa5745877d86
4771124441a9779d14b3fc1e65326ab30a4d999c
F20101106_AAAXUS best_m_Page_071.jp2
42e4a5eeb64488c68c1a28de3591b2fe
3cbebd1a3a12bd36a830f32f2ed60a64c63f20ff
F20101106_AAAYBB best_m_Page_034.tif
6a2c99d1a818e0c6f43ac32629a920a6
6b0e2640ed27bff354df9f2cd1c556ad67686c21
F20101106_AAAYAN best_m_Page_020.tif
7876a20323620c02888a37465f1eae61
3433f7a6f602c95e6e39c44cfa5601ae45d46153
8707 F20101106_AAAZEE best_m_Page_096thm.jpg
198d9f1649e8456e8d0724c7ca3c82af
4269af4ad6be76e01cbb1fa0b6dac76d6140a32e
4494 F20101106_AAAZDQ best_m_Page_089thm.jpg
c920391dea1fbfed1dbba3b6e1d89f9b
c0cb042891e2a56cacc9763fd93ce5d628518584
30700 F20101106_AAAYXV best_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
d93962b2ae0add0046e92897246f9097
ec908669dad119b385eb43854e63c0331311d647
338169 F20101106_AAAXUT best_m_Page_072.jp2
a606faec8e25d45b7e97c485fd012933
daf15f95ba5077d06a3a887deb00590ef603eabf
F20101106_AAAYBC best_m_Page_035.tif
6ebba572a7736cf6b0ad2b0c1fab76dd
6b739c6d9c58c7f40c27d43c9233fe189beb6d69
F20101106_AAAYAO best_m_Page_021.tif
65081dacf43eda25550686dc678f3e37
28cb051c23b1bd24430f768d64e379d8c63f1286
33972 F20101106_AAAZEF best_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
2ca89b5fecd4b3ca768b65fc77e43cfa
3199b10a3eee948d05378a5f36974aae7935f36e
24642 F20101106_AAAZDR best_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
2508b09c8eb8ca94bdc65c81e8252878
2ebb733443b74d3e3fbeed9f6bb6bedfe7b6499b
8794 F20101106_AAAYYK best_m_Page_020thm.jpg
78a44f09a208869bdb15c87edf021488
2cc6b30314845e7a8f8b5911a73f4f29290f3dc7
7732 F20101106_AAAYXW best_m_Page_013thm.jpg
420ea882b4f22d6cdca3b8490c6e23da
7df779ba0e84db96540bbbca112bd3a6d6a1eb5c
728039 F20101106_AAAXVI best_m_Page_087.jp2
5036cf8c92f58496a685594451ff3950
c3b26f2e3ab8d1ce24c3d7889f554f43ff0e7f11
1002533 F20101106_AAAXUU best_m_Page_073.jp2
c4d465203223dfe7e7844b9a4fb38772
1155af75bf998ea356432a97d1053697f3276a0c
F20101106_AAAYBD best_m_Page_036.tif
e0292d5fb2a2ede4b00679603ac48537
9b7776f96ba483e92cdae77ceecb95608771c362
F20101106_AAAYAP best_m_Page_022.tif
b07fe8cc5683b24bfb9618239ee7be81
3b327e2bb7da5d411d50274f820fb63f1f31ae5a
8604 F20101106_AAAZEG best_m_Page_097thm.jpg
4f0834e2a42e7f1135b1a4be2d62f324
77f471ac8dbd7bda1cfe8dd8401fb952b8873597
6195 F20101106_AAAZDS best_m_Page_090thm.jpg
4bd5179bd06668097a98b72cc9d911bf
6aaca8d3f658b722fbd2521e313f0b51d78683d1
2472 F20101106_AAAYZA best_m_Page_028thm.jpg
f55f7e02e8243f01bf7def6e3c1c38dc
cadd1db5bf26b9e00c1b9450fd24a02b27c8f92e
35116 F20101106_AAAYYL best_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
de5aea377da112d3bd44a7875db4d58a
7682662f02af8c5d5cf37fd6af8e951cca99b036
35073 F20101106_AAAYXX best_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
e99b49fa6d0f7e56458d1f2b03912cd7
20305759047d9f61a1a1e45c2b617da299c3ccfa
F20101106_AAAXVJ best_m_Page_088.jp2
5740be8abafdd01a11a61b5617b661ea
ff096164da66d45811f6dc525af4eef0e03d3a6a
684447 F20101106_AAAXUV best_m_Page_074.jp2
7eff543b5d79422fff84503acb5dc552
92567aafea24884b202b7136f302778b4591872b
F20101106_AAAYBE best_m_Page_037.tif
9cef4048898277a7d5b3160db734946d
a2dc808cf6ec562933c069f5dd20ddb284cb6f58
F20101106_AAAYAQ best_m_Page_023.tif
5e1210824645b0ddf3799d862913a923
f0ea03252ed2c3950edd1ee5868a57d5f91d4cc7