Hall_2016 - Accommodation consumers and providers' attitudes, behaviours and practices for sustainability: A systematic review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Hall_2016
Title Accommodation consumers and providers' attitudes, behaviours and practices for sustainability: A systematic review
Year 2016
Review type systematic review
Main topic Attitudes, behaviours and practices of consumers and the provision of accommodation with respect to sustainability
Subjects area(s) Energy, Environment and nature, Social and behavioural
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s) Policy making, Practice, Human interactions and community engagement
Geographically focused yes
Prisma diagram used yes
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2015
Search string SCOPUS: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“consumer” OR “target audience” OR “tourism” OR “tourist” OR “travel*” OR “holiday*” OR “VFR” OR “vacation*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“response” OR “perception” OR “attitude” OR “behaviour” OR “motivation*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustain*” OR “green*” OR “environment*” OR “ecolog*” OR “CSR” OR “carbon” OR “emission*” OR “energy” OR “waste”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“accommodation” OR “backpacker*” OR “hostel*” OR “motel*” OR “hotel*” OR “lodging” OR “caravan park*” OR “holiday park*” OR “cabin*” OR “campground*” OR “resort*”) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR re) AND PUBYEAR < 2015
No. of original sources 93
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Keywords used in search accommodation, attitude, backpacker, behaviour, cabin, campground, caravan park, carbon, consumer, CSR, ecological, emission, energy, environment, green, holiday, holiday park, hostel, hotel, lodging, motel, motivation, perception, resort, response, sustain, target audience, tourism, tourist, travel, vacation, VFR, waste

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Colin Michael Hall* michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Colin Michael Hall* michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz Department of Geography, University of Oulu Oulu 90014 Finland
Colin Michael Hall* michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz School of Business and Economics, Linneaus University Nygatan 18B, 392 34 Kalmar Sweden
Colin Michael Hall* michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz School of Hospitality and Tourism, University of Johannesburg Johannesburg 2006 South Africa
Natasha Dayal natashadayal1@gmail.com Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Dea Majstorovi dea.maj@gmail.com Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Hamish Mills millsclan@clear.net.nz Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Leroy Paul-Andrews leroy.paulandrews@pg.canterbury.ac.nz Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Chloe Wallace chloe.wallace@pg.canterbury.ac.nz Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury Christchurch 8041 New Zeland
Van Dao Truong vandao83@yahoo.co.uk Tourism Research in Economic Environs & Society (TREES), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus Potchefstroom 2520 South Africa
Van Dao Truong vandao83@yahoo.co.uk Department of Tourism and Hospitality, National Economics University Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi Vietnam

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale Region
Language
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-07-02
Edition
Issue 7
Journal Sustainability
Pagination 1-30
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher MDPI AG
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 8
Website owner
Copyrights of article Authors
Licences of article Open Access:distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.3390/su8070625, ISSN: 20711050


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. any peer-reviewed articles for thescoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). searched 3 databases
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table1
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. discussed methodological factors
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Dsiclosure Statement provided
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic map N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol; search details missing; included studies with unknown bias levels