Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022, 85–102
SuStAINABLE CERtIFICAtION
OF A tOuRISt DEStINAtION
tHROuGH tHE PRISM OF
A VISItOR’S POINt OF VIEW
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar,
Nika Razpotnik Visković
Hiking on Trstelj, the highest hill in the Karst, which, together with Brkini,
is included as a destination in the Green Scheme of Slovenian tourism.
JO
Š
t 
G
A
n
tA
R
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 85
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11214
UDC: 91:338.48:502.131.1(497.4)
COBISS: 1.01
Matjaž Geršič1, Primož Gašperič1, Petra Rus1, Mateja Šmid Hribar1, Nika Razpotnik Visković1
Sustainable certification of a tourist destination through the prism of visitor’s
point of view
ABSTRACT: With the research we wanted to find out what are the tourism practices that tourists perceive
as sustainable at tourist destinations in Slovenia that have the Slovenia Green sustainability certificate. We
have selected eight destinations. The main method of work was surveying, followed by the analysis of the
results. We analyzed 1444 surveys. We found that only 50% of respondents know about the sustainability
certificate for tourist destinations, that the most recognizable sustainable practice in destinations is the
possibility of using water for drinking from the tap, and that the biggest drawback in destinations is inad-
equate public passenger transport. We conclude that destinations should invest in more effective propaganda
of the sustainability certificate and make more visible progress, especially in the field of public passenger
transport.
KEY WORDS: Slovenia, tourism, certificate, sustainability, destination
Trajnostno certificirane turistične destinacije skozi prizmo obiskovalcev
POVZETEK: Članek prikazuje rezultate raziskave, s katero smo želeli ugotoviti, katere so tiste turistične
prakse, ki jih turisti kot trajnostne dojemajo na slovenskih turističnih destinacijah s trajnostnim certifikatom
Slovenia Green. Izbrali smo osem destinacij. Poglavitna metoda dela je bilo anketiranje, kateremu je sledi-
la analiza rezultatov. Analizirali smo 1444 anket. Ugotovili smo, da trajnostni certifikat za turistične destinacije
pozna le slabih 50 % anketirancev, da je najbolj prepoznavna trajnostna praksa na destinacijah možnost
uporabe vode za pitje iz pipe ter da je največja pomanjkljivost na destinacijah neustrezen javni potniški
promet. Ugotavljamo, da bi destinacije morale investirati v učinkovitejšo propagando trajnostnega certi-
fikata in posebej na področju javnega potniškega prometa storiti vidnejši napredek.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: Slovenija, turizem, certifikat, trajnost, destinacija
The article was submitted for publication on October 25th, 2022.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 25. oktobra 2022.
86
1 ZRC SAZU, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9640-6037), primoz.gasperic@zrc-sazu.si
(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6736-1308), petra.rus@zrc-sazu.si, mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5445-0865), nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/
0000-0003-3584-8426)
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 86
1 Introduction and theoretical background
The tourism industry in Slovenia has shown an average growth trend since 1991, when Slovenia declared
its independency. The crisis with the pandemic Covid-19, of course, stopped this trend. The peak was reached
in 2019, when 6,229,573 tourists visited Slovenia and generated 15,775,331 overnight stays. In 2019, the
tourism industry employed 6.5% of the labour force and contributed 5.3% to GDP (Špik and Počuča 2020).
On the one hand, rapid growth of the tourism sector brings economic benefits but, at the same time,
it means a greater burden on the environment and society (Fennel 1999; Mokry 2013; Stojanović et al. 2014;
Dragićević et al. 2015). Some studies from the last decade have concluded that the risk of negative impacts
of tourism development increases with the number of tourists, which in turn leads to lower tourist satis-
faction with the experience and destination (Geneletti and Dawa 2009; Juutinen et al. 2011; Vasiljević et al.
2011; Navrátil et al. 2014). It also has a number of negative consequences for the quality of life of the local
population (Moscarda 2011; Gravari-Barbas and Jacquot 2017; Koens and Postma 2017; Postma, Buda and
Gugerell 2017). Some authors speak of the emergence of overtourism (Koens, Postma and Papp 2018; Rangus,
Božinovski and Brumen 2018; World Tourism Organization 2018; Polajnar Horvat and Ribeiro 2019). A well-
known approach of how to manage overtourism is through the concept of sustainability. This is based on
four pillars: economic, environmental, socio-cultural and political participatory (Mihalic 2016; Knežević
Cvelbar et al. 2021).
To counteract the negative externalities of tourism and enable sustainable development in tourism,
there is an obvious need to develop green tourism strategies and products (Parsons and Grant 2007; Zelena
shema … 2017). Individual destinations and suppliers can achieve this through standardization, certifi-
cation, labelling, competition for awards and titles, and networking (Razpotnik Visković 2020, Ledinek
Lozej and Razpotnik Visković 2022; Razpotnik Viskovič and Logar 2022).
Certification is also referred to as a »stamp of approval,« identified by labels, seals, certificates, brands
or trademarks (Buckley 2002; Harris 2007) and is just one of the mechanisms available to tourism providers.
Certification is the process by which an organization grants recognition to a person, organization, process,
service or product that meets certain recognized and established standards (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2009).
It can assure consumers that a product or service meets specific standards or measurable criteria, and this
can increase customer confidence and satisfaction (Dodds and Joppe 2005). Certification has become an
increasingly popular voluntary tourism management tool to meet both supply-side and demand-side require-
ments that go beyond regulatory requirements (Honey and Rome 2001). Certification has been shown to
increase a company’s credibility in world markets because of its public commitment to quality, safety and
risk management, which leads to increased sales, competitiveness and profitability (Conroy 2001).
Certification can raise the profile of a brand and/or destination, making it synonymous with sustainabil-
ity, quality and/or safety (Honey 2002; Philpott et al. 2007). For these reasons, certification is often seen
as a beneficial marketing tool for tourism operators (Adanur and Allen 1995; Ho 1994; Honey 2002). From
a safety perspective, it makes sense for the system to provide for recertification after a few years. The result
of certification is a certificate, which is a document between the company conducting the assessment and
the applicant (company or destination). It can be said that certification guarantees a holistic approach and
long-term sustainable performance. The communication with the final consumers is called labelling (Figure 1)
(The concepts … 2003; European … 2018; Rangus, Božinovski and Brumen 2018; Razpotnik Visković 2020).
There are different types of certificates in tourism; they can be national or global, and they can be linked
to the destination as a whole or to a single supplier. Each type of supplier can have its own certificate (e.g.,
hotels or beaches).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
87
TouristLabellingCertification
Tourist
Destination
Figure 1: Position of certification and labelling in the communication between destination and tourist (Razpotnik Visković 2020).
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 87
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
It is therefore not surprising that in 2002 there were more than 100 green tourism certification schemes
worldwide (Jarvis, Weeden and Simcock 2010). In the Labelscape project, we identified 30 certificates for
tourism destinations that correspond to Global Sustainable Tourism Council criteria (hereafter: GSTC)
(Global Sustainable … 2022) and Sustainable Development Goals (Sustainable development … 2022).
A discourse has recently developed on the subject of certification in tourism. The most comprehensive
of these studies is Pennington-Gray et al. (2014). It can be seen that the focus has been on eco-certification
in the past. The exact process of six-step ecological certification in tourism was defined by Sasidharan, Sirakaya
and Kerstetter (2002), and it can also be used for other types of certification in tourism. The ecological
aspect is also emphasized by some other authors, such as Janjuševič and Perovič (2020).
Another group of studies has focused on assessing customer perception and awareness of certified hotels
(e.g., Penz, Hofmann and Hartl 2017; Martínez García de Leaniz, Herrero Crespo and Gómez López 2018;
Spenceley 2018; Martínez, Herrero and Gómez - López 2019; Agudo et al. 2021; Nelson et al. 2021).
Font (2002) found that awareness and familiarity with eco-labels in the tourist sector is generally low.
It may partially result from confusion due to the current proliferation of labels and certifications. This con-
fusion may further lead consumers to ignore green messages. On the other hand, consumers may be unaware
of eco-labels in the tourist sector, since the majority of consumers do not consider sustainability issues
(particularly environmental ones) when planning their holiday (Budeanu 2007; Erskine and Collins 1997;
Fairweather, Maslin and Simmons 2005; Resier and Simmons 2005). Generally, the concept of traveling
and holidays is (still) not linked to sustainability (Penz, Hofman and Hartl 2017). Nevertheless, Janjuševič
and Perovič (2020) claimed in their study that potential consumers are willing to pay up to 40% (which
does not mean that they actually paid) more for services of eco-certified units, since their principal ben-
efit is in added value. In the case of tourists on Gili Trawangan in Indonesia, the percentage of such tourists
was more than 70% (Nelson et al. 2021).
The third group consists of articles about selected tourist activities linked to certification (culinary,
beach, festivals …). For example, Ratnasari et al. (2020) found that halal certification does not affect
customer satisfaction, but it does affect behavioural intention. Dodds and Holmes (2020) concluded
that the majority of beachgoers are aware of the certificate but do not know what it means. Another
study (Chirieleison, Montrone and Scrucca 2022) highlighted that certification is only the first step,
since tourists who were aware of the label tended to have relatively positive perceptions and higher sat-
isfaction compared to those who were not. Two articles have addressed certified wildlife activities. Lissner
and Mayer (2020) found that most tourists were willing to pay more money to travel with a certified
tour operator. Lawton and Weaver (2009), on the other hand, claimed that certification can promote
sustainable practices in the management of bird festivals. National park certification has been studied
in terms of how sustainability standards can be used to support protected area management for tourism
(Bushell and Bricker 2017) and the lack of response to ecolabeling in certified protected areas in Finland
(Puhakka 2010).
There have been few studies concerning certification at the destination level. Grapentin and Ayikoru
(2019) highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the systems currently in use, including various fac-
tors that could influence their future development. In particular, the study concluded that destination rating
and certification is affected by four key factors: practicality, reliability, visibility and (non)availability of
incentives. The salience of these issues and their resulting complexity influence the way tourists and tourism
destinations deal with destination rating and certification. This narrows the opportunities and limitations
of such systems. Pennington-Gray et al. (2014) focused on certified, crisis-prepared destinations in the
United States, while Wambugu Maingi (2019) indicated that tourism certification and accreditation sys-
tems in East Africa are one of the most important tools in dealing with overtourism in the East African
context.
It can be concluded that the literature on the demand side is sparse and, consequently, very little is
known about how consumers perceive tourism certification and how their perceptions of a destination
and travel decisions may be influenced by destination certification.
The few studies that have looked at consumer demand for certification have focused primarily on pric-
ing, the relationship between quality and certification, and willingness to travel (e.g., Chafe 2005; Fairweather,
Maslin and Simmons 2005; Rivera 2002). In this article, we will focus on certification from the tourist’s point
of view.
88
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 88
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
89
We will therefore focus on two main research questions in this article:
RQ1 – Are visitors familiar with the Slovenian sustainable tourism certificate?
RQ2 – Which tourism practices are recognized by visitors as sustainable?
1.1 Slovenia Green
Slovenia Green is a national sustainable tourism certificate, established in 2015 and managed by the Slovenian
Tourist Board (Priročnik … 2021). It was created in the frame of The Green Scheme of Slovenian Tourism,
a national supporting programme for developing sustainable tourism on the level of destination and ser-
vice providers (Weston et al. 2018). Entities that can become certified are destinations, protected areas,
accommodations, tour operators, restaurants, attractions and beaches. Certification of the service providers
is relatively simple and is based on recognising endorsed existing sustainable tourism certificates (see Table 1).
When a business obtains one of these certificates (primary certificate), it can also apply for the Slovenia Green
certificate (secondary certificate) without any additional evaluation.
Certification of destinations (individual municipality or group of municipalities) and protected areas
is more complex since the process involves a greater number of local actors, e.g., Destination Management
Organisations (hereafter: DMO), local tourism authority (often acts as the DMO but not always), providers
of communal services, NGOs, associations, tourism providers and/or their interest groups. Destinations
and protected areas need to be in compliance with the GSTC recognized Green Destinations standard but
are supported in the process of certification by the Slovenian Tourism Board, which provides training, work-
shops and internet counselling (Poziv k oddaji … 2022).
The number of certified entities has been increasing annually. In 2022, the number of certified entities
was as follows: 58 destinations, 4 protected areas, 99 accommodations, 8 travel agencies, 6 attractions, 40 restau-
rants and 1 beach (Green Scheme of … 2022a). In other words, certified destinations cover approximately
⅓ of Slovenian territory (75 municipalities) and 75% of tourism volume, namely overnight stays in the
pre-pandemic year 2019 (Prihodi in prenočitve … 2019).
The process of certification lasts approximately 10 months and the certificate is valid for three years.
Destinations can be awarded bronze, silver, gold or platinum signs, depending on their sustainability per-
formance. In this 3-year period of certificate validity, destinations need to continue with activities in the
field of sustainable tourism development and ideally show progress during the re-certification evaluation,
which results also in a more valuable sign colour. However, the opposite can also happen – the destina-
tion can regress in colour or even lose the certificate.
One of the important elements of Slovenia Green certification for the destination is the inclusion of
local inhabitants, local tourism businesses and visitors in the activities. Each destination that enters the
(re-) certification process must carry out surveys with these three groups in order to take into consider-
ation their perceptions of local tourism and include their expectations in the tourism strategy of the area.
Destinations are autonomous in implementing this task, but for those that need support, the Slovenian
Tourist Board has prepared three different questionnaires (including an online version) adapted to each
group: local inhabitants, local tourism businesses and visitors. The research presented in this article is based
on questionnaires for visitors to the destinations.
Table 1: Primary certificates endorsed by the Slovenian Tourist Board (Poziv k oddaji … 2022).
Endorsed certificate (primary certificate) Slovenia Green Category (secondary certificate)
Bio Hotels, Ecocamping, EU Ecolabel, Green Globe, Green Key, Slovenia Green Accommodation
Travelife, World of Glamping Green, Hostelling International
Quality & Sustainability
Travelife, Green Globe Slovenia Green Travel Agency
Green Globe, Green Key Slovenia Green Attraction
Blue Flag Slovenia Green Beach
L.E.A.F., Green Key Slovenia Green Cuisine
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 89
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
90
2 Methods and study area
2.1 Questionnaire development and data analysis
The analysis of visitors’ perceptions of a destination’s sustainability performance is based on a visitors’ survey
carried out by (re-)certifying destinations in 2021. According to the Slovenia green certificate rules des-
tinations need to carry out surveys with visitors and, for this purpose, can use questionnaires proposed
by the Slovenian Tourist Board (Priročnik … 2021). The authors of this study upgraded the questionnaires
and the survey was implemented by DMO. The questionnaire comprises four groups of questions and
evaluations (Table 2):
• general information about their visit (e.g., number of nights in destination, motivation for traveling);
• evaluation of their experience at the destination on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (e.g., accommodation, gas-
tronomy, shopping, public transport, health & security);
• evaluation of sustainable practices at the destination on a Likert scale from 1 to 5;
• general demographic information about the visitor (e.g., age, sex, country of residence).
Based on the data collected in the survey, we prepared statistical analyses with descriptive statistics
calculations and displayed the selected results with the help of charts.
Table 2: Questions in the questionnaire. 
Groups of questions/evaluations Question/Evaluation
General information about their visit Who are you travelling with?
How many nights will/did you spend in our destination?
Which mode of transport will/did you mostly use during your visit to our destination (select only one
option)?
What is the main motive of your visit?
Are you familiar with Slovenian label for sustainable tourism Slovenia Green?
Evaluation of experience Possibility to travel by foot or riding a bike.
at the destination Public transportation.
Well-kept surroundings.
Health care and health protection.
Opportunities for hiking and cycling.
Cultural offer (museums, galleries, cultural events …).
Kindness and hospitality of local people.
Personal safety during the visits.
Value for money.
Evaluation of sustainable practices Destination is providing enough information about the local gastronomic offer and local products.
at the destination In destination, it is safe to drink tap water.
In destination, there are enough waste separation points available.
Destination is providing enough information about reducing water and energy consumption.
Destination stimulates visitors to use sustainable modes of transport (cycling, walking, train, bus …).
Destination is providing enough information about health concerns and accessibility to medical care.
Destination is providing enough information about how to act responsibly (while visiting attractions,
during events ...).
General demographic information Age.
Gender.
Employment status.
Country of your residence.
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 90
2.2 Data collection and study area
The survey was carried out by DMO in the destination (Table 3; Table 5), either in person or through an
online questionnaire. The most common locations for addressing visitors (Table 4) were tourism offices,
accommodations or attractions.
In the instructions for the use of these questionnaires, DMOs were instructed to follow quota sam-
pling for their survey, and to adjust their sample in a way that corresponds best to the number of visitors
and their origin, sex and age group. They were advised to calculate the size of the sample by using online
calculators, e.g., surveymonkey by entering the total population size (population is the average annual num-
ber of visitors), a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error.
It should be added that surveying was carried out during the time of the Covid-19 epidemic, so all
sampling requirements could not be respected due to the prevalence of home visitors over foreign tourists
and decrease in tourism volume in some destinations (in comparison with 2019; Turizem v številkah 2020).
Surveys were carried out from April until December 2021. Criteria for inclusion of the destination in our
analysis were geographical diversity (located in different parts of Slovenia), different types of tourism offer
(seaside tourism, urban tourism, wellness tourism …) and different levels of sustainability performance
(bronze, silver, gold).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
91
Table 3: Destinations included in our analysis (Poziv k oddaji … 2022; Vrste turističnih občin … 2022).
Destination No. of municipalities No. of respondents Statistical region Slovenia Green sign (in 2022) Type of tourism
Kranj single 329 Gorenjska gold urban
Kras-Brkini group 337 Obalno-kraška gold other
Krško single 78 Posavska gold other
Laško single 110 Savinjska gold wellness
Ljutomer single 66 Pomurska bronze other
Murska Sobota single 397 Pomurska bronze wellness
Piran - Portorož single 82 Obalno-kraška bronze seaside
Postojna single 45 Primorsko-notranjska silver other
Table 4: Socio-demographic characteristic of respondents (n = 1444). 
Demographic variables Frequency (n) Valid percent
Age less than 25 229 16%
25–44 508 35%
45–64 505 34%
65 or more 222 15%
Gender female 769 53%
male 695 47%
Employment status student, pupil 201 14%
employed, self-employed 962 66%
retiree 270 18%
other 31 2%
Country of residence Slovenia 956 65%
Bordering countries 152 10%
Other European countries* 315 22%
Other countries 41 3%
*Russia and Türkiye are included in the group of other countries.
Figure 2: Map of included destinations. p p. 92
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 91
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
92
C
el
je
C
el
je
Lj
ub
lja
na
M
ar
ib
or
M
ar
ib
or
C
el
je
M
ar
ib
or
K
ra
nj
K
ra
nj
K
ra
nj
A
U
S
T
R
I
A
H U N
G A
R Y
ITALY
C
R
O
A
T
I
A
Le
ge
nd
M
un
ic
ip
al
ity
Bi
gg
er
 ci
ty
Ty
pe
 o
f c
er
ti!
ca
te
0
10
20
30
40
5
km
C
on
te
nt
 a
nd
 m
ap
 b
y:
 M
at
ja
ž G
er
šič
So
ur
ce
: G
U
RS
 2
02
2
©
 2
02
2,
 Z
RC
 S
A
ZU
 A
nt
on
 M
el
ik
 
G
eo
gr
ap
hi
ca
l I
ns
tit
ut
e
G
ol
d
Si
lv
er
Br
on
ze
Kr
as
–B
rk
ini
La
šk
o
Kr
šk
o
Pi
ra
n–
Po
rt
or
ož
M
ur
sk
a 
So
bo
ta
Lj
ut
om
er
Po
sto
jn
aK
ra
nj
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 92
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
93
Ta
ble
 5:
 Ch
ara
cte
ris
tic
s o
f t
he
 de
sti
na
tio
ns
 (*
da
ta 
m
iss
ing
 fo
r A
pr
il 2
02
1; 
**
 da
ta 
m
iss
ing
 fo
r A
pr
il 2
02
0)
.
De
sti
na
tio
n
Ty
pe
 of
 ce
rti
fic
ate
Ar
ea
 [k
m
2 ]
Inh
ab
ita
nt
s
Ni
gh
ts 
sp
en
t b
y c
itiz
en
s /
 sh
are
Ni
gh
ts 
sp
en
t b
y f
ore
ign
ers
 / 
sh
are
(n
um
be
r o
f
(ye
ar 
of 
ac
qu
isi
tio
n
res
po
nd
en
ts)
of 
th
e f
irs
t c
er
tif
ica
te)
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Kr
an
j 
go
ld 
(2
02
2)
15
0.9
57
,18
5
90
31
 /
75
84
 / 
77
59
 /
11
,62
9 /
 
11
9,4
79
 / 
11
3,7
83
 /
31
,34
0 /
 
40
,79
1 /
 
(3
29
)
7%
6%
20
%
22
%
93
%
94
%
80
%
78
%
Kr
as
-B
rki
ni 
go
ld 
(2
01
7)
66
0
26
,64
2
20
,55
7 /
19
,54
9 /
 
36
,39
0 /
 
60
,19
7 /
 
15
2,9
23
 / 
15
8,4
03
 / 
41
,66
7 /
 
60
,46
9 /
 
(3
37
)*
*
12
%
11
%
47
%
50
%
88
%
89
%
53
%
50
%
Kr
šk
o 
go
ld 
(2
02
1)
28
6.5
25
,90
4
76
08
 /
45
17
 / 
48
55
 / 
72
76
 / 
16
,78
4 /
 
11
,92
5 /
 
65
38
 / 
11
,97
5 /
 
(7
8)
**
31
%
27
%
43
%
38
%
69
%
73
%
57
%
62
%
La
šk
o 
go
ld 
(2
01
6)
19
7.5
13
,12
3
12
,56
65
 /
88
,83
7 /
 
10
,13
97
 / 
15
1,6
16
 / 
16
4,1
32
 / 
14
6,3
50
 / 
38
,31
7 /
 
42
,43
2 /
 
(1
10
)
43
%
38
%
73
%
78
%
57
%
62
%
27
%
22
%
Lju
to
m
er 
br
on
ze
 (2
01
7)
10
7.2
11
,23
3
48
,73
3 /
51
,25
1 /
 
51
,08
6 /
 
62
,77
0 /
 
15
,68
9 /
 
17
,05
6 /
 
36
66
 / 
11
,28
9 /
 
(6
6)
76
%
75
%
93
%
85
%
24
%
25
%
7%
15
%
M
ur
sk
a S
ob
ot
a
br
on
ze
 (2
02
1)
64
.4
18
,62
2
31
,62
7 /
31
,02
6 /
 
20
,32
2 /
 
25
,76
2 /
 
19
,05
5 /
 
20
,90
1 /
 
39
79
 / 
67
49
 / 
(3
97
)
62
%
60
%
84
%
79
%
38
%
40
%
16
%
21
%
Po
rto
rož
-P
ira
n
br
on
ze
 (2
02
1)
44
.6
18
,45
7
58
9,6
24
 /
58
3,8
02
 /
87
3,0
84
 / 
99
2,3
48
 / 
1,2
92
,75
9 /
 
1,2
90
,66
0 /
 
39
9,8
58
 / 
54
6,3
24
 / 
(8
2)
31
%
31
%
69
%
64
%
69
%
69
%
31
%
36
%
Po
sto
jna
 
sil
ve
r (
20
19
)
26
9.9
16
,67
5
15
,20
3 /
11
,38
5 /
 
16
,34
6 /
 
20
,73
6 /
 
14
9,2
22
 / 
15
3,9
13
 / 
28
,73
2 /
 
51
,03
5 /
 
(4
5)
*
9%
7%
36
%
29
%
91
%
93
%
93
%
64
%
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 93
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
94
3 Results
Guests spent an average of 2.6 nights at destinations, and the main purpose of their visit was to visit nat-
ural and cultural attractions, followed by rest and recreation. The least number of guests visited the destination
for shopping, health services and education.
3.1 Familiarity with the Slovenian certificate for sustainable tourism Slovenia Green
In general, the Slovenian sustainable tourism certificate Slovenia Green was known to fewer than 50% of
respondents although there were some slight differences depending on certain tourist characteristics. 
The majority of respondents (62%) used cars during visits to the destination. Exactly half of them were
familiar with the certificate. In the case of tourists who used other types of transport in their destination,
there were some differences identified. Among those who used buses, 47% knew the certificate and slight-
ly more, 55%, among those who cycled around the destination knew the certificate. Among those who walked,
only 37% knew about the certificate. The certificate was most recognizable by those tourists who used trains
to travel to the destination. It should be noted, however, that these were the least of all visitors (only 1%).
Comparing domestic and foreign tourists, 61% of domestic tourists knew the certificate and only 24%
of foreign tourists.
The difference between recognition of the certificate among tourists traveling alone, with family, friends
or otherwise was negligible. There was more than a 5% difference between knowledge of the certificate
only between those visitors who were travelling with friends or alone, and between those who chose the
category other.
Depending on the purpose of visiting the destination, there were somewhat larger differences between
visitors who were aware of the certificate and those who were not (Figure 3). The biggest difference between
those familiar with the certificate and those not familiar with it was among visitors whose main purpose
for the visit was business visit – only 36% of them knew the certificate, and 64% did not. Among those
whose main purpose of the visit was health and medical care, 60% know the certificate and 40% did not.
There were also noticeable differences between those who travelled to the destination to visit friends and
acquaintances (57% of them knew the certificate) and those who came for entertainment and gastrono-
my (only 45% of them knew the certificate).
Based on the length of stay at the destination, 60% of one-day visitors to the destination knew the cer-
tificate, but only 42% of those who stayed at the destination up to three nights, and half of those who stayed
longer.
3.2 Tourism practices recognized as sustainable among visitors
Of guests who spent an average of 3 to 4 days at the visited destination, 70% were transported by person-
al vehicles, 77% came from Slovenia and 40% came to the destination to visit natural and cultural attractions.
Visitors rated the possibility of drinking tap water as the most recognizable at the destination (4.6/5) (Figure 4).
Visitors also agreed with the statements that there are enough places to separate waste at the destination
and enough information on how to behave responsibly (4.3/5). 
They rated the destinations’ efforts somewhat worse in terms of sufficient information about the local
gastronomic offer and local products (4.2/5), sufficient incentives for the use of sustainable forms of trans-
port (4.1/5), and a sufficient amount of information about healthcare and access to medical care (4.1/5).
According to the visitors the least attention was paid to the information on saving energy and water
as sustainable practice (3.9/5).
Comparing the perception of sustainable practices between domestic and foreign tourists, only small
differences were found. The biggest difference was observed in the category »in destination, there are enough
waste separation points available«. Foreign tourists were more satisfied (4.26/5) with these incentives than
Figure 3: Familiarity with the Slovenian certificate for sustainable tourism Slovenia Green in relation to the type of transport during the visit (A), the main
motive of the visit (B), who they were traveling with (C), and how many nights were spent in the destination (D). p p. 95
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 94
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
95
V
is
it
in
g 
n
at
u
ra
l a
n
d
cu
lt
u
ra
l s
ig
h
ts
R
es
t
R
ec
re
at
io
n
E
n
te
rt
ai
n
m
en
t 
an
d
ga
st
ro
n
o
m
y
B
u
si
n
es
s 
vi
si
t
V
is
it
in
g 
re
la
ti
ve
s 
o
r 
fr
ie
n
d
s
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
 a
n
d
 t
ra
in
in
g
H
ea
lt
h
 a
n
d
 m
ed
ic
al
 c
ar
e
Sh
o
p
p
in
g
O
th
er
a
)
b
)
c)
d
)
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
00
C
ar
B
u
s
B
ik
e
W
al
k
in
g
T
ra
in
Y
es
N
o
Sp
o
u
se
 o
r
p
ar
tn
er
F
am
il
y
F
ri
en
d
s
A
lo
n
e
W
o
rk
 c
o
ll
ea
gu
es
o
r 
b
u
si
n
es
s
p
ar
tn
er
s
R
el
at
iv
es
O
th
er
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
Y
es
N
o
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
Y
es
N
o
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
Y
es
N
o
0
1 
to
 3
 n
ig
h
ts
3 
n
ig
h
ts
an
d
 m
o
re
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 95
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
96
3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Destination is providing enough information
about the local gastronomic
offer and local products.
In destination, it is
safe to drink tap water.
In destination, there are enough
waste separation points available.
Destination is providing enough information
about reducing water and energy consumption.
Destination stimulates visitors to use
sustainable modes of transport
(cycling, walking, train, bus ...).
Destination is providing enough information
about health concerns and
accessibility to medical care.
Destination is providing enough information
about how to act responsibly (while
visiting attractions, during events ...).
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Public transportation
Cultural offer (museums, galleries,
cultural events ...)
Value for money
Health care and health protection
Possibility to travel by
foot or riding a bike
Well–kept surroundings
Opportunities for hiking and cycling
Kindness and hospitality of local people
Personal safety during the visits
Figure 4: Assessments of destinations’ sustainability efforts. 
Figure 5: Reviews of some sustainability-oriented experiences at the destinations. 
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 96
domestic tourists (4.24/5). This shows that, from the point of view of foreigners, such incentives still need
to be further refined.
The question is also raised of whether the type of certificate or the tradition of the certified destina-
tion affects the assessment. The hypothesis that the best-rated destination would be the one with the longest
tradition of certification or the one with the highest level of certification can be at least partially refuted.
According to the analyses the best-rated destinations were those with silver (4.4/5) and gold signs (4.2/5),
while the worst were those with bronze (4.1/5). In terms of the tradition of certification, it can be con-
cluded that only this can influence the level of perception of sustainable practices. It appeared that the
better-rated destinations were those that obtained the first certificate in 2019, 2016 and 2017, while the
less well-rated were destinations that obtained the first certificate in 2021 and 2022.
Personal safety during the visit received the highest rating (4.8/5) at the evaluations of some experiences
at the destination (Figure 5) that also reflect sustainable tourism practices according to the UN Environmental
Program and UN World Tourism Organization. Kindness and hospitality of local people (4.6/5) were also
rated highly. Among the destinations, the Kras-Brkini destination received the highest rating for personal
safety (4.9/5), while the Piran-Portorož destination received the worst (4.6/5). Value for money (4.4/5) and
cultural offer (4.3) received worse ratings. By far the worst rated was public transport (3.9/5). Comparing
the ratings among the destinations, the worst rated destination for public transport was Kras-Brkini (3.2/5),
and the best was Postojna (4.4/5). The poor evaluation of the destination Kras-Brkini is somewhat surprising,
since it is one with the majority of activities focused on sustainable mobility (automatic e-bike sharing sys-
tem, tourist bus) (Sustainability report 2021). The cultural offer was also poorly rated. The worst of the
destinations were Laško and Piran-Portorož, and the best was Kranj. Kranj does not otherwise indicate a spe-
cial emphasis on the cultural offer. There were also relatively poor value-for-money ratings for destinations.
The worst-rated destination was Piran-Portorož, and the best was Postojna.
4 Discussion 
The first fact that cannot be overlooked is that the certification was known to only a modest half of respon-
dents. This has similarly been noted by some other authors (for example, Font 2002; Budeanu 2007; Erskine
and Collins 1997; Fairweather, Maslin and Simmons 2005; Resier and Simmons 2005; Penz, Hofman and
Hartl 2017).
Comparing recognition of the certification depending on the tourists’ origin, the certification was best
known to domestic guests, 60%. Only 28% of guests from neighbouring countries were aware of the cer-
tificate, this is similar to guests from other European countries, while only 13% of guests from the rest of
the world were aware of the certificate. 
An important aspect of sustainability is the mode of travel. In the research, the method of travel at the
destination itself was determined and not the method of arrival to the destination. Slightly less than two-
thirds of visitors used a private car to travel to the destination, which is the least sustainable form of travel.
Walking and using the bus followed with 15%. Only 8% of visitors used bicycles. Comparing the engage-
ment of destinations in raising awareness of the use of public passenger transport at destinations (Sustainability
report 2021; Sever 2022; Destinacija Postojna 2022; Green scheme of … 2022b; Laško 2022; Murska Sobota
2022; Trajnostno poročilo … 2022; Prlekija 2022), it can be concluded that the effect is poor. However, it
is necessary to distinguish between propaganda or awareness-raising and actually well-organized public
transport. It is possible that the destinations do not do enough and, due to insufficient flexibility and still
too infrequent public transport, visitors are forced to use their own vehicles to make good use of their time.
Guests also highlighted in the survey the topic of public transport as one of the worst sustainability
efforts at destinations. Similarly, visitors rated poorly providing enough information about health concerns
and accessibility to medical care.
Among the best-rated sustainable efforts, visitors highlighted the possibility of drinking tap water. It
is a credit rating offered by Slovenia as a whole and is not the result of any special efforts at certified des-
tinations. In year 2022, however, due to the high summer temperatures and drought, it has become clear
that even this natural privilege may be absent in the future, especially in coastal and highland Slovenian
regions (Podnebne spremembe 2021). 
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
97
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 97
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
Our study found that guests considered concern for reducing water and energy consumption to be
the worst sustainability effort at the destinations, and that visitors were insufficiently informed and warned
about it. This is in the exclusive domain of the destination as such.
A moderately committed effort in the field of sustainability was perceived by visitors in terms of the
sufficient number of places for separate waste collection and in terms of providing enough information
about the local gastronomic offer and local products.
Visitors also rated good information about how to act responsibly (while visiting attractions and dur-
ing events …) as a very appropriate effort in the field of sustainability.
Grapentin and Ayikoru (2019) noted that the most important factor when choosing a destination was
the safety of the destination. This is also important from a sustainability point of view. Based on the good
evaluation of visitors to the destinations in question, we have to maintain this benefit. The authors also
noted that cultural offers come next in importance. Judging by our analysis, selected destinations must
place greater emphasis on this area and confirm and improve it. Price is also important for visitors. Selected
destinations still have some room for manoeuvre in this area as well. As noted by Sasidharan, Sirakaya
and Kerstetter (2002) and Janjuševič and Perovič (2020), ecology was a very important aspect in the past.
Judging by our analyses, this aspect is no longer in the forefront in the frame of sustainable tourism but
remains among the more important elements. 
As an additional result our research found out that with relation to sustainable practices among indi-
vidual destinations, the difference between the best and worst was estimated at 0.6 on average.
4.1 Limitation
In terms of interpretation of the results, it should be emphasized that the survey was conducted in 2021/2022
when the consequences of the global pandemic of the Covid-19 virus were being felt. In tourism in
Slovenia, this was mainly reflected in the above-average number of domestic tourists, which was the
result of individual restrictions on departures abroad and tourist vouchers, which the state allocated
to the population to save the tourism sector from collapse. It was therefore an atypical tourist season (Gössling
and Schweiggart 2022), which of course is also reflected in the survey results. Although we understand
that sustainability consists of several different pillars, in our study we focused on the environmental and
social aspects which remains a gap for the future studies.
5 Conclusion
In relation to recognition of sustainability certificates, the results of our research do not deviate from relat-
ed previous research in other geographical areas. The question naturally arises of how to achieve greater
recognition of a sustainability certified destination among visitors and, at the same time, encourage visi-
tors to perceive such a destination as an offer with a higher added value. First of all, more effort and resources
should probably be devoted to the promotion of such destinations, especially among foreign visitors. In
terms of the resources invested in the certification process and adjustments related to it, the area of pro-
motion should also not be neglected. Another aspect is related to consumer education. For them to be aware
of the added value of sustainability certified destinations, they should probably learn more about the con-
cepts through the educational process.
Another aspect that should be noted is public passenger transport. It is generally recognised that pub-
lic transport is not the best developed in Slovenia because, in past decades, huge investments were made
in the construction of the highway network, while the railway network was largely forgotten (Tiran, Hrvatin
and Gabrovec 2021). However, it is also true that, within an individual destination, perhaps more than
the network in general, it is worth pointing out the challenges associated with the offer of public trans-
port within a destination. These are often in the domain of individual municipalities. Comparing the
engagement of individual destinations in the field of public passenger transport, which results from a des-
tinations literature review and the responses of visitors, public transport was identified as a key obstacle.
Destinations invest a lot of energy in arranging the offer (especially the bicycle offer), but visitors do not
notice or do not use it. Perhaps the reason for the poor response to the offer is a large proportion of domes-
tic guests.
98
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 98
Without a doubt, more care should be taken to inform visitors about saving water and energy, and des-
tinations should improve the cultural offer and continue to maintain a high level of sense of security.
As we noted, the type of certificate (gold, platinum) is not directly proportional to the promotion of
sustainable practices in the destination but is much more dependent on the tradition of a sustainable des-
tination.
Finally, it should be noted that an excessive number of tourists causes overtourism (Koens, Postma
and Papp 2018; Rangus, Božinovski and Brumen 2018; World Tourism Organization 2018; Polajnar Horvat
and Ribeiro 2019), which undoubtedly does not contribute to the sustainable direction of destinations.
Above all, this is a serious challenge for the local population, who should and must be an equal stakeholder
in the space. Finding the right balance between the number of conscious tourists and ensuring the con-
cept of sustainability remains an important aspect that must be addressed by certified destinations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge financial support from the European Regional
Development Fund for funding the project LABELSCAPE (Integration of sustainability labels into
Mediterranean tourism policies) as well as financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency research
core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and Natural and cultural heritage of Slovene (I0-0031).
6 References
Adanur, S., Allen, B. 1995: First results of the effects of ISO 9000 in the US textiles industry. Benchmarking
for Quality Management & Technology 110-8.
Agudo, J. C., García de Leaniz, P. M., Crespo, Á. H., Gómez-López, R. 2021: Quality-certified hotels: The
role of certification bodies on the formation of customer behavioral intentions. Sustainability 31-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212733
Buckley, R. C. 2002: Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0160-7383(01)00035-4
Budeanu, A. 2007: Sustainable tourist behaviour – A discussion of opportunities for change. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 31-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00606.x
Bushell, R., Bricker, K. 2017: Tourism in protected areas: Developing meaningful standards. Tourism and
Hospitality Research 17-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416636173
Chafe, Z. 2005: Consumer demand and operator support for socially and environmentally responsible tourism.
Internet: https://ysrinfo.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/consumer_demand_for_responsible_tourism.pdf
(12. 6. 2022).
Chirieleison, C., Montrone, A., Scrucca, L. 2022: Destination labels for historic villages: The impact on
perception, experience, and satisfaction. Tourism and research hospitality 22-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1177%2F14673584211020788
Conaghan, A., Hanrahan, J. 2009: Global conformity of indicators for eco-certification programs. Tourism
and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Dublin Institute of Technology. 
Conroy, M. 2001: Can advocacy-led certification systems transform global corporate practices? Evidence
from some theory. Working Paper Series 21. 
Destinacija Postojna, 2022. Internet: https://issuu.com/visit_postojna/docs/trajnostno_poro_ilo_postojna_
jan2022 (12. 6. 2022).
Dodds, R., Holmes, M. R. 2020: Is Blue Flag certification a means of destination competitiveness? A Canadian
context. Ocean and Coastal Management 192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105192
Dodds, R., Joppe, M. 2005: CSR in the tourism industry? The status of and potential for certification,
codes of conduct and guidelines. Working paper 34666, World Bank Group. Washington. Internet:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/925881468174891001/CSR-in-the-tourism-industry-
The-status-of-and-potential-for-certification-codes-of-conduct-and-guidelines (21. 2. 2023).
Dragićević, V., Bole, D., Bučić, A., Prodanović, A. 2015: European capital of culture: residents’ perceptionof
social benefits and costs – Maribor 2012 case study. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.3986/AGS.747
Erskine, C. C., Collins, L. 1997: Eco-labelling: success or failure? The Environmentalist 17. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1018552000651
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
99
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 99
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
European Tourism Labelling. Directorate general for internal policies. 2018. Internet: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/617461/IPOL_STU(2018)617461_EN.pdf (12. 6. 2022).
Fairweather, J. R., Maslin, C., Simmons, D. G. 2005: Environmental values and response to ecolabels among
international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
17501220508668474
Fennel, D. A. 1999: Ecotourism: An introduction. London. 
Font, X. 2002: Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects.
Tourism Management 23-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00084-X
Geneletti, D., Dawa, D. 2009: Environmental impact assessment of mountain tourism in developing regions:
A study in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29-4. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.003
Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2022. Internet: https://www.gstcouncil.org/ (12. 2. 2022).
Gössling, S., Schweiggart, N. 2022: Two years of COVID-19 and tourism: what we learned, and what we should
have learned. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2029872
Grapentin, S., Ayikoru, M. 2019: Destination assessment and certification: Challenges and opportunities.
Sustainability 11-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133691
Gravari-Barbas, M., Jacquot, S. 2017: No conflict? Discourses in management of tourism-related tensions
in Paris. Protest in Resistance in the Tourist City. London.
Green Scheme of Slovenian tourism, 2022a. Internet: https://www.slovenia.info/en/business/green-
scheme-of-slovenian-tourism (12. 6. 2022).
Green scheme of slovenian tourism and report on sustainability indicator of the Krško tourist destination,
2022b. Internet: https://www.visitkrsko.com/en/news/green-sheme-of-slovenian-tourism-and-report-
on-sustainability-indicator-of-the-krsko-tourist-destination (12. 6. 2022). 
Harris, S. M. 2007: Green Tick™: An example of sustainability certification of goods and services.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18-2.
Ho, S. 1994: Is the ISO 9000 series for total quality management? International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 11-9.
Honey, M. (ed.). 2002: Ecotourism and certification, setting standards in practice. Washington.
Honey, M., Rome, A. 2001: Protecting paradise: Certification programs for sustainable tourism and
ecotourism. Washington. Internet: https://vidasilvestre.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Protecting-
Paradise_Certification-Programs-for-Sustainable-Tourism-and-Ecototourism_Institute-for-Policy-Studie
s.pdf (21. 2. 2023)
Janjuševič, J., Perovič, N. 2020: Eco-certification in the Montenegrin tourism as a response on climate change.
Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32902-0_8
Jarvis, N., Weeden, C., Simcock, N. 2010: The benefits and challenges of sustainable tourism certification:
a case study of the Green Tourism Business Scheme in the West of England. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management 17-1.
Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mantymaa, E., Mäntymaa, E., Shoji, Y., Siikamäki, P., Svento, R. 2011: Combining
ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application.
Ecological Economics 70-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.006
Knežević Cvelbar, L., Mayr, M., Vavpotič, D., Mihalič, T., Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, K., Ribeiro, D., Kuščer,
K. 2021: Smernice za management turističnih destinacij na podlagi modelov nosilnih zmogljivosti in
turističnih tokov. Ljubljana. Internet: http://maksi2.ef.uni-lj.si/zaloznistvoslike/489/Smernice%20za%
20MTD%20za%20web.pdf (21. 2. 2023).
Koens, K., Postma, A. 2017: Understanding and managing visitor pressure in urban tourism: A study
into the nature of and methods used to manage visitor pressure in six major European cities. Internet:
https://www.celth.nl/sites/default/files/2018-09/Voorkomen%20van%20bezoekersdruk%20in%20Europese%
20steden.pdf (20. 8. 2018).
Koens, K., Postma, A., Papp, B. 2018: Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in
a city context. Sustainability 10-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124384
Laško, 2022. Internet: https://lasko.info/en (12. 6. 2022).
Lawton, L. J., Weaver, D. B. 2009: Normative and innovative sustainable resource management at birding
festivals. Tourism Management 31-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.004
100
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 100
Ledinek Lozej, Š., Razpotnik Visković, N. 2022: Branding, labelling and certification: Geographical and
anthropological insights. Acta geographica Slovenica 62-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11265
Lissner, I., Mayer, M. 2020: Tourists’ willingness to pay for Blue Flag's new ecolabel for sustainable boating:
the case of whale-watching in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 20-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2020.1779806
Martínez García de Leaniz, P., Herrero Crespo, Á., Gómez López, R. 2018: Customer responses to envi-
ronmentally certified hotels: the moderating effect of environmental consciousness on the formation
of behavioral intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.
2017.1349775
Martínez, P., Herrero, Á., Gómez-López, R. 2019: Corporate images and customer behavioral intentions
in an environmentally certified context: Promoting environmental sustainability in the hospitality indus-
try. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1754
Mihalic, T. 2016: Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse – Towards ‘responsustable’ tourism. Journal
of Cleaner Production 111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.062
Mokry, S. 2013: Concept of perceptual carrying capacity in its use in the creation of promotional materi-
als of tourist destination. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61-7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201361072547
Moscarda, G. 2011: The role of knowledge in good governance for tourism. Tourist destination governance:
Practices, theory and issues. Wallingford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845937942.0067
Murska Sobota, 2022. Internet: https://www.visitmurskasobota.si/zelena-destinacija/murska-sobota-v-zeleno-
shemo-slovenskega-turizma (12. 6. 2022).
Navrátil, J., Lesjak, M., Pícha, K., Martinát, S., Navrátilová, J., White Baravalle Gilliam, V. L., Knotek, J.,
Kučera, T., Švec, R., Balounová, Z., Rajchard, J. 2014: The importance of vulnerable areas with potential
tourism development: A case study of the Bohemian forest in south Bohemia tourism regions. Acta
geographica Slovenica 54-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54108
Nelson, K. M., Partelow, S., Stäbler, M., Graci, S., Fujitani, M. 2021: Tourist willingness to pay for local green
hotel certification. PLoS ONE 16-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245953
Parsons, C., Grant, J. 2007: Green Globe: a global environmental certification programme for travel and
tourism. Quality assurance and certification in ecotourism. Ecotourism series 5. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1079/9781845932374.0081
Pennington-Gray, L., Schroeder, A., Wu, B., Donohoe, H., Cahyanto, I. 2014: Travelers’ perceptions of crisis
preparedness certification in the United States. Journal of Travel Research 53-3. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047287513496470
Penz, E., Hofmann, E., Hartl, B. 2017: Fostering sustainable travel behavior: Role of sustainability labels
and goal-directed behavior regarding touristic services. Sustainability 9-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
su9061056
Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Ricer, R., Greenberg, R 2007: Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee
certification programs. Conservation Biology 21-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00728.x
Podnebne spremebe 2021, 2021. Ljubljana. Internet: https://meteo.arso.gov.si/uploads/probase/www/
climate/text/sl/publications/2021_11-Poro%C4%8Dilo%20IPPC%20Podnebje%202021.pdf (21. 2. 2023).
Polajnar Horvat, K., Ribeiro, D. 2019: Izzivi v turističnem sektorju: kako se evropske turistične destinacije
soočajo s preturizmom. Geografski vestnik 91-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV91104
Postma, A., Buda, D.-M., Gugerell, K. 2017: The future of city tourism. Journal of Tourism Futures 3-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-09-2017-067
Poziv k oddaji prijav za pridobitev znaka Slovenia Green za ponudnike, 2022. Slovenska turistična orga-
nizacija. Ljubljana. Internet: https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/zelena_shema/2022/Poziv_k_oddaji_
prijav_za_pridobitev_znaka_Slovenia_Green_za_ponudnike_2022.pdf (12. 6. 2022).
Prihodi in prenočitve domačih in tujih turistov, občine, Slovenija, letno, 2020. Statistični urad Republike
Slovenije. Internet: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/sl/Data/-/2164525S.px (12. 6. 2022).
Priročnik za pridobitev, vzdrževanje in obnovo znaka Slovenia Green, 2021. Internet: https://www.slove-
nia.info/uploads/zelena_shema/pozivi_2021/prirocnik_za_pridobitev_vzdrzevanje_in_obnovo_znaka_
slovenia_green_2021.pdf (3. 2. 2022).
Prlekija, 2022. Internet: https://visit-prlekija.eu (12. 6. 2022).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-3, 2022
101
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 101
Matjaž Geršič, Primož Gašperič, Petra Rus, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Sustainable certification of a tourist …
Puhakka, R. 2010: Nature tourists’ concern for the environment and response to ecolabels in Oulanka National
Park. Nordia Geographical Publications 39-1. 
Rangus, M., Božinovski, B., Brumen, B. 2018: Overtourism and the Green Policy of Slovenian tourism.
Responsible Hospitality: Inclusive, Active, Green. Maribor. DOI: https://doi.org./10.18690/978-961-
286-226-8.13
Ratnasari, R. T., Gunawan, S., Mawardi, I., Kirana, K. C. 2020: Emotional experience on behavioral inten-
tion for halal tourism. Journal of Islamic Marketing 12-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-12-2019-0256
Razpotnik Visković, N. 2020: Trajnostne prakse v turizmu – kako jih prepoznati? Geografski vestnik 92-1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV92104 
Razpotnik Visković, N., Logar, E. 2022: Certification, labelling and branding in tourism research: systematic
review. Acta geographica Slovenica 62-2. DOI: 
Resier, A., Simmons, D. G. 2005: A quasi-experimental method for testing the effectiveness of ecolabel
promotion. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668583
Rivera, J. 2002: Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: The Costa Rican
certification for sustainable tourism. Policy Sciences 35-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021371011105
Sasidharana, V., Sirakayab, E., Kerstettera, D. 2002: Developing countries and tourism ecolabels. Tourism
Management 23-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00047-4
Sever, K. 2022: Green Scheme of Slovenian tourism report on sustainable indicators in the tourist destination,
2020. Kranj. Internet: https://www.visitkranj.com/files/pdf/Porocilo-o-trajnostnih-kazalnikih-A4-2020-
ANG.pdf (21. 2. 2023)
Spenceley, A. 2018: Sustainable tourism certification in the African hotel sector. Tourism Review. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2017-0145
Stojanović, V., Đordević, J., Lazić, L., Stamenković, I. 2014: The principles of sustainable development of
tourism in the special nature reserve »Gornje podunavlje« and their impact on the local communities.
Acta geographica Slovenica 52-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54407
Sustainability report 2021, 2021. ORA Krasa in Brkinov d.o.o. Internet: https://www.visitkras.info/upload/files/
TRAJNOSTNO%20POROC%CC%8CILO%20ang.pdf (21. 2. 2023).
Sustainable development goals 2022. Internet: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (12. 6. 2022).
Špik, A., Počuča, J. 2020: Tourism in numbers 2019. Slovenian Tourist Board. Ljubljana. Internet:
https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/dokumenti/tvs/2020/2021_03_STO_TVS_2020_ANG.pdf (21. 2. 2023).
The concepts of standards, certification and labelling. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Internet:
http://www.fao.org/3/y5136e/y5136e07.htm#bm07 (6. 2. 2020).
Tiran, J., Hrvatin, M., Gabrovec, M. 2021: Časovna konkurenčnost medkrajevnega javnega potniškega
prometa v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 93-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV93201
Trajnostno poročilo destinacije Portorož – Piran 2021. Občina Piran, 2022. Internet: https://www.piran.si/
DownloadFile?id=488132 (12. 6. 2022).
Turizem v številkah 2020, 2021. Slovenska turistična organizacija. Ljubljana. Internet: https://www.slove-
nia.info/uploads/dokumenti/tvs/2020/2021_03_STO_TVS_2020_SLO.pdf (12. 6. 2022).
Vasiljević, D. A., Marković, S. B., Hose, T. A., Smalley, I., O’Hara-Dhin, K., Basarin, B., Lukić, T., Vujičić,
M. D. 2011: Loess towards (geo)tourism– proposed application on loess in Vojvodina region (north
Serbia). Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51305
Vrste turističnih občin za nastanitveno statistiko, 2022. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Internet:
https://www.stat.si/Klasje/Klasje/Tabela/15827 (12. 6. 2022).
Wambugu Maingi, S. 2019: Sustainable tourism certification, local governance and management in dealing
with overtourism in East Africa. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 11-5. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1108/WHATT-06-2019-0034
Weston, R., Hamele, H., Balas, M., Denman, R., Pezzano, A., Sillence, G., Reiner, K., Grebenar, A.,
Lawler, M. 2018: Research for TRAN committee – European tourism labelling. Brussels. Internet:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/617461/IPOL_STU(2018)617461_EN.pdf
(21. 2. 2023).
World Tourism Organization, 2018: UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 Edition. Madrid. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.18111/9789284419876
Zelena shema slovenskega turizma, 2017. Internet: https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/dokumenti/
zelena-shema/sto_slovenia_green_zsst_brosura_jun2017_slo_web.pdf (12. 6. 2022).
102
62-3_acta49-1.qxd  6.3.2023  13:15  Page 102