Quote from Harald A. Friedl on 9. March 2021, 22:26

Thank you very much for this excellent and inspiring contribution. Wonderful! This speech encourages me another time to be tourist researcher 🙂

And I recommand this speech to all my colleagues researching about Sustainability Communication!

Quote from Natascha Dockal on 17. March 2021, 9:53

Great presentation - very well done and makes me start thinking. The three incentives remind me very much of a lecture in my studies in the course Hospitality Management, there we learned something similar. As I am writing my master thesis about an environmental quality label in the luxury hotel industry, I can imagine that the incentives mentioned (adapted infrastructure for example with smaller plates at the buffet; reward system for example with a drink voucher if room cleaning is waived; offer sustainable version for example of napkins with a chance of cotton napkins) can be implemented. I found particularly good and important the statement that one must not limit the comfort and pleasure of the guests and that one does not get far with the creation of guilt. Very valuable insight

Matching literature, which I found equally exciting:

https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-elusive-green-consumer

Quote from Harald A. Friedl on 18. March 2021, 9:32

What makes me reflecting is your words about "one must not limit the comfort and pleasure of the guests" and " one does not get far with the creation of guilt".

This is a complex thing. Of corse id depends very much on the specific target group. Especially in the old fashioned luxury segment, this was a matter of course:

Here, the offer was aimed at an upper class that was essentially defined by social distance - and thus by an ostentatious consumption that was out of reach for most people.
I just don't think that this approach is comparable to the present.
Here's a comparison:
Two hundred years ago, it was completely self-evident for people with white skin (and aristocratic status) to consider themselves superior and thus also legally above people with other skin colours because of their appearance and their origin. This view culminated on the one hand in the excesses of the slave trade, but also in the madness of the Holocaust. Anyone who holds such a way of thinking today is put in their place as a racist and even makes themselves liable to prosecution in many countries.
The same applies to the right to consume natural resources: in the past, it was considered that anyone who could afford it financially could do anything. A flight into space? No problem, just a question of money...
In view of the increasing obviousness of the effects of this consumption of the world in the - naïve - conviction that the world is infinitely large, this very conviction is becoming increasingly questionable.

We have to distinguish between two things: the factual and the ethical.
Factually, powerful and rich people will always find it easier to get what they want, however absurd it may be (such as the consumption of "lukewarm monkey brain"...). But global ethical standards are also changing.
Today, the rulers of a country are no longer allowed to do whatever they want with their population. In the past, this was considered "interference in internal affairs" under international law. Today, it is considered a moral duty of the "international community" (United Nations) to intervene - on the basis of an International Criminal Court that has now been established.
I am convinced that this change in environmental thinking will - slowly but surely - also have an impact on the way rich people deal with scarce resources, for the simple reason of necessity, because our environmental problems are becoming more and more dramatic:

It is increasingly becoming an impertinence, an impropriety that one simply "does not do", to ostentatiously waste environmental resources out of simple hedonism. Even if those concerned will continue not to be ashamed of it, they will reveal their indulgence less and less publicly, because otherwise they could be confronted with a shit-storm...

Conclusion: I consider the statement "one must not limit the comfort and pleasure of the guest" to be an anachronism that must also be reinterpreted in the light of the changed world with its new challenges.

From a socio-psychological point of view, I am not so sure that necessary changes are not very successful by creating feelings of guilt. See the article

Becken, S., Friedl, H., Stantic, B, Connolly, R. & Chen, J. (2020).
Climate crisis and flying: social media analysis traces the rise of "flightshame". Journal of Sustainabl Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1851699