What is to be sustained? The polysemy of sustainability and sustainable tourism across languages and cultures

Figures & data

Table 1. Sociodemographic structure of the samples.

Variable	Item	DE N = 87	IT N = 69	NOR N = 85	USA N = 120
Gender	Male	44.7%	47.8%	44.7%	49.2%
	Female	55.3%	52.2%	55.3%	50.8%
Age	18–29 years	17.6%	15.9%	23.5%	26.7%
	30–44 years	34.1%	43.5%	31.8%	35.0%
	45–65 years	48.2%	40.6%	44.7%	38.3%
Income	Up to 2,000 Euro	22.4%	23.2%
	2,000 Euro to 4,000 Euro	34.1%	44.9%
	4,000 Euro and more	43.5%	31.9%
	‎Below NOK 25,000			23.5%
	NOK 25,000–40,000			31.8%
	NOK 40,000–60,000			24.7%
	NOK 60,000+			20.0%
	Below $ 3,000				30.0%
	$ 3,000–below $ 6,000				28.3%
	$ 6,000–below $ 10,000				17.5%
	$ 10,000 and more				24.2%
Children under the age of 14	Yes	35.3%	46.4%	30.6%	30.0%
	No	64.7%	53.6%	69.4%	70.0%
Household size	1 person	18.8%	5.8%	41.2%	23.3%
	2 persons	36.5%	27.5%	34.1%	35.0%
	3 or more persons	44.7%	66.7%	24.7%	41.7%

Table 2. Codes used to describe sustainability and sustainable tourism.

Avoiding negative impacts	Gentle/spare use of resources
Avoiding pollution	Global responsibility human beings
Awareness by education	Independence from others
Buzz-word/marketing	Individual responsibility
Capacity/capacity building	Longevity of goods/consumption
Careful dealing with environment and nature	Principle‎/Concept
Climate protection/stopping climate change	Process/change
Considering the environmental impact	Profitability
Economical‎ & technological development	Quality of life
Economy and environment balanced	Reducing/avoiding waste
Endurance/preserve status quo	Regionality (principle/prioritisation)
Ensuring individual subsistence/lifestyle	Renewability as basic principle
Environmental policy	Renouncement (consumption/daily life)
Environmental protection	Resource cycle/circular economy
Environmentally friendly mobility	Respectful social behaviour
Equality/gender equity	Responsibility for planet
Fair working conditions	Satisfying present needs
Financial independence/prudence	Securing the future/future generations
Food (way of production/consumption)	Three Pillar Model

Table 3. Linguistic and formal aspects studied.

Aspect	Categorization
Abstract	Theoretical definition of the term e.g. “sustainability is the principle that only as many resources are consumed as can be regrown”
Concrete	Explaining the term using examples e.g. “shop consciously and avoid packaging waste whenever possible”
Positive definition	Explaining what is sustainable e.g. “eco-friendly, recyclable, minimal consumption, secure labour and wage conditions for workers”
Negative definition	Explaining what is not sustainable e.g. “those activities that do not have negative consequences on the ecosystem”
Personal writing style	e.g. “for me, sustainability is a way of life with which we preserve the planet for our posterity to the best of our ability.”
Impersonal writing style	e.g. “products made from natural biological materials as well as naturally degradable after consumption”

Table 4. Top 10 codes associated to sustainability in country comparison.

DE	%	IT	%
Gentle‎/spare use of resources	41.4%	Avoiding negative impacts	31.9%
Renewability as basic principle	29.9%	Renewability as basic principle	31.9%
Avoiding negative impacts	21.8%	Gentle‎/spare use of resources	23.2%
Careful dealing with environment and nature	21.8%	Careful dealing with environment and nature	21.7%
Reducing/avoiding waste	21.8%	Resource cycle/circular economy	18.8%
Individual responsibility	20.7%	Economy and environment balanced	15.9%
Resource cycle/circular economy	19.5%	Individual responsibility	15.9%
Securing the future/future generations	16.1%	Responsibility for planet	14.5%
Endurance/preserve status quo	12.6%	Avoiding pollution	13.0%
Renouncement (consumption/daily life)	11.5%	Securing the future/future generations	13.0%
NOR	%	USA	%
Securing the future/future generations	27.7%	Endurance/preserve status quo	29.7%
Renewability as basic principle	21.7%	Ensuring individual subsistence/lifestyle	21.6%
Avoiding negative impacts	20.5%	Renewability as basic principle	12.6%
Gentle‎/spare use of resources	16.9%	Avoiding negative impacts	9.9%
Careful dealing with environment and nature	14.5%	Financial independence/prudence	9.9%
Responsibility for planet	12.0%	Independence from others	9.9%
Resource cycle/circular economy	10.8%	Reducing/avoiding waste	9.9%
Individual responsibility	9.6%	Capacity/capacity building	9.0%
Considering the environmental impact	8.4%	Gentle‎/spare use of resources	8.1%
Economy and environment balanced	8.4%	Longevity of goods/consumption	7.2%

Table 5. Top 10 codes associated to sustainable tourism in country comparison.

DE	%	IT	%
Environmentally friendly mobility	53.7%	Environmentally friendly mobility	58.5%
Individual responsibility	51.9%	Individual responsibility	56.6%
Renouncement (consumption/daily life)	35.2%	Food (way of production/consumption)	24.5%
Buzz-word/marketing	33.3%	Regionality (principle/prioritisation)	20.8%
Avoiding negative impacts	14.8%	Renouncement (consumption/daily life)	20.8%
Food (way of production/consumption)	14.8%	Considering the environmental impact	17,0%
Regionality (principle/prioritisation)	14.8%	Buzz-word/marketing	15.1%
Reducing/avoiding waste	13,0%	Avoiding pollution	11.3%
Careful dealing with environment and nature	9.3%	Reducing/avoiding waste	11.3%
Gentle/spare use of resources	9.3%	Awareness by education	9.4%
NOR	%	USA	%
Avoiding negative impacts	28.4%	Economic‎ & technological development	25.5%
Considering the environmental impact	21.0%	Endurance/preserve status quo	20.0%
Environmentally friendly mobility	19.8%	Avoiding negative impacts	17.3%
Renouncement (consumption/daily life)	19.8%	Individual responsibility	10.9%
Economic‎ & technological development	16.%	Considering the environmental impact	8.2%
Regionality (principle/prioritisation)	14.8%	Ensuring individual subsistence/lifestyle	8.2%
Satisfying present needs	12.3%	Financial independence/prudence	6.4%
Respectful social behaviour	8.6%	Capacity/capacity building	4.5%
Economy and environment balanced	7.4%	Economy and environment balanced	4.5%
Avoiding pollution	6.2%	Regionality (as principle/prioritisation)	4.5%

Table 7. Ranking of Schwartz’s 10 basic values by country.

Rank	DE	IT	NOR	USA	Basic values Schwartz
1	BEN	SEC	BEN	BEN	ACH	Achievement
2	UNI	BEN	UNI	SDI	BEN	Benevolence
3	SDI	UNI	SDI	SEC	CON	Conformity
4	SEC	TR	CON	UNI	HED	Hedonism
5	TR	SDI	SEC	HE	POW	Power
6	HED	CON	HED	CON	SDI	Self-direction
7	CON	ACH	TR	AC	SEC	Security
8	ACH	POW	STIM	TR	STIM	Stimulation
9	STIM	HED	ACH	ST	TR	Tradition
10	POW	STIM	POW	POW	UNI	Universalism

Table 6. Symbol usage across investigated countries.

	DE (87)	IT (69)	NOR (85)	USA (120)
At least one symbol used (N participants)	44	38	24	11
% Total	50.6%	55.1%	28.2%	9.2%
Total sustainable symbols used	58	69	32	15
Total unsustainable symbols used	61	34	16	6
Symbol user: Average sustainable	1.32	1.82	1.33	1.36
Symbol user: Average unsustainable	1.39	0.89	0.67	0.55