RVers Skeptical Over RV Parks’ ‘Green’ Claims

  Print Print

April 20, 2010 by   2 Comments

Plan-It Green logoA survey over the weekend by reveals that most RVers are unimpressed with RV parks that advertise “going green.”

Nearly three quarters of the more than 1,100 readers who responded to the survey said they would be no more inclined to stay at a park that promoted itself as “green” over a park that did not, according to a story posted today by the RV News Service. The survey question was:

“If an RV park advertises itself as ‘green’ (environmentally friendly), how does that affect your decision to stay there?”

Only about 7% of respondents said they would be “much more” inclined to stay at such a park, while 19% said they would be a “little more inclined” to stay.

Private campgrounds across the country are increasingly making investments in solar and wind power, as well as other energy, water and natural resource saving programs, according to the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds (ARVC). Some parks, the group says, are making green investments on their own initiative, while others are doing so with active encouragement from the association, which launched a green parks initiative three years ago called “Plan-it Green.”

Comments to the survey indicated that at least some RVers believe going “green” is nothing more than a marketing ploy. “It is just a politically trendy catchword that makes people feel good without really thinking about what it means,” one RVer wrote.

“If the owners care enough to go green, then they must care more about their park in general — spaces, garbage removal, the overall cleanliness and appearance of their camp,” commented reader Jan Balzano.

“While there is little doubt that at least some RV parks are paying more attention to operating in more environmentally responsible ways, the perception of our readers appears to be that their efforts are more about hype than concern for the environment,” said editor Chuck Woodbury.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [Facebook] [Google] [StumbleUpon]


2 Responses to “RVers Skeptical Over RV Parks’ ‘Green’ Claims”

  1. Bruce on April 20th, 2010 4:29 pm

    I am one of many that believe that climate change has been historically cyclical and has nothing to do with human activity. Therefore the Green movement is nonsense, and when I see a business tout their greenness I tend to shy away from them as the green they’re most concerned with is the color of my money. And I don’t care what anyone says, driving a 40 ft coach around to transport 2 people is not ecologically sound, but I will continue to do it regardless of how politically incorrect it might be.

  2. Guy Anderson on June 13th, 2010 3:50 pm

    Interesting comment from Bruce. I totally agree that he has the right to do as he chooses and to spend his money the way he desires. But if he thinks that he is just leaving footprints in the sand by not taking at least some steps that make sense to any person who paid attention and finished the 8th grade level science courses, then there is just no reasoning with them.

    I am a fifth generation rancher/farmer on the same land my great-great grandfather and mother settle on here in central Texas. A few years ago I made the decision to open a campgrounds and RV park on the banks of the Guadalupe River to help to insure sustainable cash flow that is so vitally needed to keep the ranch in the family. For my entire life, my parents taught us to recycle and reuse. When a piece of metal is no longer of any use for any purpose, it can go with other like metal and be recycled into many things. When I was a child/teen, we picked up off the side of the roads and rivers soft drink and beer bottles that were both broken and not broken. Note, the unbroken ones were sold for their deposit value, but the broken ones are still under the earth where they will remain for a long, long while. How do I know? Not just because it is taught in school, but when my great-great grand parents arrived here, they began a pile for glass, some metals, and the like. Except for some of those unbroken bottles that were in there, the glass and metal still remain. We have long ago stopped placing items like that on the surface mainly because it is unsightly and just wrong. Yes going on for a hundred-fifty years that glass and metal is here, yet their remains are but just the dust that God created our bodies from. What left more impact? The human or the things created by humans?

    There is some cyclical process that over time, from a reasonably short period to thousands and thousands of years many things will decay and or recycle to. At issue, is that man is producing more and more non-decaying and non reusable junk. If you don’t believe it, just come and observe one day’s worth of trash that we collect after a good weekend of recreational traffic. Our park invests the man hours to separate, to the degree that is reasonable, recyclable materials from that junk trash. And over the 5 years we have been opened, by volume, 60% has been recyclable and 40% is going to the landfills. We also have environmentally sensitive programs, but do not currently advertise as green.

    Now, how can any reasonably educated person state that in his/her opinion that this has nothing to do with human activity? Just think how much impact we would see if the number of folks that recycled increased from 20% to 40% (the new goal for many municipalities)? Now dream about how things may be if manufacturers had to begin to cater to this new set of environmentally conscience public? New jobs? I don’t know. New objectives? You bet.

    By the way, if the six generations of our family had just used the throwaway concept and not considered reuse and recycle, our family would have been off this ranch over a hundred years ago. We simply would not have been able to sustain ourselves. And I bet your predecessors also reused and recycled. Why can’t everyone?