StolenTime
Image unavailable · no suitable source verified
Visit official websiteEnvironmental evidence and weighted assessment
Environmental performance and evidence coverage are measured separately. Ownership and community information remain separate from this environmental rating.
| Pillar | Weight | Performance level | Contribution | Evidence and source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature, biodiversity and regeneration | 30% | 1/4 | 7.5 / 30 points | The 2025 eco page lists reef-safe sunscreen, dive briefings, underwater and beach clean-ups and no jet skis. These are self-reported practices with no reserve, restoration or monitoring programme, so graded as a claim. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Energy and climate | 15% | 2/4 | 7.5 / 15 points | The eco page states LED lighting and energy-efficient appliances across the resort plus guest AC-use reminders. No renewable generation is stated. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Water | 10% | 2/4 | 5 / 10 points | Low-flow fixtures and a linen reuse programme are stated on the eco page, with filtered water served in place of bottled. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Waste and plastic | 10% | 2/4 | 5 / 10 points | The eco page says single-use plastics and disposable toiletries were replaced, rooms get refillable glass water bottles and kitchen scraps go to local farmers and the Bruno Project. All self-reported on one bullet list with no figures or verification, so held at one evidenced system level. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Food, farming and sourcing | 10% | 1/4 | 2.5 / 10 points | The eco page says it prioritises Saint Lucian farmers and fishermen and that many ingredients are grown on site, but names no suppliers and gives no garden detail or share of produce, so it is a claim only. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Buildings, heritage reuse and land use | 15% | 2/4 | 7.5 / 15 points | The eco page cites open-air architecture and shaded landscaping to cut cooling demand, and the resort keeps the original gingerbread beach cottages from the Barnard family's early hotel. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Transport and operational footprint | 5% | 1/4 | 1.25 / 5 points | The eco page says only that staff commutes are optimised to reduce emissions, with no shuttle or scheme described. Source · 2026-10-29 |
| Measurement, transparency and certification | 5% | Missing or stale evidence | Unknown |
Standard 2.2 (draft) weights conservation and habitat at 30%, heritage reuse and land use at 15%, energy at 15%, water at 10%, waste at 10%, food at 10%, transport at 5% and transparency at 5%. A pillar contributes its weight multiplied by its performance level divided by four. Solar equipment alone cannot establish a high overall score. Missing pillars are excluded from the performance denominator and reduce evidence coverage. Performance levels: 0 documented absence or contrary evidence; 1 claim; 2 a specific implemented system; 3 several evidenced systems; 4 quantified outcomes or independently verified exceptional implementation. Ratings require at least 70% coverage; below 85% coverage they are capped at 3/5. If less than half the weighted evidence supports implemented systems, the rating is capped at 2/5. The rating is 1 plus 4 times the evidenced performance, rounded. A 5/5 also needs at least 90% coverage, 90% performance, level 4 evidence on at least half the weight, and nature conservation at level 3 or above. Accommodation scores are coming once this category passes its release checks. Evidence must be rechecked within two years.
About StolenTime
More accommodations
All accommodations
The summary and the instant check are free on every record, always. Members also get the results table item by item, the certificates as checked on each register, and information that has not yet been independently verified.
Keep exploring
Provide the corrected finding and its source. Changes and ownership require independent review.
Report a correction