Tourists’ perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at tourism businesses

7/26/2019 Tourists perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at tourism businesses

1/12

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Vol. 17, No. 4, July 2009, 489499

Tourists perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at

tourism businessesKathleen L. Andereck

School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

(Received 13 May 2008; final version received 12 September 2008)

This paper investigates tourists perceptions of environmentally responsible practicesby tourism businesses by analyzing the attitudes of tourists toward green innovationsin tourist places. It was hypothesized that tourists who were more strongly motivated

by nature-oriented experiences would perceive environmentally responsible practices asmore valuable than tourists less motivated by nature-oriented experiences. The study is

based on a survey of individuals who visited the Arizona Welcome Center in northeasternArizona and the Chamber of Commerce offices in Holbrook and Springerville, Arizona.As expected, visitors with a stronger nature orientation had more positive views ofenvironmentally responsible practices by tourism businesses than tourists not nature-oriented. They felt such innovations are important and valuable.

Keywords:environment; responsible tourism; nature-based tourism; visitor attitudes

Introduction

As the environmental movement got underway and environmental awareness came into

focus in the late twentieth century, both industry employees and travelers have becomeincreasingly aware of the need for environmental protection. In the late 1970s, the World

Tourism Organization established a committee focused on the environment, while some-

what later in 1992 the sustainable development of tourism was directly addressed by the Rio

Earth Summit (Bohdanowicz, 2006). As a result of these and similar initiatives, the tourism

industry began incorporating environmentally responsible or green innovations into their

businesses. Requests for towel reuse and water conservation has become common in hotel

rooms; recycling bins, organic souvenirs and renewable energy systems have also made

appearances at tourist sites, particularly those that are nature-oriented. Several articles have

discussed the industrys applications of sustainable tourism, particularly with respect to en-

vironmental guidelines, accreditation programmes, best practices and policy creation andimplementation (Bendell & Font, 2004; Bohdanowicz, 2006; Font, 2002; Hobson & Essex,

2001; Todd & Williams, 1996; Tzschentke, Kirk, & Lynch, 2004). Several studies have

also investigated tourism industry managers, owners and employees perceptions of the

tourism industrys responsibility with respect to environmental protection (Bohdanowicz,

2006; Hashimoto, 2000; Knowles, Macmillan, Palmer, Grabowksi, & Hashimoto, 1999;

Tzschentke, Kirk, & Lynch, 2004).

While environmental constraints and demands, and policies and guidelines may have

caused the tourism industry to create such responses, market forces can also play decisive

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online


2/12

490 K.L. Andereck

roles in environmental innovations (Hjalager, 1996). Though market demand has the poten-

tial to instigate environmentally responsible practices, few studies have considered tourists

views of green innovations at tourism businesses. This paper investigates tourists per-

ceptions of environmentally responsible practices by tourism businesses by analyzing the

attitudes of tourists toward green innovations in tourist places. It was hypothesized that

tourists who were more strongly motivated by nature-oriented experiences would perceive

environmentally responsible practices as more valuable than tourists less motivated by

nature-oriented experiences.

Nature-based tourism

Nature-based tourism is prevalent in the tourism industry and continues to grow

(Mehmetoglu, 2007; Nyaupane, Morais, & Graefe, 2004). There are many definitions

of nature-based tourism. Valentine (1992) offers a definition suggesting that nature-based

tourism is primarily concerned with enjoying nature in a fairly undisturbed setting. He

further elaborates on his definition by indicating that nature tourism can encompass ex-

periences that depend on a natural setting, experiences that are enhanced by nature and

experiences for which nature is simply a backdrop. This broad treatment of nature tourism

is criticized by Mehmetoglu (2007) who notes that nature tourists are not a homogenous

group.

To address the heterogeneity found within nature tourism, Mehmetoglu (2007) as well

as other authors have developed typologies of nature tourists based on various criteria.

Mehmetoglus typology is based on nature-oriented activities. The author found three

clusters of nature-based tourists: culture and pleasure activity oriented, nature activity

oriented, and low-activity oriented. The three clusters differed with respect to several tripmotives, demographic characteristics and trip characteristics. Laarman and Durst (1987)

also developed an activity-based typology of nature-based tourists, as did Hvenegaard

(2002). Eagles (1992) and Ceballos-Lascurian (1991) developed activity-based segments

of nature-based tourists as well. Generally, these studies found differences among the more

precisely defined groups of tourists.

Other authors have used different criteria to develop typologies and further differentiate

among nature-based tourists. Motives for the trip have been used to empirically segment

nature-based tourists into different groups. Using this method, tourists are classified ac-

cording to their answers to nature-oriented motives for a trip. This method was used by

Mehmetoglu (2005) as well as Hvenegaard (2002) and Ballantine and Eagles (1994). Simi-larly, Palacio and McCool (1997) differentiated nature-based tourists according to benefits

sought from the travel experience. Values-based typologies have also been developed using

measures such as the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scales (Jurowski, Uysal, & Noe,

1993; Kim, Borges, & Chon, 2006; Luzar, Diagne, Gan, & Henning, 1998; Silverberg,

Backman, & Backman, 1996) or other values-oriented measures (Blamey & Braithwaite,

1997).

Finally, several researchers have developed conceptual typologies that were not empir-

ically tested. Acott, LaTrobe, and Howard (1998), for example, suggested a continuum of

tourists ranging from ecocentric to anthracitic. They proposed that it is the mindset of the

tourist rather than the activity that makes an individual an ecotourist. Lindberg (1991) also

proposed a continuum variety of typology ranging from hard-core nature tourists to casual

nature tourists.


3/12

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 491

Environmental attitudes and nature-based tourists

Several studies have investigated the relationship between environmental values and envi-

ronmentally responsible behavior such as recycling and energy conservation. Shultz and

Zelezny (1998, 1999) discovered a positive relationship between pro-environmental values

and environmentally responsible actions among resident of several countries. Similarly,Roberts and Bacon (1997) found that environmental values correlated positively with en-

vironmentally conscious behavior. Others have also supported this relationship (Granzin &

Olsen, 1991; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987). With respect to tourism specifically, a

few researchers have investigated the character of tourists and their environmental attitudes.

Researchers have noted a relationship between tourist behavior and attitudes toward the en-

vironment. Jackson (1986, 1987), for example, found that people engaged in appreciative

outdoor activities such as hiking had more positive environmental attitudes than did those

engaged in consumptive or mechanized activities such as hunting and snowmobiling.

More recently, Kim et al. (2006) found a relationship between environmental values and

motives for attending an environmentally oriented festival.

Others have looked into the environmental attitudes of various groups of tourists.

Crouch et al. (2005) noted that the group of tourists they labeled environmentally caring

differed from others demographically, behaviorally and motivationally. A study of airline

passengers found that 93% had moderate to high levels of concern about the environment,

and a third were moderately to extremely interested in receiving information about environ-

mental issues. The study also found that somewhat more than half of the passengers would

choose an airline or tour operator that is environmentally conscious when purchasing travel

services (Pembroke, 1996). As well, 70% of a sample of US travelers reported likelihood

of staying in hotels with environmentally responsible practices (Watkins, 1994). More re-

cently, Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons (2005) defined biocentric segments as visitors

with strong pro-environment attitudes. These tourists were different from others in theirintended use of ecolabels, and their willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly

accommodations.

Researchers have considered demographic differences with respect to environmental

attitudes. While some differences emerged in some studies (Jurowski et al., 1993), a review

of research by Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) and another by Samdahl and Robertson

(1990) concluded that demographics are not consistent in their prediction of environmental

attitudes. The most compelling evidence suggests that age and education are the two

demographic characteristics that relate to environmental attitudes and awareness (Jurowski

et al., 1993).

Few studies have specifically considered the relationship between visitor segmentsand support for green business innovations at tourism businesses though a few studies

have investigated related issues. Jurowski et al. (1993) found two clusters of tourists to

a national park including a consumptive/tour type and a conservationist type, with the

conservationist types being younger and in smaller groups, designating the park as their

major destination, spending more money, and being much more likely to prefer limits on

structure development. Jurowski, Uysal, Williams, and Noe (1995), also studying national

park visitors, found a positive relationship between environmental values and support

for conservation policy and facility preferences. Hong, Kim, and Kim (2003) found a

relationship between market segments and preferred trip attributes including those attributes

representative of green tourism.

One study that has found a relationship between environmentally oriented tourists

and their perceptions of green innovations is the Travel Industry Association study of


4/12

492 K.L. Andereck

geotourism. The study of US travelers found that 73% of travelers placed importance on

not damaging the environment when they travel; many (59%) were supportive of natural

site protection and preservation and 18% would pay more to visit sites with limits on the

number of visitors; and most travelers reported engaging in at least some environmentally

responsible practices at home. With respect to tourism businesses specifically: a third of

travelers indicated they were influenced by environmental and/or cultural protection actions

by travel companies and a surprising percentage (38%) reported they would pay more

for products and services from travel companies that engage in environmental protection

innovations. Importantly, however, is that the geotourism segment of visitors was more

likely to indicate they would choose environmentally responsible businesses as providers

of travel products than were other segments (Travel Industry Association, 2003).

Dolnicar, Crouch, and Long (2008) noted several gaps in our knowledge regarding

environmentally friendly tourists. Their review of the literature addressing knowledge

about environmentally friendly tourists (EFTs) suggested virtually no research has been

undertaken to identify EFTs among the general population of tourists. Practically, all

studies aimed at understanding the segment of tourists with a low environmental footprinthave focused on the ecotourism sector, which is typically limited to nature-based forms

of tourism (Dolnicar et al., 2008, p. 207). The authors of the paper further contend that

few personal characteristics of EFTs have been consistently examined. This paper takes

a small step toward improving our understanding of EFTs by analyzing attitudes toward

environmentally friendly business practices among a more general population of tourists

and examines several of their personal characteristics.

Methods

This study is based on a survey of individuals who visited the Arizona Welcome Center innortheastern Arizona and the Chamber of Commerce offices in Holbrook and Springerville,

Arizona. Each week for a year, beginning in July 2002, two or three randomly selected days

were used to enroll travel parties in the study. Travel counselors at the three sites were trained

in survey methods and approaches to asking individuals to participate. Qualifiers were used

to limit the sample to those travel parties who considered themselves on a vacation in

Arizona of four weeks or less. The travel counselors provided verbal instructions to each

respondent regarding completion of the questionnaires. The instructions were repeated in

writing within the instrument as well. At the Welcome Center, travel parties were asked

to complete a one-page onsite survey asking questions about their stops at the Center

(n=

805). They were then provided a diary questionnaire to be completed during theirvisit. One set of questions was completed immediately, another on a daily basis, and a

third at the conclusion of the visit. The motorists who stopped in Holbrook (n = 101)

or Springerville (n = 219) completed a different one-page survey, and received a diary

similar to the diary given to welcome center visitors. An incentive of a map holder and

an Arizona Highways book was provided to all participants, as well as a chance to win a

stay at a resort. Reminder postcards were sent to respondents homes if their diaries were

not received within three weeks of the initial contact. For those travel parties who did not

return the diary within six weeks of their stop, an abridged survey was mailed to their

homes. The diary total response rate for the entire sample was 76%: 77% for the welcome

center visitors, 68% for motorists who stopped in Holbrook, and 75% for Springerville.

This provided a final sample of 852.

The questionnaire developed for the study was primarily focused on visitors travel plan-


5/12


related to opinions about environmentally responsible business practices were incorporated

into the instrument in the first set of questions that were completed immediately. The first

question asked visitors when they are traveling how important it is to see environmentally

friendly efforts at tourism/recreation sites and business, for example recycling bins, com-

posting toilet systems, etc. The second asked visitors to rate the value of 11 environmentally

friendly business practices. The specific business practices were drawn from the literature

with those most appropriate for the study area such water conservation measures, and those

most commonly used such as recycling, being selected for inclusion. The questions were

asked in the first section of the questionnaire, which respondents were to complete imme-

diately after their stop at the Welcome Center. The diary section was completed daily, and

a final section was completed when visitors left the state.

Results

Results indicate more than half of respondents felt that seeing environmentally responsible

efforts, such as recycling bins or items made from recycled materials, were quite to ex-tremely important (Table 1). The second question asked visitors to respond to a series of

specific types of environmentally responsible measures. All of those listed were considered

at least quite valuable (measured on a 5-point scale from not valuable to extremely

valuable) (Table 2).

Next, analysis was conducted to determine relationships between environmentally

friendly innovations perceptions, traveler characteristics and travel behavior. This anal-

ysis involved ANOVA and Pearsons correlations. With respect to demographic differences,

more women than men reported that they feel environmentally friendly innovations are

slightly more valuable. As well, unmarried individuals rated the variables higher than did

married people. Finally, there was a negative correlation between age and perceived value ofgreen innovations indicating that younger respondents value these innovations more highly

than do older people.

Perhaps the most enlightening results were related to tourists rating of the importance

of trip activities (measured on a 5-point importance scale). The importance of seeing

environmentally friendly efforts at tourism and recreation sites was not, or only weakly,

correlated with visiting family and friends, visiting the Grand Canyon, shopping, watching

sports, entertainment, golf, other sports, resort stays, family business, business trip, explore

retirement areas and explore new jobs. It was, however, strongly correlated (p < .01) with

the importance placed on sightseeing; natural area activities; cultural, arts and heritage

activities and adventure activities. Nearly the same pattern emerged for perceptions of the

value of green innovations with one exception: there was also a strong correlation with

entertainment. This suggests that nature tourists feel environmentally responsible business

practices are more important and valuable than do other tourists.

Table 1. Seeing environmental efforts at tourism businesses.

Importance of efforts Percent

Not important 7Slightly important 11Important 24

Quite important 26Extremely important 33Mean m = 3.7


6/12

494 K.L. Andereck

Table 2. Specific environmental efforts at tourism businesses.

Not Slightly Quite Extremelyvaluable valuable Valuable valuable valuable

Special efforts (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Means

Landscaping with nativeplants

1.4 4.3 19.2 29.4 45.6 4.1

Energy efficientsystems/energyconservation

1.1 5.3 21.5 30.5 41.5 4.1

Recycling programs 1.4 6.3 24.0 27.5 40.8 4.0Renewable energy systems 1.3 5.4 23.9 30.6 38.7 4.0Gray-water systems 1.5 8.4 21.0 31.7 37.4 4.0Architecture compatible with

the local environment2.2 6.9 23.5 31.1 36.3 3.9

Items made of recycledmaterials

2.9 9.7 27.8 27.0 32.6 3.8

Recycling items such as maps,trail guides

3.5 10.6 30.6 26.7 28.6 3.7

Water use reduction programs 3.3 10.8 26.6 30.0 29.3 3.7Composting toilet systems 5.2 13.2 30.9 25.7 25.0 3.5Items made from

natural/organic materials6.2 17.8 31.7 22.8 21.5 3.4

To further explore the attitudes of nature tourists toward green innovations, additional

analysis was conducted determining whether nature-oriented tourists were more likely to

feel that environmentally responsible practices at tourism sites and businesses are more

important and more valuable than those less motivated by nature experiences. Nature-basedtourists were defined as those who indicated nature-oriented trip motives were more im-

portant than were other motives, similar to definitions by Mehmetoglu (2005), Hvenegaard

(2002), and Ballantine and Eagles (1994). A K-means cluster analysis was conducted using

four motive items measured on a 5-point importance scale: learn about the natural environ-

ment, for excitementadventure, get away from crowds, and experience nature (Table 3).

A solution of four clusters was developed: cluster 1 ranked high on all of the motive items

(n = 220) and was labeled the comprehensive nature cluster; cluster 2, thefocused nature

cluster, ranked high on the two items specific to the natural environment (n = 237); cluster

3, thecrowd averse cluster, ranked high only on the crowding item (n = 163); and the final

cluster did not rank high on any of the four nature tourism-oriented motives and was calledthenon-nature cluster(n = 182).

To confirm the nature tourism orientation of the clusters, the importance ratings (5-point

scale) of specific activities were tested using a MANOVA model with post hoc Bonferroni

t-tests (Table 4). There were no significant differences among the clusters for several activ-

ities including watching sports events, entertainment, playing golf, staying at a resort/spa

and business or convention activities. For the nature tourism-oriented activities including

sightseeing, visiting the Grand Canyon, natural area activities and adventure activities, the

comprehensive nature clusterhad the highest means, followed by the focused nature clus-

ter, thecrowd averse cluster, and thenon-nature cluster. This pattern also tended to emerge

for cultural heritage activities, which are often quite attractive to nature tourists, as well as

sports activities and staying at a dude ranch, which often can be nature-oriented. Shopping

also followed this pattern though to a lesser extent. The pattern of importance ratings for


7/12


Table 3. Cluster differences in activity participation.

Meansa Univariates

Comprehensive Focused Crowd Non-Activities nature nature averse nature F p

Sightseeing 4.63A 4.48A 3.83B 3.67B 53.5 .00Visiting the Grand Canyon 3.89A 3.81A 3.03B 3.01B 16.2 .00

Natural area activities 3.75A 3.34B 2.76C 2.19D 49.5 .00

Adventure activities 1.97A 1.71B 1.45C 1.27C 16.7 .00

Cultural,arts, heritageactivities 3.68A 3.47A 2.83B 2.57C 36.4 .00Stay at a dude ranch 1.28A 1.32A 1.1B 1.03B 8.9 .00Sports activities 1.48A 1.33AB 1.27B 1.17B 4.5 .00

Shopping 2.22A 1.91BC 2.00AB 1.75C 5.9 .00Visit family and friends 2.28A 2.28A 2.84B 3.15B 9.6 .00Personal/family business 1.47A 1.41A 1.50A 1.78B 3.3 .02

MANOVA Model:V= 0.43, F= 6.48, p < .001

Notes:a Respondents ranked each item on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not important and 5 being extremelyimportant; Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the .05 level.

Table 4. Cluster differences with respect to perception of environmental efforts.

Meansa Univariates

Comprehensive Focused Crowd Non-Environmental efforts nature nature averse nature F p

Seeing environmentally friendly

efforts

a4.13A 3.64B 3.45BC 3.31C 14.7 .00

Recycling programsb 4.27A 4.09AB 3.89BC 3.78C 7.2 .00

Renewable energy systemsb 4.35A 4.11B 3.87C 3.60D 17.5 .00

Energy efficient systems/energyconservationb

4.39A 4.20A 3.83B 3.77B 15.7 .00

Composting toilet systemsb 3.98A 3.45B 3.24B 3.23C 15.6 .00

Items made of recycledmaterialsb

4.07A 3.68B 3.45BC 3.37C 13.1 .00

Items made fromnatural/organic materialsb

4.19A 3.75B 3.64B 3.51B 12.4 .00

Gray-water systems 4.32A 4.01B 3.85BC 3.63C 18.3 .00

Water use reduction programsb 4.14A 3.78B 3.51C 3.49C 13.3 .00Architecture compatible with

the local environmentb4.33A 4.14A 3.67B 3.51B 12.9 .00

Landscaping with native plantsb 4.49A 4.37A 3.87B 3.76B 24.2 .00MANOVA Model:V= 0.22, F= 4.12, p < .001

Notes:a Respondents ranked each item on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not important and 5 being extremelyimportant; Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the .05 level.

bRespondents ranked each item on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not valuable and 5 being extremely valuable;Means with the same superscript are not significantly different at the .05 level.

To test the main research question, that nature tourists have more positive views of

environmentally responsible business practices, a second MANOVA model with post

hoc Bonferronit-tests was done using visitors perceptions of environmental innovations

(Table 4). For each question, the comprehensive nature clusterconsidered the items more


8/12

496 K.L. Andereck

in its perception of the importance of the items, followed by the crowd averse cluster, and

then thenon-nature cluster.

Finally, chi-square and ANOVA tests were conducted for other differences among the

clusters. Very few differences were found with respect to trip planning, trip characteristics

and demographic variables. The sources of information used for planning the trip differed

to some extent: a higher percentage of people in the non-nature clusterused friends and

relatives as an information source but fewer used brochures,Arizona Highways Magazine,

and the Arizona Office of Tourism website; as well, those in the non-nature clusterused

the Arizona Official Visitors Guide to a lesser extent while members of the comprehensive

nature clusterused it more. Trip characteristics differences that did emerge included (1) a

somewhat higher percentage of the crowd averse clusterwere traveling by themselves;

(2) the non-nature clustermembers were less likely to be RVers; and (3) the non-nature

cluster members were also less likely to stay in campgrounds but more likely to stay in

a private home while the opposite was true for the comprehensive nature cluster mem-

bers. Finally, a few demographic differences emerged: (1) those in thecomprehensiveand

focused nature clusterswere significantly younger than those in the crowd averse clusterwhile thenon-nature clustermembers had the highest average age; (2) those in thecrowd

averseandnon-nature clusters were more likely to be married; and (3) those in the crowd

averseandnon-nature clustershad somewhat lower incomes than the other clusters.

Discussion and conclusion

This study confirms the importance of the natural world as a motivator for tourism ex-

periences. As other authors have found, there is diversity within the broader category of

nature-based tourists. Though this study considered more than just nature-based tourists,in accord with other researchers (Mehmetoglu, 2007), the respondents who rated nature-

related activities as important are heterogeneous in nature. The two primarily nature-based

clusters differ with respect to motives, activities, and to some extent, trip characteristics

and demographics. This continues to provide support for the assertions of a number of

researchers who suggest more precise segmentation of nature-based tourists to improve

marketing and promotion to these important groups (Hvenegaard, 2002; Laarman & Durst,

1987; Mehmetoglu, 2007).

This study documents the fairly high levels of importance and value tourists place on

environmentally friendly practices at tourism and recreation sites and businesses, which is

also consistent with other findings. Research has found many tourists have positive envi-ronmental attitudes in general (Travel Industry Association, 2003), as well as positive atti-

tudes toward green innovations (Fairweather et al., 2005; Pembroke, 1996; Travel Industry

Association, 2003; Watkins, 1994). What other studies have not considered is the opinions

tourists, particularly a general tourist population, have regarding specific types of green

business practices. This study suggests tourists place a fairly high level of importance

on seeing environmentally responsible practices being implemented by tourism businesses.

Furthermore, they tend to value a variety of specific innovations. It is interesting to note that

the most highly valued practice, along with energy conservation, is landscaping with native

plants. Native vegetation can be a very important conservation consideration in places such

as much of Arizona where native plants are adapted to low water conditions and hot summer

temperatures. Native plants not only can serve as a conservation method, but also improve

integration of tourism facilities and buildings into the environment, enhance sense of


9/12


owners and managers of tourism businesses and facilities to use native landscaping not

only for conservation purposes, but to enhance the visitor experience as well.

Importantly, visitors with a stronger nature orientation had more positive views of envi-

ronmentally responsible practices by tourism businesses than tourists not nature-oriented.

They felt such practices are important and valuable. This provides further support to

research such as the Travel Industry Association study (2003) that has found some seg-

ments of tourists are more environmentally conscious and more supportive of green in-

novations than others. From a marketing perspective, tourism destinations and businesses

that are attempting to attract nature-based tourists can use their environmentally respon-

sible practices as a marketing tool in addition to the altruistic motive of environmental

conservation and preservation for its own sake. Businesses should also consider imple-

menting additional green innovations if they are targeting the environmentally conscious

traveler.

Though there were a number of nonsignificant relationships with respect to the tourist

segments and demographic characteristics, similar to others who have studied environmen-

tal perceptions and tourism, visitors who valued environmentally responsible practices to agreater extent tended to be younger (Jurowski et al., 1993), perhaps suggesting a generation

gap between older people and younger generations who have had more exposure to envi-

ronmental issues. Hashimoto (2000), however, also noted that there may be an inclination

to appear politically correct as suggested by Wheeller (1994) or socially desirable as

suggested by Hofstede (1984) when answering questions such as those posed in this study.

What this study does not document is actual behavior; in other words does the apparent high

value nature tourists place on environmentally responsible practices actually translate into

behavior? Some authors have conducted research suggesting it may not (Wearing, Cynn,

Ponting and McDonald, 2002). Nevertheless, visitors perceptions of green innovations

have not been well documented. This study sheds light on the value placed on certaininnovations, and also profiles the visitors who hold those values.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Arizona Office of Tourism for funding this research.

Notes on contributor/s

Dr. Kathleen Andereck is Director of the School of Community Resources and Development atArizona State University, USA, where she is also a Professor. Her research focuses on the tourismexperience from the perspective of both visitors and residents, particularly as it applies to sustainabletourism and marketing. Dr. Andereck has completed research with many organizations and agenciesat federal and state levels, much of which has been published as journal papers and book chapters.

References

Acott, T.G., LaTrobe, H.L., & Howard, S.H. (1998). An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallowecotourism.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(3), 238253.

Ballantine, J.L., & Eagles, P.F.J. (1994). Defining Canadian ecotourists. Journal of SustainableTourism, 2(1), 16.

Bendell, J., & Font, X. (2004). Which tourism rules? Green standards and GATS. Annals of TourismResearch, 31(1), 139156.

Blamey, R.K., & Braithwaite, V.A. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourismmarket.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 2945.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish hotel


10/12

498 K.L. Andereck

Ceballos-Lascurian, H. (1991). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas.Parks, 2(3), 3135.Crouch, G., Devinney, T., Dolnicar, S., Huybers, T., Louviere, J., & Oppenwal, H. (2005). New horses

for old courses. Questioning the limitations of sustainable tourism to supply-driven measuresand the nature-based contexts.ANSMAC CD Proceedings.

Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G.I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists: What do we really know

about them?Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 197210.Eagles, P.F.J. (1992). The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research,31(2), 37.

Fairweather, J.R., Maslin, C., & Simmons, D.G. (2005). Environmental values and response toecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1),8298.

Font, X. (2002). Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: Progress, process andprospects.Tourism Management, 23(3), 197205.

Granzin, K.L., & Olsen, J.E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environ-ment: A focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behavior. Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 10, 127.Hashimoto, A. (2000). Environmental perception and sense of responsibility of the tourism industry

in Mainland China, Taiwan and Japan.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(2), 131146.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A.N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research onresponsible environment behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18,18.

Hjalager, A.-M. (1996). Tourism and the environment: The innovation connection. Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism, 4(4), 201218.

Hobson, K., & Essex, S. (2001). Sustainable tourism: A view from accommodation businesses.Service Industries Journal, 21(4), 133146.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequence: International differences in work-related values. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hong, S., Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2003). Implications of potential green tourism development. Annals ofTourism Research, 30(2), 323341.

Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002). Using tourist typologies for ecotourism research. Journal of Ecotourism,

1(1), 718.Jackson, L.E. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes toward the environment.Leisure

Studies, 5, 123.Jackson, L.F. (1987). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes and views on resource develop-

ment and preservation.Leisure Sciences, 9, 235250.Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Noe, F.P. (1993). U.S. Virgin Islands National Park: A factor-cluster

segmentation study.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4), 331.Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., Williams, D.R., & Noe, F.P. (1995). An examination of preferences and

evaluations of visitors based on environmental attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 3(2), 7386.

Kim, H., Borges, M.C., & Chon, J. (2006). Impacts of environmental values on tourism motivation:The case of FICA, Brazil.Tourism Management, 27, 957967.

Knowles, T., Macmillan, S., Palmer, J., Grabowski, P., & Hashimoto, A. (1999). The developmentof environmental initiatives in tourism: Responses from the London hotel sector. International

Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 255265.Laarman, J.G., & Durst, P.B. (1987). Nature travel in the tropics. Journal of Forestry, 85(5), 4346.Lindberg, K. (1991). Policies for maximizing nature tourisms ecological and economic benefits

(pp. 137). International conservation financing project working paper. Washington, DC: WorldResources Institute.

Luzar, E.J., Diagne, A., Gan, C.E.C., & Henning, B.R. (1998). Profiling the nature-based tourists: Amultinomial logit approach.Journal of Travel Research, 37, 4855.

Mehmetoglu, M. (2005). A case study of nature-based tourists: Specialists versus generalists.Journalof Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 357369.

Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Typologizing nature-based tourists by activity Theoretical and practicalimplications.Tourism Management, 8, 651660.

Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, D.B., & Graef, A.R. (2004). Nature-based tourist constraints: A cross-activitycomparison.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 540555.


11/12


Palacio, V., & McCool, S.F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit segmentation:A preliminary analysis.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234243.

Pembroke, K. (1996). The sustainable tourist a benchmark survey of environmental priorities,awareness, attitudes and opinions, interest and preferences, and behaviour of British Airwaysleisure customers. London: British Airways Environmental Branch.

Roberts, J.A., & Bacon, D.R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmentalconcern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40, 7989.

Samdahl, D.M., & Robertson, R. (1990). Social determinants of environmental concern: Specifica-tions and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 5781.

Shultz, P.W., & Zelezny, L.C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540558.

Shultz, P.W., & Zelezny, L.C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence forconsistency across 14 countries.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255265.

Silverberg, K.E., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). A preliminary investigation into the psycho-graphics of nature based travelers to the South-Eastern United States.Journal of Travel Research,14(2), 1928.

Todd, S.E., & Williams, P.W. (1996). From white to green: A proposed environmental management

system framework for ski areas.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(3), 147173.Travel Industry Association. (2003). Geotourism: The new trend in travel. Washington DC: Travel

Industry Association.Tzschentke, N., Kird, D., & Lynch, P.A. (2004). Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation

establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 116124.

Valentine, P.S. (1992). Review: Nature-based tourism. In B. Weiler & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Specialinterest tourism(pp. 105127). London: Belhaven Press.

Van Liere, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review ofhypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly, 3, 181197.

Watkins, E. (1994). Do guests want green hotels? Lodging Hospitality, 50(4), 7072.Wearing, S., Cynn, S., Ponting, J., & McDonald, M. (2002). Converting environmental concern into

ecotourism purchases: A qualitative evaluation of international backpackers in Australia.Journalof Ecotourism, 1(2/3), 133148.

Wheeller, B. (1994). Ecotourism: A ruse by another name. In C.P. Cooper & A. Lockwood (Eds.),Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management(Vol. 7, pp. 311). London: BelhavenPress.


12/12

Tourists’ perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at tourism businesses

Documents

Transcript of Tourists’ perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at tourism businesses