Tourism & Hospitality Research
Tourism & Hospitality Research
Tourism & Hospitality Research
com/
Hospitality Research
The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect
the environment on tourists' intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives
Therese Hedlund
Tourism and Hospitality Research 2011 11: 278
DOI: 10.1177/1467358411423330
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Tourism and Hospitality Research can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://thr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://thr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/278.refs.html
What is This?
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Article
Tourism and Hospitality Research
11(4) 278–288
The impact of values, environmental ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
concern, and willingness to accept sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358411423330
Therese Hedlund
Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden
Abstract
The present study examines the impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic
sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alter-
natives. The data were collected in a web-based survey and analysed by using structural equation modeling.
The results show that universalism is related to environmental concern in the hypothesized direction.
Significant positive relationships were found between environmental concern and the willingness to accept
economic sacrifices to protect the environment, as well as between environmental concern and the intentions
to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Further, a positive relationship was found between
willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment and the intentions to buy ecologically
sustainable tourism alternatives. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords
environmental concern, sustainable tourism, values, vacation choices, willingness to pay
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund 279
2006; Hansla et al., 2008a; Bergin-Seers and Mair, Schultz et al., 2005; Steg et al., 2005; De Groot and
2009; Mehmetoglu et al., 2010). Also, tourists vary Steg, 2006; Oreg and Gerro, 2006; Hansla et al.,
in environmental concern and value orientation 2008a). Research has also shown a positive relation-
(Formica and Uysal, 2002; Fairweather et al., 2005; ship between attitudes (e.g. environmental concerns)
Wurzinger and Johansson, 2006; Mehmetoglu, 2010), and green buying intentions (Schlegelmilch et al.,
and both factors may have an influence on tourists’ 1996; Kim and Choi, 2005) as well as between
intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviours. values, attitudes, and behavioural intentions (Homer
The present study examines value orientation and and Kahle, 1988; Vaske and Donnelly, 1999;
environmental concern as determinants of intended Honkanen and Verplanken, 2004).
ecologically sustainable tourism behaviour. Values are conceptualized as guiding principles cen-
In order to examine if tourists take on any respon- tral in people’s life. Similar values cluster together and
sibility of their own in the area of sustainable tourism, form an individual’s value orientation (Rokeach, 1973;
several studies have examined tourists’ willingness to see Rohan, 2000, for an analysis of the value con-
pay for environmental protection (e.g. Lindsey and struct). Schwartz’s (1992) classification of human
Holmes, 2002; Scott et al., 2003; Becken, 2007; values states that people’s motivational structures are
Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Dodds et al., 2010). A the basis for 10 distinct value types that vary along two
relationship between values and consumers’ willing- dimensions: openness to change versus conservation,
ness to pay for green products have been identified and self-transcendence versus self-enhancement.
by, for example, Laroche et al. (2001), Hansla et al. Research examining the relationship between values
(2008b), and Hansla (2011). Further, Thøgersen and environmental behaviour has exclusively focused
(2000) conclude that individuals’ willingness to pay on the self-transcendence and self-enhancement con-
for environmental protection predicts the attention tinuum (Schultz et al., 2005). There are four universal
paid to pro-environmental products. As of today, value types that underlie this continuum; universalism
many ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives are and benevolence are included in the self-transcendence
more expensive than their less sustainable counter- value orientation, whereas power and achievement are
parts. Hence, tourists need to be willing to pay more parts of the self-enhancement value orientation
in order to be more ecologically sustainable. It is there- (Schultz and Zelezny, 1999; Schultz, 2001).
fore important to examine the determinants of tour- Universalism includes altruism towards humankind
ists’ willingness to pay for environmental protection, and comprises values such as equality, social justice,
and if this willingness is influencing intentions to pur- and peace on earth, whereas benevolence encompasses
chase ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. altruism towards in-groups (primarily kins) and
Prior research has identified several key factors includes values such as being helpful, forgiving, and
motivating environmentally conscious behaviour (see responsible (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Rubel-
Laroche et al., 2001, for a review). In order to better Lifschitz, 2009). These value types have been shown
understand green behavioural intentions in the tour- to have a positive relationship with pro-environmental
ism context, the purpose of the present study is to attitudes and behaviour. The goals of power values is to
develop and test a model that explains the potential attain social power, authority, and wealth, and these are
influence of tourists’ value orientation, environmental opposite to the goals of universalism in Schwartz’s
concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices (1992) value structure (Hansla et al., 2008a; Schwartz
to protect the environment on ecologically sustainable and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009), whereas achievement
buying intentions. The findings of this study will includes values such as success, capability, and ambi-
increase the understanding of what determines ecolog- tion that is opposite to benevolence in the self-enhance-
ically sustainable buying intentions, which may be ment-to-self-transcendence continuum (Schwartz,
important for successful marketing of sustainable tour- 1992; Hansla et al., 2008a). These value types have a
ism alternatives. Moreover, the study clarifies how the negative relationship with pro-environmental attitudes
chosen determinants relate to each other. and behaviour, even if the differences between them
suggest that they may influence attitudes and behaviour
differently (Hansla et al., 2008a). Schwartz and Rubel-
Values and value orientation
Lifschitz (2009) state that it is difficult to pursue both
Previous research has shown that values may play an self-transcendence and self-enhancement values simul-
important role in relation to environmental problems taneously. As a result, a person emphasizing one causes
(Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Karp, 1996). Studies her or him de-emphasizing the other. The self-trans-
have stated that there is a link between individuals’ cendence versus self-enhancement continuum has in
values and their expressed environmental concern previous studies been shown to have a relationship
(Stern et al., 1995; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002; with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
280 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Environmental concern
(Schultz et al., 2005), and it is therefore suggested that
those with a self-transcendent value orientation will be Bamberg (2003) states that the term environmental
more pro-environmental in their behavioural intentions concern emanates from the political discourse where
than those with a self-enhancement value orientation. it is used to refer to ‘the whole range of environmen-
Several studies have examined the relationship tally related perceptions, emotions, knowledge, atti-
between values, attitudes, and behaviour in different tudes, values and behaviours’ (p. 21). Previous
contexts. Poortinga et al. (2004) examined the role of research has defined environmental concern as an atti-
values for household energy use. The study defined tude towards a general or specific environmental issue
seven different value dimensions and the results (e.g. Fransson and Gärling, 1999). Many studies have
showed that human values were clearly linked to both examined the relationship between environmental
environmental concern and different types of environ- concern and environmentally related behaviour. They
mental behaviour. People who valued environmental show that a strong environmental concern increase the
quality had a higher environmental concern. A negative likelihood of pro-environmental behaviour (e.g.
relationship was found between the self-enhancement Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Minton and Rose, 1997;
value dimension and environmental concern. Vaske Roberts and Bacon, 1997; Thøgersen, 2000;
and Donnelly’s (1999) results in the wildlife preserva- Bamberg, 2003; Kim and Choi, 2005). It has also
tion context showed that a biocentric/anthropocentric been shown that individuals’ values influence their
(nature-centred/human-centred) value orientation environmental concern (Stern et al., 1995; Nordlund
continuum predicted attitude and that attitude medi- and Garvill, 2002; Schultz et al., 2005; Steg et al.,
ated the relationship between value orientation and 2005; Oreg and Gerro, 2006; Hansla et al., 2008a).
behavioural intentions. A study by Homer and Kahle In tourism research, it has been shown that tourists
(1988) showed that values affect attitude and attitudes with a positive environmental attitude and an environ-
influence behaviour in the context of natural food shop- mental awareness are more likely to engage in pro-
ping. Honkanen and Verplanken (2004) concluded that environmental behaviours than tourists who are not
the value types universalism and hedonism influenced pro-environmentally concerned (Luzar et al., 1998;
the intention to buy genetically modified food with atti- Weaver and Lawton, 2002; Lee and Moscardo,
tude as a mediator. 2005). Although it is possible to behave in a pro-
A number of tourism studies have shown a relation- environmental manner without being environmentally
ship between values and tourist behaviour (Boote, 1981; concerned, the above studies show that the link
Pitts and Woodside, 1986; Pizam and Calantone, 1987; between values, attitudes, and behaviour do exists in
Dalen, 1989; Muller, 1991; Madigral and Kahle, 1994; some sense, both in a general and in a tourism context.
McCleary and Choi, 1999; Ekinici and Chen, 2002; Based on this review, the following hypotheses con-
Mehmetoglu et al., 2010). In the area of ecologically sus- cerning the effect of tourists’ values on their environ-
tainable tourism, a study by Fairweather et al. (2005) mental concern are proposed:
focused on the relationship between the anthropocentric
and biocentric value orientations of visitors to a destina- Hypothesis 1: Universalism has a positive effect on envi-
tion in New Zealand and their response to eco labels. The ronmental concern.
results demonstrated a cluster of people with biocentric Hypothesis 2: Benevolence has a positive effect on
values but no people with anthropocentric values were environmental concern.
identified. This was explained as a consequence of few Hypothesis 3: Power has a negative effect on environ-
visitors with an exploitative view of the environment. mental concern.
Instead, the results showed a cluster of people, which Hypothesis 4: Achievement has a negative effect on
they labelled ambivalent. The respondents with a bio- environmental concern.
spheric value orientation had a positive attitude towards
the environment and showed an interest in eco labels.
They were also more likely than the ambivalents to Financial endorsement of protecting
worry about their travel behaviour in relation to the envi-
ronment and they were more willing to spend money to
the environment
reduce the impact their travel had on the environment. On the basis of previous research in other areas than
However, only 13 per cent of the sample had ever heard tourism research, it has been concluded that both
about tourism eco labels. Yet, biospheric visitors had to a values and pro-environmental attitudes are positively
greater degree heard about tourism eco labels than related to consumers’ willingness to spend more for
ambivalent visitors. The results thus showed that a rela- pro-environmental products (Laroche et al., 2001).
tionship between value orientation and the response to Although willingness to pay for environmental protec-
ecologically sustainable tourism exists. tion can be criticized of not being perfectly correlated
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund 281
with actual behaviour, it may determine if tourists are environmentally responsible practice than for hotels
willing to take on any responsibility of their own that do not have this practice. Dodds et al. (2010)
regarding environmental work. examined tourists visiting the islands of Koh Phi Phi,
Several studies have examined consumers’ willing- Thailand, and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. The tourists
ness to pay for environmental protection in different were young, single, well-educated, and earned above-
contexts (e.g. Farhar, 1999; Laroche et al., 2001; average income. The results showed that 95 per cent of
Fairweather et al., 2005; Hansla et al., 2008b; Choi the tourists visiting Gili Trawangan and 79 per cent of
et al., 2009; Hansla, 2011). Previous research has those visiting Koh Phi Phi were willing to pay a tax to
shown that this willingness has an effect on different support environmental and social protection. From this
pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Gelissen, 2007). review, the following hypotheses are derived:
For example, Thøgersen (2000) found that having a
willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the Hypothesis 5: Environmental concern has a positive
environment has a positive influence on the attention effect on the stated willingness to accept economic
paid to an (unspecified) eco-labelled product, hence sacrifices to protect the environment.
leading to a pro-environmental buying intention. Hypothesis 6: Environmental concern has a positive
Laroche et al. (2001) found a relationship between effect on the intention to buy an ecologically sus-
values and consumers’ willingness to pay for green tainable tourism alternative.
products. Individuals who stated that collectivism Hypothesis 7: The stated willingness to accept eco-
and security (a concern for other people) were impor- nomic sacrifices to protect the environment has a
tant values in their everyday lives were more ecologi- positive effect on the intention to buy an ecologi-
cally conscious and hence more willing to spend for cally sustainable tourism alternative.
green products than those who were more individual- A model is proposed with hypothesized links between
istic. Hansla (2011) showed that individuals with a the different constructs (see Figure 1).
self-transcendent value orientation were more willing
to pay for sustainable (eco-labelled) electricity than
individuals with a self-enhancement value orientation. Method
Studies have examined tourists’ willingness to pay
Sample and procedure
for conservation measures at the destination (Lindsey
and Holmes, 2002; Scott et al., 2003; Becken, 2007; The data was collected through a web-based question-
Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Dodds et al., 2010). In naire in September and October of 2007. An e-mail
the lodging industry, Choi et al. (2009) examined uni- was sent to 4444 members of a Swedish web panel,
versity students from Greece and the United States, who previously had been recruited by telephone or
and their attitudes and behaviour intentions towards through the Internet. After a short description of the
using environmentally responsible hotels. Their results purpose of the study, those who received the e-mail
showed that individuals from both countries have a were asked to visit the website and complete the ques-
stronger willingness to pay for hotels with an tionnaire. No compensation was offered.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
282 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Usable responses were obtained from 1003 respon- Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The NEP scale is a
dents corresponding to a response rate of 23 per cent. general measure and aims at measuring people’s view
The analyses of the results are based on the answers on the human–environment relationship. However,
given by 681 respondents (15 per cent) who retrospec- Lück (2003) concludes that the NEP scale is not
tively indicated that they had made a vacation trip always the best measurement of environmental con-
during the summer of 2007. A vacation trip was cern in the tourism context. Further, previous research
defined as a leisure-time trip out of home for at least states that a specific action in a specific context is not
three nights. To exclude business travel, the respon- well explained by a general measure of environmental
dents should have paid for the accommodation them- concern (Moisander and Uusitalo, 1995; Ölander and
selves. In the sample, 306 individuals or 45per cent Thøgersen, 1995). The present study therefore exam-
were women. The age varied from 20 to 80 years ines individuals’ specific environmental concern
with an average age of 44 years. The percentage of towards the impact of tourism on the environment
respondents who had more than 12 years of education and thus operationalizes the construct in a more
was 59 per cent, 7 per cent of the sample were stu- narrow sense.
dents, and 77 per cent worked full-time or part-time as The measure of environmental concern was
employees or had their own business. The annual obtained by asking the participants about the weight
income (after taxes) for 52 per cent of the sample they place on sustainability issues in making choices of
was between 201,000 and 400,000 SEK (1 destination, primary activity at the destination, depar-
SEK ¼ 0.16 USD). Despite the somewhat low ture time, travel mode, accommodation, and length of
response rate, the sample differed only marginally trip, respectively. For example, environmental concern
from the population of residents of Sweden in choice of travel mode was measured by means of the
(Statistics Sweden, 2008) with respect to sex, age, question ‘When you chose travel mode to your desti-
and annual income. Higher education was more fre- nation, how important was the chosen mode did not
quent in the sample than in the Swedish population. harm the environment?’ Seven-point Likert scales
were used ranging from 1 (not important) to 7 (very
important).
Questionnaire and measures
In the first part of the questionnaire, the participants Financial endorsement of protecting the
indicated how many vacation trips they had made environment. The questionnaire included ques-
during June, July, and August of 2007. The partici- tions about the participants’ willingness to pay higher
pants were asked to choose one vacation trip that taxes, higher prices, and reduce living standard to
matched the given definition and the remaining ques- protect the environment. These questions have previ-
tions were asked for this vacation trip. ously been used by Thøgersen (2000) and are used to
measure the willingness of financial endorsement of
Values. The value orientation measure was obtained protecting the environment. Seven-point Likert scales
by asking the participants to indicate the degree to were used ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (highly).
which different values were guiding principles in
their lives. From the original 16 values employed by Intention to buy ecologically sustainable
Schwartz (1992), 12 were included in this study (see tourism alternatives. This measure was obtained
Table 1). These values have been shown to be the most by means of the questions ‘To what degree did you
robust indicators of self-transcendent and self- consider what was best for the environment when
enhancement value orientations (Schwartz, 1992). choosing your accommodation/destination/travel
Additionally, previous studies in Swedish samples mode?’ Seven-point Likert scales were used ranging
(Hansla et al., 2008a, 2008b; Hansla, 2011) have from 1 (not at all) to 7 (highly).
used this short-version measure of self-transcendent In the final part of the questionnaire, the questions
and self-enhancement value orientation. Each value were asked about socio-demographic characteristics
was rated by the participants on a 5-point Likert including age, sex, education, and income that were
scale ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 5 (fully agree). reported above.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund 283
A measurement model including latent constructs and variance extracted and construct reliability coefficients
indicators was thus first analysed. Secondly, the pro- approximates or exceeds the cut-off levels of 0.5 (VE)
posed model with hypothesized relationships was and 0.7 (CR) for all constructs (Hair et al., 2006). The
tested. Table 1 provides an overview of the analysed standardized loadings exceeded 0.56, with a majority
constructs. above 0.7. Overall, the goodness-of-fit indices indi-
Reliability tests were performed on each construct cated an acceptable fit of the measurement model;
prior to testing the hypotheses. As Table 1 shows, reli- 2 ¼ 950, df ¼ 209, 2/df ¼ 4.5, p < 0.001,
able scales were constructed for every construct. The GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91, and
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
284 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
alternatives
ecologically
sustainable
Intention RMSEA ¼ 0.07 (Hair et al., 2006; see Table 1).
tourism
to buy Correlation statistics for the latent variables are
shown in Table 2.
The goodness-of-fit indices for the structural rela-
1
tionships in the proposed model show an acceptable
fit: 2 ¼ 1005, df ¼ 217, 2/df ¼ 4.6, p < 0.001,
willingness
economic
sacrifices
to accept
0.55*
Of the seven hypothesized relationships in the pro-
1
posed model, four were statistically significant in the
expected directions (p .01), supporting H1 (univer-
Environmental
0.59*
0.42*
0.37*
0.42*
0.30*
–0.04
Achievement
Benevolence
Constructs
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund 285
Figure 2. The final model. Model fit: 2 ¼ 1005, df ¼ 217, 2/df ¼ 4.6, p < 0.001, GFI ¼ 0.88, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91,
RMSEA ¼ 0.07. *Significant p .01.
environmental concern can be seen as beneficial to the Schwartz (1992) values on environmental concern and
whole society in the long term and not providing instant pro-environmental behavioural intentions in the tourism
gratification only to the individual. This should be con- context. It can be suggested that the non-significant rela-
trasted to the non-significant relationship between tionship between the self-enhancement value orientation
benevolence and environmental concern. A possible and pro-environmental concerns and behavioural inten-
explanation of this non-significant relationship is that tions in tourism may be due to context-specific issues and
the motivating goals of benevolence include protecting that it should not be taken for certain that this relation-
the welfare of people with whom one is close to ship always exists in tourism. The present study also
(Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). People attribut- shows that people in the sample have a more self-trans-
ing importance to benevolence values might not see cendence than self-enhancement value orientation, and
caring for the environment as included in caring for the this can be a possible explanation of the non-significant
relatives and hence does not have a strong environmental relationship between achievement and power and envi-
concern in vacation choices. The high correlation ronmental concern. A similar explanation was offered by
between universalism and benevolence may also be a Fairweather et al. (2005), when stating the reason for not
contributing factor to the non-significant relationship finding tourists with anthropocentric values could be due
between benevolence and environmental concern. to that their sample did not have an exploitative view of
Additional analysis shows that if universalism is removed the environment. Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz (2009)
from the final model, benevolence is significantly related conclude that in countries with greater gender equality,
to environmental concern. A possible further effect of the universalism and benevolence are more important to
high correlation between benevolence and universalism people than in countries with low gender equality. As
is the negative relationship between benevolence and Sweden is considered to have high gender equality
environmental concern in the final model, a relationship (Lister, 2009), it is therefore likely that Swedish respon-
which was hypothesized to be positive. dents consider universalism values more important than
The hypothesized relationships between the self-enhancement values.
self-enhancement values achievement and power and Previous studies have shown that how the measure-
environmental concern were not significant. This is in ment of environmental concern is constructed can
contrast with previous studies, which have found have an effect on how well it predicts behaviour
significant negative relationships between self-enhance- (Bamberg, 2003). For example, Eagly (1992) states
ment values and pro-environmental attitudes and behav- that attitude may be a better predictor of behaviour
iour (e.g. Hansla et al., 2008a). In the tourism context, if the definition of the attitude object corresponds to
Fairweather et al. (2005) could not find a significant rela- the behavioural criterion. The present study shows
tionship between anthropocentric (human centred) that the method of measuring environmental concern
values (assumingly comparable to the self-enhancement in a more narrow way than in previous studies (e.g.
value orientation) and pro-environmental behavioural Uysal et al., 1994; Higham et al., 2001; Fennell and
intentions. No studies have examined the effect of Nowaczek, 2003; Kim et al., 2006; Wurzinger and
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
286 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Johansson, 2006) can be a useful instrument for exam- similarly in another area of consumption (Thøgersen
ining its influence on pro-environmental behaviour. and Ölander, 2003; Thøgersen 2004). Barr et al.
Previous studies have demonstrated a willingness to (2010) suggest that a ‘holiday is a holiday’ (p. 474)
pay to support environmental protection in the tour- implying that behaving pro-environmentally at home
ism industry (Choi et al., 2009; Dodds et al., 2010). may justify a lack of environmental commitment while
No previous studies have, however, examined tourists’ on vacation. It might also be a difficult task to transfer a
environmental concern as a determinant of this will- pro-environmental behaviour performed at home to a
ingness. The present results show a positive relation- vacation context. Furthermore, Miller et al. (2010)
ship between environmental concern in tourism showed that people were only willing to change their
choices and willingness to accept economic sacrifices tourism behaviour if other people also changed their
to protect the environment. In addition, the present behaviour. They felt that they had the right to enjoy
results show that both environmental concern and their chosen vacation, no matter the environmental
having a willingness to accept economic sacrifices to impact it had. This shows that changing tourists’ behav-
protect the environment is positively related to the iour may be a challenging task for marketers.
intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism The present study addresses behavioural intentions
alternatives. Tourists with a pro-environmental atti- and acknowledges that intentions are not in perfect cor-
tude may be more interested in consumption of tour- relation with actual behaviour. Individuals’ self-
ism offers that reflect that concern. This is in-line with reported purchase intentions do not always have a per-
previous studies, which have shown a positive relation- fect correlation with their actual buying behaviour
ship between environmental concern and pro-environ- (Chandon et al., 2005). Respondents may have stated
mental buying behaviour (e.g. Schlegelmilch et al., that they had an intention to be environmentally
1996; Kim and Choi, 2005). It can, however, be friendly in their vacation choices but never followed it
debated if there will be a future scenario where tourists in practice and this is a potential weakness of the pre-
demand environmentally friendly vacations to be sent study. The inconsistency in the attitude–behaviour
cheaper than vacations which consume more resources relationship can have a number of different explana-
and consequently the willingness to pay for environ- tions such as (1) low correlations among different
mental protection may be an outdated construct in the pro-environmental behaviours, (2) different levels of
future. This is an interesting topic for future studies. specificity in the measures of attitude and behaviour,
The present study implies that marketing efforts (3) effects of personal and situational characteristics,
appealing to tourists with altruistic values towards and (4) lack of measurement reliability and validity
humankind and an environmental concern in tourism (Mainieri et al., 1997). The present study has addressed
choices would have a greater chance of succeeding the problem with different levels of specificity in the
with the promotion of ecologically sustainable tourism measures by using a specific measurement of environ-
alternatives. It may, however, not be enough to only mental concern, but it is still a challenge for future stud-
strengthen pro-environmental awareness and atti- ies to address determinants of actual tourist behaviour.
tudes, with for example marketing campaigns, to In conclusion, the results of the present study sug-
increase pro-environmental consumerism in tourism. gest that only using values, environmental concern,
As an example, Miller et al. (2010) conclude that and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to pro-
improving awareness of the environmental problems tect the environment to explain pro-environmental
of tourism may not lead to pro-environmental behav- behavioural intentions may be too limited. The bor-
iour. They suggest that behavioural change instead derline acceptability of the structural model implies
may be a result of the tourist developing a feeling of that tourists’ intentions to behave in a pro-environ-
personal responsibility for the impact tourism has on mental way are dependent on other factors not exam-
the environment. Other initiatives to support beha- ined in this study, for example, personal and
vioural change are to use physical and virtual social situational factors (Mainieri et al., 1997).
networks as means to help individuals to find new
ways of behaviour. It can therefore be recommended
that marketers working with sustainable tourism
Acknowledgements
should be present in online communities where tour- The author would like to thank Professor Maria
ism and travelling is discussed. Bengtsson, Professor Tommy Gärling, Professor
It can be suggested that tourists sometimes may have Agneta Marell, and Professor Joakim Wincent for
other priorities that take precedence over their environ- valuable contributions to the present research.
mental values and concerns. Previous research shows Insigthful comments from two anonymous reviewers
that consumers who have a pro-environmental behav- on a previous version of this article are also thankfully
iour in one area of consumption, not necessarily behave acknowledged.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund 287
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
288 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Manaktola K and Jauhari V (2007) Exploring consumer attitude and In: Zanna M (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol
behavior towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. 25, Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1–65.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Schwartz SH and Rubel-Lifschitz T (2009) Cross-national varia-
19(5): 364–377. tion in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender
McCleary KW and Choi BM (1999) Personal values as a base for equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(1):
segmenting international markets. Tourism Analysis 4(1): 1–17. 171–185.
Mehmetoglu M (2010) Accurately identifying and comparing sus- Scott A, Christie M and Tench H (2003) Visitor payback: Panacea
tainable tourists, nature-based tourists, and ecotourists on the or Pandora’s box for conservation in the UK? Journal of
basis of their environmental concerns. International Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(4): 583–604.
Hospitality and Tourism Administration 11: 171–199. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K,
Mehmetoglu M, Hines K, Graumann C and Greibrokk J (2010) Tignor MMB and Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007:
The relationship between personal values and tourism behavior: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
A segmentation approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(1): Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
17–27. Change. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University
Miller G, Rathouse K, Scarles C, Holmes K and Tribe J (2010) Press.
Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Statistics Sweden. (2008) Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2008.
Research 37(3): 627–645. Stockholm.
Minton AP and Rose RL (1997) The effects of environmental con- Steg L, Dreijerink L and Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing
cern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An explor- the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal
atory study. Journal of Business Research 40(1): 37–48. of Environmental Psychology 25: 415–425.
Moisander J and Uusitalo L (1995) General attitudes in theory of Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L and Guagnano GA (1995) Values,
reasoned action framework: The influence of consumers’ pro-environ- beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation
mental attitudes on their commuting intentions. Proceedings of toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social
IAREP Conference, August 3–5, 1995, Bergen. Published also Psychology 25(18): 1611–1636.
by the Helsinki School of Economics W-123. Swarbrooke J (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford:
Muller TE (1991) Using personal values to define segments in an CABI.
international tourism market. International Marketing Review 8: Thøgersen J (2000) Psychological determinants of paying attention
57–70. to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development
Nordlund AM and Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind proen- and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy 23:
vironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 34(6): 740–756. 285–313.
Oreg S and Gerro TK (2006) Predicting proenvironmental behavior Thøgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consis-
cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behaviour, and tencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible
value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior 38: behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1): 93–103.
462–483. Thøgersen J and Ölander F (2003) Spillover of environment-
Pitts RE and Woodside AG (1986) Personal values and travel deci- friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology
sions. Journal of Travel Research 25(1): 20–25. 23(3): 225–236.
Pizam A and Calantone R (1987) Beyond psychographics – Values Uysal M, Jurowski C, Noe FP and McDonald CD (1994)
as determinants of tourist behavior. International Journal of Environmental attitude by trip and visitors characteristics.
Hospitality Management 6(3): 177–181. Tourism Management 15(4): 284–294.
Poortinga W, Steg L and Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental con- Vaske JJ and Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model
cern, and environmental behaviour. A study into household predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and
energy use. Environment and Behavior 36(1): 70–93. Natural Resources 12: 523–537.
Roberts JA and Bacon DR (1997) Exploring the subtle relationships Weaver DB and Lawton LJ (2002) Overnight ecotourist market seg-
between environmental concern and ecologically conscious con- mentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of
sumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 40(1): 79–89. Travel Research 40: 270–280.
Rohan MJ (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. World Travel and Tourism Council (2010) Recovery stronger than
Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 255–277. expected, but likely to slow down in 2011. World Travel and
Rokeach M (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Tourism Council Press Release, 9 November, http://
Free Press. www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_News/Press_Releases/
Schlegelmilch BB, Bohlen GM and Diamantopoulos A (1996) The Press_Releases_2010/Recovery_stronger_than_expected,_but_
link between green purchasing decisions and measures of envi- likely_to_slow_down_in_2011 (Accessed December 6, 2010).
ronmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing 30(5): Wurzinger S and Johansson M (2006) Environmental concern and
35–55. knowledge of ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tour-
Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: ists. Journal of Travel Research 45: 217–226.
Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Ölander F and Thøgersen J (1995) Understanding of consumer
Environmental Psychology 21: 327–339. behavior as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal
Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P and of Consumer Policy 18: 345–385.
Franek M (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental
concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 36: 457–475. Author Biography
Schultz PW and Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environ- Therese Hedlund is a PhD candidate at Umeå School
mental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries.
of Business, Umeå University, Sweden. The topic of
Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 255–265.
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of
her dissertation is tourists’ choices and marketing of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. sustainable tourism.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014