Journal of Sustainable Tourism

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

Tourists perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at

tourism businesses
Kathleen L. Andereck
School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
(Received 13 May 2008; nal version received 12 September 2008)
This paper investigates tourists perceptions 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. The study is
based on a survey of individuals who visited the Arizona Welcome Center in northeastern
Arizona and the Chamber of Commerce ofces in Holbrook and Springerville, Arizona.
As expected, visitors with a stronger nature orientation had more positive views of
environmentally responsible practices by tourism businesses than tourists not natureoriented. 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 become
increasingly aware of the need for environmental protection. In the late 1970s, the World
Tourism Organization established a committee focused on the environment, while somewhat 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 environmental guidelines, accreditation programmes, best practices and policy creation and
implementation (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: kandereck@asu.edu

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online


C 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09669580802495790
http://www.informaworld.com

490

K.L. Andereck

roles in environmental innovations (Hjalager, 1996). Though market demand has the potential to instigate environmentally responsible practices, few studies have considered tourists
views of green innovations at tourism businesses. This paper investigates tourists perceptions 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 denitions
of nature-based tourism. Valentine (1992) offers a denition suggesting that nature-based
tourism is primarily concerned with enjoying nature in a fairly undisturbed setting. He
further elaborates on his denition by indicating that nature tourism can encompass experiences 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 trip
motives, 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 dened 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 classied according 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). Similarly, Palacio and McCool (1997) differentiated nature-based tourists according to benets
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 empirically 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.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

491

Environmental attitudes and nature-based tourists

Several studies have investigated the relationship between environmental values and environmentally 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 environmentally conscious behavior. Others have also supported this relationship (Granzin &
Olsen, 1991; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987). With respect to tourism specically, 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 environment. 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 environmental 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 recently, Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons (2005) dened biocentric segments as visitors
with strong pro-environment attitudes. These tourists were different from others in their
intended 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 specically considered the relationship between visitor segments
and 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

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 specically: a third of
travelers indicated they were inuenced 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 footprint
have 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 in
northeastern Arizona and the Chamber of Commerce ofces 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. Qualiers 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 their
visit. 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 nal sample of 852.
The questionnaire developed for the study was primarily focused on visitors travel planning, trip characteristics, and evaluation of the Welcome Center. In addition, two questions

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

493

related to opinions about environmentally responsible business practices were incorporated

into the instrument in the rst set of questions that were completed immediately. The rst
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, composting toilet systems, etc. The second asked visitors to rate the value of 11 environmentally
friendly business practices. The specic 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 rst section of the questionnaire, which respondents were to complete immediately after their stop at the Welcome Center. The diary section was completed daily, and
a nal 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 extremely important (Table 1). The second question asked visitors to respond to a series of
specic 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 analysis 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 of
green 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
Slightly important
Important
Quite important
Extremely important
Mean

7
11
24
26
33
m = 3.7

494

K.L. Andereck

Table 2. Specic environmental efforts at tourism businesses.

Special efforts
Landscaping with native
plants
Energy efcient
systems/energy
conservation
Recycling programs
Renewable energy systems
Gray-water systems
Architecture compatible with
the local environment
Items made of recycled
materials
Recycling items such as maps,
trail guides
Water use reduction programs
Composting toilet systems
Items made from
natural/organic materials

Not
valuable
(%)

Slightly
valuable
(%)

Valuable
(%)

Quite
valuable
(%)

Extremely
valuable
(%)

Means

1.4

4.3

19.2

29.4

45.6

4.1

1.1

5.3

21.5

30.5

41.5

4.1

1.4
1.3
1.5
2.2

6.3
5.4
8.4
6.9

24.0
23.9
21.0
23.5

27.5
30.6
31.7
31.1

40.8
38.7
37.4
36.3

4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9

2.9

9.7

27.8

27.0

32.6

3.8

3.5

10.6

30.6

26.7

28.6

3.7

3.3
5.2
6.2

10.8
13.2
17.8

26.6
30.9
31.7

30.0
25.7
22.8

29.3
25.0
21.5

3.7
3.5
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-based
tourists were dened as those who indicated nature-oriented trip motives were more important than were other motives, similar to denitions 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 environment, 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, the focused nature
cluster, ranked high on the two items specic to the natural environment (n = 237); cluster
3, the crowd averse cluster, ranked high only on the crowding item (n = 163); and the nal
cluster did not rank high on any of the four nature tourism-oriented motives and was called
the non-nature cluster (n = 182).
To conrm the nature tourism orientation of the clusters, the importance ratings (5-point
scale) of specic activities were tested using a MANOVA model with post hoc Bonferroni
t-tests (Table 4). There were no signicant differences among the clusters for several activities 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 cluster had the highest means, followed by the focused nature cluster, the crowd averse cluster, and the non-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
visiting friends and family and personal or family business was the reverse of other activities.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

495

Table 3. Cluster differences in activity participation.

Meansa
Activities

Comprehensive
nature
A

Sightseeing
4.63
Visiting the Grand Canyon
3.89A
Natural area activities
3.75A
Adventure activities
1.97A
Cultural, arts, heritage activities
3.68A
Stay at a dude ranch
1.28A
Sports activities
1.48A
Shopping
2.22A
Visit family and friends
2.28A
Personal/family business
1.47A
MANOVA Model: V = 0.43, F = 6.48, p < .001

Focused
nature
A

4.48
3.81A
3.34B
1.71B
3.47A
1.32A
1.33AB
1.91BC
2.28A
1.41A

Univariates
Crowd
averse
B

3.83
3.03B
2.76C
1.45C
2.83B
1.1B
1.27B
2.00AB
2.84B
1.50A

Nonnature
B

3.67
3.01B
2.19D
1.27C
2.57C
1.03B
1.17B
1.75C
3.15B
1.78B

53.5
16.2
49.5
16.7
36.4
8.9
4.5
5.9
9.6
3.3

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02

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

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

Meansa
Environmental efforts

Comprehensive
nature

Seeing environmentally friendly

4.13A
effortsa
4.27A
Recycling programsb
b
Renewable energy systems
4.35A
Energy efcient systems/energy
4.39A
b
conservation
3.98A
Composting toilet systemsb
Items made of recycled
4.07A
materialsb
4.19A
Items made from
natural/organic materialsb
Gray-water systems
4.32A
b
Water use reduction programs
4.14A
Architecture compatible with
4.33A
b
the local environment
4.49A
Landscaping with native plantsb
MANOVA Model: V = 0.22, F = 4.12, p < .001

Univariates

Focused
nature

Crowd
averse

Nonnature

3.64B

3.45BC

3.31C

14.7

.00

4.09AB
4.11B
4.20A

3.89BC
3.87C
3.83B

3.78C
3.60D
3.77B

7.2
17.5
15.7

.00
.00
.00

3.45B
3.68B

3.24B
3.45BC

3.23C
3.37C

15.6
13.1

.00
.00

3.75B

3.64B

3.51B

12.4

.00

4.01B
3.78B
4.14A

3.85BC
3.51C
3.67B

3.63C
3.49C
3.51B

18.3
13.3
12.9

.00
.00
.00

4.37A

3.87B

3.76B

24.2

.00

Notes: a Respondents ranked each item on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not important and 5 being extremely
important; Means with the same superscript are not signicantly different at the .05 level.
b Respondents 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 signicantly 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 Bonferroni t-tests was done using visitors perceptions of environmental innovations
(Table 4). For each question, the comprehensive nature cluster considered the items more
important and more valuable than the other clusters. The focused nature cluster ranked next

496

K.L. Andereck

in its perception of the importance of the items, followed by the crowd averse cluster, and
then the non-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 cluster used friends and
relatives as an information source but fewer used brochures, Arizona Highways Magazine,
and the Arizona Ofce of Tourism website; as well, those in the non-nature cluster used
the Arizona Ofcial Visitors Guide to a lesser extent while members of the comprehensive
nature cluster used it more. Trip characteristics differences that did emerge included (1) a
somewhat higher percentage of the crowd averse cluster were traveling by themselves;
(2) the non-nature cluster members 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 members. Finally, a few demographic differences emerged: (1) those in the comprehensive and
focused nature clusters were signicantly younger than those in the crowd averse cluster
while the non-nature cluster members had the highest average age; (2) those in the crowd
averse and non-nature clusters were more likely to be married; and (3) those in the crowd
averse and non-nature clusters had somewhat lower incomes than the other clusters.

Discussion and conclusion

This study conrms the importance of the natural world as a motivator for tourism experiences. 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 naturerelated 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 ndings. Research has found many tourists have positive environmental attitudes in general (Travel Industry Association, 2003), as well as positive attitudes 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 specic 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 specic 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
place and provide environmental education opportunities. Such a nding should encourage

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

497

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 environmentally 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 segments of tourists are more environmentally conscious and more supportive of green innovations than others. From a marketing perspective, tourism destinations and businesses
that are attempting to attract nature-based tourists can use their environmentally responsible practices as a marketing tool in addition to the altruistic motive of environmental
conservation and preservation for its own sake. Businesses should also consider implementing additional green innovations if they are targeting the environmentally conscious
traveler.
Though there were a number of nonsignicant relationships with respect to the tourist
segments and demographic characteristics, similar to others who have studied environmental perceptions and tourism, visitors who valued environmentally responsible practices to a
greater 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 environmental 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 certain
innovations, and also proles the visitors who hold those values.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Arizona Ofce of Tourism for funding this research.
Notes on contributor/s
Dr. Kathleen Andereck is Director of the School of Community Resources and Development at
Arizona State University, USA, where she is also a Professor. Her research focuses on the tourism
experience from the perspective of both visitors and residents, particularly as it applies to sustainable
tourism and marketing. Dr. Andereck has completed research with many organizations and agencies
at 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 shallow
ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(3), 238253.
Ballantine, J.L., & Eagles, P.F.J. (1994). Dening Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 2(1), 16.
Bendell, J., & Font, X. (2004). Which tourism rules? Green standards and GATS. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(1), 139156.
Blamey, R.K., & Braithwaite, V.A. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourism
market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 2945.
Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish hotel
industries survey results. Hospitality Management, 25, 662682.

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 measures
and 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 to
ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1),
8298.
Font, X. (2002). Environmental certication in tourism and hospitality: Progress, process and
prospects. Tourism Management, 23(3), 197205.
Granzin, K.L., & Olsen, J.E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment: 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 on
responsible environment behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18,
18.
Hjalager, A.-M. (1996). Tourism and the environment: The innovation connection. Journal of Sustainable 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. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hong, S., Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2003). Implications of potential green tourism development. Annals of
Tourism 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 development 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 of
Sustainable 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 development
of 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 benets
(pp. 137). International conservation nancing project working paper. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
Luzar, E.J., Diagne, A., Gan, C.E.C., & Henning, B.R. (1998). Proling the nature-based tourists: A
multinomial logit approach. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 4855.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2005). A case study of nature-based tourists: Specialists versus generalists. Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 357369.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Typologizing nature-based tourists by activity Theoretical and practical
implications. Tourism Management, 8, 651660.
Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, D.B., & Graef, A.R. (2004). Nature-based tourist constraints: A cross-activity
comparison. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 540555.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

499

Palacio, V., & McCool, S.F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benet 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 Airways
leisure customers. London: British Airways Environmental Branch.
Roberts, J.A., & Bacon, D.R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental
concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40, 79
89.
Samdahl, D.M., & Robertson, R. (1990). Social determinants of environmental concern: Specications and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 5781.
Shultz, P.W., & Zelezny, L.C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A ve-country survey.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540558.
Shultz, P.W., & Zelezny, L.C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for
consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255265.
Silverberg, K.E., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). A preliminary investigation into the psychographics 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), 116
124.
Valentine, P.S. (1992). Review: Nature-based tourism. In B. Weiler & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Special
interest tourism (pp. 105127). London: Belhaven Press.
Van Liere, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of
hypotheses, 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. Journal
of 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: Belhaven
Press.