Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Tourists' perception of beach litter and willingness to participate in beach

clean-up
Issahaku Adam
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Cape Coast, Ghana
School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While tourists contribute to and suffer the consequences of beach litter, studies on beach clean-up exercises have
Beach litter mostly neglected them and overly focused on resident beach goers. Based on a sample of 685 international
Coastal tourism tourists in Ghana, this paper examines the perception of international tourists on beach litter and the de­
Ghana
terminants of their willingness to participate in beach clean-up as an experiential activity during their visits to
Marine tourism
Pro-environmental behaviour
Ghanaian beaches. The findings reveal that international tourists have negative perceptions of beach litter,
Tourist experience constructed along four domains, namely health, recreational activity participation, aesthetic, and coastal envi­
ronment. Further, sex, age, educational attainment, continent of origin, travel party status, environmental value,
and perception of beach litter significantly influence the willingness of the tourists to participate in beach clean-
ups. The implications of these findings in the context of beach litter management at coastal resorts and desti­
nations are discussed.

1. Introduction
Coastal systems, such as beaches, coral reefs, and estuaries, provide
ecosystem services for leisure and recreation, with high cultural and
aesthetic values (Krelling et al., 2017). Costal resources have since the
era of romanticism served as important tourism cornerstone upon which
destinations thrive (Asensio-Montesinos et al., 2019). Beaches are inte­
gral aspect of the coastal tourism resources and have remained an ever
present aspect of modern day product offerings in destinations across the
world (Leggett et al., 2014; Asensio-Montesinos et al., 2019). The beach
is a fundamental resource in many coastal destinations providing visi­
tors with the luxury and pleasures of leisure (Leggett et al., 2014; Wil­
liams et al., 2016). The idea of taking a vacation to a coastal destination
with scenic sandy beaches remains an important travel motive and at­
tracts millions of tourists to take holidays annually (Blakemore and
Williams, 2008; Bouwman et al., 2016). Meanwhile, the pressure exer­
ted on coastal systems including beaches by litter affects their quality
and aesthetic value, with negative consequences on their attractiveness
and recreational value (Williams et al., 2016). Beaches have become
sinks for different forms of litter that are either deposited directly on the
beach or washed onshore from the sea and inland water bodies (Santos
et al., 2005; Blakemore and Williams, 2008; Bouwman et al., 2016).
Various human activities, both inland and at the coast including the
activities of tourists and beach goers directly pollute beaches (Santos
et al., 2005; Blakemore and Williams, 2008). Also, marine debris which
are generated on land but end up in the ocean are washed up onto
beaches (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020). Cumulatively, beach litter
including cigarette butts, food wrappers, plastic beverage bottles, plastic
bottle caps, plastic grocery bags, straws/stirrers, plastic takeaway con­
tainers, plastic lids, foam takeaway containers amongst others, sub­
stantially impact the recreation and tourism value of beaches. This is
much profound in countries without proper waste management regimes,
especially those in Africa, and Asia (Adam et al., 2020; Bezerra et al.,
2021).
Aside from beach litter directly threatening the sustainability of
beaches as recreational and tourism resources, it is equally documented
that tourists' choices of beaches are influenced by multiple factors but
include beach length and shoreline characteristics as well as scenery,
water quality, landscape, and marine debris (Leggett et al., 2014; Potts
et al., 2016). Beach litter are considered by beach users as one of the five
most important aspects of beach quality in Europe (Asensio-Montesinos
et al., 2019), USA (Cervantes and Espejel, 2008), Mexico (Cervantes and
Espejel, 2008) and in the Caribbean (Leggett et al., 2014). However,
tourists serve in dual capacities in relation to beach litter; as victims of
pollution and as polluters (Krelling et al., 2017), making the subject
deserving of attention in order to safeguard the sanctity of the sea and

E-mail address: issahaku.adam@ucc.edu.gh.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112591
Received 24 March 2021; Received in revised form 30 May 2021; Accepted 31 May 2021
Available online 22 June 2021
0025-326X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Adam
beaches as well as the welfare of tourists and other users.
Also, despite tourists' role as victims of beach litter, they have been
neglected in beach clean-up exercises with the focus directed at resident
beach goers (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020; Liu et al., 2020) even
though previous research has linked tourists with pro-environmental
behaviour (Liu et al., 2020; Li and Wu, 2019; Han, 2015). Conse­
quently, little is known regarding the willingness of tourists to undertake
beach clean-ups during their holidays. Meanwhile, tourists' engagement
in beach clean-ups stands to complement the clean-up exercises under­
taken by residents and resident beach goers hence improve on beach
sanitation and quality. Tourists differ from residents and resident beach
goers to the extent they are people who have travelled outside their
usual or home environment to other places of interests for purposes
other than work or to take up permanent residence (Fletcher et al.,
2017). In this regard, tourists are not residents of the towns or cities
where the beaches are located but are visiting such towns and cities. This
study, however, focuses on international tourists and therefore con­
cerned with people who have travelled into Ghana from their respective
countries of residences for purposes other than work or to take up per­
manent residence (Fletcher et al., 2017).
In terms of beach clean-ups, the behavioural setting and character­
istics of tourists, especially international tourists are different from
resident beach goers, hence their willingness and the reasons for such
willingness to participate in beach clean-up are likely to differ (Lucrezi
and Digun-Aweto, 2020). The motivation for undertaking holiday plus
the time constraints on the holiday uniquely define international tour­
ists' pro-environmental behaviour, which significantly differ from that of
residents (Liu et al., 2020; Li and Wu, 2019; Han, 2015). Nonetheless,
international tourists maybe willing to participate in localised beach
clean-ups for the purposes of contributing to environmental preserva­
tion and conservation and therefore protect the resources upon which
tourism depends (Canosa et al., 2020; Dolnicar et al., 2019). Other
tourists also participate in beach clean-ups for altruistic reasons and
therefore think of their participation as a way of giving back to society
(Canosa et al., 2020; Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020). Consequently,
the objectives of this study are to: examine tourists' perceptions of beach
litter, examine tourists' willingness to participate in beach clean-up, and
determine the factors that influence tourists' willingness to participate in
beach clean-up.
From the standpoint of practice, there have been limited studies on
profiling and understanding tourists in terms of their willingness to
participate in beach clean-up and the drivers of such behaviour. In this
respect, the findings of this study stand to provide valuable information
on the identity of tourists, and importantly, the factors that drive their
willingness to participate in beach clean-up. Therefore, these findings
could help provide information for designing beach clean-up campaigns
to involve tourists since such efforts have largely focused on residents.
Also, the findings of the study could be used by destination and beach
resort managers to design innovative experiential beach clean-up ac­
tivities to target and get tourists involved in beach clean-ups during their
stay at coastal destinations. Through such means, tourists will be given
the chance to participate in pro-environmental behaviour by contrib­
uting to reduce beach litter. In relation to the literature, this study stands
to provide insights on tourists' perception of beach litter and their
willingness to participate in beach clean-ups. While several approaches
have been adopted to deal with beach litter including legislations, public
awareness campaigns, taxes and levies, these interventions are targeted
at residents and businesses without considering tourists who are equally
principal stakeholders. Accordingly, there is little focus on whether
tourists are willing to undertake beach clean-ups and what the drivers of
such potential behaviour maybe. Therefore, by focusing on tourists, this
study adds an invaluable insight to the literature on drivers of beach
clean-up amongst tourists.
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
2. Literature review
2.1. Tourists' perception of beach litter
Litter is one of the most visible expressions of human impact in the
marine environment and thus has led to the emergence and popularity of
beach clean-ups. More than being an aesthetic issue, beach litter is
equally a safety issue that threatens marine ecosystem as well as human
users of the beach (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020). As a result, many
studies have catalogued and quantified beach litter to help provide in­
sights into its nature, and volume so as to direct actions. Other pro-
environmental organisations' engagements in beach and ocean clean-
ups have also provided insights into the constituents of beach litter.
While beach litter is constituted by many varied materials, plastic waste
has been discovered to be a substantial part of it (Adam et al., 2020;
Krelling et al., 2017) with single-use plastics constituting about 80% of
all plastic litter found in the ocean environment (Ambrose et al., 2019;
Spranz et al., 2018). These include plastic beverage bottles, plastic food
takeaway containers, plastic spoons, plastic stirrers, plastic carrier bags,
plastic food wrappers, and plastic lids amongst others (Adam et al.,
2020). Aside from plastic waste, other commonly cited beach litter
include, cigarette butts, foam takeaway containers and other forms of
irregular litter (Spranz et al., 2018). Sources of beach litter include
household wastes, and industrial wastes which are generated inland and
are either directly dumped at the beach or inland waters bodies and
drains which are ultimately washed onto the beach (Adam et al., 2020).
Though marine plastic waste and all other forms of litter are trans­
boundary, it is important to note that recreational beach goers also
contribute to the menace through their carefree consumerist lifestyles
during their stay at the beach (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020). Rec­
reational beach users carry all manner of products to the beach for use to
enhance their leisure experiences and in turn leave behind tonnes of
wastes. Therefore, recreational beach users are both contributors to
beach litter and victims of beach litter (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020;
Williams et al., 2016) and therefore conscious efforts should be made to
include them in solutions aimed at riding the beach of litter to enhance
their experience and satisfaction.
Due to its visible presence on beaches, tourists who visit beaches
have numerous perceptions of beach litter as it influences their ability to
experience the beaches to optimal levels. Beach litter is one of the most
important factors that influence the choice of beaches and recreational
activities at beaches (Leggett et al., 2014). Beach users perceive beach
litter as an ugly sight that thwarts their desire to fully engage in recre­
ational activities at the beach. Beach litter is seen as a potential source of
ill-health (with the potential of infecting users with diseases), danger (as
it can result in physical injuries; some of which can be severe), and as a
form of pollution that humans should not engage with (Krelling et al.,
2017; Williams et al., 2016). Aesthetically, beach litter is perceived by
beach users as unsightly and destroys the beauty and serenity that the
beach offers for the purpose of relaxation (Williams et al., 2016). In
another breadth, beach litter is interpreted as signalling that the beach is
poorly managed and not fit for human use and as a place where the
safety of users cannot be guaranteed (Krelling et al., 2017). Visitors
associate polluted beaches with chaos and an environment without
control such that any visitor can do whatever he/she desires hence un­
safe (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020). Similarly, beaches with litter are seen
as lacking proper waste management system and also without care or
concern for the marine environment and the safety and health of beach
users (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020; Krelling et al., 2017).
While beach litter is generally detested by all visitors, the literature
points to different perceptions of beach litter based on some socio-
demographic and economic factors including age, level of education,
income level, littering behaviour amongst others (Krelling et al., 2017).
Higher levels of education are associated with high sensitivities to beach
litter just as older visitors are more sensitive to beach litter than younger
ones (Canosa et al., 2020). Similarly, high income levels are associated
I. Adam
with high concerns of beach litter while those located close to the beach
are also much concerned with beach litter (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto,
2020). Similarly, Second Home Owners/Users (SHOU) are found to
have higher perception of beach litter compared to other types of
tourists since they have high sense of place attachment than tourists
(Krelling et al., 2017).
Since beach litter influences the perception and satisfaction of beach
users, it has the potential to decrease tourists' patronage of beaches
hence resulting in loss of income and revenue to beach resorts and
communities (Leggett et al., 2014). However, such economic losses may
vary based on the magnitude of the beach litter and the extent to which
this influences the perception of the tourists. Nonetheless such economic
losses do not only relate to the costs involved in cleaning the beach but
also the reduction in visitor numbers with an associated reduction in
revenue to local government authorities and loss of income to busi­
nesses. Ultimately, beach litter influences the perceptions, satisfaction
and, for that matter, tourism demand with an overall effect of loss of
income and revenue to coastal economies (Leggett et al., 2014). Studies
in New Jersey and New York between 1987 and 1988 estimated the
mean potential losses of beach closures associated with marine debris to
be around US$1.1 billion (Ofiara and Brown, 1999). A similar study in
21 economies in the Asia Pacific region in 2008 estimated a loss of US
$622 million for the marine tourism industry as a result of marine litter
(McIlgorm et al., 2011). Others have observed that 97% of the Cape
Peninsula's (South Africa) beach visitors would avoid visiting if there
were more than 10 items of litter per square meter (Ballance et al.,
2000). In South Korea, the economic effects of marine debris are esti­
mated to be between US$29–37 million in 2011 and also led to a 63%
reduction in visitors to Geoje Islands (Jang et al., 2014). In Europe, the
cost of removal of plastic debris from coastlines is approximately €630
million each year (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP],
2018). Based on these consequences of beach litter, there is the need to
understand the willingness of tourists to participate in beach clean-ups
in order to broaden the scale of such clean-up activities.
2.2. Beach clean-ups
Beach clean-ups are designed and executed practical exercises meant
to remove litter from beaches (Rayon-Viña et al., 2019). Beach clean-ups
are organised as one of the numerous ways of reducing the amount of
marine litter (Rayon-Viña et al., 2019). Beach clean-ups are mostly
organised by local communities and pro-environmental organisations
with interests in reducing marine pollution (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto,
2020). These communities and organisations recruit local community
members who are willing to volunteer their time to remove beach litter.
Participants in beach clean-ups mostly pick up garbage left behind by
beach users or washed ashore by ocean currents from different parts of
the world, mostly hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they
are picked (Lavers and Bond, 2017). Due to the ever presence of beach
litter, beach clean-ups are undertaken at periodic intervals, often
repeated in accordance with the seasonal pattern of ocean currents and
beach litter accumulation (Rayon-Viña et al., 2019). Unlike the in­
stances of pro-environmental behaviours such as tree planting, waste
and energy reduction or community gardening (Fisher et al., 2015; Silva
and Krasny, 2016; Smith and Durham, 2016), beach clean-ups mainly
focus on the removal of undesirable materials from the coast. None­
theless, consistent with other pro-environmental actions, volunteers of
beach clean-ups provide alternative sustainable pathways for the future
(Gunderson et al., 2018). Through beach clean-ups, volunteers make
actual moral statements in terms of what a good beach should look like
and also the individual and collective responsibilities in ensuring that
beaches are kept clean of litter. In this vein, Ramkissoon et al. (2018)
observes that litter is presented as something that is morally discon­
certing and therefore a manifestation of the breakdown of civic duty.
Therefore, by undertaking beach clean-ups, volunteer beach cleaners
reiterate the civility in caring for the environment as a social and
3
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
ecological duty (Ramkissoon et al., 2018). Further, Douglas (2003) ar­
gues that beach clean-ups are purification rituals such that the removal
of beach litter restores the aesthetic beauty of beaches and ultimately
helps to improve on the coastal and marine environments.
Despite the growing acceptance and popularity of beach clean-ups, it
has been critiqued for shifting the “narrative of responsibilization”
(Braun and Traore, 2015, p.883) away from industry and governments
to consumers and civil society (Elmore, 2014). Thus, the framing of
beach clean-ups is such that it relies on the ethical viewpoint that con­
sumers are responsible for creating the litter and therefore must
contribute to dealing with it through beach clean-ups. While this may be
partly the case, it does not portray the entire picture and such narrative
neglects the role of government and industry in contributing to the
problem of beach of litter as well as their responsibility in dealing with
it. In this regard, Newman et al. (2015) argue that governments are
happy to promote beach clean-ups since they provide free labour in
place of instituting expensive measures to remove beach litter or
improving waste management. Also, Elmore (2014) and MacBride
(2011) describe how industry engage in greenwashing through their
marketing messages to define discussions on pollution by deemphasising
their role in the production of litter materials and emphasise the power
of social norms in promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Equally,
industry provides for beach clean-ups through partnerships with other
not-for profit organisations and civil society. For instance, Coca Cola is a
leading sponsor of the Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Clean-
up undertaken annually around the world (Rayon-Viña et al., 2019).
Therefore, beach clean-ups have been described as potential pathways of
redirecting civic drive from political action (Rayon-Viña et al., 2019)
instead of using same to create the avenue needed to hold governments
and industry responsible for beach litter. However, governments are
required to be at the forefront of helping to rid beaches of litter through
various programmes, policies, and legislations. Similarly, industry,
including businesses that cater for tourists at coastal destinations should
conceive and initiate beach clean-ups as part of their corporate social
responsibility to ensure that they regularly organise such clean-ups in
addition to directly taking responsibility for beach litter. These efforts
together with voluntary beach clean-ups have the tendency to create
short term impact in terms of helping to remove beach litter and help
nurture long term sustainable behaviour amongst consumers (Li and
Wu, 2019; Han, 2015).
2.3. Tourists' pro-environmental behaviour
Tourists' pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) has garnered research
interests as tourism researchers seek to demonstrate how tourists engage
in behaviour that are beneficial to the environment and resources upon
which tourism thrives (Ramkissoon et al., 2018). Pro-environmental
behaviour concerns it itself with acts that seek to minimise negative
consequences on the environment and/or enhance the environment
(Ramkissoon et al., 2018). Tourism occurs outside of one's home envi­
ronment and hence transient in nature. Nonetheless, tourists' PEB is an
important behaviour that improves the destinations' environmental
qualities and ultimately the experience of visitors (Li and Wu, 2019;
Han, 2015; Miao and Wei, 2013). As a result, some (see Li and Wu, 2019)
have described tourists' PEB as a form of altruistic behaviour in the sense
that it is undertaken for the welfare of the destination and other tourists
since tourists who engage in them usually sacrifice part of their holiday
time and comfort. Tourists who practice PEBs are genuinely concerned
about protecting the environment at the destinations they are visiting
and therefore help to avoid or curtail damages to the environment
(Dolnicar, 2010).
Though pro-environmental values as well as perception of environ­
mental degradation are perceived to encourage PEB amongst tourists, it
is equally the case that PEB is seen as possessing social attributes of
altruism and collective action (Steg and De Groot, 2010). In the transient
and unfamiliar tourism environment, the social attributes of altruism
I. Adam
and collective action are important features that can inform the design
and implementation of beach clean-ups in destinations. Indeed, while
altruism by itself is considered a value laden concept that is related to
PEB amongst tourists, tourists are sometimes lured into PEB by a sense of
moral obligation (Perkins and Brown, 2012). In this regard, Perkins and
Brown (2012) in their research on ‘true ecotourists’ indicate that self-
transcendence values are correlated with tourists' PEB intentions and
thus reinforcing the altruistic nature of PEB amongst tourists. Li and Wu
(2019) equally note that PEB is an altruistic behaviour guided by mo­
rality (and not rationality).
Other studies have detailed the role of individual level factors in
influencing tourists' PEB including socio-demographic characteristics,
and environmental knowledge (Zhao et al., 2018). In terms of envi­
ronmental knowledge, it is argued that tourists who are knowledgeable
on the environment do have interests in protecting and preserving it,
hence will have PEB tendencies (Li and Wu, 2020). On this score, Li and
Wu (2020) observe that tourists who reported high levels of knowledge
on the environment exhibited PEB during their stay at destinations while
those with low levels of environmental knowledge showed little or no
interest in PEB. Knowledge on the environment deepens the under­
standing of the tourists on the need to preserve the environment and as
such people with that kind of knowledge feel obligated to contribute
towards protecting and improving the environment. While this is so,
there is also evidence to suggest that high levels of environmental
knowledge have not always corresponded with PEB as knowledge does
not always translate into practice (Liu et al., 2020). Though the evidence
on the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on PEB are not
conclusive, some patterns are notable. This include the idea that females
are pro-environmental and therefore exhibit PEB tendencies than their
male counterparts (Sharma and Gupta, 2020). Even so, there have been
some contrary findings that make the evidence inconclusive. A similar
pattern relates to age, as there is mixed evidence on whether the elderly
or younger tourists exhibit PEBs. While some studies have suggested
younger people have PEB tendencies than older people, the general
ecotourism literature tends to suggest that older tourists are nature
lovers and harbour environmentally friendly behaviour than younger
tourists (Liu et al., 2020; Sharma and Gupta, 2020). Also, the level of
educational attainment is linked to environmental knowledge and
awareness and hence highly educated people are projected as being
more environmentally knowledgeable and aware compared to the less
educated. In support of this notion, the literature presents ecotourists as
those who are well educated (Dolnicar et al., 2019) further indicating
how education leads to PEB amongst tourists.
2.4. Theoretical framework
The tri-component attitude model is chosen to serve as the theoret­
ical foundation of this paper. The model elucidates the complex in­
teractions between the cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes.
The tri-component model proposes that behaviour is underpinned by the
socio-psychological interactions of cognitive and affective states of the
actor which ultimately intersect and determine behaviour that is
demonstrated by the individual (Tasci and Pizam, 2020). The cognitive
state relates to the knowledge and information that an individual pos­
sesses on a phenomenon or object (Agyeiwaah et al., 2021a). This results
in forming and shaping the individual's beliefs, opinions and experiences
towards that phenomenon or object (Tasci and Pizam, 2020). The af­
fective component describes the emotional state of the individual to­
wards that phenomenon or object, and it is in part shaped by that
person's cognition (Tasci and Pizam, 2020). The behavioural component
is the explicit action that the individual exhibits towards that phenom­
enon or object as driven by both the cognitive and affective states (Tasci
and Pizam, 2020). In relation to the current study, the relevance of the
tri-component attitude model is demonstrated by its ability to offer in­
sights into the pro-environmental behavioural intention of the tourists
as measured by their willingness to undertake beach clean-up based on
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
their cognitive and affective states on beach litter. Here, the position is
taken that tourists whose beliefs and opinions (cognitive states) suggest
that beach litter is bad for the environment and marine ecosystem in
general will have the tendency of harbouring negative feelings towards
beach litter and based on that will be inclined towards taking action to
rid the beaches of its litter. On the other hand, tourists who have
indifferent beliefs on beach litter or do not hold the opinion that it is bad
for the environment will harbour indifferent or positive feelings towards
it and for that matter will not be willing to take action to remove beach
litter from the beaches.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study area
Data were collected from three beaches in Accra and Cape Coast.
Both Accra and Cape Coast are two important coastal tourism cities in
Ghana. Accra and Cape Coast are part of Ghana's tourism golden triangle
– the three most important cities based on tourist arrivals and receipts.
In addition to being Ghana's capital, Accra is home to the country's only
international airport, and historical landmarks including Kwame Nkru­
mah Mausoleum, the National Art Centre, and the Independence Square
amongst others. These attractions coupled with the bustling night life in
Accra have endeared it to international tourists. Also, Accra is endowed
with some of the finest sandy beaches that provide tourists with the
avenue for leisure. For this study, two popular beaches amongst inter­
national tourists in Accra are selected, namely Labadi Beach and La
Pleasure Beach (GTA, 2019). Cape Coast is a coastal settlement that
serves as the capital city of the Central Region of Ghana. The city's main
attraction is the Cape Coast Castle (a remnant of the Trans-Atlantic Slave
Trade and a world heritage site). The city is also closely located to the
Elmina Castle (another remnant of the Slave Trade and a world heritage
site), and the Kakum National Park (the country's leading attraction in
terms of visitor numbers) which makes it an ideal location for tourists to
lodge and explore these attractions. The city is endowed with sandy
beaches, which are popular amongst tourists who visit these attractions.
For Cape Coast, the Oasis beach was selected for data collection due to
its popularity amongst international tourists who visit the city (GTA,
2019).
Indiscriminate littering behaviour remains one of the challenges
confronting Ghana as reflected in the beach litter situation in Accra and
Cape Coast (Adam et al., 2020). The country has poor waste manage­
ment system whiles attitude towards waste handling by residents is also
poor (Abrokwah et al., 2021). As a result, litter, particularly plastic
waste is ubiquitous in major cities (Abrokwah et al., 2021; Tsagbey
et al., 2009). In Accra and Cape Coast, these litter are either dumped
directly at the beach or transported through storm water drains to the
beach or through inland water bodies that empty into the sea (Van Dyck
et al., 2016; Tsagbey et al., 2009). The common types of litter include
pieces of fishing net, foam, single-use plastics (plastic bottles, straws,
stirrers, plastic carrier bags, plastic sachet water bags, plastic spoons and
plastic takeaway containers), footwear, cloth, charcoal, wood, and husk
of sugar cane and coconut (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). Plastic waste
remains a common sight at beaches in both cities, a situation under­
pinned by the everyday reliance on plastic products and lack of waste
management facilities (Abrokwah et al., 2021). For instance, only an
estimated 2% of plastic waste is recycled in Ghana with the remaining
98% finding its way into landfills, streets, drains and the ocean (Kortei
and Quansah, 2016). Fig. 1 is an exhibit of a beach in Accra littered with
plastic waste. Another notorious beach litter in some coastal commu­
nities in both cities includes faecal deposits, which frequently occur
when coastal residents defecate at the beaches, a situation necessitated
by lack of adequate toilet facilities (Nunoo and Evans, 2007). Based on
these beach litter conditions, there is the need to adopt various ap­
proaches to rid the beaches of litter including introducing and encour­
aging tourists to participate in beach clean-ups.
I. Adam
Fig. 1. A picture showing a polluted beach in a suburb of Accra.
3.2. Measurement instrument and items
Questionnaire was used to collect data from international tourists
who have visited the selected beaches. In line with the objectives of the
study, the questionnaire was designed to measure the perception of the
international tourists on beach litter, environmental values, their will­
ingness to participate in beach clean-up and their socio-demographic
and travel characteristics. Measurement items on the perception of the
tourists on beach litter were mined from previous studies (see Garcés-
Ordóñez et al., 2020; Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020; Hu et al., 2019;
Krelling et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2016; Parker
et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2005). Environmental values were captured
with items adopted from De Groot and Steg (2008) on three latent
variables, namely egoistic (value orientation that is concerned with the
personal costs and benefits of pro-environmental behaviour), altruism
(the value orientation that is based on the consideration for the costs and
benefits of pro-environmental behaviour to other people), and
biospheric (value orientation that is concerned with the costs and ben­
efits of pro-environmental behaviour for the sake of the ecosystem and
the biosphere as a whole). Tourists' perception on beach litter and
environmental values were measured on five-point Likert scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The willingness to participate
in beach clean-up as part of the holiday experience was measured with
three items with a dichotomous response format (yes/no). Though
behavioural intention may not translate into actual behaviour and thus
tourists' willingness to participate in beach clean-ups may not translate
into actual participation (McKercher and Tse, 2012), it has nevertheless
been used as an important measure of potential behaviour (McKercher
and Tse, 2012). The socio-demographic and travel characteristics
measured included sex, age, educational attainment, marital status,
monthly earnings, nationality, travel party status, travel party size,
purpose of visit to Ghana, repeat visit status, and number of repeat visits
to Ghana.
3.3. Data collection
Data were collected from international tourists who have visited
Ghana from 3rd November 2019 to 16th January 2020. It is important
note that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic did not influence the
data collection since the data collection ended far in advance before
Ghana recorded its first COVID-19 case in March 2020. The target
population for the data collection included all inbound tourists in Ghana
who have at least visited a beach or more including the current beach at
which they were intercepted for the data collection. This was to ensure
that they have a fair idea of the situation at beaches in Ghana, enough to
5
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
form a perception and also decide whether they are willing to participate
in beach clean-ups. Additionally, the inbound tourists should be able to
express himself/herself in English language to be considered part of the
target population. Consequently, the questionnaire contained filter
questions to ascertain the number of beaches the inbound tourist has
visited in Ghana, and whether he/she understands English language.
Next, tourists who have finished their stay at the beaches and were
existing were intercepted to be part of the study. The rationale of the
study was introduced to them after which their consent was sought.
Those who agreed to be part of the study were given paper copies of the
questionnaire to fill out. The data collection exercise was undertaken at
all three beaches concurrently. Over the period of the data collection,
712 questionnaires were filled out by the inbound tourists from all three
beaches but 685 were found useful for analysis based on completeness.
3.4. Data treatment and analyses
The data were analysed with the SPSS version 21. Three main sta­
tistical analytical techniques were used to analyse the data, namely the
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA),
and the binary logistic regression. However, the data were first assessed
for normality and found to be normally distributed as the values for both
skewness and kurtosis were below 3.0 and 7.0 respectively, as indicated
in Table 1 (Ribeiro et al., 2018). The EFA is used to assess the factorial
structure of the items used to measure perception, environmental values
and willingness to participate in beach clean-up amongst the inbound
tourists. The CFA is used to validate the factorial structure and mea­
surement validity of the measurement items on perception, environ­
mental values and willingness to participate in beach clean-up. Lastly
the binary logistic regression is used to examine the influence of socio-
demographic and travel characteristics, perception on beach litter and
environmental values on willingness to participate in beach clean-up.
The items on socio-demographic and travel characteristics are in cate­
gorical format and therefore found to be suitable for the binary logistic
regression (Pallant, 2005). Meanwhile, the items on perception and
environmental values were recoded from the original five-point scale to
a three-point scale. Here, the response categories of strongly agree and
agree were recoded as agree while those of strongly disagree and
disagree were recoded as disagree. The original midpoint was main­
tained. The recoding exercise was informed by the fact it did not lead to
loss in data quality but rather enhanced the presentation and interpre­
tation of the output (Amuquandoh, 2011). In line with the data re­
quirements of the binary logistic regression, the outcome variable
(willingness to participate in beach clean-up) was recoded into binary
format with a yes response which represents the willingness to engage in
the activity denoted by 1 (one) and a no response which meant the
unwillingness to participate in the activity denoted by 0 (zero) (Pallant,
2005).
4. Results
4.1. Profile of the respondents
The sample was slightly dominated by males (50.4%). Most of the
respondents were unmarried (60.9%). In terms of age, close to half
(43.9%) were aged between 21 and 30 years (Table 2), followed by those
between the age cohort of 31 to 40 years (31.1%). Meanwhile, almost
half of the tourists (45.1%) were senior high school graduates. A little
over half (50.7%) have a travel budget of between US$ 2100 to US$
3000. Regarding continent of origin, close to half (48.5%) originated
from Europe while about one-third (36.1%) came from North America.
These two continents are the two major source regions of Ghana's in­
bound market (Ghana Tourism Authority [GTA], 2019). About 61.1% of
the tourists travelled to Ghana in the company of others while 38.9%
travelled alone. About two-thirds (77.3%) of the respondents were first
time travellers to Ghana. The purpose of visit to Ghana was dominated
I. Adam Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591

Table 1 Table 2
Descriptive statistics on the measurement items. Socio-demographic and travel characteristics of the respondents (n = 685).
Perception/willingness % in Kurtosis Skewness Socio-demographics Frequency Percent
agreement
Sex
Perception Male 345 50.4
Beach litter is an ugly sight 88.1 − 0.17 − 0.69 Female 340 49.6
Beach litter destroys the beauty of the 81.8 − 0.10 − 0.99 Marital status
beaches Unmarried 417 60.9
Beach litter make the beach unattractive 82.7 − 0.05 − 0.56 Married 268 39.1
Beach litter is harmful to beach users 78.3 − 1.42 1.21 Age (years)
Beach litter can cause injury to beach 75.6 − 0.97 0.88 ≤20 54 7.9
users 21–30 301 43.9
Beach users can be taken ill when they 72.5 − 0.98 1.01 31–40 213 31.1
use beaches with litter 41–50 70 10.2
Beach litter is a dent on water quality 79.3 − 0.72 − 0.67 ≥51 47 6.9
Beach litter destroys the marine 80.2 − 0.94 − 0.91 Educational attainment
environment Senior High School 309 45.1
Beach litter destroys the quality beach 74.5 − 0.56 − 0.39 Undergraduate 249 36.4
sand Postgraduate 127 18.5
Beach litter make difficult to undertake 88.3 − 0.88 − 0.38 Travel budget (US$)
any activity at the beach ≤2000 199 29.0
Beach litter make it difficult to have fun 86.7 0.21 − 1.02 2001–3000 347 50.7
at the beach 3001–4000 71 10.4
Beach litter restricts the kind of activities 89.1 0.19 − 1.19 4001–5000 40 5.9
that can be undertaken at the beach 5001+ 28 4.0
Beach litter reduces the desire for any 85.5 0.16 − 1.30 Continent of origin
activity at the beach Africa 70 10.2
Environmental values Europe 332 48.5
I value having control over others 51.2 0.34 1.21 North America 247 36.1
I value having material possessions 68.9 0.76 0.78 Asia 36 5.2
I value the idea that I have the right to 70.2 0.88 0.98 Travel party status
lead or command Alone 266 38.9
I value having an impact on people and 70.2 1.04 1.02 In company 419 61.1
events Repeat visit status
I value having equal opportunity for all 90.1 1.01 − 0.47 First time visitor 530 77.3
I value a world free of war and conflict 94.3 1.22 − 1.65 Repeat visitor 155 22.7
I cherish correcting injustice/care for the 88.3 0.89 − 1.33 Purpose of visit
weak Leisure 488 71.2
I cherish working for the welfare of 81.2 0.54 1.07 Business 62 9.0
others Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) 135 19.8
I value protecting natural resources 79.4 0.79 0.45
I value harmony with other species 74.5 0.88 0.33
I cherish having values that are fitting 69.6 0.94 0.69 beauty of beaches and beach litter is unattractive. Regarding perception
with nature on health of beach users, the specific items include beach litter is
I value preserving nature 75.6 1.08 0.56
Willingness to participate in beach clean-
harmful to beach users, beach litter causes injury to beach users and
up beach users can be taken ill when they use beaches with litter. For
I am willing to participate in beach 77.6 0.14 − 1.02 perception on environment, the international tourists were of the view
clean-up as part of activities at the beach that beach litter is a dent on water quality, beach litter destroys the
I don't mind spending part of my time at 76.4 − 0.96 − 1.02
marine environment, and beach litter destroys the quality of the beach
the beach to clean it up
I am willing to participate in cleaning 77.1 0.101 0.55 sand. On perception about recreational activity participation, the in­
the beach anytime I visit ternational tourists viewed beach litter as making it difficult to under­
take any activity at the beach, beach litter makes it difficult to have fun
at the beach, beach litter restricts the kind of activities that can be un­
by leisure (71.2%), followed by visiting friends and relatives VFR dertaken at the beach and beach litter reduces the desire for any activity
(19.8%) and business (9.0%). (Table 3). As shown in Table 3, all the items making up each of the four
dimensions of international tourists' perception on beach litter are
negative hence suggesting that the international tourists have negative
4.2. Exploratory and confirmatory analysis
perception on beach litter. Further, the EFA results show that there are
three dimensions of environmental values amongst the international
The EFA was conducted using the Varimax rotation with Kaiser
tourists including egoistic environmental orientation, altruistic envi­
normalisation as a data reduction technique meant to weave out
ronmental orientation and biospheric environmental orientation
redundant measures from the items used to measure perception on
(Table 3) while willingness to participate in beach clean-up is single-
beach litter, environmental values and willingness to participate in
dimensional.
beach clean-up (Table 3). Therefore, all the items used to measure these
Consequently, the CFA was performed on the data to assess the
constructs were subjected to the EFA. The results of the analysis sug­
factorial and measurement validity of the observed variables consti­
gested that the items loaded well onto their respective constructs and
tuting perception on beach litter, environmental value and willingness
with higher loadings of >0.70. In specific terms, the EFA results show
to participate in beach clean-up using AMOS. The model fit indices
that there are four dimensions of perception on beach litter amongst the
(χ2(451) = 714.41; GFI = 0.892; CFI = 0.953; IFI = 0.954; RMSEA =
international tourists (Table 3), namely perception on aesthetics of the
0.045) indicate that the data fitted the CFA model. The output of the
beach, perception on health of beach users, perception on the environ­
confirmatory analysis as contained in Table 3 show that convergent
ment of the beach and perception on recreational activity participation
validity of the indicator items was achieved as all the standardised
at the beach. In terms of perception on the aesthetics of the beach, items
loadings were higher than the minimum threshold of 0.50 and
that loaded include beach litter is an ugly sight, beach litter destroys the

6
I. Adam Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591

Table 3
EFA and CFA on measurement indicators.
Factor/variable EFA loadings CFA Cronbach α

Standardised coefficient Critical ratio CR AVE

Perception on aesthetic 0.918 0.788 0.933

Beach litter is an ugly sight 0.892 0.881 21.349**
Beach litter destroys the beauty of the beaches 0.874 0.887 22.026**
Beach litter make the beach unattractive 0.873 0.895 23.181**
Perception on health 0.912 0.776 0.912
Beach litter is harmful to beach users 0.898 0.888 22.712**
Beach litter can cause injury to beach users 0.878 0.869 20.213**
Beach users can be taken ill when they use beaches with litter 0.823 0.886 22.478**
Perception on environment 0.884 0.717 0.889
Beach litter is a dent on water quality 0.877 0.801 19.111**
Beach litter destroys the marine environment 0.838 0.865 20.291**
Beach litter destroys the quality beach sand 0.824 0.873 22.128**
Perception on activity participation 0.911 0.720 0.885
Beach litter make difficult to undertake any activity at the beach 0.887 0.817 19.222**
Beach litter make it difficult to have fun at the beach 0.878 0.887 23.198**
Beach litter restricts the kind of activities that can be undertaken at the beach 0.899 0.867 21.327**
Beach litter reduces the desire for any activity at the beach 0.803 0.822 20.014**
Egoistic value 0.928 0.764 0.813
I value having control over others 0.899 0.877 22.04**
I value having material possessions 0.876 0.868 22.011**
I value the idea that I have the right to lead or command 0.841 0.892 23.343**
I value having an impact on people and events 0.712 0.858 21.764**
Altruistic value 0.926 0.759 0.849
I value having equal opportunity for all 0.864 0.883 22.869**
I value a world free of war and conflict 0.877 0.898 24.013**
I cherish correcting injustice/care for the weak 0.898 0.848 20.622**
I cherish working for the welfare of others 0.827 0.854 22.878**
Biospheric value 0.941 0.799 0.871
I value protecting natural resources 0.898 0.899 24.216**
I value harmony with other species 0.888 0.897 24.031**
I cherish having values that are fitting with nature 0.897 0.877 23.211**
I value preserving nature 0.907 0.903 24.896**
Willingness to undertake beach clean-up 0.916 0.786 0.846
I am willing to participate in beach clean-up as part of activities at the beach 0.901 0.895 23.731**
I don't mind spending part of my time at the beach to clean it up 0.861 0.956 26.988*
I am willing to participate in cleaning the beach anytime I visit 0.887 0.802 19.005**

Note: ** significant at ρ≤0.010; * significant at ρ≤0.050.

statistically significant (ρ < 0.010) (Hair et al., 2014). Also, the AVEs of
each of the latent variables were more than the required minimum
threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity of
the items was assessed and found to have been met since all the latent
variables correlated higher than the square root of their respective AVEs
(Table 4). This indicates that each latent variable shared more variance
with its items than with other latent variables. Therefore, the CFA
confirmed that there are four negative perception of beach litter, three
dimensions of environmental value and one dimension of willingness to
participate in beach clean-up.
and confidentiality and also highlighted that there were no right or
wrong answers during the data collection (Fuller et al., 2016). In addi­
tion to this, Harman's single factor test was conducted on the data to
ascertain whether the data were affected by CMB (Fuller et al., 2016).
The results show that all the measurement items loaded onto single
unrotated explanatory factor in the EFA while the highest variance
explained by a single factor is 33.6% hence confirming that the data are
not prone to CMB.
4.4. Determinants of willingness to participate in beach clean-up

4.3. Common Method Bias
Owing to the scaled nature of the measurement items, an additional
examination was conducted to check for Common Method Bias (CMB) in
the data. In this regard, the respondents were assured of their anonymity
The binary logistic regression was performed to assess the influence
of socio-demographic and travel characteristics, perception on beach
litter and environmental values on willingness to participate in beach
clean-up. The model fit indices show that the model is a good predictor
of willingness to participate in beach clean-up amongst the international

Table 4
Discriminant validity.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Perception on aesthetic 0.887

2. Perception on health 0.351 0.881
3. Perception on environment 0.342 0.331 0.847
4. Perception on activity participation 0.273 0.144 0.351 0.849
5. Egoistic value 0.233 0.212 0.156 0.237 0.874
6. Altruistic value 0.109 0.151 0.324 0.222 0.328 0.871
7. Biospheric value 0.261 0.264 0.106 0.264 0.186 0.331 0.894
8. Willingness to undertake beach clean-up 0.201 0.183 0.328 0.369 0.177 0.312 0.290 0.886

The bold figures represent the square root of the average variance extracted for each latent variable. All correlations are significant at the p < 0.001 level.

7
I. Adam Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591

tourists. Both the Omnibus Test of Model Coefficient (χ2(27) = 258.52; p Table 5
= 0.000) and the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (χ2(12) = 14.91; p = 0.103) Binary logistic output on the predictors of willingness to participate in beach
indicate that the data is suitable for a binary logistic regression and the clean-up.
model is a good predictor of the outcome variable (Pallant, 2005). The Demographic/travel variable Odds Std error Z-stat p value
output of the model is presented in Table 5. Sex
The predictor variables: socio-demographic and travel characteris­ Male (RC)
tics, perception on beach litter and environmental values explained Female 5.55 2.86 3.29 0.001**
42.9% of the total variance in willingness to participate in beach clean- Marital status
Married (RC)
up. Seven of the predictor variables including sex, age, educational
Unmarried 1.55 0.64 1.11 0.259
attainment, continent of origin, travel party status, environmental value, Age (years)
and perception on beach litter were significant in their contribution to ≤20 (RC)
the outcome variable (Table 5). For sex, female tourists were 5.6 times 21–30 0.82 1.03 0.16 0.875
more willing to participate in beach clean-up compared to their male 31–40 0.39 0.48 0.77 0.443
41–50 4.96 2.28 3.05 0.004**
counterparts. The results further show that older tourists in the age ≥51 5.46 2.03 3.14 0.002**
cohort of 41 to 50 years and 51 years and above were 5 times and 5.5 Educational attainment
times more willing to undertake beach clean-up respectively as Senior High School (RC)
compared to younger tourists aged 20 years or less. In terms of educa­ Undergraduate 4.50 2.32 3.95 0.003**
Postgraduate 4.42 2.11 3.95 0.003**
tion, the findings indicate that tourists with undergraduate (4.5 times)
Travel budget
and postgraduate (4.4 times) degrees were more willing to participate in ≤1000 (RC)
beach clean-up than those with senior high school qualification. On 1001–2000 0.79 0.23 1.37 0.161
continent of origin, it emerged that European tourists have the highest 2001–3000 0.33 0.21 1.06 0.122
willingness as they were 3.2 times likely to engage in beach clean-up 3001–4000 1.08 0.44 1.13 0.103
4001+ 1.03 0.54 1.18 0.106
than their counterparts from Australia. This is followed by North
Continent of origin
American tourists who were 2.4 times likely to undertake beach clean- Africa 1.23 1.12 1.07 0.879
up (Table 5). Further, tourists who travelled to Ghana alone were 3.6 Europe 3.24 1.25 2.26 0.005**
times willing to undertake beach clean-up when compared with those North America 2.38 1.02 2.07 0.010*
Australia (RC)
who travelled to Ghana in the company of others. While environmental
Travel party status
value is a significant predictor of willingness to participate in beach Alone 3.57 1.01 2.11 0.012*
clean-up, it is only tourists with biospheric orientation who were about 9 In company (RC)
times willing to undertake beach clean-up. In terms of perception on Repeat visit status
beach litter, the results show that tourists who thought beach litter First time visitor 0.87 0.68 0.85 0.581
Repeat visitor (RC)
affected their ability to engage in recreational activities at the beach
Purpose of visit
have the highest willingness (5.78 times) to participate in beach clean- Leisure 1.02 0.89 1.02 0.678
up, followed by those who perceived beach litter as derailing the aes­ Business 1.07 0.92 1.06 0.671
thetics of the beach (3.21 times). VFR (RC)
Environmental value
Egoistic orientation
5. Discussion Agreed 0.89 0.69 0.88 0.583
Uncertain 0.76 0.61 0.75 0.545
Beach clean-up has for long been couched as one of the solutions to Disagreed (RC)
riding beaches and the marine environment in general of litter (Rayon- Altruistic orientation
Agreed 0.96 0.53 1.19 0.528
Viña et al., 2019; Wyles et al., 2017). In line with this perspective, beach Uncertain 0.97 0.75 0.93 0.593
clean-ups are promoted and undertaken around the world as exercises Disagreed (RC)
that help to collect tonnes of beach litter (Wyles et al., 2017). None­ Biospheric orientation
theless, beach clean-ups are mostly promoted amongst and undertaken Agreed 8.64 5.96 4.34 0.001**
Uncertain 0.71 0.58 0.65 0.674
by residents of coastal areas and therefore neglect the potential of one
Disagreed (RC)
key stakeholder, tourists, from participating in such exercises even Perception on beach litter
though they are both polluters of the beach and beneficiaries of beach Perception on health
clean-ups. Accordingly, research interests on beach clean-ups have Agreed 0.99 0.99 0.88 0.764
focused on residents and resident beach goers rather than tourists, Uncertain 0.98 0.91 0.95 0.662
Disagreed (RC)
especially international tourists and therefore have resulted in the Aesthetic perception
paucity of knowledge on international tourists' perception of beach litter Agreed 3.21 1.67 2.67 0.002**
and their willingness to participate in beach clean-ups. This study fills Uncertain 0.83 0.65 0.74 0.533
this knowledge gap by examining the perception of international tour­ Disagreed (RC)
Perception on environment
ists on beach litter, their willingness to participate in beach clean-up and
Agreed 1.04 0.89 1.01 0.912
the determinants of their willingness to participate in beach clean-ups. Uncertain 1.01 0.91 1.02 0.981
Consequently, this study contributes to the literature by indicating Disagreed (RC)
that international tourists have four negative domains of perception on Perception on activity participation
beach litter, namely perception of beach litter on the aesthetic value of Agreed 5.78 3.02 3.01 0.003**
Uncertain 1.02 0.98 1.01 0.983
the beach, environment of the beach, on recreational activity partici­ Disagreed (RC)
pation and the health of beach users. While there are studies cataloguing Constant 0.06 0.10 1.59 0.049
the perception of beach users on beach litter (see Lucrezi and Digun-
Note: ** significant at ρ ≤ 0.010; *significant at ρ ≤ 0.050; R2 = 0.389.
Aweto, 2020; Rayon-Viña et al., 2019; Wyles et al., 2017), such
studies are focused on resident beach users and therefore unable to
crystallise these perceptions amongst international tourists even though
they remain important stakeholders in beach usage and beach clean-ups.
Therefore, this study gives clarity on the various domains of perceptions

8
I. Adam
of beach litter amongst international tourists. Further, the study shows
that the international tourists are willing to participate in beach clean-
ups. This is contrary to the popular notion that tourists who visit the
beach are mostly leisure seeking and therefore not prepared to spare
time to engage in pro-environmental behaviour aside from having fun
(Dodds and Holmes, 2019; Petch et al., 2018; McKenna et al., 2011).
Indeed, international tourists who visit beaches are portrayed as having
traits of mass tourists who are mainly motivated by the desire to have
fun without recourse to the consequences of their actions on the envi­
ronment and have no desire to help protect the coastal environment
(McKenna et al., 2011). The revelation in this study indicates that, some
of the international tourists, specially female, highly educated, older,
European and North American tourists as well as those who travelled
alone, those with biospheric orientation and those who think beach litter
negatively affect the aesthetic value of beaches and recreational activ­
ities have pro-environmental inclinations.
Further, the findings of this study revealed that sex, age, educational
attainment, continent of origin, travel party status, perception on beach
litter and environmental value are determinants of international tourists'
willingness to undertake beach clean-up. Regarding sex, the results
revealed that female international tourists were about six times willing
to undertake beach clean-up compared to their male counterparts. The
literature has linked higher pro-environmental behaviour to females
than males (Desrochers et al., 2019; Tonglet et al., 2004). Females have
been found to desire connection with nature and enjoy the sense of se­
renity and orderliness that clean and tidy environments offer (Des­
rochers et al., 2019), hence their high inclination towards participating
in beach clean-ups than their male counterparts.
The study reveals that older tourists have higher probability of
participating in beach clean-up than younger tourists. Generally, tour­
ists' pro-environmental behaviours have been linked to age (Gifford &
Nilsson, 2014; Chen et al., 2011). While younger tourists are mostly
projected as being exuberant and driven by the desire to satisfy their
travel adventures regardless of the consequences on the environment,
older tourists are linked with reflective, environmentally conscious, and
sustainable behaviours (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Chen et al., 2011).
Younger tourists mostly exhibit carefree attitudes towards the environ­
ment as their main preoccupation is about exploring themselves and
maximising their holiday experience (Li and Wu, 2020; Han et al.,
2018). In the case of this study, it is possible that the experience of the
older tourists with regards to their travels and witnessing at first-hand
the destructive nature of human behaviour on the environment
including the marine environment may have contributed to their higher
willingness to participate in beach clean-up. Fransson and Gärling
(1999) further explain that older tourists are much exposed to pro-
environmental campaigns or media related content and therefore have
higher inclination towards pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore,
older tourists captured in this study might view the opportunity to
engage in beach clean-up as a means of restoring the integrity of the
coastal environment.
Meanwhile, the finding indicating that the highly educated (bachelor
and post graduate degree holders) have high probability of engaging in
beach clean-up than high school graduates is in consonance with the
literature on pro-environmental behaviour amongst tourists (Vicente-
Molina et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2011). Previous research has established
that highly educated tourists are more conscious of their actions on the
environment and thus exhibit sustainable environmental behaviour
(Ramkissoon et al., 2013). In this regard, Ramkissoon et al. (2013) are of
the view that educated tourists are exposed and informed on the need to
safeguard the environment as well as the potential consequences of
neglecting the effects of their actions on the environment. As a result,
educated tourists are environmentally aware and sensitive and are not
only conscious of their behaviour on the environment but willing to
participate in pro-environmental behaviour meant to preserve and
conserve the environment (Vicente-Molina et al., 2018; Ramkissoon
et al., 2013). Therefore, tourists with bachelor and postgraduate
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
qualifications can be argued to be well informed of the potential benefits
of their participation in beach cleaning exercises, hence their willingness
to engage in such an endeavour. By undertaking beach clean-up, they
hope to protect the marine ecosystem (Lucrezi and Digun-Aweto, 2020).
Regarding continent of origin, the finding of the study indicates that
European and North American tourists have higher odds of engaging in
beach clean-up as part of their visits to the beach. This finding could be
explained in the context of the type of tourists that visit Ghana from the
various continents as captured in this study. Different tourist segments
have been found to possess different and varying degrees of pro-
environmental behaviour hence depending on the type of tourists that
visit a destination from a certain source region, they are likely to
demonstrate different levels of pro-environmental behaviours (Dolnicar
et al., 2019; Dolnicar, 2010). Most of the tourists who visit Ghana from
Europe and North America are backpackers (Ghana Tourism Authority
[GTA], 2019) who are generally environmentally conscious and tend to
exhibit environmentally sustainable behaviour (Adam et al., 2021;
Agyeiwaah et al., 2021b) while those who visit Ghana from other parts
of Africa and Australia are mostly mainstream leisure tourists hence not
as concerned with the environment as backpackers (GTA, 2019).
Consequently, it is not surprising that tourists who visit Ghana from
Europe and North America, majority of whom are backpackers have
higher probability of engaging in beach clean-up (pro-environmental
behaviour) than those from other parts of Africa and Australia who are
mainly mainstream leisure tourists without greater concern for the
environment (GTA, 2019).
Additional finding points to the fact that tourists who travelled alone
have higher probability of engaging in beach clean-up as compared to
those who travelled in the company of others. This finding could be
explained by the idea that tourists who travel alone can individually
decide the direction of their holidays at any point in time without having
to worry about how their decision might be received or affect someone
they are travelling with. On this score, tourists who travel alone can
decide to spend part of their time at the beach to undertake beach clean-
up without having to worry about how this might fit into the interest of
their travel partner(s) and whether they may approve of such behaviour.
Equally, they are not influenced by the interest of their partner(s) since
they have none. Further, tourists who travel alone may be confronted
with boredom as they may lack the needed travel party and hence could
volunteer to participate in beach clean-up in order to make up for the
boredom and thereby enhance their holiday experience.
The finding that reveals that tourists with biospheric environmental
orientation have high likelihood of undertaking beach clean-up can be
explained within the context of their environmental value. People with
biospheric environmental orientation hold the environment dear and
are guided by the desire to protect, preserve and improve the environ­
ment (Nguyen et al., 2016). They act in ways that inure to the benefit of
the environment (Nguyen et al., 2016). Therefore, tourists who sub­
scribe to the biospheric environmental orientation will act in a pro-
environmental manner hence their desire to undertake beach clean-up
as part of their holiday experience. Such tourists will have their entire
holiday trip undertaken with the utmost concern for the environment
and see their holiday as a way of helping to protect and preserve the
environment.
Lastly, the study reveals that tourists who perceived beach litter to
have detrimental effects on their ability to engage in recreational ac­
tivities and those who perceived beach litter as being aesthetically
damaging have higher tendencies of engaging in beach clean-up than
others with other types of perception. With regards to these findings,
tourists who visit the beach do so with the aim of enjoying themselves by
engaging in beach-based recreational activities. Activities such as
sunbathing, beach volleyball, beach football, swimming amongst others
are popular with tourists and all beach goers when they visit most
Ghanaian beaches. Consequently, these activities are popular attractions
for tourists who visit the beaches and hence would be concerned about
any kind of beach litter than thwarts their ability to engage in these
I. Adam
activities or enjoy them to the fullest. Ultimately, tourists who feel un­
able to undertake recreational activities as a result of beach litter may be
willing to undertake beach clean-up to remove the litter in order to make
it possible to undertake such activities in future. Also, tourists visit
beaches to enjoy the aesthetic beauty and hence once they perceive
beach litter as interfering and destroying the beauty of such beaches,
they may be inclined to undertake beach clean-up to help rid the beaches
of the filth and restore its beauty.
6. Conclusions
In line with the findings of this study, the following conclusions are
drawn. It is concluded that there are four negative dimensions of tour­
ists' perception of beach litter which are centred on their perception on
its effects on the beach environment, on recreational activity partici­
pation, effects on the aesthetics of the beach, and on the health of beach
goers. Mainly, these perceptions are negative and therefore tourists
perceive beach litter from the perspective of its negative consequences
along these four dimensions. Further, it is concluded that some of the
tourists are willing to participate in beach clean-up during their visit to
the beach. This conclusion illuminates the idea that though tourists who
visit the beaches may be driven by the desire for leisure, they are equally
pro-environmental in their behaviour and therefore are willing to
engage in activities such as beach clean-up to safeguard the integrity of
the coastal environment. In this vein, the point is made that not all beach
visitors fit the typical leisure-seeking tourist description of being purely
motivated by the desire for fun without having regard for the environ­
ment. Additionally, it is concluded that socio-demographic and travel
characteristics of tourists such as sex, age, educational attainment,
continent of origin, travel party status as well as tourists' environmental
value, and their perception on beach litter are determinants of their
willingness to participate in beach clean-up. In terms of the socio-
demographic and travel characteristics, female tourists, those aged 41
years and above, tourists with bachelor and postgraduate degrees, those
from Europe and North America, and those who travelled alone have
higher tendencies of participating in beach clean-up. Also, tourists with
biospheric environmental orientation and those who perceive beach
litter as interfering with their recreational activity participation as well
as those who perceive beach litter as destroying the beauty of the bea­
ches are more likely to engage in beach clean-up exercises.
7. Implications for costal tourism management
Based on the findings made in this study and the ensuing conclusions
that have been drawn, the following implications are discussed to help
improve coastal tourism management. First, the findings on the
perception of international tourists on beach litter implies that coastal
destinations must institute coastal sanitation policies that will help
prevent or minimise beach litter on their coasts. As revealed in the study,
all the four domains of perception are negative and therefore could
negatively impact patronage if unchecked by coastal tourism managers.
Measures such as insisting on cleanliness of beaches by resort operators
or the situation where operators of beach resorts are levied to clean the
beach is necessary to improve beach sanitation in order to improve
tourists' perception of Ghanaian beaches.
Second, the finding related to the willingness of the tourists to un­
dertake beach clean-up can also be a pointer to beach resort managers
and coastal tourism destination managers to design interactive beach
cleaning exercises that will afford international tourists the opportunity
to undertake beach clean-up. Here, such activities can be designed to be
educational such that while tourists are engaged in collecting litter, they
will at the same time be learning about the environment and how such
littering occurs and can be avoided. Also, the beach clean-up programme
can be designed to afford the tourists the opportunity to interact
amongst themselves and with resident beach clean-up volunteers. By so
doing, the tourists will get the opportunity to interact with other tourists
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
and also with residents and in the process learn about the local culture
and also socialise. Such experiential beach clean-up exercise will not
only bring both locals and tourists together but also afford the tourists
the opportunity further their holiday experience by interacting and
sharing ideas and culture with the locals.
Regarding first time visitors (tourists who visit once), they can be
engaged to undertake beach clean-ups by coastal beach resorts and
coastal destinations by making these activities an aspect of their product
offerings at the beaches. Once such activities are packaged and pre­
sented as part of the holiday offerings at coastal destinations, it can be
made known to first time visitors, particularly those with biospheric
orientation. The opportunity to engage in beach clean-up with local
residents and therefore interact and learn from the locals may entice
them to revisit in future in order to re-engage. Similarly, the institu­
tionalisation and regularisation of such experience-based beach clean-
ups as part of the coastal tourism activities, will have the ripple effect
of enticing local residents and domestic tourists to also engage in such
activities since they will also have the opportunity to interact with the
international tourists. By seeing international tourists engage in such
activities, it will motivate and entice residents and domestic tourists to
also engage in beach clean-ups which will ultimately increase the
number and scale of beach clean-ups in Ghana. Therefore, such beach
clean-ups should be planned as all year round activities such that during
the peak seasons, international tourists together with the local residents
will have the opportunity to engage in them while the local residents or
domestic tourists will be relied on during the off-peak season.
Though there is a gap between behavioural intention and actual
behaviour, this gap can be bridged by first making available the op­
portunity to engage in beach clean-up and second by continuous
awareness creation. Such awareness creation program can be fused into
visitor information services and captured in marketing campaigns of
individual beach resorts and coastal destinations. These efforts will help
to ensure that beaches are clean with the effect of attracting more rec­
reational beach users, increase coastal tourism revenue, and protect and
preserve the marine ecosystem.
Third and lastly, the findings on the influence of socio-demographic
and travel characteristics as well as environmental values and percep­
tion of beach litter on willingness to participate in beach clean-up im­
plies that beach clean-up exercises should be targeted at tourists based
on these characteristics in order to maximise participation and its sus­
tainability. Thus, beach clean-up exercises should be designed to suit the
needs of female, older, well-educated, and solo travellers, those from
Europe and North America, and pro-environmentalists. Similarly, beach
clean-up exercises can also be publicised by beach resorts and coastal
tourism destination managers to tourists with these characteristics in
order to energise them to participate in beach clean-ups.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Issahaku Adam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Project administration,
Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Abrokwah, S., Ekumah, B., Adade, R., Akuoko, I.S.G., 2021. Drivers of single-use plastic
waste generation: lessons from packaged water consumers in Ghana. GeoJournal.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10390-w.
Adam, I., Walker, T.R., Bezerra, J.C., Clayton, A., 2020. Policies to reduce single-use
plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar. Policy 116, 103928.
I. Adam
Adam, I., Agyeiwaah, E., Dayour, F., 2021. Understanding the social identity,
motivations, and sustainable behaviour among backpackers: a clustering approach.
J. Travel Tour. Mark. 38 (2), 139–154.
Agyeiwaah, E., Adam, I., Dayour, F., Badu Baiden, F., 2021a. Perceived impacts of
COVID-19 on risk perceptions, emotions, and travel intentions: evidence from Macau
higher educational institutions. Tour. Recreat. Res. 1–17.
Agyeiwaah, E., Dayour, F., Otoo, F.E., Goh, B., 2021b. Understanding backpacker
sustainable behavior using the tri-component attitude model. J. Sustain. Tour. 29
(7), 1193–1214.
Ambrose, K.K., Box, C., Boxall, J., Brooks, A., Eriksen, M., Fabres, J., Walker, T.R., 2019.
Spatial trends and drivers of marine debris accumulation on shorelines in South
Eleuthera, The Bahamas using citizen science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 145–154.
Amuquandoh, F.E., 2011. International tourists’ concerns about traditional foods in
Ghana. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 18 (1), 1–9.
Asensio-Montesinos, F., Anfuso, G., Williams, A.T., 2019. Beach litter distribution along
the western Mediterranean coast of Spain. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 119–126.
Ballance, A., Ryan, P.G., Turpie, J.K., 2000. How much is a clean beach worth? The
impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 96
(5), 210–230.
Bezerra, J.C., Walker, T.R., Clayton, C.A., Adam, I., 2021. Single-use plastic bag policies
in the southern African development community. Environ. Chall. 100029.
Blakemore, F., Williams, A., 2008. British tourists' valuation of a Turkish beach using
contingent valuation and travel cost methods. J. Coast. Res. 24 (6 (246)),
1469–1480.
Bouwman, H., Evans, S.W., Cole, N., Yive, N.S.C.K., Kylin, H., 2016. The flip-or-flop
boutique: marine debris on the shores of St Brandon’s rock, an isolated tropical atoll
in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 114, 58–64.
Braun, Y.A., Traore, A.S., 2015. Plastic bags, pollution, and identity: women and the
gendering of globalization and environmental responsibility in Mali. Gend. Soc. 29
(6), 863–887.
Campbell, M.L., Slavin, C., Grage, A., Kinslow, A., 2016. Human health impacts from
litter on beaches and associated perceptions: a case study of ‘clean’ Tasmanian
beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 126, 22–30.
Canosa, A., Graham, A., Wilson, E., 2020. Growing up in a tourist destination: developing
an environmental sensitivity. Environ. Educ. Res. 26 (7), 1027–1042.
Cervantes, O., Espejel, I., 2008. Design of an integrated evaluation index for recreational
beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51 (5), 410–419.
Chen, X., Peterson, M., Hull, V., Lu, C., Lee, G.D., Hong, D., Liu, J., 2011. Effects
ofattitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in
urban China. Environmental Conservation 38 (1), 45–52.
De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to
environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and
biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40 (3), 330–354.
Desrochers, J.E., Albert, G., Milfont, T.L., Kelly, B., Arnocky, S., 2019. Does personality
mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism? Personal. Individ.
Differ. 147, 204–213.
Dodds, R., Holmes, M.R., 2019. Beach tourists; what factors satisfy them and drive them
to return. Ocean Coast. Manag. 168, 158–166.
Dolnicar, S., 2010. Identifying tourists with smaller environmental footprints. J. Sustain.
Tour. 18 (6), 717–734.
Dolnicar, S., Knezevic Cvelbar, L., Grün, B., 2019. A sharing-based approach to enticing
tourists to behave more environmentally friendly. J. Travel Res. 58 (2), 241–252.
Douglas, M., 2003. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
Routledge, London.
Elmore, B.J., 2014. Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism. WW Norton &
Company, New York.
Fisher, D., Svendsen, E., Connolly, J., 2015. Urban Environmental Stewardship and Civic
Engagement: How Planting Trees Strengthens the Roots of Democracy. Routledge,
London.
Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, S., 2017. Tourism: Principles and Practice.
Pearson, London.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los
Angeles, CA.
Fransson, N., Gärling, T., 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions,
measurement methods, and research findings. J. Environ. Psych. 19 (4), 369–382.
Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., Babin, B.J., 2016. Common methods
variance detection in business research. J. Bus. Res. 69 (8), 3192–3198.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Díaz, L.F.E., Cardoso, R.P., Muniz, M.C., 2020. The impact of
tourism on marine litter pollution on Santa Marta beaches, Colombian Caribbean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111558.
Ghana Tourism Authority [GTA], 2019. Ghana’s Tourism Potential. Ghana Tourism
Authority, Accra.
Gifford, R., Nilsson, A., 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-
environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Inter. J. Psych. 49 (3), 141–157.
Gunderson, L., Pierce, E.W., Krasny, M.E., 2018. Adaptive management, adaptive
governance, and civic ecology. In: Grassroots to Global: Broader Impacts of Civic
Ecology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 157–176.
Hair, J.F., Gabriel, M., Patel, V., 2014. AMOS covariance-based structural equation
modeling (CB-SEM): guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Braz.
J. Mark. 13 (2), 44–55.
Han, H., 2015. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context:
converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour.
Manag. 47 (164), 177.
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
Han, H., Yu, J., Kim, H.C., Kim, W., 2018. Impact of social/personal norms and
willingness to sacrifice on young vacationers’ pro-environmental intentions for
waste reduction and recycling. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (12), 2117–2133.
Hu, H., Zhang, J., Wang, C., Yu, P., Chu, G., 2019. What influences tourists’ intention to
participate in the Zero Litter Initiative in mountainous tourism areas: a case study of
Huangshan National Park, China. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1127–1137.
Jang, Y.C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M.J., Shim, W.J., 2014. Estimation of lost tourism
revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81 (1), 49–54.
Kortei, N.K., Quansah, L., 2016. Ghana news: Plastic Waste Management in Ghana -A
Complete Failure and the Consequences. Graphic.com.
Krelling, A.P., Williams, A.T., Turra, A., 2017. Differences in perception and reaction of
tourist groups to beach marine debris that can influence a loss of tourism revenue in
coastal areas. Mar. Policy 85, 87–99.
Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2017. Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic
debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristine islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
114 (23), 6052–6055.
Leggett, C.G., Scherer, N., Curry, M.S., Bailey, R., Haab, T.C., 2014. Assessing the
Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach Recreation
in Orange County. NOAA Mar. Debris Program Industrial Economics, Incorporated,
California.
Li, Q., Wu, M., 2020. Tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour in travel destinations:
benchmarking the power of social interaction and individual attitude. J. Sustain.
Tour. 28 (9), 1371–1389.
Li, Q.C., Wu, M.Y., 2019. Rationality or morality? A comparative study of pro-
environmental intentions of local and nonlocal visitors in nature-based destinations.
J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 11, 130–139.
Liu, A., Ma, E., Qu, H., Ryan, B., 2020. Daily green behavior as an antecedent and a
moderator for visitors’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Sustain. Tour. 28 (9),
1390–1408.
Lucrezi, S., Digun-Aweto, O., 2020. “Who wants to join?” Visitors’ willingness to
participate in beach litter clean-ups in Nigeria. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 111167.
MacBride, S., 2011. Recycling Reconsidered: The Present Failure and Future Promise of
Environmental Action in the United States. MIT Press, Cambridge.
McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F., Rule, M.J., 2011. The economic cost and control of marine
debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coast. Man. 54 (9), 643–651.
McKenna, J., Williams, A.T., Cooper, J.A.G., 2011. Blue Flag or Red Herring: do beach
awards encourage the public to visit beaches? Tour. Manag. 32 (3), 576–588.
McKercher, B., Tse, T.S., 2012. Is intention to return a valid proxy for actual repeat
visitation? J. Travel Res. 51 (6), 671–686.
Miao, L., Wei, W., 2013. Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying
motivations: a comparison between household and hotel settings. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 32, 102–112.
Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Ten Brink, P., Schweitzer, J.P., 2015. The
economics of marine litter. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine
Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham, pp. 367–394.
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A., Greenland, S., 2016. Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: the
role of consumers’ biospheric values. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 33, 98–108.
Nunoo, F.K.E., Evans, S.M., 2007. Citizenship in a Ghanaian school: students’
contributions to sustainable management of the coastal environment. Sch. Sci. Rev.
88 (324), 107–114.
Nunoo, F.K.E., Quayson, E., 2003. Towards management of litter accumulation – case
study of two beaches in Accra, Ghana. J. Ghana Sci. Assoc. 5, 145–155.
Ofiara, D.D., Brown, B., 1999. Assessment of economic losses to recreational activities
from 1988 marine pollution events and assessment of economic losses from long-
term contamination of fish within the New York Bight to New Jersey. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 38 (11), 990–1004.
Pallant, J., 2005. SPSS survival manual. In: Crow’s Nest. Allen & Unwin, NSW.
Parker, C., Roper, S., Medway, D., 2015. Back to basics in the marketing of place: the
impact of litter upon place attitudes. J. Mark. Manag. 31 (9–10), 1090–1112.
Perkins, H.E., Brown, P.R., 2012. Environmental values and the so-called true ecotourist.
J. Travel Res. 51 (6), 793–803.
Petch, N., Maguire, G.S., Schlacher, T.A., Weston, M.A., 2018. Motivations and behavior
of off-road drivers on sandy beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 163, 82–91.
Potts, T., Pita, C., O’Higgins, T., Mee, L., 2016. Who cares? European attitudes towards
marine and coastal environments. Mar. Policy 72, 59–66.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L.D.G., Weiler, B., 2013. Relationships between place
attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian
national park. J. Sustain. Tour. 21 (3), 434–457.
Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F., Uysal, M., 2018. Social involvement and park citizenship
as moderators for quality-of-life in a national park. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (3), 341–361.
Rayon-Viña, F., Miralles, L., Fernandez-Rodríguez, S., Dopico, E., Garcia-Vazquez, E.,
2019. Marine litter and public involvement in beach cleaning: disentangling
perception and awareness among adults and children, Bay of Biscay, Spain. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 141, 112–118.
Ribeiro, M.A., Pinto, P., Silva, J.A., Woosnam, K.M., 2018. Examining the predictive
validity of SUS-TAS with maximum parsimony in developing island countries.
J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (3), 379–398.
Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., Fillmann, G., 2005. Influence of
socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 48 (9–10), 742–752.
Sharma, R., Gupta, A., 2020. Pro-environmental behaviour among tourists visiting
national parks: application of value-belief-norm theory in an emerging economy
context. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 25 (8), 829–840.
Silva, P., Krasny, M.E., 2016. Parsing participation: models of engagement for outcomes
monitoring in urban stewardship. Local Environ. 21 (2), 157–165.
I. Adam
Smith, S.H., Durham, S.A., 2016. A cradle to gate LCA framework for emissions and
energy reduction in concrete pavement mixture design. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
5 (1), 23–33.
Spranz, R., Schlüter, A., Vollan, B., 2018. Morals, money or the master: The adoption of
eco-friendly reusable bags. Mar. Pol. 96, 270–277.
Steg, L., De Groot, J., 2010. Explaining prosocial intentions: testing causal relationships
in the norm activation model. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 725–743.
Tasci, A.D.A., Pizam, A., 2020. An expanded nomological network of experienscape. Int.
J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 32 (3), 999–1040.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Bates, M.P., 2004. Determining the drivers for householder pro
environmental behaviour: waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 42 (1), 27–48.
Tsagbey, S.A., Mensah, A.M., Nunoo, F.K.E., 2009. Influence of tourist pressure on beach
litter and microbial quality-case study of two beach resorts in Ghana. West Afr J.
App. Ecol. 15 (1), 1–8.
United Nations Environment Programme, 2018. Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for
Sustainability. United Nations Environment Programme, New York.
Van Dyck, I.P., Nunoo, F.K., Lawson, E.T., 2016. An empirical assessment of marine
debris, seawater quality and littering in Ghana. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 4 (5),
21–36.
12
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112591
Vicente-Molina, M.A., Fernández-Sáinz, A., Izagirre-Olaizola, J., 2018. Does gender make
a difference in proenvironmental behaviour? The case of the Basque Country
University students. J. Clean. Prod. 176 (1), 89–98.
Williams, A.T., Rangel-Buitrago, N.G., Anfuso, G., Cervantes, O., Botero, C.M., 2016.
Litter impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian north Caribbean coast.
Tour. Manag. 55, 209–224.
Wyles, K.J., Pahl, S., Holland, M., Thompson, R.C., 2017. Can beach cleans do more than
clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ. Behav.
49 (5), 509–535.
Zhao, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lu, J., He, W., 2018. Relation between awe and
environmentalism: the role of social dominance orientation. Front. Psychol. 9, 2367.
Issahaku Adam is an associate professor at the Department of Hospitality and Tourism
Management of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He doubles as a Senior Research
Associate at the School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg in South
Africa. His research interests include crisis management in tourism, tourist behaviour and
experience, sustainable tourism, accessible tourism, backpacker vulnerabilities, inclusive
leisure, and gendered entrepreneurial pathways in tourism.