Clare Weeden.2014.Responsible Tourist Behaviour

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/287240038
Responsible Tourist Behaviour
Article · August 2013

DOI: 10.4324/9780203855256
CITATIONS READS
45 5,968
1 author:
Clare Weeden
University of Brighton
33 PUBLICATIONS 786 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Critical explorations in tourism View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Clare Weeden on 31 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Template: Royal A, Font: ,
Date: 24/06/2013; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT)
Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415573993/dtp/9780415573993.3d
What is important to ethical consumers when thinking about going on

holiday and how do they incorporate their lifestyle choices into these
holidays? What values inform their lifestyles and how do they satisfy these
values on holiday? Do ethical consumers automatically become ethical
tourists or is the situation a little more complex than this?
In an attempt to answer these questions, this book explores:
The ethical dilemmas associated with tourism

The concerns and motivations of ethical consumers on holiday
The role and importance of values in holiday decision making
This book offers a highly original contribution to the debate surrounding the
demand for ethical and responsible holidays. It explores the consumption
concerns of ethical consumers and their motivational values, and offers a
detailed examination of how they manage these values on holiday. This book
offers a new and challenging perspective to the study of responsible tourism
by providing a unique empirical insight into how responsible tourists incor-
porate their norms and values into their holiday decisions. The text will be of
interest to undergraduates, postgraduates and tutors on courses that have
tourism and the tourist at their centre, and to academics in other disciplines
such as marketing and consumer behaviour. It will also be highly relevant to
the global tourism industry.
Dr Clare Weeden is a Senior Lecturer in tourism and marketing at the

University of Brighton, UK. Her research interests lie in responsible tourist
behaviour, ethical consumption, destination marketing and cruise tourism.
Routledge Advances in Tourism

Edited by Stephen Page
School for Tourism, Bournemouth University
1. The Sociology of Tourism 9. Leisure and Tourism Landscapes

Theoretical and empirical Social and cultural geographies
Edited by Yiorgos Apostolopoulos, Cara Aitchison, Nicola E. MacLeod
Stella Leivadi and and Stephen J. Shaw
Andrew Yianakis
10. Tourism in the Age of Globalisation
2 Creating Island Resorts Edited by Salah Wahab and
Brian King Chris Cooper
3. Destinations 11. Tourism and Gastronomy

Cultural landscapes of tourism Edited by Anne-Mette Hjalager
Edited by Greg Ringer and Greg Richards
12. New Perspectives in Caribbean

4. Mediterranean Tourism
Tourism
Facets of socioeconomic
Edited by Marcella Daye,
development and cultural change
Donna Chambers and
Edited by Yiorgos Apostolopoulos,
Sherma Roberts
Stella Leivadi and
Andrew Yianakis
13. The Advanced Econometrics of
Tourism Demand
5. Outdoor Recreation Management
Haiyan Song, Stephen F. Witt and
John Pigram and
Gang Li
John Jenkins
14. Tourism in China
6. Tourism Development Destination, cultures and
Edited by Douglas G. Pearce and communities
Richard W. Butler Edited by Chris Ryan and
Gu Huimin
7. Tourism and Sustainable
Community Development 15. Sustainable Tourism Futures
Edited by Greg Richards and Perspectives on systems,
Derek Hall restructuring and innovations
Edited by Stefan Gössling,
8. Tourism and Political Boundaries C. Michael Hall and
Dallen J. Timothy David B. Weaver
16. Advances in Tourism Destination 25. International Sports Events

Marketing Impacts, experience and identities
Managing networks Edited by Richard Shipway and
Edited by Metin Kozak, Alan Fyall
Juergen Gnoth and
Luisa Andreu 26. Cultural Moment in Tourism
Edited by Laurajane Smith,
17. Drive Tourism Emma Waterton and Steve Watson
Trends and emerging markets
Edited by Bruce Prideaux and 27. Contemporary Tourist Experience
Dean Carson Richard Sharpley and Philip Stone
18. Tourist Customer Service 28. Future Tourism

Satisfaction Political, social and
An encounter approach economic challenges
Francis P. Noe, James Leigh, Craig Webster for
Muzzafer Uysal and Stanislav Ivanov
Vincent P. Magnini
29. Information Communication
19. Mining Heritage Tourism Technologies for Sustainable
A global synthesis Tourism
Edited by Michael Conlin and Alisha Ali and Andrew J. Frew
Lee Jolliffe
30. Responsible Tourist Behaviour
20. Tourist Experience Clare Weeden
Contemporary perspectives
Edited by Richard Sharpley and 31. Tourist Experience and Fulfilment
Phillip Stone Insights from postive psychology
Sebastian Filep and Philip Pearce
21. Sustainable Tourism in Rural
Europe 32. Tourism Art and Souvenirs
Edited by Donald Macleod and The Material Culture of Tourism
Steven Gillespie David L. Hume
Forthcoming:
22. The Critical Turn in Tourism Wellness Tourism
Studies A Destination Perspective
Creating an academy of hope Corenlia Voigt and Christof Pforr
Edited by Nigel Morgan,
Irena Atelkevic and Human Rights and Global Events
Annette Pritchard Rebecca Finkel
23. Tourism Supply Chain Dark Tourism and Crime

Management Derek Dalton
Haiyan Song
Knowledge Networks and Tourism
24. Tourism and Retail Michelle T. McLeod and
Edited by Charles McIntyre Roger Vaughn
Clare Weeden
First published 2014

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Clare Weeden
The right of Clare Weeden to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Weeden, Clare.
Responsible tourist behaviour / Clare Weeden.
p. cm. – (Advances in tourism)
1. Tourism–Psychological aspects. 2. Tourists–Psychology.
3. Human behavior. 4. Behavioral psychology. I. Title.
G155.A1W368 2013
175–dc23
2013005411
ISBN 978-0-415-57399-3 (hbk)

ISBN 978-0-203-85525-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman

by Taylor & Francis Books
Contents
List of illustrations ix
Preface x
Acknowledgements xiv
1 Introduction 1
Introduction 1
The success of tourism? 1
Sustainable development in tourism 3
Alternative tourism? 7
Consumer demand 16
Conclusion 17
2 Consumer decision making and tourist motivation 18

Introduction 18
Decision making models 18
Tourist motivation 20
Conclusion 28
3 Ethical consumers and the responsible tourist 30

Introduction 30
Researching ethical consumers 30
The UK ethical market 32
Profiling ethical consumers 35
Responsible tourists 39
Conclusion 48
4 Values and ethical consumption 49

Introduction 49
Values and value formation 49
Values and ethical consumption 61
The values concept in tourist studies 66
Conclusion 69
viii Contents
5 Responsible tourists in their own words 70
Introduction 70
Study of ethical consumers’ values 70
Holiday attributes 71
Conclusion 88
6 What values tell us about responsible tourists 90

Introduction 90
The values of responsible tourists 91
Conclusion 109
7 Marketing responsible tourism 110

Introduction 110
What ethical consumers want from a holiday 110
Marketing ethics in tourism 112
Marketing ethical products and services 114
Mainstreaming ethical and fair trade products and services 117
Marketing responsible tourism 120
Social marketing and tourism 124
Marketing to responsible tourists 126
Conclusion 128
8 Concluding thoughts 129

Responsible tourist behaviour: research so far … 129
Responsible tourist behaviour: what we might learn
in the future … 134
Conclusion 136
Bibliography 137
Index 160
Illustrations
Figures
4.1 Model of values circumplex 61
6.1 Example of summary ladder 92
6.2 Example of hierarchical value map 92
Tables
3.1 Chronology of ethical consumer typologies 31
3.2 Ethical consumerism in the UK, 1999–2011 33
4.1 Sustainable development values 52
4.2 Rokeach’s Value Survey (RVS) 53
4.3 Description of University of Michigan List of Values (LOV) and
their meanings 55
4.4 Explanation of values and their sources 57
4.5 Schwartz’s (1992) list of values (LOV) and their meanings 58
4.6 Schwartz’s motivational types of values 59
6.1 The values of responsible tourists 93
6.2 The list of values and explanations 94
7.1 Strategies of denial 114
7.2 Principles of fair trade 118
Preface
I have been interested in ethical tourism and responsible tourist behaviour

since 1999, when I first began researching the competitive opportunities for
UK small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) tour operators selling respon-
sible holidays (see Weeden 2002). This study indicated that companies were
able to achieve some advantage, but while this corporate research revealed
that clients wanted to buy a holiday from a responsible operator, operators
were unsure whether customers were ethically motivated or just interested in
small-group, quality holidays to destinations off the beaten track. Addition-
ally, while these SMEs believed that they offered something different from
their competitors, and knew their clients wanted to buy high-quality experi-
ences, they were less confident about them being prepared to pay a premium
price for the responsible component of a holiday.
Clearly, these issues required further investigation, but whilst there had
been some recognition in the business and management literature regarding
the difficulties faced by companies seeking to attract the ethical consumer (see
Boulstridge and Carrigan 2000; Carrigan and Attalla 2001), researchers had
not so far addressed these issues to any great extent in tourism. Indeed, apart
from a caution over tourists being pleasure seekers rather than moral crusa-
ders and therefore unlikely to be interested in being ‘ethical’ on holiday
(McKercher 1993), a few early papers urging the travel industry to be more
ethical in its activities (Font and Ahjem 1998; Hultsman 1995; Krohn and
Ahmed 1991; Payne and Dimanche 1996), and the notable work of Fennell
and Malloy (1999), and Cleverdon and Kalisch (2000), there was relatively
little academic research into the challenge of selling ‘ethics’ to the tourist.
In contrast, by the late 1990s, the ethical tourism market had started to
attract the attention of several commercial and third-sector organisations,
including Mintel (an international market research company), and Tearfund
(a UK evangelical Christian relief and development agency). While these
organisations’ research provided useful information about UK consumers’
opinions about ethics in tourism and reported on the industry’s response to a
perceived increase in demand for ethical holidays, arguably their most sig-
nificant contribution was confirmation of the inconsistency between people’s
stated concerns about ethics in tourism and their subsequent holiday
Preface xi
purchases. For example, while 27 per cent of UK tourists claimed a company’s
ethical policies were of high importance when choosing a tour operator, and
52 per cent of tourists said they were willing to pay an average of 5 per cent
more for a holiday from these companies (Tearfund 2000b), the reality of the
marketplace was a little different – responsible holidays accounted for only
7 per cent of UK holiday sales in 2001 (Mintel 2001).
The contradictory nature of this information not only validated my initial
query but also piqued further interest: why did people say they were con-
cerned about the ethics of tourism and hoped service staff were paid a ‘fair’
wage, but when it came to planning and buying their holiday, concerns about
the weather, the quality of accommodation and a destination’s nightlife
appeared to be of greater significance (Tearfund 2001)? Were tourists really
worried about service staff being paid adequate wages in tourism and hospi-
tality, or did they just say they were when questioned by a researcher? Could
these variances be explained by social desirability bias, where survey respon-
dents like to appear ‘ethical’ in front of others, or was this an example of an
attitude-behaviour gap, where people believe they want to be fair, but at the
point of purchase favour convenience or lower price over altruism? Or might
the discrepancies be due to the ‘sacred’ nature of holidays, and the general
perception that responsible holidays are too ‘worthy’, when tourists just want
to relax, have fun and forget about the problems of the ‘real world’?
Looking for answers to these questions, particularly explanations of the
variance between stated intention and actual behaviour, I turned to the ethical
consumption literature, where such issues had already been acknowledged.
Ethical consumer research had been slowly gathering pace again after a hiatus
in the early to mid-1990s, but was largely focused on fair trade and organic
grocery consumption (McEachern and McClean 2002; Shaw and Clarke
1999). There was no evidence at that time of any investigation into ethical
consumers’ holiday decision making, even though the late 1990s had seen
rising numbers of ethical consumers (Cooperative Bank 2010). This perceived
lack of attention offered an opportunity: could insight be gained into why the
general public were seemingly uninterested in buying responsible holidays by
exploring the travel decisions of ethical consumers? These people were famil-
iar with the moral choices involved in consumption and spent a lot of time
and effort seeking out products to avoid compromising their ‘ethical selves’
(Varul 2009). Arguably, understanding how these individuals reconciled their
ethical priorities when planning and buying a holiday, could offer unique
understanding of the trade-offs and coping strategies required to ‘manage’
potentially conflicting aspirations.
Researching how (or indeed whether) ethical consumers are successful in
satisfying their ethical ideals, whilst also having fun and enjoying their holidays,
could provide valuable evidence for those seeking to persuade the general
public that responsible holidays were neither dull nor too ‘worthy’. Indeed,
understanding the complexities involved in being responsible on holiday
would give key stakeholders critical data on how to support and encourage
xii Preface
those who said they wanted to buy responsible holidays, but were unsure of
how to achieve such a goal. The information generated by this research could
also facilitate the development of appropriate strategies to help those who
were unaware or apparently uninterested in ethical travel to adopt at least
some element of responsibility in their holiday choice. Potentially, therefore,
a research study into the holiday choice decisions of ethical consumers would
produce a unique collection of data that could be used not only to assist
the promotion of responsible holidays but also to inform the creation and
development of a more sustainable tourism industry for the future.
This preface has set out a brief description of the thought processes behind
the origins and early development of the study presented in this book. My
hope is that people who are curious about ethical consumers’ holiday choices
will find the content informative and constructive. I do not claim to have
written the definitive treatise on responsible tourist behaviour. Rather, this
book is offered as a personal contribution towards what I hope will be a
greater understanding of ethical consumers’ holiday motivations and their
travel practices. It is intended that this information will prove helpful to those
seeking to encourage a greater demand for, and supply of, responsible tourism
products.
Book structure
This book is presented over the course of eight chapters. Chapter 1 examines
the context for the book and sets out the factors responsible for tourisms’
continued success and development. It explains some of the key debates
surrounding tourism and travel, including its potential for destruction but
also its ability to offer significant economic benefit to stakeholders around the
world. Chapter 2 offers an overview of research into consumer decision
making with a specific focus on tourist motivation, and discusses the key
variables considered important for understanding tourist behaviour. These
include consideration sets, the concept of involvement and attitudes. The
chapter concludes with an introduction to values, their link to attitudes and
their utility for understanding human behaviour.
Chapter 3 focuses on the ethical consumer and provides a detailed exam-
ination of studies designed to understand these individuals. The chapter starts
by discussing the grand models of consumer behaviour and psychographic
variables such as personality, self-identity, moral obligation and altruism. It
continues with an explanation of alternative tourism, ecotourism, community-
based tourism, pro-poor tourism and justice tourism. It also introduces
responsible tourism, and reviews research of responsible tourist behaviour.
This chapter concludes by charting the confused and confusing nature of
terminology used to describe these individuals’ holiday motivations.
Chapter 4 centres on the role of values in understanding ethical consumer
behaviour, and discusses why they offer researchers a unique perspective on
responsible tourist motivation. The chapter continues by reviewing significant
Preface xiii
values research, including the work of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz and Bilsky
(1987), and Schwartz (1992), and investigates the use of values in tourism
research.
Chapter 5 addresses the study at the heart of this book, which investigated
ethical consumers’ values in connection with their holiday choices. It presents
the findings of the research via the use of qualitative quotes and reveals
significant detail of their holiday motivations and ethical concerns about
tourism.
Intended as a companion to Chapter 5, Chapter 6 presents a detailed dis-
cussion of the study findings, specifically the values of ethical consumers. It
offers unique insight into the key debates surrounding ethical consumption in
tourism. Chapter 7 takes a more applied perspective and reflects on the
practical marketing applications of the study findings. It discusses how a
greater knowledge of ethical consumers’ holiday motivations can be used to
develop campaigns that encourage an increase in the demand and supply of
responsible tourism products. It also examines the challenge of marketing
ethical products, reviews the corresponding difficulties of promoting respon-
sible holidays, discusses the mainstreaming of fair trade products, and reflects
upon the use of social marketing in selling responsible holidays.
Chapter 8 offers concluding thoughts on the processes involved in
researching responsible tourists, and provides a short set of recommendations
in the hope that studies will continue to be undertaken in order to ensure that
responsible tourism has a viable and successful future.
Clare Weeden
January 2013
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to Dr Xavier Font (Co-Director of the International

Centre for Responsible Tourism, Leeds Metropolitan University), for being
interested in my research and supporting me to secure this publishing
opportunity. I am very grateful for his suggestions for improvement on early
chapters.
For the rest of you – you know who you are. Thank you. I could not have
done it without you.
1 Introduction
Introduction
This chapter sets the context for the book by detailing the key success indicators
associated with the global tourism industry. It continues with an evaluation of
concerns over the potentially negative impact of international and domestic
leisure trips and considers the links between calls for sustainable development
and its manifestation within tourism. The chapter explains some of the key
products and also approaches that have been offered as alternatives to mass
tourism before examining the provenance of responsible tourism. The chapter
concludes with a brief look at the challenges facing those seeking to increase
consumer demand for responsible holidays.
The success of tourism?

Each year millions of people travel, take holidays and pursue leisure experi-
ences in search of self-discovery, learning and relaxation. Because such
aspirations have become increasingly important and are often regarded as
essential to modern living (Smith and Duffy 2003), demand for leisure travel
has grown exponentially these past 60 years. This trend looks set to continue
despite ongoing political upheaval and global environmental challenge. The
desire to experience new places, to meet different people and to enjoy con-
trasting environments is not new; people have travelled for centuries, and will
continue to do so for many more. What is different in the 21st century, and
something that represents a significant future challenge, derives from the vast
number of journeys being taken.
There are now more than 4.8 billion international and domestic trips taken
each year (UNWTO 2012a). Whilst impressive, this figure pales in compar-
ison with future estimates: in conjunction with a rapidly expanding global
population and an equally notable increase in the number of tourists from the
BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, forecasts indicate more than
1.8 billion international arrivals and more than 7 billion domestic leisure
journeys will be recorded annually by 2030 (UNWTO 2011; UNWTO
2012b). While disquiet is expressed over the impacts of such high numbers of
2 Introduction
people travelling the world, most notably the detrimental effect on the envir-
onment, the financial benefit accruing to the global economy of such a pop-
ular leisure and business activity is immensely persuasive for those keen to see
tourism continue to succeed. Indeed, spending on travel and tourism in 2013
is set to exceed US$6 trillion, provide more than 9 per cent of global gross
domestic product (GDP) and sustain 255 million jobs. Given the already
noted increase in demand, these figures will likely rise to $10 trillion, 10 per
cent of global GDP, and 328 million, or one in 10 jobs by 2022 (WTTC
2012). Taken at face value, these figures go some way to explain why tourism
is often considered essential for income and development by a significant
number of economies around the world.
However, while many have welcomed tourism’s continual success, not
everyone is happy with the pace and nature of its development, and not all
stakeholders believe they benefit fairly from tourist expenditure. The com-
plexity of the product and the multifaceted nature of its impact on society and
business means that tourism can, and does, generate powerful emotion, and
not just in those who participate in its activities. There are a number of rea-
sons for this. First, tourism is undoubtedly capable of facilitating economic
benefit if developed sustainably, but it also has the potential to reinforce social
and economic inequalities because of a characteristic style of development
that preferences high-volume, low-price tourism (Cleverdon and Kalisch
2000). Expansion and progress on these terms can result in excessive economic
leakage with little long-term benefit to local, regional or national economies
(Curtin and Busby 1999). This has prompted consternation and debate about
tourism’s ability to deliver a fair, equitable and socially just system (Carlisle
2010; Higgins-Desbiolles 2008; Wearing 2002).
A second problem concerns the natural environment. The scarcity of pris-
tine environments, coupled with their attractiveness for tourism, prompts an
inevitable tension between those who seek to conserve nature for its intrinsic
value, those who need access to it for subsistence, and those who use the
environment for tourism, leisure and recreation purposes. Leaving aside the
essential needs of the global population regarding the production of food and
access to clean water, and the local realities of such requirements in a world
impacted by climate change, the tourism industry is by necessity financially
dependent upon a high-quality environment in order to attract tourists. While
there exist a few examples of successful sustainability projects involving tour-
ism (Holden 2009), questions remain about the perceived unwillingness of
practitioners to wholeheartedly protect the vital resources on which they depend.
It is not only the environment that is impacted through the production and
consumption of tourism. A third problem concerns the long-term human cost
associated with the phenomenon. Numerous case studies question the sector’s
ability to manage itself along ethical lines, especially when it concerns the
impact on local communities (Andereck et al. 2005; Tosun 2002), the appro-
priation of culture and heritage for the purpose of tourism (Kirtsoglou and
Theodossopoulos 2004), and the consequences for community cohesion of
Introduction 3
poor tourism planning and ineffective business practice (Honey and Gilpin
2009). While some commentators persist in arguing over the management
implications of community attitudes for optimal tourist experiences (see
Deery et al. 2012), more fundamental debates focus on the ethics of repre-
sentation and commodification of indigenous peoples (Caton n.d., forthcoming;
Saarinen and Niskala 2009), the disempowerment of local communities
through international investment (Mbaiwa 2003), and the prevention of
access to farmland and other critical resources as a consequence of conserving
wildlife for tourism (Rutten 2002; Snyder and Sulle 2011).
Although this is not an exhaustive list of the ethical dilemmas inherent in
the production and consumption of tourism, individually they act as reminders
that the movement of people around the world for pleasure prompts unease
over whether tourism might ever conform to socially just and equitable
principles, particularly when it relies on people, culture and the environment
for financial sustainability. While many of these resources are exchanged
willingly for economic benefit, there are inevitably occasions when the con-
sequences of such exchanges are borne not by the tourist, or the organisations
supplying and selling the products and services, but by the people and culture
being visited and by the natural environment. For these reasons alone, tourism
must focus more on developing fair and cooperative relationships and depend
less upon exploiting unequal power relations and fostering social practices
that rely on an unjust appropriation of human and non-human capital.
Sustainable development in tourism

It is clear from this brief introduction that tourism presents several ethical issues.
While these are deliberated further in Chapter 3, concern over the exploitative
potential of tourism has long prompted demand for a more responsible
approach to its production and consumption (Font and Ahjem 1998; Forsyth
1997; Hultsman 1995; Payne and Dimanche 1996). The 1970s and 1980s in
particular evidenced much heated debate on this topic (see for example, Wheeller
1991), with discussion focusing on calls for a different approach to tourism
(de Kadt 1979; Krippendorf 1987). The majority of these deliberations
prompted demand for an ‘Alternative Tourism’, defined by Holden (1984, in
de Kadt 1992: 51), as ‘a process which promotes a just form of travel between
members of different communities. It seeks to achieve mutual understanding,
solidarity and equity amongst participants’. While it is hard to deny the
attractiveness of such an aspiration to all those involved in and impacted by
tourism, the most difficult challenge concerns their physical embodiment – how
would (and how does) ‘alternative’ tourism manifest itself in reality?
As yet, there is no definitive answer to this question even though more
than 40 years have passed since ‘alternative tourism’ was first mooted as a
sustainable approach to tourism (for early discussions see Britton and Clarke
1987; Butler 1990, 1992). One of the most influential catalysts in this was
Krippendorf (1987: 105), whose vision for a ‘co-operative world in which
4 Introduction
each part is a centre, living at the expense of nobody else, in partnership with
nature, in solidarity with future generations’, centred on a form of tourism for
which the:
… common goal must be to develop and promote new forms of tourism,

which will bring the greatest possible benefit to all the participants –
travellers, the host population and the tourist business, without causing
intolerable ecological and social damage.
(Krippendorf 1987: 106)
This call for a ‘new’ tourism was famously taken up by Poon (1993: 290–91),
who argued:
The evils of tourism are mainly associated with the old ‘mass’ forms of
tourism that prevailed during much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. So
overpowering has been the tendency toward mass tourism that, three
decades ago, countries developing tourism had little choice but to go
the mass tourism route – only to be host to tourism’s backlash at a later
date. Today, however, tourism destinations have a choice – the choice is
new tourism.
The rhetoric that new tourism was ‘right’ and good, as opposed to mass
tourism, which was ‘wrong’ and bad (Clarke 1997; Diamantis and Ladkin
1999), became a major focus of contention, especially for academics, who
argued for many subsequent decades about the relative merits of a range of
alternatives (for example, eco, soft, green or sensitive) that would provide the
world with a ‘better’ type of tourism.
Significantly, tourism was not the only industry to be struggling with some
of the negative consequences associated with it at this time. Global conversations,
triggered by concern over the impact of material consumption, were also
starting to question whether the planet could cope with rising populations
and increasing industrialisation without a radical reformation of the West’s
attitude (and behaviour) towards mass consumption. These had been brought
to wider public attention by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), which
contained warnings about the over-use of pesticides and the damaging impact
of chemical spraying on nature’s sensitive ecosystems.
Credited with being the catalyst for a developing ecological awareness, and
thus spawning the environmental movement, Carson’s publication ultimately
led to a significant shift in global policies, government legislation and public
consciousness, about the importance of maintaining a healthy planet (Atwood
2012). While its legacy remains contentious for some (see McKie 2012), the
message of environmental stewardship became the cornerstone of sustainable
development (SD). In turn, SD was heralded as critical in the achievement of
economic progress, through the alleviation of poverty and preservation of
human rights (Meyer 2007).
Introduction 5
Sustainable development
As defined by the World Commission on the Environment and Development,
through the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable development is a process
of change:
in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investment, the

orientation of technological development, and institutional changes are
made consistent with future as well as present needs.
(D’Amore 1993: 65)
Receiving enthusiastic support from governments, nongovernmental organi-

sations (NGOs) and academics, as well as the wider public, the Brundtland Report
was crucial in delivering the message that sustainable development should be
an important consideration for the future of global tourism (Wheeller 1992).
However, given that it was published in 1987, tourism and travel organisations
were slow to incorporate the principles of SD within their development,
operations and management activity. In fact, it was not until Agenda 21,
which came out of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
(the Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro) that some decision makers accepted that
they needed to move towards a sustainable future (Berry and Ladkin 1997). In
order to pre-empt any further negative attention over the destructive potential
of tourism development (see Richter 1983; Wilkinson 1992), the United Nations
(UN) encouraged the World Tourism Organization (WTO, later UNWTO), to
develop its Global Code of Ethics, Article One of which is set out below:
The understanding and promotion of the ethical values common to

humanity, with an attitude of tolerance and respect for the diversity of
religious, philosophical and moral beliefs, are both the foundation and
consequence of responsible tourism. Stakeholders in tourism development
and tourists themselves should observe the social and cultural traditions
and practices of all peoples, including those of minorities and indigenous
peoples and to recognize their worth.
(UNWTO 1999)
Having identified poverty as a key challenge to future global development,

the UN published a set of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The objectives of the MDGs were to help developing countries tackle issues
like poverty, education, women’s empowerment, maternal and child health,
and the environment, in order to avoid what Sofield et al. (2004: 45) called,
‘the risk of increased marginalisation from the global economy’. Leaving
aside criticism of this neo-liberal political agenda (see Higgins-Desbiolles
2008, for a critique of the UN’s vision for global economic development),
the UNWTO appropriated four of the goals – poverty reduction, gender
equality, environmental sustainability and global partnerships – to encourage
6 Introduction
the perception that tourism could also be, ‘responsible, sustainable and
universally accessible’ (UNWTO 2010: 4).
While the motivations of the UN embracing SD in tourism have been ques-
tioned (see Chok et al. 2007; Higgins-Desbiolles 2008; Lansing and de Vries
2007; Meyer 2007; Sharpley 2000), the extensive number of global, national
and regional initiatives spawned by these initiatives cannot be denied. These
have also been the focus of a considerable number of critiques, case studies and
research projects (see for example, Ashley et al. 2001; Goodwin 2006; Hall
2007; Harrison 2008; Roe and Urquhart 2001; Scheyvens 2007; Spenceley
2008). One of the most prominent programmes was the Sustainable Tourism
for Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) programme, launched by the UN at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg,
South Africa in 2002. This linked the UNWTO’s sustainable tourism agenda
with poverty alleviation, which, in conjunction with the Pro-Poor Alliance, set out
to promote an approach to tourism in developing countries that could benefit
the poor (Sofield et al. 2004).
Similarly, the International Task Force on Sustainable Tourism Development
(ITF-STD) sought to embed sustainable tourism through the Green Passport
Campaign (where tourists were offered green travel tips), and Hotel Energy
Solutions (where European accommodation providers were encouraged to
adopt energy-saving and renewable technologies). The ITF-STD was later
replaced in 2011 by the Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism (GPST),
which has continued to support these two projects, in addition to furthering a
set of objectives that focus largely on promoting action on climate change,
environmental protection, good governance, poverty alleviation, sustainable
management practice and the conservation of cultural heritage. Current
members of the GPST include Fair Trade Tourism South Africa (FTTSA),
the International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT), the Institute for
Tourism Research (INTOUR), Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA), the
Rainforest Alliance, The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), Tourism
Concern, and many governments including Brazil, China, Croatia, Madagascar
and Serbia (GPST n.d.).
Within the private sector, the Tour Operator Initiative for Sustainable
Tourism Development (TOI-STD) was developed in 2000 in collaboration
with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UNWTO. Its objective is to
encourage commercial travel companies to adopt sustainable practices, and its
15 members at the time of writing include Accor (France), Andes Nartura
(Chile), Dynamic Tours (Morocco), Kuoni (Switzerland), Steppes Discovery
(UK), TLB Destinations (Lebanon), and TUI Travel PLC (UK).
Moving from the macro to the micro level, there exist many (mostly envir-
onmental) certification schemes designed to educate and inform business and
the public about sustainable holiday products. Examples of the more well-
known of these are: Green Globe 21, a global benchmarking and certification
package for travel and tourism; Green Key, an international eco-label for
Introduction 7
leisure that operates in more than 16 countries; and the Certificate for Sus-
tainable Tourism, which encourages environmental practice in hotels in Costa
Rica (see Jarvis et al. 2010). Additional schemes include Ecotourism Kenya,
Ecotourism Australia, ST-EP, the Sustainable Tourism Eco-certification
Standard, and the Association for British Travel Agents’ (ABTA) Travelife.
Judging by the extensive number of these and other, similar schemes, it could
be argued that travel organisations have positively embraced the need for a
sustainable approach to tourism. However, while their proliferation may be
proof of good intention, there exists scant evidence of any such activity. Not
only does this undermine their collective credibility, it also increases the
already complex business environment for decision makers, practitioners
and advocates who seek to develop responsible holiday products, create a
sustainable destination or buy an ethical holiday.
Alternative tourism?
As already noted in the previous section, the sustainable development agenda
was intended as a reflection on the need for a balance between societies’ ecolo-
gical, social and cultural, and economic demands (Diamantis and Ladkin 1999).
As such, it forms the framework for many types of tourism genuinely advocated
as sustainable (Dinan and Sargeant 2000). The most well established of these are
ecotourism, fair trade tourism, community-based tourism, pro-poor tourism,
responsible tourism and justice tourism (Boluk 2011; Cleverdon and Kalisch
2000; Dolnicar et al. 2008; Dolnicar 2010; Higgins-Desbiolles 2008; Kalisch 2010;
Lemelin et al. 2008; Miller 2003; Miller et al. 2010; Stanford 2008; Weeden 2011).
While their precise differences (or similarities) may be difficult to pinpoint
definitively, their individual and collective intentions are to foster a more just
and equitable approach to the development, operation and management of
tourism. For example, tour operators claiming to provide sustainable tourism
products are expected to sustain long-term economic relationships with suppliers,
ensure financial benefits are fairly distributed at each stage of the supply chain,
and provide stable employment opportunities in destination communities
(Lansing and de Vries 2007). Likewise, for any holiday to be described as
sustainable it should make optimal use of environmental resources whilst
maintaining and conserving natural heritage and biodiversity, respect the
sociocultural authenticity of local communities, conserve the built and living
heritage and traditional values, and offer a positive experience for all.
Ecotourism
A focus on the environment is also a central pillar of ecotourism, defined by
TIES in 1990 as ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the envir-
onment and improves the well-being of local people’. More specifically, it has
been described as tourism ‘that conserves the environment as well as provid-
ing an economic benefit for local communities’ (Holden and Sparrowhawk
8 Introduction
2002: 436). Considered by TIES to be the legitimate forerunner to responsible
and sustainable tourism, ecotourism is now a highly distinctive brand (largely
due to TIES efforts), which supports the local economy through conservation,
education, ethical marketing and management, small-scale development, low
impact, and an effective relationship with parks and protected areas (Fennell
2013). However, as with other examples of so-called alternative tourism, an
exact interpretation remains contentious:
The precise definition of ecotourism is still a subject of much debate;

however, it is clear that it relies on the idea that places and cultures are
pristine, unspoiled and untouched by westernisation, industrialisation and
even mass tourism.
(Duffy 2008: 328)
Ecotourism has also been criticised for not always being environmentally or
socially beneficial (Forsyth 1997; Scheyvens 1999), and questions remain
about the extent to which consumptive, nature-based tourism, such as fishing
and wildlife hunting, conform to the principles of ecotourism. It is also
debateable whether the long-haul travel often required of ecotourism holidays
is ecologically beneficial and critics argue that it would not be possible to roll
it out on a mass scale (Fennell 2013).
Community-based tourism (CBT)

Additional anxiety has been expressed over community involvement in
ecotourism being more top-down than bottom-up (Garrod 2003). Such con-
cerns have prompted the development of community-based tourism (CBT)
(Roe and Urquhart 2001). Defined as ‘a process of involving all relevant
and interested parties (local government officials, local citizens, architects,
developers, business people, and planners) in such a way that decision
making is shared’ (Haywood 1988: 106), CBT removes tourists from the
centre of the system and replaces them with the people who are directly and
indirectly impacted in the destination (Wearing and McDonald 2002, in
Salazar 2012).
Theoretically, placing emphasis on the voices of the community in planning
for tourism development indicates that CBT operates in line with the values
of justice, equity and fairness, all of which are critical if tourism is to become
a socially just industry (Higgins-Desbiolles 2008). However, while its pub-
lished intent is to develop tourism in line with community needs and wishes,
critics argue that CBT is more interested in ensuring the survival of a profitable
industry (sustaining tourism) rather than empowering local people, and for
legitimising tourism development by presenting it as locally controlled and in
the community’s interest (Blackstock 2005).
Additional challenge stems from vague conceptualisations of ‘community’
(Salazar 2012), and the difficulty of encouraging locals to get involved with
Introduction 9
planning. This latter can be the result of a lack of education and/or business
experience, conflicting community interests, and/or little financial assistance
(Addison 1996, in Okazaki 2008). Perhaps the most difficult issue, however,
revolves around the issue of unequal power relations – never homogenous,
communities necessarily reflect a wide variety of vested interests and powerful
elites, and include the disinterested as well as the disempowered. Such a
challenge is also relevant to the reality of ecotourism: while often advocated
as beneficial to both the environment and community welfare, people can feel
marginalised and excluded, especially if subsistence land is given protected
area status (Duffy 2008).
Pro-poor tourism (PPT)

Another style of development seeking to put people at the heart of the
sustainability agenda is pro-poor tourism (PPT) (Roe and Urquhart 2001).
Considered a movement, an approach and an orientation rather than a niche
(see Ashley et al. 2001; Goodwin 2006; Harrison 2008), PPT is based on
the assumption that economic growth is essential for development and should
be encouraged as long as the ‘poor’ benefit over-proportionally through the
net benefits of tourism (Ashley et al. 2001; Meyer 2007).
For it to be pro-poor, three core activities are required. First, it should
increase access of the poor to economic benefit by expanding business and
employment opportunities for them, providing training so that they are able
to take up these opportunities and spread income beyond individual earners
to the wider community. Second it needs to address the negative social and
environmental impacts associated with tourism, such as reduced access to
land, coastal areas and other resources, and social disruption or exploitation.
Third, a policy and planning framework needs to be created to promote par-
ticipation of the poor in planning and decision making, and encourage part-
nerships between the private sector and the poor in developing new tourism
products (Roe and Urquhart 2001).
While PPT is seen as a positive way to help those negatively impacted by
tourism through excessive economic leakage and weak multipliers (Meyer
2007), it is not without criticism. For example, it does not always benefit the
poorest people (that is, those not in work), nor does it tackle a key cause of
poverty – the global sweep of capitalism (Higgins-Desbiolles 2008). Finally,
and in common with community-based tourism and ecotourism, it is difficult
objectively to critique it because ‘criticising PPT might appear somewhat
perverse. It seems so evidently morally correct and, after all, who could
oppose the interests of the poor?’ (Harrison 2008: 858).
Fair trade and tourism

An alternative mechanism that also attempts to alleviate poverty is fair trade,
the principle aim of which is to ensure disadvantaged producers in the
10 Introduction
Majority World are treated fairly when trading with the Minority World
(Karla Boluk, personal communication, 26 April 2012). The criteria for Fair
Trade in Tourism (FTT) were first established to tackle the root causes of
inequality in tourism, which include a lack of access to capital, little local
ownership of resources, unequal distribution of benefits, and an absence of
control over destination representation in tourist-generating countries
(Cleverdon and Kalisch 2000; Kalisch 2013).
Fairly traded travel is intended to benefit business and workers by guaran-
teeing a fair share of the profits from tourism, fair wages and working con-
ditions, long-term trading security, community development opportunities,
and access to new markets (FTTSA 2012). As such, it has much in common
with PPT and also CBT in that it seeks to ensure that those whose land,
natural resources, labour and culture are used for tourism benefit from its
production and sales (see FTTSA 2012). However, as Cleverdon and Kalisch
(2000) argue, research into fair trade tourism needs to establish who benefits,
in what way and by how much. If it is to be successful beyond being a niche
product then the travel industry would also need comprehensively to overhaul
their usual business practices and step away from a reliance upon the low-price
and low-wage economies of the Minority World, placing more emphasis on
quality and equality and by re-educating tourists about the economic well-being
of the destination communities (Cleverdon and Kalisch 2000). Arguably, this
is the biggest challenge for those keen to encourage tourism to adopt equitable
trading relationships. Indeed, the criteria for fair trade in tourism – to foster
long-term trading relationships, guarantee full prepayment and agree binding
cancellation agreements – run counter to the competitive demands of the
trading environment and make it exceedingly unattractive to mass-market
tour operators. This point is also discussed in Chapter 7, which ponders
whether mainstreaming could turn fair trade tourism from a small, aspirational
concept sold by a few independent specialist operators into a realistic and
practical tool for benefiting the poor.
Justice tourism
Whilst debate continues over the extent to which fair trade in tourism could
be more effective than merely influencing responsible policy and practice
within the mass market (Kalisch 2013), a more recent alternative approach to
tourism, which also seeks to encourage fair and equitable trading, is justice
tourism. Scheyvens (2002: 104) describes justice tourism as ethical and
equitable:
because it seeks to build solidarity between visitors and those visited, it

promotes mutual understanding and relationships based on equality,
sharing and respect, supports self-sufficiency and self-determination of
local communities and maximizes local economic, social and cultural
benefits.
Introduction 11
Viewed by Higgins-Desbiolles (2008) as having its origins in the work of
Fennell (2008), Hultsman (1995), and Smith and Duffy (2003), justice tourism
relies on the values of respect, sharing and equality for both tourists and
visited communities, prioritises community inclusion in decision making and
also seeks to maximise social and cultural welfare and economic benefit.
Arguably, this makes it a combination of CBT, PPT and fair trade, which if
seeking a radical ‘tourism for tomorrow’ is somewhat disheartening. Indeed,
it shares similarities with ethical tourism, a term that has been used sporadically
over the past 20 years to describe a tourism that seeks to deliver beneficial
exchange relationships and positive experiences for all involved.
Ethical tourism
Academics have long pondered the notion of ethics in tourism (see Fennell
2006, for a useful chronology of these), especially its potentially unethical
nature as a business and leisure activity (Fennell and Malloy 1999; Hultsman
1995; Weeden 2002; Wheat 1998; Wheeler 1994). Ethical tourism is often
used interchangeably with responsible tourism, ecotourism and sustainable
tourism, which far from clarifying the differences between them merely com-
pounds the confusion expressed by many non-experts who want to buy a
holiday that ‘does not cost the earth’ (see Elkington and Hailes 1992). Ethical
tourism borrows much from Leopold’s (1949) conceptualisation of a land
ethic, from which he defined ethics as a kind of ‘community-instinct in the
making’ (in Hultsman 1995: 556). Hultsman believed ethics were intuition-based,
with moral people knowing instinctively what constituted ethical behaviour.
As such, it is logical that Higgins-Desbiolles (2008) would reference
Hultsman’s (1995) work in her discussions of justice tourism, which she
describes as a principled approach to tourism that was a notoriously complex
idea to bring to fruition. This is also redolent of attempts to define ethical
tourism. One such example, based on the work of Payne and Dimanche
(1996), comes from Weeden (2002), who argues that for a tour operator to
claim ethical credentials they must deliver on four points: use locally owned
organisations in destinations to provide accommodation/transport and related
services; keep tour group sizes to a minimum so as to least disturb residents’
lifestyles; ensure fair treatment and wages both in the UK and for those
employed overseas; and finally, use truthful and unambiguous promotion of
the packages sold.
However, such aspirations are challenging to implement: not only is it difficult
for tour operators to provide an ‘ethical’ holiday due to the complexity of the
industry’s supply chain and the pragmatics of an intensively competitive
marketplace, but it remains unclear whether holiday makers are interested in being
‘ethical’ tourists. The majority of travellers remain indifferent to their responsi-
bility for demanding an ethical industry, and while some tour operators genuinely
pursue this standard, further sustained effort is required to ensure that all
stakeholders work cooperatively to deliver an ethical future for tourism.
12 Introduction
For some critics, attaching the word ‘ethical’ to an individual’s holiday
experience is totally inappropriate. For example, Wheeller (1993) called
the inclusion of ethics in tourism ‘ego-tourism’ – holidays so described did little
to sustain the ecology but much to boost the notion that tourism was an elite
experience for the few. Butcher (2003: 7) later coined the phrase ‘New Moral
Tourism’ in reaction to what he interpreted as a prevailing anti-tourism stance
where:
… the association of tourism with innocence, fun and adventure, has

been challenged by a mood of pessimism and a sense that moral regula-
tion of pleasure seeking is necessary in order to preserve environmental
and cultural diversity.
Sympathy with Butcher’s perspective is easy to find, as modern tourists seek

freedom from the perceived constraints of everyday living. Here is one such
example:
My wife and I had personal experience of this new agenda on an organised

tour in Thailand a couple of years back. From the moment we met our
Western tour leader I sensed that this was not going to be all sightseeing
and pleasure. In her schoolmistress demeanour (even though she was
barely old enough to be a teacher!) she set about instructing us how we
should dress, spend our money, when we could take photographs and
how to talk to the local people.
(Standish 2004)
This comment, although not at all scientifically representative, implies that

some tourists expect to be able to think, say and do what they want on holi-
day. In part, this is typical of those who have superficial understanding of the
impact of their holidays on other people and landscapes. While Jim Butcher might
campaign against the moralisation of tourism, he would most certainly have
empathy with those whose communities are transformed into Disneyesque
environments merely to please the tourist.
Responsible tourism
The final alternative discussed in this chapter, and one that forms the back-
drop to this book, is responsible tourism, a significant trend for some time
(Hudson and Miller 2005; Sharpley 2013). As noted by Frey and George
(2008: 107):
Responsible tourism has been a buzzword in the tourism industry for a

number of years. Its popularity has been fuelled by increasing interna-
tional pressure on the tourism sector to address issues of global warming,
social inequality and diminishing natural resources.
Introduction 13
Unsurprisingly, given the earlier mentioned debates over alternative tourism,
the concept evokes strong opinion on many sides. Quite apart from the usual
controversy about the vagueness of the concept and how exactly it might
differ from sustainable, eco- or ethical tourism, some critics also consider it
the latest in a long line of products offered as (mostly) unsatisfactory solu-
tions to the criticisms levelled at mass tourism (see Wheeller 1997). Others
view it as a guiding philosophy and essential to all tourism development
(Husbands and Harrison 1996).
Further difficulties arise from a perceived prioritisation on the environment
in tourism. For example, whilst those seeking to understand responsibility in
tourism might infer the need for a multifaceted approach, many researchers
have focused on the environmental aspect only (see Dolnicar et al. 2008;
Dolnicar 2010; Lemelin et al. 2008; Miller 2003; Miller et al. 2010; Stanford
2008). Perhaps this is not surprising, given the significance of the natural
environment as a key ‘pull’ factor in tourist decision making. It is ultimately
misleading, however, because responsible tourists demonstrate a range of
priorities, such as a desire to show respect for local communities, to share the
economic benefits of tourism directly with local people, and to mitigate the
environmental impact of their holidays (Fennell 2008; Weeden 2008).
A different definition of responsible tourism comes from Goodwin and
Pender (2005: 303):
[a] business and consumer response to some of the major economic,

social and environmental issues, which affect our world. It is about travelling
in a better way and about taking responsibility for the impacts that our
actions have socially and economically on others and on their social,
cultural and natural environment.
Although rather non-specific, this definition places equal emphasis on the role
of business and consumers in the demand for and supply of responsible
tourism. Goodwin and Pender (2005) also refer to an acknowledgement of
responsibility for the impact of tourism, something Bramwell et al. (2008)
highlighted in a special issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Although
the author of this book has faced criticism for several years for suggesting
that tourists can have altruistic as well as egoistical motivations, it is only
recently that additional researchers have recognised that ‘tourism-related
actors can develop a sense of ethical and moral responsibility that has
resonance beyond self-interest’ (Bramwell et al. 2008: 253).
Stanford (2008: 260) offers a useful explanation of responsible tourism,
suggesting that it covers:
All forms of tourism, alternative and mass alike … it embraces a quadruple

bottom line philosophy to contribute to and enhance local communities,
cultures, environments and economies and minimize negative impacts in
these areas … and it benefits all those involved.
14 Introduction
Arguably, the discourse has changed very little since Cooper and Ozdil (1992:
378) first critiqued the origins of and debates about responsible tourism and
concluded that it ‘should be viewed as a “way of thinking” to ensure tourism
is responsible to host environments and societies’. They argued that tensions
over terminology distract people from the core message, which should be that
consumers and industry must move towards the goal of taking responsibility.
What has changed since 1992, however, is that responsible tourism (RT)
products exist in the portfolio of many multinational tour operators. Indeed, a
recent conference on Taking Responsibility for Tourism, held at South Africa
House in London in June 2012, attracted several of the largest and most
influential European tour companies, including TUI, Thomas Cook and
Kuoni. Together, these operators sell more than 58 million trips every year
and have combined revenues of more than £26 billion (Kuoni Group PLC
2011; Thomas Cook Group PLC 2011; TUI Travel PLC 2011). Whether this
is an indication of genuine interest in taking responsibility, or yet another
initiative hijacked by corporate PR, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
Nevertheless, on the evidence presented above, one might be forgiven for
thinking that responsible tourism is an accepted and well-understood term to
describe a form of tourism that is considered less damaging to the social
fabric of destinations, and more beneficial to tourists and destination economies.
However, in a study of South African small, medium- and micro-sized tourism
enterprises (SMMEs), despite positive attitudes and a general acceptance of
the marketing and business benefits of offering RT holidays, 47 per cent of
businesses demonstrated a limited set of RT practices (Frey and George
2008). Also, while the authors argue that the adoption of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) policies and RT inevitably provides competitive advan-
tage through differentiation and boosted staff morale, their claim is not borne
out by international research. For instance, a study by Weeden et al. (n.d.,
forthcoming) revealed that SMME owner-managers’ motivations for pursuing
environmental certification in the New Forest (UK) were far more complex
than the binary imperative of commerce vs. altruism.
Arguably, the increasing supply and demand for responsibility in tourism
mirrors trends observed in wider society, where stakeholders increasingly
expect companies to act in accordance with the principles of CSR (see
Sharpley 2013). Perhaps not surprisingly, given the tone of this chapter so far,
CSR remains an elusive notion for academics and a somewhat contested
concept for businesses and their stakeholders (O’Riordan and Fairbrass
2008). Indeed, looking at research on CSR reveals the existence of many
different definitions. For example, Matten and Moon (2005: 335) call it a
‘cluster concept, which overlaps with such concepts as business ethics, corpo-
rate philanthropy, corporate citizenship, sustainability and environmental
responsibility’.
A more widely adopted definition of CSR comes from the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (2004), which explains it as ‘the com-
mitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development,
Introduction 15
working with employees, their families, the local community and society at
large, to improve their quality of life’ (in Pomering and Dolnicar 2008: 285).
Largely, the drive to encourage companies to adopt CSR policies has
originated from greater mistrust (by some) of business as a result of several
high-profile scandals (e.g. Enron, BP, Nestlé), and consequent demand from
governments, media, NGOs and the general public for companies to exercise
a greater level of public accountability (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2008).
Implicit within this expectation of accountability is that through the adoption
of CSR, organisations can improve their business performance, satisfy a
growing demand for CSR-oriented products and services, and develop posi-
tive relationships with stakeholders. Although slow in adapting to this trend,
even the UNWTO has lately encouraged tourism businesses to adopt CSR
strategies to ensure ‘a greener, more competitive and sustainable tourism
industry’ (UNWTO 2010: 8).
From this brief examination of CSR, responsibility is clearly a word that
should be adopted in tourism, especially given its reliance upon the world’s
resources for success. However, while debate continues as to how responsible
tourism manifests in both tourism behaviour and also industry practice, very
few commentators who discuss RT explore the word ‘responsible’. To this
end, this book follows John Rawls’s (1971) theory of justice, where justice is
fairness. Drawing inspiration from the deontological or duty-based code of
ethics where an action is either morally right or morally wrong, and being a
distinct critic of the utilitarian or consequentialist doctrine of ‘the greater
good’, Rawls (1971) argued that social justice was an effective method of
managing the rights and duties of society because in that way, ‘the benefits
and burdens of social co-operation’ would be evenly distributed. Strongly
critical of the utilitarian approach to social justice, Rawls’s belief in the plur-
ality of values meant that it was important to ensure that collective good
never took priority over individual rights (Barnett et al. 2005). As Rawls
(1971: 3–4) explains:
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the

welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice
denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by the greater good
shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few
are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.
Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled.
Rawls’s theory is based on two principles of justice: first, each person is to

have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a
similar liberty for others; and second, social and economic inequalities are to
be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s
advantage, such as distribution of wealth and income, and attached to posi-
tions and offices open to all, for example, hierarchies of authority (Rawls
16 Introduction
1971: 60–61). To encourage impartiality in situations requiring moral judge-
ments and reasoning, Rawls advocated a hypothetical ‘veil of ignorance’ (his
original position), where people should be unaware of their race, gender, class
or status (for example), in order to make the right decision (that is, to achieve
fairness for all). Rather than representing the judgement of one person, this
original position is a social ‘contract’ or agreement, although fundamentally,
individuals have responsibility for their own actions and cannot shift the
blame for these actions onto others, whatever the context.
Consumer demand
Having discussed the origins of responsible tourism and critiqued some of the
key industry and public-sector contributions to this end, it is critical to con-
sider whether tourists have acted to push the debate forward. While it might
appear easy to criticise key actors for being slow to embrace the need for a
change of emphasis from an exploitative to a sustainable form of tourism,
and for not working collaboratively to achieve this, few tourists actively seek
such holidays. Arguably, it is precisely because consumers have resisted
accepting responsibility for the impacts of tourism that the industry has
been able to ‘take a back seat’ on sustainability, although SMME operators’
apparent reluctance to take action is also due to a lack of knowledge about
incorporating environmental measures into business (Weeden et al. n.d.,
forthcoming), the pragmatics of a sustainability-profitability trade-off (Moeller
et al. 2011), and consumer confusion and/or scepticism over green wash (Font
2002; Miller et al. 2010).
Unfortunately, while a few SMME operators are genuinely concerned
about the impact of tourism, and strive to maximise the financial benefit for
destination communities (Mowforth and Munt 2003; Weeden 2005a), their
claims are often weakened by their connections with an industry whose mar-
keting activities are viewed by the general public with great suspicion. In part
this mistrust is an inevitable result of rampant ethical wash during the 1980s
and 1990s when several industries across Europe and the USA (including
tourism, oil, agriculture and energy – see Bramwell and Lane 2002; Greenpeace
2012), chose to exploit growing pro-environmental concern for short-term
profit.
Cynicism was further compounded by marketing campaigns that took
advantage of the post-Fordist zeitgeist, which saw tourists become disen-
chanted with tourism as a mass-consumption experience. Consequently,
‘small’ became beautiful and holidays were promoted as niche, experiential
and ‘authentic’, and sold with the accompanying prefix of green, eco- or
environmental, even though evidence indicated that they were exactly the
opposite (see Self et al. 2010). As Wight (1993: 4) noted at the time:
There is no question that ‘green’ sells. Almost any terms prefixed with the
term ‘eco’ will increase interest and sales. Thus in the last few years there
Introduction 17
has been a proliferation of advertisements in the travel field with refer-
ences such as ecotour, ecotravel, ecovacation, ecologically sensitive
adventures, eco(ad)ventures, ecocruise, ecosafari, ecoexpedition and, of
course, ecotourism.
These is also evidence of a lack of interest from the mass-market tourist, which
as noted above, allowed transnational operators to minimise their efforts to supply
sustainable holidays. Indeed, the extent to which consumers view responsi-
bility as an integral component of a holiday or leisure product remains
persistently in doubt. All of these issues are discussed in depth throughout this
book, notably in the Preface and this chapter, and in Chapters 3 and 7.
Conclusion
Given all of the above, it seems that the trend for devising catchy new names
for a ‘better’ tourism has not yet come to an end. While some advocate the
importance of a sustainable tourism industry, others argue that this can only
be achieved through PPT while yet more people believe strongly that CBT
holds the key to an equitable industry. While each and every one of the
alternative approaches discussed in this chapter has positive and also negative
facets, and is more or less embraced by actors keen to develop a coherent
discourse on responsibility in tourism, being a tourist remains the domain of
an individual’s free choice. This is where the challenge ultimately lies for those
wanting to push such an agenda forward: human beings are complex and
multi-faceted, which makes it difficult to predict or even anticipate their
behaviour. The following chapter attempts to address these issues, starting
with an examination of key research in consumer behaviour, continuing with an
exploration of tourist motivation, and concluding with an investigation of
additional variables that have been used to understand human behaviour in
an ethical consumption context.
2 Consumer decision making and

tourist motivation
Introduction
Many chapters on the subject of decision making start by presenting the history
of research in consumer behaviour. They examine the early monadic models
of buying behaviour which assume that consumers are rational decision
makers who make purchases after lengthy decision making, before introducing
the later multi-variable models which recognise the importance of exogenous
factors such as culture, society, motivation and personality. Invariably, these
chapters address the inadequacies of the traditional approaches, and explain
what their authors believe to be the missing link or the ‘next big thing’, which
sometimes incorporates their own model or a unique additional factor(s) that
will finally, once and for all, explain consumer decision making. Whilst it is
easy to criticise such a well-trodden path that seems to promise little, there are
merits to this approach not only is it important to acknowledge the history of
consumer research because it informs our current understanding of tourist
decision making, but also previous studies make a significant contribution to
understanding the behaviour of consumers faced with extraordinarily complex
consumption choices in the 21st century.
With this in mind, this chapter starts with an overview of research in con-
sumer behaviour, before evaluating the literature on tourist motivation and
decision making. The chapter discusses the ‘grand models’ of decision making
and considers why they have proven unsatisfactory in explaining both consumer
and also tourist decision making. The chapter continues with an examination
of key variables that have been used to explore tourist motivations, such as
consideration sets, involvement, attitudes and values. It discusses their influ-
ence on consumer behaviour and investigates their link with tourist decision
making and motivation. The chapter concludes with an introduction to the
concept of values and provides an overview of value studies in tourism.
Decision making models

The majority of research into consumer behaviour has been conducted
within the framework of psychology, adopting heuristic principles from the
Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 19

information-processing decision making paradigm (Wagner 2003), which was
briefly discussed in Chapter 1. This perspective presents the consumer as a
rational decision maker, whose every choice is driven by the notion of value
to achieve maximum utility (Bettman et al. 1998; Lye et al. 2005). In early
consumer research, ‘virtually every text on consumer behaviour included a
flow chart model of consumer decision processes’ (Olshavsky and Granbois
1979: 93). Such models, developed to simplify and therefore understand complex
decision making, are referred to as ‘grand models’, and developed primarily
from the work of Nicosia (1966), Engel et al. (1968), and Howard and
Sheth (1969). They assume consumers pass through a sequence of cognitive,
affective and behavioural stages (Gough and Nurullah 2009) in their decision
making, from initial perception of a want or need, through to post-purchase
behaviour (Moutinho 1987; Foxall and Goldsmith 1994). The models are
generally operationalised in stages, consisting of problem identification,
information search, evaluation of alternatives, choice and post-choice processes
(Decrop 2006).
For those involved in the marketing of tourism it is critical to understand
how tourists make their travel decisions (Moutinho 1987). Early tourism
researchers such as Wahab et al. (1976), Schmoll (1977) and later Moutinho
(1987) relied heavily on the process-driven perspective, where tourists were
viewed as rational decision makers, with information search and choice evaluation
being key components (Gilbert 1991). Although these process models have
been extremely influential, they have also attracted criticism. First, they were
initially developed to explain the purchase of goods, not services (Smallman
and Moore 2010). Second, the reductionist nature of all models makes it
virtually impossible for them to offer a universally applicable understanding
of buying behaviour (Chisnall 1995). Third, their inherent inflexibility makes
them inappropriate to a modern context, where ‘consumers frequently find
themselves faced with ill-structured selection tasks, involving choices of new
and complex products and services, and an environment in which available infor-
mation is often abundant, but frequently disorganised and incomprehensible’
(King and Hill 1994: 181, in Hansen 2005).
Likewise, although they have been extensively appropriated by tourism
scholars, they have limited utility for understanding current tourist behaviour.
For example, they were originally developed to explain individual decision
making, whereas travel decisions are often taken jointly or in groups (Gilbert
1991). Holiday choices involve emotional and experiential considerations,
which calls into question the effectiveness of the rational decision-maker
perspective. Indeed, far from working sequentially through each of the stages,
the nature of tourism means that tourists necessarily make opportunistic
decisions in situ. Their decision making is therefore continuous, highly con-
text-bound (as opposed to intentional), spontaneous and subject to change
(Decrop and Snelders 2004; Decrop 2010).
Nevertheless, these models have made a significant contribution to mar-
keting and consumer research literature. As such they remain highly visible
20 Consumer decision making & tourist motivation

and cannot be completely discounted in the context of tourist decision
making. No single perspective can ever offer a definitive theory of consumer
decision making (Hansen 2005), and any expectation that such models can
accurately predict every type of consumer behaviour in all situations and
contexts is unrealistic (Lye et al. 2005). However, researchers in all disciplines
continue to pursue the ultimate challenge of consumer behaviour, which is to
understand how consumers make decisions (Shao et al. 2008).
Tourist motivation
For those interested in tourist decision making, their first point of focus is
often motivation, which, although only one variable among many, scholars
often consider to be critical as ‘it is the driving force behind all behaviour’
(Fodness 1994: 555). Judging by the number of research studies using motivation,
it is a critical element in tourist behaviour. Indeed, much of what is known
about the decision making of the tourist is centred on the role and importance
of motivation (Decrop and Snelders 2004). It has certainly been the subject of
much debate in the past 30 years (Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Pearce 1982;
Meyer 1988; Baloglu and Uysal 1996; Gnoth 1997; Holden and Sparrowhawk
2002; Correia and Moital 2009), although there exists no single theoretical
explanation (Jafari 1987; Holden 1999).
Early discussions centred on the premise that individuals are motivated by
certain push and pull forces (Baloglu and Uysal 1996). These dialectical fac-
tors, based on theories developed in leisure studies (Iso-Ahola 1982; Kim
1998), were applied extensively to studies of destination choice, in attempts to
help explain the motivation to travel (Crompton 1979). Push factors were
explained as socio-psychological, whilst pull factors were aroused by a desti-
nation’s attributes once the decision to travel had been made (Crompton
1979; Baloglu and Uysal 1996). This binary approach was well supported,
especially by Iso-Ahola (1982), who contended that seeking and escaping
were the two basic motivational dimensions of travel behaviour. Indeed, the
notion of escape as a motivator was addressed extensively, especially in
sociological analyses of tourist motivation. For example, Meyer (1988) sug-
gests tourists’ search for an escape from reality and everyday life, while Cohen
and Taylor (1976:114) note:
More than any other everyday escape, the holiday is a small-scale replica
of the great escape messages of our culture … travel brochures and
advertisements are densely saturated with escape messages: get away from
it all, relax, be yourself, leave your worries at home, enter a new, exciting
world.
Whilst early conceptual studies into tourist motivation were largely dismissed
(Dann 1981), there is empirical evidence of the significance of push and pull
factors. Thomas (1964, as cited in Mayo and Jarvis 1981) identified 18

motivators for travelling, grouped under four categories containing both push
and pull factors. These categories were: education and culture; relaxation and
pleasure; ethnic and family heritage; and travelling for health, status, weather
and sport. A later study by Crompton (1979) in the USA identified nine travel
motivations, seven of which were socio-psychological (push) – escape from a
mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, pres-
tige, regression, enhancement of family and friend relationships, and social
opportunities – whilst novelty and education formed the two pull factors.
Crompton (1979) acknowledged that motivation was a highly complex and
multi-dimensional construct. Pearce (1982: 63) agreed, criticising an earlier
study by Dann (1979) for treating motivation as ‘polar co-ordinates of a
single travel motivation continuum’. Dann (1981: 191) later conceded that
push and pull motivations worked together, noting ‘pull factors of the resort
(for example, sunshine, relaxed tempo, friendly natives, and so on), both
respond to, and reinforce, push factor motivation’. Ryan (1991) argued that
pull factors were increasingly important in tourist motivation due to changing
leisure:work ratios.
As already mentioned, there is still no single theoretical framework to
study human motivation. In tourism research, Fodness (1994) suggests that
this is due to early tourist motivation research being largely theoretical, whilst
Dann (1981), Parrinello (1993) and Sharpley (1999) all suggest that it was because
of the multi-disciplinary nature of the research. Crompton (1979) and Pearce
(1982) argued that too much was expected of a single motivational theory
since additional forces were also involved. Mayo and Jarvis (1981: 149) also
dismissed the uni-dimensional aspect of motivation, noting ‘travel is a com-
plex, symbolic form of travel behaviour through which the traveller is usually
striving to satisfy multiple needs’. McCabe (2000: 1051) later agreed, arguing that
a wide acceptance of a uni-dimensional view was possibly a natural consequence
of relatively few motivations accounting for a wide range of behaviours.
Ryan (2002), too, takes this reductionist position, suggesting that although
tourist behaviour is multi-motivational, motives are few in number while the
means of satisfying them become increasingly diverse. Sharpley (1999) argued
that studies of tourist motivation were too concerned with the simplistic
question of why people travel, resulting in superficial examinations of a complex
phenomenon. Similar criticism came from Meyer (1988: 198), who criticised this
approach for producing ‘simplistic typologies of tourist motivations and
tourist experiences’. Plog’s (1974) psychographic profile of flyers and non-
flyers is one such example, and clearly reflects the prevailing popularity of the
time for unitary trait-based approaches to motivation (in Pearce 1993). Meyer
(1988) argued that the monistic tendency could not possibly explain motivation,
and even the terminology associated with it was insufficiently clear – motives,
motivation and needs are generally used interchangeably. Gilbert (1991: 78)
concurred, calling the terminology ‘ambiguous’.
Motivation in tourism remains a contested area, with attempts to explain it
definitively remaining elusively vague (Ryan 2002). Researchers have blamed

this vagueness on the positivist approach of most motivation studies. For
example, deCharms and Muir (1978: 91) suggested these methods of enquiry
were ‘inadequate criteria for evaluating research on humans’ and that future
research should ‘be guided not only by the goal of increasing knowledge, but
also by the goal of gaining more practical know-how’. They argued that
positivist research was also responsible for the prevailing uni-dimensional
understanding of behaviour, a point supported by McCabe (2000) more than
two decades later, who argued that operational methods used to investigate
motivation were less than useful because they were positivist, highly complex
and therefore unworkable. Much earlier, Pearce (1993: 120) had called for an
emic approach because, in his view, quantitative approaches tended to pro-
duce simplistic data, such as psychographic groupings, which resulted in less
‘effective predictors and explainers of travel behaviour’. Mansfeld (1992: 404)
concurred, suggesting that motivations were multi-motive and intrinsic, and
therefore ‘hardly measurable by positive deterministic methods’.
Uncovering tourist motivations is extremely challenging for all researchers,
not least because ‘what the traveller says are his motivations for travelling
may be only reflections of deeper needs, needs which he himself does not
understand, may not be aware of, or may not wish to articulate’ (Lundberg
1974, in Mayo and Jarvis 1981: 146). Arguably, research into the covert needs
and wants of tourists necessarily incurs methodological challenges, and one
possibly best addressed using qualitative research methods (Holden and
Sparrowhawk 2002). On this point, Decrop (1999: 113) makes a claim for a
more interpretivist and constructionist perspective of tourist decision making,
because the nature of reality is ‘socially constructed, multiple, holistic, and
contextual’. Given such criticisms regarding the ability of traditional motivational
theories to explain tourist decision making, the following sections discuss the
more recent approaches adopted in the quest to understand tourist decision
making and motivation. These are consideration sets, and the concepts of
involvement, attitudes and values.
Consideration sets
Consideration sets are based on the premise that ‘people collect and analyse
information, eventually selecting an optimal solution from a range of alter-
natives’ (Smallman and Moore 2010: 401). Acknowledgement and acceptance
of this process highlights the significant relationship between choice and
information acquisition, with an individual’s ability to retain and process
information being at the heart of the choice sets concept. Faced with a range
of alternatives, consumers ‘manage’ choice by discarding those that are
unsuitable or unappealing. This results in a smaller, more manageable group
from which they make their final choice. Typically, the number of these final
choice alternatives ranges from three to six, dependent upon the product
category (Decrop 2010). The final outcome derives from an evaluation of the
advantages and disadvantages of each choice in relation to the consumer’s

desired goal (Smallman and Moore 2010). The stages involved in this process
are generally accepted to include a universal, evoked, awareness, retrieval,
consideration and choice set (Shao et al. 2008), although the exact number
and type of stage, and how they are invoked, has been the focus of much
debate since Woodside and Lysonski’s (1989) early categorisation.
Consideration sets have their roots in research that accepts that consumer
decision making is both prescriptive and analytical (Smallman and Moore
2010). As such, they are prominent in studies of brand and also destination
choice. However, critics of the concept conclude that far from being the
result of bounded rationality, tourist decisions naturally evoke hedonic choi-
ces of an experiential and emotional nature, which tourist research needs to
recognise (Decrop 2010; Smallman and Moore 2010). It is also unclear
whether consumers always create a choice set from which to make a purchase,
even in a first-time purchase scenario (Olshavsky and Granbois 1979; Shao
et al. 2008).
Involvement
Involvement has been extensively used in studies seeking to understand tour-
ist decision making, even though there is little consistency in explanations of
the term (Gursoy and Gavcar 2003). In essence, involvement assumes the
existence of a psychological connection between an individual and objects
such as products, services, communications and ideas (Michaelidou and
Hassan 2008). It is defined as ‘the personal relationship one holds with a
product or situation and is determined by both internal factors (for example,
values morals, attitudes) and external factors (for example, environment,
products and advertising)’ (Guthrie and Kim 2009: 116).
It is usually operationalised within social-psychological terms and under-
stood as the level of arousal or interest evoked or stimulated in individuals,
with regards to a specific object or, in the case of tourism, an activity or
experience (Kim et al. 1997). It is the interaction between an individual and
elements in the decision process that arouses attitudes, which then stimulate
the motivation to purchase. In this way involvement links motivations to
people’s needs, values and interests (Zaichowsky 1985). It is generally presented
along a continuum, from high to low, where low-involvement products or
services are those bought with little or no advance thought, are of low cost
(financial or otherwise) and for which the risk of making a wrong choice is
low. High involvement products, on the other hand, are those where a large
amount of money is involved, the product has considerable social significance
and/or the consumer lacks information as to alternatives (Gbadamosi 2009).
Whether the purchase is a high- or low-involvement choice will have sig-
nificant consequence for the type, length and range of information search an
individual undertakes prior to purchase (Decrop 2006), thus making it an
important concern in advertising and promotional planning (Gross and
Brown 2006; Guthrie and Kim 2009).

Holidays have historically been considered high-involvement purchases,
where an extensive period of problem solving activity often takes place,
with tourists gathering a wide range of information in order to reduce any
perceived risk and uncertainty with their choice. More recent research, how-
ever, has questioned this assumption – as tourists become more experienced
travellers, so their information search becomes internalised, retrieved from
prior experiences and their internal bank of knowledge. As a result, vacation
choices may become routine, after a limited, or habitual decision process
(Bargeman and van der Poel 2006).
The influence of involvement and its connection to information search is
somewhat contested in tourism research (Bargeman and van der Poel 2006;
Michaelidou and Hassan 2008). For example, research into the vacation
decision process of Dutch households concluded that past experience (and
hence the extent of internal/external information search) and involvement
were significant, but that of additional and also equal importance in the
decision-making process were both the level of interest in active information
search and whether the household displayed the characteristics of extended,
routine or limited problem-solving behaviour (Bargeman and van der Poel
2006).
In addition, information search, as a key variable linked to involvement,
may not always be related to actual intention to travel; information search
can also be hedonically motivated, with individuals seeking pleasure and
entertainment in activities such as viewing holiday TV programmes, reading
about exotic destinations in travel brochures or scanning websites (Vogt and
Fesenmaier 1998; Hyde 2009). Individuals may also be motivated to seek out
information for its intrinsic novelty, the desire for status amongst their peers
from having knowledge about places, as well as the more aesthetic motivation
of looking at images of beautiful places (Hyde 2009). In addition, and
regardless of the motivation to search for information, tourists are unlikely to
consult just one source, and the increasing use of smart technology means
that how and when tourists’ access information is also highly complex. In
short, consumers have varying levels of involvement with regards to their
decisions and will therefore view the decision making process very differently
(Guthrie and Kim 2009).
Attitudes
Linking choice sets and involvement to cognitive decision making is the atti-
tude construct (Decrop 1999), which remains a key focus of theory in both
social and behavioural sciences (Ajzen 2001). Katz (1960: 168) defines an
attitude as ‘the predisposition of the individual to evaluate some symbol, or
object or aspect of his world in a favourable or unfavourable manner … [with
opinion being] … the verbal expression of an attitude’. Eagly and Chaiken
(1993: 1) define an attitude as ‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by
evaluating a particular entity with some degrees of favour or disfavour …

[where] … evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether
overt or covert, cognitive, affective or behavioural’. The attitude construct can
be broken down into beliefs about the likely outcome of behaviour, and the
values that individuals place on these outcomes (Sparks 2007). They are par-
ticularly significant in decision making not only because they are enduring,
but also because they are changeable according to received information and
experience. The latter is considered extremely significant for attitude change
(Sussmann and Unel 1999).
Attitudes are broad rather than specific determinants of behaviour (Allport
1929), which are challenged when individuals experience dissonance between
their beliefs, attitudes and behaviour (Katz 1960). This notion of consistency
assumes that individuals who hold favourable attitudes towards an object or
behaviour will perform the behaviour, and where they hold negative attitudes
they will not (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). Attitude research has also revealed
significant difference between evaluative and non-evaluative judgements, with
some individuals demonstrating an overriding need to engage in evaluative
judgements. Those who possess a high need to evaluate are thought more
likely to hold positive attitudes towards social and political issues (Ajzen
2001: 28). Strongly held attitudes tend to be stable over time, are more resis-
tant to change and therefore considered more reliable in predicting behaviour.
Attitude strength is also related to involvement – attitudes formed with regard
to a high-involvement product are thought to be the most accessible attitudes
evoked during the information search and evaluation element of decision
making (Ajzen 2001).
The extent to which attitudes can be used to predict intentions and overt
behaviour remains an overriding concern in consumer research (Ajzen 2001).
For several decades, attitudes were considered to be the sole determinant for
predicting consumer behaviour. Indeed, it was not until LaPiere (1934) exposed
the attitude-behaviour discrepancy, which he blamed on predominantly
quantitative attitudinal measures, that this presumption was questioned. It is
now generally accepted that attitudes do not predict behaviour. In fact, it is
‘more likely that attitudes will be unrelated or only slightly related to overt
behaviours than that attitudes will be closely related to actions’ (Wicker 1969: 65).
Indeed, attitudes are only one of the factors involved in determining behaviour
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1977).
Theory of reasoned action (TRA)

Significantly for studies seeking to understand consumer decision making and
social purchases, attitudes have a value-expressive function, consistent with
the expectancy-value model of consumer behaviour. This means that indivi-
duals derive satisfaction from developing and expressing attitudes congruent
with both their personal values and their self-image. These attitudes, when
arranged into a hierarchical structure, comprise an individual’s value system
(Katz 1960). The theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) is the

most well known of the expectancy-value models (Ajzen 2001; Raats et al.
1995; Shaw et al. 2000), and assumes a causal link between behavioural
beliefs, outcome evaluations, attitudes, intentions and behaviour. As reported
by Wicker (1969: 74), Fishbein conceptualised it thus: ‘the TRA identifies
three variables that function as the basic determinants of behaviour: (1) attitudes
towards the behaviour, (2) normative beliefs (both personal and social),
and (3) motivation to comply with the norms.’ In other words, behaviour is
viewed as a direct function of an individual’s intention to conduct the beha-
viour (Shaw 2005), given the acceptance that individuals are more likely to
perform a behaviour if they have positive attitudes towards it.
Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

Both the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) and its later
modification, the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1985) have the attitude-
intention-behaviour relationship at their core, and continue to be the subject
of much consumer research. In response to criticism of the TRA, Ajzen
(1988) later added perceived behavioural control (PBC) to create the theory of
planned behaviour (in Raats et al. 1995). This assumes that ‘People act in
accordance with their intentions and perceptions of control over the behaviour,
while intentions in turn are influenced by attitudes toward the behaviour,
subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control’ (Ajzen 2001: 43).
Subjective norms are connected to individuals’ perceptions that important
others think they should or should not perform the behaviour in question,
and their motivation to comply with such wishes (Sparks et al. 1995; Ajzen and
Fishbein 2008). Perceived behavioural control concerns behaviours that are not
completely within a person’s control, and is usually articulated as the ease or
difficulty of performing the behaviour, based on Bandura’s (1982) concept of
self-efficacy (in Ajzen 1991). It is this combination of attitude, subjective norm
and perceived behavioural control that provides an explanation of behavioural
intention (Shaw 2005).
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)

Perceived behavioural control is significant because of its link to perceived
consumer effectiveness (PCE), or locus of control. This refers to the extent to
which an individual believes that they have the ability to bring about change
in their behaviour (Lee and Moscardo 2005). Research into whether perceived
behavioural control can accurately predict intentions is contradictory, with
some studies contending it to be significant (Ajzen 1988, as cited in Kurland
1995), others less so (Boyd and Wandersman 1991; Randall and Gibson
1991). Kurland (1995) argues that the construct is ambiguous, citing Fishbein
and Stasson (1990), who question whether perceived behavioural control is
based on Bandura’s notion of self-efficacy (I can do it if I want to) or Triandis’s
(1977) theory of interpersonal behaviour. Whereas the theory of planned

behaviour assumes social behaviour to be under an individual’s volitional
control, Triandis’s theory rests on the belief that the level of consciousness
decreases as the level of habit in performing the behaviour increases. In other
words, habit is a further predictor of behaviour (Bamberg and Schmidt 2003).
The theory of planned behaviour is considered limited for explaining ethical
consumer decision making because it was originally conceived to explain self-
interested behaviour (Shaw 2005). Ethical consumers are influenced less by
self-interest than by a sense of ethical obligation to others (Shaw and Shiu
2003). Consequently, research into the choice decisions of these individuals
has incorporated additional variables such as moral obligation and self-identity,
to determine whether they ‘improve’ its predictive utility (see Sparks et al.
1995; Kurland 1995). However, neither the TRA nor TPB model has been
proven to be a strong predictor of ethical purchase behaviour, even when
incorporating these additional variables (Kurland 1995; Shaw et al. 2000;
Jackson et al. 2003).
Attitude research in tourism

The attitude construct has also received considerable attention in tourist
research. ‘Both sociology and psychology – the main sources for explaining
and predicting tourism behaviour – rely heavily on the attitude construct for
researching the subject’ (Gnoth 1997: 284). The majority of this research,
however, is found in studies into resident attitudes towards tourism development.
Critics of such an application argue these studies use the term ‘attitudes’
when in fact they mean ‘opinions’ (Williams and Lawson 2001). However,
there have been some significant studies into tourist behaviour using attitudes,
which provide insight into the relationship between attitudes, values and
behaviour. For example, Lee and Moscardo (2005) detail several studies into
the impact of interpretation and experience at ecotourism resorts on tourists’
environmental attitudes and behaviour. Their own study used Hines et al.’s
(1986/7) model of responsible environmental behaviour (similar to the theory
of planned behaviour), in an attempt to establish whether experiences at an
ecotourism resort increased visitors’ awareness of and attitudes towards posi-
tive environmental behaviour. Results proved inconclusive but it is unclear
whether this was because ecotourists already had high awareness of and
positive attitudes towards environmental behaviour pre-visit, or whether other
factors were at play (Lee and Moscardo 2005). In contrast, Powell and Ham
(2008) revealed a positive relationship between high-quality interpretation
facilities and ecotourists’ improved environmental attitudes and behavioural
intentions. Significantly, however, this study investigated only intentions and
while tourists’ environmental knowledge may have increased as a result of
interpretation, their behaviour may not correspondingly change.
Studies by Bergin-Seers and Mair (2009) and McKercher et al. (2010)
revealed the presence of a social desirability bias because tourists invoked
retrospective environmental criteria in their decisions. This suggested weak

environmental concerns in the original purchase choice. From all of the above,
it appears that positive environmental attitudes are not accurate predictors of
tourists’ overt behaviour (see Dolnicar and Leisch 2008; McKercher et al.
2010). Studies seeking to understand tourist decision making using the theory
of planned behaviour are relatively scarce in tourism (Lam and Hsu 2006),
although it has been extensively adopted in social psychology.
Values
Continuing with the expectancy-value theory of consumer motivation, and
given that attitude is a poor predictor of behaviour, researchers of consumer
behaviour have extended their understanding of decision making using the
concept of values. Significantly, values were not considered in the ‘grand
models’ of Nicosia (1966), Engel et al. (1968), and Howard and Sheth (1969),
largely because these models did not encompass the initial stages of decision
making, where behavioural beliefs or values develop (Shaw and Clarke 1999).
Values are known to influence behaviour through their impact on lower-order
beliefs and attitudes (Hrubes et al. 2001). They are considered central to
understanding the complex links between ‘consumer thought and action/
inaction’ (Shaw and Clarke 1999: 110) and are particularly pertinent to the
study of ethical consumers, whose moral values drive their consumption
behaviour.
The potential of personal values to explain consumer behaviour has long
been recognised in marketing (McCleary and Choi 1999; Nunkoo and
Ramkissoon 2009), because they offer insight as to why individuals behave in
a certain way (Baker et al. 2004). As already noted, an understanding of the
role of motivation within tourist decision making is paramount for marketing
tourism (Thyne and Lawson 2000), and because values are significant ante-
cedents to attitude, opinions and behaviour they can be immensely influential
in tourist motivation research (Gnoth 1999). Knowledge of values provides a
useful perspective on attitudes and behaviour (Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
2009), even though the link between values and tourist behaviour remains
largely unexplored. Indeed, with just a few notable exceptions (Blamey and
Braithwaite 1997; Klenosky et al. 1993; Madrigal and Kahle 1994; Klenosky
2002; McIntosh and Thyne 2005; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2009), tourism
researchers tend to neglect the potential of values to uncover deeply held
beliefs, even though their importance in understanding tourist motivation has
recently been re-emphasised (see Higham and Carr 2002; Fennell 2003;
Watkins and Gnoth 2005; Budeanu 2007; McDonald et al. 2009).
Conclusion
This chapter detailed some of the key theoretical approaches used in research
of consumer and tourist decision making. It discussed the consumer behaviour
models of Nicosia (1966), Engel et al. (1968) and Howard and Sheth (1969),

and explored their use in tourist motivation research. The chapter addressed
additional key variables of consideration sets, involvement, attitude and
values, and discussed briefly how these factors have been explored in tourist
research. Finally, the chapter introduced the concept of values, subscribing
to the notion that values have much to offer in the drive to explain ethical
consumer behaviour.
Chapter 3 examines the complexities associated with ethical consumption
and determines whether a link exists between the consumption concerns of
ethical consumers and responsible tourist anxieties about the negative impacts
of tourism.
3 Ethical consumers and the

responsible tourist
Introduction
This chapter presents a chronological overview of studies into the behaviour of
consumers who display moral concerns over society’s excessive levels of con-
sumption. The chapter details the UK market for ethical consumption, and
explains the complexities associated with navigating the ethical market place. It
continues by linking ethical consumption with a tourism context, and considers
whether knowledge of ethical consumers’ moral concerns could be useful to
those seeking to understand responsible tourist motivation. The chapter concludes
with a detailed presentation of research into responsible tourist behaviour.
Researching ethical consumers

Researching human beings is a complex and often deeply frustrating activity.
Researching ethical individuals is even more difficult, not just because of the
added complexity of understanding ethical decision making, but also because
of the many labels that have been used to describe them and their consumption
priorities (see Table 3.1).
Although some categories contain a mix of older and more recent studies (for
example, socially responsible consumers), Table 3.1 presents a clear chronology
of the different terms and their initial conception. Arguably, these correspond
to pertinent anxieties present at the time of these studies. For example, the
socially conscious, ecologically concerned and environmentally responsible
consumer first emerged in the 1970s in reaction to concerns about the impact
of consumerism on people’s quality of life. The beginning of interest in the
contemporary green movement can be traced to Kinnear et al. (1974) and
Tucker (1980), while public concern over the ethics of mass consumption is
reflected in Strong’s (1996) paper on fair trade. More recently, studies have
addressed voluntary simplifiers, anti-consumerism and consumer resistance in
response to increasing social and political activism aimed at producing
change through consumption (see Cherrier 2010; Lee et al. 2011).
Unfortunately, these individual studies have done little to provide a cohesive
interpretation of the ethical consumer movement. Part of the problem is that
Ethical consumers & the responsible tourist 31

Table 3.1 Chronology of ethical consumer typologies
Consumer typology Date of publication
Socially conscious Anderson and Cunningham 1972; Webster 1975;
Brooker 1976; Pepper et al. 2009; Szmigin et al. 2009
Ecologically concerned Kinnear et al. 1974; Roberts and Bacon 1997; Laroche
et al. 2001; Fraj and Martinez 2006
Socially responsible Fisk 1973; Antil 1984; Roberts 1995; Paek and Nelson
2009; Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011
Environmentally responsible Tucker 1980; Urien and Kilbourne 2011
Green/environmental Schlegelmilch et al. 1996; Kalafatis et al. 1999;
Straughan and Roberts 1999; Follows and Jobber
2000; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Wagner 2003;
Wagner-Tsukamoto and Tadajewski 2006; Moisander
2007; Moustafa 2007; Chan et al. 2008; Kan 2010; do
Paço et al. 2013
Ethical Strong 1996; Shaw and Clarke 1999; Carrigan and
Attalla 2001; Tallontire et al. 2001; Auger et al. 2003;
Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004; Shaw et al. 2005;
Cherrier 2007; Newholm and Shaw 2007; Freestone
and McGoldrick 2008; Carrigan and de Pelsmacker
2009; Carrington et al. 2010; Shaw and Riach 2011;
Jägel et al. 2012
Fair trade Strong 1997; de Pelsmacker et al. 2005a; de
Pelsmacker et al. 2005b; Cailleba and Castéran 2009;
Doran 2009; Varul 2009; Ma et al. 2012
Ethical simplifiers/voluntary Craig-Lees and Hill 2002; Shaw and Newholm 2002;
simplifier/downshifter Miller and Gregan-Paxton 2006; Oates et al. 2008;
Shaw and Moraes 2009; Ballantine and Creery 2010
researchers have tried to navigate the complex landscape of ethical behaviour

by focusing on a single aspect of these individuals’ consumption – whether this is
fair trade, environmental, ethical or socially conscious behaviour. Rather than
clarify understanding, this approach has served to exaggerate confusion, with
researchers not daring to venture beyond the ‘silo’ of each label. For example,
do fair trade consumers have anything in common with ethical consumers?
Are environmental, green and ecologically conscious consumers similar or dif-
ferent? Such questions illustrate the complexities associated with understanding
ethical consumption and also indicate that treating their behaviour in isolation
has created difference rather than clarified similarity.
In an attempt to deal with such challenges, this book follows the lead set by
Harrison et al. (2005), where ‘ethical’ is used in its broadest sense to encompass
consumers who display a range of purchase (or avoidance) behaviours. These
stem from a variety of political, social, religious/spiritual, environmental and/or
animal welfare motivations, and illustrate the diverse nature of ethical
consumption. In this book, ethical includes a range of behavioural priorities,
32 Ethical consumers & the responsible tourist

such as fair trade, environmental, ethical and so on. While their purchases
might be different, the motivations behind them are united by a desire to look
beyond their own needs to the good of wider society in their consumption
behaviour (Harrison et al. 2005).
At this point it is worth discussing the difference between ethical con-
sumption and the ethics of consumption. The former is consumption that
allows individuals and groups to express their moral priorities, whilst the
latter is against all forms of consumerism (Barnett et al. 2005). Debates about
the ethics of consumption tend to revolve around calls for reduced consumption
and are often evoked in discussions on sustainability, the environment, and
social movements such as slow food, slow travel and voluntary simplicity.
Ethical consumption, on the other hand, is more often understood as a vehicle
for moral and political action as seen in consumer boycotts and ‘buycotts’,
fair trade campaigns and corporate social responsibility initiatives (Barnett
et al. 2005). Such a distinction is also helpful in understanding the concerns
of ethical consumers, who not surprisingly display an array of moral priorities
in their consumption habits.
The UK ethical market

It is more than 10 years since Tallontire (2001: 15) noted that ‘current
knowledge on the ethical consumer, including the fair trade consumer, is
patchy and largely dependent on commercial opinion polls’. Whilst this may
have been partly true in 2001, it is certainly not the case in 2013, with the last
decade being witness to an explosion of academic interest in the ethical consumer.
Although more is known about ethical consumers in 2013 than was known in
the 1960s, by no means have they been the focus of extensive study until more
recently. In part this is due to confusion caused by the extensive terminology
and the isolating impact of such an approach, as already mentioned, but it is also
because of the lack of ethical products in the market place. Indeed, it is
only as consumers have become more concerned about the impact of mass
consumption on society, with a greater number addressing these in their pur-
chasing decisions, that the commercial ethical market has become decidedly
more developed. Table 3.2 presents the range of ethical products and services
available to the UK market in 2012.
While the market remains relatively small when compared against all UK
household expenditure, for organisations that produce goods for the ethical
market there is undoubtedly opportunity. In 2011, the UK consumer spent
more than £47 billion on ethical products, an increase of 130 per cent since
1999 (Cooperative Bank 2012), and compared to an average increase of
60 per cent in UK household expenditure during the same period. Each year
more UK consumers participate in activities with a broad ethical agenda,
such as recycling, supporting local shops and suppliers, buying from produ-
cers who have a responsible reputation, and actively campaigning on envir-
onmental and social issues (Cooperative Bank 2010). Even during the

Table 3.2 Ethical consumerism in the UK, 1999–2011
Products and services 1999 2008 2011 % growth % growth
£ million £ million £ million 1999–2011 2008–11
Ethical food and drink
Organic 390 1,986 1,500 285 (25)
Fair trade 22 635 1,262 5,636 98
Rainforest Alliance – 369 1,346 – 264
Farmer’s markets 131 220 220 68 0
Vegetarian products 452 768 800 77 4
Free range eggs 173 415 526 204 27
Free range poultry 37 174 266 619 53
Freedom foods – 51 149 – 192
Sustainable fish – 128 292 – 128
Dolphin friendly tuna 189 281 – – *49
Food and drink boycotts 532 1,069 1,113 109 4
Sub-total 1,926 6,096 7,474 288 23
Green home
Energy efficient electrical 136 1,893 2,045 1,404 8
appliances
Energy efficient boilers 212 1,942 2,375 1,020 22
Energy efficient light 10 43 48 380 12
bulbs
Rechargeable batteries 14 79 33 136 (58)
Green energy – 297 378 – 27
Micro-generation – 36 958 – 2,561
Green mortgage 4 455 – – *11,275
repayments
Ethical cleaning products 2 41 42 2,000 2
Sustainable timber and 351 1,325 1,706 386 29
paper
Buying for re-use: 672 913 819 22 (10)
household products
Sub-total 1,401 7,024 8,412 500 20
Eco-travel and transport
Green cars 3 282 1,088 36,167 285
Public transport 28 459 – – *5,387
Responsible tour 74 112 188 154 59
operators
Environmental tourist – 19 20 – 5
attractions
Travel boycotts 70 800 1,198 94 50
Sub-total 175 1,672 3,144 1,697 88
Ethical personal products
Ethical cosmetics 163 513 566 247 10
Ethical clothing 4 172 150 3,650 (13)
Buying for re-use: 195 402 330 69 (18)
clothing

Table 3.2 (continued)
Products and services 1999 2008 2011 % growth % growth
£ million £ million £ million 1999–2011 2008–11
Real nappies – 3 5 – 67
Charity shops 133 286 389 192 36
Clothing boycotts 159 384 346 118 (10)
Sub-total 653 1,760 1,786 174 1
Community
Local shopping 1,586 2,108 2,368 49 12
Charitable donations 2,570 2,987 3,125 22 5
Sub-total 4,156 5,095 5,493 32 8
Ethical finance
Ethical banking 2,149 6,976 – – *225
Ethical investment 2,872 6,825 – – *138
Credit unions 149 478 – – *220
Ethical share holdings 1 74 – – *7,300
Sub-total 5,171 14,354 20,893 304 45
Grand total 13,482 36,002 47,202 250 31
Note: * 1999–2008 figures.
Source: (Adapted from Ethical Consumerism Reports, Cooperative Bank 2010, 2012)
recession that began in 2008 ethical products and services have continued to
sell, and while Table 3.2 indicates that sales of organic food, ethical clothing
and new bicycles have declined since 2008, it also shows increasing amounts
of fair trade, sustainable fish and green cars are being bought.
In spite of the range of ethical products now on offer, and the amount of
recent research interest in all forms of ethical consumption, little agreement
exists as to what defines the ethical consumer and their purchasing concerns.
Indeed, many types of consumption are ethically valid, depending on the
values, concerns, knowledge and social context of the individuals and the
societies in which they live (Cherrier 2007). There are several historic reasons
why research has been unable to agree on the ethical consumer. First, many
different forms of ethical consumption have been separately investigated,
including recycling, purchasing energy-saving products, boycotting and cam-
paigning activities, downshifting and so on. As such it has been difficult to
make direct comparisons with, or even any connections between, these beha-
viours. Second, much of the early research into ethical behaviour offered only
a US-centric perspective, with consumers from other parts of the world
potentially displaying diverse motivations and behaviour. Third, studies have
been hampered by a narrow range of available products, particularly those
undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s. This resulted in a research focus on non-
consumption behaviour, such as recycling, intention to vote and church
attendance, rather than the purchase of ethical products and services. Finally,
studies often used geographically limited or narrowly defined samples,

contributing to the perception that ethical consumers were a small and
therefore insignificant market segment. Looking again at Table 3.2, the
strength and growth of the ethical products and services on offer seem to
indicate that this perception is far from accurate.
Profiling ethical consumers

Understanding how ethical consumers make choice decisions is critical for
companies producing products for this market. Looking at variables scrutinised
in pursuit of this information, early studies focused on socio-demographics, such
as income, occupation, education, gender and age. However, far from offering
any clarity, these studies produced contradictory information (Brooker 1976;
Tucker 1980; Webster 1975). Studies exploring environmental consumers, for
example, argued that men had a greater knowledge of green issues, while
women displayed more environmentally conscious behaviour (Diamantopoulos
et al. 2003; Laroche et al. 2001; Roberts 1996). Some research proposed that
the green consumer was a mature, well-educated and financially secure
woman, while other studies argued exactly the opposite (see Gilg et al. 2005;
Xiao and McCright 2007).
Some studies argued that the environmental consumer was a highly educated,
city-dwelling young woman who was actively involved in organised religion
(Berenguer et al. 2005). Other research argued that parents were more likely
to make environmental purchases (Brooker 1976); some claimed younger,
well-educated individuals with liberal ideological beliefs had stronger envir-
onmental attitudes (Hawcroft and Milfont 2010), while those willing to pay a
premium for fair trade coffee were women with a higher income and more
than average educational attainment (Loureiro and Lotade 2005). Other
analysts argue place of residence is important, with those living in rural areas
displaying more pro-environmental behaviour than those from urban areas
(see Berenguer et al. 2005). Such inconsistencies are evident in all forms of
ethical consumer research, suggesting that while socio-demographics provide
some useful information, and are easily available, their uni-dimensional nature
means that they lack explanatory power (Straughan and Roberts 1999).
Understanding what matters to the ethical consumer has become a key
challenge to some academics, and efforts to unpick moral motivations have
led research along different avenues of interest. Some researchers have
explored the relationship between consumer knowledge and level of concern,
on the premise that the more a consumer knows about an ethical issue, the
more concerned they become, and the more likely they are to purchase ethical
products. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, just because ethical consumers
demonstrate ethical concern does not mean that they will buy ethically every
time. In part, this is because people are confused by the immense amount of
virtual and also viral information available about ethical issues, and while
knowledge and therefore awareness are both essential for action, the extensive
range of information available can act to immobilise the consumer (Cherrier

2007). Consumers are also unsure how to judge the ‘truth’ about ethical issues
and corporate social responsibilities, as seen in recent debates between envir-
onmental journalists, the media and the scientific community about the ‘true’
cause of climate change.
As already indicated in Chapter 2, consumer awareness does not guarantee
consumer action, due to the attitude-behaviour gap. In addition, only the
most well-informed and highly motivated ethical consumer can be expected to
navigate the ethics associated with choice of ethical products and services.
Shaw et al. (2004) discuss exactly this issue in their study of fair trade apparel.
They argue that while ethical consumers consider traditional purchasing criteria,
such as price, availability and quality, they also have to decide on ethical criteria,
which, in this situation, means deciding whether to support their own coun-
try’s clothing production, or to buy fair trade clothes from a developing
country in order to support their economy. Such extended problem-solving
situations may mediate against any but the keenest ethical consumer to take
action.
These examples also illustrate the dichotomous nature of ethical consump-
tion. On the one hand research argues that would-be ethical consumers can
be stymied in their desire to live a more ethically robust life by vast amounts
of detailed (and not always correct) information. On the other hand analysts
claim that the ‘broadening dissemination of information’ (Shaw et al. 2006:
1050) has popularised ethical consumption and empowered a greater number
of ethical consumers. It is sometimes difficult to know the real picture and
although ethical consumers are growing in number, and broad ethical con-
cerns are more visible on the high street and in the media, it appears that the
level of complexity associated with understanding ethical consumer behaviour
remains a significant barrier. Consequently, researchers have turned to variables
such as personality, self-identity, moral obligation, altruism and perceived
consumer effectiveness in the hope that they will reveal why ethical consumers
act as they do.
Personality
Given the disappointing contribution of socio-demographic variables to
explain ethical consumption, researchers have started to examine whether per-
sonality research could contribute to understanding. Personality characteristics
are important in this context, not only because they constitute difference
between individuals, but also because they reveal a person’s social and inner
character, all of which are important in lifestyle choice (Whelan and Davies
2006). The majority of personality research, especially in the last decade,
has used the ‘big five’ taxonomy of personality. This suggests that individuals
share five key personality traits: agreeableness, extroversion, openness to
experience, conscientiousness and neuroticism (see Goldberg 1990, for
dimension descriptions). Personality variables are often used in conjunction
with demographics for market segmentation, but more recently the construct

has been applied to consumer motivation research, on the pretext that indivi-
duals who share specific personality characteristics will buy similar products.
For example, consumers who are ‘open to experience’ may be more willing
to try new or unfamiliar products, whilst those who have a high degree of
‘neuroticism’ might be more likely to buy familiar products, in line with their
inherent anxiety.
However, like socio-demographics, personality is somewhat inconclusive in
regard to predicting behaviour, largely due to price, convenience and perfor-
mance intervening in the purchase intention (see Percy et al. 1976). Also,
personality is multi-dimensional, and therefore difficult to measure and interpret.
In fact, similar personalities can display dissimilar ethical priorities. For
example, Fraj and Martinez (2006) noted that individuals who recycled were
not the same people as those willing to pay more for green products. They
concluded personality had some influence over ecological behaviour, but
noted the apparent inconsistent behaviour of (in this case) environmental
consumers. Some analysts suggest this is because ethical consumers approach
each purchase decision on its own merit, consciously opting in and out of
their ethical responsibilities, according to context and social obligations. As
Malpass et al. (2007, in Szmigin et al. 2009: 225) argue:
… when people talk about their roles as consumers they accept that they
do have certain responsibilities; sometimes they make excuses for not
doing more, but sometimes they make pertinent sounding justifications
for not considering it their responsibility at all, and maybe, just maybe, if
you listen hard enough, they might be asserting finite limits to how much
they, as individuals, can be expected to be responsible for …
Ethical purchase behaviour is perhaps not inconsistent, but rather a flexible

response to consumption choices, based on a combination of self-image,
social context, personal situation and denial strategies which individuals
invoke to help them resolve, deny and displace any dissonance (Stoll-Kleemann
et al. 2001; Szmigin et al. 2009).
Self-identity
Self-identity is considered a highly significant concept in consumption studies,
not least because it increasingly defines how consumers see themselves and
their place in the world (Soron 2010). Self-identity is linked to social role:
someone who identifies with the role of ‘being a good daughter’ will likely
behave in accordance with this role identity. Similarly, an ethical consumer
will make choices in order to construct and maintain an ethical self, which
has been referred to as ‘ethical selving’ (Varul 2009). This sense of self
strengthens with each behavioural repetition, thus overcoming the influence of
other social pressures, such as what friends or work colleagues think, known
as subjective norms. A good example of this can be seen in Cherrier’s (2006)

study of reusable shopping bag consumption, where consumers self-identified
themselves as sustainable due to their buying reusable, ‘green’ as opposed to
plastic bags from a supermarket. The more they used the green bags, the
more the behaviour confirmed and reinforced their self-identity as ethical
consumers. In turn, this encouraged them to adopt additional ethical beha-
viour, such as saving water, recycling and reducing their household waste. As
the ethical issue became personally important, so their lifestyle choices changed.
Moral obligation
Closely linked to ethical self-image is the concept of moral obligation, which
motivates people to ‘do the right thing’, in accordance with their personal
identity (Shaw et al. 2000). Ethical consumers are clearly motivated by their
sense of obligation to others, but whether this is altruism or egoism is up for
debate. Proponents of the egoism perspective argue that ethical behaviour is
motivated purely by self-interest. For example, organic food purchases are the
result of personal concerns over food safety, family health and well-being. In
contrast, altruistic individuals are moved to help others (see Batson et al.
1983). Such debates can be traced to Schwartz’s (1977) theory of altruism,
where he argued that altruistic (helping) behaviour depended upon an indivi-
dual’s moral obligation, their view of personal responsibility and an awareness
of the consequences of their behaviour, for themselves, for others and for
society (in Gärling et al. 2003). Individuals feel morally obligated if they are
aware that their actions have consequences for others, and feel confident in
their ability to influence them. Failure to act in accordance with these creates
a loss of self-esteem, an increase in self-criticism, and possibly guilt, but those
who do not believe that they are morally obligated ‘neutralise’ such feelings
by either ignoring the consequences of their actions, or by denying that they
have any personal responsibility for them (Chatzidakis et al. 2007; Schwartz
1970; Schwartz and Howard 1980).
Recent research acknowledges the complexity of ethical consumer behaviour
where, regardless of whether the research addresses green, sustainable, ethical
or socially responsible behaviour, the sheer variety of decisions that ethical
consumers have to make on a daily basis forces them to adopt a variety of
coping strategies, or decisional trade-offs, which manifest in a continuum of
activity. Operating within the marketplace, these individuals utilise their
power as consumers to facilitate change. At the same time, they also consider
more personal and pragmatic issues, such as price, quality, convenience and
value for money (see Carrigan et al. 2004; Shaw and Riach 2011). Conse-
quently, ethical consumers display flexible decision making, reveal a range of
ethical preferences, and demonstrate a variety of purchase and/or avoidance
behaviours in order successfully to manage the conflicting nature of these
diverse considerations (see Bedford 2011; McEachern et al. 2010; Szmigin
et al. 2009). Consumers can be sceptical of corporate claims of ethical behaviour
(often dismissed as ethical or green wash), and confused by the complexity of

the ethical issues involved in production, manufacture and supply. Even truly
committed ethical consumers do not always fully understand the ethical issues
of the products they purchase (Auger et al. 2003; Uusitalo and Oksanen
2004), they are not as well informed as they could be and are hesitant to
sacrifice product performance for ethical considerations (Newholm 2005). As
already indicated, price, quality and value often outweigh ethical criteria, and
although they are usually highly motivated to disregard the inconvenience and
extra effort required to source ethical products, the complexity and challenge
are sometimes too much to overcome for even the most committed ethical
consumer (see Cailleba and Castéran 2009; Carrigan et al. 2004; McEachern
and McClean 2002; Newholm 1999; Szmigin et al. 2009).
Perceived consumer effectiveness

Morally obligated individuals have high levels of perceived consumer effec-
tiveness (PCE), which activates their sense of empowerment, or belief that
their individual actions ‘make a difference’. Perceived consumer effectiveness
is derived from locus of control, with those who have a high degree of internal
control believing they can influence others and change society, whilst those
with a high degree of external control lack confidence in their ability to
influence others, and so feel a sense of powerlessness (Henion and Wilson
1976; Tucker 1980). Because ethical consumers have high levels of perceived
consumer effectiveness, they are confident in their ability to influence others
and society, and therefore are more likely to take action in support of their
ethical beliefs. Conversely, ‘consumers who feel their choices will not have an
impact are less likely to factor ethics into their purchasing decisions’ (Cowe
and Williams 2000: 29). Perceived consumer effectiveness has been investi-
gated extensively in ethical consumption research, with many studies claiming
it is responsible for the attitude-behaviour gap (see for example, Kinnear et al.
1974; Antil 1984; Paek and Nelson 2009; Roberts 1995; Straughan and
Roberts 1999).
Responsible tourists
Having discussed what is currently known about ethical consumers, this
chapter will now question whether this knowledge can be used to understand
responsible tourists. Responsible tourists are relatively anonymous, because
while the ethical consumer has been the subject of debate for many years
the same cannot be said for the responsible tourist. In part this is due to the
relative youth of the tourism industry and the fact that concerns about the
consequences of mass tourism have emerged only in the past few decades.
Another reason for the lack of research attention may lie with the complex
nature of the ethical issues involved in tourism, and social attitudes towards
holidays and holiday behaviour. In combination, these have prevented people
from making ethical holiday choices.

For example, tourists may be more interested in ‘switching off’ from the
problems of daily life than acting on ethical concerns, potentially unaware of
the impact of their holidays, or unable to make ethical choices due to a confused
understanding of how to do so. As with ethical consumer research, studies
seeking to understand the motivations of responsible tourists have also been
hampered because of the many different labels given to those individuals who
are aware of the moral issues in tourism and want to be responsible in their
holiday choices. Also, ethical consumer research has not so far addressed
tourism and travel, preferring instead to look at grocery, banking, fashion
retailing and recycling. Consequently, little is known about how ethical con-
sumers make their holiday choices, or indeed whether ethical consumers and
responsible tourists are the same people.
Before discussing what is known about the responsible tourist, it is impor-
tant briefly to review the ethical dilemmas inherent in tourism and consider
whether these have been discussed previously, and the extent to which the basis
of these concerns matches the anxieties of responsible tourists. Arguably, ethical
dilemmas in tourism are similar to those faced by ethical consumers, where
issues of equity, fairness and justice come to the fore in everyday consumption
exchanges. Chapter 1 examined these issues in some detail. For example, while
tourism undoubtedly secures economic benefit for the majority of destinations,
it can also perpetuate imperialist attitudes, and cause environmental, social and
cultural degradation. Tourism development can also deny community access to
local natural resources such as fresh water, public land and fishing beaches,
resulting in displacement, and cultural dislocation by luring young people
away from more traditional sustainable employment (Fennell 1999; Goodwin
and Francis 2003; Mowforth and Munt 2003). Tourism is also criticised for
providing seasonal, poorly paid and low-status employment, while instances
of irresponsible marketing are cited as the cause of large numbers of people
visiting sensitive environments, and therefore causing path erosion, wildlife
displacement and increased pollution (Dinan and Sargeant 2000). These
are just a few of the anxieties generated by tourism’s rapid speed of develop-
ment, and its continued success, all of which have provoked fierce debate and
prompted calls for stakeholders to exercise a greater sense of responsibility.
Instead of repeating once again the well-rehearsed arguments both for and
against the impact of tourism and subsequent alternative proposals (sustainable
tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism) that have already been mentioned in
Chapter 1, it is perhaps more fruitful to consider whether ethical consumers and
responsible tourists have concerns in common. As noted earlier in this chapter,
ethical consumers’ lifestyles are motivated by a broad range of issues, ranging
from the environment and animal welfare, to social, political and trade
justice. They demonstrate these priorities through a correspondingly broad
spectrum of activities, such as boycotting, buycotting, recycling, purchasing
green energy, and political activism, in order to redress what they consider to
be both unfair and unjust exchange relationships. Their concern with fairness,
equity and social justice is something they share with responsible tourists,

who are keen to mitigate the externalities (costs) associated with tourism by
holidaying in a way that offers a fair and equitable distribution of benefits to
local populations, at the same time as safeguarding wildlife and the environ-
ment (Fennell 2008). In other words, fairness, equity and social justice are
common objectives for both sets of consumers.
Further evidence of this comes from a series of focus groups carried out in
2002 with members of Tourism Concern, a UK-based campaign group for
ethical and fairly traded tourism (Weeden 2005b). This research revealed a
range of views, including the belief that travelling is a luxury that perpetuates
an economic gulf between tourist and local, the imbalance of power in favour
of the tourist and against the long-term interests of the local population, with
those encouraging tourism development often ignoring local people’s views.
Overwhelmingly, the focus group participants wanted autonomy to be
‘handed back’ to local communities, and wanted to dissociate themselves with
what Fennell (2008: 10) more recently called a ‘superiority complex’, and
situations where tourists are actively encouraged to cast off responsibility for
their impact when part of an organised tour group. Participants were also
unhappy about the inevitability of mass tourism development. Perhaps the
most significant finding, however, was that they were uncomfortable with
the term ‘ethical tourism’. Not only did they believe it was irrelevant to their
holiday decision making, but it was also meaningless as a concept. The
following quotes illustrate their strength of feeling on this point:
Ethical tourism is so aspirational. Because different destinations have

different ways of behaving, and if you are a thinking person, you’ve got
to the stage where you have actually got to think about ethics, you realise
you are never ever going to achieve it. All you can do is just keep working
at it, which is why possibly no one’s saying ‘I am an ethical tourist’. I’m
trying to get there, but I haven’t got there yet because it’s just so enormous.
(Respondent A)
I would prefer to say I was a responsible tourist because it’s less absolute
than saying, ‘I am an ethical tourist’. For me, responsible tourism is
easier to understand.
(Respondent B)
For these people, being a ‘responsible’ tourist was more achievable than being
an ‘ethical’ tourist, and this is where the decisional trade-offs observed in
ethical consumers’ choices recur. Responsible tourists want to act in accor-
dance with their sense of responsibility for the impact of their holidays, but
they also want to enjoy themselves, have fun and relax. Responsible tourists
realise they cannot prioritise each aspect every time, largely because of the
complexity of the tourist product, but also because such an aspiration needs
extra time, effort and knowledge (Weeden 2008). Consequently, they com-
promise – some focus on the environmental impacts of their holidays and so

never fly, others promote the economic benefits of their holidays by staying in
locally owned accommodation or by using local currency, while others work
hard to comply with local cultural norms.
Those who aspire to ethical lifestyles are likely to consider ethical choices
in all areas of their lives, as long as they have the awareness, knowledge and
ability to do so (Dolnicar 2010). As such, ethical consumers can be expected
to continue with their ethical choices on holiday. However, buying a vacation is
considerably more complex than shopping for groceries, and therefore far more
challenging for even the most dedicated responsible tourist. For instance,
buying fair trade bananas is much easier, even for non-specialists, than buying a
responsible holiday, or knowing how to purchase the individual components of
such a product. Although several tour operators and agencies such as
responsibletravel.com, as well as publications like the Ethical Travel Guide, have
all helped to publicise responsible holidays, many people who want to be respon-
sible tourists remain overwhelmed by the practical difficulties of how to arrange
one. It is relatively easy to make the decision to give up flying to a holiday desti-
nation, but information on alternative transportation can be difficult to find, the
alternatives may take longer and be far more expensive, which means individuals
have to devote extra time, as well as money, to utilise them successfully.
Ethical concerns of responsible tourists

Given this shared concern over equity, fairness and social justice in their
consumption behaviour, ethical consumers and responsible tourists have much
in common. However, it is interesting to note that investigations into responsible
tourists have borrowed little from ethical consumer research. For example, while
self-identity and moral obligation are significant in ethical consumer decision
making, tourist studies have not so far explored these variables’ utility for
explaining responsible tourist behaviour. Another important variable in
ethical consumption is perceived consumer effectiveness, and while the atti-
tude–behaviour gap has been hinted at (see Miller et al. 2010; Weeden 2002),
this has not been examined to any great depth, again in complete contrast to
ethical consumer research. The importance of ethical values, and hence
beliefs, is also notable for its absence in responsible tourist research. In fact,
whilst knowledge of values provides a useful perspective on attitudes and
behaviour, as first discussed in Chapter 1, the link between values and
responsible tourist behaviour remains largely unexplored, even though their
importance in understanding tourist motivation has been highlighted in the
past decade (Higham and Carr 2002; Fennell 2003; Watkins and Gnoth 2005;
Budeanu 2007; McDonald et al. 2009).
Notably, there are further similarities in the research into these two groups
of consumers: first, they have been allocated a confusing array of labels to
describe them; and second, their behaviour is often presented along a con-
tinuum of activity. With regard to the former, the range of labels given to
responsible tourists echoes the extensive number of labels used to describe

ethical consumers, and while ‘ethical’ is used in this text to encompass a
variety of ethically motivated consumption behaviour, it cannot be used to
describe tourists who ‘want to travel in a better way’. From the earlier focus
group, it is quite clearly unhelpful to call responsible tourists ‘ethical’ if the
term ‘ethical tourism’ is meaningless and therefore irrelevant to these individuals’
aspirations. This is highly significant, especially when examining the termi-
nology that has been used over the years to describe those tourists who are
aware of the moral choices inherent in tourism, and who want to apply their
ethical values to their holiday choices as much as to their other consumption
choices (Stanford 2008).
To explain further (and as already noted in Chapter 1), the tourism sector has
been much criticised. In response, several ‘alternative’ forms of tourism were pro-
posed (such as new, eco-, soft, ethical), each one with the remit of ‘solving’ the
problems of mass tourism. Naturally, this did not happen, largely because these
alternatives were often small-scale, and therefore unable to address the pro-
blems associated with ‘mass’ tourism. Indeed, rather than protecting natural
resources, these products actually encouraged tourists to go off the beaten track
into more vulnerable environments. Not only did they not address the problems
of mass tourism, but they likely compounded the problems associated with it.
Consumers as well as advocacy groups are also sceptical of what they
believe to be cynical and opportune marketing by operators labelling tours
‘eco’ or ‘sustainable’. Of course, not all tour operators are so inclined, with
many motivated by factors more often associated with ethical consumption,
such as moral obligation. In addition, although it is often claimed that
responsible holidays give tour operators competitive advantage, it is not yet
proven whether this results in higher profit margins, or even an associated
increase in sales (Weeden 2005a).
It is not only types of tourism that have been allocated a variety of labels;
tourists, too, have been labelled in a variety of ways, including eco-, green,
ego-, ethical (Weeden 2011). Keen to avoid any confusion caused by these
many terms, this book uses ‘responsible’ to describe tourists who actively seek
out holidays that allow them to show respect for local communities, enable
them to share the economic benefits of tourism directly with local people, and
who want to mitigate any environmental impact – all components of respon-
sible tourism. Before discussing the continuum of behaviour ascribed to these
responsible tourists it is important to review what research has been
undertaken in order to understand them.
Market research
Briefly, the attitude–behaviour gap and perceived consumer effectiveness are
much in evidence when discussing market research into responsible tourists.
For example, while research claims ethical considerations are increasingly
pertinent to tourists (Curtin and Busby 1999; Cleverdon and Kalisch 2000;
Tearfund 2000b), only a very small number of tourists actively seek and go on

to purchase responsible holidays. In 2001, as noted in the Preface, Mintel
(2001) claimed that only 7 per cent of UK consumers explicitly sought a
holiday with a tour operator that had an ethical code of practice, while 48 per
cent said that they did not want to think about ethical issues on holiday, and
were far more interested in the standard of accommodation and information
about the weather. Arguably, such inconsistency indicates that the majority of
UK consumers have low levels of PCE, do not feel morally obligated, do not
believe ethical choices are important to their self-identity, and deny responsi-
bility for the impact of their holidays. Another reason they do not provide an
accurate picture of the responsible tourist is because they focus on intentions
rather than behaviour (Mintel 2001; Mintel 2004; Tearfund 2000b; Tearfund
2001), which, as discussed earlier, are not guarantees of purchase.
However, these surveys have had some useful impacts, largely because they
were the first to bring these issues into the public domain. Most deserving of a
special mention here is Graham Gordon, policy officer (now retired) of
Tearfund, a UK relief and development charity, who was instrumental in
Tearfund becoming one of the first international organisations to investigate
attitudes toward responsible tourism, and to create awareness through cam-
paigns such as ‘Don’t forget your ethics’ (Tearfund 2000a), and publications
such as ‘Tourism – an ethical issue’ (Tearfund 2000b) and ‘Tourism: putting
ethics into practice’ (Tearfund 2001). At around the same time, Voluntary
Service Overseas (VSO) worked hard to raise awareness and to educate the
public about the potential inequities of tourism through their WorldWise
campaign, a key milestone for educating the general public about the ethical
issues of mass tourism, as shown in this excerpt:
When you book your overseas holiday, most of the money you hand over
will go straight to the tour operator and the airline. Imports of food and
drink to satisfy foreign visitors’ tastes take more money from the local
economy. International hotel chains may not recruit senior staff locally,
so locals don’t benefit from employment. One source suggests that of
every pound spent on a holiday in Kenya, only around 15p of it stays in
the country, and probably even less will stay in the locality of the holiday.
You can talk to your travel agent about booking a locally owned and run
hotel with good employment policies.
(VSO and The Guardian 2000)
Such concerns represent the very essence of tourism’s potential to generate

ethical dilemmas, and to create doubt in ethical consumers’ minds about the
benefits, as well as the impact, of their holidays. In an optimistic assessment
of the importance of these issues to the general UK public, Tearfund
(2002: 7) claimed:
Attitudes are changing. New research from Tearfund shows that the holi-
daying British public wants more information about how their breaks in

the sun affect local people and their environment. They do not just want
to switch off on holiday. They are keen to behave in an appropriate
manner and bring benefits to people in the destinations they visit.
Such views were based on Tearfund’s (2001) earlier study which claimed that
more than 52 per cent of people were willing to pay an average of 5 per cent
more for a holiday with a responsible tour operator, 65 per cent wanted to
know how to be responsible on holiday, and more than 50 per cent believed
that the responsibility to provide such information lay with tour operators
and travel agencies. An even earlier study (Tearfund 2000b), revealed that
although 47 per cent preferred to switch off on holiday, of those most likely to
take ethical considerations into account, 15 per cent attended church twice a
month, 12 per cent regularly bought fair trade goods, 12 per cent had been on
a trip to a developing country or planned to do so, 11 per cent gave more than
£20 a month to charity and 8 per cent were members of an environmental,
development or human rights group.
From this information, it appears that tourists who incorporate moral
considerations in their holiday decision making share significant similarity with
ethical consumers: not only are they well informed about ecological issues and
active in the community socially, politically and charitably, but they are also
responsible in all areas of their lives. In addition, they are somewhat counter-
culture or unconventional and act against the prevailing norm of mass tourism
(which does not encourage tourists to think about their impact or responsibilities),
again consistent with the independent-minded ethical consumer.
Further criticism of the market research carried out by Mintel and Tearfund is
that they do not offer a detailed understanding of either the purchasing
behaviour of the responsible tourist, or the motivations behind such choices,
mostly due to their generalist remit. Whilst important, the non-specialist nature of
the Tearfund and Mintel studies applies a quantitative perspective to the
issues, very often a notable feature of early marketing research into ethical
behaviour, where demographics were prioritised.
Of course, such a perspective is often demanded by industry, as quantifiable
variables are used to justify demand forecasting, and therefore support com-
mercial development. A significant limitation of this approach is that whilst
attempting to capture a snapshot of the whole market, it tends to ignore the
individual concerns of responsible tourists. Also, a focus on quantifying
market potential has produced an over-optimistic view of how many people
are interested in buying a responsible holiday. Indeed, the intent of many of
these surveys has been to build a case for increasing demand for these
holidays (see Tearfund 2000b, 2001, 2002; Mintel 2001, 2004).
Further examples of an over-optimistic assessment of demand include a survey
by responsibletravel.com (2004), a UK-based online agency for responsible
travel businesses, which surveyed 1,002 UK adults with a view to uncovering
their attitudes towards ‘mass’ tour operators. Their findings indicated that 88
per cent of UK adults believed that these operators had a responsibility not

only to preserve the local environment and culture but also to benefit local
people, with 80 per cent saying that they were ‘more likely’ to buy a holiday
from a company with a responsible tourism policy. Another survey, undertaken
by Wanderlust (2004), a UK-based travel magazine, supports this, further
claiming that 59 per cent of its readers were happy to pay an extra 5 per cent
on their flight to protect the environment, while 24 per cent believed that tour
operators and airlines should shoulder the responsibility for environmental
impact, and 17 per cent said the UK government needed to do so.
Another poll, by Opodo.com, a UK-based online travel specialist, indicated
that an increasing number of people were opting to use their holidays for
altruistic purposes (volunteering, as one example), with the company observing
that their ‘meaningful travel’ section had increased dramatically in terms of
both supply and demand (TravelMole 2007). Although these surveys indicated
that tourist awareness had grown, the market for responsible holidays remains
remarkably small: less than 10 per cent (Mintel 2005). A more tempered forecast
comes from Jane Ashton, head of corporate social responsibility at TUI (UK):
‘We’re not experiencing a huge demand from the average consumer, but we do
believe that awareness is increasing, and in a few years’ time we will need to
have integrated these [ethical] principles into our supply chain’ (Addley 2006).
Of course, these surveys are nearly a decade old, and so caution needs to be
exercised here as to their applicability in 2013. Of greater significance, however,
is the relative scarcity of research on the responsible tourist market – even the
Market for Responsible Tourism Products research report, published in
January 2010 (SNV 2009), utilises information from the Mintel and Tearfund
studies already discussed. In spite of their age, however, they have been cited
many times to support the assumption not only that UK consumers are
increasing their awareness of the ethical issues in tourism, but also that the
demand for responsible holidays is inevitably growing.
However, as we have seen with research into ethical consumers, self-reported
concern hides a lack of supporting action and this point alone is a key failing
of surveys relying on attitudes and intentions for data. What is missing from
these and other studies is a consideration of additional influencing factors,
such as perceived consumer effectiveness, values and moral obligation as well
as actual purchasing behaviour – all factors that have been used to research
the ethical consumer. In fact, just as ethical consumer research has recognised
the limitations of attitude surveys to understand behaviour, and moved to
investigate additional influences, so tourism researchers need to recognise the
limitations of general surveys in understanding the responsible tourist.
Responsible tourist research

Looking in more detail at Mintel’s (2003) research into UK consumers’
attitudes to ethical dilemmas in tourism, ‘apathetics’ (48 per cent), were
ambivalent about ethical issues – they did not want to bother with ethics on
holiday. These individuals were 15–20 years old or over 65 years, and from

socio-economic groups C2DE. ‘Unconcerned’ consumers (22 per cent) did
not want to think about ethics on holiday and believed tourism was a positive
force for good. These people were predominantly male, 25–44 years old and
from socio-economic group C1. ‘Researchers’ (20 per cent) were more likely
to read about local culture before travelling, believed that tourism helped the
local economy and were concerned about its impact on the local environment.
Some 15 per cent of these individuals claimed to buy a holiday with an ethical
code, were largely pre-family or empty nesters, aged 20–64 years and from
socio-economic groups ABC1. Lastly, ‘ethically aware’ (11 per cent) consumers
were also from socio-economic groups ABC1, but were 25–44 years old.
These people expressed extreme concern about ethical issues and worried
about the impact of their holidays on the local environment. They thought
tourism could ruin a local culture and were most likely to have seen or
experienced things on holiday that disturbed them.
A more recent report on European responsible tourists claims that they are
well educated, of all age groups, but mostly youths and retirees, equally male
and female, and have higher than average incomes. These individuals ‘actively
plan their holidays, seek interactive learning experiences, and travel “with a
purpose” that can include travel philanthropy or volunteering’ (SNV 2009).
However, this definition of responsible tourism is rather vague, as it includes
segments such as nature-based tourism, cultural and community-based tourism,
volunteer and educational tourism, backpackers and youth, adventure tourism
and high-end tourism. Whilst the tourists involved in some of these categories
might be responsible in their intention and behaviour, it is unrealistic to claim
that all backpackers or tourists on educational holidays have an equal concern
about the ethics of their choices.
Having decried the quality of information derived from market research
about responsible tourists, it is important to examine academic studies
to determine whether they offer a more detailed comprehension of these
individuals and their concerns. One such tourist typology that has been
much discussed is the ecotourist. Hetzer (1965, in Holden and Sparrowhawk
2002) argued that a responsible approach to tourism must adhere to four
central principles: cause minimum environmental impact; have a minimum
negative impact on and maximum respect for local cultures; maximise
economic benefit to local people; and maximise tourist satisfaction. Review-
ing these tenets in 2013 indicates ecotourism shares commonality with
responsible tourism, not least because of its emphasis on benefits beyond
those of the personal needs and expectations of individual tourists. It also
contributes towards a shift in the balance of power, away from anonymous
decision makers and towards local tourism providers (Sharpley 2006). This
therefore encourages a more equitable, less imperialistic encounter with local
people, a concern expressed by the Tourism Concern focus group discussed
earlier (Weeden 2005b), which wanted to avoid the ‘superiority complex’
common to many mass-tourism encounters, and to experience a more equitable
relationship.

Chapter 1 revealed a common lack of agreement over a definition of eco-
tourism (see Sharpley 2006, for a review of the key developments). Significantly,
the ecotourist is also the subject of much contestation (see Weiler and Richins
1995; Hvenegaard 2002). Studies generally overemphasise the importance of
demographic data and an ecotourist’s activities in their search for under-
standing, but as noted in discussions of the ethical consumer, such information
is of limited value, especially if seeking a deep understanding of ecotourists’
concerns and motivations. Knowing that ecotourists are mostly over 50 years
old, well educated, have a higher than average income, enjoy learning about
nature, like being physically active and like meeting people with similar
interests (see Eagles 1992, in Holden and Sparrowhawk 2002; Ballantine and
Eagles 1994) does not fully explain what motivates their behaviour and nor
does it indicate whether any underlying ethical issues are important in their
holiday choices (Sharpley 2006). As with all types of ethical consumer, eco-
tourists are not homogenous in their decision making, yet tourism researchers
tend to treat them as such, preferring to develop a range of typologies
rather than a deep understanding of what motivates their behaviour (for a
useful description of these see Priskin 2003). Ecotourist research is perhaps
only meaningful if it acknowledges underlying ethical values of those seeking to
lead environmentally sustainable lifestyles (Acott et al. 1998). However,
while the values of ecotourists have been explored to some extent (Blamey
and Braithwaite 1997; Higham and Carr 2002; Fennell 2003), there remains
relatively little research that explores the values of responsible tourists and the
extent to which these are considered in their holiday decision making.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed ethical consumers and their connection to responsible
tourists, and examined their common moral concerns. The chapter presented
a discussion of the key studies dedicated to understanding these consumers, a
review of ethical consumer typologies and a discussion of the extra effort
required by consumers who aspire to ethical lifestyles. The chapter also dis-
cussed responsible tourist research and noted that opportunities for greater
understanding of responsible tourist behaviour could be found in ethical
consumer research. Having hinted at the significance of values in ethical
consumer research, the following chapter will explore the concept of values in
more depth, with particular reference to values in ethical consumer research.
It also considers the utility of this information for explaining responsible
tourist behaviour
4 Values and ethical consumption
Introduction
The overall aim of this chapter is to explain how knowledge of an individual’s
values provides critical insight into their motivations and decision making. This
is achieved by considering the relationship between the motivations, consump-
tion behaviour and personal values of ethical consumers, arguing that a greater
examination and understanding of the role and importance of the human
values construct in ethical decision making produces a deeper understanding
of the responsible tourist. The chapter first explains how values are formed
and developed, and discusses how they have been used to explain human
behaviour. The chapter continues by explaining how knowledge of an indivi-
dual’s value priorities can contribute to a greater understanding of ethical
consumer motivation. It concludes with an evaluation of the values construct
and how this generates significant insight into responsible tourist motivation.
As noted in Chapter 3, relatively little is known about the motivations of
responsible tourists. Partly this is due to the complex nature of the ethical
dilemmas inherent in tourism’s development, operation and management
activities, which were discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. It is only in the last
decade that ethics and tourism have been discussed to any great depth, with
very few tourism scholars successfully exploring the topic (see the work of
Fennell, Holden, Malloy, Tribe, for example). Reviewing concepts within the
disciplines of psychology and philosophy, and applying them to tourism stu-
dies can reveal much insight. This has been pursued quite successfully in
ethical consumer research and the values construct has been used to produce
a better understanding of these individuals’ motivational values. Values are
important antecedents of behaviour – not only are they more closely related
to behaviour than personality, but they are less numerous, more central and
more immediately related to motivations.
Values and value formation

Values are deeply held beliefs about things that are important to people, and
constitute the basis for judgement and life choices. They are individually held

and initially learned within cultural, social and familial environments. As
people mature, so they develop their own set of values, or value system, which
they use to help choose between alternative options, resolve any value con-
flicts and ultimately make decisions. Values are also shared between groups
socially, culturally and organisationally, are activated by biological and social
needs, and limited in number.
Most people share a similar set of values, but how they choose to satisfy
them varies, according to both internal and external factors. For example,
some people gain self-respect by securing a well-paid job, others prioritise
educational attainment, whilst others want to ‘live a good life’. Similarly, whilst
social and cultural values are shared, they are not always universally adopted –
individuals adopt or reject group values according to their personality, life
experiences and familial and environmental influences.
Values are defined in several ways. Kluckhohn (1951) defined a value as ‘a
conception, explicit or implicit … of the desirable, which influences the
selection from available modes, means and ends of action’ (in Fritzsche 1995:
909). Milton Rokeach, who is credited with re-emphasising the importance of
values in modern psychology, defined them as ‘enduring beliefs that a specific
mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable
to an opposite, or converse mode of conduct, or end-state of existence’
(Rokeach 1973: 5). From a later examination of the literature, Schwartz
(1992: 4) defined values as, ‘concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end-states
or behaviours, transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of
behaviour and events, and are ordered by relative importance’.
This prioritisation is a defining feature of Rokeach’s 1973 theory of human
values and makes them particularly useful for explaining consumer behaviour,
because once a value is learned, it becomes part of a value system, with each
value being ordered in priority (Kamakura and Novak 1992). In this way,
values not only influence people to act in accordance with what they perceive
to be desirable, but they also encourage them to take action to achieve this
goal, thus starting the value-attitude-behaviour sequence.
Values initiate strong emotions, which gives them utility in ethical consumer
research, because these individuals hold strong beliefs about just, fair and
equitable consumption:
Values are central to the study of comparison processes; we employ them

as standards to ascertain whether we are as moral and as competent as
others. They are, moreover, standards employed to persuade and influence
others, to tell us which beliefs, attitudes, values, and actions of others are
worth challenging, protesting, and arguing about, or worth trying to
influence or to change.
(Rokeach 1973: 13)
Values are a powerful influence on human behaviour, and invoked by indivi-

duals to maintain self-esteem (consistency) in situations where one or more

values are in conflict (Homer and Kahle 1988; Madrigal 1995). They are also
helpful in understanding consumer choice and decision making, particularly
when moral judgements are invoked (Shaw et al. 2005).
Lists of values
Whilst values derive from an individual’s belief system, several theories suggest
this belief system contains three levels – global values, domain-specific values
and attitudes (Honkanen et al. 2006). Global values are considered the most
central, they are not directed at any one idea or object, and are interpreted as
general standards about preferred behaviour and lifestyle goals. Domain-specific
values are relevant to economic, social, religious and other activities, and
influence attitudes. These are more numerous than global values and have an
‘ought to’ or ‘should’ dimension. For example, ‘products I consume should be
produced in an environmentally friendly way’ (Honkanen et al. 2006). Atti-
tudes are beliefs about products or brands and are most often investigated in
advertising or brand research. These three categories of value make up the
value-attitude-behaviour pattern or sequence.
Some scholars believe people’s judgement and behaviour should be guided
by a universal set of values. These might include a commitment to something
greater than oneself; self respect, with humility, self-discipline and acceptance
of personal responsibility; respect and caring for others (that is, the Golden
Rule); and caring for other living things and the environment (Kinnier et al.
2000: 9–10). Others have suggested the list should include caring, loyalty,
honesty, fairness, accountability, respect for others, pursuit of excellence and
responsible citizenship (Beauchamp and Bowie 1979, in Fennell 2006). In fact,
because values lie at the heart of all moral judgements (Fennell 2006), they
are often used to devise ethical codes. For example, the Golden Rule, ‘do as
you would be done by’, underpins the UN Declaration of Human Rights of
1948, whilst the values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for
nature and shared responsibility form the basis of the UN Millennium
Declaration of 2000 (see Table 4.1), and the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), discussed in Chapter 1.
Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

The most well known list of values is the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)
(Rokeach 1973), shown in Table 4.2. The RVS contains 36 single values,
divided into 18 instrumental and 18 terminal values, which are also called
means- and end-values. Terminal values (for example, self-respect, pleasure)
are related to how people want to live, whilst instrumental values (for exam-
ple, diligent, honest) are useful in achieving this. Terminal values are mostly
stable and acquired early in life, whilst instrumental values change according
to a person’s life experience, and can be satisfied through consumption or
non-consumption choice. Moral values are usually instrumental (for example,

Table 4.1 Sustainable development values
Sustainable Definition
development values
Freedom Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise
their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear
of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and
participatory governance based on the will of the people best
assures these rights.
Equality No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity
to benefit from development. The equal rights and
opportunities of women and men must be assured.
Solidarity Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes
the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic
principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or
who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.
Tolerance Human beings must respect one another, in all their diversity
of belief, culture and language. Differences within and
between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but
cherished as a precious asset of humanity. A culture of peace
and dialogue among all civilisations should be actively
promoted.
Respect for nature Prudence must be shown in the management of all living
species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts
of sustainable development. Only in this way can the
immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved
and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable
patterns of production and consumption must be changed in
the interest of our future welfare and that of our descendants.
Shared responsibility Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social
development, as well as threats to international peace and
security, must be shared among the nations of the world and
should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and
most representative organization in the world, the United
Nations must play the central role.
Source: (The Millennium Declaration of the UN, 2000, in Shepherd et al. 2008: 248)
responsible, honest, broadminded, obedient, forgiving, trust and honour),

which, when violated, ‘arouse pangs of conscience or feelings of guilt for
wrongdoing’ (Rokeach 1973: 8).
Rokeach suggested terminal values contained two dimensions, personal and
social. Of the 18 terminal values, he argued five had a social dimension.
These were national security, a world at peace, equality, a world of beauty and
freedom. The remaining 13 were self-oriented personal values, such as happi-
ness, a comfortable life, family security, accomplishment and inner harmony.
Again, whilst everyone holds a similar set of values, how these are satisfied or
prioritised differs according to individual choice and preference. As an
example, someone seeking self-fulfilment might achieve this by living in a big

Table 4.2 Rokeach’s Value Survey (RVS)
Instrumental values Terminal values
Ambitious (hard working, aspiring) A confortable life (a prosperous life)
Broadminded (open-minded) An exciting life (a stimulating, active life)
Capable (competent, effective) A sense of accomplishment (lasting
contribution)
Cheerful (light-hearted, joyful) A world at peace (free of war and conflict)
Clean (neat, tidy) A world of beauty (beauty of nature
and arts)
Courageous (standing up for Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity
your beliefs) for all)
Forgiving (willing to pardon others) Family security (taking care of loved ones)
Helpful (working for the welfare Freedom (independence, free choice)
of others)
Honest (sincere, truthful) Happiness (contentedness)
Imaginative (daring, creative) Inner harmony (freedom from inner
conflict)
Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient) Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
Intellectual (intelligent, reflective) National security (protection from attack)
Logical (consistent, rational) Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
Loving (affectionate, tender) Salvation (saved, eternal life)
Obedient (dutiful, respectful) Self-respect (self-esteem)
Polite (courteous, well-mannered) Self-recognition (respect, admiration)
Responsible (dependable, reliable) True friendship (close companionship)
Self-controlled (restrained, Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)
self-disciplined)
Source: (Rokeach 1973: 359–40)
house and buying an expensive car. Others, who are less concerned with
conspicuous consumption, may seek self-fulfilment through abstinence and a
downshifting of their consumption activity.
Values enable researchers to identify people’s differences and similarities;
hence their popularity in market segmentation, where consumers are grouped
according to similar purchasing needs. The RVS is useful in this context
because it reveals how individuals prioritise their values with regard to the
consumption choice or behaviour under investigation, thus providing a holistic
appreciation of an individual’s value system, a better understanding of what is
important, and how value priorities are activated in pursuit of lifestyle goals.
Of particular relevance to ethical consumer research, personal values are in
constant competition with social values, with the effect that some people
prioritise social values over personal values (and vice versa), depending on
their value hierarchy (Braithwaite 1994). Arguably, ethical consumers place
great importance on social values, given their concerns over the consequences
of consumption, a heightened sense of moral obligation and their ethical
identity.

University of Michigan List of Values (LOV)
Although Rokeach’s Value Survey has been used extensively in values
research, it has attracted criticism, not just because respondents get confused
about the differences between terminal and instrumental values, but also
because of the time taken to rank a large number (36) of values. Critics also
question whether the RVS values have meaning in everyday life (Braithwaite
1994; Homer and Kahle 1988; Madrigal and Kahle 1994). To address
some of these concerns, some studies used the shorter List of Values (LOV),
developed by the University of Michigan Survey Research Centre, with values
taken from a combination of Rokeach’s 18 terminal values, Maslow’s
hierarchy of values and other less well-known value scales (Kahle and
Kennedy 1989).
The LOV contains nine values – a sense of belonging, excitement, fun and
enjoyment in life, self-fulfilment, being well-respected, warm relationships with
others, security, accomplishment and self-respect – so making the LOV more
practical for respondents to manage. Although out-dated in terms of the
descriptions of gender roles and activities, the LOV does at least contain
values more relevant to, and therefore more influential in, people’s daily lives
and consumption activities (see Table 4.3). For example, the RVS value of
world peace might be important to many people, but it is difficult to know
how this might be expressed in daily consumption behaviour.
The LOV does not completely escape criticism. Indeed, some analysts
prefer the RVS because it asks respondents to rank their values in order of
priority, to reveal a whole value system, and a relevant hierarchy. In contrast,
LOV studies tend to use respondents’ most important value, thus attributing
people’s behaviour to a single value, regardless of the action or motivation
under investigation (Kamakura and Mazzon 1991). This is unlikely to happen
in reality. People rely on a range of values to help them make complex decisions,
as illustrated by the trade-off behaviour of ethical consumers (discussed in
Chapter 3), where they make choices according to their value priorities.
Values and Lifestyle Segmentation (VALS)

An alternative model is the Values and Lifestyle Segmentation (VALS) metho-
dology, developed by Mitchell in 1983 at SRI International. This instrument
classified US consumers into nine lifestyle groups, on the basis of a selection
of demographic and attitudinal questions. These groups were named survivors,
sustainers, belongers, emulators, achievers, I-am-me, experiential, socially
conscious and integrated. Although not popular in academic research, VALS
has been welcomed by commercial organisations, largely because vivid
descriptions of lifestyle groups help advertising and market researchers to
develop comprehensive client portraits.
Detractors, however, criticise the inconsistent nature of the survey instrument.
While some studies report 30 questions being asked, others report 33, 34 or

Table 4.3 Description of University of Michigan List of Values (LOV) and their
meanings
1 Self-respect is the ‘All-American’ value because it was selected by the largest number
of people, and has the least distinctive endorsers (people who identify with the value).
People from all ages and income groups selected this value as most important.
2 Security is a deficit value, endorsed by people who lack economic and psychological
security. People who endorse it tend to report anxiety, trouble sleeping, dizziness and
shortness of breath.
3 Warm relations with others is an excess value, endorsed by people, especially women,
who have a lot of friends and who are friendly. These people experience nightmares
but have good social support networks and families.
4 Sense of accomplishment endorsers have accomplished a lot. They tend to be
successful, middle-aged men who often have good jobs and high incomes. They tend
to be well-educated managers and professionals; they like conspicuous consumption
but dislike anything that interferes with accomplishment.
5 Self-fulfilment endorsers are mostly ‘young urban professionals’ who are relatively
fulfilled economically, educationally and emotionally. They are healthy and
self-confident, but resent excessive demands from their families that distract from
self-fulfilment.
6 Being well respected endorsers are often over 50 years of age and have little
occupational prestige, yet love their jobs. They have low income and lack formal
education. In contrast to self-respect, which one can achieve alone, being well
respected requires the cooperation of others. Psychologically, people who value being
well respected tend to be external, depressed, unhappy, pessimistic and unhealthy.
7 Sense of belonging also requires the help of others. Like Warm relations with others, it
is a social value selected by women, but is less reciprocal and seems to result in
greater dependency. These endorsers are home- and family-oriented; they only have
high school education but tend to be middle-income. They are happy in family roles,
go to church regularly, but experience anxiety, dizziness, nervousness and headaches.
8 Excitement, fun and enjoyment in life (rolled into one category) endorsers are young
people who love life, are often unemployed, work in sales or HR but are optimistic
and well adjusted. They dislike family roles, religion and children, but like sports and
entertainment. Tends to be a higher proportion of young males.
Source: (Adapted from Kahle and Kennedy 1989: 7)
36, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. Additional concern has

been expressed over the heavy reliance upon demographics, and an over-
emphasis on US cultural values, making it less than universally applicable
(Kahle et al. 1986; Kahle and Kennedy 1989). There are, however, some
similarities between the VALS lifestyle categories and the values in the LOV.
For example, the VALS classification of achievers relates to the LOV sense of
accomplishment, while the VALS classification of belongers has resonance
with the LOV sense of belonging.
The most significant commonality, however, is that both models share an
outer-inner dimension, with some values or lifestyle groups being outer-directed
and others being inner-directed. In the LOV, for example, the distinction
between inner-outer-directed values comes from the locus of control concept

(Rotter 1966), which was introduced in Chapter 2. External values include a
sense of belonging, being well respected and security, while internal values are
self-respect, warm relations with others, excitement, fun and enjoyment in life,
sense of accomplishment and self-fulfilment.
Recognition of this internal-external dimension immediately recalls Chapter 3’s
discussion of perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and the attitude-behaviour
gap, where ethical consumers were acknowledged to be inner-directed indivi-
duals with high levels of PCE. In fact, this is mooted to be a key differential
between those who take action in support of their ethical principles and those
who do not. On this basis, ethical consumers are likely to have affinity with
the internal values of the LOV, rather than the external values of sense of
belonging, being well respected and security. Looking again at Table 4.3 and
the description of the LOV categories, the difference between inner- and
outer-directed individuals is neatly illustrated by the values being well respected
and self-respect. Those who endorse the former are likely to look to others for
confirmation of ‘their place in society’, as they believe that external factors
are responsible for their life’s events. In contrast, inner-directed individuals,
who endorse self-respect, are likely to look internally for confirmation of their
identity, and are generally independent thinkers who do not ‘follow the herd’
for their opinions.
Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)

Values act as a psychological response to three universal requirements
faced by all individuals and groups: to satisfy biological needs, to achieve
smooth social interaction, and to meet social institutional demands for group
welfare and survival (Feather 1994). Schwartz’s interpretation of values and
their different sources is shown in Table 4.4. As an example, the value
conformity supports smooth social relations in the pursuit of group survival,
ensuring individuals restrain any thoughts or actions that hurt others
(Schwartz 1994).
Schwartz’s (1992) Value Survey contained 56 values (see Table 4.5). How-
ever, these were later redefined as value types, which produced a more reliable
and shorter, more practical list of values (Feather 1994) (see Table 4.6). Because
values are organised into hierarchies, they are constantly undergoing conflict;
satisfying one value often means rejecting or minimising the influence of
another. Although Rokeach (1973) recognised the possibility for conflict, he
suggested that only four value types would stand in opposition. These were
moral vs. competence values, and personal vs. social values. In contrast,
Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) argue that all value types are either conflicting or
compatible, with the relationships between the value types constituting the
value system. In fact, because all value types have different motivational
goals, actions taken in pursuit of a particular value will have psychological,
practical or social consequences, which may or may not be compatible
with other values (Schwartz 1994). For example, the value types of security

Table 4.4 Explanation of values and their sources
Definition Exemplary values Source
Power: Social status and prestige, Social power Interaction
control or dominance over people and Authority, wealth Group
resources
Achievement: Personal success through Successful Interaction
demonstrating competence according Capable, ambitious Group
to social standards
Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous Pleasure, enjoying life Organism
gratification for oneself
Stimulation: Excitement, novelty and Daring, varied life, exciting Organism
challenge in life life
Self-direction: Independent thought and Creativity, curious Organism
action – choosing, creating, exploring Freedom Interaction
Universalism: Understanding, Broad-minded, Group*
appreciation, tolerance, and protection Social justice, equality Organism
for the welfare of all people and
for nature
Benevolence: Preservation and Helpful Organism
enhancement of the welfare of Honest Interaction
people with whom one is in Forgiving Group
frequent personal contact
Tradition: Respect commitment, and Humble, devout Group
acceptance of the customs and ideas Accepting my portion in life
that traditional culture or religion
provide
Conformity: Restraint of actions, Politeness, obedient Interaction
inclinations, and impulses likely to Honouring parents, Group
upset or harm others and violate elders
social expectations or norms
Security: Safety, harmony, and stability National security Organism
of society, of relationships, of self Social order, clean Interaction
Group
Note: Organism: universal needs of individuals as biological organisms; Interaction:
universal requisites of coordinated social interaction; Group: universal requirements
for smooth functioning and survival of groups.
* Emerges when people come into contact with those outside the extended primary
group, recognize intergroup interdependence, and become aware of the scarcity of
natural resources.
Source: (Schwartz 1994: 22)
and conformity are likely to be compatible, because they both prioritise

harmony between individuals (politeness, obedience), but also within society
(social order).
Conversely, conflict is likely between those people who value concern for
others, and those who prioritise personal success (prosocial vs. achievement),
largely because ‘acceptance of others as equals, and concern for their welfare,

Table 4.5 Schwartz’s (1992) list of values (LOV) and their meanings
Value Value meaning
Self-direction Freedom (freedom of thought and action)
Self-direction Self-respect (belief in one’s own worth)
Self-direction Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
Self-direction Choosing own goals (selecting own purposes)
Self-direction Curious (interested in everything, exploring)
Self-direction Creativity (uniqueness, imagination)
Stimulation A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
Stimulation An exciting life (stimulation experiences)
Stimulation Daring (seeking adventure, risk)
Achievement Capable (competent, effective, efficient)
Achievement Influential (having an impact on people and events)
Achievement Intelligent (logical, thinking)
Achievement Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring)
Achievement Successful (achieving goals)
Hedonism Enjoying life (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)
Hedonism Pleasure (gratification of desires)
Security Family security (safety for loved ones)
Security Healthy (not being sick physically or mentally)
Security Sense of belonging (feeling that others care about me)
Security Social order (stability of society)
Security National security (protection of my nation from enemies)
Security Reciprocation of favours (avoidance of indebtedness)
Security Clean (neat, tidy)
Benevolence True friendship (close, supportive friends)
Benevolence Loyal (faithful to my friends, group)
Benevolence Honest (genuine, sincere)
Benevolence Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
Benevolence Responsible (dependable, reliable)
Benevolence A spiritual life (emphasis on spiritual not material matters)
Benevolence Meaning in life (a purpose in life)
Benevolence Mature love (deep emotional and spiritual intimacy)
Benevolence Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
Universalism Equality (equal opportunity for all)
Universalism A world at peace (free of war and conflict)
Universalism Unity with nature (fitting into nature)
Universalism Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)
Universalism Broad-minded (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)
Universalism Protecting the environment (preserving nature)
Universalism A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
Universalism Inner harmony (at peace with myself)
Universalism Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)
Conformity Politeness (courtesy, good manners)
Conformity Honouring of parents and elders (showing respect)
Conformity Obedient (dutiful, meeting obligations)
Conformity Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
Power Social power (control over others, dominance)
Power Wealth (material possessions, money)
Power Social recognition (respect, approval by others)
Power Authority (the right to lead or command)
Power Preserving my public image (protecting my ‘face’)

Value Value meaning
Tradition Respect for tradition (preservation of time-honoured customs)
Tradition Detachment (from worldly concerns)
Tradition Moderate (avoiding extremes of feeling and action)
Tradition Humble (modest, self-effacing)
Tradition Accepting my portion in life (submitting to life’s circumstances)
Tradition Devout (holding to religious faith and belief)
*Power (new) Capitalism (control and dominance of multinationals)
*Power (new) Consumer power (the impact of my purchase decisions)
*Universalism Animal welfare (protection for the welfare of all animals)
(new)
Note: * New values identified by Shaw et al. 2005.
Source: (Adapted from Shaw et al. 2005: 197–98)
Table 4.6 Schwartz’s motivational types of values

Self-direction The goal for this value type is independent thought and action.
Derived from the need for control and mastery (Bandura 1977; Dec
1975; White 1959) as well as a need for autonomy and independence
(e.g. Kluckhohn 1951).
Stimulation Derived from the need for variety and stimulation and related to the
needs underlying self-direction. Some link also with thrill-seeking,
excitement, novelty and challenge in life.
Hedonism Originally called ‘enjoyment’ to incorporate two values from
Rokeach’s list, happiness and cheerful. More sharply defined as
pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
Achievement This is about personal success through demonstrating competence
and necessary for survival, both individually and socially. Results
in a need for social approval, rather than internal standards of
excellence.
Power Interpreted here as the attainment of social status and prestige and the
control or dominance over others and resources (authority, social
recognition, wealth, etc.). Focus on social esteem, emphasises the
attainment, preservation of a dominant position with the social
system.
Security The motivational goal of this value type is safety, harmony, stability of
society and relationships. Can serve both individual (healthy) and
collective (national security) interest.
Conformity The defining goal of this value type is to reduce impulses and actions
that are likely to upset or violate social expectations or norms.
Emphasises self-restraint, especially in connection with close others.
Tradition Traditional modes of behaviour become symbols of a group’s
solidarity, worth and future survival, and often take the form of
religious beliefs, rites and other norms of behaviour. The motivational
goal of this value type is respect, commitment and acceptance
of the customs that a culture or religion might impose on
individuals and society.

Spirituality Theologians, philosophers and sociologists emphasise that people

look for meaning in life to counter the seeming emptiness of everyday
existence. If this is true and looking for meaning in life is a basic
human need then the motivational goal of this value type is
meaning and inner harmony through the transcendance of
everyday reality.
Benevolence The defining goal of this value type is preservation and enhancement
of the welfare of people who are in frequent close personal contact.
Benevolence focuses on concern for close others in everyday
interaction. Mostly requires a sophisticated level of thought.
Universalism The motivational goal of universalism is understanding, appreciation,
tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.
These goals are thought to derive from the survival needs of groups
and individuals that become apparent when they come into contact
with people from outside their primary group and become aware of
the scarcity of natural resources. People may realise that failure to
accept others who are different and treat them justly will lead to
life-threatening conflict, and failure to protect the natural environment
will lead to the destruction of those resources on which life depends.
Source: (Adapted from Schwartz 1992: 5–12)
interferes with the pursuit of one’s own relative success and dominance over
others’ (Schwartz 1992: 15). An understanding of the potential for conflict, or
compatibility, between different values reveals the relationships between them, as
well as their similarities and differences, and provides a coherent understanding
of an individual’s belief system, what they value most importantly, and why.
Schwartz (1992) grouped the value types in a circle according to their
motivational content, as shown in Figure 4.1 below, with compatible value
types arranged adjacent to each other, and conflicting values arranged in
opposition (Pepper et al. 2009). The arrangement of values in a circular
fashion highlights the motivational aspect of values, with the circle being
formed of two axes – one horizontal, the other vertical. Schwartz also
identified four higher-order value types and arranged them oppositionally –
self-transcendence opposite to self-enhancement, and conservatism opposite
to openness to change. At this stage spirituality remains within the circumplex.
This was later removed (see page 109 for explanation).
Self-transcendence values are a measure of the degree to which a person
values goals and ideals not directly linked to their notion of self (e.g. broadminded,
loyal, honest, forgiving), while self-enhancement is the degree to which a
person values goals and ideals directly linked to tangible rewards for self (for
example, successful, ambitious, wealth, social power). As the term indicates, an
emphasis on self-enhancement means a general orientation to self, with these
individuals having a narrow definition of themselves that excludes other
people and living things. Conversely, self-transcendence values are the pre-
ference of those who have a wider sense of self and include other people and
living things (Schultz and Zelezny 1999). Self-transcendence values motivate
Figure 4.1 Model of values circumplex

Source: (Schwartz 1992: 45)
people to minimise individual or selfish concerns and to promote the welfare of

others, whilst self-enhancement values encourage people to emphasise the
value types of hedonism, achievement and power, and to consider how their
choices impact on themselves, even at the expense of others. Openness values
independent thought and change, whilst conservatism values self-restriction
and tradition (Hrubes et al. 2001).
Values and ethical consumption

As already stated, values are antecedents of both attitudes and behaviour.
While people’s choices are shaped by their sense of moral obligation and self-
image, it is their values that more fundamentally influence their attitude and
behaviour.
Many studies have examined values in an ethical consumer context. The
scope and number of these has increased especially during the past decade
(Baker et al. 2004; de Ferran and Grunert 2007; de Pelsmacker et al. 2005a,
2005b; Grankvist et al. 2007; Makatouni 2002; Shaw et al. 2005). They have
also been used to explain a variety of non-consumption behaviours that contain

a moral dimension, such as occupation choice, management decision making,
donating to charity, as well as social and political activism (Braithwaite 1994;
England 1967; Fritzsche 1995; Mayton and Furnham 1994; Munson 1984;
Seligman et al. 1994; Shaw et al. 2005; Stern et al. 1993; Thomas 1986;
Vinson et al. 1977).
The strong connection between human values and a concern for equality
and social justice is consistently implied in these studies. In part, this is due to
values being naturally evoked by judgements of a moral nature. Indeed,
ethical consumption is always a value issue, regardless of whether an indivi-
dual’s values are activated by concern over animal welfare (leading to vegan/
vegetarianism), human welfare (leading to fair trade purchasing), or political,
religious or social issues (prompting activities supporting trade justice,
pacifism and volunteering).
Those who believe their values are under threat are considerably more likely
to take action to defend them (Mayton and Furnham 1994). For example, an
individual who places a high priority on universalism values, and finds their
value of social justice being threatened by racist behaviour in a local neigh-
bourhood, may be more motivated to engage in activities to secure better
community relations for the future. Alternatively, universalism values, which
prioritise the welfare of others and of nature, can encourage ethical consumers
to boycott certain foods in protest at their method of production or processing
(Honkanen et al. 2006).
From these examples it is clear that placing a high priority on universalism
values is fundamental for those interested in social issues, whether these are to
do with human rights, social justice or political activism. Those people taking
part in such activities are likely to prioritise the values of equality and free-
dom, located in the value types of universalism and self-direction, whereas
those individuals not motivated to do so are more likely to prioritise the value
types of hedonism, security and power. Exactly how an individual reacts to their
values being challenged will, of course, depend on their value hierarchy, but
a pronounced emphasis on equality differentiates the activist from the non-
activist. This is because the self-transcendent nature of the universalism value
type means that people who prioritise equality are concerned for the welfare
of others, and are also comfortable with diversity (Mayton and Furnham
1994; Rokeach 1973; Thomas 1986).
Values and ethical consumer research

Looking first at how values have been used to explain ethical consumer
behaviour, there have been relatively few studies on this subject, perhaps due
to them having been recognised as an important consumer group only in the
past 20 years. In fact, only one study investigated whether specific values in
Schwartz’s (1992) values survey could contribute a better understanding of
ethical consumers’ decision making (Shaw et al. 2005). This study, of fair
trade grocery shoppers, revealed universalism as the most significant value

type, which is perhaps unsurprising, given the importance attached by these
consumers to economic, environmental and social responsibility.
A further important value type was self-direction, again perhaps to be
expected, as ethical shoppers are generally considered to be independent
decision makers, with self-respect, autonomy and freedom important guiding
principles to this end. Finally, benevolence was also central, with respondents
recognising helpful, honest, responsible and trust as important determinants in
their buying and boycotting decisions. Honesty and trust in this instance were
interpreted as being able to trust the retailer or producer to act in accordance
with published marketing claims.
As might be expected from a group of ethical consumers, the two value
types deemed most unimportant were power and tradition. Power reflects an
individual’s need for control or dominance over others, or resources, and a
desire for social status and prestige – hardly attractive attributes for those
consumers holding strong opinions about equality, justice and fairness. The
same goes for tradition, where the acceptance of culture and religion over
individual priorities was not deemed attractive.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this study, however, was the
identification of three additional values: capitalism, consumer power and
animal welfare. Capitalism was interpreted as a negative value, which moti-
vated respondents to avoid supermarkets and multinational corporations with
ethical claims that they found questionable or unbelievable. Participants used
consumer power positively to benefit others and protect the environment by
purchasing ethical products. This is in line with the findings of Schultz and
Zelezny (1999), who argued that Schwartz’s power value type was negatively
associated with environmental values. Animal welfare, although partly a
universalism value, did not previously feature in Schwartz’s list, but with so
many ethical shoppers supporting vegetarianism, veganism or organic farming,
it was considered an additional value in this ethical context (Shaw et al.
2005). The research concluded that whilst Schwartz’s list of values received
wide support in the literature (indeed, empirically validated in at least 65
countries – see Pepper et al. 2009), it was not context-specific, contained values
that were meaningless to ethical consumers, and lacked some significantly
important values. In other words, while it can be a useful basis for ethical
consumer research it needs modification for it to explain their value priorities
accurately.
Whilst Shaw et al. (2005) were highly critical of Schwartz’s value model in
an ethical context, and given that it remains universally acclaimed and exten-
sively utilised in many areas of social and psychological research, there is
evidence that other analysts have come to a similar conclusion. For example,
Shaw et al. (2005) built their work on an earlier study addressing connections
between human values and moral judgement (see Ostini and Ellerman 1997).
This study opted to use the SVS over the RVS, in the belief that the more
comprehensive SVS would produce a greater level of precision, and therefore
be more accurate, in the interpretation of an individual’s moral motivations.

However, their results were disappointing, and although the SVS was more
reliable than the RVS, it did not reveal relationships between values and
moral judgement. This is supported by other studies which found that values
were ambiguous across value types (Grunert and Juhl 1995). Regardless of
this, however, the research had significance because of its cross-application of
Kohlberg’s (1969) theory of moral development with values, suggesting that
people’s values change according to their level of moral development. The
link to values is important as the study concluded mature moral reasoning
(the highest level of moral development) was motivated more by tolerance,
benevolence and a general orientation to others rather than self, and less by
conformity to authority, tradition, security or hedonism (in Ostini and
Ellerman 1997).
The values construct has also been used to explain environmental consumer
behaviour, with many studies adopting the Schwartz Value Survey. Indeed,
values have proven to be strong predictors of pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviour (see Stern et al. 1998). One such study revealed self-direction to be
positively related to environmental concern, because it expressed an individual’s
openness to change, an active interest in the world and acceptance of
diversity. Conversely, security and tradition were negatively related to positive
environmental attitudes and intentions.
A different study involving values and environmental behaviour set out to
investigate the role of values in the value-attitude-intention-behaviour hierarchy.
This research found that individuals holding strong universalism and bene-
volence values were more likely to hold positive environmental attitudes and
therefore a concern for the welfare of others can indirectly result in the
intention to purchase environmentally responsible products. Similarly, the more
conservative an individual the less likely they are to hold positive environ-
mental attitudes (and therefore less likely to buy environmentally responsible
products). Most significantly, their study provides full support for Schwartz’s
(1992) theoretical modification of the value survey, which conjectured that
self-transcendence values would conflict with self-enhancement values.
Finally, high-involvement products (such as holidays) are considered more
susceptible to influence from centrally held global values than low-involvement
items, which invoke the less abstract, more superficial product- or brand-level
values (Grunert and Juhl 1995). Put another way, holidays that satisfy an
individual’s core values are considered high-involvement experiences. If those
core values represent deeply held moral beliefs, then their satisfaction will
further support any future pursuit, and the more a person acts in accordance
with their self-image, then the more they will be determined to do so in future.
This theme was noted in Chapter 3, with particular reference to habitual
behaviour and its link to ethical selving.
Given the competitive nature of values, where pursuit of one value often
blocks the achievement of another, some scholars have adopted values to
research how consumers deal with potential conflicts of environmental interest
(Axelrod 1994). Such conflicts generally arise when short-term, individual

and/or selfish concerns clash with long-term social interest, such as that
evoked by the dilemma of the ‘commons’ (see Hardin 1968). How people
manage these depends on the relative ranking of their values. Several studies
take a tripartite approach to understanding how values influence environmental
concern, largely as a result of the rhetoric since the 1970s that connects
environmental concern with three classes of valued objects: other people, non-
human objects and the self (Stern et al. 1998). One such study argued that
environmental protection stemmed from three different value orientations:
egoistic, social-altruistic and biocentric. Those with an egoistic value orientation
view environmental protection in terms of their own personal benefit (the
environment must be protected because I don’t want to breathe in polluted
air); social-altruistic values are used to judge environmental decisions on the
basis of cost and benefit for society (the environment should be protected for
the long-term benefit of all); whilst a biocentric orientation puts the environment
at the heart of all decision making (I value nature for its intrinsic importance)
(Stern et al. 1993).
Similarly, a different study labelled the three environmental value groups as
egocentric, homocentric and ecocentric (Merchant 1992). Egocentrics maximise
self-interest because what is good for the individual also benefits society as a
whole. Homocentrics adopt social justice on the basis of the consequentialist
perspective of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, with ecocentrics
believing that society’s belief systems depend on the unity, stability and
harmony of the ecosystem. A further study adopted the labels of socially,
economically and universally oriented values. Economically oriented indivi-
duals are more likely to promote environmental protection when it is linked to
some tangible benefit (for example, buying unleaded fuel because it is
cheaper). Socially oriented individuals are most likely to take part in a pro-
tective measure if it benefits society as a whole, whilst universally minded
people are likely to take part in protective behaviour purely because it is
intrinsic to their personal value systems, even if it incurs personal sacrifice
(Axelrod 1994).
A different study argued that concern for others and the environment (a feature
of Schwartz’s theory of altruism) is not a consequence of just one of these
environmental orientations, but a combination of all three (Stern et al. 1993).
For example, those who have a concern for others (socially altruistic) would
be prompted to take pro-environmental action to avoid this; those who
prioritise biocentric concern are likely to take action to protect nature (rather
than humans), as evidenced in some of the deep ecology literature; whilst
egoists are likely to take action to avoid any negative consequences for self
(see Holden 2003, for a useful discussion of environmental ethics). Whilst
similar studies often use these terms interchangeably, they all conclude that
pro-environmental behaviour differs according to the relative priority of an
individual’s value system, their personal motivations, as well as the context.
In other words, people do not always value the same things, at the same time,
or even in the same situation.

The values concept in tourist studies
The potential of personal values to explain consumer behaviour has long been
recognised in marketing, and so an understanding of the role of values within
tourist motivation should be paramount for those involved in marketing
tourism (Gnoth 1999; Thyne and Lawson 2000). As already noted in Chapter 2,
values initiate the attitude-intention-behaviour sequence to offer a useful per-
spective on responsible tourist behaviour. Arguably, these individuals want to
avoid travelling in a manner that violates their ethical values. However, whilst
values, and their link to attitudes and behaviour, have been acknowledged in
outdoor recreation research, their use in explaining tourist behaviour has not
so far been hugely evident. Indeed, with just a few notable exceptions (see
Blamey and Braithwaite 1997; Klenosky et al. 1993; Madrigal and Kahle
1994; Klenosky 2002; McIntosh and Thyne 2005; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
2009), tourism researchers have rather neglected the potential of values, as
noted in Chapter 2.
Values are considered accurate predictors of behaviour, and so early studies
used them to refine segmentation strategies (Madrigal and Kahle 1994), primarily
because they cut across narrow demographic groupings, and are relatively
enduring, which makes them useful in demand forecasting. The information
they reveal also helps to develop more accurate marketing, positioning and
promotional strategies (Thyne 2001; Thyne and Lawson 2000). Significant
tourism studies employing values appear to focus on accommodation choice,
recreation activities and destination choice (Madrigal and Kahle 1994;
McCleary and Choi 1999; Müller 1991; Pitts and Woodside 1986; Pizam and
Calantone 1987; Thrane 1997; Thyne and Lawson 2000).
Of particular note is a study that examined personal values, Plog’s (1990)
tourist personality type and an individual’s travel style (whether preferring
group or individual travel), all within the broader motivational perspective of
locus of control (in Madrigal 1995). As already discussed, this latter refers to
the extent to which an individual is willing to accept responsibility for what
happens to them, with internally oriented individuals being self-motivated
and powerful in influencing events, and controlling outcomes in their lives,
against externally oriented people who tend to feel powerless and look to
external sources to solve their problems. The findings revealed that internally
oriented people valued self-fulfilment, accomplishment, fun and excitement,
and were significantly related to Plog’s allocentrics personality type.
Allocentrics are self-confident, intellectually curious and feel in control of
their lives: clearly these people share characteristics with internally motivated
individuals. In contrast, externally oriented individuals, who value security,
belonging and being well respected were related to Plog’s psychocentric
group, who tend to have non-active lifestyles, are unadventurous, tend
towards insecurity and express feelings of powerlessness. In addition, intern-
ally motivated tourists were more likely to be independent, rather than group,
travellers.

Since these early studies, very little tourism research has been conducted
using values, even though they are especially useful for researching consumers
facing a moral choice situation, a common dilemma for those familiar with
the concerns of responsible tourists. In other words, the potential of values to
offer insight into the deeply held beliefs of responsible tourists has generally
been ignored, and whilst research using values to understand ethical con-
sumer behaviour is relatively well established, the same cannot be said for the
application of the values construct in responsible tourism.
However, one sector of tourism that has attempted to consider values is
ecotourism, with one study arguing that ecotourism operations could positively
influence visitors’ values, attitudes and behaviour through the provision of
educational programmes (see Higham and Carr 2002). However, while the
study explored the relationship between visitor experiences, environmental
values and visitor behaviour at all stages of the on-site visit, claims for future
behavioural change were also made, even though this was derived from
visitors’ promises. It would be interesting to pursue this claim to determine
whether their behaviour had actually changed as a consequence of their visit.
A different study questioned the widely held assumption that visitors to eco-
tourism operators possess strong green and ethical values (see Winter 2007).
In reality, and in common with all types of ethical behaviour (as discussed in
Chapter 3), tourists who hold environmental values display a range of behaviours
along a continuum, from ‘hard’ or committed ecotourists, to ‘soft’ or more
mainstream nature values.
Research linking the environment and values is often presented as a binary
issue: the environment is either valued for its own sake (intrinsic value), or for the
benefit it brings to the human population (instrumental value). One study that
explored this further identified four different consumer groups according to
their use of, and value for, the environment (Winter 2007). These four clusters
were Active Players, who viewed the environment as of high recreational value
and low intrinsic, or spiritual, value. Passive Users exhibited very high non-use
value and negative intrinsic and recreation value, meaning that they valued
natural areas indirectly, possibly to hand on to future generations, or for the
benefit of knowing they exist. They did not appear to want to use it themselves.
The third group, Spiritualists, held opposing views to Active Players, and viewed
nature as having very positive spiritual and intrinsic value. Lastly, Pro-Intrinsics
held strong positive intrinsic values but negative for all other values, meaning they
valued nature for its own sake and not for spiritual or instrumental value.
Significantly, the value spirituality provokes some debate: for some it has
religious origin, for others it does not, and whilst it has different meaning for
different people, it is also derived from diverse activities (Grunert and Juhl 1995).
Winter (2007) also makes an important additional point: if tourism development
is promoted for its instrumental value (i.e. how nature can enhance holiday
opportunities), then those who value the environment intrinsically, or spiritually,
will be disenfranchised and ultimately lost to both the development and the
industry in the long term.

The majority of values research in tourism adopts the personal value
perspective. Very few analysts have examined the contribution of social
values to profile the population, which is perplexing given that interest in, and
concern about, the environment might be better explored using values that
encompass people’s beliefs about how society and the community around
them should live and what is important to them. One such study using the
Social Values Inventory (Braithwaite and Law 1985), revealed that the
(Australian) population could be explained using four clusters with respect to
their environmental values.
From this study, Greens’ commitment to ecotourism was embedded within
a political ideology of environmental protection, social cooperation and
equality. They believed that governments should be responsible for wildlife
management, and rather than supporting the ‘user pays principle’, wanted
everyone to own these areas and pay for their upkeep. Dualists were more
pragmatic, believing that a solution to the tension between environmental
needs and the subsequent costs of protection should be supplied by industry.
Emphatically they did not trust government to provide a solution. Moral
Relativists were less supportive of nature than any other group, and were less
interested in protecting the environment for recreational use. The final cluster,
Libertarians, had the least supportive approach to recycling, was least sup-
portive of government regulation and was the least supportive of social
welfare spending (Blamey and Braithwaite 1997).
This research is particularly significant in that it polled the general population,
on the assumption that those not actively pursuing ecotourism may yet
possess environmental values. This study also indicated that while Greens are
perhaps a significant minority in any population, their energy and commit-
ment to green issues are what drives debate forward for the future, thus
providing guidance and knowledge about how best to protect and also use the
environment.
Although Chapter 1 considered whether ecotourism was a niche product,
this might be a counterproductive perspective. People of all shades of green
(see Swarbrooke 1999, for an explanation of these) have a view, and so should
be involved in debate about the environment, not only to encourage a greater
number of people to prioritise environmental stewardship, but also to discuss
how best to manage it for future generations to enjoy. Of course, encouraging
the general public to feel responsible, and to take action in support of their
responsibility, is another matter entirely, and one that has already been
discussed in this chapter.
Blackstock et al. (2008) comment that while responsible tourism is embedded
in sustainable tourism, the latter tends to focus on encouraging stakeholders
to concentrate on economic values rather than the more ethically generated
values of social justice, equity and empowerment in their business endeavours.
Davina Stanford’s (2008) work on ‘Exceptional visitors’ (yet another term to
add to the already extensive collection!) re-considered some assumptions
about responsible tourists, including definitions of responsible tourism, why

she considers ‘responsible’ a more appropriate term than ‘ethical’, and discussed
how various types of ‘good’ tourists might or might not be able to live up to
the expectations of the labels ascribed to their behaviour. The most significant
aspect of the paper, however, is her reference to the values of respect (cultural,
social, environmental), responsibility, stewardship, sharing (by spending money
in the destinations, learning about local people), tolerance and accepting of
diversity, all of which are found within the values of the UN Millennium
Declaration (Table 4.1).
Although not all of these values are represented verbatim in either
Rokeach’s or Schwartz’s value surveys (for example), they can be located in
both universalism and benevolence value types. Yet again this suggests that the
traditional and well-respected sets of values (such as LOV, Rokeach and
Schwartz) are not always useful in an ethical context. Indeed, perhaps the
time is long overdue not only for tourism researchers to comprehend how
significant values are for understanding how they influence individuals’
behaviour, but also to realise the importance of developing a tourism-specific
list of values to encourage responsible tourist motivation.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed how values have been used in studies of consumers’
environmental behaviour, and noted values can be particularly helpful in
studies involving ethical consumers (Shaw et al. 2005). The chapter argued
that little research has used values to understand responsible tourist behaviour.
A review of values in tourism studies revealed a relatively unsophisticated
level of application, mostly concerned with predicting tourist choice behaviour,
when the real worth of this research may lie in understanding, rather than
predicting, behaviour.
Whilst a few researchers have suggested the utility of values in furthering
an understanding of tourist motivation, not a great many scholars have
heeded such a recommendation. Such studies will be important in revealing
the meaningful relationships between values, responsible tourists and their
holiday choices, and provide critical information on the specific values that
prompt these decisions. The following chapter provides support for this
assumption and presents the findings of a study into how ethical consumers
seek to satisfy their values on holiday.
5 Responsible tourists in their

own words
Introduction
The previous chapter argued that an examination of individuals’ values can
contribute to a greater understanding of ethical consumption behaviour. It
noted relatively little tourist research had utilised the values concept for
understanding responsible tourist behaviour. This chapter attempts to redress
this gap by presenting the findings of an exploratory study into how ethical
consumers incorporate their everyday consumption values into holiday choices.
This chapter starts with an explanation of the study objectives, an exploration
of the research method and details of respondent recruitment. It continues
with the interview questions and respondents’ answers, using qualitative
quotes to illustrate their decision-making rationale. The study findings are
analysed in Chapter 6, along with a discussion of how values provide a
unique insight into the holiday choices of ethical consumers.
Study of ethical consumers’ values

This study investigated the holiday choices of ethical consumers with the aim
of exploring the extent to which they incorporated their ethical values into
holiday decision making. As mentioned in Chapter 3, ethical consumers
demonstrate a wide variety of consumption concerns stemming from a range
of political, social, religious/spiritual, environmental and/or animal welfare
motivations. Consequently, the respondents recruited for this research reflect
this heterogeneity and so appeals for involvement were made to the following
organisations: Tourism Concern, a UK pressure group for ethical and fairly
traded tourism; the World Development Movement, a UK-based membership
organisation that campaigns against poverty and social inequality; and Ethical
Consumer magazine, a publication distributed in the UK by the Ethical
Consumer Research Association (ECRA). Additional participants were
recruited via advertising flyers left in Quaker Meeting Houses, public libraries,
vegetarian restaurants, health food shops and charity shops in the South-East
of England. It was hoped that such variety sampling would attract people
who demonstrated a continuum of ethical behaviour, from those considered
Responsible tourists in their own words 71

extreme or ‘hard-core’, to those who exhibited less strict adherence to their
ethical principles. Respondents self-identified themselves as ethical consumers.
Of the 24 respondents, 16 were female and eight were male. Nine chose to
travel individually, seven with family, one with friends and seven with a partner.
Ten respondents worked full time or were self-employed, four were retired, five
worked part time and five were unwaged. All but one respondent had a first
degree or higher educational diploma, while 13 held postgraduate qualifications.
Their ages ranged over 20–29 (one respondent), 30–39 (nine), 40–49 (five),
50–59 (six) 60–69 (two) and 70+ (one), and all were resident in the UK. All
respondents are referred to in this chapter using pseudonyms.
Laddering questions
Each person was asked to nominate one holiday taken in the last two years,
and was asked the same four questions:
1. Did you travel with a tour operator or as an independent traveller?

2. How, where, when was your holiday and with whom did you travel? Is this
typical?
3. What options did you consider when making the choice of your destination,
mode of transport to the destination and how you travelled around once
you were there?
4. What activities did you undertake on holiday and how do these fit into
your choices as a consumer?
Individual in-depth interviews were conducted using the laddering technique

(Reynolds and Gutman 1988), where respondents’ answers are probed by repeated
use of the question ‘Why is that important to you?’ Using the Means-End
Chain theory, laddering interviews reveal the benefits that respondents
associate with each choice decision.
Holiday attributes
In response to these four questions, respondents identified a variety of
attributes that were important factors in their holiday decisions, and they:
Prefer to travel independently (that is, not use a tour operator or

intermediary to make travel arrangements on their behalf).
Like to buy locally made souvenirs.
Prefer to patronise locally owned shops and restaurants.
Use public transport as much as possible.
Like to be outdoors as much as possible on holiday, and enjoy nature,
especially walking in the countryside or undertaking outdoor activities.
Make an effort (if holidaying overseas) to learn some of the local language
and observe cultural norms relating to their dress and behaviour.
72 Responsible tourists in their own words

Prefer to stay in locally owned accommodation, typically a family-run
hotel or guesthouse, an eco-cabin or camping on an organic farm, and
enjoy getting off the beaten track.
Like to spend time with their family and friends and meet new people.
Additionally, some prefer to travel alone, often travel slowly and sometimes
attend retreats. Finally, if they travel with a tour operator, they try to ensure
that the operator has a responsible tourism code or buy a tour package
directly from a travel company once they arrive in their destination country.
The following section takes each of these attributes and discusses the benefits
of each as described by respondents. Benefits are also interpreted as
consequences of the choice or reasons for their decision.
Travel independently
By far the most common reason given for travelling independently was to
avoid using transnational tour operators. This was claimed to be important
for a variety of reasons: to minimise financial leakage from the destination; to
ensure that tourism economically benefitted local people; to prevent local
elites being advantaged disproportionately from tourism; and to pay a ‘fair’
price for their holiday – something that they believed was not achievable if
they booked with a tour operator, due to the length and complexity of the
tourism supply chain. These answers appear to indicate these consumers
understand the economic importance of tourism for destinations and local
communities, because as much as possible they book directly with transport
and accommodation providers. Their knowledge and understanding of such
issues appeared to derive from a variety of life experiences. For example,
Stuart’s career had been spent in Africa:
The businesses that I’ve been involved in building have been very large,
and in healthcare, cancer care, you know, things like that. So, you
know … you are trundling around the hospitals, you see people sometimes
close to death … you build up a value structure. … you become very
sensitive to situations that are unjust.
Stuart believed that his time in Africa inspired him to share his business
acumen with the market traders he encountered on holiday so as to help them
develop global sales networks. Similarly, Karolina believed that her views
stemmed from travelling in less developed countries, where she saw what she
considered discrepancies between what local people could afford to buy and
what she could buy as a tourist. She questioned whether income from tourism
actually reached local populations:
I don’t know enough about it, but I am a bit sceptical, because I think
the people who are doing tourism development are probably Westerners

going over and doing it, and it might be a certain elite of the local
population who get access to those funds, rather than the general
population.
Additional reasons for travelling independently were less altruistic and

focused on the benefits of freedom, choice and flexibility, with many people
wanting to linger in towns and regions they found interesting, which was not
possible when travelling on organised tours. Respondents on a fixed or low
income explained how travelling independently was more affordable for them,
whilst others sought to avoid the ‘tourist bubble’ because they wanted to have
an authentic experience, and to learn from the differences and similarities
between countries and/or regions. Although not everyone used the phrase
‘tourist bubble’, they all claimed to want to be treated as individuals, rather
than ‘walking ATM machines’ (David). They tried to make this happen by
staying in locally owned accommodation and taking public transport, in
order to meet local people, to experience their way of life and so build a
connection with them. While these experiences made their holidays more
culturally stimulating, they also claimed that it helped to improve cultural
exchange and mutual respect.
Support local enterprise

The most popular explanation for buying locally was to benefit economically
the local residents. A notable quote in support of this point comes from
Thandie, who explained why it was important to buy souvenirs from a
craftsman sitting by a road in South Africa:
… because I know that my money is going to him, it’s not going to

somebody else, somebody else, and that poor bugger in China’s getting
2p, if that … and not that I don’t think that people in China should be
earning money, of course I do, but you know, it’s the balance of the way
that system works. They don’t end up with very much and they’re slave
labour really, and this guy is not sitting in a pretty situation either, but at
least I could have contact with the person who produced the goods. Yes,
he was sitting there making them; I could see him doing it. Yeah, that is
important to me … it’s something about the directness and the …
something really happens to me inside you know.
Stuart argued that purchasing locally supported the local economy and
empowered communities:
… by these personal acts we can actually assist, well, we can make people’s
lives better. It’s as simple as that … the individual’s actions are the most
powerful ones that people can do. When things start very, very quietly,
eventually they start to come together as a multiplier effect.

Laura explained how she and her partner ensured that their money went
directly to those involved in tourism:
… by renting our apartment from a local resident – literally – we handed

him the whole rental in cash on our first evening – he lived in the
adjoining apartment … by buying all our food locally – especially from
the many small markets and more especially from the smallholders who
live just outside the city and bring their produce daily to local Budapest
and Eger markets. By buying tickets for cultural events from opera/cultural
centre, buying in the many excellent small locally run restaurants, cafés
and bars, using local transport, using local shops to buy books, calendars,
foodstuffs, using the state railway and bus system and paying cash
directly at railway and bus stations.
Distrust of international corporations was a recurring theme in the interviews,

with many people claiming actively to avoid large companies, at home and on
holiday:
I can’t bear this sort of creeping corporate grab of the world. It’s the, you
know, the way that the big corporations just try and grab and grab …
they use their power to take over more and more of economic and
social life.
(Joanna)
We think multinational companies have too much power derived from

their gross profits, manipulation of local communities and lack of demo-
cratic accountability. Our satisfaction is thus derived from circumventing
them, as their activities are directly contradictory to ours.
(Laura)
Whilst these quotes indicate an enhanced mistrust of multinational corporations,

others admitted that they support local shops to promote consumer choice:
If you support local places then you tend to get more choice. And if you
get the chains it’s just the same old things, and also I think they are get-
ting too powerful … you know, places like Tesco – I haven’t shopped at
Tesco (Asda too) all last year on purpose, because they are just too
powerful.
(Karen)
Use public transport/avoid flying on holiday

The third most common preference concerned the mode of transport used to
arrive at their destination and how they travelled about once they were on

holiday. Although travelling by public transport, or never flying, to reduce the
carbon emissions caused by their holiday was claimed to be a chief motivator
for six respondents, using public transport at the destination was important
for a further 11 people. Various reasons were given – those who travelled by
train or who never flew for their holidays asserted this was to protect the
environment for future generations. A sense of personal responsibility for the
environment came through strongly for many people:
I think it’s very easy to say ‘Oh it doesn’t matter to me’, you know, ‘I can
do what I like’, but I think we’ve got to the stage now with the state the
world’s in that each individual has to stop saying ‘Oh it doesn’t matter, I
can do what I like’ and actually start thinking of the impact of what
we do has on the environment and the small things we do and the bigger
things we do, because you know, time is running out. There’s also a personal
payoff for me in that I feel a happier, more successful person because I’m
a Buddhist, and hopefully there’s also a payoff for others in terms of the way
I try and live. I mean, I try and live as ethically as I can.
(Sabine)
Others were aware of the environmental impact of flying but continued to

take flights, albeit claiming to restrict them. For example, one couple said
that they took one short-haul flight per year, which they offset through
membership of the Woodland Trust (UK). Others adopted the notion of
‘payback’ to assuage any guilt they felt over continuing to fly. For example,
one person argued that travelling by air was more economically beneficial
to a destination because he would have more time there in which to spend
money. Another respondent considered that she offset her flight with
voluntary work:
[Flying there is] … not going to be brilliant for the environment. I hope
that when I get to India … because of doing voluntary work as part of
the Retreat … I’ll pay back some of that.
(Sabine)
Some people admitted to experiencing conflict between the environmental

impact of flying and a desire to visit friends and family. For example, several
interviewees had family living overseas (South Africa, Greece, USA, Pakistan
and Egypt), so they found it difficult to combine an aspiration to protect the
environment with love for their family. As one participant explained:
We are South African, so we go back to South Africa to visit family, or

we go to Greece to visit my grandmother. And it’s always on an aeroplane.
And I have a real tussle with this because we work very hard at our ethical
lifestyle, you know – we have one car that we try not to use, we walk to
school, we buy organic, we have renewable electric … we try to reduce

and we don’t consume, you know, we watch that kind of thing … It’s a
dilemma for me; it’s quite a strong one.
(Thandie)
A different reason for using public transport or not flying when on holiday
appeared to be connected to participants’ self-image as agents for change. For
instance, Paul claimed that it was important to him to explain global warming
to friends and family in the hope of effecting behavioural change, but did not
think he had moral authority to do this unless he ‘practised what he
preached’. Several respondents expressed a similar view:
Actually what’s important is modelling it for other people, that you can
challenge other people’s conception about how to do things, and if you
are doing it you’ve got a basis on which to challenge others. If you are
not, then you haven’t. So I kind of think you’ve got to live by what you
believe and it makes me feel better about the choices I make … that’s why
I do it [avoid flying on holiday].
(Karolina)
I’ve seen that I make a difference in people’s lives and in enrolling people
into doing something a different way. I have a group of friends who have
made changes because of me! You know, they’ve changed all sorts of
things in their lives and, you know, rethought dyeing their hair, rethought
all sorts of things that I hadn’t even thought of – I was the catalyst for
their beginning to think about their own lives and what they were doing
and making changes in their own lives. And I think consumers as a group
have a huge role to play, a massive role to play. I think if consumers were
aware, a little bit more aware about, about the issues and aware that they
really could … that their choices really do have a big impact, things could
change overnight.
(Thandie)
Knowledge of the environmental impact of flying came through strongly for

many people, along with an enhanced understanding of the importance of
individual action:
Well, every little helps. I don’t suppose two people’s attitudes matter
much to large corporations, but they are indeed moral choices for us. I
know I, at any rate, would feel rather guilty if we didn’t operate our
European travel the way we do. So I suppose it’s all quite important, but
I don’t know by how much.
(John)
I absolutely believe that every decision, what people do, makes a differ-
ence even at a very small level. You may think that ‘my individual choice’

or ‘consumer choice does not make a difference’ but if everyone made
that choice then it does make a difference. So, in that sense, every
individual choice does make a difference.
(Kate)
I sometimes feel I’m pushing water uphill. Sometimes it feels a very lonely
struggle to live by your principles. But that said, I want to sleep easily with a
clear conscience. And hopefully, you know, a few people will see my
example and go some way towards copying in some part my own lifestyle.
(Mohammed)
Although discussion of this attribute has so far been dominated by informed

opinion about the environmental impact of flying, this was not the case for
everyone. Indeed, for several interviewees, not flying on holiday was either a
recent choice behaviour or did not reflect their mode of transport every time:
… we’ve got friends in various places and we have been thinking about
whether we can visit them without flying. We’ve got a friend who’s retired
to Greece but it’s difficult. We haven’t actually gone out to visit her but
we are thinking about whether we could do that overland somehow.
(John)
I have relatives in Pakistan for instance. If I stick to it, I am not against

flying, I would fly, but I would try not to, where I could avoid it, or just
fly for part of the journey or something like that. So, you know, there’s
temptations and I probably could have gone to places in the last year or
two otherwise, but that sort of comes in my mind as to ‘how can I be
serious about what I am doing if I am part of what I consider to be a
problem?’ So, I just can’t reconcile the two.
(Mohammed)
Of course, not all respondents refused to fly, or even acknowledged a concern

for potential environmental impact, and so continued to fly to their holiday
destinations. Indeed, carbon emissions did not feature at all in these people’s
decision making, and while all respondents considered that they were ethical
consumers of one sort or another, not all of them incorporated ethical moti-
vations into their holiday choices. For example, one respondent admitted that
although she cared deeply about the consequences of food miles and bought
local supplies as much as possible on a daily basis, she had not made similar
changes to her holiday plans, admitting relaxation and enjoyment were her
priorities. Ethical choices involved sacrifices she was not always willing to
make, especially on holiday:
I think long and hard much more about whether to go on a flight, on a

holiday that involves a long-haul flight now, and I decided that I would

only do that once a year, although I know that it is going to be hard to
stick to that. So in the summer I didn’t go – you know I just holidayed in
the UK. I think I’ll still do it but I have major guilt trips every time I do
go anywhere, which is maybe as far as the change has got yet. I mean I
do think about it much more. But it is hard to say ‘no’ when flights are
cheap, you know, and you fancy a couple of weeks of sun. You think
well, ‘how much am I going to beat myself up?’
(Kate)
It was not just air travel that posed a dilemma for this participant – indeed,
she was refreshingly honest about her knowledge and awareness of the poor
human rights record of the country she discussed in her interview but admit-
ted, ‘I put my own enjoyment first’ (Kate). Although she knew about the
potentially negative impacts of tourism, she tended to ignore them, reasoning
that she needed to see for herself, regardless of receiving disapproving
comments from family, friends and colleagues:
I didn’t know what a lot of the issues were before I went, it was just
whilst I was there we started thinking about them. So yeah, it was kind of
interesting because it really made you think about, well, you know, how
does the money get back to people and what are the implications of
tourism and is it good or is it bad because if they didn’t have tourism
what would they have?
(Kate)
The interviews reveal a range of attitudes towards holiday transport, with some
respondents being aware of and acting upon their personal moral codes, whilst
others were aware but did not change their behaviour accordingly. In some
cases a lack of knowledge about feasible alternatives to flying was a factor and
whilst several had made the decision not to fly a few years ago, others were only
just thinking about how to manage their ethical convictions on holiday. For
some people, holidays were an extension of their everyday consumption, they felt
no sacrifice by not flying and nor did they find it difficult to use alternatives. For
others, however, this was a problem, and a weak knowledge of feasible alternatives
prevented them from applying their ethical principles to holiday choices.
Aside from those who claimed to use public transport as a way of reducing
carbon emissions, some respondents enjoyed it for the richer cultural
experience it gave them:
It was hilarious, one of the best bits of the trip – we were on the roof of the
bus, you know, it was just a good laugh, you mix with the locals and you
learn a bit of the language. I’d rather do that than hire a car. You know, people
take you to their houses and feed you too – it becomes a really rich kind
of thing you would otherwise miss, especially if you were in a tour group.
(Ben)

Another reason for travelling by train was to travel slowly:
I think equally important is to reflect on our needs a bit more and to

enjoy our surroundings and be in the present. So, it was a way of slowing
down, making my holidays slow down in some way as well … and I think
in that sort of experience we can make wiser choices, ethical choices and
just enjoy life more rather than going from one fix to another, which is
the way I think things are moving.
(Mohammed)
Spend time outdoors, outdoor activities

Respondents claimed a variety of benefits from spending time outdoors on
holiday. These included the opportunity to indulge interest in wildlife and
nature, to gather new perspectives on a region or country, to escape from
daily routine or simply because they enjoyed being in the landscape. The most
often mentioned benefits were to enjoy a simpler pace of life, to get away from
a stressful lifestyle, to forget or avoid the pressure ‘to consume’, and to
reconnect with their purpose in life:
Kids don’t get their parents at home because they’ve got a dual income
because they’ve got to buy all that stuff and so you’ve got the impact on
the family and then you’ve got the environmental impact like all the
rubbish and energy and everything else that is consumed in producing
all this stuff and transporting it all over the world. You know, flying TVs
over here or whatever they do. It seems like it’s a very negative thing
altogether.
(Karolina)
It helps me be centred within myself. It brings me back to, I suppose, my

greater vision of life and the world. I mean, otherwise we wouldn’t be
living the way that we do, but reconnecting with that helps you remember
why you are doing it. It’s easy to forget, you know, it can be a whole
bunch of tasks to be living in a sustainable, ethical way and it can just
become a habit, but reconnecting with nature reminds me what my
greater purpose is.
(Thandie)
Communicate with locals

Engaging with local people was claimed to be important to respondents who
believed that it promoted mutual respect between cultures and enabled a
richer holiday experience. For example, Paul made the effort to talk Arabic

on holiday in Egypt not only as an expression of courtesy and respect as a
guest in a country to speak the local language, but also because building a
human connection with Egyptian people gave him a more authentic cultural
experience. Some of the respondents were British nationals who wanted to
reverse negative national stereotypes, and were acutely aware of other
cultures’ perception of the British:
Perhaps in a way it’s kind of more an exchanging of ideas as well that you
do meet local people, and I am kind of worried sometimes that English
people have this horrible reputation when they go abroad of being lager
louts and especially with football hooliganism and stuff. I think it is quite
nice for people to meet English people who are not like that.
(Hannah)
Other respondents believed that tourists had a duty to learn languages, and to
stop assuming everyone speaks English. Some saw themselves as cultural
ambassadors and tried to ensure that any exchanges promoted mutual respect
and equality.
Observe local custom and dress appropriately

Of the 24 respondents who took part in this study, six of them were very
specific about the importance of observing local customs and wearing appro-
priate dress (in a Muslim country, for example). This relatively small number
may be because only a few respondents travelled outside of the UK on the
holiday being discussed. For those who did travel overseas for the holiday
under discussion, however, the key imperative was to demonstrate respect for
cultural norms, to be sensitive and also considerate:
Generally, if you are a guest in someone’s country and they have a dif-
ferent culture to your own then you should respect that culture and
behave according to their rules. And I would expect the same from people
coming here [to the UK].
(Ursula)
You know I don’t wear shorts particularly in destinations where it’s

unsuitable, I don’t wear short T-shirts or vest tops if you are going into
temples and that kind of thing. I usually carry something to cover my
head. I at least try and be aware of what people’s religion and philosophy
is in the country so that you know if you are likely to cause offence.
(Ursula)
One respondent expressed her dilemma when visiting a Muslim country

marketing itself as a beach destination. She claimed to be confused over what
was appropriate clothing, and reasoned that wearing a bikini within the resort

was acceptable, as staff had made a conscious decision to work there. A different
respondent expressed remorse for her behaviour in the 1980s and 1990s,
describing how she took photographs of Turkish peasants without asking
their permission, and of being outraged when asked to dress appropriately in
a Greek church. She explained how subsequent travelling had taught her to
be more mindful of other cultures and the impact of her holidays:
When I went to Fuerteventura the whole of the native population had

moved inland, the whole of the coast it seemed to me from what I could see
from talking to people who lived there, it seemed that they’d retreated
from the tourists. When I went to Cornwall, when you go anywhere that’s
beautiful, you have the people who live there saying ‘it’s a nightmare
when the tourist season starts’. Even people who travel to those areas will
actually say ‘bloody tourists’ and they won’t count themselves as a
tourist. ‘Cause you see, we invade places and we take them over and we
actually change the whole way of life!
(Zandra)
She claimed that she found it almost impossible to take holidays because of
the confusion and distress she felt about the negative impact her holiday
might have on local communities, to the extent that she had been researching
work on organic farms for future holidays, although ‘there’s still this whole
dilemma about how you even get there!’ (Zandra) Although possibly an
extreme case, such claims highlight a recurring theme in this study: as soon as
people become aware of the potentially negative impacts of their holidays,
some modify their behaviour, whilst others remain confused about alternative
options.
Stay in locally owned accommodation

Of the 24 respondents, six of them said staying in locally owned accom-
modation was important to ensure that their money went directly to local
suppliers. At the same time, they also learnt about the best attractions and
restaurants in the area, and felt safer and more connected to the local com-
munity. Others were less concerned about safety, preferring to stay where
local people holidayed, purely for the richer cultural experience – whether this
was the authentic cuisine of the country, a deep connection with locals, or
being treated as more than ‘just tourists’. One person was especially keen to
explain that he purposely spoke to locals in cafés in Egypt, arguing that not
engaging with locals or not going beyond the tourist bubble was disrespectful
to both the country and its people.
Significantly, not everyone was aware of the potentially negative impact of
his or her holiday. For example, one person believed that she tried to be an
ethical consumer at home, but confessed that she had not thought about her
holidays in the same way, and was very unsure as to how to do this:

When we were deciding which resort to go to we were having a lot of
conversations about who owns the resorts because government ministers
and people like that often own the resorts, so we felt like we didn’t really
want to go to one of those resorts because it was just keeping money in
the hands of the powerful … and we didn’t want to go to internationally
owned resorts because that was letting money go out and there are some
resorts that are owned by Maldivian families and the money is staying
within the country.
(Kate)
This quote encapsulates concerns of several respondents regarding respon-

sible holiday alternatives, and whilst this individual was aware of economic
leakage and tourism and wanted to benefit locals, she was clearly unsure how
to achieve this. One respondent avoided luxury hotels because of their
unethical attitude towards food waste:
I know for a fact in Egypt – my brother-in-law used to work in the

tourism industry there – that the really luxury hotels, they probably chuck
out more food every day than they actually serve. And this is in a country
where there are millions of people that go hungry every day, you know,
that live on a very basic diet of beans and bread.
(Paul)
He described seeing waste food skips outside five-star hotels in the UK,
believing ‘the amount of waste is probably proportionate to the luxury of the
hotel’.
Stay off the ‘beaten track’

Five respondents argued that staying off the beaten track (away from the
tourist zone) benefited locals economically, especially through employment:
If it wasn’t for tourism some of these places would be very dire and it
does give them something to work for. They practice their English,
they’ve got a job – you can’t employ everybody but … we met a basket
man, carrying some baskets. Wanted me to photograph him, and we took
his photograph – and you don’t give him anything – but we went along
and bought a lot of his baskets.
(Pauline)
Others wanted to meet local people, perceived as impossible in a tourist bubble,

although whether this was for egocentric or altruistic reasons is unclear:
I’ve been on a holiday where we were exclusive and it felt … I didn’t

really touch the country, I was a visitor in a … more like a capsule going

along. I wanted a holiday that’s got more … that you can actually see the
people, you can get some experience, that you can understand a little bit
more – you don’t understand a lot, it’s useless imagining that you can,
but at least I get a better feeling of what the people think of me and what
I think of them and sometimes it’s aggressive and sometimes it’s lovely, it
depends. And if you are not so isolated you can get that contact.
(Pauline)
The more developed side [of the Nile river] is very, very touristy and you
have some very, very big hotels and I certainly didn’t want to stay in any
of those. The smaller hotels can be a little bit grotty on the developed side
for backpackers and I really liked the feel on the other side of the river,
it’s almost … not quite biblical, but it’s a much slower pace of life, the
people are incredibly genuine and because there are fewer tourists it feels
like a more authentic experience.
(Ursula)
I like untouched places. If I go somewhere where many tourists are then

the feeling is everything is quite spoiled and not very authentic so the
more remote places I go the more untouched and the more pure it is for
the culture, the people.
(Verena)
Whilst this last quote indicates a nostalgic yearning for a simpler lifestyle, the
main reasons for most people staying off the beaten track were to share the
economic benefits of tourism and to enjoy an authentic experience.
Stay in an ecocabin, on an organic farm, camp site

Three respondents chose to discuss holidays taken either on an organic farm,
in an ecolodge or at a campsite. (An additional three respondents had stayed
at an ecolodge but not on the holiday discussed in this study.) The most
important benefit was to live simply, be close to nature and to mirror their
home lifestyles. For example, one person described his pleasure at staying in
an ecocabin on an organic farm on one of the Scilly Isles, UK. Not only did
he enjoy the peace and quiet and a total break from consumerism, what he
called ‘stepping back into sustainable living’ (George), but he also placed a
great emphasis on protecting the environment in his everyday life, and wanted
to continue this lifestyle on holiday, especially with regard to using sustainable
facilities, such as the wind turbine, a solar-powered fridge and wormery.
Indeed he expressed great delight at the cabin having only one 13-amp socket,
which meant the kettle could not be switched on at the same time as the water
heater. He also loved the simplicity of buying eggs and milk from the farm,
and having freshly baked bread from the local shop rather than buying food
shipped in from the mainland.

Others preferred camping holidays because of their love of nature and the
connection it gave them with their everyday lives:
Well, we tend to live quite simply anyway. You know, we don’t have fancy
clothes and we sort of do a lot for ourselves, like where we are now, we
cut our own wood, and live nearer to the earth. That’s how we like to be,
in touch rather than out of touch.
(Karen)
For this respondent, downsizing and living simply was not difficult – it was
how she and her partner preferred to live. Reducing their consumption to
place less stress on the environment, and avoiding shops and supermarkets
helped them to retain their independence and freedom and this gave them
enormous satisfaction.
Another respondent was more concerned about protecting the environment
for her children’s future, and described summer holidays at the Green Gathering
in Somerset, UK, a festival celebrating sustainable living, where her children
learnt about traditional skills and came into contact with different people and
experiences:
I just want them to know that lots of people live in lots of different ways
and, you know, to be more accepting of that. I want the children to
experience a bit of being able to be free and being able to be around
green stuff and have the responsibility of looking after themselves if they
are in the next field … whereas you can’t necessarily do that if you are in
a hotel.
(Sandy)
The wide-ranging benefits of this attribute demonstrate that different people

extract different pleasures from similar activities – in this case, being able to
enjoy the countryside, exploring nature, living simply, being closely attuned to
the earth, celebrating diversity, recreating happy childhood memories, and
giving children a safe place for exploration and learning.
Travel with a responsible tour operator

Only three interviewees took a holiday with a tour operator. These operators
were Exodus and Explore, both of which have responsible tourism policies.
One person wanted his family holiday to be ethical because it was important
to him not to impose on the people of the destination and to ensure genuinely
equal distribution of the income from his holiday:
I think one of the problems we have probably seen in the past – we both
worked in the Gambia for a time – was that an awful lot of the money
spent by tourists was actually repatriated to developed countries, where

the holiday companies were based, rather than being spent locally, and the
benefit to the local population was actually very limited. I think also
there was the whole issue of the environmental impact as well, and in the
sort of sensitive environment that we wanted to visit [in Costa Rica] we’d
like to think it was being done in a way that wasn’t going to harm, or
that the harm was going to be minimised.
(Hamish)
This respondent appeared to be acutely aware of his contribution as a tourist,

choosing Explore specifically because it made a point of paying for services
on a local basis – for example, the tour guide would pay locally for admission
fees, meals and local transport. His attitudes were formed when working for
nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and development charities in Africa,
where he observed the impact of tourism economically, socially and envir-
onmentally. He explained that his geography degree also informed him, and
he wanted to share with his children knowledge about the interrelations
between environment and economic structure.
For the other two participants, travelling with a tour operator was preferable
to travelling on their own, and was of particular benefit when travelling in a
country for the first time, for those travelling alone in a new country or when
the language was unfamiliar. For example, in her explanation for holidaying
with Exodus, one respondent acknowledged that buying an organised trip was
an easier option, because she was travelling to Japan for the first time, could
not speak the language and because she usually preferred to travel alone for
the independence and freedom it allowed her. Not only did she like the
structure of an organised trip, with its mix of activities, but also as a lone
woman tourist she appreciated the safety of a group.
The third person to travel with Explore on the holiday being discussed did
so for the mix of activities offered and because their responsible tourism
policy meant that her holiday was less intrusive to the visited communities.
Although she acknowledged that a responsible tourism policy was important,
travelling in small groups also gave her more opportunity to meet local
people, and so experience a deeper connection to the country being visited:
You get more chance of meeting people – one trip I’ve been on where we
used local transport a tremendous amount, absolutely fascinating to get
on the train with all the other people … it sort of feels as though you are
part of the country instead of being quite so isolated.
(Pauline)
Of further benefit was sharing the economic benefits of tourism with local
communities:
[Money goes] to the transnational hotel company and the local economy
doesn’t necessarily benefit. You’ve got water going into it and not for the

locals, vegetation cut down, they are even forbidden from going on the
shoreline. I don’t take those sorts of holidays, if I can help it.
(Pauline)
In contrast, one respondent had worked as a climbing and mountaineer guide,

which had raised his awareness of tourism’s impact and a perception that
although some tourists travel with a responsible tour operator their personal
behaviour was not always responsible:
When you are working you can be quite stand-offish, and you can be
objective about the actions of your tourists. You know, ramming cameras
in peoples’ faces, finding a cute kid or an old guy with a wrinkly face and
putting a black and white film in and shoving the camera lens in his face
and then having an awful trophy-photograph on their living room wall.
You know, like people used to shoot deer and stuff their heads and put
them on the wall, the tourists do that now with people. And they don’t
see that as being … they think they’ve gone and had a low-impact holiday.
I mean imagine sitting there and some guy walks up and rams this
camera in your face to take your picture, it’s terribly intrusive. It’s not my
place; I don’t see it as my place to say to people ‘don’t do that’. I can
kind of drop hints and say ‘try and act with a little bit of respect
and empathy to local people’ but people don’t think, for instance the
camera thing is being intrusive. It boggles my mind and I find that hard
to deal with.
(Ben)
Although this person focused on the social impact of tourism the majority of
the other respondents commented mainly on the environmental impact of
their holidays, and such acute understanding of the social impact of tourism
was rare.
The importance of human connection (family, friends, new people)

Three respondents highlighted the importance of spending time with others
on holiday. One of them explained the benefit of attending an annual church
camp with family and friends:
I’ve been going for 17 years, everybody knows me, there is always someone
to talk to and it’s a part of my roots. It’s who I am.
(Sheila)
Others stayed with friends to gain a deeper experience of the region or country,
due to residents knowing the best places to eat, the best places to see and so
on. One respondent had grown up on a farm and her holiday was spent
reconnecting with her children’s legacy:

The holiday was on the farm and it’s just easy-going. There are horses on
the farm and the kids have cousins on the farm and that’s the kind of – I
mean, I would love to change this [UK] lifestyle to have that kind of
lifestyle, which is a slower-paced kind of lifestyle. Less stress, more quality
and enjoyment. Yeah, the fast pace of everything that we try to cram into
our lives I find quite stressful.
(Thandie)
Although a range of benefits were important in this attribute, respondents

mostly believed that they enjoyed a richer cultural experience because their
friends and family had local knowledge of destinations. They also expressed
enjoyment at maintaining close relationships with family and friends.
Travel alone
Motivations for travelling by oneself were to avoid the tourist bubble and to
have a greater chance of meeting local people. Another respondent relished
meeting local residents because they often invited him to their homes. He claimed
that this afforded him a fresh perspective on the world and stimulated him to
make changes in his life. A different respondent preferred travelling alone, to
meet locals on a more equal footing. Other benefits of travelling alone included
having freedom, independence and greater opportunities for learning.
Buy the holiday from a tour operator in the country of destination

Two respondents booked a holiday with a local operator once they had
arrived at their destination, because they were already in the country. One
person was in Ecuador, volunteering for a children’s charity, whilst the other
had travelled to visit family in Egypt, during which he also took a short a
holiday in Sharm el Sheikh. Whilst these respondents were both on low
incomes, they claimed additional concerns. For example, when asked why he
booked with an Egyptian company one respondent admitted:
One it would be cheaper [laughing]. Secondly, if possible, we prefer not

to, well, I prefer the money I spend on tourism to stay in the country
where I’m going. Particularly if it’s a poorer country.
(Paul)
He claimed tourism was important to Egypt, not just because of the tourism
receipts but also with regard to intersectoral benefits from construction and
agricultural quality standards, and so the economic impact of his holiday
could be extensive. He believed that European tour operators did not always
pay a fair price for hotel rooms and he claimed that this was unfair. His views
are encapsulated in this response to why he believed it was important that
Egypt receive his holiday money directly:

It allows a country that has been actively underdeveloped by clan rule,
British occupation and unfair world economic rules, it actually allows
them to kick-start their economy. It has big costs – you know, environmental
costs, certainly social costs, definitely, I mean tourism does have very
negative impacts, particularly somewhere like Egypt. But nonetheless, if I
am going to go somewhere and I am going to spend some money on a
holiday, whether it’s France or Egypt (and it’s a bit more difficult when it
comes to going to Egypt for most people), yeah, I want the money that I
spend to go into the local economy as much as possible really.
(Paul)
The other respondent explained the criteria she had used to choose a tour
operator for a short jungle trip taken during the time she was volunteering
with a church group in Quito:
I tried to make sure that they were local and owned by Ecuadorians
because there were so many American companies and European compa-
nies in the city that the money they were making was clearly going out
of the country, so I thought to give to somebody who’s actually in the
country – that my money goes there.
(Verena)
In response to why it was important to give something back to the

community, she responded:
Maybe it’s guilt. When you come from Europe, and you are travelling,
especially when you go travelling in one of the poorest countries in the
world, it makes you feel guilty because you come and see their country
and you leave again and leave them behind. I guess it was a bit of guilt
and trying to give back and say ‘thank you’ for letting me see their
country.
(Verena)
Significantly, such admissions of guilt were not characteristic of the majority

of interviews. Why this was the case remains unclear.
Conclusion
This chapter has described the holiday choices of ethical consumers, the
importance of travelling independently for freedom and autonomy and to
share the economic benefits of their holidays with destination communities.
Additional significant preferences included shopping locally, using public
transport, avoiding flying, spending time outdoors, making an effort to talk
to local people and observe traditions, customs and cultural norms. Of further
importance was staying off the beaten track and in locally owned accommodation.

What this chapter has also revealed are the contradictions, priorities and
complex trade-offs ethical consumers manage as part of their holiday choice
decisions. The following chapter will examine these choices and associated
compromises by analysing how underpinning motivational values guide
ethical consumers in their holiday choice decisions.
6 What values tell us about

responsible tourists
Introduction
Chapter 5 introduced the study at the heart of this book, which was conceived
to identify the values of ethical consumers and to understand how they attempt
to satisfy these through their holiday choices. From the results it is apparent that
ethical consumers can be inconsistent in their holiday decisions, and at times
exhibit both confusion and compromise when explaining how they manage
their ethics on holiday, as well as before purchase. However, they also share
motivations: they prefer to travel independently, buy locally made souvenirs
and use locally owned shops and restaurants. They take public transport as
much as they can while some avoid air travel, especially on holiday. These
people like to be outdoors on holiday, enjoy nature, walking in the countryside
and taking part in outdoor activities. As such they exhibit similar motivations
with all tourists.
When travelling overseas, they try to learn some local phrases and observe
cultural norms, especially with regard to their behaviour and what they wear.
They like to stay in locally owned accommodation, usually a family-run hotel,
guesthouse, ecocabin or organic farm, purchasing local food, and enjoy holi-
daying off the beaten track. They take pleasure in being with family and
friends but also like meeting new people and particularly enjoy talking to locals.
Some travel alone, others travel slowly and a few attend spiritual retreats on
holiday. Finally, if they travel with a tour operator, they want it to have a
responsible tourism code or they buy directly from a company operating out
of their intended destination.
This chapter moves on from describing ethical consumers’ holiday preferences
and presents a comprehensive account of their expressed travel aspirations
and a discussion of the values they seek to satisfy. The chapter begins with a
brief explanation of the framework used to identify the values, before
explaining each of them individually and in detail. It continues with a con-
sideration of how these influence respondents’ holiday choices, and concludes
by discussing how such knowledge offers insight into the key debates about
ethical consumption in tourism – namely, perceived consumer effectiveness,
moral selving and complex trade-off behaviour.
What values tell us about responsible tourists 91

The values of responsible tourists
Having identified ethical consumers’ holiday preferences, the objective of the
second and final stage of the study was to identify the links between these choices
and the values underpinning them. This was facilitated using the framework of the
means-end chain theory (Gutman 1982), which allows researchers to model
connections between choice preferences, associated benefits or consequences
of choices, and the values that drive them (see Weeden 2011, for discussion of
the means-end chain theory in values research). Modelling these connections
revealed several ‘summary ladders’ for each interview, an example of which is
shown in Figure 6.1, where the values associated with holidaying at an eco-desti-
nation (Costa Rica) are presented as part of the means-end chain of attributes
(shown in the form of rectangle shapes), benefits (diamonds) and values (ovals).
Having modelled the summary ladders, a hierarchical value map for each
interview was developed to show the linkages between all the attributes, benefits
and values. Figure 6.2 presents the values interpreted by the researcher from
one person’s holiday preferences for travelling independently, sharing ideas
and opinions of sustainability with friends, buying locally made souvenirs on
holiday, living an ethical lifestyle, taking slower-paced holidays and spending
time in nature.
Having identified the values, these were listed and ranked according
to the number of times they were interpreted from the interviews (see
Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 demonstrates the values that respondents sought to satisfy in their
holiday purchase decisions and interpreted by the researcher from a detailed
analysis of respondents’ answers to ‘Why is that important to you?
Rich descriptions of each value (Table 6.2) were developed by the
researcher using the many responses to this question. The interpreted values
were compared against the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and these are presented
in parentheses at the end of each explanation. Such extensive information
emphasises the uniqueness of this research project. No other published
resource has provided such a detailed description of the values that ethical
consumers’ seek to satisfy on holiday.
Looking in detail at each of the values, respondents wanted to show respect
towards other people, their family and also to animals, both at home and on
holiday (the latter especially important to those who were vegetarian or
vegan). They emphasised the importance of taking personal responsibility for
the impact of their holidays, both with regard to destination communities and
the natural environment, and believed strongly in ‘practising what they
preached’. Respondents revealed a desire to share, evident when they talked
about wanting their holiday money to benefit local communities directly,
when they used public transport to help protect the environment or when
parents emphasised the importance of holidays for teaching their children
about the world (thereby sharing knowledge). Interviewees also viewed holidays
as opportunities to connect (and re-connect) with others, whether this was
92 What values tell us about responsible tourists
Figure 6.1 Example of summary ladder
Figure 6.2 Example of hierarchical value map
with family and friends, or with residents of the visited destination. Such
connections gave them a feeling of belonging, which they also achieved from
activities such as travelling slowly, using local transportation or getting
involved in local community activities while on holiday.

Table 6.1 The values of responsible tourists
Values Times
interpreted
Respecting – others, self, animals 40
Responsibility, duty, duty of care – individual and collective. Empathy 37
Sharing – knowledge, beliefs, experiences, resources, including economic 37
and other benefits of tourism and planet’s resources
Connecting with people/reconnecting with people 36
Stewardship – protection of the environment, of indigenous skills 31
Equity – fairness, social justice, equal distribution of wealth 30
Achievement, learning and knowledge (family, individual) 25
Freedom, independence, autonomy, choice 24
Happiness, pleasure 23
Inner peace, spiritual renewal 22
Authenticity/Truth 13
Lasting contribution 12
Co-operation, working together 11
Connecting with nature/reconnecting with nature 10
Thrift 10
Equality, equality between tourist and resident 9
Simplicity, voluntary simplicity, sustainable lifestyle 9
Belonging 9
Family and own good health and well-being 8
Personal effectiveness 8
Nostalgia, family memories 7
Appreciating difference/celebrating diversity 6
Family and own safety/security, trust 6
Escape from everyday life, novelty 4
Stimulation, challenge, exploration, excitement 3
Connecting with family, friendship, love 3
Commitment, sacrifice 2
Continuing with Table 6.2, respondents valued stewardship: not only did
they seek to protect the environment for future generations through travelling
responsibly, but also some specifically hoped to preserve indigenous skills by
buying locally produced goods on holiday. In terms of ensuring that the
income generated from tourism was equally distributed to all stakeholders,
they chose to travel independently, booked directly with accommodation
providers, ate in locally owned restaurants and bought souvenirs from artisan
workers, thus revealing empathy with the values of equity, social justice and
fairness. Travelling independently was also important because they valued
freedom and autonomy on holiday, and some sought cheaper holidays, hence
the emphasis on thrift.
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, in a study of holiday motivations, happiness and
pleasure formed the basis of a successful vacation for most people. They were
viewed as opportunities for inner peace and spiritual renewal, especially for
those who enjoyed the peace and beauty of nature. Indeed, connecting with
nature helped many to reflect on their life’s purpose, which was connected to

Table 6.2 The list of values and explanations
Values Explanation
Respecting (40) (Others, self, family.) Identified by noting the importance of
managing the impacts of tourism, speaking to locals in their own
language and making the effort to communicate, avoiding
disrespectful tourists on package holidays by travelling
independently. Included those who made themselves aware of and
conformed to local cultural norms (appropriate dress, etc.), avoid
all-inclusive resorts and therefore ensuring staff receive fair wage,
travelling with responsible tour operator. Included vegetarians,
who respect animals, don’t want to eat them. (SVS –
self-direction, tradition, conformity)
Responsibility (37) (Duty, duty of care, individual, collective. Empathy.) Ascribed to
those who emphasised importance of individuals taking
responsibility for their actions by demonstrating their beliefs to
others and by practising what they preached. Mostly concerned
with environmental responsibility, achieved by using public
transport to reach destinations to reduce emissions. Especially
important to those who wanted to help developing countries help
themselves to better future and to those who travelled with
responsible tour operator. Importance of showing others through
own actions that change possible. Includes importance of
respecting other cultures and importance of ‘doing the right
thing’. Strong emphasis on duty. Closely related to respecting
others, stewardship, living sustainable lifestyle. (SVS –
universalism, benevolence)
Sharing (37) (Sharing knowledge, beliefs, experiences, resources – including
economic and other benefits of tourism and planet’s resources.)
Ascribed to range of benefits, from sharing knowledge and
learning of other cultures/countries with family, to supporting
local traders, spending money locally in restaurants, etc. in order
to share financial resources, benefits of tourism. Includes those
who share their beliefs with others, by discussing their approach
to ethical travel with family, friends. Also given to those who
enjoy exchange nature of tourism – tourists learn about residents
and vice versa. Strongly related to equity, fairness, reduced
consumption and stewardship, with emphasis on sharing
environmental resources with future generations. Interviewees
indicated without exception that sharing resources by supporting
local traders was not just holiday but lifestyle priority. (SVS –
universalism, benevolence)
Connecting (36) (With people/reconnecting with people.) For those who talked to
locals in their own language, stayed in locally owned
accommodation and took public transport at destinations.
Purpose: to get to know locals, experience their way of life and
communicate with them. Included those who liked to travel
slowly to build relationships, those who supported local traders to
encourage social cohesion and prioritise humanity before profit.
Specifically avoided supporting large, multinational companies.
Close to belonging, related to learning, stimulation and discovery.
(SVS – benevolence, security)

Values Explanation
Stewardship (31) (Protection of environment, indigenous skills.) Given to those

who wanted to protect environment and indigenous skills for
future generations. Generated by travelling responsibility, buying
locally made souvenirs (to encourage local skills), avoiding flying
on holiday, reducing air travel and pollution, using local public
transport, buying fair trade food, and reducing the environmental
impact of their holidays. Related to sustainable lifestyle. (SVS –
universalism)
Equity (30) (Fairness, social justice, equal distribution of wealth.) Ascribed to
those who travelled with tour operator with responsible tourism
policy – meant more money going directly to local people through
meals, admission fees, accommodation, etc., and made effort to
reduce environmental and social impact of holiday. Included
those who believed strongly in ensuring equal distribution of
wealth and reducing gap between rich and poor by avoiding UK
package holidays and booking direct with hotels, shopping in
local stores, buying locally made souvenirs, using local
public transport, etc. Given to those who expressed strong
aversion to supporting large, multinational organisations as
power too concentrated, and could be abused, acting against
interests of local communities. Values stressed through the
importance of tourist money being spent locally. Related to
sharing resources and the benefits of tourism.
(SVS – universalism)
Achievement (25) (Learning and knowledge, family and individual.) Illustrates
family and individual learning. Included families showing
children different way of living, other cultures, countryside,
enhancing formal education. Importance of speaking local
language, resulting in deeper experience of culture, people,
country, being well informed, reducing meaningless stereotypes
of each other’s culture. Important for some to learn about
country in order to offer practical help. Others valued
two-way learning – tourist/resident. Also included those who
enjoyed acting sustainably on holiday/in everyday life.
Included those who expressed need to go beyond tourist
bubble, meeting new challenges. (SVS – self-direction,
stimulation)
Freedom (24) (Independence, autonomy, choice.) For those who travelled
independently, avoiding tour operators and package holidays.
Reasons/benefits cited included distrust of large, multinational
organisations, desire for greater choice, flexibility, freedom to
explore, be spontaneous. Others travelled alone for these
reasons. Included respondent who travelled with responsible
tour operator as security gave her freedom to explore in
destinations, and others who spoke of importance of
supporting local communities in order to retain
control over their own lives.
(SVS – self-direction)

Values Explanation
Happiness, Allocated to diverse range of benefits/consequences although

pleasure (23) majority interviewees expressed pleasure from deeper experience
of the country/culture/people through travelling on local public
transport, talking to locals in their own language and avoiding the
tourist bubble. Also interviewees who enjoyed travelling at
slower pace better to enjoy the experience, sharing interests as a
couple, travelling off the beaten track and opportunity for
spiritual renewal. Enjoying nature a strong feature.
(SVS – hedonism)
Inner peace, Inner peace – achieved through supporting local communities and
spirituality (22) protecting planet. Led to spiritual renewal – expressed by benefits
of walking in countryside, enjoying peace and beauty of nature,
sticking to lifestyle principles on holiday (vegetarian, ethical
purchasing), travelling alone to reacquaint with life’s purpose,
slow travel. (SVS – universalism, spirituality)
Authenticity, Applied when interviewees noted importance of seeing ‘real’ or
truth (13) ‘untouched’ culture, avoiding superficial ‘tourist bubble’,
particularly if expressed a need to be off the beaten track, in less
developed areas. Included need to go beyond being spectator in
life – to take part in living. Applied to those who enjoyed being
closer to simpler lifestyle, avoiding modern consumption.
Related also to benefits of using local public transport
to meet locals, experience local way of life, deeper
understanding of country/culture. Often used protectively,
as in appreciating need to safeguard diversity, uniqueness
of communities, but also simpler lifestyle used for spiritual
renewal. (SVS – stimulation)
Lasting Allocated to people concerned about impact of wasteful
contribution (12) consumption on future generations and who worked hard to
reduce their consumption for an inheritable world. Related to
sustainable lifestyle. Also those who desired improved cultural
understanding through speaking to locals in their own language,
and those who used local public transport to ensure future viable
transport for locals. (SVS – achievement)
Cooperation (11) Ascribed to prioritisation of working together to facilitate positive
change and empower local people – either in teams or as political
activists, for those who expressed importance of ‘community’,
independence, supporting local shops/restaurants/
accommodation, avoiding multinational or large chain
organisations, etc. For those who recognised power greater if
work together. Related to sharing knowledge, celebrating
diversity. (SVS – achievement)
Connecting with (Reconnecting with nature.) For those who enjoyed outdoor
nature (10) activities on holiday (walking, bird watching, camping, playing
children’s games, etc.), to get closer to nature, away from people,
away from modern world and pressure to consume. Also for those
who used nature to remind them of purpose of ethical/sustainable
lifestyle. (SVS – universalism)

Values Explanation
Thrift (10) Range of benefits from this value – booking direct with local tour
operator in country of destination, avoiding large tour operators
to get better value for money, travelling independently, using local
public transport and eating locally to eating on campsite, all
designed to save money for interviewees. (SVS – conformity)
Equality (9) For those who expressed desire to be seen as equals by residents
and who were uncomfortable with notion of tourists being
‘superior’ by wealth, or to avoid being accused of ‘voyeurism’.
Also for those who wanted to meet locals as equals, achieved by
travelling alone, included those who travelled independently and
mixed with locals on their own terms rather than in large,
potentially threatening tourist groups. Also for those who bought
locally made souvenirs, ensuring money goes direct to local
community and therefore avoiding exploitation of workers in
other countries. (SVS – universalism)
Simplicity (9) (Voluntary simplicity, sustainable lifestyle.) Ascribed to those
prioritising reduced consumption, whether by staying in
ecolodges or holiday or having green tariffs at home. Others
believed strongly in only buying what they needed, living simply
and not buying into ‘consumption as leisure activity’.
Also for those who were self-sufficient in their lifestyle.
Related to stewardship and lasting contribution.
(SVS – universalism)
Belonging (9) For interviewees who expressed pleasure at being able to build
relationship with locals, to feel welcome, not as tourists but as
human beings, a more natural human connection. Included those
who got involved in local activities (folk evenings) on holiday.
Related to equality of relations between tourist/resident. For these
people, making new friendships on holiday was particularly
important. (SVS – security)
Good health, (Own, family.) Ascribed to those who enjoyed organic lifestyle/
well-being (8) holiday and who either ate in local restaurants or bought local
food to prepare own meals because they believed it to be both
fresher and of higher quality. Also those who avoided using car at
home for improved exercise and who liked to keep fit. Included
those who enjoyed outdoor approach to holidays, especially noted
by those with young children. Also included interviewee whose
prime reason for organic lifestyle was to protect children from
harmful chemicals. (SVS – security)
Personal For those who believed strongly in their ability to facilitate change
effectiveness (8) as individuals, those who wanted to practice what they preached
(by not flying to their holiday destination for example)
and to demonstrate beliefs to others. (SVS – achievement,
self-direction)
Nostalgia (7) (Family memories.) Given to people who recreated own
childhood experiences for their children, who expressed desire for
simpler, more traditional way of life or who enjoyed rediscovering
traditional skills on holiday. (SVS – security, hedonism)

Values Explanation
Celebrating For those who expressly noted importance of understanding how

diversity (6) world worked by seeing diverse cultures and economies. Also
applied to those who noted political importance of supporting
local traders to retain independence and choice. Included
celebrating individuality of places and also people, respecting
diverse local norms and how this informed their home life. (SVS –
universalism)
Security (6) Allocated to interviewees who expressed concern for own safety
because were women travelling alone. Also those who expressed
concern for family’s safety through holidaying in perceived safe
locations – perceived modern world to be dangerous and children
in need of protection. (SVS – security)
Escape (4) (From everyday life, novelty.) Ascribed to people who mentioned
importance of their holiday being antidote to everyday life and
opportunity to escape from usual routine of life. Sometimes
meant an escape from stress of consumption associated with
everyday life. (SVS – hedonism)
Stimulation (3) (Challenge, exploration, excitement.) Used to describe benefits
such as learning about new and different regions/cultures, and
those who enjoyed challenge of speaking different languages,
being taken out of their ‘comfort zone’, etc. (SVS – stimulation)
Connecting with (Friendship, love.) Applied to those who expressed pleasure at
family (3) renewing long-term friendships on their holidays – staying with
friends – or who met up with extended family on holiday. Also for
those who enjoyed family activities together on holiday. (SVS –
benevolence)
Commitment, For those who specifically mentioned high personal cost, either
sacrifice (2) financially or in time and effort, of being ethical in their holiday
transport choices or in everyday consumption. (SVS –
universalism, achievement)
living sustainably. Related to this was the importance of making a lasting

contribution, which was allocated to those whose anxiety over society’s
obsession with consumerism was their chief motivation for living materially
simple lives, at home as well as on holiday. An emphasis on embracing and
celebrating diversity (of market economies, cultures and social norms, for
instance), and a belief in the importance of independent traders for long-term
social cohesion was also evident. In addition, respondents acknowledged the
effectiveness and therefore the importance of co-operation and working together
to facilitate positive social change, and believed passionately in their personal
ability to do this, thereby invoking the values named in this study as personal
effectiveness and responsibility.
Speaking some of the local language when on holiday encouraged them to
think that they made a contribution to international understanding, as well as
to help reverse negative cultural stereotypes, and they were proud of these

achievements. Finally, an emphasis on equality emerged from interviewees’
desire to be treated as equals by resident communities; they felt uncomfortable
that tourists were often considered superior because of their comparative
wealth, and so took care to spend their holiday money on locally produced
services and artisan handicrafts. They were especially keen not to be involved in
the exploitation of workers, whether this was from buying mass-produced
souvenirs, or by staying in hotels if they perceived staff were not paid fairly in
exchange for their labour.
Many respondents valued good health and well-being, which was identified
in those who bought organic food, those who worked hard to keep fit and
people who enjoyed family holidays in the countryside. The buying of organic
food was largely to ensure that their families ate chemical-free food, revealing
a combination of both egoistic and altruistic motivations. Interviewees who
wanted to travel beyond the tourist bubble to see ‘real’ or ‘untouched’ societies
prioritised the value of authenticity, while nostalgia was inferred when
respondents spoke of their pleasure at recreating childhood memories on
holiday or being able to initiate memories on which their children could look
back. Those concerned with family safety on holiday clearly placed a strong
emphasis on security, while the value of sacrifice was given to describe those
who mentioned the personal cost, either financially or in extra time and
effort, of being ethical consumers in their everyday life and responsible
tourists on holiday.
Responsible tourists’ motivation and Schwartz’s (1992) value types

Having described the values relevant to responsible tourists’ motivations, it is
useful to evaluate these in comparison with Schwartz’s (1992) value types.
The SVS was not originally developed for ethical contexts and so its utility for
understanding ethical consumption has been under question for some time
(Shaw et al. 2005). As discussed in Chapter 4, Schwartz (1992) categorised
values into 10 value types or domains, arranged into four groups within a
circumplex model: openness to change (containing self-direction, stimulation,
hedonism); conservation (security, conformity and tradition); self-transcendence
(benevolence and universalism); and self-enhancement (power and achievement).
These four groups were presented as bipolar opposites along two axes, the
first of which contrasted self-transcendence with self-enhancement, while
openness to change is opposed to conservation (see Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4).
Self-transcendent values motivate people to promote the welfare of others,
while self-enhancement values motivate them to pursue individual or selfish
interest. Conflict is likely during the pursuit of these quite different motiva-
tional values. For example, those prioritising self-transcendent values display
a broad concern for the enhancement of others and comfort with the existence
of diversity, whereas those emphasising self-enhancement values will more
likely seek success for themselves rather than focusing on enhancing the wel-
fare of others. Openness to change values (stimulation and self-direction)

emphasise independent thought, action and readiness for new experiences,
and oppose the conservation values (security, tradition, conformity), which
emphasises self-restraint, order and resistance to change. Hedonism shares
elements of both openness and self-enhancement.
The value types of respondents in this study can largely be categorised
using Schwartz and Bilsky’s (1990) explanation of values (in Schwartz 1992:
5–12) (Table 4.6 in Chapter 4), with the most often invoked and therefore
most relevant value types being universalism, benevolence, self-direction,
hedonism, achievement and stimulation. These imply that ethical consumers
prioritise the protection and welfare of other people and the environment,
exhibit a high degree of independent thought (upon which they act), want
their universal values to have a positive impact on others, enjoy learning and
being challenged on holiday, and derive great pleasure from the pursuit of
these values on holiday. The least relevant value types in this study are con-
formity, tradition and security, which prioritise social order, stability and
resistance to change, and a focus on family safety and security. Such findings
confirm previous research, where those with strong universalism values, such
as tolerance and appreciation, have less affinity with the value types of con-
formity, tradition and security, which prioritise self-restraint and deference to
authority (Feather 1994; Mayton and Furnham 1994; Ostini and Ellerman
1997; Shaw et al. 2005).
Aside from a potentially contested interpretation of the value type spiri-
tuality, perhaps an additional note of caution is needed here. For example, the
remainder of this chapter discusses each of the noted value types and makes
some form of claim as to their relevance in understanding responsible tourists.
However, it is important to highlight that some findings may not be entirely
unexpected, given the profile of the respondents in this study. For example, of
the 24 people who self-nominated themselves as ethical consumers, and who
volunteered for the research, 16 were female and eight were male, 10 worked
full time or were self-employed, four were retired, five worked part time and
five were unwaged. All respondents except one had a first degree or higher
educational diploma, while 13 held a postgraduate qualification. Their ages
ranged over 20–29 (one respondent), 30–39 (nine), 40–49 (five), 50–59 (six)
60–69 (two) and 70+ (one).
While Chapter 3 discussed whether gender, education, income and age are
significant in predicting ethical purchasing behaviour, there is no doubt that
people’s values, and the purchasing activities in pursuit of them, can be
impacted by demographic variables. For example, whilst there is little agreement
on the role of gender in ethical purchasing, those with a higher than average
income are considered more likely to promote the values of self-direction,
achievement, power and stimulation and place less emphasis on the values of
tradition, conformity and security. Likewise, those exposed to extended edu-
cational experiences are likely to prioritise self-direction and stimulation
rather than conformity, tradition and security. With regard to age, as people
get older, so they place more emphasis on the values of security, tradition and

conformity and less on the openness to change values of hedonism, self-
direction and stimulation (Schwartz 2009). Whether these predictions prove
to be accurate with regard to ethical consumers remains to be seen, but it is
worth noting that descriptive generalisations offer very few certainties with
regard to categorising human behaviour.
Universalism
Taking each of the value types in turn, perhaps an emphasis on universal
values, the priorities of which are understanding, appreciation, tolerance and
protection of all people and nature, is not entirely unexpected in a study of
responsible tourists, whose holiday choices indicate respect for the needs of
others, acceptance of personal responsibility for the impact of their holidays
and a genuine desire to share the economic and social benefits of tourism.
Indeed, universal values are present in all ethically motivated behaviour, and
those driven by them are more likely to accept difference in others and
incorporate the values of equity, social justice and environmental protection
in their consumption choices (Stern et al. 1993; Follows and Jobber 2000;
Shaw et al. 2005). Additional evidence in this study of respondents’ universal
values came from their empathy with the principles of fair trade, their active
engagement with making change happen, their expressed desire to pay a fair
and just price for their holidays, their use of an operator from the country of
their destination, booking directly with accommodation providers, or
travelling with a responsible tour operator.
Benevolence
As well as adopting a universal perspective to life, the responsible tourists in
this study also exhibited characteristics associated with benevolence, whose
motivational goals seek to preserve and enhance the welfare of people who
are in frequent personal contact. Normally this means family and friends;
however, respondents showed additional concern for people they met on
holiday, specifically destination residents, which was apparent when they
talked about the importance of sharing (either knowledge or the financial
benefits of tourism for example), their duty to respect other cultures and ‘do
the right thing’, and particularly evident in those who bought goods from
independent traders specifically to prevent what they perceived as the dehu-
manisation of society by multinational corporations. Priorities such as these
indicate a strong sense of moral obligation, defined as ‘a sense of obligation
to others and identification with ethical issues’ (Shaw et al. 2000: 889), as well
as empathy with the concept of social interest (SI) whereby individuals
identify with the needs and concerns of others (Crandall 1980).
Significantly, although respondents emphasised cooperation, sharing and
contribution (all important indicators of SI), social interest is generally con-
sidered complementary, rather than contradictory, to self-interest. In other

words, those exhibiting high levels of social interest may want to reduce conflict,
threat and hostility to satisfy their personal need for safety, harmony and
stability, as opposed to them being concerned for the wider community.
Similarly, many respondents exhibited elements of helping behaviour, a concept
explored mainly in the context of charitable giving, which involves both
altruistic and egoistic motivations (Hibbert et al. 2005).
Helping behaviour is of interest here because many respondents wanted to
offer a lasting contribution, whether by sharing their technical or business
knowledge with local traders, speaking to locals in their own language to
improve intercultural understanding, or by volunteering as part of their holiday.
While these examples of helping behaviour seem to be altruistically moti-
vated, some respondents admitted that their activities helped neutralise their
guilt at being comparatively wealthy and leisured tourists, suggesting the
motivations of ethical consumers are complex, multi-dimensional and difficult
to isolate from more selfish aspirations.
Achievement
Although the previous section cast some doubt on whether ethical consumers
are completely altruistic, this does not mean that all respondents were entirely
self-interested. For example, many of them genuinely wanted to make a last-
ing contribution, located in this study within the achievement value type. The
motivational goals of achievement are being capable and influential, but in
this study achievement was not interpreted as concerned with social approval
(as in Schwartz’s 1992 interpretation of achievement), but by ‘practising what
they preached’ – that is, through demonstrating to others how easy it is to live
and travel without compromising their ethical or pro-environmental principles.
Such achievement-oriented aspirations indicate respondents had high levels of
perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and felt empowered positively to
influence people and their behaviour.
In contrast, those with low levels of PCE have little confidence in their
ability to influence others and believe themselves powerless as both individuals
and consumers (for more discussion of PCE see Chapter 3). It has been
known for many decades that people with high levels of PCE are more likely
to factor their ethics into future purchasing decisions, thus revealing a kind of
‘virtuous’ circle of decision-making and choice behaviour (Kinnear et al.
1974; Roberts 1995; Cleveland et al. 2005). This moves the discussion on to
more recent research with ethical consumers, and Varul’s (2009) work on
ethical selving, whereby ethical consumers make purchase decisions in order
to construct and support an ethical identity. Ethical selving argues that the
more people repeat this purchase behaviour, the more their view of themselves
as ethical consumers strengthens, ultimately proving a stronger influence on
them than any external pressure from friends, family or important others.
Understanding that people deliberately construct an ethical consumer
identity inevitably casts doubt on whether it is ever going to be possible to

access the true motivations of these people: respondents in this study certainly
presented themselves as responsible tourists, but the extent to which they are
consistently ethical is unclear, especially given recent research into contra-
dictory virtue (Boluk 2011). Nevertheless, knowing that responsible tourists
have high levels of PCE is significant because of its role as a key differentiator
between those who act upon their ethical values and those who do not (Cowe
and Williams 2000), and while PCE has been examined extensively in prosocial
consumer behaviour research (Lord and Putrevu 1998; Straughan and
Roberts 1999; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006; Webster 1975), the role and impact
of PCE on responsible tourist motivation has been largely overlooked.
Stimulation and self-direction

Unsurprisingly, this study reveals that ethical consumers are motivated to
achieve stimulation, which as a value type is derived from a need for variety
and stimulus, novelty and challenge in life, and demonstrated by the presence
of achievement, learning, the search for authenticity and a desire for holidays
to be challenging. Taking another look at Schwartz’s (1992) motivational
value types, the high levels of PCE exhibited by the respondents of this study
also implies the existence of self-direction, which favours independent thought
and action, creativity and exploration. Additional characteristics of self-
direction are the favouring of principle over conformity, tolerance over
tradition, benevolence rather than security, and a general orientation to other
people rather than to themselves (Fukukawa 2003; Ostini and Ellerman
1997). It is also a significant driver for those who enjoy challenging accepted
worldviews (Gibbs 1977). Such behaviour was clearly evident in this study,
and not only did respondents believe themselves influential in encouraging
others to live sustainably, but also felt compelled to challenge the status quo,
whether this was by refusing to engage with society’s obsession over mass
consumerism, by supporting direct action groups, or by challenging the
accepted norm that the sky is a ‘free’ resource, available for everyone to enjoy.
As noted in Chapter 5, challenging social norms gave respondents great
pleasure and satisfaction, and if they had significantly different beliefs from
friends, this certainly did not cause them any anxiety. In fact, they enjoyed
sharing their ethical beliefs with friends and family, convinced that they were
being positively influential. Being such confident thinkers evokes Kohlberg’s
(1969) theory of moral development, which posits that individuals pass through
different stages of moral reasoning according to their life experiences (in
Fennell 2006). Indeed, an emphasis on self-direction indicates respondents in this
study possessed an advanced level of moral reasoning, where rather than
following pre-determined or externally imposed lists of rules and regulations,
an internal drive dictates their moral behaviour.
At this point perhaps it is worth recalling that all but one respondent in this
study possessed an undergraduate degree or similar. This is relevant because,
as noted earlier, educational experiences can promote intellectual openness,

flexibility and a breadth of perspective, all of which are characteristic of self-
direction. Consequently, those who have spent prolonged periods in education
are more likely to challenge prevailing societal norms and display less concern
for the values of security, conformity and tradition (Schwartz 2009). Whilst it
is tempting to claim that ethical consumers are generally more highly educated
and so prioritise the values associated with self-direction, such assumptions
do not sufficiently explain their active adoption of ethical purchasing
behaviour. As discussed in Chapter 3, simply having knowledge of unethical
practices does not guarantee future ethical consumption. The situation is far
more complex, and while knowledge of the moral dilemmas of tourism is
clearly important in behaviour change it is not the only factor in encouraging
tourists to demand a responsible holiday product. Indeed, it is hoped that an
examination of ethical consumers’ individual value priorities will provide a
more nuanced and insightful understanding of their motivations.
Hedonism
Another significant value type to emerge from this study was hedonism, the
motivational goals of which are pleasure and sensuous gratification. Perhaps
this was to be expected in a study of holiday choice. However, the word
‘hedonism’, certainly within the context of tourism, is often negatively associated
with a complex set of (tourist) behaviours, which conjure up images more
often implicated in the four S’s of tourism (sun, sea, sand and casual sex – see
Diken and Laustsen 2004: 100). Of course, from a teleological perspective, a
hedonist’s goal is always going to be that which involves the least pain and
the greatest pleasure, but for an ethical consumer with strong universal and
benevolence values this may cause a great deal of internal conflict when
planning their holidays. For example, should they fly to visit family or friends
who live on the other side of the world when they know that this will cause
excessively damaging carbon emissions? The outcome of this dilemma will
depend upon the extent to which they are motivated by personal interest (to
visit family), versus the extent to which they are motivated to transcend
selfish concerns and to promote the welfare of others. In this and many other
contexts, behavioural outcomes are always a personal trade-off between
environmental concern and a need for selfish gratification (Follows and
Jobber 2000).
Of course, the choices that people make depend upon their value priorities,
and not all ethical consumers experience personal discord when planning
their holidays. An example comes from a respondent who described her
recent holiday in the Maldives. Although she knew about the Maldivian
government’s apparent disregard for workers’ rights, she deliberately chose to
ignore this information in her decision making. In fact, she reasoned to her-
self that it was important to see firsthand what the situation was, so that she
could make a more informed decision in the future. There was no real indi-
cation during the interview that she experienced value conflict on this point,

even though she believed that she was an ethical consumer. In fact, the
desire to find out the facts for herself far outweighed the approbation she
described receiving from friends and close work colleagues. For this respondent,
the values combination of hedonism and self-direction were far stronger
motivational goals than her universal and benevolence values. Of course, she
was not the only person to reveal contradictory value preferences when
talking about their holidays. Although one-third of respondents claimed to
refuse to fly for leisure purposes, the remainder continued to do so, with the
environmental impact of their holidays apparently not a factor in their
decision making.
Arguably, this might not be a case of hedonism being a more powerful
influence than the values of stewardship, benevolence or universalism. It
might be due to a general lack of knowledge and understanding about the
tourism industry and its operations. For example, although respondents were
knowledgeable about the political and economic responsibilities associated
with everyday consumption and found it quite easy to search out fair trade
produce and boycott unethical companies, they exhibited a certain amount of
hesitancy when it came to being ethical on holiday. Whether this was because
they wanted to enjoy their holidays and not think about ethical consumption
is unclear, but for many respondents, knowledge of the negative environ-
mental impact of their holidays, combined with their desire not to contribute
further to carbon emissions, often resulted in them being stymied, unable to
change their behaviour, and unsure how to manage their holidays at the same
time as care for the environment. As a typical example, one couple under-
stood very well the negative environmental consequences associated with
flying, but this caused them a huge dilemma: how could they reconcile their
knowledge of the causes of climate change and a self-imposed ban on flying
with going to see friends who lived overseas?
This problem created an ethical conundrum whereby their lack of knowledge
about alternative sustainable transport options prevented them from visiting
close friends who lived in Greece for the past four years. Clearly this was not
because they did not know about the moral dilemmas of flying; in fact, one
could argue it was precisely because they did know about them. Instead, it
highlights the difficulties associated with making ethical holiday choices not
least because such products are produced and sold by a fragmented, diverse
and extremely complex industry. The multifaceted nature of the industry
alone can cause problems because it means that information is often restricted
to individual operators’ promotional material or Internet portals – gathering
such disparate knowledge is going to be off-putting and exhausting for all but
the most committed responsible tourist, with the result that while knowledge
and awareness are important factors in fostering behaviour change, the amount
of available information about ethical alternatives can immobilise consumers
(Cherrier 2007). It is hardly surprising that some respondents choose to
ignore the ethical imperatives of flying if the alternative is not going on
holiday at all.

Perhaps this is a good time to discuss the influence of the media on the
demand for responsible tourism. For example, the findings reveal that ethical
consumers are keenly aware of the environmental and economic consequences
of their holidays, but not equally cognisant of its potential for negative social
impact. Whether this indicates ethical consumers’ sophisticated understanding
of market economics and the role of big business in society, and a constant
media focus on climate change and the environment, is unclear; however,
concern for the social impact of tourism was confined to those who had lived
in or grown up in developing countries, those who had travelled with a
responsible tour operator and those who had personally experienced or witnessed
a conflict between tourists’ needs and residents’ wishes. Indeed, although
most respondents were aware of the environmental impacts of flying, and
many were keen to share the financial benefits of their holidays, few were
aware that their physical presence in destinations might have a negative
impact on resident communities.
Possibly these contradictory emphases indicate respondents’ lack of
knowledge about social impacts and while the study did not focus on the role
of information in ethical consumers’ holiday choices, the findings underscore
yet again how important it is for people to be aware of the impact of their
holidays in order to make changes to their behaviour. Of course, as already
noted, awareness and information only go so far in helping people to change
their behaviour. From the findings of this study it appears that people also
need to have high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness and a strong
sense of moral obligation. However, whilst they exhibit a sense of moral
obligation, and demonstrate social interest as well as helping behaviour, they
also reveal a range of egoistic motivations, as evidenced by some respondents
prioritising hedonism over universalism or stewardship with regard to their
holiday choices.
Inner peace and spiritual renewal

Respondents’ search for inner peace on holiday was strongly evident in their
desire to ‘do the right thing’, whether this meant sharing the economic benefits
of their holidays, working hard to protect the environment or demonstrating
their sustainable lifestyle to others. Inner peace was closely connected with a
sense of spiritual renewal, which respondents gained from being close to
nature, turning their back on modern consumption demands or by sticking
closely to their sustainable lifestyle on holiday. Although Schwartz (1992)
originally categorized spirituality as a separate value type and located it
between universalism and benevolence, he later modified this on account of
his belief that spirituality could be satisfied by a range of activities and was
therefore not sufficiently unique to merit a separate domain. However, the
fact that respondents talked about inner peace and their experiences of
spiritual renewal while on holiday indicates a stronger rationale for the value
type of spirituality to re-occupy the self-transcendence domain along with

universalism and benevolence in a tourism context. This suggests that vacations
are sufficiently different from other goods and services to merit a further
examination of the meaning of spirituality in tourism. While there is evidence
of research in this area (see Sharpley and Sundaram 2005; Timothy and
Olsen 2006; Wilson 2010), further examination would be useful in order to
clarify its contribution towards a greater understanding of responsible tourist
motivation.
Power
While a previous section questioned the relevance of Schwartz’s interpretation
of the achievement value type to an ethical context, this study also queries his
explanation of the power value type:
[T]he attainment of social status and prestige and the control or dominance
over others and resources … [power] focuses on social esteem, emphasises
the attainment, preservation of a dominant position within the social
system.
(Schwartz 1992: 6)
This interpretation highlights the dominance and submission dimension in all

relationships, with those exhibiting characteristics of the power value type
most interested in social esteem and preserving a dominant position in
society. In contrast, responsible tourists’ emphasis on benevolence, universal
values and sharing implies quite a different interpretation of power, with
responsible tourists using their power to encourage or influence others to
adopt an ethical approach to their consumption behaviour. A similar point is
made by Shaw et al. (2005), whose study of fair trade consumers identified
three new values to suit an ethical consumption context: capitalism (or control
and dominance of multinationals) and consumer power (the impact of purchase
decisions), both located within the power value type; and animal welfare
(protection for the welfare of all animals), located within the universalism
value type. In their interpretation of power, fair trade consumers used positive
consumer power in their ‘buycotting’ and boycotting activities, ‘to benefit
others and for the protection of resources through the consumption of more
ethical products’ (Shaw et al. 2005: 197).
The emergence of capitalism and positive consumer power certainly reso-
nated in this study, wherein respondents’ routinely expressed distrust of
multinational organisations when talking about the importance of retaining
independent traders, both on the UK high street and overseas. Indisputably,
many demonstrated extensive knowledge of global market mechanisms and
an acute understanding of the political importance of their consumption both
at home and on holiday. Further evidence of this comes from the fact that a
majority were active members of political, social, religious and/or environmental
campaign or direct action groups. These included Stop the War Coalition,

Palestinian Solidarity, Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth, Green-
peace, World Development Movement, Tourism Concern and Viva. Given
their high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness, their belief in the power
of consumers to facilitate social change, their condemnation of capitalism and
their enjoyment in challenging social norms, perhaps it is not altogether
unexpected that they actively engage in such groups.
Coping strategies and decisional trade-offs

As discussed in Chapter 3, ethical consumers grapple with many of the major
issues facing contemporary society, such as economic and environmental
sustainability, climate change, human rights and poverty alleviation. Accord-
ingly, their consumption behaviour has to take account of a range of political,
social, environmental, religious, spiritual and/or animal welfare interests
(Weeden and Boluk, n.d.). Unsurprisingly, tensions occur and compromises
have to be made, especially when their deeply held belief systems collide with
the pragmatics of the market place (Shaw and Riach 2011). Not only must
they make consumption choices according to their individual ethical codes
but they also have to manage the more practical considerations of price,
affordability and quality, which often leads to them adopting coping strategies
or decisional trade-offs. Such behaviour is certainly evident in this study, and
in contrast to respondents with high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness
and who feel empowered to utilise positive consumer power to pursue an
ethical lifestyle, some respondents exhibited quite a considerable amount of
trade-off behaviour in order to cope with conflicting values and priorities.
For example, several respondents revealed their personal strategies for offsetting
long-haul flights. Either they carried out voluntary work at their destination
or they made sure they bought locally produced goods and services on
holiday.
A different trade-off was invoked when a respondent reasoned that he could
continue taking short-haul European flights (rather than the train, for
example) because this meant he was able to spend more time and money at
the destination. Such trade-offs were initially discussed in Chapter 3, pointing
out that coping strategies are often in evidence in a complex or extended
problem-solving situation such as ethical purchasing. They are also indicative
of the heterogeneous nature of ethical consumption and are seen very often in
studies that arrange ethical consumption behaviour along continua, according
to people’s concerns, and in the development of consumer typologies. Consumers
are often forced (although not always) to prioritise according to specific
consumption anxieties, whether this means they prioritise environmental pro-
tection by not flying, try to avoid negative cultural stereotyping by talking to
locals in their own language, or seek to optimise the financial benefit of their
holidays and spend cash in locally owned businesses. Remembering that while
being an ethical tourist is too aspirational (as noted in Chapter 3), being a
responsible tourist is about achieving the achievable.

Conclusion
This chapter analysed the findings of a study into the motivational values of
ethical consumers and how they seek to satisfy them with their holiday choices.
The chapter presented a list of the values revealed in the study, along with a
detailed description of the content of each of them. These are discussed in
detail using Schwartz’s (1992) list of values and value types, concluding that
two values, power and achievement, have a different meaning when examined
in an ethical context. This interpretation is discussed in some detail. From the
study, ethical consumers believe that tourism has the capacity to be inequi-
table and while several of them have knowledge of how the tourism industry
operates, still more are unable to address all of the ethical dilemmas in tourism
because they lack knowledge and understanding, not only about alternative
ways of travelling but also how to access reliable information about travelling
responsibly. Nevertheless, the interviewees reveal empathy with others both on
an economic and a social level, and most respondents have a sophisticated
understanding of their personal impact as tourists. They demonstrate sympathy
for the principles of fair trade, with its emphasis on cooperation and working
collaboratively, and not only do they take active responsibility for sharing the
economic benefits of their holidays, but they also want to make a lasting
contribution to the visited community.
Additionally, they demonstrate knowledge of economic market mechanisms,
have concerns about the impact of a global tourism industry and strive to
incorporate their ethical values into their holiday choices. The study also
reveals that respondents distrust multinational corporations, not only because
they hold them responsible for contributing to a breakdown in the social
fabric of communities but also because they want to support and retain
diversity, difference and choice in all areas of society. This chapter has also
examined the impact of perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), neutralisa-
tion, ethical selving and coping strategies. This discussion finds that research
into these specific factors needs to be extended to help shed further light on
the complexities of ethical consumer decision making.
The next chapter uses the information presented in Chapters 5 and 6 to
determine how an increased understanding of the values of responsible tourists
can influence the future development of global tourism. It details what
responsible tourists want from a holiday and how they try to satisfy their
values on vacation, to enable stakeholders to understand how or whether
these consumers differ from mass-market tourists. It provides details on how
travel organisations can be more responsible in their business activities, and
explains how to design tourism products to appeal to responsible tourists.
Perhaps more importantly, the next chapter argues that knowledge of the
responsible tourist has significant implications for the mass market with
regard to product innovation, development and marketing.
7 Marketing responsible tourism
Introduction
This chapter uses the findings of the study presented in Chapters 4 and 5 to
inform a discussion about marketing responsible tourism. It begins with an
explanation of what these individuals demand from the tourism and travel
industry. It continues with a consideration of the challenges faced by those
seeking to encourage greater demand for and supply of responsible holidays.
The chapter discusses the strategies of denial adopted by holiday makers when
considering their ethical responsibilities on holiday and also questions why
marketing responsible holidays has proven difficult in the past. It continues
with a consideration of mainstreaming and its potential to increase demand
for responsible tourism, and ponders whether fair trade and social marketing
have utility in such an objective. The chapter concludes with recommendations
for increasing the supply of and demand for responsible tourism.
What ethical consumers want from a holiday

From a review of the preceding chapters, it is clear that ethical consumers are
driven by a complex set of value priorities. This makes their decision making
personally challenging because of the extra time and effort that they have to
spend considering ethical concerns in conjunction with more pragmatic pur-
chasing criteria such as choice, price, quality and convenience. Sometimes
confused by the extensive amount of information to navigate, they display
flexible decision making, reveal a range of ethical preferences, focus on different
areas of concern, and demonstrate a variety of purchase and/or avoidance
behaviours.
This chapter aims to use this information and discusses how the majority of
ethical consumers prefer to travel independently, and book directly with
accommodation and transport providers. They do this for ethical reasons, but
also because they seek freedom and choice on holiday, and understand that
shorter supply chains provide opportunities for cheaper holidays. Once on
holiday, ethical consumers want to contribute to a destination’s economy
through buying locally produced handicrafts and supporting artisan skills.

They seek a culturally enriching experience, and attempt to achieve this by
making conversation with local residents, learning a few words of the language
beforehand, and by participating in community activities during their vacations.
Lastly, some of them prioritise environmental conservation, some focus on
boosting the economic benefit of their holidays for destinations, while others
try to mitigate any negative social impact on holiday. Very few ethical consumers
achieve all three aspirations.
Information of this nature is of significant value to tour operators, especially
with regard to product innovation and development, and marketing and pro-
motional activities. Indeed, an improved understanding of responsible tourists’
motivational values offers operators specific knowledge about the holiday
choices that these individuals make. For example, in addition to tourists’
usual expectations regarding quality and value for money, these individuals
will question how the money paid for their holidays is spread throughout the
supply chain, and will expect operators to be honest in their promotional and
advertising material and to be responsible partners in destination development
plans. They will also want to see a realistic and operable code of conduct that
emphasises how all stakeholders can demonstrate inter-cultural respect, whether
tourists, operators or other components within the supply chain. They are
likely to expect collaborative and cooperative, rather than competitive, rela-
tionships between the tour operator and their suppliers, and seek to ensure
their holidays do not cause excessive negative externalities. Because they
enjoy learning on vacation, so educational components should be built into
the products and services offered to them.
This type of information also has utility for the wider travel industry.
Indeed, key stakeholders must recognise the importance of stewardship to
responsible tourists, and remember that these individuals are not purely
environmentally focused – they also want to preserve traditional skills and support
artisan handicrafts. Arguably, the tourism industry should adopt a more
proactive, informative approach to the marketing of responsible holidays. The
tourists discussed in this text, for example, had less awareness of the potential
social impact of their stay than the environmental issues involved. This is
probably due as much to extensive media attention regarding the contribution
of air transport to climate change, as to their interest in preserving the beauty
of the natural world. However, the study also revealed that responsible tourists
are sometimes unsure how to translate their awareness of the relationship
between air travel and climate change into exploring viable alternatives. These and
similar issues need to be addressed, and not only by operators wanting to attract
a greater share of the responsible tourist market. Whilst national, international
and global policy makers should encourage governments, nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs) and businesses to promote responsible travel, tourists
also require practical strategies to help them to adapt their behaviour and
acknowledge their responsibility for the impact of their holidays.
Of course, knowledge about responsible tourists’ expectations, motivations
and behaviour are significant for the industry, but this text is not the only source

of such information (see for example, Bergin-Seers and Mair 2009; Brouwer
et al. 2008; Budeanu 2007; Dolnicar et al. 2008; Dolnicar 2010; Hares et al.
2010; Kang and Moscardo 2006; Lemelin et al. 2008; Mair 2010; Miller 2003;
Miller et al. 2010; Stanford 2008). What is perhaps less well documented is
how to market responsible holidays effectively and this is the primary focus of
this chapter. In order to fulfil this aim, and to offer practical recommendations
to tour operators and other relevant stakeholders, this chapter evaluates the
key challenges associated with this objective. It begins with an examination of
the difficulties of marketing ethics in tourism and compares these against the
challenge of marketing ethical products and services. The chapter details suc-
cessful attempts to mainstream fair trade products beyond the hard-core ethical
market, before reflecting upon whether such an approach might have utility for
those marketing responsible tourism. The chapter continues with a consideration
of two alternative marketing approaches (fair trade certification in tourism,
social marketing), before concluding with practical recommendations for
stakeholders interested in promoting responsibility in tourism.
Marketing ethics in tourism

Historically, specialist tour operators, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), were the primary source of responsible holidays offered to the UK
market. This was largely due to owner-directors acknowledging the impor-
tance of preserving the integrity of the natural resource they were selling, and/
or because their personal approach to running a business stemmed from strong
ethical values (Weeden 2005a). For these SMEs, offering an individualised
product enabled them to achieve success in the highly competitive, oligopolistic
UK marketplace, and allowed them the opportunity to differentiate their offer,
enhance customer loyalty and potentially charge premium prices (Weeden
2002). Whether such advantage was due to offering responsible holidays or
because these operators sold high-quality products involving customised and
enriching experiences is not completely clear. Indeed, the extent to which
organisations can claim competitive advantage through offering ethical products
has long been a contentious issue.
Several studies discussed in Chapter 3 asserted that additional ethical
components benefit the ‘bottom line’, while critics of such claims contend that
it is more about businesses finding a new way to distinguish themselves in an
increasingly competitive marketplace (Brei and Böhm 2011). Similar con-
troversies are also evident in tourism, with some commentators defining
responsible tourism as a guiding philosophy for all tourism development
(Husbands and Harrison 1996; Weeden 2011), whilst others claim ethical and/
or responsible tourism to be the latest in a long line of products offered as
(mostly) unsatisfactory solutions to the problems associated with mass tourism
(Wheeller 1997).
Perhaps Wheeller’s early scepticism is well founded, because since his
comments, mass-market operators have aggressively acquired a number of

successful specialist and responsible operators in order to eliminate competition
and widen market appeal (known as defensive marketing – see Golding and
Peattie 2005). For example, in July 2002 First Choice (now part of TUI, the
largest tour company operating in Europe) acquired Exodus, an independent
specialist in adventure and activity holidays. This was later followed by TUI’s
acquisition in February 2011 of Intrepid Travel, adventure holiday specialists
also known for responsible travel, to spearhead their PEAK Adventures group.
While strategically important for TUI’s portfolio development, this type of
corporate activity reinforced the general (mis)perception that responsible
tourism is a niche product to be bought ‘off the shelf ’. It also heightened
concerns over ‘clean washing’ whereby major corporations acquire one or two
ethical holiday products in the hope that a halo effect washes over the
remainder of their activities (Low and Davenport 2009).
The biggest challenge, however, and one that unfortunately compounds the
difficulty of marketing ethical travel, is the fact that people are not only dis-
inclined to take their ethics on holiday, but are also seemingly resistant to
initiatives designed to encourage (force) them to accept more responsibility
for the impact of their travel activity. Although some way off, the introduction
of personal carbon allowances may be critical in helping tourists face up to
the environmental impact of their air travel (Holden 2009). However, it is
likely to take more than externally imposed restrictions to compel people to
acknowledge what Cohen et al. (2011: 1070) call ‘a behavioural addiction to
binge flying’. Research by Barr et al. (2010: 477) indicates that even the most
environmentally dedicated consumer, who actively performs a variety of green
behaviours at home, displays behavioural inconsistency on holiday, saying,
‘they would pay the [aviation] tax and keep flying anyway’.
Psychology of denial
Whether such views stem from personal denial, an unwillingness to give up
flying as part of a holiday, or ignorance of practical alternatives to air travel
is as yet unclear. In their work on climate change and the emotional dis-
sonance that individuals experience when challenged to change their habitual
consumption behaviour, Stoll-Kleemann et al. (2001) suggest that people
develop certain denial strategies to help them to cope with any guilt, loss of
self-esteem, resentment and anger (see Table 7.1). The concept of consistency
is also evident in the attitude-behaviour gaps reported in Chapters 1, 2 and 3,
and in the decisional trade-offs reported in ethical consumer decision making
(McEachern et al. 2010; Szmigin et al. 2009).
What is certain is that tourist behaviour is complex and contested; some
tourists are willing to change their behaviour, but many are not. Indeed, some
of them continue to fly long haul (and make regular short-haul flights) precisely
because they believe their everyday pro-environmental behaviour allows them
to trade-off any damage they potentially cause (see Barr et al. 2010; Weeden
2011). Many consumers now consider their holidays sacrosanct, that they are
Table 7.1 Strategies of denial

Metaphor of displaced commitment I protect the environment in other ways
To condemn the accuser You have no right to challenge me
Denial of responsibility I am not the main cause of this problem
Rejection of blame I have done nothing wrong so as to be destructive
Ignorance I simply don’t know the consequences of my
actions
Powerlessness I am only an infinitesimal being in the order of
things
Fabricated constraints There are too many impediments
‘After the flood’ What is the future doing for me?
Comfort It is too difficult for me to change my behaviour
(Schahn 1993: 59–60)
Source: (Stoll-Kleemann et al. 2001: 112)
‘off-limits’ as far as responsible consumption is concerned, and an opportu-

nity for them to take a break from being ‘worthy’ consumers. An additional
complication, and possibly offering a ‘get-out’ to those not yet fully signed up
to being responsible on holiday, is the stark realisation that many economies
around the world are almost wholly dependent on tourism receipts for fiscal
stability. Clearly, the issue of encouraging people to be more responsible on
holiday is not simply a one-dimensional discussion over whether to take a
flight or not.
Arguably, an emphasis on the role of individual responsibility in travel is
also rather simplistic. Indeed, more holiday choices are made jointly than any
other form of decision (Bronner and de Hoog 2008), leading to inevitable
compromise and concession, especially within a family situation. Of perhaps
more significance for those seeking to change tourist behaviour and increase
demand for a responsible product, however, is dealing with what is generally
recognised as an individualised form of anti-consumption protest (Low and
Davenport 2009). Whilst useful, consumers acting on their own (that is, one
cup at a time – see Levi and Linton 2003) by electing not to fly to their
holiday destination, is not always the most effective strategy for revolution.
Instead, a group approach to ethical consumption needs to be encouraged to
bring about real transformative change (Low and Davenport 2009;
Moisander 2007).
Marketing ethical products and services

One of the most effective tools for influencing the behaviour of consumers is
marketing. However, those charged with marketing goods and services to the
ethical market face a range of substantial barriers. First, as revealed by the
study and discussed in Chapter 6, ethical consumers are independent thinkers
and therefore likely to resist traditional marketing and promotional techniques

due to a sympathy with anti-consumption discourse. Second, organisations
must appeal to ethical consumers on a variety of platforms, persuading the
market of their ethical integrity at the same time as communicating on value,
quality, price and convenience. Such extended consumer problem solving
requires organisations to implement equally complex communication plans, a
process that takes time and is costly to effect. Third, ethical clutter means that
individual offerings need to be heavily, and therefore expensively, promoted to
avoid getting lost amongst a plethora of corporate social responsibility
(CSR)-related programmes and initiatives (Witkowski 2005). Finally, society
in general holds marketing in very low esteem, and although its activities lie
at the heart of strategies seeking to promote ethical practice, consumer
scepticism surrounding marketing and advertising techniques may mitigate
against any intention for doing good (Neyland and Simakova 2009).
Distrust, mistrust, cynicism and scepticism

This latter point may be the most significant challenge for those promoting
responsible holidays. Indeed, marketing activity is often perceived to be
unethical, with marketers held responsible for persuading consumers to buy
products and services they do not need and which do not enrich either their
own lives or those of the people producing them. Tourism marketing is espe-
cially criticised for focusing too much on opportunities for economic growth,
too little on the impact of tourism development on people, places and the
environment, and encouraging tourists to believe that happiness is easily
attained through ever-increasing levels of consumption. Indeed, while the
tourism industry has arguably accepted the need for a sustainable approach to
business, its adopted marketing techniques are stuck firmly in an economic
paradigm, where the maximisation of profit is often the ultimate goal (Jamrozy
2007). Of course, the competitive nature of the global business environment
demands that all profit-oriented organisations rely heavily on an effective
communications mix. This is especially pertinent in the travel industry, where
mass-market tour operators are constantly driven to chase ever-narrowing
margins in order to compete successfully. Unfortunately, an over-dependency
on advertising activity for attracting sales often serves to incite further public
opprobrium, especially if organisations are trying to communicate with ethical
consumers. Indeed, advertising is often perceived as ‘untruthful, deceptive,
manipulative, offensive and in bad taste … it creates and perpetuates stereotypes,
encourages purchase of items not really needed, and plays upon individuals’
fears and insecurities’ (Shimp 1997, in Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009: 107). For
companies who are truly socially responsible, and who successfully employ
ethics as a key marketing strategy (Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009), this makes the
task of increasing demand especially hard.
Those tasked with marketing ethical products face a further challenge from
consumers’ innate cynicism of the corporate world, largely due to increasing
access to news media and citizen-consumer reports of unethical marketing

practices. The extent to which these media reports influence people’s
purchasing behaviour is inevitably determined by their relationship with the
company in question, which in turn dictates whether they reward or punish
through purchase or avoidance (Ingram et al. 2005). Consequently, the per-
ceived credibility and/or trustworthiness of both the marketing message and
the sender are critical (de Pelsmacker et al. 2005b), especially in the ethical
market, and particularly if the vendor organisation is a large multinational,
the focus of many ethical consumers’ distrust (also discussed in Chapter 6).
Inevitably, trust (and therefore confidence) is also crucial in tourist decision
making because of the inherent intangibility of holidays (Nicolau 2008).
However, consumers are not only sceptical of marketing and advertising
initiatives. An additional barrier to selling virtuous products is cynicism over
corporate ethical claims (Barr et al. 2010). In part, this is the response to a
proliferation of ‘green spin’ in the 1980s and early 1990s, when ‘facile,
meaningless, and unproven green claims were slapped on unchanged products
in failed attempts to boost sales’ (Peattie and Crane 2005: 361). Indeed, such
is the level of consumer sensitivity to green spin and ethical wash, even the
chosen form of communication channel can prevail against the credibility of
the message, as noted in the following:
Consumers express a clear preference for less hard-boiled (marketing)

communications techniques, such as package information, leaflets and
brochures, and television documentaries. They seem to perceive mass
media advertising as less compatible with the idea of ethical products.
(de Pelsmacker et al. 2005b: 516)
In order to cope with such deep-rooted mistrust and to prevent wider public
condemnation, organisations often play down their ethical, environmental
and/or CSR achievements (Crane 1997), known as ‘green muting’ (see
Makower 2009; Weeden et al. n.d., forthcoming). Similarly, companies with
proactive CSR policies are reticent to proclaim them for fear of being accused
of exploiting moral obligation for the (cynical) pursuit of profit (van de Ven
2008). Consequently, corporate anxiety over a media and/or consumer backlash
presents something of a conundrum for companies that are genuinely socially
responsible. On the one hand they are ‘expected … to [uphold] high standards
of right and wrong [in relation] to their stakeholders’ (Dickson and Eckman
2008: 725), but on the other, if they make too much of their ethical credentials they
are accused of ethical wash (Jones and Weeden 2011; Peattie and Crane 2005).
Clearly, ‘[t]he difficulties of coupling ethical values to marketing activities …
cannot and should not be underestimated’ (Crane 1997: 575).
Such widespread condemnation of marketing is not the only challenge
facing organisations marketing products and services to the ethical consumer.
An additional difficulty comes from it being an extensive undertaking due to
the incorporation of the ethical component. For example, while all companies
have to provide information about a product, communicate its differential and

establish a relationship with the consumer, the choice of appeal for ethical
products must make a meaningful connection between the producer, the product
and the consumer (Golding 2009; Witkowski 2005). This tripartite objective
can be observed in the promotion of fair trade goods, which is tasked with
‘trying to sell [the] norm that people in prosperous countries should factor
global social justice into their buying decisions’ (Levi and Linton 2003: 419).
In order to achieve this, they must encourage consumers to add social justice
to their regular considerations of price, quality and convenience. This is
challenging, not only because it requires consumers to modify their behaviour,
but also because it demands that they take extra time and effort to make
purchasing decisions. One way of successfully guiding consumers through this
process, in the context of fair trade tea and coffee, has been the use of pro-
ducer ‘stories’, which directly link potential buyers with the fair trade farmer
or producer. This technique usually involves a single individual presented as a
‘disadvantaged producer’, with information about them typically ‘positioned
next to Fair Trade goods in retail outlets, sometimes on the packaging itself,
and often available through the websites of online Fair Trade retailers’ (Neyland
and Simakova 2009: 783). While these small vignettes may persuade more
consumers to buy fair trade products in the belief that their purchases directly
improve producers’ lives, such promotional techniques are not without criticism;
turning people into products to be ‘consumed’ can reinforce concerns over
unethical marketing practices, resulting in targeted consumers ultimately
being repelled by the message as well as the medium.
Mainstreaming ethical and fair trade products and services

Having discussed some of the common challenges associated with marketing
ethical products and services, this next section evaluates a range of main-
streaming activities, which may be instructive for those attempting to increase
demand for responsible tourism. To recap, the study reported in Chapters 5
and 6 revealed ethical consumers’ affinity with the principles of fair trade,
because of its emphasis on cooperation rather than competitive trading,
which makes it appropriate to discuss in relation to responsible tourism. In
recent years, fair trade coffee, tea and bananas have been successfully main-
streamed to a wider consumer market and so valuable insight for those seeking
to increase demand for responsible tourism might be gained from a closer
examination of these initiatives.
As discussed in Chapter 3, fair trade is a poverty alleviation mechanism,
implemented in the Majority World aimed at ensuring that disadvantaged
producers are treated fairly (Karla Boluk, personal communication, 26 April
2012). Table 7.2 sets out the principles and goals of the fair trade movement.
Although at first glance it might seem that fair trade coffee and responsible
tourism have little in common, they do in fact share significant similarities.
For example, both fair trade coffee and responsible holidays enjoy very limited
market share. In 2006, responsible tourism accounted for just 1 per cent of the UK

Table 7.2 Principles of fair trade
Principles of fair trade
Creating Fair trade is a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable
opportunities for development. Its purpose is to create opportunities for producers
economically who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalized by
disadvantaged the conventional trading system.
producers
Transparency and Fair trade involves transparent management and commercial
accountability relations to deal fairly and respectfully with trading partners.
Capacity building Fair trade is a means to develop producers' independence. Fair
trade relationships provide continuity, during which producers
and their marketing organisations can improve their management
skills and their access to new markets.
Payment of a fair A fair price in the regional or local context is one that has been
price agreed through dialogue and participation. It covers not only the
costs of production but enables production that is socially just and
environmentally sound. It provides fair pay to the producers and
takes into account the principle of equal pay for equal work by
women and men. Fair traders ensure prompt payment to their
partners and, whenever possible, help producers with access to
pre-harvest or pre-production financing.
Gender equity Fair trade means that women's work is properly valued and
rewarded. Women are always paid for their contribution to the
production process and are empowered in their organisations.
Working Fair trade means a safe and healthy working environment for
conditions producers. The participation of children (if any) does not
adversely affect their well-being, security, educational
requirements and need for play, and conforms to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the law
and norms in the local context.
The environment Fair trade actively encourages better environmental practices and
the application of responsible methods of production.
Source: (www.fairtrade.london.anglican.org)
holiday market (Hawkins 2007), and while this was forecast to rise to 3.4 per cent
by 2011 (Mintel 2007a), the number of UK tourists seeking a responsible holiday
remains tiny in 2013. Equally, the global market share of fair trade coffee
represents just 1 per cent of the world coffee market (FAO 2009), and although
the UK displays a very positive attitude towards fair trade coffee, with 16 per
cent market share (Mintel 2009), within Europe the fair trade coffee market
accounts for only 1 per cent of all coffee sales (FAO 2009). Given the success
of extending demand for fair trade coffee in the UK, it is clearly useful to
examine how this has been achieved in order to be able to assess whether
mainstreaming might be a useful strategy to adopt in the marketing of
responsible holidays to the UK consumer. Arguably, if responsible tourism is
to facilitate the development of a sustainable tourism industry this is crucial,
as it needs to be both more widely available and more effectively demanded.

The biggest challenge in mainstreaming fair trade coffee was to push it
beyond being a niche product (Davies et al. 2010), a strategy considered
imperative in increasing demand for all ethical products and services (Golding
and Peattie 2005). A key factor in the success of this initiative was the
increase in distribution points, achieved by gaining shelf space in the major
UK retailers, such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, and through the encouragement
of organisations with similar values, namely non-profit organisations such as
churches, universities, schools, to make fair trade coffee their beverage of
choice (Levi and Linton 2003). In combination, these activities overcame the
problem of inconvenience and/or product unavailability, often crucial in
increasing the uptake of ethical products (Davies et al. 2010). However,
although the mainstreaming has been largely hailed as a success, it also created
several unexpected consequences. First, it transformed fair trade coffee ‘from
a product with an ethical core to a product concept in which ethics represents
a mere augmentation’ (Golding 2009: 161), causing alarm amongst many
hard-core ethical consumers. Indeed, while some buyers acknowledged main-
streaming effectively created a larger market, increased sales and therefore
improved the lives of coffee producers, others viewed it as ‘selling out’ and
totally unacceptable for a fair trade product. Second, there was concern that
mainstreaming diluted the ethical message and the movement’s principles
(Low and Davenport 2009; Golding and Peattie 2005), as well as wider
apprehension over fair trade becoming attractive to corporations with very
different agendas. Evidence of this latter point comes from fair trade coffee,
where trade buyers display diverse levels of ethical commitment:
[F]rom ‘mission-driven’ enterprises that uphold alternative ideas and

practices based on social, ecological, and place-based commitments, to
‘quality-driven’ firms that selectively foster fair trade conventions to
ensure reliable supplies of excellent coffee, to ‘market-driven’ corporations
that largely pursue commercial/industrial conventions rooted in price
competition and product regulation.
(Raynolds 2009: 1083)
Of particular concern to ethical consumers is the latter group, which they accused
of clean washing, making token gestures, undermining producer indepen-
dence, competing with committed buyers and pursuing exploitative business
practices (Raynolds 2009). Unfortunately, this perceived ‘exploitation’ of the
fair trade brand by ‘market-driven’ companies also implicates the genuinely
responsible organisation trying to mainstream their ethical offer, with the result
that consumers tend to dismiss all claims of ethical behaviour as PR puffery.
A third challenge of mainstreaming comes from a general assumption at
society level that ethical entrepreneurs are driven more by moral zeal than
profit. Such unrealistic expectations naturally produce conflict, especially
when these SMEs seek to reach a wider audience. Perhaps it is unsurprising
that ethical consumers feel let down when their favourite brand seeks to

mainstream; growing an ethical SME inevitably involves being acquired by,
or seeking finance from, a multinational corporation – organisations not
normally praised for their ethical activities or responsible marketing. Several
high-profile ethical companies have taken this route, including chocolatier
Green and Black’s, which was sold to Cadbury, now owned by Kraft
International, in 2005. Often accused of compromising their integrity and of
sacrificing principle over profit, founders of ethical SMEs are generally out-
spoken in defence of their actions (Macalister and Teacher 2010). For example,
when questioned over the selling of 58 per cent of Innocent (smoothies) to
Coca-Cola in 2010 (extended to 90% in Febuary 2013), co-founder Richard
Reed insisted:
I genuinely believe that this is not a selling out but a continuation of our
work. There will be no change in the commitment to natural healthy
food, to sustainability and to giving 10% of our profits to charity. We remain
in full operational control of the business and we should be able to proceed
towards our goal of taking Innocent to every country in the world.
(Macalister and Teacher 2010)
Anita Roddick, regarding the sale of iconic ethical brand The Body Shop to
L’Oréal in 2006, offered an alternative but no less confident defence. She
declared The Body Shop’s ethical beliefs would permeate the parent company
to change the cosmetics giant for the better, almost like a reverse ethical
takeover (Hickman and Roberts 2012). Whether ethical consumers choose to
believe such declarations or become further disillusioned with businesses is
perhaps immaterial, especially as they become less significant to a brand
attracting a wider constituent. Whatever the outcome of this question, such
concerns go straight to the heart of the problem faced by ethical businesses
seeking to mainstream their offer: how to attract new consumers to an ethical
lifestyle whilst retaining the confidence of those already converted to the
‘cause’ (Kennedy 2004).
Marketing responsible tourism

Having explored some of the complexities associated with marketing ethical
products, and briefly discussed the successful mainstreaming of fair trade
commodities, it is useful to consider whether the latter offers any insight to
those seeking to widen the appeal of responsible tourism. Like fair trade
coffee, the supply of holidays far exceeds demand (Levi and Linton 2003),
and in this competitive context, ethical products and services have to do more
than rely on any inherent moral characteristics for consumer appeal. Indeed,
the ethical component of holidays should be underplayed because tourists
rarely welcome moral messages. Perhaps the most effective method of marketing
responsible tourism to a wider audience is by emphasising the majority of
unique experiences that these holidays offer (Frey and George 2010). For

European-based operators, promoting the quality of the holiday product, rather
than ethics, has certainly proven rewarding, especially given the complex
relationship that consumers have with ethical issues on holiday.
Although many consumers claim to consider ethical issues in their holiday
decision making, the reality is quite the opposite. Indeed, the most challenging
aspect of promoting responsible travel is the apparent unwillingness of the
general public to learn about the issues and care enough about them to
demand a better deal for those in the supply chain. A pertinent illustration of
this comes from Roger Diski’s experiences in the early 1990s, when the first
brochure for his company Rainbow Tours featured on its cover a young South
African boy holding a small photograph of Nelson Mandela, newly released
from prison. Whilst Roger’s intent was to highlight tours to support a post-
apartheid South Africa, clients were indifferent to the company’s ethical
message, and as the phone remained silent, so future front covers featured
images of popular African wildlife (Weeden 2005a). This anecdote reveals
that demand for responsible holidays stems from a range of factors, not all of
which are connected to ethical trading principles. For example, studies indicate
clients buy these products because they offer travel off the beaten track in
small groups and involve interactions with local communities – any ethical
component is an incidental bonus rather than an important element in their
decision making (Weeden 2002).
In these instances, promotional campaigns emphasising quality and authentic
experiences are undoubtedly going to be more effective than reinforcing the
ethical component of the holiday, and may also explain why operators
mute their ethical credentials. Indeed, companies that bring ethical brands to
the market with no penalty in terms of quality or price are most likely to
succeed, as these elements are often at the top of most consumers’ priorities
(Page and Fearn 2005). Potentially, therefore, this is the best way not only to
widen appeal for responsible travel beyond the committed ethical consumer,
but also successfully to facilitate the incorporation of sustainable values in
tourism development. This recommendation certainly corresponds with the
idea that responsible tourism should be a guiding philosophy for future
development rather than a niche product. In fact, while the whole industry
needs to embrace an ethical approach to tourism provision, it ought to offer
responsibility as standard, rather than as an add-on or opportunity for dif-
ferentiation. It is not enough to expect specialist operators to be the only
providers of responsible holidays; the mass market must also do so.
Can fair trade certification increase demand for responsible tourism?

Having noted the apparent success of mainstreaming fair trade coffee, this
next part of the chapter considers whether fair trade certification might help
to increase demand for responsible tourism. Certification schemes are recognised
marketing tools, and commonly advocated to encourage businesses to adopt
sustainable operating practices. However, although they are often promoted

with the promise of improved sales and customer loyalty, the reality tends to
fall short. Not only are consumers often confused by the proliferation of
schemes and sceptical about green wash, but it is also unclear whether they
actually incorporate certification schemes into their holiday decision making
(Jarvis et al. 2010). Likewise, initiatives aimed at incorporating fair trade
principles into tourism may falter because of the perceived complexity of the
issues involved in a service, and the fact that holidays are individual and
subjective leisure experiences that are difficult to certify using an objective,
measurable device (see Kalisch 2010). Nevertheless, fair trade in tourism
is considered by many stakeholders to be a crucial factor in developing
sustainable tourism, largely because:
It aims to maximise the benefits from tourism for local destination

stakeholders, through mutually beneficial and equitable partnerships
between national and international tourism stakeholders in the destina-
tion. It also supports the rights of indigenous host communities, whether
involved in tourism or not, to participate as equal stakeholders and
beneficiaries in the tourism development process.
(Kalisch 2001, in Boluk 2011: 29)
In theory, fair trade accreditation offers tourists a guarantee that their holiday
conforms to a certain ethical standard (Low and Davenport 2009). Unfortunately,
there are three key reasons as to why the implementation of fair trade prin-
ciples in tourism has so far proved almost impossible. First, the competitive
nature of the international tourist industry and the price-sensitive nature of
the mass market means that selling holidays that cost more due to the added
social premium demanded by fair trade makes it difficult for companies to be
profitable, particularly in a sector that traditionally delivers minuscule profit
margins (Mintel 2007a). Second, the complexity of the travel industry, its
many interdependent stakeholders and the extensive supply chain involved in
the production of a holiday are a challenge to operators wanting to offer
fairly traded tourism. Securing equitable relationships throughout a long
supplier network is not only expensive, but also overwhelming for many
businesses, not least because of the need to monitor supplier organisations’
adherence to the criteria. Third, incorporating fair trade principles into holi-
day products assumes that tourists will happily think beyond their own needs.
Whilst this is difficult to facilitate for any type of ethical purchase, it proves even
tougher when related to holiday choice, as people naturally take holidays for
selfish rather than altruistic reasons.
Given all of the above, it is perhaps not surprising that there is currently
only one fair trade tourism certification scheme in operation. The Fair Trade
in Tourism South Africa (FTTSA) label, established in 2002, one decade after
the Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) first certified South African
cooperative farms. The chief objective for FTTSA is to promote sustainable
tourism by awarding:

… the use of a special label to qualifying businesses as a way of signifying
their commitment to Fair Trade criteria including fair wages and working
conditions, fair purchasing, fair operations, equitable distribution of
benefits and respect for human rights, culture and environment.
(FTTSA 2012)
Apart from this case, there is no evidence of any other fair trade certification
scheme operating in tourism, although this may be more due to the difficulty
of maintaining fair relationships down a lengthy supply chain than a lack of
interest from tour operators. Indeed, implementing fair trade in tourism
is always going to be difficult given the challenge of ensuring ‘equitable part-
nerships and negotiations between business and local stakeholders in desti-
nations, [a] fair share of benefits to local stakeholders and fair wages and
working conditions’ (Angela Kalisch, personal communication, 24 January
2012). Perhaps the biggest difficulty, however, is the size of the challenge
involved in seeking equity and fairness in the trading relations in global
tourism:
Trade injustice and human rights issues in tourism will never be addressed
by a fair trade tourism label alone. However, in tandem with other policy
instruments addressing structural imbalances at political and socio-economic
levels, globally and locally, it could embody symbolic value by providing
tangible and workable evidence of the social and economic benefits of
equitable negotiation, respect, trust and transparency in international
trading. This might instil consumer confidence, especially in these times
of capitalist crisis and diminishing public trust, and present a catalyst for
a more systematic approach to ethical trading in tourism.
(Kalisch 2013: 502)
Potentially, the current dearth of fair trade accreditation and certification in

tourism makes it challenging to view fair trade as a practical aid to main-
stream responsible tourism. However, the lack of official certification may not
be as much of a barrier as sometimes assumed. Although the tourism industry
has attracted an exploitative reputation and is held responsible for perpetuating
inequality, there are in fact many SME tour companies with holidays built on
reciprocal trading relationships and mutual respect, both key components of
fair trade. Also, there are very few fair trade commodities that have been
successfully mainstreamed, although many years have been dedicated to this
objective. In addition, while the fair trade logo ought to be a short cut to
‘communicating [fair trade] values and establishing consumer trust’ (Nicholls
and Opal 2005, in Golding 2009: 166), it is unclear whether tourism can
usefully accommodate yet another certification scheme. Another challenge
is that not everyone believes that fair trade is the optimum method to
challenge existing market inequalities. Specifically, critics argue that it is ‘a
contemporary form of colonialism … [with] … a civilising mission …

imparting new forms of individualism, developing regimes of values, devel-
oping new means of wealth and placing increased value on money’ (Boluk
2011: 32). An additional problem, and one that is common to all types of
ethical product, is the extent of public confusion over the many different
terms used to describe responsible holidays. Seemingly interchangeable words
such as ethical, eco and sustainable, coupled with the extensive array of (often
competitive) ethical and/or green tourism labels and accreditation programmes
(such as Green Globe 21, Fair Trade Tourism in South Africa, Green Key),
inevitably increase the complexity of the ethical landscape for consumers.
Further, tourists are as much challenged by the unique nature of the holiday
business, with its many inter-related and inter-dependent components, as by
the intricacies of the ethical issues involved in its development and opera-
tional activities. A typical solution often proffered to ease confusion or
improve consumer awareness is to make information more available (see
McDonagh 2002). Unfortunately, as noted in Chapter 2, consumers are
already overloaded with information about ethical products and services, and
so the production of more of the same will only compound any existing
uncertainty and bewilderment.
Social marketing and tourism

Although responsible tourism might be mainstreamed effectively using fair
trade certification in the long term, it is always going to be challenging to
transfer the lessons learned from marketing a commodity to a service selling
highly individualised and emotional experiences. Consequently, new methods
of marketing tourism have been investigated. One such approach, social
marketing, has certainly been considered useful for promoting sustainability
in tourism, largely because of its utility in encouraging behaviour change.
Indeed, given the prevalence of the attitude-behaviour gap, whereby con-
sumers express concern but take no action, a technique that encourages
people to change their behaviour is definitely worth exploring, not only to
increase consumer demand for responsible holidays but to persuade the
industry to adopt more responsible forms of development.
Social marketing, a term first coined by Kotler and Zaltman in 1971, has
been defined as, ‘ the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies to
programmes designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences
to improve their personal welfare and that of the society of which they are
a part’ (in Andreasen 1994: 110). Whilst using similar techniques, social
marketing differs from traditional marketing because of an emphasis on:
… understanding and overcoming barriers to behavioural change. Where

a commercial marketing approach might begin by asking why people
might buy this coffee, and how they can be encouraged to do so, a social
marketing approach would first seek to understand why most do not buy
it, and how their objections might be overcome … for a product seeking

to move beyond a market niche, tackling the reason for non-purchase
amongst the majority of consumers is crucial.
(Golding and Peattie 2005: 160)
Traditionally, social marketing has been used to influence, change and/or

prevent behaviour. It is especially prominent in the health industries where
campaigns attempt to discourage harmful and self-destructive behaviour such
as drug and alcohol addiction, and promote positive activities aimed at
improving individual health and well-being for the good of society. In its
purest form, the primary purpose of social marketing is to benefit target
individuals and/or society, rather than the organisation carrying out the mar-
keting activity (Andreasen 1994). In a typical illustration of this dual objective,
individuals encouraged to stop smoking, take up physical exercise and/or drink
alcohol responsibly will experience individual benefit. At the same time,
society profits because the population will be fitter and more active, thus
reducing demand for expensive medical intervention. The utility of social
marketing to influence consumer demand for sustainable tourism has been
noted for some time, with Dinan and Sargeant (2000) suggesting that eco-
tourism destinations should adopt its techniques specifically to target tourists
predisposed to act sustainably. However, social marketing techniques can be
most useful in activating ‘new’ patterns of behaviour and thus widening
demand by reaching out to tourists not yet convinced of the need to adopt
sustainable behaviour. This is the key challenge for any initiative aimed at
modifying human behaviour: people are notoriously reluctant to abandon
their habitual life patterns (Dinan and Sargeant 2000), particularly if addic-
tion is involved. This is highly relevant in tourism and travel, where travellers
have been labelled as displaying an addiction to flying (Cohen et al. 2011).
Although this might initially be interpreted as an extreme view, behaviour
commonly associated with addiction, such as patterns of denial, suppression
of guilt, an off-loading of responsibility and failed attempts to end destructive
behaviour, certainly has resonance in tourist research and an improved under-
standing of addictive behaviours may contribute to greater knowledge of the
factors involved in the attitude-behaviour gap. Certainly the conceptualisation of
tourist inertia as an addiction merits further research attention.
Of course, no single solution will ever be sufficient to overcome the complex
set of challenges faced by those wanting to promote responsible tourism to
society, and social marketing is no exception to this. Indeed, while it may
assist in communicating the benefits of tourism, and promoting social equity
and international understanding through its operation (Jamrozy 2007), there are
several reasons why it might be difficult to encourage the travel industry to
endorse fully the techniques associated with it. First, social marketing
is considered by many to be the remit of public and non-profit organisations
rather than the private sector. Second, a key objective of social marketing is
to enhance society’s well-being. This would be challenging for any tour
operator, especially a public company, as investors may be less interested in

social benefits and more concerned with share dividends. Third, when the
objects of the campaign are in a far-off country, as they are likely to be for
many holidays, the object of the campaign is so far removed from the
consumer that it will be a challenge to make the connection meaningful.
Social marketing shares similarities to affinity marketing, when the tools
and techniques of marketing are wrapped around the concept of affinity,
defined as ‘an individual’s level of cohesiveness, identification, and conformity
to the norms and standards of a particular reference group’ (Macchiette and
Roy 1993: 55). Like social marketing, a key characteristic of affinity marketing
is the ‘shared incentive’, as it incorporates both individual and group-related
needs and enables consumers to achieve individual benefit at the same time as
enhancing the cause of the group. As a technique for reaching ethical con-
sumers, known for their empathy with collective and individual notions of
duty and responsibility, affinity marketing may be useful, although, like social
marketing, its success will depend on the strength of affinity felt by the target
group (to a social idea, a cause or type of behaviour, as opposed to a sponsoring
organisation). However, while ethical consumers already demonstrate their
social and personal responsibilities through consumption, affinity marketing
may have less utility for those seeking to reach those not yet equipped with an
understanding of the key issues involved in being a responsible tourist.
Marketing to responsible tourists

Given the extensive list of challenges so far discussed in this chapter regarding
the marketing of ethical products and the related problems of incorporating
ethical messages in holiday promotion, how might the industry move forward
to embrace a sustainable future, at the same time as encourage a greater demand
for responsible travel? There are of course many group and individual initiatives
already in existence, which have been formed specifically with these joint
objectives in mind. For example, Tourism Concern’s Ethical Tour Operator
Group (ETOG) focuses on providing support and encouragement to tourism
SMEs to provide ethical and fairly traded tourism. A different programme,
the Tour Operators’ Initiative (TOI), involves a range of tour operators,
including TUI PLC and Accor, which work together with the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO) to support sustainable tourism development. Individual operators
concerned with promoting ethical travel include Tribes Travel, Discovery
Initiatives, Rainbow Tours, Steppes Discovery, Baobab Travel and Exodus
Travel, and additional examples of similarly motivated companies are found
in all parts of the world.
Worthy of particular mention is the UK’s responsibletravel.com, an online
portal set up specifically to widen demand for responsible holidays by making
them easily available to the consumer, a practical example of mainstreaming. The
company has also been instrumental in helping the travel industry to promote
ethical travel through the implementation of annual Responsible Tourism

Awards, developed in conjunction with the International Centre for Respon-
sible Tourism Research (ICRTR). Although ostensibly a marketing device for
responsibletravel.com, the awards have successfully increased public aware-
ness and understanding of the need for responsibility in tourism as well as
assisted many companies to deliver sustainable holiday products. These
named initiatives are just a few of many similar schemes in operation
throughout the world, all individually helping to develop both the demand for
and supply of responsible travel products.
This brief examination of the different initiatives and corporate activities
involved in encouraging greater buy-in from tourists and industry is ultimately
reassuring. Although the overall response from both ends of the spectrum is
somewhat disappointing, there are clearly strong pockets of genuine activity
where large numbers of people are actively working toward securing a sus-
tainable future for tourism development. By far the biggest stumbling block
against a sustainable tourism industry is the attitude and behaviour of the
tour operators that serve the mass market. These organisations need to
embrace responsibility as an integral part of their product offer, and until this
happens the industry will never be able to claim that it is truly sustainable.
While such aspirations seem a little far-fetched, especially at a time when all-
inclusive resorts and hotels are back on the agenda for the average European
tourist, perhaps the time has come for all stakeholders to acknowledge their
individual responsibility to do more to advance the ethical agenda in tourism.
To this end, the chapter began by promising a short set of recommendations
to help tour operators to encourage more consumers to embrace sustainability,
and so the final section will elaborate on this point. The recommendations are
based on Peattie and Crane’s (2005) evaluation of the failure of marketing to
tackle the lack of consumer interest in sustainable products and their pro-
posed agenda for its radical shake-up. These have been adapted to the context
of responsible tourism.
Genuine commitment to responsible tourism

Tour operators and other tourism stakeholders must demonstrate a long-term
perspective in their commitment to responsible tourism. While this will
require investment in both time and money it is not easy to secure this in an
industry with such narrow margins. An adherence to responsibility in tourism
must run through the whole company and not just be seen as an ethical add-
on. Consumers’ extreme sensitivity to ethical wash means that nothing less
than a genuine commitment will be tolerated.
Taking responsibility and absorbing the cost

Companies often hide behind the rhetoric of being servants of customer
wishes (Peattie and Crane 2005). However, the low level of awareness of
tourists’ own role in demanding greater operator accountability means that

any devolution of responsibility to the holiday maker is currently unrealistic.
Tour operators must take a more proactive position and manage more effectively
the negative impacts of their holiday products, absorbing any additional costs
incurred by doing so. If holidays offering an integral element of sustainability
are subsequently priced more expensively than comparable offers, then con-
sumers will not be persuaded to buy them. It is only by mainstreaming
responsible tourism in this way that a truly revolutionary change will occur in
the marketplace.
A focus on quality not quantity

More sustainable consumption will only be achieved if demand and expectations
about cost, availability and convenience are managed downwards (Peattie and
Crane 2005). Arguably, an emphasis on the full cost of producing a holiday in
terms of its total impact will produce a more realistic understanding of the
issues for tourists and other stakeholders. It will also reduce demand and
the availability of holidays, but this should be viewed as an opportunity for
the industry to work together to deliver a high-quality, truly sustainable future.
Not only would a quality product enhance the reputation of the industry and
its many stakeholders, but it would also produce more sustainable levels of
revenue. Likewise companies need to inform through promotion rather than
impress (Peattie and Crane 2005). Potentially, such a strategy would encou-
rage all stakeholders to take responsibility for behaviour change, whether this
means a reduction in the number of flights taken or a change in the set-up of
all-inclusive hotels and resorts to include benefits for local suppliers.
Conclusion
This chapter set out to examine some of the key challenges associated with
the marketing of responsible tourism. This aim was achieved by discussing the
difficulties experienced by those seeking to couple ethics to a holiday product,
before offering an examination of society’s attitudes towards the tools and
techniques of marketing and the implications of this for the genuinely ethical
company. The chapter continued by evaluating the success of mainstreaming
fair trade coffee and questioned whether any lessons could be transferred
from this case study to the context of tourism. Finally, the chapter reflected
on the utility of social marketing and the linked concept of affinity marketing
for creating extended demand for responsible tourism. The next and final
chapter of this book underlines how the lessons drawn from this study of
ethical consumers’ holiday choices can help stakeholders to understand future
challenges for the travel industry, most notably the ever-changing demands of
the 21st-century consumer.
8 Concluding thoughts
Responsible tourist behaviour: research so far …

This book has explored the complex, contradictory and contested landscape
of ethical consumers’ motivations through the prism of their holiday choice
decisions. Starting with an examination of the variables considered significant
in understanding consumer decision making and tourist motivation, Chapter 1
recalled the unique set of challenges facing researchers in this area of study.
Perhaps the most important starting point for any study of human beings is to
remember that they are not the rational decision makers they were once
thought. Indeed, the myth that people are attracted to goods and services
purely for economic utility has long been debunked. Not only do studies now
recognise the primacy of affect over cognition in many decision contexts, but
they also reveal that consumers are not always self-interested, their choice
behaviours reflect a wider social context, and consumption decisions are
mediated by factors such as routine, habit and social practice (Dickinson
et al. 2010; Jackson 2005).
Of additional importance to those seeking to understand consumer beha-
viour is that products and services are inherently meaningful to consumers,
and people construct a range of personal and social identities through their
consumption, both intentionally and unintentionally (McCracken 1986).
This combination of accident and design thus gives rise to another significant
challenge facing researchers: individuals are rarely able to identify their own
motivations accurately, are often unable to articulate these either to themselves
or others, and can be prone to exaggeration and obfuscation about their true
motives. Such issues have for many decades tested researchers interested in all
aspects of human behaviour, but they have been particularly difficult to
manage in studies designed to understand people’s attitudes about, and
intentions towards, the purchasing of ethical goods and services. Chapters 2 and 3
examined some of these issues at length, and proposed several reasons as to
why such a confused and confusing understanding of ethical consumers’
interests, concerns and motivations persists.
One of the key reasons identified in Chapter 3 refers to the terminology
used to describe individuals concerned about the moral issues involved in

consumption being confusingly disparate, with no single term defining these
people or their interests. Additionally, the chapter discussed market research
surveys published in the UK in the late 1990s and early 2000s that offered
misleading information over the extent of demand for ethical products. These
studies proclaimed widespread public interest in the ethics of consumption,
and a pronounced willingness to pay extra for ethical goods and services
(see for example, Mintel 2001, 2003, 2004). Consequently, many companies
jumped on the ‘ethical bandwagon’ and promoted products and services the
ethical attributes of which were less than genuine, re-igniting scepticism over
corporate ethical claims and effectively holding back the market for many years.
Second, in a rush to exploit the perceived commercial opportunities offered
by the production and consumption of ethical products and services, many
producers and retailers ignored the reality of the market, where sales of ethi-
cal and fair trade products remained persistently small. Indeed, any note of
caution expressed by academics (and others) over issues such as social desirability
bias or attitude-intention-behaviour gaps were completely disregarded.
While social desirability bias is a methodological consideration discussed in
many studies of human behaviour, identifying the factors responsible for the
attitude-intention-behaviour gaps has proven irresistible for researchers of
ethical consumers, whose purchasing behaviour is often described as incon-
sistent and contradictory. Whilst such discrepancies are often attributed to a
combined sense of bewilderment and confusion over the different ethical
issues and how to deal with them, increased public cynicism over ethical and
clean wash, and/or a lack of awareness and information about how to be an
ethical shopper, researchers have latterly accepted that ethical consumers display
a ‘flexible’ approach to decision making, where they sometimes buy ethical
and at other times do not. Such ‘flexibility’ appears to be a critical aspect of
the reality of ethical consumption, especially given the extensive amount of
time and effort that these individuals expend in order to fulfil their ethical
aspirations, manage the pragmatics of the marketplace, and satisfy their
desire for an ethical identity (see Bedford 2011; Carrigan et al. 2004; Shaw
and Riach 2011; Szmigin et al. 2009; Varul 2009). Chapter 3 examined all of
these factors in some depth before evaluating whether comparisons could be
made between the ethical consumer and the responsible tourist. Most notably,
the chapter traced the historical trajectory of research into both the demand
for and supply of responsible tourism products, before concluding with
observations about the trade-offs, or coping strategies, commonly associated
with ethical consumers and noted in responsible tourist behaviour.
Throughout this book, research has indicated that human beings are complex
and perplexing subjects for study. However, while this statement is not revolu-
tionary, researchers of holiday decision making and leisure choice behaviour
face a further challenge: consumers view holidays very differently from other
products and services, which may have significant impact on any decision that
they make regarding whether or not they will travel responsibly. Holidays are
known to be unique spaces of consumption, with any prevailing norms and
Concluding thoughts 131

social practices potentially working counter to consumers’ ethical intentions
(Barr et al. 2010; Dickinson et al. 2010; Hares et al. 2010). Indeed, recent
research has highlighted that even the most environmentally dedicated
consumer, who actively performs a variety of green behaviours at home, dis-
plays behavioural inconsistency on holiday, saying that ‘they would pay the
[aviation] tax and keep flying anyway’ (Barr et al. 2010: 477). Having already
identified these issues in general consumer research, the apparently similar
and equally contrary nature of responsible tourists’ choice decisions is perhaps
not entirely unexpected. Partly this is due to the logistical constraints associated
with the structure of the tourism industry, but while Chapter 3 reviewed the
serious criticisms levelled at the unethical nature of some elements of the
tourism industry’s operational and development activities, it also recalled that
people’s primary motivations for a holiday are to enjoy themselves, have fun
and relax. It is perhaps not unexpected, therefore, that an individual might
experience some dissonance or internal conflict at the interface between any
ethical intentions and their consequent holiday choices. Potentially, an explora-
tion of the variables involved in this conflict may go some way to explaining
the perceived ‘gap’ between tourists’ stated intentions and their purchasing
behaviour. With a view to clarifying the gap observed in ethical consumers’
holiday decision making, Chapter 3 introduced the concept of values.
One of the most significant aspects of values, which render them useful for
understanding ethical consumption behaviour, is the role they play in the
initiation of the value-attitude-behaviour sequence. Recalling the discussion in
Chapter 4, people make decisions according to their value priorities, with
ethical behaviour being influenced by the extent to which people are motivated
by the self-transcendent values of universalism and benevolence or the more self-
enhancing values of power and achievement. Consequently, values have
been explored in many studies, particularly those seeking to explain ethical
consumption behaviour. However, Chapter 4 claims a lack of research attention
on the ability of values to offer insight into responsible tourist behaviour to be
a serious omission, not least because they conflict when people make judgements
and choices. For example, someone who is generally motivated to satisfy and
display their benevolence values by buying fair trade products may experience
value conflict when it comes to organising a family holiday, where hedonistic
motivations become more important, particularly if overseas air travel is a
necessary part of the activity. Potentially, therefore, a detailed examination of
these individuals’ holiday choices and a corresponding investigation of the
values they reveal in the process could offer significant insight into the
decisional trade-offs that responsible tourists make and provide a richer
understanding of some of the key attitude-behaviour gaps inherent in ethical
consumption.
On this premise, Chapter 5 detailed the study at the heart of this book,
which aimed to examine the holiday decisions of ethical consumers to reveal
whether they incorporated their everyday consumption values into their holi-
day choices. The chapter revealed that while some ethical consumers enjoy

‘displaying’ their ethical motivations, others are genuinely concerned about
the impacts of their holidays and spend a great deal of time and effort to
achieve the goal of being ethical consumers on holiday. Of course, the data
also revealed other significant motivations, such as the importance of holidays
for renewing and strengthening family bonds, for spiritual reconnections with
nature and for the fun, happy and rejuvenating experience of seeing new
places, meeting new people and enjoying a temporary disconnect from
everyday life and work. While these imperatives are significant for many, if
not all tourists, researchers necessarily have to separate fact from fiction,
especially on occasions where social desirability bias may occur. To counter
the potential for the latter, Chapter 5 offered the author’s interpretation of the
data but at the same time provided extensive detail of the study respondents’
narratives. By doing so, it was intended that readers would benefit from
reading and evaluating these conflicts between intention-attitude-behaviour as
they were recalled, described, managed and/or avoided by ethical consumers
in their own words.
While it is easy to dismiss the notion that human beings always tell the
truth, especially in a discussion of their altruistic-egoistic motivations in front
of a stranger, it is also important to accept that some people are inherently
and genuinely trying to be ethical consumers and therefore believe that they
are being honest and open about their motivations. The extent to which a
reader will accept the ‘truth’ of a study narrative, therefore, will largely
depend on whether they believe human beings are capable of honest intro-
spection. Regardless of such a proviso, Chapter 6 represents a sincere attempt
to open up discussion about the sometimes conflicting nature of responsible
tourists’ holiday decisions by means of a deep exploration of these indivi-
duals’ motivational values. Significantly, the application of the means-end
chain theory (Gutman 1982) and the use of the laddering interview technique
(Reynolds and Gutman 1988) proved invaluable for the analysis of the study
data – a view held by many researchers addressing the role and importance of
human values and their influence on consumption behaviour (see Chapter 3
for a full discussion of these). How the analysis was achieved, and what this
process revealed, formed the subject of Chapter 6.
Looking in detail at the discussion presented in Chapter 6, it is clear that
responsible tourists believe they are deeply motivated to satisfy their ethical
values on holiday, and the analysis of the data using Schwartz’s (1992) value
scale is extensively described in the chapter. However, this detailed inter-
pretation also revealed a number of significant insights indicating that not
all respondents considered their values to be at conflict with truly ethical
aspirations. For instance, one mother bought organic food not because she
wanted to discourage the use of pesticides and harmful additives in commercial
food farming to protect the environment and improve farm animal welfare,
but because she wanted her family to have access to chemical-free food.
Similarly, evidence that responsible tour operators are popular for reasons
other than ethical motivations was supplied by a retired geography teacher

who preferred to travel with Exodus because this tour company offered small
group tours and arranged ‘authentic’ visits to meet local people, thus giving
her the opportunity to connect with what she described as ‘untouched’ socie-
ties. Another respondent, a man in his late seventies, enjoyed staying in an
ecocabin on holiday because the lack of modern technology in the cabin
afforded him a nostalgic connection with the remembered simplicity of his
childhood.
Examples of similar stories are found in many studies of all types of
consumer behaviour. As stated earlier, human beings are complex, they are
often untruthful, impetuous, prone to exaggeration and often seek to please,
especially in research interview situations. However, it is difficult not to acknowl-
edge the consumption plight of ethical consumers, and hence responsible tourists,
as they have to assimilate a tremendous amount of market information about
the products and services available to them and it is not surprising that
compromise and trade-offs occur. Indeed, the practical considerations of
availability, value for money and convenience may be the reason why ethical
consumers are not always seen to follow their principles either during their
weekly shop or on holiday. These and other comparable considerations were
discussed in Chapter 7, which reviewed extant literature to determine the chal-
lenges facing stakeholders keen to encourage an increase in both the demand
and supply of responsible tourism.
Specifically, it examined the strategy of mainstreaming ‘responsibility’ to
different stakeholder groups, and detailed the approach adopted by companies
promoting fair trade products to the general grocery market, how social
marketing has been utilised in the health and welfare sector to encourage
positive behaviour change, and questioned whether it might be useful to
encourage demand for responsible tourism. Whilst not proclaiming to offer a
definitive ‘solution’ to the problems stemming from what is often condemned
as an unsustainable approach to the development and management of global
tourism, the chapter also offered some recommendations to help those seeking to
progress an agenda for change by encouraging individual tourists to change
their behaviour.
This final chapter has briefly reviewed the book’s content in order to offer
new insight into the challenges of researching ethical consumers’ holiday
choices. It has also discussed how values can provide a more accurate picture
of what these people want from a holiday and revealed that this is not very
different from the things all tourists look for. The chapter has also considered
how the book contributes to knowledge about the moral dilemmas facing
ethical consumers in their holiday choice behaviour, how they compromise,
resolve, navigate, negotiate and in some cases ignore them, and how this
information can be utilised by those keen to increase demand for the pro-
duction and consumption of responsible tourism. While other books may
offer a more detailed examination of the ethical dilemmas in tourism (see
Fennell’s 2006 book Tourism Ethics), or focus on a specific aspect of ethics
(see Holden and Fennell’s 2013 book The Routledge Handbook of Tourism

and the Environment), the contribution of this book is a detailed under-
standing of ethical consumers’ holiday choices and how these are shaped and
influenced by their ethical values. As such, it has extended knowledge of these
consumers’ motivations, made some progress in understanding how they
manage their sometimes conflicting priorities, and provided insight into some
of the key variables associated with the attitude-intention-behaviour gap.
Responsible tourist behaviour: what we might learn in the future …

Having spent the majority of this concluding chapter evaluating research
already undertaken, the following and final section will offer some thoughts
about the potential for future research into responsible tourist behaviour. In
part these considerations are based on the limitations of the study method
adopted, and start by examining who was being researched.
This study has examined and discussed the ethical issues involved in the
consumption of tourism using a Western perspective only. Indeed, the bulk of
extant research into consumer behaviour derives from scholars working in the
UK, USA and Australia (see Tu 2011), thus largely ignoring the views of
people living in the Majority World. Similarly, with global consumption of tour-
ism increasing significantly, so the need arises to determine what ‘responsibility’
or ‘ethics in tourism’ mean, if anything, to the international and domestic
tourists of the emerging economies of Brazil, India and China (see Tsiotsou
and Ratten 2010). In addition, globalisation does not yet appear to have
influenced research regarding different cultural interpretations of ethics and
ethical behaviour in tourism. For example, Ma (2009) suggests that not only
would research benefit from a greater understanding of ethics and ethical
behaviour from a non-Western perspective, but also that studies involving
individuals from a collectivist society, such as China, would necessarily chal-
lenge the existing Western viewpoint on how ethics in tourism might or should
work. Of further relevance here is the multi-racial nature of modern community –
societies are not homogenous, and different ethnicities are likely to have dis-
parate views on what constitutes ethical consumer behaviour, as well as its
relative importance in their lives (Tsiotsou and Ratten 2010). Cross-cultural
evaluations of ethical attitudes and behaviour are largely absent from research
dealing with tourism and tourists, and while an extensive number of studies
offer cross-cultural investigations into the business ethics and marketing litera-
tures (see, for instance, Singhapakdi et al. 1994; Swaidan et al. 2008; Vitell
and Paulillo 2004), the same cannot be said for tourism. This is as much a
significant oversight as an important opportunity for future research.
A second significant consideration for future research is why it is being
conducted, in particular its purpose and therefore value. Recently, significant
additions to knowledge about the ethical attitudes and behaviour of tourists
have been developed in the context of climate change. Most notably this has
been achieved by investigating how people adapt (or not) their travel beha-
viour in view of their opinions on its potential impact (see, for example,

Becken 2007; Gössling et al. 2006; Hares et al. 2010; Randles and Mander
2009). The contribution of these papers derives from their emphasis on the
need for all stakeholders to influence consumers to change travel behaviour,
very often achieved with a reference to the principles of social marketing for
possible solutions. Certainly a focus on behaviour change is becoming more
evident in climate change research, and again this is in line with studies outside
the tourism arena, where a move from information-based to change-oriented
strategies is mooted as the only effective way to encourage pro-social behaviour
(see Steg and Vlek 2009).
Similar issues have also been discussed in the anti-consumption literature,
with calls for research to uncover effective ways to persuade consumers to
reduce their current energy consumption (for example), even if they will not
personally enjoy the benefits of their sacrifices (Lee et al. 2009). However,
while the challenge of behaviour change for the individual is well documented
in the environmental sciences literature (Steg and Vlek 2009), it is important
to remember that responsible tourists are not just concerned about the
environment. The study reported in this book also revealed their differing
priorities. Some people were more concerned to remedy the social impact of
their holidays, whilst others were more worried about making sure that their
money went directly to the destination community rather than any multi-
national intermediary. These latter aspects of responsibility have been largely
ignored in the tourism literature, possibly because a focus on the environment
is so much easier to manage as it forms such a key element of the tourist
product.
A final consideration for future research, and one that has the potential to
move forward the debate about responsible tourist behaviour significantly, is
to re-evaluate how research solutions are formulated. For instance, Steg and
Vlek (2009: 315) argue for more inter-disciplinary research to take place
because ‘Environmental problems are not just psychological problems; they
are also ecological, technological, and socio-cultural problems’. Of course,
examples of cross-disciplinary collaboration designed to facilitate new research
knowledge in and about tourism already exist. One such example is the Sixth
Sense Transport Research Project currently being undertaken in the UK. The
team consists of psychologists, tourism academics, transport experts, digital
artists and computer scientists, all working on new ways to support behaviour
change through linking sustainable transport options with social media
technology in tourism, primary education and urban logistics (for more
information, see www.sixthsensetransport.com). Of course, there are additional
examples of multidisciplinary research in tourism (McCabe et al. 2012), and
also sustainable behaviour change (Rettie et al. 2010), but in general, research
in tourism tends to be just that. Finally, if truly concerned with moving the
agenda forward, researchers must find ways to investigate the point of decision
and/or purchase with regard to individuals’ holiday choices. Studies need to
encompass consumers’ purchase behaviour more effectively, rather than just
to rely on self-report of future or previous holiday and travelling purchases.

Being with respondents, not just at the point of purchase but also during the
weeks or months before they finally buy their holidays, and comparing their
usual consumption rationale and choices may reveal more accurately the
existence of conflicting objectives or other difficulties they exhibit when
buying a holiday or booking leisure travel. It is only by gathering data of this
nature that new insight can be generated into the management of choice, the
negotiation of constraints and the significance, if any, of the demonstrated
behaviour.
Conclusion
In a sense, this book has been an odyssey – of sorts. While it recalls a personally
significant research study and reports on the findings of a project that may or
may not be significant to others, it presents one person’s view of the many
dilemmas facing ethical consumers, and discusses the challenges associated
with researching these individuals’ holiday choices. The book makes no
claims for greatness, nor does it seek to be a definitive treatise on the subject
of ethical consumption. On the contrary, recognising how relatively little is
known about the consumption behaviour of ethical consumers, it offers a
short but, it is hoped, useful contribution to those keen to encourage not only
a greater demand for but also an increased supply of responsible holidays and
leisure activities.
Bibliography
Acott, T.G., La Trobe, H.L. and Howard, S.H. (1998) ‘An Evaluation of Deep Ecotourism
and Shallow Ecotourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3): 238–53.
Addley, E. (2006) ‘Boom in Green Holidays as Ethical Travel Takes Off’, The Guardian,
17 July, www.guardian.co.uk (accessed 27 March 2007).
Allport, G.W. (1929) ‘The Political Composition of Attitudes’, The American Journal
of Sociology 35(2): 220–38.
Anderson, W.T. and Cunningham, W.H. (1972) ‘The Socially Conscious Consumer’,
Journal of Marketing 36: 23–31.
Ajzen, I. (1985) ‘From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behaviour’, in
J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds) Action Control: From Cognitions to Behaviour,
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 11–39.
——(1991) ‘The Theory of Planned Behaviour’, Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Process 50: 179–211.
——(2001) ‘Nature and Operation of Attitudes’, Annual Review of Psychology 52:
27–58.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977) ‘Attitude-behaviour Relations: A Theoretical Analysis
and Review of Empirical Research’, Psychological Bulletin 84(5): 888–918.
——(1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
——(2008) ‘Scaling and Testing Multiplicative Combinations in the Expectancy-value
Model of Attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology 38(9): 2222–47.
Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. and Vogt, C.A. (2005) ‘Residents’
Perception of Community Tourism’s Impact’, Annals of Tourism Research 32(4):
1056–76.
Andreasen, A.R. (1994) ‘Social Marketing: Definition and Domain’, Journal of Marketing
and Public Policy (Spring): 108–14.
Antil, J.H. (1984) ‘Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public
Policy’, Journal of Macromarketing 4 (Fall): 18–39.
Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) ‘Pro-poor Tourism Strategies: Making
Tourism Work for the Poor. A Review of Experience’, Pro-poor Tourism report no. 1,
Overseas Development Institute for Environment and Development, London, and
Centre for Responsible Tourism, University of Greenwich, www.propoortourism.org.
uk/ppt_report.pdf (accessed 2 January 2013).
Atwood, M. (2012) ‘Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring: 50 Years On’, The Guardian,
7 December 2012, www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/07/why-rachel-carson-is-a-
saint (accessed 4 January 2013).
138 Bibliography
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2003) ‘What will Consumers
Pay for Social Product Features?’ Journal of Business Ethics 42(3): 281–304.
Axelrod, L.J. (1994) ‘Balancing Personal Needs with Environmental Preservation: Iden-
tifying the Values that Guide Decisions in Ecological Dilemmas’, Journal of Social
Issues 50(3): 85–104.
Baker, S., Thompson, K.E. and Engelken, J. (2004) ‘Mapping the Values Driving Organic
Food Choice: Germany vs. the UK’, European Journal of Marketing 38(8): 995–1012.
Ballantine, J.L. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1994) ‘Defining Canadian Ecotourists’, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 2(1): 1–6.
Ballantine, P.W. and Creery, S. (2010) ‘The Consumption and Disposition Behaviour
of Voluntary Simplifiers’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(1): 45–56.
Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996) ‘Market Segments of Push and Pull Motivations: A
Canonical Correlation Approach’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 8(3): 32–38.
Bamberg, S. and Schmidt, P. (2003) ‘Incentives, Morality or Habit: Predicting
Students’ Car use for University Routes with the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz and
Triantis’, Environment and Behavior 35(2): 264–85.
Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006) ‘The Role of Routines in the Vacation
Decision-making Process of Dutch Vacationers’, Tourism Management 27(4): 707–20.
Barnett, C., Cafaro, P. and Newholm, T. (2005) ‘Philosophy and Ethical Consump-
tion’, in R. Harrison, T. Newholm and D. Shaw (eds) The Ethical Consumer,
London: Sage, 11–24.
Barr, S., Shaw, G., Coles, T. and Prillwitz, J. (2010) ‘“A Holiday is a Holiday”: Practicing
Sustainability, Home and Away’, Journal of Transport Geography 18(3): 474–81.
Batson, C.D., O’Quinn, K., Fultz, J. and Vanderplas, M. (1983) ‘Influence of Self-
reported Distress and Empathy on Egoistic versus Altruistic Motivation to Help’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(3): 706–18.
Becken, S. (2007) ‘Tourists’ Perception of International Air Travel’s Impact on the
Global Climate and Potential Climate Change Policies’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 15(4): 351–68.
Bedford, T. (2011) ‘Negotiating Ethical Consumerism in Everyday Life’, RESOLVE
Working Paper Series, 13–11, University of Surrey, resolve.sustainablelifestyles.ac.
uk/publications/author/130?sort=author&order=asc (accessed 4 September 2012).
Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J.A. and Martin, R. (2005) ‘Rural-Urban Differences in
Environmental Concern, Attitudes and Action’, European Journal of Psychological
Assessment 21(2): 128–38.
Bergin-Seers, S. and Mair, J. (2009) ‘Emerging Green Tourists in Australia: Their
Behaviours and Attitudes’, Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(2): 109–19.
Berry, S. and Ladkin, A. (1997) ‘Sustainable Tourism: A Regional Perspective’, Tourism
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998) ‘Constructive Consumer Choice
Processes’, Journal of Consumer Research 25 (December): 187–217.
Blackstock, K.L. (2005) ‘A Critical Look at Community based Tourism’, Community
Development Journal 40(1): 39–49.
Blackstock, K.L., White, V. and McCrum, G. (2008) ‘Measuring Responsibility: An
Appraisal of a Scottish National Park’s Sustainable Tourism Indicators’, Journal of
Blamey, R.K. and Braithwaite, V.A. (1997) ‘A Social Values Segmentation of the
Potential Ecotourism Market’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1): 29–45.
Bibliography 139
Boluk, K. (2011) ‘FTTSA: Consumer Virtue or Moral Selving?’ Journal of Ecotourism
10(5): 235–49.
Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000) ‘Do Consumers Really Care about Corporate
Responsibility? Highlighting the Attitude-behaviour Gap’, Journal of Communication
Boyd, B. and Wandersman, A. (1991) ‘Predicting Undergraduate Condom use with
the Fishbein and Ajzen and the Triandis Attitude-behaviour Models: Implications
for Public Health Interventions’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21: 1810–30.
Braithwaite, V. (1994) ‘Beyond Rokeach’s Equality-freedom Model: Two-dimensional
Values in a One-dimensional World’, Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 67–94.
Braithwaite, V. and Law, H.G. (1985) ‘Structure of Human Values: Testing the Adequacy
of the Rokeach Value System’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 250–63.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2002) ‘The Journal of Sustainable Tourism: The First Ten
Years’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(1): 1–4.
Bramwell, B., Lane, B., McCabe, S., Mosedale, J. and Scarles, C. (2008) ‘Research
Perspectives on Sustainable Tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(3): 253–57.
Brei, V. and Böhm, S. (2011) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility as Cultural Meaning
Management: A Critique of the Marketing of “Ethical” Bottled Water’, Business
Ethics: A European Review 20(3): 233–52.
Britton, S. and Clarke, W.C. (eds) (1987) Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small
Developing Countries, Suva, Fiji: The University of the South Pacific.
Bronner, F. and de Hoog, R. (2008) ‘Agreement and Disagreement in Family
Decision-making’, Tourism Management 29(5): 967–79.
Brooker, G. (1976) ‘The Self-actualizing Socially Conscious Consumer’, Journal of
Consumer Research 3 (September): 107–12.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L. and van Beukering, P. (2008) ‘“A Convenient Truth”: Air
Travel Passengers’ Willingness to Pay to Offset their CO2; Emissions’, Climatic
Change 90: 299–313.
Budeanu, A. (2007) ‘Sustainable Tourist Behaviour – A Discussion of Opportunities
for Change’, International Journal of Consumer Studies 31(5): 499–508.
Butcher, J. (2003) The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand … and Saving the World?
London: Routledge.
Butler, R.W. (1990) ‘Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?’ Journal of
Travel Research 28(3): 40–45.
——(1992) ‘Alternative Tourism: The Thin Edge of the Wedge’, in V.L. Smith and
W.R. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Pitfalls in the Development
of Tourism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 31–46.
Cailleba, P. and Castéran, H. (2009) ‘A Quantitative Study on the Fair Trade Coffee
Consumer’, The Journal of Applied Business Research 25(6): 31–46.
Carlisle, S. (2010) ‘Access and Marginalisation in a Beach Enclave Resort’, in S. Cole
and N. Morgan (eds) Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire: CAB International, 67–84.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001) ‘The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics
Matter in Purchase Behaviour?’ Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(7): 560–78.
Carrigan, M. and de Pelsmacker, P. (2009) ‘Will Ethical Consumers Sustain their
Values in the Global Credit Crunch?’ International Marketing Review 26(6): 674–87.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. and Wright, J. (2004) ‘Shopping for a Better World? An
Interpretive Study of the Potential for Ethical Consumption within the Older
Market’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(6): 401–17.
140 Bibliography
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2010) ‘Why Ethical Consumers
don’t Walk their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap between
the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded
Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics 97(1): 139–58.
Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring, New York: Fawcett Crest.
Caton, K. (n.d.) ‘What Does it Mean to be Good in Tourism?’ in C. Weeden and
K. Boluk (eds) Managing Ethical Consumption in Tourism: Compromise and Tension,
London: Routledge, forthcoming.
Chan, R.Y.K., Wong, Y.H. and Leung, T.K.P. (2008) ‘Applying Ethical Concepts to
the Study of “Green” Consumer Behaviour: An Analysis of Chinese Consumers’
Intentions to Bring their Own Shopping Bags’, Journal of Business Ethics 79(4): 469–81.
Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S. and Smith, A.P. (2007) ‘Why People don’t Take their
Concerns about Fair Trade to the Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation’,
Journal of Business Ethics 74(1): 89–100.
Cherrier, H. (2006) ‘Consumer Identity and Moral Obligations in Non-plastic Bag
Consumption: A Dialectical Perspective’, International Journal of Consumer Studies
30(5): 515–23.
——(2007) ‘Ethical Consumption Practices: Co-production of Self-expression and
Social Recognition’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6(5): 321–225.
——(2010) ‘Custodian Behavior: A Material Expression of Anti-Consumerism’,
Consumption, Markets and Culture 13(3): 259–72.
Chisnall, P.M. (1995) Consumer Behaviour, 3rd edn, London: McGraw-Hill.
Chok, S., Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2007) ‘Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation:
A Critical Analysis of “Pro-poor Tourism” and Implication for Sustainability’, Current
Issues in Tourism 10(2/3): 144–65.
Clarke, J. (1997) ‘A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism’, Journal of
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M. and Laroche, M. (2005) ‘Shades of Green: Linking
Environmental Locus of Control and Pro-environmental Behaviours’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing 22(4): 198–212.
Cleverdon, R. and Kalisch, A. (2000) ‘Fair Trade in Tourism’, International Journal of
Tourism Research 2(3): 171–87.
Cohen, S. and Taylor, L. (1976) Escape Attempts: The Theory and Practice of
Resistance to Everyday Life, London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Cohen, S.A., Higham, J.E.S. and Cavaliere, C.T. (2011) ‘Binge Flying: Behavioural
Addiction and Climate Change’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(3): 1070–89.
Cooper, C.P. and Ozdil, I. (1992) ‘From Mass to “Responsible” Tourism: The Turkish
Experience’, Tourism Management 13(4): 377–86.
Cooperative Bank (2010) Ten Years of Ethical Consumerism: 1999–2008,
www.goodwithmoney.co.uk (accessed 11 June 2010).
——(2012) Ethical Consumers Market Report 2012, www.co-operative.coop/corporate/
Investors/Publications/Ethical-Consumerism-Report/ (accessed 4 January 2013).
Correia, A. and Moital, M. (2009) ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Prestige
Motivation in Tourism: An Expectancy-value Motivation’, in M. Kozak and
A. Decrop (eds) Handbook of Tourist Behaviour: Theory and Practice, Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge, 16–32.
Cowe, R. and Williams, S. (2000) Who are the Ethical Consumers? Manchester: Cooperative
Bank/MORI, www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ … /ethicalconsumerreport2000-part-1.pdf
(accessed 4 January 2007).
Bibliography 141
Craig-Lees, M. and Hill, C. (2002) ‘Understanding Voluntary Simplifiers’, Psychology
and Marketing 19(2): 187–210.
Crandall, J.E. (1980) ‘Adler’s Concept of Social Interest: Theory, Measurement, and
Implications for Adjustment’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(3): 481–95.
Crane, A. (1997) ‘The Dynamics of Marketing Ethical Products: A Cultural Perspective’,
Journal of Marketing Management 16(6): 561–77.
Crompton, J.L. (1979) ‘Motivations for Pleasure Vacation’, Annals of Tourism
Research 6(4): 408–24.
Curtin, S. and Busby, G. (1999) ‘Sustainable Destination Development: The Tour
Operator Perspective’, International Journal of Tourism Research 1(2): 135–47.
D’Amore, L. (1993) ‘A Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Socially and Environmentally
Responsible Tourism’, Journal of Travel Research 31(3): 64–66.
Dann, G. (1981) ‘Tourism Motivation: An Appraisal’, Annals of Tourism Research 8(2):
187–219.
Davies, I.A., Doherty, B. and Knox, S. (2010) ‘The Rise and Stall of a Fair Trade
Pioneer: The Story of Cafédirect’, Journal of Business Ethics 92(1): 127–47.
deCharms, R. and Muir, M.S. (1978) ‘Motivation: Social Approaches’, Annual Review
of Psychology 29: 91–113.
Decrop, A. (1999) ‘Tourists’ Decision-making and Behaviour Processes’, in A. Pizam
and Y. Mansfeld (eds) Consumer Behaviour in Travel and Tourism, New York:
Haworth Press, 103–33.
——(2006) Vacation Decision Making, Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publication.
——(2010) ‘Destination Choice Sets: An Inductive Longitudinal Approach’, Annals of
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2004) ‘Planning the Summer Vacation: An Adaptable
Process’, Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 1008–30.
Deery, M., Jago, L. and Fedline, L. (2012) ‘Rethinking Social Impacts of Tourism
Research: A New Research Agenda’, Tourism Management 33(1): 64–73.
de Ferran, F. and Grunert, K.G. (2007) ‘French Fair Trade Coffee Buyers’ Purchasing
Motives: An Exploratory Study using Means-end Chain Analysis’, Food Quality
and Preference 18(2): 218–29.
de Kadt, E. (1979) Tourism: Passport to Development? Perspectives on the Social and
Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
——(1992) ‘Making the Alternative Sustainable: Lessons from Development for
Tourism’, in V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Alternative Tourism, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 47–75.
de Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2005a) ‘Do Consumers Care about
Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-trade Coffee’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(2):
363–85.
de Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E. and Mielants, C. (2005b) ‘Consumer
Preferences for the Marketing of Ethically Labelled Coffee’, International Marketing
Review 22(5): 512–30.
Diamantis, D. and Ladkin, A. (1999) ‘The Links between Sustainable Tourism and
Ecotourism’, Journal of Tourism Studies 10(2): 35–46.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G. (2003) ‘Can
Socio-demographics still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of
the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Business Research 56(6):
465–80.
142 Bibliography
Dickinson, J.E., Robbins, D. and Lumsdon, L. (2010) ‘Holiday Travel Discourses and
Climate Change’, Journal of Transport Geography 18(3): 482–89.
Dickson, M.A. and Eckman, M. (2008) ‘Media Portrayal of Voluntary Public
Reporting about Corporate Social Responsibility Performance: Does Coverage
Encourage or Discourage Ethical Management?’ Journal of Business Ethics 83(4):
725–43.
Diken, B. and Laustsen, C.B. (2004) ‘Sea, Sun, Sex and the Discontents of Pleasure’,
Tourist Studies 4(2): 99–114.
Dinan, C. and Sargeant, A. (2000) ‘Social Marketing and Sustainable Tourism: Is
there a Match?’ International Journal of Tourism Research 2(1): 1–14.
Dolnicar, S. (2010) ‘Identifying Tourists with Smaller Environmental Footprints’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(6): 717–34.
Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G.I. and Long, P. (2008) ‘Environmentally-friendly Tourists: What
do we Really Know About Them?’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(2): 197–210.
Dolnicar, S. and Leisch, F. (2008) ‘An Investigation of Tourists’ Patterns of Obligation
to Protect the Environment’, Journal of Travel Research 46(4): 381–91.
do Paço, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C. and Filho, W.L. (2013) ‘Development of a Green
Consumer Behaviour Model’, International Journal of Consumer Studies DOI: 10.1111/
ijcs.12009.
Doran, C.J. (2009) ‘The Role of Personal Values in Fair Trade Consumption’, Journal
of Business Ethics 84(4): 549–63.
Duffy, R. (2008) ‘Neoliberalising Nature: Global Networks and Ecotourism
Development in Madagascar’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(2): 327–44.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes, Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Elkington, J. and Hailes, J. (1992) Holidays That Don’t Cost the Earth, London: Gollancz.
Engel, J.F., Kollatt, D.J. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968) Consumer Behavior, New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
England, G.W. (1967) ‘Personal Values Systems of American Managers’, Academy of
Management Journal 10(1): 53–68.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2009) ‘The Market for Organic and Fair
Trade Coffee’, study prepared in the framework of FAO project GCP/RAF/404/
GER ‘Increasing incomes and food security of small farmers in West and Central
Africa through exports of organic and fair-trade tropical products’, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/
… /Market_Organic_FT_Coffee.pdf (accessed 11 April 2012).
Feather, N.O.T.T. (1994) ‘Human Values and their Relation to Justice’, Journal of
Social Issues 50(4): 129–51.
Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
——(2003) Ecotourism: An Introduction, 2nd edn, London: Routledge.
——(2006) Tourism Ethics, Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
——(2008) ‘Responsible Tourism: A Kierkegaardian Interpretation’, Tourism
Recreation Research 33(1): 3–12.
——(2013) ‘Ecotourism’, in A. Holden and D.A. Fennell (eds) The Routledge
Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, Abingdon: Routledge, 323–33.
Fennell, D.A. and Malloy, D.C. (1999) ‘Measuring the Ethical Nature of Tourism
Operators’, Annals of Tourism Research 26(4): 928–43.
Fisk, G. (1973) ‘Criteria for a Theory of Responsible Consumption’, Journal of
Marketing 37(2): 24–31.
Bibliography 143
Fodness, D. (1994) ‘Measuring Tourist Motivation’, Annals of Tourism Research 21(3):
555–81.
Follows, S.B. and Jobber, D. (2000) ‘Environmentally Responsible Purchase Behaviour:
A Test of a Consumer Model’, European Journal of Marketing 34(5/6): 723–46.
Font, X. (2002) ‘Environmental Certification in Tourism and Hospitality: Progress,
Process, and Prospects’, Tourism Management 23(2): 197–205.
Font, X. and Ahjem, T.E. (1998) Searching for a Balance in Tourism Development
Strategies, MCB Virtual Conference Centre, MCB University Press.
Forsyth, T. (1997) ‘Environmental Responsibility and Business Regulation: The Case
of Sustainable Tourism’, The Geographical Journal 16(3): 270–80.
Foxall, G.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1994) Consumer Psychology for Marketing,
London: Routledge.
Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2006) ‘Influence of Personality on Ecological Consumer
Behaviour’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5(3): 167–81.
Freestone, O.M. and McGoldrick, P.J. (2008) ‘Motivations of the Ethical Consumer’,
Frey, N. and George, R. (2008) ‘Responsible Tourism and the Tourism Industry: A
Demand and Supply Perspective’, in A. Spenceley (ed.) Responsible Tourism:
Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, Gateshead: Earthscan, 107–28.
——(2010) ‘Responsible Tourism Management: The Missing Link between Business
Owners’ Attitudes and Behaviour in the Cape Town Tourism Industry’, Tourism
Fritzsche, D.J. (1995) ‘Personal Values: Potential Keys to Ethical Decision-making’,
FTTSA (Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa) (2012) ‘An Introduction to Fair Trade’,
www.fairtourism.org.za/fairtrade_overview.html (accessed 29 April 2012).
Fukukawa, K. (2003) ‘A Theoretical Review of Business and Consumer Ethics Research:
Normative and Descriptive Approaches’, The Marketing Review 3(4): 381–401.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A. and Jakobsson, C. (2003) ‘Moderating Effects of
Social Value Orientation on Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviour
Intention’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 1–9.
Garrod, B. (2003) ‘Local Participation in the Planning and Management of
Ecotourism: A Revised Model Approach’, Journal of Ecotourism 2(1): 33–53.
Gbadamosi, A. (2009) ‘Low Income Consumers’ Reactions to Low-involvement Products’,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 27(7): 882–99.
Gibbs, J.C. (1977) ‘Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Judgment: A Constructive Critique’,
Harvard Educational Review 47(1) (February): 43–61.
Gilbert, D.C. (1991) ‘An Examination of the Consumer Behaviour Process Related to
Tourism’, in C.P. Cooper (ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality
Management, Vol. 3, London: Belhaven Press, 78–105.
Gilg, A., Barr, S. and Ford, N. (2005) ‘Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles?
Identifying the Sustainable Consumer’, Futures 37: 481–504.
Gnoth, J. (1997) ‘Tourism Motivation and Expectation Formation’, Annals of Tourism
Research 24(2): 283–304.
——(1999) ‘Tourism Expectation Formation: The Case of Camper Van Tourists in
New Zealand’, in A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld (eds) Consumer Behaviour in Travel
and Tourism, New York: Haworth Hospitality Press, 245–66.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990) ‘An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five
Factor Structure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(6): 1216–29.
144 Bibliography
Golding, K. (2009) ‘Fair Trade’s Dual Aspect: The Communications Challenge of Fair
Trade Marketing’, Journal of Macromarketing 29(2): 160–71.
Golding, K. and Peattie, K. (2005) ‘In Search of a Golden Blend: Perspectives on the
Marketing of Fair Trade Coffee’, Sustainable Development 13(3): 154–65.
Goodwin, H. (2006) ‘Measuring and Reporting the Impact of Tourism on Poverty’,
Paper presented at Cutting Edge Research in Tourism – New Directions, Challenges
and Applications, June, University of Surrey, UK, www.haroldgoodwin.info/
publications.html (accessed 4 January 2013).
Goodwin, H. and Francis, J. (2003) ‘Ethical and Responsible Tourism: Consumer
Trends in the UK’, Journal of Vacation Marketing 9(3): 271–84.
Goodwin, H. and Pender, L. (2005) ‘Ethics in Tourism Management’, in L. Pender
and R. Sharpley (eds) The Management of Tourism, London: Sage Publications,
288–304.
Gössling, S., Bredburg, M., Randow, A., Sandström, E. and Svensson, P. (2006)
‘Tourist Perception of Climate Change: A Study of International Tourists to Zanzi-
bar’, Current Issues in Tourism 9(4/5): 419–35.
Gough, O. and Nurullah, M. (2009) ‘Understanding what Drives the Purchase Decision
in Pension and Investment Products’, Journal of Financial Services Marketing 14(2):
152–72.
GPST (Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism) (n.d.) Members, www.gstcouncil.
org/about/learn-about-gstc/members.html (accessed 4 January 2013).
Grankvist, G., Lekedal, H. and Marmedal, M. (2007) ‘Values and Eco- and Fair-trade
Labelled Products’, British Food Journal 109(2): 169–81.
Greenpeace (2012) ‘Greenwash+20: How some Powerful Corporations are
Standing in the Way of Sustainable Development’, www.greenpeace.org/
international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/ClimateReports/GreenwashPlus20/?
accept=ab2e543070e30e0356df4bbe9402df5c (accessed 4 January 2013).
Gross, M.J. and Brown, G. (2006) ‘Tourism Experiences in a Lifestyle Destination
Setting: The Roles of Involvement and Place Attachment’, Journal of Business
Research 59(6): 696–700.
Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H.J. (1995) ‘Values, Environmental Attitudes and Buying of
Organic Foods’, Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 39–62.
Gursoy, D. and Gavcar, E. (2003) ‘International Leisure Tourists’ Involvement Profile’,
Annals of Tourism Research 30(4): 906–26.
Guthrie, M.F. and Kim, H.-S. (2009) ‘The Relationship between Consumer Involve-
ment and Brand Perceptions of Female Cosmetic Consumers’, Brand Management
17(2): 114–33.
Gutman, J. (1982) ‘A Means-end Chain Model based on Consumer Categorization
Processes’, Journal of Marketing 46 (Spring): 60–72.
Ha-Brookshire, J.E. and Norum, P.S. (2011) ‘Willingness to Pay for Socially Respon-
sible Products: Case of Cotton Apparel’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 28(5):
344–53.
Hall, C.M. (2007) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism: Do Tourism Exchanges Benefit Primarily the
Countries of the South?’ Current Issues in Tourism 10(2/3): 111–18.
Hansen, T. (2005) ‘Perspectives in Consumer Decision-making: An Integrated
Approach’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(6): 420–37.
Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science 162(3859): 1243–48.
Hares, A., Dickinson, J. and Wilkes, K. (2010) ‘Climate Change and the Air Travel
Decisions of UK Tourists’, Journal of Transport Geography 18(3): 466–73.
Bibliography 145
Harrison, D. (2008) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism: A Critique’, Third World Quarterly 29(5):
851–68.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (eds) (2005) The Ethical Consumer, London:
Sage Publications.
Hawcroft, L.J. and Milfont, T.L. (2010) ‘The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental
Paradigm Scale Over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology 30: 143–58.
Hawkins, R. (2007) ‘Sustainable Tourism 2007: The UK Domestic Perspective’, Tour-
ism Insights, www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Sustainable%20Tourism%
202007:%20The%20UK%20Domestic%20Perspective#Relative%20size%20of%
20the%20ethical%20market (accessed 11 April 2012).
Haywood, K.M. (1988) ‘Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the
Community’, Tourism Management 9(2): 105–18.
Henion, K.E. and Wilson, W.H. (1976) ‘The Ecologically Concerned Consumer and
Locus of Control’, in K.E. Henion and T.C. Kinnear (eds) Ecological Marketing:
Educational Workshop Series, No. 1, Austin Texas: American Marketing Association.
Hibbert, S.A., Hogg, G. and Quinn, T. (2005) ‘Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding
Consumer Motives for Buying the Big Issue’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(3):
159–72.
Hickman, M. and Roberts, G. (2012) ‘Sell-out! When Entrepreneurs Give Up
Control – for a Price’, The Independent, 5 February, www.independent.co.uk/news/
business/analysis-and-features/sellout-when-entrepreneurs-give-up-control-for-a-price
-6423168.html (accessed 25 April 2012).
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2008) ‘Justice Tourism and Alternative Globalisation’, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 16(3): 345–64.
Higham, J. and Carr, A. (2002) ‘Ecotourism Visitor Experiences in Aotearoa, New Zealand:
Challenging the Environmental Values of Visitors in Pursuit of Pro-environmental
Behaviour’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4): 277–94.
Holden, A. (1999) ‘Understanding Skiers’ Motivation using Pearce’s “Travel Career”
Construct’, Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 435–38.
——(2003) ‘In Need of New Environmental Ethics for Tourism?’ Annals of Tourism
Research 30(1): 94–108.
——(2009) ‘The Environment-tourism Nexus: Influence of Market Ethics’, Annals of
Holden, A. and Fennell, D.A. (eds) (2013) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and
the Environment, Abingdon: Routledge.
Holden, A. and Sparrowhawk, J. (2002) ‘Understanding the Motivations of Ecotourists:
The Case of Trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal’, International Journal of Tourism
Research 4(6): 435–66.
Homer, P.M. and Kahle, L.R. (1988) ‘A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-
Behaviour Hierarchy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4): 638–46.
Honey, M. and Gilpin, R. (2009) Tourism in the Developing World: Promoting Peace
and Reducing Poverty, Special Report 233, United States Institute for Peace.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B. and Ottar Olsen, S. (2006) ‘Ethical Values and Motives
Driving Organic Food Choice’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5(5): 420–30.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969) The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, New York: John
Wiley.
Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I. and Daigle, J. (2001) ‘Predicting Hunting Intentions and Behaviour:
An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour’, Leisure Sciences 23(3): 165–78.
146 Bibliography
Hudson, S.T. and Miller, G. (2005) ‘The Responsible Marketing of Tourism: The Case
of Canadian Mountain Holidays’, Tourism Management 26(2): 133–42.
Hultsman, J. (1995) ‘Just Tourism, an Ethical Framework’, Tourism Management 11(9):
553–67.
Husbands, L.C. and Harrison, W. (1996) Practicing Responsible Tourism: International
Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, Chichester: Wiley and
Sons Ltd.
Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002) ‘Using Tourist Typologies for Ecotourism Research’, Journal
of Ecotourism 1(1): 7–18.
Hyde, K.F. (2009) ‘Tourist Information Search’, in M. Kozak and A. Decrop (eds)
Handbook of Tourist Behaviour: Theory and Practice, Abingdon, Oxfordshire:
Routledge, 50–64.
Ingram, R., Skinner, S. and Taylor, V. (2005) ‘Consumers’ Evaluation of Unethical
Marketing Behaviors: The Role of Customer Commitment’, Journal of Business
Ethics 62(3): 237–52.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982) ‘Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation:
A Rejoinder’, Annals of Tourism Research 9(2): 256–62.
Jackson, C., Smith, R.A. and Conner, M. (2003) ‘Applying an Extended Version of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour to Physical Activity’, Journal of Sports Sciences 21(2):
119–33.
Jackson, T. (2005) ‘Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on
Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change’, Sustainable Development Research
Network, www.surrey.ac.uk/eng/data/staff/rp/JacksonSDRN-review.pdf (accessed 4
September 2012).
Jafari, J. (1987) ‘Tourism Models: The Sociocultural Aspects’, Tourism Management 8
(2): 151–59.
Jägel, T., Keeling, K., Reppel, A. and Gruber, T. (2012) ‘Individual Values and
Motivational Complexities in Ethical Clothing Consumption: A Means-end
Approach’, Journal of Marketing Management 28(3–4): 373–96.
Jahdi, K.S. and Acikdilli, G. (2009) ‘Marketing Communications and Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR): Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding?’ Journal
of Business Ethics 88(1): 103 – 113.
Jamrozy, U. (2007) ‘Marketing of Tourism: A Paradigm Shift Toward Sustainability’,
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(2): 117–30.
Jarvis, N., Weeden, C. and Simcock, N. (2010) ‘The Benefits and Challenges of
Sustainable Tourism Certification: A Case Study of the Green Tourism Business
Scheme in the West of England’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
17(1): 83–93.
Jones, A. and Weeden, C. (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility: The ‘Right Thing to
do’ or just Plain Business Sense? Paper presented at Advancing the Social Science of
Tourism Conference, University of Surrey, UK.
Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P. (1986) ‘Alternative Measurement Approaches
to Consumer Values: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life Style (VALS)’,
Journal of Consumer Research 13(3): 405–40.
Kahle, L.R. and Kennedy, P. (1989) ‘Using the List of Values (LOV) to Understand
Consumers’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 6(3): 5–12.
Kalafatis, S.P., Pollard, M., East, R. and Tsogas, M.H. (1999) ‘Green Marketing and
Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior: A Cross-market Examination’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing 16: 441–60.
Bibliography 147
Kalisch, A. (2010) ‘Fair Trade in Tourism: A Marketing Tool for Transformation?’ in
S. Cole and N. Morgan (eds) Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects,
Wallingford, Oxon: Cab International, 85–106.
——(2013) ‘Fair Trade in Tourism: Critical Shifts and Perspectives’, in A. Holden and
D.A. Fennell (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment,
Abingdon: Routledge, 494–504.
Kamakura, W.A. and Mazzon, J.A. (1991) ‘Value Segmentation: A Model for the
Measurement of Values and Value Systems’, Journal of Consumer Research 18(2):
208–18.
Kamakura, W.A. and Novak, T.P. (1992) ‘Value-system Segmentation: Exploring the
Meaning of LOV’, Journal of Consumer Research 19(1): 119–32.
Kan, J. (2010) ‘Environmentally Friendly Consumers Emerge’, China Business Review
37, Issue 3: 42–45.
Kang, M. and Moscardo, G. (2006) ‘Exploring Cross-cultural Differences in Attitudes
Towards Responsible Tourists’ Behaviour: A Comparison of Korean, British and
Australian Tourists’, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 11(4): 303–20.
Katz, D. (1960) ‘The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes’, Public Opinion
Quarterly 4(2): 163–204.
Kennedy, P. (2004) ‘Selling Virtue: Political and Economic Contradictions of Green/
Ethical Marketing in the United Kingdom’, in M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal and
D. Stolle (eds) Politics, Products and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism
Past and Present, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 21–45.
Kim, C. (1998) ‘Cross-cultural Perspectives on Motivation’, Annals of Tourism Research
25(4): 202–5.
Kim, S.-S., Scott, D. and Crompton, J.L. (1997) ‘An Exploration of the Relationships
Among Social Psychological Involvement, Behavioural Involvement, Commitment,
and Future Intentions in the Context of Bird Watching’, Journal of Leisure Research
29(93): 320–41.
Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974) ‘Ecologically Concerned Consumers:
Who are They?’ Journal of Marketing 38 (April): 20–24.
Kinnier, R.T., Kernes, J.L. and Dautheribes, T.M. (2000) ‘A Short List of Universal
Moral Values’, Counseling and Values 45(1): 4–16.
Kirtsoglou, E. and Theodossopoulos, D. (2004) ‘“They are Taking our Culture Away.”
Tourism and Culture Commodification in the Garifuna Community of Roatan’,
Critique of Anthropology 24(2): 135–57.
Klenosky, D.B. (2002) ‘The “Pull” of Tourism Destinations: A Means-end Investigation’,
Journal of Travel Research 40(4): 385–95.
Klenosky, D.B., Gengler, C.E. and Mulvey, M.S. (1993) ‘Understanding the Factors
Influencing Ski-destination Choice: A Means-end Analytic Approach’, Journal of
Leisure Research 25(4): 362–79.
Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and
Travel, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Krohn, F.B. and Ahmed, Z.U. (1991) ‘The Need for Developing an Ethical Code for
the Marketing of International Tourism Services’, Journal of Professional Services
Marketing 8(1): 189–200.
Kuoni Group PLC (2011) Kuoni Annual Report 2011, www.kuoni.com/kuoni-annual-
report-2011 (accessed 10 October 2012).
Kurland, N.B. (1995) ‘Ethical Intentions and the Theories of Reasoned Action and
Planned Behaviour’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25(4): 297–313.
148 Bibliography
Lam, T. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2006) ‘Predicting Behavioural Intentions of Choosing a
Travel Destination’, Tourism Management 27(4): 589–99.
Lansing, P. and de Vries, P.D. (2007) ‘Ethical Alternative or Marketing Ploy?’ Journal
of Business Ethics 72(1): 77–85.
LaPiere, R.T. (1934) ‘Attitudes vs. Action’, Social Forces 13(2): 230–37.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001) ‘Targeting Consumers who
are Willing to Pay more for Environmentally Friendly Products’, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 18(6): 503–20.
Lee, M.S.W., Roux, D., Cherrier, H. and Cova, B. (2011) ‘Anti-consumption and
Consumer Resistance: Concepts, Concerns, Conflicts and Convergence’, European
Journal of Marketing 45, Issues 11/12, guest editorial (n.p.).
Lee, M.S.W., Fernandez, K.V. and Hyman, M.R. (2009) ‘Anti-consumption: An
Overview and Research Agenda’, Journal of Business Research 62(2): 145–47.
Lee, W.H. and Moscardo, G. (2005) ‘Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort
Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions’,
Lemelin, R.H., Fennell, D.A. and Smale, B. (2008) ‘Polar Bear Viewers as Deep
Ecotourists: How Specialised are They?’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(1): 42–62.
Levi, M. and Linton, A. (2003) ‘Fair Trade: A Cup at a Time?’ Politics and Society 3(3):
407–32.
Lord, K.R. and Putrevu, S. (1998) ‘Acceptance of Recycling Appeals: The Moderating
Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness’, Journal of Marketing Management 14(6):
581–90.
Loureiro, M.L. and Lotade, J. (2005) ‘Do Fair Trade and Eco-labels in Coffee Wake
Up the Consumer Conscience?’ Ecological Economics 53: 129–38.
Low, W. and Davenport, E. (2009) ‘Organisation Leadership, Ethics and the
Challenges of Marketing Fair and Ethical Trade’, Journal of Business Ethics 86(1):
97–108.
Lye, A., Shao, W., Rundle-Thiele, S. and Fausnaugh, C. (2005) ‘Decision Waves:
Consumer Decisions in Today’s Complex World’, European Journal of Marketing 39
(1/2): 216–30.
Ma, Y.J., Littrell, M.A. and Niehm, L. (2012) ‘Young Female Consumers Intentions
Towards Fair Trade Consumption’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Ma, Z. (2009) ‘The Status of Contemporary Business Ethics Research: Present and
Future’, Journal of Business Ethics 90(3): 255–65.
Macalister, T. and Teacher, D. (2010) ‘Innocent Smoothies Deny Sell Out after Coca-
Cola gets Majority Stake’, The Guardian, 9 April, www.guardian.co.uk/business/
2010/apr/09/coca-cola-innocent-smoothie-stake? (accessed 15 April 2012).
Macchiette, B. and Roy, A. (1993) ‘Affinity Marketing: What is it and how does it
Work?’ Journal of Product and Brand Management 2(5): 55–66.
Madrigal, R. (1995) ‘Personal Values, Traveller Personality Type, and Leisure Travel
Style’, Journal of Leisure Research 27(2): 125–42.
Madrigal, R. and Kahle, L.R. (1994) ‘Predicting Vacation Activity Preferences on the
Basis of Value-system Segmentation’, Journal of Travel Research 32(3): 22–28.
Mair, J. (2010) ‘Exploring Air Travellers’ Voluntary Carbon-offsetting Behaviour’,
Makatouni, A. (2002) ‘What Motivates Consumers to Buy Organic Food in the UK:
Results from a Qualitative Study’, British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 345–52.
Bibliography 149
Makower, J. (2009) Strategies for the Green Economy: Opportunities and Challenges in
the New World of Business, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992) ‘From Motivation to Actual Travel’, Annals of Tourism Research
19(3): 399–419.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2005) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding CSR’,
in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter (eds) Corporate Social
Responsibility Across Europe, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 335–56.
Mayo, E.J., Jr, and Jarvis, L.P. (1981) The Psychology of Leisure Travel, Mass: CBI
Publishing Co. Inc.
Mayton, D.M. and Furnham, A. (1994) ‘Value Underpinnings of Antinuclear Political
Activism: A Cross-national Study’, Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 117–28.
Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003) ‘The Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts of Tourism
Development on the Okovango Delta, North-western Botswana’, Journal of Arid
Environments 54: 447–67.
McCabe, A.S. (2000) ‘Tourism Motivation Process’, Annals of Tourism Research 27(4):
1049–52.
McCabe, A.S., Sharples, M. and Foster, C. (2012) ‘Stakeholder Engagement in the
Design of Scenarios of Technology-enhanced Tourism Services’, Tourism Management
Perspectives 4: 36–44.
McCleary, K.W. and Choi, B.M. (1999) ‘Personal Values as a Base for Segmenting
International Markets’, Tourism Analysis 4: 1–17.
McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the
Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Goods’, Journal of Consumer
Research 13(1): 71–84.
McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P. and McMorland, L.-A. (2009)
‘Comparing Sustainable Consumption Patterns Across Product Sectors’, International
Journal of Consumer Studies 33(2): 137–45.
McDonagh, P. (2002) ‘Communicative Campaigns to Effect Anti-slavery and Fair Trade:
The Cases of Rugmark and Cafédirect’, European Journal of Marketing 36(5/6): 642–66.
McEachern, M.G. and McClean, P. (2002) ‘Organic Purchasing Motivations
and Attitudes: Are they Ethical?’ International Journal of Consumer Studies 26(2): 85–92.
McEachern, M.G., Warnaby, G., Carrigan, M. and Szmigin, I. (2010) ‘Thinking
Locally, Acting Locally? Conscious Consumers and Farmers Markets’, Journal of
Marketing Management 26(5–6): 395–412.
McIntosh, A.J. and Thyne, M.A. (2005) ‘Understanding Tourist Behaviour Using
Means-end Chain Theory’, Annals of Tourism Research 32(9): 259–62.
McKercher, B. (1993) ‘Some Fundamental Truths about Tourism: Understanding
Tourism’s Social and Environmental Impacts’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1): 6–16.
McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C. and Law, R. (2010) ‘Achieving Voluntary
Reductions in the Carbon Footprint of Tourism and Climate Change’, Journal of
McKie, R. (2012) ‘Rachel Carson and the Legacy of Silent Spring’, The Guardian, 27 May
2012, www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/27/rachel-carson-silent-spring-anniversary
Merchant, C. (1992) Radical Ecology: The Search for a Liveable World, New York:
Routledge.
Meyer, D. (2007) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism: From Leakages to Linkages. A Conceptual Frame-
work for Creating Linkages between the Accommodation Sector and “Poor”
Neighbouring Communities’, Current Issues in Tourism 10(6): 558–83.
150 Bibliography
Meyer, W. (1988) Beyond the Mask, Saarbrücken: Breitenbach.
Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L.M. (2008) ‘The Role of Health Consciousness, Food
Safety Concern and Ethical Identity on Attitudes and Intentions Towards Organic
Food’, International Journal of Consumer Studies 32(2): 163–70.
Miller, G.A. (2003) ‘Consumerism in Sustainable Tourism: A Survey of UK Consumers’,
Miller, G.A., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K. and Tribe, J. (2010) ‘Public
Understanding of Sustainable Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 37(3): 627–45.
Miller, S. and Gregan-Paxton, J. (2006) ‘Community and Connectivity: Examining the
Motives Underlying the Adoption of a Lifestyle of Voluntary Simplicity’, Advances
in Consumer Research 33: 289.
Mintel (2001) Ethical Tourism UK, October, Mintel Publishing Group, www.mintel.
com (accessed 1 October 2002).
——(2003) Eco and Ethical Tourism UK, October, Mintel Publishing Group, www.
mintel.com (accessed 1 October 2004).
——(2004) Ethical Tourism UK, February, Mintel Publishing Group, www.mintel.com
(accessed 1 November 2006).
——(2005) Ethical Holidays UK, October, Mintel Publishing Group, www.mintel.com
(accessed 1 November 2006).
——(2007a) Holiday Lifestyles. Responsible Tourism UK, January, Mintel Publishing
Group, www.mintel.com (accessed 1 January 2012).
——(2007b) Green and Ethical Consumers UK, January, Mintel Publishing Group,
www.mintel.com (accessed 1 January 2012).
——(2009) Fair Trade Foods UK, January, Mintel Publishing Group, www.mintel.com
Moeller, T., Dolnicar, S. and Leisch, F. (2011) ‘The Sustainability-profitability Trade-off:
Can it be Overcome?’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(2): 155–69.
Moisander, J. (2007) ‘Motivational Complexity of Green Consumerism’, International
Moustafa, M. (2007) ‘Gender Differences in Egyptian Consumers’ Green Purchase
Behaviour: The Effects of Environmental Knowledge, Concern and Attitude’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies 31(3): 220–29.
Moutinho, L. (1987) ‘Consumer Behaviour in Tourism’, European Journal of Marketing
2(10): 5–44.
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2003) Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New
Tourism in the Third World, 2nd edn, London: Routledge.
Müller, T.E. (1991) ‘Using Personal Values to Define Segments in an International
Tourism Market’, International Marketing Review 8(1): 57–70.
Munson, J.M. (1984) ‘Personal Values: Considerations on their Measurement and
Application to Five Areas of Research Inquiry’, in R.E. Pitts and A.G. Woodside (eds)
Personal Values and Consumer Psychology, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 13–33.
Newholm, T. (1999) ‘Consumer Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Indicative, Legitimation, and
Regulatory Role in Agricultural and Food Ethics’, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 12: 153–64.
——(2005) ‘Case Studying Ethical Consumer Projects and Strategies’, in R. Harrison,
T. Newholm and D. Shaw (eds) The Ethical Consumer, London: Sage Publications,
107–24.
Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (2007) ‘Studying the Ethical Consumer: A Review of
Research’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6(5): 253–70.
Bibliography 151
Neyland, D. and Simakova, E. (2009) ‘How Far can we Push Sceptical Reflexivity? An
Analysis of Marketing Ethics and the Certification of Poverty’, Journal of Marketing
Management 25(7/8): 777–94.
Nicolau, J.L. (2008) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Worth-creating Activities’,
Nicosia, F.M. (1966) Consumer Decision Process: Marketing and Advertising Implications,
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Nunkoo, R. and Ramkissoon, H. (2009) ‘Applying the Means-end Chain Theory and
Laddering Technique to the Study of Host Attitudes to Tourism’, Journal of
Oates, C.J., McDonald, S., Young, W., Hwang, K. and McMorland, L. (2008) ‘Marketing
Sustainability: Use of Information Sources and Degrees of Voluntary Simplicity’,
Journal of Marketing Communications 14: 351–65.
Okazaki, E. (2008) ‘A Community-based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use’,
Olshavsky, R.W. and Granbois, D.H. (1979) ‘Consumer Decision Making – Fact or
Fiction?’ Journal of Consumer Research 6(2): 93–100.
O’Riordan, L. and Fairbrass, J. (2008) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Model
and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue’, Journal of Business Ethics 83(4): 745–58.
Ostini, R. and Ellerman, D.A. (1997) ‘Clarifying the Relationship between Values and
Moral Judgement’, Psychological Reports 81: 691–702.
Paek, H.-J. and Nelson, M.R. (2009) ‘To Buy or Not to Buy: Determinants of Socially
Responsible Consumer Behaviour and Consumer Reactions to Cause-related and
Boycotting Ads’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 31(2): 75–90.
Page, G. and Fearn, H. (2005) ‘Corporate Reputation: What do Consumers Really
Care About?’ Journal of Advertising Research 45(3): 305–13.
Parrinello, G.L. (1993) ‘Motivation and Anticipation in Post-industrial Tourism’,
Payne, D. and Dimanche, F. (1996) ‘Towards a Code of Conduct for the Tourism
Industry: An Ethics Model’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(9): 997–1007.
Pearce, P.L. (1982) The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour, Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
——(1993) ‘Fundamentals of Tourist Motivation’, in D.G. Pearce and R.W. Butler
(eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, London: Routledge, 113–34.
Peattie, K. and Crane, A. (2005) ‘Green Marketing: Legend, Myth, Farce or Prophesy?’
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8(4): 357–70.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. and Uzzell, D. (2009) ‘An Examination of the Values that
Motivate Socially Conscious and Frugal Consumer Behaviours’, International
Percy, L., Ketchum, Macleod and Grove (1976) ‘A Look at Personality Profiles and
the Personality-Attitude-Behaviour Link in Predicting Consumer Behaviour’,
Advances in Consumer Research 3(1): 119–24.
Pitts, R.E., Jr, and Woodside, A.G. (1986) ‘Personal Values and Travel Decisions’,
Journal of Travel Research 25(1): 20–25.
Pizam, A. and Calantone, R. (1987) ‘Beyond Psychographics – Values as Determinants
of Tourist Behaviour’, International Journal of Hospitality Management 6(3): 177–81.
Pomering, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2008) ‘Assessing the Prerequisite of Successful CSR
Implantation: Are Consumers Aware of CSR Initiatives?’ Journal of Business Ethics
85 (Supplement 2): 285–301.
152 Bibliography
Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, Wallingford: CAB
International.
Powell, R.B. and Ham, S.H. (2008) ‘Can Ecotourism Interpretation Really Lead to
Pro-conservation Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos
Islands’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(4): 467–89.
Priskin, J. (2003) ‘Characteristics and Perceptions of Coastal and Wildflower Nature-
based Tourists in the Central Coast Region of Western Australia’, Journal of
Raats, M.M., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1995) ‘Including Moral Dimensions of
Choice within the Structure of the Theory of Planned Behaviour’, Journal of Applied
Psychology 25(6): 484–94.
Randall, D.M. and Gibson, A.M. (1991) ‘Ethical Decision Making in the Medical
Profession: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour’, Journal of Business
Ethics 10(2): 111–22.
Randles, S. and Mander, S. (2009) ‘Practice(s) and Ratchet(s): A Sociological Exam-
ination of Frequent Flying’, in S. Gössling and P. Upham (eds) Climate Change and
Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions, London: Earthscan, 245–71.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass: The Bellknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Raynolds, L.T. (2009) ‘Mainstreaming Fair Trade Coffee: From Partnership to
Traceability’, World Development 37(6): 1083–93.
responsibletravel.com (2004) Had Enough? www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/
Copy101764.htm (accessed 14 April 2007).
Rettie, R., Burchell, K., Eslambolchilar, P., Studley, M., Byrne, R., Chambers, S. and
Patel, K. (2010) CHARM: The Social Norm Approach to Sustainable Behaviour
Change, Paper presented at Digital Futures 2010, 11–12 October 2010, Nottingham,
UK, www.projectcharm.info/impact/ (accessed 6 January 2013).
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988) ‘Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis and
Interpretation’, Journal of Advertising Research (February/March): 11–31.
Richter, L.K. (1983) ‘Tourism Politics and Political Science: A Case of not so Benign
Neglect’, Annals of Tourism Research 10(3): 313–35.
Roberts, J.A (1995) ‘Profiling Levels of Socially Responsible Consumer Behaviour:
A Cluster Analytic Approach and its Implications for Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing – Theory and Practice (Fall): 97–117.
——(1996) ‘Will the Real Socially Responsible Consumer Please Step Forward?’
Business Horizons (January–February): 79–83.
Roberts, J.A. and Bacon, D.R. (1997) ‘Exploring the Subtle Relationship between
Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior’, Journal
of Business Research 40(1): 79–89.
Roe, D. and Urquhart, P. (2001) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism: Harnessing the World’s Largest
Industry for the World’s Poor’, International Institute for Environment and Develop-
ment, www.propoortourism.info/Library.html (accessed 4 January 2013).
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values, New York: The Free Press.
Rotter, J.B. (1966) ‘Generalized Expectancies of Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcements’, Psychological Monographs 80(609).
Rutten, M. (2002) ‘Parks Beyond Parks: Genuine Community-based Wildlife Eco-
tourism or Just Another Loss of Land for Maasai Pastoralists in Kenya?’ Issue
Paper 111, www.opc-ascl.oclc.org (accessed 4 January 2013).
Ryan, C. (1991) Recreational Tourism: A Social Science Perspective, London: Routledge.
Bibliography 153
——(2002) The Tourist Experience, London: Thomson.
Saarinen, J. and Niskala, M. (2009) ‘Selling Places and Constructing Local Cultures in
Tourism: The Role of the Ovahimba in Namibian Tourism Promotion’, in P. Hottola
(ed.) Tourism Strategies and Local Responses in Southern Africa, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire: CAB International, 62–72.
Salazar, N.B. (2012) ‘Community-based Cultural Tourism: Issues, Threats and
Opportunities’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(1): 9–22.
Scarles, C. (n.d.) ‘Ethical Confusion and Confusion of Ethics: Unpacking the Com-
plexities of Tourist Photography’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
forthcoming.
Scheyvens, R. (1999) ‘Ecotourism and the Empowerment of Local Communities’,
Tourism Management 20(2): 245–49.
——(2002) Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities, Harlow: Pearson
Education Ltd.
——(2007) ‘Exploring the Tourism-poverty Nexus’, Current Issues in Tourism 10(2/3):
231–54.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996) ‘The Link between
Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness’, European
Journal of Marketing 30(5): 35–55.
Schmoll, G.A. (1977) Tourism Promotion, London: Tourism International Press.
Schultz, P.W. and Zelezny, L. (1999) ‘Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes:
Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries’, Journal of Environmental Psychology
19: 255–65.
Schwartz, S.H. (1970) ‘Elicitation of Moral Obligation and Self-sacrificing Behaviour:
An Experimental Study of Volunteering to be a Bone Marrow Donor’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 15(4): 283–93.
——(1992) ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances
and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries’, No. 25, in M.P. Zanna (ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, California, 1–65.
——(1994) ‘Are there Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human
Values?’ Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 19–45.
——(2009) ‘Basic Human Values’, www.ccsr.ac.uk/qmss/seminars/2009-06…/
Shalom_Schwartz_1.pdf (accessed 4 September 2012).
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987) ‘Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of
Human Values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(3): 550–62.
Schwartz, S.H. and Howard, J.A. (1980) ‘Explanations of the Moderating Effect of
Responsibility Denial on the Personal Norm-behaviour Relationship’, Social
Psychology Quarterly 43(4): 441–46.
Self, R.M., Self, D.R. and Bel-Haynes, J. (2010) ‘Marketing Tourism in the Galapagos
Islands: Ecotourism or Greenwashing?’ International Business and Economics
Research Journal 9(6): 111–26.
Seligman, C., Syme, G.J. and Gilchrist, R. (1994) ‘The Role of Values and Ethical
Principles in Judgements of Environmental Dilemmas’, Journal of Social Issues 50(3):
105–19.
Shao, W., Lye, A. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2008) ‘Decision, Decisions, Decisions: Multiple
Pathways to Choose’, International Journal of Market Research 50(6): 797–816.
Sharpley, R. (1999) Tourism, Tourists and Society, 2nd edn, Huntingdon: ELM Publications.
——(2000) ‘Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide’,
154 Bibliography
——(2006) ‘Ecotourism: A Consumption Perspective’, Journal of Ecotourism 5(1/2): 7–22.
——(2013) ‘Responsible Tourism: Whose Responsibility?’ in A. Holden and D.A. Fennell
(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, Abingdon: Routledge,
382–91.
Sharpley, R. and Sundaram, P. (2005) ‘Tourism: A Scared Journey? A Case of Ashram
Tourism, India’, International Journal of Tourism Research 7(3): 161–71.
Shaw, D. (2005) ‘Modelling Consumer Decision Making in Fair Trade’, in R. Harrison,
T. Newholm and D. Shaw (eds) The Ethical Consumer, London: Sage Publications,
137–53.
Shaw, D. and Clarke, I. (1999) ‘Belief Formation in Ethical Consumer Groups: An
Exploratory Study’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 17(2): 109–19.
Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L. and Thomson, J. (2005) ‘An Exploration of
Values in Ethical Consumer Decision-making’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(3):
185–200.
Shaw, D. and Moraes, C. (2009) ‘Voluntary Simplicity: An Exploration of Market
Interactions’, International Journal of Consumer Studies 33(2): 215–23.
Shaw, D. and Newholm, T. (2002) ‘Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption’,
Psychology and Marketing 19(2): 167–85.
Shaw, D., Newholm, T. and Dickinson, R. (2006) ‘Consumption as Voting: An
Exploration of Consumer Empowerment’, European Journal of Marketing 40(9/10):
1049–67.
Shaw, D. and Riach, K. (2011) ‘Embracing Ethical Fields: Constructing Consumption
in the Margins’, European Journal of Marketing 45(7/8): 1051–67.
Shaw, D. and Shiu, E. (2003) ‘Ethics in Consumer Choice: A Multivariate Modelling
Approach’, European Journal of Marketing 37(10): 1485–98.
Shaw, D. Shiu, E. and Clarke, I. (2000) ‘The Contribution of Ethical Obligation and
Self-identity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour: An Exploration of Ethical
Consumers’, Journal of Marketing Management 16: 879–94.
Shaw, D., Shiu, E., Hogg, G., Wilson, E. and Hassan, L. (2004) Fashion Victim? The
Impact of Sweatshop Concerns on Clothing Choice, Presented at 33rd EMAC conference,
18–24 May, Murcia, Spain.
Shepherd, D.A., Kuskova, V. and Patzelt, H. (2008) ‘Measuring the Values that
Underlie Sustainable Development: The Development of a Valid Scale’, Journal of
Economic Psychology 30(2): 246–56.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J. and Leelakulthanit, O. (1994) ‘A Cross-cultural Study of
Moral Philosophies, Ethical Perceptions and Judgements: A Comparison of American
and Thai Marketers’, International Marketing Review 11(6): 65–78.
Smallman, C. and Moore, K. (2010) ‘Process Studies of Tourists’ Decision-making’,
Smith, R. and Duffy, M. (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development, London:
Routledge.
SNV (2009) ‘The Market for Responsible Tourism Products’, SNV, Netherlands
Development Organisation, www.snvworld.org (accessed 3 August 2010).
Snyder, K.A. and Sulle, E.B. (2011) ‘Tourism in Maasai Communities: A Chance to
Improve Livelihoods?’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(8): 935–51.
Sofield, T., Bauer, J., de Lacy, T., Lipman, G. and Daugherty, S. (2004) Sustainable
Tourism – Eliminating Poverty: An Overview, Australian Cooperative Research
Centre for Sustainable Tourism, www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/…
/st-ep_overview3.pdf (accessed 4 January 2013).
Bibliography 155
Soron, D. (2010) ‘Sustainability, Self-identity and the Sociology of Consumption’,
Sustainable Development 18: 172–81, www.interscience.wiley.com (accessed 8 July
2010).
Sparks, B. (2007) ‘Planning a Wine Vacation? Factors that Help to Predict Tourist
Behavioural Intentions’, Tourism Management 28(5): 1180–92.
Sparks, B., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. (1995) ‘Assessing and Structuring Attitudes
Towards the Use of Gene Technology in Food Production: The Role of Perceived
Ethical Obligation’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 16(3): 267–85.
Spenceley, A. (2008) ‘Responsible Tourism in South Africa’, in A. Spenceley (ed.)
Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, Gateshead:
Earthscan, 1–24.
Standish, A. (2004) The New Moral Tourism. Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman,
www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/alex-standish/ (accessed 2 December 2012).
Stanford, D. (2008) ‘“Exceptional” Visitors: Dimensions of Tourist Responsibility in
the Context of New Zealand’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(3): 258–75.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009) ‘Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: An Integrative
Review and Research Agenda’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–17.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Guagnano, G.A. (1998) ‘A Brief Inventory of Values’,
Educational and Psychological Measurement 58(6): 984–1006.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993) ‘Value Orientations, Gender and Environ-
mental Concern’, Environment and Behaviour 25(3): 322–48.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T. and Jaeger, C.C. (2001) ‘The Psychology of Denial
Concerning Climate Mitigation Measures: Evidence from Swiss Focus Groups’,
Global Environmental Change 11: 107–17.
Straughan, R.D. and Roberts, J. (1999) ‘Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A
Look at Green Consumer Behaviour in the New Millennium’, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 16(6): 558–75.
Strong, C. (1996) ‘Features Contributing to the Growth of Ethical Consumerism – A
Preliminary Investigation’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 14(5): 5–13.
——(1997) ‘The Problems of Translating Fair Trade Principles into Consumer Purchase
Behaviour’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15(1): 32–37.
Sussmann, S. and Unel, A. (1999) ‘Destination Image and its Modification after Travel:
An Empirical Study on Turkey’, in A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld (eds) Consumer
Behaviour in Travel and Tourism, New York: Haworth Hospitality Press, 207–26.
Swaidan, Z., Rawwas, M.Y.A. and Vitell, S.J. (2008) ‘Culture and Moral Ideologies of
African Americans’, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 16(2): 127–37.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, Wallingford: CAB International.
Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. and McEachern, M.G. (2009) ‘The Conscious Consumer:
Taking a Flexible Approach to Ethical Behaviour’, International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies 33(2): 224–31.
Tallontire, A. (2001) Challenges Facing Fair Trade: Which Way Now? Paper presented
at DSA conference, ‘Different Poverties, Different Policies’, IDPM, Manchester, 10–
12 September, www.esocialsciences.org/ … /repecDownload.aspx?fname (accessed 3
September 2003).
Tallontire, A., Rentsendorj, E. and Blowfield, M. (2001) ‘Ethical Consumers and
Ethical Trade: A Review of Current Literature’, Policy Series 12, Chatham UK:
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich.
Tearfund (2000a) A Tearfund Guide to Tourism: Don’t Forget your Ethics! Teddington:
Tearfund, www.tearfund.org (accessed 11 January 2000).
156 Bibliography
——(2000b) Tourism: An Ethical Issue, January, www.tearfund.org (accessed 11
January 2000).
——(2001) Tourism: Putting Ethics into Practice, January, www.tearfund.org (accessed
20 February 2001).
——(2002) Worlds Apart: A Call to Responsible Tourism, January, www.tearfund.org
Thomas, C.B., Jr (1986) ‘Values as Predictors of Social Activist Behaviour’, Human
Relations 39(3): 179–93.
Thomas Cook Group PLC (2011) Annual Report & Accounts, www.thomascookgroup.
com/home (accessed 10 October 2012).
Thrane, C. (1997) ‘Values as Segmentation Criteria in Tourism Research: The Norwegian
Monitor Approach’, Tourism Management 18(2): 111–13.
Thyne, M. (2001) ‘The Importance of Values Research for Non-profit Organisations: The
Motivation-based Values of Museum Visitors’, International Journal of Non-profit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 6(2): 116–30.
Thyne, M. and Lawson, R. (2000) ‘Values as a Basis for Understanding Motivations
Towards Accommodation and Activity Choices’, in M. Robinson, P. Long,
N. Evans, R. Sharpley and J. Swarbrooke (eds) Motivations, Behaviour and Tourist
Types: Reflections on International Tourism, Sunderland: Business Education Publishers
Ltd, 431–54.
Timothy, D.J. and Olsen, D.H. (eds) (2006) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys,
Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Tosun, C. (2002) ‘Host Perception of Impact: A Comparative Tourism Study’, Annals
of Tourism Research 29(1): 231–53.
TravelMole (2007) ‘Opodo Charts Rise of “Ethical Tourism”’, 9 March, www.travelmole.
com/stories (accessed 12 March 2007).
Tsiotsou, R. and Ratten, V. (2010) ‘Future Research Directions in Tourism Marketing’,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28(4): 533–44.
Tu, P.P.-N. (2011) ‘A Study of Influential Authors, Works and Research Network of
Consumer Behavior Research’, African Journal of Business Management 5(23):
9838–54.
Tucker, L.R. (1980) ‘Identifying the Environmentally Responsible Consumer: The Role of
Internal-external Control of Reinforcements’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 14(2): 326–40.
TUI Travel PLC (2011) Annual Report 2011, www.tuitravelplc.com (accessed 10
October 2012).
UNEP and TOI (United Nations Environment Programme and Tour Operator
Initiative) (2005) Integrating Sustainability into Business: A Management Guide for
Tour Operations, www.toinitiative.org/ … /Sustainability_in_Business-Management.
pdf (accessed 12 December 2012).
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) (1999) Ethics and Social
Dimensions of Tourism. Global Code of Ethics, www.ethics.unwto.org/en/content/
global-code-ethics-tourism (accessed 2 December 2012).
——(2010) Tourism and the Millennium Developments Goals (MDGs), www.icr.unwto.org/
en/content/tourism-millennium-development-goals-mdgs (accessed 2 December 2012).
——(2011) Tourism Towards 2030: Global Overview, www.pub.unwto.org/…
/111014_TT_2030_global_overview_excerpt.pdf (accessed 20 November 2012).
——(2012a) International Tourism to Reach One Billion in 2012, www.media.unwto.
org/en/press-release/2012-01-16/international-tourism-reach-one-billion-2012 (accessed
3 October 2012).
Bibliography 157
——(2012b) Presentation: World Tourism Performance 2011 and Outlook 2012,
www.media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-01-16/international-tourism-reach-one-
billion-2012 (accessed 20 November 2012).
Urien, B. and Kilbourne, W.E. (2011) ‘Generativity and Self-enhancement Values in
Eco-friendly Behavioural Intentions and Environmentally Responsible Consumption
Behaviour’, Psychology and Marketing 28(1): 69–90.
Uusitalo, O. and Oksanen, R. (2004) ‘Ethical Consumerism: A View from Finland’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(3): 214–21.
van de Ven, B. (2008) ‘An Ethical Framework for the Marketing of Corporate Social
Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 82(2): 339–52.
Varul, M.Z. (2009) ‘Ethical Selving in Cultural Contexts: Fairtrade Consumption as
an Everyday Ethical Practice in the UK and Germany’, International Journal of
Consumer Studies 33(2): 183–89.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, V. (2006) ‘Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the
Consumer “Attitude-Behavioural-Intention” Gap’, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 19(2): 169–94.
Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E. and Lamont, L.M. (1977) ‘The Role of Personal Values in
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour’, Journal of Marketing (April): 44–50.
Vitell, S.J. and Paulillo, J.G.P. (2004) ‘A Cross-cultural Study of the Antecedents of the
Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility’, Business Ethics: A European
Review 13(2/3): 185–99.
Vogt, C.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1998) ‘Expanding the Functional Informational
Search Model’, Annals of Tourism Research 25(3): 551–78.
VSO and The Guardian (2000) WorldWise: How to Get More from your Holiday, joint
travel publication, VSO/The Guardian.
Wagner, S.A. (2003) Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour: A Qualitative Cogni-
tive Approach, London: Routledge.
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S.A. and Tadajewski, M. (2006) ‘Cognitive Anthropology, Bricolage
and the Problem Solving Behaviour of Green Consumers’, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 5(3): 235–44.
Wahab, S., Crampon, S.L. and Rothfield, L.M. (1976) Tourism Marketing, London:
Tourism International Press.
Wanderlust (2004) ‘Reader Survey’, in Mintel, Sustainable Tourism in the Travel Industry,
February, Mintel Publishing Group, www.mintel.com (accessed 5 June 2008).
Watkins, L. and Gnoth, J. (2005) ‘Methodological Issues in Using Kahle’s List of
Values Scale for Japanese Tourism Behaviour’, Journal of Vacation Marketing 11(3):
225–33.
Wearing, S. (2002) ‘Re-centring the Self in Volunteer Tourism’, in G.S. Dann (ed.)
The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World, Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CAB
International, 237–62.
Webster, F.E., Jr (1975) ‘Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious
Consumer’, Journal of Consumer Research 2(3): 188–96.
Weeden, C. (2002) ‘Ethical Tourism: An Opportunity for Competitive Advantage?’
Journal of Vacation Marketing 8(2): 141–53.
——(2005a) ‘Ethical vs. Niche Tourism: Is the Future of Ethical Tourism in Niche
Tourism?’ in M. Novelli (ed.) Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and
Cases, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 233–45.
——(2005b) ‘A Qualitative Approach to the Ethical Consumer: The Use of Focus
Groups for Cognitive Consumer Research in Tourism’, in B.W. Ritchie, P.M. Burns
158 Bibliography
and C. Palmer (eds) Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice,
Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CAB International, 179–90.
——(2008) ‘The Values of Ethical and Responsible Tourists’, unpublished thesis,
University of Glasgow.
——(2011) ‘Responsible Tourist Motivation: How Valuable is the Schwartz Value
Survey?’ Journal of Ecotourism 10(3): 214–34.
Weeden, C, and Boluk, K. (n.d.) (eds) ‘Managing Ethical Consumption in Tourism:
Compromise and Tension’, London: Routledge, forthcoming.
Weeden, C., Jarvis, N.D. and White, S. (n.d.) ‘Membership of the New Forest Green
Leaf Tourism Scheme: An Exploration of the Commercial and Environmental
Motivations Among Tourism and Hospitality Micro-SMEs’, in I. Pantelidis (ed.)
Handbook of Hospitality, London: Routledge, forthcoming.
Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) ‘Extreme, Extravagant and Elite: A Profile of
Ecotourists on Earthwatch Expeditions’, Tourism Recreation Research 20(1): 29–36.
Wheat, S. (1998) ‘A World to the Wise’, The Guardian, 19 December.
Wheeler, M. (1994) ‘The Emergence of Ethics in Tourism and Hospitality’, in
C. Cooper and A. Lockwood (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality
Management, Vol. 6, University of Surrey, Belhaven Press, 46–56.
Wheeller, B. (1991) ‘Tourism’s Troubled Times: Responsible Tourism is not the
Answer’, Tourism Management 12(2): 91–96.
——(1992) ‘Alternative Tourism – A Deceptive Ploy?’ in C. Cooper and A. Lockwood
(eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 4, University
of Surrey, Belhaven Press, 140–45.
——(1993) ‘Sustaining the Ego’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(2): 121–29.
——(1997) ‘Tourism’s Troubled Times: Responsible Tourism is not the Answer’, in
L. France (ed.) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism, London: Earthscan
Publishers Ltd, 61–67.
Whelan, S. and Davies, G. (2006) ‘Profiling Consumers of Own Brands and National
Brands Using Human Personality’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13:
393–402.
Wicker, A.W. (1969) ‘Attitudes Versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and
Overt Behavioural Responses to Attitude Objects’, Journal of Social Issues 25(4):
41–78.
Wight, P. (1993) ‘Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-sell?’ Journal of Travel Research 31(3):
3–9.
Wilkinson, K. (1992) ‘Tourism – the Curse of the Nineties? Belize – an Experiment
to Integrate Tourism and the Environment’, Community Development Journal 27(4):
386–95.
Williams, J. and Lawson, R. (2001) ‘Community Issues and Resident Opinions of
Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 28(2): 269–90.
Wilson, G.B. (2010) ‘Exploring Travel and Spirituality: The Role of Travel in Facilitating
Life Purpose and Meaning within the Lives of Individuals’, unpublished thesis,
University of Waikato.
Winter, C. (2007) ‘The Intrinsic and Spiritual Values of Natural Area Visitors and the
General Public: A Comparative Study’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6): 599–614.
Witkowski, T.H. (2005) ‘Fair Trade Marketing: An Alternative System for Globalisation
and Development’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 13(4): 22–33.
Woodside, A.G. and Lysonski, S. (1989) ‘A General Model of Traveller Destination
Choice’, Journal of Travel Research 27(4): 8–14.
Bibliography 159
WTTC (World Travel & Tourism Council) (2012) Travel and Tourism Economic
Impact 2012, www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/world2012.pdf (accessed
3 October 2012).
Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2007) ‘Environmental Concern and Socio-demographic
Variables: A Study of Statistical Models’, The Journal of Environmental Education
38(2): 3–13.
Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985) ‘Measuring the Involvement Construct’, Journal of Consumer
Research 12(3): 341–52.
Index
Achievement 95; see also values, value Coping strategies and decisional
types trade-offs 108, 113, 130–31; see also
Advertising see marketing psychology of denial
Affinity marketing see social Corporate Social Responsibility
marketing (CSR) 14–15
Alternative Tourism see tourism
Altruism xi, 38, 65,132 Decision-making xii, 18–29;
Anti-consumption 113–14 consideration sets xii, 22; dissonance
Attitudes xii, 24–26, 44–45; attitude- 25, 108; 113; intentions 25–26;
behaviour gap xi, 25, 36, 39, 42, 56, involvement xii, 23; models of 18–20;
130–31; in environmental behaviour personality 36–37; self-identity 37;
27; research in tourism 27 values in 25, 28
Authenticity 78–83, 85, 96, 121, 133; see Demand see responsible tourism
also value types Dissonance see decision-making
Beliefs see values Empowerment see sharing

Belonging 91–93, 97; see also values, Environment 2; (re)connecting with 96
value types Environmental impact of tourism 2; of
Benevolence see value types flying 74–79, 104–5
BRIC countries 134 Environmental stewardship 74–79, 93,
Brundtland Report (Our Common 95, 105–6, 111; see also value types
Future) 5 Ethical clutter see marketing
Buy holiday from tour operator in Ethical consumer(s) x-xii, 27, 30–32, 34,
country of destination 87–88 38, 70–71, 90–91, 110–12, 131–32;
coping strategies and decisional trade-
Carbon emissions see flights offs 25, 108, 130–32; holiday choices
Carson, R. 4 90; typologies 30–32, 35, 43, 48;
Climate change 134–35 see also market UK 30–34; studies 30–39,
psychology of denial 43–45; values 70–71, 100–108; see also
Communicate with locals 79–80 value types
Connecting with people on holiday Ethical consumption x-xii, 32, 36, 40,
86–87, 94 130
Consumer cynicism, scepticism of Ethical/ green wash 16, 38–39, 43, 113,
marketing, media 16, 38, 115–17, 115–17, 130
130; see also Information Ethical selving xi, 37–38, 129–30
overload Ethical tourism x, xii, 41; awareness of
Cooperation 96; see also value types 42, 46–47; demand x, 15–16
Cooperative Bank, Ethical Consumers Ethics: Global code of 5; in mass
Market Report 32–34 consumption 31–32; in tourism x, 11,
Index 161
112–13, 134; of photography 86; Means-End Chain Theory 71, 91, 132;
tourist confusion about 16, 90, 124 hierarchical value map 92; summary
Equality 10, 97; see also value types ladder 92
Equity 41, 95; see also values, value Media, influence on demand for
types responsible tourism 106, 116
Mintel market research x-xi, 44–47, 118,
Fairness 41; see also values, value 122, 130
types Moral development, see Kohlberg
Fair Trade xi, 31–32, 117, 121; in Moral obligation 38–39, 76–78
tourism 6–7, 9–10, 121–24; Fair Trade Motivation, tourist xii, 20–28; see also
in Tourism South Africa (FFTSA) decision-making
6,10, 122–23; mainstreaming of Multinational corporations, distrust of
117–18; principles of 118, 122 74
Fennell, D. x, 11, 50, 103, 133
Flights see environmental impact; Nostalgia 83, 97
psychology of denial
Freedom 95; see also values, value types Observe local customs and dress
appropriately 80–81; see also value
Green muting see marketing types
Guilt 88
Perceived behavioural control 26; see
Happiness see hedonism also locus of control
Hedonism 96, 104–6; see also value Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
types 26, 39, 42, 56, 97, 103, 108; see also
Human rights 78, 123 attitudes
Personality see decision-making
Inequality 2 Power 73–74; of consumer 107–8; see
Information overload 124, 133 also value types
Inner peace see spirituality; values; Psychology of denial 113–14, 134–35;
values types see also responsible tourist intentions
Innocent Smoothies see marketing Public transport 74–79
ethical products and services
Intentions see decision-making Rainbow Tours 121, 126
International Centre for Responsible Rawls, J. 15 see also social justice
Tourism (ICRT) 127 Respect 10, 13, 94; mutual 79–8; see also
value types
Kalisch, A. 10, 122–23; see also fair Responsible tourism x-xii, 112, 121–24;
trade in tourism consumer demand for 14, 16–17,
Kohlberg, L. 103–4 45–46; 112–13, 118–19; definition 13;
Krippendorf, J. 3–4 holidays x-xii, 1, 117–18; tour
operators x, 43, 84–86, 111–13;
Laddering interviews 71, 91 tourism market 44; tourism
Lasting contribution 96; see also value marketing, promotion 120–21, 125
types Responsible tourist(s) xii, 13, 39–43;
Leakage 72–74 future research 134–36; intentions
Locus of control 26, 39, 55–56 130–32; marketing to 126–28;
motivation 99–108; research about
Mainstreaming 117–21, 124–25, 133 43–47, 129–34; values 93–98;
Market research see Mintel, Tearfund Responsibletravel.com 126–27
Marketing: public cynicism 16–17, 43; Responsibility 14–15, 73–78, 91, 94,
distrust of, 115–17; ethical products 113–14, 121, 127, 133
and services 114–20; responsible Rokeach, M. xiii, 28, 50; Rokeach Value
tourism 110–13, 120–21; social Survey (RVS) 51–53, 56; see also
124–26 values
162 Index
Schwartz, S. xiii, 28, 38; Schwartz Value based tourism (CBT) 7–8, 10; criticism of
Survey (SVS) 56–60, 91, 132; see also mass 40, 43, 131; economic benefit xii, 23,
value types, altruism 72–74, 84–85, 87–88, 125; ecotourism 7,
Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. 56, 100; 8, 48; ecotourist 47; egotourism 12;
see also values environmental impact of 2; ethical xii, 11;
Self-identity see decision-making justice 7, 10; pro-poor (PPT) 7,
Sharing 94, 107; see also equity, fairness, 9–10; responsible 1, 7, 12–14; social
value types impact of 2, 3, 12, 80–81; success of
Shaw, D. 31, 36, 38, 5159, 61–63, 108 1–2; sustainable development in 6;
Simplicity, voluntary see sustainable sustainable xii, 2, 6–7,122–23;
lifestyles Tourism stakeholders 2, 11, 110–12
Sixth Sense Transport Research Project Tour operators xi, 16, 43, 111;
135; see also responsible tourist future responsible 84–86, 132–33; supply
research chain 7; see also SMEs/SMMEs
Slow travel 79 Travel independently 72–73
Small, medium-sized enterprises TUI Travel plc 14
(SMEs)/ Small, medium and micro-
sized enterprises x, 16, 112, 120, 123,
Use public transport/ avoid flying on
126, 133
holiday 74–78
Social desirability bias xi, 27–28, 130
United Nations World Tourism
Social justice 15–16, 40; 123
Organisation (UNWTO) 1, 5–6, 15,
Social marketing 124–26
126; Millennium Development Goals
Social practice 129, 131
(MDG) 5
Spend time outdoors 79
Universalism see value types
Spirituality 67, 96, 106–7
Stay in eco-cabin, on organic farm,
camp-site 83–84 Value system 49
Stay in locally owned accommodation Values xii, 28, 49, 51–60; circumplex 61;
81–82 in ethical consumption 61–66, 131; of
Stay off the ‘beaten track’ 82–83 ethical consumers 62–65, 70–71;
Support local enterprise 73–74 formation 49–51; LOV 54–56; of
Sustainable development 1, 4–7; values responsible tourists 91–98; in tourist
in 52; lifestyles 83–84, 97, 133 studies 66–69; VALS 54–55; see also
decision-making; value types
Tearfund market research x-xi, 44–46 Volunteering 87
Theory of Planned Behaviour 26–27 Value types 59–61, 99–108;
Theory of Reasoned Action 25 – 7 achievement 102–3; benevolence
Thrift 73, 87, 97 101–2; hedonism 104–6; inner peace
Tourism Concern 41, 47, 70 and spirituality 106–7; power 107–8;
Tourism: attitudes research in 27–28; stimulation and self direction 103–4;
alternative xii, 3–4, 7, 43; community- universalism 101
View publication stats

Clare Weeden.2014.Responsible Tourist Behaviour

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clare Weeden.2014.Responsible Tourist Behaviour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Responsible Tourist Behaviour

Article · August 2013

Critical explorations in tourism View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Responsible Tourist Behaviour

What is important to ethical consumers when thinking about going on

 The ethical dilemmas associated with tourism

Dr Clare Weeden is a Senior Lecturer in tourism and marketing at the

Routledge Advances in Tourism

1. The Sociology of Tourism 9. Leisure and Tourism Landscapes

3. Destinations 11. Tourism and Gastronomy

12. New Perspectives in Caribbean

16. Advances in Tourism Destination 25. International Sports Events

18. Tourist Customer Service 28. Future Tourism

23. Tourism Supply Chain Dark Tourism and Crime

Responsible Tourist Behaviour

First published 2014

ISBN 978-0-415-57399-3 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

2 Consumer decision making and tourist motivation 18

3 Ethical consumers and the responsible tourist 30

4 Values and ethical consumption 49

6 What values tell us about responsible tourists 90

7 Marketing responsible tourism 110

8 Concluding thoughts 129

I have been interested in ethical tourism and responsible tourist behaviour

Special thanks are due to Dr Xavier Font (Co-Director of the International

The success of tourism?

Sustainable development in tourism

… common goal must be to develop and promote new forms of tourism,

in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investment, the

Receiving enthusiastic support from governments, nongovernmental organi-

The understanding and promotion of the ethical values common to

Having identiﬁed poverty as a key challenge to future global development,

The precise deﬁnition of ecotourism is still a subject of much debate;

Community-based tourism (CBT)

Pro-poor tourism (PPT)

Fair trade and tourism

because it seeks to build solidarity between visitors and those visited, it

… the association of tourism with innocence, fun and adventure, has

Sympathy with Butcher’s perspective is easy to ﬁnd, as modern tourists seek

My wife and I had personal experience of this new agenda on an organised

This comment, although not at all scientiﬁcally representative, implies that

Responsible tourism has been a buzzword in the tourism industry for a

[a] business and consumer response to some of the major economic,

All forms of tourism, alternative and mass alike … it embraces a quadruple

Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the

Rawls’s theory is based on two principles of justice: ﬁrst, each person is to

2 Consumer decision making and

Decision making models

Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 19

20 Consumer decision making & tourist motivation

Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 21

22 Consumer decision making & tourist motivation

Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 23

24 Consumer decision making & tourist motivation

Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 25

Theory of reasoned action (TRA)

26 Consumer decision making & tourist motivation

Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

Perceived consumer eﬀectiveness (PCE)

Consumer decision making & tourist motivation 27

The ethical dilemmas associated with tourism