Tourism andhttp://thr.sagepub.

com/
Hospitality Research

The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect
the environment on tourists' intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives
Therese Hedlund
Tourism and Hospitality Research 2011 11: 278
DOI: 10.1177/1467358411423330

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://thr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/278

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Tourism and Hospitality Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://thr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://thr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://thr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/278.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 22, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Article
Tourism and Hospitality Research
11(4) 278–288
The impact of values, environmental ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
concern, and willingness to accept sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358411423330

economic sacrifices to protect the thr.sagepub.com

environment on tourists’ intentions

to buy ecologically sustainable
tourism alternatives

Therese Hedlund
Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden

Abstract
The present study examines the impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic
sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alter-
natives. The data were collected in a web-based survey and analysed by using structural equation modeling.
The results show that universalism is related to environmental concern in the hypothesized direction.
Significant positive relationships were found between environmental concern and the willingness to accept
economic sacrifices to protect the environment, as well as between environmental concern and the intentions
to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Further, a positive relationship was found between
willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment and the intentions to buy ecologically
sustainable tourism alternatives. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords
environmental concern, sustainable tourism, values, vacation choices, willingness to pay

community’ (Swarbrooke, 1999, p. 13). This study

Introduction
Tourism is a growing industry and is expected to grow
even further in the nearest years to come (World
Travel and Tourism Council, 2010). Even though
tourism is positive for a host region in many ways,
the growth of tourism and travelling leads to an
increased strain on our environment. A shift towards
more sustainable tourism behaviour would therefore
have beneficial environmental effects. Sustainable
tourism is attracting increasing attention in the indus-
try (Butler, 1991; Dowling and Fennell, 2003).
However, the market share is still marginal.
Sustainable tourism, as created by the tourism
industry, can be defined as ‘tourism which is econom-
ically viable but does not destroy the resources on
which the future tourism will depend, notably the
physical environment and the social fabric of the host
takes as its starting point the definition made by the
tourism industry and from this tourist’s intentions to
consciously consider alternatives which they judge as
more environmentally friendly are examined.
Consequently, whether or not the definition as made
by the tourism industry live up to the ecological sys-
tems conditions, as defined by science, (for instance,
Solomon et al., 2007) is not targeted here.
Previous research has shown an existing relation-
ship between individuals’ values, attitudes (environ-
mental concerns), and behaviour (Ekinici and Chen,
2002; Steg et al., 2005; Wurzinger and Johansson,
Corresponding author:
Therese Hedlund, Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, 901
87 Umeå, Sweden
Email: therese.hedlund@usbe.umu.se

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund
2006; Hansla et al., 2008a; Bergin-Seers and Mair,
2009; Mehmetoglu et al., 2010). Also, tourists vary
in environmental concern and value orientation
(Formica and Uysal, 2002; Fairweather et al., 2005;
Wurzinger and Johansson, 2006; Mehmetoglu, 2010),
and both factors may have an influence on tourists’
intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviours.
The present study examines value orientation and
environmental concern as determinants of intended
ecologically sustainable tourism behaviour.
In order to examine if tourists take on any respon-
sibility of their own in the area of sustainable tourism,
several studies have examined tourists’ willingness to
pay for environmental protection (e.g. Lindsey and
Holmes, 2002; Scott et al., 2003; Becken, 2007;
Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Dodds et al., 2010). A
relationship between values and consumers’ willing-
ness to pay for green products have been identified
by, for example, Laroche et al. (2001), Hansla et al.
(2008b), and Hansla (2011). Further, Thøgersen
(2000) conclude that individuals’ willingness to pay
for environmental protection predicts the attention
paid to pro-environmental products. As of today,
many ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives are
more expensive than their less sustainable counter-
parts. Hence, tourists need to be willing to pay more
in order to be more ecologically sustainable. It is there-
fore important to examine the determinants of tour-
ists’ willingness to pay for environmental protection,
and if this willingness is influencing intentions to pur-
chase ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives.
Prior research has identified several key factors
motivating environmentally conscious behaviour (see
Laroche et al., 2001, for a review). In order to better
understand green behavioural intentions in the tour-
ism context, the purpose of the present study is to
develop and test a model that explains the potential
influence of tourists’ value orientation, environmental
concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices
to protect the environment on ecologically sustainable
buying intentions. The findings of this study will
increase the understanding of what determines ecolog-
ically sustainable buying intentions, which may be
important for successful marketing of sustainable tour-
ism alternatives. Moreover, the study clarifies how the
chosen determinants relate to each other.
Values and value orientation
Previous research has shown that values may play an
important role in relation to environmental problems
(Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Karp, 1996). Studies
have stated that there is a link between individuals’
values and their expressed environmental concern
(Stern et al., 1995; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002;
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
279
Schultz et al., 2005; Steg et al., 2005; De Groot and
Steg, 2006; Oreg and Gerro, 2006; Hansla et al.,
2008a). Research has also shown a positive relation-
ship between attitudes (e.g. environmental concerns)
and green buying intentions (Schlegelmilch et al.,
1996; Kim and Choi, 2005) as well as between
values, attitudes, and behavioural intentions (Homer
and Kahle, 1988; Vaske and Donnelly, 1999;
Honkanen and Verplanken, 2004).
Values are conceptualized as guiding principles cen-
tral in people’s life. Similar values cluster together and
form an individual’s value orientation (Rokeach, 1973;
see Rohan, 2000, for an analysis of the value con-
struct). Schwartz’s (1992) classification of human
values states that people’s motivational structures are
the basis for 10 distinct value types that vary along two
dimensions: openness to change versus conservation,
and self-transcendence versus self-enhancement.
Research examining the relationship between values
and environmental behaviour has exclusively focused
on the self-transcendence and self-enhancement con-
tinuum (Schultz et al., 2005). There are four universal
value types that underlie this continuum; universalism
and benevolence are included in the self-transcendence
value orientation, whereas power and achievement are
parts of the self-enhancement value orientation
(Schultz and Zelezny, 1999; Schultz, 2001).
Universalism includes altruism towards humankind
and comprises values such as equality, social justice,
and peace on earth, whereas benevolence encompasses
altruism towards in-groups (primarily kins) and
includes values such as being helpful, forgiving, and
responsible (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Rubel-
Lifschitz, 2009). These value types have been shown
to have a positive relationship with pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviour. The goals of power values is to
attain social power, authority, and wealth, and these are
opposite to the goals of universalism in Schwartz’s
(1992) value structure (Hansla et al., 2008a; Schwartz
and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009), whereas achievement
includes values such as success, capability, and ambi-
tion that is opposite to benevolence in the self-enhance-
ment-to-self-transcendence continuum (Schwartz,
1992; Hansla et al., 2008a). These value types have a
negative relationship with pro-environmental attitudes
and behaviour, even if the differences between them
suggest that they may influence attitudes and behaviour
differently (Hansla et al., 2008a). Schwartz and Rubel-
Lifschitz (2009) state that it is difficult to pursue both
self-transcendence and self-enhancement values simul-
taneously. As a result, a person emphasizing one causes
her or him de-emphasizing the other. The self-trans-
cendence versus self-enhancement continuum has in
previous studies been shown to have a relationship
with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour
280
(Schultz et al., 2005), and it is therefore suggested that
those with a self-transcendent value orientation will be
more pro-environmental in their behavioural intentions
than those with a self-enhancement value orientation.
Several studies have examined the relationship
between values, attitudes, and behaviour in different
contexts. Poortinga et al. (2004) examined the role of
values for household energy use. The study defined
seven different value dimensions and the results
showed that human values were clearly linked to both
environmental concern and different types of environ-
mental behaviour. People who valued environmental
quality had a higher environmental concern. A negative
relationship was found between the self-enhancement
value dimension and environmental concern. Vaske
and Donnelly’s (1999) results in the wildlife preserva-
tion context showed that a biocentric/anthropocentric
(nature-centred/human-centred) value orientation
continuum predicted attitude and that attitude medi-
ated the relationship between value orientation and
behavioural intentions. A study by Homer and Kahle
(1988) showed that values affect attitude and attitudes
influence behaviour in the context of natural food shop-
ping. Honkanen and Verplanken (2004) concluded that
the value types universalism and hedonism influenced
the intention to buy genetically modified food with atti-
tude as a mediator.
A number of tourism studies have shown a relation-
ship between values and tourist behaviour (Boote, 1981;
Pitts and Woodside, 1986; Pizam and Calantone, 1987;
Dalen, 1989; Muller, 1991; Madigral and Kahle, 1994;
McCleary and Choi, 1999; Ekinici and Chen, 2002;
Mehmetoglu et al., 2010). In the area of ecologically sus-
tainable tourism, a study by Fairweather et al. (2005)
focused on the relationship between the anthropocentric
and biocentric value orientations of visitors to a destina-
tion in New Zealand and their response to eco labels. The
results demonstrated a cluster of people with biocentric
values but no people with anthropocentric values were
identified. This was explained as a consequence of few
visitors with an exploitative view of the environment.
Instead, the results showed a cluster of people, which
they labelled ambivalent. The respondents with a bio-
spheric value orientation had a positive attitude towards
the environment and showed an interest in eco labels.
They were also more likely than the ambivalents to
worry about their travel behaviour in relation to the envi-
ronment and they were more willing to spend money to
reduce the impact their travel had on the environment.
However, only 13 per cent of the sample had ever heard
about tourism eco labels. Yet, biospheric visitors had to a
greater degree heard about tourism eco labels than
ambivalent visitors. The results thus showed that a rela-
tionship between value orientation and the response to
ecologically sustainable tourism exists.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Environmental concern
Bamberg (2003) states that the term environmental
concern emanates from the political discourse where
it is used to refer to ‘the whole range of environmen-
tally related perceptions, emotions, knowledge, atti-
tudes, values and behaviours’ (p. 21). Previous
research has defined environmental concern as an atti-
tude towards a general or specific environmental issue
(e.g. Fransson and Gärling, 1999). Many studies have
examined the relationship between environmental
concern and environmentally related behaviour. They
show that a strong environmental concern increase the
likelihood of pro-environmental behaviour (e.g.
Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Minton and Rose, 1997;
Roberts and Bacon, 1997; Thøgersen, 2000;
Bamberg, 2003; Kim and Choi, 2005). It has also
been shown that individuals’ values influence their
environmental concern (Stern et al., 1995; Nordlund
and Garvill, 2002; Schultz et al., 2005; Steg et al.,
2005; Oreg and Gerro, 2006; Hansla et al., 2008a).
In tourism research, it has been shown that tourists
with a positive environmental attitude and an environ-
mental awareness are more likely to engage in pro-
environmental behaviours than tourists who are not
pro-environmentally concerned (Luzar et al., 1998;
Weaver and Lawton, 2002; Lee and Moscardo,
2005). Although it is possible to behave in a pro-
environmental manner without being environmentally
concerned, the above studies show that the link
between values, attitudes, and behaviour do exists in
some sense, both in a general and in a tourism context.
Based on this review, the following hypotheses con-
cerning the effect of tourists’ values on their environ-
mental concern are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Universalism has a positive effect on envi-
ronmental concern.
Hypothesis 2: Benevolence has a positive effect on
environmental concern.
Hypothesis 3: Power has a negative effect on environ-
mental concern.
Hypothesis 4: Achievement has a negative effect on
environmental concern.
Financial endorsement of protecting
the environment
On the basis of previous research in other areas than
tourism research, it has been concluded that both
values and pro-environmental attitudes are positively
related to consumers’ willingness to spend more for
pro-environmental products (Laroche et al., 2001).
Although willingness to pay for environmental protec-
tion can be criticized of not being perfectly correlated
Hedlund
with actual behaviour, it may determine if tourists are
willing to take on any responsibility of their own
regarding environmental work.
Several studies have examined consumers’ willing-
ness to pay for environmental protection in different
contexts (e.g. Farhar, 1999; Laroche et al., 2001;
Fairweather et al., 2005; Hansla et al., 2008b; Choi
et al., 2009; Hansla, 2011). Previous research has
shown that this willingness has an effect on different
pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Gelissen, 2007).
For example, Thøgersen (2000) found that having a
willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the
environment has a positive influence on the attention
paid to an (unspecified) eco-labelled product, hence
leading to a pro-environmental buying intention.
Laroche et al. (2001) found a relationship between
values and consumers’ willingness to pay for green
products. Individuals who stated that collectivism
and security (a concern for other people) were impor-
tant values in their everyday lives were more ecologi-
cally conscious and hence more willing to spend for
green products than those who were more individual-
istic. Hansla (2011) showed that individuals with a
self-transcendent value orientation were more willing
to pay for sustainable (eco-labelled) electricity than
individuals with a self-enhancement value orientation.
Studies have examined tourists’ willingness to pay
for conservation measures at the destination (Lindsey
and Holmes, 2002; Scott et al., 2003; Becken, 2007;
Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Dodds et al., 2010). In
the lodging industry, Choi et al. (2009) examined uni-
versity students from Greece and the United States,
and their attitudes and behaviour intentions towards
using environmentally responsible hotels. Their results
showed that individuals from both countries have a
stronger willingness to pay for hotels with an
Figure 1. The proposed model.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
281
environmentally responsible practice than for hotels
that do not have this practice. Dodds et al. (2010)
examined tourists visiting the islands of Koh Phi Phi,
Thailand, and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. The tourists
were young, single, well-educated, and earned above-
average income. The results showed that 95 per cent of
the tourists visiting Gili Trawangan and 79 per cent of
those visiting Koh Phi Phi were willing to pay a tax to
support environmental and social protection. From this
review, the following hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis 5: Environmental concern has a positive
effect on the stated willingness to accept economic
sacrifices to protect the environment.
Hypothesis 6: Environmental concern has a positive
effect on the intention to buy an ecologically sus-
tainable tourism alternative.
Hypothesis 7: The stated willingness to accept eco-
nomic sacrifices to protect the environment has a
positive effect on the intention to buy an ecologi-
cally sustainable tourism alternative.
A model is proposed with hypothesized links between
the different constructs (see Figure 1).
Method
Sample and procedure
The data was collected through a web-based question-
naire in September and October of 2007. An e-mail
was sent to 4444 members of a Swedish web panel,
who previously had been recruited by telephone or
through the Internet. After a short description of the
purpose of the study, those who received the e-mail
were asked to visit the website and complete the ques-
tionnaire. No compensation was offered.
282
Usable responses were obtained from 1003 respon-
dents corresponding to a response rate of 23 per cent.
The analyses of the results are based on the answers
given by 681 respondents (15 per cent) who retrospec-
tively indicated that they had made a vacation trip
during the summer of 2007. A vacation trip was
defined as a leisure-time trip out of home for at least
three nights. To exclude business travel, the respon-
dents should have paid for the accommodation them-
selves. In the sample, 306 individuals or 45per cent
were women. The age varied from 20 to 80 years
with an average age of 44 years. The percentage of
respondents who had more than 12 years of education
was 59 per cent, 7 per cent of the sample were stu-
dents, and 77 per cent worked full-time or part-time as
employees or had their own business. The annual
income (after taxes) for 52 per cent of the sample
was between 201,000 and 400,000 SEK (1
SEK ¼ 0.16 USD). Despite the somewhat low
response rate, the sample differed only marginally
from the population of residents of Sweden
(Statistics Sweden, 2008) with respect to sex, age,
and annual income. Higher education was more fre-
quent in the sample than in the Swedish population.
Questionnaire and measures
In the first part of the questionnaire, the participants
indicated how many vacation trips they had made
during June, July, and August of 2007. The partici-
pants were asked to choose one vacation trip that
matched the given definition and the remaining ques-
tions were asked for this vacation trip.
Values. The value orientation measure was obtained
by asking the participants to indicate the degree to
which different values were guiding principles in
their lives. From the original 16 values employed by
Schwartz (1992), 12 were included in this study (see
Table 1). These values have been shown to be the most
robust indicators of self-transcendent and self-
enhancement value orientations (Schwartz, 1992).
Additionally, previous studies in Swedish samples
(Hansla et al., 2008a, 2008b; Hansla, 2011) have
used this short-version measure of self-transcendent
and self-enhancement value orientation. Each value
was rated by the participants on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 5 (fully agree).
Environmental concern. Many previous studies
have focused on environmental concern towards a gen-
eral unspecified environmental problem (Schultz,
2001; Schultz et al., 2005). A common operationaliza-
tion of the term environmental concern is the new
ecological paradigm (NEP) scale developed by
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The NEP scale is a
general measure and aims at measuring people’s view
on the human–environment relationship. However,
Lück (2003) concludes that the NEP scale is not
always the best measurement of environmental con-
cern in the tourism context. Further, previous research
states that a specific action in a specific context is not
well explained by a general measure of environmental
concern (Moisander and Uusitalo, 1995; Ölander and
Thøgersen, 1995). The present study therefore exam-
ines individuals’ specific environmental concern
towards the impact of tourism on the environment
and thus operationalizes the construct in a more
narrow sense.
The measure of environmental concern was
obtained by asking the participants about the weight
they place on sustainability issues in making choices of
destination, primary activity at the destination, depar-
ture time, travel mode, accommodation, and length of
trip, respectively. For example, environmental concern
in choice of travel mode was measured by means of the
question ‘When you chose travel mode to your desti-
nation, how important was the chosen mode did not
harm the environment?’ Seven-point Likert scales
were used ranging from 1 (not important) to 7 (very
important).
Financial endorsement of protecting the
environment. The questionnaire included ques-
tions about the participants’ willingness to pay higher
taxes, higher prices, and reduce living standard to
protect the environment. These questions have previ-
ously been used by Thøgersen (2000) and are used to
measure the willingness of financial endorsement of
protecting the environment. Seven-point Likert scales
were used ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (highly).
Intention to buy ecologically sustainable
tourism alternatives. This measure was obtained
by means of the questions ‘To what degree did you
consider what was best for the environment when
choosing your accommodation/destination/travel
mode?’ Seven-point Likert scales were used ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (highly).
In the final part of the questionnaire, the questions
were asked about socio-demographic characteristics
including age, sex, education, and income that were
reported above.
Results
A two-step modelling approach to structural equation
modelling (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was fol-
lowed in that a measurement model was evaluated
before testing the structural relationships.
Hedlund 283

Table 1. Construct measures and scale reliability

Constructs and item scales* Standardized
loadings**

Universalism (a ¼ 0.81, VE ¼ 0.59, CR ¼ 0.81, mean ¼ 3.7, SD ¼ 0.8)

Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak; 1–5) 0.81
Equality (equal opportunity for all; 1–5) 0.76
A world of peace (free of war and conflict; 1–5) 0.75
Benevolence (a ¼ 0.69, VE ¼ 0.42, CR ¼ 0.68, mean ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 0.7)
Helpful (working for the welfare of others; 1–5) 0.57
Responsible (dependable, reliable; 1–5) 0.77
Forgiving (willing to forgive others; 1–5) 0.59
Power (a ¼ 0.67, VE ¼ 0.41, CR ¼ 0.67, mean ¼ 2.4, SD ¼ 0.7)
Social power (control over others, dominance; 1–5) 0.56
Authority (the right to lead and command; 1–5) 0.72
Wealth (material possessions, money; 1–5) 0.62
Achievement (a ¼ 0.72, VE ¼ 0.48, CR ¼ 0.73, mean ¼ 3.6, SD ¼ 0.7)
Successful (achieving goals; 1–5) 0.63
Capable (competent, efficient, effective; 1–5) 0.70
Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring; 1–5) 0.74
Environmental concern (a ¼ 0.90, VE ¼ 0.64, CR ¼ 0.90, mean ¼ 3.5, SD ¼ 1.3)
How important was it that [the choice] made the least impact on the environment (1–7)
Time of departure 0.72
Activity 0.69
Travel mode 0.79
Accommodation 0.91
Length of trip 0.87
Stated willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment
(a ¼ 0.86, VE ¼ 0.68, CR ¼ 0.87, mean ¼ 3.0, SD ¼ 1.6)
To what degree are you willing to pay much higher prices to protect our environment (1–7) 0.82
To what degree are you willing to pay much higher taxes to protect our environment(1–7) 0.87
To what degree are you willing to accept a lower living standard to 0.79
protect our environment(1–7)
Intention to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives
(a ¼ 0.90, VE ¼ 0.77, CR ¼ 0.91, mean ¼ 2.6, SD ¼ 1.5)
To what extent do you consider eco labels when choosing accommodation (1–7) 0.92
To what extent do you consider eco labels when choosing destination (1–7) 0.94
To what extent do you consider what is best for the environment when 0.76
choosing travel mode (1–7)
Measurement model fit: 2 ¼ 950, df ¼ 209, 2/df ¼ 4.5, p < 0.001, GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91, RMSEA ¼ 0.07.
*a ¼ Cronbach’s alpha, df ¼ degrees of freedom, VE ¼ variance extracted, GFI ¼ Goodness of Fit Index, CR ¼ construct reliability,
AGFI ¼ Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, CFI ¼ Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA ¼ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation,
SD ¼ standard deviation.
**p < 0.01.

A measurement model including latent constructs and variance extracted and construct reliability coefficients
indicators was thus first analysed. Secondly, the pro- approximates or exceeds the cut-off levels of 0.5 (VE)
posed model with hypothesized relationships was and 0.7 (CR) for all constructs (Hair et al., 2006). The
tested. Table 1 provides an overview of the analysed standardized loadings exceeded 0.56, with a majority
constructs. above 0.7. Overall, the goodness-of-fit indices indi-
Reliability tests were performed on each construct cated an acceptable fit of the measurement model;
prior to testing the hypotheses. As Table 1 shows, reli- 2 ¼ 950, df ¼ 209, 2/df ¼ 4.5, p < 0.001,
able scales were constructed for every construct. The GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91, and

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
284 Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)

alternatives
ecologically
sustainable
Intention RMSEA ¼ 0.07 (Hair et al., 2006; see Table 1).

tourism
to buy Correlation statistics for the latent variables are
shown in Table 2.
The goodness-of-fit indices for the structural rela-

1
tionships in the proposed model show an acceptable
fit: 2 ¼ 1005, df ¼ 217, 2/df ¼ 4.6, p < 0.001,
willingness

economic
sacrifices
to accept

GFI ¼ 0.88, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91, and

Stated

RMSEA ¼ 0.07 (see Figure 2; Hair et al., 2006).

0.55*
Of the seven hypothesized relationships in the pro-

1
posed model, four were statistically significant in the
expected directions (p  .01), supporting H1 (univer-
Environmental

salism affecting environmental concern), H5 (environ-

mental concern affecting the stated willingness to
concern

accept economic sacrifices to protect the environ-

0.46*
0.65*
ment), H6 (environmental concern affecting the inten-
1

tion to buy ecologically sustainable tourism

alternatives), and H7 (stated willingness to accept eco-
Achievement

nomic sacrifices to protect the environment affecting

the intention to buy ecologically sustainable tourism
alternatives). Contrary to expectations, three relation-
0.04
0.05
0.05

ships were not significant (p > 0.10), thus disconfirm-

1

ing H2 (benevolence affecting environmental concern)

and H3 (power affecting environmental concern), and
Power

0.59*

H4 (achievement affecting environmental concern).

0.04
–0.09
–0.03
1

Discussion and conclusion

Benevolence

The present study examined the impact of values,

environmental concern, and willingness to accept eco-
0.64*
0.20*
0.33*
0.17*
–0.03

nomic sacrifices to protect the environment on tour-

1

ists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism

alternatives. A conceptual framework was proposed
similar to what has been proposed in several previous
Universalism

studies (e.g. Homer and Kahle, 1988; Vaske and

Donnelly, 1999; Honkanen and Verplanken, 2004)
0.86*

0.42*
0.37*
0.42*
0.30*
–0.04

examining the relationships between values, attitudes,

1

and behaviour. Overall, the results showed a signifi-

cant relationship between the value orientation univer-
salism, environmental concern, the willingness to
Stated willingness to accept economic sacrifices

accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment,

and tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable
tourism alternatives.
Intention to buy ecologically sustainable

Schwartz’s (1992) theory of values is in this research

expanded to account for effects on environmental con-
cern and pro-environmental behavioural intentions in
tourism. Universalism has previously been proven to
Table 2. Correlation matrix

have a positive relation to pro-environmental attitudes

Environmental concern

and behaviour (Schultz and Zelezny, 1999; Schultz,

tourism alternatives

2001; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002) and the present

study show that individuals who value equality, social
justice, and peace on earth are more likely to have an
Universalism

Achievement
Benevolence
Constructs

environmental concern in specific vacation choices

*p < 0.001.

than those who do not. This is consistent since univer-

Power

salism includes altruism towards all people and nature

(Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009), and having an

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Hedlund
Figure 2. The final model. Model fit: 2 ¼ 1005, df ¼ 217, 2/df ¼ 4.6, p < 0.001, GFI ¼ 0.88, AGFI ¼ 0.85, CFI ¼ 0.91,
RMSEA ¼ 0.07. *Significant p  .01.
environmental concern can be seen as beneficial to the
whole society in the long term and not providing instant
gratification only to the individual. This should be con-
trasted to the non-significant relationship between
benevolence and environmental concern. A possible
explanation of this non-significant relationship is that
the motivating goals of benevolence include protecting
the welfare of people with whom one is close to
(Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). People attribut-
ing importance to benevolence values might not see
caring for the environment as included in caring for the
relatives and hence does not have a strong environmental
concern in vacation choices. The high correlation
between universalism and benevolence may also be a
contributing factor to the non-significant relationship
between benevolence and environmental concern.
Additional analysis shows that if universalism is removed
from the final model, benevolence is significantly related
to environmental concern. A possible further effect of the
high correlation between benevolence and universalism
is the negative relationship between benevolence and
environmental concern in the final model, a relationship
which was hypothesized to be positive.
The hypothesized relationships between the
self-enhancement values achievement and power and
environmental concern were not significant. This is in
contrast with previous studies, which have found
significant negative relationships between self-enhance-
ment values and pro-environmental attitudes and behav-
iour (e.g. Hansla et al., 2008a). In the tourism context,
Fairweather et al. (2005) could not find a significant rela-
tionship between anthropocentric (human centred)
values (assumingly comparable to the self-enhancement
value orientation) and pro-environmental behavioural
intentions. No studies have examined the effect of
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
285
Schwartz (1992) values on environmental concern and
pro-environmental behavioural intentions in the tourism
context. It can be suggested that the non-significant rela-
tionship between the self-enhancement value orientation
and pro-environmental concerns and behavioural inten-
tions in tourism may be due to context-specific issues and
that it should not be taken for certain that this relation-
ship always exists in tourism. The present study also
shows that people in the sample have a more self-trans-
cendence than self-enhancement value orientation, and
this can be a possible explanation of the non-significant
relationship between achievement and power and envi-
ronmental concern. A similar explanation was offered by
Fairweather et al. (2005), when stating the reason for not
finding tourists with anthropocentric values could be due
to that their sample did not have an exploitative view of
the environment. Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz (2009)
conclude that in countries with greater gender equality,
universalism and benevolence are more important to
people than in countries with low gender equality. As
Sweden is considered to have high gender equality
(Lister, 2009), it is therefore likely that Swedish respon-
dents consider universalism values more important than
self-enhancement values.
Previous studies have shown that how the measure-
ment of environmental concern is constructed can
have an effect on how well it predicts behaviour
(Bamberg, 2003). For example, Eagly (1992) states
that attitude may be a better predictor of behaviour
if the definition of the attitude object corresponds to
the behavioural criterion. The present study shows
that the method of measuring environmental concern
in a more narrow way than in previous studies (e.g.
Uysal et al., 1994; Higham et al., 2001; Fennell and
Nowaczek, 2003; Kim et al., 2006; Wurzinger and
286
Johansson, 2006) can be a useful instrument for exam-
ining its influence on pro-environmental behaviour.
Previous studies have demonstrated a willingness to
pay to support environmental protection in the tour-
ism industry (Choi et al., 2009; Dodds et al., 2010).
No previous studies have, however, examined tourists’
environmental concern as a determinant of this will-
ingness. The present results show a positive relation-
ship between environmental concern in tourism
choices and willingness to accept economic sacrifices
to protect the environment. In addition, the present
results show that both environmental concern and
having a willingness to accept economic sacrifices to
protect the environment is positively related to the
intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism
alternatives. Tourists with a pro-environmental atti-
tude may be more interested in consumption of tour-
ism offers that reflect that concern. This is in-line with
previous studies, which have shown a positive relation-
ship between environmental concern and pro-environ-
mental buying behaviour (e.g. Schlegelmilch et al.,
1996; Kim and Choi, 2005). It can, however, be
debated if there will be a future scenario where tourists
demand environmentally friendly vacations to be
cheaper than vacations which consume more resources
and consequently the willingness to pay for environ-
mental protection may be an outdated construct in the
future. This is an interesting topic for future studies.
The present study implies that marketing efforts
appealing to tourists with altruistic values towards
humankind and an environmental concern in tourism
choices would have a greater chance of succeeding
with the promotion of ecologically sustainable tourism
alternatives. It may, however, not be enough to only
strengthen pro-environmental awareness and atti-
tudes, with for example marketing campaigns, to
increase pro-environmental consumerism in tourism.
As an example, Miller et al. (2010) conclude that
improving awareness of the environmental problems
of tourism may not lead to pro-environmental behav-
iour. They suggest that behavioural change instead
may be a result of the tourist developing a feeling of
personal responsibility for the impact tourism has on
the environment. Other initiatives to support beha-
vioural change are to use physical and virtual social
networks as means to help individuals to find new
ways of behaviour. It can therefore be recommended
that marketers working with sustainable tourism
should be present in online communities where tour-
ism and travelling is discussed.
It can be suggested that tourists sometimes may have
other priorities that take precedence over their environ-
mental values and concerns. Previous research shows
that consumers who have a pro-environmental behav-
iour in one area of consumption, not necessarily behave
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
similarly in another area of consumption (Thøgersen
and Ölander, 2003; Thøgersen 2004). Barr et al.
(2010) suggest that a ‘holiday is a holiday’ (p. 474)
implying that behaving pro-environmentally at home
may justify a lack of environmental commitment while
on vacation. It might also be a difficult task to transfer a
pro-environmental behaviour performed at home to a
vacation context. Furthermore, Miller et al. (2010)
showed that people were only willing to change their
tourism behaviour if other people also changed their
behaviour. They felt that they had the right to enjoy
their chosen vacation, no matter the environmental
impact it had. This shows that changing tourists’ behav-
iour may be a challenging task for marketers.
The present study addresses behavioural intentions
and acknowledges that intentions are not in perfect cor-
relation with actual behaviour. Individuals’ self-
reported purchase intentions do not always have a per-
fect correlation with their actual buying behaviour
(Chandon et al., 2005). Respondents may have stated
that they had an intention to be environmentally
friendly in their vacation choices but never followed it
in practice and this is a potential weakness of the pre-
sent study. The inconsistency in the attitude–behaviour
relationship can have a number of different explana-
tions such as (1) low correlations among different
pro-environmental behaviours, (2) different levels of
specificity in the measures of attitude and behaviour,
(3) effects of personal and situational characteristics,
and (4) lack of measurement reliability and validity
(Mainieri et al., 1997). The present study has addressed
the problem with different levels of specificity in the
measures by using a specific measurement of environ-
mental concern, but it is still a challenge for future stud-
ies to address determinants of actual tourist behaviour.
In conclusion, the results of the present study sug-
gest that only using values, environmental concern,
and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to pro-
tect the environment to explain pro-environmental
behavioural intentions may be too limited. The bor-
derline acceptability of the structural model implies
that tourists’ intentions to behave in a pro-environ-
mental way are dependent on other factors not exam-
ined in this study, for example, personal and
situational factors (Mainieri et al., 1997).
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor Maria
Bengtsson, Professor Tommy Gärling, Professor
Agneta Marell, and Professor Joakim Wincent for
valuable contributions to the present research.
Insigthful comments from two anonymous reviewers
on a previous version of this article are also thankfully
acknowledged.
Hedlund 287

References Fransson N and Gärling T (1999) Environmental concern:

Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research
Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling
findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 369–382.
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Gelissen J (2007) Explaining popular support for environmental
Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.
protection. A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and
Axelrod LJ and Lehman DR (1993) Responding to environmental
Behavior 39(3): 392–415.
concerns: What factors guide individual action? Journal of
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE and Tatham RL (2006)
Environmental Psychology 13: 149–159.
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Bamberg S (2003) How does environmental concern influence spe-
Pearson Prentice Hall.
cific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old
Hansla A (2011) Value orientation and framing as determinants of
question. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 21–32.
stated willingness to pay for eco-labeled electricity. Energy
Barr S, Shaw G, Coles T and Prillwitz J (2010) ‘A holiday is a hol-
Efficiency. 4(2): 185–192.
iday’: Practising sustainability, home and away. Journal of
Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A and Gärling T (2008a) The rela-
Transport Geography 18: 474–481.
tionships between awareness of consequences, environmental
Becken S (2007) Tourists perceptions of international air travel’s
concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental
impact on the global climate and potential climate change poli-
Psychology 28: 1–9.
cies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(4): 351–368.
Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A and Gärling T (2008b) Psychological
Bergin-Seers S and Mair J (2009) Emerging green tourists in
determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green
Australia: Their behaviours and attitudes. Tourism and
electricity. Energy Policy 36(2): 768–774.
Hospitality Research 9: 109–119.
Higham J, Carr C and Gael S (2001) Ecotourism in New Zealand:
Boote AS (1981) Market segmentation by personal values and sali-
Profiling Visitors to New Zealand Ecotourism Operations.
ent product attributes. Journal of Advertising Research 21: 29–35.
Department of Tourism Research Paper No. 10. Dunedin:
Butler RW (1991) Tourism, environment, and sustainable develop-
University of Otago.
ment. Environmental Conservation 18(3): 201–209.
Homer PM and Kahle LR (1988) A structural equation test of the
Chandon P, Morwitz VG and Reinartz WJ (2005) Do intentions
value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and
really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey
Social Psychology 54(4): 638–646.
research. Journal of Marketing 69(2): 1–14.
Honkanen P and Verplanken B (2004) Understanding attitudes
Choi G, Parsa HG, Sigala M and Putrevu S (2009) Consumers’
towards genetically modified food: The role of values and atti-
environmental concerns and behaviours in the lodging industry:
tude strength. Journal of Consumer Policy 27: 104–420.
A comparison between Greece and the United States. Journal of
Karp DG (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 10: 93–112.
behavior. Environment and Behavior 28(1): 111–133.
Dalen E (1989) Research into values and consumer trends in
Kim H, Borges MC and Chon J (2006) Impacts of environmental
Norway. Tourism Management 10(3): 183–186.
values on tourism motivation: The case of FICA, Brazil. Tourism
De Groot J and Steg L (2006) The role of value orientations in
Management 27(5): 957–967.
evaluating quality of life consequences of a transport pricing
Kim Y and Choi SM (2005) Antecedents of green purchase behav-
policy. Transportation Research Part D 11(2): 160–165.
ior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and
Dodds R, Graci SR and Holmes M (2010) Does the tourist care? A
PCE. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 592–599.
comparison of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and Gili
Laroche M, Bergeron J and Barbaro-Forleo G (2001) Targeting
Trawangan, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2):
consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally
207–222.
friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(6):
Dowling RK and Fennell DA (2003) The context of ecotourism
503–520.
policy and planning. In: Fennell DA and Dowling RK (eds)
Lee WH and Moscardo G (2005) Understanding the impact of
Ecotourism Policy and Planning. Wallingford: CABI, 1–20.
ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental atti-
Dunlap RE and Van Liere KD (1978) The new environmental par-
tudes and behavioral intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
adigm. Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10–19.
13(6): 546–565.
Eagly AH (1992) Uneven progress: Social psychology and the study
Lindsey G and Holmes A (2002) Tourist support for marine pro-
of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:
tection in Nha Trang, Vietnam. Journal of Environmental
693–710.
Planning and Management 45(4): 461–480.
Ekinici Y and Chen JS (2002) Segmenting overseas British holiday-
Lister R (2009) A Nordic Nirvana? Gender, citizenship, and social
makers by personal values. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
justice in the Nordic welfare states. Social Politics 16(2):
Marketing 9(3/4): 5–15.
242–278.
Fairweather JR, Maslin C and Simmons DG (2005) Environmental
Lück M (2003) The ‘new environmental paradigm’: Is the scale of
values and response to ecolabels among international visitors to
Dunlap and Van Liere applicable in a tourism context? Tourism
New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(1): 82–98.
Geographies 5(2): 228–240.
Farhar B (1999) Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Renewable
Luzar EJ, Diagne A, Gan CEC and Henning BR (1998) Profiling
Resources: A Review of Utility Market Research (NREL/
the nature-based tourist: A multinomial logit approach. Journal
TP.550.26148 July). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
of Travel Research 37: 48–55.
Laboratory.
Madigral R and Kahle LR (1994) Predicting vacation activity pref-
Fennell DA and Nowaczek AM (2003) An examination of values
erences on the basis of value-system segmentation. Journal of
and environmental attitudes among ecotourists: A descriptive
Travel Research 32(3): 22–28.
study involving three samples. Tourism Recreation Research
Mainieri T, Barnett EG, Valdero TR, Unipan JB and Oskamp S
28(1): 11–21.
(1997) Green buying: The influence of environmental concern
Formica S and Uysal M (2002) Segmentation of travellers based on
on consumer behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology 137(2):
environmental attitudes. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
189–204.
Marketing 9(3/4): 35–49.

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
288
Manaktola K and Jauhari V (2007) Exploring consumer attitude and
behavior towards green practices in the lodging industry in India.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
19(5): 364–377.
McCleary KW and Choi BM (1999) Personal values as a base for
segmenting international markets. Tourism Analysis 4(1): 1–17.
Mehmetoglu M (2010) Accurately identifying and comparing sus-
tainable tourists, nature-based tourists, and ecotourists on the
basis of their environmental concerns. International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Administration 11: 171–199.
Mehmetoglu M, Hines K, Graumann C and Greibrokk J (2010)
The relationship between personal values and tourism behavior:
A segmentation approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(1):
17–27.
Miller G, Rathouse K, Scarles C, Holmes K and Tribe J (2010)
Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 37(3): 627–645.
Minton AP and Rose RL (1997) The effects of environmental con-
cern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An explor-
atory study. Journal of Business Research 40(1): 37–48.
Moisander J and Uusitalo L (1995) General attitudes in theory of
reasoned action framework: The influence of consumers’ pro-environ-
mental attitudes on their commuting intentions. Proceedings of
IAREP Conference, August 3–5, 1995, Bergen. Published also
by the Helsinki School of Economics W-123.
Muller TE (1991) Using personal values to define segments in an
international tourism market. International Marketing Review 8:
57–70.
Nordlund AM and Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind proen-
vironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 34(6): 740–756.
Oreg S and Gerro TK (2006) Predicting proenvironmental behavior
cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behaviour, and
value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior 38:
462–483.
Pitts RE and Woodside AG (1986) Personal values and travel deci-
sions. Journal of Travel Research 25(1): 20–25.
Pizam A and Calantone R (1987) Beyond psychographics – Values
as determinants of tourist behavior. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 6(3): 177–181.
Poortinga W, Steg L and Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental con-
cern, and environmental behaviour. A study into household
energy use. Environment and Behavior 36(1): 70–93.
Roberts JA and Bacon DR (1997) Exploring the subtle relationships
between environmental concern and ecologically conscious con-
sumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 40(1): 79–89.
Rohan MJ (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct.
Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 255–277.
Rokeach M (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Schlegelmilch BB, Bohlen GM and Diamantopoulos A (1996) The
link between green purchasing decisions and measures of envi-
ronmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing 30(5):
35–55.
Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern:
Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 21: 327–339.
Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P and
Franek M (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental
concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 36: 457–475.
Schultz PW and Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environ-
mental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 255–265.
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on October 17, 2014
Tourism and Hospitality Research 11(4)
In: Zanna M (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol
25, Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1–65.
Schwartz SH and Rubel-Lifschitz T (2009) Cross-national varia-
tion in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender
equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(1):
171–185.
Scott A, Christie M and Tench H (2003) Visitor payback: Panacea
or Pandora’s box for conservation in the UK? Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 46(4): 583–604.
Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K,
Tignor MMB and Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Statistics Sweden. (2008) Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2008.
Stockholm.
Steg L, Dreijerink L and Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing
the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 25: 415–425.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L and Guagnano GA (1995) Values,
beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation
toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 25(18): 1611–1636.
Swarbrooke J (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford:
CABI.
Thøgersen J (2000) Psychological determinants of paying attention
to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development
and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy 23:
285–313.
Thøgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consis-
tencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1): 93–103.
Thøgersen J and Ölander F (2003) Spillover of environment-
friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology
23(3): 225–236.
Uysal M, Jurowski C, Noe FP and McDonald CD (1994)
Environmental attitude by trip and visitors characteristics.
Tourism Management 15(4): 284–294.
Vaske JJ and Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model
predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and
Natural Resources 12: 523–537.
Weaver DB and Lawton LJ (2002) Overnight ecotourist market seg-
mentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of
Travel Research 40: 270–280.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2010) Recovery stronger than
expected, but likely to slow down in 2011. World Travel and
Tourism Council Press Release, 9 November, http://
www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_News/Press_Releases/
Press_Releases_2010/Recovery_stronger_than_expected,_but_
likely_to_slow_down_in_2011 (Accessed December 6, 2010).
Wurzinger S and Johansson M (2006) Environmental concern and
knowledge of ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tour-
ists. Journal of Travel Research 45: 217–226.
Ölander F and Thøgersen J (1995) Understanding of consumer
behavior as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal
of Consumer Policy 18: 345–385.
Author Biography
Therese Hedlund is a PhD candidate at Umeå School
of Business, Umeå University, Sweden. The topic of
her dissertation is tourists’ choices and marketing of
sustainable tourism.