The Influence of Materialism on Ecotourism Attitudes and Behaviors

Abstract

This study examined the relationships among materialism, ecotourism attitude, ecotourism interest, ecotourism intention, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism utilizing a model that was developed based on the literature. Data for this study were collected from 2,352 Italian travelers and proposed hypotheses were tested using a structural equation modeling approach. Findings indicated that individuals’ materialistic value has negative relationships with their ecotourism attitude, ecotourism interest, ecotourism intention, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism products and services. Findings also suggested that individuals’ ecotourism attitude would positively influence ecotourism intention, ecotourism interest, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism products and services.

Keywords

materialism ecotourism attitude ecotourism interest ecotourism intention willingness to pay a premium

Introduction

Ecotourism is a particular kind of alternative tourism closely associated with areas that are environmentally and culturally sensitive. It was developed in an endeavor to prevent the problems and repercussions resulting from traditional mass tourism (Pipinos and Fokiali 2009). Since ecotourism contributes to both environmental conservation and the economy (Ross and Wall 1999), it has become a significant topic in the tourism field (Weaver and Lawton 2007). Several studies have examined the factors that could influence tourists’ visitation intention and willingness to pay more for ecotourism products, such as tourists’ ecotourism attitude and interest (e.g., Lai and Nepal 2006; Singh, Slotkin, and Vamosi 2007). While the evaluation of tourists’ ecotourism attitude and interest is no doubt a basic prerequisite for successful implementation of ecotourism ventures, an investigation of the antecedents of individuals’ ecotourism attitude and interest could even be more meaningful for ecotourism operators. This investigation may enable operators to gain a better insight for determining strategies that could be adopted or developed to improve consumers’ positive attitude and interest toward ecotourism.

According to McCarty and Shrum (2001), individuals’ fundamental beliefs (e.g., value orientations) would affect their both pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Values represent learned beliefs about preferred ways of being, which serve as “guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entities” (Schwartz 1994, p. 21). Rokeach (1973) claimed that values can be distinguished from attitudes in that values represent abstract ideals that are not attached to any specific object, while attitudes focus on specific objects and situations. From this perspective, an attitude can be defined as a mental state induced by an application of a value to a certain object or situation. These definitions are consistent with a number of researchers’ (e.g., Kim, Borges, and Chon 2006) conclusions that values are the determinants of attitudes and behavior. In line with this rationale, it is critical for ecotourism operators to identify values that might influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward ecotourism. With this aim, this study chose materialism, an individual value of Western society (Kilbourne and Pickett 2008), to see if it has any significant influences on one’s attitude, interest toward ecotourism, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism.

Materialism is a lifestyle that has been part of the Western society for decades (Kilbourne and Pickett 2008). In recent decades, this lifestyle has become a global phenomenon, and the number of people pursuing such a lifestyle has increased exponentially (Kilbourne and Pickett 2008). Materialistic individuals place a great emphasis on the satisfaction in life and happiness derived by the possession of material goods (Belk 1996). This lifestyle, to a certain extent, conflicts with one of the primarily goals of ecotourism: environmental protection. Environmental protection requires drastic decreases in overconsumption and is consequently affected by consumers’ bond to material goods and pleasures (Moisander and Pesonen 2002). Consumers who acquire satisfaction and happiness by material possessions are more likely to be self-centered and are less likely to be fulfilled by engaging in pro-environmental activities compared to individuals who do not value material possessions that much (Tilikidou and Delistavrou 2004). A person’s materialistic value, which has been examined as the root cause of many social problems and environmental degradation (Bredemeier and Toby 1960; Kilbourne and Pickett 2008), might be an important individual-based variable that reduces one’s favorable attitude, interest, and intention toward ecotourism. Therefore, this study aims to examine the influence of materialistic value on one’s attitude and interest toward ecotourism by specifically examining its influence on a tourist’s attitude, interest, intention toward ecotourism, and his/her willingness to pay a premium for it.

Literature Review

Impact of Materialism on Ecotourism Attitude and Interest

Materialism has been conceptualized as an economic consumer value (Inglehart 1981; Richins and Dawson 1992) emphasizing the type and quantity of goods consumed. A number of different, though similar, definitions of materialism have evolved over time. Belk (1985) viewed materialism as “the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions” (p. 291). Rassuli and Hollander (1986) referred to it as “a mindset . . . an interest in getting and spending” (p. 10). In a more psychological approach, Micken and Roberts (1999) argued that materialistic behaviors reflect “a preference for certainty, with materialists relying on objects not just as identity markers, but identity fixers” (p. 513). Furthermore, Browne and Kaldenberg (1997) characterized materialism as a cluster of values and traits that focus on possessions. While each of these definitions describes materialism in slightly different ways, they share a common base. They all suggest that people seek more in the consumption process than just the utility or instrumental value products offer and that the context of consumption is important.

Reviewing the construct and measurement of materialism in the literature, Richins and Dawson (1992) developed a values-oriented materialism scale that characterizes materialistic value as having three major realms: acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined success. Acquisition centrality refers to the central role possessions and their acquisition play in materialists’ lives. This dimension suggests that for those people who score high on this dimension, materialistic possessions are the focus of their lives. Acquisition as the pursuit of happiness refers to materialists’ belief that possessions are essential to their happiness. This factor suggests that possessions are vital for a materialistic consumer’s well-being and satisfaction in life. Finally, possession-defined success denotes materialists’ perception and assessment that success is determined by the type of things one owns. This factor relates to the role that possessions play as the evidence of success. Obviously, consumers who share materialistic value obtain happiness and fulfillment through possessions, and they tend to buy more to maintain and increase feelings of happiness and success. As such, materialists are easily motivated to overconsume (Tilikidou and Delistavrou 2004), yet overconsumption is given as one of the reasons for environmental degradation (Peattie 1995). As a number of social scientists argued (e.g., Clapp 2002; Conca 2001), the level of material goods produced and consumed determines the level of natural resources extracted and the level of pollution created. Arguably, production and consumption of material goods in an excessive level would facilitate environmental degradation as reported by Jorgenson’s (2003) study, which examined the relationship between consumption and environmental degradation through a cross-national comparison.

On the other hand, environmental values are highly emphasized by eco tourists and have been suggested to be highly influential in the development of ecotourism behavior (Wood 2002; Kasim et al. 2014). Environmental values are those values held by individuals regarding the association between individuals and their natural environment, typically viewed as a continuum ranging from pure anthropocentric to pure biocentric and ecocentric (e.g., Dunlap et al. 2000; Edwards, Davies, and Hussain 2009; Lück 2003). Anthropocentric environmental value is mainly concerned with continually improving human life and society, while biocentric and ecocentric values stress the importance of respecting all life forms and natural systems and granting them equal rights as humans have (Edwards, Davies, and Hussain 2009). However, since acquisition and consumption are considered as central values by materialists, they would not consider environmental protection as a core value. Preoccupation with material goods might thus preclude any major influence of environmental values, which make materialists to find little reason for altering their consumption behaviors to be more accommodating to the environment (Kilbourne and Pickett 2008). Therefore, those materialistic individuals might be less likely to show favorable attitudes and interest toward ecotourism. This might also lead materialists to be less willing to pay a premium for ecotourism products and services. Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are developed for the proposed model:

Hypothesis 1a: Materialism will negatively influence consumers’ ecotourism attitude.

Hypothesis 1b: Materialism will negatively influence consumers’ ecotourism interest.

Hypothesis 1c: Materialism will negatively influence consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism products and services.

Relationships among Ecotourism Attitude, Ecotourism Interest, Ecotourism Intention, and Willingness to Pay a Premium for Ecotourism

Previous studies have suggested that individuals who have positive attitude and interest toward ecotourism are attracted to destinations where natural environment and culture are conserved and opportunities for learning and experiencing are provided (Hall 1992; Jefferson 1995). Since individuals’ attitude toward ecotourism is considered to be one of the most important antecedent of their intention to visit ecotourism destinations or to participate in ecotourism activities (Lai and Nepal 2006), understanding their intention requires researchers to capture and categorize attitude within a complete and multidimensional system that reflects its structural diversity regarding expectations and experiences of those individuals (Gnoth 1997; Weaver 2014). A number of social psychologists such as Hollander (1967) and Lindgren (1969) suggested that attitudes can serve as sources of intentions for the way in which people interact with their environment. Katz (1960) also argued that attitudes have psychodynamic functions motivating people to behave in certain ways.

In addition, according to the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), attitude toward a behavior is a significant predictor of behavioral intention because attitude toward a behavior represents the extent to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of that behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). A high correlation between attitude, behavioral intention, and the subsequent behavior has been identified (Gursoy, Boylu, and Avci 2011; Mason and Nassivera 2013) and presented in tourism literature (Lai and Nepal 2006; Nunkoo, Gursoy, and Ramkissoon 2013). Attitude in particular has been one of the most widely investigated constructs in the social sciences and has been used to explain observed consistencies in behavior (Singh, Slotkin, and Vamosi 2007). A meta-analysis, conducted by Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera (1987) with an attempt to understand which variable(s) (attitude, knowledge of issue, knowledge of action strategies, locus of control, etc.) appear to be the most powerful predictor of consumers’ environmental behavior, found attitude to be the most influential predictor variable of consumers’ green consumption behavior intention (Millar, Mayer, and Baloglu 2012). Based on the preceding discussion, consumers’ ecotourism intention and interest should be the outcome variables that are positively predicted by consumers’ favorable attitudes toward ecotourism. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 2a: Ecotourism attitude will positively influence ecotourism intention.

Hypothesis 2b: Ecotourism attitude will positively influence ecotourism interest.

A considerable amount of debate is found in the literature regarding the definition of ecotourism as well as the criteria used to conceptualize this construct (Pipinos and Fokiali 2009). A school of researchers used the level of enhancive sustainability to classify ecotourism into two types: those who actively provide net benefit to the environment and those who are protective of the environment but do nothing to benefit the environment (Valentine 1993). Similarly, a body of researchers made a distinction between “hard” and “soft” ecotourism (Lindberg and McKercher 1997). Hard ecotourism represents an active kind that visitors are knowledgeable, mostly travel in small groups, require the least amount of service, spend longer times traveling to specialized areas and interact with the natural environment with little assistance from an intermediary. By contrast, soft eco tourists are characterized by convenience and comfort. They generally take shorter trips, use the services of outside experts for interpretation, require a great deal of service from intermediaries, and travel in comfort (Singh, Slotkin, and Vamosi 2007). Researchers believe that soft eco tourists support steady-state sustainability, while hard eco tourists actively enhance sustainability through various approaches such as volunteer work, fund-raising to support environmental conservation, etc. Despite all these different conceptualizations, researchers agree that the core dimensions of ecotourism definitions are almost the same (Björk 2000). Fennell (2002) studied 85 definitions of ecotourism and found a small number of words that were encountered and recurred most often in those definitions. Those words in order of frequency were nature areas, conservation, culture, benefits to locals, education, and sustainability. Likewise, Diamantis (1998) contended that most of the widely used definitions of ecotourism contain three common elements, which are nature-based environment, environmental education, and sustainable management. Given that the purpose of the current study was not to profile any particular ecotourism segment’s attitudes and behaviors, but to examine the influence of materialism value on individuals’ attitude toward ecotourism, this study defined ecotourism in a general sense using the most common characteristics mentioned in the literature rather than narrowing it down to any specific ecotourism segment. Therefore, this study portrayed eco tourists as those individuals who are interested not only in culture and environmental conservation, but also in wilderness and nature experiences and learning (Juric, Cornwell, and Mather 2002). This portrayal clearly demonstrates that eco tourists intend to visit an ecotourism destination not merely because of their desire to relax and escape but also because of their interest in experiencing the nature and environmental conservation (Blamey 1997; Juric, Cornwell, and Mather 2002). Therefore, consumers’ ecotourism interest is likely to increase their intention to participate in ecotourism activities and services. Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2c: Ecotourism interest will positively influence ecotourism intention.

Another important construct included in this study is consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. Since a number of researchers noted that companies usually need to charge a premium for environment-friendly products and services to recover additional costs incurred in the production and marketing (Manaktola and Jauhari 2007), consumers’ willingness to pay extra to engage in a pro-environmental behavior becomes critical for companies’ production, pricing, and marketing strategies (Xu and Gursoy, forthcoming). However, even though individuals hold high interest and favorable attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviors, many of them may not necessarily be willing to adopt them and pay relatively higher prices for pro-environmental activities and services (Holden and Sparrowhawk 2002). For example, consumers may be reluctant to be environmentally responsible when they still want to maintain their existing lifestyle (McDaniel and Rylander 1993) or when they are not prepared to sacrifice their convenience (Stern 1999). Ecotourism operators have to take this issue seriously, as the ecotourism industry is also an environment-oriented industry and the price of many ecotourism products and services are comparatively higher than that of mass tourism (Holden and Sparrowhawk 2002). Although researchers still have no consensus on whether consumers are willing to pay extra for ecotourism products and services, some of the prior empirical findings have revealed that consumers are willing to pay on average around 5% more for environment-friendly products (Kapelianis and Strachan 1996; Schwartz 1990; Speer 1997). There is also empirical evidence suggesting that a group of consumers are willing to pay significantly more than 5% (Reinhardt 1998), maybe as much as 20% or more (Worldwide 1997).

Ajzen and Peterson (1988) conceptualized “willingness to pay” as one’s intention to pay a certain amount of money for engaging in a leisure activity or attaining any other public goods. Ajzen and Driver (1992) also treated willingness to pay for public goods as a behavioral intention and they used the theory of planned behavior to explore the meaning of contingent valuation measures. In line with this logic, consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism per se should also function similarly as a behavioral intention measure predicted by consumers’ ecotourism attitude. In addition, this variable should also be positively predicted by consumers’ ecotourism intention and interest, as only those who are interested in or motivated to engage in ecotourism activities are expected to be willing to pay more for it. The preceding discussion leads to the last three hypotheses of proposed framework:

Hypothesis 3a: Ecotourism attitude will positively influence consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism.

Hypothesis 3b: Ecotourism intention will positively influence consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism.

Hypothesis 3c: Ecotourism interest will positively influence consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism.

Proposed Framework

Based on the literature review, nine hypotheses were developed and used to construct a model predicting ecotourism behavior. As presented in Figure 1, the model organizes determinants of ecotourism behavior into five categories: materialism, ecotourism attitude, ecotourism interest, ecotourism intention, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. The model proposes that tourists’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism is influenced directly by materialism, ecotourism attitude, interest, and intention while tourists’ intention to visit an ecotourism destination is directly influenced by materialism, ecotourism attitude, and interest. Model also proposes that tourists’ ecotourism interest is likely to be influenced by materialism and ecotourism attitude while ecotourism attitude is likely to be influenced by materialism.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection

Data for this study were collected from Italian travelers using an online self-administrated questionnaire utilizing a snowball sampling technique. Survey research is often used to assess subjects’ thoughts, opinions, and feelings, and it has several advantages such as cost-effectiveness and ability to gather data from a large sample in a relatively short period of time (Fowler 2013). Because of the financial limitations and the difficulty of reaching participants in remote areas through face-to-face structured interviews and to obtain data from a relatively large sample, this study utilized an online survey approach as an appropriate data collection method.

Snowball sampling technique is a frequently used sampling technique when the subjects are difficult to locate and access (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003). Through referral mechanisms, this technique provides researchers with an ever-expanding set of potential respondents in a very inexpensive and efficient way (Goldenberg et al. 2009). Even though snowball sampling technique is not considered a random sampling approach, it is considered as the best sampling approach for this study to obtain data from a large sample of consumers across different regions in Italy and to cope with the financial constraints of this project. Further, previous studies (Filieri and McLeay 2013; He and Li 2010) suggest snowball sampling is appropriate when the research purpose is to test hypothesized relationships among variables and constructs, which is the primary focus of this study.

Initial subjects were generated from the 3,000 contacts of an Italian Tourism Association. This approach is consistent with the data collection method used in other studies that examined Italian tourists’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Del Chiappa 2013). Specifically, the tourism association pools together consumers/tourists with a general interest in tourism and travelling. Individuals included in this contact list tend to be more engaged in tourism products compared to the rest of the population. Therefore, utilization of this contact list allowed us to reach individuals who are interested in tourism products. These 3,000 individuals, residing in different regions of Italy, received an e-mail inviting them to fill out an online questionnaire with a link provided in the e-mail. At the same time, they were asked to forward this online survey invitation to at least five of their friends, relatives, and contacts who are older than 18 years and, possibly, residing in different regions in Italy. Using a specific tracking program, the forwarding behavior of subjects in the original list was tracked. Tracking records indicated that 1,050 subjects in the original list forwarded the survey invitation. This process resulted in a total of 8,250 individuals receiving the survey invitation e-mail. After a three-week survey period, a total of 2,609 responses were collected and 2,352 were usable for statistical analysis, thus yielding a response rate of 28.59%.

Measurements

The online survey consisted of seven sections, with six measuring different constructs and the last section measuring respondents’ demographics. Because of the large number of constructs measured, the scales used for some constructs were reduced from their original form. As presented in Table 1, the materialism scale used in this study was a subset of items derived from the Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale. As mentioned in the literature review, original materialism scale is a three-factor solution with success, happiness, and centrality as the three independent dimensions of the construct. While the original scale consisted of 18 items, this study adopted eight items that had highest factor loadings for their factors in the original Richins and Dawson (1992) study. The use of such a short version of the sale has been justified by Richins (2004).

Table 1.

Standardized Path Coefficients of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Factor/Item		Reliability Coefficient	Path Coefficient
Materialism		.74
1. I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes			.85
2. Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring possessions			.70
3. I usually buy only the things I need			.79
4. I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned (R)			.83
5. The things I own aren’t really that important to me (R)			.40
6. I have all the things I really need to enjoy life (R)			.60
7. My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have			.80
8. I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things			.75
Ecotourism attitude		.91
All things considered, I think visiting an ecotourism destination would be . . .
9. Enjoyable	Unenjoyable		.74
10. Positive	Negative		.75
11. Fun	Boring		.86
12. Pleasant	Unpleasant		.92
13. Favorable	Unfavorable		.76
Ecotourism interest		.89
To what extent do you consider the following attributes are important when you go on holiday?
14. Wilderness and undisturbed nature			.68
15. Tropic forests and indigenous bush			.69
16. National parks			.81
17. Lakes and streams			.77
18. Oceanside			.68
19. World heritage status areas			.68
20. Learning about nature			.73
21. Photographing landscape and wildlife			.60
Ecotourism intention		.88
22. There is a high likelihood that I will visit an ecotourism destination within a foreseeable future			.82
23. I want to visit an ecotourism destination			.76
24. I intend to visit an ecotourism destination within a foreseeable future			.95
25. I will visit an ecotourism destination within the next 12 months			.70
Willingness to pay a premium		.91
26. How willing would you be to go on a more expensive holiday in order to reduce pollution?			.80
27. How willing would you be to financially support ecotourism projects?			.71
28. How willing would you be to pay more for your holiday if you knew the added cost paid for a better environment?			.89
29. How willing would you be to pay more for your holiday today in exchange for possibly better tourism experiences in the future?			.84
30. How willing would you be to pay more for ecotourism as opposed to “regular” tourism?			.88

Note: All paths are significant (p < .01).

Before the sections that were designed to measure respondents’ ecotourism interest, attitude, intention, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism products, a definition of ecotourism operationalized in this study was presented to the participants as follows:

Ecotourism is defined as travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in those areas. The person who practices ecotourism will eventually acquire an awareness and knowledge of the natural environment, together with its cultural aspects, that will convert him or her into somebody keenly involved in conservation issues. (Ceballos-Lascurain 1990, p. 25)

For measures of ecotourism interest, this study utilized eight items of Ecotourism Interest scale developed by Juric, Cornwell, and Mather (2002) as presented in Table 1. These eight items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from very important (7) to not at all important (1). As for the measurement of ecotourism attitude, five statements that were measured on the seven-point semantic differential scale were adopted from Lam and Hsu’s (2006) study. As presented in Table 1, the ecotourism intention was measured by four items adopted from Lam and Hsu’s (2006) study. These items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). Willingness to pay a premium was measured with five items that were adopted from Bang et al.’s (2000) study measuring consumers’ willingness to pay more for renewable energy (Table 1). These five statements were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed for descriptive and inferential analyses to provide respondents’ profiles, correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores. A series of Cronbach’s α tests were performed to test the internal consistency and construct validity of constructs. Proposed hypotheses were tested utilizing a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The M-plus 6 computer program was used (Byrne 2011) to test the proposed hypotheses. SEM enables a number of constructs to be modeled, while also taking into account the unreliability of the indicators (Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, and Gursoy 2013). In addition, SEM considers unknown reliability of the measures and ranks the measures in terms of their importance (Bacon and Bacon 1997).

Results

As presented in Table 2, the sample consisted of 1,510 males (65%) and 825 females (35%). The majority of respondents were between the ages of 25 to 55 years old (90%) with a high educational background (76.2% have college degree or higher). While 19% of the respondents had an annual income less than $10,000, 43% of the respondents had an annual income between $10,000 and $40,000; 11% of the respondents earned at least $40,000 or higher, and 27% of the respondents were unwilling to report their annual income. It should be noted that this sample might not be representative of the Italian population because of the utilization of a convenience sample derived from a snowball sampling process. In 2011, according to ISTAT (the Italian national statistical office), the overall population of Italy was 59,433,744; 51.63% of them were female and 48.37% were male, and this may suggest a gender bias for the sample of this study. However, according to Dholakia, Dholakia, and Kshetri’s (2004) study, which examined the nature and sources of gender disparity in the adoption and usage of Internet across different nations, the male–female ratio in Internet use was 70:30 in Italy. This might explain why the sample of current study yielded a similar male–female ratio for Italian online users. In addition, since the purpose of this study was theory testing by assessing the magnitude and significance of hypothesized relationships among several constructs in the proposed theoretical model rather than generalizing the findings to an overall population, a representative sample may not be needed and a convenience sample may be adequate to fulfill the purpose of this study (Filieri and McLeay 2013; He and Li 2010). Since the application of structural equation modeling approach on convenience samples has been a frequently used practice (e.g., Ballantyne, Packer, and Falk 2011; Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006; Ramkissoon, Graham Smith, and Weiler 2013), authors of this study believe that the data was appropriate to test the proposed relationships.

Table 2.

Demographic Profile of the Sample.

Category	Total Number	%
Gender
Male	1510	64.2
Female	825	35.1
Missing	17	0.7
Age
19-24	36	1.5
25-29	356	15.1
30-34	802	34.1
35-44	538	22.9
45-54	401	17.0
55-64	128	5.4
65-74	56	2.4
≥75	18	0.8
Missing	17	0.7
Annual income
<$10000	439	18.7
$10000-$14999	258	11.0
$15000-$29999	628	26.8
$30000-$39999	206	8.7
$40000-$69999	146	6.2
$70000-$99999	33	1.4
>$100000	10	0.4
Missing	632	26.9
Education
Primary	38	1.6
Secondary	256	10.9
University	818	34.8
Postgraduate	956	40.6
Others	260	11.1
Missing	24	1.0
Occupation
Student	412	17.5
Housewife	117	5.0
Employed	1050	44.6
Unemployed	319	13.6
Self-employed	326	13.9
Retired	94	4.0
Missing	34	1.4

Measurement Model

According to Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two step approach, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) should be performed first to ensure confidence in the measurement model, which specifies the relations of observed indicators to their underlying constructs. As presented in Table 3, most of the goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model were within an acceptable range except for the χ² value. The χ² value for the proposed model was found to be statistically significant (χ² = 1901.39, df = 378, p = .00). As noted by Jöreskog (1993, p. 309), “since chi-square is N – 1 times the minimum value of the fit function, the chi-square test tends to be large in large samples.” Because of the large effect of sample size on the chi-square values (and associated p values), other fit indices were also selected to measure the fit of the tested models (Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, and Gursoy 2013). The fit between the measurement model and data was thus assessed by the following standard indices: comparative fit index (CFI) = .96; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .96. Furthermore, the indicators of residuals, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04. All of the above indicated that the measurement model fit the data well and the overall fit indices were appropriate.

Table 3.

Goodness-of-Fit Indices.

Model	N	χ²	df	p	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Measurement model	2352	1901.4	378	< .01	.96	.96	.03	.04
Structural model	2352	2148.2	388	< .01	.96	.95	.05	.04

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Two types of validity measures, convergent and discriminant validity, were examined. Convergent validity was tested by examining t values of each item’s factor loading on its underlying construct (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). All t-values associated with each completely standardized factor loading for each indicator were found to be higher than 1.96, suggesting significance at the .05 significance level. This indicated that convergent validity of all the indictors was established. Discriminant validity was tested by comparing intercorrelations of factors with the square root of the average variance (i.e., variance extracted estimate) for each factor (Hatcher 1994). Since the estimate for variance extracted for each factor was at least .50 and exceeded any of the intercorrelations of the factors, discriminant validity of all the constructs was established (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

With measurement model demonstrating good fit, a structural model depicting each of nine hypotheses was then tested. Again, although the structural model had a significant χ² value (χ² = 2148.2, df = 388, p = .00), the other model fit indices were within an acceptable range: CFI = .96; TLI = .95; SRMR = .05; and RMSEA = .04 (Table 3). All these suggested that the structural model fit the data well.

The first three hypotheses (1a, 1b, and 1c) stated that materialism will negatively influence ecotourism attitude, ecotourism interest, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. These three hypotheses were supported as the standardized path coefficients for hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c were –.34, –.15, and –.17, respectively, and parameter estimates for all three were significant at the .01 significance level (Table 4). Hypotheses 2a and 2b proposed that ecotourism attitude will positively influence both ecotourism intention and ecotourism interest. The path coefficients for these two hypotheses were .10 and .36, respectively, and were both statistically significant at the .01 significance level. This findings provided support for hypotheses 2a and 2b. Hypothesis 2c proposed a positive relationship between ecotourism interest and ecotourism intention, and this hypothesis was not supported as path coefficient was .05 and was not statistically significant (p = .06). Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c proposed that ecotourism attitude, ecotourism intention, and ecotourism interest all will positively influence consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. The path coefficients for hypotheses 3a and 3b were .27 and .37, respectively, and were both statistically significant at the .01 significance level, whereas the path coefficient for hypothesis 3c was .03 and was not statistically significant (p = .17). Therefore, hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported while hypothesis 3c was not.

Table 4.

Standardized Path Coefficients of Variables for Hypotheses.

Variables	Standardized Estimate	t-Value	Hypotheses
Materialism → Ecotourism attitude	−.34	−9.26	Supported
Materialism → Ecotourism interest	−.15	−4.89	Supported
Materialism → Willingness to pay a premium	−.17	−5.37	Supported
Ecotourism attitude → Ecotourism intention	.10	4.16	Supported
Ecotourism attitude → Ecotourism interest	.36	16.41	Supported
Ecotourism interest → Ecotourism intention	.05*	1.86	Not supported
Ecotourism attitude → Willingness to pay a premium	.27	12.69	Supported
Ecotourism intention → Willingness to pay a premium	.37	17.53	Supported
Ecotourism interest → Willingness to pay a premium	.03*	1.39	Not supported

Denote paths are not significant, p > .05.

Discussions and Conclusions

As expected, the findings show that materialism value negatively influences ecotourism attitude, ecotourism interest, and willingness to pay a premium for eco-tourism products. Such result, to some extent, reflects previous researchers’ critiques of materialism as one of the root causes of environmental decline (Porritt 1984). In Kilbourne and Pickett’s (2008) study, which investigated how materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior, they contended that individuals’ cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962) could occur when their desired consumption behavior is considered as negative to the environment. Therefore, cognitive dissonance in materialists is likely to increase once they realize that the increase of consumption could result in negative environmental consequences. The resolution for such dissonance relies on the circumstances relating to the relative attractiveness of the alternatives (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959). Given that materialism has been long rooted in Western industrial society while environmentalism is relatively new and less integrated into cognitive structures, the conflict between the two values would be resolved in favor of materialism. This suggests that an individual is likely to discard his or her environmental concerns conflicting with his or her materialistic value. Since environmental protection is one of the major objectives of ecotourism development, those with high materialistic value would thus find ecotourism as an unattractive type of leisure activity and, therefore, they would not want to pay a premium for ecotourism products. All these could explain why one’s materialism would negatively influence his or her ecotourism attitude, interest, and willingness to pay more for ecotourism as reported in this study.

The results also reveal that consumers’ ecotourism attitude would positively influence ecotourism intention, ecotourism interest, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. Such findings are consistent with the rationale of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The model of TRA demonstrates that behaviors are determined by a person’s intention to perform a specific behavior and that behavioral intention is derived from two factors: (1) attitude toward the behavior and (2) subjective norms. In the present study, ecotourism intention, ecotourism interest, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism are three distinct variables that function similarly in nature as individuals’ behavioral intention, which has been justified in the literature review. It is thus reasonable to find that these three constructs are positively influenced by consumers’ ecotourism attitude. On the other hand, the result also indicates that consumers’ ecotourism intention will positively predict their willingness to pay more for ecotourism. Researchers (Howarth and Norgaard 1995) have noted that the reason why consumers are interested in the environment is mainly because they are concerned about their own health or their children’s future. According to Zaichkowsky (1985), when an issue is related to personal importance or values such as health or children’s future, it would enhance involvement. In addition, Bang et al. (2000) suggested that consumers who are concerned about the environment would prefer environmentally friendly products and would reward environmentally conscious businesses whom they perceive as socially responsible. In line with the above argument, consumers’ intention toward ecotourism, which aims to enhance nature-based environment, environmental education and sustainable management, should logically lead to their willingness to pay more for it as reported in this study.

Nevertheless, it is surprising that the present study did not find consumers ecotourism interest positively predict their ecotourism intention and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. Possible explanations for such findings might be the nature of Ecotourism Interest (EI) Scale itself. According to Juric, Cornwell, and Mather (2002), a notable limitation of EI scale is that it was tested only for selected activities available in New Zealand, so that whether the scale can be applied to different types of tourism activities and destinations is unknown. As those eight selected activities in New Zealand could not define all ecotourism activities across different destinations, the Italian public, who were the major sample of this study, might perceive some other activities in addition to those ones as their typical ecotourism activities. Therefore, the validity of EI scale in reflecting Italian participants’ ecotourism interest might be questionable, and this possibly inaccurate reflection might be the critical cause of insignificant predicting power of ecotourism interest on two other ecotourism-related constructs (i.e., ecotourism intention and willingness to pay a premium).

In conclusion, this study provides important theoretical contributions to the current literature on ecotourism and sustainable tourism development. Contrary to most prior ecotourism research that emphasized the positive relationship between individuals’ environmental values/attitudes and their ecotourism motivations and behaviors (e.g., Dolnicar and Leisch 2008; Luo and Deng 2008; Perkins and Brown 2012; Wurzinger and Johansson 2006), this study empirically illustrates that individuals’ materialistic value would significantly reduce their attitude and interest toward ecotourism and their willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism. Furthermore, the model proposed in this study also provides empirical support for Value-Attitude-Behavior cognitive hierarchy (Homer and Kahle 1988) that a person’s value orientations could be important influential factors of his/her attitudes. In addition, building on the theory of reasoned action literature, this study enriches the body of tourism literature by identifying significant positive effects of consumers’ favorable attitude of ecotourism on their ecotourism interest, ecotourism intention, and willingness to pay more for ecotourism. This also provides empirical support for using the theory of reasoned action when attempting to understand and explain individuals’ responses to ecotourism attitudes and behaviors.

Managerial Implications

The findings of this study provide some practical implications for ecotourism operators and marketers. Findings clearly indicate that an individual’s attitude is likely to influence his/her intention to purchase ecotourism products and his/her willingness to pay a premium for them. This suggests that development and implementation of communication strategies to create or increase consumers’ positive attitudes toward ecotourism is vital for the success and survival of ecotourism operations. To this end, ecotourism operators, tour operators, travel agents, and guides can cooperatively develop communication strategies and materials that emphasize the importance and benefits of ecotourism for preservation of environment and culture while generating positive benefits for local residents and tourists. For example, ecotourism service providers could cooperate with tourism community leaders to develop programs involving local residents to provide learning opportunities for them about the nature, environmental and cultural-heritage preservation efforts and initiatives, and how ecotourism can further those preservation efforts and initiatives. Studies suggest that the majority of ecotourists tend to travel with their friends or as a couple (Weaver and Lawton 2007). In order to increase participation in ecotourism and to target different segments, operators can provide facilities and activities that are family oriented around nature and wildlife. Operators can also offer special discounts to local residents to motivate them to try ecotourism products located within their communities. This may improve residents’ positive perceptions and support for ecotourism operations within their community. In addition, the promotion and recognition of potential economic benefits from ecotourism to an area is equally important. Tourism decision makers should communicate the importance of ecotourism in job creation and recreational opportunities with local residents through various media outlets such as Internet, TV, newspaper, magazine, printed material, etc. Ecotourism planners can also hold a series of special ecotourism events and festivals to achieve greater visibility and promotion. Increases in consumers’ knowledge and awareness of ecotourism’s importance and benefits are likely to result in favorable attitude toward ecotourism. This would, in turn, help increase consumers ecotourism interest, intention, as well as their willingness to pay more for ecotourism products and services, as reported in this study.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the success of the above efforts will vary according to the level of materialistic value held by individuals targeted in those efforts. Since individuals’ materialistic value is likely to negatively influence their attitude, interest, and willingness to pay a premium for ecotourism products, ecotourism operators should spend a great amount of time and effort on communication and education strategies for those who are high in materialism. This, of course, requires a long-term commitment since materialism has been long embedded in Western industrial society (Kilbourne and Pickett 2008). Perhaps an effective and efficient approach is that local and central authorities can develop consumer and production programs and policies aimed at changing consumers’ behaviors about environmental and sociocultural issues. Such programs and policies should emphasize the importance of environmental protection as well as advocate making small lifestyle changes to help further conservation of natural and sociocultural resources while increasing individuals’ happiness in life and improving quality of life overall.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As with any other studies, the current study has several limitations. Data for this study were collected only from one nation (i.e., Italy) utilizing an online data collection process, so whether the proposed model can be applied to different samples from Italy or other countries is questionable. Furthermore, since the data were collected utilizing an online survey, individuals without Internet access may have been excluded from the sample. In addition, this study utilized a convenience sample derived from a snowball sampling approach. Findings indicated that the sample included more male respondents than female respondents, which suggests that the sample may not be representative. When interpreting the results, readers should consider the possibility of gender bias in responses. It is strongly recommended that future studies utilize a random sampling approach for generalizability purposes. Future studies should preferably be conducted on a randomly acquired cross-national sample to address this generalizability concern.

Common method bias is also a limitation that should be noted. Data utilized were self-reported and all independent and dependent variables were obtained from the same raters (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This study did not separate the source of independent and dependent variables because of great difficulties in linking the data together. It is strongly recommended that future studies should set stricter research procedures to minimize this issue, preferably obtaining measures of independent and dependent variables from different raters.

Cross-sectional design is another limitation of this study, which could limit the ability to observe the changing patterns of subjects across time. It might also cause misidentification of the causal relationship between independent and dependent variables. Future research should address such issues by using longitudinal research approaches to detect and monitor variations and trends among subjects. Moreover, as mentioned in the discussion section, the EI scale used in this study may not be applicable to the sample of this study since the scale was developed for individuals who are located on another continent. The nature of EI scale might be the cause of insignificant findings. Future studies could address this issue by developing another measure of ecotourism interest that can be practically applied to a wider range of ecotourism experiences and eco tourist profiles.

The current study also provides a number of research directions for future research. Since this study utilized data from only one Western nation, Italy, it may be necessary to replicate this study in other Western nations to validate the results reported here. It may also be necessary to conduct cross-cultural studies to examine the influences of materialism on individuals’ attitude, interest, and willingness to pay more for ecotourism products from Eastern and Western cultures. Given research (Clark 2009) has identified Eastern and Western societies are ontologically differ in values they hold (i.e., Eastern society values spiritualism while Western society values materialism), replication of this study in Eastern cultures by integrating Eastern values into the model might generate critical findings and implications for Eastern ecotourism operators and marketers.

Future research can also identify factors that might moderate the relationship between materialism and individuals’ attitude, interest, and willingness to pay more for ecotourism products. For example, generational difference (i.e., Boomers vs. Generation X vs. Millennials) might be a possible moderator of this kind. Researchers have argued that each generation has a unique cultural perspective. The level of materialism value among different generations might also be different (e.g., Kilbourne and Pickett 2008). Therefore, including generational difference or other variables (e.g., demographic variables) as possible moderators in the proposed framework of this study might provide more practical implications for ecotourism practitioners to develop more customized marketing and communications strategies for different market segments.

Moreover, in addition to materialism value, future research should also try to identify other values that could influence people’s attitude and interest toward ecotourism; utilitarian and hedonic values might be two possible values of this kind (Gursoy, Spangenberg, and Rutherford 2006; Miao, Lehto, and Wei 2014). Since utilitarian and hedonic values have been widely recognized as two important determinants of consumers’ consumption choices (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000), it would be interesting to examine whether these two values also have any significant influences on how people think of ecotourism products.

Last but not least, all of the endogenous variables utilized in this study are measures of respondents’ behavioral intentions, not actual behaviors. Given some empirical studies (e.g., Holden and Sparrowhawk 2002; McDaniel and Rylander 1993) have shown that individuals’ behavioral intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors do not guarantee that they will actually engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Future research effort in this regard should measure both respondents’ behavioral intentions and their actual behaviors in order to enhance the understanding of the relationship between the two as well as generate more useful practical implications for ecotourism operators.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Allan Cheng Chieh Lu is an assistant professor in School of Tourism Management at Sun Yat-Sen University,Guangzhou, P. R., China. His research interests include consumer behavior and decision making.

Dogan Gursoy, PhD, is a Distinguished Professor in the School of Hospitality Business Management at the Washington State University, USA and a Senior Research Fellow in the School of Tourism and Hospitality at University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research interests include tourism impacts, mega events, generational leadership and consumer behavior. Email: dgursoy@wsu.edu

Giacomo Del Chiappa is a Tenured Assistant Professor in Marketing at the Department of Economics and Business (DiSEA), University of Sassari & CRENoS, Italy. His research topics include destination governance, branding, consumer behaviour and digital media.

References

Ajzen

Driver

B. L.

(1992). “Contingent Value Measurement: On the Nature and Meaning of Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4): 297-316.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ajzen

Peterson

G. L.

(1988). “Contingent Value Measurement: The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing.” In Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines, edited by Peterson

G. L.

Driver

B. L.

Gregory

State College, PA: Venture Publishing, pp. 65-75.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.

Auerbach

C. F.

Silverstein

L. B.

(2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York: New York University Press.

Bacon

L. D.

Bacon

(1997). Using Amos for Structural Equation Modeling in Market Research. Chicago: Lynd Bacon & Associates Limited and SPSS Inc.

Ballantyne

Packer

Falk

(2011). “Visitors’ Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Testing Short-and Long-Term Impacts of Wildlife Tourism Experiences Using Structural Equation Modelling.” Tourism Management, 32 (6): 1243-52.

Bang

H. K.

Ellinger

A. E.

Hadjimarcou

Traichal

P. A.

(2000). “Consumer Concern, Knowledge, Belief, and Attitude toward Renewable Energy: An Application of the Reasoned Action Theory.” Psychology & Marketing, 17 (6): 449-68.

Belk

R. W.

(1985). “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 265-80.

10.

Belk

R. W.

(1996). “Hyperreality and Globalization: Culture in the Age of Ronald McDonald.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8 (3-4): 23-37.

11.

Björk

(2000). “Ecotourism from a Conceptual Perspective, an Extended Definition of a Unique Tourism Form.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 2 (3): 189-202.

12.

Blamey

R. K.

(1997). “Ecotourism: The Search for an Operational Definition.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (2): 109-30.

13.

Bredemeier

H. C.

Toby

(1960). Social Problems in America: Costs and Casualties in an Acquisitive Society. New York: John Wiley.

14.

Browne

B. A.

Kaldenberg

D. O.

(1997). “Conceptualizing Self-Monitoring: Links to Materialism and Product Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14 (1): 31-44.

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(2011). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge Academic.

16.

Ceballos-Lascurain

(1990). “Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas.” In Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, selected papers from the 1st (April 17-19, 1989, Merida Mexico) and 2nd (Nov. 27-Dec. 2, 1990, Miami Beach, FL) International Symposia on Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, J. A. Kusler (compiler), 24-30.

17.

Clapp

(2002). “The Distancing of Waste: Overconsumption in a Global Economy.” In Confronting Consumption, edited by Princen

Thomas

Maniates

Michael

Conca

Ken

. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 155-76.

18.

Clark

A. S.

(2009). “Ontological Gap: Eastern Spiritualism Western Materialism.” Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, 2009 (1): 1.

19.

Conca

(2001). “Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy.” Global Environmental Politics, 1 (3): 53-71.

20.

Del Chiappa

(2013). “Internet versus Travel Agencies: The Perception of Different Groups of Italian Online Buyers.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19 (1): 55-66.

21.

Dhar

Wertenbroch

(2000). “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods.” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1): 60-71.

22.

Dholakia

R. R.

Dholakia

Kshetri

(2004). “Gender and Internet Usage.” The Internet Encyclopedia. DOI: 10.1002/047148296X.tie070.

23.

Diamantis

(1998). “Environmental Auditing: A Tool in Ecotourism Development.” Eco-Management and Auditing, 5 (1): 15-21.

24.

Dolnicar

Leisch

(2008). “An Investigation of Tourists’ Patterns of Obligation to Protect the Environment.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (4): 381-91.

25.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

Mertig

A. G.

Jones

R. E.

(2000). “New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3): 425-42.

26.

Edwards

J. G.

Davies

Hussain

S. S.

(2009). Ecological Economics: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley.

27.

Fennell

D. A.

(2002). Ecotourism Programme Planning. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

28.

Festinger

(1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

29.

Festinger

Carlsmith

J. M.

(1959). “Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (2): 203-10.

30.

Filieri

McLeay

(2013). “E-WOM and Accommodation: An Analysis of the Factors That Influence Travelers’ Adoption of Information from Online Reviews.” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (1): 44-57.

31.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39-50.

32.

Fowler

F. J.

(2013). Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Gallarza

M. G.

Gil-Saura

(2006). “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of University Students’ Travel Behaviour.” Tourism Management, 27 (3): 437-52.

34.

Gnoth

(1997). “Tourism Motivation and Expectation Formation.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): 283-304.

35.

Goldenberg

Han

Lehmann

Hong

(2009). “The Role of Hubs in the Adoption Processes.” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2): 1-13.

36.

Gursoy

Boylu

Avci

(2011). “Identifying the Complex Relationships among Emotional Labor and Its Correlates.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30 (4): 783-94.

37.

Gursoy

Spangenberg

E. R.

Rutherford

D. G.

(2006). “The Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attendees’ Attitudes toward Festivals.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30 (3): 279-94.

38.

Hall

C. M.

(1992). “Ecotourism: The Global Classroom.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1 (2): 79-82.

39.

Hatcher

(1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS system for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

40.

(2010). “Key Service Drivers for High-Tech Service Brand Equity: The Mediating Role of Overall Service Quality and Perceived Value.” Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (1-2): 77-99.

41.

Hines

J. M.

Hungerford

H. R.

Tomera

A. N.

(1987). “Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2): 1-8.

42.

Holden

Sparrowhawk

(2002). “Understanding the Motivations of Ecotourists: The Case of Trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (6): 435-46.

43.

Hollander

E. P.

(1967). Principles and Methods of Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

44.

Homer

P. M.

Kahle

L. R.

(1988). “A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4): 638-46.

45.

Howarth

R. B.

Norgaard

R. B.

(1995). “Intergenerational Choices under Global Environmental Change.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 111-38.

46.

Inglehart

(1981). “Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity.” American Political Science Review, 75 (4): 880-900.

47.

Jefferson

(1995). “Prospects for Tourism—A Practitioner’s View.” Tourism Management, 16 (2): 101-5.

48.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1993). “Testing Structural Equation Models.” In Testing Structural Equation Models, edited by Bollen

K. A.

Lang

J. S.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 294-316.

49.

Jorgenson

A. K.

(2003). “Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-National Analysis of the Ecological Footprint.” Social Problems, 50 (3): 374-94.

50.

Juric

Cornwell

T. B.

Mather

(2002). “Exploring the Usefulness of an Ecotourism Interest Scale.” Journal of Travel Research, 40 (3): 259-69.

51.

Kapelianis

Strachan

(1996). “The Price Premium of an Environmentally Friendly Product.” South African Journal of Business Management, 27 (4): 89-96.

52.

Kasim

Gursoy

Okumus

Wong

(2014). “The Importance of Water Management in Hotels: A Framework for Sustainability through Innovation.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1:1-18.

53.

Katz

(1960). “The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (2): 163-204.

54.

Kilbourne

Pickett

(2008). “How Materialism Affects Environmental Beliefs, Concern, and Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Journal of Business Research, 61 (9): 885-93.

55.

Kim

Borges

M. C.

Chon

(2006). “Impacts of Environmental Values on Tourism Motivation: The Case of FICA, Brazil.” Tourism Management, 27 (5): 957-67.

56.

Lai

P. H.

Nepal

S. K.

(2006). “Local Perspectives of Ecotourism Development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan.” Tourism Management, 27 (6): 1117-29.

57.

Lam

Hsu

C. H.

(2006). “Predicting Behavioral Intention of Choosing a Travel Destination.” Tourism Management, 27 (4): 589-99.

58.

Lindberg

McKercher

(1997). “Ecotourism: A Critical Overview.” Pacific Tourism Review, 1 (1): 65-79.

59.

Lindgren

H. C.

(1969). An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: John Wiley.

60.

Lück

(2003). “The New Environmental Paradigm: Is the Scale of Dunlap and Van Liere Applicable in a Tourism Context?” Tourism Geographies, 5 (2): 228-40.

61.

Luo

Deng

(2008). “The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism Motivation.” Journal of Travel research, 46 (4): 392-402.

62.

Manaktola

Jauhari

(2007). “Exploring Consumer Attitude and Behaviour towards Green Practices in the Lodging Industry in India.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19 (5): 364-77.

63.

Mason

M. C.

Nassivera

(2013). “A Conceptualization of the Relationships between Quality, Satisfaction, Behavioral Intention, and Awareness of a Festival.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22 (2): 162-82.

64.

McCarty

J. A.

Shrum

L. J.

(2001). “The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (1): 93-104.

65.

McDaniel

S. W.

Rylander

D. H.

(1993). “Strategic Green Marketing.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10 (3): 4-10.

66.

Miao

Lehto

Wei

(2014). “The Hedonic Value of Hospitality Consumption: Evidence from Spring Break Experiences.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23 (2): 99-121.

67.

Micken

K. S.

Roberts

S. D.

(1999). “Desperately Seeking Certainty: Narrowing the Materialism Construct.” Advances in Consumer Research, 26 (1): 513-18.

68.

Millar

Mayer

K. J.

Baloglu

(2012). “Importance of Green Hotel Attributes to Business and Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21 (4): 395-413.

69.

Moisander

Pesonen

(2002). “Narratives of Sustainable Ways of Living: Constructing the Self and the Other as a Green Consumer.” Management Decision, 40 (4): 329-42.

70.

Nunkoo

Gursoy

Ramkissoon

(2013). “Developments in Hospitality Marketing and Management: Social Network Analysis and Research Themes.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22 (3): 269-88.

71.

Nunkoo

Ramkissoon

Gursoy

(2013) “Use of Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism Research Past, Present, and Future.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (6): 759-71.

72.

Peattie

(1995). Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting the Green Challenge. London: Pitman.

73.

Pipinos

Fokiali

(2009). “An Assessment of the Attitudes of the Inhabitants of Northern Karpathos, Greece: Towards a Framework for Ecotourism Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11 (3): 655-75.

74.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879-903.

75.

Porritt

(1984). Seeing Green: The Politics of Ecology Explained. New York: Blackwell.

76.

Perkins

H. E.

Brown

P. R.

(2012). “Environmental Values and the So-Called True Ecotourist.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (6): 793-803.

77.

Ramkissoon

Graham Smith

L. D.

Weiler

(2013). “Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment and Its Relationships with Place Satisfaction and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach.” Tourism Management, 36:552-66.

78.

Rassuli

K. M.

Hollander

S. C.

(1986). “Desire-Induced, Innate, Insatiable?” Journal of Macromarketing, 6 (2): 4-24.

79.

Reinhardt

F. L.

(1998). “Environmental Product Differentiation: Implications for Corporate Strategy.” California Management Review, 40 (4): 43-73.

80.

Richins

M. L.

(2004). “The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form.” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1): 209-19.

81.

Richins

M. L.

Dawson

(1992). “A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3): 303-16.

82.

Rokeach

(1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

83.

Ross

Wall

(1999). “Ecotourism: Towards Congruence between Theory and Practice.” Tourism Management, 20 (1): 123-32.

84.

Schwartz

(1990). “Earth Day Today.” American Demographics, 12 (4): 40-41.

85.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?” Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4): 19-45.

86.

Singh

Slotkin

M. H.

Vamosi

A. R.

(2007). “Attitude towards Ecotourism and Environmental Advocacy: Profiling the Dimensions of Sustainability.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13 (2): 119-34.

87.

Speer

T. L.

(1997). “Growing the Green Market.” American Demographics, 19:45-50.

88.

Stern

P. C.

(1999). “Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Policy, 22 (4): 461-78.

89.

Tilikidou

Delistavrou

(2004). “The Influence of the Materialistic Values on Consumers’ Pro-Environmental Post-Purchase Behavior.” In Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 2004 American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference, 15:42-49.

90.

Valentine

P. S.

(1993). “Ecotourism and Nature Conservation: A Definition with Some Recent Developments in Micronesia.” Tourism Management, 14 (2): 107-15.

91.

Weaver

D. B.

Lawton

L. J.

(2007). “Twenty Years on: The State of Contemporary Ecotourism Research.” Tourism Management, 28 (5): 1168-79.

92.

Weaver

D. B.

(2014). “Asymmetrical Dialectics of Sustainable Tourism toward Enlightened Mass Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (2): 131-40.

93.

Wood

M. E.

(2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Polices for Sustainability. Paris: UN Environmental Programme.

94.

Worldwide

R. S.

(1997). Green Gauge Report. New York.

95.

Wurzinger

Johansson

(2006). “Environmental Concern and Knowledge of Ecotourism among Three Groups of Swedish Tourists.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (2): 217-26.

96.

Gursoy

(Forthcoming). “A Conceptual Framework of Sustainable Hospitality Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management.

97.

Zaichkowsky

J. L.

(1985). “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 341-52.