Understanding Customer Perception on Sustainable Tourism and Related Practices Using Cluster Analysis: A Study in Indian Context

Abstract

‘Sustainable tourism’ has emerged as an increasingly acceptable phenomenon and is widely recognized as an important factor in making a positive impact on protecting the environment as well as contributing to the economy. Several agencies and organizations worldwide promote sustainable tourism but the adoption and practice amongst the travellers have been seldom explored in the Indian context. This article attempts to identify the class of ‘sustainable tourists’ by identifying their demographic characteristics through the application of K-means cluster analysis. The results depicted that females are likely to be more sustainable than their male counterparts. Apart from that, young, more educated along with those in full-time employment are more likely to exhibit characteristics of a ‘sustainable tourist’. Further, this study is also successful in identifying specific practices in which a ‘sustainable tourist’ is likely to engage themselves. This article provides important implications for a range of stakeholders including tour and travel agencies, hoteliers as well as tourist guides who can reformulate their marketing strategies to include ‘sustainable tourists’ in their efforts to expand their customer base. It will also give useful insights to the administration and other authorities of the tourist destinations to minimize the damage and promote the culture of sustainable tourism.

Keywords

Cluster analysis environment stakeholders sustainable tourism

Introduction

The tourism industry has always played a pivotal role in the growth of any economy as it stimulates consumption, promotes local trade, strengthens communication and enhances local and international relationships (Shahzad et al., 2017). Before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the travel and tourism industry accounted for 10.4% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the year 2019 which plummeted to 5.5% in 2020 because of restrictions on mobility (World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), n.d.). Given the significance of tourism to economic growth, there is a growing concern about its sustainability. The United Nations Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals promote sustainable development by monitoring the use of natural resources, focus on conservation efforts and make use of local resources to increase the economic benefits (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020). To reap the economic benefits and address the concern for the environment, attention must be given to sustainable tourism practices and policies. Understanding the perceptions of the customers is also important; therefore, tourist destinations must focus on creating and offering products and value propositions that are perceived to be sustainable by the tourists (Santos et al., 2020).

This study is an attempt to understand the perception of tourists towards sustainable tourism in the Indian context. Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale (SUS-TAS) is a potential instrument to measure the attitude of communities towards sustainable tourism (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). This scale has been widely used in the context of various tourist destinations across the globe; Eastern island context (Hsu et al., 2020), Spanish version for a study in Madrid (Chamarro et al., 2021) and Gradac River in Serbia (Obradović & Stojanović, 2021) to name a few. Empirical evidence of the use of the scale in the context of India is limited. This article attempts to fill this gap and assess the attitude of people towards sustainable tourism as it is imperative for the people living in the society to understand the exigency and relevance of this concept. It aims to identify which set of tourists can be categorized as sustainable tourists and which sustainable practices are most preferred. Joint efforts must be made to build and achieve a tourism culture wherein the current and future impacts, be it social, economic or environmental, are fully taken into account.

By sustainable tourism, we mean ‘tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment, and host communities’ (COE, 2005, p. 12). Sustainable tourism is not concerned and limited to the reduction of its negative effects but also aims to maximize the environmental, economic and social benefits. It is a holistic concept that involves multiple objectives ranging from optimal use of environmental resources to respecting and preserving the cultural values and ensuring tourist satisfaction all along. It can be ensured with the active cooperation and joint efforts of all the stakeholders, such as businesses, tour operators, hotels, host communities, environmentalists, government and most importantly, the tourists themselves. K-means cluster analysis is a popular data analysis technique to identify homogenous groups sharing similar characteristics (K-Means Cluster Analysis - IBM Documentation, n.d.). It has wide application in behavioural studies to divide the respondents into homogeneous groups. Several studies have used the cluster analysis approach to segment the markets on various behavioural and psychographic aspects and identify the target groups for managerial action. A study by D. S. Banerjee and Pawar (2013) used the cluster analysis approach to segment the kids’ wear market. Advanced techniques like Cluster analysis and Multi-dimensional scaling were used to segment passenger car markets and draw useful implications for the marketers (Sandhu & Kaur, 2005). This analysis will be useful in the identification of sustainable tourists, study their demographic patterns and characteristics and promote the sustainable practices adopted by them.

Literature Review

Tourism holds a significant place in an economy. It is an important source of revenue that not only forms a significant part of the GDP but is also a key source of employment in any country (Kumar & Shekhar, 2020). Tourism has been recognized as one of the key strategic areas for improving the country’s position in the global landscape (Chowdhury, 1998). However, we cannot ignore its negative repercussions as well. Further, the impact of tourism is also delved upon in terms of social and economic cost and benefits consequent from tourist activities (Shahzad et al., 2017). The social exchange theory provides the basis that the perceived costs and benefits arising from the sustainable tourism shape the attitude of residents towards it. Empirical shreds of evidence have shown that residents support tourism if perceived benefits exceed costs, that is, positive impacts are higher than the negative ones (Hadinejad et al., 2019). From a theoretical perspective, the social exchange theory which was integrated with the development of the SUS-TAS scale is of pertinence. It underscores the relationship between the dimensions of the SUS-TAS scale and the intention of people to support sustainable tourism. SUS-TAS scale developed by Choi and Sirakaya (2005) has been widely studied in different cultural settings including the United States, Europe and Africa (Ercan & Dogan, 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2018; Sirakaya-Turk et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015). In the Asian-Pacific context, a study targeted an island state of Taiwan (Hsu et al., 2020). This region is one of the fastest tourism growing regions (World Tourism Organization and Global Tourism Economy Research Centre, 2018) and is most likely to recover from the grip of Covid-19 as per a report by ILTM Asia Pacific ( TTG Asia, 2021). Our study aims to study the dimensions of SUS-TAS scale in Indian context as India holds the fourth position amongst the influential nations in this region (The Times of India, 2020).

Adoption of Sustainable Tourism Practices

For a satisfying holiday experience, multiple elements in a tourism product must be offered and combined. These include location, transport and accommodation (Seddighi & Theocharous, 2002). The choice of popular destinations during peak seasons often leads to overcrowding, pollution and a shortage of resources at these locations. The choice of mode of travel also has severe environmental effects. As per a report by European Commission (2003), it is observed that transportation by rail has a lesser contribution to the greenhouse effect in comparison with air or car transportation. Along with transportation, choice and usage of accommodation, services are also important. As per the study by Rosenblum et al. (2000) and Chan and Lam (2002), the pattern of consuming water and energy along with generation of waste is reflective of the concern of an individual towards the environment. During the holidays, the purchase patterns (preference for leisure products/services/food/souvenirs, etc.) also vary and have significant ecological concerns. Small changes in these practices can bring greater results and help in building a culture of sustainable tourism. This parameter shall look into the perception of people towards the adoption of sustainable practices while travelling and if he/she can be termed as an ecological consumer. In the words of Andrés and Eva (2003), an individual who shows increasing concern for nature, undertakes measures to conserve it, assumes ecological responsibility and makes efforts to modify his/her habits can be termed as an ecological consumer. The construct on the adoption of sustainable practices comprises statements depicting activities that, in the Indian context, are considered best practices as endorsed by Incredible India, NITI Aayog (2018) and Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) reports. Sustainable practices including water conservation, solid waste management and carbon footprints are important environmental sustainability issues (NITI Aayog, 2018). Further conservation of architectural and cultural heritage is also one of the key components of sustainability tourism (Strategic Government Advisory, Yes Bank and CII, 2017).

Perceived Economic Benefits and Social Costs of Tourism

Tourism growth is crucial for every economy. As suggested by Filiposki et al. (2016), the income generated by tourism can provide an impetus for the development of local services and facilities in areas of transport, leisure, infrastructure and so on. Many studies highlight the fact that the most crucial element which is sought after by the residents of any tourism destination is the economic benefit (Akis et al., 1996; Husbands, 1989; Ritchie, 1988). The increased economic benefits also appear in the way of increased investments and tax revenues which also contribute to raising the standard of living of residents. On the contrary, it also has certain negative effects which can disrupt the culture of a community as suggested by Andereck et al. (2005). Apart from cultural disorientation, it puts strain on natural resources like land, water and air, thereby leading to environmental damage and increased demand for energy. In addition to this, it even creates traffic woes and commuting problems for residents (Kyungmi et al., 2012). Tourism can lead to its destruction because excessive tourism can tarnish the environment and the destination may lose its attraction to be a tourist spot (Glasson et al., 1995). Tourism can be sustainable only if it protects the culture of local people and nations, improves the well-being of the society and preserves the environment all around.

Environment Sustainability

Sustainability as a concept is relevant in the realm of the social, economic and natural environment. Environment sustainability is looked at preserving natural resources while promoting tourism. This is important as increased tourist activities put restrain on the existing resources of the particular region which can impact the living conditions of the nearby communities living. Hence, environment sustainability deals in the context of tourism with an issue for the accommodation of increased footfall of tourists while preserving the natural resources.

Tourism can affect environment in several ways depending upon the nature of tourist activities. Activities around mountainous regions can lead to soil depletion, water contamination and collection of waste (Kuniyal et al., 1998). Further, Malik and Bhat (2015) studied tourism in Kashmir wherein the authors observed excessive tourist activities in selected parts of the region leading to an over the ecological imbalance. Babu et al. (2018) studied the tourism supply chain management of the hotel industry to look for scope of adoption as to how sustainability practices.

Tourism Visitor Satisfaction

Torres-Sovero et al. (2012) attempted to study the socio-ecological factors which could affect the satisfaction of visitors. The study primarily aimed at assessing the impact of eco-tourism in improving the adoption of sustainable practices in the south-eastern Peruvian Amazon. Hill et al. (2007) explored the role of increased awareness among tourists about the biodiversity of a region in the context of cognitive and affective domains. The authors elaborate that the more knowledge of the surroundings of the tourist can acquire about their visit, the more satisfied they are from their trip.

Wan and Li (2013) studied the scope of sustainable tourism development in Macao, China, through a longitudinal study from 2002 to 2009. The author evaluated the negative and positive impact of tourism in the realm of socio-economic, cultural and environmental, and tourist satisfaction points of view. This article identified that although the increasing tourist inflow was beneficial for the economic perspective (due rise in casinos culture in the city), the same was hurting the local communities’ quality of life.

Research Objectives

This study aims to empirically assess the attitudes, feelings and perceptions of people of India towards sustainable tourism. The objectives are as follows:

To test the applicability of constructs of the SUS-TAS scale in the Indian context.

To classify respondents on basis of constructs of the SUS-TAS scale.

To determine the demographic spread of the clusters.

To ascertain the extent of adoption of sustainable tourism practices by respondents.

Research Methodology

To assess the attitude of people and their perception towards sustainable travel and tourism, a survey-based study was conducted by collecting responses to a structured, non-disguised questionnaire. The questionnaire was bifurcated into six sections: Section 1 comprised of questions related to the demographics of the respondents, like age, gender, occupation, education and so on. Section 2 is comprised of nine statements about the adoption of sustainable tourism practices. The respondents were requested to mark their responses on a 5-point scale ranging from SA (Strongly Agree as 5) to SD (Strongly Disagree as 1). The next section comprised of statements from the dimensions of the SUS-TAS scale by Choi and Sirakaya (2005). The scale comprised of seven dimensions namely (a) social costs, (b) environment sustainability, (c) long-term planning, (d) economic benefits, (e) ensuring visitor satisfaction, (f) community-based tourism and (g) maximizing community participation. A pilot testing was done on 30 respondents to ensure that the statements were clearly and readily understood by the respondents. However, the pilot study results depicted reliability issues with Factor four: Community Participation, Factor five: Long Term Planning and Factor seven: Community-Centred Economy. Hence, these three factors were dropped from the study. Section 3 comprised of eight statements related to the construct, Perceived Social Costs as adopted from the SUS-TAS scale. Section 4 consisted of eight statements related to Environmental Sustainability and Section 5 comprised of seven statements related to Perceived Economic Benefits adopted from the same scale. Section 6 is comprised of four statements corresponding to Ensuring visitor satisfaction. Table 1 depicts the constructs and statements of the questionnaire.

Table 1.

Constructs and Statements of the Questionnaire.

S. No.	Statement	Label
Construct: Adoption of Sustainable Tourism Practices*
1	I often travel in the offseason when cities/destinations are not overcrowded (solid waste management)	Sp1
2	I do not ask the hotel (where I stay) to change my sheets and towels every day (water conservation)	Sp2
3	I search for eco-friendly products/services in the area (environmental preservation)	Sp3
4	I prefer to take direct flights, as having several layovers in my trip increases my carbon footprints (reduction of carbon footprints)	Sp4
5	I condemn the practice of getting the name emblazoned on the walls of the caves or the sides of the mountains (preservation of cultural heritage)	Sp5
6	I prefer to walk around in the streets close to my hotel (reduction of carbon footprints)	Sp6
7	I respect the silence and the restrictions placed on tourist/heritage sites (preservation of cultural heritage)	Sp7
8	I discourage the use of the plastic bags that fly all over many sites and foul up water and waste systems (solid waste management)	Sp8
9	Overall, I try to be a responsible traveller concerned about the environment of the places I visit	Sp9
Construct: Perceived Social Costs**
10	I often feel irritated because of tourism in my community	Psc1
11	Tourism in my community disrupts my quality of life	Psc2
12	My community is overcrowded because of tourism development	Psc3
13	Community recreational resources are overused by tourists	Psc4
14	I believe the quality of the environment in my community has deteriorated because of tourism	Psc5
16	Tourism is growing too fast	Psc6
17	My quality of life has deteriorated because of tourism	Psc7
18	I do not feel comfortable or welcome in local tourism business	Psc8
Construct: Environmental Sustainability**
19	The diversity of nature must be valued and protected	Es1
20	Proper tourism development requires that wildlife and natural habitats be protected at all times	Es2
21	Community environment must be protected now and for the future	Es3
22	Tourism development must promote positive environmental ethics among all parties with a stake in tourism	Es4
23	Tourism must be developed in harmony with the natural and cultural environment	Es5
24	I think tourism developers should strengthen efforts for environmental conservation	Es6
25	I believe tourism must improve the environment for future generations	Es7
26	Regulatory environmental standards are needed to reduce the negative impacts of tourism development	Es8
Construct: Perceived Economic Benefits**
27	I believe tourism is a strong economic contributor to community	Peb1
28	Tourism benefits other industries in communities	Peb2
29	I believe tourism is good for communities’ economies	Peb3
30	Tourism diversifies the local economy	Peb4
31	Tourism creates new markets for our local products	Peb5
32	I like tourism because it brings new income to communities	Peb6
33	Tourism generates substantial tax revenues for the local government	Peb7
Construct: Ensuring Visitor Satisfaction**
34	Tourism businesses must monitor visitor satisfaction	Vs1
35	Tourism industry must ensure good quality tourism experiences for visitors	Vs2
36	It is the responsibility of tourism businesses to meet visitor needs	Vs3
37	Community attractiveness is a core element of ecological ‘appeal’ for visitors	Vs4

Source: *Constructs developed on the basis of the reports from industry and government reports published in India.

Notes: **Selected constructs adapted from SUS-TAS scale; the responses collected were analysed using K-means cluster analysis.

Data Collection

To collect the responses, Google Forms was used and the link was circulated in various social groups via mail, WhatsApp, Facebook and LinkedIn. To ensure authentic responses in the limited timeframe, snowball sampling technique was adopted for collecting data from the respondents in India. The data was collected in February 2020. For ascertaining the content validity of the questionnaire, the statements were formulated in consultation with subject experts in the field of environment, tourism and marketing. As per Hair et al. (2010), a sample size of 100 is suitable in case of fewer than five constructs each having at least three statements. Tinsley and Tinsley (1987) recommends a ratio of about 5 to 10 subjects per item up to about 300 subjects. A total of 187 responses were collected out of which a total of 150 responses were included in the final analysis. The demographics of the respondents is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographics of the Respondents.

Demographic Variables		Total	Percentage
Gender	Male	70	46.7
Gender	Female	80	53.3
Age (in years)	20–29	70	46.7
	30–39	36	24.0
	40–49	12	8.0
	50–59	14	9.3
	60–69	18	12.0
Monthly income (in rupees)	Under 19,999	38	25.3
	20,000–39,999	20	13.3
	40,000–59,999	28	18.7
	60,000–79,999	22	14.7
	80,000–99,999	10	6.7
	100,000 or more	32	21.3
Education	Up to 12th class	16	10.7
	Graduate	60	40.0
	Post-graduate	50	33.3
	Doctorate	24	16.0
Employment	Full time	76	50.7
	Part time	10	6.7
	Full-time homemaker	6	4.0
	Students	36	24.0
	Retired	16	10.7
	Not currently employed	6	4.0

Source: SPSS output.

Data Analysis

The statements as shown in Table 1 measured varying constructs assessing perception towards sustainable tourism. To check the suitability of using the constructs in the SUS-TAS scale in the Indian context, internal consistency was tested. The most common measure of internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha (α) which is the average of all possible split-half coefficients obtained from the different splitting of the scale items. The coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, and the measure of 0.6 or more is considered satisfactory for considering scales as internally consistent and reliable for further analysis (Field, 2013). The results of reliability testing are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Reliability Statistics.

Scale	Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
Perceived social cost	0.889	8
Environment sustainability	0.916	8
Perceived economic benefits	0.853	7
Tourist satisfaction	0.831	4
Adoption of sustainable tourism practices	0.532	9

Source: SPSS output.

Since the reliability of the adoption of sustainable tourism practices is below 0.6, it is dropped for further analysis. To classify the respondents based on select constructs namely, perceived social cost, environment sustainability, perceived economic benefits and tourist satisfaction, cluster analysis was used. The software used is IBM SPSS v.25. Cluster analysis is a technique designed to create classification from a data set. To begin with, a hierarchical procedure in cluster analysis was used to investigate if any cases lie outside and form individual clusters and need to be omitted. A careful examination of the dendrogram obtained suggested that the data set could be divided into three clusters showing similar responses. In the next stage, the non-hierarchical method, K-means cluster analysis was used. The results of the final clusters formed are depicted in Table 4.

Table 4.

Number of Cases in Each Cluster.

Cluster	1	28.000
	2	58.000
	3	64.000
Valid		150.000
Missing		0.000

Source: SPSS output.

The use of cluster analysis suggests that the number of respondents in each cluster should be nearly equal and comparable to draw meaningful conclusions which are supported by the data as shown in Table 4.

Before the final clusters are formed, it is important to check whether the statements to which responses are made are significant or not. The average scores of all four constructs were used. All four scores came out to be significant with P < 0.05 as shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

ANOVA.

	Cluster		Error		F	Sig.
	Mean Square	df	Mean Square	df	F	Sig.
psc_avg	35.599	2	0.308	147	115.485	0.000
env_avg	11.857	2	0.122	147	97.483	0.000
peb_avg	7.240	2	0.195	147	37.172	0.000
vs_avg	10.888	2	0.191	147	56.924	0.000

Source: SPSS output.

Note: P values are less than .05.

Figure 1.

Source: SPSS output.

Figure 1 displays the three clusters based on the responses received on the questionnaire.

The results for the final cluster centres divided the data set into three clusters namely 1 = ‘Less sustainable tourists’, 2 = ‘Most sustainable tourists’ and 3 = ‘More sustainable tourists’. The responses were received on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The output shows that Cluster 2 consists of respondents who are most sustainable as the average score lies in the upper range of 3.5 to 5, that is, they either Agree or Strongly Agree. This cluster groups the respondents for whom the various dimensions/constructs used to assess the attitude towards sustainable tourism (perceived social costs, environment sustainability, perceived economic benefits and visitor satisfaction) matter the most in comparison to their counterparts. Cluster 3 consists of respondents having a more positive attitude towards sustainable tourism vis-à-vis Cluster 1 consisting of respondents with a less favourable attitude. This is shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Final Cluster Centres.

	Cluster
	1	2	3
psc_avg	2.99	3.61	2.09
env_avg	3.80	4.88	4.76
peb_avg	3.74	4.56	4.52
vs_avg	3.70	4.77	4.48

Source: SPSS output.

Once the data is classified into various clusters, the next objective was to investigate the demographic characteristics of these clusters. This would give useful insights about what category of respondents are more sustainable in their approach towards travelling in terms of gender, education, employment and income. Since Cluster 2 came out to be the most significant one, efforts were directed to study the demographic spread of this cluster only. The results are depicted in Table 7.

Table 7.

Cluster 2: Demographic Characteristics.

Demographics		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	38	65.5
	Male	20	34.5
	Total	58	100.0
Age	20–29	26	44.8
	30–39	14	24.1
	50–59	6	10.3
	60–69	12	20.7
	Total	58	100.0
Monthly income	Under 19,999	14	24.1
	20,000–39,999	2	3.4
	40,000–59,999	16	27.6
	60,000–79,999	12	20.7
	80,000–99,999	4	6.9
	1,00,000 or more	10	17.2
Education	Up to class 12	8	13.8
	Graduate	18	31.0
	Post-graduate	20	34.5
	Doctorate	12	20.7
	Total	58	100.0
Employment	Full time	26	44.8
	Part time	4	6.9
	Full-time homemaker	2	3.4
	Students	14	24.1
	Retired	10	17.2
	Not currently employed	2	3.4
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

The results show that Cluster 2 consists of 66% of females as compared to 34% of males suggesting that women are more sustainable travellers in comparison to their male counterparts.

Results also indicate that the younger generation in the age group 20–29 years formed 45% of the cluster indicative of a change in the perception of young minds towards sustainable practices and realizing the exigency and relevance of sustainable travel.

The results for income indicate almost an equal spread between categories 1, 3 and 5 which can be inferred as income levels do not significantly impact the attitude towards sustainable practices. The concern and relevance for environment protection and sustainable development is a common responsibility irrespective of the socio-economic levels.

The level of education is assumed to be an important factor in shaping the mind of an individual towards ecological problems. It makes them better informed and responsible citizens who can be instrumental in bringing about the change in society at a large. Our data also supports the notion as the majority of respondents in the cluster are postgraduates.

About the level of employment, the results of the demographic spread of Cluster 2 indicated that respondents in full-time employment are more conscious and concerned about sustainability issues.

Further, Cluster 2 was analysed for the construct of adoption of sustainable tourism practices to gather an idea as to what extent the respondents in this cluster who are most sustainable travellers adopt these practices. The entire cluster is studied in respect of 9 statements measuring the said construct.

The results are as follows:

Table 8a.

I Often Travel in the Offseason When Cities/Destinations Are Not Overcrowded.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	4	6.9
	2	4	6.9
	3	14	24.1
	4	18	31.0
	5	18	31.0
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

As indicated in Table 8a, most of the respondents either Agree = 4 or Strongly Agree = 5 which testifies their consciousness and concern for the tourist places, and they prefer not to overburden or overcrowd these places.

Table 8b.

I Do Not Ask the Hotel (Where I Stay) to Change My Sheets and Towels Every day.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	22	37.9
	2	12	20.7
	3	6	10.3
	4	10	17.2
	5	8	13.8
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

Table 8b suggests that the majority of the respondents, 38%, strongly disagree with the practice of not asking the hotels to change the beddings and towels. This however can be viewed as a concern for personal hygiene and cleanliness and should not be regarded as a completely unsustainable choice. But, at the same time efforts should be made to reduce the consumption and reuse through a more conscious and effective use.

Table 8c.

I Search for Eco-friendly Products/Services in the Area.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	6	10.3
	3	16	27.6
	4	12	20.7
	5	24	41.4
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

A total of 41% of respondents in Cluster 2 (Table 8c) strongly agree that they prefer eco-friendly products and services and make deliberate efforts to search for avenues that offer them. It may include searching for a green hotel, restaurant, shops and so on which offer products that do not harm the environment and the services also aim at judicious use of resources like air, water, energy and so on.

Table 8d.

I Prefer to Take Direct Flights, as Having Several Layovers in My Trip Increases My Carbon Footprints.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	2	3.4
	2	6	10.3
	3	12	20.7
	4	12	20.7
	5	26	44.8
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

Table 8d for statement when the response was sought on the statement that whether respondents prefer to take direct flights vis-à-vis the layovers (as it is comparatively cheaper) depicted 45% of them strongly agreed. It supports their concern and intention of contributing to sustainable development by reducing carbon footprints.

Table 8e.

I Condemn the Practice of Getting the Name Emblazoned on the Walls of the Caves or the Sides of the Mountains.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	4	6.9
	2	2	3.4
	3	10	17.2
	4	2	3.4
	5	40	69.0
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

Scribbling of the names on the walls of monuments and other sites (Table 8e) is age-old malpractice that needs to be curbed and penalized. A total of 69% of our respondents in Cluster 2 also vouched for the same and they strongly agreed to condemn the practice of emblazing the names on the walls of heritage sites, thereby tarnishing their natural aesthetic beauty and glory.

Table 8f.

I Prefer to Walk Around in the Streets Close to My Hotel.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	2	3.4
	2	2	3.4
	3	6	10.3
	4	14	24.1
	5	34	58.6
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

A total of 59% of respondents strongly agreed and preferred to walk overuse of hired cabs/taxis to explore the places around (Table 8f). It reduces the consumption of fuel and prevents polluting the natural environment. At the same time, it allows them to have closer contact with nature and the surroundings they are exploring.

Table 8g.

I Respect the Silence and the Restrictions Placed on Tourist/Heritage Sites.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	2	3.4
	3	2	3.4
	4	10	17.2
	5	44	75.9
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

Tourist destinations are often meant to provide a sense of peace and solace that should not be muddled. As depicted in Table 8g, majority of the respondents also agreed in a strong manner that they respect the silence at the tourist destinations suggestive of their concern for the environment and sustainability.

Table 8h.

I Discourage the Use of the Plastic Bags that Fly All Over Many Sites and Foul Up Water and Waste Systems.

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	1	2	3.4
	2	2	3.4
	3	6	10.3
	4	6	10.3
	5	42	72.4
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

UN Environment Assembly, the standard setting body on the environment, has expressed concern about the increasing use of plastic which is damaging the environment of the tourist destinations and is constantly pitching the battle against it (UNEP, 2020). Our study also supports the idea wherein 73% of respondents strongly agree that they discourage the use of plastic that chokes the drainage system of hills, pollutes the oceans, islands and harms the natural environment (Table 8h).

Table 8I.

Overall, I Try to Be a Responsible Traveller Concerned About the Environment of the Places I Visit

		Frequency	Percentage
Valid	2	2	3.4
	3	4	6.9
	4	4	6.9
	5	48	82.8
	Total	58	100.0

Source: SPSS output.

On a scale of 1 to 5, 83% of the respondents in Cluster 2 strongly agreed that they make endeavours to be responsible travellers and do their bit to conserve the environment (Table 8I). It is rightly said that great changes can only be done by a series of small steps brought together. Hundreds of responsible tourists can collectively and individually work together towards making travel more sustainable and enjoyable.

Results

This article aimed at understanding the characteristics of sustainable tourism in the Indian context through testing of applicability of the SUS-TAS scale. Literature reveals not many studies have addressed this issue (Dolnicar et al., 2008). The important observation which can be construed from this study is that females are more ecologically conscious as compared to males. Gender differences form a part of the majority of the studies on consumer behaviour. The results are consistent with the studies including B. Banerjee and McKeage (1994) and Han et al. (2009). Our study also suggests that younger people in the age group 20–29 are more conscious towards sustainable travel practices as supported by a study by Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006) and Gilly and Zeithaml (1985) wherein they showed that people belonging to younger age groups possess better capacity to process any information and they are inclined to search for better and alternative green options. The extant literature on consumer behaviour and environmental studies also recognizes education and income levels as important influencers. Keaveney and Parthasarathy(2001) suggested that people who are well educated and have higher income levels are better capable of making more sophisticated choices and are more responsible for their actions on the environment as compared to low income and lesser-educated groups. Roberts (1996) also suggested that in the identification of eco-friendly consumers, individuals highly educated with greater incomes tend to be more sustainable and environmentally conscious. In our study, the attitude of respondents towards sustainable tourism practices did not vary significantly in terms of income levels but regarding education, higher levels of education (graduates and postgraduates) showed greater concern for green travel. Research on occupational identity as a determinant of attitude towards tourism is limited. Our study suggests that people in full-time employment tend to behave in an environmentally conscious and sustainable manner which should be further explored and evaluated before making any conclusions.

Overall, the study’s aim was to understand the demographic composition on the basis of their sustainability preferences that is achieved by providing empirical evidence on Indian tourists. It also characterizes sustainable tourists on the basis of their choices.

Conclusion

The purpose of conducting this research was to identify the scope and relevance of the concept of sustainable tourism in India. As has been discovered in international studies, tourism has an impact on society as well as on the economics and environment of a particular country. Therefore, exploring its relevance in the context of sustainability is imperative. In this study, several important pieces of evidence have been discovered. A comprehensive analysis of results indicates that the attitude of people towards the environment and ecological concerns differs conspicuously across demographics such as age, gender, occupation, income and education. This has implications for tourism managers as well as stakeholders at various tourist destinations including tour and travel agencies, hoteliers and tourist guides, and to segregate and identify environmentally conscious and eco-tourists. It shall assist them to devise strategies and policies which foster these habits in young and educated tourists, preferably females. They can be instrumental in bringing about change in society at large by enlightening and spreading awareness about sustainable tourism practices.

Limitations and Scope for Future

Although this study endeavours to be vigorous in its research design, data collection and research process, but inevitably contains many research limitations which can provide useful cues for future researchers in this area. First, this study has been conducted in a relatively shorter period where cross-sectional data has been used to collect responses from the residents of Delhi-NCR. The long-term changes in their attitudes towards sustainable tourism using longitudinal data could be undertaken. Second, snowball sampling technique was used for data collection. Also, not all factors of the SUS-TAS scale could be included in the study. Lastly, only the attitude of the residents or people who are the tourists is assessed but there are many other stakeholders like tourism operators and government officials. Therefore, we suggest future surveys to include their perspectives as well.

The study attempts to provide important insights into the perception of tourist behaviour towards sustainability as well as and their potential towards encouraging the adoption of sustainable tourism practices. Since not many studies have been conducted, studying the role tourists could play in achieving sustainable development in any country, particularly in India, this article attempts to provide a base for future researchers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shanu Jain

References

Akis

, Peristianis

, & Warner

(1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management , 17(7), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(96)00066-0

Andereck

K. L.

, Valentine

K. M.

, Knopf

R. C.

, & Vogt

C. A.

(2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research , 32(4), 1056–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001

Andrés

E. F.

, & Eva

(2003). Influence of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers on the purchase of organic products. Studies on Consumption, 65, 9–20.

Babu

D. E.

, Kaur

, & Rajendran

(2018). Sustainability practices in tourism supply chain: Importance performance analysis. Benchmarking , 25(4), 1148–1170. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2016-0084

Banerjee

, & McKeage

(1994). How green is my value: Exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism. ACR North American Advances, NA-21 . https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7575/volumes/v21/NA-21/full

Banerjee

D. S.

, & Pawar

M. S.

(2013). Segmentation of kidswear market in India through cluster analysis – An analytical study. Paradigm , 17(1–2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720130102

Chamarro

, Cobo-Benita

, & Herrero Amo

M. D.

(2021). Towards sustainable tourism development in a mature destination: Measuring multi-group invariance between residents and visitors’ attitudes with high use of accommodation-sharing platforms. Journal of Sustainable Tourism . https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1870988

Chan

W. W.

, & Lam

J. C.

(2002). Prediction of pollutant emission through electricity consumption by the hotel industry in Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 21(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(02)00027-0

Choi

H. S. C.

, & Sirakaya

(2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research , 43(4), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274651

10.

Chowdhury

(1998). India in the changing global economy-managerial challenges. Paradigm , 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890719980102

11.

COE. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers . UNEP and UNWTO.

12.

Dolnicar

, Crouch

G. I.

, & Long

(2008). Environment-friendly tourists: What do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 16(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost738.0

13.

Ercan

S. T.

, & Dogan

(2013). Research note predictive validity of sustas. Tourism Analysis , 18(5), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354213X13782245307957

14.

European Commission. (2003). Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism . European Commission, Brussels.

15.

Evanschitzky

, & Wunderlich

(2006). An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research , 8(4), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670506286325

16.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.

17.

Filiposki

, Ackovska

, Petroska Angelovska

, & Metodijeski

(2016). Socio-economic impacts of tourism. Economic Development , 1(2), 125–140.

18.

Gilly

M. C.

, & Zeithaml

V. A.

(1985). The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies. Journal of Consumer Research , 12(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.1086/208521

19.

Glasson

, Godfrey

, Goodey

, Absalom

, & Borg

J. V. D.

(1995). Towards visitor impact management: Visitor impacts. Carrying capacity and management responses in Europe’s historic towns and cities . Aldershot.

20.

Hadinejad

, Moyle

D. B.

Scott

, Kralj

, & Nunkoo

(2019). Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A review. Tourism Review , 74(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-01-2018-0003

21.

Hair

J. F.

, Anderson

R. E.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Black

W. C.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson.

22.

Han

, Hsu

L. T.

, & Lee

J. S.

(2009). Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 28(4), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.02.004

23.

Hill

, Woodland

, & Gough

(2007). Can visitor satisfaction and knowledge about tropical rainforests be enhanced through biodiversity interpretation, and does this promote a positive attitude towards ecosystem conservation? Journal of Ecotourism , 6(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.2167/joe166.0

24.

Hsu

C. Y.

, Chen

M. Y.

, Nyaupane

G. P.

, & Lin

S. H.

(2020). Measuring sustainable tourism attitude scale (SUS-TAS) in an Eastern island context. Tourism Management Perspectives , 33, 100617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100617

25.

Husbands

(1989). Social status and perception of tourism in Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research , 16(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90070-4

26.

Keaveney

S. M.

, & Parthasarathy

(2001). Customer switching behavior in online services: An exploratory study of the role of selected attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 29(4), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079450094225

27.

K-Means Cluster Analysis - IBM Documentation. (n.d.). K-Means cluster analysis . https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/spss-statistics/24.0.0?topic=option-means-cluster-analysis

28.

Kumar

Shekhar. (2020). Digitalization: A strategic approach for development of tourism industry in India. Paradigm , 24(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720914111

29.

Kuniyal

J. C.

, Jain

A. P.

, & Shannigrahi

A. S.

(1998). Public involvement in solid waste management in Himalayan trails in and around the Valley of Flowers, India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 24(3–4), 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00056-1

30.

Kyungmi

, Uysal

, & Sirgy

(2012). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the community. Tourism Management , 1. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/29954

31.

Malik

M. I.

, & Bhat

M. S.

(2015). Sustainability of tourism development in Kashmir - Is paradise lost? Tourism Management Perspectives , 16, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.05.006

32.

NITI Aayog. (2018). Contributing to sustainable development in the Indian Himalayan Region key messages from five thematic reports and way forward . https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/doc6.pdf

33.

Obradović

, & Stojanović

(2021). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism development: A case study of the Gradac River gorge, Valjevo (Serbia). Tourism Recreation Research . https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1870073

34.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

, Ramakrishna

, Hall

C. M.

, Esfandiar

, & Seyfi

(2020). A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism . https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

35.

Ribeiro

M. A.

, Pinto

, Silva

J. A.

, & Woosnam

K. M.

(2018). Examining the predictive validity of SUS-TAS with maximum parsimony in developing island countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 26(3), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1355918

36.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

(1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism. Measuring resident views via survey research. Tourism Management , 9(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(88)90037-4

37.

Roberts

J. A.

(1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research , 36(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6

38.

Rosenblum

, Horvath

, & Hendrickson

(2000). Environmental implications of service industries. Environmental Science and Technology , 34(22), 4669–4676. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9914083

39.

Sandhu

H. S.

, & Kaur

(2005). Repositioning strategies for passenger cars-A segment-wise empirical study using MDS and cluster analytic approach. Paradigm , 9(2), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720050205

40.

Santos

L. L.

, Cardoso

, Araújo-Vila

, & Fraiz-Brea

J. A.

(2020). Sustainability perceptions in tourism and hospitality: A mixed-method bibliometric approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 12(21), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218852

41.

Seddighi

H. R.

, & Theocharous

A. L.

(2002). A model of tourism destination choice: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Tourism Management , 23(5), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00012-2

42.

Shahzad

S. J. H.

, Shahbaz

, Ferrer

, & Kumar

R. R.

(2017). Tourism-led growth hypothesis in the top ten tourist destinations: New evidence using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Tourism Management , 60, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.006

43.

Sirakaya-Turk

, Ekinci

, & Kaya

G. A.

(2008). An examination of the validity of SUS-TAS in cross-cultures. Journal of Travel Research , 46(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308328

44.

The Times of India. (2020, October 19). India falls just short of major power status in Asia: Study. India news - Times of India . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-falls-just-short-of-major-power-status-in-asia-study/articleshow/78741138.cms

45.

Tinsley

H. E. A.

, & Tinsley

D. J.

(1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 34(4), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414

46.

Torres-Sovero

, González

J. A.

, Martín-López

, & Kirkby

C. A.

(2012). Social-ecological factors influencing tourist satisfaction in three ecotourism lodges in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon. Tourism Management , 33(3), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.008

47.

TTG Asia. (2021, March 31). Intra-Asia travel to lead global luxury tourism’s recovery. TTG Asia . https://www.ttgasia.com/2021/03/31/intra-asia-travel-to-lead-global-luxury-tourisms-recovery/

48.

United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. (2020). Tourism to tackle plastic pollution with new commitment . https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/tourism-tackle-plastic-pollution-new-commitment

49.

World Tourism Organization and Global Tourism Economy Research Centre (2018). UNWTO/GTERC Asia Tourism Trends 2018 Edition – Executive Summary . World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420056

50.

Wan

Y. K. P.

, & Li

(2013). Sustainability of tourism development in Macao, China. International Journal of Tourism Research , 15(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.873

51.

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). (n.d.). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact. Economic impact reports . https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact/economic-research/economic-impact-analysis

52.

Yes Bank and CII. (2017). Sustainable tourism in India - Initiatives & opportunities . https://www.yesbank.in

53.

C. P.

, Chancellor

H. C.

, & Cole

S. T.

(2011). Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism: A reexamination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research , 50(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509353189

54.

Zhang

, Cole

S. T.

, & Chancellor

C. H.

(2015). Facilitation of the SUS-TAS application with parsimony, predictive validity, and global interpretation examination. Journal of Travel Research , 54(6), 744–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514535848