Eco-friendly Attitudes,Barriers to Participation,and Differences in Behavior at Green Hotels

Abstract

A deeper understanding of customers’ desire for and participation in green activities can lead to organizations designing more efficient and effective green programs. This research finds that the guests’ assessment of the importance of being environmentally friendly has the greatest effect on their intention to stay in a green hotel. Second, the research identifies the following customer barriers to participation: inconvenience, perceptions of cost cutting, and decreased luxury—all of which significantly affect consumers’ intention to stay at a green hotel or pay more for a room in such a hotel. Third, the results show that customers believe that hotels should have certain green practices, but did not consider it important to stay in a hotel that actually maintains the thirteen green practices tested here. Fourth, the results find that customers behave with greater environmental responsibility at home than they do in a hotel. Among the implications of these findings is the idea that hotel managers’ communications and actions must be relevant to guests’ concerns by educating customers, increasing convenience to participate in green programs, and decreasing perceptions of cost cutting.

Keywords

hotel guest preferences green hotels eco-friendly attitudes barriers to participation

As the push for sustainability in the hospitality and tourism industry grows, hospitality managers are confronted with decisions regarding environmental actions, business ethics, and social responsibility, while they still must ensure their property’s sustainable economic success (Molina-Azorin et al. 2009). Because of hospitality’s high global visibility, the industry has the potential to save millions of dollars by going green. A critical challenge for hotel marketers is to gain a better understanding of customers’ desire for green consumption alternatives (Han, Hsu, and Lee 2009). A deeper understanding of green consumers can lead organizations to design more efficient and effective green programs and initiatives (Han et al. 2011; Rundle-Thiele, Paladino, and Apostol 2008).

Hotel managers can benefit strategically from increasing their understanding of customers’ eco-friendly attitudes (Han et al. 2011). Although the issues of hotel guests’ concern for environmental issues and willingness to pay for hotel green practices are of great industry concern, we have seen little research on these matters (Kang et al. 2012). Likewise, perceived barriers to guests’ participation in green programs have received little attention (Chan 2009). One salient example involves whether customers view reusing towels as a sustainable initiative or merely as a savings mechanism for the hotel. (Robinot and Giannelloni 2010). To fill these gaps, this study first examines the effects of customers’ eco-friendly attitudes on the barriers to participation (including decreased comfort, decreased luxury, and perceptions of cost-cutting measures) against their willingness to pay more for a green hotel or to stay at all.

We see an inadequate understanding of the link between customers’ eco-friendly attitudes and their behavior, particularly in terms of hotel purchases and green program participation (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003). Consequently, this research examines the difference between customers’ belief regarding whether a hotel should have a green practice (such as recycling bins in the hotel room) and how important it is to stay in a hotel that offers such green practices. Third, this research examines customer frequency of green behaviors at home to similar behaviors at a hotel, because few studies empirically examine whether individuals display more proenvironmental behavior in a household setting than in a hotel setting (Miao and Wei 2013).

Fourth, hotel managers can benefit from research that examines proenvironmental behavior in a hospitality setting and offers guidelines in encouraging active and meaningful customer engagement, such as their willingness to reuse towels and to use heat and air-conditioning controls conservatively. Research on these issues is rare, and few studies empirically examine barriers to customer participation in green practices—even though consumer participation has been relatively low and hotels have adopted numerous green initiatives. Some hoteliers voice reluctance in adopting green initiatives (Kang et al. 2012) because of a concern that guests will view such programs as cost-cutting measures or a drop in standards. Such common environmental practices as using recycled paper, installing soap dispensers, and reusing towels and sheets can all be seen as detracting from the “pampering experience” (Silano, Meredith, and Jones 1997), especially given guests’ unwillingness to put up with discomfort (Dolnicar, Crouch, and Long 2008). Thus, while guests may be willing to participate in green practices, they may not be willing to sacrifice convenience, accept lower comfort and luxury levels, or pay a price premium (Manaktola and Jauhari 2007). This study addresses those issues by examining whether comfort, luxury, and cost-cutting measures serve as barriers to participation in green practices while at a hotel.

To address these gaps in academic literature and provide managerial implications to practitioners, this study examines customers’ green attitudes (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001) and actions, notably their intent to stay in a hotel, willingness to pay more for a green hotel, and willingness to participate in proenvironmental behaviors. Based on findings of customer attitudes regarding the environment, the importance of specific programs, and barriers to participation, we offer suggestions to improve the marketing outcome of hotel green initiatives.

Literature Review

Customer Eco-friendly Attitudes

As individuals become more aware of the environmental impact of various business activities, researchers suggest that an environmentally aware consumer may be more likely to demonstrate proenvironmental behavior than other consumers (W. H. Lee and Moscardo 2005). So far, however, clear patterns have not emerged in this area with respect to causal links between knowledge and attitude, nor attitude and environmental behavior (Powell and Ham 2008). Research suggests an inconsistency between consumers’ expressed environmental attitudes and their actual behavior (Barber et al. 2012). Given that eco-friendly attitudes involve multiple dimensions (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001), this disconnect may be because consumers might feel more strongly in some areas of concern than others.

Research identifies the following four dimensions of eco-friendly attitudes: perceived severity of environmental problems, inconvenience of being environmentally friendly, importance of being environmentally friendly, and level of corporate responsibility (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). Perceived severity of environmental problems deals with such notions that water, energy, and trees are limited. Inconvenience of being environmentally friendly refers to additional effort or privation that might occur due to green activities. Importance of being environmentally friendly notes that certain green activities will reduce pollution or improve the environment. Finally, corporate responsibility deals with the idea that businesses are (or should be) concerned about the environment.

Intent to Purchase

Environmental awareness involves having a positive attitude toward the importance of eco-friendly activities (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001; Leonidou, Leonidou, and Kvasova 2010). This is grounded in cognitive consistency theory (Festinger 1957), whereby an individual who is concerned about ecological issues is also likely to be motivated to take actions to minimize those issues (Leonidou, Leonidou, and Kvasova 2010). Environmental concern and environmentally friendly attitudes are positively related to consumers’ intention to purchase green products (Han, Hsu, and Lee 2009; Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari 2007; Mostafa 2006). Customers who are environmentally friendly have greater intentions to visit a green hotel and actually do so (Han, Hsu, and Lee 2009; Han et al. 2011). Socially responsible policies are considered an essential component of corporate reputation, and those policies affect customer behavior (Dutta et al. 2008). The concern about convenience is rooted in the perception that ecologically favorable behavior may involve more effort, even if it is good for society (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). Research finds that despite individuals’ awareness of environmental issues, their purchases do not always reflect that concern, as such purchases do not provide an immediate benefit (J. S. Lee et al. 2010). Based on these observations, we developed the first hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Perceptions of the severity of the environmental problem negatively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Hypothesis 1b: Perceptions of the importance of being environmentally friendly positively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Hypothesis 1c: Perceptions of the level of responsibility of corporations positively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Hypothesis 1d: Perceptions of the inconvenience of being environmentally friendly negatively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Willingness to Pay More

Customers’ environmentally friendly attitudes are strongly associated with positive intentions to pay more for a green product (Han, Hsu, and Lee 2009; Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). Moreover, social identity theory suggests that an individual’s perception about the severity of ecological problems or their perceptions of the importance of being environmentally friendly might influence his or her willingness to pay more. This concept from social identity theory suggests a positive relationship between customers’ level of environmental concern and willingness to pay for green initiatives. In addition, perceptions of corporate responsibility are also likely to affect willingness to pay. Working against the willingness to pay more is the perception of inconvenience associated with green practices. As such we propose the following hypotheses for eco-friendly attitudes:

Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of the severity of the environmental problem negatively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of the importance of being environmentally friendly positively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 2c: Perceptions of the level of responsibility of corporations positively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 2d: Perceptions of the inconvenience of being environmentally friendly negatively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Barriers to Adoption

A critical challenge for hotel marketers is to gain a better understanding of customers’ desire and intention for green consumption (Han, Hsu, and Lee 2009). While the hotel industry is responding to the perceived market demand for green initiatives (Bohdanowicz 2005), further research is needed to assess the actual level of consumer concern for green hotel initiatives, as with the classic example of guests’ uneven cooperation with towel reuse policies. Confidence regarding consumer compliance has been widely dented by the realization that customer interest has been lower than expected (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). This research investigates the following three barriers to adoption of this and other green procedures: namely, perceptions of comfort, perceptions of luxury, and perceptions of cost cutting.

Comfort

One factor associated with an aversion to environment-friendly behavior at hotels is guests’ unwillingness to put up with discomfort (Dolnicar, Crouch, and Long 2008). As an example, guests like to be pampered with fresh towels and clean sheets daily (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). Furthermore, visitors may be unwilling to participate in green behaviors if it interferes with their enjoyment (Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons 2005) or comfort level (Manaktola and Jauhari 2007), as summarized in the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of comfort negatively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of comfort negatively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Luxury

Guests’ desire for luxury entails a parallel argument. That is, customers might refuse to give up their “right” to luxury (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008), for example, by declining to reuse their bed sheets or avoiding soap dispensers in favor of amenity bottles. The resulting element of commercial institutionalism could spoil the customer’s experience (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). In short, some customers are unwilling to accept a decrease in luxury or amenities, or pay a price premium for green practices (Manaktola and Jauhari 2007). We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of luxury negatively affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 6: Perceptions of luxury negatively affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Cost cutting

Although many green initiatives involve additional expense, some save money, which is famously the case with linen reuse programs. In that situation, customers may view efforts to reduce environmental impact as a way for the hotel to reduce costs, effectively at the guests’ expense (Robinot and Giannelloni 2010; Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). The following hypotheses address this:

Hypothesis 7: Perceptions of green initiatives as cost-cutting measures significantly affect willingness to pay more for a green hotel.

Hypothesis 8: Perceptions of green initiatives as cost-cutting measures significantly affect intention to stay at a green hotel.

Attitude toward Practices versus Importance of Staying in Hotel

Guest preferences for green attributes in hotel rooms remain unclear and few studies focus on individual attributes (Millar and Baloglu 2011) as opposed to green operations in general. This research examines customer stated preferences for thirteen green attributes and compares those preferences with customer frequency in using the attributes and to the importance of staying in a hotel with each of those practices. Even though individuals may claim to be concerned about the environment, their attitudes may vary on the issue of whether it is important for them to stay in a hotel that has the corresponding initiatives (Wearing et al. 2002), as summarized in the following:

Hypothesis 9: Individuals display a greater level of belief that hotels should have green practices than of importance to stay in a hotel that has each practice.

Environmental Behaviors at Home versus at Hotel

Although it is reasonable to expect individuals who behave environmentally consciously at home will also do so while on vacation, few studies investigate this empirically (Dolnicar and Leisch 2008). Observations of a discrepancy between environmental behaviors at home versus at a hotel are largely anecdotal, once again focusing on towel and linen reuse and disinterest in recycling (Miao and Wei 2013). Dolnicar and Leisch (2008) found that 92 percent of respondents felt morally obligated to behave in an environmentally friendly way at home, while the average proenvironmental behavior while on vacation was only 25 percent—a difference that the respondents cannot often explain (Wearing et al. 2002). Research indicates that environmental concern only plays a minor role in tourists’ decision making (Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons 2005). In explaining this difference, Carr (2002) suggests that people’s behavior at home is driven by the residual culture while actions on holiday are a function of tourist culture (Nicolau 2011). We predict that individuals will display a greater level of proenvironmental behavior at home compared with at a hotel.

Hypothesis 10: Individuals display a greater level of proenvironmental behavior at home than in a hotel.

Method

Based on empirically tested scales that have produced high reliability and validity, we measured eco-friendly attitudes using the four dimensions discussed above: perceived severity of the environmental problem, inconvenience of being environmentally friendly, importance of being environmentally friendly, and perceived level of corporate responsibility (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). All questions use a 7-point Likert-type scale, with anchors of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. We asked about each of thirteen items suggested by Millar and Baloglu (2011) to determine potential differences between whether individuals believe hotels should have these attributes and whether it is important for guests to stay in a hotel that has each attribute. We adopted another thirteen items from Dolnicar and Leisch (2008) to measure behavior at home versus behavior at a hotel, asking respondents how frequently they engage in each behavior at home and while at a hotel. Scales were sufficiently reliable, based on a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .70 (Hair et al. 1998). The range was .78 to .93. Intention to purchase was measured using two items: “I am likely to stay in a hotel implementing environmental strategies” and “I am more likely to stay in a green hotel over a nongreen hotel,” while willingness to pay was measured with a single item: “I am willing to pay a higher price to stay in a green hotel” (see Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1:

Measurement of Items.

Variable	Measurement Item	α
Severity of environmental problem (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001)	In our country, we have so much electricity that we do not have to worry about conservation As we live in such a large country, any pollution that we create is easily spread out and therefore is of no concern to me. With so much water in this country, I don’t see why people are worried about leaky faucets and flushing toilets Our country has so many trees that there is no need to recycle paper The earth is a closed system where everything eventually returns to normal, so I see no need to worry about its present state	.871
Importance of being environmentally friendly (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001)	Recycling will reduce pollution Recycling is important to save natural resources Recycling will save land that would be used as dumpsites	.811
Level of responsibility of corporations (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001)	Companies are acting responsibly toward the environment Companies are concerned about the environment	.849
Inconvenience of being environmentally friendly (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001)	Keeping separate piles of garbage for recycling is too much trouble Recycling is too much trouble I hate to wash out bottles for recycling Trying to control pollution is much more trouble than it is worth	.842
Comfort	As a guest in a hotel, I put more emphasis on being environmentally responsible than I put on comfort (reverse) When a guest in a hotel, I put comfort before being environmentally conscious I prefer to stay in a hotel that focuses more on guest comfort than environmentally conscious actions	.806
Luxury	As a guest in a hotel, I put luxury before being environmentally conscious I prefer to stay in a hotel that focuses on guest service instead of environmentally conscious actions Green practices take away from the luxury experience	.752
Cost cutting	I think hotel green initiatives are ways for the hotel to cut costs Green programs are ways for hotels to save money Green initiatives reduce costs for the hotels	.934
Intent to purchase	I am likely to stay in a hotel implementing environmental strategies I am more likely to stay in a Green hotel over a nongreen hotel	.803

This study utilized an online questionnaire that was distributed during one month in fall 2012 to three tourism databases, targeting customers who are U.S. hotel patrons. After excluding incomplete responses a total of 208 usable questionnaires are used for analysis.

Analysis and Results

Of the 208 responses, 142 (68.3%) were from women. The respondents’ age ranged from 18 to 68 years old. Twenty-six percent were 25 or younger, 43.8 percent were 26 to 35, 8.7 percent were 36 to 45, and 21.1 percent were 56 or older. The majority of respondents (54.8%) were college graduates and 26 percent possessed a graduate degree. Regarding the key criterion, the sample comprises experienced travelers. All respondents reported staying in a hotel at least once per year. More than 80 percent stay in a hotel four or more nights per year, and nearly 18 percent of respondents stay in a hotel more than sixteen nights per year (see Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2:

Sample Characteristics.

	Frequency	%
Age
Twenty-five or younger	55	26.4
Twenty-six to thirty-five	91	43.8
Thirty-six to forty-five	18	8.7
Forty-six to fifty-five	15	7.2
Fifty-six or older	29	13.9
Gender
Male	66	31.7
Female	142	68.3
Race
Asian	6	2.9
African American	8	3.8
Hispanic	10	4.8
White	178	85.6
Other	6	2.9
Education level
High school	6	2.9
Some college	34	16.3
College graduate	114	54.8
Graduate degree or higher	54	26.0
Household income
Less than $20,000	36	17.3
$20,001-$30,000	18	8.7
$30,001-$40,000	39	18.8
$40,001-$50,000	35	16.8
$50,001-$60,000	16	7.7
$60,001-$70,000	10	4.8
More than $70,001	54	26.0
Relationship status
Single	88	42.3
In a relationship	51	24.5
Married	69	33.2
Nights in hotel per year
One to three nights	41	19.7
Four to six nights	40	19.2
Seven to nine nights	34	16.2
Ten to twelve nights	38	18.3
Thirteen to fifteen nights	18	8.7
More than sixteen nights	37	17.8

Impact of Eco-friendly Attitudes and Barriers to Participation

Multiple regression analyses are utilized to examine the effects of eco-friendly attitudes and barriers to participation on intention to stay in a green hotel and willingness to pay more to stay at a green hotel. Standardized coefficients and t-values are used to determine which component of eco-friendly attitudes and barriers to participation has the greatest impact (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3:

Eco-friendly Intentions.

	Intention to Stay			Willingness to Pay More
	β	t-value	Significance	β	t-value	Significance
Severity of environmental problem	−.05	−0.74	.461	−.08	−1.17	.244
Importance of being environmentally friendly	.22	3.60	.000	−.02	−0.35	.727
Level of responsibility of corporations	.02	0.30	.761	.00	−0.06	.950
Inconvenience of being environmentally friendly	−.17	−2.55	.011	−.31	−4.44	.000
Comfort	−.12	−1.53	.127	−1.70	−2.04	.043
Luxury	−.28	−3.39	.001	−.14	−1.66	.099
Cost cutting	−.17	−2.99	.003	−.17	−2.76	.006
	R² (adjusted) = .322			R² (adjusted) = .251

Note. All beta values are standardized.

Respondents’ assessment of the importance of being environmentally friendly had the largest effect on intention to stay at a green hotel (p = .000), and inconvenience of being environmentally friendly (p = .011) was also a significant variable on intent to stay. Conversely, severity of environmental problems and level of corporate responsibility were not found to be significant. This supports Hypotheses 1b and 1d, but not 1a and 1c. This provides support that eco-friendly attitudes need to be measured using multiple dimensions, as customers might feel more strongly in some areas than others (Barber et al. 2012), and this affects their intention to purchase.

Only the inconvenience variable was significant in connection with eco-friendly attitudes and willingness to pay more (p = .000). Thus, only Hypothesis 2d was supported. Other studies have likewise found that attitudes are not related to willingness to pay more for eco-friendly products (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). Moreover, customers with high environmental concerns do not always buy green products (Kim and Han 2010) and although customers may be concerned with environmental issues, they are not willing to pay more as the cost outweighs the personal benefits (J. S. Lee et al. 2010).

A desire for luxury and perceptions of hotels’ cost cutting constitute barriers to green hotel purchases. For the barriers to participation and intention to stay, luxury (p = .001) and cost cutting (p = .003) were statistically significant. This supports Hypotheses 6 and 8 but does not support Hypothesis 4. Concerns about luxury were found to have the largest effect on intention to stay at a green hotel. Two of the barriers to participation were statistically significant: comfort (p = .043) and cost cutting (p = .006). Thus, the results support Hypotheses 3 and 7. Hypothesis 5, the effects of luxury on willingness to pay for a green hotel, was not statistically significant. The results indicate that decreased comfort (or perceptions thereof) negatively affects whether customers are willing to pay for a green hotel. In addition, this research supports the idea that when customers view green practices as cost-cutting measures for a hotel, they are less likely to be willing to pay more for their stay.

Difference between Belief and Importance of Green Practices

As many hotel managers have noted anecdotally, there is a disconnect between guests’ attitude toward what green practices a hotel should have in place and the guests’ assessment of whether it is important for the guest actually to stay at a hotel with those practices (see Exhibit 4). Overall, the respondents’ belief that hotels should maintain green practices had a mean of 4.94, while the mean importance to stay in such a hotel was 3.75 (supporting Hypothesis 9). The difference between attitude and importance was significant for all thirteen practices that we tested. Twelve of the items were significant at p = .000, and one was significant at p < .05. In Exhibit 4, we ranked the thirteen practices’ importance (for guests to stay at that hotel). Changing bed sheets for stays longer than three nights was found to be the most important green practice, followed by green certification, energy efficient light bulbs, towel reuse policy, and recycling bins in the guestroom.

Exhibit 4:

Difference of Means for Attitude and Importance of Green Practices.

Practice	Should Have Each Practice^a	Importance^b	Standard Deviation	t-value	Significance
Sheets changed on stays of three or more nights	5.56	4.34	1.77	9.92	.000
Hotels should be certified as green	5.66	4.33	1.43	13.38	.000
Energy efficient light bulbs	6.40	4.27	1.76	17.42	.000
Towel reuse policy	5.40	4.24	1.79	9.37	.000
Recycling bins in guestroom	6.18	4.03	1.61	19.32	.000
Recycling bins in lobby	6.17	3.91	1.56	20.81	.000
Key card to turn power to the room off and on	5.13	3.67	1.71	12.34	.000
Occupancy sensors	5.13	3.63	1.59	13.64	.000
Fresh towels daily	4.08	3.63	1.49	4.43	.000
Refillable amenity dispensers	4.96	3.49	1.91	11.07	.000
Individual bottles of amenities	4.27	3.30	1.63	8.59	.000
Sheets changed daily	3.52	3.29	1.35	2.42	.016
No energy efficient light bulbs	1.78	2.62	1.79	−6.70	.000

Note. Adapted from Miller & Baloglu, 2011.

I believe that hotels should have this practice.

It is important for me to stay in a hotel that has this practice.

With regard to respondents’ attitudes about what practices hotels should maintain, using energy efficient light bulbs (M = 6.40) was first, followed by recycling bins in the guestroom and lobby (Ms = 6.18 and 6.17) and green certification.

Difference between Behavior at Home and at a Hotel

Similarly, the respondents admitted that they were significantly less likely to engage in certain green practices at a hotel than at home (p = .000). Hypothesis 10 is thus supported. The respondents said that as hotel guests they most often turned the lights off when leaving a room followed by reusing sheets, reusing towels, and recycling cans, bottles, and paper. While at home, respondents most often reused sheets and towels, turned the lights off, recycled cans and bottles, and picked up litter (see Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5:

Difference of Means for Participation at Home Compared with at a Hotel.

Practice	Hotel^a	Home^b	SD	t-value	Significance
Switch the light off when leaving a room	5.83	6.16	1.44	3.36	.001
Reuse sheets	5.60	6.61	1.62	9.00	.000
Reuse towels	5.50	6.52	1.55	9.51	.000
Recycle cans and bottles	5.17	6.03	1.72	7.19	.000
Recycle paper	4.94	5.75	1.79	6.50	.000
Use refillable products	4.81	5.44	1.49	6.09	.000
Save water	4.74	5.56	1.52	7.72	.000
Use environmentally friendly products	4.59	5.06	1.32	5.21	.000
Use reusable bags	4.29	4.77	1.57	4.42	.000
Use biodegradable products	4.28	4.87	1.40	6.02	.000
Pick up litter	4.19	5.78	1.98	11.62	.000
Turn heat off in unoccupied rooms	3.91	4.91	2.02	7.11	.000
Turn AC off in unoccupied rooms	3.90	4.93	2.14	6.50	.000

Note. Adapted from Dolnicar & Leisch, 2008.

I participate while at a hotel.

I participate at home.

Discussion

Our finding regarding the importance of being environmentally friendly in relation to intentions to stay in a green hotel suggests two management strategies. First, hotel managers should seek out customers who believe it is important to engage in green practices. This finding was reinforced in open-ended responses such as the following:

I believe we should all try to help with conserving our water, trees, and recycling;

It is good for the environment and over time is better for the earth; and

It is important to protect our environment.

Second, hotel operators should actively educate individuals of the importance of being environmentally friendly through environmental campaigns and information tools such as brochures and placards, as suggested by two respondents:

I think more people would stay in a green hotel if they knew more about it; and

Sometimes green hotels offer unique experiences that nongreen hotels do not offer. We can be more informed about this.

Once the guest is in-house, the hotel might seek to educate the guest on the hotel’s green programs to gain cooperation in participating in those programs. Such an approach would combine making guests aware of the green initiative, informing them of the rationale behind it, and explaining ways they can contribute (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). Simply emphasizing the importance of environmental practices before the guest books the room, and then attempting to persuade hotel customers to engage in green behaviors is not enough to attract customers. Educational efforts that help to bolster hotel customers’ perceptions regarding the level of responsibility of business corporations may increase room sales and guest participation in green programs (Han et al. 2011). In short, as several individuals wrote:

Green hotels need to advertise their greenness better; and

Hotels have poor advertising of green policies.

Researchers and hoteliers should also investigate that different types of green participation messages may be designed for different customer segments based on various theories. For example, collectivist arguments could state the importance of eco-friendly behavior for society as a whole. Deontological-related claims could advertise that it is one’s moral responsibility to protect the environment (Leonidou, Leonidou, and Kvasova 2010). Hoteliers can test different messages for increased or decreased participation. Messages relating to linen and towel reuse are particularly of interest, given that guests are loath to participate if they think the program is mostly aimed at cutting costs. This analysis involves attribution theory (Kelley 1972), as guests seek the embedded motivation within the initiative (Kang et al. 2012).

Another challenge for hoteliers and researchers alike is to address the major barrier to booking and paying more for a green hotel, namely, the perception that it is inconvenient to be environmentally friendly. In this regard, respondents wrote:

Other than towel and sheet reuse, there are not many green initiatives to partake in. Hotels need to make it more user friendly to be green;

It takes too much effort and time. I don’t participate when it is inconvenient; and

Being green is often not convenient in hotels.

These comments suggest that hotels need to make it more user-friendly to be green, which includes having recycling bins available in guest rooms and hotel common areas. We make this suggestion because of our finding that lack of infrastructure and amenities seem to be the greatest barrier for guests to participate in green practices. Our respondents made clear the importance of making it easy to be green to increase guests’ participation.

Based on another of our findings, hoteliers must find a way to offset the perception that engaging in green practices diminishes the luxury associated with a hotel stay. We found that the concern regarding luxury diminished the intention to stay in a green hotel and furthermore that perceptions regarding comfort interfered with guests’ willingness to pay more for a green hotel. In this regard respondents stated:

The main reason for me going to a hotel is for the comfort and hospitality aspect of my stay, not being green;

I don’t participate in green practices because it is supposed to be luxurious; and

I am paying to stay at a hotel so I am going to take advantage of the things I cannot do at home. Part of the reason hotels exist is to make people feel like they are not at home and be pampered.

Hospitality managers need to offset this perception by finding ways to take special care of the guest while still being environmentally responsible. One approach is to educate the customer regarding different options available, such as fresh towels daily, or offering individual amenities that provide the customer with a locus of control over whether they want to participate. Any promotional program must be handled carefully, as our respondents were sensitive to the idea that hotels were “greenwashing,” or using the environment as a marketing tactic, as demonstrated in the following:

I think it that often “‘green” is used as a marketing ploy. I have rarely seen recycling offered in hotels; and

For some hotels being green is just a marketing tool—and not actually practiced.

A classic example of the greenwashing issue occurs when customers indicate that they will reuse their towels, but housekeepers provide fresh towels anyway. Or there may be separate bins for recycling, but employees combine the recycling and trash bins.

Far from paying a premium for green rooms, some of our respondents saw energy conservation as a cost savings for the hotel, some of which should be passed onto them:

No discount in fees . . . if I save them money they should reciprocate; and

No financial incentive to do so.

In sum, we suggest that hotels’ educational effort must be grounded in means-end theory (Gutman 1982), where a customer decides to purchase a product or service (means) to achieve the desired values (end). For example, communications of a hotel’s towel reuse policy should be designed to discourage customers from changing towels daily to preserve the environment by reducing the amount of detergent, water, and pollution. Simply stating that towel reuse saves water and detergent may be seen as a cost-cutting measure for the hotel that has little benefit to the consumer. The challenge for hotel marketers is to determine customers’ environmental involvement and to position advertising strategies (Hu 2012).

Hotels’ educational effort also might address the disconnect between whether customers thought a hotel should have a particular green practice, and whether it was important for them to stay in a hotel that has such a practice. Cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, hotels must learn which initiatives are most important to encourage guests to actually stay at a hotel. This research suggests that at a minimum it is important for hotels to continue with the sheet and towel reuse policies, provide energy efficient lights, and provide ways to conveniently recycle. Our findings regarding barriers to participation may provide a road map for hoteliers and employees to make it convenient for guests to participate in green practices.

The disparity between guests’ practices at home and in a hotel offers further potential for educational efforts and for addressing any barriers to participation, namely, inconvenience, concerns about loss of comfort and luxury, and perceptions of cost cutting. In the open-ended responses, customers most frequently noted that green resources were not available, that it was inconvenient to participate, or that it decreased their experience.

Future Research and Limitations

Future research could seek to clarify characteristics of different customer groups (business and leisure) and seek to investigate similarities and differences in eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors. Studies could also examine green hotel customer behavior in an actual hotel setting to increase validity. Little empirical research has looked at consumer response to hotel environmental advertising (Hu 2012) and researchers may investigate green practice claims described in advertising and the emotional benefits as a result of the advertising, or measure levels of participation. Environmental education techniques, programs, and strategies may be used and hospitality organizations could measure manager and employee commitment as well as adherence to green practices. Although our tests did not find differences in demographic variables on willingness to pay and intention to stay, future research could investigate any such differences. In addition, future research should also seek to investigate the different effects of eco-friendly attitudes. While this study did not find that the level of corporate responsibility significantly affected intention to stay or willingness to pay, strategic marketing research could investigate how customer perceptions affect other social responsibility initiatives. Future scale refinement of the variables, particularly eco-friendly attitudes and barriers to participation, may prove to be beneficial for future research studies.

A substantial possible limitation for this study is social desirability bias. Although this was an anonymous survey, it is possible that respondents answered in a way they believed that they should. So, they may have averred perceiving the severity of environmental problems, the importance of being environmentally friendly, and the need for corporate responsibility without really believing some or all of this. A second potential limitation involved the sample, which was obtained through three tourism databases, as described above. Although no statistical difference was found between respondents of the different databases, this limitation should be noted. Future research should seek to assess a larger sample population to yield more generalizable findings. In addition, this study examined only U.S. customer perceptions. Studies that incorporate additional locations and cultures may be useful for international companies.

Conclusion

It is critical to gain a better understanding of customers’ desire for and participation in green activities, which can lead hotels to design more efficient and effective green programs. This study is one of the few that has examined inconvenience, decreased luxury, and perceptions of cost cutting as significantly affecting intention to stay and willingness to pay more for a green hotel. The research also delved into the disconnect between customers’ belief that hotels should have certain practices, even though they assigned relatively less importance to their staying in a hotel with such green practices. Finally, the study found that customers behave with greater environmental responsibility at home than they do in a hotel. In sum, these findings open channels for further research and for managerial practice to address the conundrums of guests’ interaction with green hotel operations.

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

Melissa A. Baker, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management at University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research and teaching interests focus on restaurant management, service failure, and customer complaining.

Eric A. Davis holds degrees in Hospitality and Tourism Management and Business Management from Virginia Tech and has published articles about consumer perception and purchase intent. He currently works as a Financial Analyst in the entertainment and advertising industry in Orlando, Florida.

Pamela A. Weaver, Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus of Hospitality and Tourism Management in the Pamplin College of Business at Virginia Tech. Her teaching expertise is in the area of statistics and research design at the undergraduate and graduate level.

References

Barber

Kuo

P. J.

Bishop

Goodman

2012. Measuring psychographics to assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29 (4): 280-92.

Bohdanowicz

2005. European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (2): 188-204.

Carr

2002. The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (4): 972-86.

Chan

W. W.

2009. Environmental measures for hotels’ environmental management systems ISO 14001. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (5): 542-60.

Diamantopoulos

Schlegelmilch

B. B.

Sinkovics

R. R.

Bohlen

G. M.

2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56:465-80.

Dolnicar

Crouch

G. I.

Long

2008. Environment-friendly tourists: What do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (2): 197-210.

Dolnicar

Leisch

2008. An investigation of tourists’ patterns of obligation to protect the environment. Journal of Travel Research 46:381-91.

Dutta

Umashankar

Choi

Parsa

H. G.

2008. A comparative study of consumers’ green practice orientation in India and the United States: A study from the restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11 (3): 269-85.

Fairweather

J. R.

Maslin

Simmons

D. G.

2005. Environmental values and response to eco labels among international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (1): 82-98.

10.

Festinger

1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

11.

Gutman

1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46 (2): 60-72.

12.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

1998. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Han

Hsu

Lee

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): 519-28.

14.

Han

Hsu

Lee

Sheu

2011. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:345-55.

15.

H. H.

2012. The effectiveness of environmental advertising in the hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 53 (2): 154-64.

16.

Kang

K. H.

Stein

Heo

C. Y.

Lee

2012. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:564-72.

17.

Kelley

H. H.

1972. Attribution theory in social interaction. In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior, ed. Jones

E. E.

Kanouse

D. E.

Kelley

H. H.

Nisbett

R. E.

Valins

Weiner

, 1-26. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

18.

Kim

Han

2010. Intention to pay convention-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (8): 997-1014.

19.

Laroche

Bergeron

Barbaro-Forleo

2001. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (6): 503-20.

20.

Lee

J. S.

Hsu

Han

Kim

2010. Understanding how consumers view green hotel: How a hotel’s green image can include behavioral intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (7): 901-14.

21.

Lee

W. H.

Moscardo

2005. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (6): 346-65.

22.

Leonidou

L. C.

Leonidou

C. N.

Kvasova

2010. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally-friendly attitudes and behavior. Journal of Marketing Management 26 (13-14): 1319-44.

23.

Manaktola

Jauhari

2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (5): 364-77.

24.

Miao

Wei

2013. Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underling motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32:102-12.

25.

Millar

Baloglu

2011. Hotel guests’ preferences for green guest room attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (3): 302-11.

26.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Claver-Cortes

Lopez-Gamero

M. D.

Tari

J. T.

2009. Green management and financial performance: A literature review. Management Decision 47 (7): 1080-1110.

27.

Mostafa

2006. Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: A hierarchical multivariate regression model. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 19 (2): 97-126.

28.

Nicolau

J. L.

2011. Monetary and non-monetary efforts for leisure activities. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (3): 801-19.

29.

Powell

R.B.

Ham

S. H.

2008. Can eco-tourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitude, and behavior? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (4): 467-89.

30.

Robinot

Giannelloni

J. L.

2010. Do hotels’ “green” attributes contribute to customer satisfaction? Journal of Services Marketing 24 (2): 157-69.

31.

Rundle-Thiele

Paladino

Apostol

S. A. G.

Jr.

2008. Lessons learned from renewable electricity marketing attempts: A case study. Business Horizon 51:181-90.

32.

Silano

Meredith

Jones

1997. Environmental management in UK hotels: The role of employees as stakeholders, Proceedings of the CHME 6th Annual Hospitality Research Conference, 24-36.

33.

Tzschentke

Kirk

Lynch

2008. Ahead of their time? Barriers to action in green tourism firms. The Service Industries Journal 28 (2): 167-78.

34.

Wearing

Cynn

Ponting

McDonald

2002. Converting environmental concern into ecotourism purchases: A qualitative evaluation of international backpackers in Australia. Journal of Ecotourism 1 (2-3): 133-48.