At home and abroad: Comparing sustainable behaviour and willingness to pay across contexts

Abstract

Does a person’s everyday behavior at home influence their desire to travel sustainably and pay for it? Testing the Holmes, Dodds and Frochot (HDF) model, this research sought to understand the influence that daily behavior – measured by frugality, altruism, and pro-environmental behavior – has on both sustainable travel behavior and a traveler’s propensity to pay. This paper augments the HDF model in that it finds sustainable travel behavior to be not just a single construct, but rather influenced separately by sociocultural, environmental and local consumption behaviors. Second, this study also examines how these differences in sustainable travel influence the traveler’s propensity to pay. The findings of this study explain that day-to-day behavior at home does explain a traveler’s propensity to pay for sustainability efforts when traveling. Those who are more altruistic are more likely to be more environmentally friendly and more likely to look for local experiences when traveling. Those who are more environmentally minded at home are also more likely to seek out cultural, environmentally friendly and local experiences when traveling. In contrast, those who are more frugal are less likely to be environmentally friendly when traveling.

Keywords

Sustainability frugality altruism pro-sustainable behavior propensity to pay

Introduction

Although the term “sustainability” has been defined as encompassing the three pillars related to economic, social, and environmental concerns (United Nations World Tourism Organization, nd), it is a term that has been poorly interpreted and that has evolved to refer to different types and interpretations of activities among consumers (Simpson and Radford, 2012). As Caitlin and Luchs (2017) outline: “academic research operationalizes sustainability in a wide variety of ways and often does not explicitly consider the possible systematic distinctions between these three primary dimensions of sustainability” (p. 246). Specifically, Boström and Micheletti (2016) outline that sustainability can often be treated as a unified product, treating the differing aspects of social, environmental and economic as one. Researchers (e.g., Choi and Ng, 2011; Marcus et al., 2015) call for a more nuanced understanding of the term, such as understanding the need to “distinguish between socially- and environmentally focused issues to examine the influence of each on marketing outcomes” (Chabowski et al., 2011: 64).

Within the tourism industry, studies have questioned the responsibility of tourists, suggesting that often they adopt a more hedonistic or laissez-faire attitude (Cohen, 1982; Gössling, 2017) or that they absolve themselves of responsibility when on holiday (Miller et al., 2010). In addition, not all studies agree that attitude and behavior can positively lead to more sustainable behavior (Antimova et al., 2012; Gössling, 2017; Juvan and Dolnicar, 2014, 2017; Oliver et al., 2021; Walsh and Dodds, 2022), especially with regard to air travel (Barr et al., 2011; Highman et al., 2016). Holmes et al. (2021) sought to understand how everyday behavior influences sustainable travel and found a positive correlation. They examined in depth the pro-ecological behavior, frugality and altruism of daily behaviors at home to determine their influence on sustainable travel behavior and also developed a model. This model, although looking at three different influences, still groups sustainable travel behavior as one unified element. Therefore, there is not only a need to test this model for validity but also to determine whether there are systematic distinctions between the elements of social, environmental or economic behavior.

Theory of planned behavior

While McKercher et al. (2010) clearly outline that no one single theory explains the attitude behavior gap completely, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used in this study as it reasons that an individual’s core belief system primarily determines their intentions and subjective norms, and multiple studies have tested this model. The majority of studies on TPB, however, have focused solely on environmental actions (Clark et al., 2019; Fauzi et al., 2022; Han et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Oliver et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2017 rather than examining sustainability behavior as more than just pro-ecological behavior. This is especially true of tourism-related studies over the decades. e.g., Kinnear et al. (1974) in their research on environmentally responsible behavior in relation to the sustainable tourist found that there is a specific subset of the general population i.e. very ecologically concerned. Teeroovengdum (2018) and Lee and Jan (2018) produced results indicating that pro-environmental attitudes increased the likelihood of sustainable tourism behavior and purchasing behavior. Further, work by Han et al. (2018) found that individuals who reuse towels at home are more likely to carry this behavior over when on vacation. Liu et al. (2020) also confirmed that basic daily green behavior at home (e.g., recycling) led to a higher potential for engaging in the same behavior when traveling. It seems that there is only one study, put forth by Holmes et al. (2021) that examines more than one element of what is defined as sustainable tourism, outlining three different behaviors that may affect travel behavior. These authors built on the work of Corral-Verdugo et al. (2010), modeling the influence that pro-ecological behavior, frugality and altruism had on sustainable travel behavior. Pro-ecological behavior deals with the reduction of human impact on the environment (see Corral-Verdugo et al., 2012; Kaiser, 1998; Sawitri et al., 2015). Frugality was characterized as behaviors that result in the reduction in consumption and/or more equitable use of goods and services (see Evans, 2011; Evans and Abrahamse, 2009). Altruism is the idea of people who look to assist others through actions and/or sacrifices (see Fehr and Fischbacher 2003; Piliavin and Charng 1990; Schultz, 2001). Although Holmes et al. (2021) go into detail on the different factors that affect travel, even they use the phrase “green traveler” and do not differentiate between the different elements that make up sustainable travel. Therefore, there is a need to further examine whether environmental, social or economic aspects of behavior affect different aspects of sustainable travel.

There are also critiques of TPB that should not be ignored. It has been outlined that intentions do not always lead to action (Antimova et al., 2012; Conner and Armitage, 1998; Juvan and Dolnicar, 2014), only a limited percentage of behavior can be predicted (Godin and Cok, 1996) and that there is also cognitive dissonance. Juvan and Dolnicar (2017) suggest that sustainable tourist behaviors may have distinctly different drivers, and Antimova et al. (2012) outline that perhaps community theories are better suited to closing the attitude–behaviour gap.

In line with testing the HDF model, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1 – Altruism positively influences all three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)

H2 – Pro-environmental behavior positively influences all three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)

H3 – Frugality has no influence on any of the three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)

Everyday behavior and propensity to pay

Beyond examining the ability of everyday behavior to influence sustainable travel behavior, research has established that everyday behavior influences a person’s propensity to pay to travel sustainably. Dolcinar (2006) found that certain tourists are willing to make increased travel changes in order to protect the environment. Teeroovengadum (2018) found that a more defined environmental identity led to more positive attitudes towards ecotourism and a greater likelihood of paying higher fees to support sustainable tourism ventures. This was further supported by similar results regarding the intentions of sustainable tourists found by Ibnou-Laaroussi et al. (2020). It is one thing to outline the propensity to pay but there is also a need to determine this tourist’s willingness to pay for environmental, social or economic elements. Many studies have been put forth claiming that the “more sustainable” tourist will pay more (Bigerna et al., 2019; Dodds et al., 2010; Doran et al., 2015, among others); however, many studies only look at pro environmental behavior (e.g., Debski and Borkowska-Niszczota, 2020; Hwang and Lee, 2018) rather than all constructs of social, economic and environmental behaviours.

Other studies have found those who are more altruistic or environmentally aware/conscious/caring, to be willing to pay for sustainable travel but this is not a guarantee. For example, Pulido-Fernández and López-Sánchez (2016) found contradictory evidence to the notion that the sustainable tourist is willing to pay more to preserve the environment. A study in Australia (Bergin-Seers and Mair, 2009) also described this paradoxical reality. A key finding from the study found that green tourists showed intentions to pay more for environmentally friendly tourism products and services, yet also indicated that there was not enough evidence to indicate that sustainable travelers were changing their consumer purchasing patterns for environmental reasons. McKercher and Tse (2012) also found that behavorial intentions do not always translate into actions, which is further corroborated by Ramchurjee and Suresha (2015), who found that home behavior did not necessarily translate into similar vacation behavior, nor did a willingness to pay for sustainable tourist experiences necessarily beget tangible actions while on vacation. Recently, Walsh and Dodds (2022) in a Canadian study found that cost is a factor when making more-sustainable decisions, as the rise in price may be a deterrent. Wang et al. (2021) found that frugal in/dividuals were less likely to pay for sustainable travel.

While different clusters of travelers may account for discrepancy, there does appear to be mixed findings with regard to the influence that everyday behavior has on a person’s willingness to pay for sustainable travel. This study will not only look at the different constructs of daily behavior as well as travel, it will also seek to examine whether this influences a person’s propensity to pay for sustainable travel. To test such, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4 – Altruism positively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel

H5 – Pro-environmental behavior positively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel

H6 – Frugality negatively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel

Figure 1.

Everyday behavior’s influence on sustainable travel behavior and propensity to pay.

This research looks to test the proposed hypotheses through the model proposed in Figure 1:

Methodology

This research employed structured surveys of a panel population, which was administered by the online survey panel company Dynata through the Qualtrics website. The survey respondents were asked to answer questions pertaining to their demographics, everyday behavior (altruism, frugality, pro-environmental), typical reasons for travel (business vs leisure), and sustainable travel behavior. To capture everyday behavior, the constructs of frugality, altruism and pro-environmental behavior as developed by Corral-Verdugo et al. (2010, 2012) were employed. Frugality was measured through statements such as “I live lightly even when affording luxuries.” Altruism was captured through such questions as “I provide some money to the homeless.” Pro-ecological behavior was measured through questions such as “Point out unecological behavior to someone.”

Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they typically travel for business or leisure, and the travel questions were modified to relate directly to the participant’s decision. To measure each traveler’s sustainable travel behavior, questions were asked that were derived from the work of López-Sánchez and Pulido-Fernández (2016), Juvan and Dolnicar (2016), and Passafaro et al. (2015). Questions such as “I purchase locally grown food and/or drink” (local consumption), “I do not take more than one shower per day” (environment), and “I intentionally interact with locals” (culture), were proposed to capture sustainable travel behavior. Lastly, drawing on the work of Brouwer et al. (2008) and Dodds et al. (2010), propensity to pay for sustainable tourism was captured by asking questions such as “I have paid more for a tour or accommodation that claimed it was socially responsible and/or eco-friendly.” All questions beyond those capturing demographics, were captured through the use of 5-point Likert-type scales. For a complete breakdown of the specific questions asked and used in the analysis, please refer to Table 1

Table 1.

Factor loadings.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Altruism - assist a person in need on the street	0.709
Altruism - contribute to financially, such as: Red cross	0.681
Altruism - provide some money to the homeless	0.706
Altruism - donate clothing to the less fortunate	0.741
Pre-ecological behavior - point out unecological behavior to someone		0.643
Pre-ecological behavior - read about environmental issues		0.767
Pre-ecological behavior - talk with friends about environmental problems		0.785
Frugality - do not buy a new car if old one is still functional			0.763
Frugality - wear the same clothing from a past season			0.768
Frugality - live lightly even when affording luxuries			0.614
Sustainable travel local consumption - locally owned accommodations				0.583
Sustainable travel local consumption - locally grown food and/or drink				0.758
Sustainable travel local consumption - locally made arts and crafts				0.519
Sustainable travel local consumption - use public transportation (i.e., bus, subway or tram)				0.473
Sustainable travel environment - do not keep the air conditioning or heater on when leaving the room					0.646
Sustainable travel environment - do not ask for a plastic bag when shopping					0.713
Sustainable travel environment - do not take more food than needed at a buffet					0.81
Sustainable travel environment - do not take more than one shower per day					0.681
Sustainable travel culture - go to places mostly locals go to (or very few tourists)						0.714
Sustainable travel culture - eat local foods and specialties in locally owned restaurants (instead of international food in known branded places)						0.739
Sustainable travel culture - intentionally interact with locals						0.668
Prop2Pay - in the past, I have chosen travel companies that proactively protect the environment							0.701
Prop2Pay - I have made the decision not to travel to destinations where I believe the local culture is not respected							0.782
Prop2Pay - I have paid extra for travel products that have lower negative impacts on environment							0.725
Prop2Pay - I have paid more for a tour or accommodation that claimed it was socially responsible and/or eco-friendly							0.705
Prop2Pay - rather than visit a place where tour operators exploit local workers, I preferred not to go on holiday							0.725

Surveys were captured from 2,886 Canadian travelers in February and March of 2020 before the start of the full lockdowns for COVID-19. Respondents were required to be Canadian travelers who were over 18 years of age, and who had traveled at least once in the past year. Only those respondents who had answered all questions were retained for this analysis, resulting in 755 complete and included surveys.

The results of this research were captured to accomplish two outcomes: first, to confirm the model proposed by Holmes et al. (2021); and second, to understand how everyday behavior influences propensity to purchase environmental travel. To facilitate this understanding, structural equation modeling was employed.

Results

Overall demographics

Respondents were slightly skewed towards men (57.9%) and were mostly Canadian born (81.6%). In addition, respondents were well represented between the birth years of 1946 and 1996, and at every education level (see Table 2). There was a greater representation of respondents earning over $100,000 in the responses collected. Questions were also asked pertaining to travel characteristics, with a third of respondents traveling alone (32.5%), and a third traveling with their partner/spouse (31.5%). Most respondents travel in all seasons, and, on average, respondents take nine domestic and/or international trips a year.

Table 2.

Demographics.

Measurement		Mean
Demographics	Female	42.1%
	Canadian born	81.6%
	1928 to 1945	2.0%
	1946 to 1964	26.5%
	1965 to 1980	34.6%
	1981 to 1996	30.6%
	1997 to 2020	6.4%
	High school or less	19.9%
	College diploma	23.4%
	University degree	35.5%
	Graduate degree	21.2%
	<$30,000	15.9%
	$30,000 − $49,999	15.4%
	$50,000 − $69,999	17.1%
	$70,000 − $99,999	18.0%
	$100,000 − $149,999	24.8%
	$150,000 +	8.9%
Traveling partners	Alone	32.5%
	Partner/Spouse	31.8%
	Family	19.6%
	Friends	5.8%
	Colleagues	10.1%
	Other	0.3%
Traveling seasons	Winter	12.7%
	Spring	9.4%
	Summer	25.0%
	Fall	6.1%
	All seasons	46.8%
Frequency of travel	Domestic travel	9.1
Frequency of travel	International travel	8.6

Factor analysis

Before progressing to undertake a structural equation model, a factor analysis (FA) was employed. The factor analysis identified some questions that fell below 0.45, and they were eliminated to improve internal cohesion. Further, the FA found past sustainable travel behavior to load onto four separate factors − local consumption, environmental, cultural, and a remainder factor − all of which were retained except for the remainder factor. After sorting past sustainable travel behavior into the three separate factors, and removing factor loadings less than 0.45, all factors were found to load onto each construct (see Table 1).

As Table 3 shows, the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all but sustainable travel behavior - local consumption (0.352), were found to be at or above 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). The construct reliabilities of all sustainable travel behaviors were found to be acceptable, with local consumption being good (>0.5), and the remainder of the constructs found to all be very good (>0.7), as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). Only one issue of discriminant validity was found to exist, pertinent to sustainable travel behavior - local consumption, most likely due to its similarity to sustainable travel behavior - culture; however, factor analysis did identify each construct being separate measures, thus it was retained.

Table 3.

Measurement model results.

	Alpha	CR	AVE	P2P	ALT	PEB	FRU	STBL	STBE	STBC
P2P - propensity to pay	0.856	0.849	0.530	0.74
ALT - altruism	0.610	0.802	0.503	0.57	0.677
PEB - pre-ecological behavior	0.794	0.777	0.539	0.62	0.545	0.777
FRU - frugality	0.610	0.760	0.516	0.05	0.082	0.291	0.593
STBL - sustainable travel behavior - local consumption	0.760	0.677	0.352	0.65	0.61	0.537	0.186	0.676
STBE - sustainable travel behavior - environmental	0.726	0.806	0.511	0.37	0.444	0.288	−0.196	0.427	0.648
STBC - sustainable travel behavior - culture	0.705	0.750	0.501	0.46	0.427	0.491	0.387	0.687	0.226	0.738

Structural equation model

Drawing on the constructs derived from the work of Corral-Verdugo and Pinheiro (2010), Corral-Verdugo et al. (2010 & 2012), Kaiser (1998), López-Sánchez and Pulido Fernández (2016), Juvan and Dolnicar (2016), Passafaro et al. (2015), and Holmes et al. (2021), this research looked to understand how everyday behavior influenced sustainable travel behavior and propensity to pay for environmentally sustainable travel. To test this relationship, a structural equation model (SEM) with all constructs was tested. In the SEM, the influence of everyday behaviors on sustainable travel behavior (local consumption (STBL), environmental (STBE), cultural (STBC)) and propensity to pay (P2P) were examined.

The proposed model was found to be a good fit as all indices (CFI – Comparative Fit Index; GFI – Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI – Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; IFI – Incremental-Fit Index; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) fell within acceptable limits recommended by Awang (2012), Hair et al. (2010), and Hooper et al. (2008) (see Table 4). Overall, the model was able to explain a significant amount of the variance in propensity to pay (67.8%), sustainable travel behavior - culture (45.8%), sustainable travel behavior - environment (30.9%), and sustainable travel behavior - local consumption (65.2%) (see Table 5).

Table 4.

Goodness of fit indices.

	Model	Acceptable levels
Df	271
x²	793.359 p < 0.001
x²/df	2.928
GFI	0.923	>0.9
AGFI	0.900	>0.9
IFI	0.930	>0.9
CFI	0.929	>0.9
RMSEA	0.051	<0.08

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; CFI – Comparative Fit Index; GFI – Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI – Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; IFI – Incremental-Fit Index; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SE - Standardized Estimates; A - Altruism; PEB - Pro-ecological Behaviour; STB - Sustainable Travel Behaviour. Cut-off levels recommended by Hooper et al. (2008).

Table 5.

Structural equation relationships, weights, and squared multiple correlations.

Structural equation relationships			Standardized regression weights		Squared multiple correlation for constructs
propensity2pay	<---	Altruism	0.06		0.678
propensity2pay	<---	Frugality	−0.251	***
propensity2pay	<---	PEB	0.862	***
PSTCultural	<---	Altruism	0.104		0.458
PSTCultural	<---	Frugality	0.203	***
PSTCultural	<---	PEB	0.494	***
PSTEniviro	<---	Altruism	0.313	***	0.309
PSTEniviro	<---	Frugality	−0.275	***
PSTEniviro	<---	PEB	0.325	***
PSTLocalConsump	<---	Altruism	0.307	***	0.652
PSTLocalConsump	<---	Frugality	−0.031
PSTLocalConsump	<---	PEB	0.584	***

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

The proposed model not only found the Holmes et al. (2021) (HDF) model to hold true, but that sustainable travel behavior could be measured by three separate constructs that are each influenced differently by everyday behavior. Those who are more altruistic are more likely to be more environmentally friendly and more likely to look for local experiences when traveling (see Table 5). Those who are more environmentally minded at home, are also more likely to seek out cultural, environmentally friendly and local experiences when traveling. In contrast, those who are more frugal are less likely to be environmentally friendly when traveling; however, they too seek out cultural experiences. In regard to propensity to pay for sustainable travel, P2P was positively influenced by PEB, and inversely influenced by Frugality. For a complete breakdown of how each hypothesis was supported or not, please see Table 6.

Table 6.

Hypotheses support.

Hypotheses	Outcome
H1 – Altruism positively influences all three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)	Partial support
	- Altruism + environmental
	- Altruism (ni) culture
	- Altruism + economic
H2 – Pro-environmental behavior positively influences all three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)	Full support
	- PEB + environmental
	- PEB + culture
	- PEB + economic
H3 – Frugality has no influence on any of the three types of sustainable travel behavior (social, economic and environmental)	Partial support
	- Frugality - environmental
	- Frugality + culture
	- Frugality (ni) economic
H4 – Altruism positively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel	No support
	- Altruism (ni) P2P
H5 – Pro-environmental behavior positively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel	Full support
	- PEB + P2P
H6 – Frugality negatively influences propensity to pay for sustainable travel	Full support
	- Frugality - P20050

(ni) represents no influence

Discussion

There are three key findings from this research. First, this research found the Holmes, Dodds, and Frochot (HDF) model (Holmes et al., 2021) to hold true, but that sustainable travel behavior should not be examined as a single construct. Sustainable travel behavior needs to be examined as three separate constructs − sustainable travel as it relates to culture, environment, and local consumption − as these behaviors are not the same. This distinction supports the notion that sustainability can be conceptualized as three separate constructs in the sustainability triangle, sometimes known as people, planet and profit (Elkington, 1997; Goel, 2010). This result is not surprising as the concept of the triple bottom line has been around for many decades; however, there has been a tendency to presume or prescribe sustainability as just economic or environmental rather than all three (economic, environmental, and social), which has possibly led to the poor achievement of sustainable tourism overall (Butler and Dodds, 2022; Lew, 2020). The second key finding is that every day behavior explains the variance in each sustainable travel outcome differently. Altruism positively influences environmental and local consumption behavior. Frugality positively influences cultural travel behavior but negatively influences environmental behavior. Pro-environmental everyday behavior positively influences cultural, environmental and local consumption travel behavior (see complete breakdown of influences in Figure 2). While the HDF model did not find frugality to influence sustainable travel behavior, this could have been a result of measuring sustainable travel behavior as a single construct and not three separate constructs, as has been undertaken herein.

Figure 2.

SEM of everyday behaviors’ influence on Environmental, Cultural, and Economic Sustainable Travel, as well as Propensity to Pay. (Red indicates hypotheses not supported, green indicates hypotheses supported).

The third key finding is that every day behaviors were found to explain a traveler’s propensity to pay for sustainable travel. While altruism does not have an influence on a person’s propensity to pay, a more frugal individual is less likely to pay for sustainable travel, while a more environmentally conscious person is more likely to pay for it. The finding that pro-environmental behavior at home influences propensity to pay for environmentally sustainable travel supports the previous work done by Dodds et al. (2010), Dolcinar (2006), and Hwang and Lee (2018). Wang et al.’s work (2021) supports the finding that frugality and propensity to pay are inversely related, as indulgence takes importance over frugality when traveling, as it is seen as a more hedonistic behavior.

Conclusions

This paper has sought to shed light on the influence that everyday behavior has on both the three constructs of sustainable travel behavior and propensity to pay for such travel. The results of this research can be divided into both practical and theoretical implications. Practically, by better understanding the drivers that motivate travelers to travel more sustainably, and the types of tourists that are more likely to both travel sustainably and pay for such travel, destinations can better target their marketing to specific travelers based on everyday behavior. Further, destinations can develop packages for each of the different types of tourists (frugal, altruistic, pro-environmental) in order to maximize their attraction to such markets. Regarding this research’s academic contributions, this study has furthered the HDF model, finding that sustainable travel behavior should be examined as a multidimensional as opposed to a single construct. Further, while previous research has looked to understand the influence that socio-economic and travel characteristics have on a person’s willingness to pay for sustainable travel behavior (see Durán-Román et al., 2021), this is the first study to examine the influence that everyday frugality, altruism and pro-environmental behaviors all together have on a traveler’s propensity to pay. Future research should look to take this further by examining how everyday behavior along with socio-economic and travel behavior tendencies will influence both sustainable travel behavior as well as propensity to pay.

Four specific recommendations are derived from this research that can help to focus the marketing efforts of destinations. First, destinations and the tourism industry more broadly should seek out those people who are more environmentally friendly at home as they will also be more likely to conduct this same behavior when traveling and will also be more receptive to purchasing sustainable travel options. Second, while those who are more environmentally conscious at home will be more likely to seek out cultural experiences while traveling, those who are frugal are also interested in having a sustainable cultural experience when traveling. This suggests that destinations should not only focus on popular offerings, but also provide opportunities for all travelers to experience more authentic rather than contrived local culture. Third, industry should work to not only attract those with pro-sustainable behaviors, but they should also look to encourage those normative behaviors. Just because “we say this will happen” does not mean that “this will happen in the destination” if they do not have the infrastructure in place to enable and allow for sustainable behavior. As Hysa et al. (2021) and Walsh and Dodds (2022) outline, it is social media and travel websites that have a significant influence on tourists’ search for sustainable tourism information and therefore guidelines and behavioral expectations outlining more sustainable behavior should be promoted. Lastly, as suggested by Liu et al. (2020), destination stakeholders need to have a better undertraining of the consumer and destination profiles so as to target, attract and retain those people willing to pay for, and consume, sustainable travel options.

Limitations

There are a few limitations to this study. First, the indicators used in this study were self-reported, as such future research should look to investigate observed behavior in a travel destination. Second, this research was undertaken with Canadian travelers with no travel destination specified, therefore, future research should look to examine whether these findings hold true in different cultures, countries, destinations and types of travel (i.e., adventure tourism vs all-inclusive, vs cruise). Third, this paper only looked at individual behavior rather than at a community level. As Animova et al. (2012) point out, influencing individuals at a group or community level may be more effective and long lasting and further research should consider this approach.

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.

ORCID iD

Mark Robert Holmes

Author Biographies

Rachel Dodds is a Professor at the Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Ryerson University, Canada. Her work focuses on practical, applied management and the development of sustainable development in tourism.

Mark Holmes is an Associate Professor in the Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics at the University of Guelph. Holmes’ research looks to investigate and contribute to sustainability focusing on tourism, foodservice, and workforces.

References

Antimova

Nawijn

Peeters

(2012) The awareness/attitude-gap in sustainable tourism: a theoretical perspective. Tourism Review 67(3): 7–16.

Awang

(2012) Research Methodology and Data Analysis. 2nd edition. UiTM Press.

Barr

Shaw

Coles

(2011) Times for (un) sustainability? Challenges and opportunities for developing behaviour change policy. A case-study of consumers at home and away. Global Environmental Change 21(4): 1234–1244.

Bergin-Seers

Mair

(2009) Emerging green tourists in Australia: their behaviours and attitudes. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(2): 109–119. DOI: 10.1057/thr.2009.5.

Bigerna

Micheli

Polinori

(2019) Willingness to pay for electric boats in a protected area in Italy: a sustainable tourism perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 224: 603–613.

Boström

Micheletti

(2016) Introducing the sustainability challenge of textiles and clothing. Journal of Consumer Policy 39: 367–375.

Brouwer

Brander

Van Beukering

(2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Climatic Change 90(3): 299–313.

Butler

Dodds

(2022) Overcoming overtourism: a review of failure. Tourism Review 77: 35–53.

Catlin

Luchs

Phipps

(2017) Consumer perceptions of the social vs. environmental dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Consumer Policy 40: 245–277.

10.

Chabowski

Mena

Gonzalez-Padron

(2011) The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39: 55–70.

11.

Choi

(2011) Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics 104: 269–282.

12.

Clark

Mulgrew

Kannis-Dymand

, et al. (2019) Theory of planned behaviour: predicting tourists’ pro-environmental intentions after a humpback whale encounter. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(5): 649–667.

13.

Cohen

(1982) Marginal paradises: bungalow tourism on the islands of Southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 9(2): 189–228.

14.

Conner

Armitage

(1998) Extending the theory of planned behaviour: a review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(15): 1429–1464.

15.

Corral-Verdugo

García

Castro

, et al. (2010) Equity and sustainable lifestyles. In: Corral-Verdugo

García

Frías

(eds), Psychological Approaches to Sustainability. New York: Nova Science.

16.

Corral-Verdugo

García

Tapia-Fonllem

, et al. (2012) Sustainable behaviors and perceived psychological restoration. Psychological Research Records 2(2): 749–764.

17.

Dębski

Borkowska-Niszczota

(2020) Consumer ecological behaviour and attitudes towards pro-ecological activities in accommodation facilities by generation Z. Turyzm/Tourism 30(2): 43–50. DOI: 10.18778/0867-5856.30.2.20.

18.

Dodds

Graci

Holmes

(2010) Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists in koh phi phi, Thailand and gili trawangan, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2): 207–222. DOI: 10.1080/09669580903215162.

19.

Dolcinar

(2006) Nature-conserving tourists: the need for a broader perspective. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 17: 235–255. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2006.9687188.

20.

Doran

Hanss

Larsen

(2015) Attitudes, efficacy beliefs, and willingness to pay for environmental protection when travelling. Tourism and Hospitality Research 15(4): 281–292.

21.

Durán-Román

Cárdenas-García

Pulido-Fernández

(2021) Tourists' willingness to pay to improve sustainability and experience at destination. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 19: 100540.

22.

Elkington

(1997) Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business. Stoney Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

23.

Evans

(2011) Thrifty, green or frugal: reflections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate. Geoforum 42(5): 550–557.

24.

Evans

Abrahamse

(2009) Beyond rhetoric: the possibilities of and for sustainable lifestyles. Environmental Politics 18(4): 486–502.

25.

Fauzi

Hanafiah

Kunjuraman

(2022) Tourists’ intention to visit green hotels: building on the theory of planned behaviour and the value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Tourism Futures. (ahead-of-print).

26.

Fehr

Fischbacher

(2003) The nature of human altruism. Nature 425(6960): 785–791.

27.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 382–388.

28.

Gössling

(2017) Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an exploratory review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(7): 1024–1041.

29.

Godin

Kok

(1996) The theory of planned behaviour: a review of its applications to health-related behaviours. American Journal of Health Promotion 11(2): 87–98.

30.

Goel

(2010) Triple bottom line reporting: an analytical approach for corporate sustainability. Journal of Finance, Accounting, and Management 1(1): 27–42.

31.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2010) Advanced diagnostics for multiple regression: a supplement to multivariate data analysis.

32.

Han

Lee

Kim

(2018) Promoting towel reuse behaviour in guests: a water conservation management and environmental policy in the hotel industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 27(8): 1302–1312. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2179.

33.

Higham

Reis

Cohen

(2016) Australian climate concern and the ‘attitude–behaviour gap. Current Issues in Tourism 19(4): 338–354.

34.

Holmes

Dodds

Frochot

(2021) At home or abroad, does our behavior change? Examining how everyday behavior influences sustainable travel behavior and tourist clusters. Journal of Travel Research 60(1): 102–116. DOI: 10.1177/0047287519894070.

35.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008) Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. 7th European Conference on research methodology for business and management studies 2008: 195–200.

36.

Hwang

Lee

(2018) Antecedents and consequences of ecotourism behavior: independent and interdependent self-construals, ecological belief, willingness to pay for ecotourism services and satisfaction with life. Sustainability 10(3): 1–18. DOI: 10.3390/su10030789.

37.

Hysa

Karasek

Zdonek

(2021) Social media usage by different generations as a tool for sustainable tourism marketing in society 5.0 idea. Sustainability 13(3): 1018.

38.

Ibnou-Laaroussi

Rjoub

Wong

(2020) Sustainability of green tourism among international tourists and its influence on the achievement of green environment: evidence from North Cyprus. Sustainability 12(14): 1–24. DOI: 10.3390/su12145698.

39.

Juvan

Dolnicar

(2014) The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 48: 76–95.

40.

Juvan

Dolnicar

(2016) Measuring environmentally sustainable tourist behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 59: 30–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.006.

41.

Juvan

Dolnicar

(2017) Drivers of pro-environmental tourist behaviours are not universal. Journal of Cleaner Production 166: 879–890.

42.

Kaiser

(1998) A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 395–422. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x.

43.

Kinnear

Taylor

Ahmed

(1974) Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they? Journal of Marketing 38(2): 20. DOI: 10.2307/1250192.

44.

Lee

Jan

(2018) Ecotourism behavior of nature-based tourists: an integrative framework. Journal of Travel Research 57(6): 792–810. DOI: 10.1177/0047287517717350.

45.

Lew

(2020) The global consciousness path to sustainable tourism: a perspective paper. Tourism Review 75(1): 69–75.

46.

Liu

, et al. (2020) Daily green behavior as an antecedent and a moderator for visitors’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(9): 1390–1408.

47.

Lopez-Sanchez

Pulido-Fernandez

(2016) In search of the pro-sustainable tourist: a segmentation based on the tourist ‘sustainable intelligence. Tourism Management Perspectives 17: 59–71.

48.

Marcus

MacDonald

Sulsky

(2015) Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? A policy-capturing study. Journal of Business Ethics 127: 459–478.

49.

McKercher

Tse

(2012) Is intention to return a valid proxy for actual repeat visitation? Journal of Travel Research 51(6): 671–686.

50.

McKercher

Prideaux

Cheung

, et al. (2010) Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(3): 297–317.

51.

Miller

Rathouse

Scarles

, et al. (2010) Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 37(3): 627–645. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002.

52.

Oliver

Benjamin

Leonard

(2021) Recycling on vacation: does pro-environmental behavior change when consumers travel? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 29(2): 266–280.

53.

Passafaro

Cini

Boi

, et al. (2015) The ‘sustainable tourist’: values, attitudes, and personality traits. Tourism and Hospitality Research 15(4): 225–239.

54.

Piliavin

Charng

(1990) Altruism: a review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology 16(1): 27–65.

55.

Pulido-Fernandez

Lopez-Sanchez

(2016) Are tourists really willing to pay more for sustainable destinations? Sustainability 8(12). DOI: 10.3390/su8121240.

56.

Ramchurjee

Suresha

(2015) Are tourists’ environmental behaviors affected by their environmental perceptions and beliefs. Journal of Environmental and Tourism Analyses 3(1): 26–44.

57.

Sawitri

Hadiyanto

Hadi

(2015) Proenvironmental behavior from a social cognitive theory perspective. Procedia Environmental Sciences 23: 27–33.

58.

Schultz

(2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 327–339.

59.

Simpson

Radford

(2012) Consumer perceptions of sustainability: a free elicitation study. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 24(4): 272–291.

60.

Teeroovengadum

(2018) Environmental identity and ecotourism behaviours: examination of the direct and indirect effects. Tourism Review 74(2): 257–269. DOI: 10.1108/TR-11-2017-0190.

61.

UNWTO . Sustainable tourism development. Available at: https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development (accessed 27 March 2023)

62.

Walsh

Dodds

(2022) The impact of intermediaries and social marketing on promoting sustainable behaviour in leisure travellers. Journal of Cleaner Production 338: 130537.

63.

Wang

Zhang

Xiao

, et al. (2020) Examining the dimensions and mechanisms of tourists’ environmental behavior: a theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 273: 123007.

64.

Wang

Bai

, et al. (2021) The unexpected effect of frugality on green purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 59: 102385.

65.

Ling

, et al. (2017) Understanding household waste separation behaviour: testing the roles of moral, past experience, and perceived policy effectiveness within the theory of planned behaviour. Sustainability 9(4): 625.