رفتار مصرف کنندگان طرفدار محیط زیست و انگیزه های زمینه ای : مقایسه بین تنظیمات خانواده و هتل
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1843||2013||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8390 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 32, March 2013, Pages 102–112
The present study made a comparison of pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations between household and hotel settings. Results of a survey research among 1185 participants showed a behavioral inconsistency between the two settings – participants reported a significantly higher level of pro-environmental behavior in a household setting. Furthermore, the study revealed that while normative motives are the dominant determinant of pro-environmental behavior in a household setting, hedonic motives are the strongest predictor of such behavior in a hotel setting. Theoretical and managerial implications of the inconsistencies in pro-environmental behavior and underlying motivations between the two settings are discussed.
Sustainability of hotel operations has become a strategic imperative as consumers and government policies increasingly favor a balanced approach by business to the environment. Many hotels have been implementing pro-environmental programs as hotels become more aware of the impact of their operations on the environment and the costs associated with such impact. Examples of pro-environmental programs include development of green hotels (Butler, 2008), on-site wastewater treatment at tourist resorts (Antakyali et al., 2008), collaborations and partnerships for sustainability (Blanco et al., 2009), and conservation of water, energy, local/durable goods and other resources (Alvarez et al., 2001, Han et al., 2009 and Priego and Palacios, 2008). While environmental stewardship is gaining momentum among hotel firms, consumers’ participation in environmental practices appears relatively passive in hospitality settings (Bader, 2005). According to a consumer survey conducted by the U.S. Travel Association (2009), although 78% of American travelers reported that they were concerned about the environment, only 9% were willing to pay higher fares for environmentally sound services and 3% selected a “carbon offset” in their travel reservations. It is, therefore, critical to mobilize consumers’ environmental concern and transform it to actual action in tourism settings (Bohdanowicz, 2006). The attitude–behavior gap led some researchers to speculate that the commonly assumed moral beliefs alone are not sufficient to predict pro-environmental behavior in hospitality settings (Han et al., 2009 and Harland et al., 2007). Findings from prior studies suggested that pro-environmental behavior is not consistent across different settings (Gatersleben et al., 2002 and Green-Demers et al., 1997). For example, Muller and Sonnenmoser (1998) found that pro-environmental behavior was most pervasive in private lifestyle and household activities. In addition to the situational nature of pro-environmental behavior, motivations driving such pro-environmental behavior also can be dynamic and situated (e.g., Vining and Ebreo, 2002 and Volet, 2001). People may feel morally obligated to contribute to a better environment (Kahneman and Knetsch, 1992) or individuals can be motivated by economic incentives to act in a pro-environmental manner (Von Weizaecker and Jesinghaus, 1992). Given the contextual nature of both pro-environmental behavior and underlying motivations, it is important to ascertain whether consumers display similar pro-environmental behavior in hospitality settings as they do in everyday household activities. It is also necessary to understand whether the underlying motivations driving the pro-environmental behavior differ in the two settings. To that end, the present study aimed to empirically test whether there is an inconsistency in pro-environmental behavior between household and hospitality settings. Another important objective of the present research was to examine whether the dominant motivational factors in hospitality and household settings differ and, if so, what are those differences. While hotels’ organizational behavior in environmental initiatives (e.g., Enz and Siguaw, 1999 and Khatri, 1996) and hoteliers’ environmental attitudes (e.g., Bohdanowicz, 2005) are well documented, consumers’ pro-environmental behavior in the hospitality setting is less understood. Findings from current research will provide hospitality researchers and practitioners a better understanding of consumers’ pro-environmental behavior in the hospitality setting and offer guidelines about how to encourage active and meaningful consumer engagement in pro-environmental initiatives. In the following section, the theoretical background of this research is reviewed and research hypotheses presented. This article then presents an empirical study that tested the hypotheses. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are also discussed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The current study presented promising results with respect to the inconsistency in individual pro-environmental behavior and dominant determinants that drive the pro-environmental behavior in household and hotel settings. However, the present research has several limitations. The first limitation is related to the sample used in the present study. Females had a slight over-representation in the sample (67%). Although gender was used as a control variable in the data analysis and the gender difference was not statistically significant, there may be a potential gender bias in the results. Previous research showed that women usually have less extensive environmental knowledge than males but women are more emotionally engaged. Women show more concern about environmental destruction and a greater willingness to change (Fliegenschnee and Schelakovsky, 1998). Also people with a post-graduate degree were over-represented in the sample. Previous research suggested a positive correlation between length of education and knowledge about environmental issues, yet more education does not necessarily mean increased pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Second, a measurement-related limitation should be noted. Since one of the objectives of the study was to examine potential inconsistency in individual pro-environmental behavior between the two settings, the items used to measure pro-environmental behavior were selected from previous literature based on the practicability and compatibility between the two settings. Future research can identify hotel-specific exemplars of pro-environmental behavior and examine the relationships between types of pro-environmental behavior and their respective dominant determinants. Understanding of the differences in the types of pro-environmental behavior and their correspondent dominant determinants would help hotels better communicate pro-environmental messages to their guests and more effectively elicit particular pro-environmental behavior in a hotel setting. Finally, several important determinants of pro-environmental behavior were not included in the present study. This study focused on the effects of motives and contextual factors such as constraints to motives on pro-environmental behavior. The study was based on the theoretical frameworks that largely imply that individuals make reasoned choices. For behaviors that are deliberate, motives and contextual factors are likely to account for more of the variance (Stern, 2000). However, part of the pro-environmental behavior can also be habitual and guided by automated cognitive processes without much deliberation (Steg and Vlek, 2009). While normative motives are the main basis for individuals’ general predispositions to pro-environmental action (Stern, 2000), people may have established a pattern of behavior that is functional but with little or no awareness of the consequences for the environment (Dahlstrand and Biel, 1997). Such habit or routine, in the form of standard operating procedures, is an individual's propensity level in environmentalism and is identified as one of the key determinants of pro-environmental behavior ( Dahlstrand and Biel, 1997 and Stern, 2000). Future studies should examine effects of both habitual decisions and deliberate decisions on pro-environmental behavior in hospitality settings. Other important determinants, such as environmental attitude and environmental knowledge, were not included as well. Future research can include these determinants and examine the joint effect of situational determinants and motivational determinants on pro-environmental behavior. As proposed by this study, since pro-environmental behavior is often embedded in other everyday activities that have purposive goals, it is important to understand how different determinants interact with each other to jointly influence pro-environmental behavior. In conclusion, the present research empirically tested the inconsistency in pro-environmental behavior between household and hotel settings and explored the dominant determinant driving pro-environmental behavior in each setting. The behavioral inconsistency and differential dominant determinant in the two settings observed in this study demonstrate the importance of recognizing the uniqueness of hospitality settings in examining pro-environmental behavior. Further research in this area is needed to provide a better understanding of pro-environmental behavior of the traveling public and to guide hospitality firms with their pro-environmental initiatives. For example, future studies can use cluster analysis to identify the behavioral profiles of consumers and to determine whether a specific type of pro-environmental behavior such as “reduce” or “green consumption” is more prevalent among certain consumer groups than others. Future studies also can use other multivariate analysis techniques such as canonical correlation analysis to explore whether certain types of motives are more closely related to a specific set of pro-environmental behaviors.