933686

research-article2020
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287520933686Journal of Travel ResearchCampos-Soria et al.

Empirical Research Article

Journal of Travel Research

Environmental Concern and Destination

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Choices of Tourists: Exploring the sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047287520933686
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520933686

Underpinnings of Country Heterogeneity journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr

Juan A. Campos-Soria1 , J. Aníbal Núñez-Carrasco1 ,

and Alejandro García-Pozo1

Abstract
This article analyzes the main determinants of pro-environmental concern of European tourists when they make holiday
decisions. Tourist environmental concern depends not only on individual and travel-related attributes, but also on the
characteristics of the tourists’ place of residence. Thus, this article simultaneously applies micro and macro approaches
using hierarchical linear models, which can estimate variations in tourists’ environmental concern because of between-
country and within-country differences. Specifically, the heterogeneous pattern across European countries in the level of
environmental concern is mainly explained by between-country economic, cultural, and environmental differences. Within-
country variability in the level of pro-environmental concern is mainly explained by individual and travel-related variables, and
particularly by the characteristics of the destination. The results demonstrate that environmental concern varies depending
on whether the destination is booked via a last-minute offer or not, whether it is a traditional or emergent destination, and
whether the trip is abroad or domestic.

Keywords
tourist environmental concern, hierarchical linear models, travel-related attributes, domestic tourism, international tourism,
country heterogeneity

Introduction Despite the relevance of tourist behavior in relation to the

Many national governments and international institutions,
such as the World Watch Institute, the International Panel of
Climate Change (IPCC), the European Union, and the United
Nations, agree on the need for increasing action to protect the
global environment. In the particular case of tourism, the
World Tourism Organization defines sustainable tourism as
“tourism which leads to management of all resources in such
a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be filled
while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological pro-
cesses, biological diversity, and life support systems” (WTO
2002). As Page and Connell (2009) recognized, there is a
symbiotic relationship between tourism and the environ-
ment, with each being dependent on the other. The overall
management of the environment in the tourism sector needs
to take into account not only the environmental regulations
imposed on tourism enterprises and destinations but also
tourist behavior (Dolnicar and Leisch 2008). The main aim
of environmental regulations is to maintain the quality of the
natural environment (W. H. Lee and Moscardo 2005; Kasim
2009). One of the main issues in tourist behavior studies is to
analyze the main determinants of improvements to the pro-
environmental attitudes and behavior of tourists (Dolnicar
and Leisch 2008).
environment, there is little empirical literature on the topic.
This lack has been highlighted by Xu and Fox (2014), who
justified the need for additional studies on the environmental
attitudes and behavior of tourists when they plan their vaca-
tions. Passaforo (2019) discussed the complex nature of atti-
tudes, pointed out the limitations of their use, and suggested
future lines of research into sustainable tourist behavior. The
majority of previous studies on this topic have focused on the
socioeconomic characteristics of the individual or the type
of tourism (Schultz et al. 2004; Dolnicar and Grün 2009).
However, this approach does not address issues such as
whether or not tourist behavior is heterogeneous according
to the country of origin, the destination, and the characteris-
tics of the trip. Studies that address these issues could be
helpful for improving selective target segments at destina-
tions and encourage business initiatives adapted to tourist
1
Department of Applied Economics, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain
Corresponding Author:
Juan A. Campos-Soria, Department of Applied Economics, University of
Malaga, Room 1405, C/ El Ejido, nº 6, CP: 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Email: jacampos@uma.es
2 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
profiles according to their environmental behavior (Kil,
Holland, and Stein 2014).
Thus, this article contributes to the tourism literature on
environmental sustainability in different ways. First, the gen-
eral literature shows that although public concern toward
environmental protection is geographically heterogeneous
(Franzen and Meyer 2010; Mostafa 2012), this topic has been
little analyzed in the field of tourism (Falk and Hagsten 2019).
Hence, this article investigated tourists’ pro-environmental
concern by analyzing their heterogeneous patterns according
to their place of residence using cross-country data sets. Three
contextual hypotheses have been used to investigate country
heterogeneity in the level of environmental concern.
Specifically, we investigated the contribution of between-
country economic, cultural, and environmental differences in
explaining such heterogeneous patterns. Second, this article
contributes to a better understanding of tourist environmental
concern by determining the relevance to them of travel and
destination characteristics, such as distance from the place of
residence, whether destinations are traditional or emergent,
and last-minute offers. Specifically, we address the repercus-
sions of tourists’ effects on the environment when traveling
domestically and abroad. Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) suggested
that people who become involved in protecting the environ-
ment in their place of residence could behave differently when
they go on holiday, and that such behavior may have negative
consequences on the environment. Understanding the causes of
such differences in behavior could help to minimize the nega-
tive environmental impacts of such tourists. Finally, the pro-
posed methodology and the different databases used in this
article allow us to address these objectives with confidence. A
representative survey of tourists from EU-27 countries were
used that combined micro-data from the Flash Eurobarometer
and the European Value Survey, and macro-data from different
international sources. This methodology adds the macro-level
dimension to the predominantly individual-oriented field of
attitude and behavior studies, while taking advantage of hier-
archical linear models. The sample data have a hierarchical
structure, in which individuals (first level) are grouped into
countries (second level), and therefore the random heteroge-
neity of individuals can be decomposed into within-group and
between-group variations. As Train (2009) suggested, this
type of methodology applied at the individual level can be
aggregated to obtain country-level predictions and can be
used for forecasting over time.
The results of this article could be of great interest to pol-
icy makers, who not only need macro indicators to assess the
economic and environmental impact of this activity but also
need complementary indicators. From this perspective, the
creation of tourist profiles according to the tourists’ country
of origin and their travel and destination characteristics could
be of great assistance in identifying environmentally respon-
sible tourists. This approach represents a starting point by
which to reduce environmentally unsustainable behavior in
the tourist field.
This article is organized as follows: The next section
reviews the general literature on environmental attitudes and
behavior and the specific literature on these aspects and tour-
ism. It also addresses some widely held contextual and com-
positional hypotheses; the third section describes the
methodology and data sets used; the fourth section discusses
the empirical results; and the fifth section presents the main
conclusions.
Literature Review
Private Dimension of Sustainable Tourism
The issue of sustainable tourism is of particular relevance to
industry and stakeholders, who are committed to protecting the
environment because safe and attractive surroundings are part
of their core product (Chan and Hsu 2016). In recent decades,
the active role of companies has become highly relevant in the
promotion of sustainable tourism, not only through the fulfil-
ment of compulsory environmental measures, but also through
voluntary initiatives to demonstrate their commitment to sus-
tainability. There has been widespread promotion of formal
management systems that proactively incorporate the environ-
mental dimension because of their positive impact on company
performance (Claver et al. 2007; Bohdanowicz-Godfrey and
Zientara 2014). Furthermore, growing public concern over
environmental damage has stimulated many hotels into incor-
porating the environmental awareness of customers in their
management and marketing decision making (Y. Kim and Han
2010). Customers and other stakeholders increasingly expect
companies to recognize their social and environmental respon-
sibilities and to adjust business practices to mitigate negative
impacts on the environment.
Several studies have demonstrated the growing interest of
companies and international organizations in involving cus-
tomers in a choice of services that are more respectful of the
environment, given that this aspect would lead to the develop-
ment of competitive advantages (J. S. Lee et al. 2010;
Oliveira-Brochado, Oliveira-Brochado, and Caldeira 2015).
Han, Hsu, and Sheu (2010) found that environmental tourism
products had a positive effect on purchase intentions. Sánchez,
García, and Marchante (2014) confirmed the positive impact
of the environmental concern of tourists on hotel room pric-
ing. Similar results were obtained by J. S. Lee et al. (2010),
who analyzed the influence of having a green hotel image on
tourists’ recommendations to other clients, intentions regard-
ing revisits, and willingness to pay. In the Nordic hospitality
sector, Heikkurinen (2010) found that an environmentally
responsible image improved the perceptions of stakeholders.
In summary, many studies that have addressed the relation-
ship between the environmental concerns of customers and
profitability have reported improved financial outcomes,
although this effect varies across industries and destinations.
For this reason, a current key marketing strategy is to take
into account consumers’ environmental awareness (Kim,
Campos-Soria et al.
Borges, and Chon 2006). These authors suggested that mar-
kets punish companies that fail to consider environmental
concerns in their marketing strategies.
Public Environmental Concern: Attitudes and
Behavior
Dunlap and Jones (2002) defined public environmental con-
cern as the commitment of individuals to the environment in
the face of the effects of pollution and resource overexploita-
tion by humans. Public environmental concern has been
measured through different dimensions, such as attitudes and
behaviors. Social psychological theories that attempt to
explain why humans behave in certain ways postulate that
attitudes, among other factors, affect behavior (Akintunde
2017). Primitive theories have emphasized the impact of
education on environmental issues and the increased amount
of information available on ecological problems, both of
which may help individuals to alter their behavior in a
responsible manner (Hungerford and Volk 1990). This author
developed the behavioral change theory, which can be used
to understand the links between knowledge about the envi-
ronment and attitudes, and between attitudes and behavior.
Many other models have also supported the link between
attitudes and behavior. In the theory of planned behavior
developed by Ajzen (1991), attitudes and personal responsi-
bility are also considered as cognitive variables affecting the
intention to act, which is a direct determinant of pro-environ-
mental behavior. Several empirical papers on environmental
management have confirmed the association between atti-
tudes and behavior (Kaiser, Schultz, and Scheuthle 2007;
Levine and Strube 2012), whereas other authors have found
no association between these constructs (Cordano, Welcomer,
and Scherer 2003). Other studies have found that this asso-
ciation was not consistently strong and that it varied widely
according to the sample used (Levine and Strube 2012).
Tourists’ attitudes and behavior have been widely used in
the tourism literature to investigate tourist environmental
concern. Hall (2013) suggested that it is crucial to encourage
pro-environmental consumer attitudes among tourists in
order to encourage more responsible behavior. Based on the
theory of planned behavior, T. H. Lee and Jan (2018) exam-
ined an ecotourism behavioral model using environmental
attitudes among tourists visiting different nature-based tour-
ism destinations. Schultz et al. (2004) suggested that tourists’
concern toward the environment is directly related to the
type of tourism. In this regard, the degree of environmental
commitment of a tourist visiting a natural park or an archaeo-
logical excavation is probably much higher than that of a
sun and beach tourist. Kyoungjin-Kim and Weiler (2013)
demonstrated that nature-based areas tend to attract environ-
mentally responsible visitors notably interested in fossil col-
lection. In another study, Kyoungjin-Kim, Airey, and Szivas
(2011) found that specific attitudes toward cliff protection
and fossil protection in nature-based tourism areas had a
3
stronger impact on environmental protection than general
attitudes. Weaver and Lawton (2004) showed that tourists’
attitudes are key to congestion in natural environments.
Similar results were obtained by Tonge et al. (2015), who
demonstrated that national area visitors were very concerned
about the fragility of the balance of nature. Ballantyne et al.
(2018) showed that postvisit environmental behavior
increases as a result of a visit to wildlife tourism attractions.
Similar differences have been found in individuals who prac-
tice outdoor activities, such as hiking or diving. For example,
Ong and Musa (2011) found that scuba divers have a high
degree of environmental awareness toward marine conserva-
tion. Falk and Hagsten (2019) supported this statement,
demonstrating that tourists who enjoy outdoor activities have
an increased tendency to emphasize environmental aspects
when traveling. Studies have also shown that ecotourists
favor pro-environmental attitudes: that is, they are more
nature oriented than human oriented, although such attitudes
widely differ between hard and soft ecotourists (Weaver and
Lawton 2002). However, Firth and Hing (1999) found that
very few backpackers considered ecofriendly practices to be
relevant to their tourism attitudes.
Some studies, although scarce, have also found that envi-
ronmentally responsible tourism varies geographically
(Schultz et al. 2004; Wen and Ximing 2008; Ong and Musa
2011). For example, Wen and Ximing (2008) found a hetero­
geneous pattern between the eastern and western hemi-
spheres in relation to the perceptions of tourists toward
nature. Ong and Musa (2011) suggested that our understand-
ing of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior could be
increased by determining the attributes of their place of
residence. On the other hand, Falk and Hagsten (2019)
investigated this issue among European tourists. However,
numerous general studies have analyzed the causes of these
heterogeneous patterns across regions and countries in rela-
tion to the degree of public concern for environmental pro-
tection (Franzen 2003; Franzen and Meyer 2010; Gelissen
2007; Mostafa 2012). Three so-called contextual hypotheses
have been used to investigate between-country heterogeneity
(Franzen and Meyer 2010).
The first hypothesis states that environmental concern
may be determined by economic advancement in a given
society. This hypothesis supports the idea that higher income
and strong economic growth reinforce public environmental
concern in advanced societies (Diekmann and Franzen
1999). Nevertheless, several studies have not found evidence
for this hypothesis. Mostafa (2012) suggested that this result
was due to the fact that the citizens of high-income countries
already support higher tax pressure for improving the envi-
ronment. Inglehart’s (1995) study, which used the World
Values Survey, partially supported this hypothesis, showing
that environmental support was much stronger in low-income
countries than in high-income countries. In response to this
unexpected finding, this author suggested that objective
problems and subjective values can act in opposite ways.
4 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
The second hypothesis states that objective problems may
lead to increased environmental protection by making citi-
zens of poor regions more aware of environmental issues.
This hypothesis addresses the issue of whether attitudes
toward environmental protection tend to be stronger in coun-
tries that have relatively severe objective environmental
problems. Although ecological degradation and air and water
pollution have become global problems, they are generally
worse in developing countries than in advanced industrial
societies (Inglehart 1995). Ogunbode (2013) supported this
result, demonstrating that ecological degradation in their
environment may also encourage individuals to engage in
pro-environmental attitudes regardless of personal and eco-
nomic circumstances. However, as Inglehart (1995) recog-
nized, this hypothesis only partially explains heterogeneity
between countries because environmental attitudes are not
necessarily formed only in response to objective problems,
but also by the adoption of postmaterialist values.
The third hypothesis addresses the issue of whether sub-
jective values, such as those related to cultural and social
aspects, have a significant effect on environmental attitudes
and whether such attitudes could affect tourism choices
(Inglehart 1995). Aspects such as quality of life, liberty, or
environmental protection (postmaterialist values) are only of
relevance to individuals when they have covered their basic
needs, such as food, education, or safety (materialist values).
Such cultural changes seem to have at least as much influ-
ence on relative support for environmental protection as
objective environmental problems. This argument suggests
that the term postmaterialism only characterizes advanced
high-income countries and that it may be particularly rele-
vant to holiday decisions. Filimonau et al. (2018) showed
that there was a correlation between the cultural background
of tourists and their pro-environmental attitudes, thus high-
lighting the relevance of national culture as a key driver for
sustainable consumer behavior in the tourism field. In this
regard, Wu, Font, and Liu (2020) suggested that an appropri-
ate intervention could be to manage the social context in
which tourists are prompted to moderate pro-environmental
behaviors.
Given that the majority of previous studies on tourism
have used highly focused surveys in specific countries or
destinations, this type of contextual hypothesis has been little
analyzed. In fact, previous studies have used socioeconomic
characteristics (e.g., educational level, age, or gender) as pre-
dictors of tourist environmental concern, but have not used
the determinants associated with their country or region of
residence (Holden and Sparrowhawk 2002; Leonidou et al.
2015; Meric and Hunt 1998). In fact, contextual effects, as
proposed in the three hypotheses, should be shaped by the
socioeconomic attributes of the individuals. The literature
suggests that both kinds of attributes (i.e., contextual and
individual characteristics), should be considered simultane-
ously as determinants of public environmental concern
(Franzen and Meyer 2010; Gelissen 2007). As mentioned,
changes in economic conditions, the environment, and social
values may have a significant effect on environmental atti-
tudes which, in turn, may affect tourism choices. Further
research on these aspects will increase the usefulness of this
article.
Methodology
Discrete choice models have been widely used in the litera-
ture to explain individual attitudes and behavior (Train
2009). In the case of public environmental concern, individ-
uals from the same country share social, cultural, labor, polit-
ical, and environmental conditions, which may differ from
those of other countries. There would have been bias in the
treatment of this type of pooled data if a standard regression
had been performed, because this approach would not have
taken into account the fact that individuals from the same
country share common characteristics, and therefore the
standard errors could be correlated. Thus, it would be inap-
propriate to analyze the data using traditional regression
methods, or because of the violation of the assumption of
independence and the nested nature of the data. These prob-
lems are avoided by the use of multilevel modeling. A great
advantage of hierarchical linear modeling is that it makes it
possible to perform comprehensive analyses of complex pol-
icy issues by clarifying the effects between variables mea-
sured at different levels (Mostafa 2012). Specifically, this
modeling approach is more flexible at the time of analysis
because the unobserved heterogeneity of individuals may be
decomposed into within-group and between-group varia-
tions (Hensher and Greene 2003).
Econometric Modeling
The sample data have a hierarchical structure in which indi-
viduals i (first level) are grouped into countries c (second
level). We assume a discrete binary response to environmental
concern for each individual denoted by yic , which takes a uni-
tary value if individuals consider environmental issues in their
tourism decisions and zero otherwise. Given the random
effects, the response is assumed to have a Bernoulli condi-
tional distribution, with the probability of success determined
by the logistic cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.). The
log likelihood for this model may be expressed as follows:
logit {Pr( yic = 1 | xic , zic , uc } = β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic + uc (1)
where β0 is the overall mean, and β1 and β 2 are vectors of
fixed parameters associated with individual variables xic and
context variables zic , respectively. The random constant for
each country, uc , follows a normal distribution with a zero
mean and a residual variance between the groups, σu2 ,
( )
uc ~N 0,σu2 . For a generalized mixed model that includes
fixed and random parameters, the probability, P ( yic = 1) = πic ,
is defined as follows:
Campos-Soria et al.
F −1 (πic ) = β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic + uc (2)
Given that the model is logistic, F −1 (πic ) is the log-odds that
yic = 1 (i.e., the tourists consider the environment in their
vacations). Thus,
 π 
log  ic  = β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic + uc (3)
 1 − πic 
The probability that a tourist will take the environment into
consideration can be estimated from equation (3) as
follows:
∧ ∧ ∧ ∧
∧ exp(β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic + u c )
πic = ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ (4)
1 − exp(β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic + u c )
where “^” indicates that the parameters are those estimated
in the adjusted model.
Model Specification
Using a discretized and linearized version, the proposed
model in equation (3) can be equivalently specified as a
latent formulation:
y*ic = β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic +uc + ε*ic (5)
In equation (5), the individual-level residuals, ε*ic , are
assumed to follow a logistic distribution with zero mean and
a residual variance σe2 . Thus, the total variance for a multi-
level model has two components, σ2y* = σu2 + σe2 . In line
ic
with previous literature, we proposed different specifications
depending on the types of contextual and individual vari-
ables considered in the study (Franzen 2003; Mostafa 2012).
We first proposed model 1, which excluded individual-
level and country-level regressors: y*ic = β0 + uc + ε*ic . This
analysis is known as null model and is analogous to a random
effects analysis of variance. Models 2 and 3 included a vec-
tor of individual characteristics as exogenous variables, xic ,
but excluded contextual variables in the regressions:
y*ic = β0 + β1 xic + uc + ε*ic . Models 2 and 3 were used to
investigate the influence of individual-level variables, xic ,
on the pro-environmental concern of tourists by incorporat-
ing socioeconomic variables, such as gender, age, and educa-
tion, as well as travel-related characteristics. The need to
estimate the model proposed in equation (5) that simultane-
ously combines micro and macro predictors should be evi-
dent. Models 4 and 5 fulfil this requirement by adding a
vector of country-level explanatory variables, zic , to models
2 and 3, respectively. The latter two models allowed us to test
the contextual hypotheses proposed. The income of a coun-
try as measured by GDP per capita may have significant
effects on environmental concern. GDP growth was also
included to capture nonlinear patterns. This article used the
postmaterialist index to investigate the hypothesis proposed
by Inglehart (1995). Finally, the environment index
5
incorporated in the model assesses whether the existence of
objective environmental problems confronted by individuals
in the country of residence would strengthen their prefer-
ences for a better environment.
Data Set and Descriptive Analysis
The model addresses the environmental concern of European
tourists. The analysis used micro and macro data. The micro
data were drawn from two household surveys conducted in
the EU-27 countries. The first micro-data set was obtained
from a stratified weighted survey called Flash Eurobarometer
281 (Survey on Attitudes of Europeans Towards Tourism),
which was conducted by the European Commission.1 This
micro-data set incorporated information on the socioeco-
nomic characteristics of 21,418 tourists and their decisions
about their holidays. Specifically, the endogenous variable,
individual-level regressors, and travel-level regressors were
obtained from this data set. In the survey, the original ques-
tion addressing the endogenous variable was as follows: “Do
you consider environmental issues when making decisions
about your holidays, such as the facilities provided at the
destination or offered by service providers (e.g., accommo-
dation with an eco-label, responsible travel, minimising
impact on the local environment)?” In this study, the socio-
economic variables were gender, age, and education. Gender
is a dummy variable that takes value one for male and zero for
female, and Education is a continuous variable that takes the
age at which the individual stopped full-time education as the
value. This variable only coincides with the age of the tourist
if he/she is currently studying.2 Travel-related attributes
included motivations for traveling, different types of destina-
tions, and environmental quality indicators. Motivations for
traveling were represented by a set of dummy variables (i.e.,
service quality, budget, eco-friendliness, cultural attractive-
ness, social considerations, and safety and security). Types of
destinations were also represented by a set of dummy vari-
ables (i.e., destination booked in a last-minute offer or not,
traditional vs emerging destinations, and traveling abroad vs
domestic). In models 2 and 4, the dummy variable traveling
abroad was decomposed into new dummy variables, distin-
guishing between Europe, America, Africa, Asia, and Other
destinations, thus focusing this part of the analysis on the
choice of destination. Finally, given their relevance, environ-
mental quality indicators at destinations (see literature
review) were added to both models.
The second micro-data set was obtained from the
European Value Survey. This source was also a stratified ran-
dom survey of 66,281 households in EU-27 countries, and
included opinions on environmental values among other top-
ics. The postmaterialism index in this data set was created
using different items considered by citizens to be the most
important in their societies.3 The macro-data were obtained
from Eurostat and the Environmental Performance Index
(EPI).4 Data on GDP in the purchasing power standard and
its growth were obtained from Eurostat, whereas information
6 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
Kernel density estimate
4
3
Density
2
1
0
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5
Attitudes to environmental support
Kernel density estimate
Normal density
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0507
Figure 1. Kernel distribution of tourists’ environmental support.
on the environmental quality indicators was obtained from
the EPI.
In the Survey on Attitudes of Europeans Towards Tourism,
50.81% of the interviewees represented themselves as envi-
ronmentally responsible consumers when making holiday
decisions. The kernel density estimate shown in Figure 1 rep-
resents the density function of the endogenous variable,
using Epanechnikov’s (1969) approach. This function is one
of the most commonly used because it is optimal in relation
to the mean square error. In the same figure, we show the
normal density distribution next to this function in order to
visually compare them. The figure shows that the relative
frequencies of environmental concern at the aggregate level
differ by country. These results are also supported by the data
shown in Table 1. Eastern and Mediterranean countries, such
as Romania, Poland, Portugal, Bulgaria, and Greece, had the
highest relative frequencies (75.5%, 66.5%, 64.7%, 62.9%,
and 60.4%, respectively), whereas North European coun-
tries, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Sweden
had the lowest rates (28.5%, 35.9%, 39.2%, and 39.6%,
respectively). As mentioned, we assumed that distance from
the place of residence may be a relevant factor in environ-
mental concern. The last two columns in Table 1 show the
relative frequencies of the pro-environmental concern of
tourists traveling domestically and those traveling abroad.
The shaded areas represent all the countries in which tourists
have stronger pro-environmental concern when they are
traveling domestically than when traveling abroad. As can be
seen, most of the countries are characterized by shaded areas.
In the cases of Estonia and Austria, this difference exceeded
10 percentage points.
Of the study sample, 58.3% were women and 41.7% were
men. The average age was 47.8 years. Regarding travel
choices, 17.7% of tourists prioritized budget traveling and
14.6% prioritized service quality. The least valued motiva-
tion to travel was “Eco-friendliness” (7.1%). Regarding the
type of destination, 12.1% chose a last-minute offer and
75.8% chose a traditional destination. A large percentage
also chose to travel abroad (around 53%). Of those who
traveled abroad, 41.5% did so within Europe (a more detailed
descriptive analysis appears in the Annex).
Results
Estimation
Based on the discrete choice models proposed above, we pres-
ent three types of results: (1) estimates from the null model
* *
.6
.7 .8 .9 without explanatory variables, yic = β0 +uc + εic , which
allows us to test whether the intercept for country “c” varied
randomly (model 1); (2) estimates of within-country heteroge-
neity in the level of environmental concern, including a vector
of individual characteristics as exogenous variables,
y*ic = β0 + β1 xic +uc + ε*ic (models 2 and 3); and (3) estimates
of between-country heterogeneity by analyzing simultane-
ously the contribution of individual and contextual regressors,
y*ic = β0 + β1 xic + β2 zic +uc + ε*ic (models 4 and 5).
These models were estimated using the classic maximum
likelihood method. This technique has the advantage of
being able to estimate individual parameters and to estimate
random effects on the grouping variables in the case of hier-
archical models. Classic inference also has advantages,
because it is assumed that the parameters can take a fixed
value and that the probability can be calculated on all those
events for which it is possible to define relative frequencies
without having to have a priori information on the distribu-
tion of these probabilities. The fixed effects are equivalent to
parameters in standard regression and are estimated directly.
The random effects, which take the form of random inter-
cepts in this article, were not directly estimated but were
summarized according to their estimated variance and cova-
riance matrix. Taking into account this hierarchical data
structure, all the estimates from the five models shown in
Table 2 were expressed on the odds ratios scale. A parameter
less than one indicates a negative effect on the probability of
pro-environmental concern in relation to the base category,
whereas a parameter more than one indicates a positive
effect. In line with the study by Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal
(2012), these estimates are robust against the assumption of
non-normal errors.
From model 1, we obtained the overall mean β0 and a
random error by country uc . To save space, we show the
overall mean in Table 2 and the random error by country in
Table 3. According to the estimates from model 1, the “aver-
age” estimated probability of being a responsible consumer
was 51.08% [1.0443/(1 + 1.0443) = 0.5108]: that is, 51.08%
of European tourists consider environmental issues when
making holiday decisions. A general finding from this model
was that significant variance in the level of pro-environmen-
tal concern exists within and between countries. The intra-
class correlation coefficient (ICC),5 which represents the
proportion of total variance between countries, was around
0.0544. Although a relatively small ICC was found,
Degenholtz and Bhatnagar (2009) suggested that an
ICC ≥ 0.05 should be used in literature to take into account
Campos-Soria et al. 7

Table 1. Pro-environmental Concern by Country of Origin and Destination Choice.

Relative Frequency

Country of Origin Observations Total Domestic Abroad

Austria 975 0.5541 0.6171 0.5067
Belgium 959 0.4663 0.4923 0.4479
Bulgaria 984 0.6291 0.7738 0.6944
Cyprus 486 0.5665 0.6310 0.5366
Denmark 976 0.2857 0.3241 0.2770
Estonia 487 0.4746 0.5581 0.4563
Finland 966 0.4989 0.5233 0.4764
France 942 0.4199 0.4319 0.3981
Germany 992 0.5032 0.5296 0.4976
Greece 956 0.6040 0.6283 0.6184
Hungary 982 0.4543 0.4741 0.4643
Ireland 952 0.3921 0.3626 0.3848
Italy 982 0.5853 0.6111 0.6458
Latvia 479 0.4826 0.5741 0.5349
Lithuania 484 0.5763 0.5965 0.6439
Malta 478 0.5460 0.5000 0.5702
Poland 985 0.6655 0.7530 0.6835
Portugal 981 0.6472 0.6645 0.6789
Romania 991 0.7550 0.7922 0.6803
Slovakia 986 0.4282 0.5596 0.5000
Slovenia 493 0.5356 0.5946 0.5200
Spain 981 0.5254 0.5196 0.5385
Sweden 965 0.3966 0.4326 0.3520
The Netherlands 977 0.3590 0.3356 0.3727
United Kingdom 979 0.4066 0.4662 0.3762
Total 21,418 0.5081 0.5204 0.4796

within-group and between-group correlations. The likeli-
hood ratio (LR) test also demonstrated that variability
between countries was statistically significant, and therefore
a hierarchical linear model is required. In fact, as shown in
Table 3 (second column), the random intercept significantly
varied between countries. The intercept for country “c” was
calculated as (β0 +uc = 0.0433 +uc ) . Several conclusions
can be obtained from this table. Tourists across the European
countries have heterogeneous levels of pro-environmental
concern. There were marked differences between the North
European and Mediterranean countries. Inglehart (1995)
obtained similar results, finding that environmental concern
is particularly weak in the Nordic countries and strong in
Eastern Europe. However, countries with the highest proba-
bility of pro-environmental support, such as Romania,
Poland, and Portugal, also have the highest random intercept
(1.0429, 0.6274, and 0.5448, respectively), whereas coun-
tries with a lower probability, such as Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Ireland, have random intercepts of −0.9334,
−0.6076, and −0.4704, respectively. In all these countries, a
statistically significant difference was found between the
random intercept and the overall mean β0 , which again justi-
fies the use of a multilevel model for the estimation.
Within-Country Differences
Models 2 and 3 were used to investigate the influence of
individual-level variables on pro-environmental concern by
incorporating socioeconomic characteristics and travel level
regressors, although special emphasis was placed on the lat-
ter. Before addressing the main results concerning the indi-
vidual-level variables, we would like to highlight the global
fit of the proposed models. Given that the between-country
variance in models 2 and 3 was slightly higher than that in
the null model, the ICCs were also higher (ICCmodel2 =
0.0731; ICCmodel3 = 0.0735). However, the results were
clear: the empirical evidence showed statistically significant
variability between countries (the LR test obtained values of
557.08 and 564.28, respectively). Therefore, a multilevel
analysis was required.
As shown in Table 2 (columns 2 and 3), the estimates
were very robust in both models, so we restricted our
8 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)

Table 2. Estimates from Multilevel Regressions (Odd Ratios).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Intercept 0.0433*** 0.2577*** 0.2635*** 3.4770*** 3.5052***
Socioeconomic regressors
Gender (male=1) 0.8266*** 0.8256*** 0.8267*** 0.8256***
Age 1.0221*** 1.0219*** 1.0225*** 1.0224***
Age squared 0.9998*** 0.9998*** 0.9998*** 0.9998***
Education 1.0178*** 1.0179*** 1.0177*** 1.0177***
Travel-related characteristics
Motivation for traveling
   Service quality 1.1566*** 1.1577*** 1.1583*** 1.1593***
  Budget 0.9273* 0.9266* 0.9237* 0.9231*
  Eco-friendliness 2.6276*** 2.6315*** 2.6065*** 2.6102***
   Social considerations 1.1067* 1.1087* 1.1075* 1.1095*
   Safety and security 1.4799*** 1.4801*** 1.4753*** 1.4754***
Type of destination
   Last minute 0.9023* 0.9028* 0.9047* 0.9051*
  Traditional 0.8577*** 0.8581*** 0.8593*** 0.8597***
   Traveling abroad 0.8491*** 0.8490***
   Europe 0.8438*** 0.8440***
   America 0.8449*** 0.8476***
   Africa 0.8698 0.8639
   Asia 0.7287** 0.7295**
   Other destination 0.9589 0.9519
Environmental quality
   Water quality 1.0043** 1.0035* 1.0040* 1.0034*
   Climate change 1.0061*** 1.0070*** 1.0062*** 1.0070***
Country-level regressors
GDP pc (PPS) 0.9999* 0.9999*
GDP pc (PPS) squared 1.0000* 1.0000*
Postmaterialism index 1.1941*** 1.1987***
Environment index 0.9570*** 0.9569***
Var (const.) σ2u0 0.1894 0.2594 0.2612 0.1299 0.1298
ICC (%) 5.44 7.31 7.35 3.80 3.79
Observations 17,114 11,937 11,937 11,937 11,937
Numbers of groups 25 25 25 25 25
Log likelihood −12,005.89 −7,717.35 −7,718.81 −7,707.46 −7,708.80
LR test 796.77 557.08 564.28 228.12 228.30

Note: The omitted dummy variable for motivation for traveling is “Cultural attractiveness,” and omitted dummy variables for type of destination are
“Non–last minute,” “Nontraditional,” and “Traveling domestically.” GDP pc = gross domestic product per capita; PPS = purchasing power standards;
ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; LR = likelihood ratio.
***
Level of significance 1%. **Level of significance 5%. *Level of significance 10%.

comments to Model 3. The general literature has identified
age, gender, and educational attainment as relatively consis-
tent predictors of environmental support (Inglehart 1995;
Gelissen 2007). We used specifications that included the lin-
ear and quadratic effects of the age of the head of the house-
hold. The results show that young tourists are more likely
than older tourists to have pro-environmental concern,
although this variable has a nonlinear effect over their life-
time. This result is supported by the work of Inglehart (1995),
who also found differences between the priorities of young
and old people as a consequence of life cycle effects. Gelissen
(2007) also found that the oldest people were less willing to
pay for environmental protection. However, Mostafa (2012)
found no evidence in support of the influence of age on pro-
environmental behaviors. All these previous results were
related to public environmental support in the place of resi-
dence, but were not related to traveling.
Gender was also significantly associated with being an
environmental responsible tourist. Consideration for the
environment in holiday decisions was less in men than in
women. The odds of pro-environmental concern among men
were 0.8256; thus, men were 0.8256 times less likely than
women to have pro-environmental concern. Falk and Hagsten
(2019) obtained similar results, demonstrating that the
Campos-Soria et al. 9

Table 3. Predicted Probabilities and Country-Effect Estimations in Rank Order.

Country Effects

Country of Origin Predicted Probabilities Random Intercept Level 2 Residual Deviation

Denmark 0.2911 −0.9334 0.0717
The Netherland 0.3626 −0.6076 0.0682
Ireland 0.3948 −0.4704 0.0669
Sweden 0.3993 −0.4518 0.0684
United Kingdom 0.4090 −0.4113 0.0676
France 0.4221 −0.3574 0.0691
Slovakia 0.4304 −0.3234 0.0720
Hungary 0.4559 −0.2203 0.0731
Belgium 0.4679 −0.1721 0.0808
Estonia 0.4765 −0.1376 0.0983
Latvia 0.4841 −0.1070 0.1008
Finland 0.4992 −0.0467 0.0660
Germany 0.5034 −0.0297 0.0650
Spain 0.5250 0.0569 0.0680
Slovenia 0.5345 0.0948 0.0939
Malta 0.5439 0.1328 0.1061
Austria 0.5530 0.1695 0.0689
Cyprus 0.5639 0.2138 0.0943
Lithuania 0.5731 0.2510 0.0970
Italy 0.5832 0.2924 0.0738
Greece 0.6017 0.3693 0.0695
Bulgaria 0.6257 0.4705 0.0754
Portugal 0.6429 0.5448 0.0793
Poland 0.6617 0.6274 0.0711
Romania 0.7477 1.0429 0.0823

Note: Estimates from model 1.

preference for environmentally friendly destinations was
stronger among women than among men. Educational level
also made a significant and positive contribution to environ-
mental concern. The probability of considering environmen-
tal issues when making tourism decisions increased by
1.79% for every extra year of education. Therefore, most of
our results in the tourism field are in line with those obtained
in more general settings (Inglehart 1995; Hunter, Hatch, and
Johnson 2004; Gelissen 2007). However, other studies have
found significant and negative association between educa-
tion level and pro-environmental behavior (Schultz, Oskamp,
and Mainieri 1995; Uyeki and Holland 2000).
As previously mentioned, this study highlights the rele-
vance of travel-related characteristics and to what extent they
can affect tourists’ decisions regarding the environment
when planning their vacations. For this reason, this study
takes into account the motivations for traveling, type of des-
tination, and specific environmental quality indicators. In
line with the results obtained by Wurzinger and Johansson
(2006) in their study on Swedish tourists, our results cor-
roborated the hypothesis that motivations for traveling play a
key role in the environmental concern of European tourists.
As would be expected, the probability of pro-environmental
concern decreased by 7.34% in households choosing “bud-
get” in relation to the base category (“cultural attractive-
ness”). Increased pro-environmental concern was associated
with the remaining reasons for traveling. Among these rea-
sons, “eco-friendliness” and “safety and security” increased
the probability by 163.15% and 48.01%, respectively, in
relation to the base category.
Some of the results on the effects of type of destination
should be mentioned. For example, tourists who booked
their main holiday via a last-minute offer had lower pro-
environmental concern. In fact, the estimated probability
decreased by 9.72% in relation to those who do not use this
type of offer. Similar results were obtained in relation to tra-
ditional destinations. In this case, tourists visiting traditional
destinations are 0.8581 times less likely to have pro-environ-
mental concern than those visiting emergent destinations.
This result may be because the latter type of tourists is sensi-
tive to the degree of saturation and type of activity at the
destination. For example, less attention can be paid to envi-
ronmental parameters in typically crowded traditional sun
and beach destinations than in less common destinations
where tourists seek other types of experiences. In line with
these results, Schultz et al. (2004) suggested that tourist’s
10
decisions regarding the natural environment are directly
related to the type of activities they engage in at destinations.
The degree of environmental awareness of a tourist visiting a
natural park to see exotic plants is probably much higher
than that of a sun-and-beach tourist. This suggestion was
supported by Ong and Musa (2011) in their article on marine
conservation and the underwater behavior of scuba divers.
These results may also be due not only to the type of activity
at destinations, but also to their degree of congestion and
environmental quality. The most saturated and congested
destinations tend to have worse indicators of environmental
quality. Our results show that environmental quality at desti-
nations is a significant predictor of the pro-environmental
concern of tourists who visit it. A 1-point increase in water
quality or climate change indicators increased the estimated
probabilities by 0.35% and 0.7%, respectively. Our results
are in line with those of Ogunbode (2013), who suggested
that environmental attitudes may be determined not only by
personal characteristics and economic advancement but also
by direct experiences of environmental problems.
As mentioned, the literature shows that environmental
activists at home display an attitude-behavior gap when they
go on vacation (Dolnicar and Leisch 2008; Juvan and
Dolnicar 2014). In fact, our results contribute to a better
understanding of tourist environmental concern because they
show that distance from the place of residence to the destina-
tion is relevant to the environmental concern of tourists. The
odds of pro-environmental concern among tourists traveling
abroad was 0.8491: thus, the estimated probability decreased
by 15.09% in relation to those traveling domestically. These
results are in line with those obtained by Firth and Hing
(1999), who found that backpackers tended to display less
environmentally friendly behavior when they were at desti-
nations than when they were at home. However, it could be
quite reasonable to assume that someone would give less
consideration to environmental issues in the setting of short-
haul domestic travel because there are fewer environmental
implications when traveling shorter distances, whereas the
same person might still have a positive attitude toward mini-
mizing environmental impacts when making other kinds of
journeys. This assumption could be supported on two
grounds: the decreased impact of the means of transport for
short-haul travel; and the possibility of reducing the length of
stay or not staying overnight. However, Barr et al. (2010)
demonstrated that “ultra-green” travelers regularly use low-
cost airlines to fly for short breaks, despite recognizing the
environmental impact of their behavior. In this regard, short-
haul travel may not have fewer environmental impacts.
Furthermore, the increased frequency of short-haul travel for
tourists over the year may increase the impact on the envi-
ronment compared with their main holiday. In fact, Davison,
Littleford, and Ryley (2014) highlighted an attitude–behav-
ior gap related to air travel because the largest segment, who
recognized the environmental impacts of their air flights, are
flight dependent and use air transport more frequently.
Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
Although we cannot check these statements using our data
set, they are doubtless of interest to future research.
Between-Country Differences
The introduction of contextual-level regressors in models 4
and 5 addressed tourist environmental concern at the country
level, while controlling for potentially meaningful individual
effects (Table 2, columns 4 and 5). The introduction of such
variables decreased the random intercept variances com-
pared to those of the other models, although the variability
between countries was still statistically different from zero.
Hence, adjusting for both types of effects, the ICCs also
decreased (ICCmodel4 = 0.0380; ICCmodel5 = 0.0379). The
coefficient of determination (Snijders and Bosker 20126)
shows that the total residual variance in both models was
1.71% less than that of the null model in both cases. Given
that no statistically significant differences were found regard-
ing Models 2 and 3 in the effects of the individual variables
(socioeconomic and travel-related variables), we restrict our
comments to the contribution of the contextual variables.
This finding corroborates the robustness of our results.
In line to the hypothesis proposed by Inglehart (1995), our
results show that per capita GDP had a negative nonlinear
effect on pro-environmental concern. These results are also
in line with those obtained in previous general studies in the
tourism field. For example, negative relationships have been
found between GNP per capita and environmental support
(Dunlap and Mertig 1997), national wealth and public envi-
ronmental concern (Gelissen 2007), and GDP per capita and
pro-environmental intentions (Mostafa 2012).
The literature also suggests that greater environmental
awareness in the majority of advanced societies may be
motivated by a gradual cultural change from materialist to
postmaterialist values (Inglehart 1995). This hypothesis was
supported by the positive association found between the
postmaterialism index and environmental concern. Table 2
shows that the probability of considering the environment in
holiday plans increased by 19.87% for every 1-unit increase
in the postmaterialist index. These results are in line with
those obtained by Lu, Gursoy, and Del Chiappa (2016) in
relation to ecotourism products and services. They found a
negative association between the materialistic values of indi-
viduals and their ecotourism attitudes. Therefore, we suggest
that the results concerning the effects of changes in the GDP
and in the postmaterialism index on tourist environmental
concern are not contradictory, because changes in these vari-
ables could independently contribute to environmental con-
cern. Finally, tourist environmental concern should also be
affected by the state of the environment at home. Objective
environmental problems facing individuals in their country
of residence should increase their concern and preferences
for a better environment (Ogunbode 2013). Conclusive evi-
dence for this hypothesis was shown by the odds estimated
by the environment index (0.9569): thus, the probability of
Campos-Soria et al.
pro-environmental concern in tourists decreased by 4.31%
for every 1-unit increase in the quality of the environment in
their country of residence.
Conclusions
This article investigated environmental attitudes in tourists
from different countries of origin when they make their holi-
day plans. Previous literature has found that public environ-
mental concern in the place of residence are heterogeneous
across regions, but there is a lack of studies on this topic in
the setting of tourism. This study found that the pattern of
environmental concern among tourists is heterogeneous
across European countries and analyzed the underpinnings
of this heterogeneity. For this reason, this study addressed
the main determinants of pro-environmental concern in the
tourism setting.
Modeling the environmental concerns of tourists poses a
challenge because they depend not only on individual and
travel-related attributes, but also on the characteristics of
their place of residence. To meet this challenge, we used
hierarchical linear models that simultaneously addressed the
macro-level relationship between country-level variables
and environmental concern across countries, as well as the
effect of individual characteristics on such concerns. This
approach divides variations in tourist environmental concern
into between-country variations and within-country varia-
tions, allowing the intercept to vary randomly across coun-
tries. EU-27 countries were analyzed using a combination of
micro-data from the Flash Eurobarometer 281 survey, which
was conducted by European Commission, micro-data from
the European Value Survey, and macro-data from different
international sources.
A general finding of this article was that significant vari-
ance exists between and within countries in the levels of
pro-environmental concern, although the within-countries
component explained most of the variability. The study
showed that between-country effects varied randomly; thus,
environmental concern was heterogeneous across the
European countries. There were marked differences between
South European as well as East European countries (e.g.,
Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland), which had the highest pro-
environmental concern, and North European countries, such
as Denmark, the Netherlands, and Ireland, which had the
lowest environmental concern. Such heterogeneity was
mainly explained by the economic, cultural, and environ-
mental circumstances that characterized each country. These
results in the tourism field are in line with those obtained in
more general settings. The estimates also showed that within-
country differences in the level of pro-environmental con-
cern were mainly explained by individual and travel-related
variables. Among these variables, age, gender, and educa-
tional attainment were relevant predictors of environmental
concern. However, the characteristics of the destination had
a marked effect according to whether the destination was
11
booked via a last-minute offer or not, whether it was a tradi-
tional or emergent destination, and its distance from the tour-
ists’ place of residence. The latter variable played a key role,
as shown by the finding of a decrease in pro-environmental
concern among tourists traveling abroad compared to domes-
tic tourists. Understanding the causes of this gap could help
to minimize negative environmental impacts caused by tour-
ists. It is also noteworthy that concern toward the environ-
ment was also directly related to the type of activities that
tourists engage in at destinations and the quality of their
environment.
The results are also of great relevance to assessing the
economic and environmental impact of this activity. Based
on this perspective, the methodology proposed in this article
can be used to analyze spatial heterogeneity in tourist pro-
files not only according to the tourists’ country of origin, but
also in relation to socioeconomic variables, characteristics
related to the trip, and the type of destination chosen.
This article strongly contributes to explaining tourist
environmental concern across European countries. However,
the study has some limitations. First, we investigated the
main determinants of pro-environmental support using data
from EU-27 nations. It would be of interest to extend this
type of research to other regions of the world, which would
increase the validity of the contextual hypotheses tested in
this article. In this regard, Marquart-Pyatt (2008) suggested
that to understand environmental concern globally, it would
be relevant to “pursue a systematic, broad ranging investiga-
tion that includes a variety of contexts (i.e., industrialised vs
industrializing).” Second, we used a cross-sectional approach
rather than a longitudinal one. This implies that much more
emphasis was placed on observing tourists’ decisions than
on observing changes over time. For example, the intensity
of tourists’ decision regarding the environment could be
affected throughout the economic cycle. Third, we attempted
to gain a better understanding of tourist environmental con-
cern, assuming that behavioral changes can occur because of
positive behavioral intentions that are in turn underpinned by
pro-environmental consumer attitudes. Most traditional atti-
tude theories have attempted to explain why humans behave
in certain ways, postulating that attitudes, among other fac-
tors, affect behavior. However, some empirical studies have
suggested that this relationship is not consistently strong
and varies widely according to the sample used. Finally, this
article addressed the environmental concern of tourists
when they make holiday decisions. These decisions were
measured using self-reports, which could be considered a
limitation. Furthermore, this approach differs from those
commonly used in the literature on this issue, which sug-
gests that attitudes and behavior may be measured accord-
ing to underlying values by the use of item scales or
paradigms. However, the objective of this study was to ana-
lyze the main determinants of environmental concern in the
tourism field, rather than to obtain an indicator for measur-
ing such concern.
12 Journal of Travel Research 00(0)

Supplemental Material
Descriptive Statistics.

Observed Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

Socioeconomic regressors
  Gender (male=1) 21,418 0.4167 0.4930 0 1
  Age 20,599 47.8606 16.8795 15 80
  Education 20,874 19.3669 5.4418 1 45
Travel-related characteristics
Motivation for traveling
  Service quality 21,418 0.1461 0.3532 0 1
  Budget 21,418 0.1771 0.3818 0 1
  Eco-friendliness 21,418 0.7059 0.2561 0 1
  Social considerations 21,418 0.0806 0.2723 0 1
   Safety and security 21,418 0.0842 0.2777 0 1
Type of destination
  Last minute 13,235 0.1212 0.3253 0 1
  Traditional 12,859 0.7578 0.4284 0 1
  Traveling abroad 12,725 0.5300 0.4991 0 1
Environmental quality
  Water quality 21,418 77.8777 11.4563 5.2657 97.5534
  Climate change 21,418 47.9306 10.8205 9.2630 90.3115
Country-level regressors
   GDP pc (PPS) 21,418 22,180.93 8,287.613 6,400 52,500
  Postmaterialism index 21,418 0.1285 0.0711 0.0210 0.2368
  Environment index 21,418 69.9983 6.6944 56.2636 86.0481

GDP pc = gross domestic product per capita; PPS = purchasing power standards; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; LR = likelihood ratio.

Acknowledgments to compute the relative importance of each country to the results

The authors thank Elena Bárcena-Martín for their useful sugges-
tions. Any remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.
The authors also want to thank the support of University of Málaga
(I Plan Propio de Investigación y Transferencia).
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, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Juan A. Campos-Soria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8884-7219
J. Aníbal Núñez-Carrasco https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9896-215X
Notes
1. Each national sample is representative of the population aged
15 years and older. The survey was designed with a sampling
error set at a 95% confidence interval. In most EU countries, the
target sample size was 1,000 respondents. However, only 500
interviews were conducted in each of the following countries:
Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, and
Slovenia. A weighting factor was applied to the national results
of the European Union in proportion to its population.
2. Nevertheless, there is no problem of multicollinearity because
the Pearson correlation coefficient between both variables is
−0.0969.
3. The standard items are as follows: maintaining order in the
nation; giving people more say in important government deci-
sions; fighting rising prices; and protecting freedom of speech.
See Inglehart’s (1977) study for a theoretical background of this
index.
4. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was developed by
the Policy and Environmental Law Center of Yale University
and the Information Network of the International Center for
Earth Sciences of Columbia University.
( )
5. ICC = σu2 σu2 + σe2 . In the case of a logistic distribution, since
y*ic is unobserved, the value of σe2 has been fixed to 3.29 to set
its scale, because this value is the variance of the logistic distri-
bution (pi squared/3).

(
6. R 2 = 1−  σu2 + σe2

)
proposed model
(
σu2 + σe2 )
null model



References
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211.
Akintunde, E. A. 2017. “Theories and Concepts for Human Behavior
in Environmental Preservation.” Journal of Environmental
Science and Public Health 1 (2): 120–33.
Ballantyne, R., K. Hughes, J. Lee, J. Packer, and J. Sneddon. 2018.
“Visitors’ Values and Environmental Learning Outcomes at
Campos-Soria et al.
Wildlife Attractions: Implications for Interpretive Practice.”
Tourism Management 64:190–201.
Barr, S., G. Shaw, T. Coles, and J. Prillwitz. 2010. “A Holiday Is a
Holiday: Practicing Sustainability, Home and Away.” Journal
of Transport Geography 18 (3): 474–481.
Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, P., and P. Zientara. 2014. “Environmental
Performance Assessment Systems in the Hotel Industry.”
International Business and Global Economy 33:743–55.
Chan, E. S. W., and C. H. C. Hsu. 2016. “Environmental
Management Research in Hospitality.” International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28 (5): 886–923.
Claver, E., M. D. López, J. F. Molina, and J. J. Tari. 2007.
“Environmental Management and Firm Performance: A
Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Management 84 (4):
606–19.
Cordano, M., S. Welcomer, and R. Scherer. 2003. “An Analysis
of the Predictive Validity of the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale.” Journal of Environmental Education 34 (3): 22–28.
Davison, L., C. Littleford, and T. Ryley. 2014. “Air Travel Attitudes
and Behaviours: The Development of Environment-Based
Segments.” Journal of Air Transport Management 36:13–22.
Degenholtz, H., and M. Bhatnagar. 2009. “Introduction to
Hierarchical Modeling.” Journal of Palliative Medicine 12 (7):
631–38.
Diekmann, A., and A. Franzen. 1999. “The Wealth of Nations and
Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 31 (4):
540–49.
Dolnicar, S., and B. Grün. 2009. “Environmentally Friendly
Behavior. Can Heterogeneity among Individuals and Contexts/
Environments Be Harvested for Improved Sustainable
Management?” Environment and Behavior 41 (5): 693–714.
Dolnicar, S., and F. Leisch. 2008. “An Investigation of Tourists’
Patterns of Obligation to Protect the Environment.” Journal of
Travel Research 46 (4): 381–91.
Dunlap, R., and R. Jones. 2002. “Environmental Concern:
Conceptual and Measurement Issues.” In Handbook of
Environmental Sociology, edited by Dunlap, R. 482–542.
London: Greenwood.
Dunlap, R. E., and A. G. Mertig. 1997. “Global Environmental
Concern: An Anomaly for Postmaterialism.” Social Science
Quarterly 78 (1): 24–29.
Epanechnikov, V. A. 1969. “Non-parametric Estimation of a
Multivariate Probability Density.” Theory of Probability and
its Applications 14:153–58.
Falk, M., and E. Hagsten. 2019. “Ways of the Green Tourist in
Europe.” Journal of Cleaner Production 225:1033–43.
Filimonau, V., J. Matute, M. Mika, and R. Faracik. 2018. “National
Culture as a Driver of Pro-environmental Attitudes and
Behavioural Intentions in Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 26 (10): 1804–25.
Firth, T., and N. Hing. 1999. “Backpacker Hostels and Their Guests:
Attitudes and Behaviours Relating to Sustainable Tourism.”
Tourism Management 20 (2): 251–54.
Franzen, A. 2003. “Environmental Attitudes in International
Comparison: An Analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and
2000.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 297–308.
Franzen, A., and R. Meyer. 2010. “Environmental Attitudes in Cross-
national Perspective: A Multilevel Analysis of the ISSP 1993
and 2000.” European Sociological Review 26 (2): 219–234.
13
Gelissen, J. 2007. “Explaining Popular Support for Environmental
Protection: A Multilevel Analysis of 50 Nations.” Environment
and Behavior 39 (3): 392–415.
Hall, C. M. 2013. “Framing Behavioural Approaches to Understanding
and Governing Sustainable Tourism Consumption: Beyond
Neoliberalism, ‘Nudging’ and ‘Green Growth’?” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 21 (7): 1091–109.
Han, H., L. T. Hsu, and C. Sheu. 2010. “Application of the Theory
of Planned Behavior to Green Hotel Choice: Testing the Effect
of Environmental Friendly Activities.” Tourism Management
31 (3): 325–34.
Heikkurinen, P. 2010. “Image Differentiation with Corporate
Environmental Responsibility.” Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 17 (3): 142–52.
Hensher, D., and W. Greene. 2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The
State of Practice.” Transportation 30 (2): 133–76.
Holden, A., and J. Sparrowhawk. 2002. “Understanding the
Motivations of Ecotourists: The Case of Trekkers in Annapurna,
Nepal.” International Journal of Tourism Research 4 (6): 435–46.
Hungerford, H. R., and T. L. Volk. 1990. “Changing Learner
Behavior through Environmental Education.” Journal of
Environmental Education 21:8–21.
Hunter, L. M., A. Hatch, and A. Johnson. 2004. “Cross-national
Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science
Quarterly 85 (3): 677–94.
Inglehart, R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and
Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection:
Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies.”
PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (1): 57–72.
Juvan, E., and S. Dolnicar. 2014. “The Attitude-Behaviour Gap in
Sustainable Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 48:76–95.
Kaiser, F. G., P. W. Schultz, and H. Scheuthle. 2007. “The Theory
of Planned Behavior without Compatibility? Beyond Method
Bias and Past Trivial Associations.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 37 (7): 1522–44.
Kasim, A. 2009. “Managerial Attitudes towards Environmental
Management among Small and Medium Hotels in Kuala
Lumpur.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (6): 709–25.
Kil, N., S. M. Holland, and T. V. Stein. 2014. “Structural
Relationships between Environmental Attitudes, Recreation
Motivations, and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors.”
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8:16–25.
Kim, H., M. C. Borges, and J. Chon. 2006. “Impacts of
Environmental Values on Tourism Motivation: The Case of
FICA, Brazil.” Tourism Management 27 (5): 957–67.
Kim, Y., and H. Han. 2010. “Intention to Pay Conventional-Hotel
Prices at a Green Hotel—A Modification of the Theory of
Planned Behaviour.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (8):
997–1014.
Kyoungjin-Kim, A., D. Airey, and E. Szivas. 2011. “The Multiple
Assessment of Interpretation Effectiveness: Promoting
Visitors’ Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour.” Journal of
Travel Research 50 (3): 321–34.
Kyoungjin-Kim, A., and B. Weiler. 2013. “Visitors’ Attitudes towards
Responsible Fossil Collecting Behaviour: An Environmental
Attitude-Based Segmentation Approach.” Tourism Management
36:602–12.
14
Lee, J. S., L. T. Hsu, H. Han, and Y. Kim. 2010. “Understanding
How Consumers View Greenhotels: How a Hotel’s Green
Image Can Influence Behavioural Intentions.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 18 (7): 901–14.
Lee, T. H., and F. H. Jan. 2018. “Eco-Tourism Behavior of Nature-
Based Tourists: An Integrative Framework.” Journal of Travel
Research 57 (6): 792–810.
Lee, W. H., and G. Moscardo. 2005. “Understanding the Impact
of Ecotourism Resort Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental
Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 13 (6): 546–65.
Leonidou, L. C., D. N. Coudounaris, O. Kvasova, and P.
Christodoulides. 2015. “Drivers and Outcomes of Green Tourist
Attitudes and Behaviour: Sociodemographic Moderating
Effects.” Psychology & Marketing 32 (6): 635–50.
Levine, D. S., and M. J. Strube. 2012. “Environmental Attitudes,
Knowledge, Intentions and Behaviors among College
Students.” Journal of Social Psychology 152 (3): 308–26.
Lu, A. C. C., D. Gursoy, and G. Del Chiappa. 2016. “The Influence
of Materialism on Ecotourism Attitudes and Behaviors.”
Journal of Travel Research 55 (2): 176–89.
Marquart-Pyatt, S. 2008. “Are There Similar Sources of
Environmental Concern? Comparing Industrialized Countries.”
Social Science Quarterly 89 (5): 1312–35.
Meric, H. J., and J. Hunt. 1998. “Ecotourists’ Motivational and
Demographic Characteristics: A Case of North Carolina
Travellers.” Journal of Travel Research 36 (4): 57–61.
Mostafa, M. M. 2012. “Does Globalisation Affect Consumers’ Pro-
environmental Intentions? A Multilevel Analysis across 25
Countries.” International Journal of Sustainable Development
& World Ecology 19 (3): 229–37.
Ogunbode, C. A. 2013. “The NEP Scale: Measuring Ecological
Attitudes/Worldviews in an African Context.” Environment
Development and Sustainability 15 (6): 1477–94.
Oliveira-Brochado, F., A. Oliveira-Brochado, and T. Caldeira.
2015. “Os determinantes psicológicos do consumidor verde.”
Tourism & Management Studies 11 (2): 104–11.
Ong, T. F., and G. Musa. 2011. “An Examination of Recreational
Divers’ Underwater Behaviour by Attitude–Behaviour
Theories.” Current issues in Tourism 14 (8): 779–95.
Page, S. J., and J. Connell. 2009. Tourism: A Modern Synthesis, 3rd
ed. Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Passaforo, P. 2019. “Attitudes and Tourists’ Sustainable Behavior: An
Overview of the Literature and Discussion of Some Theoretical
and Methodological Issue.” Journal of Travel Research 1-23.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., and A. Skrondal. 2012. Multilevel and
Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 3rd ed. College Station,
TX: Stata Press.
Sánchez, J. L., A. García, and A. Marchante. 2014. “How Does
Respect for the Environment Affect Final Prices in the
Hospitality Sector? A Hedonic Pricing Approach.” Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 55 (1): 31–39.
Schultz, P., S. Oskamp, and T. Mainieri. 1995. “Who Recycles and
When: A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.” Journal
of Environmental Psychology 15 (2): 105–21.
Schultz, P., C. Shriver, J. J. Tabanic, and A. M. Khazian. 2004.
“Implicit Connections with Nature.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 24 (1): 31–42.
Journal of Travel Research 00(0)
Snijders, T. A. B., and R. J. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel analysis, 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tonge, J., M. M. Ryan, S. A. Moore, and L. E. Beckley. 2015. “The
Effect of Place Attachment on Pro-environment Behavioral
Intentions of Visitors to Coastal Natural Area Tourist
Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (6): 730–43.
Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uyeki, E., and L. Holland. 2000. “Diffusion of Pro-environment
Attitudes?” American Behavioral Scientist 43 (4): 646–62.
Weaver, D. B., and L. J. Lawton. 2002. “Overnight Ecotourist
Market Segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of
Australia.” Journal of Travel Research 40 (3): 270–80.
Weaver, D. B., and L. J. Lawton. 2004. “Visitor Attitudes toward
Tourism Development and Product Integration in an Australian
Urban-Rural Fringe.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (3):
286–96.
Wen, Y., and X. Ximing. 2008. “The Differences in Ecotourism
between China and the West.” Current Issues in Tourism 11
(6): 567–86.
WTO (World Tourism Organization). 2002. Voluntary Initiatives
for Sustainable Tourism. World Tourism Organization, May
2002.
Wu, J. S., X. Font, and J. Liu. 2020. “Tourists’ Pro-environmental
Behaviors: Moral Obligation or Disengagement?” Journal
of Travel Research 1-14. Published online April 4.
doi:10.1177/0047287520910787.
Wurzinger, S., and M. Johansson. 2006. “Environmental
Concern and Knowledge of Ecotourism among Three
Groups of Swedish Tourists.” Journal of Travel Research
45 (2): 217–26.
Xu, F., and D. Fox. 2014. “Modelling Attitudes to Nature, Tourism
and Sustainable Development in National Parks: A Survey
of Visitors in China and the UK.” Tourism Management 45:
142–58.
Author Biographies
Juan A. Campos-Soria is an Associate Professor at the University
of Malaga (Spain). He has participated in international research
projects for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (UK) and
the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), as well as numer-
ous national projects for public and private institutions. He has
worked on many aspects of economic analysis of tourism, gender
economics and labour market, publishing several papers in leading
international journals.
J. Aníbal Núñez-Carrasco is a Lecturer at the University of Malaga
(Spain). He has published on many aspects of household consump-
tion and savings decisions and economic analysis of tourism.
Alejandro García-Pozo is a Professor at the University of Malaga
(Spain). He is currently the head of the Department of Applied
Economics (Economic Structure) at this university and the head of
labour economics and tourism research group. He has worked on
economic analysis of tourism, the return on human capital in tour-
ism sector and sustainable tourism and its impact on labour pro-
ductivity in hotel establishments, publishing papers in leading
international journals.