Cornell Hospitality Quarterly http://cqx.sagepub.

com/

Hotel Guests' Preferences for Green Guest Room Attributes*

Michelle Millar and Seyhmus Baloglu
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2011 52: 302
DOI: 10.1177/1938965511409031

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/52/3/302

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Cornell University School of Hotel Administration

Additional services and information for Cornell Hospitality Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://cqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/52/3/302.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 15, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014

Lodging Strategy
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Hotel Guests’ Preferences for 52(3) 302­–311

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
Green Guest Room Attributes sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965511409031
http://cqx.sagepub.com

By Michelle Millar1 and Seyhmus Baloglu2

Abstract
A study of 571 business and leisure travelers examined the environmentally friendly attributes that guests seek in hotel
rooms. Using conjoint analysis of bundles of seven hotel room attributes, the study found that the most influential single
attribute on hotel room preference for this sample was green hotel certification (such as LEED). These respondents
were also supportive of rooms with a refillable shampoo dispenser, energy-efficient light bulbs, and towel and linen
reuse policies. Guests also appreciated the idea of a key card that would control all energy use in the room. Relatively
few respondents agreed that they would pay more to stay in a “green” room. The study included only respondents who
indicated a willingness to stay in green rooms and as such cannot be generalized. However, the study found few differences
between the preferences of the 284 business travelers and the 287 leisure travelers. Three findings differed from other
research outcomes in the weight ascribed to green certification, the preference for a shampoo dispenser, and lobby-based
recycling. The idea of an energy-controlling key card is also uncommon, but would represent a considerable retrofitting
expense for most hotels. While these findings are of interest, one limitation is that only seven attributes were studied,
and the inclusion of additional attributes—or more levels of the seven attributes—might alter the results. Nevertheless,
these findings give hoteliers information about preferences of a substantial number of guests who would consider staying
in a “green” hotel room.

Keywords
hotel guest preferences, green hotels, LEED standards, conjoint analysis

The traveling public clearly expects the hotel industry to
pay attention to environmental concerns, and to operate sus-
tainably (Gustin and Weaver 1996). According to the 2008
National Leisure Travel Monitor survey, 85 percent of lei-
sure travelers consider themselves environmentally con-
scious (Crocker 2008), and a separate study found that
43 million U.S. travelers have expressed their concern for
the environment (Vora 2007). In a survey conducted by
Deloitte, 34 percent of 1,155 business travelers surveyed
seek out hotels that are environmentally friendly and
38 percent have researched green lodging facilities (Clausing
2008). The 2009 North America Hotel Guest Satisfaction
study by J.D. Power and Associates reported that 66 percent
of hotel guests stated that they were aware of their hotel’s
conservation efforts, compared with 57 percent in 2008. Of
these respondents, 72 percent said they participated in their
hotel’s conservation programs.
Mindful of these concerns, hoteliers have started incor-
porating sustainable practices into their daily operations.
For example, some hotels have installed energy-efficient
lighting, while others have taken more drastic steps by
replacing inefficient HVAC systems, or by reusing gray
water drained from sinks and showers for landscaping
purposes. In addition to incorporating green practices at the
general property level, some hotels are now incorporating
them into the guest room. Typical green attributes found in
the guest room may include low-flow water fixtures and
linen reuse programs.
The problem for hoteliers who want to do the right
thing—both in terms of sustainability and in terms of profit
considerations—is that the full dimensions of guests’ pref-
erences for green attributes in hotel rooms remain unclear.
The scope of research about guests’ preferences for green
hotel attributes is limited (Kasim 2004), and the few studies
conducted in this area have focused on individual attributes,
such as a towel reuse program or energy-efficient lighting.
In this article, we address this issue by considering green
1
University of San Francisco School of Management, California
2
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Corresponding Author:
Michelle Millar, University of San Francisco School of Management, 2130
Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117
Email: mmillar@usfca.edu

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014

Millar and Baloglu
guest room attributes simultaneously, that is, as a bundle, to
determine their guests’ relative preferences for environ-
mentally friendly guest room attributes.
According to the theory of consumer demand (Lancaster
1966), consumers make decisions about a particular prod-
uct or service based on the attributes that make up, or
the characteristics of, the product or service as a whole.
Applying that principle, this study’s purpose is to identify
what kind of green hotel room business and leisure travelers
would most prefer, based on bundles of select environmen-
tally friendly hotel room attributes. More critically, this
study seeks to assess whether customers are willing to pay
more to stay in a green hotel room, and if so, how much
more. One study has indicated that business travelers are
willing to pay up to 10 percent more to stay in a green hotel
(Clausing 2008), but limited information exists regarding
leisure travelers’ preferences. We address the following
research questions:
Research question 1: Which bundle of environmen-
tally friendly hotel attributes will be most pre-
ferred by business travelers?
Research question 2: Which bundle of environmen-
tally friendly hotel attributes will be most pre-
ferred by leisure travelers?
Research question 3: Are these travelers willing to
pay more for a green hotel room? If so, how much
more?
Literature Review
Attributes
As we indicated at the outset, although there is a plethora
of research available about hotel attributes, the research on
travelers’ attitudes toward environmentally friendly hotels
and guest rooms is limited to a few studies. One such study
(reported by Watkins 1994) indicated that frequent travel-
ers would stay in hotels with environmental strategies, but
they would not be willing to pay a premium for those
rooms. Watkins added that travelers might consider such
green attributes as recycling bins, energy-efficient lighting,
using recycled paper for promotional materials, changing
sheets only when requested, and turning off lights in unoc-
cupied guest rooms.
In a study of tourists to Penang Island, Malaysia, Kasim
(2004) found that even though the tourists were knowledge-
able and cared about the environment they did not consider
a hotel’s environmental strategy in choosing their hotel. At
the same time, these tourists were willing to accept rooms
with water-saving features, recycling bins, fire safety fea-
tures, energy-saving features, and information on local eco-
tourism attractions.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
303
Green Certification
When selecting a service or product, customers rely on the
attributes or “cues” to help them make a decision (Crane
and Clarke 1988; Lee and Lou 1995). One such cue might
be green certification, but how consumers react to certifi-
cate or “ecolabel” programs is relatively unknown (Reiser
and Simmons 2005). In fact, the results of several studies
have claimed that many tourists are not even aware of the
existence of ecolabel programs in many cases (Fairweather
and Maslin 2005; Hamele 2002; Wood and Halpenny 2001).
Font (2002) and Synergy (2000) each identified more than
100 ecolabel programs for ecotourism, hospitality, and
tourism throughout the world. Most of the research con-
ducted in relation to ecolabel programs has focused on what
the programs offer and what standards are incorporated into
them (Reiser and Simmons 2005; Spittler and Haak 2001;
Weaver 2001).
One of the most widely discussed certification programs
is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Green Building Rating System developed by the
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The LEED system
“promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by
recognizing performance in five key areas of human and
environmental health: sustainable site development, water
savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor
environmental quality” (USGBC 2008, ¶ 2). Certification is
achieved at four different levels (certified, silver, gold, and
platinum) and assesses building design that incorporates,
for example, the use of recycled materials in constructing
the hotel. At this writing, there are only 27 LEED-
certified hotels in the world (Garrett 2008). The program is
voluntary, as are the other programs, and is quite costly
(Jennings 2007). As a result, some establishments have
decided to adhere to LEED standards without spending the
money to apply for certification.
Methods
Conjoint Analysis
This study applies conjoint analysis to understand and mea-
sure the bundle of attributes that are important to travelers
in booking a hotel. Conjoint analysis measures the degree
of importance of each product attribute individually and its
influence combined with others on the consumer’s choice
of the overall product (Lewis, Ding, and Geschke 1991).
Because of the complexity of the tourist decision, conjoint
analysis has been used widely to understand tourists’ pref-
erences (Apostolakis and Jaffry 2005; Feather, Hellerstein,
and Tomais 1995; Lewis, Ding, and Geschke 1991; Limburg
1998; Lindberg, Dellaert, and Rassing 1999; Louviere and
Woodworth 1983; Thyne, Lawson, and Todd 2006). It has
304 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52(3)
Exhibit 1:
Selected Environmentally Friendly Attributes and Attribute Level
Attribute
Recycling policy (RP) Recycling bin in guest room
Shampoo amenities (SA) Individual bottle of shampoo
Controlled lighting (CL) Occupancy sensors
Energy-efficient light bulbs (EEB) Yes
Towel policy (TP) Fresh towels daily
Linen policy (LP) Sheets changed every night during stay
Green certification (GC) Yes
also been used in the meetings and events industry (Hu and
Hiemstra 1996; Renaghan and Kay 1987), as well as those
of restaurant customers (Dube, Renaghan, and Miller 1994;
Koo, Tao, and Yeung 1999; Verma and Thompson 1996,
1997; Verma, Thompson, and Louviere 1999). Perhaps the
most prominent lodging industry application of conjoint
analysis was the study by Wind et al. (1989) that helped
Marriott Corporation design its Courtyard by Marriott
brand.
The theoretical framework for traditional conjoint analy-
sis lies in Lancaster’s (1966) theory of consumer demand.
Lancaster (1971) argued that traditional demand theory
only identified the effect of a change in price on the demand
for goods or services, but traditional theory provided no
way of identifying the effect of changes in the physical
properties (characteristics) of the goods on demand or pref-
erence. The idea of conjoint analysis is that since it is the
physical properties of goods that fulfill consumers’ needs
and wants, consumers gain utility from the characteristics
of the good, not from the good itself. Thus, changing the
physical properties of goods and services will similarly
change the utility to customers. This study was designed as
a conjoint choice experiment by presenting potential travel-
ers with hypothetical scenarios that incorporated different
bundles of environmentally friendly room characteristics.
The travelers then rated their preference for each room
incorporating (or failing to incorporate) these attributes.
The scenario with the highest rating represented the room
with the most preferred attributes.
Selection of Attributes
We selected attributes to test both from the aforementioned
studies (i.e., Kasim 2004; Watkins 1994) and from the
results of a pilot study we conducted with hotel developers
(Millar and Baloglu 2008). We tested two levels of seven
attributes. For the first attribute, recycling policy, the levels
were recycling bin in the guest room, or a recycling bin in
the hotel lobby.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
Attribute Level
Recycling bin in hotel lobby
Refillable dispenser of shampoo
Key cards that turn power to the room on
and off
No
Towel reuse policy
Sheets changed on request only for
multiple-night stays
No
The levels for the second attribute, shampoo amenities,
were the typical individual bottle and a refillable dispenser
in the guest bathroom. Controlled lighting is the third attri-
bute, with level one being occupancy sensors in the room
and level two being key cards that control all power to a
room. Because lighting is such a large use of energy, the
presence or absence of energy-efficient light bulbs are the
levels for the fourth attribute.
The fifth and sixth attributes involve towel and linen
policies. Level one of each is a towel or linen reuse pro-
gram, and the other level is fresh towels or linens each day.
The final attribute is the presence or absence of green certi-
fication for the hotel.
In summary, the tested attributes, each with two levels,
were recycling policy (RP), shampoo amenities (SA), con-
trolled lighting (CL), energy-efficient light bulbs (EEB),
towel policy (TP), linen policy (LP), and green certification
(GC). In general, the manipulation of attributes is intended
to have an environmentally friendly level and a more tradi-
tional, less green level. We note, however, that all attributes
are currently provided in at least some hotels, and none are
totally unfamiliar to guests. The attributes and their corre-
sponding levels are summarized in Exhibit 1.
Scenarios
Similar to the Wind et al. (1989) study, we used the typical
conjoint analysis approach of presenting respondents with
twelve scenarios that they rated on a scale of 0 (not at all
preferred) to 10 (extremely preferred) (following, e.g.,
Hair et al. 2006; Orme 2006). Each scenario consisted of a
hypothetical hotel room that incorporated one or the other
level of the seven attributes. An example of a scenario is
shown in Exhibit 2.
We used twelve scenarios to address a critical issue in
conjoint analysis, namely, the number of scenarios that should
be included in the study. It would be impossible to ask respon-
dents to rate all scenarios containing all levels of all attri-
butes, since this full factorial design would mean 128 (27)
Millar and Baloglu
Exhibit 2:
Example of a Scenario
Room 1:
Recycling bins in the hotel lobby
Individual bottle of shampoo
Occupancy sensors to control lighting in the room
No energy-efficient light bulbs in the guestroom
Towel reuse policy
Sheets changed on request only
Hotel is not certified as a green hotel
scenarios. Instead, we used a fractional factorial design, which
reduces the number of scenarios to be evaluated while main-
taining orthogonality, so that there are no correlations among
the different levels of each attribute and that each level of
each attribute appears the same number of times throughout
the scenarios (Hair et al. 2006). The first calculation of a
fractional factorial design for this study (using SPSS
Conjoint 17.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) produced eight sce-
narios. Based on the formula recommended by Xu and Yuan
(2001), however, we determined that eight scenarios consti-
tuted an insufficient number to produce valid conjoint
results. If respondents rated their preference for only eight
scenarios, the overall results would neither provide valuable
insights nor would they be valid. Instead, we adopted Xu and
Yuan’s principle that the number of scenarios should equal
at least 1.5 times the number of parameters. The number of
parameters is determined by the formula n (k - 1) + 1 where
n = the number of attributes, and k = the number of levels for
each attribute. With seven attributes having two levels each
in this study, there would be eight parameters (7(2 - 1) + 1 = 8),
and thus, twelve scenarios.
Sample
Our sample was drawn from an extensive database (com-
prising 4 million records) provided by an online research
company. The database is representative of the U.S. popu-
lation, and participants have agreed to be contacted for sur-
veys. We conducted an online survey of business and
leisure travelers who had spent at least one night in a hotel
in the previous 12 months, and who indicated that they were
willing to stay in an environmentally friendly hotel. In total,
606 travelers completed the survey, of which 305 were
business travelers and 301 were leisure travelers. We cre-
ated slightly different surveys for the two groups, to ensure
that the respondents answered consistently from either the
business or leisure traveler’s point of view.
Data Analysis
In addition to analyzing demographic data, we identified
both the combination of attributes most preferred by the
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
305
travelers, and the most influential attribute on respon-
dents’ preference. We adopted the traditional, full-profile
conjoint method for this study because of the relatively
small number of attributes. In an analysis similar to
regression, the conjoint procedure produces utility scores,
which are more commonly referred to as part-worths, for
each attribute level (e.g., fresh towels or reused towels,
occupancy sensors or key cards). The part-worths are
similar to coefficients in multiple regression in that each
part-worth value represents the “desirability” of that par-
ticular attribute level. A positive value indicates a prefer-
ence for the attribute level, while a negative value
indicates no preference. Given that we had seven attri-
butes with two levels each, this study produced fourteen
utility scores or part-worths.
Analysis and Results
Before running any statistical analysis of the responses, we
checked the data for irregularities, missing data, or unreal-
istic responses. We found and deleted twenty-one cases in
the business data and seventeen cases in the leisure data
where the respondent rated every scenario exactly the
same. As a result, we were able to run the conjoint analysis
on 284 business traveler responses and 287 leisure traveler
responses.
Demographic Profile
Of the 284 responses received from the business travelers,
119 (41.9%) of them were from women (for a summary of
demographic results, see Exhibit 3). The respondents’ age
distribution was fairly even. Twenty-three percent of the
respondents were 29 years old or younger, 23 percent were
30 to 39 years old, 29 percent were 40 to 49 years old, and
26 percent were 50 or older. Roughly half of the respondents
(47%) earned an income of $55,000 or less, with the most
(31%) earning between $35,001 and $55,000. Thirteen per-
cent of the respondents had a high school education or less.
Thirty-one percent had some college, while 15 percent had
earned an associate’s degree, 29 percent a bachelor’s degree,
and 12 percent a graduate degree. More than half of the busi-
ness travelers (59%) indicated that they were married.
Fifty-six percent of the 287 leisure traveler respondents
were female. The largest single age category for leisure
respondents was age 50 and older (31%). Twenty-five per-
cent were between 40 and 49, while 24 percent were
between 30 and 39. More than half of the leisure travelers
(54%) reported household income of $55,000 or less. With
regard to education levels, 24 percent had a high school
education or less, while 35 percent had some college. Only
13 percent of the respondents had an associate’s degree, and
20 percent held a bachelor’s degree. The majority of respon-
dents were married (61%).
306 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52(3)

Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4:
Demographic Profile of Travelers Part-Worth Utility Scores for Each Attribute Level

Business Travelers Leisure Travelers Part-Worth Score

(n = 284) (n = 287)
Demographic Business Leisure
Category Number % Number % Attributes Levels Travelers Travelers
Age Recycling bin in hotel .062 .026
29 or younger 64 22.5 56 19.5 lobby
30-39 years old 65 22.9 68 23.7 Recycling bin in guest −.062 −.026
40-49 years old 82 28.9 73 25.4 room
50 or older 73 25.7 90 31.4 Individual bottle of −.154 −.114
Total 284 100.0 287 100.0 shampoo
Gender Refillable shampoo .154 .114
Male 165 58.1 124 43.2 dispenser
Female 119 41.9 163 56.8 Occupancy sensor −.041 −.060
Total 284 100.0 287 100.0 Key card to turn power to .041 .060
the room on and off
Education level
Energy-efficient light bulbs .277 .278
 High school or 37 13.0 68 23.7
in the guest room
less
No energy-efficient light −.277 −.278
Some college 89 31.3 100 34.8
bulbs in the guest room
 Associate’s 42 14.8 37 12.9
Fresh towels daily −.172 −.192
degree
Towel reuse policy .172 .192
 Bachelor’s 83 29.2 58 20.2
degree Sheets changed daily −.243 −.226
 Graduate degree 33 11.6 24 8.4 Sheets changed on .243 .226
or higher request for stays up to
3 nights
Total 284 100.0 287 100.0
Hotel is certified as a .423 .343
Household income
green hotel
<$35,000 47 16.5 82 28.6
Hotel is not certified as a −.423 −.343
$35,001-$55,000 88 31.0 72 25.1
green hotel
$55,001-$75,000 68 23.9 62 21.6
$75,001-$95,000 44 15.5 32 11.1
>$95,000 37 13.0 39 13.6
Total 284 100.0 287 100.0 AHLA. We note, however, that these results still cannot be
Marital status generalized to the overall population of business and leisure
Married 167 58.8 175 61.0 travelers, because we limited our survey to those who would
Single 62 21.8 67 23.3 be willing to stay in a “green” hotel.
 Widowed, 55 19.4 45 15.7
divorced,
separated Conjoint Analysis Results
Total 284 100.0 287 100.0
To test the goodness of fit for the conjoint model and to
assess the reliability of individual responses, we calculated
Pearson’s R statistic for business and leisure travelers as a
Comparing our business respondents’ age and income group, and for each individual respondent. Pearson’s R was
statistics with those of business travelers from the American 0.99 for the business travelers and 0.98 for the leisure trav-
Hotel and Lodging Association’s (AHLA) Lodging Industry elers, indicating a very good fit (Hair et al. 2006). An issue
profile (2007), we found that our respondents had similar with conjoint studies is that respondents may not take the
age characteristics, albeit a slightly lower average income. task seriously, and Moskowitz et al. (2002) recommends
We compared our leisure respondents’ demographic data to removing individual responses with a Pearson’s R of 0.50
the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 statistics for the entire pop- or lower. However, we did not have to eliminate any cases
ulation, and also the education and marital status of the on this basis, as Pearson’s R was significant for all indi-
entire sample to the census figures. vidual cases at a level of 0.60 or higher.
On balance, we concluded that the sample in this study is Each attribute has two levels and, thus, two resulting
representative of the U.S. travel population because it is fairly part-worth scores, as shown in Exhibit 4. The attribute level
consistent with U.S. census data for 2000, and data from with the positive part-worth score is the one that was most

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014

Millar and Baloglu 307

Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6:
Relative Attribute Importance Scores Travelers’ Price Sensitivity toward a Green Hotel

Business Travelers Leisure Travelers Business Travelers Leisure Travelers

Importance Importance Frequency % Frequency %

Attributes Score Rank Score Rank
I am willing to pay ________ than I otherwise would to stay in a
Recycling 11.15 6 10.63 7 green lodging property
policy Less 13 4.6 18 6.3
Shampoo 14.82 4 14.09 5 Same 220 77.5 241 84.0
amenities More 51 18.0 28 9.8
Controlled 10.75 7 12.35 6 Total 284 100.0 287 100.0
lighting How much less?
Energy- 14.81 5 14.73 4 5% 1 7.7 5 27.8
efficient 10% 4 30.8 5 27.8
light bulbs
15% 8 61.5 8 44.4
Towel policy 15.31 3 15.78 2
Total 13 100.0 18 100.0
Linen policy 15.65 2 15.60 3
How much more?
Green 17.51 1 16.83 1
5% 17 33.3 10 35.7
certification
10% 26 51.0 14 50.0
Total 100.00 100.00
15% 8 15.7 4 14.3
Total 51 100.0 28 100.0

preferred by respondents in each group. So, for example,

business travelers preferred to have the recycling bin in the
hotel lobby (part-worth is equal to 0.062) as opposed to
having it in the hotel room (part-worth is equal to −0.062).
Leisure travelers had the same overall preference, although
the actual part-worth scores were lower (0.026 and −0.026).
Based on part-worth scores, both business and leisure
travelers most preferred a room with a refillable shampoo
dispenser, a key card that controls power to the room,
energy-efficient light bulbs, a towel reuse policy, and sheets
changed on request only. They would like recycling bins in
the lobby, as we noted, and they would prefer that the hotel
have a “green” certification.
We can go further than that, though, because the conjoint
analysis also produced a score indicating the relative prefer-
ence for each attribute, as shown in Exhibit 5. As you might
infer, attributes with the highest relative preference score
are the most influential on overall preference. In essence,
the relative preference of each attribute explains the extent
to which each attribute makes a difference in the overall
preference for the hotel room. In this regard, green certifica-
tion was the most influential attribute on overall preference
for both leisure and business travelers.
Price Sensitivity
Although the respondents were supportive of sustainable
hotel practices, they were largely unwilling to pay extra for
them, and some thought they should pay less (Exhibit 6).
Just 18 percent of the business travelers indicated that they
were willing to pay more when staying in a green hotel, and
only 9.8 percent of leisure travelers would pay more. About
half of those willing to pay more would give up to 10 per-
cent more for a green room. But 4.6 percent of business
travelers and 6.3 percent of leisure travelers wanted to offer
less for a green room. Within both groups, however, the
majority believed there should be no price difference
between green lodging and traditional lodging, with 77.5
percent of business travelers and 84 percent of leisure trav-
elers so indicating.
Discussion
To review, we found little difference in the sustainability
preferences of business and leisure travelers in this survey.
The bulk of respondents in both groups wanted a hotel
room that incorporated a refillable shampoo dispenser,
energy-efficient light bulbs, and towel and linen reuse poli-
cies, as well as a key card to control power use, and green
hotel certification. They wanted recycling bins in the lobby,
not the room.
Our finding that green certification was the most influen-
tial attribute on overall preference for the environmentally
friendly hotel room is a novel one. Numerous other studies
have found that consumers tended to be skeptical of ecola-
bels (Carlson et al. 1996; Clemenz 2010; Crane 2000; Davis
1993; Furlow and Knott 2009; Karna et al. 2001; Laroche,
Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001; Polonsky et al. 1997).
The preference stated here may indicate a desire for some
sort of regulation in the industry, or at least something
that gives potential hotel guests a clear picture of what
constitutes a green hotel. If the hospitality industry were to

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014

308 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52(3)
create a label that is straightforward, easy to understand,
and truthful, guests’ skepticism can be minimized. Such a
label could provide guests with a baseline idea of what a
green hotel offers and what to expect when staying at one.
Green certification labels communicate a certain character-
istic to guests, and, at the same time, educate them about the
green hotel industry.
The “green” certification is the only extrinsic attribute
that we tested. The fact that it was accorded importance far
greater than the intrinsic factors—17.51 for business travel-
ers and 16.83 for leisure travelers—might point to guests’
desire to reduce the confusion regarding what sustainability
actually means. Given other studies on extrinsic attributes
(such as price and brand), we know that an extrinsic factor
such as green certification can potentially have consider-
able influence on travelers’ decision making. We cannot
draw further conclusions here, because the relative role of
extrinsic and intrinsic variables on the decision-making
process for travelers is relatively untouched territory, espe-
cially in relation to hotels. Understanding how important
and influential these two types of attributes are can help
hoteliers to highlight specific hotel characteristics as part of
marketing campaigns.
That said, we see a green label as a blueprint for hoteliers
to create and set standards for all hotels that want to be a
little friendlier to the environment. Even with LEED stan-
dards, U.S.-based hotels have no uniform sustainability rat-
ing system (Withiam 2010). Despite much discussion about
creating such a program for the industry, no industry-wide
action has been taken as of this writing. Even with such
standards in place, hoteliers would need to take care about
how they use a green certification in advertising materials
because the success of similar ecolabel programs in other
industries has been mixed, including accusations of green-
washing, which can be a deterrent to potential guests.
Hotel guests are undoubtedly familiar with some of the
attributes we tested, such as linen reuse programs and effi-
cient lighting, which are already widespread. We were not
surprised that our respondents indicated preference for
those attributes. The use of occupancy sensors or key cards,
however, is thus far relatively uncommon to the hotel indus-
try. It is understandable that guests would most prefer the
key card because that gives them control over their room,
which is hardly the case for occupancy sensors (which
sometimes have a life of their own). From management’s
perspective, though, installing occupancy sensors might be
a much easier and economical retrofit than key cards.
Although key cards were preferred over occupancy sensors,
that is not to say that guests would not accept the sensors in
a hotel room.
Our respondents’ preference for the shampoo dispenser
over individual bottles is unexpected, especially since two
earlier studies (which assessed importance of individual
attributes rather than bundles of attributes) found refillable
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
shampoo dispensers to be unpopular (Kasim 2004; Watkins
1994). Dispensers are common in Europe and Asia, but so
far have not been well received in the United States. Based
on the travelers in this study, guests may be more open to
dispensers than previously thought. Perhaps hoteliers could
take advantage of this opportunity by experimenting with
dispensers filled with, for example, a branded product to
increase guests’ confidence about the dispenser. There is a
cost savings too for use of dispensers because product waste
is reduced and housekeeping staff does not need to replace
the products daily. One hotelier that long ago installed dis-
pensers estimated savings exceeding $6,000 a year. (Burger
2003).
Our finding that hotel guests prefer recycling bins in the
lobby also contradicts other studies (e.g., Kasim 2004; Watkins
1994). This finding also presents hoteliers with an opportu-
nity. Rather than spend the money to put recycling bins in
every room and ask guests to separate trash in their room, a
hotel can set up an efficient, centralized recycling center.
Given this outcome, we wished we had added two more
levels to the recycling policy attribute—namely, hotel recy-
cles in the back of the house, and hotel does not recycle. We
believe that we would have seen different preferences on this
attribute. Several large hotel properties separate trash and
recycle in the back of the house, thus eliminating the need
for guests to do so in either their room or the hotel lobby.
The hotels communicate this information via posters in the
lobby, or literature in the hotel room. Had this option been
presented to the respondents in this study, it may have proven
more popular than the bin in the lobby. In addition, some
hotels may not recycle at all. Since we did not present that
option, we may not have a clear picture of the importance of
recycling attributes, which is a limitation of this study.
Contrary to results of previous research, the large major-
ity of respondents in this study believed that a green hotel
room should not be priced differently than one that is not
green. We need further studies to resolve this controversy,
since a 2011 Cornell study found that a substantial number
of guests would pay more for sustainable rooms (Susskind
and Verma 2011). In any event, hoteliers need to under-
stand that guests have a perception that a green hotel costs
more to stay at than a nongreen hotel. If so, that perception
may be driving potential guests away from sustainable
hotels. A successful green hotelier will recognize this and
price rooms accordingly and competitively. Although we
have found that most guests do not wish to pay more for a
green room, some guests are willing to do so. Business trav-
elers in our study were more likely to agree to pay higher
“green” rates than leisure travelers were. Because business
travelers typically do not pay for their own accommoda-
tions, they may be less sensitive to price than the leisure
traveler, thus explaining the willingness to pay more. The
travelers willing to pay less for the green room may believe
that many green attributes also represent cost-saving
Millar and Baloglu
measures for the hotelier—cost savings that could be passed
on to the hotel guest.
Finally, our study found relatively similar support for
environmental attributes among business and leisure travel-
ers, contrary to claims that business travelers might have
more concern for the environment than do leisure travelers.
The results of this study, at least for hotels offering an envi-
ronmentally friendly product, suggest that hoteliers do not
need to differentiate between the two types of travelers
when marketing their green product. Instead, they may tar-
get both groups with similar campaigns. Perhaps not all
travelers will respond, but a substantial portion of both
groups will be attracted by green policies, or at least the
environmentally friendly room attributes.
Implications for Future Research
Despite the fact that hotels have begun incorporating green
policies into their management practices, and despite the
belief that hotel guests seek such policies, there is a dearth
of research about this subject. As a result, we see many
opportunities for future studies. One possibility is to see
how these results differed from similar studies conducted
for specific hotel chain-scale categories (e.g., economy
versus upscale), food and beverage establishments, and the
meetings and event industry. Another is to gain a better
understanding of the supply side of green hotel attributes,
such as what hotel management thinks about environmen-
tally friendly hotels, to what extent they are incorporating
environmental policies into their company culture, and why.
The same type of research with the employees of a lodging
facility would also prove interesting.
Although there are a number of green attributes that
were not included in this study, the ones that were included
provide future researchers with a preliminary list that can be
used to validate other research efforts. We have already
mentioned other levels of one attribute we studied, and
many other attributes could be incorporated into a study of
how other attributes, both individually and as a bundle, and
both green and not, may influence preference for a hotel.
The only conclusion we can draw about pricing for green
hotels is that there remains no clear formula for computing
different price levels. We had no way to include specific
price levels in the scenarios that we tested. In addition, price
will vary with different hotel types (e.g., luxury vs. mid-
scale). More research in the hotel industry will clarify how
price may influence a traveler’s preference for an environ-
mentally friendly hotel.
Green hotel certification has been a relatively untouched
research topic, so it is difficult to compare the results of this
study with others. It is encouraging, however, that these
travelers wish to see this certification. The role of such
labels in hospitality needs to be explored further. Although
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
309
customers may indicate that they want some sort of certifi-
cation, the type and influence of different certification
labels is virtually unknown in the hospitality industry.
Future research that seeks understanding of the green
hotel consumer and the green hotelier should also assess
environmental attitudes, personal values, and how they may
influence green hotel preferences or green hotel operations.
In addition, future studies could focus on the effect of green
hotel attributes on actual hotel selection, as well as guest
satisfaction.
Limitations
One of the most difficult tasks involved with conjoint
studies is selecting the attributes used in each scenario or
profile. Although measures were taken to ensure that the
chosen attributes were realistic and important, the list was
not exhaustive. Many attributes that pertain to the décor of
a room (e.g., organic linens, or chemical-free paint) and to
a hotel property as a whole (e.g., efficient heating, ventila-
tion, and cooling systems, or reclaimed water systems)
might be of importance to some hotel guests but were not
incorporated into the study. In addition, the scenarios may
have had some attributes that were unfamiliar to the
respondents.
We know that guests use more than just seven attributes
in deciding which hotel to book. The problem for this study
is that including more attributes in the scenarios would
have invited information overload (Green and Srinivasan
1978; Hu and Hiemstra 1996). We limited the number of
attributes and attribute levels to avoid information over-
load, but then again we may have oversimplified the
picture.
Social desirability bias also presents a potential limita-
tion (Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss 1996) Even though
anonymity was assured during the survey process, it is pos-
sible that participants responded in the way they thought
they should, as opposed to responding with their true
beliefs. We attempted to reduce the potential effect of social
desirability bias by asking respondents what types of envi-
ronmentally friendly activities they perform at home.
Responses showed a large variance, and so we conclude
that respondents were most likely not answering in a socially
desirable fashion.
Last, as we mentioned at the outset, the sample included
only business and leisure travelers who indicated that they
were willing to stay in an environmentally friendly lodging
facility. This limits the extent to which the results can be
generalized to the entire population of business and leisure
travelers. Even though some travelers may not be willing
to stay in such a hotel, it does not mean that they do not
have pertinent opinions about the type of attributes that may
be incorporated into an environmentally friendly hotel.
310 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52(3)
Conclusion
The primary purpose of this study was to identify the attri-
butes that guests would prefer in green hotel room. Our
conjoint analysis revealed some surprises: guests found a
green certification as most influential among these attributes,
they appreciated a recycling policy with a lobby recycling
center, and they would be favorable to amenity dispensers
instead of small bottles. A longer-term finding (due to the
expense of a retrofit) is that they would be happy with key
cards to control the room electricity, instead of motion
detectors. The respondents also supported the more com-
monly featured towel and linen reuse policies and energy-
efficient lighting. These results contribute to the practical
advancement of the hotel industry by indicating the green
attributes that may be most desirable to guests. This infor-
mation can help hotel managers and operators set up their
green hotel room accordingly, and also begin to gather
information on the cost of creating a room that is made up
of those preferred attributes.
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.
References
American Hotel and Lodging Association. 2007. 2007 Lodg-
ing industry profile. http://www.ahla.com/uploadedFiles/
AHLA/Press_Room/Lodging_Industry_Profile/LIP2007.pdf
(accessed September 7, 2008).
Apostolakis, A., and S. Jaffry. 2005. A choice modeling appli-
cation for Greek heritage attractions. Journal of Travel
Research 43:309-18.
Burger, R. 2003. Green Suites International becomes a national
allied member of AAHOA to help hotels conserve. http://
hospitalitynet.org/news/4017858 (accessed September 6, 2008).
Carlson, L., S. Grove, R. Laczniak, and N. Kangun. 1996. Does
environmental advertising reflect integrated marketing
communications? An empirical investigation. Journal of Busi-
ness Research 31:225-32.
Clausing, J. 2008. Survey: Boomers more likely to go green in
business travel. Travel Weekly 67 (2): 22.
Clemenz, G. 2010. Eco-labeling and horizontal differentiation.
Environmental Resource Economics 45 (4): 481-97.
Crane, A. 2000. Facing the backlash, green market and strategic
reorientation in the 1990s. Journal of Strategic Marketing
8 (3): 277-96.
Crane, F., and T. Clarke. 1988. The identification of evaluative
criteria and cues used in selecting services. Journal of Services
Marketing 2 (2): 53-59.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
Crocker, M. 2008. Among leisure travelers surveyed, nearly
everyone professes to be green. http://apps.travelweekly.com/
Multimedia/consumertrends072808/index.html (accessed
August 12, 2008).
Davis, J. 1993. Strategies for environmental advertising. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 10 (2): 19-36.
Dube, L., L. Renaghan, and J. Miller. 1994. Measuring customer
satisfaction for strategic management. Cornell Hotel and Res-
taurant Administration Quarterly 35 (1): 39-47.
Fairweather, J., and C. Maslin. 2005. Environmental values and
response to ecolabels among international visitors to New
Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (1): 82-98.
Feather, P., D. Hellerstein, and T. Tomasi. 1995. A discrete-count
model of recreational demand. Journal of Environmental Eco-
nomics and Management 29 (2): 214-27.
Font, X. 2002. Environmental certification in tourism and hospi-
tality: Progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management
23 (3): 197-205.
Furlow, N., and C. Knott. 2009. Who’s reading the label? Milleni-
als’ use of environmental product labels. Journal of Applied
Business and Economics 10 (3): 1-12.
Garrett, L. 2008. Hotels taking the LEED on green building. http://
www.petergreenberg.com/2008/02/22/hotels-taking-the-leed-
on-green-building/ (accessed October 21, 2008).
Green, P., and V. Srinivasan. 1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer
research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research
5 (2): 103-23.
Gustin, M., and P. Weaver. 1996. Are hotels prepared for the envi-
ronmental consumer? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-
tration Quarterly 20 (2): 1-14.
Hamele, H. 2002. Ecolabels for tourism in Europe: Moving the
market toward more sustainable practices. In Ecotourism and
certification: Setting standards in practice, ed. M. Honey.
Washington, DC: Island, 187-210.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham. 2006.
Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hu, C., and S. Hiemstra. 1996. Hybrid conjoint analysis as
a research technique to measure meeting planners’ prefer-
ences in hotel selection. Journal of Travel Research 35:
62-69.
Power, J. D. 2009. 2009 North America guest satisfaction
study. http://www.jdpower.com/travel/articles/2009-North-
America-Hotel-Guest-Satisfaction-Study/page-2 (accessed
May 31, 2010).
Jennings, L. 2007. Eco-friendly ways bring in green. Nation’s
Restaurant News 41 (39): 90-92.
Karna, J., H. Juslin, V. Ahoven, and E. Hansen. 2001. Green
advertising: Greenwash or a true reflection of marketing strat-
egies? Journal of Corporate Environmental Strategy and
Practice 33:59-70.
Kasim, A. 2004. Socio-environmentally responsible hotel busi-
ness: Do tourists to Penang Island, Malaysia care? Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 11 (4): 5-28.
Millar and Baloglu
Koo, L., F. Tao, and J. Yeung. 1999. Preferential segmentation of
restaurant attributes through conjoint analysis. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 11 (5): 242-50.
Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal
of Political Economy 74 (2): 132-57.
Lancaster, K. 1971. Consumer demand: A new approach.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Laroche, M., J. Bergeron, and G. Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting
consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally
friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (6):
503-20.
Lee, M., and Y. Lou. 1995. Consumer reliance on intrinsic and
extrinsic cues in product evaluations: A conjoint approach.
Journal of Applied Business Research 12 (1): 21-28.
Lewis, R., S. Ding, and U. Geschke. 1991. Using trade-off analysis
to measure consumer choices: The full profile method. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Research 15 (1): 75-92.
Limburg, B. 1998. City marketing: A multi-attribute approach.
Tourism Management 19 (5): 475-77.
Lindberg, K., B. Dellaert, and C. Rassing. 1999. Resident trad-
eoffs: A choice modeling approach. Annals of Tourism
Research 26 (3): 554-69.
Louviere, J., and G. Woodworth. 1983. Design and analysis of
simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An
approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing
Research 20 (4): 350-67.
Millar, M., and S. Baloglu. 2008. Hotel guests’ preferences for
green hotel attributes. Proceedings of the European Council
for Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education Confer-
ence, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Moskowitz, H., J. Beckley, T. Mascuch, J. Adams, A. Sendors,
and C. Keeling. 2002. Establishing data validity in conjoint:
Experiences with internet-based mega-studies. Journal of
Online Research 1-11.
Ones, D., C. Viswesvaran, and A. Reiss. 1996. Role of social
desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The
red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (6): 660-679.
Orme, B. 2006. Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strate-
gies for product design and pricing research. Madison, WI:
Research Publishers LLC.
Polonsky, M., L. Carlson, S. Grove, and N. Kangun. 1997. Interna-
tional environmental marketing claims: Real changes or simple
posturing? International Marketing Review 14 (4): 218-32.
Reiser, A., and D. Simmons. 2005. A quasi-experimental method
for testing the effectiveness of ecolabel promotion. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 13 (6): 590-616.
Renaghan, L., and M. Kay. 1987. What meeting planners want:
The conjoint-analysis approach. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 28 (1): 66-76.
Spittler, R., and U. Haak. 2001. Quality analysis of tourism eco-
labels. In Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion
of sustainable development, ed. X. Font and R. C. Buckley.
Wallingford: CABI, 213-45.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 25, 2014
311
Susskind, A., and R. Verma. 2011. Hotel guests’ reactions to
guest room sustainability initiatives. Cornell Hospitality Report
11 (6)1.
Synergy. 2000. Tourism certification. A report by Synergy for
WWF-UK.
Thyne, M., R. Lawson, and S. Todd. 2006. The use of conjoint anal-
ysis to assess the impact of the cross-cultural exchange between
hosts and guests. Tourism Management 27 (2): 201-13.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Profile of general demographic char-
acteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
(accessed March 17, 2009).
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2008. LEED rating systems.
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222
(accessed October 21, 2008).
Verma, R., and G. Thompson. 1996. Basing service management
on customer determinants: The importance of hot pizza. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 37 (3): 18-23.
Verma, R., and G. Thompson. 1997. Discrete choice analysis in
hospitality management research. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research 21 (1): 28-47.
Verma, R., G. Thompson, and J. Louviere. 1999. Configuring ser-
vice operations in accordance with customer needs and prefer-
ences. Journal of Service Research 1 (3): 262-74.
Vora, S. 2007. Business travelers go green. Forbes. http://www
.msnbc.msn.com/id/19417697/ (accessed October 30, 2008).
Watkins, E. 1994. Do guests want green hotels? Lodging Hospital-
ity 50 (4): 70-72.
Weaver, D. 2001. The encyclopedia of ecotourism. Wallingford:
CABI.
Wind, J., P. Green, D. Shifflet, and M. Scarbrough. 1989. Court-
yard by Marriott: Designing a hotel facility with consumer-
based marketing models. Interfaces 19 (1): 25-47.
Withiam, G. 2010. Make sustainability a part of day-to-day
hotel operations. Hotel and Motel Management. http://www
.hospitalityworldnetwork.com/green/make-sustainability-
a-part-of-day-to-day-hotel-operations (accessed February 1, 2010).
Wood, M., and E. Halpenny. 2001. Ecotourism certification and
evaluation: Progress and prospects. In Tourism ecolabelling:
Certification and promotion of sustainable development, ed.
X. Font and R. C. Buckley. Wallingford: CABI, 121-40.
Xu, G., and Y. Yuan. 2001. Conjoint analysis in pharmaceutical
marketing research. Quirks Marketing Research Review, Article
20010602. http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2001/20010602.
aspx? searchID=17327434andsort=9 (accessed March 2, 2009).
Bios
Michelle Millar, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University
of San Francisco School of Management (mmillar@usfca.edu).
Seyhmus Baloglu, Ph.D., is professor and associate dean for
research in the tourism and convention administration depart-
ment at the William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration
at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Seyhmus.baloglu@unlv
.edu).