Posted: December 23rd, 2014

critical commentary with three methods (interview, questionnaire and observation)

critical commentary with three methods (interview, questionnaire and observation)

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Sheffield Hallam University on June 30, 2014

The research study is to carry out an observation within Chinese fast food restaurant of the west street that examines: purchasing methods
Group number: Ruoyu liang, Jing Wang, Ge Zhang
Date: 09/11/2014
Start Time: 13:00
Finish Time:15:00
Number of people    Cash    Card
107    46    61

Item    Quantity
Coke    8
Soybean milk    45
Coffee    13
Sandwich    39
¬¬Chips    6
Pizza    4
Cookie    27
Sheet1.  The restaurant sells food during research time
According to Sheet 1 show about during 1pm.to 3pm. The Chinese restaurant sells food situation. We used qualitative method and the quantitative method; we found the problem during the observation, such as it is very difficult to calculate clearly how many foods does the customer buy, and we also estimated the payment of the customers to buy food, we found people prefer to use card instead of cash.
So people like use card to payment, it is show about card how important in our life.

Assignment 2

Purpose of the assignment:

•    To develop practical research skills
•    To develop a critical awareness of some of the issues involved in research
•    To be able to reflect on the significance of these issues in terms of the broader research project
•    To link theses issues to the relevant academic literature

Students will be required to submit a written account of the three activities introduced in the lectures and critically assess the suitability of the methods. This must contain hardcopies of the research data produced from these exercises as an appendix.

The tasks:

1)    Design, prepare and undertake an interview, questionnaire and observation exercise on the subject area (Hospitality Management).
2)    Successfully complete and make records of the interview, questionnaire and observation exercises inc. full interview transcript, questionnaire analysis and notes from the observation.
3)    Prepare a critical commentary as outlined below

The critical commentary:

An account and discussion of approx. 2500 words plus appendix which critically examines the ways in which you conducted the research, problems faced and lessons learnt.  Your work should also consider the impact of the different methods on research findings and the broader research topic under discussion.  You must make use of appropriate academic references and use the Harvard referencing system.  Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Assessment Criteria

Evidence of skill development in all three research methods                30%
Critical reflection on the process of applying your three methods            30%
Awareness of the broader significance of methods in relation to research subject    15%
Use of academic literature                                15%
Structure, presentation and writing skills.                        10%

Submission requirements
Please use the Harvard referencing System.  Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

This report must be accompanied by the proposed dissertation project title form.

Please read carefully the following assessment and marking criteria

Research Methods            Assignment 2    Assessment    Criteria
Marks    <39    40-49    50-59    60-69    70+
Evidence of skill development in all three research methods
30%    Attempt not made at all three methods.
No evidence of skill development.      Clear attempt at all three methods.  Some evidence of skill development in research methods.    Good attempt at all three methods.  Clear evidence of skill development in all three research methods.    + Well designed research tools.     Evidence of a high skill level in the development of all three research methods.
Critical reflection on the process of applying your three methods            30%
No attempt at critical reflection made.      A limited amount of reflection on the process of applying your three methods.  The assignment may not show evidence of reflection on all three methods used.      Evidence of reflection on the process of applying your three methods.  The assignment will show evidence of reflection on all three methods used.    + Critical reflection well integrated into the assignment.    + Assignment shows evidence of learning from the critical refection upon methods.
Awareness of the broader significance of methods in relation to research subject

15%    No awareness demonstrated of the broader significance of research methods to the research subject.    Some awareness demonstrated of the broader significance of research methods to the research subject.    Good level of awareness demonstrated of the broader significance of research methods to the research subject.    Assignment demonstrates a high level of understanding of the relationship and significance of research methods to the field of study    Assignment demonstrates a thorough understanding of the relationship and significance of research methods to the field of study.
Use of academic literature                                15%
No use of academic literature within the assignment.      Academic literature evident within the assignment though its usage is limited to the main recommended texts.     + Evidence of wider reading.    Extensive use of appropriate academic literature that shows a good understanding of the subject area.    + Evidence of a 1research done by the Athens Laboratory of Research in Marketing in collaboration with the Center of
Sustainability about the green marketing found more than 92% of
consumers has a positive attitude towards the companies that are
sensitive on environmental matters (Papadopoulos et al., 2009). To
ful?ll emerging green needs, business leaders in various ?elds have
made every effort to change their corporate structures/cultures to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 51 200 7427; fax: +82 51 200 4335.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Han), [email protected] (L.-T.J. Hsu),
[email protected] (J.-S. Lee), [email protected] (C. Sheu).
1
Tel.: +1 785 532 6275; fax: +1 785 532 5959.
2
Tel.: +852 2766 4766; fax: +852 2362 9362.
3
Tel.: +1 785 532 4363; fax: +1 785 532 1339.
0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.008
be more environmentally responsible and to modify their existing products/services to be more environmental friendly (Dief and
Font, 2010; D’Souza and Taghian, 2005; Ottman, 1992).
The competitiveness of the travel industry can be enhanced by
the popularity of a destination environment and by the presence
of natural attractions. However, travel products often negatively
impact the natural environment since heavy visitor traf?c can lead
to degradation of natural structures (Hillery et al., 2001). Nowadays, hotels are increasingly focusing on green management as
they contribute to environmental degradation through the construction of buildings, waste disposal, and water usage (Mensah,
2006). According to a report by UNWTO, UNEP, and WMO (2007),
the hotel industry is responsible for about 21% of all CO2 emissions
related to tourism. As people are increasingly concerned about
global warming, travelers are more likely to make an eco-friendly
decision to select a hotel. Therefore, a growing number of hotels
ha implemented eco-friendly practices and environmental strategies, and converted purchasing or operating procedures to be more
environmentally friendly (Ton, 1996; Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001).
Gradually, going green is believed to be an effective competitive
edge in the lodging market (Gustin and Weaver, 1996; Manaktola
and Jauhari, 2007; Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001; Han et al., 2009). As
a result, a critical challenge for hotel marketers is to gain a better
understanding of current/potential customer’s desire and intention
for green consumption (Han et al., 2009). In particular, improving their understanding of the eco-friendly attitudinal pro?les of
346
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
customers and identifying the demographic pro?les of environmentally responsible customers can be advantageous strategies.
Attempts have been made in the marketing and consumer
behavior literature to identify how individuals’ ecological attitudes
stimulate ecological buying activities (e.g., Kalafatis et al., 1999;
Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Roberts, 1996),
and to examine the impact of personal characteristics on ecofriendly consumption (e.g., Banerjee and McKeage, 1994; Laroche
et al., 2001; McIntyre et al., 1993; Roberts, 1996). Yet, only a few
researchers have examined (1) the possible relationships between
lodging customers’ green attitudes in their daily lives and their
expressed eco-friendly intentions to visit, to spread word-of-mouth
about, and to pay more for a green hotel and (2) gender, age,
education, and income differences in forming hotel customers’
environmental friendly intentions. Moreover, little research to date
has investigated differences between experienced and inexperienced customers in forming eco-friendly intentions in the green
hotel industry.
A study to examine associations among hotel customers’ green
attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions not only can
help hotel operators to understand their current/potential customers’ eco-friendly purchasing behaviors, but also can help them
to formulate better marketing strategies to reduce intensity of competition. The present study attempts to answer the following four
principal research questions:
(1) Do personal attitudes (i.e., regarding severity of environmental problems, inconvenience of being environmental friendly,
importance of being environmental friendly, and level of
responsibility of business corporations) affect eco-friendly
intentions to visit, to engage in word-of-mouth behaviors, and
to pay more for a green hotel?
(2) If so, which component of attitudes has the greatest impact?
(3) How do hotel customers’ eco-friendly intentions differ across
gender, age, education, and household income?
(4) How do such expressed intentions differ based on the existence
of previous experience staying at a green hotel?
In the next section, the concept of green hotel, environmentally friendly attitudes, and personal characteristics are brie?y
discussed. Next, the research methodology, including measures of
study variables, data collection procedures, and sample characteristics, is introduced. The statistical results are then presented
followed by the discussion of the managerial implications. Finally,
research limitations and some directions for future research are
outlined.
ing, ventilating, and air-conditioning (e.g., electricity and gas); and
have released signi?cant amounts of emissions into the air, water,
and soil (APAT, 2002; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Chan, 2005; Radwan et
al., 2010).
As more environmental rules/regulations appear and individuals’ environmental awareness increases, consumers are
increasingly searching for eco-friendly hotels over conventional
hotels. Consequently, many hotels are beginning to implement
various innovative methods to increase the “greenness” of their
operations (Dief and Font, 2010; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007;
Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001). The term “green” refers to “actions that
reduce the impact on the environment, such as eco-purchasing
or recycling” (Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001, p. 209). In a similar manner, “green hotel” is de?ned as an eco-friendly hotel
operation that performs/follows various environmentally friendly
practices/programs such as saving water/energy, using eco-friendly
purchasing policies, and reducing emission/waste disposals to
protect the natural environment and reduce operational costs
(Green Hotel Association, 2008). Speci?cally, unlike conventional
hotels, green hotel establishments actively follow eco-friendly
guidelines and practice environmental management; committing
themselves to carrying out environmental improvements, demonstrating such commitment through eco-labels or the green globe
logo, and acquiring techniques related to best practices in environmental management with experts’ help (International Hotels
Environmental Initiative, 1993). It is generally agreed that turning
a lodging property green not only ful?lls environmentally cautious
customers’ green needs and assumes the responsibility of performing environmental duties, but also results in substantial cost saving
through various environmental bene?ts (e.g., source/waste reduction, product-life extension, energy/water conservation, recycling,
etc.) (Bali and Balfe, 1998; Chan, 2005; Manaktola and Jauhari,
2007; Wolfe and Shanklin, 2001).
In addition, green management has enhanced customer satisfaction, market demand (Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007), and corporate
image (Mensah, 2004; Penny, 2007). Firms with their green products can strengthen their eco-friendly image to attract more
customers’ attention. About 67% of Americans claimed that they are
likely to pay 5–10% more for green products as they are increasingly
concerned with preserving the environment (Coddington, 1990).
This movement has also reached the hotel industry. According to
Mensah (2004), (90)% of hotel guests would prefer to stay in a hotel
that implements green management. Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants also reported that 16% of their guests stay with them because
of their eco-friendly practices, such as the use of nontoxic cleaning
agents and in-room recycle bins (Bulter, 2008). Green management
in the hotel industry has now played a critical role in marketing and
operational planning.
2. Literature review
2.2. Are eco-friendly attitudes related to green consumption?
2.1. Becoming more “green”!
The lodging industry may not be the primary one that creates substantial environmental pollution and consumes signi?cant
amounts of global resources; however, because of its primary purposes of providing comfortable services/supplies (e.g., hot water,
food, drinks, linens, towels, lighting, air-conditioning, limousines,
swimming pools, etc.), hotels clearly consume gross amounts of
water, energy, non-recyclable goods, and natural resources, thus
directly or indirectly harming the environment (Bohdanowicz,
2005; Chan et al., 2009; Dief and Font, 2010; Radwan et al.,
2010). Conventional hotels, especially, are often associated with
issues related to deterioration of the environment. It has been
reported that conventional hotels (both large and small hotels)
have produced enormous harm to the environment from excessive
consumption of non-recyclable goods; water; and energy for heat-
Recognizing the seriousness of environmental problems possibly caused by excessive use of energy and non-renewable natural
resources, copious supplies of foods and products, environmentally unfriendly production processes, and environmental disasters,
increasing numbers of individuals are aware of environmental
issues and feel our natural resources are limited and the environment is more fragile than we once believed (Easterling et al., 1996;
Kalafatis et al., 1999; Krause, 1993). Such environmental awareness instills in the public a positive attitude toward eco-friendly
activities, and encourages people to more frequently engage in
ecological behaviors in their everyday lives (Kalafatis et al., 1999;
Laroche et al., 2001). These individuals have strong environmentally friendly attitudes, look for opportunities to behave in an
environmentally friendly ways, and often express environmental
concerns (Kalafatis et al., 1999; Mandese, 1991). The eco-friendly
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
attitudes are strongly associated with individuals’ levels of perceived importance of the environment (Amyx et al., 1994; Laroche
et al., 2001). Researchers agree that eco-friendly attitudes contain
several dimensions, such as (1) perceived severity of environmental problems, (2) inconvenience of being environmentally friendly,
(3) importance of being environmentally friendly, and (4) perceived level of corporate responsibility to be eco-friendly, with
the last indicating individuals’ beliefs that business ?rms should
be concerned about our environment and, thus, try to be ecologically responsible (Laroche et al., 2001; McCarty and Shrum, 1994;
Roberts, 1996). In other words, individuals with strong eco-friendly
attitudes generally perceive the seriousness of ecological problems
(1st dimension: perceived severity of environmental problems;
e.g., “Global resources, such as water, energy, trees, gas, and so on,
are limited.”), defy the notion that being environmentally friendly
is inconvenient (2nd dimension: inconvenience of being environmentally friendly; e.g., “Recycling is not much trouble.”), recognize
the signi?cance of being ecologically friendly (3rd dimension:
importance of being environmentally friendly; e.g., “Recycling will
reduce pollution and natural resources.”), and strongly believe
that business ?rms (e.g., hotels and restaurants) strive to be environmentally responsible (4th dimension: level of responsibility of
business corporations; e.g., “Businesses are highly concerned about
our environment.”).
While personal inconvenience and additional costs could still
force environmentally conscious individuals to consume in an ecologically unfavorable fashion, researchers found that individuals’
environmentally friendly attitudes undoubtedly play a signi?cant role in in?uencing their eco-friendly purchasing behaviors
(e.g., Kalafatis et al., 1999; Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and
Jauhari, 2007; Roberts, 1996; Han et al., 2009). In their investigation of demographic, psychological, and behavioral pro?les of
green customers, Laroche et al. (2001) found that consumers’ environmentally friendly attitudes are strongly associated with positive
intentions to pay more for a green product. Examining consumer
attitudes toward hotels’ green practices and behaviors, Manaktola
and Jauhari (2007) concluded that customers who are aware of
a hotel’s eco-friendly practices show a preference to patronize a
green lodging property. Further, Roberts (1996) indicated that consumer attitudes are signi?cant predictors of ecologically conscious
consumer behaviors. His ?ndings revealed that environmentally
conscious people are likely to engage in eco-friendly consumer
behaviors, and individuals who believe their speci?c ecological
activities can cause positive change are more likely to display
green consumer behaviors. He also suggested that individuals’
beliefs about the fact that environmental resource problems can
be reduced encourage more ecologically friendly consumer behaviors. In their study of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors,
overall image, gender, and age in hotel customer’s eco-friendly
decision-making process, Han et al. (2009) found that customers
who have favorable attitudes toward eco-friendly behaviors in their
everyday lives and positive images of green hotels are willing to
stay at a green hotel, to recommend it, and to pay more.
Furthermore, eco-friendly attitudes can suggest another business direction and strategy to the hotel industry. Hartmann et al.
(2005) elaborated the notion of green positioning and claimed that
an effective green positioning strategy builds on both functional
attributes and emotional bene?ts. Functional attributes is strongly
linked with bene?ts of green products/services. For instance, the
Chicago Hyatt Regency saved $120,000 through its waste reduction
and recycling program. The LA Intercontinental Hotel implemented
a power monitoring system and reduced its electricity costs by
$12,000 (Mensah, 2004). Hilton International introduced its “ecoroom.” About 97% of its materials are recyclable, including pure
cotton and wool, a minimal use of chrome and metal, and wood for
all furniture and ?oors, along with energy-saving devices (Hotelier,
347
2005). Many guests prefer to stay in eco-rooms since the ecorooms are not only environment-friendly, but also advantageous
to allergy sufferers (Hotelier, 2005). Evidently, a hotel that successfully implements green practices can reduce its energy and
water consumption and enhance guest satisfaction, thereby receiving bene?ts of functional attributes from green products.
However, functional attributes alone do not guarantee the success of a green positioning because a functional attribute-based
positioning can always be readily copied by competitors (Aaker,
1996). Therefore, a green positioning strategy that reinforces
emotional bene?t is also needed to complement the functional
positioning. According to the survey by IHEI (Hotel Online, 2002),
53% of the Brits and Australians surveyed expressed a preference for
staying at hotels that implement environmental programs. Hotel
guests sense emotional bene?t of saving a green environment
for the next generation and were motivated to stay at a green
hotel. Speci?cally, emotional bene?ts can be the feeling of wellbeing that is inspired by altruistic behavior (Ritov and Kahnemann,
1997) and a degree of positive self-expression that is associated
with socially conscious consumption of green products/services
(Belz and Dyllik, 1996). As potential guests increasingly seem to
prefer green hotels, the hotel industry began to see green practices not only as a temporary strategic and operational planning
project, but rather as a fundamental motive that should underlie all
hotel management efforts. Overall, green management can create
tremendous competitive edge for a hotel by enabling brand differentiation, cultivating customer loyalty, and improving a hotel’s
reputation.
2.3. Personal characteristics and consumer behaviors
The literature has discussed the important role of demographic
characteristics to understand consumer behaviors better in many
?elds. Speci?cally, numerous studies have veri?ed gender, age,
education, and income as signi?cant affecting factors in explaining customer buying behaviors (e.g., Evanschitzky and Wunderlich,
2006; Gilly and Zeithaml, 1985; Henion, 1972; Im et al., 2003;
Laroche et al., 2001; Roberts, 1996). According to the social theory,
women and men play different roles and show dissimilar behaviors in society because they are differently socialized (Saad and Gill,
2000; Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Speci?cally, the early socialization
of females tends to be passive and restrained, and the socialization of males is likely to be more proactive or self-reliant (Saad
and Gill, 2000; Sarbin and Allen, 1968). Gender differences have
been investigated extensively in the consumer behavior literature.
Generally, the literature suggested that males and females differ
in their consumption patterns and behaviors. Han and Ryu (2006)
identi?ed gender differences in upscale restaurant customer’s
decision-making process. Females are more concerned about other
people’s welfare (Eagly, 1987), perceive interpersonal relationships
as being more important (Konrad et al., 2000), and reveal greater
preference for information and communication (Lehto et al., 2001).
Furthermore, women tend to be more environmentally conscious
and more frequently form environmentally friendly consumption
intentions (Banerjee and McKeage, 1994; McIntyre et al., 1993). In
a hotel context, Han et al. (2009) identi?ed that gender has a significant moderating role in customer’s eco-friendly decision-making
processes.
Age is another personal characteristic that has received considerable research attention. Researchers in various ?elds have
investigated age differences in consumer behavior and concluded
that age-related differences in purchasing behavior and decisionmaking do exist (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Homburg
and Giering, 2001; Im et al., 2003). While ?ndings in ecological consumer behavior studies are inconsistent, some early results showed
that age is signi?cantly related to environmentally friendly buy-
348
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
ing behaviors and eco-friendly intention formation (Anderson and
Cunningham, 1972; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981). More speci?cally,
the ?ndings indicated that ecological customers who frequently
make green purchasing decisions are more likely to be younger.
Younger people with better information processing capacities tend
to search for new and alternative information (Evanschitzky and
Wunderlich, 2006; Gilly and Zeithaml, 1985), which may motivate
them to make green lodging purchasing decisions because they
are more knowledgeable about green lodging properties and the
bene?ts of staying at a green hotel.
The signi?cant role of education and income in the process of
decision-making and environmental purchasing is also identi?ed
in the extant literature. According to Keaveney and Parthasarathy
(2001), consumers with higher levels of education and income
have more capability to develop sophisticated and credible estimations of what to expect from a product/service, thus their buying
behaviors and expressed intentions are dissimilar to lower income
and less educated consumers. In addition, many researchers in
consumer behavior found that education and income have a signi?cant role in explaining customer post-purchase behaviors (e.g.,
Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Im et al., 2003). Similarly, in
developing a pro?le of eco-friendly customers, researchers identi?ed that individuals who are highly educated and have higher
income tend to be more ecologically conscious and engage more
actively in forming eco-friendly intentions and purchasing green
products (e.g., Henion, 1972; Roberts, 1996). In sum, previous studies related to demographic characteristics showed that customers’
buying behaviors and expressed intentions varied as a function of
those demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, education, and
income) and suggested that environmentally conscious customers
are more likely to be female, younger, more educated, and earn
more money than average.
3. Methodology
3.1. The questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The ?rst section
included a thorough description of a green lodging property to help
survey participants understand what a green hotel is. The second
part contained questions about environmentally friendly attitudes
in their everyday life (i.e., severity of environmental problems,
inconvenience of being environmentally friendly, importance of
being environmentally friendly, and level of responsibility of business corporations) and intentions to visit, spread word-of-mouth
about, and pay more for a green hotel. The measurement items
were generated by closely following previous studies (Laroche et al.,
2001; Mathieson, 1991; Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002; McCarty
and Shrum, 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Speci?cally, the items
were modi?ed for the green hotel context. All constructs were measured with multiple items using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The speci?c scales
and their related items are presented in Table 1. The last survey
section included questions about demographic information such
as gender, age, years of education, household income, frequency
of a hotel stay, and previous experience with a green hotel. The
total measurement items for individual’s environmentally friendly
attitudes were developed from the literature and were submitted
to 30 academic and industry professionals and actual hotel customers for feedback in order to retain measurement items free of
vagueness, irrelevance, and overlap. Eight items for attitudes were
retained through this process. Subsequently, the questionnaire was
pretested on a group of 20 hospitality faculty and industry professionals for re?nement and face validity. The results of the pilot test
indicated that items for each study construct had an adequate level
of reliability and validity.
2.4. Importance of the existence of previous experience
3.2. Data collection and sample characteristics
Previous studies about the modi?ed theory of planned behavior have identi?ed the important role of the existence/frequency of
past experience in intention formation (Lam and Hsu, 2006; Oh
and Hsu, 2001; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). Their studies indicated that individuals’ past behavior (or experience) relates to their
intentions. Similarly, Buhalis (1999) found that a travelers’ behavior is strongly associated with a range of factors, including his/her
previous experience.
Previous experience can be more in?uential with services, particularly lodging services, than with tangible products. Since hotel
services are almost intangible (few tangible cues on which to rely)
and dif?cult to standardize, it is dif?cult for hotel consumers to predict what hotel service will be like before they actually purchase
and consume it (Back, 2005; Han and Back, 2008). In other words,
hotel services can be possibly perceived by potential customers as
high risk. Accordingly, hotel customers may rely heavily on their
past experience with services a speci?c hotel provides when making decisions. Supporting this notion, some recent studies identi?ed
the important role of past experience/behavior in customers’ intention formation for the product that has the highly intangible nature
(e.g., meeting participation or destination choice) (Lam and Hsu,
2006; Lee and Back, 2007, 2009). Within hotel service-purchase
decision situations, an individual’s past experience may be strongly
related to his/her intentions to revisit a hotel, to engage in wordof-mouth behaviors, and to pay more. Hotel customers who have
stayed at a green hotel have had opportunities to experience various eco-friendly services and may be aware of what is available.
Customers who have never stayed at a green hotel, on the other
hand, may not be aware of various services/bene?ts available at a
green hotel.
In the present study, an online survey was employed to collect
data to effectively reach general hotel customers. The utilization of
an online survey is becoming more popular and acceptable in the
academic research because it is easier to reach the general population and to obtain more candid responses (Han and Kim, 2009;
Han et al., 2009; Kim, 2001; Kim and Ok, 2009; Kim and Canter,
2010). The questionnaire was coded in an online market research
company’s survey program and electronically sent to 3,000 common U.S. hotel patrons, who were randomly selected from the
company’s database. This market research company, maintaining a by-invitation-only database, provides a small incentive for
respondents’ participation in the form of credits. Researchers using
the company’s online survey program and system pay the percompleted-response fee.
After excluding incomplete and otherwise unusable responses,
a total of 422 usable questionnaires were retained for analysis.
Thus, the usable response rate was 14.07%. Table 2 presents a
demographic summary of the study sample. Of 422 participants,
206 were male and 216 were female. The mean age was 44.5
years with a median of 41 years. Among the participants, 55.7%
had an undergraduate or postgraduate degree, and 44.3% had less
than an undergraduate college degree. About 35.1% of respondents’ annual household income was under $39,999; 44.1% was
between $40,000 and $84,999; 20.8% was over $85,000. A total
of 58 respondents indicated that they had a previous experience
staying at a green hotel; 237 of the participants reported that
they have never stayed at a green hotel; and 127 respondents disclosed that they were not sure whether they had stayed at a green
hotel.
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
349
Table 1
Measurement items for study variables.
Variables
Measurement items (strongly disagree (1)/strongly agree (7))
Eco-friendly attitudes (Laroche et al., 2001;
McCarty and Shrum, 1994)
SEP (reverse coded)
Intention to visit (Mathieson, 1991; Zeithaml
et al., 1996)
Intention to spread word-of-mouth (Maxham
and Netemeyer, 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996)
Intention to pay more (Maxham and
Netemeyer, 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996)
1. In our country, we have enough electricity, water, and trees that we do not have to
worry about conservation.
2. The earth is a closed system where everything eventually returns to normal, so I see no
need to worry about its present state.
INEF (reverse coded)
1. Recycling is too much trouble.
2. Keeping separate piles of garbage for recycling is too much trouble.
IMEF
1. Recycling will reduce pollution.
2. Recycling is important to save natural resources.
LRBC
1. Hospitality operations (e.g., hotels and restaurants) are concerned about the
environment.
2. Packaged food or paper companies are concerned about the environment.
1. I will stay at a green hotel when traveling.
Alpha
.932
.956
.880
.826
.887
2. I will make an effort to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
3. I am willing to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
1. I will encourage my friends and relatives to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
.962
2. If someone is looking for a hotel, I will suggest to him/her to stay at a green hotel.
3. I will say positive things about an environmentally friendly hotel.
1. I will spend extra in order to stay at an environmentally friendly hotel.
.959
2. It is acceptable to pay more for a hotel that engages in green practices.
3. I am willing to pay more for a green hotel.
Note: SEP = severity of environmental problems; INEF = inconvenience of being environmentally friendly; IMEF = importance of being environmentally friendly; LRBC = level
of responsibility of business corporations.
4. Results
A series of multiple regression analyses were utilized to examine the effects of attitude components on intentions to visit a green
hotel, to engage in word-of-mouth, and to pay more. Standardized
coef?cients and t-values were used to determine which component
of attitudes has greatest impact. An analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was employed to investigate how customers’ eco-friendly intentions differ across gender, age, education, and household income,
and how intentions differ based on their previous experience staying at a green hotel. According to Hair et al. (1998), the effective
sample size used in multiple regression ranges from 20 to 1,000
depending on the numbers of independent variables and detectable
Table 2
Sample characteristics.
Demographic characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Age
Under 30 years
30–59 years
60 years or older
Education
High school or less
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
Household income
Under $39,999
$40,000–$84,999
Over $85,000
Previous experience with a green hotel
Experienced
Inexperienced
Not sure
Frequency
Percentage
of sample
206
216
48.8%
51.2%
111
200
111
26.3%
47.4%
26.3%
43
144
144
91
10.2%
34.1%
34.1%
21.6%
148
186
88
35.1%
44.1%
20.8%
58
237
127
13.7%
56.2%
30.1%
explanatory power (R2 ). Considering the number of independent
variables and ability of detecting R2 values in this study, the sample size of 422 cases in the present study was effective enough to
use multiple regression analyses. In addition, the 422 cases were
well above the required sample size for designing the proposed
ANOVA models in the present study, exceeding medium and large
effect size (Cohen, 1988). Overall, the sample size in this study was
suf?cient to validate the generalizability of the results.
4.1. Impact of eco-friendly attitudes
Before testing the impact of eco-friendly attitudes, the adequateness of this construct’s dimensionality was assessed. The
results of the con?rmatory factor analysis revealed that the
proposed four-dimensional structure of attitudes is extremely satisfactory (2 = 40.380 [df = 14, p < .001], RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.990,
NFI = 0.985). Thus, dimensionality of attitudes was con?rmed. Subsequently, multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the
role of attitudes. Table 3 presents the results. The ?ndings indicated
that components of eco-friendly attitudes (independent variables)
are generally associated with eco-friendly intentions (dependent
variables). In particular, importance of being environmentally
friendly (?IMEF ? IV = .343, t = 7.034; ?IMEF ? ISWOM = .346, t = 6.992;
?IMEF ? IPM = .110, t = 2.063) and level of responsibility of business corporations (?LRC ? IV = .199, t = 4.315; ?LRC ? ISWOM = .220,
t = 4.716; ?LRC ? IPM = .328, t = 6.521) signi?cantly strengthen hotel
customers’ intentions to visit a green hotel, to engage in wordof-mouth behaviors, and to pay more for a green hotel. However,
among the components of intentions, severity of environmental
problems was not signi?cantly associated with any components
of intentions (?SEP ? IV = .036, t = .516; ?SEP ? ISWOM = .028, t = .399;
?SEP ? IPM = .020, t = .257), and inconvenience of being environmentally friendly was signi?cantly related only to intention
to visit (?INEF ? IV = .165, t = 2.393; ?INEF ? ISWOM = .106, t = 1.515;
?INEF ? IPM = .017, t = .220). These unexpected ?ndings imply that
individual’s perceived severity of environmental problems does
350
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
Table 3
Determination of eco-friendly intentions.
Eco-friendly attitudes
Severity of environmental problems (SEP)
Inconvenience of being environmentally friendly (INEF)
Importance of being environmentally friendly (IMEF)
Level of responsibility of business corporations (LRBC)
Intention to visit (IV)
Intention to spread wordof-mouth (ISWOM)
Intention to pay more (IPM)
Beta
t-Values
Beta
t-Values
Beta
t-Values
.036
.165*
.343**
.199**
.516
2.393
7.034
4.315
.028
.106
.346**
.220**
.399
1.515
6.992
4.716
.020
.017
.110*
.328**
.257
.220
2.063
6.521
R2 (Adjusted):
Intention to visit = .277
Intention to spread word-of-mouth = .257
Intention to pay more = .138
Note: All Beta values are standardized. Bolded numbers indicate the values that have the strongest impact on each dimension of decisions.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
not contribute to building their eco-friendly intentions to visit a
green hotel, to engage in word-of-mouth activities, or to pay more.
In addition, individual’s perceived inconvenience of being ecologically friendly is not likely to induce their willingness to spread
favorable word-of-mouth about a green hotel or to pay more for
a green hotel. The unexpected results may be attributed to multicollinearity (Cohen and Cohen, 1975). Speci?cally, the correlation
value between severity of environmental problems and inconvenience of being environmentally friendly is relatively high (.793),
almost reaching a problematic level of .800 (Hair et al., 1998). Further, it can be also inferred that although the questionnaire was
rigorously designed by following the various steps for re?nement
and clarity, the use of reverse coded items for these constructs in
the questionnaire probably confused survey participants, causing
errors that bring undesirable results.
Moreover, the results of the comparisons among the beta coef?cients along with t-values revealed that importance of being
environmentally friendly had a greater impact on intentions to
visit and to spread word-of-mouth than other facets of eco-friendly
attitudes. Among the four components of attitudes, the level of
responsibility of business corporations has the greatest impact
on intention to pay more. The four components of eco-friendly
attitudes explained approximately 27.7% of the total variance in
intention to visit, 25.7% in intention to spread word-of-mouth, and
13.8% in intention to pay more.
4.2. Gender and eco-friendly intentions
The ANOVA tests revealed signi?cant differences in intentions
across gender groups (intention to visit: F (1, 420) = 8.877, p = .003;
intention to spread word-of-mouth: F (1, 420) = 15.535, p = .000;
intention to pay more: F (1, 420) = 10.943, p = .001). Table 4 and
Fig. 1 present the results of the ANOVA tests. Mean scores for each
intention were higher for the female group than male group (intention to visit: Mfemale = 5.485 vs. Mmale = 5.101; intention to spread
word-of-mouth: Mfemale = 5.397 vs. Mmale = 4.803; intention to pay
more: Mfemale = 4.316 vs. Mmale = 3.769). These ?ndings implied that
women tend to rate eco-friendly intentions more favorably. In other
words, female hotel customers showed greater willingness to visit
Fig. 1. Gender difference in intentions (male and female).
a green hotel, to recommend it, and to pay more for it. These results
were consistent with previous research about gender differences in
eco-friendly behaviors that suggested women are more likely to be
ecologically conscious and more frequently make environmentally
friendly intentions when purchasing (e.g., Banerjee and McKeage,
1994; Laroche et al., 2001; McIntyre et al., 1993; Roberts, 1996).
4.3. Age and eco-friendly intentions
Consistent with earlier research ?ndings, results of the present
study showed that mean scores in intentions for the lowest
age group (under 30 years) were slightly higher than other
age groups (intention to visit: Mlow = 5.426 vs. M30–59 years = 5.242
and Mover 60 years = 5.267; intention to spread word-of-mouth:
Mlow = 5.267 vs. M30–59 years = 5.007 and Mover 60 years = 5.126; intention to pay more: Mlow = 4.315 vs. M30–59 years = 4.021 and
Mover 60 years = 3.835). However, as shown in Table 5 and Fig. 2, the
results of the ANOVA indicated that intentions were not statistically signi?cantly different among age groups (intention to visit:
F (2, 419) = .718, p = .488; intention to spread word-of-mouth: F
(2, 419) = .990, p = .373; intention to pay more: F (2, 419) = 2.232,
p = .109). Furthermore, a post hoc test (Fisher’s LSD) for age groups
indicated no signi?cant differences between any pair of groups. The
Table 4
Results of ANOVA: gender differences in intentions.
Variables
Gender
Mean (SD)
Intention to visit
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
5.101 (1.291)
5.485 (1.354)
4.803 (1.599)
5.397 (1.496)
3.769 (1.646)
4.316 (1.750)
Intention to spread word-of-mouth
Intention to pay more
F-Value
p-Value
8.877
.003
15.535
.000
10.943
.001
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
351
Table 5
Results of ANOVA: age differences in intentions.
Variables
Intention to visit
Intention to spread word-of-mouth
Intention to pay more
Age
Mean (SD)
F-Value
Under 30 years
30–59 years
60 years or older
Under 30 years
30–59 years
60 years or older
Under 30 years
30–59 years
60 years or older
5.426 (1.201)
5.242 (1.370)
5.267 (1.405)
5.267 (1.393)
5.007 (1.606)
5.126 (1.681)
4.315 (1.556)
4.021 (1.724)
3.835 (1.843)
p-Value
.718
.488
.990
.373
2.232
.109
Table 6
Results of ANOVA: education differences in intentions.
Variables
Education
Mean (SD)
F-Value
p-Value
Intention to visit
High school or less
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
High school or less
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
High school or less
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
4.977 (1.735)
5.357 (1.320)
5.411 (1.169)
5.297 (1.384)
4.845 (1.740)
5.363 (1.429)
5.014 (1.629)
4.971 (1.593)
4.264 (1.691)
4.037 (1.872)
4.049 (1.637)
3.967 (1.626)
1.514
.210
2.082
.102
.293
.831
Intention to spread word-of-mouth
Intention to pay more
current ?ndings suggested that age did not have a signi?cant role
in explaining hotel customers’ eco-friendly intentions.
4.4. Education and eco-friendly intentions
In addition, the results of Fisher’s LSD analysis indicated that the
components of intentions did not signi?cantly differ between
any pair of education groups. The results lead to the conclusion
that hotel customers’ willingness to visit a green hotel and their
intentions to spread word-of-mouth about it and to pay more for
it are not necessarily related to their education level. The current
study ?ndings were not in line with previous research about
education differences in purchasing behaviors (e.g., Evanschitzky
and Wunderlich, 2006; Roberts, 1996). It is possible that the
effect of education on consumer purchasing behavior varies across
industries.
Education differences in hotel customers’ ecological intentions
were examined next. Mean scores for education groups are shown
in Table 6 and Fig. 3. For intention to visit (ranked high to low;
Mcollege graduate = 5.411 vs. Msome college = 5.357, Mpostgraduate = 5.297,
and Mhigh school or less = 4.977) and intention to spread wordof-mouth (Msome college = 5.363 vs. Mcollege graduate = 5.014 vs.,
Mpostgraduate = 4.971, and Mhigh school or less = 4.845), the “college
graduate” and “some college” groups showed the highest mean
values among the four education groups. With regard to intention to pay more, the “high school or less” group reported
an average of 4.264, which was greater than the averages of
other groups (Msome college = 4.037, Mcollege graduate = 4.049, and
Mpostgraduate = 3.967). However, the results of the ANOVA tests did
not yield statistically signi?cant differences in intentions among
education groups (intention to visit: F (3, 418) = .1.514, p = .210;
intention to spread word-of-mouth: F (3, 418) = 2.082, p = .102;
or intention to pay more: F (3, 418) = .293, p = .831) (see Table 6).
Investigation of the mean scores for household income groups
indicated the low income group (under $39,999) had slightly
higher mean values for intention to visit (Munder $39,999 = 5.349
vs. M$40,000–$84,999 = 5.253 and Mover $85,000 = 5.303) and intention to spread word-of-mouth (Munder $39,999 = 5.315 vs.
M$40,000–$84,999 = 5.002 and Mover $85,000 = 4.977) among three
income groups. The middle income group ($40,000–$84,999)
showed a higher mean score for intention to pay
Fig. 2. Age difference in intentions.
Fig. 3. Education difference in intentions.
4.5. Income and eco-friendly intentions
352
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
Table 7
Results of ANOVA: income differences in intentions.
Variables
Intention to visit
Intention to spread word-of-mouth
Intention to pay more
Income
Mean (SD)
Under $39,999
$40,000–$84,999
Over $85,000
Under $39,999
$40,000–$84,999
Over $85,000
Under $39,999
$40,000–$84,999
Over $85,000
5.349 (1.360)
5.253 (1.319)
5.303 (1.343)
5.315 (1.495)
5.002 (1.570)
4.977 (1.688)
3.948 (1.779)
4.235 (1.690)
3.826 (1.657)
F-Value
p-Value
.215
.807
2.020
.134
2.090
.125
Table 8
Results of ANOVA: differences between experienced and inexperienced groups.
Variables
Previous experience
Mean (SD)
F-Value
p-Value
Intention to visit
Experienced
Inexperienced
Experienced
Inexperienced
Experienced
Inexperienced
5.615 (1.137)
5.125 (1.382)
5.184 (1.553)
4.896 (1.633)
4.552 (1.537)
3.875 (1.788)
6.240
.013
1.475
.225
7.028
.008
Intention to spread word-of-mouth
Intention to pay more
more (M$40,000–$84,999 = 4.235 vs. Munder $39,999 = 3.948 and
Mover $85,000 = 3.826) (see Table 7 and Fig. 4). However, as Table 7
indicates, the ANOVA tests revealed that income differences in
eco-friendly intentions were not signi?cant (intention to visit: F
(2, 419) = .215, p = .807; intention to spread word-of-mouth: F (2,
419) = .2.020, p = .134; intention to pay more: F (2, 419) = 2.090,
p = .125). A post hoc analysis using Fisher’s LSD also showed no
signi?cant difference between any pair of income groups. These
?ndings implied that income is not strongly related to lodging
customers’ green intention formation. The current results were
not in line with the earlier research about income differences in
consumer behaviors (e.g., Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006;
Homburg and Giering, 2001; Im et al., 2003). Similar to our ?ndings
regarding education, future research should verify the effect of
income on green hotel purchasing behavior.
icant (see Table 8 and Fig. 5). A total of 127 cases were not
included in the analyses due to respondents’ uncertainty regarding whether they had ever visited at a green hotel. Examination
of the mean values revealed that mean scores for intention to
visit (Mexperienced = 5.615 vs. Minexperienced = 5.125), to spread wordof-mouth (Mexperienced = 5.184 vs. Minexperienced = 4.896), and to pay
more (Mexperienced = 4.552 vs. Minexperienced = 3.875) appeared to be
higher in experienced group. These ?ndings implied the experienced group is more enthusiastic than the inexperienced group
about staying at a green hotel and paying a price premium for a
green hotel.
5. Discussion
Finally, differences in intentions between customers who
have stayed at a green hotel (n = 58) and customers who have
never stayed at a green hotel (n = 237) were examined. The
?ndings from the ANOVA tests indicated that while the difference in intention to spread word-of-mouth is not signi?cant
(F (1, 293) = 1.475, p = .225), differences in intentions to visit a
green hotel (F (1, 293) = 6.240, p = .013) and to pay more for a
green hotel (F (1, 293) = 7.028, p = .008) were statistically signif-
As the previous studies indicated (e.g., Kalafatis et al., 1999;
Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Roberts, 1996),
these study ?ndings, in general, demonstrated that hotel customer’s eco-friendly attitudes positively affect their expressed
intention. In addition, the regression analyses revealed that the
importance of being environmentally friendly best explained hotel
customer’s intentions to visit a green hotel and to spread their experience. The level of responsibility of business corporations played
the strongest role in driving customer’s intentions to pay more for a
green hotel. These results are in line with previous research ?ndings
(Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Roberts, 1996).
Our ?ndings suggested that, among the dimensions of attitudes,
gendering in hotel customers’ the perceived importance of being
Fig. 4. Income difference in intentions.
Fig. 5. Comparison between experienced and inexperienced groups.
4.6. Differences of experienced and inexperienced groups in
eco-friendly intentions
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
environmentally friendly is the best way to encourage intentions
to visit a green hotel and to spread word-of-mouth, and increasing their perceived level of responsibility of business corporations
enhances their intentions to pay more. Therefore, green hotel operations should actively educate individuals through environmental
campaigns or the tools of informal education (e.g., brochures, exhibitions, or seminars) that, although it may be inconvenient, their
green practices (e.g., recycling) in everyday life indeed make a
difference (e.g., reducing pollution or saving natural resources)
and persuade them to perform eco-friendly practices (e.g., recycling). These types of efforts on the part of green hotel ?rms would
reduce individuals’ perceptions of the inconvenience of carrying
out ecological behaviors, as well as enhance their perceived importance of being environmentally friendly. In addition, green hotel
?rms should also demonstrate their environmental commitment
in their facilities and make known their concerns for the welfare of
the environment (e.g., following environmental regulations, conserving energy/water, or recycling). Such efforts would contribute
to boosting hotel customers’ perceptions regarding the level of
responsibility of business corporations. In other words, consumers
would be more likely to believe that green hotel ?rms act responsibly towards the environment.
In line with theories related to sex differences in human behaviors (i.e., social role theory and evolutionary psychology), gender
differences in eco-friendly purchasing intentions were identi?ed
in this research. Speci?cally, the ?ndings revealed that female customers showed greater willingness to purchase a green lodging
product, to engage in positive word-of-mouth, and to pay more
for an eco-friendly hotel. The results help marketers in green
hotels acknowledge the characteristics of their target segment.
According to Lehto et al. (2001), female customers tend to show
stronger preferences for information/communication than male
customers. Thus, to attract/retain more female customers, green
hotel marketers should provide a learning opportunity to this group
of customers by delivering various information/knowledge about
their green programs and eco-friendly activities.
Previous studies showed that consumer behaviors tend to differ
based on characteristics of the customer (e.g., Baker et al., 2007;
Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Homburg and Giering, 2001;
Im et al., 2003; Roberts, 1996; Sandahl and Robertson, 1989). More
speci?cally, their expressed intentions are dissimilar across gender,
age, education, and income. However, ?ndings in the current study
revealed that, with the exception of gender, hotel customers’ intentions were not signi?cantly different across age, level of education,
and level of household income. One of the possible reasons for such
unexpected results is differences in consumer behaviors between
purchasing green hotels and other green products. Picket et al.
(1993) and Laroche et al. (2001) found that one speci?c environmentally conscious act does not necessarily transmit directly into
another eco-friendly purchasing behavior. That is, a consumer who
frequently buys a certain recycled product may not be the same
one who is willing to visit a green hotel. Several other environmental research studies either found non-signi?cant roles of personal
characteristics (e.g., Antil, 1984; Kassarjian, 1971) or reported contradictory ?ndings to most existing research (e.g., Sandahl and
Robertson, 1989). Overall, our results indicated that facets of personal characteristics such as age, education, and income are less
important than other variables (e.g., gender, eco-friendly attitudes,
and previous experience with a green hotel) in explaining hotel
customers’ environmentally friendly intentions.
Researchers have indicated that realizing the seriousness of
environmental problems increases demand on eco-friendly products/services (e.g., Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari,
2007). In this study, 56.16% of the participants had never stayed
at a green hotel. Moreover, 30.09% reported they were not sure
whether they had ever visited a green hotel. Given this, it can be
353
inferred that many individuals are lacking information/knowledge
about green hotels or do not even know of the existence of green
lodging establishments. Obviously, marketers in various types of
green hotel operations should be more proactive in informing current and potential customers of their green facilities, practices, and
programs. Additionally, in the current study, interesting differences
were found when comparing respondents who have stayed at a
green hotel versus those who have never stayed at a green lodging
operation. The experienced group of customers scored signi?cantly
higher on intentions to visit and to pay more. Therefore, marketers
should enhance their customer retention strategies with the realization that once hotel customers experience the favorable green
attributes of a hotel (e.g., cotton towels, locally grown organic foods,
unbleached linens, non-polluting soaps, or healthy natural air, etc.),
they are likely to develop positive attitudes toward green lodging
establishments.
While the current research has shed some lights on several signi?cant issues, there are some limitations that reveal opportunities
for future studies. First, the current study did not classify customer groups in accordance with the types of hotels (e.g., economy,
mid-scale, upscale, or luxury) when examining attitudes, demographics, and intentions. Future studies should investigate if the
similarities/differences in eco-friendly intentions/behaviors exist
among groups of customers in various segments of green hotels.
Second, this study used a Web-based survey method to collect
data. Thus, samples were limited to those with access to a computer and online network. Future studies should examine green
hotel customers’ behaviors in an actual green hotel purchase setting to overcome this issue, thus increasing validity. Third, while
the usable response rate of 14.07% in the present study is comparable with the range of 10–15% found from previous studies using
online surveys (e.g., Han and Kim, 2009; Han et al., 2009; Kim,
2001; Kim and Ok, 2009), the non-response error is a potential
problem (Dillman, 2000). Dillman (2000) indicated that a nonresponse error occurs when people who participate in a survey
are different from those who do not. It is possible that individuals
with an interest in environmental issues are more likely to respond
to the survey including ecological issues than those with no/little
interest. To reduce non-response error and increase response rate,
for future study, it is recommended to follow Dillman’s (2000)
four-time-contact email survey: a pre-notice; the questionnaire;
a thank-you/reminder; and a replacement questionnaire. In addition, for future research, the effective strategy should be made to
increase the wider range of participants including both individuals
with an interest in environmental issues and those with no/little
interest. Fourth, the results of the current study only provided a
starting point for more rigorous studies about green hotels. For
instance, this study examines customer’s intentions on purchasing
a green hotel and one should note that such intention may or may
not lead to actual green decisions/behaviors. Thus, further research
has to gain more in-depth knowledge about hotel customer’s actual
behaviors in a green hotel context. Speci?cally, further research
should examine green hotel customers’ actual decisions/behaviors
and pre/post-decision-making processes. Fifth, our data were collected from the U.S. consumer. Thus, it should be cautious to
generalize the ?ndings to consumer groups in other countries or
continents (Europe, Asia, etc.). For future study, including wider
sampling range is recommended to enhance the generalizability
of the results. Lastly, although a rigorous procedure was employed
to obtain items to adequately assess individual’s ecological attitudes in their everyday life, using only 2 items for evaluating
each individual dimensions of a complex psychological construct
can be too simplistic and possibly cause a validity problem. For
future research, a more effective process that generates greater
number of items should be utilized to accurately assess this
construct.
354
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
6. Conclusion
Today, ?rms are judged on the basis of business ethics, social
accountability, and socio-economic awareness as their stakeholders are becoming increasingly concerned with climate changes. This
global trend is encouraging hotels to move toward green practices. As the ?ndings suggested, eco-friendly attitudes favorably
affect hotel guests’ intentions to visit a green hotel, to spread positive word-of-mouth, and to pay more. However, more efforts must
be made to communicate green hotel practices to the public to
assist the selection of green hotels and more active participation
for green consumption. We argue that the successful management of green hotels would not be feasible if the bene?ts of green
products/services could not be effectively communicated (Pickett
et al., 1995). After all, the growing popularity of green hotels is
largely due to media coverage regarding environmental concerns.
Roberts (1996) suggested that media coverage can help manipulate
the public’s perception and behavior in a timeframe lasting just 2
weeks. This implies that more guests would be willing to form ecofriendly intentions if the bene?ts of patronizing a green hotel were
advertised. A hotel with sound and reputable green practices can
lower operating costs, appeal to stakeholders, enhance employee
morale, and consequently enjoy ?nancial prosperity.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by research funds from Dong-A University.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Building Strong Brands. Free Press, Macmillan, New York.
Amyx, D.A., Dejong, P.F., Lin, X., Chakraborty, G., Wiener, J.L., 1994. In?uencers of purchase intentions for ecologically safe products: an exploratory study. In: Park, et
al. (Eds.), AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceeding. American Marketing
Association, Chicago, pp. 113–116.
Anderson, W.T., Cunningham, W.H., 1972. The socially conscious consumer. Journal
of Marketing 36, 23–31.
Antil, J.H., 1984. The construction and validation of an instrument to measure socially
responsible consumer behavior: a study of the socially responsible consumer.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
APAT, 2002. Tourists accommodation EU eco-label award scheme—Final report. Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment and for Technical
Services, Rome.
Back, K., 2005. The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in the
upper middle-class hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
29 (4), 448–467.
Baker, E.W., Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S., 2007. The effects of gender and age on
new technology implementation in a developing country: testing the theory of
planned behavior (TPB). Information Technology and People 20 (4), 352–375.
Bali, E., Balfe, C., 1998. Keys to unlocking successful hotel recycling. Resource Recycling 17 (4), 23–27.
Banerjee, B., McKeage, K., 1994. How green is my value: exploring the relationship
between environmentalism and materialism. In: Allen, C.T., John, D.R. (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research 22. Association for Consumer Research, Provo,
UT, pp. 147–152.
Belz, F., Dyllik, T., 1996. Okologische positionierungsstrategien. In: Tomczak, T.R.,
Roosdorp, A. (Eds.), Positionierung—Kernentscheidung des Marketing. Thexis
Verlag, St Gallen, pp. 170–179.
Bohdanowicz, P., 2005. Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish
and Polish hotel industries—survey results. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 25, 662–682.
Buhalis, D., 1999. Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management 21, 97–116.
Bulter, J., 2008. The compelling “hard case” for “green hotel” development. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 49, 234–244.
Chan, W.W., 2005. Predicting and saving the consumption of electricity in subtropical hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
17 (3), 228–237.
Chan, W., Wong, K., Lo, J., 2009. Hong Kong hotels’ sewage: environmental cost and
saving technique. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (3), 329–346.
Coddington, W., 1990. It’s no fad: environmentalism is now a fact of corporate life.
Marketing News 15, 7.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic
Press, New York.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., 1975. Applied Regression/Correlational Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dief, M.E., Font, X., 2010. The determinants of hotels’ marketing managers’ green
marketing behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (2), 157–174.
Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley,
New York.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., 2005. Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of
advertising themes. Asian Paci?c Journal of Marketing and Logistics 17, 51–66.
Eagly, A., 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation.
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Easterling, D., Kenworthy, A., Nemzoff, R., 1996. The greening of advertising: a
25-year look at environmental advertising. Journal of Marketing—Theory and
Practice 4 (1), 20–34.
Evanschitzky, H., Wunderlich, M., 2006. An examination of moderator effects: the
four stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research 8 (4), 330–345.
Gilly, M.C., Zeithaml, V.A., 1985. The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies.
Journal of Consumer Research 12, 353–357.
Green Hotel Association, 2008. What are Green Hotels?, Retrieved May 10, 2008,
from Green Hotel Association (GHA) Web site: http://www.greenhotels.com/
whatare.htm.
Hotelier, G., 2005. July 9, Hilton International. International Hotels Environmental
Initiative, London.
Gustin, M.E., Weaver, P.A., 1996. Are hotels prepared for the environmental consumer? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 20 (2), 1–14.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, H., Back, K., 2008. Relationships among image congruence, consumption emotions, and customer loyalty in the lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research 32 (4), 467–490.
Han, H., Hsu, L., Lee, J., 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward
green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly
decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28
(4), 519–528.
Han, H., Kim, W., 2009. Outcomes of relational bene?ts: restaurant customers’ perspective. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 26 (8), 820–835.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2006. Moderating role of personal characteristics in forming restaurant customers’ behavioral intentions: an upscale restaurant setting. Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 15 (4), 25–53.
Hartmann, P., Ibanez, V.A., Sainz, F.J.F., 2005. Green branding effects on attitude:
functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence and
Planning 23 (1), 9–29.
Henion, K.E., 1972. The effect of ecologically relevant information on detergent sales.
Journal of Marketing Research 9, 10–14.
Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Grif?n, G., Syme, G., 2001. Tourist perception of environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 853–867.
Homburg, C., Giering, A., 2001. Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis.
Psychology and Marketing 18 (1), 43–66.
Hotel Online, 2002. Consumer Attitudes Towards the Role of Hotels in Environmental Sustainability, Retrieved from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2002
3rd/Jul02 IHEI.html on April 18, 2010.
International Hotels Environmental Initiative (IHEI), 1993. Environmental Management for Hotels. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Im, S., Bayus, B.L., Mason, C.H., 2003. An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (1), 61–73.
Kalafatis, S.P., Pollard, M., East, R., Tsogas, M.H., 1999. Green marketing and Ajzen’s
theory of planned behavior: a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 16 (5), 441–460.
Kassarjian, H.H., 1971. Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air
pollution. Journal of Marketing 35 (3), 61–65.
Keaveney, S.M., Parthasarathy, M., 2001. Customer switching behavior in online
services: an exploratory study of the role of selected attitudinal, behavioral,
and demographic factors. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 29 (4),
374–390.
Kim, S., 2001. E-mail survey response rates: a review. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication 6 (2), 1–20.
Kim, W., Ok, C., 2009. The effects of relational bene?ts of favorable inequity, affective
commitment, and repurchase intention in full-service restaurants. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (2), 227–244.
Kim, W., Ok, C., Canter, D.D., 2010. Contingency variables for customer share of visits
to full-service restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29
(1), 136–147.
Konrad, A.M., Ritchie Jr., J.E., Lieb, P., Corrigall, E., 2000. Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 126,
593–641.
Krause, D., 1993. Environmental consciousness: an empirical study. Journal of Environment and Behavior 25 (1), 126–142.
Lam, T., Hsu, C.H.C., 2006. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management 27, 589–599.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 18 (6), 503–520.
Lee, M.J., Back, K., 2007. Association members’ meeting participation behaviors:
development of meeting participation model. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 22 (2), 15–33.
H. Han et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (2011) 345–355
Lee, M.J., Back, K., 2009. Association meeting participation: a test of competing
models. Journal of Travel Research 46, 300–310.
Lehto, X.Y., Leary, J.T., Lee, G., 2001. Mature international travelers: an examination
of gender and bene?ts. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 9 (1/2),
53–72.
Manaktola, K., Jauhari, V., 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards
green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (5), 364–377.
Mandese, J., 1991. New study ?nds green confusion. Advertising Age 21, 1–56.
Mathieson, K., 1991. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research
2 (3), 173–191.
Maxham, J.G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2002. Modeling customer perceptions of compliant
handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent.
Journal of Retailing 78, 239–252.
McCarty, J.A., Shrum, L.J., 1994. The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior.
Journal of Business Research 30 (1), 53–62.
McIntyre, R.P., Meloche, M.S., Lewis, S.L., 1993. National culture as a macro tool for
environmental sensitivity segmentation. In: Cravens, D.W., Dickson, P.R. (Eds.),
AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings 4. American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp. 153–159.
Mendleson, N., Polonsky, M.J., 1995. Using strategic alliances to develop credible
green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (2), 4–18.
Mensah, I., 2004. Environmental Management Practices in US Hotels,
Retrieved
from
http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004 2nd/
May04EnvironmentalPractices.html on April 18, 2008.
Mensah, I., 2006. Environmental management practices among hotels in the greater
Accra region. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (3), 414–431.
Oh, H., Hsu, C.H.C., 2001. Volitional degrees of gambling behaviors. Annals of Tourism
Research 28 (3), 618–637.
Ottman, J., 1992. Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age. NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
Papadopoulos, I., Karagouni, G., Trigkas, M., Platogianni, E., 2009. Green marketing.
The case of timber certi?cation, coming from sustainable forests management,
promotion. In: Annual International EuroMed Conference Proceedings 2, The
Research Business Institute, Salemo, Italy.
Picket, G.M., Grove, S.J., Kangun, N., 1993. An analysis of the conserving consumer:
a public policy perspective. In: Allen, et al. (Eds.), AMA Winter Educa-
355
tors’ Conference Proceedings. American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp.
151–153.
Pickett, G.M., Kangun, N., Grove, S.J., 1995. An examination of the conserving consumer: implications for public policy formation in promoting conservation
behavior. In: Polonsky, M.J., Mintu-Wimsatt, A.T. (Eds.), Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. The Haworth Press, New York,
pp. 77–99.
Penny, W.Y.K., 2007. The use of environmental management as a facilities management tool in the Macao hotel sector. Facilities 25 (7–8), 286–295.
Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2001. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goaldirected behaviors: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior.
British Journal of Social Psychology 40, 79–98.
Radwan, H.R.I., Jones, E., Minoli, D., 2010. Managing solid waste in small hotels.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (2), 175–190.
Ritov, I., Kahnemann, D., 1997. How people value the environment: attitudes versus
economic values. In: Bazermann, M.H., Messick, D.M., Tenbrunsel, A.E., WadeBenzoni, K.A. (Eds.), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior. The New Lexington
Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 33–51.
Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: pro?le and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research 36, 217–231.
Saad, G., Gill, T., 2000. Application of evolutionary psychology in marketing. Psychology and Marketing 17 (12), 1005–1034.
Sandahl, D.M., Robertson, R., 1989. Social determinants of environmental concern:
speci?cation and test of the model. Environment and Behavior 21 (1), 57–81.
Sarbin, T.R., Allen, V.L., 1968. Role theory. In: Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. (Eds.), The
Handbook of Social Psychology. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, pp. 488–567.
Ton, M., 1996. Greening Your Property. Green Seal, Washington, DC.
Van Liere, K.D., Dunlap, R.E., 1981. Environmental concern: does it make a difference
how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior 13 (6), 651–676.
Vandermerwe, S., Oliff, M.D., 1990. Customers drive corporations green. Long Range
Planning 23, 10–16.
UNWTO, UNEP, WMO, 2007. Climate change and tourism: responding to global challenges advanced summary. In: Advanced Summary of The UN Conference on
Climate Change, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, pp. 1–18.
Wolfe, K.L., Shanklin, C.W., 2001. Environmental practices and management concerns of conference center administrations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research 25 (2), 209–216.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing 60, 31–46.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂