Comparing ecotourist‘s general environ-mental beliefs and general
ecological behaviour to other groups of tourists
Silvia WurzingerDepartment of Environmental Psychology
Lund Institute of TechnologyBox 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
E-mail: [email protected]
Ecotourism contrarynature tourism
Ecotourism … is related to a natural area is sustainable supports local people includes a learning element admiring of nature and culture considers ethical aspects is small-scale (WTO und UNEP,
2002)Introduction Method and
ResultsConclusions
Ecotourism contrarynature tourism
Nature tourism … is related to a natural area has not to include further elements
(e.g., sustainability)(Weaver, 2001)
Introduction Method and Results
Conclusions
Aim
Are ecotourists really more „eco“?A comparison of general environmental beliefs and general ecological behaviour between ecotourists, nature tourists and a group of city and spa tourists
Introduction Method and Results
Conclusions
Sample(N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females)
1.Ecotourists (N = 43):2-4 days „package-holiday“ includingecotourism label „Nature‘s Best“
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
Sample(N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females)
2. Nature tourists (N = 124): Participants of 2-4 hours long lasting guided tours in a nature reserve
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
Sample(N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females)
3. City and spa tourists (N = 78):Trips for 2 to 4 days to Stockholmor Gothenburg or to a spa
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
General Environmental beliefsRevised New Environmental Paradigm Scale(Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000)
Reality of limits to growth Anti-Anthropocentrism
Fragility of nature‘s balance Rejection of exemptionalism
Possibility of an ecocrisis
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
ResultRevised New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, et al., 2000)
Cronbach’s Alpha = .72
Mean
3,87 3,68 3,49
1
2
3
4
5
Groups of tourists
Ecotourists
Nature tourists
City and spa tourists
Difference between the groups and linearity significant,F(2, 240) = 7.73, p = .001 and F(1, 240) = 15.46, p = .000
resp.
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
General ecological behaviourGeneral Ecological Behaviour Scale(Kaiser, 1998)
Garbage removal Garbage inhibition
Water and power conservation Consumer behaviour
Nature protection activities Automobile use
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
ResultGeneral Ecological Behaviour Scale(Kaiser, 1998)
Cronbach’s Alpha = .72
16,05 17,24
13,65
02468
101214161820222426
Groups of tourists
Ecotourists
Nature tourists
City and spatourists
Mean
Difference between the groups significant, F(2, 241) = 21.86, p = .000;
However, ecotourists and nature tourists do not differ!Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
Conclusions
Compared to city and spa tourists ecotourists seem to be really more „eco“!
However, compared to nature tourists the difference seems to be not so clear in general ecological behaviour
Introduction Method and Results Conclusions
Thank you very much for your attention!