Segmentation of Travelers Based on Environmental Attitudes

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 12 March 2013, At: 10:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Hospitality & LeisureMarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

Segmentation of TravelersBased on EnvironmentalAttitudesSandro Formica PhD a & Muzaffer Uysal PhD ba ESSEC Business School, Institut de ManagementHotelier International (IMHI), Avenue Bernard HirschB.P. 105, 95021, Cergy-Pontoise, Franceb Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management,362 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0429, USAVersion of record first published: 20 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Sandro Formica PhD & Muzaffer Uysal PhD (2001): Segmentationof Travelers Based on Environmental Attitudes, Journal of Hospitality & LeisureMarketing, 9:3-4, 35-49

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v09n03_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v09n03_04

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Segmentation of TravelersBased on Environmental Attitudes

Sandro FormicaMuzaffer Uysal

ABSTRACT. This study groups visitors to Virginia based on their envi-ronmental attitudes by using a posteriori market segmentation. Fac-tor-cluster analysis, multiple discriminant analysis, and one-way analysisof variance were performed to examine and profile the travel segments.According to the findings, three distinct groups were delineated: conser-vationists, anthropocentrics, and optimists. Trip behavior, destination at-tributes and travelers’ choice of destination rather than demographiccharacteristics account for most of the variance among the three marketsegments. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document De-livery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@ haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by The Haworth Press,Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Market segmentation, environmental attitudes

INTRODUCTION

Destination promoters and tourism researchers commonly employsegmentation methods to gain insights into the nature of their markets.

Sandro Formica, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Marketing, ESSEC BusinessSchool, Institut de Management Hotelier International (IMHI), Avenue Bernard HirschB.P. 105, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise, France (E-mail: [email protected]).

Muzaffer Uysal, PhD, is Professor of Tourism, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 362 WallaceHall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The authors wish to express appreciation to contribution this manuscript toDr. D. R. Williams and to the US Forest Service for financial support.

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 9(3/4) 2002 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

A variety of descriptors and demand shifters are usually employed as asegmentation basis to understand similarities and or differences be-tween different market segments. These descriptors may include demo-graphic and socio-economic variables, travel behavior variables (e.g.,motivations, benefits-sought), psychographic variables (e.g., personal-ity types), and situational variables (e.g., seasonality of visitation pat-tern, origin of visitors and distance). Regardless of the descriptorsutilized, the delineation of existing market segments within the marketplace usually necessitates the use of two market segmentation methods.They are: (1) a priori market segmentation, and (2) a posteriori or fac-tor-cluster segmentation (Mazanec 1994, Uysal 1996).

A priori market segmentation is one in which the researcher at theoutset defines the basis for segmenting the market, and then with someselected descriptors the pre-determined segments are further profiled. Aposteriori segmentation is one in which the technique, a factor-cluster,delineates the existing segments based on a selected set of attitudinal orbehavioral variables. Once the segments are delineated, a profile of seg-ments is completed with respect to selected variables. In factor-clustersegmentation, researchers may use a discriminate analysis either to re-veal further information on the clusters or to classify segment member-ship with a holdout sample. The literature is replete with segmentationstudies that have employed both approaches (Spotts and Mahoney 1991,Fodness and Milner 1992, Hsieh, O’Leary and Morrison 1992, Lokerand Perdue 1992, Andereck and Caldwell 1994, Shoemaker 1994, Cha,McCleary and Uysal 1995, Baloglu and Uysal, 1996, Formica andUysal 1996, Silverberg et al. 1996, Lang, O’Leary and Morrison 1997,Opperman 1997, Formica and Uysal 1998, Bonn, Furr and Susskind1999).

This study uses the same methodology of Bonn, Furr and Susskind1999 in segmenting the travelers to Virginia. Some segmentation stud-ies have augmented market segmentation using a non-linear tech-nique–logistic regression for classification reason, rather than a lineardeterminant analysis for further profiling the segments. Most recently,Chen and Hsu (1999) provided an example of this particular approachin segmentation. In their study, Chen and Hsu examined Korean out-bound travelers as a study population and their choice preferences as thecriteria for segmentation. The use of two probability models-logistic re-gression and logit analysis-resulted in richer interpretation of distin-guishable market segments. Logistic regression revealed critical variablesdifferentiating the segments. Logit analysis further distinguished thedelineated segments with respect to different response levels within

36 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

each segment, thus allowing the researchers to have more detailed in-formation about the segments. This may not be obtained by conven-tional profiling of visitors based on comparisons and discriminantanalysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE AND MARKET SEGMENTS

Tourism has been recognized as one of the major socio-economicforces in the world. The very existence and long term success of tourismdepend not only on the management of cultural resources, human-builtattractions and infrastructure, but also on the conservation and protec-tion of the natural environment in which tourist experiences take place(Uysal, Jurowski, Noe and McDonald 1994). Several researchers haveexamined the impact of travel behavior on the physical environment(Pearce 1985, Farrell and McLellan 1987). Others have focused on theinteractions between tourists and destination residents as elements thataffect natural resource utilization (Long, Perdue and Allen, 1990; Ap1992; Jurowski, Uysal and Williams 1997). Perdue, Long and Allen(1990) and Jurowski, Uysal and Williams (1997) correlate resident sup-port for tourism activities with the economic benefits and resident op-position to tourism with negative social and environmental impacts.

In comparison, Sirakaya and McLellan (1998) have focused more onthe notion of compliance with resource use principles in natural envi-ronments and destinations. Recently, Jones, Jurowski and Uysal (2000)examined the relationship between destination residents’ attitudes aboutthe environment and the benefits and costs of various types of tourismdevelopment. Most of these studies reveal that the type of tourists andtourist activities a destination attracts may play a key role in determin-ing the environmental consequences of, and support for, tourism. There-fore, one’s environmental attitudes may be used to predict travel behaviorand help identify existing segments with differentiating features.

The literature is replete with studies that have examined environmen-tal attitudes, recreation behavior and the relationships between the two.Factors that influence environmental attitudes (Van Liere and Dunlap1980; Arcury 1990; Noe and Snow 1990) as well as the relationship be-tween demographic characteristics and environmental attitudes havebeen examined. Dunlap and Van Liere (1984) reviewed and analyzed awide range of studies reporting sociodemographic correlations of en-vironmental concern and concluded that this line of research has dem-onstrated only limited success in explaining environmental attitudes.

Sandro Formica and Muzaffer Uysal 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Ideological shifts in predicting environmental concern have also beenexplored by these two researchers. They discovered that an emerging“dominant social paradigm” could explain more variation in levels ofenvironmental concern than could sociodemographic variables. Con-sistent with this finding is the study by Samdahl and Robertson (1989),who suggested sociodemographic, residence, and political ideologyvariables are quite inadequate in explaining varying degrees of environ-mental support.

Recreational behavior also has been found to affect attitudes towardsthe environment. For example, Jackson (1987) found that people whoprefer outdoor recreation activities which were labeled appreciative(cross-country skiing, hiking) possess significantly more pro-environ-mental attitudes than those who prefer fishing and hunting or mecha-nized activities such as snowmobiling or trail biking (Jurowski, Uysaland Noe 1993). Jones, Jurowski and Uysal (2000) provide an excellentreview of environmental attitudes within the context of tourism devel-opment. Their study factored-clustered host residents using the revisedNew Environmental Paradigm (NEP). It then profiled the delineatedsegments which consist of conservationists, anthropocentrics, and opti-mists. The segments were defined based upon selected demographicvariables and their support for tourism development. The conservation-ists expressed stronger support for the development of ecotourism butwere less supportive of large-scale developments (theme parks andlarge resorts) than the other two groups. This suggests that hosts withdifferent viewpoints on the environment differ in their attitudes towardstourism development and its impact on themselves and the destination.

Though research has attempted to relate sociodemographic charac-teristics, beliefs and recreational activities to environmental attitudes,little has been done to investigate the environmental attitude of visitors.Specifically, there is scarce literature regarding trip type segmentationbased on environmental attitudes, sociodemographic and trip character-istics. This study seeks to uncover visitor characteristics that are linkedto environmental attitudes to assist destination marketers in the selec-tion of their target markets. The objective of this study is to segment vis-itors based on their environmental attitudes. Once segments have beendelineated, segments are profiled with respect to selected visitor andtrip characteristics. Segment descriptors include age, gender, maritalstatus, household size, income levels, overnight stays, visitor expendi-tures, size of travel party, visitation patterns, and destination attributes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

METHODOLOGY

Sampling. In reference to the sampling procedure, this study was per-formed in two stages. In the first stage (1992), mail omnibus question-naires were randomly mailed to a panel of 80,000 nationally representativehouseholds selected to conform to the latest available U.S. census data.In this mail survey, respondents were asked to indicate their travel expe-riences to Virginia and six more states, namely Kentucky, North CarolinaPennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. A simplerandom mailing to 80,000 panel households produced 54,000 (67.5%)usable responses, including 5,802 pleasure travelers to Virginia. The re-fined sampling frame identified households that had traveled to Vir-ginia and surrounding states. It also provided a significant amount ofdemographic travel data on each household.

In the second stage, telephone surveys were conducted. A structuredsample was built with quotas based on household distance to Virginiaso that sufficient numbers of travelers would be available for analysis.The study participants were selected from a sample of respondents fromthe 1992 first survey. This study population included two groups:(1) U.S. residents traveling from the District of Columbia and nine east-ern U.S. states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida;and (2) travelers to Virginia from states other than the aforementionedstates. The telephone survey ended in 1993 and generated approxi-mately 1,120 useful samples for the present analysis.

Environmental Attitude. The visitor’s attitude regarding the environ-ment was measured by the 15-item NEP (New Environmental Para-digm). The scale was originally developed by Dunlap and Van Liere(1978) and later revised by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, Catton and Howell(1992). Albrecht, Butena, Hoiberg and Nowak (1982), determined thatthe scale represents three attitudes while Geller and Lasley (1985) sug-gest it could represent as many as four.

In using the NEP scale in an ecotourism context, Uysal et al. (1994)concurred with the findings of Albrecht et al. (1982), and identified thesame three attitudes among ecotourists: limits to growth (ecocentric),man over nature (anthropocentric), and balance of nature. Only two atti-tudes, however, were identified in two other studies: conservationistsand consumptives as set forth by Silverberg, Backman and Backman(1996); Jurowski, Uysal and Noe (1993). The results showed that con-servationists yield greater economic benefits on the destination. Jones,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Jurowski and Uysal (2000) used the same scale to group residents basedon their environmental attitudes. In their study, three distinct clusterswere identified: conservationists, anthropocentrics and optimists.

Destination Attributes. Respondents were asked to indicate the ex-tent to which they agreed with the importance of destination attributesin selecting their pleasure trip. The response list consisted of 42 itemsrepresenting a broad range of destination attributes including thosemost commonly associated with destination selection (sightseeing, rec-reational activities, rest and relaxation, natural and cultural settings, andtravel experiences). In addition, the attributes were associated with thequality of services at the destination (a good value for a vacation trip,high quality services and accommodations, ease of getting around, anda clean and well maintained environment).

DATA ANALYSIS

The study consisted of four research steps (Figure 1). The first stepinvolved performing a factor-cluster analysis of NEP scale. The 15-itemNEP scale was factor analyzed using varimax rotation to identify theunderlying scale dimensions. The factor mean scores from the factoranalysis were then used to group the respondents using the K-meanscluster analysis algorithm. In the second step, the researchers comparedthe clusters on each of the factors revealed in the previous step usingmultiple discriminant analysis (MDA). The dependent variable in theMDA was cluster membership and the independent variables were thefactor scores on the NEP scale. The objective of performing MDA onthe analysis sample was to provide information as to which of the scaleitems was driving the differences. It was also performed to assess theaccuracy level of classification of segment membership.

Step three involved the use of factor analysis of the 42 destinationattributes. The purpose of this step was to reduce the number of destina-tion attributes to facilitate analysis. The final step compared the demo-graphic characteristics of the segment clusters using cross-tabulationprocedures. The clusters profile was based on gender distribution, agegroupings, household structures, and income levels. Using a one-wayanalysis of variance (ANOVA), the cluster segments were compared onthe specific types of delineated destination attributes, overnight stays,money spent, and travel party size.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

RESULTS

The results of the factor analysis using a varimax rotation indicatedthat four attitude types exist: awareness of the limits of nature, humanscan manage nature, humans have control over nature, and humans abuseand interfere with nature (Table 1).

The first factor, limits of nature, can be considered an ecocentric atti-tude because it represents the view that there is limited room on “space-ship earth” (factor loading = .802) and we are approaching a limit to thenumber of people on earth (.737). The humans can manage nature viewtends to lean more towards an anthropocentric attitude suggesting thathumans will not render the earth unlivable (.676). Humans over natureview is one that represents a strong anthropocentric attitude includingthe beliefs that plants and animals do not have the same right to exist ashumans (.638) and that humans are meant to rule over nature (.780).The last segment, humans abuse and interfere with nature, emphasized


Step

One

Two

Three

Four

Factor Analysis of the NewEnvironmental Paradigm itemsbased on responses of hostresidents

K-mean cluster analysis of theresulting factor scores to grouprespondents

Multiple Discriminant Analysisof clusters

Factor analysis of 42 destinationattributes

Tukey’s Multiple Range Test

ANOVA

Chi-Square

Purpose

To identify the underlying NEPscale dimensions and clusterrespondents accordingly

To identify the mostdifferentiating scale itemsamong clusters

To reduce the number of destinationattributes and to identify underlyingdestination attribute dimensions

To profile clusters based ondemographic characteristics andtravel behavior

FIGURE 1. Methodological Steps of the Study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

the attitude that humans are severely abusing nature (.634) and humaninterference with nature produces disastrous consequences (.682). Thefactor groupings had a reliability coefficient ranging from .616 for hu-mans can manage nature to .748 for limits of nature and explained 58%of the variance.

The K-means cluster analysis resulted in the identification of threesegment clusters with a final sample size of 1114. The segment clusterswere: (1) Conservationists (n = 351, 31.5% of the total sample); (2) An-thropocentrics (n = 149, 13.4% of the total sample), and (3) Optimists(n = 614, 55.1% of the total sample). The names were adopted from an


TABLE 1. Factor Analysis of NEP Scale

NEP items Limits ofNature

HumansCan Man-

ageNature

Humansover

Nature

HumansAbuse &

Interfere withNature

The earth is like a spaceship with very limited roomand resources

.802

We are approaching the limit of the number of peoplethe earth can support

.737

If things continue on their present course, we will soonexperience a major ecological catastrophe

.508

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset .498

The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind hasbeen greatly exaggerateda

.421

Human ingenuity will insure that we do Not make earthunlivable

.676

Humans eventually learn enough about hownature works to be able to control it

.733

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we justlearn how to develop them

.517

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope withthe impacts of modern industrial nations

.506

Plants and animals have as much right as humans toexista

.638

Humans were meant to rule over the rest ofnature

.780

Humans have the right to modify the naturalenvironment to suit their needs

.607

Humans are severely abusing the environment .634

When humans interfere with nature it oftenproduces disastrous consequences

.682

Despite our special abilities humans are stillsubject to the laws of nature

.656

Reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha)Eigenvalue

Variance explainedTotal variance explained

a these items are reverse coded; only factorloadings > . 40 are shown.

.74895.025

33.4958.03

.61641.0306.86

.68481.2668.44

.62471.3829.21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

earlier study completed by Jones, Jurowski and Uysal (2000). Table 2portrays the mean scores of each segment cluster on the four environ-mental attitude factors. The Conservationists have a strong feelingthat humans can manage nature (X = 1.491) and have a keen aware-ness of the limits of nature (X = 1.869). However, this segment doesnot accept the ability of humans to exert control over nature (X =4.137). The segment represents those individuals who believe thatthere are limits to the abuse nature can tolerate from human activity.Members of Segment Cluster 2, named the anthropocentrics believethat man can manage nature (X = 2.765) and disagree with the notionthat nature has limits (X = 3.679) although they appear to agree thathumans do abuse and interfere with nature (X = 1.976). The optimistsrepresent those who recognize the abuse and interference that humansinflict on nature (X = 2.197), but seem to feel nature is bountifulenough to manage it (X = 3.486 for humans over nature). Overall, theenvironmental viewpoints of the anthropocentrics are significantlydifferent from those of conservationists and optimists.

SPSS stepwise discriminant analysis was used to identify and delin-eate the NEP items that most effectively discriminated between the seg-ment clusters. According to the scores obtained from the Wilks’ lambdamethod, the NEP items that discriminated the most between the seg-ment clusters were: (1) despite our special abilities humans are still sub-ject to the laws of nature; (2) humans eventually learn enough abouthow nature works to be able to control it and (3) humans were meant torule over the rest of nature. The entire list of variables included in theNEP scale was used to discriminate between the clusters. Overall,97.4% of the grouped cases were correctly classified (Table 3).


TABLE 2. K-means Cluster Analysis of NEP Scale Factors

Factors from NEP scale Segment 1Conservationists(n = 351, 31.5%)

Segment 2Anthropocentric(n = 149, 13.4%)

Segment 3Optimists

(n = 614, 55.1%)

Limits of Nature 1.869a 3.679b 2.661c

Humans Can ManageNature

1.491a 2.765b 2.063c

Humans Over Nature 4.137a 2.454b 3.486c

Humans Abuse &Interfere with Nature

2.852a 1.976b 2.197c

Note: Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree); List wise deletions were used for the analysis resulting in atotal sample of 1114. Different superscripts (Tukey’s multiple range test) indicate significance at .05 or better probabilitylevel.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Demographic Analysis of the Segment Clusters

A number of demographic variables provide insight into the differ-ences in the three segment clusters. Significant differences in the demo-graphic characteristics of the segments were found in gender, maritalstatus, and income levels. The anthropocentric segment had the highestpercentage of males (49.3%). The conservationist segment had the lowestpercentage of those 60 and older (20.3%) and the second highest percent-age of female respondents (66.4%). On average, the conservationists tendto be young and single. The members of the anthropocentric segment areolder with 31.4% over 60. This segment has a higher income than theother groups (56.3 % over $50,000). The optimists have the highest per-centage of household size (39.6% over four individuals).

Trip Analysis of Segment Clusters

The factor analysis of the 42 destination attributes identified sixfactors: (1) resort/destination oriented, (2) sightseeing–natural/rural,(3) being with family members, (4) outdoor activities, (5) hunting/fish-ing/horseback riding, (6) events and theme parks. A one-way ANOVAwas performed to compare cluster membership as the dependent vari-able with each of the six destination factors as the independent vari-ables. The results of the ANOVA with its associated multiple rangetests indicated significant differences in the level of destination attrib-ute importance attached by segment members in selecting a pleasurevacation trip (Table 4). The results show that the conservationists andthe anthropocentrics attach significantly different levels of importanceto the following three destination factors: (1) sightseeing–natural/rural;(2) being with family members; (3) outdoor activities. The anthropocen-trics placed significantly less importance on the factor groupings of out-


TABLE 3. MDA Classification Results

Predicted Group Membership

Cluster NSegment 1

ConservationistsSegment 2

AnthropocentricsSegment 3Optimists

Segment 1Conservationists

351 339(96.6%)

0 12(3.4%)

Segment 2Anthropocentrics

149 0 142(95.3%)

7(4.7%)

Segment 3Optimists

614 4(.07%)

6(1.0%)

604(98.2%)

Note: 97.4 % of original grouped cases were correctly classified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

door activity and being with family members than did the two otherclusters. In comparison, the conservationists placed significantly moreimportance on the factor grouping of sightseeing–natural/rural. How-ever, all three segments value the factor grouping of resort/destinationoriented as equal with an average score of 3.5 or higher. The optimistshad the highest mean score for the factor grouping of events–themeparks (X = 2.779). However, the differences were not statistically sig-nificant.

Table 5 examines the selected trip characteristics of the three seg-ments with respect to number of vacation days, money spent on vaca-tion, and number of people in the travel group. Although there arevariations in the money spent by the three segments, there were no sta-tistically significant differences.

Table 6 displays primary trip destinations selected by segment. Citydestinations are mostly preferred by the anthropocentrics, whereassmall towns and rural areas are preferred destinations for the conserva-tionists.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of the statistical analysis show that there are three types oftravelers whose opinions on environmental issues affect their travel be-havior. These segments are different from each other in a variety ofways. Some of the findings correlate with earlier research that indicatedfemales and younger individuals are more concerned about environ-mental quality than their male counterparts (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980;


TABLE 4. Preferred Destination Attributes by Segments

Factors from DestinationAttributes

Segment 1Conservationists(31.5%)

Segment 2Anthropocentric(13.4%)

Segment 3Optimists(55.1%)

Sig. alpha

Resort/Destination Oriented 3.713a 3.577b 3.647b .242

Sightseeing–Natural/Rural

2.701a 2.557b 2.564c .068

Being with FamilyMembers

3.078a 2.820b 3.016a .009

Outdoor activities 1.518a 1.322b 1.406b .005

Hunting/Fishing/HorsebackRiding

1.451 1.333 1.389 .181

Events–Theme Parks 2.234 2.118 2.779 .214

Note: Different superscripts (Tukey’s multiple range test) indicate significance at .05 or better probability level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Jones, Jurowski and Uysal, 2000). Females have a stronger oppositionto anthropocentric attitudes. Demographics, however, play a minor rolein identifying environmentally sensitive travelers. Of greater signifi-cance is the trip behavior of travelers. Destination attribute preferencesseem to have important effects on the association and variation betweentravel behavior and environmental concerns. In this study, for example,visitors who prefer sightseeing in natural and rural areas appear to bemore pro-environmentalists. Also significant is the destination choiceof the traveler. Specifically, those who chose national forests and na-tional parks as their primary destinations disagreed strongly with thephilosophy of human domination over nature and were more concernedabout the balance of nature. These associations of the selected trip vari-ables with the measures of environmental attitude are consistent withprevious literature.

The conservationists are concerned that there are limits to the amountof abuse nature can withstand and that humans may not overcome this


TABLE 5. Selected Trip Variables by Segments

Trip Variable Segment 1Conservationists(31.5%)



Average number of days spent on trip 11.85 12.11 12.70

Average amount of money spent on trip $612.84 $719.55 $687.21

Average number of people in travel party 3.23 2.98 3.35

Note: ANOVA revealed no statistical differences

TABLE 6. Primary Destination for the Trip by Segments

Trip Variable Segment 1Conservationists(31.5%)



Theme or amusement park 2.4% 4.4% 5.9%

Beach Resort 11.8 10.3 13.9

Mountain Resort 4.4 5.1 5.3

City 13.5 20.6 12.5

Small towns or rural areas 23.6 17.6 18.4

Gold or tennis resort .3 2.2 1.7

National Parks or Forests 10.8 6.6 5.1

Exhibition or special event 9.1 4.4 8.2

Other 24.0 28.7 28.9

Note: Chi square significance level is .012.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

simply by managing and controlling resources. The anthropocentric’sview of the environment is that man can control nature and will solvethe problems that may exist with limits within nature. The optimists rec-ognize the fact that man can and does abuse nature, but believe that na-ture is bountiful and will recover.

The major limitation of this study is represented by the age of thedata, collected in 1992. The proprietary nature of the study delayed theopen dissemination of the information for many years. As a conse-quence, a systematic effort to publish the data began in the late 1990s. Inaddition, the NEP scale which was used to segment the visitors contin-ues to be relatively stable and the content of the scale has not beenchanged since it was refined in 1991 and 1992. Presently, no literaturehas investigated traveler’s segmentation using environmental attitudes.The study encourages researchers to incorporate environmental atti-tudes into travel studies since one’s attitude about nature and use of re-sources may influence destination selection process.

The subjects of this study are visitors of a relatively small and ruralregion of the country. Further studies are needed to identify how the dif-ferences might change with the level of maturity of a destination (Jones,Jurowski and Uysal, 2000). A comprehensive study of both hosts andvisitors would likely provide the destination with necessary tools for ef-fective marketing and sustainable tourism development.

REFERENCES

Andereck, K. L. and L. L. Caldwell (1994). Variable selection in tourism market seg-mentation models. Journal of Travel Research, 33 (2): 40-46.

Albrecht, D., Butena, G., Hoiberg, E. & Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmentalparadigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 39-43.

Ap, J. (1992). Residence perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research,19 (4), 665-690.

Arcury, A. T. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge, HumanOrganization, 49(4): 300-304.

Baloglu, S and M. Uysal (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: A ca-nonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 8 (3): 32-38.

Bonn, M., H. L. Furr and A. M. Susskind (1999). Predicting a behavioral profile forpleasure travelers on the basis of internet use segmentation. Journal of Travel Re-search, 37(4): 333-340.

Cha, S. K., McCleary, K. and M. Uysal (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese over-seas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research,34 (1): 33-39.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Chen, S. J. and C. H. C. Hsu (1999). The use of logit analysis to enhance market seg-mentation methodology. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(3):268-283.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. Van Liere (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposedmeasuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Educa-

tion, 9(4): 10-19.Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. Mertig, A. G., Catton, W. R. Jr. & Howell, R. E. (1992).

Measuring endorsement of an ecological worldview: a revised NEP scale. Presentedat the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. Van Liere. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigmand concern for environmental quality, Social Science Quarterly, 65(4): 1013-1028.

Farrell, B. H. and R. W. McLellan. (1987). Tourism and physical environment re-search, Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1): 1-16.

Fodness, D. D. and L. M. Milner (1992). A perceptual mapping approach to theme parkvisitor segmentation. Tourism Management, 13 (1): 95-101.

Formica, S. and M. Uysal (1996). A market segmentation of festival visitors: UmbriaJazz Festival in Italy. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 3 (1): 175-182.

Formica, S. and M. Uysal (1998). Market segmentation of an international cul-tural–historical event in Italy. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (4): 16-24.

Hsieh, S., O’Leary, J. T., A. M. Morrison (1992). Segmenting the international travelmarket by activity. Tourism Management, 13 (2): 209-223.

Geller, J. and P. Lasley. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamina-tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 17:9-12.

Jackson, E.L. (1987). Outdoor recreation participation and views on resource develop-ment and preservation, Leisure Sciences, 9: 235-250.

Jones, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal. (2000). Host community residents’ attitudes: Acomparison of environmental viewpoints. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(2):129-155.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. & Noe, F. (1993). U.S. Virgin Islands National Park: A fac-tor-cluster segmentation study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1 (4), 3-31.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host com-munity resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2), 3-11.

Lang, C. T., O’Leary, J. T., A. M. Morrison (1997). Distinguishing the destinationchoices of pleasure travelers from Taiwan. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-

keting, 6 (1); 21-40.Loker, L. E. and R. Perdue (1992). A benefit-based segmentation of a nonresident sum-

mer travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (1): 30-35.Long, P., Perdue, R. and L. Allen. (1990). Rural resident tourism perceptions and atti-

tude by community level of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(3): 3-9.Noe, F.P. and B. Snow. (1990). The new environmental paradigm and further scale

analysis, Journal of Environmental Education, 21(4): 20-25.Mazanec, J (1992). Classifying tourists into segment: A neural network approach.

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(1): 2-6.Pearce, D.G. (1985). Tourism and environmental research: A review. Journal of envi-

ronmental Studies, 25: 247-255.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Perdue, R., P. T. Long, and L. Allen (1990). Resident support for tourism development.Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4): 586-599.

Opperman, M. (1997). First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand. Tourism Man-agement, 18 (3): 177-181.

Sirakaya, E. & McLellan, R. W. (1998). Modeling tour compliance with ecotourismprinciples: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (3): 42-55.

Samdahl, D. M. and R. Robertson. (1989). Social determinants of environmental con-cern: specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21(1): 57-81.

Silverberg, K., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). A preliminary investigation intothe psychographics of nature-based travelers to the Southeastern United States.Journal of Travel Research, 35 (2), 2-21.

Shoemaker, S (1994). Segmentation of the US travel market according to benefits real-ized. Journal of Travel research, 32 (3): 8-21.

Spotts, D. M. and E. M. Mahoney (1991). Segmenting visitors to a destination regionbased on the volume of their expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (4):24-31.

Uysal, M., Jurowski, C., Noe, F. & McDonald, C. (1994). Environmental attitude bytrip and visitor characteristics. Tourism Management, 15 (4), 284-294.

Uysal, M (1996). Approaches and methods for segmentation of travel markets. Semi-nar conducted at the 27th Annual TTRA Conference, Las Vegas, June 16-19.

Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: Areview of hypotheses, explanation and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quar-terly, 44: 181-199.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

03 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Documents

Segmentation of Travelers Based on Environmental Attitudes