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: Silvia.Wurzinger@gmx.at

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!