Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
3.1. Data and Choice Experiment
Name of the Indicator | Description | References |
---|---|---|
I1 | Connect the human being with nature | [48,49] |
I2 | Preserve nature | [50,51] |
I3 | Know and share the customs and traditions of the peoples | [52,53] |
I4 | Carry out agricultural and livestock activities in a traditional way and with low impact | [54,55] |
I5 | Promote the economic development of communities where ecotourism activities are carried out | [52,53] |
I6 | Enjoy the grandeur of the mountains and its landscape when walking on natural trails | [56,57] |
I7 | Observe birds and other species in their natural habitat | [58,59] |
I8 | Get to know the native flora | [59,60,61] |
I9 | Recover trails and routes for ecotourism purposes | [56,61] |
3.2. The Hybrid Choice Model
- (1)
- The MIMIC model
- (2)
- The choice model
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Practical Implications
6.2. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Indicator | Description | Factor Loadings * | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | ||
I1 | Connect the human being with nature | 0.698 | ||
I2 | Preserve nature | 0.549 | ||
I3 | Know and share the customs and traditions of the peoples | 0.432 | ||
I4 | Carry out agricultural and livestock activities in a traditional way and with low impact | 0.556 | ||
I5 | Promote the economic development of communities where ecotourism activities are carried out | 0.645 | ||
I6 | Enjoy the grandeur of the mountains and its landscape when walking on natural trails | 0.420 | ||
I7 | Observe birds and other species in their natural habitat | 0.813 | ||
I8 | Get to know the native flora | 0.619 | ||
I9 | Recover trails and routes for ecotourism purposes | 0.416 | ||
Factor labelling | Nature interaction | Community support | Nature connection | |
SS Loading | 1.507 | 1.326 | 1.240 | |
Explained Variance | 16.7% | 14.7% | 13.8% | |
Cumulative explained variance | 16.7% | 31.4% | 45.2% |
References
- UNWTO. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2020; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Karampela, S.; Andreopoulos, A.; Koutsouris, A. “Agro”, “Agri”, or “Rural”: The Different Viewpoints of Tourism Research Combined with Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltese, I.; Zamparini, L. Sustainable mobility choices at home and within destinations: A survey of young Italian tourists. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2023, 48, 100906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Fox, D. Modelling attitudes to nature, tourism and sustainable development in national parks: A survey of visitors in China and the UK. Tour. Manag. 2014, 45, 142–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honey, M. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- De Knop, P. Sport for all and active tourism. World Leis. Recreat. 1990, 32, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Börjes, I. Gran Canaria, 4. Aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage; Michael Müller Verlag Gmbh: Erlangen, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Giddy, J.K.; Webb, N.L. Environmental attitudes and adventure tourism motivations. GeoJournal 2018, 83, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulido-Fernández, J.I.; López-Sánchez, Y. Are tourists really willing to pay more for sustainable destinations? Sustainability 2016, 8, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budeanu, A. Sustainable tourist behaviour—A discussion of opportunities for change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordente-Rodríguez, M.; Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.A.; Villanueva-Álvaro, J.J. Sustainability of nature: The power of the type of visitors. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. (EEMJ) 2014, 13, 2437–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahnschafft, R.; Wolter, F. Assessing tourist willingness to pay for excursions on environmentally benign tourist boats: A case study and trend analysis from Berlin, Germany. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2023, 48, 100826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B. Sustainability and customers’ hotel choice behaviour: A choice-based conjoint analysis approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passafaro, P.; Cini, F.; Boi, L.; D’Angelo, M.; Heering, M.S.; Luchetti, L.; Triolo, M. The “sustainable tourist”: Values, attitudes, and personality traits. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2015, 15, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.A.C.; Fernández-Gámez, M.Á.; Guevara-Plaza, A.; Custódio Santos, M.; Pestana, M.H. The sustainable transformation of business events: Sociodemographic variables as determinants of attitudes towards sustainable academic conferences. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2023, 14, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passafaro, P. Attitudes and tourists’ sustainable behavior: An overview of the literature and discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 579–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sultana, N.; Amin, S.; Islam, A. Influence of perceived environmental knowledge and environmental concern on customers’ green hotel visit intention: Mediating role of green trust. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2022, 14, 223–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowacki, M.; Chawla, Y.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. What drives the eco-friendly tourist destination choice? The Indian perspective. Energies 2021, 14, 6237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinho, M.; Gomes, S. Generation Z as a critical question mark for sustainable tourism—An exploratory study in Portugal. J. Tour. Futures 2023. Forthcomming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puciato, D.; Szromek, A.R.; Bugdol, M. Willingness to pay for sustainable hotel services as an aspect of proenvironmental behavior of hotel guests. Econ. Sociol. 2023, 16, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, J.E.; Nuli, S. Millennials’ environmental awareness, price sensitivity and willingness to pay for Green Hotels. J. Tour. Hosp. Culin. Arts 2018, 10, 47–62. [Google Scholar]
- Nowacki, M.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J.; Chawla, Y. Gen Z’s Attitude towards Green Image Destinations, Green Tourism and Behavioural Intention Regarding Green Holiday Destination Choice: A Study in Poland and India. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragin, A.S.; Majstorović, N.; Janičić, B.; Mijatov, M.B.; Stojanović, V. Clusters of Generation Z and Travel Risks Perception: Constraining vs. Push–Pull Factors. In The Emerald Handbook of Destination Recovery in Tourism and Hospitality; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 375–395. [Google Scholar]
- Stojanović, V.; Ladičorbić, M.M.; Dragin, A.S.; Cimbaljević, M.; Obradović, S.; Dolinaj, D.; Jovanović, T.; Ivkov-Džigurski, A.; Dunjić, J.; Knežević, M.N.; et al. Tourists’ Motivation in Wetland Destinations: Gornje Podunavlje Special Nature Reserve Case Study (Mura-Drava-Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve). Sustainability 2023, 15, 9598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos-Soria, J.A.; Núñez-Carrasco, J.A.; García-Pozo, A. Environmental concern and destination choices of tourists: Exploring the underpinnings of country heterogeneity. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, F.; Pintassilgo, P.; Pinto, P. Environmental awareness of surf tourists: A case study in the Algarve. J. Spat. Organ. Dyn. 2015, 3, 102–113. [Google Scholar]
- Hole, A.R.; Kolstad, J.R. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: A comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir. Econ. 2012, 42, 445–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albaladejo, I.P.; Díaz-Delfa, M.T. The effects of motivations to go to the country on rural accommodation choice: A hybrid discrete choice model. Tour. Econ. 2021, 27, 1484–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masiero, L.; Hrankai, R. Modeling tourist accessibility to peripheral attractions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 92, 103343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, H.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H. Can nudging affect tourists’ low-carbon footprint travel choices? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2023; Forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bliemer, M.C.; Rose, J.M. Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2010, 44, 720–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications; Manski, C., McFadden, D., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981; pp. 198–272. [Google Scholar]
- Pesonen, J.A. Targeting rural tourists in the internet: Comparing travel motivation and activity-based segments. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 32, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.0. User Manual & Reference Guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design. 2009. Available online: www.choice-metrics.com (accessed on 4 November 2023).
- Ruhanen, L.; Weiler, B.; Moyle, B.D.; McLennan, C.L.J. Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 517–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wall, G. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environ. Manag. 1997, 21, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1168–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, M.S. The statistical conception of mental factors. Br. J. Psychol. 1937, 28, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. A second generation little juffy. Psychometrika 1970, 35, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, R.; Ali, A.; Galaski, K. Mobilizing knowledge: Determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 1547–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunt, P.; Courtney, P. Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 493–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCool, S.F. Constructing partnerships for protected area tourism planning in an era of change and messiness. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bimonte, S.; Faralla, V. Happiness and nature-based vacations. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 46, 176–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, W.; Xue, X. The differences in ecotourism between China and the West. Curr. Issues Tour. 2008, 11, 567–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neger, C.; Propin Frejomil, E. Regional Ecotourism Networks: Experiences and Lessons from Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Ann. Austrian Geogr. Soc. 2018, 160, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Root-Bernstein, M.; Rosas, N.A.; Osman, L.P.; Ladle, R.J. Design solutions to coastal human-wildlife conflicts. J. Coast. Conserv. 2012, 16, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baral, N.; Stern, M.J.; Hammett, A.L. Developing a scale for evaluating ecotourism by visitors: A study in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 975–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Development and validation of the ecotourism behavior scale. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastian, C.T.; McLeod, D.M.; Germino, M.J.; Reiners, W.A.; Blasko, B.J. Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: A hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buzinde, C.N.; Kalavar, J.M.; Melubo, K. Tourism and community well-being: The case of the Maasai in Tanzania. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 44, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prazeres, L.; Donohoe, H. The Visitor Sensescape in Kluane National Park and Reserve, Canada. J. Unconv. Parks Tour. Recreat. Res. 2014, 5, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
- Lawson, R.W.; Williams, J.; Young, T.; Cossens, J. A comparison of residents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtin, S. Wildlife tourism: The intangible, psychological benefits of human–wildlife encounters. Curr. Issues Tour. 2009, 12, 451–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathis, A.; Rose, J. Balancing tourism, conservation, and development: A political ecology of ecotourism on the Galapagos Islands. J. Ecotourism 2016, 15, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Contingent valuation of ecotourism development in country parks in the urban shadow. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santarém, F.; Silva, R.; Santos, P. Assessing ecotourism potential of hiking trails: A framework to incorporate ecological and cultural features and seasonality. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 190–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Mark. Sci. 1986, 5, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.; McFadden, D.; Gärling, T.; Gopinath, D.; Walker, J.; Bolduc, D.; Börsch-Supan, A.; Delquié, P.; Larichev, O.; Morikawa, T.; et al. Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior. Mark. Lett. 1999, 10, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.; McFadden, D.; Train, K.; Walker, J.; Bhat, C.; Bierlaire, M.; Bolduc, D.; Boersch-Supan, A.; Brownstone, D.; Bunch, D.S.; et al. Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mark. Lett. 2002, 13, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bierlaire, M. Estimating Choice Models with Latent Variables with PandasBiogeme; Report TRANSP-OR 181227; EPFL: Laussane, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Buffa, F. Young tourists and sustainability. Profiles, attitudes, and implications for destination strategies. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14042–14062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cakici, A.C.; Harman, S. Leisure involvement of Turkish birdwatchers. Anatolia 2007, 18, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavagnaro, E.; Staffieri, S.; Carrieri, A.; Burns, K.; Chen, N.; Fermani, A. Profiling for sustainable tourism: Young travellers’ self-transcendence values and motivations. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 28, 2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Activa Canarias. Turismo Activo y Ecoturismo en Gran Canaria. 2023. Available online: https://www.turismoactivocanarias.com/single-post/activa-canarias-reflexiona-sobre-turismo-activo-y-ecoturismo-en-gran-canaria (accessed on 6 December 2023).
Attributes (Name of the Variable) * | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 |
---|---|---|---|
Price of the package per person/2 nights (P) | 80 € | 60 € | 40 € |
Type of accommodation (AC) | Tent (AC = 0) | Rural House (AC = 1) | - |
Cultural Trail (CT) | Not included in the package (CT = 0) | Included in the package (CT = 1) | - |
Active hiking (AH) | Not included in the package (AH = 0) | Included in the package (AH = 1) | - |
Diving/snorkelling (DS) | Not included in the package (DS = 0) | Included in the package (DS = 1) | - |
Stargazing workshop (SG) | Not included in the package (SG = 0) | Included in the package (SG = 1) | - |
Parameter and Variable Names | Estimated Coefficient | Std. Err. | t-Test | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Choice model parameters | ||||||
ASC3 × nature connection | 1.250 | 0.180 | 6.93 | 0.000 | ||
ASC3 | −3.180 | 0.298 | −10.70 | 0.000 | ||
Accommodation × community support | 0.133 | 0.060 | 2.21 | 0.027 | ||
Accommodation | 0.394 | 0.063 | 6.25 | 0.000 | ||
Active hiking × nature interaction | 0.662 | 0.085 | 7.76 | 0.000 | ||
Active hiking | 0.076 | 0.131 | 0.58 | 0.561 | ||
Cultural trail × community support | 0.815 | 0.096 | 8.46 | 0.000 | ||
Cultural trail | −0.015 | 0.103 | −0.14 | 0.886 | ||
Diving/snorkelling × nature interaction | 0.521 | 0.075 | 6.97 | 0.000 | ||
Diving/snorkelling | 0.767 | 0.115 | 6.64 | 0.000 | ||
Price | −0.042 | 0.002 | −20.60 | 0.000 | ||
Stargazing × nature interaction | 0.504 | 0.090 | 5.61 | 0.000 | ||
Stargazing | −0.214 | 0.142 | −1.51 | 0.131 | ||
Measurement model parameters | ||||||
LV community support | ||||||
Intercept I4 | −0.209 | 0.028 | −7.36 | 0.000 | ||
Intercept I5 | 0.134 | 0.028 | 4.80 | 0.000 | ||
Intercept I9 | 0.175 | 0.028 | 6.16 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I4 | 1.100 | 0.028 | 40.10 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I5 | 1.010 | 0.028 | 36.40 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I9 | 1.040 | 0.029 | 36.40 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I4 | 0.941 | 0.015 | 63.60 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I5 | 0.963 | 0.015 | 63.20 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I9 | 0.949 | 0.016 | 61.40 | 0.000 | ||
LV Nature interaction | ||||||
Intercept I7 | −1.320 | 0.052 | −25.20 | 0.000 | ||
Intercept I8 | −1.290 | 0.046 | −27.90 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I7 | 1.210 | 0.034 | 35.20 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I8 | 1.190 | 0.030 | 39.90 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I7 | 1.200 | 0.019 | 63.40 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I8 | 0.990 | 0.016 | 61.90 | 0.000 | ||
LV Nature connection | ||||||
Intercept I2 | 0.488 | 0.048 | 10.10 | 0.000 | ||
Slope I2 | 1.440 | 0.041 | 35.00 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation I2 | 1.100 | 0.023 | 47.00 | 0.000 | ||
Threshold parameter | 1.200 | 0.011 | 114.00 | 0.000 | ||
Threshold parameter | 0.702 | 0.013 | 52.80 | 0.000 | ||
Structural model parameters | ||||||
Intercept community support | 0.915 | 0.038 | 24.30 | 0.000 | ||
Intercept nature interaction | 1.640 | 0.040 | 41.00 | 0.000 | ||
Intercept nature connection | 1.590 | 0.044 | 36.60 | 0.000 | ||
Gender in community support | −0.238 | 0.024 | −10.10 | 0.000 | ||
Gender in nature interaction | −0.184 | 0.025 | −7.47 | 0.000 | ||
Gender in nature connection | −0.178 | 0.027 | −6.56 | 0.000 | ||
Age in community support | −0.053 | 0.024 | −2.16 | 0.031 | ||
Age in nature interaction | −0.138 | 0.026 | −5.39 | 0.000 | ||
Age in nature connection | −0.064 | 0.028 | −2.27 | 0.023 | ||
Work in community support | −0.087 | 0.030 | −2.93 | 0.003 | ||
Work in nature interaction | −0.066 | 0.031 | −2.14 | 0.032 | ||
Work in nature connection | 0.037 | 0.034 | 1.08 | 0.280 | ||
Resi in community support | 0.071 | 0.031 | 2.29 | 0.022 | ||
Resi in nature interaction | −0.134 | 0.033 | −4.11 | 0.000 | ||
Resi in nature connection | −0.432 | 0.037 | −11.70 | 0.000 | ||
Income in community support | −0.027 | 0.032 | −0.84 | 0.399 | ||
Income in nature interaction | 0.037 | 0.034 | 1.10 | 0.273 | ||
Income in nature connection | −0.212 | 0.037 | −5.73 | 0.000 | ||
Standard deviation structural model | 0.702 | 0.013 | 52.80 | 0.000 | ||
Initial log-likelihood: | −121,639.9 | |||||
Final log-likelihood: | −67,644.8 | |||||
Rho-square | 0.444 | |||||
N | Number of observations | 5712 | ||||
Number of respondents | 476 | |||||
Respondents’ characteristics | ||||||
- Males | 241 (50.6%) | |||||
- Age > 22 | 266 (55.9%) | |||||
- Active workers | 254 (53.4%) | |||||
- Residents | 238 (50.0%) | |||||
- Monthly income (average) | EUR 481 |
Socioeconomic Group | Willingness to Pay (EUR) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accommodation in a Rural House | Cultural Trail | Active Hiking | Diving/Snorkelling | Stargazing | |
Gender | |||||
Female | 12.11 | 16.21 | 25.29 | 36.79 | 12.77 |
Male | 11.35 | 11.59 | 21.81 | 34.04 | 10.12 |
Age | |||||
Younger than 22 years | 11.99 | 15.51 | 25.16 | 36.68 | 12.67 |
Older than 22 years | 11.51 | 12.58 | 22.24 | 34.38 | 10.44 |
Active worker | |||||
No | 11.96 | 15.33 | 23.50 | 35.37 | 11.40 |
Yes | 11.52 | 12.60 | 23.56 | 35.42 | 11.45 |
Resident of Gran Canaria | |||||
No | 11.50 | 12.50 | 24.26 | 35.97 | 11.98 |
Yes | 11.95 | 15.24 | 22.80 | 34.82 | 10.87 |
Total | 11.72 | 13.87 | 23.53 | 35.40 | 11.43 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fichter, T.; Martín, J.C.; Román, C. Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416852
Fichter T, Martín JC, Román C. Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416852
Chicago/Turabian StyleFichter, Tim, Juan Carlos Martín, and Concepción Román. 2023. "Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416852
APA StyleFichter, T., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2023). Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products. Sustainability, 15(24), 16852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416852