Promoting Ecotourism Among Young People: A Segmentation Strategy

http://eab.sagepub.com/Environment and Behavior

http://eab.sagepub.com/content/44/1/87The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0013916510389313

2010 2012 44: 87 originally published online 22 NovemberEnvironment and Behavior

Francesca Cini, Luigi Leone and Paola PassafaroStrategy

Promoting Ecotourism Among Young People: A Segmentation  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Environmental Design Research Association

can be found at:Environment and BehaviorAdditional services and information for    

  http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://eab.sagepub.com/content/44/1/87.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Nov 22, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Dec 30, 2011Version of Record >>

by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Environment and Behavior44(1) 87 –106

© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0013916510389313

http://eab.sagepub.com

389313 EAB

© The Author(s) 2012

1Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Corresponding Author:Francesca Cini, Department of Psychology of Socialization and Developmental Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected]

Promoting Ecotourism Among Young People: A Segmentation Strategy

Francesca Cini1, Luigi Leone1, and Paola Passafaro1

Abstract

Ecotourism in natural protected areas is receiving growing international rec-ognition as a means to enhance sustainability. Nonetheless, research on eco-tourism and, in particular, on young ecotourists segmentation is still scarce. This study aimed at segmenting the market of young tourists using a range of psychosociological factors. First, a sample of 365 young tourists was seg-mented on the basis of holiday motivations (considered driving factors of attitudes and behaviors). Second, each group identified was characterized by a consistent set of other psychosociological variables, such as personal-ity traits, personal values, general environmental beliefs, and behavioral variables (ecotourism behavioral intentions and consumption habits). The results show that about 80% of the sample would be open to the ecotour-ism, and different communication strategies for promoting ecotourism for different segments of potential ecotourists are also proposed.

Keywords

ecotourism, market segmentation, communication strategies, environmental psychology

Article

88 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

Several international organizations have highlighted the relevance of natural areas as social, cultural, and economic resources (International Union for Con-servation of Nature, 1998; International Union for Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environment Programme, & World Wildlife Fund, 1991). Ecotourism represents one of the means to link these beneficial elements. The European charter for sustainable tourism in protected areas (Europarc Federation, 2002), that is consistent with suggestions expressed by Agenda 21 and the European Union recommendations, emphasized the growing importance of sustainable tourism for (a) increasing awareness of, and support for, pro-tected European areas because of their importance for the future generations and (b) improving tourism management and supporting sustainable development.

According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2002), ecotourism (a) is an all-nature-based form of tourism in which the tourists’ main motiva-tion is the enjoyment of wilderness and of the traditional cultures inhabiting natural areas; (b) generally includes educational content; (c) is typically, albeit not exclusively, organized for small groups of tourists by small locally owned firms; (d) minimizes the potential negative impact of tourism on the natural and cultural environment; (e) generates economic benefits for the local community (job creation and revenue); and (f) increases awareness of biodiversity conservation principles among locals and tourists. To summa-rize, ecotourism encompasses environmentally sustainable behaviors and also the social, cultural, and economic development of the territory and the local population (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002; Carrus, Bonaiuto, & Bonnes, 2005; Donohoe & Needham, 2006; Holden, 2000; Hunter & Green, 1995).

In light of its far-reaching potential benefits, local promotion of well-managed, environmentally sustainable ecotourism appears crucial, particu-larly among younger individuals because of their higher potential to spread ecological awareness in the foreseeable future. Targeting young people may enable them to create bonds with the natural environment while promoting proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Advertising ecotourism among young people also reflects the assumption about their active role in the con-struction of a more sustainable future. Young people will need to assume responsibility to preserve the current and the future quality of natural environ-ment (e.g., Jensen & Schnack, 1997; Maggi, Beato, Fasanella, & Lombardo, 2001).

Ecotourism promotion might be fostered by identifying the motivational and psychological roots of ecotourism and elaborating appropriate communi-cation strategies for ecotourism advertisement. Such a marketing approach may prove a valuable strategy for ecotourism promotion. This approach would require examining the targets’ needs, motivations, and expectations to gain a

Cini et al. 89

better understanding of the elements that can affect tourism-related behavior. Identifying the factors linked to tourists’ preferences and behaviors is crucial to foreseeing their potential travel choices (Bradley, Waliczek, & Zajicek, 1997; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Raj, 2004; Um & Crompton, 1990). In this regard, within the social psychology literature, an influential model is the the-ory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1988, 1991, 2000). The TPB states that evaluations of the possible alternatives and outcomes are at the basis of indi-vidual choices. More specifically, behavioral intentions, based on the attitudes toward a specific behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral con-trol, are considered the most proximal antecedents of actual behaviors.

Even environmental psychology research and theorizing have developed several models to understand the relationship between psychological factors and ecological choices and behaviors (such as ecotourism). According to the value–belief–norm theory (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999), proenvironmental attitudes and personal values are viewed as factors that can shape ecological behaviors. Values linked to historical and cultural heritage provide criteria for decisions and behavioral choices, as shown by empirical evidence in diverse behavioral domains such as recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Nielsen & Ellington, 1983) and energy saving (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985). Nevertheless, individuals’ characteristics are not homogeneous and may vary according to several social and personal factors. For this reason, one marketing approach is to segment the target population into ideally homo-geneous subgroups, to match the product’s specificities with the public’s spe-cific demands (e.g., Addis & Podestà, 2005; Christensen, Torp, & Firat, 2005; Jain & Kaur, 2004; Kotler, 1988; Kotler & Roberto, 2002; Proctor & Kitchen, 2002). Although several studies of young tourist market segmenta-tion have been carried out, the evidence gathered so far has not been used for promoting ecotourism among the younger generation. This is surprising because youth tourist sector, aged 16 to 24, which accounts for 20% of the international tourism market, is growing faster than most other travel segments with a global volume growth of 3% to 5% a year (WTO, 2008). Here, we aimed at applying a marketing segmentation approach to a sample of potential young tourists.

Tourists and Ecotourists SegmentationConsumers’ characteristics are the key elements of the marketing strategy. These represent the starting point for the identification of product qualities that better respond to consumers’ preferences. Communication strategies for promoting ecotourism could be developed on the basis of the target popula-tion’s needs, motivations, interests, and expectations, which are the driving

90 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

forces behind attitudes and behaviors. Hence, it is important to apply a segmen-tation strategy that would identify homogeneous subsets that could be targeted by specifically tailored communication strategies.

TypologiesThe social-psychological literature on tourism has offered several different theoretical or empirical types of tourists. Two of the best-known models are Cohen’s (1972) theoretical typology and the empirical typology developed by Plog (1974, 1987). Cohen proposed a tourist typology based on the concept of need for familiarity. This typology specifies four distinct segments: (a) orga-nized mass tourists, that is, tourists with conventional habits who seek famil-iar holiday situations where they feel safe; these tourists prefer to spend their leisure time in a single place, enjoying the weather, food, and comfortable resorts, and they usually dislike exciting new experiences; (b) individual mass tourists, that is, travelers who often use the same facilities as organized mass tourists but who are more likely to make more individual and independent decisions; unlike organized mass tourists, they prefer to visit more than a sin-gle place, carefully plan the tour before leaving, and look for those archeologi-cal sites, monuments, and artistic locations that make a destination unique and original; (c) explorers, that is, travelers who tend to share the same facilities preferred by mass tourists, but these individuals organize their trip by them-selves and prefer going off the beaten track and getting in touch with locals; (d) drifters, that is, adventurous travelers who look for novel, diversity-oriented, and “authentic” experiences. These tourists prefer to leave home without a specific destination in mind and visit unusual destinations. For the drifters, a trip has an existential meaning, and frequently they do not even call themselves tourists.

Plog’s (1974, 1987) psychographic model specifies three types of travelers arranged along a continuous dimension on the basis of their personality traits. The allocentrics are placed at one extreme of this continuum. They are travel-ers who enjoy adventure, novelty, exciting experiences, and not-organized tours; they prefer traveling by airplane and staying in nonconventional accommo-dation, with minimum comforts and services; they enjoy getting in touch with different cultures and foreign populations. At the opposite extreme of the dim-ension, the psychocentrics are anxious travelers, with no appetite for adven-tures and new experiences; they choose well-known and popular destinations, enjoy relaxing activities, and prefer traveling by car and staying in conven-tional full-comfort resorts. The intermediate type is the midcentrics, holding the middle ground between the tried-and-true preference of the psychocentrics and the variety-seeking needs of the allocentrics.

Cini et al. 91

Other attempts have been made to distinguish tourist segments empirically. A few of them have focused specifically on younger targets. A recent study by Richards and Wilson (2003) analyzed the young tourist market in different countries (Canada, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Mexico, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, and Great Britain). On the basis of motivations and behav-iors, Richards and Wilson identified three groups of young tourists: (a) back-packers, who are relatively older (above 26) and more experienced travelers; they seek novelty and contact with fellow travelers and are more likely to use specialist travel agents; their favorite destinations are South-East Asia, Australasia, and South America and tend to prefer air transport and trains or to hitchhike; they end up spending the most on their holidays because of their tendency to travel for longer periods; (b) travelers, who are driven by the need to belong and frequently visit friends and relatives during their trip; their favorite destination is North America, and they are more likely to rent a car to reach their destination; (c) tourists, who mainly seek to relax and more often use mainstream travel organizations and organized tour buses to reach their destinations. Despite the above-mentioned differences among these groups, the three types of young tourist frequently share the same kind of activ-ities: visiting historic sites and monuments, trekking, sitting in cafes/restaurants, and shopping.

Even in the very specific domain of ecotourism, market segmentation typol-ogies differ in their theoretical and empirical nature. For example, Lindberg (1991) theoretically distinguished four ecotourism market segments along a hard-to-soft spectrum (Laarman & Durst, 1987) that takes into account the different motivations and behaviors. This approach identified (a) hardcore nature tourists—scientific researchers or individuals who travel for education-related purposes; (b) dedicated nature tourists—people traveling to protected areas to understand local, natural, and cultural history; (c) mainstream nature tourists—people who visit renowned wilderness destinations; and (d) casual nature tourists—people who come into close contact with nature only inciden-tally while in a holiday trip (see Galley & Clifton, 2004). A different study (Weaver & Lawton, 2002) identified still another typology: (a) harder ecotourists—travelers who display a strong affinity with typical proenvironmental atti-tudes (conservation and sustainability) and prefer traveling in small groups; harder ecotourists favor long trips with few, if any, services provided; in addi-tion, they are physically active and enjoy challenging activities, and are experienced in making their own travel arrangements and emphasizes the function of traveling as an existential experience; (b) softer ecotourists—travelers who appreciate ecotourism but like equally more traditional holi-days; softer ecotourists prefer to travel in large groups and to plan multipurpose short trips; in addition, they are not very physically active, request comforts

92 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

and good quality service, and tend to rely on travel agencies and tour opera-tors; and (c) structured ecotourists—these travelers are similar to harder eco-tourists in their strong environmental commitment and their level of physical activity; nonetheless, structured ecotourists are also close to softer ecotourists in their preference for multipurpose and short trips, larger groups, and premium services.

Other ecotourist typologies may be found in the existing literature, such as that developed by Palacio and McCool (1997) on the basis of travel benefits, that developed by Blamey and Braithwaite (1997) on the basis of social val-ues, or that developed by Luzar, Diagne, Gan, and Henning (1998) on the basis of the new environmental paradigm. The variety of typologies found in the tourism/ecotourism literature could be partly traced back to the limited number of segmentation variables: the need for familiarity (Cohen, 1972), personality traits and tourism habits (Plog, 1974, 1987), motivations and behaviors (Lindberg, 1991; Richards & Wilson, 2003), and travel benefits (Palacio & McCool, 1997). Few studies have considered a larger number of segmentation variables (e.g., Weaver & Lawton, 2002). This more complex and comprehensive approach seems particularly appropriate once one real-izes that diverse psychosociological aspects can affect people’s holiday pref-erences and behavioral patterns. Furthermore, most studies on ecotourism have considered adult groups, whereas preferences for ecotourism among younger individuals remain relatively underresearched, despite the increasing eco-nomic relevance of younger cohorts for the tourism sector.

The study reported herein aimed at identifying sound market segments of young tourists, using a broad range of psychosociological factors. First, a sample of potential young tourists was segmented on the basis of holiday motivations as driving forces behind attitudes and behaviors; then, each group was marked by a set of psychosociological variables such as personal-ity traits, personal values, and environmental general beliefs. Behavioral vari-ables were also considered (ecotourism behavioral intentions and consumption behavior habits). Building on such segmentation, we will highlight the eco-tourism attributes that best fit young tourists’ needs and expectations, and use this information to propose specific communication strategies for promoting ecotourism.

MethodParticipants and Procedure

A total of 365 students from high schools in the Rome area participated in the study (170 males, 188 females, 7 subjects have not reported gender, mean age

Cini et al. 93

18.9). Under the supervision of a graduate student, the participants filled in a questionnaire, including the measures described below.

MeasuresThe New Ecological Paradigm Scale is a 15-item instrument (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) measuring two general belief dimensions about the natural environment: an anthropocentrism dimension and an ecocentrism dimension. Responses are given on a 4-point scale, with “completely disagree” and “completely agree” as anchors. Exemplar items for the ecocentric view dimension are as follows: “We are approaching the limit the earth can sup-port; when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous conse-quences”; “plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.” Exemplar items for the anthropocentric dimension are “Humans have the right to mod-ify the natural environment to suit their needs”; “the earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them”; and “the balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of modern industrial nations.” Satis-factory reliability was observed for the ecocentrism score (.70), but low reli-ability was found for the anthropocentrism scale (.52).

A Holiday Motivations Scale was developed ad hoc. On the basis of the psychological and sociological tourist literature (see also Kakyom, Jeonghee, & Jogaratnam, 2006), six holiday motivation dimensions tapping into the fol-lowing needs were identified: knowledge, belongingness, self-actualization, relaxation and getaway, self-esteem, and fun and entertainment (Losito, Metastasio, Rimano, & Cini, 2003). The scale includes 59 items (5 to 7 items for each dimension). The participants were asked to indicate how important each item was to them on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all important; 4 = extremely important). Tapping knowledge needs, the scale contained items such as “exp-eriencing a new culture” and “increasing knowledge about the natural envi-ronment.” For belongingness needs, the scale contained items such as “visiting friends and relatives,” “to be together with my family,” and “experiencing pleasant moments with my friends.” For self-actualization needs, exemplar items were “rediscovering myself,” “being daring and adventurous,” and “put-ting myself to the test.” For relaxation and escape needs, the scale contained items such as “to reduce stress,” “escaping from ordinary responsibilities,” and “being physically or emotionally refreshed.” For self-esteem needs, exem-plar items read “to get prestige” and “to visit places recommended and appre-ciated by friends.” Finally, for fun and entertainment needs, the scale contained items such as “enjoying good weather” and “having fun or being entertained.” Table 1 shows that principal component analysis (PCA) supported a five-factor structure (explaining 45.27% of the total variance): (a) conformism and social

94 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

recognition (eigenvalue = 7.07), (b) knowledge and discovery (eigenvalue = 5.16), (c) escape and fun (eigenvalue = 3.17), (d) personal well-being and belonging needs (eigenvalue = 2.56), and (e) loneliness and adventure (eigen-value = 1.95). The scree plot of eigenvalues suggested that no further factors contained reliable systematic variance. Satisfactory reliabilities were observed for the scale scores (.81, .84, .82, .78, and .60).

Postmaterialistic/materialistic values. The scale contains three separate bat-teries of items corresponding to potentially desirable goals at political, economic, and societal levels. Each battery is composed of four items, two referring to postmaterialistic values and the other two referring to materialistic values. The postmaterialistic values considered in Inglehart’s (1977) instrument are (a) seeing that people have more to say about how things are done in their jobs and in their communities; (b) trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful; (c) giving people more say in important political decisions about topics such as the natural environment, peace, justice, and so on; (d) protecting freedom of speech; (e) progressing toward a less impersonal and more humane society; and (f) progressing toward a society in which ideas count more than money. In contrast, the materialistic values considered are (a) maintaining a high level of economic growth, (b) making sure this country has strong defense forces, (c) maintaining order in the nation, (d) fighting rising prices, (e) achiev-ing a stable economy, and (f) fighting crime. For each battery, the respondents were asked to choose their two most important goals.

Consumption habits. A 37-item scale was developed ad hoc for this study. The scale was based on a preliminary instrument developed by L. Cannavò (personal communication of 8 February 2006). The scale investigates how

Table 1. Principal Component Analysis on Holiday Motivation Scale

Factors

1 2 3 4 5

Eigenvalues 7.07 5.16 3.17 2.56 1.95Loadings

range0.40-0.75 0.40-0.76 0.46-0.67 0.43-0.81 0.34-0.69

Number of items

10 11 11 7 5

Example items

“To feel important because visiting noticeable places,” “To visit places considered adventurous”

“To experience new cultures,” “To satisfy intellectual curiosity”

“To forget duties and responsibilities,” “To escape from everyday life”

“Taking care of your own health,” “To meet attractive members of the opposite sex”

“To visit lonely places,” “To be away from people”

Cini et al. 95

often respondents perform a set of behaviors in various domains: environ-mental sustainability (e.g., recycling, paying attention to energy saving, using bicycles or public transport to travel), sensitivity to issues concerning the natural environment (e.g., reading proenvironmental magazines, spending my holidays in the countryside, visiting beautiful landscapes), general knowledge and culture (e.g., visiting art exhibitions, visiting archaeological sites, reading poems and novels), and use and consumption of natural medicine and organic food (e.g., using natural medical products, using homeopathic products, eat-ing organic food). The respondents were asked to indicate their consumption habits on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often).

PCA, summarized in Table 2, supported a four-factor structure (explain-ing 46.75% of the total variance): (a) culture and environmental awareness (eigenvalue = 4.90), (b) alcoholic beverages (eigenvalue = 2.50), (c) move-ment (eigenvalue = 2.06), and (d) natural remedies and biological food (eigenvalue = 1.76). The scree plot of eigenvalues suggested that no further factors reflected systematic sources of variance. Satisfactory reliabilities were observed for the scale scores (.81, .82, .71, and .62).

Big Five. An adjective checklist was used (Perugini & Leone, 1996) com-posed of 50 personality adjectives (10 for each factor). Respondents were asked to indicate (on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 [not at all] to 7 [very much]) how much each adjective described them. Satisfactory reliabilities were found for the scale scores (.80, .83, .79, and .81), with the exception of intellect/openness (.52).

Table 2. Principal Component Analysis on Consumption Habits Scale

Factors

1 2 3 4

Eigenvalues 4.90 2.50 2.06 1.76Loadings

range0.29-0.78 0.82-0.85 0.62-0.85 0.32-0.80

Number of items

11 3 3 6

Example items

“To visit art places,” “To visit natural places”

“I drink beer,” “I drink super alcoholics”

“I use private transportation,” “I use public transportation”

“To cure myself, I use natural products”; “To cure myself, I use homeopathic products”

96 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

Finally, the questionnaire explored the participants’ ecotourism behavioral intentions: “Would you like to visit a natural protected area?” A dichotomous (yes/no) response format was used.

Data AnalysisTo segment the participants, a cluster analysis (CA) by means of a k-means clustering algorithm was carried out on the five dimensions emerging from the PCA on the Holiday Motivations Scale; then, to discriminate among the different groups identified by the CA results, a discriminant analysis (DA) was conducted on the basis of a set of relevant psychosociological dimensions (predictors).

ResultsYoung Tourists Segmentation

We assumed that analyzing holiday motivations was crucial for gaining a better understanding of people’s travel patterns. Hence, the participants were clustered using the following five dimensions emerging from the PCA on the Holiday Motivations Scale: (a) conformism and social recognition, (b) knowl-edge and discovery, (c) escape and fun, (d) personal well-being and belong-ing needs, and (e) loneliness and adventure. We decided to limit the number of clusters to a manageable number and at balancing parsimony and complete-ness in segmenting the sample. A five-cluster solution appeared to provide adequate group separation and parsimony of interpretation. On the basis of the group centroids, the five distinct market segments were named (a) post-modern tourists, which accounted for 63 respondents; (b) wellness tourists, which accounted for 86 respondents; (c) unconventional tourists, which acc-ounted for 56 respondents; (d) vacationer tourists, which accounted for 79 res-pondents; and (e) ecotourists, which accounted for 74 respondents. The profile of each group on the holiday motivation dimensions is summarized in Table 3. The clusters are more specifically described below.

Cluster 1: Postmodern tourists. These individuals attach great importance to the whole range of holiday motivation factors. Because of the complexity of their motivational profile, it could be argued that they embody the essence of postmodern consumers. They are driven by contrasting motivations and marked by an eclectic and fragmented ego.

Cini et al. 97

Cluster 2: Wellness tourists. Their more important holiday motivations are personal well-being and belonging needs; their less important one is loneliness and adventure.

Cluster 3: Unconventional tourists. They attach little importance to all the holi-day motivational dimensions, especially to conformism and social recognition.

Cluster 4: Vacationer tourists. They attach greater importance to the holiday motivation escape and fun. Conversely, they value less personal well-being and belonging needs and loneliness and adventure.

Cluster 5: Ecotourists. These individuals attach the highest importance to holiday motivations on the knowledge and discovery and loneliness and adventure factors. These young tourists are interested in getting in touch with other cultures, with other ways of living, and with the natural environment.

Some preliminary implications may be sketched from the descriptions earlier. Young ecotourists (Cluster 5) appear more likely to visit natural pro-tected areas compared with the other segments. Similarly, postmodern tourists (Cluster 1) appear as putting special motivational emphasis in being connected with the natural environment, compared with the other clusters. By contrast, unconventional tourists (Cluster 3) attached little importance to all the holi-day motivations, even the one connected to the natural environment. Vacationer tourists (Cluster 4) seem to be less attracted by an ecotourist holiday than other segments and are rather more motivated by the possibility to escape from daily routine and having fun. Such impressionistic conclusions need further refinement (see below for DA results) and will be addressed with richer detail in the discussion.

Individuals in all clusters appear to hold favorable intentions to visit natural protected areas, with 81.5% of individuals across clusters holding a favorable

Table 3. Cluster Composition

Cluster

1 2 3 4 5

Conformism and social recognition + − −Knowledge and discovery + +Escape and fun + + Personal well-being and belonging needs + + − Loneliness and adventure + − − +Total number of respondents 365

98 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

intention. However, some differences in their intentions were also detected across groups, χ2(4) = 17.64, p < 0.001. In particular, Cluster 3 individuals expressed more often no intention to practice ecotourism (standardized resid-ual z = 2.3) compared with Cluster 1 and Cluster 5 individuals (standardized residuals −1.8 and −1.6, respectively) who rarely express a negative intention to visit natural protected areas.

Segments CharacterizationThe segments of young tourists identified earlier were further investigated through DA, using a set of psychosociological variables as predictors. More specifically, aggregated scores for items corresponding to the dimensions of the following scales served as predictors for group (cluster) classification: New Ecological Paradigm Scale, postmaterialistic/materialistic values instru-ment, Consumption Habits Scale, and the Big Five. Prior to the analysis, and to reduce the pool of predictors, we introduced only those psychosociological and personality dimensions that correlated significantly with holiday motiva-tion dimensions. As a result, the following predictors were considered: culture and environmental awareness, intellect/openness, agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness, ecocentric view and anthropocentric view, and post-materialistic values. We maintain that such an approach would render more comprehensive and ecologically valid the segments identified. Two signifi-cant canonical discriminant functions (Wilks’s Λs = .657, .853, ps < .01) were found to separate the five clusters described earlier.

The first discriminant function was saturated by culture and environmen-tal awareness standardized rotated loading (.829), intellect/openness (.443), ecocentric view (.401), and postmaterialistic values (.460), and, negatively, anthropocentric view (−.379). The second function is saturated by agreeable-ness (.450) and conscientiousness (.619). Figure 1 presents the cluster cen-troids on the two canonical discrimant functions. Ecotourists are discriminated from the remaining groups on the first (horizontal) dimension, appearing as more environmentally aware, with higher scores in intellect openness, eco-centric view, and postmaterialistic values. At the opposite end of the dimen-sion, the vacationer tourists are characterized by their anthropocentric view. The second (vertical) dimension shows how wellness tourists are character-ized by higher scores on intellect/openness, compared with the other groups.

DiscussionIn this research, we aimed at identifying and describing different profiles of potential young ecotourists. A CA approach provided a sensible and theoretically

Cini et al. 99

useful segmentation into five groups of young tourists on the basis of their holiday motivations: (a) postmodern tourists, (b) wellness tourists, (c) uncon-ventional tourists, (d) vacationer tourists, and (e) ecotourists. To enrich and specify the profiles further, DA differentiated significantly three of the clus-ters (wellness tourists, vacationer tourists, and ecotourists) on the basis of a set of psychosocial factors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed below.

Theoretical ImplicationsUnlike previous research, our study targeted specifically potential young tour-ists and considered a broader set of segmentation variables. Nonetheless, from a theoretical standpoint, our results parallel to some extent previously identi-fied typologies. For instance, the characteristics of the wellness tourists and ecotourists resemble those of the softer ecotourists and harder ecotourists, respectively, described by Weaver and Lawton (2002). Like the softer eco-tourists, the wellness tourists are more likely to prioritize comforts and ser-vices and avoid wilderness settings and physically challenging, uncomfortable, and risky experiences. Like the harder ecotourists, the ecotourists prefer sus-tainable behavior, intact and not popular destinations, and risky and challenging

Figure 1. Groups means on the discriminant functions and the original seven variables

100 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

experiences. The ecotourists are also reminiscent of the drifters of Cohen’s (1972) typology, of the allocentrics described by Plog (1974), and of the backpackers discussed by Richards and Wilson (2003). The wellness tourists are also reminiscent of other tourist types described in the literature. Their characteristics are similar to the psychocentrics of Plog, who, as the wellness tourists, express weak desires for adventure and novelty but appreciate familiar and popular destinations and relaxing activities. In addition, general proenvi-ronmental attitudes crucially differentiate our three groups (Luzar et al., 1998; Weaver & Lawton, 2002). Such attitudes refer to people’s view of the human–nature relationship and stood out as an important component of the general attitudes toward ecotourism in our sample. By means of this dimension, it is possible to place our categories along an anthropocentrism/ecocentrism theo-retical continuum. At the anthropocentrism extreme of this continuum, we found the vacationer tourists and wellness tourists, whereas at the opposite extreme (ecocentrism) we can place the ecotourists.

Compared with previous research, we considered here a broader set of psychosocial aspects as personality traits, personal values, holiday motivations, general proenvironmental attitudes, and behavioral habits. More similarly to the approach used herein, the Weaver and Lawton (2002) ecotourist typology was based on a broad range of segmentation variables such as behaviors, attitudes, and motivations (actual and expected behavior with respect to their general ecotourism experiences, opinions about ecotourism, general environ-mental and social attitudes, motivations for visiting ecotourism destinations, and usual ecotourism activity); nonetheless, their typology did not consider personality traits and personal values, as we did here. We are confident that the broader set of psychosociological factors we focused on could substantially enhance the theoretical implications of the results and support far-reaching practical interventions.

Practical ImplicationsThe results allow us to briefly sketch communication strategies matching the peculiarities of the different types of young potential ecotourists.

Wellness tourists are characterized by holiday motivations focusing on well-being promotion through sport and on close social relationships (with friends and relatives). In addition, they appreciate the good quality of the natu-ral environment but do not neglect the availability of comforts and services. Instead, they try to avoid adventure and uncertainty. Wellness tourists are best characterized by agreeableness and conscientiousness. Most of them, although less frequently than the ecotourists, express a willingness to visit natural protected

Cini et al. 101

areas. In general, this group of tourists reveals positive attitudes toward eco-tourism. Nevertheless, such positive attitudes rest on an anthropocentric view of the human–nature relationship: They appreciate nature as far as it can bene-fit personal well-being and the quality of the tourism experience. A commu-nication strategy specifically tailored to this group could target these indi viduals’ preference for holidays that provide psychophysical well-being, socialization, a good-quality natural environment, services, and comfort. Wellness tourists could be persuaded to approach ecotourism experiences by emphasizing the chance that ecotourism offers to take care of themselves, to enjoy a walk on comfortable and safe paths, and to relax surrounded by human-friendly natural environments. Also, hinting at the possibility of enjoying good-quality (though sustainable) services and comforts and the opportunity of experiencing inter-esting social relationships would be likely to catch their attention. Instead, it would be advisable to omit the possibility of experiencing unusual and adven-turous situations when targeting the wellness tourists, as they do not appreci-ate such high-intensity experiences.

Vacationer tourists are mainly motivated by escaping from daily routines, duties, and responsibilities. They crave for fun, entertainment, and comfort. They show an anthropocentric view of the human–nature relationship, and compared with the other two groups, they are less likely to visit natural pro-tected areas. On the whole, this group of tourists reveals a negative attitude toward ecotourism. A communication strategy targeting vacationer tourists could take into account their preferences for holidays that offer the chance to escape from everyday life and have fun while enjoying good-quality com-forts. Ecotourism could be promoted among these individuals by highlight-ing the possibility of getting away from it all and of having fun with no need to sacrifice comfortable (albeit sustainable) services. However, it would not be advisable to stress the adventurous side of an ecotourist vacation.

Finally, ecotourists are characterized by holiday motivations focused on the opportunity to experience fusion with nature and new experiences, such as contact with diverse cultures and populations, adventure, and solitude. They are more likely to visit historical and archeological sites and prioritize energy conservation and responsible recycling. They are characterized by intellect/openness as a personality dimension. Moreover, ecotourists accept the natu-ral environment for its intrinsic value, subscribing to the notion that no living organism is intrinsically superior to any another. Thus, they reveal a positive attitude toward ecotourism, shaped by an ecocentric view of human–nature interactions. Furthermore, they are oriented toward postmaterialist values, such as ecology and nature conservation. As a consequence, ecotourists are more likely to visit natural protected areas compared with the other two groups.

102 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

A communication strategy targeting ecotourists could profit from their fond-ness for culture, adventure, solitude, and uncontaminated natural environments and their keen interest in environmental issues. These young tourists could be attracted by the opportunity to enjoy time in natural environments, have close contact with local history and culture, and the visit historical and archeologi-cal sites. They are adventure seekers; thus, they could be attracted by advertis-ing that emphasizes the availability of adventurous outdoor sporting activities. Solitary travel, enjoying silence, and serene solitude could also attract their attention. Finally, because the group is particularly concerned with nature preservation, the ads could highlight the chance to translate sustainability and preservation principles into practice.

Selecting the most appropriate communication strategy should obviously take into account the aims and the targets of the advertising campaign. If the ads are aimed at strengthening ecotourism attitudes, they should target those tourists (ecotourists and wellness tourists) who share proenvironmental atti-tudes. Conversely, if they are aimed at widening the pool of potential visitors, the ads could target those individuals who are more worried about the dis-comforts of ecotourist holidays (vacationer tourists), emphasizing the agree-able side of the ecotourism experience.

Limits and Avenues for Future ResearchFirst, we need to stress the need to replicate the present results to test the gen-eralizability of the findings to other samples. Second, it might be argued that our reliance on two ad hoc scales limits to some extent the generalizability of the findings. Of course, these ad hoc scales require further scrutiny. Nonetheless, our scores achieved acceptable reliability and the pattern of results lends sup-port to their validity. Finally, our segment characterization may also be con-sidered as limited because only three of the five groups identified by CA were significantly differentiated by the predictors introduced in the DA. Future research broadening the set of predictors could boost the efficiency of the classification. These limitations notwithstanding, it is important to remark that, to our knowledge, no previous study has used a target segmentation app-roach for developing ecotourism promotion communication strategies.

Our novel results suggest practical implications: Proecotourism attitudes marked two of the three groups, and about 80% of the participants expressed their willingness to experience ecotourism in natural protected areas. Such results should encourage public agencies as well as the private sector to pay renewed attention to the younger generation’s potential for the ecotourism

Cini et al. 103

sector and to develop effective strategies to promote ecotourism (see also Weaver & Lawton, 2007).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Addis, M., & Podestà, S. (2005). Long life to marketing research: A postmodern view. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 386-413.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton-Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2000). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.

Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3-21.

Blamey, R. K., & Braithwaite, V. A. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5, 29-45.

Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial physical environment to sustainable development. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28-54). New York, NY: Wiley.

Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, M. (1997). Relationship between demo-graphic variables and environmental attitudes of high school students. Journal of Natural Resources Life Science Education, 26, 102-104.

Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior, 37, 237-257.

Christensen, L. T., Torp, S., & Firat, A. F. (2005). Integrated marketing communica-tion and postmodernity: An odd couple? Corporate Communications, 10, 156-178.

Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164-182.

Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R. D. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. Journal of Ecotourism, 3, 192-210.

104 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.

Europarc Federation. (2002). The European charter for sustainable tourism in pro-tected areas (Updated version of October 2002). Grafenau, Germany: Author.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Galley, G., & Clifton, S. (2004). The motivations and demographic characteristics of research ecotourists: Operation in Wallacea volunteers in south-east Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism, 3, 69-82.

Holden, A. (2000). Environment and tourism. London, UK: Routledge.Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. Mc. C. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Norma-

tive and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environmental Behaviour, 23, 195-220.

Hunter, C., & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment: A sustainable rela-tionship? London, UK: Routledge.

Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.International Union for Conservation of Nature. (1998). Economic values of protected

areas. Gland, Switzerland: Author.International Union for Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environment Pro-

gramme, & World Wildlife Fund. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sus-tainable living. Gland, Switzerland: Author.

Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2004). Green marketing: An attitudinal and behavioural anal-ysis of Indian consumers. Global Business Review, 5, 187-205.

Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environ-mental education. Environmental Education Research, 3, 163-178.

Kakyom, K., Jeonghee, N., & Jogaratnam, G. (2006). Multi-destination segmentation based on push and pull motives: Pleasure trips of students at a U.S. university. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21, 19-32.

Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management and strategy: A reader. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Roberto, E. L. (2002). Social marketing: Strategies for changing public behaviour. New York, NY: Free Press.

Laarman, J. G., & Durst, P. B. (1987). International forestry: Nature travel in the trop-ics. Journal of Forestry, 85, 43-46.

Lindberg, K. (1991). Economic policies for maximizing nature tourism’s contribution to sustainable development. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.

Losito, G., Metastasio, R., Rìmano, A., & Cini, F. (2003). Media communication for promoting ecotourism. Poster presentato al Convegno EuroMab, Rome, 7-11 ottobre.

Cini et al. 105

Luzar, E. J., Diagne, A., Gan, C. E. C., & Henning, B. R. (1998). Profiling the nature-based tourist: A multinomial logit approach. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 48-55.

Maggi, M., Beato, F., Fasanella, A., & Lombardo, C. (2001). Consumption patterns of youth: An analysis of the Italian survey. In UNESCO-UNEP (Eds.), Youth, sustainable consumption patterns and life styles (pp. 187-194). Paris, France: UNESCO-UNEP.

Nielsen, J. M., & Ellington, B. L. (1983). Social processes and resource conservation: A case study in low technology recycling. In N. R. Feimer, E. S. Geller (Eds), Environmental psychology: directions and perspectives (pp. 288-312). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Palacio, V., & McCool, S. F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5, 234-243.

Perugini, M., & Leone, L. (1996). Construction and validation of a Short Adjectives Checklist to measure Big Five (SACBIF). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 33-42.

Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 4, 55-58.

Plog, S. C. (1987). Understanding psychographics in tourism research. In R. Ritchie & C. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel, tourism and hospitality research (pp. 203-214). New York, NY: Wiley.

Proctor, T., & Kitchen, P. (2002). Communication in postmodern integrated market-ing. Corporate Communications, 7, 144-154.

Raj, A. (2004). Tourist behaviour: An introduction. In A. Raj (Ed.), Tourist behav-iour: A psychological perspective (pp. 3-23). New Delhi, India: Kaniska.

Richards, G., & Wilson, J. Y. (2003). New horizons in independent youth and stu-dent travel (A Report for the International Student Travel Confederation [ISTC] and the Association of Tourism and Leisure Education [ATLAS]). Amsterdam, Netherlands: ISTC.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A social psy-chological theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental-ism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432-448.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 270-280.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28, 1168-1179.

WTO. (2002). http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/events/iye/pdf/iye_leaflet_text.pdf.World Tourism Organization. (2008). Youth travel matters–Understanding the global

phenomenon of youth travel. Madrid, Spain: Author.

106 Environment and Behavior 44(1)

Bios

Francesca Cini is a postdoc fellow at the Department of Cultural and Educational Studies, University of Roma Tre. Her current research interests include environmen-tal communication, environmental attitudes–behavior relationship, and ecotourism and restorative tourism.

Luigi Leone is professor of psychometrics at “Sapienza” University of Rome. His main research interests are psychometrics, personality processes and measurement, political psychology, impulsivity and related processes, attitudes and social cognition, and the attitude–behavior relationship.

Paola Passafaro is a lecturer at “Sapienza” University of Rome. Her research inter-ests are situated in the fields of environmental attitudes, environmental education, and sustainable tourism