The “sustainable tourist”: Values,attitudes,and personality traits

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two exploratory studies (overall N=532) which aimed at drawing the profile of the “sustainable tourist” (a person committed to respect the sustainability principles when on holiday) in terms of personal values, attitudes, and personality traits, following an environmental psychology approach. More specifically, study 1 explored the role of attitudes toward sustainable tourism, affinity toward (social and environmental) diversity, and personal values, while study 2 assessed the role of the Big Five personality traits in the prediction of preferences for sustainable and unsustainable tourist activities. Results indicate that biospheric values, positive attitudes toward sustainable tourism, and higher levels of affinity toward diversity are able to predict more sustainable tourism choices while personality traits seemed to play a more indirect and complex role.

Keywords

Sustainable tourism tourist preferences personal values environmental attitudes personality traits

Introduction

Tourism is one of those human activities which can contribute to the so-called environmental global changes. “The huge infrastructural and resource demands of tourism (e.g. water consumption, waste generation and energy use) can have severe impacts upon local communities and the environment” (Shah et al., 2002: 1). This led to the major international tourism organization to state that “there is a need to urgently adopt a range of policies which encourages truly sustainable tourism that reflects a ‘quadruple bottom line’ of environmental, social, economic and climate responsiveness” (UNWTO, 2007: 2). On the one hand, this implies that alternative types of tourism should be promoted in order to overcome the scarce sustainability of many forms of “traditional” or “mass” tourism (Di Castri and Balayi, 2002; see also United Nations, 2012). On the other hand, this means that people should devote more attention to the consequences of their tourist behavior and should consider the implications for local and global sustainability when choosing among possible options available for their vacations (UNWTO, 2007). For this reason, there is a growing interest in the study of the psychological factors able to promote individuals to choose more sustainable forms of tourism (Cohen et al., 2011; Hares et al., 2010; Higham et al., 2013). Previous studies suggested that pro-environmental attitudes, values, and social identity can play a role in this way (Crick-Furman and Prentice, 2000; Hibbert et al., 2013; Jackson, 1986, 1987; Jurowski et al., 1995; Passafaro and Cini, 2012; Passafaro et al., 2012; Uysal et al., 1994). However, studies in environmental psychology have consistently indicated that several other factors of both adaptive/contextual and dispositional nature may also be involved (Bamberg and Möser, 2007; Steg and Vlek, 2009). Three of these include for example: (i) the general tendency of individuals to accept/refuse social and environmental responsibility (Hunecke et al., 2001; Hwang et al., 2000; Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999), (ii) their perceived affinity toward the environmental and social diversity that surrounds them (Bonnes et al., 2009; Corral-Verdugo et al., 2009), and (iii) their personality traits (Borden and Francis, 1978; Hirsh, 2010; Milfont and Sibley, 2012; Pettus and Gilles, 1987; Swami et al., 2011). To our knowledge, these aspects remain underinvestigated in the tourism domain. The present paper aims to address this shortcoming by discussing the reasons why these factors might be relevant for the study of sustainable choices in the tourism domain and by reporting the results of an empirical study that will support this point.

Theoretical background

Relevance of Individual Preferences for Tourism Sustainability

Sustainable tourism has been defined in many different ways. One of the most cited definitions is that provided by the World Tourism Organization which defines it as “tourism which leads to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems” (WTTC and UNWTO, 1996; see also Bramwell and Lane, 1993; for a critical view of definitions of sustainable tourism see also Hunter, 1997; ICLEI, 1999; Ko, 2001). Byrd (2007) suggested four types of stakeholders potentially involved in the development of sustainable forms of tourism, these are namely the present and future members of the local hosting community, and the present and future visitors (tourists). Regarding the latter, according to the Davos Declaration (UNWTO, 2007: 3) “tourists should be encouraged to consider the climate, economic, societal and environmental impacts of their options before making a decision and, where possible, to reduce their carbon footprint, or offset emissions that cannot be reduced directly.” Furthermore, “in their choices of activities at the destination, tourists should also be encouraged to opt for environmentally-friendly activities that reduce their carbon footprint as well as contribute to the preservation of the natural environment and cultural heritage” (UNWTO, 2007: 3; see also UNESCO, 2010). This sets tourists' preferences and choices within the frame of ecologically relevant behaviors and highlights the issue of what factors can affect people's sustainable choices in the tourism domain. Environmental psychology has a long history of studies exploring the psychological determinants of pro-environmental behaviors (for recent reviews and discussions, see Bamberg and Möser, 2007; Steg and Vlek, 2009) and some of the results may be of help in explaining aspects concerning the sustainable choices of tourists. For example, relationships have been consistently found between tourists' preferences on the one hand and environmental values, attitudes, and social identity on the other (Crick-Furman and Prentice, 2000; Hibbert et al., 2013; Jackson, 1986, 1987; Jurowski et al., 1995; Passafaro and Cini, 2012; Passafaro et al., 2012; Uysal et al., 1994). However, many authors suggested that these represent only some of the factors involved in ecological behaviors. For example, another important aspect to consider is peoples' specific beliefs concerning their responsibility toward the particular issue considered. This aspect may also be relevant in the tourism domain and will be discussed below.

Sense of responsibility and tourist choices

Various studies in environmental psychology have highlighted how people's beliefs concerning their environmental responsibility are an important predictor of pro-environmental behavioral choices (Hunecke et al., 2001; Hwang et al., 2000; Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999). Such beliefs constitute the cognitive component of the so-called sense of responsibility. Sense of responsibility has been defined as the personal sense of obligation to enact (or avoid doing) specific actions (Hines et al., 1986/1987). The studies conducted on this topic have pointed out how this concept may include different dimensions (e.g. cognitive, affective, behavioral), can be studied from different perspectives (e.g. individual and collective), and may refer to different contexts and/or objects (the overall environment or single aspects/parts of it); moreover, each dimension and perspective may be linked to ecological behavior in different ways (Hunecke et al., 2001; Hwang et al., 2000; Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999). Particularly relevant is the distinction between personal and collective responsibility. People may perceive that the obligation to perform a certain action should be ascribed to either themselves, themselves and others, or exclusively to others. When people think about environmental issues in terms of individual responsibility, they typically tend to feel more personally involved in the problems and this, in turn, increases the probability and the strength of their personal commitment to participate in their resolution (Stern et al., 1999). On the contrary, when people frame an environmental issue in terms of collective responsibility, personal commitment in problem resolution tends to decrease together with their willingness to participate in the corresponding beneficial actions. In this case, people tend to conceptualize environmental issues as one of social pertinence and to exclude that the task of their resolution has to be ascribed to a single individual (Boerschig and De Young, 1993; Stern et al., 1999). There are reasons to believe that these kinds of conceptualizations may be applied to the tourism domain. As a matter of fact, sustainable tourist choices, like those recommended by the Davos Declaration as previously mentioned, typically require that people: (i) agree with the sustainability principles and values (i.e. hold general pro-sustainability attitudes and values) and (ii) believe that they have to play an active role in solving the problem (i.e. endorse personal responsibility to act). However, to our knowledge the relationship between sense of responsibility concerning sustainable tourism and their corresponding preferences and choices remains underinvestigated.

In the meantime, sense of responsibility is not the only factor to consider in addition to general pro-environmental attitudes and values. For example, with the introduction of the sustainability concept, other key aspects have emerged as equally important, such as biodiversity (and recently sociodiversity) acceptance and protection.

Affinity toward diversity (ATD) and tourist choices

Biological diversity (or biodiversity) is usually defined as the variety or variability among living organisms at different levels of scale (e.g. intraspecies, interspecies, ecosystems, etc.; e.g. UNEP, 1992). According to the evolutionary paradigm of bioecological sciences, biodiversity plays a crucial role in ensuring the long-term survival of life within any complex ecosystem (Di Castri and Balayi, 2002; UNEP, 1992; Wilson, 1999). For this reason, the global loss of biodiversity is recognized as one of the most serious problems worldwide (UNEP, 1992, 2010a, 2010b; Wilson, 1999). Diversity, however, is not only of biological nature. For example, sociocultural diversity (or sociodiversity) concerns the variety in languages, religions, costumes, and traditions, as well as the diversity of political, economic, generational, and sexual orientations within and between human societies (O'Hara, 1995). Like biodiversity, sociodiversity is also facing a progressive decrease throughout the world (Jimeno et al., 1995). This is a problem, because, according to some authors, sociodiversity plays a crucial role in both ensuring human progress and fostering biodiversity (e.g. Alfsen-Norodom and Lane, 2002; Di Castri and Balayi, 2002; Guillitte, 2005; Tonn, 2007; see also UNESCO, 2005, 2010). In other words, biodiversity and sociodiversity are strictly interdependent: fostering the latter can help improve the former. Unfortunately, people have always had a controversial relationship with diversity and it cannot be assumed that the intrinsic value of biodiversity and sociodiversity is actually perceived and accepted by all levels of a society. The huge number of social–psychological studies on discriminations (of race, gender, political opinion, and so forth) testifies to the complexity of individuals' relationship with other people they believe to be different from themselves. Even in the environmental domain, people might be more or less attracted by the variety of nature and nonhuman life forms which surround them. This was theoretically suggested by the Biophilia Hypothesis (e.g. Kellert, 1997; Kellert and Wilson, 1993) and empirically supported by studies such as those on people's connection to nature (e.g. Davis et al., 2009; Kals et al., 1999; Tam, 2013). Moreover, Corral-Verdugo and colleagues proposed that both biological and social–cultural diversity should be considered as part of a broader diversity concept and showed how people's general attitudes (or affinity) toward diversity are able to affect individual pro-sustainability orientation in the domain of water consumption (Bonnes et al., 2009; Corral-Verdugo et al., 2009). One might thus wonder whether people's ATD may also play a role in determining sustainable tourism preferences and choices. These usually imply contact with unfamiliar places and environments, and acceptances of cultures and costumes which might differ even substantially from one's own (see Berno and Ward, 2005, for a more recent discussion on this). It is thus plausible that a person must have developed a certain degree of appreciation of diversity in order to freely choose such kind of vacation. This eventuality has never been empirically explored before.

Another underexplored aspect concerns the role of dispositional aspects such as personality traits in sustainable tourism preferences and choices.

Personality traits and tourist preferences

Various authors have highlighted how people tend to seek out, select, and get involved in situations and life experiences that are congruent with their personality (e.g. Caspi and Bem, 1990; Wille and De Fruyt, 2014). This seems to be true even in the tourism domain, as there is abundant evidence that some personality traits may be related to tourist choices. One of the earliest approaches to the study of personality and tourism is Plog's psychographic model (1987, 1991). Plog distinguished tourists on the basis of their internal and stable tendency to be attentive and curious about the outer world (allocentric) versus being exclusively self-centered (psychocentric), positing that people tend then to choose both destinations and activities accordingly (see also Griffith and Albanese, 1996; Hoxter and Lester, 1987). However, the most applied theoretical approach is perhaps the one which distinguishes people on the basis of their sensation seeking (e.g. Gilchrist et al., 1995; Zuckerman, 2008; Zuckerman et al., 1964): their innate tendency to seek or avoid strong emotional experiences in life, and thus to prefer high rather than low stimulating vacations (for recent studies in the tourism domain, e.g. Lepp and Gibson, 2008; Li and Tsai, 2013; Litvin, 2008). Other studies showed that other personality theories may also be applied to the study of tourism preferences. For example, Frew and Shaw (1999) used Holland's (1958, 1985) typology of personality (based on vocational differences among people) to study tourism interests, intentions, and behaviors. Lee (2013) showed how optimism and pessimism, considered stable individual traits, may contribute in explaining the intention to purchase specific forms of tourism such as health tourism. Li and Tsai (2013) showed the potential of the five-factor theory of personality, also known as the “Big Five” model (for early works and reviews, e.g. Digman, 1990; McCrae and John, 1992; for recent discussions, e.g. McCrae, 2010; McCrae and Costa, 2008), when they found that people with international tourism experience showed higher levels on one of the five dimensions of this model monitored in their study: extraversion. Previously, Lu and Kao (2009) had found that, in general, extraversion is able to affect people's preferences and satisfaction for different leisure activities. Besides extraversion, the model postulates that individual personality can be described also on the basis of their overall agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Previous research in environmental psychology has shown how conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience may be all related to environmental concern (Borden and Francis, 1978; Hirsch, 2010; Pettus and Gilles, 1987). Conscientiousness was found to be associated with self-reported household waste management behavior (Swami et al., 2011), while agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were linked to self-reported environmental engagement (Milfont and Sibley, 2012). However, to our knowledge, no study has explored the relationship of all five personality dimensions in the specific domain of sustainable tourism. This is a shortcoming because, as Pearce and Packer (2013) recently stated, the application of wider models of personality might be of greater help in explaining the complex mix of factors which individual tourism choices are based on.

Method

Aims and research design

The general aim of the present research work was to investigate the social psychological correlates of people's preferences for sustainable versus unsustainable forms of tourism. Two studies were conducted to attain such a goal. Study 1 aimed to: (i) confirm the existence of an association between tourist preferences, personal values, and general attitudes toward sustainable tourism (ATST), and (ii) explore the relationship between tourist preferences and people's general affinity towards (social, political, environmental, etc.) diversity. Study 2, rather, aimed at exploring the association of tourist preferences with the so-called Big Five personality traits.

Participants

Data for study 1 were collected using a sample of 241 participants while the sample size of study 2 was 291. In both cases, the recruiting procedure aimed at obtaining a sample of participants balanced by gender and age and heterogeneous for professional status. All participants lived either in Rome or within the Latium region. They were contacted on the streets or in public places by trained interviewers. Table 1 reports the characteristics of the two samples in detail.

Table 1.

Social–demographical characteristics of samples from study 1 and 2.

	Sample's characteristics in study 1	Sample's characteristics in study 2
Gender	121 males, 120 females	145 males, 146 females
Age	(range 18–85; M = 40.25; SD = 14.69)	(range 18–81, M=40.03; SD = 14.95)
Level of education	Primary school (0.4% ) Junior high school (16.2%) High school (57.3%) university (25.7%)	Primary school (1.7% ) Junior high school (14.1%) High school (60.1%) university (23.4%)
Professional status	Employees (32%), students (25.3%), housewives (6.2%), retired people (54%), “blue collars” (4.5%), teachers (4.1%), dealers (4.1%), businessmen (2.9%) unemployed, (1.7%), and other categories (13.8%)	Employees (37.1%), students (14.4%), retired people (8.9%), teachers (6.9%), dealers (5.8), housewives (5.5%), “blue collars” (4.4%), businessmen (4.1%), Unemployed (3.8%), other categories (9.1%)

Measurement instruments

Two structured questionnaires were used as measurement instruments in the two studies. The questionnaire used in study 1 was created to investigate the relationship between holiday preferences and social–psychological variables such as personal values, ATST, and ATD. The questionnaire used in study 2 instead investigated the relationship between holiday preferences and the Big Five personality traits. Both questionnaires included measures of tourist preferences, so they both started with a general introduction to the theme of the survey and continued by asking participants to imagine that they had to plan their next summer holiday abroad (lasting at least six days). Respondents were then instructed to indicate their preferences for a set of holiday options listed while they were encouraged not to consider the corresponding possible economic costs. In particular, they were asked to indicate how much they would have liked/disliked to find, at the holiday site to visit, each of a set of 27 activities and services. All responses were recorded on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 “I could not stand it at all” to 7 “I would like it a lot.” The holiday options listed were chosen on the basis of previous research work on this topic (Passafaro and Cini, 2012; Passafaro et al., 2012). More specifically, while compiling the list of options, careful attention was devoted to balance activities and services referable to both sustainable and unsustainable (or traditional) forms of tourism. The two questionnaires differed in the constructs measured in addition to holiday preferences.

The questionnaire used in study 1 included the following measures which were not present in study 2:

General attitude (ATST). This aspect was investigated by means of Passafaro and Cini's scale (2012; see also Passafaro et al., 2012) composed of seven items which are meant to assess the individual tendency to endorse the sustainability principles in relation to tourism issues. The scale measures individual beliefs concerning two core issues of tourism sustainability: (1) the importance to accept both social and environmental responsibilities while on holiday (or to refuse it), (2) the interest in getting in touch with the hosts' culture (considered a prerequisite for the conservation of cultural heritage). Respondents had to indicate their agreement/disagreement (1 “completely disagree” to 7 “completely agree”) with (7) statements such as “Vacationers should not be concerned about respecting the local environment, this task should be left to the local authorities,” and “During the holiday, it is important to dedicate time to the understanding of the present and past history, culture and traditions of the place visited.”

Personal values. Stern and colleagues' inventory was used to measure personal values (Stern et al., 1998). This instrument mentions 11 values representing five main dimensions (altruistic, egoistic, conservative, and biospheric values, and openness to change). Respondents had to indicate the extent to which each reported value could represent a guiding principle of their life. Response scale ranged from –1 (“opposed to my values”) to 5 (“of supreme importance”).

Affinity toward diversity (ATD) was measured using Corral-Verdugo et al.'s (2009) scale composed of 14 items; seven items are statements referring to social diversity (e.g. “I appreciate the existence of diverse political orientations”), while the other seven refer to affinity toward physical and biological diversity (e.g. “the more the variety of plants the better for me”). Response scale ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).

General appreciation for the presence of tourist facilities (GATF) in the holiday places was measured through a single item with a five–point response scale, ranging from 1 (low appreciation) to 5 (high appreciation). This was used as an additional measure of tourism preferences, which should indicate the extent to which participants were attracted by places highly tailored to tourists' expectations.

The questionnaire used in study 2 included measures of the Big Five personality traits, which were not used in study 1. Personality traits were measured using a list of 50 adjectives derived from Perugini and Leone (1995, see also Caprara and Perugini, 1994). The adjective list included 10 markers for each one of the five dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness). As the authors showed in their work, such adjectives correspond to the most frequently used descriptors of human personality and are the most representative of each of the Big Five in the Italian lexicon. Adjectives were presented in a random order and participants had to rate how appropriate each was for describing their own personality. A five-point response scale was used ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). A set of social-demographic and residential questions concluded both questionnaires.

Data analysis

A set of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (principal axis factoring, PAF) was performed on the indicators of the scales used in both questionnaires in order to identify the main underpinning latent dimensions. Applicability of the PFA to the data collected was evaluated performing the KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin; Kaiser, 1974) test and the Bartlett's test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954), which produced acceptable values in both cases (e.g. KMO > .05). The scree-test of eigenvalues was used as a factor retention rule, and reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha) was performed in order to assess the internal coherence of the indicators of all constructs. Pearson's correlations were then computed in order to assess the relationships among the constructs considered using aggregated variables when these constructs were measured through multiple indicators. Finally, multiple regressions were used in order to assess the relative weight of the considered factors in the prediction of tourism preferences.

Results of study 1

Principal axis factoring (PAF)

Results of the PAF analysis are reported in Tables 2 and 3 and discussed in detail below.

Table 2.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), reliability (Cronbach's α), and factor loadings for preferences for tourist activities/services, and attitudes toward sustainable tourism in study 1.

Scales/subscales/ Items	α	M	DS	Loadings
Tourist preferences
Comfort and leisure	.76
Parties on the beach		4.51	1.52	.70
Funfairs		4.72	1.41	.69
Shopping malls		4.69	1.44	.61
Gym and fitness centers		5.38	1.24	.56
Discopub		4.85	1.55	.51
Swimming pool on the beach		5.66	1.38	.51
Culture and nature	.77
Cultural events		5.17	1.18	.85
Archaeological tours		5.55	1.10	.70
Guided tours in nature		5.62	1.00	.65
Wine and food tasting courses		5.35	1.15	.52
Knowledge of usages and customs				.50
Sport and adventure in nature	.77
Under water fishing		4.57	1.18	.75
Snorkeling		4.81	1.28	.71
Sailing courses		4.60	1.12	.66
Attitudes toward sustainable tourism (ATST)
Positive attitudes toward sustainable tourism (PAST)	.58
- Rather than visit a place where tourism damages the environment, I prefer not to go on holiday		5.00	1.69	.85
- When planning a vacation, one must always chose a place where tourism does not damage the environment		5.37	1.55	.46
- Rather than visit a place where tour operators sweat local workers, I prefer not to go on holiday		4.71	1.61	.42
Negative attitudes toward sustainable tourism (NAST)	.69
- Vacationers pay to get leisure and amusement and should not be involved in the social and environmental problems of the place visited		3.72	1.69	.79
- Tourists should not be forced to care for the well-being of the local populations; this task must be accomplished by the local authorities		6.62	1.79	.75
- Vacationers should not be asked to respect the environment; this task should be accomplished by the local authorities		1.91	1.54	.41

Table 3.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), reliability (Cronbach's α), and factor loadings for personal values and affinity toward diversity (ATD) in study 1.

Scales/subscales/ items	α	M	DS	Loadings
Personal values
Biospheric and familistic values	.76
Unity with nature		3.50	1.38	.83
Environmental protection		3.90	1.11	.72
Respect for parents and the elderly		4.06	1.12	.58
Respect for the Earth		3.88	1.10	.44
Family security		4.46	0.87	.43
Openness to change	.67
An exciting life		2.96	1.58	.72
A varied life		3.00	1.47	.70
Curiosity		3.47	1.24	.53
Egoistic values	.54
Self-control		2.85	1.35	.59
Influence		2.10	1.49	.48
Authority		0.57	1.50	.44
Economic wealth		1.97	1.45	.42
Altruistic values	.67
Equality		4.03	1.25	.83
Social justice		4.05	1.24	.51
A world at peace		4.31	1.14	.40
Affinity toward diversity (ATD)	.66
- I like to spend time with people of all social classes		5.46	1.29	.62
- I would like to live among people of different racial origins		4.64	1.45	.56
- It is good that there are different sexual orientations		4.56	1.68	.50
- I like the fact that there exist people with different political orientations		5.04	1.36	.48
- According to me, the greater variety of plants there are, the better		5.57	1.39	.43
- I like many kinds of animals, not just one		5.38	1.38	.40

Preferences for tourist activities and services

The PAF analysis confirmed the plausibility of a three-dimensional structure underpinning participants' preferences for the 27 facilities/activities and services. In order to obtain a refined and clear-cut solution, 14 items were eventually retained. In particular, only items with factor loadings higher than |.40| on the main factor and a ratio higher than 2 between the primary and the secondary loadings (i.e. the primary loading had to be at least two times the secondary one) were used to compute the final solution. The three dimensions together explained 42.87% of the total variance. The first dimension explained 15.77% of the total variance and was named “comfort and leisure” as it gathers preferences for activities and facilities with high environmental and social impact which are typical of conventional forms of tourism, where leisure and personal comfort are the main goals of the vacation. The second dimension explained 15.71% of the variance and was named “culture and nature tourism” as it gathers preferences for types of activities in line with some of the core principles of sustainable tourism (relatively low environmental and social impact, attention to both the natural and the cultural features of the tourist location). The third dimension explained 11.39% of the variance and was named “sport and adventure in nature” as this dimension gathers preferences for outdoor sport activities, where the physical challenge, rather than the contemplation of nature, appears as the strongest motivating or pushing factor. These results appeared coherent with those obtained in previous studies that used this instrument.

General ATST

As expected, the PAF with varimax rotation performed on the items which were meant to assess participants' general ATST lead to a two-factor solution. This solution explained 41.79% of the total variance. Factor 1 was named “positive attitudes toward sustainable tourism” (PAST) and explained 23.02% of variance. Factor 2 was named “negative attitudes toward sustainable tourism” (NAST) and explained 18.77% of variance. One item had to be dropped as it had a primary loading lower than .40.

Personal values

A PAF with Oblimin rotation was performed on the brief inventory of values. A four-factor structure emerged which explained 43.43% of the total variance. This structure is only partially coherent with previous results obtained using this instrument. In particular, an unexpected combination of biospheric and conservative values in a unique dimension emerged in this case. This might be due to the fact that the set of values that Stern and colleagues have named as conservative refer mostly to family protection, an aspect which is transversally valued in Italy, and does not necessarily indicate conservatism, especially when measured alone. This combination emerged as the first factor explaining 15.01% of the variance and was named “biospheric and family values.” The remaining three factors instead were coherent with previous results. In particular, Factor 2 “Openness to Change” explained 10.03% of variance. Factor 3 (egoistic values) explained 7.64% of variance, while Factor 4 (altruistic values) explained 10.75%.

ATD

The PAF performed on the items of the ATD scale confirmed the monofactorial structure of this scale. In order to obtain a refined and clear-cut solution, seven items were eventually retained which explained 25.60% of the total variance.

Bivariate correlations and multiple regressions

Aggregated variables were built choosing the more factorially valid items for each dimension (i.e. factor loadings higher than |.40| on the main factor, and ratio >2 between primary and secondary loadings) and were used to compute the aggregated items. Table 4 shows the bivariate correlations computed among the constructs considered in study 1. Results indicate that preferences for more sustainable forms of tourism (“culture and nature”) correlate positively with biospheric and family values, altruistic values, (PAST), and a greater ATD. Coherently, they also correlate negatively with egoistic values and NAST. Preferences for unsustainable forms of tourism (“comfort and leisure”) correlate positively with egoistic values, with NAST and with the GATF on the tourist location. Preferences for the “sport and adventure in nature” showed instead a link with openness to change values and with PAST. The three kinds of tourist preferences identified here also showed different patterns of correlations with age. Age correlated positively with preferences for “nature and culture” and negatively with preferences for “comfort and leisure” and “sport and adventure in nature.”

Table 4.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), and bivariate correlations in study 1.

	M	DS	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Nature and culture	5.38	.80	–	–	.39**	–.23**	.25**	–	.36**	–.16*	.42**	–	.37**
2. Sport and adv. in nature	4.66	.99		–	–	–	–	.33**	.13*	–	.20**	–	–.24**
3. Comfort and leisure	4.97	.96			–	.19**	–	–	–	.25**	–	.54**	–.29**
4. Biosph. values	3.96	.81				–	.53**	.13*	.38**	–.19**	.45**	–	.28**
5. Egoistic values	1.87	.93					–	.24**	–	.23**	–	–	–
6. Altruistic values	4.13	.94						–	.32**	–.24**	.30**	–	.17**
7. Openness to change	3.14	1.12							–	–	.22**	–	–.22**
8. PAST	5.15	1.19								–	.29**	–	.28**
9. NAST	3.09	1.31									–.17**	.23**	–
10. ATD	5.11	.87										–	.17**
11. GATF	3.72	.97											–
12. Age	40.24	14.69

ATD: affinity toward diversity; GATF: general appreciation for tourist facilities; NAST: negative attitudes toward sustainable tourism; PAST: positive attitudes toward sustainable tourism. Scores for “nature and culture,” “sport and adventure in nature,” “comfort and leisure,” PAST, NAST, and ATD range between 1 and 7; for personal values scores range from –1 to 5; for GATF scores range from 1 to 5; correlations marked with an asterisk are significant for p < .05; all other correlations are significant for p<01; not significant correlations are not displayed.

Three sets of multiple regressions were performed in order to assess the relative weights of the considered factors in the prediction of the three different types of preferences identified (used as criteria). Results indicate that ATD and age are the strongest predictors of preferences for the “nature and culture” form of tourism, openness to change and age are the strongest predictors of preferences for the “sport and adventure in nature” one, while GATF and age represent the strongest predictors of the “comfort and leisure” form of tourism (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Multiple regressions predicting preferences for the three types of tourism activities and services (study 1).

Criteria	Nature and culture	Sport and Adv.in nat.	Comfort and leisure
Predictors
	Β	Β	Β
Biosph. values	.17**	ns	ns
Egoistic values	–.17**	ns	ns
Altruistic values	ns	ns	ns
Openness to change	ns	.25**	ns
PAST	.14**	.17**	ns
NAST	ns	ns	.11*
ATD	.25**	.14*	ns
GATF	ns	ns	.49*
Age	.24**	–.26**	–.28**
Adjusted R ²	.34	.19	.38

ATD: affinity toward diversity; GATF: general appreciation for tourist facilities; NAST: negative attitudes toward sustainable tourism; PAST: positive attitudes toward sustainable tourism.

p < .05;

for p<01;

ns = not significant; β values and Adjusted R² refer to the final solutions including the significant predictors only.

Results of Study 2

PAF (study 2)

Results of the PAF analysis performed on data from study 2 are reported in Tables 6 and 7 and are discussed in detail below.

Table 6.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), reliability (Cronbach's α), and factor loadings for preferences for tourist activities and services in study 2.

	α	M	DS	Loadings
Nature and culture	.80
Cultural events		5.11	1.27	.74
Archaeological tours		5.66	1.11	.73
Guided tours in nature		5.73	0.98	.67
Knowledge of usages and customs		5.32	1.13	.63
Wine and food tasting courses		5.21	1.16	.55
Nature observation		4.72	1.06	.48
Comfort and leisure	.72
Funfairs		5.11	1.20	.60
Shopping malls		4.98	1.42	.59
Swimming pool on the beach		5.90	1.27	.59
Gym and fitness centers		5.43	1.13	.58
Parties on the beach		4.88	1.35	.53
Car parking		5.69	1.21	.45
Sport and adventure in nature	.71
Sailing courses		4.73	1.07	.67
Underwater fishing		4.56	1.16	.65
Hiking		4.62	1.16	.55
Excursions		5.06	1.08	.55
Boat rentals		4.63	1.35	.43
Tennis		5.15	1.15	.42

Table 7.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), reliability (Cronbach's α), and factor loadings for personality traits in study 2.

	α	M	DS	Loadings
Openness to experience	.85
Original		4.37	1.53	.67
Ingenious		4.81	1.51	.67
Lively		5.05	1.42	.66
Imaginative		4.71	1.58	.62
Creative		4.69	1.51	.59
Expansive		4.86	1.60	.56
Extraversion	.80
Shy^a		3.38	1.74	.66
Closed^a		2.76	1.60	.66
Silent^a		3.48	1.77	.64
Extraverted		4.67	1.59	–.59
Introverted^a		2.91	1.72	.55
Reserved^a		4.27	1.75	.48
Conscientiousness	.81
Untidy^a		3.56	1.99	.72
Neat		4.63	1.82	–.71
Accurate		4.91	1.56	–.71
Inaccurate^a		2.68	1.53	.64
Absent-minded^a		3.22	1.71	.54
Diligent		5.00	1.41	–.50
Agreeableness	.72
Altruist		5.57	1.21	.63
Generous		5.58	1.21	.62
Understanding		5.58	1.22	.60
Helpful		5.80	1.09	.60
Egoist^a		2.38	1.48	–.51
Cynical^a		2.17	1.57	–.39
Emotional stability	.75
Anxious^a		4.27	1.83	.69
Nervous^a		4.17	1.68	.67
Touchy^a		4.04	1.83	.61
Emotional^a		5.10	1.60	.53
Calm		4.26	1.66	–.46
Serene		4.68	1.48	–.46

Reverse score item.

Preferences for tourist activities and services

Coherently with the findings obtained in study 1, a three dimensions structure also emerged in study 2 for preferences for tourist activities and services (see Table 6). In order to obtain a clear-cut solution, a total of nine items were excluded from the final computation, for either low communality or ratio <2 between the primary and secondary loadings. The remaining 18 items together explained 36.78% of the total variance. Although dimensions appeared in a different order and their composition differed slightly from that of study 1, the conceptual distinction between them did not vary. The first dimension explained 14.83 % of the total variance and was labeled “culture and nature” as it featured the same items of the corresponding dimension found in study 1. The addition of one item (which did not appear in study 1) did not change the conceptual definition of this dimension because this item (“nature observation”) is also coherent with the idea of a sustainable (ecotourism) vacation. The second dimension explained 11.04% of the variance and was labeled “comfort and leisure.” This dimension is composed of the same items that characterized the corresponding dimension of study 1, except for “disco-pub,” which was substituted by “car parking,” without changing the conceptual nature of this factor, because both items were coherent with the idea of a traditional full comfort type of vacation. Finally, the third dimension explained 10.91% of the variance and was labeled “sport and adventure in nature.” This dimension included more items than the corresponding one found in the previous study; however, two of them were the same found in study 1 and corresponded to the most characterizing items (i.e. those with the highest loadings on the considered factor). The other items that loaded on this same dimension are also coherent with the conceptual definition, as they refer to outdoor activities (hiking, excursions, boat rentals, tennis) that require a certain physical engagement.

Big Five personality traits

The scree test of eigenvalues confirmed the plausibility of a five-factor solution for the 50 items measuring the Big Five personality traits. This solution explained 41% of the total variance. Items substantially replicated the expected loading patterns although some of them had their higher loadings on a factor different than the predicted one. The five factors explained respectively 11, 8, 8, 7, and 6% of the variance, and corresponded to openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability. In order to obtain refined and clear-cut factors, only items with factor loadings higher than |.40| on the main factor, and a ratio higher than 2 between the primary and the secondary loading were retained for the final solution. The only exception was the adjective “cynical” of the agreeableness dimension which had a primary loading slightly below the .40 threshold (.39) and had a ratio less than 2 between the primary and the secondary loadings. This adjective was nevertheless included in the analysis in order to have at least six adjectives for each dimension. Table 7 reports the adjectives eventually chosen as part of the five dimensions considered.

Bivariate correlations and multiple regressions (study 2)

The correlation matrix (see Table 8) did not show strong correlations between personality traits and preferences for tourist options. Three of the five personality dimensions were (slightly) related to such preferences. In particular, agreeableness showed a low but statistically significant positive correlation with preferences for the “culture and nature” forms of tourism, and the same can be said for extraversion which showed an equally low correlation with preferences for the “comfort and leisure” and the “sport and adventure in nature” forms of tourism. Openness to experience correlated slightly with preferences for “sport and adventure in nature” activities.

Table 8.

Means (M), standard deviations (DS), and bivariate correlations in study 2.

	M	DS	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Nature and culture	5.29	.79	–	–	–	–	–	.17**	–	.24**
2. Sport and adv. in nat.	4.83	.74		.17**	15*	.13*	–	–	–	–.16**
3. Comfort and leisure	5.33	.82			–	.14*	–	–	–	–
4. Openness to exp.	4.75	1.15				.37**	–	.14*	–	–.14*
5. Extraversion	4.64	1.20					–	.12*	.14*	–
6. Conscientiousness	4.84	1.20						–	.21**	–
7. Agreeableness	5.66	.85							.16**	–
8. Emotional stability	3.89	1.09								–
9. Age	40.03	14.95

Note: All scores range between 1 and 7; correlations marked with an asterisk are significant for p < .05; all other correlations are significant for p<.01; not significant correlations are not displayed.

The three sets of multiple regressions, performed using the three types of tourist preferences as criteria, confirmed that personality factors cannot be considered as strong direct predictors of preferences, for they tend to explain less than 10% of the overall variances in preferences.

Conclusion and discussion

The studies reported here confirm the existence of an association between tourism preferences, personal values, general attitude toward sustainable tourism, and general acceptance of diversity (social, political, environmental, etc.). Moreover, three personality dimensions such as agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience were found to be related to tourist preferences as well. More specifically, on the basis of our data, those who tend to prefer more sustainable tourism activities show higher levels of pro-social and biospheric (i.e. nature protection) values, and believe, more often than others, that people should consider the possible social and environmental impact of their tourism choices when planning their vacation. Furthermore, although they do have comparable levels of extraversion and openness to experiences (as personality traits) and openness to change (as value) as the others, they are clearly more inclined to accept the diversity of the social and environmental features that surround them. It is thus not surprising that these people also distinguish themselves from the others for their higher levels of agreeableness as a personality trait. As a matter of fact, this trait was typically found to be associated with higher levels of selflessness, morality, empathy, greater concern for others, cooperativeness, and willingness to compromise one's own interests in view of a common cause. According to some authors, this explains why agreeableness has been consistently found to be associated with both pro-environmental concern and environmental engagement in the past (Brick and Lewis, 2015; Hirsh, 2010; Milfont and Sibley, 2012; Swami et al., 2011). If we define a sustainable tourist as a person who is highly committed to respect the sustainability principles when on holiday, the people described earlier could be reasonably defined as “sustainable tourists”. The coherent pattern of contextual preferences and internal motivations they show is likely to lead them toward more sustainable tourism choices, whenever possible.

However, not all the results obtained here are coherent with the previous literature. For example, different from previous results, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience did not show an association with sustainable tourism preferences in our case. This might have several explanations. For example, Hirsh (2010) suggested that as conscientiousness is related to willingness to comply with social norms and to concern for future consequences, conscientious individuals might be more inclined than others to endorse responsible behaviors directed to obtain better future outcomes. However, we could argue that this should happen only when people are aware of the future consequences of their behaviors and when the considered behaviors are clearly socially prescribed. This is the case of the behaviors targeted by previous studies on personality and environmental issues (i.e. lowering water consumption, increasing energy saving, and responsibly managing household waste), which refer to well-known environmental and social issues, corresponding to specific and unequivocal normative prescriptions. On the contrary, it is unclear at the moment whether, in modern western societies, people are aware of the future consequences of tourism's environmental and social impact; similarly one could wonder whether in these same societies any clear normative prescription concerning the appropriate or inappropriate tourism choices can be identified. Similar considerations could be put forward to explain the lack of correlations between extraversion and sustainable tourism preferences. As Milfont and Sibley (2012) suggested, extraverted people might be strongly affected by the dominant worldviews and by the normative prescriptions of their society; however, we would object, that they should show pro-environmental and pro-social behaviors only when these are clearly socially codified and prompted. This indicates that if we want someone with that personality characteristic to be committed in tourism sustainability we have to make the appropriate choice as normatively salient. In other words, correct and incorrect choices have to be made clear and their social relevance needs to be stressed out. Other inconsistencies with previous results, such as the lack of relationship between openness to experience and sustainable tourism preferences recorded in our case, suggest that the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and pro-environmental behaviors might vary according to the specific behavior considered. Moreover, it is always important to bear in mind that personality traits are typical higher order factors of dispositional nature which usually exert indirect, rather than direct, effects on specific behaviors (see also Brick and Lewis, 2015). As a matter of fact, the correlations between tourism preferences and personality traits found in this study are rather weak, that is lower than .20, while regression analysis indicated that the Big Five model can explain only modest proportions of variability in tourist preferences. This means that other factors, for example, of less dispositional and of more adaptive (or contextual) nature might intervene to moderate or mediate their effects on tourism preferences. Our data suggest that participants' ATD and their general ATST might play such a role. These factors showed higher correlations with sustainable tourism choices than personality traits (and comparable to those recorded for age). In this sense, not only ATD and ATST appear to substantially contribute to delineate the possible profile of the “sustainable tourist,” but they are also of help in disentangling the more controversial nature of the other two kinds of preferences. For example, they suggest that preferences for the “sport and adventure in nature” activities might characterize younger respondents whose preferences contradict their apparent ideological endorsement of pro-social and pro-environmental beliefs. This might be due to a mere superficial acceptance of such beliefs and/or to a scarce knowledge of the social and environmental impact of certain outdoor activities, or, more simply, to the difficulty to limit one's own quest for exciting trendy experiences. The pattern of correlations showed by ATD, ATST, and GATF with preferences for “comfort and leisure” activities, instead, leave no doubt that people who appreciate these activities tend in general to look for places with many facilities for tourists, show higher levels of egoistic values and negative ATST, although, they do not differ from others in terms of ATD. This means that although they do not necessarily dislike diversity, they are not willing to endorse social and environmental responsibility while on holiday: likely, they believe that these tasks should be endorsed by someone else.

Limits of the study and possible future developments

The exploratory nature of the present study limited the possibility to delineate a comprehensive model of tourist preferences. For example, more studies are needed in order to better understand the way in which ATD and ATST combine with other factors in explaining sustainable tourism choices. The use of a social–psychological theoretical model is advisable in this sense, because it would be of help in both assessing the relative weight of the various factors involved and explain the reasons of the effects recorded. For example, Corral-Verdugo and colleagues (2009; see also Bonnes et al., 2009) suggested that ATD can also be intended as part of a wider pro-sustainability orientation which include other factors of both cognitive and emotional nature such as the consideration of the future consequences of ones' own actions and the feelings of indignation for the insufficient protection of the environment. These aspects were not considered in the present studies and should be included in future research on tourism sustainability. Moreover, Stern's et al.'s (1999) Values–Beliefs–Norms theory, which encompasses most of the aspects considered in the present study, has shown its utility in explaining pro-environmental activism and could be used as a starting point for evaluating more complex patterns of relationships also in the domain of sustainable tourism. Particularly informative would be to then compare the relative effects of adaptive/contextual factors (such as values, beliefs, norms, etc.) and dispositional ones (skill, competences, personality traits, etc.) in a unique study, and to focus on actual and/or self-reported behavior, rather than exclusively on preferences as it was done here. It is true that previous studies which have attempted to combine the Big Five model of personality with other social psychological theories have obtained mixed results (see for example, Hoyt et al., 2009; Picazo-Vela et al., 2010). However, it would be worthwhile to ascertain whether other personality traits, not considered by the Big Five model, might better work as additional predictors within such models. All this could lead to less descriptive and more explicative results which, in turn, could help in designing more effective interventions able to foster sustainable choices in the tourism domain.

Footnotes

Author Biographies

Paola Passafaro is an assistant professor. Her research interests and main publications focus on pro–environmental attitudes and behaviors, environmental education, and environmentally sustainable tourism.

Francesca Cini has a PhD in Applied Research in Social Sciences. Her current research interests include environmental communication, environmental attitudes-behavior relationship, ecotourism and restorative tourism.

Lorenzo Boi, Michela D'Angelo, Maria Sofia Heering, Laura Luchetti, Armando Mancini, Valentina Martemucci, Giulia Pacella, Fabio Patrizi, Federica Sassu and Monica Triolo are graduating students in Psychological Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and Psychology of the University of Rome “La sapienza”. Their research interest focused on the psychological determinants of sustainable tourism choices.

References

Alfsen-Norodom

Lane

(2002) Global knowledge networking for site specific strategies: The International Conference on Biodiversity and Society. Environmental Science and Policy 5: 3–8.

Bamberg

Möser

(2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27: 14–25.

Bartlett

(1954) A note on the multiplying factors for various χ² approximations. Journal of Royal statistic Society, B 16: 296–298.

Berno

Ward

(2005) Innocence abroad A pocket guide to psychological research on tourism. American Psychologist 60: 593–600.

Boersching

De Young

(1993) Evaluation of selected recycling curricula: Educating the green citizenship. Journal of Environmental Education 24: 17–22.

Bonnes

Carrus

Corral-Verdugo

(2009) The socio-psychological affinity towards diversity: From biodiversity to socio-ecological sustainability. In: Corral-Verdugo

García-Cadena

Frías-Armenta

(eds) Psychological Approaches to Sustainability, New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 1–17.

Borden

Francis

(1978) Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex differences in environmental concern. Journal of Personality 46: 190–203.

Bramwell

Lane

(1993) Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 1–5.

Brick

Lewis

(2015) Unearthing the “Green” Personality. Core traits predict environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior 15. Epub ahead of print in press. DOI 10.1177/0013916514554695.

10.

Byrd

(2007) Stakeholders in sustainable tourism and their role: Applying stakeholder theory to sustainable development. Tourism Review 62: 6–13.

11.

Caprara

Perugini

(1994) Personality described by adjective: The generalizability of the Big Five to the Italian lexical context. European Journal of Personality 8: 357–369.

12.

Caspi

Bem

(1990) Personality continuity and change across the life course. In: Pervin

(eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 549–575.

13.

Cohen

Higham

JES

Cavaliere

(2011) Binge flying: Behavioural addiction and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research 38: 1070–1089.

14.

Corral-Verdugo

Bonnes

Tapia-Fonllem

(2009) Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The affinity towards diversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 34–43.

15.

Crick-Furman

Prentice

(2000) Modeling tourists' multiple values. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 69–92.

16.

Davis

Green

Reed

(2009) Interdependence with the environment: Commitment interconnectedness and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 173–180.

17.

di Castri

Balayi

(2002) Tourism Biodiversity and Information, Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.

18.

Digman

(1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41: 417–440.

19.

Frew

Shaw

(1999) The relationship between personality gender and tourism behavior. Tourism Management 20: 193–202.

20.

Gilchrist

Povey

Dickinson

(1995) The sensation seeking scale and its use in a study of the characteristics of people choosing ‘adventure holidays’. Personality and Individual Differences 19: S13–S16.

21.

Griffith

Albanese

(1996) An examination of Plog's psychographic travel model within a student population. Journal of Travel Research 34: 47–51.

22.

Guillitte

(2005) Biodiversity and sociodiversity for a sustainable development. Liaison Energie Francophonie 68: 95–98.

23.

Hares

Dickinson

Wilkes

(2010) Climate change and the air travel decisions of UK tourists. Journal of Transport Geography 18: 466–473.

24.

Hibbert

Dickinson

Gössling

(2013) Identity and tourism mobility: An exploration of the attitude–behaviour gap. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21: 999–1016.

25.

Higham

Cohen

Peeters

(2013) Psychological and behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable mobility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21: 949–967.

26.

Hines

Hungerford

Tomera

(1986/1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18: 1–8.

27.

Hirsh

(2010) Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 245–248.

28.

Holland

(1958) A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of Applied Psychology 42: 336–342.

29.

Holland

(1985) Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities And Work Environments, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

30.

Hoxter

Lester

(1987) Personality correlates of allocentrism versus psychocentrism in choice of destination for travel. Psychological Reports 60: 1138.

31.

Hoyt

Rhodes

Hausenbals

(2009) Integrating five-factor model facet-level traits with the theory of planned behavior and exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10: 565–572.

32.

Hunecke

Blöbaum

Matthies

(2001) Responsibility and environment: Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior 33: 830–852.

33.

Hunter

(1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24: 850–867.

34.

Hwang

Kim

Jeng

(2000) Examining the causal relationship among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 31: 19–25.

35.

ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives) (1999) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Sustainable Tourism a Local Authority Perspective, Bonn, Germany: ICLEI.

36.

Jackson

(1986) Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure Studies 5: 1–23.

37.

Jackson

(1987) Outdoor recreation participation and views on resource development and preservation. Leisure Studies 9: 235–250.

38.

Jimeno

Sotomayor

Valderrama

(1995) Chocó: Diversidad cultural y medio ambiente, [Chocó: Cultural diversity and environment]. Bogotá Colombia: Fondo FEN.

39.

Jurowski

Uysal

Williams

(1995) An examination of preferences and evaluations of visitors based on environmental attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3: 73–86.

40.

Kaiser

(1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31–36.

41.

Kaiser

Shimoda

(1999) Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 243–253.

42.

Kals

Schumacher

Montada

(1999) Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior 31: 178–202.

43.

Kellert

(1997) Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development, Washington, DC: Island Press.

44.

Kellert

Wilson

(1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis, Washington, DC: Island Press.

45.

JTG

(2001) Assessing progress of tourism sustainability. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 817–820.

46.

Lee

(2013) The influence of personality traits health knowledge and product attributes on intent to purchase Taiwan's healthcare tourism products. Social Behavior and Personality 41: 395–410.

47.

Lepp

Gibson

(2008) Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management 29: 740–750.

48.

C-Y

Tsai

B-K

(2013) Impact of extraversion and sensation seeking on international tourism choices. Social Behavior and Personality 41: 327–334.

49.

Litvin

(2008) Sensation seeking and its measurement for tourism research. Journal of Travel Research 46: 440–445.

50.

Kao

S-F

(2009) Direct and indirect effects of personality traits on leisure satisfaction: Evidence from a national probability sample in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality 37: 191–192.

51.

McCrae

(2010) The place of the FFM in personality psychology. Psychological Inquiry 21: 57–64.

52.

McCrae

Costa

Jr (2008) Empirical and theoretical status of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In: Boyle

Matthews

Saklofske

(eds) Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment Vol. 1: Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 273–294.

53.

McCrae

John

(1992) An introduction to the five factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60: 175–215.

54.

Milfont

Sibley

(2012) The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32: 187–195.

55.

O'Hara

(1995) Valuing sociodiversity. International Journal of Social Economics 22: 31–49.

56.

Passafaro P and Cini F (2012) The sustainable tourist: can pro-environmental values and hedonism coexist? In: Poster presented at the Planet Under Pressure – New Knowledge Towards Solutions – Conference, London, 26–29 March 2012.

57.

Passafaro

Cini

Bocchi

(2012) Atteggiamenti ecologici e preferenze per attività e servizi turistici nella prospettiva della Psicologia Ambientale. Turismo e Psicologia 1: 27–45. [Attitudes and preferences for tourist activities according to an environmental psychology perspective]. Available at: http://journals padovauniversitypress it/turismoepsicologia/sites/all/attachments/papers/%20Atteggiamenti%20ecologici.pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).

58.

Pearce

Packer

(2013) Minds on the move: new links from psychology to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 40: 386–411.

59.

Perugini

Leone

(1995) Costruzione e validazione di una lista di aggettivi per la misura dei Big Five (Labif) [Building and validation of an adjective list for the measurement of the Big Five]. Rassegna di Psicologia 1: 103–125.

60.

Pettus

Giles

(1987) Personality characteristics and environmental attitudes. Population and Environment 9: 127–137.

61.

Picazo-Vela

Chou

Melcher

(2010) Why provide an online review? An extended theory of planned behavior and the role of Big-Five personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 685–696.

62.

Plog

(1987) Understanding psychographics in tourism research. In: Ritchie

Goeldner

(eds) Travel Tourism and Hospitality Research, New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 203–214.

63.

Plog

(1991) A carpenter's tools re-visited: Measuring allocentrism and psychocentrism properly…The first time. Journal of Travel Research 29: 51.

64.

Shah K, McHarry J and Gardiner R (2002) Sustainable tourism – turning the edge. Towards Earth Summit 2002.

65.

Steg

Vlek

(2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29: 309–317.

66.

Stern

Dietz

Guagnano

(1998) A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58: 984–1001.

67.

Stern

Dietz

Abel

(1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6: 81–97.

68.

Swami

Chamorro-Premuzic

Snelgar

(2011) Personality individual differences and demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste management behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31: 21–26.

69.

Tam

K-P

(2013) Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34: 64–78.

70.

Tonn

(2007) Futures sustainability. Futures 39: 1097–1116.

71.

UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (2010a) Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=cop-10 (accessed 5 February 2014).

72.

UNEP/CBD/COP/X/27/Add 1 (2010b) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Provisional Technical Rationale Possible Indicators and Suggested Milestones for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop-10-27-add1-en.pdf (accessed 5 February 2014).

73.

UNESCO—United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Paris, 20 October 2005. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf (accessed 11 December 2014).

74.

UNESCO—United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2010) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris, 3 September 2010. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2010/whc10-34com-20e.pdf (accessed 11 December 2014).

75.

United Nation Environmental Program UNEP (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed 5 February 2014).

76.

United Nations (2012) The future we want. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on July 2012. A/RES/66/288.

77.

UNWTO—United Nations World Tourism Organization (2007) Davos Declaration on Climate Changes and Tourism – Responding to Global Challenges. Davos, Switzerland. 3 October 2007. Available at: http://www.unwto.org/climate/support/en/pdf/decla_davos_e.pdf (accessed 18 November 2010).

78.

Uysal

Jurowski

Noe

(1994) Environmental attitude by trip and visitor characteristics: US Virgin Islands National Park. Tourism Management 15: 284–294.

79.

Wille

De Fruyt

(2014) Vocations as a source of identity: Reciprocal relations between big five personality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 262–281.

80.

Wilson

(1999) The Diversity of Life, New York: WW Norton.

81.

WTTC and UNWTO—World Travel and Tourism Council World Tourism Organization and the Earth Council (1996) Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development.

82.

Zuckerman

(2008) Personality and sensation seeking. In: Boyle

Matthews

Saklofske

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Vol. 1: Personality theories and models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 379–398. .

83.

Zuckerman

Kolin

Price

(1964) Development of a sensation-seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology 28: 477–482.