Ways of the green tourist in Europe Martin Falk Austrian Institute of Economic Research Eva Hagsten University of Iceland Lecture Università del Salento 6.4.2018
Motivation One out of three European tourists citizens who went on holiday in 2015 chose a green destination for his/her main holiday in 2015 (Eurobarometer 2016) One out of eight inhabitants chose a green transportation mode Only 7 per cent put emphasis on both, but variation is large across countries and individual characteristics Little is known about what drives green tourist behaviour
Per cent 70 60 50 Motivation Environmentally-friendly destination/hotel/green / label Environmentally-friendly destination/hotel/green label combined with lowcarbon transport 40 30 20 10 0 LU GB BE RO TR AT IE FI PL CZ MT IS PT DE MD GR FR HR SI SE ES LV DK LT SK HU NL IT CY BG ME EE MK Share of green tourists vary across countries and by definition. Notes: Weighted by sample weights Source: Eurobarometer 2016
Purpose Aim of study a) To investigate the characteristics of green tourists in Europe, who either regard environmentallyfriendly practices at the destination as important for their choice of holiday, or choose this in combination with a low carbon (green) transportation mode. b) Take into account the role of cross-country country differences, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics Empirical model c) Bivariate Probit model (Random effects bivariate probit) Main contribution d) First empirical investigation based on an representative and internationally comparable data e) Joint modeling of choice of low carbon transportation mode and green destination/hotel (calculation of joint marginal effects)
Conceptual lbackground Increased interest for destinations and hotels with environmentally-friendly practices (Han et al., 2011) Green certification schemes are now widespread (Buckley, 2002; Font, 2002; Fairweather et al., 2005; Geerts, 2014; Gössling and Buckley, 2016, Penz et al., 2017) Examples of tourism ecolabels: ISO14000, EMAS, CSR-Tourism, European Ecolabel, European green city award Destination awareness of environmental problems; focus on ecotourism /nature based tourism (Andereck, 2009) Ecological footprints of tourists is mainly driven by the choice of transportation mode, low carbon transportation include all forms of slow travel (Gössling et al., 2002; Peeters & Schouten, 2006; Dickinson and dlumsdon, 2012)
Conceptual lbackground Green certification schemes
Conceptual lbackground Country of residence matters: Tourists from Western Europe are more environmentally-friendly than those from the East => Stricter environmental llaws, presence of environmental pressure groups and better established green culture Women and older person stronger preference for green hotels and destinations (Hvenegaard and Deardon, 1998; Han et al., 2011 ; Leonidou et al., 2015) Characteristics of green tourists or pro-environmental attitudes (Hvenegaard and Deardon, 1998; Leonidou et al., 2015; Dolnicar, Crouch and Long, 2008): i) more educated and have a higher income ii) relationship with age and gender is mixed iii) socio-demographic factors only explain a modest part of the variability of environmentally friendly attitudes of tourists t
Conceptual lbackground The green tourist Several definitions in circulation (Juvan and Dolnicar, 2016), for instance someone who is: i Environmentally-friendly or environmentally caring (Dolnicar et al., 2008). ii Takes interest in eco, nature based, sustainable or rural tourism (Fennell and Weaver, 2005; Dolnicar, Crouch and Long, 2008) iii Actively seeks and then uses green product information in the decision-making process for his/her holiday (Miller, 2003) Definition used in this study: A truly green tourist is someone who pays specific attention to both environmentally-friendly (green) practices at the destination and green transportation modes to get there. Surveys suffer from the social desirability bias (response bias) (Fisher 1993) Bias is likely to be small
l h Empirical approach Bivariate Probit model estimated by Maximum Likelihood * Green transportation mode: otherwise 0 0 GREENTRANS 1 GREENTRANS * Green destination: Green transportation mode:. ß X GREENTRANS i 1 1 i 1 * i otherwise 0 0 GREENDEST 1 GREENDEST * * X GREENTRANS. ß X GREENDEST i 2 2 i 2 * i d d l d f d 1 1, 0 0 N ~ 2 1 2 2 2 * 1 1 1 X GREENDEST X GREENTRANS Standard errors are clustered across country of residence Test bivariate probit vs. two univariate probit models: Wald test of rho Marginal effects for joint probabilities: Pr(GREENTRANS=1,GREENDEST=1), g j p (, ), Pr(GREENTRANS=0,GREENDEST=1) Extension:
Empirical approach Probability of environmentally-friendly transportation mode or green destination Y * it 5 F 1 ß ß 0 F 2 D1 ß D DESTCNTY TFREQUENCY if id ß W 8 M 1 ß M WOMEN TMOTIVATIO N i 5 A1 28 8 2 ßCCOUNTRY ic ßOOCCUPATION io C 1 O1 P1 ß A im AGECAT Independent variables (all binary variables): DESTCNTY: Country where main holiday was spent COUNTRY: Country of residence traveller TCOMPANY: If travel was with a group ß P ia 6 TC 1 ß TC POPDENSITY TCOMPANION ip i (4) () itc TMOTIVATION: Main motivation (sun, city, nature,.. TFREQUENCY: Travel frequency per year AGECAT: Age class of traveller OCCUPATION: Occupational class of traveller WOMEN: Traveller is a woman POPDENSITY: Size of the area where the traveller resides
Empirical approach Extensions multi-level level (random coefficients) bivariate Probit model Constant varies across main destination country (# 34) Country of the destination (main holiday) percentages Other 10.0 Spain 9.8 Italy 8.7 France 8.2 Greece 6.5 Separate estimations for EU-15 and remaining European countries
Data source Dataset with 30,000 observations, among which 19,833 relates to individuals who undertook a holiday trip in 2015, including information on: i Actual (outbound) holiday travel by destination in 2015 ii Wide range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics iii Residents aged 15 years and older in the 28 European Union Member States plus neighbouring countries iv Information on actual trips with at least one overnight stay and the motivation for the travel Flash Eurobarometer 432 Preferences of Europeans towards Tourism, January 2016 (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/s2065_432_eng) eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/s2065
Data source Key question in Eurobarometer used for the analysis: Were any of the following aspects relevant for you when you chose the destination(s) i to visit i during your main holiday in 2015? 1) The local destination (city, village, region) had introduced sustainable/environmentally-friendly y practices (e.g. measures to protect natural and cultural resources, to reduce the environmental impact of tourism, or to involve the local population in tourist services and the benefits of tourism) (20%) 2) The hotel/accommodation had introduced environmentally-friendly tourism practices (e.g. energy/water saving measures, recycling, fair-trade food, etc.) (14%) 3) The destination was accessible by a means of transport with hlow impact on the environment (16%) 4) The destination or service used (e.g. accommodation, attraction) was certified with a label indicating sustainable/environmentally-friendly yp practices (10%) Combination of questions 1, 2 and 4 = green (environmentally friendly) destination
Descriptive statistics ti ti Travellers who choose both green destinations and green transportation modes (truly green tourists) Per cent 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Source: Eurobarometer 2016
Per cent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Descriptive statistics ti ti Green destinations and green transportation modes by purpose of trip Source: Eurobarometer 2016
Descriptive statistics Green destinations and green transportation mode by age-class Per cent Source: Eurobarometer 2016
Descriptive statistics e, % 3. ation mode y transporta.2 ally-friendly.1 Env vironmenta 0 EE Correlation: 0.72, p-value 0.00 RO IE GR CZ HRAT FI DE IS SK MD HU BG ES IT LTLV PT PL SE SI ME MT FR DK CY MK NL GB LU BE 0.1.2.3.4.5.6 Environmentally-friendly destinations, % TR Source: Eurobarometer 2016
Empirical results Univariate probit models are rejected: Wald test of rho=0 : p-value: 0.00: correlation coefficient of the error terms is 0.26 Factors of importance for choice of green destinations * Country of residence by far most important t determinant: t Residents in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg particularly keen * Interest in outdoor activities, travel with a partner (spouse) or regular travel Being a woman Factors of less or no importance *C Country of residence is in Eastern Europe * Being older * Kind of occupation (not relevant)
Empirical results Country of residence most important also for truly green tourist behaviour * Visitors from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Turkey show the highest interest * Tourists from relatively remote countries (Denmark, Estonia, Iceland and Sweden) have the lowest preference for truly green travel * Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics have limited influence The truly green tourist * Spends his or her main holiday ld close to home (country of residence) *Prefers nature based holiday trips
Robustness checks Empirical results Random effects bivariate probit model (at the destination country level): RE not significant, z- values much Lower in absolute terms Random effects coeff. st. dev eq 1 ecotrans 0.047 0.065 eq 2 ecodest 0021 0.021 0.052052 Separate estimates for the EU-15 sample: magnitude and significance of the marginal effects do not change much except the travel motivation and age of the truly green tourist Magnitude of city and nature based trips is almost twice Tourists aged 15-24 years is the group most concerned with the truly green tourist *
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination d/d dy/dx z-value d/d dy/dx z-value Contextual factors Main holiday destination (reference: non-europe) Home country 0.020020 *** 340 3.40-0.013 013-1.38 138 Europe 0.014 *** 2.67-0.008-0.86 Travel motivation (reference category: sun/beach) Wellness/Spa/health / treatment 0.013 ** 2.40 0.026 ** 2.18 City trips 0.010 * 1.87-0.022 ** -2.31 Sport-related activities 0.004 0.52 0.033 ** 2.39 Nature (mountain, lake, landscape, etc.) 0.018 *** 3.66 0.047 *** 4.22 Culture (e.g. religious, gastronomy) 0.005 0.99-0.005-0.36 Visiting family/friends/relatives -0.002-0.67-0.037 *** -4.90 Specific events (sporting events/festivals) 0.007 0.85 0.023 1.59 Other -0.016 *** -3.47-0.026 * -1.71
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination dy/dx zvalue z-value dy/dx zvalue z-value Travel companion (reference category: alone) With my partner/spouse 0.012 *** 3.19 0.025 *** 3.42 With family (adults only) 0.011 *** 2.69 0.025 *** 2.58 With family (including children under 18 y 0.007 * 1.78 0.019 *** 2.78 With friend(s) 0.011 *** 3.35 0.024 *** 2.96 With organised group 0.012 * 1.88 0.014 1.15 Other 0.010 0.70-0.016-0.53 Travel frequency in 2015 (reference category: once) Twice 0.008 ** 2.00 0.018 * 1.67 Three times 0.003 0.90 0.023 ** 1.99 Four to Five times -0.005-1.41 0.032 *** 3.41 Six to ten times -0.001-0.17 0.021 ** 2.13 More than ten times -0.002-0.58 0.034 ** 2.58
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination dy/dx z-value dy/dx z-value Women 0.003 * 1.66 0.023 *** 4.41 Age category (reference category: 15-24 years) 25-34 years -0.011 * -1.85-0.020-1.16 35-44 years -0.011 ** -2.04-0.011-0.65 45-54 years -0.010 * -1.89-0.024-1.42 55-64 years -0.010-1.44-0.006-0.31 >=65 years -0.012 * -1.83-0.028 * -1.70 Household size (reference category : three persons or more) One person 0.000-0.07 0.000 0.03 Two persons -0.002-0.90 0.003 0.50
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination dy/dx zvalue z-value dy/dx zvalue z-value Occupation (reference category: manual workers) Highly skilled prof. (ref manual workers) -0.013 * -1.88-0.028 ** -2.01 Medium skilled occupations -0.007-0.82-0.046 *** -2.59 salesmen, nurses -0.003-0.52-0.034 *** -2.65 farmers, craftsmen -0.014 ** -2.26-0.021-1.19 Retired -0.006-1.01-0.027-1.60 Students -0.001-0.06-0.029-1.55 Housewife -0.013 ** -2.05-0.035 ** -1.96 Civil servants -0.006 006-0.79 079-0.034 0034 ** -2.16 216 Unemployed 0.000 0.01-0.029 * -1.84 Population density area of residence (reference c Small or medium-sized city 0.003 0.98 0.015 1.51 Large city 0.006 * 1.86 0.016 1.57
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination Country of residence (reference category: Germany) AT (Austria) 0014 0.014 *** 12.1111 0012 0.012 *** 475 4.75 BE (Belgium) 0.066 *** 27.22 0.161 *** 45.19 BG (Bulgaria) -0.025 *** -13.58-0.058 *** -12.02 CY (Cyprus) -0.020 *** -10.77 0.040 *** 6.77 CZ (Check Republic) -0.004 ** -2.39-0.043 *** -9.24 DK (Denmark) -0.031 *** -17.22-0.043 *** -15.92 EE (Estonia) -0.057 *** -15.03-0.140 *** -31.59 ES (Spain) -0.014 0014 *** -8.98 898 0015 0.015 *** 385 3.85 FI (Finland) -0.008 *** -4.50-0.047 *** -12.17 FR (France) -0.013 *** -9.06 0.084 *** 20.59 GB (United Kingdom) 0.080 *** 28.88 0.079 *** 22.74 GR(Greece) 0.011 *** 4.87 0.007 1.20 HR (Croatia) -0.001-0.33 0.031 *** 8.63 HU (Hungary) -0.020 *** -15.16-0.027 *** -8.16 IE (Ireland) 0.050 *** 22.41 0.065 *** 18.86 IS (Iceland) -0.023 *** -15.09-0.107 *** -25.72 IT (Italy) -0.013 *** -7.67 0.028 *** 5.68
Empirical results Green transportation and green destination Green destination LT (Lithuania) -0.007 *** -4.22 0.030 *** 6.23 LU (Luxembourg) 0.054 *** 17.67 0.189 *** 48.49 LV (Latvia) -0.009 *** *** -6.28 0.059 *** 12.48 MD (Moldova) 0.025 *** 7.08 *** 0.125 17.40 ME (Montenegro) -0.013 *** -5.95 0.051 *** 11.07 MK (Macedonia) -0.037 *** -15.02-0.056 *** -10.54 MT (Malta) -0.008008 *** -371-3.71 0.109 *** 13.41 NL (Netherlands) -0.037 *** -17.86-0.027 *** -6.28 PL (Poland) -0.007 *** -4.37 0.045 *** 9.50 PT Portugal) -0.016 *** -10.37 0.040 *** 10.09 RO (Romania) 0.038 *** 13.02 0.024 *** 6.26 SE (Sweden) -0.028 *** -18.57-0.072 *** -19.46 SI (Slovenia) -0.029 *** -16.25-0.078 *** -17.34 SK (Slovakia) -0.002-0.97 0.001 0.17 TR (Turkey) 0.090 *** 14.43 0.312 *** 39.10 Mean predicted probability 0.057 0.216
Conclusions Share of truly green tourists, who consider green transportation modes in combination with green destinations is low (seven per cent) Travel motivation and country of residence of the visitors are most important factors explaining i the behaviour of (truly) green tourists t Truly green tourist is more often found among individuals who spend their main holiday in their home country Lower interest in green holidays among older and skilled people is a surprise Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are less important Green destinations and transportation not prioritised dby travellers from geographically peripheral environmentally aware locations (Nordic countries, for instance)
Implications Results useful for hotel managers and destination marketing organisations: Help to identify market segments of tourists with a strong preference for green destinations and travel =>design of green marketing campaigns Results also important for policy makers who wish to target fields where the environmental awareness can be improved Distance to the main holiday destinations is a problem: most people cannot afford the long time needed for alternative, greener, modes Long distance travel by train could pose a problem: long-distance trains no longer have coordinated time tables across Europe Limitations: associations no causal effects, panel data models needed Future work: separate estimates for each country or by travel motivation (distinguishing between city, cultural ltrips or nature based trips) or for specific occupational groups or age categories