- Email: [email protected]
Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: The impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return
International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: The impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return夽 Orie Berezan a,∗ , Carola Raab a , Michelle Yoo b , Curtis Love a a b
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, United States Florida International University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Guest satisfaction Intention to return Sustainability Green hotel attributes Green hotel practices
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to identify how sustainable hotel practices impact the satisfaction and intention to return of hotel guests from different nationalities. Surveys were completed by hotel guests in a popular tourist destination in Mexico. Multiple regression and multinomial logistic regression were applied to test the hypotheses. Results of this study supported the research hypotheses that indicate green practices overall do have a positive relationship on guests’ satisfaction levels and return intentions for Mexicans, Americans and other nationalities. Additionally, it was shown that the relative importance of green practices differs according to the nationality of the guest. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction The impact of the growth of worldwide tourism growth on the environment has become a vital topic within the hospitality industry. A majority of American travelers now consider themselves “environmentally conscious” (U.S. Travel Association, 2009) and feel that lodging companies should engage in sustainability actions (Weissenberg et al., 2008). With increased customer awareness, sustainable practices may become important to travelers in choosing a hotel (Tzschentkea, 2008). 2. Literature review For over a decade, hotels have been incorporating many green approaches in their operations (Revilla et al., 2001). Such practices range from recycling, to purchasing local produce, to implementing rigorous LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification standards. However, these practices have been employed randomly and without research on how specific practices might influence a customer’s hotel selection (Millar and Baloglu, 2008). Dolliver (2008) suggests that companies need to make better-informed decisions on their environmental initiatives by first understanding what their customers want. Furthermore, the Deloitte Consumer Survey (2008) found that there is often a discrepancy between what travelers expect of hotels and the
夽 The authors would like to acknowledge the research support of Caesars Foundation. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 702 742 7269. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Berezan), [email protected] (C. Raab), [email protected] (M. Yoo), [email protected] (C. Love). 0278-4319/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.010
green initiatives that hotels undertake. Programs are often implemented despite knowing what customers want (Millar and Baloglu, 2008). In addition, the international community’s shift toward a ‘green economy’ has “accelerated significantly,” with increased recognition of issues that impact the environment (Lipman and Vorster, 2011, p. 77). However, the significance placed on such matters has not been consistent across nations. For example, according to the World Economic Forum (2011), Mexico’s stringency and enforcement of environmental regulations rate is far lower than those of the US. In addition, in contrast to the U.S., Mexican hotel managers’ attitudes and behaviors toward the implementation of hotel sustainable practices also ignore guest preferences for sustainable hotel practices (Revilla et al. (2001). Therefore, it can be assumed that Mexican hotels would overall be less engaged in such practices than hotels in the United States. A recent study revealed that American hotel guests associated environmentally friendly hotels with functional attributes, such as energy and water conservation. On the other hand, Mexican hotel guests associated such hotels with emotional qualities such as peaceful, natural, and comfortable (Berezan et al., 2014). These differences may suggest disparities in specific expected hotel environmental practices with respect to guest satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to investigate these inconsistencies in general, and to provide hoteliers with specific environmental hotel practices that are important to hotel guests, based on the responses of a sample of different nationalities in Mexico. 2.1. Going green The initial reasons for a hotel to “go green” were governmental pressures, the desire to preserve resources by reducing
228
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
waste, and conserving energy and water. Recent research, however, suggests that implementing sustainable practices is becoming increasingly important to the competitiveness of hotels (Han et al., 2009; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Tierney et al., 2011; Ogbeide, 2012). In fact, guests now expect environmental attributes in hotels (Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). Robinot and Giannelloni (2010) further elaborate that, because of this expectation, it is important for hotels to maintain environmental initiatives. According to Joe McInerney (personal communication, April 2011), President of the AHLA, green hotel practices started to become a priority in the late 1990s. Although the importance of such practices (specifically acquiring green certification) declined after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing economic crisis, it has once again become a focus of hoteliers. Mensah (2004) found that 90% of hotel guests would prefer to stay in a hotel that has a green management policy. Furthermore, Kimpton Hotels reports that 16% of their guests choose them because of their eco-friendly practices (Butler, 2008). Kim and Han (2010) found that participants were happy to undergo minor inconveniences in order to support green initiatives. Furthermore, a green hotel image can result in favorable behavioral intentions by hotel guests, including intention to revisit (Lee et al., 2010; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007). In addition, when considering the theory of consumer demand (Lancaster, 1966) characteristics of the hotel, including sustainable practices should impact hotel guests’ choice of a property. A stream of research in the marketing literature has concluded that customer satisfaction is expected to result in repeat purchases and is also proven to have a close relationship to purchase intentions (Swan and Combs, 1976). Consumers form their beliefs about a product’s attributes through their cognitive-learning; then they generate affective responses and attitudes regarding their likes or dislikes for the products; and, finally, the likes and dislikes lead to purchase behavior intentions and purchase behaviors (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). While a wealth of research concludes that relationships exist among performance, expectations, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, these relationships have not been applied to sustainable hotel practices. Sustainable practices can be seen as crucial factors in customers’ hotel selection decisions. Conversely, a 2004 study of visitors to Penang, Malaysia, found that although respondents were environmentally conscious, they were not necessarily concerned with the environmental practices of a hotel when choosing where to stay (Kasim, 2004a). According to Kasim (2004b), most tourists actually preferred some non-green attributes compared to environmentally friendly alternatives. On the other hand, recent research has found that hotel guests expect certain environmental attributes as part of the service offering defined as “basic” attributes. (Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). In their European study, Robinot and Giannelloni (2010) concluded that it is vital for hotels properly to provide these “basic” attributes in order to avoid customer dissatisfaction. “Plus” attributes were defined as unexpected but positively perceived factors that can impact satisfaction. Other studies discovered that hotel guests are suspicious of “ecolabels” or products and services that are promoted as environmentally friendly (Furlow and Knott, 2009). Millar and Baloglu (2011) found when hotels establish baseline ideas of what a green hotel offers, hotel customers are less skeptical (trust being an antecedent of loyalty) and more appreciative of sustainable practices. Moreover, a more recent study found that the support for hotel green practices would increase with more trustworthy information on “what are and who undertakes green practices” (Tierney et al., 2011, p. 14).
2.2. Satisfaction and loyalty Customers’ intentions to return to a particular hotel brand are commonly associated with loyalty (Clemes et al., 2010; Gracia et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2008; Lee and Back, 2010). Loyalty has been defined as “the likelihood of a customer’s returning to a hotel and that person’s willingness to behave as a partner to the organization” (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999, p. 349). The concept of loyalty is frequently discussed in the marketing literature and highly sought after by hotel firms. Hotel managers need to know what causes customers to be loyal. One major antecedent of customer loyalty is trust, which is the confidence that a particular hotel firm can be relied upon (Bowen and Shoemaker, 2003). Consequences of customer loyalty are that customers engage in positive word-ofmouth and are willing to cooperate with management (Bowen and Shoemaker, 2003; Clemes et al., 2010; Lee and Back, 2010). Willingness-to-pay is also associated with loyalty. Research has shown that loyal customers are generally less price sensitive and will continue to patronize a preferred hotel even if it raises its prices (Hu et al., 2010). However, Bowen and Shoemaker (2003) found that most respondents did not consider a large price increase to be acceptable, and many said they would check other hotel rates for future stays. The literature reveals contrasting attitudes in guest willingness to pay for a green hotel room. For instance, some are willing to pay more (Susskind and Verma, 2011) and others believe that they should pay “the same or less than one that is not green” or receive an incentive to support green hotels. (Ogbeide, 2012). Mantkola et al. (2007) found that one third of hotel guests were willing to pay a premium to help cover added costs of implementing green practices. Another antecedent for loyalty is customer satisfaction, which refers to the overall affective response resulting from the service experience (Oliver, 1981). Customer satisfaction is also said to reflect a comparison between the sacrifice experienced (cost) and the perceived rewards (benefit) during the purchase and consumption process (Chitty et al., 2007). Satisfaction has often been related to customer loyalty as a positive loyalty determinant in the literature (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Yang and Peterson, 2004). Earlier studies viewed loyalty as a type of long-term effect that is closely associated with satisfaction (Oliver, 1997), or then described loyalty as an antecedent of repeat visitors’ satisfaction (Petrick and Backman, 1999). More recent studies emphasized the need first to satisfy customers in order to achieve loyalty. They show that satisfaction is an important determinant of attitudinal loyalty (Bennett et al., 2005; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). Lam et al. (2004) also considered customer satisfaction as one of the potential antecedents in building customer loyalty. They suggested that customer satisfaction influences indicators of customer loyalty, and that satisfied customers can be motivated to patronize that service provider again and recommend other customers to the provider. As attitudinal loyalty deals with the process of developing behavioral loyalty, it can predict repeat purchase intentions. The direct positive effect of attitudinal loyalty on purchase loyalty is also supported in literature (Evanschitsky et al., 2006). On the other hand, McAlexander et al. (2003) found that management of satisfaction is perhaps most effective when developing loyalty among customers who are not persuaded toward establishing enduring relationships with a certain brand. Many scholars related satisfaction to customer loyalty as a positive loyalty determinant and re-purchase behavior as an integral part of customer loyalty, which is crucial to business success, particularly in the hospitality industry (Baloglu, 2002; Han et al., 2008; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Specific to environmentally friendly hotel practices, Robinot’s and Giannelloni’s (2010) study found that customers evaluated the reuse of linens and towels as a basic attribute that they expected
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
from hotels, and the absence of such an attribute was considered to have a negative effect on customer satisfaction. Conversely, the study also showed that if a hotel used clean and renewable energy sources, customers considered it as a “plus” attribute which, in fact, increased their satisfaction levels, contributed to the hotel’s competitive advantage, and potentially assisted in building customer loyalty. Lee et al. (2010) established relationships between “green” attributes and customers’ intentions to return. Despite the emergence of sustainable practices in the literature and a vast body of research on customer satisfaction and loyalty, a gap exists in the investigation of relationships between environmental hotel practices and customer satisfaction and guests’ intentions to return to a hotel property. Most importantly, in order to address contradicting results of previous research on customers’ perceptions of sustainable policies, this study will add to theory and practice by providing an enhanced understanding of perception differences by investigating the impact of guests’ nationalities on guests’ experiences of sustainable practices in hotels. 3. Research objectives and hypothesis The objective of this study is to identify how sustainable hotel practices impact the satisfaction and intention to return of hotel guests from different nationalities. This study examines the following hypotheses: H1. There is a positive relationship between guests’ overall satisfaction level and hotel sustainable practices. H2. There is a positive relationship between guests’ return intention and hotel sustainable practices. H3. There is a difference in relative satisfaction levels generated by hotel sustainable practices between respondents’ nationality groups. 4. Methodology This study developed a questionnaire based on research conducted by Millar and Baloglu (2008). The survey contained several sections. First, respondents were ask to rate their satisfaction levels on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 7 = very satisfied) to measure hotel customers’ perceptions of ten suggested sustainable hotel practices. These practices included: energy saving light bulbs (lightbulb), occupancy sensors (occusensor), key cards needed for room power (keycard), water-saving devices in public spaces (waterpublic) and guest rooms (waterguest), an effort to purchase from local suppliers (localsupplier), a recycling policy (recycle), amenity dispensers (dispenser), towels and bed linen re-use program (towelpolicy), and an effort to purchase environmentally friendly products and supplies (ecosupply). In addition, the study applied a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very unimportant; 7 = very important) to measure the importance of green attributes to hotel guests’ overall satisfaction and intention to return to the property. Finally, demographic information was collected. The questionnaire was adapted from Millar and Baloglu (2011). Further, a reliability analysis (Cronbach alpha) was performed to test the reliability and internal consistency of each attribute measured by testing the questionnaire in a pilot study using subjects who stayed at least twice a year in a hotel. According to Nunnally (1967) a minimum value of 0.5 is an indication of reliability. The Cronbach’s reliability coefficients obtained were >.5 (.89), therefore establishing acceptable reliability for the items in the questionnaire. A convenience sample was collected by distributing surveys in both Spanish and English to tourists in public areas of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, an upscale tourist destination. San Miguel has been rated one of the worlds’ top ten cities to visit (Travel and
229
Leisure, 2010), and attracts visitors from Mexico, and around the world. The sample location was also chosen because a majority of the guests are affluent, and hotels have to be hyper-sensitive to their needs. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies on hotel sustainability conducted in locations such as Mexico despite the fact that sustainability practices have become crucial in parts of the world from where many of the county’s tourists originate. In addition, there is an absence of research on the attitudes of Mexican citizens traveling domestically. San Miguel was also chosen to provide the hotel industry with the perspective of a very unique and diverse market. Furthermore, San Miguel de Allende was chosen for data collection due to the mix of both Mexican and non-Mexican tourists staying in hotels in the area. This provided especially the ability to compare the responses of two different cultural groups, namely Mexican and American. Participants were pre-screened by bilingual (Spanish/English) research team members to ensure that they were guests in local hotels, mostly boutique style three and four star hotels and inns. The research team was also available to answer any questions participants had while completing the survey. The collected sample size (329) was sufficient for the following reasons: First, according to Hosmer and Lemshow (2000), multinomial logistic regression does not require careful consideration of sample size. However, sample size guidelines are considered similar to multiple regression guidelines, which requires at least 10 cases for each independent variable. The ratio of valid cases (329) to number of independent variables (10) was 32.9 to 1, which is greater than the suggested minimum of 10 cases per independent variable (Hosmer and Lemshow, 2000; Schwab, 2002). The study applied two methods to test the hypotheses. First, multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the relationships between the green practices (independent variables) and guests’ overall satisfaction levels and return intentions (dependent variables). Assumptions were checked prior to the analysis and none were violated. Next, multinomial logistic regression analysis tested the relative satisfaction levels induced by hotel sustainable policies among different nationalities (Mexican, American, and other nationalities). This method applies maximum likelihood estimation after transforming the dependent variable into a logit variable (the natural log of the odds of the dependent occurring or not). In this way, multinomial logistic regression estimates the odds of a certain event occurring (Noruˇsis, 2008).
5. Results A convenience sample of 329 surveys was collected in San Miguel de Allende, a unique upscale tourist destination in Mexico. Table 1 shows the sample’s profile. Over 50% of the respondents were female (53.5%) and 46.5% were male. Almost half of the respondents were between the ages of 20–29 (29.2%) and 30–39 (20.7%). Regarding age, 11.9% were 50–59 years old, 19.5% were 60 years old or older, and 7.6% were 20 years old and younger. Nearly half of the participants had a bachelor’s degree (48.3%) while 27.7% had less than a high school education or were high school graduates. Respondents with graduate degrees consisted of 13.7%, and 10.3% had some college degree. The majority of the tourists were Mexican (68.9%), 18.2% were Americans, and 13.4% identified themselves as “Other.” The sample profile approximately mirrored the tourist profile of the city with respect to age and nationality. Table 2 shows the summary of the overall regression analysis results. Both guest satisfaction and return intention were significant at the 0.05 level, thus supporting H1 and H2. Regression results also indicated that 27.6% of guests’ satisfaction was explained by the green practices examined, and 23.6% of guests’ return intention was explained by green practices.
230
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
Table 1 Sample profile.
Table 4 Summary of multinomial logistic regression analysis (N = 329). Number
Gender Male Female Total Age <20 years old 20–29 years old 30–39 years old 40–49 years old 50–59 years old >60 years old Total Education level Less than high school High school graduate Some college Bachelor degree Graduate degree Total Nationality Mexican American Other Total
%
153 176 329
46.5 53.5 100
25 96 68 37 39 64 329
7.60 29.18 20.67 11.25 11.85 19.45 100
32 59 34 159 45 329
9.8 17.9 10.3 48.3 13.7 100
225 60 44 329
68.39 18.24 13.37 100
Table 2 Summary of regression analysis (N = 329). Model
R-Square
F
Sig.
Satisfaction Return intention
27.6 23.6
13.49 11.12
0.00* 0.00*
*
p < .05.
Table 3 displays the regression results identifying the individual impacts of green practices on both guests’ overall satisfaction levels and return intention. The results indicate that lightbulb, localsupplier, dispenser, and ecosupply had significant positive impact on overall satisfaction. Furthermore, the “recycle” attribute displayed a negative significant effect on overall satisfaction. In addition, hotel guests’ intention to return to a hotel was impacted by only three variables: lightbulb, recycle, and dispenser. Again, the “recycle” attribute shows a negative relationship. Overall, both H1 and H2 were supported regarding the attributes discussed. Table 4 shows the results for the multinomial regression analysis. The model indicates a relationship between the dependent variable (nationality) and combinations of independent variables (green attributes). The significance level of the model chi-square was less than 0.05 for the models, which deems them to be Table 3 Significance of regression coefficients (N = 329). Model
B
S.E. a
(Constant) Lightbulb Occusensor Keycard Waterpublic Waterguest Localsupplier Recycle Dispenser Towelpolicy Ecosupply a b *
b
t
Sig.
OS
RI
OS
RI
OS
RI
OS
RI
2.38 0.16 0.15 0.07 −0.07 0.04 0.20 −0.25 0.16 −0.04 0.18
2.78 0.19 0.03 −0.09 0.00 0.13 0.15 −0.20 0.18 −0.01 0.15
0.37 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.08
0.36 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.08
6.47 2.41 1.90 0.94 −0.70 0.40 2.50 −2.78 3.09 −0.93 2.19
7.72 2.89 0.34 −1.21 0.03 1.42 1.90 −2.31 3.58 −0.16 1.77
0.00 0.02* 0.06 0.35 0.49 0.69 0.01* 0.01* 0.00* 0.36 0.03*
0.00 0.00* 0.74 0.23 0.98 0.16 0.06 0.02* 0.00* 0.87 0.08
OS indicates overall satisfaction. RI indicates return intention. p < .05.
Model
Pseudo R-squarea
Chi-square
Sig.
Nationality
0.77
372.66
0.00*
a *
Nagelkerke R-square was reported. p < .05.
overall valid estimates. The pseudo R-square showed a relatively high value. This attempts to measure the strength of association and does not fully explain the accuracy or the errors associated with the model. Thus, the classification rate was examined to measure effect size (Noruˇsis, 2008). The proportional by chance accuracy rate was computed by calculating the proportion of cases for each group and then squaring and summing the proportion of cases in each group (0.6932 + 0.1732 + 0.1332 = 0.527). The proportional by chance accuracy criteria by a 25% improvement over the rate of accuracy achievable by chance alone was 66% (1.25 × 52.7%). The overall percentage accuracy rate produced by the classification table was compared to characterize whether the final model was useful, and accordingly the criteria was satisfied (79.6% > 66%). Overall, H3 was supported. Table 5 shows the relationship of individual independent variables (green practices) and the dependent variable (nationalities). Results showed that the relative importance of green practices was perceived differently between nationalities. This suggests that lightbulb, occusensor, keycard, waterpublic, dispenser, and towelpolicy were perceived differently by Mexicans compared to Americans and other nationalities. On the other hand, waterguest, localsupplier, recycle and ecosupply did not show any differentiation in perceptions of green practices by nationality. Table 6 shows the summary for the significant estimate results. In this study, two comparisons were made for the dependent variable: American and Other (other nationalities) were compared to Mexican. The following practices were identified to be perceived significantly differently between American and Mexican respondents: lightbulb, occusensor, keycard, waterpublic, dispenser and towelpolicy. In addition, lightbulb, occusensor, dispenser and towelpolicy revealed a significantly different perception between “Other” nationalities and Mexicans. These results support hypothesis 3, proposing that there is a difference in relative satisfaction levels generated by hotel sustainable practices between nationality groups. In multinomial logistic regression, it is important to note that both the odds ratio (exp(ˇ), and significant ratings are used for interpretation (Noruˇsis, 2008). For example, a significant rating of 7 refers to satisfaction, while a rating of 1 indicates dissatisfaction. An exp(ˇ) value smaller than one indicates decreased perception (satisfaction or dissatisfaction, according to the ratings) compared to the reference group (the Mexican group in this study). On the other hand, an exp(ˇ) value greater than one indicates increased Table 5 Relationship between green practices and nationalities (N = 329). Effect
−2 Log likelihood of reduced model
Chi-square
Sig.
Intercept Lightbulb Occusensor Keycard Waterpublic Waterguest Localsupplier Recycle Dispenser Towelpolicy Ecosupply
248.09 278.44 270.6 277.83 285.01 263.73 265.14 269.33 275.83 280.72 268.91
0 30.34 22.51 29.74 36.92 15.63 17.05 21.24 27.74 32.63 20.82
0.00* 0.03* 0.00* 0.00* 0.21 0.15 0.05 0.01* 0.00* 0.05
*
p < .05.
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233 Table 6 Parameter estimates for multinomial logistic regression (N = 329). Nationality
b
S.E.
Sig.
exp()
American
Lightbulb (=7) Occusensor (=6) Keycard (=1) Waterpublic (=6) Dispenser (=1) Towelpolicy (=6)
−1.47 3.38 −9.58 3.25 5.00 −1.6
0.32 1.34 4.90 1.36 2.27 0.65
0.00* 0.01* 0.04* 0.02* 0.02* 0.01*
0.23 29.43 0.27 25.66 148.78 0.21
Others
Lightbulb (=7) Occusensor (=1) Dispenser (=1) Towelpolicy (=1)
−2.06 5.03 6.06 −5.73
0.39 2.40 2.71 2.35
0.00* 0.03* 0.02* 0.02*
0.13 152.57 74.73 0.06
Note: Reference category was Mexicans. * p < .05.
perception (satisfaction or dissatisfaction) compared to the reference group. However, it is crucial to note which independent variable category is significant for interpretation. For instance, for the occusensor item, although satisfaction perception was significant for both Americans (rating = 6) and the Other (=1), ith may indicate different results depending on the odd ratio (exp(ˇ), Perception levels were measured as follows: from 1 = very dissatisfied with a certain sustainable practice to 7 = very satisfied with a certain sustainable practice. For example, for Americans, the odds ratio for lightbulb (rated = very satisfied) is 0.23, which implies that for each unit increase in lightbulb satisfaction, the odds of being American decreased by 77% (0.23–1.0 = −0.77). In other words, implementing energy saving lightbulbs does little to increase satisfaction for Americans, in contrast to the Mexican hotel guests. Similarly, the odds of being Other rather than Mexican is decreased by 87% (0.13–1.0) of being satisfied with the lightbulb item. This indicates that Mexicans perceive lightbulb practices as a more satisfying green practice than do Americans and other nationalities. The following results were obtained and interpreted in the same manner. Mexicans perceived towelpolicy as a more satisfying green practice than do Americans, while Mexicans perceived towelpolicy as a more dissatisfying green practice than do Others. Lastly, in respect to keycard, Americans were less likely to be dissatisfied with this sustainable practice (rating = 1) compared to Mexican hotel guests, which implies that Americans perceived keycards as a more satisfying green practice than do Mexicans. On the other hand, for the occusensor, waterpublic, and dispenser items, the odds ratio (exp(ˇ)) showed values higher than one. Therefore, Americans perceived the occusensor practice (rated = 6) as more satisfying than did the Mexican group and people from other countries perceived occusensor practices (rated = 1) as more dissatisfying than Mexican respondents. Similarly, for the dispenser practice, both the American and Other groups were more likely to be dissatisfied than the Mexican group. Namely, Mexican respondents perceive the use of dispensers as a more satisfying attribute than Americans and other nationalities. For water saving practices, Americans were more likely to be satisfied than Mexicans. Therefore, Americans perceived water saving practices as a more satisfying attribute than did Mexicans.
231
impact on guests’ satisfaction and guests’ intention to return, and they should investigate the reasons for this phenomenon. It may be inconvenient for guests to recycle, and management needs to make sure that it is not bothersome to their guests. Furthermore, it may be possible that some segments of their guests find it awkward to recycle and they may feel that it is not their responsibility to collect and distribute what they may consider garbage. These findings add to the literature and coincide with Ogbeide’s (2012) study that found that, although hotel customers are willing to stay in green hotels, they do not wish their experience to be negatively impacted by green practices such as low flow showerheads. In addition, managers should also look into the fact that some policies (localsupplier and ecosupply) only impacted guest satisfaction and not guests’ intention to return, which should be the ultimate goal of any marketing efforts. Management should find a way to connect their guests personally to the benefits of using local suppliers and ecologically sound products. According to Shoemaker and Kapoor (2008), loyalty is created and maintained through an equal balance of value, process and communication – a concept that can be used by management to develop satisfaction into loyalty. Management will have to communicate clearly the added value of using local suppliers and eco supplies to the hotels’ guests, while at the same time ensuring the guest experience is not negatively impacted by processes involved in using them. Guests should be educated so that they will have an enhanced experience due to the use of local supplies (freshness of products and support of local economies and local flair) and they should be assured that they can trust the quality of the products. In order fully to understand the above discussed results, it is important for managers to know their target markets. This study clearly shows that people from different countries have different perceptions about specific hotel sustainable practices, which, in the long run, may have an impact on their satisfaction levels, intention to return, and overall hotel experience. Understanding these differences allows managers to allocate resources more efficiently by implementing the appropriate sustainable practices and in educating guests from different national backgrounds at different levels. This study also provides implications for marketing managers, such as the importance of customizing their marketing message according to guests’ nationalities. For example, marketing the hotels’ sustainability practices should emphasize aspects important to the target markets of different nationalities. Such a strategy is important to display the hotels’ corporate social responsibility in a way that matches each nationality’s frame of reference, while, on the other hand, avoiding perceptions of “green washing.” Results also indicate that ‘basic’ and ‘plus’ attributes may be perceived differently according to nationality, which extends on the findings of Robinot and Giannelloni (2010). Managers need to consider that certain sustainable practices are no longer considered innovative to some nationalities and are now considered basic. This may suggest to managers that, even though these policies do not contribute to guest satisfaction, they are expected to be present in order to avoid guest dissatisfaction despite innovative “plus” attributes that might be available.
7. Conclusions 6. Implications This study provides the following implications to theory and practice. First, it identifies which sustainable practices will provide hotel guest satisfaction and impact guests’ re-purchasing behaviors. For example, Mexican hotel managers should be interested in the fact that only two policies (lightbulb and dispenser) displayed positive impacts on both guest satisfaction and guests’ intention to return to a hotel. In addition, the recycle policy has a negative
This research also enlightened managers on important policies (lightbulb and dispenser) that were identified as having positive impacts on guest satisfaction and guests’ intention to return by identifying differences in perceptions according to nationalities. In this case, managers needed to consider that Mexicans were to a larger degree very satisfied with these policies in comparison to the American guests and guests of other nationalities. Since the majority of the sample consisted of Mexican guests, emphasizing these
232
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
policies to Mexican guests would probably be an effective way to promote hotels’ sustainable practices. On the other hand, managers also learned which practices American guests preferred over the other nationalities. It can be concluded that American, Mexican and other nationalities are quite different in their appreciation of sustainable practices, a phenomenon that needs to be addressed when establishing strategies for marketing hotel sustainable practices. Moreover, this study’s findings partially contrast and also add to Kasim’s (2004a) who concluded that guests do not want their hotel experience to be impacted by sustainable efforts. For example, Kasim (2004a) found that guests overall preferred nonenvironmentally friendly in room amenities (e.g., daily towel changes and individual soap bars). Conversely, the results of this study suggest that some sustainable efforts are indeed desired by guests. Furthermore, this study supports Kim and Han (2010) in that hotel guests are willing to accept certain minor inconveniences to support sustainability, which may suggest that hotel guests have become more aware and progressive over time. In this study, guests also found recycling to be inconvenient, and therefore dissatisfying. This suggests that management should make sustainable practices as convenient as possible for the guest. Perhaps this target market is more willing to support sustainable efforts through financial means rather than having their hotel experience impacted. Customer wants and needs are becoming more complex, and customization is often necessary to obtain a competitive advantage. It can be concluded that hotel marketers’ emphasis on sustainable practices may have to be tailored to their target markets. Consequently, customizing sustainable practices may play a strategic role for management that benefits both the hotel industry and society.
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research As with all research, limitations have to be addressed. The data was obtained from a convenience sample and the results cannot be generalized. Therefore, it is recommended to replicate this study by using a random sample. It can be further suggested to conduct research using a diverse sample of nationalities, which could guide hotel managers to recognize guests’ perceptions of sustainable practices by allowing them to provide customization and strategic implementation of them. Further, it can be suggested to apply this study to other hospitality segments, such as restaurant, entertainment and spas. Additionally, the majority of the study participants were Mexicans, skewing the data. It would be more helpful to understand the sustainable policies related to nationality by obtaining a more evenly distributed data set and further employing different data analysis methods. This study did not employ the general (not green related) hotel attributes utilized in previous studies. Study findings are also expected to evolve by adding additional sustainable practice variables.
References Anderson, R., Srinivasan, S., 2003. E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency framework. Psychology & Marketing 20 (2), 123–138. Baloglu, S., 2002. Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from wellwishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 43 (1), 47–59. Bennett, R., Hartel, C., McColl-Kennedy, J., 2005. Experiences as a moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to business setting. Industrial Marketing Management 34 (1), 97–107. Berezan, O., Raab, C., Millar, M., 2014. Sustainable hotel practices and guest satisfaction levels. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 15 (1). Bowen, J.T., Shoemaker, S., 2003. Loyalty: a strategic commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (5/6), 31–46. Bowen, J.T., Chen, S., 2001. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13 (5), 213–217.
Butler, J., 2008. The compelling “hard case” for “green hotel” development. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 49, 234–244. Chitty, B., Ward, S., Chua, C., 2007. An application of the ECSI model as a predictor of satisfaction and loyalty for backpacker hostels. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25 (6), 563–580. Clemes, M.D., Gan, C., Ren, M., 2010. Synthesizing the effects of service quality, value, and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel industry: an empirical analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 35 (4), 530–568. Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008, June 5. Business travelers are starting to demand green lodging. Retrieved from http://www.accountingweb.com/item/105293 Dolliver, M., 2008. Deflating a myth. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com Evanschitsky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Business Research 59 (12), 1207–1213. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addision-Wesley, Reading, PA. Furlow, N., Knott, C., 2009. Who’s reading the label? Millenials’ use of environmental product labels. Journal of Applied Business and Economics. 10 (3), 1–12. Gracia, E., Bakker, A.B., Grau, R.M., 2011. Positive emotions: the connection between customer quality evaluations and loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4), 458–465. Han, X., Kwortnik, R.J., Wang, C., 2008. Service loyalty: an integrative model and examination across service contexts. Journal of Service Research 11, 22–42. Han, H., Hsu, L., Lee, J., 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 519–528. Hu, H., Hyang, C., Chen, P., 2010. Do reward programs truly build loyalty for the lodging industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management 29, 128–135. Hosmer, D., Lemshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hobokan, NJ. Kasim, A., 2004a. Socio-environmentally responsible hotel business: do tourists to Penang Island, Malaysia care? Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 11 (4), 5–28. Kasim, A., 2004b. BESR in the hotel sector: a look at tourists’ propensity towards environment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 5 (2), 61–83. Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in mid-priced hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254. Kim, Y., Han, H., 2010. Intention to pay conventional hotel prices at a green hotel: a modification of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (8), 997–1014. Lam, S., Shankar, V., Krishna Erramilli, M., Murthy, B., 2004. Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-tobusiness service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 293–311. Lancaster, K., 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74 (2), 132–157. Lee, J., Back, K., 2010. Examining antecedents and consequences of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 27 (2), 132–145. Lee, J., Hsu, L., Han, H., Kim, Y., 2010. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (7), 901–914. Lipman, G., Vorster, S., 2011. Green growth, travelsism, and the pursuit of happiness. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011, p. 77. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF TravelTourismCompetitiveness Report 2011.pdf Manaktola, K., Jauhari, V., 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (5), 364–377. McAlexander, J., Kim, S., Roberts, S., 2003. Loyalty: the influences of satisfaction and brand community integration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 11 (4), 1–11. Mensah, I., 2004. Environmental management practices in US hotels. from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004 2nd/ Retrieved May04EnvironmentalPractices.html Millar, M., Baloglu, S., 2008. Hotel guests’ preferences for green hotel attributes. In: Proceedings of the European Council for Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Millar, M., Baloglu, S., 2011. Hotel guests’ preferences for green guest room attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (3), 302–311. Noruˇsis, M.J., 2008. SPSS 16.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Prentice Hall Inc., Chicago, IL. Nunnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Ogbeide, G.-C., 2012. Perception of green hotels in the 21st century. Journal of Tourism Insights 3 (1), Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ jti/vol3/iss1/1 Oliver, R., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 25–48. Oliver, R., 1997. Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing 73 (3), 311–336. Petrick, J.H., Backman, S., 1999. An examination of the relationship between golf travelers’ satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty and their intensions to revisit. Tourism Analysis 6 (3), 223–237.
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233 Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E., 2007. Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research 60, 21–31. Revilla, G., Dodd, T., Hoover, L., 2001. Environmental tactics used by hotel companies in Mexico. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 1 (3/4), 111–127. Robinot, E., Giannelloni, J.L., 2010. Do hotels’ “green” attributes contribute to customer satisfaction? Journal of Services Marketing 24 (2), 157–169. Shoemaker, S., Kapoor, C., 2008. Relationship and loyalty marketing. In: Handbook of Hospitality Marketing Management. Elsevier, New York, NY119–152. Shoemaker, S., Lewis, R.C., 1999. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18 (4), 345–370. Schwab, J.A., 2002. Multinomial logistic regression: basic relationships and complete problems. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/courses/schwab/ sw388r7/SolvingProblems Susskind, A., Verma, R., 2011. Hotel guests’ reactions to guest room sustainability initiatives. Cornell Hospitality Report 11 (6), 1. Swan, J.E., Combs, L.J., 1976. Product performance and consumer satisfaction: a new concept. Journal of Marketing 40 (2), 25–33.
233
Tierney, P., Hunt, M., Latkova, P., 2011. Do travelers support green practices and sustainable development? Journal of Tourism Insights 2 (2), 1–17. Travel and Leisure, 2010. World’s best top 10 cities. Retrieved from http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2010/cities Tzschentkea, Nadia A., 2008. Going green: decisional factors in small hospitality operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (1), 126–133. U.S. Travel Association, 2009. American travelers more familiar with ‘green travel’ but unwilling to pay more to support it. Retrieved from http://www. ustravel.org/news/press-releases/american-travelers-more-familiar-‘greentravel’ Weissenberg, A., Redington, N., Kutyla, D., 2008. The staying power of sustainability: balancing opportunity and risk in the hospitality industry. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com World Economic Forum, 2011. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF TravelTourismCompetitiveness Report 2011.pdf Yang, Z., Peterson, R., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing 21 (10), 799–822.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: The impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return夽 Orie Berezan a,∗ , Carola Raab a , Michelle Yoo b , Curtis Love a a b
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, United States Florida International University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Guest satisfaction Intention to return Sustainability Green hotel attributes Green hotel practices
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to identify how sustainable hotel practices impact the satisfaction and intention to return of hotel guests from different nationalities. Surveys were completed by hotel guests in a popular tourist destination in Mexico. Multiple regression and multinomial logistic regression were applied to test the hypotheses. Results of this study supported the research hypotheses that indicate green practices overall do have a positive relationship on guests’ satisfaction levels and return intentions for Mexicans, Americans and other nationalities. Additionally, it was shown that the relative importance of green practices differs according to the nationality of the guest. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction The impact of the growth of worldwide tourism growth on the environment has become a vital topic within the hospitality industry. A majority of American travelers now consider themselves “environmentally conscious” (U.S. Travel Association, 2009) and feel that lodging companies should engage in sustainability actions (Weissenberg et al., 2008). With increased customer awareness, sustainable practices may become important to travelers in choosing a hotel (Tzschentkea, 2008). 2. Literature review For over a decade, hotels have been incorporating many green approaches in their operations (Revilla et al., 2001). Such practices range from recycling, to purchasing local produce, to implementing rigorous LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification standards. However, these practices have been employed randomly and without research on how specific practices might influence a customer’s hotel selection (Millar and Baloglu, 2008). Dolliver (2008) suggests that companies need to make better-informed decisions on their environmental initiatives by first understanding what their customers want. Furthermore, the Deloitte Consumer Survey (2008) found that there is often a discrepancy between what travelers expect of hotels and the
夽 The authors would like to acknowledge the research support of Caesars Foundation. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 702 742 7269. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Berezan), [email protected] (C. Raab), [email protected] (M. Yoo), [email protected] (C. Love). 0278-4319/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.010
green initiatives that hotels undertake. Programs are often implemented despite knowing what customers want (Millar and Baloglu, 2008). In addition, the international community’s shift toward a ‘green economy’ has “accelerated significantly,” with increased recognition of issues that impact the environment (Lipman and Vorster, 2011, p. 77). However, the significance placed on such matters has not been consistent across nations. For example, according to the World Economic Forum (2011), Mexico’s stringency and enforcement of environmental regulations rate is far lower than those of the US. In addition, in contrast to the U.S., Mexican hotel managers’ attitudes and behaviors toward the implementation of hotel sustainable practices also ignore guest preferences for sustainable hotel practices (Revilla et al. (2001). Therefore, it can be assumed that Mexican hotels would overall be less engaged in such practices than hotels in the United States. A recent study revealed that American hotel guests associated environmentally friendly hotels with functional attributes, such as energy and water conservation. On the other hand, Mexican hotel guests associated such hotels with emotional qualities such as peaceful, natural, and comfortable (Berezan et al., 2014). These differences may suggest disparities in specific expected hotel environmental practices with respect to guest satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to investigate these inconsistencies in general, and to provide hoteliers with specific environmental hotel practices that are important to hotel guests, based on the responses of a sample of different nationalities in Mexico. 2.1. Going green The initial reasons for a hotel to “go green” were governmental pressures, the desire to preserve resources by reducing
228
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
waste, and conserving energy and water. Recent research, however, suggests that implementing sustainable practices is becoming increasingly important to the competitiveness of hotels (Han et al., 2009; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Tierney et al., 2011; Ogbeide, 2012). In fact, guests now expect environmental attributes in hotels (Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). Robinot and Giannelloni (2010) further elaborate that, because of this expectation, it is important for hotels to maintain environmental initiatives. According to Joe McInerney (personal communication, April 2011), President of the AHLA, green hotel practices started to become a priority in the late 1990s. Although the importance of such practices (specifically acquiring green certification) declined after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing economic crisis, it has once again become a focus of hoteliers. Mensah (2004) found that 90% of hotel guests would prefer to stay in a hotel that has a green management policy. Furthermore, Kimpton Hotels reports that 16% of their guests choose them because of their eco-friendly practices (Butler, 2008). Kim and Han (2010) found that participants were happy to undergo minor inconveniences in order to support green initiatives. Furthermore, a green hotel image can result in favorable behavioral intentions by hotel guests, including intention to revisit (Lee et al., 2010; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007). In addition, when considering the theory of consumer demand (Lancaster, 1966) characteristics of the hotel, including sustainable practices should impact hotel guests’ choice of a property. A stream of research in the marketing literature has concluded that customer satisfaction is expected to result in repeat purchases and is also proven to have a close relationship to purchase intentions (Swan and Combs, 1976). Consumers form their beliefs about a product’s attributes through their cognitive-learning; then they generate affective responses and attitudes regarding their likes or dislikes for the products; and, finally, the likes and dislikes lead to purchase behavior intentions and purchase behaviors (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). While a wealth of research concludes that relationships exist among performance, expectations, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, these relationships have not been applied to sustainable hotel practices. Sustainable practices can be seen as crucial factors in customers’ hotel selection decisions. Conversely, a 2004 study of visitors to Penang, Malaysia, found that although respondents were environmentally conscious, they were not necessarily concerned with the environmental practices of a hotel when choosing where to stay (Kasim, 2004a). According to Kasim (2004b), most tourists actually preferred some non-green attributes compared to environmentally friendly alternatives. On the other hand, recent research has found that hotel guests expect certain environmental attributes as part of the service offering defined as “basic” attributes. (Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008; Robinot and Giannelloni, 2010). In their European study, Robinot and Giannelloni (2010) concluded that it is vital for hotels properly to provide these “basic” attributes in order to avoid customer dissatisfaction. “Plus” attributes were defined as unexpected but positively perceived factors that can impact satisfaction. Other studies discovered that hotel guests are suspicious of “ecolabels” or products and services that are promoted as environmentally friendly (Furlow and Knott, 2009). Millar and Baloglu (2011) found when hotels establish baseline ideas of what a green hotel offers, hotel customers are less skeptical (trust being an antecedent of loyalty) and more appreciative of sustainable practices. Moreover, a more recent study found that the support for hotel green practices would increase with more trustworthy information on “what are and who undertakes green practices” (Tierney et al., 2011, p. 14).
2.2. Satisfaction and loyalty Customers’ intentions to return to a particular hotel brand are commonly associated with loyalty (Clemes et al., 2010; Gracia et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2008; Lee and Back, 2010). Loyalty has been defined as “the likelihood of a customer’s returning to a hotel and that person’s willingness to behave as a partner to the organization” (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999, p. 349). The concept of loyalty is frequently discussed in the marketing literature and highly sought after by hotel firms. Hotel managers need to know what causes customers to be loyal. One major antecedent of customer loyalty is trust, which is the confidence that a particular hotel firm can be relied upon (Bowen and Shoemaker, 2003). Consequences of customer loyalty are that customers engage in positive word-ofmouth and are willing to cooperate with management (Bowen and Shoemaker, 2003; Clemes et al., 2010; Lee and Back, 2010). Willingness-to-pay is also associated with loyalty. Research has shown that loyal customers are generally less price sensitive and will continue to patronize a preferred hotel even if it raises its prices (Hu et al., 2010). However, Bowen and Shoemaker (2003) found that most respondents did not consider a large price increase to be acceptable, and many said they would check other hotel rates for future stays. The literature reveals contrasting attitudes in guest willingness to pay for a green hotel room. For instance, some are willing to pay more (Susskind and Verma, 2011) and others believe that they should pay “the same or less than one that is not green” or receive an incentive to support green hotels. (Ogbeide, 2012). Mantkola et al. (2007) found that one third of hotel guests were willing to pay a premium to help cover added costs of implementing green practices. Another antecedent for loyalty is customer satisfaction, which refers to the overall affective response resulting from the service experience (Oliver, 1981). Customer satisfaction is also said to reflect a comparison between the sacrifice experienced (cost) and the perceived rewards (benefit) during the purchase and consumption process (Chitty et al., 2007). Satisfaction has often been related to customer loyalty as a positive loyalty determinant in the literature (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Yang and Peterson, 2004). Earlier studies viewed loyalty as a type of long-term effect that is closely associated with satisfaction (Oliver, 1997), or then described loyalty as an antecedent of repeat visitors’ satisfaction (Petrick and Backman, 1999). More recent studies emphasized the need first to satisfy customers in order to achieve loyalty. They show that satisfaction is an important determinant of attitudinal loyalty (Bennett et al., 2005; Rauyruen and Miller, 2007). Lam et al. (2004) also considered customer satisfaction as one of the potential antecedents in building customer loyalty. They suggested that customer satisfaction influences indicators of customer loyalty, and that satisfied customers can be motivated to patronize that service provider again and recommend other customers to the provider. As attitudinal loyalty deals with the process of developing behavioral loyalty, it can predict repeat purchase intentions. The direct positive effect of attitudinal loyalty on purchase loyalty is also supported in literature (Evanschitsky et al., 2006). On the other hand, McAlexander et al. (2003) found that management of satisfaction is perhaps most effective when developing loyalty among customers who are not persuaded toward establishing enduring relationships with a certain brand. Many scholars related satisfaction to customer loyalty as a positive loyalty determinant and re-purchase behavior as an integral part of customer loyalty, which is crucial to business success, particularly in the hospitality industry (Baloglu, 2002; Han et al., 2008; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Specific to environmentally friendly hotel practices, Robinot’s and Giannelloni’s (2010) study found that customers evaluated the reuse of linens and towels as a basic attribute that they expected
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
from hotels, and the absence of such an attribute was considered to have a negative effect on customer satisfaction. Conversely, the study also showed that if a hotel used clean and renewable energy sources, customers considered it as a “plus” attribute which, in fact, increased their satisfaction levels, contributed to the hotel’s competitive advantage, and potentially assisted in building customer loyalty. Lee et al. (2010) established relationships between “green” attributes and customers’ intentions to return. Despite the emergence of sustainable practices in the literature and a vast body of research on customer satisfaction and loyalty, a gap exists in the investigation of relationships between environmental hotel practices and customer satisfaction and guests’ intentions to return to a hotel property. Most importantly, in order to address contradicting results of previous research on customers’ perceptions of sustainable policies, this study will add to theory and practice by providing an enhanced understanding of perception differences by investigating the impact of guests’ nationalities on guests’ experiences of sustainable practices in hotels. 3. Research objectives and hypothesis The objective of this study is to identify how sustainable hotel practices impact the satisfaction and intention to return of hotel guests from different nationalities. This study examines the following hypotheses: H1. There is a positive relationship between guests’ overall satisfaction level and hotel sustainable practices. H2. There is a positive relationship between guests’ return intention and hotel sustainable practices. H3. There is a difference in relative satisfaction levels generated by hotel sustainable practices between respondents’ nationality groups. 4. Methodology This study developed a questionnaire based on research conducted by Millar and Baloglu (2008). The survey contained several sections. First, respondents were ask to rate their satisfaction levels on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 7 = very satisfied) to measure hotel customers’ perceptions of ten suggested sustainable hotel practices. These practices included: energy saving light bulbs (lightbulb), occupancy sensors (occusensor), key cards needed for room power (keycard), water-saving devices in public spaces (waterpublic) and guest rooms (waterguest), an effort to purchase from local suppliers (localsupplier), a recycling policy (recycle), amenity dispensers (dispenser), towels and bed linen re-use program (towelpolicy), and an effort to purchase environmentally friendly products and supplies (ecosupply). In addition, the study applied a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very unimportant; 7 = very important) to measure the importance of green attributes to hotel guests’ overall satisfaction and intention to return to the property. Finally, demographic information was collected. The questionnaire was adapted from Millar and Baloglu (2011). Further, a reliability analysis (Cronbach alpha) was performed to test the reliability and internal consistency of each attribute measured by testing the questionnaire in a pilot study using subjects who stayed at least twice a year in a hotel. According to Nunnally (1967) a minimum value of 0.5 is an indication of reliability. The Cronbach’s reliability coefficients obtained were >.5 (.89), therefore establishing acceptable reliability for the items in the questionnaire. A convenience sample was collected by distributing surveys in both Spanish and English to tourists in public areas of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, an upscale tourist destination. San Miguel has been rated one of the worlds’ top ten cities to visit (Travel and
229
Leisure, 2010), and attracts visitors from Mexico, and around the world. The sample location was also chosen because a majority of the guests are affluent, and hotels have to be hyper-sensitive to their needs. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies on hotel sustainability conducted in locations such as Mexico despite the fact that sustainability practices have become crucial in parts of the world from where many of the county’s tourists originate. In addition, there is an absence of research on the attitudes of Mexican citizens traveling domestically. San Miguel was also chosen to provide the hotel industry with the perspective of a very unique and diverse market. Furthermore, San Miguel de Allende was chosen for data collection due to the mix of both Mexican and non-Mexican tourists staying in hotels in the area. This provided especially the ability to compare the responses of two different cultural groups, namely Mexican and American. Participants were pre-screened by bilingual (Spanish/English) research team members to ensure that they were guests in local hotels, mostly boutique style three and four star hotels and inns. The research team was also available to answer any questions participants had while completing the survey. The collected sample size (329) was sufficient for the following reasons: First, according to Hosmer and Lemshow (2000), multinomial logistic regression does not require careful consideration of sample size. However, sample size guidelines are considered similar to multiple regression guidelines, which requires at least 10 cases for each independent variable. The ratio of valid cases (329) to number of independent variables (10) was 32.9 to 1, which is greater than the suggested minimum of 10 cases per independent variable (Hosmer and Lemshow, 2000; Schwab, 2002). The study applied two methods to test the hypotheses. First, multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the relationships between the green practices (independent variables) and guests’ overall satisfaction levels and return intentions (dependent variables). Assumptions were checked prior to the analysis and none were violated. Next, multinomial logistic regression analysis tested the relative satisfaction levels induced by hotel sustainable policies among different nationalities (Mexican, American, and other nationalities). This method applies maximum likelihood estimation after transforming the dependent variable into a logit variable (the natural log of the odds of the dependent occurring or not). In this way, multinomial logistic regression estimates the odds of a certain event occurring (Noruˇsis, 2008).
5. Results A convenience sample of 329 surveys was collected in San Miguel de Allende, a unique upscale tourist destination in Mexico. Table 1 shows the sample’s profile. Over 50% of the respondents were female (53.5%) and 46.5% were male. Almost half of the respondents were between the ages of 20–29 (29.2%) and 30–39 (20.7%). Regarding age, 11.9% were 50–59 years old, 19.5% were 60 years old or older, and 7.6% were 20 years old and younger. Nearly half of the participants had a bachelor’s degree (48.3%) while 27.7% had less than a high school education or were high school graduates. Respondents with graduate degrees consisted of 13.7%, and 10.3% had some college degree. The majority of the tourists were Mexican (68.9%), 18.2% were Americans, and 13.4% identified themselves as “Other.” The sample profile approximately mirrored the tourist profile of the city with respect to age and nationality. Table 2 shows the summary of the overall regression analysis results. Both guest satisfaction and return intention were significant at the 0.05 level, thus supporting H1 and H2. Regression results also indicated that 27.6% of guests’ satisfaction was explained by the green practices examined, and 23.6% of guests’ return intention was explained by green practices.
230
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
Table 1 Sample profile.
Table 4 Summary of multinomial logistic regression analysis (N = 329). Number
Gender Male Female Total Age <20 years old 20–29 years old 30–39 years old 40–49 years old 50–59 years old >60 years old Total Education level Less than high school High school graduate Some college Bachelor degree Graduate degree Total Nationality Mexican American Other Total
%
153 176 329
46.5 53.5 100
25 96 68 37 39 64 329
7.60 29.18 20.67 11.25 11.85 19.45 100
32 59 34 159 45 329
9.8 17.9 10.3 48.3 13.7 100
225 60 44 329
68.39 18.24 13.37 100
Table 2 Summary of regression analysis (N = 329). Model
R-Square
F
Sig.
Satisfaction Return intention
27.6 23.6
13.49 11.12
0.00* 0.00*
*
p < .05.
Table 3 displays the regression results identifying the individual impacts of green practices on both guests’ overall satisfaction levels and return intention. The results indicate that lightbulb, localsupplier, dispenser, and ecosupply had significant positive impact on overall satisfaction. Furthermore, the “recycle” attribute displayed a negative significant effect on overall satisfaction. In addition, hotel guests’ intention to return to a hotel was impacted by only three variables: lightbulb, recycle, and dispenser. Again, the “recycle” attribute shows a negative relationship. Overall, both H1 and H2 were supported regarding the attributes discussed. Table 4 shows the results for the multinomial regression analysis. The model indicates a relationship between the dependent variable (nationality) and combinations of independent variables (green attributes). The significance level of the model chi-square was less than 0.05 for the models, which deems them to be Table 3 Significance of regression coefficients (N = 329). Model
B
S.E. a
(Constant) Lightbulb Occusensor Keycard Waterpublic Waterguest Localsupplier Recycle Dispenser Towelpolicy Ecosupply a b *
b
t
Sig.
OS
RI
OS
RI
OS
RI
OS
RI
2.38 0.16 0.15 0.07 −0.07 0.04 0.20 −0.25 0.16 −0.04 0.18
2.78 0.19 0.03 −0.09 0.00 0.13 0.15 −0.20 0.18 −0.01 0.15
0.37 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.08
0.36 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.08
6.47 2.41 1.90 0.94 −0.70 0.40 2.50 −2.78 3.09 −0.93 2.19
7.72 2.89 0.34 −1.21 0.03 1.42 1.90 −2.31 3.58 −0.16 1.77
0.00 0.02* 0.06 0.35 0.49 0.69 0.01* 0.01* 0.00* 0.36 0.03*
0.00 0.00* 0.74 0.23 0.98 0.16 0.06 0.02* 0.00* 0.87 0.08
OS indicates overall satisfaction. RI indicates return intention. p < .05.
Model
Pseudo R-squarea
Chi-square
Sig.
Nationality
0.77
372.66
0.00*
a *
Nagelkerke R-square was reported. p < .05.
overall valid estimates. The pseudo R-square showed a relatively high value. This attempts to measure the strength of association and does not fully explain the accuracy or the errors associated with the model. Thus, the classification rate was examined to measure effect size (Noruˇsis, 2008). The proportional by chance accuracy rate was computed by calculating the proportion of cases for each group and then squaring and summing the proportion of cases in each group (0.6932 + 0.1732 + 0.1332 = 0.527). The proportional by chance accuracy criteria by a 25% improvement over the rate of accuracy achievable by chance alone was 66% (1.25 × 52.7%). The overall percentage accuracy rate produced by the classification table was compared to characterize whether the final model was useful, and accordingly the criteria was satisfied (79.6% > 66%). Overall, H3 was supported. Table 5 shows the relationship of individual independent variables (green practices) and the dependent variable (nationalities). Results showed that the relative importance of green practices was perceived differently between nationalities. This suggests that lightbulb, occusensor, keycard, waterpublic, dispenser, and towelpolicy were perceived differently by Mexicans compared to Americans and other nationalities. On the other hand, waterguest, localsupplier, recycle and ecosupply did not show any differentiation in perceptions of green practices by nationality. Table 6 shows the summary for the significant estimate results. In this study, two comparisons were made for the dependent variable: American and Other (other nationalities) were compared to Mexican. The following practices were identified to be perceived significantly differently between American and Mexican respondents: lightbulb, occusensor, keycard, waterpublic, dispenser and towelpolicy. In addition, lightbulb, occusensor, dispenser and towelpolicy revealed a significantly different perception between “Other” nationalities and Mexicans. These results support hypothesis 3, proposing that there is a difference in relative satisfaction levels generated by hotel sustainable practices between nationality groups. In multinomial logistic regression, it is important to note that both the odds ratio (exp(ˇ), and significant ratings are used for interpretation (Noruˇsis, 2008). For example, a significant rating of 7 refers to satisfaction, while a rating of 1 indicates dissatisfaction. An exp(ˇ) value smaller than one indicates decreased perception (satisfaction or dissatisfaction, according to the ratings) compared to the reference group (the Mexican group in this study). On the other hand, an exp(ˇ) value greater than one indicates increased Table 5 Relationship between green practices and nationalities (N = 329). Effect
−2 Log likelihood of reduced model
Chi-square
Sig.
Intercept Lightbulb Occusensor Keycard Waterpublic Waterguest Localsupplier Recycle Dispenser Towelpolicy Ecosupply
248.09 278.44 270.6 277.83 285.01 263.73 265.14 269.33 275.83 280.72 268.91
0 30.34 22.51 29.74 36.92 15.63 17.05 21.24 27.74 32.63 20.82
0.00* 0.03* 0.00* 0.00* 0.21 0.15 0.05 0.01* 0.00* 0.05
*
p < .05.
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233 Table 6 Parameter estimates for multinomial logistic regression (N = 329). Nationality
b
S.E.
Sig.
exp()
American
Lightbulb (=7) Occusensor (=6) Keycard (=1) Waterpublic (=6) Dispenser (=1) Towelpolicy (=6)
−1.47 3.38 −9.58 3.25 5.00 −1.6
0.32 1.34 4.90 1.36 2.27 0.65
0.00* 0.01* 0.04* 0.02* 0.02* 0.01*
0.23 29.43 0.27 25.66 148.78 0.21
Others
Lightbulb (=7) Occusensor (=1) Dispenser (=1) Towelpolicy (=1)
−2.06 5.03 6.06 −5.73
0.39 2.40 2.71 2.35
0.00* 0.03* 0.02* 0.02*
0.13 152.57 74.73 0.06
Note: Reference category was Mexicans. * p < .05.
perception (satisfaction or dissatisfaction) compared to the reference group. However, it is crucial to note which independent variable category is significant for interpretation. For instance, for the occusensor item, although satisfaction perception was significant for both Americans (rating = 6) and the Other (=1), ith may indicate different results depending on the odd ratio (exp(ˇ), Perception levels were measured as follows: from 1 = very dissatisfied with a certain sustainable practice to 7 = very satisfied with a certain sustainable practice. For example, for Americans, the odds ratio for lightbulb (rated = very satisfied) is 0.23, which implies that for each unit increase in lightbulb satisfaction, the odds of being American decreased by 77% (0.23–1.0 = −0.77). In other words, implementing energy saving lightbulbs does little to increase satisfaction for Americans, in contrast to the Mexican hotel guests. Similarly, the odds of being Other rather than Mexican is decreased by 87% (0.13–1.0) of being satisfied with the lightbulb item. This indicates that Mexicans perceive lightbulb practices as a more satisfying green practice than do Americans and other nationalities. The following results were obtained and interpreted in the same manner. Mexicans perceived towelpolicy as a more satisfying green practice than do Americans, while Mexicans perceived towelpolicy as a more dissatisfying green practice than do Others. Lastly, in respect to keycard, Americans were less likely to be dissatisfied with this sustainable practice (rating = 1) compared to Mexican hotel guests, which implies that Americans perceived keycards as a more satisfying green practice than do Mexicans. On the other hand, for the occusensor, waterpublic, and dispenser items, the odds ratio (exp(ˇ)) showed values higher than one. Therefore, Americans perceived the occusensor practice (rated = 6) as more satisfying than did the Mexican group and people from other countries perceived occusensor practices (rated = 1) as more dissatisfying than Mexican respondents. Similarly, for the dispenser practice, both the American and Other groups were more likely to be dissatisfied than the Mexican group. Namely, Mexican respondents perceive the use of dispensers as a more satisfying attribute than Americans and other nationalities. For water saving practices, Americans were more likely to be satisfied than Mexicans. Therefore, Americans perceived water saving practices as a more satisfying attribute than did Mexicans.
231
impact on guests’ satisfaction and guests’ intention to return, and they should investigate the reasons for this phenomenon. It may be inconvenient for guests to recycle, and management needs to make sure that it is not bothersome to their guests. Furthermore, it may be possible that some segments of their guests find it awkward to recycle and they may feel that it is not their responsibility to collect and distribute what they may consider garbage. These findings add to the literature and coincide with Ogbeide’s (2012) study that found that, although hotel customers are willing to stay in green hotels, they do not wish their experience to be negatively impacted by green practices such as low flow showerheads. In addition, managers should also look into the fact that some policies (localsupplier and ecosupply) only impacted guest satisfaction and not guests’ intention to return, which should be the ultimate goal of any marketing efforts. Management should find a way to connect their guests personally to the benefits of using local suppliers and ecologically sound products. According to Shoemaker and Kapoor (2008), loyalty is created and maintained through an equal balance of value, process and communication – a concept that can be used by management to develop satisfaction into loyalty. Management will have to communicate clearly the added value of using local suppliers and eco supplies to the hotels’ guests, while at the same time ensuring the guest experience is not negatively impacted by processes involved in using them. Guests should be educated so that they will have an enhanced experience due to the use of local supplies (freshness of products and support of local economies and local flair) and they should be assured that they can trust the quality of the products. In order fully to understand the above discussed results, it is important for managers to know their target markets. This study clearly shows that people from different countries have different perceptions about specific hotel sustainable practices, which, in the long run, may have an impact on their satisfaction levels, intention to return, and overall hotel experience. Understanding these differences allows managers to allocate resources more efficiently by implementing the appropriate sustainable practices and in educating guests from different national backgrounds at different levels. This study also provides implications for marketing managers, such as the importance of customizing their marketing message according to guests’ nationalities. For example, marketing the hotels’ sustainability practices should emphasize aspects important to the target markets of different nationalities. Such a strategy is important to display the hotels’ corporate social responsibility in a way that matches each nationality’s frame of reference, while, on the other hand, avoiding perceptions of “green washing.” Results also indicate that ‘basic’ and ‘plus’ attributes may be perceived differently according to nationality, which extends on the findings of Robinot and Giannelloni (2010). Managers need to consider that certain sustainable practices are no longer considered innovative to some nationalities and are now considered basic. This may suggest to managers that, even though these policies do not contribute to guest satisfaction, they are expected to be present in order to avoid guest dissatisfaction despite innovative “plus” attributes that might be available.
7. Conclusions 6. Implications This study provides the following implications to theory and practice. First, it identifies which sustainable practices will provide hotel guest satisfaction and impact guests’ re-purchasing behaviors. For example, Mexican hotel managers should be interested in the fact that only two policies (lightbulb and dispenser) displayed positive impacts on both guest satisfaction and guests’ intention to return to a hotel. In addition, the recycle policy has a negative
This research also enlightened managers on important policies (lightbulb and dispenser) that were identified as having positive impacts on guest satisfaction and guests’ intention to return by identifying differences in perceptions according to nationalities. In this case, managers needed to consider that Mexicans were to a larger degree very satisfied with these policies in comparison to the American guests and guests of other nationalities. Since the majority of the sample consisted of Mexican guests, emphasizing these
232
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233
policies to Mexican guests would probably be an effective way to promote hotels’ sustainable practices. On the other hand, managers also learned which practices American guests preferred over the other nationalities. It can be concluded that American, Mexican and other nationalities are quite different in their appreciation of sustainable practices, a phenomenon that needs to be addressed when establishing strategies for marketing hotel sustainable practices. Moreover, this study’s findings partially contrast and also add to Kasim’s (2004a) who concluded that guests do not want their hotel experience to be impacted by sustainable efforts. For example, Kasim (2004a) found that guests overall preferred nonenvironmentally friendly in room amenities (e.g., daily towel changes and individual soap bars). Conversely, the results of this study suggest that some sustainable efforts are indeed desired by guests. Furthermore, this study supports Kim and Han (2010) in that hotel guests are willing to accept certain minor inconveniences to support sustainability, which may suggest that hotel guests have become more aware and progressive over time. In this study, guests also found recycling to be inconvenient, and therefore dissatisfying. This suggests that management should make sustainable practices as convenient as possible for the guest. Perhaps this target market is more willing to support sustainable efforts through financial means rather than having their hotel experience impacted. Customer wants and needs are becoming more complex, and customization is often necessary to obtain a competitive advantage. It can be concluded that hotel marketers’ emphasis on sustainable practices may have to be tailored to their target markets. Consequently, customizing sustainable practices may play a strategic role for management that benefits both the hotel industry and society.
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research As with all research, limitations have to be addressed. The data was obtained from a convenience sample and the results cannot be generalized. Therefore, it is recommended to replicate this study by using a random sample. It can be further suggested to conduct research using a diverse sample of nationalities, which could guide hotel managers to recognize guests’ perceptions of sustainable practices by allowing them to provide customization and strategic implementation of them. Further, it can be suggested to apply this study to other hospitality segments, such as restaurant, entertainment and spas. Additionally, the majority of the study participants were Mexicans, skewing the data. It would be more helpful to understand the sustainable policies related to nationality by obtaining a more evenly distributed data set and further employing different data analysis methods. This study did not employ the general (not green related) hotel attributes utilized in previous studies. Study findings are also expected to evolve by adding additional sustainable practice variables.
References Anderson, R., Srinivasan, S., 2003. E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency framework. Psychology & Marketing 20 (2), 123–138. Baloglu, S., 2002. Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from wellwishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 43 (1), 47–59. Bennett, R., Hartel, C., McColl-Kennedy, J., 2005. Experiences as a moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to business setting. Industrial Marketing Management 34 (1), 97–107. Berezan, O., Raab, C., Millar, M., 2014. Sustainable hotel practices and guest satisfaction levels. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 15 (1). Bowen, J.T., Shoemaker, S., 2003. Loyalty: a strategic commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (5/6), 31–46. Bowen, J.T., Chen, S., 2001. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13 (5), 213–217.
Butler, J., 2008. The compelling “hard case” for “green hotel” development. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 49, 234–244. Chitty, B., Ward, S., Chua, C., 2007. An application of the ECSI model as a predictor of satisfaction and loyalty for backpacker hostels. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25 (6), 563–580. Clemes, M.D., Gan, C., Ren, M., 2010. Synthesizing the effects of service quality, value, and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel industry: an empirical analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 35 (4), 530–568. Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008, June 5. Business travelers are starting to demand green lodging. Retrieved from http://www.accountingweb.com/item/105293 Dolliver, M., 2008. Deflating a myth. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com Evanschitsky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Business Research 59 (12), 1207–1213. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addision-Wesley, Reading, PA. Furlow, N., Knott, C., 2009. Who’s reading the label? Millenials’ use of environmental product labels. Journal of Applied Business and Economics. 10 (3), 1–12. Gracia, E., Bakker, A.B., Grau, R.M., 2011. Positive emotions: the connection between customer quality evaluations and loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4), 458–465. Han, X., Kwortnik, R.J., Wang, C., 2008. Service loyalty: an integrative model and examination across service contexts. Journal of Service Research 11, 22–42. Han, H., Hsu, L., Lee, J., 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 519–528. Hu, H., Hyang, C., Chen, P., 2010. Do reward programs truly build loyalty for the lodging industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management 29, 128–135. Hosmer, D., Lemshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hobokan, NJ. Kasim, A., 2004a. Socio-environmentally responsible hotel business: do tourists to Penang Island, Malaysia care? Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 11 (4), 5–28. Kasim, A., 2004b. BESR in the hotel sector: a look at tourists’ propensity towards environment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 5 (2), 61–83. Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in mid-priced hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254. Kim, Y., Han, H., 2010. Intention to pay conventional hotel prices at a green hotel: a modification of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (8), 997–1014. Lam, S., Shankar, V., Krishna Erramilli, M., Murthy, B., 2004. Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-tobusiness service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 293–311. Lancaster, K., 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74 (2), 132–157. Lee, J., Back, K., 2010. Examining antecedents and consequences of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 27 (2), 132–145. Lee, J., Hsu, L., Han, H., Kim, Y., 2010. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (7), 901–914. Lipman, G., Vorster, S., 2011. Green growth, travelsism, and the pursuit of happiness. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011, p. 77. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF TravelTourismCompetitiveness Report 2011.pdf Manaktola, K., Jauhari, V., 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (5), 364–377. McAlexander, J., Kim, S., Roberts, S., 2003. Loyalty: the influences of satisfaction and brand community integration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 11 (4), 1–11. Mensah, I., 2004. Environmental management practices in US hotels. from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004 2nd/ Retrieved May04EnvironmentalPractices.html Millar, M., Baloglu, S., 2008. Hotel guests’ preferences for green hotel attributes. In: Proceedings of the European Council for Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Millar, M., Baloglu, S., 2011. Hotel guests’ preferences for green guest room attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (3), 302–311. Noruˇsis, M.J., 2008. SPSS 16.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Prentice Hall Inc., Chicago, IL. Nunnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Ogbeide, G.-C., 2012. Perception of green hotels in the 21st century. Journal of Tourism Insights 3 (1), Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ jti/vol3/iss1/1 Oliver, R., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 25–48. Oliver, R., 1997. Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing 73 (3), 311–336. Petrick, J.H., Backman, S., 1999. An examination of the relationship between golf travelers’ satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty and their intensions to revisit. Tourism Analysis 6 (3), 223–237.
O. Berezan et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 227–233 Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E., 2007. Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research 60, 21–31. Revilla, G., Dodd, T., Hoover, L., 2001. Environmental tactics used by hotel companies in Mexico. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 1 (3/4), 111–127. Robinot, E., Giannelloni, J.L., 2010. Do hotels’ “green” attributes contribute to customer satisfaction? Journal of Services Marketing 24 (2), 157–169. Shoemaker, S., Kapoor, C., 2008. Relationship and loyalty marketing. In: Handbook of Hospitality Marketing Management. Elsevier, New York, NY119–152. Shoemaker, S., Lewis, R.C., 1999. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18 (4), 345–370. Schwab, J.A., 2002. Multinomial logistic regression: basic relationships and complete problems. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/courses/schwab/ sw388r7/SolvingProblems Susskind, A., Verma, R., 2011. Hotel guests’ reactions to guest room sustainability initiatives. Cornell Hospitality Report 11 (6), 1. Swan, J.E., Combs, L.J., 1976. Product performance and consumer satisfaction: a new concept. Journal of Marketing 40 (2), 25–33.
233
Tierney, P., Hunt, M., Latkova, P., 2011. Do travelers support green practices and sustainable development? Journal of Tourism Insights 2 (2), 1–17. Travel and Leisure, 2010. World’s best top 10 cities. Retrieved from http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2010/cities Tzschentkea, Nadia A., 2008. Going green: decisional factors in small hospitality operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (1), 126–133. U.S. Travel Association, 2009. American travelers more familiar with ‘green travel’ but unwilling to pay more to support it. Retrieved from http://www. ustravel.org/news/press-releases/american-travelers-more-familiar-‘greentravel’ Weissenberg, A., Redington, N., Kutyla, D., 2008. The staying power of sustainability: balancing opportunity and risk in the hospitality industry. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com World Economic Forum, 2011. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF TravelTourismCompetitiveness Report 2011.pdf Yang, Z., Peterson, R., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing 21 (10), 799–822.