This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University ofOxford]On: 16 October 2014, At: 07:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Teaching in Travel &TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20
Tourist Attitudes Towards theEnvironmentSimon Hudson a & Brent Ritchie ba University of Calgary , 2500 University Drive NW,Calgary, Alberta, Canada , T2N 1N4b World Tourism Education & Research Center ,University of Calgary , 2500 University Drive NW,Calgary, Alberta, Canada , T2N 1N4Published online: 14 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Simon Hudson & Brent Ritchie (2001) Tourist Attitudes Towardsthe Environment, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 1:4, 1-18, DOI: 10.1300/J172v01n04_01
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J172v01n04_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Tourist Attitudes Towards the Environment:
A Critique
of the Contingent Valuation Method
as a Research Tool
for Measuring Willingness to Pay
Simon HudsonBrent Ritchie
ABSTRACT. This article evaluates the Contingent Valuation Method(CVM) as a tool for measuring the economic benefits of the provision ofnon-marketed tourism products. CVM was used to measure skiers’ will-ingness to pay (WTP) for an environmentally friendly ski destination.Skiers from three different nationalities were surveyed, and although theywere more likely to visit a resort that is environmentally responsible, notall of them would pay more for the privilege. Use of the CVM indicated astrong correlation between WTP and the cost of the holiday, level of in-come, and level of environmental conscience. The authors conclude that
Simon Hudson is Associate Professor, University of Calgary, 2500 UniversityDrive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 (E-mail: [email protected]).
Brent Ritchie is Chair of the World Tourism Education & Research Center, Univer-sity of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4(E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 1(4) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
ARTICLES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
although CVM can provide useful data for tourism decision-makers, itdoes have its limitations. [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001 by TheHaworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Contingent valuation, willingness-to-pay, skiing, envi-ronment, tourism
INTRODUCTION
Conflicts between environmentalists and ski resort developers can befound around the world, and there is no better example than in the BanffNational Park in Alberta, Canada. The dilemma of balancing the protec-tion of National Park values while making provision for their enjoy-ment is a longstanding one, which has become progressively moredifficult with the continued increase in recreation and tourist demand(Sadler, 1983). Commercial skiing in Banff/Lake Louise evolved in cir-cumstances, and was guided by attitudes, that are quite different tothose that apply today when primary importance is attached to heritageand preservation. At the time of writing, Lake Louise and three other skiareas in Alberta were pursuing legal action against Parks Canada andthe Heritage Minister, Sheila Copps, over a new policy that would cutback ski area operations, cap daily skier capacity, and restrict future ex-pansions in Banff and Jasper National Parks.
It has been argued that there could be an opportunity for resorts togain a competitive advantage by positioning themselves as environ-mentally responsible (Hudson, 1996), and there is evidence of a newmanagement style and new commitment to have skiing co-exist withthe environment (Castle, 1999). However, little is known about skiers’environmental knowledge and awareness, or their willingness to payfor greener tourism products. With a proposed cap on the number ofskiers permitted to visit the Banff National Park, and the huge increasein tourist numbers predicted by the World Tourism Organization(McDowell, 1999), it is inevitable that prices will have to rise (Urquhart,1998). It is therefore critical that tourism providers understand howmuch skiers are willing to pay to preserve the environment in the Na-tional Park.
2 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ENVIRONMENTALLYFRIENDLY TOURISM PRODUCTS
International leisure travelers are increasingly motivated by the qualityof destination landscapes, in terms of environmental health and of the di-versity and integrity of natural and cultural resources. Studies of Germanand American travel markets indicate that environmental considerationsare now a significant element of travelers’ destination-choosing process,down to–in the case of the Germans–the environmental programs oper-ated by individual hotels (Ayala, 1996). It has been suggested 40 per centof Canadians consider the environmental track record of both holidaycompany and destination when booking a holiday (Kiernan, 1992). Inter-national travelers also share willingness to contribute to the preservationand enhancement of natural environments (Ayala, 1996). The EuropeanTourism Institute claim that more than half of all travelers are willing topay up to 20 per cent more for a holiday in a natural preserved environ-ment. Certainly in the US, the growth in special interest nature-orien-tated travel reflects the increasing concern for the environment.
The limited research on skiers and their environmental commitmenthas produced contradictory results. A Roper survey discovered that ski-ers, more than many other groups of tourists, were especially worriedabout the environmental results of development and growth (NSAA,1994). Also, SKI Magazine say they have conducted numerous inde-pendent surveys over the past decade that show skiers are more con-cerned about the environment than all other sportsmen (Bigford, 1999).However, Fry (1995) found that skiers don’t have strong views about theenvironment, and more experienced skiers actually favor expansion ofski areas. And at a recent meeting of the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in Denver (November, 1999), delegates agreed that it wasunlikely consumers would make mountain resort vacation decisionsbased on how environmentally friendly the resort was (Harbaugh, 1999).
In a recent environmental awareness study in Austria, the majority ofskiers (59%) said they were prepared to pay an “environmental tax” if itwould mean that something constructive would be done for the environ-ment in their chosen holiday resort (Weiss et al., 1998). The authorssuggest that the fact that skiers predominantly come from higher socio-economic groups in society may explain the high degree of willingnessto cover any environmental disturbance, caused by their leisure pur-suits, by paying taxes. Although the skiers in the Austrian study showeda high degree of environmental awareness, they were not prepared to re-
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
strict their skiing to protect the countryside, and did not agree with lim-ited sale of lift tickets.
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The hypothesis that tourists will pay more for environmentallyfriendly tourism products lacks empirical verification. Are skiers reallyworried about the environmental impacts of skiing, and if so, how muchare they willing to pay for a deeper environmental commitment from skidestinations, whether it be enforced or not? These questions drove themain objectives of this research project, which were:
• to review the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) as a tool formeasuring Willingness-to-Pay (WTP).
• to clarify how much exactly, skiers are willing-to-pay for a moreenvironmentally friendly skiing product.
• to make theoretical and practical recommendations based on theresearch findings.
THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD
Price is a potentially powerful tool to move towards greater effi-ciency, fairness and environmentally sustainable management, but iscurrently underutilized (Laarman and Gregerson, 1996). Most studiesof WTP rely on one of two analytical methods: travel cost and contin-gent valuation. In practice, however, the travel-cost approach is em-ployed more often to value and defend nature-based tourism as a landuse rather than to guide pricing. While the travel-cost method isgrounded in observed market behavior, CVM poses hypothetical “whatif” questions about how individuals would respond to specified pricesfor tourism products–in this case, how much they are willing to pay forspecific improvements in the environment they are skiing in. Individ-uals are asked about their “contingent valuation” (if “this” happens,what would you be willing to pay?).
CVM first came into use in the early 1960s, and is closely associatedwith Davis, who explored the potential of a survey design to simulate amarket that would put “the interviewer in the position of seller who elic-its the highest possible bid from the user for the services being offered”(Davis, 1963, pp. 245). There are now over 2,000 papers and studies
4 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
dealing with CV (Carson, 2000), and representative tourism applica-tions include a study by Cicchetti and Smith (1973) who examined thevalue of reducing crowding on wilderness trails in Spain, CVM studiesat Nairobi National Park (Abala, 1987), and studies in several parks inCosta Rica (Baldares and Laarman, 1991; Hanrahan et al., 1992). Anumber of studies have also successfully used CVM to value recreationgoods (Cobbing and Slee, 1993; Benson and Willis, 1991; Bishop andWelsh, 1992; Bennett et al., 1995; Christie, 1999).
Over the years, more and more scholars have entered the debate as tothe efficacy of CVM, in real and potential terms, as a means for valuingpublic goods. Table 1 summarizes the divergent thinking of both criticsand proponents of CVM.
Critics of CVM
According to Cummings et al. (1986) in their book assessing CVM,the criticisms of CVM point to a disarray and confusion amongst CVMresearchers attributable to two central facts. First, there has been a lackof consensus amongst researchers as to the priority issues and hypothe-ses that warrant empirical focus. Secondly, CVM researchers have beenapologetic, or defensive, due to the pervasive feeling that interrogatedresponses by individuals to hypothetical propositions must be, at best,inferior to “hard” market data.
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 5
TABLE 1. The Divergent Views of the Contingent Valuation Method
Critics of CVM Proponents of CVM
Respondents will engage in strategicbehavior (Bohm, 1972; Scott, 1965; Abala,1987; Knestch and Davis, 1974; Posavac,1998).
Strategic bias is not a significant problemfor CV studies under most conditions(Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Smith, 1977;Brookshire et al., 1976).
Respondents will not give meaningfulanswers (Kahneman, 1986; Freeman, 1979;Feenburg and Mills, 1980; Cummings et al.,1986).
WTP surveys provide meaningfulevaluations (Cummings et al., 1995;Knetsch and Davis, 1974; Mitchell andCarson, 1989).
Opinions or attitudes may be poorpredictors of actual behavior (Bishop andHeberlein, 1986; Feenberg and Mills, 1980;Loomis et al., 1996; Byrnes and Goodman,1999).
There is strong support for the ability ofsurveys to predict behavior (Randall et al.,1983; Cummings et al., 1995; Mitchell andCarson, 1989).
Biases arise from the framing of WTPquestions in the CVM questionnaire(Tversky and Kahneman, 1981).
Careful questionnaire design can controlpotential biases (Hanemann, 1994; Smith,1994; Bateman and Langford, 1997; Arrowet al., 1993; Christie, 1999).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Economists have raised four main objections to the use of CVM.Firstly, some believe that survey respondents will engage in strategicbehavior by giving answers deliberately calculated to influence policymakers (Bohm, 1972; Scott, 1965). Abala (1987) suggests that consum-ers may understate their preference for the good as they may escape be-ing charged as much as they are willing to pay. On the other hand,Knestch and Davis (1974) argue that recreationists may intentionallybid up their apparent benefits in order to make a case for preserving theenvironment in question. Posavac (1998) also provides evidence ofstrategic overbidding in contingent valuation.
Secondly, critics suggest that those surveyed will not be motivatedto search their preferences with sufficient care to give meaningful an-swers. They believe crucial contrary-to-fact questions are unlikely tobe answered accurately, because of people’s lack of incentive andability (Kahneman 1986; Freeman, 1979; Feenburg and Mills, 1980).Cummings et al. (1986) suggest that there is little evidence from the lit-erature to support the notion that subjects, during the relatively brief pe-riod of the CVM interview, could define their preferences for a new,unfamiliar commodity in any meaningful way.
The third major criticism, coming from both psychologists and econ-omists, is that opinions or attitudes (expressions of WTP) may be poorpredictors of actual behavior (buying or selling goods). Critics likeBishop and Heberlein (1986) warn that one should not assume automat-ically that people will actually pay what they say they will pay in a sur-vey. Feenberg and Mills (1980) also refer to a lack of empirical researchthat tests the accuracy of surveys predicting behavior. And Loomis et al.(1993) have been joined by Byrnes and Goodman (1999) in suggestingthat hypothetical payments overestimate the payments that people areactually prepared to make due to free-riding behavior.
Finally, critics suggest that potential biases arise from the framing ofWTP questions in the CVM questionnaire; thus for any given public/en-vironmental commodity to be valued via the CVM, different descrip-tions of the same basic commodity could yield different estimates ofvalues of the commodity (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981).
Proponents of CVM
Mitchell and Carson (1989) in their book devoted to CVM have ad-dressed all of the objections above, and have drawn on a wide range ofmaterials from several disciplines to consider the fundamental ques-tions of whether respondents in CV surveys will answer honestly and
6 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
whether they can answer meaningfully. Their analysis and evidence ledthem to conclude that there is no valid basis for dismissing the methodout of hand on these grounds. They conclude that CV is a powerful andversatile tool for measuring the economic benefits of the provision ofnon-marketed goods.
They point out that those who are critical of the ability of surveys toprovide meaningful valuation information frequently compare the hy-pothetical market in CV surveys unfavorably to a private goods mar-ket model where consumers make informed purchases of familiargoods. Cummings et al. (1995) agree that evidence from comparativeand experimental studies suggest that minimal biases in CVM mea-sures may result from hypothetical payment. The CV literature alsooffers evidence that the WTP amounts given in CV surveys are notrandom opinions. Beginning with Davis’s original study (Knetsch andDavis, 1974), CV researchers have customarily reported the results ofregression equations where respondents’ WTP values are regressed onvariables which theory predicts should be associated with this type ofpreference.
Also, the theoretical and experimental evidence Mitchell and Car-son examined, supports the view that strategic behavior is not nearlyas severe as many economists had feared. They conclude that strategicbias is not a significant problem for CV studies under most conditions,and that “the potential threat posed by respondents deliberately givinguntruthful WTP values is likely to be much less serious than the possi-bility that they will give meaningless values” (Mitchell and Carson,1989, pp. 170). Other researchers whose empirical studies found littleevidence of strategic bias, include Smith (1977) and Brookshire et al.(1976).
In response to the criticism that answers to hypothetical questionscannot predict behavior, CVM supporters have indicated that sinceCVM questions ask for intended behavior rather than attitudes, prob-lems of correspondence between attitudes and behavior were likelyminimized (Randall et al., 1983; Cummings et al., 1995). Mitchell andCarson (1989) also counter this criticism by referring to numeroustests that provide strong support for the ability of surveys to predictbehavior.
CVM techniques have many other supporters who argue that biasescan be traced to inadequate survey design (Hanemann, 1994; Smith,1994). The view that careful study design can control potential biaseshas been supported by tacit endorsement of the technique by the UKDepartment of Environment, and a “blue ribbon” panel examining the
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
CV method for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion (Bateman and Langford, 1997).
Finally, there are those who believe that CVM warrants continued in-terest and research, given the apparent lack of apparent alternatives for asurvey method that measures environmental goods (Burness et al.,1983). Even the strongest of CVM critics “have been surprised howwell CVM does work” (Bishop and Heberlein, 1986, pp. 146). Al-though CVM is subject to controversy regarding its reliability, guide-lines of good practice are available (Arrow et al., 1993), and it isgenerally agreed that a well-designed and thoroughly piloted CV ques-tionnaire can produce accurate value estimations (Christie, 1999).
The debate surrounding the use of CVM is, according to Carson(2000), simply a reflection of the large sums at stake in major environ-mental decisions involving passive-use and the general distrust thatsome economists have for information collected from surveys. How-ever, the spotlight placed upon CVM has ensured that its theoreticalfoundations and limitations are now better understood.
METHODOLOGY
A research instrument in the form of a survey was developed basedon the literature reviewed above, and in-depth interviews with officialsfrom Parks Canada, ski resort operators, and environmental groups. Thesurvey was designed to discover whether or not skiers would pay morefor environmentally friendly skiing products, and if so, how much. Amodel was adopted that Mitchell and Carson (1989) recommend for CVsurveys. According to this model visitors are presented with material, inthe form of a questionnaire consisting of three parts.
Questions About the Respondents’ Characteristics,and Their Preferences Relevant to the Goods Being Valued
The first part of the questionnaire was designed to elicit responsesfrom participants related to their awareness of environmental issues inthe mountains. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to anumber of statements on a five-point Likert scale. These statementssought to elicit skiers’ knowledge and perceptions about the environ-mental impacts of skiing.
8 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
A Detailed Description of the Tourism Product Being Valued(in This Case an Environmentally Friendly Ski Destination)and the Hypothetical Circumstance Under Which It Is MadeAvailable to the Respondent
It was made very clear to respondents what a green ski resort wouldactually entail. Fourteen environmental policies that could be imple-mented by ski resorts were listed (see Table 2). Respondents were asked
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 9
TABLE 2. Summary of Responses to the Statements Based on Likelihood ofVisiting and Paying More for Greener Ski Resorts
LIKELIHOOD OF (a) VISITING and(b) PAYING MORE
FOR A SKI RESORT THAT:
More Likely toVisit
More Likely toPay More
was sensitive to impacts to wildlife populations andhabitats resulting from development
74.3% 35.6%
adopted sustainability principles for watermanagement
64.2% 31.6%
instigated environmental education programs 62.6% 29.1%
monitored the number of skiers to minimize negativeenvironmental impacts
62.5% 34.7%
was traffic free and had an efficient public transportsystem
80.6% 53.2%
had environmentally friendly hotels 75.6% 37.6%
encouraged and provided recycling facilities 77.9% 29.9%
based development on sound ecological knowledgerather than just economic considerations
74.8% 35.5%
restricted or eliminated certain forms of combustionto reduce air pollution
75.3% 37.6%
communicated its role to the public as responsible,environmental stewards
70.5% 30.2%
positioned and marketed itself as the first true“green” ski resort
62.5% 34.8%
restricted access to some ski areas to protectwildlife, shrubs and trees
66% 32.4%
provided incentives to tourists arriving bypublic transport (e.g., cheaper lift tickets)
79.9% 42.9%
prohibit night skiing to avoid disrupting wildlifemovement
45.3% 21.1%
n = 332
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
about their likelihood of choosing a green ski destination over another,and whether or not they would pay more for the privilege.
Closed-Ended Questions That Elicit the Respondent’s Willingnessto Pay for the Product Being Valued
In previous CV studies both open-ended and closed-ended question-naires have been used (Han et al., 1997). Open-ended questionnairesask people directly “how much would you be willing to pay for. . . .” Butin recent years, referendum procedures have tended to replaceopen-ended elicitations, because they circumvent a relatively high inci-dence of non-response found in open-ended studies (McFadden, 1994).Also in open-ended surveys, respondents can engage in strategic behav-ior by giving answers deliberately calculated to influence policy mak-ers. Mitchell and Carson (1989) argue that the closed-ended method isconsidered easier for respondents to answer than any other elicitationformats that use the open-ended questions.
Due to the limitations connected to the inadequate design of surveys,considerable time and effort was invested in designing this question-naire, which was piloted on a sample of 50 skiers before the surveyproper.
The Sample
The quota sampling method was used to ensure that a representativesample was collected from 3 nationalities, to allow cross-cultural com-parisons. A target of 300 skiers, divided evenly between visitors fromCanada, the United States and the United Kingdom was set. These threenationalities are the largest visitor segments in the skiing season. In us-ing representative random samples, one can avoid the errors of manyculture-based studies in which sampling is inadequately representative(Clark, 1990). Respondents were interviewed over a period of 4 weeksin February and March 2000. Skiers were approached on the buses asthey traveled to the different ski areas in the National Park, and also atthe base lodges as they rested. Critics of CVM tend to prefer in-personinterviews rather than mail and telephone surveys, as they facilitate re-spondent understanding (Carson, 2000). The number of useable surveysreturned was 332, and the data was analyzed using SPSS statisticalpackage for Windows.
10 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
RESULTS
Frequencies
Of the sample of 332, 111 were Canadians, 116 were Americans andthe remaining 105 were British skiers. Skiers outnumbered boarders by3 to 1, and the gender split was about 60% male and 40% female. Themajority of skiers were in the 25-34 age bracket, held professional occu-pations and were educated at University level. These demographics areconsistent with previous consumer behavior studies related to skiers(see Hudson, 2000). Across cultures there were some significant differ-ences between the samples. Not surprisingly, univariate analysis ofvariance between the groups showed that skiers from the UK and Amer-ica spent significantly more on their skiing holiday than the Canadians(df = 2/331, F = 26.83, p < .001). Americans said their skiing holidaywas costing them $376 per day, British skiers $340 per day, and Canadi-ans $128 (all Canadian dollars). American skiers were also significantlyolder than the Canadians or British with 56% being above the 25-34 age
bracket (χ2 = 16.09, df = 4, p < .01). The Americans too were more qual-ified than their counterparts, with 77% claiming to have been educatedat University level or above, compared to about 50% of the Canadiansand British.
Environmental Awareness
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on anumber of statements that sought to elicit skiers’ knowledge and per-ceptions about the environmental impacts of skiing. It appears that 70%of the sample believe skiing and snowboarding to be environmentallyfriendly, but 65% say ski terrain should be limited because it disturbswildlife habitat and migratory paths. This is despite a large number(64%) agreeing that ski terrain does not harm the environment as muchas the real estate that accompanies it. These findings are consistent withjust one of the previous studies measuring skiers’ attitudes towards theenvironment in the US (Fry, 1995). Only 17% take into account how en-vironmentally friendly a resort is before making their resort vacationdecision, which contradicts the findings of previous studies referred toearlier in this article (Ayala, 1996; Kiernan, 1992).
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Willingness-To-Pay
Respondents were asked about their likelihood of choosing a greenski destination over another, and whether or not they would pay morefor ski resorts that instigated sound environmental policies. Alpha esti-mates of reliability were calculated for these statements, and an alphacoefficient of .93 suggests that they are internally reliable.
The overall results have been listed in Table 2. Skiers indicated thatthey would be more likely to visit a resort that instigated all of the poli-cies except for one. Skiers (especially those from the UK and America)would not be pleased if night skiing was prohibited to avoid disruptingwildlife movement. The only individual policy that the majority of ski-ers said they would pay for was for a traffic free resort that had an effi-cient public transport system; and this was only 53% of the sample.There were some differences in the responses from the three nationali-ties. Significantly more Canadians would pay more for environmentallyfriendly hotels (47%) than Americans or British (β2 = .21, df = 2, p <.05); and 41% would pay more for a resort that encouraged recycling fa-cilities, as opposed to only 21% of British and 27% of American skiers(β2 = 10.35, df = 2, p < .01). Understandably, given their opposition toprohibiting night skiing, significantly more British skiers (88%) wouldnot pay more for a resort that instigated this policy.
The mean WTP, the standard error, and the median WTP were calcu-lated for each population. These are shown in Table 3. Mean WTP is thetraditional measure used in cost-benefit analysis, while median WTP,which corresponds to the flat amount that would receive majority ap-proval, is a standard public choice criterion (Carson, 2000). Accordingto the results, skiers on average are willing to pay $16 (CAN) per day
12 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
TABLE 3. Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Environmentally Friendly Skiing (AllData in Canadian Dollars)
ALL SKIERSSURVEYED
CANADIANSKIERS
BRITISHSKIERS
AMERICANSKIERS
Mean WTP ($CAN) 16.41 10.39 18.61 20.17
Standard Deviation 20.31 15.27 22.19 21.57
Median 10.00 5.00 12.00 15.00
Number ofobservations
332 111 105 116
Df = 2,331, F = 7.78, P < 0.001
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
more to visit a green ski resort. However, univariate analysis of vari-ance between the three countries indicated significant differencesacross cultures (df = 2/331, F = 7.78, p < .001). American skiers will pay$20.17 (CAN) and British skiers $18.61 (CAN), which is significantlyhigher than the $10.39 the Canadians are prepared to pay. Taken as awhole, 65% of skiers would be prepared to pay more: 59% of Canadianand British skiers, and 67% of Americans would pay more for an envi-ronmentally responsible ski destination. The mean WTP amount for the217 skiers who would pay more was $25 per day ($CAN).
Results of a stepwise multiple regression analysis of the WTP amountson relevant predictor variables are shown in Table 4. Demand studies in-dicate that WTP varies with income, education, occupation, demographicaspects and psychographic profiles (Laarman and Gregersen, 1996). Inthis study the results indicated a strong correlation between WTP andthe cost of the holiday. WTP amounts were also likely to rise with in-come, confirming previous WTP studies (Abala, 1987; Fry, 1995;Weiss et al., 1998) that found people with higher incomes tend to ex-hibit higher WTP for the environment than those with lower levels. Thethird significant correlation was with the environmental consciencelevel of skiers. As their perceived level of environmental consciencewent up, so too did their WTP. Previous studies have shown that con-sumers who exhibit high levels of environmental awareness and con-sciousness make more green purchasing decisions than those exhibitinglow levels (Schlegelmilch and Diamantopolous, 1996).
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 13
TABLE 4. Stepwise Regression Analysis
ExplanatoryVariable
RegressionCoefficient
t-statistic Significance P value
Cost of Holiday .279 4.864 < .001 .000
Shades of Green −.183 −3.191 < .01 .001
Income .046 .775 < .05 .037
Education −.075 −1.276 ns .053
Ability −.098 −1.677 ns .221
Occupation −.016 −.272 ns .293
Age −.011 −.181 ns .851
Skiing Frequency −.043 −.730 ns .947
ns = not significant
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
IMPLICATIONS
Regarding the four major criticisms of CVM referred to earlier, thequestionnaire was carefully designed and thoroughly piloted, attempt-ing to remove any of the biases associated with hypothetical situations.However, the results tend to support concerns of some CVM critics thatlack of experience/familiarity with a particular environmental goodmay result in a respondent having difficulty in placing monetary valueson the good. (Kahneman, 1986; Cummings et al., 1986). There ap-peared to be a general lack of knowledge and even confusion amongstskiers about environmental issues pertaining to skiing. A recent Banff-Bow Valley study also reported that the general public has little appre-ciation for, and understanding of, the seriousness of ecological degrada-tion in a setting where, to the untrained eye, nothing appears to bewrong (Ritchie, 1999). This reality is a major practical concern for pol-icy makers whose science demonstrates there is a problem.
It was clear to the researchers during the study that skiers had givenlittle thought to the issues of skiing and its impact on the environment. Itcould be argued therefore, that as they worked their way through thequestionnaire, they became aware of the possible environmental conse-quences of their recreation, and their WTP increased. On the other hand,it could be speculated that respondents are reluctant to check a zeroamount when given multiple choices in fear of appearing anti-environ-ment, especially when they have just been reminded how much theyearn and how much they paid for their holiday. There was little evi-dence of strategic behavior on behalf of respondents, although therewere 3 skiers who said they would pay over $100 a day extra for a greenski resort. It could be argued that their WTP was significantly higherthan the average in order to make a case for preserving the environmentin question (Knestch and Davis, 1974).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many believe that correcting the adverse consequences of outdoor rec-reation will require a raised environmental awareness among visitors(Heywood, 1991). The results of this study have shown that an effortneeds to be made to change skiers’ perceptions about the environmentalimpact of their sport. Resorts should create environmental education pro-grams as an added attraction or recreational opportunity at the ski area.Ski areas in the National Park that have taken steps to demonstrate the re-sponsibilities that come with mountain stewardship should be proud
14 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
enough to promote their accomplishments. Of nearly 600 ski areas oper-ating in the US, only 5% make an effort to publicize their environmentalefforts (Needham, 1996). Resorts need to market their environmentalprograms just as they market their terrain or high-speed quads.
Although the results suggest that certain segments of the tourist popu-lation would pay more for environmentally friendly tourism products, itis clear that further research is required to fully understand the demo-graphic and psychographic profile of these segments. This study was lim-ited to three cultures in one particular area of the world, and focused onone tourist activity. Further studies could extend this important body ofknowledge by examining different tourism activities in various culturalsettings.
CONCLUSION
Through years of experience and hundreds of surveys, the limitationsof CVM are now familiar. However, these limitations are no less a con-straint in applied work, and the use of CVM in this study will provideguidelines for policy makers in the Banff National Park in Canada.Reinhardt (1999) has suggested that the first condition required for suc-cess with environmental product differentiation is identifying custom-ers who are willing to pay more for an environmentally friendlyproduct. The use of CVM in this study has gone some way towardsidentifying the type of skier who would pay more for a green ski resort.The results show that the willingness to pay for skiing in the NationalPark is an increasing function of income levels and environmental con-science. It is expected that in the future, as incomes rise and more peo-ple become concerned about the environment, more people will want toski in the Park. A price increase would therefore appear justified.
Ski resort development, like other developments, must be politicallyacceptable: and to be politically acceptable they must be socially re-sponsible and environmentally sound. While environmental issues havebecome popular, and thus politically interesting, much of the commentand study at present tends to be very academic or theoretical–reflectingthe interest of the commentator rather than being practical. It is hopedthat this study will go some way to help the creative planning and ex-pansion of ski destinations. Sustainable tourism needs a responsible ap-proach, careful management and controlled planning, creative andselective marketing, education and training. It is not cheap, but if tour-ists are willing to pay more, as found in this study, then destinations canafford to invest in the environment.
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
REFERENCES
Abala, D.O. (1987). A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of the Willingness toPay for Recreational Services: A Case Study of Nairobi National Park. Eastern Af-rica Economic Review, 3(2): 111-119.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Learner, E.E., Radner, R., & Schuman, E. (1993).Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuations, Report to the General Coun-cil of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Resources for theFuture: Washington D.C.
Ayala, H. (1996). Resort Ecotourism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century. Cornell Hoteland Restaurant Administration Quarterly, October: 1-9.
Baldares, M.J., & Laarman, J.G. (1991). User Fees at Protected Areas in Costa Rica. InVincent, J.R. (Ed.), Valuing Environmental Benefits in Developing Economies.Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: 87-109.
Bateman, I.J., & Langford, I.H. (1997). Non-Users’ Willingness to Pay for a NationalPark: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method. RegionalStudies, 31(6): 571-582.
Bennett, R., Tranter, R., Beard, N., & Jones, P. (1995). The Value of Footpath Provi-sion in the Countryside: A Case-Study of Public Access to Urban-Fringe Wood-land. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38: 409-417.
Benson, J.F., & Willis, K.G. (1991). Valuing Informal Recreation on the ForestryCommission Estate. Forestry Bulletin, 104. London: HMSO.
Bigford, A. (1999). Skiing and the Environment. Ski Magazine. November: 1-3.Bishop, R., & Heberlein, T. (1986). Does Contingent Valuation Work? In Cummings,
R.G., Brookshire, D.S., & Schultze, W.D. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Goods: AnAssessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, 123-147. Rowman & Allanheld:New Jersey.
Bishop, R.C., & Welsh, M.P. (1992). Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis andDamage Assessment. Land Economics, 68(4): 405-417.
Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment. EuropeanEconomic Review, 3(2): 111-130.
Brookshire, D.S., Ives, B.C., & Schultze, W.D. (1976). The Valuation of AestheticPreferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 3: 325-246.
Burness, H.S., Cummings, R.G., Mehr, A.F., & Walbert, M.S. (1983). Valuing PoliciesWhich Reduce Environmental Risk. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3): 675-682.
Byrnes, B., & Goodman, S. (1999). Contingent Valuation and Real Economic Com-mitments: Evidence from Electric Utility Green Pricing Programmes. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 42(2): 149-167.
Carson, R.T. (2000). Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide. Environmental Science &Technology, 34(8): 1413-1418.
Castle, K. (1999). Mitigation Over Litigation. Ski, 64(4): 134-142.Christie, M. (1999). An Assessment of the Economic Effectiveness of Recreation Pol-
icy Using Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage-ment, 42(4): 547-565.
Cicchetti, C.J., & Smith, V.K. (1973). Congestion, Quality Deterioration and OptimalUse: Wilderness and Recreation in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area. Social Sci-
ences Research, 2: 15-30.
16 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Clark, T. (1990). International Marketing and National Character: A Review and Pro-posal for an Integrative Theory. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 66-79.
Cobbing, P., & Slee, W. (1993). A Contingent Valuation of the Mar Lodge Estate,Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage-
ment. 36: 65-72.Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., & Schultze, W.D. (1986). Valuing Environmental
Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman &Allanheld: New Jersey.
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., & Rustrom, E.E. (1995). Homegrown Values andHypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compati-ble? American Economic Review, 85(1): 260-267.
Davis, R.K. (1963). Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem. Natural ResourcesJournal, 3: 239-249.
Feenburg, D., & Mills, E.S. (1980). Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abate-ment. New York: Academic Press.
Freeman, A.M. (1979). Benefits of Environmental Improvement. John Hopkins Uni-versity Press: Baltimore.
Fry, J. (1995). Exactly What Are Their Environmental Attitudes? Ski Area Manage-ment, 34(6): 45-70.
Han, S.Y., Kwan, C., & Colletti, J.P. (1997). Nonparametric Test of Net Economic Ben-efits by Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Contingent Valuations: An Application toDownhill Skiing in Muju, Korea. Journal of Korean Forestry Society, 86(1): 9-16.
Hanemann, W.M. (1994). Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19-43.
Hanrahan, M., Solorzano, R., & Echeverria, J. (1992). Valuation of Non-Price Ame-nities Provided by the Biological Resources Within the Monteverde Cloud ForestReserve. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Harbaugh, J. (1999). EPA Sustainable Industry Initiative–Mountain Resort SectorMeeting in Denver. http://www.saminfo.com/feature23.htm: 1-3.
Heywood, N.C. (1991). Environmental Impacts Associated With Outdoor Recreationin Colorado. Proceedings of the Vail Conference, Vail, Colorado, April 18-21:148-157.
Hudson, S. (1996). The Greening of Ski Resorts: A Necessity for Sustainable Tourism,or A Marketing Opportunity for Skiing Communities? Journal of Vacation Mar-keting, 2(2): 176-185.
Hudson, S. (2000). Snow Business. Continuum Publishing Group: London.Kiernan, P. (1992). Earth Bound. Marketing Week, August 21: 26-30.Kahneman, D. (1986). Comments. In Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., & Schultze,
W.D. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent
Valuation Method, 123-147. Rowman & Allanheld: New Jersey.Knestch, J.L., & Davis, R.K. (1974). Comparisons of Methods for Recreation Evalua-
tion. In Fischer, D.W., Lewis, J.E., & Priddle, G.B. (Eds.), Land and Leisure.Macroufa Press: Chicago, pp. 175-191.
Laarman, J.G., & Gregersen, H.M. (1996). Pricing Policy in Nature-Based Tourism.Tourism Management, 17(4): 247-254.
Simon Hudson and Brent Ritchie 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Loomis, J., Lockwood, M., & DeLacy, T. (1993). Some Empirical Evidence on Em-bedding Effects in Contingent Valuation for Forest Protection. Journal of Environ-
mental Economics and Management.24(1): 45-55.McDowell, E. (1999). China Tourism to Outpace France by 2020. The Globe and Mail,
November 6, E5.McFadden, D. (1994). Contingent Valuation and Social Choice. American Journal of
Agriculture Economics, 76(4): 689-709.Mitchell, R.C., & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The
Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington D.C.National Ski Areas Association. (1994). Enhance Ski Areas’ Environmental Image.
Ski Area Management, 33(1): 4.Needham, R. (1996). Putting Spin on Environmental Good Deeds. Ski Area Manage-
ment, 35(1): 68-83.Posavac, S.S. (1998). Strategic Overbidding in Contingent Valuation: Stated Eco-
nomic Value of Public Goods Varies According to Consumers Expectations ofFunding Source. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(2): 205-215.
Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P, & Tolley, G.S.(1983). Contingent Valuation Surveys forEvaluating Environmental Assets. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3): 635-648.
Reinhardt, F.L. (1999). Bringing the Environment Down to Earth. Harvard BusinessReview, 77(4): 149-157.
Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999). Policy Formulation at the Tourism/Environment Interface: In-sights and Recommendations from the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Journal of TravelResearch, 38(2): 100-110.
Sadler, B. (1983). Ski-Area Development in the Canadian Rockier: Past Lessons, Fu-ture Prospects. In Sadler, B. & Murphy, P.E. (Eds.), Tourism in Canada: SelectedIssues and Options. University of Victoria: Victoria, Canada: 309-329.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The Link BetweenGreen Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness. Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 30(5): 35-55.
Scott, A. (1965). The Valuation of Game Resources: Some Theoretical Aspects. Cana-dian Fisheries, 4: 27-47.
Smith, V.K. (1994). Lightening Rods, Dart Boards and Contingent Valuation. NationalResources Journal, 34: 121-152.
Smith, V.L. (1977). The Principle of Unanimity and Voluntary Consent in SocialChoice. Journal of Political Economy, 85: 1125-1139.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality ofChoice. Science, p. 453.
Urquhart, I.T. (1998). Assault on the Rockies: Environmental Controversies in Al-berta. Rowan Books: Edmonton.
Weiss, O., Norden, G., Hilscher, P., & Vanreusal, B. (1998). Ski Tourism and Environ-mental Problems. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 33(4): 367-379.
SUBMITTED: 08/09/00ACCEPTED: 10/26/00
18 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
the
Bod
leia
n L
ibra
ries
of
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
xfor
d] a
t 07:
36 1
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Recommended
