Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjht20

Download by: [University of Nevada Las Vegas] Date: 05 January 2016, At: 18:23

International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration

ISSN: 1525-6480 (Print) 1525-6499 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20

Sustainable Hotel Practices and Guest SatisfactionLevels

Orie Berezan , Michelle Millar & Carola Raab

To cite this article: Orie Berezan , Michelle Millar & Carola Raab (2014) Sustainable HotelPractices and Guest Satisfaction Levels, International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration, 15:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/15256480.2014.872884

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2014.872884

Published online: 21 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 990

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration, 15:1–18, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1525-6480 print/1525-6499 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15256480.2014.872884

Sustainable Hotel Practices and GuestSatisfaction Levels

ORIE BEREZANDepartment of Management and Marketing, California State University Dominguez Hills,

Carson, California, USA

MICHELLE MILLARSchool of Management, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

CAROLA RAABCollege of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

The purpose of this study is to identify which sustainable hotelpractices guests would be most satisfied with, and what motivatesguests to participate in these practices. In addition, the study testedfor differences that may exist due to the sociocultural backgroundsof respondents, and whether they are willing to pay a premiumfor an environmentally friendly hotel. Data was collected in apopular tourist destination in Mexico. An analysis on satisfactionratings revealed only minimal differences between demographicgroups, which suggests that sustainable hotel practices are attrac-tive beyond a niche market. Furthermore, Mexican and Americanrespondents reported different views of environmentally friendlyhotels, with Americans exhibiting more concern with functionalaspects of sustainability, while Mexican guests were more famil-iar with emotional aspects of conservation. The study concludedthat management should consider the sociocultural backgrounds,of their guests and may have to engage in efforts to educate guestsabout the benefits of balancing social responsibility with guestservice expectations.

Received March 17, 2011; accepted April 17, 2012.Address correspondence to Carola Raab, William F. Harrah College of Hotel

Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Box 456013, 4505 Maryland Pkwy., Las Vegas,NV 89154-6013, USA. E-mail: Carola.Raab@unlv.edu

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

2 O. Berezan et al.

KEYWORDS guest satisfaction, sustainability, green hotelpractices, environment

INTRODUCTION

The potential impact of worldwide tourism growth on the environment hasbecome a hot topic within the hospitality industry. For more than a decade,the hospitality industry has been under pressure by government legislationand regulations to implement environmental strategies and thereby reduceits carbon footprint (Zurburg, Ruff, & Ninemeier, 1995). Whether for rea-sons of cost savings, media pressure, laws, or environmental consciousness,hotels have started to incorporate green practices to minimize their impacton the environment. Increased customer awareness regarding the environ-ment also is a factor (Revilla, Dodd, & Hoover, 2001). Seventy-eight percentof American travelers consider themselves “environmentally conscious” (U.S.Travel Association, 2009), and in a survey of 1,000 business travelers, 95% ofrespondents thought that lodging companies should be undertaking greeninitiatives (Weissenberg, Redington, & Kutyla, 2008). With increased aware-ness, environmental policies may become factors for travelers when choosinghotel accommodations (Tzschentkea, 2008).

Although hotels have implemented a gamut of green strategies in theiroperations, this has often been done despite a lack of research on how spe-cific green attributes might influence a customer’s hotel selection (Millar &Baloglu, 2008). Dolliver (2008) suggested that companies need to make moreinformed decisions regarding spending on environmental initiatives and notride the green wave without first understanding what their customers want.The Deloitte Survey (2008) found that there is often a discrepancy betweenwhat travelers expect of hotels and the green initiatives that hotels ultimatelyundertake. Environmental practices are often implemented without know-ing whether customers are demanding them (Millar & Baloglu, 2008). Manyhotels do in fact have basic sustainable practices but did not promote them.Personal interviews with hotel owners and managers revealed an interest inknowing how such practices are perceived by their customers and whichpractices to add to the existing ones (Hotel Real de Minas San Miguel deAllende, personal communication, 2011; Rosewood Artesana Hotel, personalcommunication, 2009).

Understanding what satisfies and motivates customers is essential tothe success of a business. A stream of research in the marketing litera-ture has concluded that guest satisfaction is expected to result in repeatpurchases and is also proven to have a close relationship to purchaseintentions (Swan & Combs, 1976). Consumers form their beliefs about a prod-uct’s attributes through their cognitive learning; then they generate affectiveresponses and attitudes regarding their likes or dislikes for the products;and, finally, the likes and dislikes lead to purchase behavior intentions and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 3

purchase behaviors (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). While a wealth of research con-cludes that relationships exist among performance, expectations, satisfactionand behavioral intentions, these relationships have not been applied tosustainable hotel practices.

The purpose of this study is to identify which sustainable hotel prac-tices guests would be most satisfied with, and what motivates guests toparticipate in these practices. In addition, the study tested for differencesthat may exist due to the sociocultural backgrounds of respondents, andwhether they are willing to pay a premium for an environmentally friendlyhotel. The results should help hoteliers by providing them with specific envi-ronmental hotel practices that are important to travelers, which they maychoose to adopt because they now understand what their customers want.This knowledge also allows hoteliers to reach a new and growing marketsegment—the environmentally friendly traveler—by using green practicesas a marketing tool targeted at this new market segment. In addition,this study will add to the paucity of existing research about environmen-tal hotel practices and will enable researchers to develop future researchprojects.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Hotels have implemented a variety of green practices in their operations,from recycling to purchasing local produce, to implementing rigorous LEED(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification standards. Forexample, Kimpton Hotels has been eco-conscious since they began recyclingtrash in 1981. Their Earth Care program is now company-wide, and includesthe use of green cleaning products, a water engineer, and weekly meetingswith Earth Care representatives from every hotel and restaurant they operate(Kimpton Hotels, 2011). On a larger scale, Intercontinental Hotels Group,the world’s largest hotel company, has devoted an entire interactive web-site to their evolving green efforts, focusing on energy, waste, water, andcommunity (http://www.ihgplc.com/innovation.index.asp).

Since 2004, green hotels in Florida have been saving money andincreasing occupancy rates largely due to a state law (HB 7135) that givespreference to these designated properties for state meetings and confer-ences (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). The voluntaryFlorida Green Lodging Program has been certifying lodging facilities thatfollow its environmental guidelines, including: communication and edu-cation; waste reduction, reuse, and recycling; water conservation; energyefficiency; indoor air quality; and transportation. Other hotel green effortsinclude Marriott Hotel’s encouragement of guests to buy carbon offsets ata price of $1 per day, and their commitment to reduce annual water andenergy consumption by 25% per available room by 2017. Hilton Hotels alsohas focused on sustainability by introducing its eco-room, in which 97%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

4 O. Berezan et al.

of its materials are recyclable. The room also features energy and waterconservation technology (Green Hotelier, 2005).

Consumer Demand for Sustainable Attributes in Hotels

The initial reasons for a hotel to “go green” were governmental pres-sures and the desire to preserve resources by conserving waste, energy,and water. Recent research, however, finds that guests now expect envi-ronmental attributes in hotels (Deloitte Consumer Survey, 2008; Robinot &Giannelloni, 2010). Robinot and Giannelloni (2010) further elaborated thatbecause of this expectation, it is important for hotels to maintain envi-ronmental initiatives. Survey respondents to the Deloitte Consumer Survey(2008) defined the following green initiatives as most important: recycling(77%), energy-efficient lighting (74%), energy-efficient windows (59%), in-room cards allowing guests the option of not having sheets/towels changeddaily (52%), and environmentally safe cleaning products (49%). Other initia-tives also mentioned in the results were in-room water saving devices andgreen landscaping efforts. A study by Millar and Baloglu (2008) added refill-able dispensers, occupancy sensors, and key cards that turn power on andoff to the list.

Recent studies also have shown that some green attributes do, indeed,contribute to overall guest satisfaction. On the other hand, Robinot andGiannelloni (2010) found that some green attributes can be expected as partof the service offer and therefore are not viewed as differentiating criteria bythe customer. For example, Robinot’s and Giannelloni’s (2010) study foundthat customers evaluated the reuse of linens and towels as a basic attributethat they expected from hotels, and the absence of such an attribute wasconsidered to have a negative effect on guest satisfaction. Conversely, thestudy also showed that if a hotel used clean and renewable energy sources,customers considered it as a “plus” attribute, which, in fact, increased theirsatisfaction levels and contributed to the hotel’s competitive advantage. Lee,Hsu, Han, and Kim (2010) tested the relationships between green attributes, ahotel’s image as well as customers’ behavioral intentions. The study revealedthat customers’ emotions as well as cognition were involved in forming cus-tomers’ opinions of an overall green hotel image. Lee et al. (2010) relatedcognition to functional green attributes (linen reuse policy) and emotionsto emotional green attributes (tranquility), and concluded that incorporatingfunctional and emotional green attributes into daily hotel operations was cru-cial to the creation of an overall green hotel image. Moreover, they showedthat a green hotel’s overall image was positively related to customers’ behav-ioral intentions such as word-of-mouth, willingness-to-pay a premium andreturn intention. Finally, it was found that customers’ willingness-to-pay apremium, for a green hotel were the least impacted by a hotel’s green imagein comparison to the other behavioral intention variables tested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 5

Some research has shown that many consumers will actually pay moreto purchase products that are less harmful to the environment (Mendleson& Polansky, 1995; Millar & Baloglu, 2011), and 28% of participants in theDeloitte Consumer Survey (2008) were willing to pay up to 10% more forgreen accommodations. Lee et al. (2010), however, found that, despite theenvironmental consciousness of a guest, they were unwilling to pay a pre-mium to stay in a green hotel. A 2004 study of visitors to Penang, Malaysia,found that although respondents were environmentally conscious they werenot necessarily concerned with the environmental practices of a hotel whenchoosing where to stay (Kasim, 2004a). According to Kasim (2004b), mosttourists choose a hotel based on price, quality of service, and physical attrac-tiveness rather than environmental attributes, and actually preferred somenongreen attributes such as individual soap cakes, fresh towels, and airconditioning, compared to the environmental friendly alternatives. Thus,Kasim (2004b) concluded that there was no incentive to enhance compe-tition among hotels to be environmentally and socially responsible, and thatgreen efforts were potentially a waste of a hotel’s resources.

Hotel Attributes

Hotel attributes that are important to guests have been extensively researchedusing a variety of methods (Dolcinar, 2002). Clow, Garretson, and Kurtz(1994) grouped hotel attributes into (a) security, (b) quality and dependabil-ity of service, (c) reputation and name familiarity, (d) physical appearance,(e) location, and (f) price. Callan (1995, 1998) extracted 166 hotel attributes,which he grouped into (a) location, (b) image, (c) price/value, (d) compe-tence, (e) access, (f) security, (g) additional services, (h) tangibles (bedroom),(i) tangibles (other), (j) leisure facilities, and (k) service provider. Six hotelselection factors were identified by Chu and Choi (2000): service quality,business facilities, value, room and front desk, food and recreation, andsecurity. Dolnicar and Otter (2003) reviewed 21 studies published between1984 and 2000 in hospitality, tourism research, and business journals, andidentified 173 attributes that they then categorized into the following areas:(a) image, (b) price/value, (c) hotel, (d) room, (e) services, (f) marketing, (g)food and beverage, (h) others, (i) security, and (j) location. They found thatsome attributes were included in nearly every study, with service attributesbeing the most frequently studied, and marketing the least studied area.Service attributes were also the strongest factor in research by Cobanoglu,Corbaci, Moreo, and Ekinci (2003), followed by price and value, security,extra amenities, technology, room comfort, and food and beverage.

Until recently, studies have focused largely on attributes as related tohotel selection, loyalty, guest satisfaction, and service quality (Dolnicar &Otter, 2003). It can be noted that studies reviewed up to 2001 did not includeany attributes related to sustainability or green hotel practices/policies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

6 O. Berezan et al.

TABLE 1 Frequency Ranking of Hotel Areas Studied (1984–2010)

Frequency of inclusions

Dolnicar and Otter Current research Total

Attribute category (1984–2000) (2001–2010) (1984–2010)

Services 173 205 378Room 177 111 288Hotel 125 112 237Price/value 64 37 101Food & Beverage 73 27 100Location 49 19 68Security 29 32 61Image 42 14 56Green efforts 0 28 28Marketing 14 5 19Other 6 7 13

Following Dolnicar and Otter, the same research and business journals werereviewed from 2001 to 2010 in order to investigate how increased environ-mental awareness has impacted research. The term “hotel attributes” wasused in the search query, resulting in the emergence of numerous attributes,including some directly related to a new category: the environment, or “greenefforts” (Table 1).

The category green efforts, which has emerged in the more recent litera-ture, includes specific attributes such as: a hotel’s environmental record, or ahotel doing business with environmentally friendly service providers. Despitethe emergence of such green efforts in the attribute literature, researchrelated to guest satisfaction for such attributes is still limited. Therefore, thisstudy will investigate the following principal research questions:

1. How much are guests willing to pay as a premium to offset theircarbon footprint?

2. What motivates hotel guests to participate in environmentally friendlypractices?

3. Which sustainable hotel practices satisfy hotel guests the most?4. Do differences exist based on respondents’ sociocultural backgrounds?

Next, the methodology applied to answer the research questions isdiscussed.

METHODOLOGY

The first part of the self-administered survey asks respondents to providethree words describing an environmentally friendly hotel. Next, respon-dents were asked to rate how satisfied they would be with ten suggested

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 7

sustainable hotel practices: energy-saving light bulbs, occupancy sensors,key cards needed for room power, water-saving devices in public spacesand guest rooms, an effort to purchase from local suppliers, a recyclingpolicy, amenity dispensers instead of individual containers, towels and bedlinen reuse program, and an effort to purchase environmentally friendlyproducts and supplies. Most of these practices (energy saving light bulbs,occupancy sensors, key cards, water-saving devices in guest room, recyclingpolicy, amenity dispenser, and towel/linen reuse program) were adoptedfrom a questionnaire that was developed by Millar and Baloglu (2008). Millarand Baloglu interviewed both hotel industry professionals and experts inacademia to determine their final list of practices, and then asked respon-dents to the questionnaire to rate the level of importance of having eachpractice in a hotel room. Other practices (water-saving devices in pub-lic spaces, purchasing from local supplies, and purchasing environmentallyfriendly products and supplies) were added to this study based on morerecent literature reviews, conversations with industry professionals and aca-demics in the hospitality field. Respondents rated their level of satisfactionfor each of these practices using a 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 4 =neutral; 7 = very satisfied).

In addition, participants indicated how much of a premium they werewilling to pay, nothing, $1–$5 more, $6–$10 more, or other, to stay an envi-ronmentally friendly hotel room. Furthermore, respondents were asked toidentify what would motivate them to participate in a hotel’s environmentallyfriendly programs, (frequent guest points, discounts, cash, don’t know, other,or nothing). Finally, demographic information about age, gender, education,and nationality was collected.

A convenience sample was collected by distributing surveys in bothSpanish and English to tourists in public areas of San Miguel de Allende,Mexico, an upscale tourist destination. San Miguel de Allende was cho-sen for data collection due to the mix of both Mexican and non-Mexicantourists staying in hotels in the area. This provided the ability to com-pare the responses of two different cultural groups, namely Mexican andAmerican. Participants were prescreened to ensure that they were guests inlocal hotels. Most of the hotels in the city are boutique-style, 3- and 4-starhotels and inns. Furthermore, researchers collecting the data were availableto answer questions respondents had including explaining the term “carbonfootprint.”

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 17.0) was usedfor all data analysis. In addition to the means and frequencies for satisfactionlevel with each green policy and demographic descriptive statistics, differ-ences in satisfaction were analyzed based on age, education, and nationalityusing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). MANOVA is a techniqueused to test the differences between group means. The group means areactually converted to vectors, which are then compared to one another as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

8 O. Berezan et al.

they relate to the dependent variable. The dependent variables, continu-ous in nature, are the aforementioned 10 green practices. The independentvariables, categorical in nature, were: age, education, and nationality.

Assumptions were tested before initial analysis began. The statistic usedto test variance–covariance across groups is Box’s M. This assumption ofequal variance–covariance was violated for all correlations between thedependent and independent variables. Since each group is of approximatelythe same size, however, this violation has little impact on the final results(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

Differences in satisfaction for gender were tested for using an inde-pendent samples t-test, and distributions were obtained for respondents’willingness to pay a room premium and the incentives that would motivatethem to participate in hotel green practices.

RESULTS

In total, 303 surveys were collected from the San Miguel de Allende tourists.The majority of the respondents were female (53%), with many of thembetween the ages of 20 and 29 (28%), 30 and 39 (19%), or greater than60 years old (17%; Table 2). Almost half (49%) of the participants had abachelor’s degree while 16.2% were just high school graduates. Thirteenpercent indicated that they had less than a high school education, and 12%

TABLE 2 Respondent Demographics

Demographics Number %

Age< 20 years old 34 11.520–29 years old 83 28.130–39 years old 59 19.940–49 years old 30 10.150–59 years old 36 12.1> 59 years old 53 17.8

GenderMale 136 46.6Female 156 53.4

Education levelLess than high school 39 13.1High school graduate 48 16.2Some college 27 9.1Bachelor degree 145 49.0Graduate degree 37 12.5

NationalityMexican 208 69.8American 53 17.8Other 37 12.4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 9

TABLE 3 Travelers’ Responses to the Question: “What Three Words Come to Mind When YouThink of an Environmentally Friendly Hotel?”

American responses Mexican responses

1. Conserve energy (F) 6. Solar energy (F) 1. Green areas (F, E) 6. Peaceful (E)2. Recycle (F)3. Conserve water (F)

7. Energy-savinglighting (F)

2. Clean (E)3. Health (E)

7. Recycle (F)8. Comfort (E)

4. Linen policy (F) 8. Clean (E) 4. Good/pleasant (E) 9. Pollutant free (F)5. Green (E) 9. Green areas (F, E) 5. Natural (E) 10. Green (E)

10. Conscientious (E)

Note. F = functional aspects; E = emotional aspects.

had obtained a graduate degree. The majority of the tourists were Mexican(69%), 17% were American, and 12% indicated “other” for nationality.

The first portion of the survey asked participants, “What three wordscome to mind when you think of an environmentally friendly hotel?”Americans more often replied to this question with words related to func-tional aspects (Lee et al., 2010) of green hotels, such as “conserve energy,”“conserve water,” “recycling,” and “linen policy” (Table 3). On the otherhand, although some overlap existed between the two groups (such as“green areas,” “clean,” and “green”), Mexican participants replied more oftenwith words evoking emotional aspects (Lee et al., 2010) including “peaceful,”“natural,” and “comfort” (Table 3).

Next, when asked about their willingness to pay a premium to offsettheir carbon footprint, a majority of the respondents expressed that theywould agree to do so (see Table 4). Roughly 40% (37.6% and 37%, respec-tively) were willing to pay between $1 and $5, or between $6 and $10 more.Almost 40% (38.6%) of the Mexican respondents were willing to pay a pre-mium of $1–$5, followed by 33.3% willing to pay $6–$10. More than half,54% of the American respondents, were willing to pay $6–$10 more as apremium, followed by 32.1% willing to pay a premium of $1–$5. Youngerrespondents (under 40) were willing to pay a higher premium ($6–$10) thanthose above 40, who were only willing to pay between $1 and $5. Finally,74% of males and 78% of females would be willing to pay a premium ofbetween $1 and $10.

Despite respondents’ reported willingness to pay a premium for sucha hotel, receiving discounts was the most popular incentive for respon-dents to participate in a hotel’s environmentally friendly practices (with133 responses, or 43.9%). Just fewer than 43% (42.6%) of males and 46%of females prefer a discount as an incentive, while 25.7% of males and18.6% of females prefer frequent guest points. The results were similar whenbreaking down the results by nationality. Almost 47% (46.6) of Mexicanrespondents also preferred a discount, while 35.8% of American respondentspreferred a discount. Tables 5, 6, and 7 present summaries of all incentiveresults.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

10 O. Berezan et al.

TABLE 4 Travelers’ Willingness to Pay a Premium to Offset Carbon Footprint

Premium

$0 $1–$5 $6–$10 Other

Demographics n % n % n % n %

Mexican 34 (16.4) 80 38.6 69 33.3 24 11.7American 5 9.4 17 32.1 29 54.7 2 3.8Other nationality 7 19.0 15 40.5 13 35.1 2 5.4Male 23 16.9 56 41.1 44 32.4 13 9.6Female 18 11.6 56 36.1 66 42.6 15 9.7Age

< 20 2 5.9 12 35.3 16 47.1 4 11.820–29 14 16.9 28 33.7 33 39.8 8 9.630–39 14 24.1 18 31.0 19 17.3 7 12.140–49 5 16.7 11 36.7 10 33.3 4 13.350–59 5 13.9 15 41.7 14 38.9 2 5.6> 59 5 9.4 27 50.9 18 34.0 3 5.7

EducationLess than high school 7 17.9 10 25.6 15 38.5 7 17.9High school graduate 5 10.6 25 53.2 13 27.7 4 8.5Some college 5 18.5 8 29.6 13 48.1 1 3.7Bachelor’s degree 24 16.6 53 36.6 53 36.6 15 10.3Graduate degree 5 13.5 14 37.8 16 43.2 2 5.4

Overall 47 15.5 114 37.6 112 37.0 30 9.9

TABLE 5 Travelers’ Incentives for Participating in Hotel’sEnvironmental Practices

Incentive n %

Frequent guest points 69 22.8Cash 24 7.9Discounts 133 43.9Other 25 8.3Nothing 27 8.9Don’t know 25 8.3Total 303 100.0

TABLE 6 Travelers’ Incentives for Participating inHotel’s Environmental Practices by Gender

Male Female

Incentive n % n %

Frequentguest points

35 25.7 29 18.6

Cash 9 6.6 14 9.0Discounts 58 42.6 72 46.2Other 10 7.4 15 9.6Nothing 13 9.6 14 9.0Don’t know 11 8.1 12 7.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 11

TABLE 7 Travelers’ Incentives for Participating in Hotel’s EnvironmentalPractices by Nationality

Mexican American Other

Incentive n % n % n %

Frequent guest points 53 25.5 10 18.9 6 16.2Cash 15 7.2 5 9.4 3 8.1Discounts 97 46.6 19 35.8 15 40.5Other 11 5.3 10 18.9 4 10.8Nothing 19 9.1 3 5.7 4 10.8Don’t know 13 6.3 6 11.3 5 13.5

TABLE 8 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Sustainable Hotel Policy

Environmental policy M score SD

Hotel has a recycling policy in place 6.23 1.57Hotel makes an effort to purchase green products and supplies 6.23 1.51Water saving devices in public spaces 6.17 1.64Purchase products from local suppliers 6.12 1.58Water saving devices in guest rooms 6.00 1.69Energy saving bulbs throughout the hotel 5.87 1.79Occupancy sensors used to control lighting throughout the hotel 5.88 1.72Key cards that turn power to the room on and off 5.81 1.75Dispensers instead of individual containers 5.52 1.92Hotel encourages guests to reuse towels and bed linen 5.33 1.97

Note. Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they would be with each environmentallyfriendly policy using a 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied).

When rating satisfaction levels for specific environmental practices, therespondents rated the hotel recycle policy with the highest score (M = 6.23).This satisfaction level was followed closely by the hotel’s efforts to purchasegreen products and supplies (M = 6.23). The policy that encourages gueststo reuse towels and linens received the lowest mean score (M = 5.33) fol-lowed by the use of dispensers instead of individual containers (M = 5.52).Table 8 lists all practices, from most satisfied to least satisfied, based on meanscores.

MANOVA Results

The Bartlett’s test of sphericity (2117.67 with 54 df, p < .000) indicated thatenvironmentally friendly hotel practices and nationality are correlated and,therefore, MANOVA is an appropriate technique for data analysis. The over-all MANOVA tests of Pillai’s Trace, and Wilks’ Lambda were all significant(p < .000). In addition to a correlation with nationality, Bartlett’s test ofsphericity also indicated that environmentally friendly practices were sig-nificantly correlated with education (2124.87 with 54 df, p < .000). Pillai’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

12 O. Berezan et al.

Trace and Wilks’ Lambda were also significant for each independent vari-able (p < .0001). Post hoc multiple comparison tests were run using eitherTamhane, which is deemed appropriate when variances are not equal acrossgroups, or Bonferoni, which is appropriate when variances are equal acrossgroups (Hair et al., 2006). No significant differences were detected betweenage and each of the practices.

While results of MANOVA indicated differences among the independentvariables as related to the ten environmentally friendly hotel practices, resultsof post hoc comparison tests revealed few significant differences within thespecific groups. For example, results of the post hoc tests revealed thatthere were no actual differences between the education groups. The differ-ences within the nationality group were also minimal. Americans were morelikely to be satisfied with a hotel recycling policy than were Mexicans, andMexicans were less likely to be satisfied with a towel reuse policy than wererespondents of other nationalities. Other than differences between thosetwo practices, respondents of all nationalities were similar in the level ofsatisfaction they placed on environmental hotel practices.

T -Test

Although women were more satisfied with all of the practices than were themen, results of an independent samples t-test produced significant differ-ences between men (M = 5.77, SD = 1.8) and women (M = 6.07, SD = 1.4)for only one policy—using key cards in the room to control power; t(290) =1.58, p = .006. Mean scores and standard deviations for each policy, as ratedby men and women, are shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Individual Practices for Guests, by Gender

Females (N = 156) Males (N = 136)

Practices M SD M SD

Key cards to turn power to the room on andoff Energy saving bulbs throughout thehotel

6.07 1.40 5.77 1.826.11 1.49 5.90 1.76

Occupancy sensors used to control lightingthroughout the hotel

6.13 1.46 5.86 1.69

Water saving devices in public spaces 6.31 1.46 6.29 1.51Hotel has a recycling policy in place 6.35 1.43 6.31 1.50Hotel makes an effort to purchase green

products and supplies6.34 1.27 6.29 1.48

Purchase products from local suppliers 6.31 1.38 6.01 1.67Water saving devices in guest rooms 6.21 1.48 6.06 1.54Dispensers instead of individual containers 5.66 1.74 5.57 1.92Hotel encourages guests to reuse towels and

bed linen5.39 1.91 5.35 1.95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 13

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Results of the first question of the survey, which enquired about the threewords that came to mind when thinking of an environmentally friendlyhotel, revealed differences between American and Mexican respondents.In hotels where the guest mix cultural diversity is a factor, these resultsare particularly important. For example, although there were some com-monalities in responses, Americans more frequently responded with wordsreferring to functional attributes such as conserve energy and linen policy,whereas Mexicans more frequently replied with emotional terms includinghealth and peaceful. According to Robinot and Gianleei (2010), the absenceof many functional green attributes such as towel and linen reuse prac-tices can actually harm a hotel. This also seems to be the case for theAmericans in this study, who most frequently listed such attributes as if theyexpected them from such a hotel. On the other hand, in order to offer thesefunctional attributes successfully to the Mexican guests, marketers need tomake a connection between the necessary presence of these attributes andthe emotions that are evoked in Mexican guests when thinking about theenvironment.

Regarding satisfaction, respondents placed the highest level of satisfac-tion on having a hotel recycling policy in place. It is important for hoteliers tounderstand what most satisfies their customers. Satisfied customers typicallymeans happy customers that return again and again. Hoteliers can maximizeproduct marketing if they understand what satisfies their guests and whotheir guests are. Satisfaction with a hotel recycling policy appears to be onefairly simple way that a hotelier may tap into guest satisfaction. It may alsobe used as a tool to attract or retain guests by incorporating managementactions such as providing recycling programs in ways that are obvious to thehotel guest, or including it in promotional efforts for the hotel.

The recycling policy is the one policy about which Mexican respon-dents and American respondents differed significantly, with Americans (M =6.59/7.00) placing a higher satisfaction level on the policy than did Mexicans(M = 6.09/7.00). Despite the difference however, it can be safely assumedthat Mexicans are still very satisfied with this policy as evident in the meanscore. The difference may be due to the fact that recycling is now a fairlystandard and expected practice for many hotels in the United States, andmany people in the United States are already familiar with recycling becausethey do it at home. Therefore, it may be assumed that American hotel guestsmay be dissatisfied if a hotel does not offer recycling practices. Based on theliterature this was not expected to be the case in with Mexicans. In contrast tothe efforts and attitudes of many U.S.-based hotel groups, a study on Mexicanhotels (Revilla et al., 2001) found that managers considered consumer pres-sure and competition as unimportant in their decision to take any actiontowards initiating green practices, including recycling. The results of this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

14 O. Berezan et al.

study however suggest that Mexicans who visit hotels of 3- or 4-star calibermay also expect the hotels to recycle. For an hotelier in Mexico that doesnot have such a policy, this may be awakening news. Hoteliers in Mexicoshould not only use such a policy to set their hotels apart from others, butmay find that their guests will be less satisfied without such a policy in place.Finally, what is interesting about the recycling policy is that it was the policythat all respondents, collectively, were most satisfied with.

One of the most widely recognized green practices, especially in theUnited States, is the towel reuse policy. According to the American Hoteland Lodging Association, roughly 84% of its hotel members already have atowel policy in place (Johnson, 2008), and customers are very familiar withit. It is surprising, therefore, that American respondents in this study were theleast satisfied with practices such as the reuse of towels and linens. On theother hand, it is not so surprising since study respondents were tourists inSan Miguel, which is an upscale destination, and most guests may have highservice expectations and may perceive the absence of the daily changing oftowels and linen as a lack of expected service. Hotel management can doa better job in explaining the benefits of such a policy in order to motivateguests to participate and appreciate it. Management may also consider thatthe social class system in Mexico is more pronounced, and that Mexicanguests may be confused between what constitutes expected service and whatrepresents social responsibility in which one should engage.

With regard to age and education in relation to satisfaction level, respon-dents of all ages and education are similar when thinking about how satisfiedthey would be with certain sustainable practices. This may be encouragingnews for hoteliers because they may not need to create marketing campaignsthat target specific groups of people for their green hotels. Previous market-ing research has indicated that people typically interested in the environmentand possible practices that go along with protecting it are older and bettereducated than most (Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). The resultsof this study give hoteliers a little more leeway by enabling them to broadentheir market beyond just a certain age group.

As was the case with American and Mexicans respondents, men andwomen, regardless on nationality, were also similar in the satisfaction levelsthey placed on each policy. Some previous research about men and womenand their environmental opinions have indicated that women are more envi-ronmentally friendly than men (Laroche et al., 2001). That was not necessarilythe case in this study. Even though men and women differed in their satis-faction levels for each practice (women were more satisfied with all practicesthan were the men), the differences were only significant for one practice—the key card. Again, this may give the hotelier a broader target marketknowing that, for example, they do not have to segment their market basednecessarily upon gender. Men and women are essentially the same in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 15

study, with the exception of one practice, when rating satisfaction with theother green practices.

A large percentage of the survey respondents were willing to pay apremium of some amount for a green hotel room. That may be good newsfor hoteliers, because they are often concerned with recouping the costsassociated with going green. If consumers are willing to pay a premium,hoteliers can recoup their expenses by implementing higher room rates, andthey can do so without worrying about alienating guests. Not all consumers,though, are willing to pay premiums, so managers must be knowledgeableof their target markets.

Nevertheless, willing-to-pay results appear to be in direct contrast tothe guest incentives for participating in a hotel’s green practices. Nearly halfof all respondents preferred discounts as an incentive. This would beg thequestion: why agree to pay a premium but then be interested in a discount toparticipate in a hotels’ environmental practices? These contradictory resultsmay be partly due to a social desirability bias in which respondents wish toportray themselves as environmentally friendly and therefore socially desir-able. Additionally, this contradiction could be the result of a flaw in thestudy design. When giving respondents the choice of selecting a discountas an incentive, they are more than likely going to choose it due to humannature. In addition, the questionnaire did not specify what type of discountthe guests might receive. The question, though, is still a very importantquestion. In future research the topic may be better addressed by askingrespondents an open-ended question about incentives. The results may becompletely different.

Overall, respondents were satisfied with all of the practices. Hoteliersthat recognize this can either emphasize their green practices, if they havethem in place, in order to attract and satisfy guests, or they can use theinformation to help them decide which practices to begin implementing.With this knowledge, hoteliers can more efficiently allocate resources. Theycan start with the most popular, the recycling policy, and work their waythrough the rest of the practices. They can do this and, at the same time,keep in mind that they do not need to promote their green hotel productto any particular type of customer because many types of customers can besatisfied with green practices.

In conclusion, this study contributes to the literature and the hotelindustry in the following ways: First, it provides hoteliers with specific greenpractices that best satisfy hotel guests (all attributes are relatively importantwith an average mean score of 6/7 for all attributes), which helps hote-liers more efficiently allocate resources. Second, this study shows that hotelguests are willing to pay a daily premium at different levels for environ-mentally friendly hotel practices. Third, this study reveals that discounts andfrequent guest points are the most effective ways to motivate participation inhotel green programs. Furthermore, this study proposes that, although there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

16 O. Berezan et al.

are very few differences between demographic groups with regard to satis-faction with green practices, management should consider the socioculturalbackgrounds of their guests and may have to engage in efforts to educateguest about the benefits of balancing social responsibility with guest serviceexpectations. Finally, this study adds to the existing literature on sustainablepractices in the hospitality industry.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

There are some limitations to this study. For example, the data was col-lected from a convenience sample and therefore cannot be generalized.Furthermore, the study did not inquire about general (not green related)hotel attributes used in previous studies. In addition, one of the questionsinquired about both a towel policy and a linen policy together. Had the twopractices been separated, the results may prove different, for linen policesare not as widely used as are towel practices. Lastly, the contradictory resultswith respect to willingness to pay a premium but at the same time expectinga discount may reflect both a social desirability bias and a flaw in the studydesign.

Suggestions for future research include asking hotel guests which spe-cific green features are most important to them in hotel selection specificallyconsidering best practices of either eco-tourism organizations, or LEED cer-tified hotels. Furthermore, future research should consider research in actualhotels in order to determine whether guests actually pay more to stay atenvironmentally friendly hotels. In addition future research should use arandom sample, include non-green related established hotel attributes, usequestionnaire items measuring established satisfaction and loyalty constructs,and extending a study to specific target markets and to other hospitalitysegments.

REFERENCES

Callan, R. J. (1995). Hotel classification and grading schemes, a paradigm of utiliza-tion and user characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management,14, 271–284.

Callan, R. J. (1998). Attributional analysis of customers’ hotel selection criteria byU.K. grading scheme categories. Journal of Travel Research, 36 , 20–34.

Chu, R. K. S., & Choi, T. (2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selec-tion factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: A comparison of business andleisure travelers. Tourism Management, 21, 363–377.

Clow, K. E., Garretson, J. A., & Kurtz, D. L. (1994). An exploratory study into thepurchase decision process used by leisure travelers in hotel selection. Journalof Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4, 53–71.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Sustainable Hotel Practices 17

Cobanoglu, C., Corbaci, K., Moreo, P., & Ekinci, Y. (2003). A comparative study ofthe importance of hotel selection components by Turkish business travelers.International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 4(1), 1–22.

Deloitte Consumer Survey. (2008, June 5). Business travelers are starting to demandgreen lodging. Retrieved from http://www.accountingweb.com/item/105293

Dolliver, M. (2008). Deflating a myth. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.comDolnicar, S. (2002). Business travelers’ hotel expectations and disappointments: A

different perspective to hotel attributes importance investigation. Asia PacificJournal of Tourism Research, 7(1), 29–35.

Dolnicar, S., & Otter, T. (2003). Which hotel attributes matter? A review of previousand a framework for further research. In T. Griffin & R. Harris (Eds.), Asia PacificTourism Association 9th Annual Conference, Sydney (pp. 176–188). Wollongong,Australia: University of Wollongong.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: Anintroduction to theory and research. Reading, PA: Addision-Wesley.

Green Hotelier. (2005, July 9). Hilton international. London, England: InternationalHotels Environment Initiative.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). Florida Green LodgingProgram. Retrieved from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/GreenLodging/about.htm

Johnson, A. (2008). Savings by the load. Hotel & Motel Management, 223(1), 34.Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate dataanalysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Kasim, A. (2004a). Socio-environmentally responsible hotel business: Do tourists to

Panang 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 towardsenvironment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,5(2), 61–83.

Kimpton Hotels. (2011). Kimpton EarthCare program. Retrieved from http://www.kimptonhotels.com/programs/earthcare.aspx

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who arewilling to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 18(6), 503–520.

Lee, J., Hsu, L., Han, H., & Kim, Y., (2010). Understanding how consumers viewgreen hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence behavioral intentions.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 901–914.

Mendleson, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Using strategic alliances to develop crediblegreen marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(2), 4–18.

Millar, M., & Baloglu, S. (2008, October). Hotel guests’ preferences for green hotelattributes. Proceedings of the European Council for Hotel, Restaurant, andInstitutional Education Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Millar, M., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Travelers’ most preferred green attributes for a hotelroom. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(3), 302–311.

Revilla, G., Dodd, T., & Hoover, L. (2001). Environmental tactics used byhotel companies in Mexico. International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration, 1(3/4), 111–127.

Robinot, E., & Giannelloni, J. L. (2010). Do hotels’ “green” attributes contribute tocustomer satisfaction? Journal of Services Marketing, 24(2), 157–169.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

18 O. Berezan et al.

Swan, J. E., & Combs, L. J. (1976). Product performance and consumer satisfaction:A new concept. Journal of Marketing, 40, 25–33.

Tzschentkea, N. A. (2008) Going green: Decisional factors in small hospitalityoperations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 , 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-’green-travel’

Weissenberg, A., Redington, N., & Kutyla, D. (2008). The staying power of sustain-ability balancing opportunity and risk in the hospitality industry. Retrieved fromhttp://www.deloitte.com

Zurburg, R., Ruff, D., & Ninemeier, J. (1995). Environmental action in the UnitedStates lodging industry. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 7(2), 45–49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

evad

a L

as V

egas

] at

18:

23 0

5 Ja

nuar

y 20

16