sustainability

Article
Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Destinations:
A Structural Approach
Arthur Filipe de Araújo 1, *, Maria Isabel Andrés Marques 1 , Maria Teresa Ribeiro Candeias 1
and Armando Luís Vieira 2

1 Transdisciplinary Research Center of Innovation & Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (TRIEE), Faculty of

Economic, Social and Business Sciences (FCESE), Lusofona University, 4000-098 Porto, Portugal;
p3837@ulp.pt (M.I.A.M.); p3118@ulp.pt (M.T.R.C.)
2 Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Department of Economics,
Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal;
aluisvieira@ua.pt
* Correspondence: p5706@mso365.ulp.pt

Abstract: Even though tourists increasingly value sustainable practices in tourism businesses and des-
tinations, price is still one of the main determinant factors in their decisions. Therefore, for destination
managers it is essential to understand tourists’ willingness to pay an additional price to visit a place
where sustainable practices are adopted. In this context, and building on social psychology theories,
the present study proposes and tests a causal model encompassing tourists’ Willingness To Pay
(WTP) for sustainability in tourist destinations as well as their own sustainability attitudes, namely:
Environmental Beliefs, Ecotour Attitudes, and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. To this end, data
were collected through a questionnaire survey of Portuguese tourists (n = 567). The hypothesised
relationships between the latent variables were then tested using Structural Equations Modelling
(SEM) procedures. The results show that Environmental Beliefs significantly affected both Ecotour





 Attitudes and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour, and that the latter two significantly affected WTP.
Citation: de Araújo, A.F.; Andrés However, no significant effect of Environmental Beliefs on WTP was found. These findings provide
Marques, M.I.; Candeias, M.T.R.; useful insights for destination managers aiming to more effectively cater to sustainability-oriented
Vieira, A.L. Willingness to Pay for tourists. Future research should attempt to assess the role of other determinants of WTP.
Sustainable Destinations: A
Structural Approach. Sustainability Keywords: tourism; sustainability; willingness to pay; environmental beliefs; ecotour attitudes; sustain-
2022, 14, 2548. https://doi.org/ able consumption behaviour; structural equations modelling; triple bottom line; Portuguese tourists
10.3390/su14052548

Academic Editor: Chris Roberts

Received: 31 January 2022

1. Introduction
Accepted: 20 February 2022
Published: 23 February 2022
The topic of sustainability and the demand for sustainable products and services
is not new. International institutions such as the United Nations and the International
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Panel on Climate Change agree that there is a need for stronger efforts to protect the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
global environment. Naturally, tourism does not stray from this trend and sustainable
published maps and institutional affil-
tourism is one of the key agenda points for Global Sustainable Development 2030. Tourism
iations.
is expected to provide a great contribution towards the global sustainable development
scenario. Beginning in the 1980s as a reaction to the realisation of the impacts caused by
mass tourism many new forms of more responsible travel have been conceptualised, in-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
cluding community-based tourism, fair-trade tourism, and pro-poor tourism [1]. Amongst
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. these the term that has received the most traction is ecotourism, defined by The World
This article is an open access article Tourism Organization (UNWTO) [2] as a type of nature-based tourism where visitors have
distributed under the terms and a “responsible attitude to protect the integrity of the ecosystem and enhance the well-being
conditions of the Creative Commons of the local community” (p. 32). Because such responsible attitudes should not be restricted
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// to nature-based travels, the more comprehensive term “sustainable tourism” has become
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ prevalent in discussions of the role of tourism in fostering sustainable development. The
4.0/). UNWTO [3] defines sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052548 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 2 of 18

and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors,
the industry, the environment and host communities” (p. 17). If planned and managed
in keeping with such a definition, as Dolnicar [4] observes, tourism can play an effec-
tive role in achieving economic and social development while preserving natural and
cultural resources.
Authorities worldwide are committed to making stronger efforts to meet carbon
emission reduction targets and look after the planet’s health. Concerns regarding sustain-
ability, however, are not exclusive to authorities. Consumers are increasingly aware of the
impacts that economic activities have on the environment and seek to play their part in
achieving sustainability goals. Likewise, tourists include environmental and sociocultural
sustainability criteria in their destination choice process. Consequently, businesses embrace
sustainable practices as part of their value propositions, aiming to gain competitive advan-
tages. Nonetheless, carrying out these practices tends to increase operational costs and
consequently makes services more expensive. In this context, before deciding to implement
such practices from a managerial perspective, destination and tourism business managers
need to know whether there are enough consumers willing to pay a premium price for
them. Consequently, in addition to understanding which sustainable practices are valued
the most by tourists it is crucial to know how much of a premium price they are willing to
pay in order to visit destinations and use services where these practices are carried out. In
other words, it is important to understand tourists’ willingness to pay for sustainability in
tourist destinations.
Most studies addressing tourists’ willingness to pay a premium price for sustainability
have examined the issue in the context of tourism services such as hotels [5] and air
travel [6]. Studies addressing this concept on the destination level often focus on contexts
such as ecotourism and visits to protected areas. Therefore, they point to context-specific
factors such as awareness of being in a protected aera and the number of animal species
sighted [7] in the context of visits to natural areas, climate change-related risk perceptions
and place meanings in the context of nature-based tourism [8], and attitudes towards
environmental protection in the context of paying fees to enter protected areas [9].
The addressed contributions show that the concept of WTP for sustainability in tourist
destinations is of particular relevance to industry stakeholders, who are committed to
accomplishing efforts to protect the global environment. Furthermore, they show that
tourist behaviour is affected by attitudes and values regarding sustainability issues. How-
ever, although previous studies have addressed the way in which tourists’ sustainability
attitudes affect their willingness to pay for sustainability in specific contexts, to the best of
our knowledge no study has yet empirically tested a general causal model of tourists’ WTP
which assesses the role of individual sustainability attitudes rather than context-related
variables. In this context, the present investigation aimed to propose and test a causal
model encompassing tourists’ willingness to pay for sustainability in tourist destinations
and their related sustainability attitudes, namely, Environmental Beliefs, Ecotour Attitudes,
and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour.
To accomplish this purpose, data were collected through a questionnaire survey of Por-
tuguese tourists (n = 567). The model’s latent variables were subsequently operationalised
in a causal model which was then tested through Structural Equations Modelling (SEM)
procedures. The results show that environmental beliefs significantly affect both ecotour
attitudes and sustainable consumption behaviour. Accordingly, both ecotour attitudes and
sustainable consumption behaviour significantly affect tourists’ WTP. On the other hand,
a direct effect of environmental beliefs on WTP was not verified. These findings provide
useful insights for destination managers aiming to more effectively target sustainability-
oriented tourists with their marketing strategies. Finally, despite the verified significant
relationships WTP cannot be sufficiently predicted by the other latent variables, which
leaves a fertile avenue for future research.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 3 of 18

2. Literature Review
2.1. Tourism and Sustainability
Although there is no universally accepted scale for measuring sustainability in differ-
ent tourism scenarios, previous authors have made significant progress towards providing
effective alternatives. Asmelash and Kumar [10], for instance, developed and validated a
list of sustainability indicators for tourism destinations based on the perceptions of resi-
dents, tourists, and local stakeholders. Their indicators are grouped in four dimensions,
Economic Sustainability, Socio-cultural Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability, and
Institutional Sustainability, with each dimension correlated with the other three. Such a
model effectively expands the triple bottom line principle of sustainability (environmental,
sociocultural, and economic) in tourism destinations. While the sustainability of desti-
nations must take into account these four dimensions, Li, Kim, and Lee [11] argue that
tourism development should be planned and operated with the goal of securing long-term
benefits for all actors involved, with special consideration of how the local community is
involved in the overall development process.
The local community has received significant attention from scholars addressing
tourism sustainability. In a systematic review of sustainable tourism indicators carried out
by Rasoolimanesh et al. [12], of the 97 papers addressed only a few mentioned tourists as
stakeholders. The local community, on the other hand, was mentioned in 46% of the studies
analysed. The authors suggest that future studies must consider both tourists’ experience
in destinations as well as their relationship with the Sustainable Tourism Indicators based
on, amongst other criteria, their relevance to the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).
Despite the holistic view on tourism sustainability demonstrated by some authors,
it should be noted that most studies on this subject focus on environmental sustain-
ability. In this context, common themes include environmental sustainability in nature-
based tourism [13], the potential contribution of environmental sustainability to tourism
growth [14], and the possibility of co-existence between luxury and environmental sustain-
ability [15]. Economic sustainability, in turn, is pursued by any business or development
plan regardless of whether they adopt an overt sustainability orientation. Studies focused
on this dimension often aim to verify whether a certain local tourism industry [16], prod-
uct [17], or business model [18] is indeed economically sustainable. As it has only been
added to the tourism sustainability dimensions by the aforementioned study of Asme-
lash and Kumar [10], institutional sustainability is not addressed specifically in previous
studies. However, it is arguably pursued by any business, especially destinations, as the
literature on tourism planning and development (e.g., [19]) point to political will and
the collaboration of all actors involved as essential for making tourism development and
sustainability viable.
As concerns socio-cultural sustainability, due to its complexity authors tend to focus
on specific concepts such as identity preservation [20], tangible and intangible heritage,
cultural heritage [21], cultural vitality, cultural diversity, economic viability, locality, eco-
cultural resilience, eco-cultural civilization [22], and social capital [23]. Regarding the
specific aspects that contribute to sociocultural sustainability in tourism destinations, Get-
zner’s [24] findings highlight socio-economic variables and the availability of cultural
infrastructure as well as municipal cultural spending. These contributions are impor-
tant for understanding how tourism authorities pursue sustainability goals in tourism
development.
Despite the importance of these principles, as observed by Font and McCabe [25] in
order to be truly sustainable destinations and services need the support of consumers,
who must be convinced to choose responsible products rather than their non-responsible
counterparts. Consequently, no analysis of destinations’ sustainability would be complete
without taking into account the demand side, i.e., the predisposition of tourists to choose
sustainable tourism destinations and to engage in sustainable behaviour at the destination.
Corroborating the relevance of considering both triple bottom line principles and consumer
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 4 of 18

likeliness to choose sustainable products and destinations, an integrative review carried

out by Nadalipour and Khoshkhoo [26] shows that many authors agree that one cannot
address destinations’ sustainability and competitiveness without considering the economic,
sociocultural, and ecological dimensions as well as all the stakeholders involved in the
tourist activity, which naturally includes consumers. In this context, studies on tourism
sustainability often adopt one of two distinct approaches, a supply-side approach or a
demand-side approach [27]. Amongst those, demand-side studies are of particular rele-
vance to the research problem addressed by the present study, and are therefore addressed
in greater detail here.
Many studies on tourism sustainability have analysed the demand for tourism services.
Generally, these show that tourists who value sustainable practices are more inclined to
choose services, especially hotels, that employ such practices over those that do not [28–32].
Accordingly, Lee, Hsu, Han, and Kim [33] show that the overall image of green hotels is
positively related to the behavioural intentions of consumers. Several demand-side studies
on the sustainability of tourism services have explored the extent to which tourists are
willing to make sacrifices to have ensure a more sustainable travel experience. Chia-Jung
and Pei-Chun [34], for instance, conclude that although hotel customers generally prefer
luxury rooms and value the provision of toiletries, many are willing to sacrifice service
quality for the sake of sustainability performance. Accordingly, Brau [35] showed that
tourists in Sardinia, Italy are willing to sacrifice closeness to the beach in order to decrease
their impact on the natural environment.
Studies on the market effectiveness of sustainable practices in tourism destinations,
on the other hand, are much less abundant. Nevertheless, several studies do provide valu-
able contributions, empirically corroborating the link between the sustainability of tourist
destinations and their competitiveness. This is the case for Khalifa [36] and Cucculelli
and Goffi [37], who demonstrate using empirical data in two very distinct destinations
(Egypt and a set of small destinations in Italy, respectively) that sustainability variables
significantly impact destination competitiveness. Additionally, López-Sánchez and Pulido-
Fernández [38] conclude that market segmentation is useful for planning and managing
demand-oriented policies. In sum, demand side studies on tourism sustainability provide
useful insights into what tourists value the most when choosing a sustainable destination.
Questions remain, however, regarding who those tourists are and how to effectively pro-
mote a destination to them, which is where the study of tourist behaviours and attitudes
enters the picture.

2.2. Tourists’ Sustainable Behaviours and Attitudes

Social psychology theories explain that behaviour is influenced by attitudes, among
other factors [39]. These theories have been employed to facilitate the comprehension of
consumer behaviour in various scenarios. In the context of sustainability, Kim, Hall, and
Han [40] address behavioural influences on support for crowdfunding initiatives related to
SDGs, concluding that the strongest effects are exerted by agreeableness, openness, and
conscientiousness. Addressing behavioural variables and SDGs in the context of travellers’
biosecurity behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, Kim, Bonn, and Hall [41] show that
prosocial behaviour and perception have significant impacts on intervention and influence
resilience and tourists’ biosecurity behaviour. In the context of tourism sustainability, many
studies corroborate the association between attitudes and behaviour [42,43]. For instance,
Mohaidin, Wei, and Murshid [44] conclude that environmental attitudes are positively
correlated with the intention to select sustainable tourist destinations, as well as with
tourists’ intentions to engage in environmentally responsible behaviour.
Several studies suggest that tourists’ environmental attitudes are directly related to the
type of destination they visit and the type of activities they carry out in those destinations. In
this context, studies [42,45,46] have shown that the degree of environmental commitment
of tourists visiting a natural park is much higher than that of those visiting beaches.
Other studies have shown that tourists who usually engage in outdoor activities (e.g.,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 5 of 18

hiking or diving) have an increased tendency to emphasize the environmental aspects of

traveling [47–49]. Accordingly, authors such as Eagles and Higgins [50] and Luo and
Deng [51] provide evidence that travellers who exhibit positive environmental attitudes
tend to portray a stronger desire to experience actives in nature.
Not all tourists who engage in nature-based activities seek similar experiences or
have similar attitudes, however. This is evidenced by Lee, Jan, Tseng, and Lin [52], who
segmented visitors to Taiwan’s Liuqiu Island into four different groups, multi-experience
recreationists, aestheticists, hedonists, and knowledge seekers, based on their recreation
experiences. Accordingly, tourists who engage in nature-based tourism activities are not
equally environmentally committed. For instance, Weaver and Lawton [53] concluded that
“harder ecotourists” show higher levels of environmental commitment and affinity with
wilderness-type experiences, while “softer ecotourists” are much less committed to either
dimension. The same study shows that although “structured ecotourists” have a high
level of commitment, their consumption patterns are analogous to those of mass tourists.
Findings such as these evidence that (as observed by Budeanu [54]) despite tourists’ general
trend to state high levels of environmental commitment, only a few behave accordingly,
that is, buy responsible tourism products, choose environmentally friendly transportation,
and act responsibly towards local communities.
Despite these findings suggesting that tourists’ actions are not always accurately
predicted by their attitudes, various studies show that some degree of relationships is
indeed verified. Grilli et al. [55], for instance, demonstrate that environmental beliefs
influence individual tastes. Their study also highlights the importance of ecotourism
attitudes and pro-environmental private behaviour. This is in line with previous find-
ings by Dolnicar [4], according to whom environmentally responsible behaviour at the
destination is influenced by environmental attitudes, place attachment, level of commit-
ment to the environment, means of transportation, environmental knowledge and educa-
tion, and environmental behaviour at home. Considering these findings, we propose the
following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Environmental beliefs positively affect sustainable consumption behaviour.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Ecotour attitudes positively affect sustainable consumption behaviour.

Various studies [56–59] have concluded that sociodemographic factors such as age,
gender, and education level as well as personal values, attitudes, motivation, knowledge,
ability, and opportunity to engage in sustainability practices play an important role in deter-
mining customers’ willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly tourism products.
This last construct, willingness to pay for a more sustainable destination, is considered to
play an important role in destinations’ quest to be competitive as a means of becoming more
sustainable. After all, if sustainable destinations need to convince consumers to choose their
sustainable products (which often implies paying a premium price) it is important to know
whether consumers are willing to pay more to visit a destination where certain sustainable
practices are carried out. Studies on the topic have mostly addressed tourists’ willingness
to pay in the context of tourism services such as hotels or specific types of tourism products
or experiences such as ecotourism or visits to protected areas. As Agag, Brown, Hassanein,
and Shaalan [60] demonstrate, no single factor is sufficient to decode travellers’ willingness
to pay more for sustainability. Therefore, each study further contributes to achieving an
understanding of the construct’s determinants in each specific context. In the context of
green products and services offered by hotels, for instance, Galati et al. [5] have shown that
electronic word of mouth (e-WOM), physical image, consumer income, and green attributes
related to transportation services all have a positive effect on customers’ willingness to pay.
In the context of air travel, Seetarama, Songb, Ye, and Yec [6] found that UK tourists are
willing to pay a higher Air Passenger Duty for business class and long-haul trips.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 6 of 18

In the context of visits to natural reserves, Surendran and Sekar [7] showed that
tourists’ level of education and the number of animal species sighted both positively
affected willingness to pay. In the context of protected areas, Wang and Jia [61] concluded
that income level and the awareness of being in a protected area were the most significant
predictors of tourists’ willingness to pay. Income level was a significant factor in the more
specific context of marine parks [62]. Addressing WTP in nature-based tourism, McCreary
et al. [8] found that climate change-related risk perceptions as well as place meanings and
tourist age and income all had a positive effect. In the context of ecotourism, Meleddu and
Pulina [58] showed that visitors with a high awareness of ecotourism were more willing to
support projects, and that subjective norms and environmental beliefs both had a positive
effect on willingness to pay. In the specific scenario of willingness to pay an entrance fee
to natural attractions, Reynisdottir, Song and Agrusa [9] found that such a construct is
influenced by visitors’ attitudes towards environmental protection as well as demographic
and contextual variables such as their number of previous visits and history of paying
entrance fees. Finally, in a study not restricted to any specific tourism product Hedlund [63]
found a positive effect of environmental concern on both willingness to accept economic
sacrifices to protect the environment and intention to purchase ecologically sustainable
tourism alternatives.
Considering these findings,

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Environmental beliefs positively affect WTP.

Hultman, Kazeminia, and Ghasemi [57] conclude that while environmental beliefs are
positively related to willingness to pay, this effect is indirect as it is mediated by ecotourism
attitudes, and even this path is externally mediated by motivation to travel. Therefore:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Environmental beliefs positively affect ecotour attitudes.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Ecotour attitudes positively affect WTP.

Finally, In the context of hotels, Chia-Jung and Pei-Chun [34] have shown that cus-
tomers with high levels of “green consumption” are more likely to choose hotels that adopt
more sustainable practices. Accordingly, in the context of destinations, Araújo, Marques,
Candeias, and Vieira [64] found that young travellers present higher levels of general
sustainable consumption behaviour and are more willing to pay for sustainable practices
in tourist destinations. Considering these contributions along with those on behavioural
theories and sustainable tourists’ choices:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Sustainable consumption behaviour positively affects WTP.

The research hypotheses proposed in the present study are graphically represented in
Figure 1, which illustrates the proposed model.
An important methodological contribution to the assessment of willingness to pay is
provided by Aydın and Alvarez [65], who proposed and validated a list of items related
to destination sustainability and willingness to pay for a sustainable destination using a
mixed method approach. The authors conclude that cultural tourists are more willing to
pay for cultural and environmental protection practices, namely, preservation of historical
and cultural resources, protection of green areas, fauna and flora, and protection of the
overall architectural character of the location surrounding the cultural destination.
Although the topic of willingness to pay for a sustainable destination and tourists’
sustainability attitudes have been addressed previously, the relationship between them has
only been examined in specific contexts such as ecotourism, nature-based tourism, and
visits to natural areas. Considering the addressed contributions and knowledge gaps, the
present study aims to contribute to the literature on tourism destination sustainability by
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 7 of 18

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

modelling 7 of 19
willingness to pay for a more sustainable destination and tourists’ sustainability
attitudes within a causal model.

Figure 1. The proposed model.

Figure 1. The proposed model.

An important
3. Materials methodological contribution to the assessment of willingness to pay is
and Methods
provided by Aydın
The present paper andaimedAlvarez to [65],
proposewhoand proposed and validated
test a causal a list of itemstourists’
model encompassing related
to destination sustainability and willingness to pay for a sustainable
willingness to pay for sustainability in tourist destinations as well as their sustainability destination using a
mixed method approach. The authors conclude that cultural tourists
attitudes. To this end, the context of Portuguese tourists traveling both domestically and in- are more willing to
pay for cultural
ternationally was and environmental
adopted protection
as the research practices,
setting. The data namely,
collectionpreservation
instrument of historical
consisted
and cultural resources, protection of green areas, fauna and
of a survey questionnaire, which was developed based on contributions from previous flora, and protection of the
overall architectural character of the location surrounding the
studies. Regarding the WTP construct, the list of items proposed and validated by Aydın cultural destination.
Although
and Alvarez thetotopic
[65] of willingness
understand Turkishtocultural
pay for tourists’
a sustainable destination
willingness to pay and
fortourists’
a more
sustainability attitudes have been addressed previously, the
sustainable destination was adapted to the present study’s setting. The aforementioned relationship between them
has onlyproposed
authors been examineda list ofinsustainability
specific contexts items such as ecotourism,
through a thorough nature-based
qualitative tourism,
analysis
and
of visits to natural
TripAdvisor areas.
cultural Considering
destination the addressed
reviews. Additionally, contributions
through aand knowledgesurvey
quantitative gaps,
the present
they reduced study aims
the list of to contribute
items to thelist
to a smaller literature
of factorson and
tourism destination
subsequently sustainability
confirmed their
by modelling willingness to pay for a more sustainable destination
dimensionality, effectively validating scales for items measuring tourists’ evaluation of and tourists’ sustain-
ability attitudes
sustainability within
criteria a causal
and model.
their willingness to pay in cultural destinations. Therefore, this
list of items was deemed adequate as a starting point for the present investigation.
3. Materials
As in theand Methods
present study, the aim of Aydın and Alvarez was to assess how sustainability
The present paper aimed
attitudes affect willingness to payto propose
in general,andrather
test athan
causal in model
each ofencompassing
its dimensions;tourists’
the list
willingness to pay for sustainability in tourist destinations as well as their sustainability
was used as a measure of the whole construct, which is adequate for this study’s setting and
attitudes. To this end, the context of Portuguese tourists traveling both domestically and
sample. This decision was corroborated by measurement model assessment procedures,
internationally
which indicatedwas thatadopted
the list isasreliable
the research setting. alpha
(Chronbach’s The data collection
= 0.972), instrument con-
unidimensional, and
sisted of a survey
convergently validquestionnaire,
(all items load which was developed
significantly). These tests basedwere oncarried
contributions from pre-
out following the
vious studies. Regarding the WTP construct, the list of items proposed and validated by
addition of three new items to the original list, which aimed to increase its adequateness to
the present research setting. Therefore, they the new items’ fit to
Aydın and Alvarez [65] to understand Turkish cultural tourists’ willingness to pay for a the measure is corroborated
as
morewell.
sustainable destination was adapted to the present study’s setting. The aforemen-
tionedThe list of sustainability
authors proposed a listattitudes was in turn
of sustainability adapted
items through from a study byqualitative
a thorough Grilli et al.anal-
[55]
on prospective tourist preferences for sustainable tourism development
ysis of TripAdvisor cultural destination reviews. Additionally, through a quantitative sur- in Small Island
vey they reduced the list of items to a smaller list of factors and subsequently confirmed
their dimensionality, effectively validating scales for items measuring tourists’ evaluation
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 8 of 18

Developing States (SDIS). The study employed three types of environmental attitudes
or behaviours: environmental beliefs, ecotour attitudes, and pro-environmental private
behaviour, of which only the latter was not used in the present study. Instead, Sustainable
Consumption Behaviour as proposed by Araújo et al. [64] was adopted. This decision
relied on the cited work’s conclusion that the pro-environmental private behaviour items
employed by Grilli et al. [55] do not apply well to Portuguese customs, which is corrob-
orated by the construct’s lack of reliability (reliability tests would successively suggest
the exclusion of one or more factors). Chronbach’s alpha values corroborate the reliability
of Environmental Beliefs (0.931), Ecotour attitudes (0.887), and Sustainable Consumption
Behaviour (0.948). However, one item from Ecotourism attitudes (“visiting sustainably
managed tourist areas should be subject to a higher relative payment”) was excluded due to
its negative impact on reliability and subsequent low loading within the structural model.
The wording of items was adapted to reflect the broader context of the present inves-
tigation in terms of destination types (i.e., not limited to cultural destinations). Wording
adaptation aimed to tailor the items’ semantic meaning to Portuguese inquiries. To this
end, a panel with experts (Portuguese tourism researchers) was consulted.
In line with the research settings, the survey was carried out exclusively in Portuguese.
The items were then translated back to English for the purpose of reporting the results.
The questionnaire was applied online through Google Forms to a convenience sample of
Portuguese people who had travelled within the last twelve months. The data collection
procedures took place during the months of April and May 2021, during which Portugal,
like most European countries, was experiencing severe travel restrictions due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, although travel was allowed within certain limitations. The questionnaire
was disseminated in travel-related social media groups as well as on marketing survey
platforms. Respondents’ knowledge of sustainability or sustainable tourism was not as-
sessed, as the goal was to measure travellers’ sustainability attitudes and willingness to pay
more for a set of sustainable practices in tourism destinations regardless of their theoretical
knowledge of the subject. In line with this goal, none of the groups where the question-
naire was disseminated explicitly mentioned sustainability as a topic of interest. A total of
567 valid responses were collected. Table 1 summarises the sample’s sociodemographic
and travel behaviour profile.

Table 1. Sample characterisation.

Sociodemographic Variable Absolute Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 353 62.3
Female 208 36.7
Other/Preferred not to say 6 1.1
Age group
≤18 years old 42 7.4
Between 19 and 35 years old 451 79.5
Between 36 and 50 years old 40 7.1
Between 51 and 65 years old 32 5.6
More 65 years old 2 0.4
Monthly income
Rather not say 34 6.0
Up to 1000 € 121 21.3
Between 1000 € and 1500 € 141 24.9
Between 1500 € and 2000 € 104 18.3
Between 2000 € and 2500 € 68 12.0
Between 2500 € and 3000 € 32 5.6
Over 3000 € 67 11.8
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 9 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Sociodemographic Variable Absolute Frequency Percentage

Number of people in the family aggregate
1 36 6.3
2 82 14.5
3 179 31.6
4 193 34.0
5 60 10.6
More than 5 17 3.0
Area of residence
Urban 427 75.3
Rural 140 24.7

4. Results
To assess a causal model encompassing tourists’ willingness to pay for sustainability
in tourist destinations and their sustainability attitudes, Structural Equations Modelling
(SEM) was employed. Before proceeding to the structural model test, the constructs’ di-
mensionality, convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity were tested using
a measurement model assessment on AMOS (Version 25) software. In this context, the
procedure served to verify whether the adopted scales were indeed adequate to measure
their respective constructs within the settings of the present investigation. This was deemed
necessary as the studies in which those scales were developed have quite different set-
tings, namely, UK tourists travelling to Small Island Developing States (SDIS) [55] and
domestic Turkish cultural tourists [65], respectively. The following section addresses the
measurement model assessment.

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

As shown in Table 2, the model fit is acceptable, although not exceptional, as all
goodness-of-fit indicators either exceed the recommended cut-offs [66] or are in their
close vicinity. There are a few reasons for the model fit being less than ideal. First, the
sample size is quite high, and the chi-square goodness-of-fit test tends to reject model-to-
fit data as the sample size increases [67]. Considering this, and as suggested by several
authors [67,68], other fit measures are reported. Among these the Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI) is probably held back by the model’s lack of parsimony, which is a result of having
a latent variable composed of many items (16 items for WTP for Sustainability in Tourist
Destinations). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), however, does exceed the mentioned
threshold (0.9). Accordingly, the Root Means Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is
within the recommended values (0.05 to 0.08). This suggests that the constructs are indeed
unidimensional.

Table 2. Summary of Structural Equations Modelling results.

Inependent Variable Dependent Variable Std. Beta SE t-Value p R2

Environmental Beliefs → Ecotour Attitudes 0.809 0.051 16.467 *** 0.655
Environmental Beliefs → Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.302 0.080 4.179 ***
0.303
Ecotour Attitudes → Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.277 0.078 3.762 ***
Environmental Beliefs → WTP for Sustainable Destinations 0.082 0.075 1.146 0.252
Ecotour Attitudes → WTP for Sustainable Destinations 0.364 0.076 4.803 *** 0.328
Sustainable Consumption Behaviour → WTP for Sustainable Destinations 0.209 0.043 4.590 ***
Chi Square/df 3.817 (p = 0.000)
CFI 0.945
Goodness of fit indexes GFI 0.856
RMSEA 0.070
*** Significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 10 of 18

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, all of the items for WTP, Ecotour Attitudes, Environmental
Beliefs, and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour load strongly and significantly to their
respective constructs. All loadings greatly exceed 0.5, which suggests that the constructs
have convergent validity; this is reinforced by the generally good model fit. Regarding
reliability, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 the Cronbach’s Alpha values of all constructs are
above Nunnally’s [69] 0.7 threshold. Moreover, the Composite Reliability (CR) values are
all higher than the 0.60 cut-off proposed by Bagozzi and Yi [70], and the Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) values of all constructs are above 0.5, which according to Fornell and
Larcker [71] is sufficient evidence of discriminant validity.

Table 3. Dimensionality, convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity assessment of

Willingness to Pay for Sustainability in Tourism Destinations.

Construct Item Std. Beta SE t-Value p

I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ 0.696
the local community works in higher paying jobs
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ tourism enhances the quality of life of the 0.831 0.044 25.528 ***
local community
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ the local community can enjoy the same facilities 0.810 0.050 21.891 ***
as tourists
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination that
→ develops in a way that respects the culture and 0.896 0.057 20.319 ***
values of the local community
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination that
→ 0.824 0.059 18.764 ***
offers cultural exchange between tourists and hosts
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ services are provided by local people and not by 0.856 0.059 19.436 ***
international chains and non-local providers
Added—I am willing to pay more for a destination
→ where local products are prioritised over 0.851 0.059 19.355 ***
Willingness to pay mass-produced ones
for Sustainable Added—I am willing to pay more to visit a
Practices in Tourist destination that includes local producers in the
→ 0.886 0.057 20.103 ***
Destinations tourism business supply chain (e.g., as suppliers to
hotels and restaurants)
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ 0.905 0.055 20.498 ***
green areas. fauna and flora are protected
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination with
→ lower levels of environmental. water and 0.803 0.053 19.469 ***
air pollution
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ 0.901 0.056 20.415 ***
historical and cultural resources are preserved
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ renewable resources are used and recycling is 0.883 0.058 20.013 ***
carried out
I am willing to pay more to visit an easily
→ 0.699 0.056 16.023 ***
accessible destination
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination that
→ 0.783 0.051 17.881 ***
offers higher quality services
I am willing to pay more to visit a destination where
→ 0.814 0.055 18.566 ***
tourism does not induce negative behaviour
Added—I am willing to pay more to visit a
→ 0.715 0.058 16.405 ***
destination that is not too crowded with tourists
Construct’s Cronbach’s
CR AVE
validity and Alpha
reliability 0.97 0.68 0.972
*** Significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 11 of 18

Table 4. Dimensionality, convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity assessment of

Environmental Beliefs, Ecotour Attitudes, and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour.

Construct Item Std. Beta SE t-Value p

When humans interfere with nature. the
→ 0.801
consequences are often disastrous
→ Humans are severely abusing the environment 0.861 0.043 23.799 ***
Environmental Plants and animals have as much right to exist as
→ 0.864 0.045 23.935 ***
Beliefs human beings
The balance of nature is very delicate and
→ 0.865 0.041 23.942 ***
easily disturbed
Nature has great value which makes its conservation
→ 0.926 0.043 23.020 ***
important for current and future generations
Sustainable tourism should avoid interfering with
→ 0.752
the local habitat. flora and fauna
The role of sustainable destination management goes
→ 0.868 0.045 21.428 ***
beyond the economic function
Sustainable tourism can enhance visitors’
→ 0.869 0.045 21.445 ***
personal development
Ecotour Attitudes
Sustainable tourist destinations should restrict the
→ volume of visitors in order to preserve their 0.684 0.053 16.415 ***
cultural identity
Part of the income from tourism should fund the
→ promotion of environmental and cultural 0.774 0.046 18.840 ***
conservation
Added—I prefer products with a lower
→ 0.744
environmental impact
Added—I prefer products from organisations that
Sustainable → 0.916 0.048 26.615 ***
pay their employees fairly
Consumption Added—I give preference to products from
Behaviour → 0.976 0.052 25.236 ***
organisations that offer good conditions for workers
Added—I give preference to organisations that care
→ about working conditions throughout their 0.965 0.053 24.963 ***
supply chain
Cronbach’s
CR AVE
Constructs’ Alpha
validity and Environmental Beliefs 0.34 0.75 0.931
reliability Ecotour Attitudes 0.89 0.63 0.887
Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.95 0.82 0.948
*** Significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).

4.2. Structural Model Testing

This section describes the procedures for testing the hypothesised relationships be-
tween the latent variables within the model, namely, WTP, Environmental Beliefs, Ecotour
Attitudes, and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. As shown in Table 2, concerning the
variables hypothetically affecting sustainable consumption behaviour the results show a sig-
nificant (p < 0.005) and moderate (β = 0.302) effect of environmental beliefs, which supports
H1. Ecotour attitudes, in turn, also significantly affect sustainable consumption behaviour
(p < 0.005), supporting H2, although the strength of the effect is modest (β = 0.277). Finally,
sustainable consumption behaviour presents a moderate Square Multiple Correlation (R2 )
of 0.303. This indicates that although the two independent variables in this relationship
significantly affect it, they do not exhaustively explain its variance. On the other hand,
the effect of environmental beliefs on ecotour attitudes is both significant (p < 0.005) and
strong (β = 0.809), which supports H4. Accordingly, ecotour attitudes has a high R2 , 0.655,
which indicates that a satisfactory proportion of its variances are indeed explained by
environmental beliefs.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 12 of 18

Regarding the main dependent variable that the study aimed to explain, WTP, the
results do not demonstrate a significant direct effect of environment beliefs (p > 0.005).
Therefore, H3 cannot be supported. However, the effect of ecotour attitudes is indeed
significant (p < 0.005), although moderate (β = 0.364), which supports H5. Accordingly, the
effect of sustainable consumption behaviour on WTP is significant (p < 0.005), although
modest (β = 0.209), which supports H6. In this context, these two variables, ecotour
attitudes and sustainable consumption behaviour, mediate the effect of environmental
attitudes on WTP. Finally, analogous to sustainable consumption behaviour, WTP presents
a moderate R2 (0.328). Once again, this indicates that although the exogenous variables
affecting it have a significant effect, they do not satisfactorily explain its variation. A
summary of the direct, indirect, and total effects between the latent variables is summarised
in Table 5, and a summary of the tested hypotheses is presented in Table 6.

Table 5. Summary of direct, indirect, and total effects.

Ecotour Attitudes Direct Indirect Total

Environmental Beliefs 0.809 - 0.809
Sustainable Consumption Behaviour Direct Indirect Total
Environmental Beliefs 0.302 0.244 0.526
Ecotour Attitudes 0.277 - 0.277
WTP for Sustainable Destinations Direct Indirect Total
Environmental Beliefs 0.082 0.404 0.486
Ecotour Attitudes 0.364 0.058 0.422
Sustainable Consumption Behaviour 0.209 - 0.209

Table 6. Summary of hypotheses testing.

H1 Environmental Beliefs positively affect sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Supported

H2 Ecotour Attitudes positively affects Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. Supported
H3 Environmental Beliefs positively affect WTP. Unsupported
H4 Environmental Beliefs positively affect Ecotour attitudes. Supported
H5 Ecotour Attitudes positively affect WTP. Supported
H6 Sustainable Consumption behaviour positively affects WTP. Supported

5. Discussion
The present paper aimed to propose and test a causal model encompassing tourists’
willingness to pay for sustainability in tourist destinations and their sustainability atti-
tudes. To this end, a list of WTP for sustainability attributes was adapted from Aydın and
Alvarez [65] and the items of environmental beliefs and ecotour attitudes were adapted
from Grilli et al. [55]. Moreover, sustainable consumption behaviour as proposed by Araújo
et al. [64] was adopted as an additional predictor of WTP. Finally, these latent variables
were organised in a causal model which was tested using SEM procedures in AMOS with
data collected from a survey with Portuguese tourists (n = 567).
The measurement model assessment shows that the tested list of WTP items is ad-
equate for measuring this construct in the context of the destination choice process of
Portuguese tourists as well as in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the data col-
lection procedures took place. Moreover, the constructs of sustainability attitudes, namely,
environmental beliefs, ecotour attitudes, and sustainable consumption behaviour, upheld
their reliability, dimensionality, and convergent validity within the research settings.
Regarding the hypothesised relationships, the significant effects of environmental
beliefs and ecotour attitudes on sustainable consumption behaviour (H1 and H2) are in line
with the results of Weaver and Lawton [53], according to which “harder ecotourists” (that
is, those with a higher degree of sustainable consumption behaviour within the ecotourism
practice) tend to have a high level of environmental commitment.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 13 of 18

The significant and strong effect of environmental beliefs on ecotour attitudes (H4)
was in turn the most predictable, corroborating the findings of studies such as Falk and
Hagsten [47], Ong and Musa [48], and Tonge et al. [49]. According to these studies, tourists
with positive environmental attitudes tend to display a stronger desire to experience
nature-based activities.
A direct effect of environmental attitudes on WTP could not be corroborated, and
consequently H3 was not supported. On the one hand, this was unexpected as most of
the extant literature on tourists’ attitudes and sustainable behaviour suggests that the
stronger tourist attitudes towards sustainability are, the more likely they are to value
sustainable tourism practices (and presumably pay for them). The study of Kim and
Weiler [46], for instance, shows that nature-based areas tend to attract tourists with high
levels of environmental attitudes and who support management approaches aimed at
achieving sustainability objectives (in that case, responsible fossil collection). Therefore,
it is reasonable to believe that such visitors would be willing to pay more to visit places
where sustainability practices are adopted. Accordingly, Mohaidin, Wei, and Murshid [44]
concluded that along with motivation and word–of–mouth, environmental attitudes signif-
icantly influence tourists’ intention to select sustainable tourism destinations, which again
suggests that these factors might have a significant effect on tourists’ WTP to experience
such destinations in comparison to those that do not adopt sustainable practices. Moreover,
in the specific context of scuba diving tourism Ong and Musa [48] concluded that attitudes
are an important factor influencing pro-environmental behaviour. Finally, when looking
into ecotourism trips specifically Meleddu and Pulina [58] concluded that environmental
beliefs have a positive impact on willingness to pay a premium price.
On the other hand, the results here are somewhat comprehensible considering the
findings of several other previous studies. First, in Levine and Strube’s [43] experiment
with college students, only explicit attitudes were strongly linked to intentions, which then
mediated their effect on behaviour. Moreover, several studies evidence an eventual lack of
coherence between tourists’ stated environmental attitudes and their effective consumption
choices, e.g., [53,54], which further elucidates the absence of a direct effect between environ-
mental attitudes and WTP. In line with these contributions, although this direct effect was
not verified, the indirect effect was clearly evidenced by our model’s testing procedures.
Namely, the effect was mediated by ecotour attitudes (H5) and sustainable consumption
behaviour (H6), as both significantly affected WTP. The positive relationship between
ecotour attitudes and WTP corroborates the results of several previous studies, showing
that equivalent or related variables affect this construct. Such variables include tourists’
level of education [7] (in the context of nature-based tourism), awareness of ecotourism [58]
(in the context of ecotourism), and the knowledge that money spent will finance biodi-
versity conservation and environmental protection [61] (in the context of entrance fees to
protected areas). Moreover, the path Environmental Beliefs → Ecotour Attitudes → WTP is
in line with the model tested by Hultman, Kazeminia, and Ghasemi [57], which validated
these exact relationships in the context of ecotourism, although in the mentioned study the
effect of environmental beliefs on ecotourism attitudes was externally mediated by tourism
motivation.

6. Conclusions
The findings discussed above provide some original theoretical contributions which
in turn lead to useful managerial insights for tourism industry stakeholders. These are
discussed along with the study’s limitations and suggestions for further research in the
following sections.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

The demonstration of the significant effects of ecotour attitudes and sustainable con-
sumption behaviour on WTP represent an original contribution of the present research.
As addressed in the literature review, both sustainability attitudes (including ecotour atti-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 14 of 18

tudes and environmental beliefs or equivalent constructs) and WTP have been separately
addressed in previous studies. However, the relationship between these two sets of con-
structs has not been empirically addressed before. Naturally, such relationships have been
addressed in more specific contexts such as ecotourism [58], scuba diving tourism [48],
and visits to protected areas [61,62,72], although restricted to a single tourism product or
motivation and not within a general causal model for WTP for sustainability in tourist
destinations. In this context, the present investigation expands on the findings of studies
such as Khalifa [36] and Cucculelli and Goffi [37], which demonstrated that sustainable
practices are related to destination competitiveness. Furthermore, the present study links
these findings with those of studies such as Mohaidin, Wei, and Murshid [44], who showed
that environmental attitudes are positively correlated with the intention to select sustain-
able tourist destinations. The present study sheds light on tourists’ attitudes towards
sustainability and how such attitudes affect willingness to pay for sustainable practices at
tourism destinations. This paper therefore contributes to filling the knowledge gap pointed
out by authors like Font and McCabe [25], who observe that in order to be truly sustainable
tourist destinations and services require the support of consumers.
More specific theoretical contributions stem from the variables addressed within the
model and their respective items. First, three new items were added to the initial list and
validated by the measurement model assessment procedures, namely, “I am willing to pay
more for a destination where local products are prioritised over mass-produced ones”, “I
am willing to pay more to visit a destination that includes local producers in the tourism
business supply chain (e.g., as suppliers to hotels and restaurants)”, and “I am willing
to pay more to visit a destination that is not too crowded with tourists”. These should
be considered in future studies on the topic. Accordingly, the sustainable consumption
behaviour construct was originally included and validated in a WTP model within the
present investigation. As both the construct’s internal consistency and its significant effect
on WTP have been verified, this variable could be considered in future studies addressing
willingness to pay for sustainability in tourist destinations as well.

6.2. Managerial Implications

The theoretical contributions addressed above lead to useful managerial implications,
as they provide insights on how destinations and services can achieve the support of cus-
tomers with positive attitudes towards sustainable consumption and sustainable tourism.
Convincing a customer to do anything requires offering them a value proposition [57]. How
much value a consumer attributes to a brand is dictated by how the product it promotes
meets their needs and desires as well as by how that brand’s values align with a con-
sumer’s own values [73]. Therefore, considering that tourism sustainability can be driven
by demand [35], the results of the present study provide useful guidelines for destination
managers aiming to cater to such demand.
Combining these results with the addressed contributions from the marketing and
sustainable tourism literature, it can be inferred that in order to achieve consumer support
and consequently competitiveness, destinations that adopt sustainable practices must first
target tourists with a high degree of environmental beliefs and positive attitudes towards
ecotourism. Moreover, within their promotional strategy they must appeal to these attitudes
in order to demonstrate that they share these consumers’ values and are genuinely engaged
in achieving sustainability goals, rather than simply in greenwashing. A promising way of
doing this is through content marketing, namely the production of informative and values-
oriented content. If well-planned and executed such actions are likely to convince tourists
that the destination is engaged in enhancing their sustainability performance, which will
help them with their travel decisions. Ultimately, such endeavours must seek to attract a
tourist profile that fits the destination’s target audience and is willing to pay a premium
price for the sustainability practices it adopts. In the case of hotels, for example, marketing
managers should remember that a green hotel’s favourable image positively contributes to
consumers’ behavioural intentions, and that such an overall image is positively affected
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 15 of 18

by cognitive image elements [33]. In this context, providing informative content about the
hotel’s sustainable practices is a good way to achieve support from more environmentally-
and socially-aware consumers.
Another interesting managerial implication stems from the demonstrated relationship
between sustainable consumption behaviour and WTP. In the era of digital marketing, big
data plays a fundamental role in the strategic decisions of businesses and communication
campaigns. In this context, knowing that customers who give preference to products with
certain traits and companies with certain postures and are willing to pay more to visit
a destination where sustainable practices are adopted is of great value for destination
managers. This opens doors for more informed communication strategies, increasing the
chances that messaging about a destination reaches the potential tourists to whom it is
relevant. In sum, these two practical implications have the potential to increase sustainable
tourist destinations’ competitiveness by allowing them to target the right travellers and
communicate more effectively with them, delivering relevant messages and showing that
they share their values.
Additional practical implications stem from the new items added to the WTP construct
related to the prioritisation of local products and the inclusion of local producers in the
tourism supply chain. The more obvious implication is the inclusion of such practices
within the communication tools and strategies, as suggested above. However, in order to
generate more effective insights into how to properly market sustainable tourist destinations
and services these findings must be combined with those of previous studies. For instance,
the results of Araújo et al. [64] suggest that willingness to pay for sustainable practices
in tourist destinations is positively related to these practices’ effect on the quality of the
tourist experience. Considering this, when promoting sustainable practices destinations
and businesses must highlight those practices’ role on tourist experiences, especially in
cases in which such a role might not be obvious. When addressing the inclusion of local
producers in the tourism supply chain (in an Instagram post, for example), the easiest path
would be to lecture potential customers about aspects such as the reduced “food miles” or
the benefits to local farmers that result from sourcing food locally. However, considering the
mentioned contribution, hotels and restaurants should highlight such aspects as increased
freshness, healthiness, and flavour of fruits, vegetables, and meats used in the dishes they
serve, as these have a clear effect on tourist experience. A similar logic can be applied to the
prioritisation of local products, whether typical foods, handicrafts, or clothing. The same
approach must be taken when considering the attitudes and behavioural aspects that have
been shown to significantly affect WTP. The sustainable consumption behaviour construct,
for instance, includes items related to giving preference to organisations that offer good
conditions for workers and care about care about working conditions throughout their
supply chain. These are the types of sustainable practices that imply additional operational
costs for tourism businesses and are often overlooked by consumers, as their effect on
tourist experience is not obvious. In this context, hotels, for instance, should focus on the
genuine sympathy and goodwill of their well-paid and well-treated employees, rather than
simply bragging about paying above-average salaries.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Despite its clear contributions, the present investigation has several limitations. The
first shortcoming stems from the cross-sectional nature of the study, which limits gener-
alization of the results of the tested model. The unsupported direct relationship between
environmental beliefs and WTP is another limitation. In this context, future studies should
test this model in other settings in order to verify whether there are significant differences
in effects between the latent variables and more specifically whether environmental beliefs
might directly affect WTP in a different context.
Another limitation stems from the modest R2 value reached by WTP, which indicates
that although ecotour attitudes and sustainable consumption behaviour do have a signifi-
cant effect on it, this effect is not enough to explain a satisfactory portion of its variance.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 16 of 18

In other words, these attitudes and behaviours are not the only determinants of WTP
for sustainability in tourism destinations. Naturally, previous studies have demonstrated
that the awareness of being in a protected area [61] and the number of animal species
sighted [7], as well as place attachment [49], for instance, affect WTP. However, those are
context-specific variables rather than common traits or behaviour patterns that can be
modelled in a general causal model for sustainable tourism. On the other hand, other
studies (although addressing WTP or very close constructs such as willingness to accept
economic sacrifices to protect the environment in specific contexts such as ecotourism
and nature-based tourism) address the role of individual attitudes that have not been
examined in the present investigation. These include subjective norms [58], environmental
concern [63], and climate change-related risk perceptions [8]. Therefore, a fertile avenue for
future investigation could consist of building on these findings and attempting to model
the role of other determinants of WTP.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: A.F.d.A., M.I.A.M. and M.T.R.C.; methodology: A.F.d.A.

and A.L.V.; Data collection: A.F.d.A. and M.I.A.M.; Data analysis: A.F.d.A.; Writing—original draft
preparation: A.F.d.A., M.T.R.C. and M.I.A.M.; Writing—review and editing: A.F.d.A., M.T.R.C. and
M.I.A.M.; Visualization: A.F.d.A., M.T.R.C. and M.I.A.M.; Supervision: A.F.d.A. and M.I.A.M.; Project
administration: A.F.d.A. and M.I.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by CO-FAC—Cooperativa
de Formação e Animação Cultural, C.R.L., and by the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness
and Public Policies (GOVCOPP) of the University of Aveiro.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data reported in this paper were collected by its authors through
an online survey and are available to anyone upon request.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank everyone involved in this research project, especially
all the students of the bachelor’s degree in Tourism and Management of Tourism Companies of
Lusófona do Porto University, which actively participated in the research process. We would also like
to thank our research units, TRIE and GOVCOPP for all the support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lebon, C. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism in the Third World, 3rd ed.; Routledge: Oxon, UK,
2009. [CrossRef]
2. UNWTO. Tourism Definitions; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
3. UNWTO. Sustainable Tourism for Development Guidebook; European Commission, Directorate-General Development and Coopera-
tion: Madrid, Spain, 2013.
4. Dolnicar, S. Identifying tourists with smaller environmental footprints. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 717–734. [CrossRef]
5. Galati, A.; Thrassou, A.; Christofi, M.; Vrontis, D.; Migliore, G. Exploring travelers’ willingness to pay for green hotels in the
digital era. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef]
6. Seetaram, N.; Song, H.; Ye, S.; Page, S. Estimating willingness to pay air passenger duty. Ann. Tour. Res. 2018, 72, 85–97. [CrossRef]
7. Surendran, A.; Sekar, C. An economic analysis of willingness to pay (WTP) for conserving the biodiversity. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2010,
37, 637–648. [CrossRef]
8. McCreary, A.; Fatorić, S.; Seekamp, E.; Smith, J.W.; Kanazawa, M.; Davenport, M.A. The Influences of Place Meanings and Risk
Perceptions on Visitors’ Willingness to Pay for Climate Change Adaptation Planning in a Nature-Based Tourism Destination. J.
Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 121–140. [CrossRef]
9. Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Agrusa, J. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tour. Manag.
2008, 29, 1076–1083. [CrossRef]
10. Asmelash, A.G.; Kumar, S. Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators.
Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 67–83. [CrossRef]
11. Li, X.; Kim, J.; Lee, T. Collaboration for Community-Based Cultural Sustainability in Island Tourism Development: A Case in
Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7306. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 17 of 18

12. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ramakrishna, S.; Hall, C.M.; Esfandiar, K.; Seyfi, S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism
indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 1–21. [CrossRef]
13. Spenceley, A. Nature-based Tourism and Environmental Sustainability in South Africa. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 136–170.
[CrossRef]
14. Pulido-Fernández, J.I.; Cárdenas-García, P.J.; Espinosa-Pulido, J.A. Does environmental sustainability contribute to tourism
growth? An analysis at the country level. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 213, 309–319. [CrossRef]
15. Cowburn, B.; Moritz, C.; Birrell, C.; Grimsditch, G.; Abdulla, A. Can luxury and environmental sustainability co-exist? Assessing
the environmental impact of resort tourism on coral reefs in the Maldives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 158, 120–127. [CrossRef]
16. Qiu, H.; Fan, D.X.F.; Lyu, J.; Lin, P.M.C.; Jenkins, C.L. Analyzing the Economic Sustainability of Tourism Development: Evidence
from Hong Kong. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 43, 226–248. [CrossRef]
17. Moreno-Gené, J.; Sánchez-Pulido, L.; Cristobal-Fransi, E.; Daries, N. The Economic Sustainability of Snow Tourism: The Case of
Ski Resorts in Austria, France, and Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3012. [CrossRef]
18. Smyczek, S.; Festa, G.; Rossi, M.; Monge, F. Economic sustainability of wine tourism services and direct sales performance—
Emergent profiles from Italy. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1519–1529. [CrossRef]
19. Ritchie, J.R.B.; Crouch, G.I. The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective; CABI: Oxon, UK, 2003.
20. Boussaa, D. The past as a catalyst for cultural sustainability in historic cities; the case of Doha, Qatar. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2020, 27,
470–486. [CrossRef]
21. Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1882. [CrossRef]
22. Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223. [CrossRef]
23. Ooi, N.; Laing, J.; Mair, J. Social capital as a heuristic device to explore sociocultural sustainability: A case study of mountain
resort tourism in the community of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 23, 417–436. [CrossRef]
24. Getzner, M. Spatially Disaggregated Cultural Consumption: Empirical Evidence of Cultural Sustainability from Austria. Sustain-
ability 2020, 12, 10023. [CrossRef]
25. Font, X.; McCabe, S. Sustainability and marketing in tourism: Its contexts, paradoxes, approaches, challenges and potential. J.
Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 869–883. [CrossRef]
26. Nadalipour, Z.; Khoshkhoo, M.H.I.; Eftekhari, A.R. An integrated model of destination sustainable competitiveness. Compet. Rev.
Int. Bus. J. 2019, 29, 314–335. [CrossRef]
27. Kastenholz, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: Insights from
village visitors in Portugal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 132–142. [CrossRef]
28. Brazytė, K.; Weber, F.; Schaffner, D. Sustainability Management of Hotels: How Do Customers Respond in Online Reviews? J.
Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2016, 18, 282–307. [CrossRef]
29. Moliner, M.; Monferrer, D.; Estrada, M.; Rodríguez, R.M. Environmental Sustainability and the Hospitality Customer Experience:
A Study in Tourist Accommodation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5279. [CrossRef]
30. Ponnapureddy, S.; Priskin, J.; Ohnmacht, T.; Vinzenz, F.; Wirth, W. The influence of trust perceptions on German tourists’ intention
to book a sustainable hotel: A new approach to analysing marketing information. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 970–988. [CrossRef]
31. Vinzenz, F.; Priskin, J.; Wirth, W.; Ponnapureddy, S.; Ohnmacht, T. Marketing sustainable tourism: The role of value orientation,
well-being and credibility. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1663–1685. [CrossRef]
32. Vinzenz, F. The added value of rating pictograms for sustainable hotels in classified ads. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 29, 56–65.
[CrossRef]
33. Lee, J.; Hsu, L.-T.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence
behavioural intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 901–914. [CrossRef]
34. Chia-Jung, C.; Pei-Chun, C. Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Green Hotel Attributes in Tourist Choice Behavior: The Case
of Taiwan. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2014, 31, 937–957. [CrossRef]
35. Brau, R. Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis. Tour. Econ. 2008, 14, 691–708. [CrossRef]
36. Khalifa, G.S.A. Factors Affecting Tourism Organization Competitiveness: Implications for the Egyptian Tourism Industry. Afr. J.
Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2020, 116–130. [CrossRef]
37. Cucculelli, M.; Goffi, G. Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness? Evidence from Italian Destinations of
Excellence. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 370–382. [CrossRef]
38. López-Sánchez, Y.; Pulido-Fernández, J.I. In search of the pro-sustainable tourist: A segmentation based on the tourist “sustainable
intelligence”. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 17, 59–71. [CrossRef]
39. Akintunde, E. Theories and Concepts for Human Behavior in Environmental Preservation. J. Environ. Sci. Public Heal. 2017, 1,
120–133. [CrossRef]
40. Kim, M.; Hall, C.; Han, H. Behavioral Influences on Crowdfunding SDG Initiatives: The Importance of Personality and Subjective
Well-Being. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3796. [CrossRef]
41. Kim, M.J.; Bonn, M.; Hall, C.M. Traveler Biosecurity Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Intervention, Resilience,
and Sustainable Development Goals. J. Travel Res. 2021. [CrossRef]
42. Kaiser, F.G.; Schultz, P.W.; Scheuthle, H. The Theory of Planned Behavior Without Compatibility? Beyond Method Bias and Past
Trivial Associations. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1522–1544. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2548 18 of 18

43. Levine, D.S.; Strube, M.J. Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, Intentions and Behaviors Among College Students. J. Soc. Psychol.
2012, 152, 308–326. [CrossRef]
44. Mohaidin, Z.; Wei, K.T.; Murshid, M.A. Factors influencing the tourists’ intention to select sustainable tourism destination: A case
study of Penang, Malaysia. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2017, 3, 442–465. [CrossRef]
45. Kim, A.; Airey, D.; Szivas, E. The Multiple Assessment of Interpretation Effectiveness: Promoting Visitors’ Environmental
Attitudes and Behavior. J. Travel Res. 2010, 50, 321–334. [CrossRef]
46. Kim, A.K.; Weiler, B. Visitors’ attitudes towards responsible fossil collecting behaviour: An environmental attitude-based
segmentation approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 602–612. [CrossRef]
47. Falk, M.; Hagsten, E. Climate zone crucial for efficiency of ski lift operators. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 664–681. [CrossRef]
48. Ong, T.F.; Musa, G. An examination of recreational divers’ underwater behaviour by attitude–behaviour theories. Curr. Issues
Tour. 2011, 14, 779–795. [CrossRef]
49. Tonge, J.; Ryan, M.M.; Moore, S.A.; Beckley, L.E.; Pearce, J. The Effect of Place Attachment on Pro-environment Behavioral
Intentions of Visitors to Coastal Natural Area Tourist Destinations. J. Travel Res. 2014, 54, 730–743. [CrossRef]
50. Eagles, P.F.J.; Higgins, B.R. Ecotourism Market and Industry Structure. In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Mangers; The
Ecotourism Society: North Bennington, VE, USA, 1997; pp. 11–43.
51. Luo, Y.; Deng, J. The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism Motivation. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 392–402.
[CrossRef]
52. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H.; Tseng, C.H.; Lin, Y.F. Segmentation by recreation experience in island-based tourism: A case study of
Taiwan’s Liuqiu Island. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 26, 362–378. [CrossRef]
53. Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. Overnight Ecotourist Market Segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. J. Travel Res.
2002, 40, 270–280. [CrossRef]
54. Budeanu, A. Sustainable tourist behaviour? A discussion of opportunities for change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 499–508.
[CrossRef]
55. Grilli, G.; Tyllianakis, E.; Luisetti, T.; Ferrini, S.; Turner, R.K. Prospective tourist preferences for sustainable tourism development
in Small Island Developing States. Tour. Manag. 2021, 82, 104178. [CrossRef]
56. Manaktola, K.; Jauhari, V. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India.
Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 19, 364–377. [CrossRef]
57. Hultman, K.G.M.; Kazeminia, A.; Ghasemi, V. Intention to visit and willingness to pay premium for ecotourism: The impact of
attitude, materialism, and motivation. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1854–1861. [CrossRef]
58. Meleddu, M.; Pulina, M. Evaluation of individuals’ intention to pay a premium price for ecotourism: An exploratory study. J.
Behav. Exp. Econ. 2016, 65, 67–78. [CrossRef]
59. Jurado-Rivas, C.; Sánchez-Rivero, M. Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The
Case of Caceres, Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5880. [CrossRef]
60. Agag, G.; Brown, A.; Hassanein, A.; Shaalan, A. Decoding travellers’ willingness to pay more for green travel products: Closing
the intention–behaviour gap. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1551–1575. [CrossRef]
61. Wang, P.-W.; Jia, J.-B. Tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment protection, Dalai Lake protected
area: Implications for entrance fee and sustainable management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 62, 24–33. [CrossRef]
62. Mathieu, L.F.; Langford, I.H.; Kenyon, W. Valuing marine parks in a developing country: A case study of the Seychelles. Environ.
Dev. Econ. 2003, 8, 373–390. [CrossRef]
63. Hedlund, T. The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment
on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011, 11, 278–288. [CrossRef]
64. Araújo, A.; De Marques, I.A.; Candeias, T.; Vieira, L.A. Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental and Sociocultural
Sustainability in Destinations: Underlying Factors and the Effect of Age. In Transcending Borders in Tourism Through Innovation and
Cultural Heritage 8th International Conference, IACuDIT, Hydra, Greece, 1–3 September 2021; Katsoni, V., Serban, A.C., Eds.; Springer
Proceedings in Business and Economics: Hydra, Greece, 2021.
65. Aydın, B.; Alvarez, M.D. Understanding the Tourists’ Perspective of Sustainability in Cultural Tourist Destinations. Sustainability
2020, 12, 8846. [CrossRef]
66. Vieira, A.L. ABC Do LISREL Interactivo, 1st ed.; Edições Sílabo: Lisboa, Portugal, 2009.
67. Baumgartner, H.; Homburg, C. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. Int.
J. Res. Mark. 1996, 13, 139–161. [CrossRef]
68. Bentler, P.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Cudeck, R.; Iacobucci, D. Structural Equations Modeling—SEM Using Correlation or Covariance
Matrices. J. Consum. Psychol. 2001, 10, 85–87.
69. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
70. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [CrossRef]
71. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
72. Boone, L.E.; Kurtz, D.L. Contemporary Marketing, 16th ed.; Thomson South-Western: Mason, OH, USA, 2022.
73. Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.