Hotel Manager Attitudes Toward Environmental Sustainability Practices Empirical Findings from Hotels in Phuket, Thailand

University of Central Florida STARS

Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019

2011

Hotel Manager Attitudes Toward Environmental Sustainability Practices Empirical Findings From Hotels In Phuket, Thailand

Sivika Saenyanupap University of Central Florida

Part of the Hospitality Administration and Management Commons, and the Tourism and Travel Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu

This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected].

STARS Citation Saenyanupap, Sivika, "Hotel Manager Attitudes Toward Environmental Sustainability Practices Empirical Findings From Hotels In Phuket, Thailand" (2011). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 1959. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1959

HOTEL MANAGER ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM HOTELS IN PHUKET, THAILAND

SIVIKA SAENYANUPAP B.A., Prince of Songkla University, 2005

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in Hospitality and Tourism Management in the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

Spring Term 2011

ABSTRACT

This study explored the attitudes of hotel managers in Phuket, Thailand, in an attempt to identify whether their attitudes influence their utilization of environmental sustainability practices. Due to the increasing number of visitors to Phuket, Thailand, the consumption of natural resources has increased in the region, causing serious environmental problems. A sustainable way forward is needed for the tourism industry in the region in order to maintain quality of service while reducing environmental damage. The data analyzed in this study came from self-administered questionnaires that surveyed hotel managers in Phuket,

Thailand, with a sample of 243 respondents.

Research results revealed three dimensions of hotel manager attitude toward environmental sustainability practices, including operational management, social obligation, and sustainability strategy and policy. Furthermore, three constraints on the implementation of environmental management practices were identified: lack of support, perceived difficulty, and lack of demand. The attitudes of hotel managers regarding specific factors and barriers are also presented in this study. The results of this study show that hotel managers overall possess positive attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices. Finally, the findings reveal that hotel managers’ attitudes toward sustainability practices depend on their social demographics, the type of hotel they operate, their degree of ownership of the hotel, whether or not their hotel was affected by the 2004 tsunami, and the year their hotel was built.

The results of this study suggest that it is necessary for hotel managers to understand the importance of environmental sustainability practices because this understanding can help motivate them in implementing sustainability practices in their hotels. Furthermore, it can guide hotel managers when deciding which environmental policies are suitable for their

iii hotels. Lastly, the study demonstrated that in order for hotels to become more sustainable, support is needed from government or hotel associations to provide education and training for the hotel managers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe a debt of gratitude to the members of my thesis committee. Without their

guidance, support, and encouragement, my research would not have been completed. Thank

you to Dr. Po-Ju Chen, who provided me with information about the background of this

thesis project and also took me under her wing and taught me how to produce good research;

to Dr Fevzi Okumus, who provided me with an example of a good academic paper that

inspired my own research; and to Dr Wilfried Iskat, who encouraged me in my writing and

pointed me toward information relevant to my project.

I would also like to thank my friends Danucha and Rapheeporn, who always stand by

me. Thank you to Jaylyn and Amanda, who helped me improve my research writing. A

special thank you to Xu Li, who taught me and continually provided me with more

information to improve my research. Thank you to the UCF and Rosen College staff,

especially Kathy King, Daren Caine, and Ayana Lopez, for helping me register and fill out

the necessary supporting documentation. Thank you, UCF Writing Center and the graduate

tutor, for helping me proofread my papers and making suggestions that contributed to my research.

Lastly, I would like to express my deep appreciation for my whole family. I am indebted to those who pray for me, and especially my mom, who inspired me to write this thesis. Without her encouragement, I would not have completed it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Problem statement ...... 3 Research goals and objectives ...... 5 Definition of terms ...... 6 Study parameter and limitations ...... 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 Background of sustainability ...... 7 The concept of sustainability ...... 7 The concept of environmental sustainability ...... 10 Benefits of environmental sustainability practices in hotels ...... 11 Barriers to deploying environmental sustainability practices in hotels ...... 11 Environmental sustainability in hotel operations ...... 13 Environmental performance practices in hotels ...... 14 Energy efficiency ...... 14 Water conservation ...... 15 Waste generation ...... 16 Clean air ...... 17 Environmental attitude ...... 18 Hospitality managers and environmental management ...... 20 Conclusion ...... 21 CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY LOCATION - PHUKET ...... 22 Introduction ...... 22 Tourism in Phuket, Thailand ...... 22 Tourism and sustainability ...... 25 Green Leaf Foundation ...... 25 Green Leaf Program ...... 26 Conclusion ...... 28 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ...... 29 Research design ...... 29

Survey instrument ...... 29 Explanation of questionnaire sections ...... 30 Sample ...... 31 Data collection procedure ...... 31 Data analysis procedures ...... 32 Exploratory factor analysis ...... 32 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ...... 33 Correlation analysis ...... 34 CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH RESULTS ...... 36 Introduction ...... 36 Results of this study ...... 36 Demographic profiles of respondents ...... 36 Phuket hotel manager attitudes regarding NEP ...... 38 Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices ...... 40 Barriers that prohibits hotel from implementing environmental sustainability practices 60 Environmental sustainability practices implemented by Phuket hotel managers ...... 78 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 82 Introduction ...... 82 Discussion ...... 82 Phuket hotel manager attitudes towards environmental sustainability practices ...... 82 Social demographics and hotel manager attitudes towards environmental sustainability practices ...... 83 Hotel manager experience and attitude towards environment sustainability practices .... 84 The type of hotels, and hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices ...... 86 Barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental practices ...... 87 Environmental sustainability practices implemented by Phuket hotel managers ...... 91 Implications ...... 93 Conclusion ...... 95 Limitations and Future Research ...... 97 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION) ...... 98 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT (THAI VERSION) ...... 103

vii

APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL ...... 108 REFERENCES ...... 110

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Demographic profiles of respondents ...... 37 Table 2 Frequency analysis - Phuket hotel managers’ attitudes toward NEP ...... 38 Table 3 Factor analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes regarding NEP ...... 40 Table 4 Frequency analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environment sustainability practices ...... 41 Table 5 Factor analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environment sustainability practices ...... 43 Table 6 ANOVA - Genders and environmental sustainability practices ...... 45 Table 7 ANOVA - Age and environmental sustainability practices ...... 45 Table 8 ANOVA - Household income and environmental sustainability practices ...... 46 Table 9 ANOVA - Level of education and environmental sustainability practices ...... 47 Table 10 ANOVA - Demographic variables and three factor attitudes ...... 51 Table 11 Correlation - Hotel experience and environmental sustainability practices ...... 52 Table 12 Correlation - Hotel experience and three factor attitudes ...... 52 Table 13 Correlation - Hospitality experience and environmental sustainability practices .... 53 Table 14 Correlation - Hospitality experience and three factors attitudes ...... 54 Table 15 ANOVA - Years the hotels were built and environmental sustainability practices . 55 Table 16 ANOVA - Years the hotels were built and three factor attitudes ...... 55 Table 17 ANOVA - Hotels impacted by the tsunami and environmental sustainability practices ...... 56 Table 18 ANOVA - Hotels impact by the tsunami and three factor attitudes ...... 57 Table 19 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and environmental sustainability practices ...... 58 Table 20 ANOVA - Type of hotels and environmental sustainability practices ...... 59 Table 21 ANOVA - Type of hotels and three factor attitudes ...... 60 Table 22 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and three factor attitudes ...... 60 Table 23 Frequency analysis - Hotel manager attitudes and barriers of implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 61 Table 24 Factor analysis - Hotel manager attitudes and barriers of implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 63

Table 25 ANOVA - Gender and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 65 Table 26 ANOVA - Age and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 65 Table 27 ANOVA - Household income and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 66 Table 28 ANOVA - Level of education and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 67 Table 29 ANOVA - Social demographic characteristics and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 69 Table 30 Correlation - Hotel experience and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 70 Table 31 Correlation - Hotel experience and three factor barriers ...... 71 Table 32 Correlation - Hospitality experiences and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 72 Table 33 Correlation - Hospitality experience and three factor barriers ...... 72 Table 34 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 73 Table 35 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and three factor barriers ...... 74 Table 36 ANOVA - Type of hotels and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices ...... 75 Table 37 ANOVA - Types of hotels and three factor barriers ...... 76 Table 38 ANOVA – The years the hotels were built and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practice ...... 77 Table 39 ANOVA - The years the hotels were built and three factor barriers ...... 78 Table 40 Frequency analysis - Environmental management practices by Phuket hotel managers ...... 79 Table 41 Frequency analysis – Four dimensions of environmental management practices by Phuket hotel managers ...... 81

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

An increasing awareness of the fragility of humanity’s position within the global

environment has brought to the forefront of many industries issues such as the dangers of

pollution, deforestation, waste and toxic gases (Mebratu, 1998). Environmental degradation

has resulted in the depletion of natural resources in many regions of the world. In addition,

the impact of human beings on their environment causes concern over issues such as the

overuse and damaging of natural resources, especially air, forests, and water. An assessment

of this environmental deterioration reveals that individuals’ attitudes influence their behavior

with regard to the environment. The reduction of pollution, waste, and toxic gases is

necessary to protect the environment. Widespread environmental concern has led to a

response not only from manufacturing companies around the world but also from the hotel

industry.

Behind environmental management undertaken to reduce environmental damage lies

the concept of sustainability. Sustainability, which demands that present needs not outweigh

future considerations, is one of the most critical concepts to compelling a wide range of

industries, including the hospitality industry, to reduce environmental damage. Sustainability

has become a byword in the 21st century (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002), and an awareness of related issues is seen as increasingly important. Sustainability as a concept was established in the Bruntland Report (Filho, 2000; Inyang, Schwarz, & Mbamalu, 2009; Kirk, 1995). This report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Dyllick &

Hockerts, 2002; Filho, 2000; Inyang et al., 2009; Kirk, 1995). According to Sloan, Legrand, and Chen (2004), the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 debated the environmental concepts of

climate change and global warming. Since then, environmental sustainability practices have

also been referred to as environmental management (Kirk, 1995).

Previous research showed that sustainability practices have been employed to combat

the environmental degradation that resulted from agricultural and industrial revolutions

(Mebratu, 1998). Hotel activities have a great impact on natural resources through their water

consumption, energy consumption, and waste generation. Thus the hotel industry, as a main

contributor to tourism, must maintain environmentally responsible standards to ensure that

hotels can reduce their negative impact on the environment while still providing high-quality

service to hotel guests (and so remain producers of tourism revenues).

Houdre (2008) states that “sustainable operation is the best strategy to ensure

successful hotel operation” (p. 5). The sustainable operation of a hotel calls for environmental

management techniques such as reusing guest linens, recycling waste material, and replacing

inefficient lighting fixtures with compact fluorescent lamps (Houdre, 2008). The focus on

environmental management practices in hotels has been identified in many studies (e.g.,

Becken, Frampton, & Simmons, 2001; Bohdanowicz, 2005; Deng, 2003; Deng & Burnett,

2000; Grossling, 2002; Kirk, 1995, 1998; Mensah, 2006; Molona, Claver, Pereira, & Tari,

2009; Scanlon, 2007).

The motivation for hotel participation in environmental practices has been the focus

of many studies (Bohdanowicz, 2005, 2006; Graci, 2008; Kasim, 2007, 2009; Mausau &

Prideaux, 2003; Molona et al., 2009). Studies of the challenging nature of environmental

management have also been conducted, especially pertaining to perceived barriers to

environmental sustainability (Butler, 2008; Chan, 2008; Graci, 2010; Kasim, 2007). Finally,

studies of hotel managers’ attitudes have been conducted in many countries (Bohdanowicz,

2005, 2006; Chan & Hawkins, 2009; Grey & Grorge, 2010; Kasim, 2009; Kirk, 1998;

Molona et al., 2009; Sloan, Legrand, & Chen, 2004).

Many studies have focused on hoteliers’ attitudes toward environmental management and sustainability practices. However, there has been no exploration of hotel managers’ attitudes toward environmental management in the Phuket, Thailand, hotel industry. Because the hotel industry is extremely important to Phuket’s economy, it would be useful to explore the attitudes of managers in the Phuket hotel industry in order to examine environmental practices in that region and to demonstrate the benefits of sustainability, thus motivating hoteliers to implement environmental sustainability practices.

Problem statement

Previous research suggests the concept of sustainability has been applied primarily to the European forestry sector and the fishing industry (Ehnert, 2009); however, this concept has been developed and used in the hotel industry as well. Although sustainability as a concept in the hotel industry has been identified in multiple studies, it takes a different form from the sustainability concept in other industries. Environmental concern usually focuses on the issues of global warming, pollution, wildlife habitats, ecosystems degradation, and resource consumption (Stipanuk, 2002). However, the concept of sustainability in hotels is focused on environmental sustainability practices (Kirk, 1995; Stipanuk, 2002). It is essential to examine environmental sustainability practices in the hotel industry because they are different from those in other industries. Environmental sustainability in the hotel industry not only addresses environmental concerns about reducing the amount of energy and water used and minimizing the amount of waste produced, but also considers the economic benefits as cost savings and pays attention to social responsibility (Stipanuk, 2002).

Moreover, it is important to examine hotel manager attitudes about environmental

management because their attitudes are directly linked to hotel performance (Molina-Azorin,

Claver-Cortes, Perira-Moliner, and Tari, 2009). According to Zutshi and Sohal (2004), top

management leadership and support for sustainability is important because it can influence

the organization’s understanding and awareness of environmental issues. However, the

relationship between hotel manager attitudes and the benefits of implementing environmental sustainability practices is not clear. In Bohdanowicz’s study (2005) of European hotelier

attitudes toward the environment, he discusses the positive response of European hoteliers to

environmental practices. However, in a study of hotel performance and environmental

commitment in Spain by Claver-Corte, Molina-Arizon, Perrira-Moloner, and Lopez-Gamero

(2007), the authors found no relationship between economic performance and the degree of environmental commitment. Because the Spanish study sampled hotels in only one destination, however, and because it was a longitudinal study of a single region, additional studies exploring additional variables are needed.

Furthermore, many studies argue that large companies obtain more advantages than

small companies by using environmental management as part of their corporate strategies

(Bohdanowicz, 2005; Gil, Jimenez, & Lorente, 2001; Kirk, 1998). Bohdanowicz (2005) found that chain hotel managers had more positive attitudes toward environmental issues than did independent hoteliers. Gil et al. (2001) also presented similar findings (i.e., that chain- affiliated hotels participate in the development of environmental strategies more than small hotels). In his study of hotels in Kuala Lumpur, Kasim (2009) proposed that although small and medium-size hotels have positive attitudes about environmental issues, these cannot be used to indicate or predict actual business practices. According to previous studies, a hotel manager’s attitude may depend on the country where the study is conducted, the size of the

hotel, the hotel’s financial performance and other variables, and thus it is important to

understand how hotel managers’ attitudes impact environmental management practices.

Research goals and objectives

The main purpose of this study is to examine hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices. Furthermore, this study will investigate other factors that influence hotel managers to implement sustainability practices. The research focuses on

the following objectives:

1. To explore whether social-demographic characteristics influence hotel managers’

attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices.

2. To identify whether hotel manager experiences influence their attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices.

3. To identify whether types of hotels (chain hotels and independent hotels; luxury, mid-

priced, and budget hotels) influence hotel manager attitudes toward environmental

sustainability practices.

4. To provide specific recommendations for hotels in Phuket, Thailand, to implement

sustainability practices.

This study also investigates environmental sustainability practices (energy efficiency,

water conservation, waste management, and air purification) implemented by managers at

Phuket hotels. Finally, barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental

management practices will be determined in this study.

Definition of terms

Environmental attitude The collection of beliefs, affects and behavioral

intentions a person holds regarding environmentally

related activities or issues (Kollmuss & Agyeman,

2002).

Environmental sustainability A set of constraints on the four major activities

regulating the scale of the human economic subsystem:

(1) the use of renewable and (2) nonrenewable

resources on the source side and (3) pollution and (4)

waste assimilation on the sink side (Goodland, 1995).

Sustainability A sustainable system is one which survives or persists

(Costanza & Pattern, 1995).

Sustainable development (WCED) Development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations

to meet their own needs (Houdre, 2008).

Study parameter and limitations

This study focused only on hotel managers in Phuket, Thailand. Therefore, only

managers of Phuket hotels were eligible for inclusion in the random samples of hotel

managers used in this study. Since the language used in this study was Thai, certain nuances

may be lost in translation.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Background of sustainability

The concept of sustainability

Sustainability has been discussed in many fields, such as ecology, civil engineering, philosophy, urban planning, and economics (Brown et al., 1987; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002;

Inyang et al., 2009). Costanza and Pattern (1995) capture the basic idea of sustainability when they write “a sustainable system is one which survives or persists” (p. 193). According to Filho (2000), this term was occasionally used to refer to the management of forests in the late 1970s. Ehnert (2009) states the idea of sustainability has developed from an economic perspective into an ecological perspective. Ehnert (2009) also adds the economic term

“sustainability”—viewed as a balance between consumption and reproduction—was used in the European forestry and fishing industries. The ecological term focuses on overexploitation of natural resources, the limited carrying capacity of Earth and the limit of uncontrolled economies and populations. Furthermore, Filho (2000) adds that sustainability can be used as a synonym for such descriptors as “long–term, durable, sound or systematic among others” (p.

9). Brown et al. (1987) defined sustainability as “the relationship between humans and the global environment” (p. 713).

The most accepted definition of sustainability has become an important topic in the hotel industry. An additional meaning for the word was produced by the World Commission on Economic Development (WCED) in a report called “Our Common Future,” also known as the Brundtland Report (Atkinson, 2000; Dyllick &Hockerts, 2002; Ehnert, 2009; Filho, 2000;

Inyang et al., 2009; Kirk, 1995). According to the WCED, the concept of sustainability was clearly linked to the issue of intergenerational equity (Dyllick & Hockert, 2002). The report presented sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Houdre,

2008, p. 6) The WCED also asserted that sustainable development requires the simultaneous

adoption of environmental, economic, and equity principles. The idea of sustainability is

further viewed by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) as “the promise of societal evolution towards

a more equitable and wealthy world in which the natural environment and our cultural

achievements are preserved for generations to come” (p. 130). Nevertheless, various

researchers have provided many definitions of the concept of sustainability; this study used

the WCED definition because it is the most accepted definition and has been used by many

hotels such as Accor, Fairmount Hotel and Resort, Hilton, Kimpton Hotels, InterContinental

Hotel Group, and Marriott (Houdre, 2008).

Sustainability has also become an important issue in business at the governmental,

national, and international levels and is now an integral part of many corporate strategies. The

concept of sustainability can be considered on the business level through the examination of

three principles: economy, society, and environment (Ehnert, 2009). This is similar to the approach of Bansel (2005), who defined sustainable development in this way. Sigala and

Leslie (2005) further explained that these three principles are a necessary contribution to the definition of sustainability.

The hotel industry has referred to environmental sustainability in many ways.

Sustainability encompasses a concern in three dimensions: economy, environment, and social setting (Stipanuk, 2002). In the economic dimension, environmental sustainability involves economic benefits such as cost savings and increased profit (Stipanuk, 2002). For example, replacing inefficient lighting with fluorescent lamps can lower electricity bills and reduce maintenance costs because fluorescent lamps last longer. Hotels with good environments can

8 attract more customers, resulting in an increased number of guests and therefore increased profits for the hotel.

In the environmental dimension, environmental sustainability links to the global life support system, which is related to food, water, air, energy, and waste (Goodland, 1995).

Many studies have identified environmental management practices in hotels that contribute to the health of the globe, such as the use of energy-efficient lighting and the presence of recycling programs. Finally, in the social dimension, the purposes of sustainability are to create corporate social responsibility and to increase the loyalty of employees and business partners (Graci, 2008). Sustainability in the social dimension takes the form of marketing strategy and involves building a good brand reputation.

Increasing the understanding of sustainability within the private sector will cause more interactions between businesses and the environment. Kasim (2007) states that integrating the three principles of sustainability into business strategy can drive companies to achieve their business goals and provide opportunities for them to be proactive and cost- efficient. This includes benefits such as outpacing competitors and becoming industry leaders. According to Goodman (2000), the concept of sustainability was initially used in the manufacturing industry; however, this concept can be useful in service industries as well because it is likely to be a major component of any new directions taken by modern companies. Future growth and market success can be achieved by integrating sustainability into a company’s strategic plan.

Discussions about sustainability continue to increase, with different areas of special focus such as “sustainable city, sustainable sector, and the sustainable business” (Atkinson,

2000, p. 235) now receiving attention. Atkinson (2000) also explains that corporate

9 sustainability is “a set of pragmatic guidelines whereby a corporate entity can monitor and improve its environmental performance” (p. 235).

The concept of environmental sustainability

Goodland (1995) noted that environmental sustainability links to the global life support system, which is related to food, water, air, energy, and waste. Because humans need to rely on these resources to survive, sustainability practices need to be implemented to maintain these resources before they run down. Protecting human life is the main goal of environmental sustainability, as mentioned above (Goodland, 1995). Goodland (1995) provided the definition of environmental sustainability as “maintenance of natural capital” (p.

10). Goodland (1995) further describes environmental sustainability as “a set of constraints on the four major activities regulating the scale of the human economic subsystem: (1) the use of renewable and (2) nonrenewable resources on the production side and (3) pollution and

(4) waste assimilation on the consumption side” (p. 10). Ekin, Simon, Deutsch, Floke, &

DeGroot (2003) define environmental sustainability as “the maintenance of important environmental functions and therefore, the maintenance of the capacity of the capital stock to provide those functions” (p. 173). If the environment is heavily used by humans, it will cause environmental substitution because of a limited amount of resources (Goodland & Dely,

1996). Thus it is important for humans to maintain and control their resource usage in order to achieve environmental sustainability.

However, the practice of sustainability will not be the same in every country.

According to Goodland (1995), each country needs to find a different balance between input and output to achieve environmental sustainability. For example, some countries may focus

more on controlling pollution, some may try to reduce their population before reaching

carrying capacity, and others may attempt to lower per capita consumption

Benefits of environmental sustainability practices in hotels

Cost-related issues pertain to the specific activities in the hotel industry that can benefit from environmental practices. Three key benefits are cost reduction, increased

revenue, and increased profitability (Scanlon, 2007). Scanlon (2007) described evidence of

InterContinental Hotels and Fairmont Hotel and Resorts enjoying positive results such as

financial savings and increased profits after they implemented environmental practices.

Competitive advantage is another benefit of implementing environmental

sustainability practices in hotels. According to Graci (2008), maintaining an image of the

hotel as having environmentally responsible practices can give the company a competitive

advantage in the market. He also explained that benefits include creating a price premium,

developing attractiveness to customers, improving market share, gaining entrance to new

markets and enhancing employees’ productivity. Kasim (2007) asserted that the hotel

industry can transfer the image of environmental practices to a customer who is sensitive to

the environment, which can lead to these types of customers staying in hotels that have

environmental policies and programs in place. Claver, Molina, Perrira, and Lopez (2007)

stressed the fact that implementing environmental management provides both direct and

indirect benefits. Indirect benefits are related to increasing the competitiveness of the

destination, whereas direct benefits are related to internal management.

Barriers to deploying environmental sustainability practices in hotels

Although environmental sustainability management practices are accepted in the hotel industry, there are still some barriers that block many hotels from implementing these

11 practices. According to Kirkland and Thompton (1999), the organizational barriers to environmental management are various, and may depend on the size of an organization, its culture and management style, or its preexisting environmental program. Lack of information and the necessary resources are also key barriers to environmental management (Kirkland &

Thompton, 1999).

The nature of the hotel business is to provide guests with comfort and satisfaction during their stay in the hotel (Kasim, 2007). The conflict between the guests’ comfort and environmental issues is one barrier that blocks hotels from implementing environmental sustainability. According to Kasim (2007), if a hotel provides low-pressure showerheads in order to reduce water consumption, for example, this can result in its guests selecting another hotel in the future because they might not consider their experience of the service provided to have been a good one.

Many hotels are not interested in environmental sustainability because the consumer’s demand for environmental management is low. According to Butler (2008), without consumer demand for environmental management, the hotels may not pay attention to building sustainability practices into their operations. Butler (2008) also mentions that most hotel managers do not think that environmental activities are important, because customer demand for green activities is low and the technology needed for energy saving is expensive

(Butler, 2008). The study by Kasim (2007) showed that the main barrier to environmental management in hotels in Malaysia is the fluctuation of the tourism industry’s growth due to economic and sociopolitical problems. For example, the global economic downturn caused the industry’s annual growth rate to drop below four percent. Kasim (2007) further explained that global crises or natural disasters such as economic downturns, the terrorist attacks of

September 11, 2001, and earthquakes and tsunamis have led hotel management to place a

priority on guest security within the hotels, pushing environmental management into the

background.

Scarcity of resources may affect the drive to implement environmental management

in a hotel; these resources include knowledge, skill, management, staff time, money,

purchases, equipment and guidance for the environment program (Chan, 2008; Graci, 2010).

Kasim (2009) demonstrated that resource constraint is the main factor in many hotels’ non-

participation in environmental management. In a study of China’s tourism accommodations,

Graci (2010) notes when the accommodation does not have enough resources, the

implementation of environmental management will not be achieved. Graci (2010) also

mentioned that findings show the main factor hindering environmentally sound business practices is lack of capital.

Many studies have identified barriers to environmental management in hotels such as a lack of emphasis on environmental protection, insufficient physical infrastructure, lack of information and target educational campaigns, incompatibility with existing corporate culture, lack of guidance from government agencies, lack of environmental awareness, lack of information and lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development

(Bohdanowicz, 2006; Graci, 2010; Kasim 2009; Kirkland & Thompson, 1999). Globadian,

Viney, Liu and James (1998) add that managers’ attitudes about environmental issues have an impact on the development of environmental programs.

Environmental sustainability in hotel operations

The limitation of environmental issues is that they often only address the natural

environment and lean toward global climate change issues (CO2 emission and CFCs),

pollution (air, water, noise, visual and other forms), natural environment degradation and

resource consumption (solid waste issues) (Stipanuk, 2002). Today, it is known that the hotel

industry can create a negative impact on the environment. Because of the size and rapid

growth of the service sector, the effect of the hotel industry on the environment is a growing

concern. As well, the hotel industry consumes a large amount of energy and water and

produces a large amount of waste. Because of environmental degradation, the awareness of the need for environmental protection is increasing. Thus it is necessary to have environmentally sustainable actions take place in hotel management. Bohdanowicz, Simanic and Matinac (2005) explain the concept of sustainability in the hotel industry as “the development of a more sustainable built environment has thus become a vital priority and a veritable challenge of our time” (p. 2). Many managers have accepted the use of sustainable development as a part of doing business (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002).

Environmental performance practices in hotels

Within the hotel sector, there are many areas in which environmental performance can impact hotel operations. This study, however, will focus on four environmental issues: energy efficiency, water conservation, waste generation and clean air (Bohdanowicz, 2005; 2006;

Kirk, 1995; Kasim, 2007; Mensah, 2006; Trung & Kumar, 2005).

Energy efficiency

Hotels are massive energy users. According to Stipanuk (2002), typical hotel energy

expenses include money spent on electricity, gasoline and other fossil fuels, and water as well

as the purchase of steam, hot water, and chilled water. Energy usage creates toxic pollutants

such as CO2. Environmental management is needed to reduce energy usage and pollution, the

reduction of which will result in lower energy costs. Stipanuk (2002) explains that energy

costs represent four to six percent of hotels’ revenue and that the annual cost of energy for the

U.S. lodging industry is around 3.7 billion dollars. Bohdanowicz (2005) demonstrates that the consumption of energy in the hotel industry can emit harmful gases into the air, leading to air pollution. He estimates to what extent the energy use by hotels results in the release of

2 environmentally harmful gases: between 160 and 200 kg of CO2 per m of hotel room floor,

depending on the fuel that the hotel uses to generate electricity (Bohdanowicz, 2005)

Many studies reveal that the consumption of energy differs between various

geographical areas. Deng and Burnett (1998) found that electricity usage accounted for 73

percent of the operating cost of a Hong Kong hotel and for 75 percent of the operating cost of

a New Zealand hotel (Becken, et al, 2001). It can be seen that the hotel sector consumes a

large amount of electricity when compared to other tourist industries, because hotels require

24-hour operation and need to use energy for their lighting and air-conditioning/heating

systems (Kasim, 2007). It is essential for the hotel sector to make a positive contribution to the environment and to reduce energy consumption; to do this, hotels can implement an

energy saving campaign and institute environmental management systems.

Water conservation

Although “water is one of the basic components of all life on earth” (Pichon, 1996),

the usage of water in the hotel industry shows that only 5 percent is used for drinking and

eating; the main use is for cleaning or food preparation (Webster, 2000). Bohdanowicz

(2005) claims that water consumption may differ depending on a hotel’s type, standard, size, facilities and services. Kasim (2007) noted that water usage is also related to tourism activities, including golf/turf management, swimming pool operations and laundry and spa operations.

Many findings show how the amount of water consumption varies. For example, in luxury hotels, the use of water would be between 1,000 and 1,400 cubic meters of water daily

(Kasim, 2007). According to Alexander (2002), the average amount of water used in both luxury and regular hotels in developing countries is 396 gallons per day. This amount of water could support 14 local people. Bohdanowicz (2005) found that the estimated consumption of water in hotels is between 170 and 360 liters of water per night. Alexander estimated in 2002 that by the year 2010, the water usage for the hotel industry will have increased to 475 gallon per day for each room. Furthermore, Kasim (2007) claims that the level of water usage by tourists in Spain is 0.8 cubic meter per day, whereas in the

Mediterranean the water use per tourist per day is about 0.4 cubic meter.

Unless water consumption is monitored and controlled, the amount of water usage will increase and possibly lead to a water shortage. Kasim (2007) states that “excessive water used by hotels has been claimed as contributing to water use conflicts all over the world”

(p.27). Thus water conservation should become one of the sustainability programs used in hotels to control and minimize waste. The example of La Quinta Inn in San Antonio cited by

Alexander (2000) shows that after using a water conservation program, a hotel can save

180,000 gallons of water annually.

Waste generation

Waste generation is viewed as the most visible effect that a hotel can have on the environment (Bohdanowicz, 2006). The large amount of waste that hotels produced, was from paper and food waste (Erdogan & Baris, 2007). Trung and Kumar (2005) added that waste is another concern that mainly comes from the hotel’s kitchen, restaurant, guestrooms, offices, laundry and garden. According to Kasim (2007), however, the amount of waste

16 generated depends on the hotel size and on the events that take place at a particular time. The statistics of waste generation from 1991–1993 given in the study of Alexander (2002) show that waste generated in hotels is comprised of 46% food, 25.3% paper, 11.7 % cardboard,

6.7% plastics, 5.6% glass and 4.5% metal waste. Thus the importance of waste reduction should be a critical concern in environmental management in hotels.

Stipanuk (2002) noted the best practices of waste reduction: reduction, reuse, recycling and waste transformation. Bohdanowicz (2005) states that these practices in waste reduction can limit waste generation up to 50 gram of unsorted waste per guest per night.

Application of waste reduction practices can be beneficial to the hotel in terms of marketing and stakeholder benefits, cost savings, reduced risk, health and safety benefits (Ball, 2010).

For example, according to Alexander (2000), the reduction of food waste program in the

Westin San Francisco hotel resulted in reducing 20 percent of food waste, which saved the hotel up to $451.25 per month. Bohdanowicz (2006) provides examples of waste reduction such as using dispensers for soap, shampoo and other toiletries instead of providing individually packed toiletries, and repairing old or damaged room furniture rather than buying new items. Okazaki, Turn and Flachsbart (2008) mention donating consumable food to the food bank and giving the food to animals as viable methods of reducing food waste..

Clean air

The topic of air pollution is most often discussed in the hotel industry in relation to refrigeration systems and air conditioning units. Emissions such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons affect the health of humans, plants, and animals alike. Poor-quality indoor air and contaminated outdoor air (Kuo, Chiang, & Chiang, 2008) are both linked to tourists’ health and level of hotel stay comfort. The quality of air inside buildings results from a

combination of external atmospheric pollutants and internal activities (Pichon, 1996). Thus

the reduction of air pollution in hotels can begin with controlling air quality. Pichon (1996)

provides the definition of indoor air quality as “the quality of indoor air in terms of the proportions of normal air gases and the concentration of pollutions” (p. 119). Using environmentally friendly refrigerators and air conditioners and covering outdoor areas with plants are suggested means for improving air quality while protecting the environment

(Hueng, Fei & Hu, 2006).

Another issue related to air pollution in a hotel is smoking. Hotel smoking bans

(smoke-free policies) have received attention in many studies (Field, 1999; Scollo, Lal,

Hyland & Glantz, 2003). According to Scollo et al. (2003), there are no negative economic impacts associated with smoke-free policies. The study further suggested that creating a smoke-free policy can protect workers and patrons from carcinogens. The study by Field

(1999) stated that “the availability of non-smoking room is important to over 80 percent of non-smoking respondents, whereas only 54 percent of smokers considered the availability of smoking rooms to be more than a minor factor in their choice of hotels.” Such evidence of an increase in consumers’ requests for non-smoking rooms shows that non-smoking policy is important in the hotel industry. Kuo et al. (2008) state that guests want to stay in comfortable environments, whether they are for business meetings, leisure, sleeping or dining and that employees need to have good air quality in order to work efficiently and be productive

Environmental attitude

Environmental issues have become important in many publications such as trade journals, academic journals, newspapers and magazines. Many studies research how an

individual’s or an organization’s response affects attitude and behavior (Dunlop, Van Liere,

Mertig & Jones, 2000; Scott & Willits, 1994).

Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) view attitude as “the enduring positive or negative

feeling about some person, objective, or issues” (p. 242). Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico and

Khanzian (2004) further propose the idea of environmental attitude as “the collection of beliefs, affects, and behavioral intentions a person holds regarding environmentally related activities or issue” (p. 31). In 1999, Kaiser et al. identified three components (affect, knowledge and intention) used to predict environmental attitude. Kaiser et al. (1999) further explained that “an affect scale measures the affective component, factual knowledge about environment measures the cognitive aspects and verbal commitment measures the behavior intention component of environmental attitude” (p.2). However, Dunlop et al. (2000) argue the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) is also part of a person’s belief system. Although parts of NEP have been identified as weak or moderate, NEP is the most widely accepted measurement for general attitudes toward environmental and ecological issues (Fielding,

McDonald & Louis, 2008). This is so because the components that NEP uses (balance of nature, limits to growth and human dominion over nature) are the core concepts of environmental attitudes. According to Dunlop et al. (2000), NEP is related to beliefs about nature, such as the belief that “humanity’s ability is upset by the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature” (p. 427). Scott and Willits (1994) note the correspondence between environmental attitude and behavior depends on an individual’s age, education level, income and political ideology.

According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), environmental attitudes have been found to have a varying, but usually very small, impact on the pro-environment movement.

Schultz et al. (2004) claim that individual environmental attitudes depend on beliefs that a

person is part of the natural environment.

Previous research has studied the relationship between environmental attitude and ecological behavior (Kaiser, Oerke, & Bogner, 2007; Kaiser, Wolfing, & Fuhere, 2007).

Kaiser et al. (1999) state that environmental attitude and ecological behavior originally

related to the theory of reasoned action, which later developed into the theory of planned

behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Hospitality managers and environmental management

Today, many organizations address environmental issues both in theory and in practice. The study of Banerjee, Lyer, and Kashyap (2003) shows that companies and the

environment have a relationship dependent on “the importance of environmental issues

facing their firms and which environmental issues are integrated with a firm’s strategic plan”

(p. 106). Banerjee (2001) noted the process of the firm addressing and developing

environmental issues and strategies is called corporate environmentalism. According to

Banerjee (2001), the level of corporate environmentalism in an organization can be

influenced by “Green Agencies” such as regulatory agencies, environmental agencies, and

environmentally conscious consumers. The study by Banerjee (2001) notes the development

of environmental strategy in an organization is mostly assigned to senior managers. Zutshi

and Sohal (2004) state the support of top management leadership is important to

organizational awareness and understanding of the environmental issues and environmental implementation. González-Benito and González-Benito (2006) supported the conclusion that

top management in leadership positions must provide support in order for a company to

develop environmental strategies. González-Benito and González-Benito (2006) further

explain it is easy for top management to get support for required resources and it is easy to

manage the collaboration for different functions.

Daft and Weick (1984) further divide environmental issues in an organization into

two dimensions: (1) management beliefs about the analyzability of the external environment and (2) the extent to which the organization intrudes into the environment to understand it.

Haleblian and Finkelstein (1993) note when top managers make decisions, the most important factors influencing their perspectives are their demographic characteristics such as age, organizational tenure, education and functional background. The study of Goll and

Rasheed (2006) found the demographic characteristics of top managers influence their decision making and their commitment to environmental policies. The study found a positive relationship exists between decision and level of education, and length of tenure

Conclusion

Sustainability has been an important concept in many industries besides the hotel

industry. However, this concept is used in the hotel industry mainly to refer to environmental

sustainability practices. The environmental management practices examined in this study

concern energy consumption, water consumption, air purification, and waste generation. The

implementation of environmental management is related to the attitudes of hotel managers.

Specifically, hotel manager attitudes will have a great impact when making decisions to push

companies toward the implementation of environmental management programs in their

hotels. Although the value of sustainability programs is accepted in the hotel industry, many

perceived barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices are still in place.

CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY LOCATION - PHUKET

Introduction

The main purpose of this study is to explore hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices. Phuket, Thailand, was chosen as the study location.

Therefore, this chapter provides information about the study location, including tourism in the region and a sustainability program that is used in Phuket.

Tourism in Phuket, Thailand

Phuket is an island off Thailand's west coast in the Andaman Sea that borders southern Thailand. It is located 540 miles south of Bangkok (TAT, 2008). The topology of

Phuket is 70 percent mountains and 30 percent plains (TAT, 2008). Phuket’s beach extends along the Andaman Sea. Because of its beautiful coastline, Phuket is known as the “Pearl of

Andaman” (TAT, 2008). Phuket’s attractiveness to tourists lies in its mixture of natural beauty and tourist activities. Phuket is famous not only for its beaches, but also for its architecture and its visitor accommodations, ranging from world-class resorts to small-budget hotels (TAT, 2008; Webster, 2000).

The population of Phuket is 327,006 (National Statistical Office, 2006). Phuket’s hotel industry consists of nearly 700 hotels, motels, resorts, and guest houses, totaling 43,036 rooms. Approximately 2.8 million tourists visited Phuket in 2009, a small increase from

2008, when there were 2.7 million visitors (Department of Tourism, 2006). This growth is expected to continue. Already East Asia and the Pacific Rim are the largest world tourism market after Europe (WTO, 2001). A report by the WTO predicts 397 million annual arrivals in China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia by 2020 (WTO, 2001). Thailand is one of

the major tourist destinations in Southeast Asia. The main reasons tourists come to Phuket are

recreation and sightseeing. Today, the island is renowned for its beautiful beaches and water

sports such as diving, windsurfing, kayaking, and wakeboarding. Phuket is also a premier

sailing and sport fishing destination (Beaches, 2008). Due to its success in the tourism

market, Phuket has become the wealthiest province in southern Thailand

(Kontogeorgopoulous, 2005). In addition, Phuket is the most recognized of the beach resort

destinations in Thailand. Kontogeorgopoulous (2003, 2010) notes that tourism has

transformed the region with the advent of shopping arcades, crowded beaches,

accommodations, and golf courses.

Because of the rapid changes caused by mass tourism, the physical landscape and

socioeconomic characteristics of Phuket have changed, causing serious environmental

problems. Phuket has experienced environmental hazards since the early 1990s.

(Kontogeorgopoulous, 2005). These hazards come mainly from tourism and include a water

shortage, a high amount of sewage, pollution from waste, and overcrowded beaches

(Kontogeorgopoulous, 2005). The environmental quality of Phuket is now in critical

condition due to the increasing number of tourists who continue to erode the environment

(Webster, 2006). Since Phuket relies on its beautiful surroundings to draw the visitors who

drive the local economy, the deterioration of its environment is a considerable threat to

Phuket’s status as a major tourist destination.

Because of its meteoric rise as a world tourist destination, Phuket has not had time to build sufficient infrastructure required for world-class service providers

(Kontogeorgopoulous, 2003). Other problems include the overpricing of taxi cab fares,

including small local taxis (tuk-tuks), and traffic and noise pollution from parties in the

Patong Beach area. Another concern in Phuket is the high amount of solid waste, which now exceeds the processing capacity of the local treatment system (Liamsanguan & Gheewala,

2008). Liamsanguan and Gheewala (2008) have further explained that waste disposal is problematic because Phuket does not have effective sorting and has a very limited area for its landfill site. Another concern is wastewater; untreated water from hotel accommodations is causing the ongoing degradation of coral reefs (Reopanichkul, Catter, Worachananant &

Crossland, 2010). Reopanichkul et al. (2010) shed more light on the problem by explaining that coastal developments in Phuket, especially in the Patong district, are unplanned and erected to meet tourists’ demand. Finally, the lack of an adequate budget for maintaining the wastewater treatment system is a primary cause of poor water management in Phuket.

The effects of tourism on the environment were exacerbated by the major tsunami of

2004. The tsunami struck Phuket and the surrounding area, causing tremendous damage. It affected the environment not only by causing great destruction in marine and coastal national parks, but also damaged residents’ livelihoods as a result of diminished tourism. As happens after national disasters, many tourists cancelled their hotel and flight reservations and generally lost confidence in traveling to Phuket. It should be noted that several hotel companies acted in an environmentally responsible and proactive manner after the tsunami, and that a greater interest in sustainable development has emerged since this disaster

(Handerson, 2007). Unfortunately, even with the great strides taken in the last six years, overall motivation in the hotel sector to protect the environment remains low.

Phuket’s economy depends on tourism; hotels and restaurants are the main drivers of

Phuket’s economy, which generates a Gross Regional and Provincial Product (GRP) of approximately US$80 billion (NESDB, 2008). Any decrease in tourism will adversely affect

Phuket’s economy. Therefore, improving environmental sustainability practices in hotels is

important and must become a key strategy for Phuket hotels to meet the needs of a variety of

customers in the present while remaining viable in the future. However, hotel customers and

their representatives may need to insist on environmental sustainability practices in order to

push hotels to adopt a sustainable relationship to the natural environment.

Tourism and sustainability

The relationship between tourism and sustainability in Phuket is important because

tourism brings infrastructure to the destination, while sustainability helps the destination

preserve the environment. Since tourism in Phuket is a fast-growing industry, with the

number of tourists increasing annually, the number of hotels in Phuket has been increasing to

keep pace with demand; at the same time, the burden on the environment has increased, and

the environment is gradually being ruined. The organization leading the way in Phuket in the encouragement of sustainability is the Green Leaf Foundation.

Green Leaf Foundation

The Green Leaf Foundation, established in March 1998, is a consortium of many

organizations that share the goal of protecting the environment while continuing to grow the

tourism industry. Those organizations include the Tourism Authority of Thailand, the Thai

Hotels Association, the United Nations Environment Program Demand Side Management

Office of Electricity, the Generating Authority of Thailand, the Association for the

Development of Environmental Quality, and the Metropolitan Water Works Authority. The

main purpose of the Green Leaf Foundation is to help hotels improve the efficiency with

which they use energy, water and other resources. The objectives of the Green Leaf

Foundation are as follows (Green Leaf Foundation, 2009):

1. Promote knowledge and support studies and research in the creation of a good

understanding of environmental conservation

2. Assist owners and operators in the tourism industry to develop environmental quality

standards in the workplace

3. Develop standards of environmental practices for tourism and tourism-related

businesses in response to consumers’ requirements.

The Green Leaf Foundation uses the Green Leaf Certificate to motivate the tourism industry

to improve its environmental commitment (Green Leaf Foundation, 2009). Hotels can benefit

from being certificate holders through increased publicity, cost savings, and competitive

advantage (Green Leaf Foundation, 2009).

Green Leaf Program

A program called the Green Leaf Program is part of the Green Leaf Foundation. It helps hotels improve the quality of the environment and shows them how to preserve natural resources. This program focuses on helping hotels reduce their usage of energy, water, and other precious resources, under the motto of “Save Money, Save Environment” (Green Leaf

Foundation, 2009).

The Green Leaf Program process comprises three steps, beginning with a screening process, followed by administering questionnaires to hotel managers, and then grading the questionnaires. The questionnaires cover the 18 operational areas of the hotel, which are listed below (Green Leaf Foundation, 2009):

Section 1: Environmental Policy and Communication

Section 2: Human Resource Development

Section 3: Committee and Teams

Section 4: Goals and Strategic Planning

Section 5: Waste Management

Section 6: Energy Efficiency

Section 7: Water Efficiency

Section 8: Kitchen, Food and Beverage

Section 9: Laundry

Section 10: Green Procurement

Section 11: Indoor Air Quality, Air and Noise Pollution

Section 12: Water Resource and Water Quality

Section 13: Spa and Massage

Section 14: Fitness Center, Swimming Pool, and Facilities

Section 15: Security and Safety

Section 16: Ecological Impact

Section 17: Collaboration with Community and Local Administration

Section 18: Local Culture Encouragement

Hotels receive the questionnaires and are invited to complete an environmental audit.

The audit team is comprised of representatives from the Green Leaf Foundation. They screen

and audit the hotels to see if their responses to the questionnaires reflect the reality of their

establishments. Afterward, the program awards from one to five green leaves to each audited

hotel; the number of leaves reflects how the hotel scores on environmental management and the efficient use of resources. Currently, there are 30 Phuket hotels that participate in the

Green Leaf Program (Green Leaf Foundation, 2009), and it is apparent that Phuket hotels are becoming increasingly aware of their environmental impact.

Conclusion

In conclusion, tourism plays an important role in Phuket’s economy. Any change in tourism will affect Phuket’s economy. As the number of tourists increases, the number of hotels also tends to increase, which may cause further damage to the environment. Therefore, implementing environmental sustainability practices in all hotels is the best way to preserve the environment in Phuket. The Green Leaf Foundation operates programs that can encourage hotels in Phuket to be more concerned with sustainability. This can improve environmental responsibility in hotels, which increases the awareness of hotel managers of the need to implement sustainability practices in their hotels.

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

Research design

This study focuses on supporting environmental sustainability practices that are used in hotels and examines hotel manager attitudes toward environmental practices as well as the barriers they perceive to implementing such practices in their hotels. This study used self- administered questionnaires to survey hotel managers in Phuket, Thailand.

Survey instrument

The survey instrument was developed in a two-phase process. First, an in-depth literature review was conducted to develop initial lists of managers’ attitudes and perceived barriers toward environmental sustainability practices (Bohdanowicz, 2005; Kasim, 2009;

Sloan, Legrand & Chen, 2004). The first draft of the survey questionnaire was created at this stage. The questionnaire is divided into five parts. Part A is comprised of statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. Part B is designed to measure current hotel environmental practices. Part C measures the respondents’ attitudes about environmental management in hotels. Part D is comprised of statements about barriers to environmental management. Part E contains demographic questions.

Second, the final questionnaire was created based on interviews with hotel managers in Phuket, Thailand. The final version replaces statements 8–20 in Part D of the first draft with all-new statements about barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices. The new edition of the questionnaire was further validated by the scholars and hotel practitioners of Karon Beach in Phuket, Thailand. Based on feedback from nine hotels received by scholars, the questionnaire was finalized. This questionnaire was then translated into Thai. The questionnaires were included in a survey package for the participants with a

cover letter and instructions for completing the questionnaires. The survey questionnaire was

available in two languages, Thai and English. These languages were selected for the

questionnaires at the request of the participants.

Explanation of questionnaire sections

Part A: The 15 items used in the questionnaire were borrowed from the New

Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlop et al., 2000). As stated in the literature review, NEP is an acceptable scale and used to measure individuals’ attitudes toward the ecological world.

A five-point Likert scale was used to characterize managers’ attitudes from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Part B: Previous studies have identified attitudes about environmental management

(Bohdanowicz, 2005; Kasim, 2009; Sloan, Legrand, & Chen, 2004). Again a five-point Likert scale was used to measure hotel managers’ attitudes from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Part C: The measurement scale of environmental management practices was based on the literature review because all items were used to implement environmental management practices (Bohdanowicz, 2005, 2006; Houdre, 2008; Kasim 2009; Mensah, 2006). A five- point Likert scale was used to measure each hotel’s environmental practices from “not participating” to “fully participating” and from “unimportant” to “extremely important.”

Part D: Some research that has addressed the barriers to implementing environmental management practices was presented (Bohdanowicz, 2006; Graci, 2010; Kasim 2009;

Kirkland & Thompson, 1999). A five-point Likert scale was used to measure hotel managers’ attitudes from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Part E: Demographic and general classifying information is important because it affects

how managers perceive environmental management in hotels. Questions in this part were

either multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank.

Sample

This study focuses on hotel managers’ environmental attitudes as well as the environmental practices currently implemented in their hotels and the barriers they perceive to implementing environmental practices. The population of this study was composed of hotel managers or supervisors from various departments. There are approximately 350 three- to five-star hotels in Phuket, Thailand. Of 350 hotels who were asked to complete the survey, only 50 gave their consent, which necessitated the personal delivery of 500 survey packages.

This study focused on hotels in Phuket, Thailand because of the author’s access to managers in the area. The main reason for limiting the sample to hotel managers was that their positions have more influence on hotel performance. In order to bring environmental sustainability practices into hotels, support from top management is necessary. Another reason for choosing hotels in Phuket, Thailand for this study was that Phuket is a tourist destination, and environmental sustainability practices are a growing issue in the region

because tourists are draining resources.

Data collection procedure

Data was collected from September through October 2010. Originally, human

resources departments were asked for permission to submit survey packages to the hotels.

After obtaining hotel permission, the author visited 50 hotels and submitted the survey

packages at the locations requested. The survey packages included a cover letter, a

permission letter, and a survey questionnaire in a sealed envelope. The cover letter stated the

survey was anonymous. This package was delivered to the human resources department of

each hotel, and the human resources department distributed the questionnaire to other

departments.

Each hotel had a week to complete the survey. Afterward, the author called the human resources departments to follow up on the questionnaires. Initially, 500 questionnaires were

sent to 50 hotels. One- and two-week follow-up phone calls were made in order to remind the

hotel managers to complete the survey, as well as to thank those who had already completed

and returned the survey. After two reminders to the human resources departments of each

hotel, the result was 243 completed questionnaires returned. This procedure resulted in a

48.6% response rate.

Data analysis procedures

The data analysis used in this study consisted of: (1) factor analysis used to

summarize the correlated variables from large to small variables; (2) descriptive statistics

used to analyze the demographic variables; (3) one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) used

to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices

were influenced by demographic characteristics, the type of hotel in which they worked, the

year their hotel was built and the impact of the 2004 tsunami on their hotel; and (4)

correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between hotels manager attitudes

and their experiences.

Exploratory factor analysis

To assess the underlying dimension of hotel managers’ attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. It was

also used to examine the barriers that prevent a hotel from implementing environmental

sustainability practices. An exploratory factor analysis is used to summarize a large set of

variables and groups among an intercorrelated set of variables as a small set of factors or components (Pallent, 2007). The principle axis method with Varimax rotation was used to discover the factors. Varimax rotation was used to reduce the number of variables with high loading on each factor (Pallent, 2007). Only the loading factors of the variable that are equal to or greater than 0.40 were included in this study. In order to measure whether or not the factor analysis was appropriate, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was referenced, as it should present .60, suggesting a good factor analysis (Pallent, 2007). In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be greater than .50 in order to consider the data significant (Pallent, 2007).

Furthermore, only the results of the factor loading present with eigenvalues exceeding

1 were used in this study. To assess the reliability of measures, Cronbach’s alpha was tested

and only factors that were .60 were accepted in this study. The final factor in this study that

revealed hotel manager attitudes toward NEP included two dimensions: Preserved Nature and

Controlled Nature. The final factors that revealed hotels manager attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices were operational management, social obligation, and

sustainability strategy and policy. The final factors that revealed the barriers that prevent

hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices were lack of

support, perceived difficulty, and lack of demand.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

To determine whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending on their demographic characteristics, the type of hotel in which they worked, whether they owned the hotel, the year in which their hotel was built, and the impact of the tsunami on their hotel, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. An

ANOVA is used when the independent variable is category and the dependent variable is

continuous (Alreck & Settle, 2004). An ANOVA reveals whether or not there are significant

differences in the mean scores of the dependent variable across the groups (Pallent, 2007).

The important data that needs to be considered when using an ANOVA is the size of each

group. It is recommended that the ratio of the smallest group not be less than four or five

percent of the largest group in order to receive a reliable result (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Post-

hoc tests were used to determine whether there were more than two variables in order to identify the significant differences within each group. This study used Tukey’s HSD to analyze the data.

Correlation analysis

To examine the relationship between hotel manager attitudes toward environmental

sustainability practices and their experience of working in hotels and in the larger hospitality

industry, a correlation analysis was conducted. If there are two variables, a correlation coefficient is suggested for presenting results (Pallent, 2007). Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used to describe the results of this study.

Correlation analysis is used when testing the strength and direction of the relationship between two continuous variables (Pallent, 2007). Alreck and Settle (2004) added that

“correlation analysis generates a single value, the correlation coefficient that shows how much the two variables move together” (p. 324). The character used in describing the result is the letter r, a correlation coefficient that measures two continuous variables. The values range from 0—which means there is no relationship between two variables—to +1 or -1, which mean there is a perfect linear relationship between the variables (Alreck & Settle, 2004). The plus and minus signs indicate the direction of correlation, a plus sign meaning positive (the

34 variables move in the same direction) and a minus sign meaning negative (the variables move in opposite directions) (Alreck & Settle, 2004).

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter provides the results of the data analysis utilized to explore the environmental sustainability practices from hotel manager attitudes. The data was found through the use of the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) version 11.5. Descriptive statistics were used to inspect the missing data.

Results of this study

Demographic profiles of respondents

The majority of respondents were male (52.3%). Also, more than half of the respondents were over 35 years old (51.0%). Interestingly, more than half of hotel managers held Bachelor’s degrees (51.9%), and a little over half had household incomes over 20,000

Baht ($690) (56.8%).Their time spent working in a hotel ranged from 1 month to 15 years, with an average of 7.27 years. Their time working in the hospitality industry ranged from 1 year and 8 months to 32 years, with an average of 12.5 years. Only 10.7 % of respondents had worked with sustainability programs. Most respondents worked in independent hotels

(68.7%) and slightly less than half of them worked in mid-priced hotels (48.6%). More than half of them worked in the hotels that were impacted by the tsunami. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic profiles of respondents

N Percentage Gender Male 127 52.3 Female 116 47.7

Age Younger than 35 119 49.0 Older than 35 124 51.0

Level of Education High School Certificate or less 13 5.3 Vocational Diploma in General Field 7 2.9 Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 13 5.3 Advanced Vocational Diploma in General field 26 10.7 Advanced Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 33 13.6 Bachelor’s Degree in General Field 126 51.9 Bachelor’s Degree (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 19 7.8 Graduate Degree 6 2.5

Household Income 5,000-10,000 Baht 0 0 10,001-15,000 Baht 31 12.8 15,001-20,000 Baht 74 30.5 Over 20,000 Baht 138 56.8

Work for sustainability program Yes 26 10.7 No 217 89.3

Type of ownership Independent Hotel 167 68.7 Chain Hotel 76 31.3 Franchised Hotel 0 0

Type of Hotel Upscale/ Luxury Hotel 100 41.2 Mid-priced Hotel 118 48.6 Budget Hotel 25 10.3

Hotel impacted by the tsunami Yes 112 46.1 No 131 53.9

The year the hotels were built After the tsunami 53 21.8 Before the tsunami 190 78.2

Time spent working in hotel Average 7.27 year (ranged from 1 month to 25 years)

Time spent working in the hospitality industry Average 12.5 year (ranged from 1 year 8 months to 32 years)

Number of hotel rooms 35-685 Rooms

Phuket hotel manager attitudes regarding NEP

A frequency analysis was performed to describe the hotel manager attitudes towards the new environmental paradigm (NEP). The results showed participants with the higher values expressed strong agreement with the following statements: “the earth has plenty of natural resources [for us to use] if we just learn how to develop them,” “if things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe,” and “the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.” Finally, the participants with the lower values on the scale signified agreement with the statement: “plants and animals do not have as much of a right to exist as humans do” (M=2.38, SD= 1.42). The results of the frequency analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Frequency analysis - Phuket hotel managers’ attitudes toward NEP

N Mean(SD) Plants and animals do not have as much right as humans to exist. 243 2.38(1.42) Humans do not have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 243 3.00(1.43) The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has not been greatly exaggerated. 243 3.03(1.38) The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 243 3.09(1.31) Humans were not meant to rule over the rest of nature. 243 3.09(1.31) We are approaching the limit of the number of people that the earth can support. 243 3.63(1.02) The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 243 3.66(1.15) Human ingenuity will insure that we do make the earth unlivable. 243 3.96(1.19) Despite our special abilities, humans are still not subject to the laws of nature. 243 3.99(1.12) The balance of nature is not strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. 243 4.08(0.99) When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 243 4.14(1.43) Humans are severely abusing the environment. 243 4.19(0.88) The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 243 4.25(0.91) If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 243 4.39(0.93) The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 243 4.59(0.72) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An exploratory factor analysis was performed on 15 items of NEP in relation to environmental sustainability practices using SPSS version 11.5. Prior to performing the inspection of the correlation matrix, the program revealed the presence of many coefficients of .40 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin was .70, exceeding the recommended value of .60

(Kaiser 1970, 1974), and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (Barrtlett, 1954) reached statistical

significance, supporting the factorability of the four components with eigenvalues exceeding

1, displaying 23.0%, 11.36%, 9.0%, and 7.78% variance respectively. In order to determine

the frequency of items that are closed loading, a criteria of at least .10 was used to determine

the difference between items loading with their factors and factors loading under each of the

other factors.

The data was subject to the “principle axis” extracted with Varimax rotation. The two

component solutions explained a total of 34.37% of the variance, with Component 1

contributing 23.00% and Component 2 contributing 11.36%.

The first factor used was labeled “preserved nature.” There were nine items loaded in

this first factor. The three high loading items of NEP included the statements: “we are

approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support,” “if things continue on

their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe,” and “the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.”

The second factor was labeled “controlled nature.” There were four items loaded in this second factor. The items that were high loadings of NEP included the statements: “the so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated,” “humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it,” “humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature,” and “humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.” The remaining two statements were eliminated because they were not relevant to the results.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to examine the internal consistency reliability of the scale. The values used were: “preserve nature” (.73) and “control nature” (.60). The

reliability tests measure the reliability coefficients in order to assess the consistency of the

scale. The recommendation of significant data agreed upon was .60, which can be applied in

exploratory research (Pallant, 2007). The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table

Table 3 Factor analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes regarding NEP

Preserved Controlled Nature Nature If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. .687 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. .628 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. .602 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of modern industrial nations. .601 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. .580 Despite our special abilities human are still subject to the laws of nature. .547 Humans are severely abusing the environment. .544 Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable. .407 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. .687

The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. .633 Human will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. .541 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. .536 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. .509

Eigenvalue 3.45 1.70 Variance explained (percentage) 23.00 11.36 Cumulative variance explained (percentage) 23.00 34.37 Cronbach’s alpha .73 .60 Mean (SD) 4.12(.61) 3.19(.88) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices

A frequency analysis was performed in order to describe the hotel manager attitudes

toward environmental sustainability practices. The results showed the highest values on the

scales expressed strong agreement with the beliefs that “environmental management must be

a part of the hotel operation,” “environmental management contributes to safety and healthy

work for employees,” and “hotels should support local conservation efforts.” The participants

with the lowest rankings showed disagreement with the statement that “hotel activities have a

negative effect on the environment” (M=2.64, SD=1.20). The results of the frequency

analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Frequency analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environment sustainability practices

N Mean(SD) Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 243 2.64(1.20) Environmental management improves employee motivation and production. 243 3.86(0.91) Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. 243 4.07(0.76) An environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy. 243 4.08(0.82) Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 243 4.14(0.97) Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of the hotel. 243 4.21(0.89) Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation. 243 4.29(0.88) Environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel. 243 4.32(0.74) All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 243 4.51(0.73) Hotel should support local conservation efforts. 243 4.54(0.66) Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees. 243 4.54(0.65) Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 243 4.56(0.62) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify Phuket manager attitudes

toward environmental sustainability practices. Twelve attitude attributes relating to hotel

manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices were analyzed using SPSS

version 11.5. Prior to performing an inspection of the correlation matrix, the program

revealed the presence of many coefficients of .40 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin was

.85, exceeding the recommended value of .60 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity (Barrtlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the

four components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining the 40.20%, 9.75%, 8.7%, and

8.3% variance respectively. In order to determine the items that are closed loading, criterion

of at least .10 was used. This was also used to determine the difference between item loading with their factor and factor loadings under each of the other factors.

The data was subject to the “principle axis” extracted with Varimax rotation. The

three component solution explained a total of 58.65% of the variance, with Component 1

contributing 40.20%, Component 2 contributing 9.76%, and Component 3 contributing 8.7%.

The first factor was labeled “operational management.” There were four items loaded

in this first factor. The items that were high loading included the statements “environmental

management improves employee motivation and products,” “environmental management can

give a hotel access to a new market,” “environmental management will reduce operation

costs,” and “environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for

employees.”

The second factor was labeled “social obligation.” There were four items loaded in

this second factor. The three high loadings included the statements “all businesses have to be

involved in fulfilling social obligations,” “environmental management must be a part of hotel operation,” and “environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation.”

The third factor was labeled “sustainability strategy and policy.” There were three items loaded in this third factor. The items that were high loadings included the statements

“hotels should support local conservation efforts,” “environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel,” and “environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy.” One remaining statement was eliminated because it was not relevant to the result.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to examine the internal consistency reliability of the scale, and the values of the scale were: “operational management” (.78) “social obligation” (.79) and “sustainability strategy and policy” (.72). The reliability tests measured

42 the reliability coefficient in order to assess the consistency of the scale. The recommendation’s significance was agreed upon at .60, which can be applied in exploratory research (Pallant, 2007). The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Factor analysis - Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environment sustainability practices

Attribute Statement Operational Social Sustainability Management Obligation Strategy and Policy Environmental management improves employee motivation and products. .88 Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. .57 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. .53 Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for .45 employees.

All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. .72 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. .60 Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and .54 reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impact of the hotel. .46

Hotel should support local conservation efforts. .61 Environmental management will increase market value of the hotel. .59 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy. .58

Eigenvalue 4.82 1.17 1.04 Variance explained (percentage) 40.20 9.75 8.70 Cumulative variance explained (percentage) 40.20 49.94 58.65 Cronbach’s alpha .78 .79 .72 Mean(SD) 4.15(.64) 4.39(.61) 4.31(.60) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

A One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon social demographic variables. This study examined four social-demographic variables, namely: gender, age, level of education and household income. There were 12 attributes of hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices included in the procedure. The following results are the findings of these four investigations. There was a statistically significant difference in age and household income; however, there was not a statistically significant difference in gender and level of education.

Age: There are two age groups analyzed in this study: managers who are 18-35 years old, and managers who are 35 years and older. Statistical significance was found in seven out of twelve items. The results showed that respondents who were older than 35 were more likely to agree with all seven items than respondents who were younger than 35. These items were: “environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation,”

“environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel,” “the hotel should support local conservation efforts,” “environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy,” “environmental management improves employee motivation and production,” “environmental management can give the hotel access to a new market,” and

“environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees.”

Household Income: Statistical significance was found in six out of twelve attitude statements. Respondents who had incomes between 15,001 and 20,000 Baht ($517- $690), and over 20,000 Baht ($690), were more likely to agree that environmental management would reduce operational costs than respondents who had incomes from 10,001 to 15,000

Baht ($344-$517). Also, respondents who had incomes over 20,000 Baht ($690) were more likely to agree that “environmental management would reduce operational costs and increase the market value of the hotels,” “hotels should support local conservation efforts,”

“environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy,”

“environmental management can give hotels access to a new market,” and “environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees,” than respondents who had incomes from 10,001 to 15,000 Baht ($344-$517). Tables 6-9 show the ANOVA results between social demographic characteristics and environmental sustainability practices.

Table 6 ANOVA - Genders and environmental sustainability practices

Gender Male Female N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 127 4.48(.80) 116 4.53(.67) .33 .57 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 127 4.56(.64) 116 4.55(.61) .01 .92 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 127 4.13(.95) 116 4.15(1.0) .01 .92 Environmental management will help us have a more positive 127 116 4.20(.93) 4.39(.81) 2.87 .09 image and reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental 127 116 4.15(.94) 4.27(.83) 1.06 .30 impacts of the hotel. Environmental management will increase market value of the 127 116 4.35(.74 4.29(.75) 1.06 .30 hotel. Hotel should support local conservation efforts. 127 4.59(.66) 116 4.48(.68) 1.06 .30 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding 127 116 4.11(.79) 4.05(.86) .30 .58 company policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 127 2.74(1.21) 116 2.53(1.19) 1.93 .17 Environmental management improves employee motivation and 127 116 3.87(.87) 3.84(.97) .03 .86 products. Environmental management can give hotels access to a new 127 116 4.08(.72) 3.87(.87) .08 .79 market. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy 127 116 4.55(.61) 4.53(.70) .03 .84 work for employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 7 ANOVA - Age and environmental sustainability practices

Age Younger than 35 Older than 35

N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social 119 4.48(.79) 124 4.53(.68) .32 .57 obligations. Environmental management must be a part of the hotel 119 4.51(.65) 124 4.60(.60) 1.11 .29 operation. Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 119 4.04(.97) 124 4.23(.97) 2.37 .13 Environmental management will help us have a more positive 119 4.12(.90) 124 4.45(.83) 9.02 <.001 image and reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental 119 4.13(.84) 124 4.27(.93) 1.50 .22 impact of the hotel. Environmental management will increase market value of the 119 4.17(.81) 124 4.47(.64) 10.31 <.001 hotel. Hotel should support local conservation efforts. 119 4.43(.77) 124 4.65(.54) 6.51 .01 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding 119 3.95(.85) 124 4.21(.78) 6.18 .01 company policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 119 2.67(1.17) 124 2.67(1.17) .19 .66 Environmental management improves employee motivation 119 3.68(.95) 124 4.02(.85) 8.87 <.001 and products. Environmental management can give hotels access to a new 119 3.92(.77) 124 4.20(.74) 8.14 .01 market. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy 119 4.43(.74) 124 4.65(.54) 7.30 .01 work for employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 8 ANOVA - Household income and environmental sustainability practices

Household income 10,001-15,000 15,001-20,000 Over 20,000 Baht Baht Baht N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in 31 4.26(.89) 74 4.47(.73) 138 4.58(.69) 2.57 .08 fulfilling social obligations. Environmental management must be a 31 4.32(.87) 74 4.59(.60) 138 4.59(.56) 2.52 .08 part of the hotel operation. Environmental management will reduce 31 3.71a,b(1.01) 74 4.27a(.82) 138 4.17b (1.02) 3.83 .02 operation costs. Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and 31 4.23(.92) 74 4.31(.83) 138 4.29(.91) .10 .90 reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impact of 31 4.03(1.02) 74 4.15(.92) 138 4.28(.84) 1.17 .31 the hotel. Environmental management will 31 3.97c(.84) 74 4.26(.74) 138 4.43c(.69) 5.63 .00 increase market value of the hotel. Hotel should support local conservation 31 4.23d(.88) 74 4.51(.69) 138 4.62d (.58) 4.68 .01 efforts. Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company 31 3.77e(.92) 74 4.01(.79) 138 4.19e(.81) 3.65 .01 policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on 31 2.97(1.30) 74 2.54(1.28) 138 2.62(1.13) 1.44 .24 the environment. Environmental management improves 31 3.58(.99) 74 3.85(.92) 138 3.92(.89) 1.76 .17 employee motivation and products. Environmental management can give 31 3.74f(.86) 74 4.03(.79) 138 4.16f (.72) 3.97 .02 hotels access to a new market. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for 31 4.23g(.92) 74 4.49(.69) 138 4.64g(.54) 5.78 .00 employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

Table 9 ANOVA - Level of education and environmental sustainability practices

Level of High School Vocational Vocational Advanced Advanced Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Graduate education Certificate or less Diploma in Diploma (in the Vocational Vocational Degree in General Degree (in the Degree General Field Hotel and Diploma in Diploma (in the Field Hotel and Tourism field) General field Hotel and Tourism field) Tourism field) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in 13 4.46(.66) 7 4.14(1.22) 13 4.69(.63) 26 4.38(.70) 33 4.61(.70) 126 4.51(.71) 19 4.63(.50) 6 4.17(1.60) .82 .57 fulfilling social obligations. Environmental management must be a part of 13 4.38(.65) 7 4.43(1.13) 13 4.54(.78) 26 4.42(.58) 33 4.76(.44) 126 4.54(.63) 19 4.58(.61) 6 4.83(.41) 1.03 .41 the hotel operation. Environmental management 13 4.15(.80) 7 3.43(1.51) 13 4.15(.90) 26 4.19(.85) 33 4.27(.91) 126 4.13(.98) 19 4.05(.91) 6 4.33(1.63) .68 .69 will reduce operation costs. Environmental management will help us 13 4.23(.93) 7 4.00(1.16) 13 4.38(.77) 26 4.19(.80) 33 4.48(.76) 126 4.28(.90) 19 4.26(.81) 6 4.17(1.60) .43 .88 have a more positive image and reputation. Environmental management will diminish the 13 3.77(.83) 7 3.71(1.38) 13 4.08(.95) 26 4.08(1.02) 33 4.58(.61) 126 4.21(.85) 19 4.05(1.02) 6 4.83(.41) 2.27 .03 environmental impact of the hotel.

Level of High School Vocational Vocational Advanced Advanced Bachelor]s Bachelor]s Graduate Education Certificate or less Diploma in Diploma (in the Vocational Vocational Degree in General Degree (in the Degree General Field Hotel and Diploma in Diploma (in the Field Hotel and Tourism field) General field Hotel and Tourism field) Tourism field) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig Environmental management

will increase 13 3.92(.76) 7 4.43(.54) 13 4.54(.52) 26 4.46(.65) 33 4.45(.71) 126 4.29(.77) 19 4.21(.71) 6 4.33(1.21) 1.11 .36 market value of the hotel. Hotel should support local 13 4.62(.51) 7 4.29(1.11) 13 4.62(.51) 26 4.58(.50) 33 4.64(.55) 126 4.52(.74) 19 4.37(.68) 6 4.83(.41) .66 .71 conservation efforts. Environmental impact should be considered 13 3.92(.76) 7 4.29(.95) 13 4.00(.82) 26 4.00(.75) 33 4.21(.86) 126 4.08(.86) 19 3.95(.62) 6 4.50(.84) .59 .77 when deciding company policy. Hotel activities have a negative 13 2.31(1.25) 7 3.43(.98) 13 2.77(1.36) 26 2.50(1.30) 33 2.67(1.22) 126 2.63(1.16) 19 2.95(1.03) 6 1.83(1.60) 1.22 .29 effect on the environment. Environmental management improves 13 3.85(.90) 7 3.00(1.16) 13 3.85(.80) 26 4.15(.61) 33 4.00(.79) 126 3.83(.95) 19 3.68(.82) 6 4.00(1.67) 1.55 .15 employee motivation and products. Environmental management can give hotels 13 3.69(.75) 7 3.57(.79) 13 4.38(.51) 26 4.23(.59) 33 4.15(.80) 126 4.04(.79) 19 3.89(.74) 6 4.67(.82) 2.15 .04 access to a new market.

Level of High School Vocational Vocational Advanced Advanced Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Graduate Education Certificate or Diploma in Diploma (in the Vocational Vocational Degree in General Degree (in the Degree less General Field Hotel and Diploma in Diploma (in the Field Hotel and Tourism field) General field Hotel and Tourism field) Tourism field) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig Environmental management contributes to 13 4.54(.66) 7 4.29(1.11) 13 4.69(.48) 26 4.69(.47) 33 4.52(.67) 126 4.52(.69) 19 4.42(.61) 6 4.83(.41) .72 .65 safety and healthy work for employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether or not social-demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, age, level of education and household income) influence the three factor attitudes of hotel managers. The three factors evaluated in table 5 are: “operational management,” “social obligation,” and “sustainability strategy and policy.” There was a statistically significant difference in three factor attitudes regarding age and household income. However, there was no statistically significant difference in gender and level of education.

Age: Statistical significance was found in two of three factors. The results showed that

respondents older than 35 years old were more likely than respondents younger than 35 years

old to agree with operational objective management and sustainability strategy and policy.

Results can be seen in Table 10.

Household Income: Statistical significance was found in two of three factors.

Respondents who had incomes between 15,001and 20,000 Baht ($517- $690), and over

20,000 Baht ($690), were more likely to agree with operational objective management than

respondents who had incomes between 10,001 and 15,000 Baht ($344-$517). Those who had

incomes over 20,000 Baht ($690) were more likely to agree with sustainability strategy and

policy than those who had incomes from 10,001 to 15,000 Baht ($517- $690). Table 10

shows the results from the factor analysis in 3 dimensions along with those of the social

demographic variables.

Table 10 ANOVA - Demographic variables and three factor attitudes

Operational Social Obligation Sustainability Management Strategy and Policy N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean Gender Male 127 4.16(.61) 127 4.35(.64) 127 4.35(.56) Female 116 4.14(.68) 116 4.44(.58) 116 4.28(.63) F .03 1.28 .92 Sig .86 .26 .34

Age Younger than 35 119 4.02(.66) 119 4.31(.63) 119 4.18(.64) Older than 35 124 4.28(.60) 124 4.46(.59) 124 4.44(.52) F 10.23 3.82 12.00 Sig <.001 .052 <.001

Level of Education High School 13 4.06(.57) 13 4.21(.56) 13 4.15(.35) Certificate or less Vocational Diploma in General Field 7 3.57(.95) 7 4.07(1.06) 7 4.33(.72) Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism 13 4.27(.50) 13 4.42(.66) 13 4.38(.49) field) Advanced Vocational Diploma in General field 26 4.32(.45) 26 4.27(.53) 26 4.35(.49) Advanced Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and 33 4.23(.63) 33 4.61(.47) 33 4.43(.55) Tourism field) Bachelor’s Degree in General Field 126 4.13(.66) 126 4.38(.63) 126 4.29(.66) Bachelor’s Degree (in the Hotel and 19 4.01(.47) 19 4.38(.53) 19 4.18(.50) Tourism field) Graduate Degree 6 4.46(1.10) 6 4.50(.84) 6 4.56(.50) F 1.61 1.20 .67 Sig .14 .30 .70

Household Income 10,000-15,000 Baht 31 3.81a,b(.82) 31 4.21)(.81) 31 3.99c(.74) 15,000-20,000 Baht 74 4.16a(.600 74 4.38(.56) 74 4.26(.59) Over 20,000 Baht 138 4.22b(.60) 138 4.43(.59) 138 4.42c(.53) F 5.28 1.7 7.27 Sig .01 .19 <.001 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

A correlation analysis was used to describe the relationship between time spent in the hotel industry and the attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental sustainability practices. This was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. There were 12 attitude attributes included in this study. The results showed statistical significance and a positive correlation between time spent working in the hotel industry and the statements that

“environmental management would increase the market value of the hotel” and

“environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees.” The

51 results indicated that the levels of agreement associated with environmental management, the market value of the hotel, and environmental management contributions to safety and healthy work for employees, increase the longer hotel managers work for the hotels. Table 11 shows the correlation between hotel experience and environmental sustainability practices.

Table 11 Correlation - Hotel experience and environmental sustainability practices

Pearson p-value r All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. .10 .12 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. .02 .75 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. .07 .27 Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation. .07 .27 Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of the hotel. .07 .27 Environmental management will increase market value of the hotel. .20 <.001 Hotels should support local conservation efforts. .11 .09 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy. .13 .05 Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. -.11 .10 Environmental management improves employee motivation and products. .08 .24 Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. .03 .66 Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees. .22 <.001

The correlation between time spent in the hotel industry and three factor attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental sustainability practices was investigated using the

Pearson correlation coefficient. There was a strong positive correlation between time spent working in the hotel industry and support for sustainability strategy and policy. The results indicated that the longer hotel managers worked for the hotels, the higher the level of agreement associated with sustainability strategy and policy. Table 12 shows the correlation between hotel experience and factor attitudes.

Table 12 Correlation - Hotel experience and three factor attitudes

Pearson p-value r Operational Management .12 .07 Social Obligation .09 .18 Sustainability Strategy and Policy .18 <.001

A correlation analysis was used to describe the relationship between time spent

working in the hospitality industry and attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental sustainability practices, and was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Twelve attitude attributes were included in this study. The results showed there was a

statistically significant positive correlation between time spent working in the hospitality

industry and the four attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental sustainability

practices. Time spent working in the hospitality industry was positively and significantly

related to the statements that “environmental management would increase market value of the

hotel,” “hotels should support local conservation efforts,” “environmental impact should be

considered when deciding company policy,” and “environmental management contributes to

safety and healthy work for employees.” The results illustrate the longer hotel managers

worked in the hospitality industry, the higher the level of agreement associated with

“environmental management will increase market value of the hotels,” “hotels should support

local conservation efforts,” “the environmental impact should be considered when deciding

company policy,” and “environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for

employees.” Table 13 shows the correlation between hospitality experience and

environmental sustainability practices.

Table 13 Correlation - Hospitality experience and environmental sustainability practices

Pearson p-value r All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. .06 .34 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. -.01 .84 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. -.02 .81 Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation .08 .22 Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of the hotel. -.01 .89 Environmental management will increase market value of the hotel. .14 .03 Hotels should support local conservation efforts. .15 .02 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy. .18 .01 Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. -.08 .20 Environmental management improves employee motivation and products. .05 .44 Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. .04 .56 Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for employees. .19 <.001

The correlation analysis presented the relationship between time spent working in the

hospitality industry and three factor attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental

sustainability practices. This study investigated the results by using the Pearson correlation

coefficient. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between time spent

working in the hospitality industry and support for sustainability strategy and policy. Time

spent working in the hospitality industry was positively and significantly related to agreement

with sustainability strategy and policy. The results indicated the longer hotel managers

worked for the hotel, the more they agree with sustainability strategy and policy. Table 14

shows the correlation between hospitality experience and factor attitudes.

Table 14 Correlation - Hospitality experience and three factors attitudes

Pearson p-value r Operational Management .07 .27 Social Obligation .04 .54 Sustainability Strategy and Policy .20 <.001

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices were influenced based on the years the hotels were

built. This study divided the year hotels were built into two groups, hotels built between 1950 and 2004 are classified as before the tsunami, and hotels built after year 2004 are classified as after the tsunami. There were 12 attitude attributes included in this study. The results indicated that hotel managers who worked for the hotels that were built after the tsunami were more likely to support local conservation efforts than those who worked for the hotels that were built before the tsunami. Table 15 shows the ANOVA results of the analysis between the years the hotels were built and their environmental sustainability practices.

Table 15 ANOVA - Years the hotels were built and environmental sustainability practices

After the Before the tsunami Tsunami N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 53 4.55(.72) 190 4.49(.74) .21 .65 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 53 4.60(.60) 190 4.54(.63) .41 .53 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 53 4.30(.77) 190 4.09(1.02) 1.88 .17 Environmental management will help us have a more positive image 53 4.26(1.00) 190 4.29(.85) .05 .82 and reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of 53 4.09(1.06) 190 4.24(.84) 1.06 .30 the hotel. Environmental management will increase market value of the hotel. 53 4.36(.65) 190 4.31(.77) .17 .68 Hotel should support local conservation efforts. 53 4.74(.52) 190 4.48(.70) 5.98 .02 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company 53 4.17(.73) 190 4.06(.85) .76 .38 policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 53 2.72(1.05) 190 2.62(1.25) .29 .59 Environmental management improves employee motivation and 53 3.96(.76) 190 3.83(.95) .92 .34 products. Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. 53 4.11(.70) 190 4.05(.79) .26 .61 Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for 53 4.64(.48) 190 4.52(.70) 1.52 .22 employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether the hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending on the years their hotels were built.

The findings showed that there was no statistical significance in any factor attitudes. Table 16 shows the ANOVA results between the years the hotels were built and the factor attitudes

Table 16 ANOVA - Years the hotels were built and three factor attitudes

Operational Social Obligation Sustainability Management Strategy and Policy N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) After the tsunami 53 4.25(.52) 53 4.38(.73) 53 4.42(.49) Before the tsunami 190 4.12(.67) 190 4.39(.58) 190 4.28(.62) F 1.76 .02 2.21 Sig .186 .877 .14 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices were influenced by the tsunami’s impact on their hotels. There were two variables in this study: “hotels impacted by the tsunami” and “hotels

55 that were not impacted by the tsunami.” There was statistical significance in seven out of the twelve attitude attributes measured. The results indicated that hotel managers who worked for the hotels impacted by the tsunami were more likely to agree that “environmental management must be a part of hotel operation,” “environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation,” “environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of the hotel,” “environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel,” “the hotel should support local conservation efforts,” “environmental management improves employee motivation and products,” and “environmental management can give the hotel access to a new market.” Table 17 shows the ANOVA results between hotels impacted by the tsunami and environmental sustainability practices.

Table 17 ANOVA - Hotels impacted by the tsunami and environmental sustainability practices

Not impacted by Impacted by the the tsunami tsunami N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 136 4.45(.73) 107 4.58(.74) 1.91 .17 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 136 4.48(.67) 107 4.65(.55) 4.87 .03 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 136 4.05(.96) 107 4.25(.98) 2.57 .11 Environmental management will help us have a more positive 136 4.10(.93) 107 4.52(.76) 14.39 <.001 image and reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental 136 4.10(.92) 107 4.34(.84) 4.18 .04 impacts of the hotel. Environmental management will increase market value of the 136 4.24(.76) 107 4.43(.70) 4.18 .04 hotel. Hotels should support local conservation efforts. 136 4.46(.77) 107 4.64(.50) 4.85 .03 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding 136 4.00(.84) 107 4.19(.79) 3.11 .08 company policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 136 2.67(1.18) 107 2.60(1.24) .21 .65 Environmental management improves employee motivation and 136 3.72(.95) 107 4.03(.84) 6.95 .01 products. Environmental management can give hotels access to a new 136 3.98(.77) 107 4.18(.75) 4.09 .04 market. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work 136 4.50(.71) 107 4.60(.58) 1.34 .25 for employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices were influenced by the impact of the tsunami. The

56 result presented that there were statistically significant findings in “operational management,”

“social obligation,” and “sustainability strategy and policy.”

The study indicated that hotel managers who worked for hotels impacted by the tsunami were more likely to agree with “operational management,” “social obligation,” and

“sustainability strategy and policy,” than those who worked for hotels that were not impacted by the tsunami. Table 18 shows the ANOVA results between hotels impacted by the tsunami and the factor attitudes.

Table 18 ANOVA - Hotels impact by the tsunami and three factor attitudes

Operational Social Obligation Sustainability Management Strategy and Policy N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) Not impacted by the tsunami 136 4.06(.68) 136 4.28(.64) 136 4.23(.65) Impacted by the tsunami 107 4.26(.58) 107 4.52(.55) 107 4.42(.50) F 5.99 9.55 6.25 Sig .02 <.001 .01 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon ownership of the hotels. This study classified the types of hotels into two categories: “independent hotels” and “chain hotels.” The results showed that respondents who worked in the chain hotels were more likely to agree that “environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel,” and that “hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment,” than those who worked in independent hotels. Table 19 shows the ANOVA results between hotel ownership factors and environmental sustainability practices.

Table 19 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and environmental sustainability practices

Independent Chain Hotel Hotel N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 167 4.46(.77) 76 4.61(.66) 2.02 .16 Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 167 4.51(.62) 76 4.64(.63) 2.28 .13 Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 167 4.07(.99) 76 4.29(.94) 2.63 .11 Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and 167 4.28(.88) 76 4.32(.90) .11 .74 reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of 167 4.20(.96) 76 4.22(72) .05 .83 the hotel. Environmental management will increase market value of the hotel. 167 4.23(.77) 76 4.51(.64) 7.64 .01 Hotels should support local conservation efforts. 167 4.49(.73) 76 4.66(.51) 3.52 .06 Environmental impact should be considered when deciding company 167 4.07(.84) 76 4.12(.78) .21 .65 policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 167 2.52(1.19) 76 2.89(1.18) 5.13 .02 Environmental management improves employee motivation and products. 167 3.85(.94) 76 3.87(.87) .02 .87 Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. 167 4.04(.77) 76 4.12(.77) .52 .47 Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for 167 4.56(.66) 76 4.51(.64) .23 .63 employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon hotel type. This study classified types of hotels into three categories; “upscale,” “mid-priced,” and “budget” hotels.

This study found that respondents who worked in upscale hotels were more likely to agree that “all businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations” and that

“environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy,” than respondents who worked in the “mid-priced” or “budget” hotels. Respondents who worked in

“upscale” hotels were more likely to agree that “environmental management will help us have a more positive image and reputation” than respondents who worked in budget hotels.

Furthermore, respondents who worked in “upscale” hotels were more likely to agree that “environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel” than respondents who worked in “mid-priced” hotels. Also, those who worked in “mid-priced” hotels were more likely to agree that “environmental management will increase the market

58 value of the hotel” than respondents who worked in “budget hotels.” Respondents who worked in “upscale” or “mid-priced” hotels were more likely to agree that “hotels should support local conservation efforts” than respondents who worked in budget hotels. Table 20 shows the ANOVA results between hotel type and environmental sustainability practices.

Table 20 ANOVA - Type of hotels and environmental sustainability practices

Upscale / Luxury Mid-priced Budget Hotel Hotel Hotel N Mean N Mean N Mean(SD) F Sig All businesses have to be involved in <.00 100 4.78a,b(.56) 118 4.33a(.69) 25 4.24b(1.13) 13.14 fulfilling social obligations. 1 Environmental management must be a 100 4.67(.59) 118 4.47(.60) 25 4.48(.82) 2.91 .06 part of the hotel operation. Environmental management will reduce 100 4.32c(.93) 118 4.03c(.96) 25 3.92(1.12) 3.10 .05 operation costs. Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and 100 4.47d(.82) 118 4.19(.85) 25 4.00d(1.12) 4.24 .02 reputation. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of 100 4.31(.86) 118 4.14(.88) 25 4.08(1.04) 1.22 .30 the hotel. Environmental management will increase <.00 100 4.43e(.70) 118 4.33f(.71) 25 3.84e,f (.90) 6.65 market value of the hotel. 1 Hotels should support local conservation <.00 100 4.65g(.59) 118 4.58 h(.54) 25 3.88g,h(1.05) 15.41 efforts. 1 Environmental impact should be <.00 considered when deciding company 100 4.28i,j(.81) 118 3.98i(.81) 25 3.76j(.83) 5.87 1 policy. Hotel activities have a negative effect on 100 2.57(1.21) 118 2.60(1.16) 25 3.08(1.35) 1.92 .15 the environment. Environmental management improves 100 3.93(.82) 118 3.85(.95) 25 3.60(1.08) 1.32 .27 employee motivation and products. Environmental management can give 100 4.11(.78) 118 4.08(.72) 25 3.80(.91) 1.71 .18 hotels access to a new market. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for 100 4.60(.59) 118 4.54(.64) 25 4.32(.95) 1.83 .16 employees. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices differed depending on the types of hotel studied. The results showed that respondents who worked in “upscale” hotels were more likely to agree with “social obligation” than respondents who worked in the “mid-priced” and “budget hotels.” The results also showed that the respondents who worked in “upscale” or “mid-

priced” hotels were more likely to agree with “sustainability strategy and policy” than respondents who worked in “budget” hotels. Table 21 shows the ANOVA results between hotel types and factor attitudes.

Table 21 ANOVA - Type of hotels and three factor attitudes

Operational Social Obligation Sustainability Management Strategy and Policy N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) Upscale / Luxury hotel 100 4.24(.60) 100 4.56a,b(.54) 100 4.45c (.54) Mid-priced hotel 118 4.13(.61) 118 4.29a(.57) 118 4.30d(.56) Budget hotel 25 3.91(.88) 25 4.20b(.86) 25 3.83c,d(.72) F 2.83 6.973 12.19 Sig .06 <.001 <.001 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices differed depending on the ownership of the hotels. The

findings showed that respondents who worked in chain hotels were more likely to agree with

sustainability strategy and policy than respondents who worked in the independent hotels.

Table 22 shows the ANOVA results between hotel ownership and factor attitudes.

Table 22 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and three factor attitudes

Operational Social Obligation Sustainability Management Strategy and Policy N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) Independent Hotel 167 4.13(.65) 167 4.36(.62) 167 4.26(.64) Chain Hotel 76 4.20(.64) 76 4.45(.60) 76 4.43(.47) F .57 1.01 4.24 Sig .45 .33 .04 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Barriers that prohibits hotel from implementing environmental sustainability practices

A frequency analysis was performed to describe hotel manager attitudes toward

barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. There

were 19 barrier attributes included in this study. The results showed that participants with the 60 higher values on the scales expressed strong agreement with attributes including “high cost of environmental management practices,” “lack of financial resources,” and “lack of equipment and facilities for environment management.” The participants with lower values showed disagreement with “perceived benefits,” and the statement that “consumer demand for eco- friendly hotels is low and incompatible with company culture.” Table 23 shows the frequency analysis of barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices.

Table 23 Frequency analysis - Hotel manager attitudes and barriers of implementing environmental sustainability practices

N Mean(SD) High cost of environmental management practices. 243 3.47(1.03) Lack of financial resources. 243 3.43(0.90) Lack of equipment and facilities for environment management. 243 3.40(0.93) Environmental management in hotels is not easy. 243 3.37(0.96) Complicated environmental management in hotels. 243 3.35(1.01) Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development. 243 3.34(1.02) Lack of local experts in environmental practices. 243 3.34(0.79) Lack of education and training. 243 3.23(1.05) Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels. 243 3.20(0.88) Lack of guidance from government agencies. 243 3.17(0.90) Managers do not have sufficient knowledge. 243 3.13(0.90) Lack of support from employees. 243 3.09(0.97) Lack of knowledge. 243 3.05(0.98) Insufficient physical infrastructure. 243 3.02(0.91) Lack of support from owners. 243 2.99(0.93) Owners do not support environmental management in hotels. 243 2.99(0.99) Lack of perceived benefits. 243 2.92(0.94) The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low. 243 2.90(0.84) Incompatibility with company culture. 243 2.61(0.87) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An exploratory factor analysis was performed to describe 19 barriers to environment sustainability practices using SPSS version 11.5. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .4 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin was .80, exceeding the recommend value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974). Bartlett’s test of Sphericity

(Barrtlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the four

components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 28.87%, 10.55 %, 7.3%, and 6.86%

variance respectively. In order to determine what items that were closed loading, the criteria

of at least a variance .10 was used to determine the difference between items loading with

their factors and factors loading under each of the other factors.

The data was subject to the “principle axis” extracted with Varimax rotation. The

three component solutions explained a total of 46.72% of the variance, with Component 1

contributing 28.87%, Component 2 contributing 10.55%, and Component 3 contributing 7.3

%. The first factor was labeled “Lack of Support.” There were six items loaded in this first

factor. Items with high loadings of attitude included “lack of support from employees,” “lack

of support from owners,” “lack of education and training,” “lack of equipment and facilities for environment management,” “owners do not support environmental management in hotels,” and “lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development.”

The second factor was labeled “perceived difficulty.” There were four items loaded in this second factor. The items with high loadings included: “complicated environmental management in hotels,” “environmental management in hotels in not easy,” “there are managers who do not have sufficient knowledge,” and “there is a high cost to environmental management practices.”

The third factor was labeled “lack of demand.” There were six items loaded in this third factor. Items with high loadings included: “intermediaries are not often interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels,” “consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low,” “there is a lack of financial resources,” “there is a lack of local experts in environmental practices,” “there is a lack of knowledge,” and “there is a lack of guidance from government agencies.”

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient used to examine the internal consistency reliability of the scale. The values of the scale were: “lack of support” (.817), “perceived difficulty” (.774) and “lack of demand” (.677). The reliability tests measured the reliability coefficient in order to assess the consistency of the scale. The recommendation’s significance was agreed upon at

.60, which can apply in exploratory research (Pallent, 2007). The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 24.

Table 24 Factor analysis - Hotel manager attitudes and barriers of implementing environmental sustainability practices

Lack of Perceived Lack of Support Difficulty Demand Lack of support from employees .78 Lack of support from owners .63 Lack of education and training .53 Lack of equipment and facilities for environment management .51 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels .50 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development .45

Complicated environmental management in hotels .87 Environmental management in hotels is not easy .66 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge .63 High cost of environmental management practices .46

Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in .60 environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low .48 Lack of financial resources .48 Lack of local experts in environmental practices .47 Lack of knowledge .42 Lack of guidance from government agencies .42

Eigenvalue 5.49 2.00 1.39 Variance explained(percentage 28.87 10.54 7.30 Cumulative variance explained (percentage) 28.87 39.42 46.72 Crombach’s alpha .82 .77 .68 Mean (SD) 3.17(.71) 3.33(.75 ) 3.18(.55) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether hotel manager attitudes toward barriers that prohibited hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon social-demographic variables. There were 19 barrier attributes pertaining to managers’ attitudes towards environmental sustainability practices included in

the procedure. The following are the findings of these four investigations. There was statistically significant difference in gender, age, and level of education; however, there was

no statistically significant difference in household income.

Gender: This study found significant difference between males and females. It

showed females were more likely than males to agree that managers do not have the amount

of knowledge needed to implement environmental sustainability practices.

Age: There were two age groups analyzed in this study, managers who were 18-35 years old and those who were 36 and older. Statistical significance was found in only one barrier statement. The results showed that respondents who were younger than 35 were more likely to agree that there was incompatibility within company culture than respondents who were older.

Level of education: The results revealed a statistical significance in one barrier statement. Respondents who had a High School degree were more likely to agree with

“incompatibility with company culture” than those who had a Vocational Diploma (in the

Hotel and Tourism field). Tables 25-28 show the ANOVA results between barriers and social

demographic characteristics.

Table 25 ANOVA - Gender and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Gender Males Females N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig Lack of knowledge 127 3.06(.97) 116 3.03(1.00) .05 .82 Lack of support from owners 127 2.91(.94) 116 3.07(.91) 1.72 .19 Lack of support from employees 127 3.01(1.01) 116 3.17(.91) 1.77 .19 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low 127 2.95(.86) 116 2.84(.81) 1.01 .32 Lack of education and training 127 3.20(1.13) 116 3.28(96) .34 .56 Incompatibility with company culture 127 2.61(.93) 116 2.62(.81) .02 .90 Lack of guidance from government agencies 127 3.23(.88) 116 3.10(.91) 1.18 .28 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels 127 2.93(1.01) 116 3.05(.97) .93 .34 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development 127 3.32(1.03) 116 3.35(1.01) .06 .82 Lack of perceived benefits 127 3.01(1.00) 116 2.83(.86) 2.25 .14 Insufficient physical infrastructure 127 2.97(.91) 116 3.07(.91) .74 .39 High cost of environmental management practices 127 3.40(1.09) 116 3.54(.95) 1.16 .28 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 127 3.02(.90) 116 3.25(.87) 3.97 .05 Complicated environmental management in hotels 127 3.39(1.01) 116 3.31(1.02) .41 .52 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management 127 3.39(1.01) 116 3.40(.83) .00 .98 Environmental management in hotels is not easy 127 3.28(.98) 116 3.47(.93) 2.22 .14 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often 127 3.24(.88) 116 3.16(.89) .41 .53 interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 127 3.28(.84) 116 3.41(.74) 1.84 .18 Lack of financial resources 127 3.359(.96) 116 3.51(.83) 1.77 .18 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 26 ANOVA - Age and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Age Younger than 35 Older than 35 N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig Lack of knowledge 119 3.10(.95) 124 3.00(1.01) .64 .43 Lack of support from owners 119 2.98(.96) 124 2.99(.88) .01 .94 Lack of support from employees 119 3.14(.96) 124 3.03(.97) .80 .37 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low 119 2.92(.82) 124 2.89(.86) .07 .79 Lack of education and training 119 3.33(1.00) 124 3.15(1.09) 1.85 .18 Incompatibility with company culture 119 2.73(.83) 124 2.50(.90) 4.32 .04 Lack of guidance from government agencies 119 3.14(.86) 124 3.19(.93) .14 .66 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels 119 2.92(.96) 124 3.06(1.02) 1.23 .27 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development 119 3.37(1.02) 124 3.31(1.02) .23 .63 Lack of perceived benefits 119 2.95(.88) 124 2.90(.99) .20 .65 Insufficient physical infrastructure 119 3.03(.90) 124 3.01(.92) .02 .88 High cost of environmental management practices 119 3.52(1.08) 124 3.42(.97) .60 .44 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 119 3.18(.87) 124 3.08(.91) .83 .36 Complicated environmental management in hotels 119 3.33(1.00) 124 3.38(1.03) .16 .69 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management 119 3.37(.96) 124 3.42(.90) .17 .68 Environmental management in hotels is not easy 119 3.45(.88) 124 3.29(1.02) 1.79 .18 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often 119 3.18(.82) 124 3.23(.94) .19 .67 interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 119 3.31(.71) 124 3.37(.87) .35 .56 Lack of financial resources 119 3.39(.86) 124 3.47(.95) .49 .49 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 27 ANOVA - Household income and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Household income 10,001-15,000 15.001-20,000 Over 20,000 Baht Baht Baht N Mean N Mean N Mean F Sig Lack of knowledge 31 3.16(.82) 74 3.16(.99) 138 2.96(1.01) 1.22 .30 Lack of support from owners 31 3.10(1.01) 74 2.95(.98) 138 2.99(.88) .29 .75 Lack of support from employees 31 3.16(.93) 74 3.24(.98) 138 2.99(.96) 1.84 .16 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is 31 2.94(.77) 74 2.97(.81) 138 2.86(.87) .51 .60 low Lack of education and training 31 3.06(1.03) 74 3.38(.98) 138 3.20(1.09) 1.20 .30 Incompatibility with company culture 31 2.81(.75) 74 2.59(.92) 138 2.58(.87) .88 .42 Lack of guidance from government agencies 31 2.87(.96) 74 3.22(.88) 138 3.21(.88) 1.98 .14 Owner do not support environmental 31 2.87(1.02) 74 3.03(.99) 138 2.99(.99) .27 .76 management in hotels Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism 31 3.32(1.05) 74 3.30(1.04) 138 3.36(1.00) .10 .90 development Lack of perceived benefits 31 2.77(.88) 74 2.95(.84) 138 2.94(1.00) .44 .65 Insufficient physical infrastructure 31 3.19(.87) 74 2.97(.89) 138 3.00(.93) .69 .50 High cost of environmental management 31 3.32(1.01) 74 3.50(.98) 138 3.49(1.06) .37 .69 practices Managers who do not have sufficient knowledge 31 3.10(.83) 74 3.20(.79) 138 3.10(.95) .34 .71 Complicated environmental management in 31 3.42(.89) 74 3.36(.97) 138 3.33(1.06) .10 .91 hotels Lack of equipment and facilities for 31 3.55(1.09) 74 3.32(.91) 138 3.40(.90) .64 .53 environmental management Environmental management in hotels is not easy 31 3.26(1.03) 74 3.47(.83) 138 3.34(1.00) .71 .49 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in 31 3.32(.60) 74 3.22(.91) 138 3.17(.93) .41 .67 environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 31 3.13(.72) 74 3.51(.78) 138 3.30(.81) 3.11 .05 Lack of financial resources 31 3.19(.70) 74 3.51(.91) 138 3.43(.94) 1.38 .25 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 28 ANOVA - Level of education and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Level of education High School Vocational Vocational Advanced Advanced Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Graduate Degree Certificate or Diploma in Diploma (in the Vocational Vocational Degree in Degree (in the less General Field Hotel and Diploma in Diploma (in the General Field Hotel and Tourism field) General field Hotel and Tourism field) Tourism field) N Mean N Mean N Mean N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig Lack of 13 2.92(.49) 7 3.86(.90) 13 3.08(.76) 26 2.88(.77) 33 2.85(1.09) 126 3.17(1.03) 19 2.68(1.11 6 2.83(.41) 1.72 .11 knowledge. Lack of support 13 2.62(.65) 7 3.43(.98) 13 2.85(.99) 26 3.00(.85) 33 2.76(1.12) 126 3.06(.92) 19 2.56(.85) 6 3.50(.55) 1.24 .28 from owners. Lack of support 13 3.00(.82) 7 3.57(1.13) 13 2.92(.86) 26 3.23(.91) 33 3.09(1.13) 126 3.05(.95) 19 2.89(.99) 6 3.83(.75) 1.06 .39 from employees. The consumer demand for eco- 13 2.62(.87) 7 3.29(.95) 13 2.69(.86) 26 2.92(.69) 33 2.88(.86) 126 2.94(.82) 19 2.63(.96) 6 3.50(.84) 1.33 .24 friendly hotels is low. Lack of education 13 3.08(1.12) 7 3.43(.79) 13 2.92(.86) 26 3.35(1.09) 33 3.12(1.19) 126 3.29(1.04) 19 2.95(1.03) 6 3.83(.75) .88 .53 and training. Incompatibility with company 13 3.23a(.73) 7 2.43(.98) 13 2.15a(.69) 26 2.42(.90) 33 2.52(.97) 126 2.70(.82) 19 2.42(.84) 6 2.67(1.21) 2.10 .04 culture. Lack of guidance from government 13 3.23(.83) 7 3.00(.00) 13 3.08(1.12) 26 3.42(90) 33 3.06(1.03) 126 3.11(.85) 19 3.11(.88) 6 4.33(.52) 2.03 .05 agencies. Owners do not support environmental 13 2.92(.95) 7 2.86(.90) 13 2.77(.93) 26 3.00(.80) 33 2.70(1.19) 126 3.08(.97) 19 3.05(1.03) 6 3.17(1.33) .71 .66 management in hotels. Lack of relevant policies for 13 3.38(1.04) 7 3.299(.76) 13 3.23(1.09) 26 3.38(1.06) 33 3.15(1.18) 126 3.32(1.01) 19 3.53(.77) 6 4.17(.75) .86 .54 sustainable tourism development. Lack of perceived 13 2.69(.86) 7 3.43(1.13) 13 2.92(1.04) 26 2.92(1.09) 33 2.58(.94) 126 2.94(.91) 19 3.21(.79) 6 3.33(.82) 1.49 .17 benefits. Insufficient physical 13 2.77(.73) 7 3.43(.98) 13 3.08(.95) 26 2.96(.96) 33 2.91(.88) 126 2.94(.88) 19 3.47(1.07) 6 3.83(.41) 1.98 .06 infrastructure.

Level of education High School Vocational Vocational Advanced Advanced Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Graduate Degree Certificate or Diploma in Diploma (in the Vocational Vocational Degree in Degree (in the less General Field Hotel and Diploma in Diploma (in the General Field Hotel and Tourism field) General field Hotel and Tourism field) Tourism field) N Mean N Mean N Mean N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) F Sig High cost of environmental 13 3.54(.97) 7 3.57(.98) 13 3.62(1.19) 26 3.23(.91) 33 3.24(1.00) 126 3.55(1.07) 19 3.42(.96) 6 3.67(.82) .62 .74 management practices. Managers do not have sufficient 13 3.15(.90) 7 3.14(.69) 13 3.15(1.14) 26 2.96(.87) 33 2.94(.90) 126 3.21(.88) 19 2.95(.97) 6 3.67(.52) .94 .48 knowledge. Complicated environmental 13 3.54(.97) 7 3.57(.98) 13 3.08(1.38) 26 3.31(1.01) 33 3.18(.98) 126 3.41(1.00) 19 3.11(.88) 6 4.00(1.10) .97 .46 management in hotels. Lack of equipment and facilities for 13 3.31(.86) 7 3.71(1.11) 13 3.46(1.05) 26 3.27(.92) 33 3.30(1.02) 126 3.42(.94) 19 3.37(.60) 6 3.67(1.03) .34 .93 environmental management. Environmental management in 13 3.31(1.25) 7 3.14(.69) 13 3.38(1.12) 26 3.23(.99) 33 3.27(.91) 126 3.43(.92) 19 3.32(1.11) 6 3.83(.75) .46 .86 hotels is not easy Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often 13 3.15(.90) 7 3.43(.76) 13 2.77(1.09) 26 3.27(.87) 33 3.15(.87) 126 3.26(.88) 19 3.11(.88) 6 3.00(.89) .71 .67 interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels. Lack of local experts in 13 2.92(.86) 7 3.00(.75) 13 3.15(.80) 26 3.46(.76) 33 3.36(.93) 126 3.41(.76) 19 3.26(.93) 6 3.17(.41) 1.11 .36 environmental practices. Lack of financial 13 3.15(.80) 7 3.57(1.13) 13 3.46(1.13) 26 3.35(.80) 33 3.52(.94) 126 3.43(.90) 19 3.47(1.02) 6 3.50(.55) .28 .96 resources. Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA procedure was conducted to explore whether social-demographic characteristics influenced the three factor barriers, namely: “lack of support,” “perceived difficulty” and “lack of demand.” This study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the three attitude dimensions regarding all social demographic characteristics. Table

29 shows the ANOVA results between social demographic characteristics and factor barriers.

Table 29 ANOVA - Social demographic characteristics and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Lack of Perceived Lack of Support Difficulty Demand N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) Gender Male 127 3.13(.78) 127 3.28(.77) 127 3.19(.60) Female 116 3.22(.62) 116 3.39(.72) 116 3.18(.49) F 1.04 1.47 .01 Sig .31 .23 .92

Age Younger than 35 119 3.19(.67) 119 3.37(.76) 119 3.17(.54) Older than 35 124 3.16(.74) 124 3.29(.74) 124 3.19(.56) F .08 .68 .07 Sig .77 .41 .79

Level of Education High School Certificate or less 13 3.05(.52) 13 3.39(.87) 13 3.00(.59) Vocational Diploma in General Field 7 3.38(.62) 7 3.36(.59) 7 3.36(.33) Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 13 3.03(.79) 13 3.31(1.01) 13 3.04(.66) Advanced Vocational Diploma in General field 26 3.21(.67) 26 3.18(.71) 26 3.22(.51) Advanced Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 33 3.02(.91) 33 3.16(.78) 33 3.14(.52) Bachelor’s Degree in General Field 126 3.20(.69) 126 3.40(.73) 126 3.22(.57) Bachelor’s Degree (in the Hotel and Tourism field) 19 3.12(.60) 19 3.20(.67) 19 3.04(.54) Graduate degree 6 3.69(.51) 6 3.79(.56) 6 3.39(.17) F .96 .97 .87 Sig .46 .45 .53

Household Income 10,000-15,000 Baht 31 3.18(.79) 31 3.27(.72) 31 3.10(.51) 15,000-20,000 Baht 74 3.20(.71) 74 3.39(.66) 74 3.27(.54) Over 20,000 Bahr 138 3.15(.69) 138 3.32(.80) 138 3.15(.56) F .12 .31 1.37 Sig .89 .73 .26 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

A Correlation analysis was used to describe the relationship between time spent working in the hotel industry and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. This was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. There were 19 barrier statements included in this study. The results presented that there was no statistical significance between time spent working in the hotel and barriers that prohibited hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. Table 30 shows the correlation between hotel experience and these barriers.

Table 30 Correlation - Hotel experience and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Pearson p-value r Lack of knowledge -.07 .26 Lack of support from owners .06 .36 Lack of support from employees .06 .52 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low .03 .62 Lack of education and training .05 .44 Incompatibility with company culture -.09 .15 Lack of guidance from government agencies .04 .51 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels .04 .58 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development .01 .83 Lack of perceived benefits .02 .81 Insufficient physical infrastructure .05 .48 High cost of environmental management practices -.06 .34 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge -.02 .75 Complicated environmental management in hotels -.05 .42 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management .05 .49 Environmental management in hotels is not easy -.10 .12 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in environmentally -.03 .69 friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices .08 .24 Lack of financial resources .08 .24

A Correlation analysis was used to describe the relationship between time spent working in the hotel and the three factor barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. This was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The results showed that there was no statistical significance between hotel experience and the three

factor barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices.

Table 31 shows the correlation between hotel experience and the factor barriers.

Table 31 Correlation - Hotel experience and three factor barriers

Pearson p-value r Lack of Support .06 .39 Perceived Difficulty .00 .64 Lack of Demand .08 .24

A correlation analysis was used to explain the relationship between hospitality experience

and barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. This

was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The results showed a strong positive

correlation between time spent working in the hospitality industry and the presence of barriers

that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. Experience in the

hospitality industry was positively and significantly related to a lack of education and training.

The results indicated that the longer hotel managers worked for the hospitality industry, the higher their level of agreement associated with “a lack of education and training.” Table 32 shows the correlation between hospitality experience and barriers.

Table 32 Correlation - Hospitality experiences and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Pearson p-value r Lack of knowledge -.06 .34 Lack of support from owners -.03 .61 Lack of support from employees -.09 .14 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low -.03 .64 Lack of education and training -.13 .05 Incompatibility with company culture -.12 .06 Lack of guidance from government agencies .03 .60 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels -.00 .98 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development -.08 .23 Lack of perceived benefits -.04 .54 Insufficient physical infrastructure -.03 .61 High cost of environmental management practices -.04 .51 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge -.05 .42 Complicated environmental management in hotels -.03 .70 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management .02 .79 Environmental management in hotels is not easy -.11 .09 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in environmentally .93 .01 friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices -.06 .39 Lack of financial resources .02 .77

This study used correlation analysis to describe the relationship between hospitality experience and the three factor barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices. It was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. There were three factor barriers included in this study. The results showed no statistical significance between experience in the hospitality industry and the three factor barriers. Table 33 shows the correlation between hospitality experience and the factor barriers.

Table 33 Correlation - Hospitality experience and three factor barriers

Pearson p-value r Lack of Support -.08 .25 Perceive Difficulty -.07 .26 Lack of Demand -.02 .72

An ANOVA was conducted to explore whether barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon ownership of the hotels. The results indicated that respondents who worked in chain hotels were more likely than those who worked in independent hotels to agree with the statements claiming that there was “a lack of support from owners,” “incompatibility with company culture,” and that “environmental management in hotels is not easy.” Table 34 shows the ANOVA results between hotel ownership and the barriers.

Table 34 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Independent Chain Hotel Hotel N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig Lack of knowledge 167 3.01(.97) 76 3.14(1.02) 1.04 .30 Lack of support from owners 167 2.90(.90) 76 3.18(.96) 5.08 .03 Lack of support from employees 167 3.08(.93) 76 3.09(1.04) .00 .95 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low 167 2.84(.82) 76 3.04(.87) 3.04 .08 Lack of education and training 167 3.15(1.09) 76 3.42(.94) 3.54 .06 Incompatibility with company culture 167 2.54(.89) 76 2.78(.81) 3.93 .05 Lack of guidance from government agencies 167 3.13(.94) 76 3.25(.79) .91 .34 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels 167 2.92(.95) 76 3.14(1.06) 2.81 .10 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development 167 3.31(1.09) 76 3.41(.85) .53 .47 Lack of perceived benefits 167 2.88(.96) 76 3.01(.90) 1.05 .31 Insufficient physical infrastructure 167 2.97(.98) 76 3.12(.73) 1.39 .24 High cost of environmental management practices 167 3.49(.98) 76 3.43(1.12 .13 .72 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 167 3.07(.88) 76 3.26(.90) 2.43 .12 Complicated environmental management in hotels 167 3.35(1.03) 76 3.36(.98) .00 .99 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management 167 3.43(.96) 76 3.32(.85) .81 .37 Environmental management in hotels is not easy 167 3.28(.97) 76 3.57(.90) 4.70 .03 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected 167 3.20(.88) 76 3.21(.90) .01 .92 hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 167 3.28(.81) 76 3.47(.74) 3.09 .08 Lack of financial resources 167 3.35(.83) 76 3.59(1.04) 3.69 .06 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

This study explored whether the three factors that prohibited hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon ownership of the hotels. This was done by conducting an ANOVA. The results revealed that respondents who worked in chain

hotels were more likely than those who work in independent hotels to agree that there was “a

lack of demand. “Table 35 shows the ANOVA results between hotel ownership and factor

barriers.

Table 35 ANOVA - Ownership of hotels and three factor barriers

Lack of Perceived Lack of Support Difficulty Demand N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) Independent Hotel 167 3.13(.71) 167 3.30(.74) 167 3.13(.54) Chain Hotel 76 3.26(.70) 76 3.40(.78) 76 3.29(.56) F 1.8 1.06 4.0 Sig .18 .31 .05 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

This study used an ANOVA to explore whether barriers that prohibited hotels from

implementing environmental sustainability practices differed depending upon the type of hotels.

This study showed that respondents who worked in “budget” hotels were more likely to agree

that there was “insufficient physical infrastructure” and that there were “managers who do not

have sufficient knowledge” than respondents who worked in the “upscale” or “mid-priced”

hotels. Respondents also revealed that those who worked in “mid-priced” and “budget” hotels

were more likely to agree that there was “complicated environmental management in hotels” than those who worked in “upscale” hotels. In addition, those who worked in “mid-priced” hotels were more likely to agree that “environmental management in hotels in not easy” than those who worked in “upscale” hotels. Table 36 shows the ANOVA results between hotel types and the barriers.

Table 36 ANOVA - Type of hotels and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practices

Upscale / Luxury Mid-priced Budget hotel hotel hotel N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig Lack of knowledge 100 3.01(1.17) 118 3.08(.87) 25 3.08(.64) .14 .87 Lack of support from owners 100 2.99(.99) 118 2.96(.94) 25 3.12(.53) .32 .73 Lack of support from employees 100 2.97(1.07) 118 3.18(.91) 25 3.12(.73) 1.28 .28 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is 100 2.87(.86) 118 2.90(.83) 25 3.04(.79) .41 .66 low Lack of education and training 100 3.26(1.15) 118 3.20(1.03) 25 3.28(.68) .10 .90 Incompatibility with company culture 100 2.67(.88) 118 2.53(.90) 25 2.76(.66) 1.06 .35 Lack of guidance from government agencies 100 3.12(.86) 118 3.27(.94) 25 2.88(.78) 2.24 .11 Owners do not support environmental 100 2.95(1.08) 118 3.00(.99) 25 3.08(.57) .19 .83 management in hotels Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism 100 3.33(.97) 118 3.30(1.10) 25 3.56(.77) .70 .50 development Lack of perceived benefits 100 2.84(1.02) 118 2.96(.92) 25 3.08(.64) .82 .44 Insufficient physical infrastructure 100 2.86a(.98) 118 3.04b(.85) 25 3.52a,b(.71) 5.57 <.001 High cost of environmental management 100 3.42(1.05) 118 3.43(1.00) 25 3.84(1.03) 1.84 .16 practices Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 100 3.04c(.91) 118 3.11d(.90) 25 3.60c,d(.58) 4.13 .02 Complicated environmental management in 100 3.12e,f(1.02) 118 3.45e(.98) 25 3.84f(.90) 6.35 <.001 hotels Lack of equipment and facilities for 100 3.40(.91) 118 3.35(.99) 25 3.60(.65) .77 .47 environmental management Environmental management in hotels is not 100 3.13g(1.03) 118 3.54g(.86) 25 3.52(.87) 5.59 <.001 easy Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in 100 3.27(.89) 118 3.14(.91) 25 3.20(.76) .55 .58 environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 100 3.30(.82) 118 3.35(.80) 25 3.48(.65) .52 .60 Lack of financial resources 100 3.43(.97) 118 3.38(.87) 25 3.64(.81) .85 .43 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

This study used ANOVA to examine three factor barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices that differed depending upon type of hotel.

The findings showed that respondents who worked in “budget” hotels were more likely to agree with “perceived difficulty” than respondents who worked in “upscale” hotels. Table 37 shows the ANOVA results between hotel types and the factor barriers.

Table 37 ANOVA - Types of hotels and three factor barriers

Lack of Perceived Lack of support Difficulty demand N Mean N Mean N Mean Upscale / Luxury hotel 100 3.15(.78) 100 3.18a(.77) 100 3.17(.54) Mid-priced hotel 118 3.16(.70) 118 3.38(.72) 118 3.19(.58) Budget hotel 25 3.29(.33) 25 3.70a(.65) 25 3.22(.41) F .42 5.62 .10 Sig .66 <.001 .90 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Identical superscripts indicate significant differences.

This study used an ANOVA to explore whether barriers that prohibited the hotels from

implementing environmental sustainability practices were influenced by the years in which the

hotels were built. There were 19 barrier statements included in this study. Six of them showed

statistical difference. The results indicated that hotel managers who worked for the hotels built

before the tsunami were more likely to agree that “there is a lack of support from owners,”

“consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low,” “there is incompatibility with company

culture,” “there is a lack of guidance from government agencies,” “there is a lack of relevant

policies for sustainable tourism development,” “there is insufficient physical infrastructure,” and

“there are managers who do not have sufficient knowledge,” than those who worked for the

hotels built after the tsunami. Table 38 shows the results of the ANOVA between the years the

hotels were built and the barriers.

Table 38 ANOVA – The years the hotels were built and barriers that prohibit hotel managers from implementing environmental sustainability practice

After the Before the tsunami tsunami N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) F Sig Lack of knowledge 53 3.13(.94) 190 3.03(.99) .48 .49 Lack of support from owners 53 2.75(.85) 190 3.05(.94) 4.36 .04 Lack of support from employees 53 2.91(.79) 190 3.14(1.00) 2.39 .12 The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low 53 2.70(.80) 190 2.96(.84) 4.04 .05 Lack of education and training 53 3.36(1.11) 190 3.20(1.03) .95 .33 Incompatibility with company culture 53 2.32(.87) 190 2.69(.86) 7.85 .01 Lack of guidance from government agencies 53 2.91(.90) 190 3.24(.88) 5.97 .02 Owners do not support environmental management in hotels 53 2.83(1.12) 190 3.03(.95) 1.72 .19 Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development 53 3.00(1.19) 190 3.43(.95) 7.67 .01 Lack of perceived benefits 53 3.08(1.05) 190 2.88(.90) 1.82 .18 Insufficient physical infrastructure 53 2.75(.94) 190 3.09(.89) 5.73 .02 High cost of environmental management practices 53 3.51(1.05) 190 3.46(1.02) .10 .75 Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 53 2.89(1.05) 190 3.20(.83) 5.2 .02 Complicated environmental management in hotels 53 3.38(1.18) 190 3.35(.96) .04 .85 Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management 53 3.26(1.08) 190 3.43(.88) 1.35 .25 Environmental management in hotels is not easy 53 3.42(.87) 190 3.36(.98) .15 .70 Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested in environmentally friendly practices in selected 53 3.17(1.03) 190 3.21(.84) .09 .77 hotels Lack of local experts in environmental practices 53 3.21(.82) 190 3.38(.79) 1.94 .17 Lack of financial resources 53 3.23(.89) 190 3.48(.90) 3.41 .07 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

An ANOVA was conducted to investigate whether three factor barriers that prohibited hotels from implementing environmental sustainability practices were influenced by the years the hotels were built. The findings showed that there was no statistical significance in any factor barriers. Table 39 shows the ANOVA results between the years the hotels were built and factor barriers.

Table 39 ANOVA - The years the hotels were built and three factor barriers

Lack of Perceived Lack of Support Difficulty Demand N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) After the tsunami 53 3.02(.63) 53 3.30(.85) 53 3.06(.65) Before the tsunami 190 3.21(.72) 190 3.34(.72) 190 3.22(.51) F 3.18 .14 3.58 Sig .08 .71 .06 Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Environmental sustainability practices implemented by Phuket hotel managers

The analysis of environmental management practices carried out by Phuket hotel managers was conducted as a frequency analysis. 21 items were included in this study. Overall, the study showed the results of both performance and importance with regards to the hotel managers’ participation in environmental sustainability practices. The study also noted the practices that hotel managers view as most important. The most widely used environmental management practice was reported as “planting live plants on the property for clean air.” The mean score of the Phuket hotel managers with regards to producing clean air was 4.39, followed by sorting waste in guest rooms, offices, and kitchens (4.13) and using energy-efficient equipment (4.07). The mean scores in the study showed least participation in distributing leaflets to encourage guests to save energy (2.98) and donating used hotel furniture and equipment

(2.99).

In addition, this study showed how hotel managers ranked the importance of environmental management. The most important environmental management practice found in the study was planting live plants on the property for clean air. The mean score of the Phuket hotel manager views of the importance of environmental management in planting live plants on the property for clean air was 4.65, followed by using energy-efficient equipment (4.53), and 78 sorting waste in guest rooms, offices, and kitchens (4.53). The mean scores showed that the least importance was given to donating used/unused toiletries (3.52) and donating used hotel furniture and equipment (3.59). Table 40 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for the 21 attributes in terms of performance and importance.

Table 40 Frequency analysis - Environmental management practices by Phuket hotel managers

Participation N Performance Importance Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Using energy-efficient lighting 243 4.04(0.74) 4.53(0.64) Using energy-efficient equipment 243 4.07(0.70) 4.51(0.67) Distributing leaflets to encourage guests to save energy 243 2.98(1.10) 3.70(1.01) Using water efficient fixtures 243 3.81(0.89) 4.35(0.77) Encouraging guests to reuse towels 243 3.29(1.31) 3.95(1.11) Sorting waste in guest rooms, offices and kitchens 243 4.13(1.01) 4.53(0.74) Donating leftover, good, quality food 243 3.14(1.15) 3.70(1.00) Donating used hotel furniture and equipment 243 2.99(1.14) 3.59(1.06) Using soap and shampoo dispensers in guest rooms 243 4.02(0.96) 4.28(0.76) Recycling waste materials (cardboard, paper, cans, plastics, glass etc.) 243 4.06(1.01) 4.42(0.73) Creating a paperless policy, including electronic software or systems 243 3.52(0.98) 4.11(0.87) Using a non-smoking policy throughout the property for indoor air quality 243 3.83(1.07) 4.41(0.77) Using dual-flush toilets 243 3.72(1.13) 4.26(0.79) Using low-flow shower heads or sink aerators 243 3.42(1.03) 4.14(0.79) Using eco-friendly cleaning products 243 3.70(0.80) 4.20(0.80) Encouraging guests to be eco-friendly 243 3.81(1.03) 4.35(0.80) Using automatic electric shut off systems 243 3.73(1.02) 4.22(0.77) Disposal of kitchen wastes in an eco-friendly manner 243 3.96(1.02) 4.38(0.77) Planting live plants on property for clean air 243 4.39(0.80) 4.65(0.58) Donating used/ unused toiletries 243 3.18(1.01) 3.52(0.93) Resale of used hotel furniture and equipment 243 3.56(1.05) 3.78(0.97) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale, with performance ranging from 1= not participating to 5= fully participating and importance ranked from 1= unimportant to 5= extremely important.

A frequency analysis was used to explore environmental sustainability practices. The 21 attributes studied were divided into 4 dimensions, including “energy efficiency,” “water conservation,” “waste management” and “clean air.” In terms of “energy efficient,” Phuket hotel managers paid attention to energy-efficient lighting (M=4.07) and energy-efficient equipment

(M=4.04). In terms of “water conservation,” the study found that Phuket hotel managers were concerned with water efficient fixtures (M=3.81) followed by dual-flush toilets (M=3.72). In

79 terms of “waste management,” sorting waste in guest rooms, offices and kitchens (M=4.13) were the most common practices in Phuket hotels, followed by recycling waste materials (cardboard, paper, cans, plastics, glass etc.) (M=4.06). In terms of “clean air,” Phuket hotel managers participated the most by planting live plants on their property (M= 4.39), followed by their non- smoking policy (M=3.83).

Furthermore, this study presented how hotel managers ranked the importance of the 4 dimensions. In terms of “energy efficiency,” Phuket hotel managers supported using energy- efficient equipment (M=4.53) and using energy-efficient lighting (M=4.51). In terms of “water conservation,” the most important practices were use of water efficient fixtures (M=4.35) and using dual-flush toilets (M=4.26). In terms of “waste management,” the top priority was sorting waste in guest rooms, offices and kitchens (M=4.53), followed by recycling waste materials

(cardboard, paper, cans, plastics, glass etc.) (M=4.42). In term of “clean air,” the most important practices were planting live plants (M=4.65) and using a non-smoking policy throughout the property (M=4.41). Table 41 presents the means and standard deviations for the 4 dimensions of environmental sustainability practices.

Table 41 Frequency analysis – Four dimensions of environmental management practices by Phuket hotel managers

N Performance Importance Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Energy efficiency Using energy-efficient lighting 243 4.07(0.70) 4.51(0.67) Using energy-efficient equipment 243 4.04(0.74) 4.53(0.64) Using automatic electric shut off systems 243 3.73(1.02) 4.22(0.77) Distributing leaflets to encourage guests to save energy 243 2.98(1.10) 3.70(1.01) Water conservation Using water efficient fixtures 243 3.81(0.89) 4.35(0.77) Encouraging guests to reuse towels 243 3.29(1.31) 3.95(1.11) Using low-flow shower heads or sink aerators 243 3.42(1.03) 4.14(0.79) Using dual-flush toilets 243 3.72(1.13) 4.26(0.79) Waste management Sorting waste in guest rooms, offices and kitchens 243 4.13(1.01) 4.53(0.74) Donating leftover, good, quality food 243 3.14(1.15) 3.70(1.00) Donating used hotel furniture and equipment 243 2.99(1.14) 3.59(1.06) Using soap and shampoo dispensers in guest rooms 243 4.02(0.96) 4.28(0.76) Encouraging guests to be eco-friendly 243 3.81(1.03) 4.35(0.80) Resale of used hotel furniture and equipment 243 3.56(1.05) 3.78(0.97) Creating a paperless policy, including electronic software or systems 243 3.52(0.98) 4.11(0.87) Donating used/ unused toiletries 243 3.18(1.01) 3.52(0.93) Recycling waste materials (cardboard, paper, cans, plastics, glass etc.) 243 4.06(1.01) 4.42(0.73) Disposal of kitchen wastes in an eco-friendly manner 243 3.96(1.02) 4.38(0.77) Using eco-friendly cleaning products 243 3.70(0.80) 4.20(0.80) Clean air Planting live plants on property for clean air 243 4.39(0.80) 4.65(0.58) Using a non-smoking policy throughout the property for indoor air quality 243 3.83(1.07) 4.41(0.77) Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale, with performance ranging from 1= not participating to 5= fully participating and Importance ranked from 1= unimportant to 5= extremely important.

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine environmental sustainability practices from hotel managers’ attitudes. The implications of the analyzed data are discussed in this chapter.

The study’s limitations and possible future research are also considered.

Discussion

Phuket hotel manager attitudes towards environmental sustainability practices

Overall, respondents in this study have a positive attitude toward the environment. They supported the NEP scale, which measures the relationship between humans and the environment.

To better understand Phuket hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices, this study included the results from the exploratory factor analysis. The set of 15 items of NEP (Dunlap et al, 2000) of previous research presented the result in four dimensions. This study found similar results on the first dimension to both previous studies. However, this study found only two new dimensions instead of four factors (as previous research had before). The new dimensions are “Preserved Nature” and “Controlled Nature.” Nevertheless, the study of

NEP may have varied interpretations because the results are mainly based on internal consistency, and different populations have different attitudes toward NEP (Dunlap et al. 2000).

Furthermore, this can imply that Phuket hotel managers view the environment as being overused by humans, needing to be preserved by them. Also, their attitudes may be interpreted as

82 indicating a better environment is necessary for human beings, and that people need to learn how to control it.

Previous research demonstrated a positive attitude toward environmental sustainability practices (Bohdanowicz, 2005, 2006; Kasim 2009; Kirk, 1995; Butler, 2008). The respondents of this study showed a similar attitude toward environmental sustainability practices, such as: “It should be part of the hotel operation,” “It contributes to safety and healthy work for employees,” and “The hotel should support local conservation efforts.”

With regard to factor attitudes (operational management, social obligation, and sustainability strategy and policy), this study found that sustainability strategy and policy were the variables having the most impact when hotel managers implemented environmental sustainability practices. These findings support previous research showing the first step toward environmental management is the formation of environmental policy (Chung & Parker, 2008).

Social demographics and hotel manager attitudes towards environmental sustainability practices

Social demographic characteristics influenced hotel manager attitudes toward environment sustainability practices. Age and household income are critical factors in determining whether hotel managers become involved with environmental management. In previous studies (Accury and Christiansan, 1990; Straughan, 1999 & Robert, 1996) researchers revealed that age is related to environmental sustainability practices. However, the study by

Accury and Christiansan (1990) states that younger people tend to be more involved in environmental programs than older people. This study produced a different result showing respondents older than 35 pay more attention to environmental management than those younger

than 35. Regarding household income, the study by Accury and Christiansan (1990) explained

respondents who have higher incomes possess more environmental concerns than those with

lower incomes. This study produced similar results, as respondents with high incomes more

concerned with environmental management than those with low incomes. It also showed age and household income are important factors for Phuket hotel managers regarding the implementation of environmental sustainability practices; the income of hotel managers tends to increase with age, and the rise of both factors seems to correlate with an increased implementation of

environmental sustainability practices.

Hotel manager experience and attitude towards environment sustainability practices

The influence of hotel manager experience was found to have positive statistical

significance for environmental sustainability practices. This study found managers with more

hotel experience have a more positive attitude toward environmental management. The results

show that hotel managers who have a longer history working in a hotel will see environmental

sustainability practices in hotels as more important. They believe environmental management

will increase the market value of the hotel and contribute to safety and healthy work for

employees. This is a critical issue because it shows that the more experience they have, the more

they are concerned about environmental sustainability practices. In addition, managers who have

a lot of hotel experience think that sustainability strategy and policy is important.

Other hospitality experience outside the hotel industry also correlates positively with

hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices. The results reveal that the

longer the respondents work in the hospitality industry, the more they are concerned with

84 environmental sustainability practices. It is interesting to note that those who had several years of hospitality experience had been working in many fields, so their attitudes toward environmental sustainability may have been broader than those who had less experience. This study found that positive attitudes about increased market value, supporting local conservation efforts, environmental policy, and contributing safe and healthy work for employees, are necessary to implement environmental sustainability practices. In terms of factor attitudes, managers who work longer in the hospitality industry view sustainability strategy and policy as important. As

Banerjee, Oyer, and Kashyap (2003) have explained, senior managers are usually responsible for managing a firm’s environmental orientation and strategy. Thus, it can be concluded that Phuket hotel managers believe that having workable sustainability strategy and policy can help their hotels raise their environmental standards.

Furthermore, the year a hotel is built can be part of the decision-making process for implementing environmental management in hotels. This study classifies hotels built before 2004 as built before the tsunami, and the other hotels as built after the tsunami. It is possible those hotels that were built after the tsunami have managers who are aware of environmental concerns when they build new hotels. Of the respondents, those who worked in hotels built after the tsunami expressed the belief that environmental management is needed to support local conservation efforts.

This study indicates that respondents who worked in hotels that were impacted by the tsunami think environmental sustainability practices are important when compared to respondents who work in hotels not impacted by the tsunami. Respondents who work in hotels

impacted by the tsunami strongly agree that environmental management should be part of hotel

operation, that it helps hotels obtain a good image and reputation, that it diminishes the environmental impact of the hotel, and so on. It is interesting to note that respondents who work in hotels impacted by the tsunami believe that operational management, social obligation, and sustainability strategy and policy are important considerations in an environmental program.

Hotel managers are aware of the tsunami and its impact on the environment in the Phuket region.

The type of hotels, and hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices

In their study of Spanish hotels, Gil et al. (2002) claimed the main factors that affect hotel environmental sustainability practices are their size, their chain affiliation and age of their facilities. This study also explored the link between environmental management, hotel size, and ownership. In a previous study in Europe, Bohdanowicz (2005) exposed the fact that hotel size has a positive effect on environmental sustainability practices. This study reached a similar conclusion: that chain hotels are more concerned with environmental sustainability practices than independent hotels. Specifically, chain hotels are concerned with the issue of market value and their hotels’ negative effect on the environment. Additionally, with regard to attitudes about individual factors, this study revealed chain hotels are more concerned with sustainability strategy and policy than independent hotels. With regard to European hoteliers, Bohdanowicz

(2005) claimed more chain hotels considered increases in environmental policies than independent hotels. Their findings were similar to those of this study. This correspondence implies that the Phuket hotel managers who work in chain hotels consider sustainability strategy and policy essential aspects of broader hotel policy.

Not only does the ownership of the hotels influence hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices, but hotel type is also a factor. The type of hotel is one of the most investigated characteristics regarding environmental sustainability practices in the hotel industry. Previous studies have obtained results similar to those of this study when investigating attitudes toward environmental sustainability practices (Kirk, 1998). The previous research claims that hotels classified from three to five stars are more likely to support environmental management than small hotels. This research supports the results of this study indicating upscale or mid-priced hotels are more focused on environmental sustainability practices than budget hotels. Upscale and mid-priced hotels were found to be concerned with their market value and with local conservation efforts. The review from Chung and Parker (2008) claims that research into environmental policy provides mixed evidence. Some studies reported a positive relationship between environmental policy and hotel size, while other reports have found no relation between the two variables. With regard to attitudes about individual factors, upscale or mid-priced hotels are very similar in sustainability strategy and policy as opposed to budget hotels.

Barriers that prohibit hotels from implementing environmental practices

The reasons that hotel managers encountered barriers when trying to implement environmental sustainability practices were high costs, a lack of financial resources, and a lack of equipment and facilities. In his study of China, Graci (2010) identifies many barriers to sustainability similar to those found in this study. Additionally, Kirkland and Thomas (1999) stated barriers to sustainability include not only problems with costs but also a lack of proper

87 financing. Of the three factors studied—lack of support, perceived difficulty, and lack of demand—the most important barrier was found to be a lack of demand.

The influence of barriers to environmental sustainability practices was found to be significant with regard to social demographic characteristics. It was interesting to note the results found statistical differences in gender, age, and level of education. However, there was no statistically significant difference in household income. The findings of this study lead to the conclusion that in terms of gender, females are more likely than males to agree that hotel managers do not have sufficient knowledge of sustainability practices. It is possible that Phuket hotel managers responsible for environmental practices are male, since females are statistically less likely to get involved. In terms of age, respondents younger than 35 were more likely to agree that sustainability was incompatible with company culture than respondents older than 35.

This may occur because of management style and cultural respect. Younger employees need to respect older employees, and sometimes older employees do not agree with the decisions of their younger coworkers. In terms of education level, those who had low levels of education were more likely to agree that sustainability practices were incompatible with company culture than those with high levels of education. This can imply that hotel managers with less education might not think hotels need to implement environmental practices..

Experience in the hospitality industry can be an influential factor that prevents hotels from implementing environmental practices. It was found that hotel managers who have more experience working in hospitality think that the main barrier to implementing environmental practices is a lack of education and training. This finding may support the previous studies of

China, in which Graci (2010) explained that without resources, many accommodations do not know how to begin sustainability practices. It could there is a high turnover rate in the hotel industry which leads to a loss of information, skill, and expertise in the properties.

This study found the type of hotel is another factor that influences hotel managers when deploying environmental sustainability practices. The study revealed that budget hotels have insufficient physical infrastructure and insufficient knowledge to be as sustainable as the more expensive hotels. It supported previous research indicating low-budget and smaller hotels may not have the ability to commit to environmental sustainability practices because of cost requirements and a lack of resources. Furthermore, environmental management in hotels is not easy to implement, and this difficulty is the main barrier for budget and mid-priced hotels.

Considering the factor barriers (lack of support, perceived difficulty, and a lack of demand), findings indicate budget hotels perceived difficulty as the main barrier to implementing environmental sustainability practices. Budget hotels do not have sufficient resources or guidelines for implementing environmental sustainability.

The type of hotel is not the only factor that makes many hotels ignore environmental sustainability practices; the ownership of the hotel is also a factor. The results indicated chain hotels are more likely to encounter barriers than independent hotels. The study found barriers for chain hotels included: a lack of support from owners, incompatibility with company culture, and a belief that environmental management is not easy. Regarding factor barriers, chain hotels were especially susceptible to a lack of customer demand. It is more difficult for chain hotels to implement environmental sustainability practices than independent hotels, because the mean of the three barriers encountered for chain hotels is higher than that of independent hotels.

Specifically, lack of demand is the barrier with the highest average across all chain hotels.

Studies show that many hotels have been pressured by consumers, experts, academics, and governments (Chan, 2008; Graci, 2010; Kirkland & Thompson, 1999). It is interesting to note that even chain hotels still encounter barriers when implementing environmental sustainability practices. It may be that hotel managers in these chain hotels are sensitive to the environment, or these chain hotels might have their own policy, instead of using corporate policy.

The influence of the tsunami of 2004 was found to be significant on the hotels affected with regard to environmental sustainability practices. After the tsunami, many organizations became aware of the environment. The hotel sector is one industry that was faced with disaster from the tsunami. In the wake of the destruction, many new or existing hotels began paying attention to the sustainability of their properties. Before the tsunami, few hotels were concerned with environmental sustainability practices. It is no surprise this study found hotels impacted by the tsunami were faced with more barriers than hotels not impacted by the tsunami. The results revealed that hotels built before the tsunami found the barriers they faced to be a lack of support from owners, low consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels, an incompatibility with company culture, a lack of guidance from government agencies, a lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development, and so on. It can be inferred that hotels built before the tsunami were old, and many old hotels do not have the space to expand in order to implement sustainability practices. Also, the government does not strictly regulate hotels to force the implementation of environmental sustainability practices. In addition, without support from the government, owners or managers of hotels might not have sufficient knowledge of environmental sustainability practices, which results in the absence of environmental sustainability practices in their hotels.

Environmental sustainability practices implemented by Phuket hotel managers

Energy-, water- and waste-related issues are widespread environmental challenges among

hotels. Many practices that attempt to address these challenges have been identified in previous

studies that deal with these environmental issues (Bohdanowicz, 2006; Kirk, 1996; & Houdre,

2008). Their findings reveal that attaining clean air (by planting live plants) was the most common environmental action in place in Phuket hotels. Few articles address the importance of planting live plants as a strategy in hotels. In a study of hotels in the greater Accra region,

Mensah (2006) presented a similar result: hotels in Ghana also pay attention to environmental

health and sanitation. The study showed most hotel managers view environmental management as placing plants and flowers throughout their hotels, often as decorations. However, Mensah’s study argued this was a narrow view of environmental management and should not be considered a long-term strategy. On the other hand, in a study of hotels in Hong Kong, Chan and Lam

(2002) suggested tree planting should be given more attention for reducing pollution in hotels.

Additionally, the Phuket study found, in terms of waste management, hotels are sorting waste in guest rooms, offices, and kitchens. It revealed that hotels are a large consumer of goods and this consumption results in concerns about their waste management. Previous studies have shown hotels become involved in waste management programs based on regional and national government support (Erdogan & Baris, 2007). Bohdanowicz (2006) reported that Swedish hotels participate in waste sorting practices in offices and kitchens. However, in Phuket’s study, respondents reported their involvement in responsible waste sorting practices focused not only on offices and kitchens but also on guest rooms. The study in Turkey showed the percentage of the types of hotels that state that waste sorting is most common for large hotels.

Another interesting finding of this study is that many Phuket hotels participate by using energy-efficient equipment. Previous studies paid attention to these issues as well because of an increase in market share (Bohdanowicz, 2006) and cost savings that result from using energy- efficient devices (Mensah, 2006). Evidence shows that Hyatt Regency International Hotel in

New Zealand saves $14,000 annually because of energy efficiency projects (Alexander, 2002).

This study found that Phuket hotel managers reported using energy-efficient lighting as the second most important energy-saving practice.

Although, in terms of water conservation, the Phuket study found that while Phuket hotels support this practice, they are still focused on water-efficient fixtures. The cost might be why Phuket hotels were not supportive of water conservation. However, the study of

Bohdanowicz (2006) stated using water-efficient fixtures in hotels can reduce the amount of water used.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Phuket hotel managers pay little attention to distributing leaflets to encourage guests to be environmentally aware. This oversight might be due to a lack of guidance or policy from the owners. Previous research supported the idea that hotels are less likely to provide leaflets that describe their saving methods (Bohdanowicz, 2006;

Erdogan & Baris, 2007). In the Bohdanowicz (2006) study, Swedish and Polish hotels claimed

Polish hotels have low leaflet publishing numbers as well. Bohdanowicz (2006) further explained that placement of any information in the hotel room may make the guests uncomfortable and be perceived as an intrusion of privacy. Respondents also emphasized that

donating used/unused toiletries is less important to them than the other environmental

management techniques mentioned.

Implications

According to the survey, the results of this study will be useful to hotel managers. The

findings shed light on the attitudes of hotel managers toward environmental sustainability

practices. First, it is necessary to know how hotel managers perceive environmental

sustainability practices in order to help them realize the importance of sustainability practices

and motivate them to implement sustainability practices in their hotels.

Second, it is beneficial for hotel owners and managers to keep in mind that implementing environmental sustainability practices increases the market value of their properties, which will allow the hotels to attract new customers. In addition, the results of this study will help hotel

managers explain the impact of environmental sustainability practices with reference to hotel size and type, the social demographic characteristics and experience level of managers, and the age of the hotels.

Third, the study found that hotel manager attitudes are positively related to environmental sustainability practices. The survey results demonstrated that hotel manager concerns for policy, employees, and local conservation efforts are more important than their desire to improve company profitability. This can motivate employees who are willing to implement sustainability practices. Also, it is a guideline for hotel managers to decide which strategies are suitable for environmental policy in their hotels, since these findings show that hotel manager attitudes have

a positive relationship to sustainability strategy and policy. In order to bring sustainability to

93 hotels, it is necessary to have written policy guidelines for the implementation of environmental sustainability practices.

Fourth, in order to make hotels more sustainable, several barriers need to be overcome.

The main barriers hotel managers encounter are lack of finances and resources. The government needs to work with hotel associations to implement sustainability practices, especially on behalf of budget hotels, because these types of hotels do not have the resources of large hotels. In addition, the government and hotels should have joint responsibility for providing environmental training programs or certificate programs for hotel managers to set an example of how environmental sustainability practices can be achieved. The training should cover energy conservation, water conservation, waste management, clean air, the benefits of implementing environmental practices, and how to create environmental policy (Mensah, 2006). Such information will inform hotel managers and help them implement environmental sustainability practices.

Lastly, this research has found that Phuket hotel managers did not participate in water conservation practices. This may be due to the fact that Phuket hotels are not aware that a lack of water is the main problem in their area. They might not see the potential benefits of using water- efficient equipment. Water management is necessary for hotels because of the large amount of water used in guest rooms, kitchens, swimming pools, laundries, and gardens. Hotels should pay attention to water efficiency efforts; this will reduce their bills and help the environment by reducing their water consumption.

Conclusion

This study explored hotel manager attitudes toward environmental sustainability

practices. Environmental sustainability practices are a growing area of concern for tourism and the hotel industry in Phuket. They have been widely accepted in the hotel industry and are becoming a critical strategy for many hotels. This study explored hotel manager attitudes in an attempt to identify whether or not their attitudes influence environmental sustainability practices.

The study results revealed that Phuket hotel managers showed positive attitudes toward

environmental sustainability practices. It is apparent that Phuket hotel managers’ awareness of

sustainability concerns is increasing.

This study obtained results that differed from those of previous research. In terms of

NEP, two new factors were found: Preserved Nature and Controlled Nature. In terms of

environmental attitudes and barriers, three new factors were found: operational management,

social obligation, sustainability strategy and policy. Three new barrier factors were also found:

lack of support, perceived difficulty, and lack of demand. The study concludes that Phuket hotel

managers are aware of the importance of the environment and what is needed to preserve it.

They think that environmental sustainability is good in theory; however, there are still many

barriers to overcome before they can implement the necessary changes.

This study also indicated that some social demographic characteristics, such as the type

and ownership status of hotels, the years the hotels were built, their managers’ experience in the

hotel and hospitality industries, and the relative impact on the hotels of a recent tsunami, have an

influence on environmental sustainability practices. Therefore, Phuket hotel managers need to

95 pay attention to these aspects when they decide to implement environmental sustainability practices.

Although the results of this study show that Phuket hotel managers participate in some environmental sustainability practices, they are still faced with barriers to further participation, namely a lack of education and training, a lack of customer demand, high investment costs, and a lack of equipment and facilities. The results of this study provide further understanding of the barriers that prevent the implementation of environmental practices in Phuket. In order to move toward sustainability, it is necessary to understand the main barriers that hotel managers encounter both from the government and the hotels themselves, as well at the fact that the barriers can be removed. Also, social demographic characteristics—type and ownership status of hotels, the years the hotels were built, and their own hotel and hospitality industry experience— affect hotel manager decisions to implement environmentally sustainable practices.

The study also explored environmental sustainability practices in hotels to identify those currently participating in environmental practices. Phuket hotel managers participate in many of the same sustainability practices as other countries, as mentioned before; however, hotels in different regions also implement unique practices to suit their own locations. The results show that Phuket hotel managers consider air purification, waste management, and energy efficiency to be important elements of sustainable hotel operation. However, results suggest that Phuket hotel managers should pay close attention to water conservation as well. The implementation of environmental practices can improve hotels’ images and reduce their impact on the environment, resulting in a positive reputation for the Phuket hotel industry.

Limitations and Future Research

Several research limitations were found in this study. First, this study collected data from

hotel managers only in Phuket, Thailand. As such, the findings of this study may not be

applicable to hotels in other areas. Second, it was further observed that large numbers of

respondents owned or managed independent hotels, with most of them being mid-priced hotels.

This may cause a limitation in some statistical tests because of unequal hotel sizes. Third, this

study targeted hotel managers as sample populations; however, the respondents to this study used

the departments’ supervisors as a sample population as well. This may cause an inconsistency in

the results of this study. Finally, this study focused on four dimensions: energy efficiency, water

conservation, waste management, and air purification. Other environmental practices are beyond

the scope of this study.

Future research may need to concern itself with the attitudes of hotel managers,

employees, customers, and local residents regarding environmental policy in order to further

determine the environmental practices in hotels. Also, future studies can further explore local respondent attitudes toward green hotels or further investigate their attitudes toward social responsibility. Future research may need to compare the operations of hotels that have a green certificate with those that do not. Furthermore, it will be necessary to analyze other areas and other industries in Thailand, since this research is limited only to one of the country’s regions.

Important performance analysis (IPA) is also an interesting area for future study.

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION)

I am at least 18 years of age and completing this anonymous survey constitutes my informed consent

Environmental sustainability practices survey

In this study, I am interested in understanding hotel managers’ attitudes of environmental sustainability management.

Part A: The listed statements below concern the relationship between humans and environment. Please circle the number representing your views on the following statements.

1=strongly disagree 5=strongly agree 1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Humans do not have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 1 2 3 4 5 3. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Human ingenuity will not insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Humans are severely abusing the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Plants and animals do not have as much right as humans to exist. 1 2 3 4 5 8. The balance of nature is not strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern 1 2 3 4 5 industrial nations. 9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still not subject to the laws of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has not been greatly 1 2 3 4 5 exaggerated. 11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Humans were not meant to rule over the rest of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Human will never acquire enough knowledge to control nature. 1 2 3 4 5 15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major 1 2 3 4 5 ecological catastrophe.

Part B: The following is a set of statements related to your feelings and thoughts about the environmental management practices in hotels. Please circle the number representing your views on the following statements.

I believe that… 1=strongly disagree 5=strongly agree 1. All businesses have to be involved in fulfilling social obligations. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Environmental management must be a part of the hotel operation. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Environmental management will reduce operation costs. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Environmental management will help us have a more positive image and 1 2 3 4 5 reputation.

I believe that… 1=strongly disagree 5=strongly agree 5. Environmental management will diminish the environmental impacts of the hotel. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Environmental management will increase the market value of the hotel. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Hotel should support local conservation efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 8. An environmental impact should be considered when deciding company policy. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Hotel activities have a negative effect on the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Environmental management improves employee motivation and production. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Environmental management can give hotels access to a new market. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Environmental management contributes to safety and healthy work for 1 2 3 4 5 employees.

Part C: The following is a set of statements related to environmental practices in your hotel. Please circle the number representing your views on the following statements. Please make additional comments below.

Currently, your hotel is: 1= Not participating 1=Unimportant 5. Fully Participating 5. Extremely important 1.Using energy-efficient lighting 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. Using energy-efficient equipment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. Distributing leaflets to encourage guests to save energy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. Using water efficient fixtures 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Encouraging guests to reuse towels 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. Sorting waste in guest rooms, offices and kitchens 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. Donating leftover, good, quality food 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Donating used hotel furniture and equipment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. Using soap and shampoo dispensers in guest rooms 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Recycling waste materials (cardboard, paper, cans, 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 plastics, glass etc.) 11. Creating a paperless policy, including electronic software 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 or systems 12. Using a non-smoking policy throughout the property for 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 indoor air quality 13. Using dual-flush toilets 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Using low-flow shower heads or sink aerators 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15.Using eco-friendly cleaning products 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 16. Encouraging guests to be eco-friendly 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. Using automatic electric shut off systems 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. Disposal of kitchen wastes in an eco-friendly manner 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

100

Currently, your hotel is 1= Not Participating 1=Unimportant 5. Fully Participating 5. Extremely Important 19. Planting live plants on property for clean air 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. Donating used/ unused toiletries 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. Resale of used hotel furniture and equipment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Comments______

Part D: The following is a set of statements related to barriers to environmental management practices in your hotel. Please circle the number representing your views on the following statements.

Environmental management practices can be influenced by: 1=Strongly disagree 5=Strongly agree 1. Lack of knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 2. Lack of support from owners 1 2 3 4 5 3. Lack of support from employees 1 2 3 4 5 4. The consumer demand for eco-friendly hotels is low 1 2 3 4 5 5. Lack of education and training 1 2 3 4 5 6. Incompatibility with company culture 1 2 3 4 5 7. Lack of guidance from government agencies 1 2 3 4 5 8. Owners do not support environmental management in hotels 1 2 3 4 5 9. Lack of relevant policies for sustainable tourism development 1 2 3 4 5 10. Lack of perceived benefits 1 2 3 4 5 11. Insufficient physical infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 12. High cost of environmental management practices 1 2 3 4 5 13. Managers do not have sufficient knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 14. Complicated environmental management in hotels 1 2 3 4 5 15. Lack of equipment and facilities for environmental management 1 2 3 4 5 16. Environmental management in hotels is not easy 1 2 3 4 5 17. Intermediaries (i.e., tour operators, travel agencies, etc.) are not often interested 1 2 3 4 5 in environmentally friendly practices in selected hotels 18. Lack of local experts in environmental practices 1 2 3 4 5 19. Lack of financial resources 1 2 3 4 5 20. Other barriers, please specify:______1 2 3 4 5

101

Part E: Please tell me about yourself

1. Gender: □ Male □ Female

2. Age: □ 20 – 25 □ 26 – 30 □ 31 – 35 □ over 35 years old

3. Level of Education: □ High School Certificate or less □ Vocational Diploma in General Field □ Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) □ Advanced Vocational Diploma in General field □ Advanced Vocational Diploma (in the Hotel and Tourism field) □ Bachelor’s Degree in General Field □ Bachelor’s Degree (in the Hotel and Tourism field) □ Graduate Degree______

4. Average monthly salary: □ 5,000-10,000 Baht □ 10,001-15,000 Baht □15,001-20,000 Baht □ Over 20,000 Baht

5. How long have you worked for this hotel? ______

6. How long have you worked in the hospitality industry? ______

7. What is your current position at your hotel? ______

8. Have you ever worked for a property that practiced “sustainability” programs? □Yes, If yes, How Long______, Where______□ No

9. Please describe the type of ownership of your hotel. □ Independent Hotel □ Chain Hotel □ Franchised Hotel

10. Please describe the type of your hotel. □ Upscale / Luxury hotel □ Mid-priced hotel □ Budget hotel

11. When was your hotel built? ______

12. How many rooms do you have in your hotels? ______

13. Was your hotel impacted by the 2004 Tsunami? ______

If so, how much damage did you sustain? ______

Comments and Suggestions ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

102

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT (THAI VERSION)

103

ผูตอบแบบสอบถามนี้ควรมีอาย18ุ ปขึ้นไปและยินยอมใหขอมูลตามรายละเอียดดังที่กลาวมา

แบบสอบถาม การสํารวจความคิดเห็นเกี่ยวกับทัศนคติของผูจัดการโรงแรมที่มีตอการจัดการสิ่งแวดลอม กรณีศึกษา โรงแรมใน จังหวัดภูเก็ต (Environmental sustainability practices)

สวน A: รายละเอียดแตละขอขางลางน ี้ เกี่ยวของกับความสัมพันธระหวางมนุษยและสิ่งแวดลอม กรุณาวงกลมหมายเลขที่ตรงกับระดับความคิดเห็นของทาน

ระดับความคดเหิ ็น : 1 = ไมเห็นดวย 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากทสุดี่

1.พวกเรากําลังเขาใกลการจํากัดของจํานวนประชากรที่โลกเราจะสามารถรองรับได  1 2 3 4 5 2.มนุษยไมมีสิทธ์ในการปริ ับเปล่ยนสภาพแวดลี อมทางธรรมชาติเพ่อใหื เหมาะสมกับความตอ 1 2 3 4 5 งการของพวกเขา 1 2 3 4 5 3. เมื่อมนุษยไดเขาไปยุงเกี่ยวกับธรรมชาต ิ ภัยพิบัติจะเปนผลที่เกิดขึ้นตามมา

4. ความเฉลียวฉลาดของมนุษยจะเปนสิ่งที่ไมสามรถร บรองไดั วา พวกเขาจะไมทํารายโลก 1 2 3 4 5 5. มนุษยกําลังใชสิ่งแวดลอมในทางที่ผิดอยางมหันต  1 2 3 4 5 6. โลกจะมทรี พยากรธรรมชาตั ิมากมาย ถาพวกเราเรียนรูที่จะนําไปใช  1 2 3 4 5 7. พืชและสัตวไม มีสิทธิ์เทาๆกันกับมนุษยในการที่จะมีชีวิตอย ู 1 2 3 4 5 8. ความสมดุลของธรรมชาตินันม้ ีไมมากเพียงพอท่จะรี ับมือกับผลกระทบของอุตสาหกรรม 1 2 3 4 5 สมัยใหมจากคนในประเทศ 9. ถึงแมวามนษยุ จะมความสามารถพี ิเศษ แตไมสามรถที่จะควบคมกฎของธรรมชาตุ ดไดิ  1 2 3 4 5 10. “วิกฤตของระบบนิเวศน” ที่มนุษยชาติกําลงเผชั ิญอยูนั้นมนไมั มากเกินความเปนจริง 1 2 3 4 5 11. โลกเหมือนยานอวกาศที่มีพื้นที่วางและทรัพยากรที่อยางจ ํากัด 1 2 3 4 5 12. มนุษยไมมีความตั้งใจที่จะครอบครองธรรมชาติที่เหลืออยูทั้งหมด 1 2 3 4 5 13.ความสมดุลของธรรมชาติมีความละเอียดออนอย างมากและงายตอการทจะเกี่ ิดปญ หาท ี่ 1 2 3 4 5 คาดไมถึง 14. มนุษยจะมความรี ูไมเพยงพอที ี่จะควบคุมธรรมชาต ิ 1 2 3 4 5 15. ถาส่งติ างๆดําเนินตอไปอยางน้ในชี วงเวลาปจจุบันเราจะประสบกับความหายนะ 1 2 3 4 5 ที่เกี่ยวกับระบบนิเวศน 

สวน B: รายละเอียดแตละขอขางลางนี้เกี่ยวของกับความรูสึกและความคิดเห็นเกี่ยวกับวิธีการปฏิบัติที่มีตอ การจัดการดานสิ่งแวดลอมในโรงแรม กรุณาวงกลมหมายเลขที่ตรงกับระดับความคิดเห็นของทาน

ผม/ฉัน เชื่อวา.....ระดับความคดเหิ ็น : 1 = ไมเห็นดวย 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากทสุด่ี

1.ธุรกิจทุกชนิดตองเขาไปเติมเต็มในหนาที่และความรับผิดชอบที่มีตอสังคม 1 2 3 4 5 2. การจดการทางดั านสิ่งแวดลอมต องเปนสวนหนึ่งของการปฏิบัติการในโรงแรม 1 2 3 4 5 3. การจดการทางดั านสิ่งแวดลอมจะช วยลดตนท ุนการดําเนินงาน 1 2 3 4 5 4. การจดการทางดั านสิ่งแวดลอมจะช วยใหพวกเรามีภาพลักษณและชื่อเสยงที ี่ดี 1 2 3 4 5 5. การจดการทางดั านสิ่งแวดลอมท ําใหผลกระทบทางดานส งแวดลิ่ อมที่มีตอโรงแรมลดลง 1 2 3 4 5 6. การจดการทางดั านสิ่งแวดลอมจะช วยเพิ่มมลคู าทางการตลาดของโรงแรม 1 2 3 4 5

104

ผม/ฉัน เชื่อวา...... ระดับความคิดเห็น : 1 = ไมเห็นดวย 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากท่สุดี

7. โรงแรมควรจะสนับสนุนความพยายามในการอนุรักษทองถิ่น 1 2 3 4 5 8. ผลกระทบทางดานส่งแวดลิ อมควรจะถ ูกนํามาพิจารณาเมื่อมีการตดสั ินใจในนโยบาย 1 2 3 4 5 ของบริษัท 9. กิจกรรมของโรงแรมมีผลกระทบในดานลบตอสภาพแวดลอม 1 2 3 4 5 10. การจัดการทางดานส ิ่งแวดลอมจะเพิ่มแรงจูงใจของพนกงานในการทั ํางาน 1 2 3 4 5 11. การจัดการดานสิ่งแวดลอมสามารถเพิ่มการเขาถึงตลาดใหมๆใหกับทางโรงแรม 1 2 3 4 5 12. การจัดการดานสิ่งแวดลอมชวยสงเสริมในเรื่องสุขภาพและความปลอดภัยของพนักงาน 1 2 3 4 5

สวน C: รายละเอียดแตละขอขางลางนี้ เกี่ยวของกับวิธีการปฏิบัติทางดานสิ่งแวดลอมในโรงแรม กรุณาวงกลมหมายเลขที่ตรงกับระดับการมีสวนรวมหรอความสื ําคัญ

ในเวลาน ้ี โรงแรมของทาน ระดับความคิดเห็น : การมีสวนรวม ความสําคัญ 1 = ไมเห็นดวย/สําคัญ 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากที่สุด 1.ใชพลังงานจากแสงไฟอยางมีประสิทธภาพิ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. ใชอุปกรณที่ประหยัดพลังงาน 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. แจกใบปลิวเพื่อกระตุนผูมาเขาพัก เพื่อเปนการประหยดพลั ังงาน 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. ใชอุปกรณทีประหย่ ัดน้ํา 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

5. เชิญชวนแขกที่มาเขาพักในเรื่องการนําผาขนหน ูกลับมาใชซ้ํา 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. แยกประเภทของขยะในหองพักแขก สํานกงานั และในครัว 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. บริจาคอาหารที่เหลือทาน สิ่งของเหลือใช  และอาหารที่มีคุณภาพ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. บริจาคเฟอรนิเจอรและอุปกรณตกแตงโรงแรมที่ใชแลว 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. ใชสบ ูหรือแชมพูที่ใหไวในหองพักแขกแบบชนิดเติม 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. รีไซเคิลขยะ เชน กลองกระดาษ,กระปอง, พลาสติก, แกว ฯลฯ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. สรางนโยบายไรกระดาษ รวมถึง ระบบซฟแวริ หรืออิเล็กทรอนิกส  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. ใชนโยบายหามสูบบหรุ ี่เพอคื่ ุณภาพอากาศที่ดีภายในสถานท ี่ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. การใชอุปกรณโถสวมแบบประหย ัดน้ํา 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. การใชฝกบวแบบแรงดั ันนาน้ํ อย 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. การใชสินคาท ี่รักษสิ่งแวดลอม 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 16. สงเสรมแขกทิ ี่มาเขาพักใหเปนมิตรกับสงแวดลิ่ อม 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. การใชระบบป ดเครื่องใชไฟฟาแบบอัตโนมัติ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. การกําจัดขยะในครัวในวิธีแบบรักษาสิ่งแวดลอม 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. ปลูกตนไมเพื่อสรางคุณภาพอากาศภายในสถานท ี่ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

105

ในเวลาน ้ี โรงแรมของทาน : ระดับความคิดเห็น : การมีสวนรวม ความสําคัญ 1 = ไมเห็นดวย/สําคัญ 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากที่สุด 20. บริจาคอุปกรณทําความท่ใชี / เหลือใช  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. นําอุปกรณและเฟอรนิเจอรทีใช่ แลวมาขาย 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

ขอเสนอแนะ______

สวน D: รายละเอียดแตละขอขางลางนี้เกี่ยวของกับอุปสรรคในวิธีการปฏิบัติตอการจัดการดานสงแวดลิ่ อม ในโรงแรม กรุณาวงกลมหมายเลขที่ตรงกับระดับความคิดเห็นของทาน

วิธีการปฏิบัติตอการจัดการดานสิ่งแวดลอมถูกจํากัดโดย ระดับความคิดเห็น : 1 = ไมเห็นดวย 2 = นอย 3 = ปานกลาง 4 = มาก 5 = มากที่สุด 1. ขาดความรความเขู าใจเกี่ยวกับการจัดการดานส ิ่งแวดลอม 1 2 3 4 5 2. ขาดการสนบสนั ุนจากเจาของกิจการอยางจริงจัง 1 2 3 4 5 3. ขาดการสนับสนุนจากพนักงาน 1 2 3 4 5 4. ความตองการของลูกคาในโรงแรมที่เกี่ยวกบการปฏั ิบัติที่เปนมิตรกับสิ่งแวดลอมมีนอย 1 2 3 4 5 5. ขาดการการฝกอบรมและใหความร ู 1 2 3 4 5 6. การเขากันไมไดของวัฒนธรรมในองคกร 1 2 3 4 5 7. ขาดการประชาสัมพันธและขอเสนอแนะจากหนวยงานของรัฐ 1 2 3 4 5 8. เจาของกิจการไมใหความสน ับสนุนในเรื่องสิ่งแวดลอมในโรงแรม 1 2 3 4 5 9. นโยบายที่เกยวขี่ องกับการพัฒนาการทองเที่ยวแบบยั่งยนมื ีไมเพียงพอ 1 2 3 4 5 10. ผลประโยชนที่ไดรับไมมีประสทธิ ภาพพออิ ันจะนําไปสูการพัฒนาได  1 2 3 4 5 11. ขาดโครงสรางพื้นฐานทางกายภาพ 1 2 3 4 5 12. งบประมาณในการดาเนํ ินงานสูง 1 2 3 4 5 13 .ผูจัดการมความรี ูไมเพียงพอ 1 2 3 4 5 14 .การจัดการสิ่งแวดลอมในโรมแรมมีความยุงยากซับซอน 1 2 3 4 5 15 .ขาดอุปกรณและเครื่องอํานวยความสะดวกในการดําเนินงาน 1 2 3 4 5 16. การจัดการดานสิ่งแวดลอมยากทจะดี่ าเนํ ินการ 1 2 3 4 5 17. ขาดการใหความร วมม ือหรอสนื ับสนุนจากหนวยงานที่เกี่ยวของ เชน 1 2 3 4 5 ไกดหรือบริษัททัวรเปนตน 18. ขาดบุคคลากรในทองถิ่นที่มีความสามารถในการเปนผูนํา 1 2 3 4 5 19. ขาดงบประมาณในการดาเนํ ินงาน 1 2 3 4 5 20. อื่นๆ โปรดระบ______ุ 1 2 3 4 5

106

สวน E: ขอมูลพื้นฐานของผูตอบแบบสอบถาม 1. เพศ □ชาย □ หญิง 2. อาย ุ □ 20 – 25 ป □ 26 – 30 ป □ 31 – 35 ป □ มากกวา 36 ป 3. ระดับการศึกษาสูงสุด □ มัธยมศกษาึ หรือ ต่ํากวา □ ประกาศนียบัตรวิชาชีพสาขาอื่น ๆ (ป.ว.ช.) □ ประกาศนียบัตรวิชาชีพสาขาการโรงแรมและการทองเที่ยว (ป.ว.ช.) □ ประกาศนียบัตรวิชาชีพสาขาอื่น ๆ (ป.ว.ส.) □ ประกาศนียบัตรวิชาชีพสาขาการโรงแรมและการทองเที่ยว (ป.ว.ส.) □ ปริญญาตรีสาขาอื่นๆ □ ปริญญาตรีสาขาการโรงแรมแลวการทองเที่ยว □ ปริญญาบัณฑิต______4. รายไดตอเดือนโดยเฉลี่ย □5,000-10,000 บาท □ 10,001-15,000 บาท □15,001-20,000 บาท □ มากกวา 20,000 บาท 5. ทานทํางานที่โรงแรมแหงนี้เปนระยะเวลาเทาไหร  ______6. ทานทํางานในอุตสาหกรรมบริการเปนระยะเวลาเท าไหร  ______7. ตําแหนงปจจุบันของทานที่โรงแรมแหงนี้คือ ______8. ทานเคยทํางานในสถานที่ที่มีการพัฒนาแบบยั่งยืนหรือไม  (sustainability) □ เคย ถาใชระยะเวลาเทาไหร______, ที่ไหน______□ ไมเคย 9. โปรดระบุประเภทของโรงแรมที่ทานทํางาน □ โรงแรมอิสระ □ โรงแรมเชน □โรงแรมแบบเฟรนไชน  10. โปรดระบุชนิดของโรงแรมที่ทานทํางาน. □ แบบหรูหรา □ แบบราคาปานกลาง □ แบบราคาประหยัด 11. โรงแรมแหงนี้สรางขึ้นเมื่อไหร______ 12. จํานวนหองในโรงแรม______13.โรงแรมไดรับผลกระทบจาก ซินาม ิ เมอปื่  พ.ศ. 2547 หรือไม  ______ถาใช, เสียหายเปนจํานวนเทาไหร______

ขอเสนอแนะ หรือ คําแนะนํา______ขอบคุณทุกทานที่ใหความรวมมือ

107

APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL

108

109

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Process, 50, 179-211.

Alexander, S. (2002). Green Hotel: Opportunity and resources for success. Zero Waste Alliance,

2-9.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ). Boston : McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Arcury, T.A., & Christianson, E.H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to

environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment Behavior, 22,

(3), 387-407.

Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environment Planning and

Management, 43(2), 235-252.

Bader, E. E. (2005). Sustainable hotel business practices. Journal of retail & Leisure Property,

5(1), 70-77.

Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably” A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable

development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.

Beaches. (2008, September). Thailand supplement, 14-17. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=112&sid=3fd7a131-

286e-499b-b3d4-a06ef5393de8%40sessionmgr112

Becken, S., Frampton, C., & Simmons, D. (2001). Energy consumption patterns in the

accommodation sector-the New Zealand case. Ecological Economics, 39, 371-386.

110

Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations

from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management

Studies, 38(4), 489-513.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2005). European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46, 188-204.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish

hotel industries-survey result. Hospitality Management, 25, 662-682.

Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Sustainable hotels- environmental reporting according to green globe

21, green globe Canada/Gem UK, IHEI benchmark hotel and Hilton environmental

reporting. The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, September.

Brown, B. J., Hanson, M. E., Liverman, D. M., & Merideth, R. W. (1987). Global sustainability:

Toward definition. Environmental Management, 11(6). 713-719.

Bulter, J. (2008). The Compelling: Hard Case” for green hotel development. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 49, 234-244.

Catasús, B., Lundgren, M., & Rynnel, H. (1997). Environmental managers’ views on

environmental work in a business context. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6,

197-205.

Chan, E. S. W. (2008). Barriers to EMS in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 27, 187-196.

Chan, W. W., & Lam, J. C. (2002). Prediction of pollution emission through electricity

consumption by the hotel industry in Hong Kong. Hospitality Management, 21, 381-391.

111

Chung, L. H., Parker, L. D. (2008). Integrating hotel environmental strategies with management

Control: A structuration Approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 272-286.

Claver-Cortes, E., Molina-Arizon, J., Perrira-Moloner, J., & Lopez-Gamero, M. D. (2007).

Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 15(6), 663-679.

Costanza, R., & Patteb, B.C. (1995). Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological

Economic, 15, 193-196.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organization as interpretation system.

Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295

Deng, S. (2003). Energy and water use and their performance explanatory indicators in hotels in

Hong Kong. Energy and Building, 35, 775-784.

Deng, S, & Burnett, J. (2007). A study of energy performance of hotel building in Hong Kong.

Energy and Building, 31, 7-12.

Department of Tourism. (2006). Tourism statistics. Retrieved Feuruary4, 2011 from

http://tourism.go.th/2010/th/home/index.php

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D. \, Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring Endorsement

of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social issues, 56(3),

425-442.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130-141.

Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainability and human resources management: reasoning and applications

on corporate websites. European Journal International Management, 3(4), 419-438.

112

Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., & De Groot, R. (2003). A framework for the

practical application of the concept of critical natural and strong sustainability.

Ecological Economics, 44, 165-185.

Erdogan, N., & Baris, E. (2007), Environmental protection programs and conservation practices

of hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism management, 28, 604-614.

Filho, L. W. (2000). Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International

Journal of sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 9-19.

Filed, A. (1999). Clean air at night. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

40(1), 60-67.

Fielding K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behavior, identity and

intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology ,28

318-326.

Gil, M. A., Jimenez. J. B., & Lorente J. C. (2001). An analysis of environmental management,

organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29, 457-471.

Globadian, A., Viney, H., Liu, J., & Jamoes, P. (1998). Extending liners approaches to mapping

environmental behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(13), 13-23.

Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2005). The relationships between top management demographic

characteristic, rational decision making, environmental munificence, and firm

performance. Organization Studies, 26, 999-1023.

Goodland R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual review of Ecological

systematic, 26, 1-24.

113

Goodland R., & Daly, H. (1995). Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-negotiable.

Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1002-1017.

Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing in services in service operations at Scandic hotels.

Sustainability Business, 30(3), 202-214.

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, O. (2006). A review of determinant factors of

environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 87–102.

Gossling. S. (2002). Global environment consequences of tourism. Global Environment Change,

12, 283-302.

Graci, S. (2008). Why go green? The business case for environmental commitment in the

Canadian hotel industry. An international Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research,

19(2), 251-270.

Green Leaf Foundation. (2009). Retrieved March , 2010 from

http://www.greenleafthai.org/en/green_found/

Haleblian, J. Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance and firm

performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy

of Management Journal, 36(4), 844-863.

Handerson, J. C. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in Phuket,

Thailand, after the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Hospitality Management, 26, 228-239.

Harte, M. J. (1995). Ecological, sustainability, and environment as capital. Ecological

Economics, 15, 157-164.

Houdre, H. (2008). Sustainable Development in the hotel industry. Cornell Industry Perspective,

2, 4-20.

114

Hobson, K., Essex, S. (2001). Sustainable tourism: A view from accommodation business. The

Service Industry Journal, 21(4), 133-146.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & Brien,G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different

approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52.

Inyang, H. I., Schwarz, P. M., & Mbamalu, G. E. (2009). Sustaining sustainability: Approaches

and contexts. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3687-1689.

Kasim, A. (2007).Corporate environmentalism in the hotel sector: Evidence of drivers and

barriers in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 680-699.

Kasim, A. (2007). Toward a wider adoption of environmental responsible in the hotel sector.

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(2), 25-49.

Kasim, A. (2009). Managerial attitudes towards environmental management among small and

medium hotels in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 709-725.

Keiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-9.

Keiser, F. G., Oerke, B., Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude:

Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environment, 27, 242-251.

Kirk. D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 7(6), 3-8.

Kirk, D. (1998). Attitude to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in

Edinburgh. Hospitality Management, 17, 33-47.

Kirkland, L., & Thompson, D. (1999). Challenges in designing implementing and operating an

environment system. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 128-143.

115

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and

what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,

8(3), 239-259.

Kontogeorgopoulous, N. (2003). Keeping up with the Joneses: Tourists, traveler, and the quest

for cultural authenticity in southern Thailand. Tourism Studies, 2, 171-203.

Kontogeorgopoulous, N. (2004). Conventional tourism and ecotourism in Phuket, Thailand:

Conflicting paradigm or symbiotic partners? Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2), 87-108.

Kontogeorgopoulous, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga,

Thailand: Partial victories and bittersweet remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

13(1), 4-21.

Kuo, N. W., Chiang, H. C. &Chiang, C.M. (2008). Development and implication of an integrated

indoor air quality audit to an international hotel building in Taiwan. Environment

Monitor Assessment, 147, 139-147

Liamsanguan, C., & Gheewala, S. H. (2008). LCA: A decision support tool for environmental

assessment of MSW management system. Journal of Environmental Management, 87,

132-138

Mausah, P., & Prideaux, (2003). Sustainable tourism: A role for Kenya’s hotel industry. Current

Issues in Tourism, 6(3), 197-208.

Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and concept review.

Environmental impact Assessment Review, 18, 493-520.

Mensah, I. (2006a). Environmental management practices among hotels in the grater Accra

region. Hospitality Management, 25, 414-431.

116

Ministry of tourism and sports. (2009). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from

http://www.mots.go.th/more_news.php?cid=184&filename=index___EN

Molina-Azorin, J. F., Claver-Cortes, E., Perira-Moliner, P., & Tari, J. J. (2009). Environmental

practices and firms performance: An empirical analysis in the Spain hotel industry.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 516-524.

National statistical office. (2006). Thailand population. Retrieved Feuruary3, 2011 from

http://www.dopa.go.th/TH/service.php

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (2008). Gross Regional and

Provincial Products. Retrieved July 17, 2010 from

http://www.nesdb.go.th/Default.aspx?tabid=96

Office of Tourism Development. (2007). Tourists arrivals in Thailand. Retrieved May 17, 2010

from http://www.tourism.go.th/2009/th/statistic/tourism.php?cid=12

Phuket Tourist Information. (2008) Retrieved May 17, 2010 from

http://www.phuketland.com/phuket_links/touristinfo.htm

Pichon, L. (1996). Environmental Management for Hotels. ( 2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-

Hieinemann.

Reopanichkul, P., Catter, R.W., Worachananant, S., & and Crossland, C.J. (2010). Waste

discharge degrades coastal waters and reef communities in southern Thailand. Marine

Environmental Research, 69, 287-296.

Roberts J. A. (1996). Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising,

Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231.

117

Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., Khazian, A. K. (2004). Implicit connections with

nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42.

Sclon, N. L. (2007). An analysis and assessment of environmental operating practices in hotel

and resort properties. Hospitality Management, 26, 711-723.

Scollo, M., Lal, A., Hyland, A., & Glantz, S. (2003). Review of the quality of studies on the

economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 12,

13-20.

Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitude and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey.

Environment and Behavior, 26, 239-260.

Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of

corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4),

681-797.

Sigala, M. & Leslie, D. (2005). International cultural tourism: management, implications and

cases. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Hieinemann.

Sloan , P., Legrand, W., Chen, J. S. ( 2004). Factors influencing German Hoteliers’ attitudes

toward environmental management. Advances in the Hospitality and Leisure, 1, 179-188.

Stipanuk, M. D. (2002). Hospitality Facilities Management and Design. (2nd ed.). Lasing: MI,

Education Institute of American Hotel & Lodging Association.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal

of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

118

Straughan, R. D., Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green

consumer behavior in the new millennium. The Journal of Consumer marketing, 16(6),

558.

Thai website. (2008). Thailand Tourist Arrivals from 1998 until recently. A downturn from the

end of 2008. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.thaiwebsites.com/tourism.asp

Tourism Authority of Thailand. (2007). Destination guide section. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from

http://www.tourismthailand.org/destination-guide/phuket-83-1-1.html

Tourism Authority of Thailand. (2008). Phuket section. Retrieved July 3, 2010 from

http://www.amazingthailand.co.in/explore_thailand/phuket_tourism.aspx

Trung, D. N. & Kumar, S. (2005). Resources use and waste management in Vietnam hotel

industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 109-116.

Webster, K. (2000). Environmental Management in the Hospitality Industry. Cassell: Wellington

House, London.

Webster, D. (2006). Supporting sustainable development in Thailand: A geographic cluster

approach. Geographic Cluster Project. NESDB-World Bank.

World Tourism Organization. (2001) Tourism 2020 vision. Madrid; Spain: World Tourism

Organization.

Zutshi, A., & Dohal, A. S. (2004). Adoption and maintenance of environmental management

systems. Management of Environment Quality, 15(4), 399-419.

119