Comparing ecotourist‘s general environ-mental beliefs and general ecological behaviour to other groups of tourists Silvia Wurzinger Department of Environmental Psychology Lund Institute of Technology Box 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden E-mail: Silvia.Wurzinger@gmx.at

Ecotourism contrary nature tourism is related to a natural area is sustainable supports local people includes a learning element admiring of nature and culture considers ethical aspects is small-scale (WTO und UNEP, 2002) Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Ecotourism contrary nature tourism is related to a natural area has not to include further elements (e.g., sustainability) (Weaver, 2001) Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Aim Are ecotourists really more „eco“? A comparison of general environmental beliefs and general ecological behaviour between ecotourists, nature tourists and a group of city and spa tourists Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Sample (N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females) Ecotourists (N = 43): 2-4 days „package-holiday“ including ecotourism label „Nature‘s Best“ Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Sample (N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females) 2. Nature tourists (N = 124): Participants of 2-4 hours long lasting guided tours in a nature reserve Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Sample (N = 245, mean age 47, 53% females) 3. City and spa tourists (N = 78): Trips for 2 to 4 days to Stockholm or Gothenburg or to a spa Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

General Environmental beliefs Revised New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) Reality of limits to growth Anti-Anthropocentrism Fragility of nature‘s balance Rejection of exemptionalism Possibility of an ecocrisis Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Result Revised New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, et al., 2000) Cronbach’s Alpha = .72 Mean Difference between the groups and linearity significant, F(2, 240) = 7.73, p = .001 and F(1, 240) = 15.46, p = .000 resp. Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Water and power conservation Consumer behaviour General ecological behaviour General Ecological Behaviour Scale (Kaiser, 1998) Garbage removal Garbage inhibition Water and power conservation Consumer behaviour Nature protection activities Automobile use Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Result General Ecological Behaviour Scale (Kaiser, 1998) Cronbach’s Alpha = .72 Mean Difference between the groups significant, F(2, 241) = 21.86, p = .000; However, ecotourists and nature tourists do not differ! Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Conclusions Compared to city and spa tourists ecotourists seem to be really more „eco“! However, compared to nature tourists the difference seems to be not so clear in general ecological behaviour Introduction Method and Results Conclusions

Thank you very much for your attention!