The Responses of Responsible Tourists: Limitations and Gaps in Prosocial Consumer Research
Petra Zabukovec Baruca
University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, Portorož, Slovenia petra.zabukovec@fts.upr.si
Aleksandra Brezovec
University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, Portorož, Slovenia petra.zabukovec@fts.upr.si
This article is based on the concept of responsibility in tourism from the perspective of the tourist. The aim of this paper is the consideration of the question of the suitability of responsible consumer behaviour, which is gaining in importance in the context of sustainable tourism development. Modern forms of responsibility in tourism (e.g. sustainable tourism, ethical tourism, eco-tourism, green tourism) have emerged as responses of tourism stakeholders in global economic, social and environmental issues since the turn of the millennium Such forms of tourism coming to the fore are taking responsibility for the impacts that tourism has on the social, economic and natural environments (Goodwin & Pender, 2005). Changes have always been an intrinsic part of human evolution, and in the modern world changes occur ever more rapidly. The tourist is the key actor in the network of tourism. This conceptual paper is based on an overview of scientific literature and a comparison between various concepts derived from empirical studies of responsible consumer behaviour.
Keywords: tourist, responsibility, prosocial consumer, consumer behaviour, sustainable tourism.
Introduction and Literature Review
of the millennium, the competitiveness and environment-friendly models of sustainable development have been widely studied, both from international and tourist location perspectives and from a micro-level within the scope of companies (Dw-yer, 2005). With the ever-growing co-dependency of the world, both in the sense of phenomena and relations, and on a systemic and institutional level (Sassen, 2007), international organizations quickly have quickly grown into a global organization, which implemented global rules of conduct in tourism (Urry, 2001). Several documents were created that promote sustainable development and responsibility in tourism on a global level. One of these is Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) and the Global Ethics Codex (WTO, 2005). Other supporters of these principles and
Tourism, in essence, is a primary economic industry, dependent on natural, cultural and other aspects of the environment. Its development has both positive and negative effects on the environment and society. Mihalič (2006) highlighted the paradox of tourism development, which shows its economic dependency on the quality of the environment on one hand and its destruction of the environment on the other. It appears that the development of tourism and the preservation of the environment are not compatible concepts but still their integration is paramount for the implementation of sustainable tourism development and the desire for tourism to remain competitive in the long-term by fulfilling economic, socio-cultural and environmental goals. Since the turn
rights are numerous government and nongovernment tourist organizations and institutions, e.g. the UN, Greenpeace, UNWTO, the International Centre for Responsible Tourism, and others. Such common programs and policies are effective tools for the reduction of the negative effects of tourism and the increase of positive effects on the economy, society and environment (UNEP, 2009)
This trend is also followed by tourist companies, which frequently implement responsible practices in relation to their stakeholders and the environment. Business practices have established the concept of sustainability in measuring the effects, by using the triple bottom line (TBL) approach of three sustaina-bility pillars: economy, environment and society (El-kington, 1997). Another widely established model is that of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (OECD, 2001).
The key to the desired systemic changes is the individuals and the joint power of responsibility. Changes have been an intrinsic part of human evolution and in the modern world changes occur ever more rapidly. In the network of tourism, the tourist is the key actor; the tourist is also the modern consumer according to Urry (1995) and is linked to aesthetic cosmopolitanism, characterized by an interest in places, people and cultures as well as the ability to positively evaluate and accept all that is different (Urry, 1995), which is the foundation of responsibility awareness in tourism. In post-modern marketing theory, the discourse of a new consumer is identified by characteristics that describe the consumer as an integral person who expresses their view of the world and global social problems with their purchases (Jančič, 1999).
Despite different names of models and practices, the terms "responsibility" and "sustainability" appear in the context of connected or equal evaluations that are re-established by post-modern society with its mainly liberal rules. Modern capitalism places importance on the individual as well as on the benefit and well-being of a greater number of people. (Harris, 2002). Harris emphasizes: "If we act in a way that our actions benefit as many people as possible, we will contribute to the improvement of the world" (2002). Similarly, Holden (2003) places the task of the sustainable tourism development on people and the natural environment, democracy and "bottom-up"
planning. This reflects the approach of the responsibility for the preservation of the sustainable state of the tourist system, which is necessary for the existence and development of tourism on a higher level of quality.
The wider research field of responsible consumerism shows the use of different terms that stem from empirical research on responsible consumers in relation to sustainable tourism development. The research is focused on environmental and ecological aspects (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Bratt, 1999; Van Vugt 2001; Ebreo et al., 1999; Matthies et al., 2006) as well as social and cultural aspects (Howard & Sheit, 1969). The responsible consumer is identified as a prosocial consumer, determined by their responsibility and concern about the influence of consumerism on the environment and society. The literature mentions terms such as "socially-aware consumers" (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972), "environment-friendly consumers" (Tucker, 1980; Minton & Rose, 1997; Kalafa-tis et al., 1999), "green consumers" (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Wagner, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999), "environmentally responsible consumers" (Tucker, 1980; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Follows & Jobber, 2000; Laroche et al., 2002), "socially responsible consumers" (Andreson & Cunningham 1972; Webster 1975; Roberts 1995; Laroche et al., 2001) and "ethical consumers" (Strong, 1996; Shaw & Clarke, 1999; Carrig-an & Attalla, 2001). The constant behind these terms is "responsibility", which is often linked to the terms "ethical" and "moral". In essence, the term "responsibility" includes a wider meaning that references the obligation to do something. The individual takes on the moral responsibility for their own behaviour; this separates the term "responsibility" from the concept of sustainable tourism, since identifying the responsibility of the consumer follows the definition relating to the awareness, decision and activities that support the fulfilment of sustainable tourism (Tourism Sustainability Group - TGP, 2012; Mihalič, 2013). On this basis, the "responsibility" of a consumer in tourism can be defined as their "duty to do something" about the negative effects of tourism and to influence positive change. This definition is similar to Goodwin's (2002) in that it summarizes the essence of responsibility in tourism with the idea that all forms of tourism can be organized and implemented in a responsible manner.
At the same time, however, responsible tourism is not an absolute concept. It is a fact that consumers can be responsible in different ways. This awareness of responsibility in tourism is predicated on different consumer motives and practices that reduce the negative effects of tourism at different levels of intensity. These findings support the thesis that the response of society in the context of global awareness is reflected in consumers themselves and their shift to responsibility.
The need for a response is apparent in consumers of tourism as well, because they are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibility for social and cultural problems, and they have a responsible attitude towards them (Mihalič, 1993; Urry, 1995; Shaw & Clarke, 1999; Harrison et al., 2005). Research findings show that consumers express their responsible attitudes via a positive view of green practices of companies and their products and services (Jančič, 2002). They also demand socially responsible practices on the part of companies and tourist destinations (Miller, 2001; Weeden, 2002). The pressure of consumers that are interested in both the price/quality ratio and the production background of the services and products has been an influence on the rising importance of the social responsibility of business subjects that implement socially responsible practices in relation to their stakeholders and the environment (Juhard & Golob, 2011). When researching the responsibility of consumers, it is important to take into account their response that is shown in actively implementing responsible initiatives. These are realized with a reduction of negative influences on the environment, e.g. by using environmentally friendly transportation, waste recycling, the reduction in the use of natural resources, etc. (Ebreo et al., 1999; Matthies et al., 2006). There are also more radical approaches that are shown by the refusal to purchase tourist services because of unethical behaviour and/or approaches of tourist companies. This group of consumers is known as "healthy and sustainability-friendly consumers" (Ray & Anderson, 2000). It is proven that the goodwill of responsible consumers toward positive practices is shown in the purchase of more expensive products and services that are aligned with their own personal views, values and ethical principles (Cowe & Williams, 2000). The report of the international relief and development charity Tearfund
(2002), which engages in ending poverty and injustice in some of the communities in the world, states that tourists are willing to accept increasing responsibility for their part in the sustainable tourism. This is reflected in the fact that half of all tourists search for information on how to act in the poorest tourist destinations. In this context, Stanford (2006) concludes that it is no longer possible to overlook the collective activity of individual consumers toward a more responsible behaviour.
The future development of tourism is the responsibility of tourists who are an important link in the development and design of tourist offers. In researching this topic, the focus will be on the understanding of the actions of a responsible consumer. Key indicators of the actions of responsible consumers in relation to the sustainable development of tourism based on the method of comparing existing empiric research will be established.
The Responses of Responsible Tourists
To research responsibility in the framework of the dominant social paradigm in tourism, a critical overview of the literature concerning the aspect of actions of consumers in tourism will be summarized. An analytical and integrative approach to the literature overview will reveal key findings in relation to the definition of the term "responsible consumer" and in relation to the basic indicators that will enable the study of the responsible actions of consumers in relation to sustainability in tourism. The integrative overview will enable creating a balance between the width and the depth of the phenomenon, and it will enable combining essential elements into a unit, as well as exposing the most common limitations and gaps. This will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the topic.
This with will be followed findings from studies on socially responsible consumers and studies on environmentally friendly, green consumers. These are two crucial subgroups belonging to a common, widely spread "ethical responsibility" (Young et al., 2007). In this classification, there are ecologically aware consumers, socially aware consumers and ethical consumers that act pro-socially. Because of the aim of this research they are researched as one group.
For decades, responsible consumerism has been the focal point of market research that focused on
the profiling of ecologically and socially responsible consumers and the identifications of important segments to enable companies and marketing policy authors to create effective market approaches. The relevant literature describes several behavioural theories that are commonly used for the understanding of responsible consumer behaviour in particular situations. The two dominant theories are the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), presented by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), presented by Ajzen (1985, 1991). It follows from TRA that the majority of social behaviours are under the conscious control of the individual and that this makes the behaviour predictable and also represents a motivational level for a particular action or for fulfilling a goal. The actions represent the individual's decision regarding several possible actions. The subjective norms reflect the individual's willingness to comply with the desires of relevant social actors and result from normative beliefs according to social and moral values, balanced by personal motivations (Kaiser et al., 1999). The TRA and TPB are among the most utilized models for explaining attitudes/beliefs that relate to ecological behaviours, travel choices (Bamberg, 2002), willingness to pay for environmental protection (Pouta et al., 2002), the marketing of environmentally friendly products (Kalafatis et al., 1999), and green consumerism (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). In tourism, they are used for the explanations of destination choices (Lam & Hsu, 2006), tourist segmentation (Carr, 2002) and holiday experience satisfaction (Bigne et al., 2005). Further relevant personal influence factor theories are the theory of stages of moral development (Kohlberg, 1980) and the model of personal norms (Schwartz, 1977). This model explains the activation of norms and values and the awareness of consequences and personal responsibility; it reflects a willingness to act in a specific way, marked with individual actions and subjective norms.
The research of the prosocial consumer began in the 1970s. Anderson and Cunningham (1972) developed sensitive benchmarks for market segmentation and detected a higher sensibility to social and environmental problems in particular consumer groups. In the 1970s, several more studies were conducted, including by Kinnear et al. (1974), Webster (1975) and Antil (1984), which have contributed to common
starting points of a definition stating that the socially more responsible consumers are more long-term oriented and place importance on the needs of a wider society and the environment when making their purchase decisions. Similarly, Stone, Barnes and Montgomery (1995) defined the responsible actions of a consumer as a state in which an individual expresses their willingness to act in a way that reduces the environmental problems in a way that is beneficial to the social environment of the country and to the benefit of personal economic interests. Environmental consumerism and/or green buying are similarly defined as a consumer's purchase behaviour influenced by environmental concerns (Shrum et al., 1995), which translate to seeking products and services with minimal impact on the environment (Main-ieri et al., 1997).
The segmentation and profiling of a responsible consumer often take into account geographical (Samdahl & Robertson, 1989), cultural (Webster, 1975), personal (Kinnear et al., 1974) and other socio-demographic characteristics. Despite intense research, socio-demographic variables have been shown to be poor indicators of environmentally responsible behaviour (Kinnear et al., 1974; Antil, 1984; Roberts, 1996). The findings show a meaningful correlation between gender, age, income (Tognacci et al., 1972) and socio-demographic variables and personal traits (tolerance, understanding and damage prevention) that relevantly predict environmentally responsible behaviour (Kinnear et al., 1974; Antil, 1984). In other words, tolerant and more open-minded people who are understanding and have a strong desire to know how to contribute to a better environment and express concern regarding pollution are more likely to behave responsibly.
Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) believe that research that includes a range of variables (e.g. culture, personality, demography) without including other components of environmental consciousness (i.e. knowledge, attitude and behaviour) or prefers to focus solely on one of these variables is almost inevitably met with weak correlation. To remedy these shortcomings, The same authors researched all components and concluded that socio-demographic variables are useful for consumer profiling in the sense of environmental knowledge, but they could not convincingly conclude any predictions regarding behaviour.
When examining the pro-environment behaviour, Follows and Jobber (2000) studied the correlation between the values of the individual and the influence of the values that affect the purchasing intention and the later purchase of environmentally friendly products. They relied on Schwartz's (1992, based on Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987) value typology and established that these values are an important factor in the forming of the purchase behaviour in relation to the environment. Furthermore, Straughan and Roberts (1999) continued with research on the demographic and psychographic characteristics in relation to environmental awareness and the observed efficiency of consumers (Straughan & Roberts, 1999). In their research, they included additional constructs of altruism and liberalism. They have proven that altruism is a more important factor for a pro-environment purchasing behaviour than liberalism. They have also established that the meaning of environmental awareness and knowledge has a positive effect on the environmental attitude and the purchasing behaviour. In a similar study, Laroche et al. (2001) studied the importance of consumer attitudes, values and behaviour in connection with the willingness of a consumer to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Their research has shown that the persons who are prepared to pay more are convinced of the environmental issues and the importance of solving those issues on a personal and social level and thus express values that are focused on the well-being of others.
The presented studies place importance on the personal and social values; especially altruism, liberalism, taking care of others and life in harmony. In their study of the pro-social behaviour of consumers, Gilg et al. (2005) conducted research that focused on the study of perspective values rather than the demographic and psychographic profile, i.e. already accepted environmental values, demographic and psychographic variables used to examine how different types of environmental action, such as energy saving, water conservation, waste management and green consumption were related and what factors were influential in their achievement. Their research contributed to the typology of three consumer groups: "committed environmentalists", who are the most enthusiastic about sustainable behaviour; "mainstream environmentalists", who remain en-
thusiastic but less so; the "casuals", who very rarely accept green behaviour; and the non-environmentalists, who are not committed to green or sustainable behaviour. The area of classification of responsible consumers in tourism that are better prepared to undergo social and environmentally responsible activities has several established segmentations that define the groups of individuals (Wearing & Neil, 2001). An often used classification in tourism is Swarbooke and Horner's (2001) classification of the tourist according to their allegiance to three larger groups: green (intent to operate on behalf of others), grey (not interested in the well-being of others) and brown (undecided in relation to these matters.) The green tourists are the most desirable for the better future of tourism, even though they are a small fraction of the population (Lohmann, 2004). The biggest fraction of the population is undecided or not interested in the environmental issues (Fairweather et al., 2005).
The key basic conditions that define responsible behaviour of a consumer were the focus of many other studies. Stone et al. (1995) emphasized the knowledge and awareness of the consumer, the wishes and the willingness to act, the attitude toward society and ecology, the ability to act and actions as an activity. Mihalič (2013) classified responsibility as the third pillar of a sustainable, responsible model on the level of a tourist destination for the implementation of the sustainable development and upgraded it with consumer satisfaction, education-based awareness and responsible behaviour in relation to ethics based on the knowledge of sustainable practices. She defined consumer satisfaction as a condition for the retention of profitability of tourist companies and as an important factor for the realization of the sustainable development. Inskeep (1991) defined consumer satisfactions as one of the five goals of sustainable development that are connected to the economic indicators of the influence on development. Responsibility as a wider dimension in the context of sustainable behaviour and activities is conditioned on a real awareness of sustainable development, ethics, critical mass, partnership, and cooperation (Mihalič, 2009). This implies a deeper relationship between consumers and products or services, which relates not only to the product or service attributes that are important to the consumer but also to personal consequences and benefits of the use of these products. Emphasiz-
ing this point, Dolničar and Long (2009) mentioned marketing purchasing motives as good points of research together with the viewpoints of consumer behaviour in relation to social and ecological attributes in the context of consumerism. They sorted them according to main market attributes, such as information, price, shopping preferences and personal mo-
tives for the purchase of tourist services. The individual responsibility and moral choice can force the tourist (consumer) to accept or decline these market attributes and cause their action or response (Isaacs, 2011).
Indicators of Prosocial Consumer Behaviour
Socio-demographic indicators	Psychographic indicators	Consumer values
• age,	• Personality •	health,
• gender,	• personal responsibility, •	environmental values,
• socio-economic background	• tolerance, •	fulfilment of sustainable de-
(income level, occupation, so-	• understanding,	velopment,
cial classes),	• environmental consciousness, •	self-fulfilment,
• education,	sociability, •	moral choice,
• family circumstance,	influence on others, contem- •	altruism,
• geographical belongingness,	porary mindedness, •	liberalism,
• cultural characteristics	• open-mindedness •	partnership,
	Lifestyle	cosmopolitanism
	• activities (waste management,	
	energy saving, use of environ-	
	mental-friendly transport),	
	interests (health, living life	
	in harmony, company ethics,	
	fair trade)	
	Purchasing intentions	
	personal motives,	
	willingness to pay more for	
	environmentally friendly	
	products,	
	willingness to act pro-socially	
Limitations and Gaps in Responsible Consumer Behaviour Studies
From the viewpoint of the neo-classical economic sovereignty of consumers and the benefit maximization of an individual, this approach implemented several demographic, behavioural and other correlations (which are fascinating from a lifestyle point of view) and also implemented determinants for the study of the responsible consumer behaviour. However, despite several attempts to identify correlations and determinants, responsible consumer behaviour turned out to be difficult to predict (Jackson, 2005; McCarty & Shrum, 2001). The researchers empha-
sized several reasons for the limited study of this field, which are related to four key restraints:
a)	the temporal distance of public benefits of responsible consumerism, i.e. responsible consumerism is not immediately effective and does not fulfil its intent at the moment of purchase (McCarty & Shrum, 2001);
b)	consumers are limited to their own cultural and institutional contexts and norms (Sanne, 2002);
c)	consumers do not trust the companies and their motives regarding responsible behaviour (Peattie & Crane, 2005); and
d) responsible behaviour is complex and dynamic, and cannot be effectively explained by using conventional reductionist theories (Thompson & Troester 2002).
McCarty & Shrum (2001) established that the connection between the responsible consumer and the positive effects cannot be adequately explained in the frame of the mainstream individualistic and rational model of consumer behaviour, because of its physical abstractness and the characteristics of temporally distanced public benefits that stem from direct decisions of personal consumerism.
The limitations of the study of consumer behaviour are also relevant when choosing the alternatives of services and products being offered with the intent of satisfying local standards and sustainability demands (Mont et al., 2007). The environmental alternatives could mean worse accessibility, poor comfort when travelling, prolonged travel time, e.g. when choosing travelling by train instead of by plane. If tourists want to accept such alternatives, additional resources, such as time, money and information must be available to enable this behaviour. Internal barriers preventing people from purchasing environmentally friendly products come from individuals' lack of knowledge and ability to understand the consequences of their acts, and habits (Shove & Warde, 2002). Individual decisions to act are also determined by external aspects that relate to the availability of benign products and services, the convenient to access them, and to the belief that one person cannot make a difference. External barriers are stronger than internal knowledge and motivations in hindering tourist environmental behaviour (Kaiser et al., 1999; Tanner et al., 2004). An important limiting factor for tourist choices is the availability of financial resources.
In contrast, there are frequent findings that consumers are divided (Shrum, McCarty & Lowery, 1995) and often confused in relation to the implementation of their responsible consumerism in practice. Mainieri et al. (1997) discovered that consumers had pro-environment viewpoints but did not behave in a way congruent with their expressed viewpoints.
In several studies, these limitations are apparent in the discrepancy between the consumer's intent and the actual responsible behaviour, which means that consumer intent remains a poor indicator of ac-
tual purchasing habits, not only because of the difference between viewpoints and behaviour but also because of an apparent social desirability that affects the answers (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Laroche et al., 2001). It is unclear if knowledge of the environmental impact of their consumption automatically leads to more environmental purchasing behaviour.
The relevance of studies of consumer responsibility in tourism has shown that, in addition to the aforementioned different behaviour aspects of the study of personal factors, there is also a need to emphasize situational factors that cloud a clear overview of the situation and limit the extents of the studies in this field.
The Future Power of Understanding Responsible Tourist: Conclusion
The literature overview has shown a clear connection between prosocial consumers who are aware of their responsibility and the primary factors that are embedded in their purchasing decisions. The findings of research that show the development of a broad understanding of the motivators of prosocial aware consumers have been presented. For instance, despite different consumer typologies, it has been established that the purchasing behaviour of prosocial consumers is affected by different motives. This paper also explained the semantic challenges regarding the new terminology that is used to describe the key research theme, i.e. "consumer responsibility", which covers a spectrum of responsible practices in relation to society, environment and ethics under the hyper-nym "prosocial consumer groups".
The key common determinants for the research of responsible consumer group behaviour are the personal factors, such as personal viewpoints, values, ethics, knowledge and the related awareness, the motives that can be personal or related to the main market attributes such as information, price or preferences, and the motives for purchasing tourist services in relation to social and ecological attributes. This paper has also presented the findings of studies that show a weak correlation and weak prediction of responsible consumerism, if the prediction is based only on socio-economic and personality variables. The situational factors that stem from social norms, other attractive alternative choices or economic limitations are also significant. The purchase decisions of
the consumer before, during and after the purchase phase should also not be disregarded. The study of identified types of responsible consumers and their response (behaviour) in reference to the importance of particular attributes of tourist services and products requires the inclusion of the direct consumer experience that is connected to the expectations and the context of satisfaction. It is proven that satisfaction is an influential economic indicator of potential changes and the development of tourism products and services. When applied to the responsibility of the development of such products and services, it means that the tourist service provider must understand the consumer's conceptualization and interpretation of responsibility in order to be able to understand their expectations and develop accordingly.
It is difficult to wholly evaluate all the contributions and their possible limitations, but these papers are used to illustrate the appeal of understanding the complex phenomenon of consumer responsibility. Based on the extensive research, the responsible consumer with a prosocial viewpoint will continue to be the focal point of research, because the entire dimension of this behaviour is still under-researched and remains to be fully explained. This research overview has shown that the typologies of responsible consumers are different and contingent upon the included variables. The answers to the questions "Who are these people, what motivates them and how to fulfil these motives?" require an integral and multi-faceted approach; as a result, this research will continue. The key topic has a great research potential in tourism as well, since tourists are influenced by changes in the natural, social and economic circumstances of the 21st century. They have started to show motivation and pro-activity regarding the reduction of negative influences and the increase of positive influences of tourism. Responsible tourists are more sensitive to the environmental and social consequences, but the fact remains that tourist service providers retain an inappropriate attitude to resource usage, work misuse and a low level of empathy toward consumers and other participants as active citizens or cosmopolitans. The goal of the transformation of the tourist system into a sustainable system that would enable the development of tourism on a higher level is focused on responsibility, which represents power in different forms (Stuck-
elberger & Mathwig, 2007) and also plays a key role in the dynamic interaction between consumers and service providers in tourism. Their synergy helps to promote the growth of the entire tourist system and is intertwined with the motivation of responsible behaviour that differs among consumers and service providers and remains an uncompleted challenge and a field for further research.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Anderson, T. W., & Cunningham, W.H. (1972). The socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing 36(7), 23-31.
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for the Public Policy, Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18-39. Bamberg, S. (2002). Implementation intention versus monetary incentive comparing the effects of interventions to promote the purchase of organically produced food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 573-587.
Bratt, C. (1999). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 630-656. Bigne, J. E., et al. (2005). The theme park experience: an analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833-844. Carr, N. (2002). The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4),
972-986.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7),
560-578.
Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Who are the ethical consumers? Manchester, England: Cooperative Bank.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demo-graphics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465-480. Dolničar, S., & Long, P. (2009). Beyond ecotourism: the environmentally responsible tourist in the
general travel experience. Tourism Analysis, 14
(4), 503-513.
Dwyer, L. (2005). Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to achievement of sustainable tourism: a scoping study. Tourism Review International, 9(2), 79-93.
Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 3 (1), 107-135.
Elkington, K. (1997). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, England: Capstone.
Fairweather, J. R., et al. (2005). Environmental values and response to ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 82-99.
Fishbein, M., & Manfredo, M. (1992). A theory of behaviour change. Influencing human behaviour: Theory and application in recreation, tourism and natural resource management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: A test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5-6), 723-746.
Goodwin, H., & Pender, L. (2005). Ethics in tourism management. The management of tourism. London, England: Sage Publications.
Goodwin, H. (2002). The Case for Responsible Tourism. In T. Jenkins et al. (Eds.), Ethical Tourism: Who Benefits? London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504.
Harris, J. (2002). Vrednost življenja. Uvod v medicinsko etiko. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Krtina.
Harrison, L. C., & Husbands, W. (2010). Practicing responsible tourism: International Cases Studies. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Holden, A. (2003). In need of new environmental ethics for tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1), 94-108.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behaviour. Normative and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23 (2), 195-220.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behaviour. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York, NY: John & Sons.
Isaacs, T. (2011). Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts. Oxford, England: University Press.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of models of consumer behaviour and behavioural change. London, England: Policy Studies Institute.
Jančič, Z. (1999). Celostni marketing. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
Jančič, Z. (2002). Nova družbena odgovornost podjetij. Industrijska demokracija, 12 (4), 4- 7.
Juhard, Š., & Golob, U. (2011). Potrošnik in komuniciranje družbene odgovornosti: pogled skozi perspektivo ustvarjanja smisla. Akademija, MM XI(18), 55-63.
Kaiser, F. G., et al. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology,19(1), 1-19.
Kalafatis, P. S., Pollard, M., East R., & Markos H. T. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (5), 441-460.
Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically Concerned Consumers - Who are they? Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20-24.
Kohlberg, L. (1980). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. In B. Munsey (Ed.), Moral development, moral education and Kohlberg: Basic issues in philosophy, psychology, religion and education (pp. 15-100). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589-599.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forelo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
Lohmann, M. (2004). New Demand Factors in Tourism. Budapest, Hungary: European Tourism Forum.
Matthies, E., Klöckner, C., & Preißner, C. L. (2006). Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: How can com-
mitment be effective? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 91-106.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. P., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior, The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189-204.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. R. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behaviour. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 93104.
Mihalič, T. (2006). Tourism and its environments: ecological, economic and political sustainability issues. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Ekonomska fakulteta.
Mihalič, T. (2013). A green tourism barometer in the time of economic crisis-the concept and case of Slovenia. In S. Jankovic & D. Smolcic Jurda-na (Eds.), 2nd International Scientific Conference, Crisis - A challenge of sustainable tourism development? (pp.1-17). Croatia, Opatija.
Miller, G. (2001). Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism Management, 22(6), 589-598.
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37-48.
Mont, O., & Bleischwitz, R. (2007). Sustainable consumption and resource management in the light of life cycle thinking. Eur. Env., 17(1), 59-76.
Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005). Green marketing: Legend, myth, farce or prophesy? Qualitative Market Research, 8(4), 357-70.
Pouta, E., et al. (2002). Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respond-ents'decision-making processes. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 295-312.
Ray, P., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). The Cultural Cre-atives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Roberts, J. A. (1995). Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behaviour: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing - Theory and Practice, 3(4),
97-117.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D., R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental con-
cern and ecologically conscious consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79-89.
Sanne, C. (2002). Willing consumers - or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), 273-287.
Sassen, S. (2007). Elements for a Sociology of Globalization. New York, NY, London, England: W.W. Norton.
Schlegelmilch, B., Bohlen G., M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental concern. European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 221-279.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychologica toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 2007-2035.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992) Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: assessing the role of identification with 'green consumerism'. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388-399.
Stückelberger, C., & Mathwig, F. (2007). Grundwerte. Eine theologisch-ethische perspektive (pp.121-143). Zürich, Switzerland: TVZ.
Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: In an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(2), 109119.
Shove, E., & Warde, A. (2002) Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption, lifestyles, and the environment. In R. E. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and The Environment (pp. 230-252). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Shrum L. J., McCarty, J. A., & Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82.
Stone, G., Barnes, J. B., & Montgomery, C. (1995). ECOSCALE: A Scale for the Measurement of Environmentally Responsible Consumers. Psychology & Marketing 12(7), 595-612.
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558-575.
Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 15(1),
32-37.
Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism. Oxford, England: ButterworthHeinemann.
Tearfound.org. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. tearfund.org/en/news/world_news.org
Tanner, C., et al. (2004.) Contextual conditions of ecological consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 94-111.
Thompson, C. J., & Troester, M. (2002). Consumer value systems in the age of postmodern fragmentation: The case of the natural health microculture. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 550571.
Tognacci, L. N., Weigel, R. H., Wilden, M. F., & Vernon, D. T. A. (1972). Environmental Quality: how Universal is Public Concern?. Environment and Behavior, 4(1), 73-87.
United Nations Enviroment Programme. (2009). Policy recommendations on sustainable tourism development. Retrieved from: http:// www.unep.fr/ scp/tourism/activities/taskforce/pdf/Policy_Rec-ommendations.pdf
United Nations Environmental Programme - UN-WTO UNEP. (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable. A Guide for Policy Makers. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO. (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organisation.
UNWTO WTTC. (2011). Travel and Tourism 2011. Retrieved from http://www2.unwto.org
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. London, Eng-land,New York, NY: Routhlege.
Urry, J. (2001). Globalising the Tourist Gaze. Retrieved from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/soci-ology/soc079ju.html
Van Vugt, M. (2001). Community identification moderating the impact of financial incentives in a natural resources dilemma: Water conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 735-750.
Wagner, S. A. (1997). Understanding green consumer behaviour: A qualitative cognitive approach. London, England: Routledge.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2001) Expanding sustainable tourism's conceptualization: ecotourism, vol-unteerism and serious leisure. In S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation and Sus-tainability: Linking Culture and the Environment (pp. 233-2549). Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing.
Webster, F. E. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(12), 188-196.
Weeden, C. (2002). Ethical tourism: An opportunity for competitive advantage? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 141-153.
Young, W., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. (2007) "It's not easy being green". Press release for ESRC research project 'Trade-offs in decision making for sustainable technologies. Retrieved from http://www. esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre.