Comparative research of Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEBs) in daily life and tourism circumstances - Theory and Practice in Hospitality and Tourism Research - page 350

2 PEB FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF

COST-BENEFITS

towards the environment does not necessary result
in pro-environmental behaviors.
Such principle can be inferred from the results
of various prior researches (Hares, et al., 2010).
Hares et al. (2010) conducted research on the
awareness of the effect of tourism on climate
change and the behavior of using airplane through
the focus group interview, and the respondents of
their research report that they will not be reducing
the use of airplane while displaying high level of
recycling activities. The authors interpreted that
while the recycling activities accompanied by low
cost and inconveniences are practiced well, the
use of airplanes would not be reduced because of
the high level of cost and inconveniences (Hares,
et al., 2010). The finding of the study by Stern
and Aronson (1984, p. 285) on energy consump-
tion asserted that psychological variables such
as attitude and individual norms impart greater
influence on the energy conservation behaviors
that are less costly and easy to perform. In these
researches, typical energy conservation behavior
that are easy to perform include 'lowering the
room temperature', 'lowering the temperature of
the boiler at home' and 'turning the lights off '.
In addition, behavioral decision that include sin-
gle key investments such as 'thermal insulation in
the walls and the ceiling', and 'installation of new
heating system' is determined mainly by the eco-
nomic factors to be considered, while the attitude
factors impart very little influence. Dunlap and
Scarce (1991, p. 657) argued that the most popu-
lar behaviors are those that require the minimal
efforts and personal costs.
On the basis of these discussion, it is reason-
able to infer that the pro-environmental behavior
under the tourism circumstance incurs greater cost
(economic and inconvenience) with less benefits
acquired than those under the daily life circum-
stance. In addition, from the perspective of cost
and benefit, this study infers that the criteria for
the selecting of the pro-environmental behavior
under the daily life and tourism circumstances
would be different. Since the best selection that
people are pursuing under these two environments
are fundamentally different.
Proposition 1: Pro-environmental behaviors
are practiced to greater extent under the daily
life circumstance than that under the tourism
circumstance.
Proposition 2: The criteria of cost-benefits for
selecting of the pro-environmental behavior are
different between two circumstances.

According to the rational choice theory, people
assess the results of their behavior and act to attain
the best results (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). When
viewed from the perspective of cost-benefits, it can
be forecasted that people will behave environmen-
tally when the results of the behavior generates
greater benefits than the cost.
Many researchers including tourism area have
applied the planned behavior theory to explain
PEB (Han, Hsu & Sheu, 2010), but themes of the
PEB under the tourism circumstance require dif-
ferent approach. It cannot be approached simply
from the perspective of economic cost-benefits as
they are definitively different from the behaviors
in daily life. Individuals under the tourism circum-
stance put the goals such as freedom and pleasure
ahead of everything.
Then, how are the PEB of human beings
decided? From the perspective of cost-benefits, the
extent of the PEB will be increased with lower cost
and the higher the benefits as a result of the behav-
ior. The cost here is not limited to the economic
cost, from broader meaning of the term, it encom-
passes time and efforts individuals put in. Such fun-
damentals are very faithful to the basic principles
of the rational choice theory, because the rational
choice signifies making the most satisfactory selec-
tion with the least cost. What is important here is
that the satisfactory results under the daily life and
the tourism circumstances may be extremely differ-
ent. Miao and Wei (2013) conducted research on
the differences in the PEB and the key motivations
under the home and hotel environment. After hav-
ing confirmed that the level of PEB under the hotel
environment is lower than that under the home
environment first, they verified the differences in
the motivations under these two settings. As the
result, while the normative motivation under the
home environment was found to be the key motiva-
tion, the motivation for pleasure was the key moti-
vation under the hotel environment. This means
that tourists pursue values that are quite different
from those in daily life.
Some of the researches explained the pro-envi-
ronmental behavior from the cost-benefits perspec-
tive based on rational choice theory. Diekmann
and Preisendörfer (2003) presented the 'low-cost
hypothesis', asserting that the environmental con-
cern imparts influence on the behavior most under
the circumstances that incur low cost and induce
no inconveniences to individuals. That is, the lower
the cost pressure of the circumstance, the easier it
is for the individual to convert to the behavior that
concords with their attitudes. This signifies that if
the cost of the PEB is high, the positive attitude

1. The economic cost and benefit are key criteria
for PEB in daily life.
2. In tourism setting, the extent of inconvenience
is the key criteria for selecting of PEB.