Comparative research of Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEBs) in daily life and tourism circumstances - Theory and Practice in Hospitality and Tourism Research - page 351

3 METHODOLOGY followed by 'Energy conservation and reducing

waste (3.38)' and 'Pro-environmental transporta-
tion modes (3.21)'.

3.1 Sample and data collection
The population of this study is adults in South
Korea over the age of 20 and the 1,003 national
samples were collected. Quota sampling method
was applied with the pro-panel composed on the
basis of the administrative zones, gender, and age,
and population ratio for each of the educational
levels in accordance with the data from the popula-
tion census by the National Statics Office. Special-
ized research institute was used for the collection
of data. Data were collected over the period from
June 18 to July 2, 2013 with 1,003 valid respond-
ents collected.

4.3 Testing the research propositions
4.3.1 Testing the research proposition 1
In order to compare PEB in daily life and tourism
settings, total average of the PEB in each environ-
ment were analyzed through the Paired t-test. As
the result, there was significant difference between
the PEB under the two circumstances. That is, the
respondents in the daily life setting reported sig-
nificantly higher levels of PEB than when they
under the tourism setting. Then, Paired t-test was
conducted for the 10 similar PEB in two different
circumstances. As a result, significant differences
were found in all items with the exception of the
'purchasing food in season'. As anticipated, PEB
were practiced to greater extent under the daily life
circumstance than under the tourism one.

3.2 Measurement items
Pro-environmental behavior items were composed
by applying the items measured in previous studies
(McKercher & Prideaux, 2011; McKercher, Pri-
deaux, Cheung & Law, 2010; Miao & Wei, 2013).
The measurements were expressed using slightly
different descriptions by reflecting two different
circumstances. And some items that may not coin-
cide two circumstances were also included. For
example, while the daily life circumstance included
items such as 'replace with high efficiency lighting
device', items such as 'use accommodation facil-
ity with environment-friendly certification' were
included for the tourism circumstance. All the
items were measured by 5 Likert scale with the
range of 1 (not at all)

4.3.2 Testing the research proposition 2
The second research proposition of this Study is
that the cost-benefits criteria for selecting of the
pro-environmental behavior are different between
the daily life and tourism circumstances. Spe-
cifically, confirm whether the 'economic cost and
benefits' for the daily life circumstance and the
'inconvenience level' for the tourism circumstance
are the key criteria that determines the extent of
the PEB.
To determine the cost of each pro-environmental
behavior, several researches deemed that the cost
of the behavior would be lower if the extent of the
pro-environmental behaviors by reported respond-
ents is greater. However, such method has the
limitation of not being able to assess the cost and
benefits specifically. In this Study, the economic
cost and benefits, inconvenience level of the pro-
environmental behaviors were measured with 10
Ph.D. degree holders in tourism who understand
the detailed costs and benefits. These 2 costs and
1 benefit were measured by the 5 Likert scale with
score ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
The results of the average costs and benefit for
each item organized for pro-environmental behav-
ior factors conducted above are as follows. The
most PEBs in daily life circumstance accompany
lower economic cost, higher economic benefits
being returned, and low level of inconvenience in
comparison to the tourism circumstance.
Then, graph was used to confirm which cost-
benefits is the greatest criterion for the extent of
the PEB under two circumstances. The average val-
ues of the economic cost, economic benefits, and
inconvenience level were indicated on the Y-axis.
And the life-type, Pro-environmental transporta-

∼ 5 points (all the time).

4 RESULTS

4.1 Characteristics of the respondents
It was confirmed that the sample were collected
quite appropriately in accordance of the pro-panel
of this study.

4.2 Results of principal component factor
analysis
4.2.1 PEB in daily life
Four factors were extracted following a principal
component factor analysis. The average values
for each factor were in the order of the 'Life-type
PEB (3.99)', 'Pro-environmental transportation
mode (3.87)', 'Perseverance-type PEB (3.77)' and
'Planned PEB (3.52)'.

4.2.2 PEB in tourism circumstance
As the results of the factor analysis, three factors
were deduced, which were in the order of 'Pur-
chasing environment-friendly products' at 3.47,