Discussion Paper No.362
Does the man away from home need feel no shame?
An Analysis of the heterogeneity of
consumers’ eco-friendly behavior

Misuzu TAKAO
Chuo University
Faculty of Economics
December 2021

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Chuo University
Tokyo, Japan

Does the man away from home need feel no shame?
An Analysis of the heterogeneity of consumers’ eco-friendly behaviour
Misuzu TAKAO
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, Chuo University
E-mail: mtakao441@g.chuo-u.ac.jp
ABSTRACTIn this research, we focus on the eco-friendly behavior of tourism consumers. It has been posited that theeco-friendly behavior of people during ordinary consumption is not the same when they are tourists. In
Japan, there is a proverb: “Any man away from home need feel no shame.” This means that people tend
not to behave in an eco-friendly manner when they are visitors (for example, littering with a cigarette or
drawing graffiti on buildings, and monuments). In this paper, consistency of eco-friendly consumer
behavior means that the consumer, anytime and anywhere, always chooses eco-friendly products andservices. Focusing on variation in consumer behavior between ordinary and tourist consumption, this paper
analyzes the consistency of consumers’ eco-friendly behavior. The Japanese proverb about the tourist
implies such an inconsistency in behavior. However, this does not mean that an eco-friendly tourism
consumer is not an eco-friendly consumer in general.
Table.1 Four consumer types
Consumption in tourism
Eco-friendly

Not eco-friendly

consumption in

Eco-friendly

194

259

usual

Not eco-friendly

62

488

We classify consumer behavior from the viewpoint of content and manner (Table 1). From theconsistency perspective, we examine whether or not (1) consumers who always behave in an eco-friendly
manner generally will behave in the same manner as tourists, and (2) consumers who always behave in an
eco-friendly manner as tourists also do so during usual consumption. To clarify the factors that give rise toheterogeneity among consumers’ eco-friendly behavior, we conducted a web-based questionnaire survey
in Japan during August 2017. The survey explored:•
eco-friendly behavior in usual consumption (seven items);•
eco-friendly behavior in tourism consumption (seven items) including items
considered in Dunlap et al. (2000) and Hirose (1994);•
the NEP scale (15 items); and•the two-step behavior decision-making model (six items).
Responses for all items were collected using a 5-point Likert scale. On applying a covariance structure
analysis to these results, we were able to (1) examine what factors result in heterogeneity among consumersand (2) show the logical outcomes by the path diagrams. Moreover, we consider whether consumers’ utility
can be interpreted with a prospect-type utility function as advocated by Kahneman and Tversky (1979). As
a result of the analysis, we found that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner in both the usual
and tourism contexts have a significant factor intention on environmental risk cognition.
1

The results yield the following implications:(1) The finding that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner in tourism tend to do so in
general implies that to make a consumer behave in an eco-friendly manner in tourism is necessary
for the consumer to behave likewise in their usual consumption.
(2) The finding that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner consistently, anytime andeverywhere, have significantly higher environmental risk cognition than those who do not. This
result implies that to make a consumer behave in an eco-friendly manner, we need consumers to
identify the environmental risks.
Key words: consumers’ eco-friendly behavior, eco-tourists, consistency,
JEL Classification: D12, Q58, Z38

2

1. Introduction
In modern societies, companies who supply goods and services and consumers who demand them areusually opposing forces in the market. Companies maximize profits, whereas consumers maximize individual
utility. Through these behaviors, optimal behavior of each subject is assumed. In this study, we examine
heterogeneity in consumer's selection behavior, especially among consumers’ criteria of utility maximization
when choosing goods and services. We focus on differences in consumer purchasing behavior, such as whether
an individual selects environmentally friendly goods, whereas another does not. Considering the heterogeneity of
consumers, we clarify differences in choice behaviors among consumers, focusing on eco-friendly comportment
among tourists. Some have posited that eco-friendly behavior of people during regular consumption is not thesame as when they are tourists.
In this study, we focus on a consumer’s environmentally conscious behavior in tourism and think aboutsolving environmental problems from there. In Japan, the “Visit Japan Campaign” has been conducted since 2003,
and ever since the “Basic Law on the Promotion of Tourism” went into effect in 2007, the market for tourism has
been expanding. Consumer's purchasing behavior has a significant influence on the environment presently, withina markedly mass-production and mass-consumption society. Some analysis of environmentally conscious
behaviors in tourism under such social conditions is warranted, since that behavior is thought to play an essential
role in fomenting environmental problems. The underlying purpose of this thesis is, therefore, to clarify what
factors are different between individuals who carry out environmentally conscious actions in tourism and those
who do not, and, as a result, we suggest adoption of tourist policies necessary to promote environmentallyconscious behavior.
2. Previous research
There are various studies pertaining to the consumer's environmental conscious behavior. This analysis'
position and characteristics are as follows.
Hirose (1994) is typical of the consumer's purchasing decision model. He proposed a two-step purchasing
decision model (Figure 1) noting that the intended target influenced one's behavioral intentions. In this model, theformation of the intended target is influenced by the recognition of environmental risks, recognition of
responsibility attribution, effective coping cognition, and formulation of intended action that includes feasibility
evaluation, cost–benefit analysis, social norms evaluation, all of which are thought to have an impact. Other
researchers who use this model include Ohtomo et al. (2004) and Kurishima (2012).
In this study, using the aforementioned model and a questionnaire survey, the intended target and intended
action with respect to environmental problem countermeasures (e.g., global warming) are determined. Then,
using the results, the kinds of factors caused by environmentally conscious consumer actions are clarified.
Figure.1 Determinants of environment-conscious behavior (adapted from Hirose(1994))

3

The new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale is an index of environmental attitudes proposed by Dunlap and
Van Liere (1978). Dunlap et al. (2000) later corrected this indicator and measured the environmental attitudes ofpeople by five factors using people's beliefs of environmental importance and human-centrism. In doing so,
people are quizzed about their environmental attitudes by questioning each of five measured reality factors: (1)limits to growth, (2) anti-anthropocentrism, (3) fragility of the limits of growth, (4) rejection of exceptionalism,and (5) the possibility of eco-crisis occurring.
In this study, the NEP scale advocated in Dunlap et al. (2000) is used as a survey element. To generate the
NEP scale, consumers who take environmentally conscious actions are analyzed according to the question items
and causal relationship model between environmentally conscious actions and prescribed factors, from which
factors are significantly affected.
In prospecting theory, advocated by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), a prospect-type utility function that
extends expected utility theory (considered in microeconomics) is utilized. It transforms the utility function sothat it more closely matches real society. This utility function is formulated such that the loss and the gain are notsymmetrical, i.e., where losses are estimated to be twice the gains, and it is assumed that people are risk-averse.
After introducing prospecting theory, Barberis (2013) reviews it, along with its development and application overa 30 year period.
In this study, prospect-theory's idea of loss is considered twice as prominent than expected gains (i.e., in lightof environmental risks, there is a tendency to take risk-averse actions), we hypothesize that consumers takeenvironmentally conscious actions when they examine choices based on the risk perception when forming
intended action targets and factors pertaining to “the possibility of an eco-crisis,” that loom large on the NEP scale.
3. survey method
3.1 Items of survey
The research uses a web-based questionnaire survey conducted by Macromill Co., Ltd. The outline of thesurvey is as follows:
The subjects of the survey were both male and female, from 20 to 69 years old, allocated according topopulation composition ratios for age, gender, and residential area. Overall, 1,086 (541 males, 545 females)
answered and survey, leaving a total of 1,003 effective samples. The survey was conducted from Tuesday, August
8, 2017, through Wednesday, August 9, 2017.
The contents of the questionnaire survey included items (1) to (4) listed below.
For (3), refer to Dunlap et al. (2000), and for (4), we created question items based on Hirose (1994). In all
the questions posed, “I agree (5 points),” “I agree somewhat (4 points),” “I cannot say (3 points),” “I mostly
disagree (2 points),” and “I do not agree (1 point)” were used. Moreover, answers were sought using based on
this five-choice Likert scale.
(1) Environmental consideration in ordinary behavior: 7 items (3 questions on energy, 2 items on attitudes
related to agricultural crops, and 2 items on waste handling)(2) About environmentally conscious behavior as a tourist: 7 items (2 questions on transportation selection,
2 items on a selection of hotel, and 3 items on behavior while at a sightseeing spot)(3) NEP scale: 15 items (3 items on the reality of limits to growth, 3 items on anti-anthropocentrism, 3 items
on fragility of limits of growth, 3 items on the rejection of exceptionalism, 3 items on possibilities, and 3 items on
eco-crisis)(4) Target objectives and intended action for environmental problems countermeasures: 6 items (3 items on
intended targets formation and 3 items on intended action formation)4

3.2 Survey hypothesis
Responses for all items were collected using a 5-point Likert scale. On applying covariance structural
analysis to these results, we were able to (1) examine what factors result in heterogeneity among consumers and(2) show logical outcomes by means of path diagrams.
In this study, we make the following hypothesis to clarify factors causing heterogeneity in consumer's
environmental conscious behavior in tourism.
(H1) It is not clear that consumers who always behave in an eco-friendly manner generally will behave inthe same manner when they are tourists.
(H2) Consumers who always behave in an eco-friendly manner as tourists also do so during their usual
consumption.
(H3) Consumers behaving in an environmentally conscious way as tourists have a significant factor load on
their risk perception when forming the intended targets and taking into account ecological crises on the NEP scale.
3.3 Grouping consumers
To consider the heterogeneity of consumers, they were divided into the four groups listed in Table 1. These
cohorts were generated on the basis of environmentally conscious behavior in usual consumption circumstances
and the questionnaire regarding environmentally conscious behavior during tourist consumption.
In Table 1, using the questionnaire result, consumers who average 3 or more on the 7 items using
environmental considerations in usual consumption behavior, and consumers who average 3 or more on the 7
items using environmental consideration in tourist consumption, were grouped as environmentally conscious
individuals.
The groups in Table 1 identify cohorts that are characterized by (1) consumers who are environmentallyconscious in their everyday and tourist behavior patterns; (2) consumers who are environmentally conscious
except when sightseeing; (3) consumers who do not usually undertake environmental actions and areenvironmentally conscious in tourism; and (4) consumers who are not environmentally conscious, either in theirordinary or tourist behaviors.
Table.1 Four consumer types
Consumption in tourism
Eco-friendly

Not eco-friendly

consumption in

Eco-friendly

194

259

usual

Not eco-friendly

62

488

We analyzed the variance to find differences between the groups, which was significant (F(3.999) = 427.164,
p < 0.001) for the usual environmentally conscious behavior, with environmentally conscious behavior in tourism(F(3.999) = 286.728, p < 0.001), according to multiple comparisons using group B there was a significant
difference between groups (1), (2), (3), and (4).
For each group, the three path diagrams in Figs. 2 to 4 were used to consider differences in factors affecting
each consumer's environmentally conscious behavior. These models may be used to do confirmatory factor
analysis and are thus placement invariant models.
The model in Fig. 2 shows how much ordinary environmentally conscious actions impacted consumer
behavior during environmentally conscious tourism situations. The model in Fig. 3 shows what factors have amajor influence when carrying out environmentally conscious action. The model in Figure 4 shows what factors
5

of the five categories on the NEP scale are significant.
4 Results of the empirical research
4.1 t-test
In this section, we describe the test results for the three hypotheses listed in Section 2
H1; For 256 consumers whose average of answers to seven questions on environmentally conscious behavior
in tourism consumption is greater than 3,
As a result of conducting t-test on environmentally-conscious behaviors in ordinary environment and tourism
consumption, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in average (Table 2).
Therefore, it can be said that
(H1) It is not clear that consumers who always behave in an eco-friendly manner generally will behave inthe same manner when they are tourists.
Table.2mean

t- statistics (1)stdev

in usual

3.518

0.592

in tourism

3.482

0.354

correlation

0.510

coefficient(p<0.01)mean
t-test

0.357

stdev

t value

0.512

1.116

degree offreedom
255

p value
0.265

H2; As a result of conducting a t-test on environmentally-conscious actions in ordinary environmentallyconscious actions and tourism consumption for 453 consumers whose average of seven items is larger than threepoints on environment-conscious behavior in usual consumption behavior,(P <0.01) (Table 3).
Therefore, it can be said that
(H2) Consumers who always behave in an eco-friendly manner as tourists also do so during their usual
consumption.
Table３ t-statistics (2)meanin usual
in tourism

0.419

2.962

0.649

correlation

0.375

coefficient(p<0.01)mean
t-test

stdev

3.59

0.628

t value

stdev
0.627

6

21.312degree offreedom452

p value0.001

4.2 Factor linkage between environmentally conscious actions and prescribed factors
The results obtained are given in Fig. 2 through Fig. 5.
Figure2. Consumers who are environmentally conscious in their everyday and tourist behavior patterns

Figure3. Consumers who are environmentally conscious except when sightseeing

Figure.4 Consumers who do not usually undertake environmental actions and are environmentally7

conscious in tourism

Figure.5 Consumers who are not environmentally conscious, either in their ordinary or tourist behaviors.

8

(H1), the path coefficients from the latent variables of the intended targets pertaining to environmental risk
recognition were ① 0.475, ② 0.342, ③ 0.125, and ④ 0.275, respectively. ① gives the group of
consumers who take action, having a higher passive coefficient than the group that does not. It shows that risk
perception has a big influence on environmentally conscious behavior.
4.3 NEP scale
Figures 6–9 is a path diagram related to the NEP scale.
Figure6. Consumers who are environmentally conscious in their everyday and tourist behavior patterns

Figure7. Consumers who are environmentally conscious except when sightseeing

Figure8.Consumers who do not usually undertake environmental actions and are environmentallyconscious in tourism

9

Figure9. Consumers who are not environmentally conscious, either in their ordinary or tourist behaviors.

For (H1), the path coefficients from the NEP scale’s latent variables related to potential ecological crises(NEP5) are ① 0.819, ② 0.811, ③ 0.906, and ④ 0.828, respectively. Group ① which is environmentallyconsiderate, shows consumption behavior in tourist spots and their ordinary behavior was found to have asignificant influence on the possibility of an ecological crisis in the formation of their intended action.

5 Consideration and Further Remarks
Individuals that perform tasks with environmental consideration when consuming tourist activities and theirusual consumption were considered upon applying factor analysis. Then, hypotheses (H1) to (H3) cited in 3.3.1
were examined.
Responses for all items were collected using a 5-point Likert scale. On applying a covariance structure
analysis to these results, we were able to (1) examine what factors result in heterogeneity among consumersand (2) show the logical outcomes by the path diagrams. Moreover, we consider whether consumers’ utility
can be interpreted with a prospect-type utility function as advocated by Kahneman and Tversky (1979). As
a result of the analysis, we found that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner in both the usual
and tourism contexts have a significant factor intention on environmental risk cognition.
The results yield the following implications:(1) The finding that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner in tourism tend to do so in
general implies that to make a consumer behave in an eco-friendly manner in tourism is necessary
for the consumer to behave likewise in their usual consumption.
(2) The finding that consumers who behave in an eco-friendly manner consistently, anytime and10everywhere, have significantly higher environmental risk cognition than those who do not. This
result implies that to make a consumer behave in an eco-friendly manner, we need consumers to
identify the environmental risks.
For future studies, consider that this study divided consumers into four groups and analyzed each of thefactors related to environmentally conscious behavior, along with the factors associated with the determinants
and the influence of the NEP scale. The average values of answers pertaining to actions involving environmental
considerations and usual consumption in each group, as well as the environmental considerations during
sightseeing consumption differed significantly, thus making it necessary to think about them. In addition, therelationship between factors related to environmental action and determinants and the NEP scale were limited,even though forming a structural analysis of these effects on daily consumption and tourism consumption weresought, and the results faced problems of model adaptation. In this regard, the model must continually be
improved. The points will have to be raised again in future analyses.
Regarding causality, the quantitative analysis conducted in this study does not mention causality reasoning
By t-test, firstly, "Consumers who are environmentally conscious in ordinary consumption behavior areenvironmentally conscious concerning tourism consumption?", moreover, secondly "Environmentally conscious
consumers in tourism consumption do take actions that are environmentally conscious?” are examined.
In this analysis, although the correlation can be described, causality is not analyzed. Therefore, we cannot
determine the direction of causality.
Generally, in structural equation modeling, the following three methods are used to determine the direction of
causality.
As a first step, we estimate the causal relationship based on the fitness of the model. If the created model is a highfitness model, a model is created in which the direction of the model and the causal direction are reversed. Under
the assumption of the opposite causal relationship, it is a method of confirming that the model is incompatible.
However, if the fitness is the same in both model analyzes, it is called an equivalence model, and it is not possible
to distinguish between models.
In that case, as a second stage, analysis using operation variables is performed. The method of estimating thecausal relationship by the manipulated variable method uses an operation variable that affects only one of the twovariables in the relationship between the explanatory variable and the explanatory variable. Like the idea in thefirst stage, we create two conflicting models and estimate the causal relationship by the fitness of the model.
In order to deal with such a problem, here we estimate the causal relationship of the quantitative analysis carriedout in this research following the procedure described above.
First, estimate the causal relationship of the whole sample. We measure factor scores of observation variablesconsisting of question items such as "energy reduction behavior," "attitude toward agricultural crops," and "action
to reduce waste" as usual environmental conscious actions. Next, we measure the factor scores of observation
variables composed of question items such as "choice of transportation," "selection of hotels" and "actions attourist spots" as environmentally conscious behaviors in tourism consumption. The correlation coefficient
between them was 0.591.
Therefore, it was shown that there is a certain degree of correlation between usual environmentally conscious
actions and environmentally conscious behaviors in tourism.
Let us view the causal relationship of latent variables from the viewpoint of the goodness of fit. When RMSEA
is used as an indicator of the fitness of the model, we found that a model that subtracts the path from "ordinary
environmentally conscious behavior" to "environmentally conscious behavior in tourism", and a model that
subtracts the path from "environment-conscious behavior in tourism" to "ordinary environmentally conscious
behavior" are maybe an equivalent model because the fitness degree of both models were 0.088.
11

Next, we consider a model using latent variables. The variables that can be used as operational variables, which
do not correlate with "eco-friendly behavior in tourism" and which may affect "eco-friendly behavior in usual,"
are not prepared in this questionnaire survey.
Finally, the analysis was performed assuming a bidirectional causal model, but this was impossible to apply
appropriate constraint conditions.
I would like to improve the model as a future subject for these points.

References
Barberis N C (2013) “Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment”, Journal of Economic Perspectives
Volume 27, Number 1, pp.173–196
Dunlap, Riley E, Liere Kent D, Mertig Angela G, & Jones, Robert Emmet (2000). “Measuring endorsement of the new ecologicalparadigm: A revised NEP scale.” Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), pp.425–442.
Hirose, S. (1994). Determinants of environment-conscious behavior. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 44–55.
Kahneman D, and Tversky A (1979) "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, XLVII, pp. 263-291.

Kurishima, H., Ihara, T., & Kudo, Y. (2012). Analysis on Determinants of Environment-conscious Behaviors in
Consideration of Consumptive Orientation: For the Suggestion of Low-carbon Behaviors Based on the Indirect
Emissions of CO2 and the Consumers' Benefits. Environmental science, 25(1), 15-25.
Ohtomo, S., Hirose, Y., Ohnuma, S., Sugiura, J., Yorifuji, K., & Kato, H. (2004). The determinants of environment-conscious travel
mode choice behavior: Application of social psychological model to promote park and ride measure. Journals of the Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, 722, 203–213.
Shigeno H(2007).” A Study of Factors to Promote the Environmental Consideration Consumer Behavior : Mainly on the payment
allowance to the environmental consideration attribute of the consumer and relevance with the environmental consideration
Attitude(College of Contemporary Business Administraiton)” Bulletin of Koshien university, 35, 81-87,
Tversky A,and Kahneman D,(1981) “The Framing of Decisions and The Psychology of Choice”, ScienceVol. 211, pp.453-45812