The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage PDF

Description

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247785063

The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage ArticleinCornell Hospitality Quarterly · July 2010 DOI: 10.1177/1938965510370564

CITATIONS

READS

152

1,851

3 authors: Hsin-Hui Sunny Hu

H. G. Parsa

Ming Chuan University

University of Denver

18 PUBLICATIONS925 CITATIONS

87 PUBLICATIONS1,423 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

John Self California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 6 PUBLICATIONS374 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal title:

CQ

Article Number: 370564 Dear Author/Editor, Greetings, and thank you for publishing with SAGE. Your article has been copyedited, and we have a few queries for you. Please respond to these queries when you submit your changes to the Production Editor. Thank you for your time and effort. Please assist us by clarifying the following queries: No

Query

1

LAROCHE, TOMIUK, BERGERON, AND BARBARO-FORTEO 2002 IS CITED, BUT THIS WORK IS NOT IN REFERENCES. PLEASE EITHER PROVIDE A COMPLETE REFERENCE OR INDICATE THAT THE CITATION SHOULD BE DELETED.

2

WHAT IS THE PAGE NUMBER FOR THE LORENZINI 1994 QUOTATION, “NEW OR RENOVATED STRUCTURES...”?

3

PAGE NUMBER FOR DUNLAP AND JONES 2002 QUOTATION, “THE DEGREE TO WHICH PEOPLE ARE AWARE...”?

4

ZIMMER ET AL. 1994 IS NOT IN REFERENCES.

5

DUTTA ET AL. 2007 IS NOT IN REFERENCES.

6

AMYX ET AL. 1994: THIS WORK IS NOT CITED IN TEXT. PLEASE EITHER INDICATE WHERE A CITATION SHOULD APPEAR OR CONFIRM THAT THE REFERENCE SHOULD BE DELETED.

7

DUAN ET AL. 2008: NOT CITED.

8

EAGLY 1987: NOT CITED.

9

SAUL 2008: NOT CITED.

10

IS THE SIDEBAR LIST TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE GREEN RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION? IF SO, PERMISSION WILL PROBABLY BE NEEDED TO RUN IT.

11

EXHIBIT 10: IS THIS TABLE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR PART FROM YESAWICH 2009? IF SO, PERMISSION MAY BE REQUIRED FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER TO RUN IT.

 2010 CORNELL UNIVERSITY DOI: 10.1177/1938965510370564 Volume XX, Issue X xx-xx

The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage by HSIN-HUI HU, H. G. PARSA, and JOHN SELF

This study specifically discusses the relationships between consumers’ knowledge of a restaurant’s sustainable practices, environmental concern, and ecological behavior and their intention to patronize a “green” restaurant. The results revealed that consumers’ knowledge of sustainable restaurant practices and environmental concerns were important determinants of consumers’ intentions to patronize green restaurants. Demographic variables, age of consumers, education levels, and income levels were found to be significant in assessing patronage of green restaurants. Keywords:

F

green restaurant; consumer knowledge; environmental concern; ecological behavior

or some businesses, being “green” has become a key to survival, although the underlying motivation for such a policy may be characterized from three perspectives: legislation, marketing, and

MONTH XXXX

values (Gummesson 1994). There is a growing amount of evidence indicating that consumers are choosing products or avoiding others based on their impact on the natural environment (Mohr and Webb 2005; Tilikidou 2007). Other studies suggest that consumers not only prefer to purchase products that are less harmful to the environment but are also willing to pay more to do so (Laroche, Tomiuk, Bergeron, and BarbaroForteo 2002; [AQ: 1] Coddington and Florain 1993; Ottman 1992). In another survey, 75 percent of travelers stated that they were environmentally minded consumers, and 54 percent of respondents noted that they wanted to stay in hotels that show concern for the environment (Watkins 1994). Hospitality businesses affect the sustainability of the natural environment in which they operate by the consumption of significant amounts of natural resources. In the case of Taiwan, for instance, tourism increased rapidly from 1990 to 2005, with international arrivals growing from 1.8 to 3.3 million (Taiwan Tourism

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1

SECTION

THE DYNAMICS OF GREEN RESTAURANT PATRONAGE

Bureau 2006). However, the government of Taiwan has realized environmental protection has become an issue of great urgency in Taiwan because of the heavy toll it has paid for its past economic development activities (Feeley 1990). The Taiwanese government is now attempting to improve the recreational environment throughout the island by passing numerous laws, amendments, and guidelines on this subject. Along with the increasing environmental awareness of consumers and businesses, there has been a growing trend towards green hotels and restaurants. As consumers are better able to acquire information via today’s advanced communication networks, they are also better able to make more informed purchasing decisions. An increasing number of market opportunities are emerging that encourage participation in activities that are more environmentally friendly. Hotels and restaurants can capitalize on these trends by adopting strategies geared towards environmental responsibility. Although numerous studies have focused on ecological initiatives within the hospitality industry (Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008; Scanlon 2007; Rodrıguez and Cruz 2007; Le et al. 2006; Bohdanowicz 2005; W. Chan and Lam 2002; Kirk 1998), only a few present the environmental management issues in the foodservice industry, while virtually none have investigated consumers’ perspectives of green restaurants. To fill that gap, the purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing consumers’ willingness to patronize green restaurants in Taiwan. The study explores whether customers will patronize a restaurant because it is considered to be a green restaurant, even if it means paying more. The study specifically discusses the relationships between consumers’ knowledge of green restaurants, environmental concern, and ecological behavior and their intention to dine at green restaurants (see Exhibit 1).

2 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Environmental Impacts of the Food-Service Sector Although interest for the environment in food service appears to be a relatively new phenomenon, a debate has already started about the responsibilities of the food-service industry with reference to the reduction of solid waste, water consumption, energy consumption, and air pollution (Johnson 2009; Butler 2008; Carbonara 2007). The foodservice industry is increasingly being recognized for its ability to reduce many environmental factors such as solid waste and energy consumption. This concern for environmental and social considerations within the food-service field can be evidenced by the growth and development of green restaurants (see www.dinegreen.com; Horovitz 2008). As further evidence of the growing interest and value of green restaurants, the theme of the 2008 National Restaurant Association annual conference was Green Restaurants (see www.restaurant.org). The prime environmental challenges facing the food-service sector involve the production of significant amounts of solid waste, assurance of food safety, high energy consumption, and use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration. Research in the late 1970s and early 1980s on food waste in U.K. hotels and restaurants indicated that 15.5 percent of edible food was wasted, while hospital catering department waste was as high as 30 percent (Kirk and Osner 1981). These figures represent a high monetary value because of high value-added costs associated with the waste of prepared food, along with associated energy waste from transportation, storage, and cooking. A significant portion of this waste could be avoided or minimized through sound management practices. In a survey of restaurants in the Tampa Bay area, the Florida Energy Extension Service and Miller (1994) found that restaurants

MONTH XXXX

THE DYNAMICS OF GREEN RESTAURANT PATRONAGE

SECTION

Exhibit 1: A Conceptual Model of Consumers’ Willingness to Patronize Green Restaurants

Environmental Concerns - Balance of Nature - Limits to Growth - Human over Nature

Knowledge of Green Restaurants

Consumers’ Willingness to

- Energy efficiency - Noise pollution - Substantial Food - Solid Waste - Air Pollution - Employee Education

Patronize Ecological Behaviors - Recycling - Energy Saving - Environmental Purchasing

a Green Restaurant

annually used 512,000 Btu per square foot. Restaurants are the most energy intense commercial buildings in Florida, using on average twenty-two times more energy than a family of four, with air-conditioning—at 40 percent—being the biggest energy user in the restaurant. This energy usage has significant environmental impact on Florida, given estimates that restaurants contribute more than 30 billion pounds of CO2 and 84 million pounds of SO 2 to the air. A decrease in energy use in restaurants by only 5 percent would reduce CO2 emissions by 1.5 billion pounds every year (Florida Energy Extension Service and Miller 1994).

Green Restaurants Green restaurants may be defined as “new or renovated structures designed, constructed, operated, and demolished in an environmentally friendly and energy-efficient manner” (Lorenzini 1994 [AQ: 2]). Compared to a traditional restaurant, a green restaurant

MONTH XXXX

Demographics Characteristics - Age - Gender - Education - Income - Amount of Spending

focuses on three Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) and two Es (energy and efficiency) (Gilg, Barr, and Ford 2005). According to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, which support an internationally recognized green building certification, a building must be “designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts” (USGBC n.d.). Some restaurant chains, such as Arby’s, Carl’s Jr., Chipotle Mexican Grill, and Subway, have begun to build green restaurants. Arby’s and Chipotle each have at least one LEED-certified restaurant (Elan 2009). Chipotle Mexican Grill has even incorporated a wind turbine into one of its restaurants that should generate more than 7 percent of its power needs.

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 3

SECTION

THE DYNAMICS OF GREEN RESTAURANT PATRONAGE

According to the Green Restaurant Association (n.d.), a restaurant’s environmental management system (EMS) can be seen as having a number of linked aspects. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.), an EMS is a formal set of “processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency” and includes the management processes of planning, implementing, reviewing, and improving upon its actions. The following are some of the suggested topics listed by the Green Restaurant Association. [AQ: 10] 1. Energy efficiency and conservation: Improve the energy efficiency of lighting, refrigeration, air-conditioning, and gas appliances. 2. Water efficiency and conservation: Improve the water efficiency of toilets, faucets, laundry, and sprinkler systems. 3. Recycling and composting: Transition to recycled products with the highest post consumer content available and non-tree-fiber paper products: napkins, paper towels, toilet paper, office paper, take-out containers, coffee jackets, plates, and bowls. 4. Sustainable food: Sustainable food products support the long-term maintenance of ecosystems and agriculture for future generations. Organic agriculture prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering. Locally grown foods reduce the amount of pollution associated with transportation primarily by fossil fuels. Plant-based foods require fewer natural resources and create less pollution per calorie consumed. 5. Pollution prevention: Achieved through reduction at source, reuse, or improving operational practices. 6. Recycle: Recycled, tree-free, biodegradable, and organic products. Recycled products are made from materials that are collected from postconsumer or postindustrial waste sources. Tree-free products are made from alternative plant sources such as hemp or kenaf. Biodegradable products are capable of being decomposed by biological agents, especially bacteria. Organic products are grown without the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge, and genetic engineering. 7. Chlorine-free paper products: Chlorine-free paper products are unbleached or whitened with alternatives such as hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, and ozone. 8. Nontoxic cleaning and chemical products: Replace hazardous chemical products with biodegradable and nontoxic alternatives; dish detergent, germicides, disinfectants, toilet bowl cleaners, drain cleaner, floor wash, floor polish, glass cleaners, degreasers, and laundry detergent. 9. Renewable power: Electricity and power are available from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydro, and biomass. These energy sources cause dramatically less air pollution and environmental damage compared to fossil fuel, nuclear, and large-scale hydroelectric energy source. 10. Green building and construction: Green design and construction practices significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment, occupants, and the local community. 11. Employee education: There is a definite need to train all employees, managers, and owners about green practices. Topics covered include an environmental profile of the restaurant industry, a history of environmental issues relevant to food service: landfills, water pollution, air pollution, clear-cutting, and global warming, and data describing the restaurant impacts on the environment.—H.H.H., H.G.P., and J.S.

4 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Consumer Knowledge of Green Restaurants According to Kaplan (1991), the state of one’s knowledge about an issue significantly influences one’s decision making regarding that issue. Research has examined various factors such as environmental knowledge, sociodemographics, and culture-based attitudes on the ability to understand and evaluate the impact of society on the ecosystem (Tilikidou 2007; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Laroche et al. 2002). Each of the studies above led to positive behavioral action towards the environment. Other studies have shown that knowledge about the environment generally motivates ecologically and environmentally responsible consumer behavior in disparate parts of the world (Haron, Paim, and Yahaya 2005; Lee and Moscardo 2005; Fryxell and Lo 2003). Ibrahim, Aliagha, and Khoo’s study (1999) concluded that information and knowledge about recycling were both significant predictors of recycling behavior. K. Chan (1999) noted that knowledge about ecological issues is a significant predictor of environmentally friendly behavior. In addition, their studies found that knowledge generally influences proenvironmental attitudes, which in turn motivate ecologically or environmentally responsible consumer behavior (Mostafa 2006; Corral-Verdugo 1996). A Canadian study (Laroche 2002) found that individuals who were highly knowledgeable about environmental issues were more willing to pay a premium price for green products. However, another study (Tilikidou 2007) found that consumers would buy green products when there was no price difference.

Environmental Concern General environmental concern is a construct frequently used as a measure of the importance of the environment and its protection and is cited as an indicator of the

MONTH XXXX

THE DYNAMICS OF GREEN RESTAURANT PATRONAGE

greening of consumption (Alwitt and Pitts 1996). Dunlap and Jones (2002 [AQ: 3]) defined environmental concern as “the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them and or indicate the willingness to contribute personally to their solution.” The relationship between environmental concern and behavior has been explored in a variety of contexts. Several studies have indicated that a positive relationship exists between consumers’ environmental concern and environmentally friendly behavior (e.g., Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1987; Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren 1991; Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001). In Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera’s (1987) meta-analytic review of 187 studies, they found that individuals who expressed higher levels of environmental concern were more likely to have reported engaging in recycling, petitioning, and energy conversation. Similarly, Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Wallgren (1991) found that a general attitude of environmental concern was a significant predictor of people’s purchasing environmentally safe products and recycling. Many studies also confirmed that environmental concern positively affects proenvironmental intention and behavior (e.g., Mostafa 2006; Pierce, Dalton, and Zaitsev 1999; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993). In a study of the perceived inconvenience of being environmentally friendly, Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo (2001) found that consumers willing to pay more for green products did not perceive it as inconvenient to behave in an ecologically friendly manner. In a survey of Egyptian consumers, Mostafa (2006) found that environmental concern was positively related to consumers’ intention to purchase green products. In the same vein, Suchard and Polonski (1991) found that ecologically conscious consumers attempt to protect the environment in different ways,

MONTH XXXX

SECTION

such as recycling or purchasing only green products, and are more likely to spend more for green products (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleos 2001). These studies suggest that environmental concern is a good predictor of consumers’ purchase intentions for environmentally friendly products.

Consumers’ Demographic Characteristics Numerous studies have made attempts to identify demographic variables that correlate with environmental consumption. Age, gender, education, income, and family size have been found to be significantly correlated with environmental behavior (Roberts 1996; Roberts and Bacon 1997; Schwartz and Miller 1991). Age has been explored by a number of researchers in studies of ecology and green marketing. Some of the earlier researchers found the relationship between age and green purchases to be significant and negatively correlated with environmental behavior (e.g., Van Liere and Dunlap 1981; Zimmer et al. 1994 [AQ: 4]). Others found the relationship to be significant and positively correlated (Roberts 1996; Samdahl and Robertson 1989). Moreover, the development of distinct gender roles has led most researchers to argue that women are more likely than men to hold attitudes consistent with the green movement because women will, as a result of social development and sex role differences, more carefully consider the impact of their actions on others (Gronhoj and Olander 2007; Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002). In addition, several studies have shown positive relationships between income and environmenta l behaviors (Newell and Green 1997; Roberts 1996; Roberts and Bacon 1997). Individuals with higher income levels can bear the marginal increase in costs associated with supporting green...