Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Are sustainable tourists a higher spending market?*

Norma Polovitz Nickerson a, *, Jake Jorgenson a, B. Bynum Boley b
a
b

Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, 32 Campus Dr. #1234, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, 180 East Green Street, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2152, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Sustainable tourists (high geotraveler tendencies) spend more money than other visitors.

Sustainable tourists spend more time in the destination.

Sustainable travelers contribute benecially to the triple bottom line of tourism businesses.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 10 August 2015
Received in revised form
12 November 2015
Accepted 14 November 2015
Available online 1 December 2015

Resistance to sustainability practices often stems from the industry's view that sustainable tourism requires a protability tradeoff where the additional costs associated with sustainability do not pay off in
increased economic returns, yet few studies have been attempted to prove or disprove this viewpoint.
This study analyzed spending patterns and length of stay of visitors to Montana, USA to determine if
strong geotravelers (higher sustainable behaviors) were different than those with less sustainable behaviors. Results found that total trip spending by strong geotravelers (US $1164) was signicantly higher
than the overall spending of both moderate (US $866) and minimal geotravelers (US $668). These
ndings suggest that sustainable travelers are a travel market to be reckoned with in the tourism
marketing and business world. The combination of their pro-sustainable behavior and increased
spending provides evidence of a market segment in which destinations can benet.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Tourist expenditure
Geotraveler
Market segmentation
Sustainable tourism

1. Introduction
While sustainable tourism has grown in popularity over the last
30 years as a development strategy hailed to bring increased economic opportunity and enhanced quality of life all while preserving
the destination's natural and cultural heritage (McCool & Lime,
2001), resistance remains strong toward implementing it based
upon the perceived economic costs of sustainability (Moeller,
ndez, Andrades-Caldito, &
Dolnicar, & Leisch, 2011; Pulido-Ferna
nchez-Rivero, 2014). Part of this resistance stems from the
Sa
industry's view that sustainable tourism requires a protability
tradeoff where the additional costs associated with sustainability

*
Research for this manuscript was conducted through the Institute for Tourism
and Recreation Research at the University of Montana. This work was supported by
the Governor appointed Montana Tourism Advisory Council by approving the
geotourism projects used for this manuscript.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: norma.nickerson@umontana.edu (N.P. Nickerson), Jacob.
jorgenson@umontana.edu
(J.
Jorgenson),
Bynum.Boley@warnell.uga.edu
(B.B. Boley).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.009
0261-5177/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

do not result in increased economic returns (Carlsen, Getz, & AliKnight, 2001; Moeller et al., 2011). Aligning itself with this view
of sustainability being costly is the perspective that there has been
a fundamental shift in society's way of thinking about sustainability
(Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2005). Shellenberger and Nordhaus
(2005) refer to this as the Death of Environmentalism and suggest that those concerned about the environment and sustainability should consider reframing sustainability messages in a way
that highlights their economic importance over their environmental signicance.
These points speak to the need for more empirical research
examining the question of whether sustainable tourism development actually has positive implications for the economic bottomlines of communities that adopt it in addition to the environmental and socio-cultural benets. While the intrinsic benets of
sustainable tourism to the environment, culture, and residents of
tourism destinations has been heavily researched (Boley &
McGehee, 2014; Budowski, 1976; Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002;
Medina, 2003; Puppim de Oliveira, 2005), the discussion of the
economic benets associated with sustainable tourism has been
more conceptual in nature (Hassan, 2000; Lane, 1994; Sharpley,

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

2000). One specic study to investigate the direct economic benets of sustainable tourism is Moeller and others' (2011) work
which segmented tourists by environmental impact to identify if
there were market segments existing with low environmental
impacts and high economic expenditures. Moeller et al. (2011, p.
157) write that If market segments that minimize negative environmental impacts and maintain high tourism expenditure can be
identied, than a new argument for undertaking sustainability
measures can be presented to tourism destinations and businesses. Their results conrmed that two market segments representing 40 percent of the market share did in fact have high
expenditures and small environmental footprints.
While their results provide additional credence to the economic
benets of sustainable tourism, gaps remain in research on sustainable tourists' expenditures. For example, Moeller et al. (2011)
operationalized sustainable tourists using only the environmental
dimension of sustainability while sustainable tourism is commonly
conceptualized as encapsulating the triple-bottom-line of environmental, socio-cultural and economic sustainability (Cvelbar &
Dwyer, 2013; Dwyer, 2005; Stoddard, Pollard, & Evans, 2012).
Additionally, Moeller et al. (2011) only looked at daily and total
tourism expenditures and did not dive into spending differences
across categories of travel expenditures like lodging, food, gas, attractions and other expenditures as have some studies (Becken &
Simmons, 2008; Wilton & Nickerson, 2006).
In an effort to ll these gaps and to further answer the question
of Does sustainable tourism pay? this study extends that of
Moeller et al. (2011) work by using the Geotraveler Tendency Scale
(GTS) to segment sustainable tourists from less-sustainable tourists
visiting the state of Montana. Montana was chosen as the study site
since the Montana Ofce of Tourism has adopted geotravelers as
their target market to the state, but their pro-sustainable behavior
and spending categories had not been analyzed. Therefore,
comparing expenditures of the geotraveler segments across daily,
total and categorical tourism expenditures would provide valuable
information for businesses and marketing entities alike. The GTS is
a scale designed to identify geotravelers, a type of sustainable
tourists who not only have the pro-environmental behavior
commonly associated with ecotourists, but who also have behaviors that align with geotourism's denition of sustaining and
enhancing the local geographical character of place-including the
environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage and well-being of the
local people (Boley & Nickerson, 2013; Boley, Nickerson, & Bosak,
2011). According to Boley and Nickerson (2013, p. 314), the GTS
provides the sustainable tourism eld with a more holistic tool for
measuring sustainable travelers.
It is believed that this type of analysis builds off the previous
research segmenting sustainable tourists in three specic ways. The
rst is the use of the GTS to segment tourists from the general travel
population. Segmenting tourists using the GTS is novel because it
includes all dimensions of sustainability when segmenting travelers into sustainable tourists and less-sustainable tourists. This
differs from the previous sustainable tourism segmentation studies
that have only looked at the environmental dimensions of sustainability (Dolnicar, 2010; Lundie, Dwyer, & Forsyth, 2007; Moeller
et al., 2011). Second, this study looks at tourists categorical expenditures in addition to their daily and total expenditures. This
type of analysis is meaningful because it allows for making conclusions about the tourists' true contribution to the local economy
through the multiplier effect (Archer, 1982; Becken & Simmons,
2008). If sustainable tourists spend more money in categories
with higher multiplier factors and lower levels of economic
leakage, then there would be even more support for communities
to embrace sustainable tourism as an economic development
strategy. Lastly, this study analyzes the length of time spent in the

171

destination by the traveler to see if sustainable tourists stay longer

than less-sustainable tourists. If sustainable tourists are found to
stay longer than less-sustainable tourists, then economic benets
associated with this market segment are even more attractive
because they are multiplied over a greater period of time. In
addition to these increased economic benets, Boley (2014) and
Hunter and Shaw (2007) acknowledge the possibility that the
longer tourists stay within the destination, the lower their net
greenhouse gas emissions could be from having the initial emissions associated with their travel spread out across multiple days,
as well their normal daily domestic energy use being absent while
on vacation. In summary, this study seeks to add to the sustainable
tourism literature through the analysis of four important questions
pertaining to sustainable tourists as higher spending tourists than
less-sustainable tourists.
1. Do sustainable tourists spend more money daily than lesssustainable tourists?
2. Do sustainable tourists spend more money within the local
economy (lodging, food, and outtter and guides) than lesssustainable tourists?
3. Do sustainable tourists tend to stay longer within the destination than less-sustainable tourists?
4. Do sustainable tourists have greater overall spending than lesssustainable tourists?
2. Literature review
Market segmentation studies have been one of the most ubiquitous lines of tourism research within the general tourism literature as well as the sustainable tourism literature (Dolnicar, 2004).
According to Smith (1956, p. 6) market segmentation consists of
viewing a heterogeneous market (one characterized by divergent
demand) as a number of smaller homogeneous markets in response
to differing product preferences among important market segments. Dolnicar (2004, p. 248) refers to market segmentation as a
potential way for tourism destinations to achieve competitive
advantage, and calls market segmentation one of the most crucial
long-term marketing decisions because of its ability to derive the
most promising market segments with regards to the attractiveness of the segment and the matching potential of the segment's
needs and the destination's or organization's strengths. The necessity, and hence popularity, of market segmentation studies
stems from the heterogeneous nature of tourists.
Lundie et al. (2007, p. 503) write that different types of tourists
generate different economic, social and environmental impacts on
destinations. This heterogeneous nature applies to both tourists'
expenditures, activities chosen within the destination, demographics, as well as their environmental and social impacts
within the destination. The divergent positive and negative impacts
of tourists provide destinations with a strong incentive to develop
market segmentation strategies aimed at attracting segments of
tourists with the most promising benets across the triple bottom
line.
The heterogeneous nature of tourism and its impacts has
resulted in destination marketers being interested in market segmentation for two primary reasons. First, market segmentation has
the potential to identify segments of tourists that promise to bring
larger economic expenditures than other market segments (Mok &
Iverson, 2000; Wilton & Nickerson, 2006). This is the approach that
has been widely embraced within the broader tourism literature
and is synonymous with maximizing nancial yield. Its popularity
stems from tourist expenditures being the fundamental variable of
 & Juaneda, 2000).
protability for tourism destinations (Aguilo
Wilton and Nickerson (2006) see expenditure studies as an

172

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

essential component of any economic impact analysis, and understanding tourist expenditures also assists residents, consumers,
businesses, and governments in making efcient and effective
marketing and development decisions (Frechtling, 2006 pg. 26).
These expenditure studies usually calculate the direct spending of
tourists within a community or at a festival or event and then use
this primary information to deduce the total economic impact that
tourism has within the community (Chhabra, Sills, & Cubbage,
2003; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2001). Most rationale behind engaging
in such studies falls within the purely formal or economically
driven mindset where the destination is trying to maximize
tourism expenditures for economic development (Kalberg, 1980;
McGehee, 2007). While the economic benets from tourism
development are one of the more prevalent reasons for destinations to seek out tourism as a form of economic development, the
sociologist, Max Weber, in his conceptualization of human rationality acknowledges that substantive or non-economic factors also
inuence the decision making process (Boley, McGehee, Perdue, &
Long, 2014; McGehee, 2007). This is especially important because
tourism has a host of negative environmental and social impacts,
which cause some destinations to look beyond expenditures when
trying to identify ideal market segments. This leads to the second,
more substantive (non-economic), reason for destination managers
to conduct market segmentation studies.
The second reason for conducting market segmentation studies,
which is more prevalent within the sustainable tourism literature,
is the use of market segmentation to distinguish ideal visitor
types who maximize sustainable yield rather than solely nancial
yield (Becken & Simmons, 2008; Lundie et al., 2007 Northcote &
Macbeth, 2006). Sustainable yield adds to the measure of tourism's economic benets by including its environmental and social
value to the destination (Lundie et al., 2007). Sustainable yield can
be used by destination managers to identify market segments with
smaller environmental and social footprints than other segments,
and subsequently help them minimize the negative impacts of
tourism and maximize the positive impacts of tourism by attracting
tourists with lower environmental and social footprints and higher
economic, environmental, and social handprints. While these two
reasons for conducting segmentation are seen throughout the
tourism and sustainable tourism literature, few have weaved them
together in a way that looks at both tourists' expenditures and their
sustainable behaviors under a triple bottom line perspective to see
if market segments exist with high expenditures and sustainable
behaviors across the triple bottom line. If these high-value, lowimpact market segments exists, then those interested in sustainable tourism will be better able to address the critics who believe
that in order to practice sustainability, there is an inherent protability trade-off.
The literature review continues by briey reviewing the progression of sustainable tourism market segmentation studies from
their initial inception focused on identifying ecotourists to the most
recent literature from Dolnicar and others (Dolnicar, 2010; Moeller
et al. 2011) that has begun to weave tourists' expenditures together
with the categories of the triple bottom line. The literature review
concludes by reiterating the gaps still remaining in the sustainable
tourism market segmentation literature and the need for more
studies that embrace a combined perspective that examines both
the expenditures of tourists and their sustainable behaviors to see if
market segments exist with pro-sustainable behavior and high
tourism expenditures.
2.1. Sustainable tourism market segmentation
As sustainable tourism has grown in popularity over the last 30
years as a potential solution to alleviate the negative impacts of

tourism while maximizing its positive benets (Hardy, Beeton, &

Pearson, 2002), there has been an abundance of research focusing
on segmenting sustainable tourists from less-sustainable tourists
based upon their psychographic and demographic information
(Blamey & Braithwaite, 1997; Palacio & McCool, 1997; Weaver &
Lawton, 2002). This rise in segmentation studies is largely attributed to destinations recognizing that there is value in attracting
sustainable tourists (including ecotourists, geotourists, responsible
tourists etc.) over less-sustainable tourists (Moeller et al., 2011).
Boley and Nickerson (2013, p. 5) summarizes the primary benets
of sustainable tourism market segmentation as 1) providing psychographic, and demographic information about niche markets
that destinations are trying to attract, 2) helping correctly match
tourists with the right destination based upon tourist preferences
and destination resources, and 3) providing more information
about these niche market segments which are believed to bring
more positive impacts than negative ones.
The previous research on segmenting sustainable tourist can be
traced back to the initial research on ecotourism in the 1990's and
its goal of learning more about the niche market segment of ecotourists. Some of the seminal articles from this early research
include Palacio and McCool (1997) segmentation of ecotourists to
Belize based upon the benets sought, Blamey and Braithwaite
(1997) segmentation of ecotourists based upon their social values,
and Weaver and Lawton (2002) segmentation of ecotourists along a
continuum from hard to soft. In addition to the segmentation
studies on ecotourists, there have also been many studies focused
on segmenting other types of sustainable tourists such as cultural
heritage tourists and geotourists from the larger travel market.
These examples include McKercher's (2002) segmentation of cultural tourists according to the importance of cultural motives in the
decision to visit the destination and the depth of cultural experience sought after, Nyaupane, White and Budruk's (2006) segmentation of tourists based upon their motivations to visit Native
American cultural heritage sites in Arizona, USA, and more recently
Boley and Nickerson (2013) segmentation of sustainable tourists
from less-sustainable tourists using the Geotraveler Tendency Scale
(Boley et al., 2011). The point of sharing these examples is to
highlight that much of the previous segmentation studies within
the sustainable tourism literature have primarily segmented tourists based upon their psychographic and demographic characteristics instead of considering their expenditures at the same time.
Rising out of this research on the identication of niche markets
of sustainable tourists has been an increased initiative to link the
expenditures of tourists together with their environmental impacts
to see if niche market segments exists that have a more sustainable
yield than other segments (Becken & Simmons, 2008; Lundie et al.,
2007; Mehmetoglu, 2007; Moeller et al. 2011). Dolnicar and Long
(2009, p. 505) praise this increased demand-side market segmentation perspective because it provides market incentives for the
protection of nature and note that should an economically
attractive environmentally friendly segment emerge, the inherent
trade-off of environmental sustainability and prot maximization
the tourism industry continually faces could be minimized through
effective target marketing aimed at these newly identied environmentally responsible tourists. A handful of studies from Dolnicar and others have adopted this demand-side market
segmentation perspective to investigate whether or not environmentally friendly market segments exist (Dolnicar, 2010; Dolnicar
& Long, 2009; Dolnicar, Crouch, & Long, 2008).
Of particular interest to this study are the studies of Lundie et al.,
(2007) and Moeller et al., (2011) that have started to weave the
sustainable attributes of tourists with their expenditures to identify
particularly attractive market segments. These studies have had
mixed ndings with Lundie et al. (2007) recognizing that in their

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

Australian inbound market segments, there are real trade-offs between economic and environmental measures of tourism yield.
They specically found that those market segments associated with
high expenditures were found to generate higher negative environmental impacts, and conclude that there is no market segment
representing a panacea to tourism's problems. Conversely, Moeller
et al. (2011) found that in their study, there were two market
segments representing 40 percent of the total market that had
higher tourism expenditures than other market segments and
lower environmental footprints. They conclude that the
sustainability-protability trade-off is a myth and that there are
certain market segments of tourists that can bring high expenditures and lower environmental impacts.
While these studies have started to operationally test the thesis
that there is a panacea to tourism's problems in a holy grail market
segment that is characterized by high expenditures and low footprints, gaps remain due to these studies' conicting ndings, the
infancy of the research, and the operationalization of sustainability
only at the environmental level. Solely examining the environmental dimension of the triple bottom line fails to consider tourists'
socio-cultural and economic impacts within the tourism destination. This study attempts to ll these gaps through a direct test of
whether sustainable tourists, as segmented based upon their
Geotraveler Tendency Scores (GTS), have higher expenditures than
less-sustainable tourists. As brought up in the introduction, the
Death of Environmentalism and the changing values away from
intrinsically valuing sustainable initiatives speaks to the need for
more research to examine the expenditures of sustainable tourists
to see if they are an economically attractive market segment. The
paper now transitions to the methods used to test the hypothesis
that sustainable tourists are higher spending tourists than lesssustainable tourists.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection and study site
The sample population for this study was nonresident travelers
to the state of Montana, USA. Data was collected from nonresident
travelers who stopped at gas stations, rest areas, or airports which
are considered sites where any nonresident might be intercepted
because they need fuel, will be at an airport, or will need to stop for
personal relief. These sites, used for over two decades for nonresident studies in Montana, have randomly assigned days and times
for surveyors to intercept visitors (see ITRR., 2014 for further details). Bus and rail travel are not specically targeted for intercepts
as these are woefully inadequate in Montana. Throughout the study
period, nine surveyors around the state worked 20 h per week
collecting data. Visitor spending, trip characteristics, and geotraveler tendencies were captured using both an on-site and mailback survey methodology.
Once intercepted, visitors 18 years or older were asked a variety
of questions about their current trip. Respondent data about expenditures and trip characteristics were recorded on an iPad, and
then following their trip, visitors were asked to complete a detailed,
postage paid mail-back questionnaire.
For this study, data was collected over two separate time periods
in 2009 and 2011. Initial data collection took place during July,
August, and September of 2009. Because the rst collection period
over the highest visitation months showed interesting geotraveler
results, it incited curiosity to see if geotravelers existed in other, less
traveled months. Two years later, visitors were given the same
questionnaire with identical methodology for the other nine
months. Data from both samples were combined to represent a full
year of Montana vacation traveler spending gures and geotraveler

173

tendencies. A total of 686 vacationer responses were collected and

included for the nal analysis. The onsite intercept response rate
was 95 percent for the full year. The response rate for the summer
mail-back was 39 percent while the other nine months has a 20
percent response rate. Therefore, a near 30 percent response rate
was obtained for the overall mail-back sample. The 30 percent
response rate is standard for mail surveys as seen in other recent
tkova
 & Vogt, 2012).
studies to embrace this methodology (La
The onsite survey contained visitor spending and length of stay
while the mail-back survey contained two main areas of focus: trip
characteristics/demographics, and the behavior section of the
Geotraveler Tendency Scale (GTS). Mail-back responses were linked
with on-site surveys to match expenditures with GTS variables.
Spending and length of stay were then compared between
formulated geotraveler segments using a mean geotourism
behavior score described below.
3.2. Geotraveler segments and visitor spending
The GTS developed by Boley et al. (2011) has been used previously to understand geotraveler tendencies of visitors to a destination and to effectively segment tourists into strong, moderate
and minimal geotravelers (Boley & Nickerson, 2013). In its entirety
the GTS contains two overarching scales, an attitude and behavior
scale, with four dimensions each (environmental, aesthetics, cultural heritage, and wellbeing of local people) developed to encapsulate National Geographic's geotourism denition of tourism that
sustains or enhances the geographical character of place-including
its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of
its residents (Boley et al., 2011). For this study, only the behavioral
component was used without the accompanying attitude scale for
parsimony. Further, the research questions were more concerned
with an individual's actual geotraveler behavior rather than their
attitudes. Respondents rated their likelihood to participate in
geotraveler behaviors on a 6-point Likert scale from not at all
likely to very likely. In total, fteen variables from the four
behavioral dimensions were used to construct a geotraveler score.
The four dimensions used include the Environmental Behavior
Scale (EB), Wellbeing of Local People Behavior Scale (WBS), Cultural
Heritage Behavior Scale (CHB), and Aesthetic Behavior Scale (AB)
(Boley & Nickerson, 2013; Boley et al., 2011). An average geotourism
score was calculated using the mean ratings from all four above
scales. Three segments were constructed using mean cutoffs that
reected their respective level of geotraveler behavior. Strong
geotravelers were respondents who had a mean behavior score of
4.75 or greater out of 6.0 reecting behaviors that were highly
consistent with the geotourism denition. Moderate geotravelers
were respondents who had a mean geotourism score of 3.76e4.74
and Minimal geotravelers were classied as those respondents
with means of 3.75 and below because those below the 3.75 level
answered in a manner unbecoming of a geotravler (Boyle &
Nickerson, 2010).
The mean cutoffs have uctuated throughout the seminal
studies of the GTS. In Boyle and Nickerson (2010), the cutoffs presented above, which are more liberal, were used to segment geotravelers around the entire state. Boley and Nickerson (2013) used a
more conservative cutoff to categorize their sample (strong
geotraveler 5.5 mean or higher, moderate 4.75 to 5.49, and
minimal 4.49 and lower). The difference in cutoff points between
the studies is based on two factors. The rst is the inclusion or
exclusion of the attitudinal questions within the GTS. The full GTS
(both attitude and behavior) was used in the Boley and Nickerson
(2013) study while the reduced GTS (behavior only) was used in
the Boyle and Nickerson study (2010). It can be argued that the GTS
using both attitudes and behaviors needs a stricter cutoff because

174

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

attitudes can increase the mean (attitudes are usually higher than
actual behavior). This attitudinal-behavior gap is commonly
recognized across the environmental literature (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002) and can be seen within the Theory of Planned
Behavior where attitudes help direct behavior but never perfectly
(Ajzen, 1991). The second reason for varying cutoff points across
studies is the different populations in which the GTS has been
administered. In Boley and Nickerson (2013) study, the full GTS was
tested in a geotourism hotspot of the state, Montana's Crown of
the Continent region which houses Glacier National Park, hence,
drawing travelers more interested in natural, scenic, and historic
qualities. It is also the location of National Geographic's Crown of
the Continent Geotourism Mapguide based upon the unique natural and cultural features found in this area surrounding WatertonGlacier International Peace Park (Bosak, Boley, & Zaret, 2010).
Geotourism hotspots should have higher mean scores and therefore more stringent cutoff points to identify the differences between geotravelers. Boyle and Nickerson (2010) study examined all
travelers to the state of Montana, not just in a geotourism hotspot
like the Crown of the Continent region. This dichotomy of sample
populations leads to differing distributions of geotourism scores.
We suggest that the two versions of the GTS be treated with
different cutoff points of the mean scores based upon these two
reasons. Since the behavior GTS was used in this study of all
statewide travelers, the more tolerant cutoffs from Boyle and
Nickerson (2010) were deemed most appropriate.
As to the current sample, 87 travelers were classied as minimal
geotravelers (GTS < 3.75). Moderate and strong geotravelers had
nearly the same segment size with the moderate geotraveler
sample being 299 respondents (GTS 3.76e4.75) and the strong
geotraveler sample at 300 total respondents (GTS > 4.75). All
sample sizes were deemed appropriate for inference testing and
further analysis based upon the statistical assumptions associated
with MANOVA.
To capture spending, visitors were asked to state how much they
spent in Montana during the previous day (or past 24 h if arrived
within that time frame) in thirteen categories. These categories
included: gasoline, hotel/motel, restaurant/bar, retail goods, groceries and snacks, rental cabin/b&b/guest ranches, camp sites, auto
repair/services, guide services, other services (e.g. massage, haircut,
etc.), transportation fares, and gambling. Spending gures were
summated to obtain an average daily spending of all travelers and
in each specic category. Expenditure outliers were delimited to
the 95th percentile dollar value to account for overrepresentation.
Furthermore, data was inated to current dollars. Spending data
collected during 3rd quarter of 2009 was rst inated to 2011 gures. Then, all values were inated to 2014 gures. Therefore, the
spending gures are updated to the most current monetary values.
Finally, respondents were asked their length of stay in Montana
and demographic information. Other trip characteristics were
captured but are not included in the current analysis. The following
section presents the results for each specic geotourism segment in
regards to their spending and length of stay in Montana.
4. Results
To ensure that the geotraveler segments were unique and valid
for further analysis a MANOVA was conducted across geotraveler
scores (GS) to ensure that the three segments were signicantly
different. Table 1 displays the responses to the fteen geotourism
behavior variables asked of all respondents. Between these segments, MANOVA testing with Bonferroni post hoc tests indicate
signicant differences in all variables at the 0.001 level. Strong
geotravelers have signicantly higher mean values in all variables
compared to moderate and minimal geotravelers. More specically,

the mean values of each behavior scale are found to have signicant
differences between each segment. Furthermore, the differences in
geotourism scores between strong geotravelers (5.20), moderate
(4.35), and minimal (3.22) are signicant at the 0.001 level. The
results demonstrate that the three segments are distinct from one
another and that it is appropriate to go with testing the proposed
research questions.
For research questions one and two, a MANOVA was conducted
to test whether there were signicant differences between geotraveler segments, average daily spending, and the thirteen
spending categories (Table 2). Results indicate that minimal geotravelers spend US $138.62 per day, moderate geotravelers spend
US $153.22 per day, and strong geotravelers spend US $171.93 per
day. Strong geotravelers do spend more money per day than both
moderate and minimal geotravelers, but the difference is not statistically signicant at the 0.05 level (p-value 0.097). Therefore,
we can conclude that strong geotravelers spend more money per
day, but not signicantly more money than moderate or minimal
geotravelers.
Research question two aimed at understanding if strong geotravelers, or sustainable tourists, spend more in categories with
higher multipliers and less economic leakage. The authors suggest
that localized categories would include rental cabins/B&B/
ranches, camping, licenses/fees, guide services and then some of
restaurant & bar as well as some of the retail goods. Results showed
that within the individual spending categories hotel/motels, groceries and snacks, and licenses/fees were found to have statistically
signicant differences between geotraveler segments. Strong geotravelers ($37.74) spent signicantly more money per day on hotel/
motel purchases than moderate geotravelers ($26.01) (p .029),
but not signicantly more than minimal geotravelers ($30.05).
Strong geotravelers ($15.24) spent signicantly more money than
minimal geotravelers ($5.35) on groceries and snacks per day
(p .009). Finally, Strong geotravelers ($6.15) spent signicantly
more money than moderate geotravelers ($1.93) in licenses and
fees per day (p .004). Furthermore, the same pattern was found in
outtter and guide services ($2.37 for strong, $1.98 for moderate,
and $0.61 for minimal), with no signicant differences found.
Overall, strong geotravelers tend to spend more in most individual
spending categories but the differences are only signicant in three
categories. Thus, strong geotravelers have signicantly higher
spending in one localized category (licenses/fees) and two nonlocalized categories (hotel/motel and groceries/snacks) with more
differences found between moderate and strong geotravelers not
minimal geotravelers. Future research should attempt to gather a
higher sample size and more detail within the spending categories
to see if there are additional and signicant differences found between segments.
Research question three sought to understand whether strong
geotravelers were signicantly different in nights spent than
moderate and minimal geotravelers (Table 3). While strong geotravelers (6.87 nights) and moderate geotravelers (6.40 nights)
spent more nights per trip than minimal geotravelers (5.47 nights),
the differences were found to be insignicant (p .257). Despite
the insignicant differences between average daily spending and
nights spent, research question four focused on total trip spending,
(calculated by multiplying total nights spent by average daily
spending) and found signicant differences between all three
geotourism segments. Strong geotravelers ($1163.58) spent significantly more money per trip than both moderate ($866.18) and
minimal geotravelers ($668.20). When combining both the average
daily spending and the nights spent in Montana, the small differences become signicant amongst the sample population. Therefore, it appears that sustainable tourists, or in this case strong
geotravelers, do spend signicantly more money per trip than less-

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

175

Table 1
Geotraveler Tendency Behavior Scale responses by geotourism segments.
Scales and item description

Minimal geotraveler
(N 87)

Aesthetic Behavior Scale (AB)

3.83
When you travel, how likely are you to ?
specically travel to an area for its scenic beauty
4.17
stop at scenic overlooks
3.79
search for scenic driving routes
3.54
plan your vacation around the opportunity to enjoy
3.80
scenic beauty
Environmental Behavior Scale (EB)
3.62
In your daily living, how likely are you to regularly ?
recycle
4.03
conserve water
3.60
conserve energy
3.75
purchase environmentally friendly products
3.11
Cultural Heritage Behavior Scale (CHB)
2.80
When you travel, how likely are you to visit the following?
historic sites
3.40
museums
2.82
cultural sites
2.61
cultural events
2.38
Wellbeing of the Local People Behavior Scale (WBB) 2.69
When you travel, how likely are you to seek out ?
locally owned accommodations
2.89
Locally grown food
2.47
locally made arts and crafts
2.56
Overall Geotourism Behavior Score (GBS)
3.22

Moderate geotraveler
(N 299)

Strong geotraveler
(N 300)

a
MANOVA
signicance

Scale
reliability

4.88

5.55

0.000

0.90

5.21
4.76
4.65
4.90

5.71
5.48
5.44
5.56

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

4.68

5.41

0.000

0.86

5.08
4.58
4.71
4.36
3.86

5.62
5.33
5.43
5.27
4.85

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.87

4.44
3.88
3.73
3.39
3.96

5.30
4.86
4.84
4.39
4.97

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.76

3.88
3.94
4.06
4.35

4.85
5.05
5.03
5.20

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.88

Note: Behavior scales: 1 not at all likely to 6 very likely; Geotourism Behavior Score is from 1 to 6 with 1 representing not a geotraveler to 6 representing a strong geotraveler.
Minimal geotravelers GBS <3.75, Moderate geotravelers GBS 3.76e4.75, Strong geotravelers GBS >4.75.
a
All items were tested for statistical signicance using a Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and a Bonferroni post-hoc test of contrast. All tests were found to be
signicant between groups at the alpha 0.001 level.

sustainable, or moderate/minimal geotravelers.

5. Discussion
The four research questions sought to understand if sustainable
tourists were, essentially, a higher spending tourist than those that
were less-sustainable in their actions. In this case, sustainable
tourists were those who rated in the strong geotraveler category
using the behavior section of the GTS, whereas the leastsustainable tourists were categorized as minimal geotravelers.
Results indicated sustainable tourists indeed spent more than their
less-sustainable counterparts. Contrary to Lundie et al.'s (2007)
ndings, sustainable or strong geotravelers have a higher overall
trip spending despite being more environmentally, socially, and
culturally concerned than the moderate or minimal geotraveler

segments. This study tends to bring credence to Moeller et al.s

(2011) ndings where tourists with lower environmental footprints were found to have higher individual expenditures. Although
geotravelers do not spend signicantly more money per day or have
longer lengths of stay than moderate or minimal geotravelers, the
overall impact of their combined differences was signicantly
different. The combination of a slightly higher daily spending and a
slightly higher average nights spent equate to an overall substantial
value when combined. Despite this, geotravelers do not spend
signicantly more in all spending categories that have high multiplier and low economic leakage (i.e. rental cabins/B&B/ranches and
guiding) than less sustainable segments. Strong geotravelers spend
more in some of these categories (e.g. hotel/motel, licenses/fees,
food and snacks), but not in all. Even more, the differences were
primarily found between moderate and strong geotravelers, but

Table 2
Visitor spending Categories by geotraveler segments.

Gasoline
Hotel/Motela
Restaurant and bar
Retail goods
Groceries and snacksb
Rental Cabin/B&B/Ranches
Camping
Licenses/feesb
Auto repair/services
Guide services
Services
Transportation fares
Gambling
Average daily spending

Minimal geotraveler (a) (n 87)

Moderate geotraveler (b) (n 299)

Strong geotraveler (c) (n 300)

MANOVA P-value

$38.67
$30.05
$20.35
$24.09
$5.35c
$3.32
$7.37
$6.13
$1.75
$0.61
$0.00
$0.00
$0.92
$138.62

$39.08
$26.01c
$26.88
$21.37
$12.72
$8.00
$9.37
$1.93c
$4.87
$1.98
$0.57
$0.12
$0.31
$153.22

$38.03
$37.74b
$30.68
$21.71
$15.24a
$9.36
$5.90
$6.15b
$4.55
$2.37
$0.81
$0.47
$0.22
$171.93

0.055
3.549
2.901
0.052
4.772
0.836
2.371
5.515
1.365
0.423
1.110
1.398
1.419
2.343

0.946
.029a
0.056
0.950
.009b
0.434
0.094
.004b
0.256
0.655
0.330
0.248
0.243
0.097

Note: MANOVA testing and a Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to estimate statistical signicance between groups on all variables.
a
MANOVA test indicates signicance at 0.05 level.
b
MANOVA test indicates signicance at 0.01 level.

176

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

Table 3
Nights spent and total trip spending by geotraveler segments.

Nights spent in Montana

Total trip spendinga

Minimal geotraveler (a) (n 87)

Moderate geotraveler (b) (n 299)

Strong geotraveler (c) (n 300)

P-value

5.47 nights
$668.20bc

6.40 nights
$866.18ac

6.87 nights
$1163.58ab

1.360
6.139

0.257
0.002a

Note: The average total trip spending cannot be calculated using average daily spending and average nights spent. Total trip spending uses raw data and not the averages from
Tables 2 and 3
Note: MANOVA testing and a Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to estimate statistical signicance between groups on all variables.
a
MANOVA test indicates signicance at 0.01 level.

minimal geotravelers tended to spend nearly equally as strong

geotravelers except in groceries and snacks. With more data, signicant differences may be found in both daily spending and length
of stay, if the pattern stayed the same as the data shows.
In Montana, the state Ofce of Tourism has fully adopted the
principles of geotourism in their marketing philosophy. Their hope
was to attract a segment of travelers who provide economic contributions to local communities and who wish to minimally impact
the natural, cultural, historical, and community resources that draw
visitors to the state. Through this study, it becomes clear that their
marketing direction can be valid and benecial for the state as a
whole. Practically, marketing to this segment of travelers is benecial to the environment, socio-cultural features, and the economic
aspects of a destination (Dwyer, 2005). Because geotravelers
behave sustainably, the primary driver of tourism, i.e. the revenue
side, can be satised while also ensuring protection for the very
resources that attract them. Additionally, strong geotravelers are
focused on obtaining real experiences unique to the destination.
Therefore, destination managers can focus less on changing the
destination in a way that would attract new visitors, but rather
promote what is already there, embrace the nuances that make
their location unique, and strive to become more efcient within
their current practices.
There were some limitations present in this study. Responses
were collected over two sample periods, and while spending patterns should not differ signicantly between the sample periods,
one will always wonder if possible differences could have changed
the results. Furthermore, the sample size of the total study was
adequate, but still somewhat small for making large comparisons
(n 686). Another limitation was the recognized incongruence
between geotourism score mean cutoff values. Geotravelers were
dened less stringently than in Boley and Nickerson (2013), which
can be seen as a limitation in research design. Despite these limitations, this study provides an initial look into the expenditures of
sustainable tourists using the behavioral GTS. More research can
adopt the GTS to understand whether the results found in this
study are applicable across sites.
Some may say that socio-economic status could be a main variable behind spending. However, in Boyle and Nickerson (2010) and
Boley and Nickerson (2013) differing results emerged on household
income and their level of geotraveler tendency. These confounding
results suggest further study in this arena.
Sustainable tourism still faces challenges for adoption by the
business world despite these ndings. However, continued studies
like these that corroborate the positive contribution to the triple
bottom-line measures may convince business owners of their need
to be cognizant of sustainability practices (Boley & Uysal, 2013;
Cvelbar & Dwyer, 2013). Results from this study can be used to
reframe the discussion of promoting sustainable tourism through a
geotourism mindset. Rather than just being sustainable as a
corporately responsible duty, business owners and managers can
now see the link between sustainable behaviors (both travelers and
businesses) and a sustainable business model.
With that said, more research needs to be conducted to better

understand where differences may exist between the sustainable

markets. Although overall trip spending is signicantly higher,
categorical expenditure differences need further exploration.
Future research should aim to rene the localized spending categories and attempt to capture a larger sample of travelers in an
effort to explore these differences in more depth.
6. Conclusions
This study examined whether sustainable tourists spent more
than their less-sustainable counterparts. As results indicate, strong
geotravelers (sustainable tourists) appear to fulll all triple bottomline measures. Their economic contribution to local communities in
addition to their behaviors to preserve the place can be used as a
valid argument for future promotional efforts. Furthermore, use of
the GTS appears to be an appropriate means of classifying visitors
into sustainable market segments and is more holistic in nature
than previous segmentation studies only considering tourists'
environmental attitudes and behaviors. Instead of focusing only on
one pillar of sustainability, the GTS can encompass all desirable
sustainability aspects.
The ndings of this study that sustainable tourists have significantly higher spending patterns than less-sustainable tourists can
be coupled with the work of Moeller et al. (2011) to make the case
that in some destinations, it does economically payoff to be sustainable. While these ndings may not carry much weight for those
who intrinsically gravitate towards a sustainable philosophy, it
does provide a strong economic incentive for destinations more
extrinsically minded to embrace sustainable tourism. As
Shellenberger and Nordhaus (2005) recognize, too often sustainability is preached to the choir, and those interested in sustainability, need to step off their high horse and demonstrate why
sustainability is important to critics who are only focused on the
economic bottom line. This research provides additional mortar in
the argument that when it comes to tourism, it pays to be
sustainable.
References
 Perez, E., & Juaneda, S. C. (2000). Tourist expenditure for mass tourism
Aguilo
markets. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 624e637.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179e211.
Archer, B. H. (1982). The value of multipliers and their policy implications. Tourism
Management, 3(4), 236e241.
Becken, S., & Simmons, D. (2008). Using the concept of yield to assess the sustainability of different tourist types. Ecological Economics, 67(3), 420e429.
Blamey, R. K., & Braithwaite, V. A. (1997). A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 29e45.
Boley, B. B. (2014). To travel or not to travel? both have implications for sustainable
tourism. Tourism Planning & Development, (ahead-of-print, 1e17.
Boley, B. B., & McGehee, N. G. (2014). Measuring empowerment: developing and
validating the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS). Tourism
Management, 45, 85e94.
Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., Perdue, R. R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and
resident attitudes toward tourism: strengthening the theoretical foundation
through a Weberian lens. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 33e50.
Boley, B. B., & Nickerson, N. P. (2013). Proling geotravelers: an a priori

N.P. Nickerson et al. / Tourism Management 54 (2016) 170e177

segmentation identifying and dening sustainable travelers using the Geotraveler Tendency Scale (GTS). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 314e330.
Boley, B. B., Nickerson, N. P., & Bosak, K. (2011). Measuring geotourism developing
and testing the geotraveler tendency scale (GTS). Journal of Travel Research,
50(5), 567e578.
Boley, B. B., & Uysal, M. (2013). Competitive synergy through practicing triple
bottom line sustainability: evidence from three hospitality case studies. Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 13(4), 226e238.
Bosak, K., Boley, B., & Zaret, K. (2010). Deconstructing the Crown of the Continent:
power, politics and the process of creating National Geographic's Geotourism
Mapguides. Tourism Geographies, 12(3), 460e480.
Boyle, D., & Nickerson, N. P. (2010). Statewide vacationers to Montana: Are they
geotravlers? Research Report 2010e2. Institute for Tourism and Recreation
Research, University of Montana.
Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation: conict, coexistence, or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 3(01), 27e31.
Carlsen, J., Getz, D., & Ali-Knight, J. (2001). The environmental attitudes and practices of family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 9(4), 281e297.
Chhabra, D., Sills, E., & Cubbage, F. W. (2003). The signicance of festivals to rural
economies: estimating the economic impacts of Scottish Highland Games in
North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 421e427.
Cvelbar, L. K., & Dwyer, L. (2013). An importanceeperformance analysis of sustainability factors for long-term strategy planning in Slovenian hotels. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(3), 487e504.
Dolnicar, S. (2004). Beyond commonsense segmentation: a systematics of segmentation approaches in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 244.
Dolnicar, S. (2010). Identifying tourists with smaller environmental footprints.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 717e734.
Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G. I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists: what do
we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 197e210.
Dolnicar, S., & Long, P. (2009). Beyond ecotourism: the environmentally responsible
tourist in the general travel experience. Tourism Analysis, 14(4), 503e513.
Dwyer, L. (2005). Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to achievement of
sustainable tourism: a scoping study. Tourism Review International, 9(1),
79e938.
Eagles, P., McCool, S., & Haynes, C. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas:
Guidelines for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union.
Frechtling, D. C. (2006). An assessment of visitor expenditure methods and models.
Journal of Travel Research, 45(1), 26e35.
Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: an overview of the
concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475e496.
Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239e245.
Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 28(1), 46e57.
ITRR. (2014). Statewide nonresident travel survey: Survey methods & data analysis
Accessed
29.10.15.
http://itrr.umt.edu/les/NonresTravelSurvey-MethodsAnalysis.pdf
Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber's types of rationality: cornerstones for the analysis of
rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5),
1145e1179.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239e260.
Lane, B. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism strategies: a tool for development and
conservation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1e2), 102e111.
tkova
, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents' attitudes toward existing and future
La
tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1),
50e67.
Lundie, S., Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (2007). Environmental-economic measures of
tourism yield. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 503e519.
McCool, S. F., & Lime, D. W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or
useful reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 372e388.
McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: a Weberian perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111e124.
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classication of cultural tourists. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1), 29e38.
Medina, L. (2003). Commoditizing culture: tourism and Maya identity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(2), 353e368.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Nature-based tourists: the relationship between their trip
expenditures and activities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 200e215.
Moeller, T., Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2011). The sustainabilityeprotability trade-off
in tourism: can it be overcome? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 155e169.
Mok, C., & Iverson, T. J. (2000). Expenditure-based segmentation: Taiwanese tourists to Guam. Tourism Management, 21(3), 299e305.
Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2006). Conceptualizing yield: sustainable tourism

177

management. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 199e220.

Nyaupane, G. P., White, D. D., & Budruk, M. (2006). Motive-based tourist market
segmentation: an application to Native American cultural heritage sites in
Arizona, USA. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 81e99.
Palacio, V., & McCool, S. F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benet
segmentation: a preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3),
234e244.
ndez, J. I., Andrades-Caldito, L., & Sa
nchez-Rivero, M. (2014). Is susPulido-Ferna
tainable tourism an obstacle to the economic performance of the tourism industry? Evidence from an international empirical study. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 23(12), 47e64.
Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2005). Tourism as a force for establishing protected areas:
the case of Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 24e49.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1e19.
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2005). The death of environmentalism. Retrieved
on June 11, 2014 from http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the_death_of_
environmentalism.
Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative
marketing strategies. The Journal of Marketing, 3e8.
Stoddard, J. E., Pollard, C. E., & Evans, M. R. (2012). The triple bottom line: a
framework for sustainable tourism development. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 13(3), 233e258.
Tyrrell, T. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2001). A framework for assessing direct economic
impacts of tourist events: distinguishing origins, destinations, and causes of
expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 94e100.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in
the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3),
270e280.
Wilton, J. J., & Nickerson, N. P. (2006). Collecting and using visitor spending data.
Journal of Travel Research, 45(1), 17e25.

Norma Polovitz Nickerson, is Research Professor and

Director of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation
Research (ITRR), at The University of Montana in the College of Forestry and Conservation. Dr. Nickerson and ITRR
are responsible for Montana's travel and recreation
research including the economic impact of tourism, geotourism studies, visitor characteristics, public lands and
tourism research, market segmentations, and other niche
studies related to tourism in Montana and surrounding
areas. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vacation Marketing and Leisure/Loisir, and
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management.

Jake Jorgenson, is a Ph.D. candidate in in the College of

Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana.
His research interests lie in understanding visitor behaviors, sustainable travel in nature-based tourism, and tourist experiences at destinations. Understanding how the
travel experience inuences decision-making and individual behavior is Mr. Jorgenson's key research area. His
research has appeared in the Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Montana Business Quarterly, and Yellowstone Science.

B. Bynum Boley, is an Assistant Professor of Natural Resources, Recreation and Tourism within the Warnell School
of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of
Georgia. His research interests largely focus on sustainable
tourism with a specic interest in the unique natural and
cultural resources of tourism destinations. These innate
natural and cultural features interest him because he sees
the sustainable management and marketing of them as
being vital to two of the primary goals of tourism development: 1) the ability to effectively attract tourists and
achieve a competitive advantage and 2) having residents
that are proud and supportive of the tourism industry
within their community. Dr. Boley's research has appeared
in the Journal of Travel Research, Annals of Tourism Research,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Tourism Management, and Tourism Geographies.