**5. Discussion**

The results of the present research confirmed that there is a broad range of barriers to recycling at the destination. On the one hand, subjective restraints stemming from a low level of motivation that might be explained by placing the tourists in a dilemma between two favourable choices—that is, recycling or having a relaxed holiday. In addition to this Ipsative sentiment, tourists might neglect recycling when there is a lack of information about how to do it and, in this case, they might su ffer from cognitive dissonance [46]. Moreover, tourists might feel unmotivated by perceiving a lack of reward for making the e ffort. Therefore, some are extrinsically motivated [50]. Finally, perceived inconvenience and nuisances derived from the distance and time-consuming nature of recycling may discourage the desirable conduct. Following the literature, those subjects exhibit a low level of motivation, and this is the reason they demand some form of compensation [92]. On the other hand, some do not recycle because they are reluctant, or even opposed; they believe in neither climate change, nor the presumed benefits associated with recycling and, hence, they reject recycling without regret. In rejecting recycling, paraphrasing the Katz's theory of attitudes, there might be the failure to acquire knowledge and harness the benefits of taking part in the common e ffort, along with an attempt to self-protect against a feeling of exploitation and, all in all, some dysfunctional arguments [49,115]. In summary, this evidence is consistent with the literature on recycling, in that the inhibitors to recycling are always diverse and subjective by nature [30,89,93,96].

What is more, this diversity is also personal and, in turn, greater, insofar as all the hindrances and deterrents depend on the tourist's sociodemographic profile in terms of gender, education and nationality. It is worth noting that age does not show any significant relationship with recycling and the connection between education and recycling is not linear. However, women, locals, and German and Scandinavian tourists are prone to making an e ffort for recycling's sake at the destination. These findings might imply that being on holiday challenges the probability of recycling and only the most likely sociodemographic profiles show a significant resilience against the adverse circumstances that represent the maintenance of recycling away from home. The literature on recycling points out that those who perceive more barriers to recycling are also more demanding about external compensations, as well as being more sensitive about any potential deterrent [92,115].

Finally, of the situational factors a ffecting the variety of recycling barriers at the destination, the most important is the apartment category and the frequency of visits, in that the lower the former and the higher the latter, the stronger the barrier is perceived by the tourist. In this respect, it stands to reason that familiarity with the destination, insofar as it might enhance the sense of community and lead to the acquisition of the practical knowledge needed to recycle [90,107], as well as the much better conditions of the mid-class neighbourhood [89], might explain the greater success of recycling initiatives and how tourists overcome the tragedy of the commons [47]. These important findings are in line with the previous research works in the extant recycling behaviour literature, which points out the critical role of space and time situations as barriers [34].
