**1. Introduction**

Deepening our understanding of the barriers that affect tourists' recycling behaviour at a destination is a key topic in need of research, for multiple reasons. Firstly, recycling at home and at holiday destinations are different. Nevertheless, while the former has received quite a lot of attention, further research needs to be done with regards to the latter [1–3]. Secondly, barriers play a role in affecting this environmentally friendly behaviour when one is away from home, insofar as there is a marked change in the situation, lifestyle and perceptions. No doubt, recycling on holiday requires an extra effort and it is more inconvenient [4–8]. Therefore, the ability of the social marketer to overcome the barriers by helping the tourist to come to grips with the new circumstances is crucial. Thirdly, as ecological awareness and climate change concerns are becoming more important for tourists, the destination's environmental quality must live up to the new tourists' ecological demands and, in turn, their recycling desires [7,9–13]. Destination sustainability has become a key competitive edge, mainly for mass-tourism destinations [14–18]. Fourthly, with these research gaps in mind, this work raises the issue of recycling at particular destinations, like Gran Canaria, where the predominant type of accommodation is apartment-based and, hence, the need for tourist collaboration is more unavoidable than in hotel-based accommodation. What is more, not only is there a lack of research on the issue of tourist recycling behaviour, but also where the collaboration matters most, and the circumstances show a high degree of vulnerability, that is, mass-tourism, in apartment-based holidays in a small, insular and, thus, fragile oversea European territory.

In this context, this paper aims to gain a further understanding of the barriers a ffecting tourist recycling behaviour. We agree with Mee and Clewes [19], in acknowledging that most tourists are open to recycling, and the gap between attitudes and behaviour mainly stems from perceived barriers, as well as with their assertion that this topic requires further research.

Besides, this research work explores the sociodemographic profile of destination tourists to overcome the existing contradictory empirical evidence that the recycling literature faces, with regards to how gender [20], age [21] and education [22] a ffect environmentally friendly behaviours. While there are research works demonstrating the relationship between recycling behaviour and gender [23–25], age [23–25] and education [26], there are also those who do not verify this in the field of tourism [1,7,27]. Similarly, McKenzie-Mohr [28] recommends that researchers pay attention to cultural diversity to enhance recycling. Hence, nationality is a key variable to consider if recycling at tourism destinations matters [10,11]. Furthermore, the situational variables related to location and time are critical in tourism, insofar as tourists, by definition, are those who arrive for a limited period at a sustainable destination [29]. While the most influential variable to incite recycling behaviour is situational, that is, facilities and convenience, it is under-researched, seeing that we need to further understand how barriers exert a negative influence on recycling [30].

What is more, from a practical point of view, the sociodemographic and situational di fferences of tourists are accredited as the most visible, accessible and manageable characteristics, when one deals with such a volatile population for any destination. The vast majority of people only spend a limited amount of time and, hence, any social marketing plan should focus on profiling these quickly approachable variables, for example, sociodemographic and situational, rather than delving into other types of more time-consuming study object characteristics, for instance, psychographics.

With this research and practical aims in mind, this work is divided into four sections. First, the review of the literature in which the theoretical framework is developed. Second, the methodology, giving an account of the survey and measuring instruments. Third, the analysis of the results, which presents the obtained empirical evidence. Fourth, the conclusions, where we discuss the theoretical and practical outcomes of the paper, by acknowledging limitations and proposing future lines of research.

#### **2. Review of the Literature**

Schultz [31] defines a barrier as any factor that reduces the probability of the target engaging in a behaviour, for example, structural di fficulties to access and costs associated with the campaign. It makes sense that any social marketing programme seeks to decrease barriers and increase the benefits and, hence, the analysis of recycling restraints and constraints becomes crucial.

As far as environmentally-friendly behaviour is concerned, there are two types of barrier. On the one hand, there are subjective restraints, such as perceived behavioural barriers and responsibility. These stem from learning and socialisation processes, and we say barrier when we mean perception, beliefs and motivation. On the other hand, there are objective constraints, such as place of residence, time limitations and infrastructure factors.

Of the two barriers, Tanner [32] demonstrates that perceived behavioural barriers represent the most significant restraint. In this vein, to gain insight into this absence of the recycling response, we can resort to the Ipsative theory to refer to circumstances in which individuals are forced to make up their minds between two desirable options. For example, recycling or desirable reasons for not recycling such as relaxing, saving time and space, and avoiding certain nuisances derived from producing insu fficient waste and other miscellanea of minor motives. Some tourists overlook recycling even though they recycle at home, are favourable towards recycling and manifest ecological awareness. Following this, the reason for neglecting to recycle is a low degree of motivation, rather than a particular motive [32]. People do not recycle seeing that it demands an e ffort, and they choose another battle to fight. What is more, provided that curbside recycling facilities are continuously available in the neighbourhood, it denotes a sort of laziness, a lack of interest and a low degree of commitment to recycling [33]. It does not mean that they do not believe in recycling, it just means that they do not have enough information, interest and volitive resources to bridge the gap between what they think and what they do [34]. In this case, there is an attitude behaviour gap, undermining the possibility of shaping into action people's beliefs. This inconsistency might be due to several factors. First, the lack of information and skills [35–37]. Second, external locus of control, low level of self-e fficacy and weak social support [3–43]. Third, an underdeveloped recycling habit, caused by a weak environmental concern [44]. Fourth, methodological shortcomings related to an incorrect interpretation of the 'no response' and 'bad measures' dimensions [37,45].

Juvan and Dolnicar [46] gained an understanding of why people engage in environmentally-friendly behaviour at home, ye<sup>t</sup> decline to recycle on holiday, by resorting to cognitive dissonance theory, attribution theory, and the value-belief norm theory. To be precise, these authors explain that people want to recycle, but they cannot, and it makes feel them bad and under pressure, due to a heartfelt inconsistency. To avoid these feelings, they develop cognitive schemes, such as underestimating the supposed harm, considering vacation as being exceptional, and taking lightly the actual damage in comparison to the potential response. All of these represent a set of beliefs used to re-establish cognitive consonance and account for a low level of involvement and motivation. As it is easy to fault this personal incoherency and unethical response, people point to how others engage in recycling, argue a lack of time, and express defeatist sentiments. No doubt, it leads to a sort of tragedy of the commons, in which contradictory beliefs and sentiments might attack one's self-e fficacy, and even produce feelings of hopelessness [47].

Nevertheless, the problem does not always lay in a mere lack of involvement seeing that reluctance exists. In fact, not wishing to recycle, people make excuses by neglecting their responsibilities, adducing external constraints and even blaming others. Thus, it may be the case that not only might there be a contradiction in beliefs that diminishes the will and causes recycling to be overlooked, but there may also be tourists who are opposed to recycling. Those who oppose recycling are infused with reluctant beliefs and an unfavourable attitude towards contributing. For instance, there could be those who base their stance on a belief that climate change does not exist and therefore show a general mistrust towards the presumed benefits of recycling [48]. Besides, some deny awareness of the environmental consequences related to their inaction and, arguably, they defer responsibility to technological solutions and even argue for the benefits associated with employment and carbonisation [46]. In any case, it is the type of motivation that causes people to reject recycling; there is a particular negative motive to be opposed to contributing and a sort of opinion against performing the desired conduct [49]. Be that as it may, people opposed to recycling are those who adduce more inhibitors, hindrances and barriers [50].

To deepen our understanding of this posture, the classic theory of attitude points out the existence of four dysfunctional arguments [51]. First, there could be the failure of a knowledge function, since recycling could be meaningless and does not provide enough certainty about its presumed sustainable quality, because either there exists a lack of evidence, or logical arguments to uphold its beneficial effects. Second, recycling could be associated with a negative image and its expression of value and purpose could be wrongly communicated. Third, people could decline to recycle, because they believe it hurts their own lives. For example, people could feel exploited and unfairly treated by private companies making money at the expense of those, like themselves, who volunteer their own time and ge<sup>t</sup> nothing tangible in return. Four, people could refuse to recycle, due to its inconveniences and nuisances. In this case, the community and the system of the waste collection would be maladaptive, insofar as it might produce discomfort and not meet people's needs [52].

On this basis, and considering that barriers to recycling are subjectively perceived by the tourists to a destination, we put forward hypothesis 1.

#### **Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *There is a wide variety of subjective restraints and barriers to recycling at the destination.*

Barriers for recycling are personal because, even though this desired conduct is carried out within a household, whether or not the individual collaborates, it is subject to their will and liberty, and

their decision-making processes. Individuals cope with recycling barriers di fferently depending on their gender, age, education and nationality. The literature on recycling points out that females [37, 53–59], youngsters [53,60–63] and the highly educated [36,53,58–60,64–71] are more likely to recycle. Nevertheless, notwithstanding that sociodemographics matter less because the desired conduct is widely shared in society [72], it might make a di fference by recovering its explanatory strength, only when the most favourable profiles can develop the desired response in such an adverse circumstance as being abroad on holiday [23–26].

The literature on recycling asserts di fferent theoretical explanations related to why sociodemographics influence recycling. Concerning gender, McStay and Dunlap [73] claim that women are more prone to recycling and any other environmentally friendly responses due to cultural factors. To be specific, the male stereotype is one that is seen as being closer to instrumental values and the exploitation of resources, while women are more related to nature and care. Moreover, women tend to play a more significant role in the household in which recycling is performed.

Regarding age, one might argue that when the ecological paradigm was born in the seventies and during its early development in eighties, youngsters looked to be more inclined towards recycling than older people [62,74,75]. Nevertheless, once recycling became a widely shared value in society and no longer a novelty, it started to be performed predominantly by older people, owing to the natural process of ageing of those who used to be young and now have become more mature. Likewise, it seems that recycling is suitable for fully responsible and integrated citizens, as older people tend to be [59]. Finally, Dietz et al. [71] adduce that the elderly go<sup>t</sup> used to being frugal and following the more simplistic lifestyle that recycling implies.

To find ground about the relationship between education and recycling, we might resort to a couple of arguments. First, the existing positive correlation between education and income and, in turn, the better facilities for recycling associated with holiday accommodation when tourists belong to a higher class. Second, the richer cognitive resources in terms of information about how, where and what to recycle when one shows a higher level of education. In this sense, we assume that highly educated tourists are more inclined to immediate environmental responses than those who are lowly educated and less knowledgeable.

What is more, nationality might play a role in explaining recycling at the destination. The reasons for not recycling are diverse and vary in function of the kind of system. Tourists come from di fferent countries and in their respective countries, the recycling collection system is dissimilar [34]. From a kerbside scheme to a wide range of sites reached on foot, by car or located at supermarkets, tourists show quite a diverse background of experiences that condition how familiar they are with the recycling collection systems that they find at the destination. In this sense, it seems that northern European citizens are more prone to recycling [76], since environmental concern and recycling rates are higher in these countries.

In addition to arguing mobility from the accustomed recovery system, another explanation for the recycling barriers on holiday might refer to a sort of alienation. In other words, recycling at home but not at a destination generates an asymmetry that the 'tragedy of the commons' might give account for. This theory refers to communities in which people do not care about shared resources and express a sense of lack of belonging. In this context, there is a tendency to feel a lack of accountability because it is hard to see a tangible benefit related to the advocated environmental action and, in turn, this leads to being convinced that inaction does not cause damage. When this irresponsibility is questioned, it gives rise to quite paradoxical beliefs, such as that others do not do their part or that others will solve the problem. What is more, the tragedy of the commons instigates a sort of free-riding e ffect, whose consequences are to diminish one's contribution, because individuals can feel as though they are obtaining less than they are giving. Therefore, doing nothing turns out to be beneficial, since one gains without contributing, and this passive response maximises one's utility [47].

Finally, nationality might exert a significant influence through social norms, since not only is what others are doing important, but what they consider acceptable is also important (Cialdini et al., 1990). Moreover, the principles of imitation [77] and reciprocity [78] are always underlying collective responses with regards to recycling [79].

Therefore, it is evident that there are personal restraints derived from the tourist's sociodemographic profile that might explain the probability of adopting the recycling behaviour at the destination. On this basis, we put forward hypotheses 2 as follows:

**Hypothesis 2 (H2).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's sociodemographic profile.*

**Hypothesis 2a (H2a).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's gender.*

**Hypothesis 2b (H2b).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's age.*

**Hypothesis 2c (H2c).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's education.*

**Hypothesis 2d (H2d).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's nationality.*

In psychology, situationism emphasizes the existence of external variables that determine more the conduct than personality traits [30]. For this reason, a key line of research in environmental psychology focuses on analysing the gap between ecological values and environmental action, by ascribing to external factors the inexistence of realisation [33]. Therefore, the situational variables are highly relevant to understanding the barriers to recycling [80–82]. Of the barriers to recycling, the most significant is convenience [83], in which there are multiple facets [69,84,85].

First, the distance to the recycling kerb site plays a role in inhibiting the desired conduct. No doubt, the perception of convenience is chiefly determined by the distance to where people recycle and represents the most important factor to discourage recycling [22,65,86–88]. It stands to reason that distance and the number of recycling kerb sites are strongly associated [36,89]. Miafodzyeva and Brandt [90], after carrying out a meta-analysis, point out that lack of convenience is the most influential inhibitor to recycling. The cost of participation soars, especially when the distance to the recycling facility is not adequate.

Second, the availability of domestic space turns out to be relevant insofar as the recycling bin might affect the kitchen and the utility room. Robinson and Read [34] and Oskamp et al. [40] point out that space constraint is a key barrier. Similarly, Berger [91] demonstrates that recycling is more likely in spacious detached houses than in cramped apartments. Likewise, Miafodzyeva and Brandt [90]) stress that space constraints are more of a determining factor if there are multiple types of materials and the storage conditions are short of space. Furthermore, the lack of private and public space availability plays a role in inhibiting the desired conduct [92]. For this reason, recycling is more likely in uni-family houses than in little flats [40,89,91,93], and in big rooms than in small [94].

Third, the service quality of the recycling recovery systems might influence how convenient recycling is. Vining and Ebreo [84], Oskamp et al. [40] and Dahle and Neumayer [92] point out that recyclers and non-recyclers differ in the degree of relevance the latter ascribes to the absence of facilities and convenience. The reasons for not recycling are always related to poor service [34] and the lack of facilities [95].

On the one hand, people tend to attribute all the responsibility to others, mostly by blaming the authorities for their negligence [46]. On the other hand, the lack of facilities weakens the relationship between intention and self-efficacy and strengthens the importance of social norms that give rise to environmentally friendly conduct [96]. Similarly, another situational dimension is the frequency of selective recovery [22] and the moment the rubbish is gathered, since if it takes place when the recycling practice is visible, people can learn how and where they can recycle [88]. Finally, the better the conditions of the recycling points, the higher the probability of encouraging recycling [36,97,98].

It is worth saying that urban neighbourhoods recycle more than rural [60,69,91,99], due to the fact cities offer more facilities (Berger, 1997) and give more exposure to environmental problems [62]. The recycling campaigns carried out in cities are more successful than those in the countryside [100].

In summary, while the most significant determining factors in recycling are attitudinal, the most important barriers are situational—that is, distance and lack of time, insufficient space, and complications stemming from the programme, for example, an underdeveloped kerbside scheme [101]. Therefore, we put forward hypotheses 3 as follows:

**Hypothesis 3 (H3).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's accommodation situation.*

**Hypothesis 3a (H3a).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's accommodation category.*

**Hypothesis 3b (H3b).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's accommodation location.*

**Hypothesis 3c (H3c).** *The recycling barriers are different depending on the tourist's accommodation brand type.*

Similarly, time as a barrier to recycling is also multidimensional. First, the most frequent excuse for neglecting to recycle is being too busy [83]. The reasons for not recycling are always related to lack of time [34]. Therefore, some have not thought of recycling, insofar as no time is mentioned as the main obstacle to recycling [102]. For this reason, Nixon and Saphores [33] acknowledge removing the barriers related to how time-consuming it is to recycle as a priority. In this sense, in addition to distance, space and convenience, time is the main deterrent to recycling [103]. Equally, Timlett and Williams [104] demonstrated that a transient population is less likely to recycle than a settled population, due to specific situational obstacles related to convenience, time and information. As a consequence, they adduce how busy they are, they uphold their right to have a break, and promise to offset the minimal output when they come back home [46]. Therefore, barriers to recycling are shaped by time availability [93].

From a theoretical perspective, it may be the case that when tourists arrive at a destination for the first time, they are in the contemplation stage: believing in recycling, but not necessarily being prepared to take action. Similarly, when tourists have been at a destination previously, they must logically have overcome the preliminary stages and might be placed somewhere in between the action and maintenance stages, depending on their experience and destination loyalty. Therefore, the Transtheoretical model of Prochaska and Marcus [105] might be used to explain how tourists adopt the desired conduct at a destination and move forward, since they acquire familiarity and overcome difficulties.

The second time dimension is the short length logic of holidays and, hence, the difficulty associated with a period whose fleeting nature can neither cause a habit to form, nor gain the subject a grea<sup>t</sup> deal of experience. According to Crosby et al. [44], people recycle by following a habit loosely based on ecological concern. In this vein, Pieters [106] and Pieters et al. [79] point out that any environmentally-friendly conduct is performed because people acquire the necessary knowledge and skills from which the habit stems, once they become accustomed to doing it. In this vein, the lack of knowledge and the absence of experience impede recycling [103]. Hence, the absence of experience is a significant inhibitor to recycling [101].

From a theoretical point of view, the discrepancy between home and holiday might come down to a mere temporal circumstance, whose difference might be overcome once the tourist finds their feet at the destination. Going by Kollmuss and Agyeman [107], the provisional gaps between attitude and behaviour are due to practical barriers, such as lack of time and information. Recycling is more behavioural than knowledge-based, since it is a simple task and only requires learning by doing. For this reason, while recycling might be explained by the models of responsible environmental behaviour and prosocial behaviour, non-recycling responses should be regarded as a practicality barrier. Without any doubt, many factors are competing in the daily decision-making process when one has just arrived, irrespective of one's constellation of environmental knowledge, values and attitudes. There are still those who state that recycling has not crossed their minds [102]. Therefore, it is not a responsibility that matters most, but rather other priorities in a system that is too complex.

Third, the absence of any sense of community and thus the ine ffectiveness of the social influence and the collectivist spirit in the neighbourhood might shed light on why there is a low level of recycling at the destination. In this sense, it is worth noting that the sense of community correlates positively with recycling [90] and it stands to reason that, at a tourist destination, every so often there is not enough time to build it.

For a theoretical approach, the sense of community plays a role in bringing about recycling by considering self-utility. For example, McCarty and Shrum [95] claim that, while most environmentally friendly behaviours may not seem rewarding in the short term, they gain benefit in the long term. Thogersen [108] explains that the consumer appraisals about recycling are processed from a subjective utility perspective, by considering how to maximise value for their household. Therefore, the sense of neighbourhood matters if people are future-oriented [95], and thus neighbourhood sustainability affects one own life and wellness.

On this basis, we acknowledge that the importance of time is multifold and put forward hypotheses 4 as follows:

**Hypothesis 4 (H4).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the tourist's time situation.*

#### **Hypothesis 4a (H4a).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the visit frequency.*

**Hypothesis 4b (H4b).** *The recycling barriers are di*ff*erent depending on the duration of stay.*

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

A survey was conducted with a structured questionnaire following a non-probabilistic sampling procedure. To be specific, we followed a snowball method by meeting tourists that were spending their holiday in apartments during May 2019. The survey took place in the south of Gran Canaria. This more urban than rural destination attracted 4.19 million tourists, with an average trip length of 9 days and average spending of 1174 euros per tourist and per trip in 2019 [109–111]. During the last decade, the number of tourists in the year-round destination has increased by 44.50 %. 85.01 % of tourists in 2019 were international tourists, with a majority of tourists residing in Germany (20.36%), United Kingdom (18.13%), and Nordic countries (22.46%) [109]. In 2019, apartments were the prevailing type of accommodation at the destination. It is worth noting that 6491 apartments had a capacity of 97,375 bed spaces, while 208 hotels on the island were able to accommodate 63,795 tourists per day [110]. The most important factors determining the choice of destination are climate, safety, sea, tranquility, and beaches [112]. The most favourable activities of tourists in Gran Canaria include beaches, walks, wanders, swimming pools, facilities of hotels, exploration of the island on their own, and tasting local gastronomy [112]. Gran Canaria is a mature destination with an advanced system of waste collection, loosely based on kerbside bins, in which people are supposed to volunteer their recycling. Participation in the survey was voluntary. We ensured the anonymity of the research participants, as well. The survey takers were 100 students of the market research course, most of whom received exhaustive instructions about how to e ffectively administer the questionnaire. Not only did these students work in teams so that the burden was relatively small, but this interactive atmosphere also guaranteed social control.

The measuring instruments consisted of 35 items with a seven-point Likert 'beliefs' scale, comprising statements related to a wide range of recycling barriers, inhibitions, hindrances and reluctances, as well as both sociodemographic and situational information. While the barriers scale was inspired by a wide range of research works [47,90,107,113,114], the sociodemographic and situational scales followed an undetermined source.

The final sample reached 371 sampling units. Out of 371 responses, 308 were valid. Therefore, the subsequent analysis included only these cases. Of 308 survey respondents, a total of 152 participants were male (49.4%) and 156 participants were female (50.6%). When asked about education, 41.23% indicated graduate education, and 38.64% reported secondary education. The most substantial proportion of respondents were Spanish (47.79%), followed by British (15.58%), Germans (12.34%) and Italians (5.19%). A full description of the sample can be seen in Table 1.


**Table 1.** The description of the sample.

IBM SPSS Statistics 20 software was used for the data analysis. Once the database was built, statistical tests were performed to maximise the quality control of the information gathered.
