**4. Results**

To test the first hypothesis, an exploratory factor analysis was carried out. The reliability of the barriers scale was tested through an Alpha Cronbach test. As shown in Table 2, the exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation identified five different components and explained over 60% of the variance. The first factor is labelled as "demands of relaxing and rest as excuses for not recycling" since not only does it refer to the motives of being on holiday and having a break, but it also expresses mistrust and misbelief about recycling (F1). The second factor is named "reluctances and oppositions", because there are climate change denials and some assertions about the futility of recycling. For example, according to some tourists, climate change does not exist and recycling is not as environmentally friendly as it is assumed (F2). The third factor is called "lack of information about how to do it" and refers to those who claimed a lack of information or felt misguided (F3). The fourth factor is termed "extrinsically driven", insofar as it gathers a set of demands related to those who argue that they do not have enough rewards and do not receive anything in return for recycling (F4). The fifth factor is designated "inconvenience and nuisance", given that the distance between the apartment and the kerbside system, as well as not having enough space, are indicated as the hindrances to recycling (F5). On this basis, as five distinctive kinds of inhibitors to recycling have been identified, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.


**Table 2.** Exploratory factor analysis on motivational barriers to recycling.

In order to contrast the second hypotheses, a student test and several ANOVA tests were carried out. As shown in Table 3, recycling barriers are different depending on the tourist's sociodemographic profile. To be specific, the mean difference test on barriers indicated that gender has a significant influence on the first and second factors. In this sense, it is clear that the motives of "demands to relax and rest as excuses for not recycling" and "reluctances and oppositions" lead male tourists to avoid recycling. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a is verified.

Conversely, the ANOVA Test demonstrates that the relationship between age and recycling does not exist at the tourist destination. Therefore, hypothesis 2b, which states that the recycling barriers are different depending on the tourists' age, is rejected.

An ANOVA Test considering education levels was performed. As reported in Table 4, there exists a relationship between this sociodemographic variable and the first and third factors. Consequently, this empirical evidence shows that the reason labelled "demands of relaxing and rest as excuses for not recycling" is not argued by tourists without formal education and with graduate-level, but is

argued by those who hold primary, secondary and postgraduate education. What is more, if post-hoc results are examined, one can state that there is a glaring difference between those with graduate and primary education. Similarly, a "lack of information about how to do it" is mainly perceived by tourists with primary and secondary education, rather than those with none or with a university education. Moreover, the post-hoc analysis points out that there is a significant difference between those who hold primary and postgraduate education. Consequently, Hypothesis 2c is confirmed, insofar as the recycling barriers are different depending on the tourist's level of education.


**Table 3.** Mean difference test on barriers by distinguishing gender groups.



The proposed impact of nationality on recycling barriers was tested. The respondents were split into 14 groups according to their nationality. As can be seen in Table 5, the ANOVA Test confirms that the recycling barriers are different depending on the tourist's nationality and, hence, Hypothesis 2d is accepted. To be precise, the first two barriers, namely, "demands of relaxing and rest as excuses for not recycling" and "reluctances and oppositions" are refuted by Spaniards from Gran Canaria and German tourists, as well as Scandinavian tourists, but contended by the rest of nationalities, including mainland Spanish. Be that as it may, examining the post-hoc results one can state that the most glaring difference exists between those who live in France and Belgium and the main other nationalities.


**Table 5.** ANOVA analysis of barriers by distinguishing nationality groups.

Following the results obtained from the ANOVA, it can be said that the barriers differ depending on the apartment category (Table 6). If the apartment has one, two or four keys, tourists claim a lack of information, while if it holds three, they do not. Consequently, we can accept hypothesis3a and state that the recycling barriers are different depending on the tourist's accommodation category. Nevertheless, the post-hoc analysis does not prove any significant difference at the group levels.


**Table 6.** ANOVA analysis on barriers by distinguishing apartment category.

In contrast, as the ANOVA test does not show statistically significant di fferences in terms of the apartment location, we reject Hypothesis 3b and state that the recycling barriers are not di fferent depending on the tourist's accommodation location.

Similarly, Hypothesis 3c is rejected, because the recycling barriers are not di fferent depending on the tourists' accommodation brand type.

In addition, an ANOVA analysis was established to test whether the frequency of visits matters and the obtained results lead us to state that there are two types of barriers, namely, "demands of relaxing and rest as excuses for not recycling" and "reluctances and oppositions" with statistically significant di fferences (Table 7). To be precise, when tourists come twice and four times, they are prone to arguing the former and when they come once, twice and four times, they are likely to claim the latter. On this basis, Hypothesis 4a is verified. To confirm this, the post-hoc analysis indicates significant di fferences between those who visit once and five times of more, with regards to the first factor, that is, "demands of relaxing and rest as excuses for not recycling".

**Table 7.** ANOVA analysis on barriers by considering the frequency of visits.


In contrast, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the length of the stay is not associated with any particular barrier and, therefore, Hypothesis 4b is rejected, by stating that the recycling barriers are not di fferent depending on the duration of stay.
