Full text of DOI:10.1080/09669580108667403

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 13 February 2015, At: 03:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable
Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
The Environmental
Attitudes and Practices
of Family Businesses in
the Rural Tourism and
Hospitality Sectors
Jack Carlsen , Donald Getz & Jane Ali-Knight
Published online: 29 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Jack Carlsen , Donald Getz & Jane Ali-Knight (2001) The
Environmental Attitudes and Practices of Family Businesses in the Rural Tourism
and Hospitality Sectors, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9:4, 281-297, DOI:
10.1080/09669580108667403
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580108667403
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions

The Environmental Attitudes and Practices
of Family Businesses in the Rural Tourism
and Hospitality Sectors
Jack Carlsen
School of Marketing and Tourism, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Donald Getz
Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, Canada
Jane Ali-Knight
School of Marketing, Curtin University, Australia
This paper examines the environmental goals of rural, family owned/operated tourism
business with a view to evaluatingtheir conservationethic and commitmentto sustain-
able tourism. From a survey of 198 family businesses in Western Australia, it was
determined that about half of them had implemented a range of sustainable manage-
ment practices. Future research needs are identified, and management ideas are
suggested which could encourage the adoption of sustainable tourism practices in
rural family businesses.
Introduction
This paper examines the environmental attitudesand practicesof owner-oper-
ated and family-run businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors.
Several authors have emphasised the importance of local business people in
implementing sustainable tourism policies and practices. Bramwell (1994: 5)
observed that: ‘Increasing prominence is now given to rural communities and
individual local residents and businesses and to their role and degree of control
in shaping rural tourism in the context of external forces.’ The question of who
takes responsibilityfor environmental stewardshipis ofparticularimportancein
rural areas, as they are frequently subject to strong, controversialand sometimes
damaging development pressures. Crucially, the sustainable tourism paradigm,
according to Weaver and Fennel (1997: 78) ‘ . . . emphasizes small-scale, locally
owned and operated enterprises . . . which are already integrated into the local
economy’.
‘Rural tourism is difficult to define, as there are a variety of terms used to
describe tourism activityin ruralareas:agritourism,farm tourism,rural tourism,
soft tourism and alternativetourism. There is also difficulty in establishing what
is ‘rural’ (Keane
, 1992). However, iven that rural tourism relies heavily on
et al.
g
environmental attractivenessand healthy outdoor pursuits, it might be expected
that tourism and hospitality operators would be especially motivated to adopt
sustainable development practices.
0966-9582/01/04 0281-17 $16.00/0
© 2001 J. Carlsen et al.
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Vol. 9, No. 4, 2001
281

282
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Why Support Sustainable Development?
Rural tourism and hospitality businesses are frequently associated with farm
operations, and according to Lane (1994: 105) ‘farmers are the guardians of the
rural landscape’. But are farmers or other families operating businesses in rural
areas truly orientated towards, and interested in, conservation or sustainable
tourism? Post (1993) suggested that family firms have a local orientation that
makes them more likely to engage in environmentally friendly actions, and
Donnelly (1964) thought that one of the strengths of family businesses was
greater sensitivity to socialresponsibility, but theseremain untested hypotheses.
Local business owners certainly have many reasons to be good environmental
stewards. Middleton and Hawkins (1998: 108) list reasons why they should be
keen to take measures to develop sustainable tourism, including:
· complying with laws, or procurement and investment policies;
· avoiding negative public relations and being good neighbours;
· achieving a competitive advantage; reducing operating costs;
· conserving assets and resources;
· meeting association membership criteria;
· meeting customer demands and expectations.
On this last point, Denman (1994) found that many farm tourists were specifi-
cally interested in wildlife or conservation. More recently, Ateljevic and Doorne
(2000) argued that many tourists favour environmentally and socially respon-
sible small businesses.
To this list can be added the goal of preserving one’s family inheritance or
acquired property for future generations, which should be expected among
family and owner-operated businesses. In addition, a specific conservation ethic
is likely to be associatedwith people who have chosen to move to attractiverural
areas. Sometimes called the ‘last settler syndrome’, this phenomenon occurs
when amenity-seeking migrants oppose further developments in their chosen
rural areas, preferring to maintain the environment as they found it. In this
context, Getz (1994) found that ‘newcomers’ to the Spey Valley in Scotland held
the strongest pro-conservation attitudes.
Several published case studies of rural, family tourism businesses have
commented upon environmental attitudes and practices (see Page & Getz,
1997).
Ryan (1997: 180) documented one family that developed and operated a river
rafting business in New Zealand. He noted their positive attitudetoward conser-
vation: ‘ . . . for the Megaws compliance with regulations designed to protect a
natural environment are not perceived as an imposition, but rather a means of
supporting what they, themselves, perceive as being essential for the place
within which they live and work.’ In another case Sofield and Getz (1997) exam-
ined the Collins family’s commitment to tourism and nature conservation in
creating Undara Lava Lodge in Queensland, Australia. Here the family had the
financial and land resources to establish a national park and tourist resort
founded on ecological design and operating principles.
At least one other study has determined that many small and family business
owners in tourism are driven by lifestyle considerations. Ateljevic and Doorne

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
283
(2000) documented this phenomenon in New Zealand and identified common,
inter-related characteristics:an emphasis on quality of life, pursuit of individual-
istic approaches, and constrained business growth. These owners, often former
tourists to the areas in which they had established their businesses, seek niche
markets sympathetic with their alternative business styles. One negative side
effect of their operations was also demonstrated, as success seemed to attract
other mainstream business ventures more interested in profit.
Despite the incentives for implementing sustainable practices, opposite forces
might apply. Middleton and Hawkins (1998: 147) suggested that the rural
tourism and hospitality sectors are full of ‘micro operations’ which rely on
common resources, but do not take responsibility for, or make any direct contri-
bution to, the resource base. Growth in small businesses, therefore, can lead to
serious environmental problems without the accompanying benefit of expanded
resources. Buhalis and Fletcher (1995: 10) said that local residents involved in
tourism – especially small and medium-sized enterprises, ‘ . . . tend to be tolerant
and they are prepared to accept some environmental damage in order to increase
their personal income’. They argued that locals who are not involved in tourism
are more likely to be strong environmentalists.
One additional factorshould be mentioned, though it has not been specifically
addressed in the literature. It is often suggested that females find many opportu-
nities for self-employment in rural tourism and hospitality businesses (e.g.
Bouquet & Winter, 1987). Are women more likely than men to adopt a conserva-
tion ethic and to implement sustainable tourismpractices?Similarly, there might
be age-related differences in conservation attitudes. Both of these factors are
addressed in the current research.
Even if business owners hold pro-conservation or sustainable development
attitudes, there are barriers to realising related goals – both at the communaland
individual levels. Briassoulis (1995)noted that the existence of numerous centres
of decision-making within a smallbusiness often resulted in conflict or coordina-
tion problems when it came to implementing sustainable development plans.
McKercher (1998) found that many individual nature tour operators set up busi-
ness for lifestyle reasons, but are often unprofitable and need help just to
survive – so how committed or effective can they be in practicing sustainable
tourism?
Any number of green or sustainable tourism guidelines for the private sector
have been published in different countries, but Berry and Ladkin (1997: 435)
concluded many were vague and that ‘ . . . does little to encourage enthusiasm
for, or an understanding of, sustainable tourism development’. And few of the
operators they consulted were aware of the available handbooks. Their research
in East Sussex, England, identified other, specific barriers experienced or
perceived by business operators. These included: a concern over what exactly is
meant by ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, or ‘eco’; the costs of some recycling and other
actions at a smallscale outweighed the benefits; issues about who should pay for
legislated action; the need for ‘simple, clear and commerciallysensitive ideas’ (p.
438); a limited recognition of their own impact upon the environment, believing
that small is somehow automatically sustainable; a lack of practical advice; deci-
sion makers who were too remote (local authority action was needed), and
unclear responsibilities and regulations.

284
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Sustainable Practices for Rural Tourism and Hospitality Businesses
Basic advice on green practices for rural tourism can be found in Agenda 21
(World Tourism Organisation, no date) and its 10 priority action areas for the
private sector: waste minimisation; energy conservation and management;
management of fresh water resources; waste water management; hazardous
substances; transport; land use planning and management; involving staff,
customers and communities in environmental issues; design for sustainability;
partnerships for sustainability.
Goodall and Stabler (1992:19) called for environmental audits of both destina-
tions and business operations, and specific actions were recommended. These
included developing environmental friendly tourism products, complying with
environmental regulations, reducing any negative impacts of business opera-
tions, increasing the efficiency of resource use, using (and substituting other
supplies for) environmentally friendly products, fostering an understanding of
environmentalissues (e.g. among visitors)and implementing codes ofconduct.
Denman (1994: 217) also provided criteria for sustainable rural tourism,
including sensitive development appropriate to local environment (e.g. using
traditionalbuildings/building styles), support for conservation projects and the
economy at a very local level (i.e. retain profits locally), ecologically sound prac-
tices and providing visitors with a genuine appreciation of the area.
Detailed advice was provided by Middleton and Hawkins (1998: 111–15),
commencing with application of sustainabilityprinciples to the entire marketing
mix, then implementation of the ‘ten R’s’ which elaborate on Reduce, Re-use and
Recycle.
The Need for Research
Denman (1994) concluded there was little evidence that farmers were
adapting energy conservation measures, but that in the English West Country
one-third of farmers engaging in tourism operations had carried out some form
of conservationaction. Little research has, in fact, been published on this topic so
thequestion remains:aresmallrural tourism businesses, and in particularfamily
and owner-operated businesses more or less likely to support conservation and
engage in sustainable practices? If they are, this sectorcan be a powerful force for
achieving sustainable tourism goals. If not, a lot more education, advice, and
incentives will be required.
In the process of investigating the goals of rural, family business owners in the
tourism and hospitality sector of Western Australia (see Getz and Carlsen, 2000),
the opportunity existed to question respondents on environmental goals and
related practices. The data provide only a partial answer to their awareness and
implementation of environmental goals and related practices but this research
,
doescontributesignificantlytounderstandingoftheissueand relatedchallenges.
Family Business Studies
Business management research has recently developed a focus on family busi-
nesses (Sharma
, 1996; Smyrnios
et al.
, 1997). A significant proportion of
et al.
tourism businesses, particularly in rural areas, are run by owner-operators, and
many of these are true family businesses in which more than one family member

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
285
is directly involved. Although the prevalence of small and family businesses in
rural tourism is well established (see Page & Getz, 1997), the identification and
systematic investigation of family business issues is limited.
In Australia, about half of all businesses, in all sectors, are family businesses
(i.e. those where there was more than one proprietor from the same family
(Commonwealthof Australia, 1997). Small business is described as the backbone
of tourism in Western Australia: they provide a range of services including
accommodation, food and beverage, entertainment, retail, transport and
support services. It was estimated that in 1988 about 3000 tourism-related busi-
nesses operated in Western Australia(Haines, 1988),and thatnumber might well
have doubled over the subsequent decade.
Some pertinent research in Australia was conducted by Bransgrove and King
(1996). They found that the top goals of owners of small tourism businesses –
urban and rural – were, in roughly equal rankings: challenge/stimulus; business
opportunity; lifestyle; long-term financial gain. However, in rural areas twice as
manyrespondents indicateda lifestyle goal. One ofthethemes in familybusiness
studies is the evident dichotomy of lifestyle versus more typical business goals,
and how these fundamental motivesor goals influence the management, success
and ultimate disposition of the business.
In many countries there is a high rate of small business failure and ownership
turnover, and certainly in tourismand hospitalitya contributing factor is the low
level ofprevious experience orbusiness trainingon the part ofnew owner-opera-
tors. Fleischer and Engel (1997), commenting on the bed and breakfast sector in
Israel, concluded that operators had little background or business knowledge
and needed second-career training at the local level. Williams (1987, quoted in
Bransgrove& King, 1996),said that73.5% of small businesses in Australia closed
within the first five years.
Specific to nature-based tour operators in Australia, McKercher and Robbins
(1998), identified many potential reasons for business failure. Many people
entering this field had no previous business experience and lacked adequate
business skills and/or sufficient resources to survive. Some were in business for
the wrong reasons, notably emotional and lifestyle motives. Ironically, some
financial problems were linked to unethical and environmentally unsound busi-
ness practices, such as a willingness to pay fines for exceeding volume limits
imposed on park visits.
Methodology
This paper stems from a larger survey, the overall research purpose of which
was to document the nature of family business in the rural tourism and hospi-
tality sectors of Western Australia (see Getz and Carlsen, 2000). This was
pioneering and exploratoryresearch, focused on family business goalsand oper-
ations. Included in the survey, conducted in 1998, was a limited set of questions
pertaining to environmental practices and attitudes. The objectives of this set of
questions were:
· to determine if an interest in conservation had in any way motivated the
commencement of respondents’ businesses, or was related to other goals
such as preferred location and lifestyle;

286
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
· to provide an indicator of attitudes held towards conservation through an
inquiry into membership of pertinent organizations;
· to assess the degree of commitment to sustainable practices by asking
respondents if they undertook a rangeofactionswhich, basedon thesustain-
able tourism literature, were deemed to be important.
In this research the sole criterion for including businesses in the ‘family busi-
ness’ category was thatrespondents answered in the affirmative to this question:
‘Is your business family owned (i.e. owner-operated, or one familyowns control-
ling interest)?’ This self-selection method had the advantage of being easily
understood by respondents and did not impose a narrow definition. However,
as a result, respondents were drawn from owner-operators, couples, and larger
families.
Taking a random sample of rural, family businesses in tourism and hospitality
was found to be impossible, owing to the lack of a suitable database for Western
Australia. Even if ‘rural’ and ‘tourism/hospitality’ businesses could be isolated
from all other types, there remained the severe difficulty of determining in
advance what businesses were owned and operated by families, no matter what
definition of‘family’ wasused. The sample, therefore, consistedofa combination
of two subsets: (1) a non-random sample of rural tourism/hospitality businesses
in all parts of the state outside the main city of Perth, and (2) a total canvass of
members of a tourist organisation in one well-known tourist region. The
Augusta-Margaret River region was chosen as it is one of the major tourism
regions in Western Australia and had reliable data available about the number of
tourismbusinesses there. Augusta-MargaretRiver is best known for its wineries,
beaches, surfing and natural areas. It has an excellent range of accommodations
in small towns, along the coast, on farms and in attractive forests.
Part (1) of the mail-out survey, followed by a reminder card, went to all 357
members of the regional tourism association in the Augusta-Margaret River
area. Part (2) consisted of a sample of 455 businesses drawn in part from travel
guides but mostlyfrom a list offarm and country holiday operators, covering the
remainder of the state.The resultwasa largesampleoftruly rural operations,but
not representative of all rural tourism and hospitality businesses. The response
rate was 33% in Margaret River and 20% in the remainder of the state, with an
overall response rate of approximately 26%. The total number of usable
responses was 210, including 198 family-run and owner-operated businesses
that have been used in the analysis.
Because the sample was not totally representative of all rural tourism and
hospitality businesses, the results must be interpreted with some caution. This
wasexploratoryresearchintended to raisequestions and suggest future research
lines, as discussed in the conclusions to this paper.
Data and Analysis
Profile of the sample
All the respondents used in the analysis indicated that they had a
‘family-owned’ business, that is, ‘owner operated, or one family owns control-
ling interest’. They were dominated by businesses owned by a married couple

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
287
Table 1 Business ownership
Ownership pattern
Valid %
66.2
14.4
9.7
Married couple
Sole proprietors
Partnership of two or more family members
Limited company
5.6
Partnership including family members
Other types of ownership
1.6
2.5
(66.2%); a further breakdown of the business ownership can be seen in Table 1.
Fully 96.4%ofrespondents were an owner, and it is assumed thattheothers, who
said they were ‘managers’, were family members.
In terms of demographics females were the largest group, accounting for 59%
,
of respondents, but this imbalance most likely reflects both the dominance of
women in bed and breakfast and farmstay operations, and possibly a bias within
families for females to respond at a higher rate than males. In terms of education,
the largest proportion (42.2%) of respondents had high school qualifications,
with 19.8% having received a college diploma, 13.9% a university degree, 11.2%
an advanced degree, and another 12.8% a trade qualification. The age break-
down of respondents is shown in Table 2, with the largest age category of
respondents being in the 45 to 54 cohort.
Based on the respondents’ own descriptions of their business, 75% of the
sample were accommodation operators, with the largest block running guest
ranches or farm-stays (47 = 25.1%). Bed and breakfast operations accounted for
40 (21.4%). Another large block was that of ‘campground/resort/self-catering’
operations (52 = 26.3%). Only 7, or 3.7% of the businesses were hotels or motels.
Other types of operations included: ‘tourist attraction’ (7 = 3.7%); ‘tour opera-
tion’ (12 = 6.4%); ‘winery’ (12 = 6.4%); ‘food or retail’ (13 = 7%); ‘other services’ (6
= 3.2%) and ‘manufacturing’ (1 = 0.5%). This is not necessarily representative of
rural tourism and hospitality businesses, however, in Western Australia. It
certainly under-represents hotels and motels, and completely omits restaurants.
Table 2 Age of respondents
Age
Valid %
1.0
< 25
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
> 65
5.8
24.1
41.4
19.4
8.4

288
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
The mix of businesses covered by this survey is somewhat of an artefact of the
sampling frames employed.
Eighty-three percent of the respondents had startedup the business, with only
4.2% having inherited it. Inter-generational transfers had, therefore, been a very
minor part of the tourism/hospitality sectors in these rural areas. Also, most of
the businesses were recently started, with 65.1% commenced in the 1990s, 24.6%
in the 1980s, and 5% in the 1970s. Seven respondents (3.5%) indicated the busi-
ness had started up in the 1800s,but it is unknown if these refer to original farms
or very old establishments such as hotels. Fully 44.4% of businesses had been
started within five years of the survey.
Motives for establishing the business
Respondents were asked about their reasonsforbuying or startingup thebusi-
nesses, using bothan open-ended question and a set of statementson a five-point
Likert scale to obtain levels of agreement (see Getz and Carlsen, 2000for details).
Thirty-four per cent suggested that an appealing lifestyle was the major reason
for entering the business, and fully 68% agreed with the statement ‘to live in the
right environment’ had been a very important goal. The second main motivation
was revealed to be ‘business opportunities and investments’ (27.6%), although
this goal could reasonably be combined with several other business-related cate-
gories (especially: worked in related business/to diversify, 9.7%) to suggest that
business decisions were at the forefront. Gender and age differences on goals
were tested, but none were found to be statistically significant This is an inter-
.
esting finding and suggests that the dominant goals related to family, lifestyle,
and business are not gender or age specific.
A separate question was asked pertaining to goals and conservation, namely:
‘Were you motivated in any way by an interest in nature or heritage conserva-
tion?’ Tables 3–6 display the cross-tabulated results. Forty-two percent
responded in the affirmative, indicating a high level of emotional or lifestyle
motivation. Cross-tabulation of gender (Table 3) revealed that a higher propor-
tion of females were motivated by an interest in nature or conservation, but the
difference was not statistically significant. Nor were age-related differences
(Table 4). Thosewithadvanceduniversitydegrees were themostlikely to say yes
(Table 5), but the group having an ordinary university degree were, mysteri-
ously, the least likely (differences were almost statistically significant, at
0.058 using the Pearson chi-squared test).
=
P
A statistically significant relationship was found between the conservation
interest motive and business type (Table 6), with ‘tour operation’ displaying the
highest affirmative level (8 of 11 or 73%). This probably reflected an orientation
toward eco and cultural tours. In addition, a majority of those in campgrounds/
resorts (57.5%) and guest ranches/farmstays (59%) also indicated they were in
part motivated by an interest in conservation. On the other hand, only a small
portion of bed and breakfast (23%), winery (20%) and retail outlet (15%) shared
this motive. Accordingly, a rural lifestyle goal is not necessarily equated with a
conservation motive for setting up a business.
An open-ended, follow-up question confirmed that many did have a genuine
conservation motive: some respondents had a desire to deliver a product incor-
porating environmental values, and some wanted to preserve a family home

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
289
Table 3 Motivated by conservation interests, by gender
Motivated by conservation
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Gender
Male
27
35.1
46.8
50
59
64.9
53.2
Female
Total
52
79
109
value = 0.108 (differences not significant)
p
Table 4 Motivated by conservation interests, by age
Motivated by conservation
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Age
< 25
1
6
(50%)
1
5
(50%)
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
> 65
(54.5)
(43.5)
(39.2)
(36.1)
(57.1)
42
(45.5)
(56.5)
(60.8)
(63.9)
(42.9)
20
31
13
8
26
48
23
6
Total
79
109
value = 0.718 (differences not significant)
p
Table 5 Motivated by conservation interests, by levels of education
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Motivated by conservation
Level of education
High school
36
(44.3)
44
18
(55.7)
College diploma
University degree
Advanced university degree
Trade/TAFE qualification
Total
18
7
(50)
(28)
(50)
18
(72)
11
7
(52.4)
(9.2)
10
(47.6)
(70.8)
17
78
107
value = 0.058 (differences not significant)
p

290
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 6 Motivated by conservation interests, by business type
Motivated by conservation
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Business type
Campground/resort
Hotel/motel
B &B
23
(57.5)
17
4
(42.5)
3
9
(42.9)
(23.1)
(20)
(57.1)
(76.9)
(80)
30
8
Winery
2
Retail outlet
Tourist attraction
Guest ranch/farm
Tour operation
Other services
Manufacturing
Total
2
(15.4)
(42.9)
(58.7)
(72.7)
(33)
11
4
(84.6)
(57.1)
(41.3)
(27.3)
(66.7)
100
3
27
8
19
3
2
4
0
1
72
101
value = 0.003 (differences are significant)
p
(17%). Future research should separate the heritage and nature conservation
dimensions and ask for details of specific interests.
A statistically significant difference was found between the sample from the
Margaret River area and the rest of the state. Fifty-six per cent of the state sample
indicated they were motivated in part by an interest in conservation, compared
with 44% of the Margaret River sample ( = 0.024). This is most likely explained
P
by differences in types of business, but it might also suggest that the scale and
nature of tourism development within popular resort areas, such as Margaret
River, might play a role in attracting entrepreneurs with different attitude sets.
Operational goals and sustainable practices
The survey questioned respondents on a number of goals for operating the
business by soliciting their level of agreement with statements in a five-point
Likert scale. Although keeping the business profitable and growing were highly
rated goals (70% and 62% respectively gave a ‘totally agree’ response), only 14%
totally agreed that ‘it should run on purely business principles’. A majority
agreed (24%) or totally agreed (31%) that ‘my personal/family interests take
priority over running the business’.
When asked to state their three main business goals, ‘supporting lifestyle’ was
one of the highest-frequency responses (30 mentions). Nine respondents indi-
cated (unprompted) a desire to expand the operation using environmentally
friendly practices.
Respondents were asked if they undertook seven specific environmental prac-
tices in running their business (see Table 7). For three of these environmentally
friendly practices, half or more of the respondents were affirmative. Water
conservation was practiced by 79.5%, which is quite high but in part reflects the

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
291
Table 7 Environmental practices of family businesses in rural tourism and hospitality,
Western Australia ( = 198)
n
Practices
Yes (number)
%
Follow water conservation procedures
Follow a recycling programme for materials
Educate your guests on conservation matters
Eliminate non-organic chemicals
149
110
96
79.3
58.5
51.3
49.5
49.2
44.2
39.2
91
Specific targets for waste reduction
Specific targets for energy conservation
Use alternative, non-polluting energy sources
91
84
73
Table 8 Educating guests on conservation matters, among the various business types
Educate guests
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Business type
Campground/resort
Hotel/motel
Tourist attraction
Guest ranch/farm
Tour operation
B & B
24
(57.1)
18
(42.9)
2
2
(28.6)
(40)
5
3
(71.4)
(60)
34
10
12
3
(72.3)
(100)
(30)
13
0
(27.7)
28
8
(70)
(72.7)
(60)
Winery
(27.3)
(40)
Retail outlet
Other services
Manufacturing
Total
4
6
2
(40)
3
(60)
0
1
(100)
93
85
value = 0.000 (differences are significant)
p
dry conditions prevalent in Western Australia. Recycling of materials was done
by 58.5% of the respondents and educating guests on conservation matters by
51%. The lowest participation rate was in alternative, non-polluting energy
sources (39.2%).
All 10 tour operators responded that they educated their guests on conserva-
tion matters (Table 8), while only about 30% of hotel/motel operators and bed
and breakfast operators did the same (differences are statisticallysignificant;
=
P
0.000). Also, 73% of guest ranch/farmstay operators and 57% of campground/
resort operators educated their customers. Level of respondents’ education
(Table 9) was also correlated with education on conservation matters ( = 0.041),
P
but surprisingly the lowest percentage (25%) was among those university

292
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 9 Educating guests on conservation matters, by level of education
Educate guests
Yes
n, valid %
No
n, valid %
Level of education
High school
39
(51.3)
37
(48.7)
(48.6)
(75)
College diploma1
University degree
Advanced university degree
Trade/TAFE qualification
Total
8
6
(51.4)
(25)
17
18
9
12
16
91
(57.1)
(69.6)
(42.9)
(30.4)
7
88
value = 0.041 (differences are significant)
p
educated and the highest among those possessing a trade or technical college
certificate (70%). This seems to relate to the types of business operated, but it is
somewhat disappointing. Further research is needed to show
been educated in conservation issues.
guests had
how
Respondents in the Margaret River sample were much less likely to educate
their guests on conservation matters (42% compared to 58% for the remainder of
the state; = 0.002). Again, this most likely reflects differences in business types
P
found in a resort area.
Forty per cent or more of the businesses indicated they were undertaking all
the practices listed in Table 7, and that in itself is laudable. However, no details
were obtained in the questionnaire, so it cannot be assumed that sophisticated or
effective practices are in place. There might have been a tendency to exaggerate
the level of sustainable practices because it was perceived to be the right thing to
do. Only the performance of an independent environmental audit would reveal
the whole story.
Memberships
One test of commitment to green practices is membership of conserva-
tion-oriented groups, so respondents were asked if they belonged to any (Table
10). Thirty-one per cent indicated they did, and 48 groups were named. The
largest group (30 mentions) was that of ‘local groups or LCDC (Land Conserva-
tion District Council)’. By way of example the North Swan LCDC in Western
Australia was developed in 1997 ‘in response to community concerns over the
degradation of land and riverine habitats in the Ellen Brook catchment’ (http://
www.wrc.wa.gov.au/swanavon/swan_canning/ellen/nth_swan.html). This
particular LCDC ‘… is active in promoting land conservation and encouraging
protection of bushland …’, provides information to land developers, and oper-
ates the Bulls Brook Biodiversity Corridor Project. They also hold special
educational events, engage in research, undertake revegetation projects, lobby
for conservation and seek to raise community awareness of related issues.
The other specific conservationgroups were Leeuwin ConservationGroup (6),
Australian Conservation Foundation (5), Greenpeace (3), Wildernesss Society

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
293
Table 10 Membership in conservation groups
Conservation group
Frequency
Valid %
12.5
10.4
6.3
Leeuwin Conservation Group
Australian Conservation Foundation
Greenpeace
6
5
3
Conservation Council of Australia
Wilderness Society
Local Group/LCDC
WWF
1
2.1
2
4.2
30
1
62.5
2.1
Total
48
100
(2), Conservation Council of Australia (1), and World Wildlife Fund (1). More
specific questioning would be necessary to determine thelevel ofcommitmentto
these groups and the actions they undertook in support of conservation and
other sustainable development activities. One question to explore would be the
differences in activities by near-urban groups such as the North Swan LCDC,
and those in more remote farming areas. Another issue would be that of how
varying environmental and economic conditions might impact on conservation
attitudes and practices. For example, most of Western Australia is relatively
sparse in terms of population and tourism, potentially resulting in less need or
concern for certain types of action. Again, comparing more developed resort
areas such as Margaret River with remoter farm regions would be desirable.
Contrasts would also be expected between highly developed countries (e.g. the
European situation) and sustainable development attitudes and actions in
Australia.
Conclusions
Findings
Family and owner-operated businesses are major components of the rural
tourism and hospitality sectors. They face many challenges in remaining
commercially viable and developing their business whilst at the same time
applying sustainable development principles. Research into the attitudes and
actions of this group is essential to achieve success in sustainable rural tourism
and understand the tensions between tourism development and sustainable
tourism The Western Australian study has added to our understanding of this
.
sector’s goals and operations, leading to a number of important conclusions and
recommendations.
Owners of small, rural tourism and hospitality businesses have many good
reasonsfor adopting a conservationethic and applying sustainabletourismprin-
ciples, but until now there has been little pertinent data available. On the basis of
the Western Australian research there is now some evidence for suggesting that
family and owner-operated businesses are positively inclined towards adopting
sustainable tourism practices in their businesses A substantial proportion (42%)
.

294
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
of the respondents indicated that an interest in heritage or nature conservation
was a motivator in establishing their business, and some groups – in particular
tour operators and farm-based accommodation businesses – demonstrated
higher levels of interest and support.
Lifestyle and locational preferences motivated many respondents to establish
their business in rural areas, and these factors were also important to those
pursuing more traditional business goals. A high proportion of the respondents
believed that in running their business personal and family issues should take
priority.
Conservation and lifestyle goals are apparently closely related in the rural
tourismand hospitalitysectors,suggesting thatfamilies can be attractedto set up
businesses that, from the beginning, will incorporate a sustainable philosophy.
The potential negative side of this phenomenon is the so-called ‘last settler
syndrome’. Although newcomers might very well be conservation oriented, this
could be problematic if newcomers are in opposition to natives over develop-
ment versus conservation issues.
Levels of implementation of sustainable operational practices ranged from a
low of 40% (using alternative, non-polluting energy sources) to a high of 79%
(following water conservation procedures). While this appears to be a substan-
tial achievement, the list of activities examined was quite restricted (only seven
items) and there was no actual testing of effectiveness. It can, therefore, also be
concluded that a lot more could be accomplished in terms of awareness and
implementation of sustainable practices amongst the sample.
No evidence was found of age or gender differences in attitudes or practice.
Significant differences on motivation were measured for educational levels and
business types, so these factors deserve closer attention in future research. There
might be a notable difference in educational attainment (and incomes or wealth)
between newcomers and natives, with related attitudinal differences. Those
attracted to certain businesses, such as tour operations, and those setting up busi-
nesses onfarms, arelikely to be moreconservationoriented; those groups could be
targeted for undertaking demonstration projects and to be potential project
leaders.
Future research
An important limitation of this research was the subjective nature of the study
and its reliance on respondents’ own personal definitions of conservation and
sustainability that may be different from the authors. In further research, a direct
comparison between family and other types of business managers will be
required to determine if this sector is truly more inclined to adopt sustainable
tourism as a philosophy and to implement related operational practices.
However, as the current research demonstrated, such a comparison will be
limited in many regions by the predominance of family and owner-operated
businesses in rural areas. Nevertheless, it should be possible to identify
public-sector accommodations and attractions and to find a sample of profes-
sionally managed businesses in constructing a comparison group.
More refined questioning will be desirable to determine if age, gender, type of
business or other factors influence attitudes and practices. The depth and reality
ofrespondents’ conservationattitudesand values alsoneed to be tested in a more

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
295
rigorous manner The current study suggested only that education levels and
.
types of business are important.
The level and type of tourism development in a region could be an important
explanatory factor in attitudinal development and the adoption of sustainable
practices. It would be useful to test the hypothesis that different types of investor
and businesses are attracted to (or viable in) more popular rural destinations.
Peer pressure for sustainability may also be a factor in more densely developed
areas: Western Australia may yield very different results when compared to
more frequently visited parts of the world.
Ideally, longitudinal studies of the sector would be desirable, in order to
examine entry goals, implementation, and ultimate effectiveness of sustainable
practicesin specific businesses. Alternatively, examples could be studied ofnew,
mature, and closed or failed businesses. Questions should be also be addressed
to the issues of regulatory impacts, the roles of environmental agencies, local
authorities, conservation groups and tourism industry associations in fostering
sustainable tourism among private sector owners and managers.
A related line of research should focus on the ‘conservation ethic’ held by
family and other rural business operators. Are they importing sophisticated
conservation attitudes and practices, or engaging in conservation as a way
to save money? Do farm-based business operators have a limited view of
conservation, related largely to farm practices, or are they also sympathetic
to conservation of wildlife and its habitat? Do conflicts arise between the
philosophies and views of newcomers and those of well-established rural
families?
Policy implications
Substantial barriers must be overcome to achieve sustainable tourism devel-
opment goals in rural areas. Even assuming that positive attitudes and
operational practices can be fostered, high turnover and failure rates among
small businesses are likely to reduce commitment and effectiveness. Instability
of ownership is also not conducive to communal decision making, so a stable
family business sector is highly desirable. Owners, particularly those estab-
lishing new businesses without prior experience orbusiness skills, willneed help
in staying commercially viable if sustainable practices are to be realistic.
Recommended actions for enhancing the adoption and practice of sustainable
tourism in rural areas can be suggested, based on the limited literature available
and the research conducted in Western Australia. The first need is for education
or training programmesto ensure business success
sustainable tourismprac-
and
tices, preferably delivered directly to owner-operators. In addition, the
publication ofpracticalguides, reporting the findings ofresearch, and communi-
cating success stories would help demonstrate the economic viability of
sustainable operational practices.
Local authorities, industry associations,conservationgroups, and community
business leaders all need to make appeals to business operators, backed with
incentives to adopt sustainable tourism principles. This implies the creation of
new partnerships among stakeholder groups for more effective local action;
research institutions should also be included. Effective and proven advice is
needed on how business operators can conduct environmental audits as a tool

296
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
for improving their performance and sustainability. Where possible, it will be
desirable to reach business developers before investments are made.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Donald Getz, Tourism and
Hospitality Management, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (getz@mgmt.ucalgary.ca).
References
Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. (2000)Staying within the fence: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in
tourism.
8 (5), 378–92.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Berry, S. and Ladkin A. (1997) Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective.
Tourism
18 (7), 433–40.
Management
Bouquet, M. and Winter, M. (eds) (1987)
Who From Their Labours Rest? Conflict and Practice
London: Gower.
in Rural Tourism.
Bramwell, B. (1994) Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism. In B. Bramwell and B.
Lane (eds) (pp. 1–6). Clevedon: Channel
Rural Tourism and Sustainable Development
View Publications.
Bransgrove, C. and King, B. (1996)Strategic marketing practice amongst small tourism and
hospitality businesses. In R. Thomas (ed.)
Spring Symposium Proceedings of International
(pp. 29–38). Leeds Metropolitan University.
Association of Hotel Management Schools
Briassoulis, H. (1995)The environmental internalities of tourism: Theoretical analysis and
policy implications. In H. Cocossis and P. Nijkamp (eds)
Sustainable Tourism Develop-
(pp. 25–39). Aldershot: Avebury.
ment
Buhalis, D. and Fletcher, J. (1995) Environmental impacts on tourist destinations: An
economic analysis. In H. Cocossis and P. Nijkamp (eds)
Sustainable Tourism Develop-
(pp. 3–24). Aldershot: Avebury.
ment
Commonwealth of Australia (1997)
Canberra: Depart-
A Portrait of Australian Business.
ment of Industry, Science and Tourism.
Denman, R. (1994) Green tourism and farming. In J. Fladmark (ed.)
(pp.
Cultural Tourism
215–22). Papers presented at the Robert Gordon University Heritage Convention.
Donnelly, R. (1964) The family business.
42 (2), 93–105.
Harvard Business Review
Rural Tourism: A Solutionfor Employment,Local Develop-
Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
Fleischer, A. and Engel, J. (1997)In
ment and Environment.
Getz, D. (1994)Residents’ attitudes towards tourism: A longitudinal study in Spey Valley,
Scotland. 15 (4), 247–57.
Tourism Management
Getz, D. and Carlsen, J. (2000) Characteristics and goals of family businesses in the rural
tourism and hospitality sectors. 21 (6), 547–60.
Tourism Management
Goodall, B. and Stabler, M. (1992) Environmental auditing in the quest for sustainable
tourism: The destination perspective. In
proceedings. Newcastle Polytechnic.
Haines, G. (1988) Small business in tourism.
Tourism Commission.
(pp. G1–G13). Conference
Tourism in Europe
4 (3), 5. Perth: Western Australian
Touristics
Keane, M., Briassoulis, H. and van der Straaten, J. (1992)Rural tourism and rural develop-
ment. In H. Briassoulis and J. van der Straaten (eds)
Regional, Economic and Policy Issues, Environment and Assessment
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tourism and the Environment:
Vol. 3. Dordrecht:
Lane, B. (1994)Sustainablerural tourism strategies: A tool for development and conserva-
tion. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds)
Rural Tourism and Sustainable Development
(pp.102–11). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
McKercher, R. (1998)
. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.
TheBusinessofNature-BasedTourism
McKercher, R. and Robbins, B. (1998)Business development issues affecting nature-based
tourism operators in Australia.
Middleton, V. and Hawkins, R. (1998)
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
6 (2), 173–88.
Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Family Operated Tourism Businesses
297
Page, S. and Getz, D. (1997)
The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives.
London: Thomson International Business Press.
Post, J. (1993) The greening of the Boston Park Plaza hotel.
131–48.
6 (2),
Family Business Review
Ryan, C. (1997) Rural tourism in New Zealand: Rafting at River Valley Ventures in the
Rangitikei. In S. Page and D. Getz (eds)
:
The Business of Rural Tourism International
(pp. 162–87). London: Thomson International Business Press.
Perspectives
Sharma, P.J. Chrisman and Chua, J. (1996)
A Review and Annotated Bibliography of Family
Boston: Kluwer.
Business Studies.
Singer, J. and Donahu, C. (1992)Strategic management planning for the successful family
business.
4 (3), 39–51.
The Australian Family and Private Busi-
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship
Smyrnios, K., Romano, C. and Tanewski, G. (1997)
Melbourne: Monash University.
ness Survey.
Sofield, T. and Getz, D. (1997) Rural tourism in Australia: The Undara experience. In S.
Page and D. Getz (eds) (pp. 143–
The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives
61). London: Thomson International Business Press.
Weaver, D. and Fennel, D. (1997) The Saskatchewan vacation farm operator as entrepre-
neur. In S. Page and D. Getz (eds)
The Business of Rural Tourism:InternationalPerspectives
(pp. 162–87). London: Thomson International Business Press.
World Tourism Organization (no date)
Agenda 21 For the Travel and Tourism Industry:
. Madrid: WTO.
Towards Sustainable Development
World Tourism Organization (1997)
Rural Tourism:A SolutionFor Employment,Local Devel-
Madrid: WTO.
opment and Environment.