Navigation – Plan du site
Dossier : The changing world of coastal, island and tropical tourism

Tourist Perceptions of Beach Cleanliness in Barbados: Implications for Return Visitation

Perceptions de la propreté de la plage par les touristes à la Barbade: implications sur le retour des visiteurs
Peter W. Schuhmann

Résumés

La qualité de l'environnement naturel est inexorablement liée au tourisme dans les Caraïbes. Les touristes sont attirés par la beauté de la côte des Caraïbes et du milieu marin, stimulant l'activité économique et l'emploi. Le développement qui en résulte et la concentration des activités humaines dans la zone côtière peuvent avoir des effets délétères sur la qualité de l'environnement et de la volonté des touristes à revenir. L'utilisation d'un sondage mené auprès de plus de 2.000 touristes à la Barbade examine les perceptions touristiques de la qualité des plages et des rencontres avec des déchets sur les plages. La relation entre la qualité de l'environnement côtier et la probabilité du retour des visiteurs est une étude empirique. Les résultats montrent un lien clair entre la visualisation des déchets sur les plages, la qualité perçue des plages et le lieu de séjour des touristes en bord de mer, dans les grands hôtels, selon la qualité plus ou moins élevées de la plage. La quantité de litière vue et la déclaration du degré de qualité des plages perçue sont significativement associées à la probabilité de retour des visiteurs, en particulier pour les primo-visiteurs. Les résultats de cette étude suggèrent que les efforts de nettoyage sur les plages cibles peut augmenter la probabilité de retour de visiteurs et de créer une valeur économique significative.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Index géographique :

Barbade
Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world, directly contributing US$1.77 trillion to gross domestic product and employing nearly 100 million people (WTTC, 2011). In the Caribbean, tourism accounts for significant shares of national GDPs and employment, is the principle foreign exchange earner, and is the main driver of economic growth in the region (Tsounta, 2008, Griffith, 2009). In recent years, annual stop over arrivals have exceeded 22 million (CTO, 2009). Coupled with nearly 20 million cruise ship passengers, annual visitor spending is estimated to be in excess of US $27 billion (Griffith, 2009). When measured in terms of tourism’s total share of GDP, tourism’s share of capital investment and tourists’ contributions to total exports, the Caribbean is the most tourism-dependent region in the world (WTTC, 2011). For Barbados, the white sandy beaches are the primary attraction for over 1 million tourists per year. These visitors generate significant economic impacts, accounting for nearly 50% of GDP and total employment (WTTC, 2011).

2Tourists are drawn to Barbados, predominantly, for the beauty of the coastal and marine environment and the warm and inviting nature of the people. This combination of assets allows Barbados to claim a significant rate of return visitation, perhaps one of the highest in the Caribbean. Yet, this very thing that draws visitors, creating economic value and economic activity, is threatened and in many ways degraded by that same economic activity. Development in the coastal zone and the accompanying market activity and congestion can have adverse effects on environmental quality and decrease tourism demand (Hassan, 2000). The overarching goal of this research is to gain a better understanding of tourist perceptions of coastal environmental quality and how those perceptions may be related to visitation decisions.

3Coastal issues of particular concern to Barbados include marine and coastal litter, beach erosion, storm water runoff and beach access. Data from the International Coastal Cleanup collected in Barbados from 1989 to 2010 shows that the vast majority of marine litter (70-80%) comes from shoreline/recreation activities. This litter includes beverage caps and lids, cups, plates, plastic utensils, bags and food containers. Ocean and waterway activities, predominantly fishing, generate roughly 20% of marine litter in Barbados. These%ages closely match those in the wider Caribbean region (Ocean Conservancy/ICC, 2009). An island-wide clean-up effort in the fall of 2010 resulted in the removal of over 3,000 pounds of garbage at Long Beach, Christ Church. Nearly 4,000 pounds of garbage was removed from this same site in 2009, and well over 6,000 pounds was removed in 2008. While the reduction in trash over this period indicates considerable progress, the volume of trash that continues to be collected points to a significant problem. In addition to diminished aesthetic appeal, the presence of litter in marine and coastal areas can result in significant biological impacts, including mechanical and chemical injury or impairment of marine organisms (Laist, 1987). Readily observed economic impacts include the opportunity costs associated with private and public spending for beach cleanup and maintenance (TEEB, 2009). While there has been considerable examination of the types and sources of marine and coastal litter and the resulting biological impacts, there is a dearth of information regarding the relationship between litter and tourism demand. The purpose of this work is to explore the relationship between tourist perceptions of beach quality and their probability of return visitation.

1. Data

  • 1 The remainder of the sample were Barbados nationals living abroad or non-nationals visiting Barbado (...)

4To explore the degree to which tourists encountered beach litter as well as perceptions of beach cleanliness, a survey instrument was designed and tested in the spring of 2007. With support from the Barbados Ministry of Tourism and with the assistance of survey workers from the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO), over 3,200 people were interviewed in the departures area of the Grantley Adams International airport during May, June and July 2007. Of the 3,259 visitors that were interviewed, 2,491 (approximately 76%) were non-Barbados nationals visiting Barbados for the purpose of vacation or honeymoon1. The survey solicited a host of information from respondents including demographics, expenditures, lodging characteristics and activities while on holiday. Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of coastal and marine attributes encountered while in Barbados.

1.1. Demographics and Lodging

  • 2 Because our sample is limited to air travelers, length of stay and total expenditures are slightly (...)
  • 3 We note that this may be an underestimate of average income. To encourage responses, the income que (...)

5The sample is closely representative of the Barbados tourist population as reported in earlier work by the Ministry of Tourism and CTO in terms of age, country of origin, lodging choices and daily expenditures2. The average length of stay in Barbados was 9.26 days. Over 55% of the sample was married. Our sample included more females (60%) than males. The average age of tourists in the sample was approximately 41 years. Tourists generally had a high level of education with more than 70% having completed some college education. Incomes were correspondingly high, with an estimated average of approximately $US 121,000.3 Group size ranged from 2 to 54, with an average of 2.6 adults and 0.5 children. Over 63% were traveling with no children.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics

Variable

n

Mean

Median

Standard Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Age

2352

41.15

45

13.52

19

70

Male *

2416

0.395

0

0.489

0

1

Married *

2416

0.562

1

0.496

0

1

Annual Household Income (USD)

1811

120,676

100,000

81,549

4,761

360,000

First Visit to Barbados *

2414

0.63

1

0.48

0

1

Number of Times to Barbados

2414

2.36

0

9.08

0

145

First Visit to Caribbean *

2372

0.35

0

0.48

0

1

Number of Times to Caribbean

2403

4.97

1

14.14

0

218

Nights in Barbados this Trip

2411

9.26

7

7.60

0

217

*Indicator variables coded as 0 or 1. The mean of these variables indicates the%age of the sample that meets the indicated criteria.

6Tourists in the sample travelled an average of nearly nine hours from point of origin to lodging in Barbados. Approximately 63% of the sample was visiting Barbados for the first time, and 35% were visiting the Caribbean for the first time. Tourists who had visited Barbados previously had been to Barbados more than six times on average. Descriptive statistics for demographic and travel variables are shown in Table 1.

7The majority of respondents stayed in large hotels (44%) or small hotels (21%). Approximately 35% of respondents stayed in all-inclusive hotels, and approximately 8% stayed in villas. Respondents predominantly stayed in beachfront locations (71%), or within a 2-3 minute walk to the beach (11%), and generally viewed beaches in Barbados as being of very high quality. Interestingly, return visitors to Barbados were much less likely to stay in beachfront lodging or in large hotels than first-time visitors. Over 50% of first-time visitors stayed in large hotels and over 77% stayed beachfront, while only 35% of return visitors stayed in large hotels and 63% stayed beachfront.

1.2. Ratings of environmental quality

8Survey respondents were asked to rate the quality of beach attributes using a 5-point scale, with 5 representing the highest quality and 1 the lowest quality. These attributes included the cleanliness of beaches and the overall quality of the beaches, which received average ratings of 4.33 and 4.37 respectively. Respondents were also asked to report the amount of litter typically encountered per 25 meters of beach length at the beach nearest to their lodging. This question was presented in check-box format, with ranges for each check-box. Litter ranges were 0 pieces of litter per 25 meters, up to 5 pieces, up to 10 pieces, and 15 or more pieces. In order to calculate descriptive statistics for these variables, the mid-points of each range were assigned to each category, with the exception of the highest category which was coded at the maximum value (i.e. 15 pieces of litter) and the minimum value which was coded as 0. Using these measures, respondents reported viewing an average of 2.8 pieces of litter per 25 meters of beach length. Ratings of beach quality and cleanliness appear to be slightly higher for first-time visitors, while the average amount of litter viewed appears to be slightly lower. Additional detail on beach quality ratings and amount of litter viewed is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Ratings of Beach Quality

Variable

n

Mean

Median

Standard Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Cleanliness of Beaches Rating **

2 312

4.33

5

0.80

1

5

First visit to Barbados

1 474

4.37

5

0.77

1

5

Return visitor

837

4.26

4

0.85

1

5

Overall Quality of Beaches Rating **

2 307

4.37

5

0.75

1

5

First visit to Barbados

1 471

4.38

5

0.74

1

5

Return visitor

835

4.36

5

0.77

1

5

Pieces of Litter Viewed per 25 Meters

2 207

2.77

0

3.81

0

15

First visit to Barbados

1 427

2.71

0

3.77

0

15

Return visitor

779

2.89

0

3.87

0

15

** Quality variables are based on a 5-point scale, where 5 represented the highest quality and 1 the lowest quality.

1.3. Stated Probability of Return

9Departing tourists were asked to express the likelihood that they would return to Barbados as “Definitely”, “Probably”, “Probably not”, or “Definitely not”. A majority (56%) stated that they would definitely return to Barbados, while 37% indicated that they would probably return. Only six% stated that they would probably not return, and only one% indicated that they would definitely not return. Of those who had visited Barbados on a previous occasion, nearly 70% stated that they would definitely return. These repeat visitors were also much less likely to state that they would not return. Less than 2% of return visitors indicated that they would probably not return and less than one half of one% indicated that they would definitely not return.

2. Methods

10The purpose of this work is to explore the relationship between beach litter, tourist perceptions of beach quality and their stated probability of return visitation. In order to explore how the amount of litter viewed by tourists and ratings of beach quality vary across the sample, we employ t-tests for differences in means and correlation analysis. We hypothesize that the amount of litter viewed on beaches varies according to the type of lodging where tourists stayed and the proximity of lodging to beaches visited during their stay. Perceived quality of beaches (ratings of beach quality) is also expected to vary according to lodging type and proximity to beaches, but may also be influenced by demographic variables such as age, gender, income and nationality. Hypothesizing that the probability of return visitation may be influenced by both actual and perceived beach quality, we test for differences in the stated probability of return across different groups of respondents using chi-square tests.

2.1. Differences in beach litter viewed and ratings of beach quality

11As noted in Table 2, tourists reported viewing an average of slightly less than 3 pieces of litter per 25 meters of beach length. While most tourists reported viewing very little litter (median value = 0 pieces per 25 meters), there was considerable variation across the sample. Similarly, beach quality ratings were generally very good, yet some individuals in the sample rated beach quality less favorably. Partitioning the sample according to various characteristics allows examination of how actual and perceived beach quality varies across binary variables using t-tests for differences in means. Relationships between actual and perceived beach quality and continuous variables such as age, income and previous numbers of trips are examined via correlation analysis.

12Specifically, we compare the mean values from two sub-samples with n1 and n2 observations to the hypothesized mean value of zero using:

13Assuming unequal variances across the samples, degrees of freedom are calculated using Satterthwaite’s approximation (1946):

14Large positive (negative) values of the t statistic indicate that the mean of sample 1 (2) is statistically larger than the mean of sample 2 (1).

15Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients between continuous variables are calculated as:

16The following test statistic is used for the null hypothesis that r = 0.

2.2. Differences in stated probability of return

17Most tourists in our sample reported that they would definitely or probably return to Barbados. In order to test whether the amount of litter viewed or ratings of beach quality are associated with the probability of return, we employ a Pearson chi-square test for independence. Specifically, under the null hypothesis that the proportions of the sample indicating different probability of return (x) are independent of the amount of litter viewed or beach quality ratings (y), we calculate the chi-square test statistic as:

18Where fij is the number of observed respondents reporting the ith category of x (probability of return) and the jth category of y (litter or beach quality rating), and eij is the expected number of respondents that would report each category if x and y are independent:

19(6) eij = (ni * nj) / n

  • 4 When the expected number of respondents for a particular combination of x and y categories is espec (...)

20Here, ni is the number of respondents reporting a particular category of x, nj is the number of respondents reporting a particular category of y, and n is total sample size.4

214 When the expected number of respondents for a particular combination of x and y categories is especially low (less than 1) this test may be inappropriate (SAS, 2008). Alternative tests are available such as Fisher’s exact test. A simpler remedy is to combine categories that have few responses.

22Degrees of freedom for the test are given by:

23(7) df = (I - 1) *(J – 1)

  • 5 In this application, I = 4, J = 4 for litter viewed and J = 5 for ratings of beach quality.

24Where I is the number of categories of x and J is the number of categories of y.5 The null hypothesis of independence is rejected with large values of the chi-square statistic, indicating association between x and y.

3. Results

25Table 3 reports mean values of beach litter encountered and ratings of the cleanliness of the beach and overall beach quality, corresponding sample sizes and t statistics, with the sample partitioned according to numerous binary (0,1) variables. T-statistics reveal that those who stayed in large hotels viewed significantly less litter than others, while those who stayed in villas tended to view the most litter. Related to type of lodging, respondents who stayed beachfront viewed significantly less litter than those who walked or drove to the beach. On average, those that walked a longer distance or drove to the beach viewed more litter than those who stayed closer to the beach. Despite the fact that return visitors to Barbados are much less likely to stay in hotels than first-time visitors and are less likely to stay beachfront, there appears to be no significant difference in the amount of litter viewed by first-time visitors to Barbados and return visitors, or between those visiting the Caribbean for the first time and those who have travelled to the Caribbean previously. Males in our sample viewed significantly more litter than females. Canadian residents also report viewing significantly more litter than other nationalities, while visitors from other Caribbean countries appear to have viewed significantly less litter.

26Differences in ratings of beach cleanliness and overall beach quality across the sample are not as pronounced. Tourists who stayed in villas and those who stayed at lodging that was a short walk to the beach tended to rate beach cleanliness as significantly worse, while those who stayed beachfront and first time visitors to Barbados tended to rate quality as significantly better. Ratings of overall quality of beaches did not vary much across the sample. Male tourists and tourists for whom lodging was a short walk to the beach rated overall beach quality as significantly worse, while residents of the U.K., tourists who stayed beachfront or were on their first visit to the Caribbean tended to rate overall beach quality as significantly better.

27In summary, while significant differences in the amount of litter viewed can be attributed to type of lodging and proximity of lodging to the beach, ratings of beach cleanliness and overall beach quality tend to be relatively homogenous. It is clear that those who stay beachfront tend to view less litter and have a more favorable impression of beaches, while those who walk to the beach view more litter and view beach quality less favorably. Interestingly, we find no significant difference in the amount of litter viewed by first-time visitors and return visitors, yet return visitors provided significantly lower ratings of beach cleanliness. Also of note, while Canadians and Caribbean nationals viewed significantly more and less litter than visitors from other nations respectively, their ratings of beach cleanliness and quality appear to be statistically equivalent to the rest of the sample.

Table 3. T-tests for differences in mean values of litter viewed and ratings of beach quality

Table 3. T-tests for differences in mean values of litter viewed and ratings of beach quality

*** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 1% level, ** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 5% level, * indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 10% level.

28Correlation coefficients between quantitative variables are reported in Table 4. We note significant inverse relationships between the amount of litter viewed and ratings of beach cleanliness and the overall quality of the beach. That is, those who saw more litter tended to view beach quality less favorably. As might be expected due to simple probability, there is a significant positive relationship between the length of stay and the amount of litter viewed and an inverse relationship between length of stay and ratings of beach cleanliness. Interestingly, there is a moderately significant inverse relationship between visits to the Caribbean and beach quality, implying that tourists who have visited the Caribbean more frequently tend to rate beach quality in Barbados lower than tourists who are less frequent travelers to the Caribbean. Perhaps as a result of more travel experience, older respondents appear to have slightly less favorable opinions of overall beach quality.

Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients

Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients

*** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 1% level, ** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 5% level, * indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 10% level.

  • 6 Few tourists in our sample viewed the highest categories of litter and few stated that they would d (...)

29Chi square statistics for tests of independence between the probability of return and the beach quality variables are shown in Table 5, reported for the full sample and separately for first-time visitors and repeat visitors. We find evidence of significant association between the amount of litter viewed and the probability of return and between beach quality ratings and the probability of return6. In short, the amount of litter viewed by tourists and tourist perceptions of beach quality are strongly associated with their willingness to return to Barbados. Notably, the strongest associations appear between high beach quality (high ratings or little litter viewed) and high probability of return and between low beach quality (low ratings or high amount of litter viewed) and low probability of return. It is also notable that the chi square statistics are considerably larger for first time visitors than for return visitors, indicating a stronger degree of association between the stated probability of return and the beach quality variables. For first time visitors, the association between the probability of return and the amount of litter viewed and beach quality ratings are highly significant. For return visitors, the association between beach quality ratings and probability of return is significant; however there is no significant association between the amount of litter viewed and the probability of return.

Table 5. Chi square tests of independence between probability of return and beach quality

Full Sample

First time visitors

Return visitors

Stated probability

of return

Litter

viewed

X2 = 44.63***

n = 2101

X2 = 48.03***

n = 1352

X2 = 13.96

n = 748

Cleanliness of beach rating

X2 = 108.92***

n = 2182

X2 = 114.45***

n = 1386

X2 = 38.91***

n = 795

Overall quality of beach rating

X2 = 189.15***

n = 2178

X2 = 168.51***

n = 1384

X2 = 80.07***

n = 793

*** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of independence at the 1% level.

Summary and Conclusions

30With support from the Ministry of Tourism and The Caribbean Tourism Organization, a survey was developed and administered to departing tourists at the Grantley Adams International Airport in the summer of 2007. Empirical analysis of the survey data reveals several notable conclusions. While most tourists provided high ratings of beach cleanliness and quality, nearly half of the sample reported viewing some degree of beach litter. Ratings of beach cleanliness and quality appear to be significantly related to the amount of litter viewed, though the relationship is not as clear for some segments of the tourist population. Tourists who stayed beachfront or in large hotels encountered significantly less beach litter and had correspondingly higher ratings of beach quality. Indeed, the amount of litter viewed appears to be highly correlated with distance from the beach. Canadian visitors encountered significantly more litter than tourists from other countries, yet had statistically equivalent ratings of beach cleanliness and overall quality. Similarly, visitors from other Caribbean nations report viewing significantly less beach litter, but rate beach quality on par with tourists from outside the Caribbean.

31While most tourists indicated that they would likely return to Barbados, chi square tests indicate that the amount of litter viewed and stated perceptions of beach quality are strongly associated with the probability of return visitation, especially for first-time visitors. Return visitors may view marginally more litter – potentially as a consequence of lodging choices – but this does not appear to influence their decision to return to Barbados. It is clear that first time visitors who view clean beaches are more likely to return and those who view more beach litter are less likely to return.

32We can conclude that there is a clear and significant link between the quality of the coastal environment and tourism demand, and that this link is particularly notable for first time visitors. Based on this analysis, it seems apparent that beach litter detracts holiday tourists’ enjoyment and potentially creates significant economic costs in terms of adverse effects on tourists’ probability of return. By extension we can conclude that beach clean-up efforts create significant economic value. Cleaner beaches yield more economic value to tourists and enhance the probability of return visits.

33Further research should be directed toward understanding sources of beach litter and locations where litter may be most concentrated. The results of this study suggest that litter is not as evident near large hotels and other beachfront lodging, perhaps due to cleanup efforts on the part of these establishments. That significantly more litter is encountered by tourists who walk or drive to the beach suggests that litter is more concentrated near areas of public beach access. Given the importance of return visitation to the Barbados economy, it seems that targeting these areas for cleanup would provide substantial net gains.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Caribbean Tourism Organization (2008). Latest Statistics, 2008, published October 22, 2008.

Griffith, W. (2009). Tourism Trends Issues and Challenges - Implications For Caribbean Economies, International Labor Organization Tripartite Caribbean Conference, Jamaica.

Hassan, S.S. (2000). “Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry”, Journal of Travel Research, 38: 239-245.

Laist, D. W. (1987). “Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18 (6): 319-326.

Ocean Conservancy/ International Coastal Cleanup (2009). “A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris”, Oceanconservancy.org.

SAS Institute (2008). SAS ETS 9.2 Users Guide, SAS Publishing, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.

Satterthwaite, F.W. (1946). “An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components”, Biometrics Bulletin, 2 : 110–114.

TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National And International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature, United Nations Environment Programme.

Tsounta, E. (2008). What Attracts Tourists to Paradise?, IMF Working Paper WP/08/277, International Monetary Fund Western Hemisphere Department.

WTTC (2011). Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2011: Caribbean, World Travel and Tourism Council, London, UK.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The remainder of the sample were Barbados nationals living abroad or non-nationals visiting Barbados for business, conference or family reasons. Some individuals were removed from the sample due to incomplete surveys. This research will focus on the subsample of 2,416 non-national vacation travelers for which we have reliable data.

2 Because our sample is limited to air travelers, length of stay and total expenditures are slightly different from the overall tourist population which includes cruise ship passengers. Further, because data were collected during the summer months, when arrivals from the U.S. tend to be above average and arrivals from Canada tend to be lower, our sample may slightly over-represent tourists from the United States and under-represent Canadian visitors relative to annual arrivals. However, we note that these higher rates of visit from the U.S. and U.K. do correspond with recent trends in arrivals by destination.

3 We note that this may be an underestimate of average income. To encourage responses, the income question in our survey included checkboxes for various income ranges. Survey respondents also indicated the currency of measure. The top income range (180,000 and above) was coded as 180,000 for the purpose of calculations, resulting in a maximum income of US$360,000 when adjusted for currency. To the extent that the true maximum is higher than this, our estimate is biased downward.

4 When the expected number of respondents for a particular combination of x and y categories is especially low (less than 1) this test may be inappropriate (SAS, 2008). Alternative tests are available such as Fisher’s exact test. A simpler remedy is to combine categories that have few responses.

5 In this application, I = 4, J = 4 for litter viewed and J = 5 for ratings of beach quality.

6 Few tourists in our sample viewed the highest categories of litter and few stated that they would definitely not return to Barbados. As a result, expected frequencies for some combinations were low. Combining categories to remedy this issue had no effect on the results or conclusions. Results of these tests are available from the author.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 7,6k
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 6,7k
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 10k
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 3,6k
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 4,0k
Titre Table 3. T-tests for differences in mean values of litter viewed and ratings of beach quality
Légende *** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 1% level, ** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 5% level, * indicates rejection of the null hypothesis of equal means at the 10% level.
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 280k
Titre Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients
Légende *** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 1% level, ** indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 5% level, * indicates rejection of the null hypothesis r = 0 at the 10% level.
URL http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/docannexe/image/5251/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 138k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Peter W. Schuhmann, « Tourist Perceptions of Beach Cleanliness in Barbados: Implications for Return Visitation », Études caribéennes [En ligne], 19 | Août 2011, mis en ligne le 15 août 2011, consulté le 21 septembre 2017. URL : http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/5251 ; DOI : 10.4000/etudescaribeennes.5251

Haut de page

Auteur

Peter W. Schuhmann

University of North Carolina Wilmington, Ph.D, Department of Economics and Finance, schuhmannp@uncw.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Les contenus d’Études caribéennes sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Université des Antilles
  • Logo DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
  • Logo ERIHPLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)
  • Revues.org