Abstract
The scope of the dataset allows to examine undergraduate hospitality and tourism students’ intentions towards environmental sustainability. Moreover, it is possible to compare factors (knowledge, attitude, perceived behavioral control, and intention) towards environmental sustainability between hospitality and tourism students based on different socio-demographic characteristics. To fulfill these objectives, data was collected through a bilingual questionnaire containing 312 valid responses from undergraduate students studying towards a business degree. The questionnaire was administered at the Prince of Songkla University in Phuket, Thailand in the fourth quarter of 2021. Moreover, the data collection adhered to the NESH principles applicable for Social Science Research. The data collection instrument was validated for international consistency and reliability through a three-person panel of research experts and validated using the IOC method. Furthermore, the questionnaire was tested with a targeted sample consisting of ten students prior to its implementation. The dataset serves as an insightful reference for practitioners and policymakers in higher education to adjust their pedagogy, in addition to, as a secondary data source for educational researchers to examine undergraduate hospitality and tourism students’ intentions towards environmental sustainability.
Keywords: Environmental sustainability, Intentions towards environmental sustainability, Tourism education
Specifications Table
| Subject | Social Sciences Social Science |
| Specific subject area | Examination of factors influencing intentions towards environmental sustainability of hospitality and tourism students in Thailand |
| Type of data | Table |
| How the data were acquired | Targeted online survey |
| Data format | Raw |
| Description of data collection | The data was collected through a bilingual questionnaire containing 312 valid responses from undergraduate students studying towards a business degree (majoring in hospitality and tourism). The questionnaire was administered at the Prince of Songkla University in Phuket, Thailand in the fourth quarter of 2021. |
| Data source location |
|
| Data accessibility | The dataset has been deposited into an open repository and is available under the following permanent specifications: Repository name: Mendeley Data Data identification number: 10.17632/rgdj46688d.1 Direct URL to data: 10.17632/rgdj46688d.1 |
Value of the Data
-
•
The dataset allows examination of factors influencing intentions towards sustainability of hospitality and tourism students in Thailand.
-
•
The dataset reveals correlations between factors (knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions) towards environmental sustainability between hospitality and tourism students.
-
•
The dataset serves as an insightful reference for practitioners and policymakers in higher education to adjust their pedagogy.
-
•
The dataset serves as secondary data source for educational researchers to examine undergraduate hospitality and tourism students’ intentions towards environmental sustainability.
1. Data Description
Environmental sustainability is a very articulated and complex concept that is widely discussed in many disciplines and many streams of the literature [1]. Increased awareness toward environmental sustainability manifests and leads to the adoption of the concepts to address environmental challenges, which played a key role in the birth of environmental movements [2]. Tourism is dependent upon the environment for much of its well-being [1,3]. Moreover, tourism education is at the forefront of impacting environmental sustainability in one way or another by educating tomorrow's tourism stakeholders [4]. The associated dataset can be interpreted for further analysis based on the tags and labels presented in Tables 1 and 2 underneath, as well as a copy of the survey can be found in the supplementary material.
Table 1.
Description of the characteristics in the dataset.
| Column | Data label | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Column A | Student Status | Degree student; Exchange student |
| Column B | Institution | Prince of Songkla University |
| Column C | Faculty | Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism; College of Computing; Faculty of International Studies |
| Column D | Gender | Male; Female; I do not wish to say; Other |
| Column E | Age Range | 18–19 years old; 20–21 years old; 22–23 years old; 24 years or above |
| Column F | Year | Year 1; Year 2; Year 3; Year 4 |
| Column G | Nationality | Thai; Foreign |
| Column H | Probe | Have you heard about environmental sustainability before? [Answer options: (Yes) and (No)]. |
Table 2.
Questionnaire organized by their respective factor.
| Column | Data label | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude | ||
| Column I | Question 1 | In my opinion, it is important to protect the environment. |
| Column J | Question 2 | I actively practice environmental sustainability at home (e.g., energy conservation, recycling). |
| Column K | Question 3 | Everyone is responsible for caring for the environment |
| Column L | Question 4 | I am concerned about the long-term future of the environment. |
| Column M | Question 5 | In my opinion, it is important to conserve natural resources. |
| Column N | Question 6 | I think that environmental sustainability is a waste of time and effort. |
| Column O | Question 7 | I am a passionate advocate of environmental sustainability. |
| Perceived behavioral control | ||
| Column P | Question 8 | It is easy for me to perform environmentally sustainable activities (e.g., energy conservation, recycling). |
| Column Q | Question 9 | I have control over my actions to support the environment. |
| Column R | Question 10 | It is my decision whether or not to perform environmentally sustainable activities. |
| Column S | Question 11 | I have the ability to carry out environmentally sustainable activities. |
| Column T | Question 12 | I have control over performing environmentally sustainable activities. |
| Intention | ||
| Column U | Question 13 | I plan to increase environmentally sustainable activities (e.g., energy conservation, recycling) in the future. |
| Column V | Question 14 | I intend to seek out more opportunities to be more environmentally active in the future. |
| Column W | Question 15 | In the future, I plan to look into how I can play a greater role in protecting the environment. |
| Column X | Question 16 | I do not expect to increase my level of support for the environment. |
| Knowledge | ||
| Column Y | Question 17 | I talk about the need to preserve the environment at home or with friends. |
| Column Z | Question 18 | I have learned about sustainability in high school or university. |
| Column AA | Question 19 | I am well informed about current issues that impact the environment. |
| Column AB | Question 20 | I feel confident to talk about issues related to environmental sustainability. |
2. Experimental Design, Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling and collection
The data were collected from undergraduate students through simple random sampling, which is a probability sampling method that allows the sampling error to be calculated [5]. Etikan and Bala [6] noted that in social science research, it is advantageous to eliminate selection bias by the researcher or volunteer bias by the participant for representativeness of the results (p. 215). In the absence of an existing methodological frame, random sampling is deemed an appropriate method to apply for this study [5,6]. However, a disadvantage of random sampling is the lack of sufficient responses that fit the desired characteristic of interest. To manage such potential limitations, the questionnaire was administered in the final phase to specific socio-demographic clusters (i.e. gender or year of study) to increase the probability of reaching the desired population.
The questionnaire was administered with a bilingual option, i.e. Thai and English. Moreover, the questionnaire was administered at the Prince of Songkla University in Phuket, Thailand in the fourth quarter of 2021. After screening the collected data, 9 inconclusive/incomplete responses were discarded from inclusion. The sample size included was 312 to represent the population in data analysis. The confidence level of accurate sampling was estimated at 95% (p < 0.05), based on the total student enrolment and sample size that were included, and the margin of error was quantified as 5%. Based on eligible responses, the representative demographic profile in Table 3 summarizes the respondents’ gender, year of study, age range, nationality, and place of study (institution).
Table 3.
Socio-demographic profile of the participants.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 231 | 74.1 |
| Male | 75 | 24.0 |
| I do not wish to say | 5 | 1.6 |
| Other (not further specified) | 1 | 0.3 |
| Year of Study | ||
| First Year | 78 | 25.0 |
| Second Year | 89 | 28.5 |
| Third Year | 79 | 25.3 |
| Fourth Year | 66 | 21.2 |
| Age Range | ||
| 18–19 years old | 106 | 34.0 |
| 20–21 years old | 169 | 54.2 |
| 22–23 years old | 34 | 10.9 |
| 24 years or above | 3 | 0.9 |
| Nationality | ||
| Thai | 261 | 83.7 |
| Foreign (not further specified) | 51 | 16.3 |
2.2. Research instrument
The adaptation of seven (7) instead of five (5) points on the original Likert-type scale is described as a universal instrument to efficiently measure and evaluate the attitudes of respondents [7]. Fryer and Nakao [8] further added that gathering data to predict a population sample's sentiment on a particular issue is the primary advantage of this approach (p. 11). The default responses offer the participants seven answer options to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction, with a neutral option at the midpoint. The questionnaire included a total of 28 attributes of which 8 were used to establish the socio-demographic profile and 20 to assess and evaluate the students’ attitudes. The default responses on the Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest), i.e. Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Somewhat Disagree (3), Neither Agree or Disagree (4), Somewhat Agree (5), Agree (6), and Strongly Agree (7).
Moreover, the index of item-objective congruence (IOC) is a tool used to improve the validity and reliability of administered surveys and was used as the basis for screening the item quality. The survey was evaluated by three impartial research experts for content validity using an adapted version of the IOC index developed by Turner and Carlson [9]. The mean IOC score was 0.92, which is above the acceptable threshold of 0.80 [10]. Additionally, Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient (α) was calculated to “ensure consistency of test scores over different parts of the survey” [11]. The IOC (0.92) and previously reported Cronbach's Alpha (0.895) indicated high reliability for the research instrument that was used to collect the data. Lastly, the questionnaire was tested for comprehension with a limited sample (n = 10), although these responses were not included in the analysis.
Ethics Statements
Institutional approval was obtained prior to collecting the data and before answering the survey, written informed consent was a precondition for participation. The participants were informed about the research and its purpose, that they had the right to withdraw at any stage, and that the data collected would be treated as confidential (i.e. anonymized in all reporting). For ethical considerations and to protect the identity of the participants, some specific information in the socio-demographic profile was generalized before disclosure in this paper, namely some specific minority nationalities were labeled as “foreign” instead of displaying the particular nationality as this could potentially allow exposing the identity of the participant. The foundation for ethical considerations is based on the principles formulated by the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees [12].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kevin Fuchs: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Dr. Nam Aghaee and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Seppo Karrila for their assistance to validate the methodological framework. Moreover, many thanks to the participants for their contributions by sharing their views through the questionnaire.
Funding
This work was supported by the Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism, Prince of Songkla University [Fast Track Data Collection Grant No. FHT6400003.
Footnotes
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2022.107985.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Mauri C. What comes to mind when you think of sustainability? Qualitative research with ZMET. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes. 2020;12(4):459–470. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-05-2020-0021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sharmin F., Sultan M.T., Badulescu A., Bac D.P., Li B. Millennial tourists’ environmentally sustainable behavior towards a natural protected area: an integrative framework. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8545. doi: 10.3390/su12208545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Han H. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: a review of theories, concepts, and latest research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021;29(7):1021–1042. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1903019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rickinson M., McKenzie M. The research-policy relationship in environmental and sustainability education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021;27(4):465–479. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1895973. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Emerson R.W. Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling: how does sampling affect the validity of research? J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 2015;109(2):164–168. doi: 10.1177/0145482X1510900215. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Etikan I., Bala K. Sampling and sampling methods. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2017;5(6):215–217. doi: 10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Presser S., Couper M.P., Lessler J.T., Martin E., Martin J., Rothgeb J.M., Singer E. Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opin. Q. 2004;68(1):109–130. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfh008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fryer L.K., Nakao K. The future of survey self-report: an experiment contrasting Likert, VAS, slide, and swipe touch interfaces. Frontline Learn. Res. 2020;8(3):10–25. doi: 10.14786/flr.v8i3.501. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Turner R.C., Carlson L. Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. Int. J.Test. 2003;3(2):163–171. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0302_5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.D'Agostino J.V., Welsh M.E., Cimetta A.D., Falco L.D., Smith S., VanWinkle W.H., Powers S.J. The rating and matching item-objective alignment methods. Appl. Meas. Educ. 2008;21(1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/08957340701580728. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Raykov T., Marcoulides G.A. Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2019;79(1):200–210. doi: 10.1177/0013164417725127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees . NESH; 2019. Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology.https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/ June 8. Available at. (Accessed: 14 December 2021) [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.