Next Article in Journal
Making Food Rescue Your Business: Case Studies in Germany
Previous Article in Journal
Calculation of the Risk of Lawsuits over Construction Flaws in Flat Roofs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 18
10.3390/su11185100
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior for Sustaining a Landscape Restaurant

by
Wen-Lan Liao
1,2 and
Chin-Yi Fang
2,*
1
Department of Tourism, Tungnan University, Beishen Road, Shenkeng District, New Taipei City 222, Taiwan
2
Graduate Institute of Sport, Leisure and Hospitality Management, National Taiwan Normal University, Heping East Road, Da’an District, Taipei City 106, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(18), 5100; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185100
Submission received: 20 August 2019 / Revised: 9 September 2019 / Accepted: 14 September 2019 / Published: 18 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper extended the theory of planning behavior (ETPB) to examine the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention in order to explore the sustainable factors of a landscape restaurant. Following theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the related literature for landscape perception and preference, we initially developed a preliminary list of items, and after the expert review and pre-test, we employed a 33-item measure under a five-factor structure and collected a total of 395 valid questionnaires. The empirical results show that landscape perception and preference (LP&P), attitude (AT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavior control (PBC) have positive impacts, among which LP&P has the most significantly positive impact on consumer behavioral intention. Thus, ETPB helps contribute to the decision-making model of landscape restaurants. Lastly, we discuss managerial implications and future research directions.

1. Introduction

Along with the importance of leisure activities in Taiwan, the number of restaurants has increased year after year and has led to a booming food and beverage industry, with landscape restaurants—which have both leisure and dining features—becoming more and more popular. There are currently over 1020 landscape restaurants found in the world when browsing the TripAdvisor’s website using the keywords “Landscape restaurant”. For example, some landscape restaurants in the vineyard region of Australia described themselves with the sentence, “Adding to the unique quality of our dishes is the unrivalled environment in which they’re served”. How is the term landscape restaurant employed in Taiwan? Landscape restaurants in this country differ from general restaurants in that they have a landscape view and have a theme related to their surroundings, such as having a nautical theme around a harbor, or in the mountains of Taiwan a restaurant may use aboriginal culture for its décor. Landscape restaurants, as the name implies, provide both food and beverage service along with an attractive landscape environment that makes consumers feel a sense of pleasure and coziness. However, because landscape restaurants are most often located in rural areas, their locations are commonly less convenient with limited transportation options. This implies that consumers likely make a comprehensive plan to visit such restaurants. At the same time, landscape restaurants mostly incorporate natural landscape features found outside of cities with internal decoration to attract people. Even though landscape restaurants in Taiwan demonstrate diversified themes along with a good scenic spot and offer delicious cuisine in order to attract more customers, many of them fail within three years. How to attract consumers in this dining and leisure environment has consequently become one of the primary concerns of the industry.
In the related literature, Bitner [1] focused more on the impacts of internal decoration and ambience on customer responses, and recommended that a servicescape’s natural dimensions could have a positive impact on customers’ responses. Other researchers explored the impacts of physical aesthetics, ambience, setting, lighting, and employees in upscale restaurants. The empirical results indicated that ambience—including music, temperature, and aroma—had the most influence on pleasure [2,3]. Other studies explored the impact of social and natural stimuli within servicescapes [4]. One health study examined the effect of hospital gardens on patients’ well-being [5]. Even though some studies may examine the “frightening examples of consumer capitalism” from the commercialized wilderness servicescapes, such as the Rainforest Cafe restaurant chain or the Disney Wilderness Camp [6], most works targeted the impacts of internal decoration and ambience on customer behaviors, neglecting the effects of outdoor landscape. Empirical studies regarding the formation of customers’ intentions to select landscape restaurants are relatively rare, particularly including both internal decoration and outdoor landscape. Thus, exploring the driving factors behind consumers’ behavioral intention is essential for offering recommendations for landscape restaurant sustainability.
Having the characteristics of being in remote areas and with less convenient transportation connections, the antecedents of consumer behavior intention toward landscape restaurants are an important concern for these restaurants’ sustainability. This paper thus incorporates landscape perception and preference (LP&P) into the extended theory of planned behavior (ETPB) to explore the determinants of consumer behavior intention for landscape restaurants. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) originates from a structure combining attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control toward consumer behavior intention. The existing literature has used TPB to identify the influential factors for consumer behavior intention. For example, Chung [7] explored the impact of consumer behavior intentions for green restaurants. Jun et al. [8] and Jun and Arendt [9] employed TPB to explore the healthy eating behavior of a customer. Jang et al. [10] explored the impact of a customer-friendly environment on the intentions of environmentally friendly restaurants. Our study is the first attempt to use ETPB to develop a model of consumer behavior intention for landscape restaurants.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews related studies about landscape restaurants and TPB. Section 3 introduces the methodology, including the TPB framework (the model proposed by Ajzen [11] in 1985) and questionnaire development. Section 4 presents the analysis results of the collected data, including validity, reliability, and regression analysis. Finally, Section 5 offers the conclusions of this paper and provides managerial recommendations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Definition of Landscape Restaurant

Cheng [12] pointed out that landscape restaurants provide not only food and beverage services, but also natural scenery or an artificial landscape. A landscape restaurant is commonly located in a remote area in order to provide a distant charming view—for example, a mountain peak or seaside harbor—to ease the customer’s mood. The surrounding area of a landscape restaurant is generally decorated with lovely low fences. Chen et al. [13] indicated that some landscape restaurants have an outdoor garden equipped with grass, flowers, shrubs, and lawns as well as wooden platforms and red brick pavements in order to provide convenient venues for customer activities. In order to attract diversified clientele, the owners of landscape restaurants create different themes or styles to demonstrate their unique atmosphere [13,14,15,16]. Lee [17], a famous blogger in Taiwan with a blog in Mandarin Chinese, has claimed that landscape restaurants offer customers a good place to taste the cuisine, enjoy the scenery, and gather family members [17]. However, there is a paucity of research to examine which factors significantly impact customer behavior intention toward landscape restaurants.

2.2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

2.2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior

Ajzen in 1985 [11] proposed TPB and stated that perceived behavioral control (PBC), attitude (AT), and subjective norm (SN) had influences on an individual’s behavioral intention [18]. Here, AT denotes the person’s attitude toward the behavior. It is the response of continuous assessment of a like or dislike for a particular action. Researchers noted that AT can predict possible behavior.
Jang et al. [10] extended TPB to explore antecedents of customers’ behavioral intentions in visiting environmentally friendly restaurants and found that AT has a positive effect on customers’ intentions in an environmentally friendly restaurant. Kim et al. [19] augmented TPB to look into a customer’s selection to an eco-friendly restaurant and indicated that AT has a positive impact on choosing an eco-friendly restaurant. Tommasetti et al. [20] extended TPB to investigate customers’ perception of restaurants’ sustainability. Based on the literature review, this paper proposes the first hypothesis H1 as below.
Hypothesis 1.
Attitude has a significant and positive effect on consumer behavioral intention toward a landscape restaurant.
The second element of TPB, subjective norm (SN), denotes the perceived social stress that an individual has adhered to or not in order to perform a particular behavior. SN claims that other reference groups (such as parents, spouses, friends, teachers, colleagues, etc.) could guide a particular behavioral intention. SN could be normative beliefs, perceived social norms from important reference groups, and an impetus to act in accordance with those important referents.
Jang et al. [10] found that SN has a positive effect on behavioral intention in an environmentally friendly restaurant. Sánchez et al. [21] examined the willingness-to-pay to noise reduction in road transportation by extending TPB and showed that SN positively impacted on behavioral intention. According to the literature support and TPB, this paper establishes the second hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2.
Subjective norm positively impacts on consumer behavioral intention toward a landscape restaurant.
The third construct of TPB is perceived behavioral control (PBC), which denotes to the perceived control ability of the required resources and opportunities in a particular behavior of an individual. In addition to personal desire and attempt, it also includes time, money, skills, opportunities, abilities, resources, or policies and other uncontrollable non-motivational factors of individuals that relate to the control of individual behavior. The limitation of PCB can be divided into self-efficacy and external resources. Self-efficacy refers to the cognition of one person who can complete the behavior. External resources refer to the availability of resources and the degree of accessibility. Both of them may affect the individual to make a decision on a behavior.
Jang et al. [10] applied the TPB with another new construct to explore a customer’s selection to an eco-friendly restaurant and found that PBC positive impacted on the behavioral intention of the environmental friendly restaurant. Sánchez et al. [21] also noted PBC has a positive impact to reduce noise pollution in road transportation. Chou et al. [22] investigated the factors of adopting green practices in the restaurant industry of Taiwan, presenting results that attitude and PBC have positive effects on behavioral intention. Chang and Chou [23] examined consumer behavioral intention toward bringing your own shopping bags (BYOSB) in Taiwan, noting that attitude and PBC have a positive effect on BYOSB.
The dependent construct in TPB is behavioral intention (BI). BI refers to individuals’ specific behaviors and the degree of actual action, such that the variable explains and predicts the actual behavior. We thus establish the next hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3.
Perceptual behavior control positively impacts on consumer behavior toward a landscape restaurant.

2.2.2. Landscape Perception and Preference

Chen et al. [13] pointed out that landscape perception and preference (LP&P) had a significantly positive effect on consumers’ behavioral intention on a restaurant. Respondents’ landscape perception of naturalness affects their landscape preference through restoration and further affects their consumption intention.
Hypothesis 4.
Landscape perception and preference have a significantly positive effect on consumer behavioral intention toward a landscape restaurant.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Structure

The current research adopts TPB theory that properly illustrates customers’ behavioral intentions to visit a landscape restaurant in order to propose a model with the additional variable of landscape perception and preference. Figure 1 depicts the proposed model. There are five constructs in this research structure: attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and landscape perception and preference as the independent variables and behavioral intention as the dependent variable.

3.2. Research Design and Questionnaire

3.2.1. Research Design

According to TPB and the related literature, we initially develop a preliminary list of items. Following the expert examination and pre-test, the instrument used herein is a 33-item measure under a five-factor structure.

3.2.2. Questionnaire

There are five constructs in this questionnaire: LP&P, AT, SN, PBC, and BI. All items in SN, PBC, and BI were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale. LP&P and AT are measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale; for example:
For you, dining at the landscape restaurant is very expensive
Agree __1__:__2__:__3__:__4__:__5__:__6__:__7__ disagree
For the LP&P measurement, it is based on Chen et al. [13] on the concept of LP&P constructed from a total of eight questions measured using a 7-point semantic differential scale; for example:
The scenery of your favorite landscape restaurant is artificial–natural.
The scenery of your favorite landscape restaurant is nothing special–attractive.
The AT scale is based on Ajzen [24] for the construction of the TPB questionnaire, and the purpose of this study is to amend a total of 12 questions measured by a 7-point semantic differential scale; for example:
For you, dining in a landscape restaurant is very expensive–good value for money.
For you, dining in a landscape restaurant is very boring–pleasant.
The SN scale is also based on Ajzen [24] and amends to a total of five questions. Respondents were asked about their opinions of landscape restaurants for the referred important individuals, groups, and media messages, and whether they support dining in a landscape restaurant.
The PBC scale of the study is based on Ajzen [24] on TPB. In total, five questions were established.
The BI scale was modified from the study of Jun and Arendt [9] and Kang et al. [25]. In total, three questions were proposed for asking about the willingness to revisit or to recommend others to go to landscape restaurants.

3.3. Sampling and Survey Method

We distributed the questionnaire to the customers who had visited landscape restaurants. In order to screen out those respondents who have not visited landscape restaurants, the first question asked is, “Have you ever been to landscape restaurants for dining?” A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed to customers who were interested in landscape restaurants in Taiwan through a face-to-face survey. The face-to-face survey was conducted by trained interviewers in various locations to collect data.
The qualified participants were provided with the purpose of the study and the definition of a landscape restaurant. In this study, a landscape restaurant is defined as a restaurant that provides not only food and beverage services, but also natural scenery or artificial landscape [11].
Out of the 500 customers a total of 395 usable responses from participants during the two-month survey period. Among respondents 65.3% are female (n = 258, 65.3%). The age distribution was 128 respondents (32.4%) 21–30 years and 107 (27.1%) 31–40 years old. Educational backgrounds were 259 (65.6%) university graduates, while the monthly individual incomes were 22.53% of respondents ranging NT$20,000–40,000 (US$1 = NT$30.9 as of 2019/4/14).
Research has suggested that the regression model performs better than the structure equation model (SEM) in exploratory studies [26,27]. Bryne [28] indicated that each one of three SEM software—AMOS, PLS, and LISREL—differs in the way it treats missing data and offer many methods to users to handle incomplete data. Different software produces different types of fit indices. However, the regression analysis using the SPSS program is properly executed and easier to use [26,27].

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics. The mean values of the five dimensions of LP&P, AT, SN, PBC, and BI are between 4.36 and 5.32. They are all above the middle value of three and relatively favorable.

4.2. Reliability and Validity

This paper used Cronbach’s α to measure the internal consistency among items within one dimension. We further used composite reliability to assess the construct reliability, while factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to respectively examine the convergent validity and discriminant validity. Table 2 presents the validity and reliability of the measurement models.
In social psychological research, a Cronbach’s α value above 0.7 is acceptable [29]. This study shows adequate reliability, as the Cronbach’s α values range from 0.801 to 0.903 for each construct. The composite reliability (CR) values range from 0.883 to 0.921, which shows that all values exceed the recommended level of 0.6 [30]. The value of factor loadings of all items is above the recommended level of 0.6 as suggested. The value of AVE is close to 0.5 and higher [31]. Table 3 summarized all the validity and reliability results.

4.3. Regression Analysis

The extant literature suggests that the regression model is better than the SEM in exploratory studies [26,27]. This study therefore uses a multiple regression model to explore the impacts of AT, SN, PBC, and LP&P on the behavioral intention of landscape restaurants. Table 4 lists the regression results, which show R is 0.771 and R2 is 0.595, denoting that AT, SN, PBC, and LP&P can explain the 59.5% variation of behavioral intention. The variance inflation factor (VIF) examines the collinearity of independent variables, and they are between 1.189 and 2.002, or less than 10, indicating no collinearity problems.
From Table 4, we obtain the standardized regression Equation (1):
BI = 0.295(AT) + 0.148(SN) + 0.206(PBC) + 0.354(LP&P)
Equation (1) expresses that BI is used as the dependent variable, while AT, SN, PBC, and LP&P are independent variables. The most influential factor toward the behavioral intention of the landscape restaurants is LP&P, compared to the other independent variables. Figure 2 illustrates the regression results.

5. Discussions, Implications, and Future Research

5.1. Discussion

This research empirically finds that LP&P is the most influential factor toward the behavioral intention of landscape restaurants, which matches the works of Yadav and Pathak [32] and Kim et al. [19]. In their study of behavioral intention for green food purchase by younger consumers, Yadav and Pathak [32] noted that environmental concern and environmental understanding positively impacted on behavioral intention. Kim et al. [19], in their study of the behavioral intention toward eco-friendly restaurants, suggested that the addition of another emotional component—such as anticipated regret—to TPB leads to a better explanation of behavioral intention in these restaurants. This paper also added one variable, which is the characteristics of the landscape restaurant, yielding the most influential factor, LP&P, toward the behavioral intention of this type of restaurant. Jang et al. [10], in their study of behavior intention for visiting environmentally friendly restaurants, proposed that environmental concerns (EC) have a positive effect on AT, SN, and PBC. Moreover, EC, AT, PBC, and SN had positive impacts on the customers’ behavioral intention toward environmentally friendly restaurants. Liu and Jang [33] indicated that the environment (new construct added into TPB model) contributes to customers’ overall satisfaction and their post-dining behavioral intentions. Jang et al. [10] also contributed to the empirical findings that three constructs of TPB with other extra constructs had significant impacts on customer behavioral intention to visit an environmentally friendly restaurant. Whitehouse et al. [5] validated the impact of hospital gardens on patients’ well-being.
Regarding the validation of TPB in landscape restaurants, our study validates that AT, SN, and PBC have significantly positive impacts on the behavioral intention toward landscape restaurants. This finding is also consistent with the related literature. Han and Kim [34] presented that service quality, satisfaction, and overall image have significant effects on revisit intention for green hotels. Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises [35] proposed that moral reflectiveness, conscientiousness, AT, SN, and PBC have positive effects on the behavioral intention for visiting green hotels.
The empirical result could offer both researchers and practitioners as a useful tool for fascinating theoretical and managerial implications.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The findings could be valuable for all those who would examine customer’s behavior in landscape restaurants as it contributes to the development of TPB model related to the drivers prompting people’s intention in a specific landscape restaurant. The locations of landscape restaurants are mostly in remote areas with long-distance transportation, thus spurring the application of TPB to identify the influential factors of customers’ behavioral intention toward these restaurants. Hence, the current study validated the fitness of the ETPB in explaining customers’ intentions to visit a landscape restaurant. Furthermore, this paper validated that the constructs of the traditional TPB model and one additional variable (LP&P) had significant impacts on customers’ choices to visit a landscape restaurant. This finding is consistent with the extant studies suggesting that behavioral intention models, such as TPB, might incorporate other factors that aid the depiction of intentions [19]. This study develops the extended TPB (ETPB) incorporating LP&P as another influential factor of the behavioral intention toward landscape restaurants. The empirical findings from the customers’ surveys suggest that LP&P—and not TPB—is the most influential factor on landscape restaurants. This result fills the gap in the literature by contributing ETPB to the decision-making model of landscape restaurants.
Specifically, beginning from the reflection of the general variables adopted in the TPB, the analysis confirmed the impacts of AT, SN, and PBC on consumers’ BI in the landscape restaurant. This validated the robustness of the theoretical development by Ajzen [11,18,24], and similarly to other literature. This study further proposed a revision of the ETPB by presenting one unique variable, LP&P, thus formulating the ETPB model in a landscape restaurant. This empirical finding extended the TPB into landscape restaurants, incorporating the new construct of landscape perception and preferences. This result suggests to researchers the prominence of not being restricted to the application of the TPB for the analysis of behavioral intention of landscape restaurants, but to develop a new theory on the basis of extant literature [10]. This model indeed denotes a theoretical development capable of identifying the variables to influence consumer behavior in the landscape restaurant sector. This new ETPB incorporates one extra variable regarding the characteristic of landscape restaurants and, thus, contributes to the literature a motivation for the development of other conceptual models offering their contribution to the innovativeness in consumer behavioral studies. Hence, the research is proposed to contribute to future development on behavioral marketing from applications of traditional theoretical models to through the inclusion of additional variables.
Sustainability is a broadly highlighted topic in the restaurant literature; it still seems to be at an early stage in the restaurant industry [20]. This work could contribute to an extended understanding of the pursuit of sustainable success in the setting of landscape restaurants. Further investigations into the different types of restaurants could provide empirical comparisons. The increased focus of academic research on the way to sustainability could offer useful models for restaurants’ practices.

5.3. Practical Implications

This study has explored the ascendants of consumers’ behavioral intention toward patronizing landscape restaurants. According to the empirical findings, LP&P, AT, SN, and PBC have positive impacts on BI in landscape restaurants. This work can be considered as an instrument to maximize the sustainable success of landscape restaurants. This empirical finding also aids restaurateurs in identifying the sustainable factors of their business and providing some managerial implications.
First, in terms of LP&P, consumers are focused on the idyllic settings of such restaurants as well as special landscape-related attractions. Here, the landscape is the most crucial element of such restaurants. This paper suggests that restaurateurs need to highlight landscape-related elements such as maintaining outdoor and indoor sceneries, creating a landscape atmosphere, and highlighting their restaurant’s special attractiveness, in order to attract consumers to dine in this type of restaurant. Juan Ignacio and Yaiza [36] emphasized that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable destinations. Attracting more customers through LP&P is thus a sustainable factor for landscape restaurants.
Meanwhile, restaurateurs need to be concerned with environmental protection during the establishment stage of the restaurant to avoid ecological damage. Some founders of landscape restaurants claimed that they paid attention to the conservation of water and soil in order to offer a sustainable space where people live in harmony with nature.
Second, as suggested by the empirical results, attention should be paid to attitude. The restaurateur needs to arouse the customers’ emotional state, trying to act on their intention towards choosing what is sustainable, guiding them to believe that the behavior would be consistent with their thinking.
Due to attractive landscape features, consumers are able to experience a pleasant mood and feel a sense of pleasure and relaxation. Hence, the restaurateurs need to utilize social media, such as Facebook and Instagram, to deliver related photos and videos to customers. Many first-time visitors have probably obtained information about landscape restaurants from social mass media. Schiffman et al. [37] recommended that marketers can change consumers’ attitude towards a product or brand by building a public image. Communicating with consumers about the benefits of casual dining in a landscape restaurant—such as relaxation and being good for one’s health—through social media might probably be the most effective marketing strategy.
Waterlander et al. [38] claimed that monetary incentive strategies (such as coupons, discounts, price cuts, etc.) could provide consumers with real monetary benefits so as to establish consumer habits toward landscape restaurants. Verma and Chandra [39] suggested that media advertising and sponsorship programs are positive ways to draw customers to visit restaurants.
Third, in terms of SN, most media (newspapers, books, magazines, television, and billboards) convey that dining in landscape restaurants is a pleasant experience. This phenomenon shows the dominant influence of mass media on customers, followed by the impact of important people surrounding customers and, finally, the impact of important reference groups of consumers. Furthermore, SN also represents that the reputation of a restaurant is a crucial factor for clients. Customers’ generated comments in social media or google maps can establish electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM). Moreover, e-WOM and recommendations from relatives and friends or from social media substantially influence consumers’ behavioral intention to dine in landscape restaurants. Restaurateurs need to manage their dialogues with customers, including replying to customers’ comments within a certain period of time.
Wang et al. [40] proposed that tourists voluntarily and happily promote destinations and influence the decision-making of others by sharing their memorable experiences of destinations. Similarly, sharing dining experiences of landscape restaurants probably forms a subject norm and affects the behavioral intention of others. In recent years, the spread of e-WOM on online social media has generated a huge impact on customer behavioral intention. Marketers of landscape restaurants can thus utilize social media to encourage customers to share their dining experiences, attractive menu items, and unique landscapes to others. For example, liking the restaurant on Facebook or uploading dining photos is another useful marketing campaign to encourage visitors to landscape restaurants so as to enhance the subjective norm. In addition, establishing a fan page on Facebook also has benefits by spurring relatives and friends to click “like” on landscape restaurants.
Last but not the least, we note that PBC includes two types of definitions. The first definition is that customers have enough information to go to landscape restaurants and can select the targeted landscape restaurant. Restaurateurs should make good use of any types of media messages, such as social media, television programs, newspapers, and magazines, to introduce their restaurant’s features and consumption information in order to make visitors feel that it is easier to receive the value proposition from their restaurant. In addition, it is also important to increase the transportation convenience of landscape restaurants, such as through clear directional signage, enough parking lots, shuttle buses to MRT stations or bus stops, and detailed mass transportation guides, all of which can enhance consumers’ perceptual behavior control toward landscape restaurants.
The second definition of PBC is consumers’ ability to reach landscape restaurants. A very important marketing strategy of landscape restaurants is also to clearly communicate with consumers on how to get there. Hence, restaurateurs need to provide an abundance of information related to traffic connections and parking guidance on their website for customer browsing in order to enhance consumers’ perceived behavior control toward landscape restaurants. Advertisement is an effective communication tool for customers [41]. Wang and Fesenmaier [42] claimed that online societies on social media are changing tourism markets by opening direct and immediate communication among potential travelers themselves as well as between them and tourism organizations. In this newly emerging communication environment, shared information and experiences become greater essential factors to influence travelers’ decision-making, and possibly more important than other traditional media—e.g., advertisements and brochures [43].
DiPietro et al. [44] suggested that social media is a value-for-money method for advertising and marketing a restaurant’s brand. A social networking site can be used for employees’ recruitment, customer-generated comments and feedback on new menu items, new idea generation, and best practices benchmarking. Employees can also be utilized as brand ambassadors. Additionally, social media allows landscape restaurants to keep in touch with their customers on a regular basis to inform them of the latest information (i.e., opening a new outlet, rebuilding old ones, etc.). It is the most effective way to influence customers’ PBC. Lee and Hu [45] note that a firm’s reputation has a positive impact on its financial performance, highlighting the former’s importance.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study does have limitations that should be taken into account by future studies on this topic. This paper could extend coverage to respondents who have never been to a landscape restaurant and compare their results to those respondents who have been to landscape restaurants. This paper can further incorporate the demographic variables of customers in order to distinguish the segments of targeted customer for landscape restaurants. Moreover, this study does not go deeper into why customers prefer landscape restaurants that could offer detailed sustainable factors for further studies. Adopting qualitative analysis on landscape restaurateurs and their customers in the future would be helpful for this study.

Author Contributions

The work is the result of all the authors’ synergistic contribution. More details include: Introduction, C.-Y.F.; Literature Review: C.-Y.F. and W.-L.L.; Methodology & Validation: W.-L.L. Formal Analysis, C.-Y.F.; Data Collection: W.-L.L.; Writing Draft Preparation: W.-L.L.; Writing—Review & Editing, C.-Y.F.; Supervision & Project Administration: C.-Y.F.; Funding Acquisition: C.-Y.F. and W.-L.L.

Funding

The funding source from Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 106-2410-H-003 -107 -MY2) and the National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bitner, M.J. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ryu, K.; Jang, S.S. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions through emotions: The case of upscale restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wakefield, K.L.; Blodgett, J. Retrospective: The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rosenbaum, M.S.; Massiah, C. An expanded servicescape perspective. J. Serv. Manag. 2011, 22, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Whitehouse, S.; Varni, J.W.; Seid, M.; Cooper-Marcus, C.; Ensberg, M.J.; Jacobs, J.R.; Mehlenbeck, R.S. Evaluating a children’s hospital garden environment: Utilization and consumer satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reisberg, M.; Han, S. (En) Countering social and environmental messages in the rainforest cafe [sic], children’s picturebooks, and other visual culture sites. Int. J. Educ. Arts 2001, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chung, K.-C. Exploring customers’ post-dining behavioral intentions toward green restaurants: An application of theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2016, 9, 119–134. [Google Scholar]
  8. Jun, J.; Kang, J.; Arendt, S.W. The effects of health value on healthful food selection intention at restaurants: Considering the role of attitudes toward taste and healthfulness of healthful foods. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 42, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Jun, J.; Arendt, S.W. Understanding healthy eating behaviors at casual dining restaurants using the extended theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 53, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jang, S.Y.; Chung, J.Y.; Kim, Y.G. Effects of environmentally friendly perceptions on customers’ intentions to visit environmentally friendly restaurants: An extended theory of planned behavior. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 599–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheng, Y.-W. A Study on Relationships between Landscape Preference and Consuming Intention—A Case Study of the Style of Landscape Restaurant in Taichung City. Master’s Thesis, Feng Chia University, Taichung City, Taiwan, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen, T.-F.; Chen, H.-M.; Lu, L. The influence of landscape perception and landscape preference on restaurant customers’ behavioral intension. J. Outdoor Recreat. Study 2012, 25, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang, Z.N.; Chuang, A.H.; Hwang, S.Z. Landscape Restaurants Beside Lakes and Sea; Mook: Taipei, Taiwan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, Z.N.; Chuang, A.H.; Wan, R.T.; Hwang, S.L. Landscape Restaurants with Mountain View; Mook: Taipei, Taiwan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lin, M.F. The Study of Store Atmosphere and Perceived Value about Scenery Coffeehouse in Experience Marketing View: Taking Sinshen Area for Example. Master’s Thesis, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, C. A Restaurant You Should Visit Before You Die! Taiwan’s Most Beautiful Landscape Restaurant—The Perfect Combination of Food and Travel. 2011. Available online: https://l50740.pixnet.net/blog (accessed on 8 August 2019).
  18. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, Y.J.; Njite, D.; Hancer, M. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tommasetti, A.; Singer, P.; Troisi, O.; Maione, G. Extended theory of planned behavior (ETPB): Investigating customers’ perception of restaurants’ sustainability by testing a structural equation model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sánchez, M.; López-Mosquera, N.; Lera-López, F.; Faulin, J. An extended planned behavior model to explain the willingness to pay to reduce noise pollution in road transportation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chou, C.-J.; Chen, K.-S.; Wang, Y.-Y. Green practices in the restaurant industry from an innovation adoption perspective: Evidence from Taiwan. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chang, S.-H.; Chou, C.-H. Consumer Intention toward bringing your own shopping bags in Taiwan: An application of ethics perspective and theory of planned behavior. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ajzen, I. Constructing a TPB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. 2006. Available online: http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2018).
  25. Kang, J.; Jun, J.; Arendt, S.W. Understanding customers’ healthy food choices at casual dining restaurants: Using the value-attitude-behavior model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 48, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D. Residents’ support for tourism: An identity perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Structural equation modelling and regression analysis in tourism research. Curr. Issues Tour. 2012, 15, 777–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concept, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Raykov, T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1997, 21, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 732–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y.; Jang, S. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the US: What affects customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Han, H.; Kim, Y. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Kittipongvises, S. Factors influencing source separation intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Juan Ignacio, P.-F.; Yaiza, L.-S. Are tourists really willing to pay more for sustainable destinations? Sustainability 2016, 8, 1240. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L.; Hansen, H. Consumer Behaviour: A European Outlook; Pearson Financial Times—Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Waterlander, W.E.; Steenhuis, I.H.M.; de Vet, E.; Schuit, A.J.; Seidell, J.C. Expert views on most suitable monetary incentives on food to stimulate healthy eating. Eur. J. Public Health 2010, 20, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B. An application of theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers’ green hotel visit intention. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1152–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, S.; Kirillova, K.; Lehto, X. Travelers’ food experience sharing on social network sites. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lovelock, C.; Wirtz, J. Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Y.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Modeling participation in an online travel community. J. Travel Res. 2004, 42, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kang, M.; Schuett, M.A. Determinants of sharing travel experiences in social media. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. DiPietro, R.B.; Crews, T.B.; Gustafson, C.; Strick, S. The use of social networking sites in the restaurant industry: Best practices. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2012, 15, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, Y.M.; Hu, J.L. Integrated approaches for business sustainability: The perspective of corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 05100 g001 550
Figure 1. Research structure.
Figure 1. Research structure.
Sustainability 11 05100 g001
Sustainability 11 05100 g002 550
Figure 2. Research results.
Figure 2. Research results.
Sustainability 11 05100 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
VariableDescriptionMeanS.E.
LP&PLandscape perception and preference5.320.972
ATAttitude4.980.854
SNSubjective norm5.131.000
PBCPerceptual behavior control4.360.960
BIBehavioral intention5.131.100
Table
Table 2. Validity and reliability of measurement models. CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Table 2. Validity and reliability of measurement models. CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
VariableItemFactor LoadingCronbach’s αCRAVE
Attitude (AT)Dining in a landscape restaurant is pleasant.0.6810.9030.9190.509
Dining in a landscape restaurant is attractive.0.705
The meal of a landscape restaurant is delicious.0.744
It’s fun to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.673
A landscape restaurant is clean.0.725
The meal of a landscape restaurant is nutritious.0.663
The scenery has its local characteristics.0.733
The meal of the landscape has good taste.0.766
There are many choices for meals in a landscape restaurant.0.677
Dining in a landscape restaurant is healthy.0.651
I was satisfied to dine in a landscape restaurant0.814
Subjective Norm (SN)People who are important to me think that I should dine in a landscape restaurant.0.8350.8340.8840.607
Group of people who are important to me suggest that I need to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.818
The media suggest that I should dine in a landscape restaurant.0.602
Peers support me to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.802
Most of my peer groups support me to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.815
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)I have many chances to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.8570.8010.8830.716
It is easy for me to dine in a landscape restaurant.0.874
I can choose my favorite landscape restaurant.0.806
Landscape Perception and Preference (LP&P)The landscape is special and attractive.0.7960.8980.9210.593
The scenery is charming and famous.0.780
I enjoy scenery in a landscape restaurant.0.806
In a landscape restaurant, I can stay away from the noisy world, as if I am in another wonderful world.0.783
I enjoy scenery and release stress in a landscape restaurant.0.798
There are no crowds and no pressure in a landscape restaurant.0.672
I can enjoy the atmosphere of a landscape restaurant.0.832
I like the special activity in a landscape restaurant (E.g., take pictures, DIY activities, etc.)0.676
Behavioral Intention (BI)I will revisit the landscape restaurant.0.9040.8020.8870.725
I am willing to recommend others to dine in the landscape restaurant.0.881
I intend to experience more landscape restaurants next time.0.763
Table
Table 3. Summary of reliability and validity.
Table 3. Summary of reliability and validity.
ItemVariableRangeCriteriaResult
Internal consistencyCronbach’s α0.801~0.903>0.7Above 0.7
Construct reliabilityComposite Reliability—CR0.883~0.921>0.6Above 0.6
Convergent validityFactor Loadings0.602~0.904>0.6Above 0.6
AVE0.509~0.725>0.5Above 0.5
Table
Table 4. Regression results.
Table 4. Regression results.
ModelNon-Standardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.Collinearity Statistics
BS.E.BTol.VIF
Constant−0.7560.251-−3.0170.003
AT0.3800.0590.295 **6.4720.0000.5002.002
SN0.1620.0500.148 **3.2460.0010.5021.993
PBC0.2360.0400.206 **5.8550.0000.8411.189
LP&P0.4010.0450.354 **8.8650.0000.6521.533
Dependent variable is behavioral intention (BI); Independent variables are attitude (AT), subjective norm (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and landscape perception and preference (LP&P). R = 0.771, R2 = 0.595, Adj. R2 = 0.595, F = 143.242; ** p < 0.01.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liao, W.-L.; Fang, C.-Y. Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior for Sustaining a Landscape Restaurant. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185100

AMA Style

Liao W-L, Fang C-Y. Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior for Sustaining a Landscape Restaurant. Sustainability. 2019; 11(18):5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185100

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liao, Wen-Lan, and Chin-Yi Fang. 2019. "Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior for Sustaining a Landscape Restaurant" Sustainability 11, no. 18: 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185100

APA Style

Liao, W.-L., & Fang, C.-Y. (2019). Applying an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior for Sustaining a Landscape Restaurant. Sustainability, 11(18), 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185100

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop