Next Article in Journal
Rebuilding Education—Contributions to STEM Education Practices and Research during the Post-COVID-19 Era
Next Article in Special Issue
Holistic Strategies Based on Heritage, Environmental, Sensory Analysis and Mapping for Sustainable Coastal Design
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Potential of Biobinder for Bottom Ash Solidification/Stabilization: Leaching Behaviour and pH Dependence
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Study on the Effect of Authenticity on Heritage Tourists’ Mindful Tourism Experience: The Case of the Forbidden City
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15107860
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gen Z’s Attitude towards Green Image Destinations, Green Tourism and Behavioural Intention Regarding Green Holiday Destination Choice: A Study in Poland and India

by
Marek Nowacki
1,†,
Joanna Kowalczyk-Anioł
2,† and
Yash Chawla
3,*,†
1
Institute of Applied Sciences, WSB Merito University in Poznań, 61-895 Poznań, Poland
2
Faculty of Geographical Sciences, University of Łódź, 90-142 Łódź, Poland
3
Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 7860; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107860
Submission received: 24 April 2023 / Revised: 6 May 2023 / Accepted: 9 May 2023 / Published: 11 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage, Cultural Tourism and Sustainability: Meaningful Travel for a Green Planet)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Using PLS-SEM, this article proposes and verifies a model among Gen Z that captures the relationship between attitudes towards the environmental ecosystem and green tourism, personal and social norms regarding pro-environmental behaviour, perceived behavioural control, perceived green image of destinations (PGID), behavioural intentions regarding green holiday destinations (GHD), and willingness to pay (WTP) more for visiting them. The paper also verifies whether intercultural differences exist in the relationships between these variables. The most important results indicate that (1) for Gen Z, the perceived green image of destinations has the strongest impact on intention to travel to green holiday destinations; (2) the proposed variables explain the willingness to visit green holiday destinations to a much greater extent than the WTP a higher price for such trips. This study contributes to the literature concerning generational changes in tourism, pro-environmental (transition) planning, and the growing green economy and marketing.

1. Introduction

Numerous studies have confirmed the validity of using generational analysis to study travel and tourist behaviour [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Particular attention has been paid to the Baby Boomer generation, which shaped the trajectory of mass tourism development in the second half of the 20th century and currently constitutes the still significant senior tourism market [8,9]. The last two decades attracted the attention of academics to Generation Y [10,11], which, through the development of ICT and social media, became the first globally shaped generation regarding tourist behaviour [12]. At the same time, “technologically savvy” Millennials have preferred adapting and accelerating technological innovations in tourism [13]. Recent years have seen the first adult members of Generation Z (Gen Z) enter the global tourism market. In the prepandemic era, tourism had become an increasingly common and international social practice, in which the ranks of Gen Zs in tourism also showed significantly increased participation [14].
The context of Gen Z as true digital natives, who have been exposed from their earliest years to the internet, social networks, and mobile systems, has moulded them as a hypercognitive generation [15]. They seamlessly blend virtual and in-person experiences while adeptly cross-referencing various sources of information [15]. Some believe that in contrast to Millennials (focused mainly on themselves and therefore called “Generation Me”), Gen Z behaviours are all anchored in the search for truth (in both personal and social forms); hence, this generation is sometimes called “True Gen” [15]. Gen Z’ers value individual expression and, as consumers, tend to avoid labels. Technology has given them unprecedented connectivity and fosters joint mobilisation for various causes. Compared with others, Gen Z’ers are more socially conscious [16] and environmentally oriented [17,18]. As mentioned above, for Gen Z, an essential driver behind consumption is the search for truth in both personal and social forms. By observing the challenges of the modern world, they demonstrate significant engagement with sustainable and ethical consumerism. Their moral and eco-friendly choices express their identity [19]. More and more research findings [6,16,20] suggest that Gen Z is likely to be more pro-SDGs (in favour of the Sustainable Development Goals). This is a promising perspective because, historically, young people have embodied the zeitgeist of their societies and profoundly influenced trends and behaviour alike [15].
Because this age group (born in the late 1990s to 2010 [19]) is beginning to constitute a growing proportion of worldwide consumers, its impact is becoming increasingly crucial, especially in tourism and hospitality [21]. Consequently, various forecasts and expectations have also been formulated about the influence of this generation on tourism [22]. Given the global environmental challenges observed today, the question of whether this generation will make world tourism more sustainable is increasingly asked.
Higham and Carr [23] are believed to have initiated the direction of research on pro-environmental behaviour in tourism [24]. Their study found that environmental values are affected by visits to green tourism destinations. Simply put, this meant that once consumers have had a green tourism experience, they are more likely to propound environmental issues. Pro-environmental behaviour, which is also referred to by various terms such as eco-friendly, green, and environmentally sustainable behaviour, has only in recent years become a popular subject among tourism scholars and practitioners [24,25,26,27,28,29]. However, Khanra et al.’s [30] analysis indicates that studying tourists’ attitudes and behaviours toward sustainability is still not an exhaustive thematic area. They strongly recommended further research in this direction.
Green tourism is a significant and fast-burgeoning trend. However, as Benckendorff and Moscardo [2] point out, its long-term viability depends on understanding the social and demographic elements that influence traveller behaviour. To encourage sustainable tourism, it is critical to understand the factors influencing eco-friendly behaviour throughout generations, particularly among younger age groups and between cultures [31]. Tourism operators and legislators may modify their marketing techniques and policies to appeal to these demographics, increasing the chance of environmentally responsible behaviour. Understanding the determinants of eco-friendly behaviour can also aid in developing more effective sustainability methods and initiatives, guaranteeing the long-term survival of green tourism.
Previous research has used different conceptual frameworks to explain tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour and choices. The researchers’ main focus was investigating tourists’ inclination towards selecting hotels with eco-friendly features. They employed frameworks from the value–belief–norm (VBN) theory [32] and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) [33]. Furthermore, Han [25] investigated the environmentally responsible actions of hotel guests within the context of accommodation. This was performed by utilising an integrated framework that drew upon both VBN theory and TPB as the foundation for the analysis (see also [34,35]). In tourism research, more and more attention is being paid to the new environmental paradigm (NEP) in understanding tourists’ environmental behaviours [36]. Using NEP, Park et al. [37] developed a model for explaining environmental behaviour in tourism.
Recently, Nowacki et al. [38] used TPB to investigate the interrelationship between attitudes towards the environment, green tourism, personal and social norms regarding environmentally responsible conduct, perceived ability to adopt environmentally friendly behaviour, preference for eco-friendly travel destinations, and readiness to pay a higher price for sustainable tourism. One of the model’s distinguishing features is its emphasis on the willingness to pay extra for environmentally sustainable travel, which is frequently disregarded in green tourism research [30]. By integrating this variable, the study provides insights into how travellers prioritise their environmental concerns while choosing destinations. The study’s findings emphasise the relevance of perceived behavioural control and the effect of social and personal norms on green travel aspirations. This study adds to the current knowledge of green tourism and provides recommendations for improving environmentally responsible travel behaviour. We expand on the previous models [38] to include the perceived green image of destinations (an important factor in the decision to visit a destination [39]), as well as test it among Generation Z and verify the significance of cultural context through analysis in two culturally different [40] subpopulations—Gen Z’ers from India and Poland. This is also the first study examining Gen Z’s views toward green travel in India and Poland. Given the importance of this generation in the tourism sector, the research findings give useful insights for green tourism planning, marketing, and management. The study’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations underlines the need to develop tourism in accordance with these goals. Furthermore, the findings have larger significance for the continuing conversation about green tourist growth and the literature on eco-friendly travel and tourism.

2. Literature Review—Development of the Model and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Generation Z as (Eco)Tourists

Previous studies on Gen Z tourist behaviour show that Z’ers seek adventure, fun, and escape from their daily routine [41]. They look for authentic local experiences, commitment, and socialisation [41,42]. Smith [43] even emphasises their fear of missing out (FOMO) on opportunities if they do not travel. It is also not surprising that members of this generation, born with digital devices and constantly connected, use digital tools both to plan their trips and access smart destinations [44], as well as share their travel experiences [22,41]. Quite often, Gen Z’ers are also portrayed as environmentally conscious [42], or even as tourists sensitive to biodiversity [22] and interested in nature-based solutions in tourism destinations [45].
However, Cini and Passafaro [46] noted that studies on young tourists’ values and attitudes vis-a-vis green tourism had produced contradictory results. Some suggest that concern for (environmental and social) sustainability has risen among young people, as well as their interest in green tourism [46]. Other studies, however, show evidence that young tourists’ values and interests are predominantly egocentric and suggest that young people are somewhat ambivalent towards the environment (see, e.g., [47,48]). These studies mainly concern Gen Y, but the aforementioned qualitative study by Cini and Passafaro [46] suggests a similarly unclear situation among Gen Z.

2.2. New Ecological Perspective

The new ecological perspective, or new environmental paradigm (NEP), was developed by Dunlap and Van Liere [49] as a direct challenge to the dominant social paradigm described by Pirages and Ehrlich [50]. The concept of NEP by Dunlap et al. [51] focuses on beliefs about humans’ ability to create an imbalance in nature (see also [52]). These beliefs include understanding humans’ potential negative impact on nature, acknowledging the limits to growth in modern societies, and recognising the need to question humanity’s assumed authority to dominate nature. NEP is a widely used measure of an individual’s adoption of an ecological worldview [49]. It reflects the shared environmental concerns and beliefs regarding the interdependence between humans and nature, as Stern [53] described. Recently, Park et al. [37] established a model to elucidate environmental/ecological behaviour in tourism by integrating the value–belief–norm (VBN) model and the modified norm activation model (MNAM), with a focus on the role of NEP in the decision-making process of tourists. They found NEP to be a crucial factor in improving the predictive power of their model. Similarly, Nowacki et al. [38] found that NEP significantly influenced attitudes towards green tourism (ATG), social norms (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC) based on their study in India. Given the need to deepen our understanding of the drivers behind Gen Z, we developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1.1:
The pro-environmental orientation (NEP) of Gen Z representatives significantly influences their attitude towards green tourism (ATG).
Hypothesis 1.2:
The pro-environmental orientation (NEP) of Gen Z representatives significantly influences their social norms (SN).
Hypothesis 1.3:
The pro-environmental orientation (NEP) of Gen Z representatives significantly influences their perceived behavioural control (PBC).

2.3. Theory of Planned Behaviour

Originally proposed by Ajzen in 1991 [54], the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) has become a widely used framework for investigating free-time behaviour in tourism research over the past two decades [55]. Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci [56] noted that TPB is a popular social-psychological model in the literature on hospitality management, tourism, and leisure due to its feasibility, testability, methodological suitability, and methodological suitability validity. For example, Shin et al. [55] recently used TPB to analyse travel decision determinants during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to TPB, individuals’ intentions play a decisive role in shaping their behaviour by motivating them. The TPB suggests three key factors that affect one’s behavioural intentions: their attitude towards a behaviour, the subjective norms surrounding that behaviour, and their perceived ability to carry out the behaviour, which relates to the difficulty they perceive in performing it [54].
The theory of planned behaviour has been applied to explain leisure and pro-environmental behaviour [27]. One example of the TPB’s application is demonstrated in the work of Mancha and Yoder [57], who utilised the model to confirm customers’ green behavioural intentions. In their study, Han and Kim [58] utilised the TPB to elucidate the factors influencing individuals’ decisions to pay similar prices for eco-friendly hotels compared with regular hotels. Nimri et al. [33] combined the TPB with green hotel knowledge and belief constructs. Recently, Wang et al. [34] merged the TPB and value–belief–norm theory into a goal-framing theory, verifying it as suitable for predicting consumers’ selection of green hotels. Moreover, Han and Hyun [59] combined the rational action theory and the TPB into a model explaining the intentions of visiting ecological museums.
Numerous studies have indicated that social norms and perceived behavioural control are vital components that contribute to the formation of personal norms or a feeling of ethical duty [33,37,60,61]. Social norms can strengthen the capacity for personal norms to be effective [62]. Similarly, perceived behavioural control may also influence the feeling of ethical duty, implying that individual self-restraint or fortitude can increase the impact of personal norms and promote pro-environmental behaviour [61,63].
The TPB model is becoming more and more valuable and is increasingly applied in sustainability studies. Examples include a review of determinants of conflict resolution in sustainable tourism [64] or water-related innovations implemented by accommodation managers [65]. Kim and Seock [66] employed the TPB to predict pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Nowacki et al. [38] suggest linking the TPB to a willingness to pay more for trips to green tourism destinations. As Agag et al. [67] noted, a rising trend in the widespread appeal of environmentally friendly tourism products is reflected in the growing body of literature examining the variables that influence tourists’ intention to purchase and their willingness to pay a premium for such products. Agag et al. [67] noted that the surge in demand for environmentally friendly travel options is reflected in the emerging literature exploring the factors influencing tourists’ inclination to buy and readiness to pay more for such products. However, the results are sometimes contradictory and mainly refer to green products, ignoring the premises on which green holiday destinations are selected. Taking into account the above, our following hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 2.1:
Gen Z’s attitude towards green tourism (ATG) significantly influences their behavioural intentions to travel (BIT) to environmentally friendly destinations.
Hypothesis 2.2:
Gen Z’s attitude towards green tourism (ATG) significantly influences their willingness to pay more (WTPM) for travel to environmentally friendly destinations.
Hypothesis 3:
In Gen Z, subjective norms (SN) significantly influence personal norms (PN).
Hypothesis 4:
In Gen Z, perceived behavioural control (PBC) significantly influences personal norms (PN).

2.4. Personal Norms

Schwartz and Howard [68] proposed that personal norms refer to an individual’s ethical duty to perform or avoid certain actions. The value–belief–norm (VBN) theory, developed by Stern et al. [53], outlines a sequential link between an individual’s values, the negative consequences of their behaviour, personal norms, and their propensity towards pro-environmental behaviour. Meanwhile, the norm activation model (NAM), proposed by Schwartz [69], identifies personal norms, awareness of effects, and ascription of responsibility as key factors in explaining pro-environmental behaviour. The modified norm activation model (MNAM), which incorporates social norms and perceived behavioural control as personal norms’ determinants, has been explored by researchers such as Han [70], Parker et al. [37], and Ateş [71]. Another model, the value–identity–personal norm (VIP) model [72], suggests that a sense of moral obligation (personal norms) influences pro-environmental behaviour and that environmental identity affects personal norms. According to Stern [53], assigning responsibility to individuals shapes their personal norms and motivates them towards pro-environmental behaviour. Numerous studies demonstrate that personal norms strongly influence pro-environmental behaviour [25,37]. Assigning responsibility directly impacts personal norms, as evidenced by various authors [73]. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5.1:
Personal norms significantly influence the behavioural intentions of Gen Z to travel to green holiday destinations.
Hypothesis 5.2:
The personal norms of Gen Z significantly influence their readiness to pay a premium for trips to environmentally sustainable green holiday destinations.

2.5. Green Destination Image

Destination image is an essential factor in the decision to travel and significantly influences selecting vacation destinations [74,75]. Chen [76] defines a “green image” as tourists’ perceptions of environmental obligations and concerns. This term encompasses the subjective views of tourists concerning a destination’s environmental image. Several attributes of green destinations include destination management, nature, scenery and animals, environment and climate, culture and tradition, social well-being, and business and hospitality [77].
Many studies indicate that a green image affects both the intention to visit a destination and the intention to pay premium prices for a visit to such a destination. Recently, scientists have incorporated the perceived green image as a motivational factor in studies where behavioural intentions are measured [78]. To date, much research has focused on the influence of the green image of hotels [79], restaurants [78], and small and medium-sized towns [76] on the intention to visit them and/or pay more. Finally, Ashraf et al. [39] found that the perceived green image of a destination is positively related to tourists’ visiting intentions, and Melé et al. [80] found an influence of green image on revisit intentions, hence the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6.1:
The perceived green image of destinations influences the behavioural intentions of Gen Z to travel to green holiday destinations.
Hypothesis 6.2:
The perceived green image of destinations influences Gen Z’s willingness to pay more for travel to green holiday destinations.

2.6. Cultural Differences in Attitude towards the Environment

Previous studies on Gen Z have not considered cultural differences [81], which influence, among others, attitudes towards the environment [82] and, consequently, approaches to sustainable tourism [31]. Considering the above, our research was conducted in two culturally different countries—Gen Z in Poland (CEE Europe) and India (Asia).
Poland and India differ in their cultural orientations [81]. Poland is more individualist than India and has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty, while India has a medium–low preference for avoiding uncertainty and an acceptance of imperfection. Poles are normative in their thinking and focus on achieving quick results, while for Indians, time is not as crucial as in Western societies [40]. However, there are claims in the literature that the younger generations, especially Gen Z, are shaped globally. Therefore, the question arises whether the thesis of Filimonau et al. [31] that approaches to the environment and sustainable tourism are culturally conditioned is still relevant.
Hypothesis 7:
There are country-specific differences among people from Generation Z in the relationships between NEP, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, destination green image, and behavioural intentions towards green holiday destinations.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Survey Development

To evaluate the research hypotheses formulated in this paper, a structured, self-completed CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) internet questionnaire was used, comprising various scales developed by different authors and documented in scholarly works: attitude towards green tourism [54,83], NEP [51], social norms [37,54], personal norms [37,54], perceived behavioural control [37], perceived green image [39], visiting intention [54,84], and willingness to pay more [85].
A preliminary pilot study was conducted with a convenience sampling method involving 28 individuals in English and Polish to validate and enhance the survey instrument. The authors sent the survey link to their colleagues and some Gen Z participants in Poland and India. They collected feedback that was consequently used to modify the questionnaire appropriately. The responses collected during the pilot phase were not included in the final sample utilised for the analysis of this study. The refined final questionnaire featured 38 questions: 36 were mandatory, 1 conditional, and 1 discretionary open-ended type. The authors employed advanced security features and user-friendly functionalities to enhance the survey’s security and usability. These measures included averting multiple submissions and detecting bots using an integrated data field (reCAPTCHA), safeguarding the surveys from accidental scanning, and enabling respondents to complete the questionnaire later. Qualtrics, the platform hosting the survey, provided all of these features.

3.2. Sampling

The authors used convenience sampling to collect responses by leveraging their personal, professional, and social connections. The authors commissioned diverse means to distribute the survey, including mailing lists at their universities, social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter, and private messages. Per Baltar and Brunet’s [86] recommendation, also employed by Chawla et al. [87], participants were urged to share the questionnaire with their network after completing it, aiming to boost the number of responses and enhance the study’s external validity.
The survey questionnaire was open for responses from 13 April 2021 to 16 June 2021, during which 1449 partial responses and 908 valid responses were collected. Out of the 908 valid respondents, a final sample of 662 that met the criteria of Gen Z (Age <= 27) and country of nationality (India or Poland) was selected for analysis. On average, the respondents who submitted a valid response took 7 min and 21 s to answer the questionnaire. In contrast, the respondents who did not finish the questionnaire spent 47 s on the survey. The average completion rate of the partial responses was 12.9%, of which the majority were 0%, indicating that the participant exited the landing page. The partial responses were excluded from the analysis. Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the sample (age, gender, and nationality).

3.3. Analysis Methods

The interrelationships among variables were examined with SmartPLS—the partial least squares path modelling software. To begin with, tests were carried out to assess the constructs’ validity and reliability. Subsequently, the variables’ internal consistency reliability, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and collinearity were evaluated.
The structural model was assessed by computing two metrics—R2 and Q2 (the coefficient of determination and the cross-validated redundancy measure)—using the blindfolding technique. The R2 shows the amount of variance explained by each construct and evaluates the model’s explanatory power [88]. The Q2 test determines the path model’s predictive accuracy by combining in-sample explanatory power and out-of-sample prediction [89]. Furthermore, the study calculated the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) value to assess the difference between the model’s implied and observed correlation matrix.
The next step in the analysis was to check if the tested model of relationships between the variables varied significantly depending on nationality. To carry this out, PLS-MGA multigroup analysis was conducted [89].

3.4. Model Assessment

The measurement model was assessed in the first step by checking the indicator loadings. The loading values for all constructs surpassed the suggested cut-off point of 0.708, except for the perceived behavioural control construct that showed a loading value of 0.567. (Table 2). However, this value is also acceptable for exploratory research, as stated by Sarstedt et al. [89]. The subsequent step of the study involved the assessment of internal consistency reliability (CR) for the variables, yielding values from 0.781 to 0.955, which can be rated as “good”, except for the willingness to pay more construct, which had a value of 0.955, marginally surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.95. Another internal consistency reliability indicator, Cronbach’s alpha, was also computed and ranged from 0.605 to 0.929, indicating satisfactory levels [90]. The average variance extracted (AVE), an indicator of convergent validity, ranged from 0.548 for perceived behavioural control to 0.876 for willingness to pay more, which is within the acceptable limits [89].
Afterwards, the research investigated discriminant validity, the degree to which the latent variables differ in the structural model [89]. The heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations was then calculated to assess this [91] (Table 3). Henseler et al. [92] state that 0.85 or above for HTMT indicates discriminant validity problems. Nonetheless, our study did not encounter such an issue.
The collinearity of the formative indicators was examined in the following step by calculating the VIF values. VIF values of 5 or greater indicate significant collinearity issues among the indicators of formatively measured constructs [90]. In our study, all VIF values were below 3, except for 2 indicators of the willingness to pay more construct, which fell below the recommended threshold of 5.

3.5. Hypotheses Verification

Next, the study conducted hypothesis testing by calculating the statistical significance of the path coefficients. The bootstrapping procedure was utilised to evaluate the significance of the path coefficients. As a result, ten out of eleven hypotheses were supported, as shown in Table 4. Specifically, NEP positively influenced ATTE-T, SN, and PBC (H1.1, H1.2, H1.3). ATG-T tourism positively impacted BITT (H2.1). SN and PBC positively influenced PN (H3, H4). PN positively affected BITT and WTPM (H5.1, H5.2). Additionally, PGI positively influenced BITT and WTPM (H6a, H6b). The only hypothesis rejected was H2b, which stated no relationship between ATG-T and WTPM.
Based on the path model analysis, the study found that NEP’s impact on behavioural intentions can be observed through two pathways, as depicted in Figure 1. The first pathway is mediated by Attitude towards eco-tourism, which exhibits a significant but weak effect on behavioural intention to travel. The second pathway is mediated by social norms, perceived behavioural control, and personal norms, which significantly influence behavioural intention to travel and, to a lesser extent, willingness to pay more. The most significant influence on behavioural intention to travel and willingness to pay more is attributed to perceived green image.
The model was evaluated by computing R2 (the coefficient of determination) and Q2 (cross-validated redundancy measurement). The obtained R2 values for willingness to pay more and behavioural intention to travel were 0.116 and 0.293, respectively. Although these values were relatively low, they are deemed satisfactory in certain cases [93]. The Q2 values ranged from 0.110 to 0.209 and were positive but relatively low. The SRMR obtained was 0.059, which is considered good if the value is below 0.08 [94].
In the next step of the analysis, verification was conducted of whether the tested model of relationships between variables significantly differed depending on the nationality group studied (Poland vs India) (Hypothesis 7). For this purpose, PLS-MGA multigroup analysis was conducted [89]. As a result of the analysis, two significant intergroup differences were found. There is a statistically significant difference between Poles and Indians in the relationship between perceived behavioural control and personal norms, as well as attitude toward eco-tourism and behavioural intention to travel (Table 5). In both cases, in the group of Poles, these relationships were significantly stronger than in the group of Indians ( β diff. = 0.194; p = 0.041 and β diff. = 0.175; p = 0.049). This result allows the authors to accept Hypothesis 7.

4. Discussion and Implications

The primary aim of this paper was to validate the relationships between the factors in the behavioural model, namely pro-environmental attitudes, a destination’s perceived green image, intentions to select a green tourist destination, and willingness to pay for it. The research allowed us to validate this model for the Gen Z demographic and to compare samples from two culturally diverse countries, namely Poland and India, with distinct backgrounds. The results of the study have vital implications for both theory and practice.
As Han [27] emphasised, understanding the drivers of green behaviour and choices is essential for designing efficient strategies to reduce contemporary tourism’s negative environmental impact [95,96]. These drivers also seem increasingly relevant in the discussion on tourism and the SDGs and are shaped in ever-faster-changing circumstances [55]. The findings of this research justify the legitimacy of applying the theory of planned behaviour [54] in the above contexts, especially when choosing an (eco)tourism destination.
The study established that among Gen Z, ecological beliefs (NEP) have a relationship with attitudes towards green tourism, social norms, and perceived behavioural control (H1.1, H1.2, and H1.3). The results indicate that when Gen Z individuals are environmentally aware, their attitude towards green tourism is significantly positive, and perceived behavioural control and social norms are strengthened. These findings coincide with earlier studies conducted on older generations [37,38,71,84]. They are also consistent with the belief that there is a need to develop proecological awareness, which will stimulate and increase interest in proecological as well as sustainability practices in tourism and daily life contexts [97,98]. Moreover, our research responds to the recent suggestion made by [27] to look for a common research perspective across the interplay between tourism, consumer behaviour, and environmental psychology. This would enable more effective promotion of eco-friendly behaviours and green tourism consumption.
Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5 were consistent with the TPB, NAM, and VIP models discussed in the theoretical section. While the study supported the significant influence of attitude towards green tourism on behavioural intentions to travel to green destinations (Hypothesis 2.1) [39,71,99], Hypothesis 2.2, which posited the impact of attitudes on willingness to pay more, was not supported. The results indicate that for Gen Z, having a positive attitude towards green tourism alone is inadequate to justify paying a premium price for eco-friendly trips, regardless of cultural background. Other factors, such as perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, and personal norms, are necessary. These findings are consistent with those of Nowacki et al. [38], who studied the Indian population, and [67], who argued that no single factor could significantly motivate travellers to pay more for green products. A particularly interesting result obtained for Gen Z is that the most critical factor is the perceived green image of the destination, as previously suggested by Han et al. [85] (in nongenerational research).
In light of our research, for the representatives of Gen Z, the perceived green image of a destination has the strongest impact on the intention to travel to a destination, as, to a much lesser extent, does the attitude towards green tourism and personal norms (H6.1, H2.1, and H5.1). This result is important for appropriately conducting green marketing and building a destination’s eco-friendly or green image. As Cini and Passafaro [46] showed, young people have contrasting views on green tourism, and such views may be affected by prejudice and stereotypes. There are visible differences in the image of green tourism between those who have had green tourism experience and those who have not (e.g., [100,101]. The first group has a positive attitude, while the second is sceptical. Thus, it is essential to shape and popularise the green image among young people who do not have previous sustainable/green tourism experiences. Although Litvin and Chiam [47] suggest that attitudes may be related to the consumer lifecycle, identifying the causes of insufficient interest in green tourism among young people should be the key goal for sustainable tourism providers and marketers.
In the case of generation Z, opportunities for (co)creating a destination’s green image, conducting green marketing, and ultimately shaping pro-environmental attitudes in tourism and green holiday destination choices are undoubtedly provided by smart technologies (ST). As is commonly known, STs have become an indispensable part of Gen Z’s lifestyle [102]; it is, therefore, worth using their potential as a tool of social innovation to stimulate greener (and newer) means of tourist consumption and (co)production. Since technology is their (Gen Z’s) form of empowerment, the role of social media seems to be especially significant. At the same time, it is worth noting that a destination’s sustainability transition efforts are often not sufficiently communicated [103]. This requires authors with varied backgrounds to work together; for instance, a team should consist of experts in tourism, sustainability, and marketing [103], as was the case in this study. Perhaps launching a common green (co)narrative on social media will encourage participation from Gen Z in the narrative of communicating sustainability and pro-environmental behaviour/consumption, as well as raise awareness to a new level.
Previous research results have proven that, to date, little is understood about factors affecting tourists’ willingness to pay more for green products, although more frequent studies have been conducted recently, while the results obtained are ambiguous [67,104]. This study’s findings suggest that the willingness to pay more for green tourism is not significantly influenced by the attitude towards it (Hypothesis 2.2), which poses a larger conundrum for organisations offering sustainable products or services. Although consumers generally have a favourable attitude towards eco-friendly or sustainable options, they are often reluctant to pay a higher price for them [105]. Therefore, it is up to marketers to create a green image that can influence consumers’ willingness to pay more for green tourism, even among those with positive attitudes towards it. This conclusion is also important in the context of the creation/perception of Gen Z as environmentally oriented and more pro-SDGs, as observed in the literature [16,20]. This picture is mainly based on research among Western communities, while our results increase the view regarding geography and problems. We suggest a much greater than expected complexity to this issue, a grander scale of challenges for green transition in tourism (and green holiday destinations), and the need for further in-depth research in interdisciplinary teams.
Moreover, in light of this study, it is difficult to identify national culture as a driver shaping pro-environmental consumer attitudes towards green tourism, especially for Gen Z. According to suggestions from Filimonau et al. [31] and Chwialkowska et al. [82], collectivistic cultures and long-term-oriented cultures [81] (in the analysed subpopulations, these features can be attributed more to Indians than to Poles) are more likely to demonstrate pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavioural intentions than individualistic cultures. The better economic condition of the respondents’ country of origin, and thus the respondents themselves, seems to be a more likely explanation for Poles’ declarations that they are ready to visit green tourism destinations (Poland ranks better than India in this respect). The study conducted by Moons et al. [106] suggests that the willingness to pay more for green tourism is significantly influenced by income level. This also concerns the behavioural intentions to travel to green holiday destinations. However, this assumption requires verification in further research.
The main differences identified between Gen Z Poles and Indians are in the relationships between attitude toward green tourism and behavioural intentions to travel, as well as perceived behavioural control and personal norms. In both cases, these relationships are much more robust in the case of Poles than in the case of Indians. This is probably also due to the respondents’ economic situation. In the case of Poles, the decision is primarily determined by attitude, while in the case of Indians, other factors (material, social, and personal) are also decisive. For example, most Indians travel for a societal position or become online influencers rather than exploring or empathising with a destination [107].
The second difference in the relationships indicates a much stronger influence of social norms on moral obligations (personal norms) among Poles than among Indians. This relationship may result from a stronger presence in the media of messages referring to social and personal norms in Poland than in India. As Kim and Kim [108] stated in their research, the need for social norms in messages is a missed opportunity, considering consumers respond better to positive messages about customer benefits. Moreover, a study on messages that used social and personal norms showed an improvement in the number of people who exhibited the desired behaviour compared with messages that did not use these norms [109,110,111]. These findings suggest that messages targeted at consumers of travel services should appeal more to social norms (what others think you should do) and personal norms (what "you" and "we" should do).
The analysis confirmed Hypothesis 7 as well, which suggests that a universal marketing plan cannot be implemented to promote sustainable tourism across different regions of the world. The successful promotion of sustainable tourism requires planners and marketers to consider the socioeconomic complexities of the target market when developing their marketing strategies [112].

5. Limitations and Future Research

This study was conducted with the utmost vigour, despite a few impediments opening the door to future studies. These are consequences of the nonrepresentative nature of the data collected, which restricts generalisability. Even though it was intended to capture the point of view of Gen Z, our sample (for accessibility reasons) focuses only on respondents from this age group (at various educational institutions) in India and Poland. Despite having a sufficiently large sample size to reduce sampling error, the study’s main limitation is attributed to the nonprobabilistic sampling method used for data collection. Nonetheless, the study’s exploratory nature concerning both Gen Z and the chosen countries is undoubtedly valuable and points towards promising directions for future research. Moreover, the added value of this study is the possibility to look at the tested model through the lens of national/cultural groups and thus give a broader perspective on whether Generation Z is the sustainable tourism generation.
Furthermore, while the majority of relationships in the model were identified, and the hypothetical model for these relationships has been generally accepted, the explained variance was relatively small (0.116) for willingness to pay and (0.293) for behavioural intention. This suggests that future studies should consider additional dependent variables, such as motivation and perceived service quality [99], resulting in self-transcendence and conservation [39], as well as altruistic, biospheric, hedonic, and egoistic values [37,72]. Verifying the proposed model among other generations (Baby Boomer, X, and Y) and in different cultural/national contexts would be highly intriguing. As Moons et al. [106] suggested, verifying this model by considering respondents’ income levels would be promising. Additionally, it would be desirable to include a gender perspective in the proposed theoretical framework. Giachino et al. [45] demonstrate that gender mainly influences the perception of and attitudes towards nature-based solutions. Gen Y and Gen Z females show more interest in solutions based on nature than Gen Y and Gen Z males.
In summary, this article is part of an emerging discussion on whether Gen Z is (can be seen as) the generation of sustainable tourism. This discussion concentrates on the drivers/factors behind the choice of green tourism destinations among this generational group, which is entering the global tourism market and will modify tourism according to their preferences and possibilities.

Author Contributions

M.N., J.K.-A., and Y.C. conceptualised the study, while M.N. and Y.C. were responsible for the methodology. M.N. conducted the formal analysis, and M.N., Y.C., and J.K.-A. performed the investigation. M.N. and Y.C. provided resources, and Y.C. handled data curation. Original draft preparation was a collaborative effort between M.N., J.K.-A., and Y.C. At the same time, M.N., J.K.-A., and Y.C. participated in the review and editing process. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents who voluntarily participated annonymously in the survey.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pennington-Gray, L.; Fridgen, J.D.; Stynes, D. Cohort segmentation: An application to tourism. Leis. Sci. 2003, 25, 341–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Benckendorff, P.; Moscardo, G. Generational cohorts and ecotourism. In International Handbook on Ecotourism; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 135–154. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardiner, S.; Grace, D.; King, C. The generation effect: The future of domestic tourism in Australia. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 705–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Huang, Q.; Lu, Y. Generational perspective on consumer behavior: China’s potential outbound tourist market. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Szromek, A.R.; Hysa, B.; Karasek, A. The perception of overtourism from the perspective of different generations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. D’Arco, M.; Marino, V.; Resciniti, R. Exploring the pro-environmental behavioral intention of Generation Z in the tourism context: The role of injunctive social norms and personal norms. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Seyfi, S.; Sharifi-Tehrani, M.; Hall, C.M.; Vo-Thanh, T. Exploring the drivers of Gen Z tourists’ buycott behaviour: A lifestyle politics perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Patterson, I.R. Growing Older: Tourism and Leisure Behaviour of Older Adults; CABI: Houston, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, S.C.; Shoemaker, S. Age and cohort effects: The American senior tourism market. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. Tourism trends among generation Y in Poland. Turyzm 2012, 22, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kim, D.Y.; Park, S. Rethinking millennials: How are they shaping the tourism industry? Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Corbisiero, F.; Ruspini, E. Millennials and Generation Z: Challenges and future perspectives for international tourism. J. Tour. Future 2018, 4, 253–255. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kowalczyk-Anioł, J.; Nowacki, M. Factors influencing Generation Y’s tourism-related social media activity: The case of Polish students. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2020, 11, 543–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stylos, N.; Rahimi, R.; Okumus, F.; Williams, S. Generation Z Marketing and Management in Tourism and Hospitality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Francis, T.; Hoefel, F. ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and Its Implications for Companies; McKinsey and Company: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yamane, T.; Kaneko, S. Is the younger generation a driving force toward achieving the sustainable development goals? Survey experiments. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dabija, D.C.; Bejan, B.M.; Dinu, V. How sustainability oriented is generation z in retail? A literature review. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2019, 18, 140–155. [Google Scholar]
  18. Su, C.H.; Tsai, C.H.; Chen, M.H.; Lv, W.Q. US sustainable food market generation Z consumer segments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Seemiller, C.; Grace, M. Generation Z: A Century in the Making; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sakdiyakorn, M.; Golubovskaya, M.; Solnet, D. Understanding Generation Z through collective consciousness: Impacts for hospitality work and employment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. European Travel Commission. Study on Generation Z Travellers; Technical Report; European Travel Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; ISBN 978-92-9213-165-2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Robinson, V.M.; Schänzel, H.A. A tourism inflex: Generation Z travel experiences. J. Tour. Future 2019, 5, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Higham, J.; Carr, A. Ecotourism visitor experiences in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Challenging the environmental values of visitors in pursuit of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour. 2002, 10, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Han, H. Past, present, and future of pro-environmental behavior in tourism and hospitality: A text-mining approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 258–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kiatkawsin, K.; Han, H. Young travelers’ intention to behave pro-environmentally: Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Han, H. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1021–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Niezgoda, A.; Markiewicz, E. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in National Parks—Diagnosis and forecast of sustainable tourism. Stud. Perieget. 2021, 33, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Awedyk, M.; Niezgoda, A. Resilience planning as an opportunity for future sustainable development in tourism. Oper. Res. Decis. 2018, 28, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khanra, S.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Mäntymäki, M. Bibliometric analysis and literature review of ecotourism: Toward sustainable development. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Mika, M.; Faracik, R. National culture as a driver of pro-environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions in tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1804–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Choi, H.; Jang, J.; Kandampully, J. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nimri, R.; Patiar, A.; Jin, X. The determinants of consumers’ intention of purchasing green hotel accommodation: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, L.; Wang, Z.X.; Zhang, Q.; Jebbouri, A.; Wong, P.K.P. Consumers’ intention to visit green hotels—A goal-framing theory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1837–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Landon, A.C.; Woosnam, K.M.; Boley, B.B. Modeling the psychological antecedents to tourists’ pro-sustainable behaviors: An application of the value-belief-norm model. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Luo, Y.; Deng, J. The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Park, E.; Lee, S.; Lee, C.K.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, N.J. An integrated model of travelers’ pro-environmental decision-making process: The role of the New Environmental Paradigm. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 935–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nowacki, M.; Chawla, Y.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. What Drives the Eco-Friendly Tourist Destination Choice? The Indian Perspective. Energies 2021, 14, 6237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ashraf, M.; Hou, F.; Kim, W.; Ahmad, W.; Ashraf, R. Modeling tourists’ visiting intentions toward eco-friendly destinations: Implications for sustainable tourism operators. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Insights, H. Country Comparison: India and Poland. 2021. Available online: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,poland/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  41. Haddouche, H.; Salomone, C. Generation Z and the tourist experience: Tourist stories and use of social networks. J. Tour. Future 2018, 4, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Monaco, S. Tourism and the new generations: Emerging trends and social implications in Italy. J. Tour. Future 2018, 4, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Smith, A. Generation Z Is the most Regretful of all Ages about Missed Travel Opportunities; Lonely Planet: Fort Mill, SC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  44. Femenia-Serra, F.; Neuhofer, B.; Ivars-Baidal, J.A. Towards a conceptualisation of smart tourists and their role within the smart destination scenario. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 39, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Giachino, C.; Pattanaro, G.; Bertoldi, B.; Bollani, L.; Bonadonna, A. Nature-based solutions and their potential to attract the young generations. Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cini, F.; Passafaro, P. Youth and ecotourism: A qualitative exploration. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 19, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Litvin, S.W.; Chiam, M.K. Ecotourism: A study of purchase proclivity, revisited. J. Vacat. Mark. 2014, 20, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vermeersch, L.; Sanders, D.; Willson, G. Generation Y: Indigenous tourism interests and environmental values. J. Ecotourism 2016, 15, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pirages, D.C.; Ehrlich, P.R. Ark II: Social Responses to Environmental Imperatives; W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  51. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Prayag, G.; Aquino, R.S.; Hall, C.M.; Chen, N.; Fieger, P. Is Gen Z really that different? Environmental attitudes, travel behaviours and sustainability practices of international tourists to Canterbury, New Zealand. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shin, H.; Nicolau, J.L.; Kang, J.; Sharma, A.; Lee, H. Travel decision determinants during and after COVID-19: The role of tourist trust, travel constraints, and attitudinal factors. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ulker-Demirel, E.; Ciftci, G. A systematic literature review of the theory of planned behavior in tourism, leisure and hospitality management research. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mancha, R.M.; Yoder, C. Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intentions: An environmental theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. Han, H.; Hyun, S. Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum: Merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 1155–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bamberg, S.; Hunecke, M.; Blöbaum, A. Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wu, J.S.; Font, X.; Liu, J. Tourists’ Pro-environmental Behaviors: Moral Obligation or Disengagement? J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hunecke, M.; Blöbaum, A.; Matthies, E.; Höger, R. Responsibility and environment: Ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 830–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Klöckner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1028–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, Y.; Lee, T.J.; Xiong, Y. A conflict resolution model for sustainable heritage tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 478–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Garay, L.; Font, X.; Corrons, A. Sustainability-oriented innovation in tourism: An analysis based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior. J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 622–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, S.H.; Seock, Y.k. The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Agag, G.; Brown, A.; Hassanein, A.; Shaalan, A. Decoding travellers’ willingness to pay more for green travel products: Closing the intention–behaviour gap. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1551–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schwartz, S.H.; Howard, J.A. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives; Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Sydney, Australia, 1981; pp. 189–211. [Google Scholar]
  69. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influence on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  70. Han, H. The norm activation model and theory-broadening: Individuals’ decision-making on environmentally-responsible convention attendance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ateş, H. Merging Theory of Planned Behavior and Value Identity Personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: Comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 22, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The meaning and measurement of destination image. J. Tour. Stud. 1991, 2, 2–12. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tasci, A.D.A.; Gartner, W.C. Destination Image and Its Functional Relationships. J. Travel Res. 2007, 45, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, Y.S. The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Destinations, G. Green Destinations Assessment & Reporting. 2021. Available online: https://greendestinations.eu/index_new.php?menu=standard_greendestinations&lang=en (accessed on 18 August 2021).
  78. Jeong, E.; Jang, S.S.; Day, J.; Ha, S. The impact of eco-friendly practices on green image and customer attitudes: An investigation in a café setting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 41, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Line, N.D.; Hanks, L. The effects of environmental and luxury beliefs on intention to patronize green hotels: The moderating effect of destination image. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 24, 904–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mele, P.M.; Gómez, J.M.; Sousa, M.J. Influence of Sustainability Practices and Green Image on the Re-Visit Intention of Small and Medium-Size Towns. Sustainability 2020, 12, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hofstede, G. Culture and organizations. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1980, 10, 15–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chwialkowska, A.; Bhatti, W.A.; Glowik, M. The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ashraf, M.; Akhtar, N.; Ashraf, R.; Hou, F.; Junaid, M.; Kirmani, S. Traveling responsibly to ecofriendly destinations: An individual-level cross-cultural comparison between the United Kingdom and China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Han, H.; Hsu, L.; Lee, J. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Baltar, F.; Brunet, I. Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res. 2012, 22, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chawla, Y.; Radziwon, A.; Scaringella, L.; Carlson, E.L.; Greco, M.; Silveira, P.D.; de Aguiar, E.P.; Shen, Q.; Will, M.; Kowalska-Pyzalska, A. Predictors and outcomes of individual knowledge on early-stage pandemic: Social media, information credibility, public opinion, and behaviour in a large-scale global study. Inf. Process. Manag. 2021, 58, 102720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shmueli, G.; Koppius, O.R. Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F., Jr. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hair Jr, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Voorhees, C.M.; Brady, M.K.; Calantone, R.; Ramirez, E. Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016, 44, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Raithel, S.; Sarstedt, M.; Scharf, S.; Schwaiger, M. On the value relevance of customer satisfaction. Multiple drivers and multiple markets. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kenny, D.A.; Kaniskan, B.; McCoach, D.B. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol. Methods Res. 2015, 44, 486–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hall, C. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, “nudging” and “green growth”? J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1091–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Juvan, E.; Dolnicar, S. The attitude–behavior gap in sustainable tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48, 76–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Alonso-Vazquez, M.; Ballico, C. Eco-friendly practices and pro-environmental behaviours: The Australian folk and world music festival perspective. Arts Mark. 2021, 11, 76–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Heuer, M.; Becker-Leifhold, C. Eco-Friendly and Fair: Fast Fashion and Consumer Behaviour; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  99. Mohaidin, Z.; Wei, K.T.; Ali Murshid, M. Factors influencing the tourists’ intention to select sustainable tourism destination: A case study of Penang, Malaysia. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2017, 3, 442–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kim, D.; Perdue, R.R. The influence of image on destination attractiveness. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2011, 28, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Cini, F.; Van der Merwe, P.; Saayman, M. Tourism students’ knowledge and tenets towards ecotourism. J. Teach. Travel Tour. 2015, 15, 74–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Roblek, V.; Mesko, M.; Dimovski, V.; Peterlin, J. Smart technologies as social innovation and complex social issues of the Z generation. Kybernetes 2019, 48, 1208–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Font, X.; McCabe, S. Sustainability and marketing in tourism: Its contexts, paradoxes, approaches, challenges and potential. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 869–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tang, C.M.F.; Lam, D. The role of extraversion and agreeableness traits on Gen Y’s attitudes and willingness to pay for green hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 607–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. White, J.; Hardisty, D.J.; Habib, R. The Elusive Green Consumer. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2019, 97, 124–133. [Google Scholar]
  106. Moons, I.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Barbarossa, C. Do personality and self-congruity matter for the willingness to pay more for ecotourism? An empirical study in Flanders, Belgium. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. What Your NATIONALITY Says about Your Travel Preferences’. 2019. Available online: https://news.booking.com/en-in/what-your-nationality-says-about-your-travel-preferences/ (accessed on 6 May 2023).
  108. Kim, S.-B.; Kim, D.-Y. The effects of message framing and source credibility on green messages in hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. de Groot, J.I.; Abrahamse, W.; Jones, K.C. Persuasive normative messages: The influence of injunctive and personal norms on using free plastic bags. Sustainability 2013, 5, 1829–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. White, K.; Simpson, B. When do (and Don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? J. Mark. 2013, 77, 78–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hardeman, G.; Font, X.; Nawijn, J. The power of persuasive communication to influence sustainable holiday choices: Appealing to self-benefits and norms. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chawla, Y.; Kowalska-Pyzalska, A.; Skowrońska-Szmer, A. Perspectives of smart meters’ roll-out in India: An empirical analysis of consumers’ awareness and preferences. Energy Policy 2020, 146, 111798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07860 g001 550
Figure 1. A behavioural model of the relationships between variables.
Figure 1. A behavioural model of the relationships between variables.
Sustainability 15 07860 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the test sample (N = 662).
Table 1. Characteristics of the test sample (N = 662).
FeaturePolandIndiaTotal
Gender
Women13977.2%13728.4%276
Men3821.1%33769.9%375
Did not say31.7%81.7%11
Age
19–204323.9%10.2%44
21–229552.8%326.6%127
23179.4%19640.7%213
24147.8%16534.2%179
25–27116.1%8818.3%99
Table
Table 2. Assessment of constructs’ reliability and validity.
Table 2. Assessment of constructs’ reliability and validity.
ConstructCronbach’s α CRAVEFactor Loads
Attitude toward eco-tourism0.8330.8770.6440.704–0.901
Willingness to pay more0.9290.9550.8760.903–0.960
Behavioural intention to travel0.8380.9020.7540.866–0.870
NEP0.6520.8100.5870.744–0.799
Perceived behavioural control0.6050.7810.5480.567–0.846
Perceived green image0.7910.8640.6180.848–0.858
Personal norms0.8230.8930.7350.835–0.894
Social norms0.8430.9050.7600.835–0.894
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity—heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratio.
Table 3. Discriminant validity—heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratio.
ATG-TWTPMBITTNEPPBCPGIPN
Willingness to pay more (WTPM)0.214
Behav. int. to travel (BITT)0.3450.462
NEP0.3750.3250.516
Perceived behavioural control (PBC)0.2900.3280.4430.442
Perceived green image (PGI)0.3460.3590.6250.4980.504
Personal norms (PN)0.3050.3210.4130.5580.4590.415
Social norms (SN)0.2220.2980.3610.3750.4170.4310.388
Table
Table 4. Evaluation of relationships in the model.
Table 4. Evaluation of relationships in the model.
HypothesisRelationships β tp
H1.1NEP → ATG-T0.2184.9160.000
H1.2NEP → SN0.2164.5380.000
H1.3NEP → PBC0.1904.5850.000
H2.1ATG-T → BITT0.1182.8860.004
H2.2ATG-T → WTPM0.0881.8760.061
H3SN → PN0.2014.4030.000
H4PBC → PN0.2244.8890.000
H5.1PN → BITT0.1293.4640.001
H5.2PN → WTPM0.1753.9830.000
H6.1PGI → BITT0.44711.4580.000
H6.2PGI → WTPM0.2105.0160.000
Note: Statistically significant values are marked in bold.
Table
Table 5. Multigroup Analysis (MGA) results.
Table 5. Multigroup Analysis (MGA) results.
RelationshipsPolandIndia β diff.p
β SDp β SDp
NEP → ATG-T0.3400.0750.0000.1800.0530.0010.1590.089
NEP → PBC0.2510.0660.0000.1340.0560.0160.1170.176
NEP → SN0.3140.0680.0000.1560.0630.0130.1580.087
ATG-T → WTPM0.1200.0810.1360.0820.0550.1390.0390.686
ATG-T → BITT0.2720.0750.0000.0970.0510.0000.1750.049
SN → PN0.3000.0700.0000.1770.0540.0010.1230.166
PBC → PN0.3950.0730.0000.2010.0590.0010.1940.041
PN → BITT0.1470.0840.0830.1770.0500.000−0.0300.764
PN → WTPM0.2180.0830.0090.1740.0490.0000.0430.638
PGI → BITT0.3240.0730.0000.2880.0640.0000.0360.694
PGI → WTPM0.2010.0860.0200.1500.0550.0060.0500.625
Note: Statistically significant values are marked in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nowacki, M.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J.; Chawla, Y. Gen Z’s Attitude towards Green Image Destinations, Green Tourism and Behavioural Intention Regarding Green Holiday Destination Choice: A Study in Poland and India. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107860

AMA Style

Nowacki M, Kowalczyk-Anioł J, Chawla Y. Gen Z’s Attitude towards Green Image Destinations, Green Tourism and Behavioural Intention Regarding Green Holiday Destination Choice: A Study in Poland and India. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):7860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nowacki, Marek, Joanna Kowalczyk-Anioł, and Yash Chawla. 2023. "Gen Z’s Attitude towards Green Image Destinations, Green Tourism and Behavioural Intention Regarding Green Holiday Destination Choice: A Study in Poland and India" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 7860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107860

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