Next Article in Journal
Sustainability of Cultural Heritage-Related Projects: Use of Socio-Economic Indicators in Latvia
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Environmental Regulation on Energy-Intensive Enterprises’ Green Innovation Performance
 
 
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 13
10.3390/su151310103
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

The Role of Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, and Eco-Labeling Perception in Relation to Travel Intention in the Hotel Industry

by
Ana Težak Damijanić
*,
Marija Pičuljan
and
Smiljana Goreta Ban
Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, 52440 Poreč, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10103; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310103
Submission received: 21 April 2023 / Revised: 1 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 26 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Consumer Behavior in Transport and Tourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to increasing concern about climate change and its impact on the tourism sector, it is vital to understand tourists’ decision-making process in relation to staying in green accommodations. Many factors influence tourists’ decision-making process; however, little research has been conducted on examining the antecedents of travel intention in relation to the hotel industry. Accordingly, the aim of the paper was to test the relationship among three antecedents of travel intention and tourists’ intention to stay in hotels with eco-labels. This was performed on a sample of tourists staying in hotels in Adriatic Croatia from July through August 2021. A self-complete questionnaire was used for data collection. Data processing included univariate statistics, multivariate analysis, and structural equation modeling. This research provided evidence that tourists’ eco-labeling perception and pro-environmental behavior influence their travel intention, that general environmental knowledge was positively related to tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and tourists’ eco-labeling perception, and that eco-labeling influences pro-environmental behavior. By examining indirect effects, it was determined that pro-environmental behavior mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention and that eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention and the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior. The findings suggest that tourists’ pro-environmental behavior includes different consumer cost-effective behavior-related aspects.

1. Introduction

Climate changes are becoming an essential factor on a global level that affects different human activities. Their impact is also evident in the tourism industry, which faces numerous challenges; therefore, tourism business entities need to adapt their business models to make their business more sustainable. The behavior and actions of all tourism stakeholders, including tourists, public authorities, and tourism business entities, need to change [1,2] to reduce the anthropogenic environmental impact of tourist activities (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), which significantly contributes to climate change [3] and hinders sustainability promotion in the tourism industry. In the long term, the tourism industry’s adaptation to new challenges, namely climate changes, by implementing sustainable principles, will address the main sustainability threats in tourism [4]. However, to reduce the negative impact of climate changes on the tourism industry, a shift in consumer, i.e., tourist, behavior is essential [5,6] because tourists’ behavior prompts tourism business entities to action. With the increase in different environmentally related problems, a change in consumer behavior, namely tourist behavior, is needed [7].
Eco-certification programs have been developed and implemented to reduce the negative impact of human actions on the environment [8]. The negative impact that human activities have on the environment is also reinforced by the tourism industry [9]. The eco-certification program concepts are promoted to consumers through a label that usually includes a graphic symbol and/or descriptive text [10], which supplies information to consumers about different environmental-related product/service aspects [10]. In tourism, there are currently more than 200 eco-labels [11] intended for almost all types of accommodation [12,13].
However, the environment of tourist destinations is under increasing pressure from tourist activities, which results in various environmental problems such as waste generation, exhaustion of natural resources, and biodiversity loss [14,15,16]. Given that human behavior contributes to environmental problems [15], efforts to solve them should focus on tourists’ behavior, which will either reduce environmental damage or actively protect the environment [16]. More precisely, it is necessary to encourage pro-environmental tourist behavior to minimize various ecological problems in tourist destinations [16,17]. The tourist decision-making process is under the influence of different factors [18,19]; however, those factors can be categorized as various motivators and other determinants that include knowledge and perceptions [20]. Consumer knowledge and perception of specific products or services and their behavior can affect their purchase intentions [21,22,23,24], which in tourism settings often translate as travel intentions [25]. Travel intentions in relation to green accommodation, namely accommodations with eco-labels, have been explored to a certain extent [26,27,28,29] suggesting that there is a relationship between eco-labeled accommodation and those that implement green practices with respect to tourists’ travel intentions.
Tourist pro-environmental behavior could be considered an excellent way to minimize the negative impacts that tourists have on tourism destination resources [30,31]; however, at the same time, tourism business entities need to be aware that tourists’ pro-environmental behavior impacts their decision-making process [32], resulting in purchasing of environmentally acceptable products and services in tourism destination [33]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research regarding tourists’ general pro-environmental behavior in relation to their travel intentions to stay in green accommodations. Since the tourist decision-making process is a complex mechanism, this paper examines this process by focusing on the role of pro-environmental behavior, environmental knowledge, and eco-labeling perception in relation to travel intentions in hotel settings. Namely, the aim of the paper is to test the direct and indirect effects of pro-environmental behavior, environmental knowledge, and eco-labeling perception in relation to travel intentions to stay in hotels with eco-labels.

2. Literature Review

To achieve sustainability in the tourism industry, the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental aspects should be included in tourism planning and development because they will balance the development and consequently result in well-being in the destination [34,35]. In this process, the communication of sustainability is an essential factor for tourism business entities because it enables them to signal their sustainability efforts to their target market by promoting sustainable practices they implement and eco-certification programs they participate in [34]. Eco-certificates are one of the essential tools for communicating sustainability to third parties and, consequently, achieving sustainability in tourism [34]. There are many eco-labels available to tourism business entities [11], with Blue Flag, Green Key, EU Eco-label, and Ecocamping being some of the best-known eco-labels in the world. Each eco-label communicates to tourists a different sustainability message. For example, the Blue Flag, as an international eco-certificate for beaches and marinas, focuses on various beach-related indicators, enabling a timely response to the negative tourism impacts on beach degradation [36] and fostering beach revisiting intention [37]. Additionally, Ecocamping, as a well-known campsite eco-label, promotes sustainability in campsites, including electricity and water-related savings, avoiding soil, water, and air pollution, and implementing sustainable forms of transport [38]. On the other hand, the EU Eco-label is a certification program intended for products and services in general and the tourism industry, spread throughout the European Union, and aimed at encouraging environmental sustainability [8]. Finally, the Green Key is an international eco-label intended mainly for accommodation and hospitality facilities in tourism but also for tourist attractions, and it promotes the sustainable operation of certified facilities [39].
All those eco-certification programs support sustainable tourism development efforts by providing appropriate information to tourists. Due to different factors, tourists are increasingly interested in visiting destinations that care about the environment, and they try to behave ecologically responsibly upon their arrival at the destination [40]. Consequently, their behavior encourages tourist facilities to communicate their awareness of environmental problems and their willingness to solve them [41]. Indirectly, eco-labels raise awareness of environmental issues, provide ecological information, and encourage tourists to intensify their interest in environmental issues [42]. In addition, they can influence the change in the behavior of tourists during the trip so that their behavior is more environmentally friendly during their stay in the destination [43]. Therefore, several eco-label studies related to the tourism industry were focused on understanding the tourists’ behavior, i.e., their decision-making processes such as eco-label perception and its influence in relation to tourists’ behavior [36,44,45,46], eco-label importance regarding visit intentions [9,37,47,48,49,50,51], and willingness to pay a higher price for tourism services that are ecologically certified [52].
The signals that eco-labels communicate to tourists can influence their purchase and travel intentions [26,29]. Consumer purchase intention is a concept derived from marketing [53], and it refers to a behavioral intention to perform a possible behavior. It is often closely related to the behavior of tourists [54] and refers to tourists’ intentions to buy certain products or services, while travel intentions are related to tourist travel behavior [25]. Although purchase intention may not always translate to actual behavior [55,56,57], its good understanding may help tourism business entities to develop suitable customer-related strategies [58]. Research on purchase intention in tourism is mainly focused on the following: various purchase intention determinants such as attitudes, enjoyment, and advertising design [59,60,61,62]; purchase intent to buy certain tourism-related products such as souvenirs [63,64] and services, for instance, accommodation [65,66], and intention to buy different type of foods, such as traditional food or food preferred by a specific religion [67,68,69]. On the other hand, travel intention is predominantly researched in the context of various influential factors such as destination advertising awareness [70], destination familiarity [71], storytelling blogs [72], local food consumption motivation [73], crime risk perception [74], and COVID-19 vaccination intentions [75].
In general, consumer purchase intention is directly linked to consumers’ environmental knowledge [23,76,77]. However, research regarding the consumers, i.e., tourists’ environmental knowledge and its influence on products and services purchased in tourism destinations and/or travel intentions, is mixed [29,78,79,80]. This situation could be linked to the type of environmental knowledge. As a rule, consumers’ knowledge refers to the information individuals have about a certain topic before deciding to purchase a particular product or service [81]. However, consumers’ environmental knowledge is centered on different environmental-related issues, key relationships and influences, and the capabilities of an environmental system [82]. Research on consumers’ environmental knowledge distinguishes between objective and subjective knowledge [24,76], and general and context-specific knowledge [83]. Subjective knowledge corresponds with the consumer’s self-assessed knowledge, while objective knowledge refers to consumers’ actual knowledge about a specific topic [24,76,84]. Furthermore, consumers may obtain general knowledge about specific issues, which, in this case, is defined under the umbrella of consumers’ environmental knowledge definition; however, their knowledge can be more context-specific so that it also includes sub-topics such as eco-certification [21,83,85,86,87].
With this in mind, the authors of [29] have detected that eco-labels, as context-specific knowledge, can influence tourists’ purchase decisions in a specific segment interested in green products and services. The authors of [78] have determined that there is a direct link between perceived environmental knowledge and intention to visit green hotels. Additionally, the authors of [79] have determined a direct link between general environmental knowledge and tourists’ intention to recommend green’ hotels. On the other hand, the authors of [80] did not confirm that environmental knowledge directly influenced guests’ intention to visit green hotels. However, general consumer research mostly supports the link between environmental knowledge and purchase intentions [23,24,77,88]. Research centered on eco-labeling and purchase intentions generally supports this link [21,22,77,87], and these results are also confirmed in tourism studies [86]. Additionally, [86] suggests that eco-labeling could indirectly affect the relationship between general environmental knowledge and purchase intention. Based on these assumptions, the following hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1):
H1: 
Environmental knowledge is positively linked to travel intentions.
H2: 
Eco-labeling perception is positively linked to travel intention.
H3: 
Environmental knowledge is positively linked to eco-labeling perception.
H4: 
Eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention.
Due to various environmental problems caused by the tourism industry, environmental tourism-related research is increasing. Tourists’ environmental knowledge is essential in forming tourists’ pro-environmental behavior in a specific destination [89,90,91], and pro-environmental behavior is positively associated with purchase intention [76,92]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed (Figure 1):
H5: 
Pro-environmental behavior is positively linked to travel intention.
Pro-environmental behavior relates to an action intended to reduce the negative impacts humans have on natural resources or to increase the quality of the environment [93]. Research on pro-environmental behavior began in the 1960s; it still intensified in the early 1970s within the framework of environmental psychology, spreading later to all areas of human activity, including consumer behavior in the tourism industry [15,93,94]. Today, the pro-environmental behavior of an individual is studied in the context of everyday behavior and behavior during tourist travel [17], and it includes different types of environmental behavior [95]. However, pro-environmental tourists behavior research topics include measurement issues [15,96,97], literature review [16,94], identification of factors influencing pro-environmental behavior [17,93,98], and predicting pro-environmental behavior in the context of different behavior models [14,99,100,101]. Furthermore, pro-environmental behavior is associated with eco-certification programs [21,102]. General consumer research suggests that environmental knowledge, either general [83,85,103] or context-specific, such as eco-labeling [21,104], influences pro-environmental behavior. However, results obtained in [90] did not confirm the link between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior but did confirm that other variables mediate this relationship. Based on these results, the following hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1):
H6: 
Environmental knowledge is positively linked to pro-environmental behavior.
H7: 
Eco-labeling perception is positively linked to pro-environmental behavior.
H8: 
Pro-environmental behavior mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention.
H9: 
Eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior.

3. Materials and Methods

The research study was conducted from July through August 2021. Tourists staying in eco-labeled hotels located in Adriatic Croatia were the target population. As a first step in the sample design process, a list of accommodation facilities [105] was obtained. Then, hotel category and capacity were used to design the sample, and 20 hotels were selected. Before selecting the hotels, where research was carried out, eco-labeled hotels were identified. Previous research identified a total of 10 eco-labels in Croatia’s tourism industry, namely Blue Flag, Ecocamping, EU Eco-label, Green Mark, Green Key, Sustainable Hotel Certificate, Travelife, White Flag International, Environmentally Friendly, and EarthCheck [106]; however, the focus was placed on those labels that were appropriate for hotels (including Travelife, EU Eco-label, and EarthCheck). During the on-site data collection process, the researchers approached hotel guests. In the on-site data collection process, the respondents were mobile while the researchers were stationary [107]. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, researchers had to abide by several limitations regarding on-site data collection. First, data collection was only allowed during two summer months because protective measures were less rigid due to there being fewer infected people. Additionally, researchers had to wear masks and gloves during the data collection process, and contact between hotel guests and researchers had to be short; therefore, during the conversation with guests, researchers had to provide only basic information about the survey, and the questionnaire had to include the optimal number of questions related to the theme.
The survey was anonymous, and data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. It was initially designed in Croatian language and then back-translated into four foreign languages: English, German, Italian, and Slovene. Through back-translation, only differences related to the usage of different synonyms were detected; therefore, no changes to the original translations were needed. The questionnaire contained a total of 14 questions divided into sections: climate change issues, eco-labeling and green practices in hotels, edible wild plants, and respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics (including age, gender, country of origin, income level, occupation, and traveling party) and trip characteristics (including a number of previous visits and length of stay). A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the constructs.
This paper analyzes the relationship among four construct variables: consumer environmental knowledge, hotel eco-labeling perception (as a form of context-specific environmental knowledge), travel intentions, and pro-environmental behavior (see Appendix A for more details). For the purpose of data processing, statistical methods consisting of descriptive statistics (to provide a general sample description), factor analyses (confirmatory and explanatory factor analyses), and path analysis were used. As a first step in the data analysis process, the individual items were checked for accuracy of data entry, missing data, and distribution. The missing value cases were replaced using the MCMC method for item imputation. Then, the dataset was randomly split into two parts. The first part of the sample (15% of respondents) was used to conduct the exploratory factor analysis, while the second part (85% of respondents) was utilized to carry out the confirmatory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis was performed on ten items measuring hotel eco-labeling perception adapted from [84,108], five items measuring consumer environmental knowledge [84], six items measuring pro-environmental behavior [109,110,111,112], and three items measuring travel intentions adapted from [44,108,111,113] using maximum likelihood factor analysis and Promax rotation with an eigenvalue of 1.00 or more to identify potential factors. After the factor structure was established, internal reliability was determined by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which varied from 0.879 to 0.958. From the initial 26 items, 24 items were retained (two items measuring pro-environmental behavior were not retained), and the four factors accounted for 68.438% of the accumulated variance.

4. Results

In total, 1124 questionnaires were used for the analysis purpose. The proportion of male respondents (47.3%) was slightly lower than that of females (52.7%). The respondents were generally between 34 and 44 years of age (26.1%). Most respondents had some form of higher education (65.9%). Generally, they were full-time employees (41.7%). The respondents’ country of origin was usually Germany (23.8%) or Austria (10%), and almost 21.3% were domestic tourists. The most frequent monthly net income was between EUR 1000 and EUR 2000 (27.1%). Respondents mostly stayed in the hotel for the first time (63%), but most (70.5%) had already visited the region.
The confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to examine the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the scales measuring consumer environmental knowledge, hotel eco-labeling perception, travel intentions, and pro-environmental behavior (Table 1). All measurement model fit indices were acceptable (χ2 = 648.96; DF = 164; p-value = 0.000; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.96; PClose = 0.01), and all indicators were higher than 0.50 and significantly loaded onto their respective latent construct. The estimated composite reliability of each construct (Table 2) exceeded the value of 0.60 and had an extracted variance higher than the recommended threshold of 0.50 [114]. The factor correlations showed that all measurement scales were interrelated; all were positive but were not excessive. The final measurement model included four factors. In general, the means of all observed variables were higher than 3.0. The respondents assessed their environmental knowledge as rather high (item means varied from 4.08 to 4.19). Items measuring pro-environmental behavior also received relatively high scores (item means varied from 3.62 to 3.89), while items measuring hotel eco-labeling perception and travel intentions had similar means.
Structural equation modeling was carried out to explore the relationships between the main constructs in the proposed model (Figure 2). The model fits the data well (Table 3). Environmental knowledge was positively linked to pro-environmental behavior and eco-labeling perception, the eco-labeling perception was positively linked to travel intention and pro-environmental behavior, while pro-environmental behavior was positively linked to travel intention. The study also tested the effect of the control variable, namely the respondents’ age, in relation to pro-environmental behavior. Results show that age was statistically significant in relation to pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.097, p > 0.01).
The three mediation hypotheses (H8: pro-environmental behavior mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention, H4: eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and travel intention, and H9: eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior) were tested next (Table 4). Through bootstrapping analysis, the indirect effect of environmental knowledge on travel intention and pro-environmental behavior was determined, and the effects were both significant and positive.

5. Discussion

This research explores the tourist decision-making process by considering the relationships among tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, environmental knowledge, and eco-labeling perception in relation to travel intention in hotel settings. First, it assesses the applicability of four measurement scales (tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, tourists’ tourists’ general environmental knowledge, tourists’ eco-labeling perception, and travel intention related to hotels with eco-labels). Second, it empirically tests the impact of three different antecedents of travel intention in hotel settings.
The four items measuring the consumers’ pro-environmental behavior scale proposed by the authors of [109] loaded significantly onto the factor measuring tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, partially supporting their findings. However, two items, namely usage of public transport and purchase of a more fuel-efficient car, did not load significantly onto this factor, suggesting that these behavior aspects were not important for measuring tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, probably because tourists mostly use their cars to come to Croatia and the purchase of a more fuel-efficient car could be a considerable investment. On the other hand, the usage of water-saving devices [110] and the usage of tourists’ own shopping bags [111,112] were confirmed as behavior aspects that were essential components of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, this study suggests a scale for measuring tourists’ pro-environmental behavior that includes energy, water, and waste management consumer behavior-related aspects that may also be considered cost-effective at the same time. Furthermore, the items used for measuring consumer environmental knowledge proposed in [84] and those used for measuring traveling intention [44,108,111,113] in hotel settings loaded significantly onto their respective factors, confirming the initially proposed scales. Additionally, using the scale of [84] for measuring consumers’ eco-labeling perception coupled with findings from [108], an adapted version of the eco-labeling perception scale centered on hotels as one type of accommodation facility was established. As a result, this study proposes a tourists’ eco-labeling perception scale applicable to hotels, i.e., a type of environmental context-specific knowledge scale.
By testing the direct effects that tourists’ general environmental knowledge (H1), tourists’ eco-labeling perception (H2), and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (H5) have on purchase intention related to hotels with eco-labels, this study determined that tourists’ eco-labeling perception and pro-environmental behavior influence their purchase intention, confirming the results of [21,22,87,92]. However, the direct effect of general environmental knowledge on purchase intention was not determined, contrary to the findings of [23,24,76,77]. On the other hand, general environmental knowledge was positively related to tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (H6), supporting the findings of [85] and disagreeing with the conclusions of [90]. Additionally, general environmental knowledge was positively related to tourists’ eco-labeling perception (H3), opposing the results and assumptions of [83,102] but confirming the relationship between environmental knowledge and eco-labels determined in [86]. Moreover, this study confirms the findings of [21] that eco-labeling influences pro-environmental behavior (H7). By examining indirect effects, this study determined that pro-environmental behavior mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and purchase intention (H8) and that eco-labeling perception mediates the relationship between environmental knowledge and purchase intention (H4) and the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavior (H9), supporting the implications of [86,90].

6. Conclusions

The tourism industry in the 21st century will face many challenges, one of them being climate change; therefore, tourism business entities need to adapt promptly to these changes. To reduce the negative impact of tourism on the tourist destination environment, a synergy between different stakeholders is required. Tourists play a crucial role in this process because tourism business entities develop and adapt their products and services in accordance with the needs of their target market. This paper tested the direct and indirect effects of pro-environmental behavior, environmental knowledge, and eco-labeling perception in relation to travel intention in hotel settings. This research provided evidence that tourists’ general environmental knowledge does not directly influence their travel intentions regarding their stay in hotels with eco-labels; however, it highlighted the fact that this relationship was mediated by tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and eco-labeling perception as a form of context-specific environmental knowledge. Although tourists’ general environmental knowledge directly influenced their pro-environmental behavior, this relationship was also mediated by eco-labeling perception as a form of context-specific environmental knowledge. Eco-labeling perception and pro-environmental behavior influenced tourists’ travel intention to stay in hotels with eco-labels, and both variables were directly impacted by general environmental knowledge. Additionally, the findings suggest that tourists’ general pro-environmental behavior is relatively cost-effectively oriented, namely that their behavior is affected by the government that introduces specific measures to reduce human impact on the environment.
The study finding brings forth some implications for tourism managers regarding the tourists’ decision-making process that may aid them in adapting to climate changes and making their business models more sustainable. Concern for the environment is a fact that most tourists are aware of since they place some importance on all items measuring their pro-environmental behavior, general environmental knowledge, eco-labeling perception, and purchase intention related to hotels with eco-labels. However, although eco-labeling perception and pro-environmental behavior influenced their intention to stay in hotels with eco-labels, they did not consider this a vital element in their decision-making process. Tourists’ rated their subjective environmental knowledge as relatively high, and even though their general environmental knowledge did not have a direct influence on their purchase intentions, a mediating effect of their pro-environmental behavior and eco-labeling perception suggests that all three purchase intention antecedents have an essential role in the tourists’ decision-making process. Therefore, additional efforts to better promote sustainability issues in tourism destinations are advisable if tourism managers would like to support sustainable tourism development in tourist destinations.
This study has certain limitations. Its primary focus was placed on hotels, as one type of many accommodation facilities available to tourists. Since eco-certification programs offer certification possibilities to different kinds of accommodation and catering facilities, future research could center on them to determine if other types of accommodation and catering facilities influence tourists’ decision-making process concerning eco-labeling. The sample included tourists that stayed in Adriatic Croatia. Tourism in Adriatic Croatia is highly seasonal, and therefore, the results could not be generalized to Croatia’s overall tourism market. Future studies could examine these relationships in different tourism-related settings, such as various types of special-interest tourism forms and tourist destinations. Lastly, the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the research was not related to the then-ongoing pandemic, no variables regarding the pandemic were part of the questionnaire. Additionally, there were slight changes regarding respondents’ origin, namely country of origin, because ca. 20% of respondents were domestic tourists. That could have had an impact on the results; therefore, the research could be repeated to test if the results differ due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T.D., M.P., and S.G.B.; methodology, A.T.D.; formal analysis, A.T.D.; investigation, A.T.D. and M.P.; resources, S.G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T.D., M.P., and S.G.B.; writing—review and editing, A.T.D., M.P., and S.G.B.; funding acquisition, S.G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-funded by project KK.05.1.1.02.0030 WildBioAdapt—Wild plant species in the function of adaption of agriculture and tourism to climate change supported by the Operational Program Competitiveness and Cohesion 2014–2020 and the European regional fund under specific Scheme “Scheme to strengthening applied research in proposing actions for climate change adaptation”. The work of doctoral student Marija Pičuljan has been supported in part by the Young Researchers’ Career Development Project—training of doctoral students under the Croatian Science Foundation project DOK-2020-01-7689. This research was co-funded by the project Sustainable Tourism Strategies to Conserve and Valorize the Mediterranean Coastal and Maritime Natural Heritage (INHERIT), co-financed by the Interreg Mediterranean program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for all their suggestions that have contributed to the quality improvement of our manuscript. Their recommendations were straightforward and insightful, and it was easy to modify the original submitted manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Extract from the Questionnaire

Consumer environmental knowledge
Please assess your knowledge of the following terms
(1—strongly disagree, 2—partially disagree, 3—neutral, 4—somewhat agree, 5—strongly agree)
I know the meaning of the term “bio-degradable”
I know the meaning of the term “recycled”
I know the meaning of the term “eco-friendly”
I know the meaning of the term “organic”
I know the meaning of the term “energy-efficient”
Hotel eco-labeling perception
To what extent do you agree with the following sentences?
(1—totally disagree, 2—partially disagree, 3—neutral, 4—somewhat agree, 5—totally agree)
Most of what eco-labels say about the hotel is true
Eco-labels are a reliable source of information about the environmental quality and performance of a hotel
If an eco-label makes a claim about a hotel, that claim is probably true
I have a more favorable opinion of hotels that feature an eco-label
My attitude toward the hotel is more positive when it features an eco-label
Hotels endorsed by eco-labels comply with quality environmental standards
Eco-labels inform consumers about the environmental safety of a hotel
Traveling intentions
To what extent do you agree with the following sentences regarding your vacation?
(1—totally disagree, 2—partially disagree, 3—neutral, 4—somewhat agree, 5—totally agree)
It is very important to me that the hotel has an eco-label
I am more willing to stay at the hotel, which has an eco-label
I will make an effort to stay at a hotel that has an eco-label
Pro-environmental behavior
To what extent do you agree with the following sentences?
(1—totally disagree, 2—partially disagree, 3—neutral, 4—somewhat agree, 5—totally agree)
I have bought a more fuel efficient car
I often use public transport
I try to recycle as much as possible
I reduced the amount of waste I used to produce
I use low-energy light bulbs
I turn off lights/fans/electrical appliances when they are not in use
I use water-saving devices and fixtures
I bring my shopping bag to the store to reduce the use of plastic bags

References

  1. Njoroge, J.M. Climate change and tourism adaptation: Literature review. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 21, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hall, C.M.; Scott, D.; Gössling, S. The Primacy of Climate Change for Sustainable International Tourism. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vourdoubas, J. The Nexus between Climate Change and Tourism Industry in the Island of Crete, Greece. Int. J. Reg. Dev. 2022, 10, 20397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Weaver, D. Can Sustainable Tourism Survive Climate Change? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdelwahed, N.A.A.; Soomro, B.A.; Shah, N. Climate Change and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: The Significant Environmental Challenges of Livelihoods. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2022, 33, 1187–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Habib, R.; White, K.; Hardisty, D.J.; Zhao, J. Shifting Consumer Behavior to Address Climate Change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. 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]
  8. Preziosi, M.; Tourais, P.; Acampora, A.; Videira, N.; Merli, R. The Role of Environmental Practices and Communication on Guest Loyalty: Examining EU-Ecolabel in Portuguese Hotels. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Constantin, C.P.; Ispas, A.; Candrea, A.N. Identifying Tourists Interested in Eco-Certified Accommodation Units From Brasov, Romania. Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ. 2013, 1, 521–542. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rabontu, C.I.; Babucea, A.G. The Eco-Labelling in Tourism: Energy Efficiency Way. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 9, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bucar, K.; Van Rheenen, D.; Hendija, Z. Ecolabelling in Tourism: The Disconnect between Theory and Practice. Tourism 2019, 67, 365–374. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ryglová, K. Eco-Certification as a Tool of Sustainable Tourism. Agric. Econ. 2007, 53, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Subotić, V.; Popović, S. Ecological Certification in Tourism Sector in Montenegro—Advantages and Challenges. Proc. Fac. Econ. East Sarajevo 2018, 1, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Esfandiar, K.; Dowling, R.; Pearce, J.; Goh, E. What a Load of Rubbish! The Efficacy of Theory of Planned Behaviour and Norm Activation Model in Predicting Visitors’ Binning Behaviour in National Parks. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring Pro-Environmental Behavior: Review and Recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, C.; Ma, Y.; Ren, J. Mapping the Landscape and Evolution of Research on Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 215824402110407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Bai, K.; Li, Y.; Liu, X. Which Factors Influence Individual Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Tourism Context: Rationality, Affect, or Morality? Asia Pacific J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 516–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Decrop, A.; Snelders, D. A Grounded Typology of Vacation Decision-Making. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smallman, C.; Moore, K. Process Studies of Tourists’ Decision-Making. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Horner, S.; Swarbrooke, J. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, 4th ed.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Martino, J.; Nanere, M.G.; DSouza, C. The Effect of Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Eco-Labelling Information on Green Purchasing Decisions in Australia. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2019, 31, 201–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hashim, H.; Yahya, W.K.; Abu Bakar, S.; Aisyah Asrul, D.S.; Graduate, A.; School, B. Social Influence and Eco-Label Factors towards Purchase Intention of Home Products: A PLS Approach. Islam. Res. J. Emerg. Econ. Islam. Res. 2018, 6, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mohd Suki, N. Green Product Purchase Intention: Impact of Green Brands, Attitude, and Knowledge. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 2893–2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tassiello, V.; Tillotson, J.S. How Subjective Knowledge Influences Intention to Travel. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 80, 102851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Irfan, M.; Malik, M.S.; Zubair, S.K. Impact of Vlog Marketing on Consumer Travel Intent and Consumer Purchase Intent With the Moderating Role of Destination Image and Ease of Travel. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, K.H.; Lee, M.; Gunarathne, N. Do Green Awards and Certifications Matter? Consumers’ Perceptions, Green Behavioral Intentions, and Economic Implications for the Hotel Industry: A Sri Lankan Perspective. Tour. Econ. 2019, 25, 593–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B. An Application of Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Young Indian Consumers’ Green Hotel Visit Intention. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 172, 1152–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Esparon, M.; Gyuris, E.; Stoeckl, N. Does Eco Certification Deliver Benefits? An Empirical Investigation of Visitors’ Perceptions of the Importance of ECO Certification’s Attributes and of Operators’ Performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karlsson, L.; Dolnicar, S. Does Eco Certification Sell Tourism Services? Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Observation Study in Iceland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 694–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Juvan, E.; Dolnicar, S. Drivers of Pro-Environmental Tourist Behaviours Are Not Universal. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Holmes, M.R.; Dodds, R.; Frochot, I. At Home or Abroad, Does Our Behavior Change? Examining How Everyday Behavior Influences Sustainable Travel Behavior and Tourist Clusters. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, Y.; Moyle, B.D.; Jin, X. Fostering Visitors’ pro-Environmental Behaviour in an Urban Park. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. College Youth Travelers’ Eco-Purchase Behavior and Recycling Activity While Traveling: An Examination of Gender Difference. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pato, M.L.; Duque, A.S. Sustainability Communication in Rural Tourism: Website Content Analysis, in Viseu Dão Lafões Region (Portugal). Sustainability 2021, 13, 8849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hatipoglu, B.; Alvarez, M.D.; Ertuna, B. Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in the Planning of Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Thrace Region in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 111, 306–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lucrezi, S.; Saayman, M.; Van der Merwe, P. Managing Beaches and Beachgoers: Lessons from and for the Blue Flag Award. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dodds, R.; Holmes, M.R. Is Blue Flag Certification a Means of Destination Competitiveness? A Canadian Context. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 192, 105192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ecocamping Ecocamping Principles. Available online: https://ecocamping.de/ecocamping-principles (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  39. Green Key Green Key Criteria. Available online: https://www.greenkey.global/criteria (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  40. Pamfilie, R.; Firoiu, D.; Croitoru, A.G.; Ioan Ionescu, G.H. Circular Economy—A New Direction for the Sustainability of the Hotel Industry in Romania? Amfiteatru Econ. 2018, 20, 388–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yilmaz, Y.; Üngüren, E.; Kaçmaz, Y.Y. Determination of Managers’ Attitudes towards Eco-Labeling Applied in the Context of Sustainable Tourism and Evaluation of the Effects of Eco-Labeling on Accommodation Enterprises. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Minoli, D.M.; Goode, M.M.H.; Smith, M.T. Are Eco Labels Profitably Employed in Sustainable Tourism? A Case Study on Audubon Certified Golf Resorts. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Penz, E.; Hofmann, E.; Hartl, B. Fostering Sustainable Travel Behavior: Role of Sustainability Labels and Goal-Directed Behavior Regarding Touristic Services. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Puhakka, R.; Siikamäki, P. Nature Tourists Response to Ecolabels in Oulanka PAN Park, Finland. J. Ecotourism 2012, 11, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baumeister, S.; Zeng, C.; Hoffendahl, A. The Effect of an Eco-Label on the Booking Decisions of Air Passengers. Transp. Policy 2022, 124, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. De Jesús Jaimes, Á.; Rodríguez, C.; Sampedro, M.L.; Juárez, A.L.; Bedolla, R. Environmental Perceptions of Tourists At Blue Flag-Certified Beaches in Acapulco, Mexico. Tour. Mar. Environ. 2022, 17, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. D’Souza, C.; Apaolaza, V.; Hartmann, P.; Brouwer, A.R. Marketing for Sustainability: Travellers’ Intentions to Stay in Green Hotels. J. Vacat. Mark. 2020, 27, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hou, H.; Wu, H. Tourists’ Perceptions of Green Building Design and Their Intention of Staying in Green Hotel. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021, 21, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kovilage, M.P. Intention of Foreign Tourists To Stay in Eco-Certified Accommodation: With Special Reference To Sri Lanka. Tour. Leis. Glob. Chang. 2016, 3, 74–89. [Google Scholar]
  50. Martínez García de Leaniz, P.; Herrero Crespo, Á.; Gómez López, R. Customer Responses to Environmentally Certified Hotels: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Consciousness on the Formation of Behavioral Intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Noor, N.A.M.; Kumar, D. Eco Friendly Activities vs Eco Friendly Attitude: Travelers Intention to Choose Green Hotels in Malaysia. World Appl. Sci. J. 2014, 30, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lissner, I.; Mayer, M. Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Blue Flag’s New Eco-label for Sustainable Boating: The Case of Whale-Watching in Iceland. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 20, 352–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Morrison, D.G.; Donald, G. Morrison Purchase Intentions and Purchase Behavior. J. Mark. 1979, 43, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nunkoo, R.; Ramkissoon, H. Travelers’ E-Purchase Intent of Tourism Products and Services. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2013, 22, 505–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, R.; Jin, J.; Qiu, X.; Zhang, C.; Yan, J. Rural Residents’ Climate Change Perceptions, Personal Experiences, and Purchase Intention–Behavior Gap in Energy-Saving Refrigeration Appliances in Southwest China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 98, 106967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Niessen, J.; Hamm, U. Identifying the Gap between Stated and Actual Buying Behaviour on Organic Products Based on Consumer Panel Data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research ISOFAR, Modena, Italy, 16–20 June 2008; Neuhoff, D., Halberg, N., Alfldi, T., Lockeretz, W., Thommen, A., Rasmussen, I.A., Hermansen, J., Vaarst, M., Lck, L., Carporali, F., et al., Eds.; International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR), c/o IOL, DE-Bonn, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, CH-Frick: Modena, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang, Y.; Li, C. Differences between the Formation of Tourism Purchase Intention and the Formation of Actual Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review. Tour. Manag. 2022, 91, 104527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mohseni, S.; Jayashree, S.; Rezaei, S.; Kasim, A.; Okumus, F. Attracting Tourists to Travel Companies’ Websites: The Structural Relationship between Website Brand, Personal Value, Shopping Experience, Perceived Risk and Purchase Intention. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 616–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Di Pietro, L.; Pantano, E. Social Network Influences on Young Tourists: An Exploratory Analysis of Determinants of the Purchasing Intention. J. Direct Data Digit. Mark. Pract. 2013, 15, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Handayani, P.W.; Arifin, Z. Factors Affecting Purchase Intention in Tourism E-Marketplace. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), Langkawi, Malaysia, 16–17 July 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lin, L.Y.; Ching Yuh, C.Y. The Influence of Corporate Image, Relationship Marketing, and Trust on Purchase Intention: The Moderating Effects of Word-of-mouth. Tour. Rev. 2010, 65, 16–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rasty, F.; Chou, C.J.; Feiz, D. The Impact of Internet Travel Advertising Design, Tourists’ Attitude, and Internet Travel Advertising Effect on Tourists’ Purchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Escobar-Rodríguez, T.; Grávalos-Gastaminza, M.A.; Pérez-Calañas, C. Facebook and the Intention of Purchasing Tourism Products: Moderating Effects of Gender, Age and Marital Status. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 17, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, J.; Zhang, L.; Lu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, Q. Exploring Tourists’ Intentions to Purchase Homogenous Souvenirs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aristio, A.P.; Supardi, S.; Hendrawan, R.A.; Hidayat, A.A. Analysis on Purchase Intention of Indonesian Backpacker in Accommodation Booking through Online Travel Agent. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 161, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. 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]
  67. Ahmad, M.S.; Jamil, A.; Latif, K.F.; Ramayah, T.; Ai Leen, J.Y.; Memon, M.; Ullah, R. Using Food Choice Motives to Model Pakistani Ethnic Food Purchase Intention among Tourists. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1731–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pradana, M.; Huertas-García, R.; Marimon, F. Muslim Tourists’ Purchase Intention of Halal Food in Spain. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1814–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sivrikaya, K.K.; Pekerşen, Y. The Impact of Food Neophobia and Sensation Seeking of Foreign Tourists on the Purchase Intention of Traditional Turkish Food. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2020, 21, 100222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hennessey, S.M.; Yun, D.; MacDonald, R.; MacEachern, M. The Effects of Advertising Awareness and Media Form on Travel Intentions. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2010, 19, 217–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Horng, J.S.; Liu, C.H.; Chou, H.Y.; Tsai, C.Y. Understanding the Impact of Culinary Brand Equity and Destination Familiarity on Travel Intentions. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hsiao, K.L.; Lu, H.P.; Lan, W.C. The Influence of the Components of Storytelling Blogs on Readers’ Travel Intentions. Internet Res. 2013, 23, 160–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gurbaskan Akyuz, B. Factors That Influence Local Food Consumption Motivation and Its Effects on Travel Intentions. Anatolia 2019, 30, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. George, R.; Swart, K. International Tourists’ Perceptions of Crime-Risk and Their Future Travel Intentions during the 2010 FIFA World CupTM in South Africa. J. Sport Tour. 2012, 17, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gursoy, D.; Can, A.S.; Williams, N.; Ekinci, Y. Evolving Impacts of COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions on Travel Intentions. Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 719–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C. Analyzing Differences between Different Types of Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Do Attitude Intensity and Type of Knowledge Matter? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Mei, O.J.; Ling, K.C.; Piew, T.H. The Antecedents of Green Purchase Intention among Malaysian Consumers. Asian Soc. Sci. 2012, 8, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Adetola, O.J.; Aghazadeh, S.; Abdullahi, M. Perceived Environmental Concern, Knowledge, and Intention to Visit Green Hotels: Do Perceived Consumption Values Matter? Pakistan J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2021, 15, 240–264. [Google Scholar]
  79. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Mika, M.; Kubal-Czerwińska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Pawłowska-Legwand, A. Predictors of Patronage Intentions towards Green’ Hotels in an Emerging Tourism Market. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 103, 103221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Demir, M.; Rjoub, H.; Yesiltas, M. Environmental Awareness and Guests’ Intention to Visit Green Hotels: The Mediation Role of Consumption Values. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ferreira, M.; Pizzutti Dos Santos, C. Consumers’ Knowledge, Maximizing Tendencies, and Post-Decision Information Search. Rev. Adm. Empres. 2020, 60, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yan, J.; Li, J. Environmental Knowledge and Consumers’ Intentions to Visit Green Hotels: The Mediating Role of Consumption Values. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Taufique, K.M.R.; Vocino, A.; Polonsky, M.J. The Influence of Eco-Label Knowledge and Trust on pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in an Emerging Market. J. Strateg. Mark. 2017, 25, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Taufique, K.M.R.; Polonsky, M.J.; Vocino, A.; Siwar, C. Measuring Consumer Understanding and Perception of Eco-Labelling: Item Selection and Scale Validation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Janmaimool, P.; Khajohnmanee, S. Roles of Environmental System Knowledge in Promoting University Students’ Environmental Attitudes and pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Göçer, A.; Sevil Oflaç, B. Understanding Young Consumers’ Tendencies Regarding Eco-Labelled Products. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 2017, 29, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Panopoulos, A.; Poulis, A.; Theodoridis, P.; Kalampakas, A. Influencing Green Purchase Intention through Eco Labels and User-Generated Content. Sustainability 2023, 15, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fang, W.T.; Lien, C.Y.; Huang, Y.W.; Han, G.; Shyu, G.S.; Chou, J.Y.; Ng, E. Environmental Literacy on Ecotourism: A Study on Student Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavioral Intentions in China and Taiwan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. He, L.; Filimonau, V. The Effect of National Culture on Pro-Environmental Behavioural Intentions of Tourists in the UK and China. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How Does Environmental Knowledge Translate into Pro-Environmental Behaviors?: The Mediating Role of Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, L.; Wong, P.P.W.; Narayanan Alagas, E. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behaviour: An Examination of Altruism and Environmental Knowledge. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020, 14, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chen, M.; Zhang, W.H. Purchase Intention for Hydrogen Automobile among Chinese Citizens: The Influence of Environmental Concern and Perceived Social Value. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 18000–18010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What Influences an Individual’s pro-Environmental Behavior? A Literature Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. 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. 2021, 30, 258–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Choi, S.; Kim, I. Sustainability of Nature Walking Trails: Predicting Walking Tourists’ Engagement in pro-Environmental Behaviors. Asia Pacific J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 748–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Larson, L.R.; Stedman, R.C.; Cooper, C.B.; Decker, D.J. Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Structure of pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mónus, F. Environmental Perceptions and Pro-Environmental Behavior–Comparing Different Measuring Approaches. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 132–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Confente, I.; Scarpi, D. Achieving Environmentally Responsible Behavior for Tourists and Residents: A Norm Activation Theory Perspective. J. Travel Res. 2020, 60, 1196–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. Situational and Personality Factors as Direct or Personal Norm Mediated Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Questions Derived from Norm-Activation Theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 2007, 29, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yuriev, A.; Dahmen, M.; Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L. Pro-Environmental Behaviors through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Scoping Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jaiswal, D.; Singh, B.; Kant, R.; Biswas, A. Towards Green Product Consumption: Effect of Green Marketing Stimuli and Perceived Environmental Knowledge in Indian Consumer Market. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2022, 17, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hossain, I.; Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M. How Do Environmental Knowledge, Eco-Label Knowledge, and Green Trust Impact Consumers’ Pro-Environmental Behaviour for Energy-Efficient Household Appliances? Sustainability 2022, 14, 6513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hameed, I.; Waris, I. Eco Labels and Eco Conscious Consumer Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Green Trust and Environmental Concern. J. Manag. Sci. 2018, 5, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Ministarstvo Turizma Popis Kategoriziranih Turističkih Objekata u Republici Hrvatskoj. Available online: https://mint.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/AA_2018_c-dokumenti/190307_kategorizirani.xlsx (accessed on 4 April 2019).
  106. Pičuljan, M.; Težak Damijanić, A. Identification of Eco-Labels and Green Practices in Hotel Groups Settings—Content Analysis Approach. In Interdisciplinary Management Research-Interdisziplinare Managementforschung; Erceg, A., Pozega, Z., Eds.; Identification of Eco-Labels and Green Practices in Hotel Groups Settings—Content Analysis Approach: Opatija, Croatia, 2022; pp. 468–486. [Google Scholar]
  107. Veal, A.J. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide; Pearson Education Limited: Essex, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ajani, F.; Omobuwa, B.; Ajayi, O.O. Managements and Tourists Knowledge and Appreciation of Eco-Labeling and Eco-Certification at Selected Coastal Tourist Destinations in Lagos, Nigeria. J. Tour. Manag. Res. 2019, 6, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Masud, M.M.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Junsheng, H.; Ahmed, F.; Yahaya, S.R.; Akhtar, R.; Banna, H. Climate Change Issue and Theory of Planned Behaviour: Relationship by Empirical Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Miller, D.; Merrilees, B.; Coghlan, A. Sustainable Urban Tourism: Understanding and Developing Visitor pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gautam, V. Examining Environmental Friendly Behaviors of Tourists towards Sustainable Development. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Mahardika, H.; Thomas, D.; Ewing, M.T.; Japutra, A. Comparing the Temporal Stability of Behavioural Expectation and Behavioural Intention in the Prediction of Consumers Pro-Environmental Behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 101943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. 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]
  114. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10103 g001 550
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Sustainability 15 10103 g001
Sustainability 15 10103 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation model output.
Figure 2. Structural equation model output.
Sustainability 15 10103 g002
Table
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
FactorItemMeanSDStandard Load
Hotel Eco-labeling PerceptionMore favorable opinion of hotels with an eco-label3.610.9770.865
Eco-labels inform about the hotel’s environmental safety3.580.9710.856
Eco-labels are a reliable source of information (including hotel environmental quality and performance)3.570.9370.809
Belief in the truthfulness of an eco-label claim about a hotel3.590.9210.83
Credibility of eco-labels3.570.9620.813
More positive attitude toward the hotel with an eco-label3.660.9790.855
Hotels with eco-labels comply with quality environmental standards3.610.9330.853
Environmental KnowledgeKnow the meaning of the term “eco-friendly”4.100.8990.913
Know the meaning of the term “organic”4.110.9090.925
Know the meaning of the term “energy efficient”4.080.9440.883
Know the meaning of the term “recycled”4.190.8880.836
Pro-Environmental BehaviorLow-energy light bulb usage3.890.9780.838
Trying to recycle3.820.9610.798
Waste amount reduction3.750.9210.741
Usage of own shopping bag to reduce the use of plastic bags3.930.9880.766
Water-saving device and fixture usage3.620.9990.644
Minimizing energy consumption (turning off appliances when not in use)3.900.9720.804
Travel IntentionsThe importance that the hotel has an eco-label3.540.9610.849
Willingness to stay at the hotel with an eco-label3.600.9610.875
Hotel Eco-labeling PerceptionTrying to stay at a hotel with an eco-label3.600.9640.918
Table
Table 2. Scales’ reliability and discriminant validity.
Table 2. Scales’ reliability and discriminant validity.
CRAVEHotel Eco-Labeling PerceptionEnvironmental KnowledgePro-Environmental BehaviorTravel
Intentions
Hotel Eco-labeling Perception0.9440.7060.840
Environmental Knowledge0.9380.7920.276 ***0.890
Pro-Environmental Behavior0.8950.5890.481 ***0.665 ***0.768
Travel Intentions0.9120.7760.694 ***0.244 ***0.436 ***0.881
Note: * significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01, *** significant at 0.001; bold figures in diagonal are the square root of the AVE.
Table
Table 3. Structural model results.
Table 3. Structural model results.
HRelationshipβR2Decision
H1Environmental knowledge → travel intentions−0.0290.444Not supported
H2Eco-labeling perception → travel intention0.551 ***Supported
H5Pro-environmental behavior → travel intention0.199 ***Supported
H6Environmental knowledge → pro-environmental behavior0.578 ***0.610Supported
H7Eco-labeling perception → pro-environmental behavior0.307 ***Supported
H3Environmental knowledge → eco-labeling perception0.414 ***0.172Supported
Note: * significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01, *** significant at 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Indirect effect results.
Table 4. Indirect effect results.
HRelationshipβConfidence IntervalDecision
LowerUpper
H4Environmental knowledge → eco-labeling perception → travel intention0.191 **0.1620.224Supported
H8Environmental knowledge → pro-environmental behavior → travel intention0.096 **0.0560.133Supported
H9Environmental knowledge → eco-labeling perception → pro-environmental behavior0.126 **0.1030.151Supported
Note: * significant at 0.05, ** significant at 0.01, *** significant at 0.001.
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

Težak Damijanić, A.; Pičuljan, M.; Goreta Ban, S. The Role of Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, and Eco-Labeling Perception in Relation to Travel Intention in the Hotel Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310103

AMA Style

Težak Damijanić A, Pičuljan M, Goreta Ban S. The Role of Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, and Eco-Labeling Perception in Relation to Travel Intention in the Hotel Industry. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Težak Damijanić, Ana, Marija Pičuljan, and Smiljana Goreta Ban. 2023. "The Role of Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, and Eco-Labeling Perception in Relation to Travel Intention in the Hotel Industry" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10103. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310103

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