Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Mango Productivity with Wood Vinegar, Humic Acid, and Seaweed Extract Applications as an Environmentally Friendly Strategy
Previous Article in Journal
Board Composition and Environmental, Social, and Governance Reporting: Impact of Foreign and Busy Directors in Saudi-Listed Firms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 20
10.3390/su16208984
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists in Ecotourism Scenic Spots: The Promoting Role of Tourist Experience Quality in Place Attachment

by
Jiantao Zhang
1,
Li Jin
1,
Xinning Pan
2 and
Yang Wang
2,*
1
The School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China
2
College of Economic and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110086, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(20), 8984; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208984
Submission received: 27 June 2024 / Revised: 30 September 2024 / Accepted: 14 October 2024 / Published: 17 October 2024
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The pro-environmental behavior of tourists is an important guarantee for the sustainable development of ecotourism scenic spots. This article is based on 806 tourist survey data from two ecotourism scenic spots, making use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the structural equation model (SEM) to explore the impact of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. The research findings indicate that (1) the quality of the tourist experience is an important factor affecting the formation of place attachment; (2) the quality of tourism experience directly and positively affects place dependence, and indirectly affects place identity through the mediating factor of place dependence; and (3) the direct impact of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is significant, with place attachment playing a mediating role. This article provides inspiration for scenic spots to encourage tourists to engage in pro-environmental behavior. In the process of stimulating tourists to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, ecotourism scenic spots should pay more attention to the tourist experiences and emotional experiences. Scenic spots should make more efforts to improve the quality of the tourist experience, so that tourists can develop a sense of dependence on ecotourism scenic spots, gradually form self-identification with the scenic spots, and engage in environmentally friendly behavior, helping to achieve the sustainable development of ecotourism scenic spots.

1. Introduction

Ecotourism refers to traveling to relatively undeveloped natural destinations, appreciating the natural environment, understanding wildlife, and enjoying local culture in a real environment while protecting the natural environment of the destination [1,2]. Ecotourism has been widely promoted in many countries due to its multi-functionality [3]. Firstly, ecotourism can increase household income for residents economically [4,5] and contribute to the sustainable development of the tourism industry [6,7]. At the same time, ecotourism scenic spots also make outstanding contributions in protecting the natural environment and biodiversity. During the process of participating in ecotourism, tourists can personally experience the beauty and uniqueness of the natural environment and enhance their awareness of environmental protection and cultural inheritance [8,9]. In the operation and management process of ecotourism scenic spots, a series of measures are taken, such as limiting the number of tourists, specifying tourist routes, establishing ecological restoration areas, etc., to ensure the harmonious coexistence of tourism activities and the natural environment [10,11]. However, tourists’ behavior of damaging the environment during tourism has had a negative impact on the development of ecotourism scenic spots [12]. Therefore, coordinating the development of sustainable ecotourism with environmental protection has become a hot topic of academic discussion.
With the yearning of tourists for ecology and nature, ecotourism scenic spots are bearing an increasing influx of tourists. As direct participants in ecotourism, tourists’ irresponsible behavior (such as littering, graffiti on trees, picking flowers, and stepping on grass) can bring a series of environmental problems [13,14]. Pro-environmental behavior is an important guarantee for the sustainable development of the tourism industry [15,16]. Stimulating tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is a beneficial way to reduce the negative impact of tourism development on the ecological environment [17,18]. A key challenge faced by ecotourism scenic spots is how to protect ecotourism resources in the long term and reduce the damage of tourists to the ecological environment. Therefore, encouraging tourists to engage in pro-environmental behavior requires in-depth research. Studying the pro-environmental behavior of tourists is crucial for the long-term development of ecotourism scenic spots [19,20], which lays a foundation for protecting ecological tourism scenic spots. Pro-environment behavior has a similar meaning to several other terms in the literature, including “environmentally responsible behavior” [21], “responsible environmental behaviors” [22,23], “environmentally friendly behavior” [24,25], and so on [26].
The academic contributions of this article are mainly reflected in three aspects. Firstly, a large number of studies have explored the internal mechanisms of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior from the perspective of tourists [27,28]. However, few studies have considered the impact of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior based on the mediating role of place attachment. This study extends the “cognitive affective intention” framework [29] to explore the relationship between tourist experience quality, place attachment, and tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Secondly, there is a relative lack of research on exploring the pro-environmental behavior of tourists in ecotourism scenic areas. Based on the emotional theory of social exchange, the theory of planned behavior, and the expansion-construction theory of positive emotions, this study expanded the understanding of the mechanism of tourists’ pro-environment behavior by explaining the relationship between tourists’ experience quality, place attachment, and pro-environment behavior in ecotourism scenic spots. Thirdly, this study tests hypotheses through the quantitative analysis of field research data. The research results have certain guiding significance for cultivating tourists’ pro-environmental behavior and practical significance for achieving sustainable development in ecotourism scenic areas.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourist Experience Quality

The quality of tourist experience has become a key word in the research field of tourism consumer behavior [30,31,32]. Tourist experience quality is the evaluation of tourists on the quality of their tourism experience [33,34] and an emotional response to the psychological advantages expected in the tourism experience, emphasizing the psychological outcomes of tourists’ participation in tourism activities [35,36,37,38]. Existing studies have identified the dimensions of tourist experience quality and measured them on this basis [39,40]. Scholars have different opinions on the measurement dimensions of tourist experience quality, ranging from single-dimension to multi-dimension frameworks.
Wu and Li [32] set four items to form a single-dimensional measurement index of tourist experience quality, and they analyzed the relationship between heritage tourists’ experience quality and perceived value, heritage image, experience satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Wu et al. [41] took cruise tourism as an example and designed a single-dimensional scale of tourist experience quality that included three items. The influence of interaction quality, physical environment quality, outcome quality, and access quality on the overall tourist experience quality was also discussed.
In terms of three dimensions, Cole and Scott [40] used three factors, entertainment, education, and community, to assess tourist experience quality in the rainforest. Rojas and Camarero [42] proposed that experience quality includes interaction quality, physical environment quality, and outcome quality. Chen and Chen [43] studied the tourist experience quality of heritage tourism and discussed the relationships among experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. The quality of experience was divided into three dimensions: involvement, peace of mind, and educational experience.
In terms of four dimensions, Otto and Ritchie [39] developed a tourist experience quality scale based on the research of three tourism service sectors: hotels, airlines, and scenic spots, including four dimensions: hedonics, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition. Kao et al. [31] explored the tourist experience quality with regard to theme park visitors and summarized the tourist experience quality into four dimensions: immersion, surprise, participation, and fun. Jin et al. [44] agreed with Kao et al. [31] on the dimensional division of tourist experience quality and studied the impact of tourist experience quality on tourists in water parks. Moon et al. developed a four-dimensional tourist experience quality scale for island destinations [45] and explored the impact of tourist experience quality and loyalty on destination image. In addition, Suhartanto et al. developed the tourist experience quality scale for creative tourism city destinations [46]. The quality of travel experience was divided into five dimensions: escape, peace of mind, involvement, recognition, and learning.
Based on the existing literature on tourist experience quality, it can be seen that scholars have conducted rich research on tourist experience quality, covering many tourist attractions and destinations such as theme parks, islands, rainforests, water parks, heritage sites, cruise tours, hotels, tourist cities, etc., but there is a lack of research on tourists’ tourists experience quality in ecotourism scenic spots. Scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the measurement of tourist experience quality, but it provides a theoretical reference for the establishment of the dimension of tourist experience quality in this paper.

2.2. Place Attachment

Place attachment is a positive relationship between people and places [47,48]. Scholars began to study place attachment in the 1970s and believed that tourists’ place attachment mainly stems from their recreational activities and experiences in tourist destinations, thus generating their attachment to tourist destinations [49]. Existing studies measure place attachment in different ways. Some scholars regard place attachment as a holistic concept, emphasizing the connection or feeling of place [50,51]. Li et al. [52] regarded place attachment as a one-dimensional intermediary variable, explored the impact of cultural intervention on residents’ attitudes towards tourism development, and concluded that cultural involvement and spiritual wellbeing positively influence local residents’ place attachment. Place attachment positively influences local residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Treating place attachment as a one-dimensional annex-dependent variable, Ram et al. [53] surveyed international visitors to two major tourist attractions, Helsinki and Jerusalem, and found a positive correlation between place attachment and authenticity.
More scholars have divided place attachment into different dimensions for measurement and research [54,55,56], exploring the anthems and outcome variables of place attachment [57,58,59]. Gerard et al. [60] divided place attachment into two dimensions: place identity and place dependence, emphasizing the special association and dependence between individuals and specific places, and explored the impact of tourists’ place attachment on their perception of environmental density. Similarly, Patwardhan et al. [61] divided place attachment into two dimensions, place identity and place dependence, and studied the influence of the place attachment of tourists in religious tourism destinations on destination loyalty. Kyle et al. [62] proposed a correlated three-factor model consisting of place identity, place dependence, and social bonding. Ramkissoon et al. [55] divided place attachment into four dimensions: place dependence, place identity, place affect, and place social bonding. The effects of place attachment on place satisfaction and pro-environmental behavioral intentions were studied. Similarly, Zou et al. [63] discussed the impact of place attachment on travel loyalty, and divided place attachment into place dependence, place identity, affective attachment, and social bonding.
Some scholars have also studied the prepositional variables of place attachment and found that senses and emotions have a significant impact on tourists’ place attachment [64]. In addition, tourism experience and well-being [65], activity involvement, satisfaction, perceived attractiveness, and motivation [66] all have different degrees of influence on place attachment. Existing studies have investigated the influencing factors of place attachment, but the impact of tourist experience quality on it remains scarce. The existing studies provide a reference for the measurement of place attachment, which lays a foundation for the measurement of place attachment in this study.

2.3. Pro-Environmental Behavior

In view of the increasing emphasis of various countries on environmental protection, tourists’ pro-environmental behavior has become a hot topic of scholars’ research [67,68,69]. Pro-environmental behavior refers to behavior that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment [16]. This act of environmental responsibility emphasizes that an individual or group engages in behaviors that they exhibit to mitigate their potentially negative environmental impact [70,71,72]. Scholars have proposed different measurements of tourists’ pro-environment behavior. Based on Smith-Sebasto and D ‘Costa [73], many scholars have established a scale of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior [74,75]. It mainly includes “do not damage the environment”, “take the initiative to pick up garbage”, “persuade others to protect the environment”, “understand relevant environmental protection knowledge” and so on [76,77]. Some scholars summarize pro-environmental behavior into two dimensions: general behavior and particular behavior [78].
Existing studies have confirmed that individual characteristics [79,80,81,82], cognition [83], emotion [16], norms [84,85], and external stimuli (social marketing) [86] have significant effects on individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors. Research methods are commonly seen in meta-analysis [87] and the construction of structural equation models [88] to explore the relationships among variables. Studies on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior focus on island tourism [78], national parks [89] and coastal tourism [90], and other tourist destinations. Few scholars have studied the pro-environment behavior of tourists in vegetation-rich ecotourism scenic spots. It is considered that the sustainable development of ecotourism scenic spots is highly dependent on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. It is more meaningful to explore the pro-environmental behavior of tourists in eco-tourism scenic spots with vegetation. The existing studies on pro-environmental behavior have laid the foundation for this paper, especially in the selection of research methods and indicators measurement. The deficiency of the research area brings opportunities for this study.
Research manuscripts reporting large datasets that are deposited in a publicly available database should specify where the data have been deposited and provide the relevant accession numbers. If the accession numbers have not yet been obtained at the time of submission, please state that they will be provided during review. They must be provided prior to publication.
Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

3. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

3.1. The Effect of Tourist Experience Quality on Place Attachment

The affective theory of social exchange suggests that positive experiences may trigger emotional attachment [91]. People’s positive experiences and social activities in a place can cause people to become emotionally and cognitively attached to that place [92,93]. Place attachment may be a relevant outcome of place experiences [64]. The quality of the tourist experience in the tourist destination helps the tourist to enjoy a pleasant time, as if in another world. This pleasant feeling may prompt tourists to desire to experience such a good experience again or more times [94,95,96], place attachment is born. In other words, high-quality travel experience can determine tourists’ emotional attachment to the destination [97]. Vada et al. [65], using a purposeful random sampling method, confirmed that memorable travel experiences have a significant impact on place attachment. Taking food consumption as an example, Kim et al. applied the grounded theory method to study and obtain a high-quality tourism experience for tourists, one that not only eliminated the routine daily life, but also helped them understand the local culture and obtain a sense of sensory enjoyment and place identification [98]. In order to further verify the applicability of this view to ecotourism scenic spots, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. 
The tourist experience quality of tourists positively affects their place dependence.
H2. 
The tourist experience quality of tourists positively affects their place identity.

3.2. The Effect of Place Attachment on Pro-Environmental Behavior

The theory of planned behavior holds that human behavior is the result of careful consideration, and all factors that may affect behavior indirectly affect the performance of behavior through behavioral intention. Behavioral intention is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [99]. The theory of planned behavior has been widely applied to the research on place attachment and pro-environmental behavior [100,101,102]. Place attachment refers to the experience of a long-term affective bond to a particular geographic area and the meaning attributed to that bond [103]. Emotion is central to the concept of place attachment. Place attachment has been identified as a key factor in explaining tourists’ pro-environmental behavior [87]. The overall effect of place attachment on pro-environmental behavior is positive. Attachment to the tourist destination will promote the sense of belonging of tourists, and, thus, stimulate the behavior of tourists to protect the environment of the tourist destination [104]. Ramkissoon et al. [55] confirmed that place attachment significantly affects tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. Cheng and Wu [70] investigated the effects of tourists’ environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment on the environmental-responsibility behavior of island tourism, and the results showed that place attachment is an effective predictor of tourists’ environmental-responsibility behavior. Based on this, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. 
The place dependence of tourists positively influences their pro-environmental behavior.
H4. 
The place identity of tourists positively influences their pro-environmental behavior.

3.3. The Effect of Tourists Experience Quality on Pro-Environmental Behavior

The expansion-construction theory of positive emotions points out that positive emotions can expand the scope of personal attention, cognition, and behavior, and help individuals build lasting physical, intellectual, psychological, and social resources [105]. High quality consumption experience can contribute to positive emotions such as joy, gratitude, hope, and awe [106], improve the enthusiasm and activity of tourists, and promote the pro-environmental behaviors of tourists. Due to the independent protection of the environment, tourists can not only control their own behavior, but also expand the object of attention, and then affect the pro-environmental behavior of fellow travelers and even other tourists. Hofman et al. [107] believed that nature-based tourism experiences have the potential to inspire visitors to adopt conservation behaviors that protect natural environments. Wang et al. [108], taking wetland park as an example, confirmed that a good tourism experience has a significant impact on the environmental protection of tourism activities. From the above, this paper believes that it is necessary to explore whether the direct positive impact of tourist experience quality on environmental-responsibility behavior is significant through the analysis of empirical data, and further explain whether and how place attachment plays a mediating role through the mediation-effect test.
H5. 
The tourist experience quality of tourists positively affects their pro-environmental behavior.

3.4. The Influence of Place Dependence on Place Identity

It is more comprehensive to understand place attachment from the two levels of place dependence and place identity, and some researchers regard it as comprising two parallel dimensions [109,110] to fully interpret the connotation of place attachment and make the measurement concrete. However, with the continuous enrichment of empirical studies, some scholars have pointed out that there may be a certain logical relationship between the two dimensions [111]. The place dependence of tourists on a certain tourist destination is formed by comparison with other tourist destinations; tourists think that a certain tourist destination can best meet individual needs, thus generating a sense of dependence. In contrast, place identity is the expression of individual’s self-identity to the tourist destination, and the formation time is relatively long. Tourists first rely on a certain destination, and then form a place identity after revisiting or deepening their connection with the destination [111]. Empirical studies have shown that place dependence affects individuals’ environmental attitudes and daily behaviors mainly through the intermediary of place identity [112].
H6. 
Tourists’ place dependence positively affects their place identity.
Based on the above content, the research model of this paper is constructed to comprehensively discuss the influence mechanism of tourist experience quality on the two dimensions of place attachment, as well as the influence of tourist experience quality and place attachment on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors (Figure 1). It is hoped that the explanation of this theoretical model will clarify the driving mechanism of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors, which will help scenic spots to better improve tourists’ tourist experience quality and place attachment, and to stimulate tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors.

4. Study Design

4.1. Study Site

In this study, two scenic spots, Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) and Checkboard Mesa in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China, were selected as cases to meet the needs of ecotourism scenic spots. The data were collected by questionnaire survey, and the hypothesis and mediation effect were tested by structural equation model and other statistical methods.
Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) is the site of the 2006 China Shenyang World Horticultural Exposition, covering an area of 2.46 square kilometers, known as the “World Expo Garden in the forest”. It has won the title of the first batch of national 5A tourist attractions. It is a multi-functional comprehensive tourist attraction integrating green ecological viewing, scientific research and science popularization education, and entertainment and leisure activities. The park gathers a variety of plant resources from Northeast China, Northwest China, North China, and Inner Mongolia, planting more than 2000 species of open woody plants, open herbs, and greenhouse plants, and is the plant exhibition park with the largest collection of plant species in Northeast China.
Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot is the largest natural scenic spot in Shenyang. It covers an area of 203 square kilometers, of which 142 square kilometers are scenic spots and 61 square kilometers are sub-urban areas. Qipan Mountain is a tourist resort with natural mountains, rivers, and trees as the main body, and integrates forest ecological tourism, ice and snow tourism, scenery tourism, holiday tourism, scenic spots and historic sites tourism, popular science knowledge, sports, and entertainment. Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot is rich in species resources and is a transitional zone between Changbai Mountain flora, North China flora, and Mongolia flora.

4.2. Scale Development

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part is the personal information of the respondents. The second part is the main part of the survey, including the scale of tourist experience quality, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior. In order to improve the scientific research and the reliability of the research results, the design of each scale is based on the existing literature that has been widely used for reference. According to the actual situation of the study area, some sentences are adjusted. The final scale of this paper is formed after pre-investigation and expert inspection of the scale. All scales are on a Likert 7-point scale, with a scale from 1 to 7 indicating strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Considering the widespread application of scales and the authority of published journals, the measurement of tourist experience quality is integrated with the scales developed by Cole and Scott [40] and Kao et al. [31]. The place attachment scale comprehensively applies the two-dimensional scale of Gerard et al. [60] and Patwardhan et al. [61] and holds that place attachment includes place dependence and place identity. Tourists’ pro-environmental behavior was selected from Smith-Sebasto and D ‘Costa’s [73] scale. Considering that both travel experience quality and place attachment, in this study, used a multidimensional scale, a one-dimensional scale was adopted to measure tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors in order to reduce the fatigue of respondents by the lengthy questionnaire. Additionally, it can also achieve the research purpose [113]. After the questionnaire was designed according to the existing mature scale, 5 master’s instructors in tourism management were asked to evaluate its rationality, and individual items with factor load less than 0.5 were deleted to form the final questionnaire.

4.3. Data Collection

The data come from a questionnaire survey of tourists who finished visiting the two scenic spots from 1 to 7 October 2023. Each scenic spots issued 450 questionnaires, a total of 900 questionnaires. The dataset obtained from Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) in this study is the research sample of Study 1. The dataset obtained from Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot is regarded as the Study sample of Study 2 and is regarded as the robustness test of Study 1. Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) had a questionnaire recovery efficiency of 88%. Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot’s response rate was 91%.

4.4. Research Approach

This paper includes two sub-studies. Study 1 takes Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) as the research area to investigate the impact of tourists’ travel experience quality and place attachment on their pro-environmental behavior. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the structural equation model (SEM) were used to explore the internal relationships among the three factors. Study 2 takes Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot as the research area and also uses EFA and SEM to analyze the internal relationships among tourists’ tourist experience quality, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior. Study 2 is actually a robustness test of Study 1, which changes the multi-angle analysis of research samples to ensure the reliability of research results [114].

5. Empirical Analysis

5.1. Study 1

5.1.1. Sample Profile

In Study 1, the Shenyang Botanical Garden (Shenyang Expo Garden) was selected as the research area, 450 questionnaires were sent out, and 396 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective rate of 88%. Most of the interviewees are female, aged between 31 and 40 years old. Of the interviewees, 46.72% of had a monthly income of CNY 4001–7000. The respondents with college degrees accounted for 43.43% of the total sample. Civil servants/public institutions (including teachers) accounted for 30.05% of the respondents (see Table 1).

5.1.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

This study conducted exploratory factor analysis of tourist experience quality, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior with SPSS 26.0 software. Using principal component analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1 and factor loadings greater than 0.5 as criteria, factor analysis was performed on the scale, and the results are shown in Table 2.

5.1.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

This article uses AMOS 24.0 to conduct confirmatory factor analysis on questionnaires and measurement models. Cronbach’s α coefficient and KMO value were used to judge the reliability and validity, and the CR value of combined reliability and AVE value of average extracted variance were used to test the consistency of internal structural variables. As shown in Table 3, Cronbach’s α coefficient and KMO value of all variables in Study1 are greater than 0.7, indicating the high reliability and validity of sample data [115]. The CR value of potential variables is greater than 0.7, the AVE value is greater than 0.5, and the factor-load value of each item is greater than 0.5. In addition, the correlation coefficients of each variable are all smaller than the square root of the AVE value, indicating that each variable has good discriminant validity (Table 4). In summary, the sample data passed the reliability and validity test and showed high reliability and validity.

5.1.4. Fit Test and Model Modification

In this study, AMOS24.0 was used to calculate the path coefficient of the model. The fit of the model was measured, and the absolute fit index of GFI, AGFI, RMR, and RMSEA was 0.927, 0.843, 0.096, and 0.044, respectively. The relative fit index of NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI was 0.915, 0.811, 0.937, 0.919, and 0.932, respectively. The PGFI, PNFI, PCFI, and NC was 0.658, 0.717, 0.802, and 1.746, respectively. The statistical test values, AIC and CAIC, of the theoretical model are smaller than those of the independent model and the saturated model, and the overall fit of the model is good.

5.1.5. Results of the Model

Based on path analysis, as shown in Table 5, tourists’ travel experience quality has a significant positive impact on place attachment (H1 and H2 are supported), tourists’ place attachment has a significant positive impact on their pro-environmental behavior (H3 and H4 are supported), and tourists’ travel experience quality has a significant positive impact on their pro-environmental behavior (H5 is supported). Tourists’ place dependence significantly positively influences their place identity (H6 is supported).

5.1.6. Mediation-Effect Test

The mediation effect was tested by the bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method. The results show that the total effect of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is significant (β = 0.131). Among these effects, the direct effect is significant (β = 0.093), as shown in Table 6. The indirect effect mainly plays a role through three intermediary paths: tourist experience quality → place dependence → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.037), tourist experience quality → place identity → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.129), and tourist experience quality → place dependence → place identification → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.092). The results show that place attachment plays an intermediary role in the quality of travel experience and pro-environmental behavior.

5.2. Study 2

5.2.1. Sample Profile

In Study 2, Qipan Mountain Scenic Spot was selected as the research area. A total of 450 questionnaires were sent out and 410 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective rate of 91%. There was little difference in the proportion of men and women surveyed. Respondents aged 31–40 accounted for 44.88% of the sample. Of the surveyed tourists, 43.17% a monthly income of CNY 1001–4000. Respondents with a bachelor’s degree or above accounted for 61.96% of the total sample size. The majority of respondents were service and sales personnel, accounting for 22.44% of the total (see Table 7).

5.2.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

SPSS 26.0 software was also used to conduct exploratory factor analysis on the quality of travel experience, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior in Study 2. Principal component analysis was used to perform factor analysis on the scale, with eigenvalues greater than 1 and factor loadings greater than 0.5 as the criteria. The results are shown in Table 8.

5.2.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Similarly, AMOS 24.0 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis on the questionnaire and measurement model of Study 2, and the results are shown in Table 9. Cronbach’s α coefficient and the KMO value of all variables in Study 2 are greater than 0.7, indicating the high reliability and validity of sample data [115]. The CR value of potential variables is greater than 0.7, the AVE value is greater than 0.5, and the factor-load value of each item is greater than 0.5. The sample data had high reliability and validity and passed the reliability and validity test. The correlation coefficients of each variable are all less than the square root of the AVE value, indicating the good discriminant validity of each variable (Table 10).

5.2.4. Fit Test and Model Modification

In this study, AMOS24.0 was used to calculate the path coefficient of the model. The fit of the model was measured, and the absolute fit index of GFI, AGFI, RMR, and RMSEA was 0.914, 0.909, 0.095, and 0.045, respectively. The relative fit index of NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI was 0.941, 0.834, 0.941, 0.942, and 0.957, respectively. The PGFI, PNFI, PCFI, and NC was 0.701, 0.735, 0.831, and 1.722, respectively. The statistical test values, AIC and CAIC, of the theoretical model are smaller than those of the independent model and the saturated model, and the overall fit of the model is good.

5.2.5. Results for the Model

Based on path analysis, as shown in Table 11, tourists’ tourist experience quality has a significant positive impact on place attachment (H1 and H2 are supported), tourists’ place attachment has a significant positive impact on their pro-environmental behavior (H3 and H4 are supported), and tourists’ tourist experience quality has a significant positive impact on their pro-environmental behavior (H5 is supported). Tourists’ place dependence significantly positively influences their place identity (H6 is supported).

5.2.6. Mediation-Effect Test

The bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method was also used to test the mediation effect. The results show that the total effect of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior is significant (β = 0.079). Among these effects, the direct effect is significant (β = 0.043), as shown in Table 12. The indirect effect mainly plays a role through three intermediary paths: tourist experience quality → place dependence → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.036), tourist experience quality → place identity → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.044), and tourist experience quality → place dependence → place identification → pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.041). The results show that place attachment plays an intermediary role in the quality of tourism experience and pro-environmental behavior.

6. Conclusions and Recommendation

6.1. Conclusions and Discussion

First of all, the quality of tourists’ travel experience is an important factor affecting the formation of their place attachment. Improving the quality of tourists’ travel experience is conducive to generating a pleasant mood and positive behaviors, such as a high level of place dependence and self-identification with place. This study believes that in the context of ecotourism, tourists’ higher quality of travel experience can lead to place attachment, which is consistent with many existing research results [64,116,117]. This study divides place attachment into two dimensions: place dependence and place identity. This paper comprehensively reveals the specific relationships among tourist experience quality, place dependence, and place identity, and clarifies the specific realization path of tourists experience quality’s attachment to place. The results show that tourist experience quality directly positively affects place dependence, and indirectly affects place identity through the intermediary of place dependence. This result is similar to the research conclusion on tourism experience and place attachment confirmed by Vada et al. [65] and Loureiro [118]. The research conclusion that place dependence significantly affects place identity is different from that of Mlozi et al. [119]. Mlozi et al. [119] examined the effects of expectation (perceived attractiveness) on satisfaction, place identity, and place dependence.
Obtaining place identity has a positive effect on place dependence. However, the research results of this paper are consistent with the research conclusions of Wang et al. [120]. The reasons for the inconsistency of the research conclusions may be affected by the research object and the survey location. The relationship between place dependence and place identity needs to be further verified in future studies.
Secondly, tourist experience quality has a significant direct effect on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, and the two dimensions of place attachment (place dependence and place identity) also play a mediating role. This study realized the application of Lim and DeSteno [121] and Baldassarri and Grossman’s [122] conclusion that experience and attachment can prompt individuals to produce prosocial behaviors in tourism academic research and enriched the research content of exploring behavior rules from tourist experience, especially when it comes to local feelings. In addition, the conclusion provides a new testable variable for the study of the influencing factors of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior, and makes up for the academic limitations caused by previous studies, which mostly start from “cognitive” variables such as environmental attitude and neglect the investigation of “emotional” factors such as tourists’ sense of experience.

6.2. Recommendation

This paper verifies the positive effects of tourist experience quality on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors, the positive effects of place dependence on place identity, and the positive effects of place attachment on tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors. Based on the research conclusion, the paper puts forward some countermeasures and suggestions for the sustainable development of eco-tourism scenic spots. For ecotourism scenic spots, it is not ideal to solve environmental problems only from the moral point of view or legal means, such as taking disciplinary measures to regulate unfriendly behavior of tourists, or guiding tourists’ environmental behavior through an interpretation system. According to existing studies, compared with the measures taken by scenic spots, tourists’ active implementation of pro-environmental behaviors is the best way to solve the ecological dilemma of scenic spots and promote sustainable development [123,124]. In the process of stimulating tourists to implement pro-environmental behaviors, ecotourism scenic spots should pay more attention to tourists’ tourism experience and emotional experience. This study provides an operational scheme to stimulate tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. Scenic spots should make greater efforts in immersion, surprise, participation, fun, and education to improve the quality of tourism services, improve the quality of tourists’ tourism experience, and enhance the degree of place dependence. Tourists can first form a sense of dependence on ecotourism scenic spots, and then, gradually form a self-identification with scenic spots. When tourists have a high-quality tourism experience, it is easy for them to form place dependence and place identity with regard to tourist attractions, which encourages tourists to adopt pro-environmental behaviors and realize the sustainable development of eco-tourism attractions.

7. Limitation and Future Research

The tourist destination investigated in this study comprises the ecotourism scenic spots in Liaoning Province, China. It is necessary to expand the sample for follow-up research to test the universality and validity of the research conclusions. At the same time, the survey data used in this study are cross-sectional data, which may affect the inference of causality. In the follow-up research, it is possible to consider the comprehensive use of cross-sectional data and longitudinal data for empirical research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, J.Z. and Y.W.; writing—review and editing, L.J. and X.P.; funding acquisition, J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Liaoning Province social science planning fund project, grant number L21CJL003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Das, M.; Chatterjee, B. Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 14, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Buckley, R.; Cater, C.; Zhong, L.; Chen, T. Shengtai luyou: Cross-cultural comparison in ecotourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 945–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Deery, M.; Jago, L.; Fredline, L. Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, K.; Ping, Y.; Pan, X.; Wang, Y. Does Ecotourism in Nature Reserves Have an Impact on Farmers’ Income? Counterfactual Estimates Based on Propensity Score Matching. Agriculture 2024, 14, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wall, G. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environ. Manag. 1997, 21, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wondirad, A. Does ecotourism contribute to sustainable destination development, or is it just a marketing hoax? Analyzing twenty-five years contested journey of ecotourism through a meta-analysis of tourism journal publications. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 1047–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Imran, S.; Alam, K.; Beaumont, N. Environmental orientations and environmental behavior: Perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Luo, W.; Tang, P.; Jiang, L.; Su, M. Influencing mechanism of tourist social responsibility awareness on environmentally responsible behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shi, F.; Weaver, D.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, M.; Tang, C.; Liu, Y. Toward an ecological civilization: Mass comprehensive ecotourism indications among domestic visitors to a Chinese wetland protected area. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, Y.; Yao, C.; Xu, D. Ecological compensation standards of national scenic spots in western China: A case study of Taibai Mountain. Tour. Manag. 2020, 76, 103950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kousis, M. Tourism and the environment: A social movements perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 468–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hayati, Y.; Adrianto, L.; Krisanti, M.; Pranowo, W.; Kurniawan, F. Magnitudes and tourist perception of marine debris on small tourism island: Assessment of Tidung Island, Jakarta, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 158, 111393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zorpas, A.A.; Voukkali, I.; Loizia, P. The impact of tourist sector in the waste management plans. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 56, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dolnicar, S.; Leisch, F. An investigation of tourists’ patterns of obligation to protect the environment. J. Travel Res. 2008, 46, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Becken, S. Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bilynets, I.; Cvelbar, L.K. Tourist pro-environmental behaviour: The role of environmental image of destination and daily behaviour. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. Esfandiar, K.; Pearce, J.; Dowling, R.; Goh, E. Pro-environmental behaviours in protected areas: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 41, 100943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: Compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Yu, P.; Hu, H. The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding tourists’ responsible environmental behaviors: The moderating role of environmental interpretations. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Cao, J.; Duan, X.; Hu, Q. The impact of behavioral reference on tourists’ responsible environmental behaviors. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gautam, V. Examining environmental friendly behaviors of tourists towards sustainable development. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, C.; Lee, S.; Lee, C.K.; Reisinger, Y. Volunteer tourists’ environmentally friendly behavior and support for sustainable tourism development using Value-Belief-Norm theory: Moderating role of altruism. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022, 25, 100712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. Dolnicar, S.; Knezevic Cvelbar, L.; Grün, B. Do pro-environmental appeals trigger pro-environmental behavior in hotel guests? J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xu, F.; Huang, L.; Whitmarsh, L. Home and away: Cross-contextual consistency in tourists’ pro-environmental behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1443–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tasci, A.D.; Gartner, W.C. Destination image and its functional relationships. J. Travel Res. 2007, 45, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Grove, S.J.; Fisk, R.P.; Bitner, M.J. Dramatizing the service experience: A managerial approach. Adv. Serv. Mark. Manag. 1992, 1, 91–121. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kao, Y.F.; Huang, L.S.; Wu, C.H. Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 13, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, H.C.; Li, T. A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 904–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ma, T. Tourist experience quality and satisfaction: Connotation, relationship and measurement. Tour. Trib. 2019, 34, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  35. MacKay, K.J.; Crompton, J.L. A conceptual model of consumer evaluation of recreation service quality. Leis. Stud. 1988, 7, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crompton, J.L.; Love, L.L. The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival. J. Travel Res. 1995, 34, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chan, J.K.L.; Baum, T. Eco-tourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 574–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Che, W.H.; Chan, C.C.; Han, A.C. A study of experiential quality, experiential value, trust, corporate reputation, experiential satisfaction and behavioral intentions for cruise tourists: The case of Hong Kong. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Otto, J.E.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The service experience in tourism. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cole, S.T.; Scott, D. Examining the Mediating Role of Experience Quality in a Model of Tourist Experiences. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2004, 16, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, H.C.; Li, M.Y.; Li, T. A study of experiential quality, experiential value, experiential satisfaction, theme park image, and revisit intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 26–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rojas, C.D.; Camarero, C. Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, C.F.; Chen, F.S. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jin, N.P.; Lee, S.; Lee, H. The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitor. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 17, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moon, H.; Han, H. Tourist Experience Quality and Loyalty to an Island Destination: The Moderating Impact of Destination Image. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Suhartanto, D.; Brien, A.; Primiana, I.; Wibisono, N.; Triyuni, N.N. Tourist loyalty in creative tourism: The role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 23, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lewicka, M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kasarda, J.D.; Janowitz, M. Community attachment in mass society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1974, 39, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stedman, R.C. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 561–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hernandez, B.; Martín, A.M.; Ruiz, C.; Hidalgo, M.C. The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, J.; Pan, L.; Hu, Y. Cultural involvement and attitudes toward tourism: Examining serial mediation effects of residents’ spiritual wellbeing and place attachment. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ram, Y.; Bjork, P.; Weidenfeld, A. Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Weber, D. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ramkissoon, H.; Smith, L.D.G.; Weiler, B. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 552–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cheung, L.T.; Hui, D.L. Influence of residents’ place attachment on heritage forest conservation awareness in a peri-urban area of Guangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 33, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hou, J.; Lin, C.; Morais, D.B. Antecedents of Attachment to a Cultural Tourism Destination: The Case of Hakka and Non-Hakka Taiwanese Visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. J. Travel Res. 2005, 44, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yuksel, A.; Yuksel, F.; Bilim, Y. Destination Attachment: Effects on Consumer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Prayag, G.; Ryan, C. Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gerard, K.; Alan, G.; Robert, M.; James, B. Effect of Activity Involvement and Place Attachment on Recreationists’ Perceptions of Setting Density. J. Leis. Res. 2004, 36, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Patwardhan, V.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Payini, V.; Mallya, J. Visitors’ loyalty to religious tourism destinations: Considering place attachment, emotional experience and religious affiliation. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zou, W.; Wei, W.; Ding, S.; Xue, J. The relationship between place attachment and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. 2022, 43, 100983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kastenholz, E.; Marques, C.P.; Carneiro, M.J. Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 17, 100455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vada, S.; Prentice, C.; Hsiao, A. The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place attachment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, Z.; Zhang, J. Antecedents and consequences of place attachment: A comparison of Chinese and Western urban tourists in Hangzhou, China. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2016, 5, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Miao, L.; Wei, W. Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 32, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, S.; Park, H.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, C.K. A moderator of destination social responsibility for tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors in the vip model—Science direct. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lin, M.-T.; Zhu, D.; Liu, C.; Kim, P.B. A meta-analysis of antecedents of pro-environmental behavioral intention of tourists and hospitality consumers. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cheng, T.M.; Wu, H.C. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 557–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Han, H.; Hwang, J. Cruise travelers’ environmentally responsible decision- making: An integrative framework of goal-directed behavior and norm activation process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 53, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Akintunde, A.E. Theories and concepts for human behavior in environmental preservation. J. Environ. Sci. Public Health 2017, 1, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Su, L.; Huang, S.; Pearce, J. How does destination social responsibility contribute to environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lee, C.K.; Olya, H.; Ahmad, M.S.; Kim, K.H.; Oh, M.J. Sustainable intelligence, destination social responsibility, and pro-environmental behaviour of visitors: Evidence from an eco-tourism site. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, J.; Li, J.; Jang, S.S.; Zhao, Y. Understanding tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior at coastal tourism destinations. Mar. Policy 2022, 143, 105178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Qin, Q.; Hsu, C.H. Urban travelers’ pro-environmental behaviors: Composition and role of pro-environmental contextual force. Tour. Manag. 2022, 92, 104561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cheng, T.M.; Wu, H.C.; Huang, L.M. The influence of place attachment on the relationship between destination attractiveness and environmentally responsible behavior for island tourism in Penghu, Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1166–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Scott, D.; Willits, F.K. Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environ. Behav. 1994, 26, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tindall, D.B.; Davies, S.; Mauboules, C. Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 909–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chen, X.; Peterson, M.N.; Hull, V.; Lu, C.; Lee, G.D.; Hong, D.; Liu, J. Effects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in urban China. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhang, J.; Huang, R. Employees’ pro-environmental behaviours at international hotel chains in China: The mediating role of environmental concerns. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 39, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wu, J.; Wu, H.C.; Hsieh, C.M.; Ramkissoon, H. Face consciousness, personal norms, and environmentally responsible behavior of Chinese tourists: Evidence from a lake tourism site. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 50, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tkaczynski, A.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; Truong, V.D. Influencing tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors: A social marketing application. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Daryanto, A.; Song, Z. A meta-analysis of the relationship between place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, J.; Wu, J.S.; Che, T. Understanding perceived environment quality in affecting tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviors: A broken windows theory perspective. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 31, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ramkissoon, H.; Weiler, B.; Smith, L.D. Place attachment and pro-environmental behavior in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Panwanitdumrong, K.; Chen, C.L. Investigating factors influencing tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior with extended theory of planned behavior for coastal tourism in Thailand. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 169, 112507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lawler, E.J. An affect theory of social exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 107, 321–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rubinstein, R.I.; Parmelee, P.A. Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In Place Attachment; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 139–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hosany, S.; Prayag, G.; Veen, R.V.D.; Huang, S.S.; Deesilatham, S. Mediating effects of place attachment and satisfaction on the relationship between tourists’ emotions and intention to recommend. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 1079–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tsai, S. Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international tourists in Singapore. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 14, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Io, M.-U. The relationships between positive emotions, place attachment, and place satisfaction in casino hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2018, 19, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yan, N.; Halpenny, E.A. Tourists’ savoring of positive emotions and place attachment formation: A conceptual paper. Tour. Geogr. 2022, 24, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Io, M.U.; Wan, P.Y.K. Relationships between tourism experiences and place attachment in the context of casino resorts. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 19, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kim, Y.G.; Eves, A.; Scarles, C. Building a model of local food consumption on trips and holidays: A grounded theory approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Anton, C.E.; Lawrence, C. The relationship between place attachment, the theory of planned behaviour and residents’ response to place change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 47, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. The place-based approach to recycling intention: Integrating place attachment into the extended theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Qiu, H.; Wang, X.; Morrison, A.M.; Kelly, C.; Wei, W. From ownership to responsibility: Extending the theory of planned behavior to predict tourist environmentally responsible behavioral intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Morgan, P. Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Anton, C.E.; Lawrence, C. Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fredrickson, B.L. What good are positive emotions? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 300–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zins, A.H. Consumption emotions, experience quality and satisfaction: A structural analysis for complainers versus non-complainers. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2002, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hofman, K.; Walters, G.; Hughes, K. The effectiveness of virtual vs real-life marine tourism experiences in encouraging conservation behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 742–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wang, W.; Chen, J.S.; Fan, L.; Lu, J. Tourist experience and wetland parks: A case of Zhejiang, China. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 1763–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; Van Riper, C.J. Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ispas, A.; Untaru, E.N.; Candrea, A.N.; Han, H. Impact of place identity and place dependence on satisfaction and loyalty toward Black Sea Coastal Destinations: The role of visitation frequency. Coast. Manag. 2021, 49, 250–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Pathways of place dependence and place identity influencing recycling in the extended theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gardner, D.G.; Cummings, L.L.; Dunham, R.B.; Pierce, J.L. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 898–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Scarpi, D.; Raggiotto, F. A construal level view of contemporary heritage tourism. Tour. Manag. 2023, 94, 104648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 576–590. [Google Scholar]
  116. Tsai, C.T. Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 18, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Souza, L.H.; Kastenholz, E.; Barbosa, M.D.L.A.; Carvalho, M.S.E.S.C. Tourist experience, perceived authenticity, place attachment and loyalty when staying in a peer-to-peer accommodation. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2020, 6, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Loureiro, S.M.C. The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mlozi, S.; Pesämaa, O.; Haahti, A.; Salunke, S. Determinants of place identity and dependence: The case of international tourists in Tanzania. Tour. Cult. Commun. 2012, 12, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wang, G.; Huang, L.; Xu, C.; He, K.; Shen, K.; Liang, P. Analysis of the mediating role of place attachment in the link between tourists’ authentic experiences of, involvement in, and loyalty to rural tourism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lim, D.; DeSteno, D. Suffering and compassion: The links among adverse life experiences, empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Emotion 2016, 16, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Baldassarri, D.; Grossman, G. The effect of group attachment and social position on prosocial behavior. Evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sharmin, F.; Sultan, M.T.; Badulescu, A.; Bac, D.P.; Li, B. Millennial tourists’ environmentally sustainable behavior towards a natural protected area: An integrative framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Tang, H.; Ma, Y.; Ren, J. Influencing factors and mechanism of tourists’ pro-environmental behavior–Empirical analysis of the CAC-MOA integration model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1060404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08984 g001
Figure 1. Hypothesis model.
Figure 1. Hypothesis model.
Sustainability 16 08984 g001
Table 1. Sample profile of Study 1.
Table 1. Sample profile of Study 1.
VariableValueFrequencyPercent (%)VariableValueFrequencyPercent (%)
GenderMale17343.69EducationJunior high school or below7418.69
Female22356.31 Senior high school9925.00
Age (years)<20112.78 College degree17243.43
21–3014536.62 Bachelor’s degree or above5112.88
31–4017243.43OccupationFarmer153.79
41–50348.59 Individual operator205.05
51–60205.05 Service and sales personnel7218.18
>60143.53 Enterprise management personnel133.28
Monthly income (CNY)<1000358.84 Temporary unemployed6817.17
1001–400015037.88 Student7017.68
4001–700018546.72 Civil servant/public institution (including teachers)11930.05
7001–10,000164.04 Professional and technical personnel194.80
>10,000102.52
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of Study 1.
Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of Study 1.
IndexVariableItemsFactor LoadingEigenvalueVariance Explained (%)Cronbach’s α
Travel experience qualityImmersionPlaying in the scenic spot frees me from reality and helps me truly enjoy myself.0.9327.21640.9320.923
When I was traveling in the scenic spot, I became so immersed that I forgot everything else.0.906
Playing in the scenic spot makes me feel like I’m in another world.0.863
When I was playing in the scenic spot, I forgot that time was passing by.0.851
SurpriseThere are some unexpected and unique attractions in the scenic spot.0.8536.34142.0030.856
The service in the scenic spot makes me feel special and valuable.0.802
The service of the scenic spot is consistent and reliable.0.761
ParticipationWhen traveling in scenic areas, I want to experience as many facilities as possible.0.8115.30955.7780.892
I participated in the activities provided by the scenic spot.0.702
I want to become a member of the scenic spot and enjoy benefits.0.763
FunI had a great time playing in the scenic spot.0.7823.28862.0560.877
I feel very excited while playing in the scenic spot.0.711
I really like this scenic spot.0.624
EducationVisiting this scenic spot makes me want to learn more about environmental protection knowledge.0.7091.24572.1090.819
Visiting this scenic spot has made me more concerned about environmental issues.0.637
Visiting this scenic spot has expanded my understanding of nature.0.523
Variance explained (%) = 72.109, KMO = 0.902, Bartlett (df = 11.6, p = 0.000)
Place attachmentPlace dependenceCompared to other scenic spots, I prefer this place.0.8024.39751.7020.793
Compared to other scenic spots, this scenic spot can better meet my touristic needs.0.729
This scenic spot has given me a sense of satisfaction that other scenic spots do not have.0.587
Place identityThis scenic spot is very special to me.0.7411.27562.3850.802
I have a strong sense of identification with this scenic spot.0.624
I really enjoy playing in this scenic spot.0.595
Variance explained (%) = 62.385, KMO = 0.882, Bartlett (df = 32, p = 0.000)
Pro-environmental behaviorPro-environmental behaviorI won’t litter while traveling.0.8422.97360.2740.817
I abide by the regulations of the scenic spot, not picking flowers or stepping on grass.0.741
I will remind fellow travelers not to damage the environment.0.736
When I see garbage on the ground during sightseeing, I will pick it up.0.711
I actively learn about environmental protection related knowledge.0.667
Variance explained (%) = 60.274, KMO = 0.809, Bartlett (df = 14, p = 0.000)
Table 3. Reliability and validity testing of Study 1.
Table 3. Reliability and validity testing of Study 1.
VariableItemsFactor LoadingAVECRKMOCronbach’s α
Overall scale ---0.9450.921
ImmersionPlaying in the scenic spot frees me from reality and helps me truly enjoy myself.0.8230.6320.8390.8630.901
When I was traveling in the scenic spot, I became so immersed that I forgot everything else.0.719
Playing in the scenic spot makes me feel like I’m in another world.0.641
When I was playing in the scenic spot, I forgot that time was passing by.0.627
SurpriseThere are some unexpected and unique attractions in the scenic spot.0.8300.6130.8110.8560.867
The service in the scenic spot makes me feel special and valuable.0.756
The service of the scenic spot is consistent and reliable.0.589
ParticipationWhen traveling in scenic areas, I want to experience as many facilities as possible.0.7710.5880.8090.8510.843
I participated in the activities provided by the scenic spot.0.654
I want to become a member of the scenic spot and enjoy benefits.0.624
FunI had a great time playing in the scenic spot.0.7870.5620.7990.8220.837
I feel very excited while playing in the scenic spot.0.681
I really like this scenic spot.0.665
EducationVisiting this scenic spot makes me want to learn more about environmental protection knowledge.0.8390.5310.7390.7530.796
Visiting this scenic spot has made me more concerned about environmental issues.0.665
Visiting this scenic spot has expanded my understanding of nature.0.564
Place dependenceCompared to other scenic spots, I prefer this place.0.7980.6410.8540.8680.874
Compared to other scenic spots, this scenic spot can better meet my tourism needs.0.771
This scenic spot has given me a sense of satisfaction that other scenic spots do not have.0.607
Place identityThis scenic spot is very special to me.0.8520.5910.8270.8040.828
I have a strong sense of identification with this scenic spot.0.812
I really enjoy playing in this scenic spot.0.707
Pro-environmental behaviorI won’t litter while traveling.0.8420.5470.7720.7840.796
I abide by the regulations of the scenic spot, not picking flowers or stepping on grass.0.741
I will remind fellow travelers not to damage the environment.0.736
When I see garbage on the ground during sightseeing, I will pick it up.0.711
I actively learn about environmental protection related knowledge.0.667
Table 4. Discriminant validity test of Study 1.
Table 4. Discriminant validity test of Study 1.
VariableImmersionSurpriseParticipationFunEducationPlace DependencePlace IdentityPro-Environmental Behavior
Immersion0.687
Surprise0.5730.731
Participation0.5280.2150.763
Fun0.5920.4270.5880.735
Education0.4270.4390.5260.7050.719
Place dependence0.7110.5220.4090.2720.5250.793
Place identity0.5440.4780.3760.3960.5680.5170.713
Pro-environmental behavior0.6030.4930.4830.4860.5310.4960.4690.647
Table 5. Hypothesis test results of Study 1.
Table 5. Hypothesis test results of Study 1.
HypothesisPathsβS.E.tResults
H1Tourists experience quality→
Place dependence		0.428 ***0.0876.142Supported
H2Tourists experience quality→
Place identity		0.235 **0.0722.973Supported
H3Place dependence→Pro-environmental behavior0.517 ***0.0917.381Supported
H4Place identity→Pro-environmental
behavior		0.183 **0.0543.472Supported
H5Tourists experience quality→
Pro-environmental behavior		0.196 **0.0683.689Supported
H6Place dependence→Place identity0.233 **0.0704.015Supported
** and *** indicate being significant at the level of 5% and 1% respectively.
Table 6. Mediation effect test of Study 1.
Table 6. Mediation effect test of Study 1.
EffectPathβ95% Confidenceinterval
Total effectTEQ→PEB0.131(0.1078, 0.1521)
Direct effectTEQ→PEB0.093(0.0685, 0.1186)
Indirect effectTEQ→PD→PEB0.037(0.0227, 0.0519)
TEQ→PI→PEB0.129(0.1081, 0.1522)
TEQ→PD→PI→PEB0.092(0.0653, 0.1174)
Table 7. Sample profile of Study 2.
Table 7. Sample profile of Study 2.
VariableValueFrequencyPercent (%)VariableValueFrequencyPercent (%)
GenderMale19447.32EducationJunior high school or below30.73
Female21652.68 Senior high school348.29
Age (years)<20102.44 College degree11929.02
21–305312.93 Bachelor’s degree or above25461.96
31–4018444.88OccupationFarmer102.44
41–5012831.22 Individual operator6616.10
51–60317.56 Service and sales personnel9222.44
>6040.97 Enterprise management personnel6515.85
Monthly income (CNY)<10005312.93 Temporary unemployed317.56
1001–400017743.17 Student348.29
4001–700012029.27 Civil servant/public institution (including teachers)5413.17
7001–10,000317.56 Professional and technical personnel5814.15
>10,000297.07
Table 8. Exploratory factor analysis of Study 2.
Table 8. Exploratory factor analysis of Study 2.
IndexVariableItemsFactor LoadingEigenvalueVariance Explained (%)Cronbach’s α
Travel experience qualityImmersionPlaying in the scenic spot frees me from reality and helps me truly enjoy myself.0.8785.28536.8490.907
When I was traveling in the scenic spot, I became so immersed that I forgot everything else.0.822
Playing in the scenic spot makes me feel like I’m in another world.0.803
When I was playing in the scenic spot, I forgot that time was passing by.0.769
SurpriseThere are some unexpected and unique attractions in the scenic spot.0.8654.47243.2270.852
The service in the scenic spot makes me feel special and valuable.0.813
The service of the scenic spot is consistent and reliable.0.739
ParticipationWhen traveling in scenic areas, I want to experience as many facilities as possible.0.8044.11957.6880.878
I participated in the activities provided by the scenic spot.0.793
I want to become a member of the scenic spot and enjoy benefits.0.722
FunI had a great time playing in the scenic spot.0.7323.03768.3940.830
I feel very excited while playing in the scenic spot.0.709
I really like this scenic spot.0.637
EducationVisiting this scenic spot makes me want to learn more about environmental protection knowledge.0.7281.53875.2960.811
Visiting this scenic spot has made me more concerned about environmental issues.0.703
Visiting this scenic spot has expanded my understanding of nature.0.648
Variance explained (%) = 75.296, KMO = 0.931, Bartlett (df = 21, p = 0.000)
Place attachmentPlace dependenceCompared to other scenic spots, I prefer this place.0.7983.02553.2970.804
Compared to other scenic spots, this scenic spot can better meet my tourism needs.0.768
This scenic spot has given me a sense of satisfaction that other scenic spots do not have.0.652
Place identityThis scenic spot is very special to me.0.7331.33765.0320.793
I have a strong sense of identification with this scenic spot.0.680
I really enjoy playing in this scenic spot.0.526
Variance explained (%) = 65.032, KMO = 0.875, Bartlett (df = 25, p = 0.000)
Pro-environmental behaviorPro-environmental behaviorI won’t litter while traveling.0.8712.07263.9410.856
I abide by the regulations of the scenic spot, not picking flowers or stepping on grass.0.784
I will remind fellow travelers not to damage the environment.0.745
When I see garbage on the ground during sightseeing, I will pick it up.0.704
I actively learn about environmental protection related knowledge.0.658
Variance explained (%) = 63.941, KMO = 0.832, Bartlett (df = 11, p = 0.000)
Table 9. Reliability and validity testing of Study 2.
Table 9. Reliability and validity testing of Study 2.
VariableItemsFactor LoadingAVECRKMOCronbach’s α
Overall scale ---0.8390.919
ImmersionPlaying in the scenic spot frees me from reality and helps me truly enjoy myself.0.8230.7610.9450.9010.943
When I was traveling in the scenic spot, I became so immersed that I forgot everything else.0.813
Playing in the scenic spot makes me feel like I’m in another world.0.783
When I was playing in the scenic spot, I forgot that time was passing by.0.738
SurpriseThere are some unexpected and unique attractions in the scenic spot.0.8810.7850.8390.8510.925
The service in the scenic spot makes me feel special and valuable.0.872
The service of the scenic spot is consistent and reliable.0.765
ParticipationWhen traveling in scenic areas, I want to experience as many facilities as possible.0.8630.7500.9040.8430.928
I participated in the activities provided by the scenic spot.0.859
I want to become a member of the scenic spot and enjoy benefits.0.721
FunI had a great time playing in the scenic spot.0.8660.8110.9340.8360.935
I feel very excited while playing in the scenic spot.0.853
I really like this scenic spot.0.802
EducationVisiting this scenic spot makes me want to learn more about environmental protection knowledge.0.8770.8330.9180.7420.921
Visiting this scenic spot has made me more concerned about environmental issues.0.842
Visiting this scenic spot has expanded my understanding of nature.0.787
Place dependenceCompared to other scenic spots, I prefer this place.0.8410.7720.9210.7370.903
Compared to other scenic spots, this scenic spot can better meet my tourism needs.0.765
This scenic spot has given me a sense of satisfaction that other scenic spots do not have.0.712
Place identityThis scenic spot is very special to me.0.8830.8340.9030.7290.889
I have a strong sense of identification with this scenic spot.0.825
I really enjoy playing in this scenic spot.0.767
Pro-environmental behaviorI won’t litter while traveling.0.8270.8650.9270.7010.857
I abide by the regulations of the scenic spot, not picking flowers or stepping on grass.0.769
I will remind fellow travelers not to damage the environment.0.743
When I see garbage on the ground during sightseeing, I will pick it up.0.701
I actively learn about environmental protection related knowledge.0.665
Table 10. Discriminant validity test of Study 2.
Table 10. Discriminant validity test of Study 2.
VariableImmersionSurpriseParticipationFunEducationPlace DependencePlace IdentityPro-Environmental Behavior
Immersion0.732
Surprise0.6670.802
Participation0.6710.3390.792
Fun0.5390.4750.5930.812
Education0.4060.4680.5450.7650.784
Place dependence0.7280.5270.4380.7360.5960.835
Place identity0.5670.4830.3730.8280.5530.6790.782
Pro-environmental behavior0.6420.4770.4060.5940.5170.5710.5370.768
Table 11. Hypothesis test results of Study 2.
Table 11. Hypothesis test results of Study 2.
HypothesisPathsβS.E.tResults
H1Tourists experience quality→
Place dependence		0.345 **0.0725.978Supported
H2Tourists experience quality→
Place identity		0.174 *0.0132.763Supported
H3Place dependence→Pro-environmental behavior0.258 **0.0344.599Supported
H4Place identity→Pro-environmental
behavior		0.216 **0.0264.527Supported
H5Tourists experience quality→
Pro-environmental behavior		0.542 ***0.0917.428Supported
H6Place dependence→Place identity0.257 **0.0314.015Supported
*, ** and *** indicate being significant at the level of 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.
Table 12. Mediation effect test of Study 2.
Table 12. Mediation effect test of Study 2.
EffectPathβ95% Confidence Interval
Total effectTEQ→PEB0.079(0.0508, 0.1021)
Direct effectTEQ→PEB0.043(0.0203, 0.0692)
Indirect effectTEQ→PD→PEB0.036(0.0211, 0.0511)
TEQ→PI→PEB0.044(0.0127, 0.0634)
TEQ→PD→PI→PEB0.041(0.0269, 0.0581)
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

Zhang, J.; Jin, L.; Pan, X.; Wang, Y. Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists in Ecotourism Scenic Spots: The Promoting Role of Tourist Experience Quality in Place Attachment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208984

AMA Style

Zhang J, Jin L, Pan X, Wang Y. Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists in Ecotourism Scenic Spots: The Promoting Role of Tourist Experience Quality in Place Attachment. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20):8984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208984

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jiantao, Li Jin, Xinning Pan, and Yang Wang. 2024. "Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists in Ecotourism Scenic Spots: The Promoting Role of Tourist Experience Quality in Place Attachment" Sustainability 16, no. 20: 8984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208984

APA Style

Zhang, J., Jin, L., Pan, X., & Wang, Y. (2024). Pro-Environmental Behavior of Tourists in Ecotourism Scenic Spots: The Promoting Role of Tourist Experience Quality in Place Attachment. Sustainability, 16(20), 8984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208984

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