An Investigation into the Formation of Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behavior in Geotourism: Balancing Tourism and Ecosystem Preservation

Abstract

Tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB) is crucial in promoting the sustainable development of tourism worldwide. It has received increased attention from scholars in different fields of tourism, but relevant research on the normative activation and formation process of TPEB in geotourism is lacking. Given the complexity of behavioral causes and norm activation, this study is grounded in multiple theories, including the norm activation model (NAM), behavioral reasoning theory (BRT), and complexity theory, to illustrate the formation process of TPEB in geotourism. The Zhangye National Geopark, which is located in Gansu Province, China, was chosen as the research case for this study. In total, 502 valid survey responses were utilized for data analysis using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). The PLS-SEM results showed that tourist intention for pro-environmental behaviors is linearly affected by moral norms, attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioral control, which are the key components in the NAM and BRT. The fsQCA results identified six causal recipes components that influence the formation of intention for pro-environmental behaviors, confirming the causal complexity principle of complexity theory. Among these, environmental awareness, anticipated emotion of pride, moral norms, attitude, and social norms are considered core variables. These research findings provide significant management guidance and strategies for the environmental protection of geoparks and the sustainable development of geotourism.

1. Introduction

Geoparks are defined as unified geographical areas featuring landscapes and sites of geological significance, serving as excellent platforms for promoting sustainable development and appreciating natural and cultural diversity [1,2,3]. Since the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) formally approved the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme (IGGP) in 2015, geoparks have gained global attention and experienced rapid growth [2]. Geopark certification and conservation have made remarkable progress [4]. China hosts 41 UNESCO Global Geoparks, representing 25.5% of the world’s total, and ranking first globally. These parks attract 499 million tourists annually and employ 464,100 individuals directly and 2,585,500 indirectly [2,3]. This highlights the critical role of developing geopark tourism as an essential means to promote local employment and economic income. However, due to the complex and fragile natural ecosystems and limited self-restoration capacity, geoparks face increasing tension between development and ecological conservation; this challenge is exacerbated by environmental damage caused by inappropriate tourist behavior [2,4]. In recent years, the protection of tourism destinations has gained increasing attention at the regional and local levels, and tourists have gradually recognized the importance of environmental management for sustainable tourism development [4,5]. Previous studies by Xie et al. [4], Esfandiar et al. [5], Li et al. [6], Xu et al. [7], and Li et al. [8] have consistently demonstrated that tourists’ pro-environmental behavior (TPEB) is crucial for the sustainable development of tourism destinations, and this has become a focal research topic within both the academic and industrial sectors of tourism. Given the urgent need for sustainable development and environmental protection in geoparks, it is essential to investigate the formation mechanism of TPEB in geotourism.

In view of the existing literature on geotourism and TPEB, several aspects can be supplemented to enhance understandings of this field. Firstly, empirical studies on TPEB in the context of geotourism are limited [4,8]. Although the importance of TPEB has been emphasized in the development of the tourism industry [6,7], broader investigation on the formation of TPEB within diverse tourism contexts is needed [9,10,11]. For instance, existing research works by Long et al. [1], Zhu et al. [2], Kudla [3], and Xia [12] predominantly center on the integration of geoparks with science tourism and the significance of TPEB in the conservation of geological resources, while limited empirical evidence discusses the formation process of TPEB in geoparks [4,5]. Secondly, the merging of multiple theories to analyze the causes and norm activation in TPEB has not been fully explored in geotourism. The scattered discussions on geotourism and environmental conservation have primarily addressed national environmental policies and the societal dimensions of geographic education [13,14]. Previous research on environmentally responsible behavior has shown that the Norm Activation Model (NAM) for explaining pro-social behavior has become a widely adopted framework for understanding the formation of TPEB [5,11,15]. The NAM plays a fundamental role in shaping individuals’ pro-environmental actions and green consumption behaviors of various forms, such as organic food consumption, recycling, and waste avoidance [16,17]. Meanwhile, the behavioral reasoning theory (BRT) has also been adopted by researchers to explain the specific reasons and/or overarching motives for individual green behavior decisions in different scenarios, such as employee pro-environmental practices, green hotel patronage, and other green purchase actions [18,19,20]. Therefore, the combined application of BRT and NAM can more effectively predict the formation of TPEB in the context of geotourism. Thirdly, the complexity of the formation of TPEB in geotourism has not been discussed by researchers [4,21]. Particularly, the nonlinear causal mechanisms for TPEB may vary with different conditions, implying it is crucial to systematically consider causal logic to explain geotourism tourists’ intention for pro-environmental behaviors.

Previous studies focusing on the complexity of tourists’ psychology and behavior have declared that the traditional analytical methods, such as structural equation modeling (SEM), are useful in examining the linear relationships between variables, emphasizing simple and symmetric associations between antecedents and outcomes [21,22]. However, they fail to focus on the nonlinear causal relationships between independent and dependent variables, and have not accurately captured the asymmetrical configurations consisting of antecedent condition. The traditional regression analysis offers limited insights into the “black box” of tourist behavior. Based on the principals of complexity theory, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) is an asymmetric causality evaluation approach that utilizes Boolean logic to identify configurations of various variables, thereby facilitating the examination of aggregated relationships and enabling the implementation of comprehensive pathways [22,23]. Given the necessity of integrating both SEM and fsQCA to address this issue [4,21,22], and the lack of previous research examining how the NAM and BRT jointly influence TPEB in geotourism, it would be beneficial to utilize these two approaches (i.e., SEM and fsQCA) to examine the symmetric and asymmetric effects of relevant factors of the NAM and BRT in accurately predicting tourists’ intention to engage in pro-environmental actions in the context of geotourism.

This study takes the Zhangye National Geopark, which is located in Gansu Province, China, as a research case to reveal how the factors involved in the BRT and the NAM influence the formation of tourists’ intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, both linearly and nonlinearly, in the geotourism context, thereby addressing the aforementioned research gaps. Specifically, this study puts forward three research objectives: (1) to establish a research framework combining BRT and the NAM to test the net effects of related factors on the environmental behavior intention of tourists in geological tourism areas, using the PLS-SEM; (2) to identify the asymmetric causal factors that lead to the generation of intention for pro-environmental behaviors (IPB) among geopark tourists, with the fsQCA; and (3) to propose scientific and effective recommendations for related destination management organizations (DMOs) and managers to better promote TPEB and contribute to the ecological conservation of geoparks and the sustainable development of geotourism.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Research Case: The Zhangye National Geopark

The Zhangye National Geopark is located across the Sunan and Linze counties of Zhangye City (see Figure 1) in Gansu Province, China, covering an area of 322 square kilometers. Renowned for its vividly colored Danxia landforms, it has been recognized as one of the most striking landscapes in China. Danxia landforms are a unique geological formation found exclusively in China, developing atop red beds and characterized by steep cliff faces (see Figure 2a–d). Their formation typically involves red-bed sedimentation, tectonic processes following sediment deposition, and erosion after the uplift of these red beds [24]. Such geological evolution creates spectacular red cliffs and steep rock walls while preserving valuable variegated clay deserts from the Early Cretaceous, offering critical evidence for studying paleo-environments, paleoclimates, and tectonic evolution [12]. Given its great value in geological research, ecological conservation, and tourism development, the Geopark received designation as a national geopark in 2016 and was recognized as a UNESCO Global Geopark in 2019. It currently hosts 330 tourism shops, hotels, and restaurants, employing over 4000 staff, and geotourism provides a key channel for income generation within the local community. In 2018, the Zhangye National Geopark received 2.54 million visitors, growing at an average annual rate of 30%, becoming the largest and fastest-growing scenic spot in Gansu Province, and a prominent tourist destination along the Silk Road tourism route [25]. However, with the surge in tourists, behaviors such as trampling on the Danxia landforms, digging for the distinctive red soil, and littering have caused significant and even irreversible ecological damage. This indicates that it is crucial to investigate the mechanism that activates and promotes TPEB in geotourism [2,3]. As such, utilizing the Zhangye National Geopark as a case study to investigate the formation of TPEB could provide an essential reference to guide the ecological development of geotourism from a broader perspective.

2.2. Tourist Intention Regarding Pro-Environmental Behaviors

With the increased awareness of the need for an ecological civilization, the academic community has begun to explore TPEB from multiple perspectives, including environmental responsibility and ecological protection [6,7,9,26]. The description of TPEB can differ across various tourism settings, but tourists’ IPB aims to minimize the negative impacts of tourism activities on the natural environment through the practice of pro-environmental actions; alternatively, it focuses on ensuring ecological protection by engaging in rational and mindful actions [21,26,27]. The benefits of investigating TPEB in geotourism are multifaceted; particularly, it is essential to develop geoparks in a sustainable way. Previous studies have shown that TPEB has a positive impact on the ecological environment and natural heritage protection, which in turn helps to enhance the image and competitive advantage of tourism destinations [4,9,28]. Chi et al. [18], He et al. [9], and Manosuthi et al. [22] have highlighted the crucial role that individuals’ intention to act in an environmentally friendly manner plays in promoting tourism’s sustainability. Their studies identify intrinsic psychological motives and moral norms as the main factors influencing tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior [9,18,22]. However, research on environmentally responsible behavior within research on geotourism remains limited [2,3,4]; in particular, there is a shortage of empirical research from the viewpoint of tourists’ norm activation and behavioral cause analysis.

2.3. Norm Activation Model

The NAM and its extensions have proven effective in explaining pro-social and eco-friendly behaviors [5,11,15,29]. In the tourism industry, the NAM enables researchers to examine the factors influencing tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviors in different contexts, such as green consumption, eco-friendly tourism, and convention tourism [29,30,31]. The original NAM comprises several key constructs: problem awareness (PA), ascribed responsibility (AR), personal norms (PN), and IPB [30,31]. PA refers to an individual’s recognition of and concern about the negative impact of non-altruistic behaviors on society or the environment; AR denotes an individual’s self-perception of their responsibility for specific social or environmental issues; PN can be described as moral norms (MN) and represent the moral obligation to perform or avoid specific behaviors; and IPB refers to the intention to address or improve a situation, driven by moral responsibility, in order to address related social or environmental issues [30,31,32,33].

As the scope of application of the NAM continues to expand, the importance of anticipated emotions in explaining pro-social/pro-environmental behavior is becoming increasingly evident [31]. Many tourism studies have incorporated both the anticipated emotion of pride (AEP) and the anticipated emotion of guilt (AEG) into the NAM to better explain environmental behavior and decision-making [31,34,35]. AEP refers to the positive emotion that an individual expects to feel after engaging in pro-social or pro-environmental actions, while ASG describes the negative emotion anticipated when failing to take such actions [31,36].

The extended NAM offers a more comprehensive description of the norm activation process. In particular, individuals’ awareness of environmental or social issues leads them to develop a sense of AR, which could further drive their AEP and AEG. These anticipated emotions play a significant role in strengthening individuals’ MN, ultimately eliciting a stronger intention to engage in pro-social/pro-environmental behaviors (i.e., PA → AR → AEP and AEG → PN → IPB). The robustness of the extended NAM has been validated in convention tourism, the responsible airline industry, etc. [31,34,35], but it has not been empirically examined in the geotourism context.

As academia has increasingly recognized the importance of tourists’ pro-environmental actions for the sustainable development of tourism destinations, many studies have adopted the extended NAM to predict TPEB [31,32,33,34,35,36]. For example, a study by Joo et al. [37] on green consumption behaviors in indoor smart farm restaurants demonstrated that tourists’ environmental awareness of the pollution caused by the restaurant industry triggered a self-imposed sense of responsibility to protect the environment. Han et al. [31] pointed out that anticipated emotions are the bridge in the relationship between cognitive triggers and the intention to engage in green activities, while personal norms are the most important driving force for participation in green activities. Considering that TPEB is essential to protect the complex and diverse ecosystems of geotourism destinations, the activation process of tourists’ IPB deserves further elaboration [4,5]. Nonetheless, research utilizing the extended NAM to predict tourists’ pro-environmental intentions in the context of geotourism remains limited. Based on the aforementioned discussion, we put forward the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Environmental awareness significantly influences ascribed responsibility.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Ascribed responsibility significantly influences the anticipated emotion of pride.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Ascribed responsibility significantly influences the anticipated emotion of guilt.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

The anticipated emotion of pride significantly influences moral norms.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). 

The anticipated emotion of guilt significantly influences moral norms.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). 

Moral norms significantly influence the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

2.4. Behavioral Reasoning Theory

Westaby [38] explained the BRT, which provides the key theoretical foundation to predict and understand the formation of individual behavior by examining the relationships between values, reasons, attitudes (AT), and behavioral intentions, providing a supplement to behavioral theory research. The advantage of BRT over other theories is that it provides a more comprehensive explanation of decision-making based on behavioral cause analysis [39,40]. Reasons for behavior (RFB) are considered to have a significant influence on attitudes, and reasons against the behavior (RAB) could also significantly influence attitudes, which in turn leads to the generation of behavioral intentions [18,41]. Relevant studies have shown that the application of BRT is of great significance in analyzing individual green behaviors [40,41], providing in-depth insights into behaviors such as organic food consumption, e-waste recycling, and the selection of pet-friendly hotels [18,41,42,43].

The BRT has been extended to comprehensively explain the formation of pro-social/pro-environmental behavior in different contexts [43,44]. In the studies of individual environmentally responsible behaviors, Ajzen, and Kruglanski [44], Chi et al. [18], and Meng et al. [43] used the BRT to demonstrate how the reasons for and against certain behaviors significantly affect global motives in decision-making. Meanwhile, the constructs of AT, social norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) are typically viewed as major components of global motives [18,43,44]. In terms of evaluating the global motives for pro-environmental behavior, AT refers to an individual’s overall evaluation of eco-friendly behavior; SN reflects an individual’s perceived call for environmental protection from society and their degree of participation in following the advice of important friends or relatives regarding pro-environmental actions; and PBC indicates an individual’s perception of their ability and the resources required to engage in pro-environmental actions [43,44].

In general, individuals evaluate the value of environmentally responsible behavior in view of RFB and RAB, which collectively influence their AT, SN, and PBC towards pro-environmental behavior, leading to different degrees of intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (i.e., RFB and RAB → AT, SN, and PBC → IPB) [18,42,43,44]. In particular, compared with the factors that hinder pro-environmental behavior, if the reasons for which individuals support pro-environmental behavior dominate, they will exhibit a more positive attitude towards pro-environmental behavior. Meanwhile, under the stronger social norms related to protecting the environment and weaker perceived behavioral control, their IPB could be significantly strengthened. While the above discussion underscores the importance of BRT in explaining individual green behaviors, there is little research on the use of BRT to examine the links between the reasons, global motives (i.e., AT, SN, and PBC), and intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors in geoparks. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 7 (H7). 

The reasons for behavior significantly influence attitude.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). 

The reasons for behavior significantly influence social norms.

Hypothesis 9 (H9). 

The reasons for behavior significantly influence perceived behavioral control.

Hypothesis 10 (H10). 

The reasons against behavior significantly influence attitude.

Hypothesis 11 (H11). 

The reasons against behavior significantly influence social norms.

Hypothesis 12 (H12). 

The reasons against behavior significantly influence perceived behavioral control.

Hypothesis 13 (H13). 

Attitude significantly influences the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

Hypothesis 14 (H14). 

Social norms significantly influence intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

Hypothesis 15 (H15). 

Perceived behavioral control significantly influences intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

2.5. Complexity Theory

The complexity theory, originating from chaos theory, posits that equifinality, asymmetry, and conjunctural causation exist in any complex situation, where the outcomes can be predicted using the interactions of various components [21,45]. Different configurations of conditions may lead to similar outcomes, and the complexity theory offers insights into this through nonlinear causal formulations [4,21]. Thus, it provides a theoretical basis for the examination of the intricacies of social phenomena in the tourism sector [46,47]. The fsQCA is a hybrid analytical approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the causal relations between antecedent conditions and specific outcomes through a configurational analysis [45,48]. The fsQCA adheres to three core principles (i.e., equivalence, asymmetry, and causality), representing the fundamental ideas of complexity theory [46,48,49].

Prior research has evaluated the linear effects of the NAM and BRT in shaping individuals’ environmentally responsible behaviors within the contexts of cruise tourism, green hotels, convention tourism, and pet-friendly hotels [11,18,29,34,43]. Meanwhile, studies by Mehran et al. [49], Jiao et al. [50], and Xie et al. [4] pointed out that the causal complexity of investigating individuals’ IPB requires deeper investigation [4,49,50]. Moreover, this has not been sufficiently examined in several tourism fields, including ecotourism and geotourism [4,51,52]. The formation of individuals’ behavioral intention is a complex causal process involving the asymmetric configuration of various conditions, rather than the linear effect of a single factor [21,51]. Therefore, as suggested by the works of Manosuthi et al. [52] and Bacharach [53], this study utilizes the fsQCA to illustrate how the intricate interplay among various antecedent conditions contributes to the prediction of different levels of IPB in geotourism. Thus, two propositions are introduced to verify the asymmetric configurations of the variables from the NAM and BRT, which could provide vital insights for the prediction of individuals’ IPB in geoparks.

Proposition 1. 

The NAM variables have the optimal combined impact on the intention for pro-environmental behaviors.

Proposition 2. 

The BRT variables have the optimal combined impact on the intention for pro-environmental behaviors.

This study presents a conceptual framework, involving the variables of the NAM and BRT (i.e., EA, AR, AEP, AEG, MN, RFB, RAB, AT, SN, PBC, and IPB). As shown in Figure 3, the structural model examines the net effects between the studied variables, while the configurational model investigates causal recipes that can be utilized to predict a high level of IPB.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measures

All measurement instruments were adapted from the related prior studies, with appropriate modifications to fit the context of the Zhangye National Geopark. The NAM variables (i.e., EA, AR, AEP, and AEG) each had three measurement items, sourced from Han et al. [31], Kang [15], and Xie et al. [4]. Three measurement items were utilized for measuring each of the BRT variables (i.e., AT, SN, and PBC), while four items were used for evaluating the variables of RFB and RAB. These items were obtained from Ahmad and Harun [41], Chi et al. [18], and Xie et al. [4], respectively. The variable of IPB was measured with five items from Luo et al. [54] and Shipley and van Riper [36]. The survey questionnaire consists of three sections: a brief description of the research purpose, demographic information, and measurement items. A seven-point Likert scale was used in the survey questionnaire, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with no reverse-coded questions included. Considering that all participants were Chinese, the finalized English survey was translated into Chinese using the blind back-translation method. Then, two experts in tourism management and geography reviewed the survey questionnaire and made slight improvements to ensure the content was consistent and could face validity measurement.

The data analysis was performed using the SPSS26.0, Python3.10, Smart PLS 4.0, and fsQCA 4.1 software. SPSS 26.0 was used to evaluate demographic characteristics of the samples. Python programming was utilized for the visualization analysis of various variables. The partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) was applied to test the reliability and validity of study constructs. Bacharach [52] emphasized that theoretical scholars should propose necessary-and-sufficient relationships to ensure logical falsifiability, suggesting that the administration research should shift from focusing solely on linear relationships to exploring necessary conditions and causal recipes. This transition not only enhances falsifiability, but also uncovers sufficient influential relationships rather than negligible weak correlations. Therefore, this study also adopted the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to measure the necessary conditions for outcome variable and to examine the complex causality between antecedent variables and outcome variable (the nonlinear configurational effects of variables on TPEB).

3.2. Data Collection

The survey began in early September 2024 and lasted three weeks, with two screening questions (i.e., Have you been to the Zhangye National Geopark? When was the last time you visited the Zhangye National Geopark?). Data collection was conducted through a marketing research company in China, which operated an online survey platform (www.wjx.cn) that was accessible to users across various social networking service (SNS) tools. In order to increase engagement with this survey, participants could receive RMB 6 as the fee for participating in the questionnaire. A total of 502 valid cases were retained after excluding invalid ones, such as cases with missing values greater than 10%.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics and Word Cloud Analysis

The demographic information of the sample is shown in

Table 1. Demographic information and travel characteristics.

Variables	N (502)	%	Variables	N (502)	%
Gender			Occupation
Female	240	47.8%	Institutional organization/Civil servant	33	6.6%
Male	262	52.2%	Company staff	195	38.8%
Age			Full-time self-employed	117	23.3%
18–25	127	25.3%	Part-time employment	48	9.6%
26–30	187	37.2%	Unemployed	12	2.4%
31–40	151	30.1%	Student	83	16.5%
41–50	28	5.6%	Other	14	2.8%
Over 50	9	1.8%	Education
Income			High school or below	29	5.8%
Less than RMB 3000	125	24.9%	Three-year high school or college	151	30.1%
RMB 3001~6000	178	35.5%	Bachelor’s degree	238	47.4%
RMB 6001~15,000	143	28.5%	Master’s degree	69	13.7%
Over RMB 15,000	56	11.2%	Doctorate or above	15	3.0%

. Based on the survey responses, Python programming was utilized to generate a word cloud, which described the frequency trends regarding the significance that the respondents attached to the studied variables (see Figure 4). A word cloud, as a data visualization tool for analyzing content importance, can effectively extract key information and themes from large datasets. As suggested by Chi et al. [21], the Python programming was used to code the collected geotourism survey data into word clouds, illustrating the frequency of importance assigned by the respondents to various research variables. In the word cloud, social norms and moral norms appeared in larger fonts, indicating that these two constructs were perceived as quite significant factors by the participants. The word cloud analysis is limited in its ability to fully capture linear interactions and causal complexities among study variables. Therefore, the PLS-SEM and fsQCA were employed to delve deeper into the linear relationships between study variables and causal recipes for outcome variable.

4.2. Common Method Variance

Before the evaluation of the measurement model, Harman’s single-factor test was carried out to determine whether there was common method bias in the survey data. This indicated that 28.811% of the total variance was explained by the first factor, which was lower than the suggested criterion of 40% [55], indicating that this study was not affected by common method bias.

4.3. Measurement Model Analysis

As shown in

Table 2. Measurement items.

Construct and Items		λ	M
Environmental Awareness (EA)	α = 0.853, CR = 0.854, AVE = 0.773
EA1. When I visit the Zhangye National Geopark, I realize the necessity of protecting the ecological environment of the surrounding area.		0.894	4.37
EA2. When I visit the Zhangye National Geopark, I realize that tourist behaviors could threaten its ecological environment conservation.		0.879	4.45
EA3. When I visit the Zhangye National Geopark, I realize there has been some ecological damage caused by negative tourism activities.		0.865	4.37
Ascribed Responsibility (AR)	α = 0.882, CR = 0.885, AVE = 0.809
AR1. I believe that every tourist to the Zhangye National Geopark must bear some responsibility for the current environmental problems.		0.904	4.69
AR2. I bear collective responsibility for the environmental problems of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.909	4.64
AR3. I bear some responsibility for the environmental degradation of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.885	4.77
Anticipated Emotion of Pride (AEP)	α = 0.840, CR = 0.842, AVE = 0.758
AEP1. If I practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel proud.		0.879	4.47
AEP2. If I practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel a sense of accomplishment.		0.863	4.39
AEP3. If I practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel confident.		0.870	4.33
Anticipated Emotion of Guilt (AEG)	α = 0.780, CR = 0.784, AVE = 0.694
AEG1. If I do not practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel guilty.		0.843	4.27
AEG2. If I do not practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel regretful.		0.820	4.33
AEG3. If I do not practice environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark, I will feel sorry.		0.837	4.32
Moral Norms (MN)	α = 0.895, CR = 0.895, AVE = 0.826
MN1. I feel morally obliged to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark based on my beliefs and principles.		0.919	4.70
MN2. I believe that it is a moral obligation to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.903	4.87
MN3. I feel a moral obligation to engage in pro-environmental activities organized by the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.906	4.79
Intention for Pro-environmental Behaviors (IPB)	α = 0.908, CR = 0.914, AVE = 0.731
IPB1. I will support the environmental tourism development initiatives of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.874	4.59
IPB2. I will participate in the environmental tourism-related activities of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.860	4.73
IPB3. I will encourage my relatives and friends to visit Zhangye National Geopark in a pro-environmental way.		0.862	4.72
IPB4. I will comply with the Zhangye National Geopark’s environmental supervision standards to reduce the potential negative impacts caused by tourism activities.		0.844	4.66
IPB5. I will actively participate in the environmental education and protection activities of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.835	4.66
Attitude (AT)	α = 0.858, CR = 0.860, AVE = 0.779
AT1. I think it is smart to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.886	4.57
AT2. I think it is wise to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.892	4.57
AT3. I think it is enjoyable to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.869	4.55
Social Norms (SN)	α = 0.883, CR = 0.883, AVE = 0.810
SN1. People whose opinions I value support my participation in pro-environmental activities at the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.895	4.86
SN2. Under the influence of social environmental protection calls and the regulations on pro-environmental behaviors, I am willing to behave in a pro-environmental way at the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.906	4.80
SN3. Most people who are important to me think that I should practice pro-environmental behaviors at the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.898	4.87
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)	α = 0.831, CR = 0.834, AVE = 0.747
PBC1. I have the time and opportunity to participate in the pro-environmental activities of the Zhangye National Geopark.		0.877	4.47
PBC2. I can participate in the pro-environmental activities of the Zhangye National Geopark at any time.		0.875	4.59
PBC3. Whether I participate in the pro-environmental activities of the Zhangye National Geopark is entirely up to me.		0.841	4.35
Reasons for the Behavior (RFB)	α = 0.850, CR = 0.854, AVE = 0.691
RFB1. I believe that practicing pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark can bring social benefits (e.g., the progress of ecological civilization in human society).		0.814	4.42
RFB2. I believe that practicing pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark can bring environmental benefits (e.g., the protection of local ecosystems).		0.858	4.34
RFB3. I think practicing pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark can improve the environmental quality.		0.868	4.46
RFB4. I think practicing pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark will help maintain biodiversity.		0.782	4.36
Reasons against the Behavior (RAB)	α = 0.886, CR = 0.888, AVE = 0.746
RAB1. I think it is difficult to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark due to the high promotion cost.		0.887	3.04
RAB2. I think it is difficult to practice pro-environmental behaviors in the Zhangye National Geopark because the cost and manpower required for waste disposal are too high.		0.864	3.33
RAB3. I think it is difficult to practice pro-environmental behavior in the Zhangye National Geopark due to the lack of relevant management personnel.		0.885	3.36
RAB4. I think it is difficult to practice pro-environmental behavior in the Zhangye National Geopark due to insufficient environmental awareness among tourists and the lack of relevant environmental protection rules and regulations		0.816	3.39

Note: λ: Factor loading. M: Mean. α: Cronbach alpha. CR: Composite reliability. AVE: Average variance extracted.

, in the measurement model assessment phase, the standardized factor loadings of the studied variables were between 0.782 and 0.919, exceeding the criterion of 0.6 [46]. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for all studied variables were greater than 0.6, and the Composite Reliability (CR) values were greater than 0.7, surpassing the suggested cutoffs of 0.5 and 0.7, respectively [56,57]. All Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were between 0.780 and 0.908, exceeding the threshold of 0.7 [58]. This demonstrates the good convergent validity of items measuring the same construct and the satisfactory internal consistency and reliability among the study constructs. Meanwhile, we evaluated discriminant validity using the HTMT criterion, which is regarded as more robust and precise than the Fornell–Larcker criterion [59]. The results indicated that all HTMT ratios were below the recommended threshold of 0.9 (

Table 3. Discriminant validity using HTMT criterion.

	AEG	AEP	AR	AT	EA	IPB	MN	PBC	RAB	RFB	SN
AEG
AEP	0.546
AR	0.557	0.587
AT	0.571	0.571	0.583
EA	0.589	0.553	0.562	0.597
IPB	0.498	0.390	0.433	0.731	0.570
MN	0.522	0.484	0.457	0.648	0.613	0.787
PBC	0.558	0.538	0.507	0.762	0.598	0.709	0.668
RAB	0.411	0.419	0.343	0.525	0.375	0.333	0.275	0.377
RFB	0.522	0.531	0.460	0.583	0.486	0.460	0.432	0.507	0.466
SN	0.426	0.433	0.463	0.691	0.565	0.719	0.769	0.676	0.314	0.483

Note: AEG: anticipated emotion of guilt; AEP: anticipated emotion of pride; AR: ascribed responsibility; AT: attitude; EA: environmental awareness; IPB: intention for pro-environmental behaviors; MN: moral norms; PBC: perceived behavioral control; RAB: reasons against the behavior; RFB: reasons for the behavior; SN: social norms.

), thereby confirming the discriminant validity of the constructs [60].

4.4. Structural Model Analysis

The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was utilized to gauge the fit of the structural model. The obtained SRMR value of 0.043 was lower than the stipulated threshold of 0.10, thereby indicating an acceptable level of model fit [61]. As presented in

Table 4. Standard parameter estimates of the structural model.

Hypotheses	Paths	Coefficient	t-Value	p-Value	Status
H1	EA→AR	0.489	13.164	0.000	Supported
H2	AR→AEP	0.507	14.113	0.000	Supported
H3	AR→AEG	0.464	12.150	0.000	Supported
H4	AEP→MN	0.282	6.481	0.000	Supported
H5	AEG→MN	0.314	7.398	0.000	Supported
H6	MN→IPB	0.381	9.250	0.000	Supported
H7	RFB→AT	0.377	9.180	0.000	Supported
H8	RFB→SN	0.368	8.187	0.000	Supported
H9	RFB→PBC	0.355	7.955	0.000	Supported
H10	RAB→AT	−0.306	7.297	0.000	Supported
H11	RAB→SN	−0.129	2.919	0.004	Supported
H12	RAB→PBC	−0.182	4.167	0.000	Supported
H13	AT→IPB	0.241	5.556	0.000	Supported
H14	SN→IPB	0.153	3.561	0.000	Supported
H15	PBC→IPB	0.158	4.083	0.000	Supported

Note: EA: environmental awareness; AR: ascribed responsibility; AEP: anticipated emotion of pride; AEG: anticipated emotion of guilt; MN: moral norms; IPB: intention for pro-environmental behaviors; AT: attitude; SN: social norms; PBC: perceived behavioral control; RFB: reasons for the behavior; RAB: reasons against the behavior.

, environmental awareness significantly influenced ascribed responsibility (β = 0.489, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Ascribed responsibility significantly influenced the anticipated emotions of pride (β = 0.507, p < 0.001) and guilt (β = 0.464, p < 0.001), supporting H2 and H3. The anticipated emotions of pride and guilt significantly influenced moral norms (β = 0.282, p < 0.001; β = 0.314, p < 0.001), supporting H4 and H5. Additionally, moral norms significantly influenced the intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.381, p < 0.001), supporting H6. The reasons for the behavior significantly influenced attitude (β = 0.377, p < 0.001), social norms (β = 0.368, p < 0.001), and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.355, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H7, H8, and H9. The reasons against the behavior negatively influenced attitude (β = −0.306, p < 0.001), social norms (β = −0.129, p < 0.01), and perceived behavioral control (β = −0.182, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H10, H11, and H12. Furthermore, attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioral control positively influenced the intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior (β = 0.241, p < 0.001; β = 0.153, p < 0.001; β = 0.158, p < 0.001), supporting H13, H14, and H15. The findings emphasize and validate the synergistic role of the NAM and BRT in investigating individuals’ pro-environmental decision-making [4,5,18,20,29,32,39].

4.5. Necessary Condition Analysis

This study included an examination of the antecedent conditional necessity, which was performed with the aid of fsQCA. Following the suggestions of Toth et al. [62], a necessity consistency threshold of 0.9 was adopted to denote the criticality of a particular condition for the resultant outcome. As demonstrated in

Table 5. Necessary conditions analysis of intention for pro-environmental behaviors.

Outcome (IPB)
Antecedent conditions in the NAM	Consistency	Coverage
EA	0.733	0.777
~EA	0.533	0.541
AR	0.712	0.729
~AR	0.520	0.546
AEP	0.684	0.734
~AEP	0.579	0.581
AEG	0.718	0.730
~AEG	0.544	0.575
MN	0.799	0.820
~MN	0.468	0.490
Antecedent conditions in theBRT	Consistency	Coverage
RFB	0.712	0.736
~RFB	0.539	0.551
RAB	0.545	0.571
~RFB	0.698	0.716
AT	0.807	0.790
~AT	0.452	0.498
SN	0.781	0.804
~SN	0.488	0.5
PBC	0.778	0.787
~PBC	0.491	0.522

Note: indicates negation condition; IPB: intention for pro-environmental behaviors; EA: environmental awareness; AR: ascribed responsibility; AEP: anticipated emotion of pride; AEG: anticipated emotion of guilt; MN: moral norms; RFB: reasons for the behavior; RAB: reasons against the behavior; AT: attitude; SN: social norms; PBC: perceived behavioral control.

, the results of the necessary condition analysis (NCA) revealed that the consistency scores for all conditions fell short of the 0.9 threshold, implying that no individual factor acted as a necessary condition for the outcome of the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. However, the consistency values of attitude, moral norms, and social norms were relatively high in the NCA, suggesting the ascendant importance in explaining the intention for pro-environmental behaviors. This corresponds with the results of the previous word cloud analysis where these three variables were scored by respondents in a positive way. The NCA findings also align with previous studies on TPEB [30,31], indicating that attitude, social norms, and moral norms are critically important for analyzing the activation of TPEB. Furthermore, this supports Bacharch’s [52] assertion that scholars need to adequately consider the falsifiability of logic in theoretical analyses by identifying the relative necessity of related variables.

4.6. Identification of Causal Factors

The generated truth table yielded related standard, complex, parsimonious, and intermediate solutions, identifying core and presence conditions for the analysis of behavioral intention. As shown in

Table 6. Causal recipes leading to intention for pro-environmental behaviors.

Antecedent conditions in the NAM	Solution 1	Solution 2	Solution 3
EA	●	●	●
AR	●		⊗
AEP		●	⊗
AEG	●	●	⊗
MN	●	●	●
Consistency	0.893	0.896	0.942
Raw coverage	0.488	0.472	0.250
Unique coverage	0.036	0.022	0.053
Overall solution consistency		0.891
Overall solution coverage		0.577
Antecedent conditions in the BRT	Solution 1	Solution 2	Solution 3
RFB		●	●
RAB		⊗	⊗
AT	●	●	●
SN	●	●
PBC	●		●
Consistency	0.892	0.914	0.908
Raw coverage	0.600	0.479	0.485
Unique coverage	0.169	0.039	0.045
Overall solution consistency		0.877
Overall solution coverage		0.684

Note: ● = causal condition present; ⊗ = causal condition absent; blank space = do not care condition; large circle: core condition; small circle: peripheral condition; EA: environmental awareness; AR: ascribed responsibility; AEP: anticipated emotion of pride; AEG: anticipated emotion of guilt; MN: moral norms; IPB: intention for pro-environmental behaviors; RFB: reasons for the behavior; RAB: reasons against the behavior; AT: attitude; SN: social norms; PBC: perceived behavioral control.

, in the configuration of the NAM variables, the coverage rate of the overall solution was 0.577, and the consistency level of the solution was 0.891. In the configuration of the BRT variables, the overall solution coverage was 0.684, and the solution conformance level was 0.877. These levels of coverage and consistency values exceeded the thresholds of 0.5 and 0.8 [63], indicating the high interpretability of the solutions obtained in this study.

In the configurations of the NAM variables, solution 1 suggests that the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors can be realized when environmental awareness, moral norms, and the anticipated emotion of guilt exist concurrently as the core conditions and ascribed responsibility exists as the peripheral condition. Solution 2 suggests that pro-environmental intention can be achieved regardless of the degree of ascribed responsibility, when the anticipated emotion of pride exists as the peripheral condition and environmental awareness, the anticipated emotion of guilt, and moral norms exist simultaneously as the core conditions. Solution 3 suggests that the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors can be easily formed even in the absence of ascribed responsibility, the anticipated emotion of pride, and the anticipated emotion of guilt, when environmental awareness is present as the core condition and moral norms as the peripheral condition.

In the configurations of the BRP variables, solution 1 shows that the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors can be realized when both attitude and social norms exist as the core conditions and perceived behavioral control exists as the peripheral condition. Solution 2 suggests that pro-environmental intention can be achieved, in the absence of reasons against the behavior, with the existence of when reasons for the behavior are present as the peripheral condition and attitude and social norms are present as the core conditions. Solution 3 suggests that the intention for pro-environmental behaviors can also be realized in the absence of reasons against the behavior, when perceived behavioral control is present as the core condition and reasons for the behavior and attitude are present as the peripheral conditions. Overall, Propositions 1 and 2 are supported.

The fsQCA findings also echoed the word cloud analysis, that is, the larger font representation of ‘attitude’, ‘social norms’, and ‘moral norms’ in the word cloud, corresponding with their frequent occurrence in the majority of identified solutions that are used to predict the formation of the outcome (intention for pro-environmental behaviors). The identification of causal configurations was consistent with the previous findings that individuals’ intention to practice pro-environmental actions in geotourism is a complex process, largely depending on the causality connection with various antecedent conditions [4,46,48].

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study took the Zhangye National Geopark, designated as a UNESCO Global Geopark, as a case study, providing valuable insights into the formation process of TPEB within the context of geotourism. Firstly, the word cloud analysis provided preliminary insights for the study, offering a visual assessment of the significance of research variables among geotourism respondents, which supported the previous study of Chi et al. [21]. Secondly, this research examined the linear and nonlinear effects of antecedent variables on the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors by integrating the NAM, BRT, and complexity theory. The PLS-SEM results indicated that all hypotheses proposed in this study were supported. From the perspective of causility, the fsQCA identified six causal factors leading to the formation of the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Within the NAM framework, environmental awareness was recognized as the core condition and played a critical role across all configurations. In the BRT framework, attitude and social norms were identified as core conditions in multiple configurations, significantly contributing to the outcome’s generation.

Previous research has generally utilized a single theory (e.g., the NAM and/or BRT) to investigate the formation of intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior [4,40,64,65]. The integrated framework consisting of the NAM, BRT, and complexity theory overcomes the limitations of traditional single-theory frameworks, deepening the theoretical development in the field of individuals’ environmentally responsible behaviors during tourism activities. By developing and empirically testing the proposed integrated research framework, this study not only advances the theoretical understanding of TPEB, but also echoes the existing literature on the sustainability of destination management [4,7,8,31,32]. Specifically, this study offers a key theoretical foundation for the future exploration of TPEB in diverse contexts such as eco-tourism and sustainable tourism [34,38,51,52].

The SEM results reveal that toursits’ environmental awareness significantly influences their ascribed responsibility. Geotourism emphasizes the protection of the natural environment and geological heritage, thereby confirming the importance of tourists’ environmental awareness in the attribution of responsibility [37]. Ascribed responsibility also has a significant impact on the anticipated emotions of pride and guilt, which contribute to the activation of tourists’ moral norms and their behavioral intentions regarding pro-environmental actions, demonstrating the validity of the extended NAM in the context of geotourism [31,34]. Meanwhile, the research findings indicate that the reasons for and against the behavior significantly influence the global motives of tourists, including attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioral control [18,42,43]. This confirms that individuals’ values, beliefs, and motives are the core elements affecting their behavioral choices in different settings [31,42,44], reflecting the key roles of internal cognition, external social influences, and the feasibility of behavior implementation in analyzing the formation mechanism of TPEB in the context of the geotourism.

The fsQCA reveals six causal factors that contribute to TIPB during tourists’ visits to the Zhangye National Geopark. These factors highlight that various combinations of antecedent conditions can collectively influence tourists’ pro-environmental intentions. This implies that no single antecedent is solely responsible for shaping the intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [4]. The NCA results further validate this, demonstrating that no individual factor can independently lead to high IPB. Instead, diverse and complex combinations of factors are required to achieve this outcome [21,52]. These findings deepen the academic understanding of the causal complexity of the antecedents influencing tourists’ pro-environmental intentions in geopark settings and underscore the multifaceted strategies and collaborative efforts needed to ensure the sustainable development and environmental protection of geoparks [2,4,66]. Additionally, although environmental awareness is not a necessary condition regarding tourists’ intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, it appears in all causal configurations. This indicates that environmental awareness plays a fundamental role in encouraging tourists to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. This finding aligns with the research of Parashar et al. [57], which found that consumers’ health consciousness and environmental awareness positively impacted their intention to purchase organic food [67]. Overall, the present study provides somewhat methodological implications that the academic community requires for methodological progress, especially regarding the investigation of complex social phenomena [52,68,69,70].

5.2. Managerial Implications

This study offers managerial implications that are applicable to stakeholders in geotourism. In terms of enhancing environmental awareness, geotourism sites can organize environmental education activities such as study tours, public lectures, and the dissemination of digital technologies to increase visitors’ environmental awareness. Additionally, by establishing reward mechanisms for green tourism behaviors, such as a “green tourist award” or “environmental volunteer certification,” tourist destinations can enhance visitors’ sense of responsibility and encourage their active participation in environmental actions. Tourists’ emotional expectations (such as pride and guilt) play a crucial role in their environmental behavior [34]. Geotourism destination managers can stimulate visitors’ pride and guilt by emphasizing the necessity of environmentally responsible behaviors (e.g., environmental benefits, ecosystem conservation, and biodiversity maintenance), as well as the positive and negative impacts of tourists’ behaviors in destinations, which could encourage them to engage in environmental activities. Moreover, the role of moral norms cannot be overlooked. Tourism sites can strengthen visitors’ moral responsibility by using environmental protection slogans, motivating them to adhere to eco-friendly practices.

It is essential to understand tourists’ motivations and the barriers to practicing environmental behaviors in geotourism destinations. Geotourism DMOs can organize educational programs or interactive experiences to help visitors to better understand environmental issues [71]. Interpreters should provide tourists with detailed information about specific local ecosystems to inform them of the reasons for supporting geotourism sustainability, so as to prevent tourists from destroying local vegetation and regulate their behaviors in a pro-environmental manner [72]. To improve tourists’ attitudes towards environmentally friendly behaviors, geotourism DMOs can provide tourists with guidelines on responsible behavior during their travel, and praise or reward tourists who participate in environmental preservation activities. This could help to reduce the negative impact of tourists’ improper behavior towards the environment and foster tourists’ involvement in ecosystem conservation. In the process of achieving sustainable development, geotourism destinations may face various issues such as high financial costs, insufficient publicity and supervision, and certain human resource management costs. To address these challenges, stakeholders could improve the operational efficiency by optimizing resource allocation, using reservation and passenger flow monitoring systems, and conducting online publicity campaigns, etc [73]. It is essential to strengthen the collaboration among governments, non-governmental organizations, communities, and corporate parties to achieve value co-creation [74]. Furthermore, the influence of social norms on tourist behavior should not be underestimated. Geotourism destinations can use social media and community activities to spread awareness of the benefits of environmental behaviors, fostering stronger social norms and contributing to TPEB. Considering that tourists’ perceived behavioral control can affect their willingness to engage in eco-friendly behaviors, geotourism destinations can offer convenient eco-friendly facilities (e.g., garbage waste sorting bins, green shuttle buses, and smart tour guide systems) to ensure that tourists can easily practice environmentally responsible behaviors.

Stakeholders may have concerns about the economic and long-term sustainability of tourism destination management [75]. These concerns are often linked to balancing tourism development with the preservation of local tourism resources and cultural heritage [76]. As global geotourism trends shift towards more sustainable practices, stakeholders should assess the alignment of local geotourism policies with global sustainability objectives [77], such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The development of geotourism should especially not ignore tourists’ environmental awareness and sense of responsibility, while enhancing the moral norms driven by the emotional factors of anticipated pride and guilt, to stimulate TPEB. Meanwhile, it is necessary to comprehensively understand the factors that support and oppose TPEB in geotourism, and related eo-friendly policies at geotourism destinations could be established to further enhance tourists’ attitude and personal and social norms on TPEB, reducing the potencial behavioral barriers of TPEB.

In this context, the six causal configurations identified in the fsQCA provide vital managerial implications. These configurations highlight that each geotourism park has unique characteristics and resources, which vary across destinations [78]. In the process of norm activation in TPEB, geotourism DMOs must strategically utilize local resources, considering factors such as natural resources, cultural heritage, or geological features. For example, the Yellowstone Geopark and Zhangye National Geopark can adopt different measures to promote TPEB. The Yellowstone Geopark could adopt flesible measures to enhance TPEB by increasing visitors’ moral norms and environmental awareness, which can be activated through science education and cultural cooperation [79], while the Zhangye National Geopark has implemented clear legislation and management measures to directly regulate and guide visitors’ behaviors to protect natural ecosystems [80]. That is, it is necessary to increase visitors’ engagement in pro-environmental actions by forming related social norms and behavioral attitudes, leveraging perceived behavioral control. The fsQCA results do not suggest that stakeholders should focus on a single, fixed variable. Each causal configuration contains variables that should be prioritized differently. Specifically, in the pursuit of maximizing the benefits of geotourism development, environmental awareness should be considered as a core condition, moral norms can serve as a peripheral condition, and ascribed responsibility and the anticipated emotions of pride and guilt can be absent. Namely, environmental awareness and moral norms are key factors that stakeholders should prioritize in the activation of TPEB. Thus, stakeholders can refer to the identified causal factors to choose the most suitable strategies that align with the local conditions and sustainability objectives. This approach can indeed become a valuable tool for stakeholders in future planning, enabling them to make appropriate decisions based on the unique characteristics of each destination.

6. Conclusions

Compared with previous articles that simply used a single theory or the linear method to estimate the activation of TPEB, a multi-method analytical approach has been utilized in this study to investigate the formation of TPEB in the geotourism context. While SEM effectively captures the symmetric relationships between antecedent variables and outcomes, the fsQCA further revealed the asymmetric causal recipes for outcomes [4,21]. This dual-method approach bridges an important gap in the existing literature and provides a robust framework for an understanding of the causal complexity of TPEB. Overall, both theoretical and managerial implications have provided vital references of geotourism developemnt and tourists’ intentions for engaging in the cooperation on geotourism ecosystem consevation. The proposed research model can be applied to other tourism research contexts to analyze the formation of TPEB.

As with all research, this study has certain limitations. Firstly, this study employed a cross-sectional research design, analyzing data collected at specific time points. Secondly, this study was confined to the Zhangye National Geopark, which may limit the generalizability of research findings to other ecological parks. Thirdly, research findings focused on the formation of TPEB in the geotourism context, which may not be generalizable to other tourism settings, necessitating further validation across different domains. Furthermore, the questionnaire data were collected online, which may lead to sample limitations. Future research could adopt a longitudinal approach to track changes in the same group of subjects over time, thereby exploring the causal relationships and dynamic development of the variables in greater depth. Additionally, future studies could utilize the research framework to validate the applicability of the findings in different contexts. It is encouraged to explore how demographic factors influence the relationships between the NAM and BRT variables, which can deepen the understanding of TPEB in the geotourism context. Also, cross-national comparative analysis can reveal the differences in TPEB in geotourism within different countries and regions. Meanwhile, case comparison analysis can assist researchers in identifying the specific challenges and successes encountered by different geoparks. Lastly, future research could also apply behavioral experimental methods to explore the decision-making process of TPEB, providing more intuitive and empirical insights.