Next Article in Journal
Spatial Configuration and Structural Resilience in the Population Flow Network: An Analysis of the Yimeng Mountainous Region
Previous Article in Journal
The Impacts of Government Support Schemes on Technological Innovation in High CO2 Emitting Industries: The Case of Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Multi-Objective Nonlinear Optimization Approach for Sustainable Tourism Planning: A Case Study of Juneau, Alaska
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/su18010459
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

Green Consumption Value, Attitude Toward Food, and Brand Evangelism for Farm-to-Table Foods in the Context of Green Food Tourism

by
Su-Jin Kim
1,
Young-Joong Kim
2 and
Hyeon-Mo Jeon
2,*
1
Department of Hotel Management, Namseoul University, Cheonan 31020, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Hotel, Tourism, and Foodservice Management, Dongguk University-WISE, Gyeongju 38066, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(1), 459; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010459
Submission received: 11 December 2025 / Revised: 25 December 2025 / Accepted: 30 December 2025 / Published: 2 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) in Hospitality and Tourism Sector—2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aimed to identify relationships between variables by integrating green consumption value (GCV), attitude toward food, and brand evangelism for farm-to-table (FTT) foods in the context of green food tourism. Moreover, the study aimed to provide insights into the travel behaviour of tourists. The study sample comprised 473 South Koreans who participated in FTT events held in a rural area. Data analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Data analyses showed that health value had the greatest influence on attitude toward FTT foods, followed by emotional value, environmental consciousness, quality value, and social value. Moreover, a positive relationship was found between attitude toward FTT foods, purchase intention, and positive and oppositional brand referrals. In particular, the importance of health value, environmental consciousness, and social value, as well as the relationship between the sub-variables of brand evangelism, was a finding that differed from previous food tourism studies. Understanding tourists’ consumption value for FTT foods in the context of green food tourism is crucial for effectively measuring tourist behaviour. However, the relationship between GCV, attitude toward food, and brand evangelism for FTT foods has not yet been investigated. Suitably, this study is the first attempt to discuss these tourist behaviours.

1. Introduction

Considering the growing demand for healthier and more environmentally friendly foods, farm-to-table (FTT) has become increasingly important [1]. FTT is a social movement that was organized to provide economic benefits to local communities, reduce the climate and environmental impact of growing food for human consumption, and improve the nutritional value and taste of food at the point of consumption [2]. The FTT movement emerged in response to the boom in fast food culture, which was perceived as a threat to local food traditions [3]. FTT is a simple yet powerful concept that involves bringing fresh and seasonal ingredients straight from local farms to the table. The movement involves keeping activities close to home, celebrating the bounty of each season, and savouring the flavours of locally grown produce [1].
The benefits of FTT practices include promoting sustainable agricultural practices and markedly reducing carbon footprints owing to FTT foods requiring shorter transport distances than those of food produced by corporate agriculture or imported from other countries [2]. FTT practices also strengthen local economies and provide tourists with fresher and healthier food options [4]. FTT practices treat food as both a subject and a medium for tourism, allowing tourists to experience the culture of a destination through food and drink. This form of tourism utilizes locally produced food and beverages to tell stories or convey specific aspects of local culture [5]. Accordingly, several independent FTT organizations promote local artisans, farmers, and regional flavours through local events, such as tasting workshops, wine and food tastings, and farmers’ markets [3]. Therefore, FTT practices simultaneously benefit tourists the local economy, and small farms [2]. Therefore, this study focuses on FTT foods as a green food tourism resource.
Although food plays a role in the tourism industry, tourists have various needs and expectations regarding food consumption [6]. For the tourism and hospitality industries to effectively meet the culinary needs and wants of tourists, understanding destination-specific food-related consumption attitude and behaviour is crucial [7]. Therefore, investigating the importance of consumption value in shaping the attitude and behaviour of food tourists is crucial [8,9]. The theory of consumption value (TCV) proposed by Sheth et al. [10] provides insight into the motivations behind consumer consumption behaviour through consumption value [11]. TCV assumes that consumer preferences are influenced by multiple pre-consumption cues, namely the potential multidimensional consumption value of products or services [9,12]. Consumption value has also become a multi-dimensional entity utilized in food tourism literature [13]. Each dimension of TCV enables predictions about the relationship between the choices and responses of tourists [11]. Additionally, in the context of organic food purchases, Roh et al. [14] and Woo and Kim [15] developed a multidimensional green consumption value (GCV) based on TCV, which encompasses functional, social, emotional, conditional, and epistemic value.
In addition, the more environmentally conscious the consumer, the more likely they are to purchase eco-friendly products that simultaneously protect the environment and develop green markets [16]. Based on the theory of reasoned action [17], De Silva et al. [18] argued that the extent to which consumers perceive the green benefits of a product and convert them into purchase intentions depends on differences in consumption value. They proposed environmental consciousness, status consciousness, and value-for-money consciousness as individual consumption value when purchasing green products. Subsequently, Chen and Peng [19] analysed consumer purchase behaviour toward green hotels by applying the three factors proposed by De Silva et al. [16] to consider the influence of green consumption value. Therefore, this study proposes a GCV theory that combines the theories of Sheth et al. [10] and De Silva et al. [18] in the context of green food tourism.
The value-attitude-behaviour (VAB) theory proposed by Homer and Kahle [20] assumes that values possess unique dimensions and play a crucial role in the evolution of attitudinal and behavioural tendencies [21]. In the context of food tourism and green food purchases, consumption value is highly correlated with attitude [8,9,12,21,22,23]. Therefore, understanding the relationship between the multidimensional value perception and attitude of tourists toward FTT food consumption in the context of green food tourism is important. Furthermore, attitude is a key antecedent of consumer intention, which in turn influences actual consumption behaviour [24]. Moreover, a substantial correlation between attitude and purchase intention (behavioural intention) has been observed [23]. This relationship between value, attitude, and behavioural intention is based on the VAB model, which describes the sequential relationships between constructs [20,25].
Matzler et al. [26] argued that focusing solely on word-of-mouth fails to capture customer behaviour and their power to persuade others about their preferred brands. Brand evangelism has emerged as an important concept in consumer-brand relationship research [27]. Brand evangelism refers to actively and enthusiastically promoting a brand and persuading others to engage with the brand [28]. Although some similarities exist between the definitions of brand loyalty and brand evangelism, many believe that the terms are distinct [29]. Although both evangelism and loyalty require an emotional attachment between a customer and a product/brand, evangelism requires a much stronger bond [30]. Brand evangelism influences customers and provides financial benefits to companies by outperforming traditional word-of-mouth advertising [31]. Moreover, brand evangelism is an intense form of brand-related behaviour, including brand purchase intention, providing positive referrals regarding the brand, and issuing disparaging comments about opposing brands [32]. Therefore, in-depth research exploring multidimensional GCV, attitude toward food, and factors leading to brand evangelism is required.
Recognizing the food-related behaviours of tourists is essential for effective marketing strategies [33]. Consuming local food evokes emotional, epistemological, functional, and sociological responses that motivate tourists to visit, revisit, and recommend destinations to others [22]. Moreover, TCV-based studies [8,9,11,12] have investigated the relationship between tourists’ multidimensional consumption values, attitude, and behavioural intention toward local food. Previous studies have recognized the significance of motivations in analysing tourists’ local food consumption behaviour; however, these studies have focused more on specific types of cuisine or festivals [22]. The complex interactions between consumption value for green local food and tourist behaviour remain unexplored. In addition, in the context of green food purchases, previous studies used TCV [14,15], Haws et al. [34]’s green consumption values [35], and VAB [21] that were modified according to the studies and used as single or multidimensional. However, these studies fail to reflect consumer environmental consciousness. To overcome this limitation, this study proposes a GCV by adding environmental consciousness to TCV.
Brand evangelism, where customers become enthusiastic advocates and promoters of a brand, is a crucial behavioural variable for achieving long-term success [36]. However, few studies have applied brand evangelism from a food consumption value perspective. To fill this research gap, this study aims to identify the relationships among variables by integrating the GCV, attitude, and brand evangelism of tourists toward FTT foods in the context of green food tourism. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of FTT foods as a tourism resource and provides stakeholders in relevant fields with powerful practical implications that guide the development of destination marketing strategies. This study design is not found in previous studies. These results will provide insights into the GCV of tourists toward FTT foods and their tourism behaviour. Therefore, the GCV, which broadens the TCV used in existing tourism literature, makes a contribution to food tourism literature.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Green Consumption Value

The TCV introduced by Sheth et al. [10] has been widely applied in marketing and consumer behaviour, and it suggests that consumer perceived value determines purchase decisions, product type selection, and brand selection. Therefore, this theory explains why customers prefer certain products and prefer one product type over another [11]. Specifically, the TCV has been applied in studies [14,15,21,37,38] investigating the factors influencing choice behaviour for green and organic foods. The theory has also been used to understand tourist purchasing behaviour in green hotels and restaurants [39,40,41]. In a green context, consumption value is the overall appraisal of the net benefit of a product or service between what is received and what is given based on the environmental desires, sustainable expectations, and green needs of the consumer [14]. Furthermore, in the context of food consumption, GCV refers to an individual’s desire to consume foods that meet their expectations in terms of the environment and sustainability [35]. Thus, GCV is considered an important factor that guides consumer behaviour and preferences for green goods and services [42].
TCV assumes that consumer choice behaviour is influenced by multiple consumption values, such as functional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional value, each of which contributes differently [8]. First, functional value is the perceived utilitarian value of green products or services, which provide economic or tangible benefits [14]. The definition of functional value is so broad; therefore, previous studies on green food purchasing or food tourism have conceptualized functional value interchangeably as quality and price value, and other specific functional characteristics (e.g., health benefits) [8,21,43]. In the context of purchasing green food, food quality and price are important factors for consumers [44], and health benefits are important determinants of consumer value [14]. Quality value reflects sensory attributes such as taste, appearance, and freshness of food, whereas health value encompasses food safety, nutrition, and healthful attributes [45]. In the context of food tourism, the health value refers to the perceived utility of improving tourists’ physical and mental health by consuming food that provides a balance between nutrition and health [43]. Several studies have identified health benefits as important factors in consumption value in the context of tourist food consumption [8]. According to Jeon and Ko [41], tourists who experience temple food, a green food, consider health value to be the most important. In addition, consumers are willing to pay a premium for green products to maintain personal and social benefits. However, this must be accompanied by quality maintenance [39] because consumers desire high-quality green food at a reasonable price [14]. Therefore, this study divides functional value into quality, price, and health value, based on previous studies on green food purchases [14,21,27] and food tourism [8,41,43]. Second, in the context of green products, social value is the perceived net utility gained from consuming green products, driven by social pressure or status enhancement [38]. Social values that motivate green food purchases include consumer self-image, such as social approval and self-identity, and utilitarian motivations, such as reducing environmental pressure, supporting local farmers, and animal welfare [45]. Furthermore, social value is also related to social interactions [9]. When tourists choose green products, their social group may have a more favourable impression of them [39]. Third, emotional value is the perceived net utility derived from a product’s ability to evoke emotions or affective states [10,38]. Tourists consume food for energy and emotional enjoyment. In particular, when choosing to consume local foods that deviate from their usual diet, tourists often expect to receive positive emotional benefits [8]. In the realm of green consumption, emotional value plays a crucial role in consumer decision-making [46]. When using green products, consumers experience a warm sense of well-being due to moral satisfaction, which contributes to environmental protection [14]. Fourth, epistemic value is the perceived usefulness of a product’s ability to stimulate curiosity and novelty, or satisfy the need for knowledge [10,45]. Consuming green products stimulates novelty and curiosity in consumers and satisfies their need for knowledge [39]. Furthermore, curiosity, novelty, and knowledge are enhanced by travelling to other regions, and consuming local food is particularly likely to provide epistemic value [8]. Fifth, conditional value is the perceived utility acquired by an alternative due to the specific situation or set of circumstances facing the choice maker [39]. These specific situations include the availability of subsidies or discounts on green products, easy and nearby availability of green products, and the purchases of the green product under worsening environmental conditions [38]. In addition, local restaurant managers can increase customer retention by offering local food at discounted prices with promotional incentives, making it accessible to all tourists [47].
Consumer concerns for the environment and nature appear to be a key antecedent of green consumption because individuals tend to view environmental issues [25], such as global warming and climate change, differently based on their beliefs and values [48]. GCV may better reflect the alignment of personal resource conservation and social benefits through consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour than the values applied to general product consumption [19]. De Silva et al. [18] applied environmental consciousness, status consciousness, and value-for-money consciousness as consumption values to identify the relationship between a product’s green benefits and consumer purchase intentions. Environmental consciousness is an individual’s desire to protect and preserve the environment and represents environmentally related intentions [18]. Status consciousness is a consumer’s desire to enhance their status and social image by purchasing eye-catching products [19]. Value for money reflects a concern for paying low prices, subject to some quality constraints [18]. Status consciousness aligns with social value in TCV, and value for money is identical to price value. Therefore, the key variables of GCV applied in this study were adjusted to fit the FTT context by adding environmental consciousness to TCV. Based on recent research [8,14,16,22,39,41,47] on green food purchases and food tourism, this study ultimately included environmental consciousness as well as quality, health, price, social, emotional, and epistemic value in the GCV of tourists.

2.2. Relationship Between Green Consumption Value and Attitude Toward FTT Foods

Attitude is the degree to which an individual evaluates or judges a behaviour favourably or unfavourably and is an accurate predictor of the intention to perform a specific behaviour [49,50]. In a green context, attitude is the extent to which consumers hold favourable or unfavourable feelings toward environment-related issues [51]. Specifically, attitude refers to evaluations of specific green products or behaviours, such as choosing green products, visiting green hotels, or choosing organic food [52]. The reasons for tourists choosing a destination’s local food include a desire for fresh and delicious food, support for the local community, environmental protection, and health benefits [53]. In this regard, considering food value is a useful approach for evaluating studies on consumer decision-making processes related to food [54].
In the context of food tourism and green behaviours, previous studies have concluded that consumption value influences consumer attitude and environmental behaviour. Choe and Kim [8] identified the relationship between consumption value and attitude toward food among international tourists who tried local food in Hong Kong. Unlike in previous studies, functional value was subdivided into taste/quality, health, and price value, and only taste/quality value had a positive impact on attitude. They also confirmed the importance of emotional and epistemic value. Rousta and Jamshidi [12] showed that the perceived taste/quality, health, price, emotional, and prestige value (social value) of foreign tourists visiting Iranian tourist destinations positively reinforced their attitude toward local foods. Gupta et al. [22] showed that the food attitudes of foreign tourists who visited unique restaurants in Delhi, India, were positively shaped by quality, health, emotional, and price value. Additionally, the benefits of green and organic foods have been found to be key values that drive consumer attitudes toward purchasing them over conventional foods. Woo and Kim [15] identified functional (quality and price), conditional, social, and emotional value, which are subfactors of GCV, as important antecedents of attitude toward green food products. They argued that consumers should be made aware of environmental value and their responsibility for environmental conservation to increase their engagement in green purchasing behaviours. Kamboj and Kishor [21] reported that health, hedonic, and social value enhance attitude toward green purchasing in organic food consumption situations. Roh et al. [14] proposed the GCV, a secondary latent variable comprising functional, social, emotional, conditional, and epistemic value, to investigate organic food consumption behaviour. The analysis revealed that GCV significantly influenced consumer attitude.
In certain contexts, such as ecotourism, tourists’ environmental concerns substantially influence the specific context in which human concerns are activated [55]. Existing studies agree that environmental consciousness directly influences tourists’ attitude and decision-making processes toward local food. According to Shin et al. [50], consumers who are concerned about environmental issues and have good knowledge of environmental impacts have a positive attitude toward visiting local restaurants. In a study of consumers who purchased both green and non-green products, Mishal et al. [56] showed that consumers’ environmental consciousness positively influenced their attitude toward green products. Laheri et al. [23] identified three subfactors of environmental consciousness that strengthen attitude toward purchasing green products: environmental concern, knowledge, and value. Based on the existing discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
Quality value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
Health value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c).
Price value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1d (H1d).
Social value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1e (H1e).
Emotional value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1f (H1f).
Epistemic value has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.
Hypothesis 1g (H1g).
Environmental consciousness has a positive effect on attitude toward FTT foods.

2.3. Relationship Between Attitude Toward FTT Foods and Purchase Intentions of Brand Evangelism

The concept of evangelism has transcended its religious origins and gained prominence in business and marketing, particularly during the Internet boom of the late 1990s [57]. Matzler et al. [26] described brand evangelism as a more active and dedicated way to spread positive opinions and enthusiastically persuade others to engage with a brand [32]. In marketing, brand evangelism has birthed brand evangelists [57] that freely and passionately spread positive information, emotions, and ideas about a particular brand to influence the consumption behaviour of others [29]. Brand evangelism, rooted in persuasive missionary elements, is an extreme form of word-of-mouth that goes beyond simply talking about a preferred brand [32,58]. Simply, brand evangelism simultaneously spreads positive word-of-mouth and discourages others from purchasing competing brands [29]. Brand evangelism differs from traditional brand advocacy because it involves a deeper emotional investment and missionary-like passion that fosters extreme loyalty extending beyond the transactional relationship [59]. Therefore, brand evangelism generates a greater and more effective customer response than word-of-mouth [27]. Becerra and Badrinarayanan [32] adopted a multidimensional approach by characterising brand evangelism into three dimensions: brand purchase intention, positive brand referrals (PBR), and oppositional brand referrals (OBR) [59]. From a pro-environmental perspective, purchase intention is the ability and desire of a consumer concerned about environmental issues to choose a green product instead of a conventional product [60]. PBR is an active behavioural support for a brand by spreading favourable opinions and recommendations and actively persuading others to use the brand [59]. OBR is a negative attitude towards competing brands, indicating that there is strong attachment to and loyalty to a particular brand [27]. Therefore, consumers who express attachment to a particular brand tend to disseminate the negative aspects of competing brands [61]. Therefore, brand evangelists tend to exhibit strong anti-brand behaviour toward brands that they dislike or distance themselves from [32].
Attitude is a powerful indicator of consumer intention and behaviour, and people with positive attitude toward a particular behaviour are more likely to engage in that behaviour [24,61]. Similarly, tourists’ positive attitude toward food services/products is generally associated with positive behavioural intentions [12]. Specifically, tourists who have positive experiences with local cuisine are more likely to try local food again and recommend it to others [11]. Most studies have found that attitude toward food influence behavioural intention. Ryan and Cassidy [21] and Kamboj and Kishor [19] applied the rarely used VAB model to explore organic food consumption behaviour and identify the relationships between variables. In the context of food tourism, attitude toward food has also been reported as an important antecedent of behavioural intention [8,9,11,20]. Mohammad et al. [11] found that consumption and experiential values strengthen attitude toward local foods and enhance behavioural intentions. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Attitude toward FTT foods has a positive effect on purchase intention.

2.4. Relationship Between Sub-Variables in Brand Evangelism

In today’s competitive and saturated business environment, brand evangelism has become an organization’s most important tool [36,58]. In the tourism context, destination evangelism refers to the passionate promotion and advocacy of a specific destination, driven by strong personal or cultural attachments and the desire to share positive experiences [57]. Theoretical and empirical insights into tourism and green fields support the importance of brand evangelism [59]. Sohaib et al. [62] explored the role of nature-based solutions in green hotels and found that mental health, green brand attitude, green brand loyalty, and emotional well-being considerably impacted brand evangelism. According to Li et al. [63], green purchasing intention has the most notable impact on brand evangelism; hence, investing in evangelists who spread green messages is required to improve environmental sustainability.
Strong correlations have been found between the subfactors of brand evangelism, as consumers prefer to purchase specific branded products and services and communicate with other consumers [63]. Becerra and Badrinarayanan [32] found that purchase intention was a positive antecedent of both PBR and OBR in a study on consumer-brand relationships. They argued that consumers with strong purchase intent were more likely to become voluntary salespeople and engage in behaviour that benefit the brand. Maduranga Arachchi and Samarasinghe [64] found that purchase intention driven by brand love positively influenced both PBR and OBR. These results suggest that consumers with strong purchase intentions are more likely to purchase a brand, provide positive recommendations, and persuade others to not purchase competing brands. They argued that purchase intentions simultaneously predict actual purchase behaviour and serve as key factors in converting consumers into brand activists. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Purchase intention has a positive effect on PBRs.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Purchase intention has a positive effect on OBR.
All the hypotheses are in the research model, depicted in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Instrument

All variables in this study were adopted from existing literature and measured with items modified to fit the context of FTT foods. The thirty-one items of GCV were cited from Choe and Kim [8], Woo and Kim [15], Roh et al. [14], Chen and Peng [19], and Gupta et al. [22]. These included environmental consciousness, as well as quality, health, price, social, emotional, and epistemic value. The four items of attitude toward FTT foods were cited from Woo and Kim [15] and Kamboj and Kishor [21]. The nine items of brand evangelism were cited from Woo and Kim [15] and Guanqi and Nisa [28]. These items included purchase intention, PBR, and OBR. The items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The study population comprised domestic tourists who had visited other regions of South Korea for food tourism purposes. Among the population, domestic tourists aged 20 years or older who had participated in FTT events held in a rural area within the past three months during their food tourism experience were selected. An FTT event is a tourism event that allows consumers to visit farms that grow agricultural products using eco-friendly farming methods and experience farm dining and various other experiences. Data collection was conducted online by ENTRUST, a global online research company, from April 1 to 30, 2025. Respondents were administered two screening questions before being invited to participate in interviews: “Do you know about FTT?” and “Have you participated in an FTT event and had a dining experience within the past three months?” The survey was terminated if the respondent answered “No” to either question. Of the 8000 respondents, 512 answered “Yes” to both questions. The research company explained the purpose of the study to the 512 respondents and obtained their informed consent before conducting the survey. Of the 512 questionnaires collected, 473 valid questionnaires were used for analysis after removing incomplete and unusable responses.
The demographic characteristics of the sample were examined and specified as follows: 47.6% of the respondents were male and 52.4% were female; 9.5% of the respondents were between 20 and 29, 17.3% were between 30 and 39, 25.8% were between 40 and 49, and 28.5% were between 50 and 59 years old. The majority of the respondents (51.6%) had obtained at least four-year university degree; 37.8% had an average monthly income of USD 5000–5999, 30.9% between USD 4000–4999, and 14.8% between USD 3000–3999. Lastly, 40.0% were office workers, 33.0% were professionals, and 15.2% were self-employed.

3.3. Data Analysis

SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 25.0 were used for data analysis. The two-step approach (measurement model and structural model assessment) of Anderson and Gerbing [65] was used for hypothesis testing. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the adequacy of the measurement model and to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. Thereafter, structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to test the hypotheses among the 11 constructs proposed in the research model.

4. Results

4.1. CFA of the Measurement Model

The fit of the measurement model was assessed via CFA. Seven common model fit measures, including χ2/df < 3, GFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, RMR < 0.08, NFI > 0.9, IFI > 0.9, and CFI > 0.9, were used to estimate the measurement model fit [66] (Hair et al., 2016). Table 1 shows the CFA results. The measurement model fit the data (χ2 = 1475.587, df = 781, χ2/df = 1.889, RMR = 0.032 GFI = 0.878, NFI = 0.868, IFI = 0.933, CFI = 0.932, and RMSEA = 0.043). The reliability of the constructs was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha (α) scores, which ranged between 0.694–0.890, which is above the value of 0.7 for basic requirements [67]. Additionally, the measurement model was evaluated to verify the convergent validity and discriminant validity. First, the average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs ranged from 0.590 to 0.789, which was greater than the minimum threshold of 0.50 suggested by Hair et al. [68]. In addition, the composite reliabilities of the constructs were greater than 0.70, indicating that all constructs of the model had acceptable internal consistency. Therefore, convergent validity was achieved for each construct [66] (see Table 1). Second, to evaluate discriminant validity, the AVE for each construct was compared with the squared correlation coefficients for the corresponding constructs. The AVE for each construct was higher than the squared correlation coefficients for its corresponding constructs (see Table 2), thereby supporting discriminant validity [68].

4.2. Common Method Bias

This study used judgmental sampling, a nonprobability method. Judgmental sampling is used to select the respondents who are most likely to yield appropriate and useful information [69]. However, this method may lead to sample bias due to subjectivity or preconceptions. Therefore, Harman’s single-factor test was performed to detect common method bias. All variables were loaded onto a single factor without rotation, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. The EFA was performed by injecting 43 items: quality value, health value, price value, social value, emotional value, epistemic value, environmental consciousness, attitude toward FTT foods, purchase intention, PBR, and OBR. The analysis confirmed that there was no CMB issue because the variance of a single factor was explained by 30.651% of the variance, thereby satisfying the criterion of less than 50% [70].

4.3. Structural Model Hypothesis Testing and SEM

To test the hypotheses established using the SEM path coefficients, the fit of the structural model describing the relationships among constructs was assessed. The model fit indices were χ2 = 1591.024, df = 797, p = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.996, RMR = 0.036, GFI = 0.867, NFI = 0.857, IFI = 0.923, CFI = 0.923, and RMSEA = 0.046, thus meeting the standard assessment criteria. The result of each hypothesis test describing the causal relationship between any pair of constructs is presented in Table 3.
The proposed H1a states that the quality value positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that quality value (β = 0.177, t = 3.204, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1a was supported. The proposed H1b states that health values positively influence tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that health value (β = 0.364, t = 7.710, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1b was supported. The proposed H1c states that the price value positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that price value (β = −0.036, t = −1.055, p = 0.291) did not significantly influence attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1c was not supported. The proposed H1d states that social value positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that social value (β = 0.176, t = 2.735, p = 0.006) significantly and positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1d was supported. The proposed H1e states that emotional value positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that emotional value (β = 0.240, t = 4.235, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1e was supported. The proposed H1f states that epistemic value positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that epistemic value (β = 0.034, t = 0.647, p = 0.518) did not significantly influence attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1e was not supported. The proposed H1g states that environmental consciousness positively influences tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods. The path analysis results revealed that environmental consciousness (β = 0.229, t = 4.029, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. Thus, H1g was supported. The proposed H2 states that attitude toward FTT foods positively influence purchase intention. The path analysis results revealed that attitude toward FTT foods (β = 0.962, t = 7.322, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced purchase intention. Thus, H2 was supported. The proposed H3 states that purchase intention positively influences PBR. The path analysis results revealed that purchase intention (β = 0.798, t = 7.252, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced PBR. Thus, H3 was supported. The proposed H4 states that purchase intention positively influences OBR. The path analysis results revealed that purchase intention (β = 0.555, t = 6.104, p = 0.000) significantly and positively influenced OBR. Thus, H4 was supported.

5. Discussion

The results of the data analysis show the following: First, quality value positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. These results support previous studies in which tourists visiting a specific region developed favourable attitude toward local food that they perceived to have good taste or quality value [8,12,22]. Therefore, in the context of FTT food consumption, food quality is an important part of tourists’ consumption value, similar to non-green food.
Second, health value positively influenced attitude toward FTT food. In particular, health value had the greatest influence on attitude toward FTT foods among the subfactors of GCV. This indicates that food made from agricultural products grown on local farms was perceived as healthy and safe by tourists and was the most important factor in forming positive attitude. These results support those of previous studies which found that overall evaluations of local food were influenced by their health value [12,22].
Third, although price value was non-significant, it had a negative effect on attitude toward food. However, because the mean value for price was below the median, price and attitude toward food could be interpreted as having a positive relationship. This finding supports those of previous studies [12,22,71]. Hence, tourists who attended the FTT event may have believed that the prices of the FTT foods were reasonable.
Fourth, social value positively influences attitude toward FTT foods. Surprisingly, this finding contradicts those of previous studies [8,22,71]. Choe and Kim [8] found that Westerners emphasized the pleasure of enjoying local food and interacting with friends and relatives in Hong Kong. Gupta et al. [22] found that different tourism products may be associated with different prestige levels depending on the visitor’s cultural background, and this background may or may not be associated with local food. This study found that tourists gained prestige and strengthened their friendships with their companions through FTT food experiences. This result is interpreted as being unrelated to the cultural and ethnic background issues discussed in a previous study [22], as the tourists who participated in the green FTT event were Korean.
Fifth, emotional value positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. This finding supports those of previous studies [8,12,22]. This indicates that tourists can experience happiness, enjoyment, and positive emotions while eating FTT food. Gupta et al. [22] also highlighted that the emotional value of cuisine served in Delhi, India, as a tourist attraction, could markedly alter visitors’ perceptions of Persian foods.
Sixth, epistemic value did not significantly influence attitude toward FTT foods. This result contradicts the findings of a previous study in which tourists valued food in Hong Kong because it stimulated their interest in learning about the local culture [8]. However, FTT food events and restaurants are not yet active in South Korea. Therefore, FTT events do not satisfy tourists’ intellectual needs.
Seventh, environmental consciousness positively influenced attitude toward FTT foods. This implies that tourists’ environmental consciousness is further strengthened when eating FTT green foods. These results were consistent with those of a previous study that revealed that Americans with high environmental awareness and concern tended to visit restaurants that use local ingredients [50].
Eighth, attitude toward FTT foods positively influenced purchase intention. This supports previous studies [11,21,24,72] that identified attitude as a major antecedent of purchase and visit intention in the context of general food tourism and green food purchases. This implies that tourists who develop favourable attitude toward FTT foods are more likely to reattend FTT events or visit FTT restaurants in their residential areas.
Ninth, purchase intention positively influences PBR and OBR. This implies that tourists who develop a heightened purchase intention toward FTT foods during green food tourism will likely spread strong word-of-mouth about FTT foods and restaurants and may exhibit strong anti-brand behaviour toward non-green food or restaurants.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

First, green tourism advocates for minimizing local environmental damage and promoting cultural benefits for local residents [73]. Furthermore, local green tourism creates new jobs, improves the quality of life for local residents, preserves natural and cultural values, and creates new recreational and leisure spaces [74]. Despite the importance of green tourism, previous studies [8,9,12,22] identified relationships between consumption value and tourist behaviour variables. However, these studies neglected the green dimension. To fill this research gap, this study focused on FTT foods in the context of green food tourism and investigated tourists’ perceived consumption value and behaviour. Therefore, this study is academically crucial in that it expands the subject matter and scope of the research, unlike previous studies that conducted food tourism research using general local food.
Second, to address the limitations of the aforementioned studies, a literature review was conducted, and the study proposed a new GCV that adds environmental consciousness to the TCV (quality, health, price, social, and epistemic value) proposed by Sheth et al. [10]. Furthermore, the study verified the fit of the research model by integrating it with other variables (attitude toward FTT foods, purchase intention, PBR, and OBR). Shin et al. [50] examined the relationship between environmental triggers (environmental concerns and knowledge) and attitude among tourists visiting locally sourced restaurants but overlooked tourists’ consumption values. Roh et al. [14] and Woo and Kim [14] proposed a GCV based on TCV in the context of purchasing green food products, confirming its positive influence on consumer attitude. However, these studies did not consider environmental awareness. Therefore, the GCV in the present study, which integrated TCV and environmental awareness, can be applied to green food tourism and green food purchasing situations in the future. Therefore, this study theoretically contributes to the literature.
Third, brand evangelism, a type of advanced marketing in which consumers voluntarily participate in green brand promotion, was applied as a dependent variable to measure the behaviour of powerful tourists. In some studies [36,57,62] that applied brand evangelism in the tourism and hospitality sector, brand evangelism was structured as a single dimension. Moreover, previous studies [8,9,12,22,71] identified relationships among variables with consumption value, attitude, and behavioural intention as key pathways. However, this study included brand evangelism as purchase intention, PBR, and OBR to verify tourists’ strong loyalty. Ultimately, in the context of green food tourism, this study designed a model that integrated GCV with FTT foods, attitude toward food, and brand evangelism and identified the relationships among the variables. This design is a novel attempt that cannot be found in previous TCV-based food tourism studies.

5.2. Practical Implications

First, the health benefits perceived by FTT event participants should be prioritized. Farms must manage their crops thoroughly using eco-friendly farming practices. For example, farms should use compost or organic fertilizers to maintain healthy soil. This increases the abundance of soil microorganisms and enhances the nutrients and flavour of crops. Furthermore, rotating crops in the same plot prevents soil nutrient depletion and reduces pests and diseases. Farms and event planners should emphasize these eco-friendly practices when promoting events and highlight their health benefits. Additionally, farm restaurants should also provide menu and ingredient descriptions and nutritional information to ensure that tourists fully perceive the health benefits while dining. FTT events, which are primarily held in rural areas, are a valuable resource for both farmers and local tourism. Local governments should establish policies that ensure the health and quality of FTT foods. Such policies include the introduction of farm restaurant certification systems where local restaurants that use a certain percentage of ingredients are officially certified as farm restaurants. In addition, local governments can provide promotional opportunities, tax incentives, and priority access to public procurement in certified restaurants. Local governments should actively promote FTT food and farm restaurant certifications to revitalize the local economy through FTT events.
Second, FTT events should evoke pleasant emotions in tourists, and FTT restaurants should strive to improve the taste and quality of their food products. These restaurants should develop unique menus utilizing healthy farm ingredients and local specialties, ultimately offering a dining experience unmatched by popular urban restaurants. Additionally, FTT events should plan and offer a variety of farm experience programs beyond dining. For example, programs enabling participation in simple farm work or in the growth of vegetables and grains could be beneficial. Accordingly, this study also proposes programs that involve cooking using healthy ingredients and making of traditional South Korean sauces. In particular, if the healthy cooking program includes dishes that tourists can make at home, they will naturally continue to purchase the farm’s produce and strongly recommend it to others. To achieve this, farm managers will need to establish an online distribution system that allows them to communicate directly with consumers. These FTT experience programs will increase the interaction value of tourists by allowing them to spend enjoyable time with their companions (e.g., family, friends, lovers) and will also strengthen their willingness to participate again. To vitalize these programs, integrated local government policies are needed rather than simply hosting once-off FTT events at specific farm restaurants. Local governments should establish a local food tourism strategy that integrates local food, rural tourism, the restaurant industry, and cultural tourism and designate food tourism clusters based on local ingredients and traditional cuisine.
Third, stakeholders should also inform tourists that consuming FTT foods increases their environmental contribution. For example, FTT foods minimize travel distance from farm to table, thereby reducing carbon emissions during transportation and contributing to a healthier planet. By promoting the use of locally sourced, indigenous ingredients, FTT foods promote biodiversity conservation and support the preservation of traditional agricultural practices, thereby contributing to ecosystem resilience. To achieve this, a consultative committee comprising local governments, tourism organizations, FTT restaurants, and farmer groups should be formed. This committee should establish sustainability criteria to assess local economic contributions and carbon footprint reduction. For example, legal protection of local ingredients should be strengthened through the implementation of geographical indications and local brand registration systems. These local initiatives will help increase the environmental consciousness of tourists and raise awareness of the importance of FTT practices. These environmental contributions will also enhance tourist social value.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the effect of tourists’ GCV toward FTT foods on their attitude toward FTT foods, purchase intentions, PBR, and OBR in the context of green food tourism. The study clarifies how tourists’ GCV toward FTT foods influences their behaviour. The health value of FTT food has the greatest influence on tourists’ attitude toward FTT food. This indicates that, similar to studies on non-green food tourism [12,22], tourists in green food tourism also consider the health benefits most strongly. Emotional value and quality value were also identified as important consumption values. Additionally, we discovered novel results that differ from the results of non-green food tourism studies. In particular, social and epistemic values show results that contradict those of previous studies. Additionally, the influence of environmental consciousness on attitude toward FTT foods is a novel finding that has not been investigated in previous studies. Although in a few tourism studies [55,72], a moderating effect of environmental consciousness was found, this study confirmed its direct effect on attitude toward food as a sub-factor of consumption value. These results demonstrate that the dimensions of value considered by tourists in green and non-green food tourism differ considerably. Positive purchase intentions shaped by attitude toward FTT foods positively influenced both PBR and OBR. To obtain strong brand evangelism from tourists, it is important to enhance attitude toward FTT foods by strengthening health, quality, social, emotional, and environmental consciousness. The novel findings of this study provide valuable insights for researchers and stakeholders in the local tourism industry.

7. Limitations and Future Research

This study presents the following limitations and future research directions. First, the data used in this study were only collected in South Korea, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Because the demand for FTT food tourism may vary across countries, the applicability of the results to other countries is limited. However, eco-friendly foods utilizing local ingredients can revitalize local tourism and increase the income of local residents, making them a valuable resource. Therefore, researchers from other cultures need to conduct various studies on FTT food tourism in their respective countries to revitalize local economies. Second, because the sample consisted of volunteers who participated in FTT events, there is a possibility of selection bias. Therefore, future research should use various data collection methods to reduce bias. Third, given the paucity of studies exploring consumption value in green food tourism, the initial variables of TCV and environmental consciousness were applied based on previous studies on local food tourism. This may limit the ability to understand the behaviour of tourists who experience FTT foods. In addition to these constitutive variables, other variables may influence tourists’ attitude toward FTT foods and behaviour. Therefore, future researchers could gain more comprehensive insights by further modifying TCV to accommodate various green food tourism situations.

Author Contributions

S.-J.K. and H.-M.J. conceived and designed the experiments; S.-J.K. performed the experiments and analysed the data; S.-J.K., Y.-J.K. and H.-M.J. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this paper was provided by Namseoul University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Informamarkets. What Is Farm to Table. Available online: https://foodnhotelasia.com/glossary/fnb/farm-to-table/ (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  2. Wilson, D. Chemical sensors for farm-to-table monitoring of fruit quality. Sensors 2021, 21, 1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Musa, S.F.P.D.; Chin, W.L. The role of farm-to-table activities in agritourism towards sustainable Development. Tour. Rev. 2022, 77, 659–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Hassan, S.S.; Fayyad, S. Farm-to-fork and sustainable agriculture practices: Perceived economic benefit as a moderator and environmental sustainability as a mediator. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kuo, T.M.; Liu, C.R.; Wang, Y.C.; Chen, H. Sensory experience at farm-to-table events (SEFTE): Conceptualization and scale development. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2024, 33, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Naruetharadhol, P.; Gebsombut, N. A bibliometric analysis of food tourism studies in Southeast Asia. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1733829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, Q.; Huang, R. Is food tourism important to Chongqing (China)? J. Vacat. Mark. 2016, 22, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, S.S. Effects of tourists’ local food consumption value on attitude, food destination image, and behavioral intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soltani, M.; Soltani Nejad, N.; Taheri Azad, F.; Taheri, B.; Gannon, M.J. Food consumption experiences: A framework for understanding food tourists’ behavioral intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mohammad, N.; Hanafiah, M.H.; Zahari, M.S.M. The influence of heritage food consumption and experiential value on Terengganu’s destination image and tourists’ behavioural intention. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rousta, A.; Jamshidi, D. Food tourism value: Investigating the factors that influence tourists to revisit. J. Vacat. Mark. 2019, 26, 73–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Ghuman, K. The value proposition of food delivery apps from the perspective of theory of consumption value. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 1129–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Roh, T.; Seok, J.; Kim, Y. Unveiling ways to reach organic purchase: Green perceived value, perceived knowledge, attitude, subjective norm, and trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 67, 102988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Woo, E.; Kim, Y.G. Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for green food products: From the aspect of green perceived value (GPV). Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheung, M.F.J.; To, W.M. An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Silva, M.; Wang, P.; Kuah, A.T.H. Why wouldn’t green appeal drive purchase intention? Moderation effects of consumption values in the UK and China. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, A.; Peng, N. Antecedents to consumers’ green hotel stay purchase behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The influence of green consumption value, emotional ambivalence, and consumers’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2023, 47, 101107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kamboj, K.; Kishor, N. Influence of customer perceived values on organic food consumption behaviour: Mediating role of green purchase intention. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gupta, V.; Galati, A.; Sharma, S. Explore, eat and revisit: Does local food consumption value influence the destination’s food image? Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 4639–4661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Laheri, V.K.; Lim, W.M.; Arya, P.K.; Kumar, S. A multidimensional lens of environmental consciousness: Towards an environmentally conscious theory of planned behaviour. J. Consum. Mark. 2024, 41, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ryan, J.; Casidy, R. The role of brand reputation in organic food consumption: A behavioral reasoning perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shin, Y.H.; Moon, H.; Jung, S.E.; Severt, K. The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 33, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matzler, K.; Pichler, E.A.; Hemetsberger, A. Who is spreading the word? the positive influence of extraversion on consumer passion and brand evangelism. Mark. Theory Appl. 2007, 18, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mvondo, G.F.N.; Jing, F.; Hussain, K.; Jin, S.; Raza, M.A. Impact of international tourists’ co-creation experience on brand trust, brand passion, and brand evangelism. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 866362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guanqi, Z.; Nisa, Z.U. Prospective effects of food safety trust on brand evangelism: A moderated-mediation role of consumer perceived ethicality and brand passion. BMC Pub. Health 2023, 23, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shang, Y.; Li, F.S. How does ritualistic service increase brand evangelism through E2C interaction quality and memory? the moderating role of social phobia. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 116, 103624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Purohit, S.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Das, M.; Sigurdsson, V. The effect of customers’ brand experience on brand evangelism: The case of luxury hotels. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2023, 46, 101092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Becerra, E.P.; Badrinarayanan, V. Influence of brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2013, 22, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Qual. Pref. 2015, 40, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alagarsamy, S.; Mehrolia, S.; Mathew, S. How green consumption value affects green consumer behaviour: The mediating role of consumer attitudes towards sustainable food logistics practices. Vision 2021, 25, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mansoor, M.; Paul, J.; Khan, T.; Abukhait, R.; Hussain, D. Customer evangelists: Elevating hospitality through digital competence, brand image, and corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2025, 126, 104085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ray, A.; Das, B.; She, L. What affects consumers’ choice behaviour towards organic food restaurants? by applying organic food consumption value model. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 2582–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qasim, H.; Yan, L.; Guo, R.; Saeed, A.; Ashraf, B.N. The defining role of environmental self-identity among consumption values and behavioral intention to consume organic food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nekmahmud, M.; Ramkissoon, H.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Green purchase and sustainable consumption: A comparative study between European and non-European tourists. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2022, 43, 100980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yan, J.; Li, J. Environmental knowledge and consumers’ intentions to visit green hotels: The mediating role of consumption values. J. Trav. Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jeon, H.M.; Ko, J.H. Food consumption value, food satisfaction, tourists’ happiness and behavioral intention toward Korean temple food. Br. Food J. 2025, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Gao, J. Effect of green consumption value on consumption intention in a pro-environmental setting: The mediating role of approach and avoidance motivation. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Weng, L. How do tourists’ value perceptions of food experiences influence their perceived destination image and revisit intention? a moderated mediation model. Foods 2024, 13, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Watanabe, E.A.D.M.; Alfinito, S.; Curvelo, I.C.G.; Hamza, K.M. Perceived value, trust and purchase intention of organic food: A study with Brazilian consumers. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1070–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Truong, V.A.; Lang, B.; Conroy, D.M. Are trust and consumption values important for buyers of organic food? a comparison of regular buyers, occasional buyers, and non-buyers. Appetite 2021, 161, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lin, P.C.; Huang, Y.H. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rehman, S.U.; Samad, S.; Singh, S.; Usman, M. Tourist’s satisfaction with local food effect behavioral intention in COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated-mediated perspective. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 3133–3151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yan, L.; Keh, H.T.; Wang, X. Powering sustainable consumption: The roles of green consumption values and power distance belief. J. Bus. Eth. 2021, 169, 499–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shin, Y.H.; Im, J.; Jung, S.E.; Severt, K. Consumers’ willingness to patronize locally sourced restaurants: The impact of environmental concern, environmental knowledge, and ecological behaviour. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2017, 26, 644–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huy, L.V.; Nguyen, H.T.T.; Long, P.H.; Thi, P.Q.P.; Pham, N.T. Going green: Predicting tourists’ intentions to stay at eco-friendly hotels–the roles of green attitude and environmental concern. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 2723–2741. [Google Scholar]
  52. Verma, B.K.; Chandra, B.; Kumar, S. Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Severt, K.; Shin, Y.H.; Chen, H.S.; Di Pietro, R.B. Measuring the relationships between corporate social responsibility, perceived quality, price fairness, satisfaction, and conative loyalty in the context of local food restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Admin. 2020, 23, 623–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Martinez-Ruiz, M.P.; Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Izquierdo-Yusta, A.; Pick, D. The influence of food values on satisfaction and loyalty: Evidence obtained across restaurant types. Int. J. Gast. Food Sci. 2023, 33, 100770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mishal, A.; Dubey, R.; Gupta, O.K.; Luo, Z. Dynamics of environmental consciousness and green purchase behaviour: An empirical study. Int. J. Climate Change Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 682–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ahmad, W.; Kim, W.G.; Anwer, Z.; Zhuang, W. Schwartz personal values, theory of planned behavior and environmental consciousness: How tourists’ visiting intentions towards eco-friendly destinations are shaped. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Amani, D. Love is a verb: Bolstering destination evangelism through the interplay of destination brand love and destination psychological ownership. J. Human. Appl. Soc. Sci. 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mansoor, M.; Paul, J. Mass prestige, brand happiness and brand evangelism among consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 484–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mvondo, G.F.N.; Jing, F.; Hussain, K.; Raza, M.A. Converting tourists into evangelists: Exploring the role of tourists’ participation in value co-creation in enhancing brand evangelism, empowerment, and commitment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 52, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ng, P.M.L.; Cheung, C.T.Y.; Lit, K.K.; Wan, C.; Choy, E.T.K. Green consumption and sustainable development: The effects of perceived values and motivation types on green purchase intention. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2024, 33, 1024–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Riorini, S.V.; Widayati, C.C. Brand relationship and its effect towards brand evangelism to banking service. Int. Res. J. Bus. Stud. 2016, 8, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sohaib, M.; Wang, Y.; Iqbal, K.; Han, H. Nature-based solutions, mental health, well-being, price fairness, attitude, loyalty, and evangelism for green brands in the hotel context. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 101, 103126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, H.; Haq, I.U.; Nadeem, H.; Albasher, G.; Alqatani, W.; Nawaz, A.; Hameed, J. How environmental awareness relates to green purchase intentions can affect brand evangelism? altruism and environmental consciousness as mediators. Rev. Argent. Clin. Psicol. 2020, 29, 811–825. [Google Scholar]
  64. Maduranga Arachchi, H.A.D.; Samarasinghe, G.D. Do fear-of-COVID-19 and regional identity matter for the linkage between perceived CSR and brand evangelism? a comparative analysis in South Asia. Europ. J. Manag. Stud. 2024, 29, 361–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  67. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  68. Fornell, C.R.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kelly, S. Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research; Bourgeault, I., Dingwall, R., de Vries, R., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  70. Podsakof, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakof, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hussain, K.; Abbasi, A.Z.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Schultz, C.D.; Ting, D.H.; Ali, F. Local food consumption values and attitude formation: The moderating effect of food neophilia and neophobia. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2023, 6, 464–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ashraf, M.S.; Hou, F.; Kim, W.G.; Ahmad, W.; Ashraf, R.U. Modelling tourists’ visiting intentions toward ecofriendly destinations: Implications for sustainable tourism operators. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ibnou-Laaroussi, S.; Rjoub, H.; Wong, W.K. Sustainability of green tourism among international tourists and its influence on the achievement of green environment: Evidence from North Cyprus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Roman, M.; Kudinova, I.; Samsonova, V.; Kawẹ, N. Innovative development of rural green tourism in Ukraine. Tour. Hosp. 2024, 5, 537–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 00459 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 18 00459 g001
Table 1. Measurement model assessment.
Table 1. Measurement model assessment.
Variables and ItemsSLCRAVE
Quality value (QUV) (α = 0.863)
FTT foods provide a high standard of quality.0.8080.9030.700
FTT foods provides good quality ingredients.0.818
FTT foods are tasty.0.761
FTT foods are prepared from fresh and aromatic ingredients.0.735
Health value (HEV) (α = 0.849)
FTT foods are hygienic.0.8290.9360.789
FTT foods make me healthy.0.803
FTT foods are safe.0.889
FTT foods provide good nutrition.0.611
Price value (PRV) (α = 0.871)
FTT foods are reasonably priced.0.8120.8810.651
FTT foods offer value for money.0.895
FTT foods are a good product for the price. 0.792
The ingredients from this farm are relatively cheaper than those from regular markets.0.696
Social value (SOV) (α = 0.890)
Experiencing FTT foods help me to feel acceptable.0.6600.9100.629
Experiencing FTT foods improve the way that I am perceived.0.744
Experiencing FTT foods make a good impression on other people.0.753
Experiencing FTT foods gives me prestige.0.792
My friendship or kindship with my travel companion has increased while experiencing FTT foods.0.760
Experiencing FTT foods helps me to interact with the people I travel with.0.747
Emotional value (EMV) (α = 0.839)
FTT foods can make me feel happy.0.6490.9000.644
FTT foods can give me pleasure.0.723
FTT foods make me feel excited.0.745
FTT foods make me crave it.0.716
FTT Foods make me feel relaxed.0.699
Epistemic value (EPV) (α = 0.796)
I would research FTT foods well before purchasing them.0.6420.8660.618
I’m interested in learning more about FTT foods.0.700
I enjoy looking for new and unique foods.0.738
Before purchasing FTT foods, I would conduct a comprehensive search of all accessible possibilities.0.732
Environmental consciousness (ENC) (α = 0.795)
Strict global measures must be taken immediately to halt environmental decline.0.7070.8870.666
While experiencing FTT foods, I realized that the environment is one of the most important issues facing society today.0.736
Unless each of us recognizes the need to protect the environment, future generation will suffer the consequences.0.735
While experiencing FTT foods, I realized that a substantial amount of money should be devoted to environmental protection.0.696
Attitude toward FTT food (α = 0.786)
Experiencing FTT foods is a valuable behavior.0.6280.8950.681
Experiencing FTT foods is a beneficial behavior.0.716
Experiencing FTT foods is a good idea.0.726
I have a positive attitude toward FTT foods.0.702
Purchase intention (PUI) (α = 0.749)
I attend this event again and will purchase FTT foods because it is environmentally friendly.0.6150.8730.700
I will participate in other FTT events to experience more diverse FTT foods.0.834
I will visit my local FTT restaurants due to environmental concern.0.708
Positive brand referrals (PBR) (α = 0.714)
I will spread positive word of mouth about FTT foods and restaurants.0.7570.8250.613
I would recommend FTT foods and restaurants.0.629
If my friends are looking for a restaurant, I will tell FTT Restaurant them.0.601
Oppositional brand referrals (OBR) (α = 0.701)
I tell my friends not to visit to regular restaurants if possible.0.7320.7420.590
I would likely spread negative word of mouth about regular grocery stores or restaurants.0.688
Note: SL, standard loading; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Table 2. Correlation analysis between the variables.
Table 2. Correlation analysis between the variables.
Variable1234567891011
1. QUV0.837
2. HEV0.3460.888
3. PRV−0.228−0.1760.807
4. SOV0.6540.395−02370.793
5. EMV0.4240.438−0.2370.5470.802
6. EPV0.4310.275−02140.4850.4310.786
7. ENC0.4520.315−0.2170.4900.4390.5150.816
8. ATT0.5190.608−0.2260.5560.5370.3640.4270.825
9. PUI0.3080.443−0.1630.3750.4460.2600.3610.5100.837
10. PBR0.4060.393−0.2550.4720.4320.4370.5450.4940.4050.783
11. OBR0.3700.227−0.2080.4310.2850.3760.5110.2770.2450.3620.768
Mean3.6443.9762.4593.4893.9214.0433.8233.8783.9303.8273.642
S.D.0.6940.5520.8210.6910.5830.6160.5750.5180.5510.5560.730
Notes: (1) Diagonal elements show the square root of AVE. (2) Below the diagonal is the corresponding correlation coefficient. (3) All correlation coefficients were significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 3. Results of the structural model analysis.
Table 3. Results of the structural model analysis.
Hypothesesβt-ValueDecision
H1aQUV → ATT0.1773.204 **supported
H1bHEV → ATT0.3647.710 **supported
H1cPRV → ATT−0.036−1.055not supported
H1dSOV → ATT0.1762.735 **supported
H1eEMV → ATT0.2404.235 **supported
H1fEPV → ATT0.0340.647not supported
H1gENC → PUI0.2294.029 **supported
H2ATT → PUI0.9627.322 **supported
H3PUI → PBR0.7987.252 **supported
H4PUI → OBR0.5556.104 **supported
Note: ** p < 0.01.
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

Kim, S.-J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Jeon, H.-M. Green Consumption Value, Attitude Toward Food, and Brand Evangelism for Farm-to-Table Foods in the Context of Green Food Tourism. Sustainability 2026, 18, 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010459

AMA Style

Kim S-J, Kim Y-J, Jeon H-M. Green Consumption Value, Attitude Toward Food, and Brand Evangelism for Farm-to-Table Foods in the Context of Green Food Tourism. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010459

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Su-Jin, Young-Joong Kim, and Hyeon-Mo Jeon. 2026. "Green Consumption Value, Attitude Toward Food, and Brand Evangelism for Farm-to-Table Foods in the Context of Green Food Tourism" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010459

APA Style

Kim, S.-J., Kim, Y.-J., & Jeon, H.-M. (2026). Green Consumption Value, Attitude Toward Food, and Brand Evangelism for Farm-to-Table Foods in the Context of Green Food Tourism. Sustainability, 18(1), 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010459

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